The Yahweh Name

Right Divider

Body part
I suggest that both you and Lon have yet to prove this, and describe how to reconcile the many difficulties and contradictions.
I suggest that you are wrong and that there are no contradictions.
You need to explain what part of Jesus was human and what part was God when he was an infant, and then his development and then during his ministry.
No, I do not need to provide that information. The fact that Jesus is God is clear from the entirety of scripture and that does need any further support.
Scripture describes Jesus as the Creator of ALL things.
Col 1:15-18 KJV Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Did he have two minds, a Divine mind that knows all things, and a human mind that was lacking in knowledge.
Again, that question is irrelevant as to whether Jesus is the God/Man. That fact is demonstrated constantly in scripture.
You need to explain what the term "only begotten" actually represents and this includes when was he begotten.
Jesus was always God. Therefore... AGAIN... this question is IRRELEVANT regarding the question "Is Jesus God?". Yes, Jesus is God... period.
And there are many other problems, some of which we have discussed briefly, including how did God the Son unite with the conception and birth of Jesus.
These are only problems for you. I have no problem with what scripture says.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon and Right Divider,

I have most probably already briefly considered John 8:58, John 17:5 (universe?), and John 1:1.
It is the same with every Unitarian. No difference here: Genuinely, it is an unwillingness to simply read and understand grammar and adhere to grammar rules. Most of the time, this is ever the problem with any off-shoot theology: an inability to read and poor S.A.T. scores.
You seem to have misread my three options. I agree with the third option, that it is a vision of Jesus enthroned in Jerusalem during the future 1000 years of the Kingdom of God upon the earth which will replace the present kingdoms of men.
💫
I suggest that both you and Lon have yet to prove this, and describe how to reconcile the many difficulties and contradictions.
Very simply: John 1:1 "Was with AND was God" Let me ask you a question: Can Trevor be 'with' AND 'Trevor' at the same time? (No.) God can, Trevor. It LITERALLY says so in this text. No fancy dance or delusion can remove what scripture itself says. It cannot (CANNOT) be done.
So, 'prove?' I cannot prove the earth isn't flat either, not to a conspiracy theorist or any other 'un'reasonable person. To a reasonable person? Absolutely. Grammar always makes sense: "Was with" and 'was' Trevor. This clear.
You need to explain what part of Jesus was human and what part was God when he was an infant, and then his development and then during his ministry.
I don't, He does and he did: Philippians 2:5-10, LISTEN Trevor: "...made Himself nothing, taking on the nature of a man/servant..."
Do you understand basic grammar and it's rules, what it means? This is very basic stuff and God communicates exactly this clearly.
Did he have two minds, a Divine mind that knows all things, and a human mind that was lacking in knowledge.
Does it matter? Just believe scripture. You are acting like YOU have to figure all of God out, or you won't believe anything about Him! He is God. You and I GET to be creatures and listen to what He says. I don't know what "emptied himself" entails BUT I know what it means AND it is an active verb again, Trevor.
You need to explain what the term "only begotten" actually represents and this includes when was he begotten.
He is the ONLY one that is literally the same as God Himself. Mono (One/only) and ginomai (come into being). He is the Only One that came into being, just as Philippians says. Just as ginomai is used again in John 1:14 "became" active verb.
And there are many other problems, some of which we have discussed briefly,
Agree, these aren't easy ideas, but they are CLEAR ideas, Trevor. Being CLEAR means we believe what scripture says. It may mean you don't have all your ducks in a row (have it all figured out) but as long as you know what scripture actually says, you are better off than any person who tried to tell you what 'he' thought they 'meant' because that came from his own head and you've bought it hook line and sinker. It is WAY better to have God's thoughts in your head than listening to someone else' ideas, even if they make some sort of sense to you. I'd much rather be confused by God, than taught something, however cogent, that some man put together that appears or does go against God's words. I want to be a God-follower, not some cult-man-leader-teacher follower.
including how did God the Son unite with the conception and birth of Jesus.
"Made Himself" Trevor. I don't know other than that. It is what scripture says. I want to follow God, Trevor.
Perhaps you could both examine and "enjoy" the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and see if they give a simple, consistent, clear explanation.
I do. There are several quotes by them that say He is God. They didn't get into wrestling matches in those early days over what someone thought incorrectly, at least on paper.
For my part I am slowly progressing through my reading of a chapter of Isaiah per day. I am interested in a few aspects. Is the book sequential, such as in the times of Uzziah and Jotham as co-regent in Isaiah chapters 1-5, Jotham in Isaiah 6, Ahaz in Isaiah 7-13, and most of the balance in the times of Hezekiah. I am also interested in whether Isaiah 6 is the start of his ministry, or if Isaiah 2-5 is earlier and Isaiah 6 is a special commission. I agree with this second option. I have not had much time to do additional meditation and reading in conjunction with the reading of each chapter. So far I have done research on Isaiah 1, Isaiah 4, Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 12. I started on a transcribe of an old Bible Class talk on Isaiah 1, I revised my personal notes on Isaiah 4 and refreshed by the margin rendition of Isaiah 4:2 "Heb: beauty and glory". I established a link in my Bible Program to the new commentary that I acquired. Now when I go to the KJV of Isaiah 6, then with one click I can open the new commentary at Isaiah 6. I have enjoyed reading Isaiah 12 and revised all of my notes, but only added one note on one suggestion on the meaning of "Yah" in the occurrence of Yah Yahweh in Isaiah 12:2.

The following is the KJV of Isaiah 12:1-6 with the YHWH rendered as Yahweh and an emphasis on where the words “name” and “salvation” occur:
Isaiah 12:1–6 (KJV): 1 And in that day thou shalt say, O Yahweh, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. 2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Yah Yahweh is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. 3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. 4 And in that day shall ye say, Praise Yahweh, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted. 5 Sing unto Yahweh; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth. 6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.
The whole chapter is a fitting conclusion of the section Isaiah 6:1-12:6 sometimes known as the Immanuel prophecies. It starts with the vision of Jesus in his future role of King / Priest and concludes depicting Jesus as the Holy One in the midst of Zion. It is also strongly connected with the theme of the Yahweh Name and again shows that the Name is associated with what God will accomplish and accomplish salvation. Isaiah 12:2 "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Yah Yahweh is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation." quotes from Exodus 15:2 "Yahweh is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.". Isaiah 12 speaks of the future fulfillment of the Yahweh Name at the beginning of the 1000 years.

Kind regards
Trevor
I like Isaiah as well. You are correct also, I believe, that Isaiah isn't organized like other books. If it helps, think "Themes" recurring, but be careful not to listen to just a man (me). Read it and see if you don't see that pattern immerging. It isn't written in stone, it is just what I observe, as have others before me. It is wholly challengeable because it is coming from me, but I think/believe Isaiah wrote like a song, with repeating crescendos and chorus type theme.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
I like Isaiah as well. You are correct also, I believe, that Isaiah isn't organized like other books. If it helps, think "Themes" recurring, but be careful not to listen to just a man (me). Read it and see if you don't see that pattern immerging. It isn't written in stone, it is just what I observe, as have others before me. It is wholly challengeable because it is coming from me, but I think/believe Isaiah wrote like a song, with repeating crescendos and chorus type theme.
I appreciate your comments on Isaiah. Another favourite section is what has been called the four servant songs. Like the wings of the Seraphim, I understand that these four songs are progressive, covering four stages in the ministry of Jesus. I especially like the exposition of one of these songs and stages in John 12. They had some shadow fulfilment in Hezekiah, but the reality is in Jesus. I am not interested in wrestling on the Trinity as this has been done numerous times and in numerous threads and this will save us much time and many words. I will hold onto my "Yahweh Name" understanding, a theme throughout Scripture and gives a smooth transition from Yahweh to God the Father.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Idolater

Christe Eleison
. . . the reality is in Jesus. I am not interested in wrestling on the Trinity as this has been done numerous times and in numerous threads and this will save us much time and many words. I will hold onto my "Yahweh Name" understanding, a theme throughout Scripture and gives a smooth transition from Yahweh to God the Father.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

From the Wikipedia today:
"Joshua is a given name derived from the Hebrew יהושע‎ (Yehoshua), prominently belonging to Joshua, an early Hebrew leader of the Exodus period who has a major role in several books of the Bible. The name was a common alternative form of the name יֵשׁוּעַ‎ yēšūă which corresponds to the Greek spelling Ἰησοῦς (Iesous), from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.​
"Word/name Hebrew (יהושע‎ Yehoshua)​
"Meaning "YHWH (The LORD) is salvation"​

So Jesus means "Yahweh is salvation", which is why He is named Jesus, "for He shall save...", but what Matthew 1:21 says isn't "for Yahweh shall save...", but "for He (Jesus!) shall save...."

Verse 22, "all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet".

And then verse 23 "they shall call His (Jesus's!) name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God (Yahweh!) with us."

So "Yahweh with us" is "fulfilled", and "Yahweh is salvation" (the name Jesus).

Question: Who is "the Lord" in verse 22?

Is it Yahweh? Or is it Jesus? You see how either way, that Jesus is Yahweh.

Thanks.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings idolater,
Question: Who is "the Lord" in verse 22? Is it Yahweh? Or is it Jesus? You see how either way, that Jesus is Yahweh.
The Lord in v22 is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. If you consider Posts #1 and #2 and Post #141 on the top of Page 8 the development of the Yahweh Name is in and through Jesus, the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Idolater

Christe Eleison
Greetings idolater,

The Lord in v22 is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. If you consider Posts #1 and #2 and Post #141 on the top of Page 8 the development of the Yahweh Name is in and through Jesus, the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor
Right. So I hope you're seeing, because it's very plain by now, that there are passages of Scripture that are consistent with Jesus being Yahweh. And there are passages that are not inconsistent with Jesus not being Yahweh. And so what we have here is a Mexican standoff. You believe Jesus isn't Yahweh, and Catholics believe He is Yahweh. There isn't any arbiter between us, nobody can resolve the dispute. It would be clever and convenient if Yahweh, rather than only giving us a Scripture, would have also given us someone who can judge between varying readings of His Scripture, and I propose that He did in fact do that, He did set apart men to do this, and I propose that those men are the Apostles.

So if we know what the Apostles taught, then we can know what Yahweh wants us to know, with the certainty of those like us who study diligently the Scripture, combined with comparing what we discern from the Scripture, with what the Apostles taught on the matter as well, and wherever we diverge from the Apostolic view, we correct our interpretation to match the Apostles'.

Is it possible to know what the Apostles taught about whether or not Jesus is Yahweh? Did they weigh in one way or another on this matter?

Thanks again.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again idolater.
Is it possible to know what the Apostles taught about whether or not Jesus is Yahweh? Did they weigh in one way or another on this matter?
My understanding is based upon what I have tried to explain in Posts #1 and #2 and Post #141 on the top of Page 8. I am not interested in discussing what you suggest if you do not consider these posts. I suggest that these posts are a partial key to unlock this subject of the Yahweh Name and how Jesus represents and incorporates this Name, so your "whether or not Jesus is Yahweh?" is not black or white from my perspective. My posts also answer in part the faulty reasoning and syllogisms of Trinitarians. I have discussed many passages that Trinitarians use, and I will not be repeating this. Feel free to post your matter, but I may not respond.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Idolater

Christe Eleison
Greetings again idolater.

My understanding is based upon what I have tried to explain in Posts #1 and #2 and Post #141 on the top of Page 8. I am not interested in discussing what you suggest if you do not consider these posts. I suggest that these posts are a partial key to unlock this subject of the Yahweh Name and how Jesus represents and incorporates this Name, so your "whether or not Jesus is Yahweh?" is not black or white from my perspective. My posts also answer in part the faulty reasoning and syllogisms of Trinitarians. I have discussed many passages that Trinitarians use, and I will not be repeating this. Feel free to post your matter, but I may not respond.

Kind regards
Trevor
I never saw where in any of those posts you mention or in any of your other posts, what your thoughts were on the Apostles as the authorized arbiters of what we should believe as believers in Christ and in God and as honest and unbiased Bible students. Did I miss it? Maybe I did not understand, but I just didn't think you addressed this, and the reason I'm bringing it up is because if the Apostles are authorized arbiters then it would seem relevant to ask if they have taught anything on this matter. I'm sure you agree, though it is a conditional ("if") statement.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Idolater,
I never saw where in any of those posts you mention or in any of your other posts, what your thoughts were on the Apostles as the authorized arbiters of what we should believe as believers in Christ and in God and as honest and unbiased Bible students.
I consider the Bible as a whole the authority on the whole subject and any subject for that matter 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Where can you find the Apostles arbitrating on the subject of the Seraphim which appear by direct mention only in Isaiah 6?

the reason I'm bringing it up is because if the Apostles are authorized arbiters then it would seem relevant to ask if they have taught anything on this matter.
Even though I do not endorse your premise, I am not sure that you will accept the Apostolic teaching on this subject. For example it appears in the following as underlined and in particular the portion in bold:
1 Corinthians 15:20–28 (KJV): 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

So I will state again: My understanding is based upon what I have tried to explain in Posts #1 and #2 and Post #141 on the top of Page 8. I will also add what I said in Post #180 on Page 9 where I quote Isaiah 12:1-6 and added a few brief comments. The Yahweh theme is also revealed in Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and John 1:14 and the many NT Scriptures that teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God by birth and character and the many NT teachings that state that we need to partake of the transforming power of the Word of God so that we can become children of God, and Sons of God in character. The ultimate revelation of the Yahweh Name is that there is One God, and this One God is God the Father. This teaching that God is The Father is constantly taught and endorsed by the Apostles.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
I quote Isaiah 12:1-6 and added a few brief comments. The Yahweh theme is also revealed in Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and John 1:14 and the many NT Scriptures that teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God by birth and character and the many NT teachings that state that we need to partake of the transforming power of the Word of God so that we can become children of God, and Sons of God in character. The ultimate revelation of the Yahweh Name is that there is One God, and this One God is God the Father. This teaching that God is The Father is constantly taught and endorsed by the Apostles.

Kind regards
Trevor
What do you make of Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

It is odd, even in explanation from Jews I've read, that He will be called "Everlasting Father." Isaiah was not bothered here with the equivocation but as I've ever said, such forces a Triune-kind of understanding (why most of us are due to it). While I absolutely agree with Arians/Unitarians that the Son is not the Father (and any other idea you give straight from scripture), it may help in the future to realize we genuinely embrace half of our 'arian' (one) name and do see distinction (hence 'tri). It is a legitimately genuine biblical position because, and for instance, when it comes to Isaiah 9:6 We simply believe it. How, we don't know. It simply forces and idea as much of scripture does. John 1:1 does exactly the same.

You might enjoy this. This one is one of my favorites:
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
What do you make of Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
This passage is speaking of Jesus in his future role as King / Priest of the Age to come, the 1000 years, the anticipated son of David. I understand that the word "olahm" (without looking at any reference material as I am on my tablet), relates to a period of time, not necessarily everlasting, and I have heard the expression "a hidden period" in the sense the start and end is not defined. I accept that this period of time will be the 1000 year kingdom and Jesus will be the spiritual father Isaiah 8:18 of all the faithful of that period. If we translated this as "the father of the age to come" we could be close to the meaning. Similarly "mighty God" may be a title speaking of the fact that all power will be delegated to Jesus in that era. The word "el" in this phrase is not necessarily God, but Divine power.
You might enjoy this. This one is one of my favorites:
I like the piece of music and words and marvel at Handel's Messiah, but I prefer the classical music rendition as I am not in favour of modern music derived from loud rock and roll with plenty of noisy instruments rather than an orchestra.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

Lon

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,

This passage is speaking of Jesus in his future role as King / Priest of the Age to come, the 1000 years, the anticipated son of David. I understand that the word "olahm" (without looking at any reference material as I am on my tablet), relates to a period of time, not necessarily everlasting, and I have heard the expression "a hidden period" in the sense the start and end is not defined. I accept that this period of time will be the 1000 year kingdom and Jesus will be the spiritual father Isaiah 8:18 of all the faithful of that period. If we translated this as "the father of the age to come" we could be close to the meaning. Similarly "mighty God" may be a title speaking of the fact that all power will be delegated to Jesus in that era. The word "el" in this phrase is not necessarily God, but Divine power.
El most often applies to God. As "El Gabor" it means Almighty thus "God" is necessary as the translation. Those who translated, did so correctly here.
I like the piece of music and words and marvel at Handel's Messiah, but I prefer the classical music rendition as I am not in favour of modern music derived from loud rock and roll with plenty of noisy instruments rather than an orchestra.

Kind regards
Trevor
I like the old and the new versions. What I most liked in the 'modern' rendition is 1) that Ralph Carmichael orchestrated the whole of it and produced it and 2) about 2:00 the harmony is impeccable. 3) I like all music styles if they bring glory to God and this one certainly does.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Lon,
El most often applies to God. As "El Gabor" it means Almighty thus "God" is necessary as the translation. Those who translated, did so correctly here.
The other occurrences of El help to define what the word actually means.
Genesis 31:29 (KJV): It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
Psalm 36:6 (KJV): Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast.
Proverbs 3:27 (KJV): Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.

El is also considered to be the basis of Eloah and Elohim, but some disagree.

So when applied to God, He is the all-powerful Deity, the source of all power.
Psalm 90:1–2 (KJV): 1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Isaiah 45:22 (KJV): Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.


But when we come to Isaiah 9:6, is it speaking of this One Power, from everlasting?
Isaiah 9:6 (KJV): For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
No, it speaks of a child that was to be born who would inherit the Throne of David and whatever the meaning of the Hebrew, he would wield Divine power.

This power was to be given to Jesus.
Matthew 28:18 (KJV): And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
If this power is given to Jesus, then it has been given to him by God the Father, El, the source of all power.

I like the old and the new versions. What I most liked in the 'modern' rendition is 1) that Ralph Carmichael orchestrated the whole of it and produced it and 2) about 2:00 the harmony is impeccable. 3) I like all music styles if they bring glory to God and this one certainly does.
I like the sound and accompaniment of violins and a few wind instruments, possibly a quiet classical guitar, but not modern music. I also do not like the focus on one singer as in bands, usually long haired young singers. In our meeting we have only piano accompaniment by three pianists, as our organ player has retired to the north coast. Each of these have different unique qualities or abilities. We mainly have the traditional hymns in our meeting and a few anthems. I have no musical abilities.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
You're in denial.

Moses was not made God.

He was made AS God TO PHARAOH.

That's what the Bible says.



Thomas said: "The Lord of me, and the God of me."

Answer the question:
Was Thomas committing idolatry by calling Jesus his God? Or was Jesus God and Thomas was recognizing Him as such?

Those are the only two possibilities.
KJV. Exodus 7:1 is correct, the other versions that add the word "as" are later attempts to twist the obvious truth
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Rev 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
🤔
And that proves what?
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Don't desire to do so. Elohim doesn't mean YHWH. Though Elohim most often means God alone, it is broad in meaning. The Greek word is not. It leaves you, frankly, special pleading one unrelated passage to another simply because of a thought in your head. As 'brilliant' as you think you are, the idea here, from your head (and the head of all Unitarians) is completely assailable.

ESPECIALLY when I've proved above, it is from your own head and not scripture. YOU made a connection. YOU did. I simply read each separate, AS THEY APPEAR IN SCRIPTURE. YOU placed them together. YOU did. That is completely assailable.

One has naught to do with the other, as I've shown. YOU placed them together. YOU did. From YOUR head. They are not portrayed together in scripture. YOU are responsible for what you choose to believe from your own head. It is literally why every cult member runs to another scripture instead of dealing with the one an orthodox Christian brings to the table. Why? Listen, please: BECAUSE IT IS FROM YOUR OWN HEAD!!! Do you grasp this? The only connection isn't in scripture, they are separate in scripture. They are connected IN YOUR HEAD.
God made Moses to be god to Pharaoh.

None of your fancy footwork will change that
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Don't worry about me. I have had to change a lot of thinking once I took an honest look at scripture, including rejecting the trinity.

Well, it wasn't honest rejecting the Trinity.

But I do believe you were convinced by false teaching, which caused you to change your thinking.

Now answer my question.

Who do you think is speaking in Revelation 21:7?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
KJV. Exodus 7:1 is correct, the other versions that add the word "as" are later attempts to twist the obvious truth

Did you notice that I didn't actually quote the verse when I said that?

I recognize that the verse does not say "as."

I'm simply trying to get you to recognize the figure of speech that was being used!

In other words, God making Moses God to Pharaoh IS NOT LITERAL!
 
Top