New Age Can Give You Spiritual Insight!

[daq]

Noting where others are sons of the Most High (as God proclaimed over those who were elohim) isn't the same as Ezekiel where one claimed to be a "god" and yet the Lord rebuked him for being no such thing according to how He saw it. In the sense that they both use the term "god" in the ideas they're expressing, indeed, similarity exists - but overall, their themes/concepts are radically different.
Seeing that I already noted where Yeshua was correct in using Psalm 82 (which notes the existence of elohim considered as "gods"/divine) in order to line up with the principle of arguing from greater to lesser as it concerns His Divinity as Messiah/The Son of God, of course it was never the case that anything was suggested to say that the Word of the Father has not come.
Amen. Nothing has been said, of course, that's counter to that

Sorry but that just does not seem to line up with everything else you have already posted. However what you have posted, though I have read it, is simply too much at one time to sift through and try to cut apart into smaller portions; and to attempt to do so from such large summaries would make them appear as if taken out of context. I will close here with what was stated in the beginning. Surely you already know this commandment but I would like you to notice something you may not be aware of from the Matthew 5:19 statement:

Matthew 5:17-19
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break [GSN#3089 luo] one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Original Strong's Ref. #3089
Romanized luo
Pronounced loo'-o
a primary verb; to ''loosen'' (literally or figuratively):
KJV--break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. Compare GSN4486.

How hard could it have been for ''king James and his court'' to translate the Greek word ''luo'' into ''loosen''? The passage really is not speaking so much of law ''breakers'' as it is of those who would ''loosen'' the commandments or ''water them down'' so that what is written no longer has the original force because the meanings of key words have been changed or altered into ''loosened up'' meanings which make the commandments ineffectual:

Matthew 5:19
19. Whosoever therefore shall loosen one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Yeshua is quoted using the same terminology in the passage in question:

John 10:34-35
34. Yeshua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the graphe-holy writ cannot be luthenai-loosened;

If we loosen the meanings of elohim and theos then how can we truly understand the following?

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV
3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Corinthians 4:4 TUA
4. en hois ho Theos touaionos toutou etuflosen ta noemata ton apiston eisto me augasai {*} ton fotismon tou euangeliou tesdoxes tou Christou, hos estin eikon tou Theou.{*}

Who is ''ho theos tou aionos'' or ''the god of this age''? There is no God apart from YHWH, (as you have noted but some of the statements you make in that portion of your comments I agree to disagree with you) and there is therefore no need to post the manifold passages which proclaim this to be true. Therefore it is a similitude of the ''old man'' sin nature and natural-carnal man; for the natural man always seeks out first and foremost the things of the anthropon-man-faced, the `Az-paniym, fierce countenance, (Re: Deuteronomy 28:50, Daniel 8:23).

Matthew 16:23 KJV
23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Matthew 16:23 TUA
23. Ho de strafeis eipen to Petro, @''Hupage opisomou, Satana! Skandalon ei emou, hoti ou froneis ta touTheou alla ta ton anthropon.''^

''alla ta ton anthropon'' …
''contrariwise that of the anthropon-[andres-ops-countenance]'' …

Matthew 16:23-25
23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of the anthropon.
24. Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If any will come after me, let him utterly disown himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25. For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destroy it: and whosoever will apollumi-destroy his soul for my sake shall find it.

And now we come full circle right back to my first post in this thread:
For the man is porter of the door of his house ~

Genesis 4:6-7 KJV
6. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Sorry but that just does not seem to line up with everything else you have already posted.

I understand you feel that way....but , sorry -whether or not you agree has no real bearing on the intent behind what was said and whether the one who was posting to begin with knows what he was intending when he posted. I know my thoughts, what I've shared and have already seen before in other conversations where it was understood - and if you do not understand it, that's just it. You do not understand it - and IMHO, read instead your own understanding of what you heard rather than realizing what was actually said

No need to overcomplicate things beyond where they are.

However what you have posted, though I have read it, is simply too much at one time to sift through and try to cut apart into smaller portions; and to attempt to do so from such large summaries would make them appear as if taken out of context.

Actually, what was noted was not really that much - be it in detail or depth or complexity. I've dealt with far less in what others have done rather easily.

I will close here with what was stated in the beginning. Surely you already know this commandment but I would like you to notice something you may not be aware of from the Matthew 5:19 statement:

Matthew 5:17-19
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break [GSN#3089 luo] one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Original Strong's Ref. #3089
Romanized luo
Pronounced loo'-o
a primary verb; to ''loosen'' (literally or figuratively):
KJV--break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. Compare GSN4486.

Already aware of it and already shared on it before. Once again, when you argue against that which was NEVER in view or advocated, you create scenarios and issues that are not necessary ...and thus, complicate things beyond what is necessary. One can do better.

How hard could it have been for ''king James and his court'' to translate the Greek word ''luo'' into ''loosen''? The passage really is not speaking so much of law ''breakers'' as it is of those who would ''loosen'' the commandments or ''water them down'' so that what is written no longer has the original force because the meanings of key words have been changed or altered into ''loosened up'' meanings which make the commandments ineffectual:

Matthew 5:19
19. Whosoever therefore shall loosen one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Actually, the same argument you brought up has been addressed for years - and anyone aware of the Jonathan Mitchell New Testament will be well aware of the word choice for "loosen" as a preference...as it concerns the reality of how the context and word choice was focused on those who broke the law - in addition to others seeking to make it seem of no consequence, like others seeing where God hated same-sex relationships and then trying to make it out as if it didn't offend him. That said, Matthew 5:19 was never about "loosening" as a primary focus and it is tampering with the text to say otherwise. You may not realize that you're doing such, but it is what it is.


To destroy (καταλῦσα&#953 can be translated as meaning Lit., to loosen down, dissolve; Wyc., undo. Thus, the context of "destorying the Law" as Law Breakers do is very much present. As said best by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Mt 5:17-48. Identity of These Principles with Those of the Ancient Economy; in Contrast with the Reigning Traditional Teaching.
Exposition of Principles (Mt 5:17-20).

17. Think not that I am come-that I came.
to destroy the law, or the prophets-that is, "the authority and principles of the Old Testament." (On the phrase, see Mt 7:12; 22:40; Lu 16:16; Ac 13:15). This general way of taking the phrase is much better than understanding "the law" and "the prophets" separately, and inquiring, as many good critics do, in what sense our Lord could be supposed to meditate the subversion of each. To the various classes of His hearers, who might view such supposed abrogation of the law and the prophets with very different feelings, our Lord's announcement would, in effect, be such as this-"Ye who tremble at the word of the Lord, fear not that I am going to sweep the foundation from under your feet: Ye restless and revolutionary spirits, hope not that I am going to head any revolutionary movement: And ye who hypocritically affect great reverence for the law and the prophets, pretend not to find anything in My teaching derogatory to God's living oracles."
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil-Not to subvert, abrogate, or annul, but to establish the law and the prophets-to unfold them, to embody them in living form, and to enshrine them in the reverence, affection, and character of men, am I come.
​

Yeshua is quoted using the same terminology in the passage in question:

John 10:34-35
34. Yeshua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the graphe-holy writ cannot be luthenai-loosened;

If we loosen the meanings of elohim and theos then how can we truly understand the following?

Same principle as before - as the concept of loosened is in the same realm as "undo" or "dissolve" - and thus, Yeshua is correct when noting that the Law cannot be undone as it concerns meaning/what God said. Simple as that...and thus, correct when Yeshua notes that God was correct in pointing out that his servants were "gods" - sons of the Most High/Elohim.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by daq


2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV
3. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4. In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Corinthians 4:4 TUA
4. en hois ho Theos touaionos toutou etuflosen ta noemata ton apiston eisto me augasai {*} ton fotismon tou euangeliou tesdoxes tou Christou, hos estin eikon tou Theou.{*}

Who is ''ho theos tou aionos'' or ''the god of this age''? There is no God apart from YHWH, (as you have noted but some of the statements you make in that portion of your comments I agree to disagree with you) and there is therefore no need to post the manifold passages which proclaim this to be true.

Sorry, Daq - but you're working backwards on the issue by ignoring what the entirety of the OT points out repeatedly when it comes to the Lord being the "god of Gods" and making that plain in order to selectively focus on words/support your point from there. Addressing scripture in context doesn't work that way, Bruh

Historical Jewish thought was on MONOLATRY since they have repeatedly noted in the Jewish world that they were de-facto monotheists in practice while not denying the reality of other deities. The focus was on worship of other gods not being done as opposed to saying they did not exist - including in regards to the enemy/devil, who was deemed in scripture to be the "ruler of this world" ( Ephesians 2:1-3 Ephesians 6:11-13 1 John 5:18-20 ) - another way of saying he was, as Paul pointed out, the "god of this world." The name "god" is here given to him, not because he actually has the homage of the people of this world as their god, as the being who is really worshipped, or who has the affections of their hearts in the same way as it is given to idols. By "this world" is meant the wicked world; or the mass of people. He has dominion over the world. They obey his will; they execute his plans; they further his purposes, and they are his obedient subjects. He has subdued the world to himself, and was really adored in the place of the true God. One can also go/examine 1 Corinthians 10:20 where it was noted "They sacrificed to devils and not to God." Here it is meant by the declaration that Satan is the god of this world since the idolatrous world particularly is under his control, and subject to him.


"The god of this world" (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτο&#965 is a phrase that occurs only here in II Corinthians 4. One can compare Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 6:12, John 12:31, and John 14:30. Additionally, Satan is called god in the rabbinical writings. "The first God is the true God; but the second god is Samael." "The matron said, 'Our god is greater than thy God; for when thy God appeared to Moses in the bush, he hid his face; when, however, he saw the serpent, which is my god, he fled."'


God already noted multiple times the existence of other gods/elohim, noting that none were LIKE Him...and when looking for others like the Lord our God, there truly were none that could compare. No different than one saying "There's no other like Michael Jordan!!!!" when it comes to being the greatest Baskeball player in history...even though it doesn't mean there are not other Basketball players who have skill or love Basketball and making that clear when also saying "Amongst players, who is like Mike?"

The Lord saying "There is no God BESIDE me" is no different than one saying "There's no other like Michael Jordan!!!!" when it comes to being the greatest Baskeball player in history...even though it doesn't mean there are not other Basketball players who have skill or love Basketball and making that clear when also saying "Amongst players, who is like Mike?"

And the Lord already noted repeately in many scriptures where he said "Who AMONGST the gods is like the Lord?" It'd not make sense for one to say "Look at how great I am compared to my IMAGINARY Friend!!! Aren't I amazing??!"...and in the same way, it doesn't make sense to argue on the term "gods" somehow not meaning just that: real gods. Believing in the concept of beings deemed to be "gods" by the Lord makes His greatness all the more potent since it establishes that other beings exist who are powerful/feared by others.....and yet, they are fearful of the One True God who is ABOVE ALL ELSE in His creation.

As the Word makes clear:

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
Deuteronomy 10:16-18


Psalm 96:4
For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.

Psalm 136:2
Give thanks to the God of gods. His love endures forever.
​

Scripture with scripture - as the OLD Testament shows multiple times the concept of God as as being amongst other beings who are not worthy of worship and yet were given divine rulership/authority - thus making them "gods".

Psalm of Asaph.
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalms 82:1-8)

​

Note what is bolded above, it says that elohim (plural) stands in the council of el (singular), and He (YHWH) judges among the elohim.

And what would be the purpose of saying:

Among the elohim there is none like unto thee, O Adonay; neither are there any works like unto thy works. (Psalms 86:8)

​

How can this be if the elohim are nonexistant beings and only idols? The fact of the matter is that that elohim is a class of spiritual beings, whom YHWH created. These beings have the responsibility to bear His image and carry His message to mankind. They often act in YHWH's name and represent His authority, and there are some who have left their place and are now reserved in chains waiting their judgement.

Again, the scriptures do not say that YHWH is the only elohim. It says that He is the only Elohim that is the righteous savior. No other elohim can claim that distinction. Look up the word "besides" in Hebrew, it means that no other elohim exist without Him. He is the creator of all else, but exist with out being created Himself. There is no elohim beside (next to, of His stature) YHWH, in other words, there is none that compare to Him and can be raised to His position. YHWH is the only elohim that gives life and death. Read these verse with that in mind, and in light of other verses that clearly teach that there are other elohim. Elohim are a class of beings, just as humans are a class of beings.

Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is NO OTHER GOD BESIDES ME, a righteous God and a Savior; there is NONE EXCEPT ME." (Is. 45: 21b)

And: "I am the LORD and there is no other; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD....That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD and there is no other."(Is. 45:5-6, in part).

And: "See, now, that I am He, and THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME; it is I who put to death and give life..." (Deut. 32:39)


​

Read these verses carefully, they say that there is only one YHWH and there is no other YHWH. I assume that you don't have any problems with YHWH taking the nature of a human, His incarnation in humanity. So why would you object to Him taking on the nature of an elohim. YHWH is the Son of Man, and I would suggest that He is also Elohim among the elohim. That is, He is the God of gods. Else that statement would be nonsense and silly. He is not the God of idols..., but He is clearly and properly understood as the God of gods, the Elohim of elohim.

The difference between Elohim (God) and the other elohim (mini-god) is very significant. ..with them being related in the sense that the others are created by the Lord whereas the Lord is uncreated.

The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks (i.e. life, domain, kingdom, phylum, order, family, genus, and species, with class fitting between phylum and order), which is an example of definition by genus and differentia, may help to clarify alot of things. It's no different than saying, for example, that dogs are usually assigned to the phylum Chordata (animals with notochords), in the class Mammalia, in the order Carnivora.

To say that dogs are in the same class as dolphins would not be an issue since their sharing similarity in being air-breathing/possessing a placenta which feeds the offspring during gestation does not mean that they are automatically within the same species......and the same thing applies to the Spiritual realm.

The concept of Elohim (those apart of the Divine Council as well as the angels/differing types of angels, be it Seraphim or Cheribim or Archangels and others) who live in the Heavenlies...as well as the Elohim on the Earth (regarding the ways man was considered as a child/'"son of God", such as Adam in Luke 3:38 and others who were also considered sons/Elohim due to the divine authority they possessed from the Lord)....all of them are created by the Lord, THE ELOHIM and the ONLY one who is without beginning or end. Seeing how He is in the same "class" as other Elohim shouldn't be an issue, IMHO.

Just as God is SPIRIT (John 4)and all supernatural beings are Spirits (Yeshua included as I Corinthians 15:42-49 says He is a life-giving spirit ...and even man since his spirit will live on even when the flesh decays), all intelligent creations are in the same class as the Lord: SPIRIT. However, they are not the same kind of SPECIES as the Lord. For the species God is in is UNIQUE....

The race of angels can never have the kind of communion/relationship (or jurisdiction/ability) as man does since men were made in God's Image, having God's Sprit/being breated into them to become apart of their being. No other creature in existence has had the opportunity to experience that. Its part of why Hebrews 2:5-11 quotes Psalm 8, in speaking of Christ when it came to how God put Jesus in charge of everything. Psalm 8:3-9 makes clear that we have great worth because we bear the stamp of the Creator (Genesis 1:26, Genesis 1:27, etc) and have been given great authority to be in charge of the whole earth. That's a great responsibility...

There have been many good discussions on the issue from a scientific perspective that have often been quite intriguing. In example, I'm reminded of the work of "BioLogos" and Fancis Collins, a Biologists who believes in Jesus...yet supports evolutionary theory as a means of God creating life.

For more on what they've said on the issue, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective titles:

• "What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 1 | The BioLogos Foru"

• "What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos Foru"

• "What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 3 | The BioLogos Foru" ( )

• "On What It Means To Be An Image Bearer | The BioLogos Foru" ( )

And now we come full circle right back to my first post in this thread:
For the man is porter of the door of his house ~

Genesis 4:6-7 KJV
6. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Actually, although the scripture in Genesis 4 is valid as sin indeed must be mastered, we're back full circle to the issue of addressing the reality of how others have difficulty accepting what Yeshua said when noting his servants were "gods"/elohim and using other scriptures to say otherwise when that was never the intention.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

2 Corinthians 4:4 TUA
4. en hois ho Theos touaionos toutou etuflosen ta noemata ton apiston eisto me augasai {*} ton fotismon tou euangeliou tesdoxes tou Christou, hos estin eikon tou Theou.{*}

Who is ''ho theos tou aionos'' or ''the god of this age''? There is no God apart from YHWH..

Clarke's Commentary noted it best when pointing out the following:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

In whom the god of this world, etc. - We see here that those whose minds are blinded, are they who believe not; and because they believe not, their minds continue in darkness, and are proper subjects for Satan to work on; and he deepens the darkness, and increases the hardness. But who is meant by the god of this world? It is generally answered, the same who is called the prince of this world, John 16:11. But the question recurs, who is the prince of this world? and the answer to both is, Satan. The reader will do well to consult the notes on John 12:31, and the concluding observations on John 14:30. I must own I feel considerable reluctance to assign the epithet ὁ Θεος, The God, to Satan; and were there not a rooted prejudice in favor of the common opinion, the contrary might be well vindicated, viz. that by the God of this world the supreme Being is meant, who in his judgment gave over the minds of the unbelieving Jews to spiritual darkness, so that destruction came upon them to the uttermost. Satan, it is true, has said that the kingdoms of the world and their glory are his, and that he gives them to whomsoever he will; Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9.


But has God ever said so? and are we to take this assertion of the boasting devil and father of lies for truth? Certainly not. We are not willing to attribute the blinding of men's minds to God, because we sometimes forget that he is the God of justice, and may in judgment remove mercies from those that abuse them; but this is repeatedly attributed to him in the Bible, and the expression before us is quite a parallel to the following, Isaiah 6:9 : Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the Heart of this People Fat, and Make their Ears Heavy, and Shut their Eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, etc. And see the parallel places, Matthew 13:14, Matthew 13:15; Mark 4:12; John 12:40; and particularly Romans 11:8-10 : God Hath Given Them the Spirit of Slumber, Eyes that they Should not See, and Ears that they Should not Hear; let their Eyes be Darkened, etc. Now all this is spoken of the same people, in the same circumstances of wilful rebellion and obstinate unbelief; and the great God of heaven and earth is he who judicially blinds their eyes; makes their hearts fat, i.e. stupid; gives them the spirit of slumber: and bows down their back, etc. On these very grounds it is exceedingly likely that the apostle means the true God by the words the god of this world. And as to the expression this world, αιωνος τουτου, we are not to imagine that it necessarily means wicked men, or a wicked age; for it is frequently used to express the whole mundane system, and all that is called time: Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither εν τουτῳ τῳ αιωνι, in This World, nor in the world to come; Matthew 12:32. In Luke 20:34, the children, υἱοι του αιωνος τουτου, of This World, mean simply mankind at large in their state of probation in this lower world, in opposition to their state in the world to come. The same meaning the word has in several other places, to which l need not refer; it simply implying the present state of things, governed by the Divine providence, in contradistinction from the eternal state: and it is very remarkable that, in 1 Timothy 1:17, God himself is called Βασιλευς των αιωνων, the King of the World; what we call King eternal; but here it evidently means him who governs both worlds, and rules in time and eternity.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am not that familiar with that... is it like "name it and claim it" stuff?

If so, I agree with you that it can be dangerous, indeed.

A lot of the focus many times was simply about how what you say has consequences - like claiming you're always "sick" rather than declaring according to what the Word says when it comes to seeing Christ as He is, God's provision as a healer and his faithfulness...and the same thing when always talking on how depressed you are/creating a depressing environment rather than doing as David did in Psalm 42 and encouragint himself in the Lord so that he'd have life.

Some of where it got crazy in other circles is when others assumed claiming positive confession meant DENYING circumstances - like refusing to acknowledge that you had a serious sickness due to thinking it'd come to pass instead of being honest on it and being able to get help. Used to hate it whenever others would ask me how I was doing and then (in the event I said "I'm alright just a bit stressed") I'd get rebuked with "No you're blessed!!!! Don't claim stress!!!"...for to me, when I read the Psalms and other biblical characters in actions, I was thinking they were very honest with where they were at BEFORE looking to the Lord/seeing him.

The same people who would do those things I noted would often go for the other extreme of thinking you could get something SOLELY by "claiming it" - and thus, you could be spending your finances HORRIBLY...but then think you'd get rich if you proclaim a million dollars to come forth. Hated it everytime I saw it..

 

[daq]

Way too much again, (though I have read all of it again) and this was exactly why I attempted to leave it alone before you did what you have now done. However, I would like to make it clear that by ''loosening'' it actually makes the text worse for those who do so and teach others to do the same. This was one of those cases where the translators ''tightened up'' the meaning of this word into ''BREAKING'' the law to cover for all of the ''LOOSENING'' they did everywhere else because of the KJV anti-Torah bias that runs throughout the NT and especially in the writings of Paul. Everyone in the time that Yeshua spoke those words knew that the Law did not concern ''salvation'' as we think of it today but rather commandments and agreements as part of the holy covenant and commonwealth of Israel. Those who broke the law, (unintentionally) had recourse according to the covenant but those who attempted to change the meanings and understandings of it did so willfully and to their own destruction. When Yeshua says that the statement from Psalm 82 cannot be ''loosened'' it means you are not allowed to say it means anything else then what it means and this directly applies to the word 'elohiym that is found there. 'Elohiym does not traditionally denote part of a ''divine council'' or even Seraphim, or Cherubim, or Archangels. Thus, again, you missed my point that you are loosening the meaning of the word by what you are doing right here and for that reason I was indeed attempting to avoid this. As for the rest of what you have posted for the most part we do not agree to agree.

PS -- This also pertains and is not one of those kinds of ''prophecies'' I would myself want to be fulfilling:

Daniel 11:29-32 KJV
29. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
30. For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake [HSN#5800 `azab] the holy covenant.
31. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

Original Strong's Ref. #5800
Romanized `azab
Pronounced aw-zab'
a primitive root; to loosen, i.e. relinquish, permit, etc.
KJV--commit self, fail, forsake, fortify, help, leave (destitute, off), refuse, X surely.

BDB Definition for Strong's Ref. #5800
05800 // bze // `azab // aw-zab' //
a primitive root; TWOT - 1594,1595; v
AV - forsake 129, leave 72, leave off 4, faileth 2, fortify 2, help 2, committeth 1, destitute 1, refuseth 1, surely 1; 215

1) to leave, loose, forsake
1a) (Qal) to leave
1a1) to depart from, leave behind, leave, let alone
1a2) to leave, abandon, forsake, neglect, apostatise
1a3) to let loose, set free, let go, free
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be left to
1b2) to be forsaken
1c) (Pual) to be deserted
2) to restore, repair
2a) (Qal) to repair

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Way too much again,

Way too much overcomplicating things that are simple again - and it is not necessary. Of course, if you have a tendency to read for what supports what you've already determined to see rather than go point for point what's in scripture, it makes understanding more difficult.. Again, it is what it is

though I have read all of it again) and this was exactly why I attempted to leave it alone before you did what you have now done. However, I would like to make it clear that by ''loosening'' it actually makes the text worse for those who do so and teach others to do the same. This was one of those cases where the translators ''tightened up'' the meaning of this word into ''BREAKING'' the law to cover for all of the ''LOOSENING'' they did everywhere else because of the KJV anti-Torah bias that runs throughout the NT and especially in the writings of Paul. Everyone in the time that Yeshua spoke those words knew that the Law did not concern ''salvation'' as we think of it today but rather commandments and agreements as part of the holy covenant and commonwealth of Israel. Those who broke the law, (unintentionally) had recourse according to the covenant but those who attempted to change the meanings and understandings of it did so willfully and to their own destruction.

Has nothing remotely to do with history, seeing that there were consequences in the Law for those who failed to uphold it and not go with the system in the Law God gave for getting right with Him. It was already figured from before the moment you brought up the loosening argument that you'd try to go down the route you've chosen - but again, it is without historical basis, whether one accepts that or not. It was never the KJV bias that focused on seeing "loosening"..and thus, it is a false scenario/moot point trying to focus on it as if it's significant.

When Yeshua says that the statement from Psalm 82 cannot be ''loosened'' it means you are not allowed to say it means anything else then what it means and this directly applies to the word 'elohiym that is found there. 'Elohiym does not traditionally denote part of a ''divine council'' or even Seraphim, or Cherubim, or Archangels. Thus, again, you missed my point that you are loosening the meaning of the word by what you are doing right here and for that reason I was indeed attempting to avoid this. As for the rest of what you have posted for the most part we do not agree to agree.

PS -- This also pertains and is not one of those kinds of ''prophecies''

Incorrect, for anyone remotely aware of Jewish history and how the text was interpreted - both in meaning Divine COuncil/angelic beings as well as the lower reality of men with divine authority.

Unless one actually has history to verify the point of Psalm 82 not meaning Divine Council and unless one can deal with the extensive myriad of Jewish rabbis/commentators throughout history who pointed on where it was on the Divine Council, you are speaking devoid of context. Thus again, your argument is without merit and you argue selectively to support a point you want rather than dealing comprehensively. That's Begging the Question and it doesn't do well for addressing what God said

Again, it is upon you to show where history verifies that Psalm 82 was not speaking in regards to the concept of a Divine COuncil and Elohim.

I would myself want to be fulfilling:

Daniel 11:29-32 KJV
29. At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
30. For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake [HSN#5800 `azab] the holy covenant.
31. And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

Original Strong's Ref. #5800
Romanized `azab
Pronounced aw-zab'
a primitive root; to loosen, i.e. relinquish, permit, etc.
KJV--commit self, fail, forsake, fortify, help, leave (destitute, off), refuse, X surely.

BDB Definition for Strong's Ref. #5800
05800 // bze // `azab // aw-zab' //
a primitive root; TWOT - 1594,1595; v
AV - forsake 129, leave 72, leave off 4, faileth 2, fortify 2, help 2, committeth 1, destitute 1, refuseth 1, surely 1; 215

1) to leave, loose, forsake
1a) (Qal) to leave
1a1) to depart from, leave behind, leave, let alone
1a2) to leave, abandon, forsake, neglect, apostatise
1a3) to let loose, set free, let go, free
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be left to
1b2) to be forsaken
1c) (Pual) to be deserted
2) to restore, repair
2a) (Qal) to repair

Seeing that the scripture really has nothing to do with what you're doing (or fulfilling), there are better things to try focusing on

 

[daq]

Unless one actually has history to verify the point of Psalm 82 not meaning Divine Council and unless one can deal with the extensive myriad of Jewish rabbis/commentators throughout history who pointed on where it was on the Divine Council, you are speaking devoid of context. Thus again, your argument is without merit and you argue selectively to support a point you want rather than dealing comprehensively. That's Begging the Question and it doesn't do well for addressing what God said

Again, it is upon you to show where history verifies that Psalm 82 was not speaking in regards to the concept of a Divine COuncil and Elohim.

Ummm, that was my point to begin with. Show me where God says what you have said and then you might convince me if I agree with your interpretaion of it. Otherwise you are expecting me to believe that I need your version of history to verify holy writ according to your interpretation of His story. What things I have shared with you I have also provided Scripture writings for my reasoning. What you are not understanding is that Yeshua already interpreted the statement from Psalm 82 and one either believes his interpretation of it or one does not. It really is that simple. As for the Daniel passage it is indeed relevant because the ''abomination of desolation'' takes place in the heart of the man, which is the temple of the Creator, and that also is directly from the teachings of the Master.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ummm, that was my point to begin with.

Err..and your point was rather pointless due to asking a question without first addressing what was already given. That's like jumping into a conversation on Hispanic dances present in history (with differing dance styles discussed) and then asking "Show me where Hispanics ever loved to dance!!!"...as it's argument via ignoral. Doesn't do well in discussion - and again, it's begging the question since a conclusion is already assumed without verifying the conclusions correct

Show me where God says what you have said and then you might convince me if I agree with your interpretaion of it. Otherwise you are expecting me to believe that I need your version of history to verify holy writ according to your interpretation of His story.

When you actually deal with history and show - at ANY POINT - that the Jewish people did not believe in a DIvine COuncil or felt Psalm 82 did not point to such, then you'll be able talk about history. Thus far, all you've done is a "Prove it!!!" without dealing with much of anything else...and instead offering up your interpretation of it divorced from what history actually has said.

History is history - and if one cannot deal with that, that's fine. But it is what it is. And there are plenty of others who've addressed that repeatedly. For the casual reader, one can consider THIS..And AND THIS and HERE as well (as it concerns the Divine Council in Second Temple Judaism, the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible as well). Or one can take a listen to the audio on this page.

• We Live In a Matrix World with Dr. Michael S. Heiser – Episode 90

Heiser absolutely destroys the arguments given against the Divine Council.

What things I have shared with you I have also provided Scripture writings for my reasoning

Scripture writings you already divorced from other scriptures multiple times - and thus, incomplete in both analysis/scriptural basis. That also goes for not dealing with showing the view you hold to as supported by history.

Yeshua already interpreted the statement from Psalm 82 and one either believes his interpretation of it or one does not

Indeed- and thus, you need to follow your own advice/deal with the scripture as Yeshua discussed it alongside multiple other Jewish believers for ages when it came to the concept of Elohim/Divine council. Thus far, all you've shown is that you really don't understand Yeshua as He presented himself and instead would prefer an interpretation of him that fits what you desire. It's that simple, Bruh.

Either deal with it or not. But the Word of GOD is plain and it on you to deal with it if able.

As for the Daniel passage it is indeed relevant because the ''abomination of desolation'' takes place in the heart of the man, which is the temple of the Creator, and that also is directly from the teachings of the Master.

Another passage you are taking out of context for the sake of suiting your desire (as that passage was focused on the rise of the anti-christ and being aware of it, as opposed to saying one wants to guard their heart against being that man and concluding a viewpoint on Psalm 82 about Elohim is on that)- but everyone's at a differing point in life - and thus, God is faithful.

 

[daq]

Err..and your point was rather pointless due to asking a question without first addressing what was already given. That's like jumping into a conversation on Hispanic dances present in history (with differing dance styles discussed) and then asking "Show me where Hispanics ever loved to dance!!!"...as it's argument via ignoral. Doesn't do well in discussion - and again, it's begging the question since a conclusion is already assumed without verifying the conclusions correct


When you actually deal with history and show - at ANY POINT - that the Jewish people did not believe in a DIvine COuncil or felt Psalm 82 did not point to such, then you'll be able talk about history. Thus far, all you've done is a "Prove it!!!" without dealing with much of anything else...and instead offering up your interpretation of it divorced from what history actually has said.

History is history - and if one cannot deal with that, that's fine. But it is what it is. And there are plenty of others who've addressed that repeatedly. For the casual reader, one can consider THIS..And AND THIS and HERE as well (as it concerns the Divine Council in Second Temple Judaism, the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible as well). Or one can take a listen to the audio on this page.

• We Live In a Matrix World with Dr. Michael S. Heiser – Episode 90

Heiser absolutely destroys the arguments given against the Divine Council.

Scripture writings you already divorced from other scriptures multiple times - and thus, incomplete in both analysis/scriptural basis. That also goes for not dealing with showing the view you hold to as supported by history.

Indeed- and thus, you need to follow your own advice/deal with the scripture as Yeshua discussed it alongside multiple other Jewish believers for ages when it came to the concept of Elohim/Divine council. Thus far, all you've shown is that you really don't understand Yeshua as He presented himself and instead would prefer an interpretation of him that fits what you desire. It's that simple, Bruh.

Either deal with it or not. But the Word of GOD is plain and it on you to deal with it if able.

Another passage you are taking out of context for the sake of suiting your desire (as that passage was focused on the rise of the anti-christ and being aware of it, as opposed to saying one wants to guard their heart against being that man and concluding a viewpoint on Psalm 82 about Elohim is on that)- but everyone's at a differing point in life - and thus, God is faithful.

Go look for yourself and see how many times HSN#5712 `edah is employed for THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY-CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL. It is metaphor because most of us know we are not ''gods'' though so many of us IMAGINE ourselves as such in the vain imaginations and machinations of our own minds, (''the chambers of our imagery'').
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

As for Daniel, again, it was not taken out of context. There are only three places where ''bedlugma'' (or possibly the Aramaic equivalent) is employed in all of the four Gospel accounts. Two of the usages are companion passages which record the same statement from the Olivet Discourse. This means that Yeshua only used the word for abomination on two separate occasions as far as what we have recorded during his ministry. In addition it is highly speculative to suggest any other meaning than what he teaches concerning what is considered an abomination to the Creator.

Matthew 24:15 KJV
15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, [whoso readeth, let him understand:]

Mark 13:14 KJV
14. But when ye shall see the abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, [let him that readeth understand,] then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Original Strong's Ref. #946
Romanized bdelugma
Pronounced bdel'-oog-mah
from GSN0948; a detestation, i.e. (specially) idolatry:
KJV--abomination.

Luke 16:14-15 KJV
14. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] in the sight of God.

Yeshua gives the interpretation, and again, one either believes it or not.
And the same word does not appear again until Revelation 17.
Also this interpretation is supported by manifold passages ~

Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
16. These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Go look for yourself and see how many times HSN#5712 `edah is employed for THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY-CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL. It is metaphor because most of us know we are not ''gods'' though so many of us IMAGINE ourselves as such in the vain imaginations and machinations of our own minds, (''the chambers of our imagery'').
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon.

HSN#5712 has a context (already discussed) when it comes to the assembly of Israel and other things noted on it. Trying to be selective on it does you no good in argument and it doesn't deal remotely with how others in Jewish culture used the language of "god" to refer to things - be it rulers with authority or the Divine Elohim. The argument of metaphor is what many in the world of Christendom have been doing for a long time when trying to make everything into that in order to avoid dealing with the context - and it doesn't address how the Jewish worldview understood things. Of course, the reasons behind the silliness of doing that is because men often think of their own views more highly than the Lords' - and to see themselves as God noted in the scriptures (i.e. gods) is offensive to them/something they feel would offend God even though they offend them in the process with their own imaginations.

If/when one doesn't see themselves the way the Lord does, they end up doing blasphemy/denying the Lord and there's no way around that one. ..and what Christ/The Torah noted is what should be remembered.

Again, until you can credibly deal with what was taught in Judaism - be it Second Temple Judaism or Monolatry and many other things - you are simply speaking without reference - and are thus divorced from Jewish cultural understanding on the issue. Men have been deemed by the Lord himself as being "gods" and with His Divien Spirit. It's a concept often expressed in Middle Eastern culture - similar to others saying we are Christ on the Earth since we are His Body (I Corinthians 12) and thus His reflection of Glory on the Earth - even though Christ exists elsewhere ruling and reigning over all Creation. Same dynamic when scripture noted in Exodus 7:1-9 "So the LORD said to Moses: 'See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.'" (NKJV)...with the Lord being Surpreme and yet those on the Earth being a symbol of representation of who God was.

It is what it is

As for Daniel, again, it was not taken out of context. There are only three places where ''bedlugma'' (or possibly the Aramaic equivalent) is employed in all of the four Gospel accounts. Two of the usages are companion passages which record the same statement from the Olivet Discourse. This means that Yeshua only used the word for abomination on two separate occasions as far as what we have recorded during his ministry. In addition it is highly speculative to suggest any other meaning than what he teaches concerning what is considered an abomination to the Creator.

Matthew 24:15 KJV
15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, [whoso readeth, let him understand:]

Mark 13:14 KJV
14. But when ye shall see the abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, [let him that readeth understand,] then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

Original Strong's Ref. #946
Romanized bdelugma
Pronounced bdel'-oog-mah
from GSN0948; a detestation, i.e. (specially) idolatry:
KJV--abomination.

Luke 16:14-15 KJV
14. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
15. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination [GSN#946 bdelugma] in the sight of God.

Irrelevant (as well as out of place) to what is being discussed. If one's going to make things up as they go along, so be it.

Yeshua gives the interpretation, and again, one either believes it or not.

Indeed. SAdly, you've yet to show that you can credibly go with Yeshua's interpretation or the context he was speaking in. Everyone's at a different spot in life and some things are understandable as they take time.

 

[daq]

HSN#5712 has a context (already discussed) when it comes to the assembly of Israel and other things noted on it. Trying to be selective on it does you no good in argument and it doesn't deal remotely with how others in Jewish culture used the language of "god" to refer to things - be it rulers with authority or the Divine Elohim. The argument of metaphor is what many in the world of Christendom have been doing for a long time when trying to make everything into that in order to avoid dealing with the context - and it doesn't address how the Jewish worldview understood things. Of course, the reasons behind the silliness of doing that is because men often think of their own views more highly than the Lords' - and to see themselves as God noted in the scriptures (i.e. gods) is offensive to them/something they feel would offend God even though they offend them in the process with their own imaginations.

If/when one doesn't see themselves the way the Lord does, they end up doing blasphemy/denying the Lord and there's no way around that one. ..and what Christ/The Torah noted is what should be remembered.

Again, until you can credibly deal with what was taught in Judaism - be it Second Temple Judaism or Monolatry and many other things - you are simply speaking without reference - and are thus divorced from Jewish cultural understanding on the issue. Men have been deemed by the Lord himself as being "gods" and with His Divien Spirit. It's a concept often expressed in Middle Eastern culture - similar to others saying we are Christ on the Earth since we are His Body (I Corinthians 12) and thus His reflection of Glory on the Earth - even though Christ exists elsewhere ruling and reigning over all Creation. Same dynamic when scripture noted in Exodus 7:1-9 "So the LORD said to Moses: 'See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.'" (NKJV)...with the Lord being Surpreme and yet those on the Earth being a symbol of representation of who God was.

It is what it is

Who was it that objected to this statement?

Just read a few pages of that thread but did not want to dredge it up from the abyss. However, perhaps ''Ye are gods'' indeed but not in the sense of the good way in which the man invariably tends to think of himself? For the same reason Yeshua did not commit himself unto men, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man'' (Jn.2:24-25). Thus the ''Ye are gods'' statement is not a good thing when compared to the commandment:

Exodus 20:1-3 KJV
1. And God spake all these words, saying,
2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The commandment includes ourselves because he states: ''Ye are gods'' ...

Isaiah 14:16-17
16. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17. That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

''Therefore beware the anthropon-man-faced; for they will deliver you up to the sanhedrins, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for the sake of Yeshua, for a testimony against them and the heathen'' ...

I think the usage of Exodus 20:1-3 is off a bit due to the full context of what Yeshua noted when saying "Ye Are Gods" in the positive form. And although man can glorify himself needlessly and think of himself as a "god" when he really isn't (in the sense of glorifying himself), it doesn't mean that God did not make man God-Like.

There was much within Jewish thought/Eastern culture that was in no way against the concept that man was a "god"...as that was never seen as counter to the fact that God is the Creator of man and man will never become like him. Nonetheless, he is an Elohim.

You are swimming in circles and suddenly now you agree? Even insomuch that now you begin to argue my own statements as if it was you who took that side and myself who was against my self while you were right and justified in your understanding all along? Yeshua quotes the passage and says ''Ye are gods'', and the Scripture cannot be loosened. Therefore, O little horn, be careful not to put yourself before your Maker.

Irrelevant (as well as out of place) to what is being discussed. If one's going to make things up as they go along, so be it.
Indeed. SAdly, you've yet to show that you can credibly go with Yeshua's interpretation or the context he was speaking in. Everyone's at a different spot in life and some things are understandable as they take time.

Do you not pay any attention to thread topics? Tsebiy side of evil ...
The tsebiy of Israel is slain upon thy high places: how are the mighty fallen!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Who was it that objected to this statement?




You are swimming in circles and suddenly now you agree?

Again, context -and no need for dodging, as you started off in objection when making the claim that God said there were no other gods but him (in response to something I had said to another) and claimed that what Yeshua claimed was not/could not be in reference to other elohim.

If you're going attempt spinning/avoiding the issues, one can do better than be that obvious on it.

Even insomuch that now you begin to argue my own statements as if it was you who took that side and myself who was against my self while you were right and justified in your understanding all along?

Wrong..again...as you already made arguments (as I directly noted to you earlier) against that which was NEVER said - due to you failing to understand properly what was said when making the strawman arguments. Again, one can do better.

Yeshua quotes the passage and says ''Ye are gods'', and the Scripture cannot be loosened. Therefore, O little horn, be careful not to put yourself before your Maker.

Indeed - thus, for anyone denying what Yeshua said when pointing that ELOHIM - both in the form of lower ones like men and higher ones such as the angels - exist and that it is proper to see them as such, one must be careful to not think more of their own wisdom (and really, false modesty if trying to say "Oh no, that can't be true or what man is!!!") and end up placing themselvs above how God said it.

Do you not pay any attention to thread topics?

Seeing that others have actually noted the same to you, I can see why they say so - as the amount of avoidance of what was said in context and then claiming after the fact as if other things were said is a pity...btu again, everyone is at a differing place.

You can better than what you've done thus far...but if you continue to fail at paying proper attention to what was said and instead respond to your imaginations of what you felt others said, you are essentially arguing against yourself. Only God can help you with that one. Wisdom is easily found by those who seek it rather than avoid it.

 

[daq]

Again, context -and no need for dodging, as you started off in objection when making the claim that God said there were no other gods but him (in response to something I had said to another) and claimed that what Yeshua claimed was not/could not be in reference to other elohim.

If you're going attempt spinning/avoiding the issues, one can do better than be that obvious on it.
Wrong..again...as you already made arguments (as I directly noted to you earlier) against that which was NEVER said - due to you failing to understand properly what was said when making the strawman arguments. Again, one can do better.
Indeed - thus, for anyone denying what Yeshua said when pointing that ELOHIM - both in the form of lower ones like men and higher ones such as the angels - exist and that it is proper to see them as such, one must be careful to not think more of their own wisdom (and really, false modesty if trying to say "Oh no, that can't be true or what man is!!!") and end up placing themselvs above how God said it.Seeing that others have actually noted the same to you, I can see why they say so - as the amount of avoidance of what was said in context and then claiming after the fact as if other things were said is a pity...btu again, everyone is at a differing place.

You can better than what you've done thus far...but if you continue to fail at paying proper attention to what was said and instead respond to your imaginations of what you felt others said, you are essentially arguing against yourself. Only God can help you with that one. Wisdom is easily found by those who seek it rather than avoid it.

Perhaps the following might clarify:

Red bold emphasis mine ~

I think the usage of Exodus 20:1-3 is off a bit due to the full context of what Yeshua noted when saying "Ye Are Gods" in the positive form. And although man can glorify himself needlessly and think of himself as a "god" when he really isn't (in the sense of glorifying himself), it doesn't mean that God did not make man God-Like.

There was much within Jewish thought/Eastern culture that was in no way against the concept that man was a "god"...as that was never seen as counter to the fact that God is the Creator of man and man will never become like him. Nonetheless, he is an Elohim.

The critical error becomes readily apparent when one makes statements suggesting that man is ''Nonetheless, an Elohim'' and concludes that Yeshua means this in a ''good way'' insomuch that by this reasoning then a man who is ''in Messiah'' is supposedly now a ''good Elohim'' according to this mindset. This may not have been explicitly stated in these exact terms but these are the end results of the reasoning. The error of this reasoning is revealed in what remains of the statement from John where Yeshua claims not to be ''an Elohim'' but rather ''Son of Elohim''.

John 10:34-36 KJV
34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? [Huios tou Theou?]

By the context, including Psalm 82, Yeshua claims to be Son of Theou-Elohim.

The error is therefore evident to the one who believes the following statements:

1) Yeshua claims to be Son of the Theou-Elohim (not the Theou-Elohim).
2) The disciple and servant is not greater than, or above, his Master.

Matthew 10:24-25 KJV
24. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

3) There is none ''good'' but one, that is, the Theou-Elohim.

Mark 10:17-18 KJV
17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

4) Yeshua was not ashamed to call the congregation his brethren.

Hebrews 2:10-12 ASV
10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11. For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12. saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise.

5) If then one is truly ''in Messiah'' he is not ''an Elohim'' but a son of Elohim.
6) The one claiming to be ''an Elohim'' and ''good'' has suffered catastrophic error.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps the following might clarify:

Red bold emphasis mine ~



The critical error becomes readily apparent when one makes statements suggesting that man is ''Nonetheless, an Elohim'' and concludes that Yeshua means this in a ''good way'' insomuch that by this reasoning then a man who is ''in Messiah'' is supposedly now a ''good Elohim'' according to this mindset.

Wrong - and again, you've not dealt with at any point where other Jewish rabbis, teachers or Jewish commentators have said for ages.

Until you're able to do that, you are against history/the context. Period.

We're done until there can be honest addressment of that simple reality, Bruh. For making an argument based on how you'd prefer it or what you feel the text means is not the same as addressing how the early Hebrew community noted the issue to be..

The error of this reasoning is revealed in what remains of the statement from John where Yeshua claims not to be ''an Elohim'' but rather ''Son of Elohim''.

John 10:34-36 KJV
34. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35. If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36. Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? [Huios tou Theou?]

By the context, including Psalm 82, Yeshua claims to be Son of Theou-Elohim.

The error is therefore evident to the one who believes the following statements:

1) Yeshua claims to be Son of the Theou-Elohim (not the Theou-Elohim).
2) The disciple and servant is not greater than, or above, his Master.

Matthew 10:24-25 KJV
24. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

3) There is none ''good'' but one, that is, the Theou-Elohim.

Mark 10:17-18 KJV
17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

4) Yeshua was not ashamed to call the congregation his brethren.

Hebrews 2:10-12 ASV
10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11. For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12. saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise.

5) If then one is truly ''in Messiah'' he is not ''an Elohim'' but a son of Elohim.
6) The one claiming to be ''an Elohim'' and ''good'' has suffered catastrophic error.

Again, at this point, this is comical in the responses since nothing said there remotely deals with what Yeshua noted of himself when it came to DIRECT claims of Him being God - be it claiming HE WAS THE RESURRECTION/THE LIFE (John 11) or saying that others who saw Him saw the FATHER (John 14) and John 10 where he claimed himseldf to be God directly in proclaiming "Before Abraham was, I AM!!" - and thus, one can't leap frog around the text with scripture and think it is Biblical. Even the "Why do you call me Good? No one is Good except God" has been discussed before - as it concerns Christ not being content to just be deemed as a "good teacher" since only GOD is truly GOOD - and He was God.

Christ shared in the humanity of men, as Hebrews 2 notes, yet he also was above them due to his own divnity (per Colossians 2 and Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 4) - and thus, you refute yourself even as you talk on the text. And as brothers of Christ conformed to HIS IMAGE (Romans 8:29 amongst others) and being "sons of God", we're elohim. That's what the term "SONS OF God" was about whenever it was used - and the same with the concept CHILDREN of GOd by trust in Christ.

By the logic you use, Yeshua is not God and never claimed equality with the Father - which is falsehood and against the teachings of CHrist. Period. And by the logic you use, because Yeshua claimed to be Elohim, it means that no one else can be - and yet that's now what Paul or anyone else taught. Sorry...but you aren't teaching anything remotely related to Judaism right now.

As you continue making things up as you go along, sadly, you continue making silly errors where there's no need. And as already stated earlier on the issue, from a Jewish perspective:

I think the usage of Exodus 20:1-3 is off a bit due to the full context of what Yeshua noted when saying "Ye Are Gods" in the positive form. And although man can glorify himself needlessly and think of himself as a "god" when he really isn't (in the sense of glorifying himself), it doesn't mean that God did not make man God-Like.

There was much within Jewish thought/Eastern culture that was in no way against the concept that man was a "god"...as that was never seen as counter to the fact that God is the Creator of man and man will never become like him. Nonetheless, he is an Elohim.

On the Jewish perspective, on John 10:31-33, within its larger context:

John 10:20-33
....Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
​

With John 10:31-33, one must remember that the Jews had already made clear that they claimed the ENTIRE Torah was theirs and that they were going to stone Jesus for it when he seemed to break it for claiming He was God. They felt that the Law God had given them in Exodus 20 was being broken when it came to Jesus doing what it was that they were going to stone Him for previously in John 8:59...and that issue was self-identificaiton as God, which they understood to be blasphemy. Their understanding of BLASPHEMY was based on how claiming to be God and, specifically, pronouncing God's name (as Yeshua had just done) were punishable by death (Leviticus 24:15-16 and Mishna Sanhedrin 7:5, "The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the NAME.")

With John 10:34-36, the phrase "Your Torah" is something that is often read without other considerations. For here, "Torah" means "Tanakh, " since the passage quoted is from the Psalms, not the Pentateuch. When Jesus says "You people are Elohim", here Greek theoi ("gods"), in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 the word "elohim" may be translated "God," "gods," "judges" or "angels." Yeshua's rabbinic mode of Bible citation implies the context of the whole psalm (Matthew 2:6), which plays on these meanings:

"Elohim [God] stands in the congregation of EL [God]:
He judges among the elohim [judges/angels/gods]: How long
will you judge unjustly?..I have said , "You are elohim [judges/angels/gods],
All of you are sons of the Most High."
Nevertheless you will all die like a man
And fall like one of the princes.'
Arise, Elohim [God (the Judge)], and judge the earth,
For you will inherit all the nations." (Psalm 82:1-2, 6-8).
​

And again, to be clear, it needs to be understood that in Judaism the citation of a Scripture text implies the whole context, not merely the quoted words. And with what Jesus quoted on Psalm 82, the first and last "Elohim" mean "God," but the others should be rendered "judges," "gods" or "angels." Yeshua's wordplay implies a rabbinic-style kal v' chomer argument (Matthew 6:30): if humans, who do evil works as they "judge unjustly" are elohim, how much more is Yeshua, who does good works (John 10:25, John 10:32-33, John 10:37-38, etc) Elohim; and if "all of you are sons of the Most High," how much more does the description "Son of God" apply to Yeshua.

Moving beyond that, one can also consider again John 15:24-26

24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[a]
​

​

The phrase "Their law ..." stresses the inordinate regard the priests had for the external features of Moses' law (which is what Christ was frequently against when it came to the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law in legalistic/"Letter of the Law" thinking rather than the intent of the Law---Love, which is what God has repeatedly noted is the TRUE Law. With the religious leaders, it was "theirs" in the sense of the affectionate regard they professed for it, while actually denying it by their sinful conduct. Note that the quotation ascribed to "the law" was not from the Pentateuch, thus revealing that the term "law" was a reference to the entire Old Testament.

Being made in the Image of God/His LIKENESS, I choose to believe that man was made to be like him...as well as recognizing that God will always be superior to man/the Savior and Master of all.

This goes back to what happened at the Fall of man when he fell from the State he was in...as many are of the thought that man, as he participated with the Spirit of God/followed him, was in the process of glorification---becoming a "god"/"son of God" and elohim just as it is when men are called to grow in reflecting the Lord/becoming more like him.

I definately agree with the thought that "gods" can be equated with "judges"...especially when considering things such as Psalm 82 and how those in the community had been commissioned by God to rule with justice/reflect Him in their administration for the oppressed. Its similar to the dynamic of divine agency...and in line with what it means to be truly a "son of god" when one reflects his character/heart.

.....On John 10:33-35 where Jesus said to the Jews "You are gods"...for commentary on the issue (IVP New Testament Commentaries ):

Jesus defends his claim using language they should be able to understand, through an appeal to the law. He cites a text that uses the word god of those who are not God: Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? (v. 34). It is unclear who is being referred to in Psalm 82:6. Of the several proposals made by scholars (cf. Beasley-Murray 1987:176-77), the most likely takes this as a reference either to Israel's judges or to the people of Israel as they receive the law. The latter is a common understanding among the rabbis (for example, b. 'Aboda Zara 5a; Exodus Rabbah 32:7), but the former is also represented in Jewish interpretation (Midrash Psalms; b. Sanhedrin 6b; 7a; b. Sota 47b). Jesus' explanation that these gods are those to whom the word of God came (v. 35) might point to the Israelites receiving the law. In this case the contrast between these gods and Jesus would be that Jesus is the one who both fulfills the law and is greater than the law.

But this expression to whom the word of God came could also refer to the judges (as suggested by the rest of Ps 82) who have received a commission from God to exercise the divine prerogative of judgment on his behalf. The psalm is actually a condemnation of the judges for not exercising their responsibility faithfully, thus corresponding both to the condemnation of these Jewish leaders in John and to Jesus as the true judge.

To make his point Jesus uses an argument from the lesser to the greater, a very common form of argument in the ancient world, not least among the rabbis. He compares the people who are called gods to himself, the Son of God. They merely received the word of God, whereas he is the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world (v. 36). Here is a succinct summary of the central truth of his identity, which has been emphasized throughout this Gospel. He is using the language of an agent (see note on 5:21), but the implication is that he existed with the Father before coming into the world. Thus, he is putting himself in the category of the law that was given by God rather than in the category of one of the recipients of that law. By saying he was set apart ("consecrated," hagiazo) he is claiming a status similar to the temple, whose reconsecration these opponents are celebrating at this feast.
​

Many people may be unaware of the actual history behind the time when this psalm was written, as this short psalm is a vindictive pronouncement against corrupt judges. "Gods" in Cannaanite culture, was spoken in a time when the heads of clans, tribes, or city-kings were highly venerated by following generations and often recieving the title of "gods"...and obvious is the fact that Jesus quoted in John 10:34 to defend his claim to sonship. Since all the Jewish leaders were called "gods....children of the Most High

.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I thought she was speaking against the "we are gods" thing when I watched the video. I thought it was very informative and agreed with most everything she said.

There was a good review on the issue found in Psalm 82: The Judgment of the Gods' | Bible.org - Worlds ...



As another individual noted elsewhere in #45 :

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

One side keeps a very strict and tight definition where "god" only refers to the Almighty, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator and such a word is reserved only for Him. The other side uses a broader definition for the word "god" to include divine beings and godlike attributes/qualities such as authority, status, etc..

So on the latter definition someone who partakes in YHWH's Authority would be a god, not in the sense of Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Creator, but in the sense of ruling with Yahweh's authority. Or to say someone is a "child of God" on the latter definition means they are a "god", not in the sense that they ARE ALMIGHTY or something, but in the sense that they have been adopted into His family as a child. Note this is a difference in definitions, not a difference in ontology (which would be beyond heresey if it were).

I would humbly submit that the bible uses in term "god" (elohim in Hebrew, theos in Greek) in a broader sense to include, at times, angels and humans. One such tough example is from Psalm 82 (among other places):

82:1 God stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Here in this Psalm, it's fairly obvious that the "gods" that "God" stands in front of are not human, even though later Rabbi's would believe that the "elohim" (gods) in this Psalm were in fact human. In either interpretation, the term "god" is used to refer to someone/something other than the God of Israel.

Several times in Exodus Israelite judges are called "gods":

Ex 21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 21:6 then his master must bring him to the judges [elohim='gods'], and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Ex 22:8 If the thief is not caught, then the owner of the house will be brought before the judges [elohim] to see whether he has laid his hand on his neighbor’s goods. 22:9 In all cases of illegal possessions, whether for an ox, a donkey, a sheep, a garment, or any kind of lost item, about which someone says ‘This belongs to me,’ the matter of the two of them will come before the judges, and the one whom the judges [elohim] declare guilty must repay double to his neighbor.

Ex 7:1 So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God [elohim] to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Note the word "like" is added into that translation. The bible, and OT in particular, uses a broad definition for the term translated as "god". This broad range of definition makes interpretation of some passages difficult (like Psalm 82).

If someone is going to insist on called themselves a "god" though, I think an explanation of what is meant should follow such a claim since in our world when someone says the word "god" a certain concept comes to mind automatically and we think, "Omnipotent, Eternal, All Knowling, All Present Creator of the Universe". This is the sort of definition that most people have so they naturally laugh and think it's ridiculous when someone says "I'm a god" because on the definition they are using, it is beyond ridiculous.

One way to see the way the bible uses the word "elohim" is to say that there are many elohim; Yahweh is an Elohim (He is the Elohim of Israel), but no other elohim are remotely close to Yahweh. All elohim are subordinate, and different ontologically, from YHWH the Elohim of Israel.

It's always important to define ambiguous terms.
​

The "we are gods" thing makes a lot of sense when considering the concept of theosis/growth in the Lord and how he designed us...as it concerns being children of God/made in HIS Image ( more shared in #27 , #46 #47 #37 and #90 )

It's all a matter of process....and even Adam/Eve had this dynamic as well. For although they were made without blemish in the garden, they still had the reality of choice/walking in holiness as the Lord commanded--with their resistance in doing so costing them much.....and whereas many assume Adam/Eve were where all needed to be, others are of the persuasion that Adam and Eve were a "snapshot" of the process the Lord designed for mankind---with eternal life/partaking of the Tree of Life being the ultimate reward (also seen in Revelation 19-21 again at the end for those who complete the journey). When seeing how Yeshua is prefigured as the Tree of Life, alot of what's shared makes more sense. I think it's logical to be of the persuasion that Adam/Eve were in the same process of growth/development that all believers participate in when they come to trust in Christ for salvation....and then walk out the process of that salvation.



Adam was called the "Son of God" in Luke 3:37-38, seeing how God fathered him. I'm also still struck by Paul by what Paul noted clearly when talking to those in Athen. Moreover, Acts 17:28-29 shows where Paul makes clear that he believed that men were God's offspring---and on the issue, William Evans in the ISBE ( International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ) has an excellent discussion on sons of God. As he said best:

Men are not by nature the sons of God, at least not in the sense in which believers in Christ are so called. By nature those outside of Jesus Christ are "children of wrath" (see Ep 2:3-note), "of disobedience" (Ep 2:2-note), controlled not by the Spirit of God (Ro 8:14-note), but by the spirit of disobedience (Ep 2:2-note; Ep 2:3-note; Ep 2:3-note). Men become sons of God in the regenerative and adoptive sense by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour (Jn 1:12; Gal 3:26). The universal brotherhood which the New Testament teaches is that brotherhood which is based on faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the divine and only Saviour of the world. And the same is true of the universal Fatherhood of God. It is true that all men are "His offspring" (Acts 17:28-note) in the sense that they are God's created children; but that the New Testament makes a very clear and striking distinction between sonship by virtue of creation and sonship by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, there can be no reasonable doubt.

Sonship is the present possession of the believer in Christ (1Jn 3:2-note). It will be completed at the second coming of our Lord (Ro 8:23-note), at which time the believer will throw off his incognito, by reason of which the world may not have recognized his sonship (1Jn 3:2-note), and be fully and gloriously revealed as the son of God (2Co 5:10-note). It doth not yet appear, it hath not yet appeared, what we shall be; the revelation of the sons of God is reserved for a coming day of manifestation.

The blessings of sonship are too numerous to mention, save in the briefest way. His sons are objects of God's peculiar love (John 17:23), and His Fatherly care (Lk 12:27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). They have the family name (Ep 3:14-note; 1Jn 3:1-note); the family likeness (Ro 8:29-note); family love (John 13:35; 1Jn 3:14); a filial spirit (Ro 8:15-note; Gal 4:6); a family service (Jn 14:23; 15:8). They receive fatherly chastisement (Heb 12:5;6-note; He 12:7; 12:8; 12:9; 12:10-note; He 12:11-note); fatherly comfort (2Co 1:4), and an inheritance (Ro 8:17-note ;1Pe 1:3;1:4-note; 1Pe 1:5-note).

Among the evidences of sonship are: being led by the Spirit (Ro 8:14-note; Gal 5:18-note); having a childlike confidence in God (Gal 4:5); having liberty of access (Ep 3:12-note); having love for the brethren (1Jn 2:9, 10, 11; 5:1), and obedience (1Jn 5:1, 2, 3). (Orr, J, et al: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

​

Being a Son of God/elohim is about identity. There is the reality that being adopted as children/sons of God (even though all mankind is considered sons of the Lord on differing levels due to simply being created) is not counter to the concept of being reborn/renewed in the Resurrection--the context scripture speaks of often when it comes to describing Christ as the Firstfruits of the Resurrection since He was literally the FIRST of His kind/many to come....a man within a Resurrected/Glorified body, vastly different from the one that He had when he went into the grave/died after experiencing seperation from the Father. We experienced rebirth via being adopted into the family of the Lord and gradually growing into the image of Christ ..the journey that the Eastern Church describes Theosis. However, although mankind experiences adoption counter to Christ, all men experience what Christ experienced in the sense of rebirth when it comes to being born into newness of life and experiencing the POWER of the Resurrection/The Holy SPirit rising us up.

The entire concept present within how others describe being "born again." That has nothing to do with salvation from sin or needing forgivness....but of a level that was unheard of before the rise of Christ from the grave (I Corinthians 15). He is truly the Firstborn from the dead ( Colossians 1:17-19 , Revelation 1:4-6 , etc), in that He was...and always will be...the PROTOTYPE of what it is that will follow for all Trusting in the Father as He did and looking unto His finished Work (John 11). And all who look to Him will be adopted into the Resurrection power JUST AS HE was adopted into the Resurrection from the dead...

There is something to be said, on a side note, on how our adoption is not something that is fully done at the time...even though it is described as occurring (Galatians 4:5-7), as there are stages things occur just as there are stages people go through when a couple adopts a child and yet that doesn't mean all things (i.e. the home being set up, papers signed to authenticate the transaction, schedule for adoptive parents to be made, check-ups, etc) are done:

Romans 8:23
​

​

Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Romans 8:22-24
​

Talking to others in Orthodoxy and Messianic Jews, there can be no escaping the fact that Christ was the Firstborn in the sense of being the first of many to come who'd be like Him since that was the context it was originally understood in...especially as it concerns Christ being the firstfruits of Creation, in line with the concept of firstfruits in the OT ( Jeremiah 2:2-4, Ezekiel 44:29-31, Proverbs 3:9, Psalm 78:51, 2 Chronicles 31:4-6 , Deuteronomy 26:9-11 , Numbers 18:11-13, Exodus 34:26, ) and how being considered as "firstfruits" was also considered analogous to being born in a certain sense:

I Corinthians 15:20
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
​

1 Corinthians 15:22-24

22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
​

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

​

Both Christ and Man have experienced "rebirths" ---although man experiences both rebirth in the sense of the ressurrection/regeneration while Christ had the rebirth man will experience of the Resurrection primarily. In the sense that man coming to the Lord is restored/given the Hope of redeemption via the Resurrection/glorified bodies, Christ is the first example of what it means to be "born again" since that is something He experienced and that man also has in Him when we're born again. But in the sense that man is in need of forgiveness/given renewal by the Spirit for regeneration of our souls..and adoption into the family of the Lord, Christ is not "born again" in that sense since he never had that--even when he was forsaken by the Lord at one point. There's a level of duality at play....in the same sense that Christ was both FULLY man and Fully God.

 

[visionary]

I don't think Yeshua experienced any rebirths... not even in the resurrection.. He IS and Will always be in the state of I AM.. no changes.. no born again experiences..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't think Yeshua experienced any rebirths... not even in the resurrection.. He IS and Will always be in the state of I AM.. no changes.. no born again experiences..

I think the theme of rebirth is consistent within what the apostles noted - as going from death to life is a change and it was a very big deal for them to note where God begot the Son in His resurrection, glorified him and rose Him up by His spirit.

The Bible says that God the Father judged his Son, Jesus the Christ, while his Son was on the cross. Christ was on the cross for six hours. The last three hours were the bad ones—for he took the judgment for mankind's sins; at the end of that period of time he voluntarily died physically. Jesus was crucified at 9:00 AM (Mark 15:25). and the land was darkened from noon until 3:00 PM (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44)....and Matthew wrote, “Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.” (Matthew 27: 45). Why the darkness for the second three hours on the cross? I agree with other scholars who note that the judgment was so catastrophic that the Father broke fellowship with the Son while he was bearing our sins and the sun was darkened during this time to indicate the terrible judgment and separation...and Jesus voiced this terrible separation from God the Father when he cried out to him while in darkness and on the cross: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’” (Matthew 27:46. Also Mark 15:34).

At the end of this terrible judgment, Jesus voluntarily gave up his life in physical death: “And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit” (Matthew 27:50. Also Luke 23:46). John was very precise when he recorded Jesus’ physical death: “When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit” (John 19:30, also Matthew 27:50 and Luke 23:46)---and all of that set the stage for how he would be the “first fruits of them who slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20-23), and the returning head of the church (1 Corinthians 11:26) and King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:11-16)

Much of it being in line with the Christus Victor viewpoint (discussed here )and the Ransom Theory...


And a spiritually dead (as in seperated from the Father) Lord is not one who ceases to be the Lord--or other logical fallacies when people assume one must believe that it's impossible for Christ, in some kind of way, to be forsaken. His spirit went to be with the Lord after He died, but at some point he was literally forsaken/cursed and experienced the Full Wrath of the Lord we deserved.

As a man, Christ walked in communion with the Holy SPirit..who empowered Him to do ministry and who He looked forward to sending after He rose so that others could have that relationship. But when He was on the Cross, even if it was for a minute, the Spirit left Him/the Father turned His face away from the Son.....as the Father cannot look upon sin. For the first time in Eternity, there was a Divine Seperation that Christ was grieved by---and yet He was accepted later. the biblical concept of "death" does not mean "ceasing to exist," but rather means "separation." Spiritual death means the separation of the spirit from God. With the spirit cut off from God, a man would still be able to function physically, but could no longer directly experience God. While Jesus hung there, God the Father reached back in time and took the spiritual death that had been generated by Adam and those who came after him and placed it on Jesus Christ. Then (because He created time and lives outside of it) God looked forward in time and took all the spiritual death generated by you and me and all the other men and women who will be born until the end of time and put that death on Jesus too.

It's amazing that Jesus cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?"..for He was experiencing to the fullest the spiritual death generated by countless men and women throughout the ages as the Wrath of God was poured out upon Him to bear it. He literally experienced spiritual hell on the cross as He was cut off from God, even though He committed no sin and was not deserving of death. He actually died spiritually in our place. However, after that moment, his Spirit went to be with the Lord.


One actually goes BEYOND the Lord when assuming that the Life Giving Lord is unable to do whatever it is He wishes..including taking on our sins/becoming seperated...and again, it can come off circular (i.e. "It's wrong because it's just unthinkable to see the Lord being able to DIE!!!!!"). There's the plain reality that Christ was both FULLY Human/Fully God and able to DIE. By the Logic others used, Yeshua should have never been able to die at ALL since He was God at all times...but He laid down His life in Sacrifice/was put to death in the Body---and deemed "cursed" as the scriptures plainly note. To limit what the Lord can do would be akin to saying God cannot be everywhere and do ALL things...and I don't plan on going there personally.

I don't pretend to understand the depth, height, width or breadth of what satisfaction it took God to pay for the penalty of mans sin. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and I agree with others who understand that to be a spiritual/physical death, a spiritual separation from the presence of God for all eternity. While I can't grasp it, I know by faith that Jesus experienced the spiritual death I should have experienced, the separation that was mine was experienced by Jesus on the cross on my behalf.

Martin Luther, “Luther on Galatians,” ( American edition, vol 26, p.278 ) says plainly that. “Our sins must be Christ’s own sin, or we shall perish eternally. The wicked sophists have obscured this true knowledge of Christ which Paul and the prophets have handed down to us.”

 

[Lulav]

She is a WOF teacher. We are gods? She quotes Copeland and his crew. I would NOT recommend paying much attention to her. Sorry. (I was caught up in all that WOF junk for years. Nearly cost me my physical life! Would definitely not recommend it to anyone!)

My personal opinion is that the video should be removed from this thread. It definitely does not represent MJj, neither does Ms. Michaelsen.
Swallowing the Camel: The Prodigal Witch: A Thumbnail Sketch of Johanna Michaelsen

You missed her sarcasm there, she was ridiculing his teaching on this and showing how people are deceived by this kind of thing, those that will fall for the 'messiah'. She included what he says about it and how he has taken something out of context to promote this belief.

She also made some references to Robert H. Schuller, Benny Hinn, and that crazy Todd Bentley, showing how they use their 'miracles' riches and wonders to fool people.

She is trying to convey how deeply one can be fooled by all this. She

She even quoted from Torah many times, something that we've all learned here I hope, Deut. 18 where many would do good to study and memorize this.

I agreed with perhaps 98% of what she said.

I am glad that there is someone like her that is warning people. I know I went up against some Messianics years ago that got into this 'Christian yoga' and other 'spiritual' things like Theophostics. Todd Bentley was also acclaimed in the synagogue. These are some of the reasons I don't attend my local shul. It really could be labeled a synagogue of Satan.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am glad that there is someone like her that is warning people. I know I went up against some Messianics years ago that got into this 'Christian yoga' and other 'spiritual' things like Theophostics. .

Although I'm against Theophostics, I do wonder on yoga - and for that matter, other forms of exercise such as martial arts.