Can I say YHWH?
- Thread starter Jordan_7_2_1
- Start date
-
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.
KJV Psalm 83:18
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
ASV Exodus 3:15
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.
ASV Exodus 3:15
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Ignatius clearly affirms Christ is God.
Irenaeus clearly affirms Christ is God.
Tertullian clearly affirms Christ is God.
even the most cursory study of the history of the church reveals that it is absolute lunacy to deny that the belief in the deity of Christ has been a core, undisputed doctrine since the beginning, and the scripture itself attests to this truth hundreds of times.
flatly, denying that Christ is God is heresy, @TiggerTwo.
Irenaeus clearly affirms Christ is God.
Tertullian clearly affirms Christ is God.
even the most cursory study of the history of the church reveals that it is absolute lunacy to deny that the belief in the deity of Christ has been a core, undisputed doctrine since the beginning, and the scripture itself attests to this truth hundreds of times.
flatly, denying that Christ is God is heresy, @TiggerTwo.
-
1
- Show all
..........................................................
As already posted in #19 above: "The OT Greek Septuagint uses "me" (in existing copies, at least - 4th century A.D. and later), but it is significantly different from the Hebrew text: "They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [friend], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn [son]." - Zech. 12:10, Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976 printing. In other words, (1) they will look upon God whom they have mocked [not "pierced"] as their judgment arrives and (2) they will mourn Christ. The two are not the same person here, nor the same God!"
.......................................................
As already posted in #19 above: "The OT Greek Septuagint uses "me" (in existing copies, at least - 4th century A.D. and later), but it is significantly different from the Hebrew text: "They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [friend], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn [son]." - Zech. 12:10, Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976 printing. In other words, (1) they will look upon God whom they have mocked [not "pierced"] as their judgment arrives and (2) they will mourn Christ. The two are not the same person here, nor the same God!"
.......................................................
......................................................
Often words such as "is," "are." etc. were not written in names but understood by the reader. "Immanuel" is often understood this way. See #6005 in the Hebrew Dictionary portion of the NASB Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible [also Strong's]. Many Bibles also give the translation of this name as "God is with us" in their footnotes.
This expression ("God is with us") was a common one among the Israelites. It was not intended literally, but that God was on their side or helping them.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:
“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.
Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:
“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. (emphasis added)
Often words such as "is," "are." etc. were not written in names but understood by the reader. "Immanuel" is often understood this way. See #6005 in the Hebrew Dictionary portion of the NASB Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible [also Strong's]. Many Bibles also give the translation of this name as "God is with us" in their footnotes.
This expression ("God is with us") was a common one among the Israelites. It was not intended literally, but that God was on their side or helping them.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:
“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.
Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:
“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. (emphasis added)
modern liberal nonsense.
Ignatius, epistle to the Trallians, chapter X:
very clearly Ignatius cites Zechariah 12:10 as proof that YHVH Himself did truly clothe Himself with flesh and become a man - and does so in order to rebuke what he calls "unbelievers" - like yourself.
Ignatius, epistle to the Trallians, chapter X:
But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, He became man in appearance [only], that He did not in reality take unto Him a body, that He died in appearance [merely], and did not in very deed suffer, then for what reason am I now in bonds, and long to be exposed to the wild beasts? In such a case, I die in vain, and am guilty of falsehood against the cross of the Lord.
Then also does the prophet in vain declare, they shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn over themselves as over one beloved.
These men, therefore, are not less unbelievers than were those that crucified Him.
But as for me, I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth. Mary then did truly conceive a body which had God inhabiting it. And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own.
very clearly Ignatius cites Zechariah 12:10 as proof that YHVH Himself did truly clothe Himself with flesh and become a man - and does so in order to rebuke what he calls "unbelievers" - like yourself.
absolutely worthless rubbish.
the Greek of God's word that explains the meaning of Immanuel specifically includes the word "with"
and the Holy Spirit says the birth of the Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecy, not the birth of a child during the time of Ahaz - during which time no child was ever born of a virgin!!
YHVH spoke through Isaiah saying the Messiah's name would be called God with us, but no one ever called Him Immanuel in the recorded NT. but what they did say of Him, and all who do believe Him - excluding what unbelieving false sheep now blasphemously teach - is that YHVH, Who is the Word, became flesh and pitched His tent among us.
YHVH set aside His glory and lived with us.
God
with
us.
Matthew 1:22-23
So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."
the Greek of God's word that explains the meaning of Immanuel specifically includes the word "with"
and the Holy Spirit says the birth of the Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecy, not the birth of a child during the time of Ahaz - during which time no child was ever born of a virgin!!
YHVH spoke through Isaiah saying the Messiah's name would be called God with us, but no one ever called Him Immanuel in the recorded NT. but what they did say of Him, and all who do believe Him - excluding what unbelieving false sheep now blasphemously teach - is that YHVH, Who is the Word, became flesh and pitched His tent among us.
YHVH set aside His glory and lived with us.
God
with
us.
.......................................................................................
Tertullian, On the resurrection of the flesh, Ch. 26.
”it is written: ’For they shall look on Him whom they pierced.’” Zechariah 12:10
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk 4, Ch. 33
”They shall look on Him whom they have pierced, Zechariah 12:10 ”
But of far more importance, the Apostle John quotes Zech. 12:10 at John 19:37.
Tertullian, On the resurrection of the flesh, Ch. 26.
”it is written: ’For they shall look on Him whom they pierced.’” Zechariah 12:10
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk 4, Ch. 33
”They shall look on Him whom they have pierced, Zechariah 12:10 ”
But of far more importance, the Apostle John quotes Zech. 12:10 at John 19:37.
Justin Martyr
(c. 100-165 A.D.)
Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called “the most outstanding of the ‘Apologists,’” wrote: God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).
But,
Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son - ANF 1:167 (‘Apology’).
Nevertheless, in Justin’s picture, as later in Tertullian’s, the generation of the Logos takes place only with a view to the world’s creation. The Son, therefore, is not co-eternal with God; Moreover, he exists to provide a mediator between God and the cosmos in creation and revelation, as the language of John 1:3 and 1:18, not to mention 1 Corinthians 8:6, seemed to suggest. Thus, the Logos theology appeared to introduce a ‘second God’ {deuteros theos ‘a second god’ was the well-known term used by Philo and many of the second century Christian writers - see the LOGOS study} inconsistently with the principle of monotheism; and further, it suggested that the Logos represented a secondary grade or kind of divinity. It ‘subordinated’ the Son to the Father. - p. 84, A History of the Christian Church, Walker (trinitarian), Scribner’s, 1985 printing.
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, tells us:
“ ... another sentence from {Justin Martyr} ... ‘There is, as has been said, another god and lord {the Son of God} below the Creator of the universe’ ” - Vol. 9, p. 15.
Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) in a dialogue with the Jew Trypho says:
God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an angel, then God {'a god,' anarthrous theos}, and then Lord and Logos .... For He can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will .... The Word of Wisdom ... speaks by Solomon {Prov. 8:22-30} the following: ‘.... The Lord {‘Jehovah’, original Hebrew manuscripts - cf. ASV} made me the beginning of His ways for His works.’ ANF 1:227-228 (‘Dialogue’).
And later in the same dialogue with Trypho Justin again relates the words of Wisdom, the pre-existent Son of God,
‘The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works ...’ You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created... - ANF 1:264 (‘Dialogue’).
A saying of Justin Martyr indicates what lack of clarity there was with regard to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as late as the middle of the second century .... He admits that Christians indeed reject the false pagan gods, but, he goes on to say, they do not deny the true God, who is the Father of justice and chastity and of all other virtues, and who will have nothing to do with that which is evil. He then says, ‘Both him {The Father, God alone} and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, because we honor {them?} in reason and truth.’ As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped {but see the WORSHIP study} by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit. The sequence in which the beings that are worshiped are mentioned (God the Father, Christ, the {OTHER} angels, the Spirit) is noteworthy. - pp. 43, 44, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), likewise notes concerning the above:
“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’” - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,” Ch. VI]. “This is why Justin could place the ‘army of angels’ ahead of the ‘prophetic spirit,’ as we have seen: for him the Spirit was not ... personal [in fact Grant calls the Spirit ‘it’ - p. 63].” - p. 62, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Notice how worship (or ‘obeisance’) is given to the Son “and the host of other good angels.” Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel! - See the REAPS study.
Trinitarian scholar Dr. H. R. Boer tells us that the very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship with God in their writings were the Apologists, Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. - p. 110, Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.
(c. 100-165 A.D.)
Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called “the most outstanding of the ‘Apologists,’” wrote: God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).
But,
Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son - ANF 1:167 (‘Apology’).
Nevertheless, in Justin’s picture, as later in Tertullian’s, the generation of the Logos takes place only with a view to the world’s creation. The Son, therefore, is not co-eternal with God; Moreover, he exists to provide a mediator between God and the cosmos in creation and revelation, as the language of John 1:3 and 1:18, not to mention 1 Corinthians 8:6, seemed to suggest. Thus, the Logos theology appeared to introduce a ‘second God’ {deuteros theos ‘a second god’ was the well-known term used by Philo and many of the second century Christian writers - see the LOGOS study} inconsistently with the principle of monotheism; and further, it suggested that the Logos represented a secondary grade or kind of divinity. It ‘subordinated’ the Son to the Father. - p. 84, A History of the Christian Church, Walker (trinitarian), Scribner’s, 1985 printing.
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, tells us:
“ ... another sentence from {Justin Martyr} ... ‘There is, as has been said, another god and lord {the Son of God} below the Creator of the universe’ ” - Vol. 9, p. 15.
Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) in a dialogue with the Jew Trypho says:
God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an angel, then God {'a god,' anarthrous theos}, and then Lord and Logos .... For He can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will .... The Word of Wisdom ... speaks by Solomon {Prov. 8:22-30} the following: ‘.... The Lord {‘Jehovah’, original Hebrew manuscripts - cf. ASV} made me the beginning of His ways for His works.’ ANF 1:227-228 (‘Dialogue’).
And later in the same dialogue with Trypho Justin again relates the words of Wisdom, the pre-existent Son of God,
‘The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works ...’ You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created... - ANF 1:264 (‘Dialogue’).
A saying of Justin Martyr indicates what lack of clarity there was with regard to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as late as the middle of the second century .... He admits that Christians indeed reject the false pagan gods, but, he goes on to say, they do not deny the true God, who is the Father of justice and chastity and of all other virtues, and who will have nothing to do with that which is evil. He then says, ‘Both him {The Father, God alone} and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, because we honor {them?} in reason and truth.’ As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped {but see the WORSHIP study} by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit. The sequence in which the beings that are worshiped are mentioned (God the Father, Christ, the {OTHER} angels, the Spirit) is noteworthy. - pp. 43, 44, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), likewise notes concerning the above:
“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’” - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,” Ch. VI]. “This is why Justin could place the ‘army of angels’ ahead of the ‘prophetic spirit,’ as we have seen: for him the Spirit was not ... personal [in fact Grant calls the Spirit ‘it’ - p. 63].” - p. 62, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Notice how worship (or ‘obeisance’) is given to the Son “and the host of other good angels.” Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel! - See the REAPS study.
Trinitarian scholar Dr. H. R. Boer tells us that the very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship with God in their writings were the Apologists, Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. - p. 110, Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.