Gen 1:26

I remember encountering a Mezzie Rabbi in California once who pointed this verse out to me in a coffeshop, He was adamant that this verse just has to show a "Plurality" in the nature of HaShem.

I guess he never read the next verse

Sabian said:

Explain how you see the words he, and his in verse 27.

Because The word that is translated He can mean / It, They, them, she, he...
And the word God was translated from ELOHIM which is Plural.
Looks to me that your Rabbi did read the next verse.

Click to expand...

Becuase the verbs following it are in the singular, like with all passages similar to this.

the suffix of "im" or "min" does not exclusivly detonate plurality either, if I wanted to get technical, but the verbs dismiss that claim soundly enough.

Sabian said:

Sorry you do not see the SON of YAH in These verses.

Click to expand...

Curious as where you get "Yah" (HaShem forgive me). Since the nature of the name is a composite of the words "was, is, and will be." How do you condence Haya, Hoveh, and Yi'hiyeh all into 3 letters?

Then in Rom. 1:26-28 we are told that those who fail to perceive these things may fall into the errors of Homosexuality and Lesbianism. So when in creation were G-d's invisible attributes manifested in man and made clearly seen. The answer is in the Torah, in Gen. 1:26, 27 where we read:

Then Elohim said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...
So Elohim created man in His own image;
in the image of Elohim He created him;
male and female He created them.

Now following the parallelism of the passage, "Our image"; "Our likeness" and "male and female" appear to be parallel terms.

Now there are passages in the Tanak in which YHWH is referred to in a male, fatherly aspect:

…If then I be a Father, Where is My honor?…
Says YHWH of Hosts…
(Mal. 1:6)

…You, O YHWH, are our Father,…
(Is. 63:16)

But now O YHWH, You are our Father…
(Is. 64:7)

But there are also passages in the Tanak in which YHWH is referred to in a female, motherly aspect:

As one whom his Mother comforts,
so will I comfort you…
(Is. 66:13)

Now YHWH as a “Father” and YHWH as a “Mother” are clearly two DIFFERENT aspects of YHWH, they are not the same thing.

Moreover YHWH as an allegorical “Mother” is also YHWH as a “comforter” which is the same as the Holy Spirit:

…the comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name…
(Jn. 14:27 see also Jn. 14:16-17; 15:26 & 16:7)

Now just as YHWH is expressed as an allegorical “Father” and an allegorical “Mother”, the combination of these two aspects produce an allegorical “son”:

Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has bound the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name? And what is His Son’s name, if you know?
(Prov. 30:4)

The kings of the earth stand up,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against YHWH, and against His Messiah…
YHWH said to me: “You are My Son,”
This day have I begotten you…
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry…
(Ps. 2:2, 7, 12)

So now we have a Godhead which is the “image of Elohim” and is “male and female” expressing YHWH to us as a Father, a Mother and a Son.

1. The H.S. is only Messiah's ALLAGORICAL "Mother" as the Father is his allagorical "Father" (not literal Father.. i.e. there was no literal copulation involved).

2. Miriam was only a surogate and the mother of the Son of Man aspect of the Messiah (the man Yeshua) and not the Son of Yah aspect of the Messiah (the incarnate Word).

BS'D

And with that article, James, you have left your theology in stark contradiction to the Shema ( Dev; 6:4 )

As to the passage itself, there are a few possibilities as to it's meaning. Two are religious and one theological.

1. HaShem is G-d and there is no other G-d. (Religion)
2. HaShem is the only G-d for Israel. (Religion)
3. HaShem has a nature that is 'echad'. (Theology)

Now the problem is as follows.

If 1 were meant the verse should have said:
Shema Yisroel HaShem Elokecha Elokim v'ayn od milvado. (See Deut.4:35)
"Hear Israel, HaShem your G-d, is G-d and none other besides him."

If 2, then it should have said:
Shema Yisroel HaShem Elokecha lavad.
"Hear Israel, HaShem alone is your G-d."

What is here being denied is not the multiplicity of gods, either in general or specifically for the Jewish people, but a theological statement denying the multiplicity in the nature of G-d Himself.

You wrote:

>And with that article, James, you have left your theology
>in stark contradiction to the Shema ( Dev; 6:4 )

Now that is not true. Either you are not making an honest argument or you do not know what the Hebrew word ECHAD means.

The SH'MA says:

SH’MA YISRAEL: YHWH, ELOHEYNU, YHWH ECHAD
“Hear O Israel, YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is one.”
(Deut. 6:4)

Let us examine other passages in the Torah to understand how this word ECHAD is used in the Torah:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and they shall become one [ECHAD] flesh.
(Gen. 2:24)

And YHWH said, “Indeed the people are one [ECHAD] and they
all have one language…
(Gen. 11:6)

Thus it is clear that the word ECHAD in no way requires a singularity and can refer to a composite unity. Thus Deut. 6:4 may be taken as referring to the absolute unity of the three elements of Father, Mother (Holy Spirit Comforter) and Son (Messiah).

Rabbinic Judaism in the Zohar even acknowedges this fact. Let us to explore how this passage is understood by the Zohar:

The [profession of] unity that every day is [a profession of] unity
is to be understood and to be perceived. We have said in many places
that this prayer is a profession of Unity that is proclaimed:

”Hear O Yisrael, YHWH“ first, [then] “Eloheynu” [and] “YHWH” they are all One and thus He is called “One”.

Behold, these are three names, how can they be one? Is it because we call them one? (literally: And also concerning the proclamation that we call them one?). How these are one can only through the vision of the Holy Sprit be known. And these are through the vision of the closed eye (or the hidden eye) To make known that these three are one (i.e. a Tri-Unity).

And this is the mystery of the voice that is heard. The voice is one. And is three GAUNIN: fire and air and water. And all these are one in the mystery of the voice.

And also here “YHWH, Eloheynu, YHWH” these are One. Three GAUNIN that are One. And this is the voice of the act of a son of man in [proclaiming] the Unity.
And to which he sees by the Unity of the “All” from Eyn Sof (the Inifinite One) to the end of the “All”. Because of the voice in which it is done, in these are three that are one (i.e. a Tri-Unity).

And this is the [profession] of the daily profession of Unity that is revealed in the mystery of the Holy Spirit.

And there are many GAUNIN that are a Unity, and all of them are true, what the one does, that the other does, and what that one does, the other does.
(Zohar 2:43)

(The Aramaic word GA’UN (sing.)/GAUNIN (plural) comes from the word for “color” and refers to an “aspect, element, substance, essence”. )

Thus the Zohar understands the Sh’ma to mean that YHWH, Elohim and YHWH are three GA’UNIN.

James Trimm

Interestingly, Devarim 6:4 does not use Yichid... but rather Echad.

I think that Dr. Trimm has expounded upon the reasons Echad was chosen, instead of Yichid which literally means one in the most singular form.

shalom,
yafet.

BS'D

Now that is not true. Either you are not making an honest argument or you do not know what the Hebrew word ECHAD means.

Click to expand...

Actually the word 'echad' refers to something with a cardinality of 1, and not strictly to a unity compound or otherwise.

Let us examine other passages in the Torah to understand how this word ECHAD is used in the Torah:

Click to expand...

Lets;

Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

Thus it is clear that the word ECHAD in no way requires a singularity and can refer to a composite unity. Thus Deut. 6:4 may be taken as referring to the absolute unity of the three elements of Father, Mother (Holy Spirit Comforter) and Son (Messiah).

Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't always apply to a singular or composite unity, you are missing the thrust of my postion and I think you need to rexamine it. I'm not sure how you got a Mommy, Daddy and Juinor inserted in there and that is one of the more bizarre things I've read.

Rabbinic Judaism in the Zohar even acknowedges this fact. Let us to explore how this passage is understood by the Zohar

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "Rabbinic Judaism", but you are confirming my thoughts that you actually don't have the literal ZoHar in it's orginal form, but rather, useing some odd translation, since I'm not seeing the same things you are when you quoted me to this passage.

I'd advise readers of this thread to check out Aryeh Kaplan's work, he does an honest and simple discussion of Kabbalistic works and concepts such as these.

Now Dr.Trimm, in this area of refrence, we come across the Attributes of Alef and it's numerical importance, how does the author connect it to Atzilus and overall, tzimtzum? Also, which other character does the author consider the "Brother" of Aleph? And please- use the metholodgy that is needed to understand the ZoHar- so make prolific use of the characters, explain what they represent, how it relates to the message, how their order changes concepts. As anyone should know, Studying ZoHar isn't about just reading it like we read Torah- we take it apart.

simchat_torah said:

Interestingly, Devarim 6:4 does not use Yichid... but rather Echad.

I think that Dr. Trimm has expounded upon the reasons Echad was chosen, instead of Yichid which literally means one in the most singular form.

shalom,
yafet.

Click to expand...

My dear friend, I think you have been mistaken.

The use of 'Yachid' as a philosophical term is documentable back to Saadiah Goan in Emunah v'Deos. (My copy of that work, actually has a short dictionary of philosophical terms that are used and what they are used for.) Howevcer, it is explained to refer to the oneness ('achdus') of G-d.

The idea about yachid fails because it is based on the use of yachid as a technical philosophical term in Jewish philosophical texts, and not on the Biblical usage. There is no example in the Tenach of yachid or yachad indicated a non-compound unity, or a unity of any type.

What I said about Deut 6:4 stands.

Of course, "Yachad" comes close in Psalm 133:1 and obviously relates to a "compound Unity" but grammaticly, the words are diffrent and it would be dishonest of me to say, that Yachid and Yachad are closesly related.


The only Dr. Trimm has done is shown there might be a slight chance that echad at this passage reffers to a compound unity and this compound unity might just be a mommmy, daddy and a little boy.

Actually, Aryeh Kaplan does in fact discuss the unity of G-d.

BS'D

This is one of the reasons why people like Dr.Trimm are my best work. He'll take an obscure idea/concept out a spiritual and maybe metaphyiscal text that deals with a language on a intimate level and uses that as a proof text to people who don't have the education to go study the ZoHar in the proper tounge. For the sake of prosperity, I'm going to include some sage quotes on this very subject;

Rashi: Speaks of the future where the non-Jews of the world will finally acknowledge the idea of a singular G-d, quoting "On that day, HaShem will be One and his name One".

Baal HaTurim: Declares that echad indicates a single master over the heavens and the Earth.

Malbim: That "HaShem" is considered a name to represent compassion and Elokim to represent justice, but that you are to hold G-d as one, not plural.

Onkolos: After all, since this Aramaic translation would reflect the teachings of sages, surely Onkolos would speak of plurality, but he doesn't. "Chad" is used in either manner, but it's like telling someone that "I get your point" doesn't mean that there's a sharp object: no explanation is necessary.

Sifrei: Agreeing with Rashi and adding "HaShem" is repeated twice to include that he is the singular G-d of this world, and will be the singular G-d of the world to come.

Shafsi Chochmim: Also speaks of inebriating oneself with the service of the King, to listen to Him, ("Listen, Israel, HaShem!"), He is our G-d, King, Master. All in the singular.

and for you Christians out there!

Trinitarian professor of theology Gregory Boyd admits in his book "Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity":


Even weaker is the argument that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) used in the Shema...refers to a unified one, not an absolute one. Hence some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united G-dhead. It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (eg Gen. 2:24, they shall become one flesh). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the Old Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as our English word one. The context must be used to determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended.

>...you are confirming my thoughts that you actually don't have the
>literal ZoHar in it's orginal form, but rather, useing some odd
>translation, since I'm not seeing the same things you are when you
>quoted me to this passage.


No I translated from the original Aramaic of the Zohar.

Which word or phrase do you believe I mistranslated?

I would be glad to go over the Aramaic of that phrase in detail and explain why I translated as I did, and why some other translator translated as he did as well.

James Trimm

>I'm not sure how you got a Mommy, Daddy and Juinor inserted
>in there and that is one of the more bizarre things I've read.

See my posts at this thread to see how I get Father, Mother/Spirit and Son from both the Scripture and the Zohar.

http://www.christianforums.com/t66480

JamesTrimm said:

>...you are confirming my thoughts that you actually don't have the
>literal ZoHar in it's orginal form, but rather, useing some odd
>translation, since I'm not seeing the same things you are when you
>quoted me to this passage.


No I translated from the original Aramaic of the Zohar.

Which word or phrase do you believe I mistranslated?

I would be glad to go over the Aramaic of that phrase in detail and explain why I translated as I did, and why some other translator translated as he did as well.

James Trimm

Click to expand...

Which is why I asked the following;

Now Dr.Trimm, in this area of refrence, we come across the Attributes of Alef and it's numerical importance, how does the author connect it to Atzilus and overall, tzimtzum? Also, which other character does the author consider the "Brother" of Aleph? And please- use the metholodgy that is needed to understand the ZoHar- so make prolific use of the characters, explain what they represent, how it relates to the message, how their order changes concepts. As anyone should know, Studying ZoHar isn't about just reading it like we read Torah- we take it apart.

Click to expand...

I don't see the purpose of going into semantics until you demonstrate atleast some rudamentary knowledge of Kabbalistic Metholodgy

Yatziv stated:

This is one of the reasons why people like Dr.Trimm are my best work. He'll take an obscure idea/concept out a spiritual and maybe metaphyiscal text that deals with a language on a intimate level and uses that as a proof text to people who don't have the education to go study the ZoHar in the proper tounge. For the sake of prosperity, I'm going to include some sage quotes on this very subject;

Rashi: Speaks of the future where the non-Jews of the world will finally acknowledge the idea of a singular G-d, quoting "On that day, HaShem will be One and his name One".

HT:

That is an interesting analogy Yatziv. Let me state that I respect your views, and even though we may be in disagreement on some points, I would ask that you would not be offended by anything that I say because that is not my intention.

The Messiah saw the day when non-Jews would try to say that they were Jewish, and I have seen this occuring quite a bit lately. In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 this was addressed. Some people have tried to say that these scriptures were refering to Jews who did not accept the Messiah. This is an incorrect interpretation and the true meaning is quite clear.

Rev 2:9 I know your works, and the affliction, and the poverty; but you are rich. And I know the evil speaking of those saying themselves to be Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Rev 3:9 Behold, I give out of the synagogue of Satan those saying themselves to be Jews, and they are not, but they lie. Behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they shall know that I loved you.

David Stern wrote his interpretation in the Jewish New Testament commentary [pg 795]
Here is an excerpt:

" Yochanan (John) writes about Gentiles who call themselves Jews but aren't - on the contrary, they are a synagogue of satan, the adversary, Perhaps they, like the gentile Judaizers of the book of Galatians, adopted a smattering of Jewish practices and tried to force them on Gentile believers. They may have subjected themselves to a legalistic perversion of the Torah. They apparently organized a pseudo Messianic synagogue. Their false doctrine probably led them to wrong and immoral behavior, since false doctrine usually does. They probably drew Gentile Christians away from the truth, and thereby threatened the Messianic community. Virtually all commentators ignore the obvious and straightforward interpretation that Yochanan (John) is talking here about Gentiles who pretend to be Jews."

"Should it nevertheless be thought improbable that Gentiles would call themselves Jews, Hebrews or Israelites, consider the following modern examples. The 'British Israelites' regard the British as the Ten Lost Tribes. The Mormons not only consider themselves to be the Ten Lost Tribes but regard themselves as Jews and everyone else (real Jews included) as Gentiles. A sect of mostly American-born blacks consider themselves the true Hebrews; several thousand of them are living in Israel. All of these are outside the pale of Christianity. In addition, scattered about are well-meaning Gentile Christians whose strong identification with and love for the Jewish people has made them believe,without a shred of evidence,that they are actually Jewish themselves.In fact, some years ago a congregation was expelled from the American Lutheran Church because, along with a general drift into weirdness, its pastor and dozens of its members claimed to have heard from God that they were really Jews; many even said they knew which tribe they belonged to."

"Without exception this phenomenon of Gentiles imagining and asserting they are Jewish when they are not leads to strange patterns of doctrine and practice. Such people are not accepted by Jews as Jewish; nor, as this verse shows, are they to be accepted by Christians as Christian. Isolated and self-defensive, they can easily become prideful, neither obeying the Torah nor showing brotherly love to Yeshua's (Jesus) real followers. It is easy to see why Yeshua (Jesus) does not regard them as harmlessly neutral but pegs them as the synagogue of the adversary."

(All above writings in "quotes" from the Jewish New Testament Commentary, by David Stern)


HT:

There are non-Jewish believers that stand behind Israel, and I greatly applaud them for their support. The above writing in no way refers to them.