Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

Neostarwcc · Sep 30, 2017

Hillsage said:
As you waffled on the last post and said to 'move on'....OK, I'm good with that;

JOH 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

So, you refute this scripture how concerning your POV above?

Right.

Hillsage · Sep 30, 2017

jaybird88 said:
the psalms passage is the one Jesus refereed to when questioned about who He was.
and just who were these sons of the Most High, the ones the Most High says are gods?

PSA 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

I knew it was a psalm quote. So was Jesus saying he was one of those in psalms being declared to be 'a god' by whoever was calling Him a God along with 'apparent' multiple others? Also, are you a child of God now by virtue of the new birth, and therefore also considered a god in the family of God? Unpack your thinking a bit more for me if you would.

jaybird88 · Sep 30, 2017

Hillsage said:
PSA 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

I knew it was a psalm quote. So was Jesus saying he was one of those in psalms being declared to be 'a god' by whoever was calling Him a God along with 'apparent' multiple others? Also, are you a child of God now by virtue of the new birth, and therefore also considered a god in the family of God? Unpack your thinking a bit more for me if you would.

Jesus teaches we as believers are sons of the Most High and will not die. the psalms passage says they are gods based on the fact they are sons of the Most High.

Baby Cottontail · Sep 30, 2017

jaybird88 said:
nothing other than the Apostles never baptized this way.

I can't remember if it was in this thread or another that I am following. Someone posted some of the verses from Acts that mention "baptism in the name of Jesus."

All of the verses are summaries. None of them are the actual words, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus."

John the Baptist was baptizing people before Jesus started His earthly ministry. Those individuals would have received baptisms for repentance.

Perhaps Luke wanted to be clear that the baptisms that were happening in the early church were distinguished from those that happened with John the Baptist (and whomever else may have been baptizing at the time). "In the name of Jesus" might have been to distinguish a Christian baptism from the other type of baptism.

It's also possible that not all the disciples used the trinitarian formula all the time. They may not have taken Jesus' words literally to make a formula out of it.

We also don't know that none of the apostles ever used the trinitarian formula, even if we assume that all of the ones listed by Luke in Acts were "I baptize you in the name of Jesus." There is no way that every single baptism that happened in the early church was recorded by Luke in Acts.

Baby Cottontail · Sep 30, 2017

jaybird88 said:
can you explain why the Apostles who were personally trained by the living Jesus would disobey this command?
if not then by definition its controversial.

See my previous post that I just wrote in answer to your other question.

The text itself is not disputed. It is authentic to Matthew's Gospel.

1 John 5:7 is disputed because it is only found in the later manuscripts of the NT. It isn't found in the earliest copies. That does not necessarily mean it is not authentic, but because it isn't in the earliest copies, it is disputed. Most scholars don't think it is authentic, but a few probably do think it is, just as saved.by.grace suggests in his article.

It's disputed enough that most modern Bible translations usually relegate it to the footnotes.

The second ending to Mark is also disputed, and so most modern English translations put it in brackets, with a note about it possibly not being authentic to the text. (Mark 16:9-20 is the part I'm referring to.)

Baby Cottontail · Sep 30, 2017

jaybird88 said:
i dont see how their could be a unity within Him when it is Him that says there are no gods with Him.
the three persons are exactly that, persons (plural) meaning more than one.

A unity within Him means one God. There are not three gods inside of Him. There are three Persons inside of Him. He is one Being.

Therefore, we don't have any other gods besides Him. He is the one and only God.

Neostarwcc · Sep 30, 2017

Baby Cottontail said:
A unity within Him means one God. There are not three gods inside of Him. There are three Persons inside of Him. He is one Being.

Therefore, we don't have any other gods besides Him. He is the one and only God.

Well put.

jaybird88 · Sep 30, 2017

Baby Cottontail said:
I can't remember if it was in this thread or another that I am following. Someone posted some of the verses from Acts that mention "baptism in the name of Jesus."

All of the verses are summaries. None of them are the actual words, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus."

John the Baptist was baptizing people before Jesus started His earthly ministry. Those individuals would have received baptisms for repentance.

Perhaps Luke wanted to be clear that the baptisms that were happening in the early church were distinguished from those that happened with John the Baptist (and whomever else may have been baptizing at the time). "In the name of Jesus" might have been to distinguish a Christian baptism from the other type of baptism.

It's also possible that not all the disciples used the trinitarian formula all the time. They may not have taken Jesus' words literally to make a formula out of it.

We also don't know that none of the apostles ever used the trinitarian formula, even if we assume that all of the ones listed by Luke in Acts were "I baptize you in the name of Jesus." There is no way that every single baptism that happened in the early church was recorded by Luke in Acts.

its for sure possible they may have baptized with the formula and it was never documented, but IMO very unlikely. i dont think of the 12 as your typical everyday believer, i think they were selected by Jesus, trained by Him, walked, talked and lived with Him. when Jesus was finished with them they were elevated to a much higher level. when Jesus gave a command i woulf think they would follow that command as an example for future generations to see. in those early days they called themselves "the way" and i dont think they would deviate from that way.

Baby Cottontail · Sep 30, 2017

jaybird88 said:
its for sure possible they may have baptized with the formula and it was never documented, but IMO very unlikely. i dont think of the 12 as your typical everyday believer, i think they were selected by Jesus, trained by Him, walked, talked and lived with Him. when Jesus was finished with them they were elevated to a much higher level. when Jesus gave a command i woulf think they would follow that command as an example for future generations to see. in those early days they called themselves "the way" and i dont think they would deviate from that way.

Then the only conclusion would be that they did baptize using Matthew 28:19. If it was universally the accepted practice, they would have no reason to have specifically mentioned using it, so the shortened "baptized in Jesus' name" would have sufficed because everyone would have known what they were talking about -- baptized with the trinitarian formula.

Hillsage · Sep 30, 2017

jaybird88 said:
Jesus gave a command i woulf think they would follow that command as an example for future generations to see. in those early days they called themselves "the way" and i dont think they would deviate from that way.

Paul thought Peter 'deviated'.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas/Peter came to Antioch I/Paul opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Neogaia777 · Sep 30, 2017

Radagast said:
Exodus 3:2 actually says it was "The Angel of the LORD." Traditionally, that phrase has been understood as referring to the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. Exodus 3:4-22 then makes explicit that it was God/YHWH talking.

The exact wording of Acts of the Apostles 7:30-35 is completely consistent with Exodus 3.

Except Jesus is not an angel, or the angel of himself, but is the Lord, or is YHWH or Jehovah, or God... Angels are created beings, even the angel... It was an angel of Jesus's possibly Michael maybe, don't know...

Continuing on what I said, the good angels are Elohim, they are "a" Jehovah, or YHWH, not "the" Jehovah, or YHWH, cause that is Jesus...

For example, Jehovah Shalom, is the lord (the angel, or spirit of) "peace", also sometimes referred to as the "god" (little g) of peace... Their is also a Jehovah or Lord of war, and angel of war, and those two angels are not the same, but are only the same in God... "all is one, but only one (God) is all"... The angels are not all, but are one with God, cause He is them all in one... But, they are specific specialized and limited "lords" of certain things, and are extensions of God...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 · Sep 30, 2017

Neogaia777 said:
Yet the scriptures are clear on this in Acts 7:30, Acts 7:35, Exodus 3:2, all say it was an angel or the angel of the Lord or YHWH that appeared to Moses in the burning bush and spoke with him...

If you want me to explain what I think about this, just ask...?

God Bless!

Neogaia777 said:
I'll try to explain anyway... In short, God, the three persons of God, and all the Holy angels are "one" essentially, they are all "Elohim" all parts of the Body of Elohim or the Lord, or YHWH... The good angels are "extensions" of God... And there are no words in them, that are not God's words, they being messengers for or of him... They do not speak anything or do anything at all outside of God's will at all, ever...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 said:
Except Jesus is not an angel, or the angel of himself, but is the Lord, or is YHWH or Jehovah, or God... Angels are created beings, even the angel... It was an angel of Jesus's possibly Michael maybe, don't know...

Continuing on what I said, the good angels are Elohim, they are "a" Jehovah, or YHWH, not "the" Jehovah, or YHWH, cause that is Jesus...

For example, Jehovah Shalom, is the lord (the angel, or spirit of) "peace", also sometimes referred to as the "god" (little g) of peace... Their is also a Jehovah or Lord of war, and angel of war, and those two angels are not the same, but are only the same in God... "all is one, but only one (God) is all"... The angels are not all, but are one with God, cause He is them all in one... But, they are specific specialized and limited "lords" of certain things, and are extensions of God...

God Bless!

I think Michael, the archangel, is the god of peace, (Romans 16:20) (Philippians 4:5) (1 Thessalonians 5:23) (Hebrews 13:20) and is "the" "angel of the Lord" God, the Father and Jesus Christ...

Micheal is the one who disputes with Satan about Moses in Jude 1:9 and I think was the angel of the Lord (of Jesus or God) that appeared in the burning bush and spoke to and with Moses is the reason for the dispute with Satan over Moses in Jude 1:9 and Michael is the one who leads the Lord's (Jesus) angels and fights with Satan and his angels in Revelation 12:7 under the command of God/Jesus/The Lord, but wars with him and overcomes them, with and by "peace", being the god of peace...

God Bless!

redleghunter · Oct 1, 2017

Baby Cottontail said:
This topic came up in another thread, and I am interested in people's thoughts on this.

I am thinking that it definitely could be an issue of salvation because of the following verses:
John 8:24 (NASB)
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

This is a few verses before John 8:58 (NASB):
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

I suppose that Jesus could either be saying "unless you believe I am the Messiah," or "unless you believe I AM" (that He is YHWH.) I also don't know whether or not Jesus was thinking about the future -- where there might be some people who believed that He was the Messiah, but denied His deity.

And there is the question of -- if you do not believe that Jesus is YHWH, then do you really believe in Jesus? And do you really believe that He is Lord?

I realize that no one can for sure answer these questions except for God. Only God knows the salvation of each person.

Then there is Romans 10:8-13 (NASB):
But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" -- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed."

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

The second quote that Paul used is from Joel 2:32, which says in the NASB:
"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.

Since LORD = YHWH in the OT, it seems that he is calling Jesus YHWH here.

Maybe Paul was not thinking that there might be people who believed in Jesus, but denied that He was YHWH. Or maybe he considered belief that Jesus was YHWH to be necessary for salvation.

What do you think?

Please consider the following:

Mark 1: New King James Version (NKJV)

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the Prophets:

“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’”

This is quoting Isaiah 40:3

Isaiah 40:3 Lexham English Bible (LEB)
A voice is calling in the wilderness, “Clear the way of Yahweh!
Make a highway smooth in the desert for our God!

Notice Mark used Lord and Isaiah used Yahweh.

The use of LORD instead of Yahweh or YHWH was due to English translators honoring a Rabbinical Jewish tradition of not writing the Name of God out but inserting instead LORD usually in the capital L and ord in lower capitals. Whereas in the Hebrew it is the tetragrammaton YHWH.

By Mark directly quoting this verse, he is affirming Jesus Christ as YHWH.

Radagast · Oct 1, 2017

Neogaia777 said:
Except Jesus is not an angel, or the angel of himself, but is the Lord, or is YHWH or Jehovah, or God... Angels are created beings, even the angel... It was an angel of Jesus's possibly Michael maybe, don't know...

I was talking specifically about the phrase "the angel of the LORD," found in Genesis 16, Genesis 22, Exodus 3, Numbers 22, etc.

Like I said, Christians have traditionally understood that phrase as referring to the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. Even the Jewish philosopher Philo agreed that it referred to someone greater than just an angel.

Neogaia777 said:
The angels are not all, but are one with God, cause He is them all in one... But, they are specific specialized and limited "lords" of certain things, and are extensions of God...

No! The angels are created beings.

The idea that angels are "extensions of God" is not only heretical, it gets you into terrible trouble explaining what fallen angels are.

Radagast · Oct 1, 2017

redleghunter said:
Please consider the following:

“Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’”

This is quoting Isaiah 40:3

This is in fact an almost exact quote from the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah (replacing "paths of our God" by "His paths"):

Mark 1:3: φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.

Isaiah 40:3: φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.

Mark follows the Septuagint practice of replacing "YHWH" (which is translated "LORD" in many English versions of the Old Testament) by Kurios ("Lord"), but it's crystal-clear what he means.

As you say, Mark's quote from Isaiah is yet another implicit statement that Jesus is YHWH.

Neogaia777 · Oct 1, 2017

Radagast said:
I was talking specifically about the phrase "the angel of the LORD," found in Genesis 16, Genesis 22, Exodus 3, Numbers 22, etc.

Like I said, Christians have traditionally understood that phrase as referring to the pre-incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. Even the Jewish philosopher Philo agreed that it referred to someone greater than just an angel.

Well, they are wrong, well, not exactly wrong, cause God/Jesus/YHWH is the good angels, cause they (God/YHWH/Jesus) (or the triune God) is "all" of them (the good angels) but "all" of them, (the good angels) are not "all" of what God is...

And the scriptures says "angel" and it doesn't really matter if it says "the" angel, or not, it still says "angel" and Jesus/God/YHWH is not an angel, and they're saying that it (the angel of the Lord) is greater than an angel, does not change the fact that it still says "angel" and angels are created beings, whether it is "the" or "a" doesn't matter cause God/Jesus/YHWH is not any angel (yet they are), they are not "just an" angel, being uncreated beings with no beginning or ending...

The Jewish Philosopher was wrong basically, he obviously didn't see Jesus as YHWH, yet he thought Jesus was greater than the angels but not YHWH, and so, he added the fact basically saying "well, although it says "angel" It must not be, or mean, an angel only, cause he thought it to be Christ, and Christ was uncreated, yet not YHWH, ect, ect...

He did not have the revelation that YHWH is Jesus and is not exactly the Father, but the Son... Yet the Father and the Holy Spirit were one with YHWH or God the Son, or Jesus, before he was Jesus and they were with him (Jesus) as YHWH...

They (your philosophers and theologians) were grasping at straws in my opinion, by not being able to come to the revelation that Jesus is/was YHWH, and not any angel, but God, who is not any angel, not being a created being, even "the" angel (and notice it says, "of the Lord" or an angel of Jesus/God/YHWH)...

The fact that it says "the", only means that it was a very high angel, like an archangel, yet not God, and "the angel" is not Jesus, cause Jesus is God, and uncreated and has no beginning or end, like angels (any angel) do, so...

Radagast said:
No! The angels are created beings.

The idea that angels are "extensions of God" is not only heretical, it gets you into terrible trouble explaining what fallen angels are.

Fallen angels forsook of left their proper dwelling places in the Body of God, and became no longer a part of him (God) and separated from him (God)... No longer extensions of God, no longer in God's will, like the good angels always and continually are...

The good angels have no will of their own at all, ever, they always, always do what God commands, so that if they do a thing, it is just like, and just as if it was or is God doing it...

God Bless!

Neogaia777 · Oct 1, 2017

Neogaia777 said:
Well, they are wrong, well, not exactly wrong, cause God/Jesus/YHWH is the good angels, cause they (God/YHWH/Jesus) (or the triune God) is "all" of them (the good angels) but "all" of them, (the good angels) are not "all" of what God is...

And the scriptures says "angel" and it doesn't really matter if it says "the" angel, or not, it still says "angel" and Jesus/God/YHWH is not an angel, and they're saying that it (the angel of the Lord) is greater than an angel, does not change the fact that it still says "angel" and angels are created beings, whether it is "the" or "a" doesn't matter cause God/Jesus/YHWH is not any angel (yet they are), they are not "just an" angel, being uncreated beings with no beginning or ending...

The Jewish Philosopher was wrong basically, he obviously didn't see Jesus as YHWH, yet he thought Jesus was greater than the angels but not YHWH, and so, he added the fact basically saying "well, although it says "angel" It must not be, or mean, an angel only, cause he thought it to be Christ, and Christ was uncreated, yet not YHWH, ect, ect...

He did not have the revelation that YHWH is Jesus and is not exactly the Father, but the Son... Yet the Father and the Holy Spirit were one with YHWH or God the Son, or Jesus, before he was Jesus and they were with him (Jesus) as YHWH...

They (your philosophers and theologians) were grasping at straws in my opinion, by not being able to come to the revelation that Jesus is/was YHWH, and not any angel, but God, who is not any angel, not being a created being, even "the" angel (and notice it says, "of the Lord" or an angel of Jesus/God/YHWH)...

The fact that it says "the", only means that it was a very high angel, like an archangel, yet not God, and "the angel" is not Jesus, cause Jesus is God, and uncreated and has no beginning or end, like angels (any angel) do, so...

Fallen angels forsook of left their proper dwelling places in the Body of God, and became no longer a part of him (God) and separated from him (God)... No longer extensions of God, no longer in God's will, like the good angels always and continually are...

The good angels have no will of their own at all, ever, they always, always do what God commands, so that if they do a thing, it is just like, and just as if it was or is God doing it...

God Bless!

Look, either you believe Jesus is God, or you do not, it's pretty cut and dry...

If he is any angel, even "the" angel, you are still saying he is only an angel and not God, so, what do you think? What do you believe...?

God Bless!

Radagast · Oct 1, 2017

Neogaia777 said:
Well, they are wrong, well, not exactly wrong, cause God/Jesus/YHWH is the good angels, cause they (God/YHWH/Jesus) (or the triune God) is "all" of them (the good angels) but "all" of them, (the good angels) are not "all" of what God is...

I can't make any sense of that, I'm afraid. Angels aren't God.

Neogaia777 said:
And the scriptures says "angel" and it doesn't really matter if it says "the" angel, or not, it still says "angel" and Jesus/God/YHWH is not an angel

Well, the angel of the LORD is a little different. For a start, if you read Genesis 16, Exodus 3, and other OT passages, they make it sound like the angel of the LORD is actually God (for that reason those passages are often called theophanies, or God-appearances). Bear in mind also that both the Greek and Hebrew words for "angel" can have multiple meanings.

As I said, many Christians believe that the angel of the LORD was the pre-Incarnate Jesus (a few say God the Father instead).

Neogaia777 said:
The Jewish Philosopher was wrong basically, he obviously didn't see Jesus as YHWH

The Jewish Philosopher Philo probably hadn't heard of Jesus. But he still thought that the angel of the LORD was what he called the Logos.

Neogaia777 said:
Fallen angels forsook of left their proper dwelling places in the Body of God, and became no longer a part of him (God) and separated from him (God)...

Fallen angels were never parts of God! You are actually suggesting that parts of God sinned! That is heresy of the worst sort!

Neogaia777 · Oct 1, 2017

Radagast said:
I can't make any sense of that, I'm afraid. Angels aren't God.

Well, the angel of the LORD is a little different. For a start, if you read Genesis 16, Exodus 3, and other OT passages, they make it sound like the angel of the LORD is actually God (for that reason those passages are often called theophanies, or God-appearances). Bear in mind also that both the Greek and Hebrew words for "angel" can have multiple meanings.

As I said, many Christians believe that the angel of the LORD was the pre-Incarnate Jesus (a few say God the Father instead).

The Jewish Philosopher Philo probably hadn't heard of Jesus. But he still thought that the angel of the LORD was what he called the Logos.

Fallen angels were never parts of God! You are actually suggesting that parts of God sinned! That is heresy of the worst sort!

You totally didn't understand what I said...

Fallen angels were once holy angels and were one with God before they fell... (Jude 1:6)

Angels are not God and I never said so...? I said they were parts of him, and he (God) is all of them (angels)...

If you read what I said very carefully and slowly and "think", then you could understand it, but if you tried to speed read it, then, I'm pretty sure you completely missed what I was trying to say...

And I can't put it any other way, so...?

Anyhow,

God Bless!

Neogaia777 · Oct 1, 2017

Radagast said:
I can't make any sense of that, I'm afraid. Angels aren't God.

Well, the angel of the LORD is a little different. For a start, if you read Genesis 16, Exodus 3, and other OT passages, they make it sound like the angel of the LORD is actually God (for that reason those passages are often called theophanies, or God-appearances). Bear in mind also that both the Greek and Hebrew words for "angel" can have multiple meanings.

As I said, many Christians believe that the angel of the LORD was the pre-Incarnate Jesus (a few say God the Father instead).

The Jewish Philosopher Philo probably hadn't heard of Jesus. But he still thought that the angel of the LORD was what he called the Logos.

Fallen angels were never parts of God! You are actually suggesting that parts of God sinned! That is heresy of the worst sort!

Angels are "like God" but, are "not God", but Christ is God, so he is not any angel, even "the angel"...

Cause they are "like God" they are his representatives and messengers for him (God), they all each volunteer to having God work and operate through them to us, that is what makes them extensions of God, they never do anything apart from God's will at any time, unlike us or we or the fallen angels do...

They (the good angels) have no will of their own, their entire existence is "all God in and through them" and "none" of themselves ever or at any time... This is why we can "see God or Christ" in them, but they are not literally him, but do have the job of standing in for him (God) to us...

Just as the hear from him (God) they say and do, and do nothing otherwise or apart from that at any time, ever...

God Bless!

Is belief that Jesus is YHWH necessary for salvation?

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Old Soul

Old Soul

Thank You Jesus!

comes and goes

comes and goes

Old Soul

Old Soul

comes and goes

Old Soul

Old Soul

Similar threads