Political Crossfire Forums

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: That merely analogizes the separation to something else, why time I have no clue. You neither attempt to answer what this separation is, nor why HKB and Shchinah are separated.

Maybe this "separation" is part of His very nature. Could the word “distinction” be a better description?

Kinda like your soul is "separate" or "distinct" from your body...yet it is still just ONE you.

Past is a distinction from future but there is no denying that they are part of the very nature of time. Time has to just be ONE thing, YET it can't exist without there being three distinctions. That's the very nature of Time.

Well maybe God's nature is similar to this analogy.

Adonai Echad. Look at it. Literally it says "Lords is One" and echad is the word for one used to describe a union. It's the same word used when Adam and Eve are said to come together to form one (echad) flesh.

You done guessing? :) Maybe just say you don't know.

In any case, care to guess the origin of this verse?

[JimT]

Shalom Duchifas,

O.k., I'll answer your question; hopefully you can answer mine:

In the mystery of the One and Threefold nature of God I believe that, from all eternity, before material creation and time itself, the One God desired a perfect communion of love and therefore expressed Himself in a perfect Word. This was always so in an absolutely all embracing single instant of being in which there can be no distinction of past, present, or future, no sequence of events in the way we observe things bound in matter and time as we are. The Word God uttered beyond and outside of time was and is a perfect self-expression, containing all that God is, perfectly possessing every characteristic of the Speaker: being, omniscience, omnipotence, truth, beauty, and personhood. Thus, from all eternity there were always in perfect unity the divine Persons - the God who spoke and the Word who was spoken, the God who Generates and the God who is Generated, true God with and from true God, God Begetter and God Begotten, distinct Father and distinct Son having the same indivisible divine nature. There was never a time when this was not so. These two Persons eternally regard and contemplate each other. From all eternity they knew and loved each other, each embracing the other in a perfect gift of self-giving. And since a self-gift of these perfect divine Persons, distinct while having but one divine nature, is a perfect mutual self-gift, perfectly given and perfectly received, the very Gift between them also contains all that each of the Persons have: being, omniscience, omnipotence, truth, beauty, and personhood. Thus, from all eternity there are three divine Persons having one indivisible divine nature, God the Father, God the Son and the perfect mutual self-gift of love between them, God the Holy Spirit. This is the foundational saving doctrine I believe in as a Christian (not all Christians do). I believe this is the One and Three God in whose image and likeness we are made. At the core of everything else I believe in and hope for, I will find this mysterious doctrine of divine relationship, the Triune God.

Duchifas, I am aware that you do not believe in the trinity; I'm aware you don't share my belief.

/////////////////////////////////////

I answerred your question. Now, I ask you in all honesty: Who do you think is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?


JimT

[Duchifas]

In all honesty, Jim, you haven't even come close to answering the question. The question was about the separation. Tamir neelam unites HKB and Schinah. Well, why are they separate in the first place....??? On an even more basic level -- what is the difference between them?

In your lenghty discourse on trinity, you haven't mentioned the word separation even once. In fact, just the opposite -- the only relevant concepts I could fish out of that were that the three are embraced and having indivisible nature, and have been so forever. That's the opposite of separation, if anything. According to you -- there is no separation whatsoever:

Quote: Thus, from all eternity there were always in perfect unity the divine Persons - the God who spoke and the Word who was spoken, the God who Generates and the God who is Generated, true God with and from true God, God Begetter and God Begotten, distinct Father and distinct Son having the same indivisible divine nature.

So what you do here, is the same thing you did before (although in a more lengthy fashion) -- you just ignore the concept of separation. And while ignoring it, you are nevertheless, quite certain on the identity of tamir neelam.

That just baffles me. And by no stretch of imagination is it an answer.

Also, I assume you did take a moment to look up the verse in the prayer book I linked to, right? And you do retract your nasty implication, don't you? And did you have a chance to check out NASB mistranslation I referred to? Lastly, with regard to the verse itself -- a good way to understand something is to first understand the origin. So, do you know the origin of the verse?

[JimT]

Shalom Duchifas,

Firstly:
Duchifas wrote: However, if you are interested in barking up the right tree, you can open up the NASB to Psalms 110:1. Then you can open up the original version of the Psalms in Hebrew. Then you can get yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and figure out what the translators at NASB hide from you. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Hebrew would figure it out in less than a minute. I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?


Ken ani m'dabber ivrit. The answer is: you can't tell whether it is Adoni or Adonai. Adoni and Adonai are spelled the same way in unpunctuated Hebrew (alef-dalet-nun-yod). The patach underneeth the nun determines if the word is adoni or adonai. How can you be so sure that it says: "lord" in stead of "Lord"? You don't know and I don't know. Anyway, one has to choose; "?ord" is no option. And my belief in Jesus causes me to interpret "alef-dalet-nun-yod" as "Lord". But if you are so convinced that you are barking up the right tree, then show me why it has to be "lord".
(I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?)

Duchifas wrote: And you do retract your nasty implication...?
I'm sorry if I offended you (that wasn't my intention). So, yes I retract everything but the question ("why is it removed from some Haggadot?").


Secondly,
I've tried to answer your offtopic question. Now, please try to answer my ontopic question: "Who do you think is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?".

JimT

[Duchifas]

JimT wrote: Shalom Duchifas,

Firstly:
Duchifas wrote: However, if you are interested in barking up the right tree, you can open up the NASB to Psalms 110:1. Then you can open up the original version of the Psalms in Hebrew. Then you can get yourself a Hebrew dictionary, and figure out what the translators at NASB hide from you. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Hebrew would figure it out in less than a minute. I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?


Ken ani m'dabber ivrit.

Excellent! :tu:

Quote: The answer is: you can't tell whether it is Adoni or Adonai. Adoni and Adonai are spelled the same way in unpunctuated Hebrew (alef-dalet-nun-yod). The patach underneeth the nun determines if the word is adoni or adonai. How can you be so sure that it says: "lord" in stead of "Lord"? You don't know and I don't know. Anyway, one has to choose; "?ord" is no option.

Are you joking?

Simple question for you -- how do we (both you and I) know what vowels are underneath ANY words in the Torah. Meaning, could you in a few sentences describe how you and I, in the year 5766, know what vowels go where? Thanks.

After you answer that question, could you please tell me why it is that in other instances of this word in the Bible, the NASB does not use Lord, but uses master. For example, Genesis 24:36, 54, etc. The very same word (alef, dalet, nun, yud) is used here and in other places. No vowels anywhere. Tell me, how does NASB know one from the other?

Quote: And my belief in Jesus causes me to interpret "alef-dalet-nun-yod" as "Lord". But if you are so convinced that you are barking up the right tree, then show me why it has to be "lord".
(I assume, that with your level of interest in the subject, you DO know elementary Hebrew, right?)

Yup. You are using reverse reasoning here. Because you believe in Jesus, you believe the word is something else.

But in the first place, (as I understand it), the problem started when Jesus allegedly told the Pharisees off, as reported by Mathew. And for the next 2,000 years, Christians have been using this verse as one of the reasons to belive in Jesus.

So really, what we have here is circular logic. Why do Christians believe in Jesus? Well, in part because of that verse. And why do you interpret the verse the way you do? Well, because you believe in Jesus in the first place, as you say.

Ok, fine. If that's how you reason through things, it's a free country.

Quote: Secondly,
I've tried to answer your offtopic question. Now, please try to answer my ontopic question: "Who do you think is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?".

JimT

Umm, firstly, the question WAS on topic, because YOU made it a part of this topic a very nasty implication that Jews hid something. So on that same note, I responded with a very clear case of Christianity hiding something. Apparently, it is not as much a matter of hiding as a matter of circular logic. Although, it would be nice if the online NASB had a footnote or something.

Secondly, as I mentioned in my last post, you did not answer my "on-topic" question at all. You just described trinity, and frankly, your description is inconsistent with the verse, as I have ALREADY pointed out.

Thirdly, and I am a little tired of repeating myself, so I won't do it again -- care to guess the source of the verse in question?

[John]

Quote: But in the first place, (as I understand it), the problem started when Jesus allegedly told the Pharisees off, as reported by Mathew. And for the next 2,000 years, Christians have been using this verse as one of the reasons to belive in Jesus.

Jesus didn't speak with a capital "L". All He did was repeat the verse verbally.

Jesus asked the Pharisees a question.

He said, "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?"

And they replied with, "The son of David."

Then Jesus said....

"Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"


The Pharisees didn't have an answer.

Maybe if you were there Duchifas, you would have had an answer. So tell me...

If David called Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?

[Duchifas]

The Pharisees didn't have an answer ACCORDING TO MATHEW, John. The Pharisees, unlike Mathew, knew the difference between adoni and the other word.

So if such a conversation were to have taken place, the likely reaction to Jesus's statement by Pharisees would have been:

"Dude, what are you smoking?"

But, giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, he probably wouldn't make such a blunder. Which leads me to suspect that Mathew made the whole thing up.

Quote: THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,

Funny. Now you capitalize the whole word? :)

[JimT]

Shalom Duchifas,

Duchifas wrote: Simple question for you -- how do we (both you and I) know what vowels are underneath ANY words in the Torah. Meaning, could you in a few sentences describe how you and I, in the year 5766, know what vowels go where? Thanks.

After you answer that question, could you please tell me why it is that in other instances of this word in the Bible, the NASB does not use Lord, but uses master. For example, Genesis 24:36, 54, etc. The very same word (alef, dalet, nun, yud) is used here and in other places. No vowels anywhere. Tell me, how does NASB know one from the other?


The answer has been given, so again: you can't tell whether it is Adoni or Adonai. Adoni and Adonai are spelled the same way in unpunctuated Hebrew (alef-dalet-nun-yod). How can you be so sure that it says: "lord" in stead of "Lord"? You don't know and I don't know. Anyway, one has to choose; "?ord" is no option. Please don't answer questions with other questions. However (again), if you are so convinced that you are barking up the right tree, then show me why it has to be "lord".

The question is simple "Who do you think is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?". Don't look at my belief or opinions. I'm just interested in your answer to that question.

If you don't know the answer or if you don't want to answer: thanks anyway. I'm going to sleep (I'm living in another timezone).

JimT

[John]

Duchifas wrote: The Pharisees didn't have an answer ACCORDING TO MATHEW, John. The Pharisees, unlike Mathew, knew the difference between adoni and the other word.

So if such a conversation were to have taken place, the likely reaction to Jesus's statement by Pharisees would have been:

"Dude, what are you smoking?"

But, giving Jesus the benefit of the doubt, he probably wouldn't make such a blunder. Which leads me to suspect that Mathew made the whole thing up.

Quote: THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,

Funny. Now you capitalize the whole word? :)

The entire verse is ALWAY capitalized when it's a quote from the OT in the NT. That's just part of the system of reading certain Bibles.

Jesus wasn't pointing out a capital "L"...He was pointing out the actual substance of the verse.

The question is:

How can David's son be his lord? Same substance and point regardless of capitalization.


Please answer the question. How could the son be lord over the father?

[Duchifas]

Quote: Please answer the question. How could the son be lord over the father?

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16331&showrashi=true

Have fun.

JimT wrote: The answer has been given, so again: you can't tell whether it is Adoni or Adonai. Adoni and Adonai are spelled the same way in unpunctuated Hebrew (alef-dalet-nun-yod). How can you be so sure that it says: "lord" in stead of "Lord"? You don't know and I don't know. Anyway, one has to choose; "?ord" is no option. Please don't answer questions with other questions. However (again), if you are so convinced that you are barking up the right tree, then show me why it has to be "lord".

One more time -- if we don't know which one is which, then on what basis does the Christian NASB translation translate the very same word differently in other parts of the Bible?

Are they guessing? Are they using a randomizer program?

Quote: The question is simple "Who do you think is Tamir we neelam (the powerful & hidden) who unites Kadosh Baruch Hu and His Schinah?". Don't look at my belief or opinions. I'm just interested in your answer to that question.

If you don't know the answer or if you don't want to answer: thanks anyway. I'm going to sleep (I'm living in another timezone).

You are welcome. Have a good night.

[John]

Quote: Have fun.

Ahh. So your answer is that David is talking about Abraham...not the Messiah.

That seems to contradict the context of the rest of the psalm. Is Abraham going to return and rule over his people?

Your people will volunteer on the day of your host, because of the beauty of holiness when you fell from the womb; for you, your youth is like dew.

That's talking about Abraham? Or the Messiah?

Abraham is a priest forever in the order of Malchizedek?

Does that mean that Abraham sits at the right hand of God??? :shock:

Your translation says "Wait for My right hand"...does yashab mean "wait"? Or would yachal have been used if it meant "wait"?

What exactly does yashab mean???

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: Have fun.

Ahh. So your answer is that David is talking about Abraham...not the Messiah.

That seems to contradict the context of the rest of the psalm. Is Abraham going to return and rule over his people?

Your people will volunteer on the day of your host, because of the beauty of holiness when you fell from the womb; for you, your youth is like dew.

That's talking about Abraham? Or the Messiah?

Abraham is a priest forever in the order of Malchizedek?

Does that mean that Abraham sits at the right hand of God??? :shock:

Your translation says "Wait for My right hand"...does yashab mean "wait"? Or would yachal have been used if it meant "wait"?

What exactly does yashab mean???

Dude, it is right there in the explanation for the first verse.

These are the traditional explanations, meaning they go all the way back. Want to come up with something else -- free country.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: Quote: Have fun.

Ahh. So your answer is that David is talking about Abraham...not the Messiah.

That seems to contradict the context of the rest of the psalm. Is Abraham going to return and rule over his people?

Your people will volunteer on the day of your host, because of the beauty of holiness when you fell from the womb; for you, your youth is like dew.

That's talking about Abraham? Or the Messiah?

Abraham is a priest forever in the order of Malchizedek?

Does that mean that Abraham sits at the right hand of God??? :shock:

Your translation says "Wait for My right hand"...does yashab mean "wait"? Or would yachal have been used if it meant "wait"?

What exactly does yashab mean???

Dude, it is right there in the explanation for the first verse.

These are the traditional explanations, meaning they go all the way back. Want to come up with something else -- free country.

Doesn't this same tradition explain that Messiah would explain the OT? Admitting that the traditional explanations are just guesses.

What about he whole yashab being translated as "wait" deal....does that line up?

[Duchifas]

Quote: Doesn't this same tradition explain that Messiah would explain the OT? Admitting that the traditional explanations are just guesses.

Yes. And it's the same tradition that preserved the consonants and vowels so that you, well your translators, could read the Original Testament in the first place. Same guessing. Same guessers.

So, being consistent, I take that tradition and accept it for what it is. Some people, however, take the tradition, and on a random basis accept parts of it, and reject the rest of it. :roll:

Quote: What about he whole yashab being translated as "wait" deal....does that line up?

Line up with what? I don't know what you are lining up things to, but Jews line them up to the Torah, i.e., G-d. Period. Whatever doesn't line up with the Torah is out the window.

[John]

Quote: Yes. And it's the same tradition that preserved the consonants and vowels so that you, well your translators, could read the Original Testament in the first place. Same guessing. Same guessers.

Not really. The Septuagint does the job quite nicely, no?

[John]

Quote: Line up with what? I don't know what you are lining up things to, but Jews line them up to the Torah, i.e., G-d. Period. Whatever doesn't line up with the Torah is out the window.


Is it a good translation?

[Duchifas]

John wrote: Quote: Yes. And it's the same tradition that preserved the consonants and vowels so that you, well your translators, could read the Original Testament in the first place. Same guessing. Same guessers.

Not really. The Septuagint does the job quite nicely, no?

What do you mean "not really?"

Torah was written down by Moses. Until you got it today, for a good chunk of that time, who do you think preserved it?

Yup, those very same "guessers."

[John]

You're substituting apples for oranges. Saying that this passage really means this instead of that is a little different that remembering the literal translation of the text.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ337.HTM

[Duchifas]

John wrote: You're substituting apples for oranges. Saying that this passage really means this instead of that is a little different that remembering the literal translation of the text.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ337.HTM

You are becoming like psholtz. He argues with ease that one day, all of a sudden, some people came up with all these scriptures out of nowhere and everyone somehow accepted them as historically true, without them being such. That's the Bible criticism theory in one sentence.

You are doing much the same. For a thousand years the Jews explained the passage one way, then suddenly, they veered way off track, without anyone noticing that after calling X the tradition for a thousand years, everyone suddenly started calling Y the tradition.

Ridiculous.

When something radically changes, there usually is a big and very noticeable split. For example, when Christianity came out of Judaism, nobody in their right mind would say that Christianity is really the traditional Judaism, and the real Jews veered off into what is now known as Judaism. And when Martin Luther split off from Rome, nobody said that it was the Vatican that changed something.

Yet, you are arguing here precisely that -- that the explanations which Jews have always considered traditional, passed down from generation to generation, at some point actually veered way off.

Ok, you want to believe that, fine. But I don't buy it any more than I would buy the garbage that is Bible criticism theory.

[John]

Duchifas wrote: John wrote: You're substituting apples for oranges. Saying that this passage really means this instead of that is a little different that remembering the literal translation of the text.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ337.HTM

You are becoming like psholtz. He argues with ease that one day, all of a sudden, some people came up with all these scriptures out of nowhere and everyone somehow accepted them as historically true, without them being such. That's the Bible criticism theory in one sentence.

You are doing much the same. For a thousand years the Jews explained the passage one way, then suddenly, they veered way off track, without anyone noticing that after calling X the tradition for a thousand years, everyone suddenly started calling Y the tradition.

Ridiculous.

When something radically changes, there usually is a big and very noticeable split. For example, when Christianity came out of Judaism, nobody in their right mind would say that Christianity is really the traditional Judaism, and the real Jews veered off into what is now known as Judaism. And when Martin Luther split off from Rome, nobody said that it was the Vatican that changed something.

Yet, you are arguing here precisely that -- that the explanations which Jews have always considered traditional, passed down from generation to generation, at some point actually veered way off.

Ok, you want to believe that, fine. But I don't buy it any more than I would buy the garbage that is Bible criticism theory.


I see no need in you resorting in personal insults here.

But I guess you miss-understood me. I'm not saying that any traditional explanations veered way off. All I'm saying is that Psalms 110 has been explained Messianic in the same traditional manner as the Abraham theory; there was even some that believed the Psalm to be talking about David. You're trying to say that the Abraham explanation was the only explanation the Rabbis gave throughout tradition and that just not the truth.


But let's remember. You are complaining about a capital "L" here, which is translated in the same manner in the Nedarim 32b of the Talmud.

You're also acting like this is the only OT text that shows the Messiah to be of Divine nature....when the truth is that they are abounding.