Jesus is Jehovah? So Jehovah is Son in trinity?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

PS

Senior Member
Jan 11, 2013
4,476
555
113
Stop threatening and block me already, I couldn't care less friend, all it shows is that you can't handle facts and result in running away instead of tackling difficult ideas/questions.

Verses 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the point you and I were talking about, namely, whether Jesus was the Jehovah of the OT. Instead of dealing with what I said you create a strawman, where's the answer to my point/question? If Jesus was the God of the OT then why does it say of Jesus in the NT time period "Now at the end of these days he [God] has spoken to us by means of his Son"?

You again struggle to understand the scripture, Hebrews 1:1-3 doesn't say that Jesus made the universe, it states the Father made the universe NOT Jesus, re-read the verse:

(Hebrews 1:1-3) "..In the past, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he [God] made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his [Gods] being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.." (insertions mine)

As you can see it mentions God the Father and how he has spoken to man by "his son" and goes on to say that "through whom also he [God] made the universe". Hebrews 1:1-3 is undeniable proof that the Father is the creator since it was he the Father who created the world, doing so through his Son as the verse mentions.
In my house I do not want to be subject to reading the words of those who deny my and David's, Lord and Saviour (Psalm 110) so goodbye.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
In my house I do not want to be subject to reading the words of those who deny my and David's, Lord and Saviour (Psalm 110) so goodbye.
How can you say I deny anything when all I've been doing is repeating what the scriptures say in my own words, nothing I've said has been my own thoughts but simply scripture paraphrased. As I said before, if you can't handle hard facts then yes you should say your goodbyes, I'll stick with the bible, you stick with your own self contrived beliefs.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,519
476
83
Ancient Greek did not utilize capital letters, it was an ancient language, to someone reading ancient Greek they would not be able to tell whether or not 2 Cor 4:4 was God or god, to them God simply meant God, this I wasn't distoring anythign but was rather correcting the text to better express the original languages. What's more, is that the phrase "ho theos" which means "the God" was used. Whenever "ho theos" is used in the NT or the LXX it is always translated with a capital G (God), the only place scholars/translators do not do this is 2 Cor 4:4 and that's because it unanimous that Satan isn't God Almighty God, thus they translate it in English with a small g (god) so that readers, such as yourself, do not get confused by the original language's lack of capitalization.

Unanimous English translation including the NWT translated “to theos” here as “the god”. That makes you odd by correcting the text. In English translation, when difficulties arise, the context determines the right translation so that you will be able to distinguish the true God from the false god. If it does not refer to the “true God” then it must be translated in small g (god) and obviously Satan is not God Almighty. So, it is but correct that “ho theos” in this passage be translated “the god” and your correction is completely in error.
Here I am not talking not about your small god which is a false god. I quoted Christ is the true God but I fail to hear from you a counterpoint to what the scriptures says. You just gave some tweak lesson of your Greek. Below is the updated NWT as your reference.

NWT

among whom the god of this system of things*+ has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,+ so that the illumination* of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God,+ might not shine through.+
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,519
476
83
You ask, do I believe the bible and what it says, and my answer is yes, the question you need to ask is do you? Since you seem to reject the idea that Satan is a type of God/god despite 2 Cor 4:4 saying so. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, all I did is ask you for the evidence of a claim you made.

Of course, yes! I am not changing mine, I believe the bible all throughout. Now, I see, you are trying to make believe that I reject the idea that “ Satan is a type of God/god”. I reject your idea that “Satan is called God” in the English language and I think it is now you that have changed. As your previous post you claim that “Satan is called God” but now “Satan is a type of God/god”. Inconsistency at its best!
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,519
476
83
We can see from Psalm 83:18 that Jehovah is referred to as the " Most High" - "May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalm 83:18). Further to this, Luke 1:31-32 states the following in regards to Jesus:

"..And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus. 32 This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father.."

As you can see, Jehovah is the most high, Jesus is later referred to not as the Most high but rather the Son of the Most high, this shows clearly that Jesus isn't Jehovah who is the most high, if he was then he wouldn't be the son of that one.
Umm...You try to teach me a lesson on Greek why not teach me here of Luke 1:31-32 especially the Greek word “kyrios” before wresting the scriptures which will give you another error. Would you make another try?

Thanks,
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
2,519
476
83
How can you say I deny anything when all I've been doing is repeating what the scriptures say in my own words, nothing I've said has been my own thoughts but simply scripture paraphrased. As I said before, if you can't handle hard facts then yes you should say your goodbyes, I'll stick with the bible, you stick with your own self contrived beliefs.
You said "own words" meaning private interpretation. What's comes out in your mouth, comes from within, your thoughts. Wait God's thought is not your though, God's word is not your word. Paraphrasing means IOW to produce clarity but then again I fail to see that in your posts.
 

bluto

Senior Member
Aug 4, 2016
1,508
243
63
Isaiah was a jewish prophet, thus the Jewish God was the Father Jehovah, do you deny this?
Sorry for taking so long to post but I was having problems posting an answer to what you ask me. I did save what I posted and am posting it here just for simplicity.

First let me say I did not click a thumbs up on your post. I hit by accident and I just now undid it. Ok, what Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have to do with Revlation 3:14 is the fact that the Revelation verse backs up that Jesus is the creator because Jesus is God. Why else would I bring up John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14.




You should also know I too am big on "CONTEXT," in fact it's vital. If I was to use the word "barj" you would not know what I meant unless I used it in context. I could be referring to the bark of a tree or to the bark of a dog, context is king. Like I said, that word beginning in Greek is "arche" which is defined as "source, or "orgin." Not the first created as you think Proverbs 8:22 is teaching.




The point being if Jesus is the first created then how can He also be the creator of all things and without Him nothing has come into being that has come into being. John 1:3. Also, notice Colossians 1:17 where it says, "And He is before all things, and in Him BY Him all things hold together. Also notice vs18, He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything."




When it says He is the firstborn (prototokos), from the dead it means He was the first to rise from the real of the dead in a permanent fashion. Please read Revelation 1:5. Keep in mind that "firsborn" does not always mean to be literally born.




Now, I brought up Isaiah 44:24 that God said He created everything all alone and by Himself. You said in the context that God was talking about false gods and diviners etc. vs25. How does that context that you brought up somehow make void that God created everything all alone and by Himself? You can't have it both ways where Jesus is created and then somehow you say He existed before creation.




There is also one more thing I would like to say and that is that Jesus Christ existed in the Old Testament before He incarnated as a man. He existed and first appeared in the Old Testament as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. And let me say I am "NOT" saying Jesus was an angel. Something for you to think about and address if you want, I leave it up to you. :eek:




IN GOD THE SON,

bluto
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
Unanimous English translation including the NWT translated “to theos” here as “the god”. That makes you odd by correcting the text. In English translation, when difficulties arise, the context determines the right translation so that you will be able to distinguish the true God from the false god. If it does not refer to the “true God” then it must be translated in small g (god) and obviously Satan is not God Almighty. So, it is but correct that “ho theos” in this passage be translated “the god” and your correction is completely in error.
Here I am not talking not about your small god which is a false god. I quoted Christ is the true God but I fail to hear from you a counterpoint to what the scriptures says. You just gave some tweak lesson of your Greek. Below is the updated NWT as your reference.

NWT

among whom the god of this system of things*+ has blinded the minds of the unbelievers,+ so that the illumination* of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God,+ might not shine through.+
As I mentioned the original Greek did not use capitalization as they do in english, when they wrote they wrote every single word in capitals. And again as I mentioned, translators, including translators of the NWT, translated it with a small g as it is unanimous that 2 Cor 4:4 is referring to a different lesser type of GOD that that of almighty GOD, thus so as to not confuse bible readers adopted a small g. . No translation translates from Greek literally, they change words, expressions and even add words in so the reader is to better understand an ancient language.

Untitled.jpg

The above image is a page from the codex Vaticanus (3rd CE) showing the opening of 2 Cor chapter 4, show me where there is a single usage of an uncapitalized letter for 2 Cor 4:4 to read "the god" over "the God"? We can both see there isn't one since as I've stated they didn't use capitalization as they do in modern English. 2 Cor 4:4 rightly reads "the God of this world", it can be translated "the god of this world" for the benefit of everyday Bible readers, but again, if I was a greek reader back then I would be reading this verse as "THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HAS BLINDED THE MINDS OF THE UNBELIEVERS".

Translators translating 2 Cor 4:4 were correct to translate "ho theos" as "the god" as you are a prime example of the issue going way over the everyday readers head, even when presented with the facts of the matter. You are currently trying to win an argument against facts right now, good luck.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
Of course, yes! I am not changing mine, I believe the bible all throughout. Now, I see, you are trying to make believe that I reject the idea that “ Satan is a type of God/god”. I reject your idea that “Satan is called God” in the English language and I think it is now you that have changed. As your previous post you claim that “Satan is called God” but now “Satan is a type of God/god”. Inconsistency at its best!
The inconsistency with my writing was down to your confusion regards the linguistics of ancient Greek when compared to modern English translations, I was trying to write in such a way to better enable you to understand, this clearly didn't work. Since I've already given you the reasons why 2 Cor 4:4 translates Satan with a small G which you've clearly rejected, based on what should Satan be referred to as "the god" over the rendering the "GOD"

I'll make it simple for you then, do you agree with the Greek that according to 2 Cor 4:4 Satan is/was "THE GOD OF THE WOLRD" (ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος)?
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
Umm...You try to teach me a lesson on Greek why not teach me here of Luke 1:31-32 especially the Greek word “kyrios” before wresting the scriptures which will give you another error. Would you make another try?

Thanks,
What does the usage of “kyrios” in Luke 1:31-32 have anything to do with the point I made about Jesus being the Son of the most High when you compare Jehovah being labelled the "Most High" in Pslams 83:18 and Jesus being called the "Son of the Most High" in Luke 1:31-32?

Btw, was Jehovah labelled as the "Most High" in Psalms 83:18 and was Jesus referred to the "Son of" that one in Luke 1:31-32? If your answer is yes, then how is Jesus -whom you believe is the Most High in Psalm 83:18- the Son of himself?

fredoheaven said:
You said "own words" meaning private interpretation. What's comes out in your mouth, comes from within, your thoughts. Wait God's thought is not your though, God's word is not your word. Paraphrasing means IOW to produce clarity but then again I fail to see that in your posts.
You misquote and misunderstand me, I said I was "repeating what the scriptures say in my own words", repeating a document in one's own words is called paraphrasing, are you thus claiming paraphrasing is the same as private interpretation? I would think not.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
9,404
3,093
113
Btw, was Jehovah labelled as the "Most High" in Psalms 83:18 and was Jesus referred to the "Son of" that one in Luke 1:31-32? If your answer is yes, then how is Jesus -whom you believe is the Most High in Psalm 83:18- the Son of himself?
How about if you keep it simple and believe that YHWH or YHVH (translated as the LORD in the KJV) applies to BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON? Why should anyone have a problem with that?

APPLIED TO THE FATHER (Psalm 110:1)
The LORD [the Father] said unto my Lord [the Son], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

APPLIED TO THE SON AT THE BATTLE OF ARMAGEDDON (Zech 14:3,5)
Then shall the LORD [the Son] go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle... And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God [the Son] shall come, and all the saints with thee [the Son].
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
Sorry for taking so long to post but I was having problems posting an answer to what you ask me. I did save what I posted and am posting it here just for simplicity.

First let me say I did not click a thumbs up on your post. I hit by accident and I just now undid it. Ok, what Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have to do with Revlation 3:14 is the fact that the Revelation verse backs up that Jesus is the creator because Jesus is God. Why else would I bring up John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14.

You should also know I too am big on "CONTEXT," in fact it's vital. If I was to use the word "barj" you would not know what I meant unless I used it in context. I could be referring to the bark of a tree or to the bark of a dog, context is king. Like I said, that word beginning in Greek is "arche" which is defined as "source, or "orgin." Not the first created as you think Proverbs 8:22 is teaching.

The point being if Jesus is the first created then how can He also be the creator of all things and without Him nothing has come into being that has come into being. John 1:3. Also, notice Colossians 1:17 where it says, "And He is before all things, and in Him BY Him all things hold together. Also notice vs18, He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything."

When it says He is the firstborn (prototokos), from the dead it means He was the first to rise from the real of the dead in a permanent fashion. Please read Revelation 1:5. Keep in mind that "firsborn" does not always mean to be literally born.

IN GOD THE SON,

bluto
There's no need to apologise in getting back to me friend.

You've seemed to have said a lot and ignored a lot of what I've said too. You're running with the idea that Jesus is the creator but you didn't give a reply to anything I said in regards to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6. As I do not want to keep reapting the same thing over and over and have vital parts of my reasoning go ingored I'll ask you a couple questions about the verses.

When Hebrews 1:1,2 states the Father created the world through his son, who should rightly be labelled the originator or source of creation, (A) the person who creates the world through someone, or (B) the person the Father uses to create all things through?

"..God...at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." (Hebrews 1:1, 2)

When 1 Cor 8:6 states all things are from the Father and all things are through Jesus who should be labelled as the originator or source of creation, (A) the person whom all things are from or (B), the person through whom all things are?

"..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor 8:6)

Like I said, that word beginning in Greek is "arche" which is defined as "source, or "orgin." Not the first created as you think Proverbs 8:22 is teaching"
Firstly, I don't think the Greek word "arche" means first created, I've never said this or argued this, I simply believe it means "beginning", it can also mean other things such "ruler".

Secondly, and as I've already stated, "arche" never means source or orgin in the bible, not even once, you keep saying this without a shred of evidence. Show me a single usage of the word "arche" being used where translators have translated it to mean "source", "origin", "originator" or like word, you will never find an example because the word is never used to convey that meaning. The "arche" source/origin argument has simply been used to try and hide the fact that Rev 3:14 states Jesus was the "beginning of creation by God", Trinitarians want the word "beginning" in Rev 3:13 to mean "beginner of creation" despite the original greek never having that meaning.

Now, I brought up Isaiah 44:24 that God said He created everything all alone and by Himself. You said in the context that God was talking about false gods and diviners etc. vs25. How does that context that you brought up somehow make void that God created everything all alone and by Himself? You can't have it both ways where Jesus is created and then somehow you say He existed before creation.
As I've mentioned, Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 clearly has the Father as the one whom all things are from, the Father Jehovah is the source of creation, Jesus is the person whom the Father used as an agent to create all things through, as Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 say. So when the Father Jehovah says in Isaiah 44:24 "I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me" he was speaking in the context of how he made the world, the way Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 describe it, that being that HE created the world alone, doing so through the Son.

Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 dont say that things are from Jesus or that Jesus created the world through someone, they say all things are from the Father and the Father created the universe through Jesus, the Father was alone when doing this, no one else was there for the text to read "the Father and XXXX created the world through Jesus" like in Hebrews 1:1,2 or "the Father and XXXX from whom all things are" like in 1 Cor 8:6, they attribute this action to one person and one person alone, the Father.

It is fitting that Jesus is the one whom the Father used to create the world through since Prov 8:22 when compared to Prov 8:30 states "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago... Then I was beside him as a master worker.." (Proverbs 8:30). The Father created Jesus, he then used Jesus and created the world through him, this ties in exactly with what Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 say, that the created the world through Jesus and that all things are from the Father and through Jesus, the Father used Jesus as his "master worker", even the early church fathers recognised this and claimed this is what the said verses meant.

There is also one more thing I would like to say and that is that Jesus Christ existed in the Old Testament before He incarnated as a man. He existed and first appeared in the Old Testament as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. And let me say I am "NOT" saying Jesus was an angel. Something for you to think about and address if you want, I leave it up to you. :eek:
If it was Jesus who was the "angel/malek of Yahweh" in Genesis 16:7 and other appearances then this would mean Jesus was part of the group spoken about here "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways" (Hebrews 1:1), the apostle Paul clearly stated that "God spoke to the forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways", so if Jesus was the person making appearances as you claim then he's part of that statement of how God spoke to the forefathers, yet what does v2 of Hebrews 1 say, it reads:

"..Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe.."

As we can see Paul was making a clear contrast between the OT and NT, one being that "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways" but "now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son". On one hand God spoke on many occasions and in many ways but now he was addressing his people through his son Jesus, BUT you claim it WAS Jesus who God used to Long ago in the OT, this in effect makes Pauls statement meaningless and contradictory. Hebrews 1:1,2 is clear proof that God ONLY started using Jesus to speak to the world from period of the NT., unless you want Gods inspired writing to be incorrect.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
How about if you keep it simple and believe that YHWH or YHVH (translated as the LORD in the KJV) applies to BOTH THE FATHER AND THE SON? Why should anyone have a problem with that?

APPLIED TO THE FATHER (Psalm 110:1)
The LORD [the Father] said unto my Lord [the Son], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

APPLIED TO THE SON AT THE BATTLE OF ARMAGEDDON (Zech 14:3,5)
Then shall the LORD [the Son] go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle... And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God [the Son] shall come, and all the saints with thee [the Son].
(Psalm 110:1) "..YHWH declared to my Lord [Jesus]: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”.." (brackets mine adopting the understood prophetic identity of "my lord" uncapitalized)

(Zechariah 14:3) “..
YHWH will go out and war against those nations as when he fights in the day of a battle...You will flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains will extend all the way to Aʹzel. You will have to flee, just as you fled because of the earthquake in the days of King Uz·ziʹah of Judah. And YHWH my God will come, and all the holy ones will be with him.."

I don't get it, where do the above scriptures identify the Son as being YHWH, I can see where you have inserted [the Son] but this is mere speculation on your part, where do the scripture themselves show this for you to insert the Son in the said passage? I have only ever seen the name YHWH applied to the Father, the Father was most definitely YHWH, the God of the Jews in the OT.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,653
6,351
113
God said
(Genesis 1:3)
In the beginning was the Word
(John 1:1)
for He spake, and it was
(Psalm 33:9)
and the Word was God
(John 1:1)
 
R

Rasputin_OZ

Guest
You are talking about the god of the Jews The name of Creator God on earth is Jesus. The Jews killed his flesh, they have another god.
Oh no, God of the Jews is the only God. The Jews are his select people , but he loves all.

His name given to Moses was Eloheem, meaning more than one God. it is plural, as in Genisis , let us create man in OUR image.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
Oh no, God of the Jews is the only God. The Jews are his select people , but he loves all.

His name given to Moses was Eloheem, meaning more than one God. it is plural, as in Genisis , let us create man in OUR image.
Elohim/Eloheem is not a name but rather a title and it means God. Further, Elohim does not mean "more than one God" as you made it seem but is just in the plural form and relates to a "`plural' of majesty or excellence". Also, the name of God/Elohim given to Moses by God/Elohim was YHWH/Yahweh.

(Exodus 6:2, 3) "..Then God said to Moses: “I am Yahweh.  And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but with regard to my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.."
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
9,404
3,093
113
I don't get it, where do the above scriptures identify the Son as being YHWH, I can see where you have inserted [the Son] but this is mere speculation on your part, where do the scripture themselves show this for you to insert the Son in the said passage? I have only ever seen the name YHWH applied to the Father, the Father was most definitely YHWH, the God of the Jews in the OT.
You don't get it because YOU DON'T WANT TO GET IT.

It is not mere speculation but Bible exposition if you know your Bible. It is the Lord Jesus Christ (the Son) who comes with His saints and angels to the Battle of Armageddon (see Revelation 19). Yet Zechariah calls Him YHWH, and in fact "the LORD (YHWH) my God (ELOHIM)". Now note carefully what Enoch prophesied long before Zechariah:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14,15).

This corresponds to Zechariah 14:5: ...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Because Jesus is God, He too is YHWH and ELOHIM. This is something to be believed with all your heart -- not your head. And the Father calls Him "God" (Heb 1:8,9).
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
360
1
18
You don't get it because YOU DON'T WANT TO GET IT.

It is not mere speculation but Bible exposition if you know your Bible. It is the Lord Jesus Christ (the Son) who comes with His saints and angels to the Battle of Armageddon (see Revelation 19). Yet Zechariah calls Him YHWH, and in fact "the LORD (YHWH) my God (ELOHIM)". Now note carefully what Enoch prophesied long before Zechariah:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14,15).

This corresponds to Zechariah 14:5: ...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. .
I don't get it because the reasoning is not well thought out. I think its a bit of a stretch to say that since Zech 14:5 states YHWH is coming, and Revelation states Jesus is coming that Jesus must be YHWH.

In Revelation we have Jehovah sitting on the throne and Jesus displayed as a separate person from the one sitting on the throne, we know Jesus is separate from the one sitting on the throne because its Jesus who takes the scroll from the one sitting on the throne:

(Revelation 4:1-3) "...a throne was in its position in heaven, and someone was seated on the throne. And the one seated is, in appearance, like a jasper stone...As for the four living creatures, each one of them had six wings; they were full of eyes all around and underneath. And continuously, day and night, they say: “Holy, holy, holy is Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is coming.”...And I saw in the right hand of the One seated upon the throne a scroll....But no one in heaven or on earth or underneath the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it....“Stop weeping. Look! The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has conquered so as to open the scroll and its seven seals...And I saw standing in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a lamb...
he [the lamb] went and at once took [the scroll] out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne
..."

As you can see Jesus is a separate person from the one seated on the throne since he takes the scroll from the one seated on the throne. The one sitting on the throne is Jehovah the Father, it says regarding him in v3 that he is the one "who is coming". Jesus too is coming but to say Jesus is YHWH since both he is said to be coming and so is the Father is a stretch made too often by most. This is because Jesus often spoke about coming in the Father name and doing the will of the Father.

(John 5:43) "..I have come in the name of my Father.."

(John 6:38) "..for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.."

Since after Jesus conquest he doesn't hold onto the spoils but rather hands all things back to the Father (See 1 Corinthians 15:24), the one sitting on the throne, and always does things for the will of the Father it only makes sense that Jesus was sent by God on behalf of him to judge and execute wicked mankind in revelation.

This fits in with other scripture that states "the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judging to the Son", Jesus acts on behalfs of the Father, the one who sits on the throne. Thus the Father YHWH is coming, he coming by means of his son who he has entrusted to come on his behalf.

Because Jesus is God, He too is YHWH and ELOHIM. This is something to be believed with all your heart -- not your head. And the Father calls Him "God" (Heb 1:8,9)
But what type of God was God the Father calling Jesus in Hebrews 1:8, that is the question you must ask yourseld. Hebrews 1:8 is a quote from the OT, specifically Psalms 45. Psalms 45 is in regards to a past Israelite King (possibly king Solomon), Psalms 45 states:

(Psalm 45:1, 2,5,6,9,12) "..I say: “My song is about a king.”... You are the most handsome of the sons of men. Gracious speech flows from your lips. That is why God has blessed you forever... Your arrows are sharp... they pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies. Your thone O God is forever and ever; The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. 7 You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.... The daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor...The daughter of Tyre will come with a gift.."

(Hebrews 1:8, 9) "..But about the Son, he [the Father] says: “Your throne O God forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”.."

As you can see what was said about this Israelite King is exactly the same thing the Father said to Jesus. Now, in what sense was this human sinful King in Psalms 45 God? Was he almighty God, certainly not, he must have been the same type of God Moses was (Exo 7:1) that men were (John 10:34), that Angels were (Psalms 82:1,5,6) and that Satan was (2 Cor 4:4), that being a mighty and powerful entity or someone who has divine appointed by the Almighty. What we cannot do however is a claim that the "God" the Father called Jesus when quoting a verse about a non-almighty God/god meaning suddenly changed to the meaning of God in the almighty sense. The writer could have picked any verse in the entire OT and applied it to Christ, what are the chances in the single time that he does that he picks a verse where the application of God is in regards to somebody where the term expressed is in the secondary lesser god type sense, like angels, Men and Moses. Hebrews 1:8 certainly isn't proof that Jesus is almighty God.

What's more v9 goes onto contradict the scripture if Jesus being called God here was in the almighty sense since it states in regards to Jesus "That is why God, your God, anointed you with oil", Almighty God doesn't have a God! Jesus pre-crucifixion sure HAD to worship God under the law, but NOT the post-resurrected Jesus. How can the post-resurrected Jesus who has been appointed above everything in Heaven and on Earth and has the highest name (See Phil 2:8-11) have a God above him, it's ludicrous. Obviously the sense of Jesus being called God in Hebrews 1:8 was in the lesser sense of the word as it was in Psalms 45.