A Question for Trinitarians

[jamfitz001]

I believe the trinity is the method by which Human Beings can understand and interact with God. God is One. Existence is because of God. So how can a limited being in this existence experience God?

God is the creator of everything you see. As a part of his creation, you can see his work. All existence, every star, every grain of sand...literally everything you perceive came from him. Thus he is the Father and creator of you and everything else. You can perceive God through creation.

You can also perceive God through his Word. Jesus Christ. Jesus walked on this earth in a purposeful life and left behind a record that shows us God acting through history, from Genesis to an Apocalypse. You can read his inspired word and you can perceive God through the logos, his word.

Finally, you can directly experience God. You can actually feel his 'spirit' interact with your soul. And the idea of doing so exists in most cultures throughout time, and many people have had experiences of the Holy Spirit touching them. So you can perceive God directly when he enters your heart'.

As a human being, those are the total methods available to you to know God. And the construct of the trinity is the sum of the ways that exist for you to interact with God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe the trinity is the method by which Human Beings can understand and interact with God. God is One. Existence is because of God. So how can a limited being in this existence experience God?

God is the creator of everything you see. As a part of his creation, you can see his work. All existence, every star, every grain of sand...literally everything you perceive came from him. Thus he is the Father and creator of you and everything else. You can perceive God through creation.

You can also perceive God through his Word. Jesus Christ. Jesus walked on this earth in a purposeful life and left behind a record that shows us God acting through history, from Genesis to an Apocalypse. You can read his inspired word and you can perceive God through the logos, his word.

Finally, you can directly experience God. You can actually feel his 'spirit' interact with your soul. And the idea of doing so exists in most cultures throughout time, and many people have had experiences of the Holy Spirit touching them. So you can perceive God directly when he enters your heart'.

As a human being, those are the total methods available to you to know God. And the construct of the trinity is the sum of the ways that exist for you to interact with God.

I want to say this respectfully, but the problem with this view is that it's more-or-less Modalism. God with three faces, rather than God in three Persons.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nux]

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

-CryptoLutheran

I'm discussing the substitution of the Name with a 'Lord' in the OT.

So the question stays the same:
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 substituting the Name with 'Lord'?

It doesn't make any sense to continue the discussion because your attitude towards the Name is obvious.

 

[Nux]

@Clare73 Not possible to write long messages there. In reply to your last comment: But it isn't used in both LEB and in other widely used relatively word-to-word translations too. See LEB John 1:14 NASB John 1:14 HCSB John 1:14 ESV John 1:14 etc. The fact is that the verses you mentioned are translated in various ways. So the question is where in the Bible this idea is expressed and explained with more than one word? One word foundation is a weak one, isn't it. Moreover, as I said, it rather undermines Jesus' divinity than supports it. Because it means that the Son differs from the Father in his personal attributes. The Father has no beginning but the Son according to this idea was caused by the Father so he did has the beginning and hence he's not divine because the reference deity, the Father, has no beginning. So the question is what this idea or teaching is based on? If it's biblical then there's no need to hunt for words, there must be some stronger basis for it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm discussing the substitution of the Name with a 'Lord' in the OT.

So am I. That's why I'm trying to explain that the writers of the New Testament did that. When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament it quotes the Septuagint, which has Kyrios ("Lord")--and that's why English Old Testaments have "LORD".

If you have a problem with "LORD" in the Old Testament in English Bibles then your problem is with the Septuagint and New Testament writers, that's where it started.

So the question stays the same:
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 substituting the Name with 'Lord'?

It doesn't make any sense to continue the discussion because your attitude towards the Name is obvious.

My point remains the same: If you have a problem with "LORD" in English Bibles, then your problem is with the use of "Lord" in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.

That's why English Old Testaments use "LORD"--because the Septuagint and New Testament did it first.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

@Clare73 Not possible to write long messages there. In reply to your last comment: But it isn't used in both LEB and in other widely used relatively word-to-word translations too. See LEB John 1:14 NASB John 1:14 HCSB John 1:14 ESV John 1:14 etc. The fact is that the verses you mentioned are translated in various ways. So the question is where in the Bible this idea is expressed and explained with more than one word? One word foundation is a weak one, isn't it. Moreover, as I said, it rather undermines Jesus' divinity than supports it. Because it means that the Son differs from the Father in his personal attributes. The Father has no beginning but the Son according to this idea was caused by the Father so he did has the beginning and hence he's not divine because the reference deity, the Father, has no beginning. So the question is what this idea or teaching is based on? If it's biblical then there's no need to hunt for words, there must be some stronger basis for it.

Monogenes (only begotten) is used in the Textus Receptus and Nestle's Greek texts, both commonly used texts for Bibles.

 

[setst777]

I'm discussing the substitution of the Name with a 'Lord' in the OT.

So the question stays the same:
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 substituting the Name with 'Lord'?

It doesn't make any sense to continue the discussion because your attitude towards the Name is obvious.

Your point, that the Divine Name should not have been substituted in the OT with LORD, is not an issue, because the Divine Name is in the NT over 933 times. That name is "Jesus," meaning "Jehovah is Salvation." "Jesus" is, therefore, the most essential form of God's name, since the whole message of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is that God provides salvation for our sins. God is Savior. "Jesus" is the only name Christians are to call upon, pray in, confess, witness in. "Jesus" is God's name, the only name under heaven by which we may be saved.

Romans 6:25-27 (NIV) 25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[a] faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

According to the above Scripture, it was God who commanded the revelation of the Gospel to be made known through the prophetic writings, the same God who commanded the universe to stand firm.

Psalms 33:9 (WEB) 9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

So, if God's intent was to have YHWH in the OT or NT, then God failed. However, God did not fail, and we have the revelation of the Gospel in writing just as God commanded it for the Church.

If God wanted YHWH to continue as the name we are to call upon, pray in, etc., then God, who commands the universe, would not permit YHWH to be removed.

However, we do have God's divine name in the NT in the most essential form of the Divine Name, the very name that God gave to the Son. That name is "Jesus" which translated means: "Jehovah is Savior."

Philippians 2:10 (WEB)
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Over 930 times, the Divine Name is used in the NT in the name: Jesus.

"Jesus" is the name of God that we are to confess and call upon for all things, for "Jesus" is the only one we look to and come to for salvation, and the name "Jesus" is God's by which we are saved.

Romans 10:9 (WEB) if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:2 (WEB) 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours

Acts 4:12 (WEB) 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Yes, we do have God's Divine Name in the NT - the name "Jesus." We honor God by believing in Jesus, coming to Jesus, calling upon Jesus, and witnessing for Jesus.

 

[Nux]

Monogenes (only begotten) is used in the Textus Receptus and Nestle's Greek texts, both commonly used texts for Bibles.

Yes, no one argues. But you are not reading Textus Receptus or Nestle's Greek texts, are you? The question is what is the right way to translate that word.

 

[Nux]

Your point, that the Divine Name should not have been substituted in the OT with LORD, is not an issue, because the Divine Name is in the NT over 933 times. That name is "Jesus," meaning "Jehovah is Salvation." "Jesus" is, therefore, the most essential form of God's name, since the whole message of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is that God provides salvation for our sins. God is Savior. "Jesus" is the only name Christians are to call upon, pray in, confess, witness in. "Jesus" is God's name, the only name under heaven by which we may be saved.

Romans 6:25-27 (NIV) 25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[a] faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

According to the above Scripture, it was God who commanded the revelation of the Gospel to be made known through the prophetic writings, the same God who commanded the universe to stand firm.

Psalms 33:9 (WEB) 9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

So, if God's intent was to have YHWH in the OT or NT, then God failed. However, God did not fail, and we have the revelation of the Gospel in writing just as God commanded it for the Church.

If God wanted YHWH to continue as the name we are to call upon, pray in, etc., then God, who commands the universe, would not permit YHWH to be removed.

However, we do have God's divine name in the NT in the most essential form of the Divine Name, the very name that God gave to the Son. That name is "Jesus" which translated means: "Jehovah is Savior."

Philippians 2:10 (WEB)
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Over 930 times, the Divine Name is used in the NT in the name: Jesus.

"Jesus" is the name of God that we are to confess and call upon for all things, for "Jesus" is the only one we look to and come to for salvation, and the name "Jesus" is God's by which we are saved.

Romans 10:9 (WEB) if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:2 (WEB) 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours

Acts 4:12 (WEB) 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Yes, we do have God's Divine Name in the NT - the name "Jesus." We honor God by believing in Jesus, coming to Jesus, calling upon Jesus, and witnessing for Jesus.

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.’

You say you know God the Father and Jesus? Ok, above is God's word, God's Name, God's will. But you are arguing and opposing instead of just obey and rejoice.
Why? I know the answer, you think about it.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, no one argues. But you are not reading Textus Receptus or Nestle's Greek texts, are you? The question is what is the right way to translate that word.

Well, literally it means "alone/single/one-generated/sired/begotten". . .making only-begotten an accurate translation.

What is the difficulty here?

 

[Nux]

Well, literally it means "alone/single/one-generated/sired/begotten". . .making only-begotten an accurate translation.

What is the difficulty here?

I've already explained

 

[Graydon Booth]

What is the name of the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Ghost"?

The one true God

 

[Emun]

What is the name of the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Ghost"?

The name of all three is Yahweh.

The father is Yahweh, the Son is Yahweh, the Holy Spirit is Yahweh.

 

[Nux]

That's why English Old Testaments use "LORD"--because the Septuagint and New Testament did it first.

Why are you inventing excuses? They, both Jews and 'translators', made people to forget the Name of God. I've got nothing to add.

My point remains the same: If you have a problem with "LORD" in English Bibles, then your problem is with the use of "Lord" in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.

Oh no no... Your point is completely wrong.
I use translations where God's Name is treated with reverence and I rejoice calling it.
And what is the usage of 'LORD' in English Bibles or Septuagint for me to have problems with it? That's nothing.

This is you who have problems with God's Name. And I'm just trying to serve God by sharing what he revealed to me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why are you inventing excuses? They, both Jews and 'translators', made people to forget the Name of God. I've got nothing to add.

Oh no no... Your point is completely wrong.
I use translations where God's Name is treated with reverence and I rejoice calling it.
And what is the usage of 'LORD' in English Bibles or Septuagint for me to have problems with it? That's nothing.

This is you who have problems with God's Name. And I'm just trying to serve God by sharing what he revealed to me.

I don't recall ever saying I have a problem with the name YHWH. And you won't find anywhere in this thread where I said I have a problem with it. I would ask that you please not lie about me.

More to the point: If you don't have a problem with using "Lord" in the Old Testament where the Name is found, then why have you made that an issue. Why are you claiming Jews and Christians removed it, if you don't believe they removed it.

I'm struggling to pinpoint exactly what your whole point is in that regard.

English Bibles use "LORD" where the Name YHWH is in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
In the same way that the Septuagint uses Kyrios where the Name YHWH is in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
In the same way that the New Testament uses Kyrios when it quotes the Septuagint.

What's the difference between Greek Old Testament translations using Kyrios and English Old Testament translations using Lord?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nux]

I don't recall ever saying I have a problem with the name YHWH. And you won't find anywhere in this thread where I said I have a problem with it.

-CryptoLutheran

You opposed it, that's a problem. I'm not judging you, just think about it.

 

[Nux]

The name of all three is Yahweh.

The father is Yahweh, the Son is Yahweh, the Holy Spirit is Yahweh.

No, that's wrong. 'Yahweh' is the Father's name, the Son was called 'Jesus' and the Holy Ghost was never called 'Yahweh'. Check the Bible.

 

[Emun]

No, that's wrong

Why?

 

[Nux]

Why?

Because 'Yahweh' is the Father's name, the Son was called 'Jesus' and the Holy Ghost has never been called 'Yahweh'. Check the Bible.

 

[Emun]

Because 'Yahweh' is the Father's name, the Son was called 'Jesus'

The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament who is undoubtedly Jesus is called Yahweh.

and the Holy Ghost has never been called 'Yahweh'. Check the Bible.

In Hebrews 3:7-9, the Holy Spirit says that He is the person who was tempted by Israel in the wilderness. Exodus 17:7 says that Yahweh was tempted by Israel in the wilderness. As you can see, the Holy Spirit is identified as Yahweh.