- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I'm sure you all have seen this verse many times just as I have, but something occured to me about it. Forgive me if this has been covered. It says:
“The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
Take note that I'm not trying to point out the usual about this meaning Christ was created at some point, so lets put that aspect on the back burner for this thread.
What struck me was the fact that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the word “LORD” is always translated from God's personal name, YHWH. And being a personal name it isn't applied to anyone but the Almighty God, as it isn't a title. To me it feels a little bit more powful to see Jesus being differentiated from God's personal name rather than just a title used to refer to him (countless examples in the New Testament). I can't help but trying to insert Jesus as YHWH into this verse. If Jesus is YHWH, then YHWH begat YHWH. For some reason that thought feels even more ridiculous when using the personal name of God.
I'd be very interested in hearing any thoughts, but I'd appreciate it if people could stay on topic and refrain from posting all kinds of other scripture as much as possible. All I'm really interested in is personal thoughts and reactions to this one aspect of this one scripture, not another endless debate trying to prove one another wrong. Just keep in mind that there's nothing wrong with stating your opinion for me (since I'm the one who's asking), and not feeling the urge to argue with everyone you don't agree with. Two people should be able to present two completely different views and pretty much be done with it after minor clarifications, without feeling the need to condem each other over the course of twenty pages.
Although, maybe this is all just wishful thinking. Only time will tell…
Kyle, hello and welcome! You and I are fairly new members to this board, and yes it is wishful thinking to think that it won't turn into a debate.
But, I encourage you to try and put your defenses down (as I had to) and see the debates for what they really are. I've learned a lot when I've been able to relax and LISTEN to all parties. It's fun. I look forward to checking the boards every day now, and I've learned a ton.Regarding this Psalm, I think you are truly on to something! I do not believe that Jesus is the “second person” in a triune God. So, therefore I am free to read scripture just as it is meant to be read – simply – and simply speaking – God is the Father of Jesus.
Jesus is a legitimate Son.
Jesus is God's *only* begotten Son……….through Mary. Please don't forget Mary! Ha! So many others do. They love to elevate Jesus' deity to the point of forgetting almost entirely that he was born of a women.
Hi Kyle,
I don't think that this verse poses any problem to those that believe that Jesus was YHWH.
They believe that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and YHWH are three persons that are also one person,
and they talk to each other all of the time.If you think rationally about it though, it must cause serious doubts in your mind that Jesus was YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures
if He says YWHW has told him that He is his son. There was only one YWHW.Challenging thought Kyle.
Tim
Thanks for the replies. That's kind of what I've been expecting to hear from some people, Tim. While I get the concept, I definitely have a hard time understanding why that's the best and most simple way to look at scripture. I'm sure you do to 😉
Anyway, I look forward to more replys. I'd especially like to hear any thoughts on if this verse is any more significant than say John 3:16 (and hundreds of others) since the personal name is used rather than just a title.
Hi
The Name LORD, YHWH is the name for God. But a close examination of the use of this name in OT scriptures shows that the name is applied to both the Father and the Son
Just one example…
Zech 14:
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: *and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee*.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be *king over all the earth*: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.If you notice the first and second verse seems to be the Father speaking, then in vrs 3 he says “Then the Lord, (YHWH)” as if he is speaking of another and a closer look shows he is speaking of Yeshua.
“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”, without question this is Yeshua.
Now if the writer was just meaning Jesus is his agent, he wouldnt have used “His feet”, then in verse 5 he says, “and *the LORD(YHWH) my God* shall come, and all the saints with thee”.
See Mk 8:38 and Matt 25:31 and Rev 1:7 and Jud 1:14. The scriptures show Jesus coming with the Holy Angels and his saints.
Then in verse 9 he says…
And the LORD,(YHWH) shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his *name one*
Notice his name is one.
Who is this that has a name above all names and is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and will rule in his Kingdom?
His name is Yeshua which means “YHWH” is salvation!
Jesus said *My Kingdom* is not of this world!
Quote (TimothyVI @ April 15 2007,09:02) Hi Kyle, I don't think that this verse poses any problem to those that believe that Jesus was YHWH.
They believe that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and YHWH are three persons that are also one person,
Hi Tim,
I do not know of a single active member on these boards that believes that. Time and time again I see examples of those that have rejected the trinity on MBs, but almost invariably they appear not to have understood even the fundamentals of the doctrine they rejected.I noticed that too, Isaiah. Growing up (before I had really studied this stuff out in detail on my own) what I knew was that there was God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and also the Holy Ghost. So when I first heard the idea of these three being “mashed” together into one person or being without body, parts, or passions for some reason, it seemed really weird to me. My natural conclusion was that people believed God, his son Jesus, and the Holy Ghost were being integrated. Never would I have come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were actually believed to be God himself in addition to the person I thought to be exclusively God. This makes a bit more sense than those two being just part of some mysterious “blob” with God (forgive my terminology as this was just my thought process as a child), but isn't necessarily any easier for me to accept for some reason. Tim also looks to have not made the distinction you make between what a person or seperate intelligence is and what a “being” is. And please do correct me if I'm wrong.
I definitley notice the misrepresentation on both sides. What with Nick telling people that they think Jesus is his own father and others telling t8 he's a henotheist or polytheist, it's quite easy to feel misunderstood. I think most here understand the ideas of their opposing sides, but end up applying their own logic to say people believe things that they don't. Some people can't get behind the Trinity without concluding that Jesus is his own Father. For others, they can't see Jesus as anything other than a normal man without divine attributes, a false or seperate god, or God himself (the obvious choice between these three being the latter).
I hope I'm making some sense.
Quote (Kyle @ April 15 2007,11:44) I noticed that too, Isaiah. Growing up (before I had really studied this stuff out in detail on my own) what I knew was that there was God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and also the Holy Ghost. So when I first heard the idea of these three being “mashed” together into one person or being without body, parts, or passions for some reason, it seemed really weird to me. My natural conclusion was that people believed God, his son Jesus, and the Holy Ghost were being integrated. Never would I have come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were actually believed to be God himself in addition to the person I thought to be exclusively God. This makes a bit more sense than those two being just part of some mysterious “blob” with God (forgive my terminology as this was just my thought process as a child), but isn't necessarily any easier for me to accept for some reason. Tim also looks to have not made the distinction you make between what a person or seperate intelligence is and what a “being” is. And please do correct me if I'm wrong.
No need to correct you. Unfortunately there is an epidemic of non-trinitarians charging the trinitarians with either modalism or tritheism on these boards. If people would just take some time to study the fundamentals of the doctrine before they start submitting their objections we'd all be better off. It's not difficult or impressive to erect a straw man and then knock it down. BTW, TimothyVI these comments are not directed at you personally, you are generally quite fair with your observations.Quote I definitley notice the misrepresentation on both sides. What with Nick telling people that they think Jesus is his own father and others telling t8 he's a henotheist or polytheist, it's quite easy to feel misunderstood.
To be honest the evidence suggests t8 is a polytheist, he acknowledges the existence of many gods and when asked if these gods were created or uncreated he refused to submit a deirect answer. If there is any confusion about his polytheism then he could have cleared it up quite quickly.Quote Some people can't get behind the Trinity without concluding that Jesus is his own Father. For others, they can't see Jesus as anything other than a normal man without divine attributes, a false or seperate god, or God himself (the obvious choice between these three being the latter).
Amen. AS Tim2 has astutely pointed out the major impetus of the objection to the trinity doctrine is rooted in a violation of logic, not scripture. However, to my mind it's decidedly illogical to dismiss out of hand the possibility that the One Supreme being could be multipersonal….Quote I hope I'm making some sense.
You make perfect sense.Hi
Tim and all those who may be interested.
MorningStar posted a good sight on the Jesus in the Old Testament.
Here it is.
Kyle wrote:
Never would I have come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were actually believed to be God himself in addition to the person I thought to be exclusively God.
*************************************************Kyle, this has been my point exactly! No one would NATURALLY believe the Trinity on their own without coaching and indoctrination. Certainly a child could not understand it. Espcially in light of what Isaiah offered that even those who believed the doctrine don't fully understand it. I believe there is a reason they do not fully understand it. And why no one would come to that conclusion left to their own reasoning and talks with God.
Isaiah wrote:
However, to my mind it's decidedly illogical to dismiss out of hand the possibility that the One Supreme being could be multipersonal….
***********************************Would you want to talk with your earthly Father if he was “multipersonal?” Could you carry on a normal relationship with anyone who was multipersonlties? How would you know who it was that you were talking with at any given time?
“Multipersonal” God OR God is One. Which sounds more scriptural to you, Isaiah?
I denounced the Trinity based on it's lack of scriptural proof IN ADDITION to the fact that it played havoc with my brains! But most importantly, it didn't bring me into a loving relationship with my God…..because he was too complicated to understand.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 15 2007,16:28) Espcially in light of what Isaiah offered that even those who believed the doctrine don't fully understand it.
Hmmmm….did I write that?Do you fully understand any biblical doctrine Not3? Be honest…..
Now, don't everyone go crazy with the quote of, “… because he was too complicated to understand.” I'm hoping you all know what I mean by that. Even as a Trinitarian, I understood that the Trinity was a complex doctrine. In fact, our Pastor used to tell us when we went out witnessing to – “Never introduce someone to the Trinity first. Save that for last, if at all.” I say, WHAT?!?!? Our Pastor wasn't the only one to say this. I have a book where Chuch Swindoll also agrees with this method of witnessing.
Quote (Not3in1 @ April 15 2007,16:28) Kyle wrote:
Never would I have come to the conclusion on my own that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were actually believed to be God himself in addition to the person I thought to be exclusively God.
*************************************************Kyle, this has been my point exactly! No one would NATURALLY believe the Trinity on their own without coaching and indoctrination. Certainly a child could not understand it. Espcially in light of what Isaiah offered that even those who believed the doctrine don't fully understand it. I believe there is a reason they do not fully understand it. And why no one would come to that conclusion left to their own reasoning and talks with God.
not3in1When Jesus is preached by Trinitarians, it is by one name that one must be saved.
In all respect its not the Father but Jesus. When you teach a child to accept Jesus into their heart, then it is no stretch to say God lives in their heart, because the scriptures say if you have the Son you have the Father.
I would think it would be harder to explain to a child that Jesus lives in them yet he is not God.
WJ,
I'm glad you bring this point up. My daughter was the one who asked me, “If Jesus was around 30 when he died on the cross, how old was God?” She naturally separates the two because it is a natural relationship (Father/Son). She sees that relationship played out in our own family. It is extremely easy for her to understand that Jesus is God's Son, and not God. Just as her brother is not her Father. Pretty easy concept to grasp.Quote (Not3in1 @ April 15 2007,16:38) You know what I meant, Isaiah.
I think it's an important point. You have deemed the trinity as illegitimate because, in your eyes, it cannot be “fully understood”. Well that's fine. However, if that's the qualification for doctrinal authenticity then the bar has been set high.Can you name one doctrine of yours that you fully understand?
Isaiah, the Trinity doctrine is written out in creedal form; however, there is no “set” definition for the Trinity because there is no definition given in the bible. This explains why Josh McCdowell, Lutzer, C.S. Lewis, Chuck Swindoll and many other prominent Trinitarians all hold a different definition of the Trinity (some even oppose one another! Shocking, but true.).
So, even when the Trinity is laid out on paper…….we still cannot comprehend it. Why? Because it goes against logic. Why would God say to Abraham, “…..come let us reason together….” if he didn't like the fact that we can understand things. God gave us our minds and intellect. He wants us to use it. The Trinity goes agains all reason and logic. Three does not equal one no matter how hard you try to get that square peg in the round hole.
I denounced the Trinity based on it's lack of scriptural proof IN ADDITION to the fact that it played havoc with my brains! But most importantly, it didn't bring me into a loving relationship with my God…..because he was too complicated to understand.
Isaiah, please read my above words again
God was too difficult to understand using the Trinity method. That was the thrust of what I was saying. Further, the scripture used to prove the doctrine seemed lacking when compared the many, many verses that were plain and clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
