Jesus is God !

Elia

Well-known member
The definition is contained in my avatar.

How many times do I have to tell you this?

Bs'd

Just like I said: You cannot give a definition of the trinity.

Well, nobody can.

But what we do know about the trinity is the following:

The trinity is an idolatrous pagan illogical extra-Biblical concept, adapted by the church from much older pagan religions, in order to cover up the fact that they have two gods; a God the Father, and a god the son. 1 + 1 = 2, and therefore Christians are polytheists, worshiping a whole divine family, and that makes them IDOL WORSHIPERS!



Eliyahu, light unto the nations


"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5
 

Apple7

New member
Bs'd

Just like I said: You cannot give a definition of the trinity.

Well, nobody can.

Everytime that you look at my avatar the definition is given.

Just because you admit ignorance to what you are against, does not mean that others do not understand it.


The Creator revealed Himself as Triune in the OT.

Just deal with it...and then go back to slavishly reposting the same, exact postings which nobody reads...ad nausea...ad nausea...
 

Elia

Well-known member
Everytime that you look at my avatar the definition is given.

Bs'd

You're talking more nonsense again. A picture is not a definition.

So you too cannot give a definition of the trinity.

Nobody can.

It is just B.S.

Just because you admit ignorance to what you are against, does not mean that others do not understand it.


The Creator revealed Himself as Triune in the OT.

Just deal with it...and then go back to slavishly reposting the same, exact postings which nobody reads...ad nausea...ad nausea...

You admit to the same ignorance, by saying that a picture is a definition of the trinity.

We are not little children here. Grow up and debate seriously.

If you cannot do that, then be quiet.

After all has been said, it comes down to the same conclusion again:

The trinity is an idolatrous pagan illogical extra-Biblical concept, adapted by the church from much older pagan religions, in order to cover up the fact that they have two gods; a God the Father, and a god the son. 1 + 1 = 2, and therefore Christians are polytheists, worshiping a whole divine family, and that makes them IDOL WORSHIPERS!




Eliyahu, light unto the nations


"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5
 

Apple7

New member
Bs'd

You're talking more nonsense again. A picture is not a definition.

So you too cannot give a definition of the trinity.

Nobody can.

It is just B.S.


A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes.

My avatar actually contains words, however...of which, you cannot read...yes?

Keep making up more excuses...
 

Elia

Well-known member
A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes.

My avatar actually contains words, however...of which, you cannot read...yes?

Keep making up more excuses...

Bs'd

In nursery school pictures are used.

This is the real world. Grow up and get a life.


The trinity is an idolatrous pagan illogical extra-Biblical concept, adapted by the church from much older pagan religions, in order to cover up the fact that they have two gods; a God the Father, and a god the son. 1 + 1 = 2, and therefore Christians are polytheists, worshiping a whole divine family, and that makes them IDOL WORSHIPERS!



Eliyahu, light unto the nations


"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Points of import......

Points of import......

The Creator revealed Himself as Triune in the OT.

You mean that what Trinitarians read into OT texts as a 'pre-conception'. We've already covered this. While 'Elohim' may refer to a plurality of majesty, it doesn't necessarily mean a compound of only 3 deities. You'd have to provide evidence where this is 'clearly' and specifically taught in the Torah. It is only later 'read' into the text by Christians. So far it would appear to be an 'esoteric' interpretation of some OT passages, and a doctrine later defined and developed by Christian theologians much later.

Just deal with it...and then go back to slavishly reposting the same, exact postings which nobody reads...ad nausea...ad nausea...

Again, one can have a 'Unitarian' or 'Trinitarian' point of view, or a naunace inbetween these views,....and still.....'God' is One. You're continual antics and defense of your 'version' of the 'Trinity' could be seen as just as 'tedious' in the eyes of readers.

I enjoy a much more liberal all-clusive view of 'God', one that doesn't need 'defense' or 'apology', because it is philosophically cognizant in and of itself ontologically and metaphysically. 'Brahamn' even refers to that primordial reality that is befer any conception of 'God' whatsoever, before anything the mind can imagine or conceive about the nature of 'God'. - all the rest are just 'concepts'. If you worship a concept about 'God' as God, thats 'idolatry', for idolatry begins in the mind as a mental formulation or image of 'God', - it does not refer only to worship of a physical object or image. All begins in the mind. Something to think about as you defend a particlar 'formulation' of God.

"God is Spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship him". - Jesus

The Universal Father retains eternal primacy as 'God'. It is a primacy Jesus can never have as long as these two personalities exist in relationship. In this respect...Jesus is NOT God. This distinction is important. On other levels of association, spiritual purity, divine sonship...we can worship the divinity of Jesus, but in right understanding and appropriation.


pj
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Bs'd


It is just B.S.


We are not little children here. Grow up and debate seriously.

If you cannot do that, then be quiet.
Er, he doesn't start his every post with Bs. Gimmicky seems a bit childish to me so I'd not think you are setting the bar too high here to be complaining.
 

Poisoner

New member
Bs'd

In nursery school pictures are used.

This is the real world. Grow up and get a life.


The trinity is an idolatrous pagan illogical extra-Biblical concept, adapted by the church from much older pagan religions, in order to cover up the fact that they have two gods; a God the Father, and a god the son. 1 + 1 = 2, and therefore Christians are polytheists, worshiping a whole divine family, and that makes them IDOL WORSHIPERS!



Eliyahu, light unto the nations


"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5

U mad?????

2000 years since Christ Jesus came.
 

Drake Shelton

New member
I showed you otherwise.

You did not such thing. You showed that the word Theos is applied to Christ. This I never denied. You refused to deal with the numerical qualification that the word receives when used of the father.


The Trinity already comprehends that the Father is NOT the Son...and that the Son is NOT the Father.

While affirming the same numeric substance thus making those nominal distinctions meaningless.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Reality

Reality

~*~*~

The primacy of 'God' as 'Original Being' holds, as the Universal Father of all. - this includes 'God' being the Ancestor of all personalities, all creation.

There is only 'God' and the offspring of 'God'. There is only 'God' and the expression of 'God'. (all other negative or opposite forces or appearances are only distortions, shadows or modifications of the original reality). 'God' (Brahman') is all that is real.

God is One forever. Diversity within God or a 'Godhead' is an 'associative formation' recognized only on a 'relational' level, as far as economical/functional differentiations go. They exist only within a conceptual frame where such relatitivies have a place on a practical or theoritical level. No matter how such is 'figured' within any given context or activity.....'God' still remains the primal essence or Person (as the Father) from which all else derives, depends or owes its existence. The unity and holiness of 'God' is simple, pure, fundamental...even before any duality, trinity or plurality of any kind is perceived. - it just so happens that The Original One distributes/expresses itself in diverse forms, appearances and and personalities in the play of creation-experience.



pj
 

Apple7

New member
You mean that what Trinitarians read into OT texts as a 'pre-conception'.


Nope.

We are talking actual scripture.....of which, you are afraid to even post....and even more afraid to discuss.

The Trinity in the OT...

First, consider this verse...




Mark 12:26,
Jesus said "But about the dead rising, have you never read in the book of Moses in the account of the bush how God said to him 'I am the God of Abraham'?"




Jesus is quoting Himself, God the Son, as thus…



Exodus 3.1 - 6

And Moses was feeding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock behind the wilderness and came to the mountain of The Gods, to Horeb. And Malek Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire from the middle of a thorn bush. And he looked, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, and the thorn bush was not burned up! And Moses said, I will turn aside now and see this great sight, why the thorn bush is not burned up. And Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, and Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn bush, and said, Moses! Moses! And he said, Behold me. And He said, Do not come near here. Pull off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. And He said, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he feared to look upon The Gods.


These verses tell us plainly that Moses both saw and spoke with Malek Yahweh (i.e. God the Son) in the midst of the fire.

Observe that the Triune God occupies the Mount (Moses came to the mountain of all The Gods ‘Ha- Elohim’), as the terms Yahweh, Elohim, Malek Yahweh & Ha- Elohim (literally all The Gods!) are used interchangeably.

Who occupied the burning bush?

• Malek Yahweh
• Yahweh
• Elohim
• The Gods (Ha Elohim)








That Malek Yahweh is actually Yahweh, and that Moses spoke to Malek Yahweh, is proven in these verses, as thus…



Deut 4.15 - 19

Therefore you shall carefully watch over your souls, for you have not seen any likeness in the day Yahweh spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, that you not deal corruptly, and make for yourselves a graven image, a likeness of any figure, the form of a male or female, the form of any animal in the earth; the form of any winged bird that flies in the heavens; the form of any creeping thing on the ground; the form of any fish in the waters under the earth; and that you not lift up your eyes towards the heavens and shall see the sun, and the heavens, and you be drawn away and worship them, and serve them; which Yahweh Elohim has allotted to all the peoples under all the heavens.





It really should not come as any surprise that Moses saw and spoke to The Son, as the NT also records that Abraham did likewise…


John 8.56 – 58

Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see My day, and he saw, and rejoiced.Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!
 

Elia

Well-known member
Mark 12:26,
Jesus said "But about the dead rising, have you never read in the book of Moses in the account of the bush how God said to him 'I am the God of Abraham'?"

Jesus is quoting Himself, God the Son, as thus…

Bs'd

JC is not quoting himself. If he did, he would have said so.

And of course, there is not the slightest proof for your crazy theories.


Exodus 3.1 - 6

And Moses was feeding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock behind the wilderness and came to the mountain of The Gods


Please tell us what translation you are using, I can't find one that says: "Mountain of the Gods". Did you make that up yourself?

The word "elohiem" is considered to be singular, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

Here is something more about "elohiem":

Elohim and Echad

A typical example of the many word games Trinitarians and others use as they endeavor to promote their false god.
Adapted from The Journal of Hebraic Renewal, which reprinted it from Focus on the Kingdom magazine.

To support the commonly held teaching that God is a plural entity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit [1], Messianics that follow the primary Traditional Christian doctrines from which they came, as well as Traditional Christians, themselves, will appeal to two Hebrew words: Elohim (eloheem) and echad (echad, "ch" as in the Scottish "loch"). They assert that the Hebrew word, Elohim, indicates that God is a plural entity because it is the plural form of the word for God and is the title most often used for the God of Israel. Echad - used in the well-known "shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4 instructing Israel that their God is "one" - is asserted by them to show the plurality of God because, they say echad in the Hebrew actually indicates a compound, rather than an absolute, unity; that is, rather than a "simple" one, they say echad indicates a unity of more than one.

Each claim will now be examined.
Elohim

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah and appears closely related to El, which usually means "god", "God", or "mighty one". But IF we were right to translate Elohim as a plural word, the Bible would teach us that in the beginning, "Gods" created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Bible would then support the idea that more than one God created the universe, spoke to Abraham, delivered Israel from bondage and continued dealing with them, etc., since Elohim is used throughout the Tanakh ("Old" Testament) as Israel's God(s). But virtually no Christian - Messianic or otherwise - would profess that there is more than one God.

So, how do we resolve this dilemma? And why do all the translations translate Elohim simply as "God" and not "Gods" when it refers to the true God?

In Biblical Hebrew, a noun that is plural in form is not necessarily plural in meaning - a fact most Messianic leaders realize, yet seem to ignore. For instance, the Hebrew words chayim (chayeem, "life") [2] and panim (paneem, "face", "presence", "countenance") [3] are plural in form, but almost always singular in meaning. Another word, adon, "lord", "master", [4] is often plural in form. In its plural form it is sometimes used of a single person - Abraham (Gen. 24:9-10), Joseph (Gen. 42:30,33), the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1) and an anonymous "fierce king" under whose rule the Egyptians were prophesied to come (Isa. 19:4, NRSV). There are instances of other plural Hebrew words employed in the Hebrew Bible with singular meaning.

Equally striking is the fact that the same term, elohim, is used of the individual false gods of Israel's surrounding nations. Elohim is used of Dagon, the god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jud. 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33); of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the god(dess) of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33); of Milcom, another god of the Ammorites (1 Kings 11:33). In Smith's Bible Dictionary (NISBE) no plurality in any one of these gods is even hinted at. Additionally, in Ezra's prayer in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by Israel in the wilderness.

Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as elohim [5].

What all this indicates is that in Biblical Hebrew, plural nouns in general and Elohim in particular do not always have plural meanings. In the case of the word Elohim, in fact, it would appear as though we should almost always understand it as singular in meaning unless the context indicates that "gods" are referred to.

Hebrew scholars are entirely familiar with these facts (as are Christianized Messianic leaders). The expressions "plural of majesty" or "plural of rank" or "intensive plural" are sometimes used to describe this phenomenon of language (not just Hebrew) where the form of a word can be plural but its meaning is singular. The idea is that the plural stresses or exalts the importance of the person referred to. The following is a quotation regarding Elohim from the NISBE, in their article on "God, Names of":

The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the plural of majesty or the intensive plural because it implies that all the fullness of deity is concentrated in the one god. Elohim's being the most common word for God in the Tanakh thus conveys this idea. (Vol. 2, p. 505).

Smith's Bible Dictionary has this to say on the same subject in their article entitled "God":

The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God (p. 220).

But by no means is YHWH ever referred to by plural forms. In fact, whenever the people of God speak of Him in the Hebrew Bible using a pronoun, they ALWAYS employ the singular form. Whether it is the third person (He, Him, His) or the second person (You, Your, Thou, Thy) this is the case. The people of God understood their God to be a single Individual. [6]

Nor is He only referred to in the plural when "God" is the translated word. Two forms referred to above, El and Eloah used in the Tanakh to refer to the true God, are both singular in form. [7] When an Aramaic word for God, Elah, is used, it too appears to be always in its singular form when referring to the true God. [8]

The form of the verb used in Hebrew when Elohim the true God is the subject is also instructive. It is virtually always singular in form throughout the Tanakh. In Genesis 1, for example - where the reader is first introduced to Elohim the Creator - the Hebrew verb form is always in the third masculine singular whenever [9] we read that "Elohim created" or "Elohim said" or "Elohim made", etc. [10]

Finally, the Septuagint (known as "LXX"), the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (probably translated in the third and second century B.C.E.) ALWAYS translated the Hebrew word for God in the singular (Gr. theos). The LXX version of the Old Testament is often cited in the New Testament instead of the Hebrew. [11]

Therefore - returning to the original argument (which usually includes the "Let us..." statement in Gen. 1:26) - if God must be regarded as a plural entity because He is referred to in a plural form, why then must He not be regarded as a singular entity since He is referred to in singular forms? Are not all these statements Holy Scripture? We could be left with a contradiction were it not for the many examples of plural forms with singular meanings in Hebrew, including the concept of "plural of majesty". The plural of majesty clarifies the usage of the plural form for the true God in the Tanakh. He is described by thousands and thousands of singular verbs and pronouns. Language has no more definite way of telling us that God is ONE Person, the Father of Yeshua - but definitely NOT Yeshua!

As a final proof, note the Messianic 22nd Psalm. I will quote from only a portion of this Psalm which, when read using common sense, CLEARLY shows that Yeshua (the prophetic focus of this Psalm) refers to God (Elohim and El) as HIS God (Elohim). I will include in parenthesis the Hebrew word translated as "God."

Psalm 22:1,2,10
1 My God (El), my God (El), why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? 2 O my God (Elohim), I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. ... 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God (El) from my mother's belly.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

This single quote from Psalms - and there are other Messianic verses which present the same proof - PROVES that Yeshua is NOT God (Elohim), since he (Yeshua) refers to the ONE, True God as HIS Elohim! Verse 10 also proves how Yeshua worshipped the same God we should worship from his birth! Thus, since Yeshua very clearly referred to the God HE WORSHIPPED as Elohim, the term Elohim cannot possibly refer to Yeshua in the sense of making him God!
Echad

The other main argument from the Hebrew used to teach that God is a "plural" entity is that the Hebrew word echad in the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 means, not a simple "one", but rather a "compound unity" of one, a "togetherness". Those who teach this will often also teach than there is a different word for a "simple" one, yachid, so that the absence of this word in Deuteronomy 6:4 is, apparently to them, significant.

First, it should be noted that when one learns the Hebrew numbers, it is echad, not yachid, that is the Hebrew for the number "one": echad is one, shenayim is two, shalosh is three, arba is four, etc. Any Hebrew grammar book, whether of Biblical or modern Hebrew, would demonstrate that echad, not yachid, is the everyday Hebrew word for the numeral "one".

And when one looks in the Tanakh itself at the frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a simple one. Echad is used over 900 times in the Hebrew Bible, making it the most frequently used adjective in the Tanakh. Here are some examples of its usage where the word "one" is translated from echad: "one place" (Gen. 1:9); "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (1 Sam. 1:24); "one went out into the field" (11 Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek. 37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or two" (Ezra 10:13).

Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad + 'asar, one plus ten), in , for example Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is as well translated by an indefinite article (a[n]): "a new cart" (1 Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (1 Kings 19:4,5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).

Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of single, alone, ONLY one, or JUST one, the ideal of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11; Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to translate echad merely as "one". For if the "one" witness referred to is the second of the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to death of the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates it). Echad means "one" and ONLY one.

Some make the argument that because echad is used in passages such as Gen. 1:5 (evening and morning were "day one [echad]", or "first day"), Gen. 2:24 (a husband and wife shall be "one" flesh) and Ezek. 37:17 (two sticks are to become "one" stick), echad is therefore meant to be understood as some kind of a compound unity. To begin with, such examples make up but a very small minority of the uses of echad, the vast majority being of the variety listed above. It is improper exegesis to define a word on the basis of a small percentage of its usage. But even this extreme minority of usage does not mean that echad actually has a different meaning than a simply one in these passages. In Gen. 1:5, "day" is the word that has "parts" to it (i.e., "evening" and "morning" make up the day), not echad. In Gen. 2:24, "flesh" acts as the collective noun (what the man and the woman as comprise together). [12] The key factor in all such passages - a factor missing from Deut. 6:4 - is that two or more "parts" are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of "coming together" of the people or things mentioned, usually for just one purpose or goal. Echad, in fact, must maintain its meaning of "just one" for these expressions to convey their intended sense. To make our point clear: Deut. 6:4 does not say, "YHWH our God, though three (or two or whatever plural number you like), is one." There is no hint of "coming together" here. The verse says that YHWH our God is plainly, simply, one.

Once again, scholarship is in agreement. The Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon, the standard Hebrew lexicon of the Bible used in seminaries, list eight ways echad is used - e.g. meaning "each/every," or "a certain," or "only," etc. - but there is no mention or hint in the entire echad article that echad ever means any kind of compound unity. [13] And the "echad" article in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament also nowhere teaches that echad implies a compound unity. It says that Deuteronomy 6:4 is essentially saying that YHWH is the one and only God for Israel (Vol. I p. 196).

Yachid, on the other hand, is a very rarely used word in the Tanakh, and it is employed in a special sense when it is used. It is found a grand total of 12 times in the entire Tanakh, three of those times in the same passage (Gen.22, referring to Isaac as Abraham's "only" son), so virtually any argument based on its absence from a Bible text is necessarily weak. Its meaning is restricted to a unique, priceless possession, whether a person or thing (Isaac in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; one's soul - lit. "only one" - in Ps. 22:20(21), 35:17); or to solitary, desolate, isolated or lonely people (Ps. 25:16, 68:6(7)). There is a "neediness" seen in all that yachid applies to in the Tanakh. YHWH our God is not dependent on anyone. Based on Biblical usage, therefore, it would be entirely inappropriate to use yachid as an adjective for God for any reason.
Conclusion

In conclusion, neither the word Elohim nor the word echad supports the notion of a plurality in God. The plural form Elohim when used of God does not have to mean a plural entity. In Hebrew, plural forms can be singular in meaning. this is sometimes referred to as a plural of majesty or plural of rank. The very term elohim is used of single, foreign gods and of the Messiah. But YHWH is, in fact, always referred to by grammatically singular forms and used with verbs in the singular (even when the plural form Elohim is the subject). Finally, the Greek Old Testament, sometimes quoted in the New Testament, always translates the term for God - whether the Hebrew word is singular or plural - in the singular Greek form.

Echad, rather than being any kind of support for a plural God, teaches the opposite. It means "one" and "only one." God is one.
Final Word

It seems clear that the sole reason for these arguments attempting to teach a plural God from the Tanakh is a desire among many Christians and Christian originated Messianics to find Old Testament substantiation for the concept of the Trinity or some other form of plural God. But of course, that is no way to proceed in a Bible study. We must accept the definitions which the words reveal about themselves and how they are used in the Bible text, not what we would like them to mean. May God help us to accept what the Scripture has to say about who the true God is. "Yahweh our God is one single Person" (cp. Paul in Gal. 3:20: "God is only One Person," Amplified Version).

[1] Some Christians believe that God consists of the Father and Son only, and that the Holy Spirit is essentially God's active power, not a third Person.

[2] E.g., Gen. 23:1: Sarah's "life"

[3] E.g., Gen. 43:31: Joseph's "face"

[4] This is another word, like Elohim, which is a title denoting someone superior in rank. See "plurality of majesty" discussion below.

[5] The fact that Ps. 45:6(7) is viewed as messianic does not change the point: The Messiah is just one individual and yet is given the title of the plural (in form) Elohim. Some will use this verse, taken out of context, as "proof" that Yeshua Messiah is God because the term elohim (god) is applied to him. However, elohim can also mean rulers, judges, divine ones, angels, gods, god, goddess, godlike one, etc. There is also a legitimate question regarding the verse's correct translation. The JPS Tanakh renders the verse as:

Psalm 45:7
7 Your divine throne is everlasting; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.

The Stone Edition of the Tanakh renders it as:

Psalm 45:7
7 Your throne is from God, it is forever and ever, [for] the scepter of fairness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Nevertheless, as with virtually all verses that are incorrectly used as "proof" of Yeshua's deity, when the context is considered, it is proven that even if elohim is applied to Messiah in verse 6 (7 in JPS and Stone editions), he is still not "God." The very next verse shows this.

Psalm 45:7
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

Therefore, since God has anointed the one spoken of in verse 6, the one in verse 6 is obviously NOT God, but is god (little g), godlike, or a ruler, all of which perfectly describe the MAN, Yeshua the Messiah. Common sense dictates the one anointing and one being anointed are not the same entity.

[6] Two rather emphatic examples: 1 Kings 18:39 and 2 Sam. 7:28. The relevant part of the former reads, "YHWH, He is God [Elohim]; YHWH, He is God." The key portion of the latter reads, very literally, "Lord [adonay] YHWH, You [sing], He, [is] the God [Elohim]."

[7] God is translated from El in the following passages: Gen. 17:1, Ex. 34:6, Josh. 3:10, Isa. 5:16 and Ps. 29:3. From Eloah: Deut. 32:15, Neh. 9:17, Job 4:9 (used more often than Elohim in Job) and Ps. 114:7.

[8] E.g., Dan. 2:28, Ezra 5:2.

[9] Gen. 1:26 says, "Let us make..." where God is perhaps either referring to Himself in the plural (possibly another form of plural of majesty), or is condescending to His heavenly host (i.e., someone besides Elohim, reflecting the normal concept of any first person plural), bringing them into the creative act. "Make," of course, is plural in its Hebrew form. In the next verse, where Elohim actually performs the action, the verb for "made" is back to its singular form.

[10] The Hebrew word order may be relevant here as well. In Hebrew prose, the usual word order is that the verb precedes the noun. In Gen. 1:1, therefore, before the Hebrew reader even gets to the word Elohim, he or she reads "bara" ("created"), the third person masculine singular form, immediately telling him or her that the acting subject is singular in reality.

[11] See Heb. 1:6 for example, where a version of the LXX of Deut. 32:43 is quoted. The passage is quite different from the Hebrew text we now have and use.

[12] There wouldn't be much point in saying, "The two shall be two fleshes." The unity intended is obviously that of purpose and mind. And "one" here still means just one.

[/U][/COLOR], to Horeb. And Malek Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire from the middle of a thorn bush. And he looked, and behold, the thorn bush was burning with fire, and the thorn bush was not burned up! And Moses said, I will turn aside now and see this great sight, why the thorn bush is not burned up. And Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, and Elohim called to him from the midst of the thorn bush, and said, Moses! Moses! And he said, Behold me. And He said, Do not come near here. Pull off your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. And He said, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he feared to look upon The Gods.[/I]


These verses tell us plainly that Moses both saw and spoke with Malek Yahweh (i.e. God the Son) in the midst of the fire.

The messenger of God is not the son of God. That is another unproven assumption of yours.
Your whole story is made up of unproven assumptions and faulty logic.

Observe that the Triune God

There is no such a thing as a triune god. NOWHERE in the Bible is a triune god to be found.

Another unproven assumption, with which your story is riddled.

What does exist in the Bible however, is the one God Y-H-W-H who is ONE.

I don't want to be like you, talking in the air, so I bring Scripture to proof my point:


שמע ישראל י-ה-ו-ה אלהנו י-ה-ו-ה אחד


Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is
ONE.​
Deut 6:4

So Y-H-W-H is God, and Y-H-W-H is ONE.

That is what the Bible teaches us.

occupies the Mount (Moses came to the mountain of all The Gods ‘Ha- Elohim’),

So according to you, just because the mountain is called; "The mountain of God", therefore God must be on that mountain?

A bit silly logic, wouldn't you agree?

Jerusalem is called: The city of peace. So therefore peace must be in Jerusalem?? Never any war in Jerusalem??

Don't think you can convince anybody with your childish logic.

as the terms Yahweh, Elohim, Malek Yahweh & Ha- Elohim (literally all The Gods!) are used interchangeably.

Another faulty remark.

Who occupied the burning bush?

• Malek Yahweh
• Yahweh
• Elohim
• The Gods (Ha Elohim)



That Malek Yahweh is actually Yahweh, and that Moses spoke to Malek Yahweh, is proven in these verses, as thus…

Did the idea ever come to your mind that all five of those subjects were sitting in that bush at the same time?

Or, to make it a bit more simple for you, that the angel of God, and God Himself, were both present in that bush?

Since that is at least an option, therefore there is no proof that God is His own angel/messenger.

A Jewish commentator says that Moses got a revelation, which gradually increased in holiness. He first saw the fire, after that the angel of God, after that God Himself.

Also that is a possibility, and therefore also that rips your "proof" that the angel of God must be God Himself, apart.

And of course, there is the, in the Torah regularly used option, that the angel of God was speaking for God, and that therefore the Torah states that God Himself spoke to Moses, even though He was speaking through His angel.

All these possibilities show that you have no proof whatsoever, only a bunch of crazy theories, based on faulty logic and bad proofs.

Deut 4.15 - 19

Therefore you shall carefully watch over your souls, for you have not seen any likeness in the day Yahweh spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, that you not deal corruptly, and make for yourselves a graven image, a likeness of any figure, the form of a male or female, the form of any animal in the earth; the form of any winged bird that flies in the heavens; the form of any creeping thing on the ground; the form of any fish in the waters under the earth; and that you not lift up your eyes towards the heavens and shall see the sun, and the heavens, and you be drawn away and worship them, and serve them; which Yahweh Elohim has allotted to all the peoples under all the heavens.

"You saw no form of any kind the day Y-H-W-H spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things Y-H-W-H your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven."
Deut 4:15-19

And what do the Christians do? They worship a human being.

God says: "Don't worship a human", and the Christians worship a dead Jew.

It really should not come as any surprise that Moses saw and spoke to The Son, as the NT also records that Abraham did likewise…

The only problem is: There is no son to be found in that text.

You are seeing things that don't exist.


There is only one God; Y-H-W-H, and He is ONE, and not triune, not three, not a trinity, but ONE.

Amen and HalleluJah!


Eliyahu, light unto the nations


"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
That's the only thing I got again - Gimmickery

Speak like the rest of us or go home. "Bs'd" doesn't mean anything to anybody but you. You can keep it at home or learn to debate with real adults.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Jesus is the Lord of Hosts !

Jesus is the Lord of Hosts ! Those who do not believe that scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is also God in addition to being the Son of God, they simply do not believe the scripture testimony, which makes them in spite of their religious profession ,unbelievers, for they are no more believers in Christ than a atheist is !

Now with that, Isiah gives scripture testimony of seeing the King, The Lord of Hosts Isa 6:5

5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts or Yahweh of Hosts.

What and who Isiah saw was the Glorified God Man Mediator, The Lord Jesus Christ in His Glory, for this is confirmed by NT scripture Jn 12:41

41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Compare that with Isa 6:1-3

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Notice also what Isiah said about His Train in Vs 1 that it filled the Temple, that is His skirt or garment, that of the High Priest. The skirt is the hebrew word shuwl:

skirt (of robe)

a) of high priest's robe

This is a Vision of Christ, God Man as the Great High priest of God's People Heb 4:14

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

This could not be a Vision of the Father, for no man has seen God the Father at anytime ! Whereas Isa said of the King , the Lord of Hosts :

for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts

So Isiah did not see the Father here with His Eyes ! But yet the Being whom He saw was indeed :

for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord or Yahweh of hosts.

And it was Jesus Christ he saw Jn 12:39-41

39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

40 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.

41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Those who do not Believe from this witness of scripture that Jesus Christ is The Yahweh of Hosts that Isiah saw ,it is because Jn 12:40 is True of them !
 
Last edited:

Apple7

New member
Bs'd

JC is not quoting himself. If he did, he would have said so.

And of course, there is not the slightest proof for your crazy theories.


Right here...in the scripture that you conveniently ignored...!


John 8.56 – 58

Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see My day, and he saw, and rejoiced.Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!


This is an open and shut admission that Jesus was the Yahweh which Abraham encountered in Genesis 18.

Just deal with it...





Please tell us what translation you are using, I can't find one that says: "Mountain of the Gods". Did you make that up yourself?

The word "elohiem" is considered to be singular, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.


Nope.

The Hebrew word in question is 'ha-elohim'...which literally means 'all the Gods'.

This should have been a red flag to cognizant Jews that the One God is Plural.

This verse, and others like it, actually had the opposite effect upon the Jews...and they went crazy thinking that there were numerous gods...so much so, that they made their own gods out of wood, stone and metal...and then worshipped their idols.

Little did the ignorant Jews know...that Yahweh was revealing Himself as Triune.

Jews got it completely wrong.

All the way through the Tanak, the over-riding theme is how the House of Israel gave itself over to idolatry.
 

Elia

Well-known member
Jesus is the Lord of Hosts ! Those who do not believe that scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is also God in addition to being the Son of God,

Bs'd

So if JC is the Lord of hosts, then who is his father?? Then his father is another god.

No matter which way you turn, a "God the Father" and a "god the son" is two gods.


Eliyahu
 

Elia

Well-known member
Right here...in the scripture that you conveniently ignored...!


John 8.56 – 58

Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see My day, and he saw, and rejoiced.Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!

Bs'd

So you think you can proof the NT with text from the NT??

Like: "The NT is true, because that is what is written in the NT"??

Ever heard of the term: "Circular reasoning"?

The Hebrew word in question is 'ha-elohim'...which literally means 'all the Gods'.

As I showed you before, the word "elohiem" is singular, unless the context shows otherwise, and the word "all" is simply not existent in that expression, so you are showing that you have as much knowledge of Hebrew as a cow has of climbing trees.

So what you are trying to do with your circular reasoning, is trying to proof that a messiah who didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies is the messiah, and not only that, that he also is a god.

And then you have to resort to illogical constructions like the trinity which is nowhere to be found in the Bible, in a desperate and pathetic attempt to turn your two gods into one.

Christianity is soooooooo obviously wrong.....



Eliyahu, light unto the nations


"Hear Israel, Y-H-W-H is our God, Y-H-W-H is ONE!" Deut 6:4

"All the peoples walk each in the name of his god, but as for us; we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God forever and ever!" Micah 4:5
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Bs'd

So if JC is the Lord of hosts, then who is his father?? Then his father is another god.

No matter which way you turn, a "God the Father" and a "god the son" is two gods.


Eliyahu

Do you understand the post ? Please explain what you see I have posted in 536 and why?

Then I will take your questions Thanks !
 
Top