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]

In the O.T. the deity that created the world and liberated Israel was given many names. One of them was elohim, which we translate as God. .

The word "God" (Elohim) can be referred to as a TITLE. On the other hand, The Jewish Encylopedia has the following to say about YHWH (The Tetragrammaton)...



RELATED POSTS

TITLES: Allah, God, Elohim..
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 613#798613

How many times is the Divine Name in the Torah?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 097#903097]

[JehovahsWitness]

I know Greek and Hebrew. [...] The N.T. is in Greek. When it cites the O.T. it typically employs the Greek LXX. Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios. Where the Hebrew Elohim appears, the LXX typically uses the Greek Theos.

Which specific manuscript(s) are you referring to here? Do you have evidence that this was the case during the first century (when the original Christian Greek scriptures were being penned) ? If so, can you provide it.


Thanks,

JW

[brianbbs67]

Some verification of Liams claim is in the preface of the NKJ bible. Under explainations of format. ...."in this edition the capitalized form God or Lord is also used whenever the covenant name is quoted in the new Testament"...

[onewithhim]

Some verification of Liams claim is in the preface of the NKJ bible. Under explainations of format. ...."in this edition the capitalized form God or Lord is also used whenever the covenant name is quoted in the new Testament"...

That must mean that wherever a scripture is quoted that had originally contained the Tetragrammaton, in the Hebrew Scriptures, then "God" or "Lord" would be capitalized in the New Testament. Interesting. That would be supporting JWs' position.

[brianbbs67]

Some verification of Liams claim is in the preface of the NKJ bible. Under explainations of format. ...."in this edition the capitalized form God or Lord is also used whenever the covenant name is quoted in the new Testament"...

That must mean that wherever a scripture is quoted that had originally contained the Tetragrammaton, in the Hebrew Scriptures, then "God" or "Lord" would be capitalized in the New Testament. Interesting. That would be supporting JWs' position.

Actually, it means wherever the YHWH appeared, God or Lord was substistuted. And it was not Jehovah(in the script), a 13th century RCC creation. For me to go any further, I would need to understand Cornea Greek, which I don't. But , maybe one day.

[liamconnor]

I know Greek and Hebrew. [...] The N.T. is in Greek. When it cites the O.T. it typically employs the Greek LXX. Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios. Where the Hebrew Elohim appears, the LXX typically uses the Greek Theos.

Which specific manuscript(s) are you referring to here? Do you have evidence that this was the case during the first century (when the original Christian Greek scriptures were being penned) ? If so, can you provide it.


Thanks,

JW

I cannot tell if you are simply being difficult for the sake of being difficult. What I have claimed has been known by scholarship for a long time, and my impression of you is that you are informed. I have attempted nothing very novel here.

To avoid ambiguity, I will use actual Hebrew and Greek characters...until I get tired of cutting and pasting.


The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Multiple manuscripts show that where the original Hebrew is "" (Yahweh) the preferred Greek is (Lord). Sometimes is used. In a couple of Greek manuscripts it seems the copyist felt comfortable using the Hebrew directly. But in those passages which became for 1st c. Jews the key monotheistic proclamations, is used for "" .

For instance, the Shema:

"" " "" "

- -

Where in the Hebrew the generic term Elohim appears, the Greek Theos is used; where the covenantal name YHWH appears, we have the Greek Kurios. Both theos and kurios are names for God; one of them is generic, the other is the special covenantal name.

Readers who do not know Hebrew or Greek rely too often on English clues. Thus when they open their O.T. they see LORD in all caps and understand that God's covenantal name is being used. They then open their N.T. and see that, apart from O.T. quotes, Lord is never in all caps. They then conclude that the original authors never intended for Lord to represent the tetragammaton.

But surely this is sloppy work. The practice of using all caps was never intended to differentiate the Greek kurios from the Hebrew YHWH, but to show where the Hebrew YHWH is explicitly used.

So then, I maintain that in Paul's combination of Isaiah's words "every knee will bend...every tongue will confess" with the final declaration "that Christ is Kurios", there lies behind Kurios the LXX's Kurios. That is, YHWH.

Christ Jesus shares the father's covenantal status. Where Paul calls the father 'Theos' and Jesus 'Kurios', he is placing the two on the same level of dignity and power, giving the Father the generic version of Elohim and Jesus, the Son, the covenantal version of YHWH.

Hence the opening words of Galatians:

- - , 2 -- "-, 3 - - - 4 (Gal 1:1 BGT)

In English:

Paul, an apostle not from men nor through any man, BUT through Jesus Christ and God the father who raised him from the dead, 2 and all the brethren who are with me; to the churches in Galatia: grace to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the first sentence we see that both Jesus and God the father are placed on one side in contrast to "men": i.e, "called NOT through men or a man BUT through JESUS CHRIST AND GOD THE FATHER. Already eyebrows should rise: when the contrast between man and God is drawn, Paul puts Jesus on the side of God.

After that, Paul assigns the father the title theos; he assigns Jesus the title kurios. Both terms appear in the LXX. Theos, where the Hebrew Elohim appears; Kurios, where the covenantal name appears.

Opponents here like to resort to wishy-washy logic: how can Jesus pray to YHWH if Jesus is YHWH. This completely misunderstands how both the Hebrew O.T. and the Greek N.T. used their terms. The O.T. god had many names. YHWH was one special name that designated not his essence, but his covenantal relationship to Israel. But for Paul (and the authors of the gospel) a new covenant had been established; through Jesus. Hence Jesus now bears the covenantal name.

The question of course arises: can a mere man bear the covenantal name? As I see it, the N.T. unanimously says No. Throughout all of Jewish literature prior to the N.T. we see three characteristics of God that were 100% solely Gods. God was Creator and Sovereign and Covenantal. Throughout the Pseudapigrapha we see God alone sitting on his throne, alone worthy of worship as the angels stand before him (not seated by him); we see God alone creating the universe: the nearest thing to 'assistance' being not angels but 'wisdom' which of course is integral to God. And it is God alone who binds Israel to himself, signified by his covenantal name.

In the N.T. all this remains true. It is God alone, now realized as Father and Son Jesus, involved in Creation:

5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1Co 8:5-6 NAS)

Father God and Lord Jesus share in the divine activity of Creation (probably there are two creative acts in view, the original, and the new creation).

And of course Jesus is worthy of worship throughout the N.T.

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION: Is the Divine Name (YHWH) substituted for LORD (kurios) in the EARLY copies of the Septuagint?

I know Greek and Hebrew. [...] Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios.

Which specific manuscript(s) are you referring to here? Do you have evidence that this was the case during the first century (when the original Christian Greek scriptures were being penned)?

Multiple manuscripts show that where the original Hebrew is "" (Yahweh) the preferred Greek is (Lord) ... {snip: rest of post disregarded as irrelevant to the question asked}.

• There is no doubt that removing the Divine Name from the text of the Hebrew bible became a tradition and that there are "multiple manuscripts" to demonstrate this. However we need to establish if the Divine Name YHWH was substitued for LORD (kurios) when Jesus and the first century Christian writers were alive. It is for this reason I asked you for evidence that The EARLY Septuagint manuscripts (ie the copies that date from the time the Christian writers were alive) substituted YHWH for KURIOS.

So again my question is:

Is there any evidence that THE EARLY copies of the Septuagint substitued the Divine Name YHWH for "LORD" (kurios in Greek).

JW

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 376 by JehovahsWitness]

I see your issue now. Actually, I do not need to show early manuscripts of the LXX, since we are dealing not with tendencies in general but specifically Paul's. And it is quite clear that when Paul quotes a Hebrew text in Greek, he uses Kurios for YHWH.

Hence Ro 10:13 where he quotes Joel 2.32:

32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered." What lies behind LORD is YHWH, as I am sure you will not dispute. Paul translates this:

- - .
(Rom 10:13 BGT).

The clear referent of kurios in this passage is Jesus; thus Paul has identified Jesus with the LORD of Joel 2.32

It is the same in the following:

1 Cor. 1.31; 1 Cor. 2.16; 1 Cor. 10.26; 2 Cor. 10.17; Ro 14.11.

So then, Paul prefers Kurios for YHWH, and uses Kurios of Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

I know Greek and Hebrew. [...] Where the LXX substitutes a Greek word for the Hebrew YHWH, it predominantly uses the Greek Kurios.

Multiple manuscripts show that where the original Hebrew is "" (Yahweh) the preferred Greek is (Lord) ... {snip: rest of post disregarded as irrelevant to the question asked}.

... I do not need to show early manuscripts of the LXX, since we are dealing not with tendencies in general but specifically Paul's.

If you don't need to refer to the relevant Septuagint manuscripts why did you bring the Septuagint up to support your point in the first place?


You point out that you know Greek and Hebrew and refer the Septuagint to support your point that the Tetragrammaton would have been replaced by the Christian Greek writers but now when I ask you to be more specific so we can establish relevancy you claim the LXX is not needed at all!

EARLY COPIES, A VITAL CLUE

Paul and the early Christian writers repeatedly quoted from the Hebrew bible. They no doubt would have used the recognized authorized Greek translation available at the time (The Septuagint). Pointing to copies of the Septuagint made long after the Christian Greek writers penned their works is like claiming Shakespeare used WINDOWS 10 to write his plays. What is relevant is, what SOURCE DOCUMENTS did the first century writers have at their disposal.

The Christian Greek writers obviously didn't have 3rd and 4th century copies of the septuagint, like Windows 10 for Shakespeare, they didn't yet exist! So pointing out that later copies substituted the Divine Name (YHWH) for the Greek is largely irrelevant. They may have followed what came to be a later tradition or they may not. Obviously what was in the documents these writers were quoting FROM at the time they were writing, is enormously relevant despite your claim to the contrary.

JW

NOTE: We do indeed have copies of the Septuagint dating from the first century, what they contain enlightens serious scholars as to what first century writers would likely have written had they been quoting the Hebrew bible.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 378 by JehovahsWitness]

Hmmm....

Sorry, I don't see how your response has any weight here. We have manuscripts from Paul himself, quoting Scripture, using Kurios where YHWH is used.

I am perfectly fine admitting that we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.; just as I am perfectly fine admitting we do not have the original manuscripts of Paul. All of that is irrelevant. We have enough data to reconstruct Paul's manuscripts, and all the evidence points to the fact that when Paul quotes an O.T. passage in Greek, a passage that contains the Hebrew for YHWH, Paul uses Kurios. I find it unlikely that Paul was being innovative here; thus I take it that there was a floating Greek manuscript of the O.T., known to Palestine. Whether it was made official is irrelevant here. Paul probably had a Greek bible which he consulted, which I call the LXX. And from this bible he had no problems identifying Jesus with YHWH.


I am guessing that your last attempt was a bit of a maneuver; trying to nit pick on a very minor detail. The major detail is whether Paul uses Kurios when translating his O.T.