Is the Lord Jesus or Heavenly Father?

[VideoGameJunkie]

This subject has been on the mind a lot lately. When the scriptures are talking about the Lord do they mean Jesus, Heavenly Father, or both? And if it's both, how do we know which one they're referring to? In the Old Testament it refers to the Lord, but Jesus is supposedly Jehovah and so it could be referring to Jesus. And in other canonized scripture the word Lord is used a lot. It's confusing to not know whether the scriptures are referring to Jesus or Heavenly Father. I stated in another thread that the temple is called the house of the Lord. Is that Jesus' house, Heavenly Father's house, or both their houses? New Testament makes it seem like it's Heavenly Father's house when Jesus drove away the money changers in the temple and talks about his Father's house.

[Calm]

Does it matter?

[VideoGameJunkie]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does it matter?

Yes, because they are 2 separate beings and it would help with my confusion while reading scriptures.

[JLHPROF]

Depends who you ask.

[Zakuska]

There are indeed 2 YHWHs spoken of in scripture.

Gen 19

24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

LORD as it appears both times in this verse is YHWH.

Of course one is the Father (in the heavens) and the other is the Son (on the earth).  But how exactly did he appear visibly in human form prior to having been born of the virgin Mary? (Hint: bro of Jared knows)

Edited February 6, 2016 by Zakuska

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

There are indeed 2 YHWHs spoken of in scripture.

Gen 19

24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

LORD as it appears both times in this verse is YHWH.

Of course one is the Father (in the heavens) and the other is the Son (on the earth).  But how exactly did he appear visibly in human form prior to having been born of the virgin Mary? (Hint: bro of Jared knows)

The KJV piously and conveniently translates the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH (Yahweh) as "LORD," even though it is an epithet or title meaning "He who creates that which comes into existence," and can refer to either Father or Son.  Titles may be borne by anyone who is assigned to hold that office.

The use of "LORD" twice in Gen 19:24 is in synonymous or complementary parallel, and refers to the same entity in each case -- the same LORD who immediately before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had appeared to Abraham (along with two of his angels) at Mamre and ate a sumptuous meal (Gen 18:1ff.).

[filovirus]

By divine investiture of authority, it is both. Have a listen to this: https://www.mormonchannel.org/listen/series/the-mormon-channel-qa-audio/the-father-and-the-son-episode-56 (from the Mormon Chanel)

[Zakuska]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The KJV piously and conveniently translates the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH (Yahweh) as "LORD," even though it is an epithet or title meaning "He who creates that which comes into existence," and can refer to either Father or Son.  Titles may be borne by anyone who is assigned to hold that office.

The use of "LORD" twice in Gen 19:24 is in synonymous or complementary parallel, and refers to the same entity in each case -- the same LORD who immediately before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had appeared to Abraham (along with two of his angels) at Mamre and ate a sumptuous meal (Gen 18:1ff.).

I respectfully disgree. Notice how the church father's interpreted the verse as 2 separate entities working in tandom  to bring about the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah.

http://rabtessera.blogspot.com/2013/10/early-church-fathers-regarding-two.html?m=1

1. 150 AD Justin Martyr: In this text, Justin the Christian is trying to convince Trypho the Jew that Jesus is God, by showing one of the three men who appeared to Abraham, was Yahweh himself: " I [Justin] inquired. And Trypho said, "Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we [the Jews] were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels." I [Justin] replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation." "Assuredly," he said, "for up to this moment this has been our [the Jews] belief." ... "And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: 'The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.' "(Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter LVI.—God Who Appeared to Moses is Distinguished from God the Father.)

[Ahab]

So we're back to "Depends on who you ask".

And "Does it really matter?"

There is a scripture in the NT by Paul where he refers to Jesus as our Lord and our (and Jesus') father as our Father, and some other scriptures where Jesus is referring to his Father as our Father, and some more scriptures too where Jesus is referred to as the Father of those who are born again through him by the power of the Holy Ghost, and some more scriptures too...

But in the end I still think it will come back to:

Depends on who you ask,

AND

Does it really matter?

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

So we're back to "Depends on who you ask".

And "Does it really matter?"

There is a scripture in the NT by Paul where he refers to Jesus as our Lord and our (and Jesus') father as our Father, and some other scriptures where Jesus is referring to his Father as our Father, and some more scriptures too where Jesus is referred to as the Father of those who are born again through him by the power of the Holy Ghost, and some more scriptures too...

But in the end I still think it will come back to:

Depends on who you ask,

AND

Does it really matter?

 

Don't forget in Book of Mormon Christ is called the Father God a couple times, like by Abinidi being one.

Edited February 6, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[Ahab]

Yeah that scripture was included in my ... at the end of my long paragraph.

Those ... things cover a lot and save a lot of typing. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

And I also believe the original Book of Mormon produced in 1830 referenced Christ as God the Father, before changes were made to the BOM to claim that Christ was the Son of God. Here FAIR talks about the changes from the original version of the Book of Mormon with the 1837 updated version. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22the_Son_of%22

Edited February 6, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[Kevin Christensen]

If you are really serious, try reading The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God by Margaret Barker.  A bit of her case is here:

http://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

With some implications for reading the Book of Mormon here:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

And here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

And yes we do talk about the edits to the Book of Mormon.

Also, for completeness, here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Zakuska said:

I respectfully disgree. Notice how the church father's interpreted the verse as 2 separate entities working in tandom  to bring about the destruction of Sodom and Gamorah.

http://rabtessera.blogspot.com/2013/10/early-church-fathers-regarding-two.html?m=1 

So, you (and Justin) are claiming that the YHWH in Gen 18:1 is not the same YHWH in Gen 19:24?  Both are spelled the same in the Hebrew text.  So, are you claiming that YHWH is an office or title held by two separate entities?  Or an infinity of entities?  Etc.  It is not clear what you are trying to say.

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

This subject has been on the mind a lot lately. When the scriptures are talking about the Lord do they mean Jesus, Heavenly Father, or both? And if it's both, how do we know which one they're referring to? In the Old Testament it refers to the Lord, but Jesus is supposedly Jehovah and so it could be referring to Jesus. And in other canonized scripture the word Lord is used a lot. It's confusing to not know whether the scriptures are referring to Jesus or Heavenly Father. I stated in another thread that the temple is called the house of the Lord. Is that Jesus' house, Heavenly Father's house, or both their houses? New Testament makes it seem like it's Heavenly Father's house when Jesus drove away the money changers in the temple and talks about his Father's house.

You are confused as I once was because the Jews who translated the Septuagint refused to use any accurate transliteration for YHWH in the Greek, but simply used the common Greek word for master or Lord: Kurios. This trend was adhered to in the Greek NT. The KJV did try to differentiate somewhat by using LORD for YHWH and Lord for adonai. However, the English word "LORD" does not in any way carry the import or meaning of YHWH. I believe YHWH means something like "I am the Life/Breath/Word. 

I believe you are quite wise to seek the meaning of these things because I believe they are essential to truly understand the nature of God. Thus, if one truly seeks to be like Him, one needs to understand these things. So, are both the Father and the Son YHWH? Yes. Unfortunately, this answer has been obscured somewhat by Greek NT, and I believe by the Jews themselves, but still is evident.

Deut 18:

15 ¶The Lord/YHWH thy God/Elohim will raise up unto thee a Prophet[Jesus] from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

 16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me nothear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

 17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken thatwhich they have spoken.

 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

 20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Many LDS scriptures make clear this prophet is Jesus. The Elohim speaking here is the Father as YHWH.

Gen 3:22 ¶And the Lord/YHWH God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The plural "us" here is accurate because the verb form is plural in the Hebrew. Interestingly, the Greek Septuagint completely does away with "Lord" here. 

I believe there is another scripture in the Torah which shows that "YHWH" is being spoken to as one of the sons of the Most High, but the Masoretes who kept the Hebrew scriptures changed this scripture after Christ to Sons of Israel rather than sons of Elohim to make it appear that YHWH is the same as the Most High in the scripture. However, in this case I believe their change is caught by the Septuagint and a Qumran fragment.

Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. 

So although the NT just uses the Kurios here, I believe Paul is saying Jesus is YHWH with the Father. As the head of the house of Elohim, they are YHWH Elohim together. ie they are the Life/breath/word of the house of immovable force/stone of El. Thus, in the NT you find Jesus breathing the spirit into His apostles emphasizing the same as breathing Adam's spirit into him and creating his soul this way as combination of spirit and body.

Others have looked at this other ways:

Quote

YHWH
1. God is unknowable. This really means say to them I simply am. However, the I AM, hyh) seems to be used as a name. The hyh) parallels YHWH in verse 15. Moses was to give them , hyh) or YHWH as God’s name. This is not to say the name fully explains or makes a total statement about God’s character however.

2. The Ontological view states that God reveals himself as the Being who is absolutely self-existent, and who, in Himself, possesses essential life and permanent existence. However, as pointed out, in Hebrew to be means to be active, to express activity, not an ontological static Being as with the Greek Philosophers view.

3. The Causative view states translates the term hyh) r#$) hyh) (Ehyhe asher Ehyhe) as "I cause to be what comes into existence." Or "I am He who sustains." This can also mean "He who causes the hosts to come into existence." The problem here is that the verb hyh has no evidence that it was used in the hiphil, the causitive being expressed by the piel.

4. The Covenantal view links the name YHWH with the Covenant at Sinai (Exo. 20:1; Lev. 18:2, 4, 21, 30). This is the redeeming name the heart of the Mosaic revelation of YHWH was that he was going to redeem his people. This idea has further support since the verb hyh to which YHWH is connected occurs often in covenantal formulas (e.g., Deut. 26:17-18; Jer. 7:23; 11:4, 24; 24:7; 31:33; 32:38; Ezek. 36:28; 37:27).

5. The Phenomenological view states that the divine name YHWY means that God will reveal himself in His actions through history. This is the active manifestation of existence. The use of hyh at Gen 1:3, 5-6, demonstrates God’s active manifestation in the beginning of history. This view declares that God says I am the God who is and who will be active in whatever situations you are called to face. And in fact, YHWH declares and identifies himself in connection with redemption (Exo. 29:46; Lev 11:45; 19:36; 25:38; 26:13; Judg 6:8-10; Hosea 12:9; 13:4; Ezek 20:5-7).
 

 

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

This subject has been on the mind a lot lately. When the scriptures are talking about the Lord do they mean Jesus, Heavenly Father, or both?

The more you study this, VGJ, the more I expect you will find the need to live with a lot of ambiguity on this subject.

From an LDS perspective, the matter has been made more complicated by the doctrine that Jesus is the premortal Jehovah.

It must be remembered, however, that this was not the uniform teaching of the Church until the early 20th century when James Talmage formalized it in his Jesus the Christ.

Prior to that, Jehovah was used interchangeably, to refer to either the Father or the Son.

For instance, in the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith clearly addressed God, the Father, and also referred to him as "Lord":

Quote

109:4 And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom, in whose name alone salvation can be administered to the children of men, we ask thee, O Lord, to accept of this house, the workmanship of the hands of us, thy servants, which thou didst command us to build.

And yet, in verse 34, the Father is addressed by the name, Jehovah:

 

Quote

34 O Jehovah, have mercy upon this people, and as all men sin, forgive the transgressions of thy people, and let them be blotted out forever.

And again in verse 42:

Quote

 42 But deliver thou, O Jehovah, we beseech thee, thy servants from their hands, and cleanse them from their blood.

And again in verse 56:

Quote

56 That their hearts may be softened when thy servants shall go out from thy house, O Jehovah, to bear testimony of thy name; that their prejudices may give way before the truth, and thy people may obtain favor in the sight of all;

Some have tried to argue that Joseph Smith was actually switching back and forth from praying to the Father and then praying to the Son.

This reading is not supported by the text, however, and leads to contravening the now-established principle in Mormonism that one does not pray to the Son, but only to the Father.

So if you are looking for a grand, unifying principle by which you can identify who is being talked about in all the scriptures by use of the term, Lord or Jehovah, I think that quest will ultimately fail.

In this respect, it is interesting to note that, whereas modern Mormons typically have no trouble identifying Jehovah in the temple endowment with Jesus, there is absolutely nothing in the temple that makes that connection.  Of course, the endowment was formulated prior to the uniform LDS teaching that Jesus is Jehovah.

What I have found more effective is to try and understand what the author of the text may have meant when writing the passage in question, and allow for the fact that different authors can have different ideas about who God is and what names or titles are appropriate.

[Zakuska]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1)So, you (and Justin) are claiming that the YHWH in Gen 18:1 is not the same YHWH in Gen 19:24?  Both are spelled the same in the Hebrew text.  So, are you claiming that YHWH is an office or title held by two separate entities?  Or an infinity of entities?  Etc.  It is not clear what you are trying to say.

1) No. the YHWH of 18:1 who spoke to Abraham and was "on the Earth" is the same YHWH in 19:24 who was "on the earth. 

But 19:24 speaks of a second entity given the name/title YHWH who was in the heavens who poured out the fire and brimstone when the YHWH on the earth gave the all clear that Lot and company wereo= out of harms way.

Justin is not the only one who interprets Gen 19:24 as speaking of two entities (one in heaven and one on earth) called YHWH.

The link I provided:

150ad Justin 

180ad Iraneus

200ad Tertullian

250ad Ignatius

253ad Cyprian

Novatian

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

All these interpret 19:24 just as I have.

So to answer question number 2 and 3.

YHWH does seem to be a title for God rather than a proper name.

More about that here:

Contrary to what some Christians believe (and at least one cult), Jehovah is not the Divine Name revealed to Israel. The name Jehovah is a product of mixing different words and different alphabets of different languages. 

[/quote]

http://www.gotquestions.org/YHWH-tetragrammaton.html

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Zakuska said:

1) No. the YHWH of 18:1 who spoke to Abraham and was "on the Earth" is the same YHWH in 19:24 who was "on the earth. 

But 19:24 speaks of a second entity given the name/title YHWH who was in the heavens who poured out the fire and brimstone when the YHWH on the earth gave the all clear that Lot and company wereo= out of harms way.

Justin is not the only one who interprets Gen 19:24 as speaking of two entities (one in heaven and one on earth) called YHWH.

The link I provided:

150ad Justin 

180ad Iraneus

200ad Tertullian

250ad Ignatius

253ad Cyprian

Novatian

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

All these interpret 19:24 just as I have.

So to answer question number 2 and 3.

YHWH does seem to be a title for God rather than a proper name.

More about that here:

Quote

Contrary to what some Christians believe (and at least one cult), Jehovah is not the Divine Name revealed to Israel. The name Jehovah is a product of mixing different words and different alphabets of different languages. 

http://www.gotquestions.org/YHWH-tetragrammaton.html

 

Your source is poorly informed not only on the meaning the Tetragrammaton, but also on why we see it used in English as Jehovah.  We get that from German usage, which does not vocalize the J and V the way we do in English.  That he doesn't understand that elementary fact is explanation enough for his failure.

As to Justin and the rest, I have little trust in his notion that two entities are simultaneously called YHWH in the text.  Sounds incoherent to me.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Zakuska]

Dont take my word for it... Gen 19:24 being interpreted as 2 Entities called YHWH. Is alive and well to this very Day among trinitarians.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gen+19%3A24&oq=gen+19%3A&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i57j0j69i60.5251j0j4&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#safe=strict&q=gen+19:24+2+YHWH

Quote

The “Heavenly” and “Earthly” Yahweh:
A Trinitarian Interpretation of Genesis 19:24

Against all of these notions the following provides a case for the historic Trinitarian understanding of Genesis 19:24, first from the Old Testament, and then from the New Testament. The view defended in the present paper is the same as Leupold’s who saw this downgrade trend over fifty years ago.

“We believe the view the church held on this problem from days of old is still the simplest and the best: Pluit Deus filius a Deo patre = “God the Son brought down the rain from God the Father,” as the Council of Sirmium worded the statement. To devaluate the statement of the text to mean less necessitates a similar process of devaluation of a number of other texts like [Genesis] 1:26, and only by such a process can the claim be supported that there are no indications of the doctrine of the Trinity in Genesis. We believe the combined weight of these passages, including Gen 1:1, 2, makes the conclusion inevitable that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in a measure revealed in the Old Testament, and especially in Genesis. Why would not so fundamental a doctrine be made manifest from the beginning? We may see more of this truth than did the Old Testament saints, but the Church has through the ages always held one and the same truth.”²

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/genesis_19_24_trinitarian1.html

Edited February 6, 2016 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

The title refers to both. The confusion is that Jesus has the right to speak as the Father and regularly does. When LDS claim Jehovah or Yahweh or YHWH is the God of the Old Testament they mean that when God appeared in the Old Testament it was the Son who appeared. When Jesus claimed to give the Law to Moses it was because He was on Sinai.

Trying to differentiate who is speaking is difficult in virtually every other case. In most cases with us it is the Holy Ghost speaking as if He is the Father and/or the Son which is also allowed. Since they are of one mind on how Project Earth goes it does not much matter who is speaking as they can all speak on behalf of each other. The Father rarely interacts with humanity. He created Adam and Eve but rarely appears or speaks directly to humanity and when He does it is usually just to testify of his Son.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your source is poorly informed not only on the meaning the Tetragrammaton, but also on why we see it used in English as Jehovah.  We get that from German usage, which does not vocalize the J and V the way we do in English.  That he doesn't understand that elementary fact is explanation enough for his failure.

As to Justin and the rest, I have little trust in his notion that two entities are simultaneously called YHWH in the text.  Sounds incoherent to me.

Then you will probably have great difficulty understanding Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 33:16

16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord/YHWH our righteousness.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The more you study this, VGJ, the more I expect you will find the need to live with a lot of ambiguity on this subject.

From an LDS perspective, the matter has been made more complicated by the doctrine that Jesus is the premortal Jehovah.

It must be remembered, however, that this was not the uniform teaching of the Church until the early 20th century when James Talmage formalized it in his Jesus the Christ.

Prior to that, Jehovah was used interchangeably, to refer to either the Father or the Son.

For instance, in the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith clearly addressed God, the Father, and also referred to him as "Lord":

And yet, in verse 34, the Father is addressed by the name, Jehovah:

***

In this respect, it is interesting to note that, whereas modern Mormons typically have no trouble identifying Jehovah in the temple endowment with Jesus, there is absolutely nothing in the temple that makes that connection.  Of course, the endowment was formulated prior to the uniform LDS teaching that Jesus is Jehovah.

What I have found more effective is to try and understand what the author of the text may have meant when writing the passage in question, and allow for the fact that different authors can have different ideas about who God is and what names or titles are appropriate.

I debated how to respond to your comments. There is nothing wrong with Jesus/Yahoshua being Jehovah/Yahowah, since He is. You make it sound like He is not. There is nothing wrong with Him being the premortal YWHW either, since He was. He was YHWH before the world was. This fact is alluded to from the beginning by the scripture I gave:

Gen 3:22 ¶And YHWH God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

You make it sound like some huge issue when it is not. The Father is Elohim, and so is the Son. see Heb and Psalms. YHWH is not the same as Elohim. That is the crucial point. The Son is not the Father, but that is a title He inherits per Isa 9:6. Will the Father still be the Father when the Son is called the Father? Likewise from the beginning they were both YHWH. However, the Son is not El Elyon the Most High El, but per Luke is the Son of the Most High. There is nothing "incorrect" about the Temple endowment, but it gets the latter correct as well. Listen the next time you go.

[volgadon]

22 hours ago, Zakuska said:

There are indeed 2 YHWHs spoken of in scripture.

Gen 19

24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

LORD as it appears both times in this verse is YHWH.

Of course one is the Father (in the heavens) and the other is the Son (on the earth).  But how exactly did he appear visibly in human form prior to having been born of the virgin Mary? (Hint: bro of Jared knows)

Have you even read it in Hebrew?

[Zakuska]

Yes.

Gen 19:24

וַֽיהוָ֗ה הִמְטִ֧יר עַל־סְדֹ֛ם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָ֖ה גָּפְרִ֣ית וָאֵ֑שׁ מֵאֵ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/19-24.htm

The key to seeing the 2 entities, one physically located on the earth while the other made it rain from heaven is the: מֵאֵ֥ת before the second יְהוָ֖ה.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[Guest]

On February 6, 2016 at 7:44 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

This subject has been on the mind a lot lately. When the scriptures are talking about the Lord do they mean Jesus, Heavenly Father, or both? And if it's both, how do we know which one they're referring to? In the Old Testament it refers to the Lord, but Jesus is supposedly Jehovah and so it could be referring to Jesus. And in other canonized scripture the word Lord is used a lot. It's confusing to not know whether the scriptures are referring to Jesus or Heavenly Father. I stated in another thread that the temple is called the house of the Lord. Is that Jesus' house, Heavenly Father's house, or both their houses? New Testament makes it seem like it's Heavenly Father's house when Jesus drove away the money changers in the temple and talks about his Father's house.

Christ is the Father only in the context of Mosiah 5: 7, and all names attributed to the Father are also given to the Son, because it is the Son that bears witness of the Father in almost every way. As John 1: 18 tells that "...no man hath seen the Father, except the Son hath declared him...it the one exception of John 6: 46. Also in Exodus 6: 2-3. Christ is introduce for the first time having before been know as "God Almighty", but "...by my name JEHOVAH was I not known". Forgive any errors as I am quoting from memory. Maybe I should look it up, but I only slept 4 hours last night and I am just so tired. As for throwning out the money changers, he was defending the Father...but in The Sermon on the Mount, he teaches us how to pray, teaching us to pray to the Father. In 2 Nephi 9: 41, he tells us that "he is the keeper of the gate and the Father employs no servant there (again from memory). I hope this helps.

Your brother in Christ.

Bill (Papa) Lee

Atlanta, Georgia (Zion)  

Edit to add: Hating others is had work. I ways try to be quick to forgive, as I too want to be forgiven. 

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Pa Pa