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]

I am perfectly fine admitting that we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.;

What would you say if I said you are wrong and we do indeed have copies of first century manuscripts of the LXX?

Do you actually read any of my post? Here something I posted earlier in this thread
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 529#905529

Did you read the NOTE at the bottom of the post just above this one? Here is the LINK
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 296#906296

And again, you have not answered my question, it was not rhetorical:

• 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?

[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.

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.

That's what I actually said, that someone substituted "Lord" or "God" for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), deliberately effacing God's personal name from the text.

[onewithhim]

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 "" .

I don't think anyone is trying to be difficult here. JW and I understand that the "preferred Greek" ("Lord") has been put in the place of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) that originally appeared in the text. It was dishonest of any copyist to take out YHWH and insert "Lord" instead. Why should we accept that that copyist felt comfortable doing so?

[onewithhim]

[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.

Paul himself did not substitute "Lord" for the Tetragrammaton. Scholars say that this happened sometime in the 3rd century.

[onewithhim]

[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.

I wasn't aware that we have manuscripts from Paul himself!! This is news to me. Would you share them with us please?

Your "probably" doesn't hold water.

Paul would have quoted the Hebrew text as he saw it, and God's name was in those Hebrew scriptures 7,000 times.

[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.

That's what I actually said, that someone substituted "Lord" or "God" for the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), deliberately effacing God's personal name from the text.

I agree there. It only supports the YHWH was changed, not that it was Jehovah. It could be.(but not likely, due to the late appearance of J) What would be interesting to know is when the NT refers to the Son of man and when God.(Kurios, Theos, Logos) It seems purposefully clouded.

In fact, there must be great truth to these writings we hold to ourselves. Because, thru translations and misnomers, we all know its out there. We just have to hope we rightly divide the Word.
I must get a NWT, now. Just to divide.

[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.

I wasn't aware that we have manuscripts from Paul himself!! This is news to me. Would you share them with us please?

Your "probably" doesn't hold water.

Paul would have quoted the Hebrew text as he saw it, and God's name was in those Hebrew scriptures 7,000 times.

Hmmm....not sure what you are attempting here.

We have multiple manuscripts of the Pauline corpus. In these, Paul writes in Greek. In these, he quotes from the O.T. These quotes are, no surprise, in Greek; obviously, since he is writing to Greeks who do not know Hebrew. The O.T. passages he is translating contain the Hebrew YHWH; where this term occurs, he uses the Greek kurios to translate.

This isn't really up for debate. Even wiki will support this.

[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.

Paul himself did not substitute "Lord" for the Tetragrammaton. Scholars say that this happened sometime in the 3rd century.

For a scholar to "say this" we would obviously need manuscripts from Paul where he he used something else. And this alone would be strange as he was writing to Greeks who did not now Hebrew.

So far, the manuscript evidence is on my side.

[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 "" .

I don't think anyone is trying to be difficult here. JW and I understand that the "preferred Greek" ("Lord") has been put in the place of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) that originally appeared in the text. It was dishonest of any copyist to take out YHWH and insert "Lord" instead. Why should we accept that that copyist felt comfortable doing so?

So your line of defense is blind faith that originally Paul MUST HAVE used Hebrew characters when writing to Greeks who did not know Hebrew?

What I have in my defense are early manuscripts; what you have, is blind hope that these manuscripts are tampered with.

[liamconnor]

I am perfectly fine admitting that we do not have manuscripts of the LXX dating to 1st c.;

What would you say if I said you are wrong and we do indeed have copies of first century manuscripts of the LXX?

Do you actually read any of my post? Here something I posted earlier in this thread
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 529#905529

Did you read the NOTE at the bottom of the post just above this one? Here is the LINK
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 296#906296

And again, you have not answered my question, it was not rhetorical:

• 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?

I repeat, of course we do not have the original LXX. If you use this against me, then next time you bring up the O.T. I can easily ask for the original O.T. Heck, I can ask for the original tablets.

So then, from what manuscripts we have of Paul and the LXX, wherever the Greek substitutes YHWH, Kurios is the Greek.



One could interpret your fastidiousness as a desperate attempt; taken when one knows he has lost.