A Question for Trinitarians

[Nux]

The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament who is undoubtedly Jesus is called Yahweh.

In Hebrews 3:7-9, the Holy Spirit says that He is the person who was tempted by Israel in the wilderness. Exodus 17:7 says that Yahweh was tempted by Israel in the wilderness. As you can see, the Holy Spirit is identified as Yahweh.

No, that's a wordplay. That doesn't mean Jesus' or the Holy Spirit's name is 'Yahweh'. They've never been directly called that Name.
They perfectly represent Yahweh and are sometimes shown acting from His Name but they are not Yahweh.

 

[Clare73]

I've already explained

Is yours following to what you are referring?
Those aren't sound reasons, they are simply a contra-Biblical rationale to support the objections of an unorthodox personal theology.
I will address it in parts:

"So the question is where in the Bible this idea is expressed and explained with more than one word? "
In addition to being begotten (generated) in five places in John, and being called "Son," we also have the first person of the Trinity being called "Father."

"One word foundation is a weak one, isn't it. "
Who made that rule?
I'm curious. . .how many times must God say it in his word written before it is true?

"Moreover, as I said, it rather undermines Jesus' divinity than supports it. Because it means that the Son differs from the Father in his personal attributes. The Father has no beginning but the Son according to this idea was caused by the Father so he did has the
beginning "
No, it does not mean the Son had a beginning. The Father was always generating the Son, he was never not generating the Son.
The Son has been in existence as long as the Father has; i.e., without beginning.

"and hence he's not divine because the reference deity, the Father, has no beginning. So the question is what this idea or teaching is based on? If it's biblical then there's no need to hunt for words, there must be some stronger basis for it."
Who made that rule?

1) The teaching is based on their names in the NT, Father and Son.

2) The teaching is based on Jesus' statements that he came forth out of God (Jn 8:42), came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27), came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28), came forth from you (the Father, Jn 17:8), where the verb ex-elthon, is used, which means "to proceed, to emanate (to flow out, to issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun), to come out or go out of, to go forth."
This meaning of ex-elthon is illustrated in
1Co 14:36 - "Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
Mt 2:6, where a different form (ex-eleusetai) of the same verb (as go, went and gone are three different forms of the same verb) is used--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
Mt 15:18, where a third form (ex-erchontai) is used - "Out of the heart comes forth evil."
The "ex" in the word means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to go forth out from within."
The Father generates/begets the Son (Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9).

3) The teaching is based on the numerous places in the NT where Jesus is called (Lk 1:35, Jn 1:34, Ro 1:4, 5:10, 8:3, etc.),
and also refers to himself (Jn 5:25, 11:4, 5:19-20, 3:16, 11:4), as the "Son of God."

Being the begotten Son of God, always being generated by the Father, does not mean that the divine Son of God had a beginning.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, that's a wordplay. That doesn't mean Jesus' or the Holy Spirit's name is 'Yahweh'. They've never been directly called that Name.
They perfectly represent Yahweh and are sometimes shown acting from His Name but they are not Yahweh.

The Father is never directly called YHWH either.

God is called YHWH.

If the Father is God, then He is YHWH.
If the Son is God, then He is YHWH.
If the Holy Spirit is God, then He is YHWH.

Jesus is YHWH.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[setst777]

Exodus 3:15
15 And God said again to Moses, “So you must say to the Israelites, ‘Yahweh, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my remembrance from generation to generation.’

You say you know God the Father and Jesus? Ok, above is God's word, God's Name, God's will. But you are arguing and opposing instead of just obey and rejoice.
Why? I know the answer, you think about it.

In your response, you completely bypassed my Scriptural response to your post. So, we can easily see that you are not willing to objectively understand God's Word, but rather promote your own doctrine, and forget all the other Scriptures.

You are thinking that only the name expressed in YHWH is the Divine Name.

God's Divine name is still in the name Jesus: "Jehovah is Salvation," or simply: "Jehovah-Savior. That is God's most essential name for all nations (John 3:16). That God would become Savior of the World is clearly presented in all the Scriptures since Genesis. God gave His Son the name that is above every name - Jesus. Jesus is the name all Christians call upon, pray in, and confess for our salvation (Acts 4:12).

That is what the Scriptures teach. So, I accept what God reveals to the Church in the NT Scriptures.

The Hebrew for Jesus is originally, Yehoshua or Yahoshua. "Yaho," "Jaho," or "Jah" are all abbreviated forms of the Divine Name. "Jah" is not infrequently used by itself as the Divine Name for God in the OT.

When the Divine Name is used in another name for God, or in praise to God, "Hallelu-jah," then the Divine name can be abbreviated to Jaho, Jeho, or Jah as is evident in the OT Scriptures.

Romans 10:9 (WEB) if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:2 (WEB) 2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours

Acts 4:12 (WEB) 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

Yes, we do have God's Divine Name in the NT - the name "Jesus." We honor God by believing in Jesus, coming to Jesus, calling upon Jesus, and witnessing for Jesus.

 

[Nux]

In addition to being begotten (generated) in five places in John, and being called "Son," we also have the first person of the Trinity being called "Father."

Divine beings are not like humans, guess you know that. They are not born, they don't die and they have no parents in our human sense, have no beginning, no end. Following your logic the Father should also have some father and the Son, to be begotten from eternity needs some divine mother, right? I've already stated that 'begotten' from your quotes is just one of the possible renderings. I've asked you to provide some passages bringing more details about that presumptive Son's birth, or generation, or beginning and seems like you can't. I consider this rendering misleading and the idea it conveys unbiblical. But what does Father-Son relationships mean than? I've got good news for you, a fully biblical view exists and it is not somewhere in the heaven, or under the earth and you need no scholar or pastor to be taught. It was presented by Jesus himself: He came to us out of the heaven following the Father's command and by his mighty action through the Holy Spirit, to complete the Father's work, to say and do everything he had seen from the Father, to save all those the Father handed over to him, to raise them up, to bring them to the Father, to give them eternal life. The Father gave him authority to judge and to raise up, so that everyone honour the Son exactly like the Father is honoured. Because Jesus was obedient to the one who sent him unto the death, the Father rose him up and seated him beside himself in the heaven. At the right time the Father will give him the Kingdom. This is what Father-Son relationship means: the transition of authority, possessions and honour, obedience and mutual love.

 

[Nux]

In your response, you completely bypassed my Scriptural response to your post. So, we can easily see that you are not willing to objectively understand God's Word, but rather promote your own doctrine, and forget all the other Scriptures.

That was because in your response your were completely ignoring Exodus 3:15. It doesn't make any sense to switch to the Son when you ignore the Father. So you see: your words are easily applied to you.

You are thinking that only the name expressed in YHWH is the Divine Name

Yes, the Father's Name is Yahweh and this is his Name forever. That is based on Exodus 3:15.

God's Divine name is still in the name Jesus: "Jehovah is Salvation,"

You are completely wrong.
The Father's Name is 'Yahweh' and this is his Name forever.
The Son's name is 'Yahweh saves' or 'Jesus' in English, that is the truth I've never argued about.

 

[Clare73]

Divine beings are not like humans, guess you know that. They are not born, they don't die and they have no parents in our human sense, have no beginning, no end. Following your logic the Father should also have some father and the Son, to be begotten from eternity needs some divine mother, right?

No mother needed if they are not human, as you state above.
The human son of God had a mother, the divine Son of God does not.

I've already stated that 'begotten' from your quotes is just one of the possible renderings. I've asked you to provide some passages bringing more details about that presumptive Son's birth, or generation, or beginning and seems like you can't. I consider this rendering misleading and the idea it conveys unbiblical.

What you "consider misleading" must be Biblically demonstrated, or it is simply personal assertion without Biblical merit.
It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate any Biblical error in post #162, which presents the Biblical basis for the Father's eternal generating of the Son.

But what does Father-Son relationships mean than?

It means what the Scriptures in post #162 present.
Until you demonstrate the Biblical error in post #162, what you "consider" is simply your personal opinion, which enjoys no Biblical support.

I've got good news for you, a fully biblical view exists

Indeed. . .and it is presented in post #162.

Until you Biblically demonstrate any error therein, the following is a strawman argument which neither contradicts nor refutes the Biblical view presented.

and it is not somewhere in the heaven, or under the earth and you need no scholar or pastor to be taught. It was presented by Jesus himself: He came to us out of the heaven following the Father's command and by his mighty action through the Holy Spirit, to complete the Father's work, to say and do everything he had seen from the Father, to save all those the Father handed over to him, to raise them up, to bring them to the Father, to give them eternal life. The Father gave him authority to judge and to raise up, so that everyone honour the Son exactly like the Father is honoured. Because Jesus was obedient to the one who sent him unto the death, the Father rose him up and seated him beside himself in the heaven. At the right time the Father will give him the Kingdom. This is what Father-Son relationship means: the transition of authority, possessions and honour, obedience and mutual love.

 

[setst777]

That was because in your response your were completely ignoring Exodus 3:15. It doesn't make any sense to switch to the Son when you ignore the Father. So you see: your words are easily applied to your.

Yes, the Father's Name is Yahweh and this is his Name forever. That is based on Exodus 3:15.

You are completely wrong.
The Father's Name is 'Yahweh' and this is his Name forever.
The Son's name is 'Yahweh saves' or 'Jesus' in English, that is the truth I've never argued about.

You say that I completely ignored Exodus 3:15, which is, of course, a false claim. My responses never ignored Exodus 3:15; rather, my response was founded on that Scripture - to answer the question regarding the Divine Name of Exodus 3:15. So, your reasoning is illogical and irrational. Your response, therefore, has no justification.

True, God Almighty is our Father. God's Word is His Son, who, as the incarnate man-servant, inherited his name from God the Father - the name that is above all names: Jesus, which translated means: YHWH is Salvation.

Philippians 2:9-11 (WEB) 9 Therefore God exalted him [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person singular] to the highest place and gave him [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person singular] the name [noun, accusative neuter singular] that is [article, accusative neuter singular] above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 1 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

A few observations from Philippians 2:9-11:

• The name above all names is the Divine name: YHWH, which is the name "Jesus," which means: YHWH is Salvation.
• "Name" is [noun, accusative neuter singular] and "that is" [article, accusative neuter singular].
• Make note of the fact that a pronoun must match the tense, gender, and number of the noun it refers back to.
• Both "name" and the pronoun "that is" are: "accusative, neuter singular." They match.

In the following Scripture, "John 17:11-12." we see again, in verses 11 and 12, that the pronoun must match the noun that it refers back to. The pronoun "which," in verses 11 and 12, can only match "your name" because they are both "dative neuter singular."

Many Bibles replace the pronoun "which" with their own pronoun "those," which is "accusative, masculine 3rd person plural, to make it refer back to (match) the pronoun, "them." However, this is a replacement of the original language with a totally different pronoun.

John 17:11-12 (DLNT) 11 And I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person plural] in Your name [noun, dative neuter singular] which [personal relative pronoun, dative neuter singular] You have given [verb, perfective indicative active, 2nd person, singular] to Me [personal possessive pronoun, dative 1st person singular], in order that they may be one, just as We are. 12 When I was with them, I was keeping them [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person plural] in Your name [noun, dative neuter singular] which [personal relative pronoun, dative neuter singular] You have given [verb, perfective indicative active, 2nd person, singular] to Me [personal possessive pronoun, dative 1st person singular]. And I guarded them, and none of them perished— except the son of destruction, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

In the above, "John 17:11-12" is a grammatically correct translation from the most reliable Greek manuscripts. The name the incarnate Word of God inherited from the Father is God the Father's own name: "JESUS" which translated means: "YHWH is Salvation"

Hebrews 1:4 (WEB) So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Lord Jesus inherited his name from his Father, which is the name above all names.

 

[Clare73]

You say that I completely ignored Exodus 3:15, which is, of course, a false claim. My responses never ignored Exodus 3:15; rather, my response was founded on that Scripture - to answer the question regarding the Divine Name of Exodus 3:15. So, your reasoning is illogical and irrational. Your response, therefore, has no justification.

True, God Almighty is our Father. God's Word is His Son, who, as the incarnate man-servant,

It might be useful here to remember that "Word" (logos) in Jn 1:1 does not refer to God's spoken or written word.
John was writing to Greeks, where logos in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe whom, in the opening of his gospel, John stunningly declares is the despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

John is the only one who refers to Jesus as the "Word of God," and it is not in the sense of the spoken or written word.
"Word of God" is not used of Jesus anywhere else in the NT.

inherited his name from God the Father - the name that is above all names: Jesus, which translated means: YHWH is Salvation.

Philippians 2:9-11 (WEB) 9 Therefore God exalted him [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person singular] to the highest place and gave him [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person singular] the name [noun, accusative neuter singular] that is [article, accusative neuter singular] above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 1 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

A few observations from Philippians 2:9-11:

• The name above all names is the Divine name: YHWH, which is the name "Jesus," which means: YHWH is Salvation.
• "Name" is [noun, accusative neuter singular] and "that is" [article, accusative neuter singular].
• Make note of the fact that a pronoun must match the tense, gender, and number of the noun it refers back to.
• Both "name" and the pronoun "that is" are: "accusative, neuter singular." They match.

In the following Scripture, "John 17:11-12." we see again, in verses 11 and 12, that the pronoun must match the noun that it refers back to. The pronoun "which," in verses 11 and 12, can only match "your name" because they are both "dative neuter singular."

Many Bibles replace the pronoun "which" with their own pronoun "those," which is "accusative, masculine 3rd person plural, to make it refer back to (match) the pronoun, "them." However, this is a replacement of the original language with a totally different pronoun.

John 17:11-12 (DLNT) 11 And I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person plural] in Your name [noun, dative neuter singular] which [personal relative pronoun, dative neuter singular] You have given [verb, perfective indicative active, 2nd person, singular] to Me [personal possessive pronoun, dative 1st person singular], in order that they may be one, just as We are. 12 When I was with them, I was keeping them [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person plural] in Your name [noun, dative neuter singular] which [personal relative pronoun, dative neuter singular] You have given [verb, perfective indicative active, 2nd person, singular] to Me [personal possessive pronoun, dative 1st person singular]. And I guarded them, and none of them perished— except the son of destruction, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

In the above, "John 17:11-12" is a grammatically correct translation from the most reliable Greek manuscripts. The name the incarnate Word of God inherited from the Father is God the Father's own name: "JESUS" which translated means: "YHWH is Salvation"

Hebrews 1:4 (WEB) So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Lord Jesus inherited his name from his Father, which is the name above all names.

 

[Nux]

"So the question is where in the Bible this idea is expressed and explained with more than one word? "
In addition to being begotten (generated) in five places in John, and being called "Son," we also have the first person of the Trinity being called "Father."

That rendering of the Greek word you've chosen, is just one of the several possible. I don't need to prove you are wrong in this case... You just don't have ground to claim you are right.

"One word foundation is a weak one, isn't it. "
Who made that rule?
I'm curious. . .how many times must God say it in his word written before it is true?

That isn't God's word. Just the translation variant you like.

"Moreover, as I said, it rather undermines Jesus' divinity than supports it. Because it means that the Son differs from the Father in his personal attributes. The Father has no beginning but the Son according to this idea was caused by the Father so he did has the
beginning "
No, it does not mean the Son had a beginning. The Father was always generating the Son, he was never not generating the Son.
The Son has been in existence as long as the Father has; i.e., without beginning.

There is no biblical support for the concept of the Father constantly generating the Son. You've failed to provide any.

"and hence he's not divine because the reference deity, the Father, has no beginning. So the question is what this idea or teaching is based on? If it's biblical then there's no need to hunt for words, there must be some stronger basis for it."
Who made that rule?

1) The teaching is based on their names in the NT, Father and Son.

It's not enough to just say ''it is based' to prove it actually is. That teaching cannot be derived from that names.

2) The teaching is based on Jesus' statements that he came forth out of God (Jn 8:42), came forth from the Father (Jn 16:27), came forth out of the Father (Jn 16:28), came forth from you (the Father, Jn 17:8), where the verb ex-elthon, is used, which means "to proceed, to emanate (to flow out, to issue from as a source, as light issues from the sun), to come out or go out of, to go forth."
This meaning of ex-elthon is illustrated in
1Co 14:36 - "Did the word of God go forth from, originate with you?"
Mt 2:6, where a different form (ex-eleusetai) of the same verb (as go, went and gone are three different forms of the same verb) is used--"Out of thee will come forth a governor."
Mt 15:18, where a third form (ex-erchontai) is used - "Out of the heart comes forth evil."
The "ex" in the word means "to proceed out from within, to emanate out from within, to go forth out from within."
The Father generates/begets the Son (Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9).

There are also lots of translations rendering that Greek words simply like 'came from God'.
I cannot see the phrases like 'came forth out of God' or 'came forth out of the Father' in the provided quotes. The expressions like this are not biblically based.

3) The teaching is based on the numerous places in the NT where Jesus is called (Lk 1:35, Jn 1:34, Ro 1:4, 5:10, 8:3, etc.),
and also refers to himself (Jn 5:25, 11:4, 5:19-20, 3:16, 11:4), as the "Son of God."

No, the 'generation' concept cannot be based on the title 'The Son of God'.

Being the begotten Son of God, always being generated by the Father, does not mean that the divine Son of God had a beginning.

The 'generation' concept means that the Son is different from the Father, because the Father isn't 'generated' by anybody. In other words the Son is not divine. You, of course, will refuse to acknowledge that consequence.

 

[Nux]

You say that I completely ignored Exodus 3:15, which is, of course, a false claim. My responses never ignored Exodus 3:15; rather, my response was founded on that Scripture - to answer the question regarding the Divine Name of Exodus 3:15. So, your reasoning is illogical and irrational. Your response, therefore, has no justification.

True, God Almighty is our Father. God's Word is His Son, who, as the incarnate man-servant, inherited his name from God the Father - the name that is above all names: Jesus, which translated means: YHWH is Salvation.

Philippians 2:9-11 (WEB) 9 Therefore God exalted him [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person singular] to the highest place and gave him [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person singular] the name [noun, accusative neuter singular] that is [article, accusative neuter singular] above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 1 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

A few observations from Philippians 2:9-11:

• The name above all names is the Divine name: YHWH, which is the name "Jesus," which means: YHWH is Salvation.
• "Name" is [noun, accusative neuter singular] and "that is" [article, accusative neuter singular].
• Make note of the fact that a pronoun must match the tense, gender, and number of the noun it refers back to.
• Both "name" and the pronoun "that is" are: "accusative, neuter singular." They match.

In the following Scripture, "John 17:11-12." we see again, in verses 11 and 12, that the pronoun must match the noun that it refers back to. The pronoun "which," in verses 11 and 12, can only match "your name" because they are both "dative neuter singular."

Many Bibles replace the pronoun "which" with their own pronoun "those," which is "accusative, masculine 3rd person plural, to make it refer back to (match) the pronoun, "them." However, this is a replacement of the original language with a totally different pronoun.

John 17:11-12 (DLNT) 11 And I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person plural] in Your name [noun, dative neuter singular] which [personal relative pronoun, dative neuter singular] You have given [verb, perfective indicative active, 2nd person, singular] to Me [personal possessive pronoun, dative 1st person singular], in order that they may be one, just as We are. 12 When I was with them, I was keeping them [personal possessive pronoun, accusative, masculine 3rd person plural] in Your name [noun, dative neuter singular] which [personal relative pronoun, dative neuter singular] You have given [verb, perfective indicative active, 2nd person, singular] to Me [personal possessive pronoun, dative 1st person singular]. And I guarded them, and none of them perished— except the son of destruction, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

In the above, "John 17:11-12" is a grammatically correct translation from the most reliable Greek manuscripts. The name the incarnate Word of God inherited from the Father is God the Father's own name: "JESUS" which translated means: "YHWH is Salvation"

Hebrews 1:4 (WEB) So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Lord Jesus inherited his name from his Father, which is the name above all names.

Please, point out what's wrong with the following statements:
The Father's Name is 'Yahweh' and this is his Name forever.
The Son's name is 'Yahweh saves' or 'Jesus' in English.

Man, do you really believe Jesus was the only one carrying the name Yehoshua?
Do you know what the John Baptist's name 'Yochanan' means?

 

[Clare73]

That rendering of the Greek word you've chosen, is just one of the several possible. I don't need to prove you are wrong in this case... You just don't have ground to claim you are right.
That isn't God's word. Just the translation variant you like.

Sorry. . .assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.
The Greek word in five texts is monogenes, which literal meaning in the Greek is presented in post #150.

Are you factually informed enough to have this discussion?

There is no biblical support for the concept of the Father constantly generating the Son. You've failed to provide any.

Au contraire. . .

It is the necessary conclusion of the Bible's presentation of:
God as without beginning and without end,
The Son of God as God, without beginning and without end,
the Father's begetting of the Son (post #150).

Are you theologically informed enough to have this discussion?

It's not enough to just say ''it is based' to prove it actually is. That teaching cannot be derived from that names.

There are also lots of translations rendering that Greek words simply like 'came from God'. I cannot see the phrases like 'came forth out of God' or 'came forth out of the Father' in the provided quotes. The expressions like this are not biblically based.

Strawman. . .

The translation is language based. . . from the language of the Bible.
"Came from God" is not in disagreement with the Greek meaning "generated," as demonstrated in their use in the NT (posts #150, #162).
Until you Biblically demonstrate the errors of those presentations, your assertion is without merit.

Are you informed enough literally to have this discussion?

No, the 'generation' concept cannot be based on the title 'The Son of God'.

The 'generation' concept means that the Son is different from the Father, because the Father isn't 'generated' by anybody. In other words the Son is not divine. You, of course, will refuse to acknowledge that consequence.

And there we have it. . .the reason for such an amateurish effort.

Your theology is contrary to orthodox Christianity and to its creeds.

You are definitely not Biblically informed enough to have this discussion.

 

[setst777]

Please, point out what's wrong with the following statements:
The Father's Name is 'Yahweh' and this is his Name forever.
The Son's name is 'Yahweh saves' or 'Jesus' in English.

Man, do you really believe Jesus was the only one carrying the name Yehoshua?
Do you know what the John Baptist's name 'Yochanan' means?

What name is above all names?

If you answered that with any other name but YHWH, then what would be your reason for doing so?

The name that the incarnate Word received from God the Father was a name that is above every name - Jesus (YHWH Savior).

You can deny it, but the evidence was provided from the Scriptures.

The name "Jesus" is God's own name, the name that is above every name, which the incarnate Logos inherited from God the Father.

In regards to your question:

Consider that “Jehu,” which is the shortened but equivalent form of the Divine Name, is also given to over 5,755 people worldwide [https://forebears.io/surnames/jehu], or “Jahu,” which is the shortened but equivalent form of the Divine Name, is used 434 times worldwide [https://forebears.io/surnames/jahu], or the name “Jah,” another shortened form of the Divine Name, is the surname of at least 25,314 people worldwide [https://forebears.io/surnames/jah]. Just because someone has the same name does not make the name less important.

"Yochanan" means: God is gracious.

 

[setst777]

It might be useful here to remember that "Word" (logos) in Jn 1:1 does not refer to God's spoken or written word.
John was writing to Greeks, where logos in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe whom, in the opening of his gospel, John stunningly declares is the despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

John is the only one who refers to Jesus as the "Word of God," and it is not in the sense of the spoken or written word.
"Word of God" is not used of Jesus anywhere else in the NT.

Regarding John 1:1-3, I agree. The Logos of God is a person who is in very nature God, being of one in substance with the Father having come out from God. The Logos is the Word by whom all things are created, are sustained, and by whom God does all things, which includes: Redemption, Salvation, Resurrection, Judgment, and Glorification. All things are from God, through God (His Word and Spirit) and for God (which includes His Word and Spirit), so that in all things, God receives all the glory for all that God does by himself (Romans 11:35-36).

 

[Clare73]

Regarding John 1:1-3, I agree. The Logos of God is a person who is in very nature God, being of one in substance with the Father having come out from God. The Logos is the Word by whom all things are created, are sustained, and by whom God does all things, which includes: Redemption, Salvation, Resurrection, Judgment, and Glorification. All things are from God, through God (His Word and Spirit) and for God (which includes His Word and Spirit), so that in all things, God receives all the glory for all that God does by himself (Romans 11:35-36).

Jn 1:1 presents the Word as God, not as "His Word," but as "the Word" (Jn 1:14).
Logos in the Greek was used to refer to the notion of their god himself, not to their god's utterance.
John refers to Jesus as the "Word of God" once. It is found nowhere else in the NT in reference to Jesus.
Jesus was not the Word in the sense of utterance of God, he was the Word in the Greek sense of being God .

 

[setst777]

Jn 1:1 presents the Word as God, not as "His Word," but as "the Word" (Jn 1:14).
Logos in the Greek was used to refer to the notion of their god himself, not to their god's utterance.
John refers to Jesus as the "Word of God" once. It is found nowhere else in the NT in reference to Jesus.
Jesus was not the Word in the sense of utterance of God, he was the Word in the Greek sense of being God .

My faith rests not on what Greek philosophers believed and taught, but what the Scriptures teach by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Lord Jesus is the incarnate Word of God.

Revelation 19:13 (WEB) 13 He is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood. His name is called “The Word of God.”

"of God" [Grk: Theou], is genitive, showing possession. The Word belongs to God.

The Word came out of God and was sent by God (John 8:42)

John 8:42 (WEB) 42 Therefore Jesus said to them, “If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out of [Grk: ex, from Strong’s 1537] and have come forth from [exēlthon, from: Strong’s 1831] God; for I haven’t come of myself, but he sent me.

God sent forth His Word (Logos) to work out all things that are from God.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (WEB) 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.

Hebrews 1:2 (WEB) 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he [God the Father] made the worlds.

That would make "The Word" a possession of God the Father, which means, The Word is The Word of God, through whom God does all things.

From God the Father are all things through His Word, who is now incarnate as the man, Christ Jesus.

Therefore, to us, there is one God, the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6), and the Word of God is in very nature God (Philippians 2:6), having come out from God as an only begotten Son (John 8:42).

Philippians 2:6-7 (WEB) 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

John 1:18 (WEB) No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him.

The Word of God, now incarnate as a man, is The Image of the Invisible God, and the Radiance of God's glory through whom God created all things.

 

[Clare73]

My faith rests not on what Greek philosophers believed and taught, but what the Scriptures teach by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Lord Jesus is the incarnate Word of God.

Revelation 19:13 (WEB) 13 He is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood. His name is called “The Word of God.”

"of God" [Grk: Theou], is genitive, showing possession. The Word belongs to God.

Yes, God (the Son) belongs to God (the Father).

As I stated in post #175, John is the only one who refers to Jesus as "the Word" (the author of the Universe), and refers to him as the "Word of God" only once. Jesus is called the "Word of God" by no one else in the NT.

And yes, the Word, who is the Creator of the Universe in Greek philosophy, came out of God the Father, and is his only begotten (sired) Son (Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9), who became human flesh (Latin: incarnate; Greek: sartz).

But in none of the above five Scriptures, does John use "Word" to mean utterance of God.
Jesus used "word of God" to mean the utterance of God in the Scriptures (Mt 15:6), but never to mean himself.
In the rest of the NT, "word of God" refers to the Scriptures, never to Jesus himself.


The issue is not whether "the Word" is God or not, he is.
The issue is whether "the Word" refers to utterance or not, it does not.

Jesus is not the utterance (word) of God, as are the Scriptures, he is the Son of God begotten (Jn 1:14, et al).
Jesus is simply "the Word;" i.e., God. . .not the "word of God; i.e., utterance of God.

 

[setst777]

Yes, God (the Son) belongs to God (the Father).

As I stated in post #175, John is the only one who refers to Jesus as "the Word" (the author of the Universe), and refers to him as the "Word of God" only once. Jesus is called the "Word of God" by no one else in the NT.

And yes, the Word, who is the Creator of the Universe in Greek philosophy, came out of God the Father, and is his only begotten (sired) Son (Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9), who became human flesh (Latin: incarnate; Greek: sartz).

But in none of the above five Scriptures, does John use "Word" to mean utterance of God.
Jesus did use "word of God" to mean the utterance of God in the Scriptures (Mt 15:6), but never to mean himself.
In the rest of the NT, "word of God" refers to the Scriptures, never to Jesus himself.


The issue is not whether "the Word" is God or not, he is.
The issue is whether the Word refers to utterance or not, it does not.

Jesus is not the utterance (word) of God, as are the Scriptures, he is the Son of God begotten (Jn 1:14, et al).
Jesus is simply the "Word;" i.e., God. . .not the "word of God; i.e., utterance of God.

Hi Clare.

• Is there a reason why you keep emphasizing the difference between the Word of God and the utterance (word) of God?
• Is there someone on this board you are trying to reach that does not believe "The Word of God" is a person?
• Is there a reason why you keep saying Jesus is called the "Word of God" only once in the NT?
• Is there a reason why you keep saying that Jesus is called the "Word" by no one else but John?

I do not believe John was defining the Word (Logos) from the teachings of Greek philosopher; although, this revelation was no doubt familiar to both Jews and Greeks, since they explained the Logos similarly, although not as a personal being that embodied all who God is.

For instance, what John wrote in the Book of Revelation was revealed to John in a vision from the angel sent by Lord Jesus to show John the things that would take place. In Revelation, within the vision, John heard and saw what was to take place. Therefore, it was by Revelation that John was told that Lord Jesus is: The Word of God. [Revelation 19:13]

John's teaching of (Logos) comes straight from the OT and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

God created the Universe, which is explained by Scripture as:

God the Father created the Universe through/by His Word (Son) - from God the Father, and through His Son (The Word of God) are all things.

The Son is the Word of God that came forth from God to create and do all things that are from God.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (WEB) 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.

Hebrews 1:2 (WEB) 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he [God the Father] made the worlds.

 

[Clare73]

Hi Clare.

• Is there a reason why you keep emphasizing the difference between the Word of God and the utterance (word) of God?
• Is there someone on this board you are trying to reach that does not believe "The Word of God" is a person?
• Is there a reason why you keep saying Jesus is called the "Word of God" only once in the NT?
• Is there a reason why you keep saying that Jesus is called the "Word" by no one else but John?

Well, for the sake of accuracy.
Inaccuracy with Scripture always eventually leads to some kind of error or false doctrine.

It's not about being a person or not, it's about being speech/utterance or not (not), about being begotten or spoken into being (begotten).
"Word of God" (where the Greek "logos" is used to mean "utterance," rather than "god of the universe," which it meant in the Greek)
lends itself to the notion that "the Word" is not begotten/generated by God, but simply spoken into being by God, like creation,
that notion thereby affording a contradiction of Scripture in Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9) that "the Word" is begotten of God, and is God.

I do not believe John was defining the Word (Logos) from the teachings of Greek philosopher; although, this revelation

John was not defining logos from the Greeks.
John was revealing to the Greeks that their logos, the author of the Universe, was the carpenter from Nazareth.

was no doubt familiar to both Jews and Greeks, since they explained the Logos similarly, although not as a personal being that embodied all who God is.

The Jewish concept would have come from the Greeks.

For instance, what John wrote in the Book of Revelation was revealed to John in a vision from the angel sent by Lord Jesus to show John the things that would take place. In Revelation, within the vision, John heard and saw what was to take place. Therefore, it was by Revelation that John was told that Lord Jesus is: The Word of God. [Revelation 19:13]

No argument there, only the clarification that it is not referring to the speech of God, but to the begotten of God.
The gospel of John was written about 20 years before Revelation..
So, the "Word of God" in Revelation would have been understood as "the Word" who is God in Jn 1:1, the Son of God.

John's teaching of (Logos) comes straight from the OT

Where do we find God referred to as "the Word" in the OT?

and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

God created the Universe, which is explained by Scripture as:

God the Father created the Universe through/by His Word (Son) - from God the Father, and through His Son (The Word of God) are all things.

Actually, that means God spoke creation into being ("God said," Ge 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24), as opposed to fashioning it into being.

The Son is the Word of God that came forth from God to create and do all things that are from God.

Yes, the Son of God eternally coming forth from God (not spoken by God, but begotten of God, Jn 1:14), therefore being God, created the Universe.

We must keep that clear for the sake of Jesus being begotten (generated) of God as his one and only Son.

1 Corinthians 8:6 (WEB) 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.

Hebrews 1:2 (WEB) 2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he [God the Father] made the worlds.

 

[setst777]

Well, for the sake of accuracy.
Inaccuracy with Scripture always eventually leads to some kind of error or false doctrine.

It's not about being a person or not, it's about being speech/utterance or not (not), about being begotten or spoken into being (begotten).
"Word of God" (where the Greek "logos" is used to mean "utterance," rather than "god of the universe," which it meant in the Greek)
lends itself to the notion that "the Word" is not begotten/generated by God, but simply spoken into being by God, like creation,
that notion thereby affording a contradiction of Scripture in Jn 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1Jn 4:9) that "the Word" is begotten and is God.

John was not defining Logos from the Greeks.
John was revealing to the Greeks that their logos, the author of the Universe, was the carpenter from Nazareth.

The Jewish concept would have come from the Greeks.

No argument there, only the clarification that it is not referring to the speech of God, but to the begotten of God.
The gospel of John was written about 20 years before Revelation..
So, the "Word of God" in Revelation would have been understood as "the Word" who is God in Jn 1:1, the Son of God.

Where do we find God referred to as "the Word" in the OT?

Actually, that means God spoke creation into being ("God said," Ge 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24).

Yes, the Son of God came forth from God (not as spoken by God, but as begotten of God, Jn 1:14), therefore being God, and created the Universe.

We must keep that clear for the sake of Jesus being begotten (generated) by God as his one and only Son.

Regarding the Word of God, God's Son, in contrast to the utterance of God. My understating is just what the Scriptures teach us, that God's Word is God's Son - the only-begotten Son of God (John 1:18; John 8:42). Until you brought this issue up, I had never considered the idea that the Logos, who came out from God, is God's utterance.

Regarding Greek Philosophy:
I can see why you think John used the word "Logos," which I understand from you, is because John was trying to show the Greeks who the Logos is. However, as a Christian who believes in the inspiration of Scripture, I choose to explain who the Logos is by those Scriptures. This talk about Greek philosophy regarding the Logos appears to me to be muddying the waters, because it really does not matter what they believed, as if that carried any weight on the issue of who the Logos is.

Regarding your statement that:
Clare73 said: "The gospel of John was written about 20 years before Revelation..
So, the "Word of God" in Revelation would have been understood as "the Word" who is God in Jn 1:1, the Son of God."

I agree that John's use of "Logos" in Revelation 19:13 would have been remembered, perhaps understood, from John 1:1. Even so, what purpose does this knowledge serve? What it tells me is that The Word in John 1:1 is further explained as "The Word of God" in Revelation 19:13. And that is the point I made, that the Word belongs to God - God's Word or God's Son. But I never insinuated or stated that the Word of God, when referring to the Son, is an utterance of God.

Whether "The Word of God" is only used once, or 1000 times, makes no difference, the same truth prevails.
Whether "The Word" is only used by John, or whether the Greeks used it, has no bearing on the issue.

These kinds of statements just muddy the water.

You ask the following question:
Clare73 said: "Where do we find God referred to as "the Word" in the OT?"

"John 1:1-3" appears to me to be an account that takes us back to "Genesis 1," where, in the beginning, when God was doing His creative works. The wording starts off the same, and explains to us the role or function of "The Word" in creation.

In "Psalms 33:6-9," we also gain understanding of how God created and sustains all things, which is by His Word and Spirit:

Psalms 33:6, 9 (WEB) By Yahweh’s Word, the heavens were made: all their army by the Spirit of his mouth… 9 For he spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood firm.

Perhaps the Apostle John, by inspiration, was also reminded of “Proverbs 8:22-31,” where “Wisdom” personified is the Logos of God.