Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[CherubRam]

I fail to see how this has any bearing on what I said. How does changing Prince to minister change His inheritance? He still inherits the name or title of the Father, and the government over the people from the Father.
This is what I said:
When His inheritance comes in, will He be a new God?

There is no scripture where he states that he is the Father or Holy Spirit. Faulty translations and forged entries is what supports the trinity concept. How come Trinitarians do not understand that that concept has never been taught in Orthodox Judaism.
You are pulling rabbits out of the hat and putting words in Christ mouth.

 

[CherubRam]

So, you don't know?

Secondly, according to your theology, is Jesus a created being?

Thirdly, Jesus is a god? I thought you believed in monotheism?

Yet you're saying Jesus is a god and the Father is another?

Link to subject.
Sons of God: Christian Forum

 

[Gibs]

The first verse here is an example of a bad translation,

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

The following is correct,

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus was God only by the fact the Father came and dwelt in Him in all fullness!

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Listen to Jesus here,

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Hear Jesus here,

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

 

[Der Alte]

The first verse here is an example of a bad translation,

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

The following is correct,

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus was God only by the fact the Father came and dwelt in Him in all fullness! . . .

Actually both translations of John 1:18 are incorrect. Here is the correct translation based on the latest scholarship.

NET John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one [sup] 45[/sup] himself God, who is in closest fellowship with[sup]46[/sup] the Father, has made God[sup]47[/sup] known.[sup]48[/sup]

45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

46tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

47tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

48sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”​

 

[Gibs]

Jesus Christ was the man, the Fathers Son and the Father did come and dwell in Him making Him God the Father with us but Jesus himself was not God,

And so not another God and so the KJV verse don't work to lead people from seeing the truth.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

There is now soon coming the time that the Fathers Deity vested in Him will be returned and the Father will be ALL IN ALL AGAIN,

Read these verses, 1 Cor 15:24-28 , these are profound verses if you catch what is being revealed and most cannot!

 

[Stephen Kendall]

I use the smoking gun and liar methods in determining the truth. The founders & supporters of Trinity (including Calvin) disobeyed Christ's commands, especially the one "that you will be known for love for one another" and the one to not judge or kill. Calvin was definitely guilty of the horrific death of Michael Servetus and could easily have completely done away with Sir Issac Newton who believed similarly to Servetus. Trinity movements were so strong that Desiderius Erasmus, famous historian, altered the Bible unethically with the "Comma" (a proof of Trinity) (Comma Johanneum). I can see God having a real son and he would be fully subordinate and lovingly so to his Dad (God). If Jesus' dad was God, wouldn't he be like his dad, yet submitting to him. There is only one God, Jesus' dad and ours as well. If we are to make it into his realm, then we will be like Jesus, God's son, and so we would become also the sons of God. These direct thoughts from the Bible are much less confusing to me than Pagan Mystics of Trinity. I would rather be a child of God and not of a mystical 3 Gods in one. Jesus follows only his Dad. We should follow Jesus to his Dad. Plain and simple. Throw the Mystics into the round filing cabinet.

 

[2ducklow]

I use the smoking gun and liar methods in determining the truth. The founders & supporters of Trinity (including Calvin) disobeyed Christ's commands, especially the one "that you will be known for love for one another" and the one to not judge or kill. Calvin was definitely guilty of the horrific death of Michael Servetus and could easily have completely done away with Sir Issac Newton who believed similarly to Servetus. Trinity movements were so strong that Desiderius Erasmus, famous historian, altered the Bible unethically with the "Comma" (a proof of Trinity) (Comma Johanneum). I can see God having a real son and he would be fully subordinate and lovingly so to his Dad (God). If Jesus' dad was God, wouldn't he be like his dad, yet submitting to him. There is only one God, Jesus' dad and ours as well. If we are to make it into his realm, then we will be like Jesus, God's son, and so we would become also the sons of God. These direct thoughts from the Bible are much less confusing to me than Pagan Mystics of Trinity. I would rather be a child of God and not of a mystical 3 Gods in one. Jesus follows only his Dad. We should follow Jesus to his Dad. Plain and simple. Throw the Mystics into the round filing cabinet.

The reason they won't listen to reason is because they have been told that their salvation is absolutely dependant upon believing the Trinity. So they will fight tooth and nail to hold on to their doctrine because of their belief that they will go to hell if they don't. Trinity isn't an optional belief for Trinitarians, it is absolutely essential to being a Christian, according to them. That, in my opinion, is the real force behind trinity.

 

[CherubRam]

The reason they won't listen to reason is because they have been told that their salvation is absolutely dependant upon believing the Trinity. So they will fight tooth and nail to hold on to their doctrine because of their belief that they will go to hell if they don't. Trinity isn't an optional belief for Trinitarians, it is absolutely essential to being a Christian, according to them. That, in my opinion, is the real force behind trinity.

And yet, no where in scripture is that written. It reminds me of Eve misquoting God. Historical facts are thrown out the window for their man made doctrine.
It is truly amazing.

 

[CherubRam]

So, you don't know?

Secondly, according to your theology, is Jesus a created being?

Thirdly, Jesus is a god? I thought you believed in monotheism?

Yet you're saying Jesus is a god and the Father is another?

A body you have prepared for me.
Psalm 40 commentary.
N.I.V. foot note for Psalms 40:6 reads: “Hebrew; Septuagint: but a body you have prepared for me. (See also Symmachus and Theodotion)” End of quote. Symmachus the Ebonite was a late 2nd century author of one of the Greek versions of the Old Testament.

Theodotion 200 A.D.
Theodotion was a Jewish scholar, perhaps working in Ephesus, who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Whether he was revising the Septuagint, or was working from Hebrew manuscripts that represented a parallel tradition that has not survived, and is debated. His finished version, which filled some lacunae in the Septuagint version of the Book of Jeremiah and Book of Job, formed one column in Origen's Hexapla. (The Hexapla presented six Hebrew and Greek texts side-by-side: two Greek versions, by Aquila of Sinope and Symmachus, preceding the Septuagint, and Theodotian's version following it, apparently reflecting a contemporary understanding of their historical sequence.

Theodotion's translation was so widely copied in the Early Christian church, that it superseded the Septuagint Book of Daniel. Jerome, in his preface to Daniel records the rejection of the Septuagint version in Christian usage, asserting that its translation was very faulty.

Although Theodotion was Anti-Christ, it may not have occurred to him to change the Hebrew Psalm script from reading: “But a body you have prepared for me.” In Hebrews 10:5 the verse is also repeated. “Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;”…

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.

Orthodox Jews claim that He (God) would not father a child upon a human woman. So, the idea of Jesus Christ being a human, fathered by the Holy Spirit is not 'impossible', it would just prove God to be a liar. If the lineage goes through Mary, it does not count because tribal lineage only goes through the father, while national lineage only goes through the mother. If it goes through Joseph, it does not count, because Joseph was not his father.


I would like to state that Christians never claimed that God procreated through Mary, but that He created a body in the linage of David. I do not think that that linage ruling was in effect at the time of Christ birth.

2 John 1:7. Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

1 John 2:22. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24. See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
26. I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.

Psalms 40:6. Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7. Then I said, "Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.


If those who are the Anti-Christ deny that the Messiah would come in bodily form, then it is very likely for them to have changed the Hebrew text of Psalms 40:6 to read: “but my ears you have pierced”…

 

[CherubRam]

So, you don't know?

Secondly, according to your theology, is Jesus a created being?

Thirdly, Jesus is a god? I thought you believed in monotheism?

Yet you're saying Jesus is a god and the Father is another?

Yahwah is the creator, there is no other. Yahwah alone is Elohiym. Before any other life there was only Yahwah. There are many so called gods, real and imagined. There is only one person who is Truly A God, and that is Yahwah. If you do not understand that, then there nothing more to be said.

 

[NorrinRadd]

The reason they won't listen to reason is because they have been told that their salvation is absolutely dependant upon believing the Trinity. So they will fight tooth and nail to hold on to their doctrine because of their belief that they will go to hell if they don't. Trinity isn't an optional belief for Trinitarians, it is absolutely essential to being a Christian, according to them. That, in my opinion, is the real force behind trinity.

No, it's because we really do see it consistently taught in Scripture. Personally I find Scripture MUCH more clear in teaching the deity of Christ, by which I mean that Jesus is directly, explicitly, repeatedly, emphatically identified as being the God revealed as I AM in the Old Testament. It is, IMO, much less clear about the Spirit, though clear enough. And once we accept that the Father is God, I AM, and the Son is God, I AM, there is little reason not to extend that to the Spirit also.

 

[Near]

Yahwah is the creator, there is no other. Yahwah alone is Elohiym. Before any other life there was only Yahwah. There are many so called gods, real and imagined. There is only one person who is Truly A God, and that is Yahwah. If you do not understand that, then there nothing more to be said.

What makes you think Yahweh is only the person of the Father?

If Yahweh is the only creator, then Jesus is Yahweh...

John 1:1-3 NKJV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

So, is Jesus Yahweh?
Or is there more than one Creator?

 

[RevelationTestament]

There is no scripture where he states that he is the Father or Holy Spirit. Faulty translations and forged entries is what supports the trinity concept. How come Trinitarians do not understand that that concept has never been taught in Orthodox Judaism.
You are pulling rabbits out of the hat and putting words in Christ mouth.

Isa 9:6 does state it. That He will be called the Father. That is His inheritance. That is not a faulty translation. It is in the Hebrew. And the Jews definitely had no interest in making Christ God. But they did in crucifying Him.

Isaiah 65:9
9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

Further, this is not a trinitarian concept, which is one of many reasons the doctrine of the trinity is false, so they didn't forge the scripture either. Because trinitarians hold God to be unchanging, they believe the Son will be the Son forevermore, but this is contrary to scripture, and denies Christ His inheritance as the Father, and as El Gibbor - the Mighty God. In fact, you translated it yourself - that He will inherit the government of God. He will be the Father - the glory be to He and the Father:

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is how that verse should read.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father, ministering in Peace. ( Or, leading in peace.


If you run that Hebrew word through a Hebrew to English translator is will read “minister.”

 

[CherubRam]

What makes you think Yahweh is only the person of the Father?

If Yahweh is the only creator, then Jesus is Yahweh...

John 1:1-3 NKJV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

So, is Jesus Yahweh?
Or is there more than one Creator?

Commentary on John 1:1.

It took me days of research on the Internet to bring this information to you; I hope someone will appreciate this work.

Pantheion

Greek pantheion, from pan 'all' + theion 'Divine Eternal-s' (from theios 'divine.')
From Greek aion, meaning Eternal, for an infinite amount of time Pantheion: Pan/the/ion. All Divine Eternal-s. The word “All” makes it plural.

aeon or aion or eon
1. An immeasurably long period of time. From Greek, Aion, an infinitely long time.

Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only God Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. THEON: God Eternal.

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche eimi ho logos kai ho logos eimi pros ton theon kai theos eimi ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (word) eimi (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (God Eternal) kai (and) theos (god) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the word, and the word was with the (one or only) God Eternal, and a god was the word.

The defining article "a" must be supplied for the English language, to define that there is another god that is not the God Eternal.

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before God Eternal?

 

[CherubRam]

Isa 9:6 does state it. That He will be called the Father. That is His inheritance. That is not a faulty translation. It is in the Hebrew. And the Jews definitely had no interest in making Christ God. But they did in crucifying Him.

Isaiah 65:9
9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

Further, this is not a trinitarian concept, which is one of many reasons the doctrine of the trinity is false, so they didn't forge the scripture either. Because trinitarians hold God to be unchanging, they believe the Son will be the Son forevermore, but this is contrary to scripture, and denies Christ His inheritance as the Father, and as El Gibbor - the Mighty God. In fact, you translated it yourself - that He will inherit the government of God. He will be the Father - the glory be to He and the Father:

Quote: "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father,"

You are seeing what you want to see.

 

[Near]

Commentary on John 1:1.

It took me days of research on the Internet to bring this information to you; I hope someone will appreciate this work.

Pantheion

Greek pantheion, from pan 'all' + theion 'Divine Eternal-s' (from theos 'divine.')
From Greek aion, meaning Eternal, for an infinite amount of time Pantheion: Pan/the/ion. All Divine Eternal-s. The word “All” makes it plural.

aeon or aion or eon
1. An immeasurably long period of time. From Greek, Aion, an infinitely long time.

Greek word TON and THEON.
From the Scripture4All program. Link: Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. THEON: Divine Eternal.

John 1:1

Greek:
en arche eimi ho logos kai ho logos eimi pros ton theon kai theos eimi ho logos

Interlinear:
en (in) arche (beginning) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (word) eimi (was) pos (toward or with) ton (TON is a special definite article "the" meaning the one and only, it appears as TON instead of O in the Greek) theon (Divine Eternal) kai (and) theos (divine) eimi (was) ho (the) logos (word)

In English we have:
In beginning was the word, and the word was with the (one or only) Divine Eternal, and divine was the word.

Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the one or only) before Divine Eternal?

...actually I wasn't pointing to John 1:1 specifically, but rather the following verses about the Word being the one through whom creation came.

 

[CherubRam]

God
Ancient Hebrew: IL.
Aramaic: IL.
Hebrew: EL.
English: God.
Spanish: Dios.
Italian: Iddio, Dio.
German: Gutes, Gott.
Germanic, Old French: Gott.
French: Dieux, Dieu.
Greek: Theo, Theos.
Latin: Deus.
Norwegian: Gud.
Swedish: Gud.
Portugese: Deus.


The word God was used to represent Greek Theos, Latin Deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. For the etymology of deus, see *dyēus.

Greek " θεός " (theos) means God in English.

The term "Godhead" is an English variant of the word "godhood" and was first introduced by John Wycliffe (1330-1384 C.E.) in English Bible versions as godhede. The word "Godhead" is a translation of three different Greek words, theion (meaning "divinity, deity", # 2304 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Acts 17:29, theiotēs (meaning "divinity, divine nature", # 2305 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Romans 1:20, and theotēs (meaning "deity", # 2320 in Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) at Colossians 2:9.

 

[2ducklow]

And yet, no where in scripture is that written. It reminds me of Eve misquoting God. Historical facts are thrown out the window for their man made doctrine.
It is truly amazing.

the truly amazing thing is that anyone believes it.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Quote: "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, of the Mighty God and Everlasting Father,"

You are seeing what you want to see.

No. I am afraid you are. There is no separate "of" there. From an interlinear Hebrew Bible[not all the Hebrew letters are rendered correctly]:
9:6 ( י ( 9:5 ִ
ki
that
־
-
יֶלֶד
ild
boy
ד1 יֻ ַ
ild
he-is-mborn
־
-

לָנ
l·nu
to·us
#ֵ
bn
son
 נִ ַ
nthn
he-is-given
־
-

לָנ
l·nu
to·us
הִי  וַ ְ
u·thei
and·she-shall-become

6
רָה .ְ 8 הַ ִ
e·mshre
the·chieftainshipol
on
־
-
 כְמ ִ
shkm·u
shoulder-blade-of·him
קְרָא ( וַ ִ
u·iqra
and·he-shall-call
 מְ
shm·u
name-of·him
לֶא 9ֶ
phla
one-marvelous
+ עֵ י
iuotz
one-counseling
אֵל
al
El
ר#)ִ
gbur
masterful
אֲבִיעַד
abiod
Father-of-future
דר.ַ
shr
chief-of
־
-
' לָ
shlum
well-being

Even Jews will say you are wrong. And they certainly have no reason to change what He is being called because as you note, they had no concept of a literal inheritor of the Father. But in Jewish law the inheritor stepped into the Father's stead, and received all the Father has. But then they refuse to believe anyone else can be called YHWH although their scriptures plainly declare it.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Yahwah is the creator, there is no other. Yahwah alone is Elohiym. Before any other life there was only Yahwah. There are many so called gods, real and imagined. There is only one person who is Truly A God, and that is Yahwah. If you do not understand that, then there nothing more to be said.

Except what scripture says:
Jer 23:5 ¶Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH our righteousness.

Jeremiah 33:16
16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, YHWH our righteousness.