"Persons" is defined differently by various Trinitarians. The etymology of this word further complicates any clear and consistent definition. It is also a key term in the definition of the Trinity. The result is a definition of a word using another word that is unclear itself. What could possibly go wrong?
OldShepherd
Well-known member
Do you know anything at all about Hebrew?
Evidently not, just repeating what your church leaders have fed you.
Your analogy is ridiculous. "I am" is NOT an occupation. Had you bothered to actually read my post I quoted from the 1917 Jewish Publication Society OT. The native Hebrew speaking scholars who translated the JPS knew that "ehyeh"/"I am" was what God said His name was. If you want truth don't listen to your teachers ask the people who know.
Names of God
In appearance, Yhwh (
) is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb
("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (
, from
, the later equivalent of the archaic stem
). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).
In appearance, Yhwh (
NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com
OldShepherd
Well-known member
See my previous post, the NAME "YHWH" means "He is" it is the third person singular of "ehyeh" which means "I am" which is the first person singular.
Bonnie
Super Member
I know what it is about, but some texts in the OT have a deeper meaning in the NT, and under the inspiration of the HS, the writer says what that deeper meaning is. Same with Ps. 8, later on in Hebrews 2, I think it is.
No, He didn't.
Bonnie
Super Member
I never said it was, in that particular verse. But this chapter is ALL about the Son.
I agree about "Only-begotten". That means "unique, special, ,one-of-a-kind." And should actually be translated "one and only Son."
Actually ,check this out:
This is all about Jesus Christ.
See above...the Hebrews writer gave it a deeper meaning, under inspiration of the HS.
Okay.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
You don't know what you are talking about. Just repeating what your biased teachers/leaders have fed you. You have just committed the lexical fallacy, "root fallacy." Everybody with a Strong's thinks they are a Hebrew /Greek expert. Huparchon does NOT mean begin quietly under.
More of that denominational bias, by other people who know nothing about Greek.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox for 2000+ years who better than the group scholars who translated the EOB, know the correct meaning of Greek words in the NT?
Philippians 2:6 He who existed in the form of God did not consider equality with God as something to be taken by force.
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Php 2:5–6).
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
Update--I contacted a scholar friend whom I have been writing to for over 17 years, on matters of translating in Greek and Hebrew. He is an expert on both, and teaches them. His Ph.D is in the Classics, but that includes the Bible and he does know something about Biblical manuscripts. I asked him about Deut. 32:43 and that verse being absent and he wrote this back to me:
I am puzzled why our commentary on Hebrews says this verse is absent from Deuteronomy but present in the LXX...plus, BibleGateway has this for Heb. 1:6, in its footnotes:
Hope this helps.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
Wrong.
Irrelevant did David or Solomon ever say that they were the son of God?
Yahweh will increase
Well-known member
That would be Trinitarian teachers and leaders then, for I have never sat under any other teachers or leaders but Trinitarians alone and neither do I go to the websites of unitarian groups either, for I believe that Trins and uni's and oneness and all others are in the same mess of apostasy that Paul told us would come.
I don't know what I am talking about huh?
Well, it is a known fact that the people who write those Lexicons and determine the meaning of those Hebrew and Greek words do so mostly by evaluating how they are used in sentences and mostly in the Bible but also as used in outside the Bible writings as well like The Liddle and Scott for instance.
Furthermore, none of the definitions that you supplied in your replies from your favorite cherry picked Lexicons proved your case that "huparchon" can refer to things that had no beginning, for none of them did at all period.
I also notice how many times you will give references from sources such as the BDAG and it is all written in Greek and which unless someone knows how to read Greek, they wouldn't be able to see whether what you were saying they say is true or not and I believe you are doing that for that reason also OS.
Remember, God is not a deceiver but that characteristic belongs to the Devil and his ministers alone.
So you see also that I am not just using the Strong's like you think but I am looking into all of them also but there isn't anything more powerful then what the words mean in actual sentences within the Bible itself and this proves that "huparchon" is never used to speak of anything that doesn't have a beginning, for it is a fact dude.
None of which have so far proven me wrong on this either OS and for the word "huparchon" translated as "existed in Philippians 2:6 still doesn't mean eternal existence but rather it refers to a beginning of existence and from which the root words that make up the word "huparchon" clearly reveal also.
Then you also have that word "morphe" to deal with and which would be rather pointless and confusing for Paul to have used if indeed he was saying that Jesus pre existed as the eternal God and then became a man.
For it would be quite redundant for Paul to say that Jesus as being the eternal God as the eternal God in the form "morphe" = appearance and characteristics of the Eternal God, for of course God has the characteristics and appearance of God, for he is God.
When we get right down to it OS, your doctrines are really quite bozo to say the least.
However it is also quite understandable by your user name that you are were or still are a payed trinitarian minister or pastor and which makes sense what you don't want to believe that what I am revealing from the scriptures is true.
Yahweh will increase
Well-known member
Sorry but the word Son is not in the original Greek and you know it OS and if indeed it was taken from Deuteronomy 32:43 in the LXX, it is referring God there also and not the Son and I believe that the writer was probably using the LXX pared up with Luke 2:11-12.
Deuteronomy 32:48 from the LXX
43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.
Nowhere in this passage can you get the idea that it was the Son of God at his birth who God was instructing the angels to worship and as I said the passage below from Luke reveals how this passage was fulfilled at Jesus' birth and again it was the Father Yahweh who was worshiped in this case and not Jesus.
Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
It is likewise irrelevant to what was meant by "Son of God" as to whether they did call themselves this or not for the Jews understood that when Jesus said it, he was claiming to be that anointed and greatest human heir to the throne of God out of David's descendants and therefore the total fulfillment of the promise of God to both David and Israel.
Therefore they with the help of their Father the Devil twisted the meaning of what the words "Son of God" meant because they hated Jesus for exposing them as the hypocrites that they truly were in his 8 woes sermon and also because they were envious for his drawing the crowds that he did.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Very clearly in the above, Jesus tells you that they were believing a lie fabricated from their Father the Devil and therefore you are without an excuse OS.
Genesis 2:7 "Man became a living soul" (SOUL = Hebrew Nephesh) NIV translates Nephesh as PERSON. NLT translates as BEING.
Yet in Leviticus 26:30 God says of Himself "my SOUL" A single soul. A single God or single person.
Just as the scripture refers to a man as a single soul, so to is God referred to as a single soul. Jews used the term Nephesh in much the same way we use the term "person" in English today.
The OT divine name of YHWH is third person singular and he is said to be by Himself (Isaiah 45:21; Mark 12:32). He created all thing alone (Isaiah 44:24). Isaiah 42:8 says "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another"
Yet in Leviticus 26:30 God says of Himself "my SOUL" A single soul. A single God or single person.
Just as the scripture refers to a man as a single soul, so to is God referred to as a single soul. Jews used the term Nephesh in much the same way we use the term "person" in English today.
The OT divine name of YHWH is third person singular and he is said to be by Himself (Isaiah 45:21; Mark 12:32). He created all thing alone (Isaiah 44:24). Isaiah 42:8 says "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another"
Yahweh will increase
Well-known member
It is still God who is worshiped in that text and also in Deuteronomy 32:43 and it says nothing about the Son being worshiped at his birth and that was my point.Update--I contacted a scholar friend whom I have been writing to for over 17 years, on matters of translating in Greek and Hebrew. He is an expert on both, and teaches them. His Ph.D is in the Classics, but that includes the Bible and he does know something about Biblical manuscripts. I asked him about Deut. 32:43 and that verse being absent and he wrote this back to me:
I am puzzled why our commentary on Hebrews says this verse is absent from Deuteronomy but present in the LXX...plus, BibleGateway has this for Heb. 1:6, in its footnotes:
I checked the footnotes for this verse in the NET Bible and it says that it combines themes found in the Deuteronomy verse and in Ps. 97:7.
Hope this helps.
For, I believe that the writer of Hebrews is using this along with the word passed on to the disciples and which Luke records in Luke 2:11-14 as being its fulfillment at the birth of Jesus.
I also tend to believe that Luke wrote Hebrews for Paul because Paul had problems with his eyes at that point and Luke was a very close associate to Paul, for we see this in his mention of Luke often in his writings.
Also, I see in Hebrews Luke's style of writing but Paul's word phrasing and like referring to the Law as a shadow of good things to come but not the very image of those things and where he refers to the mature teaching of the word as meat and the beginning principles of the word as milk.
Of course there other resemblances also, I can prove this and so I don't make a doctrine out of it but it is what I tend to believe personally and it makes sense then for Luke to use what he wrote of Jesus' birth in Luke 2:11-14 as the fulfillment of those texts from Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 97:7 from the LXX.
Luke 2:11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
For Luke's account above is no doubt the fulfillment of that OT text and it isn't Jesus that is worshiped in any of these passages but rather God who brought him into the world and it nevertheless proves that Jesus had a greater importance place and importance with God than the angels also.
Yahweh will increase
Well-known member
However it is all about the Son in regards to the purpose of the Father and which the writer is revealing to be of greater importance and purpose than that of the angels.I never said it was, in that particular verse. But this chapter is ALL about the Son.
One and only Son would be incorrect however due to the fact that God has other sons and sons who were also begotten through Jesus and which is one of the reasons why he is the unique Son of God and different than any other, for there wasn't any other that they would be born again through and conformed to the image of but only Jesus alone period.
See also Romans 5:12-21 and Romans 8:29 below.
Romans 8:29, "For those whom he foreknew, those he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his (human)
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many (human) brethren" and by the way, this included Abraham even though Abraham was born before Jesus.
So we see even here, that Jesus as a human being "was before Abraham was, in God's plan, foreknowledge and purpose" and I believe that this is what he meant when he said unto the Jews in John 8:58, "before Abraham was I am".
For if you read the context, those Jews in verse 53, first asked Jesus if he was greater than Abraham and the prophets who had died and then Jesus revealed that Abraham had received a vision from God of his being present with those Jews and rejoiced and was glad about it.
It was at this point that the Jews once again seeking to find a reason to accuse him, twisted his words and made it as though he had said that He saw Abraham and which Jesus never said at all but only that Abraham had seen his day and there is no doubt that he was speaking of him seeing the day of his coming to Israel as a human being.
Therefore I believe by God's instruction, Jesus spoke back to them in a spiritual riddle and said "Truly I say unto you, before Abraham was I am" and which by this God allowed them the delusion that they desired to have him arrested and killed for.
For because they had by their own stubborn will made themselves reprobates to the truth anyhow, God had determined to use them to accomplish his will in having Jesus offered up as a sacrifice for the sins of all men, see Peters words in Acts 2:22-36.
If you doubt that God would do this, I would suggest you read Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, where Paul clearly says,. "for this reason God will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie and that they all might be damned who loved not the truth but took pleasure what was not right".
Therefore Jesus was not speaking a lie when he said "before Abraham was I am" but he was speaking in spiritual terms and not referring to his existing before Abraham was in regards to time or even eternity but rather that he existed before Abraham was in God's vision and plan that he allowed Abraham to get a glimps of.
Both passages were spoken to men of the flesh and not God men and the passages cannot be used that far off from their original meaning either and the fact is that Jesus was the son of both David and Solomon who were also heirs of the throne before Jesus
Psalm 2:7 was first spoken to David who recorded it also and he said "I will declare the decree, the Lord has said unto me, you are my son this day have I begotten you"
Also in 2 Samuel 7:14, this is God speaking to David about his son Solomon who was to take his place as the human heir of God to the throne after his father David and according to the same promise made to David.
Therefore when Trin teachers tell people that the Jews truly understood that Jesus was claiming equality with God by calling himself God's Son, they are telling them a lie, because the OT scriptures do not reveal that being called God's Son ever meant a literal Son of God's own substance like the words "son of man do".
A deeper meaning does not make it a completely different meaning however, for indeed Jesus was the greatest of all the descendants of David to be God's human heir (Son) to his Throne but you cannot alter the fact that the text is referring to a human being no matter which Son of David is being spoken of at any given time.
Also is the fact that the Psalmist goes on to state "Therefore God even your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (other human beings)". and which reveals even further that the Son having a God over him can not possibly be Almighty God himself but only his image in visible flesh and blood and his highest representative as such.
Last edited:
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Indeed, glory to God The Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
johnny guitar
Well-known member
Jesus is The Divine-Human Son to whom the throne of Israel is His BY RIGHT.
And Jesus Christ is THE ONE and ONLY Son of God. There ain't any other.
OldShepherd
Well-known member
Right that is the way language works. Unlike folks like you who know nothing about etymology etc.
Let me know when you can show me what you consider an unbiased lexicon written by scholars with letters behind their names e.g. ThD, PhD etc. who have about 10-12 years of peer reviewed writing, study etc.. Not just some clown on the internet.
Until you can do that NOTHING you says means anything. Just another biased amateur giving an unsupported opinion concocted to support their assumptions/presuppositions.
And OBTW I can't prove a negative and neither can you no mater how hard you try.
I notice how you blew of the Eastern Orthodox Bible which represents about 2000+ years of Greek scholarship..
Yahweh will increase
Well-known member
That is why all I need is the Holy Spirit of my God and the scriptures to tear apart and expose any false doctrine that comes my way
So you go ahead with your best at your intimidation tactics now while you still have a short amount of time left in this present age of the mercies of God.
For that will soon be over and then you will eat every false word that you have ever stated and you will stand before every single human being who ever lived and be exposed for exactly what you really are without the sheep's clothing anymore to cover it up with also.
All you ever do is rant and rave OS, for you really have never been able to refute the truth about this, for it is a fact that Paul didn't use the word normally associated with God's eternal existed but he instead used a word that isn't used of God except for in two passage of Act 17 and in both God had a beginning to be what Paul is saying that he is in those verses.
I will bet that this eats you alive inside also, being you preached and taught what you have about it for years now and even got payed for it huh?
So it makes sense that you would be vehemently opposed to the truth about this also, for God forbid you would ever have to admit you were wrong huh?
As much as You
In your post, you are repeating what you have been told
never said it was.. it is however a description not a name...
From your high priests whom you echo.
It does not say that... anywhere
It does not say his name is I am... I don't need your publication to support anything...the scripture supports itself...What name does God say he should be called forever?If you want truth don't listen to your teachers ask the people who know.
Names of God
In appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from, the later equivalent of the archaic stem). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
NOG
Again Elohim said to Moses, “This is what you must say to the people of Israel: Yahweh Elohim of your ancestors, the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever. This is my title throughout every generation.
NOG
I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.
Your willful ignorance is noted...
that is your making of confusion...a person's name does not change from the first person to the third person. A pronoun does so your rubbish is exposed...God specifically said what he must be called throughout every generation and it is not I Am...
NOG
Again Elohim said to Moses, “This is what you must say to the people of Israel: Yahweh Elohim of your ancestors, the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever. This is my title throughout every generation.
NOG
I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shadday, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.
Why do you glory in your ignorance?
OldShepherd
Well-known member
Wrong you know diddly about Hebrew. I have NOT been told anything I study, as I have shown. You do know what that is don't you?
Not only do you know nothing about Hebrew you evidently can't even comprehend English.
From my previous post.
the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (
, from
, the later equivalent of the archaic stem
)
Do you know what the third person singular of "ehyeh" is?
All this from biased people who don't know any more than you do. And you willingly walk in darkness.
You have not shown that I am ignorant but you have clearly shown yours. I quoted from a Jewish source and they certainly do NOT have any Trinitarian bias. Run Forest run.