JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[KingdomRose]

Incorrect. There is no 'a.' Did you know there is a Greek word for 'a' John could have used? He didn't. Sorry, somebody is lying to you. Think today. Quit running to people who will gladly lie to you. They lie all the time. Why? :idunno: The guy that came to my door that said he could read Greek, and was the JW representative over three states, "lied." He couldn't read a lick. He left my house very angry because of it. Called me a few names because of it. Why? Simply because I showed his disciple that he couldn't read a lick of Greek? :idunno:

I don't believe that the JW who came to your door told you he could read Greek. I would assume that he was trying to tell you the same thing I'm trying to tell you. No wonder he was "angry"---I would sooner say he was frustrated. I also don't believe that he called you names. We are admonished over and over to never do that.

Therefore, I would like to call you an idiot but I will refrain from doing so. I KNOW that there are no indefinite articles in Greek. So, according to the rules of translating Greek into English, if there is no article in front of a word that means that it is one of many. "Snoopy is a dog" is the English way of saying that fact. A Greek would write in Greek, "Snoopy is dog." No indefinite article. That way they know and understand that Snoopy is one of many. If they wanted to say that Snoopy was the ONLY dog they would use a definite article with "dog." It would literally be, "Snoopy is the dog."

So in John 1:1 we have, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god, and the word was god." A Greek reading this would know that "the word was god" doesn't have the definite article, so it is one of many. To adhere to the rules for translating Greek to English, translators, as well as the Greek speaking person, would include the indefinite article "a" so that it makes sense in English.

You really don't understand the protocol for translating Greek into proper English.

 

[daqq]

Hey, Simple guy.....Why do you refer to those two scriptures to show Jesus is YHWH when there are SO MANY MORE THAT SHOW THAT HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE? Obviously there is an acceptable explanation concerning Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10,11. The key, I would say, is the final phrase of those verses in Philippians:

"So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow,...and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER."

Where in Philippians does it say that every knee will bow to JESUS? It says, "At the name of Jesus every knee will bow," and to what end?? "To the glory of God the Father." So the Father is saying that every knee will bow to HIM, in Isaiah, and he says the same thing in Philippians, only using the name of Jesus as a trigger to start the ball rolling in the right direction. So Paul did NOT say that the bowing was referring to Jesus as the recipient.

Actually it does not say "at" but "in", (as was said at the top of the previous page), and when you see translations that say, "at", it is bias creeping into the text. The entire Trinitarian doctrine is based in these kinds of minute opinionated alterations and corruptions so as to make the text sound like it is saying something it is not.

Philippians 2:10 Textus Receptus
10 ινα εν τω ονοματι ιησου παν γονυ καμψη επουρανιων και επιγειων και καταχθονιων

Philippians 2:10 Westcott-Hort
10 ινα εν τω ονοματι ιησου παν γονυ καμψη επουρανιων και επιγειων και καταχθονιων

Philippians 2:10 ASV
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,

That is because Messiah is the Word, (which we are in when we "put on the mind of Messiah"). This has all been said so many times but Trinitarians just ignore these things and continue spouting the same erroneous translations over and over again. If you prove them wrong here then another thread will simply be started where they will continue to spout what they have already been shown to be erroneous. All one can really do is hope that a few eyes may be opened to the truth every time such topics come back up again, (which is fine by me). To bow "at" a name implies something to the effect that, "as soon as you hear that name you better bow", while bowing "in" a name implies that one is walking and living within the boundaries prescribed by the Testimony of the one who bears that name; and "putting on the mind of Messiah" is the very same thing because we do so by consuming his Testimony, fully believing it, and walking it out in our own lives.

 

[KingdomRose]

The omnipresent, omnipotent Spirit of God is absolutely more powerful (greater) than the limitations God chose to put on Himself as he partook of humanity.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

The situation was THE SAME when Christ went back to heaven. When I bring this out to people such as yourself, they have never answered in return. Can you explain?

Observe: "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (I Corinthians 11:3, NASB)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, then, Jesus couldn't be "God." To be God he would have to be EQUAL to the Father.

In what way would not being equal to the Father make Him unable to be God? Does He not love as much as His Father? Is He not as much of a Person? Not as relational? Not as Good?

The fact is, that Jesus, "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. - Philippians 2:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians2:6-7&version=NKJV

So, Jesus WAS EQUAL to God, even though He is the perfect Son, who submits Himself to the will of His Father.

 

[Nihilo]

The entire Trinitarian doctrine is based in these kinds of minute opinionated alterations and corruptions so as to make the text sound like it is saying something it is not.

Perhaps for Protestants and the Orthodox, but not for Catholics. The Catholic Church bases her teaching of the Trinity upon both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Church teaches that the Trinity is Apostolic, not made up, and not pieced together inductively from scriptural interpretation, no matter how carefully done.

And by Apostolic, the Church means that the teaching is not only directly from the Apostles themselves, but that also therefore, it is the Lord Jesus Christ's own doctrine.

 

[KingdomRose]

Holy Spirit is a title for the Father.

I don't agree. In Scripture, Holy Spirit is what Jehovah's powerful force is called, with which He accomplishes whatever He wants to do.

 

[KingdomRose]

You're wrong.

But, you never answered me on a question I posed, so let me repeat: Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day?

I did answer you; you just must have missed it somehow. I said, "Yes of course!!"

 

[Nihilo]

Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day?

I did answer you; you just must have missed it somehow. I said, "Yes of course!!"

Then, Amen!

 

[KingdomRose]

In what way would not being equal to the Father make Him unable to be God? Does He not love as much as His Father? Is He not as much of a Person? Not as relational? Not as Good?

The fact is, that Jesus, "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. - Philippians 2:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians2:6-7&version=NKJV

So, Jesus WAS EQUAL to God, even though He is the perfect Son, who submits Himself to the will of His Father.

Nope, you're using a twisted version, and I have been observing what over a dozen other versions have to say concerning Phil.2:6. They all go like this, with words to the same effect:

"Who, although he existed in the form of God, did NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." (NASB)

Now serious students of the Bible know that Jesus did indeed exist in the form of God, that being a SPIRIT BODY, just as God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Nothing about them being equal there. Then it goes on to say that Jesus didn't even consider equality with God something to be "grasped"---that is, something to TAKE that you didn't already have.

So your meaning is erroneous and unfortunately mired in the blatant BIAS that the King James translation committee exhibited.

 

[jamie]

So what do you think the Holy Spirit is, then?

The Power. Jesus said he would be sitting on the right hand of the Power.

"Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:64)

 

[daqq]

Perhaps for Protestants and the Orthodox, but not for Catholics. The Catholic Church bases her teaching of the Trinity upon both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Church teaches that the Trinity is Apostolic, not made up, and not pieced together inductively from scriptural interpretation, no matter how carefully done.

And by Apostolic, the Church means that the teaching is not only directly from the Apostles themselves, but that also therefore, it is the Lord Jesus Christ's own doctrine.

Sacred Scripture was shown to you and your tradition does not agree with it. :chuckle:

 

[jamie]

does it mean that the Son IS the Father? No.

Good point. I should have said that like us Jesus is a Son, not the Father.

We are not the Father either. In fact, there may be only one at this time.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I KNOW that there are no indefinite articles in Greek. So, according to the rules of translating Greek into English, if there is no article in front of a word that means that it is one of many. "Snoopy is a dog" is the English way of saying that fact. A Greek would write in Greek, "Snoopy is dog." No indefinite article. That way they know and understand that Snoopy is one of many. If they wanted to say that Snoopy was the ONLY dog they would use a definite article with "dog." It would literally be, "Snoopy is the dog."

So in John 1:1 we have, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god, and the word was god." A Greek reading this would know that "the word was god" doesn't have the definite article, so it is one of many. To adhere to the rules for translating Greek to English, translators, as well as the Greek speaking person, would include the indefinite article "a" so that it makes sense in English.

You really don't understand the protocol for translating Greek into proper English.

Technically, you're correct, there are no indefinite articles in Greek.

However, there is something called the Granville Sharp rule, which has been proved many times over in Greek.

It states: "When the copulative*kai connects two*nouns*of the same*case, if the article*ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle."

 

[jamie]

Well, then, Jesus couldn't be "God." To be God he would have to be EQUAL to the Father.

Do you mean like having all power in heaven and earth given to him?

 

[Nihilo]

Sacred Scripture was shown to you and your tradition does not agree with it. :chuckle:

An non-Apostolic interpretation of Sacred Scripture is not authoritative. :idunno:

 

[daqq]

An non-Apostolic interpretation of Sacred Scripture is not authoritative. :idunno:

The reading of the text is plain. What you have proven is that even though you may bow at the name of Jesus, (worship), you do not bow in the name of Jesus because his Testimony-Doctrine is his name. You instead bow in the name of your Popes and church doctrines because that is the testimony to which you hold. These two little words, "at" and "in", are therefore life and death to your soul; for you may bow "at" the name of Jesus but every time you do you bow "in" the name of your mother church doctrines and dogmas which are the traditions of men.

 

[Nihilo]

The reading of the text is plain.

I give both sides of this credit for having both strong passages in their position's favor, and for passages that form a powerful challenge to their position. To divide the sea on this one, I went to history books. The earliest Church was without question unambiguously quote-unquote Trinitarian. The reason for the quotes is because before the Arian controversy, believing in the Trinity was the same as believing in the Resurrection; that is, it was Christian, it was the One Church who believed the One Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV).

Today we know that this same Church then is the Catholic Church. That is of course not without massive dispute.

What you have proven is that even though you may bow at the name of Jesus, (worship), you do not bow in the name of Jesus because his Testimony-Doctrine is his name.

Then those who hold to the Holy Catholic faith are those who bow in His name, if I am right. What you are trying to prove is that there are exceedingly few Christians today who bow in His name, and I challenge that view, specifically with Holy Catholicism as the counter.

You instead bow in the name of your Popes

Not the same. No pope is to the level of the Lord Jesus, He is the pantocrator, the Master of the Universe; both heaven and earth (Mt28:18-19KJV).

and church doctrines because that is the testimony to which you hold.

See above. If I'm right, then according to you, those who believe the Catholic faith are the only people today who bow in His name, since Catholic teaching in the matters of faith and morals is the One Church's infallible teaching on these matters. If I'm right.

These two little words, "at" and "in", are therefore life and death to your soul; for you may bow "at" the name of Jesus but every time you do you bow "in" the name of your mother church doctrines and dogmas which are the traditions of men.

Whereas I simply believe that what Paul unambiguously wrote is true, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."

Paul explains that believing in Him, is believing in the Resurrection, they are the same.

You do believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day, right Daqq? I believe that you do, but you never answered me.

 

[Lon]

God bless you. I will continue to call out what I see as improper, abusive and demeaning.

Wouldn't you appreciate a return in the favor?

You continue to do so. My calling you out on it, is just that.

Correct, it is always a response. I do, however, apologize for Freedimbulb. I don't generally do name-calling. I was trying to get people to realize "YHWH means Father" is wrong and the confidence and posturing comment couldn't bolster that it was completely wrong. If Unitarians are going to have a thread, that point was incredibly important for NEEDED correction. On top of that, if I don't say some things strongly, they go over heads and then you think "my comment stands." It was/is very important, for this thread, that all were corrected in their thinking because of the thread title. YHWH is not translated Father. YHWH is translated God. It was/is an important and stark contrast that needed clear correction.

You're posturing, marginalizing, dividing...as if its "us against them" mentality.

I realize you don't esteem scripture as God's word as I do, but can you think of ANY scripture that tells us to correct those who need it and show they are correctable as well as oppose those who preach what is different and opposed to us? One scripture? Am I to be faithful to God?

This is an equal opportunity forum, and I've been expounding here for many years, and will continue to do so. I will discuss the topics and subjects at hand in 'creative dialogue' and construction discussion, thats what this forum is for. But I will NOT be bullied, or allow another to be unjustly so.

You are often wrong. When it is so bad that it changes the direction of this thread on a point that is completely wrong, I may be around to say something.

YHWH does not mean "Father." YHWH is translated "God."

 

[Lon]

Psalm 82:6
I said, "You are (gods / elohiym you are all sons of the Most High.

Let's see you do something a god would be able to do. Make me disappear.

Can't do it???? What kind of god are you???

 

[CherubRam]

[/COLOR]Let's see you do something a god would be able to do. Make me disappear.

Can't do it???? What kind of god are you???

Elohiym means (God of the Living) or(gods of the living.) It means that they have, or will have life immortal. It has nothing to do with super natural abilities.