- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,10:48) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 03 2013,23:44) LU, I looked on the web and could not find anything to reveal that even uncommon Jewish sects held there were two powers in heaven. What I found is the stuff I already knew such as the divine word doctrine, the wisdom personification, the spiritual Adam, and things along that line. None of these are really a second power.
Kerwin,
I suggest you get a hold of the book by Alan Segal and there should be information to substantiate this belief in there.
LU,My opinion is if there was anything to what he states then I would be able to find more out about it on the web. I have seen the Jewish library who even posts clearly heretical Jewish works and have never heard it before.
Here is an example of some research done on the subject, Kerwin:
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,11:17) Here is an example of some research done on the subject, Kerwin:
LU,I got to the end of the 9th page and saw nothing about a second power accept those things I already knew and the words of a rabbi that condemned those that believe in two gods.
The book of Enoch may endorse the idea of the Messiah being preexistent but ancient Jewish thought is hard to understand for the people of our culture.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,15:47) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 27 2013,05:38) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,07:22) Wakeup,
I believe that Jehovah is two powers, one is the Father and one is the Son. Both are called Jehovah together and separately and together they act in complete cooperation and interdependency.
Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son.
Lightenup.Quote Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son That sounds like speaking in tongues.
Can you show us scriptures saying Jesus is also Jehovah his Father? If not;then its all made up,and contradictory to the scriptures.wakeup.
I never said that Jesus was also His Father. I believe there are two powers in heaven that are both called with the same name. In John 17, Jesus says that He was given the Father's name.Haven't you ever heard of a son with the same name as his father? I know that can be confusing but nevertheless, it is common.
Lightenup.You never said Jesus was also his Father.
This is a good start.I can not find in John17 speaking of
two powers in heaven.Rev.19:12. No man knew his new name.
Rev 12:13. And He is called the Word of God.wakeup.
Lightenup wrote:
Quote tigger2,
I was looking at Jeremiah 33:16 and noticed that it is quite different than Jeremiah 23:6. You should examine the Hebrew. There is a preposition 'to' right before 'Jehovah our Righteousness' in regards to 33:16 and no preposition like that in 23:6. Also, 'the name' is not there in 33:16 but it was commonly added by the translators.I am starting an online Hebrew class in January so I can get a better understanding on things like this.
From what I can tell, Jerusalem will be called to Jehovah our righteousness. He will not be named 'Jehovah our righteousness.'
The 'to' is actually 'to her.' But 'Jehovah' is masculine.
[url http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar….es.html [/url
Quote (Wakeup @ Dec. 04 2013,00:50) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,15:47) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 27 2013,05:38) Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 27 2013,07:22) Wakeup,
I believe that Jehovah is two powers, one is the Father and one is the Son. Both are called Jehovah together and separately and together they act in complete cooperation and interdependency.
Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son.
Lightenup.Quote Jehovah the Father sent Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father gave Jehovah the Son. Jehovah the Father is not Jehovah the Son That sounds like speaking in tongues.
Can you show us scriptures saying Jesus is also Jehovah his Father? If not;then its all made up,and contradictory to the scriptures.wakeup.
I never said that Jesus was also His Father. I believe there are two powers in heaven that are both called with the same name. In John 17, Jesus says that He was given the Father's name.Haven't you ever heard of a son with the same name as his father? I know that can be confusing but nevertheless, it is common.
Lightenup.You never said Jesus was also his Father.
This is a good start.I can not find in John17 speaking of
two powers in heaven.Rev.19:12. No man knew his new name.
Rev 12:13. And He is called the Word of God.wakeup.
That is not what I said about John 17. I said that in John 17 you will see that the Father gave His name to the Son.John 17
Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me.Both are Jehovah by name.
Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2013,00:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,11:17) Here is an example of some research done on the subject, Kerwin:
LU,I got to the end of the 9th page and saw nothing about a second power accept those things I already knew and the words of a rabbi that condemned those that believe in two gods.
The book of Enoch may endorse the idea of the Messiah being preexistent but ancient Jewish thought is hard to understand for the people of our culture.
Kerwin,
I believe that it would benefit you to take the Hebrew course with me. I believe that ancient Hebrew thought is what Jesus and the apostles often were referring to. For instance, the 'word was God' meant something very important to the Jewish thought. The Targums testify to that. Also Jesus claim to be 'the First and the Last' and 'Lord of lords' was well known to the Jews as identifying Jehovah.Read the rest of the article.
Also, the Two Powers of Heaven is not about two Gods but the Two Powers of God. I believe that Jesus was identifying Himself with one of the Two Powers and His Father as the other one. That is what got Him killed because He was claiming to be the Second Power who sat at the right hand of the First Power.
Quote (tigger2 @ Dec. 04 2013,00:57) Lightenup wrote: Quote tigger2,
I was looking at Jeremiah 33:16 and noticed that it is quite different than Jeremiah 23:6. You should examine the Hebrew. There is a preposition 'to' right before 'Jehovah our Righteousness' in regards to 33:16 and no preposition like that in 23:6. Also, 'the name' is not there in 33:16 but it was commonly added by the translators.I am starting an online Hebrew class in January so I can get a better understanding on things like this.
From what I can tell, Jerusalem will be called to Jehovah our righteousness. He will not be named 'Jehovah our righteousness.'
The 'to' is actually 'to her.' But 'Jehovah' is masculine.
[url http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar….es.html [/url
tigger2,
Since several translations translate this Jer 33:16 as the city being called Jehovah our Righteousness, there may be something to that but other translations do not give it that translation such as the Young's Literal Translation.If it is correctly translated as the city being called Jehovah our Righteousness, that only means that the city was named after the Son, it doesn't mean that the city is the Son. For example:
Gen 4:17
and Cain knoweth his wife, and she conceiveth, and beareth Enoch; and he is building a city, and he calleth the name of the city, according to the name of his son — Enoch.tigger2,
Israel and Judah are two more examples of places named after a person named Israel and a person named Judah. That doesn't mean that the place is the person, obviously.Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,23:26) Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 04 2013,00:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,11:17) Here is an example of some research done on the subject, Kerwin:
LU,I got to the end of the 9th page and saw nothing about a second power accept those things I already knew and the words of a rabbi that condemned those that believe in two gods.
The book of Enoch may endorse the idea of the Messiah being preexistent but ancient Jewish thought is hard to understand for the people of our culture.
Kerwin,
I believe that it would benefit you to take the Hebrew course with me. I believe that ancient Hebrew thought is what Jesus and the apostles often were referring to. For instance, the 'word was God' meant something very important to the Jewish thought. The Targums testify to that. Also Jesus claim to be 'the First and the Last' and 'Lord of lords' was well known to the Jews as identifying Jehovah.Read the rest of the article.
Also, the Two Powers of Heaven is not about two Gods but the Two Powers of God. I believe that Jesus was identifying Himself with one of the Two Powers and His Father as the other one. That is what got Him killed because He was claiming to be the Second Power who sat at the right hand of the First Power.
LU,The word of God did indeed mean something special to the Jews and still does. Even in Scripture you can see that because it teaches us The word of God framed the ages though we know it was God who framed the age using his word.
The Law is the word and sincere Jews were and are big on the Law though many have been sidetracked by the letter of the God's word and no longer seek it's spirit.
Here are some links thought they are not unbiased.
The Word at Jewish Virtual Library
Memra in the Jewish Encyclopedia/com
Kerwin,
Thanks for your links. I am glad that you can see that 'the Word' meant something special to the Jews. In the NT, Jesus is identified as the Word. The Jews killed Him. They did not accept that the Word became flesh like them.My point with mentioning the whole thing about the “Word” of the OT was that it tied into the “Word” of John 1 where the 'word' is identified as Jesus. Apparently the Jews did not accept that the Word became flesh.
Do you know what the unbelieving Jews think of John 1?
Quote tigger2,
Since several translations translate this Jer 33:16 as the city being called Jehovah our Righteousness, there may be something to that but other translations do not give it that translation such as the Young's Literal Translation.[[As I already noted, many translations render it as “Jehovah (or ‘LORD’) IS our Righteousness.” What other translations do not render it as the city being called by that name?]]
If it is correctly translated as the city being called Jehovah our Righteousness, that only means that the city was named after the Son, it doesn't mean that the city is the Son. For example:
Gen 4:17
and Cain knoweth his wife, and she conceiveth, and beareth Enoch; and he is building a city, and he calleth the name of the city, according to the name of his son — Enoch.Remember, MANY Bibles (most of them translated by Trinitarians) render the name as `The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness': RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; ESV; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; CEB; GW; LEB; NLT; The Voice; and ASV (footnote). And even NASB has this same translation at Jer. 33:16
As for Young’s translation, I haven’t seen any other Bibles translate Jer. 33:16 with that meaning. However, please note how the name in question is rendered by Young in both Jer. 23:6 and Jer. 33:16.
Jer. 23:6 – In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, `Our Righteousness.' – Young’s.
33:16 – In those days is Judah saved, And Jerusalem doth dwell confidently, And this [is] he whom Jehovah proclaimeth to her: `Our Righteousness.']
No matter how you slice it, even many Trinitarians do not agree with you. So this Trinitarian ‘evidence’ (as with so many Trinitarian ’proofs’) is a disputed scripture and, therefore, not really proper evidence.
Please read the first 7 paragraphs in my study of Names:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/01/name.html " class="bbcode-link"> http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/01/name.html
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 03 2013,22:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 02 2013,18:59) I read that Jesus is the firstborn of a bunch of spirit sons of God. I read that he was the firstborn of all creation, and the beginning of the creation by God. I read that God brought him forth as the first of His works. I read that his origins are from ancient days of old. I don't read that he dwelled from eternity inside of God before God brought him to the outside.
I read that He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. That messes up your whole argument.The first work of God was a begettal…not a creation.
I read that He was the eternal life that was with the Father in the beginning.
I read that He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Lord of lords, Jehovah of hosts.
Yes, Jesus was the first begotten. But I was also begotten………. and yet CREATED too.In fact, I can't think of one single being since eternity who was “begotten”, but wasn't also a “creation”…….. can you?
So the word “begotten” doesn't really “mess up” any of those scriptures that speak of the creation of Jesus – as you'd have us believe.
As for the eternal life, I have no problem with that. Just as the Father has life in Him, so He also granted the Son to have life in him, right? So Jesus truly is the eternal life who was with the Father, and has appeared to us on earth.
None of that says he has existed from eternity, right?
And finally, Jesus is never in scripture called “Jehovah of hosts” or “the Alpha and the Omega”. You are reading those things into the scriptures, Kathi.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 03 2013,22:26) Eternal nature as an always existent in the past nature doesn't seem to be in a class of it's own within the spirit beings realm according to your post. Why is that?
Why would it be? Only the Father and Creator of all is said to be from eternity. (And actually, even He isn't specifically said to be from eternity, but English translators often translate the Hebrew word in Psalm 90:2 and other places as “eternity” – even though it means “from time indefinite”, like the NWT renders it.)But why would I include the SON into this “eternity” thing? Common sense tells us that sons ALWAYS come AFTER their fathers, Kathi. What scriptural reason do I have to assume this is different in the case of the son Jesus Christ?
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 03 2013,22:29) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 26 2013,16:12) I wanted to know if “the Word of YHWH” was ever said in the targums to be WITH “YHWH”. In other words, did they ALWAYS change “YHWH” to “the Word of YHWH” – to the point that “YHWH Himself” is not even mentioned at all? Or are there scriptures where they clearly outline the fact that “YHWH” and “the Word of YHWH” worked together on something, or were with each other, or something that would make us understand that there were two?
I have given you much evidence in the past of what the Targums say. They call the Word of Jehovah their God. I have proven that to you on more than one occasion.
But even if that is the case, it wouldn't point to TWO powers, Kathi.Hebrews 11:3 King James Version
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.Do you think the writer of Hebrews was talking about God creating the worlds here?
Or was he talking about the Son creating the worlds while the Father God had no part in it?
I believe it is the former. Your wishes for Jesus to be God might lead you to believe the latter.
But anyway, back to the targums: Are there scriptures where they clearly outline the fact that “YHWH” and “the Word of YHWH” worked together on something, or were with each other, or something that would make us understand that they were two different beings/powers?
You have said that you don't know of any place in the targums where they do this, right? Okay. So let us know if and when you DO find a targum that makes it clear that “the Word of God” and “God” are two completely different beings – and that both of them are our Gods, okay?
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 04 2013,13:17) If it is correctly translated as the city being called Jehovah our Righteousness, that only means that the city was named after the Son, it doesn't mean that the city is the Son.
You mean like Jesus being named after God Almighty wouldn't make him BE God Almighty?
Mike, was Jesus begotten (born of God) then partook of flesh or was he created then begotten afterward?
I see it as the reverse of us. He was begotten in the beginning, then he partook of flesh, and now he is back in the glory he had with God. And for us, we were created, and some of us are begotten to be like him afterward. So for us, the physical then the spiritual.
In other words, he became a little lower than the angels for our sake. Now if being begotten is being created, then are we created twice?
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 05 2013,02:12) Kerwin,
Thanks for your links. I am glad that you can see that 'the Word' meant something special to the Jews. In the NT, Jesus is identified as the Word. The Jews killed Him. They did not accept that the Word became flesh like them.My point with mentioning the whole thing about the “Word” of the OT was that it tied into the “Word” of John 1 where the 'word' is identified as Jesus. Apparently the Jews did not accept that the Word became flesh.
Do you know what the unbelieving Jews think of John 1?
LU,Yes, I see it as tied in but I do no see that as supporting your Christology.
Quote (t8 @ Dec. 04 2013,21:26) Now if being begotten is being created, then are we created twice?
World English Dictionary
beget (bɪˈɡɛt)
1. to father
2. to cause or createEnough said? t8, were YOU begotten? Are you also a creation of God? If the answer to both of those questions is “YES”, then would you consider yourself to have been created twice?
My point is that Cain was BEGOTTEN by Adam, right? And in Gen 4:1, Eve said she had CREATED a man – with the help of God.
But Cain didn't COME INTO EXISTENCE two different times, did he? So it doesn't matter if you say “Cain was BEGOTTEN” in one statement, and say “Cain was CREATED” in another statement. Both words refer to BRINGING SOMEONE FORTH INTO EXISTENCE. It's not a matter of, “Well, he was begotten, so he couldn't have been created”…….. since both words refer to the same exact thing anyway. They refer to the beginning of the existence of someone.
And in scripture, Jesus, like Cain, is said to have been both “begotten” AND “created”. They aren't a contradiction to each other, because they both mean the same thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
