The Trinity, a precept of men.

[Cal_Minian]

At http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5893 I have illustrated the truism that "No bible writer teaches the Trinity as Doctrine, in context."

Is there any reason not to classify the Trinity doctrine as a "precept of men" in the same manner that Jesus condemned the Pharasees and scribes?



ASV Mark 7:7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching
as their doctrines the precepts of men.



Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

[jpholding]

Yes.

Any other pointless questions? :rofl:

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139696#post139696)
jpholding:

Yes.

Any other pointless questions? :rofl:

Dear jp,
Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

The Trinity stands alone. All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

The Trinity doctrine considers God to be a triune being, correct?

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Therefore, not only is the Trinity not taught in context by any bible writer, but there is no example where this triune God is unequivocally represented as QEOS!

That makes it a precept of men.

If you look in the dictionary for the meaning of a word, they give the definition and then an example.

Where is the EXAMPLE of QEOS which can only be interpreted as three persons?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Bill Hogue]

If the Trinity is a precept of man then why did Jesus talk about the Father and the Spirit?

Karl Barth's Trinitarian theology sees the Trinity as three modes of the one person of God....(a little Sabellian)

Karl Rahner see God as the Holy Mystery and explains the Trinity in a fashion that we do not understand the idea of "Person" in the Trinity as the early Christians understood it. The closeness of the persons in the Trinity is closer than our bodies and souls united.

Balthasar and von Speyer see the Trinity as: and this is where the word kenosis takes on a whole new meaning...not as an emptying, but as an total outpouring of love (infinite being can't be empty but totally outpours and is still totally full) from the Father to the Son. (There cannot be a Father without a Son) This total outpouring is received in a totality (kenosis) of reception of the Father's love and returned totally to the Father...That unfathomable and incomprehensible love between the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit.

Therefore it is possible that all three persons are God, infinite, and eternal.....one in being with the Father because they are of the same essence as the Father. According to Balthasar the persons of the Trinity act in "circumincession", in a closeness that created being, Humans and angels, will never be able to achieve or understand...only God can understand God.....only God can have full knowledge of God.

If there is no Trinity, the Word Incarnate (the Son) would not have been able to be born into time...He would not have been able to transcend time. Heaven (for want of a better word) would have been empty if a non Trinitarian God came to earth. Additionally, we would not exist now. When Christ died on the Cross (If there is no Trinity) then God would have died and all creation would have ceased to exist.

The Trinity is a matter of faith, but it is also a matter of faith worked out by reason (theology). Once the idea of the Trinity is worked out its easy to see that the Economy of Salvation does not work without a Trinitarian theology.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141661#post141661)
Billl Hogue:

Bill:
If the Trinity is a precept of man then why did Jesus talk about the Father and the Spirit?

Cal:
Jesus talks about his Father because his Father sent him. He calls his Father the only true God (Jn 17:3) and says in an unqualified statement that his Father is greater than he is. (Jn 14:28) He quotes the Shema of Dt 6:4 at Mark 12:29, thus making this creed the true Christian expression of the monotheism of God, but he does not include himself as a person of this one God, he says that it is his God as well.

Bill:
Karl Barth's ...
Karl Rahner ...
Balthasar and von Speyer ...

Cal:
The opinions of these men cannot overturn the fact that no bible writer ever teaches the doctrine of the Trinity in context, unlike all the true essential Christian doctrines. (See my post on this subjectg in this forum for details)

Bill:
Therefore it is possible that all three persons are God...


Cal:
I do not reject the doctrine because it is impossible, but because it is not taught by any bible writer in context.

Bill:
If there is no Trinity, the Word Incarnate (the Son) would not have been able to be born into time...He would not have been able to transcend time. Heaven (for want of a better word) would have been empty if a non Trinitarian God came to earth. Additionally, we would not exist now. When Christ died on the Cross (If there is no Trinity) then God would have died and all creation would have ceased to exist.

Cal:
These statements betray your presuppostion that Jesus is the one true God of Jewish/Christian Monotheism. However the bible writers teach that he is the Son of God. Therefore after God sent his Son to earth as a man, God remained in Heaven. Heaven was not empty.


Bill:
The Trinity is a matter of faith, but it is also a matter of faith worked out by reason (theology). Once the idea of the Trinity is worked out its easy to see that the Economy of Salvation does not work without a Trinitarian theology.

Cal:
The Trinity is a matter of faith, but not in the doctrine that is taught to us by bible writers in context.

Salvation works just fine if Christ is not God. Christ became the last Adam and our eternal Father by the sacrifice of his human blood. God is spirit and does not have blood.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[greyphilosophy]

Jesus claimed to be God. There is only one God. We see evidence in the NT that the Father and the Holy Ghost were both present at the same time Jesus was. Three persons with claim to being God, and only one God. The resolution is the Trinity, with the substance of God being one in three distinct persons. I've debated this quite a bit with John Powell, feel free to check out the debate in the wrestling ring if you like.

~Grey

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141764#post141764)
greyphilosophy:

Grey:
Jesus claimed to be God.

Cal:
Dear grey, the word for God in Greek is QEOS. Jesus never said EGW EIMI hO QEOS (I am God). Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. (John 10:36)

Grey:
There is only one God.

Cal:
Yes, there is only one God. Jesus said that this God, the God of the Jews, was his Father. (Jon 8:54)

Grey:
We see evidence in the NT that the Father and the Holy Ghost were both present at the same time Jesus was.

Cal:
Peter, James and John were together many times but they were not the same being.

Grey:
Three persons with claim to being God, and only one God.


Cal:
The word QEOS (God) is never used as an attributive to the holy spirit in all of Scripture.

Grey:
The resolution is the Trinity, with the substance of God being one in three distinct persons. I've debated this quite a bit with John Powell, feel free to check out the debate in the wrestling ring if you like.

~Grey


Cal:
I have debated it as well. My challenge to Trinitarians on this forum is found at the link
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=124691#post124691

The topic is the fact that no bible writer teaches the doctrine of the Trinity in context which sets the Trinity apart from all true real essential Christian doctrine.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[jpholding]

Yo CM,

Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

They do teach it in context:

- The context of Jewish Wisdom theology
- The context of ancient hypostatic entities of a deity, ranging from Egypt's Maat to Plato's logos

...but not in any context a modern would know.

All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

That's because the Trinity's background was already present in Judaism and the ancient world before anyone laid a NT word to paper. No expansion was necessary.

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Your point being, what? Your definition of the Trinity was rather vague and inadeqaute. The use of theos is not really a deciding factor. The identification of Christ (and the Spirit) with pre-NT hypostatic entities is.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 10:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142027#post142027)
jpholding:

Yo CM,

Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

They do teach it in context:

- The context of Jewish Wisdom theology
- The context of ancient hypostatic entities of a deity, ranging from Egypt's Maat to Plato's logos

...but not in any context a modern would know.

All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

That's because the Trinity's background was already present in Judaism and the ancient world before anyone laid a NT word to paper. No expansion was necessary.

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Your point being, what? Your definition of the Trinity was rather vague and inadeqaute. The use of theos is not really a deciding factor. The identification of Christ (and the Spirit) with pre-NT hypostatic entities is.

Dear jp,
I cannot consider what you offer responsive until you provide the precise passage where an inspired bible writer teaches the Trinity in context. If you do not like my definition of the Trinity then please point me to an online definition from the main web site of a main stream evangelical denomination which defines the Trinity. I ask this to prevent a definition from being presented that is too vague.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Bill Hogue]

Okay, Cal...now you have me confused....If jesus talks about the Father....and the Father is God...then Jesus is not God? If Jesus is not God what is he? This is a rehash of Arianism.

Additionally, Jesus told the Apostles he would send his Spirit...so who came at Pentecost? And by whom did Mary conceive (Luke Ch. 1).

The only way your theology works is by an extreme form of Sabellianism...or Adoption...but you still haven't given a good case for the Holy Spirit. Greek Orthodox believe the Spirit comes from the Father only...Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians believe the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. What's your take?

In Christ,

Bill

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142714#post142714)
Billl Hogue:

Okay, Cal...now you have me confused....If jesus talks about the Father....and the Father is God...then Jesus is not God? If Jesus is not God what is he? This is a rehash of Arianism.

Additionally, Jesus told the Apostles he would send his Spirit...so who came at Pentecost? And by whom did Mary conceive (Luke Ch. 1).

The only way your theology works is by an extreme form of Sabellianism...or Adoption...but you still haven't given a good case for the Holy Spirit. Greek Orthodox believe the Spirit comes from the Father only...Catholic and Protestant Trinitarians believe the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. What's your take?

In Christ,

Bill


Dear Bill,
My "take" is that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he said he was the Son of God (Jn 10:36), not "God the Son." a phrase that occurs in the creeds but not in the teachings of the inspired bible writers.

I do not deny the existence of the Father, Son and holy spirit. The Fathers does everything through the Son and by means of the holy spirit. But no bible writer teaches that the Father, Son and holy spirit are the same being.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Bill Hogue]

Then why did Jesus say, "I and the Father are one", and "He who sees me sees the Father"? Doctrine in Scripture can be implied and we unpack it by doing theology.

Additionally, there is NO PLACE in Sacred Scripture that states explicitly "Scripture only"...so does that mean we can't believe in Scripture just because there is no explicit place that says "Sola Scriptura (an idea that began with Luther).

The big argument is Paul's when he says All Scripture", but he was referring to the Septuagint Bible..and he said "all" and not "only".

Also, if Jesus was not God, how could he atone for the sins of mankind from the Cross? Anyone else could have done that according to your argument.

We have to remember that we cannot get to God. Created BEing only reaches uncreated being in an asymptomatic way. It was necessary for God to come to us in t he Incarnation. and Suspended between heaven and eart, only a God-Man (Jesus Christ) could reconcile man to God, heaven to earth. He had to be both God and Man.....Logically it doesn't work any other way.

In Christ,

Bill

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143894#post143894)
Billl Hogue:

Additionally, there is NO PLACE in Sacred Scripture that states explicitly "Scripture only"...so does that mean we can't believe in Scripture just because there is no explicit place that says "Sola Scriptura (an idea that began with Luther).

The big argument is Paul's when he says "All Scripture", but he was referring to the Septuagint Bible..and he said "all" and not "only".

In Christ,

Bill

Not only that but Paul himself quoted nonBiblical writers. Note, the second one is a conundrum, A Cretian wrote, "All Cretians are liars."
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
I think what our JW friend is trying to establish, which can be seen by his own posts elsewhere, extra-Biblical sources are only valid IF they support WBTS teaching. Any extra-Biblical source which refutes or contradicts JW teachings is "not worthy of consideration."

[greyphilosophy]

Colossians 2:9

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Any further debate about Christ being God according to the bible?

[jpholding]

07-07-2003 @ 06:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142044#post142044)
Cal_Minian:



Dear jp,
I cannot consider what you offer responsive until you provide the precise passage where an inspired bible writer teaches the Trinity in context. If you do not like my definition of the Trinity then please point me to an online definition from the main web site of a main stream evangelical denomination which defines the Trinity. I ask this to prevent a definition from being presented that is too vague.

Kind Regards,
Cal


I will point you rather to my material, since you asked:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html

This shows several passages where the inspired writers of Scripture clearly drew on previous concepts about hypostatic Wisdom.

[o2bwise]

Hi greyphilosophy,

I'll phrase your logic and please let me know if I err in expressing it.

If one is filled with all the fullness of God, one must be God.

Jesus was filled with all the fullness of God.

Therefore, Jesus is God.


Ephesians 3:14-19
14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height-- 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.


If I require your reasoning to be correct, Ephesians states a possibility. The CHRISTIAN may be filled with all the fullness of God. Thus, the Christian, when that condition is reached, IS AS FULLY GOD AS IS JESUS CHRIST.


greyphilosophy, consider the following. This support you chose was your preferred "Numero Uno" PROOF of the Trinity. And it was 100% erroneous.

Now, what are you going to do? Are you going to remain absolutely 100% convinced the Trinity must be true even though your #1 preferred support was no support whatsoever? Are you going to be so certain that your present understanding of scripture is such that you KNOW the Trinity to be true?

If so, why?


And to all Trinitarians who read greyphilosophy's post. It is one thing to believe a thing, it is another to know that a means of support really is not.

WHY DIDN'T ANY OF YOU CORRECT THIS? ISN'T RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH THE IMPORTANT THING?


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[mickiel]

But if one is speaking of GOD in terms of meaning the God FAMILY, then yes, Jesus is God, or a member of the God family. But it is a serious mistake in understanding if a trinitarian thinker is trying to FUSE Jesus and God into being ONE personage molded together in some weird symbiosis, even forming the Holy Spirit into a being and then joining it into this meld. Jesus did not say heand hisFather are the SAME ONE, he just said they are one,or one being in and of themselves. Me and my son are one, he is matthew, i am Mickiel, we are one person unto ourselves. Easy to interpit this to mean a mind meld, a bodily meld, a spirit meld. God and Jesus are not monsters, they are not short on spirit bodies, they have their own individuality, seperate distinct conciousness. Read the whole book of John, in it Jesus continually seperates himself from God, constantly saying he speaks what God wants him to, does what God wants him to do, showing God to be superior in all things, definte seperation.

[Bill Hogue]

Cal, it seems what we have here in reality is an ontological argument. We are confusing divine essence with human essence and divine personhood with human personhood. In Trinitarian theology we need to define the term "person" in a different manner that the way we define "person" in the human sense.

We need to define the being of the Triune God vs. the being of the Creature in relation to the word "person".

So the distinction we should make is that the divine persons in the Holy Trinity are interrelated (in circumincession); created persons are not.

I am going to do some more studying on this (Rahner, Balthasar, Speyer) and then get back to you. In Theology we stand on the shoulders of those who precede us...and we err when we discount their theological insights.

See you soon. Bill

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 03:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147433#post147433)
Billl Hogue:

So the distinction we should make is that the divine persons in the Holy Trinity are interrelated (in circumincession); created persons are not.


Good post. While I agree that we must carefully maintain a creator-creature distinction, I also beleive that that we must preserve some continuity as well, cheifly in view of the fact that we are created to be in the image of God. As the persons of the Trinity are forever bound in relationship (in perichoresis/circumincession), so also we only are who we are in relation with others. This is one of the most important implications of Trinitarian theology, namely that relationality is constitutive of who and what we are (see esp. Jn. 17).

The distinction I would see is that the perichoresis of the Father, Son and Spirit is so unbreakable that they are one being in communion. We too are fundementally relational, but only in a creaturely way. Even though we participate in the divine nature (the communion of Father, Son and Spirit), we do so in a distinct way as creatures (i.e. we don't turn into god(s)).

So I see continuity between persons, divine and human. A continuity rooted in the Imago Dei and in the doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ and members of one another.

[o2bwise]

Hi Trinitarian,

The distinction I would see is that the perichoresis of the Father, Son and Spirit is so unbreakable that they are one being in communion. We too are fundementally relational, but only in a creaturely way. Even though we participate in the divine nature (the communion of Father, Son and Spirit), we do so in a distinct way as creatures (i.e. we don't turn into god(s)).

So I see continuity between persons, divine and human. A continuity rooted in the Imago Dei and in the doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ and members of one another.

Well, for one who is no longer Trinitarian, part of this rubs me very much the wrong way. I'll phrase it thusly, even if I am slightly off-base:

"Sister, it it very important that you understand the perichoresis of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!"

It just comes accross as so deviant from simply reading the word with the faith of a child.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 01:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147878#post147878)
o2bwise:

Hi Trinitarian,



Well, for one who is no longer Trinitarian, part of this rubs me very much the wrong way. I'll phrase it thusly, even if I am slightly off-base:

"Sister, it it very important that you understand the perichoresis of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!"

It just comes accross as so deviant from simply reading the word with the faith of a child.

It comes straight from the Word. Perichoresis simply means interpenetration or mutual indwelling. It comes straight from John's Gospel (see esp. Jn. 17)

Besides, I wasn't even addressing your post, I was responding to Bill.

[o2bwise]

Well, Trinitarian, it certainly comes from your interpretation of John's gospel.

It doesn't come from mine.

Tony (o2)

[Bill Hogue]

I am still reading Karl Rahner's book on the Trinity. But while I was studying my Hebrew lesson, a question ocurred to me to ask non-trinitarians...The Hebrews referred to God as Elohim..a plural word. Why would they refer to God in the plural if there were not some knowledge of the persons of the One God?

As for perichoresis ot circumincession, Trinitarian makes a very good point. Humans are a communal people and must interact. As with the Analogy of Being, we are like the Creator in many ways (but unlike him in more...an asymptotic creation)so if Creation reflects the Creator, then our need to interact with one another, although not as close as the Trinity is an an analogy to the Trinity.


More reading...In Christ, Bill

[greyphilosophy]

Sorry for the late reply, I haven't been looking in here much.


greyphilosophy, consider the following. This support you chose was your preferred "Numero Uno" PROOF of the Trinity. And it was 100% erroneous.


It chose it out of convenience only. John 8:58 would be stronger, but requires enough background to know that God referred to Himself as "I AM" in the old testament, and Jesus by saying "before Abraham was born, I am," is claiming to be God. It certainly was taken as a claim to be God by the people around Jesus who picked up stones to stone him.

Also the canon of scripture that we have today comes from a tradition, and that same tradition makes the claim that God is triune. I would assume they would know better than I.

~Grey

[Bill Hogue]

I am still reading but want to "check in" for a moment. Our likeness to God is seen in the Analogy of Being, which basically says Creation reflects the Creator. Karl Barth rejected this, saying it was a doctrine from the antichrist. Needless to say, I disagree strongly with Bart's theology.

Whatever it is, the Trinity is something we will NEVER be able to fully understand or explain. We use the terms "person" "Prosopon" "circumincession" etc. because we have inadequate ways of labeling the communion between the Father, Son(Word/Logos), and Holy Spirit.

We have to remember that the ontology of this argument deals with a human (finite) definition of "person" which doesn't apply to the Holy Trinity. We can, however, try to understand ideas of comunity, kenosis of love, and sacrifice which the idea of Trinitarian Theology gives us. Other than that, we can't do much else. We have done the best we can with finite intellect, and however hard we try, we will never be fully able to explain the Trinity.

As the late Fr. James O'Reilley said, "The Trinity cannot be explained, only experienced".

In Christ,

Bill

[Chappie]

Gen 3:22
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I do not think that we can safely conclude the diety of the Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit to be a doctrine of men.

[young joshua]

07-05-2003 @ 12:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139702#post139702)
Cal_Minian:



Dear jp,
Why is the Trinity the only doctrine considered essential by some Christians which no bible writer teaches in context?

The Trinity stands alone. All other essential doctrines are taught at least in a basic form which is THEN expanded.

The Trinity doctrine considers God to be a triune being, correct?

But when one looks at every instance of QEOS in the NT the word never refers to all three persons at one time.

Therefore, not only is the Trinity not taught in context by any bible writer, but there is no example where this triune God is unequivocally represented as QEOS!

That makes it a precept of men.

If you look in the dictionary for the meaning of a word, they give the definition and then an example.

Where is the EXAMPLE of QEOS which can only be interpreted as three persons?

Kind Regards,
Cal


Not true sir, trinity is written all over the new testement! During the transfiguration when jesus was talking to moses and elijah and the apostiles wanted to build three alters a sudden cloud covered them and a voice said this is my beloved son in whom i am well pleasedhear ye him.

[Mitbulls]

This topiic is a bit too broad to debate all at once. If I may suggest (though I'm not the thread starter, it's still up to Cal_Minian), we should take the argument in stages.

1. Did Jesus claim to be God (and/or did God affirm his Deity)?
2. If so, did he claim to be the SAME God as God the Father?
3. Does the Bible indicate that the Holy Spirit is God?
4. If so, is He the same as God the Father?

This would make it alot easier to discuss step-by-step instead of jumping all over on different points and making little progress.

As for if Jesus claimed to be God, the case can be quite easily made just from John chapter 8. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM." This is a claim both to Godhood and to pre-existence.

Before everybody goes crazy, let me anticipate a few objections:

1a. Jesus didn't claim to be GOD (theos)
True, Jesus did not use the greek word for God in this statement. However He did use the Greek term for God's covenant name, a name which was so holy that no normal person could even say it. (If you don't like John's gospel, this same phrase also appears when Jesus walks on water to the disciples in the boat. He tells them: Fear not, for I AM. It is often misinterpreted in English translations though).

2. Jesus did not claim pre-existence, he simply meant that God's plan for him existed then.
This argument, though I've heard it many times, makes no sense. If Jesus had meant that God's plan for him had existed then, he would have said so, and would have found another way of doing it in which he did NOT take the covenant name for Jehovah in vain.

2b. (applies to #1 and #2). Even if you can make the case logically that Jesus did not claim to be God in this passage (a difficult case to make), AND that he did not claim to be pre-existent, you still have to deal with the peoples' reaction. If Jesus was not claiming to be God in some way or another, why did the people around try to stone him? (a punishment fitting for what they saw as heresy)

3. (from John 1). In the beginning was the Word, so on and so forth. I've heard many arguments over this, but they all fail to address one thing: in the Greek manuscripts, the word Word (Logos) is capitalized. Why do you think that is?

Ok, next step: did God affirm him in this?

I don't think there's even any need to debate this so I'll leave it pretty slim.

1. Both at the transfiguration and at his baptism God says "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased." This is pretty self-explanatory

2. Jesus had powers to work miracles. It could be argued that this power came from Satan, not God, but Jesus refuted that pretty cleanly in his "a house divided can not stand" and "a thief must bind a strong man before entering his house" stories.

That's all for now. Any non-trinitarians want to comment?

[AcousticJS]

People are trying to say that Jesus is 'only' the Son of God. But what did the Jews understand by this phrase? You can see what they understood from the trial of Jesus in Matthew 26. Verses 63-65 has the High Priest asking directly "Are you the Son of God". Jesus answers in the affirmative, to which the High Priest responds "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy."

It appears that claiming to be 'Son of God' meant much more to the Jewish mindset. Making such a claim is nothing less than blasphemy, which implies to my mind that such a claim is no less than a claim to be God Himself.

God bless
Jon

[drmmjr]

09-02-2003 @ 02:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201229#post201229)
young joshua:
Not true sir, trinity is written all over the new testement! During the transfiguration when jesus was talking to moses and elijah and the apostiles wanted to build three alters a sudden cloud covered them and a voice said this is my beloved son in whom i am well pleasedhear ye him.
If you re-read the account, Peter wants to build the alters (tabernacles) for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. What does this have to do with the trinity?

[drmmjr]

Yesterday @ 12:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210229#post210229)
Mitbulls:

This topiic is a bit too broad to debate all at once. If I may suggest (though I'm not the thread starter, it's still up to Cal_Minian), we should take the argument in stages.

1. Did Jesus claim to be God (and/or did God affirm his Deity)?
2. If so, did he claim to be the SAME God as God the Father?
3. Does the Bible indicate that the Holy Spirit is God?
4. If so, is He the same as God the Father?

This would make it alot easier to discuss step-by-step instead of jumping all over on different points and making little progress.

As for if Jesus claimed to be God, the case can be quite easily made just from John chapter 8. Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM." This is a claim both to Godhood and to pre-existence.

Before everybody goes crazy, let me anticipate a few objections:

1a. Jesus didn't claim to be GOD (theos)
True, Jesus did not use the greek word for God in this statement. However He did use the Greek term for God's covenant name, a name which was so holy that no normal person could even say it. (If you don't like John's gospel, this same phrase also appears when Jesus walks on water to the disciples in the boat. He tells them: Fear not, for I AM. It is often misinterpreted in English translations though).
We know that he probably wasn't speaking Greek, if he had, he would have said "theos" for God. But no, he used the Greek term ego eimi. If you will read Acts 10:21, Peter uses this same "I am (ego eimi) he whom ye seek." when responding to the men who were sent from Cornelius to look for Peter. Is this Peter saying that he is God?

As to the way that John 8:58 is phrased, if Jesus were saying that he was God, he would have stated it thus: "Before Abraham was, I am I AM." Or more properly, "Before Abraham was, I was I AM." But if you are to read it with "I am" meaning God, then Jesus was simply stating that "Before Abraham was, God."

Jesus was either stating that God was before Abraham, or saying that , as you point out below, he was in God's plan that existed before Abraham.
2. Jesus did not claim pre-existence, he simply meant that God's plan for him existed then.
This argument, though I've heard it many times, makes no sense. If Jesus had meant that God's plan for him had existed then, he would have said so, and would have found another way of doing it in which he did NOT take the covenant name for Jehovah in vain.
And why does this make no sense? God plainly states in:
Genesis 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The promise that one day, there would be a saviour to remove the curse of sin.
2b. (applies to #1 and #2). Even if you can make the case logically that Jesus did not claim to be God in this passage (a difficult case to make), AND that he did not claim to be pre-existent, you still have to deal with the peoples' reaction. If Jesus was not claiming to be God in some way or another, why did the people around try to stone him? (a punishment fitting for what they saw as heresy)
If you will read the verses leading up to this, there was a whole discussion about God being Jesus' father. and that the Jews were not honoring God and didn't know God.
3. (from John 1). In the beginning was the Word, so on and so forth. I've heard many arguments over this, but they all fail to address one thing: in the Greek manuscripts, the word Word (Logos) is capitalized. Why do you think that is?
How can you tell that "logos" is capitalized in the Greek manuscripts? Or do you mean that the translators have capitalized it.
Ok, next step: did God affirm him in this?

I don't think there's even any need to debate this so I'll leave it pretty slim.

1. Both at the transfiguration and at his baptism God says "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased." This is pretty self-explanatory
How is is self-explanitory? God is saying he is pleased with his son. He's not saying that he's pleased with himself.
2. Jesus had powers to work miracles. It could be argued that this power came from Satan, not God, but Jesus refuted that pretty cleanly in his "a house divided can not stand" and "a thief must bind a strong man before entering his house" stories.
If you will read Matthew 9:6, you will see that Jesus states that the Son of man (Jesus) "hath power on earth to forgive sins". And that is followed in verse 8 by: "But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men."

God gave Jesus the power to forgive sins.
That's all for now. Any non-trinitarians want to comment?
Just a few thoughts.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=211059#post211059)
drmmjr:

We know that he probably wasn't speaking Greek, if he had, he would have said "theos" for God. But no, he used the Greek term ego eimi. If you will read Acts 10:21, Peter uses this same "I am (ego eimi) he whom ye seek." when responding to the men who were sent from Cornelius to look for Peter. Is this Peter saying that he is God?

How do we supposedly know Jesus was not speaking Greek? The problem with your reasoning is Peter supplied a predicate for his statement. "I am he." I will leave you to your own devices to find out what a predicate is and how it functions. But When Jesus spoke the words "I am" There was no predicate, just as when God told Moses his name in Ex 3:14, "I am that I am" In both instances the implied predicate was, "The self existing one."

And the further evidence that this was a claim to be God, the priests and Pharisees picked up stones and were in the process of violating at least fifteen OT commandments. Not the least of which was violating the sanctity of the Temple, by attempting to kill Jesus inside the temple. That the Jewish leaders understood Jesus claiming to be God is further attested by John 10:33.
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Others OT laws which the Jewish leaders tried to violate include no trial, no witnesses, for the prosecution and defense, as required by the law. A death penalty cannot be carried out on the same day it is pronounced. Only the greater Sanhedrin could pronounce a death sentence. A defendant in a capital case cannot be executed on his testimony alone. An accused blasphemer must be given the chance to recant his blasphemy.

[Mitbulls]

We know that he probably wasn't speaking Greek, if he had, he would have said "theos" for God. But no, he used the Greek term ego eimi. If you will read Acts 10:21, Peter uses this same "I am (ego eimi) he whom ye seek." when responding to the men who were sent from Cornelius to look for Peter. Is this Peter saying that he is God?

OldShepherd addressed this one quite well. If you have any other questions, post again and we will address them in more detail.

And why does this make no sense? God plainly states in:
Genesis 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The promise that one day, there would be a saviour to remove the curse of sin.

What you say is true, but (as non-trinitarians are so fond of telling us) it is out of the context of the passage. You are right about Genesis 3:15, however that assertion does not in any way make your argument about John 8 any more valid. If you take Jesus' statement in context with the rest of the conversation, it would make no sense for him to say "God's plan for me existed before Abraham." The Jews were criticizing Jesus because he was still young, for Jesus to say "Oh ya, well God knew I was coming along before Abraham!" would have produced only laughs at him. God knew that all of them were coming along before Abraham was, so this assertion that Jesus is only speaking of God's plan is taking the statement out of the context of the conversation. The most logical way to understand it is that the Jews were criticizing Jesus for being so young, and he asserted that he was even older than Abraham; in fact, he did not only that, but did it in such a way that violated their covenant name for God! Jesus was an expert at this kind of "battle of wits." In this case, the Jewish leaders lost, since they resorted to violence first.

If you will read the verses leading up to this, there was a whole discussion about God being Jesus' father. and that the Jews were not honoring God and didn't know God.

This is not enough to warrant stoning, though, especially not without the due process of law. As OldShepherd pointed out, they were going to forgo several of the commands in the law. It would have taken a grievous offence to make the Pharisees, who lived their entire lives stressing the law and trying to get everybody else to live by it, to violate 15 commandments in one fell swoop!

How can you tell that "logos" is capitalized in the Greek manuscripts? Or do you mean that the translators have capitalized it.

If you mean the translators from Greek into English capitalized it, that would be a rediculous statement and would not defend my case at all, since the translators already believed that Jesus was God. However, since trinitarians and non-trinitarians alike agree that the Greek manuscript was inspired by God, I assume you'll more readily accept it. Many of the Greek manuscripts of John chapter 1 begin the word Logos with a capital Lambda rather than lowercase. For more information on the Greek alphabet, check here: http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/alphabet.html. If you want to check it out yourself, get a Greek bible and look at John 1.

How is is self-explanitory? God is saying he is pleased with his son. He's not saying that he's pleased with himself.

You seem to have missed my transition to the next step. I was no longer attempting to prove that Jesus was God. I first attempted to establish that Jesus claimed to be God, and then went on to show that God approved of Jesus. If both of these can be accepted as true, then the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is God. If either is false, then the issue is still in doubt.

If you will read Matthew 9:6, you will see that Jesus states that the Son of man (Jesus) "hath power on earth to forgive sins". And that is followed in verse 8 by: "But when the multitudes saw [it], they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men."

God gave Jesus the power to forgive sins.

If Jesus was not God, then the sins were not sins against him. Only the one who the offense is against can forgive sins. If my friend comes to me randomly and punches me in the nose, I can not give you the power to forgive him, only I can do that. Also, using this verse does not support your case, since there is no indication that God granted him this power. In fact, since he says that the Son of Man "hath" (has) the power to forgive sins, it more likely implies an intrinsic ability, not one that was granted him.

Just a few thoughts.

Keep 'em comin!!

[elpis]

Mitbulls, you said: "Many of the Greek manuscripts of John chapter 1 begin the word Logos with a capital Lambda rather than lowercase."

Can you provide any examples of this, with relevant dates. While some manuscrips are ALL capitals, and others are a mixture (but random) eg P66, one of the earliest. There is no capitalisation in the Nestle Aland text (probably the deifnitive text) nor in the text of John 1 quoted in the supporting link you gave ie
http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/john1.html

Also, I dont understand what the significance of Logos with a capital would be anyway - surely it should be theos that should have a capital letter to support your case.

Afraid I am confused by your argment here.

[Mitbulls]

Mitbulls, you said: "Many of the Greek manuscripts of John chapter 1 begin the word Logos with a capital Lambda rather than lowercase."


I'll grant that I was a bit quick in making this statement. I have not studied much on the original manuscripts, though I do know that p66 is probably the most influential, and, as you said, is capitalized at random. However, you're mistaken about the Nestle-Aland text (originally just the Nestle text), as that is the exact Greek text I was using to support my statement.

This would support my claim if it could be shown that "Logos" was capitalized since that would show that it could not merely refer to the plan of God existing "in the beginning." However, this verse is not central to my defense of the trinity, so we can let John 1:1 pass and consider several others:

1. In Collossians 2:9 Paul states that "in Christ all of the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."

2. Genesis 1:26 shows God using a plural reference for himself. In fact, a large portion of Genesis (the E portion, for those who believe the Documentary Hypothesis) refers to God as Elohim: a plural word. This misleads some to accept that the this is talking about the angels, since the word simply means "holy ones." However, interestingly, it is always used with a singular verb. So God is a "plural singularity?" Sounds alot like the trinity...

3. In Revelation 1:8, the words translated "Lord" are kurios o theos. The word "kurios" makes it clear that it is referring to the Messiah, not to God the Father.

4. Titus 2:11-15 comes right out and calls Jesus "our great God and Saviour" (NKJV)

I will leave it at that for now. Please post any objections to these! I can also try to add more later, if anybody's interested in them.

[Mitbulls]

This thread seems to have died out some...does nobody have any more questions, or has everyone just moved on to other trinity debate threads?

[elpis]

Hello Mitbulls,

Sorry for delay in responding - being a Theology student and having two jobs does not allow much time for fun!! So necessarily my comments will be brief. But please come back with questions as I would love to discuss further.

You said:

However, you're mistaken about the Nestle-Aland text (originally just the Nestle text), as that is the exact Greek text I was using to support my statement.

I have in front of me the Nestle-Aland text, 2001 revision of 27th edition - there is no sign of capitalisation on the lambda of logos in John 1:1. So I dont know what text you are looking at. There is capitalisation of the first letter of each new sentence, but even that is not in the originals (at least not early ones).

You said:

"In Collossians 2:9 Paul states that "in Christ all of the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.""

This has already been dealt with earlier on. In Ephesians 3:19, Paul prays for the Ephesians "that you may be filled with all the fulness of God". Paul says in Colossians that "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily". The words are the same in Greek (except only Colossians has the bodily bit). However, clearly Paul is not exhorting the Ephesians to become God.

You said:

"Genesis 1:26 shows God using a plural reference for himself. ...... This misleads some to accept that the this is talking about the angels, since the word simply means "holy ones." However, interestingly, it is always used with a singular verb. So God is a "plural singularity?" Sounds alot like the trinity..."

I suggest it sounds nothing at all like the trinity. Firstly Elohim means "mighty ones" if it is a plural, not holy ones (which would be qdoshim). This argument is unbalanced as it does not recognise that Hebrew uses the plural form of a noun with a singular verb as an intensive noun (ie denoting importance, respect), and is a recognised Hebrew form, WITHOUT DENOTING PLURALITY AT ALL. It happens with other nouns apart from Elohim. In fact Hebrew has many nouns in the plural form, which do not denote plurality.

Here is a good example:

Judges 16:23 Now the lords of the Philistines gathered to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god (elohim), and to rejoice; for they said, "Our god (elohim) has given (perfect, third person, SINGULAR) Samson our enemy into our hand."

Is anybody suggesting the Dagon is a plurality??

To prove my point, here is a quote from Robert B. Chisholm, Jr From Exegesis to Exposition - A practical guide to using Biblical Hebrew. Baker Books, 2nd printing, Aug 2000. Page 59.

Prof Chisholm is professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. His book represents current thinking on Hebrew translation (August 2000). The capitals are mine however!! In it he not only states that your argument is fallacious, but demonstrates from scripture why this is so.


"It is sometimes important for an interpreter to determine the precise function of the singular or plural, or at least to recognise the variety of available opinions.

1) For example, the grammatically plural name (Elohim), when it refers to the God of Israel, is a plural of respect. (The plural of respect is sometimes used idiomatically for individual pagan deites as well). When the form is used as a numerical plural, it refers to the pagan gods or, in some cases, to lesser members of God's heavenly assembly (beings known to us as "angels"). When the plural is one of respect, THEN IT IS IMPROPER TO ARGUE, AS MANY HAVE DONE, THAT THE FORM HINTS AT A PLURALITY OF PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD AND THUS FORESHADOWS IN SOME CRYPTIC WAY THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

THE LINGUISTIC ABSURDITY OF SUCH A VIEW can be illustrated by an example involving another plural of respect. In Judges 19:26-27 the concubine's master is referred to by the plural (adonim), "lord". It is clear from the context, where the referent of the plural noun is an individual, that the plural is one of respect; it emphasizes the Levite's absolute authority over the woman. IF ONE WERE TO ARGUE THAT THE PLURAL HINTS AT THE MAN HAVING MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES, SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD BE RIGHTLY DISCARDED AS FAR-FETCHED."


I'll have to deal with the other two scriptures another time.

[Mitbulls]

Hello Mitbulls,

Sorry for delay in responding - being a Theology student and having two jobs does not allow much time for fun!! So necessarily my comments will be brief. But please come back with questions as I would love to discuss further.


Hi! No problem, I've just got alot of time on my hands.

I have in front of me the Nestle-Aland text, 2001 revision of 27th edition - there is no sign of capitalisation on the lambda of logos in John 1:1. So I dont know what text you are looking at. There is capitalisation of the first letter of each new sentence, but even that is not in the originals (at least not early ones).

I am using the 1993 revision of the 26th edition. It is, however, an interlinear, so I'll grant that the word may have been altered in Greek to match.

This has already been dealt with earlier on. In Ephesians 3:19, Paul prays for the Ephesians "that you may be filled with all the fulness of God". Paul says in Colossians that "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily". The words are the same in Greek (except only Colossians has the bodily bit). However, clearly Paul is not exhorting the Ephesians to become God.

Sorry, I did not see where this was addressed earlier.


I suggest it sounds nothing at all like the trinity. Firstly Elohim means "mighty ones" if it is a plural, not holy ones (which would be qdoshim). This argument is unbalanced as it does not recognise that Hebrew uses the plural form of a noun with a singular verb as an intensive noun (ie denoting importance, respect), and is a recognised Hebrew form, WITHOUT DENOTING PLURALITY AT ALL. It happens with other nouns apart from Elohim. In fact Hebrew has many nouns in the plural form, which do not denote plurality.

Here is a good example:

Judges 16:23 Now the lords of the Philistines gathered to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god (elohim), and to rejoice; for they said, "Our god (elohim) has given (perfect, third person, SINGULAR) Samson our enemy into our hand."

Is anybody suggesting the Dagon is a plurality??

To prove my point, here is a quote from Robert B. Chisholm, Jr From Exegesis to Exposition - A practical guide to using Biblical Hebrew. Baker Books, 2nd printing, Aug 2000. Page 59.

Prof Chisholm is professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. His book represents current thinking on Hebrew translation (August 2000). The capitals are mine however!! In it he not only states that your argument is fallacious, but demonstrates from scripture why this is so.


"It is sometimes important for an interpreter to determine the precise function of the singular or plural, or at least to recognise the variety of available opinions.

1) For example, the grammatically plural name (Elohim), when it refers to the God of Israel, is a plural of respect. (The plural of respect is sometimes used idiomatically for individual pagan deites as well). When the form is used as a numerical plural, it refers to the pagan gods or, in some cases, to lesser members of God's heavenly assembly (beings known to us as "angels"). When the plural is one of respect, THEN IT IS IMPROPER TO ARGUE, AS MANY HAVE DONE, THAT THE FORM HINTS AT A PLURALITY OF PERSONS WITHIN THE GODHEAD AND THUS FORESHADOWS IN SOME CRYPTIC WAY THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

THE LINGUISTIC ABSURDITY OF SUCH A VIEW can be illustrated by an example involving another plural of respect. In Judges 19:26-27 the concubine's master is referred to by the plural (adonim), "lord". It is clear from the context, where the referent of the plural noun is an individual, that the plural is one of respect; it emphasizes the Levite's absolute authority over the woman. IF ONE WERE TO ARGUE THAT THE PLURAL HINTS AT THE MAN HAVING MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES, SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD BE RIGHTLY DISCARDED AS FAR-FETCHED."


This is all good, but it does not explain why God would refer to himself using the plural personal pronoun 'anachnu (we) throughout the creation account. It might make sense that the writer was referring to God in a respectful way with the plural, but why would God refer to himself this way? To show Himself respect?

Also, there are several instances throughout the O.T. where "The Angel of the Lord" appeared. Obviously in Hebrew we don't know if it was intended to be capitalized, but it is in many English translations because the Angel often goes on to claim divinity or be called God. For instance, see Gen 16, 48; Ex 3, 14, 23, etc.

I have more, but I'm out of time for now.

By the way, off the subject, I'm also a Theology student. Where are you from?

[Bill the Cat]

May I interject a bit? Please see the article linked here http://www.facadenovel.com/Elohim.pdf

Don't know if the Hebrew will come across... but it's worth a look see... I'm not in total agreement with his conclusions but it is a good resource...

What About Genesis 1:26-27 (let US make mankind in OUR image")? Did “gods” create humankind?
Does Elohim, since it is structurally plural in Hebrew, always MEAN "gods" (plural)?
Contrary to Zechariah Sitchin and others, the answer to both questions is NO. The word "elohim" CAN mean either plural "gods" or singular "god" (or "God" as a proper name).
The grammar IN CONTEXT will tell us if it is definitely singular or plural. At times the meaning is ambiguous (there are no certain grammatical-contextual clues), but such is NOT the case in Genesis 1.
*See the enlarged and boldfaced words so you can pick out the proper terms and follow the discussion.
I. Elohim (~yhla)
A. In the verse below, the noun ~yhla should be translated as SINGULAR because the verb with which it goes (i.e., it's the subject of that verb) in the sentence is SINGULAR:
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
~yhil{a/ (THE VERB IS SINGULAR) ar'B' tyviareB. Gen 1:1
`#r,a'h' taew> ~yIm;V'h; tae
B. In the verse below, CONTEXT tells us "elohim" is SINGULAR. The word here is used in respect to the Zidonian goddess Ashtoreth, the Moabite god Chemosh, and the Ammonite god Milcom – note the word "elohim" and the fact that there is only ONE god mentioned by name with each occurrence of the word "elohim." The point is that EACH god is called an "elohim" – all you need to do is count up to one! It would make no sense to say "Chemosh, the godS of the Moabites."
Note: In Hebrew grammar, when "elohim" is grammatically associated to the following word, the "m" of "elohim" drops off (called the "construct relationship" in Hebrew). Therefore, "elohim" changes to "elohey" ( yhel{a/ ):
1Kings 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do [that which is] right in mine eyes, and [to keep] my statutes and my judgments, as [did] David his father.
!ynIdoci yhel{a/ tr,Tov.[;l. 1Ki 11:33
Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians
ba'Am yhel{a/ vAmk.li
Chemosh the god of the Moabites
!AM[;-ynEb. yhel{a/ ~Kol.mil.W
Milcom the god of the children of Ammon
C. In the verse below, the noun ~yhla occurs TWICE – the first time should be translated as SINGULAR because (as above) the verb with which it goes in the sentence is SINGULAR. The second time, though, it is clearly plural, since it makes no sense to say: "God (elohim, singular) stands in the divine council; among God (the second elohim) he judges." Clearly the second "elohim" is plural – and so there ARE other gods in the Hebrew, but who answer to the high God (Hebrew – El Elyon, Yahweh of Israel. Yahweh is NOT to be considered "one among equals, either, in light of verses such as Psalm 29:1 (the other elohim are commanded to worship Yahweh); Exodus 15:11 (Yahweh is incomparable); Nehemiah 9:6 (Yahweh made the others – he alone is Creator and pre-existent; cp. Deut. 4:19). See my scholarly article on this very subject in the bibliography on the divine council on the "Further Study" page on my website.
Psa 82:1 *A Psalm of Asaph.* God stands in the divine assembly; he judges among the gods.
lae-td;[]B; (THIS VERB IS SINGULAR) bC'nI ~yhil{a/ @s'a'l. rAmz>mi Psa 82:1
`jPov.yI ~yhil{a/ br,q,B.
II. Elohim (~yhlah - the noun elohim + the definite article )
A. In the verses below, the noun ~yhlah should be translated as SINGULAR because the verbs with which they go in the sentence are SINGULAR:
KJV Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
yTi[.d;y" ykinOa' ~G: ~l{x]B; ~yhil{a/h' wyl'ae (THIS VERB IS SINGULAR) rm,aYOw: Gen 20:6
yli-Ajx]me ^t.Aa ykinOa'-~G: %fox.a,w" taZO t'yfi[' ^b.b'l.-~t'b. yKi
`h'yl,ae [;GOn>li ^yTit;n>-al{ !Ke-l[;
KJV Gen 22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
Armox]-ta, vbox]Y:w: rq,BoB; ~h'r'b.a; ~Kev.Y:w: Gen 22:3
hl'[o yce[] [Q;b;y>w: AnB. qx'c.yI taew> ATai wyr'['n> ynEv.-ta, xQ;YIw:
`~yhil{a/h' Al-(THIS VERB IS SINGULAR) rm;a'-rv,a] ~AqM'h;-la, %l,YEw: ~q'Y"w:
B. In the verse below, noun ~yhlah should be translated as a PLURAL, since the verb that goes with it is PLURAL. The divine council (and of course, the High God with them) appeared to Jacob!
KJV Gen 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God (should be "the gods") appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
lae-tyBe lae ~AqM'l; ar'q.YIw: x;Bez>mi ~v' !b,YIw: Gen 35:7
`wyxia' ynEP.mi Axr.b'B. ~yhil{a/h' wyl'ae (THIS VERB IS PLURAL) Wlg>nI ~v' yKi
GENERALLY speaking, there are verses in the Old Testament that do speak of plural gods being real – and of being either members of God’s council (Psalm 82 is the best example) or fallen members of that council. The creation account in Genesis 1:26 ("let us make man in our image"), however, is NOT an example of plural elohim.
Genesis 1:26-27
Humankind was NOT created by multiple gods in the Old Testament. It is of course true that "elohim" is MORPHOLOGICALLY plural (morphology refers to the construction or "shape" of a word). The - im ending of elohim makes the noun plural. As Psalm 82 (see above) tells us, elohim CAN be plural in the Hebrew Bible. The same psalm, though, also has elohim as a contextually clear SINGULAR (the morphologically plural word came to be used as a proper name for a singular deity). In passages other than Psalm 82, we must let GRAMMAR dictate whether the word is singular or plural. In Genesis 1:26-27, the GRAMMAR tells us Sitchin is wrong:
Genesis 1:26-27 –
(26) "And God (~yhla) said (the verb is SINGULAR):
Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
(these are references to God's divine council - composed of other elohim and angels - if you read The Facade, you'll learn about the divine council). At this point, the issue of whether humankind was created by ONE deity or many gods is still up in the air – but will be clarified by the text . . .
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
(27) So God (~yhla) created (the verb is SINGULAR) man in his own (a third masculine SINGULAR suffix in Hebrew) image, in the image of God (~yhla - we know this is singular as well from context - the preceding suffix tells us) he created (the verb is SINGULAR) him; male and female he created (the verb is SINGULAR) them.
Conclusion – from the TEXT:
God announced to his council his idea to create mankind (“hey, guys, let's do this!” – a sort of exhortational declaration), then HE (and he alone, by virtue of the GRAMMAR) created humankind in HIS own image (not theirs).
Sadly, Sitchin is either completely unaware of what's going on in the verse, or assumes no one would check, or doesn’t want readers to know.

[elpis]

Hello Bill the Cat,
Thanks for the article on Elohim. As you surmised, the Hebrew didnt come over in your post, but the PDF file is fine. The article looks pretty good to me, although I am not totally convinced about Gen 35:7 - although it clearly was an angel (one of the Elohim) that appeared. The BHS questions the text here giving several texts that have the singular verb, suggesting a possible textual corruption. But I agree with the conclusion.


Hello Mitbulls,
Thanks for your responses. Will try to address them as best I can in the time available. I am a theology student at a UK university in the south of England. My particular interest is Biblical languages. I have passed all the language modules but am pursuing advanced study now. I am surrounded by trinitarians so it makes life interesting!!!

Let me try to deal with your other two points first and then make some comments on your response.

Rev 1:8. I think the point you are making here is that kurios, lord, means Jesus. However, the context makes it clear that this is talking about God (though the title Alpha and Omega is applied to Jesus later - but that's another discussion, no doubt!!). Kurios is also used as the equivalent of Yahweh in Old Testament quotations (cf Matt 4:7, 10; Luke 1:16). The combination Lord and God occurs 11 times in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 4:11; 11,17; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 18:6; 21:22; 22:5,6) - I think if you look at them all in context they are referring to God.


Titus 2:13. The question is does it say that Jesus is ""our great God and Saviour" (NKJV)". I you have access to Marshall, I H. The Pastoral Epistles, ICC, T&T Clark, 1999 pp 274-282, he has pages of discussion as to the three possible meanings here. These are:

a) The passage refers to two persons, ie the epiphany of the glory of the great God and [of the glory] of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

b) The passage refers to Jesus as being the glory of God (the Father) ie Jesus Christ is in apposition to 'glory' giving the translation: "the epiphany of the glory of our gret God and Saviour, [which glory is] Jesus Christ.

c) The passage refers to Jesus as "our God and Saviour"

While he comes down in favour of c) - ie the same as yourself, the discussion demonstrates that this is not a very reliable primary text as many scholars favour the other two meanings. a) is the translation in the AV, and the marginal reading in RV, NEB, NRSV, GNB and is the favoured meaning accepted by White, Jeremias, Schlatter Scott, Kelly, Holtz and a host of others. Kelly points out that the identification of Jesus and God as separate persons is maintained throughout the Pastoral Epistles eg Titus 1:4 "Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour" and at I Tim 1:1; 5:21; 6:13; 2 Tim 1:1; 4:1.


So back to your other comments. I think the question of whether Elohim signifies some element of plurality about God and the use of "we" at Gen 1:26 are different issues. The first is purely grammatical, the second is interpretation. I have seen the argument based on the plural form of Elohim used by evangelicals many times. But it is an argument that could only be made by someone coming to scripture with a preconceived belief in the trinity. It is not a meaning that would be obvious to the original reader or writer, and more significantly, it is not a meaning expounded upon by any New Testament writer. So it can only be a matter of speculation. It cannot be a primary argument for a trinity.



So rather than addressing negatives, let me put the non-trinitarian position in the words of Paul and Jesus:

There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. I Tim 2:5 (RSV)

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. I Cor 8:6

And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John 17:3

These texts seem to me to clarify who is God and who is Jesus.

Your introduction of the Angel of the Lord, is I believe a key to many problems of interpretation. It demonstrates that beings other than God, can take the name of God when they are representing him. Trinitarians will take the position that this is not possible and that therefore references to the Angel of God being called Yahweh, must mean that this angel was an appearance of Christ before his birth. However, I think this is incompatible with NT teaching. Hebrews 1 and 2 dispenses with the idea that Christ is/was an angel ie " For to what angel did God ever say.....etc (Heb 1:5). And also any pre-birth appearances would contradict the statement that it is " in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son," Heb 1:2. How could the writer say this if Jesus had appeared in OT times?

Stephen in his speech before his stoning was clear that it was an angel that appeared in the burning bush to Moses (Acts 7:30,31), that spoke to him at Mount Sinai (7:38), and who delivered the law (7:38). I think we should explore this some more, but these are some thoughts to think over and you might like to respond.

Enough for now!!!! I liked the quotation on your signature. I read "Through Gates of Splendour" many years ago and it had a terrific impact on me.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216204#post216204)
elpis:

Stephen in his speech before his stoning was clear that it was an angel that appeared in the burning bush to Moses (Acts 7:30,31), that spoke to him at Mount Sinai (7:38), and who delivered the law (7:38). I think we should explore this some more, but these are some thoughts to think over and you might like to respond.

Enough for now!!!! I liked the quotation on your signature. I read "Through Gates of Splendour" many years ago and it had a terrific impact on me.

I assume from your nick. that you are a Christadelphian. How do you get that an angel spoke to Moses at the burning bush? Acts 7:30 does not say the angel spoke. It says the angel appeared and Moses heard the voice of God. Vs, 38 also does not say that the angel was called God. That is an assumption on your part.
Acts 7:30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him,
32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
And before we even go there, Gideon and Manoah, the scriptures there also never say that the angel was called God.

And you do not have to take my word for it that the angel at the burning bush did NOT speak to Moses. And note, Jesus never mentions an angel at all. Someone’s research on this is somewhat lacking.
Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=215978#post215978)
Bill the Cat:

Conclusion – from the TEXT:
God announced to his council his idea to create mankind (“hey, guys, let's do this!” – a sort of exhortational declaration), then HE (and he alone, by virtue of the GRAMMAR) created humankind in HIS own image (not theirs).
Sadly, Sitchin is either completely unaware of what's going on in the verse, or assumes no one would check, or doesn’t want readers to know.

This article does not address the words "in OUR image and OUR likeness" The "pluralis majestaticus" is an anacronism, it did not exist in Israel or any culture they were exposed to. The article also ignores these passages.
Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH"
he is God; there is none else beside him.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH," and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH," and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH"? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

[elpis]

OK - I threw the last comments in hastily - let me build the argument more slowly.


Let's start with Gen 16:7-13 - this it the account of Hagar:

7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
8 And he said, "Hagar, maid of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai."
9 The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude."
11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."
13 So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

If I knew how to bold things I would do so, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Angel of the Lord spake to her (vv 7,9,10,11) is the same as "she called the name of the LORD (YAHWEH) who spoke to her". Who spoke to her?????

Then go to Gen 22;11,12
But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
12 He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
14 So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."
15 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,
18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

Note that the Angel of the Lord says "you have not witheld your son, your only son from ME" (v 12). The Angel is speaking the words of Yahweh as if they were his own, because he is God's delegated representative.

Then Exodus 23:20

20 "Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.
21 Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.

Here an angel is described as going before the people even having the power to pardon transgressions. The reason being that the name of Yahweh was in him.

We also know that God "alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see." I Tim 6:16. So when people say that they saw/heard God, they actually saw/heard an angelic representative, who can be addressed as Yahweh, and act on his delegation (ie forgive transgressions).

Do you not agree this is the scripture teaching?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216252#post216252)
elpis:

13 So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “Thou art a God of seeing”; for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?”

If I knew how to bold things I would do so, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Angel of the Lord spake to her (vv 7,9,10,11) is the same as “she called the name of the LORD (YAHWEH) who spoke to her”;. Who spoke to her?????

Bolding is easy, type the opening and closing code around the word(s) you want to bold like this, [b]words[/b], and it will appear as words.

Now don’t say you were not warned. Who is speaking here? Is it a prophet or any other inspired person speaking “Thus saith the Lord. . .?” No it is a woman who was not even a Jew, but an Egyptian, saying what she believed to be true. That does NOT make it true.

What version are you quoting? “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” My NIV shows, “I have now seen the One who sees me." And the KJV is very similar.

Then go to Gen 22;11,12
* * *
15 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,

Note that the Angel of the Lord says “you have not witheld your son, your only son from ME”; (v 12). The Angel is speaking the words of Yahweh as if they were his own, because he is God's delegated representative.

Let’s go to vss. 15 & 16, where it is all made clear. Note the angel is merely relaying the words of God, NOT speaking as God. “and [the angel] said, ‘By myself I have sworn says the LORD. . .” The angel is clearly speaking the words God told Him to speak, NOT presuming to speak as God.

Then Exodus 23:20

20 “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.
21 Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.

Here an angel is described as going before the people even having the power to pardon transgressions. The reason being that the name of Yahweh was in him.

Assumption and presumption. The angel is never addressed as YHWH, in Ex 23. God said the angel would NOT pardon their transgression, NOT that he could. And the mere fact that God may or may not have given the angel power to forgive sin, in that instance, does not mean the angel could or should have been addressed as YHWH.

Name also meant authority. For example, David told Goliath, "I come to you in the name of the LORD יהוה of Hosts." David was never called YHWH. God could have been telling Israel, "My authority, my power, is in the angel."

You will note that the name of YHWH is in His people, His city, and in His house and they are certainly not called YHWH. And I note you have not addressed the angel in the bush.
Jer 34:15 And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name:

2 Chron 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Jer 25:29 For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the LORD of hosts.

We also know that God “alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see.”; I Tim 6:16. So when people say that they saw/heard God, they actually saw/heard an angelic representative, who can be addressed as Yahweh, and act on his delegation (ie forgive transgressions).

Do you not agree this is the scripture teaching?

I agree that these are fine examples of that age old tactic “proof texting.” The fact that one or two people may have addressed an angel as YHWH, does not prove that God approved of it, see Isa 42:8 and 48:11.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: יהוה that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isa 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

[Bill the Cat]

Yesterday @ 09:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216241#post216241)
OldShepherd:



This article does not address the words "in OUR image and OUR likeness" The "pluralis majestaticus" is an anacronism, it did not exist in Israel or any culture they were exposed to. The article also ignores these passages.
Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH"
he is God; there is none else beside him.

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH," and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH," and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD "יהוה/"YHWH"? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Hey Shep, I'm all with you. I just thought the article was interesting and wanted to see if it could be of any value to the present discussion.

Oh, and do you believe in the "redaction" of Deuteronomy?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216971#post216971)
Bill the Cat:



Hey Shep, I'm all with you. I just thought the article was interesting and wanted to see if it could be of any value to the present discussion.

Oh, and do you believe in the "redaction" of Deuteronomy?

Which readaction would that be?

[Bill the Cat]

I'll see if I can dig up the info from a Mormon apologist.


the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls produced evidence of heavy redaction in the OT goes almost unnoticed in Evangelical shcolarship. Practically the only book that was left untouched was Isaiah. Jeremiah reveals an absence of about 900 words from the received text. Probably the most controversial issue revolves around Deut 32:8-9.

[elpis]

OldShepherd

Hagar

You seem to have missed the point entirely on the Hagar incident:

You said:
"Now don’t say you were not warned."

Thanks


You said:
"Who is speaking here? Is it a prophet or any other inspired person speaking “Thus saith the Lord. . .?” No it is a woman who was not even a Jew, but an Egyptian, saying what she believed to be true. That does NOT make it true."


I am not sure whether we are looking at the same passage or not!!!!! But it clearly IS the inspired writer of Exodus who says "So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her.....". This is not her speaking - what she said follows. So it DOES make it true!!!

My point was that the record tells us that the angel of the Yahweh spoke to her, but the inspired writer also says that Yahweh spoke to her. The angel said ""I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude." speaking as Yahweh. Clearly the angel carries out the will of God, and it is equally true to say that the Angel multiplied his descendants (in the name of Yahweh) as it is to say that Yahweh multiplied his descendants.

So here is an example of where:
a) Yahweh spoke to her, is the same as
b) the Angel of Yahweh spoke to her

They are not contradictory. The Angel spoke as Yahweh.

You asked:

"What version are you quoting? "

I use the RSV mostly.




Abraham and Isaac

You said:
"Note the angel is merely relaying the words of God, NOT speaking as God"


However, the part you are quoting is from a separate incident.

Firstly:

Gen 22:11-12 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."

Here the angel is speaking as Yahweh - He says "from ME".

Then:
Gen 22:13-14 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

This would have taken some time (several hours?).

Then:

The Angel spoke as second time.

My point was that the first time, he was speaking as Yahweh.



Exodus 23

20 “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.
21 Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.


You said:
"Assumption and presumption"


It is not assumption nor presumption to say that the Angel had delegated powers from God, because God's name was in him. Giving heed to the Angel, was giving heed to Yahweh. Hearkening to the Angel's voice was hearkening to God's voice. Rebelling against the Angel was rebelling against God.

You said:
"God said the angel would NOT pardon their transgression, NOT that he could. And the mere fact that God may or may not have given the angel power to forgive sin, in that instance, does not mean the angel could or should have been addressed as YHWH. "


After a categorical denial, you seem to admit that he may have given the angel power to forgive sins. I cant see why God uses the phrase "for he will not pardon your transgression" if he did not have the power to pardon or not pardon. It becomes meaningless. It clearly means that the Angel pardoning equals God pardoning, and the Angel not pardoning equals God not pardoning, which continues along the same lines as the previous phrases.

What is the significance of the statement: "for my name is in him", if it is not delegated authority???


I was addressing Mitbulls point that:
"Also, there are several instances throughout the O.T. where "The Angel of the Lord" appeared. Obviously in Hebrew we don't know if it was intended to be capitalized, but it is in many English translations because the Angel often goes on to claim divinity or be called God. For instance, see Gen 16, 48; Ex 3, 14, 23, etc."

You do not seem to agree that Mitbulls point is valid.


The angel at the bush

You said:
"And I note you have not addressed the angel in the bush. "
and
"How do you get that an angel spoke to Moses at the burning bush?"

I dont know if you have really read my posts or not. In fact I did not say that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush. I said:

"Stephen in his speech before his stoning was clear that it was an angel that appeared in the burning bush to Moses (Acts 7:30,31), "

However, I DO believe that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush for the reason that Stephen says:

Acts 7:35 "This Moses ......... God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.

Now according to your interpretation the angel was just a bystander. But how could God send Moses by the hand of the angel, if the angel didnt somehow send him. The only record of sending is at Ex 3:10 - "behold I will send you to Pharaoh", which is the voice coming out of the bush, and the record has just told us that the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire (is this what is in mind at Heb 1:7?) OUT OF THE MIDST OF A BUSH (Ex 3:2). While the scripture doesnt say the words, I dont see how it can be avoided that it was the Angel that spoke, especially given the two examples above.

This does not contradict Mark 12:26 ("how in the bush God spake unto him") because we have seen in the episode with Hagar that Yahweh speaking, and the Angel of the Lord speaking are not contradictory.


In a way this discussion has detracted from the main argument. I only mentioned the Angel of the Lord because Mitbulls raised it. Unless anyone is arguing that the Angel of the Lord is an appearance of Christ before he was born, it is not relevant to the overall discussion.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217319#post217319)
elpis:

OldShepherd

Hagar

You seem to have missed the point entirely on the Hagar incident:

You said:
“Who is speaking here? Is it a prophet or any other inspired person speaking “Thus saith the Lord. . .?” No it is a woman who was not even a Jew, but an Egyptian, saying what she believed to be true. That does NOT make it true.”;

I am not sure whether we are looking at the same passage or not!!!!! But it clearly IS the inspired writer of Exodus who says “So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her.....”. This is not her speaking - what she said follows. So it DOES make it true!!!

My point was that the record tells us that the angel of the Yahweh spoke to her, but the inspired writer also says that Yahweh spoke to her. The angel said “I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” speaking as Yahweh. Clearly the angel carries out the will of God, and it is equally true to say that the Angel multiplied his descendants (in the name of Yahweh) as it is to say that Yahweh multiplied his descendants.

So here is an example of where:
a) Yahweh spoke to her, is the same as
b) the Angel of Yahweh spoke to her

They are not contradictory. The Angel spoke as Yahweh.

Here is how the ancient Jews understood this passage. And note this interpretation does NOT contradict the passages in Isaiah where God says YHWH is His name and He will NOT give His name to another.
the Targum of Onkelos,

“ she prayed in the name of the Lord;”

and the Targum of Jonathan is,

“ and she confessed, or gave thanks before the Lord, whose Word spake unto her;”

and the Jerusalem Targum takes in both prayer and praise,

“ and Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who was revealed unto her:”
Abraham and Isaac

You said:
“Note the angel is merely relaying the words of God, NOT speaking as God”

However, the part you are quoting is from a separate incident.

Firstly:

Gen 22:11-12 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

Here the angel is speaking as Yahweh - He says “from ME”.

Then:
Gen 22:13-14 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.”

This would have taken some time (several hours?).

Then:

The Angel spoke as second time.

My point was that the first time, he was speaking as Yahweh.

You quote vss. 13-14 then postulate a long period (several hours?) which is neither stated nor implied in the text and the angel speaks the second time in the very next verse 15-16. As I said the angel clarifies that he is quoting the words of God. My interpretation does not contradict Isaiah, yours does.

Exodus 23

20 “Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared.
21 Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him.

It is not assumption nor presumption to say that the Angel had delegated powers from God, because God's name was in him. Giving heed to the Angel, was giving heed to Yahweh. Hearkening to the Angel's voice was hearkening to God's voice. Rebelling against the Angel was rebelling against God.

These last three sentences are definitely presumption and assumption, it is nowhere stated, nor implied, in the text that giving heed to the angel was giving heed to Yahweh, etc.

After a categorical denial, you seem to admit that he may have given the angel power to forgive sins. I cant see why God uses the phrase “for he will not pardon your transgression” if he did not have the power to pardon or not pardon. It becomes meaningless. It clearly means that the Angel pardoning equals God pardoning, and the Angel not pardoning equals God not pardoning, which continues along the same lines as the previous phrases.

Where is a categorical denial? You even quoted me I said, “God said the angel would NOT pardon their transgression, NOT that he could.” What you are saying, if the text is not interpreted to agree with your presuppositions then it is meaningless. It is NOT meaningless, God can quite capably pardon or punish iniquities without any help from an angel. God was making it clear that Israel was to follow and obey the angel. The angel might or might not have had power to pardon sins, the verse is not explicit, but even if such power was delegated to an angel in one instance, it does not follow that the angel was or could be addressed as Yahweh. Reading your own presuppositions into the text.that does

What is the significance of the statement: “for my name is in him”, if it is not delegated authority???

Excuse me? Did you read my post I posted at least four other verses in which Yahweh’s name was in His people, in His city, in His house, and in David and none of them were ever called Yahweh. Delegated authority, as in David’s case, does NOT mean being called Yahweh. Name is used to mean authority.

The angel at the bush

I dont know if you have really read my posts or not. In fact I did not say that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush. I said:

However, I DO believe that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush for the reason that Stephen says:

Acts 7:35 “This Moses ......... God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.

Now according to your interpretation the angel was just a bystander. But how could God send Moses by the hand of the angel, if the angel didnt somehow send him. The only record of sending is at Ex 3:10 – “behold I will send you to Pharaoh”, which is the voice coming out of the bush, and the record has just told us that the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire (is this what is in mind at Heb 1:7?) OUT OF THE MIDST OF A BUSH (Ex 3:2). While the scripture doesnt say the words, I dont see how it can be avoided that it was the Angel that spoke, especially given the two examples above.

I will tell you how to avoid having the angel speak. Do not go beyond what is written and do not read your own presuppositions into the text. “But how could God send Moses by the hand of the angel, if the angel didnt somehow send him?” How? Read our own post, “God sent. . . by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.” Did you understand that? God sent! Not the angel. God. Jesus said God spoke, and never mentions an angel. An angel can lead without ever speaking a word. And your are correct the scriptures never say that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush. God spoke. God sent. The angel was just an agent not unlike the column of fire and smoke that led in the wilderness.

[Mitbulls]

Starting from the end of the last post and working forward:

In a way this discussion has detracted from the main argument. I only mentioned the Angel of the Lord because Mitbulls raised it. Unless anyone is arguing that the Angel of the Lord is an appearance of Christ before he was born, it is not relevant to the overall discussion.

This does seem to be the clearest interpretation to me. The Angel you mention seem to have the exact same delegated powers as Jesus had on Earth. They claim the name of YHWH, they forgive sins, they carry the word (all cases made by you). What indication is there in Jesus life that His position is greater than "the Angel of the Lord" mentioned in the O.T.? The other thing that you failed to address in your post is how, interestingly, each of these occurances includes the definite article (the letter HEH and the vowel QAMATS). It seem strange that, since we know there are many angels, one should be identified as "THE Angel of the Lord."

Titus 2:13. The question is does it say that Jesus is ""our great God and Saviour" (NKJV)". I you have access to Marshall, I H. The Pastoral Epistles, ICC, T&T Clark, 1999 pp 274-282, he has pages of discussion as to the three possible meanings here. These are:

a) The passage refers to two persons, ie the epiphany of the glory of the great God and [of the glory] of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

b) The passage refers to Jesus as being the glory of God (the Father) ie Jesus Christ is in apposition to 'glory' giving the translation: "the epiphany of the glory of our gret God and Saviour, [which glory is] Jesus Christ.

c) The passage refers to Jesus as "our God and Saviour"

While he comes down in favour of c) - ie the same as yourself, the discussion demonstrates that this is not a very reliable primary text as many scholars favour the other two meanings.


It is true that many scholars favor the other two meanings, but that is rarely and indication of what is true. Many scholars also say that the Bible is completely false and the textual reliability is weak, etc.. In this specific case, the Hebrew grammar seems to work much the same as English grammar (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert in the area, obviously). It seems like you would have to read a bit into the text in order to get any conclusion other than that the passage refers to "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." B seems unlikely, as there is little reason to assume that Jesus is God's glory. For God's glory to be ascribed to any being other than himself would be idolatry. Also, there seems little reason for Christ to be sent simply as a "revelation" of God's glory, since we know that God has revealed himself throughout nature, including our very existence. The popular verse in Genesis 1 used to show that we are made in God's image is also (probably more accurately) translated that we are made AS God's image. We are the revelation of God's glory.

So back to your other comments. I think the question of whether Elohim signifies some element of plurality about God and the use of "we" at Gen 1:26 are different issues. The first is purely grammatical, the second is interpretation. I have seen the argument based on the plural form of Elohim used by evangelicals many times. But it is an argument that could only be made by someone coming to scripture with a preconceived belief in the trinity. It is not a meaning that would be obvious to the original reader or writer, and more significantly, it is not a meaning expounded upon by any New Testament writer. So it can only be a matter of speculation. It cannot be a primary argument for a trinity.

It is not meant to be a primary argument, merely a supporting one. Since there seem to be few other interpretations of the term "we" other than some sort of plurality, it definately does not hurt the case.

There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. I Tim 2:5 (RSV)

No problem with this. Trinitarians usually grant that Jesus was a man, but that does not rule out his Godhood.

yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. I Cor 8:6

Actually, I was going to use this verse myself, but probably for a different reason. You used it because it distinguishes between God and Jesus (one GOd, and one mediator). However, you must also take into account the end of the verse. "[T]hrough whom are all things and through whom we exist" could either be ascribed directly to Jesus, or to both Jesus and God based on the context. Either way though, you would be hard-pressed to argue that the ending of this verse refers ONLY to God, excluding Jesus. So basically, this verse puts Jesus in a powerful role: either the sustainer or co-sustainer of all things.

And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John 17:3

Again, this is a verse that I have no problem with. It distinguishes somewhat between God and Jesus, but Jesus did this himself. It still does not rule out his position in the Godhead (though I hate that term).

Hello Mitbulls,
Thanks for your responses. Will try to address them as best I can in the time available. I am a theology student at a UK university in the south of England. My particular interest is Biblical languages. I have passed all the language modules but am pursuing advanced study now. I am surrounded by trinitarians so it makes life interesting!!!

I'm a theology student at SW Baptist Univ in MO. For awhile I considered studying Biblical Languages, but the timing did not work out well. Instead I'm studying alot of apologetics and Bible (along with some science, intercultural studies, etc.) and trying to teach myself Hebrew on my own (and later Greek). It's alot of work, but interesting stuff! Do you happen to have any suggestions for good Hebrew resources?

I was cut kind of short today, I'll try to post in more detail later.

[elpis]

Yes. Our college Hebrew course was based on Davidson's grammar, supplemented by Weingreen. The problem with both books if you are studying alone is that there is no key to the exercises so it is difficult to know if you are getting it right. However, we have this book in our library:

Kelley, Page, H. Biblical Hebrew; an introductory grammar. Eerdmans. 1992

There is also a separate handbook which has the answers to the exercises and additional info. I like his presentation, and wish we had used it as our textbook. He has also written books on the Masora - the notes which are referenced in the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (BHS) - the definitive Hebrew text which are brilliant. Regretably he died a short while ago.


I also strongly recommend the Sunrise Software Cdrom: Hebrew Tutor. It is an interactive package and really makes your practice, which is the only way to learn Hebrew. Lots of repetition!!!

I will be away for a couple of days so cannot reply immediately to your other responses, but will do when I get back.

[elpis]

I have two trinitarians here who dont agree on who the Angel of the Lord is. One says that he is called God, and given the attributes of divinity. The other denies this. It is difficult for me to know which argument to address, so I would appreciate it if you two could sort it out and let me know what to address!!!! I seem to be supporting one trinitarian against another - a novel experience!

In the meantime I will address OldShepherds points:

Hagar

You said:

the Targum of Onkelos,

“ she prayed in the name of the Lord;”

and the Targum of Jonathan is,

“ and she confessed, or gave thanks before the Lord, whose Word spake unto her;”

and the Jerusalem Targum takes in both prayer and praise,

“ and Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who was revealed unto her:”


I cant believe that you have just quoted various alternatives, to avoid what the scripture actually says. First you claimed it was said by an unbeliever, when in fact it is a comment by the inspired writer, then you quote Targums, which are NOT scripture. Here is what the scriptures say:

7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
8 And he said, "Hagar, maid of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai."
9 The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude."
11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."
13 So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

So:
a) Yahweh spoke to her, equals
b) the Angel of Yahweh spoke to her

If we cant agree to rely on scripture, I dont see that we have any basis for discussion.



Abraham and Isaac

Between the first incident and the second the following took place:

"behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son." Gen 22:13

This must have taken a period of time, which separated the first incident from the second. I imagine it takes some time to slit the ram's throat, then you have to get the fire going, you have to prepare the ram, and put it on the fire. I dont really know how long that takes, but it involves some activity which separates the incidents. The scriptures themselves separate the incidents by saying that the angel spoke a second time.

Now what Abraham heard was a voice from heaven. It said: “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from ME.” Gen 22:11-12.

We are told that the speaker was the Angel of the Lord. The Angel was speaking AS Yahweh. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

Exodus 23

You seem to be saying that when God says of the angel, "for my name is in him", that He is mistaken. I do not think this contradicts Isaiah at all.

The scriptures say (Ex 23:22):

do not rebel against him,
for he will not pardon your transgression;
for my name is in him.

Clearly the scriptures say that the Angel has delegated powers, otherwise what is the significance of the phrase "for (BECAUSE) my name is in him - it is this authority which allows to act and speak as Yahweh - eg to pardon, or not pardon the transgressions of the people.

The scripture continues (Ex 23:23):
"But if you hearken to HIS voice,
and do all that I SAY:

there are clearly equivalent. What Yahweh says, is the same as the voice of the Angel.

You quote several texts to "prove" that God's name was in his people and in his city, but the scriptures you quote say they were called by his name, NOT that his Name dwelt in them, in the sense that it did in the angel. Jerusalem couldn't forgive sins or speak as Yahweh.

You say:
Name is used to mean authority.

So you agree that the Angel could act and speak as Yahweh, ie he had delegated authority from Yahweh?


The angel at the bush

You asked: "Did you understand that? God sent! Not the angel. "

We should look at the phrase "by the hand of". It is a Hebraism. Here are some examples of its use:

and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. Lev 16:21

And the spirit of God came mightily upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled.
7 He took a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of messengers, I Sam 11:6,7

I could provide several more. Did Aaron actually take the goat into the wilderness? No, it was "a man who is in readiness". Did Saul actually take the pieces of ox and carry them through Israel. NO, he sent messengers with them. Is it inaccurate to say that Aaron sent the goat into the wilderness? No. But did he actually do it himself. NO Is it inaccurate to say that Saul sent the pieces to the territories of Israel? No. But did he take them himself. NO.

The meaning of the phrase "by the hand of", is that the sender DID NOT ACTUALLY DO IT HIMSELF.

So when scripture says " This Moses ......... God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.", it means that God himself did not do it - it was the angel. So again I ask you, How did the angel accomplish this without talking to Moses???


And one final question. You quoted Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" - to which event does it refer when it says: the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina"???

Thanks, Elpis

[elpis]

Hello Mitbulls.

Will be interested to discuss sometime how they deal with things like form/source criticism, feminism, liberation theology, documentary hypothesis etc at your University which I assume is fairly conservative. But we should probably start a new thread for that!!

For what it is worth here are my thoughts on your last post.

The Angel of the Lord

You said:

The Angel you mention seem to have the exact same delegated powers as Jesus had on Earth. They claim the name of YHWH, they forgive sins, they carry the word (all cases made by you). What indication is there in Jesus life that His position is greater than "the Angel of the Lord" mentioned in the O.T.?


I agree with your conclusions here, although OldShepherd does not. If you/we are right, then we have two alternative solutions.

a) Jesus was the Angel of the Lord
b) God can delegate powers to angels/people and they can act in the capacity of God, but are not themselves God.

a) is obviously an argument for the trinity. b) is an argument against the trinity.

So let me amplify my arguments as to why I don't believe the scriptures teach that the angel of the Lord is Jesus.

1) In the epistle to the Hebrews 1:1-2, the writer starts by talking about the various ways in which God spoke OF OLD. In the past, he says, God has used "many and various ways". He contrasts that with now. He says (v2) but IN THESE LAST DAYS, he has spoken to us by a son, through whom.....". The point being that if in the past God spoke to us though his Son, the argument would have no meaning. It also states that the ministry of the Son is a phenomenon of THESE LAST DAYS. Speaking to us in a Son, could not be part of the many and various ways god spoke, or it would not make sense to contrast it with the past. Peter supports this in I Peter 1:20 "He (Christ) was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."


2) The Angel of the Lord, was still an angel. Hebrews 1:5-14, is all about how Jesus is better than the angels, because he is Son and they are only ministering spirits. He proves this by a number of quotes from the OT using phrases like "to what angel did God ever say....." v 5. In other words there is no way that Jesus was ever called an angel.

3) In talking of the OT events where an angel appeared, like the burning bush episode, Stephen in his defence (Acts 7:30-38) he talks of angels - there is no suggestion that Jesus appears in these narratives.

4) There is no New Testament teaching that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus.

You said:
It seems strange that, since we know there are many angels, one should be identified as "THE Angel of the Lord."

Maybe, maybe not. There is clearly a hierarchy of angels. One could surmise that it is Michael (Dan 12:1) the great prince who has charge over Israel (which would seem appropriate), or Gabriel, who announced Jesus' birth (Luke 1:17), who stands in the presence of God, but it would only be guess work. But the bottom line is that it is not suggested in the Bible (as far as I can see) that the Angel of the Lord was Jesus.

Titus 2:13

Translators and commentators are divided about how this should read. I dont think it can be taken as a primary text either way.

Elohim as plural

As I said before, the question of the plural form is a matter of fact. I quoted Prof Chishom. His book is a basic text for advanced Hebrew studies, so not to be ignored lightly.

The use of "us" at Gen 1:26, is a matter of interpretation. It is most likely God addressing the elohim (angels).


Your arguments are used to read back into the Hebrew texts, the doctrine of the trinity. The interpretation you give them are not what you would arrive at if you allowed the texts to speak for themselves. Nor are they interpretations which are suggested by New Testament writers. So I raised three other NT texts which I think summarise the biblical teaching on God and Jesus. While you say you dont have a problem with them, I think this is also because you are not allowing the texts to speak for themselves, but are reading into them a trinitarian position. You will no doubt argue that I am coming to them with a non-trinitarian bias, which of course has some validity. Although I used to be a trinitarian, and came to the non-trinitarian position.


Non-trinitarian texts?

Let me give you my take on what I feel is the meaning that the texts convey if one doesnt start with a trinitarian preconception:

There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. I Tim 2:5 (RSV(.

Who is God in this statement? It seems to make a distinction between God and the man Christ Jesus. There is one God, and there is a mediator between that God and man, and that mediator is a man (not God). If he is God then he is mediating between himself and himself.

"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. I Cor 8:6"

Here God is identified as the Father. It makes no reference to a God the Son. It distinguished between a being who is God, and another being who is Lord. They have different functions. All things are FROM God, but THROUGH Christ. One is the initiator, the other is the means. The means is subordinate to the initiator. I agree with you that Jesus has a powerful role, but it is a role that he has been given by God. In Acts 2:36, Peter says: Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.". In other words, God has put Christ in the position he holds. There are lots of similar texts.

"And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. John 17:3"

One being is calling another being, the only true God. If this is so, the person saying it cannot himself be the only true God.

There has to be a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the plain meaning of these statements.


You raised the question earlier about the reaction of the people to Christ's teachings and how they believed he was claiming to be God. It is interesting however that in the two ocassions I can think of, Jesus immediately goes on to deny it.

John 10:30-39. After saying "I and my father are one" - they took up stones to stone him because "you being a man make yourself God". Jesus answers in terms of humans being called gods in the OT, therefore why was it such a big deal that he, whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, should claim to be the Son of God (not God, the Son).

Also John 5: 16-24. Jesus referred to God as his father which the Jews interpreted as meaning he was claiming to be equal to God (v 18) - but Jesus immediately goes on to say "the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the father doing". This is hardly a claim to Godhood.

I am trying to limit my involvement in bulletin boards to an hour a week, due to academic commitments. But I will try to respond to your observations on the above.

[Richbee]

We have giving this topic some serious jaw jaw over at:

The Atlantic Magazine Forum: Religion and Spirituality

http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?.2cb42678

The Zohar reveals the idea of a plurality-in-unity is not foreign to Jewish thinking. While the medieval mystics' idea is different from the Christian idea of the Trinity, the basic idea of a plurality within the one God still holds. The passage from the Zohar, commenting on the Sh’ma, reads as follows:


"Hear, O Israel, YHVH Elohenu YHVH is one." These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of Faith: in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eyes alone. The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements--fire, air, and water, which have, however, become one in the mystery of the voice. Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by YHVH Elohenu YHVH--three modes which yet form one unity.

Zohar, III: Exodus 43b, Soncino translation.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 09:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=223240#post223240)
elpis:

In the meantime I will address OldShepherds points:

Hagar

You said:

the Targum of Onkelos,

“ she prayed in the name of the Lord;”

and the Targum of Jonathan is,

“ and she confessed, or gave thanks before the Lord, whose Word spake unto her;”

and the Jerusalem Targum takes in both prayer and praise,

“ and Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, who was revealed unto her:”


I cant believe that you have just quoted various alternatives, to avoid what the scripture actually says. First you claimed it was said by an unbeliever, when in fact it is a comment by the inspired writer, then you quote Targums, which are NOT scripture. Here is what the scriptures say:

7 The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
8 And he said, "Hagar, maid of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai."
9 The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
10 The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude."
11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."
13 So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

So:
a) Yahweh spoke to her, equals
b) the Angel of Yahweh spoke to her

If we cant agree to rely on scripture, I dont see that we have any basis for discussion.

Evidently you do not know what the Targums were. The Targumim were the Aramaic versions of the OT, translated into Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity. So they ARE scripture. I suggest you come down from that lofty place and learn what you are talking about before you presume to lecture me. And I am not aware of anything that I posted which is contradictory.

Now I suggest you very carefully read the verses you posted. Pay particular attention to vs. 11. Note the AotL refers to YHWH in the second person. He does NOT say, "I have given heed to your affliction. The AotL clearly makes a distinction between himself and YHWH. Therefore vs. 13 is from Hagar's viewpoint and reflects what she thought and/or it was YHWHs message, the angel was only the messenger, which OBTW is what angel means.
11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ishmael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.

"We are told that the speaker was the Angel of the Lord. The Angel was speaking AS Yahweh. Seems pretty conclusive to me." I have already answered this. You have manufactured a lengthy period of time to make your presuppositions more plausible. The passage clearly identifies the speaker as YHWH.

Exodus 23

You seem to be saying that when God says of the angel, "for my name is in him", that He is mistaken. I do not think this contradicts Isaiah at all.

Hogwash. I Did not say or imply any such thing. I clearly showed that YHWH's name being in something does NOT mean that it was called YHWH. It is so hard to give up one's presuppositions.

The scriptures say (Ex 23:22):

Clearly the scriptures say that the Angel has delegated powers, otherwise what is the significance of the phrase "for (BECAUSE) my name is in him" - it is this authority which allows to act and speak as Yahweh - eg to pardon, or not pardon the transgressions of the people.

The AotL may have, even that is not clear, been given authority to do one thing, forgive sins, but the angel was NEVER called YHWH.

The scripture continues (Ex 23:23):
"But if you hearken to HIS voice, and do all that I SAY:

there are clearly equivalent. What Yahweh says, is the same as the voice of the Angel.

Still cannot let go of those presuppositions. They are clearly NOT equivalent. In Genesis 21:12 Abraham was told to hearken to Sarah. She was not equivalent to God. The angel was just relaying God's words to Moses. Neither God nor Moses is confused about who is God and who is the angel. This verse implies that the AotL spoke after this, but nowhere is the AotL called YHWH.
22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
You quote several texts to "prove" that God's name was in his people and in his city, but the scriptures you quote say they were called by his name, NOT that his Name dwelt in them, in the sense that it did in the angel. Jerusalem couldn't forgive sins or speak as Yahweh.

That's right they were called by His name. The AotL, in Ex 23, was NEVER called YHWH. And where do you get the word "dwelt?" Ex 23 does NOT say the name "dwelt" in the AotL.

You say:
Name is used to mean authority.

So you agree that the Angel could act and speak as Yahweh, ie he had delegated authority from Yahweh?

Do not even try devious little semantical tricks to try to put words in my mouth. The Aotl had the delegated authority of God in the same way Moses and David had the delegated authority of God.

The angel at the bush

You asked: "Did you understand that? God sent! Not the angel."

We should look at the phrase "by the hand of". It is a Hebraism. Here are some examples of its use:

Oh please. And what is that supposed to mean? Don't just throw out terms like "hebraism," it doesn't impress me in the least. I studied Hebrew at the post grad level more than 2 decades ago. Quote me some recognized authorities on "hebraisms."

and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. Lev 16:21

And the spirit of God came mightily upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled.
7 He took a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of messengers, I Sam 11:6,7

I could provide several more. Did Aaron actually take the goat into the wilderness? No, it was "a man who is in readiness". Did Saul actually take the pieces of ox and carry them through Israel. NO, he sent messengers with them. Is it inaccurate to say that Aaron sent the goat into the wilderness? No. But did he actually do it himself. NO Is it inaccurate to say that Saul sent the pieces to the territories of Israel? No. But did he take them himself. NO.

The meaning of the phrase "by the hand of", is that the sender DID NOT ACTUALLY DO IT HIMSELF.

AND NONE OF THE SCRIPTURES SAY THAT THE SPEAKER ACTUALLY DID IT HIMSELF! In every case something or someone was sent "by the hand" of a third person, not the audience or the speaker. So what is your point? How does that prove that the AotL was called YHWH?

So when scripture says "This Moses ......... God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.", it means that God himself did not do it - it was the angel. So again I ask you, How did the angel accomplish this without talking to Moses???

Irrelevant. In your two examples, above, Lev 16:21 and I Sam 11:6,7, did the messenger talk to the scapegoat or the cut up oxen? Read Ex 23 carefully, it was not necessary for the AotL to speak, God told Moses to follow the angel, not have a debate with him. All the angel had to do was lead, all Moses had to do was follow.

And one final question. You quoted Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" - to which event does it refer when it says: the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina???

Irrelevant. Jesus said God spoke to Moses, is that NOT good enough for you? Why is it so important for you to prove that the AotL spoke as YHWH? Is it possible that Acts refers to some incident which is not recorded in scripture but was orally passed down? The Bible is NOT a complete history of the people of God. The AotL may have spoken after Ex 23, it is implied but not stated in the text.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 11:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=223264#post223264)
richbee:

We have giving this topic some serious jaw jaw over at:

The Atlantic Magazine Forum: Religion and Spirituality

http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?.2cb42678

The Zohar reveals the idea of a plurality-in-unity is not foreign to Jewish thinking. While the medieval mystics' idea is different from the Christian idea of the Trinity, the basic idea of a plurality within the one God still holds. The passage from the Zohar, commenting on the Sh’ma, reads as follows:


"Hear, O Israel, YHVH Elohenu YHVH is one." These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of Faith: in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eyes alone. The mystery of the audible voice is similar to this, for though it is one yet it consists of three elements--fire, air, and water, which have, however, become one in the mystery of the voice. Even so it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by YHVH Elohenu YHVH--three modes which yet form one unity.

Zohar, III: Exodus 43b, Soncino translation.

More on the Trinity in ancient pre-Christian Judaism, from the Jewish Encyclopedia
Trinity-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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "mattronita," "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 "Maqkheh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebräischen und Aramäischen 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

[elpis]

Dear OldShepherd,

You said:

"I suggest you come down from that lofty place and learn what you are talking about before you presume to lecture me"

"It is so hard to give up one's presuppositions."

"Still cannot let go of those presuppositions"

"Do not even try devious little semantical tricks "

If my manner comes over as superior, or lofty, I unreservedly apologise. I assure you it is not my intention to be so. I am fallible, I make mistakes, and I believe I am honest enough to admit when I am wrong. Whether I am clever, or you are clever, is totally irrelevant to this discussion. We are trying to establish the teaching of scripture. However, I most certainly am not devious - a suggestion which I find offensive.


Hagar

I do know what the Targums are. They are most definitely NOT scripture. The definition of a Targum is an "Aramaic paraphrase, or interpretive translation, of some parts of the Old Testament". While the Targum Onkelos generally keeps fairly close to the original, (but obviously not that close when you compare it to the Hebrew text in this particular instance), the Targum Jonathan is much more interpretive. The passages you quote from the Targums contradict not only the MT but also the Septuagint (LXX). So are you claiming that the Targums take priority over the MT and LXX???? Do you believe they are divinely inspired?? Correct me if I am wrong, but I could only surmise that your reason for quoting them was to avoid the clear statement of scripture. If I am mistaken, please explain the purpose of introducing them to the discussion. I am stating what I believe to be the truth. I am not presuming to lecture you, but I do know what I am talking about. In this case, I believe you are mistaken.

You have however raised a valid point which is that the Angel, speaking as Yahweh, appears to refer to Yahweh in the third person. You said:

"Note the AotL refers to YHWH in the second person. He does NOT say, "I have given heed to your affliction. The AotL clearly makes a distinction between himself and YHWH."

Although you say second person, I assume you mean third. However, if this is making a distinction between the speaker and Yahweh, how do you interpret the following scriptures?

Ex 23:23-33

23 "When my angel goes before you, and brings you in to the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I blot them out,
24 you shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces.
25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.
26 ....... I will fulfil the number of your days.
27 I will send my terror before ..... and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.
28 And I will send hornets ....
29 I will not drive them out ..................
30 Little by little I will drive them out .............
31 And I will set your bounds ..................... I will deliver the inhabitants of the ...
32 You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.
33 .......... lest they make you sin against me...................

It is clear that the speaker here is Yahweh eg it is MY angel, I will blot them out, I will take sickness away etc, yet Yahweh refers to Yahweh your God in verse 25. Are you suggesting that God is talking about another Yahweh????

Ex 34:10

"And he said, "Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD; for it is a terrible thing that I will do with you."

As far as I can see, the speaker is Yahweh (who has just proclaimed his name) - Yahweh is the I in this verse, yet he speaks of Yahweh in the third person. How many Yahwehs do you have? In my Bible there is only one. He may refer to himself in the third person, but that is just the way he speaks. Or do you see some significance in it?

Although you are continuing to try and avoid what the scripture says, I believe my conclusion still stands. The scriptures say that Yahweh spoke to Hagar, Hagar recognised that Yahweh spoke to her, the being is called Yahweh - and it was an angel (no doubt with God's name in him).

You said:

"You have manufactured a lengthy period of time to make your presuppositions more plausible. "

I have no idea what this means.

You said:

"The passage clearly identifies the speaker as YHWH."

I totally agree. It also identifies the speaker as the Angel of the Lord. There is nothing in the scripture to suggest that the Angel was relaying the words of Yahweh in the sense of "Thus saith the Lord" - the Angel spoke AS Yahweh.


Exodus 23

You said:

The AotL may have, even that is not clear, been given authority to do one thing, forgive sins, but the angel was NEVER called YHWH

At last some progress! You can see the possibility that the significance of the Name being in the Angel, gave it the authority to forgive sins. I will push it no further. But you go on to say:

The Aotl had the delegated authority of God in the same way Moses and David had the delegated authority of God.

But God nowhere (to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected) says that God's Name was in either of them, nor that they had the authority to forgive sins. It was something special. Lots of people had God's name in their name eg Jeremiah, Isaiah and places included God's name, eg Jehovah Jireh. But you are not seriously suggesting that this is the same as the Angel having God's name in him?

You said:

"And where do you get the word "dwelt?" Ex 23 does NOT say the name "dwelt" in the AotL."

Fair cop. You are correct. I misquoted. I do not believe that the Name dwelt in the Angel either.


The angel at the bush

You said:
"In every case something or someone was sent "by the hand" of a third person, not the audience or the speaker. So what is your point?"

The point is that the "third person" in this case is stated. It was an angel. But it doesnt state that the people were to FOLLOW the angel. It says that the people were SENT by the angel. I think I have demonstrated that the phrase "by the hand of" means that God did not do it himself - he delegated it to the angel. So I ask you yet again. How did the angel SEND Moses, without speaking to him????

The record states that it was an angel that appeared in the bush (Ex 3:2) - yet the record also says that Moses hid his face for he was afraid to look at God. (Ex 3:6). It seems fairly clear that Yahweh appeared in the form of an angel, who was called God in the scriptures, and spoke as God.


Acts 7:38

I asked a simple question: "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" - to which event does it refer when it says: the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina???

You answered:
"Irrelevant. Jesus said God spoke to Moses, is that NOT good enough for you? Why is it so important for you to prove that the AotL spoke as YHWH? Is it possible that Acts refers to some incident which is not recorded in scripture but was orally passed down? The Bible is NOT a complete history of the people of God. The AotL may have spoken after Ex 23, it is implied but not stated in the text."

I dont see how this is irrelevant. It relates to how God communicated with people in Old Testament times. Stephen was relating to Jews how God had dealt with the Jewish people, in a brief summary and you are suggesting he quoted from a non-canonical writing??

I would suggest that it could mean:

a) the angel that spoke at the bush (saying I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob) or,
b) the angel that gave Moses the law on Mount Sinai. (This is supported by Hebrews 2:2 - "the message spoken by angels")

Either way it is an angel identified as God or Yahweh.

I think there is a whole lot about angels in the OT that is not appreciated.


However, the reason we are in this discussion is because you challenged me for saying that the angel of the Lord spoke to Moses out of the bush. I believe I have demonstrated that proposition.

I was also discussing with Mitbulls that the Angel of the Lord was not (in my opinion), a pre-birth appearance of Jesus Christ. If you do not believe that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus Christ, there is not much point in developing this theme further (although it is very interesting). Can you inform me what your view on the Angel of the Lord is, so that I know how to proceed.

Thanks.

PS Have just seen the posts above about the Zohar. The Caballa is a mystical speculative scheme, not based on scripture alone, involving all sorts of angels names and rituals. It is probably the nearest Jewish equivalent of New Age thinking. To quote it as representing Jewish Biblical thought is misleading. The full article in the Jewish Encyclopedia makes it clear that it does not come within the bounds of Jewish Biblical interpretation. Quoting from it to support our case is like quoting the Watchtower for an orthodox view of the Trinity.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224593#post224593)
elpis:

Hagar

I do know what the Targums are. They are most definitely NOT scripture. The definition of a Targum is an “;Aramaic paraphrase, or interpretive translation, of some parts of the Old Testament”
Jewish Encyclopedia-Targum-Name.
The Aramaic translation of the Bible. It forms a part of the Jewish traditional literature, and in its inception is as early as the time of the Second Temple. The verb תרגם, from which the noun תרגום is formed, is used in Ezra iv. 7 in reference to a document written in Aramaic, although "Aramit" (A. V. "in the Syrian tongue") is added. In mishnaic phraseology the verb denotes a translation from Hebrew into any other language, as into Greek (see Yer. khid. 59a, line 10, and Yer. Meg. 71c, line 11; both statements referring to the Greek version of Aquila); and the noun likewise may refer to the translation of the Biblical text into any language (see Meg. ii. 1; Shab. 115a). The use of the term "Targum" by itself was restricted to the Aramaic version of the Bible (see Bacher, "Die Terminologie der Tannaiten," pp. 205 et seq.). In like manner, the Aramaic passages in Genesis, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra were briefly called "Targum," while the Hebrew text was called "Mikhra" (see Yad. iv. 5; Shab. 115b).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=T

The passages you quote from the Targums contradict not only the MT but also the Septuagint (LXX). So are you claiming that the Targums take priority over the MT and LXX???? Do you believe they are divinely inspired?? Correct me if I am wrong, but I could only surmise that your reason for quoting them was to avoid the clear statement of scripture. If I am mistaken, please explain the purpose of introducing them to the discussion. I am stating what I believe to be the truth. I am not presuming to lecture you, but I do know what I am talking about. In this case, I believe you are mistaken.

See above response. Despite your thinly veiled accusation, NO my reason for quoting the Targum was NOT “to avoid the clear statement of scripture.” But to show, your interpretation is not the only valid one. The ancient Jews who spoke and read Hebrew did not understand those passages as you do.

Although you say second person, I assume you mean third. However, if this is making a distinction between the speaker and Yahweh, how do you interpret the following scriptures?

Ex 23:23-33

23 When my angel goes before you, and brings you in to the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I blot them out,
24 you shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces.
25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.
26 ....... I will fulfil the number of your days.
27 I will send my terror before ..... and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.
28 And I will send hornets ....
29 I will not drive them out ..................
30 Little by little I will drive them out .............
31 And I will set your bounds ..................... I will deliver the inhabitants of the ...
32 You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.
33 .......... lest they make you sin against me...................

It is clear that the speaker here is Yahweh eg it is MY angel, I will blot them out, I will take sickness away etc, yet Yahweh refers to Yahweh your God in verse 25. Are you suggesting that God is talking about another Yahweh????

Maybe you can help me out here. Where in that entire discourse does God ever say my angel will do this or that? As I understand it the angel’s job was to lead the people to a certain place, where the Amorites, etc. were. I wonder can God do any of those things, without any help from an angel? Can God merely speak from heaven and drive out, break, bless, take sickness away, send, set bounds, etc.? My God can, evidently yours cannot. The angel's job was to lead, Moses job was to follow, not debate Theology with the angel.

Ex 34:10

And he said, Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD; for it is a terrible thing that I will do with you.

As far as I can see, the speaker is Yahweh (who has just proclaimed his name) - Yahweh is the I in this verse, yet he speaks of Yahweh in the third person. How many Yahwehs do you have? In my Bible there is only one. He may refer to himself in the third person, but that is just the way he speaks. Or do you see some significance in it?

Read your post again God does NOT refer to himself in the third person, He refers to His work in the third person. But there are verses in the OT where YHWH does refer to another YHWH. In Genesis, after Lot is sent out of Sodom, YHWH sends down fire out of heaven from YHWH. In Isaiah 48, YHWH and His spirit send YHWH.

Although you are continuing to try and avoid what the scripture says, I believe my conclusion still stands. The scriptures say that Yahweh spoke to Hagar, Hagar recognised that Yahweh spoke to her, the being is called Yahweh - and it was an angel (no doubt with God's name in him).

I am not trying to avoid what the scriptures say. I am showing you that your interpretation, based on certain presuppositions, is not the only valid interpretation. And my interpretation does not require smoke and mirrors to avoid contradicting the passages in Isaiah. God said He would NOT give His name or His glory to another. And OBTW one definition of the Hebrew שם/shame, “name’, is glory.

You said:

You have manufactured a lengthy period of time to make your presuppositions more plausible.

I have no idea what this means.

I clipped too much of your post. This refers to Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. It is clear God, not the angel, is speaking. The angel refers to God twice in the third person, vss. 12 and 16. You manufacture some lengthy period between vss. 14 and 15 to make it appear that it is two different incidents.
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
At last some progress! You can see the possibility that the significance of the Name being in the Angel, gave it the authority to forgive sins. I will push it no further. But you go on to say:

The Aotl had the delegated authority of God in the same way Moses and David had the delegated authority of God.

But God nowhere (to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected) says that God's Name was in either of them, nor that they had the authority to forgive sins. It was something special. Lots of people had God's name in their name eg Jeremiah, Isaiah and places included God's name, eg Jehovah Jireh. But you are not seriously suggesting that this is the same as the Angel having God's name in him?

This is all irrelevant. Without any scriptural proof, only your presuppositions, that when God said “my name is in him,” it had any more significance than God saying Jerusalem, the temple, and Israel were called by His name. I did NOT say God's name being in the angel conferred the authority.

The angel at the bush

You said:
In every case something or someone was sent by the hand of a third person, not the audience or the speaker. So what is your point?

The point is that the third person in this case is stated. It was an angel. But it doesnt state that the people were to FOLLOW the angel. It says that the people were SENT by the angel. I think I have demonstrated that the phrase by the hand of means that God did not do it himself - he delegated it to the angel. So I ask you yet again. How did the angel SEND Moses, without speaking to him????

Acts 7:35 does NOT say the people were sent by the angel. Here from your previous post, “Acts 7:35 “This Moses ......... God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.” How in the world do you get “the angel sent” from the words which you posted yourself, “GOD SENT? The angel did NOT send.

The record states that it was an angel that appeared in the bush (Ex 3:2) - yet the record also says that Moses hid his face for he was afraid to look at God. (Ex 3:6). It seems fairly clear that Yahweh appeared in the form of an angel, who was called God in the scriptures, and spoke as God.

Moses heard the voice of אלהים/elohim, from inside the bush, and he could see an angel, also often called אלהים/elohim, outside the bush. Jesus said God spoke from IN the bush. Moses hid his face from אלהים/elohim. Was he hiding his face from God, the angel, or both?

Acts 7:38

I asked a simple question: “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” - to which event does it refer when it says: the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina???

You answered:

“Irrelevant. Jesus said God spoke to Moses, is that NOT good enough for you? Why is it so important for you to prove that the AotL spoke as YHWH? Is it possible that Acts refers to some incident which is not recorded in scripture but was orally passed down? The Bible is NOT a complete history of the people of God. The AotL may have spoken after Ex 23, it is implied but not stated in the text.”;

I dont see how this is irrelevant. It relates to how God communicated with people in Old Testament times. Stephen was relating to Jews how God had dealt with the Jewish people, in a brief summary and you are suggesting he quoted from a non-canonical writing??

Did Paul twice quote from non-canonical writing, Act 17:28, Tts 1:12? Did Jude, also speaking of the history of Israel, quote once from non-canonical writing, 1:14? Why is it so hard to accept that Stephen, who was not carrying a scroll in his pocket, therefore NOT reading from Scripture, but speaking extemporaneously, would refer to non-canonical writing or oral tradition?

I would suggest that it could mean:

Either way it is an angel identified as God or Yahweh.

I think there is a whole lot about angels in the OT that is not appreciated.

I have harmonized these passages without contradicting scripture. You cannot say the same. I wonder when we get to hear about Metatron?

[PS Have just seen the posts above about the Zohar. The Caballa is a mystical speculative scheme, not based on scripture alone, involving all sorts of angels names and rituals. It is probably the nearest Jewish equivalent of New Age thinking. To quote it as representing Jewish Biblical thought is misleading. The full article in the Jewish Encyclopedia makes it clear that it does not come within the bounds of Jewish Biblical interpretation. Quoting from it to support our case is like quoting the Watchtower for an orthodox view of the Trinity.

My previous quote was from the Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) article on the Trinity. Did you, by any chance, read the Zohar article, in the JE? I quote briefly from it below?

”To quote it as representing Jewish Biblical thought is misleading.” How is that? If I were trying to mislead anyone, I would not have posted a link to the complete article. The fact that much of orthodox Judaism rejected the Zohar’s references to a Trinity within God, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not a big selling point. Remember these same orthodox folk also rejected Jesus as the Messiah, they called him a ממזר/mamzer, i.e. a bastard, called Mary a prostitute, and said that even the best of gentiles is worthy of death. Click on the link and using the alphabet search buttons, at the top of the window, find the articles on Jesus and Gentiles.
Jewish Encyclopedia-Zohar-Authenticity.
The general opinion, however, was in favor of its authenticity, this view being held not only by the cabalists, for whom the book opened new paths in the field of mysticism, but also by eminent Talmudists * * *

However, the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Khasidim, who, under its influence, assign the first place in religion not to dogma and ritual, but to the sentiment and the emotion of faith.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z

[elpis]

Targums

If you read the rest of the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, you will see that they are more than a translation. They are as you rightly say, a way of knowing how the passages were understood by some, because they are interpretation. They are not scripture. The article you quoted goes on to say they are interpretations. I asked you if you believed they were divinely inspired. You didn't answer. I suspect the answer is no. As I pointed out the Targums you quoted include words that are not in the original text - they are interpretations (based on a translation, no doubt). I doubt if you feel the need to look up a Targum for the interpretation of the Old Testament. I suspect there are lots of places where the Jews dont understand scripture the way you do, but I doubt if quoting their opinion would change your mind either.

Exodus 23


“ Although you say second person, I assume you mean third. However, if this is making a distinction between the speaker and Yahweh, how do you interpret the following scriptures?

Ex 23:23-33

23 When my angel goes before you, and brings you in to the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I blot them out,
24 you shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces.
25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.
26 ....... I will fulfil the number of your days.
27 I will send my terror before ..... and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you.
28 And I will send hornets ....
29 I will not drive them out ..................
30 Little by little I will drive them out .............
31 And I will set your bounds ..................... I will deliver the inhabitants of the ...
32 You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods.
33 .......... lest they make you sin against me...................

It is clear that the speaker here is Yahweh eg it is MY angel, I will blot them out, I will take sickness away etc, yet Yahweh refers to Yahweh your God in verse 25. Are you suggesting that God is talking about another Yahweh???? ”


You replied:
"Maybe you can help me out there. Where in that entire discourse does God ever say my angel will do this or that? As I understand it the angel’s job was to lead the people to a certain place, where the Amorites, etc. were. I wonder can God do any of those things, without any help from an angel? Can God merely speak from heaven and drive out, break, bless, take sickness away, send, set bounds, etc.? My God can, evidently yours cannot. The angel's job was to lead, Moses job was to follow, not debate Theology with the angel."


Yet again you have completely misunderstood my point. I have highlighted the words which explain the quotation. The quote is an example of where Yahweh refers to himself in the third person. It has nothing to with the ministry of angels. Yahweh says: You shall worship Yahweh your God. He doesnt say, you shall worhip ME (1st person), which is what you are requiring. He says: You shall worship Yahweh ie himself, referred to in the third person. Your argument as I understand it, is that if God is speaking of himself in the third person, it cant be him speaking. But these examples show that it is.

Exodus 34:10

"And he said, Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD; for it is a terrible thing that I will do with you.

As far as I can see, the speaker is Yahweh (who has just proclaimed his name) - Yahweh is the I in this verse, yet he speaks of Yahweh in the third person. How many Yahwehs do you have? In my Bible there is only one. He may refer to himself in the third person, but that is just the way he speaks. Or do you see some significance in it?

You said:

Read your post again God does NOT refer to himself in the third person, He refers to His work in the third person.


God does not say MY work (first person), but the work of Yahweh (third person). He refers to himself as Yahweh, not in the first person.


You said:

"And OBTW one definition of the Hebrew shame, “name’, is glory."

In the Isaiah passages you quoted, the words for name is shem. The word for glory is kvod. They are different words, though I accept that there is a relationship.

However, I wonder if you are reading too much into the Isaiah passage. How do you account for the fact that Jesus gave the glory that God gave him, to his disciples (John 17:22 - The glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them that they may be one even as we are one). Was this God's glory, or some other glory?


Gen 22

You said:
"The angel refers to God twice in the third person, vss. 12 and 16. You manufacture some lengthy period between vss. 14 and 15 to make it appear that it is two different incidents."

That there were events between the first incident and the second, is something that the scriptures say, not me. I have already stated what these events were. The period is between vv 12 and 15, not between vv 14 and 15. The scriptures itself says it was "a second time".
Also, we have seen that Yahweh refers to himself in the third person, even when they are his own words.

The Angel with God's name in him

You said:
"This is all irrelevant. Without any scriptural proof, only your presuppositions, that when God said “my name is in him,” it had any more significance than God saying Jerusalem, the temple, and Israel were called by His name. I did NOT say God's name being in the angel conferred the authority."

However, it is the Bible that says there was some special significance in the angel having God's name in him. It is stated as a justification why the Angel should not be rebelled against, because it had the power to pardon or not pardon transgressions. Clearly it was having God's name in him that gave him the authority. However, again we are getting caught up in a sideline. You accept the possibility that God may have delegated his authority to an angel, and that was all I was trying to demonstrate.


The angel at the bush

You said:
"Acts 7:35 does NOT say the people were sent by the angel. Here from your previous post, “Acts 7:35 “This Moses ......... God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.” How in the world do you get “the angel sent” from the words which you posted yourself, “GOD SENT? The angel did NOT send."

Earlier on I said:

"I dont know if you have really read my posts or not. In fact I did not say that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush. I said:

"Stephen in his speech before his stoning was clear that it was an angel that appeared in the burning bush to Moses (Acts 7:30,31), "

However, I DO believe that the angel spoke to Moses at the bush...."

Whether the angel spoke or not, was and is not relevant to my overall argument. So for the sake of peace, I will accept that this particular scripture does not specifically state that the angel spoke. I believe however, that it inherent in the comments in Acts and Hebrews. While it is possible that Stephen is quoting from a non-Biblical source, it seems highly unlikely, being that this was the most important event in the history of Israel. The comment in Hebrews is a pure statement on fact - it was angels that spoke the message (the Law, as shown by context).


The ministry of angels as I have said in my last post, is not relevant to the subject of the trinity, if you are not making a case for the Angel of the Lord being a pre-birth appearance of Jesus Christ. I asked you for your view of this, but you have not answered. Can I ask you again please, to clarify your position on this.

Zohar

You accept that "much of orthodox Judaism rejected the Zohar’s references to a Trinity within God, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Good. As I said before, it would be like quoting a sectarian publication to determine what orthodoxy was about.

However your source also says:

"As far as is known, the Vedanta school of the Hindu philosophers found nowhere, outside of its place of origin, so many admirers as in Persia in the eighth century. Under its influence the Mohammedans of Persia founded many mystic sects, among them being that of the Sufis, who for many centuries were very numerous. This mystic movement did not fail to exercise an influence upon the Persian Jews, and there arose among them various sects, such as the 'Isawites, the Yudghanites, etc., the tenets of which, so far as can be ascertained from the scanty information concerning them that is available, bore more or less the stamp of the Vedanta philosophy. Thus the Yudghanites abstained from meat, led ascetic lives, set aside the literal meaning of the Torah for a supposed mystic interpretation, and believed in metempsychosis, etc. All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar, which is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch, as the upanishads are the mystic interpretation of the Vedas and other Brahmanic scriptures. In its peregrinations from Persia to Spain the Zohar probably received many additions and interpolations, among which may have been the various names of the Tannaim and Amoraim, as well as the allusions to historical events."


In other words, they adopted ideas from pagan religions. So now we know where their trinity came from - not from the Bible. But it just shows that trinitarians will quote any source however irrelevant in an attempt to prove their unscriptural theory. I would suggest we stick to the Bible.


Thanks.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225158#post225158)
elpis:

Thus the Yudghanites [Who?] abstained from meat, led ascetic lives, set aside the literal meaning of the Torah for a supposed mystic interpretation, and believed in metempsychosis, etc. All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar, which is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch, as the upanishads are the mystic interpretation of the Vedas and other Brahmanic scriptures. In its peregrinations from Persia to Spain the Zohar probably received many additions and interpolations, among which may have been the various names of the Tannaim and Amoraim, as well as the allusions to historical events."

In other words, they adopted ideas from pagan religions. So now we know where their trinity came from - not from the Bible. But it just shows that trinitarians will quote any source however irrelevant in an attempt to prove their unscriptural theory. I would suggest we stick to the Bible.
Thanks.

And Christadelphians will distort and twist any source they can to push their 19th century blasphemy. Where does the JE say the Zohar definitely adopted ideas from pagan religions? I see speculation, "probably, may have been" But you have NOT proved that the Trinity was copied from any source. There was NO Trinity in any religion, except Judaism, which could have influenced early Christianity. NONE!

[elpis]

So where did they get metempsychosis from??? And didnt the Hindus have a trinity??? The Cabala is not based on the Bible. It cannot give any valid understadning of the God of the Bible. It is based on metaphysical speculation

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225322#post225322)
[elpis:

So where did they get metempsychosis from??? And didnt the Hindus have a trinity??? The Cabala is not based on the Bible. It cannot give any valid understadning of the God of the Bible. It is based on metaphysical speculation

The “Yudghanites,” whoever they were, believed in metempsychosis, whatever that is. Who were the Yudghanites, where and when did they flourish and as a minor virtually unknown sect, what do they have to do with anything? Are you asking me or telling me that Hindus had a Trinity? If you think there is one then back it up.
JE-Zohar

]Thus the Yudghanites abstained from meat, led ascetic lives, set aside the literal meaning of the Torah for a supposed mystic interpretation, and believed in metempsychosis, etc.
[size=3]“Metaphysical speculation?” I don’t see that in either JE article, Trinity or Zohar. Where exactly are you reading this?

However, I wonder if you are reading too much into the Isaiah passage. How do you account for the fact that Jesus gave the glory that God gave him, to his disciples (John 17:22 - The glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them that they may be one even as we are one). Was this God's glory, or some other glory?

Well one option is to actually read that verse, in context, and derive the correct meaning. In vs. 17:5, Jesus is praying for a certain glory that He alone shared with the Father, before the world was. We cannot share that particular glory, because we did not exist, before time, with the Father. But in vs. 22, in the same prayer, Jesus said he had already given His disciples glory, that the Father had previously given Him. So it was a different glory that Jesus gave His disciples.

Justin Martyr, 110-155 AD, has a very interesting interpretation of Isaiah 42:8, Vss. 1-7 describe the Messiah, the faithful servant, then vs. eight, God says He will not give His name to another.
Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew

I am the Lord God; this is my name: my glory will I not give to another, nor my virtues to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass; new things which I announce, and before they are announced they are made manifest to you. Sing unto the Lord a new song: His sovereignty from the end of the earth. [Sing], ye who descend into the sea, and continually sail [on it]; ye islands, and inhabitants thereof. Rejoice, O wilderness, and the villages thereof, and the houses; and the inhabitants of Cedar shall rejoice, and the inhabitants of the rock shall cry aloud from the top of the mountains: they shall give glory to God; they shall publish His virtues among the islands. The Lord God of hosts shall go forth, He shall destroy war utterly, He shall stir up zeal, and He shall cry aloud to the enemies with strength.' " And when I repeated this, I said to them, "Have you perceived, my friends, that [I]God says He will give Him whom He has established as a light of the Gentiles, glory, and to no other; and not, as Trypho said, that God was retaining the glory to Himself?"

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4623_980539

Targums

If you read the rest of the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, you will see that they are more than a translation. They are as you rightly say, a way of knowing how the passages were understood by some, because they are interpretation. They are not scripture. The article you quoted goes on to say they are interpretations. I asked you if you believed they were divinely inspired. You didn't answer. I suspect the answer is no. As I pointed out the Targums you quoted include words that are not in the original text - they are interpretations (based on a translation, no doubt). I doubt if you feel the need to look up a Targum for the interpretation of the Old Testament. I suspect there are lots of places where the Jews dont understand scripture the way you do, but I doubt if quoting their opinion would change your mind either.

”because they are interpretation.. . . The article you quoted goes on to say they are interpretations.” A deliberately false statement. Here is what the article actually says.
[font=times new roman]The Palestinian Targum contains haggadic sayings added by those who led in prayer and who also read the Targum, insisting that these sayings be recited in the synagogue as interpretations of the text of the Bible."
The JE article does NOT say the Targums are interpretations but that one of the several Targums has some interpretations in it.

Zohar

You accept that "much of orthodox Judaism rejected the Zohar’s references to a Trinity within God, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Good.

A misrepresentation of what I actually said, quoted below. What I said had a context that you ignored. I could also say that much of Judaism does accept Jesus as the Messiah and believe in the Trinity. You said, "Good." Is it also good that those same Jews who reject the Trinity teachings of the Zohar, also call Jesus illegitimate, Mary a prostitute, and say that all gentiles, including you, are worthy of death? That is what you were saying good to, not just that one clause taken out-of-context.
The fact that much of orthodox Judaism rejected the Zohar’s references to a Trinity within God, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not a big selling point. Remember these same orthodox folk also rejected Jesus as the Messiah, they called him a ממזר/mamzer, i.e. a bastard, called Mary a prostitute, and said that even the best of gentiles is worthy of death.

[elpis]

To keep the discussion focussed and avoid long unnecessary posts, can you please clarify your view on the following (some of which I have already asked but you have not answered):

a) Do you believe the Targums are inspired and of equal authority to the Hebrew texts from which our Bible is translated?

b) Do you agree that Yahweh refers to himself in the third person at Ex 23:23-33 and at Ex 34:10? If not, why not.

c) What is the purpose of trinitarians in quoting from the Zohar, and what authority does it hold?

d) What is your view of the Angel of the Lord? Do you believe it was a pre-birth appearance of Jesus Christ?

I look forward to your response.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 09:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226376#post226376)
elpis:

To keep the discussion focussed and avoid long unnecessary posts, can you please clarify your view on the following (some of which I have already asked but you have not answered):

a) Do you believe the Targums are inspired and of equal authority to the Hebrew texts from which our Bible is translated?

Oh goody. I just love these irrelevant questions.

"Are the Targums inspired or equal authority," etc. blah, blah, blah. No they are not, but before you start patting yourself on the back thinking you have proved something. Neither are the Hebrew and Greek language resources, e.g. BAGD, TWOT, BDB, TDNT, or the writings of the early church fathers (ECF). But they are tools which help us understand the scriptures. In much the same manner as the ECF, the Targums give us a picture how the ancient Jews understood their scriptures and put them into practice. IOW they give us the perspective of their era. Satisfied?

b) Do you agree that Yahweh refers to himself in the third person at Ex 23:23-33 and at Ex 34:10? If not, why not.

I'm sorry did you NOT read my post where I answered this? What exactly is your point? Are you going to take one or two isolated out-of-context passages to try to prove your name bearing angel theory?

In Ex 23:25 YHWH does appear to refer to Himself in the third person. But it is absolutely clear that YHWH is speaking, and not an angel. What is your point? As I already said in Ex 34:10 God does NOT refer to Himself but to His works in the 3rd person. Again what is your point?
Ex 23:25 And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.

Ex 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
c) What is the purpose of trinitarians in quoting from the Zohar, and what authority does it hold?

I'm not plural and I don't have a mouse in my pocket. Do you mean why did I quote the Zohar? See my first answer above.

d) What is your view of the Angel of the Lord? Do you believe it was a pre-birth appearance of Jesus Christ?

No. What is your view of the AotL? Who or what do you think it was? I know that CD's do not believe in the preexistence of Christ. And I think the point of all these asinine questions is to establish that something or someone, beside God, was called YHWH in the OT.

Having done this, so you think, in the several instances in the NT where Jesus either refers to Himself or is called God, e.g. Thomas, you can point to the so-called "name bearing angel" (NBA) passages and argue that Jesus in the NT merely has God's name in Him, much like the NBA. "But it does not mean that He is God."

[Mitbulls]

No. What is your view of the AotL? Who or what do you think it was? I know that CD's do not believe in the preexistence of Christ. And I think the point of all these asinine questions is to establish that something or someone, beside God, was called YHWH in the OT.

Having done this, so you think, in the several instances in the NT where Jesus either refers to Himself or is called God, e.g. Thomas, you can point to the so-called "name bearing angel" (NBA) passages and argue that Jesus in the NT merely has God's name in Him, much like the NBA. "But it does not mean that He is God."

Actually, OS , I think you've misunderstood Eplis' intentions here. This discussion came up because I brought it up. I personally DO believe that The Angel of the Lord was a pre-birth appearance of Jesus (technically, the "Second Person of the Holy Trinity"). Eplis was simply stating that, though it does appear that The Angel took Yahweh's name on several occasions that does not make him a part of the trinity. This is where you came in to start with. Eplis is not using this to say that Jesus was not God, but simply refuting this as a part of the case (albeit a very small part) for Jesus divinity.

I have kept out of this debate so far to avoid confusion (i.e. you and I both arguing with Eplis in favor of trinitarianism, Eplis and I both arguing with you for The Angel of the Lord taking God's name, etc.), and Eplis is making his own case for stating that The Angel of the Lord took God's name, but he is not the one who originally proposed it, nor is it meant to be in favor of non-trinitarianism.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=228461#post228461)
Mitbulls:

Actually, OS , I think you've misunderstood Eplis' intentions here. This discussion came up because I brought it up. I personally DO believe that The Angel of the Lord was a pre-birth appearance of Jesus (technically, the "Second Person of the Holy Trinity"). Eplis was simply stating that, though it does appear that The Angel took Yahweh's name on several occasions that does not make him a part of the trinity. This is where you came in to start with. Eplis is not using this to say that Jesus was not God, but simply refuting this as a part of the case (albeit a very small part) for Jesus divinity.

I have kept out of this debate so far to avoid confusion (i.e. you and I both arguing with Eplis in favor of trinitarianism, Eplis and I both arguing with you for The Angel of the Lord taking God's name, etc.), and Eplis is making his own case for stating that The Angel of the Lord took God's name, but he is not the one who originally proposed it, nor is it meant to be in favor of non-trinitarianism.

Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. See what one gets when they jump into the middle of an ongoing thread without going back and reading the previous posts. Maybe I oughta butt out now and wash the egg off.

[elpis]

Hello Mitbulls
Thanks for your post and for saving me from the wrath of OldShepherd (or do i speak too soon)??????? I look forward to your further contributions.

Hello OldShepherd:

Targums

You said:

"Oh goody. I just love these irrelevant questions. "

I didnt bring Targums into this discussion - you did. You also brought them in with no explanation as to why, or what the purpose of doing so was. I think it is relevant to ask why.

You then said they were scripture and accused me of not knowing what a Targum was. I challenged what I believe to be an incorrect statement.

As long as you agree you only introduced it to provide an alternative explanation, but are not claiming the Targums to be on the same level as scripture, that's fine.

Just for completeness, here is an extract from the New Bible Dictionary, IVF, 1965, entry "Targums".

"It means an Aramaic paraphrase, or interpretative translation, of some part of the Old Testament......Targum Onkelos is very conservative, and keeps close to the original, Targum Jonathan is much more interpretative, while 'Pseudo-Jonathan' uses the original merely as a vehicle for the popular stories that had grown up around biblical persons and events."

I wonder if you would like to think the questions are irrelevant because it identified a flaw in your attempt to support your argument.


Does Yahweh refer to himself in the third person?

You said:

"In Ex 23:25 YHWH does appear to refer to Himself in the third person. But it is absolutely clear that YHWH is speaking, and not an angel. What is your point?"

Does he or does he not refer to Himself in the third person? Please answer Yes or No. You will not answer a straight question. My point is exactly what you say "But it is absolutely clear that YHWH is speaking". The point is that there are not two Yahwehs. This is the way Yahweh speaks. I was answering your statement:

"Read your post again God does NOT refer to himself in the third person, He refers to His work in the third person. But there are verses in the OT where YHWH does refer to another YHWH. In Genesis, after Lot is sent out of Sodom, YHWH sends down fire out of heaven from YHWH. In Isaiah 48, YHWH and His spirit send YHWH."

If I am the speaker, I would refer to MY work. But Yahweh says "the work of YAHWEH".

That would be like OldShepherd saying: "I will answer OldShepherds mail." You wouldnt say that - you would say "I will answer MY mail". So the phrase reads oddly in English. However, there is no suggestion here that there are TWO Yahwehs, which is your contention with the Sodom event, and in Isaiah 48, although the language is the same. This is an attempt to derive two persons in the Godhead (both referred to as Yahweh). However, all you end up with is one trinity sending or talking to another trinity. It is clearly ludicrous. Especially as the scriptures say there is only ONE Yahweh.

I was just pointing out this construction occurs in other places where there is no suggestion of your two Yahwehs theory. That was my point. It had nothing to do with angels!

And what is out of context about the two scriptures I quoted?



Does God share his glory?

You said:

"Well one option is to actually read that verse, in context, and derive the correct meaning. In vs. 17:5, Jesus is praying for a certain glory that He alone shared with the Father, before the world was. We cannot share that particular glory, because we did not exist, before time, with the Father. But in vs. 22, in the same prayer, Jesus said he had already given His disciples glory, that the Father had previously given Him. So it was a different glory that Jesus gave His disciples."

I want to understand your argument here and it is not clear to me. To say that we cannot share that particular glory because we did not exist before time with the Father does not make sense, because Jesus goes on in verse 24 to say that he wants his disciples to behold "my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world." Now, which glory is this? If it is God's glory (that he doesnt share with anyone), how come Jesus didn't always have it, but it had to be given to him by his Father before the world was. If it refers to your secondary glory that the disciples apparently CAN receive, it contradicts your argument because they weren't there before the world was? Is it not more likely that Jesus is talking of one glory (or cant you say that)?

However you didnt really address my point which was the it was God's glory that he wouldnt share, not his name.


Zohar

You said:

"More on the Trinity in ancient pre-Christian Judaism, from the Jewish Encyclopedia"

And added a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia.

I can only assume that the reason that you did this, is to suggest that because some Jews believed in a trinity, that it could be a valid interpretation of scripture.

However, as your article says:

"The mystic allegorism is based by the Zohar on the principle that all visible things, the phenomena of nature included, have besides their exoteric reality an esoteric reality also, destined to instruct man in that which is invisible. This principle is the necessary corollary of the fundamental doctrine of the Zohar. The universe being, according to that doctrine, a gradation of emanations, it follows that the human mind may recognize in each effect the supreme mark, and thus ascend to the cause of all causes. This ascension, however, can only be made gradually, after the mind has attained four various stages of knowledge; namely: (1) the knowledge of the exterior aspect of things, or, as the Zohar calls it (ii. 36b), "the vision through the mirror that projects an indirect light"; (2) the knowledge of the essence of things, or "the vision through the mirror that projects a direct light"; (3) the knowledge through intuitive representation; and (4) the knowledge through love, since the Law reveals its secrets to those only who love it (ii. 99b).
After the knowledge through love comes the ecstatic state which is applied to the most holy visions. To enter the state of ecstasy one had to remain motionless, with the hand between the knees, absorbed in contemplation and murmuring prayers and hymns. There were seven ecstatic stages, each of which was marked by a vision of a different color. At each new stage the contemplative entered a heavenly hall ("hekal") of a different hue, until he reached the seventh, which was colorless, and the appearance of which marked both the end of his contemplation and his lapse into unconsciousness. "

And

"and on the other hand, it was to be censured because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose over-heated imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences. Its mystic mode of explaining some commandments was applied by its commentators to all religious observances, and produced a strong tendency to substitute a mystic Judaism for the rabbinical cult."

And

"and the dogma of the Trinity, which is expressed in the Zohar in the following terms: "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' ["'Ayin"]" (Zohar, iii. 288b). "




Wow - so the Ancient of Days has three heads!!!! I seem to have missed that when I last read Daniel. And the universe is a gradation of emanations, not a creation like in Genesis 1!!! And the infinite God is unknowable. And I had believed that eternal life was knowing him and his Son! I'm so glad I checked it out in the Zohar to find out what the scriptures REALLY teach.

Why would anyone quote a belief system like the above, which clearly has NO basis in scripture, as some authority as to what the scriptures teach. It is clear that these Jews had departed a long way from Biblical teaching, hence the probability that these doctrines had come from the Vedas, or the Upanishads, the scriptures of the Hindu religion which also has a trinity - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Surprising coincidence.

However, I can understand that one might want to give the impression that the trinity doctrine was believed in by Bible believing Jews, if one had a pretty feeble case based on the Bible alone and had to desperately find anything remotely like a trinity in Judaism to back it up.



The Angel of the Lord

You said:

"No. What is your view of the AotL? Who or what do you think it was? I know that CD's do not believe in the preexistence of Christ. And I think the point of all these asinine questions is to establish that something or someone, beside God, was called YHWH in the OT.
Having done this, so you think, in the several instances in the NT where Jesus either refers to Himself or is called God, e.g. Thomas, you can point to the so-called "name bearing angel" (NBA) passages and argue that Jesus in the NT merely has God's name in Him, much like the NBA. "But it does not mean that He is God."

Praise the Lord - we can drop the Angel of the Lord and move on.

However, I don't need to refer to the Angel of the Lord to understand the occurrences where Jesus is called God. I only have to refer to the words of Jesus.

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
John 10:35-36.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229943#post229943)
elpis:

Just for completeness, here is an extract from the New Bible Dictionary, IVF, 1965, entry “Targums.” * * *

I wonder if you would like to think the questions are irrelevant because it identified a flaw in your attempt to support your argument.

You have identified no flaw. And just for accuracy, here is an extract from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I think the Jews know, better than Christian theologians, what their writings are. And OBTW I posted this before, you must have overlooked it in your haste. Note particularly the final sentence.
Jewish Encyclopedia-Targum-Name.
The Aramaic translation of the Bible. It forms a part of the Jewish traditional literature, and in its inception is as early as the time of the Second Temple. The verb תרגם, from which the noun תרגום is formed, is used in Ezra iv. 7 in reference to a document written in Aramaic, although “Aramit” (A. V. “in the Syrian tongue”) is added. In mishnaic phraseology the verb denotes a translation from Hebrew into any other language, as into Greek (see Yer. khid. 59a, line 10, and Yer. Meg. 71c, line 11; both statements referring to the Greek version of Aquila); and the noun likewise may refer to the translation of the Biblical text into any language (see Meg. ii. 1; Shab. 115a). The use of the term “Targum” by itself was restricted to the Aramaic version of the Bible (see Bacher, “Die Terminologie der Tannaiten,” pp. 205 et seq.). In like manner, the Aramaic passages in Genesis, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezra were briefly called “Targum,” while the Hebrew text was called “Mikhra.” (see Yad. iv. 5; Shab. 115b).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=67&letter=T

Does Yahweh refer to himself in the third person?

OS: In Ex 23:25 YHWH does appear to refer to Himself in the third person. But it is absolutely clear that YHWH is speaking, and not an angel. What is your point?

Does he or does he not refer to Himself in the third person? Please answer Yes or No. You will not answer a straight question.

Is English Not your mother tongue? Do you NOT understand English? Most people I know from Australia, do understand English, are you an exception? Hablas Abo? Let me repeat, “In Ex 23:25 YHWH does appear to refer to himself in the third person.” What part of that do you not understand? That is a yes answer, with a qualification. Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no. See how that works? Some yes and no answers need clarification.

My point is exactly what you say “But it is absolutely clear that YHWH is speaking”. The point is that there are not two Yahwehs. This is the way Yahweh speaks. I was answering your statement:

OS: Read your post again God does NOT refer to himself in the third person, He refers to His work in the third person. But there are verses in the OT where YHWH does refer to another YHWH. In Genesis, after Lot is sent out of Sodom, YHWH sends down fire ut of heaven from YHWH. In Isaiah 48, YHWH and His spirit send YHWH.”

I was referring to one specific scripture, Ex 34:10, which you posted as proof that YHWH referred to Himself in the third person. As I said, then, and I say again, in Ex 34:10 God is referring to His work, “all the people. . . shall see the work of the LORD.” NOT directly to Himself.

However, there is no suggestion here that there are TWO Yahwehs, which is your contention with the Sodom event, and in Isaiah 48, although the language is the same. This is an attempt to derive two persons in the Godhead (both referred to as Yahweh). However, all you end up with is one trinity sending or talking to another trinity. It is clearly ludicrous. Especially as the scriptures say there is only ONE Yahweh.

I was just pointing out this construction occurs in other places where there is no suggestion of your two Yahwehs theory. That was my point. It had nothing to do with angels!

Well let’s see if the constructions are the same or if someone is grasping at straws. My vote is straws. I will replace YHWH, in the verses, with an appropriate personal pronoun and see if the scriptures make sense. In the verse you offered, as proof, Ex 23:25, “Ye shall serve me.”

Now the two verses I posted, Isa 48:16-17, “I and his spirit has sent me or “I and my spirit has sent me.”.” Gen. 19:24, “I rained brimstone and fire, from me, out of heaven.” What do you think, are the constructions close enough to justify your argument? I think your view makes these two verses absurdities.

It is not uncommon for people to refer to themself in the third person, especially when speaking to the very young. What parent has not said, to a toddler,“Come to Daddy/Mommy.,” instead of, “Come to me.” Or in a courtroom, a Judge will say, e.g., this “This court, sentences you to. . . ..” When he really means, “I sentence you. . . ,” the room, the clerk, and the bailiff had nothing to do with it.

During the Korean conflict, President Truman, of the U.S., scheduled a meeting with Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander in Korea. Military protocol called for Gen. MacArthur to land first and wait for the President, but he was fairly arrogant and circled the airfield, apparently hoping the President would land first. President Truman said, “He may despise Harry Truman, but he will not be disrespectful to the President.
Ex 23:25 And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee.

Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Ge 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;.
Does God share his glory?

OS:Well one option is to actually read that verse, in context, and derive the correct meaning. In vs. 17:5, Jesus is praying for a certain glory that He alone shared with the Father, before the world was. We cannot share that particular glory, because we did not exist, before time, with the Father. But in vs. 22, in the same prayer, Jesus said he had already given His disciples glory, that the Father had previously given Him. So it was a different glory that Jesus gave His disciples.

I want to understand your argument here and it is not clear to me. To say that we cannot share that particular glory because we did not exist before time with the Father does not make sense, because Jesus goes on in verse 24 to say that he wants his disciples to behold “my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Now, which glory is this? If it is God's glory (that he doesnt share with anyone), how come Jesus didn't always have it, but it had to be given to him by his Father before the world was. If it refers to your secondary glory that the disciples apparently CAN receive, it contradicts your argument because they weren't there before the world was? Is it not more likely that Jesus is talking of one glory (or cant you say that)?

Of course the scriptures don’t make sense, if you read your own presuppositions into them. Why should I agree with your presuppositions that contradict scripture, when the passage can be logically and reasonably interpreted without such contradiction?

”If it refers to your secondary glory that the disciples apparently CAN receive, it contradicts your argument because they weren't there before the world was?” I’m sorry this sentence is gibberish. In vs. 5 Jesus was praying that the Father restore the glory He had with the father before the world was. In vs. 22 he had already, past tense, given the disciples some glory, it evidently was not the same nature, quality, etc, glory Jesus was praying to have restored in vs. 5. Verse 24, I interpret together with vs. 5., so there is no contradiction. Also see A.T. Robertson.
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
I will (qelw). Perfect identity of his will with that of the Father in "this moment of spiritual exaltation" (Bernard), though in Gethsemane Jesus distinguishes between his human will and that of the Father (Mark 14:36). Where I am (opou eimi egw). That is heaven, to be with Jesus (Mark 12:26; Mark 13:36; Mark 14:3; Romans 8:17; 2 Timothy 2:11). That they may behold (ina qewrwsin). Another purpose clause with ina and the present active subjunctive of qewrew, "that they may keep on beholding," the endless joy of seeing Jesus "as he is" (1 John 3:2) in heaven. Before the foundation of the world (pro katabolhß kosmou). This same phrase in Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20 and six other times we have katabolh kosmou (Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 9:26; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). Here we find the same pre-incarnate consciousness of Christ seen in 17:5.
”Jesus goes on in verse 24 to say that he wants his disciples to behold “my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Now, which glory is this?” Gee I don’t know, which glory do you think it was? Since Jesus said He gave the disciples “glory,” and He is praying to have again that “glory” He shared with the father before the world was. Quite evidently there is something, “glory” maybe, the disciples have not seen that Jesus is praying one day they will see? So what do you think it is?

”If it is God's glory (that he doesnt share with anyone), how come Jesus didn't always have it, but it had to be given to him by his Father before the world was.” Now this is where real Bible study and knowledge comes in, rather than blindly posting your tired old, worn out, second hand arguments. First you are twisting the scripture. It does NOT say the glory was given to Jesus before the world was. It says, “that they [the disciples] behold my glory, for you have loved me before the foundation of the world.

”. . .how come Jesus didn't always have it” As I said this requires some knowledge of the scriptures, which you apparently do not have. Jesus existing in the form of God, equal with God, emptied himself and humbled himself, Philp 2:7-8.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Philp 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

”Is it not more likely that Jesus is talking of one glory (or cant you say that)?” "More than likely?" Why should I say that? The Bible clearly speaks of different kinds of glory, 1 Cor 15:40-43?

However you didnt really address my point which was the it was God's glory that he wouldnt share, not his name.

I certainly did address your point. Read my “one option”response, above, that you even quoted. I mentioned “glory,” four times and “name,” zero times. And the verses from Isaiah, I posted earlier, both said, “name and glory”.

Zohar
OS: “More on the Trinity in ancient pre-Christian Judaism, from the Jewish Encyclopedia”

And added a link to the Jewish Encyclopedia.

I can only assume that the reason that you did this, is to suggest that because some Jews believed in a trinity, that it could be a valid interpretation of scripture.

Assume away, while carefully ignoring and concealing the fact, that my post was in response to a post by Richbee, who mentioned a discussion, on another board, concerning the Trinity in the Zohar. That is why my post begins, “More on the Trinity in the Zohar. . . ” You certainly seem to have a reading comprehension problem, and a problem quoting me in context.

However, as your article says:

* * *This ascension, however, can only be made gradually, after the mind has attained four various stages of knowledge; namely: (1) the knowledge of the exterior aspect of things, or, as the Zohar calls it (ii. 36b), “the vision through the mirror that projects an indirect light”; (2) the knowledge of the essence of things, or “the vision through the mirror that projects a direct light”; (3) the knowledge through intuitive representation; and (4) the knowledge through love, since the Law reveals its secrets to those only who love it (ii. 99b).

Points 1 and 2, didn’t Paul write something about “now we see as through a glass [mirror] darkly?” Point 3, I don’t see anything wrong with, do we not all have some intuitive understanding of certain things? Do I really need to draw a parallel with number 4? 1 Cor 13, the same place that has the reference to a mirror, as well as other N.T. verses on love.

After the knowledge through love comes the ecstatic state which is applied to the most holy visions. To enter the state of ecstasy one had to remain motionless,* * *

And

“and on the other hand, it was to be censured because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose over-heated imaginations * * *

I have been out of the U.S. for about 5 years, but before I left one of the major topics among Christian broadcasters were two events, one in a church in Toronto, Canada, and another church in Brownsville, Fla. In these events people were manipulated, by “Christian” pastors, into altered states of consciousness, and were encouraged to become, “slain in the spirit, drunk in the spirit,” etc. Many people jumped around, yelled, rolled on the floor, some barked like dogs, others roared like lions. One member of the Brownsville choir was observed, night after night, repeatedly throwing her head violently from side to side, throughout the meetings, that went on for 2-3 or more hours, and much, much, more. All of this was supposedly based on the Bible.

IOW the Bible alone, “propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose over-heated imaginations”, etc. etc., not unlike the reactions to the Zohar. So shall we also throw out the Bible because of the excesses of a few?

And,
“and the dogma of the Trinity, which is expressed in the Zohar in the following terms: “The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [“'Ayin”]” (Zohar, iii. 288b).

Wow - so the Ancient of Days has three heads!!!! I seem to have missed that when I last read Daniel. And the universe is a gradation of emanations, not a creation like in Genesis 1!!! And the infinite God is unknowable. And I had believed that eternal life was knowing him and his Son! I'm so glad I checked it out in the Zohar to find out what the scriptures REALLY teach.

Wow! So this one sentence is the entire writing!? Wow, one or two questionable sentences and that negates the entire writing!? I’m so glad we have Elpis here to set us all straight.

”And the infinite God is unknowable. And I had believed that eternal life was knowing him and his Son!” Does this mean that mankind can/does now, have a perfect, complete knowledge of God? Are God’s way and thoughts no longer higher than man’s ways and thoughts, Isa. 55? Wow, I’m so glad that Elpis cleared that up for us.

Why would anyone quote a belief system like the above, which clearly has NO basis in scripture, as some authority as to what the scriptures teach. It is clear that these Jews had departed a long way from Biblical teaching, hence the probability that these doctrines had come from the Vedas, or the Upanishads, the scriptures of the Hindu religion which also has a trinity - Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Surprising coincidence.

Blatantly false statement, dare I say the “L” word? You have a major comprehension problem and a fanatical tendency to misquote and quote out-of-context. Evidently your position is so weak the only way you can present it is to misquote, misstate, and misrepresent what ever is posted in opposition to you. Keep it up, I am not the one who looks a fool.

Please do show me in the Jewish Encyclopedia where the Cabal-Zohar Trinity was, or even might have been, copied from the Vedas, Upanishads, etc? Here is the link, prove away, let’s see if there is a retraction when you cannot back up this false statement. And I have explained twice now why I quoted what I did.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z


However, I can understand that one might want to give the impression that the trinity doctrine was believed in by Bible believing Jews, if one had a pretty feeble case based on the Bible alone and had to desperately find anything remotely like a trinity in Judaism to back it up.

And I can understand how followers of false, 19th century, anti-Trinitarianism, might, as you have done, desperately manipulate and manufacture facts to insinuate that Christianity copied the Trinity from paganism, because their attempts to refute the Trinity are so feeble otherwise.

I already stated there was NO Trinity in any pagan religion that could have influenced Christianity. NONE! And I would like to see you even try to foist some more Indian, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva nonsense on us.

”remotely like a Trinity in Judaism” My primary purpose in posting the JE article, which I stated previously, the Trinity was NOT copied from any pagan religion, because NONE of the cultures which could have influenced early Christianity had a Trinity. The ONLY Trinity, outside of Christianity, was in ancient pre-Christian Judaism and that Trinity, like the Christian Trinity, consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. NOT, as you said, “remotely like a Trinity.”

The Angel of the Lord
However, I don't need to refer to the Angel of the Lord to understand the occurrences where Jesus is called God. I only have to refer to the words of Jesus.

“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”John 10:35-36.

What exactly, is this supposed to explain, that Jesus was NOT making a claim to be God? Jesus, here, did NOT deny that He was making such a claim, but was pointing out how the Pharisees were hypocritical, using their own Rabbinical exegesis against them. But further than that, there is a clear distinction between the first “gods” and the second “God.” The first occurrence does not have the definite article, thus is NOT the same as the second occurrence which does have the definite article. Whenever the orthodox Jews said, “The God” they were speaking of יהוה.
John 10:35 ei ekeinouV eipen qeouV proV ouV o logoV tou qeou egeneto, kai ou dunatai luqhnai h grafh,

John Gill Exposition of the Whole Bible
and the Scripture cannot be broken; or be made null and void; whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or objecting to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud {y}; when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point of debate, another says, Krpyml akya, "it may be broken"; or objected to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture cannot be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation of that.

{y} T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 4. 1. & Becorot, fol. 32. 1. & passim.

http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/gill/john10.htm

[elpis]

Hello OldShepherd

Targums

I cant see any point in going any further with this. You accept that the Targums are not inspired. I agree that there can be some value in seeing how others interpreted scripture. However, they dont change what the text of scripture says. Readers will have to evaluate for themselves the importance they give to these references.

Are there two Yahwehs?

You said:
"It is not uncommon for people to refer to themself in the third person, especially when speaking to the very young."

That is precisely my point. It does not mean they are talking about a second version of themselves.

Let me put two scriptures side by side and see what you make of them:

Ex 23:35: Yahweh said:..... You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

Gen 19: 24: Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

In the first case Yahweh says you shall worship Yahweh - but (I think) you say it doesnt refer to a second Yahweh, it is just the way Yahweh speaks. I agree.

In the second case, Yahweh rains fire from Yahweh - But in this case you are absolutely sure that the second Yahweh is a different person to the first. (Even though it contradicts scripture that there is only one Yahweh). These two interpretations do not appear to be consistent. I would suggest your interpretation of Gen 19:24 comes from you "presupposition" of a trinity, rather than from the text.


God's glory

"First you are twisting the scripture. It does NOT say the glory was given to Jesus before the world was."

I was quoting John 17:24 RSV

"Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world."

Is this twisting scripture?

You said:

”Jesus goes on in verse 24 to say that he wants his disciples to behold “my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Now, which glory is this?” Gee I don’t know, which glory do you think it was? Since Jesus said He gave the disciples “glory,” and He is praying to have again that “glory” He shared with the father before the world was. Quite evidently there is something, “glory” maybe, the disciples have not seen that Jesus is praying one day they will see? So what do you think it is?

I'm afraid I still dont know what your argument is. Can you answer a straight question. Is the glory referred to by Jesus in John 14:5, the same glory that Jesus is referring to in v24. A yes or no will do.

Personal attacks

You said:

"As I said this requires some knowledge of the scriptures, which you apparently do not have."

I suggest we restrict the discussion to scripture rather than personal attacks. It doesnt enhance your argument.

Zohar

Your support for the Zohar, and excursus on the Toronto blessing may be interesting but doesnt really address the issue.

You said:

"Please do show me in the Jewish Encyclopedia where the Cabal-Zohar Trinity was, or even might have been, copied from the Vedas, Upanishads, etc? Here is the link, prove away, let’s see if there is a retraction when you cannot back up this false statement. And I have explained twice now why I quoted what I did. "

Here is an extract from the section (entitled "The Germ Probably in Persia.")

"As far as is known, the Vedanta school of the Hindu philosophers found nowhere, outside of its place of origin, so many admirers as in Persia in the eighth century. Under its influence the Mohammedans of Persia founded many mystic sects, among them being that of the Sufis, who for many centuries were very numerous. This mystic movement did not fail to exercise an influence upon the Persian Jews, and there arose among them various sects, such as the 'Isawites, the Yudghanites, etc., the tenets of which, so far as can be ascertained from the scanty information concerning them that is available, bore more or less the stamp of the Vedanta philosophy. Thus the Yudghanites abstained from meat, led ascetic lives, set aside the literal meaning of the Torah for a supposed mystic interpretation, and believed in metempsychosis, etc. All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar, which is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch, as the upanishads are the mystic interpretation of the Vedas and other Brahmanic scriptures."

So the progression is:
Vedanta (Hindu scriptures) influenced Mohammedan Persians
Sufis were a mystical sect of Persian Mohammedans
Sufis exercised influence on Persian Jews causing various sects to arise.

Then the article says:

"All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar,"

I think this is an admission that the doctrine of the Zohar might have come from the Vedas. It does not claim it as proved, but as probable. I dont feel that any retraction is necessary.


You also said:

"The ONLY Trinity, outside of Christianity, was in ancient pre-Christian Judaism and that Trinity, like the Christian Trinity, consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. NOT, as you said, “remotely like a Trinity.”"

The trinity never formed part of pre-Christian Judaism. Here is part of the entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia - Trinity.

"The controversies between the Christians and the Jews concerning the Trinity centered for the most part about the problem whether the writers of the Old Testament bore witness to it or not, the Jews naturally rejecting every proof brought forward by their opponents. The latter based their arguments on the Trisagion in Isa. vi. 3, a proof which had been frequently offered since Eusebius and Gregory of Nazianzus. The convert Jacob Perez of Valentia (d. 1491) even found an allusion to the Trinity in the word "Elohim," and Luther saw distinct traces of the doctrine in Gen. i. 1, 26; iii. 21; xi. 7, 8, 9; Num. vi. 22; II Sam. xxiii. 2; and Dan. vii. 13. The Jewish polemics against this doctrine date almost from its very conception. Even in the Talmud, R. Simlai (3d cent.) declared, in refutation of the "heretics," "The three words 'El,' 'Elohim,' and 'Yhwh' (Josh. xxii. 22) connote one and the same person, as one might say, 'King, Emperor, Augustus'" (Yer. Ber. ix. 12d), while elsewhere he substitutes the phrase "as if one should say, 'master, builder, and architect'" (ib. 13a). There are, however, no other allusions to the Trinity in Talmudic literature, as has been rightly pointed out by Herford ("Christianity in Talmud and Midrash," p. 395, London, 1903), since the polemics of the rabbis of that period were directed chiefly against dualism (). Another polemic, which is noteworthy for its antiquity and its protagonists, was the disputation between Pope Sylvester I. (314-335) and the Jew Noah (Migne, "Patrologia Græca," viii. 814)."

Why would there be such opposition to the trinity if it was part of pre-Christian Judaism.
The article goes on to mention the Zohar in the following terms:

"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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism."


Your reference to a heretical non-biblical book called the Zohar is clutching at straws. Can we get back to what the scriptures teach and discuss that.

John 10 - Ye are gods

You said:

"The first occurrence does not have the definite article, thus is NOT the same as the second occurrence which does have the definite article. Whenever the orthodox Jews said, “The God” they were speaking of יהוה."

Can you clarify whether your argument is that God (theos) is only referring to Yahweh if it has a definite article!!! Can you provide examples of where orthodox Jews use "The God" as Yahweh so I can understand what I am responding to. Thanks.

I look forward to your response.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 11:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233198#post233198)
elpis:

Are there two Yahwehs?

Let me put two scriptures side by side and see what you make of them:

Ex 23:35: Yahweh said:..... You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

Gen 19: 24: Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

In the first case Yahweh says you shall worship Yahweh - but (I think) you say it doesnt refer to a second Yahweh, it is just the way Yahweh speaks. I agree.

In the second case, Yahweh rains fire from Yahweh - But in this case you are absolutely sure that the second Yahweh is a different person to the first. (Even though it contradicts scripture that there is only one Yahweh). These two interpretations do not appear to be consistent. I would suggest your interpretation of Gen 19:24 comes from you "presupposition" of a trinity, rather than from the text.

You ignored my post, where I pointed out significant differences between these two verses and also Isaiah 48! You are so insistent that I answer every one of your questions. Would it be too much trouble to read my posts and respond to what I say? Briefly it is one thing for God to say "You shall obey YHWH (i.e. me)." much the same way a judge speaks, and for God to day "YHWH (I) rained down fire from YHWH (me).

"Presuppositions" hardly, try the early church fathers, e.g. Justin Martyr [110-165 AD], Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LVI.

God's glory
OS: "First you are twisting the scripture. It does NOT say the glory was given to Jesus before the world was."

I was quoting John 17:24 RSV

"Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world."

Is this twisting scripture?

Yes.
ASV 17:24 ¶ Father, {1} I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

KJV 24 ¶ Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

NIV 24 ¶ "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
I'm afraid I still dont know what your argument is. Can you answer a straight question. Is the glory referred to by Jesus in John 14:5, the same glory that Jesus is referring to in v24. A yes or no will do.

I have answered this twice. I think my first answer was quite clear. My second answer gave more explanation. Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?

Yes, in vs. 5 Jesus was praying that the glory He had with the Father, before the world was, be restored. In verse 22 Jesus said He had given the disciples glory. Jesus could NOT give what He did not have. And I further listed scripture supporting differing glories.

Personal attacks

I suggest we restrict the discussion to scripture rather than personal attacks. It doesnt enhance your argument.

Good, anytime you want to stop, I will too. Want to put on the innocent act now?

OS:Please do show me in the Jewish Encyclopedia where the Cabal-Zohar Trinity was, or even might have been, copied from the Vedas, Upanishads, etc? Here is the link, prove away, let’s see if there is a retraction when you cannot back up this false statement. And I have explained twice now why I quoted what I did.

extract from the section (entitled "The Germ Probably in Persia.")

"As far as is known, the Vedanta school of the Hindu philosophers found nowhere, outside of its place of origin, so many admirers as in Persia in the eighth century. Under its influence the Mohammedans of Persia founded many mystic sects, among them being that of the Sufis, who for many centuries were very numerous. This mystic movement did not fail to exercise an influence upon the Persian Jews, and there arose among them various sects, such as the 'Isawites, the Yudghanites, etc., the tenets of which, so far as can be ascertained from the scanty information concerning them that is available, bore more or less the stamp of the Vedanta philosophy. Thus the Yudghanites abstained from meat, led ascetic lives, set aside the literal meaning of the Torah for a supposed mystic interpretation, and believed in metempsychosis, etc. All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar, which is a mystic commentary on the Pentateuch, as the upanishads are the mystic interpretation of the Vedas and other Brahmanic scriptures."

So the progression is:
Vedanta (Hindu scriptures) influenced Mohammedan Persians
Sufis were a mystical sect of Persian Mohammedans
Sufis exercised influence on Persian Jews causing various sects to arise.

Then the article says:

"All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar,

I think this is an admission that the doctrine of the Zohar might have come from the Vedas. It does not claim it as proved, but as probable. I dont feel that any retraction is necessary.

Some doctrines MIGHT have come from secret writings, the contents of which are unknown. That is certainly a leap of faith. When did Mohammed live? When did the Sufis flourish? How could a religion which did NOT begin until the 6th century AD, influence pre-Christain Jewish writers of the Zohar?

OS: The ONLY Trinity, outside of Christianity, was in ancient pre-Christian Judaism and that Trinity, like the Christian Trinity, consisted of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. NOT, as you said, “remotely like a Trinity."

The trinity never formed part of pre-Christian Judaism. Here is part of the entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia - Trinity. * * *

Why would there be such opposition to the trinity if it was part of pre-Christian Judaism.

Your reference to a heretical non-biblical book called the Zohar is clutching at straws. Can we get back to what the scriptures teach and discuss that.

Selectively quoting part of the article does NOT prove your argument, when the very first quote, I posted, stated very clearly that the Zohar "evolved a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Now help me out here was or was not the Zohar a Jewish writing? I have already addressed the rejection of the Trinity by many orthodox Jews.

I have already stated twice now why I quoted the Zohar article to prove that the ONLY Trinity outside of Christianity was in pre-Christian Judaism, the Trinity was NOT copied from any pagan religion because there was NO culture anywhere, which had a Trinity, that could have influenced early Christianity.
Trinity-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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, . . . found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity . . the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity

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

Jewish Encyclopedia-Zohar

* * *They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain of the Christian dogmas, as for instance the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, . . .This and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity;
* * *
the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Khasidim, who, under its influence, assign the first place in religion not to dogma and ritual, but to the sentiment and the emotion of faith.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z
John 10 - Ye are gods

You said:

OS: The first occurrence does not have the definite article, thus is NOT the same as the second occurrence which does have the definite article. Whenever the orthodox Jews said, “The God” they were speaking of יהוה

Can you clarify whether your argument is that God (theos) is only referring to Yahweh if it has a definite article!!! Can you provide examples of where orthodox Jews use "The God" as Yahweh so I can understand what I am responding to. Thanks.

I look forward to your response.

Here are the first occurrences in the NT. It would be rather difficult to list every scripture where this occurs. But you are free to use whatever Bible program you have available and prove me wrong. In each of these "Theos" has the definite article.
Matt 26:61 And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Matt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

[elpis]

You wrote:

"Briefly it is one thing for God to say "You shall obey YHWH (i.e. me)." much the same way a judge speaks, and for God to say "YHWH (I) rained down fire from YHWH (me)."


You misstate Gen 19:24 when you represent it as God speaking. It was the writer of Genesis. He says:

22 Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.
24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

It is clearly a re-emphasis.

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;

Which Yahweh is the "he" of verse 25? How you get two Yahwehs out of this beats me. It is clutching at straws.

While the Church fathers are of some value, they are not inspired. The question is, is the theory supported by the text? The answer is NO.

-----------------------------

Gods glory.

Thank you for letting me know that the RSV twists scripture. Should I burn my copy??

It all depends whether the phrase "since the foundation of the world" relates to God loving Christ, of God giving Christ glory. It could be either. Most translations relate it to the former. The RSV to the latter.

However, the timing is not the issue. The question is which of the two glories you have defined it refers to.

I will assume that you believe they are the same. But the point you tried to make was that the glory in v5 is a glory that Jesus shared with God and always had. But if the glory in v 24 is the same glory, then it is clear that God at some time gave it to him.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me

-----------------------

Zohar

There is no point in continuing with this. You said: Now help me out here was or was not the Zohar a Jewish writing

You attempt to use the Zohar (as a legitimate guide to orthodox Jewish teaching) to support your trinity doctrine is no different to saying that Mormons accept polygamy, so it is compatible with true Christianity. I could ask the same question. Is Mormon teaching not Christian writing?

More clutching at straws.


Ye are gods

You did not answer my straight question. "Can you clarify whether your argument is that God (theos) is only referring to Yahweh if it has a definite article!!!"

You must know whether that is your argument or not. As you wont give a straight answer I can only assume that you know that your argument will be refuted in a flash is you claim that it is. It cannot be a fair debate if you wont state the basis of your argument so that your co-debater can answer.

PS By the way, you said: Most people I know from Australia, do understand English, are you an exception?


What makes you think I'm from Australia - I'm in the UK. I am also away for the next ten days so will not be able to respond till I get back.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234257#post234257)
elpis:

OS: Briefly it is one thing for God to say “You shall obey YHWH (i.e. me).” much the same way a judge speaks, and for God to say “YHWH (I) rained down fire from YHWH (me).”

You misstate Gen 19:24 when you represent it as God speaking. It was the writer of Genesis. He says:

22 Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
23 The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.
24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

It is clearly a re-emphasis.

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;

Which Yahweh is the “He” of verse 25? How you get two Yahwehs out of this beats me. It is clutching at straws.

While the Church fathers are of some value, they are not inspired. The question is, is the theory supported by the text? The answer is NO.

”You misstate Gen 19:24 when you represent it as God speaking. It was the writer of Genesis.” Does that really make a difference? Doesn’t that contradict one of your earlier responses? Is the text inspired or not? If a plurality in Yahweh is not supported by the text, why has the church always understood it that way? Be that as it may, this subterfuge will not so easily dismiss Isaiah 48:16-17, which is definitely יהוה speaking.

Here is the Jewish Publication Society translation. In verse 12, definitely God, “the first and the last,” speaking, which continues without interruption through vs. 17, and beyond. In vs. 13, “my hand”, “my right hand,” “I call.” Vs. 14, three, 3rd person references, the first could be understood, “He whom I, i.e. Yahweh, love” Yahweh, יהוה has been translated “HaShem,” literally “The Name.” Then, “His pleasure’ and “His arm.” Following that in verse 15, again first person, “I, even I.”, “I have called.” and “I have brought.”

In verse 16, 3rd person reference, “the L-rd GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.” And immediately following another self identification of who is speaking, “Thus saith יהוה/Yahweh, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.”

What we have is, יהוה/Yahweh, [#1], has sent יהוה/Yahweh, [#2], and His Spirit. Even if you use first person pronouns it is not, as you claim, for emphasis, it is not grammatical, “I sent myself and my spirit”
JPS Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.
13 Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together.
14 Assemble yourselves, all ye, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? He whom HaShem loveth shall perform His pleasure on Babylon, and show His arm on the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken, yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16 Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the L-rd GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.
17 Thus saith HaShem, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am HaShem thy G-d, who teacheth thee for thy profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
Gods glory.

Thank you for letting me know that the RSV twists scripture. Should I burn my copy??

Suit yourself, it is abundantly clear you chose that version because, in this instant, it seems to support your views, where most other reliable versions do not. I would at least check other versions and have a plausible explanation why you chose the definite minority translation. A review of the interlinear Greek-English Bible will show that the RSV is not a good translation here.
Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 17:24 pater {FATHER,} ouV {WHOM} dedwkaV {THOU HAST GIVEN} moi {ME} qelw {I DESIRE} ina {THAT} opou {WHERE} eimi {AM} egw {I} kakeinoi {THEY ALSO} wsin {MAY BE} met {WITH} emou {ME,} ina {THAT} qewrwsin (5725) thn {THEY MAY BEHOLD} doxan thn {GLORY} emhn {MY} hn {WHICH} edwkaV {THOU GAVEST} moi {ME,} oti {FOR} hgaphsaV {THOU LOVEDST} me {ME} pro {BEFORE [THE]} katabolhV {FOUNDATION} kosmou {OF [THE] WORLD.}

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

It all depends whether the phrase “since the foundation of the world” relates to God loving Christ, of God giving Christ glory. It could be either. Most translations relate it to the former. The RSV to the latter.

Have you studied it to the point that you are confident that is the best translation? Do you want to wager eternity on the minority translation being correct? Because that is what you are doing.

However, the timing is not the issue. The question is which of the two glories you have defined it refers to.

I will assume that you believe they are the same. But the point you tried to make was that the glory in v5 is a glory that Jesus shared with God and always had. But if the glory in v 24 is the same glory, then it is clear that God at some time gave it to him.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me

Well, the timing is the issue. I was addressing the statement quoted below. I posted several versions that show this to be an incorrect interpretation. I further showed from scripture how this premise was false, the verse does NOT say God gave Jesus the glory before the foundation of the world.

Elpis: If it is God's glory (that he doesnt share with anyone), how come Jesus didn't always have it, but it had to be given to him by his Father before the world was.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=229943#post229943


And I showed from scripture how/why the Father gave Jesus Glory. Which glory and when? Go back and read my previous posts I have explained it at least twice.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

”But why, oh why, If Jesus has not received the Glory, does this verse say “my glory, which thou hast given me?” First we have to understand that Paul addressed this in Philp 2. Jesus equal to the Father, in the form of the Father, humbled and emptied Himself. John 17:5, Jesus praying that the Glory He shared with the Father “before the world was” be restored. See Philp 2:6-9.

John 17:24, “But, but, but. . .” No buts, read the Bible, where were the disciples when Jesus said, “I will that they also, . . .be with me where I am?” If you read the previous chapter you will see that the disciples were right there in the garden conversing with Jesus. The word translated “[I]be” is in the subjunctive mood. The mood of possibility and potentiality. Jesus was praying that the disciples might be with Him, not in the garden, somewhere else, when He came into His kingdom, then they would behold His Glory.
5792 Mood – Subjunctive

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. Conditional sentences of the third class ("ean" + the subjunctive) are all of this type, as well as many commands following conditional purpose clauses, such as those beginning with "hina."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1065510716-4458.html#24

Zohar
There is no point in continuing with this. You said: Now help me out here was or was not the Zohar a Jewish writing

You attempt to use the Zohar (as a legitimate guide to orthodox Jewish teaching) to support your trinity doctrine is no different to saying that Mormons accept polygamy, so it is compatible with true Christianity. I could ask the same question. Is Mormon teaching not Christian writing?

More clutching at straws.

Clutching at straws my eye. You sir, are a contemptible base liar!! I have told you three times why I quoted the Zohar, and “as a legitimate guide to orthodox Jewish teaching” is NOT the reason. Go back and read my explanation and get it right.

Ye are gods

You did not answer my straight question. “Can you clarify whether your argument is that God (theos) is only referring to Yahweh if it has a definite article!!!”

You must know whether that is your argument or not. As you wont give a straight answer I can only assume that you know that your argument will be refuted in a flash is you claim that it is. It cannot be a fair debate if you wont state the basis of your argument so that your co-debater can answer.

”Refuted in a flash”? In a pigs eye. Thus far I have not been impressed by your so-called refutation of my posts. Misrepresenting or misquoting what I, or my sources, say and tearing down the resulting straw man is not refuting me. You have not answered my question yet either. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no.

I’m sorry, if you cannot understand what I say, quote my answer and tell me specifically what you do not understand. To quote click on the “quote” button at the lower right of the window. You can quote the entire post or select parts you want to respond to. If you want to divide the post into sections and address each section separately, as I do, ensure that each section is enclosed in quote codes, [quote]for example[/quote].

Why don’t you presume that you are correct and proceed from there? Let’s see if you refute the argument in a flash. In my first statement here is what I said.
But further than that, there is a clear distinction between the first “gods,” and the second “God.” The first occurrence does not have the definite article, thus is NOT the same as the second occurrence, which does have the definite article. Whenever the orthodox Jews said, “The God” they were speaking of יהוה.

John 10:35 ei ekeinouV eipen qeouV proV ouV o logoV tou qeou egeneto, kai ou dunatai luqhnai h grafh,
Rather than trying to get me to stuff some filling in that straw man you are building, why don’t you address what I said? The two occurrences of “theos” are different. If you disagree, then it is incumbent on you to prove that statement incorrect, by citing relevant Greek grammars and language studies.

PS By the way, you said: Most people I know from Australia, do understand English, are you an exception?

What makes you think I'm from Australia - I'm in the UK. I am also away for the next ten days so will not be able to respond till I get back.

Some unusual turns of phrase I have only seen from Australians. Perhaps they are common throughout the UK, but I was certain you were not American. Which OBTW is a totally neutral observation, not a value judgment.

[elpis]

OldShepherd

Sorry for the delay in replying. Pressure of college work has prevented me from taking this up.

Two Yahwehs

Your arguments relating to Gen 19:24 do not affect that fact that this passage does not teach two Yahwehs. It is perfectly understandable without resorting to such a far-fetched solution. The fact that the Church has always taught such a thing proves nothing. Are the majority always correct? As I said it makes perfect sense as it stands:

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;



However, even assuming that your theory is correct, I must first question what exactly the implications of your two Yahweh's theory are. Lets look at the Isaiah 48 passage. According to some trinitarians, Yahweh is one God, but consists of three persons. There is only ONE Yahweh. If (as you claim) you have one Yahweh (consisting of three persons) sending another Yahweh (also consisting of three persons) we have six persons. But the first Yahweh as well as sending the second Yahweh (which includes the Holy Spirit) also sends the spirit (which according to trinitarianism is another person), so we have seven persons. How many persons can your God accommodate?

Now I realise that you will not accept that this is a valid interpretation of your views, but the problem is that you pick and choose what Yahweh means to suit your theology. One time you will decide it means God the Father, another time God the Son, sometimes a combination of both, and perhaps including God the Holy Spirit or perhaps not. However, as Paul says: For us there is one God, the Father, .....and one Lord, Jesus Christ. I Cor 8:16.

You have stated that it is clearly Yahweh speaking at verse 16b. I think this is an unwarranted assumption. By reading the chapters on either side, it can be clearly seen that sometimes Yahweh is speaking through Isaiah, and that Isaiah himself provides the connecting parts. This is recognised by translators. See the following (which is the RSV - I know it is not your favourite translation!!)


16 Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit.
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.

Clearly Yahweh is speaking up to and including first part of verse 16. Clearly Isaiah says the first part of verse 17 ie Thus saith the LORD.... It is fairly obvious I would suggest that Isaiah also says the second part of verse 16 ie And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. The RSV actually punctuates it that way, to demonstrate the change of speaker. While the quotation mark are not in the original, I quote the RSV to demonstrate that it is an interpretation which is supported by Hebrew (trinitarian?) scholars.

However, the final confirmation of that interpretation, is the fact that the Book of Isaiah tells us who the one sent was. Right back at Isaiah 6 we read that Yahweh asks who to send and Isaiah volunteers to be the one sent - he says "Here am I - send ME" Isaiah 6:8.

Your peculiar interpretation comes from not recognising a change of speaker.

John 17:24

I now think I understand your interpretation of this passage. However, your suggestion that a review of an Interlinear Greek-English bible will show that the RSV translators got it wrong is ludicrous. Do you think they were stupid? It is a valid translation, not the only possible translation. I am not sure what your point is in producing the text of the interlinear and not explaining HOW it supports the majority reading. I can only assume that you are depending on word order, which would be a mistake.

I was not trying to refute any argument as such, I was just trying to understand how you interpreted the passage. I believe it is inaccurate.

This should be a topic on its own, as you have now introduced Philippians 2, and I do not have time to address it in the detail that it requires.

Zohar

You continue to support the teachings of the Zohar, in spite of the fact that the teaching has imported pagan elements. It teaches that "He (God) is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' ["'Ayin"]" (Zohar, iii. 288b). An unknowable God who is as good as not existing is not the God of the Bible. The Zohar has nothing to teach us about the nature of God. The trinity doctrine was opposed by biblical Judaism as being unscriptural, as the JE article states.


Your original post (in response to RichBee's) contains an extract from the JE which is all about the Zohar, although your note states "more about the Trinity in pre-Christian Judaism" and you continue to refer to your post as the "Zohar article", and followed up with a quote on the authenticity of the Zohar. You claimed that it had to do with a pre-Christian trinity in Judaism.

You challenged me to show where in the JE articles it stated that the Zohar "even might have been copied from the Vedas and awaited my retraction. I then showed that it said "these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar"

You then had to admit that "Some doctrines MIGHT have come from secret writings" (although the JE says "probably" which I think it stronger than "might").

But you added the fatal comment: How could a religion which did NOT begin until the 6th century AD, influence pre-Christain Jewish writers of the Zohar?

The point is:

The Zohar didnt exist till several centuries AFTER the development of the Trinity doctrine in Christianity, so it has NO relevance to pre-Christian Judaism.

You have been labouring under the misconception that the Zohar is pre-Christian. You are wrong. (or did you know that all the time?). The Zohar dates from about the 13th century AD (although it is purports to be "a record of discourses carried on between Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, who lived in the second century of the common era, and certain contemporary Jewish mystical exegetes" (Zohar, Vol I, pages ix-x, Soncino Press, 1934 (1973 reprint). (I own a full set of the Zohar so can quote as much as you like).

Even if it was as old as it is claimed, it is still POST-Christian.

The preface to the Soncino translation of the Zohar, commenting on the claim to being 2nd century, states: "Even the most superficial perusal of any section of the Zohar will convince the reader of the absurdity of this view of its high antiquity". (Vol 1:x)

I can provide lots more quotes from the Zohar translators to substantiate that it is most likely the work of the 13th century AD but I will leave it there for now.

Referring to the Zohar as evidence of a pre-Christian Trinity is ignoring the facts, (if not downright dishonest), and clutching at straws.

Your quotation from the JE is somewhat selective.

* * *They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain of the Christian dogmas, as for instance the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, . . .This and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity;
* * *

However, you omit the fact that the trinity being referred to is:

a) the secret, hidden, wisdom
b) the Holy ancient one
c) the Unknowable one.

This is NOT a trinity of father, son and holy ghost.

The article continues:

"but the Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar"

You are propagating the Zohar, just like the JE says. Is the similarity between the christian trinity and the Zohar a delusion like it says? I think so.

I do not take kindly to being called a liar.



John 10:35

Let me lay out the scriptural record.
At the end of a discourse Jesus says:

30 I and the Father are one."

The reaction of the Jews:

31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."

Jesus' response:

34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Jesus response can hardly be interpreted as a resounding endorsement of the Jews claim that he was making himself God.

What is the point that Jesus is trying to make by referring to the humans to whom the word of God came in olden times, who were called gods?

It is clear that they were not god in the ultimate sense. Yet Jesus is saying that for them to be called Gods was not blasphemy. So the point is that if they could be called gods, what was the big deal (ie how could Jesus be blaspheming) about the one whom God specifically consecrated and sent into the world claiming to be "the SON of God". It can only be understood as a refutation of their claim that he was making himself God.

Trinitarians are keen to quote John 10:30 where Jesus says "I and my father are one". They are keen to quote the following verses where the Jews believe he is making himself equal with God. But they dont follow on and look at Jesus' response to all this.

So who should I believe - the Jews who misunderstood the scriptures, or the Son of God?



Your argument about the missing definite article, is not particularly relevant here. I only picked on it because it was patently inaccurate. Using your logic, you would agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of John 1:1 (the word was with God (has the definite article), and the word was God (no article)) - ie that there is a distinction between the first God and the second. What point would you make out of the fact the one God has the definite article, and the other does not (exactly the same scenario we have in John 10). And what would you do with John 1:6 "there was a man sent from God (no article), John 1:12 "he gave the power to become the sons of God (no article) - in these two last instances, does the missing article suggest that it is not the true God being referred to?



Much as it has been fun being involved in these discussions, I do not plan to participate again until Christmas holidays. My college work is suffering due to the time I spend involved in several boards. I think enough has been said on these topics - the readers will have to draw their own conclusions. No doubt you will want to have the last word so I leave you to do so. But I hope to be back at Christmas to pick up any loose threads.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249221#post249221)
elpis:

Two Yahwehs

Your arguments relating to Gen 19:24 do not affect that fact that this passage does not teach two Yahwehs. It is perfectly understandable without resorting to such a far-fetched solution. The fact that the Church has always taught such a thing proves nothing. Are the majority always correct? As I said it makes perfect sense as it stands:

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;

Is there another single example of this construction, in the entire OT, which can said to be clearly referring to one entity? Is there, for example, any occurrence where Moses sent someone/something from Moses. Or David sent something/someone from David? Your so-called “perfect sense” is not documented in the whole of the OT.

However, even assuming that your theory is correct, I must first question what exactly the implications of your two Yahweh's theory are. Lets look at the Isaiah 48 passage. According to some trinitarians, Yahweh is one God, but consists of three persons. There is only ONE Yahweh.

One God manifest as three sentient, rational personas.

If (as you claim) you have one Yahweh (consisting of three persons) sending another Yahweh (also consisting of three persons) we have six persons. But the first Yahweh as well as sending the second Yahweh (which includes the Holy Spirit) also sends the spirit (which according to trinitarianism is another person), so we have seven persons. How many persons can your God accommodate?

What in the world are you babbling about? I don't even understand this nonsense. Is this anything like a “Who’s on first” routine from Abbott and Costello?

Now I realise that you will not accept that this is a valid interpretation of your views, but the problem is that you pick and choose what Yahweh means to suit your theology.

A base lie. Give an example.

You have stated that it is clearly Yahweh speaking at verse 16b. I think this is an unwarranted assumption. By reading the chapters on either side, it can be clearly seen that sometimes Yahweh is speaking through Isaiah, and that Isaiah himself provides the connecting parts. This is recognised by translators. See the following (which is the RSV - I know it is not your favourite translation!!)

Actually that is NOT an assumption, had you bothered to even read my post, I believe I quoted Justin Martyr, dating to about 170 AD, in support of my view.

16 Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there." And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit.
17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.

Clearly Yahweh is speaking up to and including first part of verse 16. Clearly Isaiah says the first part of verse 17 ie Thus saith the LORD.... It is fairly obvious I would suggest that Isaiah also says the second part of verse 16 ie And now the Lord GOD has sent me and his Spirit. The RSV actually punctuates it that way, to demonstrate the change of speaker. While the quotation mark are not in the original, I quote the RSV to demonstrate that it is an interpretation which is supported by Hebrew (trinitarian?) scholars.

That is all very interesting, but let us review how the Jewish Publication Society, (definitely nontrinitarian) translates and punctuates this passage.
JPS Isa 48:12-18
(12) Hearken unto Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.
(13) Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together.
(14) Assemble yourselves, all ye, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? He whom the LORD loveth shall perform His pleasure on Babylon, and show His arm on the Chaldeans.
(15) I, even I, have spoken, yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
(16) Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.
(17) Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD thy God, who teacheth thee for thy profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
(18) Oh that thou wouldest hearken to My commandments! then would thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea;
You would have Isaiah interrupting God speaking and interjecting the highlighted words and God resuming speaking in the following verses. Can you document any other case in Isaiah, or any other book, where a prophet interrupts God, like this?

However, the final confirmation of that interpretation, is the fact that the Book of Isaiah tells us who the one sent was. Right back at Isaiah 6 we read that Yahweh asks who to send and Isaiah volunteers to be the one sent - he says "Here am I - send ME" Isaiah 6:8.

God only, ever sent one person, in the entire history of Israel? Seems to me God sent Moses, and David and God sent Samuel to David, and many others. But lets not let a little Biblical fact get in the way of your presuppositions.

Your peculiar interpretation comes from not recognising a change of speaker.

Your peculiar interpretation is interjecting a exchange of speaker where none is indicated by the text, just your presuppositions. The Jews certainly don’t punctuate the passage as your favorite version. Do you think they are stupid or don’t know their own language?

John 17:24

I now think I understand your interpretation of this passage. However, your suggestion that a review of an Interlinear Greek-English bible will show that the RSV translators got it wrong is ludicrous. Do you think they were stupid? It is a valid translation, not the only possible translation.

Well after a bit of review I do not have a problem with the RSV because it does NOT say what you said it does. You misinterpreted the verse to say God gave Jesus His glory before the foundation of world, but even the RSV does NOT say that. That is how you twisted it to make it agree with your suppositions. What is says is God’s love for the Son existed before the foundation of the world.
RSV John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.

Zohar

You continue to support the teachings of the Zohar, in spite of the fact that the teaching has imported pagan elements.

A base lie. Your quote did NOT prove the importation of pagan elements. And it is irrelevant anyway, I do NOT support the teachings of the Zoahr, I quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Zohar and the Trinity for a limited purpose, which you are not capable of understanding, although I have explained it more than once.

You challenged me to show where in the JE articles it stated that the Zohar “even might have been copied from the Vedas and awaited my retraction. I then showed that it said “these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar”

It is impossible for you to accurately quote anything I say. What I said was prove that the Trinity was copied from the Vedas, etc. And you have not done that.

You then had to admit that “Some doctrines MIGHT have come from secret writings” (although the JE says “probably” which I think it stronger than “might”).

Another contemptible lie. I said no such thing. Here is the exchange, I was paraphrasing you. It appears that your mindset is so blinding that I have to point out several times in each post where you either misrepresent what I say or a source says. Are you even capable of reading anything that is posted and responding to it without twisting its meaning?

10-05-2003 @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=234044#post234044)

I think this is an admission that the doctrine of the Zohar might have come from the Vedas. It does not claim it as proved, but as probable. I dont feel that any retraction is necessary.”

OS: Some doctrines MIGHT have come from secret writings, the contents of which are unknown. That is certainly a leap of faith.

But you added the fatal comment: How could a religion which did NOT begin until the 6th century AD, influence pre-Christain Jewish writers of the Zohar?

The point is:

The Zohar didnt exist till several centuries AFTER the development of the Trinity doctrine in Christianity, so it has NO relevance to pre-Christian Judaism.

You have been labouring under the misconception that the Zohar is pre-Christian. You are wrong. (or did you know that all the time?). The Zohar dates from about the 13th century AD (although it is purports to be “a record of discourses carried on between Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, who lived in the second century of the common era, and certain contemporary Jewish mystical exegetes” (Zohar, Vol I, pages ix-x, Soncino Press, 1934 (1973 reprint). (I own a full set of the Zohar so can quote as much as you like).

Well la-de-da, you own a copy of the Zohar, that does not seem to help you in reading and comprehending my posts and correctly quoting what I or my sources say. See your next little hocus-pocus with smoke and mirrors. According to the JE the Zohar is authentic and is held in great reverence by many orthodox Jews especially the Khasidim.
Jewish Encyclopedia-Zohar-Authenticity.
The general opinion, however, was in favor of its authenticity, this view being held not only by the cabalists, for whom the book opened new paths in the field of mysticism, but also by eminent Talmudists. * * *

This [Trinity] and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity ; but the Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar.

However, the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the khasidim, who, under its influence, assign the first place in religion not to dogma and ritual, but to the sentiment and the emotion of faith.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z

Even if it was as old as it is claimed, it is still POST-Christian.

The preface to the Soncino translation of the Zohar, commenting on the claim to being 2nd century, states: “Even the most superficial perusal of any section of the Zohar will convince the reader of the absurdity of this view of its high antiquity”. (Vol 1:x)

I can provide lots more quotes from the Zohar translators to substantiate that it is most likely the work of the 13th century AD but I will leave it there for now.

Referring to the Zohar as evidence of a pre-Christian Trinity is ignoring the facts, (if not downright dishonest), and clutching at straws.

Your quotation from the JE is somewhat selective.

* * * They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain of the Christian dogmas, as for instance the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, . . .This (Trinity) and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity;* * *

Do you even read your own posts? Evidently you don’t read anything just throw a bunch of crud out hoping it makes sense. “[I]The preface to the Socino translation.,” irrelevant. “lots more quotes,” irrelevant. “ignoring facts,” “downright dishonest,” “clutching at straws,” Do you think that if you sling enough mud you can convince someone you are correct? Now I want you to read the last sentence, which you quoted above? I highlighted it for you. Is it or is it not a quote from the JE on the Zohar, the link is below? Does it or does in not say that the Trinity and other doctrines of Christian tendency are older that Christianity? Does the JE encyclopedia say that the Zohar evolved a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, see next response and link?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z


However, you omit the fact that the trinity being referred to is:

a) the secret, hidden, wisdom
b) the Holy ancient one
c) the Unknowable one.

This is NOT a trinity of father, son and holy ghost.
Another lie! I omitted nothing. I quoted and linked to the JE article. And Here it is again.
JE-Trinity-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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity. . .Such terms as "matronita," "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),. . . the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

You are propagating the Zohar, just like the JE says. Is the similarity between the christian trinity and the Zohar a delusion like it says? I think so.

I do not take kindly to being called a liar.

If you don’t like being called a liar then quit your contemptible lying. This is another lie, I am NOT propagating the Zohar. Read my posts, I posted the article as proof that the ONLY Trinity that exists outside of Christianity was in ancient Judaism, NOT any pagan culture as you asserted, more than once I think. For my purpose it does NOT matter one little bit how many Jews believed this. Even if it was only one, the belief is still there. I think the problem is you have your cult agenda and you are blinded to anything else.

John 10:35

Let me lay out the scriptural record.

Jesus response can hardly be interpreted as a resounding endorsement of the Jews claim that he was making himself God.

What is the point that Jesus is trying to make by referring to the humans to whom the word of God came in olden times, who were called gods?

It is clear that they were not god in the ultimate sense. Yet Jesus is saying that for them to be called Gods was not blasphemy. So the point is that if they could be called gods, what was the big deal (ie how could Jesus be blaspheming) about the one whom God specifically consecrated and sent into the world claiming to be “the SON of God.” It can only be understood as a refutation of their claim that he was making himself God.

No your interpretation is NOT the only possible one. Perhaps you should try reading something beside your church’s propaganda. I would suggest something that will give you insight into Jewish theology.
Gill Exposition of the Bible and the Scripture cannot be broken; or be made null and void; whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or objecting to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud (y); when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point of debate, another says, “ayka lmiprk"it may be broken"; or objected to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture cannot be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation of that.

(y) T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 4. 1. & Becorot, fol. 32. 1. & passim.

Trinitarians are keen to quote John 10:30 where Jesus says “I and my father are one”. They are keen to quote the following verses where the Jews believe he is making himself equal with God. But they dont follow on and look at Jesus' response to all this.

So who should I believe - the Jews who misunderstood the scriptures, or the Son of God?

Help me out here, exactly where does Jesus say He is NOT making Himself God? That is your inference and NOT the only possible one. Jesus was merely pointing out how they were being hypocritical by using their own Talmud debating technique against them.

Your argument about the missing definite article, is not particularly relevant here. I only picked on it because it was patently inaccurate. Using your logic, you would agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of John 1:1 (the word was with God (has the definite article), and the word was God (no article)) - ie that there is a distinction between the first God and the second. What point would you make out of the fact the one God has the definite article, and the other does not (exactly the same scenario we have in John 10). And what would you do with John 1:6 “there was a man sent from God (no article), John 1:12 “he gave the power to become the sons of God (no article) - in these two last instances, does the missing article suggest that it is not the true God being referred to?

Oh you want to talk about my logic? How would you know whether my argument on the article is relevant or not? Do you have any training in Biblical Greek? Now in all these passages is qeoV the subject, object, predicate, or something else? What is the gender, and case? How do all of these affect how the noun is translated? Explain these to me, then we’ll see whose logic is faulty.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249840#post249840)
OldShepherd:



Is there another single example of this construction, in the entire OT, which can said to be clearly referring to one entity? Is there, for example, any occurrence where Moses sent someone/something from Moses. Or David sent something/someone from David? Your so-called “perfect sense” is not documented in the whole of the OT.



"At that time Solomon proceeded to congregate the older men of Israel,...to King Solomon at Jerusalem." - 1 Kings 8:1

Not that this disproves the point OS is making.

[elpis]

OldShepherd

Thanks to Reasonable for showing the same Hebrew construction - it saved me some effort - thanks - especially as you apparently don't agree with my conclusions.

Gen 19:24

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;

I Kings 8:1

Then Solomon assembled the elders......
before King Solomon in Jerusalem,

While Reasonable doesnt think it affects your argument, I would suggest that it does.

You are not suggesting there are TWO Solomons in I King 8:1 but you insist there are TWO Yahwehs in Gen 19:24.

Would you agree that I Kings 8:1 makes perfect sense without assuming there are TWO Solomons??

------------------------------

You do not agree that there is a change of speaker in Isa 48:16.

Here it is again:

(16) Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.
(17) Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD thy God, who teacheth thee for thy profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Who do you think says" Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:" in v 17a? Is it not Isaiah? It is just a question of where the change in speaker takes place.

As you know (I assume), there is no punctuation in the original, so it is depends on the translator to provide it. Is the JPS the only valid translation? The point I am trying to make is that your interpretation is not the only one. This verse can be perfectly well understood without creating a peculiar and unscriptural scenario of TWO Yahwehs.

You object to the fact the Isaiah is the one sent by stating:

"God only, ever sent one person, in the entire history of Israel? Seems to me God sent Moses, and David and God sent Samuel to David, and many others. But lets not let a little Biblical fact get in the way of your presuppositions."

However, none of there were sent IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH!! Isaiah WAS.

----------------------------

When I said:

"If (as you claim) you have one Yahweh (consisting of three persons) sending another Yahweh (also consisting of three persons) we have six persons. But the first Yahweh as well as sending the second Yahweh (which includes the Holy Spirit) also sends the spirit (which according to trinitarianism is another person), so we have seven persons. How many persons can your God accommodate?"

You replied:

"What in the world are you babbling about? I don't even understand this nonsense. "


That was exactly my point. You maintain that the passage means:

"and now the Lord (YAHWEH) GOD hath sent me (YAHWEH), and His spirit."

You stated that Yahweh is:

One God manifest as three sentient, rational personas.

Therefore you are saying the passage means:

and now the Lord (YAHWEH - three sentient, rational personas) GOD hath sent me (YAHWEH - three sentient, rational personas), and His spirit (another sentient, rational persona?).

I agree with you - its nonsense. I dont understand it either!!!

---------------------------

You said:

How could a religion which did NOT begin until the 6th century AD, influence PRE-CHRISTAIN Jewish writers of the Zohar?


Please note you said: "PRE-CHRISTIAN Jewish writers of the ZOHAR":

When was the Zohar written?? Please use ANY reputable source which clearly states this.

My only point in telling you that I had a set of the Zohar was to make the point that I am not copying and pasting - I have the text and translators notes in front of me.
--------------------------------------

John 10:34-36

Please put in your own words what Jesus' argument was so I can understand your point. You keep quoting Gills comments on "and the scripture cannot be broken". I dont think we have any disagreement on what that means so I dont see why you keep quoting that and ignore what comes next.

Is it true that Jesus was saying that human beings (to whom the word of the Lord came) could be legitimately be called gods without committing blasphemy? Clearly they were not the REAL God.

What relevance then does this have to the above opinion expressed by the Jews that Jesus being a man made himself God.

Where in this discourse are the Talmudic debating techniques you are talking about? Jesus appear to quote scripture to refute their argument, and supports it by saying they cant avoid the meaning of the scriptures.

Using Jesus' argument, he could have claimed to be god without blaspheming (and without being the REAL God). But he didnt even do that - He claimed to be the Son of God v 36, and that this was not blasphemy. Where is Jesus saying that he is the REAL God?

-----------------

You have tried to avoid answering my argument which is:

Your argument about the missing definite article, is not particularly relevant here. I only picked on it because it was patently inaccurate. Using your logic, you would agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of John 1:1 (the word was with God (has the definite article), and the word was God (no article)) - ie that there is a distinction between the first God and the second. What point would you make out of the fact the one God has the definite article, and the other does not (exactly the same scenario we have in John 10). And what would you do with John 1:6 “there was a man sent from God (no article), John 1:12 “he gave the power to become the sons of God (no article) - in these two last instances, does the missing article suggest that it is not the true God being referred to?

I think you are attempting to avoid it by implying that I dont know what I am talking about. However, I am trained in NT Greek. I have studied both NT Greek and Hebrew at University and am currently involved in further studies in both languages, so your attempt at a "put down" just back-fired. But the points would be valid, even if made by someone not fully conversant with the language - this is not rocket-science. Why not forget the personals and address the argument. After all, it was YOU who raised it.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 10:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=251925#post251925)
elpis:

OldShepherd

Thanks to Reasonable for showing the same Hebrew construction - it saved me some effort - thanks - especially as you apparently don't agree with my conclusions.
[etc, and so forth]

While Reasonable doesnt think it affects your argument, I would suggest that it does.

You are not suggesting there are TWO Solomons in I King 8:1 but you insist there are TWO Yahwehs in Gen 19:24.

Would you agree that I Kings 8:1 makes perfect sense without assuming there are TWO Solomons??
LXX English-1Ki 8:1 And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then king Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel in Sion, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, this is Sion,

1Ki 8:1 kai egeneto en tw suntelesai Salwmwn tou oikodomhsai ton oikon kuriou kai ton oikon eauto meta eikosi eth, tote exekklhsiasen o BasileuV Salwmwn pantaV tous presbuterouV Israel en Zion tou aneneykein thn kibwton diaqhkhV kuriou ek polewV Dauid (auth estin Sion)

Please feel free to impress me with your expertise in Greek.

You do not agree that there is a change of speaker in Isa 48:16.

*snip*
Who do you think says "Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel" in v 17a? Is it not Isaiah? It is just a question of where the change in speaker takes place.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lord Sent Me

Another passage which should be noted is Isaiah 48:12-17:
"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? [Yahweh] or the LORD loves him; he shall carry out His good pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit"
The identity of the speaker is clearly the God of Israel because He calls Himself "the first and last" in verse 12. This title had already been used of Yahweh of Hosts in Isaiah 44:6:
"Thus says [Yahweh], the King of Israel and his Redeemer, [Yahweh] of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.'"

The Hebrew for "I am the first and I am the last" is the same in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12: .... This God is further identified as "the Yahweh of armies" in Isaiah 44:6.

The divine title "the first and the last" means that He is the first God and the last God because there are no other gods before or after Him. He alone is God.

The speaker in Isa. 48 is further identified by doing things which only God can do such as absolute foreknowledge (vs. 3,5,6), creation (v.13), sovereignty (v. 15), and omnipresence (v. 16).
Who else but the one true God could say:
"For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another." (Isa. 48:11)
No one should have the slightest difficulty in identifying the speaker as God. The context of the passage and the grammar of the text are both very clear. But prejudiced anti-Trinitarians must object because the God who is speaking says that He, along with the Holy Spirit, are sent by God.[18]
"Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." (Isa 48:16)
If the passage is interpreted in its natural and normal meaning, there are three persons in this passage who are all God! But how can God be sent by God unless there are several Persons within the Godhead? Since the Father sent the Son and the Spirit in Trinitarian theology, this is exactly the kind of passage which we expect to find.

How can non-Trinitarians handle a passage like this? They can't. So they deny that the speaker is God and claim that it is actually Isaiah who is speaking in either verse 16b or the whole of verse 16!

The attempt to interject Isaiah into verse 16 falls before the following questions:
1. Is there anything in the Hebrew text to indicate a break in the speech of Jehovah? No.

2. Does Isaiah elsewhere in his book dare to interrupt the Almighty and to insert himself? No.

3. Is there any evidence whatsoever in the text to indicate that anyone else besides God is speaking? No.

4. Has any translation ever separated verse 16 from the rest of Jehovah's speech? No.

5. Does the Septuagint make a break in verse 16? No.

6. Do the Targums? No.

This passage is clear proof that the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal. A Trinitarian would not have the least hesitation to write the text as it stands. But Unitarians, Arians, Modalists, and Muslims could never do so.

http://answering-islam.org/Trinity/morey7.html

Having heard from Dr. Morey, I think I can safely say that in every other instant when a prophet speaks for the Lord, there is an introductory phrase such as, “And thou shalt say unto “X” thus saith the Lord.. . .,” e.g. Ex 4:22 and many others. Which is missing from this passage.
Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
As you know (I assume), there is no punctuation in the original, so it is depends on the translator to provide it. Is the JPS the only valid translation? The point I am trying to make is that your interpretation is not the only one. This verse can be perfectly well understood without creating a peculiar and unscriptural scenario of TWO Yahwehs.

The JPS is not the only one, but it will take more than that to prove them wrong. Since you have studied Hebrew that should be a piece of cake for you. Until you do there is nothing further to discuss.

You object to the fact the Isaiah is the one sent by stating:

However, none of there were sent IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH!! Isaiah WAS.

Presumptuous and irrelevant.

When I said:

“If (as you claim) you have one Yahweh (consisting of three persons) sending another Yahweh (also consisting of three persons) we have six persons. But the first Yahweh as well as sending the second Yahweh (which includes the Holy Spirit) also sends the spirit (which according to trinitarianism is another person), so we have seven persons. How many persons can your God accommodate?”

That was exactly my point. You maintain that the passage means:

You stated that Yahweh is:

One God manifest as three sentient, rational personas.

Therefore you are saying the passage means:

and now the Lord (YAHWEH - three sentient, rational personas) GOD hath sent me (YAHWEH - three sentient, rational personas), and His spirit (another sentient, rational persona?).

I agree with you - its nonsense. I dont understand it either!!!

You wrote it and you don’t understand it, so how in the world could anyone else? When (If) you get through babbling nonsense, let me know. This is a typical cult tactic, taking part of one statement and parts of one or more different statements, all out-of-context, building a straw man, then saying, “Well, this is what you said.” Sorry, this is “kuonou exeramou (Prov 26:11, 2 Pet 2:22) it is Not what I said. If you can read, comprehend, and quote me in context, then do so, otherwise stuff it.

Please note you said: “PRE-CHRISTIAN Jewish writers of the ZOHAR”:

When was the Zohar written?? Please use ANY reputable source which clearly states this.

My only point in telling you that I had a set of the Zohar was to make the point that I am not copying and pasting - I have the text and translators notes in front of me.

As I said, I’m impressed. Please read my posts, I quoted the JE at least twice and linked to it. The JE said the Zohar was authentic, that the Trinity and other Christian tendencies were older than Christianity, and the many Jewish scholars, such as the Talmudists, hold the Zohar in high regard. All you have done is produce a source that disagrees. You have NOT proved that I lied, misrepresented, or exaggerated as you implied.

John 10:34-36
Please put in your own words what Jesus' argument was so I can understand your point. You keep quoting Gills comments on “and the scripture cannot be broken”. I dont think we have any disagreement on what that means so I dont see why you keep quoting that and ignore what comes next.

Is it true that Jesus was saying that human beings (to whom the word of the Lord came) could be legitimately be called gods without committing blasphemy? Clearly they were not the REAL God.

What relevance then does this have to the above opinion expressed by the Jews that Jesus being a man made himself God.

Where in this discourse are the Talmudic debating techniques you are talking about? Jesus appear to quote scripture to refute their argument, and supports it by saying they cant avoid the meaning of the scriptures.

Using Jesus' argument, he could have claimed to be god without blaspheming (and without being the REAL God). But he didnt even do that - He claimed to be the Son of God v 36, and that this was not blasphemy. Where is Jesus saying that he is the REAL God?

”Where is Jesus saying that he is the REAL God?” That is not the question. The Jewish leaders accused Jesus of making Himself God, Jesus did NOT deny it, but sidestepped their accusation and thus confrontation, by Talmudic debate. Also see responses by Muzicman, Reasonable, and JP Holding below.

Phantym: 4. How do you explain Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees in John 10:34-36 when they mistakenly think He is claiming deity? They accuse Him of making himself equal to God, and he replies "If in your own scripture certain people who are not God are called "God," why do you wish to stone me for calling myself the Son of God."

This is, in my view, a double rebuke, saying "Even if I DID say I was "God" it wouldn't mean that I am....and I am not even saying that "

Muzicman: He was saying, "What's the big deal? Your own scriptures call other people gods."

The fact is that He DID claim to be equal to God, because He WAS equal to God. The people assumed his claim was false, and were going to stone him

JPH: It fits perfectly with Wisdom theology once you get past that same error of thinking "God" is a proper name here.

Reasonable: The men in Psalms 82 that Jesus was referencing were called gods in a mockingly way. They were not real gods, they merely thought they were and that's why God tells them "you will die" even after he called them "gods." Yet, as Jesus said, this verse does have some fulfillment. It can't be nullified just because these men were not real gods. Jesus quoted that verse to show that the scripture was fulfilled in him, not these men. And so while these men did not really deserve to be called "god" by God, Jesus in fact DID deserve that title. His referencing this verse is a testimony that God does refer to Jesus as God.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=252440#post252440


You have tried to avoid answering my argument which is:

Your argument about the missing definite article, is not particularly relevant here. I only picked on it because it was patently inaccurate. Using your logic, you would agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation of John 1:1 (the word was with God (has the definite article), and the word was God (no article)) - ie that there is a distinction between the first God and the second. What point would you make out of the fact the one God has the definite article, and the other does not (exactly the same scenario we have in John 10). And what would you do with John 1:6 “there was a man sent from God (no article), John 1:12 “he gave the power to become the sons of God (no article) - in these two last instances, does the missing article suggest that it is not the true God being referred to?

I think you are attempting to avoid it by implying that I dont know what I am talking about. However, I am trained in NT Greek. I have studied both NT Greek and Hebrew at University and am currently involved in further studies in both languages, so your attempt at a “put down” just back-fired. But the points would be valid, even if made by someone not fully conversant with the language - this is not rocket-science. Why not forget the personals and address the argument. After all, it was YOU who raised it.

Forget the personals? This is good! When you start addressing what I post, quoting me correctly, and in context, instead of twisting what I say to fit your agenda, then I will stop accusing you of lying. Fair enough? You could use the quote function, that way there would be no possibility of misstating what I say. But then there is also the context.

Once again I am impressed that you have studied Hebrew and Greek at University. I am avoiding nothing. I said what I said. You keep trying to twist it into something else. I have not tried to put you down. Since you have allegedly studied Greek, then quote my exact comment, list, and exegete the verses you have posted and show how they are the same or different than John 10:33-36 and how what I have said is incorrect.

It must be terribly frustrating that I won’t blindly walk into the trap you are so desperately and carefully trying to lay for me. Maybe the ancient sheepherder has studied Greek and Hebrew too. So either address what I posted or move on. Here is my post again.
Jesus, here, did NOT deny that He was making such a claim, but was pointing out how the Pharisees were hypocritical, using their own Rabbinical exegesis against them. But further than that, there is a clear distinction between the first “gods” and the second “God.” The first occurrence does not have the definite article, thus is NOT the same as the second occurrence which does have the definite article. Whenever the orthodox Jews said, “The God” they were speaking of יהוה.

John 10:35 ei ekeinouV eipen qeouV proV ouV o logoV tou qeou egeneto, kai ou dunatai luqhnai h grafh,

John Gill Exposition of the Whole Bible

and the Scripture cannot be broken; or be made null and void; whatever that says is true, there is no contradicting it, or objecting to it: it is a Jewish way of speaking, much used in the Talmud {y}; when one doctor has produced an argument, or instance, in any point of debate, another says, Krpyml akya, "it may be broken"; or objected to, in such and such a manner, and be refuted: but the Scripture cannot be broken, that is not to be objected to, there can be no confutation of that.

{y} T. Bab. Zebachim, fol. 4. 1. & Becorot, fol. 32. 1. & passim.

http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/john/gill/john10.htm

[elpis]

Two Yahwehs in Gen 19:24?

You maintain that there are 2 Yahwehs (an anachronism to start with!) in Gen 19 which reads as follows:

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;"

However, it has been pointed out that the same Hebrew verbal construction appears in I Kings 8:1 which reads:

"Then Solomon assembled the elders......
before King Solomon in Jerusalem, "

There are clearly not two Solomons. There are clearly not two Yahwehs. It seems fairly plain to me.

However you then introduce the Septuagint, a translation into Greek that follows the Hebrew text with varying levels of exactness. However, we are comparing two passages of Hebrew, written in Hebrew idiom. While it may look impressive to fill your post with Greek characters, what relevance can Greek have to Hebrew methods of expression? You are trying to sidetrack the argument because you cannot answer the above which is self evident to anyone who believes in scripture over tradition.

Look at how I Kings 8:1 is translated (from the HEBREW) in some other versions:

"Then doth Solomon assemble the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, princes of the fathers of the sons of Israel, unto king Solomon, to Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah from the city of David—it is Zion; (YLT)"

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ houses of the people of Israel, before King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. (RSV)"

"Then, did Solomon call together the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, chiefs of the fathers of the sons of Israel, unto King Solomon in Jerusalem,—that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, out of the city of David, the same is Zion. (Rotherham)"

"Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the City of David, which is Zion. "(NRSV)

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion." (JPS)

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers’ houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah out of the city of David, which is Zion." (ASV)


Translators are unanimous in translating this passage along the lines that:

Solomon assembled the elders...... before King Solomon.

No sensible person would suggest that this means there are two Solomons.

Translators says in Gen 19:

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;

This is the same sentence construction as I Kings 8:1. To insist that this means Two Yahwehs flies in the face of logic and Hebrew idiom.
---------------------------------


Are there two Yahwehs in Isa 48:16?

I suggested that there is a change of speaker in the middle of verse 16. To which you responded:

"That is all very interesting, but let us review how the Jewish Publication Society, (definitely nontrinitarian) translates and punctuates this passage.
JPS Isa 48:12-18
(12) Hearken unto Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the first, I also am the last.
(13) Yea, My hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath spread out the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together.
(14) Assemble yourselves, all ye, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? He whom the LORD loveth shall perform His pleasure on Babylon, and show His arm on the Chaldeans.
(15) I, even I, have spoken, yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
(16) Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord GOD hath sent me, and His spirit.
(17) Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD thy God, who teacheth thee for thy profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
(18) Oh that thou wouldest hearken to My commandments! then would thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea;

You would have Isaiah interrupting God speaking and interjecting the highlighted words and God resuming speaking in the following verses. Can you document any other case in Isaiah, or any other book, where a prophet interrupts God, like this? "



Your argument was that the JPS did not support a change of speaker. You are entirely wrong. I am not sure where you got your quotation from - it is probably from an electronic version of the early edition (which in fact pretty much followed the KJV). I have in front of me the published copy of the JPS Tanakh (Philadelphia, 1999). The JPS groups verses together in logical group, separating logical breaks with a blank line. The JPS (page 959) which contains this passage is lad out as follows:

16 Draw near to Me and hear this:
From the beginning, I did not speak in secret;
From the time anything existed, I was there.

"And now the Lord GOD has sent me,
endowed with His spirit".

17 Thus saith the LORD your Redeemer,
The Holy One of Israel:
Etc.

Contrary to what you maintain the JPS DOES recognise a logical break, and punctuates accordingly. But it also puts quotation marks round the words, signifying a change in speaker.

Now the question remains, is you interpretation supported by current Hebrew scholars and translators?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Here are quotations from several current commentators (all to my knowledge trinitarians) - all commentaries based on the Hebrew text (with the exception of the Torch commentary but is written by a Professor of Hebrew). You cannot argue that they are written by "anti-trinitarians". The all support the interpretation that there is a change of speaker.


Whybray, R. N., Roger Norman. - Isaiah 40-66. - London : Oliphants, 1975. - (Century Bible, new series).

Page 105: “The last clause of v. 16 must be an utterance of the Prophet…..It is the only certain reference to the Prophet to himself apart from ‘and I said’ (LXX) of 40:6.



Baltzer, Klaus, 1928-. - Deutero-Isaiah : a commentary on Isaiah 40-55 / by Klaus Baltzer / edited by. - Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press, 2001

Page ? (forgot to take it down!): At all events it is clear that from this point on someone else is speaking”


Childs, Brevard S. (Brevard Springs). - Isaiah / Brevard S. Childs. - Louisville, Ky. : Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. - (The Old Testament library). –

Page 377: “Much to the reader’s surprise, v 16b suddenly and without any obvious preparation introduces a new voice, with a dramatic shift in direction.”



Watts, John D. W.. - Isaiah 34-66. - Waco : Word Books, 1987. - (Word biblical commentary ; 25). (He was Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky)

Page 176: (comment on verse 16b) “BHS notes suggested emendations which smooth over the sudden change of person. But this is explained by a change of speaker”



North, C. R. (Christopher Richard). - Isaiah 40-55 : introduction and commentary. - London : S.C.M. Press, 1952. - (Torch Bible commentaries series). (He was Professor of Hebrew at University College, Bangor, UK)

Page 132: The final line (And now….Spirit) obviously the words of some new speaker….

None of them suggest that there are Two Yahwehs in this passage. I suggest you are clinging on to an outdated interpretation developed by some over-zealous trinitarians who were more interested in reading into scripture their pre-conceived notion, than letting the scripture speak for itself.


"Pre-Christian writers of the Zohar!"

You said:

The JE said the Zohar was authentic, that the Trinity and other Christian tendencies were older than Christianity, and the many Jewish scholars, such as the Talmudists, hold the Zohar in high regard. All you have done is produce a source that disagrees. You have NOT proved that I lied, misrepresented, or exaggerated as you implied.

My point was that the Zohar is post Christian. You have not addressed this point.

You say that I produced a source that disagrees.
THE JE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ZOHAR WAS PRE-CHRISTIAN.

And the source I quoted is the translators note to the Zohar - I would suggest as reliable a source as you could find. The fact is, that it is the Zohar itself that claims to be post-Christian. Read the following:

Encyclopaedia Judaica. - Vol. 16 : Ur - Z. - Jerusalem : Encyclopaedia Judaica; New York; Macmillan, 1971. Page 1207: “According to the Zohar 1,200 years had passed since the destruction of the Temple…..it must be assumed that the main part of the Zohar and the Midrash ha-Ne’lam were written between 1270 and 1300. Similar calculations are to be found in the Ra’aya Meheimna and the Tikkunim. The basic date is always 1268.”

I would suggest that the Encyclopaedia Judaica is a reliable source.

Are you ready to admit that the Zohar is a POST-Christian work?




However, you also challenged my statement that the Zohar had imbibed pagan ideas:

Read this:

Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi (Raphael Jehudah Zwi), 1924-. - The encyclopedia of the Jewish religion / edited by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and. - London : Phoenix House, 1967: Page 414-415: “Modern scholarship has shown that the main part of the Zohar was written toward the end of the 13th Century by Moses de LEON, a Castilian kabbalist who died in 1305. Some parts were writtenshortly afterward and added to the main work……………The Zohar has been described as a mixture of theosophic theology, mystical psychology, anthropology, myth and poetry. Old Gnostic doctrines, mystical traditions, theurgic speculations, popular superstitions, and mythological motifs dwell side by side with echoes of Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophic theories about the nature of the cosmos and about the relationship between a transcendent God and a finite world.”

Again a reputable source.

You said:
"I posted the article as proof that the ONLY Trinity that exists outside of Christianity was in ancient Judaism, NOT any pagan culture as you asserted, more than once I think."


The quote from the JE is as follows:

"This and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity; but the Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar. "


It is true that many of the ideas in the Zohar pre-dated Christianity (see the list in Werblowsky above). However the JE article does NOT say that they were believed WITHIN JUDAISM. Clearly many on the list originate in pagan philosophy )Aristotle, Plato). The Trinity article explains that the Trinity has always been incompatible with Judaism. Although, to be honest it wouldnt make a bit of difference whether they did or not. The question is: is the doctrine in the Bible?

As I have said before, trinitarians will grasp at any support for the doctrine outside the Bible, even if they have to ignore the facts in the process.


I have spent an inordinate amount of time looking up and typing these references, and I am sure you will find some excuse to dismiss them out of hand. However, hopefully they may be of some use to others.

[b]You are gods[b/]

There was not need to copy and paste the posts from the other thread on this topic - I have been following it there. Looks to me like Phantym is holding his own against the usual abuse. I have run out of time.
.
.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254367#post254367)
elpis:

Two Yahwehs in Gen 19:24?

You maintain that there are 2 Yahwehs (an anachronism to start with!) in Gen 19 which reads as follows:

etc. blah, blah, blah, and more of the same

However you then introduce the Septuagint, a translation into Greek that follows the Hebrew text with varying levels of exactness. However, we are comparing two passages of Hebrew, written in Hebrew idiom. While it may look impressive to fill your post with Greek characters, what relevance can Greek have to Hebrew methods of expression?

Oh, I'm sorry did you NOT learn at University that the Septuagint was the OT translated from Hebrew into Greek, by Jews for Greek speaking Jews, approx. 250 years before the Christian era?

Look at how I Kings 8:1 is translated (from the HEBREW) in some other versions:

etc. blah, blah, blah, and more of the same

Translators are unanimous in translating this passage along the lines that:

Solomon assembled the elders...... before King Solomon.

Translators says in Gen 19:

Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire,
from the LORD out of heaven;

This is the same sentence construction as I Kings 8:1. To insist that this means Two Yahwehs flies in the face of logic and Hebrew idiom.

What can I say? I seem to be overwhelmed by the sheer number of citations. So I will let a historical document speak for me.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew [a.d. 110-165.] Chapter LVI.-God Who Appeared to Moses is Distinguished from God the Father.

Then I said, "The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: `The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.'"186

Then the fourth of those who had remained with Trypho said, "It187 must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."188

"It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by David. For there is written by him: `The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool, '189 as I have already quoted. And again, in other words: `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.'190 If, therefore, you assert that the Holy Spirit calls some other one God and Lord, besides the Father of all things and His Christ, answer me; for I undertake to prove to you from Scriptures themselves, that He whom the Scripture calls Lord is not one of the two angels that went to Sodom, but He who was with them, and is called God, that appeared to Abraham."

Chapter CXXIX.-That is Confirmed from Other Passages of Scripture.

"And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven, 'the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, `Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, '509 this phrase, `like one of Us, 'is also indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavour to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom: `If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled; He begets me before all the hills.'"510 When I repeated these words, I added: "You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325


Are there two Yahwehs in Isa 48:16?

I suggested that there is a change of speaker in the middle of verse 16. To which you responded:

"That is all very interesting, but let us review how the Jewish Publication Society, (definitely nontrinitarian) translates and punctuates this passage."

Your argument was that the JPS did not support a change of speaker. You are entirely wrong. I am not sure where you got your quotation from - it is probably from an electronic version of the early edition (which in fact pretty much followed the KJV).

How in the world can you say I am entirely wrong when you don't even know my source. And yes, it is the online version of the JPS and I quoted it exactly. And OBTW do you have any documentation that it pretty much followed the KJV? I thought not.

I have in front of me the published copy of the JPS Tanakh (Philadelphia, 1999). The JPS groups verses together in logical group, separating logical breaks with a blank line. The JPS (page 959) which contains this passage is lad out as follows:

Contrary to what you maintain the JPS DOES recognise a logical break, and punctuates accordingly. But it also puts quotation marks round the words, signifying a change in speaker.

Now the question remains, is you interpretation supported by current Hebrew scholars and translators?

The answer is a resounding NO.

And of course the modern Hebrew translators would never, ever translate passages in a certain way to avoid supporting Christian doctrines, as their Talmudists, e.g. Rambam, admittedly did during the middle ages.

Here are quotations from several current commentators (all to my knowledge trinitarians) - all commentaries based on the Hebrew text (with the exception of the Torch commentary but is written by a Professor of Hebrew). You cannot argue that they are written by "anti-trinitarians". The all support the interpretation that there is a change of speaker.

etc. blah, blah, blah, and more of the same

None of them suggest that there are Two Yahwehs in this passage. I suggest you are clinging on to an outdated interpretation developed by some over-zealous trinitarians who were more interested in reading into scripture their pre-conceived notion, than letting the scripture speak for itself.

Refer to Justin Martyr quoted above.

"Pre-Christian writers of the Zohar!"

My point was that the Zohar is post Christian. You have not addressed this point.

You say that I produced a source that disagrees.
THE JE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ZOHAR WAS PRE-CHRISTIAN.

I DID ADDRESS IT AND THE JE DOES SAY OR IMPLY THAT THE ZOHAR IS PRE-CHRISTIAN!!. I have posted this before you evidently have ignored it.
JE-Zohar-Authenticity.

The general opinion, however, was in favor of its authenticity, this view being held not only by the cabalists, for whom the book opened new paths in the field of mysticism, but also by eminent Talmudists.

However, the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Khasidim, who, under its influence, assign the first place in religion not to dogma and ritual, but to the sentiment and the emotion of faith.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z


And the source I quoted is the translators note to the Zohar - I would suggest as reliable a source as you could find. The fact is, that it is the Zohar itself that claims to be post-Christian. Read the following:

* * *it must be assumed that the main part of the Zohar and the Midrash ha-Ne’lam were written between 1270 and 1300* * *.

I would suggest that the Encyclopaedia Judaica is a reliable source.

Are you ready to admit that the Zohar is a POST-Christian work?

Why should I? An assumption is NOT proof.

"And the source I quoted is the translators note to the Zohar - I would suggest as reliable a source as you could find. The fact is, that it is the Zohar itself that claims to be post-Christian." Which is it, the Zohar itself or modern translators that claim it is post-Christian?

However, you also challenged my statement that the Zohar had imbibed pagan ideas:

Read this:

The Zohar has been described as

Again a reputable source.

Described by whom?

You said:
"I posted the article as proof that the ONLY Trinity that exists outside of Christianity was in ancient Judaism, NOT any pagan culture as you asserted, more than once I think."

The quote from the JE is as follows:

"This and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity; but the Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar."

It is true that many of the ideas in the Zohar pre-dated Christianity (see the list in Werblowsky above). However the JE article does NOT say that they were believed WITHIN JUDAISM

Just one more example of your twisting and misrepresentation. I have posted this article before. Here, ignore it again.
JE-Trinity-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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism.

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


The Trinity article explains that the Trinity has always been incompatible with Judaism. Although, to be honest it wouldnt make a bit of difference whether they did or not. The question is: is the doctrine in the Bible?

Some within Judaism believed in the Trinity and believed that it was scriptural. The consistent witness of the early church is Trinitarian.

As I have said before, trinitarians will grasp at any support for the doctrine outside the Bible, even if they have to ignore the facts in the process.

And I have said before anti-Trinitarians will misquote, misrepresent and outright lie to press their argument, just as you have done here and in other posts. You did not respond to the one post which was filled with such deceit and prevarication. But I sort of figured you wouldn't.

You are gods

There was not need to copy and paste the posts from the other thread on this topic - I have been following it there. Looks to me like Phantym is holding his own against the usual abuse. I have run out of time.

Typical biased nonsense. Anti-trinitarians can post virtually anything they want, no matter how abusive or absurd, but when Trinitarians defend their views, "Oh no, that is abuse." Why do I suddenly feel the urge to vomit?

[elpis]

Ok folks - this is desperation setting in. I believe there are sincere people on this board who actually want to discuss facts. I believe I have proved categorically that the Zohar is post-Christian. I have spent a large amount of valuable time researching it. We are not discussing the interpretation of scripture. This is straightforward facts from reliable sources. If we cant agree on facts, how can we ever agree when it comes to interpretation. Is there any pont in hanging around this board if people argue that black is white in spite of the facts. If anyone is convinced that my argument is sound (or even if you dont) can you please speak up now.
Thanks.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 03:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254721#post254721)
elpis:

Ok folks - this is desperation setting in. I believe there are sincere people on this board who actually want to discuss facts. I believe I have proved categorically that the Zohar is post-Christian. I have spent a large amount of valuable time researching it. We are not discussing the interpretation of scripture. This is straightforward facts from reliable sources. If we cant agree on facts, how can we ever agree when it comes to interpretation. Is there any pont in hanging around this board if people argue that black is white in spite of the facts. If anyone is convinced that my argument is sound (or even if you dont) can you please speak up now.
Thanks.

I'm Trinitarian but do not beleive the Jews believed in a Trinity. To me the Trinity was revealed whe Jesus came. And I think the points you make about zohar are valid. As far as Is 48 and Gen ( 2 YHWH's), these may be hints to the trinity but I do not believe they are irrefutable and I don't believe the Jews saw them the same way some Trinitarians do today. To me God was fully revealed to His people through Christ, not before.

I personally don't want to debate with you or anyone but there are some people on this board who are are decent and Christ-like in their disposition. AV Metro has displayed a mild spirit toward non-Trinitarians. A few others too. To me it seems people attack when they don't have any real good arguments to layout. I think this comes from trying to force something from the text that isn't really there. If we stick to what Christ revealed and also what his early followers taught, we'll do well.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254721#post254721)
elpis:

Ok folks - this is desperation setting in. I believe there are sincere people on this board who actually want to discuss facts. I believe I have proved categorically that the Zohar is post-Christian. I have spent a large amount of valuable time researching it. We are not discussing the interpretation of scripture. This is straightforward facts from reliable sources. If we cant agree on facts, how can we ever agree when it comes to interpretation. Is there any pont in hanging around this board if people argue that black is white in spite of the facts. If anyone is convinced that my argument is sound (or even if you dont) can you please speak up now.
Thanks.

Proved categotically? I would say you quoted from two sources, Ency. Judaica and the Zohar preface, which postulate, NOT prove, that the Zohar is post Christian. Very well, let me concede momentarily, for the sake of discussion, that the Zohar is post Christian. What I have shown from the Jewish Encyclopedia is that some within Judaism, who would have no preconceived ideas about a Trinity, wrote of a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You have repeatedly avoided this fact. Do all Jews believe in a Trinity? I have never said nor implied that. Have Jews found, in their own scriptures the Trinity, without any preconceived ideas of such and no influence from Christians?
How a Rabbi Found Peace

Personal Testimony of Dr. Max Wertheimer

Former Rabbi of Temple Israel in Dayton. Ohio.

Born in Germany, of orthodox Jewish parents, my first fifteen years were saturated with training in orthodox Judaism. Then I began my studies toward a career, and was apprenticed to a manufacturer, doing office work. Although I continued to read the prayers and attend synagogue, my worldly associates led me into sinful pleasures and I drifted from the faith of my fathers.

My parents sent me to America to study in the Hebrew Union College in Ohio. There were major adjustments to be made, but I finished my training in all phases of Hebrew learning, completed my undergraduate work and received, eventually, my Master's degree.

* * *

Again I studied Judaism, but it answered no questions, it satisfied no craving in my heart. Then I began to read the New Testament, comparing it with the Old. In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah I was perplexed by the expression, '...my righteous servant?' I found he was going to beer the iniquity of Israel. I decided it could not mean Israel, for the prophet spoke of them as a sinful nation, laden with iniquity. Who was it?

I began to study the context and in Isaiah 50:6 I found, "I gave My back to the smiters." Then I read how the chapter began: "Thus said Jehovah." I asked, does God have a back? Did He give it to the smiters? Then I read he "gave his checks to them that pluck off the hair." And how he hid not His face "from shame and spitting." I asked myself, when did Jehovah have these human characteristics? When and why did He suffer these indignities? I was further perplexed by Psalm 110:1.

In my confusion I began to read Isaiah from the beginning. I was stopped at the sixth verse of chapter nine: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulders: His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Here was a most incomprehensible thing!

I was suddenly faced with the doctrine of the Trinity. What now about our popular monotheistic slogan, "Sh'ma Isroel, Adonai Eloheynu, Adonai, Echod." Upon that word "Echod" (one) the entire philosophy of Judaism is based. I had been taught by the rabbis that echod means absolute unity. I began to study that word and found to my amazement it was used of Adam and Eve, who became one. It was used again when the spies returned from Canaan with a cluster of' grapes (Eshol Echod). It was used again when the "men of Judah" stood up as one man" (Ish Echod). Suddenly I was struck with the error I had believed and proclaimed all through my ministry. Echod cannot mean absolute unity, but a composite unity.

http://www.menorah.org/rabbimaxwertheimer.html


Link to a similar story.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/stories/lcohn.htm

[elpis]

Old Shepherd,

Thank you for your more reasonable tone. I am off mountain climbing for a week, and will deal specifically with the issue that you raise when I get back.


.

[Capt Mercury]

OK, first of all I must admit that this thread is entirley too long to easily read all of it. I tried to read much of it, but if I duplicate what's already been shared, please excuse me.

Sure, the word "trinity" isn't used in the Bible, but what is clear in the NT and also the OT is that the Father is God, Jesus is God & the Holy Spirit is also God. Yet other scriptures are clear that they are one. I agree with an earlier post that likely in the OT they did not realize that there was a trinity. They may not have even understood that the Messiah was going to be God incarnate.

I'll also include a post on the history of the trinity to follow this, just FYI.

But 1st, here's a couple of clear references to the trinity:

Luke 3:21, 22 NRSV Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.
(You can see the Father, Son and Spirit all 3 in this story.)

Matt. 28: 19, 20 HCSB Go, therefore, and (or "While you are going") make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

2 Corin. 13:13 HCSB The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

Acts5:3, 4 HCSB Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the proceeds from the field? Wasn't it yours while you possessed it? And after it was sold, wasn't it at your disposal? Why is it that you planned this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God!"
(So, the Holy Spirit is God.)

There are numerous passages that speak of the Son being God... here's just one:

John 1:1-4 NET In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.3 The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.
3tn Or "and what God was, the Word was too"; or "and the Word was fully God." ...

Thanks,

CM

[Capt Mercury]

Although the word "trinity" (or as it was actually 1st expressed by Tertullian - "tri-unity") is not found in the Bible, the concept that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both God is throughout the Bible. It was always believed by the NT church and the church fathers (those who immediately followed the apostles). When people tried to teach something different, such as Arius did, there were quick & strong objections.

When men tried to worship Paul or Peter in Acts, they quickly squelched that vehemently. Similarly with OT prophets. Yet Jesus allowed men to worship Him on more than one occasion.

Here is what some people claim The trinity is not what the bible teaches, it is what the men in 200AD taught, which was formerly established by the creeds of corruptible men. The apostles creed which makes no mention of Christ being YHWH, or the Holy Spirit being YHWH is one of the earliest recorded creeds that we have found. Not until the Nicean creed do we see the trinity established by Constantine an unrepented of pagan, with backgrounds in polytheism.

Actually, the Trinitarian idea was communicated before that in many church documents. Let me quote church historian professor John Hannah (DTS), "First, the church never evidenced disbelief in the deity of the Savior until recent centuries." That is a matter of historical fact, according to many church historians. When Arius began to teach that Jesus was not God, the council of Trent organized by Constantine quickly put a stop to such things. It did NOT initiate the concept, but simply put in words which were more clear regarding the boundaries what the church had ALWAYS believed.

Hannah goes on to say that, "while church leaders struggled over how to explain the relationship of the two natures of Christ, nearly every one of them nonetheless held firmly to both natures." So Jesus' deity was not "invented" in 220 AD by Tertullian, or later in 325 AD, it was an attempt to explain it more clearly.

"Historically, we know that "Jesus is Lord" was the earliest most basic profession of faith in Christ. It was a statement of His deity - and that was clearly understood by the professors."

So you can say that they misunderstood what Jesus intended, if you want, or that they did not understand the OT, but it's a fact that the Christians of the 1st few centuries of the NT viewed Jesus Christ as God. To say anything else is contrary to written records.

Clement of Rome is a well-known, respected historical figure of the time, who is believed to have died in 101AD.
In 1 Clement 36 he referred to Christ as the "preexistent Son of God." He also wrote that He was "sent from God," & he later wrote, "The scepter of the majesty of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ…" He also later wrote of His receiving divine honor (32.4; 38.4; 43.6; 58.2; 63.3 & 65.2). FYI, Clement was a bishop of the church of Rome - the central church in Christianity that was rapidly expanding.

One of the earliest church fathers was Ignatius of Antioch (the same Antioch which sent out Paul & Barnabas) (35 - 107AD). He was a disciple of the apostle John himself! He was well aware of the heretical teaching (docetism - Gnosticism) that taught that Jesus was born a human being(only), became indwelt by the Christ at the baptism of John (& fully God at that point), but who gave up the Spirit of Christ at His crucifixion, & firmly opposed. In "To the Ephesians" he makes it clear that he viewed Christ as both God and man:
"There is only one physician, of flesh & of the spirit, generate & ingenerate, God in man, life in death, Son of Mary & Son of God, 1st passable [i.e. - capable of suffering] & then impassible, Jesus our Lord" (7.2).

Now, at this point in history, at least according to famed church historian Alois Grillmeier, there was an emphatic delineation of the God-man (duality idea) of Jesus Christ in response to the Gnostic attack led by Cerenthus. Thisis referred to as the "hypostatic union."

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (130 - 200AD) in his "Against Heresies III.16" said,
"There is therefore…one God the Father, & one Christ Jesus our Lord…in every respect, too, he is man, the formation of God: & thus he took up man into himself, the invisible becoming visible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in himself."

Throughout the early church history, before Constantine, whenever someone began to teach that Jesus was not God, or to deny that He was truly man also, there was a quick & thorough rejection by the unified church. You see, for the 1st 300 years, the church was VERY unified in doctrine. Not until after Constantine, when the church began to be a political entity also, do we see this changing.

I have read more than one church historians on this and they all emphatically assert that the deity of Christ was not questioned from the beginning - according to the records we have. In fact, I took a church history course the summer before last and thistopic came up. So you can deny the deity of Christ, if you think that makes scriptural sense, but you just can't do it based on the historical records of what the early church believed!

I don't know if anyone as posted regarding the concept of the trinity in history yet.

FWIW,

CM

[elpis]

Old Shepherd:

I will answer your earlier post. I apologize for the length of this post. I realise that it will mean that many wont read the whole thing, so I have put titles in bold so other readers can look at specific bits you might be interested in!

Are there two Yahweh's in Gen19:24

I gave you multiple references to modern Hebrew scholars commentary on the text, showing clearly that the text does not mean that there are two Yahwehs in this passages. You have chosen to ignore them, choosing rather to accept a comment by a Church Father. Obviously that Church Fathers are not inspired. Nor are Hebrew commentators. However, I would suggest we are not here discussing the question of interpretation, but primarily a question of grammar/idiom. Does the grammar require or even imply that there are two entities called Yahweh here? The overwhelming view of Hebrew scholarship is NO. You have a choice - believe the traditions of men, or believe the scripture.


Are there two Yahwehs in Isa 48:16

You have done an about turn on your argument based on the translation of the Jewish Publication society. When you thought it supported your view you said:

"The Jews certainly don’t punctuate the passage as your favorite version. Do you think they are stupid or don’t know their own language?

However, when I pointed out that the version you were quoting was old, and the new translation did not support your view you said:

"And of course the modern Hebrew translators would never, ever translate passages in a certain way to avoid supporting Christian doctrines, as their Talmudists, e.g. Rambam, admittedly did during the middle ages."

So now you suggest we cant trust the translation because it might be translated to avoid supporting a Christian doctrine. You really cant have it both ways!!!


You also say:

"This passage is clear proof that the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal. A Trinitarian would not have the least hesitation to write the text as it stands. But Unitarians, Arians, Modalists, and Muslims could never do so."

I quoted numerous sources from Hebrew scholars, all of them trinitarians to the best of my knowledge. They do not support your belief that this passage supports a multi-personal God. You are not arguing against us evil Biblical Unitarians - you are arguing against your fellow trinitarians. But they are at least honest enough to interpret the scripture according to context and not rely on over-zealous Church Fathers. NONE of the scholars I quoted believe that this text is a "clear proof that God was multi-personal". And you have not produced a logical exegesis of how the passage could possibly imply a multi-personal God. I asked you how you define Yahweh and you told me he was "One God manifest as three sentient, rational personas". When I substitute your definition into the text using your interpretation, it says:

One God manifest as three sentient, rational personas sent One (another?) God manifest as three sentient, rational personas and his spirit (another rational persona). You agreed this is nonsense.

As I pointed out before, we have the call of Isaiah in Chapter 6. He says: "Here am I, SEND ME".
In chapter 40, v6 "A voice says, "Cry". And Isaiah answers: "What shall I cry?"
In chapter 48 we have someone sent. I would suggest context shows this to be Isaiah.
Modern commentators appear to agree overwhelmingly (see quotations in previous post).



Date of the Zohar


I think it is clear to all who are reading this that your source does not state that the Zohar is pre-Christian. However, you said this in support:


"I DID ADDRESS IT AND THE JE DOES SAY OR IMPLY THAT THE ZOHAR IS PRE-CHRISTIAN!!. I have posted this before you evidently have ignored it.

JE-Zohar-Authenticity.

The general opinion, however, was in favor of its authenticity, this view being held not only by the cabalists, for whom the book opened new paths in the field of mysticism, but also by eminent Talmudists.

However, the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Khasidim, who, under its influence, assign the first place in religion not to dogma and ritual, but to the sentiment and the emotion of faith."



Well maybe I have a problem with comprehension, but I cant see anything in this quote that says is it pre-Christian. It does say that the general opinion was in favour of its authenticity. But because something is authentic, doesnt make it pre-Christian. It may be authentic Spanish Cabbalism, but what does that prove about its date? Especially as you have ignored the fact that the Zohar itself DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE PRE-CHRISTIAN. I have already given you references to that, ie:

According to the Zohar 1,200 years had passed since the destruction of the Temple

Here is another:

Cohn-Sherbrook, L & D. A Popular Dictionary of Judaism, Curzon Press, 1995:
ZOHAR: A Kabbalistic work. The Zohar is a collection of several works supposedly dating back to the 2nd Century. It contains a mystical commentary on the Pentateuch and on much of the Hagioagrapha. It was probably composed by Moses b. Shem Tov in the 13th Century. (page 199)

And from the Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol 16: page 1209) :

"According to the clear testimony of Isaac b. Samuel of Acre, who assembled the contradictory information concerning the appearance and nature of the Zohar in the early years of the 14th Century, the book was published, part by part, not all at once, by the Spanish Kabbalist Moses b. Shem Tov, who died in 1305 after he met Isaac of Acre....From all that has already been said, the Zohar with its various strata was without doubt composed in the years that immediately preceded its publication, since it is impossible to uncover any section that was written before 1270...When he made investigations in Avila, the last city in which Moses de Leon lived, Isaac was told that a wealthy man had proposed to marry his son to the daughter of Moses' widow provided that she would give him the original manuscript from which , according to him her deceased husband had copied the texts which he had published. Both the mother and daughter maintained that there ws no such ancient manuscript from which he had published.


And from Alexander, P.S. Textual Sources for the Study of Judaism, Manchester University press, 1984.

"Strictly speaking it (the Zohar) is anonymous, but since it purports to record the discussions of the great second century C.E. Palestinian scholar, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, and his disciples, it was traditionally believed that Simeon was the author. Modern academic study of the Zohar rejects this attribution and regards the work as a pseudoepigraphon: a later writer has deliberately put his own views into the mouth of a famous early master, in order to conceal his own identity, and also, perhaps, to give his own opinions an aura of antiquity and authority"

And from the Introduction to the Zohar, Soncino Edition, 1973 reprint, page x:

"On the other hand, many books have been written mainly in Hebrew, to show that the Zohar is a work of great antiquity and that its authorship can very properly be attribued to the ancient sage, Simeon ben Yohai. But neither of these views can hold water in the light of the facts as we know them......And to credit a rabbi of the second century with the authorship of the second century with the sayings and doings of men who lived long after him, is to adopt a standpoint which no one in the times will seriously countenance"

The other quote you used to support your argument was this:


This (Trinity) and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity;* * *

This does NOT say that the Zohar is older than Christianity -
You logic seems to be as follows:

The Zohar contains doctrines that are older than Christianity, therefore
The Zohar is older than Christianity

I could as well argue that:

Old Shepherd hold doctrines that are older than Christianity, therefore
OldShepherd is older than Christianity!!!!

We will see later what the doctrines of the Zohar are and where they came from. However, the point is, that if these doctrines are older than Christianity, the proof is NOT in the Zohar - the proof has to come from pre-Christian contemporary records. Where are they?

You balked when I laid out the argument of the JE article about the source of the Zohar when I said:

"So the progression is:
Vedanta (Hindu scriptures) influenced Mohammedan Persians
Sufis were a mystical sect of Persian Mohammedans
Sufis exercised influence on Persian Jews causing various sects to arise."

"All these sects had their sacred writings, which they kept secret; and these writings probably formed the nucleus of the Zohar,

Your response was:

"How could a religion which did NOT begin until the 6th century AD, influence pre-Christain Jewish writers of the Zohar? "

You did not seem to realise that your JE source is clearly saying that the Zohar is Post-Christian (and post 6th Century).


You have not produced a single authority to support your view that the Zohar was written prior to Christianity - you have misunderstood your JE extracts, and refuse to face the evidence of several other reputable sources. I think you are seriously damaging your credibility and integrity by continuing to insist on your unsupported proposition. Your response to me was:

"I think the problem is you have your cult agenda and you are blinded to anything else."

I leave the readers to make up their own minds on that one!

And another thing!! If these trinity believing people were pre-Christian and were therefore in existence during the time of Christ, how come there is no mention of them in the Gospels, or in Acts? Would Jesus not have sought them out, as they were the closest to the truth in that day??


Teachings of the Zohar

I spent some of my time up a mountain last week reading most of the first volume of the Zohar, and some bits from the third and fifth volumes It makes fascinating reading. It confirms to me the definition of the Zohar teachings which I quoted in a previous post from the Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion "Old Gnostic doctrines, mystical traditions, theurgic speculations, popular superstitions, and mythological motifs dwell side by side with echoes of Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian philosophic theories about the nature of the cosmos and about the relationship between a transcendent God and a finite world.”

The following is a series of extracts from the Zohar and also from the summary of its doctrine found in the Introduction.

Page xv111 (Introduction):
"The soul enjoyed a heavenly pre-existence. This idea is already found in the Talmud and is deduced from certain passages of the Hebrew Bible. Whether the rabbis discovered the idea independently, or whether they merely adapted it from the teaching of Plato is a moot point. Complementary to this doctrine of pre-existence, is that of the transmigration of the soul - metempsychosis - which is taught in the Zohar by way of a solution to the eternally vexing problem of why the wicked prosper.....The soul's dross cannot be cast off in the course of one lifetime. It must pass through may bodies and experiences before it can reach the pinnacle of perfection - union with God - which is its predestined end".

Prologue (Zohar proper!) Page 92:
"On account of the darkness, which was destined to sin against the light, the Father was not willing to share in man's creation, and therefore the Mother said: "Let us make man in our image after our likeness".

Zohar, Vol I (Bereshith), page 107:
"At that time "the Lord God" caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man (Gen 2:21). "Lord God designates the Father and the Mother".

Zohar, Vol I (Bereshith), page 137:
"....the first born was the son of the (serpent's) slime . For two beings had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed on of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters ".

Zohar, Vol I (Bereshith), page 173:
""From the time that Cain killed Abel Adam separated from his wife. Two female spirits then used to come and have intercourse with him, and he bore from them spirits and demons that flit about the world. This need cause no surprise, because now also when a man dreams in his sleep, female spirits often come and disport with him, and so conceive from him and subsequently give birth."



I have dozens more quotes, but the point is, that the Zohar is full of superstition and false teachings. Do you believe that the pre-existence of the soul in based on scripture? Do you believe transmigration of the soul (a form of reincarnation) is part of the teaching of the Bible? It is a fact that these doctrines existed before Christianity - but it doesnt change the fact that they are not true.

To quote the Zohar to prove: " Some within Judaism believed in the Trinity and believed that it was scriptural.", is being somewhat selective to say the least. As you said in another thread " It is hypocritical to arbitrarily pick and choose which Jewish doctrines you will/will not accept. "

I do not think it is honest to claim that some Jews had worked out from scripture that God was a trinity, when their other beliefs show clearly that their belief system is not based on scripture.


However, IF the Zohar were pre-Christian, you would be in rather a difficult position. Because the authority you use to prove that Jews believed in a Trinity, also teaches pre-existence of the soul, transmigration, Eve's intercourse with the serpent, there is a Mother god (good news for Mormons!), the Father did not create, etc. The Zohar is clearly teaching doctrines NOT based on scripture, and teachings that were also held by PAGAN religions (pre-existence, transmigration). One would not be without justification in deducing that your source proves the pagan (or at least non-Biblical) origin of the Trinity doctrine.



Is there are trinity in the Zohar

The JE article does not clearly state that the Trinity is taught in the Zohar, and from all I have read of it, I cannot find it there either.

You said:

As I very clearly documented some number of Jews believed that God was a multi-personal being and defined that as a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, clearly distinct from Christianity.

Your source actually says this:

JE-Trinity-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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity. . .Such terms as "matronita," "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),. . . the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity.


I think that the phrase "its speculation regarding the father etc" relates to the Cabala, NOT the Zohar. The only reference given in the article to the Zohar is "Tazria", ed, Polna, iii. 43b, which I reproduce here:

"SHE SHALL BE UNCLEAN SEVEN DAYS. Because for seven days spirits do no go in to abide with her; for seven days the spirit seeks fro its place in the body, and only on the eighth day does it settle there so that body and soul may appear before the Matron(it)a and unite with her."

Can you explain to me where a multi-personal being of Father Son and Holy Spirit is taught in this passage?

I found a "Jews for Judaism" site that says in answer to a question on whether the Zohar commentary on Deut 6:4 confirms the Christian doctrine of the Trinity:

"Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai as author of the Zohar, never refers to the divine name as having anything to do with the "Divine Being" manifesting itself as three distinct "entities." or "beings" as you put it."

Full article at:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/faq/faq026.html

While I cannot vouch for the bona fides of this organisation or its web site, I can confirm that the Zohar commentary on the Deut 6:4 does not contain any reference to a trinity, and definitely not the words: "Why is there need of mentioning the name of God three times in the verse? The first is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third one is the one which is below (meaning the Holy Spirit who shows us the way) and these three are one.

The Zohar commentary on the Shema occupies pages 341 to 368 of Vol 5 (Vaethhanan 260a to 270a). I have not found so far any reference to a Father, Son and Holy Spirit being members of a multi-personal trinitarian God. Although the Zohar does talk about a Father, Mother, Son, Daughter and spirit, I have not seen any reference to three of them constituting a Godhead. The Mother is definitely shown as the creator of man, not the Father (he refused!).

The Zohar is also pre-occupied with numbers and comments on the number three (being the three names in the Shema - YHWH, Adonai, YHWH) - it also speaks on the number four in relation to the four letters of the divine name. These are three and four grades or modes respectively, of the ten, which are the emanations of Ain Soph. But there is nothing like a Christian Trinity in them. It is difficult to make any specific deductions from the Zohar's use of numbers.

It may be that your JE references are out of date as they are over 90 years old, and my sources are much more current. If the trinity is so clearly taught in the Zohar, someone should be able to come up with a reference.

However, as the Zohar was written long after the Christian trinity doctrine was developed, and comes from a religious group that teaches pagan doctrines, it wouldn't really mean anything anyway.

Except that some trinitarians still try to mislead people into thinking that it does!



You are gods

In John 10:33-36, the people claim that Jesus being a man was making himself God. The people were about to stone him. Then he quotes from the Psalms:

34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

You tell me that:

"Jesus was merely pointing out how they were being hypocritical by using their own Talmud debating technique against them. "

I would suggest that this is not a very satisfactory explanation! Jesus is about to be stoned to death, and he decides to start a discussion on the validity of Talmudic debating techniques!! I dont think so.

Nor is it valid to say the Psalm was just used in mockery - while it is a warning to the judges (gods) that they will die like men if they dispense false judgement, they were not mistaken in thinking they were gods. It is God who calls them gods, not themselves. The Psalm begins: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgement". So the Psalm (and God) recognises that they are validly called gods (elohim). Jesus reaffirms this by saying that "the scripture cannot be broken" - ie there is not way you can avoid that fact that this is what God said.


I think that his quotation has everything to do with the claim that he was making himself God. To me he is saying - Yes, I am a god in the same sense as God's representatives in the Old Testament ie I am not claiming to be Yahweh, but I am claiming to be his SON.


It is unlikely that I will be able to give a quick reply to you response - but I will check occasionally when I have time.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 03:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275888#post275888)
elpis:

Your source actually says this:

JE-Trinity-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 speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity. . .Such terms as "matronita," "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),. . . the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity.

I think that the phrase "its speculation regarding the father etc." relates to the Cabala, NOT the Zohar.

Are you sure this is what you want to say?
Antiquity of the Cabala.

How old the Cabala is, may be inferred from the fact that as early a writer as Ben Sira warns against it in his saying: “a’in lk a’sq bnstryt” = "Thou shalt have no business with secret things" (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 22; compare Hag. 13a; Gen. R. viii.). In fact, the apocalyptic literature belonging to the second and first pre-Christian centuries contained the chief elements of the Cabala; and as, according to Josephus (l.c.), such writings were in the possession of the Essenes, and were jealously guarded by them against disclosure, for which they claimed a hoary antiquity (see Philo, "De Vita Contemplativa," iii., and Hippolytus, "Refutation of all Heresies," ix. 27),

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_page.jsp?pid=1&artid=1&letter=C


Jesus was merely pointing out how they were being hypocritical by using their own Talmud debating technique against them.

I would suggest that this is not a very satisfactory explanation! Jesus is about to be stoned to death, and he decides to start a discussion on the validity of Talmudic debating techniques!! I dont think so.

Misrepresenting what I said. Reread what I actually said, immediately above this response, and address that if you can.

Nor is it valid to say the Psalm was just used in mockery - while it is a warning to the judges (gods) that they will die like men if they dispense false judgement, they were not mistaken in thinking they were gods.

NOT "if!" God said they did, in fact, dispense false judgement and that is why they would die like ordinary men.

It is God who calls them gods, not themselves. The Psalm begins: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgement." So the Psalm (and God) recognises that they are validly called gods (elohim).

Nonsense, they were NOT, and God does not recognize that they were, "validly called gods", because they were corrupt. Are you having a problem understanding the clear words of the scripture? The judges were already corrupt, they favored the wealthy, they lacked understanding, and walked in darkness. Would God validly call corrupt human judges gods?

Jesus reaffirms this by saying that "the scripture cannot be broken" - i.e. there is not way you can avoid that fact that this is what God said.

And I have clearly acknowledged that God did, in fact, call the judges god, or Elohim. The disagreement is not that God called them gods, but in what context.

I think that his quotation has everything to do with the claim that he was making himself God. To me he is saying - Yes, I am a god in the same sense as God's representatives in the Old Testament ie I am not claiming to be Yahweh, but I am claiming to be his SON.

Do you actually believe that Jesus was saying He was God in the same sense as the judges in Ps 82?Was Jesus corrupt, accepting the person of the wicked, lacking in understanding, and walking in darkness? Now who is trying to have it both ways. Even if you don't acknowledge Jesus' divinity, Jesus was not the same, as the corrupt judges in Ps 82.

[DiGriz]

11-07-2003 @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275103#post275103)
Capt Mercury:

Cap:

Good list, but You left out one. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus c: 130 ad

"I do not speak of things strange to me, nor do I aim at anything inconsistent with right reason; but having been a disciple of the Apostles, I am become a teacher of the Gentiles....

For which reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles. This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is to-day called the Son; through whom the Church is enriched,

Bolivar

[Capt Mercury]

Today @ 01:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277186#post277186)
DiGriz:

Bolivar,

Thx - added to my list of church father quotes on the subject.

Capt

[elpis]

Old Shepherd:

You quoted the following from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Antiquity of the Cabala.

"How old the Cabala is, may be inferred from the fact that as early a writer as Ben Sira warns against it in his saying: “a’in lk a’sq bnstryt” = "Thou shalt have no business with secret things" (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 22; compare Hag. 13a; Gen. R. viii.). In fact, the apocalyptic literature belonging to the second and first pre-Christian centuries contained the chief elements of the Cabala; and as, according to Josephus (l.c.), such writings were in the possession of the Essenes, and were jealously guarded by them against disclosure, for which they claimed a hoary antiquity (see Philo, "De Vita Contemplativa," iii., and Hippolytus, "Refutation of all Heresies," ix. 27), "



I assume you are trying to imply from this reference that the trinity was believed before Christ. I would suggest it does no such thing. What are the "chief elements of the Cabala" that are being referred to? Do they include a trinity. I dont think so. If you think otherwise, where is the evidence? Also, please note that the Cabala is not the Zohar.

Is this the best evidence you can find? You have not addressed any of the authoratative sources which I quoted in my last post, not the reference to you OWN source which says that the Zohar may have been influenced by secret writings that couldn't have existed before the 6th century AD.

Have you had a chance to digest my previous post yet?


You are gods:

You are correct in pointing out an error in my reasoning - I think I must have been tired by the time I got to the end of typing up that post (not altogether surprising!). But you are correct, I was wrong in claiming that Jesus was saying: "Yes, I am a god in the same sense as God's representatives in the Old Testament".


The point I was trying to make is that in Psalm 82, the judges were called Elohim because they represented Yahweh. It was a TITLE that they could validly hold as God's representatives. Jesus expresses it as: "Ye are gods to whom the word of the Lord came". It had nothing to do with their personal characteristics. That point is indisputable - you agree that they are called gods. However, you then seem to deny it. When I said:

"It is God who calls them gods, not themselves. The Psalm begins: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgement." So the Psalm (and God) recognises that they are validly called gods (elohim)."


You answered:

"Nonsense, they were NOT, and God does not recognize that they were, "validly called gods", because they were corrupt. Are you having a problem understanding the clear words of the scripture? The judges were already corrupt, they favored the wealthy, they lacked understanding, and walked in darkness. Would God validly call corrupt human judges gods."


But God just called them gods - not once, but three times. V1 - "the council of Elohim (divine council)", "judges amongst the Elohim", V6 "You are gods". They will die like men, but it doesnt change the fact that God calls them gods three times. Do you believe that they were gods and ceased being gods when they became corrupt? How does that work? Or had they never been gods?

When God sent Moses to Pharaoh, he says "I will make you god (elohim) to Pharaoh". (Ex 7:1 - some translators balk at this and add "as" which is not in the original).
God calls Cyrus his annointed (Christ). Isa 45:1
The king of Israel is called God (Psalm 45:1,2,8)

The designation arises from the position they occupy, not their personal characteristics. Cyrus, did not even believe in Yahweh.


I should have said "Jesus COULD validly have claimed the title God, in the sense that the Old Testament representatives used the title". However, he didnt. He claimed to be sent FROM the Father, and to be His SON. This is NOT the same as claiming to be God. His point then was, if God calls his representatives in the Old Testament, Gods, how can he (Jesus) be blaspheming when he is claiming to have been sent FROM God and to be his SON.

You said+

"The Jewish leaders accused Jesus of making Himself God, Jesus did NOT deny it, but sidestepped their accusation and thus confrontation, by Talmudic debate."

You believe Jesus was sidestepping the issue - strange that you believe he was claiming it directly in other places - why the inconsistency? I believe Jesus was directly addressing the issue that had been raised. His answer was - He was not claiming to be God.