- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 19 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Kathi,
Isn't it you who thinks “the word of God” is often a being? Aren't those “beings” most likely angels?
In fact, you believe Jesus is sometimes the “angel of YHWH” who is mentioned in the OT, right? Well, an angel OF Jehovah is not actually Jehovah Himself – whether that angel is Jesus or Gabriel.
Mike
found this ;
(This tendency to refer to God by the locution “Heaven” is also apparent in the Mishnaic Jewish tradition of the rabbis, but not in the Aramaic Targums, which use the phrase “kingdom of God” almost as consistently as Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew himself uses “kingdom of heaven” thirty-two times and “kingdom of God” only four times [12:28; 19:24; 21:31,43].
Tigger,
Quote Why should we put any stock in writings which are merely interpretations which “far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase.”?? They tell us more of the in which the NT was written unlike a teaching that did not exist in that age.
Quote (tigger2 @ Nov. 24 2013,16:39) “Aramaic Versions (the Targums): These are Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament … prepared for use in the synagogue,” – Eberhard Nestle, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol. 2, pp. 130-132. “The Targums are interpretive renderings of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures … into Aramaic….
“At first the oral Targum was a simple paraphrase in Aramaic, but eventually it became more elaborate and incorporated explanatory details inserted here and there into the translation of the Hebrew text. To make the rendering more authoritative as an interpretation, it was finally reduced to writing. ….
“Though the several Targums display certain common features, there are also many differences of rendering among them, … incorporating a variety of kinds of explanatory comments. …. In speaking of the relationship of God to the world, reverence for the God of Israel led the Targumist to employ surrogates for the Deity, such as ‘Word’ (Memra), ‘Glory’ (Yeqara, ’Iqar), or ‘Presence’ (Shekinah, Aramaic Shekinta). Thus in Genesis 1:16-17 Targum Neofiti reads, ‘The Word of the Lord created the two large luminaries … and the Glory of the Lord set them in the firmament,’ ….” – The Jewish Targums, Bruce Metzger.
Metzger concluded his article:
“All translations of the Bible are necessarily interpretive to some extent, but the Targums differ in that they are interpretive as a matter of policy, and often to an extent that far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase. ….”
Why should we put any stock in writings which are merely interpretations which “far exceeds the bounds of translation or even paraphrase.”??
Hi tigger2,
The importance of knowing that the Targums replace the name 'Jehovah' with the “Word of Jehovah” is huge considering a Jew wrote John 1:1 and we can assume that he understood that his Jewish readers would connect the Word of John 1:1 that was with God in the beginning and was God, with the use of 'the Word of Jehovah' in the Targums.With the familiarity for the Jews of associating Jehovah with the Word of Jehovah when Jehovah appeared and spoke to people, the Jews can easily see the connection in John 1:1. God, the unseen and unheard was with God who was seen and heard. 17 verses later in John 1 the Word is called the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father whom no one has seen except of course the Son who comes to explain Him.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 24 2013,16:43) Kathi, Isn't it you who thinks “the word of God” is often a being? Aren't those “beings” most likely angels?
In fact, you believe Jesus is sometimes the “angel of YHWH” who is mentioned in the OT, right? Well, an angel OF Jehovah is not actually Jehovah Himself – whether that angel is Jesus or Gabriel.
Mike,
When the 'Word of Jehovah' appears and speaks and acts in some manner in the OT, it is likely the only begotten God who was with God in the beginning.John 1:1 identifies the Word as God who was with God. It does not identify the Word as the angel who was with God. The God who was with God certainly spoke the message of the God who He was with but God was His identity and being a messenger was just one of His purposes.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,15:25) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:21) Study hard kerwin
Jammin,I have chosen to stop clinging to the things of this world and seek and his righteousness instead.
if that is true then you should know the difference between the image of GOD is the WORD and the image of GOD is his word.you said the image of GOD is his word but the ancient laws said the image of GOD is THE WORD.
if you know how to read, you should know that they are not the same.
Quote (jammin @ Nov. 25 2013,07:08) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,15:25) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:21) Study hard kerwin
Jammin,I have chosen to stop clinging to the things of this world and seek and his righteousness instead.
if that is true then you should know the difference between the image of GOD is the WORD and the image of GOD is his word.you said the image of GOD is his word but the ancient laws said the image of GOD is THE WORD.
if you know how to read, you should know that they are not the same.
Jammin,Those teaching of the divine word is a First Century doctrine about God's word. The capitalization is a subjective choice and means nothing. You are grasping at straws.
It does not care as the word “theos” can among other things either mean God or something of gods and God's word is of him. the word is with the god and the word is divine. Translators choose to drop the word “the” and to capitalize those words they deem need to be.
Here is an entry from the Jewish encyclopedia where they choose to capitalize the word “word”.
Quote Personification of the Word. Note: Memra (word)
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 25 2013,14:09) Do not depend on the jewish,for they are antichrist. They hate Christ.
wakeup.
Wakeup,Most, if not all of the writers of the New and Old Testaments are Jews. The Jews were the guardians of the truth and the AKJV among depends on their translation of the Old Testament that is dated at least two or three centuries later. Test the Spirit of what you hear before discarding or accepting a message.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,19:17) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 25 2013,14:09) Do not depend on the jewish,for they are antichrist. They hate Christ.
wakeup.
Wakeup,Most, if not all of the writers of the New and Old Testaments are Jews. The Jews were the guardians of the truth and the AKJV among depends on their translation of the Old Testament that is dated at least two or three centuries later. Test the Spirit of what you hear before discarding or accepting a message.
Kerwin.They have come in, like wolves to tare apart the truth.
Do not look up to them as having the truth in knowledge of the scrolls.
This would be a great mistake,for the enemy is within
their own people.wakeup.
tigger2,
You might be interested in this:Written by Dr. Michael Heiser from: http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/ His home page is: http://www.michaelsheiser.com/
Quote Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship. In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.
Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 24 2013,18:16) Hi tigger2,
The importance of knowing that the Targums replace the name 'Jehovah' with the “Word of Jehovah” is huge considering a Jew wrote John 1:1 and we can assume that he understood that his Jewish readers would connect the Word of John 1:1 that was with God in the beginning and was God, with the use of 'the Word of Jehovah' in the Targums.
In those Targums, was “the Word of YHWH” ever said to have been WITH “YHWH”?Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 24 2013,18:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 24 2013,16:43) Kathi, Isn't it you who thinks “the word of God” is often a being? Aren't those “beings” most likely angels?
In fact, you believe Jesus is sometimes the “angel of YHWH” who is mentioned in the OT, right? Well, an angel OF Jehovah is not actually Jehovah Himself – whether that angel is Jesus or Gabriel.
Mike,
When the 'Word of Jehovah' appears and speaks and acts in some manner in the OT, it is likely the only begotten God who was with God in the beginning.John 1:1 identifies the Word as God who was with God. It does not identify the Word as the angel who was with God. The God who was with God certainly spoke the message of the God who He was with but God was His identity and being a messenger was just one of His purposes.
Okay,Now take everything YOU just wrote, and understand these things:
1. Angels were called gods in scripture. So the fact that the word was a god who was with THE god doesn't eliminate that god from being an angel of Jehovah, right?
2. Whether or not the Word is called “angel” in John 1:1, you attribute things of the OT to Jesus that were said to be done by “the angel of YHWH”, right? And like I said, an angel OF Jehovah is not actually Jehovah Himself – whether that angel be Jesus, Gabriel, Michael, or any other.
3. You acknowledge that the god in John 1:1 was a messenger of God. Does it make sense to you that God Almighty is a messenger of God Almighty? Who is greater? The one who sends the messenger? Or the messenger himself?
Because if one of these gods is greater than the other, they both can't be the MOST HIGH god. They both can't be the ALMIGHTY god.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,00:11) Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.
LU,Where did you hear that claim?
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 25 2013,14:44) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,19:17) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 25 2013,14:09) Do not depend on the jewish,for they are antichrist. They hate Christ.
wakeup.
Wakeup,Most, if not all of the writers of the New and Old Testaments are Jews. The Jews were the guardians of the truth and the AKJV among depends on their translation of the Old Testament that is dated at least two or three centuries later. Test the Spirit of what you hear before discarding or accepting a message.
Kerwin.They have come in, like wolves to tare apart the truth.
Do not look up to them as having the truth in knowledge of the scrolls.
This would be a great mistake,for the enemy is within
their own people.wakeup.
Wakeup,Heretics are wolves but what is true is true even if it in a version of Scripture translated by heretics.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,16:43) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 25 2013,07:08) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,15:25) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:21) Study hard kerwin
Jammin,I have chosen to stop clinging to the things of this world and seek and his righteousness instead.
if that is true then you should know the difference between the image of GOD is the WORD and the image of GOD is his word.you said the image of GOD is his word but the ancient laws said the image of GOD is THE WORD.
if you know how to read, you should know that they are not the same.
Jammin,Those teaching of the divine word is a First Century doctrine about God's word. The capitalization is a subjective choice and means nothing. You are grasping at straws.
It does not care as the word “theos” can among other things either mean God or something of gods and God's word is of him. the word is with the god and the word is divine. Translators choose to drop the word “the” and to capitalize those words they deem need to be.
Here is an entry from the Jewish encyclopedia where they choose to capitalize the word “word”.
Quote Personification of the Word. Note: Memra (word)
did you understand what i said?ok i want you to choose one
you said the image of GOD IS HIS WORD>
my question is, what did the ancient laws say?
1. the image of GOD is his word?
2. the image of GOD IS THE WORD?
Quote (jammin @ Nov. 26 2013,06:55) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 25 2013,16:43) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 25 2013,07:08) Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 24 2013,15:25) Quote (jammin @ Nov. 24 2013,10:21) Study hard kerwin
Jammin,I have chosen to stop clinging to the things of this world and seek and his righteousness instead.
if that is true then you should know the difference between the image of GOD is the WORD and the image of GOD is his word.you said the image of GOD is his word but the ancient laws said the image of GOD is THE WORD.
if you know how to read, you should know that they are not the same.
Jammin,Those teaching of the divine word is a First Century doctrine about God's word. The capitalization is a subjective choice and means nothing. You are grasping at straws.
It does not care as the word “theos” can among other things either mean God or something of gods and God's word is of him. the word is with the god and the word is divine. Translators choose to drop the word “the” and to capitalize those words they deem need to be.
Here is an entry from the Jewish encyclopedia where they choose to capitalize the word “word”.
Quote Personification of the Word. Note: Memra (word)
did you understand what i said?ok i want you to choose one
you said the image of GOD IS HIS WORD>
my question is, what did the ancient laws say?
1. the image of GOD is his word?
2. the image of GOD IS THE WORD?
Jammin,Prove to me
* That capitalizing the word “word” makes a difference in what the word “word” means.
* That the individual who capitalized it agrees with your definition.
* That the man who wrote the word that was translated to “word” agrees with your definition.In short you are creating a false controversy.
Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 26 2013,05:11) Wakeup,
The unbelieving Jews didn't call the Two Powers of Heaven a heresy until the Second Power was identified as Jesus during the Christian era. That in itself gives the idea more credibility as possible since they rejected Jesus as their Messiah and showed their lack of truth. Read above post to tigger2.
hI Lightenup.The jews then, and today believe in their messiah
coming as a king,with a crown on his head and the rest of it.
This man Jesus came riding upon a donkey,and fulfilling the prophesies.
This is their stumbling block,as of today: for He is not up to their expectation.
*********GOD AND JESUS:
Fact one: The Word was made flesh,not God was made flesh.
Fact two: God gave his Son,not Himself.
Fact three: His Son called Him Father.
Fact four: The slain Lamb is not God.
FACT FIVE: JESUS WILL RULE ON EARTH;NOT HIS FATHER.
HIS FATHER WILL ONLY COME DOWN TO EARTH **AFTER ALL THINGS ARE FULFILLED**,REV.22:4.Revelation 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
THIS IS PICTURING GOD THE FATHER.
Revelation 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
THIS IS JESUS,THE LAMB: THE WORD OF GOD THAT WAS MADE FLESH.
THE WORD OF GOD REMAINS THE WORD OF GOD.
HE IS NOT GOD THE FATHER,BUT HIS **LIVING WORD**.
NO SCRIPTURE CAN CHANGE THIS FACT.THE LAMB WILL SET UP HIS KINGDOM ON EARTH
HE WILL FEED THE REMNANT JEWS AND REMNANT GENTILES FOR A THOUSAND YEARS.(WITH NO SATAN).
THE RESURRECTED SAINTS WILL RULE WITH CHRIST.
NOT WITH GOD. GOD'S KINGDOM IS THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM.(HEAVENLY JERUSALEM).WITH ALL HIS HOLY ANGELS.THERE IS **ZION**; AND THERE IS THE **DAUGHTER OF ZION**.
HEAVENLY JERUSALEM(ZION) IS GOD'S WOMAN;AND EARTHLY JERUSALEM(ZION) IS JESUS WOMAN.
**EARTHLY JERUSALEM IS COMING**.GOD PREACHED ZION(GODS WOMAN) *TO THE PROPHETS*,BUT THEY HAVE CORRUPTED IT.(the old testament).
JESUS PREACHED THE DAUGHTER OF ZION(HIS WOMAN),AND THEY KILLED HIM.(the new testament).
IN THE THOUSAND YEARS: THE **DAUGHTER OF ZION** WILL BE MADE PERFECT HOLY AND CLEAN.
wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
