- This topic has 2,076 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mike: If you show me a scripture that clearly and undeniably teaches us about a previous “perfect earth”, I’m willing to learn about it.
Carmel: Read this scripture HEREUNDER again please and answer:
IS HE TALKING ABOUT THE SIX-DAY CREATION?
YES OR NO Please!
No, it is God talking about punishing Judah for abandoning Him…
Jeremiah 4:23-28… I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger.
For thus says the LORD, “The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end.
For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark; for I have spoken; I have purposed; I have not relented, nor will I turn back.”
Carmel, I’m asking for something that definitively supports your claims about a previous perfect heaven and earth. There is nothing in the passage you quoted that supports such a claim.
Mike: Jesus is never definitively called Yahweh in scripture.
LU: The Branch is Jesus who is called Yahweh our righteousness.
You refer to Jeremiah 23:6, but the city of Jerusalem is also called by the same exact title in Jeremiah 33:16. So unless you are willing to claim that the city of Jerusalem is also a part of the “Yahweh Unity of Spirit”, then your claim about Jesus is null. This is what I mean when I say Jesus is never DEFINITIVELY called “Yahweh” in scripture. You are playing the same game that many Trinitarian translators play. For example…
Jeremiah 23:6 NASB… In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will live securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The LORD Our Righteousness.’
Jeremiah 33:16 NASB… In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety; and this is the name by which it will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.’
It is the same Hebrew phrase, so why would they translate it with the word “is” in one instance, and without the word “is” in the other? Why the caps in one, and not in the other? There is nothing in the Hebrew words that call for this discrepancy. There is only translator BIAS. The translators WANT to indicate that Jesus shares a name with his and our God, Yahweh… but they DON’T want to indicate that the city of Jerusalem does. It is as simple as that. And you do the same thing for the same reason… BIAS.
Thankfully, many Bibles do it the right way. For example…
Jeremiah 23:6 English Standard Version… In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’
Jeremiah 33:16 English Standard Version… In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’
Please try to be more like the ESV than the NASB. You are free to have your beliefs about Jesus being the very God he is the servant of – but at least be fair about it. Don’t go out of your way to purposely mistranslate scriptures to force your belief into the Bible.
LU: In Hebrews 1, the Father identifies the Son as Yahweh who laid the foundation of the earth…
The name “Yahweh” isn’t even mentioned in Hebrews 1. Nor is it mentioned in the portion of Psalm 102 that is quoted by the author of Hebrews. And the psalm itself is a lamentation TO Yahweh. It’s not the words OF Yahweh. So even IF the writer of Hebrews meant to attribute the words of that psalm to Jesus, it would still be the words of an unnamed psalmist – not the words of the Father as you claim.
And IF the writer of Hebrews meant to attribute the words of that psalm to Jesus, he was clearly mistaken – because the entire Bible, including direct statements by Jesus himself, attributes the creation of the heaven and earth to God – not to Jesus.
Kathi, just out of curiosity, do you cover your head every time you pray?
Mike: PROCLAIMER, WHAT AND WHERE IS “UNDER HEAVEN” IN YOUR MODEL?
Proclaimer: On land / a planet / could be the sea if you were on a boat. The heaven or heavens would be the sky.
So you claim that “the heavens” that God created is the vast universe filled with billions of galaxies, and trillions of planets and stars… yet the land and water of a tiny, insignificant “planet” somewhere in the middle of these heavens is somehow “under heaven”?
No, that doesn’t follow.
Mike: But it is impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles I listed while also being God.
LU: Correction, it is impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles you listed while also being God the Father. It is not impossible for Jesus to have any of the titles you listed while being the One who is united with the Father as His Son in the Yahweh Unity.
Of course it is. Because in your imagination, “God” IS “The Yahweh Unity”. So then according to scripture, Jesus is the son of “The Yahweh Unity”. And the prophet of “The Yahweh Unity”. And the priest of “The Yahweh Unity”. Etc.
And “The Yahweh Unity” sent Jesus into the world to do the will of “The Yahweh Unity”… where Jesus prayed to “The Yahweh Unity” and told us that his God was “The Yahweh Unity”.
So it’s really simple. Jesus is the son, servant, mediator, prophet, holy one, anointed one, and sacrificial lamb of God. If “God” is “The Yahweh Unity”, then Jesus is the son, servant, mediator, prophet, holy one, anointed one, and sacrificial lamb of “The Yahweh Unity”.
Proclaimer: You did add in the indefinite article. Greek only uses the definite article or none at all.
Hebrew doesn’t use an indefinite article either. But I wonder why the KJV added those indefinite articles into the Bible 10,000 times. Is it wrong of the translators (of EVERY SINGLE English Bible) to add indefinite articles to the Hebrew and Greek texts? Should we remove all of them, Proclaimer? Or just the ones in verses where we’re told that Jesus is a god?
Mike: Says the guy who is so ignorant on the issue that he doesn’t even realize that Big Bang, Deep Time Uniformitarianism and Common Descent Evolution aren’t even a part of science at all.
Proclaimer: Are you trying to impress me with big words?
I’m making the point that these fantasy stories from Scientism, that you blindly believe without even understanding them, aren’t even a part of actual science.
That’s why I distinguish between science and Scientism. Science is observation, investigation, testing and repetition. It results in data – not conclusions.
Scientism is the blind belief in the INTERPRETATIONS OF that data by flawed men who can’t possibly go back in time and observe the “big bang”, or “billions of years”, or “common descent evolution”.
The point is that you blindly believe in things that you erroneously call “science” – when those things aren’t even a part of science at all. The point is that you call me a “science denier” when you don’t even realize the difference between science and Scientism.
Proclaimer, do you now understand that big bang, deep time uniformitarianism, and common descent evolution are not even a part of science, because they are not observable, testable, and repeatable?
Do you further understand that science is the collection of data – which makes no conclusions – while Scientism is a faith-based belief in the interpretations of those data by flawed human beings?
And finally, have you now come to understand that by rejecting a blind, unquestioning, faith-based belief in the interpretations of flawed men, I don’t deny science itself, but rather the religion of Scientism?
And IF the writer of Hebrews meant to attribute the words of that psalm to Jesus, he was clearly mistaken – because the entire Bible, including direct statements by Jesus himself, attributes the creation of the heaven and earth to God – not to Jesus.
Hi Mike, I appreciate your honesty here. This is what I am struggling to bring out the erroneous interpretations of the NT writers who had applied the Hebrew texts to suit their biased conceptions to Jesus by taking them out of their original contexts and in bits and parts. I too agree with you that the writer of the Hebrews applied Psalm 102 to Jesus and made him most superior above the angels and equal to God both in glory and the creation process. But no Hebrew Bible’s texts are talking about Jesus if we see their original context. Even the so called Messianic prophecies were not fulfilled by Jesus as he never established Messianic rule to the nation of Israel on this earth. This is the reason why the Jewish people reject Jesus as their Messiah. The Hebrew Bible’s total concentration is on the nation of Israel and their God Yahweh.
Adam: Hi Mike, I appreciate your honesty here. This is what I am struggling to bring out the erroneous interpretations of the NT writers who had applied the Hebrew texts to suit their biased conceptions to Jesus by taking them out of their original contexts and in bits and parts.
The NT is not what Jesus was talking about when he said not one pen stroke of the law and prophets will pass away, or when he said scripture cannot be broken. The NT isn’t even what Paul was talking about when he said all scripture is God-breathed. They were talking about the OT.
In fact, Paul (the likely writer of Hebrews) even points out that many of his teachings are his own, and not revelation from Jesus…
1 Corinthians 7:12… To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
1 Corinthians 7:25… Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
That being said, even the OT scriptures say that the coming messiah would be called a mighty god (Is 9:6, Ps 45:6-7), and that his origins were from ancient times (Micah 5:2).
And while I understand that we’re not to take every word or personal interpretation from each NT writer as “God-breathed”, it is still an accurate historical account of the things Jesus did on earth, and the things he himself said/taught.
So for example, in John 10 when the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for making himself out to be a god when they perceived him as merely a man – what were those Jews basing this conclusion on? Of course, they were basing it on the claims that Jesus made about himself, such as being with God before the world began, being sent down from heaven, etc. In this way, Jesus often and clearly identified himself as a heavenly son of God who was sent down from heaven to do his own God’s will. And all throughout the Bible, heavenly sons of God are gods. Therefore, those Jews were right in accusing Jesus of claiming he was a god (an accusation Jesus never denied), but they were wrong that it was a false and blasphemous claim.
They knew that Jesus was claiming to be a god who was sent down from heaven. They just didn’t know that he was telling the truth about those claims.
Adam, please join us in the “Many Gods of the Bible” thread. I’m starting with the OT, and would like your input.
Hi Mike,
You: No, it is God talking about punishing Judah for abandoning Him…
Me: AGREE: Jer. 4:23 is clearly in allusion to Genesis. The prophet writes in view of the land of Israel and the judgments impending.
The prophet looks onward to the utter desolation with which God would visit the land of Israel,
the terms being pointedly chosen definitely from Genesis 1:2.
Carmel, I’m asking for something that definitively supports your claims about a previous perfect heaven and earth.
There is nothing in the passage you quoted that supports such a claim.
There’s Mike, more than you think!
In view of what YOU SAID, and I AGREE above regarding the judgments impending to the land of Israel.
Genesis 1:2 is a description of the state,
NOT IN WHICH GOD MADE THE EARTH, SINCE IT WAS ALREADY CREATED IN GENESIS 1:1
but to which He was pleased subsequently to reduce it.
Answer please:
DO YOU AGREE
I am waiting?
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Carmel: I AGREE above regarding the judgments impending to the land of Israel.
Genesis 1:2 is a description of the state,
NOT IN WHICH GOD MADE THE EARTH, SINCE IT WAS ALREADY CREATED IN GENESIS 1:1
but to which He was pleased subsequently to reduce it.
Answer please:DO YOU AGREE
Of course not, Carmel. To agree to that, I’d have to agree that the prophet Jeremiah was alive during the “previous perfect earth”, prophesied about the coming “reduction” of that earth, and then lived again in the subsequent “very good but not quite perfect” earth… only to once again prophesy about the same thing.
Hi Mike,
You: Of course not, Carmel.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.
Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and lo it was void, and nothing: and the heavens, and there was no light in them.
Me: So according to you the above scriptures are totally opposite to each other! NO?
2Peter3:5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God
the heavens were of OLD,
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
What the above scripture tells you clearly! Mike please;
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
Carmel, the two scriptures are not “opposite” – just completely unrelated. Like I said, if your theory is correct, then Jeremiah lived on the “perfect earth”, prophesied about the subsequent creation of the “very good but not perfect” earth, and then lived again on that second earth… which itself will become formless and void with no light in the heaven – because in 4:23-28, he’s ON the second earth prophesying something that will happen to IT in the future!
Do you believe that, Carmel? Yes or No?
Besides, there were still mountains, hills and desert in the Jeremiah prophecy. There were none of these things until the third day of creation. (Gen 1:9) And in Jeremiah, there were still birds (although they had fled), and there were still cities (although they had been torn down).
Please answer MY question this time.
Mike,
Good conversation, Mike.
You said:
So it’s really simple. Jesus is the son, servant, mediator, prophet, holy one, anointed one, and sacrificial lamb of God. If “God” is “The Yahweh Unity”, then Jesus is the son, servant, mediator, prophet, holy one, anointed one, and sacrificial lamb of “The Yahweh Unity”.
Actually that and much more than that. In part, Jesus is the only begotten God, the Lord of lords, within the Yahweh Unity who spread out the heavens over the earth and actually made all things in heaven and on earth. Who was sent from the Yahweh Unity to serve this Unity as He emptied Himself and became man, the promised Messiah. As the Messiah, He came to become the spotless sacrificial lamb who offered Himself to be the atoning sacrifice required to redeem mankind, offering eternal life to those who believe in Him as LORD. Every knee will bow to Him, Yahweh, our Righteousness, and confess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of the Father who is the head of the Unity of Yahweh.
I believe that requires a capital “G” as the only begotten “God.” No god can compare to YHVH, the God of gods and the Lord of lords, Father and Son.
Blessings, LU
Mike,
In answer to your question, no, physically I don’t cover my head when I pray but I am not opposed to that. Spiritually, I do pray under the covering of who is my head, Jesus.
Regarding Jerusalem as being called Yahweh our Righteousness:
A great person often has a city named after them and obviously they are not the city. The city of Jerusalem will be named after Jesus who is called Yahweh our Righteousness. It is the city after all, of the great king!
Here is a little example to help you regarding a famous person and a city and other things named after him:
Is there anything named after Christopher Columbus?
What all is named after Christopher Columbus? The Space Shuttle Columbia, Columbia University and Columbia Broadcasting System and the Salvadorean and Costa-Rican currencies named colón were also named for him. Also, Columbus, Ohio, etc.It’s really a simple concept. Jesus is the Yahweh who is our Righteousness. Most Christians all over the world believe this.
Mike,
You said:
You are free to have your beliefs about Jesus being the very God he is the servant of – but at least be fair about it. Don’t go out of your way to purposely mistranslate scriptures to force your belief into the Bible.
Compare your bias of what I say to what I actually say:
I will correct your post to say this, look at the difference:
You are free to have your beliefs about Jesus being the only begotten God who is part of the Yahweh Unity from which He was sent to be the servant for that Unity as the Messiah, our Savior and our righteousness among other things.
Speaking of being our righteousness, show me where the verb “is” in the Hebrew, to be fair, if you don’t see them, you should back off of claiming that it is there and accusing me of mistranslating. Go ahead show me, I’ll wait.
Proclaimer,
You said:
After all, being the Son means that he was born of the Father and from that, you can easily derive what nature he would have. Further, it wouldn’t be controversial at all.
Seriously, not controversial at all. Just ask those active on HN if they agree that being the Son means that he was born of the Father.
Mike says the Son was the first created son along with many other sons. Gene says the Son was born of Joseph and Mary then born again of the Father, Adam certainly doesn’t believe that Jesus was born of the Father, Berean agrees that the Son means that he was born of the Father. I believe that He was the only begotten Son born of the Father and thus the only begotten God. Carmel, I’m not sure that I can easily say but it is not as you believe.
So there you go if I said that Jesus is the Son of God who was with God the Father in the beginning and all things were made through him, I would get plenty of controversy on HN.
Btw, you didn’t really answer “no” to my question here:
And what if you say Jesus is the only begotten God who was with God the Father in the beginning and through the only begotten God, all things were made. Is that a correct statement according to you?
You mentioned that you don’t like the capitol G for the only begotten God because that leads to confusion. I pointed out that only begotten Son also leads to confusion. Is there someone else that is the only begotten God and Jesus is not the only begotten God? Does calling Jesus the only begotten God make Him superior to God the Father, the unbegotten God in your mind?
Btw, you think it’s weird to teach that Jesus is the only begotten God then I got news for you, most of Christianity can agree to that. They also agree that Jesus is called Yahweh. So let’s not pretend that I am alone in what I teach here. I don’t know anyone here or elsewhere that agrees with your doctrine, btw.
You said:
“Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
And if you were saying that, then you wouldn’t be weird anymore. Rather you would be a soldier fighting a good cause and being commended by God, Jesus, and the righteous.
Actually, I’m quite sure that the Father is glorified when I proclaim that Jesus Christ is LORD. You will too someday. in fact every knee will bow and every tongue will confess this.
Seriously, not controversial at all. Just ask those active on HN if they agree that being the Son means that he was born of the Father.
I wouldn’t judge most believers by the active members at this time as they differ substantially. Most believers understand that the Son has the nature of his Father, but this can leads them into fabricated doctrines which is a Babylonian thing. That is, making God into an idol of some kind. In fact, when you think hard enough about it, the words Father and Son describes the same nature in the best way. We know that God sent his Son into the world and that he emptied himself, came in the flesh, and is now back in the glory he had with the Father before the cosmos. This is all taught clearly in scripture, so you cannot go wrong if you teach that. And when you do teach it, watch who opposes you. They even oppose you for posting the very scriptures that say this. Try it out. Post a really clear scripture on its own regarding the nature and origins of the Son and watch who attacks it. I’ll start.
Aware that His disciples were grumbling about this teaching, Jesus asked them,
“Does this offend you?
Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?
Hi Mike,
You: Carmel, the two scriptures are not “opposite” – just completely unrelated.
ME: WRONG Mike, THEY ARE!
Like I said, if your theory is correct, then Jeremiah lived on the “perfect earth”, prophesied about the subsequent creation of the “very good but not perfect” earth,
ME: NO I’M AFRAID! THAT’S YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING!
and then lived again on that second earth… which itself will become formless and void with no light in the heaven – because in 4:23-28, he’s ON the second earth prophesying something that will happen to IT in the future!
ME: IT’S A COMPLETE CONFUSION.
Mike, FIRST AND FOREMOST, LET’S MAKE THINGS CLEAR Read:
You: No, it is God talking about punishing Judah for abandoning Him.…
In the above you well said that God is talking……..
Then you said:
Of course not, Carmel. To agree to that, I’d have to agree that
the prophet Jeremiah was alive during the “previous perfect earth”,
prophesied about the coming “reduction” of that earth,……
HOW ON EARTH DID YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?
SIMPLY BECAUSE HE PROPHECIED?
A PROPHECY IS NOT HUMAN ORIGIN IT IS GOD’S ORIGIN!
IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO IS TALKING IN ACTUAL FACT, NOT JEREMIAH.
ALSO, THE FACT THAT JEREMIAH, OR OTHER PROPHETS, PROPHECIED, IT’S NOT A CONFIRMATION THAT THEY PRE-EXISTED!
NOW BACK TO MY POST, MAYME I WASN’T THAT CLEAR, I SAID:
Me: AGREE: Jer. 4:23 is clearly in
allusion to Genesis.
The prophet writes in view of the land of Israel and the judgments impending.
The prophet looks onward to the utter desolation with which
God would visit the land of Israel,
the terms being pointedly chosen definitely from Genesis 1:2.
OK, Mike, THE PROPHET/GOD CHOSE DEFINITELY THE SAME TERMS USED IN GENESIS 1:2 ATTENTION PLEASE:
IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR, THAT WHAT DID OCCUR IN GENESIS 1:2 IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL.
HE/GOD SAW THAT THE LAND OF ISRAEL EVENTUALLY WOULD BECOME
IN THE SAME STATE THE WORLD BECAME IN GENESIS 1:2.
AFTER THE REBELLION, AFTER THE VERY FIRST SIN, John8:24
THAT THE EARTH BECAME WASTED AND DESOLATE.
THUS Mike,
IN RELATION TO YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING AND CONFUSION, THE ANSWER IS DEFINITELY
NO!
NOW ONE MORE THING Mike!
Hereunder is again the scripture, of which I expect your comments, which again as usual you simply ignored for your own pleasure and reason which only you know.
2Peter3:5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God
the heavens were of OLD,
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Answer please for the sake of truth!
What the above scripture tells you clearly, regarding
THE HEAVEN/S and THE EARTH Mike please;
Peace and love in Jesus Christ
LU: Speaking of being our righteousness, show me where the verb “is” in the Hebrew, to be fair, if you don’t see them, you should back off of claiming that it is there and accusing me of mistranslating. Go ahead show me, I’ll wait.
I didn’t accuse you of mistranslating. As far as I know, you have never translated the Bible before. Nor did I say the word “is” is there in the Hebrew. What I said (paraphrasing) is that the NASB includes the word “is” when the Hebrew words are about Jerusalem, but excludes “is” when the same words are about Jesus. I said there is nothing in the art of translating Hebrew to English that would require the translators to include it in one verse, but exclude it in the other. I said that the only reason they do it that way is because they WANT Jesus to be Yahweh, but DON’T want the city of Jerusalem to be Yahweh. And then I said that YOU show that same BIAS… which is true.
You WANT those Hebrew words to say that Jesus is “Yahweh the Son”, but you DON’T want those very same words to say that Jerusalem is “Yahweh the City”. That is a BIAS that you should explain. After all, if we are to be one with Jesus and God, and we will see Jesus as he is because we will be like him, and we will live in New Jerusalem as joint heirs with Jesus, then why CAN’T it mean that we will also become part of the “Yahweh Unity of Spirit” or whatever?
Why should the “Yahweh Unity” be limited to just two persons? Why not an entire city population of holy ones that merges into that “Unity of Spirit” and is therefore “Yahweh the City”?
But what I was mainly pointing out is that many translations (not just the NASB) include the “is” for the city, but exclude it for Jesus. And then I showed the ESV which does it fairly – including the “is” in both verses.
As for the word “is” not being in the Hebrew, I did some looking last night and wasn’t able to find a single verse where there is a separate Hebrew word for “is”. I don’t know, but maybe it’s like the indefinite article – which has to be added into English because Hebrew doesn’t use it. Anyway, here’s the kind of stuff I found…
Anyway, scripture after scripture had the brackets around the word [is] – indicating that it is something not in the Hebrew, but that has to be added in for the English language. And I assume it is no different in the Jeremiah verses we were discussing, ie: it is allowed to be added in – like many translations do in the verse about the city. (But not so much in the verse about Jesus… which was my point.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
