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

Originally Posted by OGIA

YHVH?


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

It was sufficient to address what you asked.

That seems to be the most intelligible parts, though.

What? Don't you like challenging your brain?

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."

Absolutely. But "revealed" does not mean "became," though you seem to be trying to equate the two.

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?

No, GOD is the one being revealed. HE is being revealed by/through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.

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?

No, because the various words translated that way may not be referring to YHVH. Some of the Greek words translated God sometimes mean divinity, deity or divine nature.

Would you mind giving me the correct translation, then?

The problem in the translation of John 1:1 is the phrase translated "was with God." A proper translation would be "pertaining to deity" or "with regard to deity," much the way it was translated in Hebrews. Thus, "In the beginning was the logos and the logos, with regard to deity, was God." In other words, the divinity/deity of the logos is the divinity/deity of God and not a separate divinity/deity - contrary to John Calvin's use of autotheotes (God of Himself) with regard to Jesus.

I agree.

It's good that we at least agree on something.

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?

I thought I had said that when I was explaining about the logos/memra.

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.

I'm taking what you post to mean exactly what you wrote (which is what I expect people to do with my posts). I know that the logos that became flesh and dwelt among us is none other than Jesus Christ - based on the context of the passage - but coming to that conclusion is an act of INTERPRETING scripture, which is not the same thing as saying the Bible actually says something.