It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Christ was NOT Yahweh of the Old testament

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Are you truly interested in truth? Honestly!


Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

This verse you quote...if you REALLY were interested in the truth, you would have looked at the hebrew and seen the word used throughout the WHOLE VERSE was Elohim...(that is in verse 13)

Elohim = literally can be translated GODS. It is a uni-plural term.






CLV Ex 3:13 Now Moses said to the One, Elohim: Behold! When I am coming to the sons of Israel, and I say to them, The Elohim of your fathers sends me to you, then they will say to me, What about His name? What shall I say to them?


Ex 3:15 And Elohim said further to Moses: Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, Yahweh, the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name for the eon, and this the remembrance of Me for generation after generation.



It is refering to the "one" Elohim / God Family. There is only ONE Elohim, but there is more then one member in that Elohim family. Right now there are only two beings in the Elohim. God the Father and God the Son.



[edit on 13-10-2009 by SirPaulMuaddib]




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib
 

RW was taught by Armstrong yet doesn't teach what Armstrong taught. You can't find much error in Armstrong's teachings yet there's nothing but error in Weinland's teachings.

Been meaning to post in this thread...I was actually going to start a thread on this subject but found this one.
I will address some of the other points / issued raised when I get the chance.
But here is an interesting tid bit.....showing Christ existed before his birth.
Here is an obscure passage, most overlook...

1Pe 3:19 in which also He(Christ see previous verse) went and preached to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);

Note WHEN this preaching BY CHRIST occurred. It occurred during the DAYS OF NOAH! When Noah was preparing the ark. Christ was preaching to spirits in prison. No one knows the context of this message. I believe He was rebuking them for leading the world down a path of sin and violence that led to the destruction by the flood.

ps...I will go into more detail on this passage later...


1 Peter 3:19 In it 1 he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 2

1 tn Grk “in which.” ExSyn 343 notes: “The antecedent of the RP [relative pronoun] is by no means certain. Some take it to refer to πνεύματι immediately preceding, the meaning of which might be either the Holy Spirit or the spiritual state. Others see the phrase as causal (‘for which reason,’ ‘because of this’), referring back to the entire clause, while still other scholars read the phrase as temporal (if so, it could be with or without an antecedent: ‘on which occasion’ or ‘meanwhile’). None of these options is excluded by syntax. It may be significant, however, that every other time ἐν ᾧ is used in 1 Peter it bears an adverbial/conjunctive force (cf. 1:6; 2:12; 3:16 [here, temporal]; 4:4).” Also, because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

2 sn And preached to the spirits in prison. The meaning of this preaching and the spirits to whom he preached are much debated. It is commonly understood to be: (1) Christ’s announcement of his victory over evil to the fallen angels who await judgment for their role in leading the Noahic generation into sin; this proclamation occurred sometime between Christ’s death and ascension; or (2) Christ’s preaching of repentance through Noah to the unrighteous humans, now dead and confined in hell, who lived in the days of Noah. The latter is preferred because of the temporal indications in v. 20a and the wider argument of the book. These verses encourage Christians to stand for righteousness and try to influence their contemporaries for the gospel in spite of the suffering that may come to them. All who identify with them and their Savior will be saved from the coming judgment, just as in Noah’s day.
This is a rather large quote from NetBible on this verse. It goes into a couple of ways that people, in general, understand it, so it does seem that your position on it is something that can be debated. The translators of the NetBible version of the Bible, here do not go so far as to support the position of understanding that the preaching being done is by Christ in person, though.
In note 1, they say, "the meaning of which might be either the Holy Spirit or the spiritual state". I would understand that The Word would have existed before the incarnation, and that is specifically pointed out by John at the beginning of his Gospel. Noah would have been preaching under inspiration of the spirit of The Word when he was preaching, warning of the coming flood. The Word could be understood as one of the Spirits of God, and not completely independent as a full person. There is no indication from my understanding of what the Bible says, that would indicate otherwise.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorex
I have noticed that a few people on here believe that Christ was the God of the Old Testament, that he was Yahweh, or Jehovah.


2Cor 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

John 10:32
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
John 10:33
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 


Wow, how narrow-minded you are my friend. I think I'll just let you ponder on this a moment since SirPaul said what I was going to say on Elhoim vs. Jehovah. I leave you with scripture that you quoted....



2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he makes the age;


Note that Jesus was considered the Son only AFTER Christ was made flesh into human form. Before this, He was the Word of God. Of course you don't believe this because you believe RW's interpretation of Jesus not existing before His birth.

As Jehovah, Christ was the Word of God which means He was speaking for the Father.... on behalf of the Father. So if it was Jehovah of the OT speaking of a future birth of Christ, even though Jehovah/Christ spoke it to the prophets, He spoke it on behalf of the Father saying the Father would manifest Him in the flesh. It takes understanding on Jesus=the Word and Elhoim=the Father and Son. Jehovah may be the literal name of the Father but Jehovah is the physical form of the name as the Father is working behind the scenes. Also, isn't it the Son who takes the Father's name?

To bluejay, I'm not suggesting that Yahweh and Jehovah are different. I'm suggesting the Father=Almighty God and the Tetragram= Christ since Christ came to REVEAL the father. If the Father hadn't been revealed in the OT, who was Jehovah of the OT? The OT patriarchs and ancient Israel only knew there to be one God. There is only One Elhoim.... one Family of God with two members currently. Jehovah is name of the God member the patriarchs knew. Christ was that Jehovah manifest in the flesh to reveal that there was a Father who was greater than He. This Father was the true creator, the Almighty God. His Son came in the flesh to pay for our sins and to reveal the Father to all. The Father was unknown until the days of Jesus.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 




34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.



Do you not understand there will be an active government when Jesus returns to earth? As Jesus is at the right hand of the Father right now, so shall David be at the right hand of Christ in the Kingdom of God. David rules over all the tribes of Israel as the Apostles each control one of the tribes of Israel. From there you have priests, governors, mayors, etc... as the saints will be part of the ruleing class in the Kingdom.

Once again, don't be so narrow-minded.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Locoman, if you read acts 2, you will see that Peter himself is saying this is not about David, but about Christ.

And you interpret the verse about God speaking through his son only in the last days that way because of what you believe, even though the verse itself contradicts what you believe, You believe that the person speaking in the Old testament via the prophets was Christ, and not the father, yet the verse itself says the opposite....

HEBREWS 1
1 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;



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib
Are you truly interested in truth? Honestly!


Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

This verse you quote...if you REALLY were interested in the truth, you would have looked at the hebrew and seen the word used throughout the WHOLE VERSE was Elohim


Look again, the word translated as LORD it is YAHWEH.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Yes the word Lord = YHWH, but everywhere else, where the word God is used, is Elohim, thus the verse is perfectly accurate in being translated this way

Exodus 3:15 And GODS said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh) GODS of your fathers, the GODS of Abraham, the GODS of Isaac, and the GODS of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.



Elohim = uni plural = ONE God (family) = more than one member
* currently two *



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 


This quote by SirPaul is interesting:



Yes the word Lord = YHWH, but everywhere else, where the word God is used, is Elohim, thus the verse is perfectly accurate in being translated this way

Exodus 3:15 And GODS said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh) GODS of your fathers, the GODS of Abraham, the GODS of Isaac, and the GODS of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.



Elohim = uni plural = ONE God (family) = more than one member
* currently two *


Sounds to me like the name of the God Family is Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH. Almost like the last name of those who become part of the God family. It interests me because of the words YAHWEH ELHOIM next to each other reading LORD GODS or JEHOVAH GODS as if Jehovah was used in the plural sense with Elhoim. Thus, my theory holds true ground.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I have to make a new thread and I think it belongs to the "Conspiracies in Religion" forum because it seems like a big cover-up. It is about the "two" Jehovahs of Psalm 110. Please visit and let's have a discussion. I'm not gonna reply on this thread because it makes for a good opening argument for the case that Jehovah is the name of the family of God. I researched this after SirPaul's explanation of Jehovah Elohim or Jehovah Family of God. We have Jehovah Christ and Jehovah Almighty. Check it out in ATS forum "conspiracies in Religion." I'll even post a link to the thread....



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please take time to look through my research.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib_2
Yes the word Lord = YHWH, but everywhere else, where the word God is used, is Elohim, thus the verse is perfectly accurate in being translated this way

Exodus 3:15 And GODS said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh) GODS of your fathers, the GODS of Abraham, the GODS of Isaac, and the GODS of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.



Elohim = uni plural = ONE God (family) = more than one member
* currently two *

as you pointed out Elohim is the uni plural word for the family, not Yahweh, Yahweh is the member of that family. Only one of them has eternaly existed, the father. Christ Was dead for three days remember. Every time the apostles quote the word Yahweh, they say this was the father, never christ. That is for a reason. Christ has another name that at this point we dont know.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by doctorex
 


This quote by SirPaul is interesting:



Yes the word Lord = YHWH, but everywhere else, where the word God is used, is Elohim, thus the verse is perfectly accurate in being translated this way

Exodus 3:15 And GODS said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD (Yahweh) GODS of your fathers, the GODS of Abraham, the GODS of Isaac, and the GODS of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.



Elohim = uni plural = ONE God (family) = more than one member
* currently two *


Sounds to me like the name of the God Family is Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH. Almost like the last name of those who become part of the God family. It interests me because of the words YAHWEH ELHOIM next to each other reading LORD GODS or J

Yahweh is not a uni plural word, it is the first name, Elohim t last or family name.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
I have to make a new thread and I think it belongs to the "Conspiracies in Religion" forum because it seems like a big cover-up. It is about the "two" Jehovahs of Psalm 110. Please visit and let's have a discussion. I'm not gonna reply on this thread because it makes for a good opening argument for the case that Jehovah is the name of the family of God. I researched this after SirPaul's explanation of Jehovah Elohim or Jehovah Family of God. We have Jehovah Christ and Jehovah Almighty. Check it out in ATS forum "conspiracies in Religion." I'll even post a link to the thread....



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please take time to look through my research.

There is no cover up, simply an error in your belief. Thankfully you are begining to see that error, even if not yet fully. What your church teaches is false, and seems you now see that.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by doctorex
 


My church doesn't teach falsely. It simply never mentions this tidbit of info but the beliefs of my church fall in line with this scenario. Visit the thread.

P.S. Unlike you, I don't follow false prophets for my teachings.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
And once again, a spiritual discussion turns in to accusations of following false prophets.

Why cant we all give credit to the fact that all of this topic follows BELIEFS.

Just add "IMPO" to your thoughts....it sounds much better then saying 'I follow truth and you follow false prophets'.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


The Word of God decides what is false and what is true as far as doctrine goes. Anything that is a doctrine of men is a heresy and a lie.

If one uses the Word of God as a dividing rod, a plumb line if you will, then we can declare if something is a doctrine of men or something Jesus Christ has taught.

Example: Infant Baptism. Not one instance where the word 'baptize' or any form of it is used, does it say an infant should be baptized, it's always followed someone who believes. A baby cannot believe therefore people/churches who do such a thing are baptizing non-Christians.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


A little confused on what your clarity is. Are you saying that anything that was said by Jesus in the scripture is truth?

Sorry, I just want to be clear, for discussion sake. You brought up 'word of god' and then brought up 'doctrine' as well as 'doctrine of men' (going by memory of just reading your posts, sorry if I mis quoted).

If you are referring to Jesus's words as 'word of God'...how can we be sure everything we read is word for word from the mouth of Jesus? Especially when men had their own agenda with power and churches?

Should we not use discernment...with every word....through the Spirit within, of what a Holy and Divine message would be?



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


A little confused on what your clarity is. Are you saying that anything that was said by Jesus in the scripture is truth?


Yes, Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, he also plainly states the he IS the Word.


Sorry, I just want to be clear, for discussion sake. You brought up 'word of god' and then brought up 'doctrine' as well as 'doctrine of men' (going by memory of just reading your posts, sorry if I mis quoted).


Doctrine's of men, are any doctrines without support from multiple Biblical verses. I did give one example of such, infant baptism is extra-biblical and a doctrine of men.


If you are referring to Jesus's words as 'word of God'...how can we be sure everything we read is word for word from the mouth of Jesus? Especially when men had their own agenda with power and churches?


Anyone who wrote a gospel stated they came not in their own authority, but in the authority of Jesus Christ.


Should we not use discernment...with every word....through the Spirit within, of what a Holy and Divine message would be?


We should use scripture to interpret scripture, to often in times past men have chose to rewrite scripture to justify their beliefs, where it has been rewritten it should have been reREAD until the Spirit brings it's understanding. But 100% of the time the answer, or understanding is made known in other verses.

you can never go wrong by using scripture to interpret scripture, this negates the tendency to take scriptures out of context. Thank you for some very pointed questions.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


I say "false prophet" because of the predictions made by Ronald Weinland that have come and gone proveing he's full of it. Dr.X follows this man's teachings. That is why I said what I said. The bible give specifics on what a true and false prophet is.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Also, I want to apologize if my words seem mean or hurtful. I mean no harm to you Dr. X. I have my feelings toward the man who's teachings of the scripture you follow. I use to follow this same man and have found fault and evil in him. To you, I say "peace" brother. We follow the same background when it comes to churches. I'm referring to H.W. Armstrong and the former Worldwide Church of God. I hope we can still remain friends. Peace.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join