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.

[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..."

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.

My point is, there is nothing scriptural about saying that "begotten" does not mean created. It is completely an idea of men that "begotten" does not mean "created." That idea is a complete twisting of scripture and has no back-up. "Begotten" means "having been GIVEN life and existence." The Son is "begotten." The Father is the "only unbegotten God."

"Co-eternal" is another idea of men with no scriptural validity.

[brianbbs67]

Why is this so hard?

Only begotten son, Son of man.

So, only direct offspring of God, in human form. God's son of humanity. This also implies other sons.(or accounts them)

Only those who ate and drank saw god. Which should discount the thought of no one has seen Him. And it also should show His affinity to us. As He knows our issues. Seems plain to me, He is here, was here, and will be here, until here ends.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 480 by onewithhim]

My point is, there is nothing scriptural about saying that "begotten" does not mean created. It is completely an idea of men that "begotten" does not mean "created." That idea is a complete twisting of scripture and has no back-up. "Begotten" means "having been GIVEN life and existence." The Son is "begotten." The Father is the "only unbegotten God."

"Co-eternal" is another idea of men with no scriptural validity.

Again, "begotten" is an english word. The Greek is monogenous. One has to go beyond the KJV and an English dictionary and basic modern English connotations which we have subconsciously collected since childhood....

One must study how the authors of Scripture are using their terms....

..And it is pretty clear that if they wished to suggest the following scheme: 1) Something was Created; 2) this something was then incarnated...

......or any other scheme involving creation....

....Well, they did a terrible job of doing so. Eternality of Jesus, or the logos, or the Son, is the dominant chord rung throughout the N.T.

The Old Testament has a wide range of linguistic templates in which to cast Jesus as "just another created messenger of God", even, an eminent one. It gives us the patriarchs, the prophets, and angels. And yet the language of the N.T. matches none of these.

John's gospel gives no indication that the Logos was created; it makes every attempt for a Jewish mindset to indicate that the Logos is coeternal with God, and was then incarnated in Jesus.

Even Paul (whose focus is in the messiah's work--i.e., in Jesus' cross and resurrection) does nothing to suggest that Jesus was created.


The burden of proof rests not on philosophy, but on those who can show that the N.T. clearly pinpoints a creation for Jesus or the logos or the son.


So far, the N.T. is in favor of a preexistent, non-created, Logos/Son.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 480 by onewithhim]

My point is, ... "Begotten" means "having been GIVEN life and existence." The Son is "begotten."

Again, "begotten" is an english word. The Greek is monogenous. One has to go beyond the KJV and an English dictionary and basic modern English connotations ...

How do you know OWH has not done this ? Or are you suggesting after having studied the Greek nobody can present a summary of their findings in English. The fact is that the Greek word "monogenes" most definitely refers to that which had a beginning (whether that be by birth or creation) as onewithim stated, if you claim otherwise present a word study to support your claim.

♦ Monogenes WORD STUDY (by tigger2)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 451#786451



JW

[onewithhim]

Why is this so hard?

Only begotten son, Son of man.

So, only direct offspring of God, in human form. God's son of humanity. This also implies other sons.(or accounts them)

Only those who ate and drank saw god. Which should discount the thought of no one has seen Him. And it also should show His affinity to us. As He knows our issues. Seems plain to me, He is here, was here, and will be here, until here ends.

You're right.....Jesus was the very first direct creation of God. In fact, all other things were created through Jesus. This was a creative feat unnamed millennia ago. Jesus created by Jehovah and then everything else.

Adam was Jehovah and Jesus' first human creation. Jehovah does have other sons, but not like Jesus. He is the first creation and he is the second-highest person in the universe. Jesus does indeed know our issues, as he was tempted just like all of us have been, only without sin.

NO ONE has seen God. (John 1:18)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 480 by onewithhim]

My point is, there is nothing scriptural about saying that "begotten" does not mean created. It is completely an idea of men that "begotten" does not mean "created." That idea is a complete twisting of scripture and has no back-up. "Begotten" means "having been GIVEN life and existence." The Son is "begotten." The Father is the "only unbegotten God."

"Co-eternal" is another idea of men with no scriptural validity.

Again, "begotten" is an english word. The Greek is monogenous. One has to go beyond the KJV and an English dictionary and basic modern English connotations which we have subconsciously collected since childhood....

One must study how the authors of Scripture are using their terms....

..And it is pretty clear that if they wished to suggest the following scheme: 1) Something was Created; 2) this something was then incarnated...

......or any other scheme involving creation....

....Well, they did a terrible job of doing so. Eternality of Jesus, or the logos, or the Son, is the dominant chord rung throughout the N.T.

The Old Testament has a wide range of linguistic templates in which to cast Jesus as "just another created messenger of God", even, an eminent one. It gives us the patriarchs, the prophets, and angels. And yet the language of the N.T. matches none of these.

John's gospel gives no indication that the Logos was created; it makes every attempt for a Jewish mindset to indicate that the Logos is coeternal with God, and was then incarnated in Jesus.

Even Paul (whose focus is in the messiah's work--i.e., in Jesus' cross and resurrection) does nothing to suggest that Jesus was created.


The burden of proof rests not on philosophy, but on those who can show that the N.T. clearly pinpoints a creation for Jesus or the logos or the son.


So far, the N.T. is in favor of a preexistent, non-created, Logos/Son.

No. You do a great deal of talking, but without validity. Jesus' "eternality" is not any "dominant chord" that appears throughout the N.T. That is just your imagination.

You apparently just choose to ignore COLOSSIANS 1:15 where it clearly states that Jesus was the first thing God ever created.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."


Then there's REVELATION 3:14, right after Jesus calls the Father "my God" four times (see Rev.3:12).

"To the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."


There is the evidence of Jesus' creation, though many people try to distort that and say it doesn't mean what it says.

[onewithhim]

liamconnor---no reply? I am interested in how you address my post above.

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by onewithhim]

Christians would agree that in isolation bible passages can mean anything. In this case yes it's clear that Jesus modelled true worship to God.

Really it's just the whole sending an innocent man that Christians find immoral about JW theology. Would you send yourself amongst the wolves or your son?

Then of course how can a perfect man pay for sins against an infinite God? That logic issue never gets resolved.

Finally it goes deeper. Man's desire to beat God. Hercules bested the gods physically and the JW religion wants a perfect man to best God morally.

But yes you can find passages that support you.

Matt 36:29 does NOT have YHWH mentioned in it, why the suppositions here ?
His REAL Hevrew/Jewish Name is Yeshua ( He saves )..

[TripleZ]

[Replying to post 1 by onewithhim]

Christians would agree that in isolation bible passages can mean anything. In this case yes it's clear that Jesus modelled true worship to God.

Really it's just the whole sending an innocent man that Christians find immoral about JW theology. Would you send yourself amongst the wolves or your son?

Then of course how can a perfect man pay for sins against an infinite God? That logic issue never gets resolved.

Finally it goes deeper. Man's desire to beat God. Hercules bested the gods physically and the JW religion wants a perfect man to best God morally.

But yes you can find passages that support you.

Joh 11:41 So they removed the stone. Yeshua looked upward and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
Again no YHWH here either...

[brianbbs67]

Why is this so hard?


Only those who ate and drank saw god. Which should discount the thought of no one has seen Him.

NO ONE has seen God. (John 1:18)

Look back to Exodus. Moses, Aaron, his sons and , I believe 70 leaders, had a meal and drank with God. Thus the quote from Christ.