|
|
Post by el Gusano on Aug 6, 2004 0:53:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by holdingontoTruth on Aug 6, 2004 6:19:56 GMT -8
shalom el Gusano, One place..off the top of my head...and its early..so more may come later  is John 3:16. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotton Son, that whoever would believe in Him shall have eternal life" What do you think begotton means? When a Father has a son...the scripture says _______ begat _______..etc. The Father is always first. The son(s) of a Father are never in existence before the Father or in eternity. Like I said before...the fact that Yeshua has a Father...shows us that there was a time when only His Father existed. It is common sense to me. Not only did Yeshua have a Father (who is YHVH) but He his Father is also his God...our God and his God...like he mentioned right after his resurrection...and also a few times in the vision of Revelation. be well, holdingontoTruth |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Aug 6, 2004 7:06:11 GMT -8
Shalom chaverim (peace friends), I just wanted to say that I appreciate your demeanor thus far in this discussion. B'shem Yeshua HaMashiach, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by holdingontoTruth on Aug 7, 2004 21:08:00 GMT -8
Reuel,
Yes, I am pleasantly suprised at the good attitudes and respect I've seen shown here so far. Usually on hot issues such as the one we are discussing here..people get really mean. When that happens, I am usually exiting out the back door.
Thanks for the board...nice place here.
shavua tov,
holdingontoTruth
|
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Aug 7, 2004 22:38:31 GMT -8
I only get mean in politics  John 3:16 tells us that God gave His only son; His son is eternal. Eternal means without beginning or ending. John in this passage in John 1:1 is obviously drawing on the reference to Genesis 1:1, and in the same way, he is drawing us much beyond the beginning of Creation and trying to bring us to the very limit of eternity, which has no limits - no beginning, no ending. Just as in Genesis, here there is no argument to prove the existence of God; His existence is assumed. God exists and is the Creator. This is the time frame given for Christ. Eternal or “In the beginning.”<br> In the beginning, what? “Was the Word.” Three times in this sentence, the word “was” is used in the imperfect, which simply implies continuous existence. There is no connotation of beginning, the Logos simply was. This phrase is pointing to a time of pre-existence before creation, which is not mentioned until verse 3. Turn to John 8:58. [John 8:58] This is a Hebrew idiom that in Greek basically says, “Before time, “’I AM’”. This beginning had no beginning. He simply was. [Psalm 90:2] This beginning denotes absolute existence or “I AM”. Compare John 1:3 [All came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being which has come into being.] and John 1:14 [And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us, and we gaze at His glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. CLV]. In both cases, they were not made or created, they became. Look back at “in the beginning”. It is not “from” the beginning, as it is in John 15:27 [And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.]. “From the beginning” is common in John’s writings. This contrast leaves no room for doubting the eternal pre-existence of Jesus the Christ. The account in Genesis starts at the beginning and brings us down through history; John takes us up from the present to the beginning. “In the beginning was the word”. The Son is as eternal (without beginning or end) as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Saying that the Son was created contradicts Scripture. “The same was in the beginning with God.” In verse one, the elements of this statement were given separately. Here, in verse 2, the eternal Word and the union with God are stated together. Here, they are combined with force: The Word is not only coeternal with God, but was eternally active in communion with Him. Not simply the Word with God, but God with God. John is making sure that there can be no error or misunderstanding. This verse begins the transition between who the Word is to His human manifestation in creation. Here in John 1:3: All things were made by Him and, “Without Him” or without the Logos; apart from Him, “without Him was not anything made”. Not one thing. Nothing. Contrast this to the beginning of the verse that all things were made by Him; no thing was made apart from Him. In this one statement, John denies two heresies: One that matter is eternal and two that the angels had a hand in creation. Without the Word, there was literally not one thing made. This point drives home the fact that the Logos was with God in the beginning. If He had not been, He would have been made; if He made all things, how would He have been made? |
|
|
|
Post by The 614th Mitzvot on Aug 8, 2004 10:56:27 GMT -8
I believed thay would have to be two seperate bodies, or else G-d would have to leave Heaven; no, they were Echad in everything except bodies. As I was saying in the Dual:Moshiach; people all have a spark off the Moshiach in them, however, only one each generation is born with that spark to the point of Eliyahu, and Yohshuah HaMoshiach was born with it purely. This does not mean he did not have the Evil Inclination, but that he was able to subdue it as we all can. The Moshiach spark is directly from the Almighty, and Yohshuah was born filled with not just the spark, but the entire fire of Moshiach. Therefore he was consumed by his Father and he and the father were one in mind and spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by The 614th Mitzvot on Aug 8, 2004 11:03:44 GMT -8
To the point; I believe that Yohshuah was created out of G-D with that Moshiach spark and that he existed prior to time and space, and he has the full power of G-D granted to him, but he and G-D are one as a lamp and a bulb; although this bulb never dies; the bulb is not part of the lamp, but through the lamp and with the lamp it is empowered. The lamp uses the bulb to do it's work, but it does not need the bulb, because it does not even need to do anything. That is a bad illustration; another: a man and his clothing; a man does not need clothing to work, nor does he need it to exist, but if he makes himself clothing he can wear it, and it will help him and it is empowered by his movement and work, but is not needed, except for its own purpose; as Moshiach has the goal of being Moshiach, so does clothing have the purpose of being clothing. Who better to understand the perfect Moshiach than El-Shaddai, and who better to understand what the clothing is supposed to be than the wearer. I hope I am clear, but I don't really know i I am. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Aug 8, 2004 12:27:24 GMT -8
Shalom Chumash614,
In some regards semantics can be helpful in understanding certain passages, but we need to see what you are saying from the scripture. Please supply passages for which your statements are based from.
ElGusano,
You stated...
I do not agree with the common Christian understanding of three seperate yet equal G-d's as I don't think this is scriptural, and it does fly in the face of Judaism, and the "Shema" as stated in scripture. I believe that the scripture points to the compound nature of Elohim. I believe that Elohim is a compound being. The simple anatomy is known to us as Father, son, and Spirit. In essence, I believe that Yeshua proceeded forth from G'd, from the very essence of G'd...as somewhat of an actual extension of The Father as we can see in Yochanan (John) 8:42...
"Yeshua said unto them, If G'd were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from G'd...
In the same chapter we see Yeshua HaMashiach confirm that this is indeed His intended thought as we see in Yochanan (John) 8:58-59...
"Yeshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Yeshua hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."
He used the same language here as found in Exodus 3:14 where G'd reveals Himself (and His name) to Moshe...
"And G'd said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, This is what you shall say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you."
This is why they took up stones to kill Yeshua HaMashiach. Because Yeshua is The Word, it was He whom spoke to Moses, and identified Himself as YHVH (The Great I Am).
Shalom,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by The 614th Mitzvot on Aug 8, 2004 12:42:12 GMT -8
That is exactly what I believe, that at some points it says that certain people walked with God or saw God, it was obviously Yohshuah HaMoshiach, before he was Moshiach, but since he transcends time, he was already Moshiach.
|
|
|
|
Post by holdingontoTruth on Aug 8, 2004 22:48:54 GMT -8
Shalom all,
Can someone show me in the text of John 3:16 where it says the Son is eternal? I don't see it.
also...Reuel
you said:
Because Yeshua is The Word, it was He whom spoke to Moses
Can you show me a verse that says it was Yeshua who spoke to Moshe? I see the Word or "Memra" "Logos" as the creative force coming from YHVH. He speaks his word and things are created...brought forth. In John 1 I think this is a deep mystical teaching..that makes it sound like the "word" or "logos" is a person..but may very well be a personification...poetic type language if you will..to establish authority of Yeshua...and to show that everything was created with Him in Mind... The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...could just mean...YHVH spoke and Yeshua was conceived in the womb of Miryam..etc.
it is my understanding that "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" means "I will be what I will be" and not "I am that I am."
Therefore..if this is the case..there is no proof that Yeshua was saying he was "Ehyeh" in his statements.
My view is that he was saying this basically... "I am of greater authority and importance than Abraham. This whole thing really is about me"
"Before Abraham was, I am" can mean this... before Abraham was...I was known and in the plan of YHVH" This would fit the talmudic statement... that the Name of Messiah was created before the world was created...etc.
It might mean that Yeshua..in some form...not a man...literally existed before..in the beginning. That is a very real possibility in my mind... but I think saying that Yeshua was equating himself with YHVH is a mis-understanding of these passages. Just my opinion. I always see him giving his Father glory and honor...and stating over and over again how he was GIVEN authority FROM the Father...etc.
3 co-equal co-existant persons..violates scripture in so many ways its not even funny.
again...Yeshua said "We Jews know who we worship" and study all the history of the Jewish people you want...you will never find a trinity...you will find...One God who is Spirit...a Messiah who is a man...annointed by God and given Divine authority and power. If read correctly..this fits the NT passages..in my view.
Thanks all for sharing. I know Yeshua said something about how "just as the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son to have life in himself" but show me where it plainly states that the Messiah or Son of God is eternal.
holdingontoTruth
|
|
|
|
Post by holdingontoTruth on Aug 8, 2004 22:59:01 GMT -8
one more thing..
John 1 has been interpreted so many different ways its not even funny. I can post a different interpretation here if anyone wants to read it...it is scholarly and long winded.
question...what do we do with the word "begotton" ? when was Yeshua begotton if He always was? How did he come forth from the Father if He always was. Is it a contradition of scripture to say the Father existed first? If you say yes, can you show me ?
there are even manuscripts that say...at Yeshua's mikvah by Yochanon..."You are my beloved Son, today I have begotton you" How do we know this isn't what was said? How do we know if one version is more right than another...when we have so many variants...especially in areas like this.
holdingontoTruth.
p.s. thanks for the discussion again.
|
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Aug 9, 2004 0:33:01 GMT -8
John 3:16 doesn't say it. The word "eternal" is not even in the verse. However, there are plenty of veres that do say the Son is eternal. John 1:1 comes to mind immediately. (I think I've already posted the exegesis of this verse, so won't do so now. If I haven't, I'll do so.) The grammar and words used states completely that the Son is as eternal (without beginning or ending) as the Father.
Without getting repetetive, John 1 says Jesus is the Word. The Chaldee manuscripts use the same word often, including when He spoke to Moses.
Reuel, it is also my understanding, from my OT teacher that the names used for YHWH are all plural and are not singular or dual. This cannot be used by itself to prove the trinity, but it does support passages from other places. However, as you know, my Hebrew is very weak and I have to rely on others.
The Word:
This word translated as “word” is the Greek word Ëïãïò and is from ëåãù, old word that means to lay by, to collect, to gather. Hence to put words side by side, or gather words together, so to speak. Ëïãïò is a collection of not only things in the mind, but the words that express them. Ëïãïò is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher from about 500 BC, used this word for the principle that controls the universe. Ëïãïò is never used in a merely grammatical sense, but is used as a way of embodying a concept. For example, the Septuagint in Exodus 34:28 refers to the Ten Commandments as ôïõò äåêá ëïãïõò (tous deka logos) or the ten words and we get our word “Decalogue” from this. Decalogue is a word that is used to reference the Ten Commandments. “In the beginning was the I AM which controls the universe.”<br>
Why is He referred to as “the Word”? As we have seen, a “word” is that by which we can communicate our will and convey our thoughts. [Hebrews 1:1-3] Christ is the means by which God declares His will and issues His commandments.
This term “word” was in use in this sense well before John used it. Chaldee was a language employed by the sacred writers in certain portions of the Old Testament. It is the Aramaic dialect, as it is sometimes called, as distinguished from the Hebrew dialect. It was the language of commerce and of social intercourse in Western Asia, and after the Exile gradually came to be the popular language of Palestine. It is called “Syrian” in 2 Kings 18:26. Some isolated words in this language are preserved in the New Testament. The term “Hebrew” was also sometimes applied to the Chaldee because it had become the language of the Hebrews such as in John 5:2 [Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.] “Word” was used in the Chaldee translation of the Old Testament, as in Isaiah 45:12: "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Chaldee it is, "I, by my word, have made," Isaiah 48:13: "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Chaldee, "By my word I have founded the earth."
|
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Aug 9, 2004 10:00:09 GMT -8
Of course there is a scholar for every opinion, but even if this was true, both of the “I Am” statements found in  , and in the Gospels could be the same. It could very well be the same language meaning what you have stated. But, of course this could be unknown do to the Greek translation in this case. I will have to see what the actual launguage in the Aramaic version of this Gospel says. I hope you understand that I don’t agree with this traditional thought either. I do believe in the compound (multiple) nature of Elohim as the very Hebrew word implies. But, not three seperate co-equal persons. Because I believe Yeshua HaMashiach is a intergrated part of the essence of YHVH...If this is true this substantiates my belief that Yeshua was existant from the time that YHVH was (He as always been). I believe Yeshua is simply a counterpart of the Father, and this is why we see Him referred to as "son". The term begotten most likely stems from the fact that this part of YHVH was birthed in flesh as is clearly stated in Yochanan (John) chapter1. This does refer to the eternal nature of Yeshua. This can be true because if Yeshua was existant before time with the Father (a part of the Father), than we cannot understand Him being after the Father. How can this be true? In the context of being outside of time...there is no time. Therefore, you cannot have a concept of "after" because this denotes time. Have I confused everybody? Again, seeing that the term “eternal” denotes forever (without time)…and Yeshua HaMashiach was existent before time began (as you have admitted is a possibility), than He by this concept is eternal since His true roots have their foundation outside of time. Shalom chaver, Reuel |
|
|
|
Post by The 614th Mitzvot on Aug 9, 2004 11:54:58 GMT -8
Wow, I thought El Gusano was talking and, better yet, disagreeing with himself!  I saw the little pictures and didn't read the name. Hahaha! Seriously though, I think that Yohshuah HaMoshiach was around before the creation of the world, but not around before the "beginning"; he has not always existed. I do not think however that he is an angel, because he is not mentioned as the highest angel, but Lucifer is. Let me try and explain it like this, a man has a bussiness and he has a son who runs the bussiness with him. The man's associates are ranked nearest to him, like the angels, but the son is not ranked among the associates because it is already known that he is the closest and has the complete power of the father in the business. If you take my meaning. For instance, when the Enoch walked with God, he walked with Yohshuah HaMoshiach. I think he is still seperate from God though or else shouldn't he pray to himself rather than to God, and if he was praying to himself, why talk in the third person? |
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Aug 9, 2004 13:34:11 GMT -8
I think I need to change my picture because even I thought I was arguing with myself when I re-read everything that had been stated.
|
|
from Sinai and transmitted it to Yoheshuah; Yoheshuah to the Shoftim; the Shoftim to the Nev'yim; and the Nev'yim transmitted it throughout Judea. It came BACK to Yohshuah HaMoshiach who retransmitted it to the rest of the world through Reb Sha'ul and Reb Cephas.
I saw the little pictures and didn't read the name. Hahaha!
