˒ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I would suggest that the NWT John 1:1 "a god" is wrong as it is an incorrect understanding of John 1:1 and also of true Biblical Unitarianism and an incorrect understanding of the meaning and usage of "Elohim" in the OT. As well the JWs incorrectly define "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 as the Pre-Incarnate Jesus, possibly as Michael the Archangel. Although this view that Proverbs 8 is Jesus is popular with some Trinitaraians, many accept that the Wise Woman "Wisdom" is a personification.

Yes, Wisdom is very much a part of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. But as you say "Wisdom" is personified as if it is a separate entity to God. You are one step towards understanding "The Word" in John 1:1.

The Word in John 1:1 is a person. The Greek shows this to be the case. The Father cannot have been in an intimate and interpersonal relationship with a personification, an abstract concept.

This gets to the heart of the problem for any unitarian view of God--they simply cannot account for John’s two statements that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). "God is love" is an expression of His essential nature and not merely the idea that He is loving; He cannot not love. If God is not at least two persons, then God cannot be love. The highest and fullest expression of love is that from one person to another (such as in John 15:13). If God's nature is love, then it necessarily must have always been expressed in the highest and fullest expression of at least one person towards another and then reciprocated.

And, since love is intrinsic to his nature, God must have been in loving relationship prior to the creation of time and space, for all eternity past. And that is what we see in John 17:24--that the Father loved the Son, even before creation--as well as John 1:1--"the Word was with God." If God needed creation in order to become love, then he could not be love; love could not be intrinsic to his nature.

If God is a monad (Islam, Arianism, Modalism, Oneness, Unitarianism), that is, he is ontologically one person, an absolute unity, then to say “God is love” means 1) that the Father loved only himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love,” as it leaves His love incomplete and deficient, meaning that he cannot be the true God of the Bible.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three distinct persons each truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for all eternity past. Only now we can truly say that God is love.

The following also have partial personifications of the Spoken Word of God:
Psalm 33:6,9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Calling those personification seems to me to be begging the question—you’ve assumed in your premises the very thing you conclude.

Pardon my ignorance, but these claims are to me contradictory and make no sense to me.

I assure you they are not contradictory. You quoted these statements:

"Of course he was. I am not denying and no Trinitarian would deny that. But in no way does that mean he also wasn't truly God.
No, they don't. Please stop misrepresenting what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches, which is one God who exists as three coequal, coeternal divine persons.
Monotheism is a foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The entire doctrine is based on foundations found in Scripture, which is precisely why the doctrine exists. "

The first statement is an acknowledgement that Jesus was truly human. However, passages such as John 1:1-14, Rom 10:9-13, 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:5-8, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:10-12 make it clear that he is also truly deity, truly God. He is both God and man.

The second statement is obviously just a basic definition of the Trinity. The wording of the doctrine is purposely precise to avoid several errors: 1) polytheism, 2) unitarianism (Modalism, Arianism, Unitarianism, etc.), and 3) subordinationism.

The third statement partially supports the second, but to fully support it, we must look at what God reveals about himself in Scripture:

1. There was, is, and ever will be only one true, living God.
2. The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, the Holy Spirit is fully God; all are of the same indivisible substance.
3. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit; each is distinct from the other.

Those are fully supported by the Bible and those are what we must make sense of. And it is only the doctrine of the Trinity that makes sense of all of them.

Actually I was interested in the conclusion by wondering and I suggest that a simple reading of Psalm 110:1 defines Yahweh as God the Father. Seeing you both belong to the "Staff", you two should have a "Staff" Meeting, and possibly you may be able to pull rank on this issue.

People are allowed to believe what they want. In speaking of the Trinity, the Father is Yahweh, the Son is Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit is Yahweh, each distinct from the other two, yet all of the same substance and coequal.

Perhaps if you also add 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 2 and the numerous occurrences of the phrase "all things" in the NT, then you may eventually agree.

I don't understand your point here.

This is where your "simple logic" fails. Jesus addresses God His Father as "Lord of Heaven and earth", but Jesus as "Lord" is derived and given to him by God.

I’m the context of 1 Cor 8:6, my arguments are sound. Jesus is Lord because he is deity, just as the Father is deity. All the passages I have provided show that Jesus is truly God, which means he is also Lord in the same was as the Father.

 

[Free]

Again you are claiming that Jesus is "LORD", that is Jesus is Yahweh.

Exactly. And, since you agreed that 1 Cor 8:6 is an expansion of the Shema, then it follows that you do too.

I am not sure if you have ever thought about what Deuteronomy 6:4 is actually teaching.

Of course I have.

Even if I allow some sort of Unity here, I reject that this is a Tri-Unity. I consider that the first and primary meaning is that in contrast with the many gods of the nations, there is One God, Yahweh, and He is Supreme, He is reliable, He is in control of everything and can be trusted, and hence the verses that immediately follow:
Deuteronomy 6:4–5 (KJV): 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The ultimate end of the fact that God is One is that all must come into conformity with this Oneness. All opposition must be overcome, and the last enemy to be destroyed is death. God's purpose is to fill this earth with His Glory. So any Oneness and Unity will be in a multitude, not three.

Again, you're begging the question by assuming in your premises that God is one person and then using that to conclude the same. The verse is a statement of monotheism only, that the Israelites were to worship the one true, living God, instead of the false gods of the other nations. It says nothing about the nature of God.

I also checked the usage of the word "one" in the general context of Deuteronomy, and in none of these is the concept of Unity, even if it is possible. I doubt that Moses' Jewish audience were Trinitarians.
Deuteronomy 1:23 (KJV): And the saying pleased me well: and I took twelve men of you, one of a tribe:

Deuteronomy 4:42 (KJV): That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:

Deuteronomy 12:14 (KJV): But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.

Deuteronomy 13:12 (KJV): If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

Deuteronomy 15:7 (KJV): If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:

Deuteronomy 17:6 (KJV): At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:15 (KJV): If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Please read my argument about the use of “one”’again. You have missed a vital detail.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have ever ever said Jesus is the Father.
Jesus is the only Begotten of the Father; The Son.

Jesus is clearly LORD; YHWH the LORD GOD.

Paul plain refers to Jesus as LORD; YHWH the LORD God, our Savior.

Calling upon the name of the LORD (YHWH) is how we are saved.


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

• For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

This is a direct quote from Joel is which YHWH the LORD is being identified as Jesus; our Savior.

JLB

Joel 2:32 uses the name LORD.
Acts 2:21 uses the name Lord.
I mean title.

LORD refers to Yahweh.
Lord refers to Jesus.

What I'd like to do is this:

Is Elohim the same as Yahweh?

I understand Elohim to be a title.
I understand Yahweh to be the name of God Father.

All 3 Persons are Elohim,
but all 3 Persons are not Yahweh.

(I may be wrong and getting my titles and names wrong).

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Genesis 1:26 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.

Who is the one God, with the plural name, talking to? Carry_Your_Name mentioned this earlier in the discussion. There is also a plural singular likeness.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Scripture then reverts back to singular pronouns for the actual creation. Why ? I believe John explained it very well.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Not too subtle there; all things. How could Jesus make all things and not be at the creation? Everything that has life came through Jesus because in Him was life. He is life. Amen.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[GodsGrace]

Hey All,
Genesis 1:26 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.

Who is the one God, with the plural name, talking to? Carry_Your_Name mentioned this earlier in the discussion. There is also a plural singular likeness.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Scripture then reverts back to singular pronouns for the actual creation. Why ? I believe John explained it very well.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Not too subtle there; all things. How could Jesus make all things and not be at the creation? Everything that has life came through Jesus because in Him was life. He is life. Amen.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Absolutely Jesus was always in existence, He was not created, and He created everything, He is the Word or Logos of God. And Jesus is God.

The question is:
Is Jesus Yahweh?

To me this means that Jesus is the Father.
Your comment?

Let me ask this another way, also for Free and JLB





In the center of the above image it says "God".
Do you understand this to be Elohim or Yahweh?
Thanks.

 

[Free]

Absolutely Jesus was always in existence, He was not created, and He created everything, He is the Word or Logos of God. And Jesus is God.

The question is:
Is Jesus Yahweh?

To me this means that Jesus is the Father.
Your comment?

Let me ask this another way, also for Free and JLB


View attachment 15789


In the center of the above image it says "God".
Do you understand this to be Elohim or Yahweh?
Thanks.

Both. Yahweh is a name for God and it seems that Elohim is as well. We know that Elohim is Yahweh, which is seen in Gen 2:4, "LORD God," for example. Numerous passages show that Yahweh created everything and in Hen 1:10-12, the Father applies a passage to the Son about Yahweh creating.

Or, we can consider that since Jesus is God in nature, and God's name is Yahweh, that therefore Jesus is also Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; it is the name of the Trinity, since all are God.

To tie in some things that I have given previously, that one of God's names is plural, that 'echad is the only use of "one" for God, and that a few times God speaks of himself with plural personal pronouns, it all leaves open the strong possibility that even the OT hints at the plurality within the one God.

 

[GodsGrace]

Both. Yahweh is a name for God and it seems that Elohim is as well. We know that Elohim is Yahweh, which is seen in Gen 2:4, "LORD God," for example. Numerous passages show that Yahweh created everything and in Hen 1:10-12, the Father applies a passage to the Son about Yahweh creating.

Or, we can consider that since Jesus is God in nature, and God's name is Yahweh, that therefore Jesus is also Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; it is the name of the Trinity, since all are God.

To tie in some things that I have given previously, that one of God's names is plural, that 'echad is the only use of "one" for God, and that a few times God speaks of himself with plural personal pronouns, it all leaves open the strong possibility that even the OT hints at the plurality within the one God.

The OT definetly speaks about God as singular and plural.

Elohim is a title, like God is a title.
Yahweh is the name that the Hebrews gave to God.

Thanks for your reply.
If, in fact, the center word for GOD is both Elohim and Yahweh, then we could say Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Yahweh.
Still a little confused, but I'll get thru.

 

[Free]

The OT definetly speaks about God as singular and plural.

Elohim is a title, like God is a title.

I'll grant that it is more likely a title. There are some who think it is a name.

Yahweh is the name that the Hebrews gave to God.

Thanks for your reply.
If, in fact, the center word for GOD is both Elohim and Yahweh, then we could say Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Yahweh.
Still a little confused, but I'll get thru.

Yes. Since Yahweh is the main name of God (I would say that God gave to the Hebrews) and God is triune--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the one God--it follows that each of them is Yahweh.

There is something interesting in Psalm 45:

Psa 45:2 You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God ['elohim] has blessed you forever.
Psa 45:3 Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty!
Psa 45:4 In your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let your right hand teach you awesome deeds!
Psa 45:5 Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under you.
Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God ['elohim], is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God ['elohim], your God ['elohim], has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)

These were addressed to the king. However, 'elohim refers in the most general sense to divine beings--God, god, gods, and angels. While other Near Eastern cultures viewed their kings as gods, this was not so with Israel; but they did see the Davidic king as a highly exalted human and unique son of God (Psalm 2:2-7). It is likely that Psalms, such as Psalm 2, were read whenever a new Davidic king was installed, proclaiming him to be God's son (vs. 7) and his anointed (mashiach; vs. 2). As such, the use of 'elohim only applies to the earthly Davidic king in a limited sense. However, it does have its full expression in the Messiah, which is precisely why the writer of Hebrews applies verses 6 and 7 above to the Son, in Heb 1:8-9. This shows the deity of Christ. (Adapted from Dr. Michael Brown's, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 2: Theological Objections.)

Essentially, the Messiah is called God, while also yet having a God; but we know there is only one God. This makes sense with Jesus being God in human flesh, submitting himself to the Father for our salvation and the redemption of creation. It shows that even though Jesus is truly God, while in human form and prior to his ascension, he called the Father his God.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Hi wondering. We are in agreement that Jesus is God.

Psalms 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

Jah is a contraction of Jehovah.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

I know that the "I am" that Jesus said was the Hebrew name for God. See Exodus 3:14:

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I don't know about the Yahweh name. My limited understanding of it is that God's name is just four letters, with no vowels, YHWH. As such, it is unpronounceable. How do we know those are the correct vowels? Why couldn't it be Yahwuh or Yahwoh?
(Actually, the current pronunciation YHWH, Yuh Huh Wuh Huh, sounds Native American to me.) I just go with I Am. Everybody understands that.

Jesus is not the Father. He is eternally the Son.
I know He says, "I and my Father are one." John 10:30. But we know from the text He is not talking about physical form here. Plus we have a clear physical separation when Jesus was baptized.

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
(By the way, if you are pro Trinitarian, this is a good verse. It is hard to argue against, as the account is in Matthew and Mark as well.)

My main point being that Jesus is not the Father.
Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free and Josef,

And that is what we see in John 17:24--that the Father loved the Son, even before creation

Interesting philosophic argument to prove an error. You seem to postulate what God's love entails. I suggest that we have great difficulty understanding eternity. God could also be full of love in anticipation of what Jesus would be in character and what Jesus would achieve. When God states the following, is it because of actual fellowship from eternity, or what Jesus was like at the beginning of his ministry and what God understood that Jesus, despite the severe trials that he would encounter, would remain faithful and accomplish salvation as Jesus had signified by volunteering to be baptised?
Matthew 3:13–17 (KJV): 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I don't understand your point here. ... Jesus is Lord because he is deity,

Psalm 8, Matthew 11:20-25 and Acts 2 reveal how Jesus becomes Lord.

you agreed that 1 Cor 8:6 is an expansion of the Shema

Yes, but Yahweh is not "three" but is a singular "I" who becomes many, "I will be who I will be".

Who is the one God, with the plural name, talking to?

The Angels.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I prefer Tyndale's translation which gives the future tense and I also like the interesting spelling of his time and the specific spelling “I wilbe”:
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again Free and Josef,

Interesting philosophic argument to prove an error. You seem to postulate what God's love entails. I suggest that we have great difficulty understanding eternity. God could also be full of love in anticipation of what Jesus would be in character and what Jesus would achieve. When God states the following, is it because of actual fellowship from eternity, or what Jesus was like at the beginning of his ministry and what God understood that Jesus, despite the severe trials that he would encounter, would remain faithful and accomplish salvation as Jesus had signified by volunteering to be baptised?
Matthew 3:13–17 (KJV): 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Psalm 8, Matthew 11:20-25 and Acts 2 reveal how Jesus becomes Lord.

Yes, but Yahweh is not "three" but is a singular "I" who becomes many, "I will be who I will be".

The Angels.

I prefer Tyndale's translation which gives the future tense and I also like the interesting spelling of his time and the specific spelling “I wilbe”:
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

Kind regards
Trevor

I AM means I will be - it also means I am now. It means I am with you and I will be with you.
It also means IAM ALL that I AM - I believe I mentioned this to you. It refers to divine simplicity and encompassses all that GOD IS He IS --- He is that quality, He does not have it, He IS IT in nature and in perfection.

You also seem to missing the fact that the Trinity, although found in the bible, does not come to full fruition until theologians go through the entire bible and try to make some sense as to WHO this Jesus was. He certainly wasn't human, He couldn't be God, Elohim or Yahweh the Hebrew God, if He was on earth with humans. So who was He?
Although even the Early Church Fathers, right after the Apostles, understood the above and called Jesus God, this was not confirmed until a couple of hundreds of years later and mainly due to the heresy of arianism.

 

[SolaScriptura]

In Exodus 3:14, we have the words in Hebrew, "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh",


The Hebrew verb here is, “hâyâh (’ehyeh)” which is the imperfect, “to exist, to be”. The imperfect also denotes habitual or customary action –past, present, or future tense. It also denotes incomplete action, whether in the past, present, or future. In John 1:1 we read, “was the Word...was with God...was God”. This does not mean as in our English, that refers only to the past. Here the Greek for “was”, is “ἦν”, which is the imperfect of “εἰμι”, and like the Hebrew “hâyâh”, denotes incomplete action.

It is the same Hebrew imperfect verb “hâyâh”, used in verse 12, where most English translations read, “I will be with you”. Youngs Literal Translation reads, “I am with thee”, which is right. Almost all the English Versions that read, “I will be with you”, translate the same Hebrew in verse 14, “I am Who I am”, or, “I am that I am”. As we have seen, the LXX translates the Hebrew, “hâyâh”, with “ εἰμι”, which is the present tense, literally, “to be, to exist”. And therefore "Ἐγώ εἰμι” denotes, absolute existence.

It is quite wrong to conclude, as some do, that this verb is always used in the “future tense”. We have examples like Jeremiah 31:9, “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am (ehyeh) a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”, and Micah 7:1, “Woe is me! for I am (ehyeh) as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first ripe fruit.”, and, Job 11:4, “For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am (ehyeh) clean in thine eyes.”. In each case the verb “’ehyeh” is in the “present tense”.

there is no doubt that the translation, "I am Who I am", is the best English, giving what the Hebrew means. Which is how the Jewish Bible reads:

" And God said unto Moses: ‘I AM THAT I AM’; and He said: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.’" (The Jewish Publication Society of America, The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text ).

Those who object to this meaning, are usually those whose Christology denies that Jesus Christ is YHWH

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Hi TreverL. Greetings from California. I don't have have trouble or difficulty understanding eternity.

ETER'NITY, n. L. oeternitas. Duration or continuance without beginning or end.

I believe the point you are trying to make is valid however. If your understanding of eternity is flawed so is your understanding of who Jesus is.

God is all knowing. He does not anticipate.
Psalms 8 is talking about man being made lower than angels. Verse 5 indicates that the "son of man" is present tense. Jesus did not become Lord. He was is, and always will be Lord. John 1:1

"Matthew 11:20-25 and Acts 2 reveal how Jesus becomes Lord." Quote from TreaverL

Please explain your references. How do they reveal Jesus becoming Lord? Again, John 1:1 Jesus being God, automatically, is Lord.

The Greek word for lord is kurios- a supreme master, etc. In the LXX. this is invariably used for "Jehovah" and "'Adonai." Adonai is the Hebrew name for lord. They are interchangeable.

God is not talking to angels in Genesis 1:26. Angels do not have the power to create. God is talking to an equal. They are both, or all if there are more than two, make man. Man also has the image and likeness of the makers (our). So for "us" and "our" to be true, there has to be more than one.
In verse 27, the speaking into existence is done by a singular voice. So, either one is speaking for all, or the all that are there, are speaking as one.

On Exodus 3:14:

"I prefer Tyndale's translation which gives the future tense and I also like the interesting spelling of his time and the specific spelling “I wilbe”:" Quote from TrevorL

Exodus 3:14 from the New Living Translation:
God replied to Moses, “I am who i am.[a] Say this to the people of Israel: I am has sent me to you.”

TrevorL, you do understand that the bracketed footnote is not part of the verse, don't you?

On Exodus 3:14:
"Even in Hebrew, this is a statement which is not merely expressed as a name, or a word, or a description. This is a poetic expression of God's very nature.

The statement carries a sense of necessity, simplicity, and absolute-ness. In using this particular phrasing, God identifies Himself as the self-existent One—the eternal, unique, uncreated God. God just is." Quote from Bible Ref- an online Bible commentary. (There is no name associated with this commentary. So this is the best credit I can give.)

Thanks for the clarity SolaScriptura. I agree with your conclusion.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[JLB]

Joel 2:32 uses the name LORD.
Acts 2:21 uses the name Lord.
I mean title.

LORD refers to Yahweh.
Lord refers to Jesus.

Here is Acts 2:21 quoting Joel 2:32 and using LORD.


And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.’ Acts 2:21


Acts 2:21 like Romans 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32


The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD. (YHWH)
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH)
Shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD (YHWH) has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD (YHWH) calls.
Joel 2:31-32


Jesus Christ is YHWH, The LORD God.





JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

Here is Acts 2:21 quoting Joel 2:32 and using LORD.


And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.’ Acts 2:21


Acts 2:21 like Romans 10:13 is quoting Joel 2:32


The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD. (YHWH)
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH)
Shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD (YHWH) has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD (YHWH) calls.
Joel 2:31-32


Jesus Christ is YHWH, The LORD God.





JLB

Also 1 Corinthians 10.9 according to the Original reading, compared with Numbers 21.5-6

Jesus Christ is YHWH

 

[JLB]

Is Elohim the same as Yahweh?

Elohim is used in connection with YHWH.
Elohim is plural.


Here is a direct reference to Jesus coming with the saints on the Day of the LORD. He destroys the armies who fight against Jerusalem.

Please read Zechariah 14.


Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the LORD (YHWH) my God (Elohim) will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:5




JLB

 

[JLB]

All 3 Persons are Elohim,
but all 3 Persons are not Yahweh.

YHWH.


All the fullness of the GODHEAD dwells in Him.

 

[Free]

Interesting philosophic argument to prove an error.

It’s also a theological argument, based on things Jesus himself said. He said that no one has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). So that gives us a very good indication of what God's love is. It should also remind us of John 3:16. Jesus also said that the Father loved him “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

And you have yet to show how the deity of Christ or the doctrine of the Trinity are error.

Jesus clearly believes he existed in heaven prior to being a man. In several places he says that he came from heaven (Mark 12:6; John 3:13, 16-17; 6:38, 62; 8:23; 12:46-47; 13:3; 16:27-28; 17:5). And when he returns as the rider on the white horse, once again we see that he is called The Word of God (Rev. 19:13), which agrees with John 1:1, 14.

So, there is a consistent message from the start of the NT to the end: the Son is the preincarnate Word, who existed for all eternity past with the Father (and the Holy Spirit), making him truly God and equal to the Father, who was involved in creation, and who took on human flesh for the salvation of humans and the redemption of creation.

You seem to postulate what God's love entails.

Yes, and with good reason. We are the analogues to God—we are made in his image. We know what father son relationships are because God is Father and Son. We know what love is because God is love. If God’s love is infinitely more perfect than ours, but is so different that we cannot understand it, as you are implying, then the Bible doesn’t communicate anything to us about the love of God.

I suggest that we have great difficulty understanding eternity. God could also be full of love in anticipation of what Jesus would be in character and what Jesus would achieve.

Again, that isn’t actually love. That’s a human way of using the word, in a much diminished sense, but that isn’t an action towards another that is then reciprocated. That is essentially God needing his creation in order to love, which means he cannot be love, as John states.

When God states the following, is it because of actual fellowship from eternity, or what Jesus was like at the beginning of his ministry and what God understood that Jesus, despite the severe trials that he would encounter, would remain faithful and accomplish salvation as Jesus had signified by volunteering to be baptised?
Matthew 3:13–17 (KJV): 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Likely in every way, including from eternity. It's worth noting that "I am well pleased" is the Greek word eudokēsa, and it's in the aorist tense. This is a past tense, which is why the YLT translates it as "in whom I did delight." But it doesn't indicate if the action is ongoing or repeated, which is likely why most translations put it in present tense. At the very least, it refers to the Son prior to his baptism at some undetermined point in the past, but it is reasonable to conclude that it is also ongoing.

Note also that the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, coming to rest on the Son, while the Father speaks. Both the Father and the Holy Spirit are involved in the baptism of the Son.

Psalm 8, Matthew 11:20-25 and Acts 2 reveal how Jesus becomes Lord.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. The Greek word for "Lord" is kurios. In the KJV, it is translated as "Lord," "lord," "master," "owner," "sir," and plural forms of those. It all depends on the context. Used of the Father in 1 Tim 6:15, we see the phrase "Lord of lords," where "Lord" is kurios and "lords" is a related word meaning "being lords." And in the verse immediately prior, we see kurios used of Jesus.

We also see it in Acts 2:20, in the quote from Joel 2--"the day of the Lord [kurios]." When we look at Joel 2:31, we see that it says "LORD," which of course is Yahweh. Acts 2:34 quotes from Psalm 110:1, "The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios]." So, we see that kurios is also used in the NT in the place of Yahweh when quoting the OT. It is also worth noting that the Septuagint translates Yahweh and Adonai as kurios.

To only believe that Jesus became Lord, is to equivocate on the meaning. In certain contexts, yes, it simply means he is the supreme ruler or master. But it also means he is Lord in the same way the Father is Lord; he is God in nature. Just as the Father is called the "King of kings and Lord of lords," so is Jesus, in Rev 17:14 and 19:16.

Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” (ESV)

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

Yes, God is said to make Jesus Lord, but that is positionally or in status regarding his completed work of salvation as a man. What it doesn't mean, is that Jesus, as the Son, wasn't already Lord by nature. This is especially evident since numerous times in the NT Jesus is said to be God in nature and given the titles that Yahweh uses of himself, such as Lord of lords. It is important that in Acts 2, Peter is speaking to the Jews who crucified Jesus, those who had rejected him as the Messiah and Lord.

Yes, but Yahweh is not "three" but is a singular "I" who becomes many, "I will be who I will be".

Again, you’re fallaciously begging the question. There is nothing in Exodus 3:14 to state whether God is one or three.

You mostly quote from the KJV, so why suddenly switch translations? Is it to avoid what the KJV states in John 8:58? What God says in Ex 3:14 is better translated as I Am, which immediately communicates things to us (and Moses) about the nature of God. I Will Be Who I Will Be doesn’t communicate anything about God; it’s very abstract.

 

[Free]

Jesus Christ is YHWH

Yes, as long as we don't confuse things and believe that Yahweh is Jesus.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes, as long as we don't confuse things and believe that Yahweh is Jesus.

He IS. And so is the Father and Holy Spirit

Three distinct Persons are called YHWH