Jehovah of the OT, is Jesus Christ of the New Testament

[Revelations won]

Jehovah of the Old Testament, is Jesus Christ of the New Testament

There are some today who do not understand or accept that Jehovah of the Old Testament is in fact Jesus Christ of the New Testament. My observation is that He is in very deed the great Jehovah, who was and is King of kings and Lord of lords, even the very Messiah, our lord and redeemer, the Holy One of Israel and the the author of our resurrection and the only name whereby man can be saved. This is my take on this topic. I welcome all would care to debate and provide your evidence to support contrary or opposing views. The following scriptures are presented as evidence supporting my take on the above subject:

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:"

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


Isaiah 25:8-9 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

9And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.


Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.


Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Acts 4:10-12 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


Exodus 3:14 God calls himself I AM 3 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


John 8:54-58 (Before Abraham was I AM. 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55
Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
I AM.


Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.


Deuteronomy 32:2-4 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

3Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.


1Corinthians 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Hebrews 5:8-9 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Psalms 118:22-24 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23
This is the LORD'S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24
This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.





Acts 4:10-12 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


John 10:1-11 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7
Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8
All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9
I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.


Ephesians 2:18-20 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Hebrews 1:1-4 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4
Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


Hebrews 2:8-11 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
The same was in the beginning with God.
3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Colossians 2:8-14 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

[tam]

Peace again to you,

Peace again,

You keep changing or adding to your responses so I will just add (in response to the most recent change):

[Replying to William in post #109]

If you choose to ignore what you are unable to make a good counter case against then this generally means your opinion is debunked -in this case- by my own..

Unsupported statements do not require a counter argument. Unsupported statements require supporting evidence. I chose to ignore the unsupported statements that you made, just as you are free to ignore any unsupported statements that I make.

While there is debate on what those Jews named their God, "Jehovah" "YHWH" - it is impractical to argue about such. This may be precisely why Jesus only referred to The Father as "The Father" - to get around having to enter into that argument.

[supported by the facts of the matter. Jesus did not refer to The Father by any name which the Jews of that time referred to their god as.]

You have provided no evidence to support the speculation in the bold. It is also irrelevant to the point I was making about Christ stating that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God.

As to whether Jesus is The Father, as far as the thread of the storyline goes, He was an advanced rendition of an earlier model of how the Religious Jews [Abraham etc..] declared the creator to being.

One could quite easily understand that Jesus was The Father 'in the flesh' trying to clear his name.

[Supported by what is written regarding Jesus' own statements and actions]

Again to the bold:

This is again speculation; no evidence has been presented that this how the storyline goes.

(and Abraham was not a Jew)

{The Jewish stories have him [the creator] appearing as a rather bumbling creator all too ready to jump to conclusions} See the story of Adam and Eve for confirmation re that. [Internal link] but the reality of how the universe came to be is far more complex than that silly story.

[supported by scientific research on how the universe came into being]

A - The "appearance" you mention is simply your opinion, and you have provided no evidence that the creator jumped to conclusions about anything.

B - The account of Adam and Eve is not a description of how the universe came into being. The universe had already come into being by the time we get to the account of Adam and Eve.

This, Jesus would have known, because he created it. When He say's "My Father Showed Me" is is code for "I was there at the time I create this universe."

[Supported by many words attributed to having been spoken by Jesus]

Christ being there at the creation of the universe is not in dispute (at least not on this thread as far as I know) but that does not mean that your opinion about a 'bumbling' creator was shared by Him. You have provided no evidence to support that at all. Nor have you provided evidence that Christ being there at the creation of the universe means that He is the Father.

So he was telling those religious Jews that they didn't even know The Creator - [If they had of known the creator, then they would have known him] ...they only believed in the stories they were told...and just as with the Jews, so too, with the Christians...

[supported by matters of fact...not simply uneducated opinion.]

This was irrelevant to the point that I had made so I had no need to respond.

The reason you choose not to respond to these supported statements, have to be because you cannot argue against the truth of them. So you choose to ignore, which is just another way of conceding.

I accept your surrender.

This is not a valid argument. Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true. If someone said to me, 'the moon is made of cheese" and I ignore the statement, that does not mean I cannot argue against the statement, and it certainly does not mean that the moon is indeed made of cheese. Maybe I had already argued against the 'moon being made of cheese' and did not feel like having the same argument all over again.

[William]

Peace again to you,

Peace again,

You keep changing or adding to your responses so I will just add (in response to the most recent change):

[Replying to William in post #109]

If you choose to ignore what you are unable to make a good counter case against then this generally means your opinion is debunked -in this case- by my own..

Unsupported statements do not require a counter argument. Unsupported statements require supporting evidence. I chose to ignore the unsupported statements that you made, just as you are free to ignore any unsupported statements that I make.

While there is debate on what those Jews named their God, "Jehovah" "YHWH" - it is impractical to argue about such. This may be precisely why Jesus only referred to The Father as "The Father" - to get around having to enter into that argument.

[supported by the facts of the matter. Jesus did not refer to The Father by any name which the Jews of that time referred to their god as.]

You have provided no evidence to support the speculation in the bold.

It is nonetheless reasonable speculation as to why Jesus never named The Father.

It is also irrelevant to the point I was making about Christ stating that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God.

I argued why it was relevant. Jesus also told the religious Jews that their Father was "The Devil" John 8:44 so this reinforces the idea that Jesus was NOT talking about YHWH [the Jewish idea of god] but about the real Creator [Jesus - aka The Father], whom they did not know.

As to whether Jesus is The Father, as far as the thread of the storyline goes, He was an advanced rendition of an earlier model of how the Religious Jews [Abraham etc..] declared the creator to being.

One could quite easily understand that Jesus was The Father 'in the flesh' trying to clear his name.

[Supported by what is written regarding Jesus' own statements and actions]

Again to the bold:

This is again speculation; no evidence has been presented that this how the storyline goes.

No it is not speculation. It is understanding what Jesus was doing in order to try an assist human beings away from religious ideas and into the truth. [Supported by what is written regarding Jesus' own statements and actions]

{The Jewish stories have him [the creator] appearing as a rather bumbling creator all too ready to jump to conclusions} See the story of Adam and Eve for confirmation re that. [Internal link] but the reality of how the universe came to be is far more complex than that silly story.

[supported by scientific research on how the universe came into being]

A - The "appearance" you mention is simply your opinion, and you have provided no evidence that the creator jumped to conclusions about anything.

The evidence provided is in the link I supplied. [Internal link]

B - The account of Adam and Eve is not a description of how the universe came into being. The universe had already come into being by the time we get to the account of Adam and Eve.

Creation of the universe is attached to the story of Adam and Eve, You are splitting hairs.

This, Jesus would have known, because he created it. When He say's "My Father Showed Me" is is code for "I was there at the time I create this universe."

[Supported by many words attributed to having been spoken by Jesus]

Christ being there at the creation of the universe is not in dispute (at least not on this thread as far as I know) but that does not mean that your opinion about a 'bumbling' creator was shared by Him. You have provided no evidence to support that at all. Nor have you provided evidence that Christ being there at the creation of the universe means that He is the Father.

Irrelevant. Jesus knew exactly how the universe was created. The story of Adam and Eve portrays the idea of The Creator in very poor light. More a sadist than a creator of this universe. They are obviously not they same being. The Creator of this universe is not the same being as the god in the garden story.

So he was telling those religious Jews that they didn't even know The Creator - [If they had of known the creator, then they would have known him] ...they only believed in the stories they were told...and just as with the Jews, so too, with the Christians...

[supported by matters of fact...not simply uneducated opinion.]

This was irrelevant to the point that I had made so I had no need to respond.

It is still relevant to the overall argument.

The reason you choose not to respond to these supported statements, have to be because you cannot argue against the truth of them. So you choose to ignore, which is just another way of conceding.

I accept your surrender.

This is not a valid argument.

It is a reasonable conclusion.

Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true. If someone said to me, 'the moon is made of cheese" and I ignore the statement, that does not mean I cannot argue against the statement, and it certainly does not mean that the moon is indeed made of cheese. Maybe I had already argued against the 'moon being made of cheese' and did not feel like having the same argument all over again.

Implying that my arguments are nothing more than the equivalent of the ridiculous statement that "The Moon is Made of Cheese" is attempting subtle insult in regard to my intelligence. Use of personal remarks [however subtle they are made] is also considered to be something someone does when they have no rebuttal but have no grace to concede.

As I wrote in my last post. "I accept your surrender".

[tam]

Peace again,

You have provided no evidence to support the speculation in the bold.

It is nonetheless reasonable speculation as to why Jesus never named The Father.

So you admit that it was speculation and not evidence. Thank you.

It is also irrelevant to the point I was making about Christ stating that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God.

I argued why it was relevant. Jesus also told the religious Jews that their Father was "The Devil" John 8:44 so this reinforces the idea that Jesus was NOT talking about YHWH [the Jewish idea of god] but about the real Creator [Jesus - aka The Father], whom they did not know.

His statement about His Father being the One whom the Jews claimed as their God is a simple statement. Why come up with elaborate explanations in an attempt to dismiss it?

As for what you have added:

Christ was not speaking to all Jews when He spoke in John 8:44, but regardless, your reasoning does not apply here. Christ said that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God. The Jews did not claim the devil as their God.

So he was telling those religious Jews that they didn't even know The Creator - [If they had of known the creator, then they would have known him] ...they only believed in the stories they were told...and just as with the Jews, so too, with the Christians...

[supported by matters of fact...not simply uneducated opinion.]

This was irrelevant to the point that I had made so I had no need to respond.

It is still relevant to the overall argument.

A - I addressed a specific point. Nothing more.

B - Christ also stated that they did not know His Father (in the exact same verses under discussion), but that does not take away from His statement that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God.

His Father is [YHWH].

Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true. If someone said to me, 'the moon is made of cheese" and I ignore the statement, that does not mean I cannot argue against the statement, and it certainly does not mean that the moon is indeed made of cheese. Maybe I had already argued against the 'moon being made of cheese' and did not feel like having the same argument all over again.

Implying that my arguments are nothing more than the equivalent of the ridiculous statement that "The Moon is Made of Cheese" is attempting subtle insult in regard to my intelligence. Use of personal remarks [however subtle they are made] is also considered to be something someone does when they have no rebuttal but have no grace to concede.

Actually, I was using something that most people would consider to be absurd (the moon is made of cheese), to emphasize the point that ignoring a statement does not make the statement true. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you agree with the point, even if you dislike the example I used.

[William]

Peace again,

You have provided no evidence to support the speculation in the bold.

It is nonetheless reasonable speculation as to why Jesus never named The Father.

So you admit that it was speculation and not evidence. Thank you.

You're Welcome. The bit in bold was speculation about the bit preceding that, which was evidence.

It is also irrelevant to the point I was making about Christ stating that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God.

I argued why it was relevant. Jesus also told the religious Jews that their Father was "The Devil" John 8:44 so this reinforces the idea that Jesus was NOT talking about YHWH [the Jewish idea of god] but about the real Creator [Jesus - aka The Father], whom they did not know.

His statement about His Father being the One whom the Jews claimed as their God is a simple statement. Why come up with elaborate explanations in an attempt to dismiss it?

It isn't all that elaborate Tammy. It is simply putting the pieces together after religion scrambled them up.

Christ was not speaking to all Jews when He spoke in John 8:44,

I did not say that he was. He was specifically talking to the religious leadership which many Jews listened to, believing -as they did -that those leaders to be telling the truth. The pattern therein copied itself in relation to Christianity. Jesus warned those who had ears to hear, about this dynamic. Matthew 24:5

but regardless, your reasoning does not apply here. Christ said that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God. The Jews did not claim the devil as their God.

You appear to be purposefully ignoring the evidence Tammy. Matthew 7:23
The Christian religion has made it appear that way, but as I have already adequately shown, Jesus was not saying that the religious Jews idea of The Creator, was correct. He was pointing out that while they claimed to follow The Creator, they were most definitely NOT. They did not know The Creator. What they followed after was an image of The Creator which was pretty much totally distorted from reality.
Christianity took up the same practice as the religious Jews had done, as it too developed into a religion.

So he was telling those religious Jews that they didn't even know The Creator - [If they had of known the creator, then they would have known him] ...they only believed in the stories they were told...and just as with the Jews, so too, with the Christians...

[supported by matters of fact...not simply uneducated opinion.]

This was irrelevant to the point that I had made so I had no need to respond.

It is still relevant to the overall argument.

A - I addressed a specific point. Nothing more.

B - Christ also stated that they did not know His Father (in the exact same verses under discussion), but that does not take away from His statement that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God.

His Father is [YHWH].

You are free to believe that as you will Tammy. That is the wide road. Matthew 7:13

Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true. If someone said to me, 'the moon is made of cheese" and I ignore the statement, that does not mean I cannot argue against the statement, and it certainly does not mean that the moon is indeed made of cheese. Maybe I had already argued against the 'moon being made of cheese' and did not feel like having the same argument all over again.

Implying that my arguments are nothing more than the equivalent of the ridiculous statement that "The Moon is Made of Cheese" is attempting subtle insult in regard to my intelligence. Use of personal remarks [however subtle they are made] is also considered to be something someone does when they have no rebuttal but have no grace to concede.

Actually, I was using something that most people would consider to be absurd (the moon is made of cheese), to emphasize the point that ignoring a statement does not make the statement true. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you agree with the point, even if you dislike the example I used.

Why not just try to be honest and admit that you would rather belittle my person than discover the truth in my words? You are championing Christianity thinking that in doing so, you are championing Jesus because of the deception you are unwilling to face.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace again,

You have provided no evidence to support the speculation in the bold.

It is nonetheless reasonable speculation as to why Jesus never named The Father.

So you admit that it was speculation and not evidence. Thank you.

You're Welcome. The bit in bold was speculation about the bit preceding that, which was evidence.

Evidence of what, William? That there is a modern day dispute on how to render YHWH?

It is also irrelevant to the point I was making about Christ stating that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God.

I argued why it was relevant. Jesus also told the religious Jews that their Father was "The Devil" John 8:44 so this reinforces the idea that Jesus was NOT talking about YHWH [the Jewish idea of god] but about the real Creator [Jesus - aka The Father], whom they did not know.

His statement about His Father being the One whom the Jews claimed as their God is a simple statement. Why come up with elaborate explanations in an attempt to dismiss it?

It isn't all that elaborate Tammy. It is simply putting the pieces together after religion scrambled them up.

You are arranging the puzzle pieces so that they form the picture that you want, William. That is exactly what religion does. You asked (pinseeker, I believe) if Christ ever referred to His Father as "Jehovah" in what is written. I provided the verse where Christ does state that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God. We know the Jews claimed - and still claim - [YHWH] as their God.

"I am [YHWH] your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Exodus 20:2

but regardless, your reasoning does not apply here. Christ said that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God. The Jews did not claim the devil as their God.

You appear to be purposefully ignoring the evidence Tammy. Matthew 7:23

Just because I do not accept something you say does not mean that I am ignoring evidence. Ignoring (or dismissing) the evidence is what you appear to be doing, William. You are ignoring (or dismissing) the fact that Christ said His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. See above (and throughout the OT) for the evidence of whom the Jews claim as their God.

The Christian religion has made it appear that way,

No, the words of Christ and the scriptures (Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets) state exactly what I wrote. "Christianity" did not create those scriptures; "Christianity" did not dictate whom the Jews claimed as their God.

but as I have already adequately shown, Jesus was not saying that the religious Jews idea of The Creator, was correct. He was pointing out that while they claimed to follow The Creator, they were most definitely NOT. They did not know The Creator. What they followed after was an image of The Creator which was pretty much totally distorted from reality.

None of this alters the fact that Christ said his Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. That does not have to mean that they knew His Father [YHWH] or that all their ideas about His Father were correct.

Christianity took up the same practice as the religious Jews had done, as it too developed into a religion.

Again, this does not alter the fact that Christ said His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God.

So he was telling those religious Jews that they didn't even know The Creator - [If they had of known the creator, then they would have known him] ...they only believed in the stories they were told...and just as with the Jews, so too, with the Christians...

[supported by matters of fact...not simply uneducated opinion.]

This was irrelevant to the point that I had made so I had no need to respond.

It is still relevant to the overall argument.

A - I addressed a specific point. Nothing more.

B - Christ also stated that they did not know His Father (in the exact same verses under discussion), but that does not take away from His statement that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God.

His Father is [YHWH].

You are free to believe that as you will Tammy. That is the wide road. Matthew 7:13

Following Christ and remaining in His word, is not the wide road, William. If I were to believe and follow any other person or religion instead of Christ, then I would have stumbled off the narrow path and onto the wide road.

So I will remain in Christ and His word, and follow Him. He is the Truth. He is the Way. He is the One who leads His sheep (on the narrow path), to LIFE.

Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true. If someone said to me, 'the moon is made of cheese" and I ignore the statement, that does not mean I cannot argue against the statement, and it certainly does not mean that the moon is indeed made of cheese. Maybe I had already argued against the 'moon being made of cheese' and did not feel like having the same argument all over again.

Implying that my arguments are nothing more than the equivalent of the ridiculous statement that "The Moon is Made of Cheese" is attempting subtle insult in regard to my intelligence. Use of personal remarks [however subtle they are made] is also considered to be something someone does when they have no rebuttal but have no grace to concede.

Actually, I was using something that most people would consider to be absurd (the moon is made of cheese), to emphasize the point that ignoring a statement does not make the statement true. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you agree with the point, even if you dislike the example I used.

Why not just try to be honest and admit that you would rather belittle my person than discover the truth in my words?

Because that would be a lie, William.

1 - I have no desire to belittle you - none at all - and I did not do so here. You have chosen to take personal offense at something that was not an insult directed to you, as I have already explained. And you are the one who is choosing to focus on a perceived insult instead of acknowledging that what I said was true. Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true.

2 - I have no fear of truth, William. If I do not accept your words it is because I do not regard them as being true.

3 - All I did was point out that Christ did indeed reference [YHWH] as His Father. I provided an example from what is written (as you asked). But that piece does not fit in your 'puzzle', so you are attempting to force it into an alternate shape to make it fit the picture you prefer. People do that all the time when confronted with a piece of evidence that reveals an error in their belief.

You are championing Christianity thinking that in doing so, you are championing Jesus because of the deception you are unwilling to face.

I am not championing "Christianity" (the organized and institutionalized religon).

I am just remaining in Christ and in His word.

[PinSeeker]

I am particularly focusing on the thread title in relation to using the name "Jehovah"...but if you can show me any name Jesus refers to when speaking of The Father, I am interested.

Okay, well, I think you're a little to "focused." Fixated, really. So it seems you're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. But regardless of that, God the Father is referred to by many, many different names in the Bible. And regardless of that, Jesus refers to God the Father as "the Father," even His Father. And besides that... ... the fact that Jesus does not refer to the Father specifically as Jehovah supports the belief that Jehovah is triune -- one God, eternally existing in three distinct persons. That's beyond our discussion, really, but thanks for leading me to say that.

Rather, Jehovah is after The Father, and embodied in Jesus for that specific purpose.

And is this something you just think? Or is there something actually in the Bible that you think conveys this? I don't completely disagree with this statement, by the way.

Not all that Jesus spoke of was recorded in the bible. In fact, very little. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

So... what is your source, then? You seem to be avoiding my question. I guess that's answer enough.

The bible tells me so. I am slightly surprised that you as a Christian do not know the sentence I used is from that source.

So this is confusing. I asked you what in the Bible you see as telling you that, and you replied that not all of what Jesus spoke f was recorded in the Bible, so then I ask what your source is, then, and you reply that the Bible is your source, that it "tells you so." So, I'm following your little circle and we're back around to the front. What in the Bible "tells you so?" Or are you just saying that?

Jesus/Jehovah fluffed up and thus had to rectify. He hastily cursed the creation without getting all the information required to make a better judgement.

I'll ignore this;

Most Christians do. But it remains a biblical fact, anyway.

Well, yes, most Christians do ignore blatant non-biblical statements, and I'm following suit here. Maybe it is what you think is biblical fact, and that's fine with me.

The statement "Jesus/Jehovah fluffed up and thus had to rectify. He hastily cursed the creation without getting all the information required to make a better judgement." is blatantly biblical, rather than not.

No, it's either an opinion -- yours, and maybe others -- or it's a gross misunderstanding. Either way...

Unless you are saying that it was not Jesus / Jehovah who was the creator being in the Garden of Eden, then I am correct.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Otherwise, please explain to us who the entity was which is referred to as 'LORD'.

Sure. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One God, eternally existing in three distinct persons. This is YHWH. So, what I'm telling you is, if Jesus had referred to the Father as Jehovah, He would not only have been addressing the Father but also Himself. And the Holy Spirit. So maybe now you see why Jesus did not refer to the Father specifically as Jehovah; He would have also been referring to Himself.

Jesus eventually had the blame pinned onto him [for Adams sin] because he understood human beings were always looking for someone else to blame and thus never dealt with their own stuff. This way Jesus could remove that from the equation. Individuals had no one to blame for their actions but themselves, which was something overlooked in relation to the curses passed out by Jesus in the Garden of Eden...

Like I've said, everyone is certainly entitled to his opinion. What you say here might be a pretty interesting novel...

I agree that individuals have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, we are each filthy rotten scoundrels (see what I did there?). Yes, sinners. Totally undeserving of salvation and in fact deserving of just the opposite. But no, Jesus took the blame upon Himself willingly and in obedience to the Father -- Who He was and is one with -- for the sake of reconciling mankind to the Father, so that the Father might impute the righteousness of Christ upon man (if they repent and believe, of course) and therefore justify him even in his guilt. This way, Jesus could mitigate the wrath of the Father upon man for his sin, selflessly taking it all upon Himself, and thereby as Mediator reconciling man to the Father. This was His function as the second Person of the triune Jehovah God. The judgments given in the Garden of Eden came with the promise of salvation and are perfectly and immutably fulfilled in the Person of Jesus.

Grace and peace to you.

[William]

Rather, Jehovah is after The Father, and embodied in Jesus for that specific purpose.

And is this something you just think? Or is there something actually in the Bible that you think conveys this? I don't completely disagree with this statement, by the way.

Not all that Jesus spoke of was recorded in the bible. In fact, very little. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

So... what is your source, then? You seem to be avoiding my question. I guess that's answer enough.

The bible tells me so. I am slightly surprised that you as a Christian do not know the sentence I used is from that source.

What in the Bible "tells you so?"

That what Jesus taught in private... "If every one of those things he taught were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." words to that effect...

Jesus/Jehovah fluffed up and thus had to rectify. He hastily cursed the creation without getting all the information required to make a better judgement.

I'll ignore this;

Most Christians do. But it remains a biblical fact, anyway.

Well, yes, most Christians do ignore blatant non-biblical statements, and I'm following suit here. Maybe it is what you think is biblical fact, and that's fine with me.

The statement "Jesus/Jehovah fluffed up and thus had to rectify. He hastily cursed the creation without getting all the information required to make a better judgement." is blatantly biblical, rather than not.

No, it's either an opinion -- yours, and maybe others -- or it's a gross misunderstanding. Either way...

I am just following Christian Mythology in relation to the idea of The Creator as written in the Garden of Eden story. I am not one who thinks that the description re the gods actions is true account of an actual event. My argument is that it is poorly written creates an extremely inaccurate image of The [actual] Creator. While of course it is my opinion, the author of said material has a rather redundant opinion of The Creator. But yes, in the end it is all opinion.

Unless you are saying that it was not Jesus / Jehovah who was the creator being in the Garden of Eden, then I am correct.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

So your opinion is the same as the authors opinion? The idea of god as presented in the story is a good description of The Creator?

Otherwise, please explain to us who the entity was which is referred to as 'LORD'.

Sure. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One God, eternally existing in three distinct persons. This is YHWH. So, what I'm telling you is, if Jesus had referred to the Father as Jehovah, He would not only have been addressing the Father but also Himself. And the Holy Spirit. So maybe now you see why Jesus did not refer to the Father specifically as Jehovah; He would have also been referring to Himself.

So what? That in itself is religious mythology not altogether agreed by Christians anyway. It would be foolish to debate with any Christian about such mythology.
My focus is on the poor quality of authorship regarding the initial story concerned with the creation of beings upon the planet and its description of the actions of the god character in the story, especially in relation to the three sentient beings - Serpent, Man and Woman.

Jesus eventually had the blame pinned onto him [for Adams sin] because he understood human beings were always looking for someone else to blame and thus never dealt with their own stuff. This way Jesus could remove that from the equation. Individuals had no one to blame for their actions but themselves, which was something overlooked in relation to the curses passed out by Jesus in the Garden of Eden...

I agree that individuals have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, we are each filthy rotten scoundrels (see what I did there?). Yes, sinners. Totally undeserving of salvation and in fact deserving of just the opposite. But no, Jesus took the blame upon Himself willingly and in obedience to the Father -- Who He was and is one with -- for the sake of reconciling mankind to the Father, so that the Father might impute the righteousness of Christ upon man (if they repent and believe, of course) and therefore justify him even in his guilt. This way, Jesus could mitigate the wrath of the Father upon man for his sin, selflessly taking it all upon Himself, and thereby as Mediator reconciling man to the Father. This was His function as the second Person of the triune Jehovah God. The judgments given in the Garden of Eden came with the promise of salvation and are perfectly and immutably fulfilled in the Person of Jesus.

Well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Considering the state of the world and the number of Christians [2.382 billion] your opinion above appears to be more the empty boast than anything substantially evident.

This in itself is unsurprising, as anyone who believes that the image presented of the god in the Garden story is a true and accurate description of The Creators personality, is bound to have a dark hidden place they can retreat to and talk of humans deserving all they get because they are "filthy rotten scoundrels". The author of the story makes it clear to the reader that he has no love for humanity either.

I wil stick with my opinion that Jesus taught about a wholly different idea of The Creator than those of religion teach.

[Tcg]

That what Jesus taught in private... "If every one of those things he taught were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." words to that effect...

The passage you are referring to does not teach what you suggest:

John 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

It mentions the many things Jesus did not the many things he taught and there is no mention of these actions being done in private.


Tcg

[William]

Peace to you,

Peace again,

You have provided no evidence to support the speculation in the bold.

It is nonetheless reasonable speculation as to why Jesus never named The Father.

So you admit that it was speculation and not evidence. Thank you.

You're Welcome. The bit in bold was speculation about the bit preceding that, which was evidence.

Evidence of what, William? That there is a modern day dispute on how to render YHWH?

Yes. While there is debate on what those Jews named their God, "Jehovah" "YHWH" - it is impractical to argue about such.

It is also irrelevant to the point I was making about Christ stating that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God.

I argued why it was relevant. Jesus also told the religious Jews that their Father was "The Devil" John 8:44 so this reinforces the idea that Jesus was NOT talking about YHWH [the Jewish idea of god] but about the real Creator [Jesus - aka The Father], whom they did not know.

His statement about His Father being the One whom the Jews claimed as their God is a simple statement. Why come up with elaborate explanations in an attempt to dismiss it?

It isn't all that elaborate Tammy. It is simply putting the pieces together after religion scrambled them up.

You are arranging the puzzle pieces so that they form the picture that you want, William.

No Tammy. What I expect The Creator to being, is directly related to what I observe the Creation as being.

That is exactly what religion does. You asked (pinseeker, I believe) if Christ ever referred to His Father as "Jehovah" in what is written. I provided the verse where Christ does state that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God. We know the Jews claimed - and still claim - [YHWH] as their God.

We also know that they reject Jesus. So what?

"I am [YHWH] your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Exodus 20:2

There really is no evidence to support that this event actually occurred. It is a story invented by religion which claims the god YHWH is The Creator.
If it were important, then Jesus would no doubt have named the Father YHWH. There is no record of him doing so and the evidence you provided is not that great because it can be taken to mean the opposite, as I have shown.

but regardless, your reasoning does not apply here. Christ said that His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God. The Jews did not claim the devil as their God.

You appear to be purposefully ignoring the evidence Tammy. Matthew 7:23

Just because I do not accept something you say does not mean that I am ignoring evidence. Ignoring (or dismissing) the evidence is what you appear to be doing, William. You are ignoring (or dismissing) the fact that Christ said His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. See above (and throughout the OT) for the evidence of whom the Jews claim as their God.

See then how it is worded in the KJV "If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:"

One can easily enough see therein that Jesus is being ironic. "You claim to know The Creator as your 'God' yet you do not even recognize when The Creator [The Father...not "YHWH"] honours someone who is not a member of your religion."

But I also provided other pieces of the puzzle for you to consider Tammy. These pieces fitted together point to the conclusion that Jesus was not speaking about any religions god, Jewish or otherwise.
Why do you think the religious leadership wanted Jesus dead Tammy? It is because they KNEW what Jesus was referring to.
Why do you think the subsequent religion of Christianity sanctioned murder and lying and cheating and dispossessing etc all in the name of Jesus, Tammy? Because they were doing so for The Father or for YHWH? We know through the stories of the Jewish religions, that YHWH used such methods. Jesus, on the other hand promoted another type of method altogether.

The Christian religion has made it appear that way,

No, the words of Christ and the scriptures (Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets) state exactly what I wrote. "Christianity" did not create those scriptures; "Christianity" did not dictate whom the Jews claimed as their God.

Christianity is viewed as an abomination by the religious Jews. They do not see Jesus as their messiah because they know that Jesus did not represent YHWH.
Christianity claims that he does. Christianity's downfall was to adopt the idea of YHWH as being the same as The Father whom Jesus taught about.

but as I have already adequately shown, Jesus was not saying that the religious Jews idea of The Creator, was correct. He was pointing out that while they claimed to follow The Creator, they were most definitely NOT. They did not know The Creator. What they followed after was an image of The Creator which was pretty much totally distorted from reality.

None of this alters the fact that Christ said his Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God. That does not have to mean that they knew His Father [YHWH] or that all their ideas about His Father were correct.

Nor does it follow that the Christian religion teaching Christians about the nature of The Creator is correct either. Certainly it attempted to model The Father in the image of YHWH...that was part of the scrambling I mentioned.

Christianity took up the same practice as the religious Jews had done, as it too developed into a religion.

Again, this does not alter the fact that Christ said His Father is the One whom the Jews claimed as their God.

Well now we have two major examples of how modelling The Creator on the image of YHWH leads to no good Tammy. Honestly I do not understand why you would think it necessary to argue so fervently for YHWH being The Father. The track record is evidence enough that such modelling results in corruption.

This is why I argue that Jesus was putting the record straight. It is Christianity which allowed itself to be mislead...
Matthew 24:5

So he was telling those religious Jews that they didn't even know The Creator - [If they had of known the creator, then they would have known him] ...they only believed in the stories they were told...and just as with the Jews, so too, with the Christians...

[supported by matters of fact...not simply uneducated opinion.]

This was irrelevant to the point that I had made so I had no need to respond.

It is still relevant to the overall argument.

A - I addressed a specific point. Nothing more.

B - Christ also stated that they did not know His Father (in the exact same verses under discussion), but that does not take away from His statement that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God.

His Father is [YHWH].

You are free to believe that as you will Tammy. That is the wide road. Matthew 7:13

Following Christ and remaining in His word, is not the wide road, William. If I were to believe and follow any other person or religion instead of Christ, then I would have stumbled off the narrow path and onto the wide road.

Yet here you are supporting something which taught you to support it and see things that way.

So I will remain in Christ and His word, and follow Him. He is the Truth. He is the Way. He is the One who leads His sheep (on the narrow path), to LIFE.

But you think Jesus was referring to The Creator [The Father] as YHWH. And you believe that because you choose to accept that interpretation as truth.
When someone such as yourself claims that Jesus is their "Lord" and they follow after him, that is their prerogative of course, but I can remain neutral in regard to such claims, preferring to see what Jesus has to say about it on the day...and personally, I would refrain from such claims myself just on account of Matthew 7:21. As such your claim is unsupported Tammy.

Ignoring a statement does not mean that one cannot argue against it; nor does ignoring a statement mean that the statement being ignored must be true. If someone said to me, 'the moon is made of cheese" and I ignore the statement, that does not mean I cannot argue against the statement, and it certainly does not mean that the moon is indeed made of cheese. Maybe I had already argued against the 'moon being made of cheese' and did not feel like having the same argument all over again.

Implying that my arguments are nothing more than the equivalent of the ridiculous statement that "The Moon is Made of Cheese" is attempting subtle insult in regard to my intelligence. Use of personal remarks [however subtle they are made] is also considered to be something someone does when they have no rebuttal but have no grace to concede.

Actually, I was using something that most people would consider to be absurd (the moon is made of cheese), to emphasize the point that ignoring a statement does not make the statement true. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you agree with the point, even if you dislike the example I used.

Why not just try to be honest and admit that you would rather belittle my person than discover the truth in my words?

Because that would be a lie, William.

I have said all I need to say regarding your subtle personal comments Tammy - except to add that it may have been done subconsciously, and in that you really did not mean offence. Generally the better response from you would have been to apologize for any harm your words might have caused and retract them altogether. But you didn't do that and would rather find excuse and place the blame on me for "choosing to take personal offense at something that was not an insult directed to me"... there is a name for that kind of tactic...

[William]

That what Jesus taught in private... "If every one of those things he taught were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." words to that effect...

The passage you are referring to does not teach what you suggest:

John 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

It mentions the many things Jesus did not the many things he taught and there is no mention of these actions being done in private.


Tcg

Doing involves many things. Including teaching. Since we know Jesus did things and taught things, it is reasonable to assume that he taught these many things as that was part of his mission in relation to those who followed him closely.
And there is mention of Jesus teaching things in private and that these things he taught, were different from that which he taught publicly. Matthew 13:10 ...