Does Jeremiah 23:5-6 say Jesus was God?

[Shermana]

It has been argued as if matter of fact on the "Did Jesus say he was God" thread that Jeremiah 23:5-6 says the Savior will be named YHWH. Is this a true statement or is this a blatantly false statement that doesn't take into account Hebrew grammar and goes by biased Trinitarian translations that also don't take Hebrew grammar into account to support their doctrine?

Here's the NIV:

The days are coming,” declares the Lord,“when I will raise up to Davida a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
6In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The Lord Our Righteousness.

Here's some others to compare:

English Revised Version
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The LORD is our righteousness.
Webster's Bible Translation
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell in safety: and this is his name by which he shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Young's Literal Translation
In his days is Judah saved, and Israel dwelleth confidently, And this his name that Jehovah proclaimeth him, 'Our Righteousness.'

Notice the ERV version and Young's, compare to Websters.

Can it be argued that versions like the NIV and Webster's are deliberately Excluding the word "Is"? Or does it actually say that YHWH will name him "our righteousness"?

Did Hebrew even have a concept of a title after a name like that such as "YHWH Our righteousness"?

Which of these versions is the most gramatically objective accurate, and are the other versions steeped in ideological bias? Does Jer 23:5-6 really say that Jesus would be called YHWH?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't be silly.

 

[Shermana]

Correction, I meant to say "Excluding the word is", not "ignoring". There is no word for "is", it's an implied word like in Russian, otherwise you'd have to remove all the "is"s from the text.

 

[CMike]

Nothing in Jewish scripture has anything to do with Jesus.

He may be the Christian god but he isn't in any form the Jewish one.

 

[Sleeppy]

Nothing in Jewish scripture has anything to do with Jesus.

He may be the Christian god but he isn't in any form the Jewish one.

That's a pretty standard statement for a Jew, isn't it? A Christian might say the exact opposite, right?

 

[CMike]

The difference is that the Torah was wriiten by Jews, for Jews, to be interpreted by Jews.

It is Jewish scripture not Christian scripture.

It would be like Muslims trying to interpret and twist around your scripture.

 

[silenceinmotion]

Jesus never literally and explicitely stated "I am God", but then again, this is not necessary nor realistic.
Jesus is God by the metaphysical truth that God cannot have a son in the way we humans have sons. If an omnipotent being makes one in their own 'seed', then that vessel is God incarnate. It's simply a mathematical fact- infinite divided by x equals infinite.
But since Christ was in a limited human vessel, he could not have possibly known he was actually God Himself. That is because God can only sustain as omniscient if He is not contained. Jesus spoke from one end that he does the will of His Father, and on the other end, he states that he and His Father are one, and that no one takes his life against his will. The only logical explanation is that he was the image of his own supremacy: God from God come down to be the Lamb. If you think critically on it, you will be hard pressed to quarrel with it.
That is sort of the contradiction with Jehovah's Witnesses, Messianic Jews, and so on.

 

[CMike]

According to Jesus he prayed to god so apparently he considered himself a seperate entity.

 

[silenceinmotion]

According to Jesus he prayed to god so apparently he considered himself a seperate entity.

He didn't know he was God. In fact, he didn't even know he was the Messiah until near the end of his 20's.

 

[punkdbass]

He didn't know he was God. In fact, he didn't even know he was the Messiah until near the end of his 20's.

LOL, God didnt know He was God? That would definitely highlight his omniscience..

 

[Shermana]

Jesus never literally and explicitely stated "I am God", but then again, this is not necessary nor realistic.

Why wouldn't it be realistic in your logic (Not that I agree that he was). And this is not meant to be a Trinitarian debate thread necessarily, though I will address your "claims", this is meant specifically about Jeremiah 23.

Jesus is God by the metaphysical truth that God cannot have a son in the way we humans have sons.

Huh? How does that make any logical sense? He is God because he was made by the Spirit? Does not compute.

If an omnipotent being makes one in their own 'seed', then that vessel is God incarnate

Because you said so?

. It's simply a mathematical fact- infinite divided by x equals infinite.

Sounds like some fuzzy math. Why use division here? When was the last time that anyone giving birth was dividing themselves?

But since Christ was in a limited human vessel, he could not have possibly known he was actually God Himself.

I guess "God the Father" was telling him everything but this part? At least I assume you don't go by the silly John 8:58 thing.

That is because God can only sustain as omniscient if He is not contained.

Was he contained when he received revelation in Revelation after he was resurrected?

Jesus spoke from one end that he does the will of His Father, and on the other end, he states that he and His Father are one,

And he says "Let them be one as we are one", AS we are one. Thus, they weren't "One" as many Trinitarians would like to think. As for doing the WIll of the Father, that would mean that he was doing the Will of the Father as His representative, nothing more.

and that no one takes his life against his will. The only logical explanation is that he was the image of his own supremacy: God from God come down to be the Lamb.

No, the only way to logically explain it is that God was His master and He was Carrying out His orders,.

If you think critically on it, you will be hard pressed to quarrel with it.

Not very hard pressing at all. What's hard pressing is your logic, and by hard I mean "impossible".

That is sort of the contradiction with Jehovah's Witnesses, Messianic Jews, and so on.

You have made no contradiction, you have made some fuzzy analogies that not even most Trinitarians go by. And for the record, most Messianic Jews are in fact Trinitarians. Do you have any website that even backs what you're saying? Your own interpretation is quite unique in this regard, not quite Trinitarianism, not quite Modalism. But still wrong.

Have you even considered all the contradictions involved in your view that are completely logical?

 

[silenceinmotion]

LOL, God didnt know He was God? That would definitely highlight his omniscience..

I see you have Jewish as your title, so of course you're going to be apt to ridicule the faith of Christ.

Moreover, I cannot force you to think critically either, and so therefore I'm just going to be straightforward and unadulterated with it.

In metaphysics, if two beings are exactly the same, they are the same being. But, an omnipotent being can place their self into a physical construct that obeys the universal laws of their will.
The catch is that there cannot be any speciation in this. The vessel must be of natural descent, subject to natural laws.

An omnipotent being could do otherwise, and be God walking amongst the water they created, knowing and visible to all at face value, but then they would have to sacrifice the symmetry they created, which specifically, is the symmetry between man and Him which is carries no value walking amongst us in the first place.

Yes, God is logical. If He wasn't, how could He be God? That is what I ask others such yourself. What use does the Messiah have now, if not to be what Jesus is? Truly, this is an irony I'd be surprised you could settle.

 

[silenceinmotion]

Sounds like some fuzzy math. Why use division here? When was the last time that anyone giving birth was dividing themselves?

The Trinity- if you truly understood it, you would see that there is no division involved.

 

[Shermana]

Hey Silence, since your views on the Trinity are apparently much different than most others (i.e. your view can't use the traditionally abused John 8:58 or 8:24), do you have a single website or commentary or link that supports your "Critical thinking" and "Metaphysics"? Or is this your sole unique interpretation on the issue?

 

[Shermana]

The Trinity- if you truly understood it, you would see that there is no division involved.

Umm, I assume by this comment that you're retracting the whole "Division" concept in your infinity math? Make up your mind!

For the record, I've heard every single type of argument for the Trinity I think there is possible, that's why I said your argument is quite unique, so by all means feel free to explain why I don't truly understand the concept, what unique interpretation do you have to bring to the table? What specifically would you say I'm not getting correct about what is traditionally conveyed?

Also, once again, this thread is NOT intended to discuss and debate the Trinity altogether even, perhaps you'd like to make a new thread. This is about a single, specific argument used to support this unsupportable doctrine found in Jeremiah 23. I hope I need not repeat this again.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Often this is used along with Zechariah 6:12; (NIV) "Tell him this is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the Lord."

Assuming of course that the promised one in each case actually refers to the same individual, we see that the name he is given changes from use to use, moreover, we are told he is a MAN, as to whether or not this refutes his claimed divinity is another issue though.

'Righteous Branch' from Jeremiah 23 and 'Branch' from Zechariah 6, in either case the speak of a descendant of David one noteworthy enough to constitute a new branch or reinvigoration of 'the people' over whom he would 'reign'; as to whether or not such a ruler would therefore be called a righteous 'lord' as opposed to THE RIGHTEOUS LORD I am unsure, since I cannot speak for the original language used in the texts - however to me personally, if you interpret it metaphorically I am sure there is sufficient evidence to suggest either way.

 

[silenceinmotion]

Umm, I assume by this comment that you're retracting the whole "Division" concept in your infinity math? Make up your mind!

For the record, I've heard every single type of argument for the Trinity I think there is possible, that's why I said your argument is quite unique, so by all means feel free to explain why I don't truly understand the concept, what unique interpretation do you have to bring to the table? What specifically would you say I'm not getting correct about what is traditionally conveyed?

Also, once again, this thread is NOT intended to discuss and debate the Trinity altogether even, perhaps you'd like to make a new thread. This is about a single, specific argument used to support this unsupportable doctrine found in Jeremiah 23. I hope I need not repeat this again.

Posting a source would be in vain because there is no specific source (that I have seen) that tells literally and explicitly what I have told. What I have stated is logically deduced from what is granted in general, metaphysical reasoning.

I used to be a non-trinitarian Christian. Believe me, I have wrestled with myself about it because the Bible gives no literal statement nor does it make sense without discerning the concept in the most unbiased, reasonable way.

Saint Jerome simplified the Latin Vulgate, with one of them being placing LORD every time Elohyim or Yahweh is used. He did this to help illustrate God and Jesus as being one, as Jesus is the Lord in the NT.
Without being able to discern Elohyim (heavenly hosts) and Yehweh (God Himself), skeptics are going to see an anomaly which isn't really there in true Scripture.

 

[Sleeppy]

The difference is that the Torah was written by Jews, for Jews, to be interpreted by Jews.

It is Jewish scripture not Christian scripture.

It would be like Muslims trying to interpret and twist around your scripture.

Written by Jews? By whose authority? Do you know how you sound? Was there someone else to be descended from other than Adam, that I don't know of?

It's scripture period. The Muslims can interpret and twist whatever they like, and you can interpret and twist whatever you like.

 

[Shermana]

Ah "What you've been told", and is this the Spirit which is telling you this? As for "logically induced from metaphysical reasoning", I say the same thing for my own view, except I can find hundreds of sites that back my view, even if its not the majority view, and with logical scriptural analysis to boot.

As for "Unbiased, reasoned way", I don't think you'll be able to define it reasonably or without bias. But to be fair you can call any interpretation "biased". The difference is if you go in with a Trinitarian presumption or not.

Also, I don't think they ever used the word "LORD" for when Elohim is used, I'll have to check on that though.

 

[Shermana]

Written by Jews? By whose authority? Do you know how you sound? Was there someone else to be descended from other than Adam, that I don't know of?

It's scripture period. The Muslims can interpret and twist whatever they like, and you can interpret and twist whatever you like.

And your view isn't twisting anything of course.