1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John 1:1 according to the Messianic Faith

Discussion in 'Messianic Judaism' started by Daniel Gregg, May 15, 2016.

  1. gadar perets

    gadar perets Messianic Hebrew

    +1,028
    United States
    Unitarian
    Single
    US-Others
    The word echad does not mean a plural unity consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in Mark 12:28-34. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the scribe replied, "You are right in saying that [Elohim] is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the scribe understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the scribe answered wisely thereby confirming the scribe's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.
     
  2. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    In addition to "here" you appear to have also changed the outstanding singularity of the Father by leaving out the Tetragrammaton, (or a proper substitution thereof), in your quote. To say that "Elohim is one", imho, does not mean the same thing as what the Shema says. That is really the underlying issue of what all is going here in this thread as far as I might be concerned. Yeshua prayed that we may be one with him just as he is one with the Father. So then, if the Logos of Elohim has come to you are you not called an elohim? (John 10:35), and does Paul not likewise say to his audience that they are set to judge angels or messengers? (1 Corinthians 6:3).
    .
    .
     
  3. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    :oldthumbsup: I must have been writing my response when you posted this.
    .
    .
     
  4. visionary

    visionary Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I. Supporter

    +7,597
    Messianic
    My apologies... it was not my intent... since everyone knows the Shema, I thought all I had to do was give the gist and everyone would know it by heart and know what I was alluding to.
     
  5. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Well, my apologies too then because I did not mean to say that you meant it intentionally. I should have included something like "inadvertently" in my comments. It's all good but the main point I hold to, which is, that I see Elohim more as somewhat of a "compound unity" but it does not change what is clearly stated to be the case with our One and only heavenly Father whom Yeshua clearly says is greater than himself. :)
    .
    .
     
  6. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    By the way, all the commentary I have posted is my own, (unless quoted and linked), and the Greek texts are all available online in one place or another. Here is a little more copy and paste for you. Please tell me where I can find a Christian commentator who explains these things and what it all actually implies about early Church doctrine, the Theodotion text of Daniel which is now found in most Septuagint copies found online, (the text below is not the so-called Theodotion text of Daniel), the early Church doctrine concerning angelology and how and why it appears to have morphed, and what this all means in light of other critical statements such as Yeshua quoting from Psalms 82:6 in John 10:34, (knowing what Psalms 82:7 says about the sariym-princes), and so on.

    Daniel 12:1 LXX Old Greek (NOT the so-called Theodotion Text)
    12:1 και κατα την ωραν εκεινην παρελευσεται μιχαηλ ο αγγελος ο μεγας ο εστηκως επι τους υιους του λαου σου εκεινη η ημερα θλιψεως οια ουκ εγενηθη αφ' ου εγενηθησαν εως της ημερας εκεινης και εν εκεινη τη ημερα υψωθησεται πας ο λαος ος αν ευρεθη εγγεγραμμενος εν τω βιβλιω

    http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/27_012.htm

    Matthew 24:35 WH
    35 ο ουρανος και η γη παρελευσεται οι δε λογοι μου ου μη παρελθωσιν

    James 1:10 WH
    10 ο δε πλουσιος εν τη ταπεινωσει αυτου οτι ως ανθος χορτου παρελευσεται


    Epiphanius -- "The Gospel of the Ebionites"
    "'The borrowing from St. Luke is very evident here. He goes on:'
    And after a good deal more it continues that:
    After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John; and as he came up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Ghost in the likeness of a dove that descended and entered into him: and a voice from heaven saying: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and again: This day have I begotten thee. And straightway there shone about the place a great light. Which when John saw (it saith) he saith unto him: Who art thou, Lord? and again there was a voice from heaven saying unto him: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And then (it saith) John fell down before him and said: I beseech thee, Lord, baptize thou me. But he prevented him saying: Suffer it (or let it go): for thus it behoveth that all things should be fulfilled. And on this account they say that Jesus was begotten of the seed of a man, and was chosen; and so by the choice of God he was called the Son of God from the Christ that came into him from above in the likeness of a dove. And they deny that he was begotten of God the Father, but say that he was created as one of the archangels, yet greater, and that he is Lord of the angels and of all things made by the Almighty, and that he came and taught, as the Gospel (so called) current among them contains, that, 'I came to destroy the sacrifices, and if ye cease not from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you'."
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html

    Luke 3:22-23 Codex Bezae
    22 καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν εἰς αὐτόν καὶ φωνὴν ἐκ τοῡ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι υἱός μου εἶ σὺ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε
    23 ἦν δὲ Ἰης ὡς ἐτῶν -λ- [λ=30] ἀρχόμενος ὡς ἐνομίζετο εἶναι υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἰακὼβ

    http://codexbezae.perso.sfr.fr/cb/lk/lk.php?chapter=3&lang=a

    Lucy, somebody gonna have alotta splainin toodoo . . . :D
    .
    .
     
  7. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What would the statement you have quoted look like if one curtails his own thoughts and does not allow himself to add anything or take anything away from what is there?

    "the Elohey of Abraham, and Elohey Isaac, and Elohey Jacob"

    θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ θεὸς Ἰακώβ (Exodus 3:6b)
    οὐκ ἐστιν θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων· πολὺ πλανᾶσθε (Mark 12:27)
    θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν (Luke 20:38)
    καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ ὄχλοι ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ (Matthew 22:33)

    Would the multitude of the forum be astonished at his teaching? :D
    .
    .
     
  8. yonah_mishael

    yonah_mishael הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

    +1,234
    Judaism
    Single
    US-Democrat
    That's saying that the genitive in the conveniently-omitted phrase (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου) doesn't show us precisely what the phrase meant. It's simply the case that many transliterated names from other languages (not just Hebrew) into Greek are indeclinable. We have to assume, in this case, that they are genitive - just like τοῦ πατρός σου is genitive. Every Greek speaker would have understood that and would not have had unintelligible word strings in their minds similar to what you've created in English. By the way, elohei (אלהי) itself is genitive (construct), so if they imagined the sentence in Hebrew, it would have had a genitive included.
     
  9. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I understand those linguistic concerns but why then does Yeshua say the following?

    ουκ εστιν θεος νεκρων αλλα ζωντων (Mark 12:27a W/H)

    "Elohim is/are not dead but living" . . . (again: elohim = theos = intensive plural???)

    T/R sees this reading as problematic and inserts the article and then θεος again:

    ουκ εστιν ο θεος νεκρων αλλα θεος ζωντων (Mark 12:27a T/R)

    θεος δε ουκ εστιν νεκρων αλλα ζωντων (Luke 20:38a W/H)

    :scratch:
    .
    .
     
  10. yonah_mishael

    yonah_mishael הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

    +1,234
    Judaism
    Single
    US-Democrat
    It doesn't say that God is living. It says that he is God OF the living. This is the difference between νεκρός and νεκρῶν, and between ζῶν and ζώντων. I don't know where you learned Greek, but you're making some serious mistakes.
     
  11. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Well, you might remember from past discussions that we do not read things the same way nor do we necessarily always play by the same rules. The rules were made well after the writings, (and to some extent are still being made), and there are almost always exceptions to the rules. For instance των νεκρων is all over the place and that includes these same passages under discussion:

    Matthew 22:31-32 W/H
    31 περι δε της αναστασεως των νεκρων ουκ ανεγνωτε το ρηθεν υμιν υπο του θεου λεγοντος
    32 εγω ειμι ο θεος αβρααμ και ο θεος ισαακ και ο θεος ιακωβ ουκ εστιν [ο] θεος νεκρων αλλα ζωντων


    "But concerning the resurrection of the dead . . ."
    "But concerning the dead rising again . . ."


    Mark 12:26-27 W/H
    26 περι δε των νεκρων οτι εγειρονται ουκ ανεγνωτε εν τη βιβλω μωυσεως επι του βατου πως ειπεν αυτω ο θεος λεγων εγω ο θεος αβρααμ και θεος ισαακ και θεος ιακωβ
    27 ουκ εστιν θεος νεκρων αλλα ζωντων πολυ πλανασθε


    "But concerning the dead . . ."

    This could all be nothing more than a semantics game but, if θεος in the current passages quoted above, (and recalling its usage in Genesis 1:26), can be understood as an intensive plural equating to elohim; and if εστιν, (though it is classified as third person singular), can be understood as one of the exceptions to the modern rules placed upon the text, (there are more exceptions with this form than one might think, beginning with Matthew 10:2, text analysis), then it seems to me that at least νεκρων without the article may simply be read as a plural, (in other words there is legitimate reason for των νεκρων in other places, "of the dead" or "the dead", and likewise just as legitimate a reason why the article is not included here). But no doubt this would have been an old way of understanding it, and yet, with the more modern grammar inventions the same may no longer be read or understood in such way by the scholars, (sorry for their luck, but hey, they are apparently not even willing to acknowledge how θεος is employed in Genesis 1:26, as indeed an intensive plural and probably also intended as a compound unity, so θεος is thus erroneously classified as masculine singular under their own, ehem, rules).
    .
    .
     
  12. yonah_mishael

    yonah_mishael הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

    +1,234
    Judaism
    Single
    US-Democrat
    τῶν νεκρῶν is genitive plural. I don't know where you got this idea that "the rules were made later," but it's absurd. Nothing else to say on that issue.
     
  13. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Hmmm, so you do not see a disconnect here:



    Genesis 1:26 LXX Septuagint (Old Greek)
    26 και ειπεν ο θεος ποιησωμεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν και καθ ομοιωσιν και αρχετωσαν των ιχθυων της θαλασσης και των πετεινων του ουρανου και των κτηνων και πασης της γης και παντων των ερπετων των ερποντων επι της γης


    θεος = Elohim = intensive plural (masculine) - compound unity

    If this be true then what are the reasons for the plural forms such as θεοι and θεους found in John 10:34-35 quoting from Psalms 82:6, (which contains θεοι)? They are plural without denoting unity, (or compound unity). That is why, as you know, those forms are used for the "gods of the heathen", etc., and so on. We have a good example of these differences in the make up of the Sanhedrin body. The Word of Elohim had come to them, they were judges, rulers of the people, and thus, elohim. The decisions they made had the authority of Elohim behind them. When a judgment had been decided it was the law of the Land because it was considered a divine judgment/decision. In that sense the body may be considered a compound unity, (θεος), and likewise the same may be said when it came to what is for the better of all the people, (compound unity, and they surely did speak for the whole), but before a decision had been reached by the whole body, as the votes would have been cast, they were not a compound unity because there were usually some "for", (whatever the reason for the vote), and some "against". In that case each and every one of them would be θεοι, (Psalms 82:6), because "the for and the against" were not in full agreement, (I read "for and against" much as "good and bad" in the simplest of terms, just as the elohim "know evil" while the Father does not). It may sound like making up my own rules but this comes more from the content and context of the writings, with a dose of realism and reality, as opposed to what a certain group of men perceive to be an appropriate grammatical apparatus placed upon ancient (holy) texts. But to each his or her own I suppose. :)
    .
    .
     
  14. yonah_mishael

    yonah_mishael הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

    +1,234
    Judaism
    Single
    US-Democrat
    No, I don't see a disconnect - or a "connect" either. I think you're writing nonsense.
     
  15. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Well, I suppose what is nonsense to one is food for another, but I don't think you are seeing the overall picture in what has been done here. I have essentially taken the Testimony of Yeshua, and the Septuagint, and set my understanding of Exodus 3:6 upon that firm foundation, (sort of a triangulation if you will). The Exodus passage states that Moshe hid his face because he was afraid to look upon ha-Elohim, (the Elohim).

    Exodus 3:6 Hebrew Transliterated Bible
    6 way·yō·mer, ’ā·nō·ḵî ’ĕ·lō·hê ’ā·ḇî·ḵā, ’ĕ·lō·hê ’aḇ·rā·hām ’ĕ·lō·hê yiṣ·ḥāq wê·lō·hê ya·‘ă·qōḇ; way·yas·têr mō·šeh pā·nāw, kî yā·rê, mê·hab·bîṭ ’el- hā·’ĕ·lō·hîm.

    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/transliterated/exodus/3.htm

    But we know that the Father is Spirit, non-corporeal, invisible, and cannot be seen with the physical eyes of man. So then, as you yourself have already suggested that you are inclined to agree with, it is Malak YHWH that Moshe hid his face from and was fearful to look upon. However it is not just Malak YHWH but "ha-Elohim", which therefore includes those named "in him", that is, Abraham and Yitschak and Yaakob, who were at that time already "in him", that is, in Malak of YHWH, and therefore they are living because they are named in his name. Malak YHWH therefore has a name that no man knows but he himself, for his name contains every one whom the Father has given him, sound familiar? The Son has a name having been written, that no one knows but he himself; and that name begins with Adam as far as mankind are concerned. However the name includes all those having been written as having "lived", and thus all those written in the book of life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world, for that book contains the beginning of the names of those having been written to have "lived". The same book commences in Genesis 5 and includes all the names from Adam to Noach which are written to have lived, (Cain and his seed are never written or said to have lived, and were cursed to wander the badlands as permanent dwellers upon the earth, for although they are never written to have lived their names are yet still having been written).

    But that is not all, for we then read in the line of Shem that none of his line are written to have died, (in the Hebrew text), and that is the line of MelkiTzedek, (Shem). Thus all the names so far mentioned herein, from Adam to Noach, and down through the line of Shem to Abraham, these are all in Malak of YHWH. Therefore we read that by the time of Samson, in Judges 13:18, Malak of YHWH says to Manoach that his name is "too wonderful", (to great to be spoken to a mortal man). This is likely because the name of Malak of YHWH includes the names of every one whom the Father has given him, who are in him, and thus, they are the living in the Living Elohim. This is the meaning of ha-Elohim in Exodus 3:6 and the same are "the Elohim" who are with and in Malak of YHWH whom Moshe feared to look upon and therefore hid his face.

    This is not to suggest an ancient form of ancestral worship but rather an ancient respect for the fathers and elders. The words of Abraham, Yitshcak, and Yaakob-Yisrael as penned through Moshe are thus holy Word; and if one consumes those words the same consumes the Word of the Father, and the Word of the Father is thus in him: he in you, and you in him, if indeed you are in the Word, which you clearly are. Likewise holy Word produces elohim seed unto the Father, (Malachi 2:15), therefore take heed to your spirit, and beware what you deny, lest your earth open up and swallow you down like Kore and all his house; if you think it cannot happen in this day and age then you do not understand the allegory. o_O :D
    .
    .
     
  16. yonah_mishael

    yonah_mishael הֱיֵה קודם כל בן אדם

    +1,234
    Judaism
    Single
    US-Democrat
    If it's based on a bad understanding of biblical languages, it's got a bad foundation.
     
  17. daq

    daq Messianic

    +566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    No, it isn't a bad foundation, because it doesn't matter whether the several short passages previously discussed say "he is", (God of the living), or whether they might be understood as "they are", because even if it remains "he is", (as most everyone agrees anyways), then the statements still ultimately concern Elohim of Genesis 1:1-31 who is the Logos-Son from John 1:1-18. The Tetragrammaton is not found anywhere in Genesis 1:1-31, (and κυριος in the Old Greek LXX does not occur until Genesis 2:8), just as κυριος is not found anywhere in John 1:1-18, (though the Father is mentioned). There is no doubt profound reasoning underlying these facts and why the passages are written in the way that they are, (for all the prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yochanan, Matthew 11:13).
    .
    .
     
  18. nothead

    nothead Regular Member

    +38
    Christian
    Married
    That HEN or unity with the Father in Jn 10 is the SAME unity in Jn 17 for BELIEVERS, sir. "That they may be one as we are one."

    And WE are not God Almighty which I THINK you are saying for Jesus sir.

    WE may be elohim, just as kings, prophets, patriarchs, MESSIAH warlords were. But WE are not YHWH Elohim a DISTINCT elohim of elohim. The TOP one. AND in fact Jesus in Jn 10 was SAYING he was elohim and NOT YHWH Elohim.
     
  19. nothead

    nothead Regular Member

    +38
    Christian
    Married
    So you not JisG? Shalom then.
     
  20. nothead

    nothead Regular Member

    +38
    Christian
    Married
    Actually the ONLY context of Shema is NO OTHER ONE, NO OTHER BESIDE HIM, and NO OTHER TO HIS FACE.

    Said nine times in Isa 45 alone.

    This SHOULD put to rest any "compound unity" especially of Persons.
     
Loading...