Why do trinitarian ideologists say that Jesus Christ is YHWH?

[URAVIP2ME]

Speaking of Jesus, Hebrews 1:10 And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;

At Psalm 102:25 the psalmist is speaking about God and Paul does apply those words to Jesus at Hebrews 1:10-11 because Jesus is part of the "us" at Genesis 1:26, so Jesus too could be said to have laid the foundations of earth - Colossians 1:15-16
Jesus gives credit to his God as being Creator - Rev. 4:11

 

[Brian2]

At Psalm 102:25 the psalmist is speaking about God and Paul does apply those words to Jesus at Hebrews 1:10-11 because Jesus is part of the "us" at Genesis 1:26, so Jesus too could be said to have laid the foundations of earth - Colossians 1:15-16
Jesus gives credit to his God as being Creator - Rev. 4:11

In Hebrews 1, verse 10 is included in the list of OT passages that God is saying to the Son. So Psalm 102:25 is God saying that to the Son.
If we combine this with passages like Isa 44:24 we can see that the Son is YHWH. (This of course does not exclude the Father and Spirit from also being YHWH in a Trinitarian framework)
Isa 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Because Col 1:15,16 tells us that all things were created through him and for him, that means that Jesus cannot be one of the things created.
The JWs do a couple of things in that verse to make it look as if Jesus was one of the things created.
They say that "firstborn" can only mean "first one born" whereas it can mean the preeminent one, the heir.
This can be seen in the OT as applying to Israel, which is called God's firstborn, when in fact Israel was not the first nation that God set up.
This also can be seen concerning the Messiah (Psalm 89:27) where God says He will appoint Him to be His firstborn. A first one born is not appointed but is born, but a preeminent one is appointed.
Psalm 89:27 I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
With this in mind we can see that the addition of "other" after "all" at Col 1:16 actually changes the meaning of the passage and is grammatically not allowed.

 

[Soapy]

Since Jesus says he did make and will make his God's name known - John 17:6, 26 - then Jesus has a name different from the Tetragrammaton.
Jesus' name however is Not above the Tetragrammaton but above all other names.
Of the two LORD/lord's Jesus is the lower-case 'Lord' at KJV Psalms 110. The all 'Upper-Case LORD' stands for the Tetragrammaton.

The fact that it STILL has to be explained to people who are debating Christianity, that ‘LORD’ written in translations in the Bible IS NOT SCRIPTURAL but just a man-made SUBSTITUTION for ‘YHWH’ (the Tetragrammaton), goes to show that the TRINITARIANS who chose to translate it that way knew it would cause controversy which only pays towards confusion in distinction between Jesus and God.

Question: Why ARE people still confused?

Answer: Because they WANT TO BE!!!

Question: Why do they want to be confused?

Answer: Satan has a hold of them to drive forward the fallacy that Jesus is almighty God and that Jesus is seated on the throne of God in Heaven.

This is weird since the projected reward of Jesus is that of being seated on the spiritual throne of his ancestor, king David…

• How is it possible that Jesus’ REWARD for his great suffering and death, is a DEMOTION from a heavenly throne to an earthly throne?

I note carefully that when I ask these questions in open forum, no trinitarian answers to the last question (bulleted).

 

[Soapy]

In Hebrews 1, verse 10 is included in the list of OT passages that God is saying to the Son. So Psalm 102:25 is God saying that to the Son.
If we combine this with passages like Isa 44:24 we can see that the Son is YHWH. (This of course does not exclude the Father and Spirit from also being YHWH in a Trinitarian framework)
Isa 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

Because Col 1:15,16 tells us that all things were created through him and for him, that means that Jesus cannot be one of the things created.
The JWs do a couple of things in that verse to make it look as if Jesus was one of the things created.
They say that "firstborn" can only mean "first one born" whereas it can mean the preeminent one, the heir.
This can be seen in the OT as applying to Israel, which is called God's firstborn, when in fact Israel was not the first nation that God set up.
This also can be seen concerning the Messiah (Psalm 89:27) where God says He will appoint Him to be His firstborn. A first one born is not appointed but is born, but a preeminent one is appointed.
Psalm 89:27 I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
With this in mind we can see that the addition of "other" after "all" at Col 1:16 actually changes the meaning of the passage and is grammatically not allowed.

Both Trinitarianism and JW illicit false beliefs in God and His Christ. Therefore your argument is simply ‘Satan fighting Satan’ with the outcome that believers in the true God should pick whom they believe most from either of two false beliefs!!

 

[Brian2]

The fact that it STILL has to be explained to people who are debating Christianity, that ‘LORD’ written in translations in the Bible IS NOT SCRIPTURAL but just a man-made SUBSTITUTION for ‘YHWH’ (the Tetragrammaton), goes to show that the TRINITARIANS who chose to translate it that way knew it would cause controversy which only pays towards confusion in distinction between Jesus and God.

Question: Why ARE people still confused?

Answer: Because they WANT TO BE!!!

Question: Why do they want to be confused?

Answer: Satan has a hold of them to drive forward the fallacy that Jesus is almighty God and that Jesus is seated on the throne of God in Heaven.

This is weird since the projected reward of Jesus is that of being seated on the spiritual throne of his ancestor, king David…

• How is it possible that Jesus’ REWARD for his great suffering and death, is a DEMOTION from a heavenly throne to an earthly throne?

I note carefully that when I ask these questions in open forum, no trinitarian answers to the last question (bulleted).

Why would it be a demotion? God comes down to earth to spend forever in the New Jerusalem which comes down to earth.
Jesus and the Father are here on earth with their people. David is ruling as King and YHWH is God.
Ezek 37:23 They will no longer defile themselves with their idols or detestable images, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all their apostasies by which they sinned, and I will cleanse them. Then they will be My people, and I will be their God. 24 My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow My ordinances and keep and observe My statutes. 25 They will live in the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They will live there forever with their children and grandchildren, and My servant David will be their prince forever.…
Zechariah 14:1 Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.
6 On that day there shall be no light, cold, or frost. 7 And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light.
8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea. It shall continue in summer as in winter.
9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.
Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The fact that it STILL has to be explained to people who are debating Christianity, that ‘LORD’ written in translations in the Bible IS NOT SCRIPTURAL but just a man-made SUBSTITUTION for ‘YHWH’ (the Tetragrammaton), goes to show that the TRINITARIANS who chose to translate it that way knew it would cause controversy which only pays towards confusion in distinction between Jesus and God.

I don't think the substitution of LORD has anything to do with Trinitarianism. The translators are simply following in the Jewish tradition of showing respect for the divine name.

 

[Muffled]

What was the consensus of opinion as to whether Jesus is God?

I believe there was no consensus. I believe I was the main proponent and there were many who disagreed. You are familiar with the numbers fallacy are you not?

 

[Muffled]

I find Psalm 90:2 informs us God had No beginning because God is from everlasting ( No start, No end )
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still now thinks he has a God over him - Rev. 3:12

I believe that is due to the physical body not the eteranal Spirit that exists within.

I believe God is His God and there is no other.

 

[Muffled]

Correct, his dying was to come. Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

101G.

I believe you have a time problem. God sees everything as though it has happened but the actual events occur in time.

 

[Muffled]

And you will not. The only scripture that may come close is the prologue of John, where Jesus is referred to as God. (and the word was God)

I believe that is because Jesus uses the name "I am" which is AHYH. It is still a name God uses to refer to Himself.

 

[Soapy]

I don't think the substitution of LORD has anything to do with Trinitarianism. The translators are simply following in the Jewish tradition of showing respect for the divine name.

Well, that shows you need to understand the subtlety of the Satanic one. He covers your eyes-of-discernment so you do not see his underhanded work!

Here’s a pointer: WHY use another word that is so similar and so easily confused with one attributed to another person?

But, are you saying that the Jews used the word “LORD” - was it Jews who translated the Torah and CHANGED ‘YHWH’ to “LORD”? Because in every Bible I see the Hebrew text set out ‘YHWH’ (in Hebrew). It is only the ENGLISH translation that says ‘LORD’.

If it’s to be taken as what you say them the Jews would have set out the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament as [some equivalent respectful word such as ‘the almighty God’: ‘El Shaddai’ or ‘ʿElyōn’.

Now, see that these titles would not have confused nor conflicted with ‘Lord’ in respect of Jesus Christ.

As result of the confusion of ‘LORD’ and ‘Lord’, I have seen many posts and debates in forums where the poster demands that Jesus is GOD in the Old Testament because Jesus is ‘Lord’ and God is ‘LORD’ in the Old Testament - and we have ONLY ONE LORD…!!

And how easy is it for unwary and illiterate untrained persons to sloppily and lazily write ‘Lord’ where they should have been writing ‘LORD’?

Accident, compliance with Jewish minds, … it’s way deeper than that when you realise the truth!!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If it’s to be taken as what you say them the Jews would have set out the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament as [some equivalent respectful word such as ‘the almighty God’: ‘El Shaddai’ or ‘ʿElyōn’.

Not sure why you think this. We are not into altering the text. I'm sure you also realize that those two words are titles, not names. Also, El Elyon does not mean almighty God, it means God most high. No biggy, just an FYI.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't think the substitution of LORD has anything to do with Trinitarianism. The translators are simply following in the Jewish tradition of showing respect for the divine name.

Respect, or rather out of superstition.
Jesus wanted God's personal name respected by praying God's name should be hallowed ( be sacred )
Jesus used God's personal name and said it will be used at John 17:6; John 17:26
KJV at Psalm 110 mentions two (2) LORD/Lords.
No trinity or triune LORD/Lords at Psalm 110.
God's holy spirit is never referred to as LORD spirit nor Lord spirit.
The LORD in all Upper-Case letters is where the Tetragrammaton stands.
The other Lord in some lower-case letters stands for Lord Jesus ( No Tetragrammaton )

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...................... and JW illicit false beliefs in God and His Christ..............................

I find No JW illicit false beliefs in God and in His Christ at www.jw.org

 

[Soapy]

I find No JW illicit false beliefs in God and in His Christ at www.jw.org

If you need to refer to sect-specific websites to prove you’d point then you are already lost.

Believe what you like but prove it by scriptures - not man-made compiled rhetoric.

For this reason, and I am so glad for it, no one so far has tried to prove their case using trinitarian literature such as the Athanasian creed.

 

[Soapy]

Not sure why you think this. We are not into altering the text. I'm sure you also realize that those two words are titles, not names. Also, El Elyon does not mean almighty God, it means God most high. No biggy, just an FYI.

I do know what El Elyon means etc and that they are titles. The point was simply an illustration that it WAS NOT JEWS who substituted ‘LORD’ for ‘YHWH’ in the Bible scriptures.

And, ‘LORD’ itself is neither a TITLE nor a NAME… in fact it is not anything but letters BUT TRINITARIANS confuse it with the TITLE, ‘Lord’. In fact, Trinitarians very rarely ever use the NAME of God and many even DENY the name of God

Goodness me! I’ve had some very strange debates with them about Name vs Title. They purposely refuse to acknowledge the difference since admitting the truth destroys their ideology... none more so than their claim that ‘I Am’ spoken in Aramaic by Jesus does not mean ‘YHWH’.

But think on these two points:

1. Why is there even a debate / conversation / discussion about this issue?
2. Which sect of Christianity are the perpetrators of the confusion requiring this debate etc?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I do know what El Elyon means etc and that they are titles. The point was simply an illustration that it WAS NOT JEWS who substituted ‘LORD’ for ‘YHWH’ in the Bible scriptures.

The tradition of substituting Lord for YHWH was already in place among Jews before Chrisitanity existed. "When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), YHWH was represented by the Greek word κυριος, meaning lord, still respecting the fact that the name itself was considered too holy to be pronounced." https://www.sil.org/system/files/re...1165619732394342641225818/siljot2005_1_03.pdf

 

[Soapy]

The tradition of substituting Lord for YHWH was already in place among Jews before Chrisitanity existed. "When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (the Septuagint), YHWH was represented by the Greek word κυριος, meaning lord, still respecting the fact that the name itself was considered too holy to be pronounced." https://www.sil.org/system/files/re...1165619732394342641225818/siljot2005_1_03.pdf

It takes quite a bit of ‘Trying to walk a middle line’ to have to resort to such an obscure journal in order to find supporting text.

However, and despite a glaring typo (‘YHHW’ ??) and strangely confusing elements, there was a selection that I found hit the mark directly:

• “Since the total meaning conveyed by YHWH is ‘YHWH the name of the God of Israel’, it would be inaccurate and misleading to render it as a title such as ‘Lord’. Not only would the name itself be lost, but a new meaning with connotations of lordship would be introduced. This is never part of the complete meaning of YHWH.
  Most English Bibles use this option though as the result of long tradition. An attempt is made to distinguish it from the Hebrew word 'adonay, which actually means ‘lord’, by writing the latter with lowercase letters (Lord), while writing the name YHWH with small caps (LORD). The reader is supposed to realize that LORD represents the name of God, while Lord represents 'adonay. I don’t think this method of distinguishing between two different words would be acceptable anywhere else in translation.”

I don’t know how ‘Small Caps’, ‘Large Caps’, ‘Adonai’, and ‘Kurios’ can be allowed to become the central aspect of debate in such a profound religious literature.

I repeat that if is my conjecture that this is due to trinitarian influence wherein there was and still is a need to attempt to claim that Jesus is GOD and goes by the name ‘YHWH’ (oh, you highly likely won’t hear it directly but it is their desire since if would then justify their fallacy of a trinity despite the fact that there is no third ‘person’ called ‘YHWH’ (nor any of the ‘substitutes’) as the spirit of God. the pure fact that their “third person” is not ever called ‘Lord’ doesn’t occur to them nor even that they claim the ‘three’ are absolutely EQUAL but are seen by them in order of power, authority, and RANK!! If this isn’t paganism them I don’t know what is or could else be!

 

[pearl]

I believe that is because Jesus uses the name "I am" which is AHYH. It is still a name God uses to refer to Himself.

When it comes to Scripture it is not clear which claims are of Jesus, or that which the early church put on his lips.

 

[101G]

I believe you have a time problem. God sees everything as though it has happened but the actual events occur in time.

God is all time, that's why we have prophecy for us to see what God is seeing, or know.

101G.