- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 20 2012,07:33) Hi,
Jesus said the one the Jews called GOD was the Father.Jn 8.54
Nick,Great Scriptural point, but the the word “GOD” (small case or lower case) can also give reference in translation to others with power, strength or might (mighty ones). Note that Yahweh made Moshe “a god” unto Pharaoh in translation and that Yahshua was to be a prophet like unto Moshe. Both Moshe and Yahshua Messiah were most certainly mighty ones, but their source of power, strength or might came from the only source of power strength and might, Who is Father Yahweh.
I personally never use the word “god” in reference to Father Yahweh or His son Yahshua, but instead refer to Father Yahweh as THE Almighty ONE and to His son Yahshua as “a mighty one” like unto Moshe, since I believe that the generic term 'god' is of pagan origin.
See:
Who is 'God'? – or – 'GOD' IS …
I also never personally refer to Father Yahweh or His son Yahshua by the mere English term “Lord”.
Why do we have “The LORD” in our bibles rather than Yahweh?
This is a very common question. It all began with a Jewish tradition called the “ineffable name” doctrine. Jews, for various reasons, started to substitute His name with the Hebrew title “Adonai”. Adonai is the Hebrew word for “Lord”. This information can be easily verified in many Bible dictionaries and various encyclopedias. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica states:
Yahweh, the God of the Israelites, his name being revealed to Moses as four Hebrew CONSONANTS (YHWH) CALLED THE TETRAGRAMMATON. AFTER THE EXILE (6TH CENTURY BC), and especially from the 3rd century BC on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal religion through its proselytizing in the Greco-Roman world, the more common noun elohim, meaning “god,” tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel's God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.
We see in the above quote that Jews started to vocally replace the name “Yahweh” with “Adonai” (Lord) for two reasons:
1. It was beginning to be believed that His name was too sacred to be uttered
2. They preferred to simply call Him “Elohim” rather than “Yahweh” to demonstrate to the world that He is the only true Elohim.
While on the surface these reasons may seem honorable, they are very unscriptural. They were and are attempts to improve on Yahweh's already perfect ways. If Yahweh really wanted a substitute, why would He have placed His name there to begin with? Though scripture says to follow Yahweh rather than man, we find that nearly 7,000 times the most important name of all is replaced with a another word that man has chosen.
This tradition was not practiced by the Messiah or the apostles, but it was adopted by some Christians during the early half of the 2nd Century CE/AD. By the 4th century, this practice was well established and widely practiced. Jerome, a 4th century “Church Father” who authored the Latin Vulgate version, substituted the name “Yahweh” throughout with the Latin word “Dominus” (meaning “Lord”). The tradition of replacing Yahweh's name with “the LORD” continues to this day. Most English translations substitute the name Yahweh with “the LORD” and translations into other languages will also commonly choose a title meaning “Lord” in their own language. More information on this can be found in the preface of many modern bibles.
Commentary On Bible Prefaces
(updated 10/5/2010)
SOURCEI will also add that the word 'lord' in no way comes anywhere close to or represents the meaning of our Heavenly Father and Creator's personal Name Yahweh, since the term 'lord' simply means 'keeper of the loaf' and the English term 'King' stands primary in English nobility to that of a 'Lord'. In other words, a 'Lord' is below in stature to that of a 'King'. Also, 'Lord' is nothing but a mere title in our English language as is 'King' and these most certainly are not names. Is it not ironic that KING James is said to have authorized a translation that refers to our Heavenly Father and Creator with a lesser title than that of his? Yahweh is our Heavenly Father and Creator's personal Name, not “the LORD”.
Baal Gad
“The LORD” GodQuote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Mar. 19 2012,11:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,13:26) That's right, Marty. The glory “which I HAD with thee”.
If you want to pretend Jesus is not saying HE HAD glory with God before the world began, then that is your choice.
Mike,As a father my son had esteem [“glory”] before he came into existence and he did not pre-exist his birth as an actual being. Note that Yahshua is giving reference to the esteem [“glory”] that he had with his and our Father Yahweh before the world began, not to his pre-existing with his and our Father Yahweh as an actual being before the world began.
That's just nonsense talk to protect your flawed doctrine, Frank.Has your son ever asked you for the glory you've been holding on to for him from before he was born?
Get real. If I say “I HAD glory in 1912”, then you can bet your bottom dollar that I was ALIVE in 1912.
If Jesus says HE HAD glory before the world began, then believe that he was alive and alongside his God before the world began.
Or, you guys can just keep on pretending if you'd rather.
Gene,
Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.Psalm 136:2
Give thanks to the God of gods. His love endures forever.Gene, would you be so kind as to name one of these gods that Jehovah is the God of?
Nick, how about you?
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Mar. 19 2012,17:49) Nick, Great Scriptural point, but the word “GOD” (small case or lower case) can also give reference in translation to others with power, strength or might (mighty ones).
Thank you, Frank! Will the others just pretend that this isn't true when it's all over the scriptures?
However, the upper/lower case distinction is made by English translators. There is no such distinction in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. Instead of capping the letter “G” like we do, they often used the definite article “THE” preceding “god” when speaking of Jehovah.
That's why John 1:1 says THE logos was with THE god, and was god. The fact that John DIDN'T add the definite article in part c, combined with the fact that the theos in part c was with THE theos from part b, points to the second theos mentioned being “a god” who was with “THE god”. (Because neither Greek nor Hebrew used an indefinite article in their speech or their writing, the 7000 indefinite articles in the English translations have been added so the text makes sense to us in English. And on a side note, the first language into which the scriptures were translated that DOES have an indefinite article is the Coptic language. And in the Coptic translation, John 1:1 says “and the word was a god”.)
Quote Also, did you consider my 1 Samuel passage? Did you see how Saul WAS ALREADY the anointed one (christ) of God; and then LATER was “anointed” with Holy Spirit? Mike, no, I did not consider it as it runs contrary to my belief.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 18 2012,07:39) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 17 2012,13:18) ………The angel was just relating to them that Jesus was the Messiah promised to come. He was not say Jesus was already anointed , that simply is not true Jesus was not anointed until he was anointed at the Jordan river
Gene,If Jesus was just a regular old, non spirit-filled schmuck like the rest of us, why did John say it was Jesus who should be baptzing him, instead of the other way around?
You and Nick can add your own imaginations into the scriptures by claiming the angel was speaking prophetically if you want to. As for me, I will believe the scriptures without such imaginary additions.
Btw, “anointed one” refers to one set aside by God for a specific purpose. Surely Jesus was set asided for his purpose long before God gave him the Spirit without limit. Surely God didn't choose Jesus out of the blue on the day of his baptism. Jesus was set aside for the purpose of teaching and being a sacrificial Lamb from before the time God sent him into the world to be born of Mary.
Mike,perhaps you are confusing not being 'anointed' with being an ordinary shmuck, as you say.
Jesus is many things. “Christ” is one of them.
“for that which has been begotten in [Mary] is by holy spirit.”
Mary had no human father. This alone makes him very much not ordinary. We know as a child, he wasn't quite ordinary. He was wise and spiritual. No one is saying he was an ordinary shmuck.
And he was the Son of God, regardless of his being or not being anointed yet.
****HOW ABOUT THIS?
He was the Savior. (Although, he hadn't yet saved anyone.)Look: The Savior was born.
YET, HOW CAN THIS BE? Who has he saved, yet?because there was born to you TODAY A SAVIOR, who is CHRIST [the] Lord, in David’s city
I somewhat feel like I'm talking to Ed right now. I totally completely see what you are saying. I really do. But, the very verse you keep quoting shows us HOW PEOPLE NORMALLY SPEAK about things.
Today a savior was born. But, according to definition, a savior is a “person who saves.” Yet, Jesus had NOT YET saved anyone, right?
He WOULD be Christ (when anointed)
He WOULD be Savior (when he gives his life)He had done neither of these things at birth, yet, this is the way people speak.
It's ESPECIALLY true when things are put in writing.If someone writes a book or tells a story about someone who became a king at 30, they may well very say: “The king was born in 1459.” (Of course, he wasn't born a king. But this is the way people speak.)
Quote (david @ Mar. 19 2012,18:42) I somewhat feel like I'm talking to Ed right now
Then don't bother with it anymore. I don't really care what you believe anyway, David. I will believe the very words of the angel, and you add your own stuff into his words if it makes you feel better, okay?I only mean with regard to the conversation I've been having with Ed for the past 2 weeks where I am continually asking him to do an experiment to see how other people speak. (I know you understand what I'm referring to.) I'm not really thinking you are like Ed, but only that in this instance, you seem to not understand how people often speak casually.
See my post above.
Also, The “savior” thing. The sam argument could be made that he was a Savior from birth, just as a Christ from birth.
But, who did he save? One isn't really a savior until one “saves” someone, right?
Yet, people just speak like that.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 19 2012,18:05) Hi MB,
If it was not at the Jordan
how does CONCEPTION make a lesser god into a human being?
Don't know about a lesser god, but one who existed in the form of God can become a man by partaking of the nature of man or form of man.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2012,11:07) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Mar. 19 2012,11:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 19 2012,13:26) That's right, Marty. The glory “which I HAD with thee”.
If you want to pretend Jesus is not saying HE HAD glory with God before the world began, then that is your choice.
Mike,As a father my son had esteem [“glory”] before he came into existence and he did not pre-exist his birth as an actual being. Note that Yahshua is giving reference to the esteem [“glory”] that he had with his and our Father Yahweh before the world began, not to his pre-existing with his and our Father Yahweh as an actual being before the world began.
That's just nonsense talk to protect your flawed doctrine, Frank.Has your son ever asked you for the glory you've been holding on to for him from before he was born?
Get real. If I say “I HAD glory in 1912”, then you can bet your bottom dollar that I was ALIVE in 1912.
If Jesus says HE HAD glory before the world began, then believe that he was alive and alongside his God before the world began.
Or, you guys can just keep on pretending if you'd rather.
Mike,Quote That's just nonsense talk to protect your flawed doctrine, Frank. Has your son ever asked you for the glory you've been holding on to for him from before he was born?
Most certainly not, since he was not taught to speak in such a manner, but I certainly would tell him that I had esteem for him before my wife and I had planned to have a child and I am most certainly sure that he did not pre-exist his birth.
Matthew 2:4
4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born.“because there was born to you TODAY a SAVIOR, who is CHRIST [the] Lord, in David’s city..”
Let's imagine that I knew Mike's life story and for some reason, I was telling it to someone on this board–the story of Mike the Moderator.
“Mike, the moderator was born in 19..”
Would it be out of the ordinary for someone to speak that way? I think we do all the time. It's obvious that you were not born a moderator. But for someone that wanted to get technical, they might say: “He clearly was born a moderator.”
That's just the way people speak.
Similarly, we KNOW, at least, i think we all know that he wasn't born a Savior, but was born as someone who would eventually save (be a Savior.) Yet, when the story is told (since by the time it was told, he certainly was a Savior, (and the Christ) then that is the way people tell the story.
Comments, Mike?
From the JW's:
There are instances in which a person was regarded as being anointed because of being appointed by God, even though no oil was put on his head. This principle was demonstrated when Jehovah told Elijah to anoint Hazael as king over Syria, Jehu as king over Israel, and Elisha as prophet in place of himself. (1Ki 19:15, 16) The Scriptural record goes on to show that one of the sons of the prophets associated with Elisha did anoint Jehu with literal oil, to be king over Israel. (2Ki 9:1-6) But there is no record that anyone anointed with oil either Hazael or Elisha. Moses was called a Christ, or Anointed One, although not anointed with oil, because Moses was appointed by Jehovah to be his prophet and representative, the leader and deliverer of Israel. (Heb 11:24-26) Another case in point is the Persian king Cyrus, whom Isaiah had foretold that Jehovah would use as His anointed. (Isa 45:1) Cyrus was not actually anointed with oil by one of Jehovah’s representatives, but because he was appointed by Jehovah to do a certain work, he could be said to be anointed.This is also what I tried to tell you guys last week (although I only just now read this from the JWs).
Cyrus was a christ of God because he was appointed to do a certain work. ( I believe I used the phrase “set aside for a specific purpose” last week. )
Jesus had been appointed, or set aside, for his purpose long before he ever was made into a human being. So Jesus was one of God's many christs even BEFORE he was born the Christ.
Jesus himself said, “what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:36)
He was “set apart” before God even sent him into the world.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Mar. 19 2012,18:57) …..but I certainly would tell him that I had esteem for him…….
Frank,Jesus didn't ask about the esteem/glory GOD HAD FOR HIM. He asked about the glory HE HIMSELF HAD before the world began.
You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Could your son ask for the glory HE HIMSELF HAD before he was born?
Jesus said “I had”, Frank. The word “I” refers to the person “Jesus”. Therefore, JESUS HIMSELF HAD the glory before the world began.
Quote (david @ Mar. 20 2012,18:49) I only mean with regard to the conversation I've been having with Ed for the past 2 weeks where I am continually asking him to do an experiment to see how other people speak. (I know you understand what I'm referring to.) I'm not really thinking you are like Ed, but only that in this instance, you seem to not understand how people often speak casually. See my post above.
Also, The “savior” thing. The sam argument could be made that he was a Savior from birth, just as a Christ from birth.
But, who did he save? One isn't really a savior until one “saves” someone, right?
Yet, people just speak like that.
davidJohn the baptist was to be the image so to speak of Elijah,but sins birth was he not called
the way he add to conduct himself ,this it shows that it is sins birth the time of his arrival on the seen in public was the beginning of his public ministry to fulfill
what was to be ;and so is Christ his public ministry is the beginning of his preaching and so it was all secured from his birth until the time of his public live ,for this moment same with John,but we all know the the end of something is better than the beginning,
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 19 2012,18:55) Don't know about a lesser god…………..
What's your other option? “Greater God” than his Father?Quote (david @ Mar. 19 2012,19:02) Comments, Mike?
Read about Saul, David.1 Samuel 10
1 Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, “Has not the LORD anointed you leader over his inheritance?10 When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying.
Saul already WAS God's anointed one (christ) BEFORE God anointed him with Holy Spirit.
Likewise, Jesus already WAS God's “chosen one”, “set apart one”, and “anointed one” BEFORE God anointed him with Holy Spirit.
That is my understanding, David. Jesus was born the Christ of God, just like the angel clearly said. You keep offering examples of someone looking back in time from the future, talking about this king was born in such and such a year – even though he wasn't king at that time.
And I've already mentioned in another post, that this angel wasn't looking back in time from the future, saying the one who EVENTUALLY TURNED INTO THE CHRIST was born in such and such a year. Instead, this angel said he was born the Christ ON THE VERY DAY HE WAS BORN.
Do you have an example for that? Did the people in England say their King was born on the very day Prince Harry (or William – I forget who's the older one) was born? NO? Could they look back 100 years from now and THEN say that King Harry was born in 1999 (or whenever he was born)? YES
David, do you understand this difference? The angel was not looking back into the past, but speaking about the Christ being born on the very day he was born.
Hi MB,
You present Saul in the process of being anointed but somehow forget that Jesus was too-at the Jordan.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 20 2012,11:25) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Mar. 19 2012,17:49) Nick, Great Scriptural point, but the word “GOD” (small case or lower case) can also give reference in translation to others with power, strength or might (mighty ones).
Thank you, Frank! Will the others just pretend that this isn't true when it's all over the scriptures?However, the upper/lower case distinction is made by English translators. There is no such distinction in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. Instead of capping the letter “G” like we do, they often used the definite article “THE” preceding “god” when speaking of Jehovah.
That's why John 1:1 says THE logos was with THE god, and was god. The fact that John DIDN'T add the definite article in part c, combined with the fact that the theos in part c was with THE theos from part b, points to the second theos mentioned being “a god” who was with “THE god”. (Because neither Greek nor Hebrew used an indefinite article in their speech or their writing, the 7000 indefinite articles in the English translations have been added so the text makes sense to us in English. And on a side note, the first language into which the scriptures were translated that DOES have an indefinite article is the Coptic language. And in the Coptic translation, John 1:1 says “and the word was a god”.)
Mike,No matter how the translators translate it “THE God” translation would still be in reference to FATHER Yahweh and not to His SON Yahshua, since Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth as a mighty one [“god”] with his and our Father Yahweh in the beginning. Does not your translation say in the so-called “Old Testament” that there was no “God” besides Him and that is was He ALONE who created the heavens and the earth and all things in them? Since He created the heaven and the earth “ALONE and there was “NO ONE BESIDE HIM in His creating, He certainly did not created THROUGH YOUR imaginary “god”.
Quote However, the upper/lower case distinction is made by English translators. There is no such distinction in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures. I am quite aware that the upper and lower case 'g' distinction is made by English translators and that there is no such distinction in the Hebrew or Greek.
Quote Instead of capping the letter “G” like we do, they often used the definite article “THE” preceding “god” when speaking of Jehovah. That's strange! Does not 'the definite article “THE” [proceed] “god”' [ho theos] when speaking of Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4?
It seems you are using the same reasoning that Trinitarians use to prove that their “Jesus” is in reference to their “God Almighty”:
Some have claimed that the expression “ho theos” used by Thomas in John 20:28 shows that Thomas was calling Jesus the Supreme Being, since “theos” with the definite article usually refers to the only true God.
Actually, the article before THEOS in John 20:28 is used because of the possessive nature of the phrase, literally translated “the god of me”. This kind of possessive usually needs the article. It is the same usage as that used in the phrase used of Satan, “the god of this world”, in 2 Corinthians 4:4. Thus, if the usage in John 20:28 means that Jesus is God Almighty, then one should also reason that Satan is God Almighty.
However, when one person is being referred to, the Greek usually only requires one article, even if two titles are used connected by kai (and). We find an example of this just a few verses before, where two titles are used of the God and Father of Jesus, connected by “kai”:
John 20:17
legei autee ieesous mee mou haptou oupw gar
IS SAYING TO HER JESUS NOT OF ME BE TOUCHING, NOT YET FOR
3004 0846_6 2424 3361 1473_2 0680 0681 3768 1063
anabebeeka pros ton patera poreuou de pros
I HAVE ASCENDED TOWARD THE FATHER; BE GOING BUT TOWARD
0305 4314 3588 3962 4198 1161 4314
tous adelphous mou kai eipe autois anabainw
THE BROTHERS OF ME AND SAY TO THEM I AM ASCENDING
3588 0080 1473_2 2532 1511_7 0846_93 0305
pros ton patera mou kai patera humwn kai theon
TOWARD THE FATHER OF ME AND FATHER OF YOU AND GOD
4314 3588 3962 1473_2 2532 3962 4771_5 2532 2316
mou kai theon humwn
OF ME AND GOD OF YOU.
1473_2 2532 2316 4771_5Notice the whole phrase “the father of me and father of you and God of me of God of you” has only one article for the whole possessive phrase.
However, let us look at:
John 20:28
apekrithee thwmas kai eipen autw ho kurios mou
ANSWERED THOMAS AND HE SAID TO HIM THE LORD OF ME
061 2381 2532 1511_7 0846_5 3588 2962 1473_2
kai ho theos mou
AND THE GOD OF ME!
2532 3588 2316 1473_2There is an article both before “Lord” and “God”. There are a few scholars who have argued that this peculiar structure indicates that Thomas first said to Jesus in exclamation “the Lord of me”, and then turned his attention to heaven in adding the rest, “and the God of me,” as acknowledging his God as being the One who sent his Lord.
Whether this is true or not, the fact that the article appears before theos simply designates the possessive nature being used, not that Jesus was being called Yahweh.
We find no custom elsewhere in the NT writings of anyone referring to Jesus as “my God” or “our God”. All through the New Testament, a strict distinction is overwhelmingly kept between God and Jesus. Thus, if Thomas was actually applying the title of THEOS to Jesus, it would be in the nature of the might, strength, power and authority in rulership that God has given to Jesus as the Son of God, not that it would be identifying Jesus as Yahweh. In effect, it would mean something like: My Lord and my strength, or My Lord and my Ruler. In the Old Testament, the words from which THEOS is translated are forms of EL, ELOHIM, and ELOAH. All of these words, especially EL and ELOHIM, can carry the basic meaning of strength, power, might.
While the words EL, ELOHIM and ELOAH usually refer to Yahweh as “God”, there are several times EL and ELOHIM are translated in their more basic meanings of strength, power, might, etc. One can easily see this on Crosswalks Lexicon:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….er=0410
On this page it shows that the King James Version renders the Hebrew word EL:
God 213, god 16, power 4, mighty 5, goodly 1, great 1, idols 1, Immanuel + (06005) 2, might 1, strong 1
If we look at the New American Standard listing for the same word:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….ion=naswe find that the NAS renders EL as:
El-berith* 1, God 204, god 16, God’s 2, gods 3, helpless* 1, mighty 3, M
ighty One 3, power 1, strong 1The same is true concerning the Hebrew ELOHIM:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….er=0430
The KJV renders the forms of ELOHIM as:
God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + (04136) 1, godly 1
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicon….ion=nas
The NAS renders forms of the word ELOHIM as:
divine 1, divine being 1, exceedingly 1, God 2326, god 45, God’s 14, goddess 2, godly 1, gods 204, great 2, judges 3, mighty 2, rulers 1, shrine* 1
Thus it should be readily seen that these words can take on a more general meaning of great, mighty, power, rulers, etc., when applied to others than Yahweh. Jesus, of course, was a mighty ruler to Thomas.
SOURCE
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
