The Trinity made easy

[civic]

YHWH (יהוה)
Seen, yet not seen.

Not seen.
Exodus 33:18-23 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.”
...“you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
(ויאמר לא תוכל לראת את-פני כי לא-יראני האדם וחי)
...and while my glory passes by... but my face shall not be seen.”

Yet seen
Exodus 33:11 Thus YHWH (יהוה) used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.
(וגבר יהוה אל-משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל-רעהו)

Seen by: Hagar
ותקרא שם-יהוה הדבר אליה אתה אל ראי כי אמרה הגם הלם ראיתי אחרי ראי
Genesis 16:7-14
The Angel of YHWH (מלאך יהוה) found her...

And he said, “Hagar...
The Angel of YHWH (מלאך יהוה) also said to her,
“I will surely multiply your offspring...”

Hagar recognised that it was God speaking to her.

So she called the name of YHWH (יהוה) who spoke to her,
“You are a God of seeing,” for she said,
“Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.
” Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi (באר לחי ראי)
Seen by: Abraham

Genesis 22:11-12, 13-14, 15-16, 17–18
The Angel of YHWH (מלאך יהוה) speaks to Abraham:

Malakh YHWH (יהוה) called to [Abraham]... He said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.

The Angel of YHWH (מלאך יהוה) identifies himself as YHWH (יהוה)

...the Angel of YHWH (מלאך יהוה) called to Abraham a second time... and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares YHWH (יהוה), because you ... have not withheld your son, your only son, ...I will greatly bless you... because you have obeyed my voice.”

Whose voice?

The one speaking - the Angel of YHWH (מלאך יהוה), who is YHWH (יהוה)

Genesis 18-19

Genesis 18 begins by saying YHWH (יהוה) appeared to Abraham (וירא אליו יהוה).
Genesis 18:2 tells us how YHWH (יהוה) appeared to him.

He raised his eyes (וישא עיניו) and saw three men (וירא והנה שלשה אנשים).

It is interesting that in Genesis 18:3 he addresses one of the men using the title Adonay (אדנָ֗י) reserved only for YHWH (אדנָ֗י אם-נא מצאתי חן בעיניך אל-נא תעבר מעל עבדך)

And we know he is addressing one of the men because it's all masculine singular.

It's only in Genesis 18:4-5 that he addresses all three (רחצו רגליכם והשענו).

So in this introduction we are informed that

YHWH appeared to Abraham.

Of the three men Abraham addressed,

one is Adonay (אדנָ֗י), a title reserved exclusively for YHWH.

The three remain under the tree and are entertained by Abraham (Genesis 18:8).

(ויקח חמאה וחלב ובן-הבקר אשר עשה ויתן לפניהם והוא עמד עליהם תחת העץ ויאכלו)

They ask where Sarah might be and then one of them, YHWH (יהוה) speaks in Genesis 18:9 and says he will return the following year. (ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך ויאמר הנה באהל)

We know it's YHWH because Genesis 21:1-2 tells us

"So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the appointed time of which God had spoken to him."

Sarah was listening to this conversation from the tent.

Who was she listening to?

The three men under the tree,

One of whom was Adonay (אדנָ֗י).

When she laughed at what God had just said to Abraham, the identity of Adonay was made plain in Genesis 18:13,

"YHWH (יהוה) said to Abraham..." (ויאמר יהוה אל-אברהם)

The three men got up to go in Genesis 18:16

and Abraham walked with them (ויקמו משם האנשים וישקפו ואברהם הלך עמם).

YHWH (יהוה) spoke again from Genesis 18:17 (ויהוה אמר וינר יהוה).

Genesis 18:22 tells us that:

The men turned away towards Sodom (ויפנו משם האנשים וילכו סדמה) but Abraham stayed with YHWH (יהוה) (ואברהם עודנו עמד לפמני יהוה)

How do we know only two left?

Because Genesis 19:1 tells us that two messengers (שני המלאכים שני) arrived at Sodom.

Where was the third?

Back with Abraham obviously.

After some haggling about Sodom YHWH (יהוה) eventually left and Abraham returned to his tent (וילך יהוה).

God walked off to join the others.

YHWH /Adonay (יהוה/אדנָ֗י) is mentioned then in Genesis 19:17 outside Sodom where he has rejoined the other two (ויאמר המלט).

Lot answered Adonay (אדנָ֗י), "... no my Lord..." ( אל-נא אדנָ֗י).

Genesis 19:19 contains words in the masculine singular.

Lot pleads with YHWH /Adonay (יהוה/אדנָ֗י) .
Then in Genesis 19:24

YHWH (יהוה), one of the men, addressed earlier with the divine title Adonay (אדנָ֗י) is described as... YHWH (יהוה).

And YHWH (יהוה) standing there causes fire to rain down from YHWH (יהוה) in heaven.





YHWH (יהוה) appeared to Abraham as Adonay (אדנָ֗י), one of the three men, to speak about the promised son and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. His appearance is human and according to Genesis 19:24 he is separate from YHWH (יהוה) in heaven.

And YHWH (יהוה) - subject of the sentence

...caused it to rain (המטיר - hifil, causative sense) on Sodom and Gomorrah...

from YHWH (יהוה) - מאת יהוה - direct object את of the sentence with preposition מן pointing to source)

...out of heaven (מן השמים - and the origin).

YHWH (יהוה) is the subject

standing and speaking with Lot

and he causes it to rain fire etc

from another source, heaven

and another object who is also YHWH (יהוה).

The one YHWH (יהוה) is the subject of the sentence

who directs another called YHWH (יהוה)

who is in another location (השמים) to cause the action.

Subject (יהוה) - Action: caused rain (המטיר) - Object and source: (מאת יהוה) - Location (מן השמים)


There is a difference in the use of Adonay in the Tanakh.

In Genesis 18:3 it reads: ויאמר אדנָ֗י אם-נא נמצאתי חן בעיניך אל-נא תעבר מעל עבדך
Adonay (אדנָ֗י) is the subject and has singular pronouns associated with it (בעיניך, עבדך - 'your' singular) and a singular verb (תעבר)
Whereas, in Genesis 19:2 it reads

ויאמר הנה נא-אדנָ֗י סורו נא אל-בית עבדכם ולינו ורחצו רגליכם יהשכמתם והלכתם לדרככם ויאמרו לא כי ברחוב נלין

Adonay (אדנַ֗י), pointed with a patach, is the subject and has plural pronouns ( דרככם עבדכם רגליכם השכנתם ) and plural verbs (לינו סורו רחצו).

So in Genesis 18:3 Adonay (אדנָ֗י) is sort of a plural of majesty (like elohim [אלהים]) and is used with the masculine singular. It is always and only used of YHWH (יהוה) in this way and is translated Lord, whereas in Genesis 19:2 Adonay (אדנַ֗י) is a straight plural used with plural pronouns and verbs and is translated 'lords'.


Seen by: Jacob
ויקרא יעקב שם המקום פניאל כי-ראיתי אלהים פנים אל פנים ותנצל נפשי
Genesis 32:24-30
...Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him...
When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob,
[the man] touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with [the man]...
you have striven with God...
Then Jacob asked [the man],
“Please tell me your name.”
But [the man] said, “Why is it that you ask my name?”
And there [the man] blessed him...
So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying,
“For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

Who is Malakh YHWH?

fireprior.com

Yes its a Theophany/Christophany which is the Son who is God and not the Father who appeared to them in the O.T. called God/YHWH.

 

[civic]

BTW, I am not challenging that no one saw God. So, you do not have to keep trying to prove it.

They did see and hear God in the OT but it was not the Father as Jesus testified- it was the Eternal Son.

 

[Johann]

Yes its a Theophany/Christophany which is the Son who is God and not the Father who appeared to them in the O.T. called God/YHWH.

Might shock you but the Malack is YHVH-read my post again-and I always share the source-for the edification of other members.
Again-some do word studies-nothing wrong with that-but how many are on a journey doing studies on the syntax and grammars in both Hebrew and Greek?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 The Beginning
In [the]G1722 Prep En Ἐν N1 beginningG746 N-DFS archē ἀρχῇ wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word,G3056 N-NMS Logos, Λόγος, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ WordG3056 N-NMS Logos Λόγος wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν withG4314 Prep pros πρὸς -G3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν God,G2316 N-AMS Theon, Θεόν, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ GodG2316 N-NMS Theos Θεὸς wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word.G3056 N-NMS Logos. Λόγος.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten one from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Meyer

(1) ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἐν ἀρχῇ is here used relatively to creation, as in Gen_1:1 and Pro_8:23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι; cf. 1Jn_1:1. Consequently even in the time of Theophylact it was argued that this clause only asserts that the Logos was older than Adam. But this is to overlook the ἦν.

The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.

In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 (the article is absent because ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually an adverbial expression).—ὁ λόγος.

The term Logos appears as early as Heraclitus to denote the principle which maintains order in the world (see passages in Ritter and Preller). Among the Stoics the word was similarly used, as the equivalent of the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Æn., vi., 724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14–21) uses the term σπερματικὸς λόγος to express the generative principle or creative force in nature. The term was familiar to Greek philosophy.

In Hebrew thought there was felt the need for some term to express God, not in His absolute being, but in His manifestation and active connection with the world. In the O. T. “the Angel of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” are used for this purpose.

In the Apocryphal books and the Targums “the word of Jehovah” is similarly used.

These two streams of thought were combined by Philo, who has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of the Logos as the expression of God or God in expression (see Drummond’s Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses it to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God. Irrespective of all speculations which had gathered around the term, John now proceeds to make known the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the Babis; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.)

(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse.

It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12.

This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
EX-Gr.

We have so much information-and it goes unheeded.
Shalom brother.
J.

 

[civic]

Might shock you but the Malack is YHVH-read my post again-and I always share the source-for the edification of other members.
Again-some do word studies-nothing wrong with that-but how many are on a journey doing studies on the syntax and grammars in both Hebrew and Greek?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 The Beginning
In [the]G1722 Prep En Ἐν N1 beginningG746 N-DFS archē ἀρχῇ wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word,G3056 N-NMS Logos, Λόγος, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ WordG3056 N-NMS Logos Λόγος wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν withG4314 Prep pros πρὸς -G3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν God,G2316 N-AMS Theon, Θεόν, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ GodG2316 N-NMS Theos Θεὸς wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word.G3056 N-NMS Logos. Λόγος.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten one from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Meyer

(1) ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἐν ἀρχῇ is here used relatively to creation, as in Gen_1:1 and Pro_8:23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι; cf. 1Jn_1:1. Consequently even in the time of Theophylact it was argued that this clause only asserts that the Logos was older than Adam. But this is to overlook the ἦν.

The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.

In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 (the article is absent because ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually an adverbial expression).—ὁ λόγος.

The term Logos appears as early as Heraclitus to denote the principle which maintains order in the world (see passages in Ritter and Preller). Among the Stoics the word was similarly used, as the equivalent of the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Æn., vi., 724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14–21) uses the term σπερματικὸς λόγος to express the generative principle or creative force in nature. The term was familiar to Greek philosophy.

In Hebrew thought there was felt the need for some term to express God, not in His absolute being, but in His manifestation and active connection with the world. In the O. T. “the Angel of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” are used for this purpose.

In the Apocryphal books and the Targums “the word of Jehovah” is similarly used.

These two streams of thought were combined by Philo, who has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of the Logos as the expression of God or God in expression (see Drummond’s Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses it to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God. Irrespective of all speculations which had gathered around the term, John now proceeds to make known the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the Babis; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.)

(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse.

It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12.

This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
EX-Gr.

We have so much information-and it goes unheeded.
Shalom brother.
J.

I'm not disagreeing. Its not the Father is what I'm emphasizing. Since God is Plural it was the Pre Incarnate Son who appeared to men in the O.T, identified as YHWH and not the Father.

 

[Johann]

I'm not disagreeing. Its not the Father is what I'm emphasizing. Since God is Plural it was the Pre Incarnate Son who appeared to men in the O.T, identified as YHWH and not the Father.

Don't fret my brother-I know we are on the same page and admire your pathos for the cause of our Lord Christ Jesus.
J.

 

[Johann]

You are unable to differentiate between between the literal and the figurative.

Brother-don't assume-can you show me what an Imperfect is-3x-in John 1:1.
J.

 

[civic]

Don't fret my brother-I know we are on the same page and admire your pathos for the cause of our Lord Christ Jesus.
J.

you know me I don't sweat the small stuff so I'm not worried.

 

[Johann]

you know me I don't sweat the small stuff so I'm not worried.

I have read your thesis on atonement-and there is nothing more I can add-an excellent work, glory to God-and may I add, this is a very informative forum.
Johann.

 

[praise_yeshua]

lol a Christophany is the pre incarnate Son appearing to men in the O.T.

I took it as showing the Unity of God in Christ in the word Theophany. I might be wrong.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes. Like a mirror, he reflects that which is not him.

What is not him? We need more details here.

My turn to ask a question.

Have you ever wondered why there is always a pesky OF regarding Jesus’ relationship to God - servant, lamb, word, son - rather than ever IS God? What do you suppose it means?

You're making a "false" claim when you use the word "always". That is not true. Not even close.

Yes. Jesus is referenced as a servant. Like a man, you believe service makes someone "lesser" than the "person" being served. Just is carnal imaginations.

You're continually ignoring the reference to a "son". As a Father, in perfect unity, the son is an absolute mirror image of the Father.

 

[atpollard]

Might shock you but the Malack is YHVH-read my post again-and I always share the source-for the edification of other members.
Again-some do word studies-nothing wrong with that-but how many are on a journey doing studies on the syntax and grammars in both Hebrew and Greek?

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]

Joh 1:1 The Beginning
In [the]G1722 Prep En Ἐν N1 beginningG746 N-DFS archē ἀρχῇ wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word,G3056 N-NMS Logos, Λόγος, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ WordG3056 N-NMS Logos Λόγος wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν withG4314 Prep pros πρὸς -G3588 Art-AMS ton τὸν God,G2316 N-AMS Theon, Θεόν, andG2532 Conj kai καὶ GodG2316 N-NMS Theos Θεὸς wasG1510 V-IIA-3S ēn ἦν theG3588 Art-NMS ho ὁ Word.G3056 N-NMS Logos. Λόγος.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten one from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (Joh_1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col_1:15.
Meyer

(1) ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ἐν ἀρχῇ is here used relatively to creation, as in Gen_1:1 and Pro_8:23, ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι; cf. 1Jn_1:1. Consequently even in the time of Theophylact it was argued that this clause only asserts that the Logos was older than Adam. But this is to overlook the ἦν.

The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.

In the beginning, place it where you may, the Word already existed. In other words, the Logos is before time, eternal. Cf. Col_1:18 (the article is absent because ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually an adverbial expression).—ὁ λόγος.

The term Logos appears as early as Heraclitus to denote the principle which maintains order in the world (see passages in Ritter and Preller). Among the Stoics the word was similarly used, as the equivalent of the anima mundi (cf. Virgil, Æn., vi., 724). Marcus Aurelius (iv. 14–21) uses the term σπερματικὸς λόγος to express the generative principle or creative force in nature. The term was familiar to Greek philosophy.

In Hebrew thought there was felt the need for some term to express God, not in His absolute being, but in His manifestation and active connection with the world. In the O. T. “the Angel of the Lord” and “the wisdom of God” are used for this purpose.

In the Apocryphal books and the Targums “the word of Jehovah” is similarly used.

These two streams of thought were combined by Philo, who has a fairly full and explicit doctrine of the Logos as the expression of God or God in expression (see Drummond’s Philo; Siegfried’s Philo; Reville, Doctrine du Logos; Bigg’s Bampton Lec.; Hatch’s Hibbert Lec.). The word being thus already in use and aiding thoughtful men in their efforts to conceive God’s connection with the world, John takes it and uses it to denote the Revealer of the incomprehensible and invisible God. Irrespective of all speculations which had gathered around the term, John now proceeds to make known the true nature of the Logos. (Cf. The Primal Will, or Universal Reason of the Babis; Sell’s Faith of Islam, 146.)

(2) If the Word was thus in the beginning, what relation did He hold to God? Was He identical or opposed? ὁ λόγος ἦν πρός τὸν θεόν. πρός implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse.

It means more than μετά or παρά, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another. Thus in classical Greek, τήν πρός Σωκράτην συνουσίαν, and in N. T. Mar_6:3, Mat_13:56, Mar_9:19, Gal_1:18, 2Jn_1:12.

This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: “Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally”.
EX-Gr.

We have so much information-and it goes unheeded.
Shalom brother.
J.

A little more work to follow than I typically enjoy ... but very informative.
(... but probably not in the category of "trinity made easy". )

 

[Wrangler]

I have proven-from Scriptures-the absurdity of your claims

Maybe to you. The proof is seen throughout Scripture that YHWH, our father, is the only true God. Jesus said do himself. Do you know better than Jesus?

Again-no need to take excerpts of my post-Jesus Christ preexisted with YHVH

I am full on Trinitarian

On that we are in complete agreement. How many true Gods are in the Bible again; 1 or 3?

 

[Wrangler]

What is not him? We need more details here.

The whole reason Scripture describes Jesus as the form or image or son or lamb or servant OF God is because that is how you know he IS NOT God.

Joe Biden OF America means he is an agent representing America. It is not to be taken to mean Joe IS America.

If Jesus were God, why does Scripture explicitly say he is the servant of God?

Hope this helps.

 

[Johann]

A little more work to follow than I typically enjoy ... but very informative.
(... but probably not in the category of "trinity made easy". )

Thanks for making time to read brother-no, it definitely is not in the category of "Trinity" made easy-but a careful study of the Scriptures and with so many sources available-we read and believe what stands written-no need to pontificate or philosophize.

I am much more forgiving to listen to the "other side of the coin" but not when it comes to the Deity of Jesus Christ our great God and Savior-Jesus Christ.

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
Act 17:14 And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.

Shalom Achi
Johann.

 

[civic]

I have read your thesis on atonement-and there is nothing more I can add-an excellent work, glory to God-and may I add, this is a very informative forum.
Johann.

wow thanks you for your kind words and affirmation, that means allot my friend.

 

[Johann]

Maybe to you. The proof is seen throughout Scripture that YHWH, our father, is the only true God. Jesus said do himself. Do you know better than Jesus?

I am more than happy to enter into a debate with you-but not with unintelligent questions-veering off topic.

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

"our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" Jesus is here unambiguously given the title of God!

The Caesars claimed similar titles (i.e., Ptolemy I). The terms "appearing" (which contextually relates to Christ's Second Coming) and "great" are never used of YHWH. Also, there is no ARTICLE with "savior." The syntax of Koine Greek supports this as a title for Jesus because there is only one ARTICLE with both NOUNS, thus linking them together (see NET Bible).

Jesus is divine (cf. John 1:1; 8:57-58; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; 2 Thess. 1:12; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1,11; 1 John 5:20). In the OT the Messiah was expected to be a divinely empowered person like the Judges. His deity surprised everyone.

-and from now on I will not reveal my sources and links-since this goes unheeded.

I will be forgiving toward you re the Trinity-but not when the Deity of Christ is under attack-the world over.
Shalom
Johann.

 

[Johann]

wow thanks you for your kind words and affirmation, that means allot my friend.

Some more material-from a Messianic Jewish perspective-a long read. Michael Brown.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 2

I am continuing the response to some of the point that Yisroel Blumenthal has raised in his work Supplement to Contra Brown and I hope to ad...

answering-judaism.blogspot.com

@civic I have decided not to reveal my links and sources to all and sundry-since it goes unnoticed-only to those who ask, would that be OK?

Thanks brother.
Johann.

 

[civic]

Some more material-from a Messianic Jewish perspective-a long read. Michael Brown.

Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 2

I am continuing the response to some of the point that Yisroel Blumenthal has raised in his work Supplement to Contra Brown and I hope to ad...

answering-judaism.blogspot.com

@civic I have decided not to reveal my links and sources to all and sundry-since it goes unnoticed-only to those who ask, would that be OK?

Thanks brother.
Johann.

Thats a question for @Administrator

 

[Johann]

Thats a question for @Administrator

Could you explain this to him?
The only source I will give credit to is Utley.
An aside-we have freedom of speech and the world seems to still be in darkness when it comes to the Scriptures.
Thanks.
J.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The whole reason Scripture describes Jesus as the form or image or son or lamb or servant OF God is because that is how you know he IS NOT God.

That is your claim absent evidence to establish that claim.

Joe Biden OF America means he is an agent representing America. It is not to be taken to mean Joe IS America.

That is rather simple rational that doesn't adequately represent the substance of Jesus Christ. Which is why I asked you about Jesus claiming to perfectly represent the Father.

Is Jesus really no more than "Joe Biden/America" to you? What about your future Messiah? Will that person be different?

If Jesus were God, why does Scripture explicitly say he is the servant of God?

Hope this helps.

He represented the Father among humanity. That doesn't mean that He was much more than just a servant. Servant is just part of the description.