Mere words with no Scriptural backing.It all starts with not recognizing that Yeshua has been there since the beginning. That it is His responsibility since the beginning in the creation and the redemption of this earth. Every time God is mentioned in OT it is Yeshua before His first coming in the flesh. No matter how many verses are provided, if it is not seen that Yeshua is 100% involved in everything that has happened in OT, then NT is without validation.
I told you in a previous post that I was being inconsistent with my use of capitals, so I decided to use "Elohim". Since I capitalize "Savior" and "Lord" when referring to Yeshua, I might as well capitalize "Elohim" as well.
WOW!!! You are quoting my words by saying, "You then go on to say...", but I did not say "[within] the Father". Neither did Ellen. You added the word [within] without telling the forum that was your addition. How dishonest can you get AbbaLove? Or did you just forget to tell us "[within]" was your addition?
You say she is saying "Yeshua is identifying Himself with the Father", but she actually said, " He is identifying Himself as the Father." She even put "Father" in bold. You can try and cover for Ellen, but her words are loud and clear without your added word "within" or "with".
Further down in the same article she writes, "Yeshua is the Father as well as the Son" and "It is clear that Yeshua is not relegated Scripturally to only being the Son, the second person of the godhead, but that Yeshua is the Father too!"
This is one reason why I replied to those articles by saying, "Those two articles are far from true."
I agree that the above passages are truthful. It is your interpretation that is false. As for Ellen's articles, I'm glad I did not trash them as they are good to show the errors people make in interpreting Scripture.
I reject the RCC trinity as well. In MJs rejection of the RCC trinity, they threw away some truth (that the Father is NOT the Son) and embraced the exact opposite (that the Father IS the Son).
I may be the only one bold enough to speak up, but there are others out there that believe just like me. Even if there were no others, that makes no difference. I know what the Spirit has taught and I know how to refute what is false.
They are all true.
Yes. Plenty. Just review the "Name the prophecies in the Old Testament about Yeshua" thread and you will see many misinterpreted verses/passages from the Tanakh that I offered correction on.
In her article Ellen apparently bases her use of "as" being synonymous with "in" with most English translations reading "in me" and "in him" with the exception of the CJB that reads "with me" and "with the Father"You say she is saying "Yeshua is identifying Himself with the Father", but she actually said, " He is identifying Himself as the Father." She even put "Father" in bold. You can try and cover for Ellen, but her words are loud and clear without your added word "within" or "with".
Again, Ellen apparently supports her use of "as" with her interpretation of passages like Isaiah 9:6, Exodus 33:11, and several passages recorded by the Apostle John.Further down in the same article ( http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html ) she writes, "Yeshua is the Father as well as the Son" and "It is clear that Yeshua is not relegated Scripturally to only being the Son, the second person of the godhead, but that Yeshua is the Father too!"
HalleluYah! So you agree that the Father is united with-in Mashiach Yeshua and Mashiach Yeshua is united with-in the Father.I agree that the above passages are truthful.
I may be the only one bold enough to speak up, but there are others out there that believe just like me.
However, you do believe that Mashiach Yeshua represents the manifest visible presence of the Godhead.Even if there were *no others, that makes no difference. I know what the Spirit has taught and I know how to refute what is false.
In her article Ellen apparently bases her use of "as" being synonymous with "in" with most English translations reading "in me" and "in him" with the exception of the CJB that reads "with me" and "with the Father"
G-d is One, Not A Trinity
"Hear O Israel, YHVH is G-d, YHVH is ONE." (Deut 6:4)
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/oneness.html
John 10:38 KJV
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 10:38 CJB
38 But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”
John 10:30 translations: "I and the Father are one" ... "I and my Father are one" ... "The Father and I are one"
Ellen's choice of "as" is supported by translations in Isaiah 9:5(6) ...
Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) ... "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]
Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)
For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).
Again, Ellen apparently supports her use of "as" with her interpretation of passages like Isaiah 9:6, Exodus 33:11, and several passages recorded by the Apostle John.
John 10:30
CJB
I and the Father are one.
John 10:38 CJB
38 But if I am, then, even if you don’t trust me, trust the deeds; so that you may understand once and for all that the Father is united with me, and I am united with the Father.”
John 10:38 KJV
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
John 14:6-7 CJB
6 Yeshua said, “I AM the Way — and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me.
7 Because you have known me, you will also know my Father; from now on, you do know him — in fact, you have seen him.”
John 14:8-11 CJB
8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it will be enough for us.”
9 Yeshua replied to him, “Have I been with you so long without your knowing me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Don’t you believe that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me? What I am telling you, I am not saying on my own initiative; the Father living in me is doing his own works.
11 Trust me, that I am united with the Father, and the Father united with me.
HalleluYah! So you agree that the Father is united with-in Mashiach Yeshua and Mashiach Yeshua is united with-in the Father.
However, you do believe that Mashiach Yeshua represents the manifest visible presence of the Godhead.
Colossians 2:9 ~ For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
Question One:
In light of John 1:18 some MJs believe that "Adonai" in Exodus 33:11 (listed above) is the visible manifest presence of God made known by him (Son of God). How do you explain the KJV, NASB, AMP, NLT, CJB translations that all give credence to not only Ellen ("as"), but also other MJs that believe the only begotten Son is the visible manifestation of Father God?
John 1:18 KJV
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18 NASB
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 AMP
No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son] who is in the intimate presence of the Father, He has explained Him [and interpreted and revealed the awesome wonder of the Father].
John 1:18 NLT
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
John 1:18 CJB
No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side — he has made him known.
Question Two:
You say it is possible that *no others may agree exactly with your interpretation of these scripture passages. How is it that you believe the Holy Spirit reveals the correct interpretation and understanding of the Godhead to you and few others; while many more MJs believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them that Mashiach Yeshua is the manifest presence of Father God?
So, we agree (the title of this tread is misleading) that it's more about interpretation than whether or not passages claiming relationship to Mashiach Yeshua are possibly untrue (never let it be). Isaiah 9:6 would be one such passage "claiming relationship" that is apparently open to different interpretation.Because my interpretation aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want. I also do not rely solely on English translations, especially the word "God" which is woefully inadequate to translate "elohim" or "theos".
Who decides what is the proper correct translation and more importantly the correct interpretation other than the indwelling Presence of His Spirit.Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ? No matter what translation is true, also,
Yet we know that whether religious mankind favors: Rabbinic Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Denominational Protestantism, or Messianic Judaism that the influence of religious man's "theology" that the indwelling presence of His Spirit is apparently compromised. If all these religions have in one way or another inhibited His Spirit than what or who are we to believe when MJs debate and argue over which is the proper translation and proper interpretation of the Godhead?is it not up to Abba to reveal His Word ? (i.e. it lies not in man, nor in the flesh, to understand, except the Father in Heaven reveals it as He Pleases) ?
Do you have any reason to doubt that the two following English translations from the Hebrew Tanakh (Isaiah 9:5-6) are not a "proper translation" and therefore wouldn't both English translations be true, How would you go about deciding whether both are a "proper translation" or whether just one is a "proper translation" of the Hebrew Tanakh?Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ? No matter what translation is true
I don't recall saying those words were "added". As you have shown, translations differ. If a particular translation of any verse causes disharmony with another verse, then the translation is suspect. "Mighty God" is suspect because there is only one Mighty God, YHWH, Yeshua's Father. The word "el" can be translated "power", "powerful", "might", etc. Therefore, the translation of "el gibbor" as "Mighty Warrior" would create harmony.So, we agree (the title of this tread is misleading) that it's more about interpretation than whether or not passages claiming relationship to Mashiach Yeshua are possibly untrue (never let it be). Isaiah 9:6 would be one such passage "claiming relationship" that is apparently open to different interpretation.
Isaiah 9:6 KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6 (YLT)
For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:5(6) (CJB)
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom [Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace]
Yeshayah 9:6 (OJB)
For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).
What research evidence supports your understanding that the above underlined words were "added" when translating from Hebrew to English? Granted that the following Hebrew translation to English is different than the KJV ...
You quoted this translation in post #149 as well. Is there something you like about this translation?Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
"that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel" ...
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
By comparing the translation against Hebrew lexicons or how a particular word was used throughout Scripture.Translating Hebrew into English is no easy matter. How does one even know whether this translator provided the most accurate English translation?
Thus, for you to make statements that your interpretation of passages is not influenced by religious theology and therefore the best/correct interpretation is your own opinion. So, why should we believe that your interpretation is the inspired teaching of the "Counsellor" when so many MJs find it difficult to interpret passages like Isaiah 9:6 that Mashiach Yeshua is as you say ... "an "Elohim of lesser degree than his Father."
This is the third time in one post that you have said that I said something that I didn't say. Where have I said, "any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want"? Read things into the text happens, even on this Messianic Forum, but that doesn't mean all MJs are guilty of doing so.Who are you to conclude that your interpretation (contrary to that of other MJs) "aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want" ... thereby concluding that any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want.
The answer to your first question is no. There are disagreements on interpretation even concerning verses where we all agree are translated correctly. The answer to the second question is yes. The Holy Spirit will teach us if we allow it to.Isn't it true that with a proper translation, no interpretation is needed ?
No matter what translation is true, also,
is it not up to Abba to reveal His Word ? (i.e. it lies not in man, nor in the flesh, to understand, except the Father in Heaven reveals it as He Pleases) ?
Why would you ask such a question? Of course He is trustworthy.Do you think Abba Yhwh is Trustworthy, The One Who Yahshua said revealed Yahshua HaMashiach is the Messiah to the apostle Peter ?
Yes, both translations are interesting. Decided to post both to get your take/insight if you have reason to believe that perhaps the meaning of these two Hebrew-to-English translations got lost (misinterpreted) by the translator(s) of not only the King James Version but other similar translations.You quoted this translation in post #149 as well. Is there something you like about this translation?
Which Bible translation of John 17:3 are you referencing that reads, "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" in all Capital letters or are you getting frustrated with MJs that believe the manifold manifest nature of Elohim(plural) represents the "Godhead" bodily. Do we agree that in the very first Hebrew verse of Genesis that "God" is referred to as “Elohim” (plural). Also, with respect to Vis's above comment consider the following words of Yeshua (verse 5) ...I don't recall saying my interpretation is not influenced by my theology. You don't have to believe my interpretation, but you must believe Yeshua when he says his Father is "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" (John 17:3).
Don't remember ever accusing you of saying "all MJs are guilty of doing so." However, you previously said that only a few MJs or even if "no others" agree with you that your interpretations are correct. Correct if i'm wrong, but your accusation seemed to be directed at other MJ members posting in this thread (see following excerpt posted by you). MJ members who believe the glorified Mashiach Yeshua is the visible manifestation of "God" and don't believe that they are (as you imply) "adding words or reading into the text whatever I(they) want", but rather are properly interpreting passages in the Tanakh as well as Yeshua's own words as recorded in the Gospel of John.This is the third time in one post that you have said that I said something that I didn't say. Where have I said, "any MJ that disagrees with you is guilty of adding words or reading into the text whatever they want"? Read things into the text happens, even on this Messianic Forum, but that doesn't mean all MJs are guilty of doing so.
Because my interpretation aligns with Scripture without adding words or reading into the text whatever I want. I also do not rely solely on English translations, especially the word "God" which is woefully inadequate to translate "elohim" or "theos".
As I understand Scripture, he did not exist as a living being, but he did exist in YHWH's plan of salvation.Ok, from what I have gathered from your many posts, your position is that Yeshua didn't exist before coming in the flesh.
Both of those translations just muddy the waters. It is difficult to understand what verse 6 is actually saying. Do either of those translation put the English words next to or below the Hebrew words so we can tell which English word is a translation of which Hebrew word? In the first one, for example, I don't see how "el gibbor" is being translated unless "masterful" is translating both words.Yes, both translations are interesting. Decided to post both to get your take/insight if you have reason to believe that perhaps the meaning of these two Hebrew-to-English translations got lost (misinterpreted) by the translator(s) of not only the King James Version but other similar translations.
Isaiah 9:6(5)-8(7) (Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)
5(4) that every-of boot-of one-being-booted in quaking and raiment being-rolled in·bloods and·she-becomes for·burning fuel-of fire
6(5) that boy he-is-born to·us son he-is-given to·us and·she-shall-become the·chieftainship on shoulder-blade-of·him and·he-shall-call name-of·him one-marvelous one-counseling masterful Father-of-future chief-of well-being
7(6) to·increase-of to·increase-of the·chieftainship and·to·well-being there-is-no end on throne-of David and·over kingdom-of·him to·to establish-of »·her and·to·to-brace-of·her in·judgment and·in·justice from·now and·unto eon zeal-of Yahweh-of hosts she-shall-do this
8(7) word he-sent my-Lord in·Jacob and·he-fell in·Israel
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa9.pdf
Here is another Hebrew Interlinear translation of Isaiah 9:5-8 ...
Isaiah 9:5-8 (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/9.htm)
5 in blood rolled and garments in the [battle] tumult of the warrior battle every For of fire fuel [this] with burning but shall be"
6 on the government and shall be to is given a son to us is born to us a child For the Prince the everlasting mighty the God Counselor, Wonderful his name and called his shoulder of Peace
7 on [there shall be] end not and peace [his] of government - of increase - (of increase is repeated again) and with justice it with judgment [is] and to establish it To establish his kingdom and on of David the throne this will perform of hosts of the LORD The zeal ever and from from now on even for From them
8 on Israel and it has come to against Jacob The Lord sent a word
None. There are no English translations that use "Elohim". I was quoting the KJV, but changed "God" to what I believe Yeshua actually said. I know he didn't speak English, so he didn't say "God". I also capitalized those words to emphasize what he taught. Do you have a problem with the sense I brought out?Which Bible translation of John 17:3 are you referencing that reads, "the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM" in all Capital letters or are you getting frustrated with MJs that believe the manifold manifest nature of Elohim(plural) represents the "Godhead" bodily.
While "Elohim" is written in the plural, the context determines whether it is being used in a singular or plural sense.Do we agree that in the very first Hebrew verse of Genesis that "God" is referred to as “Elohim” (plural). Also, with respect to Vis's above comment consider the following words of Yeshua (verse 5) ...
John 17:3-5 (CJB)
3 And eternal life is this: to know you, the one true God, and him whom you sent, Yeshua the Messiah.
4 “I glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.
5 Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed. ("Elohim" is plural)
The greater Elohim, YHWH, was dwelling in the lesser Elohim, Yeshua, in all His fullness.Likewise we agree that the word "Elohim" is inadequate to explain the manifold manifest nature of the word "Godhead" in Colossians 2:9 ~ "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (KJV). What you and other MJs differ on is whether the glorified Mashiach Yeshua is as you contend (accompanying theology) is "an Elohim of lesser degree than his Father" when considering Col. 2:9 and other pasages in both the Tanakh and Brit Chadashah.
Now that he is no longer waiting to receive "the same glory", how does he refer to "God"? The answer is, the same way. He calls "God" "my God" and "Father".Let me offer an olive branch of reciprocal understanding. While Yeshua was on earth as both the "son of man" and the "Son of God" he had to wait until He again had the same glory "before the world existed" (John 17:5). Thus it makes perfect sense that Yeshua would refer to "God" as Father considering He referred to Himself as the "Son of God" while also being the "son of man".
First, I agree with and believe both verses above. YHWH gave Yeshua all authority and he will rule over the Kingdom on earth, but what happens next?To believe that the glorified Yeshua is "an Elohim of lesser degree than his Father" is based in part on your theology which is questionable when considering Yeshua's recorded words, other scripture passages and that Elohim is plural. When Father God trusts His Son (who is One with His Father) to establish and increase His Kingdom on earth it seems inappropriate for you to say that the glorified Yeshua is "an Elohim of a lesser degree."
Matthew 28:18 (CJB)
18 Yeshua came and talked with them. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 14:6 (CJB)
Yeshua said, “I AM the Way — and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?