JESUS IS NOT YHWH

[daqq]

All that schooling and you don't even know that YHWH is a name.

Goes to prove that the schools are bias.

You should have studied Aramaic instead of Greek.

Amen.

And as for our heavenly Father, the following passages have been posted and expounded many times. The Father even specifically says that He desires for us to call Him "my Father", in fact, one cannot even be placed among His sons without calling Him Father. I cannot count the times the following passages have been posted not to mention other posts with full commentary:

Deuteronomy 32:1-6
1 Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth!
2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of YHWH: ascribe ye greatness unto our Elohim.
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: an El of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.
5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of His sons: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
6 Do you thus requite YHWH, O foolish and unwise people? is He not your Father that has purchased you? has He not made you and established you?

Isaiah 63:16
16 Doubtless you are our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: You, O YHWH, are our Father, our Redeemer; your name is from everlasting.

Isaiah 64:8
8 But now, O YHWH, You are our Father; we are the clay, and you our potter; and we all are the work of you hand.

Jeremiah 3:4
4 Will you not from this time call unto Me, "Abiy, ("my Father"), you are the guide of my youth"?

Jeremiah 3:17-19
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of YHWH; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of YHWH, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart.
18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I gave for an inheritance unto your fathers.
19 And I said, How shall I place you among the sons, and give you a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of the nations? So I said, You shall call Me "Abiy", ("my Father"), and shall not turn away from following Me.

According to the Jeremiah passage the Master would not even have qualified to be the Anointed one if he would not have called our heavenly Father, "my Father" (Abbiy), or Father, (Abba, see also Mark 14:36, Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6).

 

[Lon]

All that schooling and you don't even know that YHWH is a name.

:chuckle: ....and? It doesn't mean 'Father..." :think: Ab, Abba, does.

Goes to prove that the schools are bias.

:nono: It shows you are getting old and senile. Or else that you aren't the independent scholar you always try to pass yourself off as. There is NO WAY you can get Father from יְהֹוָה YHWH. He is the Father of those who belong to Him. "IF" you wanted to type that accurately, you'd say אָב Abba, like the 80's music group.
Thanks for slamming my education, just the same :up:

You should have studied Aramaic instead of Greek.

Er, Hebrew in this case. What's your point?

Strong's H3068
[FONT=Arial (Arabic)][FONT=Arial (Arabic)][FONT=Arial (Arabic)]יְהֹוָה
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]yehôvâh
yeh-ho-vaw'
YHWH
From
H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord.

You are welcome.
:wave: I'm off to better things, more interesting threads.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Good note to leave on: It is 'why' I am triune. We agree that this scripture is true. How is it possible? Good question. :think:

You do not believe what Jesus said--

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

[Lon]

You do not believe what Jesus said--

Spoiler

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

You are welcome.
:wave: I'm off to better things, more interesting threads.

 

[keypurr]

:chuckle: ....and? It doesn't mean 'Father..." :think: Ab, Abba, does. Ilt

:nono: It shows you are getting old and senile. Or else that you aren't the independent scholar you always try to pass yourself off as. There is NO WAY you can get Father from יְהֹוָה YHWH. He is the Father of those who belong to Him. "IF" you wanted to type that accurately, you'd say אָב Abba, like the 80's music group.
Thanks for slamming my education, just the same :up:


Er, Hebrew in this case. What's your point?

You are welcome.
:wave: I'm off to better things, more interesting threads.

It is not just your education Lon, the Universities teach what traditions they support. YHWH is the name of the Father. God is the position of the most high. Jesus is neither.

The Greek m/s are not the earliest that are available, the Aramaic and Hebrew are. The Eastern church has them.

Not being tied to tradition I can see things that you automatically discard. In one way I wish I had your education, but in another, I am glad I don't.

May the spirit of YHWH be with you where ever you are running off to.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[oatmeal]

Very simply John 1:1 We are tri- -une. The half you are thinking of, we embrace.

I'm not sure as a JW you'd be able to grasp what has been said after 200 threads on the matter. Hasn't all that will ever be said, been said???

:idunno:

There is no evidence for a triune god in John 1:1.

There is no mention of God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit in John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

There is however, a beginning, the word, God,

Word or logos means message, indicating not the actual words or way of communicating the message but the intent or thought behind the message.

God was us to know him, thus he had a message, a word for us from the beginning.

His authorship of scripture did wait for instance, for David to become spiritually mature, God already knew exactly what message, what word and words down to the jots and tittle of the message in the beginning.

The emphasis of John 1:1 is the message and its vital importance and how it was to eventually become communicated.

It is communicated by 1. the scripture ie, the written message 2. Jesus Christ, the message in the flesh.

And as an added bonus, according to II Corinthians 2:14, but us.

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

It is God's word, the scripture and Jesus Christ, that communicates God to us.

If the word does not accomplish that, then scripture and Jesus Christ would be useless to learn from

However, both scripture and the life of Jesus Christ does teach us about God.

That is the point of John 1:1

 

[Nihilo]

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 whom are all things, and we by him.

Good note to leave on: It is 'why' I am triune. We agree that this scripture is true. How is it possible? Good question. :think:

Which "one God" is it in John 1:1 (KJV)?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is not just your education Lon, the Universities teach what traditions they support. YHWH is the name of the Father. God is the position of the most high. Jesus is neither.

The Greek m/s are not the earliest that are available, the Aramaic and Hebrew are. The Eastern church has them.

Not being tied to tradition I can see things that you automatically discard. In one way I wish I had your education, but in another, I am glad I don't.

May the spirit of YHWH be with you where ever you are running off to.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

Go read this, Keypurr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

 

[freelight]

One Deity IS, and one creative principle........

One Deity IS, and one creative principle........

​

Which "one God" is it in John 1:1 (KJV)?

Paul seems pretty clear in most of his writings of God the Father being distinct from the Lord Jesus as in the passage quoted. John 1:1 is clearly speaking of the 'God' existing from the beginning with the logos as being 'the theos' (God the Father of all, the Original Creator)...the one and only Supreme Being. In the beginning of every new creation, Deity creates thru his 'word', - "in the beginning" is the key phrase pointing to a 'genesis' of creation thru the intentional spoken word of the Creator. There is one God, one creative power, so it is that One Creator and one creative principle, divine logic operating. Mono-theos....thru and thru.

Deity ever works thru his word. The logos represents, expresses, reveals the thought, plans, intentions, design, logic of his will and purpose and this is all Johns prologue articulates, God working in and thru the Lord Jesus. John further thru his gospel confirms God sending his Son and life coming from faith in Jesus being the Son of God, sent by the Father. It is unnecessary to read anything further into the text.....although you can adopt whatever Christology suits your palate.

Even a purely Arian view is just as suitable. God is still God, and works thru His Messiah-Son, the Angel of Great Counsel, his anointed Agent, his Firstborn. Such coincides perfectly with a traditional-orthodox Unitarian monotheism.

The Catholic Arian Church

 

[Nihilo]

Paul seems pretty clear in most of his writings of God the Father being distinct from the Lord Jesus as in the passage quoted. John 1:1 is clearly speaking of the 'God' existing from the beginning with the logos as being 'the theos' (God the Father of all, the Original Creator)...the one and only Supreme Being. In the beginning of every new creation, Deity creates thru his 'word', - "in the beginning" is the key phrase pointing to a 'genesis' of creation thru the intentional spoken word of the Creator. There is one God, one creative power, so it is that One Creator and one creative principle, divine logic operating. Mono-theos....thru and thru.

Deity ever works thru his word. The logos represents, expresses, reveals the thought, plans, intentions, design, logic of his will and purpose and this is all Johns prologue articulates, God working in and thru the Lord Jesus. John further thru his gospel confirms God sending his Son and life coming from faith in Jesus being the Son of God, sent by the Father. It is unnecessary to read anything further into the text.....although you can adopt whatever Christology suits your palate.

Even a purely Arian view is just as suitable. God is still God, and works thru His Messiah-Son, the Angel of Great Counsel, his anointed Agent, his Firstborn. Such coincides perfectly with a traditional-orthodox Unitarian monotheism.

The Catholic Arian Church

There's one truth. There's one nonfictional reality. All else is fiction. There are fictions that closely resemble nonfiction, and those with no intention of resembling nonfiction (fantasy). Fictions aren't evil, many fictions are good, but there remains one nonfictional reality at all times and in all ways. To deny this is to embrace solipsism, which I reject.

You believe the Resurrection is nonfictional Freelight? The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is said to be built over/contain both Golgotha and the tomb. If tradition is true (nonfiction) in this case, then the distance from the cross to the tomb was not very far at all, and there would have been an audience of people who watched His lifeless corpus detached from the cross and carried down to the tomb (the tomb is lower elevation than was calvary). There was no way to mistake Who was dead and Whose body was put in the tomb. On the third day Easter Sunday when He nonfictionally rose from the dead, and emerged from the tomb, He was not far from where He had been crucified on Good Friday. If His cross still stood anybody could see it from the tomb, including the women and the Apostles who came to check it out.

 

[Nihilo]

Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day Daqq? Or not?

Yes, I do.

'Thought so.

And now it is your turn to answer my question so that I may know whether or not you truly believe that the Master rose from the dead the third day. Do you or do you not believe all of his Testimony found in the commonly accepted Gospel accounts

Yes I do. But this is an odd way for you to confirm a simple truth, that all a person need do is believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day. But, continuing . . .

beginning with the following statements which have already been posted herein:





Please remember:

...Believing that the Master was raised from the dead means that you truly believe every word he spoke which words are recorded for you in the Gospel accounts, (and the Apocalypse*). Anyone who does not believe, adhere to, and practice those words and teachings in uprightness and truth does not truly believe that he was raised from the dead....

I do believe every word that the Lord uttered; it goes, for me, with my belief that He rose from the dead on the third day. The Resurrection proves and confirms many things, as matters of fact. The Church, of whom He spoke about building upon Peter, and who was the recipient of every New Testament book, is how I can, first and foremost believe that all the Lord's utterances recorded in the New Testament are accurate. His Apostles administrated His Church, and wrote or commissioned the writing of the New Testament, which when added together to the Hebrew scriptures and to those Greek books Protestants labeled "apocryphal," form the Christian Scripture. The primary written source of the account of the Resurrection is the New Testament.


* He is quoted in Acts and in at least one other New Testament book besides Revelation, and I believe all those too.

 

[daqq]

'Thought so.
Yes I do. But this is an odd way for you to confirm a simple truth, that all a person need do is believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day. But, continuing . . .
I do believe every word that the Lord uttered; it goes, for me, with my belief that He rose from the dead on the third day. The Resurrection proves and confirms many things, as matters of fact. The Church, of whom He spoke about building upon Peter, and who was the recipient of every New Testament book, is how I can, first and foremost believe that all the Lord's utterances recorded in the New Testament are accurate. His Apostles administrated His Church, and wrote or commissioned the writing of the New Testament, which when added together to the Hebrew scriptures and to those Greek books Protestants labeled "apocryphal," form the Christian Scripture. The primary written source of the account of the Resurrection is the New Testament.


* He is quoted in Acts and in at least one other New Testament book besides Revelation, and I believe all those too.

Why did you wait until the next page and then clip out the scripture which was posted in my reply? And it is not anymore odd for me to ask that than it was odd for you to feel the need to ask me out of the blue if I believe the resurrection is true. But do you see the difference in what we asked? You asked me for a simple confession, which is really meaningless because it is nothing more than lip-service, while I asked you to confirm that you believe it with observable evidence; these are your works, let them shine before men that they may glorify your Father in the heavens, let me see the power of the truth working through your doctrines; for if you do not believe the Testimony of the Master then you do not truly believe he rose from the dead and are rather simply making confession with your lips, (doing lip-service). The same goes for the Torah and the Prophets: if you will not hear Moses and the Prophets then neither do you truly believe that one rose from the dead, for you really have no concrete observable evidence for what you believe because the only truly reliable evidence must have been written beforehand by the Prophets and the Lawgiver of Israel.

Anyways, it is good to see you confess and agree that the Anointed one says he was not the Logos; but do you actually realize that this is indeed what you have confessed by believing those statements of the Anointed one in John 12:48 and 14:24?

 

[keypurr]

Go read this, Keypurr.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

It agrees with me that there is debate as to what the originals were wrote in.

You need to get the AENT translation, it's not like the error filled earlier translation and you would question everything like I do.

I have scanned this site and I will do it again when time permits. I suggest you read it too.

Thanks friend

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TOL mobile app

 

[JudgeRightly]

It agrees with me that there is debate as to what the originals were wrote in.

You need to get the AENT translation, it's not like the error filled earlier translation and you would question everything like I do.

I have scanned this site and I will do it again when time permits. I suggest you read it too.

Thanks friend

Sent from my SM-T330NU using TOL mobile app

It says that the view that Aramaic was the original language IS NOT SUPPORTED by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament:

The*Aramaic New Testament*of the*Bible*exists in two forms: (1) the classical*Aramaic, or*Syriac,*New Testament, part of the*Peshitta Bible, or "Peshitta;" (2) the "Assyrian Modern" New Testament and*Psalms, published by the Bible Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from*Koine Greek. The official*Assyrian Church of the East*(known by some as the Nestorian Church) does not recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally considers the New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New Testament, and*Aramaic*to be its original language. This view was popularised in the West by the Assyrian Church of the East scholar*George Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the*Greek New Testament."

Its also not supported by the fact that the Peshitta OT was translated into Syriac in the 2nd century AD and the Peshitta NT was translated FROM GREEK.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta:

"The consensus within biblical scholarship, though not universal, is that the*Old Testament*of the Peshitta was translated into*Syriac*from*Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the*New Testament*of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek. This New Testament, originally excluding certain*disputed books*(2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the*Harklean Version(616 AD) of*Thomas of Harqel. However, the 1905 United Bible Society Peshitta used new editions prepared by the Irish Syriacist*John Gwynn*for the missing books."

 

[keypurr]

It says that the view that Aramaic was the original language IS NOT SUPPORTED by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the Greek New Testament.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament:

The*Aramaic New Testament*of the*Bible*exists in two forms: (1) the classical*Aramaic, or*Syriac,*New Testament, part of the*Peshitta Bible, or "Peshitta;" (2) the "Assyrian Modern" New Testament and*Psalms, published by the Bible Society in Lebanon (1997) and newly translated from*Koine Greek. The official*Assyrian Church of the East*(known by some as the Nestorian Church) does not recognise the new "Assyrian Modern" edition, and traditionally considers the New Testament of the Peshitta to be the original New Testament, and*Aramaic*to be its original language. This view was popularised in the West by the Assyrian Church of the East scholar*George Lamsa, but is not supported by the majority of scholars, either of the Peshitta or the*Greek New Testament."

Its also not supported by the fact that the Peshitta OT was translated into Syriac in the 2nd century AD and the Peshitta NT was translated FROM GREEK.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta:

"The consensus within biblical scholarship, though not universal, is that the*Old Testament*of the Peshitta was translated into*Syriac*from*Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the*New Testament*of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek. This New Testament, originally excluding certain*disputed books*(2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the*Harklean Version(616 AD) of*Thomas of Harqel. However, the 1905 United Bible Society Peshitta used new editions prepared by the Irish Syriacist*John Gwynn*for the missing books."

Is that all you got out of it?

Scholars disagree JR. If I went with the majority I would be a RCC member. Do you think they are right.

Look up the Khabouris manuscript.

We both have much to learn friend.

 

[Nihilo]

Why did you wait until the next page and then clip out the scripture which was posted in my reply?

I don't know what you mean by "wait until the next page," and I did not "clip out the scripture" either. You used the quote function and that means when I quote your post, your quotation doesn't copy with your post, that's not my problem, either that the software works that way, or that you didn't contain your quotes within the body of your post so that quoting your post isn't a copy-and-paste craft project.

And it is not anymore odd for me to ask that than it was odd for you to feel the need to ask me out of the blue if I believe the resurrection is true. But do you see the difference in what we asked? You asked me for a simple confession, which is really meaningless because it is nothing more than lip-service, while I asked you to confirm that you believe it with observable evidence; these are your works, let them shine before men that they may glorify your Father in the heavens, let me see the power of the truth working through your doctrines; for if you do not believe the Testimony of the Master then you do not truly believe he rose from the dead and are rather simply making confession with your lips, (doing lip-service). The same goes for the Torah and the Prophets: if you will not hear Moses and the Prophets then neither do you truly believe that one rose from the dead, for you really have no concrete observable evidence for what you believe because the only truly reliable evidence must have been written beforehand by the Prophets and the Lawgiver of Israel.

Man, you're wrong. I don't need to prove I believe something. I just have to think. "Do I believe this or not?" You're making it too difficult. I believe, yes I do. I know it because I'm me! I know what I really believe, and what I don't. And if I really believe something, but I wonder whether I really believe it, then I know I'm overthinking this, which is what you're doing.

Anyways, it is good to see you confess and agree that the Anointed one says he was not the Logos; but do you actually realize that this is indeed what you have confessed by believing those statements of the Anointed one in John 12:48 and 14:24?

I didn't confess anything like that Daqq, because I didn't agree that you are teaching the Lord Jesus Christ's own doctrine, or that your interpretation of Scripture is the one correct interpretation. You say you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and I believe you. I don't have any reason not to, unless you are a murderer (that's the only grave sin I can't reconcile with genuinely believing the Christian faith). Murderers crucified the Lord, and also dispatched each of His Twelve Apostles, for witnessing to His Resurrection.

 

[Lon]

Spoiler

It is not just your education Lon, the Universities teach what traditions they support. YHWH is the name of the Father. God is the position of the most high. Jesus is neither.

The Greek m/s are not the earliest that are available, the Aramaic and Hebrew are. The Eastern church has them.

Not being tied to tradition I can see things that you automatically discard. In one way I wish I had your education, but in another, I am glad I don't.

May the spirit of YHWH be with you where ever you are running off to.

You are welcome.
:wave: I'm off to better things, more interesting threads.

 

[daqq]

I don't know what you mean by "wait until the next page," and I did not "clip out the scripture" either. You used the quote function and that means when I quote your post, your quotation doesn't copy with your post, that's not my problem, either that the software works that way, or that you didn't contain your quotes within the body of your post so that quoting your post isn't a copy-and-paste craft project.
Man, you're wrong. I don't need to prove I believe something. I just have to think. "Do I believe this or not?" You're making it too difficult. I believe, yes I do. I know it because I'm me! I know what I really believe, and what I don't. And if I really believe something, but I wonder whether I really believe it, then I know I'm overthinking this, which is what you're doing.
I didn't confess anything like that Daqq, because I didn't agree that you are teaching the Lord Jesus Christ's own doctrine, or that your interpretation of Scripture is the one correct interpretation. You say you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and I believe you. I don't have any reason not to, unless you are a murderer (that's the only grave sin I can't reconcile with genuinely believing the Christian faith). Murderers crucified the Lord, and also dispatched each of His Twelve Apostles, for witnessing to His Resurrection.

Again, it is very simple: you can claim whatever you want about believing "in" this or that about the Master, (including your claim that you believe he was resurrected), but if you do not believe his Testimony then I do not believe your claims are anything more than lip service. The demons also believe, (and shudder), but there is no reason for me to even quote the reference for that passage because you apparently do not accept anything not authorized by the Catholic church; either that or you are hiding behind the church and using that as an excuse for rejecting the Testimony of Messiah. The passages I quoted say pretty much the same in most all English translations: they do not need a "Catholic church stamp of approval" for you to be able to read what they say for yourself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is that all you got out of it?

Scholars disagree JR. If I went with the majority I would be a RCC member. Do you think they are right.

Look up the Khabouris manuscript.

We both have much to learn friend.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaboris_Codex:

"The*Khaburis Codex*(alternate spelling*Khaboris,*Khabouris) is a medieval era*Aramaic*manuscript*of the*New Testament. The Khaburis Codex is the complete*Peshitta*New Testament containing 22 books, in comparison to the Western*New Testament canon*which contains 27 books. The missing books are known as the "Western Five," namely,*2 Peter,*2 John,*3 John,*Jude*and*Revelation.

The "Notes" section from a 2007 London Sotheby's auction record state, "Correspondence from 1986 shows that the British Library experts had dated it paleographically to about the twelfth century, and this has now been confirmed by a research team assembled in America in 1995, as well as by carbon dating by the University of Arizona in 1999 (giving the date range 1000–1190 AD).""

Carbon dating places it's writing (or at least the paper's age) to the 12th century, Keypurr. Not just a claim that it's old, an actual date. It's not the original New Testament, which was, in fact, written in Greek. There's a reason why most scholars agree that it was written in Greek, Keypurr, it's because there's good evidence for it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Scholars disagree JR. If I went with the majority I would be a RCC member. Do you think they are right.

Because people can be wrong about topics contained in the Bible, I tend to let what the Bible (and therefore God) says be true, and every man a liar.

I also make sure that what is said by people matches up with reality. You saying that the NT was written in Aramaic originally does not match up with reality, nor does it match the evidence I have seen that says otherwise.

So Keypurr, do yourself a favor and don't lean on your own understanding. Find a good Bible teacher and learn from him.