Whose Son is YHVH, the Christ?

[Seve]

As you can see in my quote above.... I was speaking of the Divine Nature of the invisible Almighty God Father - who is a Spirit - that never change -- NO PHYSICAL SHAPE OR FORM.

However, in response to your querry above regarding Mal 3:6...about YHVH righteousness that changes not.... Please do not combine apples and oranges. It's a prophesy that took place in the OT... fulfilled in the NT.

I suggest that you read the entire context of your own cited text again.... in order for you to understand the the Lord YHVH was referring to his own attributes of mercy .... to fulfill his covenant of promise to the sons of Jacob... redemption and mercy.... will be open to those who will return back to him after repenting their sins... The covenant or promise will never change.... and redemption will come in the new testament.

I know the context very well and I know you do not know what you are talking about! Neither the English or the Hebrew grammar supports your wild interpretation. The subject of immutability is not any attribute of YHVH but YHVH himself "I". He does not say "my righteousness" or "my mercy" but "I change not."

Perhaps, you still don't realize the meaning of word "context" that is being ask of you to study. For your convenient... see below

con·text
noun \ˈkän-ˌtekst\\

Definition of CONTEXT1 .. the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

As you can see, it does not require the the meaning of the word "context" that surround a word .... to be described the same word-for-word or must be verbatim... as you have fallaciously suggested above.

Here's a brief commentary by Matthew Henry who agrees with me about the context of Mal. 3

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...rID=4&contentID=1593&commInfo=5&topic=Malachi

Chapter 3

In this chapter we have, I. A promise of the coming of the Messiah, and of his forerunner; and the errand he comes upon is here particularly described, both the comfort which his coming brings to his church and people and the terror which it will bring to the wicked (v. 1-6). II. A reproof of the Jews for their corrupting God’s ordinances and sacrilegiously robbing him of his dues, with a charge to them to amend this matter, and a promise that, if they did, God would return in mercy to them (v. 7–12). III. A description of the wickedness of the wicked that speak against God (v. 13–15), and of the righteousness of the righteous that speak for him, with the precious promises made to them (v. 16–18).

I guess you really need help in reading comprehension. Just a thought.

 

[Seve]

Scripture says No man knows the name of Almighty God Father even to this date, until one overcometh in the end - only then the name would be written and revealed as promised by the Son.
Look and read:
Revelation 3
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God , and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
IF YHVH is the Father himself, then Jesus is only pulling our legs -- promising to reveal the name of his God... when it is already documented in the Scripture (OT). Would that be the case, of course not .... unless of course, in addition, all of you have already overcometh the end of this world?

The problem with your whole approach is you are rellying on your own ability soley to understand scriptures. Which it seeems is not a good thing for you. It is clear by your interpretation of Revelation three that you have misunderstood what you quoted. As we see throughout scripture begining in Genesis as God reveals himself to humanity, God's people give him new titles reflecting how God has dealt with them. And the more time passes and God has revealed more of himself the more titles he aquires.
For instance God begins to be simply known as Elohim or God emphasis on power. Genesis 1:1. Then he's revealed as Adonai emphasising Lordship. Then he's revealed as YHWH referencing Salvation then he's revealed as Maccaddeshem or sanctifier, then he's revealed as Rohi or our shepherd, then he's revealed as Jireh or our provider and with each instance of him interacting with his people and they discover more about God they apply a new title. Thus in revelation when a new title is given for his greatness and salvation that is applied to those who are his. That's why it is a new name rather than an unknown name.

While the cited text Rev. 3:12 speaks of the Son having a “new name” for himself specifically (see above in red color)…. the question is….
...where do you read anywhere in the Scripture (cite the text please) that suggest that the Father of our Lord Christ would also have a “NEW NAME” as you assume it to be???

Of course, there’s no such Scripture to suggest that, correct? Simply because... the assumption of the Father having "new name" is meant only to defend your religious view of one numeric God..... not supported by the Scripture..

In fact, who are the two among the three mentioned here - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - do you consider not God or pagan gods?

Again, read and learn....

Based on my Biblical understanding..... God is one (echad) in unity.... NOT... in number.

in fact, the Father and the Son are both separate entities, therefore, both are collective ONE God (Echad) in unity.

John17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with THINE OWN SELF with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Based on the Scripture above.... accordingly....

....The Father has his ownself Being....

.... the Son has his ownself Being as well...... even before the world was.... even before he was sent into this world and became flesh.

My Conclusion: YHVH is not the Father but the Christ himself, the Son of God - the only God formed for us to see and witness... the great I AM of old.

Now, try to deny John 17:5 if you can. Thanks

 

[The Biblicist]

First, Matthew Henry does not provide an exegetical commentary on that particular text but only a devotional commentary where he takes liberities that the text does not support. Henry deals with what he perceives to be the overall themes but does not address particular verses or phrases, words or grammar. Do you know the difference between an exegetical commentary and devotional commentary??? Apparently not!

Second, Matthew Henry does not agree with your interpretation of Malichi 3:6. He does not even address that text or deal with its wording or grammar.

Third, you are practicing eisgesis not exegesis. Do you know the difference? You are attempting to READ INTO Malichi 3:6 what it does not say rather than to READ OUT of Malichi 3:6 what it does say and what the grammar demands.

The text does not say "mercy" or "righteousness" changes not. The subject is "I" or the actual Person of YHVH rather than any attribute of YHVH.

"For I am the Lord, I change not.."

This is a statement about WHO He is in regard to immutability not in regard to any other attribute He may possess. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

[The Biblicist]

:laugh: lol.... How could you have the audacity to even suggest that you have "devastated my opinion"..... based on your own distored made up premises for fallacious argument? You definitely have a thick skin, alright.

Okay, this will be tha last time I am going to clarify my position... based on your distoreted premises.... for the sake of others and for the sake of exposing what I believe to be blatant dishonesty on your part.

Next time, I will not respond to any distorted premises, except make a notation on it..... therefore, do not even waste your time posting.

Since our cultic friend will no longer respond to me I will no longer address him but will repudiate his views;

1. He claims that YHVH is the one who FORMED the earth and is the MAKER but not the CREATOR.

However, that is false. The term "Creator" is equally applied to YHVH as it is to both the Father and the Holy Spirit:

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

 

[Seve]

The text does not say "mercy" or "righteousness" changes not. The subject is "I" or the actual Person of YHVH rather than any attribute of YHVH.

"For I am the Lord, I change not.."

This is a statement about WHO He is in regard to immutability not in regard to any other attribute He may possess. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Tsk…Tsk…Tsk…. Context… context… context…

Here’s the whole context of the cited text (without edition) including it’s conclusion reassuring the Jews of his mercy and commitment of redeeming them …… If and when they decided to return back to him. Keeping his old promise to them that changes not.

Mal. 3:6
For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. v7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept [them]. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?

Now, here are some physical CHANGES in the appearance of the Lord as documented in the Scripture… contrary to the illogical interpretation of our poster above that our Lord YHVH “changes not”…..

Eze 8:1-3 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, [as] I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. And He put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven,

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: v7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Now, the question remains to Biblicist..... did our Lord YHVH, the Son, changes his appearnce or not?

:BangHead:

 

[The Biblicist]

Since our cultic friend will no longer respond to me I will no longer address him but will repudiate his views;

1. He claims that YHVH is the one who FORMED the earth and is the MAKER but not the CREATOR.

However, that is false. The term "Creator" is equally applied to YHVH as it is to both the Father and the Holy Spirit:

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.


Ge 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Re 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Apparently our cultic friend also denies the indivduality of the Holy Spirit but rather claims that The Father is that Spirit. Is that correct?

 

[Seve]

You seem to think that by merely asserting what you believe makes it so? For example, you merely repeat the same fallacious argument:

Originally Posted by Seve
In the Book of Isaiah 43, Our Lord YHVH, made the following declaration......

Isaiah 43:10~11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD (YHVH), and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. v11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Note: To be witnessed is to be physically seen or experienced.

First, instead of being witnesses to HIS STATEMENT about YHVH you are interpreting this to mean they were actual present eyewitnesses to the formation of YHVH as God. There are several obvious problems with YOUR interpetation of this text.

1. It is spoken at least 700 years prior to the incarnation of Christ and yet Isaiah is addressing those witnesses then and there.

2. If this text means they had to be present eyewitnesses of his formation as God then it equally demands that they had to be eye witnesses that no god was formed before him as well which would demand these witnesses had to be eternal.

3. This verse actually denies what you are twisting it to say. He is addressing Israel right then and there in the day of Isaiah and claiming they are witnesses of HIS OWN PERSONAL TESTIMONY about Who He claims to be.

4. Isaiah 44:8 interprets precisely what they are witnesses of and it is that there is no other God period:

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.


5. Your interpretation is repudiated by a constant repetition of similar verses in this very section of Isaiah:


Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.


6. The Scriptures declare that YHVH is everlasting without beginning or ending:

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Ge 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.

Jer 10:10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

Psa. 93:1 ¶ The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Hab 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die.


7. The God who FORMED the world is "everlasting":

Ps 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.





Of course the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father and no one on this forum argues for that idea but we all repudiate that idea. But the Son prexisted the incarnation as the eternal "Word" (Jn. 1:1).




You cannot at one and the same time use the term "God" for both the Father and the Son if you define each differently in regard to the very attributes that makes "God" to be "God." For example, you use the term "God" to describe an entity that is eternal (The Father) equally to describe an entity that you deny is eternal (The Son). You use the term "God" to describe One who has never been "formed" to describe one who has been "formed." There is no possible way that the same term can be used to EQUALLY describe both UNLESS your intepretation is false and they are both EQUALLY "God" in every attribute necessary to make "God"' to be "God."




You are a typical cultist. When you cannot deal with the substance of a persons argument you attack them personally and belittle them. However, you will find that those on this forum are aquainted well with your type and it just won't fly!

So man up and deal with the substance of my arguments because someone else on this forum will throw the same

Thanks for the long reply.... However, I am sorry to say that your objection is only based on your own religious view. I am not going to waste more time answering your distorted premises unless I have to.

:wavey:

 

[Seve]

In the Book of Genesis 18... we read the following declaration from our Lord YHVH, the Son of the invisible Almighty God Father of whom no man hath seen at anytime nor his name been revealed to anyone at this time.... Note: Insertions are mine for presentation.

Genesis 18:20 And the LORD (YHVH) said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; v21 I will go down now (physically) , and see (with his own eyes) whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

As you can see, because of the physical nature of our Lord YHVH, the Son of invisible Almighty God Father .... the only God physically formed for us to see - He is limited in his power as God compare to his invisible Almighty God Father.... who is omnicient and omipresent God - the Spirit of Love that never change.

Therefore, our Lord YHVH of old could not have been the invisible Almighty Father..... but the Son of God himself, the Christ. No man knows the name of the invisible God Father of our Lord Jesus Christ at this time, until one overcometh in the end...

Look and read...

Revelation 3:12 HIM THAT OVERCOMETH will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.


:jesus:

 

[The Biblicist]

Tsk…Tsk…Tsk…. Context… context… context…

You need to be taught the basics of hermeneutics. The scripture is formed by selection of words placed in a grammatical connection with each other and that is called syntax. It is the context of syntax that must first be established and you have not done that and neither did Matthew Henry.

You simply do not know what you are talking about and so all you can do is redicule those who do.

The grammatical syntax of Malich 3:6 completely repudiates your false interpretation. The subject of the verb "change" is not "righteousnes" or "mercy" but the personal pronoun "I" which refers to His PERSON not his attributes.

It is pure eisgesis to ignore the internal context of a verse - its syntax - by attempting to appeal to the external context when they do not deal with the same subject matter.

Now, here are some physical CHANGES in the appearance of the Lord as documented in the Scripture… contrary to the illogical interpretation of our poster above that our Lord YHVH “changes not”…..

Eze 8:1-3 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth [month], in the fifth [day] of the month, [as] I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. And He put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven,

First, Ezekiel 8:1-3 occurs hundreds of years previous to the incarnation. That alone destroys your argument as your interpretation of Isaiah 43:10 and the term "formed" is applied to his incarnation or taking upon himself the "form" of Jesus Christ from Nazareth unless you are now arguing for multidple times being formed into a visible God?

Second, Angels are spirits also but can appear as humans - Heb. 13:1.

Third, have you ever been introduced to the term "Theophany"? Apparently not! Look it up! Again, you have the same problem with Isaiah 43:10. Are you arguing for multitple times YHVH is "formed" as a God or only one time?

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: v7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Now, the question remains to Biblicist..... did our Lord YHVH, the Son, changes his appearnce or not?

Please take note of the words "TOOK UPON HIM"! He did not change in regard to his Deity or God nature. Instead his divinity was CLOTHED UPON with the human nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks for the long reply.... However, I am sorry to say that your objection is only based on your own religious view.

My religous view?:laugh::laugh: Look again! I simply quoted scriptures! It is the scriptures themselves that repudiate your theories.

I am not going to waste more time answering your distorted premises unless I have to.

:wavey:

Of course not because you are INCAPABLE of rationally and Biblically responding to them so you make personal attacks in order to avoid dealing the evidence put before you.

 

[The Biblicist]

Therefore, our Lord YHWH of old could not have been the invisible Almighty Father..... but the Son of God himself, the Christ.

You are building a straw man and burning it. No one on this forum argues that the Son is the Father or vice versa! The argument is that both the Son and Father share the same attributes that make "God" to be "God." You irrationally attempt to make the same term "God" fit two different Persons that you admit do not share the same attributes that define "God" to be "God."

Please define for us what are the essential attributes to be called by the term "God"? What attributes are required for God to be God?

 

[Seve]

First, Ezekiel 8:1-3 occurs hundreds of years previous to the incarnation. That alone destroys your argument as your interpretation of Isaiah 43:10 and the term "formed" is applied to his incarnation or taking upon himself the "form" of Jesus Christ from Nazareth unless you are now arguing for multidple times being formed into a visible God?

Are you NOT understanding what you have been reading? Have I not asserted before that the Son was brought forth physically into this world at the beginning of Genesis…. before the world was? Did you not read that YHVH, himself, had appeared and represented his invisible God Father on several occasions in the Old Testament?

Here.... for your continued learning below... insertions are mine for presentation.

Exodus 6:2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: v3 And I appeared (physically) unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty (his Father), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

IF no man hath seen God Father at any time, then, the Lord YHVH could hot have been the invisible God Father but the Son himself - the only God physically formed for us to see and witness.

What do you mean if I've been introduce to the term...."Theophany"? Did you not understand that it is only the Son... who can represent the Father... being the express image of his person physically?

Of course, it is my position that YHVH is Jesus Christ himself, the Son of the invisible God.... the great I AM of old..... He (the Son) had glorified physical body even before his incarnation as Christ…. even during the old testament.

Come on now Biblicist…. smell the coffee and try to argue according to my position and not your distorted assumption of my views…. For a change.

:BangHead:

 

[Moriah]

Scripture says No man knows the name of Almighty God Father even to this date, until one overcometh in the end - only then the name would be written and revealed as promised by the Son.

Look and read:

Revelation 3
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

IF YHVH is the Father himself, then Jesus is only pulling our legs -- promising to reveal the name of his God... when it is already documented in the Scripture (OT). Would that be the case, of course not .... unless of course, in addition, all of you have already overcometh the end of this world?

Ephesians 3
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, v15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Revelation 19
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, THAT NO MAN KNEW, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Based on the above Scripture..... No one knows the name of the invisible Almighty Father, at this time.... and I agree.

Thanks

I do understand what you are saying.

I have been hoping for someone to come along that I can study this.

Now, as for the name of God that no one knows, is it not because it is a ‘new’ name?

Revelation 2:17
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.

Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Since it is a “new name” that will be given, and not just the name, does that not take away some of your argument? I do not think it nullifies your argument, just that you cannot use that for your argument?

 

[Seve]

I do understand what you are saying.

I have been hoping for someone to come along that I can study this.

Now, as for the name of God that no one knows, is it not because it is a ‘new’ name?

Revelation 2:17
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.

Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

Since it is a “new name” that will be given, and not just the name, does that not take away some of your argument? I do not think it nullifies your argument, just that you cannot use that for your argument?

Dear Moriah,

I hope everything is well. Below, please find my previous post in respond to Thinkingstuff querry..... relevant to your question above.

While the cited text Rev. 3:12 speaks of the Son having a “new name” for himself specifically (see above in red color)…. the question is….
...where do you read anywhere in the Scripture (cite the text please) that suggest that the Father of our Lord Christ would also have a “NEW NAME” as you assume it to be???

Of course, there’s no such Scripture to suggest that, correct? Simply because... the assumption of the Father having "new name" is meant only to defend your religious view of one numeric God..... not supported by the Scripture..

God bless

 

[Moriah]

Dear Moriah,

I hope everything is well. Below, please find my previous post in respond to Thinkingstuff querry..... relevant to your question above.



God bless

I do not think your response has answered my question.

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that no one knows the name of God because God’s name is really Jesus’ name, and God’s name will be given to those who overcome at the end.

What I am saying is, no one knows the NEW name, therefore, nullifying your argument that God’s name is Jesus’ name because no one knows His name.

Just wondering…are you evangelist 7?

 

[Seve]

I do not think your response has answered my question.

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that no one knows the name of God because God’s name is really Jesus’ name, and God’s name will be given to those who overcome at the end.

What I am saying is, no one knows the NEW name, therefore, nullifying your argument that God’s name is Jesus’ name because no one knows His name.

Just wondering…are you evangelist 7?

No, that's not my argument my friend. Nowhere in the Scripture that you will find in the Father has a "new name".

It is my position that Jesus Christ is YHVH himself of old, the Son of the invisible God. No one knows the name of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ simply because it has NOT yet been revealled to anyone at this time.

Here's another Scriptures for you to study...

In the Book of John 8 we read the following discussion between Jesus and Jews who were seeking to kill him....

John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
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.

Do you see the implication of what Jesus had asserted to the Jewish Scribes who were mostly Biblical Scholars..... asserting that they have not known his Father of whom they claimed to be their God? How could that be??? Did He (YHVH) not appeared in person unto their forefathers in the old testament and introduced himself as their God?

It’s very simple to me at least…. Jesus is YHVH himself …. The great I AM of old.

Christ, the Son had not yet introduce the REAL NAME of his Father at this time.... until we overcometh the end.

 

[Moriah]

Seve,

You said here that the Father does not have a “new name.”

Of course, there’s no such Scripture to suggest that, correct? Simply because... the assumption of the Father having "new name" is meant only to defend your religious view of one numeric God..... not supported by the Scripture..

But then you say here that is it the Father with the new name.

Scripture says No man knows the name of Almighty God Father even to this date, until one overcometh in the end - only then the name would be written and revealed as promised by the Son.

Revelation 3 12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

IF YHVH is the Father himself, then Jesus is only pulling our legs -- promising to reveal the name of his God... when it is already documented in the Scripture (OT). Would that be the case, of course not .... unless of course, in addition, all of you have already overcometh the end of this world?

Revelation 19 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, THAT NO MAN KNEW, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Based on the above Scripture..... No one knows the name of the invisible Almighty Father, at this time.... and I agree.

So please clarify your beliefs.

 

[Moriah]

No, that's not my argument my friend. Nowhere in the Scripture that you will find in the Father has a "new name".

It is my position that Jesus Christ is YHVH himself of old, the Son of the invisible God. No one knows the name of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ simply because it has NOT yet been revealled to anyone at this time.

Here's another Scriptures for you to study...

In the Book of John 8 we read the following discussion between Jesus and Jews who were seeking to kill him....

John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
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.

Do you see the implication of what Jesus had asserted to the Jewish Scribes who were mostly Biblical Scholars..... asserting that they have not known his Father of whom they claimed to be their God? How could that be??? Did He (YHVH) not appeared in person unto their forefathers in the old testament and introduced himself as their God?

It’s very simple to me at least…. Jesus is YHVH himself …. The great I AM of old.

Christ, the Son had not yet introduce the REAL NAME of his Father at this time.... until we overcometh the end.

When Jesus says they do not know God the Father, it is because they do not obey God. God reveals Himself to those who obey Him. See John 14:21.

 

[Moriah]

Scripture says No man knows the name of Almighty God Father even to this date, until one overcometh in the end - only then the name would be written and revealed as promised by the Son.

Look and read:

Revelation 3
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

IF YHVH is the Father himself, then Jesus is only pulling our legs -- promising to reveal the name of his God... when it is already documented in the Scripture (OT). Would that be the case, of course not .... unless of course, in addition, all of you have already overcometh the end of this world?

Ephesians 3
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, v15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

Revelation 19
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, THAT NO MAN KNEW, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Based on the above Scripture..... No one knows the name of the invisible Almighty Father, at this time.... and I agree.

Thanks

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. You are saying that the name of the Father will be given, and at that SAME time, Jesus’ NEW NAME will be given.

 

[Seve]

When Jesus says they do not know God the Father, it is because they do not obey God. God reveals Himself to those who obey Him. See John 14:21.

No, Jesus was saying that it was himself whom their forefather saw and were glad / rejoiced seeing his day in the Old Testament.... not his Father..... also claiming ..... BEFORE Abraham was, I AM.... Jesus Son of God.