The Yahweh Unity

[Lightenup]

Hi Danny,

You said:

If Jesus is Yahweh then Jesus is His own Father.

If Yahweh is a unity of the Father and the Son and they each are referred to by the name Yahweh, then Yahweh in the person of the Father is the father of the Yahweh in the person of the Son. Yahweh in the person of the Son is not the father of the Yahweh in the person of the Son.

Regarding Aaron as Yahweh, no we should not conclude that Aaron is also Yahweh. The context makes it clear that Yahweh is acting through the instruments of Moses and Aaron and they never make themselves out to be the God that is bringing the plaques. The fact that Yahweh uses people as His instruments to carry out His will,  doesn’t dispel the Unity of Yahweh nor does it address Zech 11:13. Do you believe that the Son was valued at 30 pieces of silver or the Father was valued at 30 pieces of silver which was used to buy the Potter’s Field?

LU

[GeneBalthrop]

Danny…..The trinitarian concepts are nothing more then a smoke and mirror show, full of false concepts.  JESUS IS APSOLUTY NOT our heavenly Father ,  If he were , why would he  pray , “OUR” Father who is in heaven, “THY” KINGDOM COME, “THY” will be done , on earth as it is done in heaven, give “US”, our daily bread, and  forgive “US” “OUR” trasspasses, as “WE” forgive others their trasspasses , Let “US” not be tempted, but deliever “US” from sin.” , For  “YOURS” is the kingdom and “power” forever. 

Danny do you see the all inclusive terms there, the word like , “OUR”, “US”, “WE”.   and the sepreation word , “YOURS”  is? 

This isen’t even mention the tons of other scriptures in our scriptures, that clearly show Jesus , is not a God , but a son of God exactly as we are Danny, don’t get caught up in their smoke and mirror show. You seem to have been given a spirit of a sound mind, use it brother,

Peace and love to you and yours Danny……….gene

 

[mikeboll64]

Mike: But they ARE two different gods, right? Because if the father is a god and the son is a god, and they are two different individual beings, then there is no other option except for them to be two different individual gods, right?

Whether they act in unison (united in purpose) or not, they’d still be two completely different individual gods – each with their own minds and wills, right?

 

LU: I ask you to put aside your understanding that Yahweh as the God of gods and Lord of lords is only one person, the Father.

Okay, for the sake of argument.  But how about you giving a direct answer to my question above?  I just want a simple choice…

1.  Yahweh Unity is ONE god comprised of two persons.

2.  Yahweh Unity is comprised of TWO gods.

Which one, Kathi?

[Lightenup]

Mike,

Yahweh is one God comprised of two persons.

Like one coin which has two sides, each side looks different and represents different things. Each side of the coin needs to have the other side in order to be what it is…a coin of highest value (for the sake of the analogy.) Each side is referred to as a coin. If you see a coin on the ground, wether it is heads up or tails up, you will recognize it as one coin. The coin is not considered a two headed coin but a coin with two different sides to it. Yahweh is not one person with a dual personality but instead, two distinct persons who act together as one God.

Some here want to acknowledge the head side of the coin as the most high coin while acknowledging a lessor valued coin as the son so to speak in this analogy.

Does that answer your question?

LU

[mikeboll64]

Danny: Hi LU,

You started a very good thread.
According to Psalm 2:2 and Acts 4:26 Yahweh is the Father
of Jesus Christ.
How can Yahweh be a unity of Father and Son, if Yahweh is the Father
of Jesus Christ?

 

LU:  Look in this verse which seems to be Yahweh as the Son:

Zech11:13 Yahweh said to me, “Throw it to the potter, the handsome price that I was valued at by them!” I took the thirty pieces of silver, and threw them to the potter, in the house of Yahweh.

The NT ties that thirty pieces of silver to the silver that Judas was given as a fulfillment of what Zechariah said…

 

Danny:  If Jesus is Yahweh then Jesus is His own Father.

Regarding Zech11:13:
Actions are often attributed to Yahweh even though Yahweh himself does not carry out the actions. For instance, we read in Exodus 7:17 where Yahweh says He Himself will smite the waters with the rod in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron that held the rod (Exodus 7:19,20). Should we conclude from this that Aaron is also Yahweh?

 

LU:  Regarding Aaron as Yahweh, no we should not conclude that Aaron is also Yahweh. The context makes it clear that Yahweh is acting through the instruments of Moses and Aaron and they never make themselves out to be the God that is bringing the plaques. The fact that Yahweh uses people as His instruments to carry out His will,  doesn’t dispel the Unity of Yahweh nor does it address Zech 11:13.

Do you believe that the Son was valued at 30 pieces of silver or the Father was valued at 30 pieces of silver which was used to buy the Potter’s Field?

 

Very good discussion, guys.  Kathi, you seemed to agree with Danny’s point that representatives OF Yahweh are often identified by “Yahweh” – although they are clearly not Yahweh.  But then you attempted to distinguish Zechariah 11:13 from this common practice.  Why exactly DOESN’T the common practice of “Yahweh acting through instruments to carry out His will”*** dispel your claim about Zechariah 11:13?

The writer of Hebrews attributes 2 Samuel 7:14 to Jesus (“I will be his Father, and he will be my son”), right?  In this case though, the original statement by Yahweh was about Solomon, and the circumstance was applied to Jesus secondarily, right?

Consider that the same is true of Zechariah 11:13, who threw his own 30 pieces of silver to the potter – and the circumstance was applied to Jesus secondarily, right?

So if the combo of Heb 1:5 and Sam 7:14 doesn’t equate the persons of Jesus and Solomon, why must the combo of Matt 27:9 and Zech 11:13 equate the persons of Jesus and Yahweh?

 

*** This is a paraphrase conjoining two statements that Kathi made, and is not a verbatim quote.

 

 

[mikeboll64]

Mike:  I guess I’m asking if you truly believe that the wording in this passage offers support for a “Yahweh Unity” – a singular living being comprised of multiple persons.

 

LU:  Hi Mike,

Where did I say that a Yahweh Unity is “a singular living being” comprised of multiple persons?

 

Mike:  Wait, are you saying that Yahweh the Father and “Yahweh the Son” are two completely different living beings?

 

LU:  yes

 

Mike: I have always thought you believed that it was like the Trinity Doctrine, except with only two persons in the one Godhead.

Now it seems we are a lot closer than I thought we were, because I also believe that Jesus and his God are two individual gods.

 

LU: Mike,

Yahweh is one God comprised of two persons.

I can’t keep up!  🤯  So then you DO actually believe that Yahweh is “a singular living being comprised of multiple persons”, ie: “one God comprised of two persons”, ie: “like the Trinity Doctrine, except with only two persons in the one Godhead”.

If not, then please explain how “one God comprised of two persons” is different than “a singular living being comprised of multiple persons”, and different than “like the Trinity Doctrine, except with only two persons in the one Godhead”.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

The passage in Zechariah is tied to Jesus as the one who is valued as 30 pieces of silver which ends up buying the Potter’s Field by the writers of the NT, not me. And the one who is valued at 30 pieces of silver is Yahweh in Zechariah and Jesus in the NT.

Can you show me where a prophecy in the OT that speaks of Yahweh and is implying someone other than Yahweh in the NT that isn’t Jesus. That would make a better comparison.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

The word “god” is an idea, a position, not a being. It is a position that can be assigned or a position that is inherently assumed. In the case of the Father and son, it is inherently assumed since they are of eternal essence and before all things.

[mikeboll64]

LU: The passage in Zechariah is tied to Jesus as the one who is valued as 30 pieces of silver which ends up buying the Potter’s Field by the writers of the NT, not me. And the one who is valued at 30 pieces of silver is Yahweh in Zechariah and Jesus in the NT.

Actually, it’s tied to Jeremiah in the NT – not Zechariah.  Also, you didn’t actually comment on the Solomon/Jesus combo that I mentioned.  What was said concerning Solomon literally applied to Solomon in his own lifetime BEFORE it was applied liberally to Jesus in the NT.  Likewise, the 30 pieces thrown at a potter in the temple literally applied to Zechariah BEFORE it was very liberally applied to Judas throwing 30 pieces at the Jews, who then used it to buy a burial lot for foreigners that just happened to be known as the Potter’s Field.

I’d like you to directly address why Jesus doesn’t have to BE Solomon for a past similar-but-different event to be applied liberally later – but Jesus DOES have to BE Yahweh because of a past similar-but-different event that was applied liberally later.  Because all you did was try to narrow the parameters to the point that Jesus WOULD have to be Yahweh, but WOULDN’T have to be Solomon.  You did that in the following fashion…

LU:  Can you show me where a prophecy in the OT that speaks of Yahweh and is implying someone other than Yahweh in the NT that isn’t Jesus. That would make a better comparison.

You also claim that Jesus IS Yahweh because one of the names by which he will be known is “Yahweh Is Our Righteousness”.  And so I point out that the city of Jerusalem will be known by that same exact name – down to the letter.

Can you then rightly ask me to find another PERSON who is known by that name – and if I can’t, you win by default? That’s what I mean by narrowing the parameters to the point that only your understanding can fit within them.

Secondly, the Zechariah passage we are discussing isn’t a prophecy.  It is the literal account of Zechariah literally becoming a shepherd, literally being paid 30 silver pieces for his service, and literally throwing that money at the potter in the temple.  The connection to Yahweh was that the people who paid him KNEW that his words and actions came from Yahweh (11:10-11), and so the piddly sum they offered was to a bonafide representative of the Most High God – ie: to Yahweh Himself as the Shepherd.

But to address your new narrow parameters…

Exodus 3:4-6…  When Yahweh saw that he had gone over to look, God called out to him from within the bush, “Moses, Moses!”

“Here I am,” he answered… Then He said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

So the one speaking from the burning bush is identified as both Yahweh and God, right?  But does that mean it actually WAS Yahweh God Himself?

Acts 7:30…  After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.

Does that fit your parameters (once we eliminate the “prophecy” part, which didn’t apply to Zech)?  We have “Yahweh” speaking to Moses from inside the burning bush, but the NT makes it clear that it wasn’t Yahweh Himself in the bush, but one of His angels.

Now from my point of view, the speaker could have been Jesus, because he is one of Yahweh’s many angels.  But from your point of view, not so much.  You could claim that Jesus WAS the Yahweh in the bush, but then you’d have to also admit that Jesus is one of God’s angels, right?

[mikeboll64]

LU: Mike,

The word “god” is an idea, a position, not a being. It is a position that can be assigned or a position that is inherently assumed. In the case of the Father and son, it is inherently assumed since they are of eternal essence and before all things.

Not only is that statement inaccurate, it is nothing but a bunch of word salad you’ve concocted because you can’t seem to give a direct and comprehensible explanation to the dilemma I have caused you.

First of all, the word “god” in the Bible ALWAYS refers to a BEING who is thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men.  Even if the “god” in question is a man-made block of wood, the deluded fellow who thinks that the wood is a god does so because he BELIEVES that the block of wood either is, or represents, an actual living being who can hear him and answer his prayers by manipulating nature or men in some fashion to either help him or hinder his enemies.

Show me a scriptural example where this is not the case.

Secondly, just please give me a straight answer.  Surely you can see from my post all the back and forth you’ve been doing, right?

Accepting for argument’s sake that a “god” is a BEING with powers over nature and man (the actual dictionary and scriptural definition), is your Yahweh Unity ONE God (ie: one BEING) made up of multiple persons?  Or TWO Gods (ie: two BEINGS)?

It can only be one of those two things – no matter how frantically you try to toss the word salad.  So which one is it?

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi LU,

You asked:

“Do you believe that the Son was valued at 30 pieces of silver or the Father was valued at 30 pieces of silver which was used to buy the Potter’s Field?”

Yahweh is in view in Zech 11:13.
Jesus is in view in Matt 27:9.
But that doesn’t equate the persons of Yahweh and Jesus.
As Mike made a very good point:
“If the combo of Heb 1:5 and Sam 7:14 doesn’t equate the persons of Jesus and Solomon, why must the combo of Matt 27:9 and Zech 11:13 equate the persons of Jesus and Yahweh?”

Yahweh is the Father of Jesus Christ. (Psalm 2:2; Acts 4:26)
Jesus Christ therefore CANNOT be Yahweh.

God bless

[Lightenup]

Hi Danny,

I will address one thing at a time. You said:

Yahweh is in view in Zech 11:13.
Jesus is in view in Matt 27:9.
But that doesn’t equate the persons of Yahweh and Jesus.

I disagree that it doesn’t imply Yahweh is Jesus. You admitted that Jesus was valued at 30 pieces of silver and it was a fulfillment of prophecy.

Danny, In Psalm 102, who is credited with the action written about in the part of the passage posted here?

Psalm 102

25“In time of old You founded the earth,

And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

26“Even they will perish, but You endure;

All of them will wear out like a garment;

27“But You are the same,

And Your years will not come to an end.

Danny, in Heb 1, who is credited with the actions posted here:

Heb 1:

“YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,

AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;

AND THEY ALL WILL WEAR OUT LIKE A GARMENT,

12AND LIKE A ROBE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;

LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.

BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,

AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”

Like clothing You will change them and they will pass away.

27“But You are the same,

And Your years will not come to an end.

Danny,

Does the above Psalm 102 passage apply to Yahweh?

Does the above Heb 1 passage apply to Jesus? If so, who is applying it to Jesus?

LU

 

[Lightenup]

Mike,

You said;

Actually, it’s tied to Jeremiah in the NT – not Zechariah.

What actually are you correcting me on? Reread what I said:

LU: The passage in Zechariah is tied to Jesus as the one who is valued as 30 pieces of silver which ends up buying the Potter’s Field by the writers of the NT, not me. And the one who is valued at 30 pieces of silver is Yahweh in Zechariah and Jesus in the NT.

Do you disagree that the prophecy which Matthew is saying was fulfilled through Jesus being valued as 30 pieces of silver, is found in Zechariah? If not in Zechariah like I said, where is it found? Please show me. Thanks.

LU

 

[Lightenup]

Mike,

You claimed:

First of all, the word “god” in the Bible ALWAYS refers to a BEING who is thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men.

Then asked:

Show me a scriptural example where this is not the case.

Philippians 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, they exult in their shame, and they think about earthly things.

That proves your statement wrong or maybe you can show us that the belly is a  “being thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men.”

[Lightenup]

Danny.

You said:

Yahweh is the Father of Jesus Christ. (Psalm 2:2; Acts 4:26)
Jesus Christ therefore CANNOT be Yahweh.

Danny, who is the Lord of lords here in the OT:

Deut 10:17 For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who does not show partiality, nor take a bribe.

Danny, who is the Lord of lords here in the NT:

Rev 19:16 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones.”

Thanks for your time. LU

[Lightenup]

Hi Danny,

You said:

Yahweh is the Father of Jesus Christ. (Psalm 2:2; Acts 4:26)
Jesus Christ therefore CANNOT be Yahweh.

My answer:

Yahweh is the God of gods and the Lord of lords. (Deut  10:17) Jesus is the Lord of lords and for us there is one Lord who is not the Father but is the Son, therefore, Jesus is Yahweh the Lord of lords.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

You said:

Accepting for argument’s sake that a “god” is a BEING with powers over nature and man (the actual dictionary and scriptural definition), is your Yahweh Unity ONE God (ie: one BEING) made up of multiple persons?  Or TWO Gods (ie: two BEINGS)?

Since I have proven your definition of god to be inaccurate, the rest of your post that is based on the inaccurate definition needs to be rewritten in order for it to be addressed.

[Lightenup]

Mike and Danny,

Regarding this:

“If the combo of Heb 1:5 and Sam 7:14 doesn’t equate the persons of Jesus and Solomon, why must the combo of Matt 27:9 and Zech 11:13 equate the persons of Jesus and Yahweh?”

It seems to me that what is said in Heb 1:5 and 2 Sam 7:14 is demonstrating that both are installed as ‘kings’ not both as Solomon or both as Jesus. This is not a prophecy or a fulfillment of a prophecy. This is merely a similarity.

Zech 11:13 and Matt 27:9 is a prophecy and the fulfillment of the prophecy. There is the difference between the two situations.

[mikeboll64]

LU:  Do you disagree that the prophecy which Matthew is saying was fulfilled through Jesus being valued as 30 pieces of silver, is found in Zechariah?

I’m pointing out that Matthew said Jeremiah, not Zechariah, so we have no way to know.  I’m also saying that the passage in Zechariah is not a prophecy at all, and so could not be fulfilled by anyone, including Jesus.  Perhaps there used to be a “30 pieces of silver” prophecy in Jeremiah that was later removed.  After all, the “canon” used to contain at least 80 books, and now has only 66.  And even the Jeremiah we have now comes from two different sources – one of which is an eighth shorter than the other.  An article on it from Dr. Michael Heiser if you’re interested…

Are There Really Two Versions of Jeremiah?

The bottom line is that, while most scholars think Matthew must have been referring to the passage in Zech because it too contains 30 pieces of silver, none of them seem to realize that the Zech passage ISN’T a prophecy, and so couldn’t be fulfilled by Jesus anyway.

At any rate, this is indicative of the obscure, often mistranslated, and out of context snippets of scripture around which you’ve built this doctrine that you can’t seem to fully explain.  I’ll have more to say about that in my next post, but for now, why did you choose to respond to what was clearly an aside to the main point I was making – and ignore that main point for the second time?

Here is some of the language in that post…

Mike:  Actually, it’s tied to Jeremiah in the NT – not Zechariah.  Also, you didn’t actually comment on the Solomon/Jesus combo that I mentioned…  I’d like you to directly address why Jesus doesn’t have to BE Solomon…  Because all you did was try to narrow the parameters… 

Do you see how the Jeremiah/Zechariah thing was not the focus of my point, but just a quick trivia point?  Do you see how the bulk of my point focused on why you didn’t address a particular point the first time I made it, and on trying to get you to address it?

And then you chose to once again ignore the point I’ve tried twice to get you to address, and posted instead on the little aside about Jeremiah.  Interesting.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

Did you see that I never tied the prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver to the prophet Zechariah but to the passage in Zechariah? You corrected me for something I did not do.

Furthermore, would you please restate the point or copy and paste it so I know what specifically you want me to address? Many things have been said. Maybe we should do one question at a time.

 

[Author]

Posts