Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
The Trinity
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,146
- 396
The assembly of God's people for purposes of determining agreement or not is more of an inference, biblically, than a specified order. In agreeing to the Law of Moses, and the associated Covenant, it was God who called all the tribes and leaders together to make a decision on behalf of the entire nation. And such gatherings formed a specific order and legal structure from God's Law, as given by Moses.
It was then assumed that when various gatherings took place, for war or otherwise, it had to be based upon the principles of the Law. They did not gather to determine what, specifically, the Law was. At best, it would be a matter of determining how the Law would apply on behalf of the whole nation. The Prophets helped to determine whether the nation was opting to serve other gods or the one God of Israel.
In the NT we have the same thing occurring. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, Messiah of Israel and Messiah for the world. Determining whether the Church is moving in a liberal direction or in an orthodox direction was determined by orthodox theologians who drew upon the Apostles and their Scriptures.
The Catholic organization also can move in a liberal or in a conservative direction, depending on the particular Pope and depending upon the particular time and interests in history. The common experience of "gathering" is not in itself evidence of a right or a wrong order--it is simply something to be expected of a people who had begun with a single covenant.
The language of the "Trinity" does not alone determine whether it is orthodox and biblical or not. There are always going to be language issues when doctrines begin in one or a couple of languages and then have to be explained in other languages and to other cultures.
The "Trinity" is therefore a "language" issue, attempting to explain, rationally, what "one God" means in the Roman culture with respect to a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. These Persons are all biblical and part of the Christian Covenant. But they have to be explained to "materialists," who recognize spiritual things in "materialistic terms."
Hence, the orthodox Fathers came up with the formula of "one Substance and three Persons." The three Persons are not divided up into separate, individual, material substances, but are rather, united in a single transcendent, divine Spirit. Their separate Personalities arise out of this transcendent Being, being understood by finite humans using finite concepts such as "distinct Persons."
God is one transcendent Being, who can be understood as distinct Persons, all recognizable as the one transcendent God. But they are real Persons, as we would understand them as human beings, recognizing that they relate to one another as different Persons. They all have a distinctly different frame of reference, justifying their separation into distinct Persons. We cannot understand their unity in a substance that is by definition "transcendent."
The word of God emerges from a transcendent God to reveal things to us that can only be understood as originating from God and revealing things to us about God on our finite plane of existence. And so, we can know all three Persons of the Trinity, and know they are all God, without having to understand God's transcendent Being that existed prior to what He has revealed to us about Himself.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,335
- 6,406
As I have shown you several times, your desire for John 8:58 to say "I am he" is seriously wanting, as it has Jesus speaking nonsense and not answering the question he was asked. And it is a desire (not sound exegesis) for it to say something other than it plainly does, because otherwise you have to admit that your understanding of the Son and the Father is incorrect.
You also say that "Jesus is a human," while ignoring the context of John 8:24, namely, verse 23, in which Jesus clearly states "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (ESV)
Note that he first states that they "are from below" and "are of this world." He contrasts that with where he is from. This is very similar to what he does in 8:58. In answering the question "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?," in verse 57, Jesus responds with "before Abraham was, I am." He is contrasting the temporary existence of Abraham in time, with his own eternal pre-existence, which is absolute existence ("I am").
So, to support your position, you're ignoring the contexts of verses 23 and 57, which you have to do, but that is why your position is error.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
Great post and rebuttal.
If I had phrased it that way, I would have been in serious trouble!
J.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,335
- 6,406
Well, we've been over this many times (HERE and subsequent posts, and HERE and subsequent posts, for instance) and he still refuses to acknowledge that "I am he" in John 8:58 makes no grammatical sense and so has Jesus speaking nonsense, while not answering the question he was asked.
Perhaps you would agree that this is one of the most serious theological issues, as Jesus either is truly God and truly man or he is only man, and salvation is dependant on believing he is who he said he is.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
This is not merely a theological issue, Free. According to Scripture, the Messiah is truly God and truly man. I can provide you with numerous references, but I believe you already know this. This is where I take significant issue with modalism and oneness theology.
Key Scriptural Affirmations-
John 1:1, 14 (ESV)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."
Greek Verbs-
ἦν (ēn) - Imperfect Active Indicative, 3rd Person Singular - "was"
ἐγένετο (egeneto) - Aorist Middle Indicative, 3rd Person Singular - "became"
These verses clearly affirm that the Logos (Word) was both with God and was God, and then became flesh, demonstrating the dual nature of Christ as both divine and human.
Many have a problem with the dual nature of Christ Jesus--correct?
Colossians 2:9 (ESV)
"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily."
Greek Verbs-
κατοικεῖ (katoikei) - Present Active Indicative, 3rd Person Singular - "dwells"
Insight: The present tense indicates the continuous indwelling of deity in bodily form, confirming that Christ is fully God in His incarnate state.
1 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)
"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh..."
Greek Verbs-
ἐφανερώθη (ephanerōthē) - Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd Person Singular - "was manifested"
Insight: This verse proclaims the incarnation of God in human form, directly opposing the idea that Jesus is merely a manifestation rather than a true union of divine and human natures.
Salvation in Messiah requires rightly believing in who He declared Himself to be. Jesus said in John 8:24 (ESV),
"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am [he] you will die in your sins."
2) "For if ye believe not that I am [he,]" (ean gar me pisteusete hoti ego eimi) "Because if you all believe or trust not that I am (the one existing from above)," the Son of God, the Savior, the Life, the Light of the world, that I claim to be, whom my Father has sent, Joh_1:1-4; Joh_1:18; Joh_8:12; Luk_19:10; Rev_21:8.
Greek Verbs-
πιστεύσητε (pisteusēte) - Aorist Active Subjunctive, 2nd Person Plural - "you believe"
ἀποθανεῖσθε (apothaneisthe) - Future Middle Indicative, 2nd Person Plural - "you will die"
Insight- The use of "I am" (ἐγώ εἰμι) connects to YHWH’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14, affirming that belief in Jesus’ divine identity is essential for salvation.
My apologies for taking the long route brother, but this is important--
The scriptural evidence consistently affirms that Jesus Christ is both God and man, and salvation hinges on rightly acknowledging His true nature.
Modalism and oneness theology fail to adequately address the biblical portrayal of the Messiah's dual nature, making this an issue of sound doctrine rather than mere theological preference. Not my opinion, but what stands written, Perfect tense.
God bless.
I'm still working on how to communicate in a way that's not confrontational.
Johann.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,867
- 8,327
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; John 8:58-59
Do you believe what Jesus said about Himself here?
The Jews didn’t. They picked up stones to stone Him to death for blasphemy;
claiming He was I AM.
Greetings again JLB, Free and Johann,
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Jesus was referring to the fact that he was the true seed of Abraham, the one through whom the promises and the blessings would flow, not only by his ministry but also as the true burnt offering and the resurrection.
Genesis 22:13–14 (KJV): 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
But they were not interested in what he was saying, even if they understood his claim, and they deliberately muddied the waters to achieve their goal of stoning him, taking up the role of their decision to be the slayers of the perfect sin and burnt offering.
But Jesus claims that even though he was the promised seed of Abraham, he was also before Abraham. He was the seed promised concerning the seed of Eve:
Genesis 3:15 (KJV): And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Jesus was the seed of the woman and they were acting the role of the seed of the serpent as Jesus had previously stated and accused them of their murderous intent.
John 1:12–13 (KJV): 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jesus was from above, not only in his character, he was "full of grace and truth", but also this is speaking in John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 about his conception, not a supposed incarnation. He is the seed of Eve and the true seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful.
Kind regards
Trevor
You have chosen to ignore my Post #515 as started above in which I gave a fairly thorough background of the events and ideas leading up to John 8:58. I consider that this is an essential consideration to a correct understanding of this event. It is like a golden thread in understanding, and once understood it is more like a golden stream.
This comment is in the same category, and ignores the subterfuge and malice of the Pharisees, and their complete ignoring the theme of what Jesus previously stated. Their intent is to stir up some members of the volatile crowd, to throw a stone but they absolutely failed because of the clarity of Jesus' true teaching and the incident concerning the woman in the early part of chapter 8. Jesus had been talking about the true seed of Abraham, and here in this immediate context he stated:
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Jesus was referring to the fact that he was the true seed of Abraham, the one through whom the promises and the blessings would flow, not only by his ministry but also as the true burnt offering and the resurrection.
Genesis 22:13–14 (KJV): 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
But they were not interested in what he was saying, even if they understood his claim, and they deliberately muddied the waters to achieve their goal of stoning him, taking up the role of their decision to be the slayers of the perfect sin and burnt offering.
But Jesus claims that even though he was the promised seed of Abraham, he was also before Abraham. He was the seed promised concerning the seed of Eve:
Genesis 3:15 (KJV): And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Jesus was the seed of the woman and they were acting the role of the seed of the serpent as Jesus had previously stated and accused them of their murderous intent.
Yes but this is what John states about this. The believers are patterned on the events of the birth of Christ:
John 1:12–13 (KJV): 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jesus was from above, not only in his character, he was "full of grace and truth", but also this is speaking in John 1:14, Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 about his conception, not a supposed incarnation. He is the seed of Eve and the true seed of Abraham, the father of the faithful.
Kind regards
Trevor
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
I get where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a bit of a mix-up here regarding what the Bible actually teaches about the incarnation. You’re absolutely right that Jesus is from above--not just in terms of His character being full of grace and truth, but in His actual origin. However, when you say that passages like John 1:14, Matthew 1:20–21, and Luke 1:34–35 only refer to His conception and not the incarnation, that’s not entirely accurate. It's actually a false statement.
In John 1:14, it clearly says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” The Greek verb ἐγένετο (egeneto) means “became” or “came into being.” It’s not just about being conceived; it’s about the Word (Logos) taking on human nature. This is foundational to the doctrine of the incarnation--God the Son didn’t just start existing at conception; He became flesh while still being fully divine.
Yes, Matthew 1:20–21 does talk about the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit, but that’s describing the means through which the incarnation took place. Similarly, Luke 1:34–35 emphasizes that the child born will be holy-the Son of God-highlighting both His humanity and divinity.
Also, while it’s true that Jesus is the “seed of Eve” (Genesis 3:15) and the “seed of Abraham” (Galatians 3:16), that’s just one side of the story. Jesus Himself made it clear in John 8:23: “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.”
This shows that His origin isn’t just earthly--He is the pre-existent Son who came from heaven.
So, it’s not just a matter of conception; it’s about God the Son becoming human while remaining fully divine. That’s what the incarnation means, and that’s why it’s central to understanding who Jesus truly is.
Also---
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Key Greek Verb:
ἐγένετο (egeneto) - Aorist Middle Indicative, 3rd Person Singular
Meaning: "Became" or "came into being."
The verb emphasizes the transition of the Word (Logos) into a new state-taking on human nature. This is more than just conception; it denotes the eternal Word becoming flesh, highlighting the incarnation.
2. Philippians 2:6-7
Text:
"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."
Key Greek Verbs:
ὑπάρχων (hyparchōn) - Present Active Participle
"Existing" or "being."
Indicates continuous existence, showing that Jesus already existed in the form of God before His incarnation.
ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν (heauton ekenōsen) - Aorist Active Indicative
Meaning: "Emptied himself."
Voluntarily relinquished divine privileges, not His divine nature.
λαβών (labōn) - Aorist Active Participle
Meaning: "Taking" or "receiving."
Denotes taking on human nature, not losing divinity.
3. Colossians 2:9
Text:
“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
Key Greek Verb:
κατοικεῖ (katoikei) - Present Active Indicative
Meaning: "Dwells" or "resides permanently."
The verb is in the present tense, indicating the permanent, ongoing nature of the fullness of deity in Christ, even in His incarnate state.
4. John 8:23
Text:
“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.”
Key Greek Verb:
ἐστέ (este) - Present Active Indicative
Meaning: "You are."
ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi) - Present Active Indicative
Meaning: "I am." NOT ----I AM [HE] as I have shown you TrevorL
Jesus is contrasting His heavenly origin with their earthly origin. The verb "I am" (ἐγώ εἰμι) also aligns with divine self-identification, affirming His pre-existence and divine nature.
5. 1 John 4:2
Text:
"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."
Key Greek Verb:
ἐληλυθότα (elēlythota) - Perfect Active Participle
Meaning: "Has come."
The perfect tense indicates a completed action with ongoing results---Jesus took on human flesh and remains in that nature.
The verbs in these passages consistently indicate that Jesus, as the eternal Word (Logos), took on human nature without losing His divinity. The incarnation is not merely conception; it’s the pre-existent Son of God becoming flesh. This is crucial because it maintains the truth of Jesus’ dual nature as both fully divine and fully human.
Your view aligns more closely with Adoptionism or Unitarianism, which often holds that Jesus was a human being who was granted a special relationship with God or became divine at a specific point, rather than eternally existing as God. It may also reflect elements of Socinianism, which denies the pre-existence of Christ and views Him purely as a man chosen by God.
It rejects the traditional doctrine of the hypostatic union--the belief that Jesus is one Person with two natures: fully God and fully human. By emphasizing that Jesus is merely the “seed of Eve” and “the true seed of Abraham” without acknowledging His pre-existent divine nature,your belief diverges from orthodox Christianity and resonates with Non-Trinitarian perspectives.
Incarnation (Christianity) - Wikipedia
You agree?!
Johann.
Last edited:
Greetings again Johann,
Luke 1:31–35 (KJV): 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
This states that Jesus is the Son of God because of the conception, where God the Father is the father of Jesus while Mary was his mother. Conception, not incarnation.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 4:25–26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Kind regards
Trevor
I understand that these three references teach the conception not the incarnation.
Luke 1:31–35 (KJV): 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
This states that Jesus is the Son of God because of the conception, where God the Father is the father of Jesus while Mary was his mother. Conception, not incarnation.
I understand that the Word of John 1:1 is a personification similar to the wise woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh in the creation.
The other side of the story is that God the Father is the father in the conception process.
I prefer the KJV rendition:
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The same word "form" in "form of God" is also used for "form of servant". Paul is speaking of his dispensation of mind, not the incarnation. Jesus was born the greatest prince ever born, but he did not use this status, but chose humility, even to the death of the cross.
Yes, Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.
I am content with my previous explanation that "I am he" is part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ.
John 4:25–26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
Trinitarians believe that Jesus came as a flesh being and a Divine being. John is speaking against the early development of this error. Jesus came in the flesh.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
I am a Biblical Unitarian that believes in the conception where God the Father is the father of Jesus, and hence he is the Son of God by birth.
Kind regards
Trevor
Greetings again Johann,
I made a mistake in my previous Post. I used the word dispensation when I should have said disposition. I will repeat the relevant portion for clarity.
Paul encouraged us to humility of mind using our Lord Jesus Christ as our example:
Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV): 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
A few extra thoughts on this. I consider that the phrase "being in the form of God" alludes to the creation of Adam.
Genesis 1:26–27 (KJV): 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Jesus was the firstborn of the New Creation and would have been at birth closer to this ideal than any other person after Adam. Also he was born the Son of God, a higher status than any before him.
Another allusion to the Garden of Eden is the phrase "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". I consider the following to be a better translation:
Philippians 2:6 (ESV): who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
The allusion is to what happened in the Garden, where Adam and Eve grasped at equality with God:
Genesis 3:4–5 (KJV): 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Not only in his early life before his ministry, but also during his ministry, Jesus exhibited that humility of mind in submitting himself in service to God as Yahweh's Servant:
Luke 2:49–52 (KJV): 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Isaiah 42:1–4 (KJV): 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Kind regards
Trevor
I made a mistake in my previous Post. I used the word dispensation when I should have said disposition. I will repeat the relevant portion for clarity.
The same word "form" in "form of God" is also used for "form of servant". Paul is speaking of his disposition of mind, not the incarnation. Jesus was born the greatest prince ever born, but he did not use this status, but chose humility, even to the death of the cross.
Paul encouraged us to humility of mind using our Lord Jesus Christ as our example:
Philippians 2:5–8 (KJV): 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
A few extra thoughts on this. I consider that the phrase "being in the form of God" alludes to the creation of Adam.
Genesis 1:26–27 (KJV): 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Jesus was the firstborn of the New Creation and would have been at birth closer to this ideal than any other person after Adam. Also he was born the Son of God, a higher status than any before him.
Another allusion to the Garden of Eden is the phrase "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". I consider the following to be a better translation:
Philippians 2:6 (ESV): who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped
The allusion is to what happened in the Garden, where Adam and Eve grasped at equality with God:
Genesis 3:4–5 (KJV): 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Not only in his early life before his ministry, but also during his ministry, Jesus exhibited that humility of mind in submitting himself in service to God as Yahweh's Servant:
Luke 2:49–52 (KJV): 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Isaiah 42:1–4 (KJV): 1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Kind regards
Trevor
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
Hi TrevorL
Honestly, there are so many issues here that I’m not sure where to start. It just shows that it’s one thing to quote Scripture and another to really grasp the truth. Some people just aren’t willing to be corrected, no matter how clear the evidence is. Proverbs 12:1 comes to mind: “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid” (ESV).
If I tried to point out where you’re off when it comes to the Incarnation, I’m pretty sure you’d take it as a personal attack rather than just a theological discussion. Plus, I’d probably end up in hot water with the moderators. I’m trying to be cautious here because I know how these conversations can go.
For me, this isn’t just a minor difference--it’s a big deal. Getting this doctrine wrong messes with the core of justification, sanctification, and salvation. I’d really like to hear your take on those topics and how you go about studying the Bible, because it feels like there’s a gap in how we’re approaching this.
Look, I know I’m just a guest here, and I get that I need to be respectful. I don’t want to come across as combative, but at the same time, I can’t just sit back when I see teachings that don’t line up with Scripture. Titus 1:9 says to “hold firm to the trustworthy word” and be able to “rebuke those who contradict it” (ESV), and that’s what I’m trying to do without stepping on too many toes.
It’s not about being right for the sake of it--I genuinely care about the truth here. In other words--- I can’t just let false doctrines slide without at least pointing them out.
Shalom.
J.
Greetings again Johann,
As far as our present interaction is concerned I am content with what I have stated and do not see the need to repeat any of this. I was introduced to aspects of the Yahweh Name in the Southern Highlands at a Young Peoples' Study Weekend, when I was 19, and this is over 60 years ago. I started to court my wife on that occasion. This subject has been a constant favourite, and we sometimes call this as the subject of God Manifestation. This subject has been well established in our fellowship since our major pioneer lectured on this subject in 1858 and recorded his talks in his magazine. He advocated as part of his talks the concept of "I will be". THere is much more documentation since then.
Kind regards
Trevor
Yes we most probably differ on justification, sanctification and salvation. In my fellowship we sometimes label this as The Atonement and over the years even within my fellowship there has been a range of understanding, starting perhaps with what my Grandfather said to me when I was visiting him on his farm when I was 16. Say in a range of 1-10 he was close to 9 or 10, and I have heard some discussion closer to 1 or 2. I have settled in the range that I assess as 4-6, which is fairly well the most acceptable and numerous in my general fellowship throughout the world.
I suggest that I am only reflecting the well established teaching and environment of my immediate and wider fellowship. I am the older librarian in our meeting and take great delight in collecting and "processing" a large range of literature and talks in mp3 and mp4. My study has been fairly wide ranging and I especially like The Psalms, Isaiah and Galatians.
As far as our present interaction is concerned I am content with what I have stated and do not see the need to repeat any of this. I was introduced to aspects of the Yahweh Name in the Southern Highlands at a Young Peoples' Study Weekend, when I was 19, and this is over 60 years ago. I started to court my wife on that occasion. This subject has been a constant favourite, and we sometimes call this as the subject of God Manifestation. This subject has been well established in our fellowship since our major pioneer lectured on this subject in 1858 and recorded his talks in his magazine. He advocated as part of his talks the concept of "I will be". THere is much more documentation since then.
Kind regards
Trevor
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,867
- 8,327
That’s your opinion based on your lack of understanding the scriptures.
You have chosen to blatantly misrepresent me, and label me because your particular denomination has programmed your mind to believe a certain way. When presented with scripture that doesn’t align with your personal belief system you choose to attack me with ungodly labels and misrepresent what I say.
Again here is scripture.
that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” Romans 10:9-13
- whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.
What is the name of the LORD (YHWH) that this scripture from the book of Joel is referring to?
What is the name of the LORD we call on to be saved?
Here is the scripture from Joel that Paul quoted.
“And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:
Blood and fire and pillars of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.
Joel 2:30-32
Last edited by a moderator:
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,335
- 6,406
Let's take a look to see if it is merely my opinion and that it is I that lacks understanding.
Then show how I have misrepresented you. You claiming it to be the case doesn't mean it is.
Please show exactly where I labelled you. I think you'll find that I didn't. So, please stop misrepresenting me.
This is an infantile argument. I could say the same about you and it gets us nowhere. I believe what I believe based on many years of my own personal study. It has absolutely nothing to do with my "particular denomination." What I am saying in this thread lines up with historic, orthodox Christian belief.
Again, show me where exactly that I (supposedly) attacked you, labelled you, or misrepresented you.
Yes, I know all of this; I've been posting those passages for numerous years in support of the deity of Jesus. Paul is making the connection to YHWH to show that Jesus is YHWH and that YHWH has brought salvation through Jesus, the Son of God. We call on the name of Jesus because he is the only name by which we may be saved (Acts 4:12).
Your claim is that: "Jesus is the Name of the LORD; YHWH the LORD God."
But it is nonsense to say that the name of "Jesus is the name of the LORD," is it not? First, as I've stated, "Jesus is the Name of . . . God" is a Oneness/Jesus Only belief. Second, the name of God is YHWH, which in most English translations is replaced by "the LORD." So, what you're saying is "Jesus is the name of YHWH," but since YHWH is the name of God, you're saying "Jesus is the name of the name of God." How, exactly, does that make any sense whatsoever? Can a name have a name?
Here is a more clear translation of Joel 2:30-32:
Joe 2:30 And I will set wonders in the heavens, and on earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
Joe 2:31 The sun will be changed to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of Yahweh.
Joe 2:32 And it will happen—everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be rescued, because on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as Yahweh said, and among the survivors whom Yahweh is calling. (LEB)
If you had done proper study, you would have known that.
Third, it's also nonsense to say "YHWH the LORD God," since, again, "the LORD" is used in most English translations in place of YHWH. So, what you're saying is "YHWH YHWH God." Please, again, show me how that makes sense.
God's name is YHWH--the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the one being that is God. The name Jesus applies to the Son only. But you're applying the name Jesus to the entire Trinity. That is false and that is what Modalism/Oneness/Jesus Only teach.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,867
- 8,327
I totally disagree.
Please just answer my question.
What is the name of the LORD we call on to be saved?
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,335
- 6,406
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 593
- 146
Exodus 3:15 (NASB)
"God, furthermore, said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD (YHWH), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.'"
Here, "the LORD" (in all caps) represents the tetragrammaton YHWH.
Psalm 110:1 (NASB)
Psalm 110:1 (NASB)
"The LORD (YHWH) says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.'"
In Psalm 110:1, the phrase "my Lord" (אָדוֹן, Adon) refers to the Messiah, who is identified as Jesus in the New Testament.
Again, "the LORD" in uppercase signifies the divine name YHWH.
Isaiah 42:8 (NASB)
"I am the LORD (YHWH), that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images."
The verse explicitly states that "the LORD" is a translation of YHWH.
Is God's Name Jesus?
The assertion that God's name is not Jesus is contextually accurate when distinguishing between the Father (YHWH) and Jesus. In the New Testament, the name Jesus (Ἰησοῦς, Iēsous) is distinct from the Old Testament name YHWH.
Matthew 1:21 (NASB)
"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
Here, Jesus is specifically the name given to the Son, emphasizing His role as Savior.
Philippians 2:9-11 (NASB)
"For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name..."
While Jesus is exalted, it does not equate "Jesus" directly with YHWH in name, but rather in authority and position.
John 17:6 (NASB)
"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world..."
Here, Jesus indicates that He has revealed the Father’s name (YHWH) through His mission and works.
"The LORD" indeed replaces YHWH in most English translations as a reverent substitution.
Jesus is the incarnate Son of God and Messiah, but YHWH is the covenant name of God in the Old Testament.
The theological stance that Jesus and YHWH are distinct in name but one [echad] in essence aligns with traditional Trinitarian theology.
Shalom brother.
J.
Similar threads
