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]

[Replying to post 449 by tam]

Thank you for your answer. I can't seem to find the answer to my question though...

Do you believe that a transliteration (even a "double transliteration") OF ANY WORD ... dog, cat, President... changes the MEANING* of the word?

[tam]

[Replying to post 449 by tam]

Thank you for your answer. I can't seem to find the answer to my question though...

Do you believe that a transliteration (even a "double transliteration") OF ANY WORD ... dog, cat, President... changes the MEANING* of the word?

This is assuming the transliteration is accurate, and if it is accurate, then my answer is that I am not sure (as to all words being transliterated).


But you know how many prophets had the name of God in their name, and how those names had specific meaning because of that? The name of God (JAH - in whose name Christ came) is not at all represented in the name "Jesus".


For example, Elijah literally means My God (El) is JAH.

The other names of the prophets had a literal meaning with JAH because His name is literally represented in their names.


The actual name of my Lord (who came in the name of His Father) also has the name of His Father in it.

Jah'eshua. (Yah'eshua, phonetically)

This name literally means JAH saves/savior of JAH.


Literally, because the name of God (Jah) is IN the name of His Son.

So yes, it IS important.


"Jesus" does not hold that same literal meaning. We only traditionally apply meaning to that name, but the meaning is not actually in the name "Jesus", because the name of God (JAH) has been removed from His name, in much the same way that it was removed from the OT (and forgotten).



So yes. His true name most certainly IS important... and beautiful.



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

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you believe that a transliteration (even a "double transliteration") OF ANY WORD ... dog, cat, President... changes the MEANING* of the word?

This is assuming the transliteration is accurate, and if it is accurate, then my answer is that I am not sure (as to all words being transliterated).

Let me get this straight, are you "not sure" if an accurate transliteration of a word (... any word in any language) retains the original meaning of the source word? That' what you are "not sure about"? Are you sure you know what a transliteration is?

I really don't mean to offend and none of us are elite language scholars (I'm certainly not) but don't you think if you are contesting that something is the basis for overriding what, as you put it "is true", you should at least understand the basics of what that thing is?

[tam]

Peace to you JW,

Do you believe that a transliteration (even a "double transliteration") OF ANY WORD ... dog, cat, President... changes the MEANING* of the word?

This is assuming the transliteration is accurate, and if it is accurate, then my answer is that I am not sure (as to all words being transliterated).

Let me get this straight, are you "not sure" if an accurate transliteration of a word (... any word in any language) retains the original meaning of the source word? That' what you are "not sure about"? Are you sure you know what a transliteration is?

I was not sure if all transliterated words would retain their meaning or if some transliterations would change their meaning. It made sense to me that at least some words transliterated into another language would take on a different meaning.


I have since looked it up.


Translation tells us the meaning of a word in another language. Meaning is important and maintained in translation. Sound does not matter.


"Transliteration is the process of expressing the sound of how a word is pronounced in the source language in the alphabet of the target language."

Transliterations do not tell us the meaning of a word at all; meaning is not important. Sound is important. And some names cannot even be transliterated into another language because their meaning in that language would be offensive. So transliterated words can and do change (or lose) meaning in different languages.

http://www.londontranslations.co.uk/faq ... anslation/

https://www.familytreemagazine.com/prem ... iteration/




The name "Jesus" (commonly pronounced gee-zus) retains neither the meaning (as my previous post shows) NOR the sound of my Lord's name.



No wonder my Lord has made (and continues to make) His own name known to His servants. His name has meaning; His name is beautiful. As is His Father's name, in whose Name my Lord CAME.


May anyone who wishes them, be granted ears to hear, so as to know the truth of these things. May anyone who thirsts "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"


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

[onewithhim]

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

Point taken. I understand what you are saying, and I was just tossing an idea around.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 454 by onewithhim]

JW does have good points in post #446. "Lord" or "God" is not even a transliteration, those titles are not even a true name. So to argue that it is beyond dishonest to substitute those titles in the places where "YHWH" appears in the original text is actually scholarly and ethically imperative.

[tam]

[Replying to post 455 by onewithhim]

I am not arguing against that point. LORD is neither a translation nor a transliteration of YHWH. LORD is not even a name at all.



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

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 455 by onewithhim]

I am not arguing against that point. LORD is neither a translation nor a transliteration of YHWH. LORD is not even a name at all.



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

I understand that you get it. My point was that you suggested that perhaps JWs are getting too critical here concerning just how a name is pronounced, because we object to the insertion of "Lord" and "God" in the 7,000 examples of where the Tetragrammaton originally existed. I was thinking that our argument against using those titles instead of God's name is not the same as your argument against pronouncing God and Jesus' names improperly. Our beef is with taking the name of God out of the verses entirely and substituting something that is actually almost meaningless. (Anybody can be "Lord" and there are many different gods, though false.) So the battle lines are drawn a bit differently. Our position is objection to the elimination of God's personal name. Yours is the pronunciation of His name and that of His Son.

[EastwardTraveler]

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.

So I have always been baffled by the stance that JW take on God's name with all the information that is out there. You talk about "straining the nat" and that the true argument should be over God's name. I believe you are right when you say God's true name has a place in worship. Why then do Jehovah's Witnesses still use incorrect name of Jehovah instead of Yahweh. To make an argument about how important it is to use the proper name of God and then turn around and use one that isn't even close seems to negate a moot argument. JW's just seem to be doubling down since they spent so many years making a fuss over the name Jehovah, when it turned out they made a mistake. I have a second and more interesting question to this, but I will wait to see what you think of my view first.
Thanks much and look forward to discussing with you all.

[onewithhim]

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.

So I have always been baffled by the stance that JW take on God's name with all the information that is out there. You talk about "straining the nat" and that the true argument should be over God's name. I believe you are right when you say God's true name has a place in worship. Why then do Jehovah's Witnesses still use incorrect name of Jehovah instead of Yahweh. To make an argument about how important it is to use the proper name of God and then turn around and use one that isn't even close seems to negate a moot argument. JW's just seem to be doubling down since they spent so many years making a fuss over the name Jehovah, when it turned out they made a mistake. I have a second and more interesting question to this, but I will wait to see what you think of my view first.
Thanks much and look forward to discussing with you all.

No one can say for certain that "Jehovah" is incorrect. The fact is, no one knows exactly how His name should be pronounced. You would undoubtedly benefit from going over the arguments already presented on this thread. It seems pointless to repeat over and over what has already been posted here. Just go back a few posts and you will probably find that your comments have been addressed already.

I believe we use a close pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. However, we do not insist that "Jehovah" alone should be used. We have reiterated that fact over and again. We even agree that for someone to speak each letter of the Tetragrammaton, that would be acceptable. ("Yod-He-Waw-He")