- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Ignore this part:
Quote Read in context the pronouns “his” and “him” used by John could ONLY refer to Yahshua because He is identified as the subject in verse 37. All proceeding verses therefore relate to Him. There is no mention of the Father in the passage. John took a passage from the OT which speaks of YHWH and applied it DIRECTLY to Yahshua. Quote My alternative view I do not claim to be correct. I want to learn more so it becomes correct. If you have wisdom on these matters I want to learn from you as the search for truth is the aim. So sarcasm is not appropriate.
It wasn't being sarcastic, it was a sincere question. You had already declared that your views are “unchanging on these matters”, so you must believe you have the whole truth and only your interpretation can be correct in your mind. Surely?
Sorry for any unntended offense.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ May 13 2006,08:17) Is 1:18, Please don't use your ignorance of Hebrew literary devices as a prooftext for your “multiple YHWHs” theory. YHWH is one in number, as proclaimed in Deuteronmy 6:4.
1 Kings 8:1 says
Quote Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of [YHWH] from the City of David, which is Zion. By your understanding of scripture, we would have to conclude that there are two King Solomons in this passage – one assembling the people to the other. Would we not? Instead, by overwhelming use of singular pronouns in reference to Solomon, it is clear that he is one person. The same is true for YHWH.
Amen WhatIsTrue.Is 1:18 teaching is false.
I think you mean “falsely”? Am I teaching? I don't think so. Is everyone who participates in a discussion a teacher? By that logic everyone that expresses an opinion is a teacher. So essentially the whole world then would be considered teachers, would they not? I think when you set up a website to systematically expound your views on scripture you cross that line.
Quote Me:
Quote Hi Malcolm,
I'll pick up on the Alpha and Omega statements in my reply to your long post. Just quickly though, could you answer me something? IYHO, are these words recorded by Isaiah spoken by the Son or the Father?Isaiah 44:6
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.Isaiah 48:12
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.Quote Malcolm
Quote In my honest opinion
God IN Christ is the way I view it, Jesus said before Abraham was I AM, who was talking? God IN Christ. The difference? the form He was in.
Don't know if that answers anything for you or raises more questions..:D
That’s certainly an interesting take on it Malcolm. But it does raise some questionsfor me.The apostles, and indeed ALL Christians, also had God in them:
1 Corinthians 3:16 – Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1 Corinthians 14:25 – And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.1 John 4:4 – Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
But there is not one verse in scripture where an apostle or any spirit-filled Christian was given the titles “first and last”, or any title attributed to YHWH for that matter.
Also, are you suggesting that when Jesus spoke it was in fact the Father’s word’s being vocalized? We know this cannot always apply, since He prayed to His Father, asked Him for the cup to be removed, cried out on the cross “My God, My God…..”. In these instances it’s clearly the Son’s volition and vocalizations coming through. Maybe you mean that sometimes it’s the Father’s vocalizations? How can you tell when Yahshua is actually speaking about himself? I mean if, when He spoke of Himself, it was in fact the person of His Father speaking, then He really said NOTHING about Himself in scripture.
When God spoke through someone, as in a prophecy, the context bears this out. But when Jesus said “I am” there is nothing in the passage to indicate that this was His Father speaking through Him. Moreover, when you examine the context of the passage it’s plainly evident that the subject of the ‘discussion’ between Jesus and the Pharisees was Yahshua Himself.:
John 8:56-58
56″Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.“He was speaking about Himself. Why would the Father suddenly interject and make a statement about His eternal origin in the narrative? I find that hard to swallow Malcolm.
Another problem I see with your explanation is John 19:37.
John 19:36-37
36For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.Here John records that Jesus Christ literally fulfilled an OT prophecy at His crucifixion; This specific prophecy was made in Zech 12:10
Zechariah 12:10
10And I[YHWH, vs 1] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [YHWH] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.Only YHWH could fulfill this prophecy, because it was made specifically OF YHWH. John unequivocally tells us that Jesus fulfilled it at Calvary. And He did this when? AFTER He had died and the Holy Spirit had departed. It was just His lifeless body hanging on the cross – and He was STILL attributed the name YHWH.
Quote The difference? the form He was in.
Yahshua is also given these titles after His incarnation (in Revelation) when as well.God Bless
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 06 2006,10:32) Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 06 2006,10:22) If he is God as an equal person with the Father and the Spirit from everlasting how come it does not say he already had equality?
It does.
Hi Is.1.18,
This is what I was saying we had unchanged views on-inherent equality of the Son of God with his Father.Yes it does
No it doesn't
Yes it doesis utter futility
Besides “Unchanged” does not mean “Unchangeable “
Hi NH,
When you used the plural “views on all these matters” I took it to mean that there was more than one matter in view here. But if you only meant the matter of Phil 2, then I accept that. So your views on the nature and identity of Christ are not fixed then?Hi Is 1.18
In Zech 12.10 there is a
“:”
between the two statements.It is an assumption to say the “Me ” is the Father. Since “Me”does not appear in the concordance perhaps it is a word added for clarification of the Hebrew? Who can help here?
Besides it is not unusual for one verse to apply to the Son and another the Father.
One thing that is sure is that God did not have a weak human body. His son, in whom he dwelled, did.
All verses, indeed words, in scripture must be scrutinised for their individual meaning and relevance.
Does Jesus have the name of YHWH as well as Yahshua? Few would agree with you. Does the same apply to the Father as surely equality should demand?
If Yahshua was with God in the beginning why should it be a surprise that he was before Abraham, David and John the baptist?
Was God divided to be in all the christians or was it the Spirit of God they shared?
Hi Is.1.18,
Looking specifically at Is 6
The Lord of Hosts[YHWH] was seated on a throne filling a temple and surrounded by Seraphim exalting YHWH.
The voice of YHWH sends him and prophesies that the Israelites will not listen to the Master and then follows a prophecy about the tribulation times.If this was Jesus
Where was the Father?Surely God to you is a trinity and because of “inherent equality” none should act alone, or could be alone.
Why would one person alone fill the temple?
Were there other Seraphim praising the Father and the Spirit in other temples?
If you say Genesis refers to God as a “We” where is that “we” visible here?Quote Does Jesus have the name of YHWH as well as Yahshua? Few would agree with you.
That is incorrect. Most Bible believing christians hold to this. And even if I was in a tiny minority, why would I care? Scripture agrees with me, that's the important thing.Quote If Yahshua was with God in the beginning why should it be a surprise that he was before Abraham, David and John the baptist?
John 5:58 isn't just about The Logos pre-existing Abraham or any other human. Essentially, you have translated the Greek present tense (“I am”) into the English perfect tense “I was“. In the Greek, the words “ego eimi” are the present active indicative first person singular (I am), not the perfect active indicative first person singular ('I have been' or 'I was'). Jesus was trying to say something that goes well beyond “I existed before Abraham”.The exact same verb and tense is used in John 1:1a:
John 1:1
In the beginning was (Gr: eimi) the Word…This is an imperfect verb and therefore denotes continuous action, perpetuity. John meant to convey that there was not a time when the Word 'was not'. The same meaning is captured in John 8:58 – it's a statement of eternality NH.
Quote Was God divided to be in all the christians or was it the Spirit of God they shared?
Did I write that God was divided?Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 14 2006,00:43) Quote Does Jesus have the name of YHWH as well as Yahshua? Few would agree with you.
That is incorrect. Most Bible believing christians hold to this. And even if I was in a tiny minority, why would I care? Scripture agrees with me, that's the important thing.Quote If Yahshua was with God in the beginning why should it be a surprise that he was before Abraham, David and John the baptist?
John 5:58 isn't just about The Logos pre-existing Abraham or any other human. Essentially, you have translated the Greek present tense (“I am”) into the English perfect tense “I was“. In the Greek, the words “ego eimi” are the present active indicative first person singular (I am), not the perfect active indicative first person singular ('I have been' or 'I was'). Jesus was trying to say something that goes well beyond “I existed before Abraham”.The exact same verb and tense is used in John 1:1a:
John 1:1
In the beginning was (Gr: eimi) the Word…This is an imperfect verb and therefore denotes continuous action, perpetuity. John meant to convey that there was not a time when the Word 'was not'. The same meaning is captured in John 8:58 – it's a statement of eternality NH.
Quote Was God divided to be in all the christians or was it the Spirit of God they shared?
Did I write that God was divided?
Hi Is 1.18,
But you did not answer the question.
Is Yahweh another name for Yeshua?
And is Yeshua another name for YHWH if equality is the order in a trinity?If Jesus says
“I Am” before Abraham does that not say
“I who am now is also one who existed before Abraham. As my being has was and is, it is truth that I am”?
Is he not is the one “who was, and is, and is to come”? That does not state how far back “was” goes.So you agree the Spirit of God is, as Jesus called it, the “Finger of God” , one in being always with God Himself and thus God can be shared in this way, one in the body of Christ?
Quote Where was the Father?
Should we always expect a verse that speaks of the Logos in His pre-incarnate state to be expressed in a trinity kind of way? Why? Isaiah saw the pre-incarnate Logos according to John. That's the issue at hand here. Lets stick to it, and not go down these side alleys.Quote Why would one person alone fill the temple?
Isa 6:1
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.His robe, not him.
Quote Surely God to you is a trinity and because of “inherent equality” none should act alone, or could be alone. Why not? (BTW, I'm not a modalist)
Quote Hi Is 1.18,
But you did not answer the question.
Is Yahweh another name for Yeshua?Philippians 2:9
9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every nameI have to catch up on some other's posts now….
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 14 2006,01:08) Quote Where was the Father?
Should we always expect a verse that speaks of the Logos in His pre-incarnate state to be expressed in a trinity kind of way? Why? Isaiah saw the pre-incarnate Logos according to John. That's the issue at hand here. Lets stick to it, and not go down these side alleys.Quote Why would one person alone fill the temple?
Isa 6:1
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.His robe, not him.
Quote Surely God to you is a trinity and because of “inherent equality” none should act alone, or could be alone. Why not? (BTW, I'm not a modalist)
Hi Is 1 18,
Surely the test of the veracity of any theory is the ability to be inserted in any theoretical situation, and be shown to work, and still harmonise and even bring greater depth of understanding to them too.Wiould anyone take seriously Einstein's theory of relativity unless it was shown to be resilient in all tested circumstances?
So why would you resist testing the theory of trinity in any biblical situation? Surely in the pursuit of biblical intergrity you would love to show us these things?
But if it cannot be tested then what value is the theory? Are we not told to test all things and hold fast to what is good?Since trinity is not revealed directly in the bible why would you not rush to do so out of the fear of God?
If Jesus always had equality with the Father the how come scripture says he was made a little less than the angels? Was God made less than the angels? If he was given even greater glory when he returned to the Father what greater glory could he have than equal glory with the Father? Was he given greater glory than the Father? Absurd.
Was he given the name of YHWH as some has suggested? But did he not always have that name if he always had equality with the Father. If he was a equal to the Father how come the Father gives him things? Does not the greater give to the lesser??
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 06 2006,08:31) Quote God is greater in every sense than the Son of God.
NH,
So in the passages that speak of the Father being “greater” than the Son do you understand this to mean 'superior in':- nature?
- essence?
- substance?
Is the Logos a 'lesser being' than His Father?
I never did get an answer to this post. Can we make a deal. If you give me direct answers to the questions i've asked here, and then let me 'test' you you on your answers, I promise I will faithfully address every question in your last post.Not trying to be confrontational here, but I find when I discuss anything with you on here I seem to be continually answering questions posed by you, while my questions either get ignored or are not given a direct answer. So let's be fair about this….
Hi Is.1.18,
When we see Jesus in the gospels we see two beings. He told us when we see Him we see the Father, and He revealed the Father in nature and power to us.So some of the parts of his own nature are seen in his childhood and youth and early recorded adulthood. During this time he is seen to be obedient and faithful to his parents and to God.
He is always shown to be a faithful servant, a true vessel who always gave the credit to where it belonged, to the Father. He was humble and self effacing, brave and resilient.
Subsequent to his being filled with the Spirit of the Father at the Jordan, his own nature is shown at his suffering in Gethsemene when his own will was struggling with the Father's, and at his death when his own spirit left him.
So what of his life in heaven whence he came? We only know the nature of the Logos/Son by what is revealed in scripture about him the rest would be foolish speculation.
He is the image of the Father , so his being must be far above angels and at least similar to God's. He preceded creation including that of Time and the existence of the universe he was involved in the creation of, but who knows from when.
Is his substance the same? No details are given but he had glory of his own. He was shown to be humble and obedient even then choosing servanthood to God [Phil2.5f] over ambition.
He was lovable because God loved the Son that he sent. He had powers and great knowledge to be able to create under the instructions of God.
But we know nothing much about Godly essence or substance so we are unable to compare in any depth.
Ok, thanks for that. From what I've read you can't give me 'yes or no' answers to my questions due to a percieved lack of information and unwillingness to speculate. Is that correct?
Quote Is his substance the same? No details are given
Hebrews 1:3 tells us He is the “exact representation of his nature” (Gr. hupostasis = essence/substance). If His “hupostasis” is in any way inferior then how can it be an “ exact representation”?Hi Is 1.18,
I cannot find words like HYPOSTASIS or ONTOLOGICAL in my bible. Could men have put them into their teachings? Even “essence and substance” are the result of vain efforts of men to put God into human boxes.
Why not just use the words Jesus and the apostles and prophets used?
They did not seem to use them.
Why do we?
And we can only confuse matters if we add to their words.
We are not their superiors are we?Jesus is the “exact representation of His nature”. He is kind and gentle, honest and fair and generous, truthful and just and loving etc.
It says nothing about substance ond essence does it?
Are these assumed to be the same as well?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
