Proclaimer vs Lightenup

[Lightenup]

t8,

Quote

So LU, you are making an argument that the writers of the NT did not write in the language of international communication, and further even though the mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean, you disagree. And why do you disagree, because your itchy ears like the idea that Jesus is YHWH and somehow this version as you say, supports that view.

Actually, the Greek texts also give reasonable evidence that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father. Many Greek primacists agree with that, surely you have come across that in your studies, right? I don't have to go to the Aramaic for that to get my 'ears itched' as you say. I lean towards the Aramaic primacy after looking at evidence on both sides when you clearly lean the opposite way? I have openly told you that I am not a scholar on the topic but obviously I have looked at the reasons for Aramaic primacy longer than you have and with a more open mind I would bet since I do see the Son being called YHWH also.

t8, do you know who Josephus was? He was a Jewish historian during the first century. Read this about the common language of the Jew in his day not being Greek.

from:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xxi.xi.html

For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2012,03:27)

LU, Yes there is a Hebrew concept for Word and a Greek one. Tell me about the Aramaic concept for Logos or Word.

t8,
7th post down on page 8 is about the Aramaic concept for the Word. A Targum is an Aramaic translation or paraphrase of a portion of the Old Testament. In the Targum, the 'Word of God' was a common name. Please read my post about it.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 13 2012,03:49)

It is possible that John used scribes for his writings and that he didn't pen the books himself. But whatever the method, he was writing to a Greek speaking part of the world, so on that point alone it seems that I don't have to mention that you usually write in the language of your intended audience. John wrote to the seven churches. All seven churches are in modern-day Turkey and back then the language was Greek. Also, he was on the Isle of Patmos in Greece when he wrote Revelation. Wikipedia Quote The mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean from the Conquests of Alexander the Great (335–323 BC) until the evolution of Byzantine Greek (c. 600). The New Testament Gospels and Epistles were only part of a Hellenistic Jewish culture in the Roman Empire, where Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem, and Greek was spoken by more Jews than spoke Hebrew[7]. Other Jewish Hellenistic writings include those of Josephus, Philo, Demetrius the chronographer, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus of Alexandria, Cleodemus Malchus, Aristeas, Hecatus of Abdera, Thallus, and Justus of Tiberias, Pseudo-Philo, many Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Septuagint itself. Koine Greek remained the dominant language in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, extending into the Byzantine Empire as Byzantine Greek. In the city of Rome, Koine Greek was in widespread use among ordinary people, and the elite spoke and wrote Greek as fluently as Latin. After the Babylonian captivity, Aramaic replaced Biblical Hebrew as the everyday language in Palestine. The two languages were as similar as two Romance languages or two Germanic languages today. Thus Biblical Hebrew, which was still used for religious purposes, was not totally unfamiliar, but still a somewhat strange norm that demanded a certain degree of training to be understood properly. After Alexander, Palestine was ruled by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for almost two hundred years. Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews. The last line here states that Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews. So LU, you are making an argument that the writers of the NT did not write in the language of international communication, and further even though the mainstream consensus is that the New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean, you disagree. And why do you disagree, because your itchy ears like the idea that Jesus is YHWH and somehow this version as you say, supports that view. I will be honest and say that I do not trust your opinion because you are clearly being driven by bias here and objectivity takes a back seat in many of your decisions. In other words, if it doesn't agree with your view, it is ignored or considered less. On the other hand, the consensus that the NT was written in Greek is not based on bias toward any doctrine at all, it is the conclusion thus far from those who study history and biblical texts. Lastly, Origen lived much closer to John and Jesus time than us and he talks about John knowing the nicities of the Greek tongue and this is coming from a man who dedicated much of his life to teaching Greek, making commentaries on the biblical writers, and defending the faith. Nearly 2000 years later, LU says that he wrote in Aramaic. I am sure you can understand the doubt I hold toward your views when this evidence is weighed. Especially considering that the biggest evidence you have is your bias. I need much more than your bias LU to be swayed toward your way of seeing this.

t8,
Compare this information:

In an age of reason, one has to look at the facts surrounding the spread of the Aramaic language, especially the Galilean Aramaic. In the Synagogue, following the Babylonian Exile, Palestinian Jews had their public reading of the Scripture, rendered in vernacular Aramaic. That tradition was necessary due to the growing number of Jews who were more familiar with Aramaic than with Hebrew (Neh. 8:8).23 This oral interpretation began as a simple paraphrase, but later, it became more elaborate and the various explanations tended to become fixed and traditional, and finally, these Aramaic interpretations were reduced to writing, which is known as Targums (or Targumim).

Aramaic Targums exist for the Pentateuch.24 The oldest appears to be the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, which is available in its entirety through the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. It preserves the idiomatic Aramaic used in Palestine perhaps as early as the first centuries of the Christian era. The second is known as the Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch (I and II), also known as the Pseudo-Jonathan Targums. The third is the Targum of Onkelos, which was the official Targum of the Synagogue. We might add another Aramaic Targum known as the Samaritan Targum. It was translated from Hebrew into the Aramaic dialect used by the Samaritans.

Not only the Pentateuch was translated into Aramaic for the benefit of the Palestian Jews, there were other Aramaic translations also for the books of the Prophets. The official Targum on the Prophets is known as Targum Jonathan bar-Uzziel. It had its origin in Palestine. Aramaic translations are available for the Hebrew cannon of the Old Testament, known as Hagiographa (Heb. Ketubim).25,26

No one doubts the extent to which Aramaic had spread throughout the Levant from the middle of the first millennium BC, until Arabic supplanted it, in the seventh century. A more difficult question, which has led to a significant disagreement among scholars, has to do with differences among, and classification of the various dialects of Aramaic.

The most extreme theory is that during the Exile, the Jews lost their Hebrew language for Aramaic. Reserving Hebrew, already a dead language, for literature. This was Saadiah's view, and also, in different forms, by a number of nineteenth- and-twentieth century scholars, including A. Geiger, A. Meyer, G.H. Dalman, A. Dupont-Sommer, and F. Altheim and R. Stiehl.

Meyer27 argued that Jesus' mother tongue was Aramaic, and that most of the Testament writings were originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Dalman agrees with the fact that Aramaic was the spoken language of the Jews in New Testament time. He concluded that Jesus grew up in Aramaic environment, and that He had to use Aramaic in order to be understood by his disciples and the people.28

More recently too, Dupont-Sommer argued that, Aramaic was the only language current among ordinary people at the time of Jesus, and that it was the language spoken by Jesus and the Apostles.29 Similarly, Altheim and Stiehl30 argued that from the beginning of the Hellenistic era, Aramaic had completely supplanted Hebrew as a spoken language.

A more sophisticated approach distinguishes Middle Aramaic (from 300 BC), and Late Aramaic dialects. In the first group, E.Y. Kutscher placed Targum Onkelos31 and the Aramaic translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as insciptions from around Jerusalem, and Aramaic expressions in the New Testament.32 The later dialects, which belong to Western Aramaic, are classified as Galilaean, Samaritan, and Christian-Palestinian Aramaic. Of these, the Galilaean dialect is of particular interest, because, it was used, for example, in the Aramaic sections of the Palestinian Talmud33 , the Palestinian
Targums34 , numerous midrashim35 , and various Synagogue inscriptions.

The evidence of the Aramaic language of Jesus is impossible to explain if Aramaic was not His spoken language. The Scriptures were provided with Targum for the Aramaic-speaking masses who could no longer understand Hebrew. In the Synagogue, following the Babylonian Exile, Palestinian Jews had their public reading of the Hebrew Scripture rendered in vernacular Aramaic. That tradition was necessary due to the growing number of Jews who were more familiar with Aramaic than with Hebrew (Neh.8:8). This oral interpretation began as a simple paraphrase, but later, it became more elaborate and the various explanations tended to become fixed and traditional, and finally, these Aramaic interpretations of the Scriptures were reduced to writing, known as Targums (or Targumim).

Targums exist for the Pentateuch.36 The oldest appears to be the Palestininan Pentateuch Targum, which is available in its entirety through the Codex Neofiti I of the Vatican Library. It preserves the idiomatic Aramaic used in Palestine perhaps as early as the first centuries of the Christian era. The second is known as the Jerusalem Targums of the Pentateuch (I and II), also known as the Pseudo-Jonathan Targums.

Nowadays, there are few scholars who would disagree that in Galilee and Samaria, the spoken language of the time, was basically Aramaic. More controversial, though, is the extent of the use of Aramaic in Judea to the south.

Read more: A study in the Aramaic Language of Jesus http://phoenicia.org/aramaicjesus.html#ixzz23URsIC9G

Are they all just biased too?? You said that you need more than my opinion. Here it is.

from: http://phoenicia.org/aramaicjesus.html

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2012,20:22)

I am http://aramaicnt.com/Research/The%20Name%20of%20God.pdf I am not sure if you referred the above document to me, but somehow I ended up there. Regardless, it's stance appears to be the same as yours. In this document, his references to “I am” are absolutely wrong. He makes the claim that “I am” is an incomplete reference on its own and thus must be referring to the Old Testament “I am” to complete the thought. He is wrong because: “I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. The mere utterance of “ego eimi” is not blasphemy, rather a common phrase spoken by many and any. The use of “ego eimi” does not identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM. In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel”. In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi”. In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek”. Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14. ANd if you are fair in your judgement here, you will see that this is no different to the usage that Jesus applied to himself. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep”. “I am whom you seek”. ““I am the bread which came down from heaven.” The latter verse upset the Jews, not because of  “Ego eimi”, rather it was the coming down from Heaven part that irked them. It is almost beyond doubt that utterances from Jesus saying “I am”, was never to be taken as him claiming to be YHWH. The Jews would have been the first to complain about that had he that been the case. And in Jesus trial they could have done him for blasphemy on this point alone. Instead, the evidence against him was trumped up alternative evidence with no reference that Jesus claimed to be God or YHWH. Also notice that I use the words “I am” as the first words in the second paragraph. They are not incomplete and nor am I saying I am God. If the guy who wrote this document can be wrong on this serious point, it doesn't lend much weight to the rest of the document.

t8,
Information on the “I AM” statements:

ENA-NA=God?

In many previous discussions, I have come across the false idea that Messiah cannot truly be divine. To refute this, I have always pointed to 1 Corinthians 12:3 which says MARYAH HAW ESHOA, or “YHWH (Lord YAH) is Y’shua”. Once confronted with the force of the Aramaic, my opponents have had to either retreat back to Greek texts-not desirable since KURIOS and THEOS were terms also applied to Zeus, or to acknowledge the plain meaning of the Aramaic text and decide they disagree with it. In the latter case, that particular line from the apostle Paul in Aramaic is precisely the reason why the Evyonim (Ebionites)-a first century Jewish sect that accepts Y’shua as Messiah but denies his divinity-threw out all of Paul’s letters from their canon and only accepted the Gospel of Matthew as Scripture. They also threw out Yochanan for reasons that will soon be clear. However, the modern Evyonim have taken an even more extreme position than their ancient counterparts did. They contend that NONE OF THE GOSPELS CONTAIN ASSERTIONS OF MESSIAH’S DIVINITY. However, as we are also about to see, their spiritual ancestors knew better.

Other than the sacred words of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), no other words in the Hebrew Tenakh are more moving to any Jew as Exodus 3:14. There, God gives Moshe His Real Name, and He says: EHYEH ASHER EYHEH, which can be translated as I AM THAT I AM or, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. The fact is, both Hebrew tenses of past and future are inherent in the phrase, leading many sages to refer to God simply as The Eternal, or the Pre-Existent One. Continuing then, the next line then has God say, “You shall tell the Egyptians that I AM has sent you to them.” As a result I AM (EHYEH) became a sacred title, and the actual name became revealed as YHWH, which is derived from EHYEH (is) and HWA (was).

Now in Aramaic, the word “I” is rendered as ENA, and 99.9% of the time the equivalent phrase of AM (NA) is implied. However, it is also correct to say ENA-NA, but most would not dare to utter that phrase. The reason for their reticence is because ENA-NA is the Aramaic equivalent of EHYEH. Or, to put it another way, humans can be ENA, but to say ENA-NA is to refer solely to the eternal aspect and existence of YHWH. But, when Y’shua speaks of himself, guess what? He says ENA-NA. Therefore, it was not just because Y’shua claimed to have been before Abraham that caused his opponents to pick up stones against him. No, Y’shua went a step further. By saying ENA-NA, Y’shua was saying that he is eternal and PRE-CREATION, which brings us straight back to Yochanan 1 (“In the beginning there was the MILTHA and the MILTHA was with God and the MILTHA was God…THROUGH HIM (MILTHA) ALL THINGS WERE MADE…).

http://phoenicia.org/aramaicjesus.html

[Proclaimer]

LU, the last post about divine nature is not helpful because I believe that he has that nature too. But possessing or partaking in that nature does not make you God or YHWH. “Although he existed in the form of God, he emptied himself taking on the nature of a servant and being found in the form of a man”, “I am going to the glory that I had with the Father before the world began”. (I quote these from memory so might not be spot on.)

Proving that a being has divine nature is not the same as saying they are the divine. Likewise proving that angels are spirits in not the same as saying they are the Spirit.

God shares his nature, attributes, truth, and most of all love, with others. Being a recipient actually means that you are not the donor or giver.

[Proclaimer]

Your other part of your last post doesn't go anyway to proving your case. I am already aware that God made all things through him. This does not make him God or YHWH though. Try to stick to evidence or so-called evidence that is relevant to the topic.

[Proclaimer]

Here are a couple of smaller points that came to me. Haven't got time to do rela research with them.

Jesus is the son of God the son of YHWH. Hence look at his name it is not Yahweh. It is Yahshua or some other pronunciation that has Yah or Yeh in it.

Every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. If this is every tongue confessing that Jesus is YHWH, then God the Father is not YHWH according to this. IN Greek there is a distinction between the Lord Jesus and God the Father. Lord and God. And the Father is not called Lord in this context.

Like I said, just a couple of points. I don't really expect an answer because there are too many loose ends at the moment and will try to tie some of them up.

[Proclaimer]

OK, LU.

I can see you have a mountain of so-called evidence and I certainly do not have the time to go through everything.

But let's be honest. You and I both know that scholars of both the Greek texts and even the Aramaic Preterist scholars generally agree that this Aramaic version came from the Greek. In other words even the vast majority of Preterist scholars agree that the Greek texts are the primary versions and the Preterist derived from that.

And given that, yes there is a small group of people that believe that the Preterist text is the primary text of which the Greek was taken. But you have to note that there is no doctrinal bias that is preserved by these scholars that makes them favour the Greek texts as being the primary text, yet they say Greek. And I only know one Preterist and that is you and you have certainly proven yourself to be biased, even incredibly biased. I can't speak for the rest of the small number of Preterists of course. But I have made contact with one and that person is incredibly biased. She has a doctrine and has for some time now clutched at any straw to prove she is right and the Preterist text is the latest straw in this trend of hers. In other words, I am witnessing bias at work. It is that simple.

Remember you said that perhaps the scholars that translated the Greek texts that quoted Aramaic added in an extra sentence or two to explain further what Jesus said… Well not even the Preterist text supported that view and in addition to that, the Greek texts also quote Hebrew demonstrating aptly that the written language was not Hebrew nor Aramaic, rather it quotes these languages and explains them both. If you make the argument that translators quoted the original Aramaic and made note of it in these instances, then that could equally go for Hebrew too. And ask yourself why these Aramaic verses would be quoted, when the whole thing is suppose to be Aramaic. Have you ever done that in English. Have your written a post in English and then quoted something that someone said in English by repeating it in English and saying it was English, and writing it within English text.

Your explanation here only proved to me one thing. You have let your imagination run wild and when confronted with good evidence, you prefer your fanciful imagination to stretch your view even further.

At least there is a humorous side to this. I now await further stretching so that your view can embrace all logic and evidence that is contrary to your Binity.

[Proclaimer]

OK, now that it is established that your view is not shared with most Preterist Scholars, let's just be honest and say that there are plently of groups out there that have their fetishes.  From ancient astronauts to God being every body, there is a flavour of belief to suit all types of fetishes.  

Let's be real. I could argue the same basic argument with EdJ over the KJV being the only true version. His evidence would be that it is the only version where the numbers add up. And in return I know if I could bother wasting my time over that argument that I could take text out of the NIV and The Da Vinci Code and come up with similar numbers.

I could similarly argue against Gene where he says that Jesus is a man and was always a man and he is about 2000 years old.

And I could argue with david over his view that the JWs are the true organisation representing the Kingdom of God. But again, I don't have the time to go full-time on this either, but suffice to say that the Church is about 2000 years old and the JWs are 200/300 years old or something like that.

Now any of the above persons could copy and paste mountains of so called evidence, but really who has the time to refute all of it. Certainly not me. I have a family to provide for and a business to run. I would like more time here, but that is not realistic for me.

If you or any of the above could give one really good point, then I could look at that and if it was a good point, guess what, it might put a seed into my heart or mind. And upon further confirmation, it might water that seed.

But you and the above just waffle on about your fetishes and this is plain to see. You are obsessed with the “LUBinity Doctrine, Ed is obsessed with the Truth Gematria Matrix, and Gene is obsessed with believing opposite to what the bible says on many things from free will to Satan not being a real being, even though Michael is.

Personally I give way more time to people that are not obsessed because I know that you can reason with a person who is not obsessed. But let's say you gave a whole 2 weeks to study and checking out what any of these people said and came up with compelling truths and evidence that showed they were wrong, would they even listen to you. I doubt it. I put you in this category LU.

So rather than waste time, why not put your best point forward and I will rebut that. And then maybe I can put my best point forward as to why your view that Jesus and the Father are YHWH is not scriptural. And we can keep doing that in ascending order.

[Lightenup]

t8,
I understand that you feel that you have to belittle people because that makes you feel justified; it is telling.

Do you know what a preterist believes? I have never related to a preterist view. So, the way you 'sum' me up with these crazy conclusions is also telling of your comprehension or your heart to comprehend the answers that you, yourself request of me, I will list just some here:
'binity' by your own definition, I have shown you that is not my belief,
also this preterist label, wherever did that come from (the definition is below…we haven't even talked about prophecies in Daniel and Revelations being fulfilled or not, I haven't even mentioned the word in this thread and I can't think of ever defending that position, KJ believes that way, not me. Maybe you are confusing the word preterist with Peshitta, definition below…I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here).
Then there is this insistence on your part that having divine nature does not make one deity. I have really not seen you 'get' the idea of 'original divine nature vs. partaking of divine nature which was not a person's original nature' even though I have questioned you on this many times. It is like a special blindness has kept you from reasoning here.
You claim that I 'waffle about fetishes'. Do you realize that I agree with the respected early church father's Christology and you don't? If I have fetishes, then so did the Apostles that you quote as well as the many early church fathers that you refer to whether they trust the Greek as the original language or not. They agree that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father, so why would you label this as a fetish? Maybe to bully up? Do you think that if you make something sound ridiculous that it would make you look better/smarter? That is a tactic without integrity, t8.

You put me in a category of not listening to compelling arguments which I have continually countered with compelling arguments and I place you there in that same category. So, you are the one that started this thread, not me. I also have a family (of 7), I have two part-time jobs, homeschool my daughter in high school, and try to answer questions on here with a lot of thought and research which takes enormous time. It is rather frustrating when I sum up all that research and you tell me that you need more than my opinion, then I lead you to documented research and you tell me that you do not have the time to look at it. Do you see how you speak out of two sides of your mouth? I do understand that you need more than my opinion and in time, I do back up my 'opinion' with the research of others. Many respected scholars agree that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father, did you know that? How is it that it is 'my obsession' when millions of Christians take the same view? Maybe you have the obsession to prove that Jesus is not YHWH.

So t8, you have not proven to me that you are open minded in any way, nor do you change your view when you are shone to be mistaken, i.e. you keep calling what I am believing as 'binity.' Do you need me to find your definition of 'binity' and how I have asked you not to mistakenly call me that and why? I think it to be rather rude.

Preterism definition:
Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible, especially Daniel and Revelation, as events which have already happened in the first century A.D. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster's 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is “past” or “beyond,” signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of preterism are commonly known as preterists.

Peshitta definition:

The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East.  The name Peshitta in Aramaic means “Straight”, in other words, the original and pure New Testament.  The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples.

In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

“With reference to….the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision.”

Mar Eshai Shimun
by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East
April 5, 1957

You said:

Quote

If you or any of the above could give one really good point, then I could look at that and if it was a good point, guess what, it might put a seed into my heart or mind. And upon further confirmation, it might water that seed.

I have given you good points and I will continue to keep trying with you because I do think that you are a valuable to God even though you may have gone a wrong direction and are fighting against the truth, imo.

In my next post, I will give what I feel is a very strong point as to why Jesus is also considered YHWH that I don't believe you have fairly considered yet.

[Lightenup]

Ok,
Here is a strong point to support that the 'Word of YHWH' is considered 'YHWH' as manifested in image and word. When YHWH appears and or speaks to someone in the OT, the Jews, when paraphrasing the OT into the Aramaic language before the first century, inserted 'the Word (memra) of YHWH' as a name for YHWH when YHWH appears or speaks to someone.

The Aramaic word 'Memra', which means the ‘Word’ or ‘The Word of the LORD’, is used when physical manifestations of God appear or when God is mentioned more than once in the same verse.

In other words, YHWH, when appearing or speaking to someone in the OT, = 'The Word of the LORD' in the mind of the OT Aramaic speaking Jew.

This is a start to a strong point that Jesus is also YHWH in the OT along with the Father. I have kept it short in hopes that you can comprehend it better. There are plenty of examples of this in the Targums.

In the NT, we see that the 'Word of the LORD' is the Son.

The targums are:
When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity 450 years before the birth of Yeshua, they had adopted Aramaic as their native language.

Although it is a dialect of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic is about as different from it as modern Italian is from its classical Latin ancestor.

Consequently, during the first and early second centuries A.D., Aramaic translations of the Hebrew TaNaKh were made.

These translations, called Targums, were The Living Bibles of their day, an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. They help us see how these first-century Jews understood their TaNaKh.

One of the striking things these Targums show is that first century Jews had come to understand the phrase “the Word of God” as referring to a divine entity within God Himself, yet distinguishable at times from God.

[Proclaimer]

LU, when YHWH appears it is also often through an angel. And we are not expected to call the angel, 'YHWH'.

What did you expect. That YHWH can actually meet someone in bodily form. That he can fit into a finite body. Ha ha, no chance. Not even the heavens can contain him. Rather he is inside his messengers and is not the messenger himself.

If you are humble enough to receive it, YHWH is an eternal invisible God who exists outside his own creation and within his creation by his spirit. The face of Christ is the greatest expression of YHWH's glory. Jesus is the image of this invisible God. And Jesus is very visible and in bodily form.

When YHWH visited Moses on the mount, he spoke to him via his angel. Read the scriptures.

Your understanding about the Word may or may not be correct, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. YHWH reveals himself through his Word, his son, us, angels, and creation. What he chooses to reveal himself though does not make that YHWH too. What is of YHWH is not YHWH but of YHWH.

Human nature is a funny thing. People who are bias become blind to reason and that which is true but contradicts their belief. This is the curse that comes upon those who reject the truth in any matter. When you reject the truth in anything, the alternative is to believe the replacement which is a lie.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2012,13:37)

I understand that you feel that you have to belittle people because that makes you feel justified; it is telling.

If I belittle a lie, then those that believe the lie may well feel belittled.

I attack the lie not the person. If you happen to be part of the lie, then that is not my fault.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2012,06:06)

Actually, the Greek texts also give reasonable evidence that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father. Many Greek primacists agree with that, surely you have come across that in your studies, right?

Should read:

Actually, the Greek texts also give reasonable evidence that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father. Many Trintarians agree with that, surely you have come across that in your studies, right?

And yes I have come across that.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2012,13:37)

So t8, you have not proven to me that you are open minded in any way

OK, let's have a look at why I am close minded.

I believe the following undoubtedly and I am closed minded right? Because it is this that you have the problem with and I can either believe what you are telling me or these scriptures and I choose these scriptures. So you want me to believe in your Binity Substance Doctrine instead. Is that not arrogant or at least preposterously presumptuous.

If closed minded means I believe the following, then I am closed minded.

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 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 3:22-23
22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future all are yours,
23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God…

Colossians 1:3
We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

Ephesians 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.

John 16:27
No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.

1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2012,19:04)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2012,13:37) I understand that you feel that you have to belittle people because that makes you feel justified; it is telling. If I belittle a lie, then those that believe the lie may well feel belittled. I attack the lie not the person. If you happen to be part of the lie, then that is not my fault.

t8,
First you need to know what the difference between the truth and a lie is before you can belittle a lie. So far you have not proven that you know that difference. You have only proven that you don't agree with me but that doesn't make what I say a lie. You are being opinionated and then, it seems, from your opinion you are judging. Do you have all truth, t8, is that what makes you qualified to judge? I have given you very reasonable explanations of what I have suggested with the agreement of many scholars or can give this, and your response many times shows that you do not comprehend well. So, if you do not get what I am saying, you are not qualified to determine if something that I suggest as possible to be a lie or not. So please get off your high throne and stop making these judgement calls. Your proven lack of comprehension of what has been shared as well as your limited knowledge keeps you from being qualified. Sorry to burst your bubble but it should free up your time a bit. Let God judge. Present your rebuttal but keep your judgements to yourself. You will be judged in the same manner that you judge others.

I will get to the rest of your comments later.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2012,19:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2012,13:37) So t8, you have not proven to me that you are open minded in any way OK, let's have a look at why I am close minded. I believe the following undoubtedly and I am closed minded right? Because it is this that you have the problem with and I can either believe what you are telling me or these scriptures and I choose these scriptures. So you want me to believe in your Binity Substance Doctrine instead. Is that not arrogant or at least preposterously presumptuous. If closed minded means I believe the following, then I am closed minded. 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 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 3:22-23 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God… Colossians 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. John 16:27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Ephesians 4:4-6 4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

t8,
This is where you are stuck it seems which leads to a closed mind that leans on 'his own understanding'…you think that YHWH is only God but not God AND Lord. YHWH is our one God and YHWH is our one Lord. YHWH our one Lord is the only begotten God, Jesus. Our one God is God the Father in the contexts that speak of there being one God and then mentions Jesus as another person. In those contexts, Jesus is our one Lord. Both are YHWH…YHWY is both God AND Lord.

If you get 'unstuck' here you will be able to understand John 1:1 and not have to get wrapped up in whether there is an article in the third clause or not.

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the only begotten God, our one Lord Jesus Christ.

There are contexts where both are called either God or Lord but I am not referring to those right now. Deut 10:17, 1 Cor 8:6, John 1:1, and John 1:18 are the contexts that I am referring to.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2012,19:03)

LU, when YHWH appears it is also often through an angel. And we are not expected to call the angel, 'YHWH'. What did you expect. That YHWH can actually meet someone in bodily form. That he can fit into a finite body. Ha ha, no chance. Not even the heavens can contain him. Rather he is inside his messengers and is not the messenger himself. If you are humble enough to receive it, YHWH is an eternal invisible God who exists outside his own creation and within his creation by his spirit. The face of Christ is the greatest expression of YHWH's glory. Jesus is the image of this invisible God. And Jesus is very visible and in bodily form. When YHWH visited Moses on the mount, he spoke to him via his angel. Read the scriptures. Your understanding about the Word may or may not be correct, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. YHWH reveals himself through his Word, his son, us, angels, and creation. What he chooses to reveal himself though does not make that YHWH too. What is of YHWH is not YHWH but of YHWH. Human nature is a funny thing. People who are bias become blind to reason and that which is true but contradicts their belief. This is the curse that comes upon those who reject the truth in any matter. When you reject the truth in anything, the alternative is to believe the replacement which is a lie.

t8,
you said:

Quote

LU, when YHWH appears it is also often through an angel. And we are not expected to call the angel, 'YHWH'.

Do you believe that YHWH has possibly appeared at all through the pre-incarnate Son where the 'inspired' text calls the one that appears 'YHWH'?

Quote

What did you expect. That YHWH can actually meet someone in bodily form. That he can fit into a finite body. Ha ha, no chance. Not even the heavens can contain him. Rather he is inside his messengers and is not the messenger himself.

So the messengers can contain Him but a finite body can't? Is that really what you said? Aren't 'messengers' finite bodies?

Quote

If you are humble enough to receive it, YHWH is an eternal invisible God who exists outside his own creation and within his creation by his spirit.

So, you say He can exist within His creation by His Spirit, then He should also be able to exist within a temporary finite body by His Spirit and represent Himself. Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion. That finite body would not need to be His actual body but just a 'container' at that instance when He temporarily appears.

Quote

The face of Christ is the greatest expression of YHWH's glory. Jesus is the image of this invisible God. And Jesus is very visible and in bodily form.

Yes, Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the radiance of His glory and that would make sense since He is the only begotten God…the Son of the invisible God. Sons are considered the image of their fathers. The son is visible to us because He became flesh and took on the form of a bond servant and also likely took on a temporary body in the OT when He walked with Adam in Genesis for instance.

Quote

When YHWH visited Moses on the mount, he spoke to him via his angel. Read the scriptures.

The Pre-incarnated Son has been thought of as an angel and even called an angel but so has man. Being called an angel does not make one a created angel type being. Do you agree with that?

Quote

Your understanding about the Word may or may not be correct, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. YHWH reveals himself through his Word, his son, us, angels, and creation. What he chooses to reveal himself though does not make that YHWH too. What is of YHWH is not YHWH but of YHWH.

What YHWH the Father chooses to reveal Himself through does not make that the other being not YHWH the Son though either.

The point about the 'memra of YHWH' being the pre-incarnate Son who is also called YHWH has to do with the inspired scriptures that say YHWH did thus and so but the understanding of the Jews say the YHWH that did thus and so was the 'Memra of YHWH'.

The words of inspiration call the person YHWH. Therefore, the one who the inspired scriptures call YHWH at times is also known as the 'Memra of YHWH' in the Jews understanding. They worship the Memra of YHWH and pray in the name of the Memra of YHWH to YHWH. They worshiped the one they prayed through to YHWH. The Targums prove this, t8.

When Jesus said to the woman at the well that the Jews know who they worship, the Targums tell us that they worship the one they prayed through (Memra of YHWH-the Son) as well as to whom they prayed (YHWH-the Father). They didn't know at the time that they were praying through the Son though. They called the Son the Memra of YHWH when referring to that Memra as a presence distinct from the unseen God. At other times the inspired scriptures uses the term 'word of the Lord' and does not seem to refer to a presence but just inspired scripture or conveyed thought. When it refers to a presence, that is when it quite possible is the pre-incarnate Son.

Quote

Human nature is a funny thing. People who are bias become blind to reason and that which is true but contradicts their belief. This is the curse that comes upon those who reject the truth in any matter. When you reject the truth in anything, the alternative is to believe the replacement which is a lie.

You need to include yourself here. You
mentioned on the last page or two that I should put my best point out there and that you would then refute it. Here are your words:

“So rather than waste time, why not put your best point forward and I will rebut that.”

Do you see how automatically, in your mind you are going to 'rebut' what I say. Your mind was already made up that you were going to oppose whatever I said. That is one reason that I see a closed mind in you.

re·but/riˈbət/
Verb:

Claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.
Drive back or repel (a person or attack).

It would be reflective of a possible open mind if you said:
Why not put your best point forward and I will consider that with you.

Do you see my point?

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2012,19:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2012,13:37) So t8, you have not proven to me that you are open minded in any way OK, let's have a look at why I am close minded. I believe the following undoubtedly and I am closed minded right? Because it is this that you have the problem with and I can either believe what you are telling me or these scriptures and I choose these scriptures. So you want me to believe in your Binity Substance Doctrine instead. Is that not arrogant or at least preposterously presumptuous. If closed minded means I believe the following, then I am closed minded. 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 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 3:22-23 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas {That is, Peter} or the world or life or death or the present or the future all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God… Colossians 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, Ephesians 1:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. John 16:27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Ephesians 4:4-6 4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Here are scriptural reasons you should not lean on your own understanding and why I am not arrogant but trying to HELP you.

Here is a compilation of the several passages and/or scriptural reasonings that suggest that Jesus Christ is deity.

Isaiah 54:5
“For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth.

Mark 12:35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’i
37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Luke 1:11 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. 13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14“You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. 16“And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God . 17“It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord .”

The “Lord their God” here is the same one that John goes before as a forerunner…i.e. Jesus.

“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord;

Jesus speaking:
Matt 11:11 I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “ I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.

John 20:26After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Acts 10:34
34Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. 36“The word which He sent to the sons of Israel,preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) —37you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. 38“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39“We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. 40“God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, 41not to all the people, but to ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42“And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. 43“Of Him all the prophets bear witnes
s that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.

Romans 9:5
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

1 Corinthians 1:2 NAS
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

1 Cor 2:6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

1 Cor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle–sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead–

1 Cor 7:22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman ; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price ; do not become slaves of men.

Colossians 4:12 NAS
Epaphras, who is one of your number, a bond-slave of Jesus Christ, sends you his greetings, always laboring earnestly for you in his prayers, that you may stand perfect and fully assured in all the will of God.

This shows that Jesus is not just a mere man like us or it wouldn't be a good thing to be His slave.

Philippians 2:6 (New American Standard Bible)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

2 Thessalonians 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word.

If you look at the Greek, you will see that all the verbs that are in these two verses are written in the singular form, yet there are two subjects which would normally require the verbs to be written in plural form. This suggests a compound unity of two persons, acting as one person

Tit 2:13, 14
…while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of “our great God and Savior”, Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for us, “that he (Jesus) might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”.

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Jude 1:4
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Rev 17:14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Deut 10:17 “For the LORD (Jehovah) your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2012,16:33)

So the messengers can contain Him but a finite body can't? Is that really what you said? Aren't 'messengers' finite bodies?

If the infinite God who resides in all that he can resides in the Angel of the LORD, then that means that he is not that angel by reason of also existing outside that angel. Rather he is in that angel.

God can be in me too. I am not YHWH. I cannot contain YHWH.

[Author]

Posts