Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Ode:hgod,

Those four faces aren't too difficult to figure out. The face of a man would represent
humanness, the face of a lion would represent monarchy, the face of an ox would
represent service, and the face of an eagle would represent divinity.

That vision might be an impression of Jesus as he's portrayed in the four Gospels. The
face of a man would be Jesus in Luke, the face of a lion would be Jesus in Matthew, the
face of an ox would be Jesus in Mark, and the face of an eagle would be Jesus in John.

Yes, the subject of the Cherubim is an interesting study and I can agree with the above, with the qualification that Jesus is the Son of God.

The four living creatures show up again in the 10th chapter with one difference. The
face of an ox has been replaced by the face of a cherub, yet Ezekiel says all four
faces were the same faces he saw in the 1st chapter; so the ox/cherub face is a bit
of a mystery.

I have heard one suggestion. Ezekiel was a priest and when he viewed the cherubim which adorned the vail, the prominent face of the four cherubim was the ox, and he thus called this "a cherub".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fred,

But you can't even supply one of these so-called proofs.

The following is a copy of the Slides from my brother's lecture on the subject of the gradual development. I will let you verify or deny his assessments.

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fred]

Greetings again Fred,

The following is a copy of the Slides from my brother's lecture on the subject of the gradual development. I will let you verify or deny his assessments.

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel

Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus Is God

For those who think Emperor Constantine invented the deity of Christ, here are thirty-six quotations from nine different church fathers that predate the Council of Nicea.

www.str.org

 

[Fred]

Acts 2:32–36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You did not include Acts 2:21 which teaches Jesus is to be prayed to as being God.

 

[Binyawmene]

I don’t know of any Unitarian teaching that denies a divine quality in Christ, or that Jesus is the Christ.

To say Jesus is the Christ means Jesus is the anointed one of God. God doesn’t anoint Himself.
God anointed His son to be prophet, priest and king.

To deny Jesus Christ as God is tantamount or equivalent to denying Jesus is the Christ.

I AM HE This phrase not only declares that Jesus is the Messiah, but also indirectly referring to God’s self-identification as “I AM” in Exodus. 3:14, or to God’s repeated claim that “I am he” in Isaiah 43:10, 13, 25 and Jesus Christ's repeated claim in John 8:24, 28, 58].

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

To deny Jesus Christ as God is tantamount or equivalent to denying Jesus is the Christ.

Only according to your Theology. For Jesus to be the Christ represents that he has been anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and as such Jesus is to fulfill the roles of Prophet, Priest and King. These are roles that reveal his special birth, character, and all that was involved in his suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection and then his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne. All of this reveals that Jesus was not and is not God.

I AM HE This phrase not only declares that Jesus is the Messiah, but also indirectly referring to God’s self-identification as “I AM” in Exodus. 3:14, or to God’s repeated claim that “I am he” in Isaiah 43:10, 13, 25 and Jesus Christ's repeated claim in John 8:24, 28, 58].

It is very good that you recognise that "I am he" is part of the theme in John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus is not claiming to be the "I AM" of the KJV of Exodus 3:14. I consider that the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 is "I wilbe" as per Tyndale or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Only according to your Theology. For Jesus to be the Christ represents that he has been anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and as such Jesus is to fulfill the roles of Prophet, Priest and King. These are roles that reveal his special birth, character, and all that was involved in his suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection and then his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne. All of this reveals that Jesus was not and is not God.

It is very good that you recognise that "I am he" is part of the theme in John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus is not claiming to be the "I AM" of the KJV of Exodus 3:14. I consider that the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 is "I wilbe" as per Tyndale or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

Kind regards
Trevor

Amen

I would offer.

The power of salvation .."I Am He " the "let there be" power and "it was Christ alone good"

The law of faith or labor of love. .The patient long sufferings kind . . power of love.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[Fred]

Jesus is to fulfill the roles of Prophet, Priest and King. These are roles that reveal his special birth, character, and all that was involved in his suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection and then his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne. All of this reveals that Jesus was not and is not God.

No proof for what you asserted above.


Furthermore...

It is sad that you think Acts 2:21 is sad.

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Only according to your Theology. For Jesus to be the Christ represents that he has been anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and as such Jesus is to fulfill the roles of Prophet, Priest and King. These are roles that reveal his special birth, character, and all that was involved in his suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection and then his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne. All of this reveals that Jesus was not and is not God.

It is very good that you recognise that "I am he" is part of the theme in John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus is not claiming to be the "I AM" of the KJV of Exodus 3:14. I consider that the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 is "I wilbe" as per Tyndale or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

Kind regards
Trevor

I have already debunked the idea that Jesus was referring to himself as the I Am of Exodus 3:14.
The correct translation of John 8:58:

“Jesus said unto them, truly, truly, I say unto you, before Abraham to become, I am.”

No one can prove this to be the wrong translation. The scripture themselves defend it without any doubt.
Trinitarians changed the verb to mean “was”, “was born” or “existed” without any justification from scripture to do so. They therefore have turned the statement made by Jesus into a lie.

I’ve also debunked John 1:4 as referring to Jesus before his birth. There was no life in Christ to give to others until the Father gave that life to him. Therefore, the Trinitarian idea that Jesus existed as the God and who created all before he was born is false.

“just as the Father has life within Himself, He has given the Son to also have life within himself”

As I said before, you may very well be correct that Exodus 3:14 ought to read “I will be”.
Either way, Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14.

 

[LeviR]

To deny Jesus Christ as God is tantamount or equivalent to denying Jesus is the Christ.

I AM HE This phrase not only declares that Jesus is the Messiah, but also indirectly referring to God’s self-identification as “I AM” in Exodus. 3:14, or to God’s repeated claim that “I am he” in Isaiah 43:10, 13, 25 and Jesus Christ's repeated claim in John 8:24, 28, 58].

Says you. I have already debunked that idea.

 

[Mr GLee]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Only according to your Theology. For Jesus to be the Christ represents that he has been anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and as such Jesus is to fulfill the roles of Prophet, Priest and King. These are roles that reveal his special birth, character, and all that was involved in his suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection and then his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne. All of this reveals that Jesus was not and is not God.

It is very good that you recognise that "I am he" is part of the theme in John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus is not claiming to be the "I AM" of the KJV of Exodus 3:14. I consider that the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 is "I wilbe" as per Tyndale or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

Kind regards
Trevor

The Son of man Jesus our brother in the Lord is given words from the Father declaring prophesying the words "I Am"

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fred and LeviR,

It is sad that you think Acts 2:21 is sad.

I have adequately explained how that Jesus is the development and central focus of the Yahweh Name in my thread "The Yahweh Name". This accounts for such passages that state that salvation is in the Name of Jesus.
Acts 4:7–12 (KJV): 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

But what is sad is that you ignore the clear teaching of Psalm 110:1 that gives a picture of the Throne of God. It is not a Throne with two equal persons of the Trinity sitting side by side in a dual Throne, nor is God the Holy Spirit hovering above the Throne, but it is the One God, God the Father, seated upon God the Father's Throne, and Jesus an exalted human, the Son of God invited to sit at the right hand of the One God, God the Father.

The correct translation of John 8:58:
“Jesus said unto them, truly, truly, I say unto you, before Abraham to become, I am.”
No one can prove this to be the wrong translation. The scripture themselves defend it without any doubt.

I prefer the translation "I am he", the same as John 8:24,28 as part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. I endorse Tyndale's rendition "I wilbe" and the RV and RSV margins "I will be" for Exodus 3:14, and this does not connect directly with the KJV of John 8:58..

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Binyawmene]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Hello Trevor,

Only according to your Theology.

According to the Bible.

For Jesus to be the Christ represents that he has been anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and as such Jesus is to fulfill the roles of Prophet, Priest and King. These are roles that reveal his special birth, character, and all that was involved in his suffering, crucifixion, death and resurrection and then his exaltation to sit at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne.

Nicely explained.

Why is 'the Christ' called "Mighty God?"

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

Why is 'the Christ' called "the LORD Our Righteous Savior?"

Jeremiah 23:5-6 The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteous Savior.​

All of this reveals that Jesus was not and is not God.

This is not logical and not even close to be considered an argument. Explaining some of the functional role of 'the Christ' (like being a king mention above), which doesn't negate that he isn't God and LORD.

It is very good that you recognise that "I am he" is part of the theme in John's Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus is not claiming to be the "I AM" of the KJV of Exodus 3:14. I consider that the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 is "I wilbe" as per Tyndale or "I will be" as per RV and RSV margins.

Kind regards
Trevor

I'm not much into Bible translations. I've been using the NIV for many years. And if I want to know something, then I will simply dig into the Greek.

 

[Binyawmene]

I have already debunked the idea that Jesus was referring to himself as the I Am of Exodus 3:14.
The correct translation of John 8:58:

“Jesus said unto them, truly, truly, I say unto you, before Abraham to become, I am.”

You are an expert in Greek language? You are welcome to demonstrate your qualifications. Even your translation doesn't negate the "I AM" statement.

No one can prove this to be the wrong translation.

Why do I want to disprove a translation?

The scripture themselves defends it without any doubt.

Why don't you give an interpretation?

Trinitarians changed the verb to mean “was”, “was born” or “existed” without any justification from scripture to do so. They therefore have turned the statement made by Jesus into a lie.

And, yet that doesn't affect the "I AM" statement.

I’ve also debunked John 1:4 as referring to Jesus before his birth. There was no life in Christ to give to others until the Father gave that life to him. Therefore, the Trinitarian idea that Jesus existed as the God and who created all before he was born is false.

“just as the Father has life within Himself, He has given the Son to also have life within himself”

You don't know much about the Trinity theology.

As I said before, you may very well be correct that Exodus 3:14 ought to read “I will be”.
Either way, Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14.

That is what you have to disprove. Only thing I see is you scribbling over the word "was" as being a false translation. It doesn't change or affect the "I AM" statement nor the context of why the Jews wanted to stone him.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Why is 'the Christ' called "Mighty God?"

The Hebrew is something like "El Givbor" and can be translated as Mighty Warrior.

Why is 'the Christ' called "the LORD Our Righteous Savior?"

Please consider my thread "The Yahweh Name". Jesus is the development and the central focus of the Yahweh Name.

This is not logical and not even close to be considered an argument. Explaining some of the functional role of 'the Christ' (like being a king mention above), which doesn't negate that he isn't God and LORD.

The Trinity focus is that ALL that Jesus was is because throughout Jesus was God. The Scriptures reveal the remarkable and unique birth and development of the human Jesus, the Son of God, his character, his sinlessness, his remarkable teachings, his healings and his trial, sufferings, crucifixion and resurrection.

I'm not much into Bible translations. I've been using the NIV for many years. And if I want to know something, then I will simply dig into the Greek.

I will stand by my understanding of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. The KJV dismissed Tyndale's translation in favour of their Trinity bias and they mistranslated and gave the wrong emphasis to John 8:58 despite how they were compelled to translate the same words in John 8:24 and John 8:28.. A few honest scholars added "I will be" to the margins of the RV and RSV for Exodus 3:14.

I'm not much into Bible translations. I've been using the NIV for many years. And if I want to know something, then I will simply dig into the Greek.

No problem here. We need to use all our resources carefully.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Binyawmene]

Says you. I have already debunked that idea.

You must try harder if you want to disprove that Christ isn't God.

 

[Binyawmene]

Please consider my thread "The Yahweh Name". Jesus is the development and the central focus of the Yahweh Name.

Do you have a link to that thread?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
According to John 5:26 and 1John 1:1-4, the Word is an everlasting life which Gen
21:33, John 10:28, and Rom 16:26 imply is an indestructible category of life that's
impervious to death. So the Word didn't go out of existence when he came into the
world as an organic being per John 1:14 which means of course that Jesus Christ
was an organic being and a spirit being simultaneously right from the moment of
his conception.

The Word's binary characteristics gives rise to some interesting events.

For example: Jesus stated that he existed before Abraham. Now as a man of course
that is an impossibility seeing as how Jesus is one of Abraham's very distant
paternal grandsons, but as the Word it was easily possible.

Jesus also said he came down from Heaven. That too is doubtful because he himself
said that no man has ever been to Heaven; but as the Word of course he'd been
there.

Jesus said that he was on Earth and up in Heaven simultaneously. (nuff said, I
think we get it.)

Jesus drove his opponents to frustration 'cause sometimes he spoke as a man, and
sometimes he spoke as the Word-- the one a divine being and the other a natural
being.
_

 

[Fred]

But what is sad is that you ignore the clear teaching of Psalm 110:1 that gives a picture of the Throne of God.

You already tried using Psalm 110:1, but this passage refutes your false assertion about Jesus.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/a-slave-of-christ-yhwh.1025/#post-38332

 

[Binyawmene]

You already tried using Psalm 110:1, but this passage refutes your false assertion about Jesus.

I always wonder why the author of Hebrews mention the Son is the creator LORD in Hebrews 1:10. But he follows that up with a quote of Psalms 110:1 in Hebrews 1:13. Almost like the author is pointing out the two LORDs are distinct, but yet are the same LORD like in Psalms 110:5. Can you go into more details, Fred? Thanks.