JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[onewithhim]

Jesus prayed to YHWH, the Father, not to himself. (E.g., Matthew 26:39,42; John 11:41,42; John 17:1-26.) Would he have been praying to himself?

He continually referred to himself as "God's SON," not YHWH Himself. (John 5:19; John 8:28,29; John 10:36; John 17:1.) Even the Jews who hated him recognized that fact (John 19:7). Can he be his own Son?

He applied Isaiah 61:1,2 to himself, at Luke 4:17-21, showing that he was the one anointed BY YHWH, and sent BY YHWH. There are incontrovertibly two Persons mentioned in the passage, and YHWH is the One calling the shots. The anointed one does what YHWH wants. How could they be the same Person?

Psalm 110 is also applied to Jesus at Acts 2:34,35. He is the "Lord," or Messiah, that YHWH speaks to. Was YHWH talking to Himself?


I think that just these few points would show plainly that Jesus is not YHWH. Can anyone explain how THESE REFERENCES, ABOVE, can possibly agree with the premise that Jesus is YHWH? I'm not asking for other Scriptures to be brought in without commenting ON the verses I am asking about. Please give me your reasoning concerning these particular Scriptures. Thank you.

[Donray]

The orthodoxy for Christians is the trinity. Anything else is hearsay.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 97 by JehovahsWitness]

For a detailed analysis look into R. Bauckham's God Crucified.

Before making a case, it is important to remember that Jewish theology (which includes the N.T.) was done primarily by exegesis of scripture, not by philosophical arguments. Their tools were not primarily logic but literary methods: for instance, when a couple of words occur in two different places in scripture, Jewish exegetes would interpret them in light of each other, even if the books were separated from each other by centuries. We can see Paul doing this quite often.

There are number of passages where the term 'theos' and 'kurios' are juxtaposed. 1 Cor. 8:6 is a reworking of the Shema (i.e., all the terms are present):

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1Co 8:6 NAS)

cf. "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
(Deu 6:4 NAS)

Deut 6.4 is one of the major monotheistic formulas of the o.t. Paul has interpreted it in light of his beliefs about Jesus.

Isaiah comes next in line as far as the most explicit monotheistic declaration; Phil. 2.6-11 is Paul's reworking (i.e. Christological interpretation) of Isaianic monotheistic passages but also juxtaposed with the suffering servant passages.

Phil. 2.7 "but poured himself out, = Isa 53.12 because he poured himself out

Phil 2.8 "..becoming obedient to the point of accepting death" = Isa 53.12 "...to death".

Phil. 2.9 "Therefore also God exalted him to the highest place" = Isa 53.12 "Therefore...52.13 he shall be exalted and lifted up and shall be very high"

Phil. 2.9b "and conferred on him the Name that is above every name" (here Paul moves away from the suffering servant motif and on to "Christ is YHWH" motif; for what is the name above every name?).

Phil. 2.10 "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth; 11 and every tongue should acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father" = Isa. 45.22-23 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth. For I am God and there is no other. 23 By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth righteousness, a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue swear.'

We see that in the Isaianic passage, every knee bows to God and confesses God; in Phil, Paul envisions every knee bending and tongue confessing that Christ is Kurios (i.e., the Greek translation for the Hebrew YHWH).

The gospels too link Jesus with LORD (i.e. YHWH), though, since they are narratives, it is a bit more subtle. I was first a literature student, and so it was ingrained in me to always ask, "Why did the author do this?" Of course, I was also taught that sometimes the answer was, "no perceivable reason" or even "no reason; this author is being intentional." But I think if one reads the gospels with the questions always on the mind, "why did he do this? Why did he quote this o.t. passage at this point? Why place these two pericopes next to each other?" one will find some very intentional literary maneuvers.

Matthew 3.3 cites Isa 40.3, wherein the 'voice' is preparing the way for THE LORD. But in Matthew, the baptist prepares the way for Jesus

Matthew also cites Isa

23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." (Mat 1:23 NAS)

I believe that this was intended to create a bookend (what biblical scholars call an inclusio) with Jesus' last words in Matthew:

20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Mat 28:20 NAS)

Here are a list of N.t. texts where the author quotes or alludes to an o.t. text using the designation YHWH, but is doing so to make Jesus the referent:

Rom 10.13 = Joel 2.32
1 Cor. 1.13 = Jer 9.24
1 Cor. 2.16 = Isa 40.13
1 Cor. 10.26 = Ps 23.1
2 Cor 10.17 = Jer. 9.24.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 98 by onewithhim]

Just want to throw in a comment. You paint the Trinity issue with a broad brush---

Of course. Tomes are written on this stuff, which is not appropriate to this venue.

assuming that Christianity injected this Trinity into the O.T., e.g., elohim being three gods.

My guess is you know Trinitarian theology well enough that no Christian would plead guilty to this description. Though the N.T. ascribes divinity to Jesus and in many places assigns him the Greek substitute for YHWH, it is clear that they at least don't think they are polytheists. It is noteworthy that some of the most explicit High-Christology passages are interpretations of some of the most monotheistic passages of the O.T.

Perhaps your argument should rather be, "The notion of One God, Three Substances, is nonsense". But that would move us from exegesis to theology and even philosophy.

I submit that it was not correct to inject the Trinity into the O.T.. Trinitarians are teaching a pagan philosophy which the ancient Jews did not recognize at all,

It is pagan only if the early Christians consciously taught a polytheism. They clearly didn't think so. Maybe they were wrong; maybe the philosophical maneuvers of the church fathers are unjustified; but it is clear that from the N.T. on through all Christian theology, no Trinitarian ever thought he was advocating three gods.

and neither did Jesus and his disciples. None of that doctrine rings true.

This is a bold move. First, we would have to establish what texts go back to the historical Jesus. To the best of my knowledge, we have one overtly problematic passage, "Why call me good; none is good but God." By historical criteria I believe this is authentic. But it is just one statement, and it is not even a statement but a question.

Second, how do we know what his disciples thought? We don't have their diaries. It is clear that Paul believed in Jesus' divinity, and it is no stretch to believe that he was in contact with Peter and James throughout his ministry. We have no evidence that the theology Paul taught was considered contentious by Peter or James. If Jesus' disciples did not think Jesus was divine, then they did a poor job managing the churches that grew up--for all the documents that arise from the early church support Jesus as God.

[JehovahsWitness]

In the N.T.[...] Jesus gets YHWH, the Father gets Elohim.

Where does this happen?

[Replying to post 102 by liamconnor]

1 CORINTHIANS 8:6 - NWT
There is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

There is no indication in this passage that Jesus in fact *is* Jehovah or any indication that the Son (Jehovah) has "replaced" the Father in power or position Any "Juxtaposition" would be to contrast the surperiorty of the One True God Jehovah with to his Son who occupies a inferior role as a means or an instrument of God

PHILIPIANS 2:9
For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name

Paul moves [...] on to "Christ is YHWH" motif; for what is the name above every name?.

Paul was NOT speaking in the absolute. Firstly, note that Paul did not say that is the name above every name in existence indeed the context Philipians 2 indicates that he was speaking of the name "by which man may obtain salvation" . This reading is in line with what Paul himself said since he explicitly stated that it was {quote} "God [that] exalted [Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name" {end quote}. One cannot give more than one has, so God cannot without debasing himself exalt Jesus above Himself. Indeed if we understand Almighty God to be omnipotent in nature, there can be nothing more than omnipotence: since refering to Jesus "name" is actually a reference to his authority and postion, then an omnipotent God giving anything or anyone more power than omnipotence is a logical impossibility.


Further, from suggesting that Jesus had supplanted YHWH in power and position (name) notice the next verse where Paul states that submission to Jesus is "to the glory of God the Father"*

"so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." - Philipians 2: 10 NWT

So Jesus Christ is here shown to be different from God the Father (YHWH) and it is The Father, that ultimately recieves the "glory*. Indeed affirmation that Paul was not implying that Jesus was given a name supeior to the Father since he elsewhere speaks of Jesus being elevated not above the Father but to his “right hand� indicating a position of privilege but not superiority of the Father (compare Rm.8:34).

CONCLUSION Giving that Paul acknowledges Jesus and YHWH as being two seperate individuals, that he never indicates that YHWH has been debased or replaces and that he (Paul) acknowledges Jesus as being given authority and exalted by an Almighty God, it is a reasoable conclusion - without imposing trinitarian theology on the verse - is that Paul was indeed speaking in the relative sense; that Jesus is second to no other creature (created being) in existence and superior to everyone and everthing in heaven and earth with the obvious exception of the one that GAVE him (Jesus) his authority, namely YHWH the Father (Jehovah God).

*Dy reads: “ . . . every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.� Kx and CC read similarly, but a footnote in Kx acknowledges: “ . . . the Greek is perhaps more naturally rendered ‘to the glory,’� and NAB and JB render it that way.�

[JehovahsWitness]

ISAIAH 45:22-23
Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is no one else. By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth

QUESTION What does it mean for "every knee to bow"? Does the fact that the same expression is used in relation to both Jesus and Jehovah indicate duality of person (trinitarian view) or a contradiction?

Even today, bowing is a sign of respect towards a higher authority, for example in the United Kingdom, people meeting the Queen of England are expected to bow or GENUFLECT. Genuflection, a gesture that involves the bending at least one knee to the ground, and has from early times been a gesture of deep respect for a superior. Both Isaiah and Paul were speaking about recognizing the authority of a superior. Are we to conclude then that Christians must only recognize one or the other? That if one recognizes YHWH as the supreme Creator of the Universe one cannot at the same time recognize the authority or position of any other individual? No. Although Jehovah is the ultimate authority he has and does delegate power and authority to others. The Hebrew law for example commanded that children honour their parents, their elders and even the anointed king, all of which had relative god-given authority. If Jesus is the duly appointed representative of Almighty God, given authority to rule on his Father's behalf, then individuals that want God's approval must recognize and submit to Jesus. Doing so they are also submitting to the one that granted Jesus' authority, Jehovah God.

To illustrate: Imagine if a King sends his son to a conquered foreign country. Does the son have to literally be the same person (trinittarian view) in order to demand the newly conquered individuals bow to him? or would it be viewed as an act of rebellion or subversion if the son were to insist on such if that insistance was with the full accord of the father?

In a similar way, Paul was explaining that Jesus, as God's representative had the right to demand submission (bending of the knee) in the name of (under the given authority) of the Father; NOT in opposition or at the demotion or surpassing of that one.

RELATED THREADS

Salvation through whom?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 184#854184

Is it fitting to glorigy both Jehovah and Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 956#869956

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 105 by JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION What does it mean for "every knee to bow"? Does the fact that the same expression is used in relation to both Jesus and Jehovah indicate duality of person (trinitarian view) or a contradiction?

Are you asking me this question, or Paul and the N.T. authors?

[JehovahsWitness]

Christ is Kurios (i.e., the Greek translation for the Hebrew YHWH).

This statement is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The Greek word "kurios" (English: Lord) is a translation of the Hebrew word adonai not YHWH. The tetragrammaton* (YHWH) is a completely different Hebrew word. Kurios is neither a translation nor a transliteration of YHWH.



*The tetraramaton (the name of God in the Hebrew bible) and is generally understood to come from the Hebrew verb meaning "to be" in its causative sense (ie "causes to become"). In early greek manuscripts (for example the Septuagint) the Divine Name (YHWH) was either left untranslated and written the Hebrew characters (YHWH) or the Greek transliteration of those characters (IAO).

Further reading
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bibl ... testament/
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -view.html


RELATED THREADS

Greek (blue Letter)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 178#866178

[JehovahsWitness]

The gospels too link Jesus with LORD (i.e. YHWH) {snip}

Matthew 3.3 cites Isa 40.3, wherein the 'voice' is preparing the way for THE LORD. But in Matthew, the baptist prepares the way for Jesus

While Jesus is of course "linked" with his own Father (YHWH) there is no indication that they are both YHWH the Almighty God.

MATTHEW 3:3 NWT
“A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of Jehovah!* Make his roads straight.’�

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For this was he of whom it was said by Isaiah the Prophet, “A voice that cries in the desert, 'Prepare the way of THE LORD JEHOVAH and level his paths'.�

There is evidence that the Divine name YHWH (English Jehovah) was removed from the original texts (and replaced with the title "LORD"). The New World Translations of Jehovah's Witnesses and various other translations have restored the Divine Name to its orginal place in scripture where the writer was evidently quoting (or alluding) to text in the Hebrew bible where it appeared. For more details on this point please click on THIS LINK
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 272#822272

The above text in Matthews 3:3 contains a quotation from ISAIAH 40:3 where the divine name (YHWH) appears, thus it is completely reasonable to conclude an accurate translation would be rendered as follows:

World English Bible
The voice of one who calls out, "Prepare the way of Yahweh in the wilderness! Make a level highway in the desert for our God.

Young's Literal Translation
A voice is crying -- in a wilderness -- Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, Make straight in a desert a highway to our God.

New World Translation
A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up the way of Jehovah!
Make a straight highway through the desert for our God.

QUESTION: Does not the above renditons of Matthew 3:3 impose a "trinitarian" reading?

No! Matthew is indicating that John the Baptist is "the voice in the wilderness" sent as a Prophet to "prepare the way" of JEHOVAH. Jesus (as God's king designate) represents Jehovah as confirmed by the event reported in Matthew chapter three, namely Jesus being anointed with holy spirit and the voice of the Father confirming his (Jesus') position as such.

"why did he do this? Why did he quote this o.t. passage at this point?

Because the writer (Matthew) wanted to draw the reader's attention to the fact that the events surrounding Jesus' baptism was a fulfillment of ancient prophecy.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Here are a list of N.t. texts where the author quotes or alludes to an o.t. text using the designation YHWH, but is doing so to make Jesus the referent:

Rom 10.13 = Joel 2.32
1 Cor. 1.13 = Jer 9.24
1 Cor. 2.16 = Isa 40.13
1 Cor. 10.26 = Ps 23.1
2 Cor 10.17 = Jer. 9.24.

There are dozens of scriptures that refer to YHWH and link them in some way to his Son: So? So what?! None of them (and certainly none in your list) indicate that Jesus should be considered as YHWH (Jehovah) Almighty God rather than his representative. It is also illogical to conclude that just because both Jesus and Jehovah are reported as performing the same or similar functions that we are to conlcude Jesus IS Jehovah (YHWH); this amounts to "Apples are green, my car is green therefor my car must be an apple": a logical fallacy. The scriptures in the above list neither state nor imply that Jesus is YHWH or that he replaced that one in power or position, although the removal by most English bible translations of the Divine name in favor of the generic "Lord" has indeed lead to some reader confusion.

It is rubbish hermeneutics to conclude that because a TITLE (Lord, Savior, Father), which by definition can be applied to more than one individual, if applied to both Jesus and Jehovah represents a usurpation of YHWH or imposes a trinitarian reading. It is even more infantile to conclude that the very mention or reference of them in close proximity does the same.

To illustrate: Is a letter that refers to Mr Brown as "DOCTOR" and Mrs Smith as "DOCTOR" is suggesting that one is, in the course of the letter being replaced with another? Or that Brown and Smith are being presented as the same Doctor? That both names are presented together or saying that Dr Smith performed a similar operation as had Dr Brown 30 years earlier neither imposes a ursurpation nor a replacement.

Critical thinking demands more to come to such a conclusion especially in the absence of a single reference where either personal name is applied to the other. Christian theology was evidently that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah alluded to in the Hebrew bible and the Christian bible exists in part to prove this to its readers. To conclude that the writers efforts to link Jesus with Hebrew prophecy is in fact a move to replace the God the Messiah was to represent not only contradicts the stated purpose of the Messiah but the explicit statements of the very one (Jesus) the same writers are presenting as such.

CONCLUSION: When a conclusion is in direct contradiction with the explicit and implicit content of at text and there is a complete absence of supporting evidence outside of the church imposed axiom of a trinitarian interpreation, then a real scholar looks for a more harmonious reading.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 105 by JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION What does it mean for "every knee to bow"? Does the fact that the same expression is used in relation to both Jesus and Jehovah indicate duality of person (trinitarian view) or a contradiction?

Are you asking me this question, or Paul and the N.T. authors?

I write my posts for whoever is so inclined to read them. If you look carefully you will note that I present questions(in bold) followed directly by the answer to that question in the text underneath. I have no doubt that as a student of literature you have come accross such a format before.

LINK
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#872695


JW