Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The uniqueness of the LDS Church


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m sure you know that the name Jehovah (or Yahweh) in the King James Bible is always rendered as LORD with all capital letters. So here we have a verse approvingly used by the Savior himself that clearly states the Lord (the Messiah) is the Son of Jehovah. In fact, when the Lord quoted this verse he would have actually said, “Jehovah said to my Lord…”

The problem here is the verse doesn't say that the Messiah is the Son of Jehovah, and Jesus does not make that point when he uses Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37, or Luke 20:41-44.

Jesus is asking the question about the relationship to King David, not to Jehovah.  And his point is that David called the Messiah "Lord", giving reverence to his own son.

4 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Great scripture. And there are more examples like this, where Jesus or the New Testament authors refer to the Father of Jesus Christ as Jehovah. 

Such as?  I'd like to see more examples.  

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
On 12/29/2021 at 1:18 PM, JLHPROF said:

Except it is one of the blessings of exaltation.  That our families will praise us and call us blessed.
In fact it's one of the blessings promised to those of us who receive our exaltation - blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and exaltations.

Maybe it is just my personality, but I don't want to be praised or people to call me blessed. I do like having a positive impact on those around me, a mere "Thank you" is usually enough. All these words and verses just look like the way royals, leaders and dictators are treated. As a father myself, I don;'t seek praise or thanks from my children, but I do and will always shower them with praise and thanks for living their own lives in a way to bring about love, peace and positive change to the world around them. I just hope that the parts of me that are good are shared with them, and they make them better and expand upon them. My kids living a good life, whatever that means, is thanks enough for me. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but please don’t use it. It is awkwardly long when people call me “Lord Abaddon the Destroyer, Prince of Locusts, Warden of the Gates of Sheol”. 

This made me think of Ugandan dictator Ida Amin’s titles: His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hajj Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of all the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This made me think of Ugandan dictator Ida Amin’s titles: His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hajj Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of all the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular

Yeah, the Supreme Leader of North Korea had almost a dozen official titles last I checked.

Then there was the old joke about Brezhnev in the Soviet Union needing chest expansion surgery so he had room to pin more meaningless medals onto his chest.

Link to comment

Several important sources have been mostly neglected thus far in this thread.  Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God is essential reading.

Quote

All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings called the sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim, Elyon. (Barker, The Great Angel, 10)

One of her key examples is Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which is also of interest because it comes in different versions, with the late Masoretic text being different from the older Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek Septuagint.

Quote

The second sons of God text is Deuteronomy 32:8, one on which a great deal has been written:
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men
he fixed the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.

The problem lies in the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek versions. The MT does not mention sons of God, but has sons of Israel instead. The Qumran Hebrew has sons of God (sons of ‘el) and the Greek has angels of God. This text shows two things: that there was some reason for altering sons of God to sons of Israel, or vice versa (the Qumran reading suggests the earlier Hebrew had read ‘sons of God’); and the sons of God were the patron deities of the various nations. Elyon the High God had allocated the nations to the various sons of God; one of these sons was Yahweh to whom Israel had been allocated. (Deut. 32.9). (Barker, ,The Great Angel, 6)
 

She provides a great deal of evidence that there was a radical change in the religion of Israel during, and in response to the experience of the Exile.

Quote

The Deuteronomists suppressed the anthropomorphism of the older tradition and any idea of the visible presence of God was abandoned. There were two reasons for this: they were the heirs to the monotheism of the Second Isaiah who had identified El Elyon and Yahweh and therefore ‘relocated’ Yahweh in heaven rather than in the temple in Jerusalem; and they were constructing from the ruins of the monarchy a faith for Israel which no longer had the king at its centre and therefore no longer had his presence as a visible sign of Yahweh with his people. The old concept of a human form present in the temple was no longer tenable, and the ancient descriptions of theophanies derived from temple ceremonial were no longer acceptable. The Deuteronomists rewrote the tradition: “Then Yahweh spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words but saw no form; there was only a voice” (Deuteronomy 4:12). With this one should compare the contemporary Ezekiel, a temple priest who was able to describe “one like a man” on the fiery throne (Ezekiel 1:26), or the tradition that Moses was permitted to see the “form” of the Lord (Numbers 12:8). (Barker, 99-100)

This reform of the religion of Israel, really a division into different and competing streams of thought, rather than a single uniform understanding, contributed to layers of editing in the Hebrew texts and thus to the controversies around Jesus's claims.  But the claims of his earliest followers are very clear.

Quote

There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained the world view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God, and several sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifest on earth in human form, as an angel on in the Davidic King. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord. (Barker, 3)

Brant Gardner has provided a very clear presentation that shows the importance of distinguishing between El Elyon as Father of Heavenly beings, one of whom as Yahweh, and Yahweh as Father of those humans who covenant with him.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

As to the notion of the Book of Mormon as depicting Modalism, see the comprehensive and detailed survey,  Bruening, Ari B., and David L. Paulsen. "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths." FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109-169.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol13/iss2/13/ 

Concerning developmental theories, in footnote 3, these authors list the propents and their essays, and comment that "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."  In response their own survey is far more comprehensive in considering the Book of Mormon.  (I have read the complete book length version of their paper).  And they begin their essay with this quote from Joseph Smith.

Quote

I have always and in all congregations when I have preached
on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.
It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage,
Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the
Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and
a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages
and three Gods.2
Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Illinois, 16 June 1844

And regarding the implications of combined Biblical title, Lord God Almighty, Val Larsen has explained this:

Quote

The name El Shaddai is important because, as noted, it may refer to the divine partners El and Saddai. This name is prominently featured on the two occasions when the blessing of posterity is most conspicuously pronounced on Abraham and Jacob. This fits the general pattern in the [Page 50]Old Testament, where Shaddai appears 48 times and in almost every instance is associated with fruitfulness, procreation, birth, and posterity. In the King James Bible, the divine name Shaddai is always translated as “Almighty.” Every occurrence of that word in the KJV marks an appearance of Shaddai. That conjectural translation assumes a linkage with the word שדד, shadad, meaning “destroyer” or “plunderer.” An alternative conjectural translation assumes a linkage with the word שדיים, shadayim, meaning “breasts” and yields a translation of El Shaddai as the God with breasts or the Goddess.29 Given the nearly universal association with procreation and posterity, this reading seems more plausible than plunderer or another conjecture that links the word with the Akkadian word for mountain.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/first-visions-and-last-sermons-affirming-divine-sociality-rejecting-the-greater-apostasy/ 

He continues:

Quote

Then as believed in the old Abrahamic but denied in the new Deuteronomistic theology, Lehi sees a God with God — One (in Hebrew possibly אביר, Abir, an epithet that always means Yahweh),56 who descends “out of the midst of heaven, [whose] luster was above that of the sun at noon-day” (1 Nephi 1:8). This second God is linked, as often happens in the old theology, with the sun. Twelve angel figures, the host of heaven, follow after the One and, as is typical in the old theology, are linked with the stars: “he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament” (1 Nephi 1:10).57 Yahweh (and the apostles) who have descended to Lehi mediate between him and El. This pattern will be repeated in Lehi’s dream and Nephi’s experience of Lehi’s dream. Yahweh comes to Lehi, gives him a book, and bids him read. Having read its prophecies, Lehi exclaims, “Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty!” (1 Nephi 1:14). In saying this Lehi may praise the Son, Father, and Mother, the major figures in the Sôd. Lord God Almighty is the King James translation of Yahweh El Shaddai.58

While it does not replace a close reading of The Great Angel, Barker provides a shorter essay on "The Second Person" here:

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

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
On 12/27/2021 at 1:33 PM, CV75 said:

The Book of Mormon uses the phrase, "mine Only Begotten Son," which the Bible does not (see Alma 12). The Father revealed His plan in the beginning, using these words, either directly or by divine investiture of authority. This minor difference is enough to establish that the Father, by His own admission and dictate, is the literal Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh, additional details concerning which are to be found in other parts of the Book of Mormon.

The Bible uses a different word, but do you think this qualifies the statement "These unique features
are taught in the Bible, but through misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually
deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity.
 The most important principle, of course, is acceptance
of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world?"

"For God so loved the world, that he gave *his* only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life."

How does the Book of Mormon describe Jesus as the only begotten differently than the Bible?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, theplains said:

The Bible uses a different word, but do you think this qualifies the statement "These unique features
are taught in the Bible, but through misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually
deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity.
 The most important principle, of course, is acceptance
of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world?"

"For God so loved the world, that he gave *his* only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life."

How does the Book of Mormon describe Jesus as the only begotten differently than the Bible?

As I said, by the First Person attestation by the Father. What do you think of when a someone tells you, "You will receive such-and-such through mine only begotten son"?

I don't want to do all your homework for you, so look up all the references to "Only Begotten" in the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great price and D&C to see how Alma 13, describing the order of the Only Begotten Son of the Father (v. 9) , necessitates the Father's children, prepared from the foundation of the world, being conceived and born in the flesh as was Jesus (remaining verses, and see the prophecies of His conception and birth in 2 Nephi 17). This quite literally ties into the Abrahamic covenant which is discussed at least 5 times in the Book of Mormon. The rights to the priesthood are passed from father to son by lineage, including Father to Son. I suppose some exceptions can be made for adoptions -- are you suggesting Jesus was literally adopted since He was not literally the begotten heir, and the Abrahamic covenant did not apply to Him though it supposedly it typifies the family of God in both the natural and spiritual order?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The problem here is the verse doesn't say that the Messiah is the Son of Jehovah, and Jesus does not make that point when he uses Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37, or Luke 20:41-44.

Jesus is asking the question about the relationship to King David, not to Jehovah.  And his point is that David called the Messiah "Lord", giving reverence to his own son.

Such as?  I'd like to see more examples.  

I believe you’re off target on your point. While the then present controversy, which took place at the time of Lord’s earthly ministry, centered on the Jews’ idea that the Messiah would be the son of David, the original scripture from Psalms, and what inspired its utterance, had absolutely nothing to do with the much later and unrelated son of David controversy. The scripture in Psalms is simply testifying that Jehovah is the Lord of the Messiah who sits at his, the LORD’s, right hand. 

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I believe you’re off target on your point. While the then present controversy, which took place at the time of Lord’s earthly ministry, centered on the Jews’ idea that the Messiah would be the son of David, the original scripture from Psalms, and what inspired its utterance, had absolutely nothing to do with the much later and unrelated son of David controversy. The scripture in Psalms is simply testifying that Jehovah is the Lord of the Messiah who sits at his, the LORD’s, right hand. 

I still think you are missing the entire point of why Jesus brought it up.  The Jews obviously knew that the Messiah would be the son of David (i.e. "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David").  What the Jews didn't understand, however, is that the Messiah would be the God ("Lord") of David.  Jesus asked, "If David then call him [the Messiah] Lord, how is he his [David's] son?"  The Jews dare not answer him.  David called his own descendant "my Lord".   What could they say without admitting their view of the Messiah was short-sighted? 

This has nothing to do with the Messiah as the son of "Jehovah".  Yes, the Jews understood Jehovah to be God, and Psalm 110:1 shows that the Messiah is exalted at the right hand of God.  But it was never conveyed in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that Jesus was Jehovah's son, but that he was the Son of God.  And the New Testament writers and early Christian writers indicate that they understand Jesus to be Jehovah, one in the same.

Link to comment
On 12/27/2021 at 10:45 AM, theplains said:

I have a question about this Ensign article.

The uniqueness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon 
several basic principles and ordinances that the world has long forsaken in 
whole or in part. These unique features are taught in the Bible, but through
misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually deleted from 
the tenets of modern Christianity.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the 
literal Son of God and the Savior of the world.

Since this teaching (referred to as the "most important principle") is found in 
the Bible, how does the Book of Mormon explain the phrase "literal Son of God" 
differently than how non-LDS churches believe Jesus is the Only Begotten of the 
Father?  Or is the different understanding of "literal Son of God" also missing 
from the Book of Mormon?

Jim

Hi Jim.  The Book of Mormon is fairly direct, but not moreso than the Bible:

Quote

1 Ne 11:18, “Behold the Virgin which thou seest is the Mother of God after the manner of the flesh”  
2 Ne 17:14 (Isa 7:14), “a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son”
19:6 (Isa 9:6), “unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.”

However, scrolls from Qumran are even more direct:

1QSa/1Q28a 2:11-12, has God “fathering, begetting” (Hebrew holid) the Messiah of Israel: "when [God] has fa[th]ered the Messiah" 

4Q246 (4QpsDan Aa, 4QSon of God) Aramaic I "[He] shall be great upon the earth.... and all shall serve [him]...the [g]reat..," II "and by his name shall he be hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High" Luke 1:31-32,35.[1]


[1] G. Vermes, Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed. (Penguin, 1987), 275; 4th ed. ( 121, 332); and in H. Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (N.Y.: Random House, 1992), 203-204 (J. J. Collins in BAR, Mar/Apr 1990; J. J. Collins, "A Pre-Christian 'Son of God' Among the Dead Sea Scrolls," Bible Review, 9/3 [June 1993]:34-38,57.  Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls  (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I still think you are missing the entire point of why Jesus brought it up.  The Jews obviously knew that the Messiah would be the son of David (i.e. "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David").  What the Jews didn't understand, however, is that the Messiah would be the God ("Lord") of David.  Jesus asked, "If David then call him [the Messiah] Lord, how is he his [David's] son?"  The Jews dare not answer him.  David called his own descendant "my Lord".   What could they say without admitting their view of the Messiah was short-sighted? 

This has nothing to do with the Messiah as the son of "Jehovah".  Yes, the Jews understood Jehovah to be God, and Psalm 110:1 shows that the Messiah is exalted at the right hand of God.  But it was never conveyed in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that Jesus was Jehovah's son, but that he was the Son of God.  And the New Testament writers and early Christian writers indicate that they understand Jesus to be Jehovah, one in the same.

Yet the Lord approvingly quotes a passage from the Old Testament that plainly presents Jehovah as the God of the Messiah. Again, David’s declaration has nothing to do with a distant a New Testament Era controversy, but stands independently on its own as a simple statement of theological fact.

Personally, I have no qualms with accepting Jesus Christ as the New Testament Jehovah. But I believe he bears that title of supreme honor as “The Eternal One” or “ Self-Existent One” (a title that applies at least equally as well to God the Father) through the principle of divine investiture rather than viewing Jehovah as a descriptive title that applies only to the divine nature of the Son of God. After all, is not our Heavenly Father also an eternal, self-existent being, one who existed long before the preexistent Christ came forth as the Firstborn spirit child of God the Father.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

What about any of those verses would make you think Jesus "actually is the Father"?

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

John 14

On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Who is "The Great I AM" in the Old Testament?

Jesus (and very likely also his Father). The Great I AM and Jehovah are also not the same name.

On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you please provide those verses so we can discuss them?

Luke 1:

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Compare this to Isaiah 9:6-7

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord  (Jehovah) of hosts will perform this.

Notice how Luke says that the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) is the one who gives Jesus the thrown of David. Luke clearly equates the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) with the Father and not his son Jesus.

The angel also refers to Jesus as the "Son of the Highest." By this it would also have been understood that Jesus was the son of Jehovah.

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord (Jehovah), the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

Genesis 14

17 I will praise the Lord (Jehovah) according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the Lord (Jehovah) most high.

Psalm 7

On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

can you provide New Testament verses quoting the Old Testament where Jesus actually applies the name Jehovah (or "LORD" as it would appear in the Greek) to his Father?   

Jesus quotes this prophecy in Isaiah and applies it to himself:

1 The Spirit of the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) is upon me; because the Lord (Jehovah) hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (Jehovah), and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Isaiah 61

18 The Spirit of the Lord (Jehovah) is upon me (Jesus), because he (Jehovah) hath anointed me (Jesus) to preach the gospel to the poor; he (Jehovah) hath sent me (Jesus) to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord (Jehovah).

20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Luke 4

Jesus is saying that Jehovah anointed him and sent him to preach the gospel, heal the sick, etc. Did Jesus anoint and send himself? No, His Father sent him. 

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
(John 6)

Jehovah sent Jesus. Jesus’ Father sent Jesus. Therefore Jehovah is Jesus’ Father. 

On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, the Jews understood Jehovah to be God, and Psalm 110:1 shows that the Messiah is exalted at the right hand of God.  But it was never conveyed in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles that Jesus was Jehovah's son, but that he was the Son of God.

As we can clearly see from the Luke 1 (quoted above) the gospel writers (who were all Jews) believed that Jehovah was God and that Jesus was the son of Jehovah. In the New Testament the majority of references to God are about the Father and not Jesus. Jesus is usually referred to as the Son of God, but occasionally also as God. I believe that all references to God in the New Testament are referring to Jehovah, as this is who the writers would have believed was God. 

On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

And the New Testament writers and early Christian writers indicate that they understand Jesus to be Jehovah, one in the same.

Yes and no. They clearly believed that Jesus was the son of Jehovah and also Jehovah. This is where the false idea of the Trinity came about. It's clear that both the Father and the Son are Jehovah. 

Edited by MacGyver
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Calm said:

Your avatar hints at this, btw…

I wish i could say i chose this avatar because it is the actual hero of my favorite childhood movie, Home Alone, but is a play on my name, and i kind of stuck. It also forces me to face my fears, someone in the family has to run towards danger (a spider in the house)!

Link to comment
On 12/27/2021 at 11:33 AM, CV75 said:

The Book of Mormon uses the phrase, "mine Only Begotten Son," which the Bible does not (see Alma 12). The Father revealed His plan in the beginning, using these words, either directly or by divine investiture of authority. This minor difference is enough to establish that the Father, by His own admission and dictate, is the literal Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh, additional details concerning which are to be found in other parts of the Book of Mormon.

The phrase "only begotten" appears in John 3:16, for example. It is a fairly straight translation from the Greek original that implies the "only one. unique, unequal, brought forth by the Father Himself". The fact that Begotten has fallen in disuse in modern English should not be a reason for confusion. The significance was certainly not lost to the 1st century Christians. Jesus was the ONLY Son brought forth by the hand of God, thru the Spirit into humanity (race) and there is, nor will ever be another. Except the heresies of old across history, this is a clear concept in orthodox Christianity and not unique at all.

Link to comment
On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

I can understand how some people have viewed those verses, thinking it means that Jesus is saying he is God the Father.  But I don’t see how that view can be maintained given the rest of the teachings of John and Jesus.  For example, in the next chapter Jesus says:

John 15:24  "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father."

Obviously Jesus can’t be saying he is literally God the Father, since here he says “both me and my Father”.   Jesus is simply saying he does the same things as his Father, and therefore there is no reason to distinguish between them in their works.

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

John 14

If Jesus really means to say that the Father dwelling in Jesus and he in the Father means that Jesus is actually the Father, then Jesus is also telling us later in the same chapter that we really are Jesus:

John 14:19-20:  "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.  At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

If we are “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” us, then we are actually Jesus, right?

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:
On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Who is "The Great I AM" in the Old Testament?

Jesus (and very likely also his Father). The Great I AM and Jehovah are also not the same name.

Yes, many of the titles and names apply to both the Father and Son, because Jesus is the representative of his Father.  But, Jehovah did say he is the “I AM” (Exo 3:14).  

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

Luke 1:

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

I really like verse 32, because it is probably the best example of where Jehovah (LORD God) is evident in the Greek.  And as I said previously, the Jews understood Jehovah to be God and that he would be speaking the words of God the Father.  

But these are prophecies from the Old Testament perspective that were given through Jehovah about Jesus, and this doesn’t really say how Jesus and the apostles taught, after the coming of Jesus, that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ.   Quoting where Jehovah [Jesus] speaks the words of the Father about his own appointment doesn’t prove that Jesus and the apostles ever taught, during their ministries, that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ.

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

Compare this to Isaiah 9:6-7

(And the others):   Same answer as above for these verses. 

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

Jehovah sent Jesus. Jesus’ Father sent Jesus. Therefore Jehovah is Jesus’ Father. 

This does not necessarily follow, and I have given other examples in this thread to try to explain the principle involved here and why it doesn’t follow.  Here is another example.  In Genesis 22:15, the “angel of the LORD” spoke unto Abraham, and said in verse 16-17:  “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:  That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven… (etc.).”

Now could it be said of these verses:  The angel spoke unto Abraham.  The LORD spoke unto Abraham.  Therefore the angel is the LORD?  In a sense this is true, but not literally true.  Likewise, if Jesus is truly Jehovah (which he is) and while representing God the Father, Jesus spoke the words of the Father about his own appointment and birth, it does not follow that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ, but Jehovah was acting as the Father’s agent in delivering the words.  Jesus and the apostles could quote from those words as demonstration of the appointment by the Father and never be making the connection you are making, that Jesus is the son of the messenger (Jehovah).

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

As we can clearly see from the Luke 1 (quoted above) the gospel writers (who were all Jews) believed that Jehovah was God and that Jesus was the son of Jehovah. In the New Testament the majority of references to God are about the Father and not Jesus. Jesus is usually referred to as the Son of God, but occasionally also as God. I believe that all references to God in the New Testament are referring to Jehovah, as this is who the writers would have believed was God. 

Or, they recognized that Jehovah represented God the Father (he is the messenger), and there was no reason to distinguish between them when quoting from the Old Testament verses.  But in all of their teachings, Jesus never said that his Father was Jehovah (the messenger) or made that connection during his ministry.  The same can be said of the apostles.

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:
On 12/29/2021 at 11:16 PM, InCognitus said:

And the New Testament writers and early Christian writers indicate that they understand Jesus to be Jehovah, one in the same.

Yes and no. They clearly believed that Jesus was the son of Jehovah and also Jehovah. This is where the false idea of the Trinity came about.

The false ideas within the doctrine of the Trinity have to do with how Jesus and his Father are “one”.  The Trinity says they are one in being or substance, whereas the scriptures teach that they are separate and distinct beings that are “one” in unity and will.  Jesus and the apostles and the pre-Nicene Christians had no problem with the idea that Jesus is God (even calling him the “second God” or “another God”) and that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ.  But they also clearly taught that Jesus is the one who led Israel out of Egypt in the Old Testament, the representative of God the Father in the Old Testament.   

On 12/31/2021 at 12:14 AM, MacGyver said:

It's clear that both the Father and the Son are Jehovah. 

It is clear that Jehovah represents the Father, but Jehovah isn’t literally the Father anymore than the angel that spoke to Abraham was literally the LORD, or the angel in the book of Revelation is literally Jesus.  In each of these examples the one is the representative of the other.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

If Jesus really means to say that the Father dwelling in Jesus and he in the Father means that Jesus is actually the Father, then Jesus is also telling us later in the same chapter that we really are Jesus:

John 14:19-20:  "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.  At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

If we are “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” us, then we are actually Jesus, right?

Maybe so.

Maybe He really is the vine and we really are the branches, in a much more literal sense than we are accustomed to thinking.

Edited by Olmec Donald
Link to comment
On 1/2/2022 at 8:54 PM, InCognitus said:

I can understand how some people have viewed those verses, thinking it means that Jesus is saying he is God the Father.  But I don’t see how that view can be maintained given the rest of the teachings of John and Jesus.  For example, in the next chapter Jesus says:

John 15:24  "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father."

Obviously Jesus can’t be saying he is literally God the Father, since here he says “both me and my Father”.   Jesus is simply saying he does the same things as his Father, and therefore there is no reason to distinguish between them in their works.

If Jesus really means to say that the Father dwelling in Jesus and he in the Father means that Jesus is actually the Father, then Jesus is also telling us later in the same chapter that we really are Jesus:

John 14:19-20:  "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.  At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."

If we are “in” Jesus and Jesus is “in” us, then we are actually Jesus, right?

Yes, many of the titles and names apply to both the Father and Son, because Jesus is the representative of his Father.  But, Jehovah did say he is the “I AM” (Exo 3:14).  

I really like verse 32, because it is probably the best example of where Jehovah (LORD God) is evident in the Greek.  And as I said previously, the Jews understood Jehovah to be God and that he would be speaking the words of God the Father.  

But these are prophecies from the Old Testament perspective that were given through Jehovah about Jesus, and this doesn’t really say how Jesus and the apostles taught, after the coming of Jesus, that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ.   Quoting where Jehovah [Jesus] speaks the words of the Father about his own appointment doesn’t prove that Jesus and the apostles ever taught, during their ministries, that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ.

(And the others):   Same answer as above for these verses. 

This does not necessarily follow, and I have given other examples in this thread to try to explain the principle involved here and why it doesn’t follow.  Here is another example.  In Genesis 22:15, the “angel of the LORD” spoke unto Abraham, and said in verse 16-17:  “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:  That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven… (etc.).”

Now could it be said of these verses:  The angel spoke unto Abraham.  The LORD spoke unto Abraham.  Therefore the angel is the LORD?  In a sense this is true, but not literally true.  Likewise, if Jesus is truly Jehovah (which he is) and while representing God the Father, Jesus spoke the words of the Father about his own appointment and birth, it does not follow that Jehovah is the Father of Jesus Christ, but Jehovah was acting as the Father’s agent in delivering the words.  Jesus and the apostles could quote from those words as demonstration of the appointment by the Father and never be making the connection you are making, that Jesus is the son of the messenger (Jehovah).

Or, they recognized that Jehovah represented God the Father (he is the messenger), and there was no reason to distinguish between them when quoting from the Old Testament verses.  But in all of their teachings, Jesus never said that his Father was Jehovah (the messenger) or made that connection during his ministry.  The same can be said of the apostles.

The false ideas within the doctrine of the Trinity have to do with how Jesus and his Father are “one”.  The Trinity says they are one in being or substance, whereas the scriptures teach that they are separate and distinct beings that are “one” in unity and will.  Jesus and the apostles and the pre-Nicene Christians had no problem with the idea that Jesus is God (even calling him the “second God” or “another God”) and that God the Father is the God of Jesus Christ.  But they also clearly taught that Jesus is the one who led Israel out of Egypt in the Old Testament, the representative of God the Father in the Old Testament.   

It is clear that Jehovah represents the Father, but Jehovah isn’t literally the Father anymore than the angel that spoke to Abraham was literally the LORD, or the angel in the book of Revelation is literally Jesus.  In each of these examples the one is the representative of the other.

Before I decide if it's worth my time responding to each of your points, I have two questions for you.

1) Why are you so opposed to the idea that the name Jehovah can apply to the Father and the Son?

2) What evidence would you be willing to accept that the name Jehovah doesn't just apply to Jesus Christ but also to the Father?

Link to comment
On 12/30/2021 at 5:31 PM, CV75 said:

I suppose some exceptions can be made for adoptions -- are you suggesting Jesus was literally adopted since He was not literally the begotten heir, and the Abrahamic covenant did not apply to Him though it supposedly it typifies the family of God in both the natural and spiritual order?

I view the term "only begotten" as he was the only one who is God-incarnate.

Link to comment
Just now, theplains said:

I view the term "only begotten" as he was the only one who is God-incarnate.

Except that's not what "beget" means in biblical terms.  And the writers of the gospel would know that.  Begotten specifically refers to conception.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...