An Exhortation

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Years ago I began to suspect something. I saw the early proto trinitarian evolution away from strict monotheism to full blown trinitarianism, and I kept noticing certain parallels in the evolution of Oneness teachers over the decades. I think I see what happened:

Paul (and others) refer to Christ as pre existing as God. I believe he and they were saying that "He Who you knew as 'God' is He Who manifested Himself among us in the person known as Jesus the Messiah." But some folks took the apostolic statements to mean the individual person (in the common sense of the term) known as Jesus was pre existing AS Jesus prior to the virgin birth. Thus many Oneness people use "Jesus" as the name of God irregardless of any reference to the incarnation. Over time this - combined with certain mistakes concerning the nature and origin of the Logos - ultimately evolve into a "Second pre existing Divine Person".

In other words, I think some in the Oneness camp are (albeit unawares and unintentionally) drifting into a proto trinitarian view. History seems to be repeating itself. It takes several generations (a couple hundred years) but I can see the trajectory paralleling the early trinitarian evolution.

Interesting observations. I think I recall you writing something like this before.

Over the years, when talking with Oneness people, I have many times heard them say how much Trinitarians, when describing the Godhead, very much sound like Oneness, even if they don't realize it.

Yet, I've never heard a Oneness person say how much many Oneness people sound like Trinitarians, although many of them do, even if they don't realize it, particularly in the creedal commitments of Chalcedon and Ephesus and the nature of Christ and His relationship to Mary.

But some folks took the apostolic statements to mean the individual person (in the common sense of the term) known as Jesus was pre existing AS Jesus prior to the virgin birth. Thus many Oneness people use "Jesus" as the name of God irregardless of any reference to the incarnation.

That has always troubled me. I find that when people do that, they have an a priori commitment to deny the true humanity of Christ, as if Jesus must only be God, and naught else, despite the testimony of the Scriptures, even to the point that Jesus is merely the "flesh of God", or that Jesus being called the Son (of God) is somehow unpalatable. It is my belief that the name "Jesus" cannot be separated from the human man that bore that name, and that human man did not exist prior to His conception in Mary's womb, and so, Jesus of Nazareth did not come into existence until the Holy Spirit overshadowed His mother and she exclaimed "Let it be done unto me according to your word". We do not, after all, say that the Logos is "of Nazareth".

In other words, I think some in the Oneness camp are (albeit unawares and unintentionally) drifting into a proto trinitarian view. History seems to be repeating itself. It takes several generations (a couple hundred years) but I can see the trajectory paralleling the early trinitarian evolution.

I suspect you are correct here, and would not be surprised if such things eventually happened, particularly since the majority of Oneness hold strongly to the affirmations of the Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus. While holding strongly to those views, the average Oneness believer is already half way there.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The Hebrew word yeshuah is not the same as the Aramaic name Yeshua. The Hebrew word yeshuah is a feminine noun and is derived from the Hebrew word yasha. The Aramaic name Yeshua, a masculine pronoun, is derived from the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which is derived from YHVH and yasha. Similar in derivation, yes, but not the same words, whether in orthography, or in meaning.

Furthermore, the Hebrew of Isaiah 12:2 does merely read yeshuah.

In fact, the first part of the verse reads as follows:



Transliterated, it reads, from left to right el yeshuati, meaning God is my salvation, not "God is my Jesus".

The second part of Isaiah 12:2 reads as follows:



Transliterated, from left to right, the text reads YHVH way-hi li li'shuah. In English, the translation is "YHVH is and has become my salvation", not "He also has become my Jesus".

See:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3444.htm
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3442.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/isaiah/12-2.htm

Thank you for your response. I believe I just read you saying that “both” names were derived from yasha.

This is my understanding, and at this point, I don’t believe I can change it.

When Gabriel and Micheal appeared before human beings, they declared their names.

When the angelic body God used to communicate with human beings in the OT appeared, He never declared His name.

In Genesis 32:27, the angel asked Jacob his name, but when Jacob asked the angelic being His name, He said, “Wherefore is it that thou ask after my name?” God wouldn’t tell him.

However, Jesus does reveal the name of God in John 5:43, “I come in my Father’s name.”

If I tell someone I come in my Father’s name and that name is Smith, it is obvious that is my Father’s name. God’s name has always been Jesus. His name was kept secret because power was in His name. It was His weapon used to destroy death and hell, and that name was kept secret until it was time to use it.

If the princes of this world had known, they would have never crucified the Lord of glory. I Corinthians 2:7-8. They would have known He was not merely a Son.

Jesus doesn’t dwell in the Godhead. Everything that is the Godhead dwells in Jesus. All the fullness means there is nothing left - it is all in Jesus!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you for your response. I believe I just read you saying that “both” names were derived from yasha.

You're welcome.

However, your second statement above is misleading. They are not both names. One is a name (Yeshua - Aramaic, Yehoshua - Hebrew), the other is not (yeshuah).

However, they are both derived from yasha, but not in the way you might be thinking.

The feminine noun yeshuah comes directly from yasha. However, the part of the name Yeshua/Yehoshua that derives from yasha is not the beginning portion of the name, i.e. Ye-. That part derives from the Tetragrammaton, i.e. YHVH. The part of the name Yeshua/Yehoshua that derives from yasha is the -shua part.

So, while closely related, and derived from the same root word in Hebrew, the name Yeshua/Yehoshua and the feminine noun yeshuah are not the same words. As such, Isaiah 12:2 cannot be reworded to say, God is my Jesus/YHVH has become my Jesus.

Furthermore, the verb for "has become" is in the imperfect, meaning past tense. However, in Post #40, you wrote:

God is who He is. His name has always been Jesus, waiting to be revealed.

If this statement quoted directly above is true, then it cannot follow that YHVH has become my Jesus, because that would mean that at some time in the past, YHVH was not Jesus, and Jesus was not YHVH, until such a time in the past that YHVH became Jesus, and vice versa.

This is my understanding, and at this point, I don’t believe I can change it.

Fair enough. What you believe is your business.

When Gabriel and Micheal appeared before human beings, they declared their names.

When the angelic body God used to communicate with human beings in the OT appeared, He never declared His name.

That isn't true. From the earliest accounts of Genesis, even before the Flood, people knew God's name:

Eve knew His name:

Genesis 4:1 (ESV),

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD [i.e. YHVH].”

God had appeared to them in theophany and "walked" with them in the Garden in the cool of the day (See Genesis 3:8). They could seem an image of Him, that is, a physical representation, i.e. a body that could walk.

YHVH appeared several times to Abram/Abraham, in angelic theophany, and in each instance, Abram/Abraham knew it was YHVH:

Genesis 12:7 (ESV),

Then the LORD [i.e. YHVH] appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

This is the same YHVH that first spoke to Abram and told him to leave his father's house behind (Genesis 12:1). Note the text carefully: YHVH appeared to Abram. Abram could see YHVH in a manifested form (the Hebrew word for "appeared" in the text means to see).

This happens again in Genesis 17:1-5, where God appears to Abram in angelic theophany and visits with him, and speaks to him, and Abram literally bows before Him at His "feet". It is here that God changes Abram's name to Abraham.

And again, in the plains of Mamre, YHVH appears in theophany, and Abraham knows exactly Who it is (See Genesis 18).

Later, when Abraham goes to sacrifice Isaac on the mountain, in angelic theophany, that is, in the body of a human, Abraham is stopped by the angel of YHVH:

Genesis 22:11 (ESV),

But the angel of the LORD [i.e. YHVH] called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”

A few verses later, look what Abraham says:

So Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD [i.e. YHVH] will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the LORD [i.e. YHVH] it shall be provided.” (Genesis 22:14).

Even Abraham's servant Eliezer knew the God of Abraham's name:

And he said, “O LORD [i.e. YHVH], God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today and show steadfast love to my master Abraham (Genesis 24:12; see also vs. 27, 42, 48, and 52).

Time and space do not permit a full telling of the same things as above with Isaac (Genesis 26:24), and Jacob (Genesis 28:13).

And do not forget, perhaps most famous of all, how YHVH appears to Moses in the Burning Bush, as a bright, shining fire that did not burn. This, too, was an angelic theophany, and YHVH there declares His name.

In Genesis 32:27, the angel asked Jacob his name, but when Jacob asked the angelic being His name, He said, “Wherefore is it that thou ask after my name?” God wouldn’t tell him.

God didn't need to tell Jacob. Jacob sorted it out for himself:

Genesis 32:30 (ESV),

So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

Jacob knew with Whom he had wrestled. Peniel means "the face of God".

Now, look closely at Hosea's take on the same story:

Hosea 12:3-5,

3 In the womb he took his brother by the heel,
and in his manhood he strove with God.
4 He strove with the angel and prevailed;
he wept and sought his favor.
He met God at Bethel,
and there God spoke with us—
5 the LORD [i.e. YHVH], the God of hosts,
the LORD [i.e. YHVH] is his memorial name...

Hosea knew that Jacob knew that the man with Whom he wrested was YHVH, albeit in angelic theophany.

However, Jesus does reveal the name of God in John 5:43, “I come in my Father’s name.”

The phrase, more literally rendered "in the name of the Father of me", means here "in the authority or power of", or "as a representative of", or even "with the credentials of". It does not show that Jesus is the name of the Father. The OT is quite clear that the name of God, Christ's Father, is YHVH (Granted, some prefer spelling It as YHWH, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or etc. The point is, the name of God, Christ's Father, all throughout the OT, is yud-hey-vav-hey however anyone cares to translate It into English letters or say It according to English pronunciation).

If I tell someone I come in my Father’s name and that name is Smith, it is obvious that is my Father’s name. God’s name has always been Jesus. His name was kept secret because power was in His name. It was His weapon used to destroy death and hell, and that name was kept secret until it was time to use it.

You really don't have any Scripture to justify the above claims. As already shown, one claim is illogical, if your other claims, that is, about Isaiah 12:2 are true. Further, it isn't at all obvious that if someone says to me that he or she comes in his or her father's name, that that automatically means anything other than what I wrote above regarding the authority/power of, and etc.

If the princes of this world had known, they would have never crucified the Lord of glory. I Corinthians 2:7-8. They would have known He was not merely a Son.

"Not merely a Son". You say that with what appears to be such spite. As if it is almost an accusation.

Jesus doesn’t dwell in the Godhead. Everything that is the Godhead dwells in Jesus. All the fullness means there is nothing left - it is all in Jesus!

And...???

I affirm and believe Colossians 2:9 as much as anyone else, Oneness or otherwise.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You're welcome.

However, your second statement above is misleading. They are not both names. One is a name (Yeshua - Aramaic, Yehoshua - Hebrew), the other is not (yeshuah).

However, they are both derived from yasha, but not in the way you might be thinking.

The feminine noun yeshuah comes directly from yasha. However, the part of the name Yeshua/Yehoshua that derives from yasha is not the beginning portion of the name, i.e. Ye-. That part derives from the Tetragrammaton, i.e. YHVH. The part of the name Yeshua/Yehoshua that derives from yasha is the -shua part.

So, while closely related, and derived from the same root word in Hebrew, the name Yeshua/Yehoshua and the feminine noun yeshuah are not the same words. As such, Isaiah 12:2 cannot be reworded to say, God is my Jesus/YHVH has become my Jesus.

Furthermore, the verb for "has become" is in the imperfect, meaning past tense. However, in Post #40, you wrote:



If this statement quoted directly above is true, then it cannot follow that YHVH has become my Jesus, because that would mean that at some time in the past, YHVH was not Jesus, and Jesus was not YHVH, until such a time in the past that YHVH became Jesus, and vice versa.



Fair enough. What you believe is your business.



That isn't true. From the earliest accounts of Genesis, even before the Flood, people knew God's name:

Eve knew His name:

Genesis 4:1 (ESV),



God had appeared to them in theophany and "walked" with them in the Garden in the cool of the day (See Genesis 3:8). They could seem an image of Him, that is, a physical representation, i.e. a body that could walk.

YHVH appeared several times to Abram/Abraham, in angelic theophany, and in each instance, Abram/Abraham knew it was YHVH:

Genesis 12:7 (ESV),



This is the same YHVH that first spoke to Abram and told him to leave his father's house behind (Genesis 12:1). Note the text carefully: YHVH appeared to Abram. Abram could see YHVH in a manifested form (the Hebrew word for "appeared" in the text means to see).

This happens again in Genesis 17:1-5, where God appears to Abram in angelic theophany and visits with him, and speaks to him, and Abram literally bows before Him at His "feet". It is here that God changes Abram's name to Abraham.

And again, in the plains of Mamre, YHVH appears in theophany, and Abraham knows exactly Who it is (See Genesis 18).

Later, when Abraham goes to sacrifice Isaac on the mountain, in angelic theophany, that is, in the body of a human, Abraham is stopped by the angel of YHVH:

Genesis 22:11 (ESV),



A few verses later, look what Abraham says:



Even Abraham's servant Eliezer knew the God of Abraham's name:



Time and space do not permit a full telling of the same things as above with Isaac (Genesis 26:24), and Jacob (Genesis 28:13).

And do not forget, perhaps most famous of all, how YHVH appears to Moses in the Burning Bush, as a bright, shining fire that did not burn. This, too, was an angelic theophany, and YHVH there declares His name.



God didn't need to tell Jacob. Jacob sorted it out for himself:

Genesis 32:30 (ESV),



Jacob knew with Whom he had wrestled. Peniel means "the face of God".

Now, look closely at Hosea's take on the same story:

Hosea 12:3-5,



Hosea knew that Jacob knew that the man with Whom he wrested was YHVH, albeit in angelic theophany.



The phrase, more literally rendered "in the name of the Father of me", means here "in the authority or power of", or "as a representative of", or even "with the credentials of". It does not show that Jesus is the name of the Father. The OT is quite clear that the name of God, Christ's Father, is YHVH (Granted, some prefer spelling It as YHWH, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or etc. The point is, the name of God, Christ's Father, all throughout the OT, is yud-hey-vav-hey however anyone cares to translate It into English letters or say It according to English pronunciation).



You really don't have any Scripture to justify the above claims. As already shown, one claim is illogical, if your other claims, that is, about Isaiah 12:2 are true. Further, it isn't at all obvious that if someone says to me that he or she comes in his or her father's name, that that automatically means anything other than what I wrote above regarding the authority/power of, and etc.



"Not merely a Son". You say that with what appears to be such spite. As if it is almost an accusation.



And...???

I affirm and believe Colossians 2:9 as much as anyone else, Oneness or otherwise.

What about this:

Exodus 6:3 KJV
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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You're welcome.

However, your second statement above is misleading. They are not both names. One is a name (Yeshua - Aramaic, Yehoshua - Hebrew), the other is not (yeshuah).

However, they are both derived from yasha, but not in the way you might be thinking.

The feminine noun yeshuah comes directly from yasha. However, the part of the name Yeshua/Yehoshua that derives from yasha is not the beginning portion of the name, i.e. Ye-. That part derives from the Tetragrammaton, i.e. YHVH. The part of the name Yeshua/Yehoshua that derives from yasha is the -shua part.

So, while closely related, and derived from the same root word in Hebrew, the name Yeshua/Yehoshua and the feminine noun yeshuah are not the same words. As such, Isaiah 12:2 cannot be reworded to say, God is my Jesus/YHVH has become my Jesus.


Furthermore, the verb for "has become" is in the imperfect, meaning past tense. However, in Post #40, you wrote:



If this statement quoted directly above is true, then it cannot follow that YHVH has become my Jesus, because that would mean that at some time in the past, YHVH was not Jesus, and Jesus was not YHVH, until such a time in the past that YHVH became Jesus, and vice versa.

“Behold, God (El) is my salvation (Yeshua)” can literally be translated into English as “Behold, God is my Jesus.”The Lord (JAH) Jehovah (YHWH) is become my salvation (Yeshua) would be - “The Lord Jehovah is become my Jesus.”

“Has become” appears to me as pertaining to the flesh.

The one and only “YHWH Elohim” of Deut 6:4 became our Salvation in His NT revelation of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 38:22 “Come quickly to help me, O Lord my savior.” The employment of the abstract "salvation" for the concrete "Savior" is extremely common.

The “mystery” in I Timothy 3:16, is a truth that was before unknown but now is being revealed. Jesus is God was not only made knowable or visible, but was also, literally, “God manifest in the flesh” - revealed in human form.

“Justified in the Spirit” means vindicated, proved. Therefore, this fulfills OT messianic prophecies. (Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 43:11).

That isn't true. From the earliest accounts of Genesis, even before the Flood, people knew God's name:

Eve knew His name:

Genesis 4:1 (ESV),



God had appeared to them in theophany and "walked" with them in the Garden in the cool of the day (See Genesis 3:8). They could seem an image of Him, that is, a physical representation, i.e. a body that could walk.

YHVH appeared several times to Abram/Abraham, in angelic theophany, and in each instance, Abram/Abraham knew it was YHVH:

Genesis 12:7 (ESV),



This is the same YHVH that first spoke to Abram and told him to leave his father's house behind (Genesis 12:1). Note the text carefully: YHVH appeared to Abram. Abram could see YHVH in a manifested form (the Hebrew word for "appeared" in the text means to see).

This happens again in Genesis 17:1-5, where God appears to Abram in angelic theophany and visits with him, and speaks to him, and Abram literally bows before Him at His "feet". It is here that God changes Abram's name to Abraham.

And again, in the plains of Mamre, YHVH appears in theophany, and Abraham knows exactly Who it is (See Genesis 18).

Later, when Abraham goes to sacrifice Isaac on the mountain, in angelic theophany, that is, in the body of a human, Abraham is stopped by the angel of YHVH:

Genesis 22:11 (ESV),



A few verses later, look what Abraham says:



Even Abraham's servant Eliezer knew the God of Abraham's name:



Time and space do not permit a full telling of the same things as above with Isaac (Genesis 26:24), and Jacob (Genesis 28:13).

And do not forget, perhaps most famous of all, how YHVH appears to Moses in the Burning Bush, as a bright, shining fire that did not burn. This, too, was an angelic theophany, and YHVH there declares His name.



God didn't need to tell Jacob. Jacob sorted it out for himself:

Genesis 32:30 (ESV),



Jacob knew with Whom he had wrestled. Peniel means "the face of God".

Now, look closely at Hosea's take on the same story:

Hosea 12:3-5,



Hosea knew that Jacob knew that the man with Whom he wrested was YHVH, albeit in angelic theophany.



The phrase, more literally rendered "in the name of the Father of me", means here "in the authority or power of", or "as a representative of", or even "with the credentials of". It does not show that Jesus is the name of the Father. The OT is quite clear that the name of God, Christ's Father, is YHVH (Granted, some prefer spelling It as YHWH, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or etc. The point is, the name of God, Christ's Father, all throughout the OT, is yud-hey-vav-hey however anyone cares to translate It into English letters or say It according to English pronunciation).



You really don't have any Scripture to justify the above claims. As already shown, one claim is illogical, if your other claims, that is, about Isaiah 12:2 are true. Further, it isn't at all obvious that if someone says to me that he or she comes in his or her father's name, that that automatically means anything other than what I wrote above regarding the authority/power of, and etc.

“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” John 1:18

Gen 3:8....And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden

What was walking? His voice. Where was it walking? In the cool (literally, the wind) of the day.

“And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” John 17:26

"Not merely a Son". You say that with what appears to be such spite. As if it is almost an accusation.



And...???

I affirm and believe Colossians 2:9 as much as anyone else, Oneness or otherwise.

Unfortunately, we can only read what we believe someone’s tone is. I simply made a statement. If you read it as spite, then that is your personal view.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What about this:

Exodus 6:3 KJV
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.

Exodus 6:3 contains something called a Beth Essentiae (sometimes also known as the Beth of Identity or the Beth of Predication, and etc.).

If you look at the Hebrew of the text, you can clearly see the letter בְּ - (beit) prefixed to the word for God, that is, אֵל - el), as in the phrase God Almighty:

בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/6-3.htm

This prefix is the Beth Essentiae. The Hebrew letter בְּ - (beit) is also the Hebrew word for "house". The idea is, is that when this letter is prefixed to certain names or titles, it suggests the character or nature of the one who bears that name or title.

As such, there is a strong indication, however unwieldy in English, that the phrase should be translated "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in the name of God Almighty..." with the בְּ - (beit) requiring the use of "in", meaning, in the character or nature of.

This means God appeared to the Patriarchs and chiefly revealed Himself to them as All-Powerful, with His Omnipotence being the supreme characteristic and identity He wished to convey to them.

This does not mean, however, that the Patriarchs or others prior to Moses, did not know God's name was YHVH, since the Beth Essentiae, though only used once in Exodus 6:3, applies likewise to the Tetragrammaton. It therefore means that they did not know God "in the name of YHVH" in the sense of character and identity, particularly as it applied to covenant He made with them.

So, note Exodus 6:4:

4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.

If you note the emboldened text above, "and" is there used to translate the Hebrew adverb וְגַ֨ם - (w'gam), meaning "moreover" or "additionally" in the sense of "yea".

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1571.htm

So, the translation could read like this:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in the name of God Almighty, however, in the name of YHVH I was not known to them; yea, I have also established my covenant with them [i.e. in the character and identity of God Almighty]...

For two good reads, I recommend the following:

1.) https://www.academia.edu/37011724/Th...edicate_Marker

You may have to download it as a PDF, but it is free.

2.) https://www.theologicalstudies.org.u...on_motyer.html

Another, similar example to Exodus 6:3 and the use of the Beth Essentiae is found in Exodus 3:2. There, the בְּ - (beit) prefixes the Hebrew word לַבָּה - (labbah), that is "flame":

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-2.htm

The idea being, the Angel of YHVH appeared to Moses "in a flame of fire" showing a key non-moral attribute or characteristic of the Angel of YHVH's identity, that is, one of fire (consider the Pillar of Fire later in Exodus as a symbol for the Angel of YHVH leading the people of Israel by night; also consider angels are a "flame of fire" according to Hebrews 1:7 and Psalm 104:4).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

“Behold, God (El) is my salvation (Yeshua)” can literally be translated into English as “Behold, God is my Jesus.”The Lord (JAH) Jehovah (YHWH) is become my salvation (Yeshua) would be - “The Lord Jehovah is become my Jesus.”

But, Sis. The Aramaic name Yeshua is not found in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 12:2. You don't have to take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. So you cannot insist that a correct interpretation of the text in English is to retranslate the verse to read "God is my Jesus/The Lord Jehovah is become my Jesus".

The name of Jesus is not present in the text in any manner whatsoever. The Hebrew feminine noun yeshuah (note the "h" at the end) is present, but is not and does not correspond to the Aramaic masculine proper noun Yeshua.

“Has become” appears to me as pertaining to the flesh.

Your theology is then inconsistent and incoherent.

If YHVH has become my Jesus pertains to the flesh, then YHVH only became Jesus at the Incarnation, and therefore, Jesus is not the eternal name of God, as you suppose. You can't have it both ways.

The one and only “YHWH Elohim” of Deut 6:4 became our Salvation in His NT revelation of Jesus Christ.

The only and only "YHWH Elohim" was always our Salvation, even before any NT revelation of Jesus Christ. There is no "became".

Psalm 38:22 “Come quickly to help me, O Lord my savior.” The employment of the abstract "salvation" for the concrete "Savior" is extremely common.

What's this got to do with anything?

The “mystery” in I Timothy 3:16, is a truth that was before unknown but now is being revealed. Jesus is God was not only made knowable or visible, but was also, literally, “God manifest in the flesh” - revealed in human form.

You are reading into the text (eisogesis) the phrase "revealed in human form". It does not read that way. It reads "God was manifest in the flesh...", not "God was manifest as the flesh...". There is a key difference of meaning on account of the preposition ἐν.

“Justified in the Spirit” means vindicated, proved. Therefore, this fulfills OT messianic prophecies. (Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 43:11).

It does not automatically follow that the meaning of the phrase "justified in the Spirit" indicates fulfillment of OT Messianic prophecies, from Isaiah or otherwise. You would have to show/prove how.

“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” John 1:18

We were talking about the angel of YHVH, so I'm not sure why you brought this into the mix?

Gen 3:8....And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden

What was walking? His voice. Where was it walking? In the cool (literally, the wind) of the day.

Voices walk? You sure about that? The Hebrew word translated as "voice" in the KJV simply means "sound".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-8.htm

While the term can refer to the sound of a voice, the context determines the meaning. And since voices don't walk, the proper understanding of Genesis 3:8 is "And they heard the sound of YHVH God walking in the Garden..." which shows that God manifest Himself in angelic theophany and appeared in a visible form to both Adam and Eve.

“And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” John 17:26

You assume Jesus here means "Jesus", but the text does not indicate that. That is again an example of eisogesis based in an a priori doctrinal position.

Unfortunately, we can only read what we believe someone’s tone is. I simply made a statement. If you read it as spite, then that is your personal view.

It's not my personal view. I wrote that it appears you wrote what you wrote "with such spite". If you say you did not, then I believe you.

Notwithstanding, let's compare your statement "not merely a Son" with some exemplary texts of the New Covenant Scriptures:

Matthew 1:21,

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:23,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luke 1:31,

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

And perhaps most telling, from Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:5,

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Hebrew 3:6,

But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Hebrews 5:8,

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Hebrews 7:28,

28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the* Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

*Here the Greek word Υἱόν is anarthrous and is better translated "a Son".

So, when you write "not merely a Son" it looks bad, considering the above texts, from a Scriptural point of view, particularly since in comparison, there are no verses of Scripture that emphatically read "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is the Father" or "Jesus is God the Father". It's as if Jesus being the Son of God just isn't enough.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In other words, I think some in the Oneness camp are (albeit unawares and unintentionally) drifting into a proto trinitarian view. History seems to be repeating itself. It takes several generations (a couple hundred years) but I can see the trajectory paralleling the early trinitarian evolution.

The alternative take is that oneness and trinitarianism has never actually been all that far apart. It was simply people making a mountain out of a molehill.

There are some fundamental difference - eternal sonship being the most pronounced. Most of the rest is just Symantec differences about the definition of person and being.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

But, Sis. The Aramaic name Yeshua is not found in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 12:2. You don't have to take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. So you cannot insist that a correct interpretation of the text in English is to retranslate the verse to read "God is my Jesus/The Lord Jehovah is become my Jesus".

The name of Jesus is not present in the text in any manner whatsoever. The Hebrew feminine noun yeshuah (note the "h" at the end) is present, but is not and does not correspond to the Aramaic masculine proper noun Yeshua.



Your theology is then inconsistent and incoherent.

If YHVH has become my Jesus pertains to the flesh, then YHVH only became Jesus at the Incarnation, and therefore, Jesus is not the eternal name of God, as you suppose. You can't have it both ways.



The only and only "YHWH Elohim" was always our Salvation, even before any NT revelation of Jesus Christ. There is no "became".

The Word was God and the Word was made flesh.

That allows me to know that He was and is our salvation and His name is Jesus.

You are reading into the text (eisogesis) the phrase "revealed in human form". It does not read that way. It reads "God was manifest in the flesh...", not "God was manifest as the flesh...". There is a key difference of meaning on account of the preposition ἐν.

“Revealed in” is the same as “manifest in”.

It does not automatically follow that the meaning of the phrase "justified in the Spirit" indicates fulfillment of OT Messianic prophecies, from Isaiah or otherwise. You would have to show/prove how.

I Peter 3:18 “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

Isaiah 9:6 tells us who He is. Isaiah 53 tells us what He did to justify us by His Spirit. It is prophecy fulfilled.

“For your Maker is your husband, The Lord of hosts is His name, And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, He is called the God of the whole earth.” Isaiah 54:5

Voices walk? You sure about that? The Hebrew word translated as "voice" in the KJV simply means "sound".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-8.htm

While the term can refer to the sound of a voice, the context determines the meaning. And since voices don't walk, the proper understanding of Genesis 3:8 is "And they heard the sound of YHVH God walking in the Garden..." which shows that God manifest Himself in angelic theophany and appeared in a visible form to both Adam and Eve.

His voice was on the wind. Genesis never says He became something they could see. It says, they “heard”.

You assume Jesus here means "Jesus", but the text does not indicate that. That is again an example of eisogesis based in an a priori doctrinal position.

It stands to reason that His name is Jesus as there is no other name given among men wherein we must be saved. Remember the scribes saying, “Who can forgive sins but God only?” God manifest in flesh.

It's not my personal view. I wrote that it appears you wrote what you wrote "with such spite". If you say you did not, then I believe you.

Notwithstanding, let's compare your statement "not merely a Son" with some exemplary texts of the New Covenant Scriptures:

Matthew 1:21,

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:23,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Yes, let’s just compare those two. That is why I can say, without spite, He was more than just a son. He was God with us.

It is hard not to think you are here to undermine the Oneness doctrine as an Administrator.

On a side note, in my Siddur, Jewish prayer book, it says,”Our God who art in heaven, reveal thy Oneness and establish thy kingdom forever; do thou reign over us forever and ever.”

I always thought that was a UPC term, but apparently, it was s not.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Exodus 6:3 contains something called a Beth Essentiae (sometimes also known as the Beth of Identity or the Beth of Predication, and etc.).

If you look at the Hebrew of the text, you can clearly see the letter בְּ - (beit) prefixed to the word for God, that is, אֵל - el), as in the phrase God Almighty:

בְּאֵ֣ל שַׁדָּ֑י

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/6-3.htm

This prefix is the Beth Essentiae. The Hebrew letter בְּ - (beit) is also the Hebrew word for "house". The idea is, is that when this letter is prefixed to certain names or titles, it suggests the character or nature of the one who bears that name or title.

As such, there is a strong indication, however unwieldy in English, that the phrase should be translated "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in the name of God Almighty..." with the בְּ - (beit) requiring the use of "in", meaning, in the character or nature of.

This means God appeared to the Patriarchs and chiefly revealed Himself to them as All-Powerful, with His Omnipotence being the supreme characteristic and identity He wished to convey to them.

This does not mean, however, that the Patriarchs or others prior to Moses, did not know God's name was YHVH, since the Beth Essentiae, though only used once in Exodus 6:3, applies likewise to the Tetragrammaton. It therefore means that they did not know God "in the name of YHVH" in the sense of character and identity, particularly as it applied to covenant He made with them.

So, note Exodus 6:4:



If you note the emboldened text above, "and" is there used to translate the Hebrew adverb וְגַ֨ם - (w'gam), meaning "moreover" or "additionally" in the sense of "yea".

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1571.htm

So, the translation could read like this:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in the name of God Almighty, however, in the name of YHVH I was not known to them; yea, I have also established my covenant with them [i.e. in the character and identity of God Almighty]...

For two good reads, I recommend the following:

1.) https://www.academia.edu/37011724/Th...edicate_Marker

You may have to download it as a PDF, but it is free.

2.) https://www.theologicalstudies.org.u...on_motyer.html

Another, similar example to Exodus 6:3 and the use of the Beth Essentiae is found in Exodus 3:2. There, the בְּ - (beit) prefixes the Hebrew word לַבָּה - (labbah), that is "flame":

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-2.htm

The idea being, the Angel of YHVH appeared to Moses "in a flame of fire" showing a key non-moral attribute or characteristic of the Angel of YHVH's identity, that is, one of fire (consider the Pillar of Fire later in Exodus as a symbol for the Angel of YHVH leading the people of Israel by night; also consider angels are a "flame of fire" according to Hebrews 1:7 and Psalm 104:4).

But wouldn't that imply that prior to Exodus God was not known by the name YHVH? When He appeared "b' flame of fire" it means He appeared in conjunction with (or even "as") the flame of fire. Thus He says He was previously known "b'God Almighty but not YHVH"? You say the beth is applied to YHVH by extension (not actually in the text, but rather it's force carries to both El and YHVH?) which, whether it does or doesn't, seems irrelevent to the issue of whether He was known previously "in the character of YHVH as well as God Almighty". Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying?

The presence of YHVH (the name itself) in Genesis can be understood as anachronistic, applied by Moses to God in order to strengthen the identification of God with the name YHVH for the reader. Not much different than 1 Cor 10 when Paul mentions Christ as the Rock during the wilderness wanderings (nobody in Moses' day was referring to the Rock as "Christ" obviously).

Not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to understand the line of reasoning in your position.