Jesus is HO THEOS in Hebrews and YHWH in Psalms

That’s not my idea, that’s how Greek grammar works. Maybe you should invest in some Greek 101 resources. You will not look so foolish.
That is how your bias and twisted version of the Greek grammar works but to start with, knowledge of Greek Grammar isn't an antidote for false ideas and false doctrine because human beings have biases that keep them from using that knowledge correctly and that is what your lot is also.
 
That is how your bias and twisted version of the Greek grammar works but to start with, knowledge of Greek Grammar isn't an antidote for false ideas and false doctrine because human beings have biases that keep them from using that knowledge correctly and that is what your lot is also.
Language is how ideas are communicate. If God wanted to communicate by Inspiration as you claim, there would not have been the Bible.
God inspired the biblical authors to use words in complex, in specified manner, to produce a specific idea. That’s how grammar works.
 
Notice a difference between what I post and what you post. My post has scriptural support. Your post is nothing but your personal opinion. And we all know personal opinions are not universal truths. Try posting something that has some scriptura meat in it.
Yeah sure you do, and everyone on this forum can say the same thing also but it isn't even how much scripture you use but whether or not you are interpreting it correctly and you can't and the reason why you can't is because your arrogant intellect gets in the way of your hearing any truth from God.

The truth be told also, you are not stupid and therefore you know that many of the arguments you are making are false and just like the one you make concerning John 17:3.

Nevertheless, you need to be advised of this fact, you cannot hide the truth from God and if you lie against the revelation of the Holy Spirit and then also speak contrary to it, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by doing so.

I would also suggest that you become let go of your intellect and become stupid so that you can receive true wisdom from God and which is the only way you can get it also.
 
Last edited:
Language is how ideas are communicate. If God wanted to communicate by Inspiration as you claim, there would not have been the Bible.
God inspired the biblical authors to use words in complex, in specified manner, to produce a specific idea. That’s how grammar works.
Once again, it isn't even about the language with you but rather with your personal bias that keeps you from being honest about it and like I said and will again, God sees into your heart and knows what you do and why you do it also, for you cannot hide from him.


Like I said also, your avatar fits you well, a figure in black holding up a dim and dingy light in order to deceive people and just like Paul speaks of all of the ministers of Satan in 2 Corinthians chapter 11.
 
Yeah sure you do, and everyone on this forum can say the same thing also but it isn't even how much scripture you use but whether or not you are interpreting it correctly and you can't and the reason why you can't is because your arrogant intellect gets in the way of your hearing any truth from God.

The truth be told also, you are not stupid and therefore you know that many of the arguments you are making are false and just like the one you make concerning John 17:3.

Nevertheless, you need to be advised of this fact, you cannot hide the truth from God and if you lie against the revelation of the Holy Spirit and then also speak contrary to it, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by doing so.

I would also suggest that you become let go of your intellect and become stupid so that you can receive true wisdom from God and which is the only way you can get it also.
if Jesus said ,"Only you, Father, are the true God." This is not what Jesus said. Note, Jesus said "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not modify "Father," but rather "God." Note when “true God’ occurs it is contrasting God against false gods and this is what Jesus is doing. {2 Chronicles 15:3 ; Jeremiah 10:10 , 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 and

Address it.
 
Once again, it isn't even about the language with you but rather with your personal bias that keeps you from being honest about it and like I said and will again, God sees into your heart and knows what you do and why you do it also, for you cannot hide from him.


Like I said also, your avatar fits you well, a figure in black holding up a dim and dingy light in order to deceive people and just like Paul speaks of all of the ministers of Satan in 2 Corinthians chapter 11.
Last position ignorance takes is to insult the other side.
 
You missed Ps:102:24, the reference is to "My God", my 'El', not to "YHWH." "My God" is capable of being a Messianic reference. In fact these verses seems to have traditionally been taken as messianic. Another thing; Ps 102 is a prayer. People didn't pray to Jesus the man. Hence Ps 102 says nothing of the status of Jesus the man.
And? Who could it be? Did you read on? El is general, could be God or divine one. El =singular, Elohim plural.
So who could it be?
25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. [CREATOR][OMNIPOTENT] 26 They will perish, but You will endure; {ETERNAL]Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.[IMMUTABLE]

Only one is Creator, Omnipotent, Eternal, and Immutable. =YHWH
And that is who the Father states the Son is by ascribing Ps 102:25-27 to Him.


Jesus as the Word of God in heaven, and invested with the power of YHWH is to be differentiated from Jesus the man. Nothing in any of these verses equates the man Jesus with being the heavenly power "YHWH."
How? If both are Jesus, then both possess the same center of self consciousness.
Jesus himself says "I came from God." If Jesus was YHWH, he would have said, "I am God and I came down to earth."
Jesus said many time He was God.
Before Abraham was Ego Eimi
Why do you call Me good, only God is good.
You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.
Your views are gnosticism par excellence - Sabellianism in another form.

Just nonsense, pandering to the Jewish idea of the Messiah as YHWH incarnate. In the same way did the Jews misunderstood the Messiah, as you do also.
Now you are omniscient. How do you know that this is my MO? Ad hominem attack are the last position ignorance takes when it realizes it in check mate.
 
And? Who could it be? Did you read on? El is general, could be God or divine one. El =singular, Elohim plural.
So who could it be?
25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. [CREATOR][OMNIPOTENT] 26 They will perish, but You will endure; {ETERNAL]Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.[IMMUTABLE]

Only one is Creator, Omnipotent, Eternal, and Immutable. =YHWH
And that is who the Father states the Son is by ascribing Ps 102:25-27 to Him.
Heb 1:8, But about the Son he says.

Who is he? None other than "o theos" in Para. 1. It is evident that not a single paragraph after Heb 1:1 is referring to "o theos", because "o theos" is doing the speaking.

How? If both are Jesus, then both possess the same center of self consciousness.
Both are not Jesus. YHWH is not Jesus (Ps 110:1). Why don't you address the verses I give you? Sabellianism is also all about the multiplication of persons under the "o theos" title, and is inseparable from Trinitarianism.

Jesus said many time He was God.
The Logos was in the form of God, as Paul says. But the form of God, alone, does not command the "o theos" title where "God (o theos) is the head of Christ" 1 Cor 11:3.

Before Abraham was Ego Eimi (cf. the glory I had with you before the world was: Jn 17:5).
Why do you call Me good, only God (o theos) is good.
You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.
Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. (cf. this command I received from my father: Jn 10:18)
So Jesus was always and forever distinguishing himself from God, as in Jn 14:1.

Now you are omniscient. How do you know that this is my MO? Ad hominem attack are the last position ignorance takes when it realizes it in check mate.
Really I have no interest in gnosticism, which is why I describe myself as a biblical literalist/realist, but not a Trinitarian, which is a gnostic creed based upon an anti-monism agenda. I find this conversation descending into ever increasing puerility.
 
Last edited:
Heb 1:8, But about the Son he says.

Who is he? None other than "o theos" in Para. 1. It is evident that not a single paragraph after Heb 1:1 is referring to "o theos", because "o theos" is doing the speaking.
And? O THEOS in vs 1 is speaking and identifies the Son as O THEOS in vs 8 and 9.
Why don't you address the verses I give you?
John 14:1 you would have to explain
1 Cor 11:3 is hierarchy not being. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
The same logic has to apply to all comparisons. If 'head' means greater in being, and therefore God is a greater being than Jesus, and Jesus is a greater being than man, then man is a greater being than woman.

John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus returned to his God and to our God, he returned to his Father and our Father. But who did he return to? Who is Jesus' Father? Who is Jesus' God?

This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has. That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.
Note Jesus never said 'Our Father' and included Himself in the 'Our'.

adoption.
Both are not Jesus. YHWH is not Jesus (Ps 110:1).
Correct. YHWH is speaking to the Messiah which is Adon, and David addresses Him as his Lord. There are multiple verses where YHWH is addressed as Lord. This verse alone is not specific as to identifying Jesus as YHWH, but it does not invalidate it. Being part of the overall narrative of Hebrews 1 we can look back to Psalm 110 and conclude it is Jesus who is YHWH.
Sabellianism is also all about the multiplication of persons under the "o theos" title, and is inseparable from Trinitarianism.
Totally wrong, suggest you read up on both.
Sabellianism is Modalism. One being one center of self consciousness which manifest itself in different roles.
Trinitarianism = One being within that being there exist three centers of self consciousness which each identify as 'I'.
The Logos was in the form of God, as Paul says. But the form of God, alone, does not command the "o theos" title where "God (o theos) is the head of Christ" 1 Cor 11:3.
Read the passage 'form of' is taken from the same word in both renderings, 'the form of God' and 'the form of a bondservant'. Since neither is modified, if Jesus was found fully in the form of man, following logic and reason Jesus is also fully in the form of God.
Also 'equal' translates from 'isos' which means equal in quality and quantity.
So Jesus was always and forever distinguishing himself from God, as in Jn 14:1.
14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.
No. This does not contradict the Trinity at all, but agrees.
Really I have no interest in gnosticism, which is why I describe myself as a biblical literalist/realist, but not a Trinitarian, which is a gnostic creed based upon an anti-monism agenda. I find this conversation descending into ever increasing puerility.
Puerility is you constantly posting insults. This could be a civil discussion minus the mud slinging.
Also I studied Gnosticism, I don't see how you make the connection. Care to share?
 
And? O THEOS in vs 1 is speaking and identifies the Son as O THEOS in vs 8 and 9.
Your imagination.

John 14:1 you would have to explain
"Believe in God, believe also in me". If they are identical, why does he distinguish?

1 Cor 11:3 is hierarchy not being.
Meaningless gnosticism. The two are distinct.

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
The same logic has to apply to all comparisons. If 'head' means greater in being, and therefore God is a greater being than Jesus, and Jesus is a greater being than man, then man is a greater being than woman.
Irrelevant argument. The issue is not one of "being" but of distinction.

John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus returned to his God and to our God, he returned to his Father and our Father. But who did he return to? Who is Jesus' Father? Who is Jesus' God?
YHWH.

This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has. That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.
Note Jesus never said 'Our Father' and included Himself in the 'Our'.
Irrelevant argument and mere sophistry.

adoption.

Correct. YHWH is speaking to the Messiah which is Adon, and David addresses Him as his Lord. There are multiple verses where YHWH is addressed as Lord. This verse alone is not specific as to identifying Jesus as YHWH, but it does not invalidate it. Being part of the overall narrative of Hebrews 1 we can look back to Psalm 110 and conclude it is Jesus who is YHWH.

Totally wrong, suggest you read up on both.
Sabellianism is Modalism. One being one center of self consciousness which manifest itself in different roles.
As you don't acknowledge any distinction in "being" .........

Trinitarianism = One being within that being there exist three centers of self consciousness which each identify as 'I'.
......you have no way of determining ascertaining whether this "being" does or does not have different centres of consciousness, because in truth, you can have no idea what this "being" consists of. This a philosophical proposition, not a religious proposition and so it's self-delusion.

Read the passage 'form of' is taken from the same word in both renderings, 'the form of God' and 'the form of a bondservant'. Since neither is modified, if Jesus was found fully in the form of man, following logic and reason Jesus is also fully in the form of God.
God is not in the form of a bondservant, by definition of the word "God."

Also 'equal' translates from 'isos' which means equal in quality and quantity.

14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.
No. This does not contradict the Trinity at all, but agrees.

Puerility is you constantly posting insults. This could be a civil discussion minus the mud slinging.
Also I studied Gnosticism, I don't see how you make the connection. Care to share?
Gnosticism is sophistry and the superimposition of your own or others' conjectures onto scripture without having any proper ability to prove them from revelation.

Trinitarianism is entirely missing from scripture. It is a delusion. What exists is monism: i.e. the Father sharing himself amongst different people. In Christ the fullness of the deity lives, but not so in mankind. What is shared as between Christ and men, and as between God and Christ, is different.

God and Christ in heaven may share many more characteristics and properties than do God and ordinary men, but they are completely distinct; for as Paul says of the Father, but not of Christ: "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Eph 4:6. This is the true biblical reality, not "differentiation of centres of consciousness within one being" which is highfalutin and unsubstantiable anthropomorphic conjecture.

Because God is not a "being." He is "God" (period).
 
Last edited:
Then what is God?
Whatever Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh means. Lots of choices from "I am who I am" to "I will be who I will be" to "He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists" (cf. Yahweh Teva-ʿot, or “He Brings the Hosts into Existence,” in 1 Samuel).
 
Whatever Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh means. Lots of choices from "I am who I am" to "I will be who I will be" to "He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists" (cf. Yahweh Teva-ʿot, or “He Brings the Hosts into Existence,” in 1 Samuel).
Since you wrote that God is not a being then you must know what God is. So what is God?
 
Since you wrote that God is not a being then you must know what God is. So what is God?
A "being" is by most definitions something that exists, and so something that is created. It is for this reason fundamentally unsuited to describe divinity.

Alternatively, we could go to the early scriptures in the Pāli Canon and the conventions of the Tibetan Bhavacakra that classify sentient beings into five categories—divinities, humans, animals, tormented spirits, and "denizens of hell"—although sometimes the classification adds another category of beings called asuras between divinities and humans.

However a divinity is invisible in Christianity and only known through revelation. Therefore all we can know about God's being comes from revelation, as to which Jesus said "ho theos is [anathrous] Spirit". That's all we can know as to the "being" of o theos.
 
A "being" is by most definitions something that exists, and so something that is created. It is for this reason fundamentally unsuited to describe divinity.

Essence is what is unique to X, what makes X X in any possible world. The essence of a triangle is three sides. Doesn’t matter the color or size of a triangle , a triangle will always have three sides in any possible world.
Existence simply states that X exist.
God is purely self existent. Not created by another or self created. God has always existed as a complete actual being. God is absolute being and the definition of existence.
God is the only being whose essence and existence are identical.
Alternatively, we could go to the early scriptures in the Pāli Canon and the conventions of the Tibetan Bhavacakra that classify sentient beings into five categories—divinities, humans, animals, tormented spirits, and "denizens of hell"—although sometimes the classification adds another category of beings called asuras between divinities and humans.
?????
However a divinity is invisible in Christianity and only known through revelation. Therefore all we can know about God's being comes from revelation, as to which Jesus said "ho theos is [anathrous] Spirit". That's all we can know as to the "being" of o theos.
Everything physical is a combination of form and substance. God being a spirit is form without substance.
 
Essence is what is unique to X, what makes X X in any possible world. The essence of a triangle is three sides. Doesn’t matter the color or size of a triangle , a triangle will always have three sides in any possible world.
Existence simply states that X exist.
God is purely self existent. Not created by another or self created. God has always existed as a complete actual being. God is absolute being and the definition of existence.
God is the only being whose essence and existence are identical.

?????

Everything physical is a combination of form and substance. God being a spirit is form without substance.
Form without substance is an abstraction in most people's definition. So I think you meant "form without materiality." The Latins conceived a meaning to substance that went beyond materiality. As I suggested, we don't know anything about the "substance" of God other than that God is Spirit. That is why to talk of the Holy Spirit, the Logos, and the Father, as having the "same substance" is wrong, unless you are making a generalized statement that the "form of God" is Spirit, or that the Logos and the Father and the Holy Spirit are in complete unity, which we can also accept by revelation. However, "ousia" is not a biblical word, and so is not from revelation. What is much more important than engaging in esoteric discussions as to the substance of God, is to understand the relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which as you admit, is hierarchical, but perhaps far more so than most "orthodox" are willing to admit.
 
Last edited:
Form without substance is an abstraction in most people's definition. So I think you meant "form without materiality."
Correct - form without matter
The Latins conceived a meaning to substance that went beyond materiality. As I suggested, we don't know anything about the "substance" of God other than that God is Spirit. That is why to talk of the Holy Spirit, the Logos, and the Father, as having the "same substance" is wrong, unless you are making a generalized statement that the "form of God" is Spirit, or that the Logos and the Father and the Holy Spirit are in complete unity, which we can also accept by revelation. However, "ousia" is not a biblical word, and so is not from revelation. What is much more important than engaging in esoteric discussions as to the substance of God, is to understand the relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which as you admit, is hierarchical, but perhaps far more so than most "orthodox" are willing to admit.
 
Back
Top