Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[makesends]

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face of an ox has been replaced by the face of a cherub, yet Ezekiel says all four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.
_

OK, but how is that related to the OP? Or to whatever tangent we got off on before you started this trail? Is that relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[LeviR]

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.

The scripture is given for a reason.
Anyone who looks at the development of the Trinity will find that the wording is not based on scripture but on the philosophy of men.
Anyone who trust the teaching of scripture ought to be immediately skeptical when groups take their own ideas and try to insert them into the scripture.

That is exactly what the RCC does. Many fall for it, some don’t.

 

[Binyawmene]

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.

Jesus Christ is both God and man. As a man, he has no sin, and he is impeccable or not capable of sinning. He is not totally depraved and not born into sin (Luke 1:35). He is our substitution and carried our sins to the cross. Not his own sins, but an atonement for our sins. He is our federal headship for righteousness and the last Adam.

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.

Ah, you teach the "Jesus Exception" doctrine. He becomes unique, special, or God's representative and has equality with the Father in respect to the divine attribute of holiness? To say that Christ developed his own righteousness is to disowned the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3:14). Common sense says, that he has no sin so he cannot develop righteousness according to the human nature. Christ's imputed righteousness 'Scripturally' is referred as "the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21) and nowhere in the Bible says that our imputed righteousness is the righteousness of a developed man.

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.

Those verses doesn't teach that Jesus Christ obtained a status of holiness. He is the Holy One eternally. Even the apostles acknowledge that (John 6:69).

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

Because even the devil knows that Jesus Christ is the Holy One.

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.

The Bible doesn't teach nestorianism. The Hypostatic Union does not teach any form of Divine interference or intervention, like no Divine has materially assisted in physical bodily powers and mental faculties, nor any Divine element entered into training and development, etc. We do believe that his sinless human nature has influenced the physical growth, but there was no Divine guidance being involved in a genetic makeup and genotype of the impeccability.

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"

Doesn't matter. Even the devils' believe and knows who he is as the Holy One.

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.

The Trinity doesn't teach separate beings. Now I think you are getting desperate and creating straw mans. I wouldn't expect straw mans from you since you've 'seem to be' informed of both the Trinity and Hypostatic Union.

 

[TMSO]

Certainly, one way to translate that verb would be “before Abraham to come, I am”

Stop it, you are hurting my ears. Before Abrahame came. Before Abraham was born. Before Abraham came into existence.

To make it more clear you could say “before Abraham is to come, I am”

That would require a completely different case/tense. Abraham was long dead. Wasn't it clear when the people told Jesus that He wasn't even yet 50 years old yet claims to know Abraham. Before Abraham was born. Before Abraham came into existence. Jesus is saying that before all that, He already existed, and not only that, but in the state that all He could says is... "I Am". To speak of the past tense, and speak of oneself in the present tense in the past, breaks time.

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

No. That would destroy the Bible. The Jewish people understood exactly what Jesus was saying, why are you having such difficulty.

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

Jesus didn't say He was coming before Abraham. He was saying that before Abraham came into existence, Jesus exists. Present tense. So, those hundreds of years ago, Jesus exists, not existed. Jesus didn't say, before Abraham came into existence, I was. He said I AM.

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

Not according to the scholars and experts. To say was would only be nuance, and is not a direct translation. However, to say before Abraham was born is not at all a misuse, as it can be directly translated to, before Abraham came into existence. I don't think you failed science to know that for a human to come into existence is to be born, right?

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

Yes, but this is the verb for come into existence, which can be translated to, be born. Or perhaps Jesus is talking about the time before the foundation of the world, so Jesus was "I AM" before the Earth was even created, and God was choosing His elect such as Abraham?

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

There is plenty of scriptural proof. God spoke in the plural of Himself, not themselves, but Himself. Let us create mankind in our image. When royalty speaks in plurality it is because they are not speaking for themselves, but, such as with her highness saying "we are not amused", they are speaking for the state. The state is a plurality of the ruler and their people. If the king says, we are not amused, and you are one of his subjects, you had better not be amused because he just said you aren't. It's like with Herod and Jesus. Herod was upset, and all Jerusalem with him. God is not one person that is three persons. God is One Being, who is made up of three coexisting/coeternal persons. Two different terms used because they are two different levels of existence, being and person. Hence we like to use the term Godhead. Why was God so adamant at telling Israel that He is One? Could it be so they didn't get confused?

 

[Josheb]

Why limit the answer to solely one explanation?

God is the only God, but God is also the only self-existing, self-sufficient, wholly-unified or integrated, relational, personal and infinite God (unlike any other god ever invented by sinful humans).

 

[LeviR]

Stop it, you are hurting my ears. Before Abrahame came. Before Abraham was born. Before Abraham came into existence.

That would require a completely different case/tense. Abraham was long dead. Wasn't it clear when the people told Jesus that He wasn't even yet 50 years old yet claims to know Abraham. Before Abraham was born. Before Abraham came into existence. Jesus is saying that before all that, He already existed, and not only that, but in the state that all He could says is... "I Am". To speak of the past tense, and speak of oneself in the present tense in the past, breaks time.

No. That would destroy the Bible. The Jewish people understood exactly what Jesus was saying, why are you having such difficulty.

Jesus didn't say He was coming before Abraham. He was saying that before Abraham came into existence, Jesus exists. Present tense. So, those hundreds of years ago, Jesus exists, not existed. Jesus didn't say, before Abraham came into existence, I was. He said I AM.

Not according to the scholars and experts. To say was would only be nuance, and is not a direct translation. However, to say before Abraham was born is not at all a misuse, as it can be directly translated to, before Abraham came into existence. I don't think you failed science to know that for a human to come into existence is to be born, right?

Yes, but this is the verb for come into existence, which can be translated to, be born. Or perhaps Jesus is talking about the time before the foundation of the world, so Jesus was "I AM" before the Earth was even created, and God was choosing His elect such as Abraham?

There is plenty of scriptural proof. God spoke in the plural of Himself, not themselves, but Himself. Let us create mankind in our image. When royalty speaks in plurality it is because they are not speaking for themselves, but, such as with her highness saying "we are not amused", they are speaking for the state. The state is a plurality of the ruler and their people. If the king says, we are not amused, and you are one of his subjects, you had better not be amused because he just said you aren't. It's like with Herod and Jesus. Herod was upset, and all Jerusalem with him. God is not one person that is three persons. God is One Being, who is made up of three coexisting/coeternal persons. Two different terms used because they are two different levels of existence, being and person. Hence we like to use the term Godhead. Why was God so adamant at telling Israel that He is One? Could it be so they didn't get confused?

You can tell me I’m wrong and your scholars are right a thousand times. But I have 37 other verses backing me up that use that same exact form of the verb the same way. You have zero verses to back you up to prove the verb is used the way your scholars say.
So far I’m winning 38 to 0

 

[makesends]

TrevorL said:
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.

...

The Trinity doesn't teach separate beings. Now I think you are getting desperate and creating straw mans. I wouldn't expect straw mans from you since you've 'seem to be' informed of both the Trinity and Hypostatic Union.

Not to be supporting @TrevorL in any way, but to be fair, he wasn't saying that Trinity teaches two separate beings. He says that they ARE two separate beings.

 

[TMSO]

You can tell me I’m wrong and your scholars are right a thousand times. But I have 37 other verses backing me up that use that same exact form of the verb the same way. You have zero verses to back you up to prove the verb is used the way your scholars say.
So far I’m winning 38 to 0

The power to become children of God. So, prior to this, it would be Jesus saying, and before you became a child of God, I Am. Not a good argument. The verb is past tense, so that is how you would have to use it. So it still says, before Abraham was, that is, came into existence, which just happens to coincide with the idea of being born, I Am.

 

[LeviR]

The power to become children of God. So, prior to this, it would be Jesus saying, and before you became a child of God, I Am. Not a good argument. The verb is past tense, so that is how you would have to use it. So it still says, before Abraham was, that is, came into existence, which just happens to coincide with the idea of being born, I Am.

Still 38-0

Just give me 1 verse that uses that form of the verb to mean as your scholars claim, “was born”.
Just one.

Can you score 1 point against my 38?

If not, we’ll have to call it a blowout. And John 8:58 definitely debunked.

 

[David1701]

Still 38-0

Just give me 1 verse that uses that form of the verb to mean as your scholars claim, “was born”.
Just one.

Can you score 1 point against my 38?

If not, we’ll have to call it a blowout. And John 8:58 definitely debunked.

It means "came into existence" (and humans come into existence by being born, or, you could argue, by being conceived).

John 8:57,58 (W.E.B.)
57 The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”.
58 Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.”.

 

[LeviR]

It means "came into existence" (and humans come into existence by being born, or, you could argue, by being conceived).

John 8:57,58 (W.E.B.)
57 The Jews therefore said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”.
58 Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.”.

It does NOT mean “came into existence”. It means “to become”. Even Trinitarian scholars admit that’s what it means. They however changed the meaning for that one verse only.
Also, many Trinitarian scholars have admitted that “I am” does not necessarily refer to Exodus 3:14.
Some need to catch up.

 

[Fred]

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.

LORD in all capital letters is to be understood as being YHWH.

 

[LeviR]

LORD in all capital letters is to be understood as being YHWH.

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD”

Blessed is he who comes in the name YHVH (Psa 118:26)

Proper name of the one true God, the Father…….YHVH

 

[Fred]

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD”

"Whosoever shall call on the Name of the LORD shall be saved."

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/malachi-4-5-joel-2-31-acts-2-20-acts-2-20-acts-2-21.2305/

 

[LeviR]

"Whosoever shall call on the Name of the LORD shall be saved."

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/malachi-4-5-joel-2-31-acts-2-20-acts-2-20-acts-2-21.2305/

Jesus carries the name of his Father…..YHVH.

To be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son refers to being baptized into Jesus who carries the name of the Father.
The people were baptized into the name of Jesus only because he carries his Father’s name
being baptized into the Holy Spirit refers to receiving the gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Fred]

Jesus carries the name of his Father…..YHVH.

To be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son refers to being baptized into Jesus who carries the name of the Father.
The people were baptized into the name of Jesus only because he carries his Father’s name
being baptized into the Holy Spirit refers to receiving the gifts of the Spirit.

That the Bible teaches Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.

 

[LeviR]

That the Bible teaches Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.

Get away from the doctrines of the RCC. They have Mary as a mediator and pray to other dead saints
Their doctrines are false. The Head of their church is the Pope.

 

[LeviR]

That the Bible teaches Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.

One God, the Father.
One Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the only one who carries the name of the Father. That’s why he is the one Lord.

He deserves all the honor of the Father.

 

[Fred]

Get away from the doctrines of the RCC. They have Mary as a mediator and pray to other dead saints
Their doctrines are false. The Head of their church is the Pope.

Get away from your heresy.
I never affirmed here that praying to others besides God is ok.

Get a clue.

 

[LeviR]

Get away from your heresy.
I never affirmed here that praying to others besides God is ok.

Get a clue.

It’s not “one God in three persons”, it’s “one God, the Father.”
I got the clue.