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.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by onewithhim]

Jesus prayed to YHWH, the Father, not to himself.

The various names of God in the O.T. signify aspects of his character, and are not indicators of hypostases or substances. There was no trinitarian concept in the O.T., and therefore to associate YHWH with "the Father" is anachronistic. There was no "the Father". In the O.T. God is described as 'a father' by metaphor, with Israel or Israel's king as 'a son'. Elsewhere he is described as a husband and Israel as his wife (a relationship which is transferred to Jesus in the N.T.).

YWHW was God's covenantal name; the name associated with his redemptive acts for Israel. Now, whatever Jesus' thoughts on his relation to God, it is clear that in the earliest Christian communities, evidenced in Paul through Revelation, Jesus is seen as carrying God's covenantal name--the name associated with his redemptive character: this was only a logical maneuver, since in and through Jesus' deeds, a new covenant was established.

Hence Paul refers to the Father (a N.T. concept) as 'theos' which in the LXX translates the Hebrew elohim; and he refers to Jesus, the son, as 'kurios', which in the LXX translatres the covenantal Hebrew name YHWH.

I don't quite understand the objection to calling Jehovah "Father." Maybe he hadn't created anything untold billions of years ago, but when he started creating he could be called a Father. I would say that he could be called "Father" merely because he has the potential to make everything and anything.

There is no scriptural support for Jesus to be called "YHWH." Clergy and copyists saw to it that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the Christian Greek Scriptures, and they inserted "Lord" instead. This has just caused confusion as to which "Lord" is being referred to. Jesus is certainly not YHWH. There has just been manipulation of the verses and confusion has prevailed.

[JehovahsWitness]

Hence Paul refers to the Father (a N.T. concept) as 'theos' which in the LXX translates the Hebrew elohim; and he refers to Jesus, the son, as 'kurios', which in the LXX translatres the covenantal Hebrew name YHWH.

Are you suggesting the concept of YHWH being the universal father is not in the Hebrew bible?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 92 by JehovahsWitness]

I wonder where liam went. I'd like to hear his answer to your question. Liam!?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 92 by JehovahsWitness]

Sorry!!!

Geeze, I don't understand how everyone but me seems to just know when a response to him or her has been made. It's like you all have a sixth sense, that doesn't involve dead people!

Are you suggesting the concept of YHWH being the universal father is not in the Hebrew bible?

I am more than suggesting that the O.T. terms YHWH/Elohim do not communicate the further concept of The Father/The Son.

To help clarify my point, I will be a bit anachronistic and inject Christian theology into O.T., as I believe the N.T. authors did (of course the O.T. authors knew nothing of this). I will also place great stress on italics and capitals and articles, i.e. a father vs. THE FATHER.

In the O.T., we have Elohim/YHWH (but--here the N.T. injection-- constituted by Father, Son, and Spirit) as a father and Israel (or her king) as a son. YHWH/Elohim (i.e., Father, Son, Spirit) are also likened to a husband and Israel as a bride. The terms "father", "son", "husband" and "bride" are all metaphors, indicating a kind of way of relating: as when I might say, "he was like a father to me".

The metaphor "Father" is rarely used of Elohim/YHWH's relation to the WORLD: that is a metaphor reserved for Israel. YWHW is Creator and Sovereign over the world; but he is a father to Israel. One can of course say that, as Creator, he is, in a sense, father, but that is not O.T. language. "father" is a term used in reference to Israel.

In the N.T., the substance of God undergoes development (we might say, the constitution or economy of God). In the N.T. we have THE Father and THE Son, with THE FATHER not in relation to Israel, but to THE LOGOS, albeit incarnate. Now, believing that both were consistent with Jewish monotheism, Paul went back to his O.T. to express that belief.

The chief monotheistic formula for a devout Jew was the Shema: hear oh Israel, the YHWH ELOHIM, the YWHW, is ONE.

This Paul interpreted in FATHER/SON aspects while attempting to retain his monotheism. YHWH ELOHIM is ONE God (monotheism). But he ascribes the designation Elohim to THE FATHER and the designation YHWH to THE SON (the first two parts of the Trinity).

The chief problem here is a confusion between nomenclature (more O.T./N.T.) and Substance (a Greek framework).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 91 by onewithhim]

I don't quite understand the objection to calling Jehovah "Father."

I am not sure what O.T. Hebrew term you are translating as Jehovah.

In the O.T., we have YWHW and Elohim. In most English translations these are translated "the LORD" and "God".

For a non-Christian Jew there is no problem in calling God "father".

For a Christian, we distinguish between "The Father" and "The Son".

The OP is claiming that Jesus is not YHWH.

In the N.T., Paul most certainly makes that very claim, only that he is ascribing two O.T. designations for One God to two persons of that single God-head. Jesus gets YHWH, the Father gets Elohim.

[JehovahsWitness]

The metaphor "Father" is rarely used of Elohim/YHWH's relation to the WORLD: that is a metaphor reserved for Israel.

Okay, I see what you mean, but then the point is somewhat redundant since the Hebrew bible is exclusively FOR the nation of Israel. It is their history and their law and the bible says God at the time chose not to have that special relationship with any other nation. There are many images of Jehovah's Fatherlike tender protective concern and discipline for Israel, that that is not extended to the entire world (bar by their being able to benefit from living and to a limited extent, worshipping along side them) is a given.

It was the mission of the Messiah to extend that relationship beyond Israel.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Where does this happen?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 92 by JehovahsWitness]

Sorry!!!


In the O.T., we have Elohim/YHWH (but--here the N.T. injection-- constituted by Father, Son, and Spirit) as a father and Israel (or her king) as a son. YHWH/Elohim (i.e., Father, Son, Spirit) are also likened to a husband and Israel as a bride. The terms "father", "son", "husband" and "bride" are all metaphors, indicating a kind of way of relating: as when I might say, "he was like a father to me".

Just want to throw in a comment. You paint the Trinity issue with a broad brush---assuming that Christianity injected this Trinity into the O.T., e.g., elohim being three gods. 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, and neither did Jesus and his disciples. None of that doctrine rings true.


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 92 by JehovahsWitness]



The chief monotheistic formula for a devout Jew was the Shema: hear oh Israel, the YHWH ELOHIM, the YWHW, is ONE.

This Paul interpreted in FATHER/SON aspects while attempting to retain his monotheism. YHWH ELOHIM is ONE God (monotheism). But he ascribes the designation Elohim to THE FATHER and the designation YHWH to THE SON (the first two parts of the Trinity).

Please explain to me how Paul ascribes the designation of "YHWH" to the Son. I don't see that at all.

.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 91 by onewithhim]

I don't quite understand the objection to calling Jehovah "Father."

I am not sure what O.T. Hebrew term you are translating as Jehovah.

In the O.T., we have YWHW and Elohim. In most English translations these are translated "the LORD" and "God".

For a non-Christian Jew there is no problem in calling God "father".

For a Christian, we distinguish between "The Father" and "The Son".

The OP is claiming that Jesus is not YHWH.

In the N.T., Paul most certainly makes that very claim, only that he is ascribing two O.T. designations for One God to two persons of that single God-head. Jesus gets YHWH, the Father gets Elohim.

Surely you realize that in the original Hebrew text that the O.T. was written in, the Tetragrammaton---YHWH--- appeared, around 7,000 times. It was certain men who decided to REMOVE "YHWH" and REPLACE it with "Lord," and most versions that do this render it in all uppercase letters. When you see "LORD" in uppercase letters you know that that is where the Tetragrammaton should be.

These days many versions are putting God's name back where it was in the first place.

Paul did not believe in any Trinity, and there is nothing in his work that would suggest this. Only many adjustments by nefarious clergy and copyists. There is no "God-head." God is only ONE, and that is the Father of Jesus and of humans. Jesus said to the Father: "YOU are the only true God." (John 17:3)

.