Refresh my memory-that Messiah is "in some sense"--maybe God, maybe not?
J.
We spoke about it around 48 hours ago. Do you really not remember it?
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!
Refresh my memory-that Messiah is "in some sense"--maybe God, maybe not?
J.
Which is biblically correct-but it fly's against your dogma-right?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).
So why did the Jewish monotheists mention not only in John's prologue but other references that Messiah is God?Jewish monotheism doesn’t discard any scripture. Scripture was written by Jewish monotheists.
Which is biblically correct-but it fly's against your dogma-right?
So why did the Jewish monotheists mention not only in John's prologue but other references that Messiah is God?
J.
So what is it then?Already answered and I'm ten steps ahead of you.
J.
Adonai (אֲדֹנָי)We spoke about it around 48 hours ago. Do you really not remember it?
@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.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.
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.
This is intellectual dishonesty-coming from a Jewish monotheist.John doesn’t mention in his prologue that the Messiah is God.
Jesus the Christ is not introduced in John 1 until John the Baptist hits the scene.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.
You two are in a all out attempt to diminish Messiah AS God who became He was NOT before-in the likeness of man.@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.
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.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.
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.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?
That's bad hermeneutics-to deny that the Memra was NOT Messiah in John 1.1Jewish 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.”
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:
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.
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.
They don't.So why did the Jewish monotheists mention not only in John's prologue but other references that Messiah is God?