God's Word in the O.T. and N.T., Logos and Dabar

OldShepherd · Feb 13, 2003

Some people have concocted a theory of a so-called "name bearing" angel, sometimes referred to as "Metatron", who supposedly is or should be addressed by God's covenant name, YHWH. Although in Is 42:8 and 48:11, God states he will not give His glory to another, they argue, "God was not talking about His name when He said Glory. His name and His Glory are unrelated!"

Here is the proof text that supposedly proves the theory of a name-bearing angel Note, proof-text and scriptural evidence are not the same thing! For example LDS has one single proof text,1Co 15:29, which, proves to them, baptism for the dead is scriptural. But the scriptural evidence proving this false is overwhelming.

Ex 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

This certainly seems to support the theory of a name-bearing angel. However, lets refer to an ancient Hebraic source to see how the original people of God understood Ex 23:21.

Gill: the Targum of Onkelos is, or in my name is his word,

in my name is his word The ancient Targums, Aramaic translations of the Bible during the Babylonian captivity, do not support the name-bearing angel theory.

Here are passages which state Gods name alone is YHWH and that he will not give His glory to another. Note, how name and glory are mentioned together in both verses.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isa 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

Ps 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

What part of alone do we not understand? Are name and glory two different, unrelated things, can an angel have the name of God and all His authority and not have His glory? Here is the definition of שם shem, the Hebrew word for name, from the world renowned Hebrew lexicon, BDB, below, see, definition b. (1), also Strongs immediately following.

שם n.m. name name: 1. of river, beasts, city. 2. a. usu. of pers.: as signif.; freq. c. קרא (q.v. 5 e, 6; Niph. 2, Pu.; note here, ע ל -ש נקא in token of ownership); change of name is without vb., or (usu.) c. יהוה be explicitly mentioned.
b. = reputation: (1) make oneself a name; = fame, glory; (2) bad sense; =byword. c. esp. as giving a man a kind of posthumous life, esp. in his sons, so that to destroy ones name = extirpate family. 3. name, as designation of God, specif. of י

Richard Whitaker, Editor, The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997

Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, Clarendon Press, 1980, p.1028

08034 שם shem shame
a primitive word [perhaps rather from 07760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; TWOT - 2405; n m
AV - name 832, renown 7, fame 4, famous 3, named 3, named + 07121 2, famous + 07121 1, infamous + 02931 1, report 1, misc 10; 864
1) name
1a) name
1b) reputation, fame, glory
1c) the Name (as designation of God)
1d) memorial, monument

Ex 23:21 does not say "called by my name.!" Gods name being in the angel does not mean that the angel is called יהוה/YHWH?

2 Ch 20:9 If, when evil cometh upon us, as the sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we stand before this house, and in thy presence, (for thy name is in this house,) and cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help.

The temple of God is not called יהוה and does not have Gods authority, although Gods name is in the temple just as it is in the angel.

2 Sam 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.

I cannot find one scripture in which the ark is called יהוה and the ark does not have Gods authority.

JPS Da 9:18 O my God, incline Thine ear, and hear; open Thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city upon which Thy name is called; for we do not present our supplications before Thee because of our righteousness, but because of Thy great compassions.

Although the name of יהוה is called upon Jerusalem it is never called יהוה/YHWH and does not have Gods authority.

JPS Am 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations, upon whom My name is called, saith the LORD that doeth this.

Where are all the nations that are called יהוה/YHWH. Where are all the nations that speak with Gods authority?

1 Sam 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

David came "in the name of "Yahweh Sabaoth", but David is never called יהוה/Yahweh!

It has been asserted that Moses referred to himself as יהוה in Deut 29:6, thus supposedly proving the name-bearing angel theory. Nothing could be further from the truth, the deceivers, who make this assertion, have not bothered to read their Bibles or deliberately misrepresent what it says. Here is the verse in question.

6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.

There is no question that Moses speaks the words, I am the LORD your God. but is he claiming for Himself the divine name? The deceivers, almost certainly willfully and with malice aforethought, neglect to tell us that these are the words that God commanded Moses to speak. This verse is taken, very obviously out-of-context, from a long passage that God commanded Moses to speak to the people of Israel. It begins in Deut 29:1 and ends in 31:1.

Deu 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. [. . .]

Deu 31:1 And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.

God was not giving his name nor His divine authority to Moses but merely commanding Moses to speak certain words, some in the first person, and Moses spoke those words exactly as God made them known to him.

OldShepherd · Feb 13, 2003

EV,
Since all you seem capable of doing with Wallace is your childish did too/did not here is my post again where I go through his article line by line. Note my first point Wallace begins with the word "apparently" that is an assumption on his part. It is NOT a definitive statement. And many of his so-called points are undocumented assertions. So instead of did too/did not where is his evidence, where is his proof? Prove my comments wrong!

Authorities on many subjects can and do make mistakes. Evangelical Christians are not always right. Daniel Wallace is a fallible human being.

Here is the bulk of Wallace's article with commentary. Here are three words to consider, evidence, proof, documentation. Versus these three words assumption, presumption, and presupposition.

What is evident is that Cyprians interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, [Here Wallace assumes, OS] he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the oneness motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step [Assumption! OS] for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit as part of the text; this is obviously [No, it isnt obvious at all. OS] his interpretation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording.[Neither does it prove the opposite. OS] One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain.[Speculation on what Cyprian might and might not have done, NOT proof! OS] That he does not do so indicates [may INDICATE but does NOT prove. OS that a Trinitarian interpretation was [MAY HAVE BEEN] superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprians comment, quoting Kenyons Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: Cyprian is regarded as one who quotes copiously and textually. The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprians quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, and these three are onethe wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.[And Cyprian could also have paraphrased (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit) as the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit]
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; [In the absence of EVIDENCE, that he did NOT is equally likely. OS] but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. [Unlikely perhaps but NOT proven. OS] Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. [Argument from silence, only proves silence. OS.] That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

OldShepherd · Feb 13, 2003

Posted by EV, Post #129
This doesn't prove anything about the Trinity. It makes no reference to a plurality of persons within the Godhead. It only tells me what I already knew - that some of the Jews misunderstood the Messianic prophecies. Not once does Peter say that they also failed to recognise the references to Trintiarianism in the OT. So why doesn't he say this, OS?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-13.html

Well, I see you are playing ignorant again so I will have to lead you by the hand. I did not post this verse to prove or disprove the Trinity but I did post it to document the fact that the ancient prophets did NOT always know what they were prophesying and that man of their prophecies were not for their own but later generations. As to why it doesn't say soemthing, that is irrelevant an argument from silence.

1 Pet 2:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which arenow reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

You tried twist the meaning of 1 Peter 2:10-12 to make it say what it is not saying. Note in the passage it speaks of many things, salvation, grace, manner of time, sufferings, glory which the prophets foretold but many of their prophecies were not for their time but later generations. Short answer the prophets did not always know or understand what they were prophesying.

You also posted some specious, asinine objection to my documentation from the JE alleging that either the source, the Zohar or those who saw the Trinity in the Zohar, occurred in the middle ages, and please forgive me if you said medieval, I could not care less.

Zohar-Influence on Christian Mysticism.
The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as Pico de Mirandola, Reuchlin, ¨¡gidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of Christianity. They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain of the Christian dogmas, as for instance the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which is expressed in the Zohar in the following terms: "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' ["'Ayin"]" (Zohar, iii. 288b). This [the Trinity] and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity; but the Christian scholars who were deluded by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar. Shortly after the publication of the work (Mantua and Cremona, 1558) Joseph de Voisin translated extracts from it which deal with the soul. He was followed by many others, among whom was Knorr, Baron von Rosenroth, who rendered into Latin the introduction, the "Sifra di-?eni'uta," the "Idra Rabbah," and the "Idra Zu?a" ("Kabbala Denudata," Sulzbach, 1677).

Another work in favor of the antiquity of the Zohar was published by David Luria under the title "Ḳadmut ha-Zohar" (Königsberg, 1855 [?]). It is divided into five chapters, in which the author gives proofs that Moses de Leon did not compile the Zohar; that the Geonim in Babylonia cite cabalistic doctrines from a certain "Midrash Yerushalmi," the language of which strongly resembles that of the Zohar; that the work was compiled before the completion of the Talmud; that a great part of it was written in the period of Simeon ben Yokhai; and, finally, that the Aramaic language was used in Talmudic times as well as in the geonic period.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z

Trinity-In the Zohar.
The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its [Note, this says its, i.e. the Zohars. OS] speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it [Note, this says it, i.e. the Zohars. OS] evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "ma?ronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Ma??eh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T

You tried to blow off the JE article on the Trinity as referring to converts in the middle ages, had you bothered to read it says, not medieval converts but the Zohars speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit the [Zohar] evolved a new trinity, and as for dating the article on the Zohar states, This [the Trinity] and also the other doctrines of Christian tendency that are found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity;.

Posted by EV, Post # 123
Incidentally, here's a quote from the Jews for Judaism Website, which comments on the deceptive twisting of the Zohar by Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum (founder of the Jews for Jesus ministry.)
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-13.html

Irrelevant! Nothing but a smoke screen, trying to imply because Fruchtenbaum allegedly misquoted the Zohar, since I am referencing the Zohar my quotes were false also. I have not quoted him Fruchtenbaum or his sources, and it proves absolutely nothing about my posts, which are quoted from and linked to the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Future Man · Feb 13, 2003

I personally am waiting for EV to address the context of John1 itself and THEN make unbased allegations that we're using the "Word" in a misty ethereal sense.

FM: 'The Sky is Blue'

EV: 'No it's not!'

FM: 'No really, just look up'

EV: 'I don't have to, my next door neighbor *says* it isn't!!'

FM: 'But if you'd just...'

EV: 'Oh, really? Here I have a pagan Greek source which describes the sky as being 'reddish orange' therefore refuting your man-made dogma of a "blue sky"

FM: 'Look up!'

EV: *snip*

FM: 'Look up!'

EV: Irrelevant!!

FM: 'Look up!'

EV:

FM: 'Just...look..up!'

EV: NO!

_____________________

That's essentially how it goes

Dee Dee Warren · Feb 13, 2003

And Jews for Judaism Ev!! Gah!! Yeah, that's an objective source. How consistent are you going to be with their "documentation" alleging that any "proofs" that Jesus was even merely the Messiah are false. Be careful who you get into bed with.

Dee Dee Warren · Feb 13, 2003

Hey OS.... I don't know if you saw my post asking if you have a file of your answers in this saved? If you do, and you do not mind I would love to have a copy.

Note: Posting your private e-mail addy anywhere on the board is breaking Rule 3. Members who wish to contact you can do so by e-mail through the profile page (which will remain private) or through the private message option. Thank you.

[nospam][/nospam]

Homie · Feb 13, 2003

So IN SUMMARY, what does the author of the article first posted by Evangelion claim?

Future Man · Feb 13, 2003

And Jews for Judaism Ev!! Gah!! Yeah, that's an objective source. How consistent are you going to be with their "documentation" alleging that any "proofs" that Jesus was even merely the Messiah are false. Be careful who you get into bed with.

Haha! I forwarded a link to JPH where Gerald S. [their main writer] authored an article criticising the JWs and their use of the Tetra [Jehovah]. Even though it was written *against* the JW theology, even though it *agreed* with us to an extent [proper rendering etc,.], JP *still* didn't want to place any trust in it on the basis of who the author was and the *quality* of his past work.

What does that tell ya?

Back to the topic...

I wonder when Ev is going to tell us again how the Jews only believed in one God with which they had no intimate relationship and in turn explain to us how they *didn't* worship three seperate 'gods' like us poor Trins.

...wait ...a minute..

Dee Dee Warren · Feb 13, 2003

Hey Homie.. on a side note... did you ever have a chance to check out that thread link I posted on your "field of blood" thread?

Future Man · Feb 13, 2003

So IN SUMMARY, what does the author of the article first posted by Evangelion claim?

His view in summary:

John1 verses 1-13 do *not* refer to the 'Son of God' i.e. 'Jesus Christ'. In other words, vs1-13 refer to a 'literal spoken breath' and not a personal being, despite the fact that the context militates against this.

If you've noticed, even his initial argument dealt little with the immediate context, and relied heavily on fallacy of equivocation, all the while brushing off passages such as 1John1:1-2 and Rev19:13 as if they were of no relation.

Future Man · Feb 13, 2003

Dee Dee, what are you doing online here?

Homie · Feb 14, 2003

He must be mistaken because verse 14 makes it clear that he is talking about Jesus, at least the word analogy is about Jesus. But I didn't read the whole article so I am in no position to dismiss his claims.

God bless you brothers and sisters

Homie · Feb 14, 2003

No Dee Dee, but I am checking it out now.

Dee Dee Warren · Feb 14, 2003

Yesterday at 05:47 PM Future Man said this in Post #171

Dee Dee, what are you doing online here?

Ah... I am a woman of many boards.  But seriously, I am finding this conversation very, very  interesting.  Does anyone know if there is any way to view this thread in printable version with all the posts on one page??  I know most VBulletin boards allow that but I cannot seem to get it to do that here...

cir · Feb 14, 2003

Dee Dee, towards the bottom, there are several options, including...

" Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread | Add to Favorite"

Dee Dee Warren · Feb 14, 2003

Hey Cir, I saw that, but when you pull up the printable version there is no option to put all posts on one page that I can see like there is at other VBulletin forums? Am I missing it?

cir · Feb 14, 2003

"Cir"? My, we are formal, aren't we?

lol

Hmmm, you're right about the print page thing. (scratches head)

Ben johnson · Feb 14, 2003

Hey Cir, I saw that, but when you pull up the printable version there is no option to put all posts on one page that I can see like there is at other VBulletin forums? Am I missing it?

Try this: click on "POST REPLY"---this brings up a reply box, and all posts in reverse order---but you will notice no signatures, no extraneous stuff; now, hilight just the posts that you want, and at the top of your browser, click "FILE" and then "PRINT"; in the options where you can choose "PRINT ALL" and "PRINT PAGES ____", the third option is "PRINT SELECTION". It will only print what you have selected with your mouse. This should come close to what you want...

Future Man · Feb 14, 2003

Thanks for the info, Ben. I could use that feature as well.

"Cir"? My, we are formal, aren't we? lol

Hmmm, you're right about the print page thing. (scratches head)

Yeah, but see, "Cir" isn't me [FM], it's you. It's Cirisyou.

He must be mistaken because verse 14 makes it clear that he is talking about Jesus, at least the word analogy is about Jesus. But I didn't read the whole article so I am in no position to dismiss his claims.

...and vs 13, vs12, vs11, vs10, vs9 etc,. etc,. He's definitely mistaken.

Evangelion · Feb 15, 2003

Well, at the end of the day, all I see is:

OS failing to substantiate his accusations.
OS continuing to dodge my questions.
OS refusing to address my argument.

I haven't seen anything substantial here - just a repeat of the same old tactics.

*dusts his hands and walks away*

God's Word in the O.T. and N.T., Logos and Dabar

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Priest of God and the Lamb

Regular Member

Regular Member

Gods servant

Priest of God and the Lamb

Regular Member

Priest of God and the Lamb

Priest of God and the Lamb

Gods servant

Gods servant

Regular Member

Member

Regular Member

Member

Legend

Priest of God and the Lamb

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Similar threads