Christ is YHWH's ambassador, God's representative. To call on the name of YHWH is therefore synonymous with calling on Christ.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does God have eyes?
- Thread starter Lee Magee
- Start date
"God" serves as a memonic for YHWH in the NT. That YHWH translates to "God the Father" and "God over all" is necessary to know. Whenever the idea of God as a father is raised in the OT, it is always YWHW speaking. The name YHWH is never found in the NT, except as "Lord" under the Qere and Ketiv convention in a few OT quotations and in some of the gospels and 2 Peter. In the NT, Elohim also translates to God. This serves as an endless source of confusion and motivation for certain high Trinitarians/Sabellians like JM.and you are?
I already said that
YHWH does not translate to God. It is the Name of God
That is not how translation works...YHWH is the proper name for our God. Elohim is a title and can be ascribed to anyone even men and idols.
You do like belittling other posters unncessarily. I am perfectly aware that YHWH is the name of God. Yet even proper names translate. Thus the name "Cephas" is frequently translated into "Peter" by many bible versions in various places, whereas others retain "Cephas." The bible uses Hebrew name translations of many Pharaohs, and many ancient historical people, which serves as an endless source of confusion in attempting to reconcile the bible with Egyptian history and earlier history.Therefore God himself is not divine. But if you are in a relationship with God or of God or sent by God you are divine...
Cambridge says...connected with or like God or a god:
says the one who does not know Elohim is a title and YHWH is the name of God.
CJB
I appeared to Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov as El Shaddai, although I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai].
Last edited:
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
John Milton is a prophet of Baal, whether he knows it or not.
This is surely his best ever quote at #249 "You can't say that Jesus was a man with any certainty. He did, after all, miraculously enter a room although the door was locked."John Milton is a prophet of Baal, whether he knows it or not.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
2 John 1:7– Spirit of anti- ChristThis is surely his best ever quote at #249 "You can't say that Jesus was a man with any certainty. He did, after all, miraculously enter a room although the door was locked."
According to JM, Christ was practising some kind of deception throughout his life, in not telling everyone that he was really "God;" and that he revealed this only after his resurrection, when he started walking through walls. Actually the "deception" must have continued even after his resurrection, per Jn 20:17.2 John 1:7– Spirit of anti- Christ
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Yeah, in fact such a "Christ" is supremely worthy of the title of "Son of the Father of Lies."According to JM, Christ was practising some kind of deception throughout his life,
JM believes that Christ is someone with a similar disposition to himself, albeit he does not acknowledge any fault in himself or in Christ. It is a traite of muslims and of many 'supremacist' doctrines that deception is permissible and advantageous.Yeah, in fact such a "Christ" is supremely worthy of the title of "Son of the Father of Lies."
However the logic of needing to conceal oneself as 'God' is difficult to make out. For if one was really God, one could take remedial action in the event of adverse consequences.
Last edited:
Or how you misunderstand the passages.My remarks pertained to how I understand passages like the one you were quoting that appear to be in tension with some other parts of scripture, particularly the New Testament.
Of course, I do.Once again, I'm completely puzzled by one of your claims. In this case you said I "seem to be saying that Jesus and the apostles were insufficient." You have no justification for this remark.
John Milton said:
I think the proper approach is to recognize that God revealed more of himself and his plans as time passed and to interpret the passages that need to be interpreted with this in mind.
The post clearly puts what you think above what the apostles wrote and seeks new interpretations...
Because you said thisI don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.
John Milton said:
This shouldn't, of course, reject the context of the previous passage, but it can allow previous utterances to be understood in a fuller sense that they were originally understood.
It is either one understands what was uttered or one does not understand what was uttered. If the apostles understood and wrote what they understood there is no fuller understanding for anyone to get. If you did not get it the first time it means that you misunderstood.
It is confirmed in Jn 16:27... Just in case you didn't know, sons come out from their fathers.This just shows that you have no business posting in the Biblical Languages forum. John 8:42 "εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν." The verbs ἐξῆλθον and ἥκω are perfectly ordinary verbs of leaving and arriving. There is nothing in them that suggests that the word came forth from God in any other sense that he left his presence. This understanding is confirmed in the remainder of the verse where he says that God sent him "ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν."
Why can they not be comparable? They made promises to each other, didn't they?I know what I intended to convey. I truly didn't imagine you would entertain the thought that the agreement of a husband and wife is comparable to that of the Father and the Son.
The text does not say "Jesus is God"...in any of those passages.Yes. He did in John 1:1 and John 20:28. I showed you this several posts ago.
John Milton
Well-known member
No. I do not subscribe to the view of progressive revelation beyond scripture. My remarks pertained to understanding apparent discrepancies within scripture. Your assumption about my remarks was, once again, wrong.The post clearly puts what you think above what the apostles wrote and seeks new interpretations...
I am not trying to hold you to any standard. I am pointing out to you that the text does not say wha t you are saying. Plain and simple.You still don't understand what I said?! I agree that what you stated was accurate because you were giving a quote. But if you held yourself to the same standard that you tried to hold me to, you would have to say that the text doesn't say that because you reversed the order of Thomas's words when you said, "my God and my Lord".
No, I am disregarding what you want it to mean...You are disregarding what John says in John 1:1 and 20:28.
John Milton
Well-known member
Besides being a false dichotomy, your remark here has the context of my post completely backwards. I was advancing the notion that the apostles had a fuller understanding of the promises that God made and their fulfillments than did the prophets and leaders of the Hebrew Bible. Some of the latter group might not have even understood the full significance of the predictions that they had made. You’ve completely reversed what I said.Because you said this
John Milton said:
This shouldn't, of course, reject the context of the previous passage, but it can allow previous utterances to be understood in a fuller sense that they were originally understood.
It is either one understands what was uttered or one does not understand what was uttered. If the apostles understood and wrote what they understood there is no fuller understanding for anyone to get. If you did not get it the first time it means that you misunderstood.
John Milton
Well-known member
And I’ve explained to you with clear explanations that your attempt to twist my words into a direct quote is intellectually dishonest. That you continue to make this false assertion fully displays your lack of integrity. In fact, the last slew of posts from you, cjab, and TRJM show that you lack discerning minds as well as integrity.I am not trying to hold you to any standard. I am pointing out to you that the text does not say wha t you are saying. Plain and simple.
How many Gods do you have? You are arguing that Jesus is God and his father is also God.No. I don't see them as relevant to the discussion.
Why would John mean Jesus is God and write this...If John wants us to believe Jesus is God why would he write he wants us to believe Jesus is the son of god?
Is Jesus a false God? John wrote Jesus's father is the only true God...therefore any other that you call God is a false God...
John Milton
Well-known member
“The word was God.” You just don’t accept what scripture says. That’s your problem, plain and simple.How many Gods do you have? You are arguing that Jesus is God and his father is also God.
Why would John mean Jesus is God and write this...If John wants us to believe Jesus is God why would he write he wants us to believe Jesus is the son of god?
Is Jesus a false God? John wrote Jesus's father is the only true God...therefore any other that you call God is a false God...