Nazarene Space

all this talk about godhead and three or two gods and whatnot !!

 

Get your heads out of the churches for they are germanic/romanic/slavic folk paganism mixed with Yisraeli Scriptures, so stop qouting the "church fathers" as having any knowledge or authority about those Sacred Scriptures for it is well know they themselves only understood the Scriptures by using greek philosophy.

 

 

Let's let the writings speak of the people who knew and saw the Ancient Nazarenes;

They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Yeshua Mshikha (jesus christ in the original writings).

Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2

(It is interesting to note what beliefs Epiphanius contrasts between the Jews and Nazarenes, for the Jews as a whole, excluding the Sadducees, confirm the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things. It is quite possible that the distinction between them was their belief that Jesus will be the one to raise the dead (see John 6:40,44,54) and created all things (see Colossians 1:15-16), thus calling him divine yet the Son of God)

They believe that Messiah, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary.

Jerome, Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine

Views: 565

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Isaiah 43:10 Before ME was no G-d formed, neither will there be AFTER ME So...when did Jesus arrive on the scene?

Interesting the verse begins describing Israel...as chosen to be the witnesses to G-d's "Oneness". You are my witnesses, says the L-rd, and my servant whom I have chosen that you may KNOW and BELIEVE ME and understand that before me was no G-d formed...neither will there be after ME

This is why Jews reject the deity of Jesus...even Buddhist jews, even Satanic Jews...even atheist jews...LOL
This is why the orthodox community rejects Jews for Jesus as being true "jews". You can't be a jew and believe that Jesus is G-d.
Yeshayahu 43:10 (RSTNE)
"You are my witnesses [plural]," says YHWH, "and my Servant [singular] Who I have chosen; that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He: before Me there was no El formed (yawtsar), neither shall there be after Me."[brackets and emphasis mine]

Who is The Servant [singular] who YHWH had chosen? That right there is speaking of Yehoshua. It is not necessarily in reference to the witnesses of the people because then it would have been "servants" not "Servant."
But just for the sake of argument let's just suppose that "Servant" could be referring to the collective whole of the nation of Yahsarel/Yisrael. What does the verse as a whole prove then? Just that YHWH the Father is Supreme, and that Yehoshua His Son did NOT pre-exist the Father. The Son cannot pre-exist before the Father. Any notion of a son pre-existing before a father would be a REDEFINING of the concepts of "father" and "son," and we don't want to redefine "father" or "son" because that would smack of a similar kind of of illogic employed by oneness theologians who redefine "father" and "son" but in a different way.

But let's take a closer look yet.
“Formed” is the Hebrew word yawtsar, which is the same word used in Bereshith 2:7 When Elohim formed man from the dust—made something or someone living from something non-living.
Yes, there was no El formed from the non-living before YHWH, nor was there any El formed from the non-living after YHWH.

Now, Let’s compare that with Beresheeth / Genesis 2:22

22 And with the rib that YHWH Elohim had taken from
ma
n
, He made a woman, and brought her to the man.

In the Beresheeth passage, “made” is the Hebrew word bawnaw which can mean to build, repair, set (up), or derive. In this passage Elohim makes a living being from another living being. Notice that the Yeshayahu passage does not use the same word that was used in Bereshith 2:22, If the YHWH had wanted to eliminate the possiblility of bawnaw, he would have said “before Me there was no El yawtsar nor El bawnaw, neither shall there be after me.” But it does not say that! The familial term of “Son” is used when YHWH is referring to Yehoshua. The Son comes from the Father, yet always existed within the Father. Lewi came from Avraham, yet pre-existed within Avraham’s loins. There is no conflict whatsoever. Yehoshua’s eternality is strong and unmistakable because the Father is unmistakably eternal. Yehoshua was derived from Father YHWH and Mama Cochmah in eternity past and we are not privy as to how that was done.

ginger said:
Isaiah 43:10 Before ME was no G-d formed, neither will there be AFTER ME So...when did Jesus arrive on the scene?
Interesting the verse begins describing Israel...as chosen to be the witnesses to G-d's "Oneness". You are my witnesses, says the L-rd, and my servant whom I have chosen that you may KNOW and BELIEVE ME and understand that before me was no G-d formed...neither will there be after ME This is why Jews reject the deity of Jesus...even Buddhist jews, even Satanic Jews...even atheist jews...LOL This is why the orthodox community rejects Jews for Jesus as being true "jews". You can't be a jew and believe that Jesus is G-d.
Fail. Anaiah, you did not look at what i wrote in the third paragraph of my above post. it said thus:

But let's take a closer look yet. “Formed” is the Hebrew word yawtsar, which is the same word used in Bereshith 2:7 When Elohim formed man from the dust—made something or someone living from something non-living. Yes, there was no El formed from the non-living before YHWH, NOR was there any El formed from the non-living AFTER YHWH. [emphasis modified to make sure that it is not missed this time]

Statistically, the subject-object distinctions between the Father, Son and Ruach HaQodesh FAR OUTWEIGH any isolated verses which oneness theologians use to prop up their construct. As is the case most times, if the context of the supposedly oneness-esque verse is examined, and the Hebrew and ancient Hebrew is considered, it is not a one-ness-esque verse after all.

The onus is upon the oneness. ; )


Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
you missed the second part of ginger's quote. it says neither before nor AFTER.
Well, apparently the Netzarim/Nazarene Jews did not follow your man-made rules, Ginger. They most certainly believed Yehoshua is Elohim.

ginger said:
This is why Jews reject the deity of Jesus...even Buddhist jews, even Satanic Jews...even atheist jews...LOL
This is why the orthodox community rejects Jews for Jesus as being true "jews". You can't be a jew and believe that Jesus is G-d.
apparently?lol Understanding history in a very simplistic way makes our own theology less questionable, doesn't it. I'm not here to make you angry. I believe in ONE G-d...and you don't. maybe we should move on.

Yaacov said:
Well, apparently the Netzarim/Nazarene Jews did not follow your man-made rules, Ginger. They most certainly believed Yehoshua is Elohim.

ginger said:
This is why Jews reject the deity of Jesus...even Buddhist jews, even Satanic Jews...even atheist jews...LOL
This is why the orthodox community rejects Jews for Jesus as being true "jews". You can't be a jew and believe that Jesus is G-d.
Simplistic?!? LOL, I'm not the one who makes an all encompassing unilateral exhaustive belief statement for ALL Jews like you did, Ginger.

ginger said:
apparently?lol Understanding history in a very simplistic way makes our own theology less questionable, doesn't it.
This is why Jews reject the deity of Jesus...even Buddhist jews, even Satanic Jews...even atheist jews...LOL
This is why the orthodox community rejects Jews for Jesus as being true "jews". You can't be a jew and believe that Jesus is G-d.
1. Singular verbs accompanying the plural noun Elohim are a result of YHWH being patriarchal where the Father is dominant and super-ordinate, and supreme; while His Son and the Ruach HaQodesh, (and for that matter the 7 Ruachim) are subordinate to the Father. A patriarchal understanding untangles all of the anomalies that people have attached to their "understanding" of the "G-dhead".
2. Oneness and modalists have utterly FAILED to honestly deal with the plethora of SUBJECT-OBJECT distinctions all throughout the Tanakh and the Renewed Covenant, and they will never be able to deal with the subject-object distinctions in an honest way. There are thousands!

The oneness and modalists have lost the debate. Now we can end.
if this ridiculous statement makes you feel like you're right...so be it. I through wasting my time. It's not a matter of PRIDE to me...it's a matter of truth.

(Check with Christian scholars...there are very very few who would use the Elohim argument as evidence for the trinity....if you're really interested.)..

Yaacov said:
1. Singular verbs accompanying the plural noun Elohim are a result of YHWH being patriarchal where the Father is dominant and super-ordinate, and supreme; while His Son and the Ruach HaQodesh, (and for that matter the 7 Ruachim) are subordinate to the Father. A patriarchal understanding untangles all of the anomalies that people have attached to their "understanding" of the "G-dhead".
2. Oneness and modalists have utterly FAILED to honestly deal with the plethora of SUBJECT-OBJECT distinctions all throughout the Tanakh and the Renewed Covenant, and they will never be able to deal with the subject-object distinctions in an honest way. There are thousands! The oneness and modalists have lost the debate. Now we can end.
Ahdahm and Chawa were NOT created with the ability to time travel, nor were they created with the ability to simultaneously exist within and without the timeline, nor was Ahdahm able to have conversation with his "other/outside time self", nor was Chawa able to have conversation with her "other/outside time self". THEREFORE the ability to have simultaneous existence inside and outside the timeline is NOT a part of the IMAGE OF ELOHIM which humans were fashioned after. THEREFORE Anaiah you have NOT disproven the relevancy subject-object distinctions regarding Distinct Divine BeingS of the True Living Elohim. THEREFORE subject-object distinctions ARE indeed a relevant and effective rebuttal against oneness dogma.

However there are 3 key parts of the Image of Elohim after which we do know that humans were fashioned:
1. male and female
2. familial (because of trait #1)
3. the ability to choose or choose otherwise (a.k.a. freewill)

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
subject-object distinctions have not proven anything. in fact, I acknowledge them fully. the distinction lies in his simultaneous manner of existence, as well as the role and purpose of the specific aspect of Yahuwah.
to joseph, Messiah is in a sense distinct from Himself. What do I mean by this? I mean that Messiah has two simultaneous modes of existence. one where He is in the eternal now. So, essentially, His present is yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and He has lived everything all in a single moment, and continues to live everything in a single moment. But, He also exists in our timeline. Please note that this is the exact same mind, but it exists in two different place/timelines. As I said before, the time travel really explains it well. You travel into the future and you talk to yourself. Note that there are two people who are you, yet they are the same person, the same being with the SAME mind. Its just that each of the same being are having different thoughts, and doing different actions at a different point in their existence. I would argue that the earthly life of Messiah occurred "after" Yahuwah's eternal moment.
The person who first began stating "unnecessary things about who has won or lost the discussion" was you Anaiah when you declared:
"and yes, it does seem we have reached a stalemate."

A stalemate is when neither side can win the debate. A stalemate however is NOT determined when an opposing party ignores points that have indeed effectually rebutted him or her. That would be equivalent to two kids playing chess where kid A puts kid B into checkmate and then kid B gets ready to fold up the board while declaring that it was allegedly a stalemate. So that is why i did not consent to the declaration of "stalemate."

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
and if anyone wants to get the last word in fine. just try and actually make a useful point this time instead of stating unnecessary things about who has won or lost the discussion.
"A patriarchal understanding untangles all of the anomalies that people have attached to their "understanding" of the "G-dhead"."

Realizing that "Elohim" is a relative term untangles all anomalies. Creating more technical terms create more confusion.
God, angels, even humans can be El without being God.

Tehillim 82:6
"I have said Ye are gods ('elohim) and all of you are children of the most High"

"I have said ye are gods" - in relation to humans, it should be remembered, makes no sense, yet if "Elohim" were not an absolute and technical term, but a relative term indicating power and authority rather than immutable nature, then things can make sense.

I'm not saying "let's relativize the term "god" in English" - No, I'm saying "god" wasnt a very good translation to begin with. "El..."-words can describe God the Creator and pagan gods and angels and humans, but doesnt literally mean "god", or any of these things. I would contend, as I believe Yaacov once theorized, that "Eloah" generally means power. A person, or a god, can be many powers, have many authorities and abilities, and still be a single subject.
Anaiah's body said
"and yes, it does seem we have reached a stalemate."[emphasis mine]

But Anaiah (allegedly outside of the timeline?) also said:
"you can not compare a debate to chess."[emphasis mine]

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service