Eternal Security

gadar perets said:

Incorrect. It is rendered "the LORD", not "Lord". "The LORD" is not a translation, but a man made substitute for the Tetragrammaton. The NT uses "Lord" for "YHWH" because it is a translation of "kurios", not "YHWH".


Of all the N.T. verses that quote Isaiah, Luke 3:4-6 aids our understanding because it includes Isiah 40:4 & 5. It says, "As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of YHWH, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; And all flesh shall see the salvation of YHWH." "Prepare ye the way of YHWH" does not mean, "Move out of the way because YHWH is coming." And so when Yeshua comes they believe he is YHWH. The verse does NOT say, "Prepare you the way FOR YHWH...".

How was "the way" to be prepared? By filling valleys, leveling mountains, straightening paths, etc. This work is not to be understood literally, but spiritually through the humbling of those in exalted positions and the restoration of truth. Who was to do that work? John 4:34 says, "Yeshua saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work." Almighty YHWH appointed His Son Yeshua to finish His work. Yeshua was YHWH's instrument in the accomplishment of His great plan. Yeshua is the "Messenger of the Covenant," "the servant of YHWH," and "the salvation of YHWH." John 14:6 calls Yeshua "the way." He is "the way of YHWH;" the means through which YHWH will finish His work.



Your addition of "(YHVH)" to the text is wrong. The verse does NOT have "YHVH" in the Greek, but only "kurios". "Kurios" was used of men many times in the NT (for example, Acts 25:26 and 1 Peter 3:6). Yeshua is "Lord", but he is NOT "LORD" (YHWH).

So to add "YHWH" to verses referring to Yeshua is to add to the Gospel and the NT.

Click to expand...

Putting things in Greek is called translating...not adding. All you have to do is take the OT YHVH references and see that they are translated into the Greek as Kurios. So the the Greek Kurios refers to YHVH. You don't have to be a scholar to look at the word associations in the 2 languages. You don't like what the NT writers are saying....that's your issue.

Episkopos said:

Putting things in Greek is called translating...not adding. All you have to do is take the OT YHVH references and see that they are translated into the Greek as Kurios. So the the Greek Kurios refers to YHVH. You don't have to be a scholar to look at the word associations in the 2 languages. You don't like what the NT writers are saying....that's your issue.

Click to expand...

Kurios can refer to men or YHWH. It is not to be translated "YHWH" every time it appears in the Greek, but only if it is a quote from an OT verse that has "YHWH" in it. No "scholar" worth his salt would ever say what you are saying.

Could your problem be the difficulty you have in understanding how other languages work? Do you speak more than one language?

Notice this inter-testamentary comparision.

The Lord says this...

Is. 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first (rishon), I also am the last (acharon).

Rev. 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First (arche) and the Last (telos), the Beginning and the End ."

So you will say that because the words are translated(and therefore aren't the same words) they are not referring to the same person and the same thing?

gadar perets said:

Kurios can refer to men or YHWH. It is not to be translated "YHWH" every time it appears in the Greek, but only if it is a quote from an OT verse that has "YHWH" in it. No "scholar" worth his salt would ever say what you are saying.

Click to expand...

In your search for loopholes around the plain meaning of the text...you are throwing out the reasoning power that even a child could conjure up.

I know the arguments...like autos in John 1...meaning either "Him" or "it"....as in believing in "it's" name rather than in "His" name.

But with things like that you are stumbling over translation devices in order to miss the meaning of the text. You are welcome to do so of course.

Rollo Tamasi said:

Proverbs 30:1-4;

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you cited that passage, but verse 4 says to me that the Creator is the Father and that He has a Son.

Episkopos said:

Could your problem be the difficulty you have in understanding how other languages work? Do you speak more than one language?

Notice this inter-testamentary comparision.

The Lord says this...

Is. 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first (rishon), I also am the last (acharon).

Rev. 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First (arche) and the Last (telos), the Beginning and the End ."

So you will say that because the words are translated(and therefore aren't the same words) they are not referring to the same person and the same thing?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with these translations. I have a problem with you adding the name "YHWH" to passages about the Son.

gadar perets said:

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
​

I'm not sure why you cited that passage, but verse 4 says to me that the Creator is the Father and that He has a Son.

Click to expand...

Actually in Hebrew the best way to read the verse is not..."if thou canst tell"...but...."for you know" (kiy tedah). So then the identity of God's Son is no mystery. Everyone knows His name.

gadar perets said:

I have no problem with these translations. I have a problem with you adding the name "YHWH" to passages about the Son.

Click to expand...

But I am showing you verses that have Jesus as God...and you don't flinch? You follow one rule one time and then throw the same process out the next time because you don't like what it says.
I don't have the time today to go through the OT references to Jesus being YHVH as well as His Father...or that YHVH sends YHVH to us...later.

Episkopos said:

In your search for loopholes around the plain meaning of the text...you are throwing out the reasoning power that even a child could conjure up.

I know the arguments...like autos in John 1...meaning either "Him" or "it"....as in believing in "it's" name rather than in "His" name.

But with things like that you are stumbling over translation devices in order to miss the meaning of the text. You are welcome to do so of course.

Click to expand...

Why do you keep changing the subject? We are discussing whether or not it is permissible to read the Son into Genesis 18:1-2 or any other verse where "YHWH" is used in the OT. We are also discussing your blatant, man made addition of "YHWH" into the text of 1 Corinthians 15:47.

Episkopos said:

But I am showing you verses that have Jesus as God...and you don't flinch? You follow one rule one time and then throw the same process out the next time because you don't like what it says.
I don't have the time today to go through the OT references to Jesus being YHVH as well as His Father...or that YHVH sends YHVH to us...later.

Click to expand...

We are not discussing whether or not Jesus is "God". We are discussing adding to the Greek or Hebrew texts unlawfully and reading the Son into the text.

gadar perets said:

I do blame Christian theologians. They are wrong and we should not accept their teachings when they are wrong. That makes us wrong along with them. The same goes for OSAS (a false doctrine which you rightly proclaim as false) as well as their "no Sabbath" doctrine (which you are on the fence about).

Click to expand...

Regarding the no Sabbath doctrine, there are some biblical scholars who do believe in Saturday worship. As you know, the reason this bothers me is because Sabbath worship is one of the commandments and I don't understand why that commandments is abolished and not the other 9. It seems to me that God's commandments are forever.

OSAS is calvinist and he was wrong about everything else so that's that. (About the points of the TULIP, I mean).

As to the covenants, we don't get to make them up. It's something set and we just need to study them. The NC is unconditional because God always said from Genesis 3:17 that He would send a Savior to release mankind from the grip of satan. Since God keeps His promises, this could not depend on man in any part, but only on God. Needless to say, man fails. In the Edenic Covenant man failed, and also in the Mosaic Covenant.

Man's only part is to want to be saved and to be in the NC by abiding in Christ, walking with the Holy Spirit who will help him not to sin, and to remain in the Kingdom of God here on earth so that he will die saved.

Episkopos said:

Jesus Christ is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven. This is an English forum...and we use English terms as well as English verses.

In the OT the word YHVH is translated mainly as Lord.

So then prepare the way for the Lord...that would be YHVH again.

Is. 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (YHVH) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God (elohim).

What you disagree with is not theologians but the NT writers....This is what they say about the above OT verse.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Or this...

1 Cor. 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven.

So to miss the Lord (YHVH) coming in the flesh is to miss Jesus, the gospel, the NT and God.

Click to expand...

Why do you translate the Lord as Yaweh
and also the LORD as Yaweh? (highlighted in red).

Stranger said:

To quote part of what I said, and not all of what I said, in order to give the appearance that I agree with you

Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear to even the casual reader that we do not agree. But that does not mean there is not some tiny fraction of what you say -- that is not true. Indeed there are very small snips that are true. So I agree where at all possible

If in addition to imagining that OSAS is true - you have also imagined that those reading this thread see you and I in agreement - well then I would add that to your list of creative writing skills demonstrated on this thread so far.

My statement in post #967 concerned Abraham's obedience in leaving Ur.

Click to expand...

you found one small snip to get right - I have already agreed to that.

Stranger said: ↑
(Gen. 26:5) "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

As I have said, Abraham did obey God

Click to expand...

And I reply -- again--

Indeed he did -- God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

You know... the usual.
=========================

Leaving you with the GOLDEN opportunity to tell us all about how in fact Abraham was ignoring that part of God's Word and only doing one thing -- "leaving town" as is "obedience". That in fact (in your much-imagined response to the point) you would have to argue that he
1. took God's name in vain
2. Dishonored parents
3. made images to bow down and worship...

you know "the details" of objecting to my very specific response about Abraham's obedience.

"How instructive" then that you avoided the direct response to "the details".

In this quote I show that OSAS fails both in OT and NT

BobRyan said: ↑
Indeed it was as God points out in Ezek 18 and Matthew 18.

Ezek 18 and Matthew 18 teach "forgiveness revoked" when we have a case where Abraham does NOT keep the Commandments, Statutes and Laws - but rather turns from that life and instead adopts some form of rebellion

Click to expand...

Stranger said:

To quote part of what I said, and not all of what I said, in order to give the appearance that I agree with you is being dishonest. That is the trap you fall in when you pick partial phrases and statements out of what people write to bolster your argument.

My statement in post #967 concerned Abraham's obedience in leaving Ur. Which you cut out.

Stranger

Click to expand...

A+ on complaining -- but not-so-good on replying to the "substance" in the discussion.

BTW the fictional scenario that you are trying to "correct" where everyone sees you and I in agreement - does not exist in real life.

BobRyan said: ↑
Genesis 26
So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2 The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

Click to expand...

Indeed he did -- God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

You know... the usual.



God's Word is law even when no person comes after Him and "writes it down" -- as it turns out.

God tells Isaac that the covenant made with Abraham is made with Isaac "because" Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws and of course "sin IS" by definition "transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

Your point that God's commandments, statutes, laws were not in "written form" at the time - is a non-issue. God's Word says they existed and His Word says Abraham obeyed them. This is Moses writing in Genesis 26... and Moses uses that same phrase in several places to identify God's commandments, statutes and laws

Your argument at this point is "with the text"

Stranger said:

Again, I have no argument with the text.

Click to expand...

I would love to see that point actually demonstrated in real life.

Stranger said:

Abraham knew the mind and will of God, and obeyed the voice of God

Click to expand...

Hence my statement --

God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

And as already stated - it is Moses writing -- The OT repeatedly uses that phrase to refer to the actual Commandments of God.

which embraced what would later be written down

Click to expand...

True - because God's Law does not "cease to exist until someone writes it".

But Abraham was not doing this in response to law.

Click to expand...

creative writing again. God says Abraham was obeying " My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws."

Moses tells us that this refers to the real commands of God including those at Sinai about not taking God's name in vain..[/quote]

Stranger said:

Again, I have no argument with the text. Abraham knew the mind and will of God, and obeyed the voice of God which embraced what would later be written down as commandments, statutes, and laws. But Abraham was not doing this in response to law. He was being obedient in response to his relationship with God. He was doing just like a Christian that walks in the Spirit does. He was doing what the law would later demand, without walking by law.

Concerning the Abrahamic Covenant, Abraham's obedience in leaving Ur, and going to the land, was required for God to make His Covenant with him. Which God did. But Abraham was not always obedient.

Click to expand...

He made mistakes at times - but God is speaking after Abraham had died -- in Genesis 26 talking to Isaac -- and God's summary of it all was that
was obeying " My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." this is irrefutable.

What is more - Moses explains that phrase over and over.

So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

Obviously.

Abraham must be in the land for God to initiate the Covenant. God does initiate it, and then leaves Abraham out of the picture as to the terms of the Covenant. God binds Himself to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 15:15-17)

Click to expand...

And informs us that all His agreements are conditional on obedience in Ezekiel 18 and Matthew 18 (forgiveness revoked...death of OSAS) ... and also that all His promises are conditional in Jeremiah 18.

So then Joseph takes Jacob and company into Egypt -- God's promise still in place.

God tells Abraham it would be more than 400 years before that promise began to surface.

============================

Abraham actually kept God's Laws as Moses points out.

Genesis 26
So Isaac went to Gerar, to Abimelech king of the Philistines. 2 The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham.
4 I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”

For real.

Deut 5:31 But as for you, stand here by Me, that I may speak to you all the commandments and the statutes and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I give them to possess.’

Episkopos said:

Jesus Christ is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven. This is an English forum...and we use English terms as well as English verses.

In the OT the word YHVH is translated mainly as Lord.

So then prepare the way for the Lord...that would be YHVH again.

Is. 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (YHVH) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God (elohim).

What you disagree with is not theologians but the NT writers....This is what they say about the above OT verse.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Or this...

1 Cor. 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord (YHVH) from heaven.

So to miss the Lord (YHVH) coming in the flesh is to miss Jesus, the gospel, the NT and God.

Click to expand...

Well I thought after reading this exchange for a bit, I would add some historical perspective and scriptural sense into the verse 1 Cor 15:47. I could have made a commentary of all your verses in your exchange with GP. I just settled for this one that was sufficient to bring my point home.

1 Cor 15:47: The KJV and its kin versions ran amuck once more, and here, to try and support a Trinity model. The earliest translations (Latin)do not have the English transliterated word ‘Lord’ in it whatsoever. In other words, this last phrase was deliberately changed as a desperate attempt to convince the gullible that Jesus was God Almighty himself. Fortunately, over 70 percent and counting,of the translations have it correct.

And fortunately, on examination of the context, the meaning does become very clear. There is no mention YWHW here. Even if ‘Lord’ was in the original or earliest text, it would never mean God Almighty. It would mean out Lord, master and Saviour, Jesus Christ who was born of God, our Father (the idiom ‘from the heavenlies,’ ‘is heavenly’ etc. MEANS Born of God, who is from the heavenlies, not Jesus was from the heavenlies - God himself was from heaven)

(1Co 15:39) All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
(1Co 15:40) There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is one and the glory of the earthly is another.
(1Co 15:41) There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for one star differs from another star in glory.
(1Co 15:42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
(1Co 15:43) It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
(1Co 15:44) It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
(1Co 15:45) So also it is written: The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
(1Co 15:46) But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and only then the spiritual.
(1Co 15:47) The first man is of the earth, earthy. The second man is heavenly.

NIV “is of heaven”

ESV, NASB “is from heaven”

KJV changed ‘heavenly’ or ‘of heaven’ or ‘from heaven’ to “the Lord from heaven”

KJV made verse 17 into a corrupt verse. Folks should write that down...

(1Co 15:48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy, and as is the heavenly, such are they that are heavenly.
(1Co 15:49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (ALL NEV)

1 Cor 15:39-49 speaks of the comparison of the earthly and the heavenly, of the 1st and last/2nd Adams and what we will become, as like the 2nd Adam. It would be very, VERY odd to read here ‘Lord’ as YWHW (in verse 17). There is no other place ‘Lord’ is present in the entire scripture passage. I wonder why?

And Epi, your seemingly cavalier, ‘thrown down’ gauntlet statement for verse 17 that “So to miss the Lord (YHVH) coming in the flesh is to miss Jesus, the gospel, the NT and God.” As if you are saying to @gadar perets and others that if you don’t believe my translation of 1 Cor 15:47, then you are ‘lost.’ You might want to reexamine this scripture again and in context this time, before preaching your trash to others.

As 1 Cor 15:49 says ‘’…. we shall bear the image of the heavenly.” And guess who is the IMAGE of the heavenly? Not YWHW, it is none other that Jesus our Christ, Lord and savior. YWHW cannot be himself and also his own copy/image. All together: That’s impossible! If you believe otherwise then WE as believers, will also be YWHW which is blasphemy indeed.

How can you think to call our Father, Jesus Christ, who is ONLY the image/nature/likeness of God; back on earth and now in the heavenlies? Man have you limited our God Almighty to a copy of his own spiritual character he created, as the last Adam for our salvation.

Bless you,


APAK

BobRyan said:

I think it is pretty clear to even the casual reader that we do not agree. But that does not mean there is not some tiny fraction of what you say -- that is not true. Indeed there are very small snips that are true. So I agree where at all possible

If in addition to imagining that OSAS is true - you have also imagined that those reading this thread see you and I in agreement - well then I would add that to your list of creative writing skills demonstrated on this thread so far.




you found one small snip to get right - I have already agreed to that.



And I reply -- again--

Indeed he did -- God says that he "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
So then - no taking God's name in vain - for Abraham
No worship of false Gods' for Abraham
No bowing down before images for Abraham
No dishonor to parents for Abraham

You know... the usual.
=========================

Leaving you with the GOLDEN opportunity to tell us all about how in fact Abraham was ignoring that part of God's Word and only doing one thing -- "leaving town" as is "obedience". That in fact (in your much-imagined response to the point) you would have to argue that he
1. took God's name in vain
2. Dishonored parents
3. made images to bow down and worship...

you know "the details" of objecting to my very specific response about Abraham's obedience.

"How instructive" then that you avoided the direct response to "the details".

Click to expand...

My point was and is your dishonesty in not presenting the full statement. Which you continue to do. If you are willing to do that, patch and piece words out of their context in order to bolster your case, then no doubt you do the same with the Bible.

Which means what? Your not interpreting the Bible. Your making the Bible say what you want it to say.

Abraham did only one thing that was commanded by God. Leaving Ur. He also did many disobedient things as I showed. Do you agree? I gave you the 'details'. How was he keeping the law then? Why would God establish His Covenant with such an one?

So, you who are so 'law minded', why are you so dishonest with others posts. I guess there is no commandment that says thou shalt not be dishonest and manipulative with others posts. Which makes you free to continue. Right?

Stranger