˒ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?

[Free]

He IS. And so is the Father and Holy Spirit

Three distinct Persons are called YHWH

My point is that Jesus is Yahweh but Yahweh isn’t Jesus because the Father and the Holy Spirit are also Yahweh. Just wanted to make sure that is clarified.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
TrevorL, I guess this is a fair question after all that I have read. Are you a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or perhaps Mormon? (It's OK if you are, you are still welcome here. Further, ask any questions that would help you.) But that would explain your denial of Jesus as God. I suggest that in your heart you know that's not true.

Let me just add this; man doesn't have the ability to save himself. Salvation belongs to God.

Psalms 3:8 Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

So does His saving grace. See Eph. 2:8-9.
We cannot save ourselves, nor can anyone else. Jesus died as a covering for our sins. For Jesus' death to be effective for the saving of our souls, He has to be God. (i. e. pure in spirit) Man alone cannot save mankind. Only God can. Jesus the "I AM" can. John says Jesus is our propitiation. (1 John 2:2)
PROPITIATION, n. propisia'shon. The act of appeasing wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person.
Do you want to know something strange? I believe this was meant for you TrevorL. I laid this out just yesterday, as I am trying something new with Psalms. Now I know why. Keep asking questions until you find the right answer TrevorL.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[SolaScriptura]

My point is that Jesus is Yahweh but Yahweh isn’t Jesus because the Father and the Holy Spirit are also Yahweh. Just wanted to make sure that is clarified.

Indeed. which is exactly why John could not have written, "και ο θεος ην ο λογος" in John 1:1, as the repeated article here would have made "the Word", all of God, which would exclude the Father, Who John has already said was God, "προς τον θεον".

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again wondering, SolaScriptura, Josef, JLB
Greetings from Lake Macquarie, NSW Australia,

There is a large number of posts and material to respond to, so I will try to be brief.

I AM means I will be

No, I hold to the view that Exodus 3:14 is either "I AM" or "I will be". I agree with "I will be".

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.

I consider that the development of the concepts of the Trinity was an apostasy, a falling away from the Apostolic teaching. I also consider Arianism is a heresy.

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”.

I accept "I will be who/what I will be" in Exodus 3:14.

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.

I consider that the LXX of Exodus 3:14 is a poor translation of the Hebrew.

It is quite wrong to conclude, as some do, that this verb is always used in the “future tense”.

I consider that it is best translated as the future tense in Exodus 3:14.

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

The latest Hebrew scholar who personally confirmed the future tense in a forum discussion is a Trinitarian. Many Trinitarian scholars agree with the future tense, for example the RV and RSV margins. Most probably AB Davidson, the Hebrew scholar, was a Trinitarian.

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 was never "the Son of Man" before he was born, and hence Psalm 8 is written in "the prophetic past". He became a son of man as a result of his conception and birth.

Jesus did not become Lord. He was is, and always will be Lord.

Matthew 11:25-27 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Acts 2:36 (KJV): Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. ]/color]

God is not talking to angels in Genesis 1:26. Angels do not have the power to create.

Angels have been given knowledge and power from God. I do not agree with your conclusions on Exodus 3:14.

Jesus Christ is YHWH, The LORD God.

Jesus Christ is YHWH

Yahweh is the One God, God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

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).

Perhaps this is difficult, but I consider that Yahweh, God the Father is speaking in and through Jesus, similar to the Angel in the Bush. Jesus is the development of the Yahweh Name "I will be who I will be". Refer my thread "The Yahweh Name".

the Son is the preincarnate Word

I consider "The Word" in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh in the Creation.

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 have severe reservations concerning your statement "we know what father son relationships are because God is Father and Son". My knowledge of father/son is first based on the fact that I have had two sons, and this in no way is similar to the Trinity concept "God the Father" and "God the Son". I can understand some aspects of God's love for Jesus, the Son of God when God speaks to Abraham about his teenage son:
Genesis 22:1–2 (KJV): 1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Acts 2:34 quotes from Psalm 110:1, "The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios]."

Yes, but the Hebrew of these two words is very distinct. Even the KJV of Acts 2:34 see the need to preserve the distinction by giving capitals to LORD and lower case to Lord when quoting Psalm 110:1.
Acts 2:34 (KJV): For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Many Trinitarians attempt to merge the two, as you have also attempted in the rest of this portion.

You mostly quote from the KJV, so why suddenly switch translations?

I use the KJV as my normal reference. I read from a RV/KJV Interlinear when I read a portion each morning and enjoy some improvements especially in the OT portion of the RV. I also use my NASB Study Bible in our meeting. I have a Bible Program with quick "Power Lookup" to compare a KJV verse with about 10 other translations. I sometimes use Commentaries and other reference material to determine the best rendition and understanding of any word or verse. In other words I attempt to find the correct meaning of the Original in simple English terms.

Is it to avoid what the KJV states in John 8:58?

I suggest that most Trinitarians prefer "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 because of John 8:58. I understand John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he", the same as John 8:24,28 in the immediate context.

I Will Be Who I Will Be doesn’t communicate anything about God; it’s very abstract.

Please refer to my thread "The Yahweh Name".

Are you a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or perhaps Mormon?

No. I usually do not advertise my denomination, but prefer to discuss one passage or concept at a time. If I was a JW I would not use "Yahweh" and I find the Mormon religion extremely strange, but it seems to be popular in the USA.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Yahweh is the One God, God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

YHWH is the Hebrew, not Yahweh.

Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God.

However He is YHWH the LORD God.

The Son created the heavens and the earth.


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:8-10

Clearly the Son created the heavens and the earth!

• You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth

Again we see this same language in Zechariah 12 —


The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1

• Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth

Undeniable!!!

The Son laid the foundation of the earth; YHWH laid the foundation of the earth.

Do you agree with what the scriptures teach here?

Do you believe the Son laid the foundation of the earth, as spoken by the Spirit of the LORD through the book of Hebrews and through the mouth of Zechariah?



Peter plainly says that it was the Spirit of Christ in the prophets.


Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

It was the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of YHWH the LORD who spoke out of the mouth of Zechariah the Prophet, declared His suffering to come.


“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
Zechariah 12:10


The same LORD (YHWH) who laid the foundation of the earth, proclaimed He would be “pierced” by the Jews.






JLB

 

[7thMoon]

Indeed. which is exactly why John could not have written, "και ο θεος ην ο λογος" in John 1:1, as the repeated article here would have made "the Word", all of God, which would exclude the Father, Who John has already said was God, "προς τον θεον".

No, the article was actually dropped to remove ambiguity on the identity of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

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


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.

Yes. I'm beginning to understand in a different way.
Yahweh is the chosen name for God.
Since there is only One God, and Yahweh indentifies Him,
then it could be said that all are Yahweh.
It's just identifying WHO the God of the Hebrews is.

 

[GodsGrace]

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

Hi JLB,
What is a little confusing is that some versions say LORD and some versions say Lord.
That would be for Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.

I'm working to understand the difference between Elohim and Yahwah....
but I'm almost there...

 

[GodsGrace]

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

LORD is Yahweh....good.
I think Elohim could mean any God....
And YHWH means the God that revealed Himself to the Hebrews.

Slow going...

 

[GodsGrace]

YHWH.


All the fullness of the GODHEAD dwells in Him.

Again, so YHWH is the God in the center of this image?

 

[SolaScriptura]

YHWH is the Hebrew, not Yahweh.

this is not correct.

YHWH, cannot be pronounced, and was therefore vocalized to Yahweh. In many places this was replaced by either Adonai (‘Lord’), or HaShem (‘the name’)

The root for the Name Yahweh, is the Hebrew verb, "‘hayah’", which literally means, "to exist, to be"

 

[7thMoon]

this is not correct.

YHWH, cannot be pronounced, and was therefore vocalized to Yahweh. In many places this was replaced by either Adonai (‘Lord’), or HaShem (‘the name’)

The root for the Name Yahweh, is the Hebrew verb, "‘hayah’", which literally means, "to exist, to be"

Have you thought the root is YHY or something similar which would mean to cause things to be?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB,

YHWH is the Hebrew, not Yahweh.

The original Hebrew before the Masorites did not have vowel points. So you could say that every Hebrew word does not have vowel points, but this is not the case, as they would have known how to pronounce a particular word, and sometimes different words had the same consonants. When Hebrew started to fade from common usage it was thought fit to add vowel points to preserve the original Hebrew. Because of the reticence of many Hebrews to pronounce the Yahweh Name, the Masorites added the vowel points for Adonai or Elohim onto YHWH, as a reminder for the reader to substitute Adonai or Elohim when reading aloud the Sacred name. These two forms of the YHWH Name appear in Strong's Concordance as H#3068 and H#3069. To say that YHWH was never pronounced is erroneous. Many scholars consider that the pronunciation "Yahweh" is most probably the most accurate rendition and for convenience I am willing to accept this and use this rendition. "Jehovah" is an erroneous rendition.

Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God.

Yes, but the Trinitarian concept of this is erroneous. Our Lord Jesus Christ is a human, now exalted and sitting at the right hand of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in God the Father's Throne, and Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

However He is YHWH the LORD God.

No, you have just contradicted yourself. Jesus is the Son of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father.

The Son created the heavens and the earth.

No, Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator Psalm 8:1-3, Matthew 11:25-30. I will not directly answer or expound the verses that you quote. In general Yahweh created the heavens and earth with Jesus in mind, and also some references could be talking about the new creation which is in and through our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Again we see this same language in Zechariah 12 —
The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1

• Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth

Undeniable!!!

Yes, undeniable, the One God, Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Perhaps this is difficult, but I consider that Yahweh, God the Father is speaking in and through Jesus, similar to the Angel in the Bush. Jesus is the development of the Yahweh Name "I will be who I will be". Refer my thread "The Yahweh Name".

Based on what though? If there is nothing in the text to suggest that the Father is speaking through Jesus, then it is a case of reading something into the text that isn't there, just because you don't like the obvious implication. That is simply never the way to go about coming to the truth of a matter in Scripture.

And what we see is that none of the texts can possibly be the Father speaking through Jesus:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. (ESV)

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (ESV)

Joh 8:21 So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”
Joh 8:22 So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. (ESV)

Joh 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. (ESV; cf. John 1:4-5, 9-10).

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, (ESV)

Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” (ESV)

There is simply no way to understand these statements as the Father speaking through Jesus. Only those who believe in the error of Modalism who believe Jesus is the Father in human flesh. The disciples certainly understood that Jesus was plainly saying that he came from God (13:3 and 16:30).

I consider "The Word" in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh in the Creation.

And, yet, the Greek construction doesn't allow for that, as I have pointed out. It clearly speaks of intimate, interpersonal relationship between the Word and God.

John clearly states that the Son existed for all eternity past in John 1:1-3. Paul states the same in 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:6, and Col 1:15-16. The writer of the Hebrews states the same (Heb 1:2) and also has the Father claiming the Son is Yahweh (Heb 1:10-12). We see in Revelation several titles used of Yahweh being used of Jesus--"King of kings and Lord of lords;" "the beginning and the end;" "the Alpha and the Omega"--which all speak of his eternal nature.

And why all those writers do that? Because Jesus himself said he came from heaven prior to his being born as a man, claimed divinity by referring to himself as the Son of God, and called himself I Am. If what Jesus said isn't actually what he meant, and he meant to say he is only a man, then all those other writers are in error and guilty of blasphemy.

Do you think John would getting something so serious so wrong, especially when he was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and spent three years as part of Jesus's most inner circle?

I have severe reservations concerning your statement "we know what father son relationships are because God is Father and Son". My knowledge of father/son is first based on the fact that I have had two sons, and this in no way is similar to the Trinity concept "God the Father" and "God the Son". I can understand some aspects of God's love for Jesus, the Son of God when God speaks to Abraham about his teenage son:
Genesis 22:1–2 (KJV): 1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Is a son ever of a different nature than his father? Are your sons non-human or sub-human in some way? Is your love for your sons so completely different than the Father's love for his Son, that when Jesus says the Father loves him, you have no idea what Jesus means?

Or, when Jesus says the Father loves him and he loves the Father, do you immediately have a good idea what he means, as imperfect as your love is compared to God's?

Of course, my only point was that 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 were implying, then the Bible doesn’t communicate anything to us about the love of God.

Again, that God is love, that love is intrinsic to his nature, can only be addressed by Trinitarianism. The Father loved the Son before creation, as Jesus said, and they were in an eternal intimate, interpersonal, loving relationship, as John said.

Yes, but the Hebrew of these two words is very distinct. Even the KJV of Acts 2:34 see the need to preserve the distinction by giving capitals to LORD and lower case to Lord when quoting Psalm 110:1.
Acts 2:34 (KJV): For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Many Trinitarians attempt to merge the two, as you have also attempted in the rest of this portion.

No, you are not understanding my point. You are the one merging them by equivocating. I've clearly pointed out that kurios has different meanings in different contexts.

My point was that in some contexts, Jesus is being called master or supreme ruler, but in other contexts, he is being called LORD.

I suggest that most Trinitarians prefer "I AM" in Exodus 3:14 because of John 8:58. I understand John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he", the same as John 8:24,28 in the immediate context.

"I Am" is a legitimate translation and, as I pointed out, actually reveals to us something about God, whereas "I will be" does not. Names were very important in the OT, especially when it comes to the names and titles of God--each communicates some aspect of God to us. YHWH is no different.

Please refer to my thread "The Yahweh Name".

I don't know where that thread is.

 

[JLB]

Jehovah" is an erroneous rendition.

Agreed!

Yah - H3050 LORD

H1943 — hôvâh, ho-vaw'; another form for H1942; ruin:—mischief.


JLB

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

There is simply no way to understand these statements as the Father speaking through Jesus.

God the Father and Jesus the Son of God are two separate Beings, but Jesus is a development of God the Father, Jesus is Who Yahweh had become. In simpler terms. the relationship is the same as between a father and a son.

claimed divinity by referring to himself as the Son of God, and called himself I Am.

Adam was also the Son of God. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he", the same as in John 8:24,28.

Do you think John would getting something so serious so wrong, especially when he was "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and spent three years as part of Jesus's most inner circle?

John's purpose in writing is stated in the following which I fully endorse.
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Is a son ever of a different nature than his father?

Yes, Adam was a human and Jesus was a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. God the Father was the father of Jesus while Mary was his mother.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 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.

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.

If God’s love is infinitely more perfect than ours, but is so different that we cannot understand it, as you were implying, then the Bible doesn’t communicate anything to us about the love of God. .... Again, that God is love, that love is intrinsic to his nature, can only be addressed by Trinitarianism.

To a certain extent we can appreciate the love of God, but it was your shallow logic that you used to "prove" or "claim" the Trinity that I rejected.
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.

No, you are not understanding my point. You are the one merging them by equivocating. I've clearly pointed out that kurios has different meanings in different contexts.

Perhaps you will not admit the clear distinction revealed in Psalm 110:1 and the way this is quoted and expounded in the NT.

My point was that in some contexts, Jesus is being called master or supreme ruler, but in other contexts, he is being called LORD.

Yes, Jesus is revealed as representing Yahweh in some contexts.

"I Am" is a legitimate translation and, as I pointed out, actually reveals to us something about God, whereas "I will be" does not. Names were very important in the OT, especially when it comes to the names and titles of God--each communicates some aspect of God to us. YHWH is no different.
I don't know where that thread is.

I do not want to repeat all that I stated in that thread. If you use the search facility and place "The Yahweh Name" and click titles only this should be sufficient, or you could also add "TrevorL" in the "by" section, you should get only one response. As a senior member on this forum you should be aware of this facility.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

God the Father and Jesus the Son of God are two separate Beings, but Jesus is a development of God the Father, Jesus is Who Yahweh had become. In simpler terms. the relationship is the same as between a father and a son.

Are you saying the Father became the Son? The relationship isn't the exact same as a human father and son because that is the result of physical begetting, whereas the Son has always existed.

But the point is, when Jesus says that he came from heaven, he means that he existed prior to his incarnation, as the Son. That is the only thing it can mean. What it cannot mean is that God was speaking through him. If that is the case, then we should all just throw out our Bibles because we really can't know for certain what anything means.

Adam was also the Son of God.

In a sense he was, as the first created man. Jesus is the Son in a whole other sense--he is the only begotten; the unique Son of God in a way no mere human ever has been.

I consider that John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he", the same as in John 8:24,28.

"I am he" in John 8:58 doesn't make sense in the context.

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

Jesus is answering the Jews' question--"have you seen Abraham?". They are incredulously questioning Jesus's claim that Abraham saw him, albeit by misquoting Jesus and turning the question around. Jesus's answer clearly compares the temporary and past existence of Abraham with his own existence. To say "I am he," in speaking about chronology and existence, makes no sense whatsoever. And Jesus's own existence is that of the I Am; it's eternal, absolute existence. That is precisely why the Jews "picked up stones to throw at him," because he claimed the name of Yahweh for himself, and that was blasphemy.

John's purpose in writing is stated in the following which I fully endorse.
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

But that doesn't answer my question nor the argument I made. Besides, to say that Jesus is the Son of God is to claim that he is equal to the Father and also divine in nature (John 5:18; 10:33, 36). If Jesus wasn't truly God, there is no salvation.

Back to my question. Why would John (and the other writers) write to show that the Son has always existed with the Father, as co-creator, if Jesus was only human? Why would John apply titles used by God to Jesus, which would be blasphemous if Jesus wasn't also God?

Yes, Adam was a human and Jesus was a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. God the Father was the father of Jesus while Mary was his mother.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 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.

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.

And, yet, I have given many passages, including John 1:1-18--which forms a part of the context of 1:14--that show that the Son has always existed; there never was a time when he did not exist. Verses of his incarnation simply show that he added a human nature as well, which is in full agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity.

To a certain extent we can appreciate the love of God, but it was your shallow logic that you used to "prove" or "claim" the Trinity that I rejected.

Instead of saying that someone's logic is "shallow," prove exactly where and how the logic fails. You haven't done so and if you can't, then my logic is true and my arguments sound.

Perhaps you will not admit the clear distinction revealed in Psalm 110:1 and the way this is quoted and expounded in the NT.

Again, you simply haven't understood the point I was making. In no way am I saying there is no distinction. My point is that you are fallaciously equivocating by taking one verse where kurios is used of Jesus in one context to come to a conclusion, while avoiding how it is used of Jesus in a different context. Jesus is called "the King of kings and Lord of lords."

Yes, Jesus is revealed as representing Yahweh in some contexts.

He isn't revealed as "representing Yahweh," he is said to be Yahweh. He even explicitly claims to be Yahweh himself in John 8:58 and implicitly by referring to himself as the Son of God.

I do not want to repeat all that I stated in that thread. If you use the search facility and place "The Yahweh Name" and click titles only this should be sufficient, or you could also add "TrevorL" in the "by" section, you should get only one response. As a senior member on this forum you should be aware of this facility.

I know very well how to search. It's just poor form to make others do the searching for a link you should have provided.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Are you saying the Father became the Son? The relationship isn't the exact same as a human father and son because that is the result of physical begetting, whereas the Son has always existed.

God the Father was the father of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14 and Mary was his mother. Every child has a father and mother.

Jesus is the Son in a whole other sense--he is the only begotten; the unique Son of God in a way no mere human ever has been.

Yes, as I explained above. Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

"I am he" in John 8:58 doesn't make sense in the context.

It is part of the theme in John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ John 8:24,28. You did not quote the previous verse.
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
They deliberately tried to muddy the waters and you follow their lead. Jesus is speaking about the faith of Abraham, who foresaw the ministry and suffering of Jesus.
Genesis 22:14 (KJV): 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.

Jesus's own existence is that of the I Am; it's eternal, absolute existence.

I accept "I am he" here and "I will be" in Exodus 3:14.

If Jesus wasn't truly God, there is no salvation.

Your formula, but Jesus is Yah's Salvation Matthew 1:20-21.

Verses of his incarnation simply show that he added a human nature as well, which is in full agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Two natures is contradictory and impossible.

Instead of saying that someone's logic is "shallow," prove exactly where and how the logic fails. You haven't done so and if you can't, then my logic is true and my arguments sound.

I will leave you be with your pet theory.

Again, you simply haven't understood the point I was making. In no way am I saying there is no distinction. My point is that you are fallaciously equivocating by taking one verse where kurios is used of Jesus in one context to come to a conclusion, while avoiding how it is used of Jesus in a different context. Jesus is called "the King of kings and Lord of lords."

There is another thread where the writer jumps from Adon to Adonai, and then from Adonai to Yahweh. Trinitarians have immense difficulty with Psalm 110:1 and its quotation and exposition in the NT.

He isn't revealed as "representing Yahweh," he is said to be Yahweh. He even explicitly claims to be Yahweh himself in John 8:58 and implicitly by referring to himself as the Son of God.

Again, I reject your understanding of both John 8:58 and the title "The Son of God".

I know very well how to search. It's just poor form to make others do the searching for a link you should have provided.

Fair enough, but it appears that you reject my explanation in that thread, or possibly you have not read that thread.

The Yahweh Name

The Yahweh Name Part 1 Initial Declaration and Fulfilment The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14-15. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ...

christianforums.net

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[CherubRam]

No where in anything mentioned in this post indicates or states Jesus is a created being.


Jesus created the heavens and the earth.


He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
Colossians 1:15-16

• For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10


Jesus is LORD; YHWH the LORD God, creator of the heavens and earth.


The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:1,10





JLB

Psalms 45:6
Your throne, O (God / elohiym / god of "The Living One", will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Here is what the verse really says.
Psalms 45:6
Your throne, O god of "The Living One", will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Yahshua is never called Yahwah.

 

[CherubRam]

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.” Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6


Do you believe the Angel of the LORD is God the Father?





JLB

There would be less confusion if our bibles were correctly translated.

Exodus 3:2
There (the angel of the Lord / the messenger of Yahwah) appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.

Exodus 3:4
When (the Lord / Yahwah) saw that he had gone over to look, (God / God of the living ones) called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”