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]

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.

#1 Jehovah's Witnesses are happy to recognize any legitmate scholarly transliteration of the Tetragrammaton.

#2 In the English language, JEHOVAH is one of the oldest, most established and easily recongnizable renditions which is why we have chosen to use this in form in all our publications.

#3 Being as close as possible to the original Hebrew is secondary in our opinion to the name being recognized (as long as condition #1 has been respected)

#4 JWs fully recognize that Yahveh/Yehowah/Yahweh/Yehovah etc may be closer to the original and have absolutely no objection to anyone using any of them (see point #1 & #3).

#5 The place the name JESUS has in bible translations and in the hearts of millions affirms that most believers have no aversion to using names that are not the closest possible to the original Hebrew.

#6 Nobody can be dogmatic about the original pronunciation or the closest to the Hebrew and Jehovah's Witnesses certainly are not.



Hope that clarifies matters a little,

JW


I am posting for your further information a lecture on this subject by a member of our Governing body; he perfectly explains the Jehovah's Witness position.



Geoffrey W. Jackson: The Divine Name of Our Heavenly Father
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Studio ... 06_1_VIDEO

[JehovahsWitness]

Transliterations do not tell us the meaning of a word at all; meaning is not important. Sound is important.

Good, excellent. So if a transliteration doesn't tell us the meaning of a word, where do we have to go to find out the meaning of a transliterated word?

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 459 by onewithhim]

"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")"

The above is your response. I'm new and am having a little trouble with the site.

We actually can say for certain that Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation of the God's name. If no one knows the correct pronunciation then we could say at all which name is even closest and this whole discussion would be pointless from all angles. The whole academic community recognizes Yahweh or a few other forms are the closest to the original. Jehovah is not even close, it is a combination of the Tetragrammaton and Adoni. We know when and where this happened so it really is not up for debate. That is how we know plain and simple that Jehovah is not even close, whether we know or not how to pronounce it.

My whole point is you guys make a big deal about using his name, but you are not even using his name. It is very illogical.

So follow how I am looking at this, you have a problem with using "the Lord" as a substitute for God's name in the Septuagint(this line of reasoning leaves me with some of my own questions, but I'll save for another post.). You have a problem with this because you believe God wants you to use his name and in some cases compels you to do so. So you look for his name and find it in old christian texts. You claim to have found his name and establish doctrine that says the old usage of "the Lord" is wrong and you need to use his real/correct name in worship. (no problem so far) But upon further research you find out that Jehovah is a combination of names and is not close. So now you say it is very important to use name but you really do not know his name and you still use the one that is the most incorrect only because it has been used so long. Doesn't seem logical to me.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 459 by onewithhim]

We actually can say for certain that Jehovah is not the correct pronunciation of the God's name. If no one knows the correct pronunciation then we could say at all which name is even closest and this whole discussion would be pointless from all angles. The whole academic community recognizes Yahweh or a few other forms are the closest to the original. Jehovah is not even close, it is a combination of the Tetragrammaton and Adoni. We know when and where this happened so it really is not up for debate. That is how we know plain and simple that Jehovah is not even close, whether we know or not how to pronounce it.

My whole point is you guys make a big deal about using his name, but you are not even using his name. It is very illogical.

Well said. Maybe they will hear your words. They don't hear mine or ignore them.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 460 by JehovahsWitness]

Responses in numerical order.
#1 I do not doubt that claim, but Jehovah is not a transliteration or even a translation for that matter. At best it is an interpretation of God's name.
#2 Do you guys not preach constantly to Christians about how many of the traditions we have, old though they may be, are rooted in fallacy. Is that not following traditions of men? There are many other Christian beliefs that are much older than the use of Jehovah, are they to be followed as well?
#3 As long as you are venerating Gods name, even if you are substituting something else so you are careful not to use it in vain, what does it matter then if you are not worried about how close it is the original. If I use Dave instead of Jehovah what is the difference? Both are not close to the original Hebrew.
#4 First we are not talking about Jesus, we are talking about the usage God's name not Jesus/Yeshua. But, I can make same argument about Jesus' name as we do Yahwehs. The fact that millions believe a certain way means nothing to me, because millions and in some cases billions around the world believe a great many things about the Bible that you do not; so that line of reasoning really doesn't gel me. And just to make it clear I do not care what name you call Jesus. On day "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"
#5 Well I can be dogmatic about it depending on how we phrase the question. If you make a big deal in developing dogma in theology about how to use a name that you can loop hole yourself out of, then yes I can. Especially if you have knowledge about his name better than what we had in years prior.
#6 Yahveh/Yehowah/Yahweh/Yehovah are all infinately closer to Yahs name than Jehovah simply because they are transliterations. Jehovah is a combination, it is a interpretation. That is my whole point.

Here is my whole argument. You cannot substitute a substitute with another substitute if using the original substitute is bad for the mere fact that it is a substitute. Its just circular and you end up in the same place.

But let me make this clear I do not care that JW use Jehovah. I applaud it.
The problem is I have a very close relationship with a great many pioneers and other JWs in my community and every time I start a conversation up with them for the first time and this topic gets brought up they always make a great deal that their organization has the correct name and uses it. So I can respect what you guys are saying, trust me I truly do. But I know what gets preached on the streets and doorsteps and for those who are not familiar with this, they get that line about who has his correct name.

[EastwardTraveler]

[Replying to post 463 by brianbbs67]

Hey brian, glad to hear from you. If it was just a simple argument about God's name I truly would not care. I might throw in a comment or two about it, but would not have much of an issue with what they believe. The problem that I see is how the discussion or belief is intertwined with the New Testament and is used to combat other beliefs that really have no correlation with the use of Lord/master/Kyrios as a substitute for God's name. I've seen this many times. I am going to try and get back on the original topic, because my reasons are pretty long winded and not really what the original post was about on this thread

[EastwardTraveler]

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.

So I would love to tackle this and bring my point of view on the above topic. So the premise is this, Trinitarians claim that Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus is shown to talk to Jehovah in said above scriptures, therefor he cannot be Jehovah since he would be talking to himself. So the question is a logical one about a belief, since no one on either side of this argument really debates what the above verse mean. This is another use of logic that I find perplexing and even more so that Christians get caught up in it.

So without saying whether or not I am a Trinitarian. Lets just look at the Trinitarian belief. This does not mean that the Trinitarian belief is correct, just that the logic used here is a bit silly in refuting it. 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"

The next line I usually hear from this is that "this makes God schizophrenic" or "that it makes no sense". Again just looking at this from a logical perspective, this line of thinking will run an anti-trinitarian into trouble down the road. So God talking to himself makes no sense to us because, we as humans relate to God in how we see the universe work and the laws in it. But is not God outside of this universe? Did he not make the universe and the laws therein and how do they apply to him? What would it look like to us humans if God who is outside of this universe enter into it? This is a fundamental question for all to think about and I would love a response from a non-trinitarian on this one.

Lastly, I have one last question I would love a response to more than the one above. If Jesus talking to himself does not make sense because of how we use logic in our reality, what answer do you have for the atheist who says they can not imagine a God who has always existed and was never created? Everything that the atheist sees in this world has a beginning and nothing that is material was created in some way, all the way back to their own belief in the Big Bang(not discrediting the Big Bang here). To the atheist an uncreated God is illogical because of what he views as reality. To him/her it makes not sense. What is your answer to them, especially if they were present to here you say God talking to himself makes no sense?

So in short, if Jesus is talking to himself or apart of himself really makes no difference to a Trinitarian.

[liamconnor]

I have tried to steer this debate towards actual Scripture; what are the canonical writers actually saying.

It has, however, tended towards logic. The main being, 'how can Jesus pray to himself?"

The underlying thought process being (and one extravagantly guilty of eisegesis): Jesus prays to "God the Father; and we all know that God the father is YHWH...so how can Jesus be YHWH without praying to himself??!!!!"

I understand that most here do not actually know Greek/Hebrew and rely upon the internet, so I will abandon linguistic arguments and attempt logical ones (which are still linguistic).


How can Dr. Jones operate on Dr. Jones?


Easy: One is the Father of the other; both have the same title and name.


YHWH is a title. God, before the creation of the world, did not sit around referring to himself as YHWH. He had NO LIPS to say this. There was no "air" to carry sound waves!

YHWH is the title he gave to ISrael. It specified a particular relationship with Israel; a covenantal relationship. Jesus shared this title, as Dr. Jones Jr. shares the title Dr. with Dr. Sr.

[JehovahsWitness]

#1 Jehovah is not a transliteration or even a translation for that matter. At best it is an interpretation of God's name.

QUESTION Does the form JEHOVAH qualify as an legitimate English transliteration* of the Tetragramaton?

Yes, absolutely. Although no one can say for sure how the original Hebrew Tetragrammaton was pronounced, there is solid basis for the current English pronunciation, it being the English transliteration based on ancient Hebrews texts which date back to the 6th century. HEBREW > ENGLISH



[* ] For those unclear of the difference between a transliteration and a translation please consult post #420 by tigger2[/i]

OBJECTION : But were not the wrong vowels inserted to make the name JEHOVAH?

There are only 5 vowels in Hebrew and which ones goes where nobody knows for sure. The clues we can derive from theophoric names favors Ye /Yeho in the original (from which we get the first JEHO- of Jehovah) There is solid grammatical reason to favor the three syllable over the two syllable pronunciation and JAH which is a well recognized abbreviation of the Divine name may also hold clues as to the function of the final "H". In any case the Hebrew yEhOvAh (from which we get the English Jehovah) respects what we know about Hebrew pronunciation and can in no way be dismissed as not being one of the many possible transliterations of the Divine name.










RELATED POSTS

Is the form JEHOVAH merely a 13th century "invention" and not a legitmate transliteration?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 091#907091

Is it not on record JEHOVAH was invented by some 13th century monk?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 093#907093

Would it be inaccurate to say "God's name is JEHOVAH"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 253#907253



Further Reading
fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.fr/2017/07/use-of-jehovah-jbl-article-by-francis-b.html
jimspace3000.blogspot.fr/2015/06/

[JehovahsWitness]

Here is my whole argument. You cannot substitute a substitute with another substitute if using the original substitute is bad for the mere fact that it is a substitute.

• The English form "JEHOVAH" is accurately described as a a transliteration (using the word " substitute" is too vague and leads to confusion, after all every single word in any English bible is a " substitute" ie. the translators completely removed every Hebrew word and "substituted" them with an English word). So using the more accuate term transliteration: Jehovah is a transliteration made directly from the Hebrew.

If you contest this last statement, feel free to present a counterargument.

My whole point is you guys make a big deal about using his name, but you are not even using his name

• We use the form JEHOVAH which most definitely is God's name, meaning it is an English transliteration of God's name. So using Jehovah *is* using God's name (meaning: Using an English language transliteration of God's name)

If you contest the underlined statement, feel free to present a counterargument.



RELATED POSTS

Is the English form of the Divine Name JEHOVAH a scholarly transliteration of the Tetra?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 471#907471