The Yahweh Name

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Hebrew

Seeing you claim to be a language expert, I would be interested if you agree with AB Davidson in the following:

The Yahweh Name (cont’d)
In my first post I mentioned that the margin of the Revised Version has "I will be" for Exodus 3:14, and one of the supporters of this rendition could have been AB Davidson as he was one of the Hebrew scholars engaged in the production of the RV. Please note that I do not endorse all of his theology, as he was most probably a Trinitarian and also had other wrong ideas, but his Hebrew abilities have been respected and some of his Hebrew books were published in new editions until recently.

The following article is by AB Davidson is in the Hastings Bible Dictionary Volume 2 page 199:
"The name is connected with the Hebrew ‘hayah’, ‘to be’, in the imperfect. Now with regard to this verb, first, it does not mean ‘to be’ essentially or ontologically, but phenomenally; and secondly the imperfect has not the sense of a present (‘am’) but of a future (‘will be’). In Exodus 3:10ff, when Moses demurred to go to Egypt, God assured him saying, ‘I will be with thee’. When he asked how he should name the God of their fathers to the people, he was told Ehyeh asher Ehyeh. Again he was bidden say, ‘Ehyeh hath sent me unto you’. From all this it seems evident that in the view of the writer Ehyeh and Yahweh are the same: that God is Ehyeh, ‘I will be’, when speaking of Himself and ‘Yahweh’, ‘he will be’, when spoken of by others. What He will be is left unexpressed - He will be with them, helper, strengthener, deliverer."
Now this last comment by AB Davidson ties in with what I suggested that what God would do or be was that Yahweh would be their salvation.

Another additional aspect is that this could also be connected with the similar expression in the promises to David:
2 Samuel 7:12–16 (KJV): 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
The development of the Name Yahweh will not only be associated with what God would accomplish, that is salvation, but also associated with the development of the Messiah, through whom salvation will be accomplished, Yahweh will be his father, and he will be Yahweh’s son.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

Seeing you claim to be a language expert, I would be interested if you agree with AB Davidson in the following:

Trevor, you are losing it, mate. We already had this discussion (about midway).

It wasn't that long ago. One of the important points of discussion with cults is often over failed apprehension. I point it out here, only to give you a sense that there are some of us who have better memories and so are better at remembering important points we've read in our Bibles. It provides a better cohesion (which is why most scholars are triune). You are correct that AB was triune in his theology (as a reminder, we already had this discussion).

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Trevor, you are losing it, mate. We already had this discussion (about midway).

Yes, I had forgotten, but looking again you did not really discuss what AB Davidson actually said. The above post is most probably the first time that I posted the second part. I find this more interesting than discuss the few obscure ambiguous verses which Trinitarians use to support their obscure and contradictory 3rd-4th Century doctrine.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Omniskeptical]

Because you say so?

Thomas said: "The Lord of me, and the God of me."

Answer the question:
Was Thomas committing idolatry by calling Jesus his God? Or was Jesus God and Thomas was recognizing Him as such?

Those are the only two possibilities.

He wasn't calling Jesus-- God, even the English translation says he isn't.

 

[Right Divider]

He wasn't calling Jesus-- God, even the English translation says he isn't.

Yes, it does.

Joh 20:28 KJV And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Yes, it does.

Then it why doesn't it say, "Both My Lord, and my God."?

 

[Right Divider]

Then it why doesn't it say, "Both My Lord, and my God."?

Because Jesus is the LORD GOD. The word "both" is unnecessary.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Because Jesus is the LORD GOD. The word "both" is unnecessary.

It is very necessary. But if you say so...

 

[Omniskeptical]

John 20:28 και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου, και ο θεος μου.

Just this clear. In Greek, it looks EXACTLY like this, to you.

And Lon doesn't know what the Nominative Case is for in Greek.

 

[JudgeRightly]

He wasn't calling Jesus-- God,

Uh, yeah, he was, because that's the only thing that the context allows:

Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:24-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John20:24-29&version=NKJV

Thomas was, in fact, believing. Believing what? That Jesus is his Lord and his God. And Jesus affirmed his belief.

The disciples called Jesus "the Lord."

Thomas, upon touching Christ's hands and side, acknowledged Him as Lord, and even went further and called Him his God.

Even the English translation says he isn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then it why doesn't it say, "Both My Lord, and my God."?

Because that's not how people speak.

And the context of the passage makes it abundantly clear.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Because that's not how people speak.

And the context of the passage makes it abundantly clear.

Adding the word 'both' is how you would address one object in English. Both are addressed separately with the equivalent of the Greek subjective case. Edit: It is ambiguous in the English intentionally, but the Grreek is a sentence without a verb, which Latin and English cannot do.

 

[Right Divider]

Adding the word 'both' is how you would address one object in English. Both are addressed separately with the equivalent of the Greek subjective case. Edit: It is ambiguous in the English intentionally, but the Grreek is a sentence without a verb, which Latin and English cannot do.

"My Lord and My God" implies BOTH... it is not necessary to use the word BOTH.

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

Yes, I had forgotten, but looking again you did not really discuss what AB Davidson actually said. The above post is most probably the first time that I posted the second part. I find this more interesting than discuss the few obscure ambiguous verses which Trinitarians use to support their obscure and contradictory 3rd-4th Century doctrine.

Kind regards
Trevor

The main thing is to understand Hebrew: It is a broad language because it was an initial language. What you'd then expect is what we find: one word most often with many meanings, because the vocabulary hasn't been built yet. Modern Hebrew has a much larger vocabulary as well as more added to differentiate people, actions, and descriptions.

In this case then, you 'cannot' argue for just "I will be" nor just "I Am." Davidson isn't wrong, in the sense that context of promise to Moses is important but as I said on the previous page: Most Hebrews read YHWH (tetragram) as "I Am." The reason is because the context isn't just given to Moses, but the same name he was to present to Pharaoh, the Jews, and the rest of Egypt. The necessity? Because Egyptians had many gods, none of them they were accountable to, thus "I Am" is more important to Egypt in conveyance. They needed to know their gods 'weren't' and that the Hebrew God 'WAS/AM/Existed/Exists and the Egyptian gods do not.'

So while you are more interested in what Davidson had to say (Because it agrees with an obscure small group of Christadelphians), the rest of us are interested in the whole of what God says. We literally have no need to support any particular theology, nothing that drives our understanding but the text itself. We don't have to import an sundry of ideas to protect a theology or church. We simply don't have the baggage you have to carry when entering every text of the Bible. We can let it alone, form our theology. It is a very good place to be. I'd continue to welcome you to triune understanding. The triune view is literally the least imposing, least presumptuous upon the text. It doesn't have to impose or import often. We can literally read the text without a lot of preconceived notions. For that alone, I'm happy for the councils. They made it so all those behind could simply read the text. Well, a few have become Unitarian because of that freedom, but I always have thought it is because they simply need more time reading the scriptures. I simply find it an under developed theology at that point as long as one is willing to continue learning, from God, from scriptures. I truly believe they, the scriptures themselves, point to these truths: 1) there is only one God/god. 2) The Father, Son, Spirit are called God in scripture. 3) Somehow, as to not harm any scripture from God very God, I have to continually reconcile these truths in a way that does no harm to any particular scripture because at times, a) I don't see how something is possible, being finite and b) I need to be molded by God more than 'trusting in my own intellect' Proverbs 3:5,6

In a very honest and brief summation, this IS my triune understanding and I believe it is more faithful to God and scripture because of it. It is admittedly a bit more child-like in approach, because I leave ownership of Who God is, to God alone and simply trust, at that point. It is, I believe, an incredibly honest and God-honoring approach, but the term is necessarily "Triune" at that point. -Lon

 

[JudgeRightly]

Adding the word 'both' is

Not required, even in Greek.

And certainly not needed by the context.

how you would address one object in English.

Well, no, it would be specifying two objects, not one.

Here's an example:

"The boss of me, and the friend of me."

No "both" needed.

You're grasping at straws here, Omni. You should stop.

Both are addressed separately with the equivalent of the Greek subjective case.

"The Lord of me and the God of me."

That's how it is written. It is written extremely clearly, that Thomas was stating that Jesus was his Lord, and that Jesus was His God.

Answer the question, Omni:

Was Thomas committing idolatry by calling Jesus His God? Or was Jesus God and Thomas was recognizing Him as such?

 

[Lon]

"My Lord and My God" implies BOTH... it is not necessary to use the word BOTH.

Sad you'd have to explain that, but yes. Correct: "And" means literally 'Both.' καί - it is literally in the text.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider, Lon and JudgeRightly,

You simply focus on what you want and ignore the rest. Jesus was GOD before He took on human flesh.
Joh 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Christ had glory with God long before He took on human flesh.

1. If you think that God is committing "all judgement" to "just a man"... you have a false "god".
2. It is not possible to honor "just a man" as one honors God.

I understand that Jesus in John 17:5 is alluding to Psalm 8:5 which prophesied of his future glory (but in the past tense) in the context of the creation. Jesus is the MAN appointed to judge the world in righteousness Acts 17:31 and he is eminently qualified as he is also the Son of God, and lived a life full of the Divine character grace and truth and he never sinned, and he has now been perfected and given immortality.

The reason is because the context isn't just given to Moses, but the same name he was to present to Pharaoh, the Jews, and the rest of Egypt. The necessity? Because Egyptians had many gods, none of them they were accountable to, thus "I Am" is more important to Egypt in conveyance. They needed to know their gods 'weren't' and that the Hebrew God 'WAS/AM/Existed/Exists and the Egyptian gods do not.'

As explained in my two opening posts and confirmed by AB Davidson, the message was about what God would accomplish in delivering Israel out of Egypt.

For that alone, I'm happy for the councils.

I received a book lately that describes how that many of the Church Fathers were Platonists and also that when they were introducing the concept of immortal souls that there was much discussion as to when the human received the immortal souls. Did it pre-exist, given at conception, or at birth. Many decided on birth, but Augustine seemed to favour pre-existence. Most ended up only Jesus pre-existed. Mormons agree with Augustine.

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

The title "Lord" was conferred on Jesus as explained by Peter in Acts 2:36 when expounding Psalm 110:1 "David's Lord". The title "God" in John 20:28 is less than the status "The Son of God" in John 20:30-31.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

The title "God" in John 20:28 is less than the status "The Son of God" in John 20:30-31.

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider, Lon and JudgeRightly,

I understand that Jesus in John 17:5 is alluding to Psalm 8:5 which prophesied of his future glory (but in the past tense) in the context of the creation. Jesus is the MAN appointed to judge the world in righteousness Acts 17:31 and he is eminently qualified as he is also the Son of God, and lived a life full of the Divine character grace and truth and he never sinned, and he has now been perfected and given immortality.

God would not give "all judgement" to anyone that is not God. That's just silly.

The reason that Jesus "lived a life full of the Divine character grace and truth and he never sinned" is because He is God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The title "Lord" was conferred on Jesus as explained by Peter in Acts 2:36 when expounding Psalm 110:1 "David's Lord".

And yet, just a few verses earlier, Peter refers to Christ as LORD (capital L small capital ORD).

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.For David says concerning Him: ‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” - Acts 2:22-37 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts2:22-37&version=NKJV

That ENTIRE PASSAGE is about Christ.

The title "God" in John 20:28 is less than the status "The Son of God" in John 20:30-31.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Trevor.

There is NO, I repeat, NO evidence that "THEOS" in verse 28 is referring to anything other than God.

Answer the question, Trevor:

Was Thomas committing idolatry by calling Jesus His God? Or was Jesus God and Thomas was recognizing Him as such?