The Trinity

[Asyncritus]

It doesn't seem like you're understanding what I've said. My logic is very sound and 1 Cor 8:6, despite being continually used by anti-trinitarians, very much supports trinitarian doctrine. It simply cannot be otherwise.

This is very strange - because I can't think of another single passage which so completely uproots the doctrine. There are dozens of others which do so by implication (such as Jesus saying Jn 20. 17 ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God) but this one is the plainest.

It's a pity you won't enter the discussion about whether Jesus could have been tempted or not - because it is extremely important in many ways, not least in understanding his sacrificial death.

I said that you are abandoning logic because the swimming pool clearly existed before I could come out of it. Is that too illogical for you?

 

[Asyncritus]

There is nothing there in Isaiah that is in disagreement.

Haven't you read what he said? Here:

All three persons of the God head are equal in substance and being. Each person of the trinity is fully God. The co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Isaiah says the opposite:

Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

In other words, this is a flat contradiction - and I'm surprised your logic won't recognise the disagreement.

 

[Free]

This is very strange - because I can't think of another single passage which so completely uproots the doctrine.

Strange indeed.

There are dozens of others which do so by implication (such as Jesus saying Jn 20. 17 Jesus saith unto her, ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God) but this one is the plainest.

It's interesting but not at all surprising that you believe such passages prove Jesus couldn't be God but then so easily dismiss passages in which the Father calls Jesus his God.

It's a pity you won't enter the discussion about whether Jesus could have been tempted or not - because it is extremely important in many ways, not least in understanding his sacrificial death.

And yet it has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. It neither proves nor disproves that Jesus is God.

I said that you are abandoning logic because the swimming pool clearly existed before I could come out of it. Is that too illogical for you?

It is. You are presuming a definition of "coming out of" and imposing that on the text. It's called begging the question--a logical fallacy on your part. Again, you really, really need to learn to address the points being made. I've addressed this already.

 

[Free]

Haven't you read what he said? Here:

All three persons of the God head are equal in substance and being. Each person of the trinity is fully God. The co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Isaiah says the opposite:

Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

In other words, this is a flat contradiction - and I'm surprised your logic won't recognise the disagreement.

I knew what you were getting at, I just wanted to hear you say it. No, there is no contradiction because you are once again committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. It is your logic that is in error, not mine.

 

[rrowell]

Well. you've lost me there! That's for sure. But Isaiah has something to say about this:

Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Do you agree with him, or not?

What does these verses that speak of comparing God to Idols have to do with the trinity?

 

[Asyncritus]

Strange indeed.


It's interesting but not at all surprising that you believe such passages prove Jesus couldn't be God but then so easily dismiss passages in which the Father calls Jesus his God.


And yet it has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. It neither proves nor disproves that Jesus is God.


It is. You are presuming a definition of "coming out of" and imposing that on the text. It's called begging the question--a logical fallacy on your part. Again, you really, really need to learn to address the points being made. I've addressed this already.

You make a number of accusations of my being illogical, begging the question and a few arm-waving assertions.

Yet, you never prove anything you say or assert, and never deal with the passages being brought forward.

You are making no point at all, apart from the accusations mentioned above. This is absurd.

So to remind you of the points I am raising, here they are again:

1 Jesus calls the Father His God.

That alone finishes any case for equality - because someone can never be equal to his God.

2 Jesus says He came/proceeded OUT OF the Father. That simple statement PROVES that the Father existed BEFORE He did. You need to show that EK doesn't mean OUT OF, and that my statement is false somehow. No arm waving, please.

3 Isaiah states that God the Father has no equal. It's up to you to show that he's wrong,and that God does have an equal or two.

4 1 Cor 8.6 asserts that there is but One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It couldn't be clearer.

But when we add 1 Cor 15.27 which explicitly states that the Father is NOT subject to the Son, and indeed the Son will be subject to the Father, then the case against any form of equality must be considered closed.

1 Cor. 15.27 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.

 

[teddy trueblood]

oti ev autw ektisee ta panta

You notice that 'by' in the verse above [Col. 1:16] is the translation of EV.

It's very odd, and I can only explain it in terms of trinitarian bias in the translators' minds, tat they should translate EN with BY.

Daniel Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics says with respect to the preposition en that it is "the workhorse of prepositions in the NT, occurring more frequently and in more varied situations than any another."

A footnote to this comment on p. 372 adds "Even BAGD (s.v. en, 258) recognizes the difficulty of cataloging every usage: 'The uses of this prep. are so many-sided, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible.' "

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells us that en (or ἐν) may be rendered into English as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ ‘through,’ etc. – Eerdmans Publ., 1978 printing.

Thayer agrees with this meaning of ἐν (en):

“d. of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished …, where we say with, by means of, by (through)” and “… with dat. of pers. [as also found at Col. 1:16] meaning aided by one, by the intervention or agency of some one”. – p. 210, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984 printing

This explains why at Col. 1:16, for example, ‘For in [en] him all things were created,’ as found in the RSV, is also properly translated ‘For through him…’ (GNB; MLB;AT; NLT; C.B.Williams; Phillips).

The last part of this same verse further confirms this proper rendering of the instrumental en of the first part. Yes, “For 'through' or 'by means of' (ἐν) him all things were created” (Col. 1:16a) is made certain by the concluding clause: “All things were created through [dia] him….” (Col. 1:16c) – NKJV, and others.

 

[Free]

You make a number of accusations of my being illogical, begging the question and a few arm-waving assertions.

Yet, you never prove anything you say or assert, and never deal with the passages being brought forward.

You are making no point at all, apart from the accusations mentioned above. This is absurd.

It seems that you are not able or unwilling to engage in proper debate and/or simply cannot follow the discussion. I have made points which you have not addressed and as far as I am aware, I have addressed all points made to me.

As for accusations, you really need to learn what logical fallacies are and see how you have committed begging the question. These are not mere accusations but errors in your reasoning, yet you continue to make them. You need to give adequate support for your truth claims but you have not done so. I cannot deal with your arguments and passages from Scripture until you can provide further support. Simply posting passages doesn't prove anything.

So to remind you of the points I am raising, here they are again:

1 Jesus calls the Father His God.

That alone finishes any case for equality - because someone can never be equal to his God.

There is an abundance of Scripture besides that one that need to be taken into account. You are using a select few while ignoring many.

2 Jesus says He came/proceeded OUT OF the Father. That simple statement PROVES that the Father existed BEFORE He did. You need to show that EK doesn't mean OUT OF, and that my statement is false somehow. No arm waving, please.

You are begging the question. Go learn what that means and see how it is that you have done so. I have already pointed out that you first need to prove that "coming out of" or "proceeding out of" means what you state it means. I clearly already gave an answer which you simply ignore.

3 Isaiah states that God the Father has no equal. It's up to you to show that he's wrong,and that God does have an equal or two.

Again, you're begging the question.

4 1 Cor 8.6 asserts that there is but One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It couldn't be clearer.

It is abundantly clear what it states and you are taking it out of context. I have dealt with this passage several times in this thread and shown how your understanding of it is in error. Yet you and others fail to deal with the points I make regarding it and instead just keep repeating yourselves.

But when we add 1 Cor 15.27 which explicitly states that the Father is NOT subject to the Son, and indeed the Son will be subject to the Father, then the case against any form of equality must be considered closed.

1 Cor. 15.27 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.

Again, you are ignoring other passages of Scripture which must be taken into account. You simply cannot divorce such passages from the rest of Scripture.

 

[Randy]

I find this an incomprehensible statement.

The Father is He who created all things. If Jesus is ALL that the Father is, then why is there any need for the Father?

..

The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. That fullness is God the Father. Apart from that Fullness, (The Father) Jesus could do nothing. Jesus has always been the Son and has a beginning. The Father is in the Son and in that manner they are one. Jesus works within the framework of the Fathers will.

That which God commanded and willed to be created He created with/through the Son. Jesus had a hand in what the Father commanded and willed to be. As Paul wrote we exist for God but live through Jesus.

As Jesus stated as He lives by the Living Father we live by Him. (same context) So Jesus would never state He doesn't need the Father or exists apart from the Father. In fact He states the Father is His God and He loves the Father.

Randy

 

[Asyncritus]

Come, Free

Establish what you're saying simply and clearly for those of us with little brain. Let's do it one by one, shall we?

Originally Posted by Asyncritus
So to remind you of the points I am raising, here they are again:

1 Jesus calls the Father His God.

That alone finishes any case for equality - because someone can never be equal to his God.

Establish your claim, by carefully expounding this one, and then going elsewhere.

Let's use that as a starting point.

 

[Asyncritus]

The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. That fullness is God the Father. Apart from that Fullness, (The Father) Jesus could do nothing. Jesus has always been the Son and has a beginning. The Father is in the Son and in that manner they are one. Jesus works within the framework of the Fathers will.

Hey Randy

Why not look up what FULNESS means, and let me know?

Thanks

Async

 

[JLB]

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, Colossians 1:16

οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα

oti ev autw ektisee ta panta

You notice that by in the verse above is the translation of EV.

It's very odd, and I can only explain it in terms of trinitarian bias in the translators' minds, tat they should translate EN with BY.

The expression IN CHRIST is a completely recognisable NT phrase, and is of great significance in this context.

That doubt exists in the translators' mind is clearly shown by the fact that some very reputable versions do translate EN as IN here in Col 1. 16

16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. RSV

16 For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers — ll were created, and exist through and for Him. WEYMOUTH

16 because in him were the all things created, YLT

So if this is correct, it introduces a very strict limitation on the meaning of ALL THINGS. I really means ALL THINGS IN CHRIST. Meaning, of course, His disciples, not planet earth and all that is in it.

17 And He is before all things, and in Him (EN AUTO) all things consist.

BEFORE opens another question. Does it mean in time? Or in rank order?

In Him, of course, makes it very likely that this describes the disciples because in point of time, and in rank order, Christ was the firstborn from the dead: and is therefore BEFORE all His disciples.

I think we really need to discuss what 'all things' means.

Some translators translate ta pantaas THE all things.

Is this a technical expression in the NT?That's not a silly question, because technical expressions use everyday words with quite different meaningsto the ones normally associated with them. And very often, the user doesn't bother to point out that the technicality exists, simply because he is so familiar with the usage.

This is Asyncritus's answer to the Apostles declaration that Jesus is the creator of all things.

To say that the translators have doubt!

Spoken like a true Jehovah's Witness!


JLB

 

[Asyncritus]

JLB

Go have a look in your concordance, and let me know what 'all things' means.

You can't go context yanking, and choosing a phrase which suits you, and then extending its meaning everywhere you fancy.

No, that won't do.

So go have a look, and let me hear your findings. Pay careful attention to the OT, since the NT is founded upon the Old.

Thx

 

[Eugene]

1 Cor 8.6 asserts that there is but One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. It couldn't be clearer.

Dear Asyncritus, in the following verse of scripture who is saying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," and Who do you say the Lord being spoken of is there?

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Thanks.

 

[Free]

Come, Free

Establish what you're saying simply and clearly for those of us with little brain. Let's do it one by one, shall we?

So to remind you of the points I am raising, here they are again:

1 Jesus calls the Father His God.

That alone finishes any case for equality - because someone can never be equal to his God.

Establish your claim, by carefully expounding this one, and then going elsewhere.

Let's use that as a starting point.

I see this as an avoidance tactic so that you don't have to address the numerous rebuttals and points I have already given, but I will indulge you for at least a little while anyway.

That verse is far from being one "that alone finishes any case for equality," because you have divorced it from the rest of Scripture. Looking at Heb 1:8-12, for example:

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 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, 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)

Here we clearly have God the Father speaking of the Son and calling him both God and YHWH (vs 10), in applying OT passages to the Son. So we have the Son calling the Father, God, and the Father calling the Son, God. It fits perfectly with a trinitarian understanding but I do not see how it could remotely fit yours.

 

[JLB]

Dear Asyncritus, in the following verse of scripture who is saying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord," and Who do you say the Lord being spoken of is there?

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Thanks.

Since he won't answer, I will.

It's YHWH! The Lord of lords!


JLB

 

[JLB]

JLB

Go have a look in your concordance, and let me know what 'all things' means.

You can't go context yanking, and choosing a phrase which suits you, and then extending its meaning everywhere you fancy.

No, that won't do.

So go have a look, and let me hear your findings. Pay careful attention to the OT, since the NT is founded upon the Old.

Thx

2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.


"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."


6 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh,


10 "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.


and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [YHWH], to the glory of God the Father.


And on and on and on...


JLB

 

[Osgiliath]

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 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, 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)

Here we clearly have God the Father speaking of the Son and calling him both God and YHWH (vs 10), in applying OT passages to the Son. So we have the Son calling the Father, God, and the Father calling the Son, God. It fits perfectly with a trinitarian understanding but I do not see how it could remotely fit yours.

Free, you are ASSUMING this means the Son has no beginning and thus, it MUST mean He is a member of the fabled triune Godhead. The Scriptures say otherwise.

The fact that the scriptures never contradict themselves is pointed out in the very context of Christ's claim of being the "Son of God." It is in His defense of this claim that you will find the truth of the matter:

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one.
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"


If there is any point in what Christ is saying (and there certainly is), the truth can be found here. Once again "the scriptures cannot be broken." Do you not understand what Christ is saying? What Christ is saying agrees with what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell us:

1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father [What happened to the Son and the Holy Ghost?], of whom are all things [including the "one Lord Jesus Christ"], and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."


So, as Paul makes so clear in 1 Corinthians 11, Christ is "of God" and we in turn are "by Christ...but all of God." And what does Christ tell us here?:

Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."


Christ Himself reaffirms Paul's statement that the Father is God and that He, Christ is the "beginning of God's creation." Paul, of course, tells us that after God created the "one Lord Jesus Christ," that it was "by Him" that we were all created.


Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."


The Greek word translated 'beginning' here and in Revelation 3:14 is 'arche,' and it literally means "a commencement."

• ἀρχή - archē - (properly abstract) a commencement, or chief (in applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, (at the, the) first, magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

So it is also properly translated as 'chief,' and 'principalities.'

Ephesians 1:20 "Which he [the Father] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
Ephesians 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."

Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power."


In telling us that he is the beginning of the creation of God, Christ is telling us that He is the head of all principality and power.

God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning". This word in Genesis 1:1 happens to be the same word which is translated 'firstfruits' in all these verses:

Leviticus 2:12, Leviticus 23:10, Numbers 18:12, Deuteronomy 26:10, 2 Chronicles 31:5, Nehemiah 10:37, Nehemiah 12:44, Proverbs 3:9, Jeremiah 2:3, Ezekiel 20:40, Ezekiel 48:14


Since if Christ is "the firstfruits", then it follows that it was in Him [Christ] that God did all of His creating, and that is exactly what we are told:


1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."


Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell."


Paul says:

Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God head[/B]; so that they are without excuse."

1 Corinthians 11:12 "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things [including the "one lord Jesus Christ"] of God [the Father]."


Did you catch that? "AS the woman is OF the man... all things are OF God." God the Father is NOT 'of ' Christ. If Christ were not "OF the Father...AS the woman is OF the man," then Christ would be the Father and the head. But what do the Scriptures actually say:

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God [the Father "of whom are all things"]."


Obviously you did not catch that. You simply do not believe that "AS the woman is OF the man...all things are OF God." You see no point at all in Paul's argument because to you Eve was not really "made for Adam" neither is God really the "head of Christ," but in reality they all "should be understood as one and the same." And rather than relinquish this "idol of your heart" (Ezekiel 14:1-9), you twist, distort, and ADD to the plain words of Scripture so it fits into your preconceived "triune" theory.

 

[farouk]

'He gave His only begotten Son' (John 3.16) means that the One Who was given was His Son already. It doesn't mean that God became a Father; the relationship refers to an eternal reality.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By farouk,

It doesn't mean that God became a Father; the relationship refers to an eternal reality.

God created Christ, and through Christ He created "all things." Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God."


Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."

1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and [besides this "one God,the Father," there is also] one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."


Colossians 1:15 "[Christ] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


All creation is 'of God, the Father,' and 'by one Lord Jesus Christ.' Now this "one God, the Father" has a gift He wants to give to "all who will ask Him." And what is the gift that He has to give to all who asks Him?

Luke 11:13 "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

To whom does this 'holy spirit' belong?

Ephesians 4:30 "And grieve not the holy spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

God is not, as so many think 'a spirit.' No, He is not 'a spirit,' instead "He IS Spirit." And He is "the father of spirits."

Hebrews 12:9 "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who are worshiping Him must be worshiping in spirit and truth."


What most call "the Holy Ghost," is in reality simply the "holy spirit of God...the Father, of whom are all things."

This doctrine of the 'Trinity' is the next lie that is essential to prop up the lie of the "triune man." If God is a trinity, then man who is "in the image of God" must also be a trinity with an 'immortal soul.'

Neither the serpent, nor the "historical orthodox Christian church," allows a little thing like "dust thou art" and "the soul that sins, it shall die" get in their way. "Spirit thou art and unto spirit shalt thou return" was the lie which replaced the truth of "dust thou art" and "if the dead rise not then they that are asleep in Christ are perished." According, to the doctrine of "historical orthodox Christianity," the resurrection of the dead in reality is pretty much useless, because at death we are all sent either to heaven or to an ever-burning hole of eternal torture known by the unscriptural, pagan Anglo-Saxon word 'hele.' But what is the Truth of the Word of God?:

1 Corinthians 15:17 "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1 Corinthians 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."



But at least we agree that Christ is Yahweh the LORD of the Old Testament. :nod