YHWH

[Wootah]

Y - the hand
H - reveals
W - the nail
H - reveals

How is anyone that believes YHWH is God able to negate the evidence above that YHWH is Jesus?

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/je ... -is-yahweh

YHWH is the name above all names correct?

Philippians 2:9-11 says — Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Anyone want to directly confront both pieces of evidence?

[Revelations won]

Dear Wootah and Pin Seeker,

In the OP Wootah said:


Y - the hand
H - reveals
W - the nail
H - reveals

How is anyone that believes YHWH is God able to negate the evidence above that YHWH is Jesus?

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/je ... -is-yahweh

YHWH is the name above all names correct?

Philippians 2:9-11 says — Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Anyone want to directly confront both pieces of evidence?

Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

*****************************************************

My observation is that both have done a very respectable job in making their point regarding YHWH and Jesus Christ being one and the same.

It would appear that a certain man made creed and philosophies of man have created great confusion on this topic.

I think the scriptures make it very clear that the “oneness “ spoken of refers to a “oneness of unity” not a oneness of body. For did not Christ make it very clear that His Father was greater than he?

The earth was created under the direction of God the Father by YHWH or Jesus the Christ.

There are many who confuse the situation by falsely claiming YHWH to be God the Father.

There are others who add to the confusion by erroneously claiming Michael to be Jesus Christ.

And Jehovah (YHWH) at times in the Old Testament also spoke as God the Father by divine investiture.

Also I have given very substantial evidence on the topic “Jehovah of the OT is Jesus Christ of the New Testament”

Jesus Christ is witnessed in the New Testament as being Immanuel or
“God with us” as God the Son.

I wonder if it might help to establish the Antemortal, Mortal and Post Mortal corporal nature of the Father and the Son?

Kind regards,
RW

Thanks to both Wootah and Pin Seeker.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Dear Wootah and Pin Seeker,

In the OP Wootah said:


Y - the hand
H - reveals
W - the nail
H - reveals

How is anyone that believes YHWH is God able to negate the evidence above that YHWH is Jesus?

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/je ... -is-yahweh

The OP suggestion of what the name of God means, based upon individual letters (based upon individual symbols which don't entirely match up) has been dealt with at the start of this thread. It is not established that a) this is what the name of God means, or b) how this must mean that God (YHWH) is Christ.

YHWH is the name above all names correct?

Philippians 2:9-11 says — Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Anyone want to directly confront both pieces of evidence?

As to this second piece of evidence, Paul confronts that himself in his letter to the Corinthians (15:27):

For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Indeed.

There are many who confuse the situation by falsely claiming YHWH to be God the Father.

Christ said:

"If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.


Whom did Israel claim as their God if not "YHWH"? Because that is who Christ stated is His Father.

And Jehovah (YHWH) at times in the Old Testament also spoke as God the Father by divine investiture.

He IS the Father, so that makes sense.




Peace again to you Revelations one,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you also.

Adown was not being used in place of [YHWH] here at Psalm 110:1-2.

Point taken, but that’s not what I said.

Then I do not understand what point you are trying to make, since it is clear that this word is used to describe people who are not [YHWH].

But it is not true that Christ is irrefutably referred to as a 'second person of the triune Jehovah God'.

Oh, yes, it absolutely is. Christ is referred to with a title that is reserved only for YHWH.

Except that this is not true, Pinseeker. The title is not reserved only for [YHWH]. The word (and so, title) is used for many others as well, such as Abraham.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... H113&t=KJV

ʼâdôwn, aw-done'; or (shortened) אָדֹן ʼâdôn; from an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine):—lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with 'Adoni-'.

Click the link to see the various ways in which the word is used as well as to see the many examples of that word being used in scripture referring to men (such as Abraham).

If the title can be used for people OTHER than [YHWH], then you cannot claim that using it for Christ means that Christ must be [YHWH]. You also cannot rightly claim that by calling Christ (or anyone else) "Lord", a person is claiming that Christ (or anyone else) is "...superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father..." (the quote in italics is your own).

...Sarah referring to Abraham as her Lord...

Sarah referred to Abraham as the head of her... well, I should say his... household... and her husband:
.

“So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?" (Genesis 18:12)

.
In exactly the same sense, I am my wife’s lord. And if you have a husband, he is your lord. That surely does not mean we as husbands should be worshiped as Christ is or that we are equal to Him in any way. Paul is very clear about the proper relationship of husbands and wives in Ephesians 5. As Paul says:

Well there you go.

Calling someone lord does not mean that the person being called lord is believed to be '...superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father...".
.

”For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” (Ephesians 5:23)

.
It’s a very similar concept to the fact that God is our ultimate Authority, of course, but there are of course many kinds of earthly authorities that we men and women come under as citizens, employees, etc.

As Paul also says:
.

”For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1-2)

Again, there you go.


How can you understand this logic, and yet throw that logic out the window when it comes to Christ being called Lord?

I certainly am not suggesting that Christ is superior to the Father (to God), because I refer to Christ as my Lord.

You don’t mean to be, no. I didn’t say you were. But that is the effect, however unintended it may be.

Very puzzling how folks try to put words in others’ mouths in this forum...

I was just using myself as an example and following your reasoning (albeit flawed in this particular instance) to its natural conclusion.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

Then I do not understand what point you are trying to make...

Obviously not... or you are totally avoiding it. One or the other.

...it is clear that this word is used to describe people who are not [YHWH].

In some cases it is, sure, but the context is very different and cannot be ignored or dismissed, which you are doing; this was my point. Again, there are earthly lords, while there but one heavenly Lord... just as there are earthly authorities, while there is but one heavenly Authority. The Bible is very clear on this.

The title is not reserved only for [YHWH]. The word (and so, title) is used for many others as well, such as Abraham.

What you apparently refuse to acknowledge, Tam, is that there is a vast difference between -- and maybe you will attempt to portray this as trivial so you can stick to your narrative -- the heavenly, divine Lord and earthly lords. I was very clear on this, because the Bible is. I could elaborate on it, but not necessary; we all know that Christ Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, 19:16), which can be more literally translated as “ruler over those who exercise rule,” and the “lord over those who exercise lordship.” And here again, "King of kings and Lord of lords" is true of both God the Father and God the Son, as we can especially see in 1 Timothy 6. If we woodenly understand that only Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords, then Christ is elevated above the Father in His kingship and lordship, which again is surely not the case. The same is true of Philippians 2, pointed out by Revelations Won above, specifically that Christ has been given the Name above all names. Is Christ's Name now above the Father's? Absolutely not; perish the thought. Again, all of this, unintentional as it may be, tantamount to proclaiming Jesus as superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father and embracing Jesus as the master/sovereign/King/Lord, which is undoubtedly not the case.

And specifically regarding Philippians 2, I pointed out in another recent thread that what Paul says there ("...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord") is a very specific reference to what Isaiah, in chapter 45:22-25 of his prophecy, relates to us from God Himself ("For thus says the LORD"), specifically that verses 22-25, that "I am God, and there is no other... To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance... In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." Now, a little multiple choice question:
.

Which is the case?

a.) Paul is... wrong about Jesus. <chuckles>
b.) God is... wrong about Himself. <chuckles>
c.) One or the other (God or Paul) is... lying. <chuckles>
d.) All of the above. <LOL!>
e.) None of the above.

Answer 'e' is correct, of course.

.

Click the link to see the various ways in which the word is used as well as to see the many examples of that word being used in scripture referring to men (such as Abraham).

No need; I agree with you on the basic statement that the word is used in different ways in different instances, but ironically you seem to be acknowledging it and then bending over backwards to refute it. The context is always key in discerning the difference -- and there is most assuredly a difference -- and that's the point that you seem to be refusing to let sink in. To hold to such a wooden understanding is... Well, it's just a wooden, undiscerning "understanding."

Calling someone lord does not mean that the person being called lord is believed to be '...superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father...".

My goodness. I mean, of course this is true; I've said it at least three times now in different ways. See above.

How can you understand this logic, and yet throw that logic out the window when it comes to Christ being called Lord?

LOL! I mean, thank you very much for acknowledging my proper understanding, but I'm throwing no logic out the window. My very point is that's exactly what you're doing. See above.

I was just using myself as an example and following your reasoning (albeit flawed in this particular instance) to its natural conclusion.

Nah, you were putting words in my mouth. Inadvertently, maybe, but yeah. And you're still doing it. Hey, I'll leave you with a couple things to ponder and hopefully make the correct connection:

Psalm 23 and John 10

"The LORD (YHWH) is my shepherd..." (Psalm 23:1)

"Jesus again said to them... 'I am the good shepherd.' " (John 10:14)

.
Psalm 107 and Mark 4

"Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the great waters; they saw the deeds of the LORD, His wondrous works in the deep. For He commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea. They mounted up to heaven; they went down to the depths; their courage melted away in their evil plight; they reeled and staggered like drunken men and were at their wits’ end. Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and He delivered them from their distress. He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad that the waters were quiet, and He brought them to their desired haven. Let them thank the LORD for his steadfast love, for His wondrous works to the children of man! Let them extol Him in the congregation of the people, and praise Him in the assembly of the elders." (Psalm 107:23-32)

"On that day, when evening had come, (Jesus) said to them, 'Let us go across to the other side.' And leaving the crowd, they took Him with them in the boat, just as He was. And other boats were with Him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But He was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke Him and said to Him, 'Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?. And He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!' And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?' ” (Mark 4:35-41.. parallels Matthew 8:23-27 and Luke 8:22-25)

.
It has been wisely observed that the Old Testament is the New Testament veiled and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. As I've said many times, Jesus said all of Scripture (Moses and the Prophets) is about Him.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[PinSeeker]

It would appear that a certain man made creed and philosophies of man have created great confusion on this topic.

I don't really mean to refute this statement, RW, but I do think this is putting the chicken before the egg, so to speak. The initial confusion, I think, is on the part of the person(s) who came up with those creeds and philosophies. And then it builds on itself for various reasons. So, yeah, you're right, but it's a both/and thing, really.

I think the scriptures make it very clear that the “oneness “ spoken of refers to a “oneness of unity” not a oneness of body.

Right. In the same sense, husband and wife are one flesh, God says in Genesis 2:24 and Paul references in Ephesians 5:21.

For did not Christ make it very clear that His Father was greater than he?

Yes, but -- and you may be with me on this -- by saying "greater," Jesus in John 14:28 is not saying He is something less than God the Father; He was not comparing his nature with that of God the Father. Rather, He was comparing their positions. Regarding the Father, He is "greater" in authority or leadership than the Son, and regarding Himself, Jesus is "lesser" not in the sense of inferiority or with reference to His basic nature, but rather in the state of humiliation (emptiness, cf. Philippians 2) that he took when he became a human being.

Grace and peace to you, RW.

[onewithhim]

In reply to Pinseeker's post #150:

You said that Christ is referred to by a title that is specific to YHWH. What title would that be? "LORD"? Surely you don't mean that. There are "Lords many," (I Corinthians 8:5) according to the Scriptures, and some are men, some angels, even Darth Vader. People substituted "LORD" for the true name of God---YHWH---which, unfortunately, confuses people as to who is being referred to. If "YHWH" was left where it belongs, there would be no such confusion. You yourself are confused by this.

Put "YHWH" back in each of the 7,000 places it belongs, and you have YHWH (commonly referred to in English as "Jehovah") entirely separate from Jesus Christ.

Jesus is "Lord of lords," but absolutely not lord over YHWH/Jehovah, as Paul brings out at I Corinthians 15:27. Jesus has always been and always will be in subjection to Jehovah/God.

.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Then I do not understand what point you are trying to make...

Obviously not... or you are totally avoiding it. One or the other.

I said what I meant, Pinseeker.

...it is clear that this word is used to describe people who are not [YHWH].

In some cases it is, sure, but the context is very different and cannot be ignored or dismissed, which you are doing; this was my point.

You are using your belief to force the context to conform to your belief. You believe that [Jesus] is [Jehovah]. Because of your belief, you create (or adhere to) an elaborate explanation to make the text mean something that it does not state.

Again, there are earthly lords, while there but one heavenly Lord... just as there are earthly authorities, while there is but one heavenly Authority. The Bible is very clear on this.

You are changing the text of the verse you are giving an offhand reference to, Pinseeker. The passage reads as follows:

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist...


The passage does not state what you have claimed. And in this passage, Paul very specifically distinguishes our God as the Father (one person). This is our one God - > the Father. Not "Father, Son, Holy Spirit". Paul then distinguishes our one Lord as Christ (Jaheshua).

The title is not reserved only for [YHWH]. The word (and so, title) is used for many others as well, such as Abraham.

What you apparently refuse to acknowledge, Tam,

Nope... I have not refused to acknowledge anything. See above.

I could elaborate on it, but not necessary; we all know that Christ Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, 19:16), which can be more literally translated as “ruler over those who exercise rule,” and the “lord over those who exercise lordship.” And here again, "King of kings and Lord of lords" is true of both God the Father and God the Son, as we can especially see in 1 Timothy 6. If we woodenly understand that only Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords, then Christ is elevated above the Father in His kingship and lordship, which again is surely not the case. The same is true of Philippians 2

It does not mean that at all (that Christ being King of Kings and Lord of lords somehow elevates Him over His Father). I responded to this (and Philippians 2) in my response to RW, above.

For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

Applying that same truth, that same logic, when it is said that Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, it is clear that this is not referring to Christ being King or Lord over His own Father (God). Same when it comes to their names.

God cannot die - but He loves His Son, created all things for His Son. And sons (who are heirs) inherit titles and belongings - such as the sheep (hence Christ is the good shepherd to the sheep God has given Him) - from their Father:

"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him.

We have also been given an example to help us get the sense of this, from when Pharaoh appointed Joseph in charge of all his kingdom. Pharaoh gave Joseph all authority - over his house, his kingdom, his people - except over Pharaoh himself.

Genesis 41: 39-44

Now, a little multiple choice question:
.

Which is the case?

a.) Paul is... wrong about Jesus. <chuckles>
b.) God is... wrong about Himself. <chuckles>
c.) One or the other (God or Paul) is... lying. <chuckles>
d.) All of the above. <LOL!>
e.) None of the above.

Answer 'e' is correct, of course.

"E" is the correct answer. But that does not make Pinseeker correct in his interpretation of what Paul or God said and meant.

Click the link to see the various ways in which the word is used as well as to see the many examples of that word being used in scripture referring to men (such as Abraham).

No need; I agree with you on the basic statement that the word is used in different ways in different instances,

Therefore, you cannot use this verse to claim that Christ is [YHWH]. You have to be completely inconsistent to make that claim.

but ironically you seem to be acknowledging it and then bending over backwards to refute it.

That is what you are doing, Pinseeker. It makes no sense at all to suggest that I am doing it. I am remaining consistent in my understanding of this verse and this word. It does not refer exclusively to [YHWH], therefore, you cannot use this word (and verse) to state that when it refers to Christ it must be referring to [YHWH]. Nor can you say that calling Christ "Lord" means that one is suggesting Christ is '...superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father..."

To hold to such a wooden understanding is... Well, it's just a wooden, undiscerning "understanding."

Why? Because it is simple and men have a hard time accepting simple? Because men do not trust simple? Because men prefer and will accept complex, complicated, even mysteries that they cannot fully understand - over a simple truth?

How does that make sense?

Calling someone lord does not mean that the person being called lord is believed to be '...superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father...".

My goodness. I mean, of course this is true; I've said it at least three times now in different ways. See above.

Yet, you throw that logic out the window when it comes to calling Christ, "Lord".

How can you understand this logic, and yet throw that logic out the window when it comes to Christ being called Lord?

LOL! I mean, thank you very much for acknowledging my proper understanding, but I'm throwing no logic out the window. My very point is that's exactly what you're doing. See above.

I have remained consistent. You are the one who is changing the rules. How can you not see that?

I was just using myself as an example and following your reasoning (albeit flawed in this particular instance) to its natural conclusion.

Nah, you were putting words in my mouth. Inadvertently, maybe, but yeah. And you're still doing it. Hey, I'll leave you with a couple things to ponder and hopefully make the correct connection:

I did not put words in your mouth, Pinseeker. I used myself as an example. I call Christ my Lord (because He is my Lord). I am not claiming that Christ is "...superior to God the Father or even denying God the Father...". (claim in italics is yours).

I am a living example that directly refutes your claim.

Psalm 23 and John 10

"The LORD (YHWH) is my shepherd..." (Psalm 23:1)

"Jesus again said to them... 'I am the good shepherd.' " (John 10:14)

Explained above - though a) if Christ is the One speaking in Psalm 23, via holy spirit, then it is Christ calling [YHWH] His Shepherd. Did He not walk through the valley of the shadow of Death? And who else would be His shepherd? Who else is higher than Him? Who else does He listen to?... and again, b) the sheep - the people who belonged to God - were given to Christ by God. That makes Christ the shepherd of the sheep given to Him by God. More than that, though, Christ states that He is the GOOD shepherd, as opposed to the many other shepherds of Israel who cared nothing for the flock (Ezekiel 34:2). The GOOD shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (unlike the hired hands who care nothing for the sheep).


More even than that, God has said that He will appoint a Shepherd over His flock.

I will save My flock, and they will no longer be prey. I will judge between one sheep and another. 23I will appoint over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them. He will feed them and be their shepherd. (Ezekiel 34:22,23 See also Zechariah 13:7, though there are many verses such as this)


Christ being the Good Shepherd, does not mean that He is God (YHWH).

It has been wisely observed that the Old Testament is the New Testament veiled and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. As I've said many times, Jesus said all of Scripture (Moses and the Prophets) is about Him.

The scriptures testify to Him, yes. That does not mean that the scriptures testify that Christ is God [YHWH]. The scriptures (such as the one in question here) do not testify to that at all.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

You said that Christ is referred to by a title that is specific to YHWH. What title would that be? "LORD"? Surely you don't mean that.

Well, let me quote myself:
.

...at the end of (Psalm 110:1), the Hebrew word used there for "my Lord" is אֲדֹנָי ('Adonay), which is an emphatic form of the Hebrew word used for "my lord" אָדוֹן, ('adown) and is a title spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence.

.
Notice the capitalization/non-capitalization ("Lord" and "lord") in English; that is proper to denote the difference in the two Hebrew words; more on that in a moment. For now, though, that should be clear enough (clear as crystal, actually) but since -- as Darth Vader (LOL... that's a funny reference, onewithhim, so I'll use it, too) says... sort of -- "the misdirection is strong with this one," I'll expound a bit:

To answer your question, no, the title I am referring to in my statement (again, quoted above) is not immediately "LORD" (YHWH) but אֲדֹנָי ('Adonay), which (again) is an emphatic form of the Hebrew אָדוֹן, ('adown) and is a title spoken in place of "LORD" (YHWH) in Jewish display of reverence. But by extension (and elementary logic), we can with absolute validity refer directly to "LORD" (YHWH) because... well... I'll put it in the form of a geometric proof:

'C' = 'B'
Christ is equal to אֲדֹנָי ('Adonay)

and:

'B' = 'A'
אֲדֹנָי ('Adonay) is equal to יְהֹוָה (YHWH, Yehovah, "LORD")

therefore:

'C' = 'A'
Christ is equal to יְהֹוָה (YHWH, Yehovah, "LORD")

There are "Lords many," (I Corinthians 8:5) according to the Scriptures, and some are men, some angels, even Darth Vader.

Thanks for pointing out that verse! Awesome. Okay, so let's actually quote it here (with the next verse added) and then talk for a moment about it:
.

"For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” -- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist." (English Standard Version)

.
I'll even quote the New World Translation because as a Jehovah's Witness you cherish it so much and it is actually accurate here:
.

"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."

.
This verse makes the exact point I made to Tammy above. Well, I should say I made the exact same point to Tammy that Paul made to the Corinthians, but ultimately the same one the Holy Spirit made through Paul to the Corinthians and by extension to all of us: There are earthly lords of various kinds, but they do not, can not, hold a candle to, much less be compared to or seen as equal to the Lord, who is Jesus Christ. Again, thank you. This is why the capitalization in English is important -- to distinguish between the the two words just as the Hebrew (אֲדֹנָי ['Adonay], אָדוֹן, ['adown])! But the ironic thing is, to deny and/or to ignore this clear Biblical distinction between -- as properly rendered in English -- 'Lord' and 'lord,' Jehovah's Witnesses (and others that believe on this subject as they do; I'm pretty sure Tammy has said she's not a Jehovah's Witness), in order to maintain and stick to the narrative that Christ is not YHWH (with the Father and in the form of man) and is even somehow inferior to God/YHWH, they at least inadvertently do two things, which are both terribly wrong and contradictory in and of themselves:
.

1. de-elevate Christ Himself to the status of man and thus equal to man

2. elevate Christ above the Father because Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords

.
Both of these conclusions would certainly be rejected by Jehovah's Witnesses and those who believe on this subject along the same lines, but one or the other is the unintended implication/effect, as I said.

People substituted "LORD" for the true name of God---YHWH---which, unfortunately, confuses people as to who is being referred to. If "YHWH" was left where it belongs, there would be no such confusion. You yourself are confused by this.

LOL! The only thing I'm confused about here, onewithhim,, is why some folks seem to have such a blind spot concerning these things, and then why they can't extricate themselves from that blindness when things are so clearly explained to them by God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and other men, both those inspired by the Father via His Holy Spirit (the Biblical writers) and those not. But, God is sovereign over all that. Certainly, that is not to say in any way that He is a God of confusion (perish the thought). But... well, God does work in mysterious ways; as C.S. Lewis puts it in his Chronicles of Narnia series, He's not a tame lion.

Grace and peace to all.

[JehovahsWitness]

You said that Christ is referred to by a title that is specific to YHWH. What title would that be? "LORD"? Surely you don't mean that.

the title I am referring to ... is not immediately "LORD" (YHWH) but אֲדֹנָי ('Adonay), ..

This bleu thing HERE----> אֲדֹנָי <----- is used exclusively for Almighty God ? Are you really sure about that?



JW

[tam]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #158]

I do not think you are correct in your assessment Pinseeker. Just because scribes placed capital letter somewhere does not mean that these are placed according to the textual evidence.

The word used for Lord here at Psalm 110 (referring to Christ) is adown (H113). Not adonay (H136).

The Lord in Psalm 110 (referring to Christ) corresponds to H113 'adown, and that is the meaning I explained in my earlier post (with links).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa ... onc_588001

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... H113&t=KJV

The word you are saying can only be used to describe God (YHWH), is H136 adonay. That is not the word being used at Psalm 110 to describe Christ (my Lord). Nor is Psalm 110 listed as an example of any verse that uses 'adonay' (H136).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... H136&t=KJV



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy