Peterlag correctly affirmed the "Lord" is in reference to Jesus in Joel 2:31.
Pay attention.
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Peterlag correctly affirmed the "Lord" is in reference to Jesus in Joel 2:31.
Pay attention.
Runningman
Active Member
That isn't what Peter said. You asked him if Joel 2:31 refers to Jesus, but YHWH is not Jesus which is something Peter knows already. The full context is regarding end times prophecy which Jesus is involved in obviously, but the matter at hand is that Jesus isn't the "LORD" YHWH.
You need to pay attention a whole lot more.
Peterlag
Active Member
To find one spot in the whole New Testament that calls God the Lord and they jump on it and disregard the entire gospel of Jesus Christ. I wrote a whole book on Jesus Christ. A whole darn book and I can't get these guys past second grade to even consider looking at who Jesus became when he was raised out from among the dead. If it were not for you to come on here every once and a while to interact with me. Then I would have started myself on fire and thrown myself in front of a mack truck just out of the frustration they put me through. Having to look this verse up for them and then check this Greek word and on and on all over what I already know is nonsense. Oh wait... wait I know. I forgot. I got a gun right here.
Get a hold of yourself.
Peterlag
Active Member
Yeah so what's your point? Those above are all still in the future.
The name-YHVH(Jehovah) is at Joel--Not LORD in a real bible. The name-YHVH(Jehovah) is quoted at Acts 2:21-Rom 10:13, not Lord as found in the altered translations that mislead into darkness.
Does "Lord" always refer to Jesus in the Book of Joel?
Runningman
Active Member
LoL bro don't worry I know how frustrating they can be. At first I was a little disarmed as well, around the time I first started coming here, and bewildered to find all of these people who say they are Christians completely rejecting Scripture, but I am not slow. I remember things people don't realize I have locked away in my memory, and thank God the Father who has blessed me with that.
But don't let them get under your skin. Remember, at some point it doesn't matter what you say to them. Thy have their religion and their version of what they believe is true. The real Gospel and real Christianity just simply isn't for everyone. Those who have a heart and soul predisposed to loving the truth, even at the expense and inconvenience of their own life will get it; others simply won't get it or they will hate it and reject it. I would also add, this is prime rocky soil here.
If you're looking for converts, you probably won't find them here. Actually, the the more you debunk them the more entrenched, radicalized, and fringe they will become in a desperate search to keep their idol. I say, "Good!" There is nothing attractive about a fanatical, ill-tempered, zealot. Eventually, they will do all of the work for us by repelling would-be seakers into Trinitarianism.
Last edited:
Classic!
I'm sorry. I would have hoped real Christianity was for you.
You have spent over a year here with a chance to provide a convincing argument against the Triune essence of God but have failed to make one. You still get an audience of a sort such that you can still make that killer argument when you find one.
Share your secret knowledge that no one has known except the gnostic clans. Somehow those clans have a secret decoder ring that denies the broad testimony of scripture and excludes the passages that speak of the divinity of Christ. Indeed there is not anything attractive about a fanatical, ill-tempered zealot, but we endure with those to some extent since this is an apologetics forum.
Really? I guess that is your anti-evangelistic zeal that thinks the truth will repel people.
Still, in the interest of general humanity, we can hope that Peterlag can remain protected and have a sound mind.
Peterlag
Active Member
I will try to stay calm.
Peterlag
Active Member
I am not an expert on the Old Testament. Just the New Testament. And in the New Testament Jesus is the Lord. Others might be called the Lord including God Himself. But that does not take away from Jesus being both Lord and Christ. I write it this way...
Lord: Mighty, principal ruler. He who assumes and exercises the power, while really possesses it as unlimited. Refers to Christ, and denotes his position of master in relation to his people, as he who has ownership and authority over them. Has the right and authority to institute, and command. (6)
Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The title "Lord" (Greek, Kurious) as Kittel's observes, means "one who has full authority." In the Old Testament, God alone had "full authority" and filled both functions of Creator (Elohim) and Lord (Jehovah). Jehovah is used in connection with men with whom He has entered into some kind of covenant, starting with Adam in Genesis 2:7, and including Israel. Several redemptive characteristics and divine functions are associated with the sacred name Jehovah (Yahweh), including giving righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6), healing (Exodus 15:26), sanctification (Exodus 31:13), providing (Genesis 22:14), protection from enemies (Exodus 17:15), giving peace (Judges 6:24), and being continually present (Ezekiel 48:35). These functions can be assumed and/or delegated by persons having the authority. God has delegated many, if not all of these divine functions to Jesus Christ to share in as "Lord."
6 E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 466, 467.
Who determined this?
Peterlag
Active Member
God still has made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ and God was the Lord before He made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
Runningman
Active Member
I was hopng there were real Christians here as well, but thank you for appologizing. I accept your apology. It has been nice to meet @Peterlag and 1 or 2 others.
I don't need to demonstrate the trinity is plausible to show how it is not plausible. So far, no one on the forum has quoted a single verse that defines God as a trinity. That makes it quite easy for me. Now all I need to do is just show you all what the Bible says. If you don't believe the Bible, yet claim to be a Christian, it's on you. This is why I am always careful to make sure you know you're a Trinitarain, not an actual follower of Jesus. If you followed Jesus you would worship, pray to, and serve his God, the only true God, the heavenly Father, as Jesus and everyone else taught.
Exactly. So cool it with the Trinitarian propaganda.
I'm evangelistic.
He's fine.
I cannot cater to hyper-literalists who expect Jesus to be explicit in his divinity to Pharisees who wanted to kill him. I guess you would have hoped Jesus died before his time. So there is wisdom in Jesus not going around saying "I am of the divine Yahweh." But of course he was saying this, just not in the form you treat as valid of that claim.
If I'm not a valid follower of Jesus, there is no Jesus to be followed. Then you are likewise condemned to futility as you think I am.
I still await for some argument from you to prove your denial of the Triune essence of God. It would seem like you could have something after a year of being around here. You are not up to the challenge though.
Runningman
Active Member
Jesus only ever identified God as the Father. John 17:1-3
Jesus only ever taught to worship the Father. John 4:23,24
Jesus only ever taught to pray to the Father. Matthew 6:6,9
Jesus only ever taught to fast for the Father. Matthew 7:16-18
Jesus taught his disciples that their God is the Father as well. John 20:17
Jesus taught that only those who believe in his God will receive eternal life. John 5:24
Jesus only taught that he would receive his life back, via the command of the Father, in John 10:18
This is the core of who God is. Jesus constantly pointed the way to God with everything he said and did. He made no mention of a Trinity. From everything I have seen so far, 99% of the people I have talked to on this forum strongly disagree, even to the point of bitterness, with what Jesus taught about God.
We already know that Jesus came in the form of a man given authority by the Father. There is no problem with Jesus being the Son of God, as an expression of his divinity in the Godhead, while speaking like this. And again you miss John 17:5 that speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the world existed. That is the obvious type of thing you miss and leaves your arguments insufficient. I have not heard how you explain away verse 5.
The basic aspect of faith also is that people are called to trust the message through the Son. He hardly shared that he was the Messiah because he was not having people follow him according to the flesh. If they realized he was of the Godhead, they would follow all the more strongly in recognizing his divinity. At the same time, others would still kill him for blasphemy for claiming the things only God can do. But, in his wisdom he prevented this from happening too early. And they did not care what the implications were of killing the Son of God.
Last edited:
Similar threads
