Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

Himself? Why not "Themselves", if God is a trinity. Who is this singular "Himself"? (Paidion)

Any of the three can speak of themselves, and anyone of them can speak as God Himself. Or ‘they’ can 'all' speak as One. Who says they cannot? Apparently, since scripture affirms it, a person can live in another person and even speak thru ‘another person'. Just as the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit can indwell us, live in us, and can speak thru us. Persons are invisible and spirit, so we have to let God define what a person can and cannot be. We can't necessarily know what God as a 'person' can or cannot be, other than what He has told us.

If you are implying that this "Lord" is the Father, you are mistaken. Look at verse 14. This "Lord" refers to Jesus alone. (Paidion)

Paul argues from scripture to prove his point, Paul quotes Isaiah before the verse, and Joel directly after the verse in Romans 10:
11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame." (from; Isaiah 28:16)
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on Him.
13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (from; Joel 2:32)
Joel and Isaiah believe in and call upon YWEH, Paul quotes them and says: ‘the same Lord is Lord of all’
Yet we know Paul is speaking of Jesus, therefore Jesus is: ‘the same Lord is Lord of all’ that Joel and Isaiah trusted in.
Are you trusting in the same Lord as Isaiah and Joel, or do you trust in another Lord?

[Paidion]

13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (from; Joel 2:32)

So it's a quote from Joel 2:32. So what? I have shown why it refers to Jesus, and you haven't refuted my argument.

I agree that it refers to "Yahweh" in Joel 2:32. But I have shown elsewhere that the Father and the Son both share the name "Yahweh".

In Genesis 19:24, two Individuals called "Yahweh" are mentioned. One on earth who was talking to Abraham, and whom Abraham addressed as "Yahweh", and one in heaven.

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven. (Gen 19:24).

According to this verse, the Yahweh on earth was the agent of the destruction, and the Yahweh in heaven was the source of the destruction.
So to point out that "“everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved”, comes from Joel 2:32, in no way proves that it doesn't refer to the Son alone, whom the Hebrews did not know. For the name "Yahweh" applied to both of them. That doesn't mean that they were ONE Individual (Modalism). Nor does it prove that together They formed a compound God (Trinitarianism).

Of course, you will not point out this verse to me:

“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one. (Deut 6:4)

And they ARE one! But this is not affirming that they are one Individual, that there is one Yahweh. It IS affirming that They are fully united in love, character, purpose, etc. even as Jesus said, "The Father and I are one." He was not saying that He and the Father were one Individual (Modalism). Nor was He saying that He and the Father formed one compound God (Trinitarianism).

Jesus prayed that his disciples might become one as He and his Father were one. When that prayer is answered, does that mean that the disciples of Christ will lose their personal identities and become on individual? (as Modalist believe God to be). No. Does it mean that the disciples will form a single compound man? (Trintarians believe God to be a single compound God). No. Jesus was praying that his disciples would be fully united in love, character, and purpose, etc. as the Father and the Son are united.

[Paidion]

Yet we know Paul is speaking of Jesus, therefore Jesus is: ‘the same Lord is Lord of all’ that Joel and Isaiah trusted in.

You are repeating your same line of thought. I have already explained that Paul was using this passage to show that Jesus is the same Lord for both Jews and Greeks (or Gentiles). Everyone must become a disciple of Jesus in order to be saved.

Either address my point or stop repeating this as if it means the Jesus and his Father are the same Lord (Modalism) or that they are the same compound God (Trinitarianism).

[robbyyoung]

Here's an interesting post by Russell Beatty:

Yahweh = Adonai = Kurios = Jesus

One of the most amazing things that I’ve found in learning Greek is Paul’s use of Κύριος/Kurios (Lord) to exclusively refer to Jesus. You can see his use of it throughout his letters: “The Lord Jesus Christ”, “The Lord Jesus”, “Jesus our Lord”. What most people don’t realize is that Paul is making a huge point theologically in doing this...and so were other Apostles (more on this in a later blog). Let’s start at the beginning...

One of the main things that all must learn about the New Testament is that almost all of the Old Testament quotes are from the Septuagint (the Greek Translation of the Old Testament). One of the main things that all must learn about the Old Testament in English is that the English is translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, not from the Greek Septuagint. Another BIG thing that people must realize about our English Bibles is that translators follow the tradition of the Jews in not “pronouncing” the name of God in translation. In the English Bible, the name is not "pronounced", it is just not translated or transliterated. We have replaced it with “The LORD” which is Adonai (my LORD) in Hebrew. The same thing was done in the Septuagint!

How many times does God’s name appear in the Old Testament in Hebrew? Give up? How about 6828 times! If you are a King James Version person, then you know this name to be “Jehovah”. Today, we know the name as Yahweh. Here are some points to consider:

• Yahweh occurs 6828 times in the Old Testament
• The Jews stopped speaking it about 400 to 350 BC
• Yahweh was replaced with "Adonai" ("My Lord") while being read out loud.
• When the Old Testament was translated into Greek (300 BC), Yahweh was translate from Adonai which is kurios/κύριος (Lord) in Greek.

So, how would our Old Testament look to us if God’s name were actually translated? Let’s take a look at the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4).

Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.

If we include the name of God in the verse as it actually appears in the Hebrew, then it would be translated:

Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one.

Now let’s fast-forward to around 300 BC. This is the time that he Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek. By this time, the Jews had stopped speaking the name of God. That presented a problem with translating the Hebrew into Greek. Since the Jews didn’t think it was appropriate to say the name of God in Hebrew, they also didn’t think is was appropriate to say it in Greek either. So, when it was translated into Greek, instead of translating or transliterating Yahweh, the Jews just translated what they would have said in a public reading. That would be Adonai. Adonai was translated into Greek as κύριος/ kurios (Lord). Modern translators do the same thing in today's English Bibles.

Now let’s fast-forward another 350 years to Paul’s letters. Here are a couple of quick things to take note of:

• Paul’s native language was Greek
• Paul was highly educated in the Septuagint and quoted from it exclusively
• Paul always uses κύριος to refer to Jesus in his letters
• Paul always replaces Yahweh with Jesus when using the Old Testament to point to Jesus.

Let’s look at an example passage in Philippians 2:9-11

9 διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν
καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα
τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα,
10 ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ
πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ
ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
11 καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι
κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός.

9 and therefore God highly exalted him
and graced upon him the name,
the one above every name,
10 so that in the name of Jesus
every knee should bow
in heaven, on earth, and in the depths of the earth
11 and every tongue should confess that
the Lord is Jesus Christ
to glory of God the Father

A couple of things about this passage. 1. The article τὸ (the), that stands in front of the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα (above every name), refers to the noun that was previously mentioned in the passage. That noun is τὸ ὄνομα which is “the name”. 2. The phrase κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (The Lord is Jesus Christ) has two subjects to the inferred "to be" verb “is”. In proper grammar, one of these nouns is called the predicate nominative. The passage can be translated as “The Lord is Jesus Christ” or “Jesus Christ is the Lord”.

So how does this prove that Paul is replacing Yahweh with Jesus? This passage in Philippians is actually an echo of Isaiah 45:18; 23b.

18 Οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανόν...
23b ...ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ

18 Thus says the LORD (Yahweh), who made heaven...
23b ...that to me, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to God.

Paul’s echo of Isaiah 45:18-23 clearly shows that he is now placing Jesus in the role of Yahweh. More than that, we now know why such a common 1st century name (Jesus) is to be bowed down to. God bestows upon Jesus “the name above every name “name” which is Yahweh. That is why and how “every knee should bow...and every tongue should confess that The Lord (Yahweh) is Jesus Christ.”

God Bless.

[Paidion]

A fascinating post, Robbie.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the word "κυριος" in the Greek New Testament refers to Yahweh, or to a lord in a lesser sense. Sometimes it is used to address someone in no greater sense than we would when we use the word "sir" today.

Indeed, here are some verses in the New Testament in which the ESV translators render the word "κυριος" as "sir", and so does the NKJV in all of the following cases but three:

Mt 21:30 And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.
Mt 27:63 and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’
Lu 13:8 And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure.
Lu 14:22 And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’
Joh 4:11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?
Joh 4:15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”
Joh 4:19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.
Joh 4:49 The official said to him, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”
Joh 5:7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Joh 9:36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?”
Joh 12:21 So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.”
Joh 20:15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”
Re 7:14 I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Even if we allow "κυριος" to refer to "Yahweh" in Mr. Beatty's discourse, and that it shows that "Jesus Christ is Yahweh", it doesn't prove that Jesus and His Father are one and the same divine Person, but may show only that these two divine Persons share the same name.

I have a comment about the following:

2. The phrase κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (The Lord is Jesus Christ) has two subjects to the inferred "to be" verb “is”. In proper grammar, one of these nouns is called the predicate nominative. The passage can be translated as “The Lord is Jesus Christ” or “Jesus Christ is the Lord”.

Actually, it might not be correct to translate the phrase κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς in either of these ways since the Greek article for "the" does not appear in the phrase. A literal translation is "Lord Jesus Messiah". However, it is necessary to insert "the" and "is" in the phrase to make sense of it. I suggest that another possible translation of Philippians 2:11 is:

... and every tongue confess that [the] Lord Jesus [is][the] Messiah, to the glory of God the Father.

[jriccitelli]

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the word "κυριος" in the Greek New Testament refers to Yahweh, or to a lord in a lesser sense (Paidion)

It is not difficult if the context and content determine the sense. Same with God and gods, we know there is only One true God. If the context is the Lord of heavens, Lord of armies, Lord of hosts, Lord of creation, Lord of Lords, or when Lord is used in the place of the name of YHWH, there is no assuming or wondering that it might be speaking of some 'other' lord.

So it's a quote from Joel 2:32. So what? I have shown why it refers to Jesus, and you haven't refuted my argument. (Paidion)

You refute your own argument here, because no matter how many persons are named YHWH they are all God, because YHWH is God. Whether YHWH was on earth and above at the same time only supports the Trinitarian thesis, nothing supports the idea of two Gods in Genesis, is that what you are saying? You have two YHWHs, two Lords, two Saviors, and it seems two Gods, two Judges, two Kings, Two Rocks, two of everything.

But this is not affirming that they are one Individual, that there is one Yahweh. (Paidion)

Yes it (Duet. 6:4) is, that there is only One YHWH is the foundation of the Law and Commands. There is nothing in scripture that would allude to two YHWH’s. That would by definition, be unscriptural.

For the name "Yahweh" applied to both of them. That doesn't mean that they were ONE Individual (Modalism)…

You might as well say I am a Calvinist, nothing I have said affirmed Modalism, or Oneness.

Nor does it prove that together They formed a compound God (Trinitarianism).

Scripture does prove it: if Jesus is YHWH, then Jesus is God. There is ‘no alternative’. If Jesus is just like YHWH or another YHWH that would declare Jesus a liar or lunatic, and the apostles deceived, for YHWH has no equal, and there is no other YHWH (“And that I am YHWH your God, And there is no other” Joel 2:27)

… does that mean that the disciples of Christ will lose their personal identities and become on individual?

Again why do 'you repeat' and bring up the Modalism viewpoint, when I have argued against it?.

Does it mean that the disciples will form a single compound man? (Paidion)

They (many disciples or men) form one body, yes. Many disciples: one body.
They (Son Father Spirit) form One God. Three persons one God: One God.
Just as they are actually One, so we will actually be one body also.

“And that I am YHWH your God, And there is no other” (Joel 2:27)
“Trust in the LORD forever, For in GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock. (Isaiah 26:4) Indeed, while following the way of Your judgments, O LORD, We have waited for You eagerly; Your name, even Your memory, is the desire of our souls. (26:8) YHWH our God, other lords besides You have ruled us; But through You alone we confess Your name. (Isaiah 26:13)
So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. 11"I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. 12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses," declares YHWH "And I am God" (Isaiah 43)

My trust is in YHWH and YHWH alone. There is One and only One YHWH, we are admonished and even commanded (under penalty) to trust in YHWH Alone. Jesus did not transfer our trust from YHWH to himself, neither did the apostles, neither did the Prophets, neither did Israel, neither did I, Jesus reveled that He and the Father were One, but our Trust in Only YHWH as Savior Lord and King never changed.

By avoiding that Jesus and YHWH of the Scriptures are the same YHWH, and that they do not change: you avoid the character and fury of the OT God, and you can avoid His judgments, His Laws, His death on the cross, and ways, is that true?

[Paidion]

you avoid the character and fury of the OT God, and you can avoid His judgments, His Laws, His death on the cross, and ways, is that true?

So now you have the OT God dying on the cross! If the Father and the Son are one God, and together with the Holy Spirit form one Trinity, and if that one Trinitarian God died, then who raised It/Him from the dead?

Luke and Paul clearly affirm that God raised Jesus, the Son of God, from death.

Ac 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
Ac 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Ac 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Ac 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well.
Ac 10:40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
Ac 13:30 But God raised him from the dead...
Ac 13:37 but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.
Ro 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1Co 6:14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.

How about that last one? If there is one compound God, who is the one Lord, and God raised that one Lord, did the Trinity raise Himself/Itself from the dead? If so, the Trinity was not really dead. But Jesus, the Son of God whom God raised, was truly dead. And if God, the only true God—the Father (who has never died), had not raised Jesus the Son on the third day, wouldn't the Son have stayed dead until God chose to raise Him?

[jriccitelli]

I generally don't use the narrative of Acts to define doctrine, but I will note from your verses in Acts:
Ac 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
Ac 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Ac 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well.
Just from these you may note: 'it was not possible for him to be held by it / you killed the Author of life' and that Jesus not only could heal from above, but that Jesus raised a couple of people to life 'before' his own resurrection. I wasn't presuming your Jesus would lie in the grave until God raised him, why would you assume my Jesus would lay in the grave being God Himself? You do know we see God incarnate, yet obviously being ‘incarnate' was an important part of the witness to man, resulting in the atonement, this had to be done in the flesh, for what other reason would a Son of God need to have been incarnated if The Son of God needn't be a man in order to be Gods Son?

So now you have the OT God dying on the cross! (Paidion)

He is not only the Old Testament God, but He is "the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore" The death only affirms the death and sacrifice of Christ, it also proves Jesus could not remain so as he is The Life, but scripture must also affirm he was born as The Son of man, thus the verses that include God in His resurrection: ‘BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty”... “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore (Rev.1:7-8, 17-18) "Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He" (Isaiah 41:4) "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 'Who is like Me? (Isaiah 44:6)

So now you have the OT God dying on the cross! If the Father and the Son are one God, and together with the Holy Spirit form one Trinity, and if that one Trinitarian God died, then who raised It/Him from the dead? (Paidion)

Nothing in scripture, or in Trinitarian reasoning, or in my understanding would make God out to be so small, as you have here. You do know Trinitarians believe the Trinity is three beings, why would you think we are reasoning that the Trinity was on the cross when our whole reasoning is that there are three? God can dwell on earth, in heaven and throughout the Universe simultaneously. Jesus is in heaven and yet throughout the world and indwelling the millions of believers simultaneously. So I don’t know how you could make such a comment regarding either the Father, Son or Spirit, when they can be anywhere, they are ‘all’ Spirit after all.

Luke and Paul clearly affirm that God raised Jesus, the Son of God, from death’ (Paidion)

I have already made a list of Gods attributes not granted or shared with any other being, most being blasphemy to assume any other than God would have. Jesus shares and does everything the Father does, for everything the Father does, the Son does also. And this is your reasoning, as to why Jesus ‘cannot’ be God?
‘All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men’ (John 1:3-4) ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this’ (John 2:19) “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man’ (John 5:26) “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:40) "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’ (John 8:12) "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6) “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father” (John 10:17-18) "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die’ (John 11:25) ‘… this we proclaim concerning the Word of life: The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us’ (1John 1:1-2) ‘And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son’ (1John 5:11)
Jesus would be a liar and deceitful if he said ‘he’ had the power to raise Himself up and ‘actually’ did not. Jesus has the power to raise up every believer, if He does not why am I putting my trust in someone who may lose or only assumes this power? Wouldn’t it be better just to continue to trust in God to raise us up? My trust will always be in YHWH.
‘Day and night they never stop saying: "'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,' who was, and is, and is to come." (Rev. 4:8)

[Paidion]

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

So who raised Jesus? Did the Father raise Him? Or did He raise Himself? How could He raise Himself if He were dead? If He could, He couldn't have been really dead. Only His body could have been dead, and He was a Spirit somewhere that simply raised a body.

My belief is that Jesus was actually dead, like everyone else who dies. We don't have an "immortal soul" that goes somewhere at death. That is Greek thought, Platonic thought that entered into Christendom. I know Jesus pre-existed His birth, but He BECAME a man, totally human. He wasn't half man and half God. He became 100% human. He couldn't perform any miracles in Himself. The Father performed miracles THROUGH Him. Jesus had divested Himself of His divine attributes:

Have this mind in you, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (Php 2:5-7)

So what about "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? I believe that Jesus was prophesying. The Father was speaking directly through Him, saying that He would raise Jesus' whole Being, including His "temple" (body).

[jriccitelli]

Jesus was not lying, He is always YHWH in Heaven, and he emptied himself here on earth and humbled Himself to be a man. But he did not come 'into existence' at the incarnation, right? He was always was who he is: 'himself'. Jesus who existed before the incarnation, is the same person who is Jesus, now. In His incarnation He did not become a different person, nor did He become a different Spirit. His Spirit took on a human spirit and body 'also'. I only have time to say that the Greeks 'said' men were immortal, but 'we' say only God is immortal. And the believers soul (not an immortal soul) goes to heaven (or paradise) with God at death. So, Jesus being a Spirit, could have left his body at death, and from on high, raise his own body (just like he said, and just as it is said: 'God' (YHWH) raised Him). If Jesus is immortal, did he stop being immortal during the incarnation?

From 'our' perspective, God raised Jesus, and that is the perspective scripture often uses in reference to the 'incarnation of' Christ Jesus, but scripture also shows the Heavenly and Spiritual perspective, and they agree.