Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The Watchtower Society's New World Translation renders a portion of Heb 1:8 like
this:

"God is your throne"

Whereas the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation says this:

"The throne of you the God."

The Interlinear trumps the NWT so the conventional translation is the best; which
says:

"Your throne O God."

So I think it's safe to posit that the Lord in verse 10 is "the" Lord, and tells us that
the Word of John 1:1 should be spoken of as God spelled in upper case rather than
something less.
_

 

[Binyawmene]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Jesus is the central focus and the development of the Yahweh Name, "He who will become". The One God, Yahweh, God the Father in giving birth to the human Jesus, and in his development has extended Himself to incorporate Jesus, the Son of God.

Yes, God reveals himself throughout history of the Old Testament. You can pick up any theology book and acknowledge the basics. And even reveals himself to be the incarnate LORD. Some biblical names of God even emphasize his attributes. Like Jehovah tsidkenu is one of them since "righteousness" is an divine attribute. This name is designated to the future Davidic king, who will rule over and restored Israel. And righteousness is a divine attribute of 'the Christ' (the incarnate LORD) in providing for us salvation.

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​

Seems a bit ambiguous, but Peter does not try to merge God the Father and Jesus as is evident from his first epistle

So, you are going with the Two-Person view.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (NIV).​

Two-Person:

a). our God (the Father).​

b). and Savior ('the Christ').​

One-Person:

a). our God and Savior ('the Christ').​

The Two-Person view causes problems for Unitarianism. Because the same grammar construction is found in 1 Peter 1:3, then the same method must also apply or be inconsistent.

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,​

Two-Person:

a). the God (the Father).​

b). and Father ('the Father)​

You end up having two fathers if you apply the same method. The crazy thing is that Unitarians only apply the Two-Person view when Jesus Christ is mentioned. But they won't apply the same method of the same grammar construction when a verse is referring to the Father. It's extremely poor critical thinking skills and inconsistency.

On the other hand, the One-Person view is straight forward that Jesus Christ is both "God and Savior". The verse is not dividing "God and Savior" into two different subject-persons. The same sentence structure occurs again in the same letter of 2 Peter:

2 Peter 1:11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.​

​

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.​

​

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.​

In each verse above has the phrase "LORD and Savior," which is not two subject-persons. The grammar sentence structure "LORD and Savior" is exactly the same as "God and Savior". Jesus Christ is identified as both God and Savior, and also, both Lord and Savior.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again makesends,

So, before Abraham was, Jesus Christ was not?

You are incorrectly applying your understanding of John 8:58.

He is not, from everlasting to everlasting, God?

No, there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God.

Like Jehovah tsidkenu is one of them since "righteousness" is an divine attribute.

I consider that "righteous" as applied to Jesus speaks of his perfect character and sinlessness, and this was developed in him from his birth, youth, maturity and ministry until his victory over sin in his death, crucifixion and resurrection..

Isaiah 53:10–12 (KJV): 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The Two-Person view causes problems for Unitarianism. Because the same grammar construction is found in 1 Peter 1:3, then the same method must also apply or be inconsistent.

I am not willing to get involved in your grammar or logic here.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Binyawmene]

I consider that "righteous" as applied to Jesus speaks of his perfect character and sinlessness, and this was developed in him from his birth, youth, maturity and ministry until his victory over sin in his death, crucifixion and resurrection..

Sounds like "nature versus nurture" argument.

Christ's righteousness (the righteousness of God) wasn't developed in him (1 Samuel 2:2, Isaiah 6:3, John 12:41, James 2:19, Luke 1:35, 4:34, John 6:69). He is the incarnate YHWH having the divine attribute of righteousness according to the Divine Nature.

1 Peter 2:21-24 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. “HE HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS” IN HIS BODY ON THE CROSS, SO THAT WE MIGHT DIE TO SINS AND LIVE FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, SO THAT IN HIM WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.

Philippians 3:7-9 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MY OWN that comes from the law, BUT THAT WHICH IS THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST–THE RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT COMES FROM GOD ON THE BASIS OF FAITH.

Romans 3:21-22 But now apart from the law THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS IS GIVEN THOUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST TO ALL WHO BELEIVE. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,

1 Corinthians 1:30 It is because of him that YOU ARE IN CHRIST JESUS, WHO HAS BECOME FOR US wisdom from God—that is, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, holiness and redemption.

I am not willing to get involved in your grammar or logic here.

Kind regards
Trevor

No worries. Thanks for your time and enjoy your day.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Sounds like "nature versus nurture" argument.

Yes, you take away his victory over sin. and make the whole scene of no real substance or effect. I believe in representation, not substitution. Our sins are forgiven on the basis of our faith in all that was accomplished in Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again makesends,

You are incorrectly applying your understanding of John 8:58.

No, there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God.

I consider that "righteous" as applied to Jesus speaks of his perfect character and sinlessness, and this was developed in him from his birth, youth, maturity and ministry until his victory over sin in his death, crucifixion and resurrection..

Isaiah 53:10–12 (KJV): 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


I am not willing to get involved in your grammar or logic here.

Kind regards
Trevor

It was God(the Father) who made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36

They simply do not understand that the Father has given His Son the name above all names……which name is LORD (YHVH)

In prophecy, the Father says of the Son, unto me every knee shall bow. It was spoken by the Father for the Son whom He made to be LORD.

Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. Because The Father has put all things under the control of His Son. He has been made LORD of all.

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father…..”
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand”
“For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that himself does”

There is not one thing that can be said of Jesus that has not been given, committed or appointed to him by his God. Not one.

The God of Jesus is his Father. And His Father has made him to be as Himself. To be LORD of all.

To us there is one God, the Father, and one LORD, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, the one whom the Father made to be LORD. And every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is LORD, to the glory of the Father.

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Yes, you take away his victory over sin. and make the whole scene of no real substance or effect. I believe in representation, not substitution. Our sins are forgiven on the basis of our faith in all that was accomplished in Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor

If Jesus was your substitute you never have to die. Everyone has an appointment with death.

 

[LeviR]

How is it that David said in spirit “the LORD said to my Lord”.

If he is David’s son, how it is he is also David’s Lord?

Because God made him to be David’s Lord when Jesus came in the name of his God and Father……YHVH.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again LeviR,

How is it that David said in spirit “the LORD said to my Lord”.
If he is David’s son, how it is he is also David’s Lord?
Because God made him to be David’s Lord when Jesus came in the name of his God and Father……YHVH.

I believe that first, Jesus is David's Lord because although he was a descendant of David through Mary, Jesus had a superior birth and hence status because God the Father was his father in the conception/birth process. As such Jesus was the greatest Prince ever born,

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again LeviR,

I believe that first, Jesus is David's Lord because although he was a descendant of David through Mary, Jesus had a superior birth and hence status because God the Father was his father in the conception/birth process. As such Jesus was the greatest Prince ever born,

Kind regards
Trevor

Jhn 8:54
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:

For the Jew, the Father alone was whom they said was their God. And if Jesus would honor himself, it would be nothing. It is the Father who honors him.

Did the Jews get it wrong?

If nothing else, their God was the Father, and He made it very clear to them that He alone was their God. There is no other God besides Him. The shema was most important to them as it is today.
They were left with little doubt that the Father alone was their God. Who is also the God of Jesus. As it is made clear in John 17.

Does the Trinitarian really expect that anyone who studies the O.T. To conclude God is three persons? There is no way.

Someone has introduced a three person God. Oops.

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again LeviR,

I believe that first, Jesus is David's Lord because although he was a descendant of David through Mary, Jesus had a superior birth and hence status because God the Father was his father in the conception/birth process. As such Jesus was the greatest Prince ever born,

Kind regards
Trevor

Have you ever noticed that the Hebrew Bible has no word that means “person”?
For the Hebrew people, a person was one who had a face. Face was the word they used to identify someone.
The same is true for the Greek text.

The word “person” was added by philosophers from the Greek word prosopon which means “face” or “countenance”.

To claim that someone is a person is to say they have a face. No one could be a person without a face.

If God is three persons, He is someone with three faces. I don’t think so.
If the Holy Spirit is a person He is someone with a face.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Christ's righteousness (the righteousness of God) wasn't developed in him (1 Samuel 2:2, Isaiah 6:3, John 12:41, James 2:19, Luke 1:35, 4:34, John 6:69). He is the incarnate YHWH having the divine attribute of righteousness according to the Divine Nature.

I decided to write out your references and give a quick response to each one.

1 Samuel 2:2 (KJV): There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.
But this does not exclude Jesus when he was developed.

Isaiah 6:3 (KJV): And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
John 12:41 (KJV): These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
These two are connected. Isaiah 6 is a vision of Jesus in the future and he has obtained the status of Most Holy and of bearing the Yahweh Name.

James 2:19 (KJV): Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Relevance?

Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Jesus the Son of God when born was Holy. No hint here that God the Son was inhabiting Jesus.

Luke 4:34 (KJV): Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
Yes, but it does not say that Jesus was God. It says "of God"

John 6:69 (KJV): And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Yes, not God the Son. Two separate Beings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TMSO]

I asked you a very simple question. Please show from scripture where the verb Jesus used means “was” or “was born” or “existed” as Trinitarians claim.
If the verbs means something else in every case, you can’t change the meaning of it.
However, you’re free to deceive whoever you will.

To give them power to become sons of God.

To give them power was born sons of God.

Absurd.

Say you don't understand how translation works without saying you don't know how translation works. If it were easy, every english idiom would easily slip into Hebrew. I mean it doesn't into Russian, so why not into Hebrew? Different language. You may have a better chance. That word comes from existential thought. To become something. Existential thought, like when you show up at work and wonder why you are there. What is your purpose. You know, the heavy philosophy of life. Before Abraham became, which they seem to have decided is entering the world through the void of... well... birds and bees, in which case, "was" is a perfect fit for translating it into english. I hope you aren't one of those who believe you simply need a dictionary to translate something. I gave the below because it shows a breadth of meaning in that one word, when considering it from the English language. Obviously, to a native speaker, it is all feeling, not thought. They just know what it means by feel.

was born,

γενέσθαι (genesthai)

1096: to come into being, to happen, to become

from a prim. root gen-

I don't think Jesus could have been more clear. Do not it doesn't say was here, but "was born". Which is in line with "to come into being". Since one can remove born without losing any meaning... why not?

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Pronunciation: GHEE-no-my
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Definition: to become, to come into being, to happen, to be made, to be done
Meaning: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

So if it means before Abraham came into being, then it was before He was. Proper translation includes nuance. That is why translating something is not easy.

 

[LeviR]

Say you don't understand how translation works without saying you don't know how translation works. If it were easy, every english idiom would easily slip into Hebrew. I mean it doesn't into Russian, so why not into Hebrew? Different language. You may have a better chance. That word comes from existential thought. To become something. Existential thought, like when you show up at work and wonder why you are there. What is your purpose. You know, the heavy philosophy of life. Before Abraham became, which they seem to have decided is entering the world through the void of... well... birds and bees, in which case, "was" is a perfect fit for translating it into english. I hope you aren't one of those who believe you simply need a dictionary to translate something. I gave the below because it shows a breadth of meaning in that one word, when considering it from the English language. Obviously, to a native speaker, it is all feeling, not thought. They just know what it means by feel.

was born,

γενέσθαι (genesthai)

1096: to come into being, to happen, to become

from a prim. root gen-

I don't think Jesus could have been more clear. Do not it doesn't say was here, but "was born". Which is in line with "to come into being". Since one can remove born without losing any meaning... why not?

Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Pronunciation: GHEE-no-my
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Definition: to become, to come into being, to happen, to be made, to be done
Meaning: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.

So if it means before Abraham came into being, then it was before He was. Proper translation includes nuance. That is why translating something is not easy.

Certainly, one way to translate that verb would be “before Abraham to come, I am”
To make it more clear you could say “before Abraham is to come, I am”

You might even switch it up a bit to say the same thing. “I am coming before Abraham comes.”

The predicate of Jesus “coming” is implied in the original sentence. Both English and Greek use implied predicates.

But to say “before Abraham was born, I am” is to completely misuse the verb.

There is a verb that means “was born” in Greek, and that’s not it.

It would certainly help your case if you had some scriptural proof. Otherwise one might think your theological bias is acting up.

 

[Mr GLee]

I asked you to show from scripture where that verb can mean “was” or “was born” and you show me a Trinitarian lexicon that adds “to come into being” only because of John 8:58.

So again, I’ve debunked John 8:58. And I’ve also debunked John’s prologue.

The verb meaning “was born” is ἐγεννήθη

The verb used in John 8:58 is γενέσθαι which means “to become”. i.e.. “power to become sons of God”

Yes Two is the one witness God not seen has spoken . the original dynamic dual .

The I Am power mighty power to raise the dead and confirm those who will not rise on the last day .

Power to judged fall backward or power to free.

Three times to denote the end of the matter.

Note. . .(parentheses) my added view point

John 18:5-9King James Version They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. (Prophecy as the voice of Christ ) And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he,(Prophecy as the voice of Christ ) they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: (Prophecy as the voice of Christ )if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.

Proverbs 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

 

[makesends]

Have you ever noticed that the Hebrew Bible has no word that means “person”?
For the Hebrew people, a person was one who had a face. Face was the word they used to identify someone.
The same is true for the Greek text.

The word “person” was added by philosophers from the Greek word prosopon which means “face” or “countenance”.

To claim that someone is a person is to say they have a face. No one could be a person without a face.

If God is three persons, He is someone with three faces. I don’t think so.
If the Holy Spirit is a person He is someone with a face.

False equivalence, and false representation. Does not follow.

Nobody is claiming that the Bible says God is/has 3 faces, nor even claiming the Bible says that God is 3 persons.

 

[LeviR]

False equivalence, and false representation. Does not follow.

Nobody is claiming that the Bible says God is/has 3 faces, nor even claiming the Bible says that God is 3 persons.

That’s a main reason why the Trinity is unbiblical. It’s a teaching of the philosopher theologian who took the philosophical idea of person which comes from the Greek prosopon which means face in the N.T. and added the idea into the Bible with a different word found in the Bible (hypostases) that has an actual different meaning from person altogether. So they simply changed the meaning of that word to suit the idea of person.

Then they take the Greek word ousia which refers to all the stuff someone owns(their possessions) and change the meaning of that word to mean nature.
But the actual Biblical word for nature of something as implied by the Trintiy doctrine is physis not ousia

Therefore, if we use the actual Biblical words with their teaching we get:

Three reality in one possession.

However, if we were to use the Biblical words to express what they are actually saying, we would have to say:

Three prosopon (faces, persons) with one physis (nature).

This is why I’m trying to tell you the RCC makes up stuff and tries to add their ideas into scripture.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

Nobody is claiming that the Bible says God is/has 3 faces,

According to the 1st chapter of Ezekiel, God has 4 faces; to wit: the face of a man,
the face of an ox, the face of a lion, and the face of an eagle.

It's been proposed that the face of a man represents humanness, the face of an ox
represents service, the face of a lion represents royalty, and the face of an eagle
represents divinity.

With a little imagination one can make the four faces correspond to the four
Gospels. To wit: Matthew portrays Christ as a king, Mark portrays Christ as a
servant, Luke portrays Christ's humanity, and John portrays Christ as a theophany.

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.
_

 

[LeviR]

According to the 1st chapter of Ezekiel, God has 4 faces; to wit: the face of a man,
the face of an ox, the face of a lion, and the face of an eagle.

It's been proposed that the face of a man represents humanness, the face of an ox
represents service, the face of a lion represents royalty, and the face of an eagle
represents divinity.

With a little imagination one can make the four faces correspond to the four
Gospels. To wit: Matthew portrays Christ as a king, Mark portrays Christ as a
servant, Luke portrays Christ's humanity, and John portrays Christ as a theophany.

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.

Heb 9:23Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be [j]purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are [k]copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

All the earthly things that were purified are copies the true things in heaven.
From all the people of Israel to all the utensils used in service of the tabernacle .

What John sees in heaven when a door is opened, is the true things that the earthly things were but a copy or shadow.

The 4 living creatures represent the people of Israel and their encampment around the tabernacle. But these people are in heaven and therefore have been raised from the dead to immortality.
The twelve tribes of Israel were separated into 4 groups of 3 tribes each. Each of the 4 groups had its own banner. Each banner of the groups had it own symbol. The 4 symbols were man, ox, lion, eagle.

 

[makesends]

That’s a main reason why the Trinity is unbiblical. It’s a teaching of the philosopher theologian who took the philosophical idea of person which comes from the Greek prosopon which means face in the N.T. and added the idea into the Bible with a different word found in the Bible (hypostases) that has an actual different meaning from person altogether. So they simply changed the meaning of that word to suit the idea of person.

Then they take the Greek word ousia which refers to all the stuff someone owns(their possessions) and change the meaning of that word to mean nature.
But the actual Biblical word for nature of something as implied by the Trintiy doctrine is physis not ousia

Therefore, if we use the actual Biblical words with their teaching we get:

Three reality in one possession.

However, if we were to use the Biblical words to express what they are actually saying, we would have to say:

Three prosopon (faces, persons) with one physis (nature).

This is why I’m trying to tell you the RCC makes up stuff and tries to add their ideas into scripture.

This is tiring. Seriously. How many times in how many different ways do you have to hear that 'Trinity' and 'persons' and whatever else accompanies them in the confessions, canons and orthodoxy are only what we use to help us understand what the Bible does say? Over centuries of trying to put into words what is scriptural and makes some sense to the human mind, and will stand up against people like you, with as few words as possible, the Doctrine of the Trinity was formed. We are —or at least most of us try to be— careful about how we present it. We rarely go off on our own, but you plow right in where angels fear to tread! You may act like you alone possess the true understanding of what the Bible does say, but you are WRONG.

It's bad enough for you to be wrong. And worse for you to claim falsehoods about our Lord and Savior and God, and to double-down on them. But it is useless for you to continue to use strawmen to prove your thesis. We don't refer to the RCC for our doctrine. We don't care about your use of "faces". What you say has changed nothing. It hasn't even separated those of us who hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, though I think that was your aim. We will hold to our doctrine of the Trinity, since it very well, concisely and accurately, describes what the Bible does present us throughout. It is not perfect, but at least it agrees with what is clear from Scripture, that Jesus Christ the Son of God is himself GOD.

Proselytize somewhere else.