Yeshua: G-d or g-d?

[Matthew23]

Hey everyone! Here I go starting a new thread. I know I just started one about a week ago, but I've been thinking lately about Jes-s' deity or lack thereof. I think I have a general idea of the beliefs that are held by most here, but would someone like to elaborate on this topic for me? I love to discuss this topic! I have my beliefs and I would love to discuss them with anyone as well. The bible can be very mysterious concerning this subject, I guess that's why I find it so interesting.

Matt

"...first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."

[Searching]

And the Band played on...

Greetings Matthew,

I just finished writing you a lengthy response, in which when I went to hit 'send' the computer conviently told me I was not registered and erased my reply. Hence my throbbing knuckles swaying punching bag. Use gloves I advise.

Anywho, the short short version. Trinity:

"who are you?"

"Barf."

"Your full name!"

"Barfolamu."

I hope someone gets that.

When defining the Trinity, often most like to quote the Verse in John 5 which says that "these three are one".

However if you read John 17, Messiah mentions how WE can be as One JUST AS he is ONE with the Father. He makes NO difference.

Most who profess the trinity tell me that John 17 is talking about how Messiah is talking about how We can be One in purpose. That is fine, however then they change the defintion when refering to John 5. In my opinion, the Word cannot be changed in certian places. It's kind of like a Math equation. If X=X here, it cannot equal Y there.

As well Messiah says the "Father is greater than I."

So hence a problem.

There are however a Slew of Scriptures which I have no idea what they are saying other than Trinity. This however does not mean I will EVER profess Trinity, for low and behold I learned a while ago...that word is not in the Book. I'll call'em One till the cows come home though.

They never taught me that in Catholic school.

Any thoughts?

Now I am going to SAVE my post.

Peace,
Searching

[Matthew23]

Well, hello Searching! For a week now I've been thinking that nobody bothered to reply to my "latest thread" because every time I would come to the main page here, the little check mark thingy was still gray instead of yellow. I was starting to get a little frustrated, thinking nobody cared about little old me, but come to find out, somebody DOES care!

nuff of that...

I agree with your points on "the Father and I are one." Also, I know what verse you're talking about: 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. I have read a little about this verse... Since the King James version completed in 1611, older and more reliable manuscripts have been found. That's why when you read the very same verse in the NIV, with which the translators had earlier, more reliable manuscripts to translate from, it will read this: 1 John 5:7For there are three that testify: That's it. It appears as though somewhere along the line, one of the copyists decided that the Trinity doctrine needed a little help. Get my drift? Anyways, as a believer in the Trinity doctrine, I myself wouldn't even bother citing that verse in a debate. I know the word "trinity" itself is not in the bible, but ther are many other verses that give it support. I'll get to some of those in a bit.

[Matthew23]

ego eimi

I would like to say some things about one of my favorite bible verses, John 8:58:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Hmmm. Why didn't J-sus say, "before Abraham was, I was"? Wouldn't He have made the point that He did exist before Abraham and therefore would have known about his rejoicing? Sure that would have worked. But J-sus was saying more than just the fact that He existed "before Abraham was." The Jews who heard Him say it knew this, and boy oh boy did they have quite a reaction!

The Greek Septuagint was the "bible of the day, the OT of J-sus' day" when J-sus made the "I am" statement to the Jews, who knew much about the scritptures. "Ego eimi" is the Greek phrase which John quoted J-sus as saying in John 8:58 (as well as others).That happens to be the same exact phrase that was used in the Greek Septuagint which the Jews that J-sus was speaking to were so familiar with. Where is this phrase used in the Greek OT? 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."

back to John 8...
The Jews were ticked off at this point. Actually they were ticked off before this statement. You just know they were looking for an excuse to get rid of this guy. Then He says THIS! And the Jews go "Hey! Open season on the guy who just committed blasphemy! Aim your weapons!" Okay, maybe that's not exaclty what was said. And whay does J-sus do? He high tails it out of there!

Let's talk about this for a bit... Why DID He high tail it out of there? Why didn't He say to the Jews: "hold on just a minute here, what are you getting ready to stone ME for? I never said that I AM G_D!"

He didn't stop to say to them that He, uh, isn't G-d, either.

[Thummim]

Not building upon the rock of David, whose name is "YaHudaH". {Ex. 28: 21}

Matthew23,

...Perhaps what Moses is told to say is, "By the GD who exists, I am sent unto you". YHWH the Eloheem of your fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, has sent me to you. YHWH is his name and how he is to be remembered from now on, throughout all your generations, forever.

...That the author of Exodus was creating a name for his GD is further supported in {Exodus 6: 3,}, and in {Exodus 33: 19 - Ex. 34: 6}. I doubt that the authors of the NT really understood that a link between the name of the tribe of YHWH and the tribe of YaHudaH {i.e. Nu: 6:27}, was being made in compliance with Deut. 12: 5, in designating the tribe that YHWH would "put" his name into, which makes the statement given in Jn. 8: 56 - 58, ludicrous. {Before Abraham was, I AM} These people who wrote the NT, seem unaware of "hashem". They are busy molding a man into their mangod idol of flesh. But YHWH proclaims "YHWH", which only omits the dalet in the name of YaHu(d)aH, to designate that his name will be served and linked to Israel, through the tribe of YaHudah. Since this naming of names, the tribe of the throne of Israel, {Judah} has the authority of GD's name behind it.

--> YHWH chose a tribe to "put" his name into.

67 Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:

68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

69 And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

....Michael

[Matthew23]

Hello, Micheal

By saying the statement is ludicrous, do you mean to say that you don't think J-sus ever made that statement (before Abraham was, I am)? Do you believe that He was misquoted?

[Thummim]

A faith built upon a rock.

...Matthew23, the authors of the NT no doubt want to prove that Jesus is GD to its readers. However, this is done without these authors having any understanding of hashem. Their lack of knowledge shows in their statement. Which is the answer given to Moses? Is the name of GD, I AM, or is it YHWH? If you conclude that GD's name is I AM, then the authors make a little sense. But they are wrong. YHWH said, I am the GD who exists. YHWH is my name. I AM isn't given as his name. Hashem is the centerpiece of the book of Exodus. YHWH now has a name that links him to his people. The authors of the NT do not think in terms of hashem. They are christians who believe what they are writing. These authors do not practice the faith of their people. They are the outsiders in their world. Their statement is ludicrous to a JEW. But to a christian, it makes perfect sense. Jesus {the authors some years later} doesn't build upon the rock of David.

....Michael

[Matthew23]

Hi Michael.

Are you a Jew?

[Thummim]

Differing perspectives.

...Yes, though of non JEWish parents. I actually have a little bit of a christian background, though it was many decades ago {64 - 67} since I walked that path. I found that I {myself} couldn't care about the JEWish people and be a christian. There are too few JEWs in the christian heaven for me. I also favor pro-Jewish arguments. I don't like the role assigned JEWs, as spiritually unwise people who would kill the son of GD. Let someone else play that role. Obviously, I cannot except that "Jesus" is any form of a deliverer to the JEWish people. {that is not what followed him} And on the question of him being GD, not unless Caesar was also a god.

....Michael

[Searching]

The New book oF Knowledge

Greetings Micheal and Matthew,

I must say Micheal, in whatever heaven there is, there is room for all. You being a Jew to me intreges me, not that I might convert you, but that I might learn more of the Jewish religion. 'Christianity' rules the airwaves, and a false one at that. Paul stayed three years with Jews and convienced them using their own scriptures that Messiah has come in flesh. I wouldn't mind seeing that today.

'Christians' now have thier "New" Testement which they believe superseeds the Old, and much less, can contradict it at will. If the New is the True New, then it must build. The Apostles must have used only insight into what they saw in the Old to create the New. Somehow things like the Book of Mormon have come around which many feel can pick up things from the blue and be true.

Cancelation of Feasts, New Moons and Sabbath for more 'conventional' holidays is a good example. No where would anyone get that from the Old Testement. Now I can bring you a New and tell you this is what the Father wants? I don't think so.

So anywho my point is Good. I am very glad you are a Jew, and much less turned from 'Christianity'. A false version a Christianity it may have been, yet you did your homework and figured it out. Congratulations. I have seen a few lately who have done the same.

Now If I might ask a question of for both you and Matthew:

In heaven (I don't even know if the Jew believes in heaven) what will we be like? What is the state? Are we individuals or all one?

Peace,
Searching

[Thummim]

Upon the earth, as it is in heaven?

...Searching, trying to build a case for either heaven {apart from "up"} or a case for hell {apart from the grave}, from the pages of the tanakh, is not very rewarding. The dreams and visions of the prophets could suggest some kind of heaven, but they are only dreams and visions. Making a Hell out of sheol, is even more difficult, since all of us go there. I like to think that all of us will give back to YHWH that which is his. Our lives for sure. Our image also. {since it looks like GD, it might as well be his own} It is written that the spirit returns to he who gave it. Christianity projects too evil of an outcome for the JEWish people, to house my faith. I, like you, went looking for new wood to build my house from. The tanakh somehow misses the christian interpretation of it. Have you seen what the JEWish people end up with at the conclusion of the NT? Who rules over us this time? And when you take a head count of the JEWs that pass the qualifications, there is only a remnant of us who have bowed the knee to "Jesus", to gain entry. Unless we bow, we don't get in. Where have I heard this before? Most of us get the oven. {lake of fire} It is interesting that we would write such a book for ourselves. But then christianity added it's part to favor themselves. Isn't the rewarding of the JEWish people in the christian concience, the same reward that Hitler gave us? Is this coincidence, or is there a connection. Now I believe that what christians give the JEWish people, is what they give to the name of YHWH. That will not set christianity up in favor with YHWH. {four of the five letters in our own name}

....Michael

[Matthew23]

Hello Michael,

Christianity is a Jewish movement. Paul was a devout Jew (Acts 26:4-5). It was this Jewish man who pioneered the Christian church. Most scholars agree that 1Corinthians was written before any of the four gospels...

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

That sums up the Christian creed right there. And it came from a Jewish man. Though Paul was not the writer of the Gospel of John, I'm sure <i>he</i> understood Hashem. Paul was a Jew who believed what he was writing. And his statements were definitely ludicrous to many people, people who put him in jail and ultimately martyring him. He must have had something very extraordinary happen to him in order to speak so boldly on behalf of something so "ludicrous" (Acts 26:12-29).

I have never met a Jewish person before. So this is pretty cool for me to talk to one. I hope I haven't offended you at all. I hope we can continue to have some good conversations here.

Matt

[Thummim]

An idol can be made out of human flesh also!

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...And if it is not according to the scriptures? Is "Jesus" supposed to be Jonah preaching to the Ninevites, "refrain from violence", or else? The story of Jonah has nothing to do with Israel. Neither are the Ninevites called a righteous people. The Romans surely didn't repent of their violence. For that matter, neither has christianity throughout its history.

...There is no atonement for intentional sin, that "Jesus" could "fulfill".

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto YHWH, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, (*and one kid of the goats for a sin offering*).

25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto YHWH, and their sin offering before YHWH, for their ignorance: Nu. 15: 24, 25



30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth YHWH; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

31 Because he hath despised the word of YHWH, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him. Nu. 15: 30, 31

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

...The only path to the resolution of sin, is through YHWH. An atonement can be made for the sins we don't intend to make. But when we sin intentionally, we must work it out with YHWH alone. He is the offended party who vindicates his people.


22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee. Isa. 44: 22


....Michael

[Matthew23]

Well, at least you do agree with me that the NT makes it clear that J-sus is G-d!

[Thummim]

Shaky pillars.

...Yes, Matthew23, the NT has its god. But don't examine its pillars too close. Most show a weakness upon close examination. It takes "spiritual" interpretation to believe that "christianity is what the tanakh is all about. Simple things such as,

1. a passover lamb is not a sin offering, they are shown as still required in Nu. 28: 16 - 25

2. "there is no atonement for deliberate sin, that will circumvent the law {Nu. 15: 30, 31}

3. The messiah is a herald to peace {Isa. 40: 1, 2; Isa. 53: 5} {the absence of war}

4. The one who is pierced in Zech. 11: 10 is pierced fighting a battle for Jerusalem which is eventually won by Yahudah. {check the paragraph markers}, etc, etc.

...It goes on and on. The christian interpretation of Psalms 22nd chapter, becomes suspect, when you find that "lions" don't use nails, and that the authors of the account of the robe upon which lots are cast, cannot agree on color, who gives the robe, or where the robe is given. It all comes up contrived. The intercessor of Isa. 53 is required to make the authors people "all" righteous {Isa. 53: 5, 6, 8, and 11} read --> ("my people", "us all" and by his stripes, we are healed? "Justify" = righteous ("tzadek", vs. 11) We JEWs are made righteous by this intercession. {gentiles are not mentioned} But ask the many faiths of the cross, if the JEWs are saved and see how they stumble. Add all this to the fact that the rock of David, which is found in Ex. 28: 21, bears the name of YaHudaH, the name of the tribe of Israel that also bears the name of GD, "YHWH". It is this name (hashem) that makes Davids throne an everlasting throne. In Isa. 9: 6, 7, the name of GD sits upon the throne of David. {upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it and to establish it} It would have been better if "christianity" would have builded their faith upon the rock of David, and would have blessed the name of YaHudaH instead of being a curse against it.

....Michael