A question for JWs about the use of "Jehovah" in Colossians

spiritandtruth2 · Jul 18, 2014

BelCantoBaptist said:
You're taking scripture out of context in your last part of your post. Whose name did the Early Church witness to people in? Jesus or God's?

Where in the Bible does God command us to use His name or else we're not saved?

YWH is the correct form. Jehovah is an error as I showed in my last post to you as admitted by the WTBS

Interesting Scripture.

(Psalm 37:37-40) 37 Take note of the blameless one, And keep the upright one in sight, For the future of that man will be peaceful. 38 But all the transgressors will be destroyed; The future of wicked people will be cut off. 39 The salvation of the righteous is from Jehovah; He is their fortress in the time of distress. 40 Jehovah will help them and rescue them. He will rescue them from the wicked and save them, Because they take refuge in him.

Psalm 37:37-40 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

37 Observe the perfect, and see the upright, For the latter end of each [is] peace.
38 And transgressors were destroyed together, The latter end of the wicked was cut off.
39 And the salvation of the righteous [is] from Jehovah, Their strong place in a time of adversity.
40 And Jehovah doth help them and deliver them, He delivereth them from the wicked, And saveth them, Because they trusted in Him!

Psalm 37:37-40 Darby Translation (DARBY)

37 Mark the perfect, and behold the upright, for the end of [that] man is peace;
38 but the transgressors shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked shall be cut off.
39 But the salvation of the righteous is of Jehovah: he is their strength in the time of trouble.
40 And Jehovah will help them and deliver them: he will deliver them from the wicked, and save them;
for they trust in him.

Different Bibles saying the same thing, are they all wrong?

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 18, 2014

2ducklow said:
I only found 2 web sites that deal with the issue that Jesus spoke an incomplete sentence in John 8.58. I found some of what this web site said to be interesting and informative.

F.C.M.I. » Jesus is I AM

Bravo on that last bold of mine. But if one assumes that I AM refers to ex. 3.15 ( for that is where God used the term I AM, not ex. 3.14. In ex. 3.14 God uses the term I AM that I AM.) then one would have to fill in the blank with what is in ex. 3.15, namely 'hath sent me unto you."

So really john 8.58, with the blank filled in, reads "Before Abraham was I AM hath sent me unto you.

It is highly revealing that the fact that Jesus uttered an incomplete sentence is almost totally ignored by everyone. It is a subject that has had almost no investigation. It's a fact that doesn't even enter into any analysis of John 8.58 by almost everyone.

Now that ya mention it, that does appear to be the only verse that ends like that......still studying on it.........

Greek Lexicon :: G1510 (KJV)
Strong's Number G1510 matches the Greek εἰμί (eimi),
which occurs 146 times in 137 verses in the Greek concordance

NKJV) John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham generated, I AM."

Textus Rec.) John 8:58
eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi

1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was. See also 1488, 1498, 1511, 1527, 2258, 2071, 2070, 2075, 2076, 2771, 2468, 5600.

.

BelCantoBaptist · Jul 18, 2014

spiritandtruth2 said:
Interesting Scripture.

(Psalm 37:37-40) 37 Take note of the blameless one, And keep the upright one in sight, For the future of that man will be peaceful. 38 But all the transgressors will be destroyed; The future of wicked people will be cut off. 39 The salvation of the righteous is from Jehovah; He is their fortress in the time of distress. 40 Jehovah will help them and rescue them. He will rescue them from the wicked and save them, Because they take refuge in him.

Psalm 37:37-40 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

37 Observe the perfect, and see the upright, For the latter end of each [is] peace.
38 And transgressors were destroyed together, The latter end of the wicked was cut off.
39 And the salvation of the righteous [is] from Jehovah, Their strong place in a time of adversity.
40 And Jehovah doth help them and deliver them, He delivereth them from the wicked, And saveth them, Because they trusted in Him!

Psalm 37:37-40 Darby Translation (DARBY)

37 Mark the perfect, and behold the upright, for the end of [that] man is peace;
38 but the transgressors shall be destroyed together; the future of the wicked shall be cut off.
39 But the salvation of the righteous is of Jehovah: he is their strength in the time of trouble.
40 And Jehovah will help them and deliver them: he will deliver them from the wicked, and save them;
for they trust in him.

Different Bibles saying the same thing, are they all wrong?

Now read Romans 10:9 and Acts 4:11-12.

Der Alte · Jul 18, 2014

LittleLambofJesus said:
Now that ya mention it, that does appear to be the only verse that ends like that......still studying on it.........

Greek Lexicon :: G1510 (KJV)
Strong's Number G1510 matches the Greek εἰμί (eimi),
which occurs 146 times in 137 verses in the Greek concordance

NKJV) John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham generated, I AM."

Textus Rec.) John 8:58
eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi

1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was. See also 1488, 1498, 1511, 1527, 2258, 2071, 2070, 2075, 2076, 2771, 2468, 5600.

There is no problem with John 8:58 if the word order is changed.

"I am before before Abraham came into existence or was born. [sup]1[/sup]

[sup]1[/sup] A.T. Robertson, taught graduate level Greek for 47 years.

Link to Early Church Fathers

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV [A.D. 120-202.] A disciple of Polycarp, one of Johns disciples.

And in that He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples the friends of God, He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became the friend of God. But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (Before Abraham was, He says, I am), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus

The sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the Rock was Christ Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal. And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [A.D. 185-254]

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, that he may understand the meaning of the saying, I and My Father are one. We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared, as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, Before Abraham was, I am. Again He says, I am the truth; and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, who is the brightness of Gods glory, and the express image of His person, has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the Son of David, so as God He is proclaimed Davids Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man under the law, so as God He is declared to be Lord of the Sabbath.

A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

And God, says he, was the Word. Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever? Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. But, says He, whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever; therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, Before Abraham was, I Am? For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish? And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, I and the Father are one? For how can it be that I and the Father are one, if He is not both God and the Son? who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God;which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. If, said He, He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God. By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God.

2ducklow · Jul 19, 2014

LittleLambofJesus said:
Now that ya mention it, that does appear to be the only verse that ends like that......still studying on it.........

Greek Lexicon :: G1510 (KJV)
Strong's Number G1510 matches the Greek εἰμί (eimi),
which occurs 146 times in 137 verses in the Greek concordance

NKJV) John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I say to you, before Abraham generated, I AM."

Textus Rec.) John 8:58
eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi

1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was. See also 1488, 1498, 1511, 1527, 2258, 2071, 2070, 2075, 2076, 2771, 2468, 5600.

.

If I AM is God's name in john 8.58 as most everyone believes, then it is an incomplete sentence. I think the reason that what Jesus said in john 8.58 isn't ever considered to be an incomplete sentence by most everyone is because they take the verb AM to be both a noun and a verb at the same time. To me that just can't be. to me AM is either a noun or it's a verb, not both. Etither I AM is God's name, or it's a subject and a verb. Bob, Sue, Mary, and Will are all both names and verbs. So If I say Sue is my wife, Sue is not the verb in that sentence it is a noun. Sue is not both a noun and a verb. it's one or the other not both. But when it comes to john 8.58 that logical rational thinking goes out the window and AM becomes both a noun and a verb at the same time.
What got me on this idea was investigating the other "Jesus is God" big gun scripture John 20.28 in which Thomas also utters an incomplete sentence.

(KJV) John 20:28 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

However I found one unlikely source that dealt with the fact that Thomas uttered an incomplete sentence. Most everyone ignores that fact too when discussing john 20.28. That source being a catholic bible.

28 Thomas answered, Thou art my Lord and my God (new advent)

IN the catholic bible they correctly translate Lord and God in the nominative case, which it is in Greek. In the catholic bible they recognize that it is an incomplete sentence and supply what they think is the understood subject and verb of that incomplete sentence (thou art). (though of course I would understand the understood subject and verb, or verb and object to be something else..)

So 2 big gun Jesus is God scriptures are both incomplete sentences relying upon the readers understanding of what the understood portion is. Thereby discounting them as proof text of anything related to whether Jesus is or isn't God. Which is the source or driving force behind not recognizing the fact that both are incomplete sentences. That is why no one recognizes these very apparent facts, imo. Because to recognize that JEsus uttered an incomplete sentence in John 8.58 and Thomas uttered an incomplete sentence in john 20. 28 would make it all to obvious that the doctrine that Jesus is God is built upon a presumption. The presumption being their opinion of what they think the understood portion of the scripture is.

spiritandtruth2 · Jul 19, 2014

2ducklow said:
If I AM is God's name in john 8.58 as most everyone believes, then it is an incomplete sentence. I think the reason that what Jesus said in john 8.58 isn't ever considered to be an incomplete sentence by most everyone is because they take the verb AM to be both a noun and a verb at the same time. To me that just can't be. to me AM is either a noun or it's a verb, not both. Etither I AM is God's name, or it's a subject and a verb. Bob, Sue, Mary, and Will are all both names and verbs. So If I say Sue is my wife, Sue is not the verb in that sentence it is a noun. Sue is not both a noun and a verb. it's one or the other not both. But when it comes to john 8.58 that logical rational thinking goes out the window and AM becomes both a noun and a verb at the same time.
What got me on this idea was investigating the other "Jesus is God" big gun scripture John 20.28 in which Thomas also utters an incomplete sentence.

(KJV) John 20:28 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

However I found one unlikely source that dealt with the fact that Thomas uttered an incomplete sentence. Most everyone ignores that fact too when discussing john 20.28. That source being a catholic bible.

28 Thomas answered, Thou art my Lord and my God (new advent)

IN the catholic bible they correctly translate Lord and God in the nominative case, which it is in Greek.

In the catholic bible they recognize that it is an incomplete sentence and supply what they think is the understood subject and verb of that incomplete sentence (thou art). (though of course I would understand the understood subject and verb, or verb and object to be something else..)

So 2 big gun Jesus is God scriptures are both incomplete sentences relying upon the readers understanding of what the understood portion is. Thereby discounting them as proof text of anything related to whether Jesus is or isn't God. Which is the source or driving force behind not recognizing the fact that both are incomplete sentences. That is why no one recognizes these very apparent facts, imo. Because to recognize that JEsus uttered an incomplete sentence in John 8.58 and Thomas uttered an incomplete sentence in john 20. 28 would make it all to obvious that the doctrine that Jesus is God is built upon a presumption. The presumption being their opinion of what they think the understood portion of the scripture is.

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”?

So, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised.

The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr.J.H.Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’

Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G.R. Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J.M.P.Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding.

This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57)

Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age.

So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

2ducklow · Jul 19, 2014

spiritandtruth2 said:
AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”?

So, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised.

The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr.J.H.Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’

Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G.R. Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J.M.P.Smith and E.J. Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding.

This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57)

Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age.

So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

It is perfectly logical to assume that Jesus was not referring to ex 3.14 when he said I am. it is perfectly logical to assume that he is referring to ex. 3.14. you have asserted the arguments for why he isn't referring to ex. 3.14 when he said I am. there are on the other hand perfectly sound reasons given by people as to why he was. some say ex. 3.14 shouldn't be translated as I AM, because the heb. word doesn't mean that, others say that it does and that the Septuagint translates it that way. It's 'ego emi something' in the septuagent. In your case you are arguing that am is a verb and not a noun. Others argue that it is a noun, or some even argue it is a noun and a verb at the same time. I was arguing that if am is a noun then the verb and object would have to have been understood. If one argues that am is a verb, then without an object of some sort the sentence makes no sense to me for it would read "I am before Abraham was." your counter argument that 'I am before Abraham was" really means "I existed before Abraham was born" comes across to me as an interpretation, not a translation. And it was just one of several different interpretive translations of john 8.58 that you offered. All of them are essentially filling in the blank spaces of the unspoken object of "I am". Because I am before Abraham was makes no sense to any one so everyone has to fill in the blank spaces to make it make sense.

For me, the deciding factor in deciding whether am is a verb or a noun, is which results in what Jesus most likely meant. It's more likely to me that the Jews would have understood the unspoken portion of "I AM" as being the rest of ex. 3.14, namely I am hath sent me unto you, than any other possibility for I AM or I am. We don't have everything that was spoken by everyone in that event in john 8, if we did, then I believe the meaning of what Jesus said in john 8.58 would have been crystal clear, because it was so crystal clear to the Jews there that they picked up stones to kill Jesus with because of that statement. Jesus saying "I am hath sent me unto you" would be taken as a clear statement of Jesus that he was claiming to be the Christ, a charge they considered blasphemy on one worthy of death. plus in john 10 Jesus told the Jews that he had already told them whether he was the Christ and they didn't believe him. I believe the time that Jesus told the Jews that he was the Christ was in john 8.58 when he quoted ex 3.14 and applying it to himself.

john 10.24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me

RevelationTestament · Jul 19, 2014

2ducklow said:
It is perfectly logical to assume that Jesus was not referring to ex 3.14 when he said I am. it is perfectly logical to assume that he is referring to ex. 3.14.

Although many Christians have argued the latter, it is not perfectly logical. The problem is that Ex 3:14 was NOT before Abraham. Moses was 400 yrs after Abraham when YHWH said this to him, so it is not logical to believe Jesus was referring to Ex 3:14 in John 8.
Jesus was referring to being El Shaddai who appeared to Abram saying I am El Shaddai... in Genesis. Thus, the creeds are based on a false premise that this El Shaddai is "Almighty God the Father."

2ducklow · Jul 19, 2014

RevelationTestament said:
Although many Christians have argued the latter, it is not perfectly logical. The problem is that Ex 3:14 was NOT before Abraham. Moses was 400 yrs after Abraham when YHWH said this to him, so it is not logical to believe Jesus was referring to Ex 3:14 in John 8.
Jesus was referring to being El Shaddai who appeared to Abram saying I am El Shaddai... in Genesis. Thus, the creeds are based on a false premise that this El Shaddai is "Almighty God the Father."

good point, I"ll have to think on that some. I remember thinking that in the past but had forgotten that fact. off hand I'd say that it's not impossible that Jesus meant that even before Abraham, I AM hath sent me unto you as the messiah just as Moses said of himself. Because the messiah was promised even before Abraham. the messiah was promised to Eve after the fall.
Example; Thomas Jefferson said in the declaration of Independence "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". Then I come along and say "Even before Washington, all men were created equal.

Genesis 3:15 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And since Jesus is the prophet like unto moses, Jesus was identifiying himself as that second greater moses by quoting from ex. 3.14.

Acts 3:22 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

deut 18.15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

The problem I see with assuming that Jesus is claiming to be el shaddai is that if Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews would have taken that and ridiculed him with it for that would have been a much greater reason to disqualify Jesus than Jesus claiming to be the Christ. And there is no evidence anywhere in the bible of Jews ridiculing or disqualifying Jesus for claiming to be God. They disqualified Jesus as the Christ because no prophet comes out of Nazareth.

any position one takes on john 8.58 there are problems. I see much less problems with assuming that JEsus is quoting the last portion of ex. 3.14 than any other assumption that one has to make.

RevelationTestament · Jul 19, 2014

2ducklow said:
The problem I see with assuming that Jesus is claiming to be el shaddai is that if Jesus claimed to be God, the Jews would have taken that and ridiculed him with it for that would have been a much greater reason to disqualify Jesus than Jesus claiming to be the Christ. And there is no evidence anywhere in the bible of Jews ridiculing or disqualifying Jesus for claiming to be God. They disqualified Jesus as the Christ because no prophet comes out of Nazareth.

They certainly did disqualify Him, as they picked up stones to throw at him as He said it. Jesus Himself said no man had seen the Father, but the Son who is in the bosom of the Father declared Him. Jesus was revealing a secret that not only the Jews wouldn't hear, but most Christians won't hear.

any position one takes on john 8.58 there are problems. I see much less problems with assuming that JEsus is quoting the last portion of ex. 3.14 than any other assumption that one has to make.

On the contrary - assuming El Shaddai to be the Father is fraught with problems. It seems to contradict Jesus' own words.

2ducklow · Jul 19, 2014

RevelationTestament said:
They certainly did disqualify Him, as they picked up stones to throw at him as He said it.

It doesn't say why they did it. in john 10 they are asking Jesus to say plainly whether Jesus was the Christ or not. If they thought they had evidence that Jesus was claiming to be god that would trump any claims to Jesus being the Christ. They would have been accusing him a man of claiming to be God who is a spirit. They would have labeled him as a lunatic, rather than a mere blasphemer. That is my reasoning.

RevelationTestament said:
Jesus Himself said no man had seen the Father, but the Son who is in the bosom of the Father declared Him. Jesus was revealing a secret that not only the Jews wouldn't hear, but most Christians won't hear.

What secret is that? Because all chrisitans believe those verses. Most Christians take that to mean Jesus is God or is the Father, so I don't know what the secret is that you refer to. I take it to mean that Jesus exibits the God who indwells him in everything he does and that one sees God when they see Jesus that way. my opinion is a minority opinion. So what's the secret?

On the contrary - assuming El Shaddai to be the Father is fraught with problems. It seems to contradict Jesus' own words.[/QUOTE]

RevelationTestament · Jul 19, 2014

2ducklow said:
It doesn't say why they did it. in john 10 they are asking Jesus to say plainly whether Jesus was the Christ or not. If they thought they had evidence that Jesus was claiming to be god that would trump any claims to Jesus being the Christ. They would have been accusing him a man of claiming to be God who is a spirit. They would have labeled him as a lunatic, rather than a mere blasphemer. That is my reasoning.

To claim to be the Messiah was not blaspheming, because they awaited a messiah as foretold by Daniel. To claim to be God or El Shaddai was blasphemy to them which is why they picked up stones to throw at Him.

What secret is that? Because all chrisitans believe those verses. Most Christians take that to mean Jesus is God or is the Father, so I don't know what the secret is that you refer to. I take it to mean that Jesus exibits the God who indwells him in everything he does and that one sees God when they see Jesus that way. my opinion is a minority opinion. So what's the secret?

The one below you didn't address:

On the contrary - assuming El Shaddai to be the Father is fraught with problems. It seems to contradict Jesus' own words.

2ducklow · Jul 19, 2014

RevelationTestament said:
To claim to be the Messiah was not blaspheming, because they awaited a messiah as foretold by Daniel. To claim to be God or El Shaddai was blasphemy to them which is why they picked up stones to throw at Him.

.

actually Rotherham translates the word as profane, so the word blasphemy may not even be in that verse. Blasphemy is a transliteration of the same greek word so most probably it doesn't mean blasphemy, any more than our English word logic means logos. but I couldbe wrong, needs further investigation.

john 10.33 The Jews answered him--Concerning a noble work, are we not stoning thee; but concerning profane speech,--and because, thou, being, a man, art making thyself, God(Rotherham)

So then the Jews were considering all that Jesus said about his Father and himself to be slanderous, or profane speech. Since they did not consider Jesus to be the Christ, they considered that JEsus words were slanderous to the true Christ or messiah that was to come. Scripture states that the jews had agreed to put anyone out of the synagogue who said Jesus was the Christ and Jesus himself told his followers to tell no man that he was the Christ. So everyone has to agree at the very least that the Jews did not consider it a good thing when Christ was making indirect claims to being the messiah as he did in john 8 and John 10.

John 10. 24 The Jews, therefore, surrounded him, and were saying unto him--How long, holdest thou, our lives, in suspense? If, thou, art the Christ, tell us, plainly. 25 Jesus answered them--I told you, and ye believe not: The works which, I, am doing in the name of my Father, the same, bear witness concerning me. 26 But, ye, believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep, unto my voice, hearken,--and, I, know, them, and they follow me,-- 28 And, I, give unto them life age-abiding, and in nowise shall they perish, unto times age-abiding; and no one shall carry them off out of my hand. 29 What, my Father, hath given me, is, something greater than all, and, no one, can carry off out of the hand of my Father:-- 30 I and the Father, are, one

Blasphemia

slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another's good name impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

988 - Online Bible Study Tools

Usually when Rotherham differs with everybody else, he is right.

RevelationTestament said:
The one below you didn't address:

On the contrary - assuming El Shaddai to be the Father is fraught with problems. It seems to contradict Jesus' own words.

I don't know what the problems are that you are referring to.

spiritandtruth2 · Jul 20, 2014

RevelationTestament said:
To claim to be the Messiah was not blaspheming, because they awaited a messiah as foretold by Daniel. To claim to be God or El Shaddai was blasphemy to them which is why they picked up stones to throw at Him.

The one below you didn't address:

On the contrary - assuming El Shaddai to be the Father is fraught with problems. It seems to contradict Jesus' own words.

Arguments that some Trinitarians draw from the Hebrew Scriptures are (1) that Christ is prophetically called Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 and (2) that “Mighty God” is one of the names applied to him in Isaiah 9:6.

The name Immanuel means “with us is God,” but this does not mean that Christ is God, any more than Elihu was God simply because his name means “God is he.” (Job 32:1, 2)

As to Christ’s being called “Mighty God,” if puny human judges can be called “gods” in the Scriptures (Psalm 82:1-7), is it not appropriate that God’s Son should be called “Mighty God” (Hebrew, ‘El Gib·bohr&#8242

?

Notice, however, that he is not called “God Almighty” (Hebrew, ‘El Shad·dai&#8242, a term used exclusively for Jehovah.

Referring to these two arguments, The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself.”

Neither do they lead us to do so.

Summing up on so-called Old Testament proofs of the Trinity, the Protestant Cyclopædia by M’Clintock and Strong states: “Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive. We do not find in the Old Testament clear or decided proof upon this subject.”

RevelationTestament · Jul 20, 2014

spiritandtruth2 said:
Arguments that some Trinitarians draw from the Hebrew Scriptures are (1) that Christ is prophetically called Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 and (2) that Mighty God is one of the names applied to him in Isaiah 9:6.

Isaiah 9:6 says He SHALL be called El Gibbor or Mighty God. And shall be called the eternal Father. This is his inheritance.

The name Immanuel means with us is God, but this does not mean that Christ is God, any more than Elihu was God simply because his name means God is he. (Job 32:1, 2)

As to Christs being called Mighty God, if puny human judges can be called gods in the Scriptures (Psalm 82:1-7), is it not appropriate that Gods Son should be called Mighty God (Hebrew, El Gib·bohr&#8242?

Yes. Indeed as I repeatedly point out, Christ is YHWH Elohim with the Father, and I can point to places in the OT where He speaks as such.

Notice, however, that he is not called God Almighty (Hebrew, El Shad·dai&#8242, a term used exclusively for Jehovah.

Since Christ is YHWH or Jehovah, it could refer to Him, and does. Now if you are going to insist that El Shaddai means God Almighty, I am going to insist that you prove that, because as far as I can ascertain that comes from a faulty translation in the Septuagint which seems to be derived from the root shadad or to destroy. But you will see that it is claimed by scholars that Shaddai has no root. Further, how does one get the Almighty God from destroyer God? As for your assertion that El Shaddai refers only to the Father:
1) Jesus seems to refer to it in John 8:58 when He says before Abraham was I am.
2) Jesus also says no man had seen the Father (at least all of Him) but the Son had declared Him. So now who appeared to the 70 elders of Israel, and who appeared to Abram saying He is El Shaddai?
3)The Father is El Elyon the Most High God, and scripture calls Jesus the Son of El Elyon, and Jesus accepts the appellation. So I do accept that El Elyon refers only to the Father, but not so with El Shaddai.

Referring to these two arguments, The Catholic Encyclopedia admits: Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself.

Neither do they lead us to do so.

Summing up on so-called Old Testament proofs of the Trinity, the Protestant Cyclopædia by MClintock and Strong states: Thus it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity are conclusive. We do not find in the Old Testament clear or decided proof upon this subject.

I do not argue about the trinity. I argue against all the doctrines of the trinity which I believe are wrong on almost every count even though I believe both the Father and the Son are JWHW Elohim or the Word of the family of Stone or something akin to that.
Cheers

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 20, 2014

RevelationTestament said:
To claim to be the Messiah was not blaspheming, because they awaited a messiah as foretold by Daniel. To claim to be God or El Shaddai was blasphemy to them which is why they picked up stones to throw at Him.

The one below you didn't address:

On the contrary - assuming El Shaddai to be the Father is fraught with problems. It seems to contradict Jesus' own words.

Anyone notice the greek word for "Shaddai" is used on 1 time outside of the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation

Greek Lexicon :: G3841 (KJV)
Strong's Number G3841 matches the Greek παντοκράτωρ (pantokratōr), which occurs 10 times in 10 verses in the Greek concordance
[Used 10 times. 9 Times in Revelation, and 2 Corin 6:18].

2 Corin 6:18
And I shall be to ye as a father and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters is saying Lord Almighty/pantokratwr <3841>.
　
Reve 19:6
And I hear as sound of a vast throng and as sound of many waters and as sound of strong thunders saying "allelouia! that reigns Lord
the God the Almighty"/panto-kratwr <3841>.

3841. pantokrator pan-tok-rat'-ore from 3956 and 2904; the all-ruling, i.e. God (as absolute and universal sovereign):--Almighty, Omnipotent.
3839. pante pan'-tay adverb (of manner) from 3956; wholly:--always.
2904. kratos krat'-os perhaps a primary word; vigor ("great") (literally or figuratively):--dominion, might(-ily), power, strength.

RevelationTestament · Jul 20, 2014

LittleLambofJesus said:
Anyone notice the greek word for "Shaddai" is used on 1 time outside of the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation

Greek Lexicon :: G3841 (KJV)
Strong's Number G3841 matches the Greek παντοκράτωρ (pantokratōr), which occurs 10 times in 10 verses in the Greek concordance
[Used 10 times. 9 Times in Revelation, and 2 Corin 6:18].

2 Corin 6:18
And I shall be to ye as a father and ye shall be to Me as sons and daughters is saying Lord Almighty/pantokratwr <3841>.
　
Reve 19:6
And I hear as sound of a vast throng and as sound of many waters and as sound of strong thunders saying "allelouia! that reigns Lord
the God the Almighty"/panto-kratwr <3841>.

3841. pantokrator pan-tok-rat'-ore from 3956 and 2904; the all-ruling, i.e. God (as absolute and universal sovereign):--Almighty, Omnipotent.
3839. pante pan'-tay adverb (of manner) from 3956; wholly:--always.
2904. kratos krat'-os perhaps a primary word; vigor ("great") (literally or figuratively):--dominion, might(-ily), power, strength.

Well being that shaddai does not mean almighty, I would strongly disagree. I believe it means something akin to the God who weans from the breast. Now if you were to assert that pantokrator is being used for gibbor or El Gibbor, the Mighty/Almighty God I would be inclined to say probably or at least possibly. Having not specifically studied the issue tho, I withhold judgment. I know at least some in the early church referred to both the Father and Son as Pantokrator.

spiritandtruth2 · Jul 20, 2014

RevelationTestament said:
Well being that shaddai does not mean almighty, I would strongly disagree. I believe it means something akin to the God who weans from the breast. Now if you were to assert that pantokrator is being used for gibbor or El Gibbor, the Mighty/Almighty God I would be inclined to say probably or at least possibly. Having not specifically studied the issue tho, I withhold judgment. I know at least some in the early church referred to both the Father and Son as Pantokrator.

The Greek Term.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures the word Pan·to·kra′tor occurs ten times, nine of them in the book of Revelation.

The word basically means “Almighty,” or “All Powerful.”

Its use in the Christian Greek Scriptures lends weight to the understanding of the Hebrew term Shad·dai′ as meaning “Almighty One,” since otherwise there would be no corresponding term for Pan·to·kra′tor in the Hebrew Scriptures.

At 2 Corinthians 6:18 Paul quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures in urging Christians to avoid false worship and the use of lifeless, powerless idols, thus qualifying as children of “the Almighty [Pan·to·kra′tor].”

In view of the apostle’s quotations, it is obvious that the title here applies to Jehovah God.

Similarly, throughout Revelation the title Pan·to·kra′tor is applied to the Creator and King of Eternity, Jehovah, as in “the song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb [Jesus Christ],” which acclaims Jehovah God as the one worthy of worship and fear by all nations. (Re 15:3; compare Re 21:22.)

The title’s application to Jehovah God is made obvious at Revelation 19:6 by the use of the expression Hallelujah (Praise Jah, you people!).

Likewise, the expression “the One who is and who was and who is coming” (Re 1:8; 4:8) clearly points to the God of eternity (Ps 90:2), who not only “was” the Almighty in ancient times but continues to be so and “is coming” as such with an expression of his all-powerfulness.

Again violent action is indicated, following his ‘taking his great power’ to rule as king, by the expression of his wrath against the opposing nations at “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” (Re 11:17,18; 16:14)

His Son, Christ Jesus, “The Word of God,” is shown as expressing this “wrath of God the Almighty” against the nations in his position as king anointed by God. (Re 19:13-16)

RevelationTestament · Jul 20, 2014

spiritandtruth2 said:
The Greek Term.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures the word Pan·to·kra′tor occurs ten times, nine of them in the book of Revelation.

The word basically means Almighty, or All Powerful.

Its use in the Christian Greek Scriptures lends weight to the understanding of the Hebrew term Shad·dai′ as meaning Almighty One, since otherwise there would be no corresponding term for Pan·to·kra′tor in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Did you read what I said? This is totally incorrect. El Gibbor means the Mighty/Almighty God. Look up gibbor in a Hebrew dictionary friend. Shaddai does not mean mighty nor almighty, period.

At 2 Corinthians 6:18 Paul quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures in urging Christians to avoid false worship and the use of lifeless, powerless idols, thus qualifying as children of the Almighty [Pan·to·kra′tor].

In view of the apostles quotations, it is obvious that the title here applies to Jehovah God.

I didn't say it doesn't. It just doesn't apply to El Shaddai.

Similarly, throughout Revelation the title Pan·to·kra′tor is applied to the Creator and King of Eternity, Jehovah, as in the song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb [Jesus Christ], which acclaims Jehovah God as the one worthy of worship and fear by all nations. (Re 15:3; compare Re 21:22.)

I don't think you fully understand the use of lamb in Revelation. Christ said "feed my lambs."

The titles application to Jehovah God is made obvious at Revelation 19:6 by the use of the expression Hallelujah (Praise Jah, you people!).

Again, I did not say pantokrator does not refer to God.

Likewise, the expression the One who is and who was and who is coming (Re 1:8; 4:8) clearly points to the God of eternity (Ps 90:2), who not only was the Almighty in ancient times but continues to be so and is coming as such with an expression of his all-powerfulness.

Again violent action is indicated, following his taking his great power to rule as king, by the expression of his wrath against the opposing nations at the war of the great day of God the Almighty. (Re 11:17,18; 16:14)

If you are trying to infer that Almighty was derived from shadad, please show how this is so being that Jews say shaddai has no root, and that shadad is a verb and not a noun, and that God clearly uses names which imply what He is being for his people. When El Shaddai appears to Abram and tells him to walk perfectly, he is not saying I am your destroyer God.

His Son, Christ Jesus, The Word of God, is shown as expressing this wrath of God the Almighty against the nations in his position as king anointed by God. (Re 19:13-16)

You do not understand this scripture. What name do you not know since you claim to know it?

Der Alte · Jul 20, 2014

spiritandtruth2 said:
. . . Arguments that some Trinitarians draw from the Hebrew Scriptures are (1) that Christ is prophetically called Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 and (2) that Mighty God is one of the names applied to him in Isaiah 9:6.

The name Immanuel means with us is God, but this does not mean that Christ is God, any more than Elihu was God simply because his name means God is he. (Job 32:1, 2)

As to Christs being called Mighty God, if puny human judges can be called gods in the Scriptures (Psalm 82:1-7), is it not appropriate that Gods Son should be called Mighty God (Hebrew, El Gib·bohr&#8242? . . .

Illogical arguments.

That a mere puny man names his son with a Theophoric name is irrelevant they cannot make their sons be or become anything. But when God names someone He means what He says and says what He means. When God changed Abrams name to Abraham he became the father, progenitor of many nations, the meaning of Abraham.

The phrase אל גבור/El Gibbor occurs only six times in the OT, Deu 10:17, Neh 9:32, Isa 9:6, 10:21, Jer 32:18, and Zep 3:17. Five of those occurrences Deu 10:17, Neh 9:32, Isa 10:21, Jer 32:18, and Zep 3:17 it clearly refers to יהוה/YHWH

A question for JWs about the use of "Jehovah" in Colossians

Newbie

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Newbie

This is me about 1 yr. old.

angel duck

Newbie

angel duck

Our God is a consuming fire.

angel duck

Our God is a consuming fire.

angel duck

Our God is a consuming fire.

angel duck

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Our God is a consuming fire.

Newbie

Our God is a consuming fire.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Similar threads