Who is yhwh?

[NickHassan]

Amen Malcolm,
And in this matter his attitude was better that that of The Adversary.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ May 19 2006,04:15)

Amen Nick If he is co-equal fullstop, then it would not be a prize to be grasped or retained It would not be a prize or a priveledge – it would be intrinsice to him, not possibe for him to lose. This 'equality' would be a right not a 'prize', an inborn attribute.

Hi Malcolm,
Of couse 'grasped' can also be taken to me 'to grasp to oneself – as in 'retain' or 'prize', not necessarily to 'grasp at'. I don't think that's the intended conveyance of Paul.

Here is how the Apmlified Bible renders the verse:

Philippians 2:6 (AMP)
Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained

If Paul wanted to convey a 'snatching' of equality then that begs the obvious question “why didn't he simply use the Greek word 'harpazō'”, like John did to convey 'taking by force' in John 10:

John 10:12
“He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches (Gr. harpazō) them and scatters them.

John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch (Gr. harpazō) them out of the Father's hand.

The Greek word harpazō was available to Paul, and he used it elsewhere.

2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago–whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows–such a man was caught up [Gr. harpazō – to seize, catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force)] to the third heaven.

1 Thessalonians 4:17
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up [Gr. harpazō] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

But the fact is he didn't use harpazō in Phil 2:7. Instead he chose to use a passive tense noun formed from that verb. Thayer's, the standard Greek lexicon of the New Testament, renders the passages as follows:

“[Christ Jesus], who, although (formerly when he was [logos asarkos]) bore the form (in which he appeared to the inhabitants of heaven) of God (the sovereign, opposite to[morphe doulos]), yet did not think that this equality with God was to be eagerly clung to or retained” (p. 418, Col. b).

I think if we attach a 'snatch' interpretation to harpagamos in Phil 2:6, then we also do violence to the context of the passage itself, which is after all about humility.

Philippians 2:2-7
2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.
3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (Gr. harpagamos, passive tense:- retained, prized),
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If 'harpagamos' in vs. 6 is taken to mean the Logos decided not to 'snatch at' equality with God – how is that humility? It doesn't fit contextually at all. If, however, you interpret it as a 'relinquishing of the equality' (functional, not ontological) that He had intrinsically to take on the form (Gr. morphe) of a bond servant then that is much more in keeping with the context of the passage.

So given the grammer and context of Phil 2:6, 'retention' appears, to me at least, to be the best interpretation of harpagamos in this verse…..

Do you agree that it's better to let grammer dictate your doctrine, and not vise versa?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Harpagmos 725
The act of seizing or the thing seized.

Appears only once in the NT in Phil 2 “a thing to be grasped”

From Harpazo 726
Other verses different from the ones you have shown include

Matt 11.12
“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and violent men TAKE IT BY FORCE”
Jn 6.15
“So Jesus , perceiving that they were intending to come and TAKE HIM BY FORCE to make him king, withdrew..”
Acts 23.10
“…the commander was afrid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and TAKE HIM AWAY FROM THEM BY FORCE, and bring him…”
Jn 10.12
“He who is a hired hand, and not the shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf SNATCHES them and scatters them”
Matt 13.19
“When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and SNATCHES AWAY what has been sown in his heart…”

In what way do these reflect a RETAINING of something… one already has… by right?

[Is 1:18]

Quote

But the fact is he didn't use harpazō in Phil 2:6 (sic). Instead he chose to use a passive tense noun formed from that verb.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18
Phil 2.5
“..Christ Jesus, who,although he ewisted in the form of God DID NOT REGARD EQUALITY WITH GOD a thing to be grasped..”
So Christ was in the form of God-he was of divine nature.

One thing that is very plain is that
he was not that God,
that he did not regard equality with,
was to be grasped.

[Ramblinrose]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 29 2005,20:13)

YHWH is a descriptive name for God, not a personal name. “I am who am”

Exodus 3:15  And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH 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.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Ps 110
“The Lord[YHWH] says to my Lord[Yahshua];
'Sit at My right hand until I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet'
The Lord[YHWH] will stretch forth thy[Yahshua's] strong sceptre from Zion saying
'Rule in the midst of thine enemies'”

If God speaks to Christ at his right hand why do many say Christ is YHWH?

He is the Son of God.

[Woutlaw]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2006,00:06)

Hi, Ps 110 “The Lord[YHWH] says to my Lord[Yahshua]; 'Sit at My right hand until I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet' The Lord[YHWH] will stretch forth thy[Yahshua's] strong sceptre from Zion saying 'Rule in the midst of thine enemies'” If God speaks to Christ at his right hand why do many say Christ is YHWH? He is the Son of God.

Ahhhhhhh, how refreshing to hear one who speaks the truth. May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raise up more vessels to proclaim his truth.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Ps 2.2f
“The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel to gether
against the Lord[YHWH]
and against His anointed[Yahshua]
saying
'Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us'
He who sits in the heavens[YHWH]laughs
The Lord[YHWH] scoffs at them.
Then He[YHWH] will speak to them in His anger and terrify them in His fury, saying
'But as for me[YHWH] I have installed My King [Yahshua]upon Zion, My Holy Mountain.'

…Now Jesus himself takes up the psalm and tell of his begettal and his promised kingship in power on earth…..

I[Yahshua] will surely tell you of the decree of the Lord[YHWH]
He[YHWH] said to me [Yahsua]
'You are my Son, today I have begotten you. Ask of Me and I will surely give the nations as your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, you shall shatter them like earthenware'

..reverting to the psalmist..

Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;take warning, O judges of the earth, worship the Lord[YHWH] with reverence and rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son[Lord Yahshua] that He [YHWH]not become angry and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him.”

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Psalm 45 identified by The Spirit as referring to Jesus by the writer of Hebrews.
” Grace is poured upon your lips;therefore God has blessed you forever..
Gird your sword on your thigh O mighty one in your slendour and majesty..
..Let your right hand teach you awesome things..
Your throne O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows. All your garments are fragrant with myrrh and and aloes and cassia;”

The glorious kingly Son of God anointed from above by his God and our God with the Spirit.

[malcolm ferris]

Hi Is1:18

How are you my friend, well I hope.

Reason this within you which Jesus Christ also reasoned, Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men
(Lamsa – paeshitta version – taken from the Aramaic)

Now there is no perfect translation of the bible that I am aware of but there are some very excellent ones – of which is the Lamsa version I believe.
I personally like the wording: 'thought it not a prize to be grasped and retained'

Grasped here not meaning held onto selfishly or desperately but rather: held firm and kept – not relinquished.
Now in a sense one could look at this wording and presume perhaps that because his attitude was that it was not something to be held onto at all cost that therefore it was an intrinsic attribute.
But this begs the question how does one lay aside an attribute of oneself that is intrinsic?

If one has CO-EQUALITY this implies equality in every aspect relative to the one(s) the co-equal had this status with.

So if the one he is co-equal with is eternal – he of necessity must also be eternal.
How is a son eternal when the very concept of and meaning of son is one begotten and therefore coming from an ancestor?
A father predates his son.

If the he who is co-equal with is omniscient or at least knows as much as his partner(s) in equality then how is it that Jesus makes statements like:

“No man knows the day or hour when the Son of Man returns, not the angels in Heaven, not even the son, only the Father knows it.”
(my own alliteration of Mk 13:32)

If the one he is co-equal with is omnipotent (all-powerful) then he also must be all powerful – this in the sense of powerful of himself.
At best he could be co-powerful – but I read of a god who is 'the ALMIGHTY' – who though He may transfer certain abilities to others, may use vessels for His purpose and to perform His will, is ultimately in complete and total authority.

How is this true of Jesus who says:

“My Father which gave them me is greater than all and none can snatch them out of His hand”
(Jn 10:29)

JOHN 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

How is this co-powerful. I see a co-power arrangement in the fact that He (God the Father) made all things BY him (Jesus the Son). He (God the Father) redeemed all things by him (Jesus the Son) and He (God the Father) raised him (the son) from the dead and set him in a position of authority. With all of the authority of God to executed His plan of salvation to the full extent, and with a further enduement of power to come into manifestation once all things are put under his feet by his Father.

Now one could argue that this co-equality was a right, an intrinsic attribute that he set to the side in order to for a brief term to be made lower in order to perform the work fulfilling God's righteous requirement for a perfect sacrifice for sin – to meet the demands of the Law.
Which upon fulfilling this task he re-assumed. But I still cannot see it personally.

As I have stated before – sons have beginnings – I cannot see an eternal son making any sense in any language terms – any conceptual terms or any grammatical sense either for that matter.

Also the idea of God (or one of His persons) becoming not God for a time, then becoming God again, I find to be contrary to the constant statement of God concerning Himself – that He is the LORD (YHWH) who changes not.

Quote

Do you agree that it's better to let grammer dictate your doctrine, and not vise versa?

Well there has been much fruitless debate in ages past over grammar and languages. I think it is best to be as informed as you can be and allow God's Spirit to guide you by His Word.

As ever JMTCW

(Just My Two Cents Worth):D

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
God changes not.
And scripture also says about Jesus too

“Jesus Christ IS THE SAME yesterday, and today and forever”

If he was by nature equal to God and lost that equality temporarily in what way is this ongoing equality?

From his beginning he is forever the Son of God, and no more that God than any other son is also their own father.

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Is 42. 1f
” Behold My servant, who I uphold; My chosen one, in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon him. He will bring forth Justice to the nations”

So God is speaking. He speaks of His separate servant Son who is loved and upheld by Him. He is revealing him to the world and the angels in flesh. He is a clean and empty vessel has no powers of his own but is anointed by God with His own Spirit to serve and allow God as Spirit to work among men.

[malcolm ferris]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 05 2006,23:42)

Hi Malcolm, God changes not. And scripture also says about Jesus too “Jesus Christ IS THE SAME yesterday, and today and forever” If he was by nature equal to God and lost that equality temporarily in what way is this ongoing equality? From his beginning he is forever the Son of God, and no more that God than any other son is also their own father.

No,no
Jesus is not equal to his Father, his unchanging nature is by virtue of the life that is in him being the same life of the Father. And as such shows forth the nature of God who changes not.

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
All beings inherit life originally from the Father through the Son. But is it the life OF the Father. Eternal life is not human or animal life and that is the life of the Father. Surely it was given to the Son that he could give it to us.

[malcolm ferris]

Hi Nick
I think what you are talking about is the difference between life creative and life of God – which is eternal and produced in sons by way of begettal.
Now obviously creative life is not eternal life.
The bottom line I think is that all life – either type is attributable to God.
Whatever way it comes forth it is God who is the source – Creator – of creative life. Father – of His own life. So this honour and recognition cannot be taken from Him.
Then there is the honour afforded the son – that he is the channel through which all sons come forth.

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Men are only of the breath of God.
The Word is spoken of God.

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Would you like to start a thread on the basis of the Lamsa -Peshitta bible? Who wrote the Aramaic you say it is derived from?

[malcolm ferris]

Quote

Men are only of the breath of God. The Word is spoken of God.

And God said let us make man in our own image and likeness…

I don't read: and God breathed and man was made – I read first of God speaking, as he spoke all life and creation into existence. And what kind of a man did he speak into existence? A man in His own image and likeness. And what is His own image and likeness? Is it flesh? I think not – spirit? – I think so (John 4:24)

Then I read of God breathing into the nostrils of the man He had formed from the ground – and in this way quickening man to life, unique to all other creatures. With the other living creation I read of Him saying – and let the earth bring forth. But with man I read of Him forming Him personally and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life.

Jesus – the Word is said to be – the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person – the image of the invisible God.
So that is what the Word is – the image of the invisible God – is this in His likeness and image? Is he the Son of God?
Does he have eternal life? I think the answer is yes to all of these three questions.
So man was made in the image of God, fell because of sin in the flesh, and is restored by the sacrifice of Calvary back to the former status of sons of God, to have eternal life, to be once again in His image, and reflect the glory of God our Father as Jesus our elder brother also did.
IMHO

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
When God said “let us make man in our image ” God was not alone of course. God had begotten a Son in whom was life and through whom life was given to the other sons of God who were also with God before the creation of the visible universe.
God gave lfe through the Son to man as breath and not His Spirit. We are alike to God in being a living being with heart and mind but the similarity ends there.

[Author]

Posts