Jesus CANNOT be Jehovah/YHVH God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
The East believes the Spirit derives from the Father alone...
THe West insists the Spirit progresses from both Father and Son...

Odd that the Son is of the Holy Spirit and yet calls Another His Father...

So even amongst trinitarians there is schism...

We have a proper name for the Father...and a proper name for the Son...but no name for the Holy Spirit...

You are very correct sir. All I can say is this: No man can fully comprehend God. There are many things that we are capable of understanding, and many things that are too far beyond us. The Triune nature of God is such a thing: We understand in part, but not fully

As Paul said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

Thanks be to God.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
If jesus were invisible, he would be god. He is not completely so. Thus he isn't god.

According to the parable of the good Samaritan, the Samaritan idolater helps an injured man out that no one Israelite would. The Israelite is an idolater, and the Israelites weren't. If idolatry is an abomination, is the Good Samaritan would also be an abomination?

Idolatry is a minor sin.

Pure gibberish. Why not try writing something meaningful, instead?
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
As one being from the tribe of Judah, Jesus would be responsible for enforcing Israelite law. And the law of moses was given as a favor to the Israelites. Any Israelite might be able to claim it as their law, and thus anyone from the tribe of Judah especially. So what is your point?
No one who is a Jew would say: "Keep my commandments," except God. You're being disingenuous.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
If jesus were invisible, he would be god. He is not completely so. Thus he isn't god.

According to the parable of the good Samaritan, the Samaritan idolater helps an injured man out that no one Israelite would. The Israelite is an idolater, and the Israelites weren't. If idolatry is an abomination, is the Good Samaritan would also be an abomination?

Idolatry is a minor sin.

Just so that readers will know:
In SabathMoon's post #337, he inserted a quote box linked to my post #336, and in it, he wrote

"misunderstanding what you say completely..."

trying to make it appear that I had written that, and that he was quoting something I had written.

I did NOT write those words, nor anything similar, in my post #336, nor in any other post.

Why must you lie, SabathMoon?

Well, it should be obvious! Because I despise the truth!

See how that goes, SabathMoon?

(SabathMoon didn't really write "Well, it should be obvious! Because I despise the truth!", and so, I did not really quote those words from his post.)

But, indeed, SabathMoon does despise the truth!
 

clefty

New member
(SIGH) But there is. Here: LINK



“Where are the Old Testament seeds of the Trinity? In Deuteronomy 6:4, one finds the Shema, the Jewish expression of monotheism: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." There are two words in Hebrew for one. Yachid means only one. Echod means a compound unity or a united one—as in Genesis: "evening and morning . . . one day" or "husband and wife . . . one flesh." This second word, echod, which describes a unity of beings, is the one used to speak of God, who is not by essence a solitude, but a unity of three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Ibid.

A compound unity or a united one is described as TWO...Let US...and in His image He created them Male and Female...TWO

And from the ONLY IMMORTAL ETERNAL ONE the Son finally begotten was of His Father’s substance...just as from the mud Adam was created but Eve was made from Adam...
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I only hate "another Jesus", than the "Jesus" actually PREACHED by the apostles.

So, you call more than one person "Jesus"? How many persons, besides Jesus, Himself, do you call "Jesus"?

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the negative reputation comment you gave me, calling me "Troll". I've never done that--to you, nor to anyone else on TOL--and I guarantee you that I will not be doing anything like that to you in reciprocity. Why, I have no need of it. ;)
 

MennoSota

New member
9 POSSIBLE SIGNS OF THE TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

There’s a whole set of traditional ways to find the Trinity in the Old Testament—and it’s kind of a mixed bag. Some of them provide a good demonstration of the elements of trinitarianism in the Old Testament. As soon as the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament and we have a clear revelatory statement about what’s going on in regards to the godhead, it throws a light back on the things we’ve seen in the Old Testament.

Here are some traditional proofs (some more compelling than others) for the presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

1. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ELOHIM AND YAHWEH

Some commentators make a lot out of the distinction between the name Elohim and the name Yahweh. Right at the very beginning of Genesis, you have two different ways of talking about God during the act of creation.

A lot of older theologies ask, “What is the ultimate reason why two names are given to us right at the beginning of Scripture?” Within that question is an analysis—one that relies on an assumption. That assumption can be summarized in this question: “Why is the one God called both Elohim and Yahweh?” These older theologies keep working at that question until getting to a trinitarian distinction.

It’s hard to summarize exactly what that distinction is because it’s never stated as simply as “the Father is Elohim and the son is Yahweh.” Instead, it’s a witness to a diversity of naming that establishes what’s going on within one God.

It could be that the use of multiple names for God points to his trinitarian nature.

2. THE PLURAL FORM OF THE NAME ELOHIM

While the word Elohim has the distinct im ending that marks it as plural, Elohim seems to be an agent of singular verb actions. It would irresponsible to translate Elohim as gods as in “In the beginning the godscreated the heavens and the earth.” So it seems that that this name of God that is plural in nature could also point to the coming New Testament revelation of the Trinity.

3. THE CONCEPT OF THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

Throughout the Old Testament we catch glimpses of an agent of Yahweh who sometimes behaves as if he were the presence of the Lord, and at other times he appears to be an emissary. It’s easy to understand how a trinitarian theologian, informed by the New Testament, would recognize the angel of the Lord—a figure who seems to be with God and to be God— as a christological figure.

“The angel added, ‘I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.’”—Genesis 16:10 (emphasis added)

“‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he [the angel of the Lord] said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’”—Genesis 22:12

“On that day the Lord will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord going before them.”—Zechariah 12:8

Many think that the angel of the Lord is a Christophany—a manifestation that, while distinct from God, is also God.

4. THE CONCEPT OF WISDOM PERSONIFIED (PROVERBS)

In the book of Proverbs, we are introduced to the wisdom of God personified as a woman. This personification is a speaking agent who is difficult to distinguish. We’re left wondering if this is just a way of talking about God or if it’s an agent sent from God. How much of it is personification, and how much is an actual person?

Does the personification of wisdom in Proverbs allude to a trinitarian reality? Many theologians would suggest it does.

5. THE CONCEPT OF THE LORD’S “WORD” PERSONIFIED

There are points in the Old Testament where God’s very word is personified as it would be if God’s Word referenced Jesus.

“For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.”—Psalm 33:4

“The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”—Isaiah 40:8

In his gospel, John describes Jesus as the Word of God. This sheds new light on the on many of the Old Testament references to God’s Word.

6. THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Similar to the personification of wisdom in the Old Testament, many things said about the Spirit “going forth” or “being with” seem to indicate agency. It seems throughout the Old Testament that the Spirit is the self-conscious immanence of God, as well as the revelation of God. God’s Spirit also seems to dwell with God’s followers, and seems to act as an objective personality.

“Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.”—Psalm 51:11–13

“Yet they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit.
So he turned and became their enemy
and he himself fought against them.”—Isaiah 63:10

“Come near me and listen to this:
‘From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;
at the time it happens, I am there.’
And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me,
endowed with his Spirit.”—Isaiah 48:16

Jesus promises us the Spirit in the New Testament, and in Acts we see the Spirit’s advent at Pentecost. In light of this, it’s no surprise that this would reframe our understanding of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament.

7. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES IN WHICH GOD SPEAKS OF HIMSELF IN THE PLURAL

At different times, God speaks about himself using singular pronouns and at others, he opts for plural ones:

Singular:

“I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you”—Genesis 9:9 (emphasis added)

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’”—Isaiah 6:8(emphasis added)

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”—Zechariah 12:10 (emphasis added)

Plural:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in ourlikeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’”—Genesis 1:26(emphasis added)

“And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”—Genesis 3:22 (emphasis added)

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”—Genesis 11:7 (emphasis added)

“Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?—Isaiah 6:8(emphasis added)

Outside of the the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity, it’s hard to make sense of the singular/plural dichotomy in these passages. Engaging them with a trinitarian understanding sheds new light on their possible implications.

8. OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES WHERE MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS EXPRESSLY NAMED

These are passages where the Lord speaks of himself or the Messiah in a repetitive, reduplicative way:

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”—Psalm 45:6-7

The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”—Psalm 110:1

The repetitive expressions of God in some Old Testament passages may point to various persons in the Trinity.

9. PASSAGES WHERE THE NAME OF GOD IS REPEATED THREE TIMES

There is a rich tradition of interpreting passages where God’s name is repeated three times as a trinitarian reference. The most referenced example of this is Numbers 6:24–26:

“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”

Many theologians believe passages, like this one in Numbers, demonstrate a preview of the Trinity by repeating God’s name in threes.

READING THE OLD TESTAMENT WITH THE TRINITY IN MIND

How do we read these passages in a way that will preserve their mystery and shed some light on what we learn about the godhead from the New Testament?

One way we can do this and maintain interpretive integrity is by rereading. Rereading is a crucial exegetical practice.

Rereading is the act of studying a document by reading it all the way through to the end—and once you have an understanding of the document as a whole—you read it all the way through again. This gives you an enriched understanding of the document as a whole. This allows you to understand the sense that individual parts make on their own, but help you also grasp the higher meaning that is generated by understanding them in relation to each other.

What is required for doctrinal interpretation of the Old Testament is a hermeneutical framework that acknowledges the complex structure of revelation, and an approach to reading the documents that precede and follow the revelation.

Rereading is the key hermeneutical category for this kind of interpretation. It captures the ambiguity and concealment of the original writings, but also accounts for the progressive revelation and the attendant growth in understanding of the earlier material.

Literary theorist E. K. Brown has said, “There is nothing magical in reading. It is in re-reading that some magic may lie.”

We are not seeking anything magical, although the category of rereading might open up a relatively sober approach to the fascination with concealment that has animated much mystical interpretation of the Scriptures.

Rereading makes possible an interpretive interplay between the text’s parts and its whole.

Northrop Frye argues that “the critical operation begins with reading a work straight through, as many times as may be necessary to possess it in totality. At that point the critic can begin to formulate a conceptual unity corresponding to the imaginative unity of his text.”

Immersive mastery of a text opens up new interpretive possibilities in negotiating the whole dialogue, which is one of the main engines in discerning the meaning for the reader. The eye of the mind can scan the whole, ranging backward and forward in it.

Bonaventure observed that “no one can appreciate the beauty of a poem unless his vision embraces it as a whole.”

Rereading delivers an “awareness of the totality of the text” and allows for “intercommunication” of textual features by correcting against “inherently linear models of reading.”

IS THERE A DANGER IN REREADING?

Rereading can even be made to sound subversive and transgressive, as if in the high-theory war between reader and author, rereading is a matter of taking up arms in anarchic rebellion against the author.

Matin Calinescu situates rereading as a counter-practice against the regime of normative first reading. But normative first reading could be a side effect of romanticism, which expects textual love at first sight, or of scientism, which expects self-evident meaning to be transferred at a single reading that does not need to be savored for its literary quality.

Rereading is, after all, one of the primary pleasures of popular reading.

Successful novelists from Jane Austen to J. K. Rowling prove themselves to their fans not by how good their books are for reading but for rereading. Whole new vistas of insight and enjoyment open up to the reader who returns to certain well-structured books, where there is a palpable frisson between intuiting the whole text at once and reclaiming the linear experience of another trip through it.

Scripture, religiously experienced, is obviously another key site of rereading.

It is not only an interpretive practice to be embraced by the consumers of the Bible, but because of the cumulative character of the biblical canon, rereading is a crucial element in the production of Scripture. Rereading is a mode of the New Testament’s use of the Old.

R. T. France has pointed out:

“In the argument of Hebrews we see a first-century example of a Christian expositor whose instinct it was to develop his argument by focusing successively on a number of key texts, and in each case not simply to quote it and pass on, but to stay with it, exploring its wider implications, and drawing it into association with other related Old Testament ideas, so as to produce a richer and more satisfying diet of biblical theology than could be provided by a mere collection of proof-texts. Like a dog with a particularly juicy bone, he returns to his chosen text again and again, worrying at it and aiming to get all the goodness out of it for the benefit of his readers.”

THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS AS REREADERS OF SCRIPTURE

The New Testament writers follow the lead of Jesus himself in creatively rereading their Scriptures in the light of who he is and what he has done.

Rereading is a mode of scriptural re-engagement that allows trinitarian interpretation to maintain the original meaning of the Old Testament, but also to layer onto it the insights that arise from later developments of its themes. Genesis 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth. A reader who continues through Genesis knows where the story goes from there, and learns a great deal about the character of the God of the first chapter.

A rereading of Genesis 1 is enriched by the knowledge that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob created the heavens and the earth. Or again, a reader who continues through to Deuteronomy learns even more about his character and his ways. A rereading of Genesis 1 is in this case enriched by the knowledge that the God of the Exodus created the heavens and the earth.

Or again, a reader who continues through to the end of the New Testament learns a great many surprising things about this God, and a rereading of Genesis 1 in this case is enriched by the knowledge that the God who raised Jesus from the dead created the heavens and the earth. In fact, the trinitarian rereading of Genesis 1 has to answer several questions:

Does the extended sense of the rereading of Genesis 1 include the sense, “In the beginning, the Trinity created the heavens and the earth,” or does it rather include, “In the beginning, Jesus created the heavens and the earth,” or does it rather include, “In the beginning, God the Father created the heavens and the earth through the Son and the Spirit”?

We know it includes, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

We do not need to sort out all the layers of these questions here. We only need to recognize that rereading preserves the original linear sense while adding the holistic sense, and that much depends on what amount of text counts as the whole.

Trinitarian theology is rereading of the Bible for the identity of God, comprehending the total meaning of the text without erasing or replacing the linear meaning from the first reading.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-does-the-old-testament-say-about-the-trinity/
 

clefty

New member
You are very correct sir. All I can say is this: No man can fully comprehend God. There are many things that we are capable of understanding, and many things that are too far beyond us. The Triune nature of God is such a thing: We understand in part, but not fully
yes of course there is forever to learn but when He works so hard to be understood and appreciated and known and revealed and known...I mean He reduced Himself from everywhere in the UNIVERSE and all the time to this place a specific location to be approached at a specific time to be worshipped a specific way...gave Himself a name a house a people...sent His Son as a sacrifice...Who CLEARLY TAUGHT the heirarchy...

I mean Yah is not a god of confusion...or like mystery pagan gods that fail logic...Our God is order and not confusion NOT A MYSTERY...but reasonable...

The forever mystery is that He did all that to make Himself so clear to us...HIS LOVE...NOW begins the mystery

As Paul said, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
is why this passage ends the famous love chapter...where progression is demonstrated by a child becoming adult...and that maturing is FOREVER...that maturing understanding of HIS LOVE is ETERNAL...



Thanks be to God.
that He sacrificed Himself to make Himself known...revealed...not mysterious...His LOVE however UNMEASURABLE

HalleluYah indeed...
 

SabathMoon

BANNED
Banned
No one who is a Jew would say: "Keep my commandments," except God. You're being disingenuous.

King David could, or someone who is the son of god but not god could. Judah held half to all of the kingship (ie. the law enforcement) depending on its time in history. Besides the law of Moses was given to the Israelites.
 
Last edited:

Dartman

Active member
(SIGH) But there is. Here: LINK
Sorry, no "Scriptural proof" .... just a lot of theory.

Here is what an honest trinitarian Bible Dictionary had to say;
"Although the doctrine of the Trinity isimplicit rather than explicit in the Old Testament, at the same time it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the New Testament this truth can be found in the Old."

And then farther down in the paragraph;
"The religion of the Old testament is emphatically monotheistic."

The next paragraph reads;
"The New Testament teaching upon this subject is not given in the way of formal statement. The formal statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the New Testament."

Later in the article, under the subheading "Historical", this statement is made;

"It was only gradually, and after a considerable period, in its conflict with Judaism and paganism, that the thoughts of the Church arrived at something of a formal statement. The word "Trinity" was first employed by Tertullian (2nd Century), though his word was only the Latin translation of the Greek trias,"..
The word "Person" was also first employed by Tertullian, though he used it in the inadmissible sense of individual."
Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, page 1118.
 

clefty

New member
Sorry, no "Scriptural proof" .... just a lot of theory.

Here is what an honest trinitarian Bible Dictionary had to say;
"Although the doctrine of the Trinity isimplicit rather than explicit in the Old Testament, at the same time it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the New Testament this truth can be found in the Old."

And then farther down in the paragraph;
"The religion of the Old testament is emphatically monotheistic."

The next paragraph reads;
"The New Testament teaching upon this subject is not given in the way of formal statement. The formal statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the New Testament."

Later in the article, under the subheading "Historical", this statement is made;

"It was only gradually, and after a considerable period, in its conflict with Judaism and paganism, that the thoughts of the Church arrived at something of a formal statement. The word "Trinity" was first employed by Tertullian (2nd Century), though his word was only the Latin translation of the Greek trias,"..
The word "Person" was also first employed by Tertullian, though he used it in the inadmissible sense of individual."
Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, page 1118.

BUT BUT BUT...It’s in da CREED...
 

Dartman

Active member
So, you call more than one person "Jesus"? How many persons, besides Jesus, Himself, do you call "Jesus"?
I quoted Jesus. HE says there are false Christs. And Paul warns against people preaching "another Jesus".
So you tell me, what did Jesus and Paul mean?
7d7 said:
Oh, and by the way, thanks for the negative reputation comment you gave me, calling me "Troll". I've never done that--to you, nor to anyone else on TOL--and I guarantee you that I will not be doing anything like that to you in reciprocity. Why, I have no need of it. ;)
No problem. I would have repeated the reputation comment, but the software won't allow repeats. You continually "troll". If you don't like the title, stop the practice.
 

Dartman

Active member
BUT BUT BUT...It’s in da CREED...
Not the earliest Creed, before the trinitarians gained enough power to dominate;

Here is the so-called Apostle's Creed (it was written probably 50 years after the last apostle died);

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen.


Not one mention of ANY tenet unique to trinity, or oneness.

I believe we should NOT rely on creeds, that we should rely on Sola Scriptura ...... but this creed proves the early church agreed with the Scriptures.
 

clefty

New member
Not the earliest Creed, before the trinitarians gained enough power to dominate;

Here is the so-called Apostle's Creed (it was written probably 50 years after the last apostle died);

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.

He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen.


Not one mention of ANY tenet unique to trinity, or oneness.

I believe we should NOT rely on creeds, that we should rely on Sola Scriptura ...... but this creed proves the early church agreed with the Scriptures.

Was sarcastic...creeds were doubling down the lie...as lies need further lies an army of lies...to maintain the initial lie

Add to that the fact the liars need to KILL to keep the lie alive...those that tell the truth are not threatened by dissent or investigation...the insecure resort to bullying...

With LIARS any dissent to their lies must be censored lest it compels others...as truth does...


“Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence. ... Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle”


― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 

Dartman

Active member
No one who is a Jew would say: "Keep my commandments," except God. You're being disingenuous.

Lev 27:34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.
Num 15:22-23 And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses,

23 Even all that the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations;

Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?



Josh 11:15 As Jehovah commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua: and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that Jehovah commanded Moses.


Acts 3:22-23 Moses indeed said, A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto you from among your brethren, like unto me. To him shall ye hearken in all things whatsoever he shall speak unto you. 23 And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.
 

Dartman

Active member
Was sarcastic...creeds were doubling down the lie...as lies need further lies an army of lies...to maintain the initial lie

Add to that the fact the liars need to KILL to keep the lie alive...those that tell the truth are not threatened by dissent or investigation...the insecure resort to bullying...

With LIARS any dissent to their lies must be censored lest it compels others...as truth does...
I thought you were being sarcastic .... I was just adding to what I THOUGHT was your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top