To the only God our Savior

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

J

Johann

Guest
Nowhere. The Father, not the Messiah, is unambiguously stated to be the creator in these lines. That’s Jewish monotheism. You’ve already told me (and our readers) that you believe in creators (plural).
Which is biblically correct-but it fly's against your dogma-right?
Jewish monotheism doesn’t discard any scripture. Scripture was written by Jewish monotheists.
So why did the Jewish monotheists mention not only in John's prologue but other references that Messiah is God?

J.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Which is biblically correct-but it fly's against your dogma-right?

It isn’t biblically correct. If it were then all English translations would render it that way.

Gods and multiple creators of the heavens and the earth does fly against my dogma.

Yahweh himself says that he did it alone, by himself. (You quoted it to me.)

So why did the Jewish monotheists mention not only in John's prologue but other references that Messiah is God?

J.

John doesn’t mention in his prologue that the Messiah is God.

John is a Jewish monotheist. His God is Yahweh.

This is a good time for me to remind my readers that Dr. Witherington, a trinitarian scholar, states, as I do, that Jesus wasn’t and isn’t Yahweh.

I’m also going to remind my readers that you declined to go on record when asked. That’s something important in this conversation that I want them to remember.
 
Last edited:
J

Johann

Guest
We spoke about it around 48 hours ago. Do you really not remember it?
Adonai (אֲדֹנָי)
Meaning: "My Lord" or "The Lord."

Usage: Exclusively used as a divine title for Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. It is a plural form used with singular verbs, reflecting majesty and reverence.

Examples:
"Hear, O Lord (Adonai), and be merciful to me" (Psalm 30:10).

"The Lord (Adonai) will reign forever" (Exodus 15:18).

Relevance to Jesus: In Christian theology, passages referring to Yahweh as Adonai are understood to include Jesus, especially given the New Testament's assertion of His deity (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:9-11).

Adon (אָדוֹן)
Meaning: A general term for "lord" or "master."

Usage:
Refers to God as a ruler (e.g., Exodus 34:23: "The Lord (Adon), the God of Israel").
Also used for human masters or authorities (e.g., Genesis 45:8: "He made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord (Adon) of all his house").

Relevance to Jesus: As Messiah, Jesus is understood as Adon in His role as the sovereign Lord over creation (e.g., Ephesians 1:21).

Adoni (אֲדֹנִי)
Meaning: "My lord," a possessive singular form of Adon.

Usage: Typically used for human masters or superiors. However, in messianic contexts, it can refer to a figure with divine authority.

Key Example:
Psalm 110:1: "The LORD (YHWH) said to my Lord (Adoni), 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.'"

This verse is pivotal in identifying the Messiah as "Adoni."

Jewish interpretations often view the "Adoni" as a royal or messianic figure.

In Christian theology, Jesus explicitly applies this verse to Himself
(e.g., Matthew 22:44, Acts 2:34-36), affirming His messianic and divine role.

Jesus in the Hebrew Bible
Direct Mentions: The Hebrew Bible does not explicitly name Jesus (Yeshua) in messianic prophecies by title or name. Instead, titles like Adonai, Adon, and Adoni are seen as anticipatory or typological references.

Christian Interpretation:
Psalm 110:1: Jesus as "Adoni" (my Lord) reflects His messianic authority and divine exaltation.

Isaiah 9:6: Titles like "Mighty God" (El Gibbor) and "Everlasting Father" (Avi’ad) are understood to describe the Messiah’s deity.

Jewish Perspective

Jewish scholars interpret Adonai as exclusively referring to Yahweh and Adoni in Psalm 110:1 as referring to a human or royal figure, such as King David or a future Messiah who is not divine.

I do NOT accept the Jewish perspective and dogma re the Messiah.

J.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It isn’t biblically correct. If it were then all English translations would render it that way.

Gods and multiple creators of the heavens and the earth does fly against my dogma.



John doesn’t mention in his prologue that the Messiah is God.

John is a Jewish monotheist. His God is Yahweh.
@Johann....John of the gospel credited to him is the most profound writer concerning the important is believing that the Messiah is the Son of God, never as God himself, his Father and true creator. That would be insane to think as you say about the Messiah.

Where does John speak to Jesus the Christ as YHWH? It certainty is not in John 1 as you and others keep attempting to persuade others he is the Supreme one.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Adonai (אֲדֹנָי)
Meaning: "My Lord" or "The Lord."

Usage: Exclusively used as a divine title for Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. It is a plural form used with singular verbs, reflecting majesty and reverence.

Examples:
"Hear, O Lord (Adonai), and be merciful to me" (Psalm 30:10).

"The Lord (Adonai) will reign forever" (Exodus 15:18).

Relevance to Jesus: In Christian theology, passages referring to Yahweh as Adonai are understood to include Jesus, especially given the New Testament's assertion of His deity (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:9-11).

Adon (אָדוֹן)
Meaning: A general term for "lord" or "master."

Usage:
Refers to God as a ruler (e.g., Exodus 34:23: "The Lord (Adon), the God of Israel").
Also used for human masters or authorities (e.g., Genesis 45:8: "He made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord (Adon) of all his house").

Relevance to Jesus: As Messiah, Jesus is understood as Adon in His role as the sovereign Lord over creation (e.g., Ephesians 1:21).

Adoni (אֲדֹנִי)
Meaning: "My lord," a possessive singular form of Adon.

Usage: Typically used for human masters or superiors. However, in messianic contexts, it can refer to a figure with divine authority.

Key Example:
Psalm 110:1: "The LORD (YHWH) said to my Lord (Adoni), 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.'"

This verse is pivotal in identifying the Messiah as "Adoni."

Jewish interpretations often view the "Adoni" as a royal or messianic figure.

In Christian theology, Jesus explicitly applies this verse to Himself
(e.g., Matthew 22:44, Acts 2:34-36), affirming His messianic and divine role.

Jesus in the Hebrew Bible
Direct Mentions: The Hebrew Bible does not explicitly name Jesus (Yeshua) in messianic prophecies by title or name. Instead, titles like Adonai, Adon, and Adoni are seen as anticipatory or typological references.

Christian Interpretation:
Psalm 110:1: Jesus as "Adoni" (my Lord) reflects His messianic authority and divine exaltation.

Isaiah 9:6: Titles like "Mighty God" (El Gibbor) and "Everlasting Father" (Avi’ad) are understood to describe the Messiah’s deity.

Jewish Perspective

Jewish scholars interpret Adonai as exclusively referring to Yahweh and Adoni in Psalm 110:1 as referring to a human or royal figure, such as King David or a future Messiah who is not divine.

I do NOT accept the Jewish perspective and dogma re the Messiah.

J.

Jesus accepts the Jewish perspective and dogma re the Messiah.
 
J

Johann

Guest
John doesn’t mention in his prologue that the Messiah is God.
This is intellectual dishonesty-coming from a Jewish monotheist.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.

Clear as day Messiah is Elohim-why the denial?

J.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Did I say Yeshua is YHWH?

Joh 1:1 IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word (N1Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God N2Himself. [Isa_9:6]


"was" (thrice) This is an imperfect tense (cf. Joh_1:1-2; Joh_1:4; Joh_1:10) which focuses on continual existence in past time. This tense is used to show the Logos' pre-existence (cf. Joh_8:57-58; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24; 2Co_8:9; Col_1:17; Heb_10:5-7). It is contrasted with the aorist tensesof Joh_1:3; Joh_1:6; Joh_1:14.

"the Word" The Greek term logos referred to a message, not just a single word. In this context it is a title which the Greeks used to describe "world reason" and the Hebrews as analogus with "Wisdom." John chose this term to assert that God's Word is both a person and a message. See Contextual Insights, C.

"with God" "With" could be paraphrased "face to face." It depicts intimate fellowship. It also points toward the concept of one divine essence and three personal eternal manifestations (see Special Topic: The Trinity at Joh_14:26). The NT asserts the paradox that Jesus is separate from the Father, but also that He is one with the Father.

"the Word was God" This verb is imperfect tense as in Joh_1:1 a. There is no article (which identifies the subject, see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 66) with Theos, but Theos is placed first in the Greek phrase for emphasis. This verse and Joh_1:18 are strong statements of the full deity of the pre-existent Logos (cf. Joh_5:18; Joh_8:58; Joh_10:30; Joh_14:9; Joh_17:11; Joh_20:28; Rom_9:5; Heb_1:8; 2Pe_1:1). Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human (cf. 1Jn_4:1-3). He is not the same as God the Father, but He is the very same divine essence as the Father.
The NT asserts the full deity of Jesus of Nazareth, but protects the distinct personhood of the Father. The one divine essence is emphasized in Joh_1:1; Joh_5:18; Joh_10:30; Joh_10:34-38; Joh_14:9-10; and Joh_20:28, while their distinctives are emphasized in Joh_1:2; Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_5:19-23; Joh_8:28; Joh_10:25; Joh_10:29; Joh_14:11-13; Joh_14:16.
Joh_1:2

This is parallel to Joh_1:1 and emphasizes again the shocking truth in light of monotheism that Jesus, who was born around 6-5 B.C., has always been with the Father and, therefore, is Deity.
Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
Joh 1:3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4]
Joh 1:4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)]
Joh 1:5 And the Ohr shines in the choshech [TEHILLIM 18:28], and the choshech did not grasp it. [YESHAYAH 9:1]


Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.

Why is it you two don't want to address this?!

More is coming from me-this is just the beginning.

J.
Jesus the Christ is not introduced in John 1 until John the Baptist hits the scene.

Again on what basis do you see/read/conclude Christ being present before these verses of scripture?

You can only establish a major incorrect wild assumption that the divine quality or feature of YHWH himself, his word, is the Son of God a sit fit in creating circular logic with verse 14; and when logos, even though a male gendered word in Greek is still a neuter form in English, an 'it,' and has always been that way until the 16th century in written text. Nowhere else in scripture is the term logos turned from a thing into a male person., and then it title as word, artificially capitalized. Think about it...some has an agenda, and it's not sourced for God, indeed.
 
J

Johann

Guest
@Johann....John of the gospel credited to him is the most profound writer concerning the important is believing that the Messiah is the Son of God, never as God himself, his Father and true creator. That would be insane to think as you say about the Messiah.
You two are in a all out attempt to diminish Messiah AS God who became He was NOT before-in the likeness of man.

Elohim is composed of two words, El and Haym. These are God. That Elohimis plural, though there is only one God, is truth. Eliezer sat before his father. We have learned that to him is justice. How is it that wherever we meet Adonai Elohim [yod, hay, vav, hay, the letters of Jehovah’s name], it means mercy?

He answered, It is written, know therefore this day and consider in thine heart that Jehovah is Elohim. Sometimes justice can coexist with mercy and mercy with justice. Come and see the mystery of the word Jehovah. There are three steps, each existing by itself, nevertheless, they are one and so united that one cannot be separated from the other.

Continuing this passage the Zohar presents a new interpretation, which considers the meaning of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet:

The 22 letters comprehend three steps—the letter chaph signifies the crown, the letter bet signifies binah, understanding…

He is the highest and hidden light, which cannot be known. The ancient Holy One is revealed in three heads that are united in one, and that head is three times exalted. The ancient Holy One is described as being three [Daniel 7:13]…

Rabbi Eliezer Hakkalir, commenting in the Sefer Yetsira, teaches with even greater clarity about three distinct beings in the godhead:


When God created the world He created it through the three sephiroth[countings]—sepher, sapher and sipper—by which three beings are meant. The rabbi, my lord and my teacher of blessed memory, explained that sepher, sapher and sipper are synonymous with Jah, Jehovah and Elohim, meaning to say that the world was created by these three names.

This great corroboration in the Jewish mystical books of the teaching that God is “three in one” shows that the ancient sages believed in the triune unity of the godhead who created the world.

Moreover, the Creator is conceived of as the Name. When a Jewish person wants to say God, he sometimes says Ha Shem, which means The Name. In the same way, the Zohar also uses the names sepher, sapher and sipper to denote the godhead. (Stern, Can Three Be One?: http://www.thechristianrabbi.org/threeasone.htm; underline emphasis ours)

How interesting to discover Jewish sources claiming the Elohim is composed of two words, El (“God”) and haym (chem – “they”), which when translated literally means “they are God”.

Even more interesting is the Jewish references to God existing as three lights, three heads and three beings who are perfectly and inseparably united as one!


This now brings us to my next point.

Echad versus Yachid

The Hebrew Bible primarily uses two main words for the term “one,” namely echad and yachid. Echad functions much like the English word does in that it can either refer to a singular individual or a compound/composite unity, to a group of entities united as one, i.e., “one nation,” “one government,” “one family,” “one corporation,” “one group” etc.

Yachid, on the other hand, is used to stress the uniqueness and/or incomparability of an object. It can also mean sole or only, referring to someone or something which is solitary or all by itself.

With that said, the word which God told Moses to employ to speak of God’s unity is echad, not yachid:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Shema Yisrael, Yhwh eloheinu YHWH Echad):” Deuteronomy 6:4

Christians have often maintained that echad is a more appropriate term to use to describe the unity of God since it allows for the possibility of God existing as a plurality of divine Persons who are perfectly and inseparably united.

What makes this interesting is that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, also believed that echad actually implies a deeper unity than yachid does, since the former term encompasses or includes plurality as an essential ingredient for unity:

The relationship between Moses and Moshiach is reflected in the numerical value of their names. (In the Holy Tongue each letter is also a number, so that a word is also a string of numbers; the sum of these numbers is the word’s numerical value, or gematria. The gematria of a word represents a deeper stratum of significance than its linguistic meaning, so the fact that two different words have the same numerical value indicates that they are variant expressions of the same truth.) The numerical value of “Mosheh” (Moses) is 345, and that of “Moshiach,” 358. So the difference between Moses and Moshiach is represented by the number 13; otherwise stated, Moses + 13 = Moshiach.

Thirteen is the numerical value of echad, a word that is the keystone of the Jewish faith. Every morning and evening of his life, the Jew recites the verse Shema Yisrael, Ado-nai Elo-hei-nu, Ado-nai echad—“Hear O Israel, the L‑rd is our G‑d, the L‑rd is echad.” The Jewish people are called “an echad nation on earth” because they reveal the echad of G‑d in the world. And the era of Moshiach is described as “the day that G‑d will be echad, and His name echad.”

Echad means “one.” The Shema proclaims the oneness and unity of G‑d, which the people of Israel are charged to reveal in the world, and which will be fully manifest in the era of Moshiach. But is echad the ideal word to express the divine unity? Like its English equivalent, the word does not preclude the existence of other objects (as in the sequence “one, two, three . . .”), nor does it preclude its object being composed of parts (we speak of “one nation,” “one forest,” “one person” and “one tree,” despite the fact that each of these consists of many units or components). It would seem that the term yachid, which means “singular” and “only one,” more clearly expresses the “perfect simplicity” of G‑d (which Maimonides states to be the most fundamental principle of the Jewish faith) and the axiom that “there is none else besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35).

Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality—if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into a harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity. (Chabad.org, The Numerology of Redemption Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe: http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2741/jewish/The-Numerology-of-Redemption.htm; bold emphasis ours)

Hence, the foregoing shows that we even have Jewish support for the Christian claim that words such as Elohim and echad point to the fact of God existing as a plurality of divine Persons, in contrast to the position taken by many liberal and conservative biblical scholars that such terms do not provide support for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Related Articles

Elohim and the Trinity

Biblical Monotheism Examined

The Gods of Israel have come down to save!

The Binitarian Nature of the Shema [Part 1]

Uniplurality in the Hebrew Scriptures

J.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
This is intellectual dishonesty-coming from a Jewish monotheist.

What if it comes from a trinitarian? Would you say that the trinitarian is being intellectually dishonest?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.

Clear as day Messiah is Elohim-why the denial?

J.

Jewish monotheism denies that the Messiah is in John 1:1.

Colin Brown, a trinitarian scholar (now deceased), who I met some years ago at a Conference and briefly corresponded, calls you on your assertion. Dr. Brown writing in Ex Auditu:

”To read John 1:1 as if it said, ‘In the beginning was the Son’ is patently wrong.”

 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is intellectual dishonesty-coming from a Jewish monotheist.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.

Clear as day Messiah is Elohim-why the denial?

J.
Cut the theatrics mate, you are the one that is not honest even with yourself here. You have nothing but your own opinions and they're not really your opinions. It is a conglomerate of opinions from other 'bad' sources and you have called them your own.

It's hard to know what you really believe with all this smoke and mirrors. You cannot even substantiate and sustained any form of reasoning or logic that is worthwhile reading and of intrigue. It's all recycled and clumsy writings from mostly nobody's...
 
J

Johann

Guest
Jesus the Christ is not introduced in John 1 until John the Baptist hits the scene.

Again on what basis do you see/read/conclude Christ being present before these verses of scripture?
Your claim that Jesus Christ is not introduced until John the Baptist enters the scene is textually and theologically incorrect. John 1:1-5 unequivocally introduces Jesus as the eternal Word who was with God, was God, and was active in creation.

John the Baptist's testimony (John 1:6-8, 15) serves to affirm this pre-existing truth, not to introduce Jesus for the first time.

I'm tired now.

J.
 
J

Johann

Guest
Jewish monotheism denies that the Messiah is in John 1:1.

Colin Brown, a trinitarian scholar (now deceased), who I met some years ago at a Conference and briefly corresponded, calls you on your assertion. Dr. Brown writing in Ex Auditu:

”To read John 1:1 as if it said, ‘In the beginning was the Son’ is patently wrong.”
That's bad hermeneutics-to deny that the Memra was NOT Messiah in John 1.1

Colin Brown is right, it should read in the beginning was the Memra, who is pros ton Theon and always has been existing as the Messiah.

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος.

Jesus as the Memra:
John 1:1-14 reveals Jesus as the Logos, which parallels the Memra in key ways:

The Logos as Divine and Creative:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him." (John 1:1-3)

This reflects the Memra's role in creation and its identification with God.
The Logos as Mediator:

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory." (John 1:14)

The incarnate Word mediates between God and humanity, fulfilling the Memra’s function of revelation.
The Logos and the Shekinah:

The Targums often equate the Memra with the divine presence (Shekinah).

Jesus’ incarnation (Logos becoming flesh) mirrors this concept of God dwelling among His people (John 1:14; cf. Exodus 25:8).
Christian Interpretation:

Early Christians, familiar with Jewish traditions, likely understood the Memra as a precursor to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
By identifying Jesus with the Logos, John’s Gospel presents Him as fulfilling the theological roles attributed to the Memra: Creator, Revealer, and Redeemer.

Jewish Perspective:
Jewish thought does not equate the Memra with the Messiah, let alone Jesus.
For Jews, the Memra remains a poetic or theological expression of God's interaction with the world, not a distinct person within God.

That's why I reject Jewish monotheists interpretation and reinterpretation of my Bible-no offense.



I'm tired now, will resume tomorrow.

J.
 

APAK

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2018
10,356
10,827
113
Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your claim that Jesus Christ is not introduced until John the Baptist enters the scene is textually and theologically incorrect. John 1:1-5 unequivocally introduces Jesus as the eternal Word who was with God, was God, and was active in creation.

John the Baptist's testimony (John 1:6-8, 15) serves to affirm this pre-existing truth, not to introduce Jesus for the first time.

I'm tired now.

J.
Continuing this passage the Zohar presents a new interpretation, which considers the meaning of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet:

The 22 letters comprehend three steps—the letter chaph signifies the crown, the letter bet signifies binah, understanding…

He is the highest and hidden light, which cannot be known. The ancient Holy One is revealed in three heads that are united in one, and that head is three times exalted. The ancient Holy One is described as being three [Daniel 7:13]…

Rabbi Eliezer Hakkalir, commenting in the Sefer Yetsira, teaches with even greater clarity about three distinct beings in the godhead:


When God created the world He created it through the three sephiroth[countings]—sepher, sapher and sipper—by which three beings are meant. The rabbi, my lord and my teacher of blessed memory, explained that sepher, sapher and sipper are synonymous with Jah, Jehovah and Elohim, meaning to say that the world was created by these three names.

This great corroboration in the Jewish mystical books of the teaching that God is “three in one” shows that the ancient sages believed in the triune unity of the godhead who created the world.

Moreover, the Creator is conceived of as the Name. When a Jewish person wants to say God, he sometimes says Ha Shem, which means The Name. In the same way, the Zohar also uses the names sepher, sapher and sipper to denote the godhead. (Stern, Can Three Be One?: http://www.thechristianrabbi.org/threeasone.htm; underline emphasis ours)

How interesting to discover Jewish sources claiming the Elohim is composed of two words, El (“God”) and haym (chem – “they”), which when translated literally means “they are God”.

Even more interesting is the Jewish references to God existing as three lights, three heads and three beings who are perfectly and inseparably united as one!


This now brings us to my next point.

Echad versus Yachid

The Hebrew Bible primarily uses two main words for the term “one,” namely echad and yachid. Echad functions much like the English word does in that it can either refer to a singular individual or a compound/composite unity, to a group of entities united as one, i.e., “one nation,” “one government,” “one family,” “one corporation,” “one group” etc.

Yachid, on the other hand, is used to stress the uniqueness and/or incomparability of an object. It can also mean sole or only, referring to someone or something which is solitary or all by itself.

With that said, the word which God told Moses to employ to speak of God’s unity is echad, not yachid:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord (Shema Yisrael, Yhwh eloheinu YHWH Echad):” Deuteronomy 6:4

Christians have often maintained that echad is a more appropriate term to use to describe the unity of God since it allows for the possibility of God existing as a plurality of divine Persons who are perfectly and inseparably united.

What makes this interesting is that the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, also believed that echad actually implies a deeper unity than yachid does, since the former term encompasses or includes plurality as an essential ingredient for unity:


I do notice you are into mysticism as I read one of your sources in this post I'm responding to..
...you say...

Continuing this passage the Zohar presents a new interpretation, which considers the meaning of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet:

The 22 letters comprehend three steps—the letter chaph signifies the crown, the letter bet signifies binah, understanding…

He is the highest and hidden light, which cannot be known. The ancient Holy One is revealed in three heads that are united in one, and that head is three times exalted. The ancient Holy One is described as being three [Daniel 7:13]…

Rabbi Eliezer Hakkalir, commenting in the Sefer Yetsira, teaches with even greater clarity about three distinct beings in the godhead:


When God created the world He created it through the three sephiroth[countings]—sepher, sapher and sipper—by which three beings are meant. The rabbi, my lord and my teacher of blessed memory, explained that sepher, sapher and sipper are synonymous with Jah, Jehovah and Elohim, meaning to say that the world was created by these three names.

This great corroboration in the Jewish mystical books of the teaching that God is “three in one” shows that the ancient sages believed in the triune unity of the godhead who created the world. ..

........./


These sources are very unreliable and not what any apostle of Christ would place their faith into, as I see you might..

about the Sefer Yetsira...it is..as a quote from
[Adapted to conform to the Golden Dawn correspondences in 1976 e.v. with parenthetic notes by Bill Heidrick from the Kalisch and Stenring translations. This rendering of the S.Y. is made in the public domain as a way of paying dues of another kind. The notes are in curly brackets: {}, and are not part of the original text. The Sepher Yetzirah is the ultimate basis of the Golden Dawn system of correspondences embodied in Crowley's Liber 777.]


The Sepher Yetzirah is one of the most important founding works of Qabalah. It was composed probably between the 3rd and 6th centuries of the Christian era and was later attributed to R. Akiba. For more information on the history of this work, see Gershom Scholem's Kabbalah, Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1974. Scholem's work is essential for students of Qabalah, but must be taken with considerable skepticism in its conclusions.
The Book of Creation

So if you find truth in the Kabbalah and the Zohar, and on par with the word of God, then you are not a person I would trust for the truth in scripture.

Good Night!
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
That's bad hermeneutics-to deny that the Memra was NOT Messiah in John 1.1

Colin Brown is right, it should read in the beginning was the Memra, who is pros ton Theon and always has been existing as the Messiah.

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος.

Jesus as the Memra:
John 1:1-14 reveals Jesus as the Logos, which parallels the Memra in key ways:

The Logos as Divine and Creative:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him." (John 1:1-3)

This reflects the Memra's role in creation and its identification with God.
The Logos as Mediator:

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory." (John 1:14)

The incarnate Word mediates between God and humanity, fulfilling the Memra’s function of revelation.
The Logos and the Shekinah:

The Targums often equate the Memra with the divine presence (Shekinah).

Jesus’ incarnation (Logos becoming flesh) mirrors this concept of God dwelling among His people (John 1:14; cf. Exodus 25:8).
Christian Interpretation:

Early Christians, familiar with Jewish traditions, likely understood the Memra as a precursor to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
By identifying Jesus with the Logos, John’s Gospel presents Him as fulfilling the theological roles attributed to the Memra: Creator, Revealer, and Redeemer.

Jewish Perspective:
Jewish thought does not equate the Memra with the Messiah, let alone Jesus.
For Jews, the Memra remains a poetic or theological expression of God's interaction with the world, not a distinct person within God.


I'm tired now, will resume tomorrow.

J.

The Jewish concept of the Memra, just like the trinitarian scholars I’ve quoted against you - and I’ve only just scratched the surface in calling on them in my defense - works against your trinitarian arguments.

Goodnight.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I’ll eventually be commenting on the Greek words hen and heis. It’s an important distinction that I have to use against trinitarians and unitarians in my defense of Jewish monotheism.

30. One translates the Greek neuter hen. This verse [John 10:30] was much quoted in the Aryan controversy by the orthodox in support of the doctrine that Christ was of one substance with the Father. The expression seems however mainly to imply that the Father and the Son are united in will and purpose. Jesus prays in xvii. 11 that His followers be one (hen) , i.e. united in purpose, as He and His Father are united.”

(R.V.G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 136)

Brackets are mine.

Neither the apostles nor anyone else is arguing with Arians in the New Testament. Nor is there any discussion in the New Testament concerning whether or not the Messiah was of one substance with his God and Father.

Primitive Christianity (1st century) has no part in such matters. Nicene Christianity (4th century) does.

Dr. Tasker, a trinitarian, nods at the 4th century but his focus is on the 1st century.

He feeds his readers the perspective and understanding of Jewish monotheism.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
My readers will eventually notice, if they haven’t already, that I seldom quote non-trinitarian scholars in my defense of Jewish monotheism. Why? More than one person has asked if it is because I’m unable to find support from non-trinitarian scholars. Of course I can, and occasionally do.

Why then would a Jewish monotheist not use non-trinitarian scholarly sources which he asserts he can marshal? That’s a reasonable question.

Who am I speaking with? If I were to use non-trinitarian scholarly sources in conversations with trinitarians, would they find them persuasive? Almost never. The average trinitarian rejects them out of hand. Of course, the trinitarian thinks, unitarian scholars will agree with him, not us. There’s a lot of truth in that, but what the average trinitarian doesn’t know is that there is a substantial number of unitarian scholars who disagree with Jewish monotheism (and with trinitarianism.)

When I’m speaking with trinitarians I purposely, intentionally, use their own scholars to support Jewish monotheism. Do they find the concessions of trinitarian scholarship persuasive? Sometimes.

Does my defense of the Messiah’s Jewish dogma have a better chance of persuading the trinitarians with unitarian scholarship (which is virtually DOA) or with trinitarian scholarship (which is sometimes successful)?

Put yourself in my shoes. The concessions of trinitarian scholarship - Catholic and Protestant - is more likely to persuade trinitarians. “Sometimes” beats “DOA”.
 
  • Prayer
Reactions: MonoBiblical

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
19,465
13,526
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (Jude 1:25) -

Our Savior - The word ‘Savior’ may be appropriately applied to God as such, because He is the great Author of salvation, though it is commonly applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. That it may have been designed that it should be applied to the Lord Jesus no one can certainly deny, nor can it be demonstrated that it was; and in these circumstances, as all that is fairly implied in the language may be applied to God as such, it is most natural to give the phrase that interpretation.”

(Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)


So Barnes, a trinitarian scholar, waffles. The choice he gives is between “God” and “the Lord Jesus Christ”. It’s fair, says he, to apply it to “God” since it is “most natural to give the phrase that interpretation.”

Who is “God”? Barnes doesn’t say.

To a Jewish monotheist “God” is “Yahweh, the God and Father of our lord Jesus Messiah.” Jude is a Jewish monotheist.

Would Barnes be okay with “God” being a reference to the Father? I think so. Would he say it is a reference to the Trinity? I don’t think so because that wouldn’t make sense; but he doesn’t say.

P.S.

”Jesus wasn’t and isn’t Yahweh” - Ben Witherington, III
 
Last edited: