PSacramento wrote:
I may be misunderstanding what everastudent is saying, but it seems to me that he is implying the Jesus was calling himself YHWH, ie: God the father, not God the son of the Trinity.
It is my undestanding that, while Jesus is part of the trinity, he is so as God, the Son, not God the father and as such he is the person of God, the Son.
To say that Jesus was claiming to be YHWH, God the father would mean that he was claiming to be the PERSON of God, the father, no?
Thanks for noting the point of confusion. In Trinitarian-speak YHWH is not the name of the Father only, but is the proper name for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all together.
For Trinitarians, when one says YHWH they are referring to all three persons of the one God. Further, the Almighty is like the name YHWH and refers to all three persons of the Trinity. The same holds true with the title, God. God is the Almighty, the Creator, the Savior.
Think of it this way, if Jesus were to show up in person and talk with you (and I am not even implying this does or does not happen today as it did with Paul) then you could properly say that you talked with YHWH, or with God, or with the Almighty. The same would hold true if the Father showed up and talked with you.
Which person of the Trinity showed up and talked with Abraham (Genesis 18) by the oak trees? Some say it was the Father. Some say it was Jesus, the Son. Some say it was all three persons of YHWH because the manifestation was in three persons. More confounding is that YHWH stays behind to talk with Abraham while the other two messengers go to rain down fire on Soddom and Gomorrah, though the text alternates between saying it was the angels who rained the fire and that it was YHWH who rained the fire. Of course, it is easily reconciled by understanding that YHWH is three persons and visited Abraham as a manifestation of three persons.