Hebrews

[Tanakh]

And yet it is interesting in the shma HaShem did not use yakhid but ekhad to say YHVH is ekhad.

The Shema is an affirmation that G-d is ONE, in the utmost degree of unity without having any attachment to Him because His essence is above our understanding but His attributes are within our capability to gain knowledge about Him, to "walk in His ways".

Bill Hillary and Chelsey Clinton. One name Clinton, three people who are the one name Clinton.

Wow, that was just an amazing way of proving nothing! LOL

 

[Tanakh]

And you cannot deny the fact that elohiym is a plural word.

The name Elohim is NOT a plural word, period.

 

[Heber]

It is not a "circular argument" and is simply a debate and in that regard I thank everyone who has participated in this thread so there is no need to get hostile about the way the thread has evolved.

It is not a case of being hostile - it is the case that you are not prepared to look at evidence and give an answer; see the previous post as prime evidence - statement without evidence! Therefore it is a circular argument - I, and others, have shown, linguistically, why you are in error on at least 3 counts and you simply trot out the same answer with no real proof and simply ignore the evidence we present. What sort of debate do you call that?

Even your erstwhile defender gave up in the face of more evidence to the contrary... it is time you accepted that you are are in error and stop running in circles, and let's debate somthing you (or others) are prepared to be serious about.

 

[Tanakh]

It is not a case of being hostile - it is the case that you are not prepared to look at evidence and give an answer; see the previous post as prime evidence - statement without evidence! Therefore it is a circular argument - I, and others, have shown, linguistically, why you are in error on at least 3 counts and you simply trot out the same answer with no real proof and simply ignore the evidence we present. What sort of debate do you call that?

Even your erstwhile defender gave up in the face of more evidence to the contrary... it is time you accepted that you are are in error and stop running in circles, and let's debate somthing you (or others) are prepared to be serious about.

Very well, over the next few days I will compile information to be used in further discussion and in this way we can all keep the thread going in a productive manner but until then I encourage anyone with more information to add to this debate to do so provided it is in keeping with the theme of the thread and to the degree that it will provide others on CF or those simply viewing the thread as "guests" to gain a better understanding of the material presented and again I appreciate all who have contributed to the thread.

 

[Heber]

Very well, over the next few days I will compile information to be used in further discussion and in this way we can all keep the thread going in a productive manner but until then I encourage anyone with more information to add to this debate to do so provided it is in keeping with the theme of the thread and to the degree that it will provide others on CF or those simply viewing the thread as "guests" to gain a better understanding of the material presented and again I appreciate all who have contributed to the thread.

Then go back through these posts and answer the outstanding statements made against your argument that, thus far, you have all but ignored.

 

[johnd]

The name Elohim is NOT a plural word, period.

Then what is elohe? Partial deity? Half of God, or a third, or a tenth? What?

 

[ContraMundum]

Elohim simply means G-d or "The G-d" and in and of itself does not denote plurality, least of all a trinitarian one. Other names of G-d can denote plurality in His attributes but not in His essence, that G-d is G-d as the name YHVH denotes. It is why most Jews will use HASHEM (The Name) or ADONAI (L-rd).

Elohim. אלוה with the plural suffix. Plural. End of argument. This is not even disputed by the Rabbis, so I don't know where your claims to the contrary come from.


Anyway- There can be many "HaShem"s, but there is only One God. This is why we don't use HaShem to describe God. We consider it disrespectful to Him to refer to His as "The Name" when He is not some transcendant, distant deity, but our imminent Father and more.

 

[Heber]

Elohim. אלוה with the plural suffix. Plural. End of argument. This is not even disputed by the Rabbis, so I don't know where your claims to the contrary come from.


Anyway- There can be many "HaShem"s, but there is only One God. This is why we don't use HaShem to describe God. We consider it disrespectful to Him to refer to His as "The Name" when He is not some transcendant, distant deity, but our imminent Father and more.

Tanakh has yet to solve the problem of 'let us' in the B'resheet texts...

 

[ContraMundum]

Tanakh has yet to solve the problem of 'let us' in the B'resheet texts...

Yes, and grammar dictates that the parsing of a phrase has to agree with the subject. It must read "let us" or else it would clash with the plural "Elohim".

 

[johnd]

As an aside, Heber, and ContraMundum, I gather from the entirety of scripture that there is an emptying of self not only in God the Word / Messiah (Philippians 2:8) but also the Spirit who must search the mind of the Father (1 Corinthians 2:11) apparently to deal with temporal beings (humanity). That the Father remains on this higher plain of existence which is how his is the final authority to which the Messiah and the Spirit submit.

And while the Father is aware of all things and in touch with all things we cannot relate to him directly because he is so alknowing and above it all.

If this is correct, then God the Word (Messiah) is the one with whom mankind has been dealing directly all along. And that the only thing new about going through him (in his name) in prayer or deed is our knowledge through the revelation that this is what has been going on all along.

And this would sure answer some questions in texts about God seeming not to know something at times... John 5:19ff may only be in reference to the incarnation but it may also refer to his "emptied" state (Philippians 2:8) note that despite the self-imposed limitations listed... the Son has the ability to do what the Father can do (in John 5).

 

[Heber]

JD

There isn't a John 5:99!

 

[Tanakh]

Elohim. אלוה with the plural suffix. Plural. End of argument. This is not even disputed by the Rabbis, so I don't know where your claims to the contrary come from.


Anyway- There can be many "HaShem"s, but there is only One God. This is why we don't use HaShem to describe God. We consider it disrespectful to Him to refer to His as "The Name" when He is not some transcendant, distant deity, but our imminent Father and more.

HASHEM is the word used in place of the pronounced YHVH and so it means "The Name". There is only ONE HASHEM and that is G-d and G-d alone, without any help from the "son". So refering to G-d as HASHEM is hardly "disrespectful" as you put it.

 

[Tanakh]

Tanakh has yet to solve the problem of 'let us' in the B'resheet texts...

I have already stated that in Genesis 1:26-27 G-d is discussing with the ministering angels about why and how man should be created.

"And G-d said, "Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness. They shall rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animal, the whole earth, and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So G-d created Man in His image, in the image of G-d He created him; male and female He created them." - Genesis 1:26-27

Later, when Moses was writing down the Torah that G-d dictated to him, he came across this passage and asked G-d why He said "Let us make" because it implied that their was more then one Creator or that their was plurality in G-d and G-d replied to Moses that people who will wish that G-d was like the gods will do so but those of wisdom will know that G-d was taking councel with His angels on the sixth day to debate about the creation of man. So the Torah makes clear, once again, that G-d is not plural so therefore the trinity is groundless when confronted with Torah law, which ironically the Gospels are (supposedly) based off of.

 

[Heber]

Later, when Moses was writing down the Torah that G-d dictated to him, he came across this passage and asked G-d why He said "Let us make" because it implied that their was more then one Creator or that their was plurality in G-d and G-d replied to Moses that people who will wish that G-d was like the gods will do so but those of wisdom will know that G-d was taking councel with His angels on the sixth day to debate about the creation of man. So the Torah makes clear, once again, that G-d is not plural so therefore the trinity is groundless when confronted with Torah law, which ironically the Gospels are (supposedly) based off of.

Errr, where is the above to be found in the Tanakh?

So G-d was actually working on Shabbat -chairing a heavenly Council meeting and not resting as the Bible says? As if!

Why base your argument on something outside of the Scriptures? It is all VERY convenient, that this discussion just happened to take place and NO ONE recorded it! I hope you never have the dubious pleasure of representing me in a Court of Law - I'm too young to die because the evidence was made up as it went along and none of it was from a tangible or verifiable source.

I repeat my question in a slightly different form: where in the Tanakh does it say, emphatically, that Elohim is singular and that the 'let us' relates to G_d chairing a Council meeting with angels? Please note the source reference - not your inner feelings or guessings, but in the Tanakh?

 

[Tanakh]

Errr, where is the above to be found in the Tanakh?

So G-d was actually working on Shabbat -chairing a heavenly Council meeting and not resting as the Bible says? As if!

Why base your argument on something outside of the Scriptures? It is all VERY convenient, that this discussion just happened to take place and NO ONE recorded it! I hope you never have the dubious pleasure of representing me in a Court of Law - I'm too young to die because the evidence was made up as it went along and none of it was from a tangible or verifiable source.

I repeat my question in a slightly different form: where in the Tanakh does it say, emphatically, that Elohim is singular and that the 'let us' relates to G_d chairing a Council meeting with angels? Please note the source reference - not your inner feelings or guessings, but in the Tanakh?

Man was created on the sixth day, G-d rested on the seventh day so logic would obviously dictate that He could not have rested before His work was completed. It was noted in the Midrash that the text is pointing to the angels because for one, man had not yet been created, and two, the world had not yet been made "good" and so if Jesus is the second part of the trinity how can it be so that before man was created Jesus could have existed?

 

[johnd]

JD

There isn't a John 5:99!

John 5:19 ff (and verses following)

typo

 

[Heber]

Man was created on the sixth day, G-d rested on the seventh day so logic would obviously dictate that He could not have rested before His work was completed. It was noted in the Midrash that the text is pointing to the angels because for one, man had not yet been created, and two, the world had not yet been made "good" and so if Jesus is the second part of the trinity how can it be so that before man was created Jesus could have existed?

Ah, so you prefer to take the word of mere man above the word of G_d. That's fine - I know not to take your responses too seriously.

On to sound Biblical matters. You say that man was created on the 6th day and G_d rested on the 7th - that is Biblical fact. Then you say that this conversation with the Council of angels that supposedly took place on the 7th day, the day of rest, the Shabbat, had to be so because man had not yet been created! If G_d created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th did he not create man within those 6 days, or did he do it on the 8th, 9th, 10th - 100th, 10000th day? You really are stretching the truth of Tanakh to breaking point (and this is supposed to be your own faith you are defending!)

You then imply that the world was not seen by G_d as being 'good' at that point, so he must have come back and finished it after the 7th day. Therefore the world was not, according to your extra-Biblical man-made sources, completed in 6 days!

Regarding your comment about Yeshua. Yeshua did not become 'as man' until 2000 years ago when he gave up his G_dly powers and status and came to earth (read Philippians). More than 5769 years ago Yeshua existed - that is why 'Elohim' and 'let us' are there, in the plural. At least this can be proven using the Tanakh, rather than your extra-Biblical resources that seem to be floundering. You really should study the latter testament because your understanding of the Messianic movement and/or Christianity is flawed in the extreme.

 

[Heber]

As an aside, Heber, and ContraMundum, I gather from the entirety of scripture that there is an emptying of self not only in God the Word / Messiah (Philippians 2:8) but also the Spirit who must search the mind of the Father (1 Corinthians 2:11) apparently to deal with temporal beings (humanity). That the Father remains on this higher plain of existence which is how his is the final authority to which the Messiah and the Spirit submit.

And while the Father is aware of all things and in touch with all things we cannot relate to him directly because he is so alknowing and above it all.

If this is correct, then God the Word (Messiah) is the one with whom mankind has been dealing directly all along. And that the only thing new about going through him (in his name) in prayer or deed is our knowledge through the revelation that this is what has been going on all along.

And this would sure answer some questions in texts about God seeming not to know something at times... John 5:19ff may only be in reference to the incarnation but it may also refer to his "emptied" state (Philippians 2:8) note that despite the self-imposed limitations listed... the Son has the ability to do what the Father can do (in John 5).

When Yeshua walked this earth he was subordinate to his father because Yeshua, although still G_d, was by his own choice as a man and so, to experience what we experience, he had to submit to being subordinate, as we are. The Spirit always searches the things of G_d because his job is to point us to the Word, to enable us to pray effectively, and to give us the gifts that G_d wants us to have etc etc. He must therefore always be looking to G_d although he is an integral part of the G_d-head, as is Yeshua; he is the gift that resides within us to enable all these things, because he is Spirit. All this would explain why Yeshua did not know everything - he was living under the same restrictions as us.

This has major implications for those who see, for example, that he knew exactly who would betray him well in advance, because he was G_d.

We can relate directly to the father - that was the whole point of the Temple curtain being torn in two from the top to the bottom - we do not need a middle man (priest, minister, rabbi etc etc). Sadly the father often gets missed out but we pray to the father, in the name of Yeshua, by the power of the Ruach HaKodesh who, when we do not know what to say, speaks for us by looking in our hearts.

The son can do only what the father says because the son is still G_d; even though he was 'as' man in every way except that he could not sin, neither could he go against what G_d required (see the Garden of Gethsemane experience - it's about subordination whilst he was as one of us). Therefore, being subordinate to the father, he says and does only what the father says and does. Hasatan, on the other hand, can only copy G_d -he cannot initiate anything that G_d can do. That is why we had a Bar Abba* on trial at the same time as Yeshua - two men who were called Son of the Father for the crowd to choose from; one was really the Son of the Father and the other was hasatan's copy! That is why Sha'ul tells us to test every spirit - is it a fake from hasatan or the real thing from G_d? The Bank of Engand fraud department only ever study the real coins and notes so that they can spot a fake a mile off (note that they do not study the false things), so we must study G_d in scripture so that we can spot a copy by hasatan a mile off, unlike the people of his day who voted to save the wrong Son of the Father, as G_d knew they would.

*Believe it or not there never was a man named Barabbas who was set free in place of Yeshua.

 

[johnd]

I am with you on every point, Heber... which incidentally did not disagree with what I posited as being necessary for an infinite God to communicate or interact with finite beings such as ourselves.

I got what you were saying about Bar Abba* but the very last point that there was not a Barabbas... or it was unclear. Are you asserting (as some do) there was no released prisoner and the Barabbas account was an antisemitic myth (interpolation of the Church, as it were)? Or that there was a man released that day whose name was something else not recorded in the Gospels but who was given the name (Jesus) Bar Abba* [old Greek manuscript textual variant for Matthew 27:15-18] suggesting what you said about the knock-off copy of the devil and trying to confuse the crowd and the Bible student?

 

[johnd]

Incidentally, hasatan's seed was not the decoy Bar Abba. That would be Yehuda ben Shimon Yish Kirioth. The only human being Satan literally entered into / possessed.

I do not want to derail this thread any further on the freedoms / restrictions observed by demon possession, other than to say if it is in fact the act of leaving one's first estate (Jude 6) then it tells us how convinced the devil was that the death of Jesus would defeat God.

It turned out that Christ's death was God's greatest victory.