The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Names of God

Sorry, but that doesn't clarify anything. Once again, "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Yeshua" if you prefer, was not ETERNAL. The LOGOS (Son of God) is eternal and at the incarnation, the Son of God and the human nature were joined into the one God-man Jesus the Christ. I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer to you, but there was a time in history when "Jesus" (aka Yeshua) did not exist.

Is that clear enough?

I'm saying that the name that the angel told Mary in Matt. 1:21 to name Jesus was Yahshua. The name the angel used in Matt. 1:23 was Immanu'el. I'm sure you know that we don't have the original manuscript. <br>There is no way the angel could have told Mary to name Him Iesous, because Iesous does not mean God saves. <br><br>Have you ever considered that even though we believe the original manuscript of Matthew was written in Greek, we are not sure of that. The originals of some of these New Testament books could have been written in Hebrew.

Thats still just speculation though. ANd you havean't answered the question about Joshua being called Jeshua in Nehemiah.

Yes, it is speculation, and it is also speculation to assume the original manuscript of Matthew was witten in Greek.<br><br>Do you want me to tell you why someone centuries ago made a copiest error? Is that what you are asking? Or are you asking me to tell you why someone deliberately misspelled the name?

Johannah,

Honestly, where do you get this stuff from?

The tetragrammaton (4 Consonants) which are found, e.g,. in Exodus 6:2, 3; Ps 83:18; et al have no vowels and thus they are NOT "Yahshua". But rather it is a transliteration. And that's why there are the two main variants given to it, i.e., "Jehovah" or "Yahweh". We are given MANY names for God who is Triune, and thus none are restricted to the "Father" alone. In Exodus 3:14, we have the record of yet another designation of God when Moses asked Him who he should say sent him; what is YOUR name?. The word given as His name is actually the verb "to be", which is correctly translated, "I am". It's meaning is one Who is eternal/infinite, without beginning or end, and thus it was given as "I am . . that . . I am". When the Pharisees asked Jesus who He was; to identify Himself, He did not reply that His name was Yeshua, but rather He said, "before Abraham sprang to life, I am" (John 8:58). Thus Christ revealed Himself as the Eternal God.

And again, why is this seemingly so important to you that one have the "real name" of Him Who is called Christ? Inquiring minds wanna know!!

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,<br>This is probably a really stupid question and maybe off-topic. <br>If Jesus did not at one time exist, then how can we say Jesus is God? <br><br>Steve

Everyone I know wants to be called by his correct name. If my real name was Johannah, and you called me Joann, I would correct you. People are usually pretty quick to correct you , even if you just mis-pronounce their name. I have never known anyone who would not object to your arbitrarily changing his name. It seems to me we should extend the same courtesy to the King of the Universe.

The problem is I have read the Chalcedon Creed numerous times, as well as many of the major (and minor) Systematic/Biblical theologies/dogmatics. I have studied orthodox views of the incarnation. But I still don't get it. I believe it. I just don't get it, especially how a human nature is different than a human person. And if it is different, then how can Jesus the Christ really be human if he isn't a human person? <br><br>Sorry for the stupidity on this one,<br><br>Steve

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Everyone I know wants to be called by his correct name. If my real name was Johannah, and you called me Joann, I would correct you. People are usually pretty quick to correct you , even if you just mis-pronounce their name. I have never known anyone who would not object to your arbitrarily changing his name. It seems to me we should extend the same courtesy to the King of the Universe. </font><hr></blockquote><p> And how do you know you name is Johannah? Maybe some variant Greek/Hebrew text says it is??? You better make sure, because you do not want to forget who you are. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/frustrated.gif" alt="frustrated" title="frustrated[/img]

Jesus the person consisted of two NATURES... divine and human.

I said:<br><br>If my real name was Johannah.....<br><br>I did not say my name is Johannah.....

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The problem is I have read the Chalcedon Creed numerous times, as well as many of the major (and minor) Systematic/Biblical theologies/dogmatics.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Greetings Steve,<br><br>The theologians have a technical term for this called the communicatio idiomatum. It's a fancy way of saying that whatever can be attributed to either the human or divine nature of Christ can be attributed to Christ's one person. Check out Berkhof's Systematic theology and you will find this along with two other categories. Careful though, there is a Lutheran strand for this term, which teaches that the divine and human properties intermingled, which is indeed an error.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>~Jason<br><br>

My ...brain.....is...working...slowly. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hairout.gif" alt="hairout" title="hairout[/img]<br><br>He is wholly human and wholly divine. But how can he be wholly human without being a human person? I.e. is a nature wholly human?<br><br>The 2nd person of the trinity took on human flesh. But if he took on human flesh, is he a human person or does he just have a human nature? <br><br>And the Chalcedon Creed says he is in all things like us. I'm not just a human nature, am I? Am I not a person as well? Can a human nature really be said to be in all things like unto us?<br><br>Or (as has been the case with me more than once before) am I pouring too much or the wrong meaning into the terms "nature" and "person"? I haven't found most systematics/dogmatics to be inadequate in their treatment of this, or at least they are inadequate in making me understand this issue!<br><br>Sorry to be thick-skulled on this one,<br>Steve

Jesus the Christ was a PERSON! Within that person existed 2 NATURES; the one Divine the other human; each distinct yet inseparable. This is the thrust of Chalcedon; to show the interrelationship between the two NATURES within the one PERSON. They cannot be intermingled so that their essence and identity is distorted, diminished or discarded. Nor, can the be so separated that the relationship is likewise lost. <br><br>The Living God is ONE, consisting of 3 PERSONS, each distinct yet inseparable.<br><br>Having fun yet? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>