How many YHWHs are there?

[jocor]

Gen 1 And God said (Was this the Word?)

If, by "Word", you mean the Son, then no. This refers to the Father's spoken words. He said, "Let there be light" thereby creating light all by Himself.

Psalm 33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.”​

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)

I addressed John 1:1-3 in another post. The "logos" is not a person, but a thing; The Father's spoken words and thoughts. The logos eventually became a living man when the Father spoke His Son into existence.

Gen 2:4 . . in the day that the LORD (Jesus= YHWH) God made the earth and the heavens

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him (Jesus); and without him was not any thing made that was made

Joh 1:10 He (Jesus) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

I do not believe the world was made "by" the Son, but "through" the Son. If it was made "by" the Son, then Yahweh the Father had help. Yet, Isaiah 44:24 says Yahweh created all by Himself.

Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,​

Mat 1:23 . . they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Jesus)

God is with us because God was "with him" and "in him" (in Yeshua);

Act 10:38 "You know of Yeshua 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.

2Co 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
​

Php 2:7 But made himself (Jesus) of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men

Col 1:15 Who (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church
Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church

I addressed these already.

 

[jocor]

Your position is very inconsistent and there is much that you seemed to have avoided answering.

I thought I addressed everything that everybody has asked me. However, I will address the context of your three passages more fully later. I'm off to Sabbath services. Shabbat shalom.

 

[JLB]

I fully understand your position. There is no need to repeat the same things over and over again. You choose to read the Son into John 1:1-3 and I choose not to. You choose to believe the Son created everything and I choose to believe the Father spoke everything into existence.

What you believe, is the polar opposite of what the scriptures teach.


15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. Colossians 1:15-19

• For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible: This says the Son created all things!

• And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist: The Son is before all things, and was begotten and existed as the Son, before there was an earth, as He is the reason there is an earth.

You would have to willfully ignore what Paul teaches here, as you have in every instance that so many have shown you over and over.


Your Doctrine seems to come from Judaism, and is not consistent with the Church doctrine.


Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1


You are going to have to do better than keep repeating: No He's not!



JLB

 

[Eugene]

If, by "Word", you mean the Son, then no. This refers to the Father's spoken words. He said, "Let there be light" thereby creating light all by Himself.

I do not believe the world was made "by" the Son, but "through" the Son. If it was made "by" the Son, then Yahweh the Father had help. Yet, Isaiah 44:24 says Yahweh created all by Himself.

Brother jocor, therein lies your problem. Preconceived ideas of the origins of God betray your understanding of the word of God. For instance:

Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him (Jesus) all things consist.

And then you quoted “Psalm 33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.”

Are you familiar with Exo 15:8 “And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together,” and its implications to the Holy Spirit? Thanks.

 

[jocor]

And I have already pointed out that if we take Paul's statement that the Father alone is God, it logically follows that the Son alone is Lord. But that is clearly not what we see in Scripture. As I stated before, I believe this is Paul's expansion of the Shema.

Why are you not addressing the context of 1 Cor 8:6? Why are you not addressing the obvious logical reasoning of the verse? Why are you not addressing the fact that these passages of 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17 not only say the same thing, they say the same thing as John 1:1-3, which shows the Word to be the Son?

You want to argue to context but you have ignored context so far. Your position is very inconsistent and there is much that you seemed to have avoided answering.

I will start with 1 Corinthians 8:6 to keep this post manageable. Once we finish dealing with this passage, we can move on to Colossians 1 and then John 1, if that is acceptable with you.

1Co 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.​

Paul is teaching strict monotheism.

1Co 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,​

These gods and lords are not the one true God, Yahweh or as Yeshua put it in John 17:3 – “the only true God”, referring to his Father.

1Co 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, Yeshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.​

“Us” referring to believers in Messiah. The “one God” or “only God” is identified as the Father, not the Son. All things originate from the Father because He is the Creator. He created everything all by Himself (Isa 44:24) by speaking things into existence (Ps 33:6,9). He created everything “through” the Son. The Son was the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”, but not literally. He was slain in Yahweh’s plan of salvation. In order for that to be fulfilled, there had to be a creation. So Yahweh created everything for His Son so His plan of salvation could be fulfilled.

Yeshua is the “one lord” because Yahweh gave him all authority;

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Yeshua, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Messiah.​

Yeshua was made “Lord” by the one God (his Father) who had authority to transfer all authority to His Son. Yes, there are other lords, but they are not the one true Lord appointed by Yahweh as Messiah. Yes, there are other gods, or more correctly other elohim, but there is only one true God or one true Elohim.

 

[jocor]

What you believe, is the polar opposite of what the scriptures teach.


15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. Colossians 1:15-19

• For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible: This says the Son created all things!

• And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist: The Son is before all things, and was begotten and existed as the Son, before there was an earth, as He is the reason there is an earth.

You would have to willfully ignore what Paul teaches here, as you have in every instance that so many have shown you over and over.


Your Doctrine seems to come from Judaism, and is not consistent with the Church doctrine.


Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1


You are going to have to do better than keep repeating: No He's not!



JLB

I have explained this several times already. Reread my posts on Col 1.

2 Peter 1:1 - Hopefully you understand that our English version are fallible translations. There is no such word as "God" in Hebrew or Greek. The words behind "God" are usually "theos" or "elohim". Both can refer to others besides the one true God who is Yeshua's Father (John 17:3). Since I believe the words of Yeshua, then all others are theos or elohim in a lesser sense than the Father. The mighty one of Israel were called "elohim" in Psalm 82:6 - I (YHWH) have said, You are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High. Therefore, the word "God" in 2 Peter 1:1 should read "mighty one" or some other translation that distinguishes Yeshua from the one true God.

 

[jocor]

Brother jocor, therein lies your problem. Preconceived ideas of the origins of God betray your understanding of the word of God. For instance:

Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him (Jesus) all things consist.

And then you quoted “Psalm 33:6,9 says, “By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of his mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast.”

Are you familiar with Exo 15:8 “And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together,” and its implications to the Holy Spirit? Thanks.

As I said to JLB, please reread my posts on Col 1.

Ex 15:8 refers to the "strong east wind" of Ex 14:21 that Yahweh used to part the Red Sea. "Wind" is "ruach"in Hebrew. The Holy Spirit is the "Ruach HaKodesh" in Hebrew. Yes, He parted the sea by His mighty Spirit power.

 

[JLB]

I have explained this several times already. Reread my posts on Col 1.

2 Peter 1:1 - Hopefully you understand that our English version are fallible translations. There is no such word as "God" in Hebrew or Greek. The words behind "God" are usually "theos" or "elohim". Both can refer to others besides the one true God who is Yeshua's Father (John 17:3). Since I believe the words of Yeshua, then all others are theos or elohim in a lesser sense than the Father. The mighty one of Israel were called "elohim" in Psalm 82:6 - I (YHWH) have said, You are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High. Therefore, the word "God" in 2 Peter 1:1 should read "mighty one" or some other translation that distinguishes Yeshua from the one true God.

It has been explained to you that making up excuses about "so-called" mistranslations, when scripture after scripture has been presented with clear contextual support.

Your insufficient back ground in linguistics is obvious to all who read your post's.

Disclaiming the Divinity of The Messiah is a trait that has been noted many times by cults such Jehovah's Witnesses and also the antichrist and anti-Christian religions such as Judaism.

Brother, if you are associated with Judaism in any way, please flee from that religion.

Denying what the truth of the scriptures clearly teach will only lead you further and further from the True Light and Savior of men, Jesus Christ our God and Savior.


JLB

 

[rthom7]

Sorry, I don't accept such linguistic gymnastics.



And below we see two Solomons:

1Ki 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion.​

Here are two Spirits:

Eze 11:24 Afterwards the Spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.​

Genesis 19:24 is an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew language. Not to mention you are reading the Son into the text.

Most interesting verses Jocor, can you explain them a little more ?

Isn't Solomon referring to himself while on earth to other servants to Solomon while on earth. The location is the same.

Isn't the Spirit taking Ezekiel by the Spirit in vision, referring to the same Being in one location but explaining other functions?

The YHWH verse are two different locations at the same time, either this is a personal and omnipresent form of YHWH or more logical TWO different YHWH?

Can you explain your theory of faith a little more please ? Shalom

 

[jocor]

Most interesting verses Jocor, can you explain them a little more ?

Isn't Solomon referring to himself while on earth to other servants to Solomon while on earth. The location is the same.

Isn't the Spirit taking Ezekiel by the Spirit in vision, referring to the same Being in one location but explaining other functions?

The YHWH verse are two different locations at the same time, either this is a personal and omnipresent form of YHWH or more logical TWO different YHWH?

Can you explain your theory of faith a little more please ? Shalom

Ge 19:24 ¶ Then YHWH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH out of heaven;
​

You are reading into the text that the first YHWH is on earth. You are also assuming they are two different YHWHs.

1Ki 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion.​

I could read into the text that the first Solomon went out of Jerusalem to get the elders and then brought them before the second Solomon in Jerusalem, but that would be incorrect. Yes, they are in the same location and they are the same Solomon.

Eze 11:24 Afterwards the Spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.
​

I could read into the text that the second spirit empowered the first spirit to take Ezekiel up and bring him to Chaldea, but that would be equally incorrect. It is also incorrect to read two YHWHs into Gen 19:24. The only reason that belief exists is to "prove" Yeshua preexisted as "YHWH". Similarly, Jehovah's Witnesses read into various texts that the Son preexisted as Michael the archangel. We need to avoid reading things int the text that are not there.

 

[rthom7]

Ge 19:24 ¶ Then YHWH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH out of heaven;
​

You are reading into the text that the first YHWH is on earth. You are also assuming they are two different YHWHs.

1Ki 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion.​

I could read into the text that the first Solomon went out of Jerusalem to get the elders and then brought them before the second Solomon in Jerusalem, but that would be incorrect. Yes, they are in the same location and they are the same Solomon.

Eze 11:24 Afterwards the Spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.
​

I could read into the text that the second spirit empowered the first spirit to take Ezekiel up and bring him to Chaldea, but that would be equally incorrect. It is also incorrect to read two YHWHs into Gen 19:24. The only reason that belief exists is to "prove" Yeshua preexisted as "YHWH". Similarly, Jehovah's Witnesses read into various texts that the Son preexisted as Michael the archangel. We need to avoid reading things int the text that are not there.

I see Jocor do you see only one YHWH then? If so how does the Father and the Son come into being in the New Testament, when Jesus says I am my Father are one, that alone makes Jesus YHWH before one looks into Scripture for evidence?

SHalom

 

[Free]

I will start with 1 Corinthians 8:6 to keep this post manageable. Once we finish dealing with this passage, we can move on to Colossians 1 and then John 1, if that is acceptable with you.

Yes, that's fine.

1Co 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

Paul is teaching strict monotheism.

Agreed.

1Co 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,

These gods and lords are not the one true God, Yahweh or as Yeshua put it in John 17:3 – “the only true God”, referring to his Father.

I thought we were only going to deal with the relevant passage in 1 Cor 8. Why are you now bringing in John 17:3?

1Co 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, Yeshua Messiah, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

“Us” referring to believers in Messiah. The “one God” or “only God” is identified as the Father, not the Son. All things originate from the Father because He is the Creator. He created everything all by Himself (Isa 44:24) by speaking things into existence (Ps 33:6,9). He created everything “through” the Son. The Son was the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”, but not literally. He was slain in Yahweh’s plan of salvation. In order for that to be fulfilled, there had to be a creation. So Yahweh created everything for His Son so His plan of salvation could be fulfilled.

Yeshua is the “one lord” because Yahweh gave him all authority;

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Yeshua, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Messiah.​

Yeshua was made “Lord” by the one God (his Father) who had authority to transfer all authority to His Son. Yes, there are other lords, but they are not the one true Lord appointed by Yahweh as Messiah. Yes, there are other gods, or more correctly other elohim, but there is only one true God or one true Elohim.

Again, you have brought in outside verses. If you want to only deal with 1 Cor 8:6 and its context, then we must leave out everything else. But since you brought up Isa. 44:24, I will address it by saying that the verse has nothing to do with the nature of God but is a statement of monotheism. To read the Father alone into it is to eisegete the verse.

These two problems remain for your position regarding 1 Cor 8:6: 1) if we are to believe that "one God, the Father" means that only the Father is God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. But that clearly is not the biblical case. 2) just as "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's necessary existence, so "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's necessary existence. Remember, Paul is clearly speaking of the person of Jesus Christ, not some non literal, abstract thought in the mind of God.

 

[jocor]

I see Jocor do you see only one YHWH then? If so how does the Father and the Son come into being in the New Testament, when Jesus says I am my Father are one, that alone makes Jesus YHWH before one looks into Scripture for evidence?

SHalom

Yeshua said, "I and my Father are one." (Jn.10:30). Does that mean they are the same being? Yeshua said something similar in Jn.17:22, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

Here again, Yeshua says he and the Father are one. But he also prays that his followers will be one in the same sense that he and Yahweh are one. That is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly does not mean there are two Yahweh's or that Yeshua is the only Yahweh.

 

[jocor]

I thought we were only going to deal with the relevant passage in 1 Cor 8. Why are you now bringing in John 17:3?

I don't recall saying I could not cite other relevant verses. If one does not understand Yeshua's simple words in John 17:3, it will be very difficult to understand deeper verses. The Father is the "only true God".

Again, you have brought in outside verses. If you want to only deal with 1 Cor 8:6 and its context, then we must leave out everything else. But since you brought up Isa. 44:24, I will address it by saying that the verse has nothing to do with the nature of God but is a statement of monotheism. To read the Father alone into it is to eisegete the verse.

Thus says YHWH, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself;​

This verse speaks of how creation came to be. You claim Yeshua is the Creator. If so, then this verse says Yeshua created all things by himself. If so, where does that leave his Father. Did the Father have nothing to do with creation?

These two problems remain for your position regarding 1 Cor 8:6: 1) if we are to believe that "one God, the Father" means that only the Father is God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. But that clearly is not the biblical case. 2) just as "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's necessary existence, so "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's necessary existence. Remember, Paul is clearly speaking of the person of Jesus Christ, not some non literal, abstract thought in the mind of God.

Supposed problem 1):

You fail to understand that "one God, the Father" means the Father is the one true God. It does not exclude the existence of beings that can be classified as "elohim" or "theos" such as the mighty men of Israel being called "elohim" in Hebrew (Psalm 82:6) or "theos" in the Greek LXX (Psalm 82:6). The problem with the capitalized English word "God" is that it can only refer to the one true God of the Bible whereas the words "elohim" and "theos" can apply to others as well. So while 1 Cor 8:6 rightly uses "God", it must be kept in mind that there are other "theos" as well. The same is true of "Lord". Yesha is the one true "Lord" appointed by the Father to rule His people, but there are other "lords" or "kurios" besides Yeshua. These truths are even proclaimed in 1 Cor 8:5 which must be included in understanding verse 6. There are many "theos", but to us believers they don't compare to the Father who s the ultimate "Theos".
​

Supposed problem 2):

I agree. Both phrases necessitate their existence. Yet, Paul did not write that to proclaim their existence, but their role in creation and to exalt them over all other "theos" and "kurios". Creation originates from the Father, but comes through His Son and not from or through any of the other so called "theos" or "hurios".​

 

[Free]

I don't recall saying I could not cite other relevant verses. If one does not understand Yeshua's simple words in John 17:3, it will be very difficult to understand deeper verses. The Father is the "only true God".

Well, you didn't want to deal with any of the other verses I have given, only 1 Cor 8:6, so why is it you can bring in other verses that supposedly support your position and I can't? Not very fair, is it? Either I can use John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-16 in dealing with 1 Cor 8:6, and you can use those other verses, or neither of us can use any other verse. If you want to deal with just 1 Cor 8:6 as you stated, then let's do just that and leave everything else out of it.

Thus says YHWH, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that makes all things; that stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth by myself;

This verse speaks of how creation came to be. You claim Yeshua is the Creator. If so, then this verse says Yeshua created all things by himself. If so, where does that leave his Father. Did the Father have nothing to do with creation?

This shows you do not understand much of what I have said this far, nor what the doctrine of the Trinity states.

Supposed problem 1):

You fail to understand that "one God, the Father" means the Father is the one true God. It does not exclude the existence of beings that can be classified as "elohim" or "theos" such as the mighty men of Israel being called "elohim" in Hebrew (Psalm 82:6) or "theos" in the Greek LXX (Psalm 82:6). The problem with the capitalized English word "God" is that it can only refer to the one true God of the Bible whereas the words "elohim" and "theos" can apply to others as well. So while 1 Cor 8:6 rightly uses "God", it must be kept in mind that there are other "theos" as well. The same is true of "Lord". Yesha is the one true "Lord" appointed by the Father to rule His people, but there are other "lords" or "kurios" besides Yeshua. These truths are even proclaimed in 1 Cor 8:5 which must be included in understanding verse 6. There are many "theos", but to us believers they don't compare to the Father who s the ultimate "Theos".​

So now you are making an argument to polytheism, the very thing that Paul is here arguing against. You even stated, correctly, that the context is monotheism. So any use of elohim, theos, or kurios must be understood in light of this. There is only one God and only ever will be one God, as God himself states several times, and it is with that context that Paul makes the statements he does, hence why some Bible versions say in 1 Cor 8:5, "For although there may be so-called gods" (ESV). There are no other theos and in the sense that Lord is used, there is no other Lord. It is a failure on your part to not understand the nuances in meaning given the overall context.

Your position is now seen to be entirely unbiblical--you believe that many gods exist but that 'to us believers they don't compare to the Father who s the ultimate "Theos"'. That is not at all what the Bible teaches. Context is everything.
​

Supposed problem 2):

I agree. Both phrases necessitate their existence. Yet, Paul did not write that to proclaim their existence, but their role in creation and to exalt them over all other "theos" and "kurios". Creation originates from the Father, but comes through His Son and not from or through any of the other so called "theos" or "hurios".​

But you don't agree. You are still avoiding what this verse plainly states, something I have made clear several times now. If, as you correctly state above, that "Creation originates from the Father, but comes through His Son," then the only logical conclusion is that His Son cannot have been created. Why you can't see that, I don't know. If the Son has been created, if there was a time when he did not exist, then your statement, this verse, John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-16, and Phil 2:5-8, become false. This is simple logic.

 

[rthom7]

Yeshua said, "I and my Father are one." (Jn.10:30). Does that mean they are the same being? Yeshua said something similar in Jn.17:22, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

Here again, Yeshua says he and the Father are one. But he also prays that his followers will be one in the same sense that he and Yahweh are one. That is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly does not mean there are two Yahweh's or that Yeshua is the only Yahweh.

Nicely written Jocor and I agree, but you didn't write your spiritual application from these verses? Hebrew names are not static or names as we think in Greek, they are functional descriptors of action. The meaning of YHWH means "He who exists" and surely this could equally apply to any of the members of the Godhead couldn't it?

For example the word "Eloah" is singular and means "chief god" in heavenly contexts always means "heavenly father".
The word "elohiym" is plural and refers to "heavenly powers" but it is also singular in meaning.

This makes little sense to English, but that's how it is in Hebrew.

For example when boy and girls play in a playground the word to describe them is boys plural. The girls are not mentioned unless they are alone when they are playing together.

The closest meaning for a plural singular term to explain GOD might be Family. The heavenly powers of the Family of GOD, created man in his image. Not their image. When Adam was made from dust, his wife Eve was a genetic clone from Adam, yet a different personality expressing love, yet they are considered one, that's plural singularity.

That's how I try to explain GOD, yet we see darkly, and perhaps in respect we should not discuss such matters, for GOD is greater than all of us. The Father and the Holy Spirit are larger in size than our universe and are not explained in matters we could understand. Only Jesus we can related too, though fully GOD became encapsulated in a human body for us, and keeps the scars in his hands as a infinite token of the infinite sacrifice made on our behalf. Such is GOD's love. Shalom

 

[jocor]

Well, you didn't want to deal with any of the other verses I have given, only 1 Cor 8:6, so why is it you can bring in other verses that supposedly support your position and I can't? Not very fair, is it? Either I can use John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-16 in dealing with 1 Cor 8:6, and you can use those other verses, or neither of us can use any other verse. If you want to deal with just 1 Cor 8:6 as you stated, then let's do just that and leave everything else out of it.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said you could not use other verses. You can bring up any verse you want. I simply said that I wanted to concentrate on 1 Cor 8:6 and THEN your other verses. I said that for the sake of the other readers so that my posts would not be too overwhelming for them (too much information to process).

So now you are making an argument to polytheism, the very thing that Paul is here arguing against. You even stated, correctly, that the context is monotheism. So any use of elohim, theos,or kurios must be understood in light of this. There is only one God and only ever will be one God, as God himself states several times, and it is with that context that Paul makes the statements he does, hence why some Bible versions say in 1 Cor 8:5, "For although there may be so-called gods" (ESV). There are no other theos and in the sense that Lord is used, there is no other Lord. It is a failure on your part to not understand the nuances in meaning given the overall context.

Your position is now seen to be entirely unbiblical--you believe that many gods exist but that 'to us believers they don't compare to the Father who s the ultimate "Theos"'. That is not at all what the Bible teaches. Context is everything.

“Polytheism”?? If Yahweh Himself says that the mighty men of Israel are called “elohim” (gods) and Yeshua himself confirms this in John 10:34-35, would you have the audacity to claim they are teaching polytheism? I don’t think so. Why, then accuse me of such?

But you don't agree. You are still avoiding what this verse plainly states, something I have made clear several times now. If, as you correctly state above, that "Creation originates from the Father, but comes through His Son," then the only logical conclusion is that His Son cannot have been created. Why you can't see that, I don't know. If the Son has been created, if there was a time when he did not exist, then your statement, this verse, John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-16, and Phil 2:5-8, become false. This is simple logic.

“Through” does not mean the Son had a hand in creation and therefore could not be part of creation. He was simply the channel through which the act was done. But he was not a living channel, but a foreordained channel in Yahweh’s plan of salvation.

That the Son is created is seen in the following verse:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

“Creature” is the Greek “ktisis”:

Thayer's Definition:

1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc

1a) the act of creating, creation

1b) creation, i.e. thing created

1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation

1b1a) anything created​

The Son is a created creature. This is contrary to the creeds of men that say he was "begotten, not made."

 

[jocor]

Nicely written Jocor and I agree, but you didn't write your spiritual application from these verses? Hebrew names are not static or names as we think in Greek, they are functional descriptors of action. The meaning of YHWH means "He who exists" and surely this could equally apply to any of the members of the Godhead couldn't it?

The spiritual application of John 10:30 is that the Father and Son are not one in being, but one in purpose and will as believers should be with one another. We cannot use that verse to teach that the Son is God, an idea that Yeshua rejected in John 10:36. The Jews misunderstood verse 30 as do many Christians. They thought he was making himself God (verse 33). He corrected them first by showing that men can be called "gods" (elohim - referring to Psalm 82:6), but then went on to clarify that he was NOT making himself God, but the SON of God.

No, YHWH cannot apply to Yeshua. It is his Father's name, not his name. Yes, names are "functional descriptors", but they are still names. The Father declared that YHWH was His name (Exodus 3:15; Isaiah 42:8). I also do not believe the Holy Spirit is a "third person". That is why the Holy Spirit does not have a name.

For example the word "Eloah" is singular and means "chief god" in heavenly contexts always means "heavenly father".
The word "elohiym" is plural and refers to "heavenly powers" but it is also singular in meaning.

This makes little sense to English, but that's how it is in Hebrew.

For example when boy and girls play in a playground the word to describe them is boys plural. The girls are not mentioned unless they are alone when they are playing together.

The closest meaning for a plural singular term to explain GOD might be Family. The heavenly powers of the Family of GOD, created man in his image. Not their image. When Adam was made from dust, his wife Eve was a genetic clone from Adam, yet a different personality expressing love, yet they are considered one, that's plural singularity.

I understand about these Hebrew words and agree, but I'm not sure why you brought them up in relation to John 10:30.

That's how I try to explain GOD, yet we see darkly, and perhaps in respect we should not discuss such matters, for GOD is greater than all of us. The Father and the Holy Spirit are larger in size than our universe and are not explained in matters we could understand. Only Jesus we can related too, though fully GOD became encapsulated in a human body for us, and keeps the scars in his hands as a infinite token of the infinite sacrifice made on our behalf. Such is GOD's love. Shalom

I disagree. The inspired Scriptures give us plenty of detail to understand the Father and the Spirit. Yeshua is not "fully GOD". God cannot die.

 

[Free]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said you could not use other verses. You can bring up any verse you want. I simply said that I wanted to concentrate on 1 Cor 8:6 and THEN your other verses. I said that for the sake of the other readers so that my posts would not be too overwhelming for them (too much information to process).

But there is no difference between me using the verses I have already given and bringing in other verses. Either way it becomes too much information, and actually more, when additional verses are brought in.

“Polytheism”?? If Yahweh Himself says that the mighty men of Israel are called “elohim” (gods) and Yeshua himself confirms this in John 10:34-35, would you have the audacity to claim they are teaching polytheism? I don’t think so. Why, then accuse me of such?

In understanding what was meant in Psalm 82:6, no, the Bible isn't teaching polytheism, but in your misunderstanding, or at least, misapplication of what is meant, you are essentially teaching polytheism.

The use of "gods" is to refer to those who administrate justice or those who are mighty, and in no way whatsoever means that they are actually divine beings, actual gods. If God himself says that there are no other gods, that he knows not of even one, then that means there are no other literal gods. You seem to have completely missed this metaphorical use of elohim. Mighty men are simply that, mighty men.

So we see that YHWH is not only the ultimate God in whom believers are to follow, he is in reality the only actual Theos in existence.

“Through” does not mean the Son had a hand in creation and therefore could not be part of creation. He was simply the channel through which the act was done. But he was not a living channel, but a foreordained channel in Yahweh’s plan of salvation.

You are continuing to ignore Paul's plain reference to Jesus, a person, a living being. In order for Paul's statement to be true, the Son had to exist before creation began. This would make him uncreated and eternal, just like his Father. Which makes sense given that he is so often called the Son of God.

That the Son is created is seen in the following verse:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​

“Creature” is the Greek “ktisis”:

Thayer's Definition:

1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc

1a) the act of creating, creation

1b) creation, i.e. thing created

1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation

1b1a) anything created​

The Son is a created creature. This is contrary to the creeds of men that say he was "begotten, not made."

You have put the emphasis on the wrong word. The context here, as we agreed previously, is of the preeminence of the Son, and this is given by the use of "firstborn." This is a legitimate biblical use of the term, without any idea of literally being born or created, and is further supported by the fact that "by him all things were created...all things were created through him and for him." If Jesus himself were created, this verse would be in direct contradiction. Once again you are ignoring the plain and obvious context and logic of what is stated. This is the same problem you have with 1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:1-3.

 

[jocor]

In understanding what was meant in Psalm 82:6, no, the Bible isn't teaching polytheism, but in your misunderstanding, or at least, misapplication of what is meant, you are essentially teaching polytheism.

The use of "gods" is to refer to those who administrate justice or those who are mighty, and in no way whatsoever means that they are actually divine beings, actual gods. If God himself says that there are no other gods, that he knows not of even one, then that means there are no other literal gods. You seem to have completely missed this metaphorical use of elohim. Mighty men are simply that, mighty men.

So we see that YHWH is not only the ultimate God in whom believers are to follow, he is in reality the only actual Theos in existence.

You know full well that I never said or implied that there were any other literal gods or divine beings except Father YHWH. You are the one that is choosing to make the Son a divine being even though his Father is the ONLY divine being.

You have put the emphasis on the wrong word. The context here, as we agreed previously, is of the preeminence of the Son, and this is given by the use of "firstborn." This is a legitimate biblical use of the term, without any idea of literally being born or created, and is further supported by the fact that "by him all things were created...all things were created through him and for him." If Jesus himself were created, this verse would be in direct contradiction. Once again you are ignoring the plain and obvious context and logic of what is stated. This is the same problem you have with 1 Cor 8:6 and John 1:1-3.

We are just going round in circles because you keep using the phrase "by him". Because you cannot grasp the concept of "through" you see contradictions when there are none.

I suggest we move on to your next verse. Which would you like it to be?