Nazarene Space

What are opinions on the diety of Moshiach, and the trinity?

Views: 362

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

" Thank you James for your extensive, and most informative post in reply to my 4 questions. However, what all the 4 have in common is "Language" either spoken, or written, in other words a clear indication that He who made us is able to communicate with us in any language, and not just Hebrew. "

Yes. But He chose Hebrew.

" Regarding 2, I am well aware that most of if not all of the NT, autographs were written in either Hebrew, or Aramaic, but were then translated into Greek (the lingua franca) of that day so as to be available to the widest readership. "

Yes. But translations are mere translations from original. There is no perfect translation.

" Regarding 3, There is no need for transliterations of the names/descriptions of the Deity. "

Yes. There is only One G-d Creator of heaven and earth: no transliteration error can affect that transcendent Identity!

" Regarding 4, The Septuagint translation was made for the same reason as 2."

Even the seventy scholars admit the shortcomings of LXX.

Edwin Brain said:
Thank you James for your extensive, and most informative post in reply to my 4 questions.

However, what all the 4 have in common is "Language" either spoken, or written, in other words a clear indication that He who made us is able to communicate with us in any language, and not just Hebrew.

Regarding 2, I am well aware that most of if not all of the NT, autographs were written in either Hebrew, or Aramaic, but were then translated into Greek (the lingua franca) of that day so as to be available to the widest readership.

Regarding 3, There is no need for transliterations of the names/descriptions of the Deity.

Regarding 4, The Septuagint translation was made for the same reason as 2.
Hello beryl etanah, and thank you for your post.

Allow me to comment on your comments.

1. Yes. But He chose Hebrew.

True, but are you saying that unless one speaks Hebrew one cannot be saved ?

2. Yes. But translations are mere translations from original. There is no perfect translation.

I agree, the King James version is not a perfect translation, but this has not prevented many who have read it from becoming believers.

3. Yes. There is only One G-d Creator of heaven and earth:

When you say, "There is only One G-d", are you de nighing the Trinity ?.

"no transliteration error can affect that transcendent Identity!"

A transliteration is how it sounds, not what it means.

4. Even the seventy scholars admit the shortcomings of LXX.

So why does the NT, quote LXX, in preference to the Masoretic text ?

May the Lord G-d bless you.

Edwin.
"aramaic version of the NT quotes Peshitta" LOL. It's Hebrew Tanakh or Septuagint. That's the only options the Apostles had.

And, stop comparing yourself and your hypothetical relations to that of God. You've done this 9 times or more just in the last few days. If you have to explain your position by using yourself instead of God, then your position is wrong.

Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
the greek version of NT quotes Septuagint generally. the aramaic version of NT quotes Peshitta generally. for the trinity, I believe that there are three aspects of the one person of Elohim. Just as I am the son of my parents, and if i marry a woman and have a child, I am Anayah the son, Anayah the husband, and Anayah the father. in the same way, Elohim is Elohim the Father, Elohim the Mother, and Elohim the Son.
There is evidence that the Aramaic Peshita existed at the time well.

From the Introduction to the Hebraic Roots Version Bible
http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

The Aramaic Peshitta Tanak is an important, and under-recognized witness to the text
of the Tanak. The exact origin of the Peshitta Tanak is unknown. The “Syriac”
version of the Tanak, is mentioned by Melito of Sardis as early as the second century
C.E. One tradition has it that Hiram, King of Tyre in the days of Solomon,
commissioned this Aramaic translation of the Tanak. Another tradition assigns the
Peshitta translation as having been commissioned by the King of Assyria, who
dispatched Assa the Priest to Samarir (see 2Kn. 17:27-28). According to the Aramaic
“Church Father” Bar Hebraeus, the Peshitta Tanak originated when Abgar, king of
Edessa, Syria, dispatched scholars to Israel to produce an Aramaic translation of the
Tanak (Bar Hebraeus; Comm. To Ps. 10). Wichelshaus suggested that this king was
the same as King Izates II of Adiabene. This king, along with his family, converted to
Judaism as recorded by Josephus (Ant. 20:69-71). This king had dispatched his five
sons to Israel in order for them to study Hebrew and Judaism. Burkitt maintained that
the Peshitta Tanak originated not long after the first century C.E., as the product of the
Jewish community of Edessa, in Syria. (Early Eastern Christianity; Burkitt; p. 71ff)
There is certainly a good deal of evidence, to support the Jewish origin of the Peshitta
Tanak. The Babylonian Talmud seems to allude to the Peshitta text (see b. Shab. 10b;
b.Rosh Hashanna 33b; b.Meg. 10b). The books of Ezekiel and Proverbs in the
Aramaic Peshitta, read very similarly to the Aramaic Targums of those same books.
The Peshitta Tanak has many Jewish liturgical divisions. For example, the Psalms are
divided into five sections as in Jewish copies, and the Torah is divided according to
the triennial Torah reading cycle, and festival readings are also indicated (for example
Lev. 23:1; see b. Meg. 30b). Moreover the Peshitta Torah also contains many
headings which are likely of Jewish origin. For example the ten commandments have
the heading The Ten Commandments” just above Ex. 20:1 and just
above Leviticus 17, the Peshitta has the heading “The
Torah of Offerings and Sacrifices”, (compare with the Talmud b. Meg. 30b). The text
of the Aramaic Peshitta was originally written in Hebrew letters, until this was
forbidden by Ephraim Syrus in the fourth century C.E., and contains many Judeo-
Aramaisms.(Encylopedia Judaica; Article “Bible”) Finally, many readings in the Peshitta Aramaic Tanak read Jewish
halacha into the text. Many of these are noted in the footnotes of the HRV translation
(see notes to Ex. 20:30; Lev. 16:7; Lev. 18:21 and Lev. 24:8).

Chad Evans said:
"aramaic version of the NT quotes Peshitta" LOL. It's Hebrew Tanakh or Septuagint. That's the only options the Apostles had.
And, stop comparing yourself and your hypothetical relations to that of God. You've done this 9 times or more just in the last few days. If you have to explain your position by using yourself instead of God, then your position is wrong.
Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
the greek version of NT quotes Septuagint generally. the aramaic version of NT quotes Peshitta generally. for the trinity, I believe that there are three aspects of the one person of Elohim. Just as I am the son of my parents, and if i marry a woman and have a child, I am Anayah the son, Anayah the husband, and Anayah the father. in the same way, Elohim is Elohim the Father, Elohim the Mother, and Elohim the Son.
I understand that it was in existence probably from around 150BC at the least. However, I do not believe it would be in surplus numbers. It is much more logical to think the apostles, especially, Matthew/John/Paul/Peter read the Tanakh, while Mark/Luke read the Septuagint, I would think the other writers of the NT also read the Tanakh.

James Trimm said:
There is evidence that the Aramaic Peshita existed at the time well.

From the Introduction to the Hebraic Roots Version Bible
http://www.lulu.com/nazarene

The Aramaic Peshitta Tanak is an important, and under-recognized witness to the text
of the Tanak. The exact origin of the Peshitta Tanak is unknown. The “Syriac”
version of the Tanak, is mentioned by Melito of Sardis as early as the second century
C.E. One tradition has it that Hiram, King of Tyre in the days of Solomon,
commissioned this Aramaic translation of the Tanak. Another tradition assigns the
Peshitta translation as having been commissioned by the King of Assyria, who
dispatched Assa the Priest to Samarir (see 2Kn. 17:27-28). According to the Aramaic
“Church Father” Bar Hebraeus, the Peshitta Tanak originated when Abgar, king of
Edessa, Syria, dispatched scholars to Israel to produce an Aramaic translation of the
Tanak (Bar Hebraeus; Comm. To Ps. 10). Wichelshaus suggested that this king was
the same as King Izates II of Adiabene. This king, along with his family, converted to
Judaism as recorded by Josephus (Ant. 20:69-71). This king had dispatched his five
sons to Israel in order for them to study Hebrew and Judaism. Burkitt maintained that
the Peshitta Tanak originated not long after the first century C.E., as the product of the
Jewish community of Edessa, in Syria. (Early Eastern Christianity; Burkitt; p. 71ff)
There is certainly a good deal of evidence, to support the Jewish origin of the Peshitta
Tanak. The Babylonian Talmud seems to allude to the Peshitta text (see b. Shab. 10b;
b.Rosh Hashanna 33b; b.Meg. 10b). The books of Ezekiel and Proverbs in the
Aramaic Peshitta, read very similarly to the Aramaic Targums of those same books.
The Peshitta Tanak has many Jewish liturgical divisions. For example, the Psalms are
divided into five sections as in Jewish copies, and the Torah is divided according to
the triennial Torah reading cycle, and festival readings are also indicated (for example
Lev. 23:1; see b. Meg. 30b). Moreover the Peshitta Torah also contains many
headings which are likely of Jewish origin. For example the ten commandments have
the heading The Ten Commandments” just above Ex. 20:1 and just
above Leviticus 17, the Peshitta has the heading “The
Torah of Offerings and Sacrifices”, (compare with the Talmud b. Meg. 30b). The text
of the Aramaic Peshitta was originally written in Hebrew letters, until this was
forbidden by Ephraim Syrus in the fourth century C.E., and contains many Judeo-
Aramaisms.(Encylopedia Judaica; Article “Bible”) Finally, many readings in the Peshitta Aramaic Tanak read Jewish
halacha into the text. Many of these are noted in the footnotes of the HRV translation
(see notes to Ex. 20:30; Lev. 16:7; Lev. 18:21 and Lev. 24:8).

Chad Evans said:
"aramaic version of the NT quotes Peshitta" LOL. It's Hebrew Tanakh or Septuagint. That's the only options the Apostles had.
And, stop comparing yourself and your hypothetical relations to that of God. You've done this 9 times or more just in the last few days. If you have to explain your position by using yourself instead of God, then your position is wrong.
Anaiah Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:
the greek version of NT quotes Septuagint generally. the aramaic version of NT quotes Peshitta generally. for the trinity, I believe that there are three aspects of the one person of Elohim. Just as I am the son of my parents, and if i marry a woman and have a child, I am Anayah the son, Anayah the husband, and Anayah the father. in the same way, Elohim is Elohim the Father, Elohim the Mother, and Elohim the Son.
" Hello beryl etanah, and thank you for your post. Allow me to comment on your comments.

1. Yes. But He chose Hebrew.

True, but are you saying that unless one speaks Hebrew one cannot be saved ? "

no. please read psalm 19:3 "There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." KJV

" 2. Yes. But translations are mere translations from original. There is no perfect translation. I agree, the King James version is not a perfect translation, but this has not prevented many who have read it from becoming believers."

true.

" 3. Yes. There is only One G-d Creator of heaven and earth: When you say, "There is only One G-d", are you de nighing the Trinity ?."

i am not "de-nighing" anything nor do i deny what others firmly believe. Trinitarianism (as a magical coin) is not apostolic and not a single apostle teaches it: Origen did not know it; Clement of Rome and Kefa did not know it, much Sha'ul. i can only accept what these early witnesses held: that G-d has One and only Begotten Son who became man in the person of Yeshua Moshiach, and that The Helper (as Yochann said) haRuach haQodesh proceeded from Eloqim. if you try to go further and simplify that ancient formula into one magical word you are courting heresy.

"no transliteration error can affect that transcendent Identity!" A transliteration is how it sounds, not what it means."

i know and i know what my words meant

" 4. Even the seventy scholars admit the shortcomings of LXX. So why does the NT, quote LXX, in preference to the Masoretic text ?"

expediency of course. the apostles must reach the greeks, romans and other nations: that's their mission. and LXX was the only OT available and intelligible to these new students that time. imagine the parody of Sha'ul speaking to atheneans using Mesorah to prove his points: we don't use russian bible in Congo right?

" May the Lord G-d bless you."

ve'omeyr ameyn. todah. shabbat shalom.

Edwin Brain said:
Hello beryl etanah, and thank you for your post.

Allow me to comment on your comments.

1. Yes. But He chose Hebrew.

True, but are you saying that unless one speaks Hebrew one cannot be saved ?

2. Yes. But translations are mere translations from original. There is no perfect translation.

I agree, the King James version is not a perfect translation, but this has not prevented many who have read it from becoming believers.

3. Yes. There is only One G-d Creator of heaven and earth:

When you say, "There is only One G-d", are you de nighing the Trinity ?.

"no transliteration error can affect that transcendent Identity!"

A transliteration is how it sounds, not what it means.

4. Even the seventy scholars admit the shortcomings of LXX.

So why does the NT, quote LXX, in preference to the Masoretic text ?

May the Lord G-d bless you.

Edwin.
Hi once more beryl etanah, and thank you for your most recent post.

I am glad we agree on 1, 2, & 4, and would like if I may to comment on,

3. You say, "Trinitarianism (as a magical coin) is not apostolic and not a single apostle teaches it:".

Really, well what about,

Mat 28:19 Go, and make talmidim of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Ruach HaKodesh, HNV

Notice it is, "name", not "names". One name, three persons.

And in the Hebrew Bible

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew word for God is plural , and in Hebrew plural is three or more.

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man". Not "I will make man", and who are, "us",?

Isa 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I [was] there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have [fn] sent Me."

NKJV Footnotes:
(48:16) The Hebrew verb is singular.

You go on to say,

Origen did not know it; Clement of Rome did not know it,

I am not aware that these persons were Divenly inspired to write Scripture ?

However, Sha'ul was, and he said,

Col 2:9, For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

Why is it that Paul uses the expression, "all the fullness of the Godhead", instead of, "all the fullness of God", ?

What do you think he has in mind with, "Godhead" ?

Sha'ul further said,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And Kefa in verse 11 below says that it was, "the Spirit of Christ within them", and therefore, He must be God.

1Pe 1:10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
1Pe 1:11 seeking [fn] to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to [fn] follow.
1Pe 1:12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look. [fn]

Yeshua Himself confirms what Peter said,

Jhn 5:23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Now, tell me who is there apart from God who can raise the dead back to life ?

Jhn 11:43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!"
Jhn 11:44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Loose him, and let him go."

I understand, "shabbat shalom", but not what you intend by, "ve'omeyr ameyn. todah."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me.

Thank you.

May the Lord G-d bless you, and keep you safe.

Edwin.
The Key to understanding Elohim is the patriarchal CONTEXT of Scripture. Scripture was written within a patriarchal society and for a patriarchal society. The Dad is always head of the family. The Dad is always representative of the family. The Dad is superordinate over everyone else within the family. All other members of the family are subordinate to the Dad. The other members of the family are frequently identified by the Dad. Hence: the whole nation of Yahsarel (Israel) is identified in several verses as Yaacov even when Yaacov has long since passed away. Even Chawa herself is identified as Ahdahm in Beresheeth 5:2 (Abrahamic-Faith Nazarene Torah)
"He created them male and female, and blessed them and called their name 'Ahdahm' in the day they were created"

When people lose sight of the patriarchal context and template, then all sorts of anomalies pop up, the worst of which is the tiresome denial that many messianics have of the subject-object distinctions between the Father and the Son and the Ruach HaQodesh.

My study of the Familial Structure of Elohim can be found here at Patriarchinity.

The reason that there are so many dysfunctional families nowadays (including Messianic and Christian families) is because they've defaulted to adopting the Christian trinitarian model for their family: all members have equal authority, all members disagree with one another, and the woman has taken on a masculine role and character.


i have no issue whatsoever in your quotations. i understand them very well in my own perspective.

Origen and Clement were sub-apostolic witnesses of "WHAT" the apostles passed to them. through them we can certify what the apostles taught and none of them uses the term "trinity" yet they believe that the Father is G-d who has a Son and that G-d has a Spirit, that is all that the early successors received and held to believe.



Edwin Brain said:
Hi once more beryl etanah, and thank you for your most recent post.

I am glad we agree on 1, 2, & 4, and would like if I may to comment on,

3. You say, "Trinitarianism (as a magical coin) is not apostolic and not a single apostle teaches it:".

Really, well what about,

Mat 28:19 Go, and make talmidim of all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Ruach HaKodesh, HNV

Notice it is, "name", not "names". One name, three persons.

And in the Hebrew Bible

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The Hebrew word for God is plural , and in Hebrew plural is three or more.

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man". Not "I will make man", and who are, "us",?

Isa 48:16 "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I [was] there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have [fn] sent Me."

NKJV Footnotes:
(48:16) The Hebrew verb is singular.

You go on to say,

Origen did not know it; Clement of Rome did not know it,

I am not aware that these persons were Divenly inspired to write Scripture ?

However, Sha'ul was, and he said,

Col 2:9, For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

Why is it that Paul uses the expression, "all the fullness of the Godhead", instead of, "all the fullness of God", ?

What do you think he has in mind with, "Godhead" ?

Sha'ul further said,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And Kefa in verse 11 below says that it was, "the Spirit of Christ within them", and therefore, He must be God.

1Pe 1:10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
1Pe 1:11 seeking [fn] to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to [fn] follow.
1Pe 1:12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look. [fn]

Yeshua Himself confirms what Peter said,

Jhn 5:23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Now, tell me who is there apart from God who can raise the dead back to life ?

Jhn 11:43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!"
Jhn 11:44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Loose him, and let him go."

I understand, "shabbat shalom", but not what you intend by, "ve'omeyr ameyn. todah."

Perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten me.

Thank you.

May the Lord G-d bless you, and keep you safe.

Edwin.


ben Ovrohom,

my question is:

if i will not believe in divinity of Yeshua, will my *faith* in his messianic /redemptive works have no effect such that i am not purified from sins?

דוד בן-אברהם said:
I do seem to agree that the trinity concept was borrowed from paganism. I really can't find biblical evidence of it. The T'nakh never calls G-d "three in one" or anything of that nature - simply "echod". Not to mention that the trinity concept falls apart when all of the names of G-d come into play.
So, the bigger of the two questions was the least addressed: what are opinions on the diety of Moshiach?
yes that's true.. the Nassara of history believed in the Omnipresent Father (never does Yeshua call himself Father nor do the Apostles..) Who had a Son and Who had a Breath which contained wisdom and power

but the whole point of the Apostles was to simply show the people that the Son was way bigger and more important than most thought that's why they stress that Yeshua created creation and that Yeshua was the "image" of the One who no one has or will ever see and that's it.. (that the church made Yeshua into "jesus the gentile three-in-one-god and what have you not.." has nothing to do with the Apostles)

beryl etanah said:


i have no issue whatsoever in your quotations. i understand them very well in my own perspective.

Origen and Clement were sub-apostolic witnesses of "WHAT" the apostles passed to them. through them we can certify what the apostles taught and none of them uses the term "trinity" yet they believe that the Father is G-d who has a Son and that G-d has a Spirit, that is all that the early successors received and held to believe"DIV>
You believe that Yehoshua is the Son of Father YHWH, right?
Well if Yehoshua is Father YHWH's Son, then Yehoshua is of the SAME KIND as His Father, right?
If He is the SAME KIND, then he is Divine (even though He is Subordinate to the Father).
So why would you reject His divinity?

beryl etanah said:


ben Ovrohom,
my question is:
if i will not believe in divinity of Yeshua, will my *faith* in his messianic /redemptive works have no effect such that i am not purified from sins?


Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service