Echad and elohym part 2

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 07 2010,02:04)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 05 2010,20:08) Quote (Lightenup @ May 05 2010,15:06) JA, John 17:11-12 Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. NASU JA, John 17:11-12 Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. NASU Hi Kathi, It didn't set right with me that Jesus ever had the name Jehovah.  So I did some checking into John 17.  First, let's break up the version you quoted. 11″…keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me…”           12″…I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them…” Let me re-phrase it like I read it. 11″…keep them which You have given me in Your name…” 12″…I was keeping them which You have given me in Your name; and I guarded them (in your name)…” The context is about Jesus not losing one of the children his Father gave him except Judas.  He kept them in the protection of the name of JHWH – the name that is a rock and a mighty fortress to anyone who calls on it.  But I'm not the only one who reads it like this. King James Version 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept , and none of them is lost , but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled . Young's Literal Translation 11 and no more am I in the world, and these are in the world, and I come unto Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, whom Thou hast given to me, that they may be one as we; 12 when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me I did guard, and none of them was destroyed, except the son of the destruction, that the Writing may be fulfilled. Douay-Rheims Translation 11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept: and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition: that the scripture may be fulfilled. New Living Translation 11 Now I am departing the world; I am leaving them behind and coming to you. Holy Father, keep them and care for them — all those you have given me — so that they will be united just as we are. 12 During my time here, I have kept them safe.  I guarded them so that not one was lost, except the one headed for destruction, as the Scriptures foretold. Do these translation make sense to you considering the context?  Are there other Scriptures where Jesus is said to have the name Jehovah to support your translation of John 17? peace and love, mike Hi Mike, Yes, I realize that some translations translate the passage with a different emphasis.  Here are more that translate the passage as I have considered it: John 17:11-12 NET © 11 I 1  am no longer in the world, but 2  they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe 3  in your name 4  that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 5 12 When I was with them I kept them safe 1  and watched over them 2  in your name 3  that you have given me. Not one 4  of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, 5  so that the scripture could be fulfilled. 6   NIV © 11 “…I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled…” NASB © 11 “…I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.  12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled… BBE © 11 And now I will be no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I come to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name which you have given to me, so that they may be one even as we are one. 12 While I was with them I kept them safe in your name which you have given to me: I took care of them and not one of them has come to destruction, but only the son of destruction, so that the Writings might come true. NRSV © 11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. Here is more of the context: Quote 17:6 “I have revealed 14  your name to the men 15  you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, 16  and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed 17  your word. 17:7 Now they understand 18  that everything 19  you have given me comes from you, 17:8 because I have given them the words you have given me. They 20  accepted 21  them 22  and really 23  understand 24  that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 17:9 I am praying 25  on behalf of them. I am not praying 26  on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because they belong to you. 27  17:10 Everything 28  I have belongs to you, 29  and everything you have belongs to me, 30  and I have been glorified by them. 31  17:11 I 32  am no longer in the world, but 33  they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe 34  in your name 35  that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 36  17:12 When I was with them I kept them safe 37  and watched over them 38  in your name 39  that you have given me. Not one 40  of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, 41  so that the scripture could be fulfilled. 42  17:13 But now I am coming to you, and I am saying these things in the world , so they may experience 43  my joy completed 44  in themselves. 17:14 I have given them your word, 45  and the world has hated them, because they do not belong to the world, 46  just as I do not belong to the world. 47  17:15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them safe 48  from the evil one. 49  17:16 They do not belong to the world 50  just as I do not belong to the world. 51  17:17 Set them apart 52  in the truth; your word is truth. 17:18 Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. 53  17:19 And I set myself apart 54  on their behalf, 55  so that they too may be truly set apart. 56 Jesus Prays for Believers Everywhere 17:20 “I am not praying 57  only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe 58  in me through their testimony, 59  17:21 that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray 60  that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. 17:22 The glory 61  you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one – 17:23 I in them and you in me – that they may be completely one, 62  so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me. 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, 63  so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world 64 . 17:25 Righteous Father, even if the world does not know you, I know you, and these men 65  know that you sent me. 17:26 I made known your name to them, and I will continue to make it known, 66  so that the love you have loved me with may be in them, and I may be in them.” Note this verse: 17:10 Everything 28  I have belongs to you, 29  and everything you have belongs to me, [/B]30  and I have been glorified by them. 31 you said: Quote The context is about Jesus not losing one of the children his Father gave him except Judas.  He kept them in the protection of the name of JHWH – the name that is a rock and a mighty fortress to anyone who calls on it.  But I'm not the only one who reads it like this. That is only part of the context.  Also in the context is that everything that the Father has is the Son's… So what does 'everything' entail??

Mike, JA and all,
I have confirmed that it was the name that was given to Jesus and not the people that is being spoken of as God giving to Jesus. The way I confirmed this is by looking at the word “which.”

See the “which” in bold that I am referring to:

Quote

John 17:11-12 11 “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. NASU

That word “which” is written in the singular, neuter form and is a pronoun for a singular neuter noun. The only single neuter noun in either verse, 11 or 12, is “name.” Ta da! No more confusion for you Mike If what was given Jesus was people or men, then the pronoun would have been masculine and plural…not neuter and singular.

The Father gave Jesus His (the Father's) own name. This action of 'have given' is not written in the future tense as JA suggests but is written in the perfect tense. The perfect tense is described here:

Perfect
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
From Studylight.org.

So there ya go

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Did you not realise Jesus was given the name of his God to work in??
But he neither became his Father nor changed from being YAHSHUA.

In whose name do you live and work?

Should we call you something else now?

[Lightenup]

Nick,
You know the name of the offspring of David is Yahshua now tell me the name of the root of David if you know.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
The Lord is the Spirit.
David's anointing was of this Spirit.
The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 12 2010,14:42)

That word “which” is written in the singular, neuter form and is a pronoun for a singular neuter noun.  The only single neuter noun in either verse, 11 or 12, is “name.”  Ta da!  No more confusion for you Mike   If what was given Jesus was people or men, then the pronoun would have been masculine and plural…not neuter and singular.

Hi Kathi,

I'm sure I don't understand Greek as well as you, but OBST says this of the word,

Hos None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
hos        

Definition
who, which, what, that
Wigram's count is 1309 not 1393.
 
King James Word Usage – Total: 1392
which 394, whom 262, that 129, who 84, whose 53, what 42, that which 20, whereof 13, miscellaneous 430
 

Looks like it can be used for “which” or for “who”.  And the Strong's root word “ho” means pretty much the same.

And look at the different ways the KJV translates it.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,01:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 12 2010,14:42) That word “which” is written in the singular, neuter form and is a pronoun for a singular neuter noun.  The only single neuter noun in either verse, 11 or 12, is “name.”  Ta da!  No more confusion for you Mike   If what was given Jesus was people or men, then the pronoun would have been masculine and plural…not neuter and singular. Hi Kathi, I'm sure I don't understand Greek as well as you, but OBST says this of the word, Hos None Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech hos         Definition who, which, what, that Wigram's count is 1309 not 1393.   King James Word Usage – Total: 1392 which 394, whom 262, that 129, who 84, whose 53, what 42, that which 20, whereof 13, miscellaneous 430   Looks like it can be used for “which” or for “who”.  And the Strong's root word “ho” means pretty much the same. And look at the different ways the KJV translates it. peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,
I realize that there are several pronouns to choose from with this Greek word. That same Greek word takes on different endings depending on the noun that it is replacing. The pronoun will reflect the gender of the noun that it is replacing and also whether or not the noun is singular or plural. In the case of the verses we are discussing, 'which' is written as a neuter, singular pronoun because it is replacing a neuter, singular noun, i.e. 'name.'

See the benefits of knowing some Greek

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kathi,

That sounds reasonable enough. I just wonder how all those Greek speaking Bible scholars could have let that one slip past them. Maybe we're missing something?

No matter, I'm sure you have other Scriptures that back up what these two say, right? What other Scriptures tell us that Jesus shares the name Jehovah?

peace and love,
mike

[JustAskin]

LU,

“While I was with them I was keeping them in the [Name: the power and authority] which you [gave/have given] me”

Context – Context – Context:
In the Name of God:…In the Power and authority of God…(What is the Name of God?)
In the Name of the Law..in the power and authority of the Law…(What is the Name of the Law?)
In the Name of Justice…In the power and authority of Justice (What is the Name of Justice?)
“The man opened his door to a loud knocking and said “In the Name of Peace and quiet, what's all this disturbance for?”
“The knocker spoke back: “I am a baliff and I have come to exact an order to reclaim goods to teh value of $xxx's””
“The enraged man snaps back: “In whose NAME are you doing this”?
The caller quietly responds: “The Name of the Law”
“So your Name is 'Law'?”
“No, My own name (my own power and authority) is 'Bailiff', I exact my Name using the “Power and Authority” of “The Law, My powers as Baliff is backed by the powers of a more powerful one than me – the Law (For the Law could remove my powers, my name, or enhance it or renege an act set to me which I wouldhave aotherwise have been duty bound to exact)””

[mikeboll64]

Hi JA,

Very good, sir. Come to think of it, Jesus never said the actual name “Jehovah” in the Scriptures, did he? He very well could have been talking about “power and authority” or the “good name” that Jehovah had made for Himself.

peace and love,
mike

[martian]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 13 2010,22:53)

LU, “While I was with them I was keeping them in the [Name: the power and authority] which you [gave/have given] me” Context – Context – Context: In the Name of God:…In the Power and authority of God…(What is the Name of God?) In the Name of the Law..in the power and authority of the Law…(What is the Name of the Law?) In the Name of Justice…In the power and authority of Justice (What is the Name of Justice?) “The man opened his door to a loud knocking and said “In the Name of Peace and quiet, what's all this disturbance for?” “The knocker spoke back: “I am a baliff and I have come to exact an order to reclaim goods to teh value of $xxx's”” “The enraged man snaps back: “In whose NAME are you doing this”? The caller quietly responds: “The Name of the Law” “So your Name is 'Law'?” “No, My own name (my own power and authority) is 'Bailiff', I exact my Name using the “Power and Authority” of “The Law, My powers as Baliff is backed by the powers of a more powerful one than me – the Law (For the Law could remove my powers, my name, or enhance it or renege an act set to me which I wouldhave aotherwise have been duty bound to exact)””

In the vast m majority of cases the term “name” is the word shem in the hebrew. this word means character or character trait. Matthew was also written originally in hebrew. Jesus came in the character of God. He was the perfect representative of a human being with the character of God.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Martian,

What's your take on John 17:11-12? Is Jesus saying he has the name “Jehovah”?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ May 12 2010,14:42)

That word “which” is written in the singular, neuter form and is a pronoun for a singular neuter noun. The only single neuter noun in either verse, 11 or 12, is “name.” Ta da! No more confusion for you Mike If what was given Jesus was people or men, then the pronoun would have been masculine and plural…not neuter and singular.

Hi Kathi,

This might be nothing, but I just came across this Scripture while replying to Nick.

13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”?

Are angels “neuter” in the Greek? I think I remember something about this, but I'm not sure.

peace and love,
mike

[martian]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2010,04:30)

Hi Martian, What's your take on John 17:11-12?  Is Jesus saying he has the name “Jehovah”? peace and love, mike

Suffice it to say that context is very important in this section. I am not inclined to take a lot of time on forum answers. I have much too much going on for more then short answers.
Everyone is worked up over the term Jehovah. It is simply the German translation of God. There is no particular doctrinal significance to it other then what is already known of God/LORD/YHWH ect. There is no spiritual significance in those that see the name of God as Jehovah or those that call him God.

[martian]

Understand that in Hebrew culture, things are not named by their apearance but by their function. People that acted like God in their actions could ligitmately be called God without actually literally being God. Psalms 82 God says the Hebrews should be called God IF THEY ACT AS GOD TO THE PEOPLE.
John 10 Christ quotes this section to the leaders of the hebrews of his time. It was a rebuke because those leaders were not acting as Gods and therefore could not be called Gods.
From a Hebrew perspective you could be called a God if you act like a God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (martian @ May 16 2010,10:14)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 16 2010,04:30) Hi Martian, What's your take on John 17:11-12?  Is Jesus saying he has the name “Jehovah”? peace and love, mike Suffice it to say that context is very important in this section. I am not inclined to take a lot of time on forum answers. I have much too much going on for more then short answers. Everyone is worked up over the term Jehovah. It is simply the German translation of God. There is no particular doctrinal significance to it other then what is already known of God/LORD/YHWH ect. There is no spiritual significance in those that see the name of God as Jehovah or those that call him God.

Hi Martian,

Let's back up a square.  JA, Lightenup and I have been discussing whether the correct translation of John 17:11 is,

King James Version
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

OR

New International Version
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name–the name you gave me–so that they may be one as we are one

Then you popped in with what “name” meant in Hebrew and that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.  So I was trying to steer you to the point we are actually discussing.  Not the “Jehovah” translation of YHWH, nor whether “name” in this case means “name” or “character trait”.  I'm asking if you think Jesus is saying that God has given him His name, or that God had given him certain ones out of the world?

Lightenup believes that Jesus also has the name JHWH.  I don't.

Can you shed any light on which way the Scripture should read?

peace and love,
mike

[JustAskin]

To all,

A question to ask concerning the second interpretation (NIV) is “When did God give His Name to Jesus”? If this can be qualified then there is legitimacy in the interpretation – else it must be assumed that “Name” means “Power and authority”.

For we certainly know that the first (KJV) has legitimacy as Scriptures speaks openly in several places where Jesus claims that God has chosen ones that He has given to him – Right from the start of his ministry when he called the disciples.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 15 2010,16:48)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 12 2010,14:42) That word “which” is written in the singular, neuter form and is a pronoun for a singular neuter noun.  The only single neuter noun in either verse, 11 or 12, is “name.”  Ta da!  No more confusion for you Mike  If what was given Jesus was people or men, then the pronoun would have been masculine and plural…not neuter and singular. Hi Kathi, This might be nothing, but I just came across this Scripture while replying to Nick. 13 But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? Are angels “neuter” in the Greek?   I think I remember something about this, but I'm not sure. peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,
The 'which' in Heb 1:13 is:
NT:5101
tis (tis); probably emphat. of NT:5100; an interrogative pronoun, who, which or what (in direct or indirect questions):

KJV – every man, how (much), no (-ne, thing), what (manner, thing), where ([-by, -fore, -of, -unto, -with, -withal]), whether, which, who (-m, -se), why.

The Greek morphology of the word is:
Pronoun-
Interrogative Pronoun
Masculine
Singular
Accusative

In John 17:11-12 the 'which' is:
NT:3739
hos (hos); including feminine he (hay); and neuter ho (ho); probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article NT:3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that:

KJV – one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also NT:3757.

Two different Greek words are used for 'which.' Both words are pronouns and take on case endings to reflect the noun they are replacing. Angel is a masculine word but that might not mean they are males necessarily since Greek words like 'love' for instance, is feminine yet we know that God is love but God is spoken of with male pronouns and the name 'Father.' We have to be careful to place too much importance on the gender of the Greek word in determining doctrine because of this type of thing. In the instance in John 17:11-12, we can use the case ending of 'which' (neuter and singular) to match up with the noun in the verse that is also neuter and singular and that would be 'name.' This is where Greek is helpful to know.

[Lightenup]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 15 2010,19:42)

To all, A question to ask concerning the second interpretation (NIV) is “When did God give His Name to Jesus”? If this can be qualified then there is legitimacy in the interpretation – else  it must be assumed that “Name” means “Power and authority”. For we certainly know that the first (KJV) has legitimacy as Scriptures speaks openly in several places where Jesus claims that God has chosen ones that He has given to him – Right from the start of his ministry when he called the disciples.

Hi JA,
If the particular moment isn't recorded as to when the Father gave the Son His name but records of the Son being referred to by the Father's name exist as in Gen 18, Heb 1, and Zech 14 then that adds credibility to the claim.

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (JustAskin @ May 16 2010,10:42)

To all, A question to ask concerning the second interpretation (NIV) is “When did God give His Name to Jesus”? If this can be qualified then there is legitimacy in the interpretation – else  it must be assumed that “Name” means “Power and authority”. For we certainly know that the first (KJV) has legitimacy as Scriptures speaks openly in several places where Jesus claims that God has chosen ones that He has given to him – Right from the start of his ministry when he called the disciples.

JA………The first pictorial language of the Hebrews Show the term GOD as a OX head with a Shepard's staff next to it. The ox represented POWER and the Staff was what they leaned in for support. So Simply put the Word GOD to Them was the POWER they could Trust or lean on. Anyone who have been given Power can be related to as a GOD. So Scripture says “THE LORD (he exists) OUR GOD (our power) IS (ONE) LORD (who exists)”.

peace and love to you and yours……….gene

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 12 2010,23:11)

Hi Kathi, That sounds reasonable enough.  I just wonder how all those Greek speaking Bible scholars could have let that one slip past them.     Maybe we're missing something? No matter, I'm sure you have other Scriptures that back up what these two say, right?  What other Scriptures tell us that Jesus shares the name Jehovah? peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,
See Zech 14 for another place.

[Author]

Posts