A Question for Trinitarians

[Clare73]

English is not my native, so, you know, perhaps because of this I'm able to see how weird 'generate' sounds when applied to Jesus.

Check the dictionary please:
generate | ˈdʒɛnəreɪt | verb [with object]
• produce or create: changes which are likely to generate controversy | the income generated by the sale of council houses.
• produce (energy, especially electricity).
• Mathematics & Linguistics produce (a set or sequence of items) by performing specified mathematical or logical operations on an initial set.
• Linguistics produce (a sentence or other unit, especially a well-formed one) by the application of a finite set of rules to lexical or other linguistic input.
• Mathematics form (a line, surface, or solid) by notionally moving a point, line, or surface.

So what, do you believe that the Father produced or created (Father, I'm sorry) Jesus?

You could use a better dictionary?

The first meaning is to beget, procreate.

And if English is not your native language, you might want to just accept the English definitions.

And why "proceed" and not "send"? This is not without a reason that you've chosen 'proceed' I guess.

Because "proceed" (ek-poreuetai) is the Greek word used of the Holy Spirit in Jn 15:26, which means "to go out from within" the Father.

I mean I, personally, believe the Holy Spirit is a person like the Father and the Son, so I use 'send' and it's ok for me. By the way, here Jn 15:26 we see both applied to the Holy Spirit. But you corrected me with 'proceed'... So, perhaps, you believe the Holy Spirit is a energy or power or breath or something like that. Are you sure you believe he is a person, distinct from the Father and the Son?

 

[Nux]

You could use a better dictionary?

That was from Oxford Dict

The first meaning is to beget, procreate

Haha, that's not true. That's an origin, not the meaning.
Ok, I know enough.

 

[Clare73]

That was from Oxford Dict

Can't fault that one. . .

Haha, that's not true. That's an origin, not the meaning.
Ok, I know enough.

Do you? . . .Origins are never meanings?

 

[disciple Clint]

I use LEB and YLT. Check, great translations by the way. Translation with God's name been blot out is not worthy to read, it's not a translation anymore but perversion.
And, what do you think, is the right spelling of God's name? It occurs in more than 5700 Bible verses, where in your Bible, I guess, is just neutral 'Lord'. And according to what God says this name is very very important. And the righteous of old, from the very creation, used to call on this precious name, and David repeated it with joy in almost every verse of his psalms, it is everywhere in the OT. But, seems like, in your "translation" there is simply 'Lord' instead of it and you're saying there are some errors and you're saying 'word Yahweh is not in most translations'... Ok. So do you know the exact spelling of the Name of God?

lets get back to the specific verse you quoted, I never said that Yahweh is not in the bible, it is not in the verse you quoted with rare exception

 

[Nux]

lets get back to the specific verse you quoted, I never said that Yahweh is not in the bible, it is not in the verse you quoted with rare exception

any proofs?

 

[Nux]

Can't fault that one. . .

Do you? . . .Origins are never meanings?

Don't wanna waste my time on this type of discussion. Try to say something worthy to answer, really, I don't wanna just play with words

 

[Clare73]

Don't wanna waste my time on this type of discussion. Try to say something worthy to answer, really, I don't wanna just play with words

And yet you are the one who challanged the the word "generate" as meaning beget, pro-create.

Well, since Scripture is 100% words, not sure why you are even here.

 

[Nux]

And yet you are the one who challanged the the word "generate" as meaning beget, pro-create.

Well, since Scripture is 100% words, not sure why you are even here.

paste the article from your dictionary here

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's kind of weird

Son of God, Spirit of God, and then why not the 'Father of God' title?

That's just not how we usually talk. Because the historic Trinitarian emphasis is on the Father's Essence, which the Son and the Spirit share in.

The Son is the Son of God because He is of (from) the Father; even as the Spirit is the Spirit of God because He is of (from) the Father [and the Son]. But the Father is not God from any; He is Himself Fount, Source, and Origin.

We could say "Father of God", but this is awkward, and would require further clarification: As we confess and believe that the Father alone is Source and Origin of all Godhead. I.e. the "Monarchy of the Father" as it is sometimes called.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you mean by this?

Jesus said the Father has sent him into this world and promised the Father will send the Holy Spirit to the disciples into Jesus' name. But you say The Holy Spirit 'proceeds'. What is the difference?

The Son is generated, i.e. begotten from, the Father. He has His Origin from the Father, eternally. Hence we speak of His "Eternal Generation", that He is begotten not in time, but eternity; there was never a time when the Father was without His Son, for the Son is Co-Eternal with the Father. So the word "generate" is used in a technical sense, from the Latin ginomai, related to ginia "generation". The English word comes to us through the Latin generatus/generare, "to beget" or "to produce". The Father brings-forth, generates, begets the Son from all eternity as true and very God from true and very God. The Son did not, at some time, come to be, He always is. He always is God because He has His generation, His origin, His source from the Father. God brings forth God.

And the Holy Spirit, not begotten; but proceeds because He has an eternal procession (or "spiration" from the Father [and the Son].

God has begotten God (the Son).
God has breathed-forth God (the Holy Spirit).

The Son and the Spirit being not other than what the Father is; but being what the Father is: God, the One and Only.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nux]

The Son is generated, i.e. begotten from, the Father. He has His Origin from the Father, eternally. Hence we speak of His "Eternal Generation", that He is begotten not in time, but eternity; there was never a time when the Father was without His Son, for the Son is Co-Eternal with the Father. So the word "generate" is used in a technical sense, from the Latin ginomai, related to ginia "generation". The English word comes to us through the Latin generatus/generare, "to beget" or "to produce". The Father brings-forth, generates, begets the Son from all eternity as true and very God from true and very God. The Son did not, at some time, come to be, He always is. He always is God because He has His generation, His origin, His source from the Father. God brings forth God.

And the Holy Spirit, not begotten; but proceeds because He has an eternal procession (or "spiration" from the Father [and the Son].

God has begotten God (the Son).
God has breathed-forth God (the Holy Spirit).

The Son and the Spirit being not other than what the Father is; but being what the Father is: God, the One and Only.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for you reply. It's quite long which shows you spent some time writing it, and it definitely contains something to discuss.
But first, let me share something with you. Just a small example, one of the many contradictions, the modern christian practices, theology and so on are full of. I got a nice ESV study Bible published by Crossway. Here is a short quote from the Biblical doctrine: an overview article at the end of it:

...God offers his name as a personal introduction and as a window into his character This is why David says:
"Those who know your name put their trust in you" Ps. 9:10...
Among the many names for God in the Bible there is none more important than Yahweh (translated "LORD"), a name that was revealed to Moses at the bush...​

End of citation. So at the one hand the authors acknowledge that:

• to know God's name is extremely important
• Yahweh is God's most important name.

but at the other hand they, for some reason, "translated" it as LORD, and hence it doesn't appear in ESV...
You see? First of all LORD isn't a translation for Yahweh. By no means. Second, if they themself acknowledge it's importance, then why did they blot it out from their "translation" preventing readers from knowing it??? This is a deceit, a lie, an enmity towards God, perversion of God's revelation, I don't want to accept it.

This is just a small example, one of the many. I doubt if anybody mentioned it. I mentioned it because I, glory to God, do not accept inconsistent thinking.

Now about your comment. I believe this isn't your own thoughts or understanding, not something you've learned by studying the Bible, but what you where taught. And in my opinion it's highly contradictory in its core. Just take a look at it:

• On the one hand, you say that the Father brings-forth, generates, begets the Son and the Son has his origin from the Father.

The definition of origin is:
origin | ˈɒrɪdʒ(ɪ)n |
noun 1 (also origins)
• the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived:
his theory of the origin of life | the name is Norse in origin | the terminology has its origins in America.
• a person's social background or ancestry: a family of peasant origin | a voice that betrays his Welsh origins.
So, generally, taking the common definition of all that words, the idea is that there was a time when there was no Son and then, I don't know, the Father caused him into existence.

• On the other hand, you say the Son always is.

This both cannot be true at the same time. This is a perverted thinking.

And what's more important:

• I don't see any Biblical support for that teaching. Try to find some passages clearly stating the Son was literally born, generated, created so on by the Father. I don't see it in the Gospel, I don't see it at all.
• Let's assume this teaching is necessary to substantiate the Sons equality to the Father. But even for this purpose we don't need it! Jesus gave plenty of proofs he is equal to the Father and the OT testifies that the one coming into the world is like Yahweh himself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for you reply. It's quite long which shows you spent some time writing it, and it definitely contains something to discuss.
But first, let me share something with you. Just a small example, one of the many contradictions, the modern christian practices, theology and so on are full of. I got a nice ESV study Bible published by Crossway. Here is a short quote from the Biblical doctrine: an overview article at the end of it:

...God offers his name as a personal introduction and as a window into his character This is why David says:
"Those who know your name put their trust in you" Ps. 9:10...
Among the many names for God in the Bible there is none more important than Yahweh (translated "LORD"), a name that was revealed to Moses at the bush...​

End of citation. So at the one hand the authors acknowledge that:

• to know God's name is extremely important
• Yahweh is God's most important name.

but at the other hand they, for some reason, "translated" it as LORD, and hence it doesn't appear in ESV...
You see? First of all LORD isn't a translation for Yahweh. By no means. Second, if they themself acknowledge it's importance, then why did they blot it out from their "translation" preventing readers from knowing it??? This is a deceit, a lie, an enmity towards God, perversion of God's revelation, I don't want to accept it.

This is just a small example, one of the many. I doubt if anybody mentioned it. I mentioned it because I, glory to God, do not accept inconsistent thinking.

Now about your comment. I believe this isn't your own thoughts or understanding, not something you've learned by studying the Bible, but what you where taught. And in my opinion it's highly contradictory in its core. Just take a look at it:

• On the one hand, you say that the Father brings-forth, generates, begets the Son and the Son has his origin from the Father.

The definition of origin is:
origin | ˈɒrɪdʒ(ɪ)n |
noun 1 (also origins)
• the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived:
his theory of the origin of life | the name is Norse in origin | the terminology has its origins in America.
• a person's social background or ancestry: a family of peasant origin | a voice that betrays his Welsh origins.
So, generally, taking the common definition of all that words, the idea is that there was a time when there was no Son and then, I don't know, the Father caused him into existence.

• On the other hand, you say the Son always is.

This both cannot be true at the same time. This is a perverted thinking.

And what's more important:

• I don't see any Biblical support for that teaching. Try to find some passages clearly stating the Son was literally born, generated, created so on by the Father. I don't see it in the Gospel, I don't see it at all.
• Let's assume this teaching is necessary to substantiate the Sons equality to the Father. But even for this purpose we don't need it! Jesus gave plenty of proofs he is equal to the Father and the OT testifies that the one coming into the world is like Yahweh himself.

We don't know how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton. The pronunciation is lost to history. The most anyone can do is transliterate the Tetragrammaton as YHWH or YHVH, or else attempt an approximation to pronunciation, (e.g. Yahweh, Yahveh, Jehovah).

The reason English Bibles use "LORD" and "Lord GOD" goes back to the Septuagint and pre-Christian Jewish practice. The Jews, before the time of Christ and to this day, substitute the Tetragrammaton with Adonai (modern Jews will often go further, using the epithet HaShem, Hebrew for "the Name"). As such when the Jewish scribes who produced the Septuagint in Alexandria wanted to render the Tetragrammaton, they instead chose the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Adonai, which was Kyrios. Both "Adonai" and "Kyrios" mean "Lord".

Thus in the New Testament the Evangelists, Apostles, and other New Testament authors whenever they quoted or referred to what we call "The Old Testament", they use the Greek word Kyrios where the Hebrew has the Tetragrammaton.

As an example, let's take a look at Matthew 22:44,

Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου


Notice the bold text, that's eipen ho Kyrios to Kyrio mou, "The Lord said to my Lord". It's a direct word-for-word quote from the Septuagint translation of Psalm 110:1.

The divinely inspired Greek autographs written by the pen of the Apostles and Evangelists themselves, and the exact words they themselves uttered by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit had them use the Greek translation of Adonai where the Hebrew uses the Tetragrammaton. Christians, since Jesus first called twelve men to be His apostles and said "I will build My Church", have done the same.

Sure, modern translators could simply just transliterate the Tetragrammaton when translating from the Hebrew. But since nobody knows how to pronounce it, that's not going to be very helpful to anyone. But if you want to blame anyone for "removing" God's Name, well God Himself is the One you should be blaming. He is the One who inspired the writers of the Bible who used Kyrios rather than YHWH in the New Testament.

As for your criticism against the Eternal Generation of the Son, I actually am speaking from my own study. I wish these were things I had been taught in church, I think it absolutely should be. The fact that you are fighting against basic Christian doctrine is evidence of why it's so important for churches to be properly catechizing the Faithful. I had to learn these things on my own, through my own personal study and doing my own homework.

The Nicene Creed says "begotten, not made". Your criticism of the Eternal Generation of the Son is precisely why this phrase was added to the Nicene Creed in 325 AD against the false teachings of Arius.

If you are serious about understanding the Doctrine of the Trinity then go and study the history of the Arian Controversy, the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, and the Creed which we have received and continue to confess as Christians to this very day. You'll get answers to your questions, and your objections will be addressed--if you are willing to learn.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[disciple Clint]

any proofs?

well yes there is plenty of translations available right on the internet why dont you try starting with the KJV and move on the the other reliable sources

 

[Nux]

well yes there is plenty of translations available right on the internet why dont you try starting with the KJV and move on the the other reliable sources

Both Jehovah and Yahweh are just possible spellings necessary because Jews, disobedient to the God's covenant and to the God's words in Exodus 3:15, unlike all righteous men of the old, Moses and David and all the prophets who used to call on the Name, have chosen to forget the Name. Later so called christians, shouldn't be confused with real ones, joined Jews in their disobedience and ignorance not carrying about the Name, although Jesus directly taught them to pray that God's Name would be hallowed. So the exact spelling of the Name is lost but its meaning, glory to God, is known: God is Who He is. So with this all been said I just can't get your point or thought or something if there is any. What are you trying to say?

 

[Nux]

But if you want to blame anyone for "removing" God's Name, well God Himself is the One you should be blaming. He is the One who inspired the writers of the Bible who used Kyrios rather than YHWH in the New Testament.

If I were you, I wouldn't say that but see to yourself. Here are the direct God's words, in English translation of course, expressing his will regarding his name

LEB Exodus 3:15
15 And God said again to Moses, “So you must say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my remembrance from generation to generation.’

Check Hebrew original do you see any LORD or Adonai there? No, there is what was left of God's Name - Tetragrammaton.
Did God say the Name would cease at some point? No, he didn't say that.
Wasn't it Jesus who taught disciples to pray the God's Name to be hallowed? What Name?

Revelation 19:6
6 And I heard something like the sound of a great crowd and something like the sound of many waters and something like the sound of powerful thunder, saying,
“Hallelujah!
For the Lord God, the All-Powerful, reigns!

What do you believe Hallelujah shouted by the crowd in the presence of God means?

Asking just for rhetorical purpose, the matter is crystal clear.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If I were you, I wouldn't say that but see to yourself. Here are the direct God's words, in English translation of course, expressing his will regarding his name

LEB Exodus 3:15
15 And God said again to Moses, “So you must say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my remembrance from generation to generation.’

Check Hebrew original do you see any LORD or Adonai there? No, there is what was left of God's Name - Tetragrammaton.
Did God say the Name would cease at some point? No, he didn't say that.
Wasn't it Jesus who taught disciples to pray the God's Name to be hallowed? What Name?

Revelation 19:6
6 And I heard something like the sound of a great crowd and something like the sound of many waters and something like the sound of powerful thunder, saying,
“Hallelujah!
For the Lord God, the All-Powerful, reigns!

What do you believe Hallelujah shouted by the crowd in the presence of God means?

Asking just for rhetorical purpose, the matter is crystal clear.

Do you believe the divinely inspired writers of the New Testament are wrong for using Kyrios?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[disciple Clint]

Both Jehovah and Yahweh are just possible spellings necessary because Jews, disobedient to the God's covenant and to the God's words in Exodus 3:15, unlike all righteous men of the old, Moses and David and all the prophets who used to call on the Name, have chosen to forget the Name. Later so called christians, shouldn't be confused with real ones, joined Jews in their disobedience and ignorance not carrying about the Name, although Jesus directly taught them to pray that God's Name would be hallowed. So the exact spelling of the Name is lost but its meaning, glory to God, is known: God is Who He is. So with this all been said I just can't get your point or thought or something if there is any. What are you trying to say?

I am simply trying to point out that you are in error, that is my point which I have supported, now it is up to you to decide.

 

[Nux]

Do you believe the divinely inspired writers of the New Testament are wrong for using Kyrios?

-CryptoLutheran

How is your question related to the topic? We are not discussing nor New Testament nor Greek.

And you, do you believe Yahweh revealing his Name, Moses, righteous ones of the OT calling on that Name, David and the prophets were wrong, so that some Jewish or "Christian" "translators" or fellas like you for example should correct them?

 

[Nux]

I am simply trying to point out that you are in error, that is my point which I have supported, now it is up to you to decide.

Yeah, I see you are considering me to be in error I just got no clue what the error is, because you can hardly manage to white more than 1 sentence or to provide any explanation of your views or to prove your claim. So it turns out that this is you who are in error because you directly oppose to God's word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How is your question related to the topic? We are not discussing nor New Testament nor Greek.

And you, do you believe Yahweh revealing his Name, Moses, righteous ones of the OT calling on that Name, David and the prophets were wrong, so that some Jewish or "Christian" "translators" or fellas like you for example should correct them?

Because the New Testament authors used "Lord" instead of YHWH. Which you are condemning. that makes the question completely relevant.

-CryptoLutheran