• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Colossians 1:16 Jesus the Almighty, [John 1:3, Jesus is God incarnated

calm

Active Member
Except you apparently :rolleyes:......perhaps we should change that scripture that says that "God turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name" (Acts 15:14) to read "a person for his real name"? :confused:

Are you really the only person that God has revealed his truth to?
Who else believes what you believe? Do you have a brotherhood? Can you tell us who they are?
Watch and learn.

And as I said, no matter which country you or I go, they will pronounce our names the way they are.
You can translate everything but no names. Anyone who translates a name gives that person a different name.

"Except you apparently"
I am neither a whole country, nor do I belong to any known religious group.
 
Last edited:

moorea944

Well-Known Member
Now, since JESUS in spirit form would be the same being, then presumably any argument could be presented in the context of Genesis 1:26.
However, again, this cannot be argued if Jesus isn't Deific, in other words higher than the angels.
Hebrews 1:1-8
Hebrews 1:4

Jesus in spirit form.... you mean like a ghost? Not really sure what your talking about... Are you saying that he was here before he was born? Not really sure what your talking about....

You mentioned about this cannot be argued if Jesus isnt Deific. Are you saying that Jesus was divine before his birth? Are you saying that he was higher than the angels "before" his birth?

Why would you think Jesus pre-exited anyhow.... Or was divine or God anyhow.... Jesus wasnt gloried until after he was born. Didnt Jesus ask his father to now glorify him when he was grown? Not really sure where your thoughts are coming from.....

Ok, let's do this...... If Jesus is God, and one in the same, like you say..... why the father and son thing...... Why is Jesus called the son and GOD the father if they are the same or co-equal and co-eternal, etc, etc.... Why even bother with something like that? Wouldnt scripture tell us that one of the two God's came down to earth? But it doesnt.......
It says Jesus is the "son of God". Jesus was born, a man. And God is Jesus's God and father. Maybe we should just stick with that... Just a thought.......
 

calm

Active Member
Jesus in spirit form.... you mean like a ghost? Not really sure what your talking about... Are you saying that he was here before he was born? Not really sure what your talking about....

You mentioned about this cannot be argued if Jesus isnt Deific. Are you saying that Jesus was divine before his birth? Are you saying that he was higher than the angels "before" his birth?

Why would you think Jesus pre-exited anyhow.... Or was divine or God anyhow.... Jesus wasnt gloried until after he was born. Didnt Jesus ask his father to now glorify him when he was grown? Not really sure where your thoughts are coming from.....

Ok, let's do this...... If Jesus is God, and one in the same, like you say..... why the father and son thing...... Why is Jesus called the son and GOD the father if they are the same or co-equal and co-eternal, etc, etc.... Why even bother with something like that? Wouldnt scripture tell us that one of the two God's came down to earth? But it doesnt.......
It says Jesus is the "son of God". Jesus was born, a man. And God is Jesus's God and father. Maybe we should just stick with that... Just a thought.......
Jesus was the Word of God before he became man. The Word of God was with God and God Himself is the Word.
What is the Word?
The Word is the speech of God. Through his Word he creates all things.
You as a person also have your own word, through your word you can swear, curse and also honour God. Your word is powerful, because that which comes out through your word can lead you to ruin or save you forever. (James 3:1-12)
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I don't see it as a "Baptist" belief. It is right there in the Bibles I've used. It is odd though that some passages, Pastors will try to explain away. I've had Catholic Priests I've spoken to about certain passages say things like "This is a mystery" and then come up with some gobbledygook. I don't know of any passage that tells me that God will excuse my sin because a Pastor told me to do it.

I believe God forgives a lot but that still means the person sinned. For instance Jesus forgave those mocking Him while He was on the cross but He forgave them because they had no idea what they were doing.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, I'm easy with, especially Mathew. It's been a long road. As a youngster around 15 or 16 (1962?) a Pot Washer in a Hospital Kitchen I worked in gave me a Red Bible. In it, there was a passage that said,"The Black Man will be satan's henchman". Later in life, I have tried to figure out if it was a JW Bible, or a Mormon one? Both have had their dark periods.

Later, in 1974, in a period of Spiritual Quickening, I read the whole Bible (KJV) through like a book in about 2 weeks. I wasn't to the "Prayer and Meditation" place yet. One or two books in the OT were such a trudge with their genealogy that I was not diligent with them. Still, I read the whole OT and decided that God was kind and patient. It seemed to me that it was a profound act of mercy that he didn't just wipe man out entirely and come out with revision 2 of man?

I was easy with the four Gospels, feeling that I knew and would follow Jesus. From Acts on to Revelation was a disappointment. I was never easy with the Murder of Ananias and Sapphira. By the time I finished the NT, I felt that who ever wrote it was not a likeable person, and I would never want to know them. The book of Revelation was hard to understand, and parts of it are still confusing.

It is disappointing to me that there are so many Denominations in Christianity. I left it in 2003. Islam is just as messed up. The Jews are so irascible, by in large that I don't get them. Anyone who would refuse to push an Elevator button on Shabat...It's not something I can comprehend.

Hence the reason for being an Abrahamic Religionist. I can honestly worship God, Allah SWT, G_d in whatever form he takes, even knowing that he is largely unknowable. As to Jesus, Isa PBUH I don't have to understand it all. I don't believe that any of us do. It is confusing to me why people don't use the research resources available to them in doing religious investigation. So many seem so dependent upon their Pastor or Imam in an unhealthy way...

These days, I am completely alone, and understand that it could be God's will. Jesus speaks about distractions. I'm still just as bent (C.S. Lewis) as everyone else, but there is the freedom to try to do better, with no one to blame for my failings except the one in the Mirror.

I believe if you can understand the Gospel that should get you there. The Gospel of Jesus is that He came to give us eternal life. He also came to give us the Holy Spirit by which we enter into eternal life. The only other requirement is a belief that your sins are forgiven.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The NT does not view Jesus as God. Even in John's Gospel Jesus explicitly excludes himself from the Godhead in John 17:3, where he calls the Father "you, the only true God". Later in John, Jesus says he's ascending to "my God and your God". Obviously only a creature can have a God, so Jesus can't be God.

The OP's scriptural citation - -

Colossians 1:16
16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

- - describes Jesus not as God, but rather as God's agent of creation. In the NT, God or Yahweh is the one and only Creator. Jesus is the means, the method, the vehicle and ordained agent of God's creative will. That is why Colossians says not that Jesus created all things, but rather that all things were created in him and through him.

If the NT thought that Jesus is God, then it would be replete with prayer to Jesus as God. However, NT prayer is never directed to Jesus as to God.
Rather, NT prayer is always addressed to God in or through Jesus - just as Colossians says that Creation took place in and through Jesus.

There is no unambiguous NT evidence that Jesus is God.

I believe there is a plethora of evidence that Jesus is God.

I believe God is the creator of all things so this is simply more proof that Jesus is God in the flesh.

I believe this is the null hypothesis which doesn't work in this case because it is always better to focus on the Father rather than on Jesus so that people won't worship the flesh.

I believe I have seen many so called ambiguities presented by those opposed to Jesus being God but they are all invalid.

 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
I believe if you can understand the Gospel that should get you there. The Gospel of Jesus is that He came to give us eternal life. He also came to give us the Holy Spirit by which we enter into eternal life. The only other requirement is a belief that your sins are forgiven.

God and the writings I study. Believers model little.
 

moorea944

Well-Known Member
I believe there is a plethora of evidence that Jesus is God.

I believe God is the creator of all things so this is simply more proof that Jesus is God in the flesh.

I believe this is the null hypothesis which doesn't work in this case because it is always better to focus on the Father rather than on Jesus so that people won't worship the flesh.

I believe I have seen many so called ambiguities presented by those opposed to Jesus being God but they are all invalid.

I believe there is a plethora of evidence that Jesus is God.
A "plethora" of evidence? Wow. Like what? You still havent proven anything. You just want Jesus to be God.

I believe God is the creator of all things so this is simply more proof that Jesus is God in the flesh.
Yes, God is the creator of all things. But, Jesus wasnt born yet.... What you just stated doesnt even make sense...... God created everything, so how does Jesus come into play if he wasnt even born yet. Look at what you just wrote..

But also look at 1 Peter and Heb 1 where it says that, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," and "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"

Jesus was in the mind and plans of God. If Jesus did pre-exist, these verses would be written differently. It would say something like, God always spoke through Jesus since the beginning of time, but it doesnt.

I believe this is the null hypothesis which doesn't work in this case because it is always better to focus on the Father rather than on Jesus so that people won't worship the flesh.
Jesus was flesh and blood. He was like us in nature. Let's not bring in our own words like "God the son" and I think we'll start understanding the bible better......

I believe I have seen many so called ambiguities presented by those opposed to Jesus being God but they are all invalid.
That's because you want to be right. And your actually making ourself believe that Jesus is God because that's what your being taught. Your taking the Son of God and making him God the Son... Get the point?
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Well thank you, now I have something to work with. I actually relish such opportunities. :)

So the "hundreds of times" we supposedly included the name of "Jehovah", we were in error....?

You do understand that the Jews had ceased to use God's name a long time before Jesus came to fulfill his mission? They had no authority from God to do so and they knew it.....that is why you will find the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text to this day, but because they would substitute the title "Adonai" (Lord) when they spoke it, the pronunciation was eventually lost through lack of use.

Do you have a problem with "Jesus" name? Since there are no "J" names in Hebrew and you apparently have no problem seeing Jesus as God, why would you balk at "Jehovah" (the English translation of the divine name) and not also balk at "Jesus"? (the English translation of his name) Do you see the inconsistency? You would have to go and alter every Bible with "J" names in it because the majority of them incorporate the divine name.

So what about the tetragrammaton in the Greek Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek, and used by Jews and also by Jesus apostles and disciple in the first century. Was the divine name found in the Septuagint?

"
23

The divine name in the ancient Hebrew letters used before the Babylonian exile.

25

The divine name in the Hebrew letters used after the Babylonian exile."

"...for centuries scholars thought that the Tetragrammaton was absent from manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, as well as from manuscripts of the New Testament. Then in the mid-20th century, something remarkable came to the attention of scholars—some very old fragments of the Greek Septuagint version that existed in Jesus’ day had been discovered. Those fragments contain the personal name of God, written in Hebrew characters."

This is a picture of the Greek Septuagint (below second from the left) with the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appearing in the Greek text in unaltered Hebrew characters....

35


It was humans who removed and substituted a title ("Lord") for the divine name...not God. He at no time told the Jews to stop uttering his name. Since they were told in Exodus 3:15 that this name was to be used by the generations of his people "forever".....they clearly let him down in this respect (and a lot of others respects as well.)

In the Septuagint pictured above we see that they did not substitute God's name in the Septuagint, but kept it......in the 5th century Axexandrinus Codex however, you can see the substitution of KC and KY (meaning "kyrios" or "Lord") for the divine name in Deuteronomy 18:15-16. Again with no authorization from God to alter his word.....so if you want to start going on about alterations...you need to go back way further than the NWT.
All we did was put it back where it originally was....where it belongs.

"Some Bible scholars acknowledge that it seems likely that the divine name appeared in Hebrew Scripture quotations found in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Under the heading “Tetragrammaton in the New Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary states: “There is some evidence that the Tetragrammaton, the Divine Name, Yahweh, appeared in some or all of the O[ld] T[estament] quotations in the N[ew] T[estament] when the NT documents were first penned.” Scholar George Howard says: “Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible [the Septuagint] which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text.”

Recognized Bible translators have used God’s name in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
Some of these translators did so long before the New World Translation was produced.

The manuscripts of the New Testament that we possess today are not the originals. The original manuscripts written by Matthew, John, Paul, and others were well used, and no doubt they quickly wore out. Hence, copies were made, and when those wore out, further copies were made. Of the thousands of copies of the New Testament in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were penned. It appears that by that time those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kuʹri·os or Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or copied from manuscripts where this had been done.

Jesus used God’s name and made it known to others. (John 17:6, 11, 12, 26) Jesus plainly stated: “I have come in the name of my Father.” He also stressed that his works were done “in the name of [his] Father.” In fact, Jesus’ own name means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”—John 5:43; 10:25.

The divine name appears in its abbreviated form in the Greek Scriptures. At Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, the divine name is embedded in the expression “Alleluia,” or “Hallelujah.” This expression literally means “Praise Jah, you people!” Jah is a contraction of the name Jehovah.

About the middle of the first century C.E., the disciple James said to the elders in Jerusalem: “Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.” (Acts 15:14) Does it sound logical to you that James would make such a statement if nobody in the first century knew or used God’s name?

When copies of the Septuagint were discovered that used the divine name rather than Kyʹri·os (Lord), it became evident to the translators that in Jesus’ day copies of the earlier Scriptures in Greek—and of course those in Hebrew—did contain the divine name. Apparently, the God-dishonoring tradition of removing the divine name from Greek manuscripts developed only later."

Excerpts from....
Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

A5 The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

I believe that the divine name of God belongs in the Bible, where it was originally found, and that God has given it to his people, as indicated in Acts 15:14.

The divine name does belong in the Bible, but the divine name is YHWH not Jehovah. How do you pronounce Hallelujah, with a Y sound or a J? Jehovah is an artificial name.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
Colossians 1:16

Things were created through him. that implicates someone created and used Jesus as “tool” in the process.

No - In Isaiah 44:24 YHWH said he created all things and he was alone and by himself. The reason Colossians 1:14-18 says the Messiah created all things is because he was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The divine name does belong in the Bible, but the divine name is YHWH not Jehovah.

The divine name is contained in the Hebrew Scriptures almost 7,000 times......it most certainly does belong in the Bible. Do you see any command from God to exclude it or to use a substitute title instead? The Jewish Tanach still had the divine name in the Hebrew...but missing in the English translation. Most English translations now omit it and substitute "the Lord" instead.
It's removal did not have God's sanction.

How do you pronounce Hallelujah, with a Y sound or a J? Jehovah is an artificial name.

Does God speak any language other than Hebrew? Don't you think that God recognizes his name in any language?

The English translation of Yahweh is Jehovah. Why do you think people baulk over the pronunciation of God's name but call Jesus by his English name without hesitation?
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
The divine name is contained in the Hebrew Scriptures almost 7,000 times......it most certainly does belong in the Bible. Do you see any command from God to exclude it or to use a substitute title instead? The Jewish Tanach still had the divine name in the Hebrew...but missing in the English translation. Most English translations now omit it and substitute "the Lord" instead.
It's removal did not have God's sanction.



Does God speak any language other than Hebrew? Don't you think that God recognizes his name in any language?

The English translation of Yahweh is Jehovah. Why do you think people baulk over the pronunciation of God's name but call Jesus by his English name without hesitation?

You should read what I said before you answer. You first part makes no sense in response to me saying the divine name DOES belong in the Bible.

The divine name is YHWH. Vowel points had been added to the text to remind them to say Adonai (lord or master) a totally different word , instead of the name. Some translators not knowing this, combined vowels from a totally different word with the divine name and came up with the artificial name Jehovah.

Actually the messiah's true name is YHWSH, which means YHWH is salvation or YHWH saves.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
You should read what I said before you answer. You first part makes no sense in response to me saying the divine name DOES belong in the Bible.

I was agreeing with you...but with qualification.
There was no valid reason for the Jews to avoid saying God's name....the Bible writers had no such difficulty.

The divine name is YHWH. Vowel points had been added to the text to remind them to say Adonai (lord or master) a totally different word , instead of the name. Some translators not knowing this, combined vowels from a totally different word with the divine name and came up with the artificial name Jehovah.

Since "Jehovah" has been in use for centuries and is widely accepted as the English equivalent of Yahweh. You can quibble over pronunciation if you wish. Would you like to alter all the Bibles with "J" names in them since there is no "J" in Hebrew. Most of those names incorporate the divine name.

Actually the messiah's true name is YHWSH, which means YHWH is salvation or YHWH saves.
I know....
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Since "Jehovah" has been in use for centuries and is widely accepted as the English equivalent of Yahweh. You can quibble over pronunciation if you wish. Would you like to alter all the Bibles with "J" names in them since there is no "J" in Hebrew. Most of those names incorporate the divine name.

YHWH is the english equivalent to the Hebrew name, not Jehovah.

Suppose everyone started calling him Lucas for centuries, would that make it right to call him Lucas? God's name is more important than other names.

If you truly want the divine name in the text, then why not use the correct one? Why do you make it a key point and then use an artificial name?
 
Last edited:

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Can you see the contradictory nature of what you just said? If something is made "FOR" you, it was not made BY you. Someone else made it for you.
When the pre-human Jesus and his Father collaborated in the creative process, they worked together. (Genesis 1:26) The Father is God and his son was the agency "through" whom all creation came...his "Master Worker" (Proverbs 8:30-31).

Colossians 1:13-16...NASB
"13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.


15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him
."
image.png
:confused:

What you said above doesn't hold up.
Isaiah 44:24 says that YHWH made all things, and says he was alone and by himself. And the verse you referred to in Proverbs 8:30-31 is talking about wisdom. Read the whole chapter.

There is a big difference between being made in the image of God, and being the image of God. We are made in the image of God. The messiah was the image of the invisible God. And that doesn't mean he was just a reflection or he would be invisible too. The messiah was YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
YHWH is the english equivalent to the Hebrew name, not Jehovah.

Why do you think that the Jews stopped using God's name, and instead substituted a title and even calling God "Hasham" (meaning "the name") Was this God's doing, or theirs?

Suppose everyone started calling him Lucas for centuries, would that make it right to call him Lucas? God's name is more important than other names.

And what if his name was Peter and he travelled to other countries that spoke other languages and in France they called him Pierre....and in Spain they called him Pedro....and in Greece they called him Petra....? Would he complain, since it's the same name in different languages. Why stumble over pronunciation when it has been lost to human speech for now? The importance of God's name cannot be denied but what is the point of not calling him by any name because no one knows the exact pronunciation?

We see "Jehovah" as the same name as YHWH, only the English translation of it.
God knows his name in any language because the ones who use it say it from their heart.
In Acts 15:14 God chose a "people for his name" from among the Gentiles....so who are they, and what languages do they speak?

If you truly want the divine name in the text, then why not use the correct one? Why do you make it a key point and then use an artificial name?

We use the one that people are already familiar with. In case you haven't noticed, English is not the only language into which the Bible is translated. Other languages use variations of the divine name common in their own language.....you think God does not respond to these ones who call him by the name that is common to their tongue? I think you you sell them short....you sell Jehovah short too. :(
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
You should read what I said before you answer. You first part makes no sense in response to me saying the divine name DOES belong in the Bible.

The divine name is YHWH. Vowel points had been added to the text to remind them to say Adonai (lord or master) a totally different word , instead of the name. Some translators not knowing this, combined vowels from a totally different word with the divine name and came up with the artificial name Jehovah.

Actually the messiah's true name is YHWSH, which means YHWH is salvation or YHWH saves.
That's incorrect. What you have is occasional 'descriptive' names being used as words, thusly creating the false idea, that Adonai , isn't a name for the Lord, in the Bible. That is why Adonai, is a name of Deity, ie here meaning JHVH, or the Tetragrammaton.

In the Christian Bible, although the theistic inferences are traditionally considered [somewhat differently, so Adonai when used in a Deific manner, Adonai Elohim, for example, is thusly a 'name' of the Lord.


Jehovah is a version of the Tetragrammaton, the 'actual name', being inferred or not, thusly as we don't say the name usually , in common conversation, [tradition, it is a way to write the Tetragrammaton, regardless of belief, ie whether that is 'correct', or whatever.

As we change sounds cross language wise, when a name is inferred , we go by intent if meaning.

Anyways, Jehovah is traditionaly fine both written, and said.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The divine name is YHWH. Vowel points had been added to the text to remind them to say Adonai (lord or master) a totally different word , instead of the name. Some translators not knowing this, combined vowels from a totally different word with the divine name and came up with the artificial name Jehovah.
That is obscure. If you don't believe that to be the name, it is a pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, with vowel points, hence would just be a manner of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, [JHVH
 
Last edited:

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
That is obscure. If you don't believe that to be the name, it is a pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, with vowel points, hence would just be a manner of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, [JHVH
Jehovah is not even close to being an accurate pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. It can't be because the vowels used were from another word. There is no J in the Hebrew language and never has been. That makes the pronunciation wrong.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Jehovah is not even close to being an accurate pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. It can't be because the vowels used were from another word. There is no J in the Hebrew language and never has been. That makes the pronunciation wrong.
Your theory isn't correct, though. You're just wrong in another way.
 
Top