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.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 38 by onewithhim]

Evidently you fail to read replies. In post 35 I stated why Young's version might not be reliable. You failed to respond to my facts.

It is you that needs to respond to my facts and prove Young is the only reliable translation.

No, you have a problem with Young's Translation, therefore YOU offer proof that it isn't reliable.

Hard to convince an idiot that did supply a reason it is not accurate and the same idiot refused to respond and say way they think it is accurate or my FACTS ARE WRONG.

The idiot does not understand that when you make a statement you should be able to back up what you say. Of course I realize that you cannot defend your position like most Christians. So, if I say ALL Christians are idiots it would be up to you to prove me wrong.

Do you know that Jesus was 4 feet and weighed 200 pounds?

[Donray]

[Replying to post 38 by onewithhim]

Evidently you fail to read replies. In post 35 I stated why Young's version might not be reliable. You failed to respond to my facts.

It is you that needs to respond to my facts and prove Young is the only reliable translation.

No, you have a problem with Young's Translation, therefore YOU offer proof that it isn't reliable.

I did, post 38. You cannot reply to my facts because of ignorance? Why don't you just tell me how you know the 1550 bible he used is correct in every aspect. That between 100 ce and 1550 CE nothing was changed or reinterpreted in the bible. Show me the original from lets say 200 ce.

You are avoiding the subject of proof because you cannot answer me questions. I have shown the facts why Young's translation cannot be trusted and you are the one that has failed to respond to my facts.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 38 by onewithhim]

Evidently you fail to read replies. In post 35 I stated why Young's version might not be reliable. You failed to respond to my facts.

It is you that needs to respond to my facts and prove Young is the only reliable translation.

No, you have a problem with Young's Translation, therefore YOU offer proof that it isn't reliable.

Hard to convince an idiot that did supply a reason it is not accurate and the same idiot refused to respond and say way they think it is accurate or my FACTS ARE WRONG.

The idiot does not understand that when you make a statement you should be able to back up what you say. Of course I realize that you cannot defend your position like most Christians. So, if I say ALL Christians are idiots it would be up to you to prove me wrong.

Do you know that Jesus was 4 feet and weighed 200 pounds?

Chalming.

Great way to win friends and influence folk.

[Zzyzx]

.

Hard to convince an idiot

The idiot does not understand

I say ALL Christians are idiots it would be up to you to prove me wrong.

Moderator Final Warning

Do NOT refer to anyone or any group as 'idiot' or any other demeaning term. Debate ISSUES, not personalities.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[onewithhim]

Beautiful scriptures that give us hope of never-ending life on this awesome planet:


"Hope in Jehovah and follow his way, and he will exalt you to take possession of the earth. When the wicked are done away with, you will see it." (Psalm 37:34)

"The earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea. In that day the root of Jesse [Jesus Christ] will stand up as a signal for the peoples. To him the nations will turn for guidance, and his resting place will become glorious." (Isaiah 11:9b,10)

"He will render judgment among many peoples and set matters straight respecting mighty nations far away. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore. They will sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one will make them afraid." (Micah 4:3,4)

.

[Donray]

JWs believe in two deities.

The original god of the OT and the new god of the NT. This was belief of main belief of many early Christians.

Or, Jesus was a common man and god had nothing to do with his birth. Jesus was the result of a man woman having sex. No virgin birth. If a god had something to do with it then Jesus is a demigod like Hercules and is considered a god.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 46 by Donray]

Donray:

JWs believe in two deities

This is completely false.

The following information has been shared on this and other sites a number of times. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.


God, gods, and false gods in Scripture

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, tells us:

“The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps. 82 is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. In context of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this.... On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’.� - Vol. 3, p. 187.

The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 clearly recognizes the truth about the lesser meanings of theos and elohim ('a god'):

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.� - footnote for Ps. 82:1.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine tells us:

“The word [theos, ‘god’ or ‘God’] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34� - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint, “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation�:

“65. GOD - is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. - Exod. 7:1; 15:11; 21:6; 22:8, 9;...Ps. 8:5; 45:6; 82:1, 6; 97:7, 9...John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28....�

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, 1979, Hendrickson, p. 43:

Elohim [Heb. 'gods']: “a. rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power.... b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels.... c. angels Ps. 97 7 ...�


Angels are clearly called gods (elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know this because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word “angels� is used (in place of elohim in the OT) in NT Greek.

Some of these (mostly) trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,� Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133 (angels, judges), Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208 (angels, judges), Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7; 82:1; Jn 10:34; 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, (angels, judges, kings) Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV)

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF study); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus�; and even super-trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god� being applied to God-appointed men (including kings and judges) and angels.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Excellent! This casts more light on the subject of what 1st century people thought of as "gods." It particularly speaks to the mangling by many translators of John 1:1. In reality, when the Apostle John said that "the Word was a god," he was saying something that was commonly understood in that day, that the Word was a powerful, important figurine in the 1st century scheme of things. He would not have been understood to be God Almighty.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Why can't you answer a question using your own words?

Do you believe that Jesus's father is god? That Mary was a virgin?

All you state is a bunch of junk for religious people. So what, I asked what you believe and you don't seem to know or cannot state what you think.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 47 by tigger2]

Why can't you answer a question using your own words?

Do you believe that Jesus's father is god? That Mary was a virgin?

All you state is a bunch of junk for religious people. So what, I asked what you believe and you don't seem to know or cannot state what you think.

Moderator Comment

The question you asked could have been done without the put downs. Please try to remain civil. You have already received a final warning about this type of thing.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.