PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The LORD our God is one LORD:



Ta-An
Mar 6th 2011, 05:45 PM
Deut 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: ( אֶחָד)

I just listened to a radio talk show.... and the Rabbi said that the word "one" does not necessarily mean numerical one... but that it means God is everything, not just one in number...and that the Lord alone is God, there is none beside

The word for one in Hebrew in this passage is echad, which is a cluster- 'type' word




..

:hmm:

Fenris.... are you here :hmm: what say ye?

Firstfruits
Mar 6th 2011, 06:18 PM
Deut 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: ( אֶחָד)

I just listened to a radio talk show.... and the Rabbi said that the word "one" does not necessarily mean numerical one... but that it means God is everything, not just one in number...and that the Lord alone is God, there is none beside

The word for one in Hebrew in this passage is echad, which is a cluster- 'type' word




..

:hmm:

Fenris.... are you here :hmm: what say ye?


I would say that the following would agree with that.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

God bless you Ta-An,

firstfruits

Ta-An
Mar 6th 2011, 06:23 PM
I would say that the following would agree with that.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

God bless you Ta-An,

firstfruits

Explain this to me useing OT text please... :D

Firstfruits
Mar 6th 2011, 06:43 PM
Explain this to me useing OT text please... :D

I will try.

Here are a few more from the NT they refer to believers being of one mind.

Rom 15:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
Rom 15:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Cor 13:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

1 Pet 3:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=60&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

1 Cor 2:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=46&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

If we have the mind of Christ, I would say that we have the mind of God

I will try and find OT scriptures for you.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

episkopos
Mar 6th 2011, 06:49 PM
What is the greatest number in the universe....?


ONE!

Rullion Green
Mar 6th 2011, 06:58 PM
Taken from the two powers in heaven site;

Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.

Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.

Here is also a short powerpoint (http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/2powersweb1/player.html)on the subject, that may or may not be of help to you Ta An.

God Bless

Firstfruits
Mar 6th 2011, 07:03 PM
Job 15:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=18&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Hast thou heard the secret of God? and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself?

Would you say that we have heard and are taught that which was secret?

Is 40:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=23&CHAP=40&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?

Is it not the spirit of the Lord that dwells within us?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Mar 6th 2011, 07:06 PM
What is the greatest number in the universe....?


ONE!

I believe the following is how it should be understood.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Mar 6th 2011, 07:33 PM
One in Christ.

1 Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

Firstfruits

Ta-An
Mar 6th 2011, 07:33 PM
..... that may or may not be of help to you Ta An.

God Bless Interesting indeed..... but that causes another problem.... Jesus and Angel
but yes, also is He called YHVH...

Rullion Green
Mar 6th 2011, 08:33 PM
Interesting indeed..... but that causes another problem.... Jesus and Angel
but yes, also is He called YHVH...




I dont think i understand you question completely, I'm pretty tired.

The Jewish Scholar Alan Segal has made the obvious connection that it is possible to see in the OT a visible Yahweh and a invisible Yahweh form the verses quoted. He as a Jewish scholar hold this to be a heresy, but admits it was once part of orthodox Jewish thinking, until a bunch of Jews started equating the Visible Yaweh with a carpenter's son from Nazareth who was supposedly doing miracles. His work explains (indirectly) why Jews who followed Jesus could also worship Him as Yaweh, as they seen Him as the Visible Yaweh found in the pages of the Old Testament that interact with the patriarchs and others personally.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 12:52 PM
People see what they want to see. The word means "one".

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 01:06 PM
People see what they want to see. The word means "one".

Because a man has two arms does not mean that he is two men.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 01:12 PM
Because a man has two arms does not mean that he is two men.

People see what they want to see. No matter what you say, Christianity is not "as" monotheistic as Judaism.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 01:42 PM
People see what they want to see.
True statement. Jesus told the Pharisees that the said they were of Abraham but they did not have the faith of Abraham. If they were like Abraham they would have received Jesus as Messiah. Oh that you might see Gen 22:8-13 through the eyes of a believer.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 01:45 PM
Oh that you might see Gen 22:8-13 through the eyes of a believer.

Oh, I am a believer. I might not believe what you do, but that's no reason to pretend I have no faith.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 02:21 PM
People see what they want to see. No matter what you say, Christianity is not "as" monotheistic as Judaism.

I know you may not agree with this, however if Jesus is regarded as being God and the Father is regarded as being God, and Jesus said that he and the Father are one what would you say is the meaning of "one"?

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:23 PM
I know you may not agree with this, however if Jesus is regarded as being God and the Father is regarded as being God, and Jesus said that he and the Father are one what would you say is the meaning of "one"?

Firstfruitshere's a little math for you: 2>1

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 02:26 PM
Oh, I am a believer. I might not believe what you do, but that's no reason to pretend I have no faith.
Ahh..what faith is efficacious? Faith in extraterrestrials? Of course not. Faith must source from Gods word. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Abraham knew that the promise was to come through Isaac yet he counted God faithful and though Isaac were sacrificed God would raise him up that the promise would not fail.

Perhaps you could explain what you know of this passage or what the Rabbis teach concerning this passage. It is very exciting from the Christian perspective. I do not doubt your personal faith. I'm just pointing you toward the stone of Israel that the foundation of your faith may be secure. Gen 49:24

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:28 PM
I have faith in God of the bible. You don't have to like it. Shrug.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:31 PM
Perhaps you could explain what you know of this passage or what the Rabbis teach concerning this passage. It is very exciting from the Christian perspective. I do not doubt your personal faith. I'm just pointing you toward the stone of Israel that the foundation of your faith may be secure. Gen 49:24

Jacob's blessing of his son Joseph. You're hanging your hat on this? I don't get it...

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 02:36 PM
here's a little math for you: 2>1

Yes two is greater than one, but two of what? Would you limit God to no arms? Is God no greater than you, that you can limit God?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:42 PM
Yes two is greater than one, but two of what? Would you limit God to no arms? Is God no greater than you, that you can limit God?
It would have been very simple for Deuteronomy to state, "The Lord our God, the Lord is three". But it didn't.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 02:48 PM
It would have been very simple for Deuteronomy to state, "The Lord our God, the Lord is three". But it didn't.

But the Lord isn't three.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:53 PM
But the Lord isn't three.
I heard this term. The "Trinity". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 03:00 PM
I heard this term. The "Trinity". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

Is God such as man that he has two arms two legs, two ears, and two feet? Can you define God's essence, or limit it? You have two arms, does that mean there are two Fenris's?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:01 PM
Is God such as man that he has two arms two legs, two ears, and two feet? Can you define God's essence, or limit it? You have two arms, does that mean there are two Fenris's?

I heard this term. The "Trinity". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 03:12 PM
I heard this term. The "Trinity". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

Trinity means three, like the three men that met Abraham. What do you want to know about three?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:16 PM
Trinity means three, like the three men that met Abraham. What do you want to know about three?

Some math........... 3>1

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 03:20 PM
Some math........... 3>1

There was a little girl that was born with fourteen toes, does that equal fourteen girls?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:21 PM
There was a little girl that was born with fourteen toes, does that equal fourteen girls?

I heard this term. The "Trinity". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 03:31 PM
I heard this term. The "Trinity". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

Does 14 toes = 14 girls? It doesn't even equal one girl. Can I define the Trinity? No, but can you explain how the will of your flesh fights against the will of your mind? Can you explain how you have a body, spirit, and soul, all equaling one Fenris?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:32 PM
Can I define the Trinity? No
Expain it as best you can.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 03:53 PM
here's a little math for you: 2>1

So the Father is also the Son, since Jesus said that he and the Father are one?

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:54 PM
So the Father is also the Son, since Jesus said that he and the Father are one?

2>1

John 5:30 I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 04:04 PM
Expain it as best you can.

OK, as best I can. Adam heard God's voice in the Garden of God, and was it not the word of God. Was not the word of God, and God both the same, in as much as the word of God emanated from God. Could we agree that there is only one God speaking?

That same word that emanated from God, was made flesh by God. Could you agree that God is capable of doing that? If God clothed his own word in flesh, does that word then become a second God? I would say not. So now we have two, God, and his word that has been encased in flesh, and yet only one God.

How does the Spirit become a third member, well the Spirit emanated from God, having the essence of God, and therefore is not a separate God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 04:07 PM
2>1

John 5:30 I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

What did Jesus mean when he said the following?

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:08 PM
OK, as best I can. Adam heard God's voice in the Garden of God, and was it not the word of God. Was not the word of God, and God both the same, in as much as the word of God emanated from God. Could we agree that there is only one God speaking?

That same word that emanated from God, was made flesh by God. Could you agree that God is capable of doing that? If God clothed his own word in flesh, does that word then become a second God? I would say not. So now we have two, God, and his word that has been encased in flesh, and yet only one God.

How does the Spirit become a third member, well the Spirit emanated from God, having the essence of God, and therefore is not a separate God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

So then God could be 50, or 500, or 5,000,000.

Further, if "That same word that emanated from God, was made flesh by God." and that word was also God, then God changed.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. This whole 3=1 idea is just a way to make the NT "fit" with OT verses that say God is one.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:09 PM
What did Jesus mean when he said the following?

I have no idea what he meant. How can two people be one?

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 04:23 PM
So then God could be 50, or 500, or 5,000,000.

God is "I AM"


Further, if "That same word that emanated from God, was made flesh by God." and that word was also God, then God changed.

God changed from what? You need to describe God before you could decide if God changed.


I'm sorry, I just don't see it. This whole 3=1 idea is just a way to make the NT "fit" with OT verses that say God is one.

Your vision of God is skewered in that you can only relate God to man. You cannot put God in a box, nor can you define one who has made the Universe. God's ways are not our ways, nor in the realm of our understanding. God is infinite.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 04:24 PM
I have no idea what he meant. How can two people be one?

Yet Jesus said it. So could there be another meaning to this?

Could it have anything to do with unity?

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:28 PM
God is "I AM"That's a phrase, it's not God.


God changed from what? You need to describe God before you could decide if God changed.
God making a second God is not change?



Your vision of God is skewered in that you can only relate God to man. You cannot put God in a box, nor can you define one who has made the Universe. God's ways are not our ways, nor in the realm of our understanding. God is infinite.
In other words, you have no answer to my point. Fair enough.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:29 PM
Yet Jesus said it. So could there be another meaning to this?

Could it have anything to do with unity?

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

2>1..................

Blackwood
Mar 7th 2011, 04:32 PM
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). .*.*. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. .*.*. By the end of the 4th century .*.*. the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on*the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol.*XXVII, p. 294L.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. .*.*. This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century*B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity .*.*. can be*found*in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.

Matt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)

John 8:17,*18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)

Mark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 04:43 PM
That's a phrase, it's not God.

There is no phrase greater than that to describe God.


God making a second God is not change?

No one but you has said God made a second God.


In other words, you have no answer to my point. Fair enough.

You have not described God, nor his limitations, and until you do there is no answer that you will hear.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:52 PM
There is no phrase greater than that to describe God.I can think of plenty. Regardless, it's a phrase. Not God.




No one but you has said God made a second God.

You said that "That same word that emanated from God, was made flesh by God." And this was also God. That sounds to me like change.


You have not described God, nor his limitations, and until you do there is no answer that you will hear.
The bible describes God as being one. If truely anything about God is unknowable, the bible needn't have wasted space to make this point. Your contention that 1=3 is true because "God is unknowable anyway" in no way mitigates that.

Ta-An
Mar 7th 2011, 04:58 PM
Shalom Fenris :)

Echad, = 1 or One :hmm:


Who is this in Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 05:02 PM
Who is this in Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


That would be an angel. Unless maybe you believe it was Jesus himself in the fire? Even though he wouldn't be "born into a physical body" for several hundred years?

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 05:05 PM
=Fenris;2634491]I can think of plenty. Regardless, it's a phrase. Not God.

Can you describe God more clearly than "I AM"?


You said that "That same word that emanated from God, was made flesh by God." And this was also God. That sounds to me like change.

You have to define God's boundaries in what God is capable of. God never said he made another God, what he said was that his own Word was clothed in flesh. Can you comprehend that?


The bible describes God as being one. If truely anything about God is unknowable, the bible needn't have wasted space to make this point. Your contention that 1=3 is true because "God is unknowable anyway" in no way mitigates that.

Sorry but your point is lost here on me. What are you saying by this statement, "If truely anything about God is unknowable, the bible needn't have wasted space to make this point"?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 05:08 PM
Can you describe God more clearly than "I AM"?"I am" too, that doesn't make me God.

I don't know, "The maker of the heavens and the earth"? "The one who brought the Jews out of bondage in Egypt"?




You have to define God's boundaries in what God is capable of. God never said he made another God, what he said was that his own Word was clothed in flesh. Can you comprehend that?Yes, God made another God. That means that God changed.




Sorry but your point is lost here on me. What are you saying by this statement, "If truely anything about God is unknowable, the bible needn't have wasted space to make this point"?Why did the bible bother to tell us that "God is one"?

Ta-An
Mar 7th 2011, 05:16 PM
That would be an angel. Unless maybe you believe it was Jesus himself in the fire? Even though he wouldn't be "born into a physical body" for several hundred years?

God is omnipotent Yes??

Then can He not manifest in any which way He wants too?

He existed since the beginning , not from birth ...

Would you say "Son of God " and "Angel of YHVH" is the same individual (for the lack of a better word form me :o)

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 05:23 PM
God is omnipotent Yes??

Then can He not manifest in any which way He wants too?

He existed since the beginning , not from birth ...The bible says God is one. Now everyone's jumping on the bandwagon "who are we to limit God"? But it was He Himself who said that He is one. Now we're saying He didn't mean what He said? Because it advances one's theology? That sounds blasphemous.




Would you say "Son of God " and "Angel of YHVH" is the same individual (for the lack of a better word form me Angels are God too? Then he's a lot more than three...

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 05:25 PM
"I am" too, that doesn't make me God.

I don't know, "The maker of the heavens and the earth"? "The one who brought the Jews out of bondage in Egypt"?

You have only described several things God has done, but you have not described how. You can tell us what gravity does, but not how or why. How did God come into existence, and what are his limitations?



Yes, God made another God. That means that God changed.

You continue to say God made another God, and yet you cannot define God, therefore your point is mute. If you cannot encapsulate God, or define Him, then you cannot determine where his boundaries are, and therefore you cannot determine his end or beginning. In order to determine where God ends and another God starts, you would have to have this knowledge.




Why did the bible bother to tell us that "God is one"?

Because God is one.

Ta-An
Mar 7th 2011, 05:29 PM
The bible says God is one. Now everyone's jumping on the bandwagon "who are we to limit God"? But it was He Himself who said that He is one. Now we're saying He didn't mean what He said? Because it advances one's theology? That sounds blasphemous. :idea: It is Monday :D :yes:

Lo, I was listening to the Chief Rabbi, and He said something that I thought a bit "different" from what I know Jews believe.... but I coul not talk to him to ask him questions :(



Angels are God too? Then he's a lot more than three... I asked ...:
Would you say "Son of God " and "Angel of YHVH" is the same individual Period.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 05:30 PM
You have only described several things God has done, but you have not described how.
Why do I need to know how?


How did God come into existence, and what are his limitations?I fail to see why this is important.





You continue to say God made another God, and yet you cannot define God, therefore your point is mute. If you cannot encapsulate God, or define Him, then you cannot determine where his boundaries are, and therefore you cannot determine his end or beginning. In order to determine where God ends and another God starts, you would have to have this knowledge.This is a fancy way of saying "We can't understand God, so he could be a multiplicity of persons". I find the point unconvincing and self-serving. One is one.






Because God is one.
3>1

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 05:33 PM
:idea: It is Monday :D :yes:And I had a tooth pulled on thursday. Still in pain.


Lo, I was listening to the Chief Rabbi, and He said something that I thought a bit "different" from what I know Jews believe.... but I coul not talk to him to ask him questions :(
That God is three?


Would you say "Son of God " and "Angel of YHVH" is the same individualWhat funny is you're not quoting God, or even a Jew. The speaker in Daniel 3:25 is not even monotheistic. Why would we care what he thought he saw?

Ta-An
Mar 7th 2011, 05:42 PM
And I had a tooth pulled on thursday. Still in pain. :D Ahhh Double trouble :hug: There is no pain like tooth-pain...:cry:
That God is three? Lo, that God is so much more than just a singular 'object' He is everything.... more than he is a singular object.... they were talking about 'gods', and that HaShem is not on the same level as other 'gods' that are singular....

What funny is you're not quoting God, or even a Jew. The speaker in Daniel 3:25 is not even monotheistic. Why would we care what he thought he saw? :o I did not know that ....

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 05:48 PM
Lo, that God is so much more than just a singular 'object' He is everything.... more than he is a singular object.... they were talking about 'gods', and that HaShem is not on the same level as other 'gods' that are singular...[/COLOR][/B][/I]
Yes, I agree. The universe itself resides within God. That still doesn't make Him any more than one being.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 05:55 PM
Why do I need to know how?

If you are going to determine the limits of God, where God stops and another God starts, and since God has not told you, then you therefore need to know everything about God to make your own determinations. What, how, and why would all be helpful determinates.


I fail to see why this is important.

You are making assumtions about God because you see him as a man, with man's limitations. If you would look at God without these restrictions you might see things in a different light.



This is a fancy way of saying "We can't understand God, so he could be a multiplicity of persons". I find the point unconvincing and self-serving. One is one.

Is God capable of taking his own Word and enclosing it in flesh?



3>1

Are three fingers>than one hand. You see we are talking leaves and trees.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 06:07 PM
If you are going to determine the limits of God, I don't need to determine God's limits. He said He was one, that's good enough for me.

You're going to go build an entire philosophical library just to justify 3=1.


You are making assumtions about God because you see him as a man, with man's limitations. If you would look at God without these restrictions you might see things in a different light.I don't pretend to understand Him at all. All I have to go on is His word. In this case, He says that He is one.





Is God capable of taking his own Word and enclosing it in flesh?I don't even know what that means.





Are three fingers>than one hand. You see we are talking leaves and trees.3 fingers are part of one hand. Each finger is not a hand itself.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 7th 2011, 06:10 PM
People see what they want to see. No matter what you say, Christianity is not "as" monotheistic as Judaism.

Only if Trinity inference is Scriptural implication, which it isn't. Trinity is error; Filioque is error upon error.

God, His OWN Word (made flesh), His OWN Spirit (divided asunder). One God. Not three persons. One Divinity personified in the prosopon (G4383) of Jesus, Messiah.

I don't expect you to accept this, but all us Christians don't hold to orthodox Trinity error.

God is Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity. No 3>1. No 2>1. Just 1=1.

Shalom. :-)

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 06:24 PM
Only if Trinity inference is Scriptural implication, which it isn't. Trinity is error; Filioque is error upon error.

God, His OWN Word (made flesh), His OWN Spirit (divided asunder). One God. Not three persons. One Divinity personified in the prosopon (G4383) of Jesus, Messiah.

I don't expect you to accept this, but all us Christians don't hold to orthodox Trinity error.

God is Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity. No 3>1. No 2>1. Just 1=1.

Shalom. :-)

I'm sorry, this just looks like more semantics to me. Another way of saying 3=1.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 7th 2011, 06:41 PM
I'm sorry, this just looks like more semantics to me. Another way of saying 3=1.

It certainly does... until exegesis of about two dozen specific Greek renderings, beginning with ekporeuomai.

It's okay. All the floundering mystery-Trinity proponents think I'm a pseudo-semi-heretic. Which is good reason itself to consider this as truth. The total exegesis is irrefutable.

Ta-An
Mar 7th 2011, 07:29 PM
Fenris.....

How many "spirits" in Isaiah 11 :hmm: Isaiah 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 07:33 PM
Fenris.....

How many "spirits" in Isaiah 11

This is all you have to put up against "God is one"?

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 07:34 PM
[QUOTE=Fenris;2634569]I don't need to determine God's limits. He said He was one, that's good enough for me.

God is one, we are in agreement with that.


You're going to go build an entire philosophical library just to justify 3=1.

You are made up of three parts, body, spirit, and soul, are you not? And yet you are one Fenris.


I don't pretend to understand Him at all. All I have to go on is His word. In this case, He says that He is one.

We don't disagree at all on this.



[QUOTE]I don't even know what that means.

The Word was manifested in the flesh. I believe you are familiar with that scripture in the New Testament.


3 fingers are part of one hand. Each finger is not a hand itself.

That is correct and there are not three persons in the Trinity. The Word of God is not a separate person either.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 07:41 PM
You are made up of three parts, body, spirit, and soul, are you not? And yet you are one Fenris.My parts to not roam about independantly.



We don't disagree at all on this.Mm, no. You claim God is one, but you also claim he is three.





The Word was manifested in the flesh. I believe you are familiar with that scripture in the New Testament.What. Does. This. mean.




That is correct and there are not three persons in the Trinity. The Word of God is not a separate person either.Again. This is just a fancy way of saying 3=1.

How do you explain John 5:30. I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

Ta-An
Mar 7th 2011, 07:46 PM
This is all you have to put up against "God is one"?

No, different question.... but this is also one and the same Spirit not so :hmm:
The Spirit of God ??

Lilah tov. see you tomozzzz

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 07:51 PM
How do you explain John 5:30. I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.

When your hand reaches for the keyboard whose will is it carrying out.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 07:53 PM
When your hand reaches for the keyboard whose will is it carrying out.
My hand doesn't have a will of it's own, sorry.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 07:54 PM
No, different question.... but this is also one and the same Spirit not so :hmm:

Don't know. Maybe it's just a poetic term.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 08:01 PM
My hand doesn't have a will of it's own, sorry.

I believe the flesh has a will of its own, otherwise there would be very few fat people.

Having said that, God called the Messiah his arm.

Isaiah 53:1 To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:08 PM
I believe the flesh has a will of its own, otherwise there would be very few fat people.It doesn't, and I wouldn't call my arm "my son" either. And my son does have his own will, by the by....


Having said that, God called the Messiah his arm.

Isaiah 53:1 To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?Who says this is speaking about the messiah?

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 08:25 PM
It doesn't, and I wouldn't call my arm "my son" either. And my son does have his own will, by the by....
Who says this is speaking about the messiah?

The New Testament. John 12:38-41 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:27 PM
The New Testament.
C'mon you know better than to use this as evidence with me by now.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 08:32 PM
2>1..................

That does not answer the question.

Jesus said it. So could there be another meaning to this?

Could it have anything to do with unity?

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

What does it mean for Jesus and the Father to be one?

Firstfruits

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 08:34 PM
C'mon you know better than to use this as evidence with me by now.

You asked, who said so? I can prove nothing to you if you will not believe one who came back from the dead.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:35 PM
That does not answer the question.

Jesus said it. So could there be another meaning to this?

Could it have anything to do with unity?

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

What does it mean for Jesus and the Father to be one?

FirstfruitsI don't know what it means. Nor do I find it significant. 2 is still more than one. And God said that he was one. Good enough for me.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:35 PM
You asked, who said so? I can prove nothing to you if you will not believe one who came back from the dead.
That's why they call it "faith", my friend.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 08:55 PM
I don't know what it means. Nor do I find it significant. 2 is still more than one. And God said that he was one. Good enough for me.

How can it not be significant, when the issue is understanding what "one" means.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

This remains to be understood.

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:01 PM
How can it not be significant, when the issue is understanding what "one" means.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

This remains to be understood.

Firstfruits

Why does it need to be understood? 2>1.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 09:06 PM
That's why they call it "faith", my friend.

But not blind faith. Isaiah 1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 09:12 PM
Why does it need to be understood? 2>1.

We would have to believe that Jesus the Son is also the Father, and that the Father sent himself, and that Jesus spoke and prayed to himself since Jesus and the Father are one.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Who did Jesus cry to when he was on the cross?

Did the Father die when Jesus died?

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:13 PM
But not blind faith. Isaiah 1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

Right, only the gentiles really know who God is. :rolleyes:

PneumaPsucheSoma
Mar 7th 2011, 09:14 PM
How can it not be significant, when the issue is understanding what "one" means.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

This remains to be understood.

Firstfruits

Actually... One (heis/hen G1520) in rendered in the feminine hen (not heis), and means one in essence. If it were heis, it would have meant one in number. Even heis would be more synonymous with Oneness Father/Son sameness. No Trinity here. And... It's the same rendering in John 17:21-23, where we are one with Him as He is one with the Father.

If anything, it's simply a non-Trinity proof-text.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:16 PM
We would have to believe that Jesus the Son is also the Father, and that the Father sent himself, and that Jesus spoke and prayed to himself since Jesus and the Father are one.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Who did Jesus cry to when he was on the cross?

Did the Father die when Jesus died?

FirstfruitsI'm sorry, from my understanding Jesus could not be God, especially because 2>1. I don't really care what he said.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 09:22 PM
Right, only the gentiles really know who God is. :rolleyes:

Your new noons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:28 PM
Your new noons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

And this applies to all Jews, forevermore...

Rullion Green
Mar 7th 2011, 09:30 PM
Your new noons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

I don't think this is the best way to quote scripture to a Jew. No offence intended.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 09:32 PM
And this applies to all Jews, forevermore...

No, only to those who do not wash themselves in the living water.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 09:33 PM
I don't think this is the best way to quote scripture to a Jew. No offence intended.

Fenris is no ordinary Jew.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 09:35 PM
I'm sorry, from my understanding Jesus could not be God, especially because 2>1. I don't really care what he said.

I know that you have said that you do not care however this may help you understand what Jesus meant, and it is not a just a case of numbers.

Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Are you one with God, according to his word?

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:35 PM
No, only to those who do not wash themselves in the living water.

Oh.

So it applies to all Jews who don't believe exactly as you do. Check. Got it. ;)

Rullion Green
Mar 7th 2011, 09:36 PM
Fenris is no ordinary Jew.

lol, he's not the ultimate Jew, Jackie Mason has taken that title.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EFcE0tzXMrA/R85ZTN7hmKI/AAAAAAAAAGU/jmd3RK_6jD0/s400/JACKIEMASONultjew1.jpg

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:37 PM
Fenris is no ordinary Jew.

That's true. I fight crime in a special costume!

http://peru.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/06/superjew.jpgkpaaub.jpg

Rullion Green
Mar 7th 2011, 09:39 PM
That's true. I fight crime in a special costume!

http://peru.indymedia.org/uploads/2006/06/superjew.jpgkpaaub.jpg

Wondered what you looked like, now i know.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:39 PM
I know that you have said that you do not care however this may help you understand what Jesus meant, and it is not a just a case of numbers.

Of course it can't be about numbers. Because 2>1

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 09:44 PM
Of course it can't be about numbers. Because 2>1

So do these scriptures explain what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one"?

Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Are you one with God according to his word?

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:46 PM
So do these scriptures explain what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one"?

I am uninterested in determing the meaning of NT verses solely put there to ignore the fact that 2>1.

rejoice44
Mar 7th 2011, 09:48 PM
Oh.

So it applies to all Jews who don't believe exactly as you do. Check. Got it. ;)

God is no respecter of persons.

Really like your outfit. Ciao.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 09:51 PM
I am uninterested in determing the meaning of NT verses solely put there to ignore the fact that 2>1.

I asked if the scriptures given helped to understand what Jesus meant, did it help that he was not talking about the number one?

Firstfruits

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:53 PM
I asked if the scriptures given helped to understand what Jesus meant, did it help that he was not talking about the number one?

Did it "help"? No. Does it explain how two entities can really be one entity? No.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 09:59 PM
Did it "help"? No. Does it explain how two entities can really be one entity? No.

Then you are only thinking about numbers, not what Jesus meant about being one in Christ and in God.

Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

You have not answered if you are one with God according to the word of God.

What does it mean to abide in God?

Firstfruits

RollTide21
Mar 7th 2011, 10:02 PM
Then you are only thinking about numbers, not what Jesus meant about being one in Christ and in God.

Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

You have not answered if you are one with God according to the word of God.

What does it mean to abide in God?

FirstfruitsFF, why are you asking Him if he is one with God according to the "word of God"? What word? John chapter 17? Fenris is Jewish. He doesn't view those passages as God's word.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 10:06 PM
FF, why are you asking Him if he is one with God according to the "word of God"? What word? John chapter 17? Fenris is Jewish. He doesn't view those passages as God's word.

Well as a Jew he is Gods child, his firstfruits, as is Christ?

Firstfruits

RollTide21
Mar 7th 2011, 10:08 PM
Well as a Jew he is Gods child, his firstfruits, as is Christ?

FirstfruitsI don't mean his heritage. I mean his religion is Judaism. How would passages in John be expected to factor into the debate when he doesn't view those as Scripture?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 10:09 PM
What does it mean to abide in God?

Dunno, does it make 2=1?

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 10:23 PM
Dunno, does it make 2=1?

Deut 4:35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

Deut 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my LORD, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Mt 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Mt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mk 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Who is the Lord that shall sit at the Lords right hand?

Firstfruits

divaD
Mar 7th 2011, 10:23 PM
Did it "help"? No. Does it explain how two entities can really be one entity? No.



I have a feeling that when you finally do convert to Christianity, you're probably not going to be jumping on the trinity bandwagon anytime soon. I can see you jumping on the premil bandwagon tho, but that's for another part of the board. In your religion, do you have as many options to choose from? Such as...trinitarian..oneness...pre trib..post trib..mid trib...premil..amil...postmil...preterist..partial preterist...so on and so on. It's almost as if Christianity is one mixed up religion, since not everyone can be correct. when everyone is coming to different conclusions. But even tho we have all of these different views, there's still things all these views agree unanimously on, and that is, that Jesus is that promised Messiah of the OT. Doesn't that strike you as odd, that we can unanimously agree to that, but have all these other differences of opinions? The logical conclusion..Jesus must truly be the Messiah promised in the OT.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 10:28 PM
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my LORD, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.



Who is the Lord that shall sit at the Lords right hand?


This is another classic misquote. It reads completely different in Hebrew.

In Hebrew is says "God (YHVH, the Tetragrammon) said to my master (Adonee), sit at my right hand...."

Who might be singing this Psalm? A priest in the temple, perhaps? Who would his master be? King David.

So a priest in the temple was saying "God said to king David, sit at my right hand..."

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 10:31 PM
I have a feeling that when you finally do convert to Christianity, you're probably not going to be jumping on the trinity bandwagon anytime soon. I can see you jumping on the premil bandwagon tho, but that's for another part of the board. In your religion, do you have as many options to choose from? Such as...trinitarian..oneness...pre trib..post trib..mid trib...premil..amil...postmil...preterist..partial preterist...so on and so on. It's almost as if Christianity is one mixed up religion, since not everyone can be correct. when everyone is coming to different conclusions. But even tho we have all of these different views, there's still things all these views agree unanimously on, and that is, that Jesus is that promised Messiah of the OT. Doesn't that strike you as odd, that we can unanimously agree to that, but have all these other differences of opinions? The logical conclusion..Jesus must truly be the Messiah promised in the OT.

Or maybe you can all agree on an attractive idea but not the theological details.

jeffweeder
Mar 7th 2011, 10:32 PM
one is the lonliest number. But God isnt lonely as he refers to himself as us and our.

Firstfruits
Mar 7th 2011, 10:35 PM
This is another classic misquote. It reads completely different in Hebrew.

In Hebrew is says "God (YHVH, the Tetragrammon) said to my master (Adonee), sit at my right hand...."

Who might be singing this Psalm? A priest in the temple, perhaps? Who would his master be? King David.

So a priest in the temple was saying "God said to king David, sit at my right hand..."

So is King David sitting at the right hand of God

Mt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Is this refering to David, and therefore is David the Messiah?

Firstfruits

divaD
Mar 7th 2011, 10:45 PM
This is another classic misquote. It reads completely different in Hebrew.

In Hebrew is says "God (YHVH, the Tetragrammon) said to my master (Adonee), sit at my right hand...."



This still works and doesn't disagree with anything. Jesus would be the master in question here.

As one example of several...

John 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 10:50 PM
Mt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Is this refering to David, and therefore is David the Messiah?

David was a messiah, yes. All Jewish kings were. I don't know why you're asking me to reconcile NT quotes though.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 10:52 PM
This still works and doesn't disagree with anything. Jesus would be the master in question here.

Ah. But once it's read in Hebrew, it could be someone other than "my Lord" i.e. God (capitalized in the translation, in case one missed the reference).

Firstfruits
Mar 8th 2011, 08:48 AM
David was a messiah, yes. All Jewish kings were. I don't know why you're asking me to reconcile NT quotes though.

But with the understanding that David is dead and buried, are you then expecting to die in order to see David if he is the promised Messiah?

According to this scripture if it is the fruit of his loin, his offsping that shall sit on Davids throne then how does it refer to being David?

Ps 132:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=19&CHAP=132&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit Of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my LORD, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Firstfruits

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 05:17 PM
Ah. But once it's read in Hebrew, it could be someone other than "my Lord" i.e. God (capitalized in the translation, in case one missed the reference).

Explain what else could it mean then, who was David's master or lord ?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:17 PM
But with the understanding that David is dead and buried, are you then expecting to die in order to see David if he is the promised Messiah?

According to this scripture if it is the fruit of his loin, his offsping that shall sit on Davids throne then how does it refer to being David?


I do not understand your question.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:18 PM
Explain what else could it mean then, who was David's master or lord ?

David was the master. The psalm was sung by levites in the temple. They were referring to their master, king David.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 05:26 PM
David was the master. The psalm was sung by levites in the temple. They were referring to their master, king David.

Thats would be a good explanation if it didn't say in the Tanakh לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:34 PM
Thats would be a good explanation if it didn't say in the Tanakh לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר

= "A Psalm of David". Yes, it's about him.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 05:42 PM
= "A Psalm of David". Yes, it's about him.

Are you serious ? Nowhere in the psalm are the Levities mentioned Fenris. The Midrash on Psalms (Book One, 18, 29) states plainly that the Messiah is addressed and told to sit on God's right hand in Psalm 110:1. The Midrash Rabbah, Genesis LXXXV, 9 affirms that the staff mentioned in Psalm 110:2 refers to the royal Messiah. Also, in regard to Psalm 110:2, the Midrash Rabbah, Numbers XVIII, 23 maintains that the staff is destined to be held in the hand of the Messiah. Midrash Yelamdeinu concurs and states that the Messiah will use the staff to conquer the nations of the world.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:54 PM
Are you serious ? Nowhere in the psalm are the Levities mentioned Fenris.
It is a fact that the Levites sung Psalms during temple service. It is perfectly sensible for them to have said "God said to my master, king David..."


The Midrash on Psalms (Book One, 18, 29) Midrash is a sermon. Some rabbi gave a lecture. That's all. For certain the plain text of this Psalm is understood by Jews as referring to king David.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 06:07 PM
It is a fact that the Levites sung Psalms during temple service. It is perfectly sensible for them to have said "God said to my master, king David..."

Midrash is a sermon. Some rabbi gave a lecture. That's all. For certain the plain text of this Psalm is understood by Jews as referring to king David.

Not all Jews see this the way you do, as i have shown by the quoted text, and just because the Levites sung the songs it makes then the authors now ? does this apply to all psalms or just special ones ?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:29 PM
Not all Jews see this the way you do, as i have shown by the quoted text
You have shown nothing. As I said, just because some rabbi used this psalm in a sermon doesn't mean that he rejected the literal meaning.


and just because the Levites sung the songs it makes then the authors now ? I don't think the levites wrote any psalms. Many were written for them to sing, however.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 06:40 PM
You have shown nothing. As I said, just because some rabbi used this psalm in a sermon doesn't mean that he rejected the literal meaning.

No. It was taken as Messianic, your attacking straw men here.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:53 PM
No. It was taken as Messianic
Ah. Another expert on Judaism.

Rullion Green
Mar 8th 2011, 07:00 PM
Ah. Another expert on Judaism.

good answer. :wave: