Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2020 13:45:16 GMT -5
Pardon my ignorance of Jewish theology Dave:
My understanding is Jews believe in one numerical strong authority called YHWH.
They see ruwach as wind, nothing more. They do not have a Son of YHWH.
This is what monotheism means for them.
We SDA believe in one family, that is one strong authority, but made of three co-eternal strong authorities. My understanding is Jews see this as polytheism.
John sees only YHWH, he allows me to call this Father-YHWH, and this Father-YHWH has a sinless human son during Mary's time, hence a Son of GOD, is a holy creature, made by the Father-YHWH for our salvation. He does not see Yashua pre-existing from eternity. He has no Holy Spirit in his theology. He is what I think is a Messanic Jew.
From a Jewish website: "The worship of multiple gods (polytheism) and the concept of God having multiple persons (as in the doctrine of Trinity) are equally unimaginable in Judaism. The idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical in Judaism – it is considered akin to polytheism."
So I would say Gnostism is totally different to Jewish theology, in this regard.
Jews consider the SDA idea of elohiym as polytheism.
Jews would consider Gnosticism as polytheism too, IMO.
Let's get you to comment on some details written by John:
One Yahweh
A common teaching throughout Christianity and Messianic Judaism is that Messiah Yeshua preexisted as the "Yahweh" (YHWH) of the Old Testament. This teaching takes two forms. To some, Yeshua is the one and only "Yahweh". To others, he is a second "Yahweh" (his Father being the other "Yahweh"). The latter concept is known as the "greater and lesser YHWH". Can either of these concepts be true?
This study will seek to address the issue of whether or not the Son was called "Yahweh" in the Old Testament. I say, "Old Testament" because it is quite possible that Yeshua will bear the name "Yahweh" in some sense, either now, or in the future. This study will not address the concept of Yeshua being the "one and only Yahweh" (Oneness). That is a separate issue that is addressed on this website.
To begin with, let's reference several verses that are united in their message that there was only one being known as "Yahweh" at that time.
1. "Now therefore, O Yahweh our Mighty One, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art Yahweh Elohim, even thou only" (II Kgs.19:19 )
2. "Thou, even thou art Yahweh alone; . . ." ( Ne.9:6 )
3. "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth" ( Ps.83:18 )
4. " . . .that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art Yahweh, even thou only" (Isa.37:20 )
5. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else . . ." (Isa.45:5 )
6. "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else" ( Isa.45:6 )
7. "For thus saith Yahweh that created the heavens; . . .I am Yahweh; and there is none else" (Isa.45:18 )
8. "And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and His name one" ( Zech. 14:9 )
9. "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh" ( De.6:4 )
Each of the verses above are didactic, that is, they clearly instruct us. From these verses, we are to learn that, at the time the verses were spoken/written, there was no other being in the universe that bore the name "Yahweh" except the subject addressed. Hezekiah, Nehemiah, Asaph, Isaiah, Zechariah, Moses, and Yahweh Himself understood this crucial fact.
How does this fact relate to the teaching that Yeshua is a second Yahweh? Its simple. If Yeshua existed in Old Testament times as "Yahweh", then his Father could not be "Yahweh" as well. If the Father existed as "Yahweh" in Old Testament times, then Yeshua could not be "Yahweh" as well. These are undeniable facts of logic. If they are wrong, then all the above authors have taught us falsely.
Proponents of this theory that Yeshua is a second Yahweh or lesser YHWH conclude such by misunderstanding the following verses which seem to apply the name "Yahweh" to the Son. When rightly understood, however, those same verses teach no such thing. If they did, then how can they be harmonized with the didactic verses listed above?
Genesis 19:24
"Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven;"
At first glance there appear to be two Yahwehs, one in heaven and one somewhere near Sodom and Gomorrah. This is merely a figure of speech peculiar to the Hebrew language, an idiom. Similar idioms are seen in Eze.11:24 (two Spirits), Zech.10:12 ( two Yahwehs), Gen.17:23 (two Abrahams), and 1 Kgs.8:1 (two Solomons).
Deuteronomy 6:4
"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh"
It is believed by many that the word "echad," translated "one," means "a united one" or a "compound unity," not singularity. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Nu.7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Gen.2:1 - one rib and Dan.9:27 - one week.
Historic Judaism does not give echad the meaning of compound unity or plurality as is seen in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, p.1373: "Perhaps from earliest times, but certainly from later, the word echad (one) was understood also to mean unique. God is not only one and not many, but He is totally other than what paganism means by gods." Note also The Jewish Commentary, Soncino Edition, p.770: "He is one because there is no other Elohim than He; but He is also one, because He is wholly unlike anything else in existence. He is therefore not only one, but the Sole and Unique, Elohim."
Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that the word echad has the meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in Mk.12:28-34. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that [Yahweh] is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.
It is true that echad was used in verses such as Ge.2:24 and Ge.41:25. There we see two people becoming one flesh and two dreams having one meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two Yahweh's became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's. What utter nonsense!
Isaiah 6:5 with John 12:41
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips for mine eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5 )
"These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him"
A superficial reading leads one to believe that the "his" and "him" of verse 41 refers to Yeshua and ties in with verse 37. For the sake of clarity these verses will be printed out with [brackets] designating the speaker. Jn.12:37,38;
"But though he [Yeshua] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him [Yeshua]: That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he [Isaiah] spoke, Lord, 'who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Yahweh been revealed?' "
(The underlined is a quote from Is.53:1. The "arm of Yahweh" is Isaiah's reference to the Messiah). The passage continues with verses 39-41;
"Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, 'He [Yahweh] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I [Yahweh] should heal them.' These things said Isaiah, when he [Isaiah] saw his [Yahweh's] glory, and spoke of him [Yahweh]."
Verse 40 (underlined) is a quote from Is.6:10. John is quoting a second passage from Isaiah to show why they could not believe on Yeshua; because Yahweh blinded them. Verse 41 therefore, is referring to Is.6:10, not Is.53:1. In Is.6:1-3 Yahweh is seen in all His glory. That is the glory referred to in verse 41. It was not Yeshua's glory and Yeshua was not being called "Yahweh".
Isaiah 8:14 with 1 Pe 2:8
"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" ( Isa.8:14 )
"And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" ( 1 Pe.2:8 )
Peter is here applying a part of Is.8:14 to Messiah. It is to be understood in the sense that, since Yeshua is Yahweh's representative or agent (Hebrew - Shaliach), whatever Yeshua does is credited to Yahweh or is as though Yahweh did it. Isaiah says Yahweh will be a stumbling stone. Yahweh then causes Israel to stumble over Yeshua which makes them both stumbling stones. "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is Yahweh's doing; it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps.118:22,23).
Isaiah 40:3 with Matthew 3:3
Since John the Baptist preceded Yeshua, Is.40:3 and Mt.3:3 are often used to prove Yeshua is called Yahweh. Is.40:3 reads,
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim."
Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Lu.3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Is.40:4 & 5. It says,
"As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of Yahweh."
"Prepare ye the way of Yahweh" does not mean, "Move out of the way because Yahweh is coming." And so when Yeshua comes they believe he is Yahweh.
How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? Jn.4:34 says,
"Yeshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work."
Almighty Yahweh appointed His Son Yeshua to finish His work. Yeshua was Yahweh's instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yeshua is the "Messenger of the Covenant," "the servant of Yahweh," and "the salvation of Yahweh." Jn.14:6 calls Yeshua "the way." He is "the way of Yahweh;" the means through which Yahweh will finish His work. Yeshua is not being called "Yahweh" in these verses.
Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10,11
". . .That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely shall one say, in Yahweh have I righteousness and strength: . . ." ( Isa.45:23,24 )
"That at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that Yeshua Messiah is Master, to the glory of Elohim the Father" ( Ph.2:10,11 )
Paul does apply portions of Isa.45:23 to Yeshua in Ph.2:10,11. That does not mean he is also applying the Name "Yahweh" to him as well. Jn.5:23 helps us to understand this. If you don't honor the Son, by extension, you don't honor the Father. And Jn.15:23; if you hate the Son, by extension, you hate the Father. If you bow your knees to the Son, by extension, you bow your knees to the Father. Notice that what is sworn in Isa.45:23,24 is not what is sworn in Ph.2:11. (every tongue shall confess or swear that Yeshua is "Master" [kurios]). That same word (kurios) was applied to men in several other verses such as Jn.12:21. It is only a reference to Yahweh when it is a direct quote of an Old Testament verse containing the Tetragrammaton which Is.45:23 does not.
Jeremiah 23:5,6
"In his [Yeshua's] days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his [Yeshua's] name whereby he [Yeshua] shall be called, YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." [Brackets mine]
Here Yeshua is called "Yahweh Our Righteousness. In Jer.33:16, Jerusalem is also called "Yahweh our righteousness". It reads,
"In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, Yahweh our righteousness."
Notice the deceptive use of capitals in the KJV when it refers to Yeshua, but not for Jerusalem. I do not deny that Yeshua will bear this name in the future. However, at the time Jeremiah spoke this, Yeshua did NOT bear this name. When will he bear it? When Judah is saved and Israel dwells safely! Has that been fulfilled yet? No. Therefore, Yeshua does not bear this name yet.
Joel 2:32 with Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of Yahweh shall be delivered; . . ." ( Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21 )
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Master shall be saved" (Rom.10:13 )
Of all the verses that seem to call Yeshua "Yahweh", this would be the most convincing. Yet, we must keep in mind the nine verses that clearly teach only one being had that name in Old Testament times.
With Acts 2:21, we know with certainty that it is a quote from Joel 2:32 based on the context. With Romans 10:13, it is assumed to be a quote of Joel 2:32. Paul, however, may have written or intended "Master" to be understood rather than "Yahweh".
Yeshua is Yahweh's chosen means of salvation. When we call upon the name "Yeshua", we are actually saying "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh's salvation", which is what "Yeshua" means.
Consider Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 1:2;
"Unto the church of Elohim which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Messiah Yeshua, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Yeshua Messiah our Master, both theirs and ours:"
To use the phrase, "call upon the name of the Master," was not new to Paul (First Corinthians was written before the Epistle to the Romans). So when he was addressing the Roman's concerning salvation, he simply added the phrase "shall be saved".
This understanding would harmonize perfectly with the nine didactic verses mentioned previously. However, to insist Paul was quoting Joel in Romans 10:13 would create tremendous friction between those verses. I would venture to say, a friction and lack of harmony that could not be resolved.
Zechariah 12:10 with John 19:37
"And I [Yahweh] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
The word "me" obviously does not harmonize with the pronouns "him" and "his" that follow. The same verse is quoted in Jn.19:37;
"And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."
John gives us the correct understanding of this verse if, in fact, he is quoting rather than paraphrasing Zechariah. If, however, Zechariah 12:10 is translated correctly, then we need to seek an interpretation that would harmonize with our nine didactic verses.
Yeshua said,
"For I was hungry, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink:. . . Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me" ( Mt.25:40
How much more could Yahweh say this concerning the piercing of His only begotten Son; "Inasmuch as you pierced my Son, you have done it unto me."
Conclusion
There are probably other questionable verses that are not covered in this study, but as you can see, there are viable interpretations of such verses that harmonize perfectly with the teaching of the didactic verses previously mentioned. We should not seek to build doctrines on questionable verses, but on verses that have a clear, concise teaching.
I get the impression some Messanic Jews see Yashua as pre-existing, and some like John do not.
If I had to show that Yashua pre-existed I would go here:
Ex 23:20 ¶ Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
The word angel here is malak, a messenger. Father-YWHW says beware of my messenger, my Name is in Him, for He pardons your transgressions.
Do we know of some heavenly messenger, who can pardon sins, and has the Name of the Father-YHWH? I only know of the Father's Son, Yashua, who pre-exists.
The verses John presents are difficult to get around:
Deut 32, mentions Most High, and flint rock, all similes of Father YHWH. The passage also mentions eagle and her wings, a simile of Holy Spirit.
But this verse puzzles me:
De 32:12 So the LORD alone did lead him,
Jeff Benner explains this word "badad" as "separate from others but in the same house" so Jews who consider "badad" meaning solitary, are not getting it, as they do with "echad".
I have not been able to convince John of his monotheism.
His beliefs are totally different to yours Dave. He does not have an eternal Son, nor any co-eternal being termed holy spirit. He only has from eternity, YHWH. One being.
Yet I find the term YHWH has in the letters two Beings. H is "Hey" in Ancient Hebrew pictograph means "Behold the Being". Thus YHWH has two divine Beings already in the tetragrammon. The Father is the fixed Hey, the Son the active Hey, both in the term YHWH.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 8, 2020 22:33:09 GMT -5
My understanding is Jews believe in one numerical strong authority called YHWH. Agreed This is what monotheism means for them. Agreed They do not have a Son of YHWH. Agreed Jews = non-Christian / Messianic Jews = Christian
We SDA believe in one family, that is one strong authority, but made of three co-eternal strong authorities. My understanding is Jews see this as polytheism. three co-eternal strong authorities = polytheism to me as well
Only one true Creator Example - The Trinity God is unimaginable - way beyond our ability to understand But we experience Him in two way His nephesh = Christ - a locality - a person Or we experience His rûach = The Holy Spirit - God expressed through a distance - spirit
John sees only YHWH, he allows me to call this Father-YHWH, and this Father-YHWH has a sinless human son during Mary's time, hence a Son of GOD, is a holy creature, made by the Father-YHWH for our salvation. He does not see Yashua pre-existing from eternity. He has no Holy Spirit in his theology. He is what I think is a Messanic Jew. It is hard to be Messianic without believing in the Pentecost, the Comforter, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit
From a Jewish website: "The worship of multiple gods (polytheism) and the concept of God having multiple persons (as in the doctrine of Trinity) are equally unimaginable in Judaism. The Trinity as you describe it - 3 beings The idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical in Judaism – it is considered akin to polytheism." Daoist, Zoroastrian, and Catholic - two opposing gods lock in eternal conflict - also you
So I would say Gnostism is totally different to Jewish theology, in this regard. Not if you are speaking of the Trinity
Genesis 19:24 - At first glance there appear to be two Yahwehs, one in heaven and one somewhere near Sodom and Gomorrah
This is the Right Hand of God and the Left Hand In heaven the Right Hand - on the ground the Left hand The duality of God male in heaven - female on the ground doing the deed The Right Hand orders the hit - the Left hand carries it out
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh" There is only one E in E = mc2
It is true that echad was used in verses such as Ge.2:24 and Ge.41:25. There we see two people becoming one flesh and two dreams having one meaning. The key here is that two become one. YES! - mc2 also = E
If I had to show that Yashua pre-existed I would go here:
Ex 23:20 - 21 The word angel here is malak, a messenger. Father-YWHW says beware of my messenger, my Name is in Him, for He pardons your transgressions. Do we know of some heavenly messenger, who can pardon sins, and has the Name of the Father-YHWH? I only know of the Father's Son, Yashua, who pre-exists. If I was my friend Robert - I could make a big deal of your sloppy word use malak is only a messanger - are you saying Christ is just an angel? But I don’t play word games - I understand your point
For me - this only proves that an angel had a conditional message if you do A God said I could do B
I always thought Melchesadeck - the High Priest of the one true God = Christ
Isaiah 6:5 with John 12:41 Isaiah 8:14 with 1 Pe 2:8 Isaiah 40:3 with Matthew 3:3 Isaiah 45:23 with Philippians 2:10,11 Jeremiah 23:5,6 Joel 2:32 with Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 Of all the verses that seem to call Yeshua "Yahweh",
There is only one E in E=mc2 If you are discussing the m - it is merely the visible aspect of the E if you are discussing the c2 - it is simply the invisible aspect of the E
SO - for me each and every YHWY could be replaced with Christ All through the Tanak - no one ever dealt directly with the E They always dealt with the m or the c2
I get the impression some Messanic Jews see Yashua as pre-existing, and some like John do not.
OK - time for a confession In the days of Jesus - there were three major types of Jews Pharisees believed in the supernatural -- angels, demons, heaven, hell, and so on Niccodemus was a Pharisee The Sadducees did not believe in the super natural. In this way, the Sadducees were largely secular in their practice of religion. They denied the idea of being resurrected from the grave after death (see Matthew 22:23). In fact, they denied any notion of an afterlife, which means they rejected the concepts of eternal blessing or eternal punishment; they believed this life is all there is. The Sadducees also scoffed at the idea of spiritual beings such as angels and demons (see Acts 23:8).
To the Sadducees - when you die you go to the grave and wait - as you said
(this isn’t exactly true - but for simplification) Today Sephardic Jews are the Saducees - secular “LAW” Talmund
Hasidic Jews embrace the Kabbalah Ashkenazi Jews are Hassidic Jews and this group has the highest IQ of the planet Albert Einstein / Eric Weinstein are both Hassidic Ashkenazi Jews
(Wiki) - Ashkenazi Jews have a notable history of achievement in Western societies in the fields of natural and social sciences, mathematics, literature, finance, politics, media, and others. In those societies where they have been free to enter any profession, they have a record of high occupational achievement, entering professions and fields of commerce where higher education is required. Ashkenazi Jews have won a large number of the Nobel awards. While they make up about 2% of the U.S. population and 0.1% of the world population, 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century, 25% of Fields Medal winners, 25% of ACM Turing Award winners, 50% of the world's chess champions, including 8% of the top 100 world chess players, and 25% of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners have Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.
Time magazine's person of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, was an Ashkenazi Jew. According to a study performed by Cambridge University, 21% of Ivy League students, 25% of the Turing Award winners, 23% of the wealthiest Americans, 38% of the Oscar-winning film directors, and 29% of Oslo awardees are Ashkenazi Jews.
Chabad, is an Orthodox Jewish Hasidic movement.
Rabbi Friedman - and all the Jewish videos I post are from Chabad.org
His beliefs are totally different to yours Dave. He does not have an eternal Son, nor any co-eternal being termed holy spirit. He only has from eternity, YHWH. One being. I also have only one E Question - does the m or the c2 co-exist with the E - NO m cannot be E at the same time -yet - The m and the c2 are the E
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2020 12:53:01 GMT -5
That was a great answer, and you're a great teacher. Thanks Dave.
I like the way you present it from one Science dude to another:
E (elohiym) = m (visible left hand) x c2 (invisible right hand).
It makes sense.
Can I ask you some questions though, to explore this picture of yours please?
So "elohiym" is a single entity.
You don't have three co-eternal beings, like a normal earth family has, ie "three entities, human's term as father, mother and child" This is a picture of three strong authorities, so would be polytheism to you?
So for you "elohiym" is both gender male and gender female, in one entity, expressing all the attributes of loving, and love, everything in one entity?
So "elohiym" is all alone as one entity, how does it express love, which by definition is highly relational? This uncaused cause would violate itself, as it's not loving, nor showing love at all, unless creation was around? But you have angels programmed to praise, so how does this "loving function" work at all? Doesn't love require free will, and other entities?
I am a man of the invisible borrowing mass from the ground, I can talk (ie M to my C2) to GOD and this is relational. But if I am not talking to the C2, and the M talks to the M, this is termed 'self talk'. Does this make me relational expressing love? No. I would call this selfishness and all solitary. Alone.
I suppose the M and C2 could talk to each other and this is relational, but it's only two entities. There is no child like entity. There no E in your model as an independent entity.
I am so sorry we discussed things so long, we don't have any aspects of theology in common it seems. I stand corrected.
I am puzzled however. I present again, a single verse theology. Hebrew Scriptures often present a single verse, and hence the evidence is slim indeed. Out of all the thousands of sentences elohiym is used in, this one is very strange indeed.
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
So all man see the "relationship" of the mystery, hid in "elohiym" who created all things using "m".
Why use the word "relationship or fellowship or partnership" when E does not partner anybody, it has only itself, expressed as "m" or "c2"? E and m are not partners, nor in fellowship, nor have any fellowship? The E and the m do not talk to each other either.
However the M and C2 could talk to each other. These entities are masculine and feminine too.
Yet in the NT the M talks and prays to the E, how is this explained?
M = E/C2 does this help? Does the M pray to the E/C2 as a entity? Seems strange? Please explain.
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
This passage has your "archon" word here too, we have discussed for ages.
Eph 3:14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
So we bow down to the E, who is expressed as the M. Does this make sense? If the M is a part of the E, why not just write, we bow down to the E, I guess it is saying this, the E of M.
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, Eph 3:16 .. to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Now does the E belong to a family of E, or is it alone as only E?
You see this word "family" is never used in the OT as a context with "elohiym", but here it is, used in the NT; just once.
All the "m" and the "c2" and the "E" are pictured as a "Family" in my theory. In your theory only the "m" and "C2" are family. Expressions of the E.
You might say the expression of E, is by the visible M or the invisible C2. That sounds nice, but it's not a "normal Family" picture. But one could say the M and C2 are expressions, two expressions of E, so is this a "new family definition"? Well you have gender male and gender female expressions, but no child expression?
How do you get around the E calling the M, His one and only SON?
E expresses as two expressions, M or C2. Please explain this problem.
I get John 3:16, E so loved the world, E gave mankind M. That whoever supports M supports E. How is this love though? Love can only be M or C2. But Scripture says the E gave M to us. So the E is giving a gift, not part of the gift, per se. Please explain.
Consider when M died on the cross....
Ps 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from "Yashua", and from the words of my roaring?
Here the M cries out to E, so why repeat E twice, the E is leaving the M? How is this possible? E is expressed as the M? Only the C2 can leave M? that is One "el" leaving the M, but we have two "el" leaving the M?
Consider the birth of humanity "m", added unto the M?
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The C2 shall come upon you Mary, and the power of the E shall overshadow thee, so the humanity "m" is added to my divine M.
For this to work, the C2 has to allow E to flow through the C2, to make overshadows work.
So the E flows via itself expressed as C2, even though we have E and C2 as two bodies separated by space and distance, and the E flows into Marry, adding "m" unto the divine "M".
m = E/C2, so we might say the E is divided by the C2, as two bodies separated by space and distance, so the flow adds the m to the divine M.
Some say the incarnation is a mystery, so it's easy to leave alone the answer of how it can happen.
-----------
Now for me accepting Scripture as it reads plainly, when it says elohiym is family. Let's go looking for family pictures:
The father and mother are leaving their son on the cross, as Ps 22:1 says
The father and mother come over Mary to add humanity to their Son as Luke 1:35 says. Luke 1:35 also has "born" word. Father is masculine, Holy Spirit feminine. Heavenly Parents. Easy fit to this verse.
----------
Can E make born? If the M and C2 get together, yes, but this is not what we have here. The E and C2 get together to add m to the M. You cannot use the equation in this way. You can only use the M and C2.
The equation, m = E/C2, does not show a born process. I would expect the M and C2 is a born process, the right and left hand of elohiym.
A born process is masculine + feminine = child. Your equation has multiply or divide, no addition of entities of parts.
I welcome your comments Dave. Help me out here...
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 9, 2020 22:38:27 GMT -5
E (elohiym) = m (visible left hand) x c2 (invisible right hand). To clearify E (Father / Creator / God) = m (matter is visible therefore Christ the Right hand) + c2 (invisible therefore spirit / Holy Spirit)
So for you "elohiym" is both gender male and gender female, in one entity, expressing all the attributes of loving, and love, everything in one entity?
Yes = MONOtheoism - that has a duality of nasture We are in His image - and how are we - male and female Even if you are male - we speak of our feminine side All women - have a butch tome boy inside
This duality of God is simple reflected into creation
So "elohiym" is all alone as one entity, how does it express love, which by definition is highly relational? I do not understand your question - by what definition This uncaused cause would violate itself, as it's not loving, nor showing love at all, I have no idea what this statement means unless creation was around? YES! - God created the ALL - to revel His Glory - YES! But you have angels programmed to praise, so how does this "loving function" work at all? OK - you are asking me to answer an impossible question - I do not know how to answer you This is just my imagination - my made up way to explain how I may see it
You anthrpomorphise the heavens - angels act just like men You have free will so they must have free will Man wants to be like God - so they must want to be like God
You have had a child - correct? - and that child loved you unconditionally for 6 mon or a yr Does the child have free will - sure I guess, but the child is so naive that it has no clue what to do with it free will Perhaps - angels love the Lord as that baby loves mommy - it is just there nature
Doesn't love require free will, and other entities? Sure - and that is why God made creation
I suppose the M and C2 could talk to each other and this is relational, but it's only two entities. No it is NOT two entities - it is the two ways man perceives the one and only E There is no child like entity. The child was born to Mary - There no E in your model as an independent entity. The E in my model is beyond our comprehension - but we can experience / perceive that E in two ways - visibly on the cross - in invisibly in our heart
Why use the word "relationship or fellowship or partnership" when E does not partner anybody, it has only itself, expressed as "m" or "c2"? E and m are not partners, nor in fellowship, nor have any fellowship? The E and the m do not talk to each other either.
E = m how is that not a fellowship / partnership / relationship However the M and C2 could talk to each other. These entities are masculine and feminine too. m - visible - therefore Christ c2 - invisible - therefore spirit
Yet in the NT the M talks and prays to the E, how is this explained?
Man is soul + (mind/body) Or as you just said Man = Nesheh + (rawach + Dust)
Jesus Christ was God incarnate / E in the form of m That would make Jesus = God + (mind/body)
You forget – we live in a multiverse E in heaven and E on earth (Jesus Christ) E is in all verses – everywhere – Jesus Christ was trapped in the same souljourn as man
So we bow down to the E, who is expressed as the M. Does this make sense? If the M is a part of the E, why not just write, we bow down to the E, I guess it is saying this, the E of M. YES! – you could substitute Christ for God in each and every verse Jesus Christ is God incarnate
Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, Eph 3:16 .. to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; Now does the E belong to a family of E, or is it alone as only E? There is a lot more going on in heaven than just Christ and the Holy Spirit - a lot more You see this word "family" is never used in the OT as a context with "elohiym", but here it is, used in the NT; just once. Elohiym + angels (heaven)+ archon + man (earth) - one big family - I can see that - the family of God
All the "m" and the "c2" and the "E" are pictured as a "Family" in my theory. In your theory only the "m" and "C2" are family. Expressions of the E. It looks like as family because of the Catholic vocabulary you have always been exposed to Father - Son - and Holy Spirit - and you think of them as three different entities I and Judaism see only one God - beyond our understanding Is that God male or female? - Rome has always painted the Father as male sitting on His throne Jew and I - cannot imagine what God looks like - not even Moses could know We call God the father androgynous However - Enoch saw the image of God - Gnostic literature says Christ is just the refection of God in creation - the image of God So as a Gnostic - picturing God on a throne = Christ (the image of God)
Well you have gender male and gender female expressions, but no child expression? The child was born to Mary How do you get around the E calling the M, His one and only SON? How many Sons of Man did your God father?
E expresses as two expressions, M or C2. Please explain this problem.
I get John 3:16, E so loved the world, E gave mankind M. That whoever supports M supports E. How is this love though? Love can only be M or C2. But Scripture says the E gave M to us. So the E is giving a gift, not part of the gift, per se. Please explain. So you do not accept that Jesus Christ was God on earth? What was your Jesus then – just a really good human
Consider when M died on the cross....
Ps 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from "Yashua", and from the words of my roaring? E within the multiverse and Christ in only one verse hanging on a cross
Consider the birth of humanity "m", added unto the M?
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The C2 shall come upon you Mary, and the power of the E shall overshadow thee, so the humanity "m" is added to my divine M.
For this to work, the C2 has to allow E to flow through the C2, to make overshadows work.
So the E flows via itself expressed as C2, Through a distance as spirit E is always perceived as C2 even though we have E and C2 as two bodies separated by space and distance, Not two bodies - c2 is the expression of E E - is by definition – un-locatable and the E flows into Marry, adding "m"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2020 3:57:26 GMT -5
Greetings Dave,
Interesting reply.
Dave writes: "Elohiym + angels (heaven)+ archon + man (earth) - one big family - I can see that - the family of God.
You see only a secular meaning of family.
A true family is made of biologically related Beings within the same kind.
A collection of pet dogs and pet cats, is not really a "Family" to the human.
Only a collection of humans would be considered a human family.
If Scriptures says the whole family in heaven is named, this refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are all named in Ephs 3:15,16.
These members are all of divinity and of the elohiym kind.
Why do you consider the term "elohiym" a solitary term?
The word in Hebrew is already pural, not singular, and refers to many members, such as typical of family, government or administrations.
For example:
in Judges the elohiym is a family of judges, and one judge has the authority of all other judges in the family of judges.
In pagan gods, such as Dagon, is not this member, a member of a family of deities?
In regard to Aaron and Moses, where GOD makes Moses an elohiym to Pharaoh, is not Moses a family power to Pharaoh, family in two cases: (1) two brothers go to Pharaoh, and (2) Elohiym and Moses partner up together, as a witness does, as a messenger does?
When in the beginning elohiym family powers, He created the earth and heavens; why does Scripture mention all three involved in the Creation. If only YHWH created, why mention all the other members, in Scripture also creating earth?
You say YHWH is both gender male and gender female. If that is so, why make mankind into two separate beings, rather than combine everything into one being?
In fact modern sex gender is combining both genders into one being, but does Scripture say this is OK? What does Scripture say about homosexuals or combosexuals?
(Combosexual - having both gender male and gender female sexual appendages and their functions on the same body)
Scripture has both genders separate into two unique bodies with unique loving personalities. The Hebrew word echad is required to show how parts are unified as one. If the word echad means one, there is no word for unified?
Is there a Bible text for a two edged sword written using the term echad? Jeff writes this...
What about the two couples become unified flesh. This cannot be written as one flesh, because there are two couples.
Abram's father had many strong authorities for elohiym, as Gen shows, why do Jews consider Abram's father as polytheistic in belief? Where is the proof?
Maybe elohiym means "family" all the time, only certain Jews changed the meaning for a reason, long time ago? The Jews who worshipped "queen of heaven" was about what? Is there an underground different belief among Jews? Some sources say this...
If you have a look at JOB, there are three common names for elohiym, these are:
1) YHWH ----- SON 2) Eloah ---- Provider 3) Shadday ---Responder
If elohiym is solitary, why write three names? This is the oldest Hebrew book we have, only this book, copied by Moses, and spoken as a poem long before Moses wrote JOB down.
Eloah and the Shadday write as heavenly parents do, not as expressions of GOD. If GOD is solitary, why write these two names so often?
Job 5:17 They both discipline.
Job 6:4 They have sharp arrows to test man
Job 11:7 We are required to search out BOTH names for our salvation.
Job 27:10 We are required to delight in BOTH names of GOD.
Job 40:2 Both names will judge us.
Ps 91:1 Power flows as a shadow, thus TWO Beings make shadows, not ONE.
How many Scriptures are there that speak of elohiym as a solitary power?
Do you have any to share Dave?
Maybe these ones?
De 8:18 .. remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power..
Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Ac 8:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Simon Magnus is spoken of as great power of God?
Ac 8:11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
Yet Simon bewitched them with liars.
Where did Simon's power come from?
Ac 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God,
From the power of Satan... why does Scripture write this?
I thought you said, Satan has no power unless it comes by design from GOD to test mankind? So why is Simon Magnus the great power of Satan, written as people thought as the great power of God? Why is this written as deception?
I have showed you before Simon Magnus wrote much of the Gnostic writings, and was the first pope for Catholics, not Simon Peter, who did not go to Rome until much later, these names are mixed up in history. One was evil, the other good.
There are not many Scripture texts showing the power of elohiym is all solitary?
Some studies written by a Jew: Gordon Nemiah
"It is worth noting that the word Elohim is not always a majestic plural. When referring to the pagan gods, the term Elohim is usually a numerical plural."(Gordon, 2003).
Why does Gordon, a Jew, make elohiym have multiple meanings? Ignore the Scriptures you don't like, adopt the major meaning of elohiym you prefer.
Certainly this does not mean that YHWH made Moses into a god, but rather that he would speak to Pharaoh with authority through Aaron who would serve as his mouth-piece in the way that the prophets serve as the mouth-pieces of YHWH. In any event, there is clearly nothing multiple about Moses, even though he was made an Elohim to Pharaoh (Gordon, 2003)."
Gordon's context is a communication system process. Is there anything multiple about this system of communication? Everything, we have three mouths all speaking, GOD, Moses and Aaron.
"Here we see three pagan deities each of which is referred to as an Elohim. Obviously the book of Kings is not saying that any of these false deities is a "great God". On the contrary, the verse goes on to rebuke the Israelites for worshipping them. The meaning is that the Sidonians, Moabites, and Ammonites looked upon their deities as great Gods and in this instance Scripture employs the terms used by the pagans themselves to refer to their own deities. At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple about any one of them." (Gordon, 2003)
Gordon is suggesting the Hebrew word for "elohim" is different to the pagan religions that also use "elohim". Why should the word have a different meaning? If Hebrew was the Mother of all languages from Eden, then the word "Elohim" must have first meant something in Hebrew, and a picture of what God is like. This picture must be a Family picture of Beings, because Satanic religions has counterfeited the word picture with polytheism. We of modern times assume "eloihm" only appeared to Abraham after coming out of Ur, a Babylonian city. The fact is, Hebrew has been around nearly 2000 years before, and so has pagan religions and traditions, before the great flood. So these false religions and their schemes we are not told about before the flood.
"Will any one after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity? So did the Pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindoos at this hour, in the very same sense in which Rome does. They all admitted A trinity, but did they worship THE Triune Jehovah, the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible?
And will any one say with such evidence before him, that Rome does so? Away then, with the deadly delusion that Rome is Christian! (The two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop)".
It seems at least from history that "Elohim" meant "a family of gods" from ancient Hebrew times, and it is only after perverted with a dozen of gods and sadistic rites, that GOD called Abraham out of Babylonian Ur to show the world a correct view of GOD. Sadly Satan messed up this too, by making Jewish religion think "Elohim" refers only to a solitary Being in heaven.
Gordon quotes" At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple about any one of them."
The fact is all pagan gods as seen above represented dozen of deities, that the powers flowed among many of them. This is what the term "elohim" means, the "flow of deity powers". While the book "The two Babylon's" tries to show triad deities among all major pagan religions, there is sufficient evidence that all pagan religions had many deities, and their term "elohim" referred to a "family of deities".
Even Gordon himself acknowledges on rare occasions Elohim can refer to a family of pagan gods in 1Kings 11:33.
Gordon protests and says"Were YHWH Elohim a plurality the verse would have to have read,"And (they) YHWH Elohim said".
Consider the concept of marriage is the "two become "echad" flesh".
•Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: •it is thy father's nakedness. •Ge 2:24 ..and they shall be one flesh.
It would be against Hebrew rules (Hebrew came originally from GOD) to write, "let us make mankind in our image, so they said: "
The correct Hebrew when masculine and feminine entities of GOD are together, only the masculine is referenced.
"let us make mankind in our image, so He said: " is correct Hebrew.
"So contrary to the expected rule of Elohim getting a singular verb, here Elohim gets a plural verb. Because of this plural verb, we could literally translate this phrase "gods caused me to wander". From this verse alone it indeed appears that Abraham worshipped multiple gods whom he believed had caused him to wander from his father's house. However, this hardly fits the overall picture."
Gordon has a theory of faith that says the majority of passages over rules the meaning of minor problem ones, whereas a true Bible scholar must fit all Bible contexts into a single overall picture...Every Bible context must make sense. It seems even Abraham knew Elohim meant a "Heavenly kind of powers".
" But the basic question still remains. Why are there these three instances in the Tanach where Elohim receives a plural verb?" (Gordon 2003)
"Let us remember that the rule of Elohim receiving a singular verb does actually work in some 2000 instances and the three verses just mentioned are the only exceptions in the entire Tanach. ...Could it be that these three anomalous verses hint at some great mystery about the paradoxical and contradictory nature of God? Or is there a much simpler, linguistic explanation?" (Gordon, 2003)
"Why would the Israelites call a single calf "gods"? (Gordon, 2003)
Well what did the calf represent? Since they were of Egypt, they would have made an Egyptian idol. The calf was the Ancient Hebrew letter "aleph" meaning "strong" the ox head, or calf, meaning "Father god", the strongest of a family deity.
Gordon uses mental twisting to make his case as one of 'attraction'
"The masculine plural form of the word Elohim had more attractive pull than the numerically singular meaning. As a result, it appears that the Israelites are referring to the golden calf as multiple false-gods when really they meant only a singular false-god."
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 10, 2020 9:19:43 GMT -5
Dave writes: "Elohiym + angels (heaven)+ archon + man (earth) - one big family - I can see that - the family of God. You see only a secular meaning of family. A true family is made of biologically related Beings within the same kind. I consider the Creator the Father of all – all was created by Him Is He not the Father? Then why isn’t it a family?
A collection of pet dogs and pet cats, is not really a "Family" to the human. Well if that human fathers all those pet dogs and pet cats – he would be their father
If Scriptures says the whole family in heaven is named, this refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who are all named in Ephs 3:15,16. No one else in heaven have names? – you should read more So – Michael and Gab-briel are a part of the named elohiym in heaven – are they Christ’s brothers? Even in the Torah there are at least three more named boing in the heavens Add Solomon and that number grows / Enoch Add Talmud and Catholic demonology then there are many named beings
These members are all of divinity and of the elohiym kind. Why do you consider the term "elohiym" a solitary term? El is the singular form – but if you are a Trinity believer the 3 are only 1
The word in Hebrew is already pural, not singular, and refers to many members, such as typical of family, government or administrations. YES! – The God head is a Trinity
For example: In pagan gods, such as Dagon, is not this member, a member of a family of deities? Scripture calls them ‘other elohiym’ – 33 of them all of the same father - the Chief Archon
When in the beginning elohiym family powers, He created the earth and heavens; why does Scripture mention all three involved in the Creation. If only YHWH created, why mention all the other members, in Scripture also creating earth? John 1:1-4 Three Words that are the same Word – the Trinity = a plurality
You say YHWH is both gender male and gender female. If that is so, why make mankind into two separate beings, rather than combine everything into one being? Why did Gen 1:26-27 happen – ask God why
In fact modern sex gender is combining both genders into one being, but does Scripture say this is OK? What does Scripture say about homosexuals or combosexuals?
Combosexual – if they have both genatelia the proper term is hermaphrodite Many plants are hermaphrdite - flowers have both stamas and psitles - all they need is wind Androgynous - means they are neither sex singel cell organisms - cells, omeba, bacteria
In Gnosticism it is incorrect to demand that father to be male Man Calls the Creator Father – because we are sexual being and that is how see it Out of respect – Jews will not call the Creator – IT IT – has its own confusion = IT + Christ + Holy Spirit – just sound disrespectful to man So the Creator is called Father out of respect – but the Creator is not male – or female – He is neither The image of Him = male The spirit of Him = female
I will graps at another example (the quarter is still the best example) Close your eyse and picture - in your mind - PARENT (singular) Since you are a 3D creature with sexuality - your mental image was either mom or dad / male or female What sex is parent? - neither or both It all depends on which parental nature you are talking about male or female Parent = male x female E = m-C2 Creator = Christ - HS Father - Son - HS
What about the two couples become unified flesh. This cannot be written as one flesh, because there are two couples. So – scripture cannot be correct – is that what you are saying Or – you just don’t grasp its meaning
Abram's father had many strong authorities for elohiym, as Gen shows, why do Jews consider Abram's father as polytheistic in belief? Where is the proof? Don’t get your question - Need a reference During the aion / age of Abram there were many gods everywhere you looked But what made Abram so different that God noticed him is that Abram knew the Torah before it was written
Gen 26:4 and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Gen 26:5 because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (the very definition of the Torah)
Maybe elohiym means "family" all the time, only certain Jews changed the meaning for a reason, long time ago? The Jews who worshipped "queen of heaven" was about what? Is there an underground different belief among Jews? Some sources say this...
So – you see the God Head as 3 individual beings (polytheism) Two males and one female The father is the King The Son is the Prince But the female HS cannot be the Goddess of Wisdom or the Queen of Heaven You stumble over vocabulary and miss the message
If you have a look at JOB, there are three common names for elohiym, these are: 1) YHWH ----- SON 2) Eloah ---- Provider 3) Shadday ---Responder If elohiym is solitary, why write three names? 3 functions – The provider is the Creator The HS the sustainer – that provides the E that energizes all creation And the Son – who is salvation 3 functions
Job 6:4 They have sharp arrows to test man – I LIKE IT
Where did Simon's power come from? Did he have powers – or was he just a man- Fulfilling Ezk 28
POINT - I absolutely believe in spooks and demons that seem to have magical powers YES! - very much withion the function of the archon
(However - IMO - the archon can not manipulate matter - they can not create BUT - they have the ability to make you see what they want you to see Does an archon actually shape shift? For me they are spirit beings - they have no shape - so any shape you see is a projection upon your mind - a planted image - A HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION How can an archon kill you - it can not - but it can make you see things that cause you to die Stupid example - the police have a villan cornered - his own fears and paranoya adgitate the guy until he causes the very shoot out that gets hem killed)
I also absolutely believe in evil spirits possessing humans!
I thought you said, Satan has no power unless it comes by design from GOD to test mankind? So why is Simon Magnus the great power of Satan, written as people thought as the great power of God? Why is this written as deception? 100% the function of the archon - deception - believe anything except in the one true God
I have showed you before Simon Magnus wrote much of the Gnostic writings, and was the first pope for Catholics, not Simon Peter, who did not go to Rome until much later, these names are mixed up in history. One was evil, the other good.
OK Simon Magnus is a Sumerian who died in front of the Roman church in a contest with Peter Wrote First Century Egyptian Christian Scripture? You sure stretch history
I would love your reference stating that Simon magnus was the firt pope of rome Need a reference - not an opinion
"It is worth noting that the word Elohim is not always a majestic plural. When referring to the pagan gods, the term Elohim is usually a numerical plural."(Gordon, 2003). Why does Gordon, a Jew, make elohiym have multiple meanings?
Because it is used in multiple ways within scripture Gordon is suggesting the Hebrew word for "elohim" is different to the pagan religions that also use "elohim". Why should the word have a different meaning?
H430 - 'ĕlôhı̂ym - ' Plural of H433… the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), (very) great, judges,
In any event, there is clearly nothing multiple about Moses, even though he was made an Elohim to Pharaoh (Gordon, 2003)." occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates
"Here we see three pagan deities each of which is referred to as an Elohim. Obviously the book of Kings is not saying that any of these false deities is a "great God". On the contrary, the verse goes on to rebuke the Israelites for worshipping them. about any one of them." (Gordon, 2003) “other gods” / “other elohiym” are the archon false gods of canaaan
Even Gordon himself acknowledges on rare occasions Elohim can refer to a family of pagan gods in 1Kings 11:33. “other gods” / “other elohiym” are the archon false gods of canaaan
Gordon protests and says"Were YHWH Elohim a plurality the verse would have to have read,"And (they) YHWH Elohim said". I am good with it – the Trinity is 3 ‘functions’ in one
It would be against Hebrew rules (Hebrew came originally from GOD) to write, "let us make mankind in our image, so they said: "
The correct Hebrew when masculine and feminine entities of GOD are together, only the masculine is referenced. YES! – otherwise man needs a new pronoun for an androgynous being and the Jewish culture was male centric - just like Catholic culture therefore God must be a man - would the catholic Church hold onto male dominated Europe calling the father she?
Hebrew doesn’t have one = Greek doesn’t have one = English doesn’t have one Unless we revert to calling the Creator “IT”
Gordon has a theory of faith that says the majority of passages over rules the meaning of minor problem ones, whereas a true Bible scholar must fit all Bible contexts into a single overall picture...Every Bible context must make sense. It seems even Abraham knew Elohim meant a "Heavenly kind of powers". Absolutely agree and your Ezk 28 is a great example
"Why would the Israelites call a single calf "gods"? (Gordon, 2003) The calf was a representation of all the Egyptian gods (they more than one you know)
"The masculine plural form of the word Elohim had more attractive pull than the numerically singular meaning. As a result, it appears that the Israelites are referring to the golden calf as multiple false-gods when really they meant only a singular false-god." OR - the Israelites are referring to the golden calf as multiple false-gods
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 10, 2020 10:20:58 GMT -5
(Wiki) Until he came to Rome also and fell foul of the Apostles. Peter withstood him on many occasions. At last he came [. . .] and began to teach sitting under a plane tree. When he was on the point of being shown up, he said, in order to gain time, that if he were buried alive he would rise again on the third day. So he bade that a tomb should be dug by his disciples and that he should be buried in it. Now they did what they were ordered, but he remained there until now: for he was not the Christ.[30]
Footnote 30 = Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, 6, 15.
WHAT? – I just read this in the Wiki page for Simon Magnus I have no idea where this comes from Hippolytus expanded the work of Iraenious – who began the index and gave themselves the authority to call other writings as heresy – they wrote against the First Christians
FYI The demise of Simon Magnus is recorded in the Acts of Peter, which is also found in the Nag Hammadi Simon magus could levitate himself In Rome, in a demonstration of his power – Peter asked the Lord to revel Simon Magnus So – Simon Magnus fell to his death in front of everyone This is what the Gnostic text say about Simon Magnus - want the verse?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2020 13:26:44 GMT -5
Greetings Dave
You are happy to equate elohiym as a trinity of three functions, but not as a family of three beings? The Bible has no term for trinity, or for monotheism, both were invented by men. But it does equate elohiym, ab, ruwach and Yashua Messiah with the Hebrew word for "family".
If God was functioning as Christ, how come Christ has humanity to shape this functional expression? IE GOD now looks like a man, hence the term Son of Man, Son of GOD.
So the Saved man is a spiritual clone of a biological father, Our Saviour, hence why the term "family" is used in the NT.
As for your other reference to SImon Magnus: Try these:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus
Surviving traditions about Simon appear in orthodox texts, such as those of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, where he is often described as the founder of Gnosticism,[3][4][5][6] which has been accepted by some modern scholars, [7][8] while others reject that he was a Gnostic, just designated as one by the Church Fathers.[9][10]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAaRyWgStGg&list=PLeIiTuISkt8M7QNiVl9aMuc7nLryxLL9o
A secular movie showing Magnus, as they depict him, against Simon Peter He didn't fly.
www.britannica.com/biography/Simon-Magus
Later references in certain early Christian writings identify him as the founder of post-Christian Gnosticism, a dualist religious sect advocating salvation through secret knowledge, and as the archetypal heretic of the Christian Church.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13747-simon-magus
By: Kaufmann Kohler, Samuel Krauss A personage frequently mentioned in the history of primitive Christianity. According to Acts viii. 9-23, he was greatly fearedthroughout Samaria on account of his magic powers; but he permitted himself to be baptized, and wished to purchase the gift of the Holy Ghost, being cursed by Peter for this presumptuousness. In spite of the definiteness of the statements regarding him, the historicity of Simon has been doubted by many critics, especially by Baur and his school, who held that he was a caricature of the "Apostle of the Gentiles." Such a view must, however, be regarded as a grave critical aberration (Harnack, "Dogmengeschichte," 1st ed., i. 179, note 1). Simon was, furthermore, regarded by all the Church Fathers as the great heretic from whose school and teaching sprang all the later motley heresies of Christianity; and inasmuch as his system contained Gnostic teaching, Gnosticism itself was ascribed to him, and a Gnostic figure was seen in his alleged wife Helena.
gnosticteachings.org/glossary/s/2878-simon-magus.html
Simon Magus (Gnostic) A very powerful Gnostic teacher who unfortunately fell into black magic. "Simon Magus, the magician of New Testament fame, is often supposed to have been the founder of Gnosticism. If this be true, the sect was formed during the century after Christ and is probably the first of the many branches which have sprung from the main trunk of Christianity. Everything with which the enthusiasts of the early Christian Church might not agree they declared to be inspired by the Devil. That Simon Magus had mysterious and supernatural powers is conceded even by his enemies, but they maintained that these powers were lent to him by the infernal spirits and furies which they asserted were his ever present companions. Undoubtedly the most interesting legend concerning Simon is that which tells of his theosophic contests with the Apostle Peter while the two were promulgating their differing doctrines in Rome [See: The Acts of Peter and Paul]." - Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (1928) "Evilness is so fine and delicate that even the Master H. P.
Blavatsky firmly believed that Simon the Magician was a Master of the White Lodge. Master Huiracocha [Arnold Krumm-Heller] also believed that Simon the Magician was a great Gnostic Master, and he told us that everything that ‘Papus’ and other authors have taught in the past years about magic was taken from Simon the Magician. The only one who was not mistaken with respect to Simon the Magician was Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy. [...] Simon the Magician profoundly knew about Sexual Alchemy and the Great Arcanum. However, he fell into black magic because he continued to look into the past and he did not want to accept Christ." - Samael Aun Weor, Treatise of Sexual Alchemy
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 10, 2020 22:30:02 GMT -5
You are happy to equate elohiym as a trinity of three functions, but not as a family of three beings? The Bible has no term for trinity, or for monotheism, both were invented by men. The Bible has no term for oxygenation or photosynthesis – these words are invented by men Therefore they cannot exist – impossible
So - you are firm about it - you are a polythoeist and monotheoism is a pagan idea the Jews have
You sound like Pope Urban VIII who said if Galileo sees moons about Jupiter they must be artifact within his telescope because they are not found anywhere in scripture (1633)
If God was functioning as Christ, So you do not believ in the concept of God incarnate – Jesus Christ was not God in the form of a man
how come Christ has humanity to shape this functional expression? IE GOD now looks like a man, hence the term Son of Man, Son of GOD. OK – This is so obvious Man looks like man correct? - How should Christ appear to man – a hideous monster with green hair?
So the Saved man is a spiritual clone of a biological father, Our Saviour, hence why the term "family" is used in the NT. Have no idea what this statement means Are you saying that God did not create man? Or that it is incorrect to refer to God as Father?
As for your other reference to SImon Magnus: Try these: I can list a lot more anti-Christ literature than this Right now there are probably 1 million Islamic web-site say GOD HAS NO SON What is your point? Do you have a point? Or are you just attacking the messenger while refusing to consider the text
Surviving traditions about Simon appear in orthodox texts, such as those of Irenaeus, where he is often described as the founder of Gnosticism, 2 Points – #1 - in the other thread – you said there were no Catholics for hundreds of year after 55AD your reference is 1st century
#2 – Who said they were Gnostic – the Gnostics or the organized christians
A secular movie showing Magnus, as they depict him, against Simon Peter He didn't fly.
You should watch a religious move called the “Kingdom of Heaven” Allah triumphs over the Christian infadel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 14:08:41 GMT -5
Were the Jews always monotheistic? Didn't they form this after Babylonian exile?
Jewish views, as codified in Jewish law, are split between those who see Christianity as outright idolatry[8] and those who see Christianity as shituf. While Christians view their worship of a trinity as monotheistic, Judaism generally rejects this view.
Jews do not define elohiym or echad correctly, as I show you already using Gordon. He rejects context because he rejects Hebrew word meanings he does not like.
Polythesism is the worship of many independent gods, who can independently uses their powers when ever and where ever they like, without reference to any other god in association. A good example of this is Zeus, Athena and the constant bickering of one Greek pagan god against another.
You or Jews do not consider what happens in a marriage like process:
The two independent beings become unified as numerically one, in harmony with each other, that they lose their independency. If you remove the Hebrew word echad, meaning unified, we have a really big problem. Marriages cannot be explained.
How does two Beings become one Being? How does a trillion cells become One living machine? Echad
Le 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
What is this principle showing? echad
The two beings are actually one being. The wife is the same in spirit as the husband. Her body is his body.
Do you understand this even being an echad principal, and it is written to show us what "elohiym" might mean.
I note you speak of "el" "YHWH" and "elohiym".
But in Job the oldest Hebrew scroll we have, long before Moses wrote anything down, we have a common descriptor of elohiym, as "eloah" and "shadday".
What do Jews do with these?
Do they ignore them?
Who is eloah? From all contexts it is a "father like strong authority in heaven" Can also refer to a pagan father like strong authority.
Who is shadday? A co-eternal being, also termed Holy Spirit, showing feminine love.
They are heavenly parents, seen together in Job, as this. Working in echad, as one.
They are not three independent gods as you describe. Love cannot be separated as you describe into three independent sources of love. Not possible. There is only one love source, when the various components of love are connected together in a circuit, than love flows. This is how I see elohiym, like a battery generating love, comprised of components necessary for this generation.
Not as three independent gods, able to do as they wish.
Scripture shows elohiym, as a single flow, even though we have a family of beings, they function as echad, as unified as numerically one.
There are two Hebrew word for love, the masculine kind and the feminine kind. If we combine or collect both forms of love, we also have collective love, the kind children have.
My point is love cannot function on it's own. This is termed Baal, meaning master. Nobody is an island. Love is always relational, and community based.
If you reduce elohiym to a solitary being, you are by definition destroying the function of love, because loving requires beings plural. There is no such thing as "self love" or loving self. This only occurs in sin.
As you said yourself, when the C2 and the M combine, do we experience the E.
When Jesus created the Father's love flows via the Holy Spirit, doing as the Son of GOD spoke, all three were involved, and this is written in Hebrew as masculine single grammar, He created, NOT THEY created.
Why write like this? Because Son-YHWH cannot be independent. Sure some texts show YHWH alone, but not solitary, and not functioning independently on it's own.
Jews term this elohiym word, a majestic plural, there is nothing complex about it. A true marriage is defined as two couples who are numerically one being.
Take a look at JOB, eloah and shadday, along with YHWH, why are these three names here in the oldest Hebrew we have?
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 11, 2020 15:56:34 GMT -5
Jewish views, as codified in Jewish law, are split between those who see Christianity as outright idolatry[8] and those who see Christianity as shituf. YES! – non Messianic Jews do not accept Jesus as the Christ Because – Jesus di not fulfill all of the prophesies – The Jews are correct Jesus did not
However – if you are a Christian you understand that The age of the Jews ended – now we are in the age of the Gentile to open the doorway of Jesus Christ to all the world – not just Jews Once the age of the Gentile comes to a close – ahl and agl are in agreement once again
I see a common mistake you continually make If a Jew becomes a Christian – He becomes a Messianic Jew Why don’t we just call them Christian? Because they do not stop being Jewish and suddenly relearn all they have ever known in Catholic terms Sorry – instead – they see the ahl in the agl - as it should be Christians force the agl into ahl There is a world of difference
While Christians view their worship of a trinity as monotheistic, Judaism generally rejects this view. You are a Christian and you say I am not monotheistic You are a Christian and Brag of being a polytheist with 3 independent and separate Gods
Jews do not define elohiym or echad correctly, You play your word games so complicatedly AND you play absolutism that it continually paint into absolute corners that you do not know how to get out of To much scripture must be ignored and over looked for your one versism to stand
Polythesism is the worship of many independent gods, Nice justification – here is a word game for you Poly = more than one
But in Job the oldest Hebrew scroll we have, long before Moses wrote anything down, we have a common descriptor of elohiym, as "eloah" and "shadday". Because 3 are 1
What do Jews do with these? Do they ignore them? Agree Who is eloah? is a "father like strong authority in heaven" Can also refer to a pagan father like strong authority. OK Who is shadday? A co-eternal being, also termed Holy Spirit, showing feminine love. OK They are heavenly parents, You or Jews do not consider what happens in a marriage like process: The two beings are actually one being. The wife is the same in spirit as the husband. Her body is his body. Do you understand this even being an echad principal, and it is written to show us what "elohiym" might mean.
I guess you are saying that these two divine being has sexual relations in order to add a son to the family Just as you say God had to have sex with Mary
If you reduce elohiym to a solitary being, you are by definition destroying the function of love, because loving requires beings plural. There is no such thing as "self love" or loving self. This only occurs in sin.
Why do you think the purpose of the all is so God can love Himself? My scripture says – it is because God so Loved the World
Why write like this? Because Son-YHWH cannot be independent. Sure some texts show YHWH alone, but not solitary, and not functioning independently on it's own.
I agree- sort of – Jesus Christ was God incarnate – no independence there – agreed Until the moment of death God the father – The Creator did not die upon the cross – only His mortal Body did
Did you see my presentation about the quarter?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 12, 2020 15:59:05 GMT -5
Once I woke today I could not go back to sleep because this statement kept pressing on my heart.
Messianic Jews see the ahl revealed in the agl with a relaxed comfort
Roman Christendom - was left out of the party until after the Resurrection They began the exegetical process of trying to see the agl in the Hewish ahl Over the centuries of Roman exegetical research = 1000s of sermons attempting to relate or reveal a hidden truth of Christ in the OT The Sacrificial Lamb - the Blood that washes away all Sin - the Love and relationships - the Rapture - original sin - unpardonable sin - Ideas like Feel Goodism gain movement - God only created tov - regardless of what scripture says God does no ra - regardless of what scripture says If you believe in God - only good things come your way - wealth - prosperity Or - if you are experiencing ra it is because you sinned
And most importantly for now There is more than one God There are 3 gods in a family unit So - how much father stretch to say There are two opposing gods
Elevating the oppose god and failing to recognize the absolutism / the omnipotence that is GOD
You say - stick to scripture not the precepts of men Yet you allow Catholic doctrine dictate how you see scripture
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2020 16:09:51 GMT -5
You just agreed the 3 are 1. So this is not polytheism is it?
The key word is independent.
You "agree- sort of – Jesus Christ was God incarnate – no independence there – agreed".
polytheism are many gods capable to creating and doing things, without using powers from the other gods, they are truly independent.
The heavenly elohiym is not like that.
Therefore Christianity is not polytheism.
Are there any Hebrew Scriptures where any member of the heavenly elohiym is solitary doing things on their own? I don't know of any.
How can I be confident of this? Because love is highly relational, and requires a community of heavenly powers that are unified as one. This is the reason for the Hebrew word echad.
There is a Hebrew word for first :
Ge 8:13 ¶ And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month,
The original word for "one" is ashtey.
However 19 verses use ashtey only to make 11, as ashtey asar. A few also use a different way to make 11, as echad asar.
Jeff Benner thinks ashtey fell out of favour and echad took over meaning one. After all unifed as one, is very similar to the meaning of cardinal one.
If you have a look a the tetragammon,
In Ancient Hebrew pictures
Tent-Peg Person Shepherd-staff Person .
There is in this word YHWH, Secure Person, Active Person.
The schema define these divine Beings as unified as one.
This is the same as marriages are defined in the Hebrew,
Dave writes weirdly: "I guess you are saying that these two divine being has sexual relations in order to add a son to the family Just as you say God had to have sex with Mary
The text says the Father and the Mother functionally born the Son with humanity. No sexually relations with the virgin necessary. According to Ron Wyatt who did sample tests of the Lord's blood , there is only one set of the 23 chromosomes plus an extra Y chromosome, making 24 only. Normal humans have 46. I would see Mary as a surrogate, allowing this mystery of adding humanity to divinity to develop normally in the virgin's womb.
Than you raise does the divine Provider have union with the divine Responder, in the compassionate-centre? First the usual word we see as "womb" really means "compassionate-centre" and the KJV translation is wonderful in calling this at times "matrix". So the divine Provider and divine Responder do not function in the same way as creatures of matter do, we see things darkly, and this is only a simile of functions.
Dave writes: "Nice justification – here is a word game for you Poly = more than one
Your a science person, look around. Plants. Are they polycellular? Yes, you can eat any group of cells and the rest of the cells survive happily.
Animals. Are they polycellular? No, not all cells are independent, and so eating a group of cells usually causes the entire community to die as well.
Is a battery poly-energetic? The positive ions, the negative ions and the medium collector, all function unified to make energy happen. This is not three strong authorities causing the energy, they have to work as one to make the affect.
Is a human poly-organic? The brain, the heart and the muscles, cannot function independently from each other. This is not three strong authorities , all organs have to function unified as one in order for the overall system to work.
Is elohiym poly-creative? The Provider, the Responder and the Collector, cannot create unless the three strong authorities are unified as one. I see love as a community system.
These are complex examples, made simple by nature, to show you how echad works. Have a look around and use the similes God shows us.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Why is this strange Hebrew word "elohiym" (godhead) here, I wonder?
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 12, 2020 22:12:46 GMT -5
You just agreed the 3 are 1. So this is not polytheism is it? No it isn’t - there is only One God
polytheism are many gods capable to creating and doing things, You are the guy who demands that word only mean one thing - poly = more than one that’s all 3 independent gods = more than one
The heavenly elohiym is not like that. So Correct - There is only One Creator - only one being deserves a Capital G We - mere mortal man is not capable of understanding the Creator No one has ever seen Him - or is able to see Him
However - God has two natures to His personality - male and female Each and every time humans are interacting with the male voice = Christ the image of God Each and every time humans are interacting with the female voice = The Spirit of God / Holy Spirit
Therefore Christianity is not polytheism. Correct - there is only one God and a duality of expression Quarter - heads or tails Parent - male or female
Are there any Hebrew Scriptures where any member of the heavenly elohiym is solitary doing things on their own? I don't know of any.
Ok I started to list all the scriptures - but there are just too many for you to find fault with You will find your answer here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah
The Jews have a male image of God - YHWY The Jews have a female presence of God = shekinah - you say shaddy
These are the only two ways the Jews - or anyone has ever experienced One God
Jeff Benner thinks ashtey fell out of favour and echad took over meaning one. After all unifed as one, is very similar to the meaning of cardinal one. Oops - polysymony
The text says the Father and the Mother functionally born the Son with humanity. No sexually relations with the virgin necessary. So now you are saying Christ did not exist before the virgin birth? You told me before spirit cannot mate with man therefore the nephilim cannot exist Now you argue the opposite
I would see Mary as a surrogate, A surrogate mother has none of herself in the fetus So - Jesus Christ was not fully human? Then you speak of only 23 chromosomes Which divine beings of your donated the DNA
Dave writes: "Nice justification – here is a word game for you Poly = more than one
Your a science person, look around. Plants. Are they polycellular? These are complex examples, made simple by nature, to show you how echad works. Have a look around and use the similes God shows us.
How about stop using visible nature to describe the invisible unnatural Quarter = heads or tails - only two options but there is only one quarter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2020 16:11:35 GMT -5
Dave writes: "God has two natures to His personality - male and female Therefore Christianity is not polytheism. There is only one God and a duality of expression.
For your statements to work, you do not have GOD as separate beings, only one of two expressions like sides of the same coin.
You made no comments on my view, where GOD is a simile of family, as Eph 3:15, 16 shows. This comes with differences in loving. Two heavenly parents are one because the Hebrew marriage shows the two become unified as one.
You have one being, with different expressions. I have three beings, expressing love personailties, that when combined become a single source of love. You say my view is polytheism, but yours is not.
I get the poly "many beings", is a word describing my view, therefore as poly, so yes there are poly beings, but they function as a unified one, as a marriage does, therefore we have only one functional system of elohiym.
You have only two expressions, so who was GOD on earth in human form, praying to?
Joh 17:11 ¶ And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. Why does the GOD on earth, speak to this GOD in heaven as Holy Father, if according to you it can only be the Holy Spirit, a feminine expression of GOD?
Ge 17:1 ¶ And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Here we have both expressions walking before Abram, the feminine and the masculine. OK
Ge 18:1 ¶ And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre:
Is this the same story of a different event in time? Where did the Shadday go, or was GOD fully before Abram, as both expressions, but we are not told this all the time?
Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
How do you have two masculine expressions in differrent locations at the same time, I assume the feminine Shadday was on earth with the masculine on earth.
Pr 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Why are three strong authorities named here? The feminine wind, the two masculine expressions, What is HIS name and HIS Son's name?
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure:
This verse has eloah and imrah, both are different masculine expressions...
Why write two, if according to you it is the one expresion, the masculine only.
Ex 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
Again beware of HIM, my Name is in HIM, two masculine expressions? Why two?
Ge 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image,
When the masculine and feminine come in Gen 1:2, the expression is grammar singular He, The feminine is ignored in community setting.
Only when two masculine expressions come does the Hebrew write "us". But you do not have a Father or Son masculine expression, only two. Not three.
Can you explain these problems in your view? Shalom
|
|