Jesus is not YHVH

[jasonc]

Memre,what is that in the targum jonathan?logos,is close to that in the greek.

 

[Jim Parker]

When used of the true God, by Christians, it's a reference to the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.
JLB

Yeah. And people can use a rock to drive a nail but, it does not make the rock the proper tool for driving nails.

Popular misuse does not change the meaning of a word it just promotes sloppy Bible interpretation. "Elohim" does not carry the same meaning as "Trinity" just because you imagine it does.

iakov the fool

 

[Free]

Your first premise is false. "YHVH is ONE of the names of God, not THE name of God.

Premise one is fine and even if you want to insist that it is wrong, it has no bearing on the argument.

Your assumption is false: the mane "YHVH" is used to refer to an incomplete revelation of God which does not reflect the final revelation of God as Trinity.

What assumption? Whether YHVH is used for a full or partial revelation of God is irrelevant. God is YHVH, or do you deny this?

The names "YHVH" and Jesus and Father and Holy Spirit are not interchangeable. They each convey different concepts.

I never said they were interchangeable.

Your logic falls because it is based on an anachronism and a false identity of terms.

The logic is sound and the argument is good.

 

[Jim Parker]

Whether YHVH is used for a full or partial revelation of God is irrelevant.

Ok. So you not up to speed on logic.

have a nice day.

 

[Free]

Whether YHVH is used for a full or partial revelation of God is irrelevant.

Ok. So you not up to speed on logic.

have a nice day.

My logic is fine. God is God and he doesn't change from OT to NT, so whether we speak of OT or NT, God is YHVH. What he chooses to reveal to certain persons doesn't change this fact.

You are essentially saying that God changes from OT to NT, and that it is based on what people know of him; what we make out God to be is who he really is. But clearly that is not the case.

 

[Jim Parker]

My logic is fine. God is God and he doesn't change from OT to NT, so whether we speak of OT or NT, God is YHVH. What he chooses to reveal to certain persons doesn't change this fact.

You are essentially saying that God changes from OT to NT, and that it is based on what people know of him; what we make out God to be is who he really is. But clearly that is not the case.

You logic is seriously flawed.

God does not change and I am in no manner suggesting that the God revealed in the OT is different from the God revealed in the NT.

What I am saying is that man's understanding of God is not the same in the OT as in the NT. The words that man used in the OT to refer to God do not communicate the more complete revelation of God in the NT.

So, when one uses the name "YHWH", or any other of the names of God found in the OT, what is communicated is that OT understanding which does not include the Christian concept of Trinity.

So, if one were to say, "Jesus is YHWH and the Father is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWH," he would be conflating divergent understandings of God.

The conflation of divergent concepts is a logical fallacy.

Ex:

Airplanes are a means of transportation.
Trains are a means of transportation.
Therefore, airplanes are trains.

And that is essentially the error of:

YHWH is a name for God.
Jesus is a name for God.
Therefor, the name Jesus is the same name as YHWH.

iakov the fool

 

[JLB]

God does not change and I am in no manner suggesting that the God revealed in the OT is different from the God revealed in the NT.

What I am saying is that man's understanding of God is not the same in the OT as in the NT. The words that man used in the OT to refer to God do not communicate the more complete revelation of God in the NT.

So, when one uses the name "YHWH", or any other of the names of God found in the OT, what is communicated is that OT understanding which does not include the Christian concept of Trinity.

So, if one were to say, "Jesus is YHWH and the Father is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWH," he would be conflating divergent understandings of God.

The conflation of divergent concepts is a logical fallacy.

Ex:

Airplanes are a means of transportation.
Trains are a means of transportation.
Therefore, airplanes are trains.

And that is essentially the error of:

YHWH is a name for God.
Jesus is a name for God.
Therefor, the name Jesus is the same name as YHWH.

iakov the fool

What is the name of the Godhead, that is revealed to us in Scripture.


JLB

 

[Jim Parker]

What is the name of the Godhead, that is revealed to us in Scripture.


JLB

(sigh) There is no one single name.

Each name carries it's own content.

And the best description of the "Godhead", a name not found in scripture, is "Trinity" which is another name not found in scripture.

The names we use vary but God does not.

iakov the fool

 

[turnorburn]

What is the name of the Godhead, that is revealed to us in Scripture.


JLB

I AM

 

[JLB]

(sigh) There is no one single name.

Each name carries it's own content.

And the best description of the "Godhead", a name not found in scripture, is "Trinity" which is another name not found in scripture.

The names we use vary but God does not.

iakov the fool

Trinity is the name the Godhead? 2

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. Colossians 2:8-9


What is the name of "Him" in this verse?

Oh wait!! Let me guess... It's Zechariah.


God [Elohim], referred to the Godhead from the Hebrew.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Ex:

Airplanes are a means of transportation.
Trains are a means of transportation.
Therefore, airplanes are trains.

And that is essentially the error of:

YHWH is a name for God.
Jesus is a name for God.
Therefor, the name Jesus is the same name as YHWH.

iakov the fool

Oh I see how you came to this conclusion:

A gallon of Logical fallacy.

A scoop of relativism.

A cup of post modernism.
Presto - The theology of Jim Parker.... iakov the fool


JLB

 

[turnorburn]

i didn't know this but "I am" appears in the Bible 719 times. 508 times in the Old Testament and 211 times in the New Testament...

*edit: i wonder how many times each day we refer to ourselves as i am?

 

[Jim Parker]

I AM

OK. I'll buy that.

 

[jasonc]

Ebonics bible of 2015, I IS

 

[Douglas Summers]

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.

Then who do you think He is?

 

[Jim Parker]

Ebonics bible of 2015, I IS

??????????

 

[jasonc]

??????????

The Great I IS.

 

[Jim Parker]

Trinity is the name the Godhead?

Trinity is our best understanding of God.

What is the name of "Him" in this verse?

It's Jesus. So what?

God [Elohim], referred to the Godhead from the Hebrew.

Right. And we are not proto-Jews living in 2000 BC. We have a better understanding of God than they did because God revealed more of Himself over the next 2000 years until, in the first century, the apostles of Christ understood that there is one God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are that one God. The Church determined that the best description of God was the Holy Trinity.

You seem to have difficulty dealing with that.

Luckily, that's not my problem!

iakov the fool

 

[Sinthesis]

Yes it is. It is a problem similar to making the word "tree" another word for the word "vegetable." (Eat your trees?)

The word "Logos" was not chosen by John at random. He chose it to communicate that Jesus Christ is "Theos." And we can be confident that John intentionally chose the word "Theos" rather than "Yahweh Elohim" (LXX: LORD) in order to communicate precisely.

Words have meaning. If we attach any meaning we like to any word we like, we create a chaos of meaningless word strings.

iakov the fool

So in the LXX יהוה is never rendered as θεός? I ask because it appears both of the words logos and theos only appear in the New Testament.

 

[Jim Parker]

So in the LXX יהוה is never rendered as θεός? I ask because it appears both of the words logos and theos only appear in the New Testament.

In the LXX OT, the name "YHWH ELOHIM" is rendered "KURIOS O THEOS.
YHWH (יהוה) is rendered "KURIOS".

There are many names of God revealed in the OT. In the NT, I think we can safely include all of those names, and the attributes of God which they reveal, in the word "God." (THEOS)

However, the NT does use the word "Lord" to refer to God as at Luke 1:43 when Elizabeth said to Mary, “But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord (KURIOS) should come to me?" Here, the word "KURIOS" is the same word used in the LXX for YHWH.

iakov the fool