- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Guest @ June 17 2005,12:07) Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh 1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated “for,” which links these verses closely together. The “Lord” of 10:13 must be the “Lord” of 10:9, 12.
2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the “name that is above every name” is “Lord” (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.
3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as “Lord,” in a quotation from Psa. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called “God”). Since here the Father addresses the Son as “Lord,” this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense.
4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Psa. 34:8a, where “Lord” is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that “the Lord” in v. 3 is Jesus.
5. 1 Pet. 3:14-15: these verses are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.
6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the “one Lord” (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.
Hi FYI,
You quote Phil 2.8f as evidence Jesus is Yahweh.Of course the name YHWH is a shortening af a descriptive phrase given to us by God so it is not like other personal names.” Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also God highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every other name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”
Who exalted Jesus? God[the Father]
When did God do this? After the death on the cross.
Would a name change, change also his character??Seems unlikely to me.
So what was his name before this exaltation? Jesus Christ the Son of God.
But is not Jesus eternally God???
Would not he always have been called Yahweh if he always was Yahweh?
Did God bow also his knee to him?
To whose glory was the bending of the knee by all in heaven and earth under God to the Lord Jesus Christ? God's[The Father]
What is the name of Jesus in the above scripture after this event? Jesus Christ, the newly appointed Lord of heaven and earth.
So perhaps what is meant is different to the superficial interpretation? He did not share the name of His Father after his death. He either always had that name or this means something else.
One thing it does not show is that Jesus is the God mentioned here and it certainly serious undermines your theory that Jesus is also his Father.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2005,08:16) One thing it does not show is that Jesus is the God mentioned here and it certainly serious undermines your theory that Jesus is also his Father.
Oh dear…Quote (Artizan007 @ June 18 2005,07:46) Hey DVD, That is what they taught me just this past friday in Doctrine 2 class.
Can you clarify what you mean when you say One in essence?
Thanks
Hi Artizan007,
If they taught you that then you should seriously question their credentials. They have taught you modalism, not trinitarianism, and I dont blame you for rejecting it. By essence i mean the real or ultimate nature of a thing: the properties that make something what it is. So whatever the essence is that defines God is shared by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Clear?Here are a couple of articles that explain the trinity well I think:
CARM
Apologetics.comGrace.
Hi A7,
In Lk 11.20 when Jesus said
” But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of has come upon you”
what did he mean?Did he mean he was the finger of God? No. If it did he would say he was the finger of God and he never says he is God or part of God but scripture does say the Father was in him. He does not say he does this work himself but the work is done by God.
He uses the power of God given to him. This is the Spirit of God living in him and using him as God's submissive servant to do the work of the Father.
Jesu said God is in heaven and he told us to pray to him in heaven. God has dwelled among men and will dwell among men but still will be in heaven. Paul told the Athenians that God was not far from them. Does that mean God lived in Athens?
He was speaking of the Spirit of God that is everywhere in God's creation. Men have seen visions and manifestations of His glory but, because He is Spirit no man has seen God as we cannot see spirit.
He has poured out the full ,measure of His Spirit into Jesus and portions of His Spirit among men but it does not change the nature of our Father God.
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,08:28) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2005,08:16) One thing it does not show is that Jesus is the God mentioned here and it certainly serious undermines your theory that Jesus is also his Father.
Oh dear…
I am baffled by your response DVD,By your statements Yahweh is God, and Yeshua and the Father are both Yahweh
Yeshua is the Son of God
So surely Yeshua [as Yahweh] is also the father of Yeshua the son of Yahweh??
How else can you explain this conundrum?
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,08:28) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2005,08:16) One thing it does not show is that Jesus is the God mentioned here and it certainly serious undermines your theory that Jesus is also his Father.
Oh dear…
DVD,I agree! Nicks responses are old and not thought out.
The Modalists see the overwhelming scriptural proof of the deity of Christ but fail to recognise the distinction between the father and son.
Arians, JW, T8, & Nick see the scriptural proof of sonship and submission and deny the overwhelming scriptural proof of the deity of the Word of God, the incarnate Christ, YHWH our ONLY Redeemer/Saviour.
Moses Maimonides rewrote the OT to remove the references of plurality within the Godhead: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm
The JW rewrote the Bible to futher facilitate their false teachings regarding the denial of the deity of Christ.
The Mormons have written their own version of the bible as well to propagate their false teachings.
It is wrong to add to or take away from the scriptures – the same goes for not giving equal weight to the evidence of both the deity and humanity of Christ.
Artizan007, you may also want to give these a look:
Hey Nick
The Word came in the flesh. He became the Son of God/Jesus the Christ at this time. He existed before this point as is evident in many places in Scripture as the Word.
He is now glorified together with the Father, with the glory (position) which He had, with the Father before the world was. As the Word and the Word was with God and was God, but not the God he was with. Two not one.
Nick what position did Jesus hold before his “being found in the form as a man”? (Phil 2) Was it not the Word who was with and was God? John 1:1
Can I ask what this question, “Who came in the flesh”, proves… It simply states that Jesus, the Son of God lived as a real person, cloaked in a human body whilst in the flesh. I certainly does not prove that he was God and it does not prove that he was not God. Whilst in the flesh he was the Son of God, totally reliant on the Father for everything, but before that what was his position that he left in heaven?
He was the Word, came in the flesh, became the begotten Son of God, lived and died as the Son of Man/God and upon his death returned to the glory he once had with the Father.
In Revelation He still refers to God as being his God… Rev 3:12 and he once again is called the Lamb of God, Son of God and Word of God.
I love this stuff. It is helping me to make sense of what I believe – I think… though a have an aweful long way to go and am open to others thoughts… I am enjoying the journey.
Keep searching.
Bless you A7,
Scripture gives us a checkpoint on doctrine.
1Jn 4.1f
“Beloved do not believe every spirit;but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you will know the Spirit of God;every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God;this is the spirit of antichrist of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world”So the test is who came in the flesh? It does not say who was flesh but came in the flesh. To come in the flesh one must already exist. We did not come in the flesh but are flesh. The Son of God was with God in the beginning as the Word. Christ Jesus was sent from heaven. Then he came in the flesh as Messiah.
Those who say he was only in existence from his birth are denying he came in the flesh.
Those who say he was Yahweh coming in the flesh also fail this test.
Those who say he was part of a trinity deny he was who he was and was sent from the Father and came in the flesh.These doctrines represent, not the Spirit of Truth, but the spirit of error and are antichrist.
Quote (Guest @ June 18 2005,11:37) [ I agree! Nicks responses are old and not thought out.
The Modalists see the overwhelming scriptural proof of the deity of Christ but fail to recognise the distinction between the father and son.
HI FYI,
Yes my responses are old because I know a wise man can bring new and old things out of his storehouse. My reliance is on what is old and proven, the Word of God inspired from the beginning by the Spirit of God. It is the secure foundation advised by Jesus Christ.
2Jn 9
” Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God”Interesting comment about Modalism. You agree with them except with their lack of distinction between the Father and the Son. The deity of Christ then is as a distinct and separate deity? Another God to worship? Well that is a revelation.
I suspect you will retreat from that assertion and will now say the Father and the Son are not separate and never have been but are of “one substance” with is surely the more orthodox trinitarian theory view.
Of course it means the there is really no difference between trinity theory and modalism too?
Nick
Please show me where it says that the Son was with God in the beginning. It was the Word not the Son that was with God. He bacame the Son when he was concieved of the HS in Mary – he was never the Son before and I have looked up all scriptures that may say he was the son from the beginning and I cannot find any – so if you have please let me know.
Appreciated that…
Regards
Hi A7,
There are none that say he was the Son of God in the beginning.But we need to know what “the only begotten Son” means. It is one word in the greek-monogenes. It does not mean the “only Son” or ” only born Son”. It comes from his direct derivation from the Father only and that was in the beginning. As Man he was “Son of Man”. Does “Son of God” refer to this situation too?
Remember he was the son who was sent by the Father from heaven. If so he was a son before he was born of Mary. That was only the physical aspect of his Sonship surely?Hi Nick
There is not only one word for the word begotten when used of the Son and as far as I can see it has a number of meanings, so you are correct that it could mean that. However lets look at the scriptures below.
John 3:18 & Heb 11:17 (Jesus and Isaac) Begotten, same word used of both; both called the only begotten of their Fathers. God and Abraham. (Side note: It was though Isaac, the only begotten son of Abraham that the seed of Abraham would be called.)
G3439
monogenés
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; [only born], that is, sole: – only (begotten, child).How can they mean different things – surely the Holy Spirit knows the use of language. Does that mean Isaac was a direct derivation from Abraham?
Jesus is called both Son of Man and Son of God whilst on earth. Both titles he uses about himself. More so the Son of man I agree, but the following scriptures state His referring to himself and others calling Jesus the Son of God.
Angel pronouncing his birth:
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is [begotten] (Gk 1080) shall be called the [Son of God].Here we see Nick, that the holy thing which was born of Mary was the [Son of God.] Not the Son of Man. These were the angels words not my own.
Jesus calls himself both Son of God and Son of Man:
Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the [Son of God]?
Joh 9:36 He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?
Joh 9:37 Jesus said unto him, [Thou hast both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee].If Jesus says he is the Son of God when he was on earth as the Man Jesus, and the blind man believed him and worshiped him, then so do I, for Jesus did not stop him or correct Him.
How about:
Joh 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent* into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the [Son of God]?∑ Same 'sent', as what used of John in John 1. Gk 649 – apostello
There are more passages that Jesus uses the title of himself whilst on earth as the Son of God. God said it of Him, He said it of himself, The Angel of the Lord said it of him, the devil said it to Him, the Demons said it of him, and the disciples said it of Him and even the centurion that watched him die on the cross said this of Him.
Which son does Hebrews 1:5 refer to Nick? Is that not Jesus’ birth on earth by the work of the HS through Mary? Read verse 6. The angels worshiped at his birth, when the Son of God was brought into this world!
Were not all the prophets looking forward to his birth when they prophesied things about this Son to come? They certainly did not seem to be looking to this SONSHIP as something in the passed.
How can you be an only begotten son twice over? Jesus was Mary’s first born and God’s only begotten Son. So when was he begotten before this?
Nick if there are absolutely NO scriptures that state that Jesus is the SON from the BEGINNING then were do you get your doctrine. Is it implied, an assumption, or is it specifically spoken of in scripture. If implied or an assumption and not directly spoken, then likewise is not the teaching of the Trinity that you so avidly attack also implied? Should you not use the same approach to this topic as you do to the teaching of the Trinity?
Please help me understand if I have not got this point you have made correctly.
Thank you sir.
HiA7,
There is much previously written about these things here you may research. Likewise about worship which may only mean obesience or respect though the translaters always used 'worship' when it related to the Father or the Son.Was Isaac the only son of Abraham?Was he the first son of Abraham? So what does this word mean?
Begotten may mean “born”but the greek word for “only begotten” is entirely different.
In what way was the Son “sent” into the world and when is it shown?
I do think the verse in Ps 2, which is quoted in many places such as Heb 1.5 does relate to the birth of Jesus, because of the use of “today”which seems to relate to the era of time.
In what way was Jesus “before” John?
Trinity is a pernicious doctrine added to scripture. It is written nowhere. Judge these things for yourself but the Glory of the Son of God and his role in creation of all things is one of the major attacks in this forum.
Sorry A7,
I do not get your point about Jesus saying he was the Son of God. Yes he did, though it often got him into trouble as somehow the listeners confused that with being God Himself and wanted to kill him. The same happens these days.The parable about the vineyard says that the owner finally sent his Son to them because they would surely respect him. Of what relevance would that be if the first part of the process was to beget that son before he could be sent?
Clearly the Son who was sent existed already.
Thanks for your post.
Do you believe in three Persons, separate and individual, who work together to create all we can perceive with our senses and those things, which cannot be perceived with the senses that exist despite the fact that they are unseen?
I see, the Father is the head – he is the source, the Son is the one who does the works and brings life, that life is given to him by the Father. He reveals the Father to us, and the Holy Spirit sent by both the Father and the Son reveals the Son to us, searches the things of God, is our comforter, counsellor, teacher and the power and is the only one to whom sin against is “unforgivable”. The HS is responisble for the revealing of Jesus and the deep things of God, the Father to us. The Holy Spirit was the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of the Father. (They are spirit) Just a thought and I could be wrong. – I have brothers, so I am the brother of Micha and the Brother of Jeremiah (Not real names obviously). Is this be what these statements about the HS could mean?
However, before this was worked out ie father/son relationship… it was Yahweh/Word relationship. Both called God in John 1. Surely if there is nothing stated that He was begotten as a Son before this time – then you cannot say He was. Just like with the Trinity doctrine. If nothing is stated then you are basing a belief on an assumption.
I do not see them as One, however, like the body is one and we are called to be one, even as the Father and the Son are one. Now we know that as the body of Christ we will never be one in the sense of essence, but we can be one in the sense of unity and of one spirit – together. Jesus said that we, the Body may be one even as they are one. If what he mean was that they are one, in essence then that means you and I are of the same essence for Jesus said that they be one even as we are one.
In what way was Jesus “before” John? –
John 1:1 gives us the answer. He was the Word who was with God and was God. But not the God he was with. That God we know to be the God of the Son. Rev 3:12 and Heb 1:6 He only became known as Son when he was begotten here on earth. Before that he was not known as the Son but as the Word.I am no guru on this subject but this is how I see to-date how scripture reveals itself.
More later.
Hi A7,
Close. This is how I see it. The Spirit is not a person but the Spirit of the Father which was also of the Son. The Spirit is never separate from God as the Son is. The Son and the Father can have unity because they are of separate natures joined in the Spirit of God, living in Christ. The Son has been given to have life in himself. The Spirit does not have life in itself but is the life of the Father and the Son shared with us for eternity. The Spirit is holy because it is of God. When the Spirit is said to be insulted or grieved it is as insulting or grieving the Source of the Spirit-God.Hi Artizan007,
I have been reading you recent posts and agree in large measure with your observations. I think there is also good evidence to support a case for Christ being eternal (Micah 5:2). And I dont think he could be begotten twice over either.Hi Nick Hasan,
Atrizan007 has presented a good case for the Christs begettal happaning at the incarnation. Can you present a scriptural case for your theory that it happaned before this. Thank you.Hi,
Can you explain “only begotten Son” from it's greek roots?I think that is the key and no one relly semms to know what it means. Some say”unique” and that may be part of it but it has nothing to do with his birth as far as I can see as it a totally different word from “begotten” which can mean “born”, and it does not mean”only” as he was not the only Son.Hey I am not an oracle but I will oppose false biblical teaching as I see it.
Hi Nick Hasan,
Yes but “only begotten Son” could also relate to the incarnation too, could it not? So Are you saying that you can not present a good case? If not then as Artizan007 has poiinted out, you have made an assumption, and an unsubstantiated one at that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
