Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2022 3:32:19 GMT -5
D"I have explained to you that all (Hasidic) Jews see God as a duality
R" I see
I quote"
The belief that Jesus is God, the Son of God, or a person of the Trinity, is incompatible with Jewish theology. Jews believe Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the messiah.[6] Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy. Belief in the Trinity is also held to be incompatible with Judaism, as are a number of other tenets of Christianity.
Please show me a link of Jewish thinking that supports your view, I can't find one.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 7, 2022 7:12:31 GMT -5
D"I have explained to you that all (Hasidic) Jews see God as a dualityR" I see I quote" Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy. WOW – more of Robert’s word gamesYou look at Islam and couldn’t find Judeo-Christian proof You look at Hinduism and could find Judeo-Christian proof Maybe next time you should look in comic books Please show me a link of Jewish thinking that supports your view, I can't find one.D"I have explained to you that all (Hasidic) Jews see God as a dualityjewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6713-glory-of-godSHEKINAH (; lit. "the dwelling"): (Redirected from GLORY OF GOD.) By: Kaufmann Kohler, Ludwig Blau The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper (see Anthropomorphism). The word itself is taken from such passages as speak of God dwelling either in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel (see Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45-46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; I Kings vi. 13; Ezek. xliii. 9; Zech. ii. 14 [A. V. 10]). Occasionally the name of God is spoken of as descending (Deut. xii. 11; xiv. 23; xvi. 6, 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9). It is especially said that God dwells in Jerusalem (Zech. viii. 3; Ps. cxxxv. 21; I Chron. xxiii. 25), on Mount Zion (Isa. viii. 18; Joel iv. [A. V. iii.] 17, 21; Ps. xv. 1, lxxiv. 2), and in the Temple itself (Ezek. xliii. 7). Allusion is made also to "him that dwelt in the bush" (Deut. xxxiii. 16, ); and it is said that "the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai" (Ex. xxiv. 16). The term "Shekinah," which is Hebrew, whereas "Memra" and "Yeḳara" are Aramaic, took the place of the latter two in Talmudand Midrash, and thus absorbed the meaning which they have in the Targum, where they almost exclusively occur. Nevertheless the word "Shekinah" occurs most frequently in the Aramaic versions, since they were intended for the people and were actually read to them, and since precautions had therefore to be taken against possible misunderstandings in regard to the conception of God. The word "dwell" in the Hebrew text is accordingly rendered in the Targumim by the phrase "let the Shekinah rest" (e.g., Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. xxxii. 10 [R. V. "he compassed him about"]; Ps. lxxiv. 2). Onḳelos translates "Elohim" in Gen. ix. 27 by "Shekinah"; and wherever the person, the dwelling, or the remoteness of God is mentioned, he paraphrases by the same word (Num. xiv. 14, 42; xvi. 3; xxxv. 34; Deut. i. 42, iii. 24, iv. 39, vi. 15, vii. 21, xxiii. 16, xxxi. 17); so too, wherever the Name occurs, he substitutes for it the term "Shekinah" (Deut. xii. 5, 11, 21), and "presence" or "face" is translated the same way (Ex. xxxiii. 14-15; Num. vi. 25; Deut. xxxi. 17-18; see Maybaum, "Anthropomorphien," etc., pp. 52-54). Targ. pseudo-Jonathan and Yerushalmi adopt a like system, as in Ps. xvi. 8, lxxxix. 47, Lam. ii. 19, and Cant. vi. 1 (ib. pp. 64 et seq.). Where the text states that God dwells in the Temple above the cherubim (as in Hab. ii. 20; I Sam. iv. 4; II Sam. vi. 2; I Kings viii. 12, 13; xiv. 21; Ps. lxxiv. 2), or that God has been seen (Isa. vi. 6 et seq.; Ex. iii. 6; Ezek. i. 1; Lev. ix. 4), the Yerushalmi has "Shekinah"; and even where it describes God as abiding in heaven, the same word is used (Isa. xxxiii. 5; Deut. iii. 24, iv. 39). This statement holds true also of allusions to His remoteness or to the hiding of His face (Hos. v. 6; Isa. viii. 17, xlv. 15; Hastings, "Dict. Bible," iv. 488b). The Temple is called the "house of the Shekinah" (Targ. Onḳ. to Deut. xii. 5; Ps. xlix. 15, cviii. 8); and the term likewise occurs in connection with "glory" ("yeḳara"; Ruth ii. 12; Cant. iii. 6, iv. 6, v. 6; Ps. xliv. 25, lxviii. 19, cxv. 16; Jer. xix. 18) and with "holiness" (Cant. i. 10, ii. 2, iii. 2, vi. 1; Ps. lxxiv. 12, lxxxvi. 3). D"I have explained to you that all (Hasidic) Jews see God as a dualityHowever- Christians have the agl/NT – the duality of God became a trinityCol 1:15 (Christ) who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, Col 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities (archon); all things through him, and for him, have been created,
Col 1:15 (Christ)Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities (Archon), or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Christ = the image of God Archon - authorities - principalities - made by God for GodYou must deny agl/NT scripture to believe in your self created satan god D"Now you deny the divinity of Jesus ChristR" I have never denied the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is fully 100% of divine elohiym.But you deny Christ is God - there is only One Divine – there is only One Divinity – How many gods do you worship?There is only One True God
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2022 16:04:19 GMT -5
Greetings Dave
You have not defended your views, only provide me a link, so I have to read them myself, no do you provide discussions, so I have to provide them myself? Are you afraid to witness about your view?
The Jewish quotes collected here show a mess, confusion, the Jewish sages disagree with each other, and invent stuff. The Jews also opposed Greek ideas, so invented their own religion to oppose Greek idea thrust upon them.
It is clear from Scripture nobody has seen the shape of the Father or of the Holy Spirit, the word refers to both of these for a reason.... NT source...Lu 3:22 and Joh 5:37
How ELohiym power is more about the function of love, shown to humans, than about the similes of shape. Remember elohiym is not made of matter, time or space. However the function of love and loving prevails.
I quote"
Many passages of Hosea, one of the oldest Prophets who committed their prophecies to writing, will serve to illustrate this attitude. "The work of craftsmen," "the calf of Samaria," are some of the epithets which this prophet applies to the effigies on images of YHWH, held sacred by the people (Hosea, viii. 4, 6; x. 5; xiii. 2). Again, when the people, under the influence of their delusions, deemed it impossible that YHWH should withhold His pity from His people, he proclaimed in the name of YHWH: "But I am God, and not man" (Hosea, xi. 9). Thus YHWH is so exalted above everything earthly that He should not be represented by an effigy or image lest He be dragged down into the sphere of the sensuous. Besides this, His very spiritual constitution is so intrinsically different in its essence from that of man that no comparison can be made. Man may be overcome by a sympathetic heart or a censuring conscience; the character of YHWH is firmer: "for he is not a man that he should repent" (I Sam. xv. 29).
R" Clearly the love of a loving power is not like man, where we hold grudges and lack forgiveness, etc.
They always speak of the Memra ("word" of God)—if in the Hebrew text God is represented as speaking—but they retain in their translations such expressions as the hand, finger, or eye of God.
R" Such passages like this intend to remove the Hebrew verses, and make people move away a God of love.
"The "fathers" of the Septuagint went much further than the "Soferim" or the "Meturgemanim" in their employment of interpretative expressions, by paraphrasing or spiritualizing (rendering less worldly or gross) the anthropomorphic or anthropopathic phrases of the Bible. The "image of God" becomes in the Septuagint "the glory of the Lord" (δόζα κυρίου); "the mouth of God," "the voice of the Lord" (φωνα κυρίου). Even human cemotions are excluded from Deity. Repentance, wrath, and pity are suggested in such a manner that nothing human is stated of God. The customary assumption that this aversion to the predication of anything corporeal, or indeed human, of God is due to the influence of Greek philosophy is far from certain.
R" The Jews change things, remove the qualities of God, and thus violate the function of God as a provider and responder of love.
Referring to the fanciful and figurative expressions of the Prophets, an old rabbinical saying remarks: "The Prophets show great daring in likening the Creator to the creature," (Gen. R. xxvii. 1). Rabbi Akiba sought a different interpretation of those passages in the Bible that seem to identify God and the angels. God, in His sublimity, must in His very essence differ from His holy angels. Compare Mek., Beshallaḥ, 6, where Akiba declares as heretical the certainly ancient explanation of the words "like one of us" (Gen. iii. 22) as referring to the angels. Compare his Christian contemporary Justin Martyr, who declares the interpretation Akiba rejected to be "Jewish heresy" ("Dialogus cum Tryphone," 62) Whenever actions similar to those of a human being are predicated of God, the older rabbis employed the term ("as though it were possible"); intending by this term to say that these expressions are not to be taken literally, but only as a mode of speech accommodated to the average intellect (Mek., Yithro, 4). Following the Targum of Onkelos—which he esteems very highly—he sets up the following rules, according to which the ten anthropomorphic designations which occur in Scripture are to be explained: God's "head" indicates sublimity; "eye," providence; "face," favor or disfavor; "ear," heeding; "mouth" and "lip," command and instruction; "hand," power; "heart," insight; "bowels," compassion; and "foot," the act of conquering or subduing, conquest. But his treatment of the subject of Anthropopathism is dictated more by Greek philosophy than by Judaism, and is not remotely connected with his views on God's attributes
R" They take away the functioning of love, removing the idea that elohoiym power made mankind in our image, like us. How else can love function unless the divine entities have other divine entities? But NO the Jews do not tolerate such notions of more than one divine member of elohiym, they change the word echad to mean yaccid, which it is NOT.
Jews wish Scripture to say the YHWH our elohiym is yaccid.
De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
When it actually says the YHWH elohiym is echad YHWH.
Show me a Jewish discussion detailing the difference between yaccid and echad....
But Maimonides was not content to restrict himself to opposing Anthropomorphism. Philosophy being to him not the handmaid, but the mistress, of theology, he pursued his thought until he arrived at the concept of God as a metaphysical being, withdrawn in cold sublimity and isolation from His creatures—with whose weal or wo He could no longer concern Himself—and void of a free will; a being, in short, to whom no attributes could be ascribed except those of a negative character. Thus Maimonides was confronted with a difficulty similar to that which Philo encountered when he propounded his doctrine of the "Logos": the question, namely, how to establish a communication between a God devoid of attributes and the material universe. In fact, his lack of success was as complete as that of Philo, at least as far as Judaism is concerned.
R" Maimonides went to extremes to condemn the love and loving functions of elohiym power.
Despite the high esteem enjoyed by Maimonides among the great body of Jews, he was unable to achieve any success with his "intellectualization" of the notion of God. Only one of his teachings—that of the incorporeality of God—found favor in the eyes of his coreligionists, was accepted in all sincerity, and was even adopted in the ritual of the Synagogue; a proof that in this doctrine he had caught the true spirit of Judaism. That his warfare against Anthropomorphism was a matter of serious concern to the Jews is shown by the comment of Abraham ben David of Posquières—the only one who could rival Maimonides in rabbinical scholarship—on the passage in the "Yad ha-Ḥazaḳah," referred to above: "Greater and better men than he—Maimonides—have held this opinion."
R" I also note many Jews in France opposed Maimonides and developed an elohiym power with loving functions.
It is difficult to determine whence the Jews of southern France—who bitterly opposed Maimonides
Abraham ben David probably intended to suggest that the French Jews, with their belief in the literal meaning of Bible and Talmud, were led to anthropomorphic views by the fantastic descriptions which some of the Haggadot give of God and His actions Maimonides ("Moreh," i. 28 [Munk's translation, "Guide des Egarés," i. 58, 73, 88, 286, 288; iii. 43, 93]; Maybaum, l.c. pp. 5, 34) regarded the Shekinah, like the Memra, the Yeḳara, and the Logos, as a distinct entity, and as a light created to be an intermediary between God and the world;
R" Now I note the use of Hebrew not found in the Hebrew:
The Shekinah appeared also in the burning bush (Ex. R. ii.), and it was everywhere (B. B. 25a).
R" Not mentioned here?
Since the Shekinah is light, those passages of the Apocrypha and New Testament which mention radiance, and in which the Greek text reads δόξα, refer to the Shekinah, there being no other Greek equivalent for the word.
R" Seems like things are invented?
The word "dwell" in the Hebrew text is accordingly rendered in the Targumim by the phrase "let the Shekinah rest" (e.g., Ex. xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46; Num. v. 3, xxxv. 34; Deut. xxxii. 10 [R. V. "he compassed him about"];
Ex 29:45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.
SHakan "(Jeff Benner") to dwell.
How can we assume the Hebrew word dwell also refers to this special projection of God?
Rob "In summary, I have read nothing in this link of yours supporting your views, in fact its a complete messy confusion of Jewish ideas, and inventions of ideas not in the Hebrew words at all.
If the orgone energy around the ark did shine as a projection of the zero point energy of the Father, and this is termed shekinah, than where is the Hebrew especially for this? I have no problem with the idea, only I cannot find a Hebrew word for this shekinah function of the Father.
I do not see any problem describing elohiym powers as human qualities as we understand love and loving. I am not talking about the shape of the Father or the Shadday. I also read in your link not a single mention of the Shadday or the Eloah, both of these powers are described by EL, and not a single mention why?
Show me a link where Jews talk about Eloah and Shadday as EL powers? I cannot find any specifically.
All I read is a quality of the Father glowing with chi, or orgone, or known as shekinah? Correct.
Also I read nothing specifically saying the Father expresses Himself as duality, with two modes of Himself to humans, as a spirit mode or a mode clad in humanity, referred to as Jesus.
If elohiym is a single entity of divine power, why than did this single divine power invent Hebrew words with masculine case and feminine case?
Why design creatures with two feet and four feet and two hands, why not creatures with one hand? Why are the kinds created as gender male and gender female, when God could have removed this function? WHy are humans made in His image? Who is US? How do you explain love with a single divine being? All you can do is say love only functions when this single divine being has something to love, such as a created creature. However that is not love. Adam got lonely. A single divine Being would be terribly lonely as well.
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on May 7, 2022 16:04:44 GMT -5
What about this?
The Holy Spirit The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper
Christ The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was is used by the Christians in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible is proper
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 7, 2022 20:05:01 GMT -5
You have not defended your views, only provide me a link, so I have to read them myself, no do you provide discussions, so I have to provide them myself? Are you afraid to witness about your view?My views are consistent – and have been for the last 3 years Proof you do not listen or pay attentionThe Jewish quotes collected here show a mess, confusion, the Jewish sages disagree with each other, and invent stuff. The Jews also opposed Greek ideas, so invented their own religion to oppose Greek idea thrust upon them.Correct – the Jewish Kabbalah is a discussion of usually 5 different opinions Only arrogant Roman Christians have the righteous authority to claim right Many passages of Hosea, one of the oldest Prophets who committed their prophecies to writing, will serve to illustrate this attitude. "The work of craftsmen," Gnostic – Demurrage – craftsman / artisan – it is just a titleThus YHWH is so exalted above everything earthly that He should not be represented by an effigy or image lest He be dragged down into the sphere of the sensuous. Besides this, His very spiritual constitution is so intrinsically different in its essence from that of man that no comparison can be made. God is not part of creation – he is larger than our reality God is beyond our ability to define – incomprehensible R" Clearly the love of a loving power is not like man, where we hold grudges and lack forgiveness, etc.They always speak of the Memra ("word" of God)—if in the Hebrew text God is represented as speaking—but they retain in their translations such expressions as the hand, finger, or eye of God. Dave – the Left hand = the matrix / ether / medium – omnipresent The Right Hand is God reaching into His creation as a formThe Holy SpiritThe majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper ChristThe majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was is used by the Christians in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible is proper R" Such passages like this intend to remove the Hebrew verses, and make people move away a God of love.Most people understand the message You just choose to argue vocabulary – to insult the reality The "fathers" of the Septuagint went much further than the "Soferim" or the "Meturgemanim" in their employment of interpretative expressions, by paraphrasing or spiritualizing (rendering less worldly or gross) the anthropomorphic or anthropopathic phrases of the Bible. The "image of God" becomes in the Septuagint "the glory of the Lord" (δόζα κυρίου); "the mouth of God," "the voice of the Lord" (φωνα κυρίου). Even human cemotions are excluded from Deity. Repentance, wrath, and pity are suggested in such a manner that nothing human is stated of God. The customary assumption that this aversion to the predication of anything corporeal, or indeed human, of God is due to the influence of Greek philosophy is far from certain. R" The Jews change things, remove the qualities of God, and thus violate the function of God as a provider and responder of love. R" Clearly the love of a loving power is not like man, where we hold grudges and lack forgiveness, etc.You better read this again - Make up your mind – is God beyond man’s pettiness – or not
Dave The myth – Ptolemy wrote to the temple and requested a translation of the Torah Either Ptolemy requested – or the Temple sent 6 Rabbinic Scholars from each tribe = 72 Closer to the truth – Ptolemy commissioned many Egyptian Rabbis for the work – those Rabbis found at least 2 colleges from each tribe The Septuagint is important because – because it represents the Jewish view point from 250BC And how the Jews of 250BC translated Hebrew into GreekReferring to the fanciful and figurative expressions of the Prophets, an old rabbinical saying remarks: "The Prophets show great daring in likening the Creator to the creature," (Gen. R. xxvii. 1). Rabbi Akiba sought a different interpretation of those passages in the Bible that seem to identify God and the angels. God, in His sublimity, must in His very essence differ from His holy angels. God is not an angel – not of the same substance as the angelsGod's "head" indicates sublimity; "eye," providence; "face," favor or disfavor; "ear," heeding; "mouth" and "lip," command and instruction; "hand," power; "heart," insight; "bowels," compassion; and "foot," the act of conquering or subduing, conquest. But his treatment of the subject of Anthropopathism is dictated more by Greek philosophy than by Judaism, and is not remotely connected with his views on God's attributesR" They take away the functioning of love, removing the idea that elohoiym power made mankind in our image, like us. I really have no idea of your point - But his treatment of the subject of Anthropopathism is dictated more by Greek philosophy than by Judaism, and is not remotely connected with his views on God's attributesJews wish Scripture to say the YHWH our elohiym is yaccid. De 6:4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deu 6:4 “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one . Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deu 6:4 'Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; (WLC) 4 שְׁמַ֖ע5 יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד H258 אָחַד 'achad (aw-chad') v. 1. to unify. 2. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts). Deu 6:4 (LXX) Καὶ ταῦτα τὰ δικαιώματα καὶ τὰ κρίματα, ὅσα ἐνετείλατο κύριος τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν· Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν· The God of Israel + ἡμῶν G1473 - ἐγώ - egō - A primary pronoun of the first person, “I” (only expressed when emphatic): - I, me. P-GPF - Personal pronoun- Case: Genative (possession, "of"; also origin or separation, "from") Number: Plural The God of Israel + ἡμῶν + εἷς ἐστιν· G1519 - εἰς - A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); G1510 - εἰμί - First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): - am, have been, Deu 6:4 (LXX) The God of Israel + I, Me (is/was) into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose + I exist , I amExo 3:14 And God saith unto Moses, 'I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' He saith also, 'Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' Exo 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ὢν = Present Active Participle - Nominative (subject; predicate nominative) G1510 - εἰμί - First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist When it actually says the YHWH elohiym is echad YHWH. Show me a Jewish discussion detailing the difference between yaccid and echad....H258 אָחַד 'achad (aw-chad') v. 1. to unify. 2. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts). Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: H1961 – הָיָה - A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be H834 – אֲשֶׁר - A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); who, which, what, that; H1961 – הָיָה - A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: H430 - אֱלֹהִים - 'ĕlôhı̂ym – H259 – אֶחָד - 'echâd - A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, Show me a Jewish discussion detailing the difference between yaccid and echad....Not sure if you will consider this as a Jewish discussion – Butechad = (LXX) – Catholic Received text – Textus Receptus – written by Erasmus yaccid = (WLC) Masoretic Text - the Hebrew Bible According to The Robert Method – one must be correct and one must be wrong – they cannot point to the same messageBut Maimonides was not content to restrict himself to opposing Anthropomorphism. Philosophy being to him not the handmaid, but the mistress, of theology, he pursued his thought until he arrived at the concept of God as a metaphysical being, withdrawn in cold sublimity and isolation from His creatures—with whose weal or wo He could no longer concern Himself—and void of a free will; a being, in short, to whom no attributes could be ascribed except those of a negative character. Thus Maimonides was confronted with a difficulty similar to that which Philo encountered when he propounded his doctrine of the "Logos": the question, namely, how to establish a communication between a God devoid of attributes and the material universe. In fact, his lack of success was as complete as that of Philo, at least as far as Judaism is concerned. R" Maimonides went to extremes to condemn the love and loving functions of elohiym power. Please learn to read English – it would really helpIn fact, his lack of success was as complete as that of Philo, at least as far as Judaism is concerned. Abraham ben David probably intended to suggest that the French Jews, with their belief in the literal meaning of Bible and Talmud, were led to anthropomorphic views by the fantastic descriptions which some of the Haggadot give of God and His actionsR" I also note many Jews in France opposed Maimonides and developed an elohiym power with loving functions.DUH – Talmudic Jews do not accept the spirit and preach the LawShekinah, like the Memra, the Yeḳara, and the Logos, as a distinct entity, and as a light created to be an intermediary between God and the world; The Shekinah appeared also in the burning bush (Ex. R. ii.), and it was everywhere (B. B. 25a). Since the Shekinah is light, those passages of the Apocrypha and New Testament which mention radiance, and in which the Greek text reads δόξα, refer to the Shekinah, there being no other Greek equivalent for the word.Exo 33:20 But He also said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live.” (God is larger than our reality - beyond creation)Exo 33:21 Then Adonai said, “See, a place near Me—you will stand on the rock. Exo 33:22 While My glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and cover you with My hand, until I have passed by. (The Glosry of God - the Light - The Spirit of the Lord - the Holy Spirit)Exo 33:23 Then I will take away My hand, and you will see My back, but My face will not be seen.” (The 3D form of God = Christ - the image of God)G1391 – δόξα - From the base of G1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literally or figuratively, objectively or subjectively): - dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship. Doxa - dox'-ah – the root of doxology Ex 29:45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. SHakan "(Jeff Benner") to dwell. How can we assume the Hebrew word dwell also refers to this special projection of God?Correct – God the father never leaves His throne empty – but the spirit of the Lord moves among the people Jewish DualityRob "In summary, I have read nothing in this link of yours supporting your views, in fact its a complete messy confusion of Jewish ideas, and inventions of ideas not in the Hebrew words at all.Your anti-Semitic views are well documented – the Jews do not understand their own theology – language – or religionIf the facts do not support Ellen White you just deny realityAlso I read nothing specifically saying the Father expresses Himself as duality, with two modes of Himself to humans, as a spirit mode or a mode clad in humanity, referred to as Jesus.Why would the Jewish Encylopedia say anything about Jesus?If elohiym is a single entity of divine power, why than did this single divine power invent Hebrew words with masculine case and feminine case?Because God encompasses both masculine and feminine qualitiesWhy design creatures with two feet and four feet and two hands, why not creatures with one hand?Because God has two hands – Right and Left Just as God encompasses both masculine and feminine qualitiesWhy are the kinds created as gender male and gender female, when God could have removed this function?Because we are created in God’s image - God has two hands – Right and Left Just as God encompasses both masculine and feminine qualitiesWHy are humans made in His image? Who is US?US = spiritual man – that encompasses both masculine and feminine qualities – as in a Right and Left HandHow do you explain love with a single divine being? Love is unrequited – does not requires a response God loves you – even when you deny Him – is the definition of Grace Can man fall from God’s Grace = NO - God loves you – even when you deny Him All you can do is say love only functions when this single divine being has something to loveYES – God loves His creation Adam got lonely. A single divine Being would be terribly lonely as well.Correct – thus the search for the Prodigal Son – and the reward of returning to God of your own free will Correct - The Harvest - Penetcost - First Fruits - and the reward of returning to God of your own free will
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2022 4:00:37 GMT -5
Nice comments Dave, a bit brief at times, you could have help explain things a bit more to me, as I know very little about Jewish ideas.
You posted this
H258 אָחַד 'achad (aw-chad') v. 1. to unify. 2. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts).
It doesn't say echad means cardinally one, that is the meaning of yaccid. It means to unify, the idea of compound unity.
So this seems to support my view, rather than your view?
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 8, 2022 5:24:11 GMT -5
H258 אָחַד 'achad (aw-chad') v. 1. to unify. 2. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts).
It doesn't say echad means cardinally one, that is the meaning of yaccid. It means to unify, the idea of compound unity. So this seems to support my view, rather than your view?
WHAT is there a problem with your solo scriptorium I thought your received text was your standard of perfection – the only text that is inspired Your argument – your absolute standard for excellence If it is not in the Roman approved text – then it has no truth in it – your standard You have been pushing your King James as perfection – the only true source
You constantly argue that the Jews do not understand their own language, theology, or scripture Unless they say something you like – then that is your view also Such convictions you have – is that your definition of faith? Flip and Flop with whatever sounds good
Question - do you mean the things you say - or do you just talk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2022 15:53:03 GMT -5
What a reply Dave, you did not answer my question.
The scholar remarks on echad are 1. to unify. 2. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts).
NOT to mean cardinally one. but more the idea to unify as compound unity.
I asked you for Jews to detail the differences between echad and yaccid? Can't find any references of comments on these two Hebrew words?
Can't you have a serious discussion with me. If you are going to post things, make sure they support your views at least.
When heart cells grow and develop, they forfeit their independence, and intentionally become unified as a single organ, beating as one unit. That is what echad means.
Any multiple cells of the hearts are treated as cancer cells and are immediately killed and removed by T cells of the immune system. Why do you think it so strange that three divine members can so the same thing as they developed for natural systems for us to observe functional clues about the Godhead?
Echad cells are one tissue and one organ Multiple cells are cancerous and immediately killed off by immune system.
Roman 1:20 The invisible Father has left behind examples of His work so that no of use are without excuse.
Isa 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
I fear you are swallowed up in your confusion.
Isa 28:12 ....this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Isa 28:24 Doth the plowman plow all day to sow?
We have plowed for a long time, but no seeds arise, what is the matter? Is Scripture so hard to read and fathom?
Isa 29:10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. 11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
And in your scholarly wisdom you twist the Scriptures back unto me
Isa 29:12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
SO I am not the one who is learned. I need to learn how to translate. I go not need to go to a world school to learn, I went to the heavenly school and the HS is my tutor.
SHalom, enjoy your day in the USA, its getting cold here.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 8, 2022 18:05:07 GMT -5
The scholar remarks on echad are 1. to unify. 2. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts).
NOT to mean cardinally one. but more the idea to unify as compound unity.
What you call a scholarly remark – is the definition of yaccid frm the (WLC) For 3 years you have stomped your feet – the Solo Scriptorum is the only true Roman approved Bible Now you pluck word from the (WLC) text that you like better than your KJV
Do you mean what you say – or do you just talk You have these absolute rules for everyone else – but you do not have to follow your own rules
I asked you for Jews to detail the differences between echad and yaccid? Can't find any references of comments on these two Hebrew words? Most people do not play word games –
ehad is from your KJV yaccid is from the Hebrew text
Can't you have a serious discussion with me. If you are going to post things, make sure they support your views at least.
Why doesn't this information support my view? ehad is from your KJV yaccid is from the Hebrew text God is one – a unity – a trinity – both support my view The message of scripture outweighs any one word – precept upon precept, line upon line
When heart cells grow and develop, they forfeit their independence, and intentionally become unified as a single organ, beating as one unit. That is what echad means. All you talk about is biology - all you have is world
We have plowed for a long time, but no seeds arise, what is the matter? Is Scripture so hard to read and fathom? For 3 years you have argued that satan is a god and God is a pantheon of individuals No seeds arise form your presentation – imagine that
For 3 years you have argued that there is no such thing as the spirit - the spiritual - the baptism of the Holy Spirit No seeds arise form your presentation – imagine that
For 3 years you argue that jesus Christ cannot be God incarnate No seeds arise form your presentation – imagine that
SO I am not the one who is learned. I need to learn how to translate. SO AGREE – you are not the learned one – your Ellen White information is a century outdate And your word games IS NOT tranlasion
I go not need to go to a world school to learn, I went to the heavenly school and the HS is my tutor. Spoken like a arrogant Christian Maybe you should study brain surgery next - it is not as importnat as theology evidently
|
|