The Absolute Equality of Jesus and The Father

[Yeshua1]

your "theology" is patentedly false! you KEEP reading things into what I write? is it because you do not understand what the Holy Trinity is? I can explain in very easy language

Jesus and the Father not equally God?

 

[Yeshua1]

Which is my point of view.

So both are equally Yahweh, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

No one here is accusing you of there being two Gods.

They as the one and the same YHWH and as such are absolutely one and the same God.

But the Son is subordinate to the Father, which you seem to explicity deny.

We deny that he is eternally subordinate!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Jesus and the Father not equally God?

says who?

 

[MB]

So both are equally Yahweh, correct?

Yahweh is not a name of God. The truth iit is pronounced as Yehovah though it is spelled Jehovah. People need to know this the "J "is pronounced as is a "Y". There no W in YHVH
MB

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yahweh is not a name of God. The truth iit is pronounced as Yehovah though it is spelled Jehovah. People need to know this the "J "is pronounced as is a "Y". There no W in YHVH
MB

In appearance, Yhwh (

) is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb

("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (

, from

, the later equivalent of the archaic stem

). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh (

) or Yahaweh (

). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah (

) is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho (

=

), and Jo or Yo (

, contracted from

), which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah (

) in the second part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that in Samaritan poetry

rimes with words similar in ending to Yahweh, and Theodoret ("Quæst. 15 in Exodum") states that the Samaritans pronounced the name 'Iαβέ. Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect. Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces 'Iαουέ or 'Iαουαί, and Origen, 'Iα. Aquila wrote the name in archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears as Ιαωουηε. At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render δκύριος ("the Lord").

NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Yeshua1]

says who?

was responding to the posting that said that your OP was false!

 

[SavedByGrace]

was responding to the posting that said that your OP was false!

sure, but why addressed to myself?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yahweh is not a name of God. The truth iit is pronounced as Yehovah though it is spelled Jehovah. People need to know this the "J "is pronounced as is a "Y". There no W in YHVH
MB

Why then do all scholars seem to see it as being Yahweh?

 

[Yeshua1]

sure, but why addressed to myself?

Curious what you thought about what was posted to you by other pester!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Why then do all scholars seem to see it as being Yahweh?

in Hebrew, it can either read, "Yahweh" or "Yahveh". “Jehovah” is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Curious what you thought about what was posted to you by other pester!

the person you refer to is very much confused. Some of the replies seems to say that Jesus is not God, or at least, not in the same sense as the Father is. They also seem to be obessed with the unbiblical heresy of the eternal subordination of Jesus to the Father. Much like Van, who has gone missing?

 

[Yeshua1]

in Hebrew, it can either read, "Yahweh" or "Yahveh". “Jehovah” is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name.

every time that I have read or heard it , was as Yahweh!

 

[Yeshua1]

the person you refer to is very much confused. Some of the replies seems to say that Jesus is not God, or at least, not in the same sense as the Father is. They also seem to be obessed with the unbiblical heresy of the eternal subordination of Jesus to the Father. Much like Van, who has gone missing?

Seems that many have issues with Jesus being fully God in Christianity, as you would be surprised on how many Facebook christian accounts so many deny Jesus is God!

 

[SavedByGrace]

every time that I have read or heard it , was as Yahweh!

maybe, but the Hebrew is not that clear on the correct way to pronounce it in English. This article may help, Hebrew Streams: HaShem

 

[SavedByGrace]

Seems that many have issues with Jesus being fully God in Christianity, as you would be surprised on how many Facebook christian accounts so many deny Jesus is God!

also, there was, and still is, a problem with some "evangelical" Christians, who shrink from calling the Holy Spirit Almighty God. This is an interesting passage from Schaff's History of the Christian Church:

Even among the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy an uncertainty still for a time prevailed respecting the doctrine of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the Spirit to be an impersonal power or attribute of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the expressions of the Scriptures. Gregory Nazianzen, who for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable concession:6 "Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others a creature, others God himself,7 and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy Ghost,8 and strike a middle course, which is in fact, however, a bad one." Basil, in 370, still carefully avoided calling the Holy Ghost God, though with the view of gaining the weak. Hilary of Poictiers believed that the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be divine, but could find no Scripture passage in which he is called God, and thought that he must be content with the existence of the Holy Ghost, which the Scripture teaches and the heart attests.9

 

[Yeshua1]

also, there was, and still is, a problem with some "evangelical" Christians, who shrink from calling the Holy Spirit Almighty God. This is an interesting passage from Schaff's History of the Christian Church:

Even among the adherents of the Nicene orthodoxy an uncertainty still for a time prevailed respecting the doctrine of the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the Spirit to be an impersonal power or attribute of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the expressions of the Scriptures. Gregory Nazianzen, who for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable concession:6 "Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others a creature, others God himself,7 and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and not worshipping the Holy Ghost,8 and strike a middle course, which is in fact, however, a bad one." Basil, in 370, still carefully avoided calling the Holy Ghost God, though with the view of gaining the weak. Hilary of Poictiers believed that the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be divine, but could find no Scripture passage in which he is called God, and thought that he must be content with the existence of the Holy Ghost, which the Scripture teaches and the heart attests.9

strange all of this confusion, for even in the OT the Spirit of God was said to be divine!

 

[SavedByGrace]

strange all of this confusion, for even in the OT the Spirit of God was said to be divine!

you say "divine", but this term does not necessarily equal "Deity", as in Almighty God. This adjective is used by versions like Hugh Schonfield, where he has John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word the Word was with God; so the Word was divine". The meaning is "god-like", but not Deity, or God. Language must be precise. John uses "θεὸς", whereas "divine" would be
"θείος".

 

[SavedByGrace]

strange all of this confusion, for even in the OT the Spirit of God was said to be divine!

do you believe in the full Deity of the Holy Spirit, Who is 100% COEQUAL with God the Father, and God the Son, and not just a "divine" being, like the heavenly hosts are?

 

[37818]

Then your grammar was in bad form.

Maybe. Quote my sentence you think has the bad grammar. Maybe the word order or a word needs to be removed or changed, or a need word is missing.