Is Jesus Jehovah? (page 12)

Leolaia

I should also say that the thought in Justin Martyr is more advanced than that of Paul. Justin positively identifies the Son with the Lord God of the OT. The thought in Paul is more primitive; Paul simply does not distinguish the Son from the Lord God of the OT.

Jehovah is the name of "the Father" clearly.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ps/chapter_110.htm#bk1

But the divine name called Jehovah means "I AM."
And Jesus is "I AM."

But it does not mean "The Father is the Son."
That is, it is not the meaning "Jehovah is Jesus."

Excepting the modalists (none of thom are represented in the NT or in the early patristics), no one who thought that the Lord God of the OT was Jesus believed that the Father is the Son. Justin specifically denied that the Lord God of the OT was the Father. Paul distinguished the Son from the Father and still did not distinguish the Son from the Lord God of the OT.

possible-san

Hi, Leolaia.

Paul simply does not distinguish the Son from the Lord God of the OT.

I myself interpret the Scriptures always symbolically and figuratively.
And I think that the Apostle Paul was also such a person.

Therefore, the Apostle Paul had mentioned Jesus as "I AM."
And the Apostle Paul never used the word "Jehovah."

possible
http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/

Leolaia

I didn't say that Paul used the name "YHWH". I said that he did not distinguish the Lord God of the OT (who is called YHWH in the MT and "Lord" in the LXX) from the Son — not in the same way that he distinguished the Son from the Father.

Where does Paul refer to Jesus as "I am"?

possible-san

Leolaia.

Since I do not speak English at all, I sometimes cannot understand the meaning which you have said.
Please explain to me once again without using the word "Not."

Well, the word "I AM" is a symbolic meaning. (when I use)
For example, like the following video ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3M6cboaOKk

Therefore, the person who can only do reading the words (surface meaning of the words) cannot understand the symbolic meaning of the Scriptures.

Where does Paul refer to Jesus as "I am"?

It is "entirely", I think.

possible
http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/

reniaa

hi leolaia been a while,

does paul directly say Jesus is the lord god from OT or are we using simliarity (so often used as proof of being the same being) in this case again, Jesus said he was the 'IMAGE; the image is never the original the wording doesn't allow for it.

We have early christian sources but isn't it true that the 'winner writes history' and christianity was very thorough in getting rid of all documents and people that were anti-trinitarinism hense why there is not much info on arianism?

doesn't that allow that outside of what the bible teaches we cannot have access to more than what trinitarian scholars were willing to keep and preserve?

the Nt already allows that false teachings on jesus were getting spread

2 cor 11:3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

So we know there were different viewpoints developing.

leolaia is supposed proof of Jesus's divinity like trying to make him YHVH from OT proof of trinity doctrine?

duo-ity maybe but not trinity I find connecting Jesus as YHVH a mis-direction, it's like people think "If we can connect the dots there we are halfway there' but the nature of the trinity doctrine that Jesus, father and holyspirit a 3 persons all one God, co-equal, co-eternal only allows for the 3 to be classed together so when only 2 are mentioned in various settings supposedly describing God's nature that is not trinity?

quietlyleaving

reniaa

does paul directly say Jesus is the lord god from OT or are we using simliarity (so often used as proof of being the same being) in this case again, Jesus said he was the 'IMAGE; the image is never the original the wording doesn't allow for it.

remind me of the original wording please?

Leolaia

possible-san....My question wasn't if "I am" has a symbolic meaning, it was where in his letters "the Apostle Paul had mentioned Jesus as 'I am' ". Paul does not use this phrase AFAIK.

reniaa....As I already said, Paul does not distinguish "Lord Jesus" from the "Lord God" of the OT. That's different from Paul "directly saying" that the "Lord Jesus" was the "Lord God" of the OT. Please note the distinction that I am making. Paul reminds his readers of the Lord that punished the Israelites in the book of Numbers when they put him to the test (alluding to Deuteronomy 6:16), and then he says that on account of this, the Lord punishes those who disregard his cup and table during the Lord's supper (clearly referring to Jesus, especially since the "cup of the Lord" in ch. 11 refers to the "blood of the Lord"), killing such Christians today just as the Israelites were killed in the wilderness, for such people provoked the Lord to jealousy (alluding to Deuteronomy 6:15, the verse immediately preceding the warning to not put the Lord to the test, alluded to in the same chapter of 1 Corinthians). The logic of his argument depends on Paul's assumption that the Lord Jesus was the one who punished the Israelites in the wilderness. He does not directly claim this outright (as Justin Martyr does). He just assumes it and takes it for granted.

Also bear in mind that I am not saying anything about the trinity. The artificial synthesis of the ontological trinity that you refer to is just as irrelevant to the viewpoint of NT writers as the artificial synthesis of Arianism. The view of Paul and some other NT writers (not all, as there were a range of views) was a kind of naive primitive binitarianism, probably along the lines that Larry Hurtado as put it. This provided some of the raw material that later theologians worked with -- Arius just as much as Athanasius and those before them.

reniaa

but since we know Lord is used in reference to both YHVH and Jesus and also was used to replace YHVH couldn't another explanation be that paul is refering to two different 'Lord's', Doesn't the history of scholar usage of Lord make it inconclusive as evidence bacause it is proven to refer to both but also to them separately?

If Lord like king and ruler can refer to both while clearly keeping them separate that means we cannot use Lord a similar title used for both as proof because thats like saying 'both are king therefore they are the same king'

Your own words admit that trinity is a later development but for me personally that invalidates the trinity because it is like saying bible writers who who had holy spirit and spirit inspired, taught by Jesus weren't given the truth to write only later scholars influenced by rome and plato were given greater understanding by holy spirit/God etc. but the bible says the opposite is true that a lie is planted till the end times with weeds and wheat growing together, and the bible is the measure to judge by.

quietlyleaving

reniaa

does paul directly say Jesus is the lord god from OT or are we using simliarity (so often used as proof of being the same being) in this case again, Jesus said he was the 'IMAGE; the image is never the original the wording doesn't allow for it.

remind me of the original wording please?

you didn't answer my question because I was wondering why you would say that the word image never implies the original.

zagor

I'm not religious nor do I have preference either way but based on simple personality test I'd say biblical text is describing two different entities, god of old testament is vengeful and easily offended personality, Jesus of new testament is more forgiving and understanding, and in fact takes values to a higher level of prinicples rather than black and white, right and wrong type of thing. So based on that they would be two different persons, assuming they ever existed at all.

Is Jesus Jehovah?

Share this