JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #1

Post by onewithhim »

What do you all say about the following scriptures?

PSALM 110: 1,2:

"The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord [the Messiah] is: 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.' The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, saying 'God subduing in the midst of your enemies.'" (Young's literal translation; American Standard Bible; NWT)

Does this coincide with the belief that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Person? Do you think they are according to this?


ISAIAH 61: 1,2:

"The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me [the Messiah], for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell the good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening of the eyes even to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God; to comfort all the mourning ones." (Young's; American Standard Bible; NWT)

Does this show that there is only one Person sending and anointing? Someone who sends and anoints himself? Jesus applied this verse's mention of the Messiah to himself at LUKE 4:18-21. Was he speaking ONLY of himself, or was there someone else involved to do the sending and the anointing?

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #11

Post by PinSeeker »

onewithhim wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:48 pm
PinSeeker wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:19 pm
onewithhim wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:40 am Your beliefs about this do not hold up...
And I say yours do not. Thanks for your opinion, and I am fine with anyone calling in like manner what I say my opinion.
onewithhim wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 10:40 am How can you say that Jehovah and Jesus are part of a Trinity when it is obvious that Jehovah is higher in rank than His Son Jesus?
Because it's a misunderstanding that the Father is a higher "rank" than Jesus. Is your father (or mother) of a higher rank as a person than you? It's a difference of order, not rank.
Yes, my father would be "higher in rank" than his children. The father runs the show. The children listen and obey.
onewithhim wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:48 pm Yes, my father would be "higher in rank" than his children. The father runs the show. The children listen and obey.
But that's not what I asked. Is your father higher in rank as a person than his children? No, he is not. It's not surprising that you totally sidestepped the point. But yes, the father is higher in order, and that's why his children listen and obey.

Grace and peace to you.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1996 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #12

Post by Difflugia »

tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmI don't know if rank would be the correct word or not.

What about higher authority?

Such as a Father to a Son?

Or the Most Holy One to the Holy One?
What about them? Jesus repeatedly says that he has been given authority, but not that there is a higher authority than his. The "Son" as a title doesn't necessarily carry with it the same heirarchical sense of human families. The distinction between "Holy" and "Most Holy" is one that has to be read into the text. None of these are necessary readings, but neither are they invalid ones.
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pm
Jesus doesn't do what Yahweh tells him, but the will of the Father and there's no indication that Jesus would do anything else. That's the kind of interpretive hair-splitting that I wouldn't think I'd need to explain to one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I apologize if I have misunderstood the point here, but are you personally saying the above (in bold), or are you calling the above (in bold) hair-splitting?
Both. John's theology is muddled and my personal view is that the author intended something a bit different than either trinitarianism or the various non-trinitarian theologies, but he hadn't quite worked things out consistently. If one is going to iron out a consistent theology, then those inconsistencies have to be harmonized somehow. The above is one of those.

If I might digress a bit to explain what I think is really going on, I think (in fact, I think it's obvious :P) that John's Christology is based on Philo's hypostases of God. Philo was kind of muddled himself, but basically, any of the divine attributes (God's love, mercy, or justice, for example) must be conceptually distinct from God, but since any component of God must be perfect and indivisible, each must also encapsulate the entire nature (ousia) of God and must therefore be indivisible from the other hypostases. For Philo, the Logos was (among other things; as I said, he was kind of muddled) the hypostasis of God that was the creative and sustaining force of heaven, the conduit of God's divine power to the Universe. For the author of John's Gospel, that was Jesus.

John 1 is the explanation of this. As a hypostasis of God, the Logos was both God and with God in the beginning (John 1:1 is an intentional reference to Genesis 1:1). John's Gospel, incidentally, doesn't say that there aren't other hypostases, it just doesn't mention them. The Logos is just the hypostasis that was made flesh.

The problem for the author of John is that the Jesus traditions already existed and in those traditions, Jesus wasn't the Logos. It's pretty clear in the Synoptics, for example, that Jesus was God's subordinate. Also, while John's author did a pretty good job of transforming Jesus into God's hypostasis, there are a few spots where he left a few loose strings. The Synoptics are less explicit than John and John's rough edges aren't insurmountable, so the orthodox solution was to harmonize the text of the Synoptics with the high christology of John. The solution of Jehovah's Witnesses is to go the other way, harmonizing the text of John with the low christology of the Synoptics.
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmTo the claim in bold, Christ came to do the will of His Father, yes, but Christ also does what His Father tells Him. If someone is saying there is a difference, that does sound like hair-splitting to me. But regardless, Christ does both (what His Father tells Him AND the will of His Father).

But I do exactly what the Father has commanded Me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. John 14:31
The second clause ("so that the world may know...") is John's way of explaining this tradition from the point of view of the hypostasis. It's the same sort of disclaimer as in Matthew's Gospel to explain why Jesus needed to be baptized, despite already being the Messiah (Matthew 3:14-15):
John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
Jesus was conspicuously following the commandments, not because he was subordinate to any other attribute of God, but as a sign to the world.
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmFor I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38

That second quote indicates to me that He and His Father each have their own will, but that Christ submits to the will of His Father.
That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. That verse is right in the middle of a much larger context in which Jesus is explaining that he is the divine, sustaining power of God, the "bread of life." The Father is the hypostasis in heaven, Jesus is on Earth, both are hypostases of Yahweh. Even if the hypostases have wills that can be in some sense distinguished (I don't think it makes a significant theological difference either way), all are in accord and have been since the beginning.
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmSuch as in the following example:

[...]

He wanted the cup to be taken from Him. But He asked only if possible, and if not possible, then the Father's will be done. Not His own will, but His Father's will.
Yep. This is one of the points of contradiction between the Gospels that has to be reconciled somehow. Note the differences between them along with their christologies:
  • Mark, the adoptionist (Jesus was a righteous man who became Son of God at his baptism) asks God the same thing twice (14:39, "And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words."). Mark doesn't even want to accept the answer, though he does in the end.
  • Matthew and Luke both have Jesus only uttering the request once and both immediately accept the answer. Mattew without further intervention, Luke after an angel appears to strengthen Jesus' resolve.
  • John completely changes the story. John's Jesus turns the episode into a rhetorical question (18:11, "Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?") and once again, the will of Jesus is and always has been in accord with the will of the Father.
Theologically, the Synoptics can be reconciled with John in several different ways. The first (and I think easiest, but also least satisfying) is to interpret the kenosis hymn of Philippians 2 to mean that Jesus "emptied" himself of his divine omniscience, so had to ask the Father to "remind" him of the will of God. Another is to simply point out that none of the prayers ever explicitly expresses a different will, but each is conditioned on the will of God ("If it be your will..."). They're worded a bit strangely if Jesus is that God, but there are certainly uglier harmonizations than that for other theological positions.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #13

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Difflugia wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:12 pm
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmI don't know if rank would be the correct word or not.

What about higher authority?

Such as a Father to a Son?

Or the Most Holy One to the Holy One?
What about them? Jesus repeatedly says that he has been given authority, but not that there is a higher authority than his. The "Son" as a title doesn't necessarily carry with it the same heirarchical sense of human families. The distinction between "Holy" and "Most Holy" is one that has to be read into the text. None of these are necessary readings, but neither are they invalid ones.
Mostly I was wondering what might be the correct term for someone who has higher authority (if rank is an incorrect term).

(Normally the one who gives commands to another is the one with higher authority - and normally Most Holy - when compared to others who are Holy - would indicate something higher than those others.)

tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pm
Jesus doesn't do what Yahweh tells him, but the will of the Father and there's no indication that Jesus would do anything else. That's the kind of interpretive hair-splitting that I wouldn't think I'd need to explain to one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I apologize if I have misunderstood the point here, but are you personally saying the above (in bold), or are you calling the above (in bold) hair-splitting?
Both. John's theology is muddled and my personal view is that the author intended something a bit different than either trinitarianism or the various non-trinitarian theologies, but he hadn't quite worked things out consistently. If one is going to iron out a consistent theology, then those inconsistencies have to be harmonized somehow. The above is one of those.
I tend to agree with you here in the bold (but without knowing all the different versions out there on non-trinitarianism).

If I might digress a bit to explain what I think is really going on,
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I don't know if I have a comment on them (I must disagree about where the author of John received his understanding), but I did read them.
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmTo the claim in bold, Christ came to do the will of His Father, yes, but Christ also does what His Father tells Him. If someone is saying there is a difference, that does sound like hair-splitting to me. But regardless, Christ does both (what His Father tells Him AND the will of His Father).

But I do exactly what the Father has commanded Me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. John 14:31
The second clause ("so that the world may know...") is John's way of explaining this tradition from the point of view of the hypostasis. It's the same sort of disclaimer as in Matthew's Gospel to explain why Jesus needed to be baptized, despite already being the Messiah (Matthew 3:14-15):
John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
Jesus was conspicuously following the commandments, not because he was subordinate to any other attribute of God, but as a sign to the world.
Just because Christ gives a reason as to why He does as the Father commands Him, does not change the fact that the Father does command Him. Christ does what His Father tells Him to do out of love (which is in keeping with what He says to us: if we love Him, we will keep His commands.)
tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmFor I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38

That second quote indicates to me that He and His Father each have their own will, but that Christ submits to the will of His Father.
That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. That verse is right in the middle of a much larger context in which Jesus is explaining that he is the divine, sustaining power of God, the "bread of life." The Father is the hypostasis in heaven, Jesus is on Earth, both are hypostases of Yahweh. Even if the hypostases have wills that can be in some sense distinguished (I don't think it makes a significant theological difference either way), all are in accord and have been since the beginning.
Now, to the bold and underlined, because that takes us directly back to the issue/question being presented in the OP.

The verse in the OP shows Yahweh speaking to Christ. Yahweh Himself (one person) to Christ (another person).

One might be able to explain that away by employing the trinity in their explanation (I don't know), but if so, wouldn't that be the very definition of a circular argument?

tam wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:15 pmSuch as in the following example:

[...]

He wanted the cup to be taken from Him. But He asked only if possible, and if not possible, then the Father's will be done. Not His own will, but His Father's will.
Yep. This is one of the points of contradiction between the Gospels that has to be reconciled somehow. Note the differences between them along with their christologies:
  • Mark, the adoptionist (Jesus was a righteous man who became Son of God at his baptism) asks God the same thing twice (14:39, "And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words."). Mark doesn't even want to accept the answer, though he does in the end.
  • Matthew and Luke both have Jesus only uttering the request once and both immediately accept the answer. Mattew without further intervention, Luke after an angel appears to strengthen Jesus' resolve.
  • John completely changes the story. John's Jesus turns the episode into a rhetorical question (18:11, "Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?") and once again, the will of Jesus is and always has been in accord with the will of the Father.
Those aren't really contradictions, instead of just different parts of the same story being told. (please note that I am not a person who says there are no contradictions in the bible; there are; I just don't see that here.) Having received an answer, there is no reason for Christ not to say 'shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me.' In fact, He never suggested otherwise, but only asked if possible, might the cup be taken from him.

But putting His Father's will before His own suggests that they each have their own will. This really shouldn't be an issue though, if no one is suggesting that Christ and His Father are the same person.


Peace again to you!

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #14

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to tam in post #14]

Jesus' will could be said to be a shade different than his Father's, only because he did not want to be killed as a blasphemer which would taint his Father's name. This he vehemently preferred not to do, because he loved the Father. Yet he was resolved from the beginning, right through to the end, to carry through with his Father's will.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

onewithhim wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:30 pmDoes this coincide with the belief that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Person?
If you think "the same person" means exactly the same person in all respects, then obviously no, they're not, since Jesus didn't have (at least, I don't think he did) the memory of being God nor of creating the world. Jesus could die. God probably can't.

But you really have to unpack this "the same person" phrase for this discussion.

If I lose my memories, am I still me? How about if I gain superpowers? How about if I gain actual omnipotence? Or what if someone gradually replaces my body with parts of someone else's body, without my knowledge, a little at a time, in my sleep, until I am completely replaced?

These are questions the best philosophers haven't answered satisfactorily and personally I think it's because none of us knows what identity actually is. This "the same person" nonsense is a weasel term because not one of you could tell me the meaning of it. It's like arguing over whether a unicorn is an even-toed or odd-toed ungulate.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #16

Post by onewithhim »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:12 pm
onewithhim wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:30 pmDoes this coincide with the belief that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Person?
If you think "the same person" means exactly the same person in all respects, then obviously no, they're not, since Jesus didn't have (at least, I don't think he did) the memory of being God nor of creating the world. Jesus could die. God probably can't.
Excellent. That answers the question.

And, for the record, Jesus recalled everything he did in heaven--when he was baptized and "the heavens were opened up" to him (Matthew 3:16). One thing he did not realize was being God. He knew he was no such thing. He always refuted the Pharisees when they accused him of "making himself God." I'm reasonably sure that he DID remember creating the universe with his Father, Jehovah.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #17

Post by Purple Knight »

onewithhim wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:39 pmI'm reasonably sure that he DID remember creating the universe with his Father, Jehovah.
That would at least make him a part of the same being.

Humans don't really conceptualise identity that way because humans don't experience it that way. If a human is born with the memories of another human, humans think it must be reincarnation - the same person in another body; they go right to the idea that a person's memories equals that person.

Humans probably wouldn't think like this if humans could cut off their arm and have it grow a new human with some or all of the memories of the parent. Perhaps they'd think those two beings really are the same person. Perhaps they'd evaluate differently.

The truth though, is that if God can do this, can cut off a piece of himself and have it carry some of his memories, the human notion of identity falls so short of properly describing the concepts we're batting around here that it might be a fallacy to simply ask the question, since it can't even be asked without shoehorning the issue into such an oversimplification that we're no longer talking about the same thing.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #18

Post by RightReason »

onewithhim wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:30 pm What do you all say about the following scriptures?
What do you say about this Scripture:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.” -Exodus 3:14

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” -John 8:58

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #19

Post by onewithhim »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:46 pm
onewithhim wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 3:39 pmI'm reasonably sure that he DID remember creating the universe with his Father, Jehovah.
That would at least make him a part of the same being.
No, I don't accept that. He remembered creating WITH his Father. That denotes TWO persons.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

Post #20

Post by Purple Knight »

onewithhim wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 1:41 pmNo, I don't accept that. He remembered creating WITH his Father. That denotes TWO persons.
The question would be if he was a separate being during that time.

But again, I don't think this discussion is fruitful because of the way humans conceptualise individuality and identity, based on our extremely narrow understanding of it.

No one can even tell me when exactly a pregnant woman becomes two people. If you believe it's at fertilisation because she then has another genetically complete being inside her, it should be at coitus because she had that sperm in her since then; she had all the pieces and they were all inside of her. No one can tell me if my clone equals me just because I put my memories in it. No one can tell me who I am if I lose all my memories and gain the memories of someone else. No one can tell me if the transporter from Star Trek just kills you every time and makes a copy that goes on living as if it was the original, but it wasn't.

Post Reply