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.

[Left Site]

We might think that, whether or not they really believed, they surely had heard and therefore how could it be, "How shall they hear .."

But they had not heard. What they had heard was so adulterated with distortions and weighty traditions that Jehovah seemed a harsh task-master to most of them. That is why Jesus scolded them in Matthew chapter 23, saying, "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Matthew 23:13

What we must realize is that Jesus was the prophet like unto Moses. We read about that in the latter part of Acts chapter three. Jesus came to earth to tear down the curtain that existed between the Holy and Most Holy Sanctuary Compartments, thus giving any who would accept him as the promised Messiah a direct approach to Jehovah in prayer. prior to that only a human High Priest who himself was laden with sin could enter the Most Holy wherein he could directly petition Jehovah God. But upon Jesus' death that curtain which separated the two compartments was rent, thus allowing entry to the under-priests for the very first time. No longer would they be dependent upon receiving spiritual feeding from one imperfect high-priest whom due to his imperfection did a miserable job of supplying their needs, thus allowing them to become sickly and without genuine faith or belief.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 149 by BusB]

I can see how easily one might reason that the Jews believed in Jehovah and that thus it could not be Jehovah that is spoken of being called upon in the NT.

The key word is, "believed." Did they really believe? Not according to Jesus:

Matthew 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

Mark 9:19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

Luke 9:41 And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.

It is one thing to claim belief but another thing to really believe.

This is quite a linguistic maneuver, let alone a display of eisegesis.

Paul would never have said the Jews did not believe in God. 10:14 specifically says they have not believed "in someone".


The sequence from 10:13 is as clear as day:

10:13 A quote from Joel about all the nations being saved by calling upon YWHW.

10:14, the problem besetting the Jews in regards they cannot call upon someone if they don't believe in him. Please note, this is not "believe Him" as in, believe something he has said.

10:14b asks How shall they not believe in a person of whom they have not heard?

The question is asinine if Paul is thinking of God: Jews have heard about YWHW since birth. It is, however, a pertinent question if Paul is thinking of Jesus.

10:14c "And how shall they hear without a preacher?"

Jews don't need a preacher if we are talking about simply the God of the O.T. They have the Scriptures. They do however need a preacher if we are talking about Jesus.

10:15 "And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"

It is common place in N.T. that it is Jesus who sent the apostles.

10:16 also seems to identify Jesus with the LORD of the Isaiah

"However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?"

For in Isaiah, the prophet and his people are sent to Israel; just as Jesus sent the apostles to Israel. But the LORD's message through Isaiah was not accepted by all of Israel; just as Jesus' message through the apostles was not accepted by all of Israel.


The excursus given on "faith" derived from the gospels is an illegitimate maneuver; in 1st year Greek interpretation students learn that the first step is to stick to the text in front of you, and not rush off to other books of the Bible to establish what one thinks it should be saying.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 148 by JehovahsWitness]

So when we get to vs. 10:14 (which is not a quote) we have this:

How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? (Rom 10:14 NAS)

That is, the Jews don't believe in God's existence?

And then 10:14b, And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?

The Jews don't believe in YWHW because they have never heard about him?

Then 10:14c And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Rom 10:14 ESV)

The reason they have never heard about YHWH is because no one ever preached about him to the Jews?


This seems not only asinine of Paul but impertinent:

However, if Paul is identifying JEsus with the LORD of Joel, it all makes logical sense.

10:13 He quotes Joel which says all who call upon the LORD will be saved.

10:14 he considers the problem besetting the Jews: They can't call upon someone if they don't believe in him: i.e., Jesus.

10:14b Paul considers how someone is to believe in something if they have never ,heard about him: makes sense if we are talking about Jesus, who is a relatively new revelation for Jews.

10:14c Paul asks how someone is to hear about someone unless that someone is preached to them: Jews don't need a preacher to hear about the God of the O.T.; they need a preacher to hear about JEsus.

[JehovahsWitness]

So when we get to vs. 10:14 (which is not a quote) we have this: How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? (Rom 10:14 NAS)

And why pray tell do you presume that "they" is refering to the Jews?

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 149 by BusB]

I can see how easily one might reason that the Jews believed in Jehovah and that thus it could not be Jehovah that is spoken of being called upon in the NT.

The key word is, "believed." Did they really believe? Not according to Jesus:

Matthew 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

Mark 9:19 He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

Luke 9:41 And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.

It is one thing to claim belief but another thing to really believe.

This is quite a linguistic maneuver, let alone a display of eisegesis.

Paul would never have said the Jews did not believe in God. 10:14 specifically says they have not believed "in someone".


The sequence from 10:13 is as clear as day:

10:13 A quote from Joel about all the nations being saved by calling upon YWHW.

10:14, the problem besetting the Jews in regards they cannot call upon someone if they don't believe in him. Please note, this is not "believe Him" as in, believe something he has said.

10:14b asks How shall they not believe in a person of whom they have not heard?

The question is asinine if Paul is thinking of God: Jews have heard about YWHW since birth. It is, however, a pertinent question if Paul is thinking of Jesus.

10:14c "And how shall they hear without a preacher?"

Jews don't need a preacher if we are talking about simply the God of the O.T. They have the Scriptures. They do however need a preacher if we are talking about Jesus.

10:15 "And how shall they preach unless they are sent?"

It is common place in N.T. that it is Jesus who sent the apostles.

10:16 also seems to identify Jesus with the LORD of the Isaiah

"However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?"

For in Isaiah, the prophet and his people are sent to Israel; just as Jesus sent the apostles to Israel. But the LORD's message through Isaiah was not accepted by all of Israel; just as Jesus' message through the apostles was not accepted by all of Israel.


The excursus given on "faith" derived from the gospels is an illegitimate maneuver; in 1st year Greek interpretation students learn that the first step is to stick to the text in front of you, and not rush off to other books of the Bible to establish what one thinks it should be saying.

You are sort of right and sort of wrong as i see it.

Paul states at Romans 10: 2 "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." There the word for knowledge is "epignosis" rather than simply "gnosis." So Paul was indeed not saying they were totally ignorant of God. He was saying they did not intimately know God. they did not know God's righteousness.

Now it is also true that Jesus is known as the Righteousness of God. This is because he bears the perfect image of his Father's righteousness and as such is a light to that righteousness which if we allow it to can shine a more intimate understanding of God to us. But the Jews rejected that light because it worked to reveal darkness amidst them that they deemed to be light.

Clearly Paul is speaking of of the need for preachers or ministers in the stead of Christ who could shine that light of Jehovah as they learned from Christ that others could come to know Jehovah and by coming to really know Jehovah be willing to embrace Christ.

Remember who it is that brings us to really knowing the Christ and who it is that brings us to really knowing God. It is Matthew 11:27

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 153 by JehovahsWitness]

I hope you won't consider me as interfering but the context of chapter 10 indicates Paul's concern is indeed to moving those (whom in chapter 11 we find are Gentile Christians) to use their blessing of having been grafted into into the olive tree from which the natural branches had be cut off and be as an army of preachers in the stead of Christ toward those natural branches.

What stands out very dominate in Romans 9-11 is Paul's deep love for his own people, the natural Jews.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 154 by BusB]

Clearly Paul is speaking of of the need for preachers or ministers in the stead of Christ who could shine that light of Jehovah as they learned from Christ that others could come to know Jehovah and by coming to really know Jehovah be willing to embrace Christ.

I do not see that as clear at all. When I go line by line, comparing antecedents and referents, I see that Paul has identified the LORD of Joel with Jesus.

Grammar drives exegesis. One cannot play with the semantics so that, here, Paul is talking about Jesus, and there, he is talking about the father.

The linguistic point about "knowledge" is irrelevant to the progression of thought: "Those who call upon the Lord will be saved" is followed by "but how can they call upon him in whom they have not believed."

Anyone can read into this referent so that it does not refer to Jesus, but since nearly half the epistle is devoted to the problem that Jews have not believed in Jesus, this is the most logical meaning.

[liamconnor]

So when we get to vs. 10:14 (which is not a quote) we have this: How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? (Rom 10:14 NAS)

And why pray tell do you presume that "they" is refering to the Jews?

Because the entire context of the passage is about Jewish disbelief and Gentile belief. Start at 10:1. (Later on, he will talk about how the Jews will eventually come to faith in Jesus).

[liamconnor]

Whenever the Philippian's passage comes up (i.e., 2:6-11) all the focus is given to the puzzling term ��παγμὸν (Phi 2:6 BGT). It is a tough word; it occurs only here in the Bible, both N.T. and LXX, and occurs rarely in non-biblical texts. Most scholars are forced to look for its meaning in more popular cognates.

But what about the climax of the passage: Jesus receives the name that is above all names.

What is the name that is above all names?

If it is Jesus, then every Jesus (i.e. Yeshua) has a name greater than God, and there were a good many of them.

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 154 by BusB]

Clearly Paul is speaking of of the need for preachers or ministers in the stead of Christ who could shine that light of Jehovah as they learned from Christ that others could come to know Jehovah and by coming to really know Jehovah be willing to embrace Christ.

I do not see that as clear at all. When I go line by line, comparing antecedents and referents, I see that Paul has identified the LORD of Joel with Jesus.

Grammar drives exegesis. One cannot play with the semantics so that, here, Paul is talking about Jesus, and there, he is talking about the father.

The linguistic point about "knowledge" is irrelevant to the progression of thought: "Those who call upon the Lord will be saved" is followed by "but how can they call upon him in whom they have not believed."

Anyone can read into this referent so that it does not refer to Jesus, but since nearly half the epistle is devoted to the problem that Jews have not believed in Jesus, this is the most logical meaning.

I don't mind it at all if you wish to assume I am untrained in the Koine' Greek language skills.

I am aware that your driving force is the Septuagint. I do not agree with you assessment of it.

I also know that some of the things you say concerning Paul's preference for the Greek would have been heresy to him. I know that he did not lean on the Greek Septuagint in his upbringing as a Pharisee as that would have been heresy to him as well as to his fellow Pharisees who regarded the Hebrew to be the Holy Language.

I see that you have fallen for a story made more popular by R.B. whose writings I have read and taken notes upon. I do not regard him as a properly qualified scholar.