- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2011,19:53) Note that here Abraham prays “in the name of the Word of YHWH” to the YHWH who “cannot be seen.” Here two YHWH’s are very apparent. Abraham is praying in the name of the Word of YHWH but is praying to the YHWH who cannot be seen.
How would “the Word OF YHWH” be a DIFFERENT YHWH?
I don't see “the Word of YHWH” actually BEING YHWH anywhere in this information. But I will remind you of what I constantly remind others of here: The word “word” has many different meanings in scripture. It can refer to God's SPOKESMAN, Jesus. Or it can refer to any written or spoken word by ANYONE. Or it can refer to words that God Himself spoke. It can refer to a vision, as in “the word of God came to me in a dream”. Etc.
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2011,19:51) since they knew that no man has seen God or heard His voice.
I'm aware that no man has ever SEEN God. But I'm not aware of any scripture that says no man has ever HEARD God.I know Jesus says something like “YOU have never heard His voice” when speaking to the Pharisees. But we know from Exodus that the whole nation of Israel heard Him speak from Horeb and became very afraid. Because of this, they agreed for Moses to speak to God and just tell them what He said.
(If I'm remembering correctly.)
Mike,
Quote
I don't see “the Word of YHWH” actually BEING YHWH anywhere in this information.Compare these two renditions of Gen 1:27
And the Word [Memra] of YHWH created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
The word “God” is replaced with “The Word of God.”
God is YHVH.
While the Word OF God was creating man, what was God Himself doing?
Kathi, this is not helping your point. You want to say that the Word OF God and God are the same “Jehovah”. But Gen 1:27 either says “God created man” (scriptural), or it says “The Word of God created man” (secular).
But either way, it does not say that God AND the Word of God together created man. And it is that “togetherness” that I think you are hoping for, right?
Mike and Kathi! Just this morning I came across some Scriptures of who has seen God…
Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Exd 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exd 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
So nobody has ever seen God, and Moses who seen only Gods back, His hair was white as snow after that…..
I also believe that nobody has heard Gods voice, so when the Israelite heard YAHVEH, if Scriptures are true, that was not YAHVEH….
Peace IreneMike,
What I was pointing out is that the name 'The Word of God' was a name that the Jews were very familiar with in the OT and associated with God as somehow the part of Him that could be heard and seen without Him actually being heard or seen. I read that the word “God” was at times replaced with “the Word of God.”
About no man hearing God the Father's voice, I believe you are thinking of this verse which Gill explains below.
John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape; for the voices that were heard, and the forms that were seen under the Old Testament dispensation, from the first of this kind in Eden's garden, to the incarnation of Christ, which are ascribed to God, or to a divine person, were either by the ministry of angels, or they were voices uttered by the Son of God, or forms assumed by him, who often appeared in an human form, as a prelude of his incarnation; so that it was unusual, and wonderful, and remarkable, that the Father should bear a testimony to the sonship of Christ by a voice from heaven; and which therefore ought to be attended to, and received as a sufficient and valid testimony.
Kathi
The OT Jews replaced the word “God” with the “Word of God” and that “Word of God” did things as if the “Word of God” were a person who was the spokesperson part of God. This does go along with what I have been saying about the two acting interdependently with each other as one unity. The Father's word was delivered by the “Word of God” as it seems in the Jewish targums which reflect the OT Jews understanding.
Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 03 2011,21:05) Mike and Kathi! Just this morning I came across some Scriptures of who has seen God… Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Jhn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Exd 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exd 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exd 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exd 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
So nobody has ever seen God, and Moses who seen only Gods back, His hair was white as snow after that…..
I also believe that nobody has heard Gods voice, so when the Israelite heard YAHVEH, if Scriptures are true, that was not YAHVEH….
Peace Irene
Hi Irene,John 5:37 was the scripture I was referencing earlier. But Jesus isn't saying that NO MAN has ever heard God's voice, only that those he was currently speaking to had not.
Deut 4
10 Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.” 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.peace,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ Oct. 03 2011,21:15) The OT Jews replaced the word “God” with the “Word of God” and that “Word of God” did things as if the “Word of God” were a person who was the spokesperson part of God. This does go along with what I have been saying about the two acting interdependently with each other as one unity.
No Kathi,If the Targum has “Word of God” INSTEAD OF “God”, then there is no “link” or “combination being” implied. There is no way to make a “combo God” just because one mss has “YHWH” where another has “Adonai”, for example.
What Targum scripture makes you think this “Word of God” was “the spokesman part OF God”?
Quote John 5:37 was the scripture I was referencing earlier. But Jesus isn't saying that NO MAN has ever heard God's voice, only that those he was currently speaking to had not.
John 5:37 does say nobody has heard God….then that Scripture does not line up with other Scriptures in the Old Test. I really believe that in the Old Testament it was The Word of God the Spokesman of God whop spoke, not YAHWEH….Scriptures DO NOT CONTRADICT….Peace Irene
Irene,
Ex 19:9
The LORD said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.”20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”
20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven…….
This is the part I was talking about before.
mike
Quote (Pastry @ Oct. 03 2011,21:23) Quote John 5:37 was the scripture I was referencing earlier. But Jesus isn't saying that NO MAN has ever heard God's voice, only that those he was currently speaking to had not.
John 5:37 does say nobody has heard God….then that Scripture does not line up with other Scriptures in the Old Test. I really believe that in the Old Testament it was The Word of God the Spokesman of God whop spoke, not YAHWEH….Scriptures DO NOT CONTRADICT….Peace Irene
Irene,You're missing a crucial point that I'm trying to make. Jesus is NOT saying that no man EVER heard the voice of God.
37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
He is speaking to people who do NOT believe the one God sent, and therefore tells them that it was the Father who testified concerning him, but you guys have obviously never heard the Father, or you would have believed him about the one He sent. Get it?
Jesus is only referring to CERTAIN ONES IN HIS PRESENCE when he says “YOU haven't heard God's voice”. Jesus does NOT say that NO ONE has ever heard God's voice.
There is no contradiction whatsoever. So please don't be like some people here who start changing the scriptures that say “God said” to “The Word of God said” just because you THINK there is a contradiction.
Pierre taught me a long time ago that scripture doesn't contradict itself. And when it seems like it does, it is only because WE are missing a piece of the puzzle, or misunderstanding something – just as you were in the case of John 5:37.
Do you now understand that Jesus DID NOT say that NO MAN had ever heard God's voice?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2011,22:26) Irene, Ex 19:9
The LORD said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.”20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”
20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven…….
This is the part I was talking about before.
mike
Mike,
These verses that you put up give credibility to the idea that the 'Word of God' was the part of God who could be heard and that there was the Father part of God that couldn't.Kathi
Kathi,
You have to realize that if “the Word of God” created the heavens and the earth, then “God Himself” did not. There is no way to make a combo of “God” AND “The Word of God” by comparing the scriptures with the Targum. They both speak of the ONE who created, right? So if it was the Word of God who ALONE stretched out the heavens, then God Himself did NOT stretch out the heavens.
Mike,
First, I just want you to realize that the OT Jews were familiar with the name “the Word of God” because of how they used it in the targums. Do you know this?Go here for a good article on that:
http://www.bibleword.org/memra.shtmlHere is an excerpt:
And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh. The memra resembles the Logos of Philo as little as the workings of the rabbinical mind in Palestine resembled the speculations of Alexandria: the rabbis are chiefiy concerned about ritual and observances; from religious scruples they dare not attribute to Jahveh actions such as the Sacred Books attribute to Him; it is enough for them to veil the Divine Majesty under an abstract paraphrase, the Word, the Glory, the Abode, and others. Philo's problem was of the philosophic order; God and man are infinitely distant from each other, and it is necessary to establish between them relations of action and of prayer; the Logos is here the intermediary.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1907-1914 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight.We can see that the Divine Logos was a concept fully accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. When John wrote his Gospel, he was fully aware of the use of the word memra as an appearance of God to men. It was common usage during his day. When he penned these words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” and “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1 and 14), he was using the exact theme as the writers of the Targums did when they translated the text into Aramaic. In fact, if he had written in Aramaic, he would have actually used the word, memra. By doing so he was portraying Christ as sharing the nature of God (that is being God) and also as a messenger from God (This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him-Matthew17:5).
Jewish theologians of John's era have ascribed six attributes to the memra. John assigned every attribute to Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel. The attributes are:
1. The memra is individual and yet the same as God (John 1:1-“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”).
2. The memra was the instrument of creation (John 1:3-“All things were made by Him” and John 1:10-“the world was made by him”).
3. The memra was the instrument of salvation (John 1:12-“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”).
4. The memra was the visible presence of God or Theophany (John 1:14-“And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”).
5. The memra was the covenant maker (John 1:17-“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”).
6. The memra was the revealer of God (John 1:18-“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”).
John 1:1-18 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. {2} The same was in the beginning with God. {3} All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. {4} In him was life; and the life was the light of men. {5} And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. {6} There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. {7} The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. {8} He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. {9} That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. {10} He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. {11} He came unto his own, and his own received him not. {12} But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: {13} Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. {14} And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. {15} John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. {16} And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. {17} For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. {18} No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
These attributes are proof positive that John was following the Jewish model and he was showing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 02 2011,08:23) Paladin, I fail to see what you claim is 'even more interesting.' There is nothing in your post to contradict what Boyer said which I quoted and put a link to. I also do not know why you are struggling with this. What would be the 'sword' of the word of God? If you replace the 'spirit' with 'word of God'…what exactly do you say is the sword of the word of God?? I believe that it is clear that the 'word of God' is the weapon, i.e. the 'sword.' Dr. Boyer agrees and spells it out, even using the Greek words in the order you have noted. Did you follow the link…the actual paragraph is on page 14 of the pdf.
The passage is talking about the pieces of armor that we are to put on and is not a passage explaining the spirit.
Eph 6:14Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 15and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; 16in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
You can respond if you want or not, take your time. Hope you are feeling better.
Kathi
I find this even more “more interesting.”
Paul is explaining to Christians that they are to dress themselves with preparation. Now, preparation is not a dress code, nor is it a material which one can purchase in the local market place, to sew into a uniform or costume to wear for defense. It is a concept to which Christians must become accustomed.
Paul goes on to delineate the articles of accouterment of a soldier dressed for battle in a spiritual warfare.
Quote 12For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore… Paul is preparing the soldier for spiritual warfare, not battle with physical swords and shields.
“And take the sword of the reema, which is the spirit,” is equivalent language to “Take the sword of the spirit, which spirit is the reema of God. “Which” modifies “Spirit” – not “sword,” regardless of what the scholars say about it, “Doctor” or not.
Compare the language of all the grammars All will tell you
Quote “the Greek relative pronoun, – so called because it “relates” to someone or something previously mentioned – follows the declension of the definite article. It must agree with its antecedent in gender and number, but its case is determined by its function [David [A. Black; It's still Greek to me” page 70-71]
Quote The relative pronoun “Like any pronoun, their gender and number are determined by their antecedent, while their case is determined by their functiion in the relative clause.”
[Wm. D. Mounce; Basics of biblical Greek; page 115]The Relative gets its number and gender from the noun to which it refers,which is called the antecedent.
The Relative gets its case from its function in the relative clause.
[D.F.Hudson; New Testament Greek; page 118]It is a common theme in Greek Grammars; i.e., the relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number. It is also an obviously common theme, that if the relative pronoun has no antecedent, it relates then to something other than the non-existant antecedent.
But once an antecedent is established, i.e., You have a definite article “tou” that is declined genitive neuter singular, applied to a noun that is in agreement with the gender and number of the relative pronoun, which does not violate any other rules of communication, why are we continuing to look for something to which the relative pronoun can relate? Is “must agree” not strong enough? [See Black above]
In eph 6:17, 'o estin' has the antecedent of “tou Spirit” which is neuter singular, as also is “o” = which.” The spirit, which is the reema…”
But we have yet to test the other Grammatical principle that must be applied also. The Greek relative pronoun follows the declension of the definite article. [See Black page 70-71; above]
There are two definite articles in the verse under consideration, and they are; “teen” which is accusative feminine singular and applies to 'the sword', accusative feminine singular maxairan; and 'tou' which is genitive neuter singular and applied to genitive neuter singular 'the Spirit.'
So, the relative pronoun 'o' declines in accord with the definite article “tou,” and agrees in gender and number with its antecedent “pneumatos; so it relates grammatically to “tou pneumatos;” But it does not relate to “teen maxairan” which though they agree in how they are declined, do not agree with how O' is declined, as it is genitive neuter singular, and is in agreement with the definite article of “The spirit” and also agrees with the neuter singular Spirit.
There is no contest, regardless of all the scholars and men with degrees that think to the contrary.
Why are you still looking for a “predicate” to which you can apply it? While it applies in some cases, it never applies when there is already a matching antecedent present, only when it is missing; why do you continue to look for the “cause” to which it applies. No antecedent, look for a predicate…etc.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 03 2011,02:58) Quote (Paladin @ Oct. 01 2011,16:27) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 02 2011,04:53) Gene, You need to research John 1:1 a little more. The Word is never called “THE God” in that verse. And “THE God” is the only one we call “God”, with a capped “G”.
All others are called “gods” in English, with a lower case “g”.
And since the Word was WITH “THE God” in the beginning, he couldn't possibly have BEEN “THE God”.
1:1 speaks of TWO persons. One of them was “THE God” while the other one was was WITH “THE God”. That other one was also a mighty one, and therefore called a “god” in Biblical times – just like Satan was called a “god” in Biblical times.
That's nonsense Mike. The New Testament was written in all capital letters, and had no punctuation. All that stuff was added by scholars.
There is no significance to capital letters and small letters in the scriptures of God; only in the translations of men.
Right you are, Paladin and Gene. So let's post John 1:1 as it was in the Greek:
1 IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
The only thing you need to pay attention to is the bolded word “THE”.
From NETNotes:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); (Emphasis mine)Now this is just simple common sense, folks. If the Word was WITH “THE GOD”, then the Word CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN “THE GOD”. You will notice that the Word is not called “THE GOD”, but only “GOD”.[/quote]
Do you really think John is not familiar with the concept of
“calling” something by a name? John does not say “and the word was called God, does he Mike? He says “the word was God.Later, John tells us that this “word” became something other than God; i.e., “the word became flesh.” God did NOT.
That is why John used such language, Mike, not so you can point out two Gods, but so you can see the word changed but God did not.
Quote Before we go further, does everbody here understand the very simple and logical fact that someone who was WITH God cannot possibly BE God? Are we all intelligent enough to understand that John 1:1 speaks of TWO – one who was WITH the other? Actually Mike, you have John speaking of three, not two; God who was with the word, and God who was the word, and the word who was both God and with God, and changed to being “not God.” (flesh).
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 04 2011,14:26) Irene, Ex 19:9
The LORD said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.”20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”
20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven…….
This is the part I was talking about before.
mike
Mike! Those Scriptures you quoted are what they say. However, if the Scriptures that Jesus quotes in the New Testament have to line up with the Old Testament, then it was not God Himself who spoke, but Jesus or an Angel of God, who was the Spokesman of Almighty God…..all IMO,
It was Adam, another member, who stopped believing Jesus is the Messiah of the New Testament just because He didn't understand some of those very Scriptures you where quoting in the Old Testament….
Lets not make the same mistake….
We either believe what Jesus said inJhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
We believe Jesus or not….it is up to the individual member here…. there are several Scriptures like this one…
That takes nothing away from Jesus being The Word of God….
Paladin in His explanation is wrong…..and YOU are right…..and there are only two beings, not three…..
THE WORD OF GOD, WHO WAS WITH GOD…..and then THE WORD OF GOD BECAME FLESH, AND WAS CALLED JESUS IN THE FLESH….. Paladin is seeing things there are not three, but two…..Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The only begotten of the Father is no other then who became Jesus…….
Those like Paladin who don;t want to believe this should study this more, especially these Scripture
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
There is no other being that fits this description….but Jesus…
Peace IrenePaladin
Quote Actually Mike, you have John speaking of three, not two; God who was with the word, and God who was the word, and the word who was both God and with God, and changed to being “not God.” (flesh). your conclusion on John 1-1 is for the least very trinitarian and out of truth but very men view oriented ,so far away of the message of God to us ,you mist it on the way there.
Pierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
