Proclaimer vs Lightenup

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 19 2012,04:15)

2) Hear, O Israel; Yahweh our Elohim is ONE

2) Hear, O Israel; Yahweh our Elohim is ONE + (please read the conditions as laid out in the Terms of Conditions below).

2) Hear, O Israel; Yahweh our Elohim is ONE substance that spawns 2 persons. He is Biune and not one person. All references to HIM is not to be taken as one HIM but 2 hims. God is THEM but we don't like to use that correct term because the Bible doesn't for some strange reason. Anyway, HE (I mean THEY are beyond our understanding.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 19 2012,04:15)

Hear, O Israel; Yahweh our Elohim is ONE. Btw, Elohim is a plural word so no need to add an s to it.

Let's put this into the kathi 2012 Translation.

Hear, O Israel; YHWHs our gods is ONE substance.

BTW, Elohim is a word that can be used as plural or singular. Context is important in establishing if it is singular or plural.

e.g., Exodus 4:16
He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God (elohim) to him.

Obviously, Moses is not a plural being. He is one person, yet he had become elohim to Aaron.

Exodus 7:1
Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God (elohim) to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Again Moses is not 2 or 3 persons.

From what I have read and understand of this, when elohim refers to a singular being (the true God or a false god), it takes a singular verb. And you even understand this because not all false gods (elohim) are plural gods. Baal is not a plural god as far as I know, but I think it is safe to say that all false gods are not plural gods, yet they are called 'elohim' and it is context that determines plural or singular.

Further, when elohim it refers to two or more such as heavenly powers, the angels, God + angels, or human powers such as the judges, it is obviously a plural meaning easily determined by the context.

Also, Exodus 18:11 compares the true God with all the false gods (elohim).

So God/YHWH is a HIM and the false gods are THEM. Further, the false gods that are plural are not one family of gods as would be understood with your version of 'elohim'. They are separate false gods collected together only under the banner FALSE.

Your argument that Elohim when referencing the true God is plural is without merit. You never refer to a group of beings, 2+ as HIM. Context context context.

If this is the basis of your doctrine, then it is a big fail. Your house of cards has fallen down again. You need to respect context, otherwise you are talking through a hole in your hat.

You argument is as silly as saying sheep or moose are always plural when they are not. Again context context context determines singular or plural.

Back to the drawing board Kathi. When you have another theory, come back and I will listen. Take your time.

[Lightenup]

t8,
you said:

Quote

You never refer to a group of beings, 2+ as HIM.

I can prove you wrong so easily it isn't even funny. Watch and learn

Psalms 149:2

Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King.

Israel is a name of one man (Jacob)
Israel is also a name of a unity of the sons of Zion/Jacob (Israel).

In the above verse please note that Israel is a proper name of a unity and 'be glad' is a singular verb, and 'his' is a singular pronoun. I looked it up in the Hebrew to verify it, btw.
In the parallel clause that follows this you can see that 'sons of Zion' is a plural term which goes with 'rejoice' which is a plural verb, and also goes with 'his' which is written in the Hebrew as a plural pronoun.

Therefore, what you call a 'big fail' is really your big fail.

YHWH is a name for a single eternal power.
YHWH is also a name for a unity of eternal power.

Both ways use singular verbs and singular pronouns.

This is slander, t8, unless of course you can show me where I said this:

Quote

Let's put this into the kathi 2012 Translation. Hear, O Israel; YHWHs our gods is ONE substance.

Here are the rules that you, yes, YOU set forth and I have bolded the ones that you have broken:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not engage in the following:

Spamming, flooding, or flaming in the forums or the PM service.
Posting false/inaccurate or defamatory posts in the forums.
Being abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, or threatening to others in the forums or PMs.
Being invasive of a person's privacy.
Posting inaccurate statements about a person in the forums.
Posting, starting topics, or PMs that contain obscene or sexual content or links.
Pushing doctrines that are not related to the topic. (Pushing them in an appropriate topic is OK.)
Starting a topic that is not appropriate for the Category. In such cases, a topic can be moved to the appropriate topic and may result in the topic starter being moved to an appropriate member group.
Divulging or sharing the contents of a PM to others unless permission is gained from all who contributed to a PM discussion. PMs are confidential. PMs can only be shared with a Moderator or Admin if any of the above pertaining to PMs takes place.

Members can be banned for engaging in any of the above.

More stuff

Posts will not be removed or edited if requested, unless they contain content as listed above. Otherwise, posting in Heaven Net means your post will remain on Heaven Net indefinitely. If you wish to retract something you have said, do so by explaining it in a new post.

So, unless you can prove that I actually said what you claimed I said, please retract this in a new post. I have seen you do this a number of times with the word binity, and most recently trinity, but for now…I am just calling you out on the recent one that I have quoted.

If you can't follow your own rules, maybe posting on HN is not the place for you to post.

Side note fyi: Psalms 149:2

Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King.

The word 'Maker' is plural in the Hebrew but the word 'king' is singular.

[Proclaimer]

Kathi you err once again.

Israel was one man.
Israel was one nation.

Each person in that nation was not called Israel.

[Proclaimer]

Kathi I made it obvious that this was a translation, not a direct quote. You are overreacting probably because you are agitated.

So now you know it is a translation, (even though that is mentioned in the original comment) can you prove it is a wrong translation? That is the only real response you can have from my post.

If the translation is wrong, then simply show where and I will amend it to make it right. So far it seems accurate to me as to what you are saying, so show me where I am not understanding your view correctly.

Thanks.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 02 2012,00:46)

Kathi you err once again. Israel was one man. Israel was one nation. Each person in that nation was not called Israel.

Further, Adam was the first man.
adam is all men.
Not all adams are called Adam.
Eve is not Adam for example.

You say that God is YHWH.
The Father is YHWH.
Jesus is YHWH.
Both of them together is YHWH.

This view is unique (uniquely wrong) and not comparable to these other unities you speak of.

[Lightenup]

I would never say 'YHWH' our Gods is one substance' in regards to the shema.

YHWH our Elohim is YHWH Echad, the eternal unity. The emphasis is on being eternal and being a unity, not on a substance.

Furthermore, why are you taking my 'English' words and 'translating' them? They are already in English. You are trying to paraphrase them and you are usually screwing it up probably because you have the wrong understanding mixed with a spirit to discredit me. I gave you a bolded statement that you can use, please don't add to it or subtract from it, it is already in English. You cannot paraphrase it accurately so please stop! There is no need to paraphrase it anyway. If you need clarification then ask, don't assume and put my name on your assumptions. That is when you slander me.

[Lightenup]

t8,
If Adam had a son named Adam also, then there would be two identified as Adam who both had the qualities of adam, correct?

[Lightenup]

Quote

You say that God is YHWH. The Father is YHWH. Jesus is YHWH. Both of them together is YHWH.

The following is more accurate:
I say our Elohim is YHWH Echad, an eternal unity of YHWh the Father-our one God, YHWH the Son-our one Lord together with their united Spirit in one eternal unity.

I used 'Elohim' in a more general fuller sense of the term 'God.' Then when I wrote 'God' in regards to the Father, it is used in a more specific sense to make a point of distinguishing between the Father and the one Lord. The words 'God' and 'Lord' are interchangeable in some contexts.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2012,05:46)

Kathi you err once again. Israel was one man. Israel was one nation. Each person in that nation was not called Israel.

Quote

Quote You never refer to a group of beings, 2+ as HIM.

I have made no error. The error is yours. A nation is a unity made up of more than one being and referred to with the word 'his' which, like 'him' is a singular, third person, personal pronoun. Here is proof once again:

Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King

Once again, Israel is a name of a person and also a name of a unity, both take a singular personal pronoun and a singular verb.

If Jacob HAD given his son the name 'Israel' also, then there would have been two persons identified as Israel as well as the nation that is a unity of more than one member.

In reality, Israel/Jacob did not give his name 'Israel' to his son, but YHWH did give His name to His Son.

Scripture tells us that Jesus was given the Father's name here:
John 17:“I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11“I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12“While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 29 2012,21:50)

t8, You have a couple of questions that you have not answered. Keep in mind that this is the hot seat and if you avoid questions you get a tile unless you are above your own rules Here are the questions you haven't answered that I am asking you to answer: Quote Now, please clarify if you believe that each mention of the word YHWH in the Gen 19 verse is only referring to one being and not two. Your answer was that it was one YHWH and my question was not how many YHWH's were called YHWH's but how many 'beings' were called YHWH's. Quote Now a question for you, remembering that the Son is a theos…how many theos are on the throne in this verse: Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 1) one 2) two

Just a reminder that there are some unanswered questions out there.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,01:14)

t8, If Adam had a son named Adam also, then there would be two identified as Adam who both had the qualities of adam, correct?

Correct.

But the second Adam would not be Adam the son of God.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,01:36)

Quote You say that God is YHWH. The Father is YHWH. Jesus is YHWH. Both of them together is YHWH. The following is more accurate: I say our Elohim is YHWH Echad, an eternal unity of YHWh the Father-our one God, YHWH the Son-our one Lord together with their united Spirit in one eternal unity. I used 'Elohim' in a more general fuller sense of the term 'God.' Then when I wrote 'God' in regards to the Father, it is used in a more specific sense to make a point of distinguishing between the Father and the one Lord. The words 'God' and 'Lord' are interchangeable in some contexts.

Okay. So you differ to the Trinitarians on the substance thingy.

So this is the Kathi Creed:

God is YHWH combined, an eternal unity of YHWH the Father-our one God, YHWH the Son-our one Lord together with their united Spirit in one eternal unity. So God is the Father and God is the combination of the Father and Son, but God is not the Son because he is Lord.

Is this correct? Please edit if necessary.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,02:00)

I have made no error. The error is yours. A nation is a unity made up of more than one being and referred to with the word 'his' which, like 'him' is a singular, third person, personal pronoun. Here is proof once again: Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King Once again, Israel is a name of a person and also a name of a unity, both take a singular personal pronoun and a singular verb.

Let's put this to the test then.

Quote

Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King

Let the USA rejoice under God. Let Americans rejoice.

There is nothing special about this Kathi. Normal language.
It doesn't prove that the USA is made up of individual USAs, so that USA is both a nation and each person making up that nation. No. We have a separate term to describe a person from the USA, it is called American.

Likewise Israel is a nation. And a person from Israel is not called an Israel. That is why we see, 'sons of Zion'.

You haven't proven anything with this example and so it doesn't support your YHWH view.

It is a fail Kathi.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,02:00)

If Jacob HAD given his son the name 'Israel' also, then there would have been two persons identified as Israel as well as the nation that is a unity of more than one member.

This proves absolutely nothing. You are trying to win a point on a technicality, when it is an unrelated point.

There is a town in Australia called Alice, (Alice Springs). I assume given its reasonable population that there is a person living there called Alice.

So what. Doesn't prove that People from Alice are all Alice too. No it is just happens that names are not unique and get shared around.

This point of yours is absolutely meaningless to the discussion.

[Lightenup]

t8,
you said this and it is that which I proved wrong:

Quote

You never refer to a group of beings, 2+ as HIM.

Is a nation a group of beings?
Yes or No?

In this verse, is the word 'his' a pronoun that has as its antecedent a group of beings?
Yes of No?

Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King

t8, you are trying too hard to avoid the obvious. This is not subjective, it is normal language to refer to a group of beings, 2+ with a singular personal pronoun. You said that it never happens. I quoted your words saying that.

Now, look at your statement in the quote box and change that to truth so that I know you get it.

[Lightenup]

t8,
you said:

Quote

God is YHWH combined, an eternal unity of YHWH the Father-our one God, YHWH the Son-our one Lord together with their united Spirit in one eternal unity. So God is the Father and God is the combination of the Father and Son, but God is not the Son because he is Lord.

YHWH our God is YHWH Echad, an eternal unity of YHWH the Father-our one God, YHWH the Son-our one Lord together with their united Spirit in one eternal unity. So, God is the Father in many contexts and God in the fullest sense is the combination of the Father and the Son together with their Spirit, and God is the Son in some contexts. Context often tells us if it is the Father, the Son, or the Father, Son and Spirit.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2012,15:47)

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,02:00) If Jacob HAD given his son the name 'Israel' also, then there would have been two persons identified as Israel as well as the nation that is a unity of more than one member. This proves absolutely nothing. You are trying to win a point on a technicality, when it is an unrelated point. There is a town in Australia called Alice, (Alice Springs). I assume given its reasonable population that there is a person living there called Alice. So what. Doesn't prove that People from Alice are all Alice too. No it is just happens that names are not unique and get shared around. This point of yours is absolutely meaningless to the discussion.

I am not trying to prove that all people from Israel would also be called Israel.

I was only trying to prove that a group of members, 2+ are referred to commonly by a singular personal pronoun.

This all started with you saying that YHWH uses singular pronouns as 'I' and 'Him' and 'He' as some sort of proof that He can't be more than one member. So, I showed you that a unity of more than one member CAN use singular pronouns and does and this is common.

[Lightenup]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 01 2012,15:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,01:14) t8, If Adam had a son named Adam also, then there would be two identified as Adam who both had the qualities of adam, correct? Correct. But the second Adam would not be Adam the son of God.

Well, is Adam called the 'son of God?' Not technically from what I can recall. Maybe I missed something.

Anyway, it is besides the point. I wasn't proving that Adam was or was not called the 'son of God,' I was proving that Adam the father could name his son Adam and they would both be identified as Adam with the qualities of adam.

Then there would be Adam the father and Adam the son.

So what that has to do with YHWH is…
If YHWH the Father gave His name to His only Son, then both would be identified as YHWH. And if YHWH echad is a unity of the God of gods and the Lord of lords, then there are two powers who are identified as YHWH individually, and together as the unity, YHWH Echad.

I have shown you that the Father DID give His name to the Son. This isn't hard.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 02 2012,17:32)

Is a nation a group of beings? Yes or No? In this verse, is the word 'his' a pronoun that has as its antecedent a group of beings? Yes of No? Let Israel be glad in his Maker; Let the sons of Zion rejoice in their King

Sorry Kathi because this so-called proof is not proof at all.

Israel is one nation, hence HIM. The sons of Zion are THEM.
Israel is ONE nation hence the appropriate language. When you talk about Israel, you are not addressing a person from Israel, but the collective single body.

Anyone with a reasonable grasp of English knows this.

You are trying to hard. You are forcing a square into a circle.

I am from New Zealand and often countries are referred to as she. However, I am not a she even though I am not a New Zealand. And I am only one citizen of that country making me one of THEM.

So here are the answers:

YES
NO
YES.

The second point is HIS because Israel is a single nation. The word nation is singular. Nations is plural.

Likewise the Church which is one body is described as a she or bride. Individually we are he or she. I am definitely not a she, but am part of the bride which is referred to as she.

Can you admit that this is true, or will you continue to deceive yourself?

[Author]

Posts