Accepting Him or Rejecting Him; Jesus Name Baptism and Pentecostal Trinity Churches

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

That's it? Just "Oh"?

Yes, just "oh", since you don't see that Jesus clearly said He manifested His Father's name. The only name we have scripture declaring He mainfested is Jesus Christ. If you don't see that, why should I belabor the point?

It wasn't a personal attack. Your question that prompted the statement was evidence that you didn't comprehend what I had posted previously.

Then maybe you should have attacked me by saying I should brush up on my "comprehension" skills?

No, what you asked was "So, His "fatherhood" was manifested in the man Jesus Christ?"

Ok, so now I ask you: how can God be manifested in flesh while something of Him, His Fatherhood, is not?

YHVH

This is the name of God? What about the Father? Same person, same name? Or no?

I prefer to say that Jesus (the Son) is the manifestation of God, as in 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV), "God was manifest in the flesh."

I agree that the Son is the manifestation of God, but the verse does not say the Son was manifested in flesh. It says God. But, according to you, not all of God was manifested in flesh, right?

It still refers only to His humanity.

Christ refers to His humanity. God could not be the Messiah without flesh, right? His diety lies in the name we get by transliteration from YHVH-Savior, Jesus. But, the two cannot be separated. Diety + humanity (Yahweh-Savior + Messiah) are fused into the One called Jesus Christ. The diety was that of the Father, the humanity was that of a woman.

There is no evidence in scripture to show that the logos was ever named.

Really? John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.

Originally Posted by OGIA

Yes, just "oh", since you don't see that Jesus clearly said He manifested His Father's name. The only name we have scripture declaring He mainfested is Jesus Christ. If you don't see that, why should I belabor the point?

I agreed that Jesus did say He manifested His Father's name. But to go beyond that is nothing more than INTERPRETATION of scripture.

Then maybe you should have attacked me by saying I should brush up on my "comprehension" skills?

Comprehension is part of reading.

Ok, so now I ask you: how can God be manifested in flesh while something of Him, His Fatherhood, is not?

The same way that a human male can be a father and yet he is not his fatherhood. The same way a son can be like his father yet he is not like his father's fatherhood.

This is the name of God? What about the Father? Same person, same name? Or no?

It is the name of God, not of His fatherhood or of His holiness or of His love or of His justice or any of His other characteristics/attributes.

I agree that the Son is the manifestation of God, but the verse does not say the Son was manifested in flesh. It says God. But, according to you, not all of God was manifested in flesh, right?

As I said, the passage says that GOD was manifest in the flesh - not His fatherhood, not this or that attribute of His. GOD was manifest (revealed) in the flesh. This is not the same thing as John saying that the logos "became flesh and dwelt among us." I think you (and maybe certain others here like Brother Epley) confuse "manifest" with "became."

Christ refers to His humanity. God could not be the Messiah without flesh, right? His diety lies in the name we get by transliteration from YHVH-Savior, Jesus. But, the two cannot be separated. Diety + humanity (Yahweh-Savior + Messiah) are fused into the One called Jesus Christ. The diety was that of the Father, the humanity was that of a woman.

GOD is not the Messiah, God's only begotten Son is the Messiah.

Really?

John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.

Well, here's the passage: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Show me where it "clearly" tells us the name of the logos.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

I agreed that Jesus did say He manifested His Father's name. But to go beyond that is nothing more than INTERPRETATION of scripture.

Do you have an opinion as to WHAT His Father's name is/was?

The same way that a human male can be a father and yet he is not his fatherhood. The same way a son can be like his father yet he is not like his father's fatherhood.

I quit analogizing God a while back.

How can God only manifest certain parts of Himself (not His fatherhood) when scripture says "GOD was manifest in flesh"? Aren't you reading an interpretation into that belief?

It is the name of God...

Cool. So, where scripture says "God" we can always insert YHVH, right?

I think you (and maybe certain others here like Brother Epley) confuse "manifest" with "became."

I don't know about others, but if the Word became flesh and God was manifest in flesh and the Word was God, isn't it plausible to assume that "God became flesh"?

GOD is not the Messiah, God's only begotten Son is the Messiah.

Hmmmm? Isn't the Messiah God?

Well, here's the passage: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Show me where it "clearly" tells us the name of the logos.

What was the name of the One who was made flesh, whose glory they beheld?

Originally Posted by OGIA

Do you have an opinion as to WHAT His Father's name is/was?

The same as it was throughout the Old Testament.

I quit analogizing God a while back.

You asked a question and I answered it.

How can God only manifest certain parts of Himself (not His fatherhood) when scripture says "GOD was manifest in flesh"? Aren't you reading an interpretation into that belief?

I'm not the one who said God manifests only certain parts of Himself. Go back to where I specifically said it was GOD that was manifest in the flesh and not His fatherhood, His holiness, etc. In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute.

Cool. So, where scripture says "God" we can always insert YHVH, right?

Actually, where the scripture says LORD in all capital letters we can always insert YHVH.

I don't know about others, but if the Word became flesh and God was manifest in flesh and the Word was God, isn't it plausible to assume that "God became flesh"?

God was REVEALED (manifest) in the flesh. The logos became flesh. The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know.

Hmmmm? Isn't the Messiah God?

The Messiah is God's "only begotten Son."

What was the name of the One who was made flesh, whose glory they beheld?

Why are you asking me? You said that it was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

The same as it was throughout the Old Testament.

Which is?

I answered it.

With an analogy that does not fit or work.

I'm not the one who said God manifests only certain parts of Himself. Go back to where I specifically said it was GOD that was manifest in the flesh and not His fatherhood, His holiness, etc.

You are not saying it, but there's no other way for me to take it. If GOD was manifested in flesh, then ALL of Him was. He did not leave His fatherhood or holiness at home.

In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute.

So, Jesus Christ is the "person/being" of God?

Actually, where the scripture says LORD in all capital letters we can always insert YHVH.

But, you said that YHVH was the name of God, didn't you? If that is so, can't I insert that proper name anywhere I see the title "God"?

The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness.

So when John states that "the logos was God", he really didn't mean that?

The Messiah is God's "only begotten Son."

Yep.

You said that it was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

John 1:14 (NIV, NASB, AMP, NKJV)
And the Word became flesh...

Is that what you're looking for?

[OGIA]

*bump for Chan*

Originally Posted by OGIA

Which is?

Asked and answered.

With an analogy that does not fit or work.

The analogy is what it is and it is a sufficient answer.

You are not saying it, but there's no other way for me to take it. If GOD was manifested in flesh, then ALL of Him was. He did not leave His fatherhood or holiness at home.

THIS, more than anything else, is what annoys me about some people here. STOP READING THINGS INTO WHAT I POST!!!!!!!!!!! You are to take my posts exactly as written; I said what I said and didn't say anything other than what I said. Don't give me this "there's no other way for me to take it" nonsense. Read the words and stop trying to read the blank spaces between them.

So, Jesus Christ is the "person/being" of God?

Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son.

But, you said that YHVH was the name of God, didn't you? If that is so, can't I insert that proper name anywhere I see the title "God"?

Only where the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does it.

So when John states that "the logos was God", he really didn't mean that?

John didn't say "the logos was God." He wrote his gospel in Greek. You are relying on the words of an English translation that are not necessarily accurate. Jesus' divinity is God's divinity and not some other divinity (not that there is any other divinity). Again, "God was REVEALED (manifest) in the flesh. The logos became flesh. The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know."

John 1:14 (NIV, NASB, AMP, NKJV)
And the Word became flesh...

Is that what you're looking for?

No, I want you to show me what YOU CLAIMED the passage said! You said that His name was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. (The exact quote: "John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.") Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

Asked and answered.

YHVH?

The analogy is what it is and it is a sufficient answer.

Not sufficient to address God, though. That's why I don't use them anymore.

Read the words and stop trying to read the blank spaces between them.

That seems to be the most intelligible parts, though.

Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son.

Yep. But, I quote you: "In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute."

Is Jesus Christ the One you identify as being "revealed"? If so, then am I wrong to assume that you are saying that Jesus Christ is the person/being of God revealed?

Only where the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does it.

What about all of the other words rendered, OT and NT, as "God"? Am I not allowed, by your rules, to apply that personal name to those?

John didn't say "the logos was God." He wrote his gospel in Greek. You are relying on the words of an English translation that are not necessarily accurate.

Would you mind giving me the correct translation, then?

Jesus' divinity is God's divinity and not some other divinity (not that there is any other divinity).

I agree.

The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know."

Bear with me, because I'm going to have to do some deducting here:

• logos is divine but not God's fullness
• logos is the part of God we can know
• logos is not all of God that there is

Doesn't that mean that there is a part of God that was not revealed?

You said that His name was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. (The exact quote: "John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.") Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

Forgive me, but I assumed you knew who that passage referred to. No, the name Jesus Christ is not in those 14 verses, Chan, but you're being a bit childish in denying that Jesus Christ IS the One who was the logos incarnate, aren't you?

Or, are you even denying that? I certainly hope not.