Yahushua the Man

[StevePaige]

I believe that Yahushua was clear when he asked in Matthew 27:46,"...my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Yahuweh cannot forsake himself.

Also, in Matthew 16:16, when he asked his disciples who he was, Peter answered, "You are the christ/messiah/the annointed one, the son of the living God." Yahushua could have used this as a teachable moment and let Peter know that he was also God and that he had annointed himself. Notice though that just a few verses earlier he had called himself "the son of man", a term in Hebrew thought meaning a human being without any divine connotations.

It needs to be remembered that the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh was brought to us by same people who made Sabbath keeping against the law and removed all of Yahuweh's festivals.

I will continue this tomorrow...I'm typing this on a tablet and my fingers cannot keep pace with my tired spastic headbone.

[TWTY-Admin]

I believe that Yahushua was clear when he asked in Matthew 27:46,"...my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Yahuweh cannot forsake himself.

Can't He? I'm afraid I couldn't find the Scripture to back up this statement.

Yahushua's also quoting Psalm 22, which is a prophecy regarding the crucifixion.

Also, in Matthew 16:16, when he asked his disciples who he was, Peter answered, "You are the Christ/messiah/the anointed one, the son of the living God." Yahushua could have used this as a teachable moment and let Peter know that he was also God and that he had anointed himself. Notice though that just a few verses earlier he had called himself "the son of man", a term in Hebrew thought meaning a human being without any divine connotations.

Unfortunately, "the Son of Man" is most certainly not a term in Hebrew thought that meant a human being without any divine connotations.

"The Son of Man" is an articular (includes the definite article each and every time it is used in the NT) form of the expression "a son of man"; you won't find "the Son of Man", inclusive of the article, in any book of the Tanakh, nor in any other writing that isn't taking its cue from the NT. "The Son of Man" is a particular expression to Yahushua Himself, and reading the NT, it is quite apparent that Yahushua was the author of such a unique self-referential expression.

When Yahushua says "the Son of Man", He isn't just referencing any "human being" - He is only referring to Himself - no one else is called "the Son of Man" (and in fact, no one else calls Yahushua "the Son of Man"). It isn't taken from anything Greek or Jewish - it's an expression of His own making.

I suggest reading an excellent book on this subject: Who is this Son of Man?

Furthermore, let's look at a few other places where Yahushua could've taken the time either clarify or correct someone's statement.

Luke 5:18-26 (Also in Matt 9 and Mark 2). Before Yahushua heals the paralytic, He says to Him, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (v20). This leads the scribes and pharisees to question "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v21). Yahushua's response is to question them, and ask simply, "Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?" Following this, Yahushua says "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins", and proceeds to heal the paralytic.

Notice two things:
1) Yahushua doesn't say "It isn't just God who can forgive sins" nor "You're wrong in that only God can forgive sins" - He doesn't correct them on that. If He wasn't God, Yahushua could've taken the time to explain to them that He wasn't God.
2) Yahushua uses the term "the Son of Man" - this is, as mentioned, a unique self-referential expression. It is effectively Yahushua saying "I", without Him actually saying it. Plus, "the Son of Man" is capable of forgiving people their sins

So, the question here is: If only God can forgive sins (a statement which isn't corrected by anyone), and Yahushua says that He Himself is able to forgive sins - how exactly is He not God?


Another thing to look at where Yahushua could've corrected people is when people actively "offer him homage" (usually translated "worship"). Instances of this appear in the following places: Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38.

The word translated as "worship" is the Greek προσκυνέω/proskeuneo, which literally means "to bow down and kiss the feet". In the LXX (Septuagint), it consistently translates the Hebrew שָׁחָה/Shachah, a word of the exact same meaning.

In Exodus 34:13-14, Yahuweh says "You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim, for you shall worship no other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God". The Hebrew uses the word שָׁחָה here, which the LXX follows and translates as προσκυνέω.

With this in mind, why doesn't Yahushua ever correct those who offer him the same προσκυνέω/proskeuneo? Yahuweh specifically states that "no other god" is to receive "προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה/homage"; yet, here Yahushua is receiving such from the disciples (Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52), the man whom He heals of blindness (John 9:38), and even when He was still an infant, Yahushua received προσκυνέω/proskeuneo from the wise men (Matt 2:11).

Not once is this ever corrected or stated in the NT that it was done "in error". It is in fact taken for granted that Yahushua requires the same προσκυνέω/proskeuneo that Yahuweh Himself should only receive.

If we take the other instances of people receiving προσκυνέω in the NT: Cornelius states offering Peter προσκυνέω in Acts 10:25, to which Peter immediately tells him to stand up, because "I too am a man". The Heavenly messenger who talks with John in Revelation, upon receiving προσκυνέω from John (Rev 19:10), immediately tells him "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Yahushua. Worship God." Which the Heavenly messenger has to repeat in Revelation 22:9.

The other places where people and objects receive προσκυνέω in the NT that aren't either God, Yahushua, or immediately corrected by the person receiving προσκυνέω, they are always frowned upon, explained as bad or incorrect things to do, and met with Yahuweh's wrath.

In the NT, there are therefore only two things that can truly receive προσκυνέω - Yahuweh and Yahushua. If Yahushua isn't Yahuweh, why isn't the προσκυνέω/proskeuneo offered to Yahushua ever corrected, frowned upon, or explained to be done in error? If we are to only προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה Yahuweh alone, then if Yahushua isn't also Yahuweh, how could Yahushua not be Yahuweh? If Yahushua isn't Yahuweh, then He is a liar and a false prophet, because He actively received προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה from people, and never corrected them on it like everyone else who receives such προσκυνέω.

Notice also the meaning behind Peter saying to Cornelius, "I too am a man" - men don't deserve προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה - Yahuweh does. Therefore if Yahushua also received προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה, then Yahushua = Yahuweh.

Plus, does everyone forget when Thomas says to Yahushua in John 20:28, "My Master and My God!" (again, something which Yahushua never corrects Thomas on)? Either Yahushua is Yahuweh/God, or He is a false prophet who doesn't deserve to be remembered.

It needs to be remembered that the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh was brought to us by same people who made Sabbath keeping against the law and removed all of Yahuweh's festivals.

I disagree, and I think I've shown that the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh is based on thoughts taken from the NT writings themselves. Whilst the following centuries may've gone way overboard with what they did and what they exactly thought with regards to Yahushua, the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh/God isn't one of the things they've got wrong.

They just based their beliefs on the NT writings themselves

[StevePaige]

Granted that Yahushua does receive worship, it is not because he is Yahuweh but his proxy. Just as when the captain of a ship is not onboard, the next highest officer receives all the same respect and honors of the captain. He has full command of the vessel and he can do as he pleases with one caveat: he has to submit his will to the captain's instructions. It kinda sounds like the time when Yahushua was in the garden when he asked for this cup to be taken from him. But not Yahushua's will but Yahuweh's. This is why he can forgive sins.

Another issue is sin and temptation. In Luke 4:1-12 we see that Yahushua was tempted by Satan for forty days. For 4000 years prior we don't see evidence of Satan even attempting to tempt God. He knew Yahuweh could not be tempted, but this man could. In the above passage Yahushua even quotes Deut 6:16 saying "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."(NASB) not the "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." we usually hear quoted.

In James 1:13-15 we read Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." This could apply only to Yahushua.

We read in Hebrews 2:18 "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." and in Heb 4:15 that our high priest "...was in all points tested like as we are, yet without sin." Again, Yahushua is who the subject of this verse.

So we can see in James that Yahuweh cannot be tempted (being enticed to sin) but we see in Luke/Duet that he can be tested just as children test their parents.

When asked of the greatest commandment, Yahushua responded with the Shema (Duet 6:4, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, Yahuweh our God, Yahuweh is one.

Well back to work. I feel that this discussion should go on...just not right now. My lunch is over and it is time to get back to work.

Let us worship in spirit & truth.

[TWTY-Admin]

Granted that Yahushua does receive worship, it is not because he is Yahuweh but his proxy. Just as when the captain of a ship is not onboard, the next highest officer receives all the same respect and honors of the captain. He has full command of the vessel and he can do as he pleases with one caveat: he has to submit his will to the captain's instructions.

Unfortunately, this really doesn't coincide with Hebrew thought of the First Century CE: the only being that could receive worship was Yahuweh, and Yahuweh alone. Yahuweh has had many "proxies" in the form of both prophets (Moses, David, Jeremiah etc., etc.,) and Heavenly messengers (Michael, Gabriel) - yet not a single one of these ever received the same sort of worship that Yahushua is depicted as receiving.

Worshiping anything other than Yahuweh was met with strict resistance and marginalisation for the person(s) doing so. Yahushua is depicted as receiving worship with no resistance - something that would've immediately been a Jews death sentence!

The NT has Yahushua receiving worship the same way that it has Yahuweh receiving worship - worship was never given to one of Yahuweh's proxies.

It kinda sounds like the time when Yahushua was in the garden when he asked for this cup to be taken from him. But not Yahushua's will but Yahuweh's. This is why he can forgive sins.

There's a reason why John says that "the word became flesh, and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14). Let's not the fact that Yahushua is Yahuweh take away from the fact that Yahushua is Yahuweh's human manifestation - soul, spirit and mortal human body all in one.

It wouldn't be the first time that Yahuweh has manifested Himself in a form or another - He was quite capable of being a cloud and a pillar of fire (Exodus 13) - why is it people have trouble with Yahuweh becoming a man?

Another issue is sin and temptation. In Luke 4:1-12 we see that Yahushua was tempted by Satan for forty days. For 4000 years prior we don't see evidence of Satan even attempting to tempt God. He knew Yahuweh could not be tempted, but this man could. In the above passage Yahushua even quotes Deut 6:16 saying "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test."(NASB) not the "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." we usually hear quoted.

Whilst we have slightly different words used in Luke 4:1 and v12 (περιαζω/εκπεριαζω), the word in v12 is practically the same as that in 4:1, just with εκ-prefixed to the start of περιαζω. Both are used to indicate "to put something to the test".

One could quite easily translate Luke 4:1 as "to be put to the test by the Devil", and it would still be the exact same meaning. Luke uses both Greek words to mean the exact same thing. ἐκπειράζω is the least common word of the two used in the NT (4 uses of ἐκπειράζω compared to 38 for πειράζω).

Let's not also forget that the full quote of Deuteronomy 6:16 is "You shall not put Yahuweh your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah". The LXX uses ἐκπειράζω for both instances of "test" and "tested" here.

In Psalm 95:8-9, when Yahuweh says "do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers put me to the test and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work," the LXX uses πειράζω in the same way that ἐκπειράζω is used in Deut 6:16. Both are interchangeable, so basing whether God can or cannot be "tempted" based on apparently different words doesn't hold up to this.

In James 1:13-15 we read Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither does he tempt any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." This could apply only to Yahushua.

The issue appears to be more the meaning attached to the English word "tempted" than to what is actually being meant by the NT authors: The Greek περιαζω and εκπεριαζω are to do with putting someone to the test, trying them to determine what type of character they are.

Unfortunately, that isn't the meaning now employed by the English word "tempted", whose obsolete meaning which corresponds to the Greek usage is now replaced with the more evilesque "to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral."

Plus, there's no evidence that Yahushua ever succumbed to being "tempted" - Luke, Mark and Matt actually give evidence that Yahushua wasn't "enticed" by anything the Adversary threw at Him, therefore essentially proving James saying that "God cannot be tested with evil".

We read in Hebrews 2:18 "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." and in Heb 4:15 that our high priest "...was in all points tested like as we are, yet without sin." Again, Yahushua is who the subject of this verse.

Refer to the above with regards to the meaning of περιαζω. I really do fear it's the meaning attached to the English word rather than the underlying Greek that you're having an issue with here, Steve.

So we can see in James that Yahuweh cannot be tempted (being enticed to sin) but we see in Luke/Deut that he can be tested just as children test their parents.

Oddly enough, your final statement "that he can be tested just as children test their parents" corresponds exactly to the meaning of the Greek περιαζω.

When asked of the greatest commandment, Yahushua responded with the Shema (Duet 6:4, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, Yahuweh our God, Yahuweh is one.)

John 10:30: I and the Father are one. (Same Greek words used for "one" in John 10:30 and the LXX translation of Deut 6:4 )

[StevePaige]

"I and the Father are one" is interesting. One in thought, one in purpose...but only after Luke 2:40, 52, "40 And the Child (Yahshua) grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. ... 52 And Yahushua increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with Yahuweh and men."

And as Heb 5:8-9 states, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience (to Yahuweh) by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him (Yahuweh), . Since what came out of Yahushua's mouth was Yahuweh's words that is who is obeyed. Just like my captain analogy in a previous post.

He had to become perfect. And he became perfect in totally submitting his will to the Father's. He became the passover lamb and was judged spotless and had to die so that his shed blood would cover us. Remember that death entered through a man and so would salvation also enter though a man. That man had to die while being perfect to pay for our sin. It is the shedding of blood that is the payment. Man had to pay and in Yahushua's death that payment was made. God cannot not die. He is the Eternal, the Everlasting. He has no blood to shed. Remember that death, biblically, is ceasing to exist. God did not cease to exist (no part of Yahuweh can die). An annointed high priest died and Yahuweh brought him back to life because of his perfect obedience.

The shadows/prophecies from the past are not to be taken lightly. The passover lamb died a physical death and there was no correlation of that lamb being Yahuweh in any way. Just the payment for sins of the people.

I've got to go. I would like to continue this conversation.

Let us worship in spirit and truth.

[TWTY-Admin]

"I and the Father are one" is interesting. One in thought, one in purpose...but only after Luke 2:40, 52, "40 And the Child (Yahshua) grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. ... 52 And Yahushua increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with Yahuweh and men."

And as Heb 5:8-9 states, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience (to Yahuweh) by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him (Yahuweh), . Since what came out of Yahushua's mouth was Yahuweh's words that is who is obeyed. Just like my captain analogy in a previous post.

Again, the Captain analogy really doesn't fit with this. Yahushua received worship - He didn't receive "respect" from anyone. If we were to take your Captain analogy, then it would be absolutely fine for all of us to worship Moses, David, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah etc., etc., because at certain times they've all served as Yahuweh's highest official - but there's a reason why we don't do this: because it would be idolatry.

However, the NT makes it quite clear that worshiping Yahushua isn't idolatry - it is in fact required and natural.

Furthermore, your added brackets to Hebrews above doesn't fit the context of the words in the verses. The person "having been perfected" is Yahushua, who then is "the author of eternal salvation" to all who obey Him - that is, Yahushua, because Yahushua is designated "by God" as a High Priest after "the order of Melchizedek".

The Greek is quite clear in that the Being been obeyed is Yahushua. The third person, singular words used in Heb 5:8-9 all point to Yahushua as the subject - there is no change of subject, and the Greek readers of Hebrews wouldn't've found one. In order for the last bit to indicate obedience to Yahuweh rather than Yahushua, the author of Hebrews would've had to have changed the "Him" to "God" or "Yahuweh" to indicate a change of subject.

As it stands, the Being who is the "source of eternal salvation" is Yahushua, and as Isaiah 43:11 declares, "I, I am Yahuweh, and besides Me there is no savior."

He had to become perfect.

What do you mean when you use the word "perfect"? How are you understanding the word as it is used in Scripture? "Perfect" has different meanings, and I need to understand the one you're currently attaching to it

God could not die. Remember that death, biblically, is ceasing to exist. God did not cease to exist (no part of Yahuweh can die).

Well "death", Biblically, isn't just the body dying, but the soul being destroyed as well (Matt 10:28; Ezek 18:20).

Yahushua's body stopped breathing and was "dead" - Yahuweh didn't cease to exist because Yahushua's body "died". Even when our own bodies "die", until our soul is destroyed too, then we're technically not "dead" Scripturally anyway (although Scripture attaches quite a few different meanings to "dead" like being "dead in one's sins" for instance). Yahushua's body also didn't "cease to exist" either, but was resurrected "in glory".

Again, we seem to be getting confused as to the words being used and the meanings attached to them

[sestir]

However, the NT makes it quite clear that worshiping Yahushua isn't idolatry - it is in fact required and natural.

Does it say explicitly that it is required somewhere or is it a consequence of your conclusion: Yahuweh = Yahushua?

[TWTY-Admin]

Phil 2:5-8 and Heb 1:6 were probably in my mind. Not explicit, but implicit

[StevePaige]

I believe that Yahushua was clear when he asked in Matthew 27:46,"...my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Yahuweh cannot forsake himself.

Can't He? I'm afraid I couldn't find the Scripture to back up this statement.

I'm afraid that I've never seen nor have I been shown any scriptures that show that Yahuweh did, could, or ever would forsake Himself.

Also, in Matthew 16:16, when he asked his disciples who he was, Peter answered, "You are the Christ/messiah/the anointed one, the son of the living God." Yahushua could have used this as a teachable moment and let Peter know that he was also God and that he had anointed himself. Notice though that just a few verses earlier he had called himself "the son of man", a term in Hebrew thought meaning a human being without any divine connotations.

Unfortunately, "the Son of Man" is most certainly not a term in Hebrew thought that meant a human being without any divine connotations.

"The Son of Man" is an articular (includes the definite article each and every time it is used in the NT) form of the expression "a son of man"; you won't find "the Son of Man", inclusive of the article, in any book of the Tanakh, nor in any other writing that isn't taking its cue from the NT. "The Son of Man" is a particular expression to Yahushua Himself, and reading the NT, it is quite apparent that Yahushua was the author of such a unique self-referential expression.

When Yahushua says "the Son of Man", He isn't just referencing any "human being" - He is only referring to Himself - no one else is called "the Son of Man" (and in fact, no one else calls Yahushua "the Son of Man"). It isn't taken from anything Greek or Jewish - it's an expression of His own making.

You are correct about the article being in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew.
Does the use of the article now change the meaning of the term “the son of man” (or a little more literally “the son of the human being”) into something not based on “son of man”?

What of the Aramaic spoken in Palestine at the time Yahushua was there? Looking at his audience He probably used the term “bar nasha”. Would an article placed in front of this term render something new not bringing meaning from the original?

If a title not hitherto used, does it mean that the title does not derive it’s meaning from the original term?

I think that the article could mean “I am the son of man/son of Adam/son of the human being/ mentioned in the Tanakh". Since he doesn’t define it for us we have to go with what the scripture says.

When we see the term “son of man” in the scripture it is seems to be used in a way that defines a separation from Yahuweh, as the Hebrew is “ben adam”. We could say “son of Adam” and everything that implies.

In the Book of Enoch (whether or not this is scripture is not for me to say, just using it as an old document) it seems that it could refer to the Messiah. If it is assumed to be a supernatural Messiah in this text…well after Yahushua’s resurrection, his existence would be supernatural.

Let us look at Psa 80:17, ”Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.”. In the context of the chapter, we can see, well it seems to me that, with the mention in verse 8 of, ” Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt…” that this is talking of both Israel in the past and of the Messiah in the future. I might be mistaken…but that is what I see.
Psa 80:17, , Isa 56:2, Eze 2:1....

Furthermore, let's look at a few other places where Yahushua could've taken the time either clarify or correct someone's statement.

Luke 5:18-26 (Also in Matt 9 and Mark 2). Before Yahushua heals the paralytic, He says to Him, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (v20). This leads the scribes and pharisees to question "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v21). Yahushua's response is to question them, and ask simply, "Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?" Following this, Yahushua says "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins", and proceeds to heal the paralytic.

Notice two things:
1) Yahushua doesn't say "It isn't just God who can forgive sins" nor "You're wrong in that only God can forgive sins" - He doesn't correct them on that. If He wasn't God, Yahushua could've taken the time to explain to them that He wasn't God.
2) Yahushua uses the term "the Son of Man" - this is, as mentioned, a unique self-referential expression. It is effectively Yahushua saying "I", without Him actually saying it. Plus, "the Son of Man" is capable of forgiving people their sins

So, the question here is: If only God can forgive sins (a statement which isn't corrected by anyone), and Yahushua says that He Himself is able to forgive sins - how exactly is He not God?

Because he was given the authority that you pointed to above in Luke 5:24. The Son was given that authority (as we'll see further down the page), so since it was authority given to Yahushua, it had to be Yahuweh that ultimately forgave the sin. There is no other way that authority and delegation works.

Another thing to look at where Yahushua could've corrected people is when people actively "offer him homage" (usually translated "worship"). Instances of this appear in the following places: Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38.

The word translated as "worship" is the Greek προσκυνέω/proskeuneo, which literally means "to bow down and kiss the feet". In the LXX (Septuagint), it consistently translates the Hebrew שָׁחָה/Shachah, a word of the exact same meaning.

I believe the full literal translation is "to bow down and kiss the feet like a dog licking his master". It also means to show reverence for men of superior rank.

In Exodus 34:13-14, Yahuweh says "You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim, for you shall worship no other god, for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God". The Hebrew uses the word שָׁחָה here, which the LXX follows and translates as προσκυνέω.

With this in mind, why doesn't Yahushua ever correct those who offer him the same προσκυνέω/proskeuneo? Yahuweh specifically states that "no other god" is to receive "προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה/homage"; yet, here Yahushua is receiving such from the disciples (Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52), the man whom He heals of blindness (John 9:38), and even when He was still an infant, Yahushua received προσκυνέω/proskeuneo from the wise men (Matt 2:11).

Not once is this ever corrected or stated in the NT that it was done "in error". It is in fact taken for granted that Yahushua requires the same προσκυνέω/proskeuneo that Yahuweh Himself should only receive.

If we take the other instances of people receiving προσκυνέω in the NT: Cornelius states offering Peter προσκυνέω in Acts 10:25, to which Peter immediately tells him to stand up, because "I too am a man". The Heavenly messenger who talks with John in Revelation, upon receiving προσκυνέω from John (Rev 19:10), immediately tells him "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Yahushua. Worship God." Which the Heavenly messenger has to repeat in Revelation 22:9.

The other places where people and objects receive προσκυνέω in the NT that aren't either God, Yahushua, or immediately corrected by the person receiving προσκυνέω, they are always frowned upon, explained as bad or incorrect things to do, and met with Yahuweh's wrath.

In the NT, there are therefore only two things that can truly receive προσκυνέω - Yahuweh and Yahushua. If Yahushua isn't Yahuweh, why isn't the προσκυνέω/proskeuneo offered to Yahushua ever corrected, frowned upon, or explained to be done in error? If we are to only προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה Yahuweh alone, then if Yahushua isn't also Yahuweh, how could Yahushua not be Yahuweh? If Yahushua isn't Yahuweh, then He is a liar and a false prophet, because He actively received προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה from people, and never corrected them on it like everyone else who receives such προσκυνέω.

Notice also the meaning behind Peter saying to Cornelius, "I too am a man" - men don't deserve προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה - Yahuweh does. Therefore if Yahushua also received προσκυνέω/שָׁחָה, then Yahushua = Yahuweh.

Again, we see that the word also holds the meaning of reverence or obeisance to a man of superior station or rank, we can see why Peter would say this of the Messiah. This man who grew in wisdom, knowledge and stature before Yahuweh and men, was the one whom Peter saw as the resurrected Messiah. He knew that Yahushua had become the High Priest forever at the right hand of the Father and that he (Peter) was just a man on this earth. And while Peter would one day (if he was steadfast in the faith) be one with the Messiah and in being so, be one with the Father, that at that moment he was just a man who had witnessed the First Fruits in Yahushua.

Plus, does everyone forget when Thomas says to Yahushua in John 20:28, "My Master and My God!" (again, something which Yahushua never corrects Thomas on)?

It could be that Yahushua saw this for what it was, the jubilant outburst of when a young man who so wants his teacher to be the one spoken of in the scriptures, when he comes to the sudden realization that Yahushua is actually Yahuweh's Messiah, the spotless yearling Passover Lamb who has come to take away the sins of the world. He calls out to Yahushua and he also calls out to Yahuweh...something similar to what we all have done at times of great emotion. We can not infer what he meant, we can only read what is there and what is there in no way conclusively points to one person when two are called out.

Either Yahushua is Yahuweh/God, or He is a false prophet who doesn't deserve to be remembered.

Is there a prophecy in scripture that points to the Passover Lamb/Messiah/High Priest being Yahuweh? Is it a contradiction of scripture for the Messiah to be a man? Isn't it in the contradicting of previous scripture that one is found a to be a false prophet?

It needs to be remembered that the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh was brought to us by same people who made Sabbath keeping against the law and removed all of Yahuweh's festivals.

I disagree, and I think I've shown that the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh is based on thoughts taken from the NT writings themselves. Whilst the following centuries may've gone way overboard with what they did and what they exactly thought with regards to Yahushua, the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh/God isn't one of the things they've got wrong.

We cannot go on "...the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh is based on thoughts taken from the NT writings...". Before the Nicene council was there ever a doctrine of God the Son in the apostolic, historical, prophetic writings attributed to the NT?

Yahuweh appointed men as his agents on earth. The difference between Yahushua and the others is that he was the yearling lamb that was found without blemish and sacrificed once and for all to blot out the decrees against us. This was part of Yahuweh's plan from the beginning.

Let us remember what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:21:
15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. 15:22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; then when Christ comes, those who belong to him. 15:24 Then comes the end, when he (Yahushua) hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. 15:25 For he (Yahushua) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 15:26 The last enemy to be eliminated is death. 15:27 For he (Yahuweh) has put everything in subjection under his (Yahushua) feet. But when it says “everything” has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one (Yahuweh) who put everything in subjection to him (Yahushua). 15:28 And when all things are subjected to him (Yahushua), then the Son (Yahushua) himself will be subjected to the one (Yahuweh) who subjected everything to him (Yahushua), so that God may be all in all.

Once we clear up the pronouns, we can see the 2 individuals here clearly showing their separation from each other as one who is the author of authority and the other who has been given that authority from the Eternal.

Even in verse 21 we see how the resurrection of the dead comes through a man and in verse 22 that man is the Messiah.

This what the NT writings say.

[TWTY-Admin]

I'm afraid that I've never seen nor have I been shown any scriptures that show that Yahuweh did, could, or ever would forsake Himself.

Well as I’ve pointed out, Yahushua was actually quoting from Psalm 22.

What I find interesting is that only two of the eyewitness accounts record Yahushua as actually saying this (Matt & Mark) – Luke and John make no mention of this.

Luke records Yahushua’s final words as "Father, into your hands I commit My Spirit" (23:46); John has Yahushua saying "It is finished" (19:30). Matt and Mark mention that Yahushua lets out a "final cry" (27:50; 15:37), and then "breathes his last".

If we take all of this into consideration, are the words "It is finished" and "Father, into your hands I commit My Spirit" the final words of a person who believed that He had been forsaken by Yahuweh? It certainly isn’t, and there’s no other mention of Yahushua been "forsaken" by Yahuweh in any of the other writings that comprise the NT.

We should therefore take it as a quotation from Psalm 22 for the benefit of those who heard Yahushua clearly (some standing there didn’t because they thought that He was calling for Elijah), pointing them to the Psalm. I also find it quite fitting that Yahushua quotes Psalm 22 after they’ve been mocking Him with phrases such as "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the upright stake!", "He saved others; He cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the upright stake that we may see and believe.", and even "Those who were crucified with him also reviled him."; all of which is fulfilment of Psalm 22:6-8

You are correct about the article being in the Greek, but not in the Hebrew.
Does the use of the article now change the meaning of the term "the son of man" (or a little more literally "the son of the human being") into something not based on "son of man"? What of the Aramaic spoken in Palestine at the time Yahushua was there? Looking at his audience He probably used the term "bar nasha". Would an article placed in front of this term render something new not bringing meaning from the original?

If a title not hitherto used, does it mean that the title does not derive it’s meaning from the original term?

I think that the article could mean "I am the son of man/son of Adam/son of the human being/ mentioned in the Tanakh". Since he doesn’t define it for us we have to go with what the scripture says.

"The Son of Man" is no less a literal translation of the Greek ο υιος των ανθρωπου than "the son of the human being"; not quite sure where you’re getting the idea that "human being" is more literal than "man".

Plus yes, that is precisely what I’m saying: the addition and or the omission of definite articles (especially in Greek), can give a word or term a different meaning as to what’s been referenced (hence the difference between "law" and "the Law" – the first is just general, but "the Law" is a reference to the Torah).

When it comes to the singular "son of man" in the Tanakh, the LXX never once adds the definite article to the phrase when translating from the Hebrew and/or Aramaic original. It is always "anarthrous" (without the definite article), precisely translating the Hebrew/Aramaic word for word, with no addition or dynamic-equivalent style translation. This therefore shows that Yahushua’s own usage of "the Son of Man" isn’t based on anything Greek (before the NT, such a phrase doesn’t exist in Greek literature), nor is it a translation of a Semitic original that found it’s source in the "son of man" sayings in the Tanakh.

As I’ve said, "the Son of Man" was Yahushua’s unique particular self-expression to refer to Himself in His sayings when He didn’t want to use the pronoun "I", when He could quite easily do so.

He also didn’t use "the Son of Man" as a way of saying something about Himself: it is used only to refer, not to characterise – "the Son of Man" is not used to highlight Yahushua’s humanity, nor is it a Messiahological (Christological) term employed by the NT writings (especially as it isn’t used outside of the eyewitness accounts, and the one brief reference in Acts 7) to accent Yahushua’s divinity – it is only used to refer to Him, without any theological attachment to the phrase.

That doesn’t mean that the sayings that include "the Son of Man" in them aren’t saying something about Yahushua – just that Him using "the Son of Man" had no other use than to refer to Himself without using "I", which He could quite easily have done so. He just didn’t, and preferred to use "the Son of Man" as His own personal unique self-referential expression.

If it was just a translation or reference to the "son of man" usages in the Tanakh, then we would have expected the NT (or the supposedly Greek translators thereof if people want to try and argue an original Aramaic/Hebrew composition for them, regardless of the lack of evidence) to be a bit more inconsistent with the translation of "the Son of Man" – yet, even checking through all the earliest manuscripts, I couldn’t find a single manuscript that omitted the definite article from before either "son" or from before "man". If the Greek was merely a translation, then we’d have quite a few different ways of translating it, or it would’ve followed the LXX usage which didn’t include the definite article.

Yet, here we are: the non-Greek, non-Hebrew, and non-Aramaic phrase "the Son of Man" on Yahushua’s lips. To call it "unique" probably isn’t quite doing it justice!

When we see the term "son of man" in the scripture it is seems to be used in a way that defines a separation from Yahuweh, as the Hebrew is "ben adam". We could say "son of Adam" and everything that implies.

The Tanakh also uses "ben 'enowsh" (Psa 144:3) as an equivalent. But again, refer to the above with regards to "the Son of Man" – its usage is very different to that seen in books such as Ezekiel, and doesn’t follow the conventional Greek translation of the Hebrew original.

Not soon-passed-from-this-existence scholar Geza Vermes, in his Book "Jesus in his Jewish Context" came to the same conclusion and states explicitly that ""the Son of man" in the Christian gospels is unrelated to Hebrew Bible usages."

In the Book of Enoch (whether or not this is scripture is not for me to say, just using it as an old document) it seems that it could refer to the Messiah. If it is assumed to be a supernatural Messiah in this text… well after Yahushua’s resurrection, his existence would be supernatural.

Even in the Book of Enoch, the phrase only appears in the Book of Parables, of which we only have in Ethiopic, and contra the English translations therefore, the Ethiopic uses three different ways of saying "son of man" that doesn’t correspond to Yahushua’s self-referential usage.

What I’m trying to point out is that to make any sort of belief about Yahushua based on His usage of "the Son of Man" with regards to it either being a confession of His humanity or of some sort of Messiahological title cannot be done. It has absolutely no Scriptural equivalent, and was unique only to Himself.

Because he was given the authority that you pointed to above in Luke 5:24. The Son was given that authority (as we'll see further down the page), so since it was authority given to Yahushua, it had to be Yahuweh that ultimately forgave the sin. There is no other way that authority and delegation works.

My main point with that was to contrast your statement that Yahushua could’ve made it clear to Peter that He was also God, but didn’t. I was also pointing out that Yahushua could’ve made it clear in that situation that He wasn’t God, but didn’t.

Essentially, we can argue all day about what Yahushua could or couldn’t’ve said to make things "clear" to people – the argument can go both ways with whether Yahushua could’ve made it clear in certain situations as to what He meant or what the people should be thinking about Him

I believe the full literal translation is "to bow down and kiss the feet like a dog licking his master".

I’m going to have to have a source for that.

It also means to show reverence for men of superior rank…

Again, we see that the word also holds the meaning of reverence or obeisance to a man of superior station or rank, we can see why Peter would say this of the Messiah. This man who grew in wisdom, knowledge and stature before Yahuweh and men, was the one whom Peter saw as the resurrected Messiah. He knew that Yahushua had become the High Priest forever at the right hand of the Father and that he (Peter) was just a man on this earth. And while Peter would one day (if he was steadfast in the faith) be one with the Messiah and in being so, be one with the Father, that at that moment he was just a man who had witnessed the First Fruits in Yahushua.

But not in the context that the NT uses the term. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament even goes to state "When the NT uses προσκυνεῖν, the object is always something - truly or supposedly - divine." (TDNT Vol. 6, Page 761-2).

I wouldn’t downplay the usage of προσκυνεω in the NT texts. The context in which προσκυνεω is employed is quite telling of the theology of the person writing.

It could be that Yahushua saw this for what it was, the jubilant outburst of when a young man who so wants his teacher to be the one spoken of in the scriptures, when he comes to the sudden realization that Yahushua is actually Yahuweh's Messiah, the spotless yearling Passover Lamb who has come to take away the sins of the world. He calls out to Yahushua and he also calls out to Yahuweh...something similar to what we all have done at times of great emotion. We can not infer what he meant, we can only read what is there and what is there in no way conclusively points to one person when two are called out.

Seeing as though it specifically states that Thomas said this to Yahushua, there’s no "inferring" as to what’s going on.
The Greek makes it clear that Thomas says this to Yahushua when it has (literal translation) "Answered Thomas and he said to Him, 'The Master of Me and The God of Me!’ " No Greek reader coming away from having read this sentence would think Thomas was talking or referring to anyone else other than Yahushua.

Is there a prophecy in scripture that points to the Passover Lamb/Messiah/High Priest being Yahuweh? Is it a contradiction of scripture for the Messiah to be a man?

I’m not arguing that Yahushua wasn’t human – I’m trying to make clear that He wasn’t just a human.

I would say it’s a contradiction of Scripture to think that the Messiah was just a created human being (albeit a perfectly spotless one):

Jeremiah 23:5-6: "The days are coming," declares Yahuweh, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: Yahuweh Our Righteousness."

Micah 5:2: But you, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, whom is little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of you shall come forth to Me One who is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

Psalm 45:6-7: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of your kingship a sceptre of justice, you love uprightness and detest evil. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with oil of gladness, as none of your rivals. – ("God" has someone who is also His "God"?)

Hosea 1:7: But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by Yahuweh their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen." Yahuweh says that He shall save Judah by "Yahuweh their God"? Either Yahuweh has a split personality, or there are two things that can be both referred to as "Yahuweh".

Zechariah 2:10-11: Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares Yahuweh. And many nations shall join themselves to Yahuweh in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that Yahuweh of hosts has sent me to you. Again, the "I" is Yahuweh, and yet is also sent by "Yahuweh".

Also, the "Messenger of Yahuweh" in the Tanakh is quite clearly divine, with such places as Genesis 22:15-19, where the "messenger of Yahuweh" speaks as though He Himself is Yahuweh: And the messenger of Yahuweh called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares Yahuweh, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived at Beersheba.

Judges 6:11-24 also refers to the "messenger of Yahuweh" as just plain "Yahuweh" several times.

Isaiah 40:3-5: A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of Yahuweh; make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain. And the glory of Yahuweh shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of Yahuweh has spoken."
Isaiah 9:6: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

We cannot go on "...the idea that Yahushua is Yahuweh is based on thoughts taken from the NT writings...". Before the Nicene council was there ever a doctrine of God the Son in the apostolic, historical, prophetic writings attributed to the NT?

Steve, I really do hope you’re not insinuating that prior to the council of Nicea no one believed that Yahushua was also God? There are nearly two and a half centuries of writings from Clement of Rome through to Victorinus of Pettau where they argue for Yahushua being God. That Yahushua was Yahuweh was hardly the brain-child of the Nicene Council that they just made up then and there!

That isn’t to mention the Gnostics, who usually denied Yahushua’s humanity, not Him being God.

Yahuweh appointed men as his agents on earth. The difference between Yahushua and the others is that he was the yearling lamb that was found without blemish and sacrificed once and for all to blot out the decrees against us. This was part of Yahuweh's plan from the beginning.

No one is arguing against this. However, this still doesn’t take into account the numerous references to Yahushua’s pre-existence before His coming to earth, as well as the fact that Yahushua was Yahuweh as a human.

The same way that Yahushua is Yahuweh-as-Human, so was the pillar of cloud in the desert Yahuweh-as-Cloud, and the pillar of fire Yahuweh-as-Fire.

Let us remember what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:21…

Once we clear up the pronouns, we can see the 2 individuals here clearly showing their separation from each other as one who is the author of authority and the other who has been given that authority from the Eternal.

Even in verse 21 we see how the resurrection of the dead comes through a man and in verse 22 that man is the Messiah.

This what the NT writings say.

Again, no one’s arguing that Yahushua wasn’t a human – He wasn’t just a human.

I’ve made a conscious effort to ignore Paul, but seeing as though you’ve brought him up…

Phil 2:5-10: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Messiah Yahushua, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Yahushua every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Messiah Yahushua is Yahuweh, to the glory of God the Father.

Rom 10:12-14: For there is no distinction between Yahuwdean and Greek; for the same Master is Master of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on Him. For "everyone who calls on the name of Yahuweh will be saved." How then will they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Speaking of Yahushua in Romans 10, Paul goes to quote Joel 2:32 which uses "Yahuweh", making them both equal.

Whether you believe Paul wrote Titus or not, Titus is at the least a product of a follower of the Messiah from the 2nd Century CE, and it goes on to state "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of Messiah Yahushua, our Great God and Saviour" (Titus 2:13)

I also found it odd how you appealed to Hebrews to show that Yahushua was just a human, when in the first chapter it establishes that He was certainly more than a human,

Heb 1:8-12: But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions."
And, "You, Yahuweh, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
Quoting from Psalm 45:6-7 and 102:25-27, the Author of Hebrews applies Scripture to Yahushua ('the Son’) that refer to Him as "God" and "Yahuweh". The Author of Hebrews has a very High Messiahological outlook, and His main thrust is to point out Yahushua’s superiority to Heavenly Messengers, Moses, and the Aaronic Priesthood. It hardly makes Yahushua out to be just a human.

There’s also the usual "go-to" verses from John:

In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word (God) became flesh (human), and tabernacled amongst us (John 1:1, 14)

No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. (John 3:13)
This was why the Yahuwdeans were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He unburdening the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. (John 5:18)
Lest we forget to point out that Yahushua is also the "first and the last":
When I saw Him (Yahushua), I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (Rev 1:17-18; taking it’s words from Isaiah 44:6: Thus says Yahuweh, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, Yahuweh of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.)