Why do trinitarian ideologists say that Jesus Christ is YHWH?

[URAVIP2ME]

‘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!!

Yes, even today people carry the title 'Lord' such as in Landlord .
And we never say LandLORD as in using ALL Upper-Case letters for LORD.

Both Lord and God are titles and not personal names.
Jesus being the 'Lord' (KJV) at Psalm 110
His God being the ' LORD' God (KJV) where the Tetragrammaton appears ( YHWH)
The Tetragrammaton is never applied to 'Lord' Jesus.
That is why Psalm 110 KJV makes the distinction between the two (2) LORD/lord's

 

[Soapy]

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).

That’s called ‘Knitpicking’.

There are people who awarded ‘Honorary Doctorates’ Degrees from universities they never actually attended.

David did not ‘PERFORM’ the duties of a priest, and certainly not a HIGH PRIEST (no one mentioned that!) but he is nonetheless CREDITED with being a Priest… an HONORARY PRIEST!

 

[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.

Soapy, I notice you did Not make a comment to the ^ above ^ any thoughts _________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That’s called ‘Knitpicking’..................

Knitpicking or rather adding details to one's fund of knowledge between the Bible's different use of the word ' linen' and ' fine linen '

 

[Soapy]

Knitpicking or rather adding details to one's fund of knowledge between the Bible's different use of the word ' linen' and ' fine linen '

It wasn’t a dispute. But in any case this us what the scripture says:

• “Now David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who were carrying the ark, and as were the musicians, and Kenaniah, who was in charge of the singing of the choirs. David also wore a linen ephod.” (1 Chron 15: 27)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It wasn’t a dispute. But in any case this us what the scripture says:

• “Now David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who were carrying the ark, and as were the musicians, and Kenaniah, who was in charge of the singing of the choirs. David also wore a linen ephod.” (1 Chron 15: 27)

Yes, a 'linen' ephod whereas the High Priest wore a ' fine linen ' ephod - Exodus 28:6
I now see the King James added to the Hebrew Scriptures the word ' fine ' linen for David when the word ' fine ' is Not there in the Hebrew.
In the Hebrew Bible we find David wore a 'linen robe' David wore a 'linen' ephod.
Thus, there is a BIG difference between wearing linen and wearing fine linen. David wore ' linen', the added word ' fine' in the Hebrew is Not there.
David wore 'linen' (1st Chron, 15:27) and Not the 'fine linen' as described in Scripture (post # 120)
The Hebrew Scriptures at verse 27 says a 'linen robe' and a 'linen tunic ' for David. The adjective ' fine ' is Not in the Hebrew Scripture.
Samuel was never High Priest but a prophet so the ' linen' Samuel wore was also Not ' fine linen ' as the High Priest would have worn.

 

[Soapy]

Yes, a 'linen' ephod whereas the High Priest wore a ' fine linen ' ephod - Exodus 28:6
I now see the King James added to the Hebrew Scriptures the word ' fine ' linen for David when the word ' fine ' is Not there in the Hebrew.
In the Hebrew Bible we find David wore a 'linen robe' David wore a 'linen' ephod.
Thus, there is a BIG difference between wearing linen and wearing fine linen. David wore ' linen', the added word ' fine' in the Hebrew is Not there.
David wore 'linen' (1st Chron, 15:27) and Not the 'fine linen' as described in Scripture (post # 120)
The Hebrew Scriptures at verse 27 says a 'linen robe' and a 'linen tunic ' for David. The adjective ' fine ' is Not in the Hebrew Scripture.
Samuel was never High Priest but a prophet so the ' linen' Samuel wore was also Not ' fine linen ' as the High Priest would have worn.

I have checked in every Bible translation available at hand for 1 Chron 15:27, and they all say, ‘Fine Linen’ in Hebrew.

I’m asking you to show a translation from any credible scripture Bible that does not say ‘Linen Ephod’ in 1 Chron 15:27.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have checked in every Bible translation available at hand for 1 Chron 15:27, and they all say, ‘Fine Linen’ in Hebrew.
I’m asking you to show a translation from any credible scripture Bible that does not say ‘Linen Ephod’ in 1 Chron 15:27.

Did you check with a Hebrew / English Interlinear _______
The Hebrew ' Tanach ' translation does Not use the word 'fine' at 1st Ch. 15:27 but for the English says 'linen robe' and ' linen tunic '
I am curious which are the all that you found that use the adjective 'Fine' Linen in Hebrew.
'Fine Linen' was reserved for the High Priest as described in Exodus.

 

[Soapy]

Did you check with a Hebrew / English Interlinear _______
The Hebrew ' Tanach ' translation does Not use the word 'fine' at 1st Ch. 15:27 but for the English says 'linen robe' and ' linen tunic '
I am curious which are the all that you found that use the adjective 'Fine' Linen in Hebrew.
'Fine Linen' was reserved for the High Priest as described in Exodus.

“Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people” (Revelation 19:8)

“Shesh: Byssus”

“Byssus: Fine Linen”

“Fine Linen: …”

I cannot find a translation that says anything other than ‘Fine Linen’ for David.

Can you post me an extract or a link, please.

 

[Muffled]

I believe we say it because it is true.

 

[Muffled]

.maybe this has what you are seeking.

Where Does Jesus Say, "I Am YHWH (God)" in the Bible?

I believe I researched this and "I am that I am" is actually AHYH. There is debate as to what JHVH means.

 

[Muffled]

Also see my 10 year old thread "Is Jesus God?". It's endless, the back and forth. Have fun!

Mine was over 150 pages and 500 posts but some people just kept repeating themselves as though what they said had to be true because they were saying it so often.

 

[Soapy]

Mine was over 150 pages and 500 posts but some people just kept repeating themselves as though what they said had to be true because they were saying it so often.

What was the consensus of opinion as to whether Jesus is God?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

“Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people” (Revelation 19:8)“Shesh: Byssus” “Byssus: Fine Linen” “Fine Linen: …”
I cannot find a translation that says anything other than ‘Fine Linen’ for David.
Can you post me an extract or a link, please.

Thank you for your reply because an inquiring mind wants to know.
Yes, ' fine linen ' (Rev. 19:7-8) stands for the acts of the holy ones (KJV saints) like the people of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18.
Acts like a bride who adorns herself - Isaiah 61:10; 2nd Cor. 11:2 B - ones who are the ' first fruits ' - Rev. 14:4; Rev. 20:6
When we hear about 'first fruits' we do Not think the first fruits includes the whole crop, the whole bunch, but rather that other fruit will follow.
So, the holy people of Rev. 19:8 is Not the whole crop, Not the whole bunch.
Jesus spoke of both: a 'little flock '(a little bunch) at Luke 12:32, but Jesus also has 'other sheep' (a bigger bunch) at John 10:16
The smaller crop or bunch are considered as the 'saints/holy ones' mentioned at Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 27.
Whereas, the majority of people can be like the figurative humble 'sheep' of Matthew 25:37. They are the Bigger Larger bunch.
Those 'sheep' are part of the coming momentous milestone in the establishment of God's Kingdom governing over Earth for a thousand years.
Whereas, the heavenly resurrected people like those mentioned at Daniel chapter 7 have that first or earlier resurrection.
They will govern with Christ in Heaven as kings and priests - Rev. 5:9-10 - governing over earth's righteous people.
The humble meek people who Jesus promised will inherit the Earth - Matt. 5:5 from Psalm 37:9-11

I don't have a link but I think if you google: The Stone Edition TANACH something should come up for you.
On page 1911 is 1st Chronicles 15:27 'linen robe', 'linen tunic' without the word ' fine '.
'Fine line' was used in connection to the High Priest. David was Not High Priest.
If you have a local Rabbi I wonder how he would reply.
I wonder too how a Jewish person on Religious Forums might reply.

I hope we can agree that there is a BIG difference recognizing minor slips that crept into translations or copies of the Bible text more than dismissing the Bible as a whole. Some translators choose to deliberately put a spin on words or verses, whereas with others it is just an oversight.
Checking with ancient manuscripts can shed more light or detailed light on the subject at hand.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What was the consensus of opinion as to whether Jesus is God?

I find Psalm 90:2 informs us God had No beginning because God is from everlasting ( No start, No end )
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still now thinks he has a God over him - Rev. 3:12

 

[Soapy]

I find Psalm 90:2 informs us God had No beginning because God is from everlasting ( No start, No end )
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still now thinks he has a God over him - Rev. 3:12

So you agree that Jesus is not God. That’s wonderful to know.

But now there is the idea that Jesus was ‘from the beginning’. Where do you, if you do, get the idea that Jesus was ‘from the beginning’?

I mean, Jesus was the PROMISED MESSIAH - it was THE PROMISE ‘from the beginning’ AFTER Adam sinned, wherein God said that the salvation of mankind would come from ‘The Seed of a Woman’ (i.e. The messiah). THAT was ‘the beginning’, imo.

And then, IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME, GOD BROUGHT ABOUT THE WORD HE SPOKE FROM THE BEGINNING - HE SENT THE MESSIAH born of a virgin and therefore NOT A PROCREATION OF MAN just as ADAM IS NOT A PROCREATION OF MAN.

 

[Soapy]

Thank you for your reply because an inquiring mind wants to know.
Yes, ' fine linen ' (Rev. 19:7-8) stands for the acts of the holy ones (KJV saints) like the people of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18.
Acts like a bride who adorns herself - Isaiah 61:10; 2nd Cor. 11:2 B - ones who are the ' first fruits ' - Rev. 14:4; Rev. 20:6
When we hear about 'first fruits' we do Not think the first fruits includes the whole crop, the whole bunch, but rather that other fruit will follow.
So, the holy people of Rev. 19:8 is Not the whole crop, Not the whole bunch.
Jesus spoke of both: a 'little flock '(a little bunch) at Luke 12:32, but Jesus also has 'other sheep' (a bigger bunch) at John 10:16
The smaller crop or bunch are considered as the 'saints/holy ones' mentioned at Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 27.
Whereas, the majority of people can be like the figurative humble 'sheep' of Matthew 25:37. They are the Bigger Larger bunch.
Those 'sheep' are part of the coming momentous milestone in the establishment of God's Kingdom governing over Earth for a thousand years.
Whereas, the heavenly resurrected people like those mentioned at Daniel chapter 7 have that first or earlier resurrection.
They will govern with Christ in Heaven as kings and priests - Rev. 5:9-10 - governing over earth's righteous people.
The humble meek people who Jesus promised will inherit the Earth - Matt. 5:5 from Psalm 37:9-11

I don't have a link but I think if you google: The Stone Edition TANACH something should come up for you.
On page 1911 is 1st Chronicles 15:27 'linen robe', 'linen tunic' without the word ' fine '.
'Fine line' was used in connection to the High Priest. David was Not High Priest.
If you have a local Rabbi I wonder how he would reply.
I wonder too how a Jewish person on Religious Forums might reply.

I hope we can agree that there is a BIG difference recognizing minor slips that crept into translations or copies of the Bible text more than dismissing the Bible as a whole. Some translators choose to deliberately put a spin on words or verses, whereas with others it is just an oversight.
Checking with ancient manuscripts can shed more light or detailed light on the subject at hand.

Let’s leave it there. Thanks for the additional info.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So you agree that Jesus is not God. That’s wonderful to know.
But now there is the idea that Jesus was ‘from the beginning’. Where do you, if you do, get the idea that Jesus was ‘from the beginning’?
I mean, Jesus was the PROMISED MESSIAH - it was THE PROMISE ‘from the beginning’ AFTER Adam sinned, wherein God said that the salvation of mankind would come from ‘The Seed of a Woman’ (i.e. The messiah). THAT was ‘the beginning’, imo.
And then, IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME, GOD BROUGHT ABOUT THE WORD HE SPOKE FROM THE BEGINNING - HE SENT THE MESSIAH born of a virgin and therefore NOT A PROCREATION OF MAN just as ADAM IS NOT A PROCREATION OF MAN.

If you read the latter part of Rev. 3:14 John wrote about pre-human Jesus as the beginning of the creation by God.
To me that is in harmony that Jesus was "IN" the beginning, but Not before the beginning as his God was - Psalm 90:2
Yes, the first prophecy quickly after Adam sinned at Genesis 3:15 promises us a 'seed' (Messiah) to come.
I like how you say: Messiah is Not a procreation of Man, just as Adam was Not a procreation of Man. Very good point.
That reminds me that all of us are born after Adam's downfall, that we all are a procreation of Man (fallen father Adam)
Thus, none of us (No procreation of fallen Mankind) can provide or pay a ransom price for what wrong father Adam brought upon us.
Whereas, Jesus Not being a procreation of Man could pay the ransom as Paid in Full for our sins.
Sinless faithful Jesus could and did balance the Scales of Justice for us in order for our sins to be forgiven.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Let’s leave it there. Thanks for the additional info.

Yes, because the TANACH is the only Hebrew Scriptures I have.
And I did learn that the word 'fine' seems to have crept into verses that before I did Not realize or recognize how that could make a difference.

 

[Soapy]

If you read the latter part of Rev. 3:14 John wrote about pre-human Jesus as the beginning of the creation by God.
To me that is in harmony that Jesus was "IN" the beginning, but Not before the beginning as his God was - Psalm 90:2
Yes, the first prophecy quickly after Adam sinned at Genesis 3:15 promises us a 'seed' (Messiah) to come.
I like how you say: Messiah is Not a procreation of Man, just as Adam was Not a procreation of Man. Very good point.
That reminds me that all of us are born after Adam's downfall, that we all are a procreation of Man (fallen father Adam)
Thus, none of us (No procreation of fallen Mankind) can provide or pay a ransom price for what wrong father Adam brought upon us.
Whereas, Jesus Not being a procreation of Man could pay the ransom as Paid in Full for our sins.
Sinless faithful Jesus could and did balance the Scales of Justice for us in order for our sins to be forgiven.

I upvoted you for the larger aspect of what you said. Great!

My only problem is the first part where you say that you bridge Jesus was ‘from the beginning’ because you believe that a verse (Rev 3:14) appears to claim that Jesus is the beginning of God’s creation.

I do not think that is what the verse is saying.
The verse is saying that Jesus is the first over the creation of God - the Firstborn over creation (Col 1:18): ‘I was dead but am now alive’, ‘These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again’.

Where, in the book of Genesis, do you see Jesus mentioned? Which pre-existent creation is capable of dying?