User Tag List

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 134

Thread: Jesus is God vs. Jesus is YHVH

  1. #16
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,580
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Jesus is referred to as the Lord several times in scripture.
    Okay.
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Also, Jesus is the one who replied to Paul, and normally if someone is talking to someone else, you don't butt in and answer for them.
    Is it proven that Jesus answered?

  2. #17
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    8,820
    Thanks
    30,612
    Thanked 7,765 Times in 4,910 Posts

    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147621
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Okay.

    Is it proven that Jesus answered?
    Yes. Because...

    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Jesus is referred to as the Lord several times in scripture.

  3. #18
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,580
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Yes. Because...
    Is God ever referred to as the Lord? Or, is God just referred to as the LORD or YHVH?

  4. #19
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    875
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 158 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11748
    Greetings Jacob,
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Would you say Jesus is God or Jesus is YHVH?
    I have said the first but I don't like saying the second. Any ideas or ways to sort this out?
    I agree with you as I understand that YHVH or Yahweh is God the Father. The title “God” is used for Jesus, but I suggest that the Biblical meaning of this word is different to the normal sense in English. For example the normal OT word for “God”, Elohim is also used for the angels and judges who acted and spoke on God the Father’s behalf. This usage gives an introduction as to why the title “God” is also applied to Jesus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Is God ever referred to as the Lord? Or, is God just referred to as the LORD or YHVH?
    Yes in Matthew 11:25.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  5. #20
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,580
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings Jacob, I agree with you as I understand that YHVH or Yahweh is God the Father. The title “God” is used for Jesus, but I suggest that the Biblical meaning of this word is different to the normal sense in English. For example the normal OT word for “God”, Elohim is also used for the angels and judges who acted and spoke on God the Father’s behalf. This usage gives an introduction as to why the title “God” is also applied to Jesus.
    Yes in Matthew 11:25.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    I am not sure about your answer. However,

    Matthew 11:25 New International Version (NIV)The Father Revealed in the Son

    25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."

    New International Version (NIV)

    Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

  6. #21
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    875
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 158 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11748
    Greetings again Jacob,
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    I am not sure about your answer. However,
    Matthew 11:25 New International Version (NIV)The Father Revealed in the Son
    25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
    I am not sure of what is the problem here. Jesus addresses God, his Father as "Lord of heaven and earth". You asked whether God is addressed as "Lord" and this is one example. You may be more familiar with Psalm 8:1-3, and again Yahweh is also "Lord", as it says "O LORD our Lord" and if you carefully compare Matthew 11:25-28 you will see that Jesus is quoting and alluding and summarising Psalm 8:1-6.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  7. #22
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,580
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings again Jacob,I am not sure of what is the problem here. Jesus addresses God, his Father as "Lord of heaven and earth". You asked whether God is addressed as "Lord" and this is one example. You may be more familiar with Psalm 8:1-3, and again Yahweh is also "Lord", as it says "O LORD our Lord" and if you carefully compare Matthew 11:25-28 you will see that Jesus is quoting and alluding and summarising Psalm 8:1-6.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    All good scripture. I think it was Psalm 110:1 that I learned from. No problem here.

  8. #23
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,725
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 304 Times in 252 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Would you say

    Jesus is God

    or

    Jesus is YHVH?

    I have said the first but I don't like saying the second. Any ideas or ways to sort this out?
    I know you're not a Trinitarian, so I'm just offering the answer as a Trinitarian, fwiw, not because I want to get into a fight with you. YHVH is God, plain and simple. What's not as simple, if that the Father is YHVH, the Son is YHVH, and the Spirit is YHVH, But, the Father is not the Son, or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son. iow it's fairly simple for a Trinitarian to answer your question for themselves, which, admittedly, doesn't help you out too much, but it gives you an aspect of Trinitarianism that you perhaps haven't looked at yet. Again, just fwiw. Even if not too much. It's not meant as antagonism iow.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  9. #24
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,725
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 304 Times in 252 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Jesus is God.

    "All the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form."
    This is one of the Pauline passages that I mentioned generally in another now closed thread here. I was talking about the passages that are problems or difficulties for Unitarians. There are many scriptures in John's Gospel, and many in Paul's epistles, plus some others here and there; this one you quote is one of the Pauline scriptures that's plainly difficult for Unitarianism to deftly explain. And meanwhile, to do something as simple as what you've done here, in just stating "Jesus is God," and quoting this Pauline scripture, anyone who knew nothing about the Bible or Christianity would say that the verse seems to support the claim, whether they believed it themselves or not. Many reasonable people would agree, if you were to claim, that the concept, or thought, or prospect, of God being a human being, might be reasonable described iow as, "the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form;" that is eminently reasonable. Even if we disagree in some fine detail, we agree with the thrust of the thought here. The idea of God as a man, would roughly correspond to "the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form."
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  10. #25
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    17,580
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 826 Times in 761 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    121116
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I know you're not a Trinitarian, so I'm just offering the answer as a Trinitarian, fwiw, not because I want to get into a fight with you. YHVH is God, plain and simple. What's not as simple, if that the Father is YHVH, the Son is YHVH, and the Spirit is YHVH, But, the Father is not the Son, or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son. iow it's fairly simple for a Trinitarian to answer your question for themselves, which, admittedly, doesn't help you out too much, but it gives you an aspect of Trinitarianism that you perhaps haven't looked at yet. Again, just fwiw. Even if not too much. It's not meant as antagonism iow.
    Thank you for sharing this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    This is one of the Pauline passages that I mentioned generally in another now closed thread here. I was talking about the passages that are problems or difficulties for Unitarians. There are many scriptures in John's Gospel, and many in Paul's epistles, plus some others here and there; this one you quote is one of the Pauline scriptures that's plainly difficult for Unitarianism to deftly explain. And meanwhile, to do something as simple as what you've done here, in just stating "Jesus is God," and quoting this Pauline scripture, anyone who knew nothing about the Bible or Christianity would say that the verse seems to support the claim, whether they believed it themselves or not. Many reasonable people would agree, if you were to claim, that the concept, or thought, or prospect, of God being a human being, might be reasonable described iow as, "the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form;" that is eminently reasonable. Even if we disagree in some fine detail, we agree with the thrust of the thought here. The idea of God as a man, would roughly correspond to "the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form."
    I believe more accurately it is all the fullness of Deity dwells in Him in bodily form.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Jacob For Your Post:

    Idolater (March 5th, 2019)

  12. #26
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    875
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 158 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11748
    Greetings again Jacob,
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    All good scripture. I think it was Psalm 110:1 that I learned from. No problem here.
    Yes, Psalm 110:1 is an important reference as it clearly defines that Yahweh, God the Father is distinct from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, David’s Lord. Psalm 110 and Psalm 8 are quoted, alluded to and expounded numerous times in the NT by Jesus and the Apostles. Their teaching on the basis of these two Psalms is not understood by those of the Jewish faith, and especially by those who support the Trinity as they would prefer to ignore the clear teaching of these Psalms. These Psalms clearly teach that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  13. #27
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,725
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 304 Times in 252 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    ... there is One God the Father and ... our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
    Trinitarians believe this.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  14. #28
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    875
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 158 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11748
    Greetings Idolater,
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Trinitarians believe this.
    Trinitarians are forced to accept this framework of these words, but what they believe is different to what the Bible is teaching simply and clearly by these terms. Also, I have not yet seen a simple and plausible exposition of Psalm 8 and Psalm 110 and the NT quotations and expositions of these in the NT by any Trinitarian.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  15. #29
    Over 1500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    1,725
    Thanks
    204
    Thanked 304 Times in 252 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    29853
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings Idolater,Trinitarians are forced to accept this framework of these words, but what they believe is different to what the Bible is teaching simply and clearly by these terms. Also, I have not yet seen a simple and plausible exposition of Psalm 8 and Psalm 110 and the NT quotations and expositions of these in the NT by any Trinitarian.
    The only force to which Trinitarians succumb, is the force of Church history, combined with that those historical teachings do conform to and explain the Scripture. The Trinity has been taught and believed by the Church from so early on, that it's a fuzzy line between the Apostolic era and the era immediately following the Apostolic era. And given the story of the bishops and how they oversaw the Church even during the Apostolic era, and that it was bishops who authenticated the Trinity in Church councils, it requires a very severe interpretation of the history of this authentic Church teaching office /pastorate; one that I myself cannot bear, because it makes the Lord and His Apostles look like nincompoops who couldn't institute an office that could withstand utter and profound corruption within mere years after the Apostles had all died off.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  16. #30
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    875
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 158 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11748
    Greetings again Idolater,
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    The only force to which Trinitarians succumb, is the force of Church history, combined with that those historical teachings do conform to and explain the Scripture. The Trinity has been taught and believed by the Church from so early on, that it's a fuzzy line between the Apostolic era and the era immediately following the Apostolic era. And given the story of the bishops and how they oversaw the Church even during the Apostolic era, and that it was bishops who authenticated the Trinity in Church councils, it requires a very severe interpretation of the history of this authentic Church teaching office /pastorate; one that I myself cannot bear, because it makes the Lord and His Apostles look like nincompoops who couldn't institute an office that could withstand utter and profound corruption within mere years after the Apostles had all died off.
    You certainly have a different perspective on this subject. Paul’s warning in Acts 20:28-35 and the Letters to the Seven Congregations in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 seem to indicate that there would be and was a falling away in the early centuries.

    I have not studied this period, but the following are my extracts from a book speaking about these things, and I asked a person who has done extensive study on this and he endorsed the following:
    History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
    Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

    After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
    Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

    Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

    Speaking of the developments in the second century:
    Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

    Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

    Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

    Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

    Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

    Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

    Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

    Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
    Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
    Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
    Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

    Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

    Kind regards
    Trevor

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to TrevorL For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (March 7th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us