Yahweh 301,302 or Trinity 301,302

[Red Baker]

I just reread what I posted you and see some errors in my spelling and use of words, just overlook them, I cannot go back and edit them after 10 minutes, sorry. I'll try to slow down a little and be more careful.

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I decided not to answer your posts in detail. There are a few new items, but much of it is a repeat of what we have already considered. I decided to clarify a few of the items that I have already mentioned. We looked at and discussed the following reference:
John 8:56–58 (KJV): 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.

My main claim here is that I prefer that John 8:58 should be translated “I am he”, the same as in the immediate context John 8:24,28. This is part of the theme in John’s Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. The following are some of the verses that are part of this theme, and none of these have the rendition “I AM”, showing that this concept is incorrect and should not be part of John 8:58.

The problem I'm having is where to I need to begin with, so as to make this post without the possibility of someone being able to gainsay what we are going to say. WHen a person has truth, the problem lies "where do you start"? Let us start here in John 20:31 a verse you quoted, yet I'm convinced you do not understand the sense in which John wrote it.

John 20:28-31~"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

What is written in John gospel was given that believers would have the full assurance that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Trevor, do you not near what these scriptures are saying? What is recorded in John 's gospel is there that we may know the Jesus is the Lord God of the OT in his deity by being the only begotten Son of God. John also carried this same message into 1st John.

Before leaving these wonderful scriptures look at these words: "believing ye might have life through his name"~the sense of those words are this~by believing John's witness concerning Jesus Christ~ we might have life through his name or, have the KNOWLEDGE OF having eternal life, and only those that believe the record God has given of his only begotten Son has eternal life, no other person has right to eternal life except believers. We must believe Jesus is the true God and eternal life~Eternal life is in Jesus Christ.

1st John 5:20~"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."

Now to John 8:56-59...........................................................

John 8:56-58~"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

Trevor, you did not include verse 59 in your quote, yet it is an essential part of what is being taught in these scriptures.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it~
Jesus did not say Abraham had seen hi, or he had seen Abraham, but a day! The day under consideration is the gospel day of the NT. Abraham saw the future coming of Christ Jesus. Many prophets of the OT saw it from Moses on. Isaiah wrote much about Christ coming along with Jeremiah, For a starter read Isaiah 48:8; 53; Psa. 95:7, etc.

and was glad.......
Abraham heard the gospel preach by God and believed it! Galatians cp. Hebrews 4:2.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

The Jews like you Trevor, missed a biblical truth....... divine nature coming into world through the house of David. A Son given in the likeness of sinful flesh~ yet possessing deity by being the Christ of God, the promised Messiah, Emmanuel made flesh, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. They did not truly understand Isaiah 7:14; 9:6! Maybe like you though that the scribes mistranslated those scriptures, who know,
but for sure, they did not under the true sense of those verses.

John 8:58~"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Trevor, These words point to Jesus' deity ~ the Jews understood exactly what Jesus said and meant by saying what he did, that's why they took up stones in the very next verse to try to stone him, a verse you conveniently never quoted.

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

Jesu hid himself! Here we see his deity at work....

Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by

But, I want to come back and look at John 8:58 in depth.

 

[Red Baker]

John 8:57,58~"Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Without a controversy, these remarkable words are a great deep. They contain things which we have no eyes to see through, or mind to fathom. But if language means anything, they teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ existed long before He came into the world. Before the days of Abraham He was. Before man was created He was. In short, they teach us that the Lord Jesus was no mere man like Moses or David. He was One whose goings forth were from everlasting, the same yesterday, today, and forever, very and eternal God.

Verily, verily~a double repetition of verily which occurs only in John's writings, show us the important of what is being said that we should take heed to this truth that is forthcoming, a truth that only a few will hear, receive, and believe.~or, the double repetition would not have been needed to be said.

Before Abraham was, I AM~These words clearly reveal what the Jew knew...Abraham had a beginning and he had an end. They also clearly reveal what the Jews knew~God was eternal I AM THAT I AM. Jesus slowly and progressively reveals more and more in this debate with the Jews. Jesus claimed a divine, eternal nature by these five glorious words about Himself. Jesus could have said, before Abraham was, I was, and it would have been true, But, he used the present tense verb of being ~ AM ~to identify as Jehovah! Trevor, we accept, exalt, and defend this present tense verb in its full implications. The truth is our Lord's pre-existence; He was eternal by His divine nature.

The glorious name of God I AM THAT I AM~applies perfectly to the Lord Jesus Christ.

God does not exist in time like us~past, present and future~he simply IS. He exist above, through, around, before, and after time in endless eternity. We ahve an origin, source, time, dependence; He is infinitely independant. Jesus is Jehovah God~All who reject this will be damned.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

You believe John 8:56-58 is translated incorrectly, yet you believe the others are translated correctly! So, you truly do not believe God has kept his promise in protecting his word even through translations? I for one do and so did all of the apostles.

The glorious name of God I AM THAT I AM~applies perfectly to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I have linked these two portions together to ask the question: Which of the following two translations has "God kept his promise in protecting his word even through translations" ?
Exodus 3:12–14 (KJV): 12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. 13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
The first is the King James Version published in 1611, a product of the Church of England and most of the translators were Trinitarians. The second is by William Tyndale and was published earlier, possibly in 1532. His aim was to allow the English people to have a Bible in the English language and available to even a ploughboy to read and understand. Tyndale was persecuted by the Church of England and killed by the established Church in Europe where he had sought refuge.

We have the Tyndale and KJV Bibles, then the RV (and ASV), RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV and many others. Each of these have some differences and reference to a number of these would be beneficial in any study of a verse or subject. Then there are reference books that also can give a better insight.

Let us start here in John 20:31 a verse you quoted, yet I'm convinced you do not understand the sense in which John wrote it.
What is written in John gospel was given that believers would have the full assurance that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Trevor, do you not hear what these scriptures are saying? What is recorded in John 's gospel is there that we may know the Jesus is the Lord God of the OT in his deity by being the only begotten Son of God. We must believe Jesus is the true God and eternal life~Eternal life is in Jesus Christ.

I have already clearly indicated that I believe that our Lord Jesus Chruist is a human, now exalted to sit at the right hand of God the Father, in God the Father's Throne, and he is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it~
Jesus did not say Abraham had seen hi, or he had seen Abraham, but a day! The day under consideration is the gospel day of the NT. Abraham saw the future coming of Christ Jesus. Many prophets of the OT saw it from Moses on. Isaiah wrote much about Christ coming along with Jeremiah, For a starter read Isaiah 48:8; 53; Psa. 95:7, etc.

Yes. The events of Genesis 22 taught Abraham concerning the sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection.

The Jews like you Trevor, missed a biblical truth....... divine nature coming into world through the house of David.

Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

But if language means anything, they teach us that our Lord Jesus Christ existed long before He came into the world. Before the days of Abraham He was.

I understand that Jesus was in the plan and purpose before Abraham came into existence. An example of this is Genesis 3:15.

The glorious name of God I AM THAT I AM~applies perfectly to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The glorious Name of God, Yahweh, "He who will be", "I will be who I will be" is fulfilled in Jesus. The Yahweh Name is prophetic of what He would do, accomplish. It is not a statement of His existence. Refer Tyndale, RV and RSV margins where God's word and translation has been preserved for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart to understand.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

I decided to post some information concerning the gradual development of the subject of the Trinity in the earliest Centuries after Christ using two resources.

The first is from a book that I obtained, and when I read this I highlighted a few of the statements that I consider significant. I have a print copy, but there is a pdf version available online.

History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.

Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.

Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.

Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.

The second reference is taken from the Lecture Slides of one of my Brethren, and he has extensively read and studied some of the writings of the ECFs.

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

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I have linked these two portions together to ask the question: Which of the following two translations has "God kept his promise in protecting his word even through translations" ?

Greeting Trevor,

Trevor, you reponse back is getting less and less, with hardly any labor from you trying to prove what I have said to you concerning your doctrine of rejecting the deity of Jesus Christ, is a heresy to be rejected by the faithful few left in this world, a heresy that will cause a person who embraces such teachings, to be rejected in that at the Great White Throne Judgement Seat of Christ~Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and ONLY Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

And you, Trevor, think he was just a man! Trevor, this is serious, it is not like a person not understanding certain great doctrines of grace, or even some of the gospel, your position is rejecting the deity of God's holy child, Jesus Christ, who equally shares all the glory of the Godhead with his Father in his divine nature as God, who created all things.

I have linked these two portions together to ask the question: Which of the following two translations has "God kept his promise in protecting his word even through translations" ?

Well, Trevor, I'll go with the Authorized version of 1611, since that the version that most of the English world has used up until around 1880, which time the floodgates of this world's market places begin to flood this world with different versions, to where we are now, where almost different ones are coming out at an alarming rate almost monthly! I think the KJV of 1611 is the only one that is not copyrighted! The rest are for $$$$$ profits to be made.

Now concerning the ones you mention above~Actually Wycliffe was before Tyndale~each using different sources for their material. Go here and get a brief history of all bible up until 1611, and their sources:

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/history_of_the_english_bible_Tyndale_kjv.html

I'm no expert in translations and have no desire to be, since it's all history and history is written by victors~besides, we were not there, so we truly will never know why this or that, etc. Yet, we both know that neither of us can or even desire to try to read Wycliffe, or Tyndale's version~thank God for the up-to-date English we have now ~ even the 1611 has been changed as far a word spellings, which bring us to where we are now. So, for almost four hundred years, our forefathers have used the KJV ,and have had no problems with the KJV, and it has stood the test of time by the attacks of the wicked. This is all I'm going to say about bibles versions in this thread ~ I want to stay on course of our subject.

I have already clearly indicated that I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is a human, now exalted to sit at the right hand of God the Father, in God the Father's Throne, and he is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection

Trevor, Jesus is more than just a human. We fully agree Jesus is now exalted as the man, Christ Jesus far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. Yet, being God's only begotten Son, makes him equal to God in Godhead. The virgin birth of Jesus, by not being of Adam's posterity is what makes him THE SON of God, more than just a mere mortal man, that your religion wants to make him to be~He is much more than just a mere man like Moses, etc. He's the Lord from Heaven! Isaiah 7:14 cp with Isaiah 9:6, cp with 1st Corinthians 15:47, etc.

Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

One more time, Trevor, one more time~God was not the Son, the Son was God~God has never cease to be who he is~An eternal Spirit, as I said above.

God does not exist in time like us~past, present and future~he simply IS. He exist above, through, around, before, and after time in endless eternity.

Trevor, this has never changed, nor will it ever change, impossible.

Trevor, this Glorious eternal Being was manifest in the flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth~why can't you accept this Biblical truth? It is seen all throughout the NT pages after pages! COnsider and tell me who are the apostles speaking about when they wrote these words:

Revelation 1:5-8~"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Trevor is Jesus the Almighty God? Yes of no. One more.....

Titus 2:13~"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

Simple question for you: Is Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour? You determine your eternal fate by your answer.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

Trevor, you reponse back is getting less and less, with hardly any labor from you trying to prove what I have said to you concerning your doctrine of rejecting the deity of Jesus Christ, is a heresy to be rejected by the faithful few left in this world

Yes and this post will be shorter as we have stated our differences on most aspects.

And you, Trevor, think he was just a man!

Jesus is a unique man, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, God's only begotten son.

Well, Trevor, I'll go with the Authorized version of 1611, since that the version that most of the English world has used up until around 1880

I read a portion of the Bible in the morning from a KJV/RV Interlinear Bible. It is interesting to carefully consider where the RV improves the KJV. My mother told me that my grandmother's Bible was a KJV/RV and I received my latest copy from my mother's estate. Our meeting mainly reads from the KJV and most speakers use the KJV for their exposition.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

Yes and this post will be shorter as we have stated our differences on most aspects.

So, Trevor you refuse to answer a simple, direct question, why?

I asked you in my last post yesterday this question based on four quoted scriptures~

Revelation 1:5-8~"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Trevor is Jesus the Almighty God? Yes of no. One more.....

Titus 2:13~"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

Simple question for you: Is Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour? You determine your eternal fate by your answers.

Trevor, I'm not allowing you to slip away as though enough has been said~You are in a corner with no way out and it is not me that has you there, it is the word of God, the same word you will face at that day when you will see that great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the only God any man will ever see, or angels, as far as that goes!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

Trevor, I'm not allowing you to slip away as though enough has been said~You are in a corner with no way out and it is not me that has you there, it is the word of God, the same word you will face at that day when you will see that great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the only God any man will ever see, or angels, as far as that goes!

I am not going anywhere. I find it interesting that you threaten me with Divine judgement if I do not accept the Trinity, and possibly your own version of the Trinity. You also accuse me of heresy and that I belong to a cult. For my part I do not feel any such feeling towards you. I recognise that some of the things that I have stated are new to you and difficult for you to understand. Also I am not very clear and my explanations may be a little obscure. I have learnt these things slowly over many years. I hope that you will gradually learn some of these things and until then I need to be very patient.

We had a visiting speaker from Sydney this morning, 160 km away. He asked for Luke 2:39-52 to be read and then spoke on the early life of Jesus, and he considered in some detail the following verses:
Luke 2:40,49–52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? 50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
He spoke of the education of Jesus considering verses 40 and 52. He also stated that the words highlighted in verse 49 are the first recorded words of Jesus.

In his exposition he quoted from a 1889 magazine article called "Jesus More Than a Man" and I thought the first two paragraphs are relevant to what we have discussed.
"CHRIST was more than man. We may overlook this in the efforts which have rid us of the false conceptions derived from “the vain traditions of our forefathers.” He was a man, but a man who was the vehicle of a manifestation of God, and that God the eternal God, even the Father. The manifestation was a progressive one, but real at every stage—fainter at the beginning than at the end, but as real at the beginning as at the end. A rose in the bud is as really a rose in nature as when it is full blown. The babe that received the adorations of the wise men of the east, and whose birth was that same night angelically signalised on the plains of Bethlehem, was as really the manifestation of the name of the Father as the glorified man who felled Saul of Tarsus to the earth with his brightness. The difference was a difference of degree. The Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary gave the impress, which laid the foundation of the manifestation to be made. But for this impress there never would have appeared in Israel such a man as Jesus of Nazareth. There never would have come the Lamb of God without spot. Poor Adamic flesh, in which dwelleth no good thing, never could have yielded such a perfect character as that of Jesus, unless the Father had taken hold of it and wrought it for us into such a pattern. It is “of God, that he (Christ) is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”

This in no way excludes the fact that the perfect man so made for us was of the same physical nature, and put to the proof, and in all points tempted like as we are. Without temptation, the perfection of the result would not have been manifest. The best of characters, even among men, are not pronounced or seen to be the best till they have come through the fire. And it was needful for the perfection of this most glorious of the works of God upon earth, that in suffering, its excellencies should be tested and made manifest. But though put to the proof, it was in itself the excellent thing God had made it—a pattern of His own character, the exhibition of His own excellence, the interposition of His own power and kindness for the salvation of His people from their sins. At thirty years of age, with the maturity of developed manhood and the anointing of the Holy Spirit in abiding fulness, the manifestation entered upon a fuller phase; but it was the same manifestation: the manifestation of God among men: the exhibition of the Word made flesh—a man who was one with the Father—sanctified and sent forth into the world by the Father, for the manifestation of the Father’s name and the accomplishment of the Father’s work."

He read from the portion underlined above, and I consider that this is a good explanation. It speaks clearly against the concept that Jesus had two natures, two minds, a God-man.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I am not going anywhere. I find it interesting that you threaten me with Divine judgement if I do not accept the Trinity, and possibly your own version of the Trinity. You also accuse me of heresy and that I belong to a cult. For my part I do not feel any such feeling towards you. I recognise that some of the things that I have stated are new to you and difficult for you to understand.

The issue is not their "newness," but their failure to agree with apostolic teaching authoritative to the church.

Also I am not very clear and my explanations may be a little obscure. I have learnt these things slowly over many years. I hope that you will gradually learn some of these things and until then I need to be very patient.

You have a long way to go before coming even close to showing any Biblical error in the following:

Whoever rejects the words of Jesus' apostles are rejecting his words (Lk 10:16).
Why do you reject Jesus' words of his apostles, following?

Mt 3:3 and Lk 1:67-68, 76 regarding Isa 40:3 where Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is the YHWH of whom the voice calling in the wilderness (John the Baptist) prepared the way.

Ro 10:9, 13 regarding Joel 2:32 where Paul teaches Jesus is the YHWH of Joel's prophecy that "everyone who calls on the name of YHWH will be saved."

Heb 1:6 regarding Dt 32:43 where Paul quotes Moses' song referring to YHWH and says it applies to Jesus.

Rev 1:12-18 regarding Isa 44:6, 48:12 where John reports the man in the vision is Jesus (1:18, 2:8) who identifies himself as the First and the Last which is YHWH identification of himself.

Rev 21:6, 22:12-13 regarding Rev 1:8 where John reports the man in the vision (Jesus) identifies himself as the Alpha and Omega of Rev 1:8, which is YHWH.

Rev 21:5-7 regarding Rev 20:11-13 where John reports Jesus, the one on the throne (Rev 20:11-13 with Jn 5:22, 27, 9:39), is God (Rev 21:7).

Jn 1:3, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:2b, 10 where John and Paul say the YHWH who created all things (Ge 1:1, Is 44:24, Jer 10:16) is Jesus.

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I am not going anywhere

Trevor, take time to go over this presentation, it will not take very long.

https://letgodbetrue.com/sermons/index/year-2011/jesus-is-jehovah/

This was done by a very close friend of mine.

I find it interesting that you threaten me with Divine judgement if I do not accept the Trinity, and possibly your own version of the Trinity. You also accuse me of heresy and that I belong to a cult

Trevor, it is not me that threatens folks with divine judgment, over this all important doctrine, it is the word of God which does so. I'm also not saying one has to believe just as I do in order to be born of God on the Sonship issue of Jesus Christ, for many do not believe exactly as I do, yet they do not reject Jesus' deity as God, so, there, I show mercy and should show mercy. But when one totally rejects Jesus as God manifest in human flesh, then it is God that pronounces judgement upon such people, not me. Is this clear?

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I recognise that some of the things that I have stated are new to you and difficult for you to understand.

Trevor, no problem here, trust me. Trevor, like you I have been doing this for fifty years since my mid twenties, nothing new Trevor, not even close.

Besides, I debated you before on the name Yahweh, for several days on another forum, until you went away for some unknown reason, maybe no fault of yours, I just do not know why.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

take time to go over this presentation, it will not take very long.

Yes, but I will listen to this later today or tomorrow. I should imagine that it will be similar to what you are presenting. For a start I hold the view that "Jehovah" is an erroneous representation of the YHWH Name, so I have some reservations already, doubting your friend's scholarship. I associate "Jehovah" with some old hymns which we sing as "Yahweh" and it is mainly associated today with the erroneous JWs.

when one totally rejects Jesus as God manifest in human flesh

I believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Even our speaker stated this yesterday. What I reject that Jesus is God the Son and that somehow Jesus is a God-man and that somehow God the Son entered the womb of Mary, rather than Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Trevor, no problem here, trust me. Trevor, like you I have been doing this for fifty years since my mid twenties, nothing new Trevor, not even close.

But you do not seem to understand what I am saying. You reject the basis of my understanding in the Yahweh Name "I will be/He will be" and you have rejected or ignored what I stated about the fact that the Judges were called "gods, God or Elohim".

Besides, I debated you before on the name Yahweh, for several days on another forum, until you went away for some unknown reason, maybe no fault of yours, I just do not know why.

I cannot recall the event, as I have had many discussions. I joined one forum 19 years ago, and I searched that forum but "Red Baker" is not a member. If this present thread is any indication, then possibly I lost interest if there was much repetition and not much substantial discussion.

When I joined that forum 19 years ago, there was a long running thread, ending up as 143 posts, on "The Christadelphian Understanding of the Yahweh Name". I have a copy of that thread for reference. The discussion was between three Trinitarians and a Christadelphian. They opposed "I will be" at first, but at the end two of the Trinitarians agreed with "I will be" while the other disengaged, possibly when he was proved wrong. One of these is still active on that forum, and is possibly the most prominent Hebrew scholar on that forum. I asked him a year ago if he still held the explanation "I will be" and he agreed. My recent interaction with him is still available on that forum.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

Yes, but I will listen to this later today or tomorrow. I should imagine that it will be similar to what you are presenting. For a start I hold the view that "Jehovah" is an erroneous representation of the YHWH Name, so I have some reservations already, doubting your friend's scholarship. I associate "Jehovah" with some old hymns which we sing as "Yahweh" and it is mainly associated today with the erroneous JWs.

Please listen and then give me your feedback. Just because it's associated with the erroneous JWs, does not mean it is not part of the word of God~churches throughout this world that are erroneous in doctrine have a name associated with Christ~Christ of Christ; Church of God; Assemblies of God, etc. The old saying is so true here: "we do not thrown the baby out with the dirty dish water".

I believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Even our speaker stated this yesterday.

Trevor, if you stop there, and from there enlarge upon that truth, then you would be on the right track, but you basically will deny what you profess to believe with your following words.

What I reject that Jesus is God the Son

The wording is tricky~"Jesus is God the Son" ~when it should be worded: Jesus was the Son of God....His only begotten Son. There is a difference between the two statements of faith. There was no Jesus Christ until around two thousand years ago, so I agree that statement is not biblical. That is a statement from Nicene Creed, that many follow as their confession of faith, we do not. We reject the heresy of eternal generation of Jesus Christ. It is a impossibility, without rejecting Jesus' deity as God, without a beginning and without an end according to Revelation chapter one scriptures quoted above that you have yet commented on btw.

that somehow Jesus is a God-man

Jesus was made flesh, who was Jehovah God of the OT. Jesus was not God's Son ( other than Covenant ) until his conception in the womb of Mary, before that holy event, he was the Word, which was God, period, without any qualifications whatsoever.

and that somehow God the Son entered the womb of Mary

No, we do not teach that because the word of God does not. The power of the HIghest overshadowed Mary and conceived in her a Son, born in the likeness of sinful flesh ~ 100% human in every conceivable way, except sin, since God Almighty was the Father of this holy child conceived in Mary's womb. By the very truth that God was his Father coming from the very bosmon of God by being God's only begotten Son this child was was born as a complex person..... 100% man, and 100% God, ( this is the truth you reject ) and these two natures never interacted with each other, but were completely separated within Jesus of Nazareth. Mary kept these things in her heart and ponder them, you would do well to do the same. Luke 2:19

rather than Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Trevor, if the Son of God by birth, ( even the Pharisees understood this simple truth ) that makes him equal to God. Even Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God? Why did he think so Trevor? No mere man has any right to think this yet Jesus did. You will find the answer in these scriptures Trevor: 1st Timothy 3:16; Philippians 2: 5-11; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6 and tons of others

But you do not seem to understand what I am saying. You reject the basis of my understanding in the Yahweh Name "I will be/He will be"

I understand what you want others to believe, there's no problem there ~ what I reject is your off track teaching that takes away from Jesus' deity as God manifest in the flesh. I also reject your rejection of God's name Jehovah which mean Salvation, the very purpose of Jesus coming into the world to save his people from their sins~Matthew 1:21.....Jesus' very name has the same meaning as Jehovah~" And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Why not name him Yahweh Trevor after your beliefs?

and you have rejected or ignored what I stated about the fact that the Judges were called "gods, God or Elohim".

Trevor the reason why is that you want to put Jesus no higher than earthly judges when the truth is he is so much higher than all of them put together! None of them will sit on the Great White Throne Judgement Seat, but Christ alone, where every knee will bow before him and every mouth will Confess God/Christ.

Romans 14:10-12~"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

Jesus Trevor is more than just a man, which he was and now still has his glorified humanity~but he is God, period. When we shall see God it will be Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom we shall see, and dwell with world without end. Do you believe thsi to be so?

We debated on Grace Centered forum which at the moment is shut down I believe~there I was RB.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

Please listen and then give me your feedback. Just because it's associated with the erroneous JWs, does not mean it is not part of the word of God

I have listened to the talk Jesus is Jehovah and also I was interested in the other talk recommended at the beginning of the slides A Name Above Every Name. In both talks the speaker stated that he was a KJVO advocate, and as such his scholarship is very limited to what the KJV presents. Thus he does not consider or can accept an alternative to both "Jehovah" or ""Ï AM THAT I AM". This gives me an insight into why you are stubborn on these two items. Perhaps you could answer: Why does the KJV only use "Jehovah" four times? The ASV uses it throughout, but the RV does not. Also he insists on 1 John 5:7 on the same basis, the KJVO position and this seems to be your position. The KJVO position also locks both of you into John 8:58 "I AM" as you again demand that the KJV is correct. He correctly spoke about the present tense in Exodus 3:6 and the resurrection, but tried to make this the same as Exodus 3:14 which is not the same word as one is present tense, the other the future tense as Englishman's Concordance correctly lists.

Throughout he is speaking against the JWs, and I do not agree with the JWs on most items that he mentioned. He speaks of the plurality in Genesis 1:26, Genesis 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8 and I disagree with his conclusion here. On Slide 25 he deals with Psalm 110:1, where Jesus asks what do they think of the Christ, whose son is he? He incorrectly jumps from David's Lord to David's God. There are a number of occasions that he made minor errors in the second talk, and he showed his lack of understanding to some extent on this subject. I am not sure if you were the older gentleman in the audience that continued to say "Amen" to everything the speaker stated, whether it was right or wrong.

Trevor, if you stop there, and from there enlarge upon that truth, then you would be on the right track, but you basically will deny what you profess to believe with your following words.

No, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh because the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, He who will be who He will be has become our Lord Jesus Christ. Yahweh speaks of what he would accomplish, not the fact of his existence. In other words, God the Father has given birth, developed him in character so that he was full of grace and truth, and then raised him from the dead.

By the very truth that God was his Father coming from the very bosmon of God by being God's only begotten Son this child was was born as a complex person..... 100% man, and 100% God, ( this is the truth you reject ) and these two natures never interacted with each other, but were completely separated within Jesus of Nazareth.

Yes, I completely reject this. I was diagnosed as a schizophrenic when I was 38, but I did recover to some extent from my mental illness. I don't think I had two minds or two opinions, but a confused mind and emotions. Jesus also did not have two minds.

Trevor, if the Son of God by birth, ( even the Pharisees understood this simple truth ) that makes him equal to God. Even Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God? Why did he think so Trevor? No mere man has any right to think this yet Jesus did. You will find the answer in these scriptures Trevor: 1st Timothy 3:16; Philippians 2: 5-11; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6 and tons of others

Briefly, I consider that Philippians 2:5-11 is speaking of the disposition of Jesus' mind before and during his ministry. He did not grasp at equality with God as did Adam and Eve.

I also reject your rejection of God's name Jehovah which mean Salvation, the very purpose of Jesus coming into the world to save his people from their sins~Matthew 1:21.....Jesus' very name has the same meaning as Jehovah~" And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Why not name him Yahweh Trevor after your beliefs?

I understand Jesus is based upon the word Joshua, Yah-Oshea, which means "Yah's salvation" or "He who will be Saviour". I found the speaker did not know the difference between the first and third person forms of the Yahweh Name, and he ended up with "I AM THAT I AM Salvation" on one occasion in his talk, which is what happens if you stick too close to the KJV, and also if you do not carefully compare "Ehyeh" and "Yahweh". My impression is that KJVO people do not like reference books, and these would be a little bit helpful here. Do you have a Strongs' Concordance?

Trevor the reason why is that you want to put Jesus no higher than earthly judges when the truth is he is so much higher than all of them put together!

What a ridiculous accusation. Jesus is the Son of God. The Judges of Psalm 82:6 were wicked Those Judges of Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 were very limited in their function, but the Scripture record in Hebrew is the word Elohim, and the KJV translated this word as "judges" which is satisfactory but obscures the meaning of John 10:38 and Psalm 82:6. Other modern translations render Elohim here as "God" and this also obscures what Jesus is saying. Jesus is much higher than any previous authority, prophet, priest, king, judge, refer the comparisons given in the Book of Hebrews. He was superior to every sacrifice and other aspects as well. Everything was pointing forward to Jesus and his ministry and who he was. The Trinitarian with no undertanding of all that is revealed, simply whitewashes everything, all the beautiful detail of a magnificent picture, and simply claims Jesus was God.

Jesus Trevor is more than just a man, which he was and now still has his glorified humanity~but he is God, period.

No, Jesus is the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Red Baker]

I am not sure if you were the older gentleman in the audience that continued to say "Amen" to everything the speaker stated, whether it was right or wrong.

No, that was not me. I have heard Jonathan preached many times over in forty years, yet it was someone else.

He speaks of the plurality in Genesis 1:26

I do not have to agree with every single point another brother makes~on that particular verse I think he was wrong, and would admit so if I could speak with him on how I understand that particular scripture. I know that the Lord was speaking of Himself and the elect angels who were created in God's image before man was created. That's no big deal and no harm done to the deity of Jesus Christ, who was the God of Abraham, etc.

I'm not going into discussing other bible version for now, another topic for another time.

No, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh because the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, He who will be who He will be has become our Lord Jesus Christ.

Before I moved forward you mus texplain your yourself here, thsi to me makes no sense whatsoever.

You said:

Jesus is God manifest in the flesh

Then you said:

because the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, He who will be who He will be

What in the world are you attempting to say?

He who will be who He will be

? Help me out ~ what do you mean by this? Then you said this:

Jesus Trevor is more than just a man, which he was and now still has his glorified humanity~but he is God, period.

No, Jesus is the Son of God.

So, is Jesus God, yes or no.

Also, why will you not address certain scriptures put before you like: Revelation 1:8; 1st John 5:20, and 1st Timothy 3:16

I'm short on time that's why I did not go through every section of your post, but if you feel I need to address any point that I did nto, tell me and I WILL.

Thank you for following that side on Jehovah. That's commendable on your part.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

No, that was not me.

I thought it was amusing to some extent, but this would not occur in our meetings as we are more reserved. We allow questions during the course of our Bible Class on Wednesdays, but we do not speak from the audience on the Sunday morning memorial or evening public address.

I do not have to agree with every single point another brother makes~on that particular verse I think he was wrong, and would admit so if I could speak with him on how I understand that particular scripture. I know that the Lord was speaking of Himself and the elect angels who were created in God's image before man was created.

I am very pleased with your understanding here. Yes, I agree that the One God, Yahweh, God the Father is inviting the Angels to participate in the creation of man in God's and the Angels image and likeness. I also consider that Psalm 8:5 is a summary, an allusion to Genesis 1:26-27, that man was made a little lower than the Angels, and here the word is "Elohim".

I'm not going into discussing other bible version for now, another topic for another time.

I am very conscious of some of the inadequacies of some of the newer versions, especially their use of other NT manuscripts that drop some verses. I use the RV/KJV Interlinear, and I consider the OT portion of the RV beneficial and good. For example my brother in law was a very thorough exponent on the Book of Job and he saw the need to refer to the RV to properly understand some verses. Evidently the Hebrew of Job is very difficult and the RV panel had some thorough Hebrew scholars and possibly relied on other peoples research to gain a better understanding of this Hebrew poetry. To claim that the KJV is an inspired translation has no real basis. Surely God was involved in the whole process and they were excellent scholars for the time, but they were not directly inspired and did make mistakes and some inadequate verse or word translations.

Before I moved forward you must explain your yourself here, this to me makes no sense whatsoever.
What in the world are you attempting to say?

The extended version of the Yahweh Name has the word "asher" in "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" and this can be translated "what" and "who". In the area of "what" it represents what God will achieve and God was promising to be with Moses to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the promised land. This language is a bit obscure to us, but it was God's work, what he would accomplish and His Name would be magnified and honoured by what was accomplished. The language includes the concept that the "what" of the Yahweh Name would be a product of God, He would be their salvation, it would reveal Him and honour His name. The Song of Moses reveals this result, the salvation promised in Exodus 3:12-14 is accomplished:
Exodus 3:11–15 (KJV adjusted): 11 And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt? 12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. 13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I Will Be Who/What I Will Be: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Will Be hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (He Who Will Be - the) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Exodus 15:1–13 (KJV): 1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. 2 The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father’s God, and I will exalt him. 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. 4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. 5 The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone. 6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy. 7 And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble. 8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea. 9 The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them. 10 Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters. 11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? 12 Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them. 13 Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.

Could I concentrate on one word in Exodus 15:3 "is become", that is God has accomplished salvation. What he promised to accomplish in the Yahweh Name, to be with Moses to become what he would become (a bit strange in English) has been remarkably accomplished. A transfer from future tense, Yahweh "He Will Become" a particular achievement to the past tense, that Yahweh has accomplished the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, He has become their salvation. But this salvation in some sense incorporates God, He is known by what He has accomplished. I do not know if this type of cryptic idiom is normal in Hebrew as it is a very much more compact language than English, or whether this particular theme established for the Yahweh Name is a unique, special revelation, even cryptic for the Hebrew language.

But the Yahweh Name speaks of a greater deliverance, the deliverance from sin and death. Jesus quotes and alludes to the Yahweh Name and salvation in the Hallel Psalm, most probably one of the Psalms sung by him as the Passover, the greater Passover was to be accomplished:
Psalm 118:16–29 (KJV): 16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD. 18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD: 20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. 23 This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. 24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. 26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD. 27 God is the LORD, which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar. 28 Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, I will exalt thee. 29 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

The language of the Yahweh Name covers "I Will Be WHO I Will Be", and everything about the salvation by means of Jesus "Yah's salvation" is of God, reveals God, and in that sense IS GOD. But Jesus is a human, the Son of God, a separate person and being.

So, is Jesus God, yes or no.

Only in the sense described above. The final product of the Yahweh Name is God is ALL and in all. The product is GOD. The earth will be filled with God's glory, not man's glory.

Also, why will you not address certain scriptures put before you like: Revelation 1:8; 1st John 5:20, and 1st Timothy 3:16

As per above. Jesus is the living embodiment of Yahweh, who God would become, and yet he is a human.

Thank you for following that side on Jehovah. That's commendable on your part.

"side" or slides. I downloaded both talks and the slides for the second for easier reference. I use Audacity to record the talk in mp3 for my own use. As the librarian for our meeting I record or reference all our meetings, and have a complete collection (except about three or four) since 2006, when we started to transfer from tape to mp3. We now have video on You-tube, but even here I download many for my quick access.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Red Baker]

Greetings again Red Baker,

I thought it was amusing to some extent, but this would not occur in our meetings as we are more reserved. We allow questions during the course of our Bible Class on Wednesdays, but we do not speak from the audience on the Sunday morning memorial or evening public address.

Greetings Trevor,

Nothing wrong with an heartily amen in the preaching service. 1st Corinthians 14:16~"Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" As long as it is conducted in decently and in order,

1st Corinthians 14~"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order."

No worship services in our day follow this pattern..... not even close. Enough for now on this subject.

I'm coming back tomorrow to address your post, been too busy today and still have more important projects to address.

I do forums more to keep my mind sharpe and to help younger believers to understand the scriptures.

The Lord willing in morning Trevor. RB

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Red Baker,

Nothing wrong with an heartily amen in the preaching service. 1st Corinthians 14:16~"Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" As long as it is conducted in decently and in order,

We say the Amen after our opening and closing prayers, and after the two emblem prayers, but not everyone says it aloud. We are thus agreeing with the prayer and accepting it as representing our prayer to God through Jesus.

I'm coming back tomorrow to address your post, been too busy today and still have more important projects to address.

Perhaps I spend too much time on the forums, but sometimes I can be very busy. I usually do not have any spare time on Sunday until after 8pm, and I usually work around the house or go shopping every other morning. I am in a different time zone here in Australia so I am usually happy with one post per day.

I would like to make a few comments in the meantime, and I am not pressing you to respond on these items. The first is to answer the question as to why we do not have the Name “Yahweh” used extensively throughout the NT. My answer is because the Yahweh Name is now focused in Jesus:
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS (Yah's salvation): for he shall save his people from their sins.

Also because Jesus is the Son of God we now approach The One God, Yahweh in a different fashion:
Matthew 6:9–10 (KJV): 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
When we share addressing God with Jesus as “our Father”, then this is one of the most unique, succinct fulfilments of the Yahweh Name. God’s purpose in the Yahweh Name was for the salvation of a people, and this people is Christ and the faithful.

An interesting passage is where Jesus quotes, alludes and summarises Psalm 8:
Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD (Yahweh) our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

Matthew 11:25–30 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The Psalmist addresses God as Yahweh and speaks of Yahweh as the Lord of the creation and of heaven and earth. Jesus addresses God as his Father, and that his Father is Lord of heaven and earth. The Psalmist speaks in specific terms concerning the new creation. Jesus appeals to all to respond to his own call to participate in the new creation. So throughout the NT we are presented with a new concept, that God is The Father, and Jesus is The Son of God, and we can share in this new relationship.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Red Baker]

I am very conscious of some of the inadequacies of some of the newer versions, especially their use of other NT manuscripts that drop some verses. I use the RV/KJV Interlinear, and I consider the OT portion of the RV beneficial and good. For example my brother in law was a very thorough exponent on the Book of Job and he saw the need to refer to the RV to properly understand some verses. Evidently the Hebrew of Job is very difficult and the RV panel had some thorough Hebrew scholars and possibly relied on other peoples research to gain a better understanding of this Hebrew poetry. To claim that the KJV is an inspired translation has no real basis. Surely God was involved in the whole process and they were excellent scholars for the time, but they were not directly inspired and did make mistakes and some inadequate verse or word translations.

Greetings Trevor,

It must be the end of winter there going into your spring, because we are going into our fall in a week or so. I live in the south here in America and truly have very mild winters, almost none at all. I know you are looking forward to spring the most beautiful season of them all.

So, let be address this post, since time is precious for me at the moment, so I rise early to get things done.

Again, I do not want to discuss bible versions since this thread was suppose to be about Jesus' deity as God manifest in the flesh, or the original thread was about that subject.

I will say this to be short: I do not trust so-called scholars opinions about God's word, which is His testimony to us concerning truth ~ I trust the scriptures to deliver its truth to me, and for God to protect his word just as it first given to holy men of old~as a Christian, I live by faith in God, including him protecting his word. I trust Psalm 12 and other like scriptures. I never read in the NT where Christ ever question the scriptures as they were first given to Moses. When Christ went into the synagogues and stood up to read, he read the scriptures knowing that they were the exact words given to Moses, yet Moses had been dead for around 1400 hundred years ~ and the scriptures Moses had given had went through many thousands of hand written copies by scribes who were not inspired as Moses yet God protected his word!

but they were not directly inspired and did make mistakes and some inadequate verse or word translations.

Sorry, I do not believe this to be so with the KJV that God gave to us shortly after the printing press was invented. I have said this before and will say it again~I have read behind Luther, Calvin and many hundred more men from different languages around this world, yet you would think they were using the KJV because they used the exact wording found in our English version! So, you may believe that the KJV has errros, I do not...... enough on bible versions for now.

The extended version of the Yahweh Name

What he promised to accomplish in the Yahweh Name

The Psalmist addresses God as Yahweh and speaks of Yahweh as the Lord of the creation and of heaven and earth.

Trevor, I do not want to address your sect's infatuation with a name that is not in the scriptures~I debated you on this subject on grace centered forum ( under RB ) ~if you have those debates saved on format, then bring them here and post them and let's finish the debate ~ be more than happy to do so, or, start another thread addressing this subject.

God Almighty which the early Hebrews Patriarchs knew God by, yet, he later revealed himself to Moses as Jehovah, this is not my opinion but the very word of God: Exodus 6:3~"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." You want me to think his name is Yahweh? When God ( his title ) said that His name is Jehovah.... (his name! ).

Start a thread on this topic if you like.