KingdomRose
New member
Even though they were responsible for Jesus' murder, and they rejected him as their Messiah? (Acts 2:36)
JESUS IS NOT YHWH
- Thread starter KingdomRose
- Start date
- Status
Even though they were responsible for Jesus' murder, and they rejected him as their Messiah? (Acts 2:36)
KingdomRose
New member
It is rare for a post to ever be "too long," if readers are really looking for a meaningful discussion. I think it shows blatant pomposity and lack of humility for someone to be asking questions and yet choose to skip over someone's well-thought-out post.
KingdomRose
New member
Doesn't the Bible teach love and kindness and carefully training and caring for children, and teaching those who may not understand Christ's pronouncements rather than stretching them on a rack until their joints pop? How could it stand in favor of the molestation of children, burning people at the stake, and all of the atrocities of the Inquisition? You say that you agree with the Bible. Then how can you accept what the RCC has done in past centuries, right up to this day?
Yowsa
Be careful daqq,....that may be TOO LONG For Nihilo to read.
From my view, all is resolved because 'God' is the sole central, universal, eternal and infinite reality, omnipresently so. Always, forever, within and without. This view of Spirit is of course a bit too much for some, since is beholds 'God' as the sole absolute reality, while all else is but 'relative' in relation to it, and undergoes distortion to varying degrees in the process of translation/interpretation...but this is how information is carried,....as the 'logos' of the Spirit is filtered thru mortal minds. - all 'translation/interpretation' is a modification or distortion attempting to represent the original idea, essence or thought.
Anyways,.....I remember in the chatbox some time ago having fun speaking about 'pontificating',...and telling another that doing so was like wearing pointy pontiff hatsIt would be like a conference room of many popes (or cardinals depending on the hat of the day) debating,...bobbing those hats together as in a sword duel - anyways, I digress....but do enjoy seeing some universal pagan ideas, teachings and concepts "popping" up in the 'church', (gasp) - some of these adaptations were inevitable, since universal precepts and principles were already intuited by 'country folk'(pagans) who were in tune with the Creator naturally by being in tune with Creation (Nature). Just like most religious feasts and festivals revolve around the moving of the sun, moon and stars, and reflect the transformation of consciousness in the soul of man as he ascends in God-consciousness, becoming the 'Christ' (the anointed one, realizing his sonship with God), one new creation or 'begetting' by spiritual rebirth into the kingdom.
In the doctrine of the Master every person is likened to a house with his or her own household "members", and therefore like a little community, like a city with seven little "congregations" of his or her own to watch over. That is why we are forewarned to test the spirits and not allow anything that disregards the good message into our "house", (for every person is also likened to the porter of the door of his or her own house while the Master of the house is as if "away in a far journey", Mark 13:34-37). It appears that in the house of Nihilo the Son of Man has nowhere to even lay his head; for all his branches are already full of the nests of Pharaoh-Popes and cardinals, (tweet, tweet, lol), for every person is also likened to a tree. There is therefore one decree for the corrupt tree, (Daniel 4:13,14,15,16,17).
RevTestament
New member
Heya there Daqq. Long time. Care to be specific? Exactly what changes are you stressin' 'bout?
Hey, good to see you back around RT.
Well, you know, eh? Instances like the Codex Bezae version of Luke 3:22, (which still contains the full Psalm 2:7 decree that states, "Your are My Son, This day I have begotten you"), and so on and so on. Why would they wish to remove the Psalm 2:7 DECREE OF GOD ALMIGHTY from both the Matthew and Luke immersion accounts? It is called the "Eternal Son" doctrine and was formulated in the late second and third centuries. That is the problem when a mother plays the harlot and decides to marry the Emperor of Rome, (Constantine), for the sake of ultimate physical power and authority over the masses: she gets to rewrite holy scriptures to suit her whims.
KingdomRose
New member
Re. RevTestament's post #1005.....
Welcome to the thread.
What are your thoughts about the subject? Do you feel that Jesus is YHWH?
Perhaps before you answer you could go through some of the past posts.
Welcome to the thread.
What are your thoughts about the subject? Do you feel that Jesus is YHWH?
Perhaps before you answer you could go through some of the past posts.
RevTestament
New member
Come now Daqq. That answer is quite deficientHey, good to see you back around RT.
Well, you know, eh? Instances like the Codex Bezae version of Luke 3:22, (which still contains the full Psalm 2:7 decree that states, "Your are My Son, This day I have begotten you"), and so on and so on. Why would they wish to remove the Psalm 2:7 DECREE OF GOD ALMIGHTY from both the Matthew and Luke immersion accounts? It is called the "Eternal Son" doctrine and was formulated in the late second and third centuries. That is the problem when a mother plays the harlot and decides to marry the Emperor of Rome, (Constantine), for the sake of ultimate physical power and authority over the masses: she gets to rewrite holy scriptures to suit her whims.
It doesn't deserve a rep point...I know you. You can do better than that.
Come now Daqq. That answer is quite deficient
I know you. You can do better than that.
That has all been shown to be true but perhaps you were not around back then.
Additionally they violated and contradicted the scripture when they did what they did:
Hebrews 5:4-5 ASV
4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
5 So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:Psa 2:7
The author plainly states that Messiah did not take such an honor unto himself, but, like Ahron, Elohim called him. He even plainly states, "HE THAT SAID/SPOKE UNTO HIM", clearly meaning that the Father spoke the full decree of Psalm 2:7 to the Master when He called him. The only way to misunderstand the plain reading of the text is to be wearing thick black paradigm sonshades. :chuckle:
RevTestament
New member
Re. RevTestament's post #1005.....
Welcome to the thread.
What are your thoughts about the subject? Do you feel that Jesus is YHWH?
Unfortunately, the Greek NT seemed to adopt the convention of the Septuagint to translate YHWH as Kurios or Lord. So it essentially cannot be used to answer your question unless you accept the Peshitta Matthew which uses Marya for YHWH, and uses it of Jesus. Unfortunately, the Peshitta does not seem to use Marya consistently for YHWH in other books. So your question must be answered using the Hebrew OT. To answer your OP concisely, those verses cannot be used to answer your question.
I believe clearly Yeshua is YHWH. I base this on Gen 3:22, and several other verses in the OT.
I believe Deut 18:18-20 tells us that His servant will come in His name of YHWH. That can be read quite literally.
I believe another verse in Deut has been tampered with to make it appear that the YHWH spoken of is not one of the sons of the Most High. I base this on the Septuagint version.
There are other verses especially in Isaiah in which YHWH says things that at fist glance certainly don't seem like the Father - like you will see me whom you have pierced.
However, Yeshua also told us He did nothing of Himself but that He had seen the Father do, and was doing likewise, which I believe is part of His revelation of the Father.
The NT says Yeshua inherited a name greater than the angels - what name was that? I believe it was YHWH.
So, I believe the very nature of the name tells us that Jesus was indeed sent in the name of the Father - YHWH - which letter by letter means Behold the nail, behold the hand.
I believe the name YHWH means I am the breath/life/word. This is a name Yeshua had inherited probably when the Father told Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
I believe the Son is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and does not share that title with Heavenly Father as yet, and thus says, the Father is greater than I. However, I disagree with Orthodoxy that El Shaddai is the Father. I believe Yeshua is telling us in John 8:58 that He is El Shaddai and is referring to Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). I believe Yeshua and the Father are one/echad LORD/YHWH, and as Gen 3:22 indicate are both YHWH Elohim or the I am of the life of your house of immovable forces.
Lastly, I believe others will inherit this name per Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 33:16-17 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord/YHWH our righteousness.
when they shall be as David - as the angel of the Lord before them.
Thanks for asking
RevTestament
New member
The Codex Bezae has no chain of history to support it. It doesn't even support itself, but contradicts its Matthew.That has all been shown to be true but perhaps you were not around back then.
Additionally they violated and contradicted the scripture when they did what they did:
Hebrews 5:4-5 ASV
4 And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron.
5 So Christ also glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee:Psa 2:7
The author plainly states that Messiah did not take such an honor unto himself, but, like Ahron, Elohim called him. He even plainly states, "HE THAT SAID/SPOKE UNTO HIM", clearly meaning that the Father spoke the full decree of Psalm 2:7 to the Master when He called him. The only way to misunderstand the plain reading of the text is to be wearing thick black paradigm sonshades. :chuckle:
What I was referring to is that the only example of departure from scripture you can come up with? One that isn't even provable and stands alone against all other manuscripts including the Peshitta? Are you really going to base your claim that the RC church changed scripture on only that one example?
Are you really going to believe that because I only offered one example that is all there is? What do you expect me to do? post all of them for you? Would you like a full dissertation on the Comma Johannine passage right here in the middle of someone else's thread? You are not being realistic. And as for what I did post about; the patristic sources prove what I say, and it has already been hashed out in a very lengthy thread. Not a soul was able to disprove anything because when you quote patristic sources, and they damn themselves by their own words, no one is so foolish as to try to deny what they themselves have said. :chuckle:
Unfortunately, the Greek NT seemed to adopt the convention of the Septuagint to translate YHWH as Kurios or Lord. So it essentially cannot be used to answer your question unless you accept the Peshitta Matthew which uses Marya for YHWH, and uses it of Jesus. Unfortunately, the Peshitta does not seem to use Marya consistently for YHWH in other books. So your question must be answered using the Hebrew OT. To answer your OP concisely, those verses cannot be used to answer your question.
I believe clearly Yeshua is YHWH. I base this on Gen 3:22, and several other verses in the OT.
I believe Deut 18:18-20 tells us that His servant will come in His name of YHWH. That can be read quite literally.
I believe another verse in Deut has been tampered with to make it appear that the YHWH spoken of is not one of the sons of the Most High. I base this on the Septuagint version.
There are other verses especially in Isaiah in which YHWH says things that at fist glance certainly don't seem like the Father - like you will see me whom you have pierced.
However, Yeshua also told us He did nothing of Himself but that He had seen the Father do, and was doing likewise, which I believe is part of His revelation of the Father.
The NT says Yeshua inherited a name greater than the angels - what name was that? I believe it was YHWH.
So, I believe the very nature of the name tells us that Jesus was indeed sent in the name of the Father - YHWH - which letter by letter means Behold the nail, behold the hand.
I believe the name YHWH means I am the breath/life/word. This is a name Yeshua had inherited probably when the Father told Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."
I believe the Son is not El Elyon, the Most High Power, and does not share that title with Heavenly Father as yet, and thus says, the Father is greater than I. However, I disagree with Orthodoxy that El Shaddai is the Father. I believe Yeshua is telling us in John 8:58 that He is El Shaddai and is referring to Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). I believe Yeshua and the Father are one/echad LORD/YHWH, and as Gen 3:22 indicate are both YHWH Elohim or the I am of the life of your house of immovable forces.
Lastly, I believe others will inherit this name per Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 33:16-17 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord/YHWH our righteousness.
when they shall be as David - as the angel of the Lord before them.
Thanks for asking
Since you also claim "Jesus is YHWH" perhaps you should attempt an answer to the OP? Please note also that I only remember one other person actually trying and the following response has already been tendered herein:
RevTestament
New member
I don't know if I understand the issue? The OP asks:
They do refer to two different individuals. So what? Yeshua is using His father's name YHWH. Yeshua inherited His Father's name and is sent in His name per Deut 18. They are both YHWH. Daqq since you insist only the Father is named YHWH, I would like you to explain why the Father would use this name of Himself if the letters individually mean Behold the nail, Behold the hand?
RevTestament
New member
Yeah, I was actually kinda hopen' yu'd do my homewerk fer me...
Been there done that. I don't actually feel the Johannine Comma is a significant distortion of the truth.
I don't recall you discussing the patristic sources with me. Do you have a link? Or could you elaborate?
Yeah, I know where that idea comes from, but have seen no one actually prove it to be true. You will need to expound a little better your understanding of Deuteronomy 18 also, and show why it says what you say it says, because I do not see it that way. You also would need to show some good evidence that the Anointed one inherited the full Tetragrammaton Name of the Father; but since all of the oldest Greek manuscripts, codices, and fragments, use what has now come to be known as Nomina Sacra; you cannot even be sure that his name is "Jesus", "Yeshu", or even "Yeshua". The fact of the matter is that all we have in the most ancient texts is Iota-Eta, (Ι̅H), with an overstrike, (the case endings were added later when the scribes began to add case endings to the ends of the names in the texts, for example, Iota-Eta-Sigma with an overstrike).
It was not that I said you and I had discussed them but that you were likely not around at that time, (it has been I while since I have seen you posting here). Anyway, the one thread I gave up on because a couple of tramplers put me on ignore and then proceeded to intentionally derail the thread, and overload it with rubbish, even after repeated requests to stay on topic, (one of the typical tactics constantly coming from that particular brand of Christianity around these parts, lol). Perhaps you would be better off to start here: Hebrew Matthew Baptismal Account. As for the name(s) perhaps try here: Does the Father know evil?, (the topic evolved, if you are seriously looking for answers you will need to read through this thread thoroughly, (it is currently only three pages)).
RevTestament
New member
Why? Do you doubt the Hebrew sources? Just go to any Jewish site which explains the meaning of the 24 Hebrew letters. They date back to the very earliest Hebrew Daqq - to the "paleo-Hebrew" Phoenician lettering. If you are insistent on dating back to Moses, you already know nothing can do that. We don't even know what Moses spoke or wrote, but it is quite doubtful he wrote Hebrew... He probably knew cuneiform and hieratic or perhaps demotic, and possibly hieroglypic.
Well, we can be sure his name was not Jesus since it is well established that name was an invention of Jerome and didn't have a "J" sound because that was a late English invention. There are manuscripts which establish the name of Yeshua. As you are probably aware, the older version was Yehoshua. The Dead Sea scrolls and the Masoretic text establish the name well.
Full form: Yod, Hey, Waw, Shin, Waw, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea scrolls:
Deuteronomy 3:21 (4Q40 Deutm); Joshua 6:10, 8:3, 8:35 and 10:4 (4Q47 Josha)
Second form: Yod, Hey, Waw, Shin, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus 17:13 & 14 (4Q14 Exodusc); Numbers 32:28 (4Q23 Levi-Numa); Deuteronomy 31:21 & 28 (4Q31Deutd); Joshua 4:1 (twice - 4Q48Joshb), 6:6 (4Q47Josha), 17:4, 14, 15 (4Q48Joshb); Haggai 1:1 (4Q77MinProb), 1:14 & 2:4 (MurXII & 4Q77MinProb).
Third form: Yod, Hey, Shin, Waw, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus 17:9, 13, 32:17 (4Q22paleoEx); Numbers 26:65, 27:22 (4Q27Numb); Zechariah 3:9 (4Q80e)
Fourth form: Yod, Hey, Shin, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Joshua 5:2, 3, 8:35 (4Q47Josha)
The Masoretic text drops the Waw letter in favor of a vowel pointer. The Yeshu form came from the influence of the Aramaic, and is found in the Peshitta manuscripts.
While I am sure He hears the name Jesus, I prefer not to use it, since it has no meaning and is not the correct pronunuciation. Yeshua carries a correct pronunciation and meaning, so out of deference to Him, I have adopted it.
RevTestament
New member
K. Thank you. I will check them out.
The point was that not even Ἰησοῦ is actually found in any of the older manuscripts, codices, and fragments, (all Uncials), because it is everywhere written in various Nomina Sacra forms. Thus all of the places where you find forms of Yhoshua, Yeshua, and so on, in the Hebrew, (as you have posted), is really meaningless at this point because you have no legitimate link to Ἰησοῦ, "Jesus", or "Yeshua", because the Nomina Sacra force you to either GUESS or come to understand the multiple meanings by way of scripture context and scripture teachings, (Rev 2:17 and Rev 19:12). All you have to go by in Greek writings is tantamount to either the abbreviated suspension of a single word or an actual abbreviation: at this point you actually cannot even prove whether Iota-Eta stands for one name or two. The scholars have guessed, and they expect you to believe them because those who came before them said so, (church fathers), but what I am saying to you is that I do not believe they guessed correctly.
- Status