Why do people say "God" without giving the specific name of said God?

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST


The fact that Jesus had a pre-existence in the heavens with his father Jehovah is NOT disputed and nor is the fact that Jesus used the power of holy spirit to accomplish his father's will....It is the teaching that they are part of a Trinity of Father, Son & Holy Spirit and of equal stance that is under dispute.

Yeshua - Jesus never claimed to be equal to Jehovah.

In fact his very name crys out his subjection to his father - Yeshua means "salvation belongs to Jehovah"

Also as I said in Phillipians Paul specifically states "that not even in a moment of seizure would Jesus claim to be equal to God"

Paul explains the situation exactly .......(1 Timothy 2:5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,

Again he put's Jesus as a subordinate to the father Jehovah and refers to him as "a man Christ Jesus"

Thus the Bible simply explains that Jehovah is the almighty Creator and his firstborn son is Jesus.

You mentioned the charges against Jesus that the Jewish hierarchy brought upon Jesus....

(Matthew 26:59-63) . . .Meantime the chief priests and the entire San′he‧drin were looking for false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death, 60 but they found none, although many false witnesses came forward. Later on two came forward 61 and said: “This man said, ‘I am able to throw down the temple of God and build it up in three days.’” 62 With that the high priest stood up and said to him: “Have you no answer? What is it these are testifying against you?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: “By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!”

Why would the High Priest ask Jesus "under oath" to the "living God" to testify, if Jesus (Yeshua) was in fact the living God?!!! That again is not logical.

Indeed the demons at (Matthew 8:29) also addressed Jesus as thus....... “What have we to do with you, Son of God? ...they didn't claim he was Almightly God at all.

The Encyclopædia Britannica observes: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”

Religion sociologist Annika Hvithamar, pointed out that when people are asked why they consider themselves to be Christians, they hardly ever answer that it is because they believe that God is a Trinity. Moreover, a section in the textbook entitled “Are You a Christian?” states: “The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the more difficult problems of Christian theology.” It adds: “At all times, it has been difficult to explain to unschooled Christians why the Christian God is still one god and not three gods.”

It is actually a conspiracy that was contrived to bring in the teaching of the Trinity as a Christian doctrine...and there has been a huge controversy down through the Centuries, including where people have been put to death for daring to speak up against the teachings.

To tell someone that they are not a Christian if they don't beleive in the Trinity is not right. Jesus himself set the standard (Matthew 4:10) ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Whilst of course at the same time having huge respect for the name of Jesus.....and every Christian should always approach God in prayer through Jesus Christ, the mediator and acknowledge and in fact celebrate the sacrifice he gave in behalf of mankind.

reply to post by JB1234

In fact his very name crys out his subjection to his father - Yeshua means "salvation belongs to Jehovah"

The name of Jesus is, Jesus. That's in the New Testament. You may want to read my comments on that on my thread about pronouncing the name of Jesus.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also as I said in Phillipians Paul specifically states "that not even in a moment of seizure would Jesus claim to be equal to God"

How did you come by that translation?

To tell someone that they are not a Christian if they don't beleive in the Trinity is not right. Jesus himself set the standard (Matthew 4:10) ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

Another strange translation, are you quoting the New Testament for Jews version? The word, Jehovah is not in the NT. God is only very loosely associated by angle of Sinai who spoke of himself. There is nothing wrong with having a trinity. The trouble lies with what is involved in the attempt at drawing an artificial, philosophical unity from them.

Also in general response to this thread it is worth noting that other entitiies are called "elohim" or god in the Bible.It doesn't ever identify them as Almighty God though who has a divine name YHWH.

Moses was referred to as a God over Pharoah (Exodus 7:1) . . .Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo‧him′ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh. (John 10:33-35) . ..... .The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,

Therefore YHWH Yahweh or Jehovah substituted by LORD in some translation is a clear differentiation of Almighty God over just being a God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by JB1234

 

In fact his very name crys out his subjection to his father - Yeshua means "salvation belongs to Jehovah"

The name of Jesus is, Jesus. That's in the New Testament. You may want to read my comments on that on my thread about pronouncing the name of Jesus.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also as I said in Phillipians Paul specifically states "that not even in a moment of seizure would Jesus claim to be equal to God"

How did you come by that translation?

edit on 15-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Je′sus) [Lat. form of the Gr. I‧e‧sous′, which corresponds to the Heb. Ye‧shu′aʽ or Yehoh‧shu′aʽ and means “Jehovah Is Salvation”].

Jewish historian Josephus of the first century C.E. mentions some 12 persons, other than those in the Bible record, bearing that name. It also appears in the Apocryphal writings of the last centuries of the B.C.E. period. It therefore appears that it was not an uncommon name during that period.

Hence why Jesus was often seperated from other men of that name with Christ being added.

Philippians 2:5,6

Again the Catholic & King James Bible muddy the waters.... the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” The King James Version of 1611 reads much the same.

Those translations would seem to be saying that Jesus was claiming to be equal to God... yet are Christians really being told to have the same "mind" in them "which was also in Christ Jesus"... so it would be OK for Christians not to think it robbery to say they were also equal to God? No that again is not logical.

A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:

1869: “who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: “He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God.” Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: “who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own.” La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” Today’s English Version.

1984: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” The New Jerusalem Bible.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har‧pa′zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

Also in the context of the next verse shows that Jesus was humble towards God and his tasks......(Philippians 2:7-8) . . .No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, . . .

reply to post by jmdewey60


The early texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures did indeed quote God's name as YHWH...

the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters (יהוה) was used in both the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint.

Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: “Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God’s name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name, יהוה (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate [abbreviation for Ky′ri‧os, “Lord”]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the ‘Lord God’ and the ‘Lord Christ’ which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself.”

Wherever you see the word "LORD" in the New testament then YHWH used to be there. Hence why some translations have gone back and now include the divine name in both the so called Old (Hebrew) Testament & New (Christian Greek) Testament.

This muddying of the waters to deny the name of Almighty God and water his role down as being only one of three... is probably one of the biggest conspiracies of religion ever.

reply to post by JB1234


no conspiracy here this was taught by his apostles as well. JOHN hit the nail on the head.

John.1
[1] In the beginning WAS THE WORD(YESHUA), and the Word(YESHUA) was WITH GOD, and the Word(YESHUA) WAS GOD.

reply to post by jmdewey60


YOU ARE LIVING IN FANTASY IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE POWER TO "CHOOSE" GOD.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST

 

putting all prejudices aside. it is the ONLY one who makes sense, and so far has KEPT ALL HIS PROMISES OR COVENANTS.
GOD BLESS

But none of them are for you, so why would you worship a god who has nothing but death and slavery in mind for you? Do you like that? Being tortured and killed by the god of hell?
Wouldn't you want a god who could exist outside of this world and could have another world, a world where you could live with Him forever?

JESUS came to die for ALL to be SAVED from EVERLASTING FIRE. this includes you.
this is one of the many reasons why JEWS DENY HIM.

-EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW BEFORE HIM AND CONFESS HE IS GOD. even those in hell.

i did not CHOOSE GOD, HE CHOSE ME.

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST


Really........ No conspiracy?!!

The King James Version and the Douay Version read: John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This would make it appear that the Word was identical with Almighty God,

Other translations aid in getting the proper view. The interlinear word-for-word reading of the Greek translation in the Emphatic Diaglott reads: “In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.” The accompanying text of the Diaglott uses capital and small capital letters for the God, and initial capital and lowercase letters for the second appearance of “God” in the sentence: “In the Beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God.”

These renderings would support the fact that Jesus, being the Son of God and the one used by God in creating all other things (Col 1:15-20), is indeed a “god,” a mighty one, and has the quality of mightiness, but is not the Almighty God. Other translations reflect this view.

The New English Bible says: “And what God was, the Word was.” The Greek word translated “Word” is Lo′gos; and so Moffatt’s translation reads: “The Logos was divine.”

The American Translation reads: “The Word was divine.”

Other readings, by German translators, follow. By Böhmer: “It was tightly bound up with God, yes, itself of divine being.” By Stage: “The Word was itself of divine being.” By Menge: “And God (= of divine being) the Word was.” And by Thimme: “And God of a sort the Word was.” All these renderings highlight the quality of the Word, not his identity with his Father, the Almighty God. Being the Son of Jehovah God, he would have the divine quality, for divine means “godlike.”—Col 2:9; compare 2Pe 1:4, where “divine nature” is promised to Christ’s joint heirs.

The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. When he was in the beginning with God all things were created through him; without him came no created thing into being.” (Joh 1:1-3) Note that what the Word is said to be is spelled without a capital initial letter, namely, “god.”

This Word, or Lo′gos, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) Hence John continued, saying: “This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”—Joh 1:2, 3.

reply to post by JB1234

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor’s Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har‧pa′zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize,’ ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”

It looks like Martin is just copying from H.A.A. Kennedy, in the Expositor’s Greek Testament article on Philippians. Looks like the argument is that he knows of no example of how the word could be used in a different way other than in "the true sense", or the "real meaning". This is likely to have been the case in 1910, but may be different today, with more finds of examples of old Greek writings.
You can find a different opinion of this from a recent publication I can quote,

in NT only Phil 2:6 as-1. `act of seizing', robbery, the standard usage in Gk. lit., but considered contextually improbable, hence the preference for-2. passive sense `thing grasped' (a mng. ordinarily attached to ἃρπαγμα), as a piece of good fortune that one clings to (treasured) windfall, prize, bonanza.

Frederick William Danker. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Kindle Locations 1076-1077). Kindle Edition.
Doing a Google search on the way I spelled ἃρπαγμα, it comes up as being in the Septuagint version of Ezekiel 33:15, as, a seized thing. Looks like I need to order the lexicon for the Septuagint.
My general point being, we can think of the word usage in another sense than the more narrowly defined sense that existed a hundred years ago. The word is a noun and is looking to me right now, connected to, the being equal to God, is in, He did not consider the equality with God as an item of loot.
ETA:
Here's another place where the word suggested by Danker, as being how the one in Philippians should be treated, shows up, in Psalms 62:10.
Trust not in unrighteousness, and lust not after robberies: if wealth should flow in, set not your heart upon it.

The one I mentioned earlier is Ezekiel 33:15
He returns what was taken in pledge, pays back what he has stolen, and follows the statutes that give life, committing no iniquity. He will certainly live – he will not die.

Where "what he has stolen" is the arpagma in this translation.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I listed all of the translations where that verse in Philippians has been translated as meaning Jesus would not seize an opportunity to say he was equal to God. It's not just the translation of that verse...it's the context of the surrounding verses.

If he was indeed expressing that he was indeed equal to God somehow then the negative expression in the next verse makes no sense... (Philippians 2:7) . . ."No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men"... this emphasises Jesus' humility surely?!!!

The Trinity doctrine actually degrades Jesus when it teaches that he was God in the flesh. How so? Consider an illustration. Some workers make a request of their supervisor, but he says that he does not have the authority to grant it. If his statement is true, the supervisor has wisely displayed an awareness of his limitations. If it is not true ie if he can grant the request but simply chooses not ...he would have then have been deceptive.

How did Jesus respond when two of his apostles were arguing about who of them was the greatest and asking Jesus to express HIS view on matters?...... He told them: “This sitting 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.” (Matthew 20:23) If Jesus were really God, and had all his power.... would that not have been a lie? ..............Instead, by deferring to the One with greater authority, Jesus was not only seperating himself from his Father yet again, he also set an example in modesty—and he showed that he was not equal to God.

Which is entirely in harmony with the correct translation of that Scripture in Philipians.

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST

JESUS came to die for ALL to be SAVED from EVERLASTING FIRE. this includes you.
this is one of the many reasons why JEWS DENY HIM.

Right, so why would you want their god?
A god is in the definition, not the name. The name means nothing unless you are talking on a earthly level, where you want an alliance with others for mutual protection or whatever and then you take whatever name they designate, it is just a badge, but also it has no power greater than what you can expect from these people.

reply to post by JB1234

. . .the correct translation. . .

What?
You sound like those guys you were quoting earlier.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by JB1234

 

. . .the correct translation. . .

What?
You sound like those guys you were quoting earlier.

Only in as much as the meaning behind the text...

Both scenarios can't be right... either the Apostle Paul was saying Jesus would never even for a momentary lapse say he was equal to God OR he was saying, if you beleive the Catholic & King James translations they were translating the text quite the opposite in, that Jesus didn't think it was an act of robbery to say he was equal to God.

reply to post by JB1234


I think it means that it was there for the taking if he wanted it, but relinquished it, for a higher purpose than his advancement.
There is that, you know?
The monad, that splits, becomes the dyad. At the moment of the creation of the dyad, the one decides to kill itself.
That eliminates the one individual of the dyad, leaving the monad, as it existed before this moment. There was a window of opportunity for the second individual to just let it be.

Originally posted by JB1234
reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST

 

Really........ No conspiracy?!!

The King James Version and the Douay Version read: John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This would make it appear that the Word was identical with Almighty God,

Other translations aid in getting the proper view. The interlinear word-for-word reading of the Greek translation in the Emphatic Diaglott reads: “In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.

so according to you the original text should read......

In a beginning was the Word(JESUS), and the Word(JESUS) was with the God(IHVH), and a god(IHVH) was the Word.(JESUS)

whch proves my point as the Greek is more precise.
JESUS WAS KNOWN AS" THE WORD" TO THE PROPHETS, INFACT THIS IS JONH THE BAPTIST SAYNG THIS A DEEP MYSTIC AND THE LAST BIBLICAL PROPHET.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I ACCEPTED THE JEWISH MESSIAH BECAUSE HE WAS THE MOST HATED AND STILL DIED FOR IGNORANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU . ETHNICITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUCH A TOPIC. THE JEWS DONT DESERVE GOD IT WAS NOT UP TO THEM TO BE CHOSEN ALL THE DECISIONS WHERE MADE BY GOD. THERE IS NO NOTHING THEY CAM DO FOR THEM TO LOOSE THE INHERITANCE OF BEING THE LINE OF THE MESSIAH.THIS IS WHY I FOLLOW CHRIST BECAUSE HE IS THE CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST

I ACCEPTED THE JEWISH MESSIAH. . .

Any one in particular, since there are several to choose from?
I accept the Christ of God, namely Jesus, as described in the New Testament.

reply to post by SOILDERSUNITEDFORCHRIST


Amended...

In a beginning was the Word(JESUS), and the Word(JESUS) was with the God(IHVH), and a god was the Word.(JESUS)

In other words the last reference to god was small letters ie Jesus was "a god"... extolling his divinity.

"ho logus"

Joh 1:1—“and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)”
Gr., καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai the‧os′ en ho lo′gos)

the Greek word θεός (the‧os′) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the‧os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the‧os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the‧os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself

Thus this last sentence of this text appears in all these translations of the Bible as :-

1808 “and the word was a god” The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word” The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach kind) was the Word” Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was Das Evangelium nach the Logos” Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos” Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

(John 1:1) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

As I showed from Scripture in an earlier post the Jews said Jesus blasphemed by saying he was a god, or divine.... Jesus' immediate retort was to state that his Father had referred to their ancestors, the judges of Israel as "gods" over the rest of the Jews.

Also Jehovah told Moses he was to make him "a god over Pharoah".

No one is claiming Moses or The Judges are part of God are they?

reply to post by JB1234

Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.

I wonder how careful of a translator one would have to be to know all that.
This seems to be dependent on someone having done a statistical analysis of all anarthrous nouns, which would be difficult enough, while figuring out which ones were predicates would be an even more difficult task. Let me know if you know of such a study and give a citation for it because I would be interested in checking it out.