Jehovah of the OT, is Jesus Christ of the New Testament

[Revelations won]

Jehovah of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ of the New Testament

There are some today who do not understand or accept that Jehovah of the Old Testament is in fact Jesus Christ of the New Testament. My observation is that He is in very deed the great Jehovah, who was and is King of kings and Lord of lords, even the very Messiah, our lord and redeemer, the Holy One of Israel and the the author of our resurrection and the only name whereby man can be saved. This is my “take� on this topic. I welcome all would care to debate and provide your evidence to support contrary or opposing views. The following scriptures are presented as evidence supporting my “take� on the above subject:

Isaiah 43:3 “For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:"

Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour�

Isaiah 9:6-7 “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 of hosts will perform this.


Isaiah 25:8-9 “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

9And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.


Isaiah 26:19 “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.�


Matthew 27:52-53 “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Acts 4:10-12 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


Exodus 3:14 God calls himself “I AM� “3 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.�


John 8:54-58 (Before Abraham was “I AM�. 54 “Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
I AM.�


Exodus 6:3 “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.�


Deuteronomy 32:2-4 “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.�


1Corinthians 10:1-4 “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.�


Hebrews 5:8-9 “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;�


Psalms 118:22-24 “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23
This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24
This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.�





Acts 4:10-12 “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.�


John 10:1-11 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8
All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.


Ephesians 2:18-20 “For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Hebrews 1:1-4 “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.�


Hebrews 2:8-11 “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.�

John 1:1-5 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
The same was in the beginning with God.
3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.�


Colossians 2:8-14 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;�

[tam]

Peace to you Pinseeker,

[Replying to tam in post #130]

Well I'm not Revelations Won, obviously, but I'll answer it. You asked, "How can they be the same person, if YHWH is speaking to Christ Jaheshua?" My answer is thus?

You have responded to the question previously (I do not remember where), from a trinitarian pov. I could not agree with your response, but that is beside the point here. RW is not a trinitarian, so your response would not be applicable to his/her pov.

**
As to your response:

Psalm 110:1 references the preexistence and deity of Christ (not sure you would agree with this, but true nevertheless).

I acknowledge the preexistence and divinity of Christ.

Yet, in the same text we see a clear distinction between the two Lords mentioned (we can agree on this, I'm sure).

Indeed, except, as I think you would agree, there are not actually two lords mentioned in the text. There is [YHWH] (overwritten with the LORD, all caps), and the second Lord whom David references as 'my Lord'.

“The LORD” here speaks to a “Lord” who is the Son of God,

No, perhaps this was a typo on your behalf?

"The LORD" (all caps) is a placeholder for YHWH.

David's 'my Lord' is referring to Christ (the Son of God).

and the fact that two Lords can speak to one another indicates the presence of two personal relations or subsistences (we agree on this, too),

Indicates the presence of two persons, yes. Hence the question to RW.

but the subtlety of the text here is that both of these subsistences are fully God[/u].

That's something you (and others) are reading into the text. It is not present.

There is an eternal, personal distinction between God the Son and God the Father (but not in terms of Their essential attributes).

Other than God, the Father, these are terms that man uses, not Christ.

In light of the full biblical witness, we may extrapolate this distinction to the person of the Holy Spirit as well, for Scripture in several places refers to all three Persons in a manner that assumes distinctions between Them (Matt. 28:18–20, John 14:15-31).

There are not three persons, but even if there were, the simpler explanation would be that those three persons are well... three persons, lol. Not three in one.

So, there is a subtlety to the text of Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110 as a whole that suggests a very tight correlation between the Lord Yahweh and the “Lord” of David.

Certainly there is a tight correlation between (YHWH) and the Lord to whom He (YHWH) is speaking. Christ (David's Lord) is the Son of [YHWH]

Further, Psalm 110 is very closely related to the psalms that follow it. These two prominent figures (Yahweh and the “Lord” of David) are given their own individual poetic focus in the subsequent psalms, namely Psalm 111 and Psalm 112 respectively. Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s “lord.” The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh. A similar type of close association between the two can be seen in Psalm 113.

I am certainly not arguing against the close association between the Father and the Son.

We should not miss the forest for the trees. Or the trees for the forest.

Nor should we create a forest when we have only a tree (or two).

Grace and peace to all.

Peace also to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

I acknowledge the preexistence and divinity of Christ.

Good.

Yet, in the same text we see a clear distinction between the two Lords mentioned (we can agree on this, I'm sure).

Indeed, except, as I think you would agree, there are not actually two lords mentioned in the text. There is [YHWH] (overwritten with the LORD, all caps), and the second Lord whom David references as 'my Lord'.

Actually, I both agree and disagree with that. You draw an absolute distinction between the two, and I do not. Or rather I do, and I do not. You will probably say that make no sense. Well, okay, but I would exhort you to... think about it.

“The LORD” here speaks to a “Lord” who is the Son of God,

No, perhaps this was a typo on your behalf?

No, no typo... The text states verbatim, "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' ” The LORD (person 1) speaks to David's Lord (person 2). Surely there is no dispute there, right? That was the original impetus of the question at hand, right?

"The LORD" (all caps) is a placeholder for YHWH. David's 'my Lord' is referring to Christ (the Son of God).

Sure. Was that ever in dispute? I think not...

and the fact that two Lords can speak to one another indicates the presence of two personal relations or subsistences (we agree on this, too),

Indicates the presence of two persons, yes. Hence the question to RW.

This is what I just said, the original impetus of that question to RW.

but the subtlety of the text here is that both of these subsistences are fully God[/u].

That's something you (and others) are reading into the text. It is not present.

No one is reading anything into the text. As I said, the rest of Psalm 110 and then Psalm 111 through 113 make this very clear, locally speaking. Many other passages in Scripture speak to the same concept. If -- and this is a big 'if' -- one extracts Psalm 110:1 from the rest of God's Word (and even from the Psalms, and even from Psalm 110), then on it's face, what you say could indeed be said. But extracting it in this manner and reading it on its own can not be done with any credence whatsoever.

There is an eternal, personal distinction between God the Son and God the Father (but not in terms of Their essential attributes).

Other than God, the Father, these are terms that man uses, not Christ.

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ have essential attributes. Scripture itself attributes many essential attributes to both the Father and the Son individually, and we can know what they are by their actions and their words. And Scripture is very clear that God the Father and Christ have the same essential attributes. Ergo, the Father and the Son are distinct in person but not in essence.

In light of the full biblical witness, we may extrapolate this distinction to the person of the Holy Spirit as well, for Scripture in several places refers to all three Persons in a manner that assumes distinctions between Them (Matt. 28:18–20, John 14:15-31).

There are not three persons...

There absolutely are. I understand what your opinion on that is, and I respect it. But there are. Jesus is very clear in both the Matthew and John passages that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. In any reading of the two, one cannot deny with any credibility whatsoever that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matthew 28)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am in the Father and the Father is in me... If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you... These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (John 14)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...the simpler explanation would be that those three persons are well... three persons, lol. Not three in one.

That's the point. That position itself is a far too simple reading of the texts. Again, it's both/and, not either/or. Three in one, yes, but also one in three.

So, there is a subtlety to the text of Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110 as a whole that suggests a very tight correlation between the Lord Yahweh and the “Lord” of David.

Certainly there is a tight correlation between (YHWH) and the Lord to whom He (YHWH) is speaking. Christ (David's Lord) is the Son of [YHWH]... I am certainly not arguing against the close association between the Father and the Son.

Well, that's great, but the closeness of the association is far greater than you imagine; that's what I am conveying to you. As I said, Psalm 111, 112, and 113 very closely follow Psalm 110. So much so that it can really be considered one passage, even though they together make up four Psalms.

Grace and peace to you, Tam.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Yet, in the same text we see a clear distinction between the two Lords mentioned (we can agree on this, I'm sure).

Indeed, except, as I think you would agree, there are not actually two lords mentioned in the text. There is [YHWH] (overwritten with the LORD, all caps), and the second Lord whom David references as 'my Lord'.

Actually, I both agree and disagree with that. You draw an absolute distinction between the two, and I do not. Or rather I do, and I do not. You will probably say that make no sense. Well, okay, but I would exhort you to... think about it.

I know what you mean when you say it. I simply cannot agree. Regardless, what I wrote is correct. The word Lord is only used once in the original text. The words "the LORD" are overwriting the original text, based on tradition. We know what Christ said about tradition (Mark 7, various places). We (or at least some of us) know that this particular tradition has confused people.

“The LORD” here speaks to a “Lord” who is the Son of God,

No, perhaps this was a typo on your behalf?

No, no typo... The text states verbatim, "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' ” The LORD (person 1) speaks to David's Lord (person 2). Surely there is no dispute there, right? That was the original impetus of the question at hand, right?

See below...

"The LORD" (all caps) is a placeholder for YHWH. David's 'my Lord' is referring to Christ (the Son of God).

Sure. Was that ever in dispute? I think not...

Sorry, you're right. I misread. I thought you wrote that "the LORD" (all caps) speaks to (as in refers to) the Son of God. In re-reading, I can see that you meant "the LORD" speaks (as in SAYS) to the Son of God.

(I recently wrote a short essay -unrelated- and made use of a thesaurus to spice it up a bit... so alternate ways of phrasing things is in my head, lol)

but the subtlety of the text here is that both of these subsistences are fully God[/u].

That's something you (and others) are reading into the text. It is not present.

No one is reading anything into the text.

Oh, absolutely people are reading something into the text if they think that the text describes two persons who are fully God (meaning fully YHWH). Nothing in the text (or in the following Psalms) states that.

(Perhaps you mean characteristics of God when you say 'subsistence', but that would add nothing to the discussion, because two persons can share characteristics without both being the same and/or fully God.)

As I said, the rest of Psalm 110 and then Psalm 111 through 113 make this very clear, locally speaking.

How so?

There is an eternal, personal distinction between God the Son and God the Father (but not in terms of Their essential attributes).

Other than God, the Father, these are terms that man uses, not Christ.

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ have essential attributes.

Did you mean 'neither or both'?

Scripture itself attributes many essential attributes to both the Father and the Son individually, and we can know what they are by their actions and their words. And Scripture is very clear that God the Father and Christ have the same essential attributes. Ergo, the Father and the Son are distinct in person but not in essence.

None of that makes Christ out to be YHWH.

In light of the full biblical witness, we may extrapolate this distinction to the person of the Holy Spirit as well, for Scripture in several places refers to all three Persons in a manner that assumes distinctions between Them (Matt. 28:18–20, John 14:15-31).

There are not three persons...

There absolutely are. I understand what your opinion on that is, and I respect it.

It is not my opinion (I do not base my faith on my opinion), but there are many threads dealing with the trinity, so I will leave that discussion to those threads.

...the simpler explanation would be that those three persons are well... three persons, lol. Not three in one.

That's the point. That position itself is a far too simple reading of the texts.

Simple does not equal incorrect.

I am a simple person. I can accept simple things. I do not require things to be complex before I am willing to accept them.

So, there is a subtlety to the text of Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110 as a whole that suggests a very tight correlation between the Lord Yahweh and the “Lord” of David.

Certainly there is a tight correlation between (YHWH) and the Lord to whom He (YHWH) is speaking. Christ (David's Lord) is the Son of [YHWH]... I am certainly not arguing against the close association between the Father and the Son.

Well, that's great, but the closeness of the association is far greater than you imagine; that's what I am conveying to you.

I believe I know what you are conveying (referring to the trinity). I simply cannot agree.

Grace and peace to you, Tam.

Thank you Pinseeker, and peace also to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

I know what you mean when you say it. I simply cannot agree.

Sure. I realize that.

Regardless, what I wrote is correct. The word Lord is only used once in the original text. The words "the LORD" are overwriting the original text, based on tradition.

I agree with this, but it's really an inconsequential point in the end for reasons I have stated. Yes, I agree, "LORD" is YHVH, and "Lord" is used only once. My point, as you understand, I'm sure, is that in view immediately of Psalm 110-113, particularly, is that there is an eternal, personal distinction between God the Son and God the Father, but there is no distinction regarding essence of the two. We know that the Son proceeds from the Father. This necessarily means that the two are not different -- the same -- and therefore not distinguished by different divine attributes, but only in their relation to one another. And we can apply the same thing to the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Oh, absolutely people are reading something into the text if they think that the text describes two persons who are fully God (meaning fully YHWH).

Nope. Again, Psalm 110:1 taken on it's face and totally apart from the rest of Scripture, the understanding you are propagating is understandable. But that's the problem; it cannot be taken out of the context of Psalms or the rest of Scripture. That's the problem.

Nothing in the text (or in the following Psalms) states that.

Not absolutely verbatim, no, but that's quite unnecessary. But it's very clear... to some, anyway.

Perhaps you mean characteristics of God when you say 'subsistence', but that would add nothing to the discussion, because two persons can share characteristics without both being the same and/or fully God.)

Now that might have been a typo of sorts. Instead of 'subsistence,' allow me to say 'substance.' 'Characteristics' or 'traits' would be insufficient, in my opinion, but allowable.

As I said, the rest of Psalm 110 and then Psalm 111 through 113 make this very clear, locally speaking.

How so?

Did I not allude to this a couple of posts ago? As I said:

• "Psalm 110 is very closely related to the psalms that follow it. These two prominent figures (Yahweh and the “Lord” of David) are given their own individual poetic focus in the subsequent psalms, namely Psalm 111 and Psalm 112 respectively. Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s “lord.” The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh. A similar type of close association between the two can be seen in Psalm 113."

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ have essential attributes.

Did you mean 'neither or both'?

Wow. Okay. Both God the Father and Christ have essential attributes. And they are the same. Jesus Himself declared this, saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Did He say, "My essential attributes are the same as the Father's"? Not verbatim, but essentially... see what I did there? ... He most certainly did.

Scripture itself attributes many essential attributes to both the Father and the Son individually, and we can know what they are by their actions and their words. And Scripture is very clear that God the Father and Christ have the same essential attributes. Ergo, the Father and the Son are distinct in person but not in essence.

None of that makes Christ out to be YHWH.

It makes Christ part of YHVH. The second... Part.

In light of the full biblical witness, we may extrapolate this distinction to the person of the Holy Spirit as well, for Scripture in several places refers to all three Persons in a manner that assumes distinctions between Them (Matt. 28:18–20, John 14:15-31).

There are not three persons...

There absolutely are. I understand what your opinion on that is, and I respect it.

It is not my opinion (I do not base my faith on my opinion)...

Ah, here's a bit of a tangential (but very much related) point. Question: You have faith, yes, but did you manufacture it for yourself? I agree that our faith is not based on our opinion(s). But even if we have this faith, our opinions, even concerning Scripture, can be... erroneous.

...the simpler explanation would be that those three persons are well... three persons, lol. Not three in one.

That's the point. That position itself is a far too simple reading of the texts.

Simple does not equal incorrect.

Many times no, but in this case, yes.

Well, that's great, but the closeness of the association is far greater than you imagine; that's what I am conveying to you.

I believe I know what you are conveying (referring to the trinity). I simply cannot agree.

Sure, I understand.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Regardless, what I wrote is correct. The word Lord is only used once in the original text. The words "the LORD" are overwriting the original text, based on tradition.

I agree with this, but it's really an inconsequential point in the end for reasons I have stated. Yes, I agree, "LORD" is YHVH, and "Lord" is used only once. My point, as you understand, I'm sure, is that in view immediately of Psalm 110-113, particularly, is that there is an eternal, personal distinction between God the Son and God the Father,

Between God (the Father) and the Son of God. Christ does not refer to Himself as God the Son. The Son of God, yes. The Son of His Father in heaven, yes. But not as God the Son.

but there is no distinction regarding essence of the two.

What does that even mean? How are you defining essence?

A Son can share in the divine nature of His Father (just as human sons share in the human nature of their fathers), but how does that make Christ out to be [YHWH]?

[YHWH] is obviously an individual person who is speaking to His Son (David's Lord). The text does not state that [YHWH] speaks to [YHWH].

We know that the Son proceeds from the Father. This necessarily means that the two are not different -- the same -- and therefore not distinguished by different divine attributes, but only in their relation to one another.

Is that how it works between human sons and their fathers? If a son proceeds from his father (and mother) does that mean they are not different - the same - and therefore not distinguished by different human attributes, but only in their relationship to one another?

Oh, absolutely people are reading something into the text if they think that the text describes two persons who are fully God (meaning fully YHWH).

Nope. Again, Psalm 110:1 taken on it's face and totally apart from the rest of Scripture, the understanding you are propagating is understandable. But that's the problem; it cannot be taken out of the context of Psalms or the rest of Scripture. That's the problem.

What I said is correct, Pinseeker. If you are applying context (even though I disagree with the interpretation of that context), you are reading something into the text.

Nothing in the text (or in the following Psalms) states that.

Not absolutely verbatim, no, but that's quite unnecessary. But it's very clear... to some, anyway.

To those who are reading something into the text, or who have been taught to read something into the text.

Perhaps you mean characteristics of God when you say 'subsistence', but that would add nothing to the discussion, because two persons can share characteristics without both being the same and/or fully God.)

Now that might have been a typo of sorts.

Lol, fair enough!

Instead of 'subsistence,' allow me to say 'substance.' 'Characteristics' or 'traits' would be insufficient, in my opinion, but allowable.

Okay then, two persons can share characteristics without both being the same (and/or fully God).

If by substance you mean 'nature' or 'divinity', then again, two such persons (the Father and the Son) can share the same substance without both being [YHWH]. JAHVEH (written as YHWH) is the name of the Father. Jaheshua is the name of the Son.

As I said, the rest of Psalm 110 and then Psalm 111 through 113 make this very clear, locally speaking.

How so?

Did I not allude to this a couple of posts ago? As I said:

• "Psalm 110 is very closely related to the psalms that follow it. These two prominent figures (Yahweh and the “Lord” of David) are given their own individual poetic focus in the subsequent psalms, namely Psalm 111 and Psalm 112 respectively. Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s “lord.”

The fact that they are describing two individual persons does not lead one to consider that those two persons are both [YHWH]. Just the opposite in fact, unless you are reading something into the text.

The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh.

A union between Christ and [YHWH] is one thing. It does not make Christ out to be [YHWH].

Isaac shared characteristics and even made the same decisions in similar situations as his father, Abraham. But Isaac is not Abraham.

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ have essential attributes.

Did you mean 'neither or both'?

Wow. Okay. Both God the Father and Christ have essential attributes. And they are the same. Jesus Himself declared this, saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Did He say, "My essential attributes are the same as the Father's"? Not verbatim, but essentially... see what I did there? ... He most certainly did.

Christ also said:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.

and,

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

and,

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.


Us being in Jaheshua, and Him being in us, does not make us Jaheshua. The same goes with Christ and His Father.

Scripture itself attributes many essential attributes to both the Father and the Son individually, and we can know what they are by their actions and their words. And Scripture is very clear that God the Father and Christ have the same essential attributes. Ergo, the Father and the Son are distinct in person but not in essence.

None of that makes Christ out to be YHWH.

It makes Christ part of YHVH. The second... Part.

It does not. It does not even show that there are 2 (or 3) different persons all named [YHWH].

...the simpler explanation would be that those three persons are well... three persons, lol. Not three in one.

That's the point. That position itself is a far too simple reading of the texts.

Simple does not equal incorrect.

Many times no, but in this case, yes.

Just saying so does not make it so.

Grace and peace to you.

And peace also to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[101G]

Addressing the OP,
First, thanks for the topic, second, the Lord Jesus is God the Great I Am of the OT in Ordinal Identification as the Ordinal "FIRST", Father, LORD, the OT. Jesus the Son, the Ordinal "LAST", the Lord, the NT.
and the amalgamation of the First and the Last, is in the same one person, the Holy Spirit.

101G.

[PinSeeker]

Christ does not refer to Himself as God the Son.

Actions speak louder than words.

...but there is no distinction regarding essence of the two.

What does that even mean? How are you defining essence?

essence (noun) -- the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence; the most significant element, quality, or aspect of a thing or person

A Son can share in the divine nature of His Father (just as human sons share in the human nature of their fathers), but how does that make Christ out to be [YHWH]?

See above. This assertion is true, but falls far short of the concept of essence.

We know that the Son proceeds from the Father. This necessarily means that the two are not different -- the same -- and therefore not distinguished by different divine attributes, but only in their relation to one another.

Is that how it works between human sons and their fathers?

No.

If a son proceeds from his father (and mother) does that mean they are not different - the same - and therefore not distinguished by different human attributes, but only in their relationship to one another?

A fair question, and certainly worth addressing: A human son or daughter does not proceed from his or her human parents. He or she is born of them, but does not proceed from them. And they are not sent by their mother and/or father in the way Jesus is sent by the Father. And again, this applies to the Holy Spirit as well.

We should also see this proceeding as coming from, in the same sense as Matthew 4:4, where Jesus says (quoting from Deuteronomy) to Satan, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." As you well know, certainly, Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). And we should also see this proceeding in the same light as what Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 15:18, "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart."

If you are applying context (even though I disagree with the interpretation of that context), you are reading something into the text.

Only in the wooden sense that it is not directly said in Psalm 110:1. But in the larger context of the subsequent Psalms and Scripture as a whole -- which cannot be ignored -- it is made explicit.

Instead of 'subsistence,' allow me to say 'substance.' 'Characteristics' or 'traits' would be insufficient, in my opinion, but allowable.

Okay then, two persons can share characteristics without both being the same.

Agreed, but that's why I said 'characteristics' or 'traits' is insufficient... not synonyms for 'essence' or 'substance.'

If by substance you mean 'nature' or 'divinity', then again, two such persons (the Father and the Son) can share the same substance without both being [YHWH].

Disagree. See above.

JAHVEH (written as YHWH) is the name of the Father. Jaheshua is the name of the Son.

Disagree. Jaheshua, or Jesus, is Christ's given birth name. Given by Joseph and Mary. Commanded, certainly, by God via Gabriel, but still, His given name.

As I said, the rest of Psalm 110 and then Psalm 111 through 113 make this very clear, locally speaking.

How so?

Did I not allude to this a couple of posts ago? As I said, "Psalm 110 is very closely related to the psalms that follow it. These two prominent figures (Yahweh and the “Lord” of David) are given their own individual poetic focus in the subsequent psalms, namely Psalm 111 and Psalm 112 respectively. Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s “lord.”

The fact that they are describing two individual persons does not lead one to consider that those two persons are both [YHWH].

So to finish that quote of mine out, I said, "Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s 'Lord.' The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh. A similar type of close association between the two can be seen in Psalm 113. Now, maybe this is not really consequential, but I don't really like the phrase "those two persons are both [YHWH]." To be more precise, I would say YHVH consists of those two persons (and a third, of course), which would be consistent with Deuteronomy 6:4 -- “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh.

A union between Christ and [YHWH] is one thing. It does not make Christ out to be [YHWH].

You seem to be avoiding the point. See above.

Isaac shared characteristics and even made the same decisions in similar situations as his father, Abraham. But Isaac is not Abraham.

Agreed. See above.

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ do not have essential attributes.

Did you mean 'neither or both'?

Wow. Okay. Both God the Father and Christ have essential attributes. And they are the same. Jesus Himself declared this, saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Did He say, "My essential attributes are the same as the Father's"? Not verbatim, but essentially... see what I did there? ... He most certainly did.

Christ also said:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.

and,

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

and,

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Sure He did. But you're comparing apples to oranges, here, Tammy. Our righteousness is imputed to us so that we are then in -- unified with -- Christ. It is not our own righteousness, as if we are righteous in and of ourselves. And the oneness that we then have is with fellow Christians, because of this imputation of Christ's righteousness in each of us. The righteousness of Christ, on the other hand, is not imputed by any external source; He was always in possession of this righteousness (and glory) -- because He was always in the Father and the Father in Him -- from eternity past. Surely you would agree that Christ was never in need of salvation; perish that thought altogether!

Us being in Jaheshua, and Him being in us, does not make us Jaheshua. The same goes with Christ and His Father.

Agree with your first assertion here, but not the second. To put it succinctly, Jesus certainly proceeds from the Father, but we do not proceed from Jesus.

It does not even show that there are 2 (or 3) different persons all named [YHWH].

LOL! Is that your understanding of what I am saying? Hey, let me ask you this, then. Rhetorical in nature, of course; food for thought. Are we all, individually (all Christians, anyway), brides of Christ?

...the simpler explanation would be that those three persons are well... three persons, lol. Not three in one.

That's the point. That position itself is a far too simple reading of the texts.

Simple does not equal incorrect.

Many times no, but in this case, yes.

Just saying so does not make it so.

Ah, the final "defense." Okay.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
The very tirst thing one must do is understand that this name "Jehovah" is NOT God personal Name. YHWH, or H1961 הָיָה hayah (haw-yaw) v. is a VERB and Not a NOUN, verbs are action words that describe "WHAT", and not "WHO" you are, nouns do that. the Names Jehovah, and, Yahweh come from the tetragrammaton which is a term from the Greek word, τετραγράμματον, meaning, "a word having four letters". It is the Hebrew written word, or four letters, (יהוה), Yodh, He, Waw, He, hence the translation into English, YHWH, or JHVH by some. these four letters, suppose to be the unpronounced name of God, (which are not). and from these four letters come the man made names Yahweh, Hebrew, and Jehovah, English. yes, man made.

Now the question, WHO is God, in proper/PERSONAL name, in the OT?. is it Jehovah, English or Yahweh, in Hebrew. well it's neither, Jehovah, nor Yahweh. lets see how they, (the translators), derived those names from the tetragrammaton. The word "JEHOVAH" was formed by merging the three vowels (e, o, and a) into the Romanized (Latinized) four letter version JHVH to get, JeHoVaH. and the word "YAHWEH" was formed by merging the vowels (a, and e), into the four letter version to get, YaHWeH. so we have the English man made, and the Hebrew man made form of God's supposed unpronounced name. here is the mistake. they, (the translator), added vowels to the four letter consonant, to make up a name to pronounce. one can never add or take away from the WORD of God. they added vowels to give God a personal name, because they knew that YHWH is a verb, and not a noun. and because the suppose name was lost, which the Jews said was forbidden to pronounce, they made a guess at the name where pointers should be. this was a grave mistake on their part. when you add to the word of God you just put the spiritual noose, so to say around your neck. arbitrarily, the translators injected the vowels into the four letter consonant to come up with the names, "YaHWeH", and, "JeHoVaH",

so the first thing is to get God personal Name correct... which is "JESUS", English, or "YESHUA", Hebrew. for the Lord clearly stated, John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." this is clear as day. JESUS, or YESHUA, it is the Strong's # is (H3442), look this Strong’s number up. it is written Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin, it is a masculine noun that means, "He is salvation" or "He saves”. for only God SAVES

knowing this, we now can zero in on who God is in the OT. I declear that the God of the OT is "JESUS", (who had not yet Manifested in flesh as the Son), is the Ordinal First in the OT. let me repete myself. the God of the OT is "JESUS", the Ordinal FIRST, who is LORD, all capitalization.
and this ONE "LORD", according to Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" is the ONLY ONE who is, A. CREATOR, and MAKER of all things, including man. with the title "Father".
this same one God who is LORD, all Caps, is the, B. Son, "the Ordinal LAST", who is Lord, and the Redeemer, and Saviour of all mankind, in the NT. the same one Person. this is the plurality, or the ECHAD of God in Flesh. when one understand the Ordinal First and the Ordinal Last, then one will understand God as the H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem'), that is the ONLY, H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah).

so the Son, who is the G243 Allos of GOD himself in flesh is both Father, and Son, the same one Person. and this is clearly identified in the description of the Ordinal "FIRST"/Father/LORD, and the Ordinal "LAST"/Son/Lord.

Now to be clear in what I have posted, let me make this statement. "Jesus the Son of God, the Ordinal Last, was not in the OT.... but JESUS was.

101G.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Christ does not refer to Himself as God the Son.

Actions speak louder than words.

That might be true of us (mankind), because we speak false (knowingly or unknowingly).

But Christ is the Truth and the WORD of God. Every word He speaks is true and from God.

I am a little taken aback that you said what you said, diminishing His words so that you (or others before you) can insert your own meaning and interpretation onto his actions.

The fact of the matter is Pinseeker, He did not teach that He is God the Son. He did not teach that He is [YHWH].

He taught that He is the Son of God. I take Him at His word.

...but there is no distinction regarding essence of the two.

What does that even mean? How are you defining essence?

essence (noun) -- the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence; the most significant element, quality, or aspect of a thing or person

Can you give an example (one for Christ and God, and another for humans)? And also explain how are you applying the word 'essence' to the claim (that Christ did not make) that Christ is [YHWH]?

A Son can share in the divine nature of His Father (just as human sons share in the human nature of their fathers), but how does that make Christ out to be [YHWH]?

See above. This assertion is true, but falls far short of the concept of essence.

See above.

We know that the Son proceeds from the Father. This necessarily means that the two are not different -- the same -- and therefore not distinguished by different divine attributes, but only in their relation to one another.

Is that how it works between human sons and their fathers?

No.

If a son proceeds from his father (and mother) does that mean they are not different - the same - and therefore not distinguished by different human attributes, but only in their relationship to one another?

A fair question, and certainly worth addressing: A human son or daughter does not proceed from his or her human parents. He or she is born of them, but does not proceed from them.

But Christ was born of His Father. He is the firstborn of all creation. That is why He is a Son, and not a creation (such as an angel).

He is the only begotten son.

"Something is begotten when it's been generated by procreation — in other words, it's been fathered.

A somewhat old fashioned adjective, begotten is the past participle of the verb beget, which means to father or produce as offspring. You might recognize this word from John 3:16, one of the most popular and most often quoted bible verses: "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."


https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/begotten

And they are not sent by their mother and/or father in the way Jesus is sent by the Father.

Is that because you are defining the word 'sent' in some unusual way?

If a father or a mother sends their son to represent them (and their affairs, perhaps their kingdom if they are kings and queens), then they too sent their son.

We should also see this proceeding as coming from, in the same sense as Matthew 4:4, where Jesus says (quoting from Deuteronomy) to Satan, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." As you well know, certainly, Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). And we should also see this proceeding in the same light as what Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 15:18, "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart."

If you know that Christ is the Word of God, and you know the importance of the Word of God, then why not simply listen to that Word? Did Christ ever teach the trinity? Did Christ ever teach that He is [YHWH]?

If you are applying context (even though I disagree with the interpretation of that context), you are reading something into the text.

Only in the wooden sense that it is not directly said in Psalm 110:1. But in the larger context of the subsequent Psalms and Scripture as a whole -- which cannot be ignored -- it is made explicit.

A JW might say the exact same thing about "Jesus" being the archangel Michael. Or about how only some Christians are permitted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.

But what is it that Christ - the Word of God - taught?

JAHVEH (written as YHWH) is the name of the Father. Jaheshua is the name of the Son.

Disagree. Jaheshua, or Jesus, is Christ's given birth name. Given by Joseph and Mary. Commanded, certainly, by God via Gabriel, but still, His given name.

Jaheshua is still His name when He returns to the Father (as is written in Revelation).

And bringing this back around to the Psalm 110:1, [YHWH] is speaking to Christ.

As I said, the rest of Psalm 110 and then Psalm 111 through 113 make this very clear, locally speaking.

How so?

Did I not allude to this a couple of posts ago? As I said, "Psalm 110 is very closely related to the psalms that follow it. These two prominent figures (Yahweh and the “Lord” of David) are given their own individual poetic focus in the subsequent psalms, namely Psalm 111 and Psalm 112 respectively. Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s “lord.”

The fact that they are describing two individual persons does not lead one to consider that those two persons are both [YHWH].

So to finish that quote of mine out, I said, "Whereas Psalm 111 is a hymnic praise of the Lord Yahweh, Psalm 112 is a praise of the human king, specifically David’s 'Lord.' The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh. A similar type of close association between the two can be seen in Psalm 113. Now, maybe this is not really consequential, but I don't really like the phrase "those two persons are both [YHWH]."

1 - Perhaps you don't like the phrase because in plain language, it is more obvious that it does not make sense?

2 - Provide some examples of what you are referring to in the Psalms. Because two persons being described in near-identical descriptions does not make them the same 'God'. The fact of the matter is that they are distinguished (and even you distinguish between them). On top of that there is no reason for them not to have similar descriptions, even almost identical descriptions, because Christ is the Son who is the Image of God. He speaks as His Father has taught Him, He does as his Father has taught Him, He is the perfect representation of God. He is also the HEIR, who will inherit all things from His Father, including titles and power and authority.

To be more precise, I would say YHVH consists of those two persons (and a third, of course), which would be consistent with Deuteronomy 6:4 -- “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

YHWH consisting of three persons is the OPPOSITE of Deuteronomy 6:4.

The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh.

A union between Christ and [YHWH] is one thing. It does not make Christ out to be [YHWH].

You seem to be avoiding the point. See above.

I addressed the point. You seem to be avoiding mine which is pretty simple: a union between Christ and [YHWH] does not make Christ out to be [YHWH].

Isaac shared characteristics and even made the same decisions in similar situations as his father, Abraham. But Isaac is not Abraham.

Agreed. See above.

So follow the same logic. Jaheshua is not [YHWH].

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ do not have essential attributes.

Did you mean 'neither or both'?

Wow. Okay. Both God the Father and Christ have essential attributes. And they are the same. Jesus Himself declared this, saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Did He say, "My essential attributes are the same as the Father's"? Not verbatim, but essentially... see what I did there? ... He most certainly did.

Christ also said:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.

and,

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

and,

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Sure He did. But you're comparing apples to oranges, here, Tammy.

Nope, I am using the exact same words to show that they do not mean what you have concluded.

Us being in Jaheshua, and Him being in us, does not make us Jaheshua. The same goes with Christ and His Father.

Agree with your first assertion here, but not the second. To put it succinctly, Jesus certainly proceeds from the Father, but we do not proceed from Jesus.

Proceed as in sent? Yes of course we can (since Christ sent some of His own to do specific tasks).

It does not even show that there are 2 (or 3) different persons all named [YHWH].

LOL! Is that your understanding of what I am saying? Hey, let me ask you this, then. Rhetorical in nature, of course; food for thought. Are we all, individually (all Christians, anyway), brides of Christ?

The Bride is not a name. JAH(veh) is a name, the name of the God and Father of Christ.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

And peace also to you Pinseeker,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

But Christ is the Truth and the WORD of God. Every word He speaks is true and from God.

Absolutely. But in the absence of explicitly saying, "God the Son," He very much showed by His actions (and in what He said) that His was and is God made man.

I am a little taken aback that you said what you said, diminishing His words...

I did no such thing. If you received that message, you did so in error.

...so that you (or others before you) can insert your own meaning and interpretation onto his actions.

Never would I do such a thing. What Jesus said and did while on earth was crystal clear.

The fact of the matter is Pinseeker, He did not teach that He is God the Son. He did not teach that He is [YHWH].

The fact of the matter, Tammy, is that He did indeed teach -- and show -- that He is God the Son, having proceeded from the Father, and thus one of the Persons of the triune [YHVH].

He taught that He is the Son of God. I take Him at His word.

Sure. I agree. But we have to understand what it means to be the Son of God.

...but there is no distinction regarding essence of the two.

What does that even mean? How are you defining essence?

essence (noun) -- the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence; the most significant element, quality, or aspect of a thing or person

Can you give an example (one for Christ and God, and another for humans)? And also explain how are you applying the word 'essence' to the claim (that Christ did not make) that Christ is [YHWH]?

Come on, Tammy. Come on. What I said is very clear. You don't accept it. We can leave it there, unfortunate as it may be.

But Christ was born of His Father. He is the firstborn of all creation. That is why He is a Son, and not a creation (such as an angel).

This, Tammy, is a contradiction. You are contradicting yourself and don't realize it. To speak of Christ being the firstborn in purely a physical sense is to make Christ created and thus part of creation. Christ is not created -- which you acknowledged earlier -- and therefore not part of creation:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3, emphasis added)

"Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist..." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

"And all things are from God." (1 Corinthians 11:12)

"For by Him (Christ) all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things were created through Him and for Him." (Colossians 1:16)

You are here referencing Colossians 1:15, and it is terribly wrong to think in physical terms here, as if Paul were asserting that the Son had a physical origin or was somehow created (the classic Aryan heresy) rather than existing eternally as the Son, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. What Paul is speaking of here are the rights and privileges of a firstborn son, especially the son of a monarch who would inherit ruling sovereignty. This is how the expression is used of David: "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth" (Psalm 89:27), and as you surely know, David was actually the lastborn (physically speaking) of his brothers. Jesus is the Greater David.

Jesus proceeds from the Father, as I said (because Scripture says it). I have explained what that means. Again, we should see this proceeding as coming from, in the same sense as Matthew 4:4, where Jesus says (quoting from Deuteronomy) to Satan, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." As you well know, certainly, Jesus is the Word (John 1:1). And we should also see this proceeding in the same light as what Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 15:18, "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart."[/quote]

Did Christ ever teach the trinity?

Yes. John 14 is the clearest example. You disagree; acknowledged.

Did Christ ever teach that He is [YHWH]?

He taught it and showed it, yes. You disagree; acknowledged.

And bringing this back around to the Psalm 110:1, [YHWH] is speaking to Christ.

Right; I already addressed that. The subtlety of the text there is that both of persons are fully God. And you disagree, which is unfortunate. No need to circle back.

I don't really like the phrase "those two persons are both [YHWH]."

Perhaps you don't like the phrase because in plain language, it is more obvious that it does not make sense?

No, I don't really like it because it seems to make the interpretation error you are making easier to make.

YHWH consisting of three persons is the OPPOSITE of Deuteronomy 6:4.

Not at all. That most certainly IS what a Jehovah's Witness would say, but it's wrong.

The near-identical descriptions used of the Lord Yahweh in Psalm 111 and the human king of Psalm 112 give the impression of and speak to the literary union between the “lord” of David and the divine Yahweh.

A union between Christ and [YHWH] is one thing. It does not make Christ out to be [YHWH].

You seem to be avoiding the point. See above.

I addressed the point.

No you didn't. You avoided it.

You seem to be avoiding mine which is pretty simple: a union between Christ and [YHWH] does not make Christ out to be [YHWH].

Your point is too simple -- simplistic. This is on a lower level of course, but what does Paul say about marriage in Ephesians 5? Quoting from Genesis, he says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Right? So, now extrapolate that back up to the Father and Christ. Not that the Father and Christ are "married," of course -- that is beside the point. But a man and his wife, though two, are now one. The Father and Christ were always One, along with the Spirit. Which takes us back to Deuteronomy 6:4...

Isaac shared characteristics and even made the same decisions in similar situations as his father, Abraham. But Isaac is not Abraham.

Agreed.

So follow the same logic. Jaheshua is not [YHWH].

I know you don't mean to, but you're making God and Christ out to be part of creation, which I know you agree they are not. That's the problem.

Surely you are not saying that either or both God the Father and/or Christ do not have essential attributes.

Did you mean 'neither or both'?

Wow. Okay. Both God the Father and Christ have essential attributes. And they are the same. Jesus Himself declared this, saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Did He say, "My essential attributes are the same as the Father's"? Not verbatim, but essentially... see what I did there? ... He most certainly did.

Christ also said:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.

and,

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

and,

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

Sure He did. But you're comparing apples to oranges, here, Tammy.

Nope, I am using the exact same words to show that they do not mean what you have concluded.

No, you're comparing apples to oranges. Which is an understatement, but that's okay.

Us being in Jaheshua, and Him being in us, does not make us Jaheshua. The same goes with Christ and His Father.

Well now this is interesting. I agree with your first statement here in one sense, and disagree with it in another. I agree that we are not literally Jesus; Jesus is Jesus... He is our Savior. However, the fact that we are in Christ and He in us is to say that in the Father's eyes, we actually are Christ, figuratively and spiritually speaking -- His righteousness is imputed to us and we are covered by His blood, which is then to say that the Father regards us as He regards Christ. So in that sense, I disagree.

I'll explain here what you missed in my reference to Ephesians 5. A man and his wife are one flesh. Yes, they are two different people, physically, of course, but the Father has made them figuratively and spiritually one (if it is truly a covenant marriage).

Regarding your second statement here, the same NOW applies to Christ and the Father. The only difference being that they (along with the Spirit) are one God in three Persons, three Persons in one God, and there was never a time when this was not the case. It has always been true from eternity past.

To put it succinctly, Jesus certainly proceeds from the Father, but we do not proceed from Jesus.

Proceed as in sent? Yes of course we can (since Christ sent some of His own to do specific tasks).

Come on, Tammy. You're dancing.

It does not even show that there are 2 (or 3) different persons all named [YHWH].

LOL! Is that your understanding of what I am saying? Hey, let me ask you this, then. Rhetorical in nature, of course; food for thought. Are we all, individually (all Christians, anyway), brides of Christ?

The Bride is not a name.

I didn't say it was... Wow. You're missing the point totally. Or avoiding it. Again. Or perhaps not thinking about it. The point is not complicated. We Christians are all individuals, of course, but there is only one bride of Christ. YHVH is made up of three Persons, but YHVH is still... One.

Okay. So, it's enough, Tammy. It is enough.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.