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]

#6 ...Yehowah...Yehovah are all infinately closer to Yahs name than Jehovah... That is my whole point.

• If "that is your whole point" it is in my opinion, a rather minor one: the differenct between JEHOVAH and Yehowah or Yehovah is only there if you use modern English pronunciation (they all have the same vowel sounds). If you vocalize the JEHOVAH using "old" (MIDDLE) English pronunciation they are EXACTLY the same. In short, if you prefer Yehowah to Jehovah, that's fine, just pronounce the /J/ as a Y as the English did not so very long ago.

#6Yehowah,Yehovah [...] they are transliterations.

Emphasis MINE

• I'd be most interested in learning how you come to accept Yehovah as a legitimate transliteration but what is essentially the same word, with the same vowels (but written with a J-) not. Would that mean that Halleluyah means "praise Jah" but Hallelujah" doesn't?

Further Reading
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060073#h=6

Question of v / w
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/a ... ebrew.aspx

[JehovahsWitness]

JWs in my community ...make a great deal that their organization has the correct name and uses it.

Emphasis MINE.

• While I have no control over the Jehovah's Witnesses in your community, you might like to ask them what they mean by "correct name". I feel confident, if indeed its true they use that expression, they do not mean the closest to the original Hebrew pronunciation.

JW

RELATED POSTS

Would it be inaccurate to say "God's TRUE/CORRECT/ EXACT name is JEHOVAH"? (see footnote)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 248#907248

See point #3
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 413#907413

Further reading
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... cis-b.html

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 471 by JehovahsWitness]

That's why I said I commend you guys for using a name instead of the substitution Lord. As for what you said in an earlier post, i agree 100% with you, that it is a minor issue. The issue that I have is how it is presented. Maybe that is just a communication issue in my area. I doubt it, but maybe.

I would love to share my thoughts on what I believe to be God's name or what is believed to be closest to it, but I feel that may be for a separate thread. I thought this was about God's name, but when I looked at it last night I see I jumped in a little off topic.

Personally I prefer Yahweh. I believe there is more history to support it than using the consonants individually and then adding vowels. That is not necessarily how Hebrew works. I am kind of hinting at why I believe the way I do, but I will ask you. Would you want me start a new thread answering you question or would you want to, to be better to direct what you are wanting me to answer?

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 466 by EastwardTraveler]

EastwardTraveler:

So a Trinitarian believes in three separate and distinct consciousness, personalities, or however you describe them, in one being. If they believe there are three separate consciousness' then what is the problem if one is conversing to the other? Seems counter productive to combat a belief by simply pointing out what they believe and then confirming it. Does not mean that the Trinity is right, but if I was a Trinitarian and someone asked my that, I would just say 'uh duuuuh, that's what I believe God is'

But the official belief of trinitarians is that there are three separate persons who are the one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. Since scriptures show that the Father (YHWH) is not the Son, but is the God of the Son, then YHWH speaking to the Son (Ps. 110:1) is not Jesus speaking to himself. According to trinitarians, it is the 'first person of the Trinity' speaking to the 'second person of the trinity.'

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion " the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three but one God.'" - 'New Advent,' The Catholic Encyclopedia.


Actually it is God, who is YHWH alone, speaking to the Messiah. In the OT God is never anyone but YHWH (the Father). The Messiah is never YHWH, but is subject to YHWH his God.

In the NT God is the Father alone and is called "God the Father" over and over. The Son is never called "God the Son." When ho theos is clearly used to mean 'God,' it invariably means the Father alone.

So, Ps. 110:1 as also quoted in the NT (e.g. Acts 2:34) clearly shows that Jesus is not YHWH.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 466 by EastwardTraveler]

EastwardTraveler:

So a Trinitarian believes in three separate and distinct consciousness, personalities, or however you describe them, in one being. If they believe there are three separate consciousness' then what is the problem if one is conversing to the other? Seems counter productive to combat a belief by simply pointing out what they believe and then confirming it. Does not mean that the Trinity is right, but if I was a Trinitarian and someone asked my that, I would just say 'uh duuuuh, that's what I believe God is'

But the official belief of trinitarians is that there are three separate persons who are the one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. Since scriptures show that the Father (YHWH) is not the Son, but is the God of the Son, then YHWH speaking to the Son (Ps. 110:1) is not Jesus speaking to himself. According to trinitarians, it is the 'first person of the Trinity' speaking to the 'second person of the trinity.'

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion " the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three but one God.'" - 'New Advent,' The Catholic Encyclopedia.


Actually it is God, who is YHWH alone, speaking to the Messiah. In the OT God is never anyone but YHWH (the Father). The Messiah is never YHWH, but is subject to YHWH his God.

In the NT God is the Father alone and is called "God the Father" over and over. The Son is never called "God the Son." When ho theos is clearly used to mean 'God,' it invariably means the Father alone.

So, Ps. 110:1 as also quoted in the NT (e.g. Acts 2:34) clearly shows that Jesus is not YHWH.

So if the Trinitarian belief says that Jesus is God, then giving that God a name is not complicating the matter. Yes God who still existed in heaven is the Father, but what verses says the only the Father is God or a god.
Jesus is called a god and he is also called the only-begotten god in John1:18. Monogenes by the is pretty well established that it means unique, not created.

As for Psalms 110, I've seen arguments go back and forth about the "Lord said to my Lord" and all, but what I find interesting is the ancient Rabbis used that same verse to talk about two Yahwehs and a plurality in the godhead. We can sit and try and outwit each other on who can read Hebrew better, but they more authentic manuscripts and if anyone could read ancient Hebrew I would imagine it would be them.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 466 by EastwardTraveler]

EastwardTraveler:

So a Trinitarian believes in three separate and distinct consciousness, personalities, or however you describe them, in one being. If they believe there are three separate consciousness' then what is the problem if one is conversing to the other? Seems counter productive to combat a belief by simply pointing out what they believe and then confirming it. Does not mean that the Trinity is right, but if I was a Trinitarian and someone asked my that, I would just say 'uh duuuuh, that's what I believe God is'

But the official belief of trinitarians is that there are three separate persons who are the one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. Since scriptures show that the Father (YHWH) is not the Son, but is the God of the Son, then YHWH speaking to the Son (Ps. 110:1) is not Jesus speaking to himself. According to trinitarians, it is the 'first person of the Trinity' speaking to the 'second person of the trinity.'

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion " the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three but one God.'" - 'New Advent,' The Catholic Encyclopedia.


Actually it is God, who is YHWH alone, speaking to the Messiah. In the OT God is never anyone but YHWH (the Father). The Messiah is never YHWH, but is subject to YHWH his God.

In the NT God is the Father alone and is called "God the Father" over and over. The Son is never called "God the Son." When ho theos is clearly used to mean 'God,' it invariably means the Father alone.

So, Ps. 110:1 as also quoted in the NT (e.g. Acts 2:34) clearly shows that Jesus is not YHWH.

So if the Trinitarian belief says that Jesus is God, then giving that God a name is not complicating the matter. Yes God who still existed in heaven is the Father, but what verses says the only the Father is God or a god.
Jesus is called a god and he is also called the only-begotten god in John1:18. Monogenes by the is pretty well established that it means unique, not created.

As for Psalms 110, I've seen arguments go back and forth about the "Lord said to my Lord" and all, but what I find interesting is the ancient Rabbis used that same verse to talk about two Yahwehs and a plurality in the godhead. We can sit and try and outwit each other on who can read Hebrew better, but they more authentic manuscripts and if anyone could read ancient Hebrew I would imagine it would be them.

There is nothing in any scripture that indicates that "unique" means "uncreated." Jesus is called the "only begotten god" at John 1:18, showing that he was created. The early church fathers (such as Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius)
called the Father, Jehovah, "the only UN-begotten god." They recognized the Father as the one true God, not the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.

What does "god" actually mean? It simply means an important, powerful individual. Human judges, angels, and powerful men were referred to as "gods." So when John wrote that "the logos was god" (with no article), translated into English as "a god, he meant that the Logos, Jesus Christ, was an important, powerful individual, not THE God.

The Father is not the only god. There are MILLIONS of false gods that men worship. They may be false, but they are still called "gods." The Father is the only TRUE God.

The Rabbis were shooting themselves in the foot by trying to say that Psalm 110 spoke of two YHWHs! The Tetragrammaton appears only in the first "LORD." "YHWH said to my Lord, sit at my right hand..." The text does not say "YHWH said to YHWH..."

[tigger2]

The Father is not the only god. There are MILLIONS of false gods that men worship. They may be false, but they are still called "gods." The Father is the only TRUE God.

Jeremiah 10:10 says:
"But Jehovah is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting king..." - ASV.

At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father:

"Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - New International Version (NIV).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 466 by EastwardTraveler]

EastwardTraveler:

So a Trinitarian believes in three separate and distinct consciousness, personalities, or however you describe them, in one being. If they believe there are three separate consciousness' then what is the problem if one is conversing to the other? Seems counter productive to combat a belief by simply pointing out what they believe and then confirming it. Does not mean that the Trinity is right, but if I was a Trinitarian and someone asked my that, I would just say 'uh duuuuh, that's what I believe God is'

But the official belief of trinitarians is that there are three separate persons who are the one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. Since scriptures show that the Father (YHWH) is not the Son, but is the God of the Son, then YHWH speaking to the Son (Ps. 110:1) is not Jesus speaking to himself. According to trinitarians, it is the 'first person of the Trinity' speaking to the 'second person of the trinity.'

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion " the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three but one God.'" - 'New Advent,' The Catholic Encyclopedia.


Actually it is God, who is YHWH alone, speaking to the Messiah. In the OT God is never anyone but YHWH (the Father). The Messiah is never YHWH, but is subject to YHWH his God.

In the NT God is the Father alone and is called "God the Father" over and over. The Son is never called "God the Son." When ho theos is clearly used to mean 'God,' it invariably means the Father alone.

So, Ps. 110:1 as also quoted in the NT (e.g. Acts 2:34) clearly shows that Jesus is not YHWH.

So if the Trinitarian belief says that Jesus is God, then giving that God a name is not complicating the matter. Yes God who still existed in heaven is the Father, but what verses says the only the Father is God or a god.
Jesus is called a god and he is also called the only-begotten god in John1:18. Monogenes by the is pretty well established that it means unique, not created.

As for Psalms 110, I've seen arguments go back and forth about the "Lord said to my Lord" and all, but what I find interesting is the ancient Rabbis used that same verse to talk about two Yahwehs and a plurality in the godhead. We can sit and try and outwit each other on who can read Hebrew better, but they more authentic manuscripts and if anyone could read ancient Hebrew I would imagine it would be them.

There is nothing in any scripture that indicates that "unique" means "uncreated." Jesus is called the "only begotten god" at John 1:18, showing that he was created. The early church fathers (such as Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius)
called the Father, Jehovah, "the only UN-begotten god." They recognized the Father as the one true God, not the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.

What does "god" actually mean? It simply means an important, powerful individual. Human judges, angels, and powerful men were referred to as "gods." So when John wrote that "the logos was god" (with no article), translated into English as "a god, he meant that the Logos, Jesus Christ, was an important, powerful individual, not THE God.

The Father is not the only god. There are MILLIONS of false gods that men worship. They may be false, but they are still called "gods." The Father is the only TRUE God.

The Rabbis were shooting themselves in the foot by trying to say that Psalm 110 spoke of two YHWHs! The Tetragrammaton appears only in the first "LORD." "YHWH said to my Lord, sit at my right hand..." The text does not say "YHWH said to YHWH..."

There is nothing in any scripture that indicates that "unique" means "uncreated." Jesus is called the "only begotten god" at John 1:18, showing that he was created. The early church fathers (such as Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius)
called the Father, Jehovah, "the only UN-begotten god." They recognized the Father as the one true God, not the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.

Scripture is not written in English; if you are going to make such grand arguments on linguistic grounds, you should show you can go back to the relevant languages, or at least place the translation in quotes.

It is painfully clear that what the fathers meant by "begotten" did not exclude Jesus from divinity. The father, after all, cannot be "The Father", unless there is ALWAYS a Son--begotten, but coeternal. The Father is as much dependent for his identity upon the Son as the Son is upon the Father.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 466 by EastwardTraveler]

So, Ps. 110:1 as also quoted in the NT (e.g. Acts 2:34) clearly shows that Jesus is not YHWH.

The Rabbis were shooting themselves in the foot by trying to say that Psalm 110 spoke of two YHWHs! The Tetragrammaton appears only in the first "LORD." "YHWH said to my Lord, sit at my right hand..." The text does not say "YHWH said to YHWH..."

Scripture is not written in English; if you are going to make such grand arguments on linguistic grounds, you should show you can go back to the relevant languages...

Emphasis MINE

RELATED POSTS

Why do many English Translations have LORD in Captials in many verses?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 821#872821

Is LORD a translation of YHWH?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 698#872698

[JehovahsWitness]

The father, after all, cannot be "The Father", unless there is ALWAYS a Son--begotten, but coeternal. The Father is as much dependent for his identity upon the Son as the Son is upon the Father.

The bible indicates that YHWH is dependent on no one. Logically He has only been a Father from the moment he created his first child. YHWH has always existed, his children have not.




RELATED POSTS

Has Jehovah(Yaweh) ALWAYS been a father?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 592#907592

What does the bible mean when it speaks of an "only begotten" son (tigger2)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 451#786451