What is Messianic Judaism

[Hoshiyya]

I am a Sephardic Jew, I do not consider myself as a messianic Jew, neither a Christian, we are called to be followers of Yeshua. As for the Torah being a lifestyle, we are not called to live a lifestyle, but to have a relationship with Yeshua and the only way to know the Father is through Yeshua and not through the Torah.

And having a relationship with Yeshua is not a lifestyle in your opinion?

 

[Hoshiyya]

Ah, the "elect"...is you Calvinism showing or do you mean something else?

No I believe that's my Biblical doctrine showing.

But I would certainly say that Augustin, Calvin, Luther, Al-Ghazali and other teachers of Predestination (in other words, God's Omnipotence) are not on the wrong track in that specific regard. But they were far from being the first, and get a few things wrong.

 

[Hoshiyya]

The biggest difference between what was written on stone and what was written on parchment is one is the moral law and the others are application, procedure, process, and for the sake of community health, consistency, and organization.

First you made the distinction between moral and ceremonial, now you make a separate distinction between moral and "application, procedure, process, and for the sake of community health, consistency, and organization".

Isn't community health and organization, and morality, closely intertwined ?

To be honest, you could search from cover to cover, and you will be hard pressed to find these distinctions. EACH law has multiple levels. Basically every single law is a moral law, a symbolic law, and more.

For all we know, daily prayer or laying tefillin etc etc have all kinds of functions we don't know about. Maybe doing certain rituals gives angels the power to fight against evil angels or against demons in the spirit realm, and those victories might highly affect individuals or even nations. Daniel's personal persistence in prayer gave Gabriel the personal strength to victor against the Prince of Persia. If Daniel didn't do that, the angel would have been delayed or maybe not made it, and the book of Daniel would be a chapter lighter.

 

[Hoshiyya]

His teachings and the fact that He was asked / allowed to read and speak in synagogues. (ran by the Pharisees)

Have you ever read anything about the gospel teachings from a traditional Jewish source? they are unanimous (those who actually bother to look at HIS teachings) that He was a Pharisee - fitting somewhere between Hillel and Shammai. (closer to Hillel on most points)

It's interesting that you say that.

It has been remarked (by Christians and Messianics) that Yeshua and his followers were closer in thought to the school of Hillel than to the school of Shammai.

However I found two cases where this might not be so.

1. Divorce:

Shammai and Yeshua apparently both take the position that divorce is only permissible in the case of sexual immorality.

Hillel was supposedly fairly liberal in allowing divorce for even petty squabbles. This goes against the symbolism of marriage. If God divorced Israel for just one sin, their covenant wouldn't last long. Likewise, the man and woman are supposed to work out their problems and not resort to drastic measures just because of a small fight.

2. The strictest sect:

Paul claimed to have his background in the strictest sect of Judaism. The school of Shammai were known for being stricter than Hillel.

Paul could just be talking about Pharisaism in general, as compared to Sadducees or Essenes (whom he may have considered less strict or less orthodox).

Obviously it is possible to agree with Shammai on one issue, and Hillel on another issue.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-school-of-shammai.7913001/

 

[Hoshiyya]

You said, the ten utterances were written on the stone by God's angel. Where in scriptures does it say the angel of God, when in Exodus it tells that when He finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, He gave him the two tablets of the testimony, stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God?

God is not a physical being, hence he does not have a finger.

You should look into the 1st century understanding, as found in Targums, which shows that whenever God is imputed with anthropomorphism it is actually referring to his angel.

Whenever God appears, or is "walking in the garden" (Ge. 3:8), or "goes down to see" (Ge. 11:5), or acts in a way that can give people cause for anthropomorphic misinterpretations of the Creator, the Targumim resort to explaining the acts of God as the acts of an angel, acting on behalf of God, and hence this angel - variously called or identified as Metatron and Michael and Sar Panim - is later thought of as "the angel whose name is God". This angel would bear the name/title of God and Hashem, and hence also called "the angel of the Name" in extra-biblical literature. (Also qv. Exodus 23:20-25.)

 

[visionary]

First you made the distinction between moral and ceremonial, now you make a separate distinction between moral and "application, procedure, process, and for the sake of community health, consistency, and organization".

Isn't community health and organization, and morality, closely intertwined ?

To be honest, you could search from cover to cover, and you will be hard pressed to find these distinctions. EACH law has multiple levels. Basically every single law is a moral law, a symbolic law, and more.

For all we know, daily prayer or laying tefillin etc etc have all kinds of functions we don't know about. Maybe doing certain rituals gives angels the power to fight against evil angels or against demons in the spirit realm, and those victories might highly affect individuals or even nations. Daniel's personal persistence in prayer gave Gabriel the personal strength to victor against the Prince of Persia. If Daniel didn't do that, the angel would have been delayed or maybe not made it, and the book of Daniel would be a chapter lighter.

Yes, the community health, organization, morality, etc are closely intertwined. Scripture itself makes distinctions.

Exodus 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Ordinances are the rules on how to apply the law.

Leviticus 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

Numbers 9:12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.

Now about the statutes...

2 Kings 17:37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city or country. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.
In this case policies are about God's dietary plan, the set up of Levite authority, camp rules, Feast days, etc.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Yes, the community health, organization, morality, etc are closely intertwined. Scripture itself makes distinctions.

Exodus 18:20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Ordinances are the rules on how to apply the law.

Leviticus 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

Numbers 9:12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it.

Now about the statutes...

2 Kings 17:37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods.

Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee.

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city or country. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.
In this case policies are about God's dietary plan, the set up of Levite authority, camp rules, Feast days, etc.

"Scripture itself makes distinctions"

Where does it make a distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" commandments?

And how is that even possible, seeing as you apparently acknowledge my point that every law is both moral, symbolical, and more?
Or do you not accept that truth ?

Did you truly consider my example from Daniel ?

The distinction between mitzvot and chokim is NOT equivalent to the false, antinomian, Catholic/Protestant distinction of "abrogated, stupid, ceremonial commandments that don't matter vs. moral commandments that actually matter".

 

[Sundown]

And having a relationship with Yeshua is not a lifestyle in your opinion?

What entering life has to do with a lifestyle?

"Scripture itself makes distinctions"

Where does it make a distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" commandments?

And how is that even possible, seeing as you apparently acknowledge my point that every law is both moral, symbolical, and more?
Or do you not accept that truth ?

Did you truly consider my example from Daniel ?

The distinction between mitzvot and chokim is NOT equivalent to the false, antinomian, Catholic/Protestant distinction of "abrogated, stupid, ceremonial commandments that don't matter vs. moral commandments that actually matter".

I am responding to what you sent me directly, but they do not take more than 420 word ....

Amazing you do not think I know history. I am Jewish, so I know there is only but one God. I do not associate with Messianic because they appear to be more of a cult while bashing Christianity, my brother just removed himself from a Messianic group because no emphasis on Yeshua. If you do not believe that Yeshua is God then you are no different than the JW's. By the way, I am not a Christian though I lean more to them than the Messianic.

I do not like to argue scriptures, neither discuss theology because animosity creates at time, but I would like for you to explain John 1:1. Later on I will take you to the 37 books of old scriptures. Please explain John 1:1, I like to hear your explanation.

 

[Hoshiyya]

What entering life has to do with a lifestyle?



I am responding to what you sent me directly, but they do not take more than 420 word ....

Amazing you do not think I know history. I am Jewish, so I know there is only but one God. I do not associate with Messianic because they appear to be more of a cult while bashing Christianity, my brother just removed himself from a Messianic group because no emphasis on Yeshua. If you do not believe that Yeshua is God then you are no different than the JW's. By the way, I am not a Christian though I lean more to them than the Messianic.

I do not like to argue scriptures, neither discuss theology because animosity creates at time, but I would like for you to explain John 1:1. Later on I will take you to the 37 books of old scriptures. Please explain John 1:1, I like to hear your explanation.

"What entering life has to do with a lifestyle?"

How you life = your lifestyle. Does not Yeshua dictate your lifestyle ?
If not, then I guess he has no influence on you, and therefore no part in you.

You sent me, for whatever reason, the following message:

"So, you are a Non-Trinitarian-Messianic, meaning you do not accept Yeshua to be who many claim to be and he did not deny it? If this is the case, then I do not thing you do read the New Testament."

To which I replied:

"Nobody claimed he was part of a trinity, as there was no concept of a trinity during his lifetime. I do not think you know history."

This is the context for me suggesting you don't know your history, since you are projecting the 3rd century Roman doctrine of Trinitarianism onto 1st century Judaea.

And I further said:

"If you read the New Testament you will find that Yeshua specifically avoided making statements about himself that could lead others to think he was the Creator. He always and consistently avoids saying he is God. As for the Trinity, there was no such concept of the time, hence it is not mentioned in positive or in negative terms."

In response to me calling out your anachronism, you then said:

" I am Jewish, so I know there is only but one God. "

Oh, well excuuuuse me.

I didn't ask for your ethnicity, nor does it affect your intelligence or alter the validity of your arguments. 2+2=4, no matter who says it, and it never equals 5, no matter who says it.

 

[visionary]

"Scripture itself makes distinctions"

Where does it make a distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" commandments?

And how is that even possible, seeing as you apparently acknowledge my point that every law is both moral, symbolical, and more?
Or do you not accept that truth ?

Did you truly consider my example from Daniel ?

The distinction between mitzvot and chokim is NOT equivalent to the false, antinomian, Catholic/Protestant distinction of "abrogated, stupid, ceremonial commandments that don't matter vs. moral commandments that actually matter".

In some sense, I think we are on the same page, and yet are quibbling over terms. I agree that ceremonial is rather demeaning the value of them. Not every law is moral... because taking your shovel and going out of the camp is functional and healthy practice. I do not think the laws are abrogated, stupid, and don't matter, on the contrary, I think they are very insightful and worthy of meditation and study into learning more about how the mind of God works and how we are to have a better relationship with Him and fellow man.

 

[Sundown]

"What entering life has to do with a lifestyle?"

How you life = your lifestyle. Does not Yeshua dictate your lifestyle ?
If not, then I guess he has no influence on you, and therefore no part in you.

You sent me, for whatever reason, the following message:

"So, you are a Non-Trinitarian-Messianic, meaning you do not accept Yeshua to be who many claim to be and he did not deny it? If this is the case, then I do not thing you do read the New Testament."

To which I replied:

"Nobody claimed he was part of a trinity, as there was no concept of a trinity during his lifetime. I do not think you know history."

This is the context for me suggesting you don't know your history, since you are projecting the 3rd century Roman doctrine of Trinitarianism onto 1st century Judaea.

And I further said:

"If you read the New Testament you will find that Yeshua specifically avoided making statements about himself that could lead others to think he was the Creator. He always and consistently avoids saying he is God. As for the Trinity, there was no such concept of the time, hence it is not mentioned in positive or in negative terms."

In response to me calling out your anachronism, you then said:

" I am Jewish, so I know there is only but one God. "

Oh, well excuuuuse me.

I didn't ask for your ethnicity, nor does it affect your intelligence or alter the validity of your arguments. 2+2=4, no matter who says it, and it never equals 5, no matter who says it.

First, I stated I am Jewish to let you know I know exactly what it means that there is one God.

Second, I don't know history? Let's see, the babylonians believe in 3 gods, all equal and separate from each other. That is not the concept when someone is referring to God as a triune God. The concept of the triune God is .... within the nature of the one God there are three distinct person (The Father who is God, the Son of God who is God and the Holy Spirit who is God), not that there are 3 gods, but one. Who can say it is a compound unity with the nature of the one God. If you would see all three you would see the one God. The body (church) of Christ is one body compose of many members, but it is one body.

Christ say, only God is to be worship, but he was worship. My question for you, why he never deny them from worshiping him?

Still, you have not responded to John 1:1, please explain, out you cannot honestly explain that verse?

 

[Dave-W]

Shammai and Yeshua apparently both take the position that divorce is only permissible in the case of sexual immorality.

Hillel was supposedly fairly liberal in allowing divorce for even petty squabbles.

Indeed. That certainly was one issue where Our Lord departed from Hillel. But still not clear over to the position of Shammai which said divorce was permitted ONLY if the groom found his bride to not be a virgin.

Paul claimed to have his background in the strictest sect of Judaism. The school of Shammai were known for being stricter than Hillel.

Paul could just be talking about Pharisaism in general, as compared to Sadducees or Essenes (whom he may have considered less strict or less orthodox).

I take it as talking about Pharasaism - those outside the Judaic community probably knew little of the internal distinctions within the various sects.

 

[Hoshiyya]

First, I stated I am Jewish to let you know I know exactly what it means that there is one God.

Second, I don't know history? Let's see, the babylonians believe in 3 gods, all equal and separate from each other. That is not the concept when someone is referring to God as a triune God. The concept of the triune God is .... within the nature of the one God there are three distinct person (The Father who is God, the Son of God who is God and the Holy Spirit who is God), not that there are 3 gods, but one. Who can say it is a compound unity with the nature of the one God. If you would see all three you would see the one God. The body (church) of Christ is one body compose of many members, but it is one body.

Christ say, only God is to be worship, but he was worship. My question for you, why he never deny them from worshiping him?

Still, you have not responded to John 1:1, please explain, out you cannot honestly explain that verse?

"I stated I am Jewish to let you know I know exactly what it means that there is one God."

Telling me your ethnicity does not tell me anything about God.

You said "I do not thing you do read the New Testament".

To which I replied I do not think you know your history, seeing as you project a third century doctrine onto first century Judaea.

That's essentially like projecting Marxist Communism into the 1700's.

As for Babylonian deities, nobody brought up Babylonian deities. Trinitarianism clearly is pagan, but doesn't need to be pagan in order to be false. Saying 2+2=5 is not pagan, but it is false.

"why he never deny them from worshiping him?"

Well I don't think they did. If they did, you have to realize worship can mean many things. Scripture says Abraham prayed to Pharaoh, usually translated "entreated", that doesn't mean he considered Pharaoh a god, it just means he showed him respect for being a king. Under this definition, Rabbis and Saints and others could well be said to be worthy of worship, as long as it is understood the only divine worship belongs to God.

I actually CAN explain John 1:1, in two different ways. I have no idea why you ask, since you said that you don't like to argue about scripture, and since you don't really look like you care to dismiss Trinitarianim even if it is proven false (or rather, you just won't LET it be proven false even if it is false).

The first answer is that god, elohim, theos, basically just means the supernatural. God does not mean Creator. Angels are gods, demons are gods, in the original Germanic, Hebrew and Greek definition of god, elohim and theos. (The terms god and theos would actually be more expansive than elohim, as they included natural phenomena like sleep and the winds.)

The second answer is more subtle but very important.

In short, John 1:1 literally does not say what the translations say. Check the Greek manuscripts, and you will find something interesting....

It says:
"The word was (a) supernatural being, and was with THE supernatural being."

The Gk. "ton", meaning "the", is found in the manuscripts but left untranslated by Trinitarians. The grammatical construction necessitates that these are two entities, and that one is theos in the sense of supernatural, and another is the entity often just called The God, namely the Creator.

Anyway, Trinitarianism cannot be extrapolated from John 1:1. Maybe Binitarianism. But actually, the NT also says the devil is a theos.

To you, that's a problem, since you believe apparently that theos always means the Creator !

But for me it makes sense, as a theos is just a supernatural entity.

 

[Sundown]

"I stated I am Jewish to let you know I know exactly what it means that there is one God."

Telling me your ethnicity does not tell me anything about God.

You said "I do not thing you do read the New Testament".

To which I replied I do not think you know your history, seeing as you project a third century doctrine onto first century Judaea.

That's essentially like projecting Marxist Communism into the 1700's.

As for Babylonian deities, nobody brought up Babylonian deities. Trinitarianism clearly is pagan, but doesn't need to be pagan in order to be false. Saying 2+2=5 is not pagan, but it is false.

"why he never deny them from worshiping him?"

Well I don't think they did. If they did, you have to realize worship can mean many things. Scripture says Abraham prayed to Pharaoh, usually translated "entreated", that doesn't mean he considered Pharaoh a god, it just means he showed him respect for being a king. Under this definition, Rabbis and Saints and others could well be said to be worthy of worship, as long as it is understood the only divine worship belongs to God.

I actually CAN explain John 1:1, in two different ways. I have no idea why you ask, since you said that you don't like to argue about scripture, and since you don't really look like you care to dismiss Trinitarianim even if it is proven false (or rather, you just won't LET it be proven false even if it is false).

The first answer is that god, elohim, theos, basically just means the supernatural. God does not mean Creator. Angels are gods, demons are gods, in the original Germanic, Hebrew and Greek definition of god, elohim and theos. (The terms god and theos would actually be more expansive than elohim, as they included natural phenomena like sleep and the winds.)

The second answer is more subtle but very important.

In short, John 1:1 literally does not say what the translations say. Check the Greek manuscripts, and you will find something interesting....

It says:
"The word was (a) supernatural being, and was with THE supernatural being."

The Gk. "ton", meaning "the", is found in the manuscripts but left untranslated by Trinitarians. The grammatical construction necessitates that these are two entities, and that one is theos in the sense of supernatural, and another is the entity often just called The God, namely the Creator.

Anyway, Trinitarianism cannot be extrapolated from John 1:1. Maybe Binitarianism. But actually, the NT also says the devil is a theos.

To you, that's a problem, since you believe apparently that theos always means the Creator !

But for me it makes sense, as a theos is just a supernatural entity.

You need to go back to the original Greek bible, there is a rule in Greek, when a the subject (Logos) precedes a verb (was) the definite article (Ho

"I stated I am Jewish to let you know I know exactly what it means that there is one God."

Telling me your ethnicity does not tell me anything about God.

You said "I do not thing you do read the New Testament".

To which I replied I do not think you know your history, seeing as you project a third century doctrine onto first century Judaea.

That's essentially like projecting Marxist Communism into the 1700's.

As for Babylonian deities, nobody brought up Babylonian deities. Trinitarianism clearly is pagan, but doesn't need to be pagan in order to be false. Saying 2+2=5 is not pagan, but it is false.

"why he never deny them from worshiping him?"

Well I don't think they did. If they did, you have to realize worship can mean many things. Scripture says Abraham prayed to Pharaoh, usually translated "entreated", that doesn't mean he considered Pharaoh a god, it just means he showed him respect for being a king. Under this definition, Rabbis and Saints and others could well be said to be worthy of worship, as long as it is understood the only divine worship belongs to God.

I actually CAN explain John 1:1, in two different ways. I have no idea why you ask, since you said that you don't like to argue about scripture, and since you don't really look like you care to dismiss Trinitarianim even if it is proven false (or rather, you just won't LET it be proven false even if it is false).

The first answer is that god, elohim, theos, basically just means the supernatural. God does not mean Creator. Angels are gods, demons are gods, in the original Germanic, Hebrew and Greek definition of god, elohim and theos. (The terms god and theos would actually be more expansive than elohim, as they included natural phenomena like sleep and the winds.)

The second answer is more subtle but very important.

In short, John 1:1 literally does not say what the translations say. Check the Greek manuscripts, and you will find something interesting....

It says:
"The word was (a) supernatural being, and was with THE supernatural being."

The Gk. "ton", meaning "the", is found in the manuscripts but left untranslated by Trinitarians. The grammatical construction necessitates that these are two entities, and that one is theos in the sense of supernatural, and another is the entity often just called The God, namely the Creator.

Anyway, Trinitarianism cannot be extrapolated from John 1:1. Maybe Binitarianism. But actually, the NT also says the devil is a theos.

To you, that's a problem, since you believe apparently that theos always means the Creator !

But for me it makes sense, as a theos is just a supernatural entity.

Go back the the Greek .... there is a grammatical rule in the Greek, that when the subject (Theos) proceeded by a verb (en -was) the definite article (ho - the) is not need when referring to The God (Theos). John 1:1 is referring to the were and stating that the word is God. We know that God spoke the law right? Yeshua tells them didn't I tell you in the law that ye are gods. Also, Proverbs 30:4 says, who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name? We know it is God, right? But it continues, what is his Son's name if thou canst tell? Has to be yeshua before taking the form of a man!

The scriptures are in agreement with Yeshua's diety and if he is not diety then he according to you was created and if you think he was created I will put you in the class of the JW's.

Either he is diety or he is not? If he is deity, it would mean he has no beginning and if he has no beginning he had to be there with the Father this is why Proverbs 30:4 was written.

Now, if you are a messianic, most will deny him be God and the same time stating he is deity. I know a messianic leader who now admits he is God the Son.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Go back the the Greek .... there is a grammatical rule in the Greek, that when the subject (Theos) proceeded by a verb (en -was) the definite article (ho - the) is not need when referring to The God (Theos). John 1:1 is referring to the were and stating that the word is God.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

The Scriptures say what they say. They separate grammatically between the Word, which was supernatural, and THE Supernatural One, which happens to refer to the Creator. The two entities are grammatically distinct, anyone can tell you that.

" (ho - the) is not need when referring to The God"

Needed or not, the Ton is there, separating The Theon from the word.

New Testament Greek Syntax (NTGS) states that in the Greek language, "the basic function of the article is to stress the identity of a person, a class, or a quality". Thus, the presence of the article ton before "God" in John 1:1 stresses the identity of the Father; He is "the God."

"Either (Yeshua) is diety or he is not?"

Depends on what you mean by deity.

Yeshua is the logos and the logos is one time called theos. Likewise Satan is called the devil and the devil is one time called theos (by Paul.) I believe Yeshua was created by the Creator, like everything else.

"I will put you in the class of the JW's"

You are free to categorize me as you please.

 

[Sundown]

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

The Scriptures say what they say. They separate grammatically between the Word, which was supernatural, and THE Supernatural One, which happens to refer to the Creator. The two entities are grammatically distinct, anyone can tell you that.

" (ho - the) is not need when referring to The God"

Needed or not, the Ton is there, separating The Theon from the word.

New Testament Greek Syntax (NTGS) states that in the Greek language, "the basic function of the article is to stress the identity of a person, a class, or a quality". Thus, the presence of the article ton before "God" in John 1:1 stresses the identity of the Father; He is "the God."

"Either (Yeshua) is diety or he is not?"

Depends on what you mean by deity.

Yeshua is the logos and the logos is one time called theos. Likewise Satan is called the devil and the devil is one time called theos (by Paul.) I believe Yeshua was created by the Creator, like everything else.

"I will put you in the class of the JW's"

You are free to categorize me as you please.

You did not explain John 1:1 correctly. By the way, I do not based the interpretation of John1:1 on an opinion, what I gave you is a grammatical rule in the Greek language and every theologian scholar will refute your statement.

So, my question to you is this and please answer ...

1) Is Yeshua a creation of God? A yes or no question
2) If Yeshua is not a creation of God does implies that he has no beginning? a yes or no question

I am only asking you to answer yes or no.

 

[Hoshiyya]

You did not explain John 1:1 correctly. By the way, I do not based the interpretation of John1:1 on an opinion, what I gave you is a grammatical rule in the Greek language and every theologian scholar will refute your statement.

So, my question to you is this and please answer ...

1) Is Yeshua a creation of God? A yes or no question
2) If Yeshua is not a creation of God does implies that he has no beginning? a yes or no question

I am only asking you to answer yes or no.

"what I gave you is a grammatical rule in the Greek language"

No you didn't. You said that "Ho" would not be grammatically needed in that case. However Ton occurs in the text, and if it is grammatically unnecessary that STRENGTHENS my point. Its presence in the text is far more intentional and meaningful if in fact it is not grammatically necessary.

It is like when we say "THE God" in English as opposed to just "God". It is not a grammatical necessity. It is done to make a special point.

You asked:
"Is Yeshua a creation of God?"

My previous post was very short, and still you didn't read it, apparently.

I said: "I believe Yeshua was created by the Creator, like everything else."

 

[Sundown]

"what I gave you is a grammatical rule in the Greek language"

No you didn't. You said that "Ho" would not be grammatically needed in that case. However Ton occurs in the text, and if it is grammatically unnecessary that STRENGTHENS my point. Its presence in the text is far more intentional and meaningful if in fact it is not grammatically necessary.

It is like when we say "THE God" in English as opposed to just "God". It is not a grammatical necessity. It is done to make a special point.

You asked:
"Is Yeshua a creation of God?"

My previous post was very short, and still you didn't read it, apparently.

I said: "I believe Yeshua was created by the Creator, like everything else."

-------------------------------------------

"and God was the word" ..... again, according to Greek grammar, in John 1:1 because the verb (was) proceeds the subject (Theos) the definite article (ho) is not needed. Therefore, GOD WAS THE WORD!

You need to Go back and do a thorough research on John 1:1 because you appear to be taught by false teachers, men who are teaching heresies, unless when you read scriptures you are just interpreting and concluding base on what you think or want to believe it says. In addition, being that you believe Yeshua is a creation and because that your view is not supported by scriptures, I will conclude that you are involved in the teachings of a cult. John 1:1 is conclusive and one cannot deny who Yeshua is; God the Son, the Son of God, it is only through him you can know the Father! I guess you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

In English, when we say God we know who we are referring to, which is God, and when we refer it to man we say a god. But we are discussing about Greek grammar, not english and you appear to forget that. You statement does not stand!

Your statement that you believe that Yeshua was created by God just confirms it again; you are teaching a heresy that the JW's teaches, which you fell to answer me if you are or are not a JW.

It is good that you are defending the concept of there being only one God, but the fact that you deny who Yeshua is and stating he is a created being just makes me believe that you are a JW's.

If you are a JW's let me know. Are you? That is all I am asking, you fail to answer that question.

 

[Hoshiyya]

-------------------------------------------

"and God was the word" ..... again, according to Greek grammar, in John 1:1 because the verb (was) proceeds the subject (Theos) the definite article (ho) is not needed. Therefore, GOD WAS THE WORD!

You need to Go back and do a thorough research on John 1:1 because you appear to be taught by false teachers, men who are teaching heresies, unless when you read scriptures you are just interpreting and concluding base on what you think or want to believe it says. In addition, being that you believe Yeshua is a creation and because that your view is not supported by scriptures, I will conclude that you are involved in the teachings of a cult. John 1:1 is conclusive and one cannot deny who Yeshua is; God the Son, the Son of God, it is only through him you can know the Father! I guess you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

In English, when we say God we know who we are referring to, which is God, and when we refer it to man we say a god. But we are discussing about Greek grammar, not english and you appear to forget that. You statement does not stand!

Your statement that you believe that Yeshua was created by God just confirms it again; you are teaching a heresy that the JW's teaches, which you fell to answer me if you are or are not a JW.

It is good that you are defending the concept of there being only one God, but the fact that you deny who Yeshua is and stating he is a created being just makes me believe that you are a JW's.

If you are a JW's let me know. Are you? That is all I am asking, you fail to answer that question.

"according to Greek grammar, in John 1:1 because the verb (was) proceeds the subject (Theos) the definite article (ho) is not needed"

Are you even reading my posts ?

If it is not needed, that strengthens my argument. The definite article in this particular case is ton, not ho, which you would know if you had read my posts.

This is a literal translation:
"In beginning was the word and the word was with the supernatural being and the word was supernatural being."

The definite article has the function of separating the two subjects. One is the word, which was a supernatural being, and the other was THE supernatural being, THE theos, in other words the entity often just called "theos".

"In English, when we say God we know who we are referring to, which is God, and when we refer it to man we say a god. But we are discussing about Greek grammar, not english and you appear to forget that. You statement does not stand!"

I have no idea what you're talking about. I made ONE comparison to English, and it was just to help you understand. My argument does not require comparison to English, that was just for your benefit. You seem to make it about capitalization. My point has NOTHING to do with capitalization. It has to do with the definite article.

No I am not affiliated with the Jehovas Witnesses in any way. You only asked me this in your most recent post, so I don't see how it is possible for me to "fail" to answer your question.

 

[Sundown]

"according to Greek grammar, in John 1:1 because the verb (was) proceeds the subject (Theos) the definite article (ho) is not needed"

Are you even reading my posts ?

If it is not needed, that strengthens my argument. The definite article in this particular case is ton, not ho, which you would know if you had read my posts.

This is a literal translation:
"In beginning was the word and the word was with the supernatural being and the word was supernatural being."

The definite article has the function of separating the two subjects. One is the word, which was a supernatural being, and the other was THE supernatural being, THE theos, in other words the entity often just called "theos".

"In English, when we say God we know who we are referring to, which is God, and when we refer it to man we say a god. But we are discussing about Greek grammar, not english and you appear to forget that. You statement does not stand!"

I have no idea what you're talking about. I made ONE comparison to English, and it was just to help you understand. My argument does not require comparison to English, that was just for your benefit. You seem to make it about capitalization. My point has NOTHING to do with capitalization. It has to do with the definite article.

No I am not affiliated with the Jehovas Witnesses in any way. You only asked me this in your most recent post, so I don't see how it is possible for me to "fail" to answer your question.