Yeshua: G-d or g-d?

[ATAT]

Thanks for another great post.

The 'Frenchman' analogy I got from Rabbi Gottlieb in Ohr Somayach yeshiva years ago.


All the best!

[MyNameIsYura]

I truly hope no one will ignore my post but first read Proverbs 19:13 before you even dismiss it.

Shalom alaychem Matthew23.

Yehoshua Ha'Mashiach is not the true God, and those who claim that he is the true God are known as idolaters.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. That's the KJV.

The Father = The true God, John 17:3 & 1st John 5:20.

The word = logos, not literally Yehoshua Ha'Mashiach. Going back to Genesis, the true God spoke and it was, the true God spoke and it was. The word became flesh through all the prophets.

Holy Ghost = the Spirit of God.

All these is God, it's not a Trinity.

John 8:56-59

Hmmm. Why didn't J-sus say, "before Abraham was, I was"?

The word there for "Am" in the Greek is "eimi" which means: "to be, to exist, to happen, to be present."

Avraham did not stop to exist, and if you would use the words "I was" then you must ask if he "still will be".

Yehoshua Ha'Mashiach was the first-created. He was the first to come from En Sof.

If you look at the discussion in John 8, they said that Avraham was their father, but Yehoshua Ha'Mashiach said the evil one was their father and so on. The name Avraham was used, so this may be why Yehoshua chose Avraham instead of someone else to be before them.

I go more into John 8:58 here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewi...picID=30.topic

Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, "I AM (ego eimi) WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you."

This is incorrect, the true God never used the words "I am who I am". I explain this here: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewi...picID=13.topic

Christianity is a Jewish movement.

Sorry, but you are very mistaken. The Apostles were of Judaism Netsarim [which I and a few others are of]. The Apostles did not start Christianity. If you want to learn more about us, go to our website: http://www14.brinkster.com/stneil777/nj.html

NT makes it clear that J-sus is G-d!

Please, do me a favor and do not make me laugh at such statements. B'rit Chadashah is 100% against Jesus being the true God.

If anyone wants to prove to me that Yehoshua Ha'Mashiach is the true God, go for it.

As for the Trinity, no such myth. But if someone wants to prove it to me, go for it.

[simchat_torah]

Shalom Yura and Welcome...

ahh... a Netzarim, eh? Greetings beloved.

And even more so, a Kabbalist? Well, I suppose I am not alone here anymore... lol.

But first:

======= a note to all ===================

I John 5:7 has been added to in the KJV. Well, at least the manuscript that the original KJV based I John off of was later found to be spurious in nature. Every single bible one would would purchase today will have a footnote stating that the true (or older) texts of I John 5:7-8 state:
7So we have these three witnesses-- 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood--and all three agree (or all three are in agreement).
===================================

That is all for now.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[MyNameIsYura]

Shalom simchat_torah.

I know 1st John 5:7 was added into the manuscripts of long ago. But the thing is, that even 1st John 5:7 the way it states in KJV does not prove a Trinity.

By the way, here is the correct wording for John 1:1-2 "In beginning was the word, and the word was towards the God, and God was the word. The same was in beginning towards God."

If you look carefully at Genesis 1, it starts out the same way, "In beginning."

If you want to look at a quick explanation of John 1, you can do so by going here: http://www14.brinkster.com/stneil777/john1.htm

1st John 5:7 does not say "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

[simchat_torah]

I would be slightly weary of that translation of Yochanan 1:1-2

However, here's another intersting thought... in Greek the word "a" does not exist. Thus when "the" is not placed within the Greek text we are to assume that it should be translated "a"

For example, if I stated in Greek, "hand me book" I would literally be saying "hand me a book"
if I implied a specific book, I'd say, "hand me the book". In otherwords, whenever the "the" is missing, it is an assumed "a".

In both Yochanan (john) 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 it is "in beginning"... not "in the beginning"...

Thus a proper translation would be:

In a Beginning

as there are many beginnings.

shalom,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

I would typically expect one to provide either proofs or texts for statements such as:

By the way, here is the correct wording for John 1:1-2 "In beginning was the word, and the word was towards the God, and God was the word. The same was in beginning towards God."

So, in order to provide a good example to follow, here is Genesis 1:1 in the hebrew (transliterated of course)

berê'shiyth bârâ' 'elohiym 'êth hashâmayim ve'êth hâ'ârets

or...

Bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim vey et ha eretz

In a beginning was created Elohim and the heaven and earth (eretz).

that would be as literal of a translation as possilbe... which sets up a very interesting Kabbalistic discussion, lol.

[MyNameIsYura]

Well I believe in a old earth. Where does it say the true God created the water?

You see the water was already here, the true God said for the land [one huge piece of land] to rise from the water.

And yes, I know it would be 'In a beginning', but to avoid being accused of adding words, I just say 'In beginning'.

[simchat_torah]

and I will continue to follow suit by providing the transliteration of Yochanan 1:1-3

En archee' ee'n ho Lo'gos, kai' ho Lo'gos ee'n pro's to'nTheo'n, kai' theo's ee'n ho Lo'gos. Hou'tos ee'n en archee'pro's to'n Theo'n. Pa'nta di autou' ege'neto, kai' choori'sautou' ege'neto oude' he'n ho' ge'gonen.


(btw, Logos in Aramaic = Memra)

The most literal translation that I can give (by examining the Greek vs. Aramaic Peshitta):

In [/b]a beginning was/existed the Torah, and Torah was with Elohim, and the Torah was an Elohim.
He was with Elohim in a beginning.
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[MyNameIsYura]

Torah is a he? Care to clarify this for me?

[simchat_torah]

Torah is referred to in the masculine sense multiple times throughout Kabbalah and varioius Jewish traditions...

Essentially, the Torah was understood to be the spirit of the Messiah, if not the messiah himself... and since the messiah carried masculinity, the Torah also carried a masculine overtone.

[MyNameIsYura]

I don't believe the logos is literally Ha'Mashiach, I do however believe that the logos is inside Ha'Mashiach.

John 1:14 And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Notice it says "glory as of". This is not literally Ha'Mashiachs' glory. The glory of Ha'Mashiach and the word [logos] are two different glories.

[simchat_torah]

Would that be similar to the glory of the middle pillar being different from the glory of Keter?