1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Whose Son is YHVH, the Christ?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Seve, Aug 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 3 of 16
  1. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0

    Perhaps, you still don't realize the meaning of word "context" that is being ask of you to study. For your convenient... see below

    con·text
    noun \ˈkän-ˌtekst\\

    Definition of CONTEXT1 .. the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

    As you can see, it does not require the the meaning of the word "context" that surround a word .... to be described the same word-for-word or must be verbatim... as you have fallaciously suggested above.

    Here's a brief commentary by Matthew Henry who agrees with me about the context of Mal. 3

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...rID=4&contentID=1593&commInfo=5&topic=Malachi

    Chapter 3

    In this chapter we have, I. A promise of the coming of the Messiah, and of his forerunner; and the errand he comes upon is here particularly described, both the comfort which his coming brings to his church and people and the terror which it will bring to the wicked (v. 1-6). II. A reproof of the Jews for their corrupting God’s ordinances and sacrilegiously robbing him of his dues, with a charge to them to amend this matter, and a promise that, if they did, God would return in mercy to them (v. 7–12). III. A description of the wickedness of the wicked that speak against God (v. 13–15), and of the righteousness of the righteous that speak for him, with the precious promises made to them (v. 16–18).

    I guess you really need help in reading comprehension. Just a thought.
     
    #41 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  2. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    While the cited text Rev. 3:12 speaks of the Son having a “new name” for himself specifically (see above in red color)…. the question is….
    ...where do you read anywhere in the Scripture (cite the text please) that suggest that the Father of our Lord Christ would also have a “NEW NAME” as you assume it to be???

    Of course, there’s no such Scripture to suggest that, correct? Simply because... the assumption of the Father having "new name" is meant only to defend your religious view of one numeric God..... not supported by the Scripture..

    In fact, who are the two among the three mentioned here - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - do you consider not God or pagan gods?

    Again, read and learn....

    Now, try to deny John 17:5 if you can. Thanks
     
    #42 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    First, Matthew Henry does not provide an exegetical commentary on that particular text but only a devotional commentary where he takes liberities that the text does not support. Henry deals with what he perceives to be the overall themes but does not address particular verses or phrases, words or grammar. Do you know the difference between an exegetical commentary and devotional commentary??? Apparently not!

    Second, Matthew Henry does not agree with your interpretation of Malichi 3:6. He does not even address that text or deal with its wording or grammar.

    Third, you are practicing eisgesis not exegesis. Do you know the difference? You are attempting to READ INTO Malichi 3:6 what it does not say rather than to READ OUT of Malichi 3:6 what it does say and what the grammar demands.

    The text does not say "mercy" or "righteousness" changes not. The subject is "I" or the actual Person of YHVH rather than any attribute of YHVH.

    "For I am the Lord, I change not.."

    This is a statement about WHO He is in regard to immutability not in regard to any other attribute He may possess. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
     
    #43 The Biblicist, Aug 16, 2012
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481

    Since our cultic friend will no longer respond to me I will no longer address him but will repudiate his views;

    1. He claims that YHVH is the one who FORMED the earth and is the MAKER but not the CREATOR.

    However, that is false. The term "Creator" is equally applied to YHVH as it is to both the Father and the Holy Spirit:

    Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

    Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

    Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

    Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


    Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created

    Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

    Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
     
    #44 The Biblicist, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  5. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tsk…Tsk…Tsk…. Context… context… context…

    Here’s the whole context of the cited text (without edition) including it’s conclusion reassuring the Jews of his mercy and commitment of redeeming them …… If and when they decided to return back to him. Keeping his old promise to them that changes not.

    Mal. 3:6
    For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. v7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept [them]. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

    Now, here are some physical CHANGES in the appearance of the Lord as documented in the Scripture… contrary to the illogical interpretation of our poster above that our Lord YHVH “changes not”…..

    Eze 8:1-3 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, [as] I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. And He put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven,

    Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: v7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

    Now, the question remains to Biblicist..... did our Lord YHVH, the Son, changes his appearnce or not?

    :BangHead:
     
    #45 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Apparently our cultic friend also denies the indivduality of the Holy Spirit but rather claims that The Father is that Spirit. Is that correct?
     
    #46 The Biblicist, Aug 16, 2012
  7. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the long reply.... However, I am sorry to say that your objection is only based on your own religious view. I am not going to waste more time answering your distorted premises unless I have to.

    :wavey:
     
    #47 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
  8. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Book of Genesis 18... we read the following declaration from our Lord YHVH, the Son of the invisible Almighty God Father of whom no man hath seen at anytime nor his name been revealed to anyone at this time.... Note: Insertions are mine for presentation.

    Genesis 18:20 And the LORD (YHVH) said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; v21 I will go down now (physically) , and see (with his own eyes) whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

    As you can see, because of the physical nature of our Lord YHVH, the Son of invisible Almighty God Father .... the only God physically formed for us to see - He is limited in his power as God compare to his invisible Almighty God Father.... who is omnicient and omipresent God - the Spirit of Love that never change.

    Therefore, our Lord YHVH of old could not have been the invisible Almighty Father..... but the Son of God himself, the Christ. No man knows the name of the invisible God Father of our Lord Jesus Christ at this time, until one overcometh in the end...

    Look and read...

    Revelation 3:12 HIM THAT OVERCOMETH will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


    :jesus:
     
    #48 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You need to be taught the basics of hermeneutics. The scripture is formed by selection of words placed in a grammatical connection with each other and that is called syntax. It is the context of syntax that must first be established and you have not done that and neither did Matthew Henry.

    You simply do not know what you are talking about and so all you can do is redicule those who do.

    The grammatical syntax of Malich 3:6 completely repudiates your false interpretation. The subject of the verb "change" is not "righteousnes" or "mercy" but the personal pronoun "I" which refers to His PERSON not his attributes.

    It is pure eisgesis to ignore the internal context of a verse - its syntax - by attempting to appeal to the external context when they do not deal with the same subject matter.

    First, Ezekiel 8:1-3 occurs hundreds of years previous to the incarnation. That alone destroys your argument as your interpretation of Isaiah 43:10 and the term "formed" is applied to his incarnation or taking upon himself the "form" of Jesus Christ from Nazareth unless you are now arguing for multidple times being formed into a visible God?

    Second, Angels are spirits also but can appear as humans - Heb. 13:1.

    Third, have you ever been introduced to the term "Theophany"? Apparently not! Look it up! Again, you have the same problem with Isaiah 43:10. Are you arguing for multitple times YHVH is "formed" as a God or only one time?


    Please take note of the words "TOOK UPON HIM"! He did not change in regard to his Deity or God nature. Instead his divinity was CLOTHED UPON with the human nature.
     
    #49 The Biblicist, Aug 16, 2012
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481

    My religous view?:laugh::laugh: Look again! I simply quoted scriptures! It is the scriptures themselves that repudiate your theories.




    Of course not because you are INCAPABLE of rationally and Biblically responding to them so you make personal attacks in order to avoid dealing the evidence put before you.
     
    #50 The Biblicist, Aug 16, 2012
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You are building a straw man and burning it. No one on this forum argues that the Son is the Father or vice versa! The argument is that both the Son and Father share the same attributes that make "God" to be "God." You irrationally attempt to make the same term "God" fit two different Persons that you admit do not share the same attributes that define "God" to be "God."

    Please define for us what are the essential attributes to be called by the term "God"? What attributes are required for God to be God?
     
    #51 The Biblicist, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  12. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you NOT understanding what you have been reading? Have I not asserted before that the Son was brought forth physically into this world at the beginning of Genesis…. before the world was? Did you not read that YHVH, himself, had appeared and represented his invisible God Father on several occasions in the Old Testament?

    Here.... for your continued learning below... insertions are mine for presentation.

    Exodus 6:2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: v3 And I appeared (physically) unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty (his Father), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

    IF no man hath seen God Father at any time, then, the Lord YHVH could hot have been the invisible God Father but the Son himself - the only God physically formed for us to see and witness.

    What do you mean if I've been introduce to the term...."Theophany"? Did you not understand that it is only the Son... who can represent the Father... being the express image of his person physically?

    Of course, it is my position that YHVH is Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the invisible God.... the great I AM of old..... He (the Son) had glorified physical body even before his incarnation as Christ…. even during the old testament.

    Come on now Biblicist…. smell the coffee and try to argue according to my position and not your distorted assumption of my views…. For a change.

    :BangHead:
     
    #52 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  13. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do understand what you are saying.

    I have been hoping for someone to come along that I can study this.

    Now, as for the name of God that no one knows, is it not because it is a ‘new’ name?

    Revelation 2:17
    He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.

    Revelation 3:12
    Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

    Since it is a “new name” that will be given, and not just the name, does that not take away some of your argument? I do not think it nullifies your argument, just that you cannot use that for your argument?
     
    #53 Moriah, Aug 16, 2012
  14. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Moriah,

    I hope everything is well. Below, please find my previous post in respond to Thinkingstuff querry..... relevant to your question above.

    God bless
     
    #54 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  15. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not think your response has answered my question.

    If I understand you correctly, your argument is that no one knows the name of God because God’s name is really Jesus’ name, and God’s name will be given to those who overcome at the end.

    What I am saying is, no one knows the NEW name, therefore, nullifying your argument that God’s name is Jesus’ name because no one knows His name.

    Just wondering…are you evangelist 7?
     
    #55 Moriah, Aug 16, 2012
  16. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, that's not my argument my friend. Nowhere in the Scripture that you will find in the Father has a "new name".

    It is my position that Jesus Christ is YHVH himself of old, the Son of the invisible God. No one knows the name of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ simply because it has NOT yet been revealled to anyone at this time.

    Here's another Scriptures for you to study...

    In the Book of John 8 we read the following discussion between Jesus and Jews who were seeking to kill him....

    John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
    54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
    55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
    56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
    57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
    58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

    Do you see the implication of what Jesus had asserted to the Jewish Scribes who were mostly Biblical Scholars..... asserting that they have not known his Father of whom they claimed to be their God? How could that be??? Did He (YHVH) not appeared in person unto their forefathers in the old testament and introduced himself as their God?

    It’s very simple to me at least…. Jesus is YHVH himself …. The great I AM of old.

    Christ, the Son had not yet introduce the REAL NAME of his Father at this time.... until we overcometh the end.
     
    #56 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 16, 2012
  17. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seve,

    You said here that the Father does not have a “new name.”
    But then you say here that is it the Father with the new name.


    So please clarify your beliefs.
     
    #57 Moriah, Aug 16, 2012
  18. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    When Jesus says they do not know God the Father, it is because they do not obey God. God reveals Himself to those who obey Him. See John 14:21.
     
    #58 Moriah, Aug 16, 2012
  19. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, I think I get what you are saying. You are saying that the name of the Father will be given, and at that SAME time, Jesus’ NEW NAME will be given.
     
    #59 Moriah, Aug 16, 2012
  20. Seve

    Seve Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Jesus was saying that it was himself whom their forefather saw and were glad / rejoiced seeing his day in the Old Testament.... not his Father..... also claiming ..... BEFORE Abraham was, I AM.... Jesus Son of God.
     
    #60 Seve, Aug 16, 2012
Page 3 of 16
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...