Is Jesus the Same Jehovah of the Hebrew text????
by JT 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JT
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcCitiesOfRefuge.htm
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He is the eternal God and Creator. "For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist" (Colossians 1: 16-17). "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God' (John 1: 1-2). "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1: 14).
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
We went out with some friends last night to dinner and since we all left wt, the comment as made that jesus is the Jehovah mentioned in the Hebrew text-
In fact the quote above is just from a web site that expresses the same position on who jesus is-
My question is--- according to the Hebrew text ?Jah? is a god who ordered the jews to kill other nations- to clear out the land as it were-
he is referred to as a god of armies-
So what caused the warring jesus in the Hebrews scriptures to become the all loving , love your enemies of the greek scriptures-
This is a tremendous transformation from the deity of the Hebrew text to the deity of the greek text
What do you think accounts for this shift in personality if they are one and the same?
Thanks
-
minimus
They ain't da same.
-
Satanus
There have been a few threads that proved that nt writers did write that belief into the nt.
As for the personality change, they didn't explain that.
It's all fantasy to me, in any case.
S
-
Satanus
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/member/13710/topics/default.ashx
The first 3 threads, i believe, deal on this.
S
-
Satanus
Unless, the fact of merely being in human form gave yhwh empathy. But that would suggest that yhwh learned something new, and that's impossible for an omniscient being.
-
JH
Father and son, different from each other. YHWH is the almighty
-
LittleToe
If you've read "Who Wrote the Bible" you'll see a dramatic difference between "Yahweh" and "Elohim" in the J and E texts that potentially make up the account of Genesis.
Yahweh comes out looking compassionate, vs Elohim who seems Judgemental.
To that end, "Jesus" seems very similar to "Yahweh," in temperament. -
Terry
I would reframe the question.
Instead of asking "Is Jesus the same as Jehovah of the Hebrew text"?
I'd ask, "Was there an historical Jesus?"
Until I started reading into history and scholarly investigations from secular professors I simply assumed it was all fairly obvious that the answer was "YES!"
But, an honest and in depth investigation does not turn up anything much but an infinitesimal hearsay.
The two historians most often cited who are supposed to verify Jesus actual historical existence are Flavius Josephus and Tacitus.
Not true!
Have you ever looked into this? The "mentions" made by Josephus are in passing and concern an afterthought. They mention followers of a Christus or Messiah.
Both Tacitus and Josephus agree on three points.
1.There was a Jesus movement.
2.The death of the leader stopped it.
3.It started up again.
And that is all we have, folks! The rest is hearsay.
Even the mentions in Josephus are called into question by scholars. The words appear to be insertions by "latter day hands".
Jesus was completely unimportant in his day to everybody but a tiny splinter group of Messianic Jews.
The writings of Paul and his invention of what we call Christianity are what the world follows. Jesus never wrote anything. Ask yourself "why?"
All we have is what is purported to be writings by people with first hand knowledge. But, this is as true of Joseph Smith and Mormonism and much easier to access historically.
The evidence is that the New Testament is the result of politically motivated power brokers in the Roman Empire who needed agreement among a people for political powerbase purposes. The folktales, wonder-worker stories, Jesus myths and tall-tales of indigenous believers is a large body of "just-so" stories. These were examined and edited and whipped into shape by the same people who gave us all the other false nonsense that became the world's version of Christianity. The Bible Canon is a political, hand's-on product of people you wouldn't invite into your home if you met them today. Much of what contemporary historians such as Eusebius tell us immediately identify these bible-shapers/editors/redactors as horrible sycophants. They spent an inordinate amount of time kissing the Roman Emperor's ass to avoid persecutions. I implore everyone interested in what is historically true (as opposed to the same old fairy tale view of the bible as a god-inspired super book) to go to your Public Library and find the writings I speak of.
Stop by a Barnes and Noble and take a look at any of several books:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm
http://www.randomhouse.com/acmart/catalog/display.pperl?0345391691
-
LittleToe
Terry:
And that would be one opinion...Jesus was completely unimportant in his day to everybody but a tiny splinter group of Messianic Jews.
Yup about a dozen or so, by all accounts.
The usual bluff and bluster about discounting him due to there being few external sources is a bit of a distraction. The gospel accounts are secular sources in their own right.
You don't have to take the Bible as the word of God or even believe in God, to be content accepting that there was a historical Jesus.
In sidestepping the question you're comparing Apples and Pork Chops, since the question refers to the internal harmonies of a document that doesn't rely on external sources at all.