Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures? (page 13)

Spike Tassel

Thank you, possible-san (Mr. Possible), for your assistance in these matters. I am glad you are not possible-three, nor possible-acid, though "san" does have these alternate translation possibilities in English. In a parallel way, I suggest that it is no wonder, with such a diplomatic lack in WWII, that the bombs were dropped. We must persist to try to overcome any (perceived) lack of civility, despite the (apparently vast) differences in interpretation, given our respective cultural backgrounds.

Chalam

One more time for Mr. T

MR T Read The Bible

OK what name can we be saved by? Yahweh or Jesus?

All the best,

Stephen

Spike Tassel

We need both, as John 17:3,6 bear out, as supported by Matthew 4:4,7,10 and the OT which the sentiments reflect.

OnTheWayOut

From "Is The Name YHWH in the New Testament?":— http://www.equipministry.com/studies/yhwhinnt.htm

However,in recent times at least ten fragments of the OT have been found, some of which are the oldest copies available, that did preserve the Tetragrammaton, usually in ancient Hebrew characters.

Why is it that they don't tell us anything whatsoever about these "at least 10 fragments" ? I will bet that these fragments are Hebrew translations of the Greek scriptures. Until they say something about the research, the details of what scriptures they are, how old they appear to be, I won't have to take this stuff seriously.

Spike Tassel

I suggest that OTWO write to them and ask

possible-san

Chalam.

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Now if "those that call on the name of Jehovah will be saved" then John 14:6 makes no sense i.e. "No one comes to the Father expect through Jehovah"?!

I do not think that your question is persuasive.

Usually, in the Trinity doctrine, "the Father" is different from "the Son."
And Jehovah's Witnesses also think so.

For me, it is absurd that you say, "No one comes to the Father expect through Jehovah."
Your logic has failed.

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

Black Sheep

Possible, You need to read Chalam's post more carefully. You did not understand it.

He should not have to rephrase it, or change the grammar.

You need to be more careful with your translating.

Cheers

Chris

possible-san

Oh,
Arrogant Black Sheep

Thanks

Probably, I think that just you cannot understand English.
For instance, usage of "and" etc.

Black Sheep

I was trying to be helpful Possible. You had misinterpreted Chalam's post

quietlyleaving

possible-san it looks to me that chalam means in a representative sense - since all three are one they can represent each other. Chalam seems to me to be very firm in his belief that the way Jesus expresses is different from the Father so in that respect he is not Jehovah but in the sense of being one substance with Jehovah he is Jehovah. For example christians wouldn't normally address Jesus as the father - he is always the son - so there is a sense of agreement between what you are saying and what chalam is saying imo.

edit: so on the one hand we have being and on the other we have being in the sense of existence which includes expression and relationship. I thought you'd explained all this on your website.

Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures?

Share this