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]

Because the entire context of the passage is about Jewish disbelief and Gentile belief. .

If that is so, why can "they" not be speaking about the Gentiles? After all the Gentiles had their own beliefs in pagan gods but "they" did not know Jehovah.

[JehovahsWitness]

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?

You already asked this question. Here is my answer.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 687#872687


RELATED POSTS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 785#872785

[Left Site]

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

The reference is to names which were given. No one gave God his name and no one can change God's name.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 138 by onewithhim]

That is fine with me, except I do not denigrate any position. I simply challenge it. And I have challenged yours with actual references in their original language.

No you have not. I have rebutted your "references," as has Jehovah'sWitness. You are wrong, and our comments have shown that clearly. You have done more than simply challenge our positions. You say something and then ignore the rebuttal. That is simply denigration of someone's position, because you don't even consider their viewpoints on the matter.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 135 by onewithhim]

There is not one Trinitarian that I have crossed paths with that can explain the Trinity. They all admit that it is a "mystery" and cannot be explained.

And your point is that if there is a transcendent being it should be as explainable and comprehensible as a square?

Explain to me all the observations in quantum physics.

That is just matter: God's creation.

Why should God be less complicated?

The very nature of God is something that can be construed. He is either one Person or He is not. He gave us the Bible so that we could know who He is and what He expects of His intelligent creations. Surely if He was more than one Person He would make it very clear. He wants us to know Him. (John 17:3) The fact that God is one Person doesn't make Him any less complicated. Of course He is someone who cannot be completely understood by His creations, but we can know BASIC FACTS about Him. Why would He wish CONFUSION on mankind? God is not the author of confusion. He makes things understandable for us. God is either one or He is not. The Bible tells us that He is one. One Person. Jesus is His Son. The H.S. is a Force that emanates from Him, to accomplish what it is that He wants to accomplish. Anything else is FABRICATION.

[onewithhim]

[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.

Yes, but wouldn't he be referring to other Gentiles, writing to the congregation in Rome which was probably mostly Gentiles?

[onewithhim]

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).

Yeah, which turn out to be SPIRITUAL Jews, not all natural Jews. He makes this distinction in other letters, such as Galatians 3:28,29. See also the next chapter where he speaks of "the Jerusalem above." That becomes the important Jerusalem, not the physical one. (V.26)

[onewithhim]

Whenever the Philippian's passage comes up (i.e., 2:6-11) all the focus is given to the puzzling term (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.

That is unethical reasoning. Of course we must understand that the One who GAVE Jesus the name above all others would not Himself be lowered in position! That goes without saying! That really is exactly the same reasoning as at I Corinthians 15:27, where it is stated that God subjected all things under Jesus' feet, but of course we are to understand that it is with the exception of God, the One who did the subjecting. "All things" were subjected to Christ, but the exception is God. The same can be said of the name above every name. Of course with the exception of God, the One who GAVE Jesus this high rank.

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 161 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, but wouldn't he be referring to other Gentiles, writing to the congregation in Rome which was probably mostly Gentiles?

It is a bit difficult to determine in Romans chapter 10 exactly how the message Paul was pushing to have preached would be worded, and I am therefore not willing to write my thoughts about it in stone. I have to admit that I am groping for the fuller understanding just as I hope others are. After all, truth is
what we are looking for otherwise we are just wasting our time.

I see the way belief pulls on us causing us to search so hard for proof of what we believe that we become blind to see a truth which differs from our belief. And I feel that the search for proof that Jesus was actually being shown by Paul and other new testament writers to be God, is a very good example of a belief that is able to blind us.

Left and right we are bombarded with comments concerning the various miraculous things surrounding Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, claiming that these things prove Jesus was God and is God. But I find it interesting that to view those things in that way we must step right over Paul's belief as to what that power surrounding Jesus' life, death, and resurrection proved. Concerning what those things proved about Jesus, Paul plainly told us: Romans 1:4 but who with power was declared Gods Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead "yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul's words there at Romans 1:4 go hand-in-hand with what Jesus said at John 8:28 to explain what Jesus meant: Jesus then said: After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

I find it interesting that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of man there at John 8:28 in context with speaking about his being lifted up by those who opposed him. After all, they could defy a Son of man and his enemies were only willing to recognize him as a Son of man. But when they tried they would find out that he was more than a Son of man. They would learn he had not lied to them when he told them that God was his Father and he was God's Son.

Just as Paul told us at Romans 1:4, the powerful events surrounding Jesus' life, death, and resurrection proved that he was indeed God's Son, The wicked ones of the Pharisees often told him that only God had the right to forgive sins and so forth. Those wicked ones refused to recognize Jesus as God's Son, else they would have known that Jesus' power came from his Father and as his father's Son he had the right given him of his Father. And the shame of us thinking those things proved that Jesus was and is God is that we must agree with those wicked ones that only God has the right to do those things, in effect disallowing that God has full right to empower his Son to continue his work, even as to a smaller extent God had empowered Elijah. So it portrays a lack of faith and undermines the work of Jesus in directing glory to his Father by means of his Father's goodness toward him. In fact, the lack of faith which it portrays is of the most subtle nature, for it is a lack of faith mixed into an element of real faith. As such it hides itself so that it is difficult for it's victims to become aware of to escape it.

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 165 by onewithhim]

Yes, but wouldn't he be referring to other Gentiles, writing to the congregation in Rome which was probably mostly Gentiles?

I am struggling to figure out why my quotes don't come through correctly in their own little window.

I am grateful for Jehovah's allowing us to try and learn to follow Jesus' example in preaching about the Kingdom of God. I have so very many imperfections and if I was shielded from having to learn to deal with all temperaments of people I fear that many of my imperfections would go unnoticed to me.

As I go along I know that just as James said, I will stumble in word from time to time. (James 3:2) I feel bad when i look back on something I have said and find that in hind-sight I spoke too harshly. But on the other hand I am grateful for learning about it so that I might work more at changing the man that I am deep within. In that light I can even be grateful to the ones who have spoken to me in ways that tried me.

Jehovah does indeed make all things work to the good of those who love him. But he didn't promise us it was always going to be easy.