The Hebrew word Et

[Yitzchak]

Do not make the mistake of thinking that everyone on these fora think the same. We do not! May I suggest to you that as this thread has been totally derailed you re-start with a new thread with an identical OP (though a different title, to avoid confusion) and see how that works? As you have seen, Lulav and I have already raised a question about it that may be worth debate, at least Maybe YM or another will help with the Hebrew/Aramaic question now the fuss has died down.

PS It is always worth looking at the Hebrew and not just trusting the translator! Did you really expect the non-Messianic fora to agree with that (except, maybe, some who understand true purpose of good exegesis)?

I am used to many in the church brushing aside anything but a simplistic interpretation of the scriptures that leads to an " i'm o.k. , you're o.k. , so who cares about the rest. " type of thinking. I do not think I will ever understand it though. But I do expect many in the non messianic forums to mostly reject the idea of anything beyond reading the message bible. But hope springs eternal , as they say.

Anyway , I would be interested in discussing this more. So I will think about starting another thread and re-wording things.

 

[ContraMundum]

As for abusing the Hebrew language. A little more respect of the Hebrew from your end would be appreciated by me. I love the Hebrew language. Your tone in your posts cheapens it into something less than the sacred language that it is.

I don't think you can accuse a Hebrew speaker like Yonah of cheapening the language he uses daily to buy a loaf of bread.

While you as someone studying Hebrew might regard it as sacred, don't forget that you can curse and cuss in Hebrew just like you can in English. Human languages per se are never sacred, the way they are used and what they are saying can be.

Whilst I may not agree with all that is in the OP, I have sought to support you against the strong views on your OP, as you will see in my posts, but I have no wish to argue with individual posters on that point because it will simply further derail the thread and cause more problems.

I think Yonah is correct from a purely grammatical perspective on this. No one can deny this.

What I believe we are seeing is the difference between a plain rendering and understanding of what is written and a spiritualisation of it- and Yonah takes the former position as a safer and saner way to do scriptural study- at least that's how I read his posts.

I am not at all sure that the vast majority of people on this forum would take issue with your right to share with us something you have found. Whether it is word perfect or not, whether in English, Hebrew or Aramaic is something that can be debated as people feel it necessary to comment, hopefully in a constructive way so that we can all learn more.

I would agree here. While I don't think all that much of the OP's topic myself (it's not the sort of thing I find terribly important) I do think it is a good thing that it was posted for those who might want to enter into a discussion on the topic and for comments in general. I seriously hope no one is taking issue with the right to post itself, are they?

I see nothing in what has been posted thus far that should make you feel that you should leave the forum or CF - we all get into rough water at times because that is part and parcel of the way all fora work. Do not be discouraged by one sharp reaction.

Agreed.

 

[ContraMundum]

I am used to many in the church brushing aside anything but a simplistic interpretation of the scriptures that leads to an " i'm o.k. , you're o.k. , so who cares about the rest. " type of thinking. I do not think I will ever understand it though. But I do expect many in the non messianic forums to mostly reject the idea of anything beyond reading the message bible. But hope springs eternal , as they say.

I really don't see that as applicable in this case- some people just think you are wrong. That doesn't mean that they are simplistic about scripture...just that they think you are wrong.

I actually think you should give your "Church" Christian brothers and sisters some credit too- remember that if it wasn't for non-Messianic Christians, you wouldn't have a Bible or lexicons or dictionaries or concordances to argue with them in the first place.

 

[Lulav]

Yeshua is G-d.

I'll repeat, G-d, HaShem, was NOT nailed to a cross.

You cannot nail an eternal spirit being to anything.

 

[Lulav]

G-d died a human death and not a complete death. G-d is Spirit. Yeshua is G-d and Yeshua was nailed to the cross.

Yes, G-d is Spirit, HE is eternal.

Yeshua was nailed to the cross.

The two are not the same.

How do you reconcile that with this?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man

 

[ContraMundum]

There's the first of the Christological heresies I was waiting for. A denial of the incarnation and a confounding of the Godhead.

God the Son died on the Cross- this is Christian doctrine. Death is a function of the body, not the spirit. The incarnation united God the Son with a body from His mother, the union was real, true, and one. The body of God the Son was slain, thus God the Son was slain. He died, and was buried and raised from the dead. At no stage has the church ever taught that the eternal spirit of God died. To raise this as an objection is to raise an objection to a doctrine that doesn't exist.

 

[Heber]

Lulav, read on to Philippians...

 

[Lulav]

This did not become a 'heresy' until the third century. It was not what was believed by Yeshua's talmidim.

Basically what you are saying is that 'G-d's body' died on the cross. But G-d does not have a body, so how can that be so?

 

[Lulav]

Lulav, read on to Philippians...

Read on?

Are you referring to my quote? How do you jump from Numbers to Philippians?

 

[Heber]

There's the first of the Christological heresies I was waiting for. A denial of the incarnation and a confounding of the Godhead.

God the Son died on the Cross- this is Christian doctrine. Death is a function of the body, not the spirit. The incarnation united God the Son with a body from His mother, the union was real, true, and one. The body of God the Son was slain, thus God the Son was slain. He died, and was buried and raised from the dead. At no stage has the church ever taught that the eternal spirit of God died. To raise this as an objection is to raise an objection to a doctrine that doesn't exist.

I agree. Yitzchak, as I said earlier - if (the eternal spirit of) G_d died, who raised Yeshua from the dead and who sustains the world to this day, and to whom do you pray and offer worship - a dead G_d?

You can't have it both ways round

 

[Heber]

Read on?

Are you referring to my quote? How do you jump from Numbers to Philippians?

Errrm, turn pages?

 

[ContraMundum]

This did not become a 'heresy' until the third century. It was not what was believed by Yeshua's talmidim.

It was always a heresy- that's why it was later officially condemned when the church finally had the chance to meet as one without being persecuted. The church believed before it wrote.

Jesus' disciples never believed the heresy, and the NT teaches the hypostatic union in many places, and it was written by His disciples.

Basically what you are saying is that 'G-d's body' died on the cross. But G-d does not have a body, so how can that be so?

God does have a body, certainly since the incarnation. You are clearly denying the doctrine of the incarnation, taught in the NT, typified in the OT both in language and theophany and believed by all Christians since the beginning.

That's fine- at least you are consistent, and if you choose to believe the 3rd century doctrine of Arius and his cronies, that is fine.

One of Jesus' disciples said:

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[ContraMundum]

I agree. Yitzchak, as I said earlier - if (the eternal spirit of) G_d died, who raised Yeshua from the dead and who sustains the world to this day, and to whom do you pray and offer worship - a dead G_d?

You can't have it both ways round

I'm confused by your response. Are you affirming the doctrine of the incarnation and the Trinity (which dissolves the objection you mention) or something else?

 

[Heber]

I'm confused by your response. Are you affirming the doctrine of the incarnation and the Trinity (which dissolves the objection you mention) or something else?

I was agreeing with you, not Yitzchak. There was a full stop after the words 'I agree'. I should really have started the comment on the next line, for clarity.

A part of this debate was that G_d died on the cross. My objection is to that. If G_d (the eternal spirit of) did die on the cross then questions are raised, such as: who raised Yeshua from the dead, to whom do we pray and make our worship etc etc

I am affirming the doctrine of the incarnation and Trinity which is why I suggested to Lulav that she read Philippians to understand Yeshua's position during his time on earth.

 

[Yitzchak]

I'll repeat, G-d, HaShem, was NOT nailed to a cross.

You cannot nail an eternal spirit being to anything.

So who do you say that Yeshua is ?

 

[Lulav]

It was always a heresy- that's why it was later officially condemned when the church finally had the chance to meet as one without being persecuted. The church believed before it wrote.

Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma, and since the dogma wasn't established until Nicaea, then your rebuttal doesn't hold.

The gentile 'church' did, but not the Jewish church.

Jesus' disciples never believed the heresy, and the NT teaches the hypostatic union in many places, and it was written by His disciples.

That is your choice to believe that, I don't, there is too much historical evidence that wasn't totally surpressed.

God does have a body, certainly since the incarnation. You are clearly denying the doctrine of the incarnation, taught in the NT, typified in the OT both in language and theophany and believed by all Christians since the beginning.

Taught in the 'NT'.
Believed by all Christians? I guess that depends on how you define 'all' and 'Christians'.

That's fine- at least you are consistent, and if you choose to believe the 3rd century doctrine of Arius and his cronies, that is fine.

Who's Arius?

I believe the first century teachings of Messiah.

One of Jesus' disciples said:

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Why are you quoting this? that doesn't describe what I believe, are you accusing me of this?

 

[Lulav]

So who do you say that Yeshua is ?

Messiah, the promised servant, the right hand, the son of G-d.

 

[Heber]

Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma, and since the dogma wasn't established until Nicaea, then your rebuttal doesn't hold.

The gentile 'church' did, but not the Jewish church.

That is your choice to believe that, I don't, there is too much historical evidence that wasn't totally surpressed.


Taught in the 'NT'.
Believed by all Christians? I guess that depends on how you define 'all' and 'Christians'.


Who's Arius?

I believe the first century teachings of Messiah.

Why are you quoting this? that doesn't describe what I believe, are you accusing me of this?

Surely the term 'Jewish Church' is an oxymoron?

 

[Yitzchak]

Messiah, the promised servant, the right hand, the son of G-d.

So to clarify. You are saying G-d was not nailed to the cross? You are saying that the son of G-d was nailed to the cross ?

Do you believe in the Trinity ? The Deity of Yeshua ?

 

[Heber]

So to clarify. You are saying G-d was not nailed to the cross? You are saying that the son of G-d was nailed to the cross ?

Do you believe in the Trinity ? The Deity of Yeshua ?

For goodness sake - both of you read Philippians!