How many YHWHs are there?

[jocor]

Neither an angel nor God became flesh. The word of Yahweh, His spoken word, His thoughts, His creative word, His wise word, His will bound up in His word, became flesh. Yahweh, the Father, begot a Son via a miraculous birth. He did not miniaturize Himself to become a baby in Miriam’s womb. If so, then Miriam was only a surrogate mother. He did not procreate with Miriam and fertilize her egg with His sperm. He spoke His Son into existence by His word. He took His thoughts concerning His future Son that were in His mind/plan from before creation and spoke the word that fertilized Miriam’s egg with the necessary DNA to produce a 100% human male child. If you disagree, then tell me your view of how God became a man.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.

" 57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly." Genesis 17:1-2

I already addressed John 8:58. As for verse 56, Abraham saw Messiah’s “day” by faith.

Heb 11:13 These all (including Abraham) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.​

Verse 56 does NOT say Abraham saw Messiah. You are misunderstanding his words just as the Jews misunderstood him as they were prone to do.

 

[Eugene]

If you disagree, then tell me your view of how God became a man.

Isa 40:3 The voice of him (John the Baptist) that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (Jehovah), make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa 43:11 I (Jesus), even I, am the LORD; and beside Me there is no Saviour.

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Joh 1:10 He (Jesus) was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ . .
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[jocor]

Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Of all the verses you quoted, only this one comes anywhere near answering my question. To be more specific, how did "God" come to be a human baby inside a woman's womb?

Here is my take on Php 2:5-7:

What does verse 5 mean? Does it mean that we should have the same mind as Messiah Yeshua before or after his earthly birth? Paul is telling the Philippians to have the same mind as Messiah Yeshua . If Yeshua pre-existed, he certainly did not carry the name Messiah Yeshua. That name can only be applied to the historical Yeshua, not the being who supposedly pre-existed as “the Word.” Yeshua did not officially become “the Anointed” or “the Messiah” until he was baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).

As a child, Yeshua “waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him” (Luke 2:40). Even at that time Yeshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Luke 2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was “in the form (or likeness) of Elohim.” It does not say he “was Elohim.” Yet, Yeshua did not allow that power and wisdom to corrupt him. Nor did he, for one moment, consider himself Yahweh’s equal. He knew his Father was greater than himself (John 10:29; 13:16; 14:28). The RSV and many other versions correctly translate Philippians 2:6 as follows; “Who, though he was in the form of [Elohim], did not count equality with [Yahweh] a thing to be grasped.”

Yeshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries. Instead of glorifying himself and expecting others to serve him, he chose to become a servant. He became like most men, common and unassuming as compared to the politically powerful and famous.

 

[WIP]

Reminder...

ToS:
2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Please read: Statement of Faith.

SoF:
We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, totally without sin, God in human flesh, the One Who died on the cross for our sins, was buried, rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven, where He now intercedes for us who believe in Him.

 

[Eugene]

jocor

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. What this was in fact I do not know, and anything I would suppose would be pure speculation. Mary remained a virgin in any case.

Isa 7:14 . . Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

jocor - “What does verse 5 mean? Does it mean that we should have the same mind as Messiah Yeshua before or after his earthly birth?
Eugene – To me it is referring to Jesus’ place with our Father before he made Himself of no reputation, and was born of a virgin.

jocor - Yeshua did not officially become “the Anointed” or “the Messiah” until he was baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38).
Eugene – Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.
To me Jesus did not need to die for sin either, but He did it for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Cor 5:21.

jocor - Yeshua did not strip himself of any pre-existent power or glory. He simply humbled himself and made himself of no reputation even though he was far more knowledgeable and powerful than any of his contemporaries.
Eugene – Who could possibly be a pre-existing contemporary of Jesus whose name given Him was told us in Mat 1:23? Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

I’m sorry if this does not answer your questions, but I gave it my best shot.

 

[reba]

closed for moderator review,,,,

 

[Free]

I agree that there is more to the meaning of logos than I have provided, but nothing that would turn the logos of John 1:1 into a person without reading him into the text. Capitalizing the word “Word” to make it seem like a proper noun is a misleading assumption. The Greek text does not make a distinction between capitals and lower case letters.

“The Word was God” is not correct because the words are out of order. Concerning that, here is an excerpt from one the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars - Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar by Mounce, William D. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virture of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.​

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of 'God' (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has, lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find."​

Sadly, the author introduces his own theology by placing "Jesus Christ" and "the Father" in parentheses. He then proceeds to completely distort the true interpretation. John is emphasizing the qualities of the "word" as they relate to the qualities of God. If Yahweh is powerful, so is His word. If Yahweh is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of Yahweh are the same as the attributes of Yahweh Himself.

On what basis are you able to tell those who specialize in biblical Greek, that they're wrong? You have done this a few times now but I see no basis whatsoever for you to be right and them wrong.

I addressed all these verses except 1 Cor 8:6:

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by through whom are all things, and we by through him.​

Paul is clearly saying that to “us” believers in Messiah, there is only one God, the Father (Not the Son. Not the Father and the Son. Not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Only the Father). He is also saying all things originate from the Father, not the Son. They come to us through the Son.

It's amazing how many anti-Trinitarians miss the obvious. I just posted this 5 minutes ago in another thread, and have done so many times in these forums:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

If "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Father, and it does since he is clearly not one of those things, then it logically follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Son, who also cannot be one of those things. The progression of thought there is very simple, straightforward logic.

Not to mention, if we are to use your argument, then excluding Jesus from being God excludes the Father from being Lord. I rather agree with N. T. Wright that this is Paul expanding the Shema.

What is the contradiction with my position?

In Col 1:17, the word “before” is a translation of the Greek word “pro”. It can mean “before” concerning place, time, or superiority. As in James 5:12 and 1 Peter 4:8, “pro” should have been translated “above” or “superior to”. Yeshua is above all things; he did not exist before all things.

Verse 16 already shows that all things were created "by" or "in" Jesus, so the translation of verse 17 is correct. As I said, you simply cannot go around changing which definition of a word is used, especially if it's because you disagree with what it is saying. You have zero basis for changing the definition here.

So the contradiction then, is that this passage clearly speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Son.

It is you who are not dealing with the fact that “through” is used, not “by”. Because you have this preconceived idea that Yeshua existed before creation, you can’t wrap your mind around how Yahweh could create all things for and through the Son that was in His plan of salvation.

It is worth noting that the passage in question, Col 1:16-17, is speaking of the Son (verse 13), and whether "through" or "by" is used is irrelevant to the fact that he is said to be the agent of the creation of all things. Again, the only logical conclusion is that he cannot be one of those created things.

You seem to be using this passage as a parallel to John 1:1-3, which it is, yet fail to realize that in with your understanding of John 1--that "the Word" is simply God's words and not the Son--you are, in fact, now making "the Word", the Son. This is now a significant problem for your understanding of John 1:1.

The idea that Jesus, or rather, the Son, has eternally preexisted, is not anything preconceived, it clearly comes from passages such as this one.

The problem with this is that when something is pointed out that proves the Son is not “God”, Christians appeal to his humanity, but when Christians want to prove he was “God”, they point out things he did while human. Christians are always saying things like, “Only God can forgive sins” or “only God can heal the blind”, etc. But if I point out that Yeshua is not omniscient because he did not know when he would return, Christians appeal to humanity in not knowing all things. So, if he functions as both God and man at all times, then the God part of him could not die. However, the bottom line is that the phrase “truly God and truly man” is simply a creed of men not found in Scripture.

Jesus is the God-man; Scripture makes this plain. The problem is that you are denying the clear teaching of Scripture about the deity of Christ, in favor only of those that clearly show his humanity. The answer is found in Phil 2:5-8, which I gave and you failed to address.

 

[Obadiah]

I've reviewed the thread and am re-opening it for the time being. I understand that aspects of the conversations here will involve statements that will go against our statement of faith. I believe there is a difference between discussing various theologies in this area, and promoting non-Christian ideas on a Christian site. Let's be careful not to promote non-christian ideas, and see how things go for a while. OK?

 

[jocor]

On what basis are you able to tell those who specialize in biblical Greek, that they're wrong? You have done this a few times now but I see no basis whatsoever for you to be right and them wrong.

It is obvious when men are speaking as Greek scholars and when they are simply giving their opinion. I cited a well-respected Greek Grammar to support my view.

If "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Father, and it does since he is clearly not one of those things, then it logically follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Son, who also cannot be one of those things. The progression of thought there is very simple, straightforward logic.

Not to mention, if we are to use your argument, then excluding Jesus from being God excludes the Father from being Lord. I rather agree with N. T. Wright that this is Paul expanding the Shema.

First, the Father did not eternally preexist. He has always simply existed. Second, “through whom are all things” refers to the “eternal preexistence of the Son” only if you believe he preexisted as a living being before creation. However, if you understand that he only existed in his Father’s plan on salvation or only in the Father’s mind, then “through whom all things” simply refers to the reason for creation, not the originator of creation.

Verse 16 already shows that all things were created "by" or "in" Jesus, so the translation of verse 17 is correct. As I said, you simply cannot go around changing which definition of a word is used, especially if it's because you disagree with what it is saying. You have zero basis for changing the definition here.

So the contradiction then, is that this passage clearly speaks of the eternal preexistence of the Son.

Verse 16 shows all things were created in, through and for the Son. Translators are men who err at times. Acts 12:4 in the KJV is a perfect example. If a translator has a preconceived idea that the Son has always existed, he will translate accordingly and choose the definition that fits his understanding. They are not infallible. Neither am I. It is not that I come up with my own translations. There are several versions that do not use “by” in verse 16, but in and through.

As for “before” in verse 17, “above” or “superior to” fit the context. The context is not preexistence, but “preeminence” (being first in rank).

It is worth noting that the passage in question, Col 1:16-17, is speaking of the Son (verse 13), and whether "through" or "by" is used is irrelevant to the fact that he is said to be the agent of the creation of all things. Again, the only logical conclusion is that he cannot be one of those created things.

You say the “agent” of creation, but the Greek says the “channel” of creation.

You seem to be using this passage as a parallel to John 1:1-3, which it is, yet fail to realize that in with your understanding of John 1--that "the Word" is simply God's words and not the Son--you are, in fact, now making "the Word", the Son. This is now a significant problem for your understanding of John 1:1.

You lost me there.

Jesus is the God-man; Scripture makes this plain.

Scripture says he is the “Son of God”, not “the God-man”.

 

[JLB]

jocor said -

Scripture says he is the “Son of God”, not “the God-man”.

If God had a Son that He Himself begot, and that Son participated with His Father in the creation of all things, is that only Begotten Son of God
God or man?

The Son of God became flesh.

He was the Son, before He became flesh.


Why would you think that God Himself would beget something other than God.

Man re-produces man.
God re-produces God.

Horse re-produces horse.

God created angels, that are called sons of God.

God created Adam, as he is called a son of God.


Jesus Christ is the only Begotten of the Father.


The Lord is God!

Jesus christ is Lord.

Jesus Christ is YHWH!

For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
John 5:22-23


If you honor God the Father, as God, then you should honor His only Begotten Son, as God.

For the Son created all things, and by Him all things exist!

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3


JLB

 

[Free]

It is obvious when men are speaking as Greek scholars and when they are simply giving their opinion.

Are you a Greek scholar? How do you know when they've "simply given their opinion" and when they haven't? Again, I ask: on what basis are you able to tell those who specialize in biblical Greek, that they're wrong?

I cited a well-respected Greek Grammar to support my view.

That is a bit misleading because that is not really what you did:

"Sadly, the author introduces his own theology by placing "Jesus Christ" and "the Father" in parentheses. He then proceeds to completely distort the true interpretation. John is emphasizing the qualities of the "word" as they relate to the qualities of God. If Yahweh is powerful, so is His word. If Yahweh is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of Yahweh are the same as the attributes of Yahweh Himself. "

There was nothing that you cited that disagrees with what I have said but then you go on to claim that "He then proceeds to completely distort the true interpretation," a claim for which you have no basis other than you don't like what he says.

First, the Father did not eternally preexist. He has always simply existed. Second, “through whom are all things” refers to the “eternal preexistence of the Son” only if you believe he preexisted as a living being before creation.

Your first point is irrelevant since we all know what is being said. But, if you like, I'll rephrase my point:

If "from whom are all things" means that the Father has always existed, and it does since he is clearly not one of those things, then it logically follows that "through whom are all things" means that the Son has always existed, since he also cannot be one of those things. The progression of thought there is very simple, straightforward logic.

As to your second point, the parallel usage of "all things" would mean that what is being said of the Father is being said of the Son. If, as you want to argue, that this does not in any way suggest that Jesus has always existed, then it does not suggest that the Father has always existed. It becomes a rather meaningless statement by Paul.

However, if you understand that he only existed in his Father’s plan on salvation or only in the Father’s mind, then “through whom all things” simply refers to the reason for creation, not the originator of creation.

But this is only your opinion and is not supported by Scripture, as I have pointed out. We have here, in 1 Cor 8:6, Paul very clearly speaking of the person of Jesus, not some abstract thought of the Father. Looking at the immediate context:

1 Cor 8:4-6, 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that"there is no God but one." 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

The context is that of idols--other gods and lords, so-called, who have "no real existence". The Father and Son are being contrasted with these idols, as the creators of all that exist.

Verse 16 shows all things were created in, through and for the Son. Translators are men who err at times. Acts 12:4 in the KJV is a perfect example. If a translator has a preconceived idea that the Son has always existed, he will translate accordingly and choose the definition that fits his understanding. They are not infallible. Neither am I. It is not that I come up with my own translations. There are several versions that do not use “by” in verse 16, but in and through.

As I have already pointed out, whether "by", "in," or "through" is used is irrelevant to the fact that the Son was, in some way, involved in the creation of "all things". It logically follows that he cannot therefore be one of those created things. And, once again, notice that Paul is speaking of the person of the Son, not some abstract thought of the Father.

As for “before” in verse 17, “above” or “superior to” fit the context. The context is not preexistence, but “preeminence” (being first in rank).

The use of "firstborn" in verse 15 is what gives the context of preeminence. Whether we understand "before" to mean the same or whether we understand it to mean his always have existed, it doesn't matter. The whole point is that verse 16 has already made clear the necessary existence of the Son, and that is why he is preeminent.

You say the “agent” of creation, but the Greek says the “channel” of creation.

The Scriptures show that that "channel" is, in fact, an agent.

You seem to be using this passage as a parallel to John 1:1-3, which it is, yet fail to realize that in with your understanding of John 1--that "the Word" is simply God's words and not the Son--you are, in fact, now making "the Word", the Son. This is now a significant problem for your understanding of John 1:1.

You lost me there.

You argue that in John 1:1, the Word is simply the words of God, not the Son. And, regarding 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17, you argue that "he only existed in his Father’s plan on salvation or only in the Father’s mind". But what we have in 1 Cor 8:6 is a clear reference to the person of "Jesus Christ", not a mere thought in the mind of the Father, and in Col 1, a clear reference to the person of the Son (verse 13), again, not a mere thought in the mind of the Father. As they are all similar passages, speaking of God creating all things, this essentially equates the Word of John 1:1 with the Son of Col 1 and Jesus in 1 Cor 8, and shows that the Word in John 1:1 is not merely the words of the Father but rather a "divine person" similar to the Father.

That is a significant problem for your position.

Scripture says he is the “Son of God”, not “the God-man”.

I never said Scripture states Jesus if the God-man. But it does state that he is both God and man--the Son of God and the Son of Man--hence, he is the God-man.

 

[JLB]

Neither an angel nor God became flesh. The word of Yahweh, His spoken word, His thoughts, His creative word, His wise word, His will bound up in His word, became flesh. Yahweh, the Father, begot a Son via a miraculous birth. He did not miniaturize Himself to become a baby in Miriam’s womb. If so, then Miriam was only a surrogate mother. He did not procreate with Miriam and fertilize her egg with His sperm. He spoke His Son into existence by His word. He took His

​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth John 1:1-3,14

HE was in the beginning with God!

The Word was God's Son and created all things, before He became flesh.

That's why He is the firstborn over creation!

Jesus is YHWH!

He said Himself that He was the Alpha and the Omega!

If you don't confess Him as Lord, you will not be saved.

For The Lord is God!

His name is above every name.

He is our Savior!

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1


13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,


The scripture states that Jesus Christ is God our Savior.




JLB

 

[rthom7]

I believe that translation of John 17:11 to be incorrect. Here is how the KJV reads:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

YeHoWsHuwa? Clever, but false. Joshua's name was YeHoshua. However, there is no proof that the Savior's name is spelled either of those ways. Both Yehoshua and Yeshua were both translated "Iesous" in Greek. Since Matthew 1:21 says the Savior's name means "he will save", not YHWH will save and since Strong's says "Jeshua" means "he will save", "yeshua" would be more fitting. Also, "Yeshua" is a closer transliteration of "Iesous" than "Yehoshua".

Jocor many members are making interesting statements, so sorry to add my own here...

Hebrew spelling does not have vowels, some consonants act as vowels, so let's find a poetry pun method to find Jesus real name in Hebrew....Hebrew write parallels for a reason, in case translations make things messy....

The Shem Tov claims Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and while some claim His Book is a little Jewish in bias, he does make some parts of the book fantastic for us to see Bible truth....

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins

Jesus in Greek = Iesous
save in Greek = sozo

So Greek translation is not helpful at all, But if we consider Hebrew

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yasha: for he shall Yasha his people from their iniquity

Jesus in Greek = Yasha or different spelling Yeshua
save in Greek = Yasha

Ex 14:30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians;

If we consider this verse instead of verbs but as nouns, for us who think this way we have a compound NAME

Ex 14:30 Thus the YAHWEH YASHA (saved) Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians;

So Jesus as Son-Yahweh saved the people from Egypt

You also asked how many Yahweh's are there ? At least two...

Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD " Son-Yahweh" rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD "Father-Yahweh" out of heaven;

Here we see two Beings simultaneously doing the final destruction on in heaven, one on earth...
Shalom

 

[rthom7]

I believe that translation of John 17:11 to be incorrect. Here is how the KJV reads:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

YeHoWsHuwa? Clever, but false. Joshua's name was YeHoshua. However, there is no proof that the Savior's name is spelled either of those ways. Both Yehoshua and Yeshua were both translated "Iesous" in Greek. Since Matthew 1:21 says the Savior's name means "he will save", not YHWH will save and since Strong's says "Jeshua" means "he will save", "yeshua" would be more fitting. Also, "Yeshua" is a closer transliteration of "Iesous" than "Yehoshua".

Jocor many members are making interesting statements, so sorry to add my own here...

Hebrew spelling does not have vowels, some consonants act as vowels, so let's find a poetry pun method to find Jesus real name in Hebrew....Hebrew write parallels for a reason, in case translations make things messy....

The Shem Tov claims Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and while some claim His Book is a little Jewish in bias, he does make some parts of the book fantastic for us to see Bible truth....

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins

Jesus in Greek = Iesous
save in Greek = sozo

So Greek translation is not helpful at all, But if we consider Hebrew

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yasha: for he shall Yasha his people from their iniquity

Jesus in Greek = Yasha or different spelling Yeshua
save in Greek = Yasha

Ex 14:30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians;

If we consider this verse instead of verbs but as nouns, for us who think this way we have a compound NAME

Ex 14:30 Thus the YAHWEH YASHA (saved) Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians;

So Jesus as Son-Yahweh saved the people from Egypt

You also asked how many Yahweh's are there ? At least two...

Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD " Son-Yahweh" rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD "Father-Yahweh" out of heaven;

Here we see two Beings simultaneously doing the final destruction on in heaven, one on earth...
Shalom

 

[jocor]

If God had a Son that He Himself begot, and that Son participated with His Father in the creation of all things, is that only Begotten Son of God
God or man?

The Son of God became flesh.

He was the Son, before He became flesh.


Why would you think that God Himself would beget something other than God.

Man re-produces man.
God re-produces God.

Horse re-produces horse.

God created angels, that are called sons of God.

God created Adam, as he is called a son of God.


Jesus Christ is the only Begotten of the Father.


The Lord is God!

Jesus christ is Lord.

Jesus Christ is YHWH!

For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
John 5:22-23


If you honor God the Father, as God, then you should honor His only Begotten Son, as God.

For the Son created all things, and by Him all things exist!

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3


JLB

I addressed all this in previous posts.

 

[jocor]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth John 1:1-3,14

HE was in the beginning with God!

The Word was God's Son and created all things, before He became flesh.

That's why He is the firstborn over creation!

Jesus is YHWH!

He said Himself that He was the Alpha and the Omega!

If you don't confess Him as Lord, you will not be saved.

For The Lord is God!

His name is above every name.

He is our Savior!

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Peter 1:1


13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,


The scripture states that Jesus Christ is God our Savior.




JLB

I fully understand your position. There is no need to repeat the same things over and over again. You choose to read the Son into John 1:1-3 and I choose not to. You choose to believe the Son created everything and I choose to believe the Father spoke everything into existence.

 

[jocor]

Are you a Greek scholar? How do you know when they've "simply given their opinion" and when they haven't? Again, I ask: on what basis are you able to tell those who specialize in biblical Greek, that they're wrong?

I am not a Greek scholar. In matters of translation where several possible meanings of a Greek word can be used, it is not a matter of having to be a Greek scholar in order to choose the correct meaning. It is a matter of context.

That is a bit misleading because that is not really what you did:

"Sadly, the author introduces his own theology by placing "Jesus Christ" and "the Father" in parentheses. He then proceeds to completely distort the true interpretation. John is emphasizing the qualities of the "word" as they relate to the qualities of God. If Yahweh is powerful, so is His word. If Yahweh is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of Yahweh are the same as the attributes of Yahweh Himself. "

There was nothing that you cited that disagrees with what I have said but then you go on to claim that "He then proceeds to completely distort the true interpretation," a claim for which you have no basis other than you don't like what he says.

My basis is that he reads the Son into John 1:1-3.

We have here, in 1 Cor 8:6, Paul very clearly speaking of the person of Jesus, not some abstract thought of the Father. Looking at the immediate context:

1 Cor 8:4-6, 4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "an idol has no real existence," and that"there is no God but one." 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"-- 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

The context is that of idols--other gods and lords, so-called, who have "no real existence". The Father and Son are being contrasted with these idols, as the creators of all that exist.

If Paul is saying the Father is the "one God", why are you trying to make the Son either a second God or the "one God"? Why are you reading the Son into John 1:1 thereby making him the one God? Paul said the Father is the one God, not the Son.

 

[jocor]

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yasha: for he shall Yasha his people from their iniquity

Jesus in Greek = Yasha or different spelling Yeshua
save in Greek = Yasha

Ex 14:30 Thus the LORD saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians;

If we consider this verse instead of verbs but as nouns, for us who think this way we have a compound NAME

Ex 14:30 Thus the YAHWEH YASHA (saved) Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians;

So Jesus as Son-Yahweh saved the people from Egypt

Sorry, I don't accept such linguistic gymnastics.

You also asked how many Yahweh's are there ? At least two...

Ge 19:24 ¶ Then the LORD " Son-Yahweh" rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD "Father-Yahweh" out of heaven;

Here we see two Beings simultaneously doing the final destruction on in heaven, one on earth...
Shalom

And below we see two Solomons:

1Ki 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of the city of David, which is Zion.​

Here are two Spirits:

Eze 11:24 Afterwards the Spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.​

Genesis 19:24 is an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew language. Not to mention you are reading the Son into the text.

 

[Eugene]

Gen 1 And God said (Was this the Word?)

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)

Gen 2:4 . . in the day that the LORD (Jesus= YHWH) God made the earth and the heavens

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him (Jesus); and without him was not any thing made that was made

Joh 1:10 He (Jesus) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Mat 1:23 . . they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Jesus)

Php 2:7 But made himself (Jesus) of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men

Col 1:15 Who (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church
Col 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he (Jesus) is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church

 

[Free]

I am not a Greek scholar. In matters of translation where several possible meanings of a Greek word can be used, it is not a matter of having to be a Greek scholar in order to choose the correct meaning. It is a matter of context.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the fact remains that you keep saying translators have gotten it wrong when you yourself continue to ignore the clear and plain context. You have given no significant reason as to why your interpretation of passages should be favored over what most translations state. You say that certain words should have been translated differently but cannot offer any reason as to why, other than it is your opinion.

My basis is that he reads the Son into John 1:1-3.

As do most people and that is what the orthodox Christian position is on the passage. And this is, at least in part, because of the greater context of Scripture, both OT and NT, including the two other passages which I have given, that help us to interpret John 1:1-3 correctly.

If Paul is saying the Father is the "one God", why are you trying to make the Son either a second God or the "one God"? Why are you reading the Son into John 1:1 thereby making him the one God? Paul said the Father is the one God, not the Son.

And I have already pointed out that if we take Paul's statement that the Father alone is God, it logically follows that the Son alone is Lord. But that is clearly not what we see in Scripture. As I stated before, I believe this is Paul's expansion of the Shema.

Why are you not addressing the context of 1 Cor 8:6? Why are you not addressing the obvious logical reasoning of the verse? Why are you not addressing the fact that these passages of 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17 not only say the same thing, they say the same thing as John 1:1-3, which shows the Word to be the Son?

You want to argue to context but you have ignored context so far. Your position is very inconsistent and there is much that you seemed to have avoided answering.