Are all the passages claiming relationship to Messiah, true?

[AbbaLove]

Would it make a difference if I said, "Yeshua is an Elohim" rather than "Yeshua is an elohim"? My main concern is that people do not make Yeshua to be the "only true Elohim" when he himself said his Father was the only true Elohim (John 17:3). If people want to say, "Yeshua is Elohim", fine, as long as they understand that he is NOT an Elohim on the same level as his Father is Elohim. The judges of Israel were "elohim", but not on the level of either the Father or the Son. "Elohim" is simply a title meaning "mighty one". There are degrees of "elohim". The greatest is Father YHWH. That is why I use a small "e" for all others. However, since I use a capital "L" and "S" when referring to Yeshua as my Lord and Savior even though Father YHWH is also my Lord and Savior, I can see I'm being inconsistent in my use of capitals. I will try and correct that.

Are you also concerned about my use of "an"; "Yeshua is an Elohim" rather than "Yeshua is Elohim"?

John 10:33-35 KJV
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
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?
What is interesting is that Yeshua says, "I said, Ye are gods" apparently referring to Himself.
Do you know where in the Torah (law) are found the words to which Yeshua is specifically referring to in verse 34?

Do you know of any reputable translation that distinguishes between Lord and God in John 20:28 where one name is Capitalized and the other name using all lower case letters? Not even the NIV goes so far as to read, "My Lord and my god!" nor on the other hand does any English translation go so far as to read "My Lord and my GOD!"

John 20:28 NIV
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

How translators decide when to capitalize or use all CAPS is personal preference (prejudice). Personally, i'm of the opinion that He, Him, Himself should always be capitalized when referring to Yeshua (as does the NKJV).

John 20:28 NKJV
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

We have no way of knowing whether Thomas' expressed intent was actually closer to: "My Lord and my god!" or "My LORD and my God!" or as is "My Adoni and my Elohim!"

John 20:28 OJB
28 In reply, T’oma said to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, Adoni and Elohai! [TEHILLIM 35:23]
John 20:28 CJB
T'oma answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

It does seem that all NT translators pretty much agree that Thomas was putting equal emphasis on "My Lord" as on "my God!" as both being one and the same (e.g. Vis' contention as well as that of other Messianics). Do you personally think this is more of a "Christian" perspective that is not equally excepted within some (orthodox) circles of Messianic Judaism?

If you were translating this verse into English to what you think best expresses Thomas' outcry would you use all lower case letters or one name beginning with a Capital letter and the other name all lower case letters or perhaps another variation? Which of the following do you prefer?

"My adoni and my elohim!" or "My Adoni and my elohim!" or possibly "My ADONI and my Elohim!"​

 

[gadar perets]

John 10:33-35 KJV
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
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?
What is interesting is that Yeshua says, "I said, Ye are gods" apparently referring to Himself.
Do you know where in the Torah (law) are found the words to which Yeshua is specifically referring to in verse 34?

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Yeshua was simply quoting the verse as written. He was quoting the words of his Father.

Do you know of any reputable translation that distinguishes between Lord and God in John 20:28 where one name is Capitalized and the other name using all lower case letters? Not even the NIV goes so far as to read, "My Lord and my god!" nor on the other hand does any English translation go so far as to read "My Lord and my GOD!"

John 20:28 NIV
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

No, I know of no such translation. The problem is, the English word "God" with a capital "G" denotes the one true God and with a small "g" pagan gods. There is no middle ground where "God" can refer to mighty men which is where Yeshua falls. He was a flesh and blood man whose Father is God. Translators believe in the trinity and therefore have no problem using "God".

How translators decide when to capitalize or use all CAPS is personal preference (prejudice). Personally, i'm of the opinion that He, Him, Himself should always be capitalized when referring to Yeshua (as does the NKJV).

I always capitalize those pronouns when referring to the Father, especially in a verse where the Father and Son are both referred to.

John 20:28 NKJV
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

We have no way of knowing whether Thomas' expressed intent was actually closer to: "My Lord and my god!" or "My LORD and my God!" or as is "My Adoni and my Elohim!"

I agree except for the possibility of him saying "YHWH" (LORD). There is no way he would ever have called Yeshua by that name. And so, if we cannot be sure what he said or meant, we should not use that verse to "prove" our theological beliefs.

John 20:28 OJB
28 In reply, T’oma said to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, Adoni and Elohai! [TEHILLIM 35:23]
John 20:28 CJB
T'oma answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

It does seem that all NT translators pretty much agree that Thomas was putting equal emphasis on "My Lord" as on "my God!" as both being one and the same (e.g. Vis' contention as well as that of other Messianics). Do you personally think this is more of a "Christian" perspective that is not equally excepted within some (orthodox) circles of Messianic Judaism?

Concerning your question, definitely.

If you were translating this verse into English to what you think best expresses Thomas' outcry would you use all lower case letters or one name beginning with a Capital letter and the other name all lower case letters or perhaps another variation? Which of the following do you prefer?

"My adoni and my elohim!" or "My Adoni and my elohim!" or possibly "My ADONI and my Elohim!"​

I would translate it "my Lord and my Mighty One" or possibly, "my Master and my Mighty One. I believe he spoke Hebrew and obviously did not use capitals while speaking. Thomas new full well YHWH could not die, so he certainly did not think YHWH was standing right in front of him.

 

[AbbaLove]

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Yeshua was simply quoting the verse as written. He was quoting the words of his Father.

OR was He quoting His own words in verse 6 (John 1:1 ... "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")

Again, we see the intended difference between "Law" and "law" in John 10:34 ... Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ... My first reaction was that Yeshua was referring to the Torah (Law), but then after your post i remembered that "law" (all lower case) refers to scripture in the Tanakh that is not found in the Torah (first 5 books of the Law).

Psalm 82:1-8 NKJV
1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. ("I said" is referring to Yeshua)
7 But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You shall inherit all nations.

Verse 6 above implies that his Lord (Yeshua) is actually referring to Himself. In fact isn't the entire passage the Words of Yeshua being proclaimed by David. Verse 8 is controversial in that He is referring to Yeshua (Lord) who will "judge the earth" and "shalt inherit all nations." Thus, one could interpret verse 8 as Yeshua in effect inheriting the title of God at some point in the future; while still acknowledging "the most High."

David being a Messianic Jew was inspired by the Lord prophetically when he said in Psalm 110:1 "The LORD said to my Lord ... ." Do you believe the newest NIV translation to be a more accurate representation of Psalm 110:1 in it's departure from "Lord" to "lord" and making such a distinction between "LORD" and "lord" ? I say foul based on John 1:1 and John 1:14 ... "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." NKJV

Psalm 110:1 ... newest NIV translation does not (IMO) present Yeshua as the "Son of GOD" (Lord).
The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
The LORD GOD would refer to the Word (John 1:1, 14) as "lord" ... Really?

Is it your interpretation that the NIV's impliied meaning of "my lord" just while Yeshua is seated at the right hand of the LORD until GOD makes the "lord's" enemies a footstool for his feet? Is it your opinion that only after Yeshua returns to "judge the earth" and "inherit all nations" that He then inherits the title of "LORD" (all caps)? Is that your perception that Yeshua is currently "lord" (adoni) and only when he/He returns to set up His Kingdom does He then inherit the title of LORD (all caps) or Lord ?

If the NIV is consistent with your interpretation ("my lord") then that runs counter to the NKJV that capitalizes "He" "Him" "Himself" when referring to Yeshua. Which do you believe to bei a better interpretation ... "my lord" or "my Lord" ... "he" or "He"

 

[gadar perets]

OR was He quoting His own words in verse 6 (John 1:1 ... "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")

Sorry AbbaLove, but I do not study Scripture like that (reading things or people into the text). You are not only reading Yeshua into Psalm 82:6 as the speaker, but you are reading him into John 1:1 as the "logos". Doing so skews your entire theology.

Again, we see the intended difference between "Law" and "law" in John 10:34 ... Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? ... My first reaction was that Yeshua was referring to the Torah (Law), but then after your post i remembered that "law" (all lower case) refers to scripture in the Tanakh that is not found in the Torah (first 5 books of the Law).

I also do not base my doctrines on whether or not the English translations have a capital or not. The Greek word for "law" is "nomos". When translated into English, the KJV never uses "Law". Perhaps newer versions do, but it is irrelevant since the Greek doesn't make that distinction.

Psalm 82:1-8 NKJV
1 God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. ("I said" is referring to Yeshua)
7 But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You shall inherit all nations.

Verse 6 above implies that his Lord (Yeshua) is actually referring to Himself. In fact isn't the entire passage the Words of Yeshua being proclaimed by David.

This Psalm was written by Asaph, not David.

Verse 8 is controversial in that He is referring to Yeshua (Lord) who will "judge the earth" and "shalt inherit all nations." Thus, one could interpret verse 8 as Yeshua in effect inheriting the title of God at some point in the future; while still acknowledging "the most High."

Yeshua will indeed "inherit all nations", but so will Father YHWH.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord (refers to Father YHWH), and of his Messiah; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
​

The kingdoms/nations of this world are not Father YHWH's at this time. He gave portions of planet Earth to various nations as their inheritance (Deuteronomy 32:8) since He owned everything. The people of Canaan lost their inheritance because of their sins and it was given to Israel as their inheritance. In our future, all nations will lose their inheritance and it will become Father YHWH's. He will inherit them back. Once His, He will then give them all to Yeshua for his inheritance. (BTW, notice my capitalization in that last sentence to distinguish pronouns referring to the Father and Son). Do not think it strange that Father YHWH can "inherit". Consider the verses below.

Deuteronomy 9:26 I prayed therefore unto YHWH, and said, O Adonai YHWH, destroy not thy people and thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed through thy greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
Deuteronomy 9:29 Yet they are thy people and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest out by thy mighty power and by thy stretched out arm.
Zechariah 2:12 And YHWH shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.​

So when Psalm 82:8 says, "For you shall inherit all nations", it is referring to Father YHWH who is speaking.

David being a Messianic Jew was inspired by the Lord prophetically when he said in Psalm 110:1 "The LORD said to my Lord ... ." Do you believe the newest NIV translation to be a more accurate representation of Psalm 110:1 in it's departure from "Lord" to "lord" and making such a distinction between "LORD" and "lord" ? I say foul based on John 1:1 and John 1:14 ... "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." NKJV

Psalm 110:1 ... newest NIV translation does not (IMO) present Yeshua as the "Son of GOD" (Lord).
The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
The LORD GOD would refer to the Word (John 1:1, 14) as "lord" ... Really?

I agree, except for John 1:1. The reference to Yeshua in Psalm 110:1 needs to be capitalized. Ironically, the NIV does give it a capital "L" in Matthew 22:44.

Is it your interpretation that the NIV's impliied meaning of "my lord" just while Yeshua is seated at the right hand of the LORD until GOD makes the "lord's" enemies a footstool for his feet? Is it your opinion that only after Yeshua returns to "judge the earth" and "inherit all nations" that He then inherits the title of "LORD" (all caps)? Is that your perception that Yeshua is currently "lord" (adoni) and only when he/He returns to set up His Kingdom does He then inherit the title of LORD (all caps) or Lord ?

I have always referred to Yeshua as "Lord", never "lord". The only verse I can think of that remotely suggests that Yeshua will someday be called YHWH is Jeremiah 23:6.

In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
​

However, it seems as those Jerusalem will bear the same name.

Jeremiah 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, YHWH our righteousness.
​

Neither one of these verses is renaming the subject "YHWH". They are simply names they will be called that include the name YHWH in their meaning. An example of this is Jehoshaphat meaning "YHWH judged". The man is not named "YHWH", but was given a name bearing

If the NIV is consistent with your interpretation ("my lord") then that runs counter to the NKJV that capitalizes "He" "Him" "Himself" when referring to Yeshua. Which do you believe to bei a better interpretation ... "my lord" or "my Lord" ... "he" or "He"[/QUOTE]
"my Lord" and "he" (if it is questionable whether the pronoun refers to the Father or the Son. If it is in verse like
1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," I have no problem using a capital "He".

However, here is how I would translate 1 John 5:1:

Whosoever believes that Yeshua is the Messiah is born of Elohim: and every one that loves Him that begat loves him also that is begotten of Him.
​

The capital "Him" refers to the Father (Elohim/God).

 

[AbbaLove]

Sorry AbbaLove, but I do not study Scripture like that (reading things or people into the text). You are not only reading Yeshua into Psalm 82:6 as the speaker, but you are reading him into John 1:1 as the "logos". Doing so skews your entire theology.

Instead of studying the scriptures to support your understanding allow the Spirit of God to open your eyes to the fullness of the Godhead. To exclude Yeshua from the Godhead is to misunderstand the Eternal Word ...

John 1:1-5,14 NKJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

He, Him and His in the above verses refers to Yeshua ... "the only begotten of the Father."

Your rationale in your posts on the past threads reminds me of what Yeshua told Nicodemus.

John 3:9-13 NKJV
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?
11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Your misunderstanding is due to your own human understanding in that you are unable to wrap your mind around concepts that are supernatural beyond natural man's comprehension like "the Son of Man who is in heaven" (verse 13).

The reason your thinking is skewed is because you are trying to explain Yeshua with human understanding which is evident from your remark about the Messianic Judaism article entitled G-d is One, Not A Trinity by Ellen Kavanaugh.

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

WOW! Now I know why Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Those two articles are far from true.

Certainly you don't believe that only men receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do you actually believe that even though Ellen and Vis are basically in agreement that their perspective is skewed because the Holy Spirit endows a born again man with more knowledge and wisdom than a born again woman?

I'll stick with Thomas that said in front of Yeshua and the other Disciples, "My Lord and my God!" I would be willing to accept your perspective if the glorified Yeshua had corrected Thomas by saying something like, "Only my Father is God!" as you contend, but Yeshua never corrected Thomas. Also, there is no mention among His Disciples as to whether or not they doubted that Yeshua was "God" (not god). So, i'm trusting in the Word (e.g. John 1:1-5,14 ~ John 3:9-13 ~ John 20:28) and therefore side with Visionary, Ellen and many other Messianics who accept the supernatural manifestation that is foreign to some unable to grasp the supernatural manifestation of the Godhead.

John 3:8 NKJV
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

John 20:29 NKJV
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (in reference to Thomas saying, "My Lord and my God!")

I pray that the day will come where you too, like Thomas and the other Disciples, will say, "My Lord and my God!" placing equal emphasis on both "Lord" and "God" and no longer referring to our Lord and Saviour as "an elohim." Also that you will capitalize He, Him and Himself when referring to Yeshua as He is certainly deserving of such recognition.


Romans 1:16-17
16 For I am not ashamed of the Good News, since it is God’s powerful means of bringing salvation to everyone who keeps on trusting, to the Jew especially, but equally to the Gentile.
17 For in it is revealed how God makes people righteous in His sight; and from beginning to end it is through trust — as the Tanakh puts it, “But the person who is righteous will live his life by trust.” (Habakkuk 2:4; Proverbs 3:5-6)
​

​

 

[gadar perets]

Instead of studying the scriptures to support your understanding allow the Spirit of God to open your eyes to the fullness of the Godhead. To exclude Yeshua from the Godhead is to misunderstand the Eternal Word ...

John 1:1-5,14 NKJV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

He, Him and His in the above verses refers to Yeshua ... "the only begotten of the Father."

Are you aware that English Bibles preceding the KJV did not read "He" or "Him" in verses 2-4, but "This same" and "it"? Tyndale, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, etc. all read similarly:

"This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

Then along came the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament which used "He" and "Him". All English Bibles after that used "He" and "Him" as well. Does that tell you anything?

Your rationale in your posts on the past threads reminds me of what Yeshua told Nicodemus.

John 3:9-13 NKJV
9 Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”
10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?
11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Your misunderstanding is due to your own human understanding in that you are unable to wrap your mind around concepts that are supernatural beyond natural man's comprehension like "the Son of Man who is in heaven" (verse 13).

Have you noticed that John 3:3-12 are all written in the first person because Yeshua is the speaker? Verses 13-31, however, are written in the third person because the Apostle John is telling us about Yeshua. You have been deceived by Bible publishers into believing verses 13-31 are Yeshua's words because they are in red. When John wrote, "the Son of Man who is in heaven," he was referring to Yeshua being in heaven at the time he wrote his Gospel (after Yeshua's ascension).

The reason your thinking is skewed is because you are trying to explain Yeshua with human understanding which is evident from your remark about the Messianic Judaism article entitled G-d is One, Not A Trinity by Ellen Kavanaugh.

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

​

Certainly you don't believe that only men receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Do you actually believe that even though Ellen and Vis are basically in agreement that their perspective is skewed because the Holy Spirit endows a born again man with more knowledge and wisdom than a born again woman?​

​

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:11-14​

Is this just Paul's false, weird, personal advice or is there spiritual truth to it? Ellen's view is skewed because it is unscriptural.

I'll stick with Thomas that said in front of Yeshua and the other Disciples, "My Lord and my God!" I would be willing to accept your perspective if the glorified Yeshua had corrected Thomas by saying something like, "Only my Father is God!" as you contend, but Yeshua never corrected Thomas. Also, there is no mention among His Disciples as to whether or not they doubted that Yeshua was "God" (not god). So, i'm trusting in the Word (e.g. John 1:1-5,14 ~ John 3:9-13 ~ John 20:28) and therefore side with Visionary, Ellen and many other Messianics who accept the supernatural manifestation that is foreign to some unable to grasp the supernatural manifestation of the Godhead.

Your words above show me you have not understood my view. Do you actually believe Thomas said "my God"? He did not speak English! If he said, "my Elohim", that is not a problem because "elohim" is used of men and angels, so Yeshua would have no need to correct him.
​

​

 

[visionary]

Who is Ellen?

 

[gadar perets]

Who is Ellen?

She wrote the article AbbaLove referenced: http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html. She correctly opposes the trinity, but then incorrectly makes the Son the Father.

 

[AbbaLove]

Who is Ellen?

Deity Of Messiah: Was Yeshua G-d?
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/deity.html
and
G-d is One, Not A Trinity
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html
(both articles by Ellen Kavanaugh)
​

Does gp actually believe that a born again Messianic woman's spiritual wisdom and knowledge is skewed if she disagrees with gp's belief that Yeshua is "an elohim" and therefore not God. Does gp actually believe that the Holy Spirit will not endow a born again Messianic woman with knowledge and wisdom that can be beneficial to a man that trusts in his own religious understanding. An understanding that is unable to grasp the deeper Spiritual Truths of His Word. Would gp have us believe that even born again Messianic women that would disagree with his own opinion of Yeshua as "an elohim" are thereby skewed and unscriptural in their Spiritual understanding if should they believe that Yeshua is the manifestation of Elohim Himself (John 1:1-14) and thereby God. Well, we know what to make of a man that as a last resort has to pull up the following scripture to put down the beliefs of a Messianic woman from which he could actually benefit. What is even more repulsive is he uses this scripture; while knowing that her expressed view is accepted within the Messianic Community. Apparently gp supports his position that Ellen's view is unscriptural because she is a woman whose expressed beliefs differs from his own understanding.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:11-14​

Is this just Paul's false, weird, personal advice or is there spiritual truth to it? Ellen's view is skewed because it is unscriptural.

Lord of Lords

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords,the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.
Revelation 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful..... 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh He has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
1 Timothy 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—He who isthe blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

Apparently gp doesn't believe that a born again Messianic woman like yourself or Ellen Kavanaugh should attempt to present Spiritual Truths that gp is unable to grasp, but Truths that are accepted within the Messianic Community (e.g. John 1:1-5,14 and John 14:8-9) as well as many other scriptures (Spiritual Truths) presented by You and Ellen Kavanaugh in her two articles posted above.

Certainly by now we had hoped that gp would've accepted the Spiritual Truths so evident in the following inspired Words of God that is accepted within the Messianic Community as His Truth. ...

John 1:1-5, 14 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Yochanan 14:8-9 (OJB)
8 Philippos says to him, Adoni, show us [Elohim] HaAv and it is enough for us.
9 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to Philippos, So long a time with you I am and you have not had da’as of me, Philippos? The one having seen me has seen [Elohim] HaAv [Col. 1:15; YESHAYAH 9:5(6); Prov 30:4] How do you say, Show us HaAv?
John 14:8-9 (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’?
John 14:8-9 (NKJV)
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

​

 

[gadar perets]

Does gp actually believe that a born again Messianic woman's spiritual wisdom and knowledge is skewed if she disagrees with gp's belief that Yeshua is "an elohim" and therefore not God.

No, he doesn't. You know full well that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the Son is the Father (the "only true Elohim").

Does gp actually believe that the Holy Spirit will not endow a born again Messianic woman with knowledge and wisdom that can be beneficial to a man that trusts in his own religious understanding.

No, he does not. He believes as Paul taught; that a woman should not teach men. I have no problem with a spirit filled woman teaching other women and/or children.

Would gp have us believe that even born again Messianic women that would disagree with his own opinion of Yeshua as "an elohim" are thereby skewed and unscriptural in their Spiritual understanding if should they believe that Yeshua is the manifestation of Elohim Himself (John 1:1-14) and thereby God.

The understanding of men that teach that is skewed as well.

Well, we know what to make of a man that as a last resort has to pull up the following scripture to put down the beliefs of a Messianic woman from which he could actually benefit. What is even more repulsive is he uses this scripture; while knowing that her expressed view is accepted within the Messianic Community. Apparently gp supports his position that Ellen's view is unscriptural because she is a woman whose expressed beliefs differs from his own understanding.

Apparently al thinks the Messianic Community is inerrant. Almost all of Christianity accepts the trinity. So, by extension, you are saying the trinity is true because their view is accepted within their community. Also, you haven't given me your understanding, or should I say, the Messianic Community's understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

Certainly by now we had hoped that gp would've accepted the Spiritual Truths so evident in the following inspired Words of God that is accepted within the Messianic Community as His Truth. ...

John 1:1-5, 14 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Why haven't you addressed the earlier English translations of this passage?​

John 14:8-9 (NKJV)

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

No man has ever seen the Father (God). That includes Philip. Philip was seeing the express image of the Father.

John 1:18 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 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Here is what we are to confess:

1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God (the Father), but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God (the Father) so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1Jn 4:12 No man hath seen God 9The Father) at any time. If we love one another, God (the Father) dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us.
1Jn 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in Him (the Father), and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Yeshua is the Son of God (the Father), God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
​

Show me where we are to confess that Yeshua is the Father.

 

[pinacled]

No, he doesn't. You know full well that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the Son is the Father (the "only true Elohim").



No, he does not. He believes as Paul taught; that a woman should not teach men. I have no problem with a spirit filled woman teaching other women and/or children.


The understanding of men that teach that is skewed as well.


Apparently al thinks the Messianic Community is inerrant. Almost all of Christianity accepts the trinity. So, by extension, you are saying the trinity is true because their view is accepted within their community. Also, you haven't given me your understanding, or should I say, the Messianic Community's understanding of 1 Timothy 2:11-14.

Why haven't you addressed the earlier English translations of this passage?​

No man has ever seen the Father (God). That includes Philip. Philip was seeing the express image of the Father.

John 1:18 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 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Here is what we are to confess:

1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God (the Father), but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God (the Father) so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1Jn 4:12 No man hath seen God 9The Father) at any time. If we love one another, God (the Father) dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us.
1Jn 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in Him (the Father), and He in us, because He hath given us of His Spirit.
1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
1Jn 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Yeshua is the Son of God (the Father), God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
​

Show me where we are to confess that Yeshua is the Father.

What are you chasing after.

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[gadar perets]

What are you chasing after.

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

I am not chasing anything. I have found it and it is now my possession. I wish to share my treasure.

Nor do I despise anyone. Just because I believe, as Paul, that a woman should not teach a man or usurp his authority, does not me I despise them. I also agree with Paul that a bishop/overseer in an Assembly should only have one wife. That doesn't mean I despise bishops/overseers. If I see a bishop/overseer with more than one wife, I will correct them by telling them what Paul taught.

 

[pinacled]

I am not chasing anything. I have found it and it is now my possession. I wish to share my treasure.

Nor do I despise anyone. Just because I believe, as Paul, that a woman should not teach a man or usurp his authority, does not me I despise them. I also agree with Paul that a bishop/overseer in an Assembly should only have one wife. That doesn't mean I despise bishops/overseers. If I see a bishop/overseer with more than one wife, I will correct them by telling them what Paul taught.

And if such an Woman were your Elder would you suffer her to teach?

 

[gadar perets]

And if such an Woman were your Elder would you suffer her to teach?

That depends on what you mean by "Elder", who she is teaching and what she is teaching. If you are referring to an office in a church/assembly and she is teaching important doctrines to the men in the assembly, then I probably would not attend that assembly. If she is one of the elder/older women and she is teaching men how to love their wives, I would be all ears.

You can try and rationalize this, but the most important thing you need to ask yourself is, what did Paul mean and should we obey him? His plain words seem clear to me and I obey everything else he says, so why not this? When people don't want to obey something Paul taught, like this or head coverings ..., they usually claim it was a cultural thing at that time, but now we are more enlightened and full of grace ... The fact that Paul appeals to the example of Eve tells me this is not a cultural phenomenon, but has deep rooted spiritual implications and applications.

 

[pinacled]

That depends on what you mean by "Elder", who she is teaching and what she is teaching. If you are referring to an office in a church/assembly and she is teaching important doctrines to the men in the assembly, then I probably would not attend that assembly. If she is one of the elder/older women and she is teaching men how to love their wives, I would be all ears.

You can try and rationalize this, but the most important thing you need to ask yourself is, what did Paul mean and should we obey him? His plain words seem clear to me and I obey everything else he says, so why not this? When people don't want to obey something Paul taught, like this or head coverings ..., they usually claim it was a cultural thing at that time, but now we are more enlightened and full of grace ... The fact that Paul appeals to the example of Eve tells me this is not a cultural phenomenon, but has deep rooted spiritual implications and applications.

Pertaining to order.

I agree with you about, 'deep rooted spiritual implications.'
So whats going here?
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

[gadar perets]

Pertaining to order.

I agree with you about, 'deep rooted spiritual implications.'
So whats going here?
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I believe Paul is saying that if any man does not agree with what he just taught, but insists that men should cover their heads when praying or women can uncover their heads when praying, that neither he nor the churches of God have that custom.

 

[AbbaLove]

Show me where we are to confess that Yeshua is the Father.

Neither Visionary or Ellen Kavanaugh have said that MJs are to "confess that Yeshua is the Father." You should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting the posts of other members of this MJ forum. Are you saying that Yeshua Himself was telling Phillip to "confess that Yeshua as the Father." However several scriptures throughout the complete Hebrew/Jewish Bible implies that Yeshua is GOD and not "an elohim" as you mistakenly believe. What is your problem that you refuse to recognize the manifest nature of God.

It would be well for you to read these scripture passages again so as not to misinterpret what Yeshua is saying to Phillip.

Yochanan 14:8-9 (OJB)
8 Philippos says to him, Adoni, show us [Elohim] HaAv and it is enough for us.
9 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to Philippos, So long a time with you I am and you have not had da’as of me, Philippos? The one having seen me has seen [Elohim] HaAv [Col. 1:15; YESHAYAH 9:5(6); Prov 30:4] How do you say, Show us HaAv?
John 14:8-9 (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’?
John 14:8-9 (NKJV)
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Also you are mistaken if you think Ellen Kavanaugh believes in the Trinity. It would do you well to read her article and hopefully come to the realization that you are being to quick to dismiss her view just because she is a woman that doesn't believe like you do that Yeshua is "an elohim" when in fact she believes Yeshua is G-d. In fact it would do you well to read both articles instead of being so quick to disregard them because they are authored by a woman. Do you not understand that Ellen's Teacher is the Word of Yeshua (John 1:1-14) and not man's religious indoctrination.

Deity Of Messiah: Was Yeshua G-d?
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/deity.html
and
G-d is One, Not A Trinity
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/one.html
(both articles by Ellen Kavanaugh)
​

Your view seems to be in the minority in this MJ community as well as the greater Messianic Community that does not view Yeshua as "an elohim" which is your opinion based on your own religious understanding. You're view (an elohim) comes close to that of the JWs and some may even be wondering where you are coming from? However, i have read enough of your posts to realize your own understanding is basically because your own rational mind is unable to wrap itself around the more important Spiritual aspects of the WORD. Even Messianic children understand the following verses ... so what is your problem?

John 1:1-5, 14 (NKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here is an earlier translation of this English passage per your request ... what don't you understand?

John 1:1-5, 14 (1599 Geneva Bible)
1 In [a]the beginning [c]was [d]that Word, and that Word was [e]with God, and that [f]Word was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 And that light shineth in the wilderness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

14 [z]And that Word was made [aa]flesh, and [ab]dwelt among us, (and we saw the [ac]glory thereof, [ad]as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) [ae]full of grace and truth.

[a] John 1:1 The Son of God is of one, and the selfsame eternity or ever lastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature, with the Father.
John 1:1 From his beginning, as the Evangelist saith, 1 John 1:1, as though he said, that the world began not then to have his being, when God began to make all that was made: for the word was even then when all things that were made, began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.
[c] John 1:1 Had his being.
[d] John 1:1 This word, That, pointeth out unto us a peculiar and choice thing above all other, and putteth a difference between this Word, which is the Son of God, and the Laws of God, which otherwise also are called the word of God.
[e] John 1:1 This word (With) putteth out the distinction of persons to us.
[f] John 1:1 This word (Word) is the first in order in the sentence, and is that which the learned call (Subjectum and this word (God) is the latter in order, and the same which the learned call (Predicatum.)

The problem is that your own religious understanding (bias) is misguiding your interpretation of scripture.

[z] John 1:14 That Son, who is God from everlasting, took upon him man’s nature, that one and the selfsame might be both God and man, which manifestly appeared to many witnesses, that saw him amongst whom he was conversant, and unto whom by sure and undoubted arguments he showed both his natures.
[aa] John 1:14 That is, man: so that the part is taken for the whole, by the figure Synecdoche: for he took upon him all our whole nature, that is to say, a true body, and a true soul.
[ab] John 1:14 For a season, and when that was ended, he went up into heaven: for the word which he useth, is taken from tents: and yet notwithstanding, his absence from us in body is not such, but that he is always present with us, though not in flesh, yet by the virtue of his Spirit.
[ac] John 1:14 The glory which he speaketh of here, is that manifestation of Christ’s majesty, which was as it were laid open before our eyes when the Son of God appeared in flesh.
[ad] John 1:14 This word (as) doth not in this place betoken a likeness, but the truth of the matter, for his meaning is this, that we saw such a glory, as beseemed and was meet for the true and only begotten Son of God, who is Lord and King over all the world.
[ae] John 1:14 He was not only a partaker of grace and truth, but was full of the very substance of grace and truth.

Can you not yet see how your own religious thinking has so skewed your biased opinion that you actually can't see what is so obvious right in front of your eyes. How can you still believe that Yeshua is "an elohim" when in fact these verses makes it clear that Yeshua is God.

 

[gadar perets]

Neither Visionary or Ellen Kavanaugh said or implied that Messianics are to "confess that Yeshua is the Father." You are putting words in other peoples mouths. Yeshua Himself never said that Phillip was to "confess that Yeshua is the Father" although scritpure implies that He is GOD and not "an elohim" as you mistakenly believe.

I never said they said that. I gave you 1 John 4:15 to show you what Scripture says we are to confess. That is what I confess; that Yeshua is the Son of Elohim. Yet you are trying to teach me that he is the only true Elohim and my Heavenly Father.

It would be well for you to read these scripture passages again so as not to misinterpret what Yeshua is saying to Phillip.

Yochanan 14:8-9 (OJB)
8 Philippos says to him, Adoni, show us [Elohim] HaAv and it is enough for us.
9 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to Philippos, So long a time with you I am and you have not had da’as of me, Philippos? The one having seen me has seen [Elohim] HaAv [Col. 1:15; YESHAYAH 9:5(6); Prov 30:4] How do you say, Show us HaAv?
John 14:8-9 (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’?
John 14:8-9 (NKJV)
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

You would do well to explain how your view that Yeshua is the Father harmonizes with all the verses I gave showing no man has seen the Father.

Also you are mistaken if you think Ellen Kavanaugh believes in the Trinity.

This just shows that you don't read my replies carefully. All you want to do is refute. In post #88 I wrote, "She correctly opposes the trinity, but then incorrectly makes the Son the Father."

​

Here is an earlier translation of this English passage per your request ... what don't you understand?

John 1:1-5, 14 (1599 Geneva Bible)
1 In [a]the beginning [c]was [d]that Word, and that Word was [e]with God, and that [f]Word was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 And that light shineth in the wilderness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

14 [z]And that Word was made [aa]flesh, and [ab]dwelt among us, (and we saw the [ac]glory thereof, [ad]as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) [ae]full of grace and truth.

I understand it perfectly. The "Word" (logos) is an "it", not a person, as the Geneva Bible translates it. Why on earth are you citing the same Geneva Bible that I used in post #86 to show you they did not use "him". You are so confused you don't even know what you are writing.

[a] John 1:1 The Son of God is of one, and the selfsame eternity or ever lastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature, with the Father.
John 1:1 From his beginning, as the Evangelist saith, 1 John 1:1, as though he said, that the world began not then to have his being, when God began to make all that was made: for the word was even then when all things that were made, began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.
[c] John 1:1 Had his being.
[d] John 1:1 This word, That, pointeth out unto us a peculiar and choice thing above all other, and putteth a difference between this Word, which is the Son of God, and the Laws of God, which otherwise also are called the word of God.
[e] John 1:1 This word (With) putteth out the distinction of persons to us.
[f] John 1:1 This word (Word) is the first in order in the sentence, and is that which the learned call (Subjectum and this word (God) is the latter in order, and the same which the learned call (Predicatum.)

The problem is that your own religious understanding (bias) is misguiding your interpretation of scripture.

I guess William Tyndale, Thomas Matthew, Miles Coverdale, and all the translators of the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible were also misguided until those Roman Catholic translators set them straight.

[z] John 1:14 That Son, who is God from everlasting, took upon him man’s nature, that one and the selfsame might be both God and man, which manifestly appeared to many witnesses, that saw him amongst whom he was conversant, and unto whom by sure and undoubted arguments he showed both his natures.
[aa] John 1:14 That is, man: so that the part is taken for the whole, by the figure Synecdoche: for he took upon him all our whole nature, that is to say, a true body, and a true soul.
[ab] John 1:14 For a season, and when that was ended, he went up into heaven: for the word which he useth, is taken from tents: and yet notwithstanding, his absence from us in body is not such, but that he is always present with us, though not in flesh, yet by the virtue of his Spirit.
[ac] John 1:14 The glory which he speaketh of here, is that manifestation of Christ’s majesty, which was as it were laid open before our eyes when the Son of God appeared in flesh.
[ad] John 1:14 This word (as) doth not in this place betoken a likeness, but the truth of the matter, for his meaning is this, that we saw such a glory, as beseemed and was meet for the true and only begotten Son of God, who is Lord and King over all the world.
[ae] John 1:14 He was not only a partaker of grace and truth, but was full of the very substance of grace and truth.

Can you not yet see how your own religious thinking has so skewed your biased opinion that you actually can't see what is so obvious right in front of your eyes. How can you still believe that Yeshua is "an elohim" when in fact these verses makes it clear that Yeshua is God.

What verses make that clear? John 1:14 or commentary "z"? Try allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you into truth rather than commentary "z" leading you into error. I know full well that Yeshua is the "logos" of John 1:14. He was not the "logos" before he was conceived. The logos was made flesh means Father YHWH's spoken words and thoughts were made into a 100% flesh and blood male human being.

 

[pinacled]

I am not chasing anything. I have found it and it is now my possession. I wish to share my treasure.

Nor do I despise anyone. Just because I believe, as Paul, that a woman should not teach a man or usurp his authority, does not me I despise them. I also agree with Paul that a bishop/overseer in an Assembly should only have one wife. That doesn't mean I despise bishops/overseers. If I see a bishop/overseer with more than one wife, I will correct them by telling them what Paul taught.

Curious choice of words. You seen to have done some homework.
Yet how is it that this treasure of yours has no form of edification.

So I will be direct.
Gadar, Are you a first born male?

Visionary I appologize for any ineruption.

 

[gadar perets]

Curious choice of words. You seen to have done some homework.
Yet how is it that this treasure of yours has no form of edification.

Its called "fear". People have been so brainwashed concerning certain theological issues that they are too afraid of losing their salvation or of being ostracized by their faith community.

So I will be direct.
Gadar, Are you a first born male?

No. I am a second born male. My brother is an atheist. What does it matter? I am the first born again male in my family.