Are all the passages claiming relationship to Messiah, true?

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,918
8,033
✟572,541.44
Faith
Messianic
It all starts with not recognizing that Yeshua has been there since the beginning. That it is His responsibility since the beginning in the creation and the redemption of this earth. Every time God is mentioned in OT it is Yeshua before His first coming in the flesh. No matter how many verses are provided, if it is not seen that Yeshua is 100% involved in everything that has happened in OT, then NT is without validation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It all starts with not recognizing that Yeshua has been there since the beginning. That it is His responsibility since the beginning in the creation and the redemption of this earth. Every time God is mentioned in OT it is Yeshua before His first coming in the flesh. No matter how many verses are provided, if it is not seen that Yeshua is 100% involved in everything that has happened in OT, then NT is without validation.
Mere words with no Scriptural backing.
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I told you in a previous post that I was being inconsistent with my use of capitals, so I decided to use "Elohim". Since I capitalize "Savior" and "Lord" when referring to Yeshua, I might as well capitalize "Elohim" as well.


WOW!!! You are quoting my words by saying, "You then go on to say...", but I did not say "[within] the Father". Neither did Ellen. You added the word [within] without telling the forum that was your addition. How dishonest can you get AbbaLove? Or did you just forget to tell us "[within]" was your addition?


You say she is saying "Yeshua is identifying Himself with the Father", but she actually said, " He is identifying Himself as the Father." She even put "Father" in bold. You can try and cover for Ellen, but her words are loud and clear without your added word "within" or "with".

Further down in the same article she writes, "Yeshua is the Father as well as the Son" and "It is clear that Yeshua is not relegated Scripturally to only being the Son, the second person of the godhead, but that Yeshua is the Father too!"
This is one reason why I replied to those articles by saying, "Those two articles are far from true."


I agree that the above passages are truthful. It is your interpretation that is false. As for Ellen's articles, I'm glad I did not trash them as they are good to show the errors people make in interpreting Scripture.


I reject the RCC trinity as well. In MJs rejection of the RCC trinity, they threw away some truth (that the Father is NOT the Son) and embraced the exact opposite (that the Father IS the Son).


I may be the only one bold enough to speak up, but there are others out there that believe just like me. Even if there were no others, that makes no difference. I know what the Spirit has taught and I know how to refute what is false.


They are all true.


Yes. Plenty. Just review the "Name the prophecies in the Old Testament about Yeshua" thread and you will see many misinterpreted verses/passages from the Tanakh that I offered correction on.
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You say she is saying "Yeshua is identifying Himself with the Father", but she actually said, " He is identifying Himself as the Father." She even put "Father" in bold. You can try and cover for Ellen, but her words are loud and clear without your added word "within" or "with".
In her article Ellen apparently bases her use of "as" being synonymous with "in" with most English translations reading "in me" and "in him" with the exception of the CJB that reads "with me" and "with the Father"

G-d is One, Not A Trinity
"Hear O Israel, YHVH is G-d, YHVH is ONE." (Deut 6:4)
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/oneness.html
John 10:38 KJV
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 10:38 CJB
38 But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”

John 10:30 translations: "I and the Father are one" ... "I and my Father are one" ... "The Father and I are one"

Ellen's choice of "as" is supported by translations in Isaiah 9:5(6) ...

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) ... "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]
Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)
For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).

Further down in the same article ( http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html ) she writes, "Yeshua is the Father as well as the Son" and "It is clear that Yeshua is not relegated Scripturally to only being the Son, the second person of the godhead, but that Yeshua is the Father too!"
Again, Ellen apparently supports her use of "as" with her interpretation of passages like Isaiah 9:6, Exodus 33:11, and several passages recorded by the Apostle John.

Exodus 33:11
Adonai would speak to Moshe face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.
John 1:18 CJB
No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s sidehe has made him known.
John 3:11 CJB
11 Yes, indeed! I tell you that what we speak about, we know; and what we give evidence of, we have seen; but you people don’t accept our evidence!
John 10:30 CJB
I and the Father are one.
John 10:38 CJB
38 But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”
John 10:38 KJV
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 14:6-7 CJB
6 Yeshua said, “I AM the Way — and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me.
7 Because you have known me, you will also know my Father; from now on, you do know him — in fact, you have seen him.”
John 14:8-11 CJB
8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it will be enough for us.”
9 Yeshua replied to him, “Have I been with you so long without your knowing me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works.
11 Trust me, that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me.

I agree that the above passages are truthful.
HalleluYah! So you agree that the Father is united with-in Mashiach Yeshua and Mashiach Yeshua is united with-in the Father.
I may be the only one bold enough to speak up, but there are others out there that believe just like me.
Even if there were *no others, that makes no difference. I know what the Spirit has taught and I know how to refute what is false.
However, you do believe that Mashiach Yeshua represents the manifest visible presence of the Godhead.

Colossians 2:9 ~ For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Would be interested in your take on a couple questions. Not necessary to debate or argue if we don't agree, but am sincerely interested in your perspective.

Question One: In light of John 1:18 some MJs believe that "Adonai" in Exodus 33:11 (listed above) is the visible manifest presence of God made known by him (Son of God). How do you explain the KJV, NASB, AMP, NLT, CJB translations that all give credence to not only Ellen ("as"), but also other MJs that believe the only begotten Son is the visible manifestation of Father God?
John 1:18 KJV

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18 NASB
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 AMP
No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father].
John 1:18 NLT
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
John 1:18 CJB
No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son,
who is identical with God and is at the Father’s sidehe has made him known.

Question Two: You say it is possible that *no others may agree exactly with your interpretation of these scripture passages. How is it that you believe the Holy Spirit reveals the correct interpretation and understanding of the Godhead to you and few others; while many more MJs believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them that Mashiach Yeshua is the manifest presence of Father God?

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sorry for the delay, I was out of town.

In her article Ellen apparently bases her use of "as" being synonymous with "in" with most English translations reading "in me" and "in him" with the exception of the CJB that reads "with me" and "with the Father"


G-d is One, Not A Trinity

"Hear O Israel, YHVH is G-d, YHVH is ONE." (Deut 6:4)

http://www.lightofmashiach.org/oneness.html


John 10:38 KJV

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 10:38 CJB

38 But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”


John 10:30 translations: "I and the Father are one" ... "I and my Father are one" ... "The Father and I are one"


Ellen's choice of "as" is supported by translations in Isaiah 9:5(6) ...


Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) ... "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)

For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)

For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]

Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)

For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).


Again, Ellen apparently supports her use of "as" with her interpretation of passages like Isaiah 9:6, Exodus 33:11, and several passages recorded by the Apostle John.

Your feeble attempt to justify Ellen's use of "as" to be synonymous with "in" is fruitless since she also said, "Yeshua is the Father as well as the Son" and "It is clear that Yeshua is not relegated Scripturally to only being the Son, the second person of the godhead, but that Yeshua is the Father too!" Are you now going to play word games with "is"? She is falsely teaching us that Yeshua IS the Father. Open your eyes AbbaLove and stop trying to defend her false teaching.

CJB

I and the Father are one.

John 10:38 CJB

38 But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”

John 10:38 KJV

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 14:6-7 CJB

6 Yeshua said, “I AM the Way — and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me.

7 Because you have known me, you will also know my Father; from now on, you do know him — in fact, you have seen him.”

John 14:8-11 CJB

8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it will be enough for us.”

9 Yeshua replied to him, “Have I been with you so long without your knowing me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

10 Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works.

11 Trust me, that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me.


HalleluYah! So you agree that the Father is united with-in Mashiach Yeshua and Mashiach Yeshua is united with-in the Father.

I said several times and never denied once that the Father was in the Son reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Father did not become the Son. He entered into the Son via His indwelling Holy Spirit.

However, you do believe that Mashiach Yeshua represents the manifest visible presence of the Godhead.

Colossians 2:9 ~ For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;


No. I would say the visible Son represents the invisible Father who was living in him via the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Father lives in each true believer the same way. Therefore, we also represent the invisible Father.

Question One:
In light of John 1:18 some MJs believe that "Adonai" in Exodus 33:11 (listed above) is the visible manifest presence of God made known by him (Son of God). How do you explain the KJV, NASB, AMP, NLT, CJB translations that all give credence to not only Ellen ("as"), but also other MJs that believe the only begotten Son is the visible manifestation of Father God?

John 1:18 KJV

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 NASB

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 1:18 AMP

No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father].

John 1:18 NLT

No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

John 1:18 CJB

No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s sidehe has made him known.

If the Greek texts that have "huios" (Son) are correct (and I believe they are), then the KJV has the correct translation. If the Greek texts that have "theos" are correct (which I doubt), then we must decide how to translate that word. To use "God" is very misleading since there is only one true "God", Yeshua's Father, YHWH (John 17:3). Yet, Yeshua is more than just a human "theos". So both "God" and "god" would be poor translations. Since there is nothing suitable in between those two words, I would use the word “elohim”. I'm sure you will now say, "You are back to a small "e"? In this case, yes. Angels are "elohim". Yeshua was made lower than the "elohim/angels" as a man. To put a capital "E" would suggest he, while in the flesh, was higher than the angels. Now that Yeshua is a glorified being with eternal life, I will use "E" when calling him an "Elohim".

Question Two:
You say it is possible that *no others may agree exactly with your interpretation of these scripture passages. How is it that you believe the Holy Spirit reveals the correct interpretation and understanding of the Godhead to you and few others; while many more MJs believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them that Mashiach Yeshua is the manifest presence of Father God?

Because my interpretation aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want. I also do not rely solely on English translations, especially the word "God" which is woefully inadequate to translate "elohim" or "theos".
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Because my interpretation aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want. I also do not rely solely on English translations, especially the word "God" which is woefully inadequate to translate "elohim" or "theos".
So, we agree (the title of this tread is misleading) that it's more about interpretation than whether or not passages claiming relationship to Mashiach Yeshua are possibly untrue (never let it be). Isaiah 9:6 would be one such passage "claiming relationship" that is apparently open to different interpretation.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]
Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)
For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).

What research evidence supports your understanding that the above underlined words were "added" when translating from Hebrew to English? Granted that the following Hebrew translation to English is different than the KJV ...

Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
"that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel" ...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf

Translating Hebrew into English is no easy matter. How does one even know whether this translator provided the most accurate English translation? So, again we agree that Hebrew passages claiming relationship to Messiah are indeed True! What we may not agree on is not only what is the best/correct translation, but what is the best/correct interpretation of Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7). Thus, for you to make statements that your interpretation of passages is not influenced by religious theology and therefore the best/correct interpretation is your own opinion. So, why should we believe that your interpretation is the inspired teaching of the "Counsellor" when so many MJs find it difficult to interpret passages like Isaiah 9:6 that Mashiach Yeshua is as you say ... "an "Elohim of lesser degree than his Father."

Who are you to conclude that your interpretation (contrary to that of other MJs) "aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want" ... thereby concluding that any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ?
No matter what translation is true, also,
is it not up to Abba to reveal His Word ? (i.e. it lies not in man, nor in the flesh, to understand, except the Father in Heaven reveals it as He Pleases) ?
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ? No matter what translation is true, also,
Who decides what is the proper correct translation and more importantly the correct interpretation other than the indwelling Presence of His Spirit.
is it not up to Abba to reveal His Word ? (i.e. it lies not in man, nor in the flesh, to understand, except the Father in Heaven reveals it as He Pleases) ?
Yet we know that whether religious mankind favors: Rabbinic Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Denominational Protestantism, or Messianic Judaism that the influence of religious man's "theology" that the indwelling presence of His Spirit is apparently compromised. If all these religions have in one way or another inhibited His Spirit than what or who are we to believe when MJs debate and argue over which is the proper translation and proper interpretation of the Godhead?

Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
"that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel" ...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ? No matter what translation is true
Do you have any reason to doubt that the two following English translations from the Hebrew Tanakh (Isaiah 9:5-6) are not a "proper translation" and therefore wouldn't both English translations be true, How would you go about deciding whether both are a "proper translation" or whether just one is a "proper translation" of the Hebrew Tanakh?

Note: The reason i underlined "to·increase-of to·increase-of" and establish it To establish is to point out that it is not a repetitive typo error on my part or the part of the translator, but rather stressing the importance of establishing the increase of His Kingdom ... because as hard as mankind tries he continually falls short of establishing PEACE on earth.

Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
5(4) that every-of boot-of one-being-booted in quaking and raiment being-rolled in·bloods and·she-becomes for·burning fuel-of fire
6(5) that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being
7(6) to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of »·her and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this
8(7) word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf

Here is another Hebrew Interlinear translation of Isaiah 9:5-8 ...

Isaiah 9:5-8 (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9.htm)
5 in blood rolled and garments in the [battle] tumult of the warrior battle every For of fire fuel [this] with burning but shall be"
6 on the government and shall be to is given a son to us is born to us a child For the Prince the everlasting mighty the God Counselor, Wonderful his name and called his shoulder of Peace
7 on [there shall be] end not and peace [his] of government - of increase - (of increase is repeated again) and with justice it with judgment [is] and to establish it To establish his kingdom and on of David the throne this will perform of hosts of the LORD The zeal ever and from from now on even for From them
8 on Israel and it has come to against Jacob The Lord sent a word

Do you believe the following English translations are a "proper translation" of the two Hebrew Tanakh translations listed above?

Isaiah 9:6 KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]
Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)
For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So, we agree (the title of this tread is misleading) that it's more about interpretation than whether or not passages claiming relationship to Mashiach Yeshua are possibly untrue (never let it be). Isaiah 9:6 would be one such passage "claiming relationship" that is apparently open to different interpretation.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]
Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)
For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).

What research evidence supports your understanding that the above underlined words were "added" when translating from Hebrew to English? Granted that the following Hebrew translation to English is different than the KJV ...
I don't recall saying those words were "added". As you have shown, translations differ. If a particular translation of any verse causes disharmony with another verse, then the translation is suspect. "Mighty God" is suspect because there is only one Mighty God, YHWH, Yeshua's Father. The word "el" can be translated "power", "powerful", "might", etc. Therefore, the translation of "el gibbor" as "Mighty Warrior" would create harmony.

Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
"that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel" ...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
You quoted this translation in post #149 as well. Is there something you like about this translation?

Translating Hebrew into English is no easy matter. How does one even know whether this translator provided the most accurate English translation?
By comparing the translation against Hebrew lexicons or how a particular word was used throughout Scripture.

Thus, for you to make statements that your interpretation of passages is not influenced by religious theology and therefore the best/correct interpretation is your own opinion. So, why should we believe that your interpretation is the inspired teaching of the "Counsellor" when so many MJs find it difficult to interpret passages like Isaiah 9:6 that Mashiach Yeshua is as you say ... "an "Elohim of lesser degree than his Father."

I don't recall saying my interpretation is not influenced by my theology. You don't have to believe my interpretation, but you must believe Yeshua when he says his Father is "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" (John 17:3).

Who are you to conclude that your interpretation (contrary to that of other MJs) "aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want" ... thereby concluding that any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want.
This is the third time in one post that you have said that I said something that I didn't say. Where have I said, "any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want"? Read things into the text happens, even on this Messianic Forum, but that doesn't mean all MJs are guilty of doing so.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ?
No matter what translation is true, also,
is it not up to Abba to reveal His Word ? (i.e. it lies not in man, nor in the flesh, to understand, except the Father in Heaven reveals it as He Pleases) ?
The answer to your first question is no. There are disagreements on interpretation even concerning verses where we all agree are translated correctly. The answer to the second question is yes. The Holy Spirit will teach us if we allow it to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Do you think Abba Yhwh is Trustworthy, The One Who Yahshua said revealed Yahshua HaMashiach is the Messiah to the apostle Peter ?
Why would you ask such a question? Of course He is trustworthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
You quoted this translation in post #149 as well. Is there something you like about this translation?
Yes, both translations are interesting. Decided to post both to get your take/insight if you have reason to believe that perhaps the meaning of these two Hebrew-to-English translations got lost (misinterpreted) by the translator(s) of not only the King James Version but other similar translations.

Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
5(4) that every-of boot-of one-being-booted in quaking and raiment being-rolled in·bloods and·she-becomes for·burning fuel-of fire
6(5) that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being
7(6) to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of »·her and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this
8(7) word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf

Here is another Hebrew Interlinear translation of Isaiah 9:5-8 ...

Isaiah 9:5-8 (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9.htm)
5 in blood rolled and garments in the [battle] tumult of the warrior battle every For of fire fuel [this] with burning but shall be"
6 on the government and shall be to is given a son to us is born to us a child For the Prince the everlasting mighty the God Counselor, Wonderful his name and called his shoulder of Peace
7 on [there shall be] end not and peace [his] of government - of increase - (of increase is repeated again) and with justice it with judgment [is] and to establish it To establish his kingdom and on of David the throne this will perform of hosts of the LORD The zeal ever and from from now on even for From them
8 on Israel and it has come to against Jacob The Lord sent a word

I don't recall saying my interpretation is not influenced by my theology. You don't have to believe my interpretation, but you must believe Yeshua when he says his Father is "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" (John 17:3).
Which Bible translation of John 17:3 are you referencing that reads, "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" in all Capital letters or are you getting frustrated with MJs that believe the manifold manifest nature of Elohim(plural) represents the "Godhead" bodily. Do we agree that in the very first Hebrew verse of Genesis that "God" is referred to as “Elohim” (plural). Also, with respect to Vis's above comment consider the following words of Yeshua (verse 5) ...

John 17:3-5 (CJB)
3 And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
4 “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.
5 Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed. ("Elohim" is plural)

This is the third time in one post that you have said that I said something that I didn't say. Where have I said, "any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want"? Read things into the text happens, even on this Messianic Forum, but that doesn't mean all MJs are guilty of doing so.
Don't remember ever accusing you of saying "all MJs are guilty of doing so." However, you previously said that only a few MJs or even if "no others" agree with you that your interpretations are correct. Correct if i'm wrong, but your accusation seemed to be directed at other MJ members posting in this thread (see following excerpt posted by you). MJ members who believe the glorified Mashiach Yeshua is the visible manifestation of "God" and don't believe that they are (as you imply) "adding words or reading into the text whatever I(they) want", but rather are properly interpreting passages in the Tanakh as well as Yeshua's own words as recorded in the Gospel of John.
Because my interpretation aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want. I also do not rely solely on English translations, especially the word "God" which is woefully inadequate to translate "elohim" or "theos".

Likewise we agree that the word "Elohim" is inadequate to explain the manifold manifest nature of the word "Godhead" in Colossians 2:9 ~ "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (KJV). What you and other MJs differ on is whether the glorified Mashiach Yeshua is as you contend (accompanying theology) ... "an Elohim of lesser degree than his Father" based on how one interprets Col. 2:9 and other passages in both the Tanakh and Brit Chadashah.

Let me offer an olive branch of reciprocal understanding. While Yeshua was on earth as both the "son of man" and the "Son of God" he had to wait until He again had the same glory "before the world existed" (John 17:5). Thus it makes perfect sense that Yeshua would refer to "God" as Father considering He referred to Himself as the "Son of God" while also referring to himself as the "son of man."

To believe that the glorified Yeshua is "an Elohim of lesser degree than his Father" is based in part on your theology which is questionable when considering Yeshua's recorded words, other scripture passages and that Elohim is plural. When Father God trusts His Son (who is One with His Father) to establish and increase His Kingdom on earth it seems inappropriate for you to say that the glorified Yeshua is "an Elohim of a lesser degree."

Matthew 28:18 (CJB)
18 Yeshua came and talked with them. He said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 14:6 (CJB)
Yeshua said, “I AM the Way — and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ok, from what I have gathered from your many posts, your position is that Yeshua didn't exist before coming in the flesh.
As I understand Scripture, he did not exist as a living being, but he did exist in YHWH's plan of salvation.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
70
NC
Visit site
✟130,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yes, both translations are interesting. Decided to post both to get your take/insight if you have reason to believe that perhaps the meaning of these two Hebrew-to-English translations got lost (misinterpreted) by the translator(s) of not only the King James Version but other similar translations.

Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
5(4) that every-of boot-of one-being-booted in quaking and raiment being-rolled in·bloods and·she-becomes for·burning fuel-of fire
6(5) that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being
7(6) to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of »·her and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this
8(7) word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf

Here is another Hebrew Interlinear translation of Isaiah 9:5-8 ...

Isaiah 9:5-8 (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9.htm)
5 in blood rolled and garments in the [battle] tumult of the warrior battle every For of fire fuel [this] with burning but shall be"
6 on the government and shall be to is given a son to us is born to us a child For the Prince the everlasting mighty the God Counselor, Wonderful his name and called his shoulder of Peace
7 on [there shall be] end not and peace [his] of government - of increase - (of increase is repeated again) and with justice it with judgment [is] and to establish it To establish his kingdom and on of David the throne this will perform of hosts of the LORD The zeal ever and from from now on even for From them
8 on Israel and it has come to against Jacob The Lord sent a word
Both of those translations just muddy the waters. It is difficult to understand what verse 6 is actually saying. Do either of those translation put the English words next to or below the Hebrew words so we can tell which English word is a translation of which Hebrew word? In the first one, for example, I don't see how "el gibbor" is being translated unless "masterful" is translating both words.

Which Bible translation of John 17:3 are you referencing that reads, "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" in all Capital letters or are you getting frustrated with MJs that believe the manifold manifest nature of Elohim(plural) represents the "Godhead" bodily.
None. There are no English translations that use "Elohim". I was quoting the KJV, but changed "God" to what I believe Yeshua actually said. I know he didn't speak English, so he didn't say "God". I also capitalized those words to emphasize what he taught. Do you have a problem with the sense I brought out?

Do we agree that in the very first Hebrew verse of Genesis that "God" is referred to as “Elohim” (plural). Also, with respect to Vis's above comment consider the following words of Yeshua (verse 5) ...

John 17:3-5 (CJB)
3 And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
4 “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.
5 Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed. ("Elohim" is plural)
While "Elohim" is written in the plural, the context determines whether it is being used in a singular or plural sense.
Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Exodus 12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh." Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Samuel 5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god” and 2 Kings 1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings?

I believe that when “elohim” is used of a singular sense, it is the plural of majesty or intensity, not of number. Gesenius, wrote in his Hebrew Grammar, “That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.” In Genesis 1:1, the verb "bra" (created) is singular. Therefore, "Elohim" was translated "God" instead of "Gods". We see this throughout the Tanakh. If the verb is plural, then "elohim" would be translated "gods". We also see "Elohim" accompanied by singular pronouns such as "He", "Him" or His" instead of "they", "them" or "their".

Likewise we agree that the word "Elohim" is inadequate to explain the manifold manifest nature of the word "Godhead" in Colossians 2:9 ~ "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (KJV). What you and other MJs differ on is whether the glorified Mashiach Yeshua is as you contend (accompanying theology) is "an Elohim of lesser degree than his Father" when considering Col. 2:9 and other pasages in both the Tanakh and Brit Chadashah.
The greater Elohim, YHWH, was dwelling in the lesser Elohim, Yeshua, in all His fullness.

Let me offer an olive branch of reciprocal understanding. While Yeshua was on earth as both the "son of man" and the "Son of God" he had to wait until He again had the same glory "before the world existed" (John 17:5). Thus it makes perfect sense that Yeshua would refer to "God" as Father considering He referred to Himself as the "Son of God" while also being the "son of man".
Now that he is no longer waiting to receive "the same glory", how does he refer to "God"? The answer is, the same way. He calls "God" "my God" and "Father".

To believe that the glorified Yeshua is "an Elohim of lesser degree than his Father" is based in part on your theology which is questionable when considering Yeshua's recorded words, other scripture passages and that Elohim is plural. When Father God trusts His Son (who is One with His Father) to establish and increase His Kingdom on earth it seems inappropriate for you to say that the glorified Yeshua is "an Elohim of a lesser degree."

Matthew 28:18 (CJB)
18 Yeshua came and talked with them. He said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 14:6 (CJB)
Yeshua said, “I AM the Way — and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me."
First, I agree with and believe both verses above. YHWH gave Yeshua all authority and he will rule over the Kingdom on earth, but what happens next?

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he (Yeshua) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he 9Yeshua) must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he (Father YHWH) hath put all things under his (Yeshua's) feet. But when he saith all things are put under him (Yeshua), it is manifest that he (Father YHWH) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Yeshua).
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (Father YHWH) that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.​

The Son has never been, nor ever will be an equal "Elohim" to the Father. Father YHWH is greater than all beings in the universe, including His Son.
 
Upvote 0