Jesus never says to worship 'Yahweh'

[oldbadger]

Cant remember if it were called christian then until Rome took over or something. Cant remember the details I learned half a year ago. I finally graduated so I have reason to forget.

Fair enough

"Jesus taught to worship god not himself."

When, where, why, wasnt included in this statement. How does thjs relate?

I don't relate to this^^^
And I don't think he 'taught', I think he made speeches, but that's just my take. It's rather like the News telling us that President Trump (or any politician) was at an event 'teaching' the assembly.....

Scratches her head

I never disagreed.
Where did I say otherwise???

Excellent. OK.

Im an atheist. I disagree with the trinity. Never believed in christ's father nor the bible. All od you who believe in god, I cant figure you guys out.

Don't lose sleep over it.

What is the god you believe in?
An idea or feeling of one?

My God?
God is everything thing and every force that exists, a well as all the nothingness. There isn't anything that is not a part of God, but my God is no more interested in you or me than the sparrows in my garden.
I'm a Deist, not a Theist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Fair enough

I don't relate to this^^^
And I don't think he 'taught', I think he made speeches, but that's just my take. It's rather like the News telling us that President Trump (or any politician) was at an event 'teaching' the assembly.....

Haha. He was a spokesman, mainly. Dont know about how well he taught. Id assume if he taught the messsge well as son of god, there'd be no mix up.

Don't lose sleep over

Haha.

My God?
God is everything thing and every force that exists, a well as all the nothingness. There isn't anything that is not a part of God, but my God is no more interested in you or me than the sparrows in my garden.
I'm a Deist, not a Theist.

Panthedeism?

 

[oldbadger]

Haha. He was a spokesman, mainly. Dont know about how well he taught. Id assume if he taught the messsge well as son of god, there'd be no mix up.



Haha.




Panthedeism?

PanDeism.
You just have to take out the 'the' in the middle because that would be part of PanTheism. I'm not a Theist.

 

[Desert Snake]

He said it is written, Thou shalt worship YHWH thy God, and him only shalt thou serve in Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8

Go to the verse in the OT he is quoting, and saying it is written - When you do, you will find it is YHWH in the Hebrew, for that verse.

But as the scripture points out in Philippians 2:11, every tongue will confess that the Messiah is YHWH

This refutes the thread premise?

Your argument is cross reference verses, that suggest similar titles, however this is the Christian Bible, not Judaism.

So where are you getting this title name, theology?

 

[Desert Snake]

It doesn't mean the Father is someone else. Isaiah 9:6 lets us know that the son to be born would also be the mighty God, and the everlasting Father.

What did the son say when asked to show them the Father?
He said - Have I been so long time with you and you still don't know me? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou shew us the Father ? John 14:8-9

The son is the flesh, and the Father is the eternal Spirit dwelling in that flesh. That is why he said I and my Father are one. John 10:30-33
They understood what he meant, that he was God, that is why they tried to stone him. They said he was committing blasphemy, that he being a man, was making himself God.

As I said, he was YHWH.

Who created everything? Was it YHWH as stated in Isaiah 44:24 who said, I am YHWH that maketh all things: that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. or was it the Messiah as stated in Colossians 1:14-16 ?
Please don't just skip this - try to answer it.

Once again this proves the Messiah had to have been YHWH in order for both scriptures to be true.
Why should it surprise you? It says God was manifest in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16

Well, In English, it's the Lord. So, if you can present an argument that the titles can't mean both Jesus, the Lord, and the Lord, in those verses, then that seems necessary to the argument.
Aside from that, the Godhood would be expected to refer to itself, in this manner.

Also, you need to explain why Jesus says father, so forth.

 

[Desert Snake]

Partially right; yet we shouldn't use 'someone' for the father, more like 'something', the closest human terminology is a CPU that manifest reality at a quantum level; which in ancient Biblical times was called El Elyon (God Most High)...

Which is who Gabriel (Luke 1:32), Yeshua (Luke 6:35), and the demons called Yeshua's father.

In my opinion.

Agree that Lord is more of a general title, than is usually argued.
Hence, when your argument is compared to the Christian or Jesus Judaic perspective, your argument doesn't necessitate Jesus's name, to be specifically 'Lord' title, just like 'YHWH', then becomes more of a title.
Hence, your methodology seems to be interpretive, and although workable, can still vary.

Either way, I agree that Lord is more title inference.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This refutes the thread premise?

Your argument is cross reference verses, that suggest similar titles, however this is the Christian Bible, not Judaism.

So where are you getting this title name, theology?

In the OT of most Christian Bibles they indicate where YHWH was replaced with adonai (Lord) , by capitalizing it as LORD or sometimes GOD.
Most of the time they will tell this somewhere near the front of the Bible.

If you look in a Hebrew-English interlinear, you will see the name in Hebrew characters. But it will have vowel points to remind them to say adonai (Lord) or Elohim (God) instead of saying his name. They replaced his name with a title, almost 7,000 times in the OT alone.

The reason it sometimes has GOD instead of LORD, is because that is a verse where the title adonai (Lord) was already in the verse next to the name YHWH.
If they replaced YHWH with adonai in those verses, it would read adonai adonai, back to back. So in those cases they replaced it with a different word, elohim (the Hebrew word for God).

Unfortunately, they haven't done the same thing for us in the NT.
But when you have verses, where they are quoting an OT verse, that was YHWH in the original, it has to be YHWH in the NT verse. There is no way the apostles would have quoted a verse and replaced God's name with a title.

Oh, and yes it refutes the thread premise. There is only one Lord anyway. Ephesians 4:4-5

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Well, In English, it's the Lord. So, if you can present an argument that the titles can't mean both Jesus, the Lord, and the Lord, in those verses, then that seems necessary to the argument.
Aside from that, the Godhood would be expected to refer to itself, in this manner.

Also, you need to explain why Jesus says father, so forth.

What I have been trying to show is that the one you call Jesus, was YHWH there dwelling in that fleshly body. So it is talking about the Messiah, because he is YHWH.

When the flesh is referring to the eternal Spirit, he calls him Father. Because the eternal Spirit did Father that body. Is that what you are asking?
Remember as Isaiah 9:6 said, the son would also be the everlasting Father. That is why when they asked him to show them the Father, he replied have I been so long time with you and you still don't know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father.

 

[Desert Snake]

In the OT of most Christian Bibles they indicate where YHWH was replaced with adonai (Lord) , by capitalizing it as LORD or sometimes GOD.

If noting the specific usage of YHWH, 'God ', is not the way to indicate that name/title.

Most of the time they will tell this somewhere near the front of the Bible.

...

If you look in a Hebrew-English interlinear, you will see the name in Hebrew characters. But it will have vowel points to remind them to say adonai (Lord) or Elohim (God) instead of saying his name. They replaced his name with a title, almost 7,000 times in the OT alone.

God has more than one name, and YHWH is no more a 'specific name', than other names. Hence, you need to explain why you seem to believe that God has one personal name, and not more than one name. You certainly didn't get that from Jesus belief.

The reason it sometimes has GOD instead of LORD, is because that is a verse where the title adonai (Lord) was already in the verse next to the name YHWH.
If they replaced YHWH with adonai in those verses, it would read adonai adonai, back to back. So in those cases they replaced it with a different word, elohim (the Hebrew word for God).

You wouldn't use elohim as a replacement word for Adonai, however I'm not sure what Bible you're referring to, anyway.

Unfortunately, they haven't done the same thing for us in the NT.
But when you have verses, where they are quoting an OT verse, that was YHWH in the original, it has to be YHWH in the NT verse. There is no way the apostles would have quoted a verse and replaced God's name with a title.

God has more than one name, and, the Bible is written in Lord as title manner, though obviously, it is a name. If YHWH, though a name as well, is a title, as the usage in Christian , or Jesus belief, is traditionally done, then, there really isn't a problem with using 'Lord', there.

Oh, and yes it refutes the thread premise. There is only one Lord anyway. Ephesians 4:4-5

If the verses are regarding a Jesus inference, then you are saying that Jesus is the 'one Lord', and certainly not refuting anything, since Jesus is a name, and Jesus is Lord.
The name or title is 'Lord', and in the Hebrew, you derive a different title, or name.

 

[Desert Snake]

PanDeism.
You just have to take out the 'the' in the middle because that would be part of PanTheism. I'm not a Theist.

That would be 'into the great nothing' when you die?

Or, what? How did the pandeist entity create itself, if it already existed?

 

[oldbadger]

That would be 'into the great nothing' when you die?

I'm already a part of the great everything, no part of me (or you) can be destroyed.

Or, what? How did the pandeist entity create itself, if it already existed?

Beyond your or my understanding.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I have been trying to show is that the one you call Jesus, was YHWH there dwelling in that fleshly body. So it is talking about the Messiah, because he is YHWH.

When the flesh is referring to the eternal Spirit, he calls him Father. Because the eternal Spirit did Father that body. Is that what you are asking?
Remember as Isaiah 9:6 said, the son would also be the everlasting Father. That is why when they asked him to show them the Father, he replied have I been so long time with you and you still don't know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father.

You're not using the names that match what you are changing. You're changing Scripture, which doesn't make sense, because you are arguing that the names match cross language wise, when they don't.
Your methodology is changing the Hebrew names/words, then matching it to the changed NT verses. Ie, you aren't actually matching the names/words.
Hence, you're just presenting a theory, with changed Scripture.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You're not using the names that match what you are changing. You're changing Scripture, which doesn't make sense, because you are arguing that the names match cross language wise, when they don't.
Your methodology is changing the Hebrew names/words, then matching it to the changed NT verses. Ie, you aren't actually matching the names/words.
Hence, you're just presenting a theory, with changed Scripture.

Sorry, but you either don't understand, or don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, but you either don't understand, or don't know what you are talking about.

No, I do understand... what you don't understand, is that the Hebrew names, really are different, and in the Christian Bible, it works with the theology. Your methodology is quasi Judaism mixed with incompatible Scripture, like Jesus being YHWH.

So, it is not only scripturally incorrect, like, literally, it isn't theologically sensible, either.

That is what happens when you try to change the Hebraic names, to words that they aren't.

Clearly demonstrated by your comments.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, I do understand... what you don't understand, is that the Hebrew names, really are different, and in the Christian Bible, it works with the theology. Your methodology is quasi Judaism mixed with incompatible Scripture, like Jesus being YHWH.

So, it is not only scripturally incorrect, like, literally, it isn't theologically sensible, either.

That is what happens when you try to change the Hebraic names, to words that they aren't.

Clearly demonstrated by your comments.

You obviously need to read my posts again. I wasn't the one that changed the Hebrew name to a word that it wasn't. I was explaining what they had done. You are free to believe anything you want.

 

[Desert Snake]

That isn't a interpreted Bible, it's a made up Bible. Whatever Bible changed those names, in the OT.

Usually when they do that, there is some theory, that the OT, was revised, etc...
You didn't present that argument, and that argument, is necessary to your theory.

The English Bible, English names, correlates to the usage, and theology, or god belief, of Christianity.

Changing OT names makes the Bible contradictory to your own theory, because it makes nonsensical verses in the NT.

 

[Desert Snake]

You obviously need to read my posts again. I wasn't the one that changed the Hebrew name to a word that it wasn't. I was explaining what they had done. You are free to believe anything you want.

You need to explain that further. In the Christian Bible, if you change the Deific names, it won't make sense.

If your argument is that the OT was revised, then you need to explain that, and explain why it affects your methodology.

'Adonai', can't be replaced with Elohim, because Adonai is purely singular, like YHWH.
As a title, it takes title form, like in the Christian Bible, and then is used for both Jesus, and YHWH.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That isn't a interpreted Bible, it's a made up Bible. Whatever Bible changed those names, in the OT.

Usually when they do that, there is some theory, that the OT, was revised, etc...
You didn't present that argument, and that argument, is necessary to your theory.

The English Bible, English names, correlates to the usage, and theology, or god belief, of Christianity.

Changing OT names makes the Bible contradictory to your own theory, because it makes nonsensical verses in the NT.

That isn't a interpreted Bible, it's a made up Bible. Whatever Bible changed those names, in the OT.

Usually when they do that, there is some theory, that the OT, was revised, etc...
You didn't present that argument, and that argument, is necessary to your theory.

The English Bible, English names, correlates to the usage, and theology, or god belief, of Christianity.

Changing OT names makes the Bible contradictory to your own theory, because it makes nonsensical verses in the NT.

What Bible are you currently using?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You need to explain that further. In the Christian Bible, if you change the Deific names, it won't make sense.

If your argument is that the OT was revised, then you need to explain that, and explain why it affects your methodology.

'Adonai', can't be replaced with Elohim, because Adonai is purely singular, like YHWH.
As a title, it takes title form, like in the Christian Bible, and then is used for both Jesus, and YHWH.

I can tell you don't understand.

 

[Desert Snake]

What Bible are you currently using?

KJV. The original, if questions arise.