Jesus is not YHVH

[JLB]

[Reference to deleted post. WIP]

 

[JLB]

[Reference to deleted post. WIP]

 

[jocor]

The entire discussion is meaningless.

"Yaweh" is one of many names used by the early Jews (1500 BC ff) to refer to God. They had no concept of God as Trinity.

Jesus (whom you insist on referring to as "Yeshua") is the Word made flesh. The early Jews had no concept of God being Theos, Logos and Pneumatikos. Jesus is not the manifestation of the entire Trinity. However, in Jesus, the fullness of the Trinity (Godhead) dwells in bodily form.(Col 2:9)

Jesus is not Yahweh because the two names refer to two different understandings of God.

No, "I AM" is not the same as Yahweh. But when Jesus said "I AM" He was telling them that He was God, not just Yahweh but also Yahweh Elohim, El, Eloah, Adoni, and every other name of God.

[Personal comments regarding another members claim to Christian faith. Violation of ToS 2.4. WIP]

 

[jocor]

[Reference to deleted post. WIP]

 

[OzSpen]

The entire discussion is meaningless.

"Yaweh" is one of many names used by the early Jews (1500 BC ff) to refer to God. They had no concept of God as Trinity.

Jesus (whom you insist on referring to as "Yeshua") is the Word made flesh. The early Jews had no concept of God being Theos, Logos and Pneumatikos. Jesus is not the manifestation of the entire Trinity. However, in Jesus, the fullness of the Trinity (Godhead) dwells in bodily form.(Col 2:9)

Jesus is not Yahweh because the two names refer to two different understandings of God.

No, "I AM" is not the same as Yahweh. But when Jesus said "I AM" He was telling them that He was God, not just Yahweh but also Yahweh Elohim, El, Eloah, Adoni, and every other name of God.

Well said, Jim! And accurate.

Oz

 

[JLB]

[Reference to deleted post. WIP]

 

[Free]

Jesus is not Yahweh because the two names refer to two different understandings of God.

I disagree. If one keeps the NT from informing the OT, then yes, there are two different understandings of God. However, since we are Christians, not Jews, and are discussing whether or not Jesus is Yahweh, the NT comes to bear on the issue. And in the NT we have at least one OT quote which uses YHVH and applies it to Jesus (Rom. 10:13). So while the Jewish understanding of YHVH is different, it is incorrect or incomplete, as YHVH is triune.

 

[Jim Parker]

in the NT we have at least one OT quote which uses YHVH and applies it to Jesus (Rom. 10:13).

There is no reference to YHWH at Ro 10:13.

The term Paul uses is "ὄνομα κυρίου" which is literally translated "name of the Lord." There are many other names for God besides YHWH. Paul's use of the word "ὄνομα" would be, IMO, more likely to reflect the Jew's use of "HaShem" (the Name) which was the commonly used reference to God because it avoided any possibility of taking His name in vain.

YHVH is triune

When the name YHWH is first encountered at Gen 2:4, it is the name "YHWH Elohim". The name "Elohim" is plural but it is not a plural that indicates "more than one"; it is a superlative plural which indicates tha the person or thing names possesses all of the highest qualities possible. (honor, power, integrity, mercy, glory, etc.)

The first inkling of a triune God is at Genesis 81:1-3 Where Abram addresses the three visitors as "Lord."

And the LORD (YHWH) appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, "My lord, (Adoni) if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant..."

So the Lord (YHWH) appeared to Abram who saw three men. It is not necessary that we understand all three to be YHWH as two could have been angels accompanying YHWY as indicated by Gen 19:1.

iakov the fool

 

[Free]

There is no reference to YHWH at Ro 10:13.

The term Paul uses is "ὄνομα κυρίου" which is literally translated "name of the Lord." There are many other names for God besides YHWH. Paul's use of the word "ὄνομα" would be, IMO, more likely to reflect the Jew's use of "HaShem" (the Name) which was the commonly used reference to God because it avoided any possibility of taking His name in vain.

You will notice that some translations put quotes around "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV) This leads to my point: that Romans 10:13 is a quote from Joel 2:32 where "Lord" is "LORD," or YHVH. Paul is clearly applying YHVH to Jesus.

Given that the context is Romans 10:9, it is strongly suggestive that one must confess not only that Jesus is Lord, but that that he is YHVH in order to be saved.

When the name YHWH is first encountered at Gen 2:4, it is the name "YHWH Elohim". The name "Elohim" is plural but it is not a plural that indicates "more than one"; it is a superlative plural which indicates tha the person or thing names possesses all of the highest qualities possible. (honor, power, integrity, mercy, glory, etc.)

The first inkling of a triune God is at Genesis 81:1-3 Where Abram addresses the three visitors as "Lord."

And the LORD (YHWH) appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, "My lord, (Adoni) if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant..."

So the Lord (YHWH) appeared to Abram who saw three men. It is not necessary that we understand all three to be YHWH as two could have been angels accompanying YHWY as indicated by Gen 19:1.

iakov the fool

Of course, I have not stated anything to the contrary. The point is that in light of NT revelation, we know that YHVH is triune. If you deny this, then you make the OT God a different God than the NT God.

 

[Barth Jones]

Many believe that Jesus is YHVH.
For starters, Jehovah, Yahweh and LORD are translations of the four letters denoting God's name as I shall refer to as YHVH. Notice that in LORD, they are all caps. In your translations, when you see LORD in all CAPS, it could have been translated as Jehovah or Yahweh and in it's original language, it is represented as four characters I'll represent as YHVH. Do not mistake LORD for Lord as they are two different words with two completely different meanings within the OT writings.

Many who believe that Jesus is YHVH use John 1 as their proof texts.

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

This is a direct reference to Genesis 1
Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

We see that God created the heaven and the earth, and it is empty and void... etc. Please note that the text does not state how God created the heavens and earth, but only that God had created them. And after describing what God's heaven and earth was, God utters... and when God utters, we see His Word. And not only do we see his word, but God reveals that which was in him. And that which was in Him, was made known to His creation as light.

There is much we could say about this Light. Light is created and darkness is the absence of light. Light penetrates through the darkness for darkness is that which has not been created and that which has not been created, if full of chaos and un-comprehension. It is without order or form, and is void of structure. And God divided the light from the dark, and this was the first day. Light always brings clarity and Jesus is that Light.

Colossians 1:13-17 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 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: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

We see here in Paul's writing that Jesus is the image of the invisible God (YHVH). But for the sake of this OP, we shall surely see that "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth"
Paul not only states that Jesus is the Son of God, but he stays true to the account of Moses in Genesis 1. Hence, all things in heaven and in earth. Paul makes no claim that Jesus created either heaven or earth, but true to the creation account, God's word created all things in heaven and earth as he uttered them day by day.

YHWH is the Hebrew name for the true God. El and Elohim are Hebrew terms meaning "God." Elohim is singular in meaning, but plural in form, meaning our single God takes more than one form. Christ, who was God in the beginning, according to John, indeed created all things. He is also called by the same name as his Father, and indeed is the "everlasting father," according to Isaiah.

 

[Jim Parker]

The point is that in light of NT revelation, we know that YHVH is triune.

Agreed.

My points are that the name "YHWH" is (1) not the only name of God uses by the Ancient Hebrews (in fact it is not the first name we encounter. At Gen 1:1 the name of God is "Elohim.") and (2) it is a very early revelation of God which continues to expand throughout the Bible until we come to the NT revelation of the Trinity. Mat. 28:19 tells us that the "name" of God is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That is a far cry from "YHWH." There is no concise revelation of God as Trinity in the OT. As you said, we myst look back at the OT in the light of the NT to discern any hints of the Triune Godhead.

Iakov the fool

 

[Free]

Agreed.

My points are that the name "YHWH" is (1) not the only name of God uses by the Ancient Hebrews (in fact it is not the first name we encounter. At Gen 1:1 the name of God is "Elohim.") and (2) it is a very early revelation of God which continues to expand throughout the Bible until we come to the NT revelation of the Trinity. Mat. 28:19 tells us that the "name" of God is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That is a far cry from "YHWH." There is no concise revelation of God as Trinity in the OT. As you said, we myst look back at the OT in the light of the NT to discern any hints of the Triune Godhead.

Iakov the fool

I don't see what any of this has to do with the point I was making. You first said that "The entire discussion is meaningless....Jesus is not Yahweh because the two names refer to two different understandings of God," but my points strongly suggest that Jesus is YHVH, hence the discussion is valid.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't see what any of this has to do with the point I was making. You first said that "The entire discussion is meaningless....Jesus is not Yahweh because the two names refer to two different understandings of God," but my points strongly suggest that Jesus is YHVH, hence the discussion is valid.

Again, the name YHWH, as used in the OT, had no suggestion of Jesus, the Word made flesh, being one of the trinity nor did the name "YHWH" suggest that the Holy Spirit was one of the three hypostases of the Godhead.

To say that Jesus is YHWH (Jesus = YHWH) is to state that there is identity between everything included in the understanding of the name "Jesus" and everything included in the name "YHWH." That is simply not true. Starting from "Jesus=YHWH" renders any discussion meaningless because it is based on a non-reality.

The name YHWH is used for a very primitive and limited understanding of the Godhead and the name Jesus is used in the context of the fullest revelation of the godhead. They are neither identical nor equivalent.

In the light of the NT we can "look back" at the earliest names of God and understand that the Trinity, particularly, Jesus, exists in the Godhead from all eternity but we cannot equate the earliest revelation of the Godhead to the last which we have in the NT which reveals the Son and the Holy Spirit as hypostases of God. The concepts of God represented by the name YHWH in the OT did not include any idea of God as Trinity. So, stating that Jesus = YHWH is a confusion of the concepts of God.

iakov the fool

 

[Free]

Again, the name YHWH, as used in the OT, had no suggestion of Jesus, the Word made flesh, being one of the trinity nor did the name "YHWH" suggest that the Holy Spirit was one of the three hypostases of the Godhead.

I don't see how this is relevant.

To say that Jesus is YHWH (Jesus = YHWH) is to state that there is identity between everything included in the understanding of the name "Jesus" and everything included in the name "YHWH." That is simply not true. Starting from "Jesus=YHWH" renders any discussion meaningless because it is based on a non-reality.

Not at all. We say that Jesus is God but we certainly don't mean that Jesus is all that God is, that Jesus=God. We are Trinitarians so no one is making the argument that Jesus=YHVH.

Simply put, if Jesus is God and one of God's names is YHVH, then it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is also YHVH.

The name YHWH is used for a very primitive and limited understanding of the Godhead and the name Jesus is used in the context of the fullest revelation of the godhead. They are neither identical nor equivalent.

I don't see how this is relevant as to whether or not Jesus is YHVH. A limited understanding does not have any bearing on the issue.

The concepts of God represented by the name YHWH in the OT did not include any idea of God as Trinity.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[Jim Parker]

Again, I don't see how this is relevant.

The I see no way to proceed.

Simply put, if Jesus is God and one of God's names is YHVH, then it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is also YHVH.

No, it is not reasonable. The Name YHWH is used for a specific revelation of God. Jesus's name includes a much broader understanding of God.

Major premise: The Name YHWH does not include a trinitarian understanding of God.
Minor Premise: The Name Jesus does include a trinitarian understanding of God.
Conclusion: The names "Jesus" and "YHWH" are not interchangeable.

That Jesus is God is not in question.

Saying that Jesus is YHWH (using a specific name for a specific understanding of God) unnecessarily introduces a confusion of concepts of God. (a generic name)

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

The I see no way to proceed.

No, it is not reasonable. The Name YHWH is used for a specific revelation of God. Jesus's name includes a much broader understanding of God.

Major premise: The Name YHWH does not include a trinitarian understanding of God.
Minor Premise: The Name Jesus does include a trinitarian understanding of God.
Conclusion: The names "Jesus" and "YHWH" are not interchangeable.

That Jesus is God is not in question.

Saying that Jesus is YHWH (using a specific name for a specific understanding of God) unnecessarily introduces a confusion of concepts of God. (a generic name)

iakov the fool

I find that to be an excellent and reasonable explanation.

 

[Jim Parker]

I find that to be an excellent and reasonable explanation.

Thank you for encouraging my behavior.

jim

 

[JLB]

The name "Elohim" is plural but it is not a plural that indicates "more than one"; it is a superlative plural which indicates tha the person or thing names possesses all of the highest qualities possible. (honor, power, integrity, mercy, glory, etc.)

The name Elohim is Plural, and represents "more than one" in every sense of the word.

It's used for scriptures that refer to the "gods" of heathen nations, and it references the Godhead, in it's plurality. 1 John 5:7

Genesis 18: 1-3 is [Jesus], YHWH, before He became flesh with two angels.

No human has seen God [the Father], at this point. John 1:18


Those in the OT saw the Angel of the Lord, God's only begotten Son, who is called The Lord and God in several places.


JLB

 

[Jim Parker]

The name Elohim is Plural, and represents "more than one" in every sense of the word.

When used of the true God, "Elohim" denotes what is called by linguists a plural of majesty, honor, or fullness. That is, he is GOD in the fullest sense of the word. He is "GOD of gods" or literally, "ELOHIM of elohim" (Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2).

From: http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/context-elohim.html

It's used for scriptures that refer to the "gods" of heathen nations, and it references the Godhead, in it's plurality. 1 John 5:7

The name "Elohim" is not found in 1 John 5:7.

Genesis 18: 1-3 is [Jesus], YHWH, before He became flesh with two angels.
No human has seen God [the Father], at this point. John 1:18
Those in the OT saw the Angel of the Lord, God's only begotten Son, who is called The Lord and God in several places.
JLB

Thank you for your opinion.

THe fact is that Jesus and Yahweh are not identical.

iakov the fool

 

[JLB]

You will notice that some translations put quotes around "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV) This leads to my point: that Romans 10:13 is a quote from Joel 2:32 where "Lord" is "LORD," or YHVH. Paul is clearly applying YHVH to Jesus.

Absolutely and undeniable.


JLB