- This topic has 579 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Mike,
You said: Yes, exactly?
Let’s not pretend that I haven’t posted those verses many times as the foundation of my understanding. The problem is not that I don’t use words right out of the Bible translation, it is that one of us believes that Jesus is the literal and only Son of God who is one with his Father as the Head over all creation.
LU: Whenever Jesus referred to Yahweh as his father, he identifies his father’s name to his followers. For instance, when he was 12 years old and stayed behind from the caravan and was found teaching in the temple, Jesus identified who his Father was…Yahweh. He said that he was in his father’s house which they knew as Yahweh’s house…and so on.
I haven’t read the name “Yahweh” in any NT verse, have you? Do you suppose making the name “Yahweh” known to people that you yourself say already knew that name was so important that Jesus boldly proclaimed it to his God in that prayer in John 17? And if it was that important to Jesus, why do you suppose not one of his followers uttered or wrote that name down in their descriptions of Jesus’ time on earth?
Kathi, is it possible that by “name”, Jesus meant Yahweh’s REPUTATION – as most commentators and all rational people conclude? Have you never heard the phrase “tarnished his good name”? Do you think that also refers to a person’s literal name?
Mike: Both questions require a yes or a no, Kathi. And no, “el” is not “one of God’s literal names”. El means god, and god is a title, not a literal personal name. We can address Joe Biden as “President” or “Mr. President”, and people in America would know who we’re talking about, but “president” is not one of Biden’s literal names. It is a title.
Anyway, that is a side topic. I’d like your yes or no to the two questions, preferably including a short explanation. Thanks.
LU: It is often used as a name for Yahweh. It also can be used as a title.
Notice which content of my post you replied to. The part that I specifically identified as a side topic – and NOT the part that I specifically asked you to directly respond to. Keep in mind that today was the THIRD time I posted that Exodus verse and asked you those two simple yes or no questions.
Do you suppose you’ll ever get around to answering them?
Btw, I had an employee that almost always called me “Boss”, and almost never “Mike”. Fifty times a day I heard, “Hey Boss, what about this…” and “I’m done with this, Boss”. And guess what? My literal name remained “Mike” that entire time. “Boss” was NEVER my literal name. But again, that is an irrelevant side issue that’s not important to me. Your yes or no answers to those two questions are important to me. Thanks.
LU: In Phil 3:19 god =belly or physical appetite for food.
Let’s see…
Philippians 3:19… their god is their belly…
Kathi’s definitions:
- their belly is their belly
- their physical appetite for food is their belly
Do they work, Kathi?
Mike, I think that Jesus made known to his followers what his Father’s name is by claiming that Yahweh was his father, like I said.
Do you understand that the one that Jesus refers to as his own father when talking to his followers, is Yahweh?
If so, how do you know?
Jesus’ teaching was all about the God in heaven who was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who said His name was YHVH, that God they worshiped, was HIS OWN FATHER. Are you not aware of this teaching? If you don’t think that YHVH is Jesus’ Father’s name, then who is Jesus referring to as his father in John 17?
Mike,
You asked: Do they work, Kathi?
Yes that works for that verse. I gotta go do some work. Nice chatting.
LU: Let’s not pretend that I haven’t posted those verses many times as the foundation of my understanding.
Let me rephrase my teaching into questions then.
Does the fact that Jesus (in Rev 17:44), Nebuchadnezzar (in Daniel 2:37), and Artaxerxes (in Ezra 7:12) are all called King of kings NECESSARILY mean that they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of three persons? Yes or No?
Does the fact that Yahweh (in Deut 10:17) and Jesus (in Rev 17:14) are both called the Lord of lords NECESSARILY mean that they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of two persons? Yes or No?
Or is it even remotely possible that we are talking about 3 individual kings of other kings, and two individual lords of other lords?
LU: Yes that works for that verse.
So in one day you’ve failed the world’s easiest math quiz, the world’s easiest comprehension test, and now the world’s easiest grammar test? Wow!
Kathi, do you REALLY believe that “their belly is their belly” is the the correct meaning? REALLY? Come on, now. 😅
LU: If you don’t think that YHVH is Jesus’ Father’s name, then who is Jesus referring to as his father in John 17?
Kathi, the point is that EVERYONE knew that Jesus was referring to Yahweh as both his own God and heavenly Father and our God and heavenly Father.
It’s not like when Jesus claimed to be the messiah/son of God, they all wondered which God he was talking about. They all knew which God, and that this particular God’s name was Yahweh. God didn’t need to send His servant Jesus into the world to tell His Jewish children that His name was Yahweh – as if they didn’t already know that. They had been expecting a special messiah from Yahweh for centuries already.
So your argument that Jesus came to earth to say, “Hey, btw, your God’s name is Yahweh” is ridiculous, and I really wish you’d start discussing this entire “Yahweh Unity” topic more sensibly. I’m not making any accusations, but it certainly seems that you’re going way out of your way to claim things that you must know are nonsensical, just so you can avoid saying, “Yeah, I guess that doesn’t make much sense after all. Maybe you’re right.”
Hi Mike,
You said:
Unfortunately, one of us is apparently oblivious to the FACT that the Son OF God cannot very well BE the very God that he is the Son OF – and therefore, if the son of God in question is a god at all, he must NECESSARILY be a DIFFERENT god.
The Son of God can very well be a member of a unity that consists of a Father and a Son. That Son can also be a servant to that unity. If a YHVH God is both Father and Son in unity then they are not different gods, they are both the YHWH God. You assume that a YHVH God is only the Father and I believe that a YHVH God is both Father and Son, two persons, not one, as a Unity as in Deut 10:17. The Unity is named after the Head of the Unity, the Father. The Father gave His name to His Son to have also. Just as John 17 tells us. They, together rule and reign over the creation that the Father created through the Son.
Mike,
You said:
the point is that EVERYONE knew that Jesus was referring to Yahweh as both his own God and heavenly Father and our God and heavenly Father.
They knew it after He mentioned it for sure.
For example…in this passage Jesus kept talking about “my Father” this and “My Father” that, referring to God, and the surrounding Jews basically thought that by calling YHVH as your very own biological father, you are making yourself out to be a begotten god.
22At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; 23it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30“I and the Father are one.”
John 10:31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.
Mike,
You asked:
Kathi, do you REALLY believe that “their belly is their belly” is the the correct meaning? REALLY? Come on, now.
No, I believe that their god is their belly and their belly is their god.
Mike,
You said:
So your argument that Jesus came to earth to say, “Hey, btw, your God’s name is Yahweh” is ridiculous,
That is not my argument. Jesus is saying that the God, that is the God of Israel, that specific God who’s name is YHVH, is His biological Father, He is YHVH’s only begotten Son and that His Father gave Him His name, YHVH.
Mike,
You asked:
Does the fact that Jesus (in Rev 17:44), Nebuchadnezzar (in Daniel 2:37), and Artaxerxes (in Ezra 7:12) are all called King of kings NECESSARILY mean that they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of three persons? Yes or No?
No
Does the fact that Yahweh (in Deut 10:17) and Jesus (in Rev 17:14) are both called the Lord of lords NECESSARILY mean that they are part of some “Unity Entity” comprised of two persons? Yes or No?
No
Or is it even remotely possible that we are talking about 3 individual kings of other kings, and two individual lords of other lords?
If you pay attention to context, both Neb and Arti are dead but during their life they were considered great kings over other earthly kings. Jesus on the other hand is an eternal king of kings in another realm. That would be two earthly kings that are no longer kings and one heavenly king that will forever be king. Jesus is incomparable as King of kings. As far as YHVH being the Lord of lords and Jesus being the Lord of lords, I believe that would be talking about the same heavenly Lord who is over other lords.
Mike,
You said:
Yes, John calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God in John 3:16. Go on…
Yes, I could call Jesus my God and Savior, but I don’t. A god is an entity conceived of as having power over nature and the affairs of man… an entity that can help you and protect you from those trying to hurt you. Jesus clearly fits that Biblical description of a god. As does Yahweh. And Michael. And Gabriel. And Satan. Etc.
But I keep to the hierarchy Paul laid out for us…
1 Cor 8:5-6… there are many and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
1 Cor 11:3… But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ… and the head of Christ is God.
Now consider that Michael is also a god and a savior to God’s people. He is “the great prince who stands watch over your people” and “Michael your prince”. (Dan 12:1, 10:21)
Can YOU call Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God?
Can You call Jesus your Savior?
Can YOU call Michael your God and Savior, Kathi?
Does anyone in the Bible call Michael their God and Savior? I don’t either. For me there is one God, the Father and one Lord, my Savior Jesus Christ, They are One as the Unity of YHVH.
Hi Berean,
It seems like you did a “hit and run” on me. Could you please address my last post to you. I have copied it here for your convenience:
Berean,
Specifically, what is the real problem?
I can quote a Bible translation all day long on here but when people will reply as if the scripture does not say what I understand it to say, then I have to use other words to clarify how I believe it does. Like a Bible commentator uses other words to explain the text, so do I. If I were to use the words of the Bible only to express myself on Biblical subjects, I would be using Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. The Bible was not originally written in English. Every English translation is using English to convey the meaning of the original language of the Bible. Compare a translation that you use with parallel translations and you will see that quite often, the words used are different from one translation to another.
So, I typically use a quote from a Bible translation of a Bible verse, then I expand on it when it seems that people need help understanding why I am quoting the verse. Ideally, I could quote a verse and everybody understands the verse the same way but that doesn’t happen most of the time here. So we need to explain our thoughts on the matter to hopefully bring understanding. It is called “teaching.”
Do you find it helpful to refer to Bible commentaries, Berean? If so, which commentaries do you use? Does Ellen White explain Biblical concepts with scripture only without using other words to help bring understanding?
So, if my words do not support Biblical concepts, then please challenge them. However, if my words do support Biblical concepts, then what is the problem with that?
Blessings, LU
Hi LU
I simply have the feeling that you could make it simpler in your explanations concerning the unity of the Father and the Son.
But don’t take this the wrong way, that’s just how I feel.
May God protect us
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
