I'm wondering again how all things coming through the Son is supposed to be a problem....

And I'm still wondering how you know every reference to God in the OT is to a being who is one in person.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Why are you quoting the Book of Mormon? If you are Mormon, then your faith title must reflect that.

No, I am not a Mormon, and yes I am stating that their book speaks of the trinity. So I do not understand their argument . I was contrasting between the two. One their book is flawed or two their teaching is.

I talked to a Mormon yesterday and he refereed to the trinity(we were talking about symbols in business and government), and I would have to say I didn't probe him on it. I didn't get his definition of what he means, because our conversation was not dealing with that issue. If the opportunity comes up I will investigate the issue with him. He is a friend and we work on other issues together that no matter what doctrine we ad-hear to the issues matter to us all.

"I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from Him who called you by the the grace of Christ, (and are turning) to a different gospel- not that there is another (gospel), but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ. but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have sid before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a cures be on him!" (Galatians 1:6-10)

If we humans can completely describe God then He would not be God. We cannot as a limited being fully explain an infinite absolute knowing being. We just cannot because we are not on the same level as God.

We live in a 3 dimensional field (some say 4). God is out side of our time space continuum. In in higher plane of existence, or another dimension. Now if you were to make a drawing of 3 people on a sheet of paper(which is 2 dimensional) and try to communicate to them they would not be able to fully understand you because you are on a higher plane or dimension than they are.

Just for fun check out Psalm Ch. 2 and take notes on who is talking there.
Deuteronomy 6:4 "The LORD our God, the LORD is One..." One comes from the Hebrew word echad which means united, alike, all together.

Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 44:6,8 and then compart to Revelation 1:8; Rvelation 1:17,18

Originally posted by Collier

This is well argued. Thank you.

But your options are too limited. I could just as reasonably say that if Jesus is YHWH, then John 17:3 makes Jesus a liar. There has to be another option.

Jesus IS YHWH. So is the Father and the Holy Spirit. YHWH as presented in the OT is the triune being we call God. There are a ton of things attributed to YHWH in the OT that are attributed to Jesus in the NT. The simplest and best reconcilliation for this is that Jesus is the same being as YHWH, and that YHWH is a triune being.

The prophecy of Isaiah is full of contrasts between YHWH and false gods. It is YHWH alone – without the help of all the idols and wizards and false gods that Israel was constantly turning to – that created the heavens and the earth. He did it by means of his Son; but we don’t learn that until the New Testament.

He specifically says he did it alone, without help. He was speaking of any other gods. If Jesus is "a" god, then it included him. The only reconciliation is that Jesus is the SAME God as YHWH.

The context gives you a similar paradox. If you look at chapters 44-46, you will see that YHWH is foretelling the victory of Cyrus – YHWH’s shepherd (44:28); YHWH’s messiah (45:1). Cyrus, he says, is going to fulfill all of YHWH’s purpose in rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple (44:28, 45). Cyrus – YHWH’s beloved - is going to defeat Babylon and set the captives free (48:14, etc.)

But then he says, in ch. 45:24, “From YHWH alone come victory and strength.”

YHWH gives victory and strength. There is no contradiction. It is talking of the source of the victory.

However the passages I quoted is not talking about the source of creation, but the creation itself. He specifically says nobody assisted him. The NT says that Jesus created everything and nothing was created without him.

Originally posted by Sparko

Jesus IS YHWH.

What the Lord Jesus said about himself should carry some weight, I think.

He said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). [Could YHWH say that?]

He said, “You believe in God; believe ALSO in me” (John 14:1). [Could YHWH say that?]

He said the words he spoke were not his own. He spoke only those things that the Father commanded him to say (John 14:10; 12:49). [Does anybody “command” YHWH?]

He said, “I have come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43) - in the name of YHWH (Luke 13:35; Luke 19:38).

David said the same thing in 1 Samuel 17:45: “I come unto you in the name of YHWH.” [But David was not YHWH.]

YHWH himself does not come in the name of YHWH. Those who are SENT by YHWH come in his name.

Originally posted by Sparko

He specifically says he did it alone, without help.

But Jesus said, “By myself I can do nothing” (John 5:30). If Jesus is YHWH, then these two statements are contradictory, and no reconciliation is possible.

Originally posted by Sparko

The only reconciliation is that Jesus is the SAME God as YHWH.

There is no need to “reconcile” anything, if we let the Word of God do the interpreting. Jesus is the Son of YHWH. He was sent by YHWH. That's what he kept repeating, over and over again. He did only what YHWH commanded him to do; and the signs and miracles that God did by him (Acts 2:22) showed that he was, indeed, sent by God.

THAT is why the rulers of Israel should have recognized him as the Messiah, the one who would come in the name of YHWH.

I think you are talking past each other.

Originally posted by Collier

What the Lord Jesus said about himself should carry some weight, I think.

He said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). [Could YHWH say that?]

OK Jesus (the Son) is YHWH. YHWH is not the Son. The Father is YHWH, YHWH is not the Father. etc.

Think of YHWH as the Godhead. The name of the Triune God. That Triune God has been revealed in three distinct persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So Jesus can talk about the Father as being greater than him, because Jesus has submitted himself to the Father. This is a submission of authority within the Godhead, not of ontological superiority.

I don't like how you just ignored my argument totally and just started spamming prooftexts at me as a counter to actually addressing my arguments, but oh well.

He said, “You believe in God; believe ALSO in me” (John 14:1). [Could YHWH say that?]

Jesus is saying to believe in him like you believe in God the Father? Gee that sounds pretty Trinitarian to me.

He said the words he spoke were not his own. He spoke only those things that the Father commanded him to say (John 14:10; 12:49). [Does anybody “command” YHWH?]

See my answer above regarding submission.

He said, “I have come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43) - in the name of YHWH (Luke 13:35; Luke 19:38).

David said the same thing in 1 Samuel 17:45: “I come unto you in the name of YHWH.” [But David was not YHWH.]

YHWH himself does not come in the name of YHWH. Those who are SENT by YHWH come in his name.

Jesus, the second person in the Godhead (YHWH) came down to earth and took on human nature. so yeah Jesus can come in the name of YHWH. not a problem.

But Jesus said, “By myself I can do nothing” (John 5:30). If Jesus is YHWH, then these two statements are contradictory, and no reconciliation is possible.

how do you figure? Jesus was speaking as the Son and as a Human. All three persons of God are involved in all of God's actions. They are ONE. Jesus wasn't here to do his own thing, he was here to do the will of God, which included the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

There is no need to “reconcile” anything, if we let the Word of God do the interpreting. Jesus is the Son of YHWH. He was sent by YHWH. That's what he kept repeating, over and over again. He did only what YHWH commanded him to do; and the signs and miracles that God did by him (Acts 2:22) showed that he was, indeed, sent by God.

THAT is why the rulers of Israel should have recognized him as the Messiah, the one who would come in the name of YHWH.

Thanks for completely ignoring my points. I really appreciate it.

So who did the OT prophets say was coming?


Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Isaiah is talking about Jesus yet the verse clearly used the name LORD (YHWH) and specifically says "Here is your God!"

--
John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

When Jesus (Son of God) called God 'My Father' the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be more than 'a' son of God. He was claiming he was equal to God. Jesus = God. Someone could be a son of God in a metaphorical sense, but Jesus was claiming he was the Son of God. A true son would have the Nature of his Father, in this case being a God. Since there can only be one God, the Jews took this as Blasphemy. John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible says this: 'His own Father - The Greek word means his own Father in such a sense as no creature can speak. Making himself equal with God - It is evident all the hearers so understood him, and that our Lord never contradicted, but confirmed it.'

Jesus would have corrected the Jews if their conclusion was wrong. He didn’t. Instead he claimed that they should honor him just as they honor the Father (see John 5:22)

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

I think you are talking past each other.

You may be right. I am always conscious that we are in complete agreement on many (if not most) things relating to the person of Christ. The NT is too explicit to be misunderstood, I think.

That makes me reject the sentence previously quoted from Ether 3:14: "Behold I am Jesus. I am the Father and the Son." That CONTRADICTS what Jesus actually DID say.

In my view, the Catholic doctrine that YHWH is actually three persons and not just one likewise contradicts what Jesus actually said. I am open to correction on this, but I have yet to find a passage where Jesus even hinted at such a thing, and I have already referred to several where he identified God as the Father, and no one else.

As for Genesis 1:26, where Elohim (YHWH) said, “Let us make man after our image,” the trinitarian doctrine can lead to such grotesque interpretations as, “This is the triune God talking to himself.”

Hebrew 1:3 makes it perfectly clear (I think) that he was talking to his Son, through whom he made all things.

And that fits the words “our image” (singular). As Hebrew 1:3 puts it, the Son is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being.” The image of one is the image of the other.

That could not be said of angels; so I don’t think YHWH was talking to angels.

In any case, I am learning things, and I am grateful.

Originally posted by Sparko

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

When Jesus (Son of God) called God 'My Father' the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be more than 'a' son of God. He was claiming he was equal to God. Jesus = God. Someone could be a son of God in a metaphorical sense, but Jesus was claiming he was the Son of God. A true son would have the Nature of his Father, in this case being a God. Since there can only be one God, the Jews took this as Blasphemy. John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible says this: 'His own Father - The Greek word means his own Father in such a sense as no creature can speak. Making himself equal with God - It is evident all the hearers so understood him, and that our Lord never contradicted, but confirmed it.'

Jesus would have corrected the Jews if their conclusion was wrong. He didn’t. Instead he claimed that they should honor him just as they honor the Father (see John 5:22)

I want to refer to this by itself, because I agree - absolutely - with ALL of it. Jesus was and is the only Son of the living God. He is fully divine - not created - equal to God as to his nature; and I am glad to render to him the same honor that I give to YHWH. That is exactly what the Father intended.

I am not ignoring the reference to Isaiah 40. It is valid evidence and needs to be addressed. But it seemed good to have one post where we have total agreement.

[quote=Sparko;2738393]

Originally posted by Sparko

So who did the OT prophets say was coming?

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. … 9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your God!" 10 See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.

Isaiah is talking about Jesus yet the verse clearly used the name LORD (YHWH) and specifically says "Here is your God!"

Agreed. Isaiah is certainly talking about Jesus, the perfect Servant of YHWH. And in this particular verse he clearly uses the name YHWH, and says, “Here is your God.” Does this mean that Jesus is YHWH?

In Isaiah 7:3, YHWH sent the prophet to give a long message to Ahaz. Then in verse 10, “Once again YHWH spoke to Ahaz and said ...” The speaker was the same in both cases, but in the first case he is identified as Isaiah, and in the second case he is identified as YHWH. Does this mean that Isaiah is YHWH?

There is a principal enunciated by the Lord Jesus in all four of the gospels: Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20. It is simply that the sender and the sent one are one. Anyone who receives one of Christ’s “sent ones” receives Christ; and anyone who receives Christ receives the one who sent him.

That does not mean that an apostle IS Christ, nor does it mean that Christ IS YHWH. It means that the one who is sent is identified with the sender. So "Whoever refuses honour to the Son refuses honour to the Father who sent him" (John 5:13).

By the way, just for the record, Jesus is my God. I gladly own him as my God, because his God, YHWH, has MADE him my God (Hebrews 1:6-9).

So who did the OT prophets say was coming?

They all said that the Messiah was coming - God's anointed - God's perfect Servant. In him, YHWH was coming to reign. And that perfect Servant WILL reign, under the sovereignty of God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). The authority of the Son is delegated authority (Matthew 28:18; John 5:27; Acts 17:31; etc.). The throne of YHWH is supreme.

Originally posted by Sparko

Think of YHWH as the Godhead. The name of the Triune God. That Triune God has been revealed in three distinct persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the word “three” is not used in connection with God in the Bible. That idea was added later by “the fathers”. The name “Tri-une God” is not biblical.

The word "godhead" is an old English word that means "god-hood," or "god-ness". It has nothing to do with triunity.

Your argument has force if you are a Catholic and believe that whatever “the fathers” added to the Bible is right. With all due respect, I don’t believe that is necessarily so.

Besides ADDING to what the Bible says, the language of trinitarianism (in some cases) CHANGES what the Bible says. For example, the title used of Jesus consistently (about fifty times) is "the Son of God". But the trinitarian title is "God the Son." [That is a necessary change if you want to call Mary "the mother of God".]

"Son of God" is not "God the Son," any more than "mother of Jesus" is "Jesus the mother". The two terms are not synonymous, and they should not be used as if they were.

When I was looking at the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, I noticed how unanimity was achieved at the Council of Nicea. At the end of the long discussion, five bishops did not agree. After some more intensive discussion, three changed their minds and agreed. The other two were exiled and anathemetized.

This kind of intimidation was normal in those days. The Athanasian Creed is a great example. It begins and ends with a threat. This, it says, is the catholic faith, and anyone who doesn't believe it is eternally damned.

I do not believe that God is tri-une. That doctrine is post-biblical.

I believe that YHWH, the elohim of Israel, is one person, the Father. I believe that because Jesus said so; and everything he ever said about himself and God harmonizes perfectly with that explicit statement. Paul said so, too - more than once.

I DO believe the Apostles Creed. It fits Paul's creed in 1 Corinthians 8:6. It does not add to what the New Testament actually says.

But I do not believe the Athanasian Creed. Anyone who DOES believe it is therefore compelled to consider me an unbeliever - my absolute belief in the gospel message notwithstanding.

That is the kind of "dogmatic trinitarianism" that I abhor, particularly from Protestants who claim to be governed by "sola scriptura".

[quote=Collier;2738790]

Originally posted by Sparko

Agreed. Isaiah is certainly talking about Jesus, the perfect Servant of YHWH. And in this particular verse he clearly uses the name YHWH, and says, “Here is your God.” Does this mean that Jesus is YHWH?

In Isaiah 7:3, YHWH sent the prophet to give a long message to Ahaz. Then in verse 10, “Once again YHWH spoke to Ahaz and said ...” The speaker was the same in both cases, but in the first case he is identified as Isaiah, and in the second case he is identified as YHWH. Does this mean that Isaiah is YHWH?

There is a principal enunciated by the Lord Jesus in all four of the gospels: Matthew 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 13:20. It is simply that the sender and the sent one are one. Anyone who receives one of Christ’s “sent ones” receives Christ; and anyone who receives Christ receives the one who sent him.

That does not mean that an apostle IS Christ, nor does it mean that Christ IS YHWH. It means that the one who is sent is identified with the sender. So "Whoever refuses honour to the Son refuses honour to the Father who sent him" (John 5:13).

By the way, just for the record, Jesus is my God. I gladly own him as my God, because his God, YHWH, has MADE him my God (Hebrews 1:6-9).

So who did the OT prophets say was coming?

They all said that the Messiah was coming - God's anointed - God's perfect Servant. In him, YHWH was coming to reign. And that perfect Servant WILL reign, under the sovereignty of God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). The authority of the Son is delegated authority (Matthew 28:18; John 5:27; Acts 17:31; etc.). The throne of YHWH is supreme.

So you think Jesus is GOD and that he is YOUR God, but not the same God as the Father?

Despite the bible being very clear that there is only ONE God and no other?

How do you reconcile that?

Sounds very "mormonish" to me.

[quote=Sparko;2739065]

Originally posted by Collier

So you think Jesus is GOD and that he is YOUR God, but not the same God as the Father?

Despite the bible being very clear that there is only ONE God and no other?

How do you reconcile that?

The Bible is definitely very clear that there is only one God. And the NT is just as clear that the one God is the Father.

Jesus is God, IN ESSENCE. That describes his nature. It does not identify him as the one God. He himself identifies the one God as the Father. No one else.

A good lexicon – either Hebrew OR Greek – will tell you the different ways in which the word “God” (elohim OR theos) is used. That will help you to understand the sentence, “Jesus is my God. I gladly own him as my God, because his God, YHWH, has MADE him my God (Hebrews 1:6-9)."

[quote=Collier;2739711]

Originally posted by Sparko

The Bible is definitely very clear that there is only one God. And the NT is just as clear that the one God is the Father.

Jesus is God, IN ESSENCE. That describes his nature. It does not identify him as the one God. He himself identifies the one God as the Father. No one else.

A good lexicon – either Hebrew OR Greek – will tell you the different ways in which the word “God” (elohim OR theos) is used. That will help you to understand the sentence, “Jesus is my God. I gladly own him as my God, because his God, YHWH, has MADE him my God (Hebrews 1:6-9)."

if his NATURE is God, then he is God, you can't get away from it. He is either another God or he is the ONE God. There are no other gods, so he must be the same God as the Father is. And so is the Holy Spirit. The HS is a person too. Three person who share the same NATURE, yet there is only ONE God.

That is the trinity in a nutsell.

[quote=Sparko;2740087]

Originally posted by Collier

if his NATURE is God, then he is God, you can't get away from it. He is either another God or he is the ONE God. There are no other gods, so he must be the same God as the Father is. And so is the Holy Spirit. The HS is a person too. Three person who share the same NATURE, yet there is only ONE God.

That is the trinity in a nutsell.

Apparently you have not yet looked at a lexicon.

I am satisfied with the EXPLICIT statement of Jesus in John 17:3, echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and in Ephesians 4:5-6, that the one God is the Father.

Christ Jesus is identified as the one MEDIATOR between the one God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5). He is also identified as God's only Son; as God's anointed King; as God’s great high priest; as God’s heir; and much more. But he is never identified as the one God.

Only the Father is identified as the one God. Therefore, I believe that the one God is the Father.

If you prefer a post-biblical doctrine based on a faulty syllogism, that is your privilege.

Originally posted by Collier

YHWH, has MADE him my God (Hebrews 1:6-9).[/color]"

That's not what Hebrews 1:6-9 says. There are no Gods formed or made after Yahweh.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.


In order for Yahweh to have MADE Jesus into God, He had to violate this verse.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

That's not what Hebrews 1:6-9 says. There are no Gods formed or made after Yahweh.

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

In order for Yahweh to have MADE Jesus into God, He had to violate this verse.

Yahweh did not make Jesus INTO God.

Look at the way the word "made" is used in Acts 2:36: "God has made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ.” After raising Jesus from the dead, he anointed him as King.

The word is used in a similar way in Exodus 7:1. “And Yahweh said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made you god [elohim] unto Pharaoh.’” Yahweh didn't make Moses INTO God. He gave Moses the role of Yahweh's spokesman; and the words of Moses to Pharaoh would not be his own words, but Yahweh's words.

Rulers in Israel were called “gods”. They were supposed to represent Yahweh, the true God. They didn't make a very good job of it. But the Son loved righteousness and hated iniquity, so his God has given him a throne that is eternal. He has anointed him with the oil of joy above his fellows.

The word “Son” is used in different ways, too. In Hebrews 1:1, Jesus is the Son by eternal relationship. He is “the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature” (v. 3, J.B.). He didn't have to be MADE that. He always WAS that.

But in v. 5 God says, “You are my Son, today I have become your Father.” This has to do with kingship – not with eternal relationship. And God’s words about Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14) are quoted: “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.” Son here is an official title, referring to the king who reigns on behalf of his Father.

That makes Jesus my God.