Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Two Jehovahs of Psalm 110

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


Interesting take on the subject. Thank you for contributing.

Peace be with you.




posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
From reading many passages that uses 'Adown' I see that it is a widely used word. Adown is used when talking about god as a master, and it is also used when talking about man being a master, similar to man being a 'lord' or 'king'. It is clear in other verses that Adown was also used to denote a man's place, such as a master, king, and men were also called lords.
I do not see the verse you mentioned meaning anything about 2 Jehovah's. If we want to go there, there are a number of different words used to talk bout god.

I will disagree with ya on the meaning of El and Elohim. Elohim might mean a 'family' of god or something that is a plural sense, but El is not plural, El is a masculine form of a word that means 'most high'. It is one of the oldest words used for 'god' and was used in Babylon and Canon. Even if 'El' could mean family of God (which it would of made more sense for Elohim to be used in that sense if that is what the verse in Deut. is to mean) then it would still be odd that 'EL' (family of God) gives Yahweh (God) his inheritance. We would be working up a whole pantheon, would we not.

I seem to get the feeling though that if someone is not in agreement with what you interpret, then they are not contributing to the thread...mabey I'm reading you wrong...but just saying the vibes I feel.

My best to ya
LV



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
it's important what the new testament writes about apollon
and the old testament about the 'kings' of babylon and egypt...

the bible makes clear god is in command as one god,
and all the false gods are created from him for a reason,
but still those false gods have a reason, they offer you choice, just as
the bible made israel seperated as curse and blessing...
they offer god choice to choose against his own oneness by you.

Our history is fixed but our choice is not...
ignorance as opposite to growth...

the son of man, is what we all are, when we pick
the god that is one, including all.

before we are god, we have to give god his freedom
by forgiveness and care, the way to come home.

In other words, forgive god and care about god,
and you justify life, and life will justify you.

well, that is the bible....
now, when you throw away the bible,
what says logic ?

Logic says, there is one absolute truth,
where it is absolute it is free,
and it is one,
and it includes what is not,
or it woul'nt be one,
but still excludes it...

God and logic, they are one,
Jesus explained that before the paradox was full,
so it could not be understood right,
because it was not meant, before people could carry their crosses and logic was build full as a plant (in history), to fall from the heavens (revelation, the lie falls)
god is one, his cross is shared. Or he woulnd't be rightouess.


[edit on 14-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 

Looking at the Hebrew words that were used, it seems to imply that El and Yahweh were not one in the same....because El seems to give Yahweh his inheritance, which was Israel.
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High 1 gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, 2 he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly. 3

1 . . .Here it is clear that Elyon has to do with the nations in general whereas in v. 9, by contrast, Yahweh relates specifically to Israel.
2 . . .Heb “the sons of man” (so NASB); or “the sons of Adam” (so KJV).
3 . . .the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly.
net.bible.org...

So, what these Bible translators think is that when it comes to the world, God takes the position of El, as the head of the divine council, and when it comes to Israel, God takes the position of YHWH.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Hi again, Locomann:

In Exodus chapter 3 there is a weird paleo hebrew unpointed verse :

'Whom shall I say has sent me? And he said, Yehei Esher Yehei' something like 'I am who I am' if ASHR is actually meant to be ESHER 'that which is'...

Which basically could mean 'mind your own busines, I'm not telling you!'
(I am who I am, and that's all I'm telling you !)

Also since we have no vowels, we have now way of knowing if ESHER is actually 'which is' (or 'that is') or whether the middle term was meant to be the god ASHER (I am Asher I am) the clan god of the Assyrians (who interstingly, ALSO had the face of a Lion, the face of a Man, the face of an Eagle and the face of an Ox just as YHWH is described in the opening chapter 1 (and chapter 10) of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Hezekiel which apparently was 'restricted reading' by order of the mediaeval Rebbes since these two chapters became the basis for a lot of Kaballistic magickal works...

This whole avoidance of the name (or the mystery attached to the name of the post Exilic clan god of Yisro'el) might be related to rhe importance names were given in the ancient middle east, especially with magical spells. Often the Rebbes merely used "haShem" (i.e. 'the name') when referrring to YHWH. Other times they used "adonoi' as a paraphrastic way of referring to the 'holy one of Israel', that only the high priests could pronounce (generally thought to have been on Yom Kippur, at least while the temple in Jerusalem was still standing)...

Apparently all this name-mystery is related to the ancient belief that knowing the 'full or magical name' of any god or a daemon or an angel or spirit etc. gives a person casting a spell 'magical power' over them--allowing the magician to direct the god to do something...cf. the importance of names in incantations, or the vital imporantance of knowing a person's FULL name (including mother's maiden name) in Hebrew and Aramaric curses (if the full name is not specified on the curse, the curse bounces back to the magician).

How the Rebbes explain the transition from Yehei Asher Yehei to YHWH is something that has not fully been explained...at least not yet...

As for ADONOI, the phrase 'my Adon' or 'my Lord' was an ancient term ttributed to a variety of pre-Exilic gods in the ancient near east (cf: Adonis, the vegetation god, whose Greek name was derived from Attanuzzi, aka Tammuz); Adon could also mean 'husband' and was often used as a term for Ba'al the pre-jewish Canaanite deity, whose psalms were adapted to Yahweh (e.g. Psalm 29, HaBu LeBaal Benei, with its 3-fold poetic repetition oftthe letter B--"give to Baal all ye sons [of the mighty] !" which was later adapted to HaBu LeYHWH Benei" = give to YHWH all ye sons of the mighty--which ruins the original B emphasis.

Ba'al = Adon ('lord of', 'husband of') in Psalm 110 clearly shows an ancient Ugaritic Canaanite pre-Jewish enthronement psalm influence (e.g. vocabulary and style) - so the adaptation to its present forms in the confused texts of this Psalm in the later Masoretic Text (and the Vorlage to the LXX Septuagint Greek versions) shows that we are dealing with a hotch-potch construction of ancient terminologies--some of which go back to Canaanite pre-Yahwistic times...so one must be very very careful about drawing Messianic interpretations from the unpointed PaleoHebrew in this ancient Psalm...which is full of insertions and war-mongering at any rate (see especially the penultimate verses before the end !)



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Locoman8
The word Jehovah in Verse 5, however, was altered by the Levitical Massorites to read Adonay. The Levites were hiding the truth that the Adon of Verse 1 was a second Jehovah!


umm... proof?







Psalms 110:5
NET© O sovereign Lord, (1) at your right hand he strikes down 2 kings in the day he unleashes his anger. 3

(1) tn As pointed in the Hebrew text, this title refers to God (many medieval Hebrew mss read יְהוָה, yehveh, “Lord” here).


next.bible.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Demiurge vs the True God



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


I'm not saying anyone has to disagree with me. Most people disagree with me but I don't tell them to go away if I don't agree with them. I was stateing that I don't want a non-believer of Christ, God, or religion to hijack this thread with arguments on whether God exists. Anyone is welcome to comment on the topic at hand. That alone is contribution to this thread. Peace be with you.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


Agreed...

Star....

What more can I say....

Earthly Image of what God is....Spiritual Image of what God is....

They are both needed, for us to discern what we are and what we are becoming.

Does that make sense?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


That makes a lot of sense. People need to realize that instead of us being both body and spirit right now, we are body and we will transform to spirit when the time comes. Peace and God bless you.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Hi Locoman, you should have started your research with the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, because you would have saved yourself a lot of time. You would have noticed that throughout the Greek version of the Old Testament, both of the Hebrew words Yahweh and Adowne are translated by the Greek word Kurios, (just as they are in the Greek new testament Gospels) throughout the entire text. This is because there is no Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Yahweh. Nothing was changed in the Old Testament Hebrew texts, it simply a matter of discrepancy because of translating a passage between two different languages.

Besides, if you were to believe something was changed, how do you know it was the Old Testament texts, and not the New Testament texts? Also, IF it was changed, and the Greek version in the Gospels is the more accurate version, then the original Hebrew passage would have used the word adown in both instances, and not Yahweh, because Yahweh has a different meaning that the Greek word Kurios, but the Hebrew word Adowne has the same meaning, so it would have been "the adowne said unto my adowne", not "Yahweh said unto my Yahweh"....


G2962 - kurios (koo'-ree-os) : from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Master (as a respectful title):-- God, Lord, master, Sir

H113 - adown (aw-done) : or (shortened) adon {aw-done'}; from an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine):-- lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with "Adoni-".

I'm sorry but there are way too many holes in your theory. The word Kurios is simply how the word Yahweh has been rendered in Greek, because there is no corresponding Greek word, and as I pointed out, is done so in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which was translated from the same texts we have. There are even early Greek versions of the gospel texts where they insert the Hebrew Tetragrammaton for clarity.


Again, nothing has been changed, or if you believe so, then you can't trust anything in the OLD Testament, and you don't have faith in God to preserve his word.


The word David wrote in verse 5 of Psalm 110 is not Yahweh, it is adonay, so it is not saying that there was one Yahweh sitting on the right hand of another Yahweh. Yahweh is the Father, as Paul and Peter pointed out numerous times, and NEVER ONCE said Christ was Yahweh. As I have pointed out before, if Christ was also Yahweh, then he exalted himself to the right hand of his Father, and made himself High Priest, because as Paul pointed out...


HEBREWS 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The person who said both of these quotes was Yahweh, so if Christ was also Yahweh, then he too exalted himself, and made himself a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, which Paul says isn't the case.

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD (Yahweh) hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

PSALMS 110:4 The LORD (yahweh) hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Paul states here clearly that Christ didn't exalt himself or make himself high priest, but that Yahweh did, proving Christ was NOT Yahweh, and that Yahweh who said these quotes, was the Father of Christ.

Christ was made High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, just as the son's of Aaron were priests of the order of Aaron, they were not Aaron, they were his sons. So who was Melchizedek? Obviously not Christ, because as Paul pointed out, Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning of Days, nor end of life, yet Christ had both a mother and father, and although you don't believe he had a beginning of days, you can't dispute that he DID have an end of life, because he died for your sins, and was resurrected three days and three nights later. Christ is now a priest of the order of Melchizedek, made like unto Melchizedek (meaning he wasn’t Melchizedek). Melchizedek was a physical manifestation of God, just as the manifestation God used to speak to Abraham in Genesis 18.

Also, if Christ was also Yahweh, Satan would have known this. So, why did Satan believe he could tempt him by offering him all the world, when if Christ was Yahweh, he would have already had it? Why do the Apostles state that Christ was tempted in all things?


If Yahweh is the family name, then all that become part of that family must then be deemed what the word Yahweh means, which is ridiculous if you understand the meaning of the word....

H3068 - Yhovah (yeh-ho-vaw) : from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.


Even if we become Elohim, none of us are or ever will be eternally and self-existing, because even though we may then have Eternal life, we have not existed for all eternity as Yahweh has, since we had a beginning, and we are in existence because of the Father (not self-existent), who is/was/always-will-be Eternal and self-existing. Christ also doesn't fit this meaning, because he is only now in possession of eternal life, being the first-fruits to eternal life after his resurrection from the dead, and he was once dead for three day and three nights, and had to have faith in the Father that he would be raised from the dead, proving he was not Eternal and self-existent. Like I said, there are way too many holes in your theory, and to back up your belief you have to claim that the word of God was changed, instead of changing your belief to correspond to the word of God. There is only one who has never died, and never will, who has eternally and self existed, and that is the Father, who is Yahweh Elohim, the Eternal God.


P.S Here is a searchable version of the Septuagint, if you want to look for yourself....
crosswire.org...



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
you wrote """""Even if we become Elohim, none of us are or ever will be eternally and self-existing, because even though we may then have Eternal life, we have not existed for all eternity as Yahweh has, since we had a beginning, and we are in existence because of the Father (not self-existent), who is/was/always-will-be Eternal and self-existing. Christ also doesn't fit this meaning, because he is only now in possession of eternal life, being the first-fruits to eternal life after his resurrection from the dead, and he was once dead for three day and three nights, and had to have faith in the Father that he would be raised from the dead, proving he was not Eternal and self-existent."""""

there are answers, but they are very difficult to grasp without very sensitive thinking... the moment jesus become glorified, he joined in the father,
but played the 'theatre' god wanted him to play...in other words he stayed human.

god does not have a start, except here, but stil we are parts of a body
that chose to be in this creation, that is the son of man, adam...so the son of man
allready was with the father and 'forgot it'...the son of man has bodycells,
that is our function... but at the end we receive the rememberance of god.
that is glorification as full as going up to the father...as in heaven you will not remember this life long, when it's need is gone. All you'll see is infinity.

jesus was 'dead' three days , but after he glorified the father, that's glorification...
he played a 'role' after the glorifying of the father, his literal cross was an example made by a being one with god, even when he chose to stay within his previous mental borders...perfectly possible for a being that has choice. HE WAS GLORIFYING BEFORE THE LITERAL CROSS, 'religion' forgets this. the literal cross was an act to teach and build.

God is logic, in logic the bible comes alive...but mostly as opposite as how the interpretations until now were made.

find logic (and care) and then you find truth, the other name for god.


[edit on 15-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 

the moment jesus become glorified, he joined in the father,
but played the 'theatre' god wanted him to play...in other words he stayed human.
When was Jesus ever not one with the Father?
There was never some sort of disconnect. Jesus came out of the father, was with the Father, was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world by the Father, and the Father was working through Jesus, while he was in this world.
Jesus is eternal, as is the Father. Jesus is one with the Father, as he always has been.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
true, but so are you.

do you think glorification is without a reason ?

glorification means something.
people can't use the gospelmessage to judge,
and ignore half of it... there is an explination for being glorified..
if jesus was born glorified, he did not had the need to become glorified,
even when his destiny was made.
there is a reason it happened before the literal cross

before the seal of the prophet, as son of man,
as glorified, there is a human living as seperated,
even when he is one allready.

jesus showed us the way to forgive(understand) and equality. Even when his teachings were used to divide.
His biggest teaching was, do not build on visions, which is idolatry,
but build on logic, which is repenting (seeing what is wrong, or not true),
in other words, 'leave' the vision of jesus to find truth, which is logic,
and is god, and is care, because truth is one.


[edit on 15-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 


You know your Greek & Hebrew, that's good, I wish more Christians would study up on it, they might learn a deeper accurate truth by doing so. You don't even have to learn the whole of both languages, maybe only about 30 words that's it, and it makes a huge difference.

As it is I can't disagree with anything you posted, well researched.

Good post.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

6Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
Text


Remember the last part of this verse, there Jesus takes a scroll from another sitting on the throne, some say that is Jesus too, he sees him self, he can be in different places at one time.

[edit on 15-10-2009 by The time lord]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
the lamb is the son of man as the prophets...



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


But the lamb stands for blood shed....A placing of sins onto another. Care to share more of that thought you left....?

Are we all not to try to become that unblemished lamb through walking the way? Or do you feel we do place our sins on another, through the death of another?

What is a sin, if we learned from it? Was it not helpful to our growth? What is a wrong way, if in the end it shows is the right way? Is it then still a 'bad' thing? Was it ever a 'bad' thing? How else would we learn?

You know I like conversation pasttheclouds, its all in good discussion, without judgment.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Is anybody really free ? no
what is most free ? ignorance

What becomes a lamb ?
all us who died for ourselves....even natural death is
part of the cross a human carries for his oneness...
God and his glory.

There are differences, those differences carry
different crosses, and choice makes a cross
easy, but has the risk to loose it...
in the end all crosses are equal, except that what
is taken on the shoulders when allready in salvation,
as glorified...

people can ignore or grow, they don't decide their beliefs,
they decide the speed of growth..
that is sin, sin is choice to be in rest, there is no sin,
but there is choice.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pasttheclouds
 


I would just like to repeat this...

"even natural death is
part of the cross a human carries for his oneness"

Rings so true for me,
Thanks for your words

LV





new topics




 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join