The Two Jehovahs of Psalm 110

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Leviticus 19:18 "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am Jahveh."

What does he say about Pagans? or polytheism?

reply to post by oliveoil


In other words. Jesjuah, a son of Mary, became a father and is now a ghost. It can't be any simpler than this....

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
reply to post by oliveoil

 

In other words. Jesjuah, a son of Mary, became a father and is now a ghost. It can't be any simpler than this....

Like I said, this is speculation on your behalf. This is not what the Bible states.

Well, it's certainly not speaking of the trinity or a God-system which is One consisting of a pater, a filus and a phantom spiritus. My assumpotion is as good as yours, eventhough I have the only sensible version, that's an 'ole other tale

Have you ever made three people agree on one thing crucial to all man kind? Thought so. Well, your Triunite God has to do this over and over, for every least damned thing in this universe. The reason I have a God in the first place is for it to make some of my decisions more efficiently than I myself can. God is ONE person, he doesn't have to agree with anyone, that's what makes him GOD. He is the spokesman with all the educated guesses. As well as I know him, I have never seen him guess or gamble. He always knew the answer.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Well, it's certainly not speaking of the trinity or a God-system which is One consisting of a pater, a filus and a phantom spiritus. My assumpotion is as good as yours, eventhough I have the only sensible version, that's an 'ole other tale

LOL
Perhaps you too ate from the tree of knowledge and didn't share.

Originally posted by oliveoil
LOL
Perhaps you too ate from the tree of knowledge and didn't share.

I've eaten from just about every tree I have seen, even the ones I was not to eat from, and none of them gave much knowledge. A frekked up stomac indeed, but, not much else. I think it's the secret behind my good health.

[edit on 15/11/2009 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Locoman8



There are multiple dualities of devine scentoids mainly because all forms life always have some sort of counterpoint. to humanity it would be the distinction of male and female gendors. in dietistic form it would be more like an eternal brother(your own personal gaurdian spirit)u are possessed* by an angle or something equal to the idea/thought of one. basicly the only way a true base 5 individual(deitistic) would be able to manifest in physical being.

*a potential being with the intellect and soul of divinity incerted into themselves.

Would be considered the 'jehova' of the distinction of a 'jesus' basicly any of its unification distinguishers. Restricting the output of unifiers would cause this to happen. about every several thousand years devine life would exist on earth for a short time. but also other forms of life not just devine would appear. mostly would appear as all alien to humans, but sumilar to them in some ways none the less.

should happen again soon on earth like within alot of the current populations lifetimes - within 50 years - the beggining of the end of how things are on earth. Ultimatly regardless of creed or color enough life will be spared to reform on earth. regardless of how bad things get ultimatly we will all be fine.

You can never understand until you think hard about something will your mind begin to light up like a christmas tree. No one truly has control over anyone else you should open the whool that binds to your eyes - basicly believe in a hire power but everyone believes in the same one - basicly a god figure in the sky but also not completly of control what goes on in your life - however has knowledge that certainly would help - anything from medicines - to forms of travel - unlocking ultimate power.

All god figures would replicate in multiples they regenerate all offspring in twins. However would only do it as a last resort to prevent overfification 2 offpsring by 2 deities would almost be overdoing it. Generally true dietistists never form more than 2 at a time.

Jesus was also in contact with one more like him at his time then. Could have been female or male to human eyes. also could perhaps have even changed forms or change the person it currently inhabited. The only other visible form of detistic life at the time - jehovastic - the monarchy - any of the great philoshophers of the time (socraties,plato,polythagerous,aristotle,potential beings that could be possessed at the time). People like that are reborn every 2-3 thousand years(generally the ones that reform belief for hundreds of years). Modern evlolutionists the ones responsible for reformation of mind body and soul. Many people however hold onto the ideas of this knowledge and take it for a deeper meaning(they would reformulate new ideas from the existing problems).

The lost scrolls of religion.


35 documentational scrolls of the most advanced science at the time - the hidden knowledge of the ancients(has been accessed many times over the last several thousand years. the german and japanese governments were built upon ideas of pure dietisticism(monarchy = god concept)(from the military leader of germany) (to the leader of the japanese military at the time). the essence of the discovery of nucleonics - was correctly disyphered during the entering of the automic age with newly discovered variables. scrolls were reacreated about several thousand years ago at least one thousand bc. would be coated in a sheath of waxy substance to perserve them. very hard to be duplicated by hand since some of the variables are un specific they hold no meaning when copied - documentation of newly discovered ideas - the feuling of the dark part of the us airforce - basicly the pure adaptation threw advanced avionics through re-adaptations of these documents - humanity is still diciphereing a 3 thousand year old set of documents - were basicly used by the super hominids at the time to operate the unseen machines of the earth at the time - would allow the knowledge to access their 'ships' could appear as random boats in dock (strange vehicle that you only ever see once in your life). sheets were left behind incase humanity ever wanted to firgure it out - no forms of electronic storage were possible back then but perhaps writing it would be enough - documents are exeptionaly detalied in terms of current adaptations of theoreticle particle physics. ancient humans were not as dumb as history claims the were - they were idealists they respected all ideas formulated by the mind - formulated many ideas passed temperal mechanics that were easily writable at the time but not neccessarly preicievable at the time - basicly only used for an elite group of people on earth. ideas formulated into digital data(perhaps simple patents with simple research papers for things like a 'vortex emitter' or some super concentrated laser diode) very simple sets of ideas that would be generated from these things. Only certain religous sects would know of any such forbidden information basicly the people that are realigous but also wanted a true explanation for its reason/purpose. Not all the doctrinic scrools are currently avialable for public view(the bible is just a small portion of all true forms of biblical text) basicly the scientific sect at the time in religion(the true churchas of mystisim hid amongst the curretnly changing churchas at the time(would take the form of a cathalositic form of thought.

occult philosophy simply is the symboloistic representation study of the envirnment. not black magic more like differential theory - the awakaning of ones own mind. basicly belief in the 'scale of unity' as repesented 'the magus' documents. deitism is 'regenerated' every couple thousand years but also having the same effect on humanity. the true unblacked documents of everything are being stored somewhere - under some form of military control - papers written by a person being possesed by a deitistic figure - truly advanced symbology in fact so advanced that current human syntaxial structure has yet to catch up to be able to proccess all forms of information on those doctrinic papers.

Many things are hidden from public view for a reason/purpose. No linkable evidence is ever leaked could only be stored at air force restricted zone basicly heavily defended location.

reply to post by Locoman8

The plurality of God is evident from the fourth word in Genesis.

God is translated from 'elohiym which is a plural noun.

The English translators recognised this when they state in Genesis 1:26...
"...God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"



[edit on 15-11-2009 by troubleshooter]

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Locoman8

 

The plurality of God is evident from the fourth word in Genesis.

God is translated from 'elohiym which is a plural noun.

The English translators recognised this when they state in Genesis 1:26...
"...God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

However, what you site refers to a tense in Hebrew language you also find in other languages, called plural intensive, or majesty pluralis. God is refered to in plural and refers to himself in plural, just like most kings and queens do in most languages. When you speak to the queen, you refer to her as "your majesty" that's a remnant of a plural intensive tense in English. Also when you read the KJV you come accross words like Thine, Thy, Thou and Thee. These are also remnants from the same thing. In German, if you talk to a stranger or an authority, you address them in plural: "Können Sie bitte...?" and "Hier is Ihren...." etc. Also common among royalty is to refer to oneself in third person to show the distance between himself, the institution he represents and the people. King: "The king would like to say that he is delighted....".

An excellent thread....I'm bumping it because I want to read it again....

Regarding the use of the "royal We"....

Yes this is a custom among royalty, etc....but man's customs do not necessarily or generally apply to God.

God never uses the plural "we" as men do. When God says "we", he means "we", on what basis should it be otherwise?

NOTICE during the Transfiguration of Christ, God DOES NOT USE the supposed "royal we". If it was a custom of God to use the "royal we", He certainly would have used it here. But He does not.

He uses "I", for the plain and obvious reason, because God at that moment in time had only the Father in it. Christ was in the flesh. So of necessity and the correct way to express it, would only be using the "I", to identify Himself.

(Mat 17:5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

If the above is true then this Jehovah is the most powerful one.

EXAMPLE......
(Psalms 83; 13-18)

13 O my God, make them like a whirling thistle,
Like stubble blown about by the wind.
14 Like a fire that burns up the forest,
Like a flame that scorches the mountains,
15 So may you pursue them with your tempestt
And terrify them with your windstorm.u
16 Covera their faces with dishonor,
So that they may search for your name, O Jehovah.
17 May they be put to shame and be terrified forever;
May they be disgraced and perish;
18 MAY PEOPLE KNOW THAT YOU, WHOSE NAME IS JEHOVAH,
YOU ALONE ARE THE MOST HIGH OVER ALL THE EARTH.

Psalm 83:12 uses Elohim, the uni-plural name of God.
Psa 83:12 who said, Let us take possession for ourselves of the houses of God(Elohim).

So the question is, which YHWH is verse 18 referring to?

There is no question the psalmist here understands that there are two Gods, otherwise he would not have used Elohim in verse twelve.

But is he referring to God the Father? To Jesus? To Both? It's hard to pin down. In my opinion it would not be wrong to identify it either way (Father, Son, Both). Because it is not clear enough (at least for me) to say definitively which one it is. I do not see a problem with whichever choice is used. The Father and the Son are both Almighty, the only difference is that God the Father is in higher authority over God the Son.

THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE **2** THRONES IN HEAVEN. [I can't ignore these Scriptures,, can I ]?

(Mathew 20; 20-23)
20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.” 23 He said to them: “You will indeed drink my cup, BUT TO SIT DOWN AT MY RIGHT HAND AND AT MY LEFT IS NOT MINE TO GIVE, BUT IT BELONGS TO THOSE FOR WHOM IT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY MY [[FATHER]].”

(Mathew 22; 44)
‘Jehovah* said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?

(Mathew 20; 23)
And this scripture also indicates that JESUS ADMITS to the fact that HE CANNOT make a DECISION that belongs to HIS, (Separate) FATHER in the HEAVENS, IF they are ONE can't HE make that decision for the one to sit on his RIGHT and his LEFT? why does he have to rely on HIS,,, "what", OTHER SELF? that doesn't make any sense,
AND I think it gives the Atheist an excuse to call us crazy and not LISTEN to the TRUTH.
a reply to: SirPaulMuaddib

a reply to: VicenteGarciaTortelli

You have just proven the point that Jesus is a subordinate of God the Father... which also proves that Jesus is a separate entity of the Father God. Thus, two Jehovahs... In the old testament, if a patriarch heard the voice of God, it was Jesus since Jesus is the "Word of God"... Jesus carried out the deeds of the Father God... Elohim= God the Father & Jesus the Son... Look at Elohim as "Family of God" instead of just plain old God.

Well put . a reply to: Locoman8

Jehovah vs Jesus their meanings behind the name are also different meanings showing that they are separate entities .

a reply to: Locoman8

a reply to: Locoman8

JESUS CHRIST

The name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth.

The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sousʹ) corresponds to the Hebrew nameJeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus theNazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stosʹ,the equivalent of the HebrewMa·shiʹach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas theexpression “anointed one” was properly applied to others beforeJesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12;2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured thesuperior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “theChrist, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16; 

a reply to: Locoman8
JEHOVAH NAME,
MEANS:

When translated from the HebrewTetragrammaton, ( יהוה ), which means [“HE CAUSES TO BECOME.”] These four Hebrew letters are represented in many languages by the letters [ JHVH or YHWH ].

Where is God’s name found in Bible translations that are commonly used today?

The New English Bible: 
The name Jehovah appears at Exodus 3:15;6:3. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24; Ezekiel 48:35. (But if this and other translations use “Jehovah” in several places, why not be consistent in using it at every place where the,Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text?)

Revised Standard Version: 
A footnote on Exodus 3:15 says: “The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.”

Today’s English Version:
A footnote on Exodus 6:3 states: “THE LORD: . . . Where the Hebrew text has Yahweh, traditionally transliterated as Jehovah, this translation employs LORD with capital letters, following a usage which is widespread in English versions.”

King James Version: 
The name Jehovah is found at Exodus 6:3;Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4. See also Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15;Judges 6:24.

American Standard Version: 
The name Jehovah is used consistently in the Hebrew Scriptures in this translation, beginning with Genesis 2:4.

Douay Version: A footnote on Exodus 6:3 says: “My name Adonai. The name, which is in the Hebrew text, is that most proper name of God, which signifieth his eternal, self-existing being, (Exod. 3, 14,) which the Jews out of reverence never pronounce; but, instead of it, whenever it occurs in the Bible, they read Adonai, which signifies the Lord; and, therefore, they put thepoints or vowels, which belong tothe name Adonai, to the four letters of that other ineffable name, Jod, He, Vau, He. Hence some moderns have framed the name of Jehovah, unknown to all theancients, whether Jews or Christians; for the true pronunciation of the name, which is in the Hebrew text, by long disuse is now quite lost.” (It is interesting that The Catholic Encyclopedia[1913, Vol. VIII, p. 329] states:“Jehovah, the proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name.”)

The Holy Bible translated by Ronald A. Knox: The name Yahweh is found in footnotes at Exodus 3:14 and 6:3.

The New American Bible: A footnote on Exodus 3:14 favors the form “Yahweh,” but the name does not appear in the main text of the translation. In the Saint Joseph Edition, see also the appendix Bible Dictionary under “Lord” and “Yahweh.”

The Jerusalem Bible: The Tetragrammaton is translated Yahweh, starting with its first occurrence, at Genesis 2:4.

New World Translation:
The name JEHOVAH is used in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures in this translation, appearing [7,210 times].

An American Translation: At Exodus 3:15 and 6:3 the name Yahweh is used, followed by “the LORD” in brackets.

The Bible in Living English, S. T. Byington: The name Jehovah is used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.

The ‘Holy Scriptures’ translated by J. N. Darby: The name Jehovah appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, also in many footnotes on Christian Greek Scripture texts, beginning with Matthew 1:20.

The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson: The name Jehovah is found at Matthew 21:9 and in 17 other places in this translation ofthe Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text—A New Translation,Jewish Publication Society of America, Max Margolis editor-in-chief: At Exodus 6:3 the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appears in the English text.

The Holy Bible translated by Robert Young: The name Jehovah is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in this literal translation.

Why do many Bible translations not use the personal name of God or use it only a few times?

The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) theword ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Nameever used in Hebrew; and (2) theuse of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for theuniversal faith of the Christian Church.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing fromthe Holy Bible the personal nameof its Divine Author, whose nameappears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow theexample of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.)

Translators who have felt obligated to include the personal name of God at least once or perhaps a few times in the main text, though not doing so every time it appears in Hebrew, have evidently followed the example of William Tyndale, who included the divine name in his translation of the Pentateuch published in 1530, thus breaking with the practice of leaving the name out altogether.

Was the name Jehovah used by the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures?

Jerome, in the fourth century, wrote: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.” (De viris inlustribus, chap. III) This Gospel includes 11 direct quotations of portions of the Hebrew Scriptures where the Tetragrammaton is found. There is no reason to believe that Matthew did not quote the passages as they were written in the Hebrew text from which he quoted.

Other inspired writers who contributed to the contents of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted hundreds of passages from theSeptuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Many of these passages included the Hebrew Tetragrammaton right in the Greek text of early copies of theSeptuagint. In harmony with Jesus’ own attitude regarding his Father’s name, Jesus’ disciples would have retained that name in those quotations.—Compare John 17:6, 26.

In Journal of Biblical Literature,George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote: “We know for a fact that Greek-speaking Jews continued to write, ( יהוה ) within their Greek Scriptures. Moreover, it is most unlikely that early conservative Greek-speaking Jewish Christians varied from this practice. Although in secondary references to God they probably used the words [God] and [Lord], it would have been extremely unusual for them to have dismissed the Tetragram from the biblical text itself. . . . Since the Tetragram was still written in the copies of the Greek Bible which made up the Scriptures of the early church, it is reasonable to believe that the N[ew] T[estament] writers, when quoting from Scripture, preserved the Tetragram within the biblical text. . . . But when it was removed from the Greek O[ld] T[estament], it was also removed from the quotations of the O[ld] T[estament] in the N[ew] T[estament]. Thus somewhere around the beginning of the second century the use of surrogates [substitutes] must have crowded out the Tetragram in both Testaments.”—Vol. 96, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 76, 77.

Which form of the divine name is correct—Jehovah or Yahweh?