JOHN 1:1

This topic contains 2,699 replies, has 55 voices, and was last updated by  NickHassan 3 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #165289
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    :blues:

    The name of “Elohim can be carried by anyone through whom He chooses to ‘manifest’ or reveal Himself. So men and angels as well as Yeshua HaMoshiach can carry “Elohim’s name.

    This is a vital principle which opens up so much of the Bible to us.

    A son especially may carry the name of his father; he has certain similarities with his father, he may have the same first name – but he is not one and the same person as the father.

    In the same way a representative of a company may speak on behalf of the company; he may telephone someone on business and say, ‘Hello, this is Unilever here’; he is not Mr. Unilever, but he carries their name because he is working on their behalf.

    And so it was with Yeshua HaMoshiach.

    :blues:

    #165294
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    :blues:

    ANGELS CARRY “ELOHIM’S NAME

    We are told in Ex. 23:20,21 that 'Elohim told the people of Israel that an angel would go ahead of them; “My name is in Him”, they were told.

    The personal name of 'Elohim is ‘Yahweh’.

    So the angel carried the name of Yahweh, and could thus be called ‘Yahweh’, or ‘The LORD’, in small capitals, as the word ‘Yahweh’ is translated in the N.I.V. and A.V.

    We are told in Ex. 33:20 that no man can see the face of 'Elohim and live; but in Ex. 33:11 we read that “The LORD (Yahweh) spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend” – i.e. directly.

    It could not have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person, who spoke to Moses face to face, because no man can see 'Elohim Himself.

    It was the angel who carried 'Elohim’s name who did so; and so we read of the LORD speaking face to face with Moses when it was actually an angel who did so (Acts 7:30 33).

    There are many other examples of the words ‘'Elohim’ and ‘LORD’ referring to the angels as opposed to 'Elohim Himself.

    One clear example is Gen. 1:26: “And 'Elohim (the angels) said, Let us make man in our image”.

    :blues:

    #165298
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    :blues:

    MEN WITH 'ELOHIM’S NAME

    One of the passages which is most helpful in demonstrating all this is John 10:34-36.

    Here the Jews made the mistake which many do today.

    They thought that Yeshua HaMoshiach was saying he was 'Elohim Himself.

    Yeshua HaMoshiach corrected them by saying, “Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?

    If He called them ‘gods’…why do you say of (me)…’You blaspheme!’ because I said, I am the Son of 'Elohim?’.

    Yeshua HaMoshiach is really saying ‘In the Old Testament men are called ‘gods’; I am saying I am the Son of 'Elohim; so why are you getting so upset?’

    Yeshua HaMoshiach is actually quoting from Ps. 82, where the judges of Israel were called ‘gods’.

    As has been shown, the full name of G-d in Hebrew is ‘Yahweh Elohim’ – implying ‘He who will be revealed in a group of mighty ones’.

    The true believers are those in whom 'Elohim is revealed in a limited sense in this life.

    However, in the Kingdom, they will be ‘mighty ones’ in whom the LORD will be fully manifested.

    This is all beautifully shown by a comparison of Is. 64:4 and 1 Cor. 2:9. “Men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O 'Elohim, besides you, what He has prepared for him that waits for him”.

    Paul quotes this in 1 Cor. 2:9,10: “It is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man, the things which 'Elohim has prepared for them that love Him. But 'Elohim has revealed them unto us by His Spirit”.

    The passage in Is. 64 says that no one except 'Elohim can understand the things He has prepared for the believers.

    However 1 Cor. 2:10 says that those things have been revealed to us.

    The priests were 'Elohim’s representatives, and for a man to ‘appear before the Lord’ effectively referred to his appearance before the priest.

    When we read of “men going up to 'Elohim at Bethel”, the ‘house of 'Elohim’ (1 Sam. 10:3), we aren’t to think that 'Elohim Himself lived in a house in Bethel.

    The reference is to the priests, his representative, being there.

    Not only is the Name of 'Elohim carried by people, but language and actions which are specific to 'Elohim are sometimes applied to humans who manifest Him.

    The daughter of Pharaoh who saved baby Moses is described in the very terms with which 'Elohim is described as saving His people Israel 'out of the water' just as Moses was saved.

    She came 'came down', 'sees' the suffering child, hears its cry, takes pity, draws him out of the water, provides for him (Ex. 2:23-25; 3:7,8).

    The parallels are surely to indicate that 'Elohim was willing to show Himself manifest in that Gentile woman in the salvation of His people.

    And of course the whole practical idea of 'Elohim manifestation' is that we consciously try to reflect the characteristics of 'Elohimd, for His Name is in fact a summary of His characteristics and personality (Ex. 34:4-6).

    :blues:

    #165299
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    :blues:

    YESHUA HAMOSHIACH AND THE NAME OF 'ELOHIM

    It is not surprising that Yeshua HaMoshiach, as the Son of 'Elohim and His supreme manifestation to men, should also carry 'Elohim’s name.

    He could say “I am come in my Father’s name” (Jn. 5:43).

    Because of his obedience, Yeshua HaMoshiach ascended to heaven and 'Elohim “gave him a name which is above every name,” the name of Yahweh, of 'Elohim Himself (Phil. 2:9).

    So this is why we read Yeshua HaMoshiach saying in Rev. 3:12: “I will write upon him (the believer) the name of my 'Elohim. . . and I will write upon him my new name”. At the judgment Yeshua HaMoshiach will give us 'Elohim’s name; we then will fully carry the name of 'Elohim.

    He calls this name, “My new name”.

    Remember, Yeshua HaMoshiach gave the book of Revelation some years after his ascension into heaven and after he had been given 'Elohim’s name, as explained in Phil. 2:9.

    So he can call 'Elohim’s name “My new name”; the name he had recently been given.

    We can now properly understand Is. 9:6, where concerning Yeshua HaMoshiach we are told, “His name (note that) shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty 'Elohim, the everlasting Father. . .”.

    This is a prophecy that Yeshua HaMoshiach would carry all the name of 'Elohim, that he would be the total manifestation or revelation of 'Elohim to us.

    It was in this sense that he was called ‘Emmanuel’, meaning, 'Elohim is with us’, although He personally was not 'Elohim.

    Thus the prophecy of Joel 2 that men would call on the name of Yahweh was fulfilled by people being baptised into the name of Yeshua HaMoshiach (Acts 2:21 cf. 38).

    This also explains why the command to baptize into the name of the Father was fulfilled, as detailed in the Acts record, by baptism into the name of Yeshua HaMoshiach.

    The Jews were fierce monotheists, any idea that there was any 'Elohim apart from 'Elohim the Father was to them blasphemous.

    And yet their own writings have no problem in using the language of 'Elohim' in relation to men and Angels, e.g. Ezra addresses the Angel Uriel as 'Elohim Himself (2 Esdr. 5:43).

    It is this idea of ''Elohim manifestation' in a person or Angel which is so common in the Bible, and which inevitably at times is used about 'Elohim's own Son, Yeshua HaMoshiach.

    But the use of such language doesn't mean that Yeshua HaMoshiach is 'Elohim Himself in person.

    :blues:

    #165301
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    :blues:

    Language Of 'Elohim Used About Yeshua HaMoshiach: Some Background

    We need to appreciate the extent to which the first century Middle East understood a messenger as being the very person of the one who sent him. R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder in The Encyclopedia Of The Jewish Religion speak of “the Jewish Law of Agencies” or 'Schaliach', as: “The main point of the Jewish law of agency expressed in the dictum, “A person's agent is regarded as the person himself”. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle.” G.R.B. Murray comments that: “One sent is as he who sent him… The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave”. Bearing this background in mind, it isn't surprising that language specific to 'Elohim is used about His Son and messenger.

    The idea is sometimes expressed that calling Yeshua HaMoshiach “Son of 'Elohim” somehow makes Him 'Elohim. Apart from the illogicality of this [a son isn't the same being as his father], the language of “Son of 'Elohim” is used in the Old Testament of men. Even the term “'Elohim” is used of men (Ps. 45:6; 82:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8). The first century mind was quite used to men being called 'god' or Divine. The Jews were strongly monotheistic, paranoid of any implication that Yahweh was not the only 'Elohim; and yet they were happy to use the word “god” about men. Philo [a Jewish writer] spoke of Moses as “appointed by 'Elohim as god” and “no longer man but 'Elohim”. And of course the Greek and Roman rulers, both local and otherwise, were described with 'Divine' language- e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes means ''Elohim made manifest'. There was no understanding that these 'divine' titles therefore made these men to be 'Elohim Himself in person. Apollonius explains that “every man who is considered good is honoured with the title of “god”” (Apollonius Of Tyana 8.4). Indeed any hero, leader of King was addressed as 'Elohim'. We can see from Acts 14:11-13 and Acts 28:6 how easily first century folk were inclined to call a man “'Elohim” if he did miracles. I remember clearly in my early days of missionary work in Africa being called “Wazungu” or “Mazungu” by fascinated children who'd scarcely seen a white man before. And I recall my shock on discovering that this term means both “white man” and “'Elohim” (and is frequently used as such in translations of the Bible into Central and East African languages). But this is actually what was going on in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. And so when Divine language was applied to Yeshua HaMoshiach, there is no reason to think that the first century mind would've concluded that therefore Yeshua HaMoshiach was 'Elohim Himself in person, just as those fascinated kids calling out “Wazungu! Wazungu!” as I walked by were hardly understanding me as 'Elohim Himself in person. Here we have one of the most glaring examples of problems arising from not reading 'Elohim's word with an appreciation of the context in which it was spoken and written. In European culture, it would be unheard of, or blasphemous and at best inappropriate, to call any man “'Elohim” or “Son of 'Elohim”. But this wasn't the case in the first century world. In that world, and it was against the background of that world that the New Testament was written, the use of Divine language about a person, or about Yeshua HaMoshiach the Son of 'Elohim, didn't make them 'Elohim Himself in person.

    Again and again we have to emphasize that we read the Biblical documents at a great distance from the culture in which they were first written. It was quite understandable for a person to carry the name of their superior, without being that superior in person. And so it was and is with the Lord Yeshua HaMoshiach. To give just one of many possible confirmations of this: “[In 2 Esdras 5:43-46]… 'Elohim's spokesman, the angel Uriel, is questioned by Ezra as though he were both Creator and Judge [which 'Elohim alone is]. Ezra uses the same style of address to Uriel (“My lord, my master”) as he uses in direct petition to 'Elohim. This practice of treating the agent as though he were the principal is of the greatest importance for New Testament Christology [i.e. the study of who Yeshua HaMashiach is]”. The acclamation of Thomas “My Lord and my 'Elohim!” must be understood within the context of first century usage, where as Paul says, many people were called Lord and “god” (1 Cor. 8:4-6). If we're invited by our manager “Come and meet the president”, we don't expect to meet the President of the USA. We expect to meet the president of the company. The word “president” can have more than one application, and it would be foolish to assume that in every case it referred to the President of the USA. And it's the same with the words “Lord” and “'Elohim” in their first century usage. Hence a Jewish non-trinitarian like Philo could call Moses “'Elohim and king of the whole nation” (Life Of Moses 1.158)- and nobody accused him of not being monotheistic! Significantly, there is in the New Testament the Greek word latreuo which specifically refers to the worship of 'Elohim, and this is always [21 times] applied to 'Elohim and not Yeshua HaMoshiach. The worship of Yeshua HaMoshiach that is recorded is always to 'Elohim's glory, and is recorded with the same words [especially proskuneo] used about the worship of believers (Rev. 3:9, Daniel (Dan. 2:46 LX), kings of Israel etc. (1 Chron. 29:20 LXX).

    It should be noted that “Many think that the list of titles in Is. 9:5 was borrowed from the traditional titles of the monarchs of other countries, especially of the Egyptian pharaoh… the title applied to the king of Judah portrays him as one specially favoured by 'Elohim, e.g. “the divine mighty one” or “divine warrior”, Raymond Brown, An Introduction To New Testament Christology (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994) p. 187.

    George R. Beasley Murray, Gospel of Life: Theology In The Fourth Gospel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), p.18.

    Citations in James Dunn, Christology In The Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 17.

    For documentation, see D. Cuss, Imperial Cult And Honorary Terms In The New Testament (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974) pp. 134-140.

    G.B. Caird, The Language And Imagery Of The Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 181.

    :blues:

    #165304
     kerwin 
    Participant
    • Topics started 144
    • Total replies 17,364

    Constitutionalist wrote:

    Quote

    Yeshua HaMoshiach is actually quoting from Ps. 82, where the judges of Israel were called ‘gods’.

    There is also this verse.

    Psalms 138:1(NIV) reads:

    Quote

    I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart;
          before the “gods” I will sing your praise.

    This is where he calls them gods as the children of God are “gods”.

    Deuteronomy 14:1(NIV) reads:

    Quote

    [ Clean and Unclean Food ] You are the children of the LORD your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead,

    #165311
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    You are correct, and don't see things like these.
    Trinitarians can't compare verses for some reason.

    #165312
     kerwin 
    Participant
    • Topics started 144
    • Total replies 17,364

    Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 19 2009,17:41)
    You are correct, and don't see things like these.
    Trinitarians can't compare verses for some reason.


    Trinitarians also think the image of God is God as if the image of me in the mirror is me.  Logical reasoning is not their strong point.

    #165319
     KangarooJack 
    Participant
    • Topics started 118
    • Total replies 6,855

    Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 19 2009,22:41)
    You are correct, and don't see things like these.
    Trinitarians can't compare verses for some reason.


    1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

    10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.  

    14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

    Okay, explain what it is about the statements highlighted in bold that you do not understand.

    thinker

    #165321
     KangarooJack 
    Participant
    • Topics started 118
    • Total replies 6,855

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,22:54)

    Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 19 2009,17:41)
    You are correct, and don't see things like these.
    Trinitarians can't compare verses for some reason.


    Trinitarians also think the image of God is God as if the image of me in the mirror is me.  Logical reasoning is not their strong point.


    Misrepresentation! Hebrews 1 says that the Son is the express image of God's substance. It means that Christ's being was not derived. The sun's rays are the “exact image” of the sun's substance.

    The term “express image” or “exact representation” is NEVER used of other men. At best it means the Son is God. In the least it means that Jesus was a unique man.

    thinker

    #165325
     Constitutionalist 
    Member
    • Topics started 23
    • Total replies 1,808

    Quote (thethinker @ Dec. 19 2009,06:56)

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,22:54)

    Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 19 2009,17:41)
    You are correct, and don't see things like these.
    Trinitarians can't compare verses for some reason.


    Trinitarians also think the image of God is God as if the image of me in the mirror is me.  Logical reasoning is not their strong point.


    Misrepresentation! Hebrews 1 says that the Son is the express image of God's substance. It means that Christ's being was not derived. The sun's rays are the “exact image” of the sun's substance.

    The term “express image” or “exact representation” is NEVER used of other men. At best it means the Son is God. In the least it means that Jesus was a unique man.

    thinker


    Yes Yeshua HaMoshiach was a very unique man.

    #165326
     GeneBalthrop 
    Participant
    • Topics started 42
    • Total replies 16,492

    Con…….Trinitarians and Preexistences are of those who have recieved a deluding Spirit sent from GOD, because they recieved not the LOVE of the Truth so GOD sent to them as deluding Spirit (INTELLECT), as stated in 2Ths 2. Jesus plainly said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD”. They cant even understand those simple seven words, they think (THOU) means myself, and (ONLY) means more then one, three, GO figure. They believe that Jesus created everything, Even though in Issiah God said He (ALONE and BY HIMSELF) created everything and He said He was the (ONLY) GOD and He knew of NO other GOD, but these deluded people reject the truth spoken by GOD himself. They take you on the rabbit trails with every twist and turn that one can possibly imagine.

    #165357
     NickHassan 
    Participant
    • Topics started 284
    • Total replies 70,595

    G,
    Are you quoting scripture?
    But you told us not to rely on it?

    #165392
     KangarooJack 
    Participant
    • Topics started 118
    • Total replies 6,855

    Quote (Gene @ Dec. 20 2009,02:43)
    Con…….Trinitarians and Preexistences are of those who have recieved a deluding Spirit sent from GOD, because they recieved not the LOVE of the Truth so GOD sent to them as deluding Spirit (INTELLECT), as stated in 2Ths 2. Jesus plainly said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD”. They cant even understand those simple seven words, they think (THOU) means myself, and (ONLY) means more then one, three, GO figure. They believe that Jesus created everything, Even though in Issiah God said He (ALONE and BY HIMSELF) created everything and He said He was the (ONLY) GOD and He knew of NO other GOD, but these deluded people reject the truth spoken by GOD himself. They take you on the rabbit trails with every twist and turn that one can possibly imagine.


    Gene,
    What about the ESV translation of Jude 4-5?

    “For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
    5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”

    The ESV is a literal translation of earlier Greek manuscripts. So they carry an authority which cannot be ignored. Those manuscripts say that “Jesus” saved a people out of Egypt. If you're going to say that the earlier Greek manuscripts are wrong then be ready to prove it.

    thinker

    #165410
     WorshippingJesus 
    Participant
    • Topics started 50
    • Total replies 12,316

    Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 19 2009,06:54)

    Quote (Constitutionalist @ Dec. 19 2009,17:41)
    You are correct, and don't see things like these.
    Trinitarians can't compare verses for some reason.


    Trinitarians also think the image of God is God as if the image of me in the mirror is me.  Logical reasoning is not their strong point.


    Kerwin

    Forget the dead image in a mirror.

    Jesus is not a dead image of the Father.

    When someone looks at you personally they see a living image of you.

    If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth “ye know him, and have seen him. John 14:7

    Jesus didn't say you know about God and have seen Gods mere reflection.

    He plainly said you know God and have seen God!

    There is a lot of Philips around here!

    WJ

Viewing 15 posts - 2,656 through 2,670 (of 2,700 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 1999 - 2018 Heaven Net

or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account