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]

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?

Philippians 2:5, 6 reads as follows in English:

ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped

Was Paul saying here that Jesus considered equality with God to be something he should rightfully "grasp" (ie to take and cling to) OR was Paul's meaning that that Jesus knew he had no right to try and obtain it?

The phrase in verse 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato: not - seize - (he) considered] is, it has to be admitted on the surface somewhat ambiguous. The Greek word translated "grasp" by the ESV is harpagmon ; about this word The Expositora's Greek Testament makes the following comment:

We cannot find any passage where [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives [including harpagmon] has the sense of holding in possession, retaining. It seems invariably to mean "seize/ snatch violently." (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (George Abbot Smith), states "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing [...] - A-S 60

Interestingly 1969, a new French lectionary that was approved by the Holy See rendered Phil 2:6: Christ Jesus is God's image; but he did not choose to seize by force equality with God

NOTE: If he [Christ] refused to seize it [equality with God], it must be that he did not already possess it. stated The Catholic monthly magazine Itineraires, supplement January 1971. If Christ did not already possess equality with God he cannot *BE* God.


CONCLUSION Given the above Philippians evidently carries the active meaning of snatching (i.e., a usurpation). Being in the negative it conveys the idea that Jesus did not /never (ouch) consider (hegesato) snatching or seizing [harpagmon] equality. Obviously if Jesus rejected (would not consider) the notion it would be because he considered it (being equal with God) wrong. Thus Paul is affirming the fact that Jesus did not aspire to equality with God.








JW


RELATED POSTS

QUESTION: Can Philippians 2:5, 6 be used to support the trinity?
viewtopic.php?p=872798#p872798

How should Harpagmos rightly be translated? [tigger]
viewtopic.php?p=1041994#p1041994

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[Left Site]

[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.

There is a huge difference between the gods made up and appointed by men and the gods inspired by and appointed of Jehovah.

So I take it that you are claiming that at John 10:34 Jesus was slamming them for chasing false gods? Well that would be convenient for you but it is just not so.

John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Jehovah God could not be the God of unreal gods. That would make no sense for they don't exit but in men's imagination. But at Joshua 22:22 we are told,  "Jehovah God of gods, Jehovah God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against Jehovah, (save us not this day,)"

Being taught that there are gods has left you unable to see where God himself sets up gods which serve him and which gods humbly direct all glory to Jehovah as the One True God. They know they are nothing apart from Jehovah. That is why I said you need to visit the translation of texts such as Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 45:5, 6.

You seem to think that God is merely saying that if they did not have him there would be no god period. And that is true as to the many false gods which were contrivances of men for those gods are not real and never were real. Those gods were never any more than a figment of man's imagination.
But, even without Israel's leaders recognizing their appointed godship and the obligation that it places upon them to serve the One True God and direct all glory to him, in the spirt world God has his army of gods who serve him and draw all of the power and authority to act from him. They too must never make the mistake that Satan made by abusing that power and privilege and exalting themselves.

Work at better understanding the translation in the tests I mentioned and then we will talk.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 121 by JehovahsWitness]

Was Paul saying here that Jesus considered equality with God to be something he should rightfully "grasp" (ie to take and cling to) OR was Paul's meaning that that Jesus knew he had no right to try and obtain it?

False dichotomy.

OPtion #3 that though it was his by right, he did not cling to it, but rather humbled himself.


cf. TNIV Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."

It is important to read the passage in its broader context, which goes back to 2:3

3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
(Phi 2:3-5 NAS)

The Christological passage is primarily a moral example for self-abnegation for the purpose of serving others. Christ temporarily abnegated his rightful place as equal to God in order to serve others.

Thus it seems that "harpagmon" carries the sense of grabbing or seizing something to which one has no right.

I think you have snuck in the last part, "to which one has no right."

We can also point out how absurd Paul's description would be if that were the meaning: how does one "rob" divinity? It is impossible, and therefore hardly a credit to Jesus for not doing what intrinsically can't be done.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 122 by BusB]

Exactly, man creates gods!!!!!

There is zero proof that A god exists.

Zeus is much older god then the one from Hebrew mythology. Prove that Eden existed. Prove that man has one less rib that Eve was created from. Prove that Exodus is true.

By the way, if you believe Exodus is true then you must believe in other gods.

By the why, tell me what your god is made of. How does your god's brain functions? Where is heaven where he lived before creating the universe and where is it now.

Prove that there was reference to the Jewish god before 1000BCE.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 124 by Donray]

Is this the best thread for this private debate?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 115 by BusB]

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.

The context of the passage begins with Paul urging the Philippians to regard one another as more important than one's self. Now, I think Paul would agree that, in the eyes of God, men are equal as they are all made in his image. As an example, Paul points to Jesus' example.

The parallel works perfectly if Paul is saying that, though Jesus was equal with God, he deemed that such equality was not to be taken advantage of, but lowered himself for the sake of others.

In both cases we would have equality which was to be abnegated for the sake of serving others.

Satan is not mentioned in the passage, nor do we ever read of Satan thinking equality to God was something that could be snatched. That is an interpretation of tradition.

If we read yours and other's ideas behind the Phil.'s passage, it becomes meaningless. The passage presents equality to God as something that could be snatched; Jesus is applauded for not snatching it. Thus Jesus is credited for not doing what is intrinsically impossible to do...hardly laudable.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 100 by onewithhim]

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.

I think translations are getting you confused. Let's start at the beginning, and we will avoid prejudging the situation by referring to God as "D.B." (= Divine Being) to whom various designations are applied.

The O.T. was originally written Hebrew: terms (transliterated) like Elohim and Yahweh are designated to DB. Yahweh is typically used of this entity when the context is covenantal: his redeeming acts past and future for Israel or the world. Elohim is typically more generic: his sovereignty over all creation.

In English translations, Elohim translated God; Yahweh is translated Lord. Linguistic arguments cannot appeal to the decisions of translators when putting Lord in all capitals.

Now, around the 3rd or 2nd c. B.C. a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible came into circulation, and was widely used by those who did not know Hebrew or were speaking/writing to those who did not know Hebrew. This is known as the septuagint (LXX).

The designations Yahweh and Elohim therefore required translation. Yahweh was given Kurios and Elohim was Given Theos.

In the majority of the N.T. it is the LXX that is quoted or alluded to.

When Paul talks of Jesus, he speaks of him as Kurios; when he talks of the Father, he calls him Theos.

Both are divine titles derived from the LXX.

That English translations do not render kurios in the N.T. in all caps is irrelevant, for they are translating not Hebrew, but Greek. A similar phenomenon occurs in the LXA (= an English translation of the LXX: that is, we have gone from Hebrew to Greek to English, but not of the Hebrew, rather of the Greek)

4 This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth,
5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. (Gen 2:4-5 LXA)

You will notice that Lord is not in caps. Yet the Hebrew that ultimately lies behind it is Yahweh.

[JehovahsWitness]

In English translations, Elohim translated God; Yahweh is translated Lord.

No, YHWH is removed and another word Lord is put in. It is not a translation or a transliteration of the Hebrew it is a replacement.

JW


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

Who does LORD apply to in the Christians Greek Scriptures?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 727#866727

[JehovahsWitness]

Now, around the 3rd or 2nd c. B.C. a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible came into circulation [...] This is known as the septuagint (LXX). [...] Yahweh was given Kurios

This is absolutely false. Evidence suggest that Septuagint retained the Divine Name which was not replaced the Greek word for Lord (Kurios).


Below you will see a fragment of an early copy of the Septuagint;
it's written in Greek but the Tetragrammaton is retained in Hebrew



Did the translators of the Greek Septuagint remove the tetragrammaton and replace it with "kurios" (Lord)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 8#872698[b][/b]

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 129 by JehovahsWitness]

Here is the Hebrew of the shema (Deut. 6.4)

ש�מע ישׂר�ל יהוה �להינו יהוה �חד׃ (Deu 6:4)

Here is an English translation:

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

The Hebrew behind LORD is transliterated Yahweh; the Hebrew behind God is transliterated elohim.

Here is the LXX

ἄκουε Ισ�αηλ κύ�ιος � θεὸς ἡμῶν κύ�ιος εἷς �στιν (Deu 6:4)



Edit:

I might point out that the argument is irrelevant to how Paul and the rest of the N.T. considered Jesus. When Paul translates O.T. in which the Hebrew is clearly Yahweh, he uses Kurios.

In Ro 10.13 he qoutes Joel: 32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered; (Joe 2:32 NAS). The Hebrew behind Lord is Yahweh; in Ro 10.13 Paul translates this as Kurios, and then goes on to talk about how the Jews have not believed in this Kurios, which clearly refers to Jesus.

I think this is pretty good evidence that Kurios was the selected Greek term for the Hebrew Yahweh.