The Yahweh Unity

[mikeboll64]

Berean:  In the psalm 24 : 7-10, Jesus(the King OF Glory) IS identified ( in hebrew text)as being YHWH…

Berean, why do you think the “King of Glory” in that psalm is Jesus?

[mikeboll64]

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

Ok, let’s say my Father’s name is John.
John is the Father of Danny.
Danny therefore CANNOT be John.

That is my argument.

And a very good argument it is.  It is sensible, scriptural, and a big hurdle that Kathi must overcome before picking a choosing a single verse here and there to build a doctrine that contradicts the true statement you made.

LU:  many sons are named after their fathers, Danny.

But none of those are the same BEING as their fathers, Kathi.  And once I get you to the point that you understand this scriptural and secular fact…

 

… you won’t be able to escape from Danny’s valid point with that argument.  (Notice that the word is a noun, and that all three definitions include the word “BEING”.  I haven’t seen a definition of “god” that doesn’t include the word “being”.  Can you find one online?)

Also, who else in the Bible shares an exact name with his father?  That’s somewhat popular now, but can you show us any scriptural examples?

And thirdly, let’s say there was King David, and his son David Jr.  Sharing a name wouldn’t make David Jr mighty, or a great warrior, or a husband, or a king – just because his father and namesake was those things – right?  It wouldn’t even make David Jr a PART of any of those things.

So even IF (it’s not true, but even IF) our Lord, who is named Jesus, was also named Yahweh after his father, it STILL wouldn’t make Jesus the Most High God, or even PART of a Most High God unity anyway.

[Lightenup]

Mike wants us to believe that every time you see the word “god” you can substitute “living being thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men.”

Let’s see:

40They said to Aaron, ‘Make us gods (living beings thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men) who will go before us! As for this Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’ 41At that time they made a calf and offered a sacrifice to the idol, rejoicing in the works of their hands.

Nope, the word “god” certainly does not mean what Mike claims it always means.

Here is Mike’s claim:

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

The “idea” that the golden calf had a “position” worthy of worship was ludicrous.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

You said:

But none of those are the same BEING as their fathers, Kathi.

I never said they were.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

You said:

So even IF (it’s not true, but even IF) our Lord, who is named Jesus, was also named Yahweh after his father, it STILL wouldn’t make Jesus the Most High God, or even PART of a Most High God unity anyway.

His relationship with the Father makes Him part of a Most High God unity.

[Lightenup]

Mike,

You asked:

Show me the “this is going to happen in the future” part of the Zech passage, because I don’t see it.

Zech 11:16For behold, I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will neither care for the lost, nor seek the young, nor heal the broken, nor sustain the healthy, but he will devour the flesh of the choice sheep and tear off their hooves.

17Woe to the worthless shepherd,

who deserts the flock!

May a sword strike his arm

and his right eye!

May his arm be completely withered

and his right eye utterly blinded!”

 

[Lightenup]

Hi Berean,

Thanks for your input.

Do you think that Psalms 24 is about this:

Rev 19:11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many crowns; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. 15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the  press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. 16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Blessings, LU

[Berean]

Hi LU

You: Do you think that Psalms 24 is about this:

Rev 19:11And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True,…

Me

Rev.19:11-16 speaks of the return of Jesus in avenger as King of kings and Lord of lords….
Psalm 24:7-10 alludes to Christ’s ascension after his resurrection, and his welcome into the Holy Heavenly City.

God bless

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi Mike,

You said to LU:

“So even IF (it’s not true, but even IF) our Lord, who is named Jesus, was also named Yahweh after his father, it STILL wouldn’t make Jesus the Most High God, or even PART of a Most High God unity anyway.”

Exactly Mike!
There is no such thing as a “Most High God unity”
Jesus is the Son of the Most High. (Luke 1:32)

God bless

[Lightenup]

Hi Berean,

Thanks again for your reply.

You said:

Psalm 24:7-10 alludes to Christ’s ascension after his resurrection, and his welcome into the Holy Heavenly City.

Are you sure or is it your opinion? Can you find scriptural evidence that ties Psalm 24 to the ascension after his resurrection?

I agree that the King of glory is Yahweh the Son but I think it could apply to other “entrances into the gates.”

Blessings, LU

[Lightenup]

Danny,

You said:

Jesus is the Son of the Most High. (Luke 1:32)

Since Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Most High God the Father, and is ONE with Him and they act together, wouldn’t it be reasonable that the Son is part of a Most High Unity of Father and Son?

In my opinion, that would be obvious.

Danny, can you tell me of a higher unity in heaven or on earth? Do you think that the Father and the Son are not united in the rule and reign of creation?

Blessings, LU

[Berean]

Hi LU

Are you sure or is it your opinion? Can you find scriptural evidence that ties Psalm 24 to the ascension after his resurrection?

I agree that the King of glory is Yahweh the Son but I think it could apply to other “entrances into the gates.” 

Me

Yes, I AM SURE that Jesus IS the King OF Glory of the psalm 24:7-10.

He alone ascended to heaven Conquering with captives and sat at the right hand of God.

Ephesians 4:7

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
[8] Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
[9] (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
[10] He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Hebrews1

V.3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

V.13 )But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

 

God bless

[mikeboll64]

LU: Mike wants us to believe that every time you see the word “god” you can substitute “living being thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men.”

Let’s see:

40They said to Aaron, ‘Make us gods (living beings thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men) who will go before us! As for this Moses who led us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.’ 41At that time they made a calf and offered a sacrifice to the idol, rejoicing in the works of their hands.

Nope, the word “god” certainly does not mean what Mike claims it always means.

You should probably read the commentaries on this one, Kathi…  https://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/32-4.htm

Benson…  This is thy God; that is, This is the image or symbol of thy God; who brought thee out of Egypt — For they intended to worship the true God, by this image, as afterward Jeroboam did by the same image…

Barnes… Aaron appears to speak of the calf as if it was a representative of Yahweh – “Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.” …Their sin then lay, not in their adopting another god, but in their pretending to worship a visible symbol of Him whom no symbol could represent.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown… They meant the calf to be an image, a visible sign or symbol of Jehovah, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST [Ex 20:3], but of the SECOND commandment [Ex 20:4-6].

Matthew Poole…  this is thy god, the plural number being put for the singular, as it is usual in this case. The meaning is, This is the sign, or symbol, or image of thy god; for such expressions are very frequent… So they intended to worship the true God by this image, as afterwards Jeroboam did by the same image…

Gill… they could not be so stupid as to believe, that this calf, which was only a mass of gold, figured and decorated, was inanimate, had no life nor breath, and was just made, after their coming out of Egypt, was what brought them from hence; but that this was a representation of God, who had done this for them.

Do you see a pattern there?  While a couple of the commentators suggest that the calf/ox may have been a symbol of an Egyptian god, most believe it was meant to be a symbol of Yahweh because of Aaron’s words…

Exodus 32:5… When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before the calf and proclaimed: “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.”

But either way, the point is that the inanimate calf/ox itself was not the god.  The idol is the symbol OF a god.  And the god it symbolizes IS a “living being thought to have powers over nature and the affairs of men.”

LU:  Here is Mike’s claim:

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

The “idea” that the golden calf had a “position” worthy of worship was ludicrous.

It’s not the inanimate calf itself that receives the worship applied to it, Kathi.  They worship the inanimate object – golden calf or otherwise – to show their worship of the god the inanimate object represents.

So my claim still stands unrefuted.

How about addressing your version of the very first words in the Bible, that I posted yesterday?

“In the beginning, POSITION OF AUTHORITY created the heaven and the earth.”  

I asked you yesterday if your definition worked.  Please answer that question this time.  Thanks.

How about my version…

“In the beginning, A LIVING BEING THOUGHT TO HAVE POWERS OVER NATURE AND THE AFFAIRS OF MEN created the heaven and the earth.”

Does mine work, Kathi?

 

 

[mikeboll64]

Mike:  But none of those are the same BEING as their fathers, Kathi.

LU:  I never said they were.

Good.  Then once you come to realize the FACT that a god is a single BEING, you’ll realize that your argument that sons are often named after their fathers didn’t really amount to anything at all.

Btw, were you able to locate a son named after his father in the scriptures?  Or is your understanding of “Yahweh the Son” the only instance?

[mikeboll64]

LU:  His relationship with the Father makes Him part of a Most High God unity.

Why?  My rational mind tells me that his relationship with the Father (son OF the Most High) makes him exactly that… a son OF the Most High God.  What actual EVIDENCE (not baseless claims or personal desires) can you produce to make it crystal clear that my rational understanding – which is supported by scripture and every father/son relationship in history – is not the correct understanding?

[mikeboll64]

Mike:  Show me the “this is going to happen in the future” part of the Zech passage, because I don’t see it.

 

LU:  Zech 11:16 For behold, I will raise up a shepherd in the land who will neither care for the lost, nor seek the young, nor heal the broken, nor sustain the healthy, but he will devour the flesh of the choice sheep and tear off their hooves.

First of all, does that sound anything like our shepherd Jesus?  Secondly, that is indeed a prophecy, but one that was given AFTER Zechariah had already literally been given and gave back the 30 pieces of silver.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the 30 pieces.

I’m asking for the “someone will someday in the future pay 30 pieces of silver for me” part of the Zech passage.

Hint:  It’s not there, Kathi.  The account in Zech 11:4-14 is not a prophecy.  God told Zech to do something, and Zech did it.  Then they paid Zech for his services, and since they knew that Zech was sent by God, Yahweh took it as a slap in the face that they valued HIM at such a low price.

The same happened when Israel rejected Samuel as judge because they wanted a king like the other nations had.  God told Samuel that they had not rejected him… but HIM.

Anyway, the prophecy that you mentioned came after the 30 pieces, and clearly doesn’t apply to “the Good Shepherd”.  There is no prophecy about 30 pieces in Zech.

And like I said, even if there were, and Jesus did actually fulfill the prophecy, so what?  Representatives OF Yahweh were addressed AS Yahweh all throughout scripture.  Never once did it mean Yahweh’s representative WAS Yahweh Himself.

Remember when Moses addressed the angel in the burning bush as Yahweh?  Was the angel of Yahweh actually Yahweh Himself?

[mikeboll64]

Danny: Exactly Mike!
There is no such thing as a “Most High God unity”
Jesus is the Son of the Most High. (Luke 1:32)

God bless

Scripture is very clear on the matter that both Jesus and Moses are servants of Yahweh – not Yahweh Himself.  And just like it’d be ludicrous to build a doctrine that God’s servant Moses IS God because of some wonky wording in Deut 11:13-15 and Exodus 7:1, it’s equally ridiculous to build a similar doctrine that God’s servant Jesus IS God based on a few cherry-picked and purposely misunderstood verses in the Bible.

May God bless you and yours too.

[Berean]

Because Jesus IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD THE FATHER, HE IS OF THE SAME NATURE AS HIM AND THEREFORE HAS ALL THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF HIS FATHER: OMNIPOTENCE, OMNISCIENCE, OMNIPRESENCE.
TO DENY THIS IS TO BELOW THE DIVINE PERSONALITY OF CHRIST.
CHRIST IS GOD AND MAN: EMMANUEL, GOD WITH US…AMEN

[GeneBalthrop]

Lu,  You are right the The bull the Aron the high priest built of Gold, was a repersentation of God, in fact the very first pictorial language written as God, was a OX HEAD , which represented power, and leaning toward it was a sheppards staff.  These two leters symboles , is the written symbols of what the word God meant unto the Isrealites,  simply put , God was a term showing the power (OX head) the Isrealites trusted in and leaned on for support (shepards staff)  , these are the two letter for God in the original puctorial language us by Isreal in that day.  

So the comintators you use were right,  the sin,  was God had told them “not to make “ANY” “IMAGE”  of him, that are in heaven above or earth beneath”.  

Question to you and all others here is,   Have you made Jesus the  (IMAGE) OF YOUR GOD ,  2THS2.  

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

[Danny Dabbs]

Hi LU,

I have found an answer to Hebrews 1 and Psalm 102 that
I personally believe is the biblical one.
It will be explained in a video from a guy named Kel.
Please watch the video and let me know what you think.
Here’s the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaxyz8z1TO4

[Author]

Posts