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.

[tam]

"Jesus" was familiar to me and I used that... up until I learned that this was not His name; had never been His name. He had not been given this name and He had never been called by this name. Once I learned this, I could no longer use that name. I could not knowingly apply something untrue to my Lord.

• Do you think that Jesus rejects the many millions that pray in his name but pronounce is with the harder J rather than the Y sound? Do you think that Spanish speaking world have access to God because they pronouce their J's as Ys and say "Yesus" rather than "Jesus" but English speakers are barred because of how they pronouce the letter /J/?

I cannot help but think of the Pharisees straining out nats when salvation comes down to pronunciation and accents.

I am at a loss to see where you got this from my post. I mentioned nothing about being barred for how one pronounces a "J". I simply spoke about what is true - and that once I learned that "Jesus" had never been the name of my Lord, I could not use it. I could not knowingly apply something untrue to my Lord.

I also said nothing about pronouncing "Jesus" with a hard "J" or "Y" sound. The name "Jesus" (regardless of 'j' or 'y') is not His name. (And if we were going from Hebrew to English we would get Joshua, or at least a variant of Joshua, which "Jesus" is not. Jesus and Joshua are two different names, and they sound nothing alike whether one uses a hard 'j' or a 'y'.)


And the Spanish "J" sounds like an "H", not like a "Y".





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 440 by tam]

I didn't presume anything I was just curious as to how you feel about other people praying using the name JESUS and whether you believe it make any difference as to the quality of their prayers. You don't have to answer if you don't want to ...


JW

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 423 by JehovahsWitness]

English is much older than the 13th century. Ever read Beowulf or the Canterbury Tales?

I will state once again, my problem is not the pronounction , just the statement it is His true name.

It is the YHWH with the vowels of another word inserted!..

Brian is my name. Without vowels Brn. With other vowels inserted it could be Boron, Baran, Bruin, Buran...etc None of which are my proper name.

A real life example is when I was an exchange student in Germany. Everyone in the group was called by their translated name. Carl=Karl, Christin=Kirstin. etc, etc.

Guess what the Germans called me.......Brian as no translation is available in German.

So, to say a best guess from 1278, using another word's vowels, that you admit is a transliteration, is God's exact name is false teaching. You don't know it is true, any more than I do. In fact, we don't know 100% what Christs name was. We use the accepted names we have all heard and accepted. Does not mean we are correct in our choice. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. Maybe JW's are right, maybe they aren't. We just don't know for sure and shouldn't claim we do.

To paraphrase Exodus, "the Lord must always be addressed as the Lord" So I address Him as such, I find no fault in others using any of the names of God or Lord to address Him. I have said my dispute, many times and you know the history and still claim contrary?? Is that logical?

The thing is, nobody has said that "Jehovah" is the exact pronunciation. You say we say that, but we don't! I guess you haven't been paying much attention to our posts. You assume we insist on "Jehovah." We have not said that. In fact, I listed perhaps dozens of pronunciations in a previous post.

It is odd that you would be fine with the obviously WRONG presentation of God's name as "God" or "Lord." There are many gods and lords, as Paul brought out in his letter to the Corinthians, so "God" or "Lord" could refer to any of them. There is one God to US---"the Father" (I Cor.8:6)---and He has a personal name. It is not "God" or "Lord." It is represented by the Tetragrammaton, and if a person wishes, if he wants to be honest, he would be completely O.K. in pronouncing the four Hebrew letters, YHWH. ("Yod-He-WaW-He") That is much more honest than "God" or "Lord."

You are not paraphrasing Exodus. Exodus never said to call God the "Lord" instead of His name. Now I know you didn't read my posts because I posted what the original languages used in the verses in Exodus. The Tetragrammaton appears in Exodus 3:15, and several versions set forth this name where it belongs. "Lord" has been INSERTED in the text by copyists AFTER the original Hebrew text was written. They REMOVED the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. The Living Bible and Young's Literal Translation are two that have rendered Exodus 3:15 the way God had intended (whichever way one wants to pronounce YHWH; they go with "Jehovah" because it is the most common):

"Then God said once more to Moses: 'This is what you are to say to the Israelites, 'Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation."

How can you say that Exodus says we are to only call Him "Lord"?

[onewithhim]

This debate appears to have become ridiculous. Are we really arguing whether someone can call God Jehovah?!!



Unless everyone agrees to stick to texts and supply agreed upon English words that correspond to original languages (i.e., don't use Jehovah when the O.T. passage uses Elohim), then perhaps a mod should intervene and close it...?

So far it looks like the chief dissenters are those who do not know Greek or Hebrew and do not like being at a disadvantage; so they opt for a terrain in which original languages don't matter.

We do not use "Jehovah" when the O.T. passage says "Elohim." Elohim can refer to pagan gods and even angels. We are all for the original languages, and the original language in which the O.T. was written has the passages using "YHWH," the Tetragrammaton, in about 7,000 places. Copyists AFTER the original texts were written, REMOVED the Tetragrammaton and inserted "God" or "LORD." (Have you actually looked at the original Hebrew texts where the Tetragrammaton clearly exists?)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 440 by tam]

I also made the point to you that if you insist on using "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" or whatever you feel Jesus' true name is, you are probably going to have to explain exactly who you are speaking about---who they commonly refer to as "Jesus." 95% of people won't recognize "Yeshua" or whatever his true name was (Aramaic speakers say it was "Ishoo"). So isn't it feasible to just use the name that everyone is familiar with? Then you don't have to say, "I'm talking about JESUS." Extra words, right? When you could just use that name in the first place.

If you commented on that when I first posted it, I missed it.

[tam]

Peace to you owh! I did respond, I just had not yet posted it. Here it is though.

[Replying to post 400 by onewithhim]

I like the pronunciation 'Yehowah,' but that's just my opinion.

As for the date of the earliest of existing manuscript copies of Paul's writings (P46), I see that Comfort and Barrett give a date of "sometime after 125 [A.D.]."

I would suggest sometime shortly after 135 A.D. (the Bar Kochba revolt). See my study of the effects of the Bar Kochba revolt here:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.co ... ians.html

I like the pronunciation "Jehovah," particularly because that is the way I've heard his name since I was a small child, even in the Baptist Church. I also like the pronunciation "Yahveh." I understand that the Jews don't pronounce "W" as "W." it would be pronounced like a "V." So saying "Yahveh" is better than saying "Yahweh" in English, like so many say, thinking it is most correct.

Yes, I do as well!

The spirit in me recognized that Name, Jahveh (pronounced as you wrote it with a 'y' instead of a 'j'), the moment I heard this name. This is the Name that my Lord has made known to me, for His Father, and so this is the Name that I must use. Yahweh is very close. And of course there is scriptural backing for JAH as being the Name of God; not only in the names of many prophets but also in HalleluJAH (Praise JAH).


Pronunciation is more important than spelling. When we call upon the Name of God, we are not spelling. We are speaking.



Yahveh/Jahveh; Yahweh - these share a similar feel and sound. Same as Jaheshua (the name of my Lord that He has made known to me) and Yeshua, Jahshua, Joshua (even Yehoshua).

('y' sound instead of a hard 'j' sound)




But "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are very different than these; not just in spelling but in pronunciation. I never felt comfortable using "Jehovah" (nor was I raised with it). But "Jesus" was familiar to me and I used that... up until I learned that this was not His name; had never been His name. He had not been given this name and He had never been called by this name. Once I learned this, I could no longer use that name. I could not knowingly apply something untrue to my Lord.

Truth is more important than tradition or familiarity. I think you will agree.




What anyone else does is between them and their Lord. I am not judging at all; just sharing as I have learned and received.

But I had to comment when I saw your comments on that Name (Yahveh) and the sound. Because this is His Name, a beautiful Name, the Name that has been made known to me.

Perhaps this is the reason you like it so much as well. Not because of tradition or because of familiar use. But because this IS His Name.




May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



Peace to you, and to you all, and to your households,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Thank you for your comments on this. "Yahveh" is very beautiful, and soothing.

I don't think it's wrong to use whatever pronunciations we are familiar with, even "Jesus" rather than "Yeshua," though either is acceptable. People certainly know exactly who is being referred to when someone says "Jesus." So, though I know that God's Son's name was not originally "Jesus," we call him that because that is a commonly understood reference to him. To 95% of the world's population you probably would have to explain who you are talking about if you said, "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua," etc.

Perhaps, but His name is sacred and important.

"Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.


I would think that would be worth the time it takes to provide an explanation, if even needed. I would also think that love of Truth is enough of a reason to speak what one knows to be true even if means taking a few minutes to provide an explanation. Personally, if I was using a wrong name for whatever reason, I would want to be corrected. (and so I was corrected, and I am SO thankful for that).


Is there not similar reasoning behind your preaching that the divine name has been replaced by LORD, in the OT?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ Jaheshua,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

Is there not similar reasoning behind your preaching that the divine name has been replaced by LORD, in the OT?

Not really. Replacing the Divine name with LORD or GOD is effectively changing the bible taking a word out and replacing it with a different word that carries a completely different meaning.

The name of God's son is indeed JESUS in English, if you are under the impression that the word "Jesus" is a lie, untruth or an inaccuracy you are wrong. Transliterations are not wrong nor do they transmit a meaning that is different from the original, a transliteration simply changes the way a word sounds. We call those sounds PRONUNCIATION.

That the form JESUS is a transliteration of a transliteration (Hebrew -> Latin -> English) doesn't change the meaning of a word it simply changes the pronunciation of the word. Those that have been told that transliteration change or obscure the original meaning of a word have been lied to, and lies never give birth to anything positive! And there is nothing in the bible that prohibits prounouncing names (even the Divine name) differently than it was originally as long as the original meaning is not changed (which a transliteration can NEVER do) respecting the rules governing the construction of the target language.

SWALLOWING THE CAMEL

Jesus warned against straining nats while swallowing camels. What is REALLY important is that people know who the True God and his son are (see John 17:3). That the Divine Name has its rightful place in worship. I think 90% of Christians wouldn't say God's name from one month to the next unless they were conversing with a Jehovah's Witnesses and were forced to admit he HAS one. That's a camel that should not be swallowed. Distracting from the import of the gross misrepresentation of Jesus as part of a so called "trinity" and ignoring the Christian obligation to preach the message of his incoming kingdom government, in favor of righting a wrong that isn't even a wrong (namely insisting that Jesus isn't the Messiah's name but that Yehoshua is his TRUE name) are straining a "nat" that isn't even an nat to begin with.

We have to choose our battles, and battling that JESUS isn't the name of God's son is going to war for the wrong side.

[tam]

Is there not similar reasoning behind your preaching that the divine name has been replaced by LORD, in the OT?

Not really. Replacing the Divine name with LORD or GOD is effectively changing the bible taking a word out and replacing it with a different word that carries a completely different meaning.

Similar reasoning such as in taking the time to explain... and/or... not relying upon what is commonly accepted (rather than what is true) just because that might be easier to do so.


The fact that it might be easier to go along with tradition is not a valid reason TO favor tradition (or commonly accepted) over what is true. Jesus is not now and never was His name.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 447 by tam]

Do you believe that a transliteration (even a "double transliteration") changes the MEANING* of the word?


* Notice I said "meaning" not "pronunciation".

[tam]

Peace again to you,

That the form JESUS is a transliteration of a transliteration (Hebrew -> Latin -> English) doesn't change the meaning of a word it simply changes the pronunciation of the word.

Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. (assuming what scholars say is correct and that they did their 'transliterating' correctly; which is questionable) But again, my Lord's name in English is Joshua, not Jesus. Joshua and Jesus are two different names.

And there is nothing in the bible that prohibits prounouncing names (even the Divine name) differently than it was originally.

There is also nothing stating that one can or should do this, either.

The real point is that people know who the True God and his son are (John 17:3).

One knows the True God by knowing His Son, yes. Have I somehow suggested otherwise?

That the Divine Name has its rightful place in worship.

Yes, but if we are concerned with truth, if we seek and love truth, why should that truth we seek be about everything except the Name of the Father, and of the Son who came in the name OF His Father?

Did Christ not promise to lead us into all truth?

I think 90% of Christians wouldn't say God's name from one month to the next unless they were conversing with a Jehovah's Witnesses and were forced to admit he HAS one.

What does that have to do with anything I have shared?

That's a camel that should not be swallowed.

Says who?

Why would sharing any truth be a camel that should not be swallowed? Why would these things be unimportant? This is God and His Son we are talking about. Their names are important, sacred. Yes?

Distracting from the import of the gross misrepresentation of Jesus as part of a so called "trinity" and ignoring the Christian obligation to preach the message of his incoming kingdom government, in favor of righting a wrong that isn't even a wrong (namely insisting that Jesus isn't the Messiah's name but that Yehoshua is his TRUE name) are straining a "nat" that isn't even an nat to begin with.

What is the distraction? Who is ignoring anything in favor of something else? Are you ignoring those things to insist that God has a personal name? Or can you somehow manage to discuss and share and focus upon all of these things?

We have to choose our battles,

Sometimes we do, yes. You seem to have chosen to fight this battle. I was not hoping for a battle.

and battling that JESUS isn't the name of God's son is going to war for the wrong side.

What is the wrong side? How can sharing any truth be fighting for the wrong side?


There are some who are happy to have this conversation; there are some people who are interested in this; there are some who DO want to know the actual names of Christ and of God, even the actual pronunciation, out of love for them.






Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy