You have not logically established that God Jehova is the Father by comparing Isa 44 with Heb 1. Why must we assume that the term "God" in Heb 1:1 refers to the Father? Why can we not assume that it refers to the trinitarian Godhead, who is revealed as the Father, the Son and the Spirit? Thus, the text would not contradict with the view that Jehova is God who is revealed as one Divine Being manifesting in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
@Kalkas777 There are several points to this, such as that the Trinity, which would include the son, would not then create though the son. The God creating through the son is always thought of as the Father (1cor 8:6). Further, "God" continues to be spoke of in 3, where Jesus is the imprint of his being, a nonsensical statement where Jesus included within that God. We can continue down into v 5 and "He" calls Jesus His Son. There is no ambiguity.
You've done a great job in turning nonsense into logic in this video. And in the process you've turned Yahweh into a liar in Isaiah 44:24.
Yeah, Yahweh actually met: "I created all things alone, by myself! But wait, I forgot... my created Son also created all things with me".
It is simple logic for Jesus is be eternal, if Jesus is the creator of all things (Col 1:16). And there are verses that say creation is "through" the Father also. So creation is "through" the Father and the Son. So what?
@ETHANGELIST On the contrary, I argue he isn't a liar but has a meaning in context. As this is the Father alone per Heb 1:1-2, that you ignore the context makes him a liar.
@scripturaltruths You assuming it is always the Father in all the prophets just from Heb 1:1-2 is silly. Of course the Father spoke through the prophets. Does that mean it is the Father 100% of the time? Not necessarily. If YHWH is the Father 100% of the time in the OT, the Bible would be in contradiction in John 1:18, 6:46, and 1Tim 6:16, because no one has ever seen the Father, yet in the OT people have seen YHWH. Therefore the YHWH they saw was not the Father, it is someone else: the Son.
@ETHANGELIST So assuming Hebrews 1 actually means what it says is silly? Wow. You are arguing from presupposition when Hebrews 1 says the opposite of your presupposition. I suggest you look into divine agency in Second Temple Judaism as placing the Bible in its historical context and understanding it from that resolves any potential contradiction and yet actually allows Hebrews to mean what it says, that the Father was the God who spoke by the prophets, not the son.
@scripturaltruths Isaiah saw YHWH in Isaiah 6:1, did he not? Jacob saw YHWH in Gen 32:30 right? YHWH appeared to Abraham in Gen 18:1 right? And in Exodus 33, Mose spoke with YHWH face-to-face. Is it the Father they saw? If so, Jesus is a liar in John 6:46. So who did they see?
@ETHANGELIST This is divine agency 101. See the discussion on page 15 of my book to find a clear example where Jehovah appeared and was unambiguously the Father. This was well understood and accepted in Second Temple Judaism.
I am apprehensive about approving this comment only because it is very off topic, but I decided to go ahead with it for now. Essentially, this verse may be understood in one of two ways. The genitive may be one of reference, so "the spirit with reference to Christ," meaning that it was not Christ's spirit, but the spirit that related matters concerning him. This would certainly fit the context.
Alternately, Peter may simply have in mind Christ's mediation of Old Testament prophecy so that the Spirit was delivered through his agency and is thus attributed to him.
Did you mean "this is way *off* the Greek"? The NWT rendering fits the Greek, just understands the genitive differently. My first suggestion follows this rendering, my second follows the KJV and those that are similar.
It's no where near the Greek. It's obvious that you know exactly what i'm talking about ("the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ" 1 Peter 1:11), and it seems ridiculous to argue this. Check the Greek in Romans 8:9 and possibly Philippians 1:19.
1 Peter 1:11 is talking about the Spirit of Christ being in the Prophets of the Old Testament. Your reasoning of Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn't hold together.
You are mistaken. The Greek genitive (used here) carries a number of functions, one being a genitive of reference. If a genitive of reference is here used, the translation would be "the spirit with reference to Christ," or something similar to what the NWT has put. Even if the genitive is possessive (ala KJV), it does nothing to refute what Hebrews 1:1-2 plainly teach. The most we would gather is Christ's mediation of these events, but Jehovah still remained the Father.
That you effectively conceded the meaning of this verse only to go back and delete your post tells me that you see the true meaning and weight behind this text. Rather than address the text itself, you're looking to create a contradiction. The Bible does not contradict itself. If I am wrong on the meaning, show me from Hebrews 1:1-2 itself . If you can't show that this verse isn't teaching that it was the Father who spoke by the prophets and then later spoke by the son, I am not mistaken.
There a big problem in this argument. You straight away assume and build your reasoning on only the Father being referred to in Hebrews 1:1-2 when God is mentioned. If you were part of a group, and you were the spokesman for this group, you would still be speaking for yourself.
God isn't a company, nor is he a spokesman. The God that spoke in the prophets also spoke in Jesus, so Jesus isn't the God who spoke in Jesus or the prophets.
Let say we're in agreement; Jehovah God is; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son speaks on behalf of the Godhead, Jehovah. Just because he speaks on the behalf of the Father and Holy Spirit, this doesn't make him now separate. Think about it logically.
The language of the verse does not allow it, for the manner applied to Jesus is applied to the prophets as well. Beyond this, the singular pronoun "he" is used for this God, not "they." And Jesus is "the exact represenation of *his* being" and the "reflection/radiance of *his* glory." This can only be the Father. Jesus could not be these things of the Trinity, for he would be these of himself, which would be contradictory. The same "he" comes to say, "You are my son..."
"Exact representation" comes from the Greek carakthr, which is used for "copy" or "reproduction." "Nature" from hypostasis, referring not to the type of being he is, but his "substance" or his "very being." If we take these, we find that Jesus' present nature is a reproduction of God's nature. This may well explain Col. 1:19/2:9 where the fullness of deity is in Christ and yet God chose for it to dwell within him..
Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. I'm looking into the subject of "wisdom" at the moment and the connection with Christ. mind blowing stuff! I'm just trying to piece it all together at the moment.
You have not logically established that God Jehova is the Father by comparing Isa 44 with Heb 1. Why must we assume that the term "God" in Heb 1:1 refers to the Father? Why can we not assume that it refers to the trinitarian Godhead, who is revealed as the Father, the Son and the Spirit? Thus, the text would not contradict with the view that Jehova is God who is revealed as one Divine Being manifesting in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
Kalkas777 7 months ago
@Kalkas777 There are several points to this, such as that the Trinity, which would include the son, would not then create though the son. The God creating through the son is always thought of as the Father (1cor 8:6). Further, "God" continues to be spoke of in 3, where Jesus is the imprint of his being, a nonsensical statement where Jesus included within that God. We can continue down into v 5 and "He" calls Jesus His Son. There is no ambiguity.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
You've done a great job in turning nonsense into logic in this video. And in the process you've turned Yahweh into a liar in Isaiah 44:24.
Yeah, Yahweh actually met: "I created all things alone, by myself! But wait, I forgot... my created Son also created all things with me".
It is simple logic for Jesus is be eternal, if Jesus is the creator of all things (Col 1:16). And there are verses that say creation is "through" the Father also. So creation is "through" the Father and the Son. So what?
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST On the contrary, I argue he isn't a liar but has a meaning in context. As this is the Father alone per Heb 1:1-2, that you ignore the context makes him a liar.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths You assuming it is always the Father in all the prophets just from Heb 1:1-2 is silly. Of course the Father spoke through the prophets. Does that mean it is the Father 100% of the time? Not necessarily. If YHWH is the Father 100% of the time in the OT, the Bible would be in contradiction in John 1:18, 6:46, and 1Tim 6:16, because no one has ever seen the Father, yet in the OT people have seen YHWH. Therefore the YHWH they saw was not the Father, it is someone else: the Son.
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST So assuming Hebrews 1 actually means what it says is silly? Wow. You are arguing from presupposition when Hebrews 1 says the opposite of your presupposition. I suggest you look into divine agency in Second Temple Judaism as placing the Bible in its historical context and understanding it from that resolves any potential contradiction and yet actually allows Hebrews to mean what it says, that the Father was the God who spoke by the prophets, not the son.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Isaiah saw YHWH in Isaiah 6:1, did he not? Jacob saw YHWH in Gen 32:30 right? YHWH appeared to Abraham in Gen 18:1 right? And in Exodus 33, Mose spoke with YHWH face-to-face. Is it the Father they saw? If so, Jesus is a liar in John 6:46. So who did they see?
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST This is divine agency 101. See the discussion on page 15 of my book to find a clear example where Jehovah appeared and was unambiguously the Father. This was well understood and accepted in Second Temple Judaism.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
@scripturaltruths Why can't you tell me right here how people can see YHWH, yet John 6:46 not be a contradiction?
ETHANGELIST 7 months ago
@ETHANGELIST I did, agency.
scripturaltruths 7 months ago
This is stupid. We all know that Jesus while on earth was limited by his humanity. Nothing came to him but though the father.
Keeping trying buddy
Jesus creator-god creater
Same thing
drewscottwallace35 1 year ago
@drewscottwallace35 I'm uncertain as to how your comment relates.
scripturaltruths 1 year ago
Have a read of 1 Peter 1:10-12 and let me know what you think.
lchiddle 2 years ago
I am apprehensive about approving this comment only because it is very off topic, but I decided to go ahead with it for now. Essentially, this verse may be understood in one of two ways. The genitive may be one of reference, so "the spirit with reference to Christ," meaning that it was not Christ's spirit, but the spirit that related matters concerning him. This would certainly fit the context.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
Alternately, Peter may simply have in mind Christ's mediation of Old Testament prophecy so that the Spirit was delivered through his agency and is thus attributed to him.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
Wow, I'm sorry, hadn't actually checked the rendering of the NWT. This is way of the Greek. Do you have a KJV?
lchiddle 2 years ago
Did you mean "this is way *off* the Greek"? The NWT rendering fits the Greek, just understands the genitive differently. My first suggestion follows this rendering, my second follows the KJV and those that are similar.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
It's no where near the Greek. It's obvious that you know exactly what i'm talking about ("the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ" 1 Peter 1:11), and it seems ridiculous to argue this. Check the Greek in Romans 8:9 and possibly Philippians 1:19.
1 Peter 1:11 is talking about the Spirit of Christ being in the Prophets of the Old Testament. Your reasoning of Hebrews 1:1-2 doesn't hold together.
lchiddle 2 years ago
You are mistaken. The Greek genitive (used here) carries a number of functions, one being a genitive of reference. If a genitive of reference is here used, the translation would be "the spirit with reference to Christ," or something similar to what the NWT has put. Even if the genitive is possessive (ala KJV), it does nothing to refute what Hebrews 1:1-2 plainly teach. The most we would gather is Christ's mediation of these events, but Jehovah still remained the Father.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
That you effectively conceded the meaning of this verse only to go back and delete your post tells me that you see the true meaning and weight behind this text. Rather than address the text itself, you're looking to create a contradiction. The Bible does not contradict itself. If I am wrong on the meaning, show me from Hebrews 1:1-2 itself . If you can't show that this verse isn't teaching that it was the Father who spoke by the prophets and then later spoke by the son, I am not mistaken.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
There a big problem in this argument. You straight away assume and build your reasoning on only the Father being referred to in Hebrews 1:1-2 when God is mentioned. If you were part of a group, and you were the spokesman for this group, you would still be speaking for yourself.
lchiddle 2 years ago
This isn't an assumption, it is expressed in the text. The God that spoken in Isaiah also spoken in Jesus, so Jesus is not included within that God.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
No. It's called an interpretation.
This doesn't exclude Jesus.
Are you willing to shape your beliefs around God, instead of God around your beliefs?
lchiddle 2 years ago
If one speaks through another, the one speaking through the other is not or does not include the one spoke through.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
A company speaks through their spokesman, does this make the spokesman separate and not part of the company?
lchiddle 2 years ago
God isn't a company, nor is he a spokesman. The God that spoke in the prophets also spoke in Jesus, so Jesus isn't the God who spoke in Jesus or the prophets.
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
It's an example.
Let say we're in agreement; Jehovah God is; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son speaks on behalf of the Godhead, Jehovah. Just because he speaks on the behalf of the Father and Holy Spirit, this doesn't make him now separate. Think about it logically.
lchiddle 2 years ago
The language of the verse does not allow it, for the manner applied to Jesus is applied to the prophets as well. Beyond this, the singular pronoun "he" is used for this God, not "they." And Jesus is "the exact represenation of *his* being" and the "reflection/radiance of *his* glory." This can only be the Father. Jesus could not be these things of the Trinity, for he would be these of himself, which would be contradictory. The same "he" comes to say, "You are my son..."
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
Comment removed
lchiddle 2 years ago
Don't forget that in Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is also "the exact representation of His nature..."
What's your take on this?
middleman777 2 years ago
"Exact representation" comes from the Greek carakthr, which is used for "copy" or "reproduction." "Nature" from hypostasis, referring not to the type of being he is, but his "substance" or his "very being." If we take these, we find that Jesus' present nature is a reproduction of God's nature. This may well explain Col. 1:19/2:9 where the fullness of deity is in Christ and yet God chose for it to dwell within him..
scripturaltruths 2 years ago
Jesus is the exact representation of the Father. I'm looking into the subject of "wisdom" at the moment and the connection with Christ. mind blowing stuff! I'm just trying to piece it all together at the moment.
lchiddle 2 years ago