Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Johann]

Bs"d

I invested enough time and energy in you.

It's time you show me where your assumptions are to be found in the Tanach and in dictionaries. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

I said, quote both echad and yachid in GENESIS the first chapter--this is not a Drash,
PaRDeS, ּשָׁט – Peshat, רֶמֶז – Remez or סוֹד – Sod.

And to kick it of-is Elohim Singular or Plural?

 

[Eliyahu613]

I said, quote both echad and yachid in GENESIS the first chapter--this is not a Drash,
PaRDeS, ּשָׁט – Peshat, רֶמֶז – Remez or סוֹד – Sod.

Bs"d

Go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

And to kick it of-is Elohim Singular or Plural?

Here is what a Christian said about that:

Elohim and Echad​

Loading…

torahofmessiah.org

A typical example of the many word games Trinitarians and others use as they endeavor to promote their false god.​

Adapted from The Journal of Hebraic Renewal, which reprinted it from Focus on the Kingdom magazine.​

​

To support the commonly held teaching that God is a plural entity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit [1], Messianics that follow the primary Traditional Christian doctrines from which they came, as well as Traditional Christians, themselves, will appeal to two Hebrew words: Elohim (eloheem) and echad (echad, "ch" as in the Scottish "loch"). They assert that the Hebrew word, Elohim, indicates that God is a plural entity because it is the plural form of the word for God and is the title most often used for the God of Israel. Echad - used in the well-known "shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4 instructing Israel that their God is "one" - is asserted by them to show the plurality of God because, they say echad in the Hebrew actually indicates a compound, rather than an absolute, unity; that is, rather than a "simple" one, they say echad indicates a unity of more than one.


Each claim will now be examined.

Elohim​

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah and appears closely related to El, which usually means "god", "God", or "mighty one". But IF we were right to translate Elohim as a plural word, the Bible would teach us that in the beginning, "Gods" created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Bible would then support the idea that more than one God created the universe, spoke to Abraham, delivered Israel from bondage and continued dealing with them, etc., since Elohim is used throughout the Tanakh ("Old" Testament) as Israel's God(s). But virtually no Christian - Messianic or otherwise - would profess that there is more than one God.


So, how do we resolve this dilemma? And why do all the translations translate Elohim simply as "God" and not "Gods" when it refers to the true God?


In Biblical Hebrew, a noun that is plural in form is not necessarily plural in meaning - a fact most Messianic leaders realize, yet seem to ignore. For instance, the Hebrew words chayim (chayeem, "life") [2] and panim (paneem, "face", "presence", "countenance") [3] are plural in form, but almost always singular in meaning. Another word, adon, "lord", "master", [4] is often plural in form. In its plural form it is sometimes used of a single person - Abraham (Gen. 24:9-10), Joseph (Gen. 42:30,33), the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1) and an anonymous "fierce king" under whose rule the Egyptians were prophesied to come (Isa. 19:4, NRSV). There are instances of other plural Hebrew words employed in the Hebrew Bible with singular meaning.


Equally striking is the fact that the same term, elohim, is used of the individual false gods of Israel's surrounding nations. Elohim is used of Dagon, the god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jud. 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33); of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the god(dess) of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33); of Milcom, another god of the Ammorites (1 Kings 11:33). In Smith's Bible Dictionary (NISBE) no plurality in any one of these gods is even hinted at. Additionally, in Ezra's prayer in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by Israel in the wilderness.


Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as elohim [5].


What all this indicates is that in Biblical Hebrew, plural nouns in general and Elohim in particular do not always have plural meanings. In the case of the word Elohim, in fact, it would appear as though we should almost always understand it as singular in meaning unless the context indicates that "gods" are referred to.


Hebrew scholars are entirely familiar with these facts (as are Christianized Messianic leaders). The expressions "plural of majesty" or "plural of rank" or "intensive plural" are sometimes used to describe this phenomenon of language (not just Hebrew) where the form of a word can be plural but its meaning is singular. The idea is that the plural stresses or exalts the importance of the person referred to. The following is a quotation regarding Elohim from the NISBE, in their article on "God, Names of":

The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called the plural of majesty or the intensive plural because it implies that all the fullness of deity is concentrated in the one god. Elohim's being the most common word for God in the Tanakh thus conveys this idea. (Vol. 2, p. 505).

Smith's Bible Dictionary has this to say on the same subject in their article entitled "God":

The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God (p. 220).

But by no means is YHWH ever referred to by plural forms. In fact, whenever the people of God speak of Him in the Hebrew Bible using a pronoun, they ALWAYS employ the singular form. Whether it is the third person (He, Him, His) or the second person (You, Your, Thou, Thy) this is the case. The people of God understood their God to be a single Individual. [6]


Nor is He only referred to in the plural when "God" is the translated word. Two forms referred to above, El and Eloah used in the Tanakh to refer to the true God, are both singular in form. [7] When an Aramaic word for God, Elah, is used, it too appears to be always in its singular form when referring to the true God. [8]


The form of the verb used in Hebrew when Elohim the true God is the subject is also instructive. It is virtually always singular in form throughout the Tanakh. In Genesis 1, for example - where the reader is first introduced to Elohim the Creator - the Hebrew verb form is always in the third masculine singular whenever [9] we read that "Elohim created" or "Elohim said" or "Elohim made", etc. [10]

 

[Eliyahu613]

Finally, the Septuagint (known as "LXX"), the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (probably translated in the third and second century B.C.E.) ALWAYS translated the Hebrew word for God in the singular (Gr. theos). The LXX version of the Old Testament is often cited in the New Testament instead of the Hebrew. [11]


Therefore - returning to the original argument (which usually includes the "Let us..." statement in Gen. 1:26) - if God must be regarded as a plural entity because He is referred to in a plural form, why then must He not be regarded as a singular entity since He is referred to in singular forms? Are not all these statements Holy Scripture? We could be left with a contradiction were it not for the many examples of plural forms with singular meanings in Hebrew, including the concept of "plural of majesty". The plural of majesty clarifies the usage of the plural form for the true God in the Tanakh. He is described by thousands and thousands of singular verbs and pronouns. Language has no more definite way of telling us that God is ONE Person, the Father of Yeshua - but definitely NOT Yeshua!


As a final proof, note the Messianic 22nd Psalm. I will quote from only a portion of this Psalm which, when read using common sense, CLEARLY shows that Yeshua (the prophetic focus of this Psalm) refers to God (Elohim and El) as HIS God (Elohim). I will include in parenthesis the Hebrew word translated as "God."

Psalm 22:1,2,101 My God (El), my God (El), why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? 2 O my God (Elohim), I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. ... 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God (El) from my mother's belly.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
This single quote from Psalms - and there are other Messianic verses which present the same proof - PROVES that Yeshua is NOT God (Elohim), since he (Yeshua) refers to the ONE, True God as HIS Elohim! Verse 10 also proves how Yeshua worshipped the same God we should worship from his birth! Thus, since Yeshua very clearly referred to the God HE WORSHIPPED as Elohim, the term Elohim cannot possibly refer to Yeshua in the sense of making him God!

Echad​

The other main argument from the Hebrew used to teach that God is a "plural" entity is that the Hebrew word echad in the shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 means, not a simple "one", but rather a "compound unity" of one, a "togetherness". Those who teach this will often also teach than there is a different word for a "simple" one, yachid, so that the absence of this word in Deuteronomy 6:4 is, apparently to them, significant.


First, it should be noted that when one learns the Hebrew numbers, it is echad, not yachid, that is the Hebrew for the number "one": echad is one, shenayim is two, shalosh is three, arba is four, etc. Any Hebrew grammar book, whether of Biblical or modern Hebrew, would demonstrate that echad, not yachid, is the everyday Hebrew word for the numeral "one".


And when one looks in the Tanakh itself at the frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a simple one. Echad is used over 900 times in the Hebrew Bible, making it the most frequently used adjective in the Tanakh. Here are some examples of its usage where the word "one" is translated from echad: "one place" (Gen. 1:9); "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (1 Sam. 1:24); "one went out into the field" (11 Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek. 37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or two" (Ezra 10:13).


Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad + 'asar, one plus ten), in , for example Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is as well translated by an indefinite article (a[n]): "a new cart" (1 Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (1 Kings 19:4,5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).


Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of single, alone, ONLY one, or JUST one, the ideal of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11; Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to translate echad merely as "one". For if the "one" witness referred to is the second of the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to death of the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates it). Echad means "one" and ONLY one.

 

[Eliyahu613]

Some make the argument that because echad is used in passages such as Gen. 1:5 (evening and morning were "day one [echad]", or "first day"), Gen. 2:24 (a husband and wife shall be "one" flesh) and Ezek. 37:17 (two sticks are to become "one" stick), echad is therefore meant to be understood as some kind of a compound unity. To begin with, such examples make up but a very small minority of the uses of echad, the vast majority being of the variety listed above. It is improper exegesis to define a word on the basis of a small percentage of its usage. But even this extreme minority of usage does not mean that echad actually has a different meaning than a simply one in these passages. In Gen. 1:5, "day" is the word that has "parts" to it (i.e., "evening" and "morning" make up the day), not echad. In Gen. 2:24, "flesh" acts as the collective noun (what the man and the woman as comprise together). [12] The key factor in all such passages - a factor missing from Deut. 6:4 - is that two or more "parts" are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of "coming together" of the people or things mentioned, usually for just one purpose or goal. Echad, in fact, must maintain its meaning of "just one" for these expressions to convey their intended sense. To make our point clear: Deut. 6:4 does not say, "YHWH our God, though three (or two or whatever plural number you like), is one." There is no hint of "coming together" here. The verse says that YHWH our God is plainly, simply, one.


Once again, scholarship is in agreement. The Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon, the standard Hebrew lexicon of the Bible used in seminaries, list eight ways echad is used - e.g. meaning "each/every," or "a certain," or "only," etc. - but there is no mention or hint in the entire echad article that echad ever means any kind of compound unity. [13] And the "echad" article in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament also nowhere teaches that echad implies a compound unity. It says that Deuteronomy 6:4 is essentially saying that YHWH is the one and only God for Israel (Vol. I p. 196).


Yachid, on the other hand, is a very rarely used word in the Tanakh, and it is employed in a special sense when it is used. It is found a grand total of 12 times in the entire Tanakh, three of those times in the same passage (Gen.22, referring to Isaac as Abraham's "only" son), so virtually any argument based on its absence from a Bible text is necessarily weak. Its meaning is restricted to a unique, priceless possession, whether a person or thing (Isaac in Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; one's soul - lit. "only one" - in Ps. 22:20(21), 35:17); or to solitary, desolate, isolated or lonely people (Ps. 25:16, 68:6(7)). There is a "neediness" seen in all that yachid applies to in the Tanakh. YHWH our God is not dependent on anyone. Based on Biblical usage, therefore, it would be entirely inappropriate to use yachid as an adjective for God for any reason.

Conclusion​

In conclusion, neither the word Elohim nor the word echad supports the notion of a plurality in God. The plural form Elohim when used of God does not have to mean a plural entity. In Hebrew, plural forms can be singular in meaning. this is sometimes referred to as a plural of majesty or plural of rank. The very term elohim is used of single, foreign gods and of the Messiah. But YHWH is, in fact, always referred to by grammatically singular forms and used with verbs in the singular (even when the plural form Elohim is the subject). Finally, the Greek Old Testament, sometimes quoted in the New Testament, always translates the term for God - whether the Hebrew word is singular or plural - in the singular Greek form.


Echad, rather than being any kind of support for a plural God, teaches the opposite. It means "one" and "only one." God is one.

Final Word​

It seems clear that the sole reason for these arguments attempting to teach a plural God from the Tanakh is a desire among many Christians and Christian originated Messianics to find Old Testament substantiation for the concept of the Trinity or some other form of plural God. But of course, that is no way to proceed in a Bible study. We must accept the definitions which the words reveal about themselves and how they are used in the Bible text, not what we would like them to mean. May God help us to accept what the Scripture has to say about who the true God is. "Yahweh our God is one single Person" (cp. Paul in Gal. 3:20: "God is only One Person," Amplified Version).

 

[Johann]

Bs"d

Go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.




Here is what a Christian said about that:

Elohim and Echad​

Loading…

torahofmessiah.org

A typical example of the many word games Trinitarians and others use as they endeavor to promote their false god.​

​

Adapted from The Journal of Hebraic Renewal, which reprinted it from Focus on the Kingdom magazine.​

To support the commonly held teaching that God is a plural entity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit [1], Messianics that follow the primary Traditional Christian doctrines from which they came, as well as Traditional Christians, themselves, will appeal to two Hebrew words: Elohim (eloheem) and echad (echad, "ch" as in the Scottish "loch"). They assert that the Hebrew word, Elohim, indicates that God is a plural entity because it is the plural form of the word for God and is the title most often used for the God of Israel. Echad - used in the well-known "shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4 instructing Israel that their God is "one" - is asserted by them to show the plurality of God because, they say echad in the Hebrew actually indicates a compound, rather than an absolute, unity; that is, rather than a "simple" one, they say echad indicates a unity of more than one.


Each claim will now be examined.

Elohim​

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah and appears closely related to El, which usually means "god", "God", or "mighty one". But IF we were right to translate Elohim as a plural word, the Bible would teach us that in the beginning, "Gods" created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Bible would then support the idea that more than one God created the universe, spoke to Abraham, delivered Israel from bondage and continued dealing with them, etc., since Elohim is used throughout the Tanakh ("Old" Testament) as Israel's God(s). But virtually no Christian - Messianic or otherwise - would profess that there is more than one God.


So, how do we resolve this dilemma? And why do all the translations translate Elohim simply as "God" and not "Gods" when it refers to the true God?


In Biblical Hebrew, a noun that is plural in form is not necessarily plural in meaning - a fact most Messianic leaders realize, yet seem to ignore. For instance, the Hebrew words chayim (chayeem, "life") [2] and panim (paneem, "face", "presence", "countenance") [3] are plural in form, but almost always singular in meaning. Another word, adon, "lord", "master", [4] is often plural in form. In its plural form it is sometimes used of a single person - Abraham (Gen. 24:9-10), Joseph (Gen. 42:30,33), the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1) and an anonymous "fierce king" under whose rule the Egyptians were prophesied to come (Isa. 19:4, NRSV). There are instances of other plural Hebrew words employed in the Hebrew Bible with singular meaning.


Equally striking is the fact that the same term, elohim, is used of the individual false gods of Israel's surrounding nations. Elohim is used of Dagon, the god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jud. 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33); of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the god(dess) of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33); of Milcom, another god of the Ammorites (1 Kings 11:33). In Smith's Bible Dictionary (NISBE) no plurality in any one of these gods is even hinted at. Additionally, in Ezra's prayer in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by Israel in the wilderness.


Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as elohim [5].


What all this indicates is that in Biblical Hebrew, plural nouns in general and Elohim in particular do not always have plural meanings. In the case of the word Elohim, in fact, it would appear as though we should almost always understand it as singular in meaning unless the context indicates that "gods" are referred to.


Hebrew scholars are entirely familiar with these facts (as are Christianized Messianic leaders). The expressions "plural of majesty" or "plural of rank" or "intensive plural" are sometimes used to describe this phenomenon of language (not just Hebrew) where the form of a word can be plural but its meaning is singular. The idea is that the plural stresses or exalts the importance of the person referred to. The following is a quotation regarding Elohim from the NISBE, in their article on "God, Names of":




Smith's Bible Dictionary has this to say on the same subject in their article entitled "God":




But by no means is YHWH ever referred to by plural forms. In fact, whenever the people of God speak of Him in the Hebrew Bible using a pronoun, they ALWAYS employ the singular form. Whether it is the third person (He, Him, His) or the second person (You, Your, Thou, Thy) this is the case. The people of God understood their God to be a single Individual. [6]


Nor is He only referred to in the plural when "God" is the translated word. Two forms referred to above, El and Eloah used in the Tanakh to refer to the true God, are both singular in form. [7] When an Aramaic word for God, Elah, is used, it too appears to be always in its singular form when referring to the true God. [8]


The form of the verb used in Hebrew when Elohim the true God is the subject is also instructive. It is virtually always singular in form throughout the Tanakh. In Genesis 1, for example - where the reader is first introduced to Elohim the Creator - the Hebrew verb form is always in the third masculine singular whenever [9] we read that "Elohim created" or "Elohim said" or "Elohim made", etc. [10]

You are barking-and a master already in copy and pasting, selectively-that ELOHIM=HASHAMAYIM is now Singular-you walked into this snare with your eyes wide open.
Would you like what Tovia Singer is saying-an Orthodox Jew, debunking all our Scriptures, Christ Jesus, His death and resurrection and the virgin birth-on elohim?

For your information-we are not allowed to speak on the topic of the Triune God on this platform

 

[Eliyahu613]

You are barking-and a master already in copy and pasting, selectively-that ELOHIM=HASHAMAYIM is now Singular-you walked into this snare with your eyes wide open.

Bs"d

Interesting. I don't see any snare. Please explain.

Would you like what Tovia Singer is saying-an Orthodox Jew, debunking all our Scriptures, Christ Jesus, His death and resurrection and the virgin birth-on elohim?

You want to talk about the virgin birth?

For your information-we are not allowed to speak on the topic of the Triune God on this platform

That's weird. Why do you think that is?

 

[Matthias]

That's weird.

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, the age is coming when no one anywhere ever will again.

Why do you think that is?

Board policy.

Thread 'Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB'
Policy - Topics That Can No-Longer Be Discussed at CyB

 

[Eliyahu613]

So the Jews recognize God as Jesus’ father? Since it’s not Joseph?

Bs"d

Well, there are many more choices than only God or Joseph.

How about she was raped by a Roman soldier?

 

[Eliyahu613]

I don't need or want your sympathy. Despite your ‘unbelief’ being supposedly supported by the facts, and 52 years of honest study and the input of hundreds of Rabbis, Hebrew scholars, and the clear language of OT Messianic prophesy, you are clearly deluded. Do a study on the Pharisees and Sadducees if you want further understanding about how you (and they) have missed the Messiah.

Bs"d

MANY people have claimed to be the messiah.

Non of them has fulfilled the messianic prophecies, so that's how we know that the real messiah has not come yet.

It really is as simple as that.

 

[Johann]

Echad​

The other main argument from the Hebrew used to teach that God is a "plural"

 

[Johann]

Question 1
"Jesus said `I and the Father are one." John 10:30

Meherally argues that this means that Jesus is not equal in status with God the Father.

Answer 1
The first point Meherally makes in trying to disprove the equality of the Son of God and God the Father is to do with the Greek word for `one' which not surprisingly works against him, let us consider the point he makes.

In Greek, `heis' means one numerically (arabic equivalent Ahad, hebrew Yachid)

`hen' means one in unity or essence (arabic Wahid, hebrew Eschad)

If Meherally wanted to argue against Jesus' equality with the Father then the word for one that would have been required was `heis' to indicate a numerical oneness of the unity discounting any indication of a compound unity that allows for more than one person to exist within the unity, and would negate any argument against having a plurality of persons within the unity.

But, Meherally correctly points out that `hen' is the word used by Jesus Christ in this verse, this is a strong proof for the plurality of God as the one represents a plural unity of the one God. So the three persons revealed to us by the Bible are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19) existing in the one God, which agrees with the way that God is described in the Bible as being one, `hen' in Greek, which is used to describe the oneness of God in the New Testament , `echad' in Hebrew, which is used to describe the oneness of God in the Old Testament.

There is absolutely no indication that there is inequality between the Lord Jesus Christ the eternal Word of God and God the Father.

This is exemplified by the next verse in which Meherally tries to use as a further proof to disprove the Lord Jesus Christ's equality with the Father.

`Jesus said, "And the glory which Thou (God the Father) hast given me, I have given to them (disciples); that they maybe one, just as we are one."' John 17:22

Meherally argues that this verse makes the claim that Jesus and the Father and the disciples are all God, it is hard to find where he produces such reasoning. Let use consider the verse which has two points to it;

1.That the disciples although different people can be united as being one.

2.In the same way Jesus Christ and God the Father are united as being one.

Jesus Christ's prayer to his Father is a prayer that the disciples may have perfect unity in the one Church as Jesus Christ and God the Father are on in a perfect unity in the Godhead.

Meherally's final attempt is from the following verse

`I have brought glory on Earth by completing the work you gave me to do." John 17:4

The servant figure of Jesus Christ in no way disproves his supremacy, as the servant figure taken on by Christ was done in order to fulfil prophecy made by the Prophet Issiah in the Taurat (Old Testament), when Issiah 52:13-53:12 speaks of the Messiah as being a suffering servant as a human example for all people, and what better example could there be other than following the commands of God.

 

[Johann]

Answer Three
It is first of all important to note why Jesus said these words, it was in fact in response to the disciple Philip's request for Jesus to show them the Father (i.e. God). In this context, Jesus' reply was words to the effect of `why do you make such a request Philip, don't you realise by seeing me you are seeing the Father (God).' (You need to read the whole verse to understand this)

Meherally prefers not to address this verse and rather ignores it's meaning and content in favour of three other verses within the Gospel of John. It is incredible that after quoting these three verses Meherally appeals to the reader's sincerity, when he himself is not sincere enough even to address the verse which his FAQ is meant to be responding to.

So what `evidences' does Meherally produce?

By quoting the three verses and not even suggesting what they actually mean, Meherally conveniently seems to think that we can disregard John 14:9. If this was really a biblical perspective then Meherally would address all the points instead he uses his own preferred perspective.

So let us consider the verses that he decides to quote:-

"He who believes in me does not only believe in me but in the one who sent me." John 12:44

So by believing in Jesus we also believe in the one who sent him, God, this is more of a statement of equality rather than a clear statement that Jesus is not God.

"He who hates me hates my Father also" John 15:23

If you hate Jesus then you hate God, again this does not suggest inequality.

The final verse is quoted twice by Meherally

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ who you have sent." John 17:3

Again this does not disprove Jesus' equality, rather it is a clear statement that Jesus Christ has been sent by God, there is nothing in John 17:3 that states that Jesus Christ is not God. Remember also the biblical teaching of the plural unity of the Godhead which allows the scriptures to mention God and Jesus Christ as being distinct but does not disprove that Jesus is God.

For example let us take John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word [the Word is the eternal Logos = Jesus Christ]

and the Word was with God [the Word is mentioned as being a distinct person from God]

and the Word was God." [at the same time, Jesus is also God]

Hot Tip
In being sent by God Jesus has been made lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), but this was for a temporary time until Jesus was raised back to the highest position (Revelation 7:17, Philippians 2:9)

Jesus said, "But this is not the way with you rather, the greatest amongst you must be like the youngest and the Leader must be the Servant" Luke 22:25

Jesus makes it clear that those who are last shall be first and those who are humbled shall be exalted (Mark 9:35, Luke 13:30, Matthew 20:16, 20:27). Please read Philippians 2:6-10 in Question 1 for further confirmation that greatness is not to be judged my men's standards but by God's standards. (Luke 22:24-30, Matt 18:1-4)

 

[Johann]

The fundamental Jewish confession of faith, called the Shema, is taken from
Deuteronomy 6:4. As traditionally understood, it reads, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD
our God, the LORD is one” (we will discuss other possible translations below).
Messianic Jews often claim that the Hebrew word for “one” that is used here, ʿechad,
actually means a compound unity, while traditional Jews often argue their case as if
the word meant an absolute unity.
Actually, ʿechad simply means “one,” exactly like our English word “one.”
While it can refer to compound unity (just as our English word can, as in one team,
one couple, etc.), it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand,
ʿechad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity, an idea expressed
most clearly in the twelfth century by Moses Maimonides, who asserted that the
Jewish people must believe that God is yachid, an “only” one.6 There is no doubt
that this reaction was due to exaggerated, unbiblical, “Christian” beliefs that gave

6 Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity
(Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1981), 126–27, cites verses such as Exod. 9:7; 2 Sam. 13:30; 17:12, 22;
Eccles. 4:8, all of which, he claims, use ʿechad in the sense of “absolute one.” So, e.g., when 2
Samuel 13:30 states, “Absalom has slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them leŌ,”
Sigal finds support for his contention that, “the word ‘one’ used in these verses means an
absolute one and is synonymous with the word yaḥid, ‘the only one,’ ‘alone.’ ” To the contrary,
as already stated, ʿechad simply means “one” just as our English word means “one,” with nothing
further implied, being the simple and logical word to use (in either English or Hebrew) in any of
Sigal’s examples. In fact, it is quite easy to expose the fallacious nature of Sigal’s argument. To
apply his logic to the English language, we could deduce from the sentence, “All the other couples
left, and just one couple remained,” that the remaining couple was an absolute unity! Also, it can
be argued, that EcclesiasƟes 4:8, “There is one, and he has not a second; yea, he has neither son
nor brother,” which Sigal finds to be of “special interest,” actually militates against his position,
since ʿechad here requires two further modifying clauses to indicate that it was speaking of only
one individual. But the worst is still to come. Without telling us how he knows this, Sigal states,
“It is in this sense [i.e., “the only one, alone”], with even greater refinement, that ʿechad is used
in Deuteronomy 6:4: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.’ Here, ʿechad is used as a
single, absolute, unqualified one.” Says who? How does Sigal know that ʿechad has that meaning
here—and “with even greater refinement”—and not that of compound unity? This is a classic
example of circular reasoning: reading one’s doctrine into the text and then pointing to that text
to prove the doctrine!

Jews the impression Christians worshiped three gods. Unfortunately, the view of
Maimonides is reactionary and also goes beyond what is stated in the Scriptures. In
fact, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states
that God is an absolute unity.
What then does the Shema mean? According to the common, traditional
understanding—and that is what most Jews are familiar with—the text is declaring
emphatically that God is ʿechad. Therefore, we should take a more in-depth look at
the biblical usage of this word

 

[amigo de christo]

By rabbi Yitschak Goldstein and Eliyahu Silver-and Tovia Singer-question is, do you believe as they do?

There is only one reason why a man , whether jew or gentile would reject Christ .
AND KING JESUS tells us what this is . They loved the darkness and would not come to the LIGHT
lest their evil deeds be reproved . Now lift those hands and praise the KING .

 

[amigo de christo]

I don't go by what Rashi and Rambam is saying.

I don't need to give you proof-One for Israel is spot on.

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,.... Which springs out of the earth without notice; low in its beginning, slow in its growth, liable to be crushed with the foot, or destroyed with the frost, and no great probability of its coming to any perfection; or rather as a little "sucker", as the word (b) signifies, which grows out of the root of a tree, at some little distance from it, of which no notice or care is taken, nor anything hoped for from it; and the figure denotes the mean and unpromising appearance of Christ at his incarnation; which is the reason given why the Jews in general disbelieved, rejected, and despised him; for this phrase of "growing up" does not design his exaltation, or rising up from a low to a high estate; but his mean entrance into the world, like that of the springing up of a low and insignificant plant or shrub out of the earth: and the phrase "before him" is to be understood either of God the Father, by whom he was taken notice of, though not by men; and in whose sight he was precious, though despised by men; or his growing up, and the manner of it, or his mean appearance, were all before the Lord, and according to his will: or else it may be understood of Christ himself, and be rendered "before himself", who was meek and lowly, and was mean and low in his own eyes; or rather it may be interpreted of the unbelieving Jew, of any or everyone of them that did not believe the report concerning him: because before him, in the sight of everyone of them, he sprung up in the manner described; unless it can be thought that it would be better rendered "to his face" (c); or "to his appearance"; that is, as to his outward appearance, in the external view of him, so he grew up:
and as a root out of a dry ground; or rather, "as a branch from a root out of a dry ground"; agreeably to Isa_11:1, meaning not so much the land of Judea, where he was born; or the country of Galilee, where he was brought up; as the family of David, from whence he sprung, which was reduced to a very low condition when he was born of it; his supposed father being a carpenter, and his real mother a poor virgin in Nazareth, though both of the lineage and house of David; from this passage the ancient Jews (d) are said to conclude that the Messiah would be born without a father, or the seed of man:
he hath no form nor comeliness; like a poor plant or shrub just crept out of the ground, in a dry and barren soil, ready to wither away as soon as up; has no strength nor straightness, of body; without verdure, leaves, blossom, and fruit things which make plants comely and beautiful. This regards not the countenance of Christ, which probably was comely, as were his types Moses and David; since he is said to be "fairer than the children of men"; and since his human nature was the immediate produce of the Holy Ghost, and without sin: but his outward circumstances; there was no majesty in him, or signs of it; it did not look probable that he would be a tall cedar, or a prince in Israel, much less the Prince Messiah; he was born of mean parents; brought up in a contemptible part of the country; lived in a town out of which no good is said to come; dwelt in a mean cottage, and worked at a trade:
and when we shall see him: as he grows up, and comes into public life and service, declaring himself, or declared by others, to be the Messiah: here the prophet represents the Jews that would live in Christ's time, who would see his person, hear his doctrines, and be witnesses of his miracles, and yet say,
there is no beauty, that we should desire him; or "sightliness" (e) in him; nothing that looks grand and majestic, or like a king; they not beholding with an eye of faith his glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father; only viewing him in his outward circumstances, and so made their estimate of him; they expected the Messiah as a temporal prince, appearing in great pomp and state, to deliver them from the Roman yoke, and restore their nation to its former splendour and glory; and being disappointed herein was the true reason of their unbelief, before complained of, and why they did not desire him, who is the desire of all nations.
(b) כיונק ως παιδιον, Sept.; ως θηλαζον, Theodotion, vox a ינק, "lac sugere, proprie lactantem significat", Rivet. Sanctius, "surculus tener, veluti laetens", Forerius. (c) לפניהו "ad faciem suam, vel in facie, sua", Rivet.; "quoad conspectum, vel quoad faciem suam, seu faciem ejus", Sanctius. (d) R. Hadarson apud Galatia, de Arcan. Cathol. Ver. l. 8. c. 2. p. 549. (e) לא מראה "non aspectus", Munster: Vatablus, Pagninus, Montanus; "nulla spectabilis forma", Vitringa.

Remember what spirit denies JESUS as the messiah aka as the Christ . john chapter two verses twenty through twenty two .
Anti christ . I keep it real simple . Only the spirit of anti christ would deny JESUS as the CHRIST .

 

[Johann]

Remember what spirit denies JESUS as the messiah aka as the Christ . john chapter two verses twenty through twenty two .
Anti christ . I keep it real simple . Only the spirit of anti christ would deny JESUS as the CHRIST .

Amen my brother in Christ-let's keep it real simple.

 

[amigo de christo]

The fundamental Jewish confession of faith, called the Shema, is taken from
Deuteronomy 6:4. As traditionally understood, it reads, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD
our God, the LORD is one” (we will discuss other possible translations below).
Messianic Jews often claim that the Hebrew word for “one” that is used here, ʿechad,
actually means a compound unity, while traditional Jews often argue their case as if
the word meant an absolute unity.
Actually, ʿechad simply means “one,” exactly like our English word “one.”
While it can refer to compound unity (just as our English word can, as in one team,
one couple, etc.), it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand,
ʿechad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity, an idea expressed
most clearly in the twelfth century by Moses Maimonides, who asserted that the
Jewish people must believe that God is yachid, an “only” one.6 There is no doubt
that this reaction was due to exaggerated, unbiblical, “Christian” beliefs that gave

6 Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary Christianity
(Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1981), 126–27, cites verses such as Exod. 9:7; 2 Sam. 13:30; 17:12, 22;
Eccles. 4:8, all of which, he claims, use ʿechad in the sense of “absolute one.” So, e.g., when 2
Samuel 13:30 states, “Absalom has slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them leŌ,”
Sigal finds support for his contention that, “the word ‘one’ used in these verses means an
absolute one and is synonymous with the word yaḥid, ‘the only one,’ ‘alone.’ ” To the contrary,
as already stated, ʿechad simply means “one” just as our English word means “one,” with nothing
further implied, being the simple and logical word to use (in either English or Hebrew) in any of
Sigal’s examples. In fact, it is quite easy to expose the fallacious nature of Sigal’s argument. To
apply his logic to the English language, we could deduce from the sentence, “All the other couples
left, and just one couple remained,” that the remaining couple was an absolute unity! Also, it can
be argued, that EcclesiasƟes 4:8, “There is one, and he has not a second; yea, he has neither son
nor brother,” which Sigal finds to be of “special interest,” actually militates against his position,
since ʿechad here requires two further modifying clauses to indicate that it was speaking of only
one individual. But the worst is still to come. Without telling us how he knows this, Sigal states,
“It is in this sense [i.e., “the only one, alone”], with even greater refinement, that ʿechad is used
in Deuteronomy 6:4: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.’ Here, ʿechad is used as a
single, absolute, unqualified one.” Says who? How does Sigal know that ʿechad has that meaning
here—and “with even greater refinement”—and not that of compound unity? This is a classic
example of circular reasoning: reading one’s doctrine into the text and then pointing to that text
to prove the doctrine!

Jews the impression Christians worshiped three gods. Unfortunately, the view of
Maimonides is reactionary and also goes beyond what is stated in the Scriptures. In
fact, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states
that God is an absolute unity.
What then does the Shema mean? According to the common, traditional
understanding—and that is what most Jews are familiar with—the text is declaring
emphatically that God is ʿechad. Therefore, we should take a more in-depth look at
the biblical usage of this word

If ye have seen me phillip ye have seen the Father .
There is but one way to worship GOD . THROUGH JESUS CHRIST .

IF a man rejects the WORD of GOD HE has REJECTED GOD . GOD is His WORD .
IF one honors not the SON they HONOR not the FATHER .
And how come the angels correct john about kneeling before them
And how come paul and barnabas corrected the people from kneeling before them
How come peter stopped cornlious from kneeling before him to worship him .
AND YET JESUS NEVER CORRECTS JOHN for doing so
and YET JESUS himself never corrected thomas who knelt and said MY LORD and MY GOD .
Exactly . GOD IS HIS WORD as HE is HIS SPIRIT . Now LIFT THOSE HANDS and PRAISE THE GLORIOUS KING .

 

[Matthias]

Remember what spirit denies JESUS as the messiah aka as the Christ . john chapter two verses twenty through twenty two .
Anti christ . I keep it real simple . Only the spirit of anti christ would deny JESUS as the CHRIST .

Amen. There’s no need at all for conversation about the Trinity in order to do that.

 

[amigo de christo]

Amen my brother in Christ-let's keep it real simple.

Faith in JESUS CHRIST saves
faith in any other graves . enjoy the ryhme . cause how true it truly is . There simply is no other name
that can save . BELIEVE YE in THE CHRIST OF GOD , THE ONLY SAVOIR , CHRIST JESUS . And learn those bibles well .

 

[amigo de christo]

The created could not save , BUT the CREATOR CAN . . He is HIS WORD and HIS WORD became flesh .
The first adam and all man can only grave
but HE who rose from the grave is HE who can and does save . Now lift those hands and praise the glorious LORD JESUS CHRIST .