Why do trinitarian ideologists say that Jesus Christ is YHWH?

[stvdv]

The ^ above ^ has nothing to do with the traditions of the Pharisees - Matt.15:9 - or being a Christian.
No longer under the Mosaic Law, food does Not commend us to God <- 1st Cor. 8:8; Romans 7:6; 10:4; 14:17

Did I claim that (or even suggest?)
So, why bring it up as critical reply to me?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Did I claim that (or even suggest?)
So, why bring it up as critical reply to me?

I want to apologize to you stvdv for any misunderstanding, and wondering what you did suggest.
Not meant as a critical reply to you.
- Numbers 6:24-26

 

[stvdv]

I want to apologize to you stvdv for any misunderstanding, and wondering what you did suggest.
Not meant as a critical reply to you.
- Numbers 6:24-26

Thank you

And my apology for taking your post as criticism..I misinterpreted your post

 

[stvdv]

Jesus fasted 40 days. You also do that?

The ^ above ^ has nothing to do with the traditions of the Pharisees - Matt.15:9 - or being a Christian.
No longer under the Mosaic Law, food does Not commend us to God <- 1st Cor. 8:8; Romans 7:6; 10:4; 14:17

Did I claim that (or even suggest?)
So, why bring it up as critical reply to me?

I want to apologize to you stvdv for any misunderstanding, and wondering what you did suggest.
Not meant as a critical reply to you.
- Numbers 6:24-26

Thanks. Sorry misreading your reply

Well, here is my reply then

What I meant with my first quote on Jesus:
If you (the other person I replied to) criticise me, because Jesus did this and that too, you behave as if you are Jesus

But you are not, because Jesus fasted 40 days, and you did not.

So, if you pretend to be Jesus, better start fasting 40 days, then I will take your criticism + added "Jesus did it too" more serious

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What I meant with my first quote on Jesus:
If you (the other person I replied to) criticise me, because Jesus did this and that too, you behave as if you are Jesus
But you are not, because Jesus fasted 40 days, and you did not.
So, if you pretend to be Jesus, better start fasting 40 days, then I will take your criticism + added "Jesus did it too" more serious

I hope this will help add to your fund of Bible knowledge:
True, Jesus did fast for 40 days which was right after his baptism, but he did Not instruct anyone else to do so.
Jesus did Not fast 40 days before his death. Plus, the Last Supper was definitely Not fasting.
After the Mosaic Law ended for Christians - Romans 10:4 - so did fasting for Christians.
Food does Not commend us to God if we eat or do not eat - 1st Cor. 8:8; Romans 14:17; Hebrews 13:9

 

[Soapy]

The use of Lord in place of the Tetragrammaton predates the birth of Christ by hundreds of years.


I don't care about the linguistic quirks, your rant about the usage of the word LORD in place of the Tetragrammaton has no bearing on the fact that biblically YHWH is the creator of earth AND that Jesus is the creator of earth(along with every other created thing).


Anything outside of time is eternal.

‘Lord’ is just a title for a very important person: a master, a judge, a priest, a teacher. It does not indicate Almighty God except if the context is concerning the deity of the Israelites.

Even today, we have people who carry the title of ‘Lord’. Doesn’t mean they are Almighty God, does it?

And it seems you are purposely muddling the use of ‘LORD’ and ‘Lord’ since you can see you lost your case hands down!!

 

[stvdv]

True, Jesus did fast for 40 days which was right after his baptism, but he did Not instruct anyone else to do so.

My reply was not about whether or not fasting is needed to please God or ...

My reply was to show it's inappropriate to claim in your writing that you are Jesus (omniscient), or do you think that this appropriate? The person I replied to talked as if he were Omniscient (as if He were Jesus/God.

 

[stvdv]

Jesus did Not fast 40 days before his death. Plus, the Last Supper was definitely Not fasting.
After the Mosaic Law ended for Christians - Romans 10:4 - so did fasting for Christians.
Food does Not commend us to God if we eat or do not eat - 1st Cor. 8:8; Romans 14:17; Hebrews 13:9

I know this, and I agree with this
Also important to know in this context

THOUGH
food does not bring us near to God (we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do)

STILL
We must be careful, however, that the exercise of our freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak (or ourselves)

Do you agree with this?

 

[Mister Emu]

‘Lord’ is just a title for a very important person: a master, a judge, a priest, a teacher. It does not indicate Almighty God except if the context is concerning the deity of the Israelites.

Even today, we have people who carry the title of ‘Lord’. Doesn’t mean they are Almighty God, does it?

And it seems you are purposely muddling the use of ‘LORD’ and ‘Lord’ since you can see you lost your case hands down!!

I don't make use of wordplay between Lord and LORD at all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I know this, and I agree with this Also important to know in this context
THOUGH food does not bring us near to God (we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do)
STILL We must be careful, however, that the exercise of our freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak (or ourselves)
Do you agree with this?

Yes, agree. If we were with someone with a drinking problem we would Not offer them a drink and even refrain from drinking in front of them.
Even though Jesus' first miracle was water into wine and Jesus drank wine at Passover, if a person thought it wrong to drink then it would be good to avoid alcohol when with that person so as not to be a stumbling block to such a person.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't make use of wordplay between Lord and LORD at all.

I find we don't have to make use of wordplay between 'Lord and LORD' because the King James does that for us at Psalm 110.
JKV uses ALL Upper-Case letters for the Tetragrammaton YHWH translating it as LORD for LORD God.
Whereas, Lord Jesus ( the Lord in some lower-case letters ) the King James does Not use all capital letters for Lord Jesus because the Tetragrammaton does Not apply to Lord Jesus, only to LORD God.

 

[stvdv]

Yes, agree. If we were with someone with a drinking problem we would Not offer them a drink and even refrain from drinking in front of them.
Even though Jesus' first miracle was water into wine and Jesus drank wine at Passover, if a person thought it wrong to drink then it would be good to avoid alcohol when with that person so as not to be a stumbling block to such a person.

Thank you. Good example.

Probably this concept is also used when they say "don't give unasked advice (even if it could be good, the other might not be ready yet)", because the natural way is to give when asked for. Reminds me of another one "only speak when spoken to", and "speak when it improves the silence". I like these quotes, and interesting to see how all is so wonderfully connected

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...................................., and "speak when it improves the silence". I like these quotes, and interesting to see how all is so wonderfully connected

I especially like and good to keep in mind and bears repeating " speak when it improves the silence " For me easier said than done

 

[Soapy]

I find we don't have to make use of wordplay between 'Lord and LORD' because the King James does that for us at Psalm 110.
JKV uses ALL Upper-Case letters for the Tetragrammaton YHWH translating it as LORD for LORD God.
Whereas, Lord Jesus ( the Lord in some lower-case letters ) the King James does Not use all capital letters for Lord Jesus because the Tetragrammaton does Not apply to Lord Jesus, only to LORD God.

In psalm 110:1, the verse says that YHWH said to ‘my Lord’, “Sit at my right hand…”.

Can it be seen that David is saying: “YHWH said ‘TO HIM’, ‘Sit at my right hand…’”
Or even that it was the songster who WROTE about this encounter, God to David? Therefore the sonsgster is calling David, ‘My Lord’?

So David is the ‘Lord’ of the songster. ‘Lord’ just means like, ‘Master’, ‘Monarch’, ‘Ruler’, ‘Teacher’ … someone of worthy greatness above another.

Reading the further verses, the person spoken about (second person present: You, Your) is David.

It is someone else who is stating what YHWH is saying to David… and the very first words gives the context: It is a song about (towards) David from a writer / singer.

 

[stvdv]

I especially like and good to keep in mind and bears repeating " speak when it improves the silence " For me easier said than done

For me also a challenge

And useful for me to read (remember) that quote daily, as esp. this one is easy to forget altogether when I am in a conversation. So easy to get fully absorbed while speaking

Such quotes and exercises keep me more aware, and awake and focused on my goal in life...God

 

[URAVIP2ME]

For me also a challenge
And useful for me to read (remember) that quote daily, as esp. this one is easy to forget altogether when I am in a conversation. So easy to get fully absorbed while speaking
Such quotes and exercises keep me more aware, and awake and focused on my goal in life...God

Yes, and we all need to be aware and keep ' awake ' and focused as Jesus said to keep on the watch, be watchful - Mark 13:33-37. - 1st Thess. 5:6
For the ' goal ' of salvation is now close ahead of us - Romans 13:11; Matthew 24:13
To be ' saved / delivered / rescued ' through the coming great tribulation of Rev. 7:14,9 ; Isaiah 26:20

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In psalm 110:1, the verse says that YHWH said to ‘my Lord’, “Sit at my right hand…”.
Can it be seen that David is saying: “YHWH said ‘TO HIM’, ‘Sit at my right hand…’”
Or even that it was the songster who WROTE about this encounter, God to David? Therefore the sonsgster is calling David, ‘My Lord’?
So David is the ‘Lord’ of the songster. ‘Lord’ just means like, ‘Master’, ‘Monarch’, ‘Ruler’, ‘Teacher’ … someone of worthy greatness above another.
Reading the further verses, the person spoken about (second person present: You, Your) is David.
It is someone else who is stating what YHWH is saying to David… and the very first words gives the context: It is a song about (towards) David from a writer / singer.

I had No idea that David was ever considered as a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek - Psalm 110:4 __________
After all, dead David still did Not ascend ( be resurrected ) according to Acts 2:34.
Please notice who God made as both Lord and Christ at Acts 2:36,35. I find that Not to be David.
Rather, I find that under Christ that David will be 'Prince' on Earth under Christ as noted at Ezekiel 34:24. - Psalm 45:16; Isaiah 32
I wonder if you had Matthew 22:41-45 in mind because the religious leaders were looking or hoping for a descendant of David _______
To me, verses 43-44 is Jesus establishing someone more than David to be Messiah because Jesus is David's Lord.

 

[Soapy]

I had No idea that David was ever considered as a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek - Psalm 110:4 __________
After all, dead David still did Not ascend ( be resurrected ) according to Acts 2:34.
Please notice who God made as both Lord and Christ at Acts 2:36,35. I find that Not to be David.
Rather, I find that under Christ that David will be 'Prince' on Earth under Christ as noted at Ezekiel 34:24. - Psalm 45:16; Isaiah 32
I wonder if you had Matthew 22:41-45 in mind because the religious leaders were looking or hoping for a descendant of David _______
To me, verses 43-44 is Jesus establishing someone more than David to be Messiah because Jesus is David's Lord.

When reading of prophesies, not all of every verse prior or after the verses stated, are pertaining to the prophesy.

Only parts of the chapter, and only a specific verse, was related to David. And, in any case, it is a conflation to say that ‘David was (or was not) resurrected or made Christ or Lord’. That aspect was not in the prophesy about David. The only thing that matters was that the throne of David would be ‘an everlasting throne’ (in spirituality) - a kingly placeholder for the root and offspring of David, Jesus Christ.

David, a priest:

“[A Priest] must offer up their prayers, thanksgivings, sacrifices. He becomes their representative in "things pertaining unto God." He may become also (though this does not always follow) the representative of God to man. The functions of the priest and prophet may exist in the same person.”
(From Bible Hub : Priest)​

David IS numbered among the Priests (See 1 Chronicles 15:25–27). Note his clothing and his role which is like that of the Levites BUT he is not a Levite - which is where the analogy with Melchizedek comes in.

————————————
Do you notice that Psalm 110:1 and Acts 2:34 do not say exactly the same things.

In Psalms, it is YHWH (‘LORD’) who says to ‘my Lord’. And the context is of the writer (or singer) speaking ABOUT David and what God said to him.

In Acts, it appears that it is David speaking about the ‘Lord’ (not YAHWEH) speaking to DAVID’s Lord.

My take: Trinitarian misquote as usual. Trinitarians cannot screw with the Hebrew text like they can with the Greek.

Do your own comparison and let me know what you think…. Why is there a difference in reference positions between the two quotes.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Acts 2:32-35 does correspond to Psalm 110 because Jesus is named at Acts 2:32, thus Jesus is the 'he' in verse 33 is Jesus.
Psalm 110 also connects to Matthew 22:41-45 besides Mark 12:35-37: Luke 41:44.
When David is resurrected David will be a Prince on Earth - Ezekiel 34:23-24
Jesus is the King of Isaiah 32:1 and David will be a Prince under King Jesus.
Psalm 45:6-7,15 applies to Jesus by the apostle Paul at Hebrews 1:8-9
David will be a princely representative on Earth carrying out King Jesus' directions for us. - Hebrews 2:5,8; Isaiah 32:1
It is clear that at Isaiah 9:6-7 and Isaiah 16:5 is putting Jesus first.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

David, a priest:

“[A Priest] must offer up their prayers, thanksgivings, sacrifices. He becomes their representative in "things pertaining unto God." He may become also (though this does not always follow) the representative of God to man. The functions of the priest and prophet may exist in the same person.”
(From Bible Hub : Priest)​

David IS numbered among the Priests (See 1 Chronicles 15:25–27). Note his clothing and his role which is like that of the Levites BUT he is not a Levite - which is where the analogy with Melchizedek comes in.
————————————

Yes, God helped the Levites 1st Ch. 15:26
Yes, David was also wearing a 'linen' ephod - 2nd Sam.6:14; 1st Ch. 15:27 ( does Not say ' fine linen ' ephod)
David was Not wearing a ' fine linen ' ephod which the High Priest wore as described at Exodus 28:6-36
And young Samuel was Not even an under priest, and yet as a young boy Samuel wore an ephod - 1st Sam. 2:18; 1st Sam 22:18
A 'linen' ephod (1 Chronicles 15:26) is Not the ' fine linen' ephold as a High Priest wore.
Melchizedek was High Priest and Not an under priest. David was never High Priest.
Plus, remember the King (that would be David) would Not interfere with the duties of the priests - 2nd Chronicles 26:16-21
Just as the priests (religious) would Not interfere with the duties of the king (political).