Still waiting for you to identify my heresy, which isn't Sabellianism.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
latreuō
- Thread starter Fred
- Start date
No kidding. That is what you accused me of!Still waiting for you to identify my heresy, which isn't Sabellianism.
You affirmed in post 3 of the link below:
There is not a single verse in the NT directing prayer to Jesus as YHWH
This is heresy because the gospel message included praying to Jesus as being YHWH (Romans 10:13).
- Paul applies YHWH from Joel 3:5 (LXX) unto the Lord Jesus in Romans 10:13
Romans 10:8-14 (8) 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 preach): (9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (10) For with...
forums.carm.org
Last edited:
Still waiting for you to identify my heresy.No kidding. That is what you accused me of!
You affirmed in post 3 of the link below:
There is not a single verse in the NT directing prayer to Jesus as YHWH
This is heresy because the gospel message included praying to Jesus as being YHWH (Romans 10:13).
- Paul applies YHWH from Joel 3:5 (LXX) unto the Lord Jesus in Romans 10:13
Romans 10:8-14 (8) 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 preach): (9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (10) For with...forums.carm.org
Keep waiting, genius because I already did in my previous post.Still waiting for you to identify my heresy.
This is heresy because the gospel message included praying to Jesus as being YHWH (Romans 10:13).Keep waiting, genius because I already did in my previous post.
"For whosoever shall acall upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Did I say that people should not call upon the Lord to be saved?
Never. You filthy slanderer.
This is heresy because the gospel message included praying to Jesus as being YHWH (Romans 10:13).
"For whosoever shall acall upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Did I say that people should not call upon the Lord to be saved?
Never. You filthy slanderer.
Strawman.
Thanks for making that easy for me.
Going from whimpering to lashing out like that is really unimpressive, cjab.
Everyone can now see that to disagree with Fred is a "heresy" is his eyes.Strawman.
Thanks for making that easy for me.
Going from whimpering to lashing out like that is really unimpressive, cjab.
Fred is "Pope" - the definer of heresies (but not any heresies known to the church).
Fred doesn't know what heresy means: it means, 'belief or opinion contrary to "orthodox" religious (especially Christian) doctrine'.
"Orthodox" doctrine was (substantially) defined a long time ago by the consensus of many Christians, and the apostles and Jesus.
One such heresy is Sabellianism.
However to confess the Father as God, and Jesus as Lord, is not heresy (even if Fred vainly imagines it to be).
If it was heresy, then Jesus himself would be the biggest heretic, followed closely by the apostles.
...that Paul applied YHWH from Joel 3:5(LXX) in reference to Jesus being the 'Lord' in Romans 10:13.Everyone can now see
If Jesus is the salvation of YHWH., why shouldn't he? Jesus had the authority of YHWH, and as the Jews said, made himself equal to God (in this sense of having YHWH's authority). This doesn't give you a licence to confound the persons of Jesus and YHWH (his Father in heaven)....that Paul applied YHWH from Joel 3:5(LXX) in reference to Jesus being the 'Lord' in Romans 10:13.
If Jesus is the salvation of YHWH., why shouldn't he? Jesus had the authority of YHWH
Which proves He is YHWH.
Others had the authority of YHWH but nowhere in the NT is "Lord" used in reference to them based on an OT text about YHWH.
Nonsense. Angels are explicitly alluded to as YHWH on numerous occasions (e.g. Moses and the burning bush where the text expressly calls the "angel" by the "YHWH" name). It doesn't mean that they're YHWH in person but acting on his authority. You are so much in error it is profoundly disturbing.Which proves He is YHWH.
Others had the authority of YHWH but nowhere in the NT is "Lord" used in reference to them based on an OT text about YHWH.
So the Hyper Trinitarian/Sabellian Fanatics (of your ideology) have devised a cop-out where they must necessarily impute many angelic appearances to "Jesus" come down from heaven, to justify the YHWH appellation. However this perversity is repudiated by Hebrews 1 "In the last days...."
Nonsense. Angels are explicitly alluded to as YHWH on numerous occasions (e.g. Moses and the burning bush where the text expressly calls the "angel" by the "YHWH" name). It doesn't mean that they're YHWH in person but acting on his authority. You are so much in error it is profoundly disturbing.
You need to learn how to read.
Others had the authority of YHWH but nowhere in the NT is "Lord" used in reference to them based on an OT text about YHWH.
Furthermore, the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH in that He is the proper recipient of worship (Genesis 48:16).
It is so easy to refute your heresy.
Non sequitur on every point. The point you originally made was that Jesus is YHWH just because you insist that every usage of the name "YHWH" in scripture is an allusion to YHWH (the person in heaven).You need to learn how to read.
Others had the authority of YHWH but nowhere in the NT is "Lord" used in reference to them based on an OT text about YHWH.
I have proved you wrong. Now you're trying a different argument about "Lord." That argument again is wrong. Abraham referred to the angels as "Lord" (κύριος - LXX), which is also the title of Christ.
Genesis 48:16 makes no reference to "latreuō".Furthermore, the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH in that He is the proper recipient of worship (Genesis 48:16).
I don't even know why I give you the time of day. It seems that all I ever do is pander to your overweening vanity, that presumably derives from reading a few lexicons. Why don't you heed the scriptural warning that knowledge "puffs up?" (Not that I would necessarily describe the lexicons that you read as "knowledge.")It is so easy to refute your heresy.
The point you originally made was that Jesus is YHWH just because you insist that every usage of the name "YHWH" in scripture is an allusion to YHWH (the person in heaven).
I have proved you wrong.
No, you haven't.
Whenever you post I know it's going to be stupid.
Genesis 48:16 makes no reference to "latreuō"
I never said it did, genius.
There are other ways to express when worship is taking place.
..duhh
John Milton
Well-known member
Well, this explains why you don’t know Greek, but I still don’t know why you claim that you do.Why don't you heed the scriptural warning that knowledge "puffs up?" (Not that I would necessarily describe the lexicons that you read as "knowledge.")
One thing I forgot on this topic: Rev 19:9,10:Furthermore, the Messenger of YHWH is YHWH in that He is the proper recipient of worship (Genesis 48:16).
The angel to John: "So [John] fell at his feet to worship [the angel]. But [the angel] told me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who rely on the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Why does Fred spend his entire life looking for people to worship besides God?
Cf. the commentary on Rev 20:6 by Camebridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
"Notice, however, that the word “God” in this book always means the Father; and so throughout the N. T., with few exceptions."
One thing I forgot on this topic: Rev 19:9,10:
The angel to John: "So [John] fell at his feet to worship [the angel]. But [the angel] told me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who rely on the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
The same Greek word for worship is used in reference to the Lord Jesus (John 9:38). I already cited this passage to you in post 13. Perhaps if it hit you in the head a few times more it might sink in.
Why does Fred spend his entire life looking for people to worship besides God?
An assertion without proof. See my next response which blasts your confusion to bits.
Cf. the commentary on Rev 20:6 by Camebridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
"Notice, however, that the word “God” in this book always means the Father; and so throughout the N. T., with few exceptions."
You conveniently left this part out:
The strongest proof, perhaps, in the book of the doctrine of Christ's coequal Deity. If we read these words in the light of St John’s Gospel, or of the Nicene Creed, they suggest no difficulty, but without the doctrine there taught, they make salvation to consist in the deadly sin which the Moslems call “association”—the worshipping the creature by the side of the Creator.
Since Jesus isn't a creature - this means He is the Creator, cjab - then it is proper to worship Him because He is God.
Thanks for making this so easy for me. It's not difficult to see why you left out most of the quotation, but coming from you it isn't surprising.
Hey cjab,
Notice what it says concerning Revelation 22:3:
his servants] Note the singular pronoun, implying the Unity of the Persons named.
And Revelation 22:4:
his name [shall be] in their foreheads] So in Revelation 14:1, where, according to the true text, we see that “His” still means the Name of God, both the Father and the Son.
Last edited:
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
That's the problem, -- the word is προσκυνέω and it can simply denote reverence as well. For example this same word is also used of the "worship" of the saints (see Rev. 3:9). There is a word for the kind of "worship" reserved by the saints for their God , it is λατρεύω. This word is never used by the faithful for the worship of anyone other than the only true God, namely the Father in heaven. Jesus is never given λατρεύω in the GNT.The same Greek word for worship is used in reference to the Lord Jesus (John 9:38). I already cited this passage to you in post 13. Perhaps if it hit you in the head a few times more it might sink in.
An assertion without proof. See my next response which blasts your confusion to bits.
You conveniently left this part out:
The strongest proof, perhaps, in the book of the doctrine of Christ's coequal Deity. If we read these words in the light of St John’s Gospel, or of the Nicene Creed, they suggest no difficulty, but without the doctrine there taught, they make salvation to consist in the deadly sin which the Moslems call “association”—the worshipping the creature by the side of the Creator.
Since Jesus isn't a creature - this means He is the Creator, cjab - then it is proper to worship Him because He is God.
Thanks for making this so easy for me. It's not difficult to see why you left out most of the quotation, but coming from you it isn't surprising.
Hey cjab,
Notice what it says concerning Revelation 22:3:
his servants] Note the singular pronoun, implying the Unity of the Persons named.
And Revelation 22:4:
his name [shall be] in their foreheads] So in Revelation 14:1, where, according to the true text, we see that “His” still means the Name of God, both the Father and the Son.
The singular pronoun does not infer a Sabellian unity, as you make out. As per Rev 14:1, the Son and the Father have seperate names. As God is the head of Christ, per 1 Cor 11:3, the singular pronoun has the primary denotation of God (viz. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges infra), as I suggested earlier.Hey cjab,
Notice what it says concerning Revelation 22:3:
his servants] Note the singular pronoun, implying the Unity of the Persons named.
Per Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Rev 22:3, "We see that “His” still means the Name of God, both the Father and the Son." Actually, the second part of the Cambridge comment is misleading, because it fails to distinguish "God" qua person (Jn 1:1b) and "God" qua doctrine respecting the ruler & Lord of creation , which includes the Son inferentially and anarthrously, as made explicit by Jn 1:1c. It is just this kind of loose English diction that may be misinterpreted as Sabellianism by the naive (there is obviously no Sabellian intent in the commentary itself).And Revelation 22:4:
his name [shall be] in their foreheads] So in Revelation 14:1, where, according to the true text, we see that “His” still means the Name of God, both the Father and the Son.
"His" can only have one personal referent, but may have one or more implied referents where context allows. So if one says "the King went into battle and he defeated the foe", there is an inference that "he" (the King) took his whole army with him.
Here "both the Father and the Son" is correct per the context: cf. Christ's exaltation to the right hand of God & per Rev 14:1. However Rev 14:1 (double article one before each name) distinguishes the names of Christ and God, which remain always distinguishable in appearing together on the foreheads of the redeemed (inherent in Jesus being YHWH's salvation e.g. Luke 10:16, Jn 12:48 &etc).
"Rev 22:4 ("and they shall see His face") comes from Matt 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Seeing God is pursuant to knowing Christ ("I know him whom I have believed" - 1 Tim 1:12). The face of God remains always hidden from the wicked: the face of Christ is exposed for their condemnation Jhn 12:48.
Last edited:
Revelation 22:3 teaches otherwise.Jesus is never given λατρεύω in the GNT.