How many YHWHs are there?

[Free]

You are the one that is choosing to make the Son a divine being even though his Father is the ONLY divine being.

I am not choosing to make the Son a divine being, Scripture reveals this to be the case, included in which are the very verses we are discussing.

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?

We're not done with this one. I grasp what is being said in these verses:

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. (ESV)

What you are still failing to understand, and what I have made clear several times, is that, logically speaking, it is completely and entirely irrelevant as to whether "by," "in," or "through" is used since the Son would already have to be in existence in order for these verses--John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17--to be true. There is a very clear logic being presented in these passages and they are all in perfect agreement.

In fact, John 1:3 emphasizes this by not only saying that "all things were made through him," but also adding "without him was not any thing made that was made." This necessarily excludes the Son from being something that has been made. Again, this is simple logic.

 

[jocor]

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. (ESV)

What you are still failing to understand, and what I have made clear several times, is that, logically speaking, it is completely and entirely irrelevant as to whether "by," "in," or "through" is used since the Son would already have to be in existence in order for these verses--John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17--to be true. There is a very clear logic being presented in these passages and they are all in perfect agreement.

In fact, John 1:3 emphasizes this by not only saying that "all things were made through him," but also adding "without him was not any thing made that was made." This necessarily excludes the Son from being something that has been made. Again, this is simple logic.

If you read the Son into John 1:1-3, then you would have a case. If John 1:3 was translated as most English Bibles read prior to the KJV, then it would be "all things were made through it" and "without it was not anything made that was made." The "logos" is an "it", not a person. It became a person when it became flesh; when Yahweh spoke His Son into existence.

 

[Free]

If you read the Son into John 1:1-3, then you would have a case. If John 1:3 was translated as most English Bibles read prior to the KJV, then it would be "all things were made through it" and "without it was not anything made that was made." The "logos" is an "it", not a person. It became a person when it became flesh; when Yahweh spoke His Son into existence.

Wow. I have pointed out more than once already that what is said in here in John is exactly what is said in 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15, where both of those passages are clearly speaking of the person of Jesus. Either those passages are false in referring to Jesus that way, or your understanding of John is wrong. And I submit your understanding of John is wrong and it is even clearly given by the context:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

So, looking at this full context then, let's write it out the way you think it should be written and see if it makes sense:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 It was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through it, and without it was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 It was in the world, and the world was made through it, yet the world did not know it.
Joh 1:11 It came to its own, and its own people did not receive it.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive it, who believed in its name, it gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Please explain how that makes sense, since that is what John is saying if the Word is an "it," as you claim.

 

[jocor]

So, looking at this full context then, let's write it out the way you think it should be written and see if it makes sense:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 It was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through it, and without it was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 It was in the world, and the world was made through it, yet the world did not know it.
Joh 1:11 It came to its own, and its own people did not receive it.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive it, who believed in its name, it gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Please explain how that makes sense, since that is what John is saying if the Word is an "it," as you claim.

That is your assumption of how you think I think it should be written. Here is how I actually believe it should be written:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that word, and that word was with God, and what God was the word was.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And that light shined in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of that light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.
Joh 1:9 This was that true light, which lights every man that comes into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him: and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name.
Joh 1:13 Which are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And that word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw the glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) full of grace and truth.

There is a break in time between verses 5 & 6. Verse 6 takes places thousands of years later when John came on the scene to bear witness of the word made flesh.

 

[Free]

That is your assumption of how you think I think it should be written. Here is how I actually believe it should be written:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that word, and that word was with God, and what God was the word was.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
Joh 1:4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And that light shined in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of that light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.
Joh 1:9 This was that true light, which lights every man that comes into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him: and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name.
Joh 1:13 Which are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And that word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw the glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) full of grace and truth.

There is a break in time between verses 5 & 6. Verse 6 takes places thousands of years later when John came on the scene to bear witness of the word made flesh.

But you can't say it that way:

Your verse 10--He was in the world, and the world was made through him: and the world knew him not.--does not agree with your verse 3: All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

Was it a "he" or an "it" that made the world? Not to mention, John 1:10 is speaking of time before his incarnation. This is a significant problem for you.

 

[rthom7]

Jocor , you do not believe in the Holy Spirit either as a co-eternal Being.

Job 33:4 The Holy Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

This is a parallel saying the Holy Spirit is a simile of function as the SHADDAY is. The Shadday is a NAMED being.
The Father is named as ELOAH. They both function act as parents...notice this verse

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, (SHADDAY)
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: (ELOAH)
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

When something is born "gennao" or "yalad" it requires two functional beings, and the power of the highest refers to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is referenced as another co-eternal Being....

You say that God cannot die, and Jesus died so cannot be fully God....what do you mean by die ?
If life is the empowerment of GOD into human flesh, than the removal of GOD from human flesh causes our death.
Jesus was a very different kind of human flesh, he was both GOD and human at the same time...
How do I know this ? Because when His human flesh died, Jesus flesh did not decay...


Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 

[rthom7]

Jocor , you do not believe in the Holy Spirit either as a co-eternal Being.

Job 33:4 The Holy Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

This is a parallel saying the Holy Spirit is a simile of function as the SHADDAY is. The Shadday is a NAMED being.
The Father is named as ELOAH. They both function act as parents...notice this verse

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, (SHADDAY)
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: (ELOAH)
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

When something is born "gennao" or "yalad" it requires two functional beings, and the power of the highest refers to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is referenced as another co-eternal Being....

You say that God cannot die, and Jesus died so cannot be fully God....what do you mean by die ?
If life is the empowerment of GOD into human flesh, than the removal of GOD from human flesh causes our death.
Jesus was a very different kind of human flesh, he was both GOD and human at the same time...
How do I know this ? Because when His human flesh died, Jesus flesh did not decay...


Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

 

[jocor]

But you can't say it that way:

Your verse 10--He was in the world, and the world was made through him: and the world knew him not.--does not agree with your verse 3: All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

Was it a "he" or an "it" that made the world? Not to mention, John 1:10 is speaking of time before his incarnation. This is a significant problem for you.

A "He" made the worlds. His name is YHWH. He made the worlds "through" His word and "through" His Son. The worlds were made/created by Yahweh through speaking them into existence for the purpose of fulfilling His preordained plan of salvation.

 

[jocor]

Jocor , you do not believe in the Holy Spirit either as a co-eternal Being.

Job 33:4 The Holy Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

This is a parallel saying the Holy Spirit is a simile of function as the SHADDAY is. The Shadday is a NAMED being.
The Father is named as ELOAH. They both function act as parents...notice this verse

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, (SHADDAY)
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: (ELOAH)
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

When something is born "gennao" or "yalad" it requires two functional beings, and the power of the highest refers to the Father, while the Holy Spirit is referenced as another co-eternal Being....

You say that God cannot die, and Jesus died so cannot be fully God....what do you mean by die ?
If life is the empowerment of GOD into human flesh, than the removal of GOD from human flesh causes our death.
Jesus was a very different kind of human flesh, he was both GOD and human at the same time...
How do I know this ? Because when His human flesh died, Jesus flesh did not decay...


Ps 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

I agree Job 33:4 is a parallel. By making them two separate beings, you break the parallel. The Holy Spirit of God is God's power. It is not separate from God. El Shadday is simply a title for God/YHWH. It is not the name of a separate being.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, (YHWH's power)
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: (YHWH's power)
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (YHWH, not Son of the Holy Spirit).

Two functional beings are required for a human birth. Yahweh does not require "another co-eternal being". All He required was His mighty power and Miriam. They are the two functional beings. You are trying to add a third being into the mix.

By "die" I mean cease to exist as a living being. The breath of life left Yeshua causing him to no longer be part of the land of the living. YHWH (the Father) cannot die. He cannot cease to exist as a living being.

Yeshua's flesh did not decay because he was God, but because God (his Father) prevented it. YHWH would not allow it (suffer it as Psalm 16:10b says).

 

[Free]

A "He" made the worlds. His name is YHWH. He made the worlds "through" His word and "through" His Son. The worlds were made/created by Yahweh through speaking them into existence for the purpose of fulfilling His preordained plan of salvation.

Sorry, but no. Again, that does not at all fit the context.

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)

Clearly, the "He" in verse 10 is "The true light, which...was coming into the world." This most certainly is not talking about the Father. We read here in verses 6-8 that John the Baptist "came as a witness, to bear witness about the light." We then read in verses 23-43 that he is testifying about Jesus.

Notice what John the Baptist says:

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.' (ESV)

This is even already given in verse 15. We learn in Luke 1 that John was conceived before Jesus, yet John clearly states that Jesus was before him.

So we have even more evidence that is consistent with everything I have said about John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16. The most important question we need to answer is, "Who do you say that I am?" John gives us the answer in his prologue. The whole point of his prologue is to tells us who the Son of God is, and in doing so, reveals that he is God himself, come in human flesh to dwell among us.

 

[rthom7]

I agree Job 33:4 is a parallel. By making them two separate beings, you break the parallel. The Holy Spirit of God is God's power. It is not separate from God. El Shadday is simply a title for God/YHWH. It is not the name of a separate being.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, (YHWH's power)
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: (YHWH's power)
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (YHWH, not Son of the Holy Spirit).

Two functional beings are required for a human birth. Yahweh does not require "another co-eternal being". All He required was His mighty power and Miriam. They are the two functional beings. You are trying to add a third being into the mix.

By "die" I mean cease to exist as a living being. The breath of life left Yeshua causing him to no longer be part of the land of the living. YHWH (the Father) cannot die. He cannot cease to exist as a living being.

Yeshua's flesh did not decay because he was God, but because God (his Father) prevented it. YHWH would not allow it (suffer it as Psalm 16:10b says).

Sure Jocor, I can understand your theory of faith, making Eloah and Shadday as parallels of the same Being, the YHWH, that is a different theory of faith to mine and I have considered it. At least I admire you for reading your Bible as sola scriptoria, in the end of time people follow tradition of humans only.

Tell me how does YHWH uphold human choice for dysfunction or function, without destroying us? For the Father is pure and holy and we would cease to exist in the direct presence of His love and power?

You see YHWH is light, and light regardless how small in quantity still would destroy those living in darkness. How does the Father's light uphold dysfunction without destroying those who choose to live in that light?

Albert Einstein is said to have posed a question to a professor, that darkness does not exit, it is the absence of light
that cold does not exist, it is the absence of heat
that evil does not exist, it is the ability for man to live with lesser amounts of God's power in their lives.

Thus we all live under God whether we choose run towards Him or away from Him...my question is how does YHWH supply that power flow to us without destroying us ?

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1033.htm Consider this link about the Medium....

You might say the YHWH omnipresence function (the SHadday and thus the Holy Spirit) acts as a medium, and your right, but it has to be a personal Being, because when a man changes by choice the power flow of function/dysfunction in his /her life, how does a passive medium make the change? It can't ? Only an active personal medium can, hence the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal Being lives inn every living person as a medium, enabling us to change that flow if we want to change it....that's why the Holy Spirit is called a Comforter because it is a real Being....

SHalom

 

[Free]

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1033.htm Consider this link about the Medium....

You might say the YHWH omnipresence function (the SHadday and thus the Holy Spirit) acts as a medium, and your right, but it has to be a personal Being, because when a man changes by choice the power flow of function/dysfunction in his /her life, how does a passive medium make the change? It can't ? Only an active personal medium can, hence the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal Being lives inn every living person as a medium, enabling us to change that flow if we want to change it....that's why the Holy Spirit is called a Comforter because it is a real Being....

In that link, there are some significant problems. The first problem that wind is not a medium--air is a medium and wind is movement of that air. From there the whole thing gets off on the wrong foot. Secondly, it risks reducing the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force. Thirdly, it could cause confusion with human mediums, those of the occult, as though the Holy Spirit were merely some channel. This, too, could reduce the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force. Fourthly, I am quite certain that ruwach does not mean '"Holy Spirit" in all contexts of Scripture.' Lastly, and certainly not least, it just goes way too far into speculation, far past Scripture.

 

[rthom7]

In that link, there are some significant problems. The first problem that wind is not a medium--air is a medium and wind is movement of that air. From there the whole thing gets off on the wrong foot. Secondly, it risks reducing the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force. Thirdly, it could cause confusion with human mediums, those of the occult, as though the Holy Spirit were merely some channel. This, too, could reduce the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force. Fourthly, I am quite certain that ruwach does not mean '"Holy Spirit" in all contexts of Scripture.' Lastly, and certainly not least, it just goes way too far into speculation, far past Scripture.

Greetings Free, our staff member, welcome, and thanks for being the first person to read one of my links....well I could be wrong after all being a science teacher for many years, it is possible that one can make mistakes....

Air is technically called a media in which the medium affect is observed, and the media affect of air moving is known as wind. When you say air is a medium and wind is movement of that air, aren't you saying the same thing as I am saying? Can you help me reword the statement perhaps?

For example when you use a magnifying glass, the light enters and leaves the glass and we see a magnified image....what scientific name do we use to describe the reason for the magnified image ? The air and the glass are two different media which affect the movement of the light, thus making the image affect....is not the whole affect known as a Medium effect?

Similarly the air is a media in which mechanical energy moves in the media, but the air does not move with the mechanical energy, only enough to propagate the pulse of the energy wave which we call wind. What scientific word do we use to describe the overall affect here ?

A medium is only impersonal as a medium if it is passive as a channel, but the Holy Spirit is not impersonal but active as a medium, the only analogy of an active medium in Science is the electron microscope in which the focal length can be changed to any focus required and is adjusted by a Scientist. Thus while the medium is a channel for communication, it is also administrated by a living personal Being.

Sure I understand the medium can also be for occult means, how else do you explain the "evil Spirit of Saul" ? If people choose to be dysfunctional how is that choice sustained except through the powers of God? That does not make GOD the author of evil, even if all things are made observable through GOD.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This verse only makes sense if you explain GOD functions as a Medium. Otherwise some agnostics could rightly say God creates evil.

Your suggestion that every context of ruwach does not reference Holy Spirit, is noted, do you have any verses where secular context (ie ordinary wind) might be referenced rather than Holy Spirit (ie extra-ordinary wind)?

Mr 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

This verse does not reference wind as "pneumia or ruwach" , only ordinary wind.


Ps 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Who is this that creates character(a simile of wind or spirit) in us as the second birth ?

Ps 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

Only the Holy Spirit creates our new character in us, but is this not empowered through the merits of Jesus?

If you reduce the word "ruwach" to wind, these verses in Psalm 51:10-11 make no sense for the second birth cannot be explained anywhere in Scripture except here, it is a creative process by the Holy Spirit, thus "ruwach" in verse 10 is a reference
to the Holy Spirit who administrates our "wind" or "character".

Hope this helps clarify a little ?
Shalom

 

[jocor]

my question is how does YHWH supply that power flow to us without destroying us ?

http://spiritualsprings.org/ss-1033.htm Consider this link about the Medium....

You might say the YHWH omnipresence function (the SHadday and thus the Holy Spirit) acts as a medium, and your right, but it has to be a personal Being, because when a man changes by choice the power flow of function/dysfunction in his /her life, how does a passive medium make the change? It can't ? Only an active personal medium can, hence the Holy Spirit as a co-eternal Being lives inn every living person as a medium, enabling us to change that flow if we want to change it....that's why the Holy Spirit is called a Comforter because it is a real Being....

SHalom

YHWH is a spirit being. He has the ability to place a portion of His Spirit within a believer, but He doesn't give us more than we can handle. The "active personal medium" is the Father and the Son living in us.

 

[rthom7]

YHWH is a spirit being. He has the ability to place a portion of His Spirit within a believer, but He doesn't give us more than we can handle. The "active personal medium" is the Father and the Son living in us.

Greetings Jocor I can accept your theory of faith, and it makes sense, and if you include poetry parallels, we have two different theories of faith both supported by Scripture....apparently....

(my theory of faith) = Father (Eloah) and Holy Spirit (Shadday) are two personal Beings
(your theory of faith) = Father (expresses two functional descriptors, the Eloah and the Shadday)

Tell me why is elohiym plural, ie plural term expressing singularity?
and why does "echad" also mean plural entities but also expressing singularity? ie unity or parts.
and if Elohiym is both male and female, why the need to make two entities when elohiym made mankind in the image of elohiym? Gender male and gender female? After all earthworms can make themselves either gender as the need arises?
and why the need to make families for mankind. Does this not teach us that love requires sharing? Who does Elohiym share love to if their is only one Being?
and how does Jesus the son of Elohiym fit into your faith? Is Jesus a Creator like Elohiym is ?

Appreciate some answers Jocor, any single theory of faith has other elements to support them, as I have shown here. Shalom

 

[jocor]

Tell me why is elohiym plural, ie plural term expressing singularity?

Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Exodus 12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh." Its singular sense can be seen in1 Samuel 5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god” and2 Kings 1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Dagon and Baal-zebub are not plural beings.

I believe that when “elohim” is used in a singular sense, it is the plural of majesty or intensity, not of number.

and why does "echad" also mean plural entities but also expressing singularity? ie unity or parts.

Echad does not mean “plural entities”. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Numbers 7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Genesis 2:1- one rib and Daniel 9:27- one week.

In Mark 12:28-34, when asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 41:25. There we see two people becoming ONE flesh and two dreams having ONE meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two Yahweh's became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's.

and if Elohiym is both male and female, why the need to make two entities when elohiym made mankind in the image of elohiym? Gender male and gender female? After all earthworms can make themselves either gender as the need arises?

Elohim is a masculine noun. It seems to me the anything feminine is being assumed. Do you have any solid evidence that it is both masculine and feminine?

and why the need to make families for mankind. Does this not teach us that love requires sharing? Who does Elohiym share love to if their is only one Being?

He shares love with His creation. For God so loved the world … All the blessings every person, including unbelievers, receives is YHWH sharing His love for us.

and how does Jesus the son of Elohiym fit into your faith? Is Jesus a Creator like Elohiym is?

Yeshua is my Master and Savior. I am hopelessly lost without him. Through him I am justified, sanctified, saved and soon to be glorified via my resurrection in him.

I do not believe Yeshua is our Creator, but I am not permitted to discuss that openly on this forum. If you want to discuss it privately, just let me know.

 

[JLB]

Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Exodus 12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh." Its singular sense can be seen in1 Samuel 5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god” and2 Kings 1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Dagon and Baal-zebub are not plural beings.

I believe that when “elohim” is used in a singular sense, it is the plural of majesty or intensity, not of number.



Echad does not mean “plural entities”. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Numbers 7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Genesis 2:1- one rib and Daniel 9:27- one week.

In Mark 12:28-34, when asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 41:25. There we see two people becoming ONE flesh and two dreams having ONE meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two Yahweh's became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's.



Elohim is a masculine noun. It seems to me the anything feminine is being assumed. Do you have any solid evidence that it is both masculine and feminine?



He shares love with His creation. For God so loved the world … All the blessings every person, including unbelievers, receives is YHWH sharing His love for us.



Yeshua is my Master and Savior. I am hopelessly lost without him. Through him I am justified, sanctified, saved and soon to be glorified via my resurrection in him.

I do not believe Yeshua is our Creator, but I am not permitted to discuss that openly on this forum. If you want to discuss it privately, just let me know.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Yeshua is my Master and Savior.

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:

 

[Free]

and why does "echad" also mean plural entities but also expressing singularity? ie unity or parts.

Echad does not mean “plural entities”. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Numbers 7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Genesis 2:1- one rib and Daniel 9:27- one week.

In Mark 12:28-34, when asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 41:25. There we see two people becoming ONE flesh and two dreams having ONE meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two Yahweh's became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's.

Just a point of clarification for both of you: echad simply means "one," just as does in English, and can refer to either a compound unity--"the two shall become one flesh" or "one nation under God"--or an absolute unity. In the case of the Shema, it tells us nothing other than that there is one God; it is a statement of monotheism, not the nature of God, and as such neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, although it does allow for it.

Yeshua is my Master and Savior. I am hopelessly lost without him. Through him I am justified, sanctified, saved and soon to be glorified via my resurrection in him.

I do not believe Yeshua is our Creator, but I am not permitted to discuss that openly on this forum. If you want to discuss it privately, just let me know.

If Jesus isn't God, there is no salvation.

 

[rthom7]

Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Exodus 12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Yahweh." Its singular sense can be seen in1 Samuel 5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god” and2 Kings 1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Dagon and Baal-zebub are not plural beings.

I believe that when “elohim” is used in a singular sense, it is the plural of majesty or intensity, not of number.



Echad does not mean “plural entities”. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note Numbers 7:13-82 where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also Genesis 2:1- one rib and Daniel 9:27- one week.

In Mark 12:28-34, when asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that Yahweh is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 41:25. There we see two people becoming ONE flesh and two dreams having ONE meaning. The key here is that two become one. In the Shema, we only see one individual, Yahweh, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two Yahweh's became one." In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two Yahweh's.



Elohim is a masculine noun. It seems to me the anything feminine is being assumed. Do you have any solid evidence that it is both masculine and feminine?



He shares love with His creation. For God so loved the world … All the blessings every person, including unbelievers, receives is YHWH sharing His love for us.



Yeshua is my Master and Savior. I am hopelessly lost without him. Through him I am justified, sanctified, saved and soon to be glorified via my resurrection in him.

I do not believe Yeshua is our Creator, but I am not permitted to discuss that openly on this forum. If you want to discuss it privately, just let me know.

Much of what you mention Jocor makes sense and is interesting...you have a good understanding of faith and salvation in Jesus...the little details do not matter that much....

Most of us seeing this picture Jocor would see they are many trees....that's our Greek thinking...
but in Hebrew thought, they would see this as a single tree in the plural sense, a "large tree of many trunks"....
From my understanding of trying to understand Hebrew as thought to me by Jeff Benner, we have a lot to learn regarding the Hebrew words in our Bibles..... When the Bible speaks of Elohiym, it is a plural term expressing singularity. This makes no sense in our English mind, just like the picture, this is a single tree, not many trees, even though many trunks of the same tree are here....

Anyway it doesn't matter much how we view GOD as long as we are found loving Him and experiencing the salvation found in Jesus....Shalom

 

[jocor]

If Jesus isn't God, there is no salvation.

If Yeshua is the Son of God, there is salvation.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.