(This is a question I decided to take up posted on Answering Muslims.)
Hi this is Brianman...I am on my gap year before I study medicine, here on a spiritual journey to find my true religion.
I have some questions:
When people say Jesus is the Lord, in what way do they mean that? Do they mean he is one of the trinity when they say he is the Lord?
AND
So, where did this belief come from that Jesus is the Lord (as God)? Where was this philosophy derived from? i.e one of the disciples? Paul? Jesus' authentic words?
My response:
Brianman,
Wow, there is a lot of ground to cover as far as your questions go! I am glad, though, that you feel comfortable enough to ask.
To give context to my answer, you must understand a little about early Christianity. The first Christians were Jews. That is, Jesus was an observant Jew, and all of His followers were observant Jews. Jesus lived and taught everything according to the Jewish understanding of God, the Law, and the Prophets. Now, given that every observant Jew is a monotheist, to call someone “Lord” is a very significant thing indeed, because “Lord” is a title that people reserve for exceptional people, like nobility, heads of state, and perhaps high religious authority. Given that Jesus was not nobility, a head of state, or even an ordained Jewish rabbi, and that no rabbi was ordinarily called “Lord,” that the Gospels would refer to Jesus as “Lord” signifies that they gave Him some exceptional amount of authority. Why did they do this?
From the outset, the Jewish public ascribed authority to Him. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt. 7:29) He was set apart from teachers and religious leaders of the Law.
Next, He went further by teaching as one who could change the Law of Moses. Read my points here (start where you see the numeral 1). At this juncture, Jesus begins to offend Jewish monotheism. Not only did Jesus lead and teach, He claimed authority to add to and change the Law, something no one can do except God alone. Jesus treads on Jewish sensibilities and blasphemes according to the Law, and it ultimately leads Him to His crucifixion.
Now, what are the options? The only thing observant Jews can do is write Jesus off as a blasphemer cursed by God. So His disciples abandoned Him, ran, and hid for their lives; however, just 50 days later, they came out boldly proclaiming that Jesus was the long-prophecied Messiah and preached worship of Him, the Lord! They claimed they and 500 others had seen Jesus alive and resurrected and began spreading this news all over Israel, Judea, and beyond. Now, there are details in the runup to these events that I have not mentioned, but the practice of worshiping Jesus began with Jesus’ own disciples, who later became the Apostles to the Christian church. The disciple Thomas is famous for his confession (after doubting the resurrection) to Jesus “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28)
What details I have not mentioned are all the ways in which the New Testament speaks of Jesus as God’s Son and the Divine Judge that determines the eternal destiny of all of humanity. In keeping to the vein of Jewish monotheism, no one can do that except God alone. A good study of the self-understanding of Jesus from the Bible should help you fill in those details.
You mentioned the Trinity. The theology of the Trinity was not formulated in the language we have today at the time of Christ or in the early church. However, the Bible makes certain these three propositions: God the Father is God. God the Son (Jesus) is God. The Holy Spirit is God. From these ideas in the New Testament, Christians had to articulate a doctrine that is both faithful to monotheism and the fact that God has revealed Himself as three persons. So that is what we have: one God who manifests as three persons. Do not be troubled if you find this hard to understand!
My best advice to you to start off, Brianman, is simply to read the New Testament. Ask a Christian to explain parts that you find you need clarification. You seem relatively unfamiliar with the content of Christianity, so I recommend that you read the book More Than a Carpenter (Josh McDowell) too, as a good introduction.
I hope I have answered some of your questions here. It’s been a pleasure!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Hello:
I just read your invitation to participate in your blog.I would love to.I often write for answeringmuslims.com as Minoria.
But to get to the point about Brianman's puzzlement with the Trinity I see it like this:it is true form a mathematical point of view.
NOT IN ORDINARY ARITHMETIC
Ahmed Deedat,the Muslim debater who had some strange ideas about Christianity(he was wrong on some technical things) said the Trinity was not true because:1+1+1=3.
WHAT IF...
What if God's being goes according to other,EQUALLY VALID math laws?Then of course the Trinity is true and possible:
1X1X1=1
infinity + infinity + infinity=infinity
Ahmed Deedat was wrong.
Welcome, Minoria! Let's hope that Brianman has the intestinal fortitude to defend his statements here.
Oh wow, thanks Letitia.
You're awesome.
I only just got access to this lol
From the outset, the Jewish public ascribed authority to Him. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt. 7:29) He was set apart from teachers and religious leaders of the Law.
Yeah I agree, these teachers and religious leaders do not compare to the prophets/messiah. This in no way indicates he is Lord God.
e went further by teaching as one who could change the Law of Moses. Read my points here (start where you see the numeral 1). At this juncture, Jesus begins to offend Jewish monotheism. Not only did Jesus lead and teach, He claimed authority to add to and change the Law, something no one can do except God alone. Jesus treads on Jewish sensibilities and blasphemes according to the Law, and it ultimately leads Him to His crucifixion.
Well to be honest, if God called for Jesus to change the law of moses, then he appointed the right man for it. This again does not indicate he is Lord God. To develop and change the laws from moses, a messenger, it makes more sense to me that someone of equivalence has been sent down to earth..Jesus the messenger messiah.
"something no one can do except God alone." - a huge jump here, like I said, it does not in anyway show that Jesus is Lord God. Remember the fact that in many places in the Bible, Jesus mentions that things he does is not his will, but the will of the Father who sent him too.
Your next paragraph talks of the crucifixion and the resurrection. They are seperate topics. Gospel of John went through 5 editing phases according to one of the best N.T scholars ever, Raymond Brown. By then, it would try to show that Jesus is divine because of the fact that Paul's teachings have been adopted.
The actual origin of Jesus becoming Lord God is this:
Ok, firstly, the Jewish teachers asked Jesus which commandment is the most important, Jesus said "The Lord your God, the Lord is One".
So, looking at this commandment, we know that Lord = God = One. Not Lord + God. But Lord = God.
However, Paul got this confused when he said "There is one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ"
We all acknowledged that he is Lord, but not Lord God. This is not what the earliest teachers (Peter, James and John) taught. They taught that he was Messiah. But Paul creates the theology of Lord + God, as you can see. And remember, this is the very starting expression of the belief that Jesus was divine. Paul wrote this well before John's gospel was completed. In fact, Paul was dead when John's gospel was completed! So, lets just look at these two definitions:
The Lord your God, the Lord is One
There is one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ
These teachings are not the same.
I need to sleep it is 1am. I will continue tommorow.
Thanks.
Hello Letitia!
Thank you for the welcome.Maybe you have not heard about this argument regarding the Trinity from a MATHEMATICAL perspective:
FRANK TIPLER and his OMEGA POINT THEORY
He is a brilliant US mathematician and physicist.I first heard about him in answeringmuslims.com.
He concentrates on the physical and mathematical nature of the universe in his OMEGA POINT theory(you can find it in Omega Point theory,wikipedia,for example).In his "Physics of Christianity",2007,he states the universe is fundamentally TRIUNE,we have:
1.First Singularity(Omega Point).
2.All-Presents Singularity and
3.Initial Singularity(beginning of BIG BANG,explosion which created the whole universe,time,space,matter,15 billion years ago).
He identifies the 3 singularities with the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.It may sound a bit strange but the mathematics and physics is solid and valid.
SO?
What I want to show is that from a MATHEMATICAL perspective a triune sytem-Trinity is possible.It is NOT anti-logic.
That is an exiting theory. Howecer, again it does not justify a triune God, but that is one conclusion that one can draw in what I call a wishful thinking manner.
The fact is, if God wanted to exist in three persons, who am I to argue about that. However, the way God has portrayed himself through all of the prophets and even through Jesus, he seems like the one being, that is greater than all. God tried to emphasise his oneness.
It would be good if you can reply to my previous comment.
Paul introduced a foundation for a different God to the one Moses etc preached, because his sense of unity ultimately goes from being 1, to 3 in one. Surely all thr prophets should have informed us of God's nature. This is the most important thing about preaching the religion. However, God was only portrayed to be a ONE God, and it even said in Psalms, "there is No God besides me".
1x1x1 is a better explanation of the trinity. But from the O.T and 4 gospels (even John on some parts), it empasises the all powerful God.
I would just like to add that, if you listen to what God has said about his nature as he has revealed it to the prophets of the past, you can conclude that it is:
1
Just 1.
No one besides him - O.T states this.
So there is no 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
Just 1....
1=1
You also stated that Thomas said "My Lord and My God"
There are problems with this. There is no evidence that the resurecction happened apart from the bible.
You cannot historically prove the resurection, but only theologically.
Seeing paranormal visions is more common, where you actually hug, touch and feel these visions. Top psychologists developed a writing for this. It is in the Dr. Bob Erhman vs Mike Licona debate.
Of couse, Paul's letters came before the gospels were written. Paul's writers were actual disciples of Paul. It is reasonable that Paul tried to make the gospel suit his theology.
So, My Lord and My God - may not have even been spoken. Mark is the earliest gospel. It doesn't have this. It is also likely that Mark was paulienised.
Also, My Lord and My God ...
Go on google and type in "Muslim Responses doubting Thomas" Sami Zataari gave a very, very logical and reasonable response anyway. Regardless, I don't think he was resurrected.
When it comes to God's own words about his own nature, why don't you just believe in that instead of adding human theology and assumptions?
There is no evidence in the Bible or O.T that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, but rather wishful thinking, trying to make the most of verses.
I would not be surprised if Jesus was portrayed as totally DIVINE and totally God in gospel of John to be honest, because Pauline doctrine was dominant then. But I have seen the major quotes that Christians tend to use to prove Jesus' divinity. But they all have a stronger reason opposing the idea that Jesus is God.
Please, tell me about "Original Sin and how it relates to Jesus' crucifixion"...This is a very, very interesting concept. Outline the main concepts about it. The very main concepts. I really want to understand this.
Brianman wrote:
Well to be honest, if God called for Jesus to change the law of moses, then he appointed the right man for it. This again does not indicate he is Lord God.
Well, if you were honest, then you wouldn't be cherrypicking what to accept and what to reject from the Bible. But after hearing so much from you, I think the question of your honesty has been pretty much settled.
If you think God can transfer divine authority to a mere man to change the Law of Moses, then you don't understand the Jewish monotheistic paradigm. You also don't realize that the "Law of Moses" isn't Moses' Law, it's God's Law. In fact, Jesus points out that Moses himself actually compromised the Law, but Jesus is the One to reveal the meaning of the Law in its fullness and intent. Jesus assumes to do all this with the power and authority of Himself and equates God's authority with His own. Don't you think it's about time you connected the dots?
Ok, firstly, the Jewish teachers asked Jesus which commandment is the most important, Jesus said "The Lord your God, the Lord is One".
Matt. 22:34-36 "Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
So, looking at this commandment, we know that Lord = God = One. Not Lord + God. But Lord = God.
However, Paul got this confused when he said "There is one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ"
We all acknowledged that he is Lord, but not Lord God. This is not what the earliest teachers (Peter, James and John) taught. They taught that he was Messiah.
Your reasoning is fraught with illogic and confusion.
(1) the word games you play sound like the kind that Jehovah's Witnesses play when they try to convince people that "Mighty God" does not mean the same as "Almighty God." Please. John 1:17-18 says in the oldest and best manuscripts available "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Here, in no uncertain terms, Jesus hasn't just seen God--he comes from God (which barrs Him from being any merely created man) and is the only begotten God.
(2) Paul is confused...Paul is this, Paul is that... Paul had the equivalent of two Ph.Ds in Judaism and spent three years after his conversion studying Jesus from Christians.
Do yourself (and us) a favor. Before you write anymore posts, read:
Isaiah 9
Isaiah 53
Daniel 7:13
Hi Minoria.
What I want to show is that from a MATHEMATICAL perspective a triune sytem-Trinity is possible.It is NOT anti-logic.
I'm glad to hear about an analogy that works out (Omega Point). It could be interesting!
The Trinity is already logical philosophically. There are no internal contradictions to the idea that God is one God manifested in three persons. Anyone saying otherwise has failed the test of rigor.
[part 1]
Brianman,
As I've stated before, it is very apparent you do not understand the Jewish story nor the Christian story, or you would not be saying such ignorant and erroneous things, like 'all the gospel writers were disciples of Paul.'
You know this isn't true, for you contradict yourself above by pointing out that Paul was probably dead by the time John wrote the Gospel According to John. In fact, there is a reason why Paul was known to the Apostle to the Gentiles, indicating that he spent very little time with Jesus' other disciples, like Peter and James and John. The two times Paul is recorded to meet with Peter was to make sure that the gospel message they preached was the same. In addition, we are told that Paul spent time only with Peter and James on their first meeting. We have no indication that he met the other 11 (well, make that potentially 10--James, the son of Zebedee was martyred in AD 44). At any rate, Paul's visits with other Apostles were short and extremely limited. Instead, Paul's time was spent in Asia Minor, quite a distance from Jerusalem. There is no confidence that the two ever even met.
Matthew is another problem for you. As I just implied, we have no indication that Matthew ever met Paul, and there is evidence to show that Matthew was the keeper of the sayings of Jesus before any gospel was written (as attested to by Papias). This is the source material that most scholars postulate as the 'raw data' for Mark and Matthew. Funny how they didn't need Paul to come to the conclusion that in their quotations of Jesus, it is the quotations that nail Jesus' divine status for the reader (Mark 2:28). Jesus seems to have done that all by Himself.
And then there's Mark. Paul did know Mark, but the Gospel According to Mark is better known as the memoirs of Peter in the first century of Christianity, not Paul.
Well, geez. Looks like that's 3/4 Gospel writers who didn't take their cues from Paul, hardly the "all" you claim. What you have is a lot of "coulda-woulda-shouldas" that you have not substantiated in the least. You should keep your speculations to yourself if you want to avoid further embarrassment.
You argue:
To develop and change the laws from moses, a messenger, it makes more sense to me that someone of equivalence has been sent down to earth..Jesus the messenger messiah.
Again, you don't understand the traditions and perspective of the Jews. A teacher or prophet would never teach according to his own authority, but by the authority of a previous (deceased) teacher or prophet. Jesus teaches and does not cite a previous rabbi or prophet to give Him authority; He rests authority in His own word as God's word. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants clearly shows that Jesus thought of Himself as God's Son, not a prophet. You cannot advance your abberent view with such flimsy assertions. As many have told you, put up some evidence.
[part 2]
Gospel of John went through 5 editing phases according to one of the best N.T scholars ever, Raymond Brown. By then, it would try to show that Jesus is divine because of the fact that Paul's teachings have been adopted.
I object to you putting words into Raymond Brown's mouth. What is meant by "editing" does not refer to the changing of the message or content of the gospel. Try actually reading Raymond Brown instead of reading what some skeptic said about him out of context. It's that whole 'honesty' thing all over again.
However, the way God has portrayed himself through all of the prophets and even through Jesus, he seems like the one being, that is greater than all. God tried to emphasise his oneness.
If you ignore and explain away all the verses in the Bible that make it inconvenient for your preferred point of view, then you will conclude just what you assert. That's called begging the question. At the end of the day, you still have no proof for your position and a mulititude of Bible passsages that contradict it. From the creation of man, God is portrayed as one God with a plural manifestation, as He says "Let Us make man in Our image..."
You cannot historically prove the resurection, but only theologically.
You likewise cannot prove Mohammed received any revelations from Allah. I can, however, give enough evidence for the Resurrection to make it the most plausible thing to have happened over and above the alternatives. I have watched a debate between BART Erhman and Mike Licona. Erhman's arguments have always been weak and rely on an obtuse view of the Biblical narrative, for which his evidence is severely lacking. Licona, however, uses the historical facts that ARE known to make the case that the Resurrection is the only explanation that fits the facts in their entirety.
When it comes to God's own words about his own nature, why don't you just believe in that instead of adding human theology and assumptions?
I could ask you the same thing. I am being consistent with what I'm given in the Bible. You, however, are cherrypicking and asserting more than you are defending your view. So defend it, if you want to save your credibility.
Sorry, I'm a bit busy with life at the moment. I'll try and find a time within the next week to come on this website.
There are a lot of errors in what you have said, maybe you are thinking that way because you are emotional?
I haven't got time to discuss it now (refer back to the first paragraph of this comment).
Hello again:
I gave a defense of the Trinity in answeringmuslims.com before.In the OT you can find a PLURAL YAHWEH,not a triune but certainly a plural one.I will give a bit here:
2 YAHWEHS at the SAME TIME
In the OT:
1.GEN 19:24
2.ZECH 2:10-11
3.ZECH 3:1-2
So not only can you defend the Trinity as possible on mathematical grounds but based on passages in the OT.Again,the OT has the PLURALITY of God only.
GRADUAL REVELATION
But in the NT it says God is TRIUNE,so the NT adds MORE info.
OT SAYS THE MESSIAH WILL BE YAHWEH
More on that later but it is true.It appears in JEREMIAH.
Hello:
Here is my argument about:
1. God being plural in the OT
2. Messiah will be Yahweh in OT.
3. Implicit VIRGIN birth in OT.
It is long,so I apologize.
IN THE OT MEN ARE CALLED GOD
In Hebrew in the old days ( maybe still today, I would have to ask an Israeli ), it was the custom, an expression to call men " god/ gods ", like we today say a beautiful woman " is a godess ", they said it to mean someone important, powerful: Exod 4:16,7:1 ( God calls Moses " God " )/ Psalm 82:6 ( God sarcastically calls evil men " gods " ).
CONCLUSION: in the OT when a man is called God it is not to be taken literally,it is an expression.
3 PASSAGES IN THE OT WHERE WE HAVE HAVE 2 YAHWEHS AT THE SAME TIME:
Whenever in the OT translation we see the words LORD or Lord, but not in the case of " lord ", it means that in the original HEBREW it is written as YAHWEH, which is one of God's names. Here are the cases. A Muslim has told me these are just Semitisms,that is it is just a custom to repeat the same name twice as though they were different people,for emphasis. But certainly those who make the case have heard of that argument and I have found no reference to it:
1) ZECHARIAH 2:10-11: the words " daughter of Zion " mean " people of Jerusalem " since Zion is a hill there on which was the Temple of Jerusalem.
" Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I ( note: I, YAHWEH ) am coming, and I will LIVE ( also translated as DWELL ) among you, " declares YAHWEH. " Many nations will be joined with YAHWEH in that day and will become my people.
I ( I, YAHWEH ) will LIVE among YOU ( my words: the people of Jerusalem ) and YOU ( my words: people of Jerusalem ) will know that YAHWEH Almighty has sent ME ( me, Yahweh ) to YOU( my words: those of Jerusalem ). "
Here we have Yahweh sending Yahweh to live among the people of Jerusalem. Or we can say God the Father sending God the Son to Jerusalem,on the week when he was killed.
2) GENESIS 19:23-26:23: " By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then YAHWEH rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah FROM YAHWEH in heaven. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. "
3) ZECHARIAH 3:1-2: " Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of YAHWEH, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And YAHWEH said to Satan, "YAHWEH rebuke you, O Satan! YAHWEH who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? "
ABOUT HOW THE JEWS HAVE USED THE NAME YAHWEH
Before the 3rd century BC, according to scholars, it was:
a) The custom of the Jews to actually PRONOUNCE the name Yahweh, and:
b) It was also the custom to name a PLACE with the name Yahweh ( Yahweh this and Yahweh that ).
SO WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT?
That was BEFORE, but TODAY,the Jewish people, or at least those who are religious:
a) They do NOT pronounce the name Yahweh, and:
b) NO Jew,whether religious or secular,ever names a PLACE Yahweh this or Yahweh that.
In other words: LINGUISTIC USAGE CHANGES.
BUT ONE LINGUISTIC CUSTOM AMONG THE JEWS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME:
Never, and I repeat NEVER at all has it been the custom for a Jew to name a PERSON, like his daughter or son Yahweh this or Yahweh that. In fact,religious Jews, when reading the OT in Hebrew to others and when they come across the word Yahweh they immediately substitute by the word ADONAI ( Lord ).
EXAMPLE FROM THE OT OF SAYING THE WORD YAHWEH: I had said Yahweh was pronounced before ( but not today ):
NUMBERS 6:22-27: Yahweh said to Moses: " Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them: This is how you shall bless the Israelites. SAY to them:" YAHWEH bless you and keep you! YAHWEH let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you!
YAHWEH look upon you kindly and give you peace!" So shall they INVOKE (say) my name ( my words:my name Yahweh ) to the Israelites, and I will bless them."
THE 5 CASES WHERE A PLACE IS CALLED YAHWEH IN THE OT:
Notice that in each case the COMPLETE NAME of Yahweh is used in the original Hebrew):
1.Genesis 22:14: Abraham erects an altar and calls it YAHWEH YIREH (Yahweh provides).
2.Exodus 17:15: Moses builds an altar and calls it YAHWEH NISI ( Yahweh is our banner ).
3.Judges 6:24: Gideon builds an altar and calls it YAHWEH SHALOM ( Yahweh is peace ).
4.God calls Jerusalem, a city YAHWEH TSIDKENU ( Yahweh is our righteousness ) in Jeremiah 33:16.
5. God calls Jerusalem YAHWEH SAMA ( Yahweh is there )in Ezekiel 48:35: " The city shall be 18,000 cubits round about; and the NAME of the city from that day shall be, 'Yahweh is there.'".
THE MESSIAH IS CALLED YAHWEH:
Remember it has NEVER been the custom among Jews to name a person Yahweh this or that' and here God himself calls the Messiah Yahweh ( again another case of 2 Yahwehs at the same time ).
JEREMIAH 23:5-6:" Behold, the days are coming, " says the LORD,“ That I will raise to David a NETZER of righteousness; A KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is the SHEM ( name ) by which He will be called: YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. " ( Yahweh Tsidkenu )
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING, OTHERS WERE ALSO CALLED YAHWEH
Yes, it is true. We have the names of Zechariah, Hezekiah, Zedekiah, Isaiah, Joshua (Yeshua), Nehemiah, Elijah, etc. Jewish men have always had such names, BEFORE and AFTER 300 BC.
RESPONSE: BUT IT NEVER INCLUDES THE " COMPLETE NAME " YAHWEH BUT ONLY A PORTION OF IT ( out of respect ):
For example: Elijah is a CONTRACTION of the Hebrew phrase " Eli Yahweh " or " My God is Yahweh ", and Zedekiah is a CONTRACTION of the Hebrew phrase that means " Righteous is Yahweh ". Joshua is a CONTRACTION of Hebrew for " Yahweh is salvation ".
As I have said before,no Jew has ever named his son or daughter Yahweh this or Yahweh that,using the COMPLETE NAME of Yahweh. That was UNACCEPTABLE then and it is TODAY among the Jews. But it was accepted to use of PORTION of the name in forming one's name, as long as the complete name of God was avoided.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Even the expression HALLELUJAH is a CONTRACTION.It is translated as "Praise the Lord".It is really "Praise Jah", (to avoid saying "Praise Yahweh").
BUT WHAT ABOUT NAMING PLACES YAHWEH?
The argument is this: language customs change. BEFORE the Jews would not think twice about naming a place Yahweh, TODAY it is not accepted.BEFORE it was accepted to say the name Yahweh, TODAY it is rejected. But why was it accepted to name a place Yahweh before? It probably was because since a place it an OBJECT and not a person, then it can not commit a sin and therefore bring dishonor on God. How can an altar made of stone or metal sin? A person can make it unholy by doing something bad there, but the object itself can not sin.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE : THAT OF MOSES
Remember that Moses named an altar Yahweh? Well he also gave a man a new name, and here he AVOIDED naming him Yahweh but instead gave him a CONTRACTION of the Hebrew phrase " Yahweh is salvation " or Joshua. In NUMBERS 13:16:
" These are the names of the men whom Moses sent out to reconnoiter the land. But HOSHEA, son of Nun, Moses called JOSHUA. "
I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED:
Calling the Messiah ( a mere man )Yahweh this or Yahweh that goes against all Jewish custom.And in Jeremiah it is YAHWEH HIMSELF who calls the Messiah Yahweh. The CORRECT way to have said it is this:
1) Jeremiah 23:5-6:" Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD,“ That I will raise to David a NETZER of righteousness; A KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is the SHEM (name) by which He will be called :ZEDEKIAH ( contraction for Righteous is Yahweh ) ."
In fact,that was the name of the last king of the Kingdom of Judah, capital Jerusalem, who ruled till 586 BC, when Zedekiah was defeated by Nebuchadnezar, the king of Babylon.Jeremiah had told Zedekiah not to fight Nebuchadnezar, but he ignored him and the Temple of Jerusalem and the city were destroyed.
OR ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT:
In the OT it was the custom to call men ELOH or " god " as as expression. In Exodus Moses is called " god " by God.
EXAMPLE 1:
Exodus 4:13-16: " Yet he insisted, " If you please, Lord, send someone else! "
Then the LORD became angry with Moses and said, " Have you not your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know that he is an eloquent speaker. Besides, he is now on his way to meet you.
When he sees you, his heart will be glad. You are to speak to him, then, and put the words in his mouth. I will assist both you and him in speaking and will teach the two of you what you are to do.He shall speak to the people for you: he shall be your spokesman, and you shall be God to him. "
EXAMPLE 2:
Exodus 7:1-2:" The LORD answered him, "See! I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet. You shall tell him all that I command you. In turn, your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave his land. "
SO ANOTHER CORRECT WAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN:
Jeremiah 23:5-6:" Behold, the days are coming, " says the LORD,“ That I will raise to David a NETZER of righteousness; A KING shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved,and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is the SHEM (name) by which He will be called: ELOH TSIDKENU ( God is our righteousness)."
BUT IN ARABIC WE HAVE NAMES LIKE ABDULLAH OR SLAVE OF ALLAH
Yes,that is true.But,and I could be 100% wrong here,and you will correct me,in Arabic it is not the custom to call a man or woman Allah this and Allah that,is it? Would it be acceptable for a man to call his son or daughter ALLAHU AKBAR (God is great)? Or to name a child ALLAHU RAHMAN (God is merciful).
In the same way,it was never the custom of the Jews,then or now to call a person using the complete name of Yahweh.In Jeremiah I can say:"We have 2 Yahwehs at the same time." One can say" No,it is a Semitism". But at the very least we have Yahweh saying that the Messiah would be none other than HE HIMSELF,Yahweh.
A VIRGIN BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH IS IMPLIED
Now if,as seems to be the case,the passages are telling us the Messiah would be Yahweh in person,given the language usage of the Jews,then that IMPLIES a virgin birth,for if the Messiah had been born the normal way,then he would not be God.
"ZECHARIAH 2:10-11: the words " daughter of Zion " mean " people of Jerusalem " since Zion is a hill there on which was the Temple of Jerusalem.
" Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I ( note: I, YAHWEH ) am coming, and I will LIVE ( also translated as DWELL ) among you, " declares YAHWEH. " Many nations will be joined with YAHWEH in that day and will become my people.
I ( I, YAHWEH ) will LIVE among YOU ( my words: the people of Jerusalem ) and YOU ( my words: people of Jerusalem ) will know that YAHWEH Almighty has sent ME ( me, Yahweh ) to YOU( my words: those of Jerusalem ). "
Here we have Yahweh sending Yahweh to live among the people of Jerusalem. Or we can say God the Father sending God the Son to Jerusalem,on the week when he was killed."
Oh come on, you have just ignored the whole context, the quote marks etc. This is not Two different Yahweh.
and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me - this is about Zechariah himself. Lord of hosts is God Yahweh.
Cherry picking I call it + misinterpretation.
Why did you spend so much time just so you can take things out of context?
3) ZECHARIAH 3:1-2: " Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of YAHWEH, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And YAHWEH said to Satan, "YAHWEH rebuke you, O Satan! YAHWEH who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? "
Angel of Yahweh is not Jesus for starters, secondly, Yahweh rebuke you, Yahweh who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you - God saying this via the angel, he referring Yahweh to himself here of course. Yahweh was saying this so Satan because Satan was being all gay towards Joshua.
This is not a reference to another Yahweh of a compound unity. (no, the shema where is says echad isn't talking about a compound unity, but a single ONE).
2) GENESIS 19:23-26:23: " By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then YAHWEH rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah FROM YAHWEH in heaven. Thus..
Ok, well this seems like an emphasis of the Lord to me, a literacy device as Bernard calls it. For it to rain down, it must come from up above anyway. It looks like an emphasis that the Yahweh raining down the sulphur is the Yahweh in heaven.
Burning sulphur on S & G FROM Yahweh in heaven, This Yahweh rained it down. Emphasising that this came from Yahweh in heaven. If it said "Yahweh rained..bla bla bla, on behalf of/via Yahweh in heaven.
How can you rain down something if there is two Yahweh's? lol do you pass it along so it is a joint thing because one person of the whole Godhead is not strong enough to do so?
In fact, it seems a clear emphasis that the writer tried to show that it is the Yahweh in heaven that rained it down.
It could also emphasise the action of angels of the Lord, under the command of Yahweh in heaven - we have many examples in the Bible of this happening.
"Hebrew to others and when they come across the word Yahweh they immediately substitute by the word ADONAI ( Lord )."
You don't have evidence? Adonai is either God or a man or an angel, as shown in O.T...it makes you think...so if Adonai is the term for Yahweh that they applied, Yahweh can be in reference to humans too, in some form. i.e like the ones you have stated, which debunks your whole arguement.
So before, it was allowed to call things Yahweh this and Yahweh that, but now it isn't. Your case would be stronger if it was the other way around.
I don't believe in what you have to say. I just think you're trying to involve too much wishful thinking.
All I know is that the Father of Jesus is the One True God, the Everlasting Father, the Lord our God who is one, the Father that gives all authority to his son Jesus. The Father who is FEARED by Jesus.
Why on Earth will Jesus fear his own Father, Jesus is hardly going to be 'disciplined' is he.
A ONE God, a singular God, a God who orders that there is none besides he, A God who tells people never follow anybody who worships that which “you have not experienced”…. “whom neither you nor your fathers have experienced” – They never experienced God’s begotten son. Ever. God’s “begotten son” was to be begotten in the world in the year 0.
“Follow None but the Lord your God…Who is One –just one alone without any other entity. Jesus’ father is the One true God, according to Jesus himself, and this Father is in Heaven, according to Jesus himself. Why shall I listen to man’s interpretation of the Father if The Father himself has already given his own View through his prophets about HIS nature. He never said he is a Godhead, who consists of 3 persons. How can there be Three persons if the FATHER IS THE ONE TRUE GOD?
God – Echad, is one. Just the Lord your God. Just Him. He is just One. Based on the context, he is ONE. There is no context of a group (more than 1 being) coming together. But rather, just the singular Lord your God, is One. A Trinitarian God is just another God altogether.
They didn’t know that God consisted of the Holy Spirit, nor did they know that Jesus is the divine Word, which is God who God will beget. They don’t know the begotten Son of God. They just knew God as a singular one. The everlasting Father. The God almighty.
Do you really believe God is in a human form? Who died as a means of blood atonement for sins, sins against God that they committed against him?
What if someone is just told “God is One, worship Him, there is no other besides him, and follow the commandments”. Are they going to think that God consisted of Three entities? One being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? One being begotten into the world? Is that what Noah said? Where we not even taught about the actual nature of God let alone his teachings from DAY ONE OF MAN?! Or did Noah deliver 7 laws from God? You should not have any idols before God…in other words…CREATIONS. You shouldn’t worship creations. So, we can’t have any idols before God. Who is this mysterious God being? Oh, yeah He is just One who transcends the heaven and the earth. There were no more enquiries about Him. Oh, No, the Holy spirit is telling me that there will be a man named Jesus, oh, he is My Lord and My God! Holy Spirit, Holy shhh…Are you telling me you’re God too? Awesome. I’m sorry, But I want an accurate description of God. The Shema is the most accurate which is just One Alone.
I officially wholeheartedly denounce the belief in a trinity in any shape or form.
The Lord our God, the Lord is One, Jesus is the biggest blasphemer if he said he was God. But no, he mirrored the same message as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God is One. Jesus feared God, Jesus submitted to God's will, Jesus admitted he can't do anything, but only of the Will of the father. Why overcomplicate it? God is a simple, singular, transcendant God who is One...He is of the highest nature.
God's nature doesn't change according to the Bible..God coming in as a MAN is an addition to his nature, thus a NATURE CHANGE. Addition of a seperate thing = overall change.
You have no reason to believe in the trinity. None at all.
Post a Comment