Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[metis]

I don't get this impression. The church in Europe even went so far as to create the 'trinity' doctrine, in order to explain the divinity of Jesus. We also notice how many Europeans in general, have a very difficult time accepting that Jesu is G-d, an aspect of G-d. This is why so many have left Xianity, imo, or, one of the reasons.

I think you misread what I was saying-- note the terminology "...more conceivable..." that I used.

 

[Deadtroopers]

I don't get this impression. The church in Europe even went so far as to create the 'trinity' doctrine, in order to explain the divinity of Jesus. We also notice how many Europeans in general, have a very difficult time accepting that Jesu is G-d, an aspect of G-d. This is why so many have left Xianity, imo, or, one of the reasons.

It is the consensus that even in the writings of the NT that espouse a high Christology Jesus is not actually said to be God. The Trinity is a way later concept. The dots are there and they can be joined up that way; but they can equally be legitimately joined up in other ways. The Trinity idea prevailed only because one particular variant of Christianity co-opted, and was co-opted by, one particular variant of the Roman State. They boot-strapped one another. The Constantinian axis of the Roman State was legitimised by the probably the largest religion in the Empire and the Athenasian-Chalcedonian wing obtained the backing of lethal force from the Constatinian Roman State faction. If Julian had not been killed or Valentinian been succeded by an adult both what we understand as the Late Roman Empire and as Christianity would probably be very different. Religion, like power, often comes from the barrel of a gun.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is the consensus that even in the writings of the NT that espouse a high Christology Jesus is not actually said to be God. The Trinity is a way later concept. The dots are there and they can be joined up that way; but they can equally be legitimately joined up in other ways. The Trinity idea prevailed only because one particular variant of Christianity co-opted, and was co-opted by, one particular variant of the Roman State. They boot-strapped one another. The Constantinian axis of the Roman State was legitimised by the probably the largest religion in the Empire and the Athenasian-Chalcedonian wing obtained the backing of lethal force from the Constatinian Roman State faction. If Julian had not been killed or Valentinian been succeded by an adult both what we understand as the Late Roman Empire and as Christianity would probably be very different. Religion, like power, often comes from the barrel of a gun.

I disagree. Jesu is actually called G-d, and 'lord', which are both Deific titles. The 'interpretation' otherwise, that G-d and Lord are merely titles for a wise Rabbi, are faulty. When 'other' gods are called gods, this is always specified, ie, such and such god, false god, etc. If Jesu is not G-d, then it certainly is some form of polytheism, and anti-Hebraic in nature, whether one believes that the 'Jesus is God' belief is anti-Hebraic, or not. There is really no way to square the Scripture, with the idea that Jesus is just a glorified Rabbi, it doesn't work. There are verses that are often quoted, signifying a 'human' character to Jesus, but there are verses that signify a Deific character. A 'human only' idea is only viable if parts of the NT are ignored, or taken as wildly metaphoric. This again is problematic, because there isn't a disclaimer to what is metaphor, and what isn't, in the Bible. The 'human' aspect of Jesus is recognized, He is ''part'' human, essentially, either literally, or in persona. /He looks like a man, at the very least. However, consequently, the Deific or G-d character is also present in the Scripture. This leads to actually a very weak trinity idea, or a sameness, in other words, Jesus is JHVH.

 

[Deadtroopers]

I disagree. Jesu is actually called G-d, and 'lord', which are both Deific titles. The 'interpretation' otherwise, that G-d and Lord are merely titles for a wise Rabbi, are faulty. When 'other' gods are called gods, this is always specified, ie, such and such god, false god, etc. If Jesu is not G-d, then it certainly is some form of polytheism, and anti-Hebraic in nature, whether one believes that the 'Jesus is God' belief is anti-Hebraic, or not. There is really no way to square the Scripture, with the idea that Jesus is just a glorified Rabbi, it doesn't work. There are verses that are often quoted, signifying a 'human' character to Jesus, but there are verses that signify a Deific character. A 'human only' idea is only viable if parts of the NT are ignored, or taken as wildly metaphoric. This again is problematic, because there isn't a disclaimer to what is metaphor, and what isn't, in the Bible. The 'human' aspect of Jesus is recognized, He is ''part'' human, essentially, either literally, or in persona. /He looks like man, at the very least. However, consequently, the Deific or G-d character is also present in the Scripture. This leads to actually a very weak trinity idea, or a sameness, in other words, Jesus is JHVH.

I don't think I am saying anything differently; but I am also saying it is legitimate to have another understanding from the same facts. There is a latent Trinity idea expressed at least once in the Gospels; but Paul's Christ is blatently a lesser deity/archangel distinct from God. Whether you say Christ is a god or a great angel this is mere semantics: what the Jews referred to as angels the Gentiles referred to as gods. You may call it polytheism if you wish.

I think some 'Hindu' thinking is useful here; Vishnu is seen as the creator and Shiva dwells/speaks up from his navel or Shiva is seen as the creator and Vishnu dwells/speaks up from his navel. Both are Brahman; Brahman is all but is nevertheless one with Atman. The same can be said from the perspective of followers of Kali or Durga. From one perspective, a billion Gods; from another One.

Explicit in the Gospels is a human only son of God; son of God only in the sense that all of this Jewish/Christian Jewish faith are sons (I neither think it can or does include daughters) of God. I think very much implicit in these texts is that behind closed doors somethings (sic) else were being taught. What you understand could well have been amonst those beliefs.

We can only make a stab at reconstructing what was actually going on. We have lost the context, the Sitz im Leben, of the surviving writings. It has been obfuscated; oft times deliberately so but mostly by neglect. The Christians of Late Antiquity were not interested in preserving what had for them become heresy.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think I am saying anything differently; but I am also saying it is legitimate to have another understanding from the same facts. There is a latent Trinity idea expressed at least once in the Gospels; but Paul's Christ is blatently a lesser deity/archangel distinct from God. Whether you say Christ is a god or a great angel this is mere semantics: what the Jews referred to as angels the Gentiles referred to as gods. You may call it polytheism if you wish.

I think some 'Hindu' thinking is useful here; Vishnu is seen as the creator and Shiva dwells/speaks up from his navel or Shiva is seen as the creator and Vishnu dwells/speaks up from his navel. Both are Brahman; Brahman is all but is nevertheless one with Atman. The same can be said from the perspective of followers of Kali or Durga. From one perspective, a billion Gods; from another One.

Explicit in the Gospels is a human only son of God; son of God only in the sense that all of this Jewish/Christian Jewish faith are sons (I neither think it can or does include daughters) of God. I think very much implicit in these texts is that behind closed doors somethings (sic) else were being taught. What you understand could well have been amonst those beliefs.

We can only make a stab at reconstructing what was actually going on. We have lost the context, the Sitz im Leben, of the surviving writings. It has been obfuscated; oft times deliberately so but mostly by neglect. The Christians of Late Antiquity were not interested in preserving what had for them become heresy.

I don't really have much of an argument with this. I think that there is enough interpretational Scripture to make 'Bible adherence', somewhat subjective to ones beliefs.

 

[metis]

How can one even begin to claim that Jesus is God when over and over again in the Christian scriptures Jesus refers to God in a manner that indicates that God is not he? For just one example, when asked about "the end of times", Jesus' response was that he didn't know as only "the Father" knows for certain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can one even begin to claim that Jesus is God when over and over again in the Christian scriptures Jesus refers to God in a manner that indicates that God is not he? For just one example, when asked about "the end of times", Jesus' response was that he didn't know as only "the Father" knows for certain.

Or, purported to have said ...

 

[metis]

Or, purported to have said ...

No argument from me.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you understood traditional Judaism, you would know that anyone walking around claiming to be God would be laughed out of the area, so the idea that the apostles and those who listened to him thought he was God is quite nonsensical. To gentiles, however, it is more conceivable that they could take him as such, and this is what appears to have happened.

Gentile clergy have mislead the sheep of the flock of God as said it would develop at Acts 20:29,30

Yes, the apostles would Not have thought of Jesus as God. The Jews at John 10:36 were upset with Jesus because Jesus said that he was the Son of God.

At John 10:29 Jesus said that his Father is greater than all. All would have included Jesus - John 14:28

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you understood traditional Judaism, you would know that anyone walking around claiming to be God would be laughed out of the area, so the idea that the apostles and those who listened to him thought he was God is quite nonsensical. To gentiles, however, it is more conceivable that they could take him as such, and this is what appears to have happened.

Yes, quite nonsensical. False gentile clergy have fleeced the flock of God with non-biblical teachings being taught as Scripture.
Also by teaching church traditions or customs as Scripture when Not found in Scripture - Mark 7:1-7,13; Matthew 15:9
Luke wrote forewarning such apostasy would develop at Acts 20:29,30.
Please notice 2nd Thess. 2 vs 2-8 because that composite clerical man of sin sits himself in the ' temple ' (Houses of Worship) as if he is God but in reality he is anti-God.
Jesus' recorded words too make it plain that MANY would come ' In His Name ' but prove false according to Matthew chapter 7

 

[12jtartar]

Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah. Which one and why?

crhodes9898,
To a person like yourself, who, evidently has only a nodding acquaintance with the Holy Bible, it is difficult to know where to start in proving anything to you. I'll try, Please listen, look up to prove what I say!
First, are you a Christian?? If not, it is impossible to prove anything to you, because all authority for truth comes from the Christian Bible.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the Hebrew letters for God's name were written almost 7,000 times. The letters were called the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. These letters, could be pronounced, YAHWEH. In English this Hebrew word has been pronounced, Jehovah, for hundreds of years. This name has also been put on many coins for hundreds of years. If you have any knowledge of Naology, you will know that it is a study of old or ancient edifices. Many of these old buildings, in many different countries, had the name Jehovah, over their entrances. Sometimes the name is spelled differently, because each language is different, and pronounced differently. Most Bible translations have removed God's name and substituted titles, such as LORD, and GOD, in all capital letters, where God's Proper, Personal name appeared. The translators will all stand before the Judgment Seat of Jehovah.
Now, in the Holy Scriptures, Jesus himself, stated that his Father was the Only True God, John 17:3. The Bible tells us that all ones called gods will be destroyed by Jehovah, along with all who worship them, Ps 115:1-8, Jere 10:6-16.
So according to the Holy Scriptures, there is NO Allah, or any other true Almighty God, even though there are some that are called gods, 1Cor 8:1-6, Eph 4:3-6.
The real consequences of worshipping any other God will be eternal destruction, when Jehovah sends His son at Armageddon, which will be SOON, 2Thes 1:3-10, Rev 16:13-16, 19:11-21.
We only have a short time to show Jehovah that we love Him and His son, so that He will protect us during Armageddon, and allow us to live in the Paradise earth that Jesus will rule over, Rev 20: 1-10.

 

[Lyndon]

Allah is simply the Arabic name for Lord God, or YHWH, Arabic Christians and Jews still call God Allah in their language.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Different names for different attributes different religions gave the same god.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

None of the above. Allah means "the god" and was also a specific deity's name in lexicon before Muhammad smashed many idols, leaving one image, and declaring it "THE God".

Jehovah and Yahweh are contrivances and mispronunciations of God's true name.

"Jehovah" is the English version of the Hebrew, "Yahweh". To outright call them, 'mispronunciations', or inaccurate, you'd have to know the accurate pronunciation.

No one really knows how the English, "Jesus", was pronounced in Hebrew (either "Yeshua", or " Yehoshua"); But that doesn't keep anyone from saying "Jesus"!

 

[rosends]

"Jehovah" is the English version of the Hebrew, "Yahweh". To outright call them, 'mispronunciations', or inaccurate, you'd have to know the accurate pronunciation.

No one really knows how the English, "Jesus", was pronounced in Hebrew (either "Yeshua", or " Yehoshua"); But that doesn't keep anyone from saying "Jesus"!

But one could know that ancient Hebrew had no "J" sound and that the vowel points assigned to make "Yahweh" were derived from a different word intentionally, in order to be wrong. So one could, even without knowing what is right, say that Jehova and Yahweh are wrong.

As for the Hebrew of "Jesus" one could guess at what his name was in Hebrew. If it was Yehoshua (which in other textual cases was written as "Joshua" in English so I'm not sure) then the short form would be Yeyshu'a with the tress on the first syllable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Jehovah" is the English version of the Hebrew, "Yahweh". To outright call them, 'mispronunciations', or inaccurate, you'd have to know the accurate pronunciation.

No one really knows how the English, "Jesus", was pronounced in Hebrew (either "Yeshua", or " Yehoshua"); But that doesn't keep anyone from saying "Jesus"!

I know the correct pronunciation. Rabbis are taught it in their studies and you can find it in scripture--if you know where to look.

And I agree with Rosends's post.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I know the correct pronunciation. Rabbis are taught it in their studies and you can find it in scripture--if you know where to look.

And I agree with Rosends's post.

Sir, no you don't.

Judaism 101 excerpt:

"With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any certainty."

But Jehovah is used in the KJV, it is the Name that's been in existence since the 15th century (maybe earlier), and people know that form in English more than any other as it relates to the Tetragrammaton. Malachi 3:16 still applies.

You've just ruined your credibility with me.

 

[rosends]

Sir, no you don't.

Judaism 101 excerpt:

"With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any certainty."

But Jehovah is used in the KJV, it is the Name that's been in existence since the 15th century (maybe earlier), and people know that form in English more than any other as it relates to the Tetragrammaton. Malachi 3:16 still applies.

You've just ruined your credibility with me.

And by the way, rabbis don't learn the pronunciation and it isn't in scripture. I don't know where he got that from.

 

[blue taylor]

I do appreciate your attempt in kind words, and hospitality, however I would disagree in your thoughts, of what your "god" is. Your "god" is not in or of this world, hence there is no such god.

Strange thing to say about a religion older than Judaism.
"All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah." Cyrus The Great. (BOOK OF EZRA). Cyrus was a Zoroastrian who worshipped Ahura Mazda, translated as "wise lord".

 

[BilliardsBall]

I call baloney.

Think about Isaiah's name in Hebrew, or Jeremiah's, or the Greek name Matthew in Hebrew...

"Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, Mattitayahu..."

"Yahu... 'vah'". Jehovah.

YAHU.

Yahu... "Yahoos"... "Jews".

Cowboy and Rosends, rabbis above the Reform/Revisionist level learn this. Now you can, too. Cowboy, you are a Christian in your avatar. I'm a Jewish Christian. Please don't patronize me by telling me "I don't understand Judaism 101". I do, and 102 and 103 and more, too!