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.

[JehovahsWitness]

You and other religious people like to make up things like what the word "worship" means.

Are you suggesting that the NUMEROUS references Jehovah's Witnesses have here used explaining fully the meaning of the English word "worship" are wrong?

JW:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 405#842405



source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/worship

PROSKYNEO π�οσκυνέω -
"To express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to a high authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully" - Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. Bauer, Walter BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.

"The Greek word denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature(see ch. 4:19, 18, 26), or to the Creator(see ch. 4:10)." - Footnote to Mat2:11 ASV

DETAILED WORD STUDIES
http://jehovah.to/xlation/wo.html
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/proskyneo_worship.htm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... nhsis.html

[onewithhim]

I would love to have that show up on Faber's "worship Jesus" threads. Some folks can't seem to get the idea of what "worship" can entail, and that many high authorities can demand "worship" and yet not be God Almighty. Worship involves, very often, merely giving someone respect and honor for their position, as when a court judge enters a room we hear "all rise" and we rise. We aren't worshiping the judge as God.

[onewithhim]

And getting back to the OP...."Jesus is not YHWH"....Who is YHWH talking about in these verses?

These are from Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:

"Why have nations tumultuously assembled? And do peoples meditate vanity? Station themselves do kings of the earth, and princes have been united together, against Jehovah, and against His Messiah: 'Let us draw off Their cords, and cast from us Their thick bands.' He who is sitting in the heavens doth laugh, the Lord doth mock at them. Then doth He speak unto them in His anger, and in His wrath He doth trouble them:

"'And I--I have anointed My King, upon Zion---My holy hill.' I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, 'My Son Thou art, I today have brought thee forth. Ask of Me and I give nations---thy inheritance, and thy possession---the ends of earth. Thou dost rule them with a sceptre of iron, as a vessel of a potter Thou dost crush them. And now, O kings, act wisely, be instructed, O judges of the earth, serve ye Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

"Kiss the Chosen One, lest he be angry, and ye lose the way, when his anger burneth but a little, O the happiness of all trusting in him!"

(Psalm 2:1-12)


Is it not obvious that Jehovah is apart from Jesus, the Messiah?

[onewithhim]

Does anyone have an answer?

It does matter.

[Donray]

And getting back to the OP...."Jesus is not YHWH"....Who is YHWH talking about in these verses?

These are from Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:

Is it not obvious that Jehovah is apart from Jesus, the Messiah?

First off, Palms was written in Hebrew and the original is not available.

The translation that Young used was from 1550 so there were 1400 years of translations, corrections, and changes. So unless you can prove that the 1550 interoperation of the original Hebrew is correct you have no proof from what you list.

Can you offer proof what translation is correct? Most do not use what Young says it means.

So, offer your proof that Young's translation is based on the original Hebrew. Just point to the original Hebrew written Palms and the translations to Greek and the original Greek translation and not a 1550 translation.

[onewithhim]

And getting back to the OP...."Jesus is not YHWH"....Who is YHWH talking about in these verses?

These are from Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:

Is it not obvious that Jehovah is apart from Jesus, the Messiah?

First off, Palms was written in Hebrew and the original is not available.

The translation that Young used was from 1550 so there were 1400 years of translations, corrections, and changes. So unless you can prove that the 1550 interoperation of the original Hebrew is correct you have no proof from what you list.

Can you offer proof what translation is correct? Most do not use what Young says it means.

So, offer your proof that Young's translation is based on the original Hebrew. Just point to the original Hebrew written Palms and the translations to Greek and the original Greek translation and not a 1550 translation.

No. YOU have challenged what Young's Literal Translation states, so YOU quote from an earlier manuscript to show that the Psalms were NOT originally written the way Young's says they were.

[Donray]

And getting back to the OP...."Jesus is not YHWH"....Who is YHWH talking about in these verses?

These are from Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:

Is it not obvious that Jehovah is apart from Jesus, the Messiah?

First off, Palms was written in Hebrew and the original is not available.

The translation that Young used was from 1550 so there were 1400 years of translations, corrections, and changes. So unless you can prove that the 1550 interoperation of the original Hebrew is correct you have no proof from what you list.

Can you offer proof what translation is correct? Most do not use what Young says it means.

So, offer your proof that Young's translation is based on the original Hebrew. Just point to the original Hebrew written Palms and the translations to Greek and the original Greek translation and not a 1550 translation.

No. YOU have challenged what Young's Literal Translation states, so YOU quote from an earlier manuscript to show that the Psalms were NOT originally written the way Young's says they were.

You seem to be ignorant on how things work. You made the statement you need to prove it.

Also, I explained that there is nothing from the original so therefore all copies of the bible are questionable.

Do you agree that Young used a 1550 versions and no pone has an original and therefore do not know what was originally written.

I understand why can't prove what say and just want to pass it off to me. Because you don't know and cannot answer the question. Typical Religious person response when they get cornered. I forgive your ignorance of the bible origin (I have done quite a bit research on the bible myself) Appears you did not know that Young used a 1550 version of the bible written in Greek how knows when ???? maybe 1500. .

So you should use the Hebrew version of Palms and not the Greek. I have proved my point that the Young version is no better then any other version. Up to you to prove otherwise.

[onewithhim]

And getting back to the OP...."Jesus is not YHWH"....Who is YHWH talking about in these verses?

These are from Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:

Is it not obvious that Jehovah is apart from Jesus, the Messiah?

First off, Palms was written in Hebrew and the original is not available.

The translation that Young used was from 1550 so there were 1400 years of translations, corrections, and changes. So unless you can prove that the 1550 interoperation of the original Hebrew is correct you have no proof from what you list.

Can you offer proof what translation is correct? Most do not use what Young says it means.

So, offer your proof that Young's translation is based on the original Hebrew. Just point to the original Hebrew written Palms and the translations to Greek and the original Greek translation and not a 1550 translation.

No. YOU have challenged what Young's Literal Translation states, so YOU quote from an earlier manuscript to show that the Psalms were NOT originally written the way Young's says they were.

You seem to be ignorant on how things work. You made the statement you need to prove it.

Also, I explained that there is nothing from the original so therefore all copies of the bible are questionable.

Do you agree that Young used a 1550 versions and no pone has an original and therefore do not know what was originally written.

I understand why can't prove what say and just want to pass it off to me. Because you don't know and cannot answer the question. Typical Religious person response when they get cornered. I forgive your ignorance of the bible origin (I have done quite a bit research on the bible myself) Appears you did not know that Young used a 1550 version of the bible written in Greek how knows when ???? maybe 1500. .

So you should use the Hebrew version of Palms and not the Greek. I have proved my point that the Young version is no better then any other version. Up to you to prove otherwise.

No---YOU suggested that Young's Literal Translation was not to be trusted. Therefore YOU must prove that earlier manuscripts said something different.


.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 38 by onewithhim]

Evidently you fail to read replies. In post 35 I stated why Young's version might not be reliable. You failed to respond to my facts.

It is you that needs to respond to my facts and prove Young is the only reliable translation.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 38 by onewithhim]

Evidently you fail to read replies. In post 35 I stated why Young's version might not be reliable. You failed to respond to my facts.

It is you that needs to respond to my facts and prove Young is the only reliable translation.

No, you have a problem with Young's Translation, therefore YOU offer proof that it isn't reliable.