The Oneness of God.......

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free and donadams,

Paul's expansion on the Shema:
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

I consider that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is an expansion of Deuteronomy 6:4 and also a development of the Yahweh Name.

T

Thread 'The Yahweh Name'

Aug 18, 2023

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, the Son of God.

The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 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. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus...

• TrevorL
• Replies: 32
• Forum: Theology

As I have said many times before, if the Father alone is God, then it necessarily follows that Jesus (the Son) alone is Lord.

the father is Lord, the son is Lord, the spirit is Lord, not three Lords but one Lord

You are trying to merge two different Hebrew words translated by the English word "Lord" and two separate Beings:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

Matthew 11:25–26 (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.

Also, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of the Father, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal nature of the Son. It cannot be otherwise.

The "all things" relate to the "all things" of the New Creation:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free and donadams,

I consider that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is an expansion of Deuteronomy 6:4 and also a development of the Yahweh Name.

T

Thread 'The Yahweh Name'

Aug 18, 2023

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, the Son of God.

The Name of God was revealed to Moses in the following terms:
Exodus 3:14-15 (KJV): 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. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus...

• TrevorL
• Replies: 32
• Forum: Theology

So, my point stands then. 1 Cor. 8:6 teaches the eternal nature, and therefore the deity, of the Son. He was involved in the creation of everything that was created, which necessarily precludes him from being created.

You are trying to merge two different Hebrew words translated by the English word "Lord" and two separate Beings:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

Matthew 11:25–26 (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.

This is very misleading. The NT is Greek, not Hebrew, and it often quotes from the Septuagint, over 300 times. In both the Septuagint and the NT, "LORD" is translated as kurios, just as "Lord" and "lord" are.

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord [kurios] shall be saved.’
...
Act 2:25 For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord [kurios] always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
...
Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], “Sit at my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ (ESV)

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord [kurios] of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; (ESV)

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord [kurios], Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Importantly:

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [kurios] and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord [kurios] of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [kurios] will be saved.” (ESV)

This is important because v. 13 is a quote from Joel 2:

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. (ESV)

Paul is saying that confessing "Jesus is Lord," is what is meant by, or at least equivalent to, calling "on the name of the LORD." It is to say that Jesus is LORD. That is consistent with what he says in 1 Cor. 8:6 and elsewhere.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out and failed to get an answer for:

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord [kurios], laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Psa 102:1 A Prayer of one afflicted, when he is faint and pours out his complaint before the LORD. Hear my prayer, O LORD; let my cry come to you!
...
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

It absolutely cannot be any clearer that the Father is referring to the Son as YHWH.

The "all things" relate to the "all things" of the New Creation:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

No, neither 1 Cor. 8:6 nor Ps. 8:4-6 are referring to the "New Creation." Paul is referring to everything that came into existence at creation, which is also what he is referring to in Col. 1:16-17, and what John is referring to in John 1:3, 10. And that is supported by Heb. 1:2, 10-12.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free

This is very misleading. The NT is Greek, not Hebrew, and it often quotes from the Septuagint, over 300 times. In both the Septuagint and the NT, "LORD" is translated as kurios, just as "Lord" and "lord" are.
Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord [kurios] said to my Lord [kurios], “Sit at my right hand, Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ (ESV)

Yes, you are trying to merge the two Hebrew words Yahweh and Adon. It is interesting that you selected the ESV that does not distinguish between the two words that are different Hebrew words with different meanings in the reference Psalm 110:1 from which Peter quotes. As such the ESV does not follow the example of the KJV and the NLT which distinguishes these:
Acts 2:34–35 (KJV): 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Acts 2:34–35 (NLT): 34 For David himself never ascended into heaven, yet he said, ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit in the place of honor at my right hand 35 until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet.” ’

Nevertheless the ESV does distinguish the two Hebrew words in Psalm 110:1:
Psalm 110:1 (ESV): The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

It absolutely cannot be any clearer that the Father is referring to the Son as YHWH.

Jesus is not Yahweh. Whenever the word Yahweh is used for Jesus it indicates that he is the development of the Yahweh Name and he also represents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father.

No, neither 1 Cor. 8:6 nor Ps. 8:4-6 are referring to the "New Creation."

Psalm 8 speaks of the Genesis Creation, but then uses this as a framework for the New Creation. The following are a few examples of the exposition of Psalm 8 as the New Creation:
Matthew 11:25–30 (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. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

1 Corinthians 15:20–28 (KJV): 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free

Yes, you are trying to merge the two Hebrew words Yahweh and Adon. It is interesting that you selected the ESV that does not distinguish between the two words that are different Hebrew words with different meanings in the reference Psalm 110:1 from which Peter quotes. As such the ESV does not follow the example of the KJV and the NLT which distinguishes these:
Acts 2:34–35 (KJV): 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Acts 2:34–35 (NLT): 34 For David himself never ascended into heaven, yet he said, ‘The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit in the place of honor at my right hand 35 until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet.” ’

Nevertheless the ESV does distinguish the two Hebrew words in Psalm 110:1:
Psalm 110:1 (ESV): The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

You're making much ado about nothing. Even in the KJV and the NLT, "LORD" and "Lord" are the Greek word kurios. That is the point. In the OT, "LORD" is, of course, YHWH, and "Lord" is adown. But, adown is also used of God, such as in Ps. 97:5 and Isa. 1:24.

The fact remains that YHWH never appears in the NT, only kurios, which is also what the Greek Septuagint translates YHWH as.

Jesus is not Yahweh. Whenever the word Yahweh is used for Jesus it indicates that he is the development of the Yahweh Name and he also represents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father.

If Jesus isn't Yahweh, then Jesus lied about himself, and Paul and John followed Jesus's example. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "Whenever the word Yahweh is used for Jesus it indicates that he is the development of the Yahweh Name and he also represents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father." That is reading into the text in order to avoid the plain meaning of clear texts.

Throughout the NT, the attributes of God are ascribed to Jesus, including eternal pre-existence and the creation of everything that God ever created. We also have the Father referring to the Son as Yahweh by way of applying a passage about Yahweh to the Son. Jesus is Yahweh, but not the Father, who is also Yahweh. There is no other conclusion.

Psalm 8 speaks of the Genesis Creation, but then uses this as a framework for the New Creation. The following are a few examples of the exposition of Psalm 8 as the New Creation:
Matthew 11:25–30 (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. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

1 Corinthians 15:20–28 (KJV): 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

No, none of these show "the exposition of Psalm 8 as the New Creation."

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Even in the KJV and the NLT, "LORD" and "Lord" are the Greek word kurios.

Yes, you are still trying to merge the two Hebrew words.

There is no other conclusion.

Except for my explanation.

No, none of these show "the exposition of Psalm 8 as the New Creation."

Your failure to acknowledge this surprises me. Time for me to move on again.

Kind reggards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

Yes, you are still trying to merge the two Hebrew words.

I'm showing you that the Greek Septuagint and the NT make no distinction. You're arguing to English when you should be looking at the Greek, since that is what the NT was written in.

Except for my explanation.

No, your explanation explains nothing; it purposely avoids the plain meaning of the passages.

Your failure to acknowledge this surprises me. Time for me to move on again.

There is nothing to acknowledge. You're trying to make connections where there are none just to avoid the plain, clear meanings of passages proving the true deity of Jesus. This has been your continual MO, just like every other anti-Trinitarian.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

I'm showing you that the Greek Septuagint and the NT make no distinction. You're arguing to English when you should be looking at the Greek, since that is what the NT was written in.

You are still trying to merge these two words and muddy the water sufficiently to extract your wrong conclusions. The LXX is not inspired and this is evident from their poor translation of Exodus 3:14 and many other passages. Is every poor translation of the Bible inspired? Exactly why the LXX did not use Yahweh could be for a number of reasons, but it was NOT to endorse your merging of Yahweh and Lord. The NT quoting the LXX, or using the same convention does NOT endorse your attempts to merge the two ideas of Yahweh and Lord.

The trouble is that you also ignore the Hebrew which uses two different words with two different distinct meanings. One is Yahweh and the other Adon or sometimes Adonai. One is the Name of the One God, Yahweh and the meaning is connected with the verb "to be" and the other is the word meaning Ruler, King or Master.

I previously quoted two passages where both these words occur in the OT, and you CANNOT merge these words in these passages:
Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

In the above both of these words are applied to the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. You cannot say that the meaning here is "O Yahweh our Yahweh", or "O Lord our Lord". Jesus quotes and expounds these verses and applies both terms to the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. But Jesus does not address God his Father by saying "O Yahweh", but covering and summarising Psalm 8:3 as well he says "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth":
Matthew 11:25–30 (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. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The second place where these two words occur is Psalm 110:1 and here the first word "Yahweh" is speaking about the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and the second "my Lord" is speaking about David's Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. You CANNOT merge these words in this passage.
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Now this passage is probably the most quoted OT passage in the NT and NOWHERE is it justified to merge these two words as it is always speaking about the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in the first part and David's Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ in the second part.

There is nothing to acknowledge.

The three passages that I quoted clearly quote, allude to and expound Psalm 8. You may not agree with the expression "the new creation", but I use it to describe the fulfillment of God's ultimate purpose to fill this earth with his glory. I believe very much in the Kingdom of God upon the earth for the 1000 years as a major step in this process. Psalm 8 gives some details of how this will be achieved and the three passages give further explanation and exposition based on Psalm 8.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

You are still trying to merge these two words and muddy the water sufficiently to extract your wrong conclusions. The LXX is not inspired and this is evident from their poor translation of Exodus 3:14 and many other passages. Is every poor translation of the Bible inspired? Exactly why the LXX did not use Yahweh could be for a number of reasons, but it was NOT to endorse your merging of Yahweh and Lord. The NT quoting the LXX, or using the same convention does NOT endorse your attempts to merge the two ideas of Yahweh and Lord.

The trouble is that you also ignore the Hebrew which uses two different words with two different distinct meanings. One is Yahweh and the other Adon or sometimes Adonai. One is the Name of the One God, Yahweh and the meaning is connected with the verb "to be" and the other is the word meaning Ruler, King or Master.

You're essentially saying the NT is irrelevant, despite it being inspired. It doesn't even matter if the NT is quoting the LXX or not; the fact remains that the NT was written in Greek and uses kurios to refer both to God and the Jesus in places that quote the OT.

The reason why the LXX didn't use Yahweh is because it's Greek, not Hebrew.

And, as I've pointed out several times before, not only is the rendering of Ex. 3:14 legitimate, John 8:58 doesn't even require Ex. 3:14 to exist.

I previously quoted two passages where both these words occur in the OT, and you CANNOT merge these words in these passages:
Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

In the above both of these words are applied to the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. You cannot say that the meaning here is "O Yahweh our Yahweh", or "O Lord our Lord". Jesus quotes and expounds these verses and applies both terms to the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. But Jesus does not address God his Father by saying "O Yahweh", but covering and summarising Psalm 8:3 as well he says "O Father, Lord of heaven and earth":
Matthew 11:25–30 (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. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

I'm not merging anything; I'm appealing to what the NT actually says. What you're ignoring is that he NT writers often take something from the OT and imbue it with new and fuller meaning based on the revelation of who Jesus is and what he accomplished.

The second place where these two words occur is Psalm 110:1 and here the first word "Yahweh" is speaking about the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and the second "my Lord" is speaking about David's Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. You CANNOT merge these words in this passage.
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Now this passage is probably the most quoted OT passage in the NT and NOWHERE is it justified to merge these two words as it is always speaking about the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in the first part and David's Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ in the second part.

Again, I'm not merging anything. Try sticking with what the NT says, for now, understanding that it was written in Greek.

The three passages that I quoted clearly quote, allude to and expound Psalm 8. You may not agree with the expression "the new creation", but I use it to describe the fulfillment of God's ultimate purpose to fill this earth with his glory. I believe very much in the Kingdom of God upon the earth for the 1000 years as a major step in this process. Psalm 8 gives some details of how this will be achieved and the three passages give further explanation and exposition based on Psalm 8.

These facts remain:

1. Jesus claimed to have literally existed with the Father, sharing in his glory, prior to the creation of everything. It was clearly past tense, not some allusion to the future.

2. John clearly states In John 1:1-3 that the Word is a divine person, distinct from the Father, who was involved in the creation of everything that was ever created. He reiterates that in verse 10, clearly showing that the Word is Jesus, the Son.

3. Those exact same teachings are seen in 1 Cor. 8:6, in Paul's expansion of the Shema no less, and Col. 1:16-17. That the Son was the pre-existent Word who became flesh is shown in Phil. 2:5-8.

4. The writer of Hebrews clearly says that the Father says the Son created everything, by applying a passage (Ps. 102:25-27) about Yahweh creating. That is to state that the Son is also Yahweh.

This is a consistent message from the beginning of the NT to the end.

Your explanations simply cannot account for any of this. Instead they all dodge clear, plain meanings and do all manner of theological gymnastics to avoid those meanings. We must stick with the simple, straightforward meanings as much as possible. We must also take it all into account or we are likely to go off track by proof-texting.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

You're essentially saying the NT is irrelevant, despite it being inspired. It doesn't even matter if the NT is quoting the LXX or not; the fact remains that the NT was written in Greek and uses kurios to refer both to God and the Jesus in places that quote the OT.
The reason why the LXX didn't use Yahweh is because it's Greek, not Hebrew.

Kurios is a title, not a Name. Whereas the NT attempts to transfer Hebrew Names such as Abraham, Joseph, Joshua and David, it does not attempt to transfer the Name Yahweh, but substitutes Kurios, a title. My only suggestion of why the LXX committee decided to use this convention is because of their reservation in allowing Gentiles to use and sometimes abuse the sacredness of the Divine Name.

In English, many translations do not attempt to transfer the Hebrew Name Yahweh, but some do. The reason why we have LORD in the KJV is NOT because it is written in English, but because the KJV committee decided to more or less follow the convention used by the LXX and NT writers to use a title instead. But not all English translations use this convention, as some such as Rotherham use Yahweh, and despite the fact that the RV uses LORD, the American portion of the committee substituted the erroneous rendition Jehovah in their ASV adaptation. Alec Motyer who was a CofE Minister and a Hebrew Lecturer in his recent book Psalms by the Day has the following:
Psalm 110:1 (Alec Motyer): The word of Yahweh to my Sovereign One.
This brings out the distinction of the meaning of the two Hebrew words into English, and avoids the convention of Kurios, Kurios in Greek and LORD and Lord in English. Alec Motyer has an interesting paragraph in his introduction as to why he considers the use of Yahweh is valid and acceptable.

And, as I've pointed out several times before, not only is the rendering of Ex. 3:14 legitimate, John 8:58 doesn't even require Ex. 3:14 to exist.

Yes, but I endorse "I will be" for Exodus 3:14, speaking of God's future activity to save Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land, and I endorse "I am he" for John 8:58 the same as John 8:24,28 as part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ.

I'm not merging anything; I'm appealing to what the NT actually says. What you're ignoring is that he NT writers often take something from the OT and imbue it with new and fuller meaning based on the revelation of who Jesus is and what he accomplished.

I disagree with your misuse of this.

Again, I'm not merging anything. Try sticking with what the NT says, for now, understanding that it was written in Greek.

Yes, you are using the Greek incorrectly, trying to merge the two meanings, the Name Yahweh and the title Lord..

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

We had a pastor that told us he was going to preach on the 'Trinity', and my ears perked up. So I quizzed him to see what he would say, but he deferred with a smile and told me to check out the sermon and see. So I got a good seat and listened.

Well, he didnt say it directly but the message he gave was more than I had anticipated. He went over the usual text and the basic understanding of them, but then he went into the how God in his ordered way was one, yet distinct in the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Then he went deeper into the oneness of God and gave the following text.....

Genesis 2:20-24
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Can this be a peek at the mystery on how God can be one, and yet seperate.....one "essence", one "substance", yet distinct...not born or created but eternally existing from the same 'oneness'?

reddogs, the comparison that you draw from this text breaks down in some ways:

First, God is NOT "one flesh," as Adam and Eve as a married couple were supposed to be. The Father is spirit, Jesus has a human body, but the Holy Spirit is fully spirit like the Father.

Second, the members of the Trinity do not have parents, the way a man and a woman do.

Third, the biblical belief in the Trinity is derived primarily from the whole Gospel of John, not from Genesis 2.

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

Kurios is a title, not a Name.

Not exactly.

Whereas the NT attempts to transfer Hebrew Names such as Abraham, Joseph, Joshua and David, it does not attempt to transfer the Name Yahweh, but substitutes Kurios, a title. My only suggestion of why the LXX committee decided to use this convention is because of their reservation in allowing Gentiles to use and sometimes abuse the sacredness of the Divine Name.

In English, many translations do not attempt to transfer the Hebrew Name Yahweh, but some do. The reason why we have LORD in the KJV is NOT because it is written in English, but because the KJV committee decided to more or less follow the convention used by the LXX and NT writers to use a title instead. But not all English translations use this convention, as some such as Rotherham use Yahweh, and despite the fact that the RV uses LORD, the American portion of the committee substituted the erroneous rendition Jehovah in their ASV adaptation.

You've completely missed the plot here. As I have repeatedly stated, the NT was written in Greek. That is, regardless of whether or not the NT quotes from the LXX, "LORD" is kurios. So, we can take the LXX completely out of the discussion. Again, the NT was written in Greek, so whether it quotes from the LXX or Hebrew is irrelevant.

According to the NT then, we have:

Act 2:25 For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; (ESV)

Psa 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. (ESV)

Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ (ESV)

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (ESV)

Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (ESV)

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. (ESV)

So, we can see that the NT itself uses kurios both in place of the name of God and as a title. This has nothing to do with translations, but with what was actually written by the original authors of the NT. To put "LORD" (as in YHWH) or "Yahweh" in there would actually be to change what the NT authors wrote, since it is they, under the inspiration of the Spirit no less, who chose to use kurios. Those translations that use "Lord" are simply translating kurios.

Yes, but I endorse "I will be" for Exodus 3:14, speaking of God's future activity to save Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the Promised Land, and I endorse "I am he" for John 8:58 the same as John 8:24,28 as part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ.

I know you do, but I've shown that your understanding of John 8:58 is solely based on reading into the text what you want, because the plain and actual meaning contradicts your view. Your interpretation ignores context and grammar and has Jesus saying nonsense. It simply cannot be the meaning.

I disagree with your misuse of this.

Misuse of what?

Yes, you are using the Greek incorrectly, trying to merge the two meanings, the Name Yahweh and the title Lord..

No, again, I'm am sticking with what the NT says, which you are not doing. You are trying to make an argument to avoid what the NT clearly states. If you have a problem with the use of kurios for the Hebrew YHWH, then your argument is with the original authors of the NT, as well as God for inspiring them to write that.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

No, again, I'm am sticking with what the NT says, which you are not doing. You are trying to make an argument to avoid what the NT clearly states. If you have a problem with the use of kurios for the Hebrew YHWH, then your argument is with the original authors of the NT, as well as God for inspiring them to write that.

I have no problem with the NT writers using Kurios for both parts of Psalm 110:1, and as stated I consider that one reason is the reticence of the Jewish writers and God Himself to freely use the Holy Name because of possible Gentile misuse. I can also think of another very good reason, because the move is towards the development and fulfillment of the Yahweh Name in and through Jesus, and we have mentioned that salvation is now by means of the Name of Jesus.

Psalm 110:1 is probably the most often quoted text in the NT. None of the writers of these NT references have any difficulty in identifying the first word Kurios with God the Father and the second usage with our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you consider the following translation of Psalm 110:1 as erroneous?
Psalm 110:1 (Alec Motyer): The word of Yahweh to my Sovereign One.
Is this rejecting the Holy Spirit inspired Greek NT which does not distinguish between the two words? And how come when the OT scriptures were written did the Holy Spirit decide to use two completely different Hebrew words, one a Name and one a title? Does the NT usage in this particular case override the use of two different words with two different ranges of meaning?

Do the KJV translators of the Psalm 110:1 in the NT ERR when they give us LORD and Lord, or are they wise in giving us an indication of the distinct meaning behind the usage of the two words?

What are you trying to prove?

Kind regards
Trevor