JESUS IS NOT YHWH

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sat May 06, 2017 3:07 pm

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 · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:44 pm

liamconnor wrote: [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.

I do know about the Trinity, and I spent years in Trinity-teaching churches. I can see now how absurd it is to say that a person is worshiping one God when they say that each member of the Trinity is God! That adds up to THREE Gods, no matter how they try to deny it. Yes, Trinitarians do NOT agree with that assessment, and I am baffled as to why they can't see it.

You keep saying that there are "many places in the N.T. where Jesus is assigned the Greek equivalent of 'YHWH,'" but that is UNSUPPORTED opinion, and, I would submit, is UNTRUE. There is NOWHERE in the Scriptures that Jesus is alluded to as YHWH. You have demonstrated the very objection that Bible students have concerning the substitution of "YHWH" in the N.T. with Greek words for "Lord." It has become CONFUSING to determine what "Lord" is being referred to, whereas if the text had been left alone, the Tetragrammaton would have remained. Jesus is always distinct FROM "YHWH." Please get your facts straight before you make such outlandish statements.

The scripture at Luke 18:19, which you quote, is a very weak implication that Jesus is saying that he himself was God. Only if you're a Trinitarian will you look at it as you do. A non-trinitarian will look at that as a good example of Jesus stating that he is NOT God. He is actually making clear to the certain ruler that only God is totally "good," and that is not himself (Jesus), thus placing himself in a subordinate position in relation to God.

It is NOT clear that Paul thought Jesus was God. Not in the least. Some have taken certain verses and twisted them by leaving out a comma or even a word, to make it seem as though Paul was calling Jesus "God," but other versions of the Bible have correctly rendered those verses, and Paul is not referring to Jesus as "God" at all. E.g.---(1) Phil.2:6. The KJV translates it this way: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Other Bible versions, such as the New American Bible and the New International Version translate it this way: "Who, though being in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God something to be grasped." (Grasped has the meaning of taking something one did not previously have.)

(2) Titus 2:13. "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (KJV) Trinitarians will say that Paul is referring to JESUS as both "great God" and Saviour, when that is not what Paul wrote at all. He ALWAYS distinguished between "God" and the Son, Jesus. Even in this verse he is doing that, speaking of God (the Father) AND our Saviour Jesus Christ.

(3) I Timothy 3:16. Another debacle of translation is what Trinitarians try to show here with this verse. "Great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh..." (KJV) Not so! says the New American Bible and other versions. They translate it this way: "Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, WHO was manifested in the flesh...(NAB)," or, HE appeared in a body..." (NIV) It looks to me like someone took liberties to change the verse's meaning entirely by injecting "God" into the verse in place of "who" or "he." Bible scholars are aware of this dishonesty.

Those are just a handful of examples at how Paul's writings have been tampered with and been given an entirely different meaning than what he intended. One has merely to look at the MANY salutatory remarks he gives at the start of all of his letters to the various congregations. Even to I Timothy! He says: "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, AND of Jesus Christ, who is our hope. To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father AND Christ Jesus our Lord." (verses 1 and 2, NASB) "God" and "Jesus" are distinguished from one another. He speaks of two individuals, as he does in all of his letters.

No, all of the documents that arise from "the early church" DO NOT support the idea of Jesus as God. The very EARLIEST church "fathers" give no hint of believing in anyone being equal to the Father. "The Apostolic Fathers," as presented in Volume I of Hendrickson Publisher's Ante-Nicene Fathers, that would be the most important in a discussion like this are Clement (A.D. 30-100), Polycarp (A.D. 65-100), and Ignatius (A.D. 30-107). They were not highly influenced by the great Apostacy that Jesus forewarned the congregation about, as well as his Apostles and Paul. The Apostacy set in quite firmly at the end of the first century, after the last Apostle died. So you see, the three "fathers" that I mentioned were the closest to what was going on when Jesus walked the earth. They were the EARLIEST church fathers, and reflected the views of Jesus and his Apostles.

Unfortunately the writings of Ignatius have been tampered with, with two different versions in circulation. One is practically forced to pick one or the other, and some nefarious influence is seen in even some of the preferable version's verses (the longer version) , but not consistently.

So, if you go back to the EARLIEST "fathers," you can see that Jesus was not considered God or equal to God.

.

Left Site · Post by **Left Site** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:13 pm

[Replying to liamconnor]

We see in Philippians that "Jesus is lord to the glory of God the Father."

In other words, Jesus lives the principle Paul enumerated upon, at 1 Corinthians 10:31 "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

Jesus does all that he does to the glory of his God and Father, even how he conducts himself as the anointed lord over heaven and earth.

liamconnor · Post by **liamconnor** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:28 pm

[Replying to post 111 by onewithhim]

I can see now how absurd it is to say that a person is worshiping one God when they say that each member of the Trinity is God! That adds up to THREE Gods, no matter how they try to deny it. Yes, Trinitarians do NOT agree with that assessment, and I am baffled as to why they can't see it.

Maybe they see something you cannot?

In space/time it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for three things to be one in the sense argued for by Trinitarians, although quantum physics seems to suggest contradictions on the quantum level.

At any rate, God is not conditioned by time and space, and therefore that limitation no longer applies. My guess is you are working on the imaginative level, and not on the conceptual level.

You keep saying that there are "many places in the N.T. where Jesus is assigned the Greek equivalent of 'YHWH,'" but that is UNSUPPORTED opinion, and, I would submit, is UNTRUE.

I believe I gave numerous verses; and so far, you have just used a lot of capitals.

Nearly all biblical scholars agree that 1 Cor. 8.6 is an allusion to the Shema, in which we see two names of God used and a monotheistic declaration: God, YWHW, One. In LXX this is Theos, Kurios, en.

In 1 Cor. 8.6 Paul opposes pagan polytheism by declaring ONE THEOS, and ONE KURIOS. He also attributes Creation roles to each, which, in Jewish theology, was a role reserved for God alone.

It has become CONFUSING to determine what "Lord" is being referred to, whereas if the text had been left alone, the Tetragrammaton would have remained. Jesus is always distinct FROM "YHWH." Please get your facts straight before you make such outlandish statements.

I am not confused. I see it pretty clearly. My facts are quite straight. May I suggest it is also important to get one's emotions under control?

The scripture at Luke 18:19, which you quote, is a very weak implication that Jesus is saying that he himself was God.

I am fairly certain I did not use this verse in defense of Trinitarianism; I believe I said it was one verse that might speak against my position, but since it is not a declaration but a question, it is very weak. The question may have been used to elicit the conclusion, "Jesus is God". So I move on to firmer ground.

It is NOT clear that Paul thought Jesus was God. Not in the least. Some have taken certain verses and twisted them by leaving out a comma or even a word, to make it seem as though Paul was calling Jesus "God," but other versions of the Bible have correctly rendered those verses, and Paul is not referring to Jesus as "God" at all.

(Grasped has the meaning of taking something one did not previously have.)

Say I have a sword in its scabbard on my belt. I then 'grasp it'. Did I not have it before?

Here is my lexicon on the term

a`rpagmo,j, ou/, o` prob. = a[rpagma a thing to be seized or greatly desired, a prize, a piece of good fortune, something to hold on to Phil 2:6; robbery is rather improbable.* [pg 26]

Here is from another lexicon

2. As equal to a[rpagma, someth. to which one can claim or assert title by gripping or grasping, someth. claimed

Augustine, I believe, took it to mean "exploited".

Paul is saying that though eternal christ could have relied upon his equality with God, decided not to, but humbled himself first in incarnation, and (even further) into death by crucifixion. Because of this God the father exalted Jesus (=incarnate Lord) and bestowed upon Jesus the highest of all names. Immediately, I have a hard time thinking of anything other than YHWH as the highest name. But Paul helps us out by taking an Isaianic passage in which Isaiah foresees a day when all the nations will confess that YHWH alone is God--and Paul places Jesus in this slot: Every tongue will confess that JESus Christ is LORD (= Greek for YHWH).

Now, I have read on and it seems that either you have not understood my argument, or are working entirely in the English. If you do not know Greek, I do not know how we will be able to discuss this.

Let's take your timothy passage:

To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father AND Christ Jesus our Lord." (verses 1 and 2, NASB) "God" and "Jesus" are distinguished from one another. He speaks of two individuals, as he does in all of his letters.

Yes. He speaks of the Father as God, and JEsus as LORD. In other words, the Father is elohim, and Jesus is YHWH. Two names for God in the o.t., two different referents for the divine designation.

In an english translation of Deut 6.4 you will read "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Now, in the Timothy passage, is the Father no longer our Lord, and only Jesus?

liamconnor · Post by **liamconnor** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:48 pm

[Replying to post 112 by BusB]

Trinitarian theology has always recognized that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father. The Father generates the Son, the Son does not generate the Father. So yes, there is a distinction, and perhaps something of hierarchy within the divine economy.

This is what we see in Pauline theology: Jesus is at once LORD, but also subject to the Father.

Paul frequently cites O.T. texts where (in the Hebrew) the term YWHW is used, and identifies Jesus as that figure.

Consider Ro 10 where Paul reflects on the current unbelief of his fellow Jews.

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him;
13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved."

in v. 12 Paul makes the point that there is one Lord: i.e., he asserts monotheism.

In v. 13 He quotes Joel 2.32 which employs the term YHWH.
In v. 14 he considers the referent in Joel upon whom men are to call: i.e., YHWH, but then asks

14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

These are the Jews. They are to call upon (YHWH = LORD = HIM). But they do not call upon this person because they have not believed in him. Now, given the context both historical and literary, of which two possible referents have the Jews NOT believed in: God? Or Jesus?

Clearly Jesus.

Thus the equation goes (YHWH = LORD = HIM = JESus).

Paul reads Joel as saying "For whoever will call upon the name of (YHWH = LORD = JESUS) will be saved.

Left Site · Post by **Left Site** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:50 pm

[Replying to post 113 by liamconnor]

Paul speaks very often in a context similar to 1 Corinthians 15:27 Â "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him."

That same thought applies to Philippians chapter two concerning which I would encourage to reconsider your ideas as to how some of it is supposedly properly translated. It is telling us that Jesus did not even so much as consider doing the dastardly thing that Satan the Devil did. Jesus gave no thought seizing to be equal to God or to seizing to himself power from God.

At 1 Corinthians 15:27 Paul is there clearly speaking of the resurrected glorified Jesus Christ already returned to heaven and reigning at the right hand of the Father even as did king David.

This is indeed fulfilment of the prophecy concerning a descendant of David being given the throne of David and that throne enduring forever more.

The material throne located in a Jerusalem of flesh was but a picture of the heavenly Jerusalem which Paul mentions at Hebrews 12:22 and Galatians 4:26, it having the only true source of enduring power and authority any king could possibly have; that being God's throne.

David was not the owner of the throne he was seated on. It was God's throne and David, just as all kings including Jesus, answer to God the Father for what they do on God's throne.

It is the grandest of all privileges to sit at the right hand of God where a king carries out the work of God just as God tells him to.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:54 pm

I don't understand why the JWs want to argue there heresy so much. Do they think that the 99% the believe in the trinity are going to be swayed?

Why they go to pope and convince him.

Again, the church that created the trinity was much closer to actual original NT texts then anyone is today. They also had access to many religious texts that are no longer available. Maybe in the Vatican library under lock and key.

The JWs believe in at least two gods as they have pointed out in this thread. They believe Jesus is the son of God and a human which by definition makes him at least a demigod. They also believe Jesus is divine

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

In religious terms, divinity or godhead is the state of things that come from a supernatural power or deity, such as a god, supreme being, creator deity, or spirits, and are therefore regarded as sacred and holy.[1][2][3] Such things are regarded as "divine" due to their transcendental origins or because their attributes or qualities are superior or supreme relative to things of the Earth.[1] Divine things are regarded as eternal and based in truth,[1] while material things are regarded as ephemeral and based in illusion. Such things that may qualify as "divine" are apparitions, visions, prophecies, miracles, and in some views also the soul, or more general things like resurrection, immortality, grace, and salvation. Otherwise what is or is not divine may be loosely defined, as it is used by different belief systems.
The root of the word "divine" is literally "godly" (from the Latin deus, cf. Dyaus, closely related to Greek zeus, div in Persian and deva in Sanskrit), but the use varies significantly depending on which deity is being discussed. This article outlines the major distinctions in the conventional use of the terms.

The reason for trinity is to get rid of the multiple gods that the bible implies.

Does it matter if some Christians believe in multiple gods or the trinity?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:16 pm

liamconnor wrote:I believe I gave numerous verses [...]

Yes, and every one has been refuted with no counter-argument from you; I think therefore we can agree that you reasoning can be discarded as being scripturally invalid.

Arguments that rest on certain TITLES being applied to both Jesus and YHWH
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 703#872703

1 Corinthians 8:6 [Juxtaposition]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 687#872687

Philippians 2:7-10: The NAME above all other names
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 687#872687

Isaiah 45:22-23: Every knee shall bow
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 695#872695

Is LORD a translation of YHWH?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 698#872698

Matthew 3:3 Preparing the way of the LORD
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 699#872699

Deut 6:4 Does the SHEMA support a trinitarian view (God/YHWH)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 793#872793

Left Site · Post by **Left Site** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:40 pm

Donray wrote: The reason for trinity is to get rid of the multiple gods that the bible implies.

Does it matter if some Christians believe in multiple gods or the trinity?

The Trinity does not do away with multiple God's. It instead creates multiple equal God's.

You cannot justly claim that the Trinity merely describes one God. The concept is but razzle dazzle to get around what you have failed to understand. For example, there is no prohibition in the scriptures against there being multiple gods as you seem to think.

The prohibition given in the Scriptures is that we are not to appoint gods. Only God can appoint gods and there is no other god unless appointed by the One True God from whom other gods would need to draw their godliness before they could be considered gods by us. (Compare: John 10:34-36 and Jeremiah 2:11) But none of these divinely appointed gods could ever be totally equal to the One True God whose name is Jehovah. Jesus is, however, the perfect reflection (which is what an image is meant to be), indeed he is the exact representation of God (again what an image is meant to be), meaning that Jesus flawlessly imitates his Father and has completely emulated his character. That is why he was sent to us as the example we need to follow so as to be restored to the image of God which we too were meant to bear. 2 Peter 1:4 Â "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

The Tyndale translation shows this very well in it's translation of the Old Testament. Trinitarian Bibles have for the most part butchered the Old Testament's translation so that in key places it cannot be known from them what was really said.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:51 pm

liamconnor wrote:1 Cor. 8.6 is an allusion to the Shema, in which we see two names of God used and a monotheistic declaration: God, YWHW, One.

QUESTION: Can the Shema be used to suggest duality of nature for Almighty God?

The Shema has been described as "one of the best-known, most fundamental expressions of Jewish belief". The first part is based on Deuteronomy 6:4* which reads:

American Standard Version
Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah

World English Bible
Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one:

Young's Literal Translation
Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;

Should that fact that the Creator is refered to both by the title (God) AND by his personal name YHWH (Jehovah) be taken to be an allustion to a duality in nature?

This is a most ridiculous suggestion. Pairing a personal name with a descriptive title is not unusual in any area. Thus we often speak of Doctor (title) BROWN (personal name), or Mrs (title) Walker (Walker=personal name). In neither case does anyone reasonable conclude that since we have two identifying labels: A title which is a generic description of someones position or function, together with a personal name (which identifies the unique individual concerned) we must be talking about two seperate individuals? It is morereasonable (and logical) to conclude that the passage is identifying the name and supreme position of the one whom the Israelites worshipped.

CONCLUSION It is both linguistically sound and biblically untenable to suggest that the Shema was in any way suggesting a duality of nature later to be revealed in a trinitiarian positon.

*

liamconnor wrote:In an english translation of Deut 6.4 you will read "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Not one that respects what would have appeared in the original text (see above)

RELATED THREAD

Translation errors: Removing the Divine Name
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 272#822272

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:13 pm

[Replying to post 118 by BusB]

You don't understand history.. We have created many gods over the hundreds of thousand year humans have been around. The Jewish god was created about 1000BC until about 500BC the Jewish people had multiple gods.

There are many reference in the Hebrew bible that they once did have multiple gods.

Debating Christianity and Religion

JESUS IS NOT YHWH

JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Re: JESUS IS NOT YHWH