Was the Father's will always subordinate to the Son's will?

[Fenris]

These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)

Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.

[shepherdsword]

These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)

Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.

[Fenris]

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

"Echad" means the same thing in English as it does in Hebrew: "One".

Or are you arguing that the word "one" in English means "unity of of plurity"?

[Athanasius]

These three are one (or "echad" as in unity of of plurity)

Don't bring in Hebrew. "Echad" simply means "one", same as in English.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one(echad) flesh.

"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".

When saying "These three are one", what are you suggesting is plural? I've sort of skipped over your suggestion that any one person of the Godhead could have "fulfilled the role" of the Father. That's an interesting choice of words. Are you suggesting that the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are roles and not persons?

[Fenris]

"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".

This is usually a Christian Apologetic for Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one". "Oh but Gen 2:24 says a man and his wife become one flesh, so "Echad" doesn't mean one, it means "a compound unity" and Det 6:4 means the trinity". Something like that.

[shepherdsword]

"Echad" is just the Hebrew word for the number one. It's incorrect to say that echad denotes a "unity of [a?] plurality".

This is usually a Christian Apologetic for Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one". "Oh but Gen 2:24 says a man and his wife become one flesh, so "Echad" doesn't mean one, it means "a compound unity" and Det 6:4 means the trinity". Something like that.

yeah, that's my typical defense too. In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers? (from the Tanakh)

[Fenris]

yeah, that's my typical defense too.

Well, that isn't what the word means.

In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers?

No, I haven't. Because there's no such Jewish doctrine.

[shepherdsword]

yeah, that's my typical defense too.

Well, that isn't what the word means.
It's how it is used in Gen 2:24

In any case, have you ever done a study on the Jewish doctrine of the two powers?

No, I haven't. Because there's no such Jewish doctrine.

Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ. Watch the video I posted for a surface view. You can then dig deeper into Heiser's 8 hour video on the subject.

[Fenris]

Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ.

The whole idea that Jews prior to the Pharisees were some sort of proto Christians and they were somehow "deceived by the rabbis" is just silly and not supported by any biblical texts, including the Christian bible.

The Jews were a highly literate society even during the first temple era. You're comparing them to Christians in the medieval era, who could be led astray by Catholic priests because the priests were the only ones who could read the bible. That didn't apply to Jews, and probably never did. Judaism is a religion of deeds, not faith, and only biblically literate individuals could know what God expected and how to carry that out.

Christianity was a new way of looking at the bible. This is why it did not attract many Jewish followers, who could already read the bible and had a tradition on how it was understood going back to Sinai. That you think Jews were somehow duped "by the rabbis" who, after Jesus appeared on the scene, changed what everything meant, is just silly.

[shepherdsword]

Actually you are partially correct. It was a well known and accepted doctrine in the 2nd temple time frame. However, it was eradicated and condemned by the Pharisees after the advent of Christ.

The whole idea that Jews prior to the Pharisees were some sort of proto Christians and they were somehow "deceived by the rabbis" is just silly and not supported by any biblical texts, including the Christian bible.

The Jews were a highly literate society even during the first temple era. You're comparing them to Christians in the medieval era, who could be led astray by Catholic priests because the priests were the only ones who could read the bible. That didn't apply to Jews, and probably never did. Judaism is a religion of deeds, not faith, and only biblically literate individuals could know what God expected and how to carry that out.

Christianity was a new way of looking at the bible. This is why it did not attract many Jewish followers, who could already read the bible and had a tradition on how it was understood going back to Sinai. That you think Jews were somehow duped "by the rabbis" who, after Jesus appeared on the scene, changed what everything meant, is just silly.

I never compared them to proto christians or questioned their literacy. What I did do...was actually read some of rabbinical scholar Alan Segal's research. I also listened to Heiser. (video below)

"Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship." More: https://twopowersinheaven.com/

Dr Heiser's research confirms many of Segal's assertions. Therefore it is not some "silly" idea easily dismissed but one that requires careful research and an open mind.

[Fenris]

rabbinical scholar

I have no idea what this means.

Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff.,

I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire

Sounds like God to me.

Exo 23:20-23

“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.  Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.  If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you.


The Hebrew word for "angel" is "מַלְאָךְ֙ ", literally "messenger". How is someone conflating this to be some other incarnation of God?

and Exo 15:3.

The Lord is a Master of war; the Lord is His Name.

Uses YHVH, literally God. Not someone/something else.

Dr Heiser's research confirms many of Segal's assertions. Therefore it is not some "silly" idea easily dismissed but one that requires careful research and an open mind.

Taking three verses and torturing their translation to mean something that the text doesn't say is not "scholarship". It's silly. Dan Brown's books are based on such a premise. Are they "scholarship" too?

[Sojourner]

13 I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him. 14 And He gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues shall serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion, which will not be removed, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

Fenris, we agree that the Ancient of Days is God, but who's the individual Daniel saw being transported before Him on the clouds of heaven? And where did he come from?

[Fenris]

Fenris, we agree that the Ancient of Days is God, but who's the individual Daniel saw being transported before Him on the clouds of heaven? And where did he come from?

The messiah. Why is this even a question?

[Sojourner]

Well, I thought the Jewish messiah was an ordinary man, rather than someone hitching a ride on the clouds into heaven. BTW, one can hardly miss the similarities between what Daniel describes here and Jesus, who ascended to the throne of God on clouds. Just sayin'.

[Fenris]

Well, I thought the Jewish messiah was an ordinary man, rather than someone hitching a ride on the clouds into heaven.

Moses was an ordinary man, and he ascended to heaven and was there for 40 days and 40 nights.  Elijah was an ordinary man, yet he ascended to heaven on a fiery chariot. Who are you to limit God and decide who he can and can't bring to heaven?

BTW, one can hardly miss the similarities between what Daniel describes here and Jesus, who ascended to the throne of God on clouds. Just sayin'.

Only if one believes the NT to be holy writ. Just sayin.