Ihsous is not Ton Qeon. -Debate-

[Ani Uriyah]

The definition of omniscient is “having total knowledge; knowing everything.”

In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, why does Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) state that he doesn’t know the day or hour of his coming? Moreover, why is Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) affirming that only the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) knows the day and hour?



It is clear in these passages, that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) doesn’t have all knowledge, thus proving he cannot be omniscient. Several people will dismiss these clear passages, by stating that it was the flesh that was talking, thus limiting Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) of all knowledge. In response to this, I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier than the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? On the other hand, if the flesh does not limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), then the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) would certainly have knowledge of the day and hour. However, since Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), he does not know the day or hour.



KJV: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:



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



CLV: Revelation 1:1 The Unveiling of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which Elohim gives to him, to show to his slaves what must occur swiftly; and He signifies it, dispatching through his messenger to his slave John,



KJV: 1st Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Elohim; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.



NRSV: 1st Corinthians 15:50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Elohim, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.



CLV: 1st Corinthians 15:50 Now this I am averring, brethren, that flesh and blood is not able to enjoy an allotment in the kingdom of Elohim, neither is corruption enjoying the allotment of incorruption.



In Revelation 1:1, Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) receives a revelation from the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). If Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), how would he receive a revelation from the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

[Thomas2003]

In Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, why does Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) state that he doesn’t know the day or hour of his coming? Moreover, why is Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) affirming that only the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) knows the day and hour?

It's called the economic appropriation of the Godhead, as part of the Doctrine of the Trinity

It is clear in these passages, that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) doesn’t have all knowledge, thus proving he cannot be omniscient.

No it doesn't - it only proves that the eternal decree didn't pass from eternity into time, and that He is God the Son and not God the Father.

Scripture teaches that there is true union in the incarnation, yet two natures that form the one person of Jesus Christ, being God of God and man of man. However, the determination of all things, the eternal decree of God, never passed from eternity to time, nor from God to man. Thus, the incarnation did not deify humanity or humanize deity - but is a true union of the two natures.


Several people will dismiss these clear passages, by stating that it was the flesh that was talking, thus limiting Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) of all knowledge.

No, not at all. It is God the Son that is talking, the one person Jesus Christ being God of God and man of man. As he states,

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away._But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

He is making omnicient statements concerning the Eternal Decree of God the Father - its right there in the text - "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." The Father has yet to fulfill this work, in time. He is, at this saying, in time - fulfilling the Fathers work appointed unto Him.

In Ecclesiastes 3 we learn there is an appointed time for all things, this particular time was appointed for the suffering of the Son, whereby in well doing, He would redeem those whom His Father gave Him in that eternal decree.

In response to this, I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier than the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

No, because it isn't. You just have a errant presupposition and are attempting to work it out through a false standard. Your demand that God's omniscience must meet your definition in eternity and in time.


However, since Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), he does not know the day or hour.

You would do better in saying "I don't believe in the Trinity and here is why" than proposing this false absolute from whence to supposedly support your presupposition. Because it doens't support your presupposition.

You are simply misinterpretating the statements in those Scripture as being ontological statements, when they aren't.

Thus, in the negative implication of your statements you are asserting that Jesus Christ cannot be God because these Scriptures don't establish the eternal decree in time.

That is just a false presumption based upon a non-trinitarian presupposition, which would necessarily hold a deification of humanity as a response to the premise, even if you held He wasn't fully God. This would result in the error of the Nestorians, because it would create an alternating consciousness; or on the other hand a kenotic conception of the incarnation - both of which are unscriptural.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Ani Uriyah]

This is no different than saying that one is poor because one has no money in one pocket, though in the other pocket one has a billion dollars.

How can a single person at once be infinite and finite?

[Ani Uriyah]

The book of Yirmeyahu, chapter 23, gives us the name of the mashiach, and that name is YHWH, our righteousness.

YHVH our righteousness, yes very glorious name/title. But it doesn't make one YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) to have such a name/title.

Yeshua/Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach is YHWH.

And your proof for this blasphemy?

Yeshua forgives sins.

John 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’

As his followers.

Yeshua created the world

Incorrect, please provide Scriptures (Genesis-Malachi) or Passages (Matthew-Revelation).

Yeshua is worshipped by men in His presence.

Worship who and how: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eeeshgeebor/bible%20site/worship%20who.htm

Both the Tanakh and Ha'Brit Hadashah are quite clear on this, especially that latter, which is explicit on this issue, particularly in the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 1.

Where have you found that it is "quite clear" that Tanach teaches Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam)?

[bar Jonah]

Ohhhhh, are you Muslim, then?

You should state where you stand when going into issues like this. Definitions of terms can be very important in discussions of theological matters, and a Messianic Jew using a term may mean something entirely different from a Muslim using the same term or word.

So, before anyone discusses anything further... Uriyah, where do you stand?

[Ani Uriyah]

In my signature, click on "Apostolic doctrine" link to find out where I stand.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207068#post207068)
Ani Uriyah:
In my signature, click on "Apostolic doctrine" link to find out where I stand.
I didn't ask for a list of proof texts for your specific view on this specific subject. I asked what your belief system is. You sound very Islamic (and so does the page you sent me to). That's why I ask.

[Ani Uriyah]

The link (Apostolic doctrine) is my belief system.

[Ani Uriyah]

The definition of omnipotent is, “having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all powerful.”

Acts 10:38 reveals that the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) anointed Yehoshua of Nazareth (Alav ha’shalom) with power. I pose this question to you, how can the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) anoint Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) with power if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipotent?



In Matthew 28:18, Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) declares that all power “was given” to him. If Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) was the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipotent, how could power be given to him? Wouldn’t he already have all power, if he was the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?



In 1st Corinthians 15:27-28, it says that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) will be subject to the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) then how can the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) be subject to another when he is omnipotent?



The above verses, plainly assert, that Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) . As in the case with the true Elohim’s (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) omniscience, some will state that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) was limited in omnipotence, due to him being in the flesh. In response to this, I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) ? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier then the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) ? On the other hand, if the flesh does not limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) , then the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) would not vary in his power/authority. However, since Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) is not the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) , he does vary in power/authority.

[dizzle]

Your signature line is too long AU... I do not want to selectively edit it, so please condense it. We do not like posts broken up by that much. I do not know how the system allowed such a long one as it should block it.

[Ani Uriyah]

Okay, I made it shorter.

[dizzle]

Thank you that is much much better. :thumb:

[jpholding]

Oh dear, more silly comments from people unfamiliar with the concept of a hypostasis...

It is clear in these passages, that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) doesn’t have all knowledge, thus proving he cannot be omniscient.

Beg pardon....

In ancient Semitic and Jewish thought, deities possessed hypostases, which were personifications of their attributes that allowed them to act in the physical world. The Greek Logos is similar, but not quite. In Jewish thought Wisdom was such a hypostasis.

Because the divine could not directly interact with the world, being that the full exposure of the deity's power to the world would destroy it (as for example, unholy men would be destroyed by touching the Ark of the Covenant) the hypostasis acted as an agent of action in the world for the deity. However, in order to interact with the time-space continuum without destroying it, the hypostasis had to relinquish powers and abilities associated with deity. And omniscience is one such ability (for it comes of omnipresence).

I ask, how can flesh limit the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Wouldn’t that make the flesh mightier than the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

Another silly comment. It's like asking whether not being able to pour 11 gallons of milk into a 2 gallon container makes the 2 gallon container "mightier" than the 11 gallons of milk. I think you anti-Trinners get this stuff off of cereal boxes. It sure doesn't come from considered study of the culture of the ANE. :ahem:

I pity these sorts who think that their bare minimum of exposure makes them bright enough to read the texts in ways scholarship as a whole finds laughable. And then show off and pretend to have more authority and knowledge by using the original Jewish names for God and Jesus. :ahem:

[Ani Uriyah]

The word omnipresent means “present everywhere simultaneously.”

Now take a balloon, fill it up with water. Fill the balloon with as much water as possible, then, continue to tie the end of the balloon. Now answer the following question:



Can water proceed forth and come out from water? The answer is no. Since the water is everywhere in the balloon, the water cannot proceed out from itself. The water would have nowhere to proceed to, since where it would proceed to it already exists. The next verse deals with this issue.



NRSV: John 8:42 Yehoshua said to them, ‘If Elohim were your Father, you would love me, for I came from Elohim and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me.



TV: John 8:42 Yehoshua said to them, If Elohim were your Father, you would love me, for I came out of Elohim and arrived, I have not yet come from myself, but that one sent me.



The above verse deals with two issues, which clearly show that Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) cannot be the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). The first issue deals with the analogy of the water and balloon. The second deals with the additional words ‘I have not yet come from myself’. Let’s deal with the first issue. Here, Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) says he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). Keeping the balloon analogy in mind, if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), can he state that he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipresent? If the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) dwells everywhere (omnipresent), how can the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) come out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)? Where would Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) come out to, if he is omnipresent? The second issue deals with the words ‘I have not yet come from myself’. If Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), and came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), he came out of himself did he not? How could Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) come out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), but not from himself if he is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam)?

[Pilgrim]

Uriyah, your posts seems to be cut and pastes. Could you please site your sources for us? As a general rule we don't allow simple cut and pastes.

Also, please respond to JP's comments on hypostases. If you can.

I would also point out your fundamental lack of understanding regarding the distinction between emmenance and trancendance. Which is just another way, really, of agreeing with JP.

[jpholding]

Today @ 06:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207895#post207895)
Ani Uriyah:

The word omnipresent means “present everywhere simultaneously.”

Now take a balloon, fill it up with water. Fill the balloon with as much water as possible, then, continue to tie the end of the balloon. Now answer the following question:

Can water proceed forth and come out from water? The answer is no. Since the water is everywhere in the balloon, the water cannot proceed out from itself. The water would have nowhere to proceed to, since where it would proceed to it already exists. The next verse deals with this issue.


Yeesh. More silly anti-Trinitarian questions.

The balloon is a limited space in a physical realm outside of which more space exists. God is not in physical space with space He does not occupy outside of that. God exists in dimensional transcendance beyond time and space as we know it. Your balloon just got filled with air and is now let go and flying all around the room making noises like gas.

Beyond that your analogy to the Trinity is false. As you state it:

God the Father = water
Jesus/Wisdom = water from the water

That's actually closer to modalism. The real analogy is:

God the Father = a star
Jesus/Wisdom = light of the star

Here, Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha’shalom) says he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam). Keeping the balloon analogy in mind, if Yehoshua (Alav ha’shalom) is the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam), can he state that he came out of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha’olam) who is omnipresent?

Yes. Do you plan on dealing with the hypostasis issue or not?

he came out of himself did he not

No. The hypostasis issue again resolves this. As an aside, you need to grasp that theos in the NT is NOT a proper name like we use "God" today. It is more of an abstract noun like "deity". Thus a hypostasis is "true deity" as it comes from deity and is part of its ontological composition.

Will we get past kindergartren anytime soon? :thumb:

[Ani Uriyah]

Uriyah, your posts seems to be cut and pastes.

That's because I am copying and pasting certain things from a book (Microsoft Word documents) I am working on. I will soon have it done if YHVH (Baruch Hu; Meleh ha'olam) wills it so.

Also, please respond to JP's comments on hypostases. If you can.

It was too ridiculous to respond to. There is only one Deity, YHVH my Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). I shall not share the hidden knowledge how my Father is in everything (rocks, trees, humans, cereal, milk, etc) and yet none of these things. That is something between me, my Father, and my spiritual brother. If he decides to reveal it, then I shall speak upon the matter.

I would also point out your fundamental lack of understanding regarding the distinction between emmenance and trancendance.

Define "emmenance." It is hard to keep up with all these dictionary words. Also, did you mean to say "transcendence"?

The balloon is a limited space in a physical realm outside of which more space exists.

I know the balloon is limited, it is an analogy brought to a lower level where someone can easily grasp what I am trying to say.

Yes. Do you plan on dealing with the hypostasis issue or not?

Flesh has nothing to do with this. The flesh did not come out of Ton Qeon, it was created in Mary's womb. So if you could answer the question, that would be good.

Will we get past kindergartren anytime soon?

Isn't this a arrogant thing to say...

[dizzle]

I shall not share the hidden knowledge how my Father is in everything (rocks, trees, humans, cereal, milk, etc) and yet none of these things. That is something between me, my Father, and my spiritual brother. If he decides to reveal it, then I shall speak upon the matter.


Ummm, shades of gnosticism? and :eek:

By their own words....

Today @ 03:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208044#post208044)
Ani Uriyah:

It was too ridiculous to respond to.

Compare to this complaint against JP



Isn't this a arrogant thing to say...

Ahh, I see you only reserve arrogance for yourself. Your posts have reeked with arrogance, so don't be surprised that others are not trembling beforfe your secret knowledge.

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, Shema anyone?

I Corinthians 8:4-6 (NASB)
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

I like how Paul takes the Shema and expands it such that he clearly shows that Jesus shares in the godhead. One God, one Lord. One Father, one Son. One God who is Lord, made up of Father and Son.

There is more than mere agency tied up within this concept, there is much more than appearance or reliance.

Hebrews 1
8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
10 He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end."

Please explain to me how the Son can be called both God and Lord here and still not be God?

Methinks you will need a new Bible before all this is done.

[Ani Uriyah]

Hmmm, Shema anyone?

Sure:

Mark 12:28-34 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Yehoshua answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Yisrael; YHVH our Elohim is one YHVH: And you shall love YHVH your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, you have said the truth: for there is one Elohim; and there is none other but He: And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Yehoshua saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, You are not far from the kingdom of Elohim. And no man after that dared ask him any question.

It's amazing how Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that there is no Trinity in the real Sh'ma.

Now let's look at another Passage.

1st Corinthians 8:4-6 1st Corinthians 8:4-6 Then, concerning the feeding on the idol sacrifices: We are aware that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other Qeos except one. For even if so be that there are those being termed qeoi, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many qeoi and many lords, nevertheless for us there is one Qeos, the Father, out of whom all is, and we for him, and one master, Yehoshua Mashiyach, through whom all is, and we through him.

I just love how Apostle Paul (Alava ha'shalom) teaches that there are many qeoi, but for us there is one Qeos, the Father. It's so fascinationg.

Hebrews 1:8-9, is a quote of Psalms 45:6-7, and it doesn't say "God" there. It says "Elohim" which means "All powerful over the situation that someone is ascribed to." In fact, there isn't a single Hebrew word that means "God" to what the word means in English, or some other language.

Exodus 4:16 He shall speak for you to the people; and it will be that he will be your mouth and you will be his elohim.

Here Moshe (Alav ha'shalom) is elohim to Aaron.

Exodus 7:1 YHVH said to Moshe, “See, I have made you elohim over Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your spokesman.

Here Moshe (Alav ha'shalom) is elohim to Pharaoh.

Psalms 8:6 Yet, you have made him but slightly less from elohim, and crowned him with glory and honor.

Here angels/messangers (Aleihem ha'shalom) are elohim.

And then you have Psalms 82:6 of course.

Hebrews 1:10-12 is not referring to the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom), but to Ton Qeon (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

[bar Jonah]

Translation:

"I don't know how to deal with that text from Hebrews, but I suppose.... HEY! LOOK! It's Robert Redford!" :metro:

[Jaltus]

Of course your problem is that the NT is in Greek, not Hebrew, so you may want to stop adding the incorrect words into the text. You may also want to realize that Hebrews is quoting the LXX, not the MT.

Sorry, try again.

[Ani Uriyah]

LOL, and the Septuagint was translated from what? LOL. This is fascinating.

Vowels don't change what the letters are without the vowels.

I gave the answer, I am not a parot to repeat myself.

[Jezz]

jpholding:
God the Father = a star
Jesus/Wisdom = light of the star
That's fine by me. I just wanted to add one observation:

Jesus the man = where the light of the star intersects the Earth. This intersection is a subset of the rays of light - the exact representation (the image) of the rays of light in the world with which they intersect.

In the same way, Jesus the man is the exact representation (the image) of Jesus the God in our physical world. This explains why Jesus the man's knowledge was sometimes limited - as a man, he had limited knowledge. The way I like to think of this (being a computer-type person :smile:) is to think of the knowledge of Jesus the God as analogous to the main memory of a computer, where as Jesus the man's memory is like a cache. Being a man, there is only a finite amount of information that Jesus can store in his "cache". However, the cache is connected to the main memory, and can be filled as/when it is necessary. So that is how Jesus can have finite knowledge, while at the same time being omniscient.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208468#post208468)
Jezz:
That's fine by me. I just wanted to add one observation:

Jesus the man = where the light of the star intersects the Earth. This intersection is a subset of the rays of light - the exact representation (the image) of the rays of light in the world with which they intersect.

In the same way, Jesus the man is the exact representation (the image) of Jesus the God in our physical world. This explains why Jesus the man's knowledge was sometimes limited - as a man, he had limited knowledge. The way I like to think of this (being a computer-type person :smile:) is to think of the knowledge of Jesus the God as analogous to the main memory of a computer, where as Jesus the man's memory is like a cache. Being a man, there is only a finite amount of information that Jesus can store in his "cache". However, the cache is connected to the main memory, and can be filled as/when it is necessary. So that is how Jesus can have finite knowledge, while at the same time being omniscient.
Ie. God isn't omniscient.

On the contrary, a member of the Trinity is quite capable of limiting Himself if He so chooses. The Son diminishes Himself in relation to the Father and submits to the will of the Father, just as the Holy Spirit diminishes Himself in relation to the Son and submits to the will of the Son. (It's interesting to note that the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, has only one or two explicit proof texts that prove the Holy Spirit is also God. But there are many more that prove the deity of the Son.)

[Ani Uriyah]

It will most likely take me a long time by the way things are going to finish the other chapters since I got someone who is very slow checking my chapters for grammar, and of course not to forget I keep adding things to the chapters. Anyway, I got three chapters up: http://home.comcast.net/~alexander535/HaMashiyachRevealed.htm

[Jezz]

A have a quick question for you, Ani, about the spelling of Jesus' name in Hebrew/Aramaic.

You spell Jesus' name in Hebrew/Aramaic as Yehoshua (and somewhere else as Yeshua, I believe). This word, of course, means "salvation". The word salvation has other spelling variants - for example: yeshuah, yesha. Would these also be acceptable renderings of Jesus' name?

Although my full name is "Jeremy", I am often referred to as "Jezz" or "Jezza". Similarly, although Jesus' name was Yeshua, it would be possible to refer to him as Yesha.

"Jeremy" is also sometimes spelled "Jerome", but still pronounced the same. Similarly, "Yeshua" and "Yeshuah" are pronounced the same.

Also, "Jeremy" is a modern derivative of the name "Jeremiah", in a similar way that "Yeshua" was a modern derivative of "Yehoshua". They even sound similar if spoken quickly.

All of the variants of my name have the same meaning ("exalted"), just as the variants of Jesus' name have the same meaning ("salvation, esp. from YHWH").

People can (and do) refer to me by any of these variants of my name, and there is never any doubt that they are referring to me (unless, of course, there happens to be another Jeremy around the place!)

So, would you agree that "Yesha", "Yeshua", "Yeshuah" and "Yehoshua" are all acceptable spelling variants of Jesus' name?

[bar Jonah]

It's all about you and your book, is it? :hrm:

[Ani Uriyah]

You spell Jesus' name in Hebrew/Aramaic as Yehoshua (and somewhere else as Yeshua, I believe).

To my awareness, I only used Yeshua in my Introduction Chapter to state that it is short for Yehoshua.

This word, of course, means "salvation". The word salvation has other spelling variants - for example: yeshuah, yesha. Would these also be acceptable renderings of Jesus' name?

Take a look: http://www.babynameworld.com/biblical.asp

Yeshuah is feminine, so I wouldn't use that name for a male.

So, would you agree that "Yesha", "Yeshua", "Yeshuah" and "Yehoshua" are all acceptable spelling variants of Jesus' name?

You can refer to him Yeshua or Yehoshua, but Yeshuah is not acceptable unless you believe the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) was a female.

It's all about you and your book, is it?

My book (that is not complete yet) is my tool. I will be using it to refer people who like ask me whole bunch of questions that I have to repeat over and over when I am on this voice program. So, instead of repeating myself, I can just give them the link to my book and let them read my answers to their questions.

[bar Jonah]

Well, your book isn't a member here, and we're not talking to your computer document files.

[Bib Lit Major]

I was halfway expecting some Greek in here... :shrug:

Regarding Revelation, I think it is interesting how the author applies the same title to both the Lord God and Christ:

8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."
Reve 1:8 (NIV)

5 He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life
Reve 21:5 (NIV)

A reference to God, but note several times in Revelation 21, the authors refers to "the throne of God and of the Lamb [a clear allusion to Jesus]" and there are times when the Lamb is on the throne (5:6). But the following evidence is decisive. Jesus speaks his message through an angel:

12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Reve 22:13 (NIV)

Thus, for the author of Revelation, "The Alpha and Omega" is "the Lord God," "the one sitted on the throne," and "Jesus".

It seems odd to me that the author could have attributed the same title to both the Lord God and Jesus, unless of course they are both God.

Something to think about.
Kevin

[Ani Uriyah]

My post concering Revelation is found here: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=207005#post207005

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
Yeshuah is feminine, so I wouldn't use that name for a male.

You can refer to him Yeshua or Yehoshua, but Yeshuah is not acceptable unless you believe the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) was a female.
Ahh, so "Yeshuah" is the feminine version of "Yeshua". But apart from gender, both are the same name - correct?

Also, you didn't discuss "yesha" at all. This also means "salvation" and is a shortened form of "yeshua". That would be kind-of like a nickname for Jesus, wouldn't it? Like Jezz for Jeremy? And this word is masculine?

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208521#post208521)
Ani Uriyah:

My post concering Revelation is found here: http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=207005#post207005

OK...so what I gather from you is that Moses was saying he was YHWH, because he speaking as God?

If that's so, lets carry it to its logical conclusion in the text in Revelations 22:

7 "Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

So we have an angel speaking as Jesus, who is speaking as God?

No, I agree with you principle that one is speaking in the place of the other. The only problem is it is the angel who is speaking for Jesus! Reread v. 16:

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel [i.e., the one who is relaying this message to John] to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Reve 22:16 (NIV)

For your hypothesis to work, the angel has to speak for Jesus, who has to speak for God when he says "I am the Alpha and Omega." This seems a little forced.

[Ani Uriyah]

I haven't seen anyone named "Yeshuah" or "Yasha."

There are three ways I have seen his name spelled in Koine Greek:

Ihsou
Ihsous
Ihsoun

[Bib Lit Major]

Today @ 01:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208536#post208536)
Ani Uriyah:

I haven't seen anyone name "Yeshuah" or "Yasha."

There are three ways I have seen his name spelled in Koine Greek:

Ihsou
Ihsous
Ihsoun

Actually, those aren't alternate spellings but different cases (like nominative, genitive, accusative, etc.) of the same word IhsouV.

[Ani Uriyah]

Actually, those aren't alternate spellings but different cases (like nominative, genitive, accusative, etc.) of the same word IhsouV.

Interesting. I was wondering what that was.

[Bib Lit Major]

Ihsous is nominative (i.e. when the name is used as the subject of a sentence, "Jesus ate some pizza.").
Ihsou can either be genitive (typically describing possession or description of something as "of Jesus," "The love of Jesus is amazing."), or dative (which is typically when the name is the indirect object of a sentence "I gave Jesus the ball."). Context will tell whether or not it is genitive or dative.
Ihsoun is the accusative (typically when it is used as the direct object of a verb "I love Jesus.").

[Ani Uriyah]

This thread is about the so-called deity of Ha'Mashiyach (Ha'Mashiach/Ha'Moshiyach/Ha'Moshiach), so we if can get back on topic, that would be good.

I am still to have my question answered concerning John 8:42 and how an omnipresent being can come out from an omnipresent being yet not of himself.

[Pilgrim]

Can you clarify that question a bit?

[Ani Uriyah]

Can you clarify that question a bit?

Sure, click here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=207895#post207895

[Pilgrim]

On first glance it appears you make the same mistake Augustine does by assuming that God can be easily defined by such natural analogies. In point of fact, all analogies for God fail at some level.

In other words, you have defined and limited God to properties existing only in the natual world and more specifically to water. We know from scripture that God is not contained by such things.

[jpholding]

It was too ridiculous to respond to.

Translation: It scares the pants off of me and I don't want to look up "hypostasis" in a dictionary. :bawl:

There is only one Deity, YHVH my Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). I shall not share the hidden knowledge how my Father is in everything (rocks, trees, humans, cereal, milk, etc) and yet none of these things. That is something between me, my Father, and my spiritual brother. If he decides to reveal it, then I shall speak upon the matter.

Translation: Here is some gibberish I found on the floor after I smoked some banana peels. :ill:

I know the balloon is limited, it is an analogy brought to a lower level where someone can easily grasp what I am trying to say

And in the process, your analogy busted and flew all over the room. :frown: In other words, worth ten cents when you put a quarter on top of it.

Flesh has nothing to do with this.

It had nothing to do with what I said, either. We are talking here pre-incarnate Wisdom, a hypostasis (go look it up) of the Father.

Isn't this a arrogant thing to say...

No more arrogant than someone who thinks he can just dismiss a crushing blow to his thesis with, "It's too ridiculous to respond to..." This Uriyah is no different than the last one we had here, other than the Y. He too fouled up with 1 Cor. 8:4-6 (nice try, Jaltus; see what I put up with? :teeth:).

I have some hidden knowledge for you: Your profound lack of education is showing.

[Ani Uriyah]

On first glance it appears you make the same mistake Augustine does by assuming that God can be easily defined by such natural analogies. In point of fact, all analogies for God fail at some level.

The analogy was not given to express YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). It was given to explain that something omnipresent cannot come out of omnipresent.

So can you answer my question concerning John 8:42? How can an omnipresent being come out of omnipresent being yet not of himself?

jpholding

Due to your insulting manner of posting, I shall not respond to anything you said. You are welcomed to my ignore button. Have a nice life. My Bible is clear on how to talk to people, and your post sir, is not a manner of what is considered "Christian."

[Pilgrim]

omni present coupled with omnipotent can do anything it wants. Back to hypostasis.

[jpholding]

Today @ 07:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209327#post209327)
Ani Uriyah:


Due to your insulting manner of posting, I shall not respond to anything you said. You are welcomed to my ignore button. Have a nice life. My Bible is clear on how to talk to people, and your post sir, is not a manner of what is considered "Christian."

Too late, Pilgrim. Uriyah chickened out. He also reads only the parts of the Bible he agrees with. :brow:

Uriyah, Paul says: I would they were even cut off which trouble you. Nice Christian manner, huh? :rofl:

[Ani Uriyah]

omni present coupled with omnipotent can do anything it wants.

Typical. Now on the serious note, how can something omnipresent come out of omnipresent yet not of itself? I know why you cannot answer the question, because something omnipresent cannot come out from omnipresent since it is omnipresent, not to forget the point on of not coming out of itself; and thus why the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) is not omnipresent.

[Pilgrim]

Don't be rude to a moderator. Besides being dangerous here it betrays a lack of Christian charity on your part. Well a lack of charity in any form really, but since we are people of faith let me point out that it violates the sum of the law.

Back to the topic at hand. Perhaps you are thinking in entirely to linear a fasion? God is simultaneously in all of time and space. God manifests himself to creation in certain ways within that contimuum. It does not violate physics or logic to think so. Those who witnessed it described it in the best way they knew how. For instance, we hear in the Hebrew Scripture that that sun rises and sets, in fact we still use that image. We know that's not how it works. Same with the discriptions of the incarnation.

[Ani Uriyah]

Not being rude, just being true; and if being true is being rude, then so be it. No matter how ridiculous your answer is and untrue, it is still your answer, and therefore I will move on.

Let's spice things up by you telling me where your Trinity is found in Tanach (Genesis-Malachi).

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209528#post209528)
Ani Uriyah:

Not being rude, just being true; and if being true is being rude, then so be it. No matter how ridiculous your answer is and untrue, it is still your answer, and therefore I will move on.

Let's spice things up by you telling me where your Trinity is found in Tanach (Genesis-Malachi).

That one is too easy. Give us something hard. One who calls Himself "יהוה, thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel," vs. 17 says that one named יהוה and His spirit has sent Him. I count three. How many do you count?

And just in case you don't read Hebrew יהוה is often written YHWH, and pronounced Jehovah, or more properly Yahweh.
Isaiah 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, [יהוה] and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD [יהוה], 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.

[Ani Uriyah]

That one is too easy.

I strongly doubt it is.

And just in case you don't read Hebrew éäåä is often written YHWH, and pronounced Jehovah, or more properly Yahweh.

Actuall, those are no proper for http://home.comcast.net/~alexander535/YHVH.gif.

Isaiah 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, [éäåä] and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD [éäåä], 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.

v'atah adonay yhvh sh'lachni v'ruach,,, and you Lord YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) have sent me, and His spirit. Whenever YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) sends anyone he does it by His spirit that interacts with man. For instance, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) lead Ha'Mashiyach (Ha'Mashiach/Ha'Moshiyach/Ha'Moshiach) into the wilderness by His spirit (Matthew 4:1).

So, once again I ask, where is your Trinity in Tanach?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209735#post209735)
Ani Uriyah:

I strongly doubt it is.

Actuall, those are no proper for http://home.comcast.net/~alexander535/YHVH.gif.

v'atah adonay yhvh sh'lachni v'ruach,,, and you Lord YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) have sent me, and His spirit. Whenever YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) sends anyone he does it by His spirit that interacts with man. For instance, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) lead Ha'Mashiyach (Ha'Mashiach/Ha'Moshiyach/Ha'Moshiach) into the wilderness by His spirit (Matthew 4:1).

So, once again I ask, where is your Trinity in Tanach?

Still does not address יהוה was sent by יהוה.

And actually you are not correct, when Moses encountered God God, NOT the Spirit, sent him back to the people of Israel.

And just FYI pronouncing ו as a "V" is the Eastern european influence. There is ample evidence that it was pronounced as "W" before the dispersion.

[Ani Uriyah]

Still does not address éäåä was sent by éäåä.

Isaiah 48:16 Approach me, hear this: I did not speak in secrecy at first; from the time [the decree] was issued I was there. And now, my Lord, YHVH Elohim, has sent me with His spirit. - Stone Edition Tanach.

Isaiah 48:16 "Come near to me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent me." NKJV (For those of you who like Christian versions)

I do not see where it says "YHVH" was sent by "YHVH", please point it out for me.

And actually you are not correct, when Moses encountered God God, NOT the Spirit, sent him back to the people of Israel.

Okay...you believe whatever you want. I said what I said, I am not a parot to repeat myself.

And just FYI pronouncing å as a "V" is the Eastern european influence. There is ample evidence that it was pronounced as "W" before the dispersion.

I'm not going to get into Sepharic and Ashkenazic argument with you. It is a waste of time.

So, if anyone can provide where the Trinity is found in the Tanach, I would like to see it. Thank you.

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 04:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209528#post209528)
Ani Uriyah:

Not being rude, just being true; and if being true is being rude, then so be it. No matter how ridiculous your answer is and untrue, it is still your answer, and therefore I will move on.

Let's spice things up by you telling me where your Trinity is found in Tanach (Genesis-Malachi).

Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:10-12; Heb1:10-12..cf..Ps102:25-27 etc,.

Gen1:26 - Uriyah, before I start with the last, do you take this to denote:

1.] Angelic creation

..or..

2.] "Plural of majesty"

..or..

3.] [Other] x_________.

>

God bless--IM

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209815#post209815)
Ani Uriyah:

Isaiah 48:16 Approach me, hear this: I did not speak in secrecy at first; from the time [the decree] was issued I was there. And now, my Lord, YHVH Elohim, has sent me with His spirit. - Stone Edition Tanach.

I do not see where it says "YHVH" was sent by "YHVH", please point it out for me.

You can read can you not? Who does verse 17 say is speaking? "and now the Lord GOD, יהוה and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD יהוה, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel;" And I already know your cookie cutter answer, be prepared to show any other example in the Tenakh.
Isaiah 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, יהוה and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD יהוה, 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.
I'm not going to get into Sepharic and Ashkenazic argument with you. It is a waste of time.

Then, don't bring up issues you are not competent to discuss. You made a claim that you can't back up. I don't know from Sephardic and Ashkenazic, I just know the linguistic and archaeological evidence supports what I said, I'm not a parrot to repeat myself.

[Ani Uriyah]

Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:10-12; Heb1:10-12..cf..Ps102:25-27 etc,.

What does "cf" mean? And how do those Scriptures (Genesis-Malachi) and Passages (Matthew-Revelation) proves a Trinity? Please type them out the explain. Thank you.

Gen1:26 - Uriyah, before I start with the last, do you take this to denote:

Don't even wasting your time with Genesis 1:26.

In Genesis 1:26-27 makes it abundantly clear Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) cannot be a compound deity, or plural deity in any fashion.

In Genesis 1:26 it says “vayomer Elohim na’aseh adam b’tsalmenu kidmutanu…”

Who is Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) talking to? Why does He say in our image, and after our likeness? We must first understand that Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) cannot be talking with himself, because it says “vayomer Elohim” and not “va’omrim Elohim” or any other form of the verb. Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) must be talking to someone else, other than a part of himself as the Hebrew make is crystal clear.

Before we figure out who it is He is speaking with let’s read what happened in the action of this command. Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) speaks, then it happens, this is what we have seen in Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1:27 it says “vayivra Elohim eth ha’adam b’tsalmo... ”, did you see it? This is amazing; the action when brought about says Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) made man in His image, not in their image. The plural was dropped in the action, teaching us the persons He was speaking to had nothing to do with creating man. This might seem strange to you, but nonetheless it is common in English, and even more common in eastern languages, like Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic.

If you look up US at www.dictionary.com you will see it can be used by kings a sovereign way, and by authors, meaning one person, ‘I’.

Genesis 5:1 makes it that much more clear. It says, “bayom baro Elohim adam.” In the day Elohim created Adam. But notice “baro” means He created, but not translated here because followed by the noun Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). This cannot be understood as a plural deity. If so it should have told us by saying an untranslatable form “baru”, then we would understand Elohim is not just one person, but more than one.

Isaiah 6, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) uses the ‘royal us’ for Seraphim (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Genesis 3, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) uses the ‘royal us’ for Cherubim (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Genesis 11, this one is not so clear, nevertheless it seems to be also that YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is using the ‘royal us’ for angels (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Who does verse 17 say is speaking?

In verse 17, not 16, it says YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is speaking.

Then, don't bring up issues you are not competent to discuss.

What do you mean? You mean about the hidden knowledge about En Sof and stripping Himself, Shakinah, etc? That is too deep, and if you know how Kabbalah functions, you understand what I mean.

But I attach a file for you to look at, that is all I will give for now.

[Jezz]

Well, looking for indications of the deity of Jesus in the OT, I thought you might like to start with this passage:
Isaiah 12:2-3 (KJV)2 Behold, God [is] my salvation (Yeshuah); I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD (Yah) JEHOVAH (Yahweh) [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation (Yeshuah). 3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation (Yeshuah).
Here we find out that God is yeshuah, and YHWH is become Yeshuah. As we discussed earlier, "yeshuah" means salvation, and is a feminine form of Jesus' name. Thus, if Jesus were salvation in the flesh, it would be natural for his name to be Yeshua.

Is the "yeshuah" spoken of in the above passage one and the same with the person Jesus? Well, consider this passage:
John 4:10-13 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Was Jesus the well of salvation? From these words of Jesus, it would certainly seem so. This connects the "Yeshuah" in the OT with the "Yeshua" of the NT. And note, that the passage in Isaiah says that God is Yeshuah, and that YHWH has become Yeshuah.

How about this one:
Psalm 62:2 (KJV) He only is my rock and my salvation (Yeshuah); he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
The psalmist is referring here to God. The psalmist claims that only God is Yeshuah.

One more (there are plenty more examples, but this will do for now):
Psalm 118:14-22 (KJV)
14 The LORD [is] my strength and song, and is become my salvation (Yeshuah).
15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation (Yeshuah) [is] in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, [and] I will praise the LORD:
20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation (Yeshuah).
22 The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.
There are many very interesting things about this passage:

1. The passage again talks of Yahweh becoming Yeshuah (vs 14, 21)
2. The passage talks of "the right hand of Yahweh". Who is seated at the right hand of Yahweh? The Son of Man, of course - Jesus.
3. Most importantly, Jesus himself links this passage to him, through vs 22. In the parable of the wicked tennants, Jesus refers to himself as the "stone that the builders rejected" (see Matt 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7). Of these, the citation in Acts is particularly interesting:
Acts 4:10-12 (KJV) 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
This passage not only identifies Jesus with the above Psalm through the "head of the corner" reference - it also tells us that only Jesus is the source of salvation. This again connects Jesus with the Yeshuah of the OT. So if the Psalm that they are referring to tells us that Yahweh is become salvation (Yeshuah), and Acts tells us that salvation is through Jesus alone, then obviously, Jesus must be Yahweh.

I think it's pretty clear that the Tanach tells us that Yahweh is Jesus.

[jpholding]

Needless to say the concept of hypostases makes all of Uriyah's issues go bust. Someone please tell him I said so since Rude Boy (But Not When HE Tells the "Truth") has me on Ignore. :rofl:

[Ani Uriyah]

Thus, if Jesus were salvation in the flesh, it would be natural for his name to be Yeshua.

It works like this. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) raised up a savior for Yisrael (other Passages says he sent a savior into the world), and through Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) we receive Salvation, but Salvation comes from YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

You twisting word to mean something else is not going to work with me; it might work with someone who doesn't underastand the Scriptures and Passages, but not with someone like me. Benny Hinn got superman out of Adam, and now you trying to get Yehoshua out of the word English word "Salvation"...Christianity these days...

I think it's pretty clear that the Tanach tells us that Yahweh is Jesus.

And Benny Hinn thinks it's pretty clear that the Tanach tells him that Adam is superman who could fly in the sky.

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YHVH; and besides me there is no Savior (Moshi’a).

Here YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) says besides Him there is no Moshi’a (Savior). And no, it is does not say "Yasha", those who say it is "Yasha" cannot read Hebrew, for it says http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h362.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h351.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h371.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h345.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/h356.gif in Hebrew.

2nd Kings 13:5 Then YHVH gave Yisrael a savior (Moshi’a), so that they escaped from under the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Yisrael dwelt in their tents as before.

Here YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) gives Yisrael (Aleihem ha'shalom) a Moshi’a (savior). So does YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) lie (Titus 1:2)? He said there is no other Moshi’a besides him and then he gives Yisrael (Aleihem ha'shalom) a Moshi’a.

Nehemiah 9:27 Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their enemies, Who oppressed them; And in the time of their trouble, When they cried to You, You heard from heaven; And according to Your abundant mercies You gave them saviors (Moshi’im) who saved them From the hand of their enemies.

Obadiah 1:21 Then saviors (Moshi’im) shall come to Mount Zion To judge the mountains of Esau, And the kingdom shall be of YHVH.

Here YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) gives them Moshi’im (saviors). Moshi’im is the plural for Moshi’a.

1st Samuel 9:16 Tomorrow about this time I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him commander over My people Israel, that he may save My people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon My people, because their cry has come to me.

Here it is speaking of Saul (Alav ha'shalom) as the savior.

2nd Samuel 3:18 Now then, do it! For YHVH has spoken of David, saying, ‘By the hand of My servant David, I will save My people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and the hand of all their enemies.’

Here YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) will save His people by His servant David (Alav ha'shalom).

Acts 5:31 Him Elohim has exalted to His right hand to be a Prince and a savior, to give repentance to Yisrael and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:23 From this man's seed, according to the promise, Elohim raised up for Yisrael a savior–Yehoshua.

1st John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent His Son as the savior of the world.

We see that YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) raised up a savior for us, that savior is Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). The same way YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) sent Moshe (Alav ha'shalom) to save His people. The same way YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) saved His people by David (Alav ha'shalom), etc. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) sent His servant Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) to save His people.

So did YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) lie when he said he is the only Savior and yet raises up other saviors? The answer is no. What Isaiah 43:11 is stating is that YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the only one with the power to save. The other people who are called “saviors” are doing so under power granted by YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). So they get that title “savior.”

Example: I agree to purchase ten cases of Kvas in plastic bottles from you. I will send my purchasing agent on Tuesday to complete the deal.

In the above example, I am the only one who has the power to decide to buy the merchandise. However, I have decided to send my purchaser to sign the contract.

There are many “purchasers” but only one true “buyer.”

Another example: Jim went for a swim, but all the sudden Jim is starting to drown. A lifeguard sees Jim drowning, runs to the water, jumps in, helps him to the land, and by doing so the lifeguard saved Jim from drowning.

In the above example, the lifeguard is a savior, but without YHVH willing it so Jim would have drowned.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim, and our savior Yehoshua Mashiyach;

2nd Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Yehoshua Mashiyach, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of Elohim, and our savior Yehoshua Mashiyach:

The great Elohim is the Father, and our savior is Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach in this Passage. The appearing of the great President, and our Mayor Bob Booke. The appearing of the great President, and our friend Neil. The appearing of the great Elohim, and our Apostle John. Etc.

I have a question for those of you who say Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) must be the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) since he died for the world. My question is this: “Is not the true Elohim, the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam), not at liberty to save the world by whomever He chooses”?

The true Elohim (The Father person only) is the only absolute Savior. Others (including Ha’Mashiyach) than the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) can function as saviors in a subordinate and delegated sense.

[jpholding]

IThe true Elohim (The Father person only) is the only absolute Savior

Hypostasis....
Hypostasis....
Hypostasis...

...of the Father. :ahem:

It's so simple....

[AVmetro]

I had stated:

Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:10-12; Heb1:10-12..cf..Ps102:25-27 etc,.

Ani replied:
What does "cf" mean?

Main Entry: cf
Function: abbreviation
[....], [Latin confer, imper. of conferre to compare] compare

(Merriam-Webster)

...8<...

I had stated stated:

Gen1:26 - Uriyah, before I start with the last, do you take this to denote:

Ani replied:

Don't even wasting your time with Genesis 1:26.

But I am... I haven't argued for the verse much, so I'd like to test out a few arguments if that's okay with you ;-).

From your below reply, it seems you don't understand our position enough to accurately represent it within your refutations. Below, I'll point out why..

Ani stated:

In Genesis 1:26-27 makes it abundantly clear Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) cannot be a compound deity, or plural deity in any fashion.

In Genesis 1:26 it says “vayomer Elohim na’aseh adam b’tsalmenu kidmutanu…”

Who is Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) talking to? Why does He say in our image, and after our likeness? We must first understand that Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) cannot be talking with himself, because it says “vayomer Elohim” and not “va’omrim Elohim” or any other form of the verb. Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) must be talking to someone else, other than a part of himself as the Hebrew make is crystal clear.

Here is one example. You evidently have a Modalistic understanding of how we view the Trinity. The above is perfectly fine with me. In our view, there are three persons who comprise the one being of YHWH. "Talking to someone else" is essentially His 'speaking with Christ' i.e. the second person of the Triune God. No objection present in the above applies to my theology.

Ani stated:

...8<...

In Genesis 1:27 it says “vayivra Elohim eth ha’adam b’tsalmo... ”, did you see it? This is amazing; the action when brought about says Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) made man in His image, not in their image. The plural was dropped in the action, teaching us the persons He was speaking to had nothing to do with creating man. This might seem strange to you, but nonetheless it is common in English, and even more common in eastern languages, like Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic.

And yet another example. This precise thing is an essential part of the Trinitarian argument for this verse. Trinitarians, no matter how you view us, are strict monotheists. References to the one God in the singular are expected and welcomed.
Now, my personal take on this verse, is that the plural is reserved when YHWH speaks amongst the other members of the Godhead i.e. within the "one being" of God e.g. "Let us...(i.e. Father, Son and Spirit). From the third person perpective (e.g. Moses et al), a singular reference would appropriately be used ("...so God made (sng)..").

Ani stated:

If you look up US at www.dictionary.com you will see it can be used by kings a sovereign way, and by authors, meaning one person, ‘I’.

What you would need to do is unequivocably demonstrate that a relatively modern figure of speech is being employed in the first chapter of Genesis. Even it's use among man is a little 'odd' if you take time to think about it ;-). I don't think you'll gain an accurate biblical understanding from an English dictionary.

Just to jump you ahead a notch ;-), the BDB Hebrew Lexicon agrees with you. However, rather than blindly accept such, I'd like to see an explanation of their basis for coming to this understanding as it pertains to Gen1:26.

Ani stated:

Genesis 5:1 makes it that much more clear. It says, “bayom baro Elohim adam.” In the day Elohim created Adam. But notice “baro” means He created, but not translated here because followed by the noun Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). This cannot be understood as a plural deity. If so it should have told us by saying an untranslatable form “baru”, then we would understand Elohim is not just one person, but more than one.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the word "make" in vs26 in the plural? Wouldn't this indicate a plural maker(s) e.g. Angelic creation etc.,? And of course angelic creation is something I reject. As for the singular in latter verses, see my replies above.

Ani stated:

Isaiah 6, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) uses the ‘royal us’ for Seraphim (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Genesis 3, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) uses the ‘royal us’ for Cherubim (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Genesis 11, this one is not so clear, nevertheless it seems to be also that YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is using the ‘royal us’ for angels (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Simply because the word "us" is used in a context does not necessitate that it be an occurance of the "royal we". In fact, it is clear from the context that there are others present who are able to participate in whatever action etc,. is in view.
Additionally, it is interesting to note that Jn12:41 quotes Isaiah 6 in reference to Isaiah seeing Christ. Furthermore, in harmonizing Jn1:18, we know this is Christ as no one has seen the Father.

From your lastest post - Ani stated:

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim, and our savior Yehoshua Mashiyach

Have you checked the NASB rendering of this verse? I also noted that in the past you stated that "God could not be seen". At least the omnipresent Father in your view. However, the above states that the "great God" will "appear". Something often spoken of in regards to Christ (e.g. Revelation).

God bless--IM

[Ani Uriyah]

Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:10-12

His feet will stand - An anthroporphism indicating the cataclysmic events that will occur. -- Stone Edition Note.

It says in the Bible, how God's hands created the earth, how it says smoke from His nostrils, and wings, and hair that is white, how He rides the winds, and rides cherubim, and rides the clouds, and lightning is His sword, etc.

In my view, this could be a complete metaphor, but there is a chance this is saying YHVH will stand on the Mount of Olives by His Representation.

Psalms 110:1, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is at the right hand of adoni (my master). Verse 5, Adonai (YHVH) who at is at the right hand of adoni (my master), He crushes kings on the day of His anger. So in other words, the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) waits at the right hand of YHVH (verse 1 and 5) while YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) crushes his enemies. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) doesn't literally have feet, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is not flesh, and He is omnipresent.

Heb1:10-12..cf..Ps102:25-27

Yes, I am aware of this, and I have no problem with it since Hebrews 1:10-12 is not referring to the Son (Alav ha'shalom).

From your below reply, it seems you don't understand our position enough to accurately represent it within your refutations.

Unless your god has M.P.D., I do not see how your teaching can agree with what it says in Genesis 1:26-27.

Trinitarians, no matter how you view us, are strict monotheists.

No, Trinitarians are Trinitarians (three united beleivers), no three in monon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the word "make" in vs26 in the plural?

Yes, it is "na’aseh" which means "let us make", not "let me make."

Have you checked the NASB rendering of this verse?

No, and I do not care to.

I also noted that in the past you stated that "God could not be seen". At least the omnipresent Father in your view. However, the above states that the "great God" will "appear". Something often spoken of in regards to Christ (e.g. Revelation).

This is the same way the true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) appeared to Stephen (Alav ha'shalom). Stephen looked up and saw the glory of God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) and Yehoshua Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom).

[AVmetro]

Ani stated:

His feet will stand - An anthroporphism indicating the cataclysmic events that will occur. -- Stone Edition Note.

Is the 'Stone Edition' a Messianic publication? If not, then I don't expect them to make the connection to the New Testament. I'm not arguing that they are wrong on that basis, but simply what I expect to be and not to be.

Ani stated:

It says in the Bible, how God's hands created the earth, how it says smoke from His nostrils, and wings, and hair that is white, how He rides the winds, and rides cherubim, and rides the clouds, and lightning is His sword, etc.

I don't disagree that anthroporphisms are used of YHWH, with an exception being Zech14:4 which is why I didn't quote it solely but to be compared with, what I believe, is it's fulfillment in the NT:

Zec 14:4 - 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives shall divide from its middle, from the east even to the west, a very great valley. And half of the mountain shall move toward the north, and half of it toward the south.'

..cf..

Act 1:10-12 - 'And as they were intently looking into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood by them, who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount being called Of Olive Grove, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath's journey away.'

Ani stated:

In my view, this could be a complete metaphor, but there is a chance this is saying YHVH will stand on the Mount of Olives by His Representation.

Do you mean Christ as YHWH's agent? If so, then this explanation is essentially unfalsifiable which is why I would be interested in hearing why your view would be necessitated over mine.

Ani stated:

Psalms 110:1, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is at the right hand of adoni (my master). Verse 5, Adonai (YHVH) who at is at the right hand of adoni (my master), He crushes kings on the day of His anger. So in other words, the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) waits at the right hand of YHVH (verse 1 and 5) while YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) crushes his enemies. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) doesn't literally have feet, YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is not flesh, and He is omnipresent.

The above isn't a parallel to my example.

As for the latter part of the above; see Jn1:14 i.e. "The Word [theos] was made flesh [sarx]". See vs18 i.e. "..the monogenhV God in the bosom of the Father.." The prologue of John explicitly states that the divine Christ became a human being. Does this entail that God is not omnipresent? No.

Ani stated:

Yes, I am aware of this, and I have no problem with it since Hebrews 1:10-12 is not referring to the Son (Alav ha'shalom).

I'm afraid you'll have to substantiate your argument. Not simply assert it. See vs8 "But unto the Son [Jesus] He [the Father] says....[OT quote] AND (kai) [OT quote]. The conjunction tells us that the two OT quotes are being applied to the Son who is being spoken of by the Father. Simple. Can you give us a reason why the audience of Hebrews would need to know that the Father is "eternal" when this is already a given and not under dispute?
Note how your interpretation takes it out of context within the theme of Heb1vs4. See also Jn1:30.

Ani stated:

Unless your god has M.P.D., I do not see how your teaching can agree with what it says in Genesis 1:26-27.

No, He does not. You're either simply misrepresenting our beliefs or you are ignorant of them one.

Ani stated:

No, Trinitarians are Trinitarians (three united beleivers), no three in monon.

?

Are you telling me what I believe FOR me?

Ani stated:

Yes, it is "na’aseh" which means "let us make", not "let me make."

Thank you. My point proven. The maker(s) is/are plural. Do you believe in angelic creation?

Ani stated:

No, and I do not care to.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to do so. It's a very scholarly translation.

Ani stated:

This is the same way the true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) appeared to Stephen (Alav ha'shalom). Stephen looked up and saw the glory of God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) and Yehoshua Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom).

So God can or cannot be seen? I'm attempting to hold you to your own argument on another point carried over to this one.

Thanks and God bless--IM

[Ani Uriyah]

Is the 'Stone Edition' a Messianic publication? If not, then I don't expect them to make the connection to the New Testament.

No, Stone Edition is Orthodox, or what is concerned to be Orthodox.

Do you mean Christ as YHWH's agent? If so, then this explanation is essentially unfalsifiable which is why I would be interested in hearing why your view would be necessitated over mine.

http://home.comcast.net/~alexander535/HaMashiyachRevealed.htm - Click on Chapter 3.

The above isn't a parallel to my example.

I used it to explain something, it doesn't have to me parallel for me to refer to it and comment on it.

Let’s look at what a Trinitarian church father named “Irenaeus” in ‘Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.’ said: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”

John 1:3-4 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. (NRSV)

Even though Irenaeus quoted Apostle John’s (Alav ha'shalom) writing correctly, I see he didn’t understand what he was quoting. Who is the “him” and who is the “light”? The “him” is the word (o logos), and the “light” is the “life” which was created in the word. Irenaeus words it was “What was made was life in Him” while NRSV words it as “What has come into being in him was life.” I know this might be a big surprise even seeing such a translation as John 1:3-4 NRSV (but if they would have read the Trinitarians church fathers like me, it the translation as John 1:3-4 NRSV wouldn’t be a surprise to them). So what we have here is that Apostle John (Alav ha'shalom) is teaching Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) was created in the word, and if created in the word, then Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the word.

I replaced the word "God" with "Elohim." I will do a commentary on John 1:1-15:

Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 1 In the beginning was the word, and the word himself was with Aloha, and Aloha was the word himself.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at Elohim, and Elohim was the word.

King James Version: 1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Elohim, and the word was Elohim.

New Revised Standard Version: 1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Elohim, and the word was Elohim.


The Koine Greek says “en arch”, it is missing the article so it can be translated as “In beginning”, just like in Genesis 1:1 “B’reshiyt” (‘B’reshiyt’ translates to “In beginning” while ‘Barashiyt’ translates to “In the beginning”).

The Koine Greek word “pros” does not translate as “with” but instead as “towards”, ask any honest scholar that grew up in Greece and speaks and understands Greek, and studies Koine Greek to give you an unbiased translation of “pros”, and they shall say “towards.”

John is metaphorically bringing out an idea from Genesis Chapter 1: “Elohim spoke and there was light.”

Verse 1 states that the word (o logos) and the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the same. The word is towards the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) because it does not return void. Before one “speaks”, they have thoughts, after they think of what they want to say, they then speak their “word.”


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 2 This was in the beginning with Aloha.

John Wyclif’s (ed.1395) Version: 2 This was in the bigynnyng at Elohim.

King James Version: 2 The same was in the beginning with Elohim.

New Revised Standard Version: 2 He was in the beginning with Elohim.


The word was in beginning towards the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 3-4 Every thing by his hand was made; and without him also was not one thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of the sons of man; and the light himself in the darkness shineth,

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 3-4 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad. In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis,

King James Version: 3-4 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

New Revised Standard Version: 3-4 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.


The “him” is referring to the word. In the KJV, Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) as the “light (which is the “life”)” was “in the word”, and if in the word, then not the word. John (Alav ha'shalom) is referring to Genesis 1:3 metaphorically as the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) speaking the light into existence.

John is still metaphorically bringing out an idea from Genesis Chapter 1. The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) created all things by His word (speaking).


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 5 and the darkness perceived him not.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 5 and derknessis comprehendiden not it.

King James Version: 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

New Revised Standard Version: 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.


John (Alav ha'shalom) metaphorically says the darkness are the wicked people, and the light is Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). The wicked did not comprehend Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) was Ha’Mashiyach that was to come.


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 6 There was a man who was sent from Aloha, his name was Juchanon.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 6 A man was sent fro Elohim, to whom the name was Joon.

King James Version: 6 There was a man sent from Elohim, whose name (was) John.

New Revised Standard Version: 6 There was a man sent from Elohim, whose name was John.


John (Alav ha'shalom) says John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) pre-existed. Also read Passages Matthew 11:11-14; Matthew 17:10-13; and Luke 1:17.


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 7 He came for the testimony, to testify concerning the light, that all men might believe through his ministry.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 7 This man cam in to witnessyng, that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt, that alle men schulden bileue bi hym.

King James Version: 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all (men) through him might believe.

New Revised Standard Version: 7 He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.


John (Alav ha'shalom) metaphorically says John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) came to bear witness to Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). John (Alav ha'shalom) compares Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) to the light which was created in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis 1:3: And Elohim said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is the first created as we read in Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, and also note Proverbs 8:22-36.


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 8 He was not the light himself, but came to testify concerning the light.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 8 He was not the liyt, but that he schulde bere witnessing of the liyt.

King James Version: 8 He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.

New Revised Standard Version: 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light.


John (Alav ha'shalom) says John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) is not Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom).


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 9 For that was the true light that enlighteneth every man who cometh into the world.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 9 There was a very liyt, which liytneth ech man that cometh in to this world.

King James Version: 9 (That) was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

New Revised Standard Version: 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.


John (Alav ha'shalom) says Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is the true light; this is not to be understood that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) is literally the light in Genesis Chapter 1.

Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) said we are the lights of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

James 1:17 Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the Father of lights. To be referred to a “light” (like in you are the light) is to be considered that you posses truth. The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the light also, for he possesses all the pure truth. Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is called the light because he possesses the truth that was given to him by his Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). We (those who are in this truth) are called lights because we possess the truth.


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 10 In the world was he, and the world by his hand had been made, and the world knew him not.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 10 He was in the world, and the world was maad bi hym, and the world knew hym not.

King James Version: 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

New Revised Standard Version: 10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.


John (Alav ha'shalom) says the world was made through Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). We read in Hebrews 1:2 that the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) created through his Son Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom).

We can say that the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) creates through us by choosing a sperm from millions and a ova (the plural of "ovum") from hundreds; the sperm is then placed in the ova, and from that then you have the fetus, and then a child. It takes the fusion of both the egg and sperm for it to start forming into something, and they also have to be covered with this protective coating. Anyway, this isn't a teaching on how a female gets pregnant.

In Genesis Chapter 1, the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) said to the earth, “bring forth” and it brought forth, it does not mean the earth is a creator or a helper.

Everything happens through the will of the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) who is the only true Elohim (John 17:3; 1st Corinthians 8:6).


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 11 He came to his own, and his own received him not.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 11 He cam in to his owne thingis, and hise resseyueden hym not.

King James Version: 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

New Revised Standard Version: 11 He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him.


John (Alav ha'shalom) says Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) came to his own people.

Read Psalms 45:7 and Hebrews 1:9, his companions.


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 12 But they who received him, he gave to them power, that the sons of Aloha they should become, to those who believe in his name.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 12 But hou many euer resseyueden hym, he yaf to hem power to be maad the sones of Elohim, to hem that bileueden in his name; the whiche not of bloodis,

King James Version: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of Elohim, (even) to them that believe on his name:

New Revised Standard Version: 12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of Elohim,


John (Alav ha'shalom) says we become children (sons/daughters) of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam); this does not mean we become adopted elohims, but that we become “of Elohim.”


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 13 These, not from blood, nor from the will of the flesh, nor from the will of man, but from Aloha, are born.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 13 nether of the wille of fleische, nether of the wille of man, but ben borun of Elohim.

King James Version: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of Elohim.

New Revised Standard Version: 13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of Elohim.


Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) our Rav said, “You must be generated again (John 3).” Read also 1st John 5 where John (Alav ha'shalom) further explains this further.


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 14 And the word flesh was made, and tabernacled with us; and we saw his glory, the glory as of the one-begotten who (was) from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 14 And the word was maad man, and dwellyde among vs, and we han seyn the glorie of hym, as the glorie of the `oon bigetun sone of the fadir, ful of grace and of treuthe.

King James Version: 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

New Revised Standard Version: 14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.


John 14:8-10, the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) spoke through Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) by having his Spirit within Yehoshua (Acts 10:38) just like the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) can speak through us by having his Spirit in us (Matthew 10:20); this is how the word became flesh and becomes flesh until these modern days.

John (Alav ha'shalom) made it clear in verses 3-4 that Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the word (o logos), and yet once again makes it clear in verse 14 by saying “the glory as of” (showing that the glory of the word and of the son of Elohim have two different glories).

It is a Hebraic understanding that because the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is too hard for humans to apprehend, the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) must be made to lower terms so humans can understand it. This is why the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) uses prophets and messengers (Aleihem ha'shalom) to speak to humans, and not Himself (although in some case YHVH (the true Elohim) the Father speaks through his Representation, that is through Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach). The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) informs the messenger or prophet what He wants said, and then the messenger of prophet informs us.

We see that John (Alav ha'shalom) was told something so complex he had to us metaphors is his Revelation book. And as we go through Tanach, we see prophets had to use metaphors to try to explain what the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) told them.

Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) was used as the messenger of YHVH (John 14:8-10). We read in John 3:34 that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) spoke the words of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). We read in John 7:16-17 that the teaching is not Yehoshua’s (Alav ha'shalom), and we also see Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) states “whether the teaching is from Elohim or whether I am speaking on my own.” We read in John 5:30 that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) judges as he hears, but where does he hear from? We find our answer in John 15:15 as Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) tells his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom) he made everything know to them what he heard from the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

John (Alav ha'shalom) was a Judean who understand the concept the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) becoming flesh (to human terms). I understand that because Hebraic idioms are misunderstood, we get dumb conclusions such as “Yehoshua must be the word which became flesh.”

I guess I will use two examples to help people understand Hebraic sayings:

The word of the true Elohim became stone (when the true Elohim wrote down the Ten Commandments).

The word of the true Elohim first became flesh (in the mind of humans), and then it became paper (humans wrote it down on paper); what we call the “Bible.”

We should be able to start understanding Hebraic thinking by the two examples above.

John 17:14, Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) gave his Father's (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) “word” to his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom).

John 17:20, the word that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) gave to his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom) were given to others. The word became flesh (which means it was brought to human terms by either having it spoken or written) through Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom), and then through his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom).

1st John 1:10, the word is in the believers (Aleihem ha'shalom).

1st John 2:14, the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) abides in the believers (Aleihem ha'shalom).

The meaning of saying the word became flesh is to show that the word was placed into Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) and the word was spoken through Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) clearly is not the word as shown in verses 3:4 (“What was made was life in Him” or as NRSV words it “What has come into being in him was life.”) and in this verse (the glory as of).


Peshito Syriac Version (John Wesley Etheridge): 15 Juchanon testified concerning him, and cried, and said, This is he of whom I said, that he cometh after me, and was before me, because he is anterior to me.

John Wyclif's (ed.1395) Version: 15 Joon berith witnessyng of hym, and crieth, and seith, This is, whom Y seide, He that schal come aftir me, is maad bifore me, for he was tofor me.

King James Version: 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

New Revised Standard Version: 15 (John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.”’)


The “him” that John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) bared witness to is “the unique from the Father” (or as NRSV words it “a father’s only son”), John (Alav ha'shalom)here did not bared witness to the word that “a father’s only son (as NRSV words it)” that was compared to (the glory as of).

Now if we look in Revelation 19:13, it says name of Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is called “Davarel” which is translated as “the word of Elohim” in English from Koine Greek. The reason he is called Davarel is because the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) commands him what to speak, in other words he speaks the words of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

I advice all the readers to look up Hebrew name. The name “Dov”, it means “bear”, the person is not literally a “bear” just because their name is “bear.” The word “Eban” which means “stone”, the person is not literally a “stone” just because they have a name “stone.”

Now for those who think o logos (word/speech/saying) is a person just because it is referred to as a “he” and “him”, I refer you to read the book of Proverbs. For quick examples:

Proverbs 1:20-21 Wisdom cries out in the street; in the squares she raises her voice. At the busiest corner she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:

Proverbs 7:4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and call insight your intimate friend,

Are we to understand that the wisdom of Elohim is a female person? The answer is no, as in the same manner we do not view the word of Elohim to be a male person. John (Alav ha'shalom) was a Hebrew, he read and spoke Hebrew.

The writing of Apostle John (Alav ha'shalom) is Hebraic, I advice those who want to understand the writings of John (Alav ha'shalom) better to study Hebraic thought.

“ Ani stated:

Yes, I am aware of this, and I have no problem with it since Hebrews 1:10-12 is not referring to the Son (Alav ha'shalom). ”

I don't think you would like it what Hebrews 1:8-9 actually says from Koine Greek (and this is not coming from me, but from someone who read Koine Greek fluently along with Hebrew).

I might comment on Hebrews 1:8-9 later on, or even on the whole chapter.

Are you telling me what I believe FOR me?

I am telling you what the word "Trinity" means. And there is no "three" in the Koine Greek word "Monon."

Do you believe in angelic creation?

I believe angels were created before part of Adam was formed.

“ Ani stated:

No, and I do not care to. ”

It wouldn't be a bad idea to do so. It's a very scholarly translation.

Until you can prove to me with 100% accuracy that the Sharp rule existed in the time of the writers of the Renewed Covenant Writings, those translations are nothing but opinion. And since you cannot go back in time and see, you cannot prove it to me with 100% accuracy.

So God can or cannot be seen?

The true God Himself (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) cannot be seen, but portions of His glory can be seen. The only way to seen the true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is to look at His Representation (Alav ha'shalom).

[AVmetro]

Ani stated:

No, Stone Edition is Orthodox, or what is concerned to be Orthodox.

Thank you. Nevertheless, it misses the picture.

Ani stated:

http://home.comcast.net/~alexander5...achRevealed.htm - Click on Chapter 3.

Read the rules and tell me what is wrong with the above? I'm not here to debate your link, I'm here to debate YOU.

Ani stated:

I used it to explain something, it doesn't have to me parallel for me to refer to it and comment on it.

It doesn't have to but your argument won't advance without doing so.

As for the lengthy bit that follows the above, I'll return to it here shortly. First, I will address the rest of the small issues.

Ani stated:

I am telling you what the word "Trinity" means. And there is no "three" in the Koine Greek word "Monon."

No, you WERE telling me what I believe regarding monotheism. NOW you are telling me that the *word* "Trinity" does not appear in the scriptures.

Ani stated:

I believe angels were created before part of Adam was formed.


The nature of my question should have been obvious from the context of our discussion. I meant creation BY angels. I.e. "Let US make (plural)..." being in reference to God and the angelic host as some propose.

Ani stated:

Until you can prove to me with 100% accuracy that the Sharp rule existed in the time of the writers of the Renewed Covenant Writings, those translations are nothing but opinion. And since you cannot go back in time and see, you cannot prove it to me with 100% accuracy.

Sharp's rule isn't just a "good guess". If you want to debate that topic, you'll need to give it it's own thread. I don't have to prove anything to you regarding Sharp's rule as that was hardly a part of my argument to begin. I cited the NASB as an alternate rendering, then provided an argument from the context to support this rendering. You failed to interact with it sufficiently.

Ani stated:

The true God Himself (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) cannot be seen, but portions of His glory can be seen. The only way to seen the true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is to look at His Representation (Alav ha'shalom).

He can't be seen but "portions" of His glory can? Once again we have a hint at the beginnings of a non-falsifiable argument in addition to what is an obvious nuanced spin on one's argument.

-IM

[AVmetro]

Let’s look at what a Trinitarian church father named “Irenaeus” in ‘Against Heresies, Book III, CHAP. XI. P1.’ said: “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”

John 1:3-4 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. (NRSV)

Even though Irenaeus quoted Apostle John’s (Alav ha'shalom) writing correctly, I see he didn’t understand what he was quoting. Who is the “him” and who is the “light”? The “him” is the word (o logos), and the “light” is the “life” which was created in the word. Irenaeus words it was “What was made was life in Him” while NRSV words it as “What has come into being in him was life.” I know this might be a big surprise even seeing such a translation as John 1:3-4 NRSV (but if they would have read the Trinitarians church fathers like me, it the translation as John 1:3-4 NRSV wouldn’t be a surprise to them). So what we have here is that Apostle John (Alav ha'shalom) is teaching Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) was created in the word, and if created in the word, then Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the word.

Ani, I'm having a little trouble deciphering your post. What are you saying in the above? Are you saying that Irenaeus did or did not believe Christ to be the LogoV? In case it was the latter, read:
"...so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator." - Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 8, section 3.
"But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)
"Christ Jesus is our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King." (Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 10, section 1)
"For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. (Irenaeus Against Heresies, chapter xix.2)

As for the rest of the above quoted from you, please clarify it.

I replaced the word "God" with "Elohim." I will do a commentary on John 1:1-15:

...8<...

The Koine Greek says “en arch”, it is missing the article so it can be translated as “In beginning”, just like in Genesis 1:1 “B’reshiyt” (‘B’reshiyt’ translates to “In beginning” while ‘Barashiyt’ translates to “In the beginning”).

Your point? Scholars argue that vs3 teaches the eternality of Christ using the timeless word "was". Again, your point?

The Koine Greek word “pros” does not translate as “with” but instead as “towards”, ask any honest scholar that grew up in Greece and speaks and understands Greek, and studies Koine Greek to give you an unbiased translation of “pros”, and they shall say “towards.”

What, like Zodhiates? ;-) James White argues that it denotes "face to face" as do many other scholars. What is "towards" supposed to prove anyway? Your argument is nonsensical.

John is metaphorically bringing out an idea from Genesis Chapter 1: “Elohim spoke and there was light.”

So the logoV here is the *literal* spoken word of YHWH? Is that your view?

Verse 1 states that the word (o logos) and the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the same. The word is towards the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) because it does not return void. Before one “speaks”, they have thoughts, after they think of what they want to say, they then speak their “word.”

...8<...

Fancy interpretation, but other than wishful thinking, what is your substantiation?

The word was in beginning towards the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

...8<...

The “him” is referring to the word. In the KJV, Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) as the “light (which is the “life”)” was “in the word”, and if in the word, then not the word. John (Alav ha'shalom) is referring to Genesis 1:3 metaphorically as the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) speaking the light into existence.

Did you see that, Ron Macy? :brow: That is the argument I was referring to. No, Ani, Christ states in the gospels that He is both the Life and Light and that the Light and Life are also IN Him. See the link given initially to my article in the 'preex' thread for scriptural references. According to your reasoning, Jesus cannot be Himself because He is IN Himself. Sound? No. Now see 1Jn1:1-2 and Rev19:13. Appears that Christ is the logoV to me...

John is still metaphorically bringing out an idea from Genesis Chapter 1. The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) created all things by His word (speaking).

I don't see the context as supporting a "literal" word. This is probably why many Unitarians prefer the "plan of God" argument.



...8<...

John (Alav ha'shalom) metaphorically says the darkness are the wicked people, and the light is Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). The wicked did not comprehend Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) was Ha’Mashiyach that was to come.

I'll go with that as I {think?} I agree. ;-)



...8<...

John (Alav ha'shalom) says John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) pre-existed. Also read Passages Matthew 11:11-14; Matthew 17:10-13; and Luke 1:17.

Are you actually arguing FOR John the Baptist's literal preexistence? Or are you rather attempting to turn my argument against me? Please clarify this.



...8<...

John (Alav ha'shalom) metaphorically says John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) came to bear witness to Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). John (Alav ha'shalom) compares Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) to the light which was created in Genesis Chapter 1.

He doesn't state that Christ is "like" the Light but that He IS the 'True Light'. Christ states this Himself in the gospels later on.


Genesis 1:3: And Elohim said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

'Light' is equated as being the 'Life'. See 1Jn5:11.

Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is the first created as we read in Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, and also note Proverbs 8:22-36.

Ironically enough, you have just used the three primary passages neo-Arians use to "prove" the 'creation' of Christ.

Col1:15 - See Ps89:27 et al

Rev3:14 - My response will be that of James Stewart in his excellent treatment of this passage.
Citing the commentary section:
Delling in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament on page 479 made an important statement that needs to be kept in mind while looking at occurrences of ARCHE, “ARCHE always signifies “primacy,” whether in time “beginning,” principium or in rank: “power,” “dominion,” “office.” As a foundation, Rev. 3:14 needs to be put in the context of the entire book of Revelation. In 1:5, Jesus is called the (Ruler) ARCHON over the Earth’s Kings. ARCHON obviously overlaps in meaning with ARCHE as can be seen from a check of the standard lexicons. In 1:17, Jesus is “The First and The Last” as in 2:8 and 22:13. YHWH in the Old Testament has this name in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. In Rev. 5:13-14, a picture is given of “One sitting on the throne” and “to the Lamb” receiving worship. In 22:13, Jesus is given three names: The First and The Last, The Beginning and The End, and The Alpha and The Omega. This gives Jesus the same names of the Almighty as in 1:8 and 21:6. This is the high Christology of Revelation.
What we have in Rev. 3:14 are three active titles for Jesus. The first title is The Amen. This is most probably the same title of YHWH in Isaiah 65:16. His second title is “The Faithful and True Witness.” His third title is “The Ruler over God’s creation.” It could also mean ‘Source.’ Ruler or Source are both active titles in this context. Beginning does not fit the immediate or the wider context. Some who want ARCHE to have a passive use (see Objections, below). By doing this, they destroy the parallelism of the titles. I understand the genitive in Rev. 3:14 to be objective.
In certain examples where beginning is a possibility, I think that we would find that more of an idea of ‘chief things’ would be more proper. For example, in Mark 1:1, ARCHE could mean ‘chief things’, ‘essentials’, or ‘summary.’ See Allen Wikgren, "ARCHE TOU EUAGGELIOU," JBL 61 (1942), pages 11-20.
Another interesting point is that whenever ARCHE refers to a person (now, of course, only persons can be rulers), it almost always has something to do with rule, dominion, or authority of some type. If some would argue that ‘beginning’ is the unmarked meaning to ARCHE, I would say I agree. But then I would say that the contextual marker for ARCHE to mean ‘ruler’ is that it refers to a person. If fact, it is so obvious that I am tempted to say that ARCHE referring to a person has to do with some type of authority, unless there is some contextual marker to change its meaning. This view is supported by the LXX, New Testament, and secular usage. J.R. Mantey in Depth Explorations In The New Testament on page 100 stated, “Outside the NT, we found the following ideas expressed by the word: Beginning or Source, eighty-seven times; authority, forty times; office, thirty-six times; ruler or commander, thirty-two times; realm or dominion, eighteen times." A few samplings of the usage as ruler are: Plutarch, Morals II.151F, “he held the greatest and the most perfect position as a ruler.” In Lives VIII, Sertorius 10, “They were altogether lacking in a commander of great reputation.” In Morals V.75.E, “For it is not fitting for the Ruler and Lord of all to listen to anyone.” In Diodorus Siculus II Bk.3.5.1, “him the multitudes take for their king.” In Philo, Alleg. III.58, “for the sake of being a ruler with governors”; 66, ”Amalek, the ruler of nations.” Ruler in Rev. 3:14 also comports well with one of the most famous Messianic prophecies Isaiah 9:5-6 where the LXX uses ARCHE for Christ’s rule.
A significant example of ARCHE from the first century A.D. occurs in Josephus' Antiquities, 8.280. In this passage, Josephus calls God: ARCHE KAI TELOS TWN hAPANTWN ("the beginning and the end of all things"). Here, again, we see "beginning" in the sense of source, not first in a series; just as we see "end" in the sense of goal or purpose, not last in a series. If Josephus can speak of God as the ARCHE of all things, without intending to imply that He was first-created, John certainly can say the same of the Son of God.
I end with a quote from Louw & Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon page 779, entry 89.16, “one who or that which constitutes an initial cause - ‘first cause, origin.’ H ARCHE THS KTISEWS TOU THEOU ‘the origin of what God has created’ Rev. 3:14. It is also possible to understand ARCHE in Rev. 3:14 as meaning ‘ruler’ (see 37.56).”
One interesting historical side-note: Rev. 3:14 was never mentioned as a proof-text during the Arian controversy.

[Source: here (http://www.forananswer.org/Rev/Rv3_14.htm)]
Prov8:22 - The word is 'qanah' and means "to get", not 'create'. JPHolding will love it that you brought the Wisdom topic up :cwink:.



...8<

John (Alav ha'shalom) says John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) is not Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom).

And? The above is why I would prefer it that you sum up your arguments into pertinent points rather than employ a copy/paste such as this. I'm having to dig through a significant amount of irrelevant material in the process of writing this reply.



...8<...

John (Alav ha'shalom) says Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is the true light; this is not to be understood that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) is literally the light in Genesis Chapter 1.

Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) said we are the lights of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

Metaphorical, correct?

James 1:17 Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the Father of lights. To be referred to a “light” (like in you are the light) is to be considered that you posses truth. The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the light also, for he possesses all the pure truth. Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is called the light because he possesses the truth that was given to him by his Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). We (those who are in this truth) are called lights because we possess the truth.

I would assert that more precisely we are the 'light' on account of representing Christ who lives within us. But anyway.....back to the topic..



...8<...

John (Alav ha'shalom) says the world was made through Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). We read in Hebrews 1:2 that the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) created through his Son Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom).

We can say that the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) creates through us by choosing a sperm from millions and a ova (the plural of "ovum") from hundreds; the sperm is then placed in the ova, and from that then you have the fetus, and then a child. It takes the fusion of both the egg and sperm for it to start forming into something, and they also have to be covered with this protective coating. Anyway, this isn't a teaching on how a female gets pregnant.

In Genesis Chapter 1, the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) said to the earth, “bring forth” and it brought forth, it does not mean the earth is a creator or a helper.

Everything happens through the will of the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) who is the only true Elohim (John 17:3; 1st Corinthians 8:6).

Do you believe Christ preexisted or not? I'm having trouble seeing your position. Vs 10 states rather clearly that Christ was an intermediate agent in the Genesis creation. Do you agree with this or not?



...8<...

...8<...

...8<...

...8<...

John 14:8-10, the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) spoke through Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) by having his Spirit within Yehoshua (Acts 10:38) just like the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) can speak through us by having his Spirit in us (Matthew 10:20); this is how the word became flesh and becomes flesh until these modern days.

Again, see vs30. Where is this explanation in the context? See Phil2:6.

John (Alav ha'shalom) made it clear in verses 3-4 that Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the word (o logos), and yet once again makes it clear in verse 14 by saying “the glory as of” (showing that the glory of the word and of the son of Elohim have two different glories).

See earlier replies on Christ being the LogoV.

Jn17:5. James White has an excellent argument for the 'shared' glory of the Father and Son if you ever decide to look into it in the future. They certainly recieve it equally (Rev5:13).


It is a Hebraic understanding that because the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is too hard for humans to apprehend, the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) must be made to lower terms so humans can understand it. This is why the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) uses prophets and messengers (Aleihem ha'shalom) to speak to humans, and not Himself (although in some case YHVH (the true Elohim) the Father speaks through his Representation, that is through Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach). The true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) informs the messenger or prophet what He wants said, and then the messenger of prophet informs us.

???

I was going to take more time to address your reply, but now I'm beginning to see a bit too much private interpretation to feel that there is anything of substance to address.

We see that John (Alav ha'shalom) was told something so complex he had to us metaphors is his Revelation book. And as we go through Tanach, we see prophets had to use metaphors to try to explain what the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) told them.

Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) was used as the messenger of YHVH (John 14:8-10). We read in John 3:34 that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) spoke the words of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). We read in John 7:16-17 that the teaching is not Yehoshua’s (Alav ha'shalom), and we also see Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) states “whether the teaching is from Elohim or whether I am speaking on my own.” We read in John 5:30 that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) judges as he hears, but where does he hear from? We find our answer in John 15:15 as Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) tells his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom) he made everything know to them what he heard from the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

I don't disagree with the above. I disagree with your conclusions on Jn1 as a result, however.

John (Alav ha'shalom) was a Judean who understand the concept the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) becoming flesh (to human terms). I understand that because Hebraic idioms are misunderstood, we get dumb conclusions such as “Yehoshua must be the word which became flesh.”

Have you heard of the Memra?

I guess I will use two examples to help people understand Hebraic sayings:

The word of the true Elohim became stone (when the true Elohim wrote down the Ten Commandments).

The word of the true Elohim first became flesh (in the mind of humans), and then it became paper (humans wrote it down on paper); what we call the “Bible.”

This is simply equivocating. I'll need to make further confirmation, but OS made the argument that the Greek entails that the logoV acted upon itself to become flesh.

We should be able to start understanding Hebraic thinking by the two examples above.

John 17:14, Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) gave his Father's (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) “word” to his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom).

John 17:20, the word that Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) gave to his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom) were given to others. The word became flesh (which means it was brought to human terms by either having it spoken or written) through Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom), and then through his disciples (Aleihem ha'shalom).

Rev19:13 et al. Of course, I'm sure it will be "different" somehow than that occurence found in Jn1. If you take that route, let me know what necessitates your view over mine.


1st John 1:10, the word is in the believers (Aleihem ha'shalom).

1st John 2:14, the word of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) abides in the believers (Aleihem ha'shalom).

The meaning of saying the word became flesh is to show that the word was placed into Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) and the word was spoken through Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom). Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) clearly is not the word as shown in verses 3:4 (“What was made was life in Him” or as NRSV words it “What has come into being in him was life.”) and in this verse (the glory as of).

It's hard to argue with private interpretation coupled with little to no objective support.



...8<...

The “him” that John the immerser (Alav ha'shalom) bared witness to is “the unique from the Father” (or as NRSV words it “a father’s only son”), John (Alav ha'shalom)here did not bared witness to the word that “a father’s only son (as NRSV words it)” that was compared to (the glory as of).

The best manuscripts say 'theos' in reference to the son in vs18.

Now if we look in Revelation 19:13, it says name of Ha’Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is called “Davarel” which is translated as “the word of Elohim” in English from Koine Greek. The reason he is called Davarel is because the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) commands him what to speak, in other words he speaks the words of the true Elohim (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

Precisely as I expected. So which is it? Either Christ is or He is not the
LogoV..

I advice all the readers to look up Hebrew name. The name “Dov”, it means “bear”, the person is not literally a “bear” just because their name is “bear.” The word “Eban” which means “stone”, the person is not literally a “stone” just because they have a name “stone.”

And when it comes to John 1, Trinitarians don't believe Christ was a literal "breath of air moving over YHWH's vocal cords". That interpretation is patently ridiculous, and if you assume we hold such, you are in dire need of re-researching Trinitarian beliefs.

Now for those who think o logos (word/speech/saying) is a person just because it is referred to as a “he” and “him”, I refer you to read the book of Proverbs. For quick examples:

Proverbs 1:20-21 Wisdom cries out in the street; in the squares she raises her voice. At the busiest corner she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:

Proverbs 7:4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” and call insight your intimate friend,

Looking at vs12, (which occurs prior to vs14) we see that the 'logos' has a 'name' on which to believe in order to gain eternal life. See Jn20:30 for the answer to who's name this belongs. Again, however, this is only of significance if you don't hold to the preexistance of Christ.



...8<...

I don't think you would like it what Hebrews 1:8-9 actually says from Koine Greek (and this is not coming from me, but from someone who read Koine Greek fluently along with Hebrew).

I might comment on Hebrews 1:8-9 later on, or even on the whole chapter.

I have Murray J. Harris' book with the chapter on Heb1:8. I certainly won't hear anything new from this "someone who knows Koine Greek real good".

However....

Did I make any reference to Heb1:8 in my last reply? Refrain from using red herrings and stick with the issue, please. Thanks.

Next reply, please take time to confirm for me whether or not you believe in the preexistence of Christ. Thanks again.

-IM

[Ani Uriyah]

Read the rules and tell me what is wrong with the above? I'm not here to debate your link, I'm here to debate YOU.

My link is ME, I am the one who wrote it.

I meant creation BY angels. I.e. "Let US make (plural)..." being in reference to God and the angelic host as some propose.

No, only the Father (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) is the Creator. He can use whatever He wants to create by/through.

He can't be seen but "portions" of His glory can?

You sentence is incomplete, it makes no sense although I can guess what you are trying to ask. Moshe (Alav ha'shalom) asked to see the glory of YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam), and in return YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) said you cannot see His full glory (Face) but rather you can see some of His glory (Back).

As for the lengthy bit that follows the above, I'll return to it here shortly. First, I will address the rest of the small issues.

So the logoV here is the *literal* spoken word of YHWH? Is that your view?

Logos is more than just words, before words come about, one thinks, thoughts, then those thoughts become words, but yes, that is what Apostle John (Alav ha'shalom) is talking about in John 1.

JPHolding will love it that you brought the Wisdom topic up

I'm not concerned with what he will love, I have had him on ignore when I said I would put him on ignore.

Do you believe Christ preexisted or not?

Yes, as every other human being.

Vs 10 states rather clearly that Christ was an intermediate agent in the Genesis creation. Do you agree with this or not?

Verse 10 is saying that the world came into being through him. Yes, I believe the world came into being through him as 1st Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2 says.

Again, see vs30. Where is this explanation in the context?

What about verse 30? I know Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) was the first created.

Have you heard of the Memra?

Yes.

The best manuscripts say 'theos' in reference to the son in vs18.

The true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not beget nor is He begotten. Also note Isaiah 43:10.

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
It works like this. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) raised up a savior for Yisrael (other Passages says he sent a savior into the world), and through Yehoshua (Alav ha'shalom) we receive Salvation, but Salvation comes from YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).
Ok, so let me see if I understand your position correctly.

You consider YHWH to be the source of all salvation. Yeshua is the vessel through which YHWH gives us salvation. But Yeshua is not the actual source of salvation - only YHWH can be the source. No Scripture or Passage attributes the source of salvation to anyone other than YHWH himself.

Is this correct?

You twisting word to mean something else is not going to work with me; it might work with someone who doesn't underastand the Scriptures and Passages, but not with someone like me. Benny Hinn got superman out of Adam, and now you trying to get Yehoshua out of the word English word &quot;Salvation&quot;...Christianity these days...
I'm not twisting anything, and my argument had nothing to do with the English word "salvation". It has everything to do with the Hebrew words "yeshuah" and "yeshua". The only difference between these words in their gender. Thus, if someone wanted to name their son "yeshuah", they would have to change it slightly because it is feminine. Of course, they would simply drop the trailing "h".

Perhaps I'll rewrite my original sentence:

Thus, if Jesus were "yeshuah" in the flesh, it would be natural for his name to be Yeshua.

Now you can't complain about me twisting meaning using the English word for salvation. :smile:

[Ani Uriyah]

You consider YHWH to be the source of all salvation. Yeshua is the vessel through which YHWH gives us salvation. But Yeshua is not the actual source of salvation - only YHWH can be the source.

Is this correct?

Yes.

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
You consider YHWH to be the source of all salvation. Yeshua is the vessel through which YHWH gives us salvation. But Yeshua is not the actual source of salvation - only YHWH can be the source.

Is this correct?

Yes.
Ok, just to really confirm: I guess it must be wrong, even blasphemous, to call Yeshua (or anyone other than YHWH, for that matter) the source of eternal salvation?

Right, time to put your money where your mouth is.

-If I can't find a passage in the Bible that calls anyone other than YHWH the "source of eternal salvation", then I will have to admit that you are correct.

-If I can find a passage in the Bible that calls Yeshua the source of eternal salvation, then you will have to admit that I am correct.

I'm going to look through the Bible and see if I can find such a passage, and if I can't find one, I'll concede your position. But only on the proviso that if I can find one, then you will concede my position.

Deal?

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210930#post210930)
Ani Uriyah:

The true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not beget nor is He begotten. Also note Isaiah 43:10.

AU, could you explain the phony honorifics you add after every name? For example, (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). I don't mean definition I know what they mean. I mean why, there is no justification for this in scripture.

As for this comment I refer you to.
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten [ילד] thee.

[Socrates]

09-11-2003 @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208540#post208540)
Ani Uriyah, replying to:

Bib Lit Major: Actually, those aren't alternate spellings but different cases (like nominative, genitive, accusative, etc.) of the same word IhsouV.

Interesting. I was wondering what that was.

It strikes me that if Uriah doesn't know something as basic as that, he has no business in lecturing us about the NT to support his neo-Arian heresy. And that's leaving aside his pathetic ignorance of the concept of hypostasis as JPHolding has documented at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=209822#post209822

[Socrates]

09-12-2003 @ 03:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209805#post209805)
OldShepherd:

Still does not address יהוה was sent by יהוה.

Nor is this neo-Arian capable of addressing the fact that in Genesis 19:24, יהוה rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from יהוה in heaven.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=211869#post211869)
Socrates:

Nor is this neo-Arian capable of addressing the fact that in Genesis 19:24, יהוה rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from יהוה in heaven.

שמע, akouh

[Ani Uriyah]

-If I can't find a passage in the Bible that calls anyone other than YHWH the "source of eternal salvation", then I will have to admit that you are correct.

Aurthor and source is two differenent things, but yes.

-If I can find a passage in the Bible that calls Yeshua the source of eternal salvation, then you will have to admit that I am correct.

No.

Psalms 2:7 does not prove a Trinity. It is a prophecy at the most.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=212198#post212198)
Ani Uriyah:

Psalms 2:7 does not prove a Trinity. It is a prophecy at the most.

I did NOT post Ps 2:7 as proof of the Trinity but to answer this false statement you posted. You said the true God does not beget. Davar ha'elohim proves you wrong. Unless you want to put on tap shoes and dance around this verse.
Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten [ילד] thee.
09-13-2003 @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210930#post210930)
Ani Uriyah:

The true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not beget nor is He begotten. Also note Isaiah 43:10.

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
No.

Psalms 2:7 does not prove a Trinity. It is a prophecy at the most.
I never said anything about Psalm 2:7 or the Trinity. I was talking about Yeshua and whether or not he was the source of eternal salvation. So don't try and preempt which Bible verse (if any!) I have in mind, forget Psalm 2:7 for a minute, and just answer my question. :smile:

Perhaps it will make it easier for you if I write this in a hypothetical form:

-Hypothetically speaking, if I could find a Bible verse that says Yeshua is the source of eternal salvation, you would have to admit that you are wrong and I am correct.

I'm not sure that such a passage even exists, but if it did, it would prove you wrong, wouldn't it? If not, then what would prove you wrong?

[Ani Uriyah]

I did NOT post Ps 2:7 as proof of the Trinity but to answer this false statement you posted. You said the true God does not beget. Davar ha'elohim proves you wrong.

Actually, I am not wrong. You misunderstood my statement. Of course YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) gives life (begets) in that sense, but not in the sense that He gives birth like a woman to a child from a woman. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not beget nor is He begotten.

-Hypothetically speaking, if I could find a Bible verse that says Yeshua is the source of eternal salvation, you would have to admit that you are wrong and I am correct.

I will have to look at the Scripture or Passage.

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
I will have to look at the Scripture or Passage.
Translation: "Without seeing the Scripture or Passage first, I won't be able to explain it away, so I'm not going to commit to my position until after I've thought of a way to explain it away." :smile:

I'm sorry, but this won't do. I'm not going to go to my Bible until you commit to answer my question with an unqualified "yes" or "no".

I'll make it more specific, perhaps that will help:

Hypothetically speaking, if I was to find a Scripture or Passage that said: "Yeshua became the source of eternal salvation." or "Christ became the source of eternal salvation.", will you admit that you are wrong and I am right?

[Ani Uriyah]

Hypothetically speaking, if I was to find a Scripture or Passage that said: "Yeshua became the source of eternal salvation." or "Christ became the source of eternal salvation.", will you admit that you are wrong and I am right?

No, I would not be wrong since he would be made salvation unto us. The true source of Salvation is Ein Sof Himself (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
No, I would not be wrong since he would be made salvation unto us. The true source of Salvation is Ein Sof Himself (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).
"...salvation unto us."? What other type of salvation is there?

So let me get this straight: if there was a passage in the Bible that said "Yeshuah became the source of eternal salvation.", then that would not prove that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation???

Perhaps you might like to tell me, then... what passage would convince you that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation??? Unless you can give me an example, it seems that your position in unfalsifiable.

[Ani Uriyah]

"...salvation unto us."? What other type of salvation is there?

Salvation is salvation, but it does not come in the same way, although it all comes from Ein Sof (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam).

So let me get this straight: if there was a passage in the Bible that said "Yeshuah became the source of eternal salvation.", then that would not prove that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation???

I am not aware of any females becoming salvation for me, but if you can point of where that one is in the Bible, I would like to see it.

Perhaps you might like to tell me, then... what passage would convince you that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation???

There isn't any such Passage to my awareness.

Unless you can give me an example, it seems that your position in unfalsifiable.

Example is in like manner, only Own Ein Sof is the pure source of Salvation, He always was, is, and shall be the pure source of Salvation. He cannot be made Salvation unto me, for He is the source of Salvation for me. He cannot be made a savior unto me, for He is my Savior.

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
So let me get this straight: if there was a passage in the Bible that said "Yeshuah became the source of eternal salvation.", then that would not prove that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation???

I am not aware of any females becoming salvation for me, but if you can point of where that one is in the Bible, I would like to see it.
I'm sorry, that was a typo. I meant to write "Yeshua became the source of eternal salvation".

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this sentence (or one like it) could be found in the Bible. Wouldn't that prove you wrong? Yes or no?

There isn't any such Passage to my awareness.
But that doesn't answer my question, that simply dodges it. Perhaps I did not phrase it clearly; I'll try again.

Can you think of a hypothetical sentence which, if it was a Scripture or Passage, would refute your position that Yeshua is not the source of eternal salvation?

Example is in like manner, only Own Ein Sof is the pure source of Salvation, He always was, is, and shall be the pure source of Salvation. He cannot be made Salvation unto me, for He is the source of Salvation for me. He cannot be made a savior unto me, for He is my Savior.
Why have you suddenly started using this word "pure"? Show me a Scripture or a Passage that calls YHWH the "pure source" of salvation, and not just the "source" of salvation.

[Ani Uriyah]

Can you think of a hypothetical sentence which, if it was a Scripture or Passage, would refute your position that Yeshua is not the source of eternal salvation?

No, I cannot think of one.

Why have you suddenly started using this word "pure"?

Being more specific.

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
No, I cannot think of one.
Then your position is unfalsifiable. There's no way to convince you that you are wrong, even if you are wrong.

You've just admitted that even if the Bible said "Yeshua became the source of eternal salvation" you would not believe that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation. If a sentence with such a clear and obvious meaning can still be interpreted by you as supporting your position that Yeshua is not the source of eternal salvation, then it is your opinion that is shaping the Scriptures and Passages - not the Scriptures and Passages that is shaping your opinion.

You are blinded to the truth. You have admitted that no contrary testimony from the scriptures could sway you from your position. If a statement as plain as the above cannot convince you that you are in error, then nothing will. There's no point in us having a discussion if there is no possibility of us showing you the flaw in your logic.

You should read my signature. There's no possibility that you are right about everything if you can't admit that you might be wrong about something.

Given your obvious unwillingness to change your position in the light of contrary evidence, I think this will be my last post in this thread. If you change your tune, I might consider rejoining, but I don't like my prospects. In the meantime, I'll offer this passage in closing, and pray that the Holy Spirit might open your eyes:
Hebrews 5:7-10 (NIV): 7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
If only YHWH is the source of eternal salvation, and Yeshua is also the source of eternal salvation, then it logically follows that Yeshua must be YHWH. The only other way to resolve this contradiction is to say that the Bible is in error.

Being more specific.
Wasn't the Bible specific enough for you? Do you feel that you had to add in words like "pure" that the prophets and the apostles left out?

[Ani Uriyah]

You've just admitted that even if the Bible said "Yeshua became the source of eternal salvation" you would not believe that Yeshua was the source of eternal salvation.

Becoming the source is not the source. You either always are or you aren't the source. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not "become" the source of salvation, He "is" the source of salvation.

Hebrews 5:9 kai teleiwqeis egeneto pasin tois upakouousin autw aitios swthrias aiwniou (Westcott-Hort text)

Transliteration: And being matured he became to the obeying to him cause of saving eonian.

Translation: And he being perfect, he became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying him.

YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) raised him up the be a savior: Acts 5:31 and Acts 13:23. Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the true source of salvation.

[Jezz]

Well, I wasn't going to reply, but you've brought up the topic of "who raised Jesus", which is another of my favourites.

Ani Uriyah:
Becoming the source is not the source. You either always are or you aren't the source.
Well, after you've become the source, are you still not the source??? What are you then???

I think perhaps you're just trying to play word games...

YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not &quot;become&quot; the source of salvation, He &quot;is&quot; the source of salvation.
I refer you back to the quotes from the OT. Several of them explicitly said that YHWH/God became yeshuah (salvation). According to you, this is in error, because YHWH does not become salvation. He "is" salvation.

Hebrews 5:9 kai teleiwqeis egeneto pasin tois upakouousin autw aitios swthrias aiwniou (Westcott-Hort text)

Transliteration: And being matured he became to the obeying to him cause of saving eonian.
Actually, this is not a transliteration, but a "literal translation". The first sentence above was a transliteration - written in Greek, but using the Roman alphabet.

Translation: And he being perfect, he became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying him.
Source, cause, author... all have the same meaning. The author of something is the source of something is the cause of something. But then, I suppose it doesn't say "true source", does it? Notwithstanding the fact that the Bible never calls YHWH the "true source" either...

YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) raised him up the be a savior: Acts 5:31 and Acts 13:23.
Interesting. How do you explain these verses then:
John 2:19-22 (KJV): 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.Yeshua was here talking about his death and resurrection. And he is claiming credit for himself for raising himself up.
John 10:17-18 (KJV) 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.Here, we have clear allusion to the crucifiction and resurrection. Yeshua claims that he had the power to lay down his own life, and the power to raise it up again. In other words, Yeshua raised himself from the dead.

So in your opinion, who raised Yeshua? Was it God (Acts 5:31, Acts 13:23)? Or did he raise himself (John 2:19, 19:18)?

If you don't believe that Yeshua was God, then you've got another interesting contradiction to resolve here. No doubt you will attempt to do so by various hand-waving arguments, perhaps by inserting extra words into your argument that are not found in the Bible (eg, "Yeshua did not truly raise himself. Only YHWH truly raised him.") On the other hand, if you believe that Yeshua was God, then there is no contradiction. And you don't even have to insert any words into the text to make the contradiction go away!

This is just the second of a number of contradictions that arise in the Bible if Yeshua is not God. There are plenty more.

Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the true source of salvation.
Riiiight... And if I could find a verse saying "Ha'Mashiyach is the "true" source of salvation", you would say "Yeah, but he's not the really, truly true source of salvation. Only YHWH is the really, truly true source of salvation." :shrug:

[Ani Uriyah]

Well, after you've become the source, are you still not the source???

Rabbi Yehoshua was "raised up by his God" to be the cause of my Salvation since I am save through him by what he was enabled to do. If you do not understand what I am talking about, then it's best you try not to waste your time.

Interesting. How do you explain these verses then:

John 2:19-22.

The Father spoke through him as He did in John 14:8-10.

John 10:17-18

He has received this power from the Father; the inner-man of Rabbi Yehoshua did not die, as when you die, your inner-man does not die. Your inner-man goes and wait for judgment. The true Elohim gave Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach to have life in himself, and gave him all power. The Father raised Yehoshua from the dead through the inner-man Yehoshua.

Let me show you what Apostle Paul (Alav ha'shalom) said:

Romans 4:24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Yehoshua our master from the dead,

Galatians 1:1 Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Yehoshua Mashiyach and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

[Pilgrim]

Yesterday @ 08:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=213353#post213353)
Ani Uriyah:



Becoming the source is not the source. You either always are or you aren't the source. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not &quot;become&quot; the source of salvation, He &quot;is&quot; the source of salvation.

Hebrews 5:9 kai teleiwqeis egeneto pasin tois upakouousin autw aitios swthrias aiwniou (Westcott-Hort text)

Transliteration: And being matured he became to the obeying to him cause of saving eonian.

Translation: And he being perfect, he became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying him.

YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) raised him up the be a savior: Acts 5:31 and Acts 13:23. Ha'Mashiyach (Alav ha'shalom) is not the true source of salvation.

Just a point of clarification before people become confuses. A transliteration is an english rendering of the greek sounds. Thus your first sentance in which you write out the Greek in English letters is actually the transliteration. The second sentance is a literal translation. The third is a translation rendered for reading. (although I may take exception with your literal translation as well, I'll work on it this morning)

[Jezz]

Ani Uriyah:
Rabbi Yehoshua was &quot;raised up by his God&quot; to be the cause of my Salvation since I am save through him by what he was enabled to do. If you do not understand what I am talking about, then it's best you try not to waste your time.
I do understand what you are talking about. I just don't see how you can get that meaning out of the plain text. If Jesus became the source of eternal salvation, then Jesus was the source of eternal salvation after he became it. If he wasn't, then he didn't become the source, and the Bible is in error.

The Father spoke through him as He did in John 14:8-10.
Unless Jesus was speaking for himself (and not on behalf of the Father), these passages are highly confusing or contradictory.

If it was merely the Father speaking through Jesus, then the Father would have been deceiving the Pharisees, because the Pharisees did not ask the Father to give them a sign. They asked Jesus to give them a sign. Since God does not lie, I am safe in concluding that Jesus was answering for himself, not speaking as the Father.

The second passage is even more contradictory if we think that it was just the Father speaking through Jesus:
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.When Jesus says "I", "me" and "my" in this passage, it cannot be the Father speaking through Jesus, because the Father is referred to in the third person. Why would the Father refer to Himself as "my Father"? Who is the Father of the Father?

I don't disagree that the Father speaks through the Son - but that's because the Father and the Son are one.

He has received this power from the Father; the inner-man of Rabbi Yehoshua did not die, as when you die, your inner-man does not die. Your inner-man goes and wait for judgment. The true Elohim gave Yehoshua Ha’Mashiyach to have life in himself, and gave him all power. The Father raised Yehoshua from the dead through the inner-man Yehoshua.
I think by "inner-man" you mean "soul". But anyway...

You are correct, right up until the last sentence. If the Father gave Yeshua "all power", then what need did the Son have of the Father to raise Him from the dead? If the Son had all power, couldn't the Son raise Himself?

The Bible tells us that theos (not Elohim) raised Jesus. The Bible also tells us that Jesus raised himself. You can only resolve this conflict if Jesus is God.

Let me show you what Apostle Paul (Alav ha'shalom) said:
I know what Paul said. But how does it reconcile with what Jesus said? It is clear from the above passages that Jesus claimed credit for raising himself. If God raised Jesus, and Jesus raised Jesus, what can we conclude about Jesus?

[Ani Uriyah]

I'm not a parot, you can reread what I said concerning the subject.

I'm done discussing here. There is no way you can prove to me that the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) is the true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam), not because I am closed minded, but because I understand the usage of Elohim, Qeos, Qeon, etc.

Moshe is referred to as "Qeon" in Exodus 7:1, and not only that, he is referred to as "Ton Qeon" in Exodus 4:16. All the Koine Greek words that are "interpretated" as "God" are equivalent to the Hebrew word Elohim.

You absolutely have no proof that the Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) is the true God (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam). The Messiah (Alav ha'shalom) himself say concerning the Father "You the solitary true genuine Qeon."

Thank you for your discuss. Hope you will come to truth one day.

Shalom alaychem,
Uriyah.

[studyhound]

:troll:

[AVmetro]

Ani stated:

Actually, I am not wrong. You misunderstood my statement. Of course YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) gives life (begets) in that sense, but not in the sense that He gives birth like a woman to a child from a woman. YHVH (Baruch Hu; Melek ha'olam) does not beget nor is He begotten.

Ps 2:7 is cited as being fulfilled in Acts13:33. I.e. the resurrection of Christ. In those instances such as Jn1:18, monogenhV carries the meaning of "unique" rather than "begotten".

God bless--IM

[Tophet]

“ Yeshua created the world ”

Incorrect, please provide Scriptures (Genesis-Malachi) or Passages (Matthew-Revelation).

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

[Pilgrim]

John 1ff.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. he was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness and the dakness did not overcome it.

Hmmm, now who could the Word be? :huh:

[Uriyah]

I got bored. Hehe.

“ Yeshua created the world ”

Incorrect, please provide Scriptures (Genesis-Malachi) or Passages (Matthew-Revelation).

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Colossians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This does not say Yehoshua created anything.

Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

God created through Yehoshua. Yehoshua is an instrument like the earth is an instrument.

Hmmm, now who could the Word be?

My commentary: http://pub10.ezboard.com/furiyahsboardfrm1.showMessage?topicID=39.topic

[Uriyah]

Oh, btw, Jesus is not even once referred to as "Theos" within the NT.

[AVmetro]

Uriyah:

Oh, btw, Jesus is not even once referred to as "Theos" within the NT.

Hi, Uriyah. Welcome back! Regarding your statement above, are you aware that the application of qeoV in the NT to Jesus Christ is a fact not even disputed by the Jehovah's Witnesses? Thanks.

God bless--AV

[Uriyah]

Regarding your statement above, are you aware that the application of qeoV in the NT to Jesus Christ is a fact not even disputed by the Jehovah's Witnesses?

It's an opinion not a fact. And I am not a JW, so I care less what is disputed by them.

[AVmetro]

Uriyah:

It's an opinion not a fact. And I am not a JW, so I care less what is disputed by them.

Do you believe in the preexistence of Christ?

-AV

[Uriyah]

Do you believe in the preexistence of Christ?

Of course, messengers preexist as well as we preexisted. Some view this as a crazy topic so I won't bother explaining it in this thread, but I will give you a link on my board that deals with the topic of preexisting: http://pub10.ezboard.com/furiyahsboardfrm1.showMessage?topicID=20.topic

[AVmetro]

Uriyah:

Of course, messengers preexist as well as we preexisted. Some view this as a crazy topic so I won't bother explaining it in this thread, but I will give you a link on my board that deals with the topic of preexisting: * edited by a moderator *

So do you mean 'preexist' merely in the "plan of God" or literally exist as a person prior to their birth on earth ala Mormonism (LDS)?

-AV

[Uriyah]

You should have read the link before you edited out. Not going to say anything else on preexistence.

[AVmetro]

Uriyah:

You should have read the link before you edited out. Not going to say anything else on preexistence.

You should have read the decorum before posting your link. Thanks for your time. ;-)

-AV

[AVmetro]

Uriyah:

Oh, btw, Jesus is not even once referred to as "Theos" within the NT.

John 1:18 "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God [qeoV] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained {Him.}" [NASB]

-AV

[Uriyah]

That manuscript is not proper in that area. I am sure you are aware of other manuscripts reading differently. I don't hold the view that any manuscript is without error.

[AVmetro]

Concerning the best evidence for the NASB rendering of Jn 1:18, I started a new thead here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15224).

Moving on...

I'll simply assume your view of preexistence and ask - What is your view of Jn1:1? You may have explained this earlier in the thread, but I'm not willing to go back and look for it ;-). In this passage, qeoV is applied to the logoV who is later identified as being Christ Jesus (See vs 12..cf..20:30; 1Jn1:1-2; Rev19:13).

-AV

[Uriyah]

What is your view of Jn1:1?

Click on "Uriyah's Board" in my signature and read a thread called "Commentary on John 1:1-15."

[Bill the Cat]

Uriyah, are you the same as Ani-Uriyah??

[Uriyah]

Uriyah, are you the same as Ani-Uriyah??

Yes. I forgot what password and email I used for Ani Uriyah. Thus I made a new name.

[AVmetro]

Uriyah:

Click on "Uriyah's Board" in my signature and read a thread called "Commentary on John 1:1-15."

No thanks, I'd rather stick with being concise. Give me a quick, short summary of your point, then we'll see if we can't go from there.

-AV

[AVmetro]

Bill the Cat:

Uriyah, are you the same as Ani-Uriyah??

Uriyah:

Yes. I forgot what password and email I used for Ani Uriyah. Thus I made a new name.

I knew something was strange about your extremely small post count :-). Which name would you prefer? We'll need to delete one. Thanks.

-AV

[Uriyah]

No thanks, I'd rather stick with being concise. Give me a quick, short summary of your point, then we'll see if we can't go from there.

It is short commentary on my link, and it's my commentary.

Which name would you prefer? We'll need to delete one.

I would prefer the one I am using right now. But are you sure if you delete the Ani Uriyah one you won't delete this thread and other posts by Ani Uriyah?

[AVmetro]

No, we can merge Ani's posts with your new name.

God bless--AV

Uriyah:

It is short commentary on my link, and it's my commentary.



I would prefer the one I am using right now. But are you sure if you delete the Ani Uriyah one you won't delete this thread and other posts by Ani Uriyah?