Vol. Supplement No.

3A
Updated r. 2.6.5 see http://tiny.cc/bostonreaders for full collections
2/22/2018

IRENT Vol. III. Supplement

No. 1 (Words, Words and Words)
No. 2 (Text, Translation and Translations)
No. 3A (Name, God, and Person)
No. 3B (Man – metaphysical, anthropology)
No. 3C (Persons and People)
No. 4 (Place, Things, and Numbers)
No. 5 (Time, Calendar and Chronology)
No. 5 (Passion Week Chronology)

#3A of WALK THROUGH THE SCRIPTURE

No. 3A Name, God, and Person

See collected files for Supplement III - Collections #3A and

Collections #3B (On Trinity Topic)
 No. 3. Names, Persons, and People

PART I. Name and Person

A. Problem of Words and Problem with Words

Words, terms, concepts, notion, idea

Meaning, definition, referencing

God problem; problem of the word God; problem on God, problem of God etc. – What
God, which God, whose God, God for whom.

Three nefarious and nebulous common (non-technical) words: 'is', 'God', 'I', etc.
Problem with 'is' – A is 'A', but only A is 'as A', if not 'as if A'.

B. Person

*person; *Person Being

Problem of defining the term ‘person’ – esp. in conjunction with ‘spirit, the spirit, the
Spirit’. What is worse is that those important terms in formulating man-made doctrines
do not follow with logical arguments – they simply do not define them and use the term
as they see fit. 'Person' is not 'person', i.e. the word one says is not same as the word
used in different times and by different people. It's all make-believe game, worse than
the 'philosophy of As If'.

Conclusion: anyone can define whatever it is to be to fit the preconceived notion of it.
Alas, none can dispute it; the only response is coming up his own definition. Note:
people are not wise and logical enough to differentiate personhood (not ‘personality’)
from literary device of personification and take ‘HOLY GHOST’ isolated from the text,
as if it is something they have to deal with somehow and create a ‘person’.

Note: the word ‘Person’ (usu. capitalized) in the Trinitarian statement does not have
same meaning as in common English. It’s a theological translation word from Latin
persona, which is translation of theological Greek word(s); this confusion over the word
in two different sense is one of major obstacle of the church Trinitarian doctrine – all
doctrines are of human product.
 Jenny Teichman (1985), “The Definition of Person”,
Philosophy Vol. 60, No. 232 (Apr., 1985), pp. 175-185

www.jstor.org/stable/3750997

Related words: Lat. persona; character, essence, nature; person-ness (not ‘personable-ness’);
personification, anthropomorphism; divine person vs. divine being; human being vs. human
person.

Many in the religious articles use the term *personality in proper place of *personhood. The
former is a psychological term; personal style, character, bent, etc. Belongs to a same level of
word category as ‘spirituality’. The latter is about identity, essence, ‘being of a person’, ‘being
person’, etc.

[See EE for a ref. 1 on ‘human being’ vs.’ human person’ – definition of the terms. When how
a human being is a human person. Humanity of ‘Jesus Christ’.]
[See EE for a reading material 2 on ‘non-human person’]
[Ref: http://youtu.be/ZRIddOvdH_4 (2hrs) What is a Person? Neuroscience, Human Identity
and the Christian Faith | John Wyatt]

In common English usage *person denotes an individual human being. It is derived from Lat.
persona (actor’s mask; actor in narrative; character in a play) which became to be used to refer
to a human being. However, the word is in common usage of English words and to use in as
specialized technical word for their theology only results in its tritheistic metamorphosis. In a
common theological definition for personhood a person is said to possess attributes (of will,
intellect, uniqueness of individuality) as well as actions. [However, without considering
‘identification of the reality this argument does not go personification, a very common literary
device. Such is involved with the debate on ‘personhood of the Spirit’. The holy Spirit is the
spirit of God – it is not an independent being, an entity, or a person separate from God. See Jn
16:13 for a common Trinitarian misunderstanding of grammatical gender to be used as
evidence of personhood. There is no exact word in Hebrew corresponding to ‘person’ as there
is none in Greek.] [To say ‘person’ we should be able to locate in space and place as well as
within time, a dimension to which the realm of spirit does not belong.]

‘Personal’ vs. ‘of person’: Most of time we see the adjectival form ‘personal’ is used where
the usual context requires ‘of person’. It is misleading as it carries word pictures of ‘personable’
or ‘personal to me’, etc. a

The problem occurs this word is used as a special theological term to designate the mode of
being of God in reference to the divine Triune (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – Mt

a
‘Personal’ vs. ‘of person’: In addition to a host of issues on the word and term ‘person’ itself, its
adjectival form in English ‘personal’ has the same problem of other adjectival words where the noun
and its counterpart do not share same nuance and sense. E.g. the word ‘beauty’ has an adjectival form
‘beautiful’, but the latter does not have anything connected with the concept of ‘beauty’. In other words,
English does not have a separate form with the meaning ‘concerning with beauty’ or ‘of beauty’. Cf.
‘The natural law’ is not quite same meaning as ‘the law of nature’.
A quite similar case is for the word ‘spirit’. There is no English word which has meaning of ‘concerned
with spirit’ or ‘of spirit’. On the other hand, the adjective ‘spiritual’ has a sense different from ‘of
spirit’. Hence, in IRENT translation, the word ‘spirital’ of a neologism is used.
28:19b KJV). Its theological use is from the Latin word, which became to be used a translation
of the Greek concepts. The effect produced by such theological tradition (in line of
‘Trinitarianism’) is an image of Godhead, contrary to the Scriptural truth. Some proposes the
word capitalized ‘Person’ as a special term to use to articulate with it differentiated from a
(human) person. Such a term ‘Person’ is purely contorted artificial theological construct (as if
a short-hand) and does not help human mind comprehend and actually mislead by portraying
as a single figure with three heads or three faces (Gk. trikephalos) for a tritheistic three-person
God-head.

‘God is a person’ ‘IS GOD A PERSONa?’ What is the meaning of ‘person’? What does in
mean by saying ‘God is a person’? What kind of person? a divine person? a God-person?
Related question is: ‘God is a personal God’ (which is a circular statement). The Elohim is a
personal God? God is a personal god-being? A god held by a person? – depending on how the
word God is used and referred. The way we say ‘God is a person’ is nothing more than
anthropomorphic language to describe His relation to human beings – the acme of His creation.

The confounding problem is the meaning of the word ‘person’ in English, which has nothing
to do with the term as the Trinitarian theological construct b, which ultimately changed the
Trinitarian idea (as a reaction to the Arian heresy of ‘Christ being a creature’) to be guilty of
being de facto tritheism. The Creator YHWH Elohim is cannot be ‘a person’, as He is cannot
be ‘a God’. He is ontologically beyond what can be called as a ‘person’. He is supra-person, as
He is supranatural, not supernatural. He is only as a person as human can understand Him and
are graciously allowed to approach in I-Thou relation (e.g. ‘Our Father’ – Mt 6:9) because of
Yeshua as the Son of the Elohim. [Hence His name is a person-name for the humans can see
Him just as He has revealed to them; it is not a personal name.] On the other hand, Yeshua was
a person, human as well as divine [as He was equal to His father (Jn 5:18) and all the fullness
of the Elohim dwelt in Him (Col 1:19; Eph 3:19).] [For Trinity Controversy, see a separate file
in the Collections #3 for Supplement III -.]

A *human being is not yet comet to be a *human person until a *name is given as to be a
functioning social being. [E.g. A baby born is not a person just yet. An unborn child is not a
person yet. In ancient times, the one in the slave class didn’t have name.] [See below in
Appendix: On *human being; *man.]

a
‘person’ – synonym and definition problem – Cf. homoiousios vs. homoousios vs. heterousia "similar
vs. same vs. different essence". substance, essence, attributes, being, nature (what a person is) vs.
person (who one is).
p. 135 Hick, Myth of God Incarnate.
<< Gore never believed that Jesus was a man with human hypostasis (‘person’ in a
technical sense, roughly equivalent to ‘individuating principle’ or ‘distinct logical
subject-of-predication’, and rather narrower in meaning than ‘individual spiritual
substance’). Gore believed that in Jesus there was only one person, and that the person of
the Word of God. So Jesus was not a man living a human life, but the divine Word living
a human life. Gore did not learn from Seeley that Jesus was a man after all. Seeley led
him to think that what had been lost was a full imaginative realization of what it was for
the divine Word to have actually lived a fully human life.>>
b
John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (1989), Ch. VI. The Concept of Person in
Trinitarian Theology, pp. 100-111.
 “Name is not a name is not a name.” [See ‘law of contradiction’]. Each one has a *proper
name given to serve for genuine identity. It is different from a *calling name, which is
something used to ‘call’ the person. [The expression ‘one is named so-and-so’ is different
from ‘one is called by so-and-so’, as often appears in the Bible passages.] A calling name
may be a personal name (‘first name’ in Western culture), a nickname, or, often, a title. No
name in the Scripture was seen to work as a mantra, a magic word which gives special power
by saying the name with correct incantation as if a magic formula (cf. kabbalah).

Though the name is written, spelt, and pronounced the way it should be, when we say ‘name’,
we are not primarily concerned with these. The name is the person; it is what the name stands
for and of the very reality of the person (the one who carries the name). The notion of ‘name’
is the central theme in the whole Scripture. It is the most important theme of the whole
Scripture (especially pertaining to God), more than anything else, such as love, faith, etc.
since without the name, nothing has significance or relevance to the truth. In that sense, when
we refer to ‘name’, we are not talking out the name itself (as is spelt or pronounced). We are
talking about our approach to the very person. Without knowing the name, without having
the name revealed, all the truth in the Scripture is just partial and incomplete. With most of
Christian writings in which ‘God’ is mentioned a few times or in innumerable times
throughout the pages, the readers are not told who the God is and who is the reality behind
such a common title. God may be discussed in detail; however, often God as such comes as
a means or an application tool for people to reach their goals in life – which often turns out
for each one to become one’s own god for power and pleasurea. A person’s name cannot be
translated into another language, but only transcribed as closely as possible phonetically.
Many of Hebrew names in the Scriptures are not properly handled in the majority of the
English bibles.

A name is there for each person – to call, to identify, and to refer with it. The expression ‘in
the name of’ does not concern how the name is precisely spelt and how it is correctly
pronounced, however these issues may be important. The word ‘name’ here is better to be
seen used metonymically. It is what the name stands for, because of who the name refers to.
Doing something in the name of someone implies that it is being done with the authority of
the person who has that name. It does not mean that something is being done by the word as
it is spelt and pronounced, as if a mantra. In some culture, people usually do not address
others by calling by their personal name, other than when there is need for identification.
The proper name is only used for the purpose to recognize and identify the person, but not
to call the person by it. [See ‘*upon the name of’.] As far as the divine name is concerned, it
goes beyond identification – who He is and what He is – to the divine Reality itself.

A *title (cf. epithet, descriptor, etc.) does tell about ‘what a person is’, but it alone does not
tell ‘who the person is’. E.g. the English word ‘God’ is a countable noun of generic notion
(with the basic meaning of ‘a mighty one’ plus. sense of transcendental, having power to
control, and worship-demanding) and is used also as a title. It is a great mistake to confuse
‘titles’ with ‘names’. Many love to list “so “many names of God” and so “many names of
Jesus”, when there is only one name for God and for Yeshua!

a
pleasure and power – on the part of humans it is pursuit of pleasure for themselves and of power over
others. On the part of Elohim, it is power for creation and pleasue with the creation.
When we say, "it's not about the name", in a way it is right. A name is not a
magic word (used as a mantra or for chanting), but it's about what the name
signifies (for reality); what it represents (identity or referent) - it's what's
behind the name!

The name Yeshua was chosen to represent the works, presence, love, wisdom,
grace, mercy and salvation of YHWH Elohim! (Phi 2:5-11)

Jn 6:28-33

"For the bread of the Elohim is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto
the world". Yeshua is THE WORK OR BREAD OF YHWH ELOHIM! IT CAME FROM
HEAVEN! It should be enough that THE WORK, PLAN, COMMANDMENTS AND
WILL CAME FROM YHWH ELOHIM for anyone not to dispute it, BUT REBELLION
FROM TRUTH RUNS DEEP in the psychic of man!

So, when YHWH Elohim GAVE THE MESSIAH A NAME it was the NAME that
represents THE WORKS OF THE FATHER! If the Father YHWH Elohim, whom the
pagans relegate to simply "god", wanted HIS WORKS to be REPRESENTED by another
name I am pretty sure he would have said so!

And when YHWH Elohim GAVE THE MESSIAH A NAME; it was the NAME that was
ABOVE (NOT EQUAL TO) EVERY name! No doubt the Father knew that man was going
to try to come up with names to represent HIS WORKS so He made it clear: THOSE
NAMES ARE COUNTERFEIT! "THERE IS ONLY ONE NAME OF AND FROM MY
WILL AND PLAN", the Father says!

Mt 7:21- 23
Mt 6:9-10 - the NAME the Father chose FROM HEAVEN to REPRESENT His Works,
plan and will — is set in Heaven AND on EARTH! That’s what we pray for?
*Personality

Personality

• Characteristics and qualities of a person. [used as a psychological term. In

most religious or theological writings as to related God and man the word
‘personality’ is actually a misnomer for ‘personhood’.] [See *self,
a
*selfhood, identity]

• A (well known) person

‘how a person acts and behaves’ – is always in social context. It is utmost important
for properly reading and interpreting the Scripture that the readers should see
persons and people in the Scripture as they were in their life milieu, far different
from modern westernized society and its mindset.

****
From. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels
(pp. 229-231) Reading Scenarios: Mark 8:27-30

a
Ref. Rom Harré (1998), The Singular Self – An Introduction to the Psychology of Personhood. (Ch. 1 ‘On
Being a Person; Problems of Self’, pp. 1-20)]
Dyadic Personality

In contemporary North American culture, we consider an individual's psychological

makeup to be the key to understanding who he or she might be. We see each individual as
bounded and unique, a more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a
dynamic center of awareness and judgment that is set over against other such individuals
and interacts with them. In the Mediterranean world of antiquity such a view of the
individual did not exist. There every person was embedded in others and had his or her
identity only in relation to these others who form a fundamental group. For most people this
was the family, and it meant that individuals neither acted nor thought of themselves as
persons independent of the family group. What one member of the family was, every
member of the family was, psychologically as well as in every other way. Mediterraneans
are what anthropologists call "dyadic," that is, they are "other-oriented" people who depend
on others to provide them with a sense of who they are.

DYADIC PERSONALITY INDIVIDUALIST PERSONALITY

(‘other-oriented’ - ARJ)
1. Much concern about the effect of one's decision
on others (beyond friends and nuclear family).
2. Persons are prepared to share material resources
with group members.
3. Persons are ready to share less tangible resources
with group members, e.g., giving up some
interesting activity for group ends.
4. Persons are willing to adopt the opinions of
others, especially those considered of high esteem
in the wider group.
5. Persons are constantly concerned about self-
presentation and loss of face, since these reflect
upon the group and one's position in the group.
6. Persons believe, feel, and experience an
interconnectedness with the whole group, so that
positive and negative behavior redounds to the
group.
7. Persons sense themselves to be intimately
involved in the life of other group members, to
make a contribution to the life of others in the
group.
8. In sum, strong-group people have "concern" for
all group members. This is a sense of oneness with
other people, a perception of complex ties and
relationships and a tendency to keep other people in
mind. The root of this concern is group survival.
(‘self-oriented’ - ARJ)
1. Much concern about the effect of one's decision
on one's present standing and future chances.
2. Those who are not part of the nuclear family are
expected to provide their own material resources.
3. Generally a person is not expected to and will not
share less tangible resources with others, often not
even with nuclear family (e.g., time to watch
weekend football game).
4. Persons are expected to form their own opinion
on a range of issues, especially politics, religion,
and sex. Expert opinion accepted only in law and
health, and this only for oneself and nuclear family.
5. Unless others are involved in one's goals, there is
little concern about one's impression on others.
Embarrassment affects the individual (and at times,
the nuclear family), but not any group at large.
6. Individualists act as though insulated from
others; what they do is not perceived to affect
others, and what others do does not affect them.
7. The individualist's life is segmented. Persons feel
involved in the life of very few people, and when
they are, it is in a very specific way (e.g., the
teacher, the lawyer, etc.).
8. In sum, weak-group people have "concern"
largely for themselves (and nuclear family, at
times). They are insulated from other people, sense
themselves independent of and unconnected to
others, and tend to think of themselves alone.
 Table 2: Contrasting U.S. Persons with Ancient Mediterraneans
The following listing offers a summary set of contrasts between individualistic U.S. persons (not all
are such) and traditional, group-embedded, dyadic Mediterraneans. The purpose of the list is to
provide a general orientation, so that considerate readers of the New Testament might have at hand a
comparative tool for access to the contexts in which both the readers and those they read about might
be situated.

fr. Bruce Malina (2001, 3rd ed.), The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural
Anthropology. pp. 76-79.
Mediterranean Preferences U.S. Preferences
General Attitudes
- People put high value on conformity. - People put high value on independence.
- Authoritarian attitudes are the social norm. - Authoritarian attitudes are a matter of
personality.
- Superiors make decisions autocratically and - Managers (and parents) make decisions after
paternalistically. consulting with subordinates.
- Subordinates are more satisfied with superiors - Subordinates are more satisfied with superiors
who give orders and directions and maintain their who allow for participation in decision making
social distance. and play down social distance.
- Subordinates prefer superiors who make - Subordinates prefer superiors who make
decisions either autocratic-paternalistically, or in decisions in a consultative and give-and-take
majority-rule fashion. style.
- Subordinates (employees) fear to disagree with - Subordinates (employees) are less afraid to
superiors and are reluctant to trust each other. disagree with superiors and show more
cooperativeness.
Attitudes toward Status Differences
- A few should be independent, most dependent. - All should be interdependent.
- The basic fact of power precedes questions of - The use of power must be legitimated and
morality; the legitimacy of power is ascribed, subject to norms of good and evil.
like status itself. - All persons have equal rights; the powerful
- Power-wielders are entitled to privileges and should downplay their might and not look the
must look as mighty as possible. part.
- Societal upheaval is always due to some
- Societal upheaval is always due to some systemic feature. The system needs fine-tuning,
"underdog," who must be punished by force and while deviants require rehabilitation.
shame. - To change the social situation, redistribute
- To change the social situation, dethrone those in power.
power. - There is always latent harmony between t11e
- There is always latent conflict between the powerful and the powerless.
powerful and the powerless. - The powerless can unite and cooperate on the
- Since low faith in outgroup persons is the norm, basis of solidarity
the powerless will never unite and/or cooperate
Group Orientation vs. Individualism
- People born into extended families that protect - Everyone is supposed to take care of himself or
them in exchange for loyalty, commitment, in- herself and his/her immediate family.
group solidarity.
- The individual is emotionally dependent on - The individual is independent of organizations
organizations and institutions, with identity based and institutions, with identity based in the
in the social system. individual.
- Private life is invaded by in-group, kin group, - Individuals have a right to a private life and to
and organizations to which one belongs; opinions their own opinions; individual initiative and
are predetermined; individual conformity and achievement are foremost, with leadership as
ideal.
group acceptance are foremost; group
membership is ideal. - People are thought about in general terms, with
- Social relations predetermined in terms of in- need to make specific friendships.
groups, with need for prestige within the in-
groups. - Value standards are to apply to all human
- Value standards differ greatly for in-group and beings; universalism is the goal.
out-group members; particularism is the norm.
Ideological/Religious Outlooks
- Religion is part and parcel of the political - Religion is separate from the political system
system and the family system. and family system.
- Activist religion with emphasis on doing - Pragmatic or introvert, meditative religions.
symbolically significant things.
- Collectivist conversions. - Individual conversions.
- Worship lays stress on group identity and - Worship lays stress on the world of the
shared group history. independent actor.
- Ideological, theory-oriented thinking is popular. - Pragmatic, empirically oriented thinking is
popular.
- Activities more structured, with more explicit - Activities are less structured, with fewer
(written) rules and with a larger number of explicit (written) rules, with more generalists or
specialists involved in details, seeking amateurs. Specialists are more involved with
organizational uniformity. strategy, with pluriform organizations.
- Acquiescence in the possession of absolute - Ongoing search for relative truth.
truth.
- Belief in inequality of sexes. - Belief in equality of the sexes.
- Appeal of "tough" religious currents, - Appeal of "tender" religious currents,
philosophies, and ideologies. philosophies, and ideologies.
- Sympathy for the successful achiever, heroes - Sympathy for the unfortunate, heroes who do
who endure pain, hardship, suffering. good for the sake of other, less fortunate persons.
On the Gender Division of Labor
- Machismo (showy masculinity) is the ideal. - Gender equality of opportunity and reward is
the ideal.
- Gender roles in society are to be clearly - Gender roles in society should be fluid.
differentiated.
- Males must behave assertively, and females - Males need not be assertive but can also take
must always be caring. caring roles; females too can be assertive.
- Males should dominate in all social settings. - Differences in gender roles should not mean
differences in power.
These comparative lists have been culled from:
Hofstede, Geert. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Cross-Cultural
Research and Methodology Series 5. Sage, 1984.
Malina, Bruce J. "Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A Guide for U.S. Consumers." Biblical
Theology Bulletin 19 (1989):127-141.
_ _ . "Mary - Woman of the Mediterranean: Mother and Son." Biblical Theology Bulletin 20 (1990):54-64.
_ _ . "Is There a Circum-Mediterranean Person? Looking for Stereotypes." Biblical Theology Bulletin 22
(1992):66-87.
*Personification

Personification is a common figure-of-speech literary device to represent a thing or abstraction as

a person. In most cases, it is easy to recognize as a literary device. An example is ‘love’ in 1Co
13:4ff. No one would mistake from such expression (e.g. ‘love endures’) that ‘love’ is meant here
as a person!

It is not in the Greek text itself but may appear in English translation – e.g. 1Jn 5:6-8 the phrase
with a verb ‘bear witness’ (‘give testimony’). When it is translated as ‘who bear witness’ instead
of ‘that bear witness’, it misleads to present ‘Spirit’, ‘water’, and ‘blood’ all as persons,
compounded by the grammatical gender incongruity. Grammatical gender masculine does not tell
a word is a person, as in the Trinitarian doctrine when ‘Spirit’ is a person, separate from other two
(Father and Son). [Cf. Unbiblical useless arguments such as ‘What is the gender of the H.S.?’, ‘Is
the H.S. female?’, ‘H.S., he or she? – anthropomorphic ideas.]

However, the most problematic is a non-biblical personhood of the HOLY SPIRIT, which is a real
source of controversies and contentions (all unnecessary) – doctrinally and theologically speaking.
See elsewhere for further detail for ‘* holy spirit’. [Again, not to confuse the word ‘person’ with
the term ‘person’ of a Trinitarian theological construct, which happened to be translation of Latin
persona ‘mask (as of an actor)– see above.]

*Anthropomorphism

[Cf. The term “anthropomorphism” in its restricted sense refers to the representation of God with
the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation
of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with
the activities of humanity. … however, the term anthropomorphism is used in a more general sense
to include all these aspects. www.equip.org/article/recognizing-and-interpreting-anthropomorphic-
language/ www.cblibrary.net/schaff_h/an/anthropomorphism.htm ]

Anthropomorphism is the representation of objects (especially of a God-being) – attributing human

characteristics, forms, attributes, faculties, or behavior to non-human entities, such as a god, animal,
object, or abstraction. The quintessential example is that ‘God has a name’. The quintessential
example is that ‘God has a name’ and ‘God does (create, say, reveal, love, etc.). Without
anthropomorphic language, we human cannot think, talk, and understand Elohim the Most High,
as He is ‘Being’ itself – ‘Ultimate Being’, ‘Being beyond being’. Relation of God and man – the
Way to Father (to know, to hear, to approach and for Him to come to us) is what Yeshua is. (Jn
14:6).

‘God is not like a man’ (Num 23:19), but, for instruction of the many, he is like a man. –
Philo [quoted in David Clines, “Yahweh and the God of the Christian Theology”, Theology
Sep. 1980 83 (p. 325)]

Anthropomorphic languages about God is closely related to literary device of personification in

which the God, the supra-personal being, is being pictured as a personal being, similar to a human
being.

The danger of such personifying God is that God, the Ultimate Reality of absolute otherness, is being brought
down to the level of mere mortals. Fear and awe of God is put aside and only warm-feeling of God of love
is what people try to experience and entertain. His name is brushed aside; he is turned into a God of deistic
Cosmic being (of our new age spirit) to please every sort of people and their taste. It is going with the flow
– accommodate and acquiesce to the fashion of times – a syncretism sweetened with prosperity gospels and
psychologic manipulation, a God created in the image of human minds and spirits. [A hint: yes, there is
‘Jesus’, but there is no ‘Yeshua’ nor ‘YHWH’ in their language and mind.]

[Cf. ‘eisegesis’ ‘proof texts’ ‘anachronism’]

*grammatical gender vs. third person singular pronoun

[See WB # 1 for <Grammatical problem with English and Greek articles> - related to
'God' and 'a god' of Jn 1:1c translation issue.]

[See in the Appendix below for On the English word ‘God’.]

[Note: ‘Ref.’ means some reading material I have found useful, not only to offer
plausible solutions to problems but also to bring up unanswered questions and to
present challenges. Not all written in there are relevant to the topics under the
discussion here. Not all written can be correct, right or accurate. The readers should
exercise their own judgment to make use of them. Be diligent to study and compare!

To have terms and words clearly define is one of most important preliminary step
for reading/understanding/interpreting, esp. when dealing with theology and
doctrines. It should not be jargon – religious, theological, or church.

Those to be at the top of the list of the words and terms are:
(1) ‘person’
‘What makes a person a person?’
An entity which can be logically and linguistically perceived in human
mind as a person should prove to be self-conscious. It has to have a proper
name; it should be able to say explicitly ‘I am who I am’.

Confusingly and misleadingly it is used as a theological jargon ‘person’

(often capitalized as ‘Person’), which is a Latin translate of a theological
Greek term, in the Trinitarian doctrine, which is actually binitarian (as is
for the Jehovah’s Witnesses), as the holy Spirit, which is simply the Spirit
of the Elohim, cannot be equated as a person. Cf. a literary device of
personification should not be read literally for being of a person.

Note: almost in all occasions of theological and doctrinal argument the

word ‘personality’ (which is a term of psychology, a set of
characteristics/qualities of a person) is incorrectly used (e.g. as in
‘personality of the Holy Ghost’) in places of the term ‘personhood’.
[Ref.
www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/what_is_a_person/what_is_a_person.php
See a copy in IRENT Supplement III (Collections #3)]
 (2) ‘name’ – here we are dealing with the name(s) of a person; should not be
confused with epithets or titles.
(3) ‘god’- see ‘* God problem’ ‘God confusion’ in this article.

Examples of proper names and titles

– see under ‘* Jesus’ ‘* Christ’ for detail.
• ‘Jesus’ for ‘Yeshua’ (← ‘deliverance’ ‘salvation’)
• ‘Christ’ for ‘Mashiah (> Messiah)’;
• ‘Jesus Christ’ < Yeshua Mashiah; (Cf. ‘Lord Yeshua Mashiah’)
• ‘James’ for Yaakob, etc.

Examples of words translated in IRENT differently from other translations:

• Transliteration of Hebrew is adopted as much as possible for Hebrew/Aramaic
person name – Mattithyahu (> Matthew), Shimon (> Simon), Kefa (> Cephas),
etc. A notable example is ‘Yaakob’ > ‘Jacob’ >> ‘James’]
• Torah-sage > ‘law-expert’; /x: ‘lawyer’; (Gk. nomikos - Lk 7:30 etc.)
Torah-teacher (Gk. nomodidaskaloi - Lk 5:17); /x: doctor of the law; /x: teacher
of the law; /x: expert in the law;
• Yehudim (pl.) > Jews; Yehudi (sing.); > Jew [With Hebrew loanword IRENT
effectively bypasses the problem word ‘Jews’ which is too complicated to solve and
suffers anachronism with wrong word association, contrary to the real sense in the text
in that period of time and history]; [people of the Tribe of Yehudah (/Yudah; /Judah).]
[cf. a Judaic (cf. a Jew); a Jewish; an Israelite; a Hebrew; a Judean (native of Judea);
‘/x: Judean authorities’; Cf. a (modern) Israeli] [Cf. anti-Semitic ethnic slur
(ethnophaulism).] [The words ‘Jew’ ‘Jews’ ‘Jewish’ do not belong to the translated text
of the English Bibles.]

• Yehudism > Judaism [Gal 1:13, 14; /xxx: Judeanism – Danker’s, (p. 177) – '
Judean religion'?]
A short list of words with details discussed elsewhere:

• *priest a – The word ‘priest’ is retained in IRENT, though it is now associated with
Catholic and other churches with quite different meaning, usage, and significance, and word
association than those in the Biblical times.

• fellow brother; fellow brethren – The word ‘brother’ when it occurs outside the
Gospels, it refers to a follower of the Mashiah (> Messiah) in common fellowship.
Traditionally it is simply translated as ‘brother’. In plural form, brethren (as in KJV)
is kept instead of brothers. [To have its plural word translated as ‘brothers and sisters’
is a result of gender confusion in the Western society. It is totally inappropriate for
the Bible and frivolous to the confusion of the readers, bringing a wrong sense into
the text.]

• the Spirt; the holy Spirit; holy spirit: Different capitalization in IRENT. Not
capitalized as ‘the holy Spirit’ in IRENT. The word ‘Spirit’ is capitalized when
it is used in the sense of ‘Spirit of the Elohim’.

a
E.g. kohen (pl. kohanim) = priest (priests); head-Kohanim = chief priests [‘chief’ with a sense
of only one chief]; high priests; leading priests. Kohen haGadol = the High Priest; the Chief Priest.
kehunnah - priesthood, priestly office/service; 7x (Lk 1:9; 3:2; Heb 7:11, 12, 24; 1Pe 2:5, 9);
[Note: some Bible translations use both phrases ‘chief priest(s)’ and ‘high priest(s)’ – cf. in Gospels
and Hebrews]
C. Names and Titles
Someone may be referred to, addressed to, or called by a name or a term (titles, epithets,
various offices, descriptors, etc.

Only ‘person’ has name – ‘person name’ (or ‘personal name’). A person has one name -
proper name; anything else is like a nickname.’. To say that a non-person (e.g. things,
concepts, ideas) has ‘name’ is only possible when it is in the sense of a designative or
label, not a personal name.

Name or Title

word or term.

Cf. ‘notion’, ‘concept’

Cf. words, vocabulary, ‘jargon’, specialty words; technical words

‘meaning’, ‘sense’, ‘definition’.

Cf. ‘usage’, ‘referencing’, metonym

Cf. connotation vs. denotation

name or title:

Cf. ‘epithets’a, ‘labels’ and ‘descriptives’ (for ones’ officesb).

Name or Title: The terms ‘name’ and ‘titles’ of one example of how we often
indiscriminately use them. E.g. ‘many names of God’ is either (1) names of different
religions or languages; (2) or many ‘titles’ for it. A name may appear in a title, such as
of a book. A subtle consequence is to dilute out and miss the significance of the name
itself which bears on our faith. Name is for ‘who the person is’; not to be confused with
‘title’ for ‘what the person is’

Name of a person in the Bible serves four purposes: (edited on the entry 'Name' p.
84 – edited; John Eddison (1978), Key Words to Bible Truth.

1. To identify. This was their simplest and most obvious use, and perhaps their only
one in English today; for a name is a personal epithet > label used to identify and
refer to someone as is to something.
a
‘epithet’ = a word or phrase characterizing a person or thing
b
‘office’ = a person’s position of authority and responsibility in an organization:
 2. To signify. Much more importantly, when a name was given to someone in the
Bible, it was nearly always associated with some experience or even of great
significance. Abraham's new name indicated the part he was to play as the father of
a nation (Gen l7:5, 6); Yaakob's marked a turning point in his life (Gen 32:28), and
so did Simon's (Jn 1:42); while the name 'Yeshua' ['Yah is salvation'; not 'Jesus']
signified the work he had come to do (Mt 1:21).

3. To typify. In a metaphorical sense the 'name' of someone often represents or

stands for his person or character. It could imply dignity (Phi 2:9, 10), as when we
say, 'He has made a great name for himself, authority (Jn 14:14), as when we say,
'Please use my name', and integrity (Psa 8:9 AV), as, for example, when we say
'This firm has an excellent name'. It was because of all that it stood for. that the
Third Commandment forbids us to take the name of God in vain (Ex 20:7); for to
use it in a cheap or empty way is to denigrate what it represents, namely his perfect
character of holiness, love and power.

4. To unify. When a woman marries, she loses her own surname and takes that of
her husband, and this is a sign of a new relationship between them (Isa 4:1); and it
is interesting to notice that God's people are 'called by the name of the Lord' (Deu
28:9,10; Num 6:27; Isa 43:7). The followers of Christ bear the name of him, an
honor of which they must be worthy (2Tm 2:19) and for which they must be
prepared to suffer (1Pe 4:14).

'Name' – to be honored, sanctified, not to be shamed or blasphemed. Not a title to

be called out – ARJ;

The expression ‘call upon the name’ does not mean ‘calling Him by name’. No one calls
one’s own father by the name! The father is referred to but not addressed to by his name.
We do not worship nor believe in ‘the name’ as such; but the divine reality. Nor do we
believe in ‘God’ and worship ‘God’ as such, as the word is simply a title with generic
notion. As an inside language it may be acceptable, but by itself it does not make clear
about which God, what God, etc. The common English word ‘God’ fails to point to the
Creator in the Scripture and is not adequate to render Gk. ho theos (the God); here English
convention does not use the definite article for God, except inconsistently when the article
seems to particularize it (e.g. Mk 12:26; 2Co 1:3; etc.)

There is only one name for the Elohim, the true God of the Scripture; there is only one
name for Mashiah. All others are titles or descriptors, not names. A human name points
to one’s identity for function of identification and recognizing and used also for
calling/addressing. However, the divine name points to the reality behind the name and
revealing who He is; not for identification and nor for calling/addressing.
 What’s in the name?

Name – a word to designate a person, place, or tangible or intangible object. In the

Scripture it is person’s name that concerns us. Heb. sem; Gk. onoma a.

The name of a person stands for the reality and the character of the one who carries the
name, hence his power and authority. See below ‘what’s in a name’p] [The Name and the
Title are not mantras, something to conjure someone up with.]

Q: What is name? (rather than ‘what is a name?’b)

Q: What does it mean by ‘name’ – (should not be confused with titles or calling
names).
Q: What is in a name?
Q: Does a name tell something about the person carrying it?
Q: Does or how does a name influence a person's character? c.

There is only one name for the Elohim; one name Yeshua. Often titles, epithets,
appellations, and descriptors are confused as the word ‘name’: E.g. ‘Many names of
Jesus’, ‘Many names of God’.

Words and synonyms related with ‘name’

[Related terms: label, epithet; title, calling name; appellation; symbol, designator,
identifier; pointer.

Many synonyms and related words for ‘name’:

nomen, moniker, appellation, epithet, personal name, cognomen, nickname,
byname, sobriquet, agnomen; last name, surname, family name’ birth name, first
name, forename, Christian name, given name, maiden name (cf. Lucy Stone
League),, married name; anthroponym, autonym, patronym, matronym,
hypocorism, pet name, pseudonym, noms de guerre, alias, tria nomina, praenomen,
nomen, and cognomen; code name, cover, pen name, stage name, nom de plume, brand,
trade name; signature, , handle, sign, mark, icon, symbol, badge, tag, label, title,
classification, designation, rubric, eponym, common name; genus, denomination, class,
species, type; anonym; endonym, exonym; onomastics [study of proper names –

a
NAME (Heb. sem; Gk. onoma) - The designation of a person or place. Names carry more value
and importance in biblical than in modern usage. Not only may a name identify, but it frequently
expresses the essential nature of its bearer; to know the name is to know the person (cf. Psa 9: 10
[MT 11]). – Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1987)
b
what is a name - www.jimwegryn.com/Names/What%20is%20a%20name.htm
c
person’s name analysis (as in kabalarian style – a common practice in the oriental society.
 anthroponyms (person) and toponyms (place name)], demonym (a term for the residents
of a locality), agronym (of a field or pasture), dromonym (a transportation route),
drymonym (of a forest or grove), econym (of a village or town), limnonym (of a lake or
pond), and necronym (of a cemetery or burial ground).

The titlea signifies what the person is (as a term to denote person’s role, ‘mask’, or function
with which to relate with others). With descriptive expressive content, it is of referent
function only. Not to say the named person being identical to the title. Often used as a
‘calling name’, a term used in anthropology and linguistics as the name by which a person
is normally identified in addressing or conversation. Some titles are divine titles (e.g. the
Savior). That a person is given divine b titles does not mean that he is a God. [E.g. 'our
Savior' as to the Elohim as well as Yeshua - Cf. examples of crux interpretum – Tit 2:13;
2Pe 1:1]

The person name (naming belonging to a person), on the other hand, is not same as title,
but it is who the person is – the identity. Thus, the name is not simply a word, but IS the
very person. It is of identity and essential reality. It is by way of the name as well as the
face that a person presents one’s soul in its existence (the whole being of self) to others.
Names are essential and called upon for identification (to tell who one is). However, most
commonly, the word ‘name’ is used not substitute of the name spelt, written and inscribed,
but as what it stands for and what it carries with (as to authority and reality of the person).
The central role that names play in biblical narratives and histories (as often in literature)
cannot be overemphasized. The meaning of a person has its own significance (especially
in Hebrew names). English word ‘name’ has a very broad usage and extended meanings
Hebrew word ‘shem’ may carry various senses – a person’s character, fame/refutation,
glory, and memorial. The name for a person is a totally different concept from names used
to designate things or ideas. The name of a person is not confused with titles, a number of
which can be attached to a person. All the names of human persons are given by someone
else. Many names of God (or rather ‘God-being’) are given by men and are not personal
proper names but labels, descriptors, or epithets, and sometimes titles (calling-names).c

In Judaic practice, the expression ‘the Name’ (HaShem) is for designation of God and used
in place of His personal name. In the Scripture, as throughout the Semitic world, a name
carries significance beyond that of its meaning or its use as a title.3

a
‘title’ – One may carry several titles. E.g. the titles which are carried by Yeshua are many and some of them
are same as the titles for Elohim Himself. Here these titles should not be confused as ‘name’, thus erroneous
conclusion that the two (YHWH and Yeshua) are the same and identical person, a linguistic absurdity and
sophistry, throwing the title ‘Son of God’ completely out of their mind. Pastors are shepherds, Same take on
a title of 'Reverend', which properly belongs to the God Himself. Does such a divine title make them a God?
b
The word *divine – 'of God, from God' – as such does not apply to God Himself. 'Divine God' is an
oxymoron. It can be applied to anyone and anything other than God the Almighty. E.g. the name of God; the
throne of God, the power, etc. God cannot be ascribed as 'a divine person'. Only a human person can be divine
person – Divine Man, as Yeshua was. [See in WB #1 Words, Words and Words.]
c
E.g. God, Gott (German), theos (Greek), 천주 (Ko. Catholic) = 天主 (Tīanzhǔ - Chinese; ‘Lord
of Heaven’; cf. 上帝 상제); かみ (kami, 神- Japanese), Allah (Islam), Brahman (Hinduism) – all
are titles.
What could be the most important word or words in the Scripture (aside from ‘proper
names’)? Would it be ‘love’, ‘life’, ‘light’, ‘spirit’, ‘faith’, ‘grace’, ‘law’, ‘justice’,
‘judgment’, ‘salvation’, ‘creation’? All of these are essential. However, the most
fundamental word on which all these are woven together is ‘name’. This is the single most
important thematic word in the whole Scripture. Without the name nothing can come out
of the Scripture. The divine person-name (> ‘personal name’) is not only for referencing,
representation and identification but more importantly for revelation of who He is. Without
God’s name revealed no truth can be true. [Such name itself cannot be something to be
worshiped.]a So prevalent and fervent among the People of the Book, all the dissensions
and divisions, dogmatism, doctrinarism, as well as sectarianism, heresies, and political
contentions can in fact be traced from their ignorance on the revealed name and from their
sheer ignoring the significance of the name with only lip service on the name as shown in
their religious tradition. It is not difficult to see that ultimately, they find themselves
disconnected from the very root of all – Hebraic root of their Bible and their faith. b

Nothing is important for a person other than the name belongs to him. To honor someone
is to keep the name honored. Honoring God’s namec is the single guideline we have for
the life of every soul as made in the image of the Elohim. The first stone-tablet of the
Ten Commandments (Exo 20:1-11; //Deu 5:4-15) is the beginning of all the teaching,
instruction, and guidance (= ‘Torah’ in its basic sense) and lies in one theme – ‘Honor
His name as He himself has revealed’. This exactly corresponds to the first in the Lord’s
Prayer (Mt 6:9 //Lk 11:2 in the sense of ‘Our Heavenly Father¡ Your name shall be
honored’ rather than ‘You name should be made special, sacred, sanctified, or hallowed’,
if we ever understand whatever these English phrases, modern and archaic, might
mean.). This is exactly. When martyrs die it is to keep God’s name honored, not so much
to keep his ‘faith’, as if ‘faith’ is something precious and valuable. When one follows
the commands, it is done in the very name – to keep the name honored and with the
authority granted from Him. God’s name is not what we pray.d

To honor the name is far beyond having concern of how it should be spelt and of how it
should be properly pronounced. It is not about how to keep it ‘safely’ from uttering it in
a manner unworthy to the name (‘taking up in vain’). Not to keep the name honored

a
or used as a mantra to invoke to tap power from. Cf. so-called Sacred Name Movement.
b
We all are in urgent need to get back and keep coming back, not just ‘back to the Bible’, but,
through the Bibles, back to the Scripture itself. It should not be read as something written in
Church language, but in the original language to the original audience. A danger still lurks for
us to be carried away and read it the way we want, not to hear what the Scripture says. [Tony
Evans, http://youtu.be/HmfFW0gPuyE (Jesus Through the Bible)]
c
On honoring God’s name: In the Scripture things are good or not (i.e. worthy or not) only so
simply by whether God’s name is honored or dishonored. (Cf. Mt 6:9 //Lk 11:2; Cf. Exo 20:7.)
See elsewhere here for ‘good things vs. *unworthy things’.
d
‘Praying the names of God’ is a title of a book. Probably misnamed (or rather title). We do not pray
God’s name; we pray to Elohim whose name is YHWH.
means to be meticulous in keep uttering and putting down on the writing on every
occasion, everywhere and on every place. Both cannot escape to be seen as affront to
His name.

The name is a pointer to what the name stands for, that is, the identity and reality
signified by the name. To ‘know’ experientially the revealed Name is the beginning of
faith in the One whom the revealed name points to.a

If we take a common example of father-son relation, ‘father’ (to his son) is not a name, but a
title. His name = the person Father. That he is the father is far more than that he has a name to
be identified with, but he comes as father in such special relation. Would anyone call one’s own
father by his name – as he thinks to honor him by doing that whenever, everywhere, to everyone?

The name when put on one’s lips or in letter is to refer to the reality behind, but not to call out
or apply to whatever one can think of. The same position holds as well for attempt to use God’s
personal name as a translation word in the Bible vis-à-vis His titles, Lord or God.

A common expression in the writings by biblical scholars and writers, ‘God has many
names’b the word ‘name’ does not mean ‘name’ but epithets or titles. The God of the
Scripture (the Elohim) has only one name, the name which He himself revealed, that is,
YHWH.

a
‘to know the name’ is frighteningly important in our life where one can only exist to other – engaging
in dynamic interaction. In any human society it is the beginning of a relationship in which even ‘love’
shows its existence. [E.g. to go by “on a first name basis” in the Western culture is sourly missing in the
oriental culture.]
b
‘God has many names’ – Google search shows almost a half million hits. There are quite a number of
books written on the theme. What is seen in a book by John Hicks (1982), God has many names, is the
God (=Elohim), mistaken having many names, is to be replaced by a nameless God [s.v.] of religious
pluralism. Note the term ‘name’ [of a person] is often not discriminated from ‘titles’ or ‘descriptors’ of
that person, including of ‘God’.
What's in a Name? https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/an-introduction-to-the-names-
yehoshuajoshua-yeshua-jesus-and-yeshu

Modern onomastics warns against a dilettantish approach to the subject that is only interested
in the meaning of a name and its etymology. The meaning of a name is conditioned by a
number of factors, historical, religious, cultural, sociological, political and social, and the
naming custom of the milieu in question. This applies to the name-giver's motive as well as
to the surrounding community's response to the name. Add to this a number of collective and
individual emotional, psychological, aesthetic factors, and local naming traditions.

We must assume that roughly the same factors were in force in a Jewish milieu in the centuries
about the beginning of our era. While etymology, in a modern context, often plays a very
secondary part, there can be no doubt that it is much more important in a Jewish context about
the beginning of our era. The rabbis have much to say about this. And yet the etymological
and lexical approaches must be supplemented by other approaches.

The name-bearer's history is one of these. The response to a given name is definitely
determined by the history of the name-bearer. In May 1945 no child was given the name of
Adolf! In the case of Jesus, we may assume that his disciples' relationship to him influenced
their relationship to his name. I know it is difficult to argue when we are talking about
emotions, but there is no reason to consider the people of the first Church to be more blunted
than others. It is difficult to imagine that the name of Jesus should have been a neutral name
to those who came to faith in him as the resurrected Lord.

Also, the context plays an important part. For example, if it is possible, in the New Testament,
to find semantic fields and compounds where the name Jesus appears in a position which,
according to the Old Testament's linguistic pattern, is reserved for JHWH, it becomes possible
to understand the theological value of the name of Jesus, the Christological overtones which
are associated with it in the New Testament, and the connotations in the minds of the
Christians of the first century.

Yeshua, Yeshuah vs. Yeshu, Yesh in Ivrit (Hebrew)

Yehoshua is formally a theophoric name with the abbreviated tetragrammaton JHWH as its
first element. The first man to bear the name is bin Nun, who was first called Hoshea. The
change from Hoshea to Yehoshua (Num 13:16) was easily effected: it only took the prefixing
of the little Yod. With a stroke, the letter Yod was given satisfaction. When the name Abram
became Abraham (Gen 17:5) and Sarai became Sarah (Gen 17:15), the letter Yod was split
up into two He's (2 x 5 = 10), which the letter Yod complains of to God (according to Midr
Gen R XLVII,1). But with the name Yehoshua Yod gets satisfaction: …
Apart from bin Nun a few others in the biblical tradition bear the name of Yehoshua, among
them Jozadak's son who, together with Zerubbabel, returned to Palestine from Babylon. Both
are positive figures in the biblical tradition -- and therefore their names are also "good". Both
 these Yehoshuas are mentioned by the long forms of the name, Yehoshua, in the prophets
Haggai and Zechariah while Ezra and Nehemiah use a short form, namely Yeshua, and what
is most remarkable is that in Neh 8:17 the short form Yeshua is used about bin Nun, which is
clear evidence that the long form Yehoshua is being replaced by the short form Yeshua. In
times to come this short form was to become the dominant one.

…What is safe to say is that inscriptions and discoveries of ossuaries from Palestine show that
the form Yeshua was a quite common personal name, and that this Yeshua corresponds to the
Greek "Iesous". Philo is familiar with the factual meaning of the Greek form, which he renders
"soteria kuriou" (the Lord's salvation).

… I have not been able to trace an inscription from New Testament times which has the long
form Yehoshua.

Of course, the literary name Yehoshua was not forgotten by those who were familiar with the
biblical scriptures. But in this connection, it may also be mentioned that the Qumran scrolls
have examples of bin Nun's name being rendered Yeshua (e.g. Testimonium 4QT 21). If we
move on to the time of Bar Kokhba, the rediscovered correspondence material shows that
several of the leading people among Bar Kokhba's followers bore the name of Yeshua. One of
the less known is Yeshua ben Yeshua (Y. Yadin, Bar Kokhba. The rediscovery of the legendary
hero ..., Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 270-271; 222-253).

Taken together, our evidence clearly indicates that the name of Jesus of Nazareth was Yeshua
and not Yehoshua. The name had an Ayin at the end. Further, it is worthy of note that over the
first 100 years after Yeshua of Nazareth it is not possible to demonstrate any significant change
of the Jewish nomenclature as to the use of Yeshua and the corresponding Greek Iesous.
The Divine names and titles:
Elsewhere discussed in detail for problem of translation and for rationale and validity of
IRENT solution. Here is a list with brief notes.

• *the Elohima > God

[IRENT consistently throughout N.T renders the arthrous Greek ho theos (the God) (the
true God of the Scripture) as ‘the Elohim’, not as ‘God’, as our English convention does
not use the definite article for this, as in most cases as when the word refers to the Creator.b

[Exception – vocative; modified (e.g. Elohim our Savior; Elohim the Most High, YHWH
Elohim, Elohim the Father, etc.) – the definite article in English is dropped for ‘Elohim’.]

[Cf. anarthrous ‘theos’ → as ‘God’ ‘a God-being’ or ‘a god’ as the context allows.] [See
below for ‘Translating God for Elohim’.]

• YHWH

The word ‘YHWH’ in the Pentateuch:

• as ‘YHWH Elohim’ from Gen 2:42 52 72 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22; 3:1, 8,
9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23.
• In a longer phrase - Gen 28:13 ‘YHWH the Elohim of Abraham your father
and the Elohim of Yitshak’; in Exo 3:15 as in the phrase ‘YHWH the Elohim
of your forefather, the Elohim of Abram, Elohim of Yitshak and Elohim of
Yaakob’ (which is quoted in Mt 22:32; //Mk 12:26; //Lk 20:37); and ‘YHWH
the Elohim of Israel’ – Exo 5:1; 34:23; ‘YHWH our Elohim’ – Exo 5:3;
10:25, 26; ‘YHWH your Elohim’ – Exo 10:17; 34:24, 26; Lev 18:2, 14, 30;
19:2, 3, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; 20:24, 23:22, 28; 25:17; 55; 26:1, 32; Num 10:9;
‘YHWH my Elohim’ – Num 22:18; ‘YHWH their Elohim’ – Lev 26:44;
‘YHWH the Elohim of Hebrews’ – Exo 10:3.
• As ‘YHWH Gen 4:1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 15, 16; 5:29; 6:3, 5, 7, 8; 7:1, 5, 16; 8:20,
12; 9:26, and so on. From Exo 3:2 and on till the end of Num 23:3.
• With the word ‘name’ associated with YHWH – Gen 4:26; 12:8; 13:4 and
26:25 as in the phrase ‘to call on the name of YHWH’. Exo 6:3 ‘my name
YHWH’; Lev 24:16 ‘YHWH’s name’.

a
www.myredeemerlives.com/namesofgod/adonai-elohim.html
www.messianictorah.org/en/pdf/Chapter%203.pdf
www.gci.org/God/Elohim3
www.gci.org/god/elohim4 Is Elohim a plural word?
(Elohim vs. El; Adonai vs. Adon).
b
[2Co 4:4 ‘the god of this age’]
 • *Adonai vs. YHWH vs. LORD > Lord

For Gk Kurios as a title of the Elohim (the God of the Scripture) and Yeshua (the risen
Mashiah) in the N.T., most English translations inattentively render it as ‘Lord’ (while
in OT as 'the LORD'). In not a few number of places this leads the readers to confusion
as to who is referred to.a

Freed from doctrinal or theological constraints IRENT takes in only a linguistic and
literary consideration, which is based on the principle of logic and reasoning.

Thus, when the word is found to refer to the very God who has revealed His own name
in the Scripture, it is rendered not as ‘Lord’ as most English Bibles do,

(1) but as YHWHb in a limited number of places, where His person-

namec itself needs to be known. d
(2) in most places, as ‘Adonai’ (which is the way His name is vocalized
as in the tradition of Masoretic text of TaNaKh. Comparable to
‘LORD’ in some English translations of O.T.

a
A typical example of confusion with ‘Lord’ having two different referents: Mt 22:43-45
where David is quoted calling the Mashiah as ‘Kurios’ (Lord or Master) and it the quoted
passage has the same word in Greek twice, one which is referred in the TaNaKh to YHWH
Elohim (as in LXX) and another one to the Mashiah for David’s.
b
YHWH (/x: YHVH), the so-called Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh).
This is seen as kurios in LXX, though a few early mss show the Tetragrammaton in paleo-
Hebrew script). In the Old Testament of English Bibles, some renders as Jehovah (ASV,
NWT, pronounced as je-HO-vā) and as Yahweh (e.g. JB and NJB, pronounced as ya-WHE).
Many simply follow the style of LXX, rendering it as LORD (all in capitals). KJV has it as
Jehovah only in a few places. See on the correct pronunciation in this file (‘Yahueh’).
c
The phrase ‘person-name’ in distinction to ‘personal name’, denotes a name of being of
person-in-relation; not as used for a name as of a person of such as a human person. Elohim
has a person-same, not a person name, a name which belongs to a person.
d
His name has to be known and should not be left buried in the Greek language and thoughts.
It is so, not because a translator has decided to do so. Cf. Jn 17:6, 26 – here again it is much
more than having a focus and attentions on the spelling and the pronunciation of the name
itself and how often the name should appear on religious pages and speeches so that the name
is to our satisfaction to become well known. [The phrase ‘person name’, instead of ‘personal
name’, means the name of a person, not a human person, but a being of person-in-relation.]
 • Master > Lord.

[When the Greek word Kurios refers to Yeshua, IRENT renders it as ‘Master’ in
the Gospels. The work has no inherent sense of 'divine being', 'divine person'
or 'God' who is to be worshiped. The word ‘Lord’ is used only when this title is
applied to the risen Yeshua, e.g. in N.T. other than outside the four Gospels]

• Yeshua > Jesus (= Iesus in KJV 1611 with J used for capital I in Gothic font.)

• Mashiah (> Messiah) > ‘Christ’

[IRENT do not use the English word Christa as a translation word. Note: it puts
in all caps as ‘MASHIAH’ where the Greek text has Messias transliterating the
Hebrew word – in two places in N.T., Jn 1:42; 4:25. These are the only places
the word ‘Messias’ appear in KJV NT translation, with the rest as ‘Christ’.

• messiah > ‘Christ’ [rendered as such when it refers to self-claimed messiahs or

false messiahs] (e.g. Mt 24:5, 23; //Mk 13: 21)

[The Greek Christos is translation of a Hebrew word meaning the ‘anointed one’.
To translate it as Christ, especially within the Gospels, is anachronistic, since
the word ‘Christ’ became to be equated to Yeshua himself and, moreover it is
now burdened with too much unscriptural overtone as acquired through the
history of Christian religions. It was Yeshua who came as the Mashiah (> the
Messiah) of YHWH Elohim (Lk 2:26).

Translation vs. transliteration vs. transcription:

Since personal names and other proper names cannot be translated, and only be
transliterated. Transliteration of these should accurately and closely reflect the
original as possible and not content with modern equivalent in English speaking
culture and society. Otherwise, it would be anachronism and bring ideas and word-
pictures which are unbiblical and alien to the Scripture. The pronunciation of the
properly translated name cannot be changed; only glyphs (written letter form) may
change when the phonetic value changes, e.g. Iesus = Jesus - of originally same
sound with variation of font. When the sound of ‘j’ came into English and the
pronunciation of the sound changed, the name should have been written with
different glyphs to keep the sound same, as Iesus, not Jesus. Instead the spelling
remained with different sound. The result is to loss of firm linguistic as well as
theological connection to what the name originally represents and stand for. The
name became just a convenient religious name to fit in their theology.
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_transliteration for problem in transliterating
Hebrew words.]a

• Eliyahu > Elijah; Yosef > Joseph; Yeshayahu > Isaiah; Yisrael > Israel
• Mattithyahu > Matthew; Yaakob > Jacob; /x: James; Kayafa > Caiaphas
• Elisheba > Elizabeth; Mariam > Mary;
• Yehudah > Judah, Jude, etc. for all except one, Judas, the betrayer of his master.

• Shimon > Simon;

• Kefa > Cephas [Cf. ‘KEFA’ when the Greek text has Aramaic word transliterated –
same case for ‘MASHIAH’]
• Kefa, Petros > Peter; (only one place in Jn 1:43 ‘Petros’ is used when the text itself
introduces the Greek word to tell its meaning.)b
• Markos > Mark [Yohanan Markos (Act 12:12 (son of Mariam), 25; 15:37, 39) [Col 4:10 (Markos,
BarNabba’s cousin) [Cf. 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24; 1Pe 5:13.] [= Markos of the Gospel of Markos]

• Yohan, Yohanan > John

‘John’ in English (a very common name); Iōannēs in Gk, which is transliteration of
Hebrew Yoḥanan, a very common name). For the sake of distinguishing several people
with this common name, IRENT renders it as follows.
(1) John – only in the title of the Gospel, the three Epistles, and the Revelation Not to
be taken same as the Apostle.
(2) Yohan – only for the Apostle. This name of him appears in the Synoptic Gospels,
NOT in the G-Jn! [a disciple (Apostle) of Yeshua. A Zebedee’s son and a brother
of Yaakob (x: James).]
(3) Yohanan – for all others
(a) the Baptizer. Not as ‘John the Baptist’;
(b) Yohanan Markos - Act 12:12 (son of Mariam), 25; 15:37 = Yohanan (13:5b, 13b).
(c) A relative of a Kohen haGadol – Act 4:6;
(d) another variant name of Yonah, father of Shimon Kefa (‘Petros’ > ‘Peter’) – Jn
1:42; 21:15, 16, 17. – only in footnote for mss. (Cf. Mt 16:17 bar-Yonah);
(e) Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8; - probable same as the name in the title = the author (same
author for G-Jn and Epistles of John).
G-Jn, an abbreviation for the Gospel, is employed also as its author. He is probably the
unnamed disciple whom Yeshua loved (Jn 13:25ff).

a
Traditional words related to ‘priest’ are retained, though the meaning, usage, and significance as well as
connotation in English and Church languages are quite different from the original words in Hebrew:
kohen (pl. kohanim) = priest (priests);
head-Kohanim = chief priests [‘chief’ with a sense of only one chief]; high priests; leading priests.
Kohen haGadol = the High Priest; the Chief Priest. [Note: some translations use both phrases ‘chief
priest(s)’ and ‘high priest(s)’ – cf. in Gospels and Hebrews]
kehunnah - priesthood, priestly office/service
b
[Note – See what kind of picture the English Biblical names, ‘John, James, and Peter’ brings to the readers.
See how different their original names in the Scripture, ‘Yohan, Yaakob, and Kefa’ come to the readers! They
have to read the text as close to what it was in the original language and culture. As rendered so in IRENT,
these names belong to those who lived in the culture two thousand years ago, devout Judaic— totally
unrelated to Christian religions (aka Christianity or Christianisms) which are tied down and enslaved in the
modern Western mindset.]
[The translation of proper names should be ‘transliteration’ to be as close as possible to
their original pronunciation, given the phonetic system which varies in different languages.
There are, however, a few exceptions in IRENT – it is only to help the readers
encountering a certain name which refers to different persons in the text.]

Note on *gender issue in language:

[“… there is no connection between gendered language and gender identity” – quoted from
Ben Witherington III, Biblical Views: “Spirited Discourse About God Language in the
New Testament,” in the May/June 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.]

In our current socio-political and cultural climate in the Western nations, where sexuality
itself is confused and marriage as such of covenant and family union is in danger of
becoming downgraded to refer to some sort of relation primarily of sexual copulation, we
have so far become hyper-sensitive and at the same time desensitized for a lot of things.
Gendered language is one of these to which people becomes hyper-sensitive. E.g. use of
the word ‘man’ in generic sense of ‘common man’ ‘human being’ becomes unseated from
its place in lexicons and it by itself tends to confuse people whether it might refer to a male
person unless the context is clear. The pronoun ‘he’ becomes to be referred to only a male
person, not to any person.

• “The use of gendered language such as ‘he’ ‘his’ ‘him’ or ‘father’ in reference to God has
nothing to do with maleness of God or a gender-biased patriarchy.” The pronouns of the third
person singular masculine are used (he, his, him) as the undisputed historic convention
followed and this simply corresponds to the grammatical gender.
• For man (i.e. human beings), except when the context tells a male person can be presumed
safely from the context, the nominative case ‘he’ is avoided. When ‘everyone’ ‘whosoever’
‘anyone’ is referred to, ‘singular they’ is adopted and ‘they’, their’, ‘them’, or theirs’ is used
in place of usual ‘he’, ‘his’, or ‘him’. See also ‘fellow brethren’ as a translation word in
IRENT.
• Literary personification should not complicate the sense of the words in the text. Gk. neutral
pneuma (‘spirit’) should be taken with a neutral pronoun it, not with he. Gk. masculine
paraclētos (‘that which stands by’ – helper, counselor, comforter) is explained where the word
occurs in Jn 15:26 as ‘= the spirit of truth’. Hence it is taken with the neutral pronoun ‘it’ in
IRENT translation, instead of the usual ‘he’.
 D. ‘*God Problem’ ‘*God confusion’
[This needs further editing and condensing, removing duplicates.]

[It is the linguistic problem of the word ‘God’, not about theological or religious issue.]

The word ‘God’ which is used as a translation word for Gk. theos (Heb. Elohim). As
to the Greek arthrous word ‘ho theos’ (‘the God’), it is rendered as 'God' in most the
Bibles, not as 'the God'. Since our English convention is to use no definite article for
‘God’, this creates a problem on its own which is aware of by most people. This
‘God problem’ or ‘God quandary’ is not about who, but about what is meant when
we say God – with or without any reference to the God in the bible.a

The word 'God' is a title, not a name, to which different languages have
corresponding wordsb. It can be applied to anyone or anything, depending on how it
is used. It is not necessarily the 'God' of the Bible, but simply a deity as an objection
of worship by for human beings – not concerned with what, who, or why to be
treated as such. It is capitalized in English for the effect of further defining the word,
as uncapitulated 'god' is used for a human being or a pagan deity. When we say
‘God’, read ‘God’, or even think ‘God’ it comes not surprisingly to say that God
may be ‘God’. It is also not contradictory to say that God is not God. Everyone has
different ideas on God and its notion. To say, ‘I believe God’ would not have much
substance to discuss about. We simply do not have a definition of the God; and there
cannot be a definition unless restricted in the contexts. It is remarkable that we can
communicate so well even without having clear meaning of words in our mind.

IRENT rendering of Gk. theos and ho theos:

(1) The arthrous ho theos (‘the God’) is rendered as ‘the Elohim’, with some
exceptions where it is simply as ‘Elohim’ when the word used in vocative or in
modified phrases (such as my/your/our Elohim, YHWH the Elohim, the Elohim
our Father, the Elohim the Most High, the Elohim the Almighty, the Elohim our
Savior, etc.). What this Greek refers to is depending on the context and the
intention of the speaker. A problem case is in Jn 20:18 ‘the Elohim of mine’ is
no other than Father of Yeshua (as 20:17; also 17:3; 14:20), not Yeshua himself
with a newly concocted title for Yeshua.]
(2) and the anarthrous theos (‘God’) as ‘Elohim’ in most cases (aside from
non-biblical god entity) with some exceptions:
• As ‘what God is’c (e.g. Jn 1:1c; 1Jn 4:12; 2Jn 9), ‘God-being’ (e.g.

a
Different languages and societies come up with their own one (sometimes more than one
word and occasionally in competition because of different sense and significance as well
as word history). An agnostic positon on ‘God’ may be understood in this line, if we put
the lack of faith in God itself aside.
b
In Korean – 하나님, 하느님, 신 (神). The word 'allah' as a translation word in Arabic Bible.
c
The rendering ‘what God is (Jn 1:1c, etc.) is similar to Jn 4:24 ‘as spirit is’ or ‘what
spirit is’ and also 1Jn 4:8 (‘Love’ vs. ‘what Love is’).
 1Co 8:4), or God, (e.g. Jn 1:18), when it is of the notion of god-being
(person or non-person), or god-principle (non-person).
• Also in phrases with genitive – consistently as <God’s>: e.g., ‘God’s
curse’, ‘to God’s way’, ‘God’s law’, 'God's son', etc.
• In compound words, e.g. ‘God-fearing’, etc. When used in pagan
notion, it is uncapitalized as is the case of plural ‘gods’.

Standing on the linguistic and literary basis, such a God problem is completely
bypassed when we borrow the very Hebrew word as a translation word to be used
in place of ‘God’ in the Bible. This makes it possible to let the Biblical text come
clearer, without being affected by theological and doctrinal contentious issues
among the various Christian religions, beliefs, and churches.

‘a god’ – this cannot be read other than in the sense of ‘one of many gods’
‘god’; ‘gods’ – (god-being) –of human beings, mythological gods, pagan gods,
anything demanding ‘worship’
‘one god’
‘God’ – it is not distinguishable from ‘god’ when used in speech; even in
written, it begs a question such as ‘what God’ ‘which God’ and ‘whose
God’. Often not the reality of who God is, but simply a notion of God-
being. The word ‘God’ is not a name; it may be used for a title for any
divine being, including human. That someone is God or called God does
not thing more than a simple description and does not point to whom it is
referred.
‘the god’
‘the God’
‘the one true God’
‘the only God’

One true God to worship – Elohim the Most High (≈ the Almighty Elohim). What does it mean
by ‘God’ – the word appearing in a certain text of the Bible? Or the expression coming out of the
mouth without being aware of who He is or which God? One God is the Father; the WHOLE
word of God clearly teaches is that THE ONE TRUE and ONLY ALMIGHTY God is the
FATHER ALONE who is THE God OVER his SON Yeshua whom He has HIGHLY EXALTED
ascended to the Father.

God question (of God theology) comes to us to present several different aspects. It is
the first problem of biblical theology.

(1) The very first question should be “What does it mean by <God>?” “What is
God?”;a
(2) ‘What God’; ‘which God’; ‘what sort of God’ (e.g. Christian God, Catholic
God, Protestant God, Judaism God, etc.);
(3) ‘Who this God is?’, here the word ‘God’ is clearly seen to be ‘*Elohim the
Most High’ (ho theos ho hupsistos) in a biblical parlance. That exclude all other

a
“What 'God' is” vs. “what God is”, the latter is about what kind of God or which God.
 Gods, incl. Allah of Islam and, sadly, the called ‘God’ by most *Christianisms
(various forms of religious systems and practices as denominations and cults).
(4) How does this very God (the very Elohim) relate with the humanity? [Here
‘Christology’ comes in.]

The being of ‘God’ is not that which exists on its own. The God exists eternally has
nothing to do with humanity and history. The one and true God we find in the Scripture
is the God who exists only in relation to His creation. To use ‘God’ as a translation
word is out of us with the minded of Greek-philosophy. Since it is of Hebrew mindset,
IRENT renders the Greek arthrous word ho theos (‘the God’) as ‘the Elohim’ (as if a
Hebrew loan word).

Everyone has a god, whether one is unconscious or not, and whether one denies or not
(regardless one is an atheist or not). Logically this statement cannot be disproved. But
not everyone believes nor believes in God, either of one’s own God-image or others’.
“God is not god is not god” as each one starts with one’s own definition.

“Is God a person?” “Does God have a [proper] name?” As shown in the Scripture and
as well in the history of His created world, He Himself has revealed Himself to be
known with the name; not that God is a being with a ‘personal’ name, not that He is a
person. (He is personal – not ‘belonging to person’, but being in personal relation), but
is also supra-personal (Hans Küng 1993, Credo)a; – He is not ‘literally’ a person, but
He is and He reveals and expresses Himself to us as a person [in the person of Yeshua,
Mashiah of YHWH]. God is beyond the concept of person. He is the Ultimate Reality.
With personification and anthropomorphism, to bring down ‘God’ to the level of
human mind.] The generic God, a countable noun, can be a person (living or deceased),
a thing, or a concept. See below ‘human anthropology’ for the meaning of ‘person’.
See also a separate file IRENT Vol. III – Supplements (b) – On Trinity Problem.]

Say ‘believe God’? What is meant by ‘God’? What is meant by ‘believe’?

Which God? Whose God? Have no God? Bother not; you can believe Gods.
Not believe God? Believe not which God? Whose God? Worry not; you can have
gods of your choice.

‘Where is God’ is not a metaphysical question of where God exists, but rather a
rhetoric one, i.e. “Ah, where is He!?”, because the former cannot be naively answered
as (1) ‘in Heaven’, because ‘heaven’ is here used where God is, and (2) omnipresence
(everywhere) or immanence (in one’s mind etc.) is not a satisfactory theological or
metaphysical answer but a mere ‘explaining away’.

a
Ref. Hans Küng (1993), Credo – The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today (pp. 86-87).
[www.academia.edu/815861/Hans_K%C3%BCng._1993._Credo._The_Apostles_Creed_... Book review]
 Common questions on ‘God’ – ‘Do you have God’ ‘Do you believe God’ will remain
unanswerable, as long as the word ‘God’ is dealt with – meaning, definition, usagea,
etc. With its basic sense ‘god-being’ the word God is often used as metonymic – e.g.
‘presence of God’ < ‘presence of God’s spirit’.

What does in mean by ‘believe’

How is it used differently from ‘believe in God’?
What does it mean by ‘God’?
‘Jesus is God’ – what the people intend to say so?

[Not as religious issue, but linguistic. God as a well-worn religious and theological jargon, a
mere translation word, is not the very God in the Scripture who makes to come to us.]

‘God is not God’ → God is not God whom we think we know. Everyone’s God is not
same or identical.b

‘God’ we say or call is not same as the God in the Scripture. English word ‘God’ as used in the
Bible is simply a translation word; even in the GNT the Greek theos is what is used as a
translation word for Hebrew Elohim. In essence, English word ‘god’ or Gk. ‘theos’ means as
god-being. God is god; god is God, but the capitalized word God as in written English fails to
reveal which God. Only the context gives us a clue about what is referred to. In Greek, it is the
arthrous word ho theos (the God), which tell us that the true God of the Scripture is referred to.
It is equivalent to Elohim in Hebrew, even though this Hebrew word was used to refer to other
than the YHWH Elohim, including human beings.

The true God of the Scripture, the Elohim or ho theos (the God) is one God,c who has revealed
Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to us. Every God’s action in the world is accomplished
by the Father, because of His love, working through the Son and in the power of the Spirit.
This G-d has revealed Himself in creation and in the history of humanity, especially of His
chosen people ‘Israel’ [not to be equated with the modern State of Israel], as transmitted in
Scripture. (Gen 1:1; 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:4-6)

‘God is God’ → God is the God whom we should know.

In ordinary English usage, the word means anything, any person, or any idea which we confer
supernatural power. That is the basic meaning of even the Hebrew word ‘el’ (god) – mighty
one. This is the core source of confusion, conflict, and contention of ‘God’. E.g. ‘Jesus is God’;
He was a man, not God, etc. ‘God’ in Mormonism is in this sense and has nothing to do with
YHWH Elohim. [Cf. Korean language has, in place of a kanji derived word 신 (sin; 神), several
native words for ‘god’. The word 하나님 is a translation word specifically adopted from the
earliest Korean Bible translation (1887 for NT; 1911 for OT & NT; by Ross from Scotland; Cf.

a
Even an expletive ‘God damn it’ makes a perfectly acceptable sense when the word ‘God’ is none other
than oneself. ‘Oh my god’ is no more than calling out onself.
b
In the similar vein, everyone’s ‘Jesus’ is not same; Jesus of Catholics, of Mormons, of
Charismatics, of Jehovah’s Witnesses, not same.
c
‘one God’ – The word God for Elohim in the Scripture should not be thought of a countable
noun (one out of many).
 in his translation of G-Luke). The Catholic translations later adopted more generic word
하느님.a

A common statement <I believe God> is problematic. That someone says ‘I believe God’
actually does not mean much by itself. If we agree for a common ground, God is that which
one believe, the statement ‘one believes God’b is a tautological nonsense, esp. when which God
is not settled for discussion here.

we can say even say ‘God is not God’ without being in error linguistically speaking. c What
does we mean by ‘God’? A person, a thing, an invisible thing (like ‘force’), a concept, or an
idea? What we come to this word, we should be aware that it is simply a translation word of
Greek word theos. Whether it is a title or not, it itself is not an identity. Even the Greek word
‘theos’ is simply a translation word for Hebrew elohim.
[Just think of how people translate the word into their own language! The word 神 in kanji
means a ‘ghost (such as of a deceased person)’ in Korean vocabulary is used as equivalent to
God/god. Each language has to pick something of their own vocabulary outside the biblical
concept.

Practically speaking, god is God; it is only an English convention by which a word capitalized
carries a different sense. However, any language, esp. biblical languages, is a spoken language
in which no capitalization can reside. Matter of fact, whether it is spoken by a God-believer or
not, the word appears on the lips of anyone. ‘God bless’, ‘God willing’, ‘God (con)damn’, etc.
without any clue of what the word is meant or intended by a speaker.

The word ‘God/god’ is often an object of verbs. ‘believe ~’, ‘worship ~’, ‘love ~’ – what does
it mean by ‘believe’ ‘worship’ ‘love’, etc.? ‘Fear God’ – does anyone really fear Him? What
we see in Westernized Christianity is to 'apply God’ for one’s own use, theological, creedal,
religious, spiritual, or preaching purpose.

The Platonic concept of ‘God’ is far from the Hebrew concept of Elohim. One’s concept of
God is from different from someone else’s, be a believer or not.

On the question ‘do you believe God?’

An honest answer would be either

(1) ‘yes’, - is it same as ‘god’?
(2) ‘no’, – is it same as anti-God?
(3) ‘don’t know’ – is it rather ‘don’t’ care’?

a
Ref: Sung-Wook Hong (2008), Naming God in Korea: The Case of Protestant Christianity.
www.academia.edu/3728125/_Competing_Chinese_Names_for_God_The_Chinese_Term_Quest
ion_and_Its_Influence_upon_Korea_
www.koreanbible.or.kr/koreanbible/
Sun Kim (2010), The Northern Region of Korea: History, Identity, and Culture.] Sebastian Kim
(2008), Christian Theology in Asia]
b
Why, even demons believe God. Cf. Jam 2:19 is in different sense and context
www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1992/92nov3.html )
c
http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6564 (on ‘divine nature).
 It really does not matter at this stage whether it is phrased as ‘believe God’ or ‘believe God’.
An answer with discerning mind would be a counter-question, such as ‘Why you’re asking?’
or ‘What does it mean to believe God?’.

‘Believe’ – what does it mean? ‘believe something’ ‘believe someone’?

I believe the future – (a foolish saying by itself)

I believe the President – (nothing foolish than this)
I believe the weather report – (right except when it turns out to be wrong)
I believe me – (an astute statement; cannot be incorrect.

To ‘believe in’ in the Scripture means ‘to place one’s Life in’ with Life (zoē and psuchē – life
experience; one’s being), not life (bios). Cf. believe, trust, entrust, rely, be convinced of; be
certain of;

‘God problem’ - ‘God’ – what does it mean by God? which God? who is ‘God’?

All of those who vehemently deny God or say they don’t believe God do
actually believe a God who goes by one’s own name. They believe in the
Self. Stephen Hawkings does believe a God; the name of his God is
‘Stephen William Hawkings’, the tile is the Knowing-Almost-All. Nietzsche
believed God named Nietzsche – yes as he correctly said, that very God
is dead surely.

‘The God of faith and the God of philosophers’; ‘God of the religion and
God of the Scripture’

God is God. It seems that the main problem besetting our humanity is whether one believe
in God or not believe. A truth is that one does not come to the Bible to ‘believe in God’,
because everyone does believe in a God. The problem is who God is. The Scripture does not
tell that people should believe in ‘God’, but it reveals who God is, that is, the God of
Scripture – the very Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Yitzchak (> Isaac), Elohim of Yaakob
(Mt 22:32, etc.) whom Yeshua called ‘Abba, Father’. When we utter the word ‘God’ in our
everyday language, most of time it does not have or require a connection to the God of the
Scripture, the Elohim whose revealed name is YHWH.

‘God is God is God’? No. God problem! In our life we have problem with our own
‘self’. When it comes to the Bible, we have to deal with this god problem first before
we can get to other stuffs such as *theologya. Does God have problems? [e.g. ‘If God,
why evil’, etc.] No, it is we have problems of God. The problem (or question) of the

a
‘theology’ – that is, ‘God-talk’ (learning and expounding on things related to God-being). It’s talk (study)
about God, not God’s talk. What is in the Scripture is proclamation and revelation. No ‘theologies’ or
‘doctrines’ are actually in the Scripture, but all are our human construct from human minds. To come up with
such ‘God-talk’ is affected from its core by isegesis, anthropomorphism, and anachronism to fit for their
ideology from the very process of Bible translation to Bible reading and interpretation. Such a danger
eventually lead human minds astray from the truth and turn them to create a God after their own image
without coming to know who the true God is. He is brought down to our level so that He can be dealt and
manipulated with our inadequate mind and imprecise language, without letting the Spirit of Elohim liberate
our spirit.
 first order is ‘What is God?’ When people say ‘I believe in God’a what does it mean by
that? The question looms larger when we realize that everyone states the same question,
but God actually means different for each person. Yes, even for atheists or agnostics;
demons, even Satanists, say they believe God. Then it is inevitable to understand the
phrase ‘believe in God’ means not different from ‘believe in a God’. Yes, even the
Bible says there are many Gods. Notice that in English we spell differently as God or
god as if the spelling brings different meaning. No, the word means same, whether
capitalized or not, ‘a mighty one’ – be it a person, thing, idea, or an invisible force, etc.

There, we have God problem, that is ‘What is God?’, but before that we have to tackle
‘what does it mean by God – by you, by me, by someone else, a speaker or a writer.
The fact of our life is that the same word does not mean same at all to every one of us.
When a certain Christian writes ‘we need God!’ (as when experiencing troubles in life,
family, society, and world), it really means ‘we need a God’ – otherwise it would border
on blasphemy (dishonoring the name of God in the Scripture). God is treated no
different than a genie in the Aladdin’s lamp to be invoked by rubbing on it. Such an
exclamation has no point since it is a fact that everyone has God or Gods. The foremost
one is one’s own Self. It is the principal God for atheists and agnostics. For the people
of religions, the Self is replaced by God(s), those mightier than oneself, a mere mortal
human being – called ‘God’ among other Gods.

Then comes a next question – ‘what does it mean to ‘believe’ such a God? To find an
answer to this, we move from the question ‘what God is’ to the very central question –
‘who is God?’ and then ‘which God?’ and ‘who is the God?’

The statement ‘we need God’ should be replaced with the statement ‘we need to know
God’, to know who He is – especially so for Christians. Who is the God of the
Scripture? Does He have a name? What is the name? What does it mean that God has
a name?

Anthropology – concept of human being, human person

¶“Humanity, humanity! You have a problem” [in the tone of ‘Houston, we have
a problem’ from Apollo 13 movie script, but in opposite setting.]

Don’t we have God problems! (not ‘problems with God’)

Questions: ‘How many Gods are there? One, a few, many, or none?
‘How many Gods do you have?

a
“Many believe. They believe as if they do believe; they do believe as if they believe. Some do quite well;
some don’t so well.”
 ‘Which God is it? Who is this God?’ ‘What is God?’ ‘Do you believe (in) God?’
etc.

‘Belief in one God’? ‘Belief in only one God’? ‘There are no other Gods’?
‘Worship one God’?

‘Do you believe in God?’ A good question. Yes, a serious question. The
question of questions which lie at the root of every religious, doctrinal, and
theological division and disunity in human realm of religions.

The answer would be one of the followings:

(1) Yes; (2) No; (3) I don’t know; (4) I cannot answer. I refuse to answer,
etc.

But the honest answer should be a question back – What does it mean? Why
you ask? It is simply because God is not God is not God. God I say is not same
as God you say and is not God they say. God I say now is not same as God I
said before and will not be same as God I will say in a different setting. There
is no evidence that all worship the same God; in fact, everyone worships one’s
own god; and the Bible tells that there are many gods in the world.

A common English word ‘God’, which as a common word in the English Bibles
carries several problems at the linguistic level – not easily recognized as such
and has affected theological talks. Theology is ‘God-talk’, talk about God.

It is not an exclusive to Christian religions, but common in secular language.

The English ‘god’ is from a word of Germanic language origin, indigenous
religions. It is a word with the sense of ‘mighty one’ as mortal human beings are
aware of their powerlessness and turns to something or someone more
powerful.a This word of pagan origin is often heard in frivolous expressions and
swearing words in everyday English.

It appears in the misunderstood Nietzsche’s statement ‘God is dead’4. It is said

the Satanists believe in God too [p. 40 in Anton LaVey (1969), Satanic Bible5.
Most religions say ‘believe in God’, with the only exception of Buddhism in which
the very word and concept of ‘God’ is not developed.

The expression ‘believe in God’ is found in the Bibles, but not in the Scripture,
in which we read only ‘believe in the God’, that is, ‘believe in the Elohim’ that
we read the Almighty Creator in the Scripture, who has revealed Himself to
humanity.

a
‘To believe in God is to believe in a higher power’ [in www.wikihow.com/Believe-in-God
is a typical unscriptural pseudo-Christian idea. How to find God in Church Doctrine
(www.wikihow.com/Find-God-in-Church-Doctrine )?! No, you cannot find, nor you need to.
You have to find with what is meant by God, to begin with.
 How to we pull ourselves from such question? It is only possible to look into the Name,
the very name the Elohim Himself has spoken. No word is more important than ‘name’
in the Scripture, as everything the Scripture proclaims has to stand on the foundation
the name holds – the name which is what stands for the very Reality, not an
identification of a person as in the case of names of human beings.a

It is important to see that we worship not the name, but the Elohim Himself, and that
we honor not the Elohim, but His name.

¶ Letme consider a statement, <I believe God> (or, 'We believe God' 'They believe
God'). For the same matter, even its negative statement <'I don't believe God>, any
meaningful argument is only possible when we agree that there is what we call
'God'/'god' and we should find a common ground what is the (working) definition of
the word ‘god/God’.

Such a statement requires clarification of three interlinked questions - 'what God is',
'which God' and 'who (that) God is'. Then there is an overriding logical and linguistic
question - 'what does it mean by the word 'God/god'. This applies same way the
statement <I have God> (or a god).

The word 'God/god' is an English word of long history to refer to a mighty being beyond
mortal humans that is believed to have control of people, history, and the nature
(universe). It is used to translate Greek theos, Hebrew Elohim or El. It is not a name,
but simply used as a title (to refer to, or to call). Only the context (not simple
capitalization as God or Elohim) tells this word do refer to Elohim the Most High (the
Elohim of Israel, of Abraham, of Isaac, and Yaakob, and of course of Yeshua). In
English, 'God' is even used in curse words, in blasphemous nonchalant disrespectful
manner.

There are words which have rendered differently from most of English translations.
[In case of ‘Elohim’ and ‘Adonai’ in IRENT, these are in fact Hebrew loanwords
(cf. transliterates), used in translated text solely for the purpose of translation
based on linguistic and literary approach, not doctrinal or religious.]

• Some should be revealed where the word itself is something to be revealed.

[E.g. YHWH in place of Lord]
Having the very name of the Elohim in the New Testament translation is a
controversial and contentious issue, especially since such practice is based on
religious doctrinal and ideological peculiarities of the translators. There are

a
“Without a name there is no real existence” “The names of … represents their actuality” …
“In much the same way, the Hebrews also attached special importance to the concept of
names.” – GH Parke-Taylor (1979), Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible.
www.scribd.com/doc/9629729/Yahweh [Cf. Cassuto (trans. 1967), A Commentary on the
Book of Exodus, p. 37, "Whatever is without an appellation does not exist, but whatever has a
denomination has existence."]
 numerous translations, both in English and non-English, where the name appears
in various forms and pronunciations.
From purely linguistic and literary approach to translation, which is taken by
IRENT in translating from Greek text, we have to know the problem of Greek
word ‘kurios’. The word is a Greek translation word in the majority of LXX
translation of Hebrew TaNaKh (‘Old Testament’). Though earlier manuscript of
LXX has it as Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew letters.a
Even for translation of the Old Testament, traditional English translations have it
rendered as LORD in similar fashion to LXX, despite their claim that they used
Hebrew text as the base text. This is disingenuous and unbiblical.
Since Greek New Testament texts have it all as ‘kurios’, is there a justifiable place
of representing Tetragrammaton in the N.T. English translation – in harmony with
the Scripture, not in keeping with man’s doctrine?
To have it where the text is such that the very Name has to be revealed a few
principles are not difficult to find. At first, it is wherever the text is quoting from
the TaNaKh (O.T.) when the speaker and audience of the quoted text are
appropriate for the Name. E.g. Mt 21:9 (and parallel) – the phrase ‘en onomati
kuriou’ (most translates as ‘in the name of the Lord’ cf. ‘in Jehovah’s name’
(NWT). This is rendered in IRENT as ‘in the name of Adonai’, not ‘in the name
of YHWH’. Here ‘Adonai’ is a Hebrew loanword, equivalent to ‘the LORD’ in
O.T. translation in KJV, and others.

• Some should be re-discovered to be more appropriate in the Scriptural text.

[E.g. the Elohim in place of ‘the God’, as English convention does not
use it with the definite article. The capitalized ‘God’ cannot by itself
distinguish from a generic notion of God (God, a God, a god, etc.)]

Before we can argue properly about ‘religion’, we need the first premise,
which should be intuitive and logical standing on the common ground.
• A statement: religion deals with God and man, whatever different ways the
term ‘religion’ ‘God’ and ‘man’ are defined precisely.
• As a corollary: God is God and man is man; never the twain shall meet.
• All that is in religion is whatever exists and happens between God and man.

This holds true in Judaism and Islam. Surprisingly the Christianity most
accustomed to does not. It has severed its umbilical cord from the original
Yeshua Movement which was rooted within the first century Judaism (of the
Second Temple Period in Jewish History - 530 BCE and 70 CE). The authentic
Apostolic spirit has essentially disappeared. In place of Yeshua as the Son of

a
Ref. http://wp.me/pYZXr-Dd (Provenance of Aquila OT Genizah Manuscripts). Also
Treatment of Tetragrammaton in Septuagint manuscripts
 the Elohim, a different God is carved out made of Hellenistic and syncretic
‘Jesus’, being labelled as ‘God’, ‘God the Son’, or ‘God-man’ who is human
being but not human person, but divine person. Some say Jesus became God.
But he did not; he was made to be their God.

God, god, a god, GOD -- Capitalization is, in a sense, deceptive, though

convenient English convention. Spoken vs. written – why should it come
diffident to our mind?

• What is God; what does it mean by ‘God’.

• What God? Which God? Whose God? – ‘God’ (Allah) of Muslim, God
of Catholics, God of Mormons, ‘God’ of Judaism, and ‘God’ of others,
whatever and however the word is meant and used – all are not same
and cannot be same, all created in the image of mortal human. All the
religious contentions and wars find its root here because people do not
realize that, when they claim and talk about God, they are not talking
about the same God. All the religions, denominations and cults need to
talk to each other on the same language.

• Who is God? Who is the God? Then, how so?

When is it the biblical God that we have in mind, should it not actually be ‘the
God’, putting aside Greek usage of the definite article as in ‘ho theos’?

A personal God – what does it mean by ‘personal’ – belonging to us, possessed

by us personally? Or a ‘person god’, not ‘thing’ or ‘idea’?

God/GOD/god – can be any person, thing, idea, or even multiples, plural, etc.

‘God is a person’? What (sort of) God is a person?

How can the biblical God be a person, even a spirit? Is He (it) as a noun
countable (as a bound noun)? Is He that small in our thought, that which can
be manipulated and handled by human minds (metaphysically, theologically)?

As the one true God, Elohim YHWH, the biblical God cannot be a person, no
matter how the word person is defined. He is only as a person (as Abba) whom
we are let experience and encounter.
On the English word ‘God’:

[See also in Essentials of Vocabulary for Reading IRENT]

God: Problem with the English word 'God' – ‘God problem’ ‘God confusion)

The basic meaning of Greek word 'theos' is a god-being. Only the arthrous noun ho theos
('the god') refers to the Creator (= YHWH Elohim in O.T.).

In English, anyone or anything may be called 'god' in the sense of ‘mighty one’. Note
that capitalization is appropriate only when it is used in reference to the one only god. In
written English usage, however, the capitalized word 'God' is often used in reference to
a god-like being, human, thing, even a pagan god or a personally concocted god, while
most English Bible translations the same is, in most cases, in reference to the Creator.
Only in the context we can see that the word ‘God’ refer to the true God (the Elohim) of
the Scripture.

Unnecessary confusion within a religion or between religions is that the word ‘God’
itself is not used in the same sense. Even when we utter it, the sense may not be same.
God of someone or some religion and God of others cannot be same all with different
image, definition, identification, and characterization. In the Bibles, this is one of the
most common words. We should know that ‘God’ is simply a translation word used and
inevitably and necessarily brings non-biblical ideas and meanings along with it, peculiar
to the indigenous socio-cultural setting (religious, philosophical, linguistic heritage. It is
a generic word and a name. Only the context tells what is referred; capitalization is does
not help since the pronunciation is same.

In IRENT ho theos ('the God') which the Scripture refers to the Creator YHWH Elohim
is rendered as the Elohim (borrowing from Hebrew) a, not as ‘God’ as in most Bible
translations. b This is one of a few that makes IRENT distinguished from most other
English translations. This translation principle is sole linguistic and literary approach. c

It offers quite a number of advantages for the readers of the Bible:

(1) It dispels any image formed by the word which is usually used in the sense of
generic Godd without specific reference to the God of the Scripture;
(2) It removes any confusion over the word God when it is used in Christian religions
by putting on Jesus (as God in Trinitarian mindset);

a
Here 'the Elohim' in place of ‘Elohim’ is rather superfluous. The anarthrous theos is rendered as God-
being or God. The Hebrew word elohim in O.T. is in a few places also used to refer to human persons,
angels, etc., esp. as a plural noun. [≈ ‘gods’ in Jn 10:35]
b
Rendering it as ‘the God’ may be grammatically accurate. However this is against English convention
and diction.
c
This translation principle is sole linguistic and literary approach. It has nothing to do with the positons
of the so-called Sacred Name Movement or Hebrew Roots Movement in which translation of the Bible
utilizes many Hebrew words - both in O.T. and N.T.
d
– everyone and every religion believes God and believes in God, but nowhere clear-
cut and self-evident as to what such God is, which God over others, or who God is;
 (3) It makes impossible to use the word as an expletive in our English speech; (4) It
offers a clean and uncomplicated solution to help distinguish the two for translation
and interpretation purpose, without being partial to different doctrinal and
theological positions.
(5) There is no need for struggle to find what and whom the English word ‘God’
signifies in the translated text.

On the English word ‘God’:

The word ‘God’ is the word which is to be dealt in connection with the Bible.
Why, theology itself means the study on ‘God’. Here we have a concern about the
vocabulary of ‘God’, ‘god’, ‘a god’, ‘a God’, or ‘the God’ in English. [See
elsewhere also for logic, logical statement and proposition.]

‘I believe God’ – what does it mean? what does it tell. Do not ever buy when
someone says ‘God’, until and unless what God is meant is clear. Otherwise, they
are simply God-peddlers and blasphemers. Do not ever say ‘God’ or ‘I believe
God’, until and unless it is clear what God is meant.

The word ‘God’ (in capitalized form) is the almost universal translation word in
the Bible for Hebrew Elohim and the Geek theos. Unless it is in the setting of the
Bible, the use of the word in our written or spoken English it does not connect to
the God of the Bible. E.g. The expression ‘proof of the existence of God’ is dealing
with what God is for their language and mind – the Ultimate One is not that which
can be proved to exist. It’s actually presumptuous idea that we human can prove
it, as if it is the construct of our mind and can be subject to manipulate and examine
for precise analysis as if a mathematical term. God we can prove is not the God in
the Bible. It is another god, created after our image and imagination. E.g. ‘Do you
believe God?’ – the honest reply is not ‘yes, no, or I don’t know’, but ‘so?’ –
spoken in the tone of ‘what the heck God is? What the heck ‘believe’ means? E.g.
‘Believe God’ – so? how? for what? E.g. Is ‘God’ someone who hears and answers
our ‘prayer’ or ‘request’? It is a function of religion, but God per se.

While the arthrous Gk. ho theos is rendered in most English Bibles as ‘God’
capitalized, an unambiguous translation as ‘the God’ could be an alternative, for
there is no difference at all between ‘God’ and ‘god’ in spoken English – it is all
implicit or assumed from the context and the speaker’s intention. The definite
article in English does carry an (unnecessary) additional overtone of
particularizing the word, e.g. as ‘the aforementioned God’. However the
convention is difficult to overcome, and the diction is too rough to hear it not a
few times in the Bible in English translation.

To solve this important translation problem, IRENT has ‘the Elohim’ instead of
‘the God’ or ‘God’ to render the arthrous Greek, which always refer to YHWH
Elohim, not any other God, god, god-being, God-man, or human beings. The
 unarthrous theos can be used in the sense of ‘a god’, but this English form always
denotes a pagan or false god. The Greek unarthrous (countable) nouns can also
function as adjectival (not as an adjective).a

It is vital for us to have clear understanding of the most common English word,
(in the top 5 for nouns in the word list) in our linguistic and literary approach for
the Scripture, much of discussion and debate have been and will be wasted by
opposing sides of doctrinal position.b

By the way, the issue of having a proper definition of meaning of any word, term,
or concept, and of properly delimiting its use is of a paramount importance for all
our fields in any way related to languages (words and speeches) and logic so that
we all stand on the common ground of communication.

‘God’ of someone is not same as ‘God’ of others; ‘God’ of someone is not

same all the time the word is spoken or used. Even the word used by
atheists is not same as by others. God of a religion is not same as God of
other religions. God of Catholics is not same as God of non-Catholics.
Cf. ‘idea of God’, ‘concept of God’

‘Jesus’ of someone/some church is not same as ‘Jesus’ of others. It is a

figure they carry in their religious tradition, with the image reconstructed
from their ‘belief’ and (mis-)interpretation and application. It certainly is
different from the very historical one to be found in the N.T, the very one
proclaimed and confessed by his follows before being altered in the
Hellenistic world of metaphysics and religions. Competing, yes, often
incompatible, incongruous, and contradictory to serve their own power and
ideologies.

All and every arguments on God and Jesus and rather hopeless, since
none talks same way as others and same way all the time! We need
common ground linguistically to be in agreement to find different opinions
and ideas.

Same is true for the Scripture (cf. Bible) as to the authority of the Scripture.
(cf. ‘Sola scriptura’ – which itself is not biblical expression and is denied by
Catholics, who places it not better than Church pronouncements and
teachings (cf. Papal authority). That’s a gist of ‘religion’.

a
E.g. English word ‘man’: The sentence ‘he is man’ is in a quite different sense from ‘he is a man’.
[Also different from ‘he is the man’.] To say ‘it is a god’ is quite different from ‘it is god/God’.
Rendering ‘a god’ in Jn 1:1c as in NWT fails to go beyond glossary grammar level, ignoring the whole
range of how a word is used in the context. The Scripture text does not say ‘the Logos was a god’!! It
could be read as ‘the Logos was god’ (v. 1c), while ‘the Logos was towards the God’ in 1:1b. Here
again, the connotation of ‘god’ is one among many gods, even of other religions or pagan myths.
b
As for the word it is also used in English often meaninglessly and even as an expletive or a swear word!
Theologically the word is applied to anyone, anything, incl. angels.
From (pp.33-36) Michael Goulder, ed. (1979), Incarnation and Myth: The Debate
Continued

Jesus and the Meaning of 'God' (Don Cupitt)

2. God

It is convenient to turn next to the word 'God'. Philosophers have discussed whether the
word God is a proper name or a predicable term, but the discussion has been rather trivial,
taking little account of the history of religions. Ideas of God are found in almost all cultures
and are of great antiquity and diversity. It may empirically be the case that most English
use of the word God is influenced by its prehistory in the Latin, Greek, Aramaic and
Hebrew languages, but nowadays we cannot assume that classical and Judea-Christian
culture have a prescriptive right to lay down the logic of the word. The most we can claim
is that they are internally wide-ranging enough to cover most of the ground. With this
proviso, I suggest that the word God has five main kinds of use:

G1-A
God may be defined relatively as anything which becomes the object of a religious
attitude. In an extended sense it may be said that a man's god is his belly (Phil. 3.19), but
more typically something is set up or established as the object of a cult. So it is said that
the children of Israel went a-whoring after the Baalim and made Baal-berith their god
(Judg. 8.33). The most universal metaphor, perhaps, is that of exaltation, for when
something becomes my god it becomes the object of my highest concern. G2 'God' may
be used as a predicable, or more exactly a sortal term. In this use it is historically
continuous with the use of Elohim and El in Hebrew. There are two main ideas here:

G2-A
As a sortal term, a God is a being which is a member of the class of divine beings. Gods
may differ greatly in character and in their degree of authority and power, but they are
thought of as belonging to a kind.

G2-B
The monotheistic use of 'God' presupposes an intense, exclusive concentration of divinity
in a single focus. Thus God becomes a title, or descriptive expression with unique
reference. In this use it is equivalent to such standard English expressions as the Deity,
the Godhead, the Almighty, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Most High, the Holy One
and their equivalents in Hebrew and other languages.

Some people argue that the use of God as a predicable term has an ampler descriptive
content than these phrases imply, and should include such expressions as the Creator of
the World. I disagree, because it can be and has been disputed whether God is the
Creator, in a sense in which it cannot be disputed that God is the Most High. Incidentally,
I have put G2A and G2B together because the formulation of monotheism ('There is only
one God') takes place against a polytheistic background.

G3
A step lower, there are some divinities who are inferior or subordinate divinities, divinities
only by permission. They are felt to have some religious power, but not autonomously. In
the Hebrew Bible members of Yahweh's court, angels and the gods of foreign nations are
called gods in this sense. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine
attributes described in the Bible also belong in this class.

G4
 Divinity is communicable to men, and there are a number of senses in which human
beings are called gods, both in the biblical tradition and outside it. His exalted office brings
him close to heaven, so that a king may be thought of as 'God' in so far as he is endowed
by virtue of his office with the fullness of divine power and authority. In the Hebrew Bible
the clearest case is Psalm 45.6, but there are also many disputed instances, and other
examples range from the Pharaohs to seventeenth-century European monarchs. A judge
exercises a divine function, and in ancient Israel to go before a judge was to go before
God (Ex. 21.6; 22.8, etc.). Power over life and death is divine, and as modern medicine
develops doctors even today may be spoken of as becoming gods or wielding godlike
powers.

In ancient times one who dealt with the deity became suffused with the divine holiness.
Something of the divine glory shone in Moses' face and he had to be veiled (Ex. 34.29-
35). Deification, or participation in God by grace, can be regarded as the general destiny
of all God's people, as the discussion in John 10.33-36 shows. Jesus is seen as the pre-
eminent example of this, the one who is most a son of God.

G5
But against these various extensions of divinity, to other gods, to inferior gods and to men
there stands the final use of God as the proper name of an individual, addressed in the
vocative: 'O God', 'Thou God'. Far in the past now lies the use of the proper name Yahweh
for the God of Israel. But the logic of God's proper name is somewhat different from that
of other proper names. God is not thought of as being assigned the Name, but as
revealing it. And God reveals the Name, not to the world at large, but to one particular
community. The Name, in short, stands for the religious system peculiar to one people by
which that people identify their God and gain privileged access to their God. The Name
may come to be regarded as a mystery too sacred to be uttered; or, as the faith becomes
more universal in its outreach, it may be dropped. In Christianity there is no proper name
for God, but the system of salvation through which God is identified, the Way, may be
summed up in a phrase like 'the Father of Jesus Christ' or in the traditional threefold
Name, 'the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit'.

Such are the main uses of the word God, and very complex they are. Their variety can
perhaps be explained in terms of two underlying themes:

First, there is God's relation to worship. A God may be thought of as something postulated
by the practice of worship (G1), as that actual individual who alone deserves worship
(G2B), or as one who is alone rightly worshipped by those privileged to receive the
revelation of God's true Name (G5).

Secondly, there is the question of how far and in what ways godhood can be shared,
whether equally (G2A), or in varying degrees (G3), or by communication (G4).

‘God question’ – theological and linguistic:

[As to ‘God’ in the Scripture as to be worshiped, it can only belong to the category of ‘person’.
God as someone to be believed is a mighty one, almighty. The Sun is a mightiest one as far as the
biological existence (incl. man) on the earth is concerned. (Cf. the ancient Egyptian sun god ‘Ra’.)
Though personified, it cannot be a god since it is not a person. Mythological gods of Greek, Rome,
and in Hinduism, are nothing more than representation of some attributes and roles. Is ‘God’ real?
God is not a false (concept); but there are abundance of falseness in it as the word is used. Same
for ‘Jesus’. Am ‘I’ real? ‘I’, however, cannot be false as it is the very center of I-consciousness.
The same is applicable to any word, term, idea, notion, or concept that to have any meaningful
argument it is only possible within the limit which act of unequivocally and logically clear defining
them is possible. E.g. ‘hell’ is real? ‘Satan’ is real? ‘Heaven’ is real?]

Cf. Definitions – ‘divinity’ ‘divine nature/essence’ ‘deity’ ‘godhood’ ‘god-being’ ‘god

notion’ ‘god reality’.

Problem on existence of God

Problem of existence of God;
quinque viae (Five Ways or Proofs) in Summa Theologica. by Th. Aquinas (13 c.)

Problem of God concept: (Heb. el – ‘mighty one’)

The Ten Commandments (two divisions) Cf. Mt 22:36-40

(1) Exo 20:2; Deu 5:6 Prologue

(2) Exo 20:3-7; Deu 5:7-11 First Division (Towards the Elohim)
(3) Exo 20:8-17; Deu 5:12-21 Second Division (Towards people)

The prologue
Exo 20:2 //Deu 5:6 //Num 15:41
“I am YHWH your Elohim,
who brought you out of Mitsrayim, out of the house of slavery.”
The first division
Exo 20:3 //Deu 5:7
“You shall have no other mighty onesa before me.”
Exo 20:4 //Deu 5:8
“You shall not make to yourself a man-made imageb,
or any likeness of that which is
in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters below.”
Exo 20:5-6 //Deu 5:9-10
“You shall not bow down to them nor servec worship them; …”
Exo 20:7 //Deu 5:11
“You shall not take the name of YHWH your Elohim uselessd,
for YHWH will not hold anyone guiltless who take his name useless.”

a ‘mighty ones’ – ISR; /gods – most; [Here ‘gods’ is not something like Gods of Muslim, Hindi, etc. which correspond
to ‘man-made image’ in the next verse.] [Cf. Mt 4:10; 22:37] [Cf. Deu 6:4 //Mk 12:29 in ‘Shema Yisrael’.]
b ‘man-made image’ – ‘a carved image’ – ESV, NET;/an idol – LXX, ISV; /any graven image – KJV; / a graven image

– ASV; /idols; /graven thing – DRB; [Cf. 1Jn 5:21; Acts 17:29] [Cf. ‘the god of this world’ – 2Co 4:4]
c ‘serve’ – ISR; /worship – most; [Cf. Jn 4:24]
d ‘take ~ useless’; />> take ~ in vain – most; /x: misuse; /x: idly utter – Darby; /use for evil purpose – GNB; /x: 망령되이

일컫다 – Ko; [Cf. 1Tm 6:1]

*Divine Analogy

‘problem of religious language’ ‘divine analogy’: Ref.

• www.iep.utm.edu/rel-lang/
• http://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/48434/Linford_DJ_T_2014.pdf

*God, *god; *gods; deity; idols; graven images

God problem; ‘God’ ‘believing God’ God – what is God? Which God? Whose
God? What is the name? What does it mean that God has a name?

Atheism, Antitheism; Agnosticism; pantheism; panetheism; deism; finite god-ism,

monotheism, monaltry vs henotheism; polytheism

[Note: the terms theology and Christology – (1) study of God/Christ; (2) doctrines
of God/Christ. Note also that all doctrines are human products. When they say
‘biblical doctrines’, they are nothing more than church doctrines which are based
on their interpretation of the proof texts.

From www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm

Etymology of the Word "God"

(Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda).

God can variously be defined as: [Note: when the word is spoken and written, it is
used in most cases it is without giving a plausible and clear-cut definition, leading to
various ideas and beliefs on ‘God’ and confused referents of the word. Even in the
central doctrine of Trinity by Constantine Catholic Christianity, there is no definition of
the word ‘God’ and talking and arguing of their unbiblical trinity God. – ARJ]

• the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the
Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and
worship;
• the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in
polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship
rendered;
• the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a
god.

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to
invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to".
From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in
thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen.
divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic
names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or
 Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan
deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew,
'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the
point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one".

[In many cases, the word ‘God’ is actually used in the sense of God-being without
specifically referencing to and identifying the one true God, the Elohim of the
Scripture.

E.g. from. http://3l8hvo31a7yc2inkkn1eprjd.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-

content/uploads/sites/7/2014/05/HowCanWeKnowTheChristianGodIsTheOneT
rueGod-Transcript.pdf

• “Every religion has a different view of God.’’

Here ‘God’ is not YHWH Elohim, the Almighty God, whom Yeshua called
‘Father’.

• “Though there are often similarities between these views, the common
ground is merely superficial. There are fundamental differences that make
each religion distinct and irreconcilable. Logically, contradictory claims
cannot all be true, either one view of God is true or all of them are false” –
Here again the statement is incorrect, as both views can be true on their own,
since God in both positions does not have same meaning and reference.]

Cf. *Godhead Deity, Divinity, Trinity; ‘Oneness of God’ – theological terms. Cf.
‘divine person’ ‘divine nature’ ‘God nature’

Greek words in NT –
Other than theos [mostly arthrous ‘the God’ (= the Elohim); and anarthrous (=
God-being), esp. other than nominative case]:
• theion
• theion (Act 17:29) adj. – divine
• theiotēs (Rm 1:20) – divinity, divine nature
• theotēs (Col 2:9) – deity, divine quality

• ‘godhead/Godhead/godhead’ – used in KJV, ESV, etc. since Wycliffe (1395) and

Tyndale (1525)
• Cf. Eph 3:19 – ‘the fullness of the Elohim’
• ‘God-being’ ‘divine being’ ‘(ontological) divine nature’ ‘divine quality’ ‘all that
God is’ ‘Godship – NWT Rm 1:20) ‘Godhead’ – these theological and translational
jargons are difficult to pin down their difference.

God, god, gods, mighty ones; (tribal, pagan) tutelary god; 수호신 (守護神);
Most people of 'Churchianity' turn even the true God (YHWH) into their tutelary god
which would do their bidding (e.g. ‘bless me’ with prosperity, heath, wealth, and
pleasure. [Cf. a genie in Aladdin’s lamp; ‘sacred grove and tree worship’ ‘statures’]

God of the Bible – The word Elohim in the Scripture hinges on three: (1) His name; (2)
His glory (Cf. Jn Ch. 17); (3) His Will and His kingdom reign. (See WB #1 *Kingdom
of God)
 PART II. YHWH and Yeshua

A. YHWH or Jehovah

The Divine Name as in the Scripture (O.T.)

‫ יהוה‬a YHWHb
'… this is my name forever' Exo 3:15

‫ ░░ יהוה‬Tetragrammaton, the four-letter Hebrew word for the very name of the
Almighty; transliterated as YHWH. ‘Yah’ is the short form (e.g. as in ‘Praise Yah' (>
'Hallelujah’) e.g. Rev 19:1 ff.

Translated variously based on vocalization - /Yahueh; /Yahweh – JB; /> Jehovah –

ASV, NWT;

Most English bibles are incorrectly rendered as 'the LORD' (in caps), which is actually
literal translation of the word in LXX.

IRENT has it 'YHWH' to translate the Gk. anarthrous kurios when it refers to the
Almighty God.

YHWH
• first occurrence of Tetragrammaton in Exodus – Exo 3:2; [‘YHWH Elohim’ –
Exo 3:15]
• first in Genesis Gen 2:15 'YHWH Elohim'; Gen 4:1 'YHWH'

YHWH Elohim - Gen 2:15; Exo 3:15 /Jehovah Elohim – Darby; /Jehovah God –
NWT, YLT; /xx: the LORD God – most; /x: the Lord God; - Douay; /Yahweh God
– WEB, JB; /
Adonai YHWH – Gen 15:2 /Lord Jehovah – JB, Darby; /Sovereign Lord Jehovah
– NWT; /Sovereign LORD – NIV; /xxx: Lord GOD – most; /xxx: Lord God –
Douay; /

a
The four-letter Hebrew word for the very name of God of the Scripture is called Tetragrammaton.
b
Proper translation of the Tetragrammaton is one of the few of uttermost importance in any translation of the
Bible. The issue has nothing to do with the so-called Hebraic Roots Movement (or Sacred Name Movement)
or Messianic Judaism Movement.
Cf. https://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/hebrew-roots-movement-messin-with-the-
word/
 Exo 3:11
But Moses said to the Elohim,
“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh
and that I should bring the sons of Yisrael out of Egypt?”
Exo 3:12
And to this He said,

“Certainly, I'll be a with you.

This is the sign for you [Moses] that I, I have sent you:
When you have led the people out of Egypt,
yoů all shall be worshiping the [very] Elohim at this mountain.”

Exo 3:13
Then Moses said to the Elohim,
“Look, I, I come to the sons of Yisrael and say to them,
<Elohim of yoůr fathers has sent me to yoů,>
and they ask me, <What is His name>,
what am I to tell them?”6

Exo 3:14
Elohim said to Moses,
"I'm who I'm!" b 7
And He said,
“Say this to the people of Yisrael,
<I'm [who I'm] c 8 has sent me to yoů.>”

Exo 3:15
Elohim further said to Moses,
“Say this to the sons of Yisrael,
<YHWH [← 3:2; → 6:3] Elohim of yoůr fathers
— Elohim of Abraham,
Elohim of Yitzchak,
and Elohim of Yaakob —
has sent me to yoů.>
This – YHWHd – is my name forever,
and this is how I shall be known
from generation to generation.

a
3:12 I'll be ░░ [‫( אֶֽהְ יֶ֣ה‬LXX esomai) > I will be;
b
3:14 I'm who I'm ░░ [Ehyeh asher ehyeh] /> I am who I am; /xx: I AM WHO I AM – most;
c
3:14 I'm [who I'm] ░░ [ehyeh (I'm), which is a part of the name YHWH. Nor it is 'I AM' or 'I Am'.] /> I
am; /xx: I AM – most;
d
3:15 YHWH ░░ [not referring to 'ehyeh' (I'm) in v. 14.]
For the followers of the Mashiah:
Without YHWH Elohim, no Yeshua the Mashiah.
Without Yeshua, no YHWH.

[The whole of biblical faith rests on two statements –

(1) YWHW Elohim is one (Mk 12:29), and
(2) Yeshua is the Son of the Elohim (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 22:70)

Not ‘Triune God’; not ‘God the Son’ – both unbiblical religious jargon.]

God's name & title:

Isa 42:5-9 (v. 5) "Thus said YHWH Elohim ~~:
(v. 6) <I am YHWH. I, I have called you in righteousness; ~~
(v. 8) I am YHWH; that is my name. My glory I'll give to no one ~~~.>

His title is ‘Elohim’:

Gen 46:3 ‘I, I am the Elohim of your father’ (YHWH himself said to Yaakob in
vision).
Psa 50:1, “The Mighty El, YHWH, has spoken …”
Psa 50:7 “… Elohim, I, I am your Elohim.”)
Exo 20:2 ‘I, I am YHWH your Elohim …

‘I, I am El Shaddai’ (Gen 17:1; 35:11 – H7706. LXX has them simply ho theos
‘the God’) = God the Almighty (ho theos ho pantokratōr – Rev 11:18) [Gk. word
pantokratōr does not appear in LXX OT.]

[Cf. YHWH Tzva’ot H6635 (YHWH of hosts, armies) e.g. Zec 1:3. – LXX has it kurios tōn dunameōn.]

Here again, the term ‘name’ (in the sense of singular proper person name – that which
represent the character of the person) has to be carefully distinguished from a ‘title’. ‘Many
names of God’ or ‘Many names of Jesus’ is a linguistically confused statement.

When we say God (of the Scripture) is a person a , it needs to be qualified. He is not
impersonal, but He is more than ‘a person’, not so much ‘personal’ (in relationality), but
is supra-personal.

To come to know the Name to one’s heart is

the beginning of Wisdom

a
In the so called first, second and third ‘person’ of the Trinitarian jargon should not be understood as the
common English word which is translation of the original Latin word ‘persona’ (in the sense of actor’s
mask or role). Most English usage, the word is only used when it refers to human beings or personification
of non-human beings.] There is no [personal] name given to a non-person. such as the God’s sprit. the
Elohim is not literally a person;
 — knowing the Truth, divine reality.
There is power in the Name
— none can revere Him apart from His name.
[Pro 1:7; 9:10]

Prv 30:4 “… what is His name and what is the name of His son — if you know?”
Psa 111:9 “He sent redemption to his people: he has commanded his covenant
forever: holy and reverenda is his NAME.

Name YHWHb in OT

Exo 3:14-15 –

the Elohim said to Moses, “I'm who I'm.” [/> I am who I am; /xx: I AM WHO I AM;]
And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites,
<That I'm has sent me to you>.” [/x: 'I AM']
the Elohim also said to Moshe, “You must say this to the Israelites,
‘YHWH Elohim of your fathers
– the Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacobc –
has sent me to you.
This is my eternal name,
and this is to remember me to all generation.”

• Isa 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore, in that day, behold, I, I
am the one who speak [to them].
• Act 2:21 (//Joel 2:32) Those who call YHWH’s name shall be saved.
• Exo 20:7 = Deu 5:11 [in the Ten Commandments] You shall not take up the name of
Jehovah your God in a worthless way (> in vain) for YHWH will not leave the one
unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way.

So-called 'I AM' is not God's name; Hebrew word in O.T. is 'I'm' not 'I am'. [not same 'I AM'
of the Trinitarian reading of Jn 8:58 – which should simply 'I, I am'. Often it is simply 'I, I am
who I am' Jn 13:19. The phrase <Jesus the Great "I AM"> is a trinitarian jargon.

a
[Note: the word reverend appears only once here in the whole Bible, as applied to YHWH Elohim – how
could we lift it to throw onto mortal men?!]
b
https://youtu.be/pUK7pVZd3Fs
c
Quoted in Mt 22:32; //Mk 12:26; //Lk 20:37.
He gives the command to “call on my name” in Psa 99:6;
we are told to declare His Name in Rm 9:17 and Heb 2:2;
to proclaim His name in Deu 32:3.
to exalt His Name in Psa 34:3 and Isa 2:4;
to glorify His name in Isa 40:10; 24:45; Psa 86:9, etc.
to sanctify His name in Isa 29:23;
to honor His name in Psa 66:2, 4;
to praise His Name in 2Sam 22:50;
to magnify His name - Psa 34:3; 69:30; Gen 12:2;
to remember His Name in Exo3:15; Psa 20:7
to sing to His Name in Psa 9:1-2;
to think upon His Name in Mal 3:16;

to confess -1Ki 8:33; 2Ch 6:24,

to trust in His name – Zep 3:12; Isa 50:10; Psa 9:10
to love your name – Psa 5:11
*Tetragrammaton
*Yah

Yah ‫ = יּה‬the name of God in the Scripture. A short form of YHWH, which seems
theophoric itself, ‘Yah who shall be’, i.e. ‘who shall be with His people’, rather than ‘self-
existing being’ (as in LXX Gk ho ōn ‘the being’ in Exo 3:24 Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh) which is
an abstract notion from Greek philosophy, totally unrelated to the Hebrew mindset.]
Exo 15:2; 17:16 Yah
Psa 89:9 YHWH ~~ Yah
Isa 12:2; 26:4 “Yah YHWH”
Isa 38:11 Yah ~ Yah

[Occurs 50x in Hebrew Scripture, 26x alone and 24x as in the expression such as 'Praise
Yaha (spelt in English as ‘hallelujah’ but actually pronounced as ‘-yah’, despite spelt ‘-
jah’). Many Hebrew proper (theophoric) names (141x) have ending of –yah; sometimes –
yahu in Masoretic text.] QQQ any with yahu- or yeho-?]

[JAH -- King James Version there is only a single instance of JAH (capitalized), in Psalm
68:4. An American Translation (1939) follows KJV in using Yah in this verse.]

http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/421/JBQ_421_4_Yah.pdf
Clifford Hubert Durousseau, “YAH: A NAME OF GOD”

“His name Yah”

Sing yoů to Elohim; sing and praise His name;
Exalt the One riding through the desert plainsb
As Yah, His name, Rejoice before Him [Psa 68:4]

“Praise Yah!” [> Hallelu Yah]

Bless thou YHWH, O my soul.

Praise ye Yah! [Psa 104:35]
Praise YHWH ~ Praise Yah [Psa 117:1 ~ 2]
Praise Yah! ~ Praise YHWH [Psa 146:1; 148:1]
Praise Yah! [Rev 19:1, 3, 4, 6]; Praise our Elohim! [Rev 19:4]

a
‘Hallelu-Yah’ (‘Praise Yah’): How many do realize that the English word ‘Hallelujah’ or
‘Allelujah’ (with j actually pronounced as y!) which they fancy to shout out does actually mean?
b
‘riding through the desert plains' – NWT, /rides on the clouds – NET; (x: rides upon the heavens – KJV+;
H6160 arabah)
On uttering the Name of God

Prohibition and avoidance of uttering (x: pronouncing) of YHWH (the Name of the
Elohim)

It is not about to prohibit pronouncing then name, but to keep the name honor the
name of the Elohim himself at the penalty of blasphemy.

No one would call his father by the name! The name is used for identification and
reference, not for using to call and call up. Numerous such ‘names’ (actually titles
or descriptors – epithets) for God are in the Bible for such purpose.

Cf. The combination of name and title for a person: ‘YHWH Elohim’ ‘Yeshua
Mashiah’, etc.

In English usage, the phrase ‘President Lincoln’ may be used to call him; not
‘Lincoln President’.)

Jewish point of view: from www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

Nothing in the Torah prohibits a person from pronouncing the Name of God. Indeed,
it is evident from scripture that God's Name was pronounced routinely. Many
common Hebrew names contain "Yah" or "Yahu," part of God's four-letter Name.
The Name was pronounced as part of daily services in the Temple.

The Mishnah confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name
in ancient times. In fact, the Mishnah recommends using God's Name as a routine
greeting to a fellow Jew. Berakhot 9:5. However, by the time of the Talmud, it was
the custom to use substitute Names for God. Some rabbis asserted that a person who
pronounces YHVH according to its letters (instead of using a substitute) has no place
in the World to Come, and should be put to death. Instead of pronouncing the four-
letter Name, we usually substitute the Name "Adonai," or simply say "Ha-Shem" (lit.
The Name).

Although the prohibition on pronunciation applies only to the four-letter Name, Jews
customarily do not pronounce any of God's many Names except in prayer or study.
The usual practice is to substitute letters or syllables, so that Adonai becomes
Adoshem or Ha-Shem; Elohaynu and Elohim become Elokaynu and Elokim; Eil
becomes Keil, etc.

With the Temple destroyed and the prohibition on pronouncing The Name outside of
the Temple, pronunciation of the Name fell into disuse. Scholars passed down
knowledge of the correct pronunciation of YHVH for many generations, but
eventually the correct pronunciation was lost, and we no longer know it with any
certainty. We do not know what vowels were used, or even whether the Vav in the
Name was a vowel or a consonant. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about
the difficulties in pronouncing Hebrew. Some religious scholars suggest that the
 Name was pronounced "Yahweh," but others do not find this pronunciation
particularly persuasive. Historian Flavius Josephus, who was born a kohein at a time
when the pronunciation of the Name was still known, said that the name was four
vowels (War of the Jews, Book V, Ch. 5), probably referring to the fact that each of
the four consonants in the name can serve in Hebrew as a vowel or vowel marker.

On vocalization, pronunciation, translation, transliteration

The Tetragrammaton, a four-letter Hebrew word ‫( יהוה‬yod, hé, waw, hé), which is simply
transliterated as YHWH in English. a [Cf. Six Hebrew spellings of the tetragrammaton are
found in the Leningrad Codex with different vowel pointings (niqqud).]

The four letters are as vowels (semi-vowels), rather than consonants. Its pronunciation:
Yehuehb rather than commonly accepted Yahwehc (which is in consonantal form). [Note:
Hebrew letter ‫ ה‬has a sound value of voiceless glottal fricative]

[YHWH – (1) it is w, not v in the biblical Hebrew and (2) there is no J in Hebrew - (as used
appearing in ‘Jehovah’); (3) Various Masoretic vowel pointings (niqqud) tells how to vocalize it
with deferent sense of the word

A proper name should be only transliterated, as phonetically close to the original as possible.
Traditionally this name was translated as Jehovah. [Note: In KJV 1611 it was Iehovah.] However,
Jehovah is phonetically monstrous, as there were no J and V in the Hebrew language and ‘yeh-’
was never found as a part of the Divine name.

Many modern scholars accept ‘Yahweh’ instead. It is pronounced as ya-hweh in two syllables, not
yah-weh (with w actually having sound value of long u, or oo, which then makes it yah-u-eh as the
way it should be easily and clearly pronounced). As for oral reading of IRENT which has adopted
the Tetragrammaton itself (YHWH) as a translation word for Gk. kurios in limited and selected

a
Transliterate of the Tetragrammaton, a four-letter Hebrew word ‫( יהוה‬yod, hé, waw, hé) for the name of
the God. Gk ΙΑΩΗ in Greek. [‘Yah’ is a shortened form.]
Not YHVH (as in Modern Hebrew) or JHVH (as in Latin). Cf. History of ‘J’: the the sound j became only
from 17th century with the letter (glyph) “J” was used as a Gothic font for the capital “I”. Cf. History of “u”,
“oo”, “v”, and “w” letters and sounds.
Ref: www.yrm.org/yahveh-yahweh.htm
www.yaiy.org/literature/SpellSacredName.html
www.yahushua.net/YAHUWAH/chapter_07.htm [U, V or W?]
www.hebrewtoday.com/content/hebrew-alphabet-letter-vav-%D7%95
b
Yahueh - Yahuweh (pronounced as YA-hu-e) > = spelled as YaHWeh (by David Bivin
www.jerusalemperspective.com/2610/), pronounced as YĀ-we.
/x: Yahuah. - There is no ‘a’ sound in the last syllable of Tetragrammaton. YHWH is not a theophoric name
(for erroneous ‘Yeh-’/‘Jeh-’.)
/xx: Jehovah – which is originated from Latin transliterate for YHWH. Phonetically ‘v’ sound is only in
Modern Hebrew; it is w sound in the ancient Hebrew as well as in related Semitic languages. In English ‘j’
sound is a recent development in mid-17th century later than KJV 1611.] The initial vowel is ‘a’, not ‘e’, as
in His name in the form of ‘Yah’.
c
Yahweh is a commonly accepted by most of modern scholars. The transcription ‘ya-hu-eh’ is much
smoother and clearer to pronounce than ‘ya-hweh’, which may be mistaken a ‘ya-(h)-weh’ with (h) silent.
number of places in GNT, it may be vocalized as Adonai, or simply as Yah (the short form of
YHWH).

Vowel pointing:

Masoretic text for TaNaKh (Hebrew Scripture) – btw 7th and 10th c. CE – the text was
written with niqqud (‘vowel pointing’).

Different pointing giving different meaning:

1. YeHWaH ~ Jeremiah 3:25

2. YHoWaH ~ Genesis 18:17
3. YeHoWaH ~ Genesis 3:14 (= pointing of Adonai ‘Lord’ – not Adoni ‘my Lord’)
4. YHWiH ~ Psalms 68:21
5. YeHWiH ~ Genesis 15:2, 8
6. YeHoWiH ~ 1 Kings 2:26, Jdg 16:28
7. YaHWaH ~ Psalms 144:15

By adding different vowel points, it is variously vocalized with different meaning of the word. The
most common way is to vocalize the word as ‘Adonai’ following the common Masoretic practice.

(Ref: www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09chap.pdf )

English word ‘Jehovah’ as known traditionally is a later development (with J sound of Romance
language nonexistent in English prior to 14th century, did not become widely known until mid-17th
century. The last letter put into the alphabet of English language.) No J sound in exists in Hebrew
language. It appears as JEHOVAH in KJVa (1611 and 1769) in all caps, the Letter J being simply a
Gothic font for the letter I in capital, thus actually pronounced as Iehovah at the time of 1611 version.
In modern edited version of KJV (1769 edition which is in current use) has it as ‘Jehovah’ only in
seven verses of O.T. [of course, with V is a wrong transcription of W (= oo) with a different Heb. letter
for v itself; and modern J sound was a later development in English.]
(1) as "Jehovah" in four passages where the name is particularly stressed [Exo 6:3; Psa 83:18 (H
19); Isa 12:2; Isa 26:4] (IEHOVAH in KJV1611; JEHOVAH in KJV 1769)
(2) and, in three passages to form transliterated constructs [e.g., Jehovah-jireh (Gen 22:14);
Jehovah-nissi (Exo 17:15); Jehovah-shalom (Jdg 6:24)]. [Cf. Iehouah-ijreh – in KJV1611;
Jehovahjireh – in KJV 1769 and notice the letter j in lower case] [Cf. Iehouáh-iireh – Geneva
(1560). From Iehouah in Tyndale. Cf. Luther German Bible rendered as ‘Herr’ (i.e. ‘LORD’)]

Ref. www.scribd.com/doc/150916651 (scanned text of the original KJV1611)

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/ http://1611bible.com/
https://archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560 (scanned text of the original)

Pronunciation of YHWH – Yahuweh ← Yahweh; /xx: Jehovah;

“The name of God that in transliteration comes out YHWH (Yod-Hei-Waw-Hei),

but these are vowels (semivowels or consonantal vowels) Many believe that the four letters are
unpronounceable because these are consonants9.

Various examples of its pronunciation: (excl. those with ‘J’ and ‘v’ – all incorrect).

a
KJV 1611 – for the text and scanned pages of the original, see www.kingjamesbibleonline.org .]
 Iehouah (Geneva and Bishops)
Yehowah (reflecting Masoretic vowel pointing for Hebrew word ‘Adonai’; a phonetically
corrected form of Jehovah. Similar to 여호와 ‘Yeohowa’ in Korean, as well),
Yahoweh (Skilton, The Law and the Prophets, pp. 223-4),
YAHUAH (Cepher - http://cepher.net )
Yahuwah, Yahowah (Mowinckle etc.)
Yahweh (favored by modern scholars) (yah-weh, not ya-hweh). [A few English translations of OT,
notably Jerusalem Bible.] – The first syllable is ‘Yah’ which itself is a personal name of the Elohim
in a short form, as appeared in the word HalleluYah as well as many theophoric names. (Cf. a
similar-looking Hebrew letter ‫[ ח‬c]het or ḥet, as in Bach the German composer, or Loch, Scottish
word for a lake, a glottal aspirate.) For the part –weh, since English letter ‘w’ is to be pronounced
as ‘oo’, the form ‘Yahweh’ is actually incorrect English transcription, inferior to ‘Yahuweh’. a
The first syllable is vocalized as Yah [vide infra] which is a short form of YHWH; often
seen in a number of theophoric names.

Cf. http://youtu.be/wRsbSLU9oFA

In Masoretic Hebrew Text of TaNaKh (Hebrew Scripture; so-called Old Testament) the
Tetragrammaton is usually vocalized as ‘Adonai’ with the most common pattern of vowel
pointing

There have been quite a number of suggestions; Traditional word ‘Jehovah’ is linguistically
archaic and anachronistic; it should be avoided as it does not represent accurately. Yehowah
would be a phonetically corrected Hebraic saying of ‘Jehovah’ of Modern English. [KJV 1611
‘Jehovah’ is in Early Modern English with j having y sound, and v from double u (v v). See
EE for J vs. Y here10]. Modern scholars favor ‘Yahweh’, a two-syllabled English word. Since
English ‘w’ is to be ‘oo’, the correct pronunciation is close to ‘Yahuweh’ (> Yahueh). [See
Appendix for further details on His name for its vocalization, different pronunciations,
meaning, as well as the issue of its NT rendering.]

[Cf. Hebrew word for Yahudah (> Judah) differs only by the insertion of a dalet ('d').
However, it is not related to the name YHWH. The two are from different roots.]
[Cf. ‘Adonai YHWH’ has vowel points for the Elohim to make YeHoWiH, a hybrid that
combine the letters of Yahweh's name with the vowel sounds of two other words: Adonai and
the Elohim.]

a
Ref: www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09chap.pdf
The Elohim (the God of the Scripture) has made Himself known with YHWH as His
‘personal’ name (Isa 42:8; 54:5; Exo 6:3). [It appears often as a combination of the name
and the title, ‘YHWH Elohim’ (Gen 2:4; Exo 3:15; 4:5, etc.)]. It is customary in modern
Judaism to use haShem (‘the name’) in place of His name.

1. Masoretic text of Hebrew Scripture with various vowel pointing.

2. Compound names –i.e.
YHWH-Yireh (Gen 22:14).
YHWH-Tzeva’ot (Isa 1:9; Rm 9:29; Jam 5:4) – YHWH of Armies; (? ‘of Commander-in-
Chief’).
3. Short form –Yah
4. In combination – i.e. YHWH Elohim (‘LORD God’ – most; /’Jehovah God’ – ASV, NWT.
[cf. theophoric names – personal names embedding the name of a deity. In Hebrew with –
el- or -el; -yah/-yahu (suffix); Yeho-/Yo- (prefix), which is altered form of Yahu.]
5. Most English Bibles do not pay due carefulness to translate this name. Those doing
consistently for OT are ASV, JB, NJB, NWTa, etc.
6. Early manuscripts showing Tetragrammaton itself in Hebrew letter within the Greek
translation (so-called LXX) of the TaNaKh.
(http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/2008sbl/text.htm)

It is a great error to translate the God’s very name as “the LORD” (KJV and others) in O.T. when
they were supposed to translate the Scripture based on the Hebrew text, not from LXX. Any name,
if it is a name, is only to be properly transliterated and cannot be translated.

On translation, transliteration

[Regarding the divine name, there has been a long history of arguments about (1) the
correct pronunciation accepted by scholars as the very name of God written in the Hebrew
Tetragrammaton and (2) its meaning.]

Recently people became conscious of the Name in original language, reflecting in the
efforts –

(1) YHWH to be rendered by transliteration, not by paraphrasing (e.g. as ‘the LORD’

in all caps) in O.T. This has been accomplished by several refutable Bible translations
and there is not much argument necessary, and
(2) the effort to bring the divine name into the English translation of the Greek New
Testament text. The letter is rather contentious from various reasons, including
linguistic, grammatical and denominational doctrinal. These are important to pay due
consideration. However, equally or much more importantly now, the focus should be,
not just how to pronounce or transliterate correctly, and how often the name should
better use the name in our writing or speech, but for what the name is to be. The
name is to reflect the reality of the person — the identity, revelation, and authority.

a
Ref: http://tetragrammaton.org/divname.html
 We who should know our own father’s name dearly would and should refer him by
name where and when things are carried out in his name – calling upon his name. No
one would ever call him by his name! It would be a blasphemy. The Name is to be
praised, honored and sanctified (Mt 6:9) and is to call upon. Having been hung up by
what the name is and ignoring what the name is for is a legalistic and cultic propensity.

When we say YHWH is His name, actually we do not mean that the four-lettered word is
His name. As a transcript of the Hebrew word it simply represents His name. With it He is
represented. His name is NOT same as His identity and reality – who He is – which is the
greatest metaphysical and theological mystery. In His self-revelation, He graciously made
Himself known with His name (not ‘by’ His name). In the OT texts, the so-called
Tetragrammaton was found scribed in various ways and various scripts.a It was associated
with various vowel pointings (which gives different meaning). In LXX etc., it is transcribed
into Greek in different ways, e.g. IAO. How the Tetragrammaton was pronounced
originally is the subject by itself. When the Hebrew text is translated into different
languages, it should be so transliterated as phonetically close as possible. It is shown to be
instead translated, even without any basis on the meaning, but substituted with a title, e.g.
kurios in Greek and its equivalent Lord in English. When the (original) text was read aloud
(as the reading was oral, not visual as with books in modern societies), how the
Tetragrammaton should be read aloud, even if the precise pronunciation was known? One
principle to keep can be put into a question, ‘does the reader (Latin - lector) honor Him,
honor His name?’ when the text is being read. This point is aside from how properly
translate it in the text. Having the name translate does not mean that the readers of the
translated Bibles are to read out His name or are able to read it correctly. When no one in
the human family would say out one’s own father’s name whenever he is referred to, how
much more our heavenly Father! The name is only to be spoken out when it has to be clear
that He is the one known with His name. It’s reverence to Him; it is for honoring Him, it
is from ‘fear’ of Him, it is from love of Him. All the more same, failing translating the
name faithfully and substituting with a generic title (Lord) of a non-scriptural word found
in human society or indigenous religion is dishonoring His name.

The sacred personal name of the very God in the Scripture. The Elohim Himself revealed to be
known with this very name (not given by anyone; not that He was known as a god who has a
‘personal’ name.). It appears over 150 x in O.T. from Gen 15:7 through Exo 6:2 down to Mal 3:6
(161 x in ASV; 154 x in NWT; also in a Catholic translation, Jerusalem Bible). For its
pronunciation, see in the Appendix toward the end of the file. It is composed of four semivowels
(= vowel-consonantsb – these are not consonants as often misunderstood). The name is not a
mantra to use to invoke a god as in paganism. It is used to refer to Him and identify Him – to
acknowledge who He is. The name (personal, singular, proper person name) is not to be used to
call up or addressed to. The name used frivolously is nothing other than a blasphemy. No one
would, in our human language, address one’s father by their name!c

a
Reading material: http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/writing-pronouncing-the-divine-name-
in-second-temple-jewish-tradition/
b
vowel-consonants – Josephus mentioned ‘phōnenata tessara’ (four vowels) for the Tetragrammaton. GEL
(1968, s.v.; and translations by Thackeray, Jos. III. Pe273, loc. Cit.; Whiston, Jos., p. 556, loc. Cit.
c
[Cf. ‘call upon His name’ is a different idiom.] [Cf. The practice and tenet behind so-called ‘Sacred Name
Movemens’ carry some unbiblical ideas and agenda.]
Meaning of YHWH:

[Cf. the verb ‘be’ in YHWH – see a full discussion on ‘egō eimi’ (> ego eimi). The verb in Greek
is a copula (a linking verb). In English the verb ‘be’ is for a copula or an auxiliary verb. By itself
it is not locative (cf. ‘there is’) or existential (cf. ‘be present’)
[To be read: Exo 3:1-17.]

http://demo.sheruyasodha.com.np/uploads/Bibliotheca_Sacra_142_565_%5BJan-
March_1985%5D_38-51.pdf [Charles R. Gianotti, The Meaning of the Divine Name
YHWH, Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. BSAC 142:565 (Jan 1985)]

To summarize, the name YHWH points to God's relationship to Israel in both His saving acts
and His retributive acts, manifesting His phenomenological effectiveness in Israel's history.
What God says, He will do. His Name promises that. And He will act on behalf of His people.
But YHWH does not ultimately limit the significance of His name to the children of Israel.
As Eichrodt succinctly states, "it is in the person of Jesus that the function of the Name of
Yahweh as a form of the divine self-manifestation finds its fulfillment." Truly Jesus is the
par excellence manifestation of God's active effectiveness in the history of the world!

As to the meaning of the Name it is to be found in the narrative context of the Exodus: Exo
3:12 ‫‘ ־אֶֽהְ יֶ֣ה עִ ָּ֔מְך‬I shall be with you, Moses, all through this’ and Exo 3:14 ‫אֶֽהְ יֶ֖ה אֲ ֶ֣שר אֶֽהְ יֶ֑ה‬
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh ‘And the Elohim said to Moses, <I am who I shall be [= the One who will
act for my people Israel]> (> ‘I am who I am’ - KJV) and said, “Thus you shall say to the
children of Yisrael <I am has sent me to yoů>, in reply to Moses’ question in v. 13 “See, when
I come down to the children of Yisrael, and say to them, <The Elohim of your fathers has sent
me to yoů>; and they are going to say to me, <What is His name? What should I say to them?>”

Exo 3:14 – paraphrased

And the Elohim said to Moses
“I am who shall be with His people.
Thus you shall say to the sons of Yisrael
that the One who says I am [Heb. Yah] to be with them
has sent you.”

[The One who is to be with His people – The one who is their Helper, Redeemer,
Deliverer.]

‘I am who I shall be’ or ‘I am that I am’ is NOT the name of the Elohim. Nor the English
phrase ‘I Am’ (or even ‘I AM’) is the name for God, the Trinitarians have a penchant for
it. It is the meaning of His name. It is ‘the One who shall be’ [expressed in third person
singular], the One who acts in His redemptive history of Israel, is who He is.a TaNaKh
itself was exclusively written to His chosen people; it meant nothing to the rest of the world
and would remain such until the coming of Yeshua. the Elohim Himself pronounced ‘I am
the One’ [first person speaker]; He was not calling Himself ‘I Am that I Am’ or Hayah. The
word "hayah" means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular
imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be").

a
[Thematically, it exactly corresponds to Immanuel (Mt 1:23).]
For example, at Exo 3:14. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally renders as "I will be I will be". The
short form name Yah is in the first phrase ‘I am the One’. The word (name) means what it
is; the meaning is not the word (name). [Pharaoh will come to know His name; will come
to know who He is.]

Note: This verb is not of ‘future’ tense as such [as the Hebrew language contains no tense
form s], but denotes a state of becoming – not a state of being (=existing) of Greek mindset.
Here the verb ‘be’ is not in existential sense of to exist on His own, but in the sense of His
being present in the midst of His people through the history of Israel, His chosen people.
[Cf. Jn 8:58 egō eimi a does correspond to the part of God as the speaker, but not to the
meaning of the name itself.] [Note: to read and take the sense of ‘existence’, ‘the being’,
etc. (as LXX renders as ὁ ὢν (ho ōn ‘Being’) is from Greek metaphysical mindset of Greek
philosophy, which is foreign to Hebrew mindset. All this is evident within the narrative of
the text itself which shows that it is a reply to Moses’ question. The name of the Elohim
reflects His presence with His people, not His ontological existence on His own [e.g. so-
called self-existence, which is oxymoronic. The very notion of existence is a human
construct. The Creator is not ‘a being’ (as if one of many beings), nor belongs to the
category of ‘the Being’.] [The God of the Scripture is not same as God of Greek philosophy
and God of modern Christianisms. God is the very God who acts and moves with flow and
radiating out (cf. there is no such thing as radiating or flowing in.) This is the meaning of
the expression ‘the Elohim is spirit’ in Jn 4:24 (>> ‘God is spirit’; /xxx: ‘God is a Spirit’
– KJV) – not ‘a spirit’ ‘a spirit being’ (like a ghost?). It is not a countable noun (as ‘a
spirit’), nor is a person, nor substance which God is supposedly made of. It is not a God
who exists with its very transcendent existence is its raison d'être.

The holy Spirit is the spirit of the Elohim, not God the Holy Ghost. Spirit is the mode in
which God exists, acts, moves, flows, loves, creates. It is not something immaterial, nor
‘force’ or ‘energy’. To live in God, be with God, in union with Him, fellowship in Him –
all in spirit, not in a ‘person’. Same for ‘with, by, and in Mashiah’ – it is, again, in spirit.
Same for us – it is in spirit with our soul that we relate to Mashiah and the Elohim.]

a
Gk. egō eimi (> *ego eimi) is often rendered as '*I Am' or, even 'I AM', when the speaker was
Yeshua, as if capitalization is to make it as the name of God itself. IRENT renders it as 'I, I am', in
most places to show the emphatic I, regardless who the speaker is in the sentence. Other options
are (1) 'I myself' (Tit 1:5); (2) I is separated from the verb by an additional word, such as 'indeed',
'even', etc. The expression 'as for myself' is more of concessional, than emphatic. Cf. In Korean,
two different ways of having '나', the Korean word for I, in as a sentence as a subject – '내가' vs.
'나는'. The phrase on the lips of Yeshua is common in G-Jn. Jn 10:7ff - [Ko. 내가 바로 (/곧); /나는
(v.7). vs. 내가 (v. 8)] [CJB 'I, I' – e.g. Isa 45:18]
Ex 3:14 the Elohim said to Moses,
“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh!”
And He said,
“Say this to the people of Yisrael,
<Ehyeh has sent me to yoů.>”
Ex 3:15 the Elohim further said to Moses,
“Say this to the sons of Yisrael,
<YHWH, [6:3] Elohim of yoůr fathers
— Elohim of Abraham,
Elohim of Yitzchak,
and Elohim of Yaakob —
has sent me to yoů.>
This – YHWH – is my name forever,
and this is how I shall be known
from generation to generation.

Ex 6:3 “And I appeared to Abraham, Yitzchak and Yaakob

as El Shaddai [/God Almighty];
but, why! by my name, YHWH, [3:14]
have I not known to them?!
His name is the revealed name by the God of Scripture Himself. Declared by Himself as ‘I am
YHWH’ throughout TaNaKh (Hebrew Scripture; ‘Old Testament’).

• YHWH – His personal name (Exo 6:3 ‘by my name YHWH’) [Cf. Isa 42:8. 54:5].
Cf. Adonaia
• YHWH Elohim – Gen 2:4; Exo 3:15, etc.
Note: ‘*I am’ (either in ‘I Am’ or ‘I AM’) is not the name of Elohim the Creator, nor one of His
title. The erroneous idea is in the faulty theologies (Jewish or Christian).

‘I am YHWH’ ‫הוהי‬

"This is my name forever;

this is how I am to be remembered
generation after generation …" (Exo 3:15 - CJB)

"I am YHWH; that is my name;

my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to handmade image." (Isa 42:8)

And YOU will have to know that I am YHWH

when I deal with YOU for the sake of my name,
not according to YOUR evil ways
or according to YOUR corrupted deeds, O house of Israel,
says Adonai YHWH."
(Ezk 20:44) (Also 28:23, 25; 36:23, 25-28, 38)

“I am YHWH! And I had myself be seen by

to Abraham, Yitzchak and Yaakob
as El Shaddai.

And by my name, YHWH,

have I not known to them?!
(Exo 6:2-3; cf. 3:14) /x: they did not know the name
‘El Shaddai’ (> God the Almighty – descriptive title)

"Hear O Yisrael
YHWH is our Elohim;
YHWH is one and only [reality].
Shema Yisrael (Deu 6:4 //Mk 12:29 - IRENT)

a
IRENT (of New Testament) renders Gk. anarthrous kurios as YHWH when the text shows it references to
Most High Elohim and (2) where His name is to be revealed and honored. Elsewhere as Adonai after
Masoretic tradition of vocalization.
https://archive.org/stream/jstor-527403/527403#page/n0/mode/2up (pp. 154-156) The Divine Name Adonaj
[sic] and its History in Hebraica, Volume 7.
 The Name is to be revealed and revered. [Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2] Not to be hidden away or
shoved off, as many turn away and give no regard. When we come across His name, it
should not be taken nonchalantly. Nor thee name is to be taken lightly in a manner
unworthy to His name, in a manner of frivolity and blasphemy, as everything we have
hangs on it. [The name is to be known to bring and exercise the authority of the one who
carries it. No one who should know the name of one’s father would use the name to call
him, but only to call upon him.]

It holds true also for translation of the Greek New Testament, which faces different issues.
When the name was uttered through the mouth of Yeshua and was written in the Books of
Prophets, it behooves to see how the personal name of the Elohim should be read and heard
by the readers reading in English also with the N.T. translations.

Every words and phrases we know will be set aside, but these names shall remain to
eternity.
"Revering [the name of] YHWH is
the beginning of knowledge:
but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pro 1:7)
[See below in the Appendix: for Revering the name YHWH.]

As in many Bible translations and in ecclesiastical tradition and practice, the name of the
true God remained almost buried. The result of such unmistakable intentional absence of
YHWH from Christian consciousness is manifold:
(1) tendency to focus on the person of Christ as the exclusive manifestation of deity.
Jesus has become, both in many circles of Christian piety, and in some academic
theology, virtually the whole horizon of the divine. [Cf. Worshiping Jesus as God (cf.
‘Jesusism’) – divine person, exalted risen Lord].
(2) Anti-monism, anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism (cf. Marcionism).
(3) syncretism and a universal God for every religion; as well as
(4) degradation of the Gospel of the Mashiah (> the Messiah) into various man-made
Gospels (e.g. Gospels according to different Churches, religions, e.g. Catholicism,
Pentecostalism, etc.). See *Christomonism.
 The name of God is more than just something for identity as is the case of a human person’s
name, but also for the reality behind the name. It is the revelation of God Himself. The
expression ‘name’ stands for who He is and what He is for.

The expression “shall know that I am YHWH” or “shall know that I am YHWH your
Elohim” appears 36x (mostly in Ezk 6:7ff – also in Exo 6:7; 7:5, 17; 8:22; 10:2; 14:4,
18; 16:12; 29:46; 1Ki 20:13, 28; 49:23; Jer 24:7; Joe 3:17), in addition to the phrases
“I am YHWH” (Exo 6:8 etc.) and “I am YHWH your Elohim” (Lev 11:44 etc.). Cf. ‘he
who comes to the Elohim must believe that He exists" (Heb 11:6).

[See also for Personal Name of God under Appendix.]

YHWH our Father [//Our Father – Mt 6:9]

‘You, O YHWH, are our Father’ – Isa 63:16;
‘O YHWH, you are our Father – Isa 64:8
Cf. ‘YHWH ~ our Elohim’ – Isa 1:10

Note: Elohim, El, theos, or God – as well as those corresponding words in variety of
languages, cults, or religions [allah, 하나님, 하느님, カミ (kami; 神, 神様)] – All these
are not names, but common descriptive words. Not even ‘titles’ by themselves.
On the history of the word *Jehovah from a Latin transliterate for YHWH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah Check for the English word Jehovah – its history and the
pronunciation issue.
Fn. 125 - Gérard Gertoux, The name of God YeHoWaH which is pronounced as it is written
I_EH_OU_AH, page 152; a photo of a bilingual Latin (or Spanish) text and Hebrew text [side by
side] written by Raymond Martin in 1278, with in its last sentence "‫ "י ְהוָֹה‬opposite "Yohoua (??)".

Image - Excerpts from Raymond Martin's Pugio Fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos (1270, p. 559),
containing the phrase "Jehova, sive Adonay, qvia Dominus es omnium" (Jehovah, or Adonay, for
you are the Lord of all).a
Jehovah or Iehovah – KJV (1611) (J is simply a Gothic font for the capital letter for i.);
Iehouáh – Geneva Bible (1560): (as in Psalm 83:18)
Jova – Origenis Hexaplorum, (edited by Frederick Field, 1875)b

https://youtu.be/aWzetMUXPGo
The Watchtower does NOT want you to see this video - The name Jehovah is FALSE! -
jw.org The Watchtower (1969), Aid to Bible Understanding, pp. 884-5.
The Jews used to insert the vowels of "Adonai" into the Tetragrammaton "YHWH"
to remember to say Lord (Adonai) instead of God's name while reading the sacred
texts. The two words put together read: "Yehowah." In the year 1270 a Dominican
Spanish monk by the name of Raymundus Martin published a book called "Pugeo
Fidei" in which he wrote in the latinized form of "Yehowah". He was the first to do
so.
Today, the Watchtower will only tell you part of the facts. They won't tell you that
Raymundus misread 2 words as one. In other words that Jehovah is a mistake. They will
tell you that vowel points were inserted to try to find the correct pronunciation of God's
name.
The Watchtower soon realized the error they had made by publishing this information and
quickly replaced "Aid to Bible understanding" by another work called "Insight on the
Scriptures, Vol. 1 & 2," © 1988 in which they removed that entire explanation.
… Jehovah's witnesses continue to believe the lie that Jehovah is really God's name and
the explanation that Jehovah is the English rendering of Yahweh when in truth, Jehovah
is the LATINIZED form of a mistaken understanding of Hebrew practices of ancient
times.
b
[Note: Sometimes one will see a "j" in Latin. Technically Latin has no letter J. It was introduced in the
13th century or thereabouts to differentiate between the vowel i and the consonant i. The consonantal i
is like our y. "Major" in Latin is pronounced as MAH-yor. Until this last century, most printed Latin
texts used the j to indicate the different sounds. Today the j's are usually replaced with the more classical
i's.] [The "J" glyph is a lot older than that, but it was simply a variant of the "I" glyph] in the Latin
alphabet the letter J was developed as a variant of I, and this distinction was later used to distinguish the
consonantal "y" sound [j] from the vocalic "i" sound [i]. However, at about the same time there was a
sound change in many of the languages of Western Europe, such that the "y" sound changed into a "j"
sound ([dʒ], or sometimes [ʒ]). So we have it that in English, the letter J now represents a consonant [dʒ]
which is not obviously similar to the vowel [i], despite the fact that they descend from the same letter
and the same sound. (English also has many [dʒ] sounds spelled with J which come from native Germanic roots.)
 Divine Titles
God; Elohim, the Elohim

[Collection of words, terms, and expressions – theos, el, elohim; a god, gods, God,
the God, God-being, deity (= not to be confused with ‘divinity’ ‘divineness’), a
mighty One, the Almighty, the heavenly (king), Godhead (‘head God’ or ‘head of
God’?). Equivalent vocabulary in other languages, e.g. Allah etc.] [Related
vocabulary (adjectival, etc.) in WB #1] [Cf. ‘Triune God’ syn. of ‘Trinity God’
(‘God the Trinity’??) is theological unbiblical jargon in the Trinitarian doctrine.]

(Kingdom reign of) the heavens’ Mt 4:17 – Judaic periphrasis for God. //the God
(< the Elohim) in Mk 1:15.

“the Elohim of Abraham, and the Elohim of Yitzchak and the Elohim of Yaakob”
Exo 3:6; Mt 22:32; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37

God confusion and God conflict all begin with the word problem. Everyone,
believe or not, has god/God. But all are different God. No one believes the one
and same God, unless under their religion. It is one of a few most frequent words
in the Bible, it demands us to tackle how to use it, in order for us to communicate
meaningfully on the common ground about ‘God’ and all that follows. In a sense,
God is not God. Which God? Unless specified as ‘God of the Scripture’, ‘God
Almighty’, ‘God the Most High’ (- Hebrew expressions), ‘God of Abraham, …,
Moses, … Yeshua’, the word God is not much different from a pagan god. So,
when we hear ‘g-o-d’ or read ‘God’, we have to know at the beginning what God
and which God before we can continue on the subject.

We should distinguish before we can state or discuss anything to do with ‘God’

in three major categories in our language:

1. Secular – e.g. use it as shamanistic idea, deistic, polytheistic. Often

blurred with any ‘supernatural’ ‘spiritual’ something. It is the one to
whom people ‘bow down’ ‘rubbing hands’ ‘kneel down’ ‘invoke’
‘begging and petitioning’ esp. to fend off ‘evil’ and misfortune, and for
‘blessing’. It is often used in meaningless expletives – O-my-god; g-d
damn; etc.

You can see this history worked out differently in the spelling systems of German and many of the Slavic languages
of Eastern Europe, where the letter J spells the "y" sound [j], and the letter Y, if used at all, is primarily used as a
vowel.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148399/if-the-letter-j-is-only-400-500-years-old-was-there-a-j-sound-that-
preceded-the
 2. Religiousa – each religion or denomination claim their own ‘God’. E.g.
many Trinitarians have ‘Jesus’ as their God (in addition to two other
Gods – Father and the Holy Ghost); some claims ‘Jesus’ is same as
‘Jehovah’. Keep their thoughts veiled with technical jargons, such as
‘person’, ‘Godhead’, etc.
3. Biblical – often read as if religious term, the Bible is clear that it is the
Creator God, God of Abraham, Isaac, Yaakob, Moses, David, and of
Yeshua. As a translation word, ‘God’ is ambiguous term – who is
referred to is dependent on the context. Cf. ‘Elohim’, a Hebrew
loanword, is used in translation only in a small number of English bibles,
including IRENT. It is not possible to use the word ‘Elohim’ as an
expletive. Rendering the arthrous Gk ho theos (the God), which is the
majority case in N.T. as the Elohim removes all the huddles and we can
pull ourselves out of quagmire of theological doctrinal contentions. [E.g.
Jn 1:1; Jn 20:28; Heb 1:8, etc.]

So, in the statement ‘we believe God’, are we clear whom we have in mind? How
can we be comfortable and keep ‘our face’ when we praise ‘God’, with the same
we often nonchalantly dishonor in our speech? That is one of the reasons why the
God we believe is not the one and same, the only God. We have same situation
with the name ‘Jesus Christ’. With the correct original name Yeshua the
Mashiah, it cannot be heard in an expletive from the mouth of people, church-
goers or not alike.)

God confusion:

• Often used as a title, but God is not a name! The word itself does not refer
to the Creator God of the Bible. The word can be applied to any. However,
Yeshua never used this title for himself; no one in the Gospels called him as
such. When it has become used for him in the history of the Church
(Hellenistic, Constant Catholic, and then Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and
Protestant Church), ‘Jesus became God’, ‘Jesus is made God’ – a
reconstructed figure who is worship as God in the line of the Trinitarian
doctrine. In a sense, the word ‘God’ is as a ‘divine man’. Depending on how
one defines the word, the two opposing claims ‘Jesus is God’ and ‘Jesus is
not God’ is, strangely enough, not contradictory.
• ‘He knew God because He was God!’ - a nonsense by Israel Wayne (2014),
Questions Jesus Asks p. 140.
• “A is God; B is God; and C is God. All together there is one God” – a
Trinitarian formula. Why not counted as three Gods, or three gods?

a
It also applies non-Christian as well as pseudo-Christian ideas (such as Deism, New Age / spirituality
movements, etc.). What is called God is not the God of the Bible, but rather amorphous undefinable
‘Force’, ‘spirit’, or ‘spirit of a god’ as shown the examples of their expressions such as ‘God is in you’;
‘God and I are one’, ‘We are part of God’ ‘is everywhere and in everything’ (NCV Eph 4:6), ‘God is
the same as man’, etc.]
 • ‘The name of our God is Jesus” – a nonsense by Mark Driscoll, an
evangelical pastor. What about the name YHWH (or Jehovah in KJV)?
• Pray to God in the name of Jesus→ Jesus is God → Praying to Jesus in the
name of God? → Where is God the Holy Ghost, hearing such prayer, sitting
on the throne, left to the God the Father?
• I am a god; you too (‘possible after death?). The God was once a man. –
Mormon belief.
• If God, why evil?
• God is immortal. Then how did ‘God’ (‘God the Son’) suffer and die on the
Cross?

Linguistically God problem is confusion and mix up with ‘generic God’, which is
equally applied to other Gods other than the Creator God – the Elohim of the
Scripture (O.T. and N.T.)

‘Mighty God’ vs. ‘Almighty God’

The Hebrew word ‘elohim’ is usually applied to YHWH in the Scripture (→ Cf.
‘Elohim’; ‘the Elohim’). In the same way Gk. theos. For it is arthrous (e.g. ho theos), it
is more than ‘God’ in English convention (with capitalization), it means ‘the God’.
IRENT renders it ‘the Elohim’. When it is applied to other than YHWH (usually
anarthrous) it is variously rendered in IRENT, e.g. → ‘a god’, ‘a God-being’, ‘a God’,
‘what God-being is’, or ‘God’. When this word is used as an adjectival noun, the phrase
‘what God is’ is found very suitable and unambiguous in Jn 1:1c. “The Word was

Jn 10:34 ~~ yoů [judges] are [to rule] as gods ░░ (‘gods’ in the sense of ‘mighty God-
like ones’ = Heb. elohim) [referring to judges and administrators Israel, not people of
Israel <sons (children – KJV) of YHWH yoůr Elohim> Deu 14:1).] {Psa 82:6} /= you
judges are like gods; /~ as god-like beings – ARJ; />> you are gods – most; /you are
elohim – ISR; /xx: you are Elohim – JNT; /> you people are gods – AUV;

[Psa 82:1 – [A psalm of Asaf:] the Elohim (=God) stands in the divine assembly; there
with elohim (gods = referring to the judges), He judges. 82:6 I, I said yoů are elohim
and sons of the Most High, all of yoů.]
Psa 82 Judges act as God – (subtitled in LXX Apostolic Interlinear)] (Cf. Isa 41:23
‘we may know yoů are gods’;
[Cf. Exo 7:1 ‘I have you to come as elohim to Pharaoh’ – ARJ; /like God – NET, ESV,
NRSV, HCSB, NIV trio; /God – NWT; /as God – NASB, NKJV; /as God – AMP; /an
elohim – ISR; /a god – KJV+; /seem like God – NLT; /have put you in the place of God
– CJB; /have put you in the role of God – ISV]

The expression ‘mighty God’ is applied both to YHWH and to other; whereas
‘almighty’ is only to YHWH.

(1) Isa 9:6 “Wonderful Counselor (Gk. thaumastos sumboulos), Mighty God (theos
ischuros; Heb. el gibbor – not elohim), Everlasting Father (patēr tou mellontos), Prince
of Peace (eksousiastēs archōn eirēnēs).” (Capitalization in English is for use as in a
title – here ‘God’ = ‘god’, not ‘the Elohim’)

(2) to YHWH:
• ‘the mighty God Isa 10:21 = YHWH, the Holy One of Israel (v. 20).
• ‘Adonai YHWH’ (> Lord Yahweh – WEB; /x: Lord GOD – KJV; /xx:
Sovereign LORD – NET, NIV; /Adonai God - CJB); Jer 32:17 → v. 18 the
great and mighty God (el gibbor), YHWH of Hosts is His name.

[gibbor H1368 (mighty); kabbir H3524 (mighty); el H410 (God, god); elohim H430
(God, gods); shadday H770 (almighty)]

‘The Almighty’ or ‘the Almighty God’ – is applied only to YHWH.

• El Shaddai (God Almighty) Gen 17:1 etc. [LXX simply as theos]

• ‘YHWH of host’ /x: the LORD Almighty – NIV - Zec 1:3, Jer 32:18, Isa
6:3 etc.; /Adonai-Tzva’ot – CJB; /Jehovah of armies – NWT;

[?? ‘YHWH Adonai’]

‘YHWH Elohim’ (?? ‘Elohim YHWH)]
2Co 6:18 Kurios Pantokratōr Adonai the Almighty (the Lord Almighty) /Adonai-
Tzva’ot – JNT;
Rev 4:8 etc. Kurios ho Theos Pantokratōr Adonai Elohim the Almighty

Being called ‘mighty God’ – does it mean to possess divine nature? – what is
‘divine nature’? In addition to other nature or in lieu of it?

[Cf.’ sons of Elohim’; ‘children of Elohim’ (1Jn 3:2))

*Elohim the Most High’ (ho theos ho hupsistos); this expression makes him the
very God of the Scripture. This is what is translated uniformly as ‘the Elohim’ in
IRENT of the arthrous Gk. ho theos (the God), in contrast to what has been
inadequately conveyed by translating it as ‘God’. [Capitalized as it is taken as a
title of God.]

In N.T.: Mk 5:7; Lk 8:28; Act 16:17; Heb 7:1;

/> God the Most High; > the Most High God;
/x: the Highest God; /x: God the Highest;

Sometimes simply ‘the Most High’:

Mk 5:7; Lk 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35; Lk 8:28; Act 7:48; 16:17; Heb 7:1;
God vs. *worship

If someone or something is worshiped, it may be worshiped as God, regardless whether

it is in fact ‘God’. God may be said something or someone ‘worship’ (with the word
carrying a special sense). [God in the sense of generic God is an object (someone or
something) people ‘worship’? Worship is something to do to God? – Circular logic.]
[Cf. prosekuneō ‘to worship’ (used often in a blanket fashion) vs. ‘to give (pay/bring)
homage to’ ‘to bow down before’ ‘to prostrate oneself before ~ on one’s knees’ (in the
act of); ‘to obeisance to’ (unsuitable vocab).]

That there is one God as the Bible texts say, can only mean that ‘one and only God to
worship by His people’. It has nothing to with how many gods we come across or create
or find. Biblical monotheism is nothing other than monaltry or henotheism. Cf.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – two gods, one Almighty and another mighty.
Mormons – polytheism – all Mormons themselves become gods, what does ‘god’ mean?
Most Christianisms with Trinitarianism – de facto tri-theism (worshipping to the
‘Trinity’ - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; praying to them – to
each of them, in whose name??). The triune statement (as in two places Mt 28:19; 1Jn
5:7b v.l.) does not mean it is a Trinitarian statement. God in N.T. is triune, not
Trinitarian. (triune -- triad in unity).

Divinity, deity, Godhead, Divine nature (2Pe 1:4; Rm 1:20), Divine person, etc.: That
‘God is divine’ is an oxymoron. Cf. ‘God is holy’ – vs. set-part, sacred. Anything or
anyone may be said ‘divine’ – the English word does not have much to do with the
biblical ‘God’, Elohim.
 • First, about the very common word ‘*god’ in English and its equivalent in different
languages – various meaning, sense, and usage (detonation and connotation). The
semantic field of these words differ in different languages and cultures. We need
categorize before going into detailed arguments (Cf. ‘God theology’).

It may be thought of a transcendent being of some sort. Though it may incorporate

certain aspects as we find in the Bible, this is actually a typical vocabulary of Greek
philosophy and well fit in religions, philosophies, and science. It may not be related
to the biblical God concept. Note: the God in this sense belongs to the confine of a
concept of ‘eternal’ or ‘supernatural’ but ‘supra-eternal’ or ‘supra-natural’. Most of
theological talk dumbs it down to be manageable level of theological doctrine.

We are, however, are necessarily concerned with only the word that which is used
in the Bible. It would be of Hebrew concept. The basic sense of this biblical word,
which is be applicable to every context and accepted by everyone would be ‘a
mighty one’ (though to grasp what sense to be ‘mighty’ it may not be simple). At
the risk of falling into circular definition the phrase ‘mighty one’ would a ‘god-
being’ (someone or even something). What this word means and refers to in the
particular context will determine how and what specific sense it is used (e.g.
whether it is ‘God’, or ‘god’, etc.).

• Next, about the concept of god (rather, god-being). God as a word, an idea, and an
object and then the reality. The God cannot be a static concept (a substance or a
being taking up a position somewhere), the self-existing one for that matter. The
God that exists itself would not carry any relevance to humanity. It can be only of
a relational dynamic process of ‘becoming’ in act (of creation). One may find their
ground of being in a God-being, but God is as, but not = (equal to), one’s Ground
of Being.
(cf. www.doxa.ws/Being/Being2.html Paul Tillich; also in Roinsen (1963), Honest
to God – their definition of God may not be same as in the Bible, but a metaphysical
and religious idea. Their “humpy-dumpy language” gives an entire new meaning to
the words.
http://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/101/Cman_101_3_Burrows.pdf)
One’s mental image of God is hardly coincides the Ultimate reality. Our God has
become too small (fit into an Aladdin’s lamp); easy for us to analyze and manipulate
to serve our wish, want, and will. [Note: when people says ‘God’, it is often not
more than an image of God, a God of their idea, or even a generic God (a God-
being; an external transcendent being; often personified), not the Ultimate reality.
In truth, God is one’s existential alter egoa (which is of the dark side of human
reality) Unless this alter ego is replaced by the true God, it is de facto a satan. A
satan is not an external agent, force, power, or a sprit being as a fallen ‘angel’. This
enemy is us and in us, not someone we can blame or explain all the evilness of the
world.

a
‘existential alter ego’ – alter ego (Latin, "the other I") – as another aspect of the self, in the dark
side of human reality (not ‘of human soul’), which is supposedly toward the ne plus ultra man, an
ideal Superman (Übermensch in German philosopher Nietzsche).], rather than as a ‘structural alter
ego’ used as a psychological term for a second self which is believed to be distinct from a
person's normal or original personality – cf. "sub-consciousness", altered consciounness,
multiple or split personality disorder.]
 It is essential to know what the English word ‘God’ is and is not. It is a common English
word of Germanic language origin. It is in the indigenous vocabulary of primitive
religious setting, and became to be used to render Latin deus (> Gk. theos); just as the
Hebrew word el was originated from the indigenous Canaanite language.]
The word ‘God’ is the English Bibles is merely a translation word for Gk theos and
Hebrew Elohim. By itself it is not ‘the true Elohim (God’) of the Scripture, only the
context tells what is referred to – which God. All these equivalent words – God, theos,
Elohim, Allah, 하나님, 하느님, (천주 天主 – Korean Catholic word), 神, 上帝, etc. –
are not ‘name’ of someone/some being/some person, but a common word with a basic
sense of ‘mighty one’.

Hebrew word el (LXX – theos; god - English). Elohim, the Hebrew word with plural
suffix, is used as a grammatically singular to designate the one and only true God. The
same plural form is used as a singular noun in the sense of ‘a god’ or ‘a god-being’. E.g.
elohim (LXX – theoi; gods) applied to Moses (‘I’ve made you a god to Pharaoh’– Exo
7:1), while it is used as ‘gods’ in Psa 82:6 (= quoted in Jn 10:34); also to refer to angelic
beings in Psa 8:5 (= quoted in Heb 2:8) [/angels – LXX, NIV, KJV; elohim – MT; /x:
God – ASV, NASB; /x: heavenly beings – ESV; /x: (less than) divine – ISV]; [Note:
another example of a Hebrew word in plural form functions always as singular – chayim
(‫חי ִּים‬
ַ ‘life’ – Gen 27:41; Job 10:12).] . Also, plural word ‘gods’ to designate Judges. In
these instances, it reflects the very presence of God.

Ref: the followings are attached to this WB #3 as ‘On Jesus as God – Gk. theos’
• Murray Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to
Jesus (2008). [See book reviews on www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Testament-
Theos-Reference/dp/160608108X ] [download from
www.scribd.com/doc/148032436/Murray-J-Harris-Jesus-as-God-the-New-
Testament-Bookos-org]
• https://bible.org/assets/powerpoint/wright_jesusasgod.pdf

It should be emphasized that, though it is often used as a title, this common English
word ‘God’ is not a name, nor it should be thought of or used as a substitute for the
name.11 It denotes *what God is (i.e. *God-beinga; of referencing), but not *who God is
(i.e., of reality). [‘identity’ = ‘reality’+ ‘reference’] [Note: ‘what God is NOT’ is no less
important than ‘what God is’.]

Hence, without the Name revealed and called upon, all the titles of God may well be
applied to other than the very God [YHWH Elohim] of the Scripture. Such ‘God’ when
people speak may well be any other god than Him. A number of issues concerning the
divine names and titles are discussed further along in this writing, always pointing to
their relevancy in translation work of the Scripture. How futile does it become when
someone is being known by titles, even such as ‘Lord’! (Mt 7:21-22).

The same holds true with the corresponding Greek word theos and the Hebrew word
Elohim. [God is the English translation word of the Greek, which is in turn a translation

a
‘God-being’ – not necessarily a countable noun.
 word of Hebrew word.] When Greek N.T. refers to the God of Scripture a , it is the
arthrous ho theos ‘which would have been accurate and precise to render it as ‘the God’.
However, such is difficult to accept because of the usage and convention in English.
[This is how IRENT renders consistently as the Elohim.] [Cf. Problems in different
languages. b]

We cannot remove on the English word "God" completely from our biblical language
for Bible translation, simply because of its being pagan-origin, simply also because idol
worshippers claimed the same title for their idols - or any other title for that matter. All
the attributes of YHWH have been identified with gods and idols of pagans and
mythologies! But that surely does not earn YHWH the attributes of gods – in pagan idols
and icons and mythologies!

However, the problem is that ‘God’ as the English word which appears in the Bibles
does not sound different from the same word used in dealing with other religions and
used in non-religious speeches, even as an expletive people absent-mindedly spit out.
Even written as capitalized, the word ‘God’ by itself is not much different than God of
generic notion. Anyone can take God as ‘God’ which is made in their own image. [Cf.
‘ohmigod’ (or, is it ‘oh my gosh’). We read ‘My God and My God’ as Yeshua utters on
the Cross where He was quoting from Psalm.c

An important thing to be achieved by rendering ‘the God’ (the arthrous Greek word) in
N.T. as ‘the Elohim’ is to reestablish direct connection to the Elohim of O.T. for the
impact which is linguistic as well as theological and liturgical as well as spiritual. This
will remove all connection to other God-beings or generic God ingrained in the minds
of people, and will purge them of all fanciful and frivolous God-talks. This is surely as
important and weighty as the effort to reveal and revere the personal name of God
(YHWH) restored in the New Testament translations. When we see everywhere in our
families, neighborhoods, nations, truth is being perverted in every aspect of human
activities and endeavor, pressing on is time for people to come to know the truth all the

a
The arthrous ho theos, the God of the Scripture, does not coincide conceptually and
doctrinally with ‘God of the Bibles’ or ‘God of Religion or Church’. [It would be, however,
impractical for English convention to have it rendered as ‘the God’.]
b
In 1937 the traditional Korean word ‘hananim’ (하나님, comparable to God) for ‘God’
took over hananim (with a of Old Hangul) to comply with the unified orthographic standard
of Korean. The Joint Version (Protestant-Catholic) of Korean Bible (‘Common Translation’
공동번역, 1971) discared this long-accepted word and chose a more generic ‘haneunim’
(하느님, comparable to ‘god’), causing a great controversy. Ref. Sung-wook Hong (2008),
Naming God in Korea – The Case of Protestant Christianity. (pp. 99-104). The word
하나님 is treated as if it is Korean name for God! as is indicated in the title of the book.
God or hananim is not a name, but a mere referent or title. Misuse of the word ‘name’ itself
in English is common: e.g. ‘many names of God’ etc., in which the word name is actually
nothing but a descriptor, an epithet.
c
Mk 15:34 - Here it is arthrous nominative ho theos (the God) - ‘Elohim’, not ‘God’. In
//Mt 27:46 it is anarthrous vocative thee – here IRENT renders it also as Elohim. In both
places it is translation word - of Aramaic Eloi (for G-Mk) and of Hebrew Eli (for G-Mt),
the latter those standing around apparently misheard as ‘Eliyahu’ (Mt 27:47).
 more urgently in these last days to be freed from all those in power in the world – politics
and religions. Marana tha!

As one of the distinguished points of IRENT translation, when the Hebrew loanword
is utilized as a translation word for the arthrous word in IRENT, it offers a few
advantage from the linguistic and literary viewpoint for the readers of the Bible: a
(1) it dispels any image formed by the word which is usually used in the sense of
generic Godb without specific reference to the God of the Scripture;
(2) it removes any confusion over the word God when it is used in Christian
religions by putting on Jesus (as God in Trinitarian mindset);
(3) it makes impossible to use the word as an expletive in our English speech; and
(4) it offers a clean and uncomplicated solution to help distinguish the two for
translation and interpretation purpose, without being partial to different doctrinal
and theological positions.c

a
It has nothing to do with the positions of the so-called Sacred Name Movement or Hebrew Roots
Movement, which translates the Bible to shows many words of Hebrew origin - both in O.T. and N.T.
b
– everyone and every religion believes God and believes in God, but nowhere clear-cut and self-evident
as to what such God is, which God over others, or who God is;
c It becomes noticeable where they are shown in the text for contrasting each other - a singular example
is in Jn 1:1, where in both places the word is translated as God in most English Bibles. Among many
ways it is rendered, one alternative is ‘v. 1b Elohim ~~v. 1c God’. [Note here in this last case, ‘Elohim’
is not acceptable translation word for v. 1c.]
God as Father:

*Abba, Aramaic for ‘father’ is applied to the Elohim – (1) by Yeshua (Mk 14:36) and (2) the
believers - Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6 ‘Abba Father!’] It does not mean a children’s vocabulary ‘daddy’.
God as ‘Father’ and the Son of God – it reflects special intimate relationship between Father and
the Son – not a biological-social concept.

The term ‘*Father’ is applied to YHWH Elohim. Used in figurative sense denoting a special
relational term (cf. anthropomorphism and personification); it is a title, not a name. It is a referent,
not an identity (as is the way in Trinitarian language). Labelling as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
as if they are ‘persons’ is doctrinal convention not based on the Scripture.

[e.g. www.livingwithfaith.org/what-does-abba-really-mean.html ]

‘God the Father’

• ‘the Father, the very Elohim’ (nominative) Jn_6:27;

• ‘to Elohim the Father’ (Gk. to the God and Father) – (dative - appositive)
1Co_15:24; Eph_5:20; Col_3:17; Jas_1:27;
• ‘God the Father’ – in the Epistles , anarthrous, other than nominative
(genitive) Phi_2:11; Jud_1:1; 1Pe_1:2; dia ~ Gal_1:1; en~; 1Th_1:1;
apo ~ Gal_1:3; Eph_6:23; 2Th_1:2; 2Ti 1:2; 1Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; 2Jn_1:3; 2Pe_1:17
• ‘blessed be Elohim the Father of our Lord Yeshua Mashiah’ – (nominative;
appositive ) Rm 15:6; 2Co 1:3; 11:32; Eph 1:3; Col 1:3; 1Pe 1:3
• ‘Elohim of our Lord Yeshua Mashiah, the glorious Father’ Eph 1:3, 17
• The Old Testament describes God as the Father of his people in several places
(see Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, 64:8, etc.),
Divine Title - ‘God’ ‘Elohim’

Hebrew word ‘*elohim’:

Elohim, which is plural form of el, itself in O.T. is also used less commonly in several
different senses (singular as well as plural) to refer to human persons, angels, even to other
gods than the true God).

Use of elohim (which is plural form of el) in its basic sense ‘mighty ones’:
Exo 21:6 “His master shall bring him unto the judges [elohim].”
Exo 22:8, 10 “brought into the judges [elohim] ~~ come before the judges [elohim].”
Exo 22:28 “You shall not revile the gods [elohim – judges] – quoted in Acts 23.5
Ps 82:6, 7 “I have said, you are gods [elohim – mighty ones] – quoted by Yeshua in Jn
10:34-35)
Exo 7:1 “I have made you a god [elohim] to Pharaoh.”

Adjectival use of elohim ‘strong, great, mighty’ – 1Sam 14:15; Gen 23:6; 30:8;
Adjectival use of el – Ps 36:6; Ezk 32:21;
As adjectival noun use –Gen 31:29 (‘in the power [el] of my hand’)
As a metonymic use of the word Elohim - The Jacob’s altar was called ‘Elohim of Israel’ (Gen
33:20 ‘Elelohe-Israel’)

Translating Greek word with Hebrew loanword for ‘God’

The Greek ho theos ‘the God’ when refers solely to the God of the Scripture (i.e.
YHWH Elohim) as they are for most cases, is rendered as the Elohim in IRENT (taken
as a Hebrew loanword) in place of ‘God’ in most other English bibles. [The capitalized
‘God’ cannot distinguish itself from God of generic notion (God, a God, a god, etc.)]
Once this principle is applied to the whole of N.T. a few examples of exegetical
controversy is easily cleared up where the Trinitarians find their proof text.
1. Jn 1:1b (‘the Elohim’ > God) & 1:1c (‘what God is’ > God)
2. Jn 20:28 (‘and my Elohim’ > ‘and my God’)a
3. Heb 1:8 (‘your throne is of the Elohim’ > ‘your throne, O God, …’)

IRENT keeps ‘God’ as the translation word only for the anarthrous noun theos, which
is in the sense of God-being and appears in wide usage in the Scripture. Such anarthrous
countable nouns are often in descriptive adjectival sense (as non-countable noun) to denote
quality, not the identity.] Note: most of anarthrous are other than nominative as genitive
(‘God’s) or in prepositional phrase, e.g. ‘from God’.

a
In Jn 20:28 it is nominative, used as vocative, but not vocative of calling, but vocative of
exclamation. Thomas was not saying Yeshua, the risen Lord, who appeared, is ‘the God of him’.
This is unthinkable in the Hebrew mind set; all those were Yehudim, devout to Elohim of
Abraham, Isaac, and Yaakob. His exclamation ‘my Master’ and ‘my Elohim’ – he was not giving
out theologically profound un-biblical inspiration. Of course, beyond tri-theistic Trinitarians,
often we hear someone state that ‘name of our God is Jesus’ or ‘Jesus is (same) Jehovah’, etc.
 [In a few places where the definite article and the noun are separated by an intervening
adjective, it is rendered as ‘the ~ Elohim’, e.g. Tit 2:13 ‘the great Elohim’ which is
equivalent to ‘Elohim [the] Most High’ a of Hebrew expression.] [It is also on rare
exceptional occasions for the anarthrous ones within the OT quotation.]

So within the IRENT translation it serves as a shorthand for the Hebrew expression

‘Most High Elohim’ who has revealed Himself to be known as ‘YHWH’ as His own
name to be honored by His people [Mt 6:9b]. Like any name it has to be respected. The
name is used only for the purpose of identifying Him by the name, referring to Him,
and having His name revealed, the very name usually neglected, substituted, forgotten,
kept ignorant (even the fact that He has Name), and kept simply ineffable by most
people in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Just as the Hebrew word elohim itself is used in several different senses (singular as
well as plural) so is with Gk. word theos and English word God/god – even applied to
pagan gods. When we see the word ‘a god’ in the Bible text, it connotes one of many
gods, pagan. [NWT translation of Jn 1:1c, claimed as ‘grammatical’, is unacceptable in
the way the word is used in common English.]

Without His Name, even forgetting the name itself, and confusing Most High Elohim I
not distinguished from generic God of all sorts of beliefs – religion, denomination,
sects, and cults (esp. deism and pantheism). On the other hand, to treat the very Name
of Most High Elohim in vain and in a frivolous manner, written or spoken, is the first
degree blasphemy – as if it’ is a magical, mysterious, ‘sacred’ mantra to be used to
invoke a god.

God-talk (which is also the root meaning of the word ‘theology’):

Anything we say/talk/write/think/question about God— God loves, we love God, God

says, God wants, God saves, God's will, relationship with God, believe in God,
worship God, pray to God, etc., etc. all these do not make much sense and are unable
to give answers and clear idea, unless we settle first ‘what God is’, ‘who God is’, and
then ‘who the God is’. What God is, in other words, what do we mean by God?

When we say ‘God’ it remains often hidden which God is meant, since the same word
is used in other religions than Judeo-Christianity and even without religious sense.
‘What God is’ (‘what is meant by God’) and ‘who God is’ cannot be answered unless
‘which God is’ is settled first.

There are two divine titles most often associated with the names. (These are NOT
names.)
Heb. Elohim (pl.) Gk. theos (‘Elohim’ = ‘the God’; vs. ‘God’)
Heb. Adonai (pl.); Gk. kurios (‘Adonai’, ‘LORD’)

a
‘of Elohim, the Most High’ – tou theou tou upsistou – not ‘most high God’ [e.g. KJV: /x: ‘the most high
God’ – Mk 5:7; Act 16:17; Heb 7:1. /x: the Highest – Lk 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35) – ambiguous; /> the most High
– Act 7:48; Lk 8:28]
 [Cf. Adon (singl.);

These epithets reflect or describe God’s attribute:

• Heb. Ruaḥ HaKodesh; Gk. to pneuma to hagion (the holy Spirit) [Cf. ‘holy
spirit’]
• Heb. El Shaddai; Gk. ho theos ho pantokratōr (God the Almighty). (cf. Gk.
despota - Gen 15:2 LXX. – in the sense of ‘the Supreme’) [Cf. ‘Elohim the Most
High’ (not ‘Most High Elohim’ of Hebrew expression. Gen 14:20 el elyon; LXX
ho theos ho hupsistos].

[See also the titles ‘Son of God’ ‘Mashiah (> Messiah); /Christ’ under *Yeshua.]

Our Saviora is a descriptive title applied to both the Elohim and his Mashiah. [e.g. Jud
25 ‘… God our Savior through Yeshua the Mashiah our Lord’] [‘Yeshua’ name, a
short form of Yehoshua which means ‘YHWH is salvation’; thus, Yeshua is salvation –
of YHWH’s salvation.]

‘Yeshua the Mashiah our Savior’ – Tit 3:6; ‘our Savior Yeshua the Mashiah’ 2Ti
1:10; ‘the Savior, Lord Yeshua the Mashiah’ – Phi 3:20.] [Cf. ‘My Savior, My God’ –
Yeshua is as Elohim our savior’, Immanuel (Mt 1:23); Incarnate Word of the Elohim
(Jn 1:14)] Cf. https://youtu.be/96P0bwvpbk4 ]

‘of the Elohim our Savior’ ░░

[tou sōtēros hēmōn theou – ‘of the savior, of the Elohim’ – in genitive; x4 in 1Ti 2:3;
Tit 1:3; 2:10; 3:4) /of God our Savior – most; /of our Savior, God – NWT; /of God
our Deliverer – JNT]
[‘the living Elohim who is the Savior’ – 1Ti 4:10]
[‘to the only God our Savior through Yeshua the Mashiah’ – Jud 1:25]
[There is no expression ‘our Savior God’ appears in the English bible translations.]

[That a same title is applied to both does not mean that both are one and same person.
An illogical claim of “Jesus = Jehovah”, the one and same person – (e.g. in
Mormonism)] (Cf. ‘Jesusism’)

Creator vs. Maker (the one who makes) – QQ to check OT for the word – NET
overuses ‘Creator).

Ecc 12:1;
Isa 17:7; 40:28; 42:5; 43:1; 45:9; 45:18; Amo 4:13;
Gen 14:19; 14:22; Deu 32:6;
Job 4:17; 32:22; 35:10; 36:3;
Psa 95:6; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 149:2;
Pro 14:31; 17:5; 22:2 (who made); Hab 2:18;

Rm 1:25 (the One who created); 1Pe 4:19 (Creator kristēs); Mt 19:4 (the One who
made)

a
‘savior’ – a religious jargon. ‘Is Jesus the only savior?’ – what does it mean by ‘savior’? What does it
mean when we say ‘someone is a savior’
The names and titles should not be confused with descriptive phrases or labels, as often
shown up among hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo in theological arguments and
writings.
theos, Elohim, the Elohim, God

Gk. theos; Hebrew elohim, el. Cf. English God, god.

[biblical term] God vs. the Almighty God, the Most High,

Gk. *theos – how to translate the word in N.T.

arthrous theos vs. anarthrous theos:

From: Winer and Moulton (1882), A Treatise on The Grammar of New Testament
Greek, Section XIX. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS (pp. 147-
163)

p. 151 theo is frequently anarthrous — most frequently by far in the Epistles. [That is, the
article is much more frequently omitted in the Epistles than elsewhere in the N.T.: even in
the Epistles the instances in which the article is used with this word are twice as numerous
as those in which it is omitted.]

In the following cases especially the article is omitted with this word: —

(1) When the genitive theou is dependent on another (anarthrous) noun: Lk 3:2, Rm 3:5;
8:9; 15:7, 8, 32 [Rec.]. 1Co 3:16; 11:7; 2Co 1:12; 8:5, Eph 5:5; 1Th 2:13.

[fn. Eph 5:5 is remarkable on other grounds (tou Christou kai theou), but has no place here since the governing
noun has the article. In Rm 15:7 tou theou is the best reading: in 2Co 1:12 theou is used both with and without
the article after an anarthrous noun. In 1Th 1:9; 1Pe 4:19 (quoted below), the renderings a living and true God,
a faithful Creator, are clearly to be preferred.]

(2) In the phrases theos patēr, 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2, Gal 1:1, Phi 1:2; 2:11, 1Pe 1:2; huioi or
tekna theou, Mt 5:9, Rm 8:14, 16, Gal 3:26, Phi 2:15, 1Jn 3:1, 2 (where these governing
nouns also are without the article).

(3) With prepositions: as apo theou, Jn 3:2; 16:30; Rm 13:1 [Rec], 1Co 1:30; 6:19; en
theō, Jn 3:21; Rm 2:17; ek theou, Act 5:39; 2Co 5:1; Phi 3:9; kata theon, Rm 8:27; para
theō, 2Th 1:6, 1Pe 2:4. Similarly with an adjective in 1Th 1:9, theō zōnti kai alēthinō —
In Jn 1:1 (theos ēn ho logos), the article could not have been omitted if John had wished to
designate the logos as ho theos, because in such a connection theos without the article
would be ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis pros ton theon,
vv. 1, 2, and from the whole description (Characterisirung) of the logos, that John wrote
theos designedly. [Fn. "Even hupsistos, which, when it is used for God, ought as an adjective to have the
article, is anarthrous in Lk 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35." (A. Buttm. p. 89.)] Similarly, in 1Pe 4:19 we find kata
to thelēma tou theou pistos kistē without the article.
 ‘the God’, ‘*God’, ‘a God’, ‘a god’; divine; *divinity, divineness, *deity,
divine being, God/god/gods; god-being; godhead; ‘what God is’; ‘theosis’;
‘’deification’a *divine nature

- all the theological and religious jargons galore!

Note: the word ‘god’ is less confusing if taken as its basic sense ‘a god-
being’ – someone (something) like a god, i.e. a mighty one.

‘God of the Bible – a God who speaks’ https://reformedforum.org/scripture-

speech-god/

Metaphysics of God. Olson (2017), Essence of Christian Thought.

Reading material: www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col2_9.htm

‘divine essence’, ‘divine nature’ (2Pe 1:4), ‘divine attributes’, etc. – what does it
mean?

Definition of divine – of, from, like God or a god. ‘the state or quality of being
divine’; metorymically ‘god’ ‘deity’.
Definition of divinity – ‘the state or quality of being divine’; metorymically
‘god’ ‘deity’. Same as ‘being God’?
Definition of deity – the lank or essential nature of a god; syn. god-being; god.

God as ‘A Being’ or ‘Being itself’? ‘the Being’? (what capitalization makes)? In

what sense? What make God God – ‘supreme’? ‘omipotent’? ‘omniscent’? self-
existing, unconditioned?, uncreated, creator. The Absolue? (what does it mean
by absolute?) God is, or believed to be so? ‘controlling, not controlled’. (not
necessary benevolent but believed to be? God as ‘a peronal being’ vs. ‘Being
Itself’? What does it mean by ‘personal’? belonging to the notion of ‘person’?
What is person? Same as ‘Person’ in Trinity formula?
www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/05/is-god-a-being-or-being-itself/
Cherbonnier “Biblical Metaphysic and Christian Philosophy” (Theology Today 9:3 [October,
1952]: 360-375) and “Is There A Biblical Metaphysic?” (Theology Today 15:4 [January, 1959]:
454-469).

‘deity of Jesus’? Being a deity (a God)? Or ‘divinity of Jesus’ – what makes him
to be ‘the only-begotten Son of God’?

a
Christensen and Wittung (2007), Partakers of the Divine Nature – The History and Development of
Deification in the Christian Traditions http://assets.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/book-
resources/files/Excerpt_Christiansen_Partakers.pdf?1362587948
 theotēs (Col 2:9 fullness of God-being plērōma tēs theotētos), theoitēs (Rm 1:20);
theios (Act 17:29); ho theos (‘the God’, i.e. the Elohim, the God of the Scripture),
theos (Jn 1:1c); el; elohim.

[Quote: ‘No. But if there was one thing I learned in the army it was to be positive
-- especially when you don't know what you're talking about.’ – in the mouth of
Major General Waverly in the movie ‘White Christmas’ (1954). Might worth to
change ‘people learned in the seminary, from the pulpit, from the books, etc.]

2Pe 1:4 a divine nature ░░ \theias ~phuseōs; / [cf. v. 3 tēs theias dunameōs autos the
divine power of Him] [not alluding to that as of spirit – Jn 4:24]; /x: the very nature of God –
Cass; / /x: the very nature of God – Cass; / [not in reference to the kind of body, or the plane of
existence, but is in reference to godlike qualities as opposed to the corruption that is the
world. In other words, here “divine nature” is in reference to what man should possess as
opposed to the sinful nature that man now possesses…. Despite the meanings that may have
been given to the word “divine” and “deity”, scripturally, the words “divine” and “deity”
have to relate to forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as “el” and forms of the
corresponding Greek word transliterated as “theos”. Defining “divine” and “deity” along
the lines of the Hebraic usage of these words does allow us to say that Jesus is “divine” and
Jesus is “deity”, although Jesus is not God Most High. Not only this, one could define many
humans as divine, possessing special mightiness or authority. http://jesus-
rlbible.com/?p=6564 ‘divine nature’ = http://life-rlbible.com/?p=1279] [not ‘the nature of
the Elohim’] [Cf. ho theios; Act 17:29 ‘deity’ ‘*godhead’]

Jesus – ‘divine person but not human person’? ‘Yeshua where divinity meets humanity’ [Ref:
Israel Wayne (2015), Questions Jesus Asks: Where Divinity Meets Humanity] Cf. ‘When
divinity meets humanity’]
[Ref: http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=1379 Was Jesus Divine as a Human?]

The core of the Biblical teach is not about ‘God’ who exists as the concept of the Greek
‘Being’ ‘Absolute’ which does not require ‘love’. Nor it is about Man or Savior. It is about
how the divinity (divine reality) meats humanity in Yeshua, the very human person (not
docetic God-man), nor as a divine person, which can be human being labelled.

****

Options for translation word: Elohim, * God, God-being, ‘what God is’, god. [pl. gods, god-
beings]

Without causing confusion, conflicts and contradictions, literarily and exegetically, not all
the occurrences of Gk. theos can be translated uniformly as ‘God’. The Hebrew word
‘Elohim’ is used as a choice translation word in IRENT instead of ‘God’. [On the plural
word ‘gods’, see EE here.12]

As long as the English word is used as it has been – not necessarily connected to the God
of the Scripture, it would not only fail to bring up to us the true picture of what the word is
being used in the Scripture but also let us led astray from the truth – the divine reality and
fall into man-made language – doctrine, philosophy, and theology – most of them irrelevant
and often contrary to what the Scripture reveals the Word of God. The word of pagan origin
‘God’ is awfully inadequate to translate Gk. ho theos. It is not a matter of restoring Hebrew
root of the whole Scripture, but to adequately and clearly express into a vernacular
language, the word of Hebrew origin, Elohim is the best choice for the English Bible
translations, unshackled from the religious and church traditions. [For the case in other
languages than English, see Appendix: theory, principle, practice and problem of
translation and translations.] [On the question ‘do you believe in God’, see Appendix.]

The English word ‘god’ or ‘*God’, which is simply a common nonspecific noun
(for any God-being, a mighty ‘supernatural’ one), does make any difference
whether capitalized or not. They are not distinguishable when read aloud.a

Philosophically and religiously ‘God’ has become a means to an end for human
desires – prosperity, happiness, wealth, pride, and power by the new crop of satanic
deceivers - God-peddlersb in modern Christianized America.]

It is etymologically from a Teutonic language with a nonspecific sense of a ‘mighty

supernatural being’, a generic notion of a deity (same also the Greek word theos
and Hebrew word elohim) in once pagan society. It is used in variety of manner,
from a vulgar or curse expression (OMG; G_d damn) to the philosophical and
theological writings as well as church language intoned with ‘holiness’. Though
the English convention with God vs. god allows us to use each in a different sense,
linguistically speaking such arbitrary scheme does not work in everyday speech.
Though the context gives a clue, the image people have is not what the Scripture
has. Matter of fact, it is not a question of ‘believe God or not’, it is ‘believe which
God’. Everyone has ‘God’ – What is God and Which God? What matters is,
whether it is ‘the God of the Scripture’ (the Elohim) or ‘God of the world’. The
God of the world comes in various forms – from a craved image or a natural object
(tree, mountain, Sun, Moon, star) to an abstract idea such as money, power, Force.
Ultimately though, it is one’s own self which is one’s God. We human beings are
‘theists’ one way or the other, whether they say ‘I believe’ or ‘I don’t believe’.

Neither the biblical phrase ‘God the Father’ itself is God’s name, but a title

• God our Father: Gal 1:3; Col 1:3; 2Th 1:2 (God our Father; /x: God the Father
– NWT3)
• Elohim, even Father: Col 3:17 v.l; Eph 5:20; Jam 1:27
• God, even Father – 1Co 15:24

a
Even with the initial letter in capital, the word itself fails to come to the readers’ mind distinct from the
undefined ‘God’ of generic notion, yes, even read in the Bible; even fails to bring the context undistorted.
b
God-peddlers in modern degenerate Chritianized America is another assult from Satan. The ‘God’ has
nothing to do with the Bible, the Scripture, and Elohim. [Houston preacher Joel Osteen is the prime
provocateur of a seductive brand of Christianity that reduces God to a means to our ends. He transposes the
glory of the Cross to the glory of consumerism – making it a fast-food Christianity that’s long on looks but
dreadfully short on substance, leaving you naked, gullible to the devil’s schemes. Ref. Hank Hanegraaff. The
OSTEENification of American Christianity.Cf. OPRAHization of Christians.]
 • the Father ~ Elohim - ho patēr (v.) ho theos. Joh_6:27;
• God the Father - Eph 6:23; Phi 2:11; 1Th 1:1; 2Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; 1Pe 1:2; 2Pe
1:17; 2Jn 1:3; Jud 1:1; 1Pe 1:2;

Since the word God itself does not say about the reality (of Who He is), this
common word of generic notion tends to make people bring their syncretistic idea
into the Biblical text. The inevitable result is contamination of doctrines and
liturgical practices which have all the subtle characteristics of syncretism, which
infuses Hellenistic (Greek) philosophy into the Scripture of the Hebrew mindset. It
leads people to project their own God into the Bible. Their God – even God of the
‘Bible’ (God of Church, God of religion, or God of their faith) – is not same as the
Elohim, the very God of the Scripture. In other words, man creates in his own image
a God whom he can control. This is a perversion of what the Scripture tells of ‘the
Elohim who created man in God’s image’. Even some has ‘God is dead’. 13 God is
not the name, but a title for someone or something people regard as a mighty one –
more powerful than mere mortals. It is applied to things (graven images),
ideologies, or some human persons in common usage of the word in English apart
from a translated word in the Bible. There is no one who has no God to believe.
Simply they do not know they believe – the universal god for anyone is one’s own
self. [‘you all will be like gods, knowing right and wrong (on your own, apart from
the Elohim)’ (esesthe ōs theoi – Gen 3:5 LXX)]. When many deny and go against
God, it is the Elohim (the God) of the Scripture.

With this word ‘God’ used a translation word in the Greek New Testament for
Greek word theos, which is a translation word in the TaNaKh (‘Hebrew Scripture’,
‘Old Testament’) for Hebrew word Elohim, most English Bibles fail to bring what
the Scripture declares in which the Creator is not a God, nor just ‘God’; as God-
being not a ‘person’. Only in His revealing of who He is, He comes to as a person-
in-relation – which is in the person of Yeshua Mashiah. The English word ‘God’
by itself is a common noun – it is not a name but a referent. To use it as a title
equivalent to the Biblical word ‘Elohim’ is to be on a slippery slope eventually into
total disconnection from the Scripture which then finds oneself transplant into the
religions with the Bible as an instruction manual and an application book with lists
of absurd regulations and mantras.

As the way the word ‘God’ is used in English either for a title or for a referent,
linguistically and Scripturally one can say, “YHWH is not a God, nor God”. As the
word God is of a pagan origin, the statement ‘YHWH is God’ is nonsensical. Yes,
YHWH is the true ‘God’ of the Scripture, with God in the sense of God-being. He
is YHWH Elohim, with the Hebrew word Elohim as His title, and should not mix
up with ‘God’.

Such is the problem in using the word ‘God’ as a translation word for English Bible,
in that there is no linguistic differentiation between the God of the Scripture and
the God which originated ultimately out of human spirt and thought. When
someone says ‘I believe in God’, such a statement has actually no meaning when it
is spoken out of the context, since anything or any person can be designated as
 ‘God’, a God out of many. The true people of the Book believe in YHWH, believe
Him as the true God, and as only God they believe in. To make a statement ‘believe
in God’ is useless as nebulous as it can be. Without ‘knowing’ the Name,
everything we say about God is just nebulous and powerless.14

[Cf. The current legal contention for the permissibility of use of ‘Allah’ as the
translation word (equivalent to God) in Christian Arabic Christian Bibles in
Malaysia. The usage of the word is such that it seems more that a title for Muslims.]

The pagan word ‘god’ was taken over into Biblical English word as diverse world
languages would do from their indigenous (‘pagan’) religious vocabulary. It is
similar in the case of Hebrew words, El and Elohim (pl.). Main difference is that
with the Elohim none of other gods is addressed; whereas English ‘God’ is
associated with other than the Creator and is indiscriminate used in secular or
pagan context. This serves a rationale for IRENT in adopting the Hebrew word
Elohim as the translation (loan) word for the arthrous Greek ho theos.

We have to realize that ‘God’ as the translation word fails to help the readers from
confusion in understanding the Scripture and from exegetical contradiction and
doctrinal conflict. In addition to the most important example Jn 1:1, a another
example note-worthy to mention: E.g. the expression ‘God is love’b (1Jn 4:8, 16).
The text does not tell about ‘God’, as if a generic God in or outside some religions,
but the very God, YHWH, to whom Yeshua is the only Son.] As we have no way to
alter how language works, hoping to reserve this word only for specific meaning and
in religious usage [e.g. ‘God!’, ‘OMG’, etc.], it is impossible to represent the true God,
Elohim of the Scripture, as long as this word of a pagan-origin is used to translate
the Hebrew equivalent, Elohim.

In the Greek NT, the word theos is not as anarthous but mostly arthrous (especially
in nominative case), i.e., ho theos ‘the God’ – which emphatically points to the very
God – YHWH Elohim. Unfortunately, English convention does not use the definite
article, unless it is modified by an adjectival phrase (i.e. the true God etc.). The
Greek article has semantic force in-between ‘the’ and ‘that’ and is much more than
‘the’ in English.

There is no better way than to resort to the Hebrew word ‘Elohim’ to make to carry
clear sense in the translated text, especially when in the O.T. setting or quotation.
IRENT renders the arthrous theos (‘the God) esp. in unmodified nominative as ‘the
Elohim’c.

a
‘what God is’: In Jn 1:1c as nominative but adjectival. In Jn 1:18; 1Jn 4:12; 2Jn 9 as accusative. Cf. Problem
of anarthrous noun as adjectival – Jn 4:24 (‘as spirit is’ or ‘what spirit is’), 1Jn 4:8 (‘love’ vs. ‘what love
is’).
b
‘God is love’: [‘No one can love God, only becauses God is love.’]
In Jn 1:1c as nominative but adjectival. In Jn 1:18; 1Jn 4:12; 2Jn 9 as accusative. Cf. Problem of anarthrous
noun as adjectival – Jn 4:24 (‘as spirit is’ or ‘what spirit is’), 1Jn 4:8 (‘love’ vs. ‘what love is’).
c
[The case is similar to use of Hebrew word ‘Adonai’ instead of Lord (or even LORD) when it refers to
YHWH Elohim.]
See below on ‘translating Gk. anarthrous nominative theos and anarthous genitive.

Since all the things written here begins ultimately with God Himself and comes back
to Him, the simple question ‘do you believe in God?’ is found to be a suitable
material for discussion relevant to translation process. Especially so when ‘(the)
Elohim’ instead of ‘God’ is used as a translation word for IRENT to render it in most
occurrences in the Greek New Testament. [Cf. A question which should follow is
‘Why do you believe in God?’]

For some, the answer to it is straightforward – yes or no.

For some, the answer is difficult to come out, hesitant, reluctant, equivocal (with
‘may be’), or defensive (‘why asking’).

Fact #1 – God, god, and GOD all same in spoken English. The word God, a God, and
a god – all come out similar to spoken English unless the indefinite article is
stressed.

Fact #2 – God is not a name, but is used as a title; a word from Teutonic language
(for indigenous religious vocabulary) used to translate the Scripture – as naturally
it is to be. Different languages adopt different word for it (Cf. ‘Allah’ for Christian
Bible in Malaysia, in legal challenge from Muslims.) This in turn would change the
sense of the word in the vernacular language, once it is into wide and lasting use.

Fact #3 – The word God or equivalent to other languages means different to

different [groups of] people. It refers to different object of their worshiping. Such is
the case that it is comfortably used in interfaith dialogue or in public prayer in a
group of people of different faiths.

Fact #4 – Most have difficulty of fully understanding what the verbal phrase ‘believe’
or ‘believe in’ means, affected by syncretic process absorbing ideas from their
indigenous religions, even shamanism.

Fact #5 – No name of the God they believe exists, other than in Judeo-Christian
faiths, in which it is revealed by the very God Himself. However, as the Name is not
used out of reverence, the word ‘God’ becomes divorced from liturgy and language
of the churches, as it becomes uncomfortable to use.

Thus, we have to take a careful look at this word God, a title, and the very Name
YHWH – how they are used in our language within and outside the Church setting.
This word will stay in everyday English and is not going to change even over a long
period time as the language itself will undergo. At the same time, it is felt that the
translators of the Scripture should look into the use of the word in the Greek text
and how linguistic problems lie under doctrinal and theological contentions, since
‘God’ and ‘god’ are not fundamentally different beasts but simply used differently.
Translating arthrous ho theos - ‘the Elohim’ or ‘God’

Translating Greek arthrous ho theos (‘the God’):

In majority cases Gk. theos occurs as arthrous as ‘ho theos’ (‘the God’) and refers to the very
God of the Scripture, YHWHa Himself.b In English the word capitalized God is exclusively
for the setting of monotheistic religions. However, such a typographic convention does not
really help make it distinct from other gods or God of other religions.c Moreover, in English
convention it does not take the definite article (except when it needs to be specific with an
additional qualifying descriptive). [This linguistic literary translation principle should be
scrupulously adhered in IRENT, thereby doctrinal noises over the word and the concept
‘God’ can be entirely bypassed without being bogged down in the Trinitarian as well as anti-
Trinitarian hardened mindsets. [Esp. Heb 1:8 and Jn 20:28 (nominative arthrous ho theos) –
refers to Father (YHWH Elohim), not Yeshua.]

The best option to translate this Greek phrase is the corresponding Hebrew word ‘Elohim’
(‫)אלהים‬. This choice is eminently suitable as it has precise sense and clear reference to the
true God.

When the word is emphatic in context, it is rendered as ‘the very Elohim’ (e.g. Jn 5:19 etc.)d.

When the article is present to particularize the generic concept of God, it is rendered as ‘God-
being’. E.g. Rm 1:23 ‘the immortal God-being’ rather than ‘the incorruptible God (KJV)’
‘the immortal God (ESV)’, or even ‘the immortal Elohim’.
[Check EE here 15 for what bearing this consistent approach of translation has bearing on exegetical issue
on the two special places.]
[Check EE here 16 for implication for the special case of Korean Bible translation.

The word ‘God’ is not a name but an appellation used as a title. The basic sense is ‘mighty
one’. The common expression ‘one believes (in) God’ actually does not mean much by itself
unless it is made clear of what is meant when we say ‘God’ and what is meant by ‘believe’.
“Everyone has a God”, but ‘not everyone believes a God’e

a
YHWH = ‘Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Yitzchak, Elohim of Yaakob’ (Mt 22:32), not ‘God of
Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob’.
b
A rare example in 2Co 4:4 “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Mashiah, who is the
image of God.” This shows how two scripts ‘the god of’ and ‘the God of’ are distinguished. Here,
‘god’ is equivalent to a ‘god-being’ (which is often for anarthros theos).
c
God with the initial in capital –does not by itself come differently from ‘god’, the fact being obvious when
it is read aloud.
d
the very Elohim – e.g. 1Jn 4:8, 16 - Here it is not talking about a God of generic notion, such as a universal
God, as people gets the sense from reading in most English Bibles. It is not ‘God is love’, but ‘the very Elohim
is love’.]
e
Atheism with the ‘Self’ as one’s own God-being: Though who claims they don’t believe God, it only means
that they don’t believe in a particular God, while what they actually believe in is ‘oneself’ which is a God on
their own. Cf. Gen 3:5 “… you will be like Elohim” – (Heb. elohim, gods or God); /like God – most; /x: as
gods – KJV; /x: live divine beings - NET.
 When it is rendered as ‘God’ is used in a Bible for the translation word throughout as is the
case of most English Bibles, we should not to recognize a subtle but serious side effect. The
linguistic effect is not well appreciated. From reading such a Bible most people will get a
word picture of a generic universal God-being, even of a metaphysical notion of Greek
philosophy, as prevalent and natural in modern Western mindset. Not only within the
Christian religions and liturgy, but also seen in every day speech of common man. Usually
they are totally unaware of such and being mostly subconscious, it is almost impossible to
prevent it from affecting the readers.

Thus people are ultimately disconnected from (1) the true God, (2) from OT and YHWH
worship (Judaism), (3) from the Creation down through the history of Israel. Its influence is
well shown in history full of spirit of antinomianism, anti-Judaism, and anti-Semitism in the
traditions and practices of various Christian. The result is burgeoning of a variety of religions
off the Constantine Catholic Church, producing uncountable number of Christian and
pseudo-Christian movements, sects, and denominations. They carry ‘Jesus’ in their own
fashionable images created after human whim and fancy to entice people to choose from a
smorgasbord of different ‘GEEzus’a.

Here is a list of benefits to argue for using this Hebrew word as a word of choice to be used
in a faithfulb translation:

– (1) the word ‘Elohim’ is known even among those outside Judaic tradition;
– (2) it is easy to pronounce and in consistent spelling in transliteration, unlike
many Hebrew words;
– (3) it reconnects the readers to the Creator God in O.T. and in the history of
Israel;
– (4) it expels any association with the image of a westernized God such as in
Deistic thinking; and importantly
– (5) it makes the words be expressed so that the readers see them in clear and
precise sense as the text tells in the context. c

The goal is to reconnect the New Testament to the TaNaKh (Old Testament) and reconnect
the Renewed Covenant in Yeshua the Mashiah to its original Hebraic root of Covenant of
YHWH, linguistically and spiritually, thus disconnecting ourselves culturally from

a
‘Jesus’ vs. ‘Zeus’ – originally Iesus (as in KJV 1611) before the sound value of j came into English. The
terminal s is a postfix for the Greek masculine nominative case. It has nothing related to ‘Zeus’ as some tries
to discredit the name in the current English.
b
faithful is to be a translation: To be faithful (1) a translation work has to make it possible for the readers
to recover the underlying Greek word, phrase, syntax and style, without undue difficulty, and (2) it has to be
uncontaminated by words, phrases, expressions, and idioms which are alien and foreign to what the Scripture
is (including doctrinal as well as personal). Among the plethora of modern translations being published, it is
simply impossible to find them faithful, especially with those in paraphrasing (e.g. NRSV, NLT, GNB, etc.)
or free-style rewriting (Message, ERV, CEV, LB, etc.). Note: every translation claims to be ‘accurate’ so that
the word ‘accuracy’ has become meaningless – unless qualified and explained why and how so.
c
E.g. Jn 1:1b-c, ‘the Logos was with Elohim and what God is, the Logos was’. Compare with the traditional
rendering ‘the Word was with God and the Word was God’. The same word in different sense and referent
makes such translation linguistically unacceptable as it serves as the source of confusion and contradiction.
Christianity which is distorted and buried in various Christian religions in their
contradictions, conflicts, and confusions. This has necessitated to re-examine the words,
expressions and terms to move out of Church language which had no other way than to
borrow from those of pagan origin. Disconnecting from such and then restoring those truly
carrying the Scriptural sense so that new a stream of doctrinal and theological understanding
is able to flow out – this time, always bound to the Scripture and remains within the Scriptural
language sans man’s distorted and deceiving language. Only with the power of words in
untainted language [God’s precious gift to human made in His image], it is possible to get
back to from where all came to hear God’s Word revealed in the Scripture. Such is the power
of words – to let live or let die. And all along we have seen the enemy and it is in us and with
us and is us.
*translating anarthrous theos: ‘God’

anarthrous theos in NT:

The anarthrous (without the article) use of theos, in its various cases, is perfectly common
in the Greek New Testament as a designation for ‘God’. There are 255 occurrences total (19
nominatives, 169 genitives, 36 datives, 31 accusatives). The list below is found in Ref.
www.tdgordon.net/theology_2/anarthrous_theos.pdf (a copy is found in IRENT III.
Supplement - Collections#3 – “Collected articles on Jesus became God”.)

Cf. Acts 17:23 (dative – <To An Unknown God-Being>); Acts 28:6 (accu. - a god);
2Th 2:4 (a god being in place of Elohim – cf. ‘the Elohim’)

Nominative case (19x)

Mk 12:27; Lk 20:38; Jn 1:1c, 18; 8:54; Rm 8:33; 1Co 8:4, 6; 2Co 5:19; Gal 2:6;
6:7; Eph 4:6; Phi 2:13; 2Th 2:4 (2x), 16; 1Tm 2:5; 1Pe 5:5; Rev 21:7;

Genitive case (169x)

Matt. 3:16; 4:4; 5:9; 14:33; 27:43, 54;
Mark {1:1}; Mark 11:22; 15:39
Luke 1:35, 78; 2:40; 3:2; 20:36;
John 1:6,12; 3:2; 5:44; 6:45; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:27, 30; 19:7;
Acts 5:39; 12:22
Rom. 1:1, 4,7, 16, 17, 18, 23; 3:5, 18, 21; 4:17; 7:25; 8:9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 33;
9:26; 10:2; 11:22, 33; 13:1, 4, 6; 15:8, 19, 32; 16:26;
1Cor. 1:1, 3, 18, 24, 30; 2:5, 7; 3:9, 23; 4:1; 6:9, 10, 19; 1Cor. 7:7, 19, 40; 9:21;
10:31; 11:7; 12:3; 15:34, 50;
2Cor. 1:2, 20; 3:3; 5:1, 21; 6:4, 7, 16; 7:1;
2Cor. 8:5; 11:2; 12:19; 13:4;
Gal. 1:1, 3; 3:26; 4:7, 9, 14; 5:21
Eph. 1:1, 2; 2:8; 5:5; 6:17, 23; Phil. 1:2, 11, 28; 2:6, 11, 15; 3:3,9; Col. 1:1, 2;
1Th 1:4; 4:16; 5:18; 2Th 1:2; 1Tim. 1:1, 2, 4, 11; 2:3, 5; 3:5, 15; 6:11; 2Tim. 1:1,
2, 8; Titus 1:1, 3, 4, 7; 2:10, 13; Titus 3:4; Phm. 3; Heb 1:6; 2:9; 3:12; 6:5; 10:31;
11:3; 12:22; James 1:1, 5, 13, 20; 2:23; 3:9; 1Pet. 1:2, 5, 23; 1Pet. 2:10, 16, 19;
1Pet. 3:22; 1Pet. 4:2, 10, 11; 2Pet. 1:17, 21
1John 3:1, 2; 2John 3; Jude 21; Rev. 7:2

Dative Case (36x)

Mt 6:24; 19:26; Lk 2:14, 52; 16:13; Jn 3:21; Act 5:29; 24:14; Rm 2:13, 17; 8:8;
16:27; ICo 7:24; 10:20; 14:2; 2Co 5:11, 13; Gal 2:19; Phi 2:6; 1Th 1:1, 9; 2:4,
15; 4:1; 2Th 1:1, 6; 1Tm 1:17; 4:10; 6:17; Tit 3:8; Heb 12:23; 1Pe 2:4; 20; Jud
1, 25
Accusative case (31x)
Lk 1:18; 10:33; 12:21; 17:3; 20:17; Acts 14:15; 19:37; 20:21; Rm 4:2; 8:7, 27;
2Co 7:9 (3x); Gal 4:8; Eph 4:24; 2Th 1:8; 2:4; 1Tim 5:5; Tit 1:16; Heb 6:1, 18;
8:10; 1Pe 1:21; 3:5, 21; 4:6; 5:2; 1Jn 4:12; 2Jn 9.
 [QQ: It would be interesting to check, for example, the examples of arthrous genitive,
dative, or accusative. E.g. 2Pe 1:1 ‘righteousness of the God of ours’ (< ~~of our
Elohim)]

Translating anarthrous theos in IRENT:

English words and expression: ‘a god’; ‘a God’; ‘God’; ‘the God’ (which is rendered
as ‘the Elohim’ in IRENT translation).
“someone/something mighty one like god” (circular but acceptable definition) = ‘a
god’ ‘a god-being’.

• non-capitalized for (2) human beings (cf. God’s sons); (2) angels; (3) pagan
gods, (4) even for ‘Satan’
• capitalized (‘God-being’ ‘God’ referring to those entities with divine (God’s)
character. In this instances ‘Yeshua’ may be thought of a God-being.
(a) 1Ti 1:17 ‘the King eternal’ and ‘God-being’ both should be construed to Mashiah
in the preceding verses, not Elohim.
(b) Rm 9:5 doxology – rendered as ‘God-being’ (it may rather be construed to the
preceding Mashiah
(c) Jn 1:1c – here, however, it is not about Yeshua but the Logos of the Elohim.
(adjectival use of ‘God-being’ or ‘what God is’ >> ‘divine’)

anarthrous theos when it is used to refer to other than Elohim YHWH Himself- (cf.
'god(s)' = human beings, angels, etc.)

1. Rendered as ‘Elohim’ in the OT quotation.

2. in reference to generic concept of ‘mighty ones’ or pagan deity – ‘god(s)’,
(1Co 8:5); ‘a god-being’ (2Th 2:4); ‘God-being’ (Rm 1:23);
3. ‘what God is’ (Jn 1:1c – nominative, adjectival. Not adjective like ‘divine’; Jn
1:18; 10:33 – accusative –cf. Jn 5:18); [cf. ‘God-image’ or ‘the image of God’]

anarthrous nominative theos (‘God/god/God-being’)

[esp. relevant for Jn 1:1b and Jn 20:28]

It refers to ‘what God is’, and carries the basic sense of God-being, not focused on the
identity itself [i.e. ‘the God’ (‘the Elohim’ – IRENT). Without particularization which is
offered by the presence of the article and can be rendered straightforward with a Hebrew
loanword Elohim, the anarthrous theos in singular, though it always points to Elohim
(other than generic or pagan ‘god’), it needs careful look at its sense and nuance in each
context:
• ‘the Elohim’– (in OT quotation) Heb 8:10; Rev 21:7; (x: a God – ALT); ‘God’ -
(x: a God – ASV); (the anarthrous Greek; theos in the sense of ‘God-being’) – ‘to
them as God’. However, since the word is from the quoted text from Hebrew
Scripture TaNaKh, it is rendered as the Elohim (same as the arthrous Greek is in
 IRENT); /x: to them a God – KJV etc. /their God – NET; /their Elohim – ISR;
/Same holds here - /x: a God – Mt 22:32 //Mk 12:27 //Lk 20:38;
• ‘Elohim (the Father) – the fixed phrase of the Gk phrase (though anarthrous) is
consistently rendered as ‘Elohim the Father’; others translate as ‘God the Father’a.
• ‘what God is’ – Jn 10:33b; 1Jn 4:12; 2Co 5:19
IRENT rendered it in Jn 1:1c as ‘as what God is the word was’, Not to be
confused with the Elohim (= ‘the God’) in 1:1b.]; /God-being; /> what God was –
NEB (- gnomic, unrelated to time idea); /x: Elohim [When some (e.g. ISR)
translates this as Elohim same as the arthrous, it is on the same line as ‘Jesus =
Jehovah’ and the readers are not being helped.]; />> divine; /x: a god – NWT;
• ‘God’ (in the sense of God-being); Jn 1:18a; Rm 9:5; (Cf. arthrous ‘the Elohim’
1Co 14:33)
• ‘God-being’ of generic sense (pointing to the Elohim) in 1Tm 3:16 and Tit 1:16;
Rm 1:23.

Note: the word ‘God’ in all of the above instances points to the Elohim and should not
have an indefinite article, while in case of other than what true God is, such as men,
angels (> Hebrew idiom), or polytheistic deities, it is put in lower case, ‘god(s).
• a god – Act 12:22; 28:6
• (so-called) god – 2Th 2:4; [gods (of pagan deity) (pl. – 1Co 8:5)]

It is important to see how the anarthrous nouns (other than the case of uncountable
nouns) are used. E.g. ‘father’ - (1) ‘a father’; (2) ‘Father’ used as a title word; (3)
and importantly in qualitative or adjectival sense – ‘as father-figure’, ‘as father’.
The common expression ‘God the Father’ does not mean that ‘God is a Father’, but
rather ‘Elohim as Father’ – Elohim who comes to us to be related as Father; He is
as Father to His Son (Yeshua). Nowhere in the Scripture is the word used as
equivalent to father in human family relation. The designations “Father” and “Son”
seem superficially to indicate that there is an analogy between the divine and the
human.

One may be tempted following modern reasoning to say that the use of words like
“father” and “son” for God is “merely” metaphorical, an extension of their human use.
But actually reverse is the case. God is the original. God made man to be like God,
not vice versa. So it is appropriate to point out that God is the original Father. In
comparison to this original, human fathers should be seen as derivative,
“metaphorical” extensions of meaning from the original Fatherhood. In short, such
designation is simply an anthropomorphic way of describing the roles and
relationships between the Father and the Son (the Elohim and Yeshua) – a special
unique dynamic relationality, not hierarchical stative relativity. It should not be seen
as analogical to human father-and-son relation.17 As the Logos is to the Elohim, the
Son is to Father. It is eternal, essential, and equal – ‘no part nor parcel’18 of the
whole. The Son does not come into existence by being derived from Father, not is

a
Cf. It cannot be translated with the definite article as ‘God Father’, because of a catholic jargon ‘god-
father’).
b
Jn 10:33 - cf. Jn 5:18. ‘ison heauton poiōn tō theō’ (‘making Himself equal to the very Elohim of
them’ - not of identity but of equality.
 begotten,a nor is made or created, nor became one (e.g. by adoption, promotion),
just as the Logos, the God’s self-expression, is not derived, begotten, made,
became, created, or became so. Without Son, no Father; without Father, no Son.
From with the dynamic relationality radiates out the Spirit to impart divine Love,
which has nothing to do what we call ‘love’b. God’s love is serious; no ‘crazy love’,
but serious love.

The example which draws our particular attention in Jn 1:1

• En archē ēn ho Logos ‘In beginning of creation work was the Logos’
• kai ho Logos ēn pros ton theon ‘and the Logos was as with the Elohim (=
the God. IRENT renders the arthrous noun ‘the Elohim’. Most other Bible
translations simply as ‘God’. When particularized in the context, it is phrase
as ‘the very Elohim’.
• kai theos ēn ho Logos ‘and what God is, the Logos was’.

[Note: capitalized initial letter to denote the identity and specificity, a simple
readability aid and unrelated to idea of holiness or divinity which the word may have
if any. See Capitalization in ‘How to read IRENT pages’ in IRENT Introduction

[In Jn 1:1c the anarthrous Gk word theos is not simply ‘a god’ (as in NWT translation
which is an example of grammatical fallacy).

Gk anarthrous theos other than nominative

genitive theou
Rendered as ‘God’s’, not as ‘of God’ to help distinguish from ‘of the Elohim
[Of course, it has adjectival sense, but much more than English word ‘divine’.]
[e.g. God’s son – Mt 14:33. God’s spirit – Mt 12:28; cf. the spirit of the Elohim
Mt 3:16; cf. Sprit of YHWH – Lk 4:18.]

[anarthrous - ‘God′s’ instead of ‘of God’ e.g. God’s son(s), God’s spirit, God’s
throne, God’s grace, God’s utterance Lk 3:2; Eph 6:17; God’s finger.]

[arthrous – ‘of the Elohim’. e.g. ‘the word of the Elohim’ – Lk 5:1; 8:11, 21;
11:28; Jn 10:35; Act 4:1; 6:2, 7; 8:14, etc.; ‘the Logos of the Elohim’ – Rev 19:13;
Cf. ‘the messenger (angel) of Adonai’, not ‘angel of God’ ‘divine angel’ in N.T.]

[The phrase ‘of God’ is avoided to differentiate from ‘of the God (=the Elohim). [Of
course, it has adjectival sense, but much more than English word ‘divine’.] [e.g.
God’s son – Mt 14:33. God’s spirit – Mt 12:28; cf. the spirit of the Elohim Mt 3:16;
cf. Sprit of YHWH – Lk 4:18.]

accusative theon. – e.g. Jn 1:18a; 10:13 – as ‘what God is’ (– same as anarthrous
in Jn 1:1c) [Cf. arthrous accusative in 3Jn 11 - ‘the Elohim’]

a
begotten – archaic English word. It refers to bringing a child from male principle, cf. ‘be born’ – from
female principle). Not to be confused with then the archaic translation word ‘only begotten’ as in KJV for
Gk. monogenēs.
b
See else where for human love.
 in accusative with the verb eidō – Gal 4:8, 9a – eidō theon (‘know who God is’)
in the preposition phrase with dia, apo, en, pros, upo etc. (also with + ‘theos’ +
‘patros’ – Elohim the Father (> ‘God the Father’) [it points to none other than the
very Elohim] Gal 4:9b upo theou – by Elohim.

In anarthrous genitive casea, it is equivalent to and rendered as God’s (instead of

‘of God’). E.g.1Jn 3:1, 2 ‘Godʹs children’. Heb 1:6 ‘all God’s angels’. – Though the
English word ‘God’ (capitalized) here itself points to ‘Elohim’, but the focus in the
text is on ‘God-being’ rather than YHWH Himself. Compare with a genitive but
arthrous - Rm 8:7 ‘the Torah of the Elohim’.

Cf. Though Gk. non-arthrous nominative theos functions as an adjectival, there is

no suitable English adjective that can be used as a translation word. E.g. the
common English word ‘*divine’ in the proper context is close to God’s (> ‘of God’;
cf. ‘of the Elohim’) [Jn 1:1c with an arthrous Gk. theos may be read in the sense of
‘the Logos was of God’], but carries nuance of ‘of God-quality’. The problem is that
the word itself is often applied to non-God objects (beings, things, ideas, etc.).

in accusative with the verb eidō – Gal 4:8, 9a – eidō theon (‘know who God is’) in
the preposition phrase with dia, apo, en, pros, upo etc. (also with + ‘theos’ + ‘patros’
– Elohim the Father (> ‘God the Father’) [it points to none other than Elohim] Gal
4:9b upo theou – by God.

*Concordance Study on theos and elohim (God) – See Appendix in this PDF.
*God as Father – See EE here.19
*gods – See EE here 20

a
Cf. (genitive of source): Rm 15:16; 2Co 11:7; 1Th 2:2, 8, 9; 1Pe 4:17 ‘the Gospel for
Elohim’ (instead of ‘the gospel of God’). Cf. Rm 1:1 ‘Gospel from God’ (instead of ‘God’s
gospel’).
Mk 12:29b ‘Shema Yisrael’ ← Deu 6:4

Deu 6:4 “… YHWH our Elohim; YHWH is one [true Elohim we worship].” ← Shema
Yisrael
‘Sh'ma Yisra'el YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Eḥad’ (6 words - no verbs);
Heb. echad H256, not yachid H3173 (only, alone)
LXX “kurios ho theos hēmōn; kurios eis estin” anarthrous KURIOS = YHWH in LXX; ‘the
LORD’, not ‘the Lord’;
‘YHWH as the only Elohim of Israel’?

Mk 12:29b “… YHWH is our Elohim; YHWH is one [true Elohim we worship].”

Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν,
YHWH the God of-us, YHWH one is,

Related expressions:

Deu 4:35 “… in order to know that YHWH – He is the Elohim and there is no one else [to be
your Elohim].”
Isa 45:18 “Thus says YHWH, who created the heavens and Elohim himself formed the earth:
‘I am YHWH and there is no one else [who created]’.”
Ex 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me”
Isa 37:16 & 20b ‘you alone, O YHWH, are [the true God]; also cf.
Jos 22:35 LXX kurios ho theos autōn estin – ‘YHWH is their Elohim’

Jn 17:3 “… knowing You – the only, the true Elohim,

and the one whom You’ve sent forth [to give eternal life].
Jn 17:3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή,
This b= is the [very] eternal life
ἵνα γινώσκωσιν [/γινώσκουσιν] σὲ,
that they-may-be-knowing {/they-know} you
τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν,
the only true God
καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας _ ((Ἰησοῦν, Χριστόν)).
a= whom you-sent-forth _ ((that is, Yeshua, Messiah)).
[monos – S3441 ‘alone’, ‘only’,]
D. Yeshua

The name and the title

The Name in the Scripture N.T.: Yeshua: a

the Mashiahb
Messenger, Message, Mashiah
Mission, Miracle, Mystery

For the followers of the Mashiah:

Without YHWH Elohim, no Yeshua the Mashiah.
Without Yeshua, no Elohim is with us.
Yeshua, the 'only begotten' Son;
the Anointed One in holy spirit by the Elohim;
a human person; the very presence of Elohim.

In His name:

‘the very name of Yeshua’: Mt 28:18; Phi 2:9-11 (exalted); Eph 1:15-22

"And indeed, in no one else

there is the very salvation [to be found],
for there is no other name under the heaven beside his." (Act 4:12)
"For this reason, indeed, the Elohim has highly exalted Him
and bestowed on Him
the name that is above every name." [Phi 2:9]

"But the Helper — the holy Spirit

which the Father will send in my name —
that one will teach yoů all things
and bring back to yoůr mind
everything that I, I have told yoů." [Jn 14:28]

a
'Yeshua the Mashiah' = 'Yeshua as Mashiah'.
b
https://joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/hebrew-roots-movement-messin-with-the-
word/
Yeshua – name, titles, and epithets

"Jesus of religion"a a different figure from the Yeshua in the Gospel’b who was
encountered and experienced by His followers for whom the real Yeshua was being revealed;
Yeshua is differently presented by the Apostles and Paul from the Gospels.

IRENT work is about this Yeshua of the Gospel from whom the real Yeshua is to be revealed to
everyone who believe in Him. Being faithful to His original Hebrew name, IRENT renders His
name as ‘Yeshua’ for a new translation of the N.T., not as ‘Jesus’c whom no one can be sure and
agreed upon which Jesus, who Jesus was, who Jesus is, and whose Jesus.

The N.T. presents Him as the one believed as the very Mashiah (Messiah), the one promised to
come in the O.T.d

'Jesus, the Jew' < 'Yeshua haYehudi' [he was; one the Torah-abiding Yehudim (> Jews); not a
Christian; not belonged to a Christian church].

[See EE on His exalted name (Phi 2:9) 21].

[For a Brief Timeline of His life, see in the Appendix.]

Yeshua → Gk. Iēsous → /Jhesu – Wycliffe (1384), Luther (1534); /Iesus – KJV
1611, Geneva, Bishops, Latin; /Jesus - English, Spanish, French, etc.

‘Yeshua’ (or 'Yeshuah') is a short form of the common theophoric Hebrew name
Yehoshua (‘Yah is salvation’ H3091 >> Joshua (Jos 1:1; Exo 17:9 etc.)’.

H3444 yeshuah e.g. Exo 14:12; Psa 98:2 (salvation YHWH gives); Cf. H3467 yasha – 'to
save, deliver'.

Yeshua vs. *Jesus

The Hebrew ‫ ישוע‬is pronounced Yeshua. There is no linguistic or historical literary support
for such rendering as Yahshua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahshua) or other similar ones,
Yahoshua. www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm It seems to be an
etymological fallacy to read ‘Yah’ in the name. [The name Yeshua itself does not have a

a
'Jesus of religion', 'Jesus of Church', 'Jesus of the New Age Gospels', 'Catholic Jesus' 'Protestant Jesus'
Jesus of historical quests', 'Charismatics Jesus', 'Kosher Jesus' 'Real Kosher Jesus' 'God Jesus' – all products
out of human construct each theology creates its own Jesus who is believed by its own group. How much of
'Jesus figure' which is believed is actually for the Yeshua figure in the Synoptic Gospels, in the Johannine
writings and in Pauline Epistles?
b
as in the four canonical Gospels – written down, interpreted, transmitted, and translated.
c
For IRENT, the name 'Jesus' as such is only used the outside the N.T. text (and as used if quoted).
d
How far is 'Christ' of Christian religions or 'Messiah' of the rabbinic or Messianic Judaism divergent from
the Mashiah Yeshua of the Gospel – it depends on how far are their doctrines of human construct and their
practices from what the Scripture tells.
 theophoric element from YHWH with the pronunciation as ‘Yahuweh’ (/> Yahweh; /xx:
Jehovah).] www.perfect-word.org/2011/08/23/the-unholy-war-of-names-yeshua-vs-yahshua

[not Yahushua; Yahushuah; Yahshua Yahshuah (of 'pentagrammaton')]

[‘Yahushua’ is a modern conflated spelling to make His name a theophoric one.
Cf. Sacred Name Movement; aka The Hebrew Roots Movement
https://youtu.be/VZtWlmjH35w; https://youtu.be/NcDOmOOQTtA;
www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm

Greek transliterate – ‘. There is no sound ‘J’ or letter ‘J’ in the Greek. The final ‘s’ is
nominative case ending for a masculine noun. The vowel ē is long ‘e’, not ‘ee’ as in Jee or
Gee.
Cf. http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php
https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/an-introduction-to-the-names-yehoshua-joshua-yeshua-
jesus-and-yeshu/
Cf. http://www.eliyah.com/names.html

English word ‘Jesus’ was originally ‘Iesus’ (KJV-1611) from Latin Iesus which was from
Greek Iēsous (with the terminal s simply indicating the nominative case). J being a glyph for
Gothic font for capital I. The phonetic sound j came into English in mid 17c. [See below for
The History of J.] A name can be only transliterated with pronunciation close to the original.
In different languages it is variously transcribed and pronounced. 22 The word ‘*Jesus’ in
English (and similar ones in European languages) is linguistically anachronistic and
theologically disconnected from who He was and who He is. Confusingly it is de facto
equivalent to the name of Christian God.a [See under ‘Jesus as God’] [Note: the ‘Jesus of
religion’ (or Jesus of church) is not one but many as it is of human construct; he is not same as
Yeshua of the Gospels.]

As for the proper nouns (names of person, people, place) they need to be transliterated into
another language by transcription.

Yeshua was not ‘Jesus’. Yeshua is not same as ‘Jesus’b. A gradual but eventual consequence
of the name being disconnected from what His name should be is well shown many faces of
different Jesus created in the image of futile (often debased) human mind. It is not even
possible to think of ‘real Jesus’, as long as it is ‘Jesus’. The real person is not known
other than by the name ‘Yeshua’, which should be the name on the English translation
Bibles. See EE on the question of ‘real Jesus’ and ‘historical Jesus’ here.23

a
‘God Jesus’ – e.g. the expressions and statements – ‘Jesus is God’; ‘The name of (our) God is Jesus’; ‘God
the Son’; ‘worshipping’ Jesus, etc. Q: worshipping and praying to ‘God the Holy Sprit’?
b
In contrast to His true name Yeshua, the name in English ‘Jesus’, who is thought as a God-man
once lived, is also labeled as the ‘second person of Godhead’ or ‘God the Son’ (= ? the Second
God) according to the doctrinal tradition of Constantine Catholic Church. All this is contrary to the
plain statements of the Scripture. ‘Jesus’ is not Yeshua of the Scripture, but a reconstructed
westernized Jesus of 'Christanisms'. [Note that the expression ‘Son of the God (Elohim)’ in the
Scripture is a title for the Mashiah of YHWH. It has nothing to do with the phrase ‘God the Son’
in the Trinitarian doctrine.]
 The Hebrew name (‫ישוע‬, with the vowel pointing ‫ – י ֵשּוע‬yēšūă‘) (Yeshuaa) [pronounced
‘ye-SHU-a’] was one of the most common male names in the Land of Israel, at the time of
the Second Temple Period in Jewish history [580 BC – 70 CE], tied with Eleazer (>
Lazarus) for fifth place behind Shimon (> Simon), Yosef (> Joseph), Yehudah (> Judah), and
Yohanan (> John). Nearly one out of ten persons known from the period was named Yeshua,
which appears in O.T. in English Bibles as ‘Jeshua’ – e.g. Ezr 2:2; 2Ch 3:15.
[Cf. ‘Yeshu’ (abbr. as Y.S.) – a “play” on His correct name that is actually an acronym
standing for derogatory Hebrew phrase Yimmach Shemo Ve-zikro ('May his name and
memory be blotted out') or yimakh shemo ('May his name be obliterated'[.

[Cf. “the name of the Lamb and ~ the name of his Father written on their foreheads” –
Rev 14:1.]

Yeshua vs. Jesus

This name itself is not a special, nor sacred name. It was one of three most common Hebrew
names for boys. However, when we refer to this name, it is Yeshua the Mashiah (God’s
anointed one for a position of king-prophet-priest).

One's name does NOT change from one language to another, other than phonetic variation.
The name Yeshua may be pronounced as Yesu, Iesu, etc. but not Jesus of modern
pronunciation. (It was pronounced as Yesus until mid-17th century. See elsewhere on the
history J.) Likewise, Yaakob is not 'James', which is is completely different name.

The exact Hebrew word of this name is 30x in O.T. - Neh 8:17, etc. [/Joshua – NET, NWT;
/x: Jeshua – KJV, ESV, ASV; /Iosua – Bishops]
Pronounced as Yeshua. [bold for accent on 'shua'] Yeshua of Hebrew mindset vs. ‘Jesus’ of
Greek mindset.

It is a short form of Yehoshua (Heb. ‫‘ – יהושע‬Yeshua’ in Aramaic), a theophoric name,

meaning ‘Yah is Salvation’.

‘Yeshua of the Gospels’:

1. Yeshua the Nazarene in the Gospels and in the history:
Gk. Iesous ho Nazōraious (> Jesus of Nazareth) [‘called Nazarene’ Mt 2:23] [Cf.
the sect of Nazarenes (tōn Nazōraiōn haireseōs – Act 24:5)]
• Yeshua the Nazarene: Mt 26:71; Mk 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16;6; Lk 4:34;
18:37; 24:19; Jn 1:45; 18:5, 7; 19:19; Act 2:22; 6:16; 10:38; 22:28; 26:9;
• Yeshua the Mashiah the Nazarene: Act 3:6; 4:10
2. an itinerant Galilean rabbi, teaching and proclaiming the Kingdom reign of the
Elohim, who He called out ‘Abba!’ (Father).
3. a Yehudi; from the line of King David son of Yosef (Jn 1:45), son of David (Mt 1:10);
a ‘carpenter’ after his father Yosef.
4. son of Mariam; (Mk 6:3); mother, Mariam (Mt 13:55); born of Mariam (wife of Yosef
(Mt 1:16, 20); born of a woman (Gal 4:4), not born of a virgin without a human father
(which is what a demi-god or god-man is as in mythologies).

a
Yeshua - [Cf. The form ‘Yeshu’ (prob. a Galilean dialect according to David Flusser) appears in Talmud.]
 He was not a Christian as all the followers of him were not Christians, who were the
Gentile Hellenistic Christian after Paul's missions. He was not a person belonging to
(Greco-Roman) Christians.

'Yeshua the Mashiah' vs. 'Mashiah Yeshua' (after Paul)

'Jesus devotion'; 'Jesus worship': -

[Vocab: veneration, adoration, devotion, worship, to revere; cultic, religious – meaning,

senses of the words]

Note: in common English usage, worship can be for any object – God, man, thing, or
idea, etc. That someone is worshiped or is to be worship does not mean that the object
people worship is 'God', whatever the word 'worship' is meant and whatever the word
'God' means. We have a linguistic problem here to deal with, before getting into lofty
theological or doctrinal issues. [E.g. 'God is dead' – which God, whose God, or what God
itself is meant.]

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/essays-etc/ [list of writings with web link]

https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/jesus-as-lordly-example.pdf
[ … in contrast with the 'historical Jesus' focus …]
['the origins and meaning of the idea of Jesus' filial relationship and statues with
God …]
Hurtado (2015, 3rd ed.), One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient
Jewish Monotheism

‘Jesus of Religion’, 'Jesus Religion'; 'Jesus religion' vs. 'Christianity (after the Pauline
mission to the Gentile) – Judaic → Hellenistic → Roman Christianity → degenerated
religiosity -prosperity- charismatic-shamanic-entertainment modern Christianisms.
human-potential; purpose-driven; Gospel and Jesus peddling;

[different from 'Yeshua of the Gospels']

Constantine Catholic Church: ‘God Jesus’, ‘God the Son’, ‘Eternal preexisting
Son’, ‘God’’ ‘God of God’ ‘Fully God’ ‘Truly God’, etc. as ‘Jesus’ man
became God from 2nd century on.
[Cf. Docetism (vs. Gnosticism); demi-god, God-man, the Second ‘person’ of
‘Trinity God’, ‘human being but not human person, but divine person’.]

If Jesus is God, but he is not a God? Why not 'worship'? 'Pray to Jesus'? But, also,
why not worship the Holy Spirit; not pray to the Holy Spirit, if it is actually God
and a Person?
The following often quoted actually show the examples which are not prayer to
Jesus: [Yeshua, his disciples, apostles do not tell we pray Jesus (as well as Holy
Ghost) – as Trinitarians are forced, since they believe 'Jesus is God', the name of
their God is 'Jesus'. Whatever happened to God the Father, YHWH Elohim when
they pray to Jesus??
 • Stephen: "Lord Yeshua, receive my spirit … Lord, do not charge this sin against
them." (Act 7:59) [talking to Yeshua in his vision; not in prayer.]
• '… are calling upon the name of our Lord, Yeshua the Mashiah (1Co 1:2)
[Calling upon his exalted name (Phi 2:9) is not to be praying to 'Jesus'.
• 'I pleaded with the Lord Mashiah to the thorn to my flesh depart' (2Co 12:9)
• 'May our Lord Yeshua the Mashiah himself and the Elohim our Father … comfort
your hearts (2Th 2:16)
• "Even so come, Lord Yeshua! (Rev 22:20)
• "Maranatha" (Come, O Lord) (1Co 16:22)
• 'worship' to the Lamb (Rev 5:13-14) – does not mean the Lamb is 'God' to worship.
• Heb 7:25 "… as he intercedes in behalf of them". – as the High Priest he intercedes
our prayer to God the Father. [Mt 6:9]

Theoretically, if any person or thing is as your god, it would be an object of

'worship' (whatever it means) and 'prayers' (whatever it means) would be offered
to it.

'God Jesus' made out of unbiblical reading of Jn 1:1 (Jon Courson)

http://web.ccbce.com/multimedia/BLB/Comm/jon_courson/Jhn/Jhn001top_v1.html

'Jesus is eternally God' – 'In the beginning was the word'

'Jesus is equally God' – ' and the Word was with God'
'Jesus is essentially God' – ' … and the Word was God'

Note: The Logos is the Word of God himself. It is not a person, not God the Son,
not pre-existing eternal Jesus, not Cosmic Christ, etc., etc.

The Gospel presents him as the incarnate Logos (i.e. embodiment of the Word of the Elohim
Jn 1:14) = Immanuel (Mt 1:24 ‘The Elohim is with us’ – YHWH presence with us in the
person of Yeshua. A man (1Tim 2:5). Not ‘God Incarnate’, not demi-god or god-man who
was supposed to be born of a virgin in virginal conception with a human father. /x: ‘God in
the flesh’; /x: ‘God the Son’. He is believed as God but he is not ‘the God’ (‘Elohim’) [→
YHWH].

'Yeshua our Master' vs. 'Yeshua our Lord'

The arthrous Greek ho kurios, when it is applied to the risen and exalted Yeshua, it is
rendered as ‘Lord’. The same Greek word for Yeshua in the Gospels is rendered as
‘Master’ throughout the Gospels in IRENT, as the word 'lord' has become used in
reference to a deity. Cf. the Greek anathrous kurios, when applied to the Elohim, it is
rendered as Adonai or YHWH.
After www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html
• The promised Mashiah (the anointed one by the Elohim to be king,
prophet, and priest)
• Chosen as God's Predestined Son
• 'The Word of the Elohim' (the Logos of ~)
• The Incarnate Word; /x: God Incarnate; /x: Incarnate God
• Light – God's Light; Light of the world
• Prophet – God's Messenger
• the ‘High Priest’;
• Savior - God's Salvation
• King of King; the King of the Elohim’s kingdom reign.
• the Son of God; /xx: God the Son; He did not claim to be 'God'. He was not
called 'God'.
• the Apostle of the Elohim
• God’s Mystery (mystery of the Elohim that is, the Mashiah Col 2:2) [Cf.
mystery of Mashiah Eph 3:4; Col 4:3]
• The Way (to Father) (Jn 14:6); The Way for YHWH (Mk 1:3 //Mt 3:3 //Lk 3:4)
• Yeshua: Son of David (Mt 1:1); from David’s seed (Rm 1:3; Jn 7:46;
2Tim 2:8; cf. 2Sam 7:12-16). The offspring of David (Rev 22:16); the
root of David (Rev 5:5); out of the David’s loin (Act 2:30);
• *firstborn – prōtotokos [pre-eminence - the expression is not about being ‘first-
created’ as intended by NWT Col 1:16, 17, 20 – 'all other things' instead of 'all things']
Col 1:15 (firstborn over all creation) [Cf. Exo 4:22, Jer 31:9] [>> firstborn of
all creation] /firstborn of – KJV, NASB; /firstborn over – NIV; /pre-eminent over – New
Heart English Bible;
≈ Eph 1:4 (‘before founding of the world’; not Genesis Creation);
Rm 8:29 firstborn among many brethren;
Col 1:18 firstborn from out of the dead;
Heb 1:6 the firstborn into the inhabited world.

Cf. 'firstborn' - In O.T. – Psa 89:27 (for David); 1Sa 17:13 (Eliab); Jer 31:9
(Ephraim, younger than Manasseh, called firstborn, in Gen 41:51).

Cf. 'begotten' [as to Yeshua] (< brought forth – IRENT) [gegennēka > gennaō
(S1080)] – Act 13:13; Heb 1:5; 5:5; [the word is not about being-created, but
intimate relation btw father and son. Cf. 'you are my son' [Mt 17:5 //Mk 9:7
//Lk 9:35]
Cf. monogenēs S3439 'only-begotten' [as to Yeshua] – Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18;
1Jn 4:9; [As to others – Heb 11:17 (Isaac); 1Jn 3:9; 5:1, 18; 1Pe 1:3; 1Co 4:15;
Phi 1:10]; [Note: 'begotten' – archaic word]
• the Lamb of the Elohim (Jn 1:29, 36). [A title unfit for God, God the Son.]
• 'the Son of the Elohim'; Himself called ‘the Son-of-man’ (i.e. a man, human being)
• one Mediator btw God and men, the man Mashiah Yeshua (1Ti 2:5).
Titles of Yeshua

He was called in the N.T.:

• Rabbi, Teacher, Master! (for the disciples during His earthly mission)
• Lord! (as the risen Mashiah Yeshua, exalted to the right of the Elohim) – not into
tone of Lord God, but Master of our Life in Him.
• Never called ‘God!’ (Check for a few texts such as Jn 20:28 how it is read out of
the context to make him ‘God’)
• Never called ‘Adonai’ (= YHWH). a
• ‘the Rock’ – Mt 16:18 [=1Co 10:4; Yeshua himself; here allusion to the large rock formation
in Caesarea Philippi; not Peter, the first pope of Catholic Church.] = cornerstone (1Pe 2:6;
Eph 2:20); Mt 7:24 (bedrock); Rm 9:33. Cf. Isa 28:16 LXX]

Other descriptive titles, epithets: some shared with God the Father – e.g. ‘Savior’,
‘Creator’ (of the new creation, not of Genesis creation).

That Yeshua shares same titles/epithets as Elohim the Father does not make
'Jesus' God.
Title/Epithet Yeshua YHWH
Shepherd Jn 10:14 Isa 40:11
The First and the Last Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:10 Isa 46:6; 48:12
The Alpha and the Omega Rev 22:13 Rev 1:8

‘*Logos’, ‘the Word’

[See 'Appendix Jn 1.1 – translation and interpretation]

The ‘Word of God’ (or ‘Word’) is used as a title of Yeshua the Mashiah in N.T. Yes, he
is called the Word of God, the Logos of the Elohim; the Word of God cannot be called
‘God’. Any title of a person is not same as the person himself. It is a description, not an
identity. That is, Yeshua is as the Word of God, not identical to the Word. The Logos
(Word) in Jn 1:1 is not ‘God’ or ‘God the Son’. The Logos is the Word of the Elohim, it
is not ‘Jesus’, nor it is ‘Christ’.

EE from Jn 1:1

Logos ░░ (Gk. masc.) [ho logos in the sense of ‘the Word of the Elohim’ (> Word of God’) [‘the
Logos of Life’ 1Jn 1:1; ‘the Logos of the Elohim’ Rev 19:13; ‘the Logos’ 1Jn 5:7b v.l.] [self-
expression, wisdom, and creative thoughts and utterances from His will in act (of creation & revelation).

a
In Phi 2:11 CJB has it ‘ADONAI’ in all caps, as he does the rest of N.T. appropriated for the word kurios
(esp. anarthrous) whern it refers to Elohim. A serious blunder by the Jewish Scholar! [cf. Heb. adon – lord;
adoni – my lord] www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/philippians/2.html
Cf. ‘wisdom’ Hebrew Chokhmah Pro 3:19; 8:22-31. Rm 11:33; 1Co 1:21, 24; Eph 3:10] [not a
person, ‘Person’ (from Latin persona ‘actor’ ‘role’), ‘eternal or pre-existent Son of God’, or ‘God
the Son’]; /> Word – most; /xx: 道 (dào) – Chinese [ - cf. The Way Jn 14:6];

[Transliterated the Greek as a best way to render it with notion of God’s self-expression
in action (as in creation and revelation).] (In this sense here and in 1Jn 1:1 and 1Jn 5:7a
v.l.) [Does not mean ‘reason’ or ‘organizing principle of everything’ as used by the Greek
(Stoic) philosophy.]; /Logos - Mft; /Word – most;; /the Word [or, the Expression of [divine]
Logic], - ALT; /word – CLV; /x: (In the beginning was) the one who is called the Word – CEV;
/xx: the Word (Christ) – AMP; /xx: Speech – UPDV; /xx: Spokesman; /xx: message; /xx: (In the
beginning) the Message already existed – Dewayne Dulaney Version www.greekingout.com/;
/xxx: (When everything began) the Word was already existed – TNT; /xx: The message was in
the beginning.- Little Watchman Translation; /self-expression” – in various commentaries
(references to be collected);
[Points to the pre-incarnate God-being, but not Yeshua in God form. With the obvious connection to
Gen 1:1ff, it is linked to the expression of God’s in creation. (See Heb 1:3). G-John uses it to refer
to a human person to be born, and that person was Yeshua. [What Logos] is now embodied
(incarnate) in the very person of Yeshua. Logos is not the person of Yeshua, but Yeshua is what
Logos has Himself made into a human being of flesh-and-blood. (v. 14)] [Only here, and possibly
1Jn 1:1 in N.T. Most renders it as ‘Word’ inadequate it may.] [Yeshua and God’s Wisdom of the
Elohim - Lk 11:49; 7:35; Mt 11:19; 1Co 1:24, 30]
‘Suffering Servant’ in Isa 52:13 – 53:12

Both ancient and modern rabbinic commentators ascribe the ‘*suffering servant’ [the
expression which does not appear in NT] in Isa 53 to the nation of Israel. [Ref. Tovia
Singer (2014), Let’s Get Biblical – Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian
Messiah? p. 116. Christian midrashic exegesis takes it to refer to ‘Jesus Christ’.

NT shows its own midrashic exegesis of O.T. texts used as quotations and even allusions. It
is common esp. in the Gospels. What we have from such exegesis is actually unrelated to the
original meaning in the setting of OT text. (It is not so much of committing error
(fabricating) of taking out of context’.

This should not be confused with so-called ‘Christian midrash’ of N.T. as well as O.T. text
which is more of theological and church doctrinal elaboration. It conflates 'the figure of the
Suffering Servant of YHWH' with the figure of the Passover Sacrifice. [See also in WB#2
<Text, Translation, and Translations>]

‘Lamb of the Elohim’ (‘Lamb of God’)

Jn 1:29, 36 Lamb of the Elohim ░░ [only here 2x. Emphasis is on obedience & submission, not
on suffering & death as of the sacrificial animal – ‘Pesach lamb’ (1Co 5:7; cf. Exo 12:5); ‘the
Lamb that was slaughtered’ (Rev 13:8); ‘a lamb to the slaughter’ (Isa 53:7).] [‘Yeshua is as the
Lamb’; not ‘Yeshua is the Lamb’. Similarly, ‘Yeshua was as the sin sacrifice’; not ‘Yeshua was
the sin sacrifice’ 2Co 5:21]
[He is 'lamb' of God not because he had to be born at Passover, as Passover lambs (in the
spring season).]

Ref. Marijke H. de Lang, “John 1:29, 36: The Meaning of ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and John’s
Soteriology” Journal of Biblical Text Research 성경원문연구 (in Korean),
2015, No. 37, p. 236ff.
‘God’s messenger and High Priest (Kohen haGadol)

Heb 3:1 the God’s messenger and High Priest24

God’s messenger:

/the God’s messenger – NLB; /the apostle – most; /the Apostle – NASB, KJV; [‘apostle’ gives
wrong word association as for His disciples.]

Gk. apostolos ‘the one who is sent’ – messenger, agent. Yeshua as God’s agent – the one sent
from and came from Father – is a prominent theme in G-Jn.

the High Priest haGadol /> high priest; /Heb. Kohen haGadol;

Cf. The “witnesses of YHWH” in Isa 43:10-12 refers to His chosen people.
Jehovah’s Witnesses took their title out of these verses. The only true witness to
YHWH is Yeshua Himself.

YHWH and Yeshua do not and cannot refer to the one and same. There are a few (e.g.
Ralph Wilson etc.) who try to convince themselves that ‘Jehovah means I AM’, ‘Jesus is
Jehovah’, but never get to the point of saying ‘Christ is Jehovah’! The so-called ‘I Am’
statements in G-Jn are simply misunderstood. A (calling or descriptive) title (such as
‘God’, ‘Savior’, ‘Lord’, ‘the Shepherd’, etc.) is different from a name, as a same title can
have many different referents. Such an outlandish illogical claim is not worthy for any
further consideration, though it brings the ultimate theological insights to light, that is, (1)
the relation between YHWH Elohim and Yeshua His Mashiah (> Messiah), and (2) who
Yeshua the Mashiah is.

'Who is Jesus', 'Who was Jesus', 'where is He now'; Who/what has He become in
Church language?

Who I am? False Claims About ‘Jesus’

The False Claim that Proskyneo Worship demonstrates Jesus is God

[that someone/something is being ‘worship’ does not mean the object of worship is
the Elohim the Most High (YHWH Elohim). What does it mean by ‘to worship’? How
about ‘idol worship’?
How many gods are there to exist in the Bible? Only one? Two? or Three (as
Trinitarian)? Or is it not that we should worship YHWH as the one and only to
‘worship’ – Elohim the Most High?

The False Claim that Forgiving Sins demonstrates Jesus was God
[what does we mean by ‘sins’ and by ‘forgiving sins’?]

The False Claim that Jesus' Miracles demonstrates he was God

[what does it mean by ‘miracles’, by the word used in the most Bible translations?]

The False Claim that the title "Lord" demonstrates Jesus is God
[What does in mean by ‘Lord/lord’ – in common English? in religious and theological
jargon? in Greek? in Hebrew? in what context? Why not take it as ‘Master’ as a
translation word to see what the word actually connotes.]
 The False Claim that the term "Son of God" means Jesus is God
[God’s son; vs. the Son of the Elohim; vs. unbiblical term God the Son. God-man?]
What is meant by ‘son’, when the word basically means a male offspring of a father?
How can ‘God’ have ‘son’, as Muslims argue? Figurative? In what sense it is so?

The False Claim that Jesus is "the Angel of the Lord"

[what does it mean by ‘angel’? a messenger? a human one or a divine one (like a
picture of a winged-angel)?

Yeshua asks: ‘Who do you say I am’ (Mk 8:29) – the fundamental and foundational
question of the whole NT and of the very faith in Him.

The corollary is: “Who does He himself say to be – as to who He is’ in the NT.
• He called himself as ‘the Son-of-man’ [Gk. ‘the son of the man’ with man as
human, not a male.]
• He himself did not say ‘I am the Son of the Elohim’ [This expression was not
employed as Yeshua’s self-designation cf. only indirectly in Jn 5:25; 11:4. Cf. Jn
10:36 (a son of the Elohim)
• He himself never said ‘I am God’.

The biblical person of Yeshua is not same as the ‘Christian Jesus’, which is a reconstruction
by Constantine Christianity (incl. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and host of Protestant offspring).

Yeshua was not born of a virgin without a father (‘*virgin birth myth’ ‘virginal conception’),
but born of physical union of Yosef and Mariam, his mother. He takes on human nature as any
human being (cf. Rm 1:3 seed of David; Heb 2:16 seed of Abraham). At the level of spirit, he
is God’s son, the Son of the Elohim. [> ‘Son of God’; See Mt 1:18-19; Lk 1:26-27, 31; 34-37
in IRENT]

… What needs explanation is the meaning of the different [descriptive] titles

being ascribed to Yeshua, and especially its relation to the meaning of the life of
Yeshua as a whole. It remains striking that in the New Testament as a whole the
term sōter (savior) is used so seldom, even though the function of Savior is quite
obvious in the New Testament …

…and the different titles associated with Yeshua acquire their content from the
narrative as a whole…
… The various Christological titles of Yeshua are not inherently Christological,
and also not unambiguous. They obtain their meaning in and through the
narrative as such. It must be kept in mind that the role of the titles must first and
foremost be seen in the context of the characterization in the narrative. This
means that we do not have a systematic Christology in the Gospel, but a
narrative presentation.
 [With the word change, Yeshua > Jesus; savior > savior. Quoted from
www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/SRS/combrink/MarkSalvation.pdf ]

A title does tell only about ‘what He is’, not ‘who He is’. A title may have more than one
referent. Indeed, the titles 'God' and 'Lord' were also given to pagan idols and systematically,
it became regarded as NAMES for the idols. Similarly, when people have failed to come the
knowledge of the divine sacred Names, they have been deluded into believing that 'God' or
'Lord' is the Almighty One's Name itself and have it substituted in speech, in writing, and
in thoughts – ultimate having their faith without the Name! [titles – calling titles (e.g.
‘Lord’ ‘Elohim’) vs. descriptive titles]. They have even a nameless God, the Holy
Ghost.

“Jesus is God?” 'God Jesus?' “Is he a god?”, or “was he a god?” “When did he become
God?” “When he was made God?”; a God-man; a God disguised as man - docetism?; a
demi-god as in many legends?

Terminology – god, god-being, deity. Cf. divinity, divine nature. That someone has
‘divinity’ or divine nature does not make equated as ‘God’ as the reality (e.g. as
YHWH is).

[The statement ‘Jesus is God’ (which is a central but confusing statemen of Christians of the
Trinitarian belief) presents a logical quandary, since either of the answer yes or no may be
right, or both may be seen as right, or rebutted – this is all because the statement does not
define the word ‘God’ (why not ‘god’ or even ‘a God’), neither ‘Jesus’ (as to who he was and
who he is). The only response can be either against or for it. Additionally, the word ‘is’ itself
is challenging. In what sense the verb ‘is’ corrects the two – same, identical, like, similar, a
part of, belonging to, related to, etc. Anyone/thing can be (a) god (/God) for some. Jesus can
be (a) god (/God) for some. Only the expression ‘Jesus is as God’ can be accepted.a Then we
have to deal with the concept of ‘being God’, ‘being divine’, and ‘divinity’. Note that, from a
point view of logic, the statement ‘someone is divine’ or ‘someone has divinity’ or ‘someone
has fullness of God-being’ is oxymoron and nonsensical if referred to God himself or God-
being itself.

[Then, what is a binitarian (< dyatic) b relationship between Yeshua and YHWH
Elohim of the Scripture, rather than ‘Jesus’ and ‘God’, as argued throughout Church
history? Here we should note: In all the arguments on the ‘divinity’ ‘divineness’ of
‘Jesus’ (i.e. ‘whether he is/was God’), no clear definition is offered what is ‘God’ and
what is ‘Jesus’ – as they are their own metaphysical and theological construct not
correspond to the reality. That’s why everyone is convinced that they are right and
others’ position is deficient and in error.]

a
Cf. When Yeshua rebuked Kefa (Peter), ‘Get behind me, Satan’ (Mt 16:23), it surely is meant
‘Peter as Satan’ (i.e. someone like it), not ‘the Satan’ itself being referred to.
b
For the terms ‘byadic/triadic vs. binatrian/trinitarian’ -
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/binitarian-dyadic-triadic-early-christian-god-talk-and-
devotion/
[The foremost reason to read the New Testament is to know who Yeshua (believed as)
the Mashiah was and to know what Yeshua said who He was – either to put faith in
Him or to deny who He was said to be in the Scripture –apart from religious teachings
by the Church, the Priests, the theologians, etc. All other reasons are secondary;
however, they are important theologically, doctrinally, and ecclesiastically. Then, the
final question is: “who He is – to me”. It is not about ‘God’, which any religion can
offer plausible, enticing, and convincing inspirations.]

[Another but equally important question everyone ought to ask: ‘Who is NOT Jesus?’
Every ‘Jesus’ they claim him to be, and every Jesus they make out of their reading of
the Bible – all these may not be who He is. Most of Jesus they have is a hodge-podge
of syncretic images of a westernized ‘Jesus’. ‘Which Jesus?’ E.g. ‘God-Man’; ‘God
the Son’; human being but not human person, but divine person, a materialistic
shamanic god we can bargain to obtain what we want to have. Jesus Christ of their
own Church, but not Yeshua the Mashiah of the Elohim in the Scripture?] [Is the
question different from a question ‘Was Jesus divine?’ Then another question would
be ‘If yes, how so? – Here again we need a working definition of ‘divine’ before
tackling the questions.] Linguistically and literarily all statements are acceptable: (1)
he is a god, (2) he is God, (3) he is a god-being; (4) he is divine or god-ness (? of
deity?), but not (5) he is the God (Elohim YHWH). Depending on who claims and
why they do, there may be great division. However, each one is right on its own and
can hardly make others convinced of their being wrong, with human beings as they
are fundamentally pursuing ‘pleasure for themselves’ and ‘power over others’ – totally
‘addicted’ out of human nature and there is no such thing as ‘absolute’ needed to
resolve existential dilemma.

[It is undeniable that Yeshua was regarded as more than a simple human person, but
also as a God-being by those followed Him, which is the sense of ‘God’s Son’ or ‘the
Son of the God (‘the Elohim’). The problem created by Trinitarian formula is that ‘the
Son of God’ became ‘God the Son’, who was with Father from ‘eternity’ (whatever
this word might mean); a God-being became God; Jesus became same as Jehovah, and
Jehovah = Jesus; the name of God is now ‘Jesus’ (but what happened to ‘Jehovah). In
other words, it is identity problem – on metaphysical, Greek philosophical, religious
and ecclesiastical wrangling, having far divorced from what the whole Scripture
actually says and having instead, bogged down with pet proof texts.

[“God in Mashiah’ (God-being) vs. ‘Mashiah in the Elohim’]

‘Jesus as God’; ‘Biblical Yeshua was not God; ‘Christian Jesus is God’ (for
many)

In Trinitarian mind he is more than ‘divine man’, he is God-Man, God, but not ‘a
God’.
Related unbiblical Trinitarian ideas: ‘Jesus is God’ ‘Jesus became God’, ‘God
Jesus’, ‘God the Son’ (contra ‘Son of God’), ‘the second Person of the Godhead’;
‘God-man’; ‘God Incarnate’ (as compared to ‘Incarnate Logos’ ≈ Immanuel); ‘Jesus
existed with God in the beginning of creation’, etc.

!! Fred Coulter (2006), Harmony of the Gospels – The Life of Jesus Christ. It reads in p. 253
– “The one of the Elohim [sic] who created the heavens and the earth became Jesus Christ –
God manifested in the flesh.” www.churchathome.org/a-harmony-of-the-gospels.html

Ref. ‘worshiping Jesus’ - http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol12/worship-of-

jesus_france.pdf worshiping Jesus as God? [How about worshiping Maria, the Bible,
mammon, one’s own ideology, etc.?] (‘worship’, ‘bowing down’, ‘adoration’,
‘veneration’, etc.)

The ultimate question of Christians – who is Jesus. Instead of looking into the
Scripture of what He himself said who he was, but the question is altered as ‘who we
think He is’. The fact cannot be denied that this image and identity of ‘Jesus’ is a
westernized syncretic reconstruct to fit their theological and doctrinal system of
religion and faith – much alien to the biblical Yeshua of the Apostolic ‘Christianity’.

Despite the plain messages in the Scripture, that he was Mashiah, anointed by God,
to usher in the Kingdom reign of the Elohim, many (of Trinitarian mindset) would
picture Him as a second God, God the Son, the Pre-incarnate Son. Some of New Age
mindset would see Him as Cosmic Christa, a demigod.

Before we can give many acceptable answers to ‘who Jesus is’, there is a question
which should be answered beforehand – ‘which Jesus is in your mind’?

And then, “where is He now?” Up in the ‘heaven’ somewhere? On a throne next to

Elohim YHWH? Next to Mr. Holy Ghost on another throne? How would worship
and/or prayer to find way to ‘God the Father’, to ‘God the Son’, and to ‘God the Holy
Ghost’. Or the God is rather to be pictured, as in Orthodox icons, as a three-headed
Person or a three-faced Person?b

https://youtu.be/WxeKunPwmp4 Jesus the Jew – but what sort of Jew? (Paul Meier)
https://youtu.be/WBTJprIBfkc Rabbi Jesus - Bruce Chilton
https://youtu.be/tddCNY6U77Y The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus
’

A common vexing question ‘Is Jesus God?’, or a claim ‘Jesus is God’c: [How and
when Jesus became or made God contrarily to the Scripture. It is one thing to have

a
‘Cosmic Christ’: Ref. Bil Holton, The Gospel of John: New Metaphysical Version.
Jn 1:1 “Before there was a physical universe [In the beginning] there was the Cosmic
Christ [the Word] …”
b
Cf. Janus, Ianus, a Roman god, two-faced. (< ‘January’, the name of a month).
c
Similar line of guestion: ‘Does the Bible identify Jesus as God?’ [by Kermit Zarley
www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2011/1-pdf/kz-does_bible_identify_jesus_as_god.pdf ]
– a rhetorical question. Here again, we would not have much out of argments unless we settle
first on what does it mean by ‘identify’ and by ‘God’ – all the (necessary or unnecessary)
 'Jesus' worshiped as God, it is entirely another to say the name of our God is 'Jesus'.
Its ultimate Trinitarian fallout is ‘(The name of) our God is Jesus’ or even ‘Jehovah
is Jesus’.
[‘God Jesus’ Iesus Deus. Cf. ‘Jesus religion’ (예수교) vs. ‘Christ religion’ (기독교
基督敎). - Cf. M. David Litwa (2014), Iesus Deus: The Early Christian Depiction of
Jesus as a Mediterranean God] (www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/iesus-deus/ )

1) Jesus (the Nazarene) was God?

2) Jesus is God? The westernized Jesus is God?
3) Was Jesus God before he was born (a god-man)?

Did He claim to be god or claim the title of God? What “God Jesus” is? What does
it mean when some say ‘Jesus is God’ and what is the point they are driving at? Jesus
= God; Jesus = Jehovah – a fortiori??

Jn 1:1 ‘The Word’ is read as the Son, then read as Jesus – justify ‘Jesus is God’. The
metaphorical ‘Son of God’ is transformed the metaphysical ‘God the Son’, a Gnostic
concept. – See John Hick, Metaphor of God Incarnate -

Of course, any argument requires definition of the terms used – what is God? a What
does the word God mean and how is it used?

Here, the answer would be one of these: (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) I don’t know. Trinitarians
would say ‘Yes’ while anti-Trinitarians would say ‘No’, both sides with different
reasoning which are not quite antithetical.

If one claims ‘Jesus is God’, what does it mean? God in disguise (as God of Docetic
god-manb)?
If one insists ‘Jesus is not God’, what does he want to disprove?

Moreover, one has to settle on the question of ‘which Jesus’. Jesus of religion or
Yeshua of the Gospels? ‘what is the person who is called Jesus?’ ‘Who Jesus is’? The
so-called ‘quest of historical Jesus’ dwells mainly over the former, rather than
Yeshua, the Mashiah (anointed one) of YHWH Elohim. Are we dealing with
someone who lived 2000 years ago, known as Yeshua of Nazareth? Or the one who

arguments can be only overcome when we take a fundamental approach – linguistic, literary, and
logical approach to deal with any concepts, ideas, dogmas, and writings that are ever created by
human mind.
a
‘what is God?’ ≠ ‘what God is’ (‘what sort of God is’) ≠ ‘which God?’; [God did not
create ‘evil’ (evilness); nor did He ‘good’ (goodness). Genesis Ch. 1 simply tells us that
what He created – everything – was ‘good’ for Him to see. Evil takes its root at Adam’s
exercising God-given endowment ‘freedom’ to make himself like a god-being, deciding
apart from Elohim – which one right and which is wrong. Cf. ‘know right and wrong’
(Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22. Cf. Heb 5:14); not ‘good and evil’ (most translations), nor ‘good
and bad’ (NWT).
b
cf. ‘Cosmic Christ’ – Matthew Fox. Cf. https://youtu.be/4LYQQO5uFtA
Cf. Christian mysticism or Mystic Christianity; Cf. the New Age movement (a.k.a. Self-
spirituality, New spirituality, Mind-body-spirit)
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_2003
0203_new-age_en.html#
is believed to exist now as the resurrected ‘Lord’? Or the one who is believed to be
pre-existing before the historical person? As a human person as he should be, some
sees him as only divine person, but not a human person in a Trinitarian word game?
As the word ‘god’ ‘theos’ ‘elohim’ is and has been used to refer to other than ‘God’,
if we forget about capitalization scheme, anyone (or any abstract idea or anything)
can be called ‘god’ (or God), there is nothing wrong to claim ‘Jesus is God’. By the
very same token, there is nothing wrong to assert that ‘Jesus is not God’, because
both understand God differently and the same word spelt mean and connote different.
Even the sematic sense of the sentence is different to different. We are forced to stay
within the Scripture and within the mindset of the writers and their audiences and
have to stay clear of any theological, doctrinal, and even philosophical traditions.
One way to help resolve the dilemma is to find a word to translate Gk. theos. IRENT
finds Elohim, a Hebrew loan, is appropriate and acceptable for translating the
arthrous Gk. ho theos. [Cf. Korean translation words ‘하나님’ vs. ‘하느님’]

The main problem here is linguistic and logic, not theological or doctrinal. People
are not clear at the start about what they mean by different words and terms. Here it
depends on what is meant by ‘God’ and ‘someone is God’ or ‘someone is called
God’. Note that there is no difference between God and god to begin with until when
we take it in a different sense. Moreover, it eventually depends on how everyone
understands the person they call ‘Jesus’. Jesus of Catholicism and Jesus of various
Protestantism are not same. Nor Jesus of Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Mormons are
same. Each sect has its own image of who Jesus is. Such Jesus, westernized and
Christianized, is not same as Yeshua of the Scripture, one way or the other. “Who do
people say that I am?” is the very question with which Yeshua confronted at his
disciples at the beginning of His public ministry. [Mk 8:27 = Lk 9:18; also Mt 16:13]
It ultimately what the word ‘is’ really used in our language – is it ‘Jesus as God’,
rather than ‘Jesus is God’? Calling Jesus God [i.e. 'Jesus as God'] is different from
saying 'Jesus IS God'. [See an attached file titled The Nebulous ‘Is’.]

Whatever answer is to be, it is incomplete and fails to stand up by itself. It’s because
‘God’ (I say) is not ‘God’ (you say) is not ‘God’ (others say). As discussed several
occasions in this file, most have a wrong concept of ‘God’ and are unable to
differentiate ‘God’ of generic notion and ‘the God’. Yeshua is NOT the God. He is
not the Elohim. But Is Yeshua ‘God’? To be made less ambiguous, we should say
‘Yeshua is as God’. This is similar to the expression ‘Yeshua is equal to Father’ (as
the Judeans correctly perceived when they accused Him – Jn 5:18). Yes, Yeshua is
God-being (= ‘what God is’). However, because of linguistic limit [as long as the
word ‘God’ is being used this way], the expression remains problematic and
impractical because of a deeper problem – tri-theistic idea in the Trinitarian formula.

A rare N.T. instances where the term ‘God’ seems to be applied to Jesus:

• Tit 1:17 ‘the King ~~~, only and wise God’

• Jn 1:1c (Note: the anarthrous noun theos is to the Logos, not to unbiblical
jargon ‘Jesus, God the Son, or the Second Person of Trinity)
• Jn 20:28 (Note: the arthrous ho theos, which should be the Elohim, the Father)
‘one God’; Unitarianism, monotheism vs. monaltry [The belief in God in the Scripture
is monaltry – having one true God to worship and turned away from all other gods.

1Co 8:4 [to us] no [other] God but one ░░ (oudeis theos [heteros] ei mē eis) (v. 5~~ there
are so-called ‘gods’); 1 (no God but one): /no God but one – most, NET, ESV trio, NASB,
HCSB, NWT, NIV duo, BBE, TCNT, ASV, DRB, PNT, Cass (- problem of the phrase ‘no
God’ – as if negating God; /x: no one is God, except One – CPDV2009; x: no god but one
– REB;; 2 (/mss – no other God): /no other God except one – ALT, LITV, MKJV, CLV (~
One); /no other God but one – HNV, ISR (~ Elohim), NKJV; /there is none other God
but one – Bishops, Geneva, KJV++; /no other God save one – Darby; /no other God
except for one – ALT; /no other God except one – CLV; /no other God but one – HNV;
/
/there is only one God – NLT, ISV, ERV, CEV, GNB, NIrV, JNT; /x: no god exists except
the one God – GW; /xx: no one God other, if not one – Diagl; /x: no god exists except
the one God – GW; /하나님은 한분 밖에 없는줄 – KRV; /하나님 한분 외에는 다른 신이
없는 줄 – KKJV; /唯一の 神 以外には 神は 存在しないこと – JSS; / 3 (paraphrase): />
there is only one God – JNT, NIrV, GNB, CEV, ERV, NLT, ISV;
(often quoted a few words as ‘there is no God but one’ it gives out an unclear idea.) [Does
this statement deny that there are many gods, as ‘monotheism’ (there is only one God. cf.
monaltry) insists? It is that one believes in one true living God only. The expression ‘false
gods’ does not mean that there are no gods, but gods are not the God you should vow
down.]; [Cf. The statement “(there is only one God;) God, the Father, beside which there
is no god” is by itself incomplete and illogical, as the fact is there are (many) gods. It is
that to us there is only one, the true living God.] [Cf. The expression ‘There is no God but
Allah (as in Shahada of Islam)’; ‘There is no god but God’]

Hebrew word el (LXX – theos; god - English) and elohim (LXX – theoi; gods) are
applied to men – Exo 7:1 (to Moses); Psa 82:6 = quoted in Jn 10:34; also to angels
Psa 8:5 (angels – LXX; elohim – MT);

http://presenttruth.info/is-jesus-god/

The question ‘Is Jesus God’ requires a definition of the word “God” [also the
context it is used – ARJ]. If the word “God” is taken to mean, “the supreme ruler
of the universe, the Most High God,” then the answer to your question would have
to be no, because the Bible recognizes only one person with these titles, and Jesus
said Himself that His Father is “the only true [original] God.” (John 17:3)

The word “god” has several different meanings. In a very limited sense, men are
called god. Both the Greek word theos and the Hebrew word elohim, which are
most often translated “god,” are used in reference to men. (See Exodus 7:1; Psalm
82:6; John 10:34) When the word “god” is used in that sense, then there are
hundreds and thousands of gods.
In a less limited sense, angels are called gods. David wrote about man, “For thou
hast made him a little lower than the angels.” (Psalms 8:5) The word “angels” in
this verse comes from the Hebrew word elohim. The way elohim is used here it
denotes a type of being that is higher than man, but it is still used in a limited
sense, and with this definition there would still be many gods.

In reference to Christ, elohim and theos are used in a much less limited sense, to
denote His nature as being on the same level as His Father—something that
cannot be said about any other being in the universe. The Bible says that Christ
was “in the form of God.” (Philippians 2:6)

But even when the word “God” is used of Christ, it is used in a limited sense,
because Christ has a God who is “the head of Christ,” “above all,” and “greater
than” He. (See 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 4:6; and John 14:28.) When the
word “God” is used in its absolute and unlimited sense, there is only one Person to
whom it can apply, and that is God, the Father, alone. Jesus said that His Father is
“the only true God.” (John 17:3) Paul said, “there is none other God but one…
God, the Father.” (1 Corinthians 8:4, 6) Of the 1320 times the word “God” is used
in the New Testament, more than 99% of the time it refers exclusively to God the
Father, while it only applies to His Son four times. (John 1:1; John 20:28;
Hebrews 1:8; 1 Timothy 3:16)

So, to clarify, there are many gods when the word “God” is used in a limited
sense, to include men and angels. When “God” is used as an adjective to describe
the nature of God, then there are only two divine beings, God, the Father and
Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son. When the word “God” is used in this sense,
then yes, Jesus is God. The Son of God is completely divine by nature because
His Father is divine, just as I am completely human because my parents are
human. [Cf. Hebrew idiom of ‘a son of ~’ = a person having character of ~’. E.g.
‘son of thunder’.]

When the word “God” is used in its absolute sense, to denote “the Most High
God,” “the Sovereign of the universe,” or “the only true God,” then there is only
one God, the Father, beside which there is no God.

As for the title θεός, “On the one hand, the dominant Greco-Roman ethos assumed that
there were many gods and that human beings could be deified. Many emperors refused to
be called gods during their lifetimes, yet were named gods after their deaths. The term
“god” was also used for living rulers, like Agrippa (Acts 12:21-22; Josephus, Ant. 19.345)
and Nero (Tacitus, Annals 14.15). On the other hand, the Jewish tradition centered on faith
in one God (Deu 6:4), who was not to be portrayed in human form or to be identified with
a human being (Exo 20:4; Deu 5:8; 2 Mac 9:12; cf. John 5:18; 10:33)” (Craig R. Koester,
Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [2001], 202). Further,
one should note that the majority of passages in which Jesus is potentially called θεός
appear in writings attributed to Jewish settings, whereas only a few might be Pauline (see,
e.g., Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity [1970], 139).

fr. Jesus as Θεός: A Textual Examination by Brian James Wright)

Related questions are;

‘was Jesus a human person?’ ‘is he a human person?’ ‘when is a human being a human
person?’ ‘what does it mean by ‘person’? History the term ‘person’ in the Trinitarian
formula from Latin, which is translation word of Greek words. What about ‘a divine
person?’ What do we mean by ‘being’?

http://youtu.be/va_BrSislsE (in the comments: ‘*person = self-conscious or rational

being’?? – what does it mean by ‘being’ ‘self-conscious’ ‘rational)???
https://youtu.be/YW99U4JWNEc
Top 10 Reasons Why Jesus is not God - Joshua Evans - TheDeenShow

Who was Yeshua of the Gospels?

• Mystery of the Elohim (Col 2:2; 1:27) [cf. ‘the mystery, the Mashiah’ - Eph 3:4; Col 4:3;=
things hidden until revealed which are held by the Mashiah. Cf. ‘this mystery ~ which is the Mashiah
in you’ Col 1:27) – resurrection, ascension, glorification/exaltation, not God coming down to the earth
and walks like man, a pagan Godmana or Gnostic demiurges.]
• Fulfillment of Torah (Mt 5:14) – “End of religion(s)”
• Fulfillment of the Old Covenant and its promises – (Epistles to Hebrews) (Cf. Mt
27:51; 1Co 5:7)
• Embodiment of the Logos of the Elohim Jn 1:1, 14. Logos - word, self-expression,
utterance, and wisdom of the Elohim. (‘became flesh’)
• A man who has come from God (Jn 3:2; 13:3) entrusted with divine mission (a
divine man, /x: ‘divine Being; /x: ‘Cosmic Christ’); not a God (‘God the Son’) came
walking on earth as ‘God-man’ (pagan idea).
• The living bread from heaven Jn 6:51 ( → his own ‘flesh’)
• The only-begotten Son of Father (the Elohim) – Jn 1:18; 3:16, 18; Act 13:33; Heb
1:5; 5:5; 11:17; 1Jn 4:9)
• the Elohim’s beloved son – Mt 3:17 //Mk 1:11; Heb 1:5 (at his baptism); Lk 1:32,
35 (at his conception/birth)
• The Son of Elohm (not ‘God the Son’)
• ‘Son of David’ (- Mashiah); son of Yosef; born of a woman, Mariam.
• He is not Yahweh; He is a representation of YHWH.
• The crucified and risen Lord (‘Master’);
• Ascended to the Heaven (Mk 16:19; Lk 24:50; Act 1:9; 1Jn 2:1; Heb 10:12; 1Pe
3:22); exalted by Father (Phi 2:9);
www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/august/why-ascension-matters.html

‘Who I am?’ ‘I am who I am’ – The recurrent theme in the Gospels which Yeshua challenged
people with. The anointed one of the Elohim (Mashiah as King, Prophet, and Kohen) is the
answer, explicit or implicit. – E.g. Mt 16:15-16; //Mk 8:29; //Lk 9:20. Mk 14:61-62; //Lk
22:70. Jn 4:26; 8:28, 58; Cf. Jn 17:3.

Q: Who was ‘Jesus’? Who is ‘Jesus’? What Jesus? Which Jesus? Whose Jesus?

To know and follow Yeshua of the Gospels (a historical and biblical person) as not same
as to believe (or believe in) Jesus of religion – a person of various theological
formulations. Those who follow Yeshua of the Gospels are not same as those who believe
Jesus – so-called Christians [original epithet for the Gentile converts.]

a
www.firstnewtestament.com/jewish_messiah_pagan_godman.htm
A starting point to come to know His is a Galilean, an iterant rabbi – a Shemite (ethnically
speaking. Cf. ‘Semite’ in English with different nuance). It refers to all the descendants of
Shem (one the Noah’s sons), such as the Akkadians, Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans,
Hebrews and Arabs. [Ref. Rocco A. Errico <Jesus: The Aramaic-Speaking Shemite> in p.
141ff Tim Leedom (1993, 2003), The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read]
‘Jesus Christ’ – theological issues: [adopted from TOC in RC Sproul (1992),
Essential Truths of The Christian Faith]:
• The Deity of Christ@ ; divinity of;
• The Subordination of Christ
• The Humanity of Christ
• The Sinlessness of Christ
• The *Virgin Birth [unbiblical Trinitarian doctrine – myth – fiction, faith, or
fact??
• Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten
• The Baptism of Christ
• The Glory of Christ
• The Ascension of Christ$
• Jesus Christ as Mediator
• The Threefold Office of Christ
• The Titles of Jesus

@ (*Deity - Jesus is God, a God or God-man?) – not to be confused with the

biblical concept of *divinity of the man Yeshua Mashiah (1Ti 2:5) is not about
‘divinity of God’, which is oxymoron. It centers on his being the only-begotten
Son of the Elohim – exalted (Phi 2:9) to the right of the Elohim (Mt 26:64 = Mk
14:46; Mk 16:19; Lk 22:69; Act 2:33; 5:31; 7:55, 57; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col
3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 1Pe 3:22) – – Exalting God as God does not make any sense.
It is not about ‘divinity of God’, which is oxymoron as God is the divine by definition.
The divine is ascribed to God but also not God-being, though the word ‘God’ can be
ascribed to other than the God, Elohim of the Scripture – e.g. ‘Caesar is God’, etc.
Someone is being called ‘God’ (i.e. as a title) is not same as someone is being ‘God’ (i.e.
the ontological reality). The exalted Mashiah is the divine Mashiah, it is not because he is
God as unbiblically claimed, but the exalted servant of the Elohim, because he is the true
(trustworthy) Mashiah, the risen and exalted Lord, in the Kingdom reign of the Elohim
over the new creation (for the old creation in His work of reconciliation) in life eternal, far
surpassing the life of the Davidic royal Mashiah. [Nor as Gnostic Cosmic Christ, nor
Christ peddled in Churches.]

This is God confusion at the word level – linguistic and literary, not religious and
theological. Arguments about ‘divine nature’ (e.g. “Jesus is a divine person but not a
human person but only a human being) is simply a theological play thing for Trinitarians
(e.g. homoousios vs. homoiousios vs. heteroousia; hypostasis; essence, attributes,
substance, etc.) not relevant to the life of God believing people.

$ Most Christians can explain why the death and resurrection of Yeshua (Rm 8:34) are
necessary for sinners to be made righteous. Fewer can explain why His ascension is
important, and even fewer why Yeshua’s continual intercession is essential for our
salvation. (Heb 7:25; 9:24; Jn 17)
 The commonly translated word ‘Christ’ appears in N.T. in several
expressions. The word in the phrase ‘Jesus Christ’ is in most Christian
language as if it is his last name.

‘Jesus Christ’ – vs. ‘Jesus the Christ’, vs. ‘Jesus, Christ’

Various other expressions – ‘Mashiah Yeshua’ (‘Christ Jesus’), ‘Mashiah Yeshua our
Lord’, ‘Lord Yeshua Mashiah’, etc.

In the Gospels, the phrase ‘Yeshua Mashiah’ (> ‘Jesus Christ’) is itself found only in
a few places compared to the Epistles - Mt 1:1; 1:18; Mk 1:1; Jn 1:17; 17:3.
[In few places, the sense of Yeshua as Mashiah’ may be clearer – Mt 1:1; Jn 17:3; Act
3:20 – where the text is taken as if an explanatory phrase, e.g. “believed Him as
Mashiah”.

‘Jesus Christ’ vs. ‘Christ Jesus’:

'Yeshua the Mashiah' vs. 'Mashiah Yeshua':
Yeshua the Mashiah > Jesus Christ Yeshua, the Mashiah’ (over 110x)
Mashiah Yeshua > Christ Jesus (over 85x);
Lord Yeshua Mashiah’ > Lord Jesus Christ (about 85x);
Lord Yeshua > Lord Jesus (about 40x)

‘Jesus Christ’ is the traditional English translation of Gk. Iēsous Christos. The
biblical sense is ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’. However, the sense in common English
usage is quite different, having brought unbiblical alien pictures to the word. It
is now a person whom the Trinitarian believes to be God [as ‘God the Son’] and
worship accordingly, whose varied portraits have shown up in paintings and
icons. The word ‘Christ’ fails to carry the biblical sense of Mashiah (or
Messiah), but a title for identification but without biblical significance of ‘the
anointed one by YHWH Elohim for a king, a priest, and a prophet. We can say
that someone believes Jesus Christ means, among other things, to believe Him
as God.

The Anglicized ‘Jesus Christ’ fails to carry the biblical sense of the name, but
a re-created image of Him by the Christian Church and tradition (e.g. various
portraits in paintings and icons). With His proper and correct name Yeshua
Mashiah it is all but impossible to use it as a common expletive in English as
is the case with ‘Jesus Christ’. a That someone says ‘I believe in Yeshua
Mashiah’b is far different from ‘I believe in Jesus Christ’ – each belonging in
the different culture and mindset as well as religious historical background.
J.C. has been encrusted with much ideas and images alien to the Bible.

a
This is same in case of using ‘Elohim’ instead of ‘God’ in IRENT (for the arthrous Gk. noun). It is
impossible to use ‘Elohim’ as an expletive.
b
‘The one who believes in Yeshua does not believe in him, but [actually] in the One who has sent him’ –
Jn 12:44 (Cf. Jn 14:1).
Yeshua Mashiah (Jesus Christ); ‘Mashiah Yeshua’ (> Christ Jesus)

Yeshua Mashiah vs. Mashiah Yeshua:

The expression Mashiah Yeshua over against Yeshua Mashiah is almost

exclusively by Paul.
http://concordiakoinonia.com/2011/10/16/christ-jesusjesus-christ/

When the word ‘Christos’ appears in Greek Text without association with
‘Jesus’ or ‘Lord’, it should not be read as if same as the full phrase ‘Jesus Christ’.

‘Mashiah Yeshua’ – Yeshua particularized with the title Mashiah.

‘Yeshua Mashiah’ – the Mashiah whose figure is Yeshua.
Such a word order change does not bring in other sense or usage. Cf. some
claims it to be similar to ‘Son-of-man’ vs. ‘Son of God’, making ‘Christ Jesus’
more as (Almighty) God!!
Esp. in Gospels ‘Yeshua Mashiah’ is in the sense of ‘Yeshua [known or
believed] as Mashiah (God’s anointed one for a king, prophet, and priest)

[Compare with an example:

(The word ‘President’ is capitalized as particularize for the president of USA)
Ref. on Greek polydefinites:
• http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000796/v1.pdf
• http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.636.4783&rep=rep
1&type=pdf =
https://web.archive.org/web/20150923053015/www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/li
nguistics/publications/wpl/07papers/uclwpl_19_LekakouSzendroi

(examples of ‘close appositives’) Determiner spreading determiner

phrase
• ‘Lincoln President’ – the focus is ‘President’, the position of which was then
what Lincoln is.
• ‘Lincoln the President’ – Outside of his time the phrase is in the sense of ‘Lincoln
who was the President.
• ‘President Lincoln – focus in ‘Lincoln’ with ‘President’ as a descriptive title,
similar to Mr. Lincoln, Commander in Chief Lincoln, Prof. (professor), Hon.
(honorable judge), etc.
• ‘Lincoln as President’ – ‘as President’ is a descriptive phrase for his role and
position of the president.
• ‘Lincoln, President’ – the word President is a qualifier, a descriptive interjectory
word.
 Cf. Quest for the historical Jesus will go on, with each fanciful work trying to re-create
‘Jesus’ according to their liking. It is not an honest quest, but re-creating the image of
‘Jesus’ which they can accept and deal with.

Quest for the historical Jesus. Cf. Albert Schweitzer (1906), Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-
Forschung, "History of Life-of-Jesus Research", translated into English as ‘Quest for
the historical Jesus’ by William Montgomery (1910).
The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology by N.T. Wright (1996)
New Quest for Historical Jesus Draws Skeptics, Scholars (2008)

Ref. Thompson and Verenna, Ed., (2012) “Is This Not the Carpenter?” – The Question
of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus. (See the review on BAR (2014 Jan/Feb)
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/is-this-not-the-carpenter/

The “minimalist” position: … historical “maximalism” distorts the “theological message

of the text by transforming it into historical source materials” when, in fact, it is not
historically oriented and cannot yield historical data.

[another one from atheists] Zindler and Price, et al. (2013) Bart Ehrman and the Quest of
the Historical Jesus of Nazareth – An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?]

‘Jesus problem’ – 1. Wrong transliterate of Yeshua; 2. It is now a westernized figure from

Constantine Catholic Church for last 1600 years; 3. A variety of Americanized Jesusa for
last several hundred years; 4. Nativitized in different cultures, languages, religions (e.g.
‘Cosmic Christ’).

Direct communication takes place between the Elohim and Yeshua [as seen in G-Mk]:

God addresses Yeshua in 1:11; Yeshua addressing God in 14:36 calling Him as ‘Abba’
and in 15:34 referring to Him as ‘Elohim’. In 9:7 we find the only interaction of God with
the disciples with the important statement: "This is my beloved Son, listen to Him".

*Yeshua ░░ (Heb. ‫ ישוע‬Y’shua = a short form of Heb. Yehoshua ‫‘י ְהֹושֻׁ ע‬YHWH is
salvation’); /Iēsous – Greek; /Iesus– KJV 1611b, Latin, Geneva, Bishops; /Jesus – KJV,
most modern English; [The simple fact is that no one ever was called ‘Jesus’ until only
about four centuries ago.] [Hebrew: Yesu > Yeshuah > Yehoshuah – John P. Meier
(1991), A Marginal Jew, p. 205-6; Yeshuah (Yesu) became a rare name among Jews
after the 2nd century; taken over by Yohoshuah.]]

a
Stephen Prothero (2004), American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon [e.g. Jesus of
President Jefferson; Jesus of Jesus Seminar Fellowship; Mormon Jesus, etc.]
b
Iesus in KJV 1611 has it with the letter ‘J’ as a Gothic font for the capital letter ‘i’. The sound value of the
modern ‘j’ came into use in English thereafter being influenced by Romance languages.]
It is a short form of Yehoshua (meaning ‘Yah is salvation’ (Yah – a short form of
YHWH). which was the name of an Ephramite who succeeded Moses and led the
Israelites into the Promised Land. (Num 13:8; 16; Deu 34:9; Jos 1:1, 2).

The name 'Yeshua' appears there twenty-nine times in O.T., and is the name of at
least five different persons and one village in the southern part of Yehudah
("Judah").in use among the population of the Land of Israel at the time of the Second
Temple. The name Yeshua was one of the most common male names in that period,
tied with Eleazer for fifth place behind Shimon (> Simon), Yosef (> Joseph)
Yehudah (>Judah), and Yohanan (> John). Nearly one out of ten persons known
from the period was named Yeshua. See a separate entry *Yehoshua, son of Nun.

There is no reason why he should be called ‘Jesus’, pronounced in English as ‘JEE-zus’

(accent on the first), except ignorance and neglect on the significance of a person’s name.
The name IS the person. No one was ever called ‘Jesus’ there and then in the 1st century.
In Act 26:15 the risen Lord showed ‘Yeshua’ as His very name to introduce Himself.
His name could not have been other than ‘Yeshua’. [Note: the word ‘Jesus’ does not
appear in the English translation N.T. text of IRENT. Whenever the word ‘Jesus’ appears
here, it should be understood as ‘Jesus as they call’ or ‘Jesus [sic] as quoted from others’
writing.]

Though the name ‘Jesus’ in English does point to the person of ‘Yeshua’, the image the
name carries is varies considerable among different people in various religious strands
(sects, denominations, churches), traditions, culture, history and languages.
His name is Yeshua. There has been no one called ‘Jesus’ as it is pronounced (as well as
written) until less than four hundred ago in English. What used to be ‘Iesus’ got
metamorphosed to ‘Jesus’ as the language evolves and changes its phonetics as well.

Philippians 2:9-11
2:9 Therefore, indeed, the Elohim exalted him
and bestowed on him the name,
the name above every name;
2:10 so that at the very name Yeshua,
every knee shall bow
— those in heaven, on earth and under the earth —
2:11 and every tongue shall openly confess
that Yeshua the Mashiah is Lord
to the glory of the Elohim the Father.

Yeshua in all the books of the Bible:

www.menorah.org/Yeshua~Jesus-in-all-the-books-of-the-Bible.pdf
http://youtu.be/c9mF-lXxjB8 From Genesis to Revelation – Tony Evans
http://youtu.be/nieVIurPSbc
*Christophany - www.menorah.org/God_Taking_A_Human_Form.html

Yeshua was addressed as Master (Sir), Rabbi, Master, Teacher, Chief

As Teacher¡/master didaskale (Mt 8:19 etc.)

As Master¡ Sir¡ Lord¡ Gk. Kurie (vocative)

As Rabbo[u]ni¡ Mk_10:51; Jn_20:16

As Rabbi¡ [meaning ‘my great one (master)’]; Mt 26:25, 49; Mk_9:5; 11:21; 14:45;
Jn_1:38; 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8; (none in G-Lk) and

As Teacher (Mt_8:19; 12:38; 19:16; 22:16, 24,36; Mk_4:38; 9:17,38; 10:17, 20, 35; 12:14,
19,32; 13:1; 14:14; Lk_3:12; 7:40; 9:38; 10:25; 11:45; 12:13; 18:18; 19:39; 20:21, 28, 39;
21:7; 22:11; Jn 8:4; 11:28; 13:13, 14). [Rabbi is in a position of religious teacher and guide
in Judaism.]

As *Chief¡ (Gk. epistata) – Lk 5:5 ░░ /> instructor – NWT, KIT; /master – most; /mentor –
Richard Brown & Christopher Samuel (Ref. The Meaning of Kurios in the New Testament –
sil.org); /
[BDAG p. 381 epistatēs – in Lk six times in the voc. epistata as a title addressed to Jesus,
nearly always by the disciples (the synoptic parallels have Didaskale, Kurie, hRabbi) master
Lk 5:5; 8:24, 45; 9:33, 49; 17:13] [See Supplement – Glossary-Person for word study on
vocatives ‘Master, lord, Lord, Sir, Instructor/Chief; fellow, friend]

Yeshua + Mashiah (> Messiah)

[Yeshua of Nazareth; Mashiah of the Elohim; Son of Man; Son of the Elohim; Lamb of
the Elohim; Logos of the Elohim; ‘Savior’ ‘Redeemer’; ‘Master’ / ‘Lord’]

Mostly with the anarthrous Christos:

as Mashiah, Lord – Lk 2:11
as Yeshua as Mashiah; /Yeshua the Mashiah (/x: Jesus Christ) – 5x in Gospels –
Mt 1:1, 18; Mk_1:1; Jn 1:17; 17:3; none in Lk; about 70x in Acts to Revelation
as Lord Yeshua the Mashiah (x: Lord Jesus Christ) – about 60x in Acts (incl.
9:34 v.l.) and Epistles
as Mashiah Yeshua (/x: Christ Jesus) – 82x, all in Pauline Letters, except as v.l. of
Mashiah (Act 8:16; 1Pe 5:10, 14);

Rarely with the arthrous ho Christos:

as the very Mashiah of YHWH (/of LORD) – Lk 2:26
as Yeshua the very Mashiah (Yeshua the Messiah; /x: Jesus the Christ) – Act
9:34 v.l.
as the very Mashiah, Yeshua {/Yeshua the very Mashiah} – Act 5:42;
‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ is not ‘Jesus Christ’ of Churchianity (Christian religions); nor
‘Jesus who came as Christ’.

as the King – [Cf. Mashiah as a Mashiah-King]; Mt 21:5; Jn 18:36; Rev 17:14; 19:16 (‘Lord
of lords; King of kings’); cf. ‘King of the Yehudim (> Jews)’ (Mt 2:2; 27:11); cf. YHWH
as the King (Ps 95:3)
as the High Priest – Eph 5:2; Heb 2:17; 3:2; 5:6; 6:20; 7:21; 9:26-27;
as the Prophet – Mk 6:15; Lk 13:13; 24:19; Mt 13:57; 21:11; cf. Lk 4:17-21, 24;

as Rabbi – Mt 26:25, 49; Mk 9:5; 11:21; 14:15; Jn 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8;
as the Apostle (the one sent by God as to be on a mission) – Heb 3:2;
as ‘Lord of Shabbat-rest’ – Mt 12:8.

Cf. ‘testimony on Yeshua’ (rather than ‘of Yeshua’) – Rev 19:10

Yeshua said who he himself was; -

• the Son-of-man (x 82) – Jn 6:27 etc. (as the circumlocution of ‘I’. Focus is not on
being a mere mortal human as such, but on being of full humanity. See Appendix.
• Son of the Elohim (x 5) – Jn 10:36 etc. (of full divinity); also as a Messianic title.

Yeshua admitted who he was;

• the Mashiah (x 4) – Jn 4:25. (Note: Jn 17:3 the phrase ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ is in the
voice of the Evangelist).

Yeshua called the Elohim as His Father:

• To Mariam the Magdalene: I’m to ascend to my Father, yes, your Father; and to my
Elohim, yes, Elohim of you-all. (Jn 20:17)

[He said: “You are to worship YHWH, your Elohim, and Him only you are to serve.”
(in reply to the Devil Lk 4:8)

Yeshua said about His relation to Father:

[word problem – ‘*idential’ ‘equal’ ‘like’ ‘similar’; *identity, be a same person; vs. be
of same essence/character’. Sameness of a single entity ]/person vs. sameness btw two
entities (things vs. persons). ‘Two persons are same’ – but not of indentity.

• My Father is greater than I (Jn 14:28)

• The words which you hear are not mine, but are the words of the Father which sent
me. (Jn 14:24)
• I do nothing of myself; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things. (Jn 8:38)
• The Father is in/with me. (Jn 14:11)

Things He did not say about who He was. Many of these are irrelevant:
 • He did not say he himself was the same and identical with the Father – (as shown an
absurd non-biblical statement in an anti-Trinitarian rhetoric.)
• He did not say he himself was a god; nor did he say he was an angel.
• He did not say he himself was alive somewhere before he was born.
• He did not say he = the Word = the spoken word of God. He was a bringer of the
good news (‘evangelizer’) of God’s Kingdom; a spokesman, messenger, prophet of
God – God as his Father – ,

Things He did not say about who He was. These are confessed by others of the person
Yeshua and the risen Lord:

• He was born of the virgin-maiden Mariam.

• He was eternal. (cf. No mortal human is ‘eternal’)
• He was the Logos of the Elohim – made Himself as a flesh-and-blood human being.

Yeshua on His part never said He was one of the three persons of the so-called Trinity: (See
above ‘Trinity’)
• He did not say the holy Spirit as a ‘person’, with three of them (Father, Son, Holy
Spirit) somehow and somewhere occupying each in one’s own place (throne) and act
as if in consultation mode.

[See elsewhere for Jn 20:28 ‘ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου!’ (‘the Lord of me and the
God of me’). Thomas exclaimed when he saw the risen Master, not God-man.]

Jesus of Christian religions is not same as Yeshua of the New Testament;

the former is not one but many as it is of human construct (of their theology);
each believing Jesus of one’s own.
IRENT translation of the N.T. renders His name as ‘Yeshua’,
faithful to His original Hebrew name,
not as ‘Jesus’ of Greco-Roman Christianity.
As to ‘Jesus’ no one can be sure of which Jesus and what Jesus.

The Mashiah (Messiah) person in the N.T. is

the one believed as the very Mashiah,
the one promised to come in the O.T.
He is not same as the Mashiah (Messiah) of the rabbinic Judaism
nor as the Christ of the Christian religions.

Historically Yeshua the Nazarene would be one of many messiahs appeared

in the Second Temple period. As for those believed in Him in the N.T. He
was believed to be as the very Mashiah promised to come.a

a
‘descripitive’ on ‘equative’: E.g. Yeshua the Mashiah = Yeshua as the Mashiah; the Son of Elohim =
Yeshua as the Son of Elohim; Yeshua the Word of Elohim = Yeshua as the Word of Elohim.
The name with the title ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’

[On translating His name and title: ‘Yeshua the Mashiah (> Yeshua Messiah)’ [Gk. phrase
does not have the definite article for Christos]

vs. ‘Jesus Christ’ – ‘Christian Christ’ (= Christians’ Christ) vs. ‘Biblical N.T. Mashiah’
(not ‘Jewish Messiah’ or ‘rabbinic Jewish Messiah’)]

[‘Mashiah Yeshua’ vs. ‘Christ Jesus’: [Gk. phrase does not have the definite article for
Christos.] [Cf. non-sensical writing - http://removethemud.com/wp/studies/jesus-christ-vs-christ-jesus/ ]

In the GNT, often we have Yeshua (Iēsous) and Mashiah (Christos), the two being
combined into a single phrase (Iēsous Christos or Christos Iēsous).
Ref. www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/11/26/not-christ-but-messiah-nt-wright-
on-translating-christos/

[‘Christ’ in a Christian parlance is a religious construct; Christian Christ is not same as N.T.
Mashiah, the Son of the Elohim, which is in turn not quite same as the Messiah figure in
Hebrew Scripture of Yehudism (> Judaism). Etymologically (as reflected as a translation
word), historically (with evolving Christology through Church history), and linguistically
(in the way the word is used in common English), all are related and connected but not
identical, nor same.

Hence the Gk. phrase Iesous Christos (‘Jesus Christ’) is used in the sense of ‘Yeshua as
Mashiah’. The Gk. phrase (Iesous ho Christos ‘Jesus the Christ’) as such does not appear
in N.T. The phrase ‘the Mashiah’ (/x: the Christ) doesn’t not stand for Yeshua himself (as
if his last term or the sole title for him) but the role to which Yeshua is ascribed. (Mk 8:29).

Note: Most well-known and revered person who was not Christian – his name is ‘Jesus’.
Note on Jn 1:41 MASHIAH ░░ /xx: Christ; [GNT has it only here and 4:25 as Messias, Gk
transliterate of Heb. Mashiaḥ. IRENT puts it in all caps to help distinguish Gk. Messias from
Christos. Elsewhere Christos in Greek, which IRENT renders as ‘Mashiah’, or as ‘the anointed
one’.] [Cf. Here it is used in the sense of “Mashiah who was to come” (e.g. Yeshua as Mashiah, the
promised one to come (in the figure of Davidic king) (as in Rm 9:5). This should not be confused
with the sense of “Mashiah who came” (e.g. Yeshua the Mashiah). [Cf. The fixed Gk phrase ‘Ieous
Christos’ in the four Gospels is in the former sense. The phrase. ‘Christ Jesus’ (Christos Iesous) all
appears in Pauline Epistles (with one instance connected to him in Act 24:24). = ‘A Mashiah figure
revealed in Yeshua as they believed – different nuance from Yeshua as the Mashiah. a

Often the Gk. christos is rendered as ‘Christ’, e.g. Jn 1:41 KJV, ASV, NET and many, where it should
be rendered as ‘anointed one’ (not even as ‘Mashiah’ > ‘Messiah’), the very meaning of the word the
text tries to prove. If rendered as ‘Christ’, the intention of the text is altered and made nonsensical
‘Jesus is Christ’.

a
http://removethemud.com/wp/studies/jesus-christ-vs-christ-jesus/ (note: tritarian hocus-
pocus, e.g. ‘Jesus Christ’ < ‘Christ Jesus’ = ‘God’, ‘the Almighty God’)
 He himsef did not say he was the Mashiah or a mashiah, but acceted his disciple’s confession that he
was the Anointed One of the Elohim, the promised One to come, a Mashiah-king figure.
• Lk 9:20 (‘the Anointed one of the Elohim’);
• //Mt 16:16 (‘the Anointed One, the Son of the Elohim the living One’); -
• //Mk 8:29 (the Anointed One). - i.e. ‘the promised One to come’.
[Here not the Gk. ho christos is not as his title. />> the Mashiah; /xxx: the Christ.] [Yeshua never let it
be known openly that he was the Mashiah, until His hour came here as the narrative moves towards the Passion
Week. Mt 16:20] [He is beyond the Davidic royal Mashiah for Israel, to overthrow the Roman power]

Iēsous Christos –

IRENT renders it as ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’, not as ‘Jesus Christ’. 25 Here Yeshua and
Mashiah are appositive, which necessitates insertion of the definite article for
English diction. In English without the definite article a different nuance is carried
by ‘Yeshua Mashiah’ such as ‘Yeshua-type Mashiah’. The phrase should be
understood as ‘Yeshua who was believed as the Mashiah’a.

The traditional phrase ‘Jesus Christ’ as appears in the English Bibles is now as. has
a problem of cultural and religious anachronism – a (linguistic) construct in the
tradition of Constantine Catholic Church (‘Christendom’ ‘westernized Christian
religions’). The Scripture tells of Yeshua and the Mashiah; not of ‘Jesus Christ’. 26
The notion of ‘Jesus Christ’, the term used in English, is disconnected historically,
culturally, linguistically, theologically and spiritually from the real person ‘Yeshua
the Mashiah’ – with Hebraic root of Christianity being ignored and suppressed (in
the spirit of Marcionism) in the history of Constantine Catholic Church. [Cf.
www.greekingout.com/2011/06/nt-wright-on-translating-christ/ 27 ] (‘Hebraic’ >
‘Jewish’)

No definite article: - Rendered as ‘Yeshua the Messiah’ (> Jesus Christ)

Iēsou Christou Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1

Iēsoun Christon; Jn 17:3
Iēsou Christou Jn 1:17; Act 2:38; 3:6;

Definite article for Iēsou – Rendered as ‘the very Yeshua the Mashiah’.
tou Iēsou Christou Mt 1:18
[tou] Iēsou Christou Act 8:12
ton Iēsoun Christon Act 8:37

Note: Very few verses have a bearing on the question of Yeshua’s Messiahship in
the Synotics – in ‘Messianic Secret’ (Mt 16:20; Mk 1:34; Lk 4:41) and in the
Yehudim’s questioning ( Mt 26:63; Mk 14:61; Lk 23:2, 35, 39). [Cf. Mt 24:5 ‘saying
I’m the Mashiah’]

a
‘Iesous Christos’ ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ originally in the sense of Yeshua as Mashiah (a Messianic figure).
This is similar to the phrase ‘God + Father), where ‘God the Father’ should be understood as ‘Elohim as
Father’ (e.g. Eph 6:23).
 As to G-Jn it does not concern on His Messiahship. –The word ho christos (Jn 1:20,
25, 41; 3:28; 4:25, 29; 42; 6:69; 7:26, 27, 31, 41, 42; 9:22; 10:24; 11:27; 12:34; 20:31) is
used for a Mashiah figure, not as the title for Yeshua, except he one place 20:31 it is
used as a title for him. [Cf. two in the fixed phrase ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ Jn 1:7;
17:3.]

Christos Iēsous – it is rendered as ‘Mashiah Yeshua’ in IRENT (> Christ Jesus). This
phrasing is mostly in Pauline letters (exceptions shown in red letters – one place in
Peter’s; three places as v.l. in 1Pe and Act). [Note: ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ is almost twice
commoner.]

• Christos Iēsous – Rm 8:34 v.l.; 2Co 1:1 v.l., 19; Col 1:1 v.l.; 1Ti 1:15, 16 v.l.; 2:5; 5:21
v.l.; 2Ti 1:1;
• Christou Iēsou Rm 2:16 v.l.; 15:16 v.l.; Gal 2:16; Eph 1:1 v.l.; 3:1; Phi 1:1 v.l., 1:6 v.l., 8
v.l.; 3:8; Col 4:12 v.l.; 1Ti 1:1 v.l., 2 v.l.; 6:13; 2Ti 1:2; Phm 1:1;
• Christō Iēsou 1Ti 1:2; 4:6 v.l.; 2Ti 1:10 v.l.; 2:3 v.l.; 4:1 v.l.; Tit 1:4 v.l.; 2:3 v.l.; Phm
1:9 v.l.
en Christō Iēsou Rm 3:24; 6:11, 23; 8:1, 2, 11 v.l.; 39; 15:17; 16:3; 1Co 1:2, 4, 30; 4:15,
17 v.l.; 15:31; 16:24; Gal 2:4; 3:14, 26, 28; 5:6; 6:15 v.l.; Eph 2:6, 7, 10, 13, 20 v.l.; 3:6
v.l., 11, 21; Phi 1:26; 2:5; 3:3, 14; 4:7, 19, 21; Col 1:4, 28 v.l.; 1Th 2:14; 5:18; 1Ti 1:14;
3:13; 2Ti 1:9, 13; 2:1, 10; 3:12, 15; Phm 1:23; 1Pe 5:10, 14 v.l.;
• Christon Iēsoun Rm 15:8 v.l.; 2Co 4:5; Gal 4:14
eis Christon Iēsoun Rm 6:3; Gal 2:16; Phm 1:6 v.l.; Act 24:24 v.l.;
kata Christon Iēsoun Rm 15:5
• When it is with the article ho Christos Iēsous, it is rendered as ‘the very Mashiah Yeshua’,
taking the article functioning for specification:
tou Christou Iēsou Phi 2:21 v.l.; 3:12
tou Christou [Iēsou] Gal 5:24 v.l.; Eph 3:1 v.l.;
ton Christon Iēsoun Col 2:6; Act 5:42 v.l.

Yeshua the Nazarene

*Nazarene

The expression ‘Yeshua the Nazarene’ (‘Jesus from Nazareth’) may be preferred to Yeshua the
Mashiah (‘Yeshua the Messiah’) when the historical person is in focus – the man the Gospels
records. In either case, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ (used in the English Bibles and in the language
of Church and religion) is alien and foreign to the Scripture.
[Gk. Nazarēnos (‘Nazarene’ in Mk, Lk) with a variant Nazōraios ‘Nazorean’ (in Mt, Mk, Lk,
Jn, Acts). The Greek New Testament uses "Nazarene" six times, while "Nazorean" is used 13
times.]
[Cf. Netzarim] Notzarim Nazarene (sect), (a sect of 4th century Christianity described by
Epiphanius) Nazirite,

Nazorene Mt 2:23 (/Nazarene – KJV, most; /x: Nazarite – Bishops, Geneva)

 the Nazarene, Yeshua Mk 14:67
Yeshua the Nazarene Mt 26:71; Mk 16:6
Yeshua Nazarene Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34;
Yeshua the Nazarene {/Nazorene} Mk 10:47; Lk 24:19; Act 3:6
Yeshua the Nazorene Lk 18:37; Jn 18:5, 7; 19:19; Act 2:22; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9
Yeshua the Mashiah the Nazorene Act 4:10

Yeshua the son of Yosef the one from Nazareth – Jn 1:15

Yeshua the one from Nazareth –Mt 21:11; Act 10:38

www.hebrew4christians.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=2932
1. people from Nazareth;
2. Nazarene (sect), (‘sect of the Nazarenes’ Act 24:5) (1st century CE)
Cf. a 4th century CE Jewish Yeshua movement similar to Ebonites.

Where was Yeshua born?

[Sometime] after Yeshua was born in Bethlehem’ – Mt 2:1
Bethlehem ░░ [About 6 miles S. of Yerusalem. King David’s hometown.]; [G-Mt does not record how
Yeshua’s family came to be in Bethlehem sometime after he was born.] [Cf. another Bethlehem in Zebulun
(Galilee)];
Judea ░░ = Judea proper. [Cf. Judea the Roman Province incorporated Judea proper, Samaria, and
Idumea, but not Galilee, Gaulanitis, Perea, or Decapolis.]

www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/where-was-jesus-born/
Philip J. King (2014), Biblical Views: Jesus’ Birthplace and Jesus’ Home, BAR 40:06,
Nov/Dec 2014
www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
When was Yeshua born?
[See IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #5C - When was He born).]

• Yohanan, the Baptizer – born in 4 B.C. 12th lunar month.

• Born 3 B.C., 6th lunar month. [Cf. Festival of Sukkot – 7th lunar month 15th -21st.]
• Flight to Egypt [Mt 2:13-15 – 2 B.C. around December]
• Death of Herod [Mt 2:19 – 1 B.C. before the Passover after the lunar eclipse (Jan).]

[*Christmas – annual festivity for birth of Jesus from Roman Catholic tradition. The date
was fixed on December 25 which was to take over the pagan Roman winter solstice festival,
Saturnalia and Dies Natalis Solis Invici. The date has nothing to do with actual birth day
of Jesus (which was 3 B.C. in 6th lunar month – for the season of Sukkot festival in
Judaism). The first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in
336, during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (he was the first Christian Roman
Emperor). A few years later, Pope Julius I officially declared that the birth of Jesus would
be celebrated on the 25th December. www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml.
[Jan. 9 for Eastern Orthodox Church, which is the day for "Epiphany" in Catholic.] [The
Old English word as Crīstesmæsse was first recorded in 1038.]

Death of Yeshua

CE 30, Abib 14 (Passover day)

Golgotha – in the Mount Olive, not traditional places of tourists' spots, such as Church of
the Holy Sepulchre, Garden Tomb and Gordon's Calvary.

[See the zip file "Location of Golgotha -collections.zip" in IRENT Vol. III - Supplement
(Collections #4)];

So-called ‘genealogy of Jesus’

• Mt 1:2-17 lineage for Abraham’s Son; for David’s Son - Solomon; to Yosef, husband of
Mariam.
• Lk 3:23-38 lineage from Yosef (in levirate marriage) – Nathan – David – Adam – to God.

A note of this genealogy:

(1) Presence of the special five women (4 named) in the list of G-Mt changes the
character of a genealogy in an unexpected way [- normally the women would not be
included in the family genealogy];
(2) Not traced down through the Davidic royal line:
(a) Yechonyiah – (Mt 1:11-12);
(b) David – Nathan (Lk 3:31) Cf. David – Solomon (Mt 1:6);
(3) Mariam was from the tribe of Levi, not of Yudah (Lk 1:5, 36 Elisheba being a
relative of Mariam the wife of Yosef).
So-called ‘*Virgin birth of Jesus’ – fiction, faith, or fact?
'Virgin birth', more accurately, 'virginal conception'; Cf. human parthenogenesis; Cf.
Catholic jargons – Immaculate Conception; Queen of Heaven, etc. of their Mariology.

[http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm
There is an incompatibility between belief in the virgin birth and the messiahship of Jesus:
• The virgin birth implies that the actual father of Yeshua was the Holy Spirita
Whatever that means!!
• Numerous places in the Hebrew Scriptures state that the coming messiah was to be
of the House of David.

Thus:
• If Yeshua is the messiah, then he could not have been born of a virgin; he would
have had to have a father who was of the House of David, and
• If Jesus was born of a virgin, then he could not have been the messiah, because his
father -- the Holy Spirit -- was not a human descendent of the House of David.b

Parthenogenesis occur in nature, but only in much smaller animals than humans; it has
never been observed as occurring in humans, except in unique births as mentioned in
religions, myths and documents (legends).

‘Virgin birth faith’ out of ‘Virgin birth myth’ – Cf. see elsewhere 'virgin birth – fiction,
faith, or fact'
[Cf. Spong (1988), This Hebrew Lord, Ch. 3 The Transition into Religion, p. 30]

a
[This makes Jesus the Church believes is a demigod. (Cf. god-man; Cf. god disguised as man). Note:
Requirements for an acceptable definition of ‘god’ – to be describable as invisible, immortal and powerful;
affecting the nature/world and humanity and human life, able to communicate to man, etc.
b
Then, the so-called genealogies of Jesus in Mt 1:2-16 and Lk 3:23-38 do not have any meaning to be in
the Gospel.
*Christ; *Mashiah; *Messiah; the *Anointed one.
ho Christos; Christos; a messiah; messiahs; the Messiah. Never in the sense of 'Christ
of Church'. In the N.T. Yeshua was believed by the followers to be the promised
Mashiah who had come. Like the English word 'Jesus', the English word 'Christ' fail
to carry the biblical figure of the promised Mashiah, anointed by Elohim for king,
priest, and prophet; but rather they have such different word picture, association, and
connotation [of religiosity] which goes against what the Scripture presents. For this
reason, IRENT does not use 'Jesus' and 'Christ' as translation words for 'Yeshua'
and 'Mashiah'.
This very common and important Gk. is used in two distinct usages throughout the
N.T., as stand-alone or in combination of 'Yeshua the Mashiah' or 'Mashiah Yeshua';
in the latter it is a title for Yeshua, as their followers used,

IRENT translates ‘ho Christos’– as the Mashiah, the anointed one.

(1) 'the anointed one' as a king, prophet, and priest – e.g. King David.
(2) 'the promised Mashiah' – It is in this sense of the Mashiah promised to come for
Israel that the phrase is used in the Gospels; but never as in the sense of 'Christ of
Church'. Especially, Mk 12:35 //Mt 22:41 //Lk 20:41 - 'the promised Mashiah is
the son of David'.
Cf. 'the so-called Mashiah' (e.g. ho legomenos Christos 'the one who is called
Mashiah' Mt 1:16; 27:17, 22).
Anarthrous Christos as His title for Yeshua given by his followers – Lk 2:11; Mt 1:16;
(cf. vocative Mt 26:68; genitive Mk 9:41). In the Epistles, it is used to refer to Yeshua
the Mashiah and functions as the designator of him, unwittingly as his second name
(‘last name’).

Translation of the word 'Messiah' in N.T.

Re: HCSB
www.bible-researcher.com/csb.html
http://atpreston.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/a-new-translation-of-choice-the-hcsb/ -
also for Messiah vs. Christ in NT translation
“… the term word “messiah” occurs 529 times in the New Testament. The HCSB
renders Χριστος as “messiah” 116 times in the NT, compared to the ESV, which uses
the term only twice (cf. Jn 1:41; 4:25). For the HCSB, maintaining the transliteration
of “Christ” occurs when the name of the Lord (i.e., Jesus) is emphasized or the specific
context has Gentiles in mind (e.g., Eph 1:1 — “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus”).
However, where Χριστος occurs within Jewish contexts, “messiah” is employed (e.g.,
Eph 1:12 — “…we who had already put our hope in the Messiah.”). The objective
behind the increased use of “messiah” is to help the reader connect Jesus with the
messianic expectation, which is progressively anticipated through the storyline of the
Old Testament. This substitution of “messiah” in Jewish NT contexts seems to be
another positive cue from the interpretation committee to help modern readers connect
Jesus with the whole canon of Scripture.”
[Note: IRENT translates it uniformly as ‘Mashiah’ except as in phrase as ‘anointed’.]
Ref. Joseph Fitzmyer (2007), The One Who is to Come – [esp. Ch. 1 – The Term
“Messiah” (pp. 1-7) [a copy is included in Collections #3 for IRENT Supplement Vol.
III] and Ch. 8 – The Use of Messiah in the New Testament (pp. 134-145).]

The word Christos is translated wholesale as ‘Christ’ in most Bible translations. The
word as appears frequently in the Acts and Epistles, it is in most cases a title for Yeshua
(> Jesus as in ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Christ Jesus’). In the Gospels, however, it is often used
to mean simply ‘an anointed person’ (from which the word Messiah/Mashiah is built
on as a special term). Especially in the setting of the Gospels the expression “Jesus is
Christ” is oxymoronic and tautological. It is because the word ‘Christ’ has accrued a
number of meaning, sense, and usage and in most occasions the people take it as if it is
a surname for Jesus with ‘Jesus Christ’ being his first and last names! Such
anachronism and presumptions! ‘Yeshua is Mashiah’ might be marginally better.

Words: Christ; the Anointed one [of the Elohim]; Messiah (Mashiah) [of the Elohim];
a messiah; messiahs; antichrists.
Terms: Messianic; Messianics; Messianism; “Messianic prophecies”; “Messianic
belief”; “Messianic expectations”, vs. “eschatological expectations”; “messianic
movements”; “Messianic secret” (in G-Mark).

The terms being superimposed on the concept of ‘Messiah’ – ‘Son of Man’ ‘Son of
God’ ‘[Suffering] Servant of the Lord’ ‘King of the final age’.

[In Mt 16:16; //Mk 8:29; //Lk 9:20. Jn 4:25 IRENT rendersa it as ‘the true Anointed
one’ instead of ‘Mashiah’ (> Messiah; /x: Christ). Capitalized to indicate the
anointing was what was done by the Elohim. For the readers of N.T., it is not later
Christian canonical meaning (with its eisegesis of the O.T.), but its meaning as in
‘Messiah the one who is to come’ in the Gospels [Yeshua of Nazareth as the Messiah]
and in the pre-Christian Palestinian Judaism of the ‘Second Temple Judaism’.]
• The Christian Christ (of Greco-Roman Christianity) is not same as the ‘Mashiah’ of the
New Testament.
• The Christian Christ is not same as the rabbinic Jewish Messiah.
• The rabbinic Jewish Messiah is not same as the Mashiah of the N.T.
• The Mashiah of the N.T. is the one who was believed asb (not ‘proved to be’) the
promised Mashiah of TaNaKh (Old Testament) in the original setting of the first century
CE of the Apostolic Yeshua Movement within the Second Temple Judaism.

a
A basic principle of translation process is to make sure that the words should mean the way they were
meant to the original author and audience, not the way the word is used by the modern
readers/interpreters with tendency of exegesis. So-called literal translation has not fared much better than
non-literal translation.
b
“believed as the very Mashiah” – not ‘proved to be the very Mashiah. [Cf. N.T. midrash of O.T. texts is
not for ‘proof’ of the prophecies, just as Christian midrash of N.T. as well as O.T. text is not for proof.
They are only to server as analogy to reveal the truths.]
 [See below on the word ‘*anoint’.]

Christ – a translation word in the New Testament of most English Bibles. A word
used as a title, however, as the way it is used, is simply equivalent to his last name
(surname). No one would take it in the sense of a Messiah figure in the O.T. When
people say ‘Jesus Christ’, they easily take it as his full name with ‘Christ’ as a surname
in the Western naming convention. Moreover, the Christian ‘Christ’ should not be
thought of the same as the Biblical Messiah.

As IRENT renders Gk. Christos as ‘Mashiah’ throughout, such a misunderstanding

is effectively removed when He is accurately and properly and accurately called
‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ – linguistically and literarily. It is rather misleading and
confusing in case of the Gospels to have this word translated as ‘Christ’, since the
word by itself does not refer to Yeshua himself. It is a typical example of anachronism.
In few places, it is rendered as ‘the anointed one’ when the word in the text is there
to explain its meaning itself (e.g. Jn 1:41; cf. 4:25).a

The Greek word Christos itself is translation of Hebrew word for ‘Mashiah’
(variously transliterated and spelt also as Mashiaḥ, Mashiach, Moshiah, Moshiach,
Mashiaḥ) meaning both ‘anointed’ (mashuach) as well as ‘anointer’ (moshiach). The
word ‘Messiah’ is a commonly known anglicized form and carries different nuance,
connotation, association and usage within and without the Christendom. In the
Scripture ‘Mashiah’ is used only for High Priest and the Mashiah (Yeshua). -
www.messiahalive.net/ Joseph Viel. [Here Yahweh’s anointed One, that is, ‘given
God′s priestly and kingly authority’. Yohanan the Baptizer came to the scene as the
forerunner of this Mashiah. As in the Bible translations, the word Mashiah, Messiah,
or Christ is a title, not a name – a descriptive of his role and position.

It is often in the form of Greek phrase ‘Iēsous Christos’ or ‘Christos Iēsous’,

especially in the Acts and the Epistles. This phrase also appears in two places in G-Jn
(Jn 1:17; 17:3) in the voice of the Gospel author. In this case particular, it should be
read and understood as ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’ (‘Yeshua who is the Mashiah’), rather
than as anachronistic anglicized ‘Jesus Christ’.

a
‘the Anointed One’ - it would border on etymological fallacy to translate it in wholesale
as ‘the Anointed’ as done in some translations. But, if ‘Christ’ means ‘anointed one’, what
does ‘anointed one’ mean? Without the full context of the word in the Scripture, it does not
say much to say ‘Christ’ means ‘anointed one’.
 Note. In two places in the Greek N.T. text, we have the Greek transliterate Messias
of the Hebrew word (Jn 1:41; 4:25).

On the word ‘Mashiah, Messiah’ from O.T. perspective and on Messiah vs. Christ,
see EE here.28

‘Christ problem’: (1) A Hellenic image completely divorced from the original word of
Hebrew image ‘Mashiah’; (2) A westernized Christ image from Constantine Catholic
Church; (3) became a common word, with the original meaning and usage unrecognized;
even used as an expletive (same for ‘Jeesus’); (4) contaminated with the so-called Cosmic
Christ of new age movement; and (5) contaminated with the image of Krishna, a Hindu
deity (second person of Hindu trinity) (linguistically unrelated but of similarity in the
religious story; insisting Christ was Krishna);

Rx:
1. Messianic expectations in the 1st century Judaism
2. Yeshua and Messianic Expectation
3. Mashiah in O.T. – a Davidic royal Mashiah;
4. vs. Mashiah in N.T. (in connection to Yeshua) – the figure for the Kingdom reign
of the Elohim in Yeshua, Master of Life eternal, Master over Life, The Divine
Mashiah, the risen Lord exalted to the right of the Elohim, cannot be ‘God’, a deity,
‘Godman’ or ‘God the Son’.

Related topics: Messiah in Judaism and Judaic history. Messiah in O.T. and in the
inter-testamental period.

Christos – Rendered in IRENT as ‘Mashiah’ and often as ‘the Mashiah’ in a

prepositional phrase purely for a smoother English diction as in a phrase (e.g. E.g. 1Co
4:15), or to avoid word collocation (e.g. 1Co 8:11 “for such brother the Mashiah died
too!” – with the article, it can be misread as ‘brother Mashiah’)

ho Christos – Rendered in IRENT as ‘the Mashiah’, and if emphatic, as ‘the very

Mashiah’. See EE here for the list.29] [Unless it is used as a title, it is anachronistic and
circular in usage as a translation words for the Greek, as most readers would hear
‘Christ’ as if a surname. E.g. Act 17:3 – ‘Mashiah’ ‘Yeshua’; Jn 4:25, 29 – ‘Mashiah’
‘the anointed One’;

‘Christ’ only those of v.l. (KJV) - Mk 13:6; Jn 4:42; 6:69; Act 2:30; 8:37; 9:20; 16:31; 19:4.
[Cf. Act 4:26 – should be rendered as ‘Anointed one’; /anointed one – NWT; /Anointed –
ESV; /xx: Christ – KJV, NET, and many; /> Messiah – JNT, ISV, CEV, ERV, GNB]
Problem of the proof of his Messiahship; ‘Messianic Prophecies’; '*virgin birth'

N.T. texts quoting O.T. – problem of translation (from Hebrew to LXX to GNT);
problem of midrash/pesher by N.T. writers themselves;

Problem of Christian midrash of N.T. texts tying with OT allusions as OT itself does not
give prophecies on the person Yeshua the Nazarene is ‘the Mashiah’, not even ‘a Mashiah’,
to come.

So-called Messianic prophecies in O.T. may be considered as such. However, they are not
the proof of the Messiahship of Yeshua the Nazarene. It is Christian midrash (interpretation
for their a priori conviction). Allusion and similarity may be seen in Yeshua, but often
forced themselves to see that way. What is considered as the Messianic prophecies in N.T.
may not actually be prophecies in the proper sense, nor historical predictions, in the O.T.
context but are honestly to be considered as N.T. midrash.

What proves that someone is the Mashiah? The answer is not easy as it is not logically
possible to prove the Mashiah = Jesus from whatever prediction or prophecy is
manipulated. Rather to a question ‘who cannot be the Mashiah’, an easy answer can be
given:
Jesus of Christian religions, coming with many 'faces', who is ‘believed’ to be a
virgin born (e.g. in the Apostolic Creed) cannot be the Mashiah, the one who is
promised to come in the line of David as the Son of David. If no father, he cannot
be a man as he is believed to be a god-man (god walking on earth disguising as a
human) contrary to the N.T. statement that it was a man Jesus for the mediator of
God and man. Note: Genealogy in Lk 3:23-38 is not of Mary. The ‘seed’ that comes
down is not of a woman. The Scripture says He was born 'according to flesh' (Gal
4:29); 'of a woman' (Gal 4:4), not of a virgin.

So-called ‘Messianic Secret in G-Mk’

Quoted from p. 5 Morna Hooker (1974), The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500008766

To read Mark's gospel after reading the Prologue is to read with the spectacles of faith: the
messianic secret is an open secret for those who have been allowed to overhear the words
from heaven, for to them the significance of what is happening is obvious, and the obtuseness
of crowds, disciples and religious leaders who failed to comprehend seems culpable. Mark
demonstrates the truth that the 'facts' alone are insufficient: those with eyes of faith interpret
what is happening correctly - others deny Jesus' authority or attribute it to the wrong source.
Men and women are divided in Mark's narrative into those who acknowledge Jesus and those
who reject him - and to acknowledge him is to confess that he is the Christ, the Son of God,
and to recognize the Spirit of God at work in him. The faith to which the disciples are called
- together with the readers of the gospel - is precisely that which is revealed to us in the
opening verses: and it is precisely this estimate of Jesus which divides disciple from
unbeliever, for those who do not see and understand the divine revelation are those who
remain outside, and who are offended by what Jesus does.
 The messianic secret in Mark was once interpreted as something which divided believer from
unbeliever during the ministry of Jesus. Later, it was seen as representing the tension between
the non-messianic ministry of Jesus and the messianic interpretation of the Church - between
'then' and 'now'. Whether or not there is some truth in either or both of these positions, it is
certainly true that the messianic secret in Mark indicates a tension in the present experience
of the evangelist and his readers: their generation is divided into those who have eyes to see
and those who have not. The problem is not simply that men and women failed to recognize
then the one whom they now acknowledge to be Messiah; but that the question ' Who is he?'
can still be given totally opposing answers. … When we turn to John we have, of course, no
'messianic secret'. …

“Yeshua the Mashiah” (Jesus Christ; ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός) is found in the NT:

In Mt 1:1 and 1:18 v.l. (instead of simply ‘IHSOUS’ here).

In Mark only once - in 1:1, and none in Luke.
John has it twice (Jn 1:17; 17:3), prob. in the editorial voice.
It is in Paul’s writings that the combination “Yeshua the Mashiah” and “Mashiah Yeshua”
becomes so prevalent (80x).

From G-Mk EE:

Mashiah: />Messiah >; /x: Christ; [from Hebrew Mashiah; ‘Christ’ from Greek CRISTOS. Latin -
Christus] [Here YHWH’s anointed One, that is, the One who has God′s priestly and kingly authority
bestowed on.] [meaning both ‘anointed’ (mashuach), as well as ‘anointer’ (moshiach). The one anointed
is, in succession, in a position to anoint others. In the Scripture, the word ‘Messiah’ is applied only for
Kohen haGadol (> High Priest) and the Mashiah (Yeshua). Cf. www.messiahalive.net/ Joseph Viel] [All
the occurrences of this word (except Mt 1:1 and Mk 1:1, and possible in 1:18) should be correctly rendered
as ‘Mashiah’ rather than ‘Christ’, since the latter now is used equivalent to His full name (as ‘Jesus Christ’
vs. Yeshua the Mashiah).]

Christos is related to the Greek verb chriō meaning “to anoint,” and was the word used by
the LXX to translate ַ‫שיח‬ ִׁ ‫( ָמ‬mashiach), “one who was anointed for a special task.” The
English “Messiah” is an anglicized form of “mashiach.” Like many titles,
“Mashiah/Christ” became a sort of proper name, and we find this occurring in the
Apostolic writings (cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:1; James 2:1; Rev 22:21). Yet it never lost its
connection to the whole prophetic idea of “Mashiah” as a title, the One promised from of
old who would come to restore the fortunes of Yisrael, and to bring in the final redemption.
Clearly, Matthew has this messianic thought in mind by his use of Christos (2:4; 16:16,
20; 22:42; 24:5, 23; 26:63, 68).
[He must be descended from the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10) as King David was (1Sam 17:12; 1Chr 28:4)
and descended from King David himself (2Sam 7:12-13; Isa 9:6-7; Jer 23:5-6).]

[History of ‘J’ letter/sound in English]

[Heb: ‘Yeshua’ (← Yehoshua ‘Yah is salvation’) (a very common name); ‘Yashua’ (meaning
‘Yahweh saves’); ‘Yeshu’ (from change by the Jewish authorities. Used by modern Israelis); [Gk.
IESOUS] [Latin = Iesus] (Ko. 예수; other vernacular – Jesus, Yesu, Isu, etc.)

Pss of Solomon 17:32 And he (shall be) a righteous king, taught of God, over them; and
there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, For all shall be holy and their
king the anointed of the Lord.
 The Mashiah is a son of David (in opposition to the Maccabean priest-kings and the Levitical
Mashiah), man without supernatural power, raised up by God to purge Jerusalem and to reign
in peace over all nations. The description of him is taken largely from the Prophets and the
Psalter. He is called in the text (xvii. 36) "the lord Mashiah," or "anointed one, lord" (χριστὺς
κύριος), which is perhaps a clerical error for "the anointed of the Lord," the common
expression. This conception of his character, destined to be permanent, is a return, natural
under the circumstances, to the Old Testament representation (See Messiah).

Ref: Grant R. Jeffrey “Jesus – The Great Debate” [1999 Word Publishing]
p. 224-227 Is the Original Hebrew Name of Jesus, Yeshua or Yeshu?
- Yeshua, name itself (1) Neh 8:17 as contracted form of Yehoshua [Neh 8:17]. (2) DSS 4QT
Testimonium (3) first century ossuary (Archeologist EL Sukenik 1931; Charles Clermont-Ganneau
1874); Yeshua as direct reference to J.C. – in Mishnah Torah – The Laws of Kings and Their Wars,
Ch. II, 234-235. “Yeshua of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiah and was executed by the court
was also [alluded to] in Daniel’s prophecies …”

?? The name “Yeshua” (see above p. 17) is formed on the Hebrew verb
‫ישע‬
ָ , yasha‘, “to deliver, save” and akin to the noun ‫ ישְּׁועָה‬, y’shu’ah, “? salvation.”

The name therefore carries the primary purpose of Yeshua: “to save the people of the Elohim
from their sins.” The deliverance He will bring will be a salvation first and foremost from
the condemnation that sin brings. This forensic aspect of salvation is not devoid of physical
deliverance, but the one encompasses the other.

It is related to the Hebrew name ַ‫( יהֵֹושֻע‬also spelled fully: ַ‫יהֵֹושּוע‬, Yehoshu’a), which was
shortened to ַ‫( יֹושּוע‬Yoshu’a) and then to ַ‫( ישֵּוע‬Yeshua).

Studies have shown that the even shorter pronunciation, ‫שּוע‬ ֵ ‫( י‬Yeshu, in which the final
furtive patach has been dropped), was a dialectical phenomenon in the northern Galil, and
not, as many have supposed, a deliberate slur on His name by later rabbinic writers (who
rejected His claims to be their Mashiah and the Son of God – AJR). Some have suggested
that Yeshu is a deliberate acronym for “May his name and memory be blotted out” (‫שְׁמֹו ימִׁ ח‬
‫ ?( )וז ְׁכִׁ רֹו‬Yimach Shemo Uzikhro?) but though such an acronym was used in later times, it
was not the reason for this shortened pronunciation. This was the Galilean pronunciation, as
Flusser and others have shown. In fact, the Greek Iēsous (with final “s” denoting a
nominative case) may itself explain the regular use of ‫( ישֵּו‬Yeshu) in the later rabbinic
materials, as an assimilation to the Greek Iēsous.

Yeshua was a common name in the 1st Century. Three of the 72 who translated the LXX had the
name, and Josephus lists 20 persons by this name in his writings. The name is found in inscriptions
and burial texts. A pre-exilic example is found in Luke’s genealogy (Lk 3:29), and in Mt 27:16, one
manuscript has Barabbas called “Iesous Barabbas.” In Acts 13:6 the sorcerer in Cyprus is called Bar-
Iesous, and in Col 4:11, Paul’s helper is “Iesous who is called Ioustos.” No doubt under the influence
of the emerging Christian Church, by the 2nd Century, the name Iesous disappears as a proper name.
According to Jastrow, the full name ַ‫שּוע‬
ֵ ‫( י‬Yeshua) is found only in reference to the ninth order of the
priestly courses found in 1Chr 24:7–18.
1:1 Messiah░░ /Christ – most; [Anglicized form of Hebrew word (Mashiach). English word ‘Christ’ is
from transliteration of Greek ‘CRISTOS’ meaning ‘anointed’ with nuance of ‘specially chosen’; See
Supplement-Glossary-Person for ‘Christ; Messiah; Anointed’] (in Hebrew transliterate); /Mashiach –
Heb; /Christ (in English); [i.e. meaning both ‘anointed’ (mashuach), as well as ‘anointer’ (moshiach).
‘Messiah’ is used only for High Priest and the Messiah (Yeshua). - www.messiahalive.net/ Joseph Viel]
[Here Yahweh’s anointed One, that is, ‘given God′s priestly and kingly authority’.]
Other titles for Yeshua

*Son of God; *Son of the Elohim; a son of God; God’s Son; ‘*God the Son’

Son of God – servant of God –

https://youtu.be/Yrp9TB8Sx9Y Proof in the Bible why Jesus is NOT God

What does it mean by ‘son of God’? What does it mean to say Yeshua is the Son of God?
Different from the Son of the Elohim? What does it mean by ‘son’? Without precise definitions of
words and terms and using them consistently, any argument is useless, as contradictory
statements cannot be disproved.
‘Son of God’ is a title, which in metaphoric, for his status, not for the ontological identity.

Gk. pais same word Aramaic for child or servant. [Cf. huios ‘son’]
Act 3:13, 26; His (God’s) servant
Act 4:27; 30 holy servant Yeshua

Cf. ‘God the Son’ – a grievous unbiblical doctrinal church jargon (‘the Eternal Pre-
existing Son’ ‘Cosmic Christ’). “A metaphorical son of God” is escalated to a
“metaphysical God the Son”a as the Biblical teaching which is in Hebrew mindset has
been overtaken by Greek mindset from the second century CE. For the concept of
‘God’ the Hebrew Elohim (with the name YHWH) is covered out by the name-less
Greek theos (God-being) which is in English word of generic ‘God’. In common
usage, ‘God is God – any god’ and ‘God is NOT God’ (i.e. God we say is not God
others say; God when we say now is not God when we say at different occasions and
senses). [In the phrase ‘God the Son’ itself, the confusion on the meaning of the word
‘God’ is one of the major cause of the heated doctrinal arguments among Christianism,
exposing deficient linguistic, logical, and literary understanding.]

The expression ‘son of God’ (‘son of God-being’) also needs careful examination. It
was a common pagan idea in Greco-Roman word where it was presumed that the son
of God could be nothing less than a god as well.
Ref. https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/does-son-of-god-mean-
possesses-the-ontological-nature-of-god/ The expression ‘son of (someone)’ as a

a
Ref. Michael Green (1977), The Truth of God Incarnate. p.18. [‘… natural and intelligible that Jesus should
come to be hailed as son of God, and that later this poetry should have hardened into prose, and escalated
from a metaphorical son of God to a metaphysical God the Son’ (quoting from Hick in the Ch. 9: Jesus and
the World Religion. in Hick, The Myth of God Incarnate, p.176).
“… the explicit, unambiguous claim of the manywirterl tho go to makeup the NT that Jesus was
metaphysically but not metaphorically one with the Almighty God” p.41 (‘one with’ - not ‘one as’??’).

[The phrase ‘the Son of God’ is accompanied in the Nicene Creed by the phase ‘God from God’ and ‘true
God from true God’.] [A third God (person) “God the Holy Ghost” completes the Trinitarian formula.]
Hebrew idiom = ‘(a person) possessing character-trait/nature of (someone)’ ‘in
capacity/function of’ – not ‘identical/same’ (ontological – e.g. ‘God’ or ‘God the
Son’), but qualitative; a functional title. E.g. ‘son of David’ as for a royal Mashiah.

In O.T. the concept of ‘son of the Elohim’ applies to many individuals and groups. In
not one of the O.T. passages were these persons considered divine.

A son of God → the son of God → the ‘only begotten’ Son of God (in N.T.) → then
becomes unbiblical ‘God the Son’. When did Yeshua become the ‘Son of the Elohim’?
(‘the Elohim’ for Gk. ho theos ‘the God’) – of gradual theological development:
• Heb 1:1, 3 at His Ascension
• Rm 1:3-4 at the Resurrection
• Act 13:32-33 at the Resurrection
• Mk 1:13 at His baptism – ‘You are my beloved son, in whom I am
delighted’
• Mt 3:17 at His baptism – ‘This is My beloved son, in whom I am
delighted’
• Lk 1:35 upon His birth – ‘therefore, the child to be born from you will
be holy; he will be call the ‘Son of God’.
• Trinitarian before He was born as the pre-exsiting, eternal, God the Son! –
from Trinitarian reading of Jn 1:1-14; 17:5. (‘Eternal sonship’ ‘Eternal
Existence’ vs. ‘eternal generation of the Son’)
[Tovia Singer (2014, new expanded ed.), Let’s Get Biblical (Vol. 1) pp. 168-176.
www.OutreachJudaism.org ]
www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_221.cfm
www.christiancourier.com/articles/1359-was-jesus-the-son-of-god-eternally
 Vocab: The similar expressions have different sense, nuance, and connotation; need to
be careful attention for reading the Scripture and translating for the Bible.

[‘the Elohim’ is the IRENT translation word for ‘the God’ Gk. ho theos.]

• a son of the Elohim’ – Mt 27:40;

• Son of the Elohim – Mk 1:1 v.l. (as a title)
• a God’s Son – Mt 27:43
• the Son of the Elohim – Mt 26:63; Jn 1:34, 49; 5:25, etc.

Linguistically and literary God does not have a son or sons; it is only possible to say so
as a metaphoric, not ontological statement. [cf. Islamic objection is from their inability
to transcend ‘literal translation’, i.e. son is only son.]

When we say ‘Yeshua is the Son of the Elohim (> the God)’, it only means ‘Yeshua is
as the Son of the Elohim’. It is only for His title, not reality or name. The expression
does not hint ‘Son of God’ up in the heavens as ‘God the Son’ on the right hand of God
the Father, and God the Holy Ghost on the left hand. Nor does it hint that the Son of
God = God the Son became human being with the theme of ‘Logos’ being superfluous.

Cf. ‘ho Logos hen para ton Theon’ – Jn 1:1b /the Word was with God – most; /the
Word was with the God (cf. Jn 1:1c ‘was God’); /the Logos was present towards the
Elohim;

[It is remarkable to see the word ‘Logos’ instead of ‘Son’ in the text of the
controversial Comma Johanneum 1Jn 5:7b-8b. The text as it says of the genuine tri-
unity, not the spurious illogical trinity (of three persons, still denying three gods),
which is expected to be ‘Son’ as the Trinitarian position would like to have ‘Son’ here
to fit for their Trinitarian formula of 'Father + Son +Holy Ghost' of the Trinity, three
‘persons’, each one being ‘God’, all together they are one God, not three!

[2Sam 7:14 YHWH to David the Covenant: “… I will be his Father and he shall be my
Son.” Cf. Rm 1:3]

[Someone is called ‘Son of God’ does not mean that he was actually a ‘son’ of God. It is
simply relational term. Nor does to call a human being ‘Son of God’ mean that he was
somewhere and somehow with God before he was born as a human being, but not as
human person! The phrase ‘son of someone or something’ is a common Hebrew idiom to
describe one’s character. The verb ‘is’ is nefarious and does not simply mean to be
identical or same, but often means ‘is as (something / someone)’.
Cf. www.bible-researcher.com/Strauss.LiteralFallacy.pdf ]
[It is ‘son’ that is defined in relation to ‘father’, not the other way round. /xx: God the Son.
The relation in the Scripture of the Elohim and Yeshua the Mashiah – Father and Son –is
altered initially as a binarianism (of Father + Son) (at First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.),
which was then made to the full-blown Trinitarianism (Father+Son+Holy Spirit) when a
statement on ‘the Holy Spirit’ is expanded along with insertion of the controversial
Filioque-clause 381 C.E. in First Council of Constantinople.] [www.ucg.org/bible-study-
tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity p. 6] [Linguistically the word son is well defined. To extend its use beyond
biological social human father-son relationship, it can be only metaphoric. That someone ‘is a son of God’,
or ‘is the Son of God’ (= ‘the God’ = ‘the Elohim’), it is in the sense of ‘as a son of’ or ‘as the Son of’. In
IRENT often this ‘as’ is inserted to clarify this point. This is also a common linguistic problem with the verb
‘is’ (third, masculine, singular). See ref. <The Nefarious ‘IS’> in Collections for Supplement III.

‘Son of God’ ‘Son of David’

Titles on Yeshua – the Son of God (< the Son of the Elohim); Son of the Most High; the
Son of David – all these were bestowed on the human person of Yeshua.

• Lk 1:35; Rm 1:3-4 ‘God’s Son’ [/x: the Son of God]

Act 13:33 ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.”
Mk 1:11 ‘You are my beloved son”

• ‘a son of David’ (Son of David): (appears only in Synoptic Gospels) Usually ‘a son
of David’ (incl. vocative) as to Yeshua, in the sense of ‘(taken) as a son of David’.
[Cf. Different nuance with a definite article – ‘the Son of David’ (Mt 12:23; 21:9)
in the sense of the particular Son of David, the Messiah of OT.] [Cf. Rm 1:3 ‘from
David’s seed’ [= ‘he was as a David’s seed’, not ‘he was the Son of David’]

In the heavenly realm, the one only true God is with His Logos (- self-expression of His
will; not ‘Preexistent Son’, ‘God the Son’, ‘Pre-Existent Messiah’, or ‘Cosmic Christ’, etc.
– all these are nonbiblical and unbiblical) and His spirit (which is God’s breath, the creative
power in act); there is no a separate being ‘the Son of God’ as the second Person of the so-
called Triune God. Incarnation is of God’s Logos, not of ‘God the Son’. [Note: ‘God’ and
‘Son of God’ are ‘equal’, but not same or identical. It is the Logos which did not begin to
exist, being with the Elohim from the beginning (Jn 1:1a-b). It is not same to say "the Son
of God did not begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning". The Logos is the
Logos of the Elohim; not a God’s creature, like an angel. The Son of God is Yeshua, the
man; man is a creature, unless we insist that there is something like an ‘uncreated man’.
Yeshua was called ‘God’s son’ on his conception; was sealed as the beloved Son of the
Elohim (> ‘Son of God’) at His immersion by Yohanan.

[As Howard Marshall puts it, "In the use of the title by Jesus it was His awareness of a
special relationship to God which was the determining factor rather than a messianic use
of the title or the Hellenistic idea of the 'divine man'.
Ref: Bess: On a definition of the title ‘Son of God’ in the Synoptics
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=fac_dis – a
copy is in IRENT III Supplement (Collections #3 ‘Some references on trinity’).]
‘the only-and-one Son of the Elohim’;
‘the Son of the Elohim’ – this title appears together with another title ‘Mashiah’. Not
another expression for ‘God the Son’, ‘the second Person of Trinity God’, or ‘Cosmic
Christ’. Cf. ‘son of God’ ‘God’s son’. It bears the primary weight of claims made
concerning Yeshua the Mashiah’s unique, singular, and exclusive relationship with the
Elohim whom He called Abba (Father). This does not provide the starting point for a
Christology of preexistence or incarnation.

The Son-of-man, the Son of the Elohim, the Son – the titles Yeshua carried or
accepted. Not as a Hebrew messianic title or a Greek divine man.

‘*sons of God’ (sons of Elohim) –

Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1;
Psa 89:7; Wis 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deu 14:50); and of
Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son,
my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me". (Exo 4:22 sq.).
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm [Linguistically and literarily, it is as sons of God; not
that they are literally sons of God.]
Ref.: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/23a-
prophets/text/articles/bess-sonofgod-gtj.pdf S. Herbert Bess

The expression ‘son’ in the Bible should not be taken to refer to origin or to generation
(e.g. ‘son of so-and-so’, incl. descendants), rather to special relationship. Being a son of
God does not imply ideas of ‘deity of the son’, or ‘eternal generation of God the Son’ as
entertained by the heretic unbiblical illogical Trinitarian thought. The expression ‘son of
something/someone’ is a typical Hebrew idiom.

‘begotton’

Psalm 2:7 (quoted 3x in Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5, 5:5) – the verb does not refer to
generation.

“Taking the verb in Psa. 2:7 to be declarative, i.e., hiphil, that verse may be translated
as follows: <. . . Thou art my Son; this day have I declared thy sonship>. To understand
the verb as declarative removes from it, of course, any necessary reference to
beginnings.” (See Bess, p. 22)

monogēnes ‘only begotton’

• 3x for an only child of a parent, e.g. widow's son (Lk 7:2), to Jairus' only daughter
(Lk 8:42), and to another only child (Lk 9:38)]
• 5x in reference to Christ (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9).
• 1x referring back to Isaac of Abraham (Heb 11:17).

prototokos ‘*firstborn’
Rm 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Rev 1:5; Heb 1:6 – ‘of first rank’ - cannot be taken as ‘origin’.
Note his wrong concluding remarks from Trinitarianism:

The terms "son," "firstborn," "only begotten," and "begotten," as defined by the Bible's
own use of them, all declare that Jesus is the uncreated, ungenerated, coeternal, co-equal
Son of God the Father.

Scripturally and theologically the utmost important title for Yeshua concerning who He is. A
personal ‘title’ – a designation attached to an individual in virtue of some distinction from such
rank, office, privilege, attainment, or notable aspects. Though it may describe someone's position
or job, it is used in the sense that it tells who the person is. (Syn. appellation). The term ‘Son’ vs.
‘Father’ – these are relational terms, and have nothing to do with a biological or social one, even
in terms of analogy (e.g. as used by Augustine on Trinity). Many have this misconception
outright (like a Muslims’ view on it) and unknowingly. God is only as Father as the Son revealed
about relationality btw Father-Son and God-Creation. As to Yeshua in throughout N.T. being the
Son denotes His unique relation to God. It is not to state that ‘He is our Father’, but it is to call
upon Him, saying ‘Father!’ – the One who comes as Father for our sake.

(1) ho huios tou theou –26x; (literally ‘the son of the God’). e.g. (/x: God’s son – ALT)
Most renders this phrase as ‘the Son of God’. IRENT renders it as ‘the Son of the
Elohim’.
Mt 26:63; Mk 3:11; Lk 4:41; Lk 22:70;
Jn 1:34, 49; 5:25; 11:4, 27; 20:31;
Act 9:20; 2Co 1:19; Gal 2:20; Eph 4:13; Heb 4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29;
1Jn 3:8; 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 20; Rev 2:18;

(2) theou huios –13x; ‘Gods Son’ (x: the Son of God). Mt 14:33; 27:43, 54;
[The particular example in Mt 27:54; //Mk 15:39 is a Greek translation of Latin phrase
Filii Dei, a title for Caesar, from the lips of a Roman centurion. Not in the sense of ‘Son
of the Elohim’.]
(2-a) huios theou – Mk_1:1 v.l; Lk_1:35; Jn 19:7;
(2-b) huios ~~ theou –Mt 4:3, 6; 27:40; Mk 15:39; Lk_ 4:3, 9;
(3) huios tou theou –1x; (literally ‘son of the God’) – ‘Son of the Elohim’ ‘Son of God’
(x: the Son of God); {Mk 1:1}; Mt 8:29; Jn_10:36; 1 Jn 4:15: Jn 20:30-31:
(3) ho huios tou theou – ‘the Son of the Elohim’ ‘the Son of God’ 1 Jn 4:15: Jn 20: 31:
Related ones: [See also *Logos]
• the Son of the Elohim (> the Son of God) – ‘a son of (something or someone)’ is
a Hebrew idiom which brings out a certain character/nature of
something/someone, or being a member of the class. The definite article
particularizes the person – one, only, and unique. (Cf. monogēnes huios ‘only-
begotten/only-brought-forth son’ in G-Jn). The phrase ‘Son of the Elohim’ is used
as a messianic title (Cf. ‘Son of David’) [e.g. a composite expression ‘the Mashiah,
the Son of the Elohim’ – Jn 20:31]. It is not about divinity of the son (as in
Christian jargon ‘God the Son’). In pagan usage, ‘son of God’ is a common
expression in mythology and Emperor worship = ‘someone like God’ ‘divine’, etc.
• the Son-of-man – that is, ‘man’ (Aramaic idiom). Yeshua himself used it as
circumlocution of I – related to a heavenly (messianic) figure in Dan 7:13.
• the Logos, that it, Logos of the Elohim (Jn 1:1)
 • the Logos Incarnate (Jn 1:14) [See an entry below for * incarnation]
• the Logos of the Elohim (Rev 19:13) > ‘the Word of God’
• *Immanuel (Mt 1:23): [Heb. ‫ אֵל ִׁעמָנּו‬Immanuel; /Gk. Ἐμμανουήλ Emmanuel] [The word
‘Immanuel’ as a Hebrew theophoric namea in Isa 7:14 and Isa 8:0. A person with a theophoric
name cannot be ‘God’ himself.]

‘the Elohim’ ░░ ho theo – with arthrous noun = the God = the Elohim; cf. {x: /theos – [a] God or
God-being} anarthrous variant without the article.]

‘With us is the Elohim’ ░░ (meth' hēmōn ho theos) /God is with us –HCSB, GW, NLT; /Our God
is with us – Aramaic; /x: God with us – KJV, most; /xxx: With us he is God. – YLT; [Isa 8:11
gives this meaning of the word Immanuel. It does not mean ‘(a) God with us’, nor it does ‘he is
God (who is) with/among us’ (in the line of ‘God-man’ as a god walking on earth disguised as a
man). YHWH makes His presence to be with His people in the person of His ‘Son’ (not ‘Godman’),
Yeshua, in His Kingdom reign. [Cf. Exo 3:12 ‘I will be [with you].];
[Closely related to ‘Incarnate Logos of the Elohim’ of Jn 1:14; //1Tm 3:16] [Jn 20:28 ‘my Elohim!’
b
is thematically in the sense of Immanuel.] [Cf. ‘the (God) was revealed in flesh (1Tm 3:16 v.l.)]

‘Son of God’ in figurative use in O.T.:

A title for the angel – Dan 3:25 (the one) like a son of gods
People of Israel – Wis 18:13
Righteous individual Israelites Wis 2:18; Sir 4:10
Anointed (King) Ps 2:2, 7
Messianic: No clearly attested ones in pre-Christian Jewish literature; DSS 4Q246

Divinity of the Son:

unbiblical claims of ‘Jehovah = Jesus’

‘Jehovah is Jesus’ ‘Jesus is called Jehovah’ - meaning Jesus and Jehovah are identified
as the same person. – [this is even beyond the Trinitarian claims.]
• https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/jehovah-jesus
• www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/deity.htm
• www.christiancourier.com/articles/527-is-jesus-jehovah
• Roger R. Keller, “Jesus is Jehovah (YHWH): A Study in the Gospels,” in Jesus
Christ: Son of God, Savior, ed. Paul H. Peterson, Gary L. Hatch, and Laura D.
Card (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2002),
120–151.

‘being equal to the Elohim (the God)’ – Jn 5:18

cf. ‘make himself as God-being’ – Jn 10:33
Cf. the Mashiah, the Son of the Elohim – Mt 26:63 etc.

‘divine person’, ‘human person’; ‘human being’; ‘divine being (God-being)’

a
Another example: Israel, meaning "who prevails with God".
b
[Jn 20:28 ‘O my Lord and my Elohim!’ ░░ /My Lord and my God; Thomas encounters the risen Lord
and experiences presence of Elohim as fulfilment of Immanuel. Not that Yeshua is ‘God’, or ‘his God’, nor
same as ‘YHWH’. /x: You are my Lord and my God]
the *Son-of-man

[Aramaic ‘son of man’ means a man (human being). The arthrous ‘the Son’ particularize it. Gk. ‘the
son of the man’, rendered usually as ‘the Son of man (/Man)’, and as ‘the-Son-of-man’ in IRENT.]

the Son-of-man ░░ [The Aramaic idiom ‘son of man’ simply means a human being. The Gk.
phrase ‘the son of the man’ (with arthrous words) is rendered usually as ‘the Son of man’ or, by
some, ‘the Son of Man’. IRENT renders it as ‘the Son-of-man’ when the phrase was used in N.T.
as Yeshua’s self-designation. This is indeed his most characteristic form of self-reference;
essentially functions as a semantic equivalent for the first-person pronoun (Gk. egō "I") as a
circumlocution of ‘I’, but avoiding drawing too much attention to oneself. In other cases, it is as
uncapitalized ‘the son-of-man’.] [Mt 8:20; 9:6; 11:19; 16:13; 18:11; 20:28; 24:27; Mk 8:38; Lk
18:8; Jn 1:51; 6:53; 12:23; 13:31.] [Cf. Only once in Jn 5:27; ‘a son of a man’] [Cf. Acts 7:56
(from Stephen's mouth) it refers to the risen Yeshua.]
[Cf. Rev 1:13; 14:14 ‘one like a son of man’ - //Dan 7:13]

From: Larry W. Hurtado (2003), Lord Jesus Christ – Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity
pp. 290-306:

It occurs some 81 times altogether in the four canonical Gospels (14x in G-Mk, 30x in G-Mt, 25x
in G-Lk, and 12x in G-Jn). In all these cases the Greek form of the expression includes the definite
article in a stereotyped and formulaic construction, ho huios tau anthropou. It is not a title; it always
functions as Jesus’ self-designation, indeed his most characteristic form of self-reference. In fact,
where it appears, "the son of man" essentially functions as a semantic equivalent for the emphatic
first-person pronoun ("I/me/my").

Additionally, the expression appears only once in the rest of the New Testament (Act 7:56), and is
never used as a confessional title for Jesus. That is, the phrase never functions itself to express an
honorific claim made about Jesus. Even within the Gospels no one ever addresses Jesus as "the son
of man," proclaims him to be such, or contests his own use of the expression; and it never functions
with the several other appellations bandied about as possible categories for Jesus, such as "a
prophet/one of the prophets," John the Baptizer, Messiah, Son of God/the Blessed (e.g., Mk 6:14-
15; 8:27-29; 14:62; Mt 26:63; and cf. also the various appellatives directed to John the Baptizer in
John 1:25).

the Son-of-man ░░ ho huios tou anthrōpou (‘the son of the man’); [in the sense of a
man (human being) in Aramaic expression. In N.T. occurs in 81 places (as in NASB
translation) (including Mt 18:11 v.l.; Lk 9:56 v.l.). In the Gospels it is used exclusively
by Yeshua as circumlocution of ‘I’ or allusion to Himself (e.g. Mt 13:37). Outside the
Gospels, only once in Act 7:56 (with ‘Son of God’ as v.l.) in which the Lord was
referred to by human lips.

It is seen as a Messianic title, after the phrase in Daniel (someone like a son of man).

Translated as
• the Son of Man – most; /
• the Son of man – KJV+, AMP, AUV, GSNT; /
 • the SON of MAN – Diagl (in all caps in the original); /
• /x: Son of Humanity – ALT; /x: Son of Mankind (CLV) - attempts to get rid of the word
‘man’, under the influence of gender inclusiveness movement, fail to bring out correct
sense; bring in different sense and nuance.
• Son of Adam – ISR;

Note:
Cf. ‘a son of man’
Heb 2:6 ‘huios anthrōpou’ (most as /x: the son of man);
Rev 1:13; homoion huion anthrōpou; 14:14 homoios huiō anthrōpou
a figure resembling a son of man ░░ [‘son of human being’ - someone resembling
a human being. The Aramaic phrase in Dan 7:13 referring to a messianic figure.

1:13 (I saw ~~) a figure resembling a son of man░░ ‘(saw) (one) like son of man’ – KIT; [both
anarthrous – ‘a man’s son’]. [ ‘like ~’ is ambiguous where heard outside the immediate context.]
[i.e. a human being; as a Messianic figure in Dan 7:13 (in Aramaic portion Dan 2:4 - 7:28) – ‘a
man-like figure – FF Bruce p. 67.] [Cf. similar anarthrous phrase’ in Heb 2:6]
[cf. ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου – ‘the son of the man’ (‘the Son-of-man’ in IRENT; most renders as
‘the Son of man’; Cf. the Son of Man – ESV, etc.), used Yeshua’s self-designation, appears all
Gospels and Act 7:56).] [See GG]; /a figure like one of the sons of men – Cass! (cf. 14:14 ‘one
that bore resemblance to a son of man); /a figure like man – TNT (- cf. 14:14 - a seated figure
like that of a man); /someone like a son of man – NWT; /one like a son of man – LEB; /one like
the Son of Man - WNT; /x: a Son of Man – JNT; /x: ‘perhaps’ the Human Son, - ToY; /what
looked like a human being – GNB; /one like unto the Son of man – KJV; /someone like the Son
of Man – ISV; / [who looked] like a son of man [i.e., Jesus. See vv. 17-18] - AUV; /someone like
the Son of Man –GW;
need to copy a complete phrase for items below:
/a son of man - NET, ESV duo, NASB, HNV, NIV trio, BBE; /a Son of Man – JNT, ERV, AMP,
Rhm; /x: a son of mankind – CLV; /x; a man – TCNT; /x: a human being – GNB, Mft; /xx: the
Son of man – KJV+, Murdock, Etheridge; /x: the Son of Man – NKJV, HCSB, CEV, ISV, CEV,
NLT; /[the] Son of Humanity [or, a son of humanity] - ALT; /xx: the Son of Adam – ISR; /

Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27; 16:28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22;
19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64; (28x)

Mk 2:10; 2:28; 8:31; 8:38; 9:9; 9:12; 9:31; 10:33; 10:45; 13:26; 14:21; 14:41; 14:62; (13x)
Lk 5:24; 6:5; 6:22; 7:34; 9:22; 9:26; 9:44; 9:58; 11:30; 12:8; 12:10; 12:40; 17:22; 17:24; 17:26; 17:30;
18:8; 18:31; 19:10; 21:27; 21:36; 22:22; 22:48; 22:69; 24:7; (25x)
Jn 1:51; 3:13; 3:14; 5:27; 6:27; 6:53; 6:62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23; 12:34; 13:31; (12x)
Act 7:56; (1x)

Mt 18:11 v.l; Lk 9:56 v.l.; (2x)

SourceNT p.40.

ho huios tou anthropou, meaning a person associated with humanity, a translation of

bar nasha, an Aramaic periphrasis for “person”, would be read word for word as
“one associated with humanity” (as it is in non-gender specific language and word
 “humanity” is in the singular). However, bar nasha means “one associated with
people”, “a person”, “the person”, “humanity”, “the representative person”. The
Anchor Bible translates “The Man”. The title is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13-14.
See lengthy discussion in J. Massingberd Ford, “‘Son of Man’ – A Euphemism?” JBL 87
(1968), 257-67: Albright, W.F. and Mann, C.S. Matthew: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary, (New York: Doubleday, 1982), pp. CLVI-CLVII, 95; G.
Dalman, The Works of Jesus, Eng. trans. by D.M. Kay, (Edinburgh, 1902); V. Taylor, op.
cit., p. 197.

huios, with a noun refers to a member of a class of people, and should not be
translated as “son/child of…” The Benai Israel, translated in the KJV as
“children/sons of Israel” should be translated as “members of the class of people
called Israel” = “Israelites”. The expression is also Greek, and found as early as
Homer.

Note also that, anthropos, is the word for human, humanity, person. Grammatically,
it is the common gender and not the masculine.

*Incarnation – metaphor of ‘Incarnate Logos of the Elohim’; myth of ‘God

Incarnate’?

Ref:
• John Hick, ed. (1977), The Myth of God Incarnate.
• John Hick (1993, 2005), The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a
pluralistic age. [Esp. Ch. 10 Divine incarnation as metaphor pp.99-111.]
• Michael Goulder, ed., (1979), Incarnation and Myth – The Debate Continued
• Michael Green, ed. (1977), The Truth of God Incarnate
• Oskar Skarsaune (1991), Incarnation – Myth or Fact?
• http://home.earthlink.net/~mysticalrose/pagan2.html IS THE INCARNATION
A PAGAN CONCEPT?

Jn 1:14 the Word became flesh░░

[= the Word became embodied in the person of Yeshua (1Jn 4:3); not that it took human
nature. Not that ‘God became man’.]
[Specifically as to his ‘flesh’ → the living bread 6:51-65 = the Word of God.]
[→ Immanuel Mt 1:23 (‘With us is the Elohim’ in Yeshua)]
[‘truth of incarnate Logos’; not ‘myth of God Incarnate’]

Incarnation , a technical theological term, a doctrinal jargon,a literally means embodied in

flesh or taking on flesh. It refers to the conception and birth of a sentient being who is the

a
Cf. Act 14:11-15 – gods ~~ have come down to us ░░ [gods have become like human beings.] [Rieu, p. 145
endnote: Local stories and inscriptions give additional evidence that Zeus and Hermes were worshipped in the district.
material manifestation of an entity, god or force whose original nature is immaterial. In its
religious context the word is used to mean the descent from Heaven of a god, or divine
being in human/animal form on Earth. The incarnational doctrine as at the core of the
Trinitarian doctrine, is not in the Bible, nor it is biblically correct.

Problem or controversy of Incarnation arises not about of such idea/concept shown clearly
in the N.T. The ‘incarnation’ in the Scripture – only a single verse, Jn 1:14, speaks directly
about the incarnation idea. It is the problem of belief or beliefs in incarnation going beyond
what the Scripture tells that stirs up contentions – fundamentally because all ignore the
only Scriptural phrase ‘Incarnation of the Logos (of the Elohim) and, in its place, they have
such theological jargon based on the Trinitarianism, which is essentially tritheistica when
viewed linguistically and logically. These are: ‘Incarnate God’, ‘God Incarnate’,
‘Incarnation of God’ – all with undefined meaning of the word ‘God’ and with the core
belief of God the Son.

A true biblical belief is of ‘Incarnate Logos’, not ‘incarnate God’. It is pure and
straightforward the ‘embodiment of the Word of God’ in a person. It is at the core of the
faith in the historical Yeshua, the one who was believed as the Mashiah of the Elohim, as
the Elohim’s Incarnate Wisdom, as the Son of the Elohim, as the Elohim’s agent in creation
and salvation, and who was believed to be the only Son brought forthb by the Elohim (not
‘pre-existent’ or ‘eternal’ Son, as if a God-being has a son, thus two god-beings).

It is the incarnation of the Logos of the Elohim which we come across in the Scripture (Jn 1:1, 14),
the Logos being the self-expression of the Elohim’s will in acts, and not an incarnation of a
‘personally pre-existing Son’ ‘(pre-existing) Cosmic Christ’ as in The expression ‘Incarnate God’
or ‘God Incarnate’ is a self-serving jargon of Trinitarianism with the unbiblical concept of ‘God
the Son’. c Yeshua of Nazareth was born as Immanuel (‘the Elohim with us’ – Mt 1:23) – YHWH
Elohim to be with His people in the person of Yeshua. It is not that ‘Jesus’ is the incarnation of the
Son of God – such is a pure Trinitarian idea; but Yeshua the Mashiah as Immanuel is the Son of
God – his Sonship granted (‘begotten’) by the Elohim (Heb 5:5).

Yeshua from Nazareth was a human being, and human person (some Trinitarians claim that their
‘Jesus’ was not a human person, but a divine person, without giving a clear definition of the word
‘person’). A human person cannot be a ‘divine person’, unless the word ‘divine’ is used as a
watered-down expression, which itself has nothing to do with the divine reality. What is ‘pre-
existent’ is the Logos acting as the sole agent of God’s creative activities and first brought-forth
over all the creation. The Logos of the Elohim thus cannot be a creature by some God; it is of God
(cf. Jn 1:1c).

The Roman poet Ovid gave Lystra as the scene of his story of the visit of Jupiter and Mercury to the faithful couple
Baucis and Philemon. (Here in the text) the peasants welcome the reappearance of the gods.]
Cf. The concept of incarnation is unrelated to a religious belief in Reincarnation as in Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
Cf. primitive thinking of a person holding spirit of a deceased comes [E.g. Mt 16:14]
a
tritheism – three god-beings (god-persons). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism [Cf. Jehovah’s
Witnesses – two god-beings of the Almighty Jehovah God and the mighty god of Jesus Christ.] [Cf. demigods
of Classical mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod ]
b
Gk. monogenēs (‘only one brought forth’): ‘only begotten’ – KJV (archaic, jargon); /x: ‘one-and-only’; /x:
‘unique’;
c
From metaphoric ‘Son of God’ to metaphysical ‘God the Son’, the one who is viewed as sitting next to God
the Father (‘at His right hand’).
As it is shown to be a divine mystery which underlies the Hebrew concept of Immanuel, it
cannot be taken as a myth (whatever ‘myth’ means). As such there is no justifiable,
reasonable, and logical way that to have it understood as a metaphor.

Incarnation – why He came: (12 forgotten reasons of ‘Christmas’- from the theme of a collected
list by John Piper). [translation – see IRENT]

‘Jesus is God in flesh’ [sic] – What does it mean by ‘flesh’? Does the phrase mean by ‘Jesus is God’?
What does in mean by ‘God in flesh’? or ‘As God in flesh?’

incarnate God? incarnate Eternal Son of God? incarnate of God the Son?
‘Yeshua is as the incarnate Logos of the Elohim’; ‘The Logos of the Elohim is not Jesus’. ‘The Logos
was not (pre-existent) Jesus’.

God-man – a Trinitarian docetic jargon - "This substance of a soul, then, being intermediate between
God and the flesh – it being impossible for the nature of God to intermingle with a body without an
intermediate instrument – the God-man is born." Origen, De Principiis, Book II, Chapter VI. On the
Incarnation of the Christ, 203-250 A.D. [quoted in Wikipedia]

G-John – ‘Yeshua is as the divine and eternal Word of God (not ‘Jesus is the divine and ….’).

1. “I have been born for this purpose, and it is for this purpose that I have come into the world that
I should bear witness to the truth” (Jn 18:37).
2. “To this purpose the Son of the Elohim was revealed that he shall destroy the doings of the
Devil” (1Jn 3:8; cf. Heb 2:14-15).
3. “Those who are health have no need of a physician, but those who are sick do; I have come not
to call the righteous, but outcast sinners” (Mk 2:17).
4. “The Son-of-man came to seek and to save the lost” (Lk 19:10).
5. “The Son-of-man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”
(Mk 10:45).
6. “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under
the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5).
7. “Yes, in this way has the Elohim dearly loved the very world He created, that He gave the one-
and-only Son, so that everyone who comes to believe in his Son is not to get perished, but ta
have Life eternal. The fact is, the Elohim sent forth His Son into the world not to have the
world judged into condemnation; on the contrary; to have the world saved through the Son.” (Jn
3:16).
8. “the Elohim sent the one-and-only Son of Him into the world, so that we shall live through the
Son” (1Jn 4:9).
9. “I have come in order that they may have Life, yes, they may have it to overflow” (Jn 10:10).
10. “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken
against . . . that the thoughts of many may be revealed” (Lk 2:34f).
11. “He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at
liberty those who are oppressed” (Lk 4:18).
12. “… Mashiah Yeshua has become – to show God’s truthfulness – a ministering-servant for those
who are of ‘brit-milah’ (circumcision rite), making good on the promises made to them to the
Patriarchs. The Gentiles on their part were to praise the Elohim for His mercy.” (Rm 15:7-8; cf.
Jn 12:27.).

Words – the Incarnate Logos of the Elohim; /the Word Incarnate; /Incarnate Christ; /x: Incarnate God; /x:
God Incarnate; /?? The Incarnate Lord; [‘Incarnation of God’ -? Incarnation (of the Logos) from the
Elohim; not God incarnating.]

Through incarnation ‘divinity meets humanity’.

 Other titles for Yeshua

He was addressed as ‘Teacher’ (didaskalos Mt 8:19 - /x: Master – KJV, DRB, Bishops);
‘Rabbi’ (Mk 11:21); ‘Chief’, ‘Sir!’ ‘Master’ (kurie; kurios – cf. not ‘Lord’ in IRENT),
‘Chief’ epistatēs Lk 8:24 (/Master – most; /x: instructor - NWT)
Addressing others ‘friend’ (philos)

The Apostle and Kohen Gadol (> High Priest) – in Heb 3:2; 7:5ff (See *Kohen)

‘Yeshua as Creator’; Mashiah and Creation

• Genesis creation by the Elohim with His Word: Jn 1:3 – the Logos (is the agent of
creation by the Elohim. ‘All things came into existence (> were made) by the Logos (not
= Jesus Christ)’ (Jn 1:1, 3). This Logos (the Word of God) is not Trinitarian ‘God the
Son’ ‘the Second Person of Trinity’, ‘eternal pre-existing Christ or Jesus’; nor it is
‘a god’ (NWT Jn 1:1c).
• Yeshua as the creation agent of New Creation (‘founding of the world’, not creation
of the heavens and the earth Gen 1:1): Eph 1:4 (Cf. Eph 3:9 v.l.), Heb 1:2.
‘By the Son [the risen Yeshua the Mashiah were all things in the heavens and on the earth
created – not the heavens and the earth, which were created by the Logos’ (Col 1:16-18).
• Col 1:16; 2:10. God made Jesus the HEAD of everything. That doesn't mean everyone is
obeying him. Jesus will reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet. See 1Co 15:24-
27. ‘the risen Son (not eternal preexisting God the Son) has abolished all rules and authority
and power … the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to
him that the Elohim bay be all in all.” That's why God knows all things are reconciled to God
in him.
Cf. Eph 6:12. ‘… against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world-rulers of the
darkness [of this age], against the spirit forces of the evil operating in the heavenly realms”

‘Yeshua as Savior’

‘*Savior’ ‘Our Savior’ in conjunction with ‘Lord’ – agent of salvation by the Elohim. Cf.
*Redeemer [Isa 44:6 ‘YHWH, the King of Israel and his (= Israel, not YHWH) redeemer, YHWS
of Host. Similar syntax in Isa 45:11]

• Yeshua is HIS salvation – Lk 2:30; 1:68-69; Act 5:32; 13:23. Cf. Savior of his body (Eph
5:30); Yeshua our Savior (2Ti 1:10; Tit 1:4; 3:6); a Savior, the Lord Yeshua the Mashiah
(Phi 3:20) [He is not ‘Savior God’. Cf. ‘the Elohim our Savior’ – Tit 1:3; 2:10; 3:4.]
• Yeshua is His righteousness - 2Pe 1:1
• Yeshua is His glory (Tit 2:13); to appear in the *glory of His Father (Mt 16:27); He is
expression of Father’s glory (Heb 1:3).
• Eph 1:16 ‘the Elohim of our Lord Yeshua the Mashiah, the Father of glory’,
Tit 2:13 (appearing of the glory) of the great Elohim and our Savior – (appearing of) Mashiah
Yeshua ░░ \

(tēs doxēs) tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn – Iēsou Christou;
of the glory of the great Elohim and of our Savior – of Yeshua Mashiah

[‘the great Elohim and our Savior’ refers to Father, not Yeshua, who is the glory of the
Father.] [Cf. Phi 2:11 ‘Yeshua the Mashiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’]

2Pe 1:1 righteousness of our Elohim and Savior – Yeshua Mashiah ░░

\en dikaiosunē tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros – Iēsou Christou

ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος – Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ:

in righteousness of-the God of-us and of-Savior – of-Yeshua Messiah

[It is ‘our God’, not ‘our savior’ (as in KJV).] [The arthrous ho theos is rendered
consistently as ‘Elohim’ in IRENT, other than in, vocative, my/our/their Elohim, some
genitive, etc.]

[two genitive phrases ‘of the Elohim’ and ‘of Savior Yeshua the Mashiah’ construed to
the single theme ‘righteousness’ – thus ‘righteous of the Elohim’ is ‘righteousness of
Savior Yeshua Mashiah’, as Yeshua is God’s righteousness. Again, this position is
divergent from a Trinitarian reading of the text, which tries to read as ‘our God and Savior
= Jesus Christ’. ‘God’ is not here as a title for Yeshua as the Trinitarians take it from this
text. IRENT renders the arthrous ho theos consistently as ‘the Elohim’ when it refers to
‘YHWH Elohim’.]

Various translations of this verse:

/Ko. 우리 하나님과 구주 예수 그리스도의 의 ( 義 ) (syntax is clearer in

Korean/Japanese language, as ‘righteousness’ is of the Elohim and His Son); /of our
God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah – JNT; /of-the God of-us
and of-Savior Jesus Christ – KIT

1 (‘our God’ and ‘Yeshua, our Savior): /of the [true] God of us, yes, Savior –
Yeshua the Messiah – ARJ; /> of our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ –
CLV; 1-b (ambiguous): /x: of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ – NWT (-
the definite article is not needed; should have had ‘of’ inserted); /of our
God and Savior Jesus Christ – ALT, ESV, HCSB, GNB, AMP, Mft;
1-c (‘our God’ construed to Yeshua - Trinitarian): /of our God and Savior, Jesus
Christ – NET, NASB, GW;
2 (x: ‘our Savior. It is ‘of our God’, not ‘our Savior’): /xx: of God and our Savior
Jesus Christ – KJV+;
/xxx: shown forth by Jesus Christ, by him who is our God and our Saviour
– Cassirer; /xxxx: of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior – NLT!;
Tit 2:13
epiphaneian tēs doxēs tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Christou Iēsou; “appearing
of the great Elohim and of Savor of us, (appeaning of) Messiah Yeshua”

[note: arthrous theos is rendered consistently as the Elohim (‘the God’) in IRENT with a
few places as ‘the very Elohim. Such principled translation produces the text totally
devoid of ambiguity, contradiction, confusion, and contention. The result is that it makes
easier to see the relation btw theos and sōtēr – without being bogged down with the
controversial ‘Granville Sharp′s Rule’ of biblical Greek grammar, esp. pertinent to Tit
2:13 and 2Pe 1:1 – the rule which has a bearing on argument of the Trinitarian doctrine.

Not ‘appearing of the great Elohim’, but ‘appearing of Father’s glory, the glory which IS
no other than Mashiah Yeshua.

[The presence article here in the text is not to serve for the purpose to comply with such
a grammatical rule, but simply for specification. Not a generic God-being, but the very
God, that is, Elohim the Creator.]
[Then, the whole v. 13 tells that the appearing of the great Elohim is only realized as the
appearing of His Son to us, the creation – contrary to the idea of static tri-person Trinity
(e.g. have three ‘persons’), but dynamic relational triunity btw Father and Son, bound
in the divine Spirit, Spirit of love – to relate with the creation and humanity.]

the Elohim, the Creator Logos of the

The Spirit of the Elohim
(> ‘God’) Elohim
(‘Holy Spirit’)
YHWH (‘Yehueh’) Yeshua

1Tm 1:1 [kat’ epipagēn theou sōtēros hēmōn kai Chritou Iēsou tēs elpidos hēmōn]
(as directed from God our Savior, and (/even/yes) from Mashiah Yeshua our hope)

Compare other examples of the Elohim (the God) and Yeshua in the same clause:
• 1Pe 1:3 [eulogētos ho theos kai patēr tou kuriou hēmōn Iēsou Chistou,]
(Praised be the Elohim, the Father of our Lord Yeshua Mashiah) (x: the God and
Father) - hendiadys (apposition)
• 1Tm 1:2 [apo theou patros kai Christou Iēsou tou kuriou hēmōn]
(from God the Father and Mashiah Yeshua our Lord’
• 2Pe 1:2 [en epignōsei tou theou kai Iēsou tou kuriou hēmōn]
(the knowledge of the Elohim and of-Yeshua the Lord of us);

Compare the examples of a single referent to Yeshua Mashiah:

• 2Pe 1:11 [eis tēn aiōnion basileian tou kuriou hēmōn kai Sōtēros Iēsou Christou]
(the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior – Yeshua Mashiah); (also 3:18)
• 2Pe 2:20 [en epignōsei tou kuriou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou]
(the knowledge of the Lord {of us} and Savior, Yeshua Mashiah);
• 2Pe 3:2 [entolēs tou kuriou kai sōtēros]
(the commandment of the Lord and Savior);
‘Believe Jesus’; ‘believe in Jesus’

The phrase ‘believe Jesus’ as such is not found in the Bible, but there are quite a few
equivalent expressions in different phrases – majority in Johannine writings:

Jn 1:12 ‘believe in his name;

Jn 3:16, 18; 6:40; 1Pe 1:8 ‘believe in Him’;
Jn 3:36 ‘believe in the Son’ – ‘the Son’ not ‘God the Son’;
Jn 7:38; 11:25-26 ‘believe in me’;
Jn 6:35; 8:24 ‘belive I am he’;
Jn 3:18 ‘have not believed in the name of the one-and-only Son of the Elohim;
1Jn 5:5 ‘believes that Yeshua is the Son of the Elohim’;
1Jn 5:13 ‘belive in the name of the Son of the Elohim’;
Jn 20:29 ‘… believe that Yeshua is the very Mashiah, the Son of the Elohim’;
Act 16:31 ‘believe in the Lord Yeshua’;

[The core of ‘to believe in Yeshua’ is not to be ‘saved’ or ‘born again’, not to believe
him to be ‘God’, but to believe him to be the only Way to Father (Jn 14:6) to abide ‘in
the Elohim’ (1Jn 4:15, 16) to be delighted/rejoicing in Him = to love Father (Mk 12:30
//Mt 22:37; //Lk 10:27). How is it possible? Only by partaking the death on His cross he
died in my place, every day (Lk 9:23), to have him live in my place (Gal 2:20).]

Cf. Believing as “Jesus = God”. www.angelsghosts.com/jesus-religion

“in Christ” (in the Mashiah)

John Noē (2008), Shattering the Left Behind Delusion. (pp. 107-8)

Being "in Christ" [a typical Pauline expression] requires being:

• Co-crucified (Rm 6:5-6; Gal 2:20). A sacrificial surrender of oneself to
Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
• Co-buried (Rm 6:4; Col 2: 12). Dying to sin, buried with him in baptism,
and repentance.
• Co-resurrected (Rm 6:4-5; Col 2:12-13; Eph 2:1-5; Rm 11: 15). Born again
by the Spirit of God, raised out of baptism alive in one's spirit in the Presence
of God, and walking in newness of life with the miraculous and great power
of resurrection inside us.
• Co-ascended (Eph 2:6; Col 3: 1). Trusting in him to lead one's life, being
obedient to his Word and seeking those things that are above-his kingdom,
his righteousness (Mt 6:33).
• Co-seated (Eph 2:6-7; 1:18-23; Col 3:1-3; Rev 3:21; 2:26-27). The high level
of being co-seated on his throne and demonstrated by reigning and ruling
with him here on earth.
Yeshua vs His Father – equal, same, identical?
• ‘Father’ cannot be in identity and ontology = ‘Son’
• Jn 5:18 stand equal ░░ [being equal (in some aspects) does not mean to be same
or identical. The phrase does not mean Yeshua was claiming ‘I am God’.]
• Jn 10:30 – ‘Father and Son are as one’ –
• Jn 14:28 – “Father is greater than I”
• Phi 2:6 – ‘equal to what God is’ [not equal to the Elohim]

YHWH and Yeshua relation

(that is, so-called Christology)
1. YHWH’s only brought forth Son; the Elohim as His Father
2. The Mashiah of YHWH – Kohen HaGadol
3. The Mystery of the Elohim. The Mashiah = the truth the Elohim has kept
hidden until He had revealed.
Eph 3:4; Col 4:3, ‘the mystery, that is, the Mashiah’ (taken as appositive; not ‘mystery the
Mashiah has kept hidden).
Rm 16:25.
Co 1:27 ‘mystery among the nations, which is the Messiah in you’
Col 2:2 mystery of the Elohim and Father, yes, the Mashiah (taking kai as appositive ‘mystery =
the Mashiah’)
[Cf. Eph 5:32 – ‘mystery concerning the Mashiah and the Mashiahn Community’.]
4. equal; one, not same – receiving praise and honor (worship) not as separate
persons but one. Putting faith in Yeshua is same as putting faith in YHWH
[Jn 12:44 ‘the one who believes in me, believes not [so much] in me, but
[rather] in the very One who has sent me’. See its translation problem in EE
here.30 (Cf. Jn 14:1, 6)]
5. * Incarnate Logos of YHWH
6. Immanuel – the Elohim present with His people in the person of Yeshua
7. Fullness of God-being in the Mashiah
8. The Mashiah was sent to fulfil the Torah in Himself, not in a new carved in
stone tablets.
9. Pesach Lamb of the Elohim
10. First fruit of Resurrection, power of the Elohim
11. In the Spirit of the Elohim; Sending the Spirit of the Elohim to give to the
Mashiah-followers to quicken their spirit to lead Life in the Spirit – fruit of
the Spirit working in them. (Gal 5:22)
12. Love – Jn 3:35; 10:17 [‘the Father loves the Son’]; ‘Loving’ is what links and
unites Father and Son. Out of their love flows the holy Spirit – God’s Spirit
which is not a thing, a person, a ‘spiritual’ being, a concept, a force. Nor it is
the ‘Ghost’ (after KJV rendering), which comprise the third God (‘God the
Holy Spirit’) in the Trinitarian doctrine. Father and Son are not in stative
relative hierarchy of power and position, but in dynamic relationality of Love.
Immanent triune dynamic relationality by itself will exist only divine and
human dynamic relationalitya .

a
Divine and human relationality (p. 1
http://ism.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/The%20Trinitarian%20DNA%20of%20Christian%20Wors
hip.pdf
 Relation of Father and Son is depicted in a vertical display (not in the sense of
‘hierarchy’:

Father is at the top and Son is next, because Creation (epitomized by ‘man’) comes
below it.

Father
↑↓
Son
↑↓
Man

The connecting lines are what the holy Spirit is, with the expression ‘holy’ meaning
‘belongs to divine relation’ – as power in act of creation work from His love by the
Elohim.

the Son-of-man; the Son of man

*Crucifixion, suffering, and ‘death of Jesus’

Yeshua died as the Mashiah of the Elohim, ‘the one-and-only Son of the Elohim’ (Jn
1:18; 3:16, 18) – ‘for our sins’ (1Co 15:3; Gal 1:4) as ‘our Pesach sacrifice’ (1Co 5:7) –
the ‘Lamb of the Elohim’ (Jn 1:29, 36) – on the Pesach day Abib 14, ‘at the God’s
appointed time in behalf of the ungodly’ (Rm 5:6). His burial by entombment, not by
‘burying’ in a grave. [See on ‘Passover-Passion Week’ in IRENT Vol. III Supplement –
Collections -WB #6 Passion Week Chronology.]

Suffering and death; ‘cup’:

Rm 5:1-11;
Lk 22:39-46;
How did Yeshua face the death to come upon Him? (not ‘face to His death’, as if a
theological topic).
What does ‘cup’ (vessel) in His Gethsemane prayer mean?
cup of His suffering (on the cross)? [Cf. theme of the movie ‘The Passion of the
Christ’ by Mel Gibson]
cup as God’s wrath [Ps 11:6; 75:7-8; Is 51:17, 19, 22; Jer 25:15-16; 49:12; 51:57;
Ezk 23:31-34]
‘remove the cup from me’ – does it mean that he would like to avoid dying, like many
who face death? Was it his will – he did not want to die?
Lk 22:43-44 v.l.: - intensity of His feelings and condition, but for fear of his
approaching death?
What and how does His death accomplish? www.desiringgod.org/articles/five-truths-
about-the-death-of-jesus

1. for God’s adversaries, sinners – Rm 5:7-8;

2. for people to purchase – Jn 6:36, 39;
3. for our behalf – 1Pe 2:24;
4. it defines God’s love – 1Jn 3:16;
5. reconciles humanity to God – Col 1:21-22;
substitutionary atonement – Heb 9:22; Does his death ‘save’ us? How so? Is it His death
as such, or his death is a means of saving?

www.cbn.com/community/booklets/Passion/ThePassionProphecyFulfilled.pdf
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/gehall/xtology4.htm
Physical death of Jesus Christ www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

www.thenazareneway.com/details_history_of_crucifixion.htm

Crucifixion – a most painful, gruesome, disgraceful and dreaded method of execution. The custom
was prob. originated from the ancient Persia; brought back by the Alexander the Great and later
adopted by the Romans. It was for punishment of criminals and was not something carried out from
ritual or symbolic reasons, as distorted by some having practiced a non-lethal imitation form of it
in modern times.

Bound by ropes and/or nailing on the execution stake. Mostly a simple upright beam (Latin stapes),
Occasionally the condemned one carried to a public display of shame a separate horizontal beam
(Latin patibulum) on his back to the site of execution, where upright beams were already set up on
the ground. With both arms outstretched and bound on the patibulum, nailing of the hands was
through the space between the distal ends of two bones, radius and ulna; not through the palms as
often misunderstood. With one foot on top of the other sideway, nailing was through the ankles.
When It would be T-shape when put on the top of the stapes; it is a familiar t shape of a cross when
put on a few feet below the top, which became a graphic symbol of His crucifixion from earliest
days in the history of Christianity.

‘God has a son’? ‘only begotten’?

[What does it mean that someone IS a son? [See on the fundamental linguistic and
literary problem of the word ‘IS’ – See the file ‘The nefarious IS’ in the Collections
#1 for the Supplement III of IRENT.

If A is not B, that A is B is acceptable only (1) if the predicate is in ellipsis and

understood, and (2) it is meant to say ‘A is as B’. Animals are not man, but we can
say ‘animals are as man’, though the statement need to go on for further elaboration.

Does it make any sense to say God has a son, aside from mythological gods?
Linguistically at least, the Muslim’s sensitivity is quite understandable when they
ask how God can have a son.
When we say ‘God is Father’, it does not mean at all God is like a biological father
in a family and has a son even if the son is only. Elohim the Most High relates to us
as Father – as His Mashiah has revealed to us; not that He is Father.

‘Son of God’ does not mean that a son was born (‘begotten’ ‘generated’) of God.
[See elsewhere in this file that ‘God is not a person’ ‘Elohim is not a God’] Even if
the son is said to be ‘only one’, it is correct to say that “God does not have a son” or
“God is not a father”. [See elsewhere also in BW #3 for ‘Does God have a Son?’]
Various literary devices of personification, figure of speech, and rhetoric, extensive
anthropomorphic language are seen employed in the Scripture. This forces the
translators to deal with difficulties for trans-cultural and translinguistic transfer.a For
the same reason, rendering the Greek monogenēs (‘only begotten’ – KJV) as of ‘the
only begotten Son’ should be scrutinized.

Mt 5: 9 God’s sons ░░ (hUOI QEOU - anarthrous) – not confused with the expression
‘the Son of the Elohim’ (>> the Son sof God’), a title for the Mashiah in NT. [The phrase
‘son(s) of~’ is a Hebraic idom to describe such charcter as befitting and belonging to ~.
Cf. English word – ‘qua’ in the character/capacity/role of; /하나님의 아들들이
되게되는것이 아니라 하나님의 아들됨이 드러나는 것.]
[cf. Mt 27:54 //Mk 15:39 ‘a god’s son’ (vs. //Lk 23:47 – ‘a righteous one’)]; /sons of God
– most, NWT; /x: children of – KJV, TNIV – totally different concept.

Gk. *monogenēs (adj.) – See Appendix for Jn 1.8 monogenēs theos

1. monos (sole, single; only; alone, by themselves)

2. ginomai (cause to be; generate; become) [not gennaō]

The word has been variously translated. /only - ESV, WNT, GNB, BBE, CEV,
ERV; /one and only – NET, LEB; /xxx: unique - ISV’; /only begotten – KJV,
DRB, EMTV, Geneva, Bishops; /only-begotten’ – NWT, Webster, Darby, MKJV;
/only brought-forth – ISR; /xx: only born – ABP;
(1) ‘only begotten’ – ‘begotten’ is from male principle. The verb ‘beget’b is a
typical KJV English; now obsolete. The phrase ‘only begotten’ is an
anachronistic biblical jargon. What does it mean to say God fathers someone in
the divine realm, even with ‘Trinity God’? It is an example par excellence of
anthromorphismc, which may suffice much inadequate Triniatarian idea of what

a
It is one of issues which confront translation work of the Scripture into Arabic, in addition to use
of the Arabic word ‘Allah’ for ‘God’.
b
‘be begotten’ (from Gk ginomai) (as from male principle, in contrast to ‘be born’ as from female principle).
Not to be confused with a similar verb gennaō. The related verb is consistently rendered in IRENT
as ‘bring forth’ instead of ‘beget’. E.g. Jn 3:9; 1Jn 4:9; 5:1, 18; Act 13:33; 1Co 4:15; Phm
1:10; Heb 1:5; 5:5; Rev 1:5. In Mt 1:2ff (/x: became father to – NWT; /x: was the father of). [Cf.
anagennaō 1Pe 1:3 – regenerate; /x: born again]
c
Anthromophism – to make God easy to put into one’s theological frame of mind, ‘God which human can
understand’. There is a danger of slippery slope into images of a God of three-faced head; a God of
 and who God is. The word ‘begetting’ brings up an imagery similar to
mythological gods which are generated from a supreme god from a goddess.
[Identifying the Logos as ‘a god’ (that is, a mighty God below the Almighty
God, Jehovah) in Jn 1:1 in NWT is similar to this.]
(2) ‘only’ – treated same as the word monos, not much different from ‘one and
only’ – (emphatically only one?). It may be quite acceptable as a translation
word when it means no more than ‘one and only’ child in a family – e.g. Used
substantively Lk 7:12 (a son); Lk 8:42 (a daughter); 9: 38 (a son), Heb 11:17
(the only son – Yitsḥaq >Isaac). Not adequate for the dynamic relationship (not
just ‘unity’) the Son, the Logos of the Elohim, and the Father, Elohim the Most
High.
(3) /xx: ‘unique’; /xxx: uniquely born; /xx: uniquely begotten – (Is it something
of uniqueness of the Son? What nuance of ‘unique’ in Father and Son
relationality?).
(4) ‘only brought-forth (one)’ –referring to Yeshua being the Son of the
Elohim. It is devoid of non-Scriptural imagery inherent in such expressions (of
‘born’, ‘begotten’, ‘generated’) contrary to dynamic relationality of YHWH
Elohim and Yeshua the Mashiah in the Scripture. It resonates with the phrase
‘sent forth one’ into the world (Jn 3:17). Hardly can be found an idea of
‘adoption’ (human legalistic concept) to put on the Elohim-Yeshua relation of
meeting divinity and humanity.
• Jn 1:18 v.l. ‘the only brought-forth Son’ [See further on the issue of
textual variants: ‘the only begotten Son – KJV; vs. ‘the only begotten
god’ - NWT]
• Jn 3:16 ‘His only brought-forth Son’ (‘his only begotten Son’ – KJV)
• Jn 3:18 ‘the only brought-forth Son of the Elohim);
• 1Jn 4:9 ‘His only brought-forth Son).
• [Also anarthous example Jn 1:14 (‘a father’s only brought-forth son)]

‘is begotten’ (KJV) in reference to Yeshua:

Act 13:33; Heb_5:5 (cf. 1:4) son I have begotten today

Jn 1:14 the only begotten of the Father,
Jn 1:18 the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father,
Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
Jn 3:18 not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(Cf. Isaac for Abraham - Heb_11:17)

Act 13:33 have brought you forth ░░ /have revealed me to be father to you – ARJ; /have
declared to be father to you – ARJ; /have declared your sonship - S. H. Bess (- vide infra for
PDF) (=Heb 1:5; 5:5 from Ps 2:7)[‘declaring who He is – the Son of God’, not ‘making/adopting
Him as a son’ – same issue with the phrase ‘God′s Son’ υἱοῦ θεοῦ (both anarthrous) in Mk 1:1
v.l.]; /have fathered - NET; /have begotten – ALT, NASB, ESV, REB, KJV+, NKJV, NAB; /??:

three-headed person - from three Gods for one ‘Godhead’; and finally into believing ‘God whose
name is Jesus’, and even ‘Jesus = Yahweh’.
have become your Father – Cass, HCSB, NWT, JNT, NIV trio, GW, CEV, ISV, Mft, NLT,
WNT, AUV, TNT; /have brought you forth – ISR; /?: have given you being – BBE; /?: My Son!
My very own Son! Today I celebrate you! – MSG!; /[REC fn: His second birth at resurrection ];
[QQ Christologic concern –at resurrection (Rm 1:4), rather than at incarnation (Lk 1:32). What
was the context in Psalm?]
[ http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/23a-
Prophets/Text/Articles/Bess-SonOfGod-GTJ.pdf
p. 22 ‘I have declared thy sonship’. The word translated as ‘begotten’ does not refer to generation.
As a translation word in reference to Yeshua, it brings unintended sense of ‘being-born – akin to
biological. Hence the un-biblical concepts of ‘God the Son’, ‘His Son became man’, ‘God-man’,
etc. (Act 13:33-34 refers it not to the incarnation, but to the resurrection of Christ.)]

www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/why-john-3-16-must-be-more-than-a-
slogan.html “… This intentional plan was the way God chose to love the world. To let
His Son become a man and die on the cross as an atoning sacrifice for all human sin.
Jesus carried in His body the sin of every human who ever had or would live, so all
who believe in Him could receive forgiveness, mercy and redemption …]

Yeshua was with his people as the Son of the Elohim. Not ‘God the Son’ became
a man Jesus.
C. Lord

* Translating Gk. kurios - *LORD, Lord, *Master; *Adonai;

[Note: Just as in Greek kurios, the word Lord in English is rather a generic and non-specific
word. It is often used to address persons in common English. As it became a religious jargon, it is
used often equivalent to ‘God’ while it is used for a man and, of course, also for ‘Jesus’. Only in
fixed phrases, such as ‘Lord God’, the referent is the God of the Scripture.] [In what sense and
(special) usage of the word ‘Lord’ in English and in Gk. ‘ho kurios’ and also in Hebrew? – related to a
Christological issue. Ref. www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/BoussetOutline.pdf ]

[The word ‘Lord’ (Gk. kurios; Heb. adon) – a term for a person with authority, i.e. master.
Unrelated to the person’s divinity.

YHWH is called ‘Lord’; King David was called Lord; Yosef under Pharaoh was called ‘Lord’.
Yeshua is called ‘Lord’. That someone is call ‘Lord’ does not mean someone is God. Cf. most
English bibles translate YHWH in OT as ‘the LORD’ (/Lord – Douay) (/Jehovah – NWT) (e.g.
Psa 110:1). Lord God made Yeshua to be our Lord (Phi 2:9-11).
https://youtu.be/7qouipBaIDo ]

The Greek word *kurie in the GNT (vocative):

(1) as to men: in the sense of ‘Master¡’ ‘Sir¡’ (as kurie in vocative case) referring to a
man,
(2) as to Yeshua: in the sense of ‘*Master¡’a by disciples (e.g. Mt 8:2l etc.); ‘Sir¡’ (e.g.
Mt 8:2, 9:28) in the Gospel narratives.
As to Yeshua the title 'Lord' is not used in IRENT until when it is being used to reflect
lordship of Yeshua in His followers in the post-resurrection kerygma];
(3) as to the Elohim: ‘Lord¡’ to Father by Yeshua (e.g. Mt 11:25).

a
‘Master’ – As to Yeshua, the word may carry a nuance more than simple human ‘master’ (as a master over
a servant or disciples), since the Gospels were written after the epochal Resurrection event in the history of
our humanity and the ‘lordship’ which was for Elohim the Most High is conferred also to Yeshua as the
Mashiah of YHWH as shown in the Acts and the Epistles, which reflects the post-Easter kerygma of the
Lordship of Yeshua over His followers and the New Creation through him. However, in the setting of Gospel
narrative, it is anachronistic (proleptic) to apply this title to Yeshua during His ministry whether from the lips
of His disciples or others. [Cf. In the Gospels, one example in Mt 7:21, 22; //Lk 6:46 where the vocative
kurie is used in reference to Yeshua, with nuance (as of ‘Lord of Life’ is more than ‘Master, the owner, the
boss’.] [Outside the specific setting and context, the word ‘Master’ in English brings out different nuance of
a person skilled in arts etc. (Some uses a title ‘Master Teacher’ – which does not refer to kurios in the
Scripture. The title ‘Master’ is not a suitable English word to be applied for the risen Yeshua, considering
also the divine Lordship conferred on Him, with the same title as to Elohim, His Father. Cf. in Korean – 주
(主), 주님 (Lord, Master), vs. 주인, 주인님 (master, owner)]
The phrase ‘*Lordship of Jesus’ – a technical jargon. What does ‘lordship’ mean? What does ‘lord’ mean
and signify? Lord as God? God as Lord? “Jesus→ Lord → God → and then even Jehovah”? [How or when
'Jesus' (→ Which Jesus, Whose Jesus?) became 'God' (→ What kind of God? Which God?) by the Church in
history of Trinitarian doctrine?] [Similar linguistic problem – 'Jesus is Lord' → Lord is not equal to 'God'.]
 Master! Master! ░░ [Mt 7:21; 25:11; Lk 6:46; 13:25] [vocative – does not address someone as
God, as the word ‘Lord’.

The Greek word *kurios in the GNT is used

As in generic sense:

(1) of ‘master’ for the owner – Mt 10:24;

(2) in generic sense ‘lord’ (archaic usage in modern English?) – Mt 12:8

As to Yeshua:

(3) of ‘Lord’ (as a king) – Lk 2:12

(4) of ‘Master’ to Yeshua the Nazarene by His disciples in the Gospels [IRENT does not
translate as 'Lord' as by most Bible translations. [In Act, only once in Act 1:6]
(5) of ‘Lord’, a title to the risen Yeshua after His glorification, exaltation, and ascension
(Act 1:9; Phi 2:9) and the Pentecost event (Act 2) – e.g. Lord Yeshua (Act 1:21ff); Lord
Yeshua Mashiah (Act 15:26ff); the Lord; as well as in the Apostolic Epistles – Col 2:7
etc. [See A Study on Jn 20:28 in End-note here 31.]

Cf. confession of ‘Yeshua as Lord’: Rm 10:9; 1Co 12:3 ░░ [‘Master of our Life’; ‘our
Savior’] [as ‘the Son of God’, not ‘God the Son’.] Rm 14:9 ‘the Lord of both the living and the
dead’ [Not a penchant religious mantra, but a life-and-death core confession of their faith.]

As to Elohim:

(6) of ‘YHWH’ especially in OT quotations or references, which is mostly anarthrous.

Usually in the N.T. when the Gk. word is arthrous (the Lord), it refers to Yeshua; whereas the
anathrous word, it refers to Adonai (YHWH), equivalent ‘LORD’ (in all caps) e.g. in (KJV) in
an English translation of O.T.
A few exceptions are noted as the context tells as in genitive case – e.g. 2Co 12:2 eis optasias
kai pokalupseis Kuriou – ‘Lord’s visions and revelations’ – translated as ‘visions and revelations
~ from the Lord’ in IRENT.

When the Gk. word refers to YHWH Elohim it is translated in the work of IRENT,
(1) as YHWH in a few places where the Divine Name as such has to be clearly shown
in the context and when the voice of the speaker and the audience is appropriate, and
(2) as Adonaia, a common Hebrew word ‫‘( ֲאדֹנ ָי‬my Lord’ > adon ‘Lord’) which is found
eminently suitable for the translation word in majority of cases. [Cf. When it occurs

a
Adonai (pl.) – Cf. Adon is singular; Cf. Adoni (My Lord) – Psa 111 (110):1

www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Adonai/adonai.html –
Adon - A title variously used to refer to men, angels, and to the true God of Israel, meaning “lord, master,
owner.” From the Ugaritic adn meaning "lord" or "father" and the Akkadian adannu, "mighty"
References: Jos 3:11, 13; Neh 7:61; Psa 12:5; 97:5; 105:21; 114:7; Jer 22:18; 34:5; Zec 4:14; 6:5.
Adonai. - Lord; God; name used as a substitute for the sacred Tetragrammaton; emphatic form of ’Adon
(Isa 6:1). Occurs 300 times in the TaNaKh. The first use appears in Gen 15:2 where Abram addresses God
as “Adonai YHWH.”
 infrequently as the arthrous kurios for YHWH, it is rendered as ‘the very Adonai’ (e.g.
Mk 5:19; Lk 1:9, 25; 2:15, 22).] a

An attempt has been made in the work of IRENT initially to translate as ‘LORD’ (in all caps)
after English translation of YHWH in O.T. in the style of LXX. Linguistically a word cannot be
differentiated by mere typographic device of capitalization. Language is primarily spoken
communication tool, not written code system. It is same for ‘Elohim’ vs. ‘elohim’; for ‘God’ vs.
‘god’.] [Cf. in translation of the arthrous Greek ho theos -- ‘the Elohim’ vs. ‘Elohim’– the latter
in vocatives or modified as in your/our/my Elohim, Elohim the Father, Elohim the Most High,
Elohim our savior, etc.

Thus, to have it translated as ‘Lord’ as in most English translations keeps it ambiguous of

referent, b leaving the readers often confused. [See End-note here 32 for Lk 4:18-19 <A case
study for translating the very common Greek word kurios in NT>.]

Note: It is common Judaic practice to restrict the use of the word Adonai to prayer only. In
speech, even when not speaking Hebrew, the Jewish people would to call God simply use
HaShem, ‫השם‬, which is Hebrew for "the Name" (this appears in Lev 24:11).

QQ
? no example of ‘theos’ + ‘kurios’ [cf. God the Father + Lord Yeshua (Mashiah)]

Example in the phrase, “In the name of LORD”:

It challenges the translator to read with care when the Greek word appears in the special phrase ‘en
onomati kuriou’ (quoting from OT) (coming ‘in LORD’s name’) – [Mt 21:9; 23:39; Mk 11:9;
11:10 v.l.; Lk 13:35; 19:38; Jn 12:13]
It is commonly translated as ‘in the name of the Lord’, leaving the readers vulnerable to confusion
with ‘the Lord Yeshua’ – does the expression say ‘He is coming, carrying the title of Lord for
Himself’?

It is rendered as ‘in the name of Adonai’. Can the alternative option ‘in the name of LORD’ be
better than the traditional rendering as ‘in the name of Lord’ to bring its true meaning? However,
from the language point view, there is no improvement; since the text we have as the scribes wrote
down is a poor substitute of the text as we should hear as transmitted in oral tradition.

e.g. Adon YHWH, Elohim of Yisrael – Exo 34:23; YHWH, our Adon – Psa 8:1, 9.
Adon is used for Yeshua in HalleluYah translation.
Rendered as Adonai throughout in JNT by David Stern. Cf. ‘Adonai Elohim’, Adon, Adonai [Note. In one
place he even translates theos (anarthrous; ‘God’) erroneously as ‘Adonai’ in Rm 9:5.

a
Ref. on how kurios is rendered in Korean translations: [심우진, “<개정개역판> 과 <새번역>의 ‘주
(KURIOS)’ 번역”, Journal of Biblical Text Research (성경권문연구) 2011 April No. 28 pp. 146-169 (in
Korean)]
b
Referent confusion of ‘Lord’ in English translations. A typical example is Mt 22:41-45 (The Mashiah,
David’s Son and Lord king) especially when reading traditional translations, such as KJV.
 [E.g. Outside the Gospels, this phrase en tō onomati kurio occurs once in Jam 5:10 ‘[prophets
spoke] in the name of ~’. (~ Lord’s name – NET; ~ name of the Lord – Darby; /~ name of
the Lord – KJV, most)

Cf. It is distinct from a similar phrase with the arthrous noun, it is “in the name of the
Lord” With the *Lordship of Yeshua this title ‘Lord’ (in the sense of a divine Lord, not a human
master) for the risen Lord outside the Gospel books in N.T.
(of Lord Yeshua) – Act 8:16; Act 9:28; Act 19:5; 1Co 6:11; Col 3:17;
(of the Lord) – Jas 5:14

The Lordship of Yeshua the Mashiah after His resurrection onto His ascension to His Father is
altered in the Trinitarian line of (Christomonism) understanding the phrase ‘Jesus is God’. A
linguistically muddle expression and belief line of ‘Jesus is Jehovah’ or ‘The name of our God is
Jesus’ (Mark Driscoll on twitter), etc.a Yeshua is not the God (= the Elohim; the Almighty, the
Most High), i.e. to be identical. Thus, Yeshua is God. That means He is not a lesser being than
God. Not as ‘God’ by which we may understand. He is not the God (the Elohim), but ‘He is God’
as God-being. [See *God-being; ‘what God is’]

Examples in other phrases:

• ‘Lord of the harvest’, ‘Lord of Shabbat’

• in the name of the Lord Yeshua the Mashiah [See under the separate entity ‘*in the name
of] [‘name’ is here in metonymic use]

• ‘day of LORD’
Act_2:20; /of Adonai – JNT; /day of the Lord – LITV; /of the LORD – NLT; /x: of the
Lord – most; /of Jehovah – NWT; /
1Co_5:5;(~ of the Lord {/Yeshua});
2Co_1:14; (of the Lord Yeshua); 1Th_5:2; 2Th_2:2;(of the Lord {the Mashiah}; /> of the
Lord – JNT!; /Jehovah - NWT);
2Pe_3:10; (of LORD; /> of the Lord – JNT!; /x: of God’s Judgment – MSG; /Jehovah’s –
NWT);
cf. Rev 16:14; (the Great Day of the God (i.e. the Elohim)

Gk kurios - which is referred to, Yeshua or the Elohim? (in the Acts and in the Epistles)?

a
Some claim “Y’SHUAH is YHVH Himself” (e.g. OvadYah Avrahami). The statement itself is a
contradictory illogical Humpty-Dumpty language – nonsensical linguistically, scripturally and
theologically. Quoted is here: “… He is the Human Manifestation of the Spirit Being YHVH (the
Father, God) who is omnipresent’, as Scripture is clear: There is ONE God Only. God has, as it
were, never had a “Son” in Heaven when “The Word was ‘with’ God’ (Jn 1:1). In the OT we just
read about YHVH – NO Son! [- to be checked on this statement]. Many Scriptures confirm that
He knows or sees no One else next to Him, above Him – HE is GOD Alone. John 1:1 completes
the mystery with <… and the Word was God>.” (Correct translations is: ‘God was the Word.” –
this is a grammatical fallacy – ARJ). Compare: Mt 24:30-31 with GOD Who is Coming (Ezk 12,
Zec 14, etc.) Note Zec 12:10, YHVH speaking, “Then they will look upon ME (YHVH) Whom
they have pierced.”
[Cf. The one who is to come - Rev 1:8; 3:10; 22:7, 12, 20]
[Ref. “God or Jesus? Textual Ambiguity and Textual Variants in Acts of the Apostles”, in
the multi-author volume, Texts and Traditions: Essays in Honour of J. Keith Elliott, edited
by Peter Doble and Jeffrey Kloha (2014), pp. 239-54.]

The abstract of his essay:

“The correlation of God and Jesus in Acts, in particular the use of κύριος/ὁ κύριος for both,
produced a number of statements in which there can be a certain degree of ambiguity as to
the referent. At these points we often find variants in the manuscripts, which reflect efforts
of ancient readers to disambiguate the statements and clarify the text. They often seem to
have drawn upon the immediate context to help them judge matters. So the variants are
artefacts of this exegetical activity of these ancient readers of Acts.” From
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/textual-ambiguity-in-acts-of-the-apostles/

‘LORD’ *Lord; Master; Adonai, Adoni, Adon:

Lord Yeshua – Act 2:36; 1Co 15:24-28
(David →) YHWH, you are my Lord– Psa 16:2

The problem with the word ‘Lord’, be it in English, in Greek or in Hebrew, is that it
is not exclusively applied to ‘God’, but also to man.

‘Oh Lord!’ kurie! (vocative) – who is being called – Elohim the Most High, or the
risen Mashiah, Yeshua? [IRENT renders as ‘Master!’ for men, including Yeshua the
Nazarene in the Gospels e.g. Mt 7:21, 22; 8:2, 21, 25; 9:21, etc. As the risen and
ascended Yeshua the Mashiah (but not because He is ‘God’ or He became God) the
Greek title is rendered as ‘Lord’ – in the Acts and Epistle. ]

A typographic contortion with LORD spelt in caps does not help, since it sounds same
with ‘lord’.

Lord; cf. Master – Gk. kurios; Heb. Adonai vs. Adoni (my lord); Adon (lord)
An English word ‘Lord’, as translation of Greek word kurios, which in turn was used in LXX
to translate Hebrew word Adonai. However, it is also used to translate Hebrew
Tetragrammaton in O.T. in all caps ‘LORD’ in most English bible translations.

The problem in English ‘lord’ is that it is a common word which is also used as other than a
divine title in New Testament. When the word is applied to God, YHWH and Yeshua, we
have some confusion (eventually some people making a monstrous claim that ‘Jehovah =
Jesus’ identical and same with the faulty equation of ‘Jesus =Lord = LORD = Jehovah). When
the disciples called Him kurie! is in the sense of ‘master; chief; teacher’ or is it in the sense
of ‘a divine being, a god’?? In what sense ‘Jesus is Lord’ (Rm 10:9; 1Co 12:3)? Why should
it me more than ‘Lord of our Life’ or ‘our Savior’ - vs. calling someone Lord as if God)?

When the revealed name of YHWH is to be shown in the translated text, Gk anarthrous kurios
in NT is rendered in IRENT as YHWH, where it is referred to Him. It is especially so in the
text quoted from TaNaKh in which the name YHWH appears.
To Yeshua the Mashiah (> Messiah) of the Elohim, it is Adon in Hebrew (not to be confused
with Heb. Adonai = YHWH). However, IRENT retained the word ‘Lord’ in reference to
Yeshua to the risen Yeshua Mashiah, exalted to the right of the Elohim; not for Yeshua during
His earthly sojourn. E.g. ‘our Lord Yeshua the Mashiah’ as it appears after the Pentecost in
the Acts and Epistle, knowing fully ‘Lord’ as an English word is rather a generic and non-
specific word, which is applied to mostly non-divine. See under the different heading
‘Translating Gk. kurios - *LORD, *Lord, *Master; *Adonai’.

Note: linguistically complicating factors – (1) Hebrew word Adonai in TaNaKh is also used as a
vocalization of the YHWH (the Tetragrammaton, the personal sacred name of the Elohim) and (2)
LXX33 has Kurios as the translation word also for this Tetragrammaton.

Note: In the most Christian writings (be it theological or religious) the English word ‘LORD’ (in all
cap) in contrast to ‘Lord’ is invariably from the tradition of translating of Gk. kurios as appears in LXX
texts, which is translation of Hebrew YHWH. That is, ‘LORD’ is found in the place where ‘YHWH’
should have been. If LORD in all caps appear in IRENT-related articles, LORD [sic] is meant –
‘intentionally so written’ (e.g. quoting from others).

The Greek and Hebrew as well as English it is also used as other than a divine title – e.g. master of
household, master over servants, etc. “In the Pauline epistles, the truly significant title for Jesus is not
Messiah but ‘Kurios’. …… Kurios now expressed both the religious and political significance that
Paul and his converts saw in Jesus. …” (Francis Young, p. 19)

kurios ‘master’ ‘lord’, applied to God and to a man. Cf. Anarthrous → the LORD (KJV in OT) =
YHWH; Mk 12:36, etc.]

In IRENT translation, as to Yeshua the word ‘Lord’ is reserved for the risen and exalted Mashiah –
e.g. Acts/Epistles/Revelation.
[cf. Jn 20:18 ‘my Master and my Elohim’. Cf. Lk 2:11 sōtēr ho esti Christos kurios (‘a savior who is
the Christ the Lord – KJV etc. But in what sense is the word ‘Lord’ used, other than an unbiblical idea
of ‘Jesus is God’?)
[Kurie – Lord! Sir! E.g. Jn 20:15, etc.]

Phi 2:11 Yeshua the Mashiah is Lord ░░. Not called ‘God’, or ‘God the Son’, but ‘the Son of the
Elohim’.
Rm 10:9 ‘Yeshua is Lord’; Rm 14:9 ‘the Lord of both the living and the dead’; 1Co 12:3]
Lk 2:11 Mashiah, Lord (master); cf. Lk 2:26 Mashiah of YHWH (> the LORD).

Note: By saying ‘Jesus is Lord’, it is often read to mean ‘Jesus is God’. The English word ‘Lord’ as
used as a translation word of the Bible as a title should be simple with the sense of Master, Owner,
etc. even when it is applied to God-being or divine being/man. The problem is confusion regarding
its referents in the NT between the Elohim the Most High and his Son, the risen Mashiah.

E.g. ‘Lord’ in Psa 110:1 [quoted in Mt 22:44 //Mk 12:36 //Lk 20:42-43. Act 2:3]
“The Lord said to my lord, …” www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/psalm110_1.htm
• ‘the Lord’ (ASV, GW, Douay, RV, HCSB, ISV, NIV, ESV) → the LORD (KJV, NLT) →
YHWH
• ‘my Lord’ (most)→ my Lord [‘Lord’ in what sense - king, divine man, angel, god - ??]
→ my Master - ISR
• Cf. NET; YLT ‘the Lord … my lord’
• Cf. Act 2:36 ‘made Yeshua [our] Lord and Mashiah’
 [Heb. adon' (sir, mister, lord); adoni' (my lord), adono (his lord)][In the connective form, only in
the plural: Adonai; lit. my Lords, my Sirs.]

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/psalm-110-a-jewish-perspective/

http://outreachjudaism.org/psalm110/ [… The correct and only translation of l’adonee is “to my master” or

“to my lord.” The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is used only to
address a person, never God. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in
the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them.
…]

www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/psalm110_1.html

https://youtu.be/0u0Tg2nGjUk
https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2005/Aloisi.pdf WHO IS DAVID’S LORD? ANOTHER LOOK AT PSALM 110:1

• the Alpha and the Omega ░░ Rev 1:8*; 21:6*; 22:13. (1:11 v.l.); [Α and Ω – first and last of
Greek letters – the two in the middle of God’s name YHWH in Gk ΙΑΩΗ -- the first and last form
ΙΗ, abbreviation of the name Yeshua in Gk ΙΗΣΟΥΣ]
• the Beginning and the End ░░ Rev 21:6*; 22:13 [Cf. Rev 1:8 v.l. ‘Beginning and End’]
Beginning [= The First Principle - Cause of all things’ (‘that who has all begun’), not ‘that which
was begun’.] ░░ End [= The Last Principle – Goal of all things, not ‘that which will end’]
• the First and the Last ░░ Rev 22:13. (1:11 v.l.); [In Isa 44:6; 48:12 it is self-designation by
YHWH]

Alpha and Omega; the First and the Last; the Beginning and the End
[Trifold Hebrew parallel expressions for Yeshua]

• the Alpha and the Omega – for Yeshua – Rev 22:13

• the First and the Last – for Yeshua - Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13 [= self-designation of YHWH
in Isa 44:6; 48:12.
• the Beginning and the End – for Yeshua – Rev 22:13 [Beginning = ‘The First Principle
- Cause of all things’ (‘that who has all begun’), not ‘that which was begun’.] [End = ‘The
Last Principle – Goal of all things, not ‘that which will end’.]
D. *spirit'; *holy spirit; the holy Spirit

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13966-spirit

https://claudemariottini.com/2014/08/26/the-spirit-of-god-in-genesis-12/

the first essay in the book [Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the
Spirit of God in the Old Testament by David Firth and Paul Wegner] ….
The essay, “Breath, wind, spirit and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament”
(pp. 25-37), was written by Richard E. Averbeck and it deals with the basic
meaning of the Hebrew word rûaḥ translated as “spirit” in our English
Bibles.

• 1Kg 18:45 clouds and wind

• Gen 7:15 all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
• Ecc 3:19 … humans and animals – all have the same breath.
• Of man - Gen 45:27 … the spirit of their father Yaakob revived.
• Of God - Sam 11:6 'the spirit of Elohim came upon Saul
• [breath/spirit] of YHWH – 2Kg 2:16
• wind – 2Kg 2:16

• Gen 1:2 - /a wind from God – NRSV; Aramaic Targum Onkelos; /Spirit of God
– KJV; a mighty wind – NAB; [spirit hovering' or 'wind moving/sweeping
blowing' with Heb. meraḥephet]

rûaḥ elohim – 'wind of God' vs. 'mighty or strong wind''

[Cf. (1) A word or phrase may be often used metonymic and should not be
confused with what is believed to be its ‘literal meaning’. Cf. ‘sin’ – nature,
power, guilt, even sacrifice.
(2) The Gk. article makes a word immeasurably changed its sense and usage in
the text – with particularization, referencing, and identification. When an article
is arbitrarily inserted into, or deleted from the text, and the sense of the text
changes, it is from negligence, ignorance, or deliberation. Conflict with English
grammar comes into play as well. E.g. the noun ‘evil’ without article in English
for an abstract idea is arthrous in Gk. The arthrous Gk is equivalent to ‘the evil
someone/something’ in English. The problem of arthrous vs. anathrous theos
(‘God’) is dealt in much detail in this article.]

In IRENT, the arthrous noun is rendered as capitalized 'the Spirit', usually personified
in the context. On the hand, the anarthrous 'holy spirit' is not capitalized, simply meaning
'God's divine spirit' – often pour down on people as God's gift. The holy Spirit is God
as the giver of the spirit, the life-giving spirit. God, as the holy Spirit, is the Giver of the
Gift, holy spirit. Only when it refers to the particular or mentioned beforehand in the
context, it is simply 'the holy spirit', not 'the holy Spirit'. E.g. 'the promised holy spirit
to be poured down'. Note the word 'holy' is not capitalized.

When debating on the Trinity Doctrine, this important distinction should be kept clear.
'God the Holy Ghost' is not 'holy spirit', but 'the holy Spirit' which is in personification
is made a person itself, whatever is made out define the word 'person', or should it be
'Person' capitalized?

The word ‘spirit’ – in English, Greek, Hebrew

[See also in WB# 3B]

[spirit of man, of God, of evil, or of things. See capitalization depending on the usage
of the word and the word phrase in IRENT]

Spirit is rendered in KJV some places as ‘*ghost’ in the phrase ‘Holy Ghost’.
Heb. Ruach – wind, spirit; “From the west shall they revere the name YHWH; from the rising of the sun
His glory. When the foe comes like a flood, the wind of YHWH shall lift up a banner against him.” (Isa
59:19) “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (Job 33:4)

Cf. ‘angel pneumatology’;

Ref. Gischen (1998), Angelomorphic Christology (pp. 114-119). Cf. it is more accurate that a
common term ‘angel Christology’
… he defines ‘angel’ as ‘a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine
realms’ … (p. 27).

Concordance in NT ‘spirit/Spirit’:

Cf. God’s spirit vs. human spirits; spirit of things and ideas, cf. ‘evil/unclean spirits’; (Cf.
German Geist)
• spirit – noncountable noun. [‘God is spirit’ /x: a spirit – KJV Jn 4:24]
• a spirit; every spirit (1Jn 4:3); spirits (of man);
• the spirit, (1Pe 4:14 of the glory and the God’s spirit)
• the Spirit (Rm 5:30); the holy Spirit, holy spirit;
• the spirit of God – 1Co 2:11, 14; 3:16; 1Pe 4:14;
• the spirit of our God – 1Co 6:11
• the spirit that is from God – 1Co 2:11
• God’s spirit; the holy Spirit of the Elohim – Eph 4:30;
• God’s spirit and Mashiah’s spirit – Rm 8:9
• the unclean spirit(s)

*Invisible things in the physical world (describable in terms of physics):

*things the framework of space-time

 Things may not be 'visible' if too small, e.g. 'particles'; if too far into the universe, if
not sensible to vision - e.g. radiation energy, invisible light (IR or UV or beyond.
'spirit' is in the invisible realm, just as 'energies' - may be able to sense in our 'spirit'.

holy spirit, vs. ‘the holy Spirit’, ‘the Holy Spirit’, ‘the Holy Ghost’; man’s spirit;

[Cf. (a) holy spirit vs. the holy Spirit] [definition of ‘ghost’ in English usage]

Regrettably most Bible translations failed to pay due attention to the presence or
absence of the Greek article, esp. dealing with the very common words ‘God’ and
‘spirit’. This point is very important. In IRENT, the arthrous ho theos (‘the God’) is
consistently rendered as ‘the Elohim’, not ‘God’. E.g. Jn 1:1. Here when there is no
definite article for the Gk. word pneuma (‘spirit) is consistently rendered simply as
‘spirit’ (with no definite the or indefinite article a a) whereas Gk. to pneuma to hagion
(‘the holy Spirit’) being capitalized only the word ‘Spirit’, for as indication for its
claimed personhood, but for its source to be God himself.

“… the presence or absence of the article with pneuma (hugion) is neither accidental
nor arbitrary. Ra1her, it will be argued that the anarthrous usage of pneuma (hugion)
represents the unmarked or default usage within the New Testament. …”
[Steve Swartz, “The Holy Spirit: Person and Power. The Greek Article and Pneuma”, Bible
Translator Vol. 44, No. 1, 1993; pp. 124–138] [Stephen H. Levinsohn, “Anarthrous
References To The Holy Spirit: Another Factor” Bible Translator Vol. 44, No.1, 1993; pp.
138-44] Note: Both articles are found in IRENT Vol. III – Supplement (Collection #3B).

[See also Ronald D. Peters, “The Greek Article – a Functional Grammar of Ὁ-items in the
Greek New Testament with Special Emphasis on the Greek Article” Linguistic Biblical
Studies, Vol. 9, 2014. Esp. on ‘The article with nouns”, pp. 229-247.]

‘The holy Spirit’ (to pneuma to hagion; to hagion pneuma) in N.T. = the Spirit of the
Elohim (Gen 41:38, etc.) = ‘the Spirit of YHWH’ in OT. Cf. ‘His/Your holy Spirit’.
The holy Spirit is the very Spirit of the Elohim - the Spirit is the very presence and
power of the Elohim in action. “the Elohim is spirit” (Jn 4:24 /x: a spirit). None other
than the very God acting/creating in power manifested in the works of Yeshua. Father
belongs to no one; all others (the Son, the Spirit, man) belongs to Him. [Cf. the Spirit of
Mashiah; the spirit of man; the spirit of the world. Cf. ‘spirit’ of inanimate object or ideas. Cf.
apparition, ghosts.]

Ezk 11:5, the Spirit of YHWH fell upon me and said (- KJV, etc.; /x: he said) to me:
“Say: Thus says YHWH: <You are saying these things, O house of Israel, but I know

a
Cf. noun which is uncountable or used as uncountable.
what you are thinking …>” [Here, it said, ‘the Spirit says’, but it is not other than
YHWH Himself speaking and giving commandments.]

Cf. Mt 12:31-32; [blasphemes against the Spirit (of the Elohim)]; //Lk 12:10
[blasphemes against the holy Spirit] – the blasphemy is against Father – the Spirit is
the Spirit of the Elohim, not a separate person or god from Father.]
= [+ by rejecting God’s testimony the Spirit gives on the Son-of-man as to who He is (Jn 15:26)
and the plans of God.] [It is the blasphemy against Father. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Elohim,
not a separate ‘Person’ or ‘Force’ from Father.] The Trinitarian God is one spirit; the Holy
Ghost is another spirit. They are not same because they are labelled as persons. A person’s spirt
cannot be same as another one’s spirit. To them two different spirits (two different persons, not
two different it’s) speak and do, being different and independent to the other. Tritheistic and
Sabellianism in disguise – three in different modes but not at various times.
[https://youtu.be/DIBBQEPhFz0 Holy Spirit and blasphemy.]

• Ref: Hans Küng (1992), Credo – The Apostles' Creed Explained for Today, [Ch.
5. Holy Spirit: Church, Communion of Saints and Forgiveness of Sins, pp. 122-
157.]
• Ref: Steve Swartz (1993), "The Holy Spirit: Person and Power. The Greek Article
and Pneuma", Bible Translator Vol. 44, No. 1, 1993; pp. 124–138
[A scanned copy in ((WB #3A)) collection.] [online read →
www.ubs-translations.org/tbt/1993/01/TBT199301.html?num=&x=0&y=0&num1=124 ]

• Ref:
www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2012/1-articles/sf-unitarian_view_holy_spirit.html

‘The holy Spirit’ is none other than the Spirit of the Elohim – not a separate person or
another God (Jn 4:24 the Elohim is as spirit and the Elohim is spirit). It is the spirit
divine (hence capitalized), the spirit belonging and from the Elohim; not a ‘divine
person’, not a divine spirit-being. the Elohim is as the holy Spirit. Likewise, the Word
(Jn 1:1) is none other than the Word of the Elohim. It is the Elohim in His spirit that
acts to the creation. What the Spirit does (says, commands, teaches, etc. as personified)
is what the Elohim in his spirit does. (e.g. Lk 12:12; cf. ‘the Spirit said’ in Act 8:29;
10:19; 11:12; ‘the Spirit of YHWH took Philip away’ Act 8:39 (anarthrous genitive
‘kurio’). Cf. Mt 10:19 – ‘it is the Spirit of Father is speaking through you.’ – does it
refer to the Spirit of the Elohim, or to the third person of Godhead, call God the Holy
Ghost? What spirit is, the Elohim is – His essence. Note: As titles are for function of
description, not identification, that Yeshua is given title of ‘Word of the Elohim’ in
N.T. should not make to read that the Word in Jn 1:1 is same as Jesus or Christ.

The spirit of the Elohim, God’s spirit, the holy Spirit is the power of God in act for creation
and love. It is the very God in His act, not a separate ‘person’. As He creates by His spoken
word (‘Logos’), the word of the Elohim is the very God in His act, not a separate ‘person’.

[‘spirit’, N.T. translation word of Gk. pneuma, is used either as a countable or un-
countable noun. It requires careful wording – spirit, a spirit, the spirit, spirits, Spirit,
etc.
The term ‘holy spirit’ is not ‘a holy spirit’ (countable noun). E.g. Jn 4:24 - /xxx: ‘God
is a Spirit’ – KJV, NWT; /God is Spirit – GNB, WNT; /‘God is spirit’ – ESV] [‘God is
spirit’ – what does it mean by ‘spirit’? Then, what would ‘spirit of God’ be?]

Cf. The English expression ‘a spirit’ (one of many spirits) has different sense and usage
than outside the Bible – syn. with ‘idea’ ‘philosophy’ etc.

[Note: when it is used alone without adjective ‘holy’, the phrase ‘the spirit’ needs to be
capitalized when it is personified for God in act, to help differentiate from generic spirit
(such as of man, of thing, of ideas, etc.). That is, ‘the Spirit’ = ‘the holy Spirit’ = the
Spirit of the Elohim. Cf. ‘the Holy Spirit’ (or the Holy Ghost) as capitalized is the form
applies to a third Trinitarian god.]

[In the N.T. ‘the holy Spirit’ – is the spirit of the Elohim – refers to the Elohim in act
in power – (1) not an impersonal force; nor such a force from God; (2) it is neither a
‘person’ who is equally God with the Father in heaven, unless (contrary to common
English usage) the term is used in the original sense of Latin word persona (as actor in
a drama). That the term is used in a literary device of personification has been a great
stumbling-block for many who think only in Trinitarian mindset. Neither literary
personification nor grammatical gender of a noun can make it a ‘person’ (whatever the
word means). God acts – as if in different persona (actor) – all depending on how God
is presented in the text (narratives, statements, or arguments) of mere human language.
Grammatically speaking, ‘the Spirit of the Elohim’ is of appositive genitive
construction.
 In O.T.

‘new spirit’ - Ezk 11:19-20; 36:26-29

www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-Old-Testament.html

‘spirit’ – breath, wind, life (force). The word ‘spirit’ is equivalent to ‘breath’ or
‘wind’ in Hebrew. The Spirit of God is inseparable from His will, power, life
(force), and love. God’s will is of what God is; God’s power is of what God is;
God’s life force is of what God is. So is the Spirit – God’s spirit is of what God
is. The word ‘holy spirit’ is spirit which is holy, divine, that is, it is Spirit of
God. All these are conceptually inseparable, since these are intrinsic to God
Himself with the Spirit to proceed from God towards the Creation. These are
part and parcel of God’s essence and nature – not a separate being, a separate
‘person’, whatever they mean the word ‘person’a. The Spirit of the Elohim = the
holy Spirit - God acting in His power on the believers and the Mashiahn
community through the person of the risen Mashiah; the same power acted on
the believers. Throughout the N.T., “holy spirit is holy spirit is holy spirit”. The
holy Spirit is neither a force, nor impersonal force (cf. the term ‘force’ in
physics). It is the very power God acts and pours out to the creation.

Translation of the arthrous phrase ‘to pneuma to hagion’ vs. anarthrous phrase
‘pneuma hagion’ (Lk 1:35, 11:13, etc.) deserves careful attention – most
translates indiscriminately by inserting the definite article where it should not
be and put the words in initial capital letter to bring in alien unbiblical idea of
‘the Holy Spirit’ as a third person of Godhead. This point cannot be emphasized
enough.]

e. g. ‘pneumatos hagious’ ‘en pneumatic hagiō’ – adverbial phrases.

In the arthrous phrase ‘the holy Spirit’, the presence of a definite article
particularizes the word and has nothing to do with whether the entity is a person
or a Person (the latter is a Trinitarian theological jargon).
That is, ‘the holy spirit (here) is not the holy spirit (there) is not the holy spirit
(elsewhere)’. It is the context (local and wider) that determines its precise sense.
Frequent in the Acts, ‘the Spirit’ is a short hand for ‘the holy Spirit’. As a
grammatical agent [/subject] of the sentence it is personified, e.g. ‘the Spirit says
…’ Such *personification is a common literary device. Thus the Spirit of God
stands for the agent of action, that is, none other than God Himself.

a
See elsewhere on the word ‘person’ – how it became a theological jargon, having derived from persona,
which is Latin word for Greek theological and metaphysical terms hypostasis: (‘being’ ‘existence’) and
homoousios (‘of the same being’ with ousia ‘essence, being, substance, etc.)]
 When the Spirit is taken as the third Person of Godhead in the Trinitarian
fashion, it ignores what ‘spirit’ means, and what ‘holy spirit’ means. H.S. as the
giver is confused with h.s. as a gift. A typical example is: ‘Receiving of holy
spirit’ in Jn 20:22 is confused with ‘being immersed in holy spirit’ in Act 1:5,
8; “giving of the [promised gift of] holy spirit’ in Act 2:4. All this is because of
fundamentally faulty grasp of the meaning of ‘spirit’ and ‘holy spirit’, which is
the result of unbiblical Trinitarian formula of three-person Godhead.

An honest approach to the notion of ‘holy spirit’ which affects translation work
requires readers are free of a non-Scriptural idea of its being a person, or one of
the three Persons, as understood by the tri-theistic Trinitarian position. Any hint
of illogicality should not be removed from our thought and speech. That it is not
a person does not mean it is something like impersonal ‘power’ or ‘force’.
Neither its grammatical (neuter) gender should affect how we think on what it
is. There are a few places a pronoun is taken for it. Most have it take a third
person pronoun of masculine gender if it is with God. E.g. KJV - a demonic
unclean spirit is taken as ‘he’ (Mk 1:26), while the Spirit of God is taken as ‘it’
(Jn 1:32)! For the work of IRENT, it is only when it refers to God and the risen
Mashiah is capitalized, as ‘Spirit’, as Spirit of God, Spirit of Yeshua the
Mashiah, etc. In the fixed anarthrous phrase, it is as ‘holy spirit’, not ‘holy
Spirit’, nor ‘Holy Spirit’, other than used perhaps to be printed as a title.

When it is arthrous, it may be simply that which is specified in the context in

the sense of ‘the aforementioned holy spirit’, etc. However, often, it is God
Himself in action with power to be flowing out (‘proceed’, ‘emanate’) – e.g. Lk
12:12 ‘the holy Spirit shall teach you’.

On the other end, it is ‘holy spirit’ without the article when it is on the receiver
(the one resonates with the Spirit) as His gift. E.g. Lk 11:13 holy spirit is a gift
of holy spirit; holy spirit as His gift. To be non-capitalized and without the
article. Cf. ‘the holy Spirit’ when the phrase is the grammatical agent of the
sentence; (cf. ‘good things’ //Mt 7:11 – prob. wisdom and guidance supplied in
response to repeated requests – NET fn). This is correct way, keeping in
harmony with the Scriptural truths, to understand where ‘the holy Spirit’ is seen
in several places as if personified, prominently as *paraklētosa (Anglicized as
Paraclete) in G-Jn and also in such expression ‘blasphemy against the holy
Spirit’ (‘the Holy Ghost’ - KJV Mt 12:31). Here, some takes these as proof texts
to spot what fits into their idea of personhoodb of the holy Spirit – for the Holy
Ghost as a separate, independent, third ‘Person’. We should not mistake such a

a Gk. (‘alongside + to call’) – difficult to translate. A friend who is beside us, with us, and for us. Variously
translated as ‘helper’’ ‘counselor’, ‘comforter’, ‘consoler’, and ‘advocate’. [IRENT – ‘the one that which is
called to ones’ side’] [This word is only in Johannine writings (5 x). Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1Jn 2:1.] [a
kind, compassionate, interceding and helpful friend. Prob. syn. ‘intercessor’ in Rm 8:26, 27, 34. Akin to
mediator.] [as holy spirit = spirit of truth; as Yeshua.]
https://youtu.be/T4qzfEOvlwk The Comforter: Jesus
b
www.hebrew-streams.org/works/spirit/personhood.html
 literary device as a theological device employed by the writers of the Scriptures
themselves which is in fact a convenient device to build up their unscriptural
doctrines of the holy Spirit.

Since Greek word pneuma (spirit) is neuter, in a few places where it has to take
a pronoun, IRENT has it to take third person neuter pronouns of it, its, and
itself. [1Pe 1:11; Jn 14:17; 26] [Cf. the subject (the spirit) is in ellipsis in Jn
1:32. Esp. in Jn 16:13-14, twice there are neuter third person pronoun ‘that one’.
In several places with the subject of verbs in ellipsis, where a literary device of
personification is employed, IRENT takes its antecedent as pneuma (neut.),
instead of paraklētos (masc.).] [Note: the one in position of the advocate
(paraklētos) is Yeshua himself – 1Jn 2:1. Cf. another paraklētos (‘advocate’
‘comforter’ ‘helper’), the holy Spirit itself – Jn 14:26 – is not a person as Yeshua
was.]

The Holy Spirit [‘the Holy Ghost’ in KJV] as the third ‘person’ of the Godhead in
the unbiblical Trinitarian doctrine:

• Nicene Creed (AD 325) (Roman Emperor Constantine I) — a binity of Fater and Son,
• Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381) (the second ecumenical council – Roman
Emperor Theodosius I) — a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The latter expanded on ‘the Holy Spirit’ by adding "the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who
proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
Who spoke through the prophets".

The problem with taking ‘H.S.’ as person – (1) no clear definition of this term is possible;
anyone comes up something useful for their agenda; (2) the H.S. is treated as something
they have to deal with, completely isolated out of the text, having become with its own life
(= spirit); (3) it does not say what it is; ‘he’ does not say who ‘he’ is, having no name on
his own, on its own. That is, a nameless bogus Peron. This all because personhood (x:
personality) is confused with personification, a literary device which sits within the text.
[See on the definition problem of the term ‘person’ in the beginning part of this file.]

Whether it is arthrous or not, KJV renders it as ‘the Holy Ghost’ in 89x with the two
words capitalized. Only four places it has as ‘the Holy Spirit’ in Lk 11:13 (the only
instance in the Gospels) and Eph 1:13; 4:30; 1Th 4:8. There are few old translations
using ‘Ghost’. It is ‘the holy Spirit’ in IRENT rendering.

KJV has ‘ghost’ and in 8 verses it is as in the phrase ‘give up the ghost’ (an idiom for
‘die’):

(1) for the verbal phrase ‘aphiemi to pneuma’ (literally ‘give out the spirit’) Mt
27:50; Mk 15:37, 39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30;
(2) and for the verb ekpsuchō ‘literally ‘give out soul’ Act 5:5, 10, 12:23.
 Cf. optasia – vision (Lk 24:23)
Cf. phantasma in two places - Mt 14:26 //Mk 6:49 /apparition – NWT, ALT, RV,
etc.; /x: spirit – KJV+, /xx: ghost – most, ASV, NKJV; [Idiomatically it is comparable
to ‘ghost’ in English, but connotation is different and is of unbiblical pagan idea of ‘a
dead soul’]

www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html

• Why the Holy Spirit Can't Be a Separate 3rd Person

[See Trinitarian jargon ‘person’, which is a translation word fromLatin, is defined just as
the way they want to use to claim the Trintarian formula. Why not simply call it ‘X’ rather
than ‘Person’ to prove their flimsy foundation?]
• The Holy Spirit is not Another Person but God's Divine Nature
[not ‘= nature’, but power in act inherent to His Being’]
• The Risen Man Jesus is the Holy Spirit
[Yes, God (< the Elohim) is spirit Jn 4:24 /a spirit; /a Sprit - NWT; /Spirit; /spirit; /what
spirit is/; /as spirit;]

the HOLY GHOST (KJV) or the HOLY SPIRIT

what is it? who is it?

what does it do? - all the works of the holy Spirit is the works of the Elohim in
spirt.
filling of the spirit – spirit as gift from the Elohim.

Whatever is the works of h.s. and the gifts of h.s. – these have nothing to with the
so-called personhood of the h.s., a non-biblical pipe dream of Trinitarians.

Is it a separate God from God the Father? and from God the Son? When the Spirit
works, then what is God the Father doing? God the Son? Each on their own
thrones?

When a prayer rose up, is it Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost – in turn or all together
gives their ear? When worshipped, each of acclamation ‘holy, holy, holy’ is heard
by each of the Trinity threesome?

• ‘the Elohim is spirit’ (Jn 4:24); [/x: Spirit – GNB, WNT; / x: ‘God is a
Spirit’ – KJV, ASV, NWT; /x: ~ is a spirite - Bishops;] – not a spirit, nor a
spirit being. Not about the substance or essence of God.]
• Mashiah – “the Last Adam as a life-giving spirit (1Co 15:45);
• angels are called sprits (pneumata) (Heb 1:17);

[The word ‘spirit’ in the holy Spirit is capitalized, as also in ‘the Spirit’ itself, when
the term is used in the sense of ‘the Spirit of the Elohim’. (Cf. it might be capitalized
as ‘Holy Spirit’ if used as a title, but should not make its sense different.) It is simply
to indicate that it is of God, not of non-God. H.S. is is not a thing, nor a concept, nor
a substance; not force; it is not just power, but power in action, a metonymic
expression of God in action in His power.

The holy Spirit is none other than the Spirit of the Elohim – the creative power of
God’s love in act for creation and care. [e.g. ‘in God’s spirit’ Mt 12:28 // ‘in God’s
finger’ Lk 11:20]. The phrase ‘the Spirit’ itself is often used metonymic for the
Elohim Himself; that is, the Elohim Himself in act. The Trinitarian mindset takes it
as a person, the third person = God, and to stay dogmatic, and claims that such
common literary device of anthropomorphism and personification cannot and should
not be applied to their Holy Ghost, when most of the occurrences it cannot be seen
any way to be a person – again, what sort of person, and why to be a person – to be
worshiped and to be prayed to – to sit on the throne of the Holy Ghost next to the
thrones of God the Father and God the Son!]

The Spirit is not a transcendental being of static metaphysical existence– not a thing,
an idea, or a person, a Person, the third Person of ‘Godhead’, or a Being which is
like ‘God’. It is God’s breath, God’s movement, God’s power radiating out and
resonating the creation to His own frequency of divine energy so to speak. The
work of the Spirit is the work of the Elohim in power – for creation and care of
creation (cf. atonement and redemption, salvation, and sanctification are concepts
of a secondary level). For this there is no need to fall back on the traditional non-
biblical and unbiblical Trinitarian doctrine. Elohim – Logos – Spirit in triune
relationality is what the Scripture shows, not Father-Son-Holy Ghost static
hierarchical tri-unity of Father-Son-Holy Ghost. the Elohim is not Father before He
Himself revealed in the Spirit through Yeshua the Mashiah. There were no three
‘persons’ or ‘individual beings’ in the heavenly realm at the creation (Cf. Jn 1:1) as
if each one is on a throne, one in the middle, in the right (for ‘Mr. Son’), and (for
‘Mr. Holy Ghost’) on the left?]

God is the very God who acts and moves with flow and radiating out (cf. there is no
such thing as radiating or flowing IN.) This is the meaning of the expression ‘the
Elohim is spirit’ in Jn 4:24 – not ‘a spirit’ (like a ghost?). Spirit is not a person, nor
substance it is made of. It is not a God who exists with its very transcendent
existence is its raison d'être. The holy Spirit is spirit of the Elohim, not God the Holy
Ghost.]

Capitalization in IRENT: – the unarthrous phrase ‘holy spirit’ ‘the holy Spirit’ ‘the
Spirit’. [See a concordance word study on SPIRIT, HOLY SPIRIT, and GHOST.] As
the Greek noun pneuma is neuter and by itself has nothing to do with ‘being a person
or not’ IRENT has it to take neuter third person pronouns (it, its, itself) consistently
throughout the New Testament. [Note: Many English Bibles do, inconsistently in some
places, have it as He, His, Him, Himself – not on the grammatical and linguistic basis,
but purely on the traditional Trinitarian doctrinal basis. This is in addition to their
practice of having it rendered as the Holy Spirit or (‘the Holy Ghost’), irrespective of
absence of the article in GNT.
 Be not mistaken about grammatically taking neuter pronouns. Such practice should
not suggest that ‘spirit’ is something immaterial similar to Force or Energy. When the
very holy spirit that which proceeds from the Father is from Father Himself. When
God’s action in love works on the creation and puts it on resonance, it is God’s power
itself. The Spirit is not a stative positional notion, but a dynamic active expression of
God Himself in power and in love.

Often we hear people claiming that ‘the Holy Spirit is God’ [sic], citing Act 5:3-4; Ps
139: -8; 1Co 2:10-11, along with 1Co 2:10; Eph 4:30; Rm 8:26-27; 1Co 12:7-11; Jn
14:16, 26; 15:26, by misunderstanding in following Trinitarian mindset.34

Is the holy Spirit God? No, it is the Spirit of God. It is not in the sense of ‘the God
(=the Elohim)’. “the Elohim (= the God) is spirit” (Jn 4:24; not ‘a Spirit’ as in KJV).
• the holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of God; the holy Spirit is not God Himself.
• the holy Spirit is that which stands for God Himself in action (literary
‘personification’). It is that God as the Spirit in His act to reach out toward
the creation.
Cf. the expression ‘God the Holy Spirit’ (or ‘God the Holy Ghost’ in KJV English) as
appearing in a Trinitarian formula misleads by suggesting it is a separate God-being
or a separate ‘Person’ (whichever way the word ‘person’ is defined).

In IRENT the Greek phrase is rendered consistently throughout (uncapitalized): Spirit

is capitalized when the phrase is metonymic of the Elohim Himself. It is uncapitalized
when it is in the generic sense of spirit, power, breath, etc., which is often referred in
the text as something the Elohim gives out as gift to the believers. Such spirit is not
given out by God the Son; it is not something ‘God the Holy Ghost’ coming down
from heaven, etc. Extensive writings on the Holy Spirit (‘Mr. Holy Ghost’ as if a
person) in the Trinitarian articles on the themes such as the nature and the works
actually fail to prove how it is a person (or Person), whatever the meaning of ‘person’
they might want to define. They ignore the common literary (undogmatic or un-
doctrinal) device called ‘metonym’, ‘personification’ and ‘anthropomorphism’.
Something related to God or God’s people does not demand personhood.

(1) ‘holy spirit’ for the Greek anarthrous phrase. (Most English translations render
erroneously as ‘the Holy Spirit’ in wholesale manner.) It is spirit which is of God.
The holy is in the sense of ‘divine’ ‘sacred’ ‘God’s’ ‘belong to God’ ‘from God’;
it is opposite of ‘unclean spirit’ which is of Satan and from Satan. [for *satan, see
WB#1]
(2) ‘the ~~ holy spirit’, in prepositional phrases.
(3) ‘the holy Spirit’ (not rendered as ‘the Holy Spirit’)a, as mostly in nominative
used as a grammatical agent of the sentence. It is God Himself coming in will and
action with power in love.

Holy, Holiness: [See under its heading ‘*holy; *sacred.]

The holy Spirit – what is it?’ ‘who is it?’ –It is Spirit of the God (the Elohim). The
attribute ‘holiness’ belongs to God. It is often expressed simply as ‘the Spirit’, esp. in
Acts, which is about the acts of the holy Spirit in the spread of the Gospel of the

a
‘the holy spirit’ vs. ‘the Holy Spirit’ – the latter is not used in IRENT to avoid association
with Trinitarian notion taking it as the ‘third Person of Godhead’ (? the third God).]
 Mashiah (>the Messiah) for His Kingdom reign. It carries the power and the will and
the love of God Himself who has it radiate out, revealing His name (i.e. Himself) in
power in the action of creation and its care, that is, love-in-action. When this Spirit
reaches the spirit of man to make it resonate, man’s spirit is quickened into life from
God. Man experiences it as the effect of God’s power. On the part of God to proceed
from, it is God Himself in action and it is as a person; on the part of man to receive, it
is the power of God, as a gift = the spirit. If one is hooked on the idea of the Holy
Spirit as a person (third person) of God, they will utterly fail to comprehend all the
occurrences of ‘SPIRIT’ and ‘HOLY SPIRIT’ in the Scripture as to the true meaning
and message – all because, in its basic sense, ‘holy spirit’ is ‘holy spirit’ is ‘holy spirit’,
no matter how and where it occurs. The holy Spirit is only what it is when the context
tells so.

The holy Spirit’ is not a separate ‘person’ as such. With the English word ‘person’ as
normally used is not to be confused when the Trinitarians apply the term
‘person/Person’ to it.

In the linguistic and theological tradition, ‘God’ is a grammatically masculine noun,

taking English masculine gender pronoun (i.e. He, His, Him). Hence it is possible to
use masculine pronouns for HOLY SPIRIT when it is personified and functions as
grammatical agent. However, no definite instance is yet to be found in which it is
necessary and essential. Noted again is that any honest and accurate translation of the
Scripture is not possible if based on theological and doctrinal agenda (to serve
sectarian and denominational needs), not purely from the linguistic and literary
approach.

Personification does not imply or prove personhood [/x: ‘personality’ – psychological

jargon]. ‘God is a person’ itself is personification. God is NOT literally a person, nor
a being. In relating to us, God is as a person – comes to us as a person. He is not an
ontological being (or person) that simply exists. ‘The (ultimate) Being’ as the concept
related to God idea is a Greek philosophy, in which His existence is independent to
any other. He cannot be other than supra-person, and supra-being – the Ultimate
Reality beyond realm of ‘being’ ‘existence’ ‘person’. When we say ‘God is a person’,
it cannot be other than in the syntax of ‘God is a person who ~~’. Yes, when we say
He is a person, it is only that He is as a person who relates to His created beings. That’s
how we the created being can ever approach Him – as a person, (not personal), not an
abstract idea or being or thing. Here we have to deal with logical and literary problem
of what we mean by ‘is’ and what we want to say by ‘is’. Anything can be anything,
it is because of limitation of our linguistic communication. By the same token,
anything should not be anything, otherwise our communication will break down
completely.

*holy spirit vs. ‘the holy Spirit’; vs. the Holy Spirit’; ‘the Holy Ghost’
(KJV)
The absence or presence of the definite article makes significant difference, not that the
definite article implies h.s. being God, but particularize in different nuance depending on
the context.
 In O.T.
New spirit - Ezk 11:19-20; 36:26-29
www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-Old-Testament.html

‘spirit’ – breath, wind, life (force). The word ‘spirit’ is equivalent to ‘breath’
or ‘wind’ in Hebrew. [‘the Breath of God’ ‘the Spirit Wind’ – in E. Hays
(1996), The Gospel of Gabriel] [= that which sweeps over us and takes our
breath away.]

The spirit of God is inseparable from His will, powera, life (force), and love.
God’s will is of what God is; God’s power is of what God is; God’s life force
is of what God is. So is the Spirit – God’s spirit is of what God is. The word
‘holy Spirit’ is that which is holy, divine, that is, it is the Spirit of God. All
these are conceptually inseparable, since these are intrinsic to God Himself
with the Spirit to proceed from God towards the Creation. These are part and
parcel of God’s essence and nature – not a separate being, a separate ‘person’,
whatever they mean the word ‘person’b. The Spirit of the Elohim = the holy
Spirit - God acting in His power on the believers and the Messianic community
through the person of the risen Mashiah; the same power acted on the believers.
Throughout the N.T., “holy spirit is holy spirit is holy spirit” – the Spirit of
God Himself, no more, no less. It is that ‘God as the holy Spirit’ – not another
person, nor impersonal force.

Translation of the arthrous phrase ‘to pneuma to hagion’ vs. anarthrous phrase
‘pneuma hagion’ (Lk 1:35, 11:13, etc.) deserves careful attention – most
translates indiscriminately by inserting the definite article where it should not
be and put the words in initial capital letter to bring in alien unbiblical idea of
‘the Holy Spirit’ as a third person of Godhead. This point cannot be
emphasized enough. [See ‘trinity’ in Appendix of this file.]

e. g. ‘pneumatos hagious’ ‘en pneumatic hagiō’ – adverbial phrases.

In the arthrous phrase ‘the holy Spirit’, the presence of a definite article
particularizes the word and has nothing to do with whether the entity is a person
or a Person (the latter is a Trinitarian theological jargon).
That is, ‘the holy spirit (here) is not the holy spirit (there) is not the holy spirit
(elsewhere)’. It is the context (local and wider) that determines its precise

a
‘power’ – ‘might’ + ‘authority’. Different sense from ‘power’ of a physic term, which is in turn
different from ‘energy’. Cf. Lk 1:35 – ‘holy spirit’ // ‘power of Elohim’]
b
See elsewhere on the word ‘person’ – how it became a theological jargon, having derived from
persona, which is Latin word for Greek theological and metaphysical terms hypostasis: (‘being’
‘existence’) and homoousios (‘of the same being’ with ousia ‘essence, being, substance, etc.)]
sense. Frequent in the Acts, ‘the Spirit’ is a short hand for ‘the Spirit of the
Elohim’ = ‘the holy Spirit’. As a grammatical agent [/subject] of the sentence
it is personified, e.g. ‘the Spirit says …’ Such *personification is a common
literary device as a figure-of-speech. Thus the Spirit of God stands for the agent
of action, that is, none other than God Himself.

When the Spirit is taken as the third Person of Godhead in the Trinitarian
fashion, it ignores what ‘spirit’ means, and what ‘holy spirit’ vs. ‘the holy
Spirit’ means. H.S. as the giver is confused with h.s. as a gift. A typical
example is: ‘Receiving of holy spirit’ in Jn 20:22 is confused with ‘being
immersed in holy spirit’ in Act 1:5, 8; “giving of the [promised gift of] holy
spirit’ in Act 2:4. All this is because of fundamentally faulty grasp of the
meaning of ‘spirit’ and ‘holy spirit’, which is the result of unbiblical Trinitarian
formula of three-person Godhead.

An honest approach to the notion of ‘holy spirit’ which affects translation work
requires readers are free of a non-Scriptural idea of its being a person, or one
of the three Persons, as understood by the tri-theistic Trinitarian position. Any
hint of illogicality should not be removed from our thought and speech. That it
is not a person does not mean it is something like impersonal ‘power’ or
‘force’. Neither its grammatical (neuter) gender should affect how we think on
what it is. There are a few places a pronoun is taken for it. Most have it take a
third person pronoun of masculine gender if it is with God. E.g. KJV - a
demonic unclean spirit is taken as ‘he’ (Mk 1:26), while the Spirit of God is
taken as ‘it’ (Jn 1:32)! For the work of IRENT, it is only when it refers to God
and the risen Mashiah the initial is put in capital letter, as ‘Spirit’, as Spirit of
God, Spirit of Yeshua the Mashiah, etc. In the fixed phrase, it is as ‘holy Spirit’,
not ‘Holy Spirit’, other than used perhaps to be printed as a title.

When it is arthrous as ‘the holy Spirit’, it may be simply ‘holy Spirit’ which is
specified in the context in the sense of ‘the aforementioned holy Spirit’, etc.
However, often, it is God Himself in action with power to be flowing out
(‘proceed’, ‘emanate’) – e.g. Lk 12:12 ‘the holy Spirit shall teach you’.

On the other end, it is ‘holy spirit’ without the article when it is on the receiver
(the one resonates with the Spirit) as His gift. E.g. Lk 11:13 holy spirit is a gift
of holy spirit; holy spirit as His gift. To be non-capitalized and without the
article. Cf. ‘the holy Spirit’ when the phrase is the grammatical agent of the
sentence; (cf. ‘good things’ //Mt 7:11 – prob. wisdom and guidance supplied
in response to repeated requests – NET fn). This is correct way, keeping in
harmony with the Scriptural truths, to understand where ‘the holy Spirit’ is
seen in several places as if personified, prominently as paraklētos in G-Jn
(rendered as ‘the one to be called to one’s side – Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) and
also in such expression ‘blasphemy against the holy Spirit’ (‘the Holy Ghost’
- KJV Mt 12:31). Here, some takes these as proof texts to spot what fits into
their idea of personhood of the holy Spirit, as a separate, independent, third
‘Person’. We should not mistake such a literary device as a theological device
employed by the writers of the Scriptures themselves which is in fact a
convenient device to build up their unscriptural doctrines of the holy Spirit.

Since Greek word pneuma (spirit) is neuter, in a few places where it has to take
a pronoun, IRENT has it to take third person neuter pronouns of it, its, and
itself. [1Pe 1:11; Jn 14:17; 26] [Cf. the subject (the spirit) is in ellipsis in Jn
1:32. Esp. in Jn 16:13-14, twice there are neuter third person pronoun ‘that
one’. In several places with the subject of verbs in ellipsis, where a literary
device of personification is employed, IRENT takes its antecedent as pneuma
(neut.), instead of paraklētos (masc.).]
[For a detailed concordance list, see Appendix on WORD STUDY on SPIRIT
and GHOST.]

The Holy Spirit - Theological issues:

[adopted from TOC in RC Sproul (1992), Essential Truths of the Christian

Faith]:
Comments are placed under each. Some are based on personification. Why does
it have to be with a ‘person’?

• The Deity of ‘the Holy Spirit’

Q 1 – what is ‘deity’? a god, a god-being, or God? Perhaps it is meant

‘divinity of the H.S.?
Q 2 – deity which the H.S. has? deity which belongs to H.S? or ‘deity, that
is, H.S.’?

• The ‘Personality’ of the Holy Spirit

In most religious writings the psychological term personality (cf. ‘personal
styles’) is in misuse where the appropriate term is ‘personhood’ (‘entity as
a person’).
What does constitute ‘being a person’? The word ‘person’ is a theological
jargon which is a translation of Latin, which is in turn a translation of
Greek terms, which has nothing to do with a common English word
‘person’. Understanding the Spirit as a ‘person’ is the mortal chink in the
armor of Trinitarianism, as it is for ‘God’ as a person. God may be a
person, when it’s one of many gods. But the Elohim (the God) the Scripture
revealed is the Ultimate Reality (uncountable noun), not a Being, nor a
Person. Theologians extrapolated anthropomorphism to the reality of God
Himself and, consequently, He is brought down to a human level – makes
easier to describe and state about Him – even to manipulate and peddle in
the name of religion.
• The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit
• The Illumination of the Holy Spirit
• The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
 -- baptism by H.S., with H.S., or the Spirit ‘baptize a person’?

• The Holy Spirit as Comforter

-- inadequate translation of the Greek word. ‘Comforting’ those being hurt or
suffering?
• The Holy Spirit as Sanctifier

Power of the holy Spirit of God in our life: (the expressions can be easily put
the Spirit as personified, esp. with ‘he’ instead of ‘it’, as it is actually of
masculine gender.)

(a) to sanctify; to empower and encourage us in trials and sufferings; to

challenge the evil power. transforms us daily into the likeness of Yeshua the
Mashiah and to witness for Him and to bear fruits for life in Mashiah.
(b) breath life in the Scripture to lead us into all truth. opens our eyes to
understand the mysteries of God.
(c) make possible for us to pray.
(d) bring God’s assurance that we are God’s children and all things work
together for our good;

holy spirit – a gift of God

Gift and Giver;

Treasure and Treasure (the Son)

What is called 'holy Spirit' in the Scripture is spirit of Elohim, spirit from Elohim
to reach the created world. The holy Spirit is the Spirit proceeding from Elohim.
It is the treasure of/by/from Elohim with the Son being the treasurer ("... The
Greek fathers held that the holy spirit is the treasure and the Son is the treasurer
- the Son receives and manifests the Spirit' but he [sic] does not cause its
excrescence as such, since only the Father is the source or origin or cause of both
the Son and the Holy Spirit through ineffably different but united acts. [From
Letham (2004), The Holy Trinity, (p. 206)] – to check ‘God’ ‘Elohim’ ‘the
Elohim’ – ARJ.
Fixed idiomatic phrases: in spirit’ ‘as to spirit’

religious jargon: [notice capitalization and definite article and insertion of ‘Holy’
when quoting the Biblical texts, to introduce personification and deification of the
spirit.]
• ‘filled with the Spirit’
• ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ ‘full of the Holy Spirit’ vs. ‘filled with holy spirit’
(e.g. Lk 1:15); ‘full of holy spirit’ (e.g. Act 11:24); ‘filled with the spirit of the
Elohim’ (e.g. Ex 35:31)
• ‘indwelling of the Holy Spirit’ (how can a person – third person of three-God –
indwell or fill a believer person);
• ‘slain in the Spirit’ [pentecostalist’s penchant]

*spirit; *ghost; apparition

• the Elohim is spirit – Jn 4:24; [/x: God is a spirit – KJV]

• a spirit – Act 23:8
• an apparition – Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49; [-NWT, Cass, DRB; /xx: a ghost –
ASV, NET, most; /x: a spirit – KJV]
• ‘ghost’ – (as a visible disembodied soul of a dead person) – the word
does not appear in the bible.

The word ‘spirit’ (in English) covers also ‘mind’ ‘mental attitude’ ‘thinking’.
Likewise, Gk pneuma, which overlaps its semantic field with what is
translated as ‘soul’. [Cf. 2Tm 1:7 ‘a spirit of shrinking back in fear (deilia
‘cowardice’) and of power and love ~’

*evil spirit; demon-spirit

(unclean spirit, defiling spirit)

*Problem of the expression ‘evil spirit of God’ vs. ‘evil spirit from God’

www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-an-evil-spirit-
of-the-lord/

• Judg 9:23 (God sent an evil spirit btw Abimelech and the men)
• 1Sam 16:14-16 (the Spirit of YHWH departed from Saul, and an evil
spirit from YHWH troubled him) /x: spirit of God – KJV etc.;
• 1Sam 18:10; (the evil spirit from God came upon Saul)
• 1Sam 19:9 (the evil spirit from YHWH was upon Saul)
Cf. 1Kg 22:22 YHWH said ... I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth
of all the prophets of Ahab.

‘evil spirit’ is here man’s spirit in his evilness, not demonic spirits. Not ‘evil
spirit belonging to God’!!]

God let (/x: use; /> allow) ‘evil spirits’ afflict man in disciplining those who
sin and to prevent sin. So, He allows the evil spirits to afflict us. With Job,
God did not tell Satan what to do. He just told Satan what he could not do.
[Cf. Not every affliction and difficulty that we experience is caused by evil
spirits. But some of them might be. That is why we need the Armor of God
and we need to learn to walk in the Spirit. God has given us the spiritual
weapons to not sin and win the righteous battle.]

In N.T.:

• the evil spirit – Act 19:15, 16

• the unclean spirit – Mt 12:43; Mk 1:23; 3:30; 5:2, 8; 9:25; Lk 8:29;
9:42; 11:24;
• a spirit of an unclean demon – Lk 4:33;
• a spirit o infirmity – Lk 13:11;
• the dumb spirit – Mk 9:17

cf. Act 23:8, 9 – "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an
angel spoke to him?" (‘angel’ and ‘spirit’ in appositive use?)
 PART III. Appendix

'*Son of God'

Concept of son and father; sonship.

Father is because of son; son is because of father; not because these words used in the
Bible are males in a human family.

The common Hebrew idiom ‘*son of something/someone’ means ‘one is as someone

(or something) taking on its characters.

*Son of the Elohim

the Son of the Elohim ░░ (ho huios tou theou); /> the Son of God – most

(1) Adam [in the Genesis] as the son of Elohim – Lk 3:38.

(2) As the title for Yeshua (Mt 26:63; Lk 22:70; Jn 1:34; 1Jn 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12, 13, 20; Eph 4:13; Heb
6:6; 2Co 1:19. etc.) [= ‘Son of the Most High’ (Lk 1:32).] [A title for Yeshua from his conception
(Lk 1:32, 35), not from eternity]] [used as self-designation by Yeshua in Jn 11:4]; [‘Elohim’ and ‘Son
of Elohim’ are equal what they are and they do, but not identical as to who they are. Jn 5:18] [Not
to be confused with the unbiblical jargon ‘God the Son’ of the second Person of the so-called
Triune God.]

Cf. Son of (the) Elohim; Son of God; God’s son -- (Mt 4:3; 14:33; Lk 1:35; Mk 15:39; Rm 1:4);

Cf. Mk 1:1 v.l. ‘Son of the Elohim’ huiou {tou} theou’

Cf. Mk 5:7; Lk 8:28 ‘Son of the Elohim the Most High’ huie tou theou tou hupsistou
Cf. the Son of the Blessed One – Mk 14:61;

[Cf. Hebrew idiom of ‘son of someone/something’ taking on characters or in special relation. Cf. in
O.T. usage the expression:

‘my son’ (as to the Elohim) (2Sam 7:14, Psa 2:7),

‘sons of the Elohim’ (Job 2:1)
‘sons of the Elohim’ (Gen 6:2ff) - does not refer to angels – they are ‘spirits’; not flesh (‘human’);
do not marry; do not copulate or breed. www.cogwriter.com/angels-marry-women.htm ]
‘God’s children’ (children of God) (tekna theou ) – Jn 1:12; Phi 2:15; 1Jn 3:2;
‘the children of the Elohim’ – Jn 11:52; Rm 9:8; 1Jn 3:10; 5:2;
‘God’s sons’ (sons of God) (huoi theou) – Mt 5:9; Lk 20:36; Rm 8:14; Gal 3:26;
‘sons of the Most High’ – Lk 6:35
Cf. ‘spiritual sons’;

[In the title ‘the Son of the Elohim’ is a title applied to Yeshua the Mashiah as the Risen and Exalted
Lord for his divine sonship, not for his identity during his life time. Nor it was something for him
before his birth and his baptism. Cf. Rm 1:4a tou horisthentos huiou theou en dunamei kata
pneuma hagiōsunēs ex anastaseōs nekrōn, Iēsou Christou tou kuriou hēmōn]

[‘son’ (an anthropomorphic term) is not in physical or biological sense but denotes a special
 relationship. unrelated to grammatical gender.] [‘son of someone’, a Hebrew idiom – ‘son’ as a relational,
not a biological-social term. Yeshua’s unique relation to the Elohim as the only brought-forth Son, not one of
many sons of God. Not unbiblical ‘God the Son’.]

* Monogenēs; 'only begotten'

A special case of 'sonship' is the notion that 'the Elohim has sent the only-and-one
Son of Him. This is the common denominator to separate Christian religions from
non-Christian religions of various forms and models.

Monogenēs used Jn 3;16, 18; 1Jn 4:9, 18; in this figurative sense rather than literal.a
The common translation 'only begotten' (as in KJV) is misleading as it is usually not
taken in figurative sense. It is found wanting as a translation word on whatever
doctrinal grounds ('God incarnate' 'Virgin Birth' 'God-man', etc.). A better choice is
'only {one/Son} brought-forth (from God)' (See IRENT translation).

← ek gennasthai ek theou (Jn 1:13, et. al.) → analogous to prōtotokos (Rm 8:29;
Col 1:17, etc.) – After BDAG.

Father (the Heavenly Father) and Son are not titles given to certain beings, but
descriptives of their unique relation (cf. human analogy; anthropomorphism). To say
'Father' in the various Trinitarian statements without the agreed-upon definition is not
much worthy of discussions and debates.

Cf. a king, King, the king, the King. Here, the King has a son. The expression 'the son of
the King' reflects "as the king is king, his son is king." (It cannot however be taken → "as
the King is a king, so is his son is a king.") – See elsewhere for <Jn 1.1c interpretation
and translation> in G-Jn Appendix.

In the case of the word 'God' – it is much more complicated [because of with theological
and doctrinal presuppositions and entanglements].

*born; *begotten; generated; 'born again'

• to be born (out female principle) – e.g. Gal 4:4: exapesteilen ho theos ton huion auto
genomenon (> ginomai) ek gunaiko; Cf. Mt 11:11 //Lk 7:28 en gennētois gunaikōn
among those born of women (gennētos – n.)
• to be begotten (of male principle) – archaic English;

• only-begotten – archaic.
• begat (past tense) – archaic. E.g. Mt 1:2ff – ‘brought forth’ – ISR< IRENT; /x: was father
of – ERV, GW; /x: fathered – ISV; /x: became father to – NWT;

a
[In the sense of 'the only child' ← Heb 11:1; Lk 7:12; 9:38; 8:42.]
 • monogenōs ‘only-begotten’ – KJV (archaic); ‘only one who was brought forth’
[ho monogenēs huios ‘the only-begotten son’ (of Elohim) – Jn 1:18; 3:16].
• gennēthē anōthen ‘born afresh, anew, from above’ Jn 3:3; /x: born again – KJV (biblical
jargon). Cf. 1Pe 1:3, 23 anagennēsas /regenerate; /x: regenerate again – KJV;
• Cf. ‘firstborn’

“*AGAIN” cf. '*born again'

The word anōthen does not have a meaning similar to deuteros (second time)
or pallin (again), the latter being the word most commonly translated as
“again”. Jn 3:3, 7, 31; 19:11; Jam 1:17; 3:15, 17. The adverb anothen always
relates to place and is used of past or former time, but never the future time.
Lk 1:3 (having had perfect understanding all things from the very first.); Gal
4:9 palin anōthen

E.g. ek anōthen:
Mt 27:51 and Mk 15:38 the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the
top to the bottom;
Jn 3:31 He that comes from above is above all:
Jn 19:11 except it were given you from above:
Jn 19:23 now the robe was seamless seam, woven from the top throughout.
Act 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning,
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above.
Jam 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above
None of these indicate “again” in any sense.
Word Study on MAN, SOUL, BODY, FLESH, MIND, HEART

[See anthropology – in the file <Walk through the Scripture 3B - Man, Anthropology,
and Religion>]

Ref. John Hick (1994), Death and Eternal Life, Ch. 2 What is Man? pp. 35-54.

Word Study on SPIRIT, GHOST, HOLY SPIRIT;

'ghost' (as in 'the Holy Ghost' in KJV) – archaic for 'spirit' ['Geist' in German].

Concordance on 'SPIRIT'

Examples of anarthrous: ‘spirit’ ‘a spirit’

[One should have a clear grasp about the nouns in English – countable and uncountable – and use
of a noun with no article, with an indefinite or definite article, to avoid such elementary
‘grammatical fallacy’. No word should be translated simply based on what supposedly correct
grammar. Grammar is simply there for descriptive purpose, not proscriptive in everyday language.
The same holds true for translation work; grammar of the source language and the receptor
language is there for descriptive purpose to help understand the syntax and the meaning of the
larger text; it is not there for translators are required to follow – in fact, they follow blindly. (E.g.
as elsewhere mentioned, the practice of translation by NWT of the anarthrous theos in Jn 1:1c as
‘a god’. Analyze they did correctly something of grammatical knowledge, but what they got is not
right in understanding of how the language works.]

• Mt 12:28 – ‘by means of God’s spirit’

• Lk 4:33 – ‘an unclean spirit’ (Cf. Mt 12:43 – ‘the unclean spirit’)
• Lk 24:37, 39 – ‘a spirit’ [i.e. 'something of spirit'] /xx: a ghost – NIV, HCSB; NET, CEB,
GW, NLT (not in KJV!);
• Jn 4:24 “It is as spirit, such is the Elohim’ ‘the Elohim is spirit’ (‘what spirit is, the
Elohim is.’) / [as to His essence] – ALT exp; /spirit – NET, ESV trio, NASB, HCSB,
NIV trio Rhm; /Spirit – NKJV, ALT, ISR, Mft, AUV, MRC, MSG (baloney); /xx: a Spirit
– NWT, KJV+; /xxx: a spirit – Wesley, Noyes; /xx: a Spirit (a spiritual Being) – AMP; /
• 2Co 3:17
Concordance list for the related expressions with ‘the spirit’ in N.T.

[Consult any English dictionary of other general meanings of ‘spirit’, other than
the meanings used in the Scripture.] [When the text is clear which spirit is referred,
the word ‘spirit’ is not capitalized as in the idiomatic phrase such as ‘spirit of God’.
On the other hand, it is capitalized to make it clear to refer to the divine spirit, e.g.
(1) when the word refers to God’s and stands alone, e.g. the Spirit, and (2) in the
arthrous phrase ‘the holy Spirit’.] [Note: anarthrous noun (– uncapitalized) – “the
Elohim is spirit”. (Jn 4:24)]
• the spirit (unclean); Mk 9:20; Act 16:18;
• the spirit ~ in the sons of disobedience Eph 2:2;
• the spirit of the world 1Co 2:12;
• the spirit from the Elohim 1Co 2:12, 14; 3:16;
• the spirit (human faculties (in opposition to ‘flesh’; also in contrast to
‘soul’ and ‘body’); Mt 26:41; Mk 14:38; Lk 8:54; Act 6:10; Rm 8:4, 5, 6,
9, 10, 13; 1Co 2:11; 5:5; 14:2; Gal 5:17; 6:8, 18; Phi 4:23; Col 2:5; 1Th
5:23; 2Ti 4:22; Phm 1:25; 1Pe 3:18 (in the realm of spirit; /x: by the Spirit);
• the spirit (human life principle) Jam 2:26 (rendered as ‘breath of life’ in IRENT);
Rm_7:6; 2Co 3:6;
• in the spirit (human – of Yeshua) (not ‘Spirit’) Jn 11:33 = 13:21;
• the spirit (gift); Jn 3:34; 6:63; 7:39; Act 8:18; Act 18:25; Rm 12:11; 1Co
12:7; 14:12, 14, 15, 16, 32, 37; 2Co 1:22; 5:5; Gal 3:2, 5; Jam 4:5;
• the Spirit [many are grammatical agent; in personification] Mt 4:1; 12:31
(= the holy Spirit v. 32); Mk 1:10, 12; Lk 2:27; 4:1, 14; Jn 1:32, 33; 3:6,
8; Act 2:4; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12, 28; Act_20:22; Act 21:4; Rm 8:16, 23, 26,
27; 15:30; 1Co 2:10, 13; 12:7, 8; 2Co 3:8, 17; Gal 5:22; Eph 4:3; 6:17; 1Th
5:19; Heb 10:29 (of grace); 1Pe 1:2; 1Jn 5:6, 8 (both in a triadic phrase);
Jud 1:19; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 22:17;
• the spirit of truth Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1Jn 4:6 (put in contrast to ‘the
spirit of falsehood’);
• the spirit of the mouth (Yeshua) 2Th 2:8;
• the Spirit of YOUR Father Mt 10:20;
• the Spirit of His Son Gal 4:6;
• the spirit of the Elohim (= ~ of the God – Diagl);
Mt 3:16; (/x: God’s spirit – NWT)
1Jn 4:2 (/x: the inspired expression from God – NWT);
Mt 3:16 (/x: God’s spirit – NWT); Rm 8:11 (the spirit of the One),
1Co 2:11, 14; 3:16; 1Co 6:11; 1Pe 4:14; 1Jn 3:24; 4:2, 3;
• the Spirit of holiness Rm 1:4;
• the spirit of Yeshua the Mashiah (Phi 1:19)
• Mashiah’s spirit 1Pe 1:11;
• God’s spirit Mt 12:28; Rm 8:9, 14; 1Co 7:40; 12:3; Phi 3:3;
• YHWH’s spirit (pneuma kuriou - Lk 4:18); /the Spirit of Adonai – JNT;
/x: the Spirit of the Lord – most; /Jehovah’s spirit – NWT; /
• the Spirit of Adonai (2Co 3:17); /the Spirit of Adonai – JNT; /the Spirit of
[the] Lord – ALT; /x: the Spirit of the Lord – most; /the spirit of Jehovah –
NWT; /
• the Spirit of YHWH (Act 5:9); /the Spirit of the Lord – JNT; /x: the Spirit
of the Lord – most; /the spirit of Jehovah – NWT; /
• the Spirit of Yeshua (Act 16:7 v.l. the Spirit) [i.e. the spirit associated
with Yeshua [Ref. www.questia.com/read/5980992/the-theology-of-the-
gospels by James Moffatt p. 177]
“(a) the divine power possessed by Jesus on earth, and (b) the divine
power which came upon His followers after His resurrection, rendering
their life stable and effective.”
• the spirit of the prophecy Rev 19:10 (x: the Spirit of ~ – JNT; /what
inspires prophesying – NWT)
Expression in phrases:
• Mt 5:3 makarioi ~~ tō peumati
• Lk 4:14 en tē dunamei tou pneumatos (Cf. Lk 4:1 plērēs pneumatos
hagious)
• Mt 27:50 aphiēmi + to pneuma Cf. ekpneō (breathe one’s last; Mk 15:372
39; Lk 23:46)
Some of anarthrous pneuma:
• 2Co 3:18 apo kuriou pneumatos
• 1Jn 4:2 pan pneuma;
• Lk 1:80 krataioō + pneumati
• cf. en pneumati Rev 1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10 /caught up in the power of spirit;
/x: in the Spirit - most; /in [the power of the] spirit - NWT; /
Concordance on 'HOLY SPIRIT' and 'THE HOLY SPIRIT'

Ref. Steve Swartz (1993), "The Holy Spirit: Person and Power. The Greek Article and
Pneuma", Bible Translator Vol. 44, No. 1, 1993; pp. 124–138. →
www.ubs-translations.org/tbt/1993/01/TBT199301.html?num=&x=0&y=0&num1=124

holy spirit (ca. 54x)

[not 'Holy Spirit'. It should not be renders as ‘a holy spirit’ – it is not used as a
countable noun. Cf. 'an evil spirit']
Mt 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31; Mk 1:8; Lk 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25; 3:16; 4:1; Jn 1:33; 7:39;
20:22;
Act 1:2, 5; 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 18, 19; 9:17; 10:38; 11:16, 24; 13:9, 52;
19:2; Rm 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1Co 2:13, 12:3; 2Co 6:6; 1Th 1:5, 6; Tit 3:5; Heb 2:4; 6:4;
1Pe 1:12; 2Pe 1:21; 1Jn 5:7; Jud 1:20;
(Cf. v.l. in Lk 10:21; Rm 15:19)

the holy Spirit (ca. 42x)

[cf. the definite article in English and Gr. particularizes the noun (e.g. 'particular',
'aforementioned', 'known-to-the audiences', etc.) or anaphoric referencing to it]
• the holy Spirit – to hagion pneuma, or to pnemua hagion; Act 1:8, 2:38; 4:31;
9:31; 10:45; 13:4; 16:6; 1Co 6:19; 2Co 13:13; Rm 5:5; 1Co 6:19; 2Co 13:14;
• the Spirit of Holiness – ('the Spirit of the Holy One') to pneuma to hagion; Mt
12:32; 28:19; Mk 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk 2:26; 3:22; 10:21; 12:10, 12; Jn 14:26 (as ho
paraklētos); Act 1:16; 2:33; 4:31; 5:3, 32; 7:51; 9:31; 10:44, 47; 11:15; 13:2, 4; 15:8,
28; 19:6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Heb 3:7; 9:8; 10:15; Eph 4:30 ('the Spirit of
Holiness of the Elohim');
(cf. Eph 1:13 'the promised gift of spirit of Holiness); 1Th 4:8; 2Ti 1:14 (the spirit
of Holiness)

'holy spirit' 'the holy spirit' Total

Power 12 0 12
Baptism in, etc. 12 0 12
Filled with, etc. 14 1 15
Received, given 11 0 11
OT spoke 0 6 6
NT speaking 0 3 3
Personal 0 30 30
-- more or less consistent pattern of usage in arthrous and anarthrous:
anarthrous – as 'gift', arthrous as 'power from Elohim' and also as
particularized 'gift'. (From Steve Swartz)
 Reference Subject Non-subject Total
arthrous 24 19 43
anarthrous 4 45 49
Totals 28 64 92
References to HOLY SPIRIT as non-subject may be arthrous or
anarthrous, with a 2:1 preference for anarthrous. In contrast,
references to the Holy Spirit as subject are nearly always
arthrous. (Stephen Levinsohn)

In the context:

• Mt 12:32; Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10 blasphemes against the holy Spirit, (eis to hagion
pneuma)
Mt 28:19 in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit,
2Co 13:14 The undeserved kindness of the Lord Yeshua Mashiah and the love of
God and the sharing in the holy Spirit

• ‘the holy Spirit’ functions as the grammatical and thematic agent of the action
verb – personification (literary device) vs. personhood (in Trinitarian doctrine):
Mk 13:11 but the holy Spirit is [speaking].
Lk 12:12 the holy Spirit will teach YOU
Jn 14:26 the holy Spirit – Paraclete will teach YOU
Act 20:28 the holy Spirit has appointed YOU overseers,
Act 15:28 For the holy Spirit and we ourselves have favored
Act 13:2; 21:11; 28:25; Heb 3:7 the holy Spirit says …
Heb 9:8 the holy Spirit makes it plain
Act 5:32; 20:23; Heb 10:15 the holy Spirit bears witness
Act 1:16 which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand by David's mouth
Lk 2:26 revealed by the holy Spirit (hupo tou pneumatos tou hagiou)
Act 13:4, 16:6 (sent out; forbidden) by the holy Spirit, (hupo tou hagiou
pneumatos)
Act 9:31 comforted by the holy Spirit (tē paraklēsei tou hagiou pneumatos)

‘the holy Spirit’:

'the holy Spirit' – not 'the holy spirit' which is particularized of 'holy spirit', and not to
be with h capitalized) is 'the spirit of God'; a metonymic for God in the act of His will
– to be taken rather than literary personification.
 One cannot claim that ‘H.S. is called God’ in these verses, whatever these terms are
defined. 'God the Holy Spirit' of the Trinitarians is claimed to be a 'person' [or
'Person' the term is never well defined clearly], and to be 'God, but not counted as 'a
God' – according to the Trinitarian language. But this 'God' has no name and is not an
object of 'worship', whatever the word 'worship' means.

Eph 4:30 grieving the holy Spirit of the God; /x: God's holy spirit – NWT
(unchanged in 2013 Ed.),
Act 5:3 play false to the holy Spirit
Act 7:51 resisting the holy Spirit;

Lk 3:22 and the holy Spirit in bodily shape like a dove came down upon him,
(cf. //Mt 3:16 the spirit of the Elohim; //Mk 1:10 the spirit)

‘holy spirit’:

The unarthrous 'holy spirit' (uncapitalized) as a gift: it is power of the Elohim in act.
It is given as a gift from God. Power, but never in the sense of 'active force' (Mt 1:18
NWT-4 footnote); or 'energy'.

Jn 20:22 "Receive holy spirit.

Act 8:17, 19 receive holy spirit.
Lk 1:35 "holy spirit will come upon you,
Lk 2:25 holy spirit was upon him.
Act 8:15 prayed for them to get holy spirit.
Act 19:2 receive holy spirit … there is a holy spirit."
Heb 2:4 with apportioning (/distributions) of holy spirit according to his will?
1Pe 1:12 declared the good news to YOU with holy spirit sent forth from heaven.

Examples in which it is in the sense of a gift, but comes arthrous, denoting the
particularized or aforementioned, (not 'the Holy Spirit).

Act 2:38 receive the free gift of the [promised] holy spirit.
Act 2:33 received the promised holy spirit from the Father,
Lk 11:13 the Father in heaven gives holy spirit to those asking him!"
Act 1:8 the [promised] holy spirit arrives upon you
Act 10:47 received the [promised] holy spirit
Act 10:45 the free gift of the [promised] holy spirit was being poured out

Act 10:44 the holy Spirit fell upon all those hearing the word.
Jn 14:26 But the helper, the holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name
Act 15:8 and God, giving them the holy Spirit.
Heb 6:4 tasted the heavenly free gift, … become partakers of holy spirit,
1Th 4:8 God, who puts his holy Spirit in YOU.
Act 11:15 the holy Spirit fell upon them
Act 19:6 the holy Spirit came upon them,
The phrase occurs in a prepositional phrase – (x 21 according to BeDuhn – may have
a small error): [Note: Here we cannot assume that the lack of an article in them means
that ‘holy spirit’ is of indefinite sense.]

Mk 12:36 David said in the holy Spirit (en tō pneumati too hagiō)
Lk 10:21 became overjoyed in the holy Spirit (tō pneumati tō hagiō)
Eph 1:13 were sealed with the promised holy spirit,
Rm 5:5 the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy
Spirit,
2Ti 1:14 This fine trust guard through the holy Spirit which is dwelling in us. (dia
pneumatos hagiou)

Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8 baptize with holy spirit (pneumati hagiō)

Lk 3:16; Act 1:5; 11:16; Jn 1:33 baptized in holy spirit. (en pneumati hagiō)
Lk 1:15, 41, 67; Act 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9, 52 (pneumatos hagio + plēsthēsetai)
filled with holy spirit,
Lk 4:1; Act 6:5; (v.l. plērē) 7:55; 11:24 (plērēs pneumatos hagiou) full of holy
spirit,
Mt 1:18, 20 by holy spirit (ek pneumatos hagiou)
Act 1:2 after he had given commandment through holy spirit to the apostles
Act 4:25 and who through holy spirit said by the mouth of our forefather David,
Act 10:38 anointed him with holy spirit and power,

Rm 9:1 my conscience bears witness with me in holy spirit,

Rm 14:17 the kingdom of God d … [means] righteousness and peace and joy with
holy spirit.

Rom 15:16 the offering, acceptable, … being sanctified with holy spirit.
1Co 12:3 speaking by God's spirit nobody can say: "Jesus is Lord!" except by holy
spirit. (en pneumati hagiō)

1Th 1:5 with power and with holy spirit (en pneumati hagiō)
2Co 6:6 by purity, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by holy spirit,
(en pneumati hagiō)
Tit 3:5 making of us new by holy spirit. (pneumatos hagiou)
2Pe 1:21 they were borne along by holy spirit. (hupo pneumatos hagiou)
Jud 1:20 praying in with holy spirit, (en pneumati hagiō)

When the phrase occurs as a genitive case–

1Th 1:6 with joy of holy spirit, (pneumatos hagiou)
Rm 15:13, 19 with power of holy spirit.

Act 9:31 the congregation … walked … in the comfort of the holy Spirit
1Co 6:19 the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy Spirit within
YOU,
2Co 13:14 The undeserved kindness of the Lord Yeshua Mashiah and the love
of God and the sharing of [life in] the holy Spirit
Concordance on 'GHOST' and 'HOLY GHOST'

‘Ghost’ and ‘Holy Ghost’ in the English Bibles.

Whether it is arthrous or not, KJV renders pneuma hagio as ‘the Holy Ghost’ in 89x
capitalized. Only four places it has as ‘the Holy Spirit’ in Lk 11:13 (the only instance in
the Gospels) and

The anarthrous Greek phrases is rendered as ‘the Holy Ghost’ (total 89x), now archaic,
and as ‘the Holy Spirit’ only 4x (Lk_11:13; Eph 1:13; 4:30; 1Th 4:8). [Cf. also Lk
10:21 v.l. KJV ‘in spirit’; others ‘in the H.S’ ‘in the Spirit’; /in holy spirit – NWT]

as ‘Ghost’ 89x.

In 88 places as ‘the Holy Ghost’

In 1 place as ‘the Holy Ghost’; - Mt 12:31
Not a single instance without the definite article.

In 4 places it is ‘spirit’:

Anarthrous Gk. phrase – 1x – Lk 11:13 (the Holy Spirit))

Arthrous Gk. phrase – 3x – Eph 1:13(that holy spirit of promise); Eph 4:30 (the holy
Spirit of God); 1Th 4:8 (his holy Spirit)

The word ghost denotes in English usage something of spirit of a dead man (Cf. Greek
phantasma ‘apparition’ or psuchē ‘soul’.) On the other hand, the Greek word pneuma
always carries it sense to be quite equivalent to the English word spirit, unrelated to
‘ghost’. The word ‘ghost’ still appears in some modern English Bibles.

KJV has ‘ghost’ (not capitalized) and in 8 verses it is as in the phrase ‘give up the ghost’ (an
idiom for ‘die’):

(1) for the verbal phrase ‘aphiemi to pneuma’ (literally ‘give out the spirit’) Mt 27:50; Mk
15:37, 39; Lk 23:46; Jn 19:30;
(2) and for the verb ekpsuchō ‘literally ‘give out soul’ Act 5:5, 10, 12:23.

Cf. optasia – vision (Lk 24:23)

Cf. phantasma in two places - Mt 14:26 //Mk 6:49 /apparition – NWT, ALT, RV, etc.; /x:
spirit – KJV+, /xx: ghost – most, ASV, NKJV; [Idiomatically it is comparable to ‘ghost’ in
English, but connotation is different and is of unbiblical pagan idea of ‘a dead soul’]

[vocabulary – ghost (of dead ones, or a shadow of someone/something), soul, spirit. Cf. in Korean – 혼魂,
영靈, 혼령魂靈, 영혼靈魂, 귀신鬼神, 정신 精神]
‘ghost’ in English Bibles:

KJV has ‘ghost’ in N.T. (98x); Cf. spirit 261x

Mt 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31,32; 27:50; 28:19;

Mk 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; 15:37, 39;
Lk 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25, 26; 3:16, 22; 4:1; 12:10, 12; 23:46;
Jn 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 19:30; 20:22;
Act 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 5, 10, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17,
18, 19; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44, 45,47; 11:15, 16, 24; 12:23; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8,
28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25;
Rm 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16;
1Co 2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2Co 6:6; 13:14;
1Th 1:5, 6; 2Ti 1:14; Tit 3:5; Heb 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1Pe 1:12; 2Pe
1:21; 1Jn 5:7; Jud 1:20;

Cf. NT ‘ghost’ in Bishops (95x); Geneva (100x), DRB (102x); RV (79x)

In other translations:

Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49; 15:37, 39; Lk 23:46; Act 5:5, 10; 12:23; ASV
Mt 27:50; Darby
Mt 14:26; ALT, EBTV, EMTV;
Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49; ESV duo, NASB, TCNT, AMP, NKJV
Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49; Lk 24:37; PNT, GW, CEV;
Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49; Lk 24:37, 39; -JNT, NET, NRSV HCSB, NIV, TNIV, GNB, ISV,
Mft, GSNT,

phantasma apparition

Mt 14:26; /apparition - NWT, Diagl; Wesley, Whiston, Darby, RV, DRB,

YLT; /ghost (or, apparition) – ALT; /fantasma – Vulg; /x: phantom – CLV,
MRC, LITV, MKJV; /x: spirit – KJV+, BBE, WNT, Bishops, Geneva; /xx:
ghost – most, NKJV, ASV; /xx: spectre – Noyes; /
Mk 6:49; -, NWT, Wesley. Darby, RV, DRB; Rhm, Wuest, EBTV, ALT.
Mt 14:26; Mk 6:49; Lk 24:23; - YLT

optasia
Lk 1:22; - /vision – most, YLT; /x: supernatural sight – NWT;
Lk 24:24 /vision – most /x: apparition – YLT, CLV; /x: supernatural sight –
NWT; /omit – NIrV, NLT, Murdock, Etheridge;
horasis,
vision Rev 9:17
horama
sight Mt 17:9; Act 9:10, 12, 17, 19; 11:5, 12:9, 16: 9: 10, 18:9

KJV renders as ‘ghost’ in O.T. (x 11)

Gen 25:8,17; 35:29; 49:33; Job 3:11; 10:18, 20; 13:19; 14:10; Jer 15:9; Lam
1:19;
At a quick glance, these appear in the idiom of ‘giving out spirit’ (= ‘expire’ ‘die)
 Cf. Isa 29:4 –
/ghost - CJB, ESV trio, NIrV, GW, GNB, ERV, NLT, MSG, JPS; /ghostlike – NIV trio;
/voice shall be like that of ghost [produced by a medium] – AMP; /voice shall be like a
medium’s – NKJV; /witche – Bishops; /spirit of diuniation – Geneva; /the python –
DRB; /pythonis - Vulg; /a familiar spirit – KJV, ASV, Rhm; /spirit – most;

the HOLY SPIRIT and paraclētos

*paraklētos [> parakaleō] – in G-John only.

Best to be understood as an agent of action ‘standing by for someone in various

functions’. The context shows who or what the agent is.

(1) Referring to Yeshua Himself who stands by – with Yeshua as the agent: 1Jn
2:1– /Advocate – most; /

(2) Referring to ‘holy spirit to be a gift promised– with the holy Spirit as the agent
[hence capitalized] Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7;
[Variously rendered as ‘helper’ ‘counselor’ ‘encourager’ ‘advocate’ ‘comforter’
‘intercessor’. Cf. /*Paraclete – DRB, Etheridge] [Note: Many translations take it
as a ‘person’ and take masculine pronouns – with figure-of-speech
personification of the holy Spirit or with characterizing the holy Spirit as a
‘Person’ in line with the Trinitarian doctrine. However, the holy Spirit as a
‘Person’ to ‘stand by’ alongside people – invisibly, spiritually, etc. – is a typical
isegesis and difficult to find it in harmony with the Scripture.]

Fruitage and gifts of the Spirit

Gal 5:22 “the fruitage of the Spirit is love, joy, shalom, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, v. 23 gentleness, and self-control – there is no law against such.” [Gk. karpos
- /> fruit – most; /fruitage – NWT;

Spirit as gift: The expression ‘gift of the Spirit’:

‘holy spirit’ to be given (as a gift) Lk 11:13 etc.

‘the spirit’ as metonym for the spirit given as gift’ – 1Co 14:14, 15, 16
‘the holy Spirit’ to be given – Jn 14:26
= the one to stand by (for the disciples) (paraklētos = Spirit of the Truth) Jn 16:13
‘the holy spirit’ Act 1:8; 2:38 = a gift promised,
that is ‘the promised holy spirit’ (Act 2:33).
‘the gift of the [promised] holy spirit’ Act 10:46 [‘the gift’ = ‘the promised holy spirit’]
Especially taking up 1Co Ch. 12 and Ch. 14, enormous attention and attraction have been
on the ‘gift’ in Christendom, esp. among so-called Charismatics, while the fruit of the Spirit
is taken as a passing statement.

Most read it as if gifts from the Spirit is something God doles out [for those who seek and
bent after ‘gifts’]. The gifts listed should be read function and activity – as each one lives
in the world to find what can be taken on – all as the Spirit quickens – whether it is ability
to heal the sick, speak and interpret different languages to proclaim the Gospel message,
or whether one is placed in the Messianic community as an apostle, prophet, teacher, etc.
It’s is not like getting something when asked Genie in Aladdin’s lamp.
The practice of shamanic ‘tongue-speaking’ (gibberish or babbling) which was prevalent
in the pagan culture of the ancient Corinth in the first century and spilt into the congregation
of Mashiah-followers. That against which Paul admonished to give it up all in order for
them edify the whole corporate Body of the Mashiah has attracted millions of people in
these last days, esp. in the culture where native pagan religious setting makes them
susceptible to such influence – South America and Africa, the only areas in the world in
which increase in number of Christians is reported. One of telltale signs to reveal such true
their mind set is divulged by their own lips - that the ability of tongue-speaking (read
‘meaningless gibberish’) is a sure sign of their salvation. whatever the word ‘salvation’
may be meant by them. Most of them takes pride on such practice/ability. That the name
of the very God is YHWH is out of their mind. As they experience emotional release (akin
to other additions, as if reaching nirvana of their own), the mindset would not make it
possible to see the truth that the life’s foremost goal is to honor the very Name. It is not
much different from the Adamic nature of human being set for an endless pursuit of power
and pleasure.

Yes, all the work of the Elohim through Yeshua the Mashiah continues in the holy Spirit
from the beginning of creation to its consummation. Everything fades out every day until
the eschaton (the last days) comes, since all the things of the holy Spirit – the things God
works out His own will – are finding the meaning in. The eschaton is none other than
Yeshua the Mashiah Himself. Aside from being in Himself, with Himself and for Himself,
nothing is better than rubbish (or dung - Phi 3:8).
Concordance Study on theos and elohim (God)

Gk. Concordance Study on ho theos (the God), theos (God, god); theoi (gods); Hebrew.
elohim, el – God;

[Ref. Charles T. Russella (1899-1916), The Atonement Between God and Man, pp. 69-71.
It has a useful collection of data and information relevant to this topic.
www.bibletoday.com/v5/volumefive_S02.htm]

The following Greek words are translated as *Godheadb in KJV [“… this particular English
word to the mind of ordinary English readers comes as a God with several bodies and but one
head.” Cf. a three-headed god image. What does it actually mean by ‘Godhead’ if it means
same as God? A particular God of Christian religions?]
• ho theios Acts 17:29 [theios, ‘divine’] deity; divine being [adj. ‘divine’ – 2Pet
1:3, 4]
• theiotēs – Rm 1:20 divine nature
• theotēs – Col 2:9 (fullness of) that God is (/what God is; /God-being)
QQ
cf. ison tō theō (Jn 5:18) ‘equal to God’ [not ‘same’ ‘identical to’]
cf. eis pan plērōma tou theou (Eph 3:19) ‘fullness from the Elohim’, that is, ‘fullness the
Elohim gives; not fullness of as himself the Elohim.

Related words – [See also for ‘titles for God’]

kurios (Lord, master),
kurie (- vocative; Lord¡, Master¡, sir¡);
despotes (Sovereign – Lk 2:29; Act 4:24; 2Pe 2:1; Jud 4; Rev 6:10)

Related phrase - ‘God the Father’ – does not appear in the Synoptic Gospel; Once in Jn 6:27
(ho pater ho theos ‘the Father, the very Elohim’).

In the Epistles it is in various phrases: Note: It is in the sense of ‘God, being (our) Father’.

1Co 15:24; 2Co 11:31; Col 1:3; Col 2:2; 3:17; Jas 1:27; (God and Father);
Gal 1:3 (God, our Father);
1Co 8:6; ‘eis theos ho patēr’ One God, the Father’

The English phrase ‘God Father’ cannot be used here since it has a different meaning.
Hence with a comma, or ‘God the Father’:

Gal 1:1; theou patros (through God, Father)

a
Pastor C.T. Russell of the Bible Student movement – after his death (1916) Jehovah's Witnesses and
numerous independent Bible Student groups emerged from this. Since 1931 its Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Society became the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses by Joseph Rutherford, its founder, having
different doctrines, theology, and practices. [Cf. Ref. www.biblestudents.com]
b
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1978-4_223.pdf What do we mean by ‘Godhead’? Broyles.
 Eph 4:6; eis theos kai patēr pantōn – one God and Father of all
Eph 5:20; tō theo kai patri – to the God and Father
Eph 6:23; apo theou patros – from God, Father
Phi 2:11; eis doxan theou patros (to glory of God, Father)
1Th 1:1; Jud 1:1; en theō patri (in God, Father)
2Th 1:2; 1Ti 1:2; 2Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; apo theou patros hēmōn ‘from God, Father of us’
1Pe 1:2; kata prognōsin theou patros ‘according to God the Father’s plan (s.
‘*foreknowledge’ elsewhere)
2Pe 1:17; 2Jn 1:3; para theou patros (from God, Father)

Related words:
• ‘divine (~ nature, being, essence, etc.)’ ‘divinity’ ‘deity’
• 하나님, 하느님, 천주(님) – Korean; 神, (かみ kami - Japanese), 上帝; Allah
• 천주(님) – Korean – Catholic language

The significance of such careful translation should not be missed, as IRENT adopts two
different words Elohim and God for the same Greek theos. It is shown to be obvious in the
example of Jn 1:1b-c. Most Bibles translate as ‘God’ on both occurrences. It is traditionally
rendered as ‘and the Word was with God and the Word was God’, KJV etc. a

This particular text has become the very source of the ‘Great Trinitarian Confusion’ as it may
be called – all because when we are not quite clear about how the word is used and don’t
realize the word is not what we think it means, in the source language as well as the receiver
language in translation work. The English word ‘God’, like its Greek word itself, carries
different meaning depending on the context, as like any word in the Scripture. ‘God’ itself is
a title and does not carry idea of identity. Its meaning comes only clear when it is elaborated
by the descriptive phrase. Here is where the arthrous phrase ‘the God’ text as is in the Greek
text comes to our help. It points to the reality, the identity of who God is, and also to what is
meant by ‘God’ – of course, none other than *YHWH Elohim (‘the LORD God’ in KJV as in
Gen 2:4).

Compare it with IRENT rendering ‘and the Logos was with the Elohim, and what God is,
the Logos was’. It does deal with the true sense of text to come refreshingly clear. The Greek
theos at the first occurrence is arthrous and points to the identity, while the anarthrous second
functions as an adjectival noun and is close to the English phrase ‘God-being’ in its nuance.

The word ‘God’, as heard every day, is usually a notion disconnected from the reality of who
He is – regardless whether it is within the religious setting or without, even in frivolous way.
Such is a generic God – the word without a clear specific reference. It includes mythological
gods (of Greek and Roman), gods of many religions (some indigent, some cultic, including
deism,), and gods of post-modern mindset (such as ‘knowledge’ ‘science’) all as a supreme
god which stands in place of and against the God of the Scripture). The Bible tells there are
many gods.bWhether one confesses belief or denies of any belief, every human being believes.

a
– to the great confusion to the general readers as well as the scholars and theologians; the priests
and pastors.
b
many gods – cf. polytheism: it is not ‘polytheism’ to believe there are many gods, but to believe in many
gods. ‘Monotheism’ is a belief in the one supreme God; it is often confused with a belief in the existence of
one god or in the oneness of God. What is called ‘monotheism’ is, then, actually monolatry.
 Everyone has at least one god and, as the fundamental source of all belief, it one’s own Self-
willed Sacred Selfa until it is abandoned to find the Almighty Supreme One, the Truth and the
Reality.

Consequently, even if it is said one believes in God, it is not a complete statement when the
question of which God – who is the God they believe – is not answered.

Even read on the pages of Bibles, ‘God’ as in English Bibles does not stand out in the readers’
mind - not much different than any generic God, while the true name and the reality behind,
YHWH Elohim, is being shoved into another room. ‘God’ as the word is used in different
sense by different people in different orientation (religious, deistic, or metaphysical, even
atheistic). Ironically, this makes so-called ecumenicalism and inter-faith cooperation feasible
since, even though they all use the word ‘God’, they can still not be bothered as they think they
have their own God with themselves. That’s why there is such thing called public prayer in
sociopolitical events and is still permitted, despite some opposition to such ‘freedom of
speech’.

Without knowing clearly what is meant when we say ‘God’ we would be murky as to who is
referred. This would not help to resolve conflicts and controversies in the theological and
doctrinal issues. We need to be honest and open in our minds to take a linguistic and literary
approach to overcome theological-doctrinal agenda.

Concordance Study on ‘the Son of the Elohim’ > ‘the Son of God’; ‘God’s
Son’

‘god’s son’ – Mk 15:39; //Mt 27:54 (from the lips of a centurion)

‘a God’s son’ – Mt 14:33; 27:40, 43; etc.
‘the Son of the Elohim’ (> ‘the Son of God’)

Concordance Study: ‘*in the name of’; ‘into the name of’; ‘*upon the name of’

in (on, into) (the) name of

Cf. eis tō onoma – Mt 28:19; Jn 3:18; Act 8:16; 19:5; 1Co 1:13
Cf. epi tō onomati - Act 2:38; 4:18; 5:40; 15:14 ‘upon the name of’ ‘for the name of’
Cf. en tō onomati - Act 3:6; 4:10; 9:27, 29; 10:48; 16:18; 1Co 5:14; 6:11; Jam 5:14;
Phi 2:10 (with, at the name);
Cf. en onomati - Mt 21:9; 23:39; Mk 11:9; Lk 13:35; 19:38; Jn 12:13; Eph 5:20; Co
3:17; 2Th 3:6; (‘in a name of’)
Cf. tō onomati - Jam 5:10; 1Jn 3:23
Cf. eis onoma - Mt 10:41, 42; 18:5 (‘into a name of’)

Cf. immersed with water and with spirit [Mk 1:8; Cf. born out of water and spirit - Jn
3:15]

a
self-willed sacred self – cf. Gen 3:5 “When you all eat of this …. you all will become as gods”.]
[Phrases:
• ‘heneken tou onomatos’ – Mt 19:29.
• ‘dia to onoma ~’ – Mt 10:22; ‘uper tou onomatos’ – At 9:16; 15:26 - ‘for (a person’s)
name’s sake’ ‘because of the name’ ‘for the name’.
– ‘in behalf of’; ‘on the part of’; ‘by authority of’, ‘in the represented or assumed character
of.; as, it was done in the name of the people; (often used in invocation, swearing, praying,
and the like.).

• In N.T. it is ‘in the name of Yeshua’ that all things are done on the part of the
believers, be it going out, making learners (disciples), baptizing, or teaching. [The
phrase does not mean calling out his name ‘Yeshua’ or reciting the fixed formula ‘in
the name of Yeshua’. It means it is being done ‘in the authority of Yeshua’. Same
holds true for the so-called ‘Trinitarian baptismal formula’ which is a misnomer from
misunderstanding of Mt 28:19 ‘into the name of the Father and the Son and the holy
Spirit’ – which by itself has nothing to do with the unscriptural Trinitarian doctrine.]

in the name of the Lord [Yeshua] –– Act 9:28 (29)* (speak out ~);
in the name of Yeshua the Mashiah –Act 3:6 (I order you ~); 4:10 (this man stands
before you having become healthy ~)
in the name of this very Yeshua– Act 9:27(proclaimed ~);
in the name of the Lord Yeshua –– Act 5:40(speak out~); Col 3:17 (do everything ~)
in the name of Yeshua the Mashiah – 2Th 3:6 (give directives ~)
in the name of the Lord –Jas 5:14 (pour oil ~);
* verse break variation: Act 9:28 (29) παρρησιαζομενος εν τω ονοματι του κυριου
ιησου (most as v. 28 incl. DRB, JSS; it is in v.29 in KJV++, ASV, Darby, Noyes,
Murdock, MKJV, WNT, RSV, CLV, ISR, BBE, AMP, AUV, GSNT, YLT, Ko.)

Cf. Act 4:12

And indeed, in no one else
there is such salvation [to be found]!
Truth is, neither is there any other name under the heaven
that has been given among mortal humans
by which we must get saved.” [/x: can be saved.]

• It is only with Yeshua that the phrase ‘in the name of YHWH’ (>> LORD; /x: God)
appears –
(1) εν ονοματι κυριου Mt 21:9; 23:39; Mk 11:9, 10; Lk 13:35; 19:38; Jn 12:13 ‘the
One coming in the name of YHWH’ – all quoting Psalm;
(2) Jn 5:43 ‘I come in the name of My Father (i.e. YHWH);
(3) Jn 10:25 ‘I do in the name of my Father’.

[No such an expression as ‘done in the name of the Holy Spirit’ is anywhere in the
Scripture.]

εν τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου ~ εγειρε και περιπατει Act 3:6;

ποιω εν τω ονοματι του πατρος μου Jn 10:25
επαρρησιασατο εν τω ονοματι του ιησου Act 9:27;
 παραγγελλω σοι εν [τω] ονοματι ιησου χριστου Act 16:18;
ελαλησαν εν τω ονοματι κυριου Jam 5:10;
αλειψαντες [αυτον] ελαιω εν τω ονοματι του κυριου Jam 5:14;
παραγγελλομεν δε υμιν αδελφοι εν ονοματι του κυριου [ημων] ιησου χριστου 2Th 3:6;
εν τω ονοματι του κυριου [ημων] ιησου [χριστου] συναχθεντων 1Co 5:4;
εδικαιωθητε εν τω ονοματι του κυριου ιησου [χριστου] και εν τω πνευματι του θεου
ημων
1Co 6:11;
ευχαριστουντες ~ εν ονοματι του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου τω θεω και πατρι – Eph
5:20;
ποιητε ~εν ονοματι κυριου ιησου Col 3:17;

‘into the name of’ εις το ονομα; εις ονομα:

– different sense and nuance.

εις ονομα προφητου Mt 10:41, 42;

εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος Mt 28:19
[See under ‘*baptize into the name of’ e.g. Acts 8:16; 19:5.
Cf. ‘baptize in the name of’Act 10:48.]
πεπιστευκεν εις το ονομα του μονογενους υιου του θεου Jn 3:18;

‘upon the name of’ επι τω ονοματι; επι ονομα:

διδασκειν επι τω ονοματι του ιησου Act 4:18, 5:28;

λαλειν επι τω ονοματι του ιησου Act 5:40;

‘through the name of’

dia tou onomatos tou hagiou paidos sou Iēsou Act 4:30;

The phrase in conjunction with pisteuō;

πιστευητε εις το ονομα του υιου του θεου 1Jn 5:13;

πεπιστευκεν εις το ονομα του μονογενους υιου του θεου Jn 3:18;
πιστευσωμεν τω ονοματι του υιου αυτου ιησου χριστου 1Jn 3:23

The phrase ‘in my name’ (/on the basis of my name) in Yeshua’s sayings:

‘(Do) in my name’ Mt 18:5, 20; 24:5; Mk 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17; Lk 9:48; 21:8.
Cf. Jn 14:26 (Father sends Paraclete in my name)
Cf. 1Co 1:15 (Paul - baptize into my name)

The phrase ‘to ask in the name of’ (aiteō en tō onomati) is unique in G-Jn (Jn 14:13, 14;
15:16; 16:23, 24, 26) – ‘in my name’ (en tō onomati mou) as spoken by Yeshua. [See EE on
the phrase ‘pray in the name of Jesus’ here.35
The phrases with ‘name’ associated with baptizō:

epi – [‘upon the basis of the name of’]

βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου Act 2:3836 (Yeshua the
Mashiah)

en – [‘in the name of’– ‘with the authority from’]

βαπτισθηναι εν τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου Act 10:48;

eis – [‘into the name of’ – ‘into the person of (i.e. covenant reality; fellowship with)’]
βεβαπτισμενοι υπηρχον εις το ονομα του [κυριου] ιησου Act 8:16;37 (Lord
Yeshua)
εβαπτισθησαν εις το ονομα του κυριου ιησου Act 19:5; (Lord Yeshua)
εβαπτισθημεν εις χριστον ιησουν Rm 6:3 (Mashiah Yeshua)
εις χριστον εβαπτισθητε χριστον Gal 3:27 (Mashiah)
βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου
Πνεύματος, (Mt 28:19b) 38
εις το ονομα παυλου εβαπτισθητε 1Co 1:13; (Paul)
εις τον Μωσην εβαπτισαντο (εν τη νεφελη και εν τη θαλασση) 1Co 10:2;
(Moses)

The phrase ‘in my name’ in the setting of the so-called *Great Commission
(Mt 28:18-20)

Mt 28:19a [The phrase ‘in my name’ is frequent on the lips of Yeshua; equivalent to ‘in
the name of Yeshua’ outside the Gospels. In his Historia Ecclesiae (ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΗ
ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ ‘Church History’) (prior to 303 CE) Eusebius quotes twice (in Bk 3, Ch. 5.2
and Ch. 16.8) one sentence of Yeshua’s saying “Go ye, and make disciples of all nations
in my name”, which corresponds to Mt 28:19a with this additional phrase appearing at
the end.

His quotation was in the context of Church history as the Church grew with ‘making disciples’.
I don’t see he touched on the Great Commission, or even ‘baptismal practice of the Church as
such.
A quotation does not constitute a text variant or version. It does not offer a proof for ‘more’
authentic texts in which the entire 28:19b (of baptismal phrase) would be ‘originally’ absent.

Mt 28:19b “baptizing them [to bring] into the very name of the Father and the Son and the
holy Spirit”

[See EE here for this v. 19b. in the various ancient sources, Didache and The Diatessaron of
Tatian as well as a family of Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.] 39

Against the manner which is held by the Trinitarian, it should be emphasized that this phrase
itself is NOT a Trinitarian; nor a baptismal formula, something to be pronounced at the
initiation of the rites. Such an erroneous interpretation is no doubt from confusing it with the
 phrase ‘in the name of’, which carries a very different sense, the sense of ‘in the authority of’.
Intentionally or inadvertently, most Bibles have it translated that way. The truth is that, it is an
expression in a triadic phrasea, something which is consequent to having received an immersion-
rite.

Not to be forgotten of the fact that when the Messianic Community is empowered to carry out
every command given by Yeshua, including immersion-rite (e.g. Act 2:38) it is in the very name
of Yeshua – not ‘in God’s name’, nor ‘in the name YHWH’.

In the work of translating the Gospel with this phrase removed may be prerogative belonging to
translators. However, they should be honest enough to show the removed sentence as such
clearly in the footnote, if not within the text. 40

a
Triadic passassages in the N.T. – instead for biblical tri-uity, they are used for proof of the Trinitarian
doctrine. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-107-dr-robert-m-bowman-jr-on-triadic-new-testament-passages-
part-1/ www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-text-triadic.htm
Concordance Study: ‘*to call the name of’ and ‘call upon the name’

[cf. ‘to name (a person)’ ‘to call (a person by the name of a name)’; Cf. ‘title’ ‘name’
‘calling-name’ ‘label’ ‘epithet’ ‘descriptor’.

[To call a name is not to utter the name in some proper pronunciation. It is neither to use
the name as a mantra. It is to praise the name to entrust everything in Him which the
name stands for and identifies.]

The expression ‘to call (out) (a name)’ is very different from ‘to call upon (a name)’. The
two should not be confused. [Cf. /x: ‘call on’ (- make a visit on or drop by in English
usage.) Using, writing, calling, referring to a name is not same as ‘calling upon a name’.
(e.g. 1Chr 16:8) LXX epikaleisthe auton en onomati autou ‘call upon him by his name’]

[the name of Adonai (> YHWH)]

• Act 2:21 ‘call upon the name of Adonai’
• Rm 10:13 ‘call upon the name of Adonai’; [Cf. Rm 9:17 ‘my name be declared’;
Rm 15:9 ‘sing to Your name’]
• Rev 15:4 ‘glorify Your name’
• 1Ch 16:8 ‘Praise YHWH; Call upon His name; Make what He has done known to
the people!” Exomologeisthe to kuriō; Epikaleisthe auton en onomait autou;
Gnōrisate en tois laois to epitēdeumata autou (Cf. ‘praise’ – Heb. yada – /give
thanks to – most; /acclaim /acknowledge – LXX)
• Gen 4:16 “began to call upon the name of YHWH” [Cf. ‘YHWH appears first
time in the Scripture – Gen 2:4 ‘YHWH Elohim made earth and heaven’]

[the name of the Lord Yeshua]

Epikaleomai +dative:
• Act 9:14 ‘call upon your name’
• Act 9:21 ‘call upon this name’
• Act 22:16 ‘call upon the name’
• 1Co 1:2 ‘call upon the name’
• 2Tm 2:22 ‘call upon the name’

Other phrases:
• Heb 2:12 ‘proclaim his name’
• Heb 13:15 ‘acknowledging his name’
• 1Pet 4:14 ‘reproached for the name of’
• Rev 2:13 ‘hold fast to my name’
• Rev 3:5 ‘acknowledge/confess/declare my name’
• Act 9:15 ‘bear my name’
On *Trinity and *Trinitarianism

Music and Theology (www.gci.org/_lib/playvideo.php?program=YI/YI137)

Dr. Jeremy Begbie shares his thoughts on the unique powers of music and how they
enrich our understanding of theology. (8:01 minutes)

[He mentions ‘Trinity’, but the concept is not needed for his writing. E.g. the Holy
Ghost is not needed to follow the Father-Son relation and how we understand it.

Trinity 101:

• Did ‘Jesus’ talk to, pray to, praise, and worship ‘God the Holy Ghost’?
• Did ‘God the Holy Ghost’ talk to, ask, pray to, praise and worship God the
Father?
• Did ‘God the Holy Ghost’ talk, pray to, worship, or praise ‘God the Son’?
• If they are ‘unity’, then they don’t have to do such things?
• Did ‘God the Holy Ghost’ give the gift of holy spirit to the Disciples at
Pentecost? Was it God Father? Or ‘God the Son’ also?
• How do we pray to Father differently to ‘God the Son’, and differently to
Yeshua, and differently to ‘God Holy Ghost’? Or is it same? Pray in the name
of God the Father? Pray in the name of ‘God the Holy Ghost’; or pray in the
name of Yeshua, as Yeshua himself told to so? What is ‘prayer’ anyway?
• How come they did not bother the Holy Ghost is a person at the time of Council
of Nicaea? Not matured enough to be called until Council of Constantinople?
• Where did they get the images/icons of three-faced Trinity; three-headed
Trinity,a in addition to three human figures at the table (painting of ‘Trinity’ by
Rublev)?

"Three does not mean three, one does not mean one, and person does not mean
person." Bishop David Jenkins, an Oxford sermon on the Trinity [Quoted in
O'Collins (1999), The tripersonal God: understanding and interpreting the
Trinity (in Introduction)] www.scribd.com/doc/315857695/The-Tripersonal-
God-Understanding-and-Interpreting-the-Trinity-Gerald-O-Collins-SJ

Implication of Trinity – Is Father worshipped and prayed to? Is Son worshipped and prayed to? Is
the Holy Spirit worshipped and prayed? What is prayed for? What does it mean to worship? Each
of three Persons does different things? Does things different way? How different? At different time?
For different things? How and when do they ‘communicate’? Are there as in the picture of three
‘persons’ in the heavenly realm – each sitting on its own throne (tri-theism) at one table? Or as in
the image of one person with three heads? Or as in the icon of a three-faced head? The three are to

a
http://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/centros/cont/descargas/documento18788.pdf THREE-HEADED
TRINITY OR THREE-FACED TRINITY
be equal – equal of what? Equal size, glory? Equal power? God the Father has power, and God the
Son has power, and God the Holy Ghost has power? What power? Same power? Different power?
Same power tapped by each for one’s own use and purpose?

[See a separate file contained in IRENT Vol. III. Supplement – Collections #3B Trinity issues]

Related words – Nicene Creed, Arianism, Modalism (Sabellianism, Noetianism, Patripassianism),

Docetism, Tritheism, Adoptionism, Partialism, Macedonianism, Trinitarianism, etc.
[http://lifeinchristministries.com/daily-teachings/archives/teachings.php?id=82 Trinitarian
Heresies: Part 1 to 9]

Tertullian, Origen, Arius, Athanasius, St. Augustine

Cf. ‘binitarian (binarian; bitarian)’ vs. ‘dyadic’

[ https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/binitarian-dyadic-triadic-early-christian-
god-talk-and-devotion/ “Binitarian,” “Dyadic,” “Triadic”: Early Christian God-talk and
Devotion]

Cf. the concept of ‘worship’ and ‘devotion’ (at to God-figure).

Cf. Concept of ‘God’, ‘Godhead’, ‘deity’; ‘divine person’.
Cf. Terms – Latin tinitas (Tertullian c. 155 – c. 240 CE) Gk. triados (Theophilus of
Antioch ca 170 CE) – used in the sense of triad or tri-uity, not the concept of ‘trinity’ (as in
the creed at the Council of Contantinople). The word ‘trinity’ in Athanatian Creed in Latin
(298 - 373 CE). “3. … the That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; …ut unum Deum
in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in Unitate veneremur www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html

[Trinitarian incongruous claims in their perplexity and complexity of its creedal

system: Father is God; Son is God; and Holy Ghost (Spirit) is God, but there is only
on God. Jesus is God – fully God and fully Man – fully divine and fully human. The
Logos in Jn 1:1 is God the Son (= Jesus). etc. etc.

They do not define ‘Father’ (– what is and who is), nor ‘Son’ (– what is and who is),
in other than in circular illogicity. Nor they do know what is spirit and what is holy
spirit is. The call them persons, without giving what the term means; they concocted
the pompous sounding Greek metaphical terms – ousia, hypostasis – to Latin persona
(‘actors in drama’). They assert that Jesus is a human being , but not a ‘human
person’, but a ‘divine person’. Thee is one – what they call ‘mystery of Trinity’. How
is ‘trinity’ used – a doctrine or God itself as Trinitarian God?] [Only a few
intentionally misinterpreted Bible verses they fall back in futile attempt to prove Jesus
is God and the God of Yeshua is Himself compound one made of two or three (even
in O.T. as ‘Jewish Trinity’).

[On the ‘I am’ phrase in Greek and in English]

See the separate file Jn 8.58 and ‘I Am’ Problem in IRENT Vol. III Supplements #3 as an
attachment in PDF file.
Johannine collection

[See also 'Appendix + Footnotes on John 1.1' in IRENT Vol. VI – Appendix – N.T.']

Jn 1:1 *Logos vs. *Word

The Greek word logos may be transliterated as ‘Logos’; only one English Bible
(Moffatt’s). Traditionally it is rendered as ‘Word’ (capitalized); however, it is not
adequate to convey clearly its full sense in English. [Cf. rhēma – Danker p. 314 (saying,
statement, pronouncement, declaration – Mt 4:4, etc.; a matter/thing/event – Mt 18:16
etc.)]
It has a notion of God’s self-expression in action (as in creation and revelation). The
Logos is expressed in God’s fiat in the Creation (Gen 1:1ff) a It points to the pre-incarnate
God-being (cf. Jn 1:14 ‘incarnate’; cf. Mt 1:23 ‘Immanuel’). 41 In IRENT translation it is
in Jn 1:1, 1Jn 1:1; 1Jn 5:7b v.l.; Rev 19:13.
As such, Logos is not same as Yeshua (or, Jesus), a human being (‘Son-of-man’). G-John
does not say that the Logos refers to Jesus. On the contrary, Yeshua is the Logos incarnate.

Quotation from http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

[Greek word] Logos names the appeal to reason. Aristotle wished that all communication
could be transacted only through this appeal, but given the weaknesses of humanity, he
laments, we must resort to the use of the other two appeals. The Greek term logos is laden
with many more meanings than simply "reason," and is in fact the term used for "oration."

Part III. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE IN THE HISTORY

OF WESTERN THOUGHT – (A) Language and Logos

“In the earliest times the intimate unity of word and thing was so obvious that the true name was
considered to be part of the bearer of the name, if not indeed to substitute for him. In Greek the
expression for "word", onoma, also means "name", and especially "proper name" — i.e., the
name by which something is called. The word is understood primarily as a name. But a name is
what it is because it is what someone is called and what he answers to. It belongs to its bearer.
The Tightness of the name is confirmed by the fact that someone answers to it. Thus, it seems to
belong to his being.
Greek philosophy more or less began with the insight that a word is only a name — i.e., that it
does not represent true being. … Belief in the word and doubt about it constitute the problem
that the Greek Enlightenment saw in the relationship between the word and thing. Thereby the
word changed from presenting the thing to substituting for it. The name that is given and can be
altered raises doubt about the truth of the word. …” [from Gadamer (1975), Truth and Method,
p. 406]

a
The word ‘Logos’ does not have a sense of ‘message’. Cf. Dave Brunn (2013) wrote in One Bible, Many
Versions p. 83 “The Logos of God is his message to humanity. …’ – an erroneous statement from
misunderstanding and inattention. The word ‘message’ itself has become a fad (owing to Eugene Peterson’s
The Message, his own personal rewriting of the Bible, masquerading as a translation. Even the ‘Gospel’ is
not a message (to be sold); it is Yeshua Himself.
Jn 1:1b (Gk. ‘the God’)

[See discussion on ‘Elohim’, ‘God’, ‘Adonai’ ‘YHWH’ and ‘Lord’ in a separate subheading.]

The first occurrence in Jn 1:1 is arthrous ho theos, that is, ‘the God’ – the very God of the
Scripture. The traditional rendering ‘God’ does not by itself distinguish from God of generic
notion, nor from ‘god’.

Thus, seeing from linguistic point of view, ‘God of the Bible’ which is upheld as God of the
Church or the Christian religions is disconnected from the very God of the Scripture, the Elohim.

By the word ‘God’ alone it conveys ‘what God is’ (i.e., *God-being), but the reality of ‘who God
is’ is failed to show (i.e., the very God who carries His special personal name).

In contrast the Greek phrase ‘the God’ conveys not only ‘what God is’ by the word ‘God’, but
also the definite article ‘the’ points to ‘who God is’. The translation word in IRENT is ‘the
Elohim’ (Hebrew word of ‘God’), not ‘God’ – nor ‘the God’, since the definite article is not used
for ‘God’ in English convention.

Note: God as the English word can be a person, a thing, a concept or image. However, in the
Scripture, the Elohim is not a being (as if a countable noun), neither a person, nor ‘God’. The
Logos of the Elohim is not a person, neither a god (NWT translation), nor Jesus up in the heaven
on the right of God’. The holy Spirit is not a being, neither a person in the heaven on the other
(left?) side of God’, nor power or force. It is that which radiates out from the Elohim (‘proceeds’)
(Cf. Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:13. Act 2:33) [Cf. Spirit of His Son – Gal 4:6; Mashiah’s Spirit Rm 8:8;
Spirit of Yeshua the Mashiah – Phi 1:19; Spirit of your Father – Mt 10:10]
Jn 1:1c ‘and what God is, the Logos was’

In its second occurrence (Jn 1:1c), the same Greek word theos is anarthrous and functions
as adjectival, in the sense of ‘as God’ (not ‘like God’) or ‘God-being’ (not ‘the God’). It
is emphatic, with its place being fronted within the sentence for prominence. [Same for
Rm 9:5 “…. the Mashiah who is above all [the creation] what God is — Blessed words
to Him into the ages” (IRENT).]

As the lack of distinction in most translations between two is very unfortunate. Though it
is clear to everyone that in v. 1b the God (the Elohim) is with whom the Word (Logos)
was face-to-face, once they come to the last clause of v. 3 which is translated as ‘and the
Word was God’ (in most English Bibles), it causes considerable confusion in clearly
understanding and properly interpreting the text – into unnecessary and unfortunate
theological quandary. Most failed to grasp the significance of the presence of the
(definite) article. The word ‘God’ without a definite article is only descriptive, not
referential, nor about the identity/title of the Logos. [‘God’ – of ‘what God is’, ‘God-
being’ (Jn 10:33; Phi 2:6; Gal 4:8, 9); not ‘the God’ – ‘who God is’] 42

[Note: NEB failed when it translates as ‘what God was’ – it is not about a past state but
should be put in gnomic present.] [v. 3 explains how Logos is ‘fully God’.]
[Cf. Jn 5:18 ‘being equal to the Elohim’]
[See Jn 1:18 and v.l.; Jn 20:28; also ‘Immanuel’ Mt 1:23]
[Cf. Col 2:9 ‘in Mashiah all the fullness of God’s being dwells] [cf. God-being]
(Cf. Col 1:19 ‘in the Son all the fullness [of God’s being] to dwell’ -
(Cf. Eph 3:19 ‘you all may be filled with all the fullness from the Elohim’)

• Cf. NET rendering ‘and the Word was fully God’ comes just short by failing to
reflect the Greek word order to keep the phrase its right place within the sentence.
A common adjective ‘divine’ (as in Moffatt’s translation) is simply inadequate and
misleading, since something or someone other than the true God may also be
‘divine’, quite different from ‘having fullness of God’. [See a separate Greek
adjective for theios (2Pet 1:3, 4).

• A notable translation is to read the text as ‘and the Word was a god’. A representative
example is NWT. Its result is that they have two gods, one Almighty God (with the name
‘Jehovah’ they want not to be dropped from constant and diligent use) and another, ‘mighty
god’.43 This is even worse than a unitarianism.

Cf. Jn 20:28 – “my Master and my Elohim” (> my Lord and my Elohim) – See elsewhere on this
verse under *Yeshua.
Jn 1:14 ‘Incarnate Logos’; the *mystery of the Mashiah

Jn 1:14 become flesh [+] ░░ [of true humanity] [as a human person, not just a human
being of flesh and bloom. Not demigod or a ‘god-man’ (Gk – theanthropos).]

[‘Incarnate Logos’ (also 1Jn 4:2-3; Phi 2:7) What became flesh is the Logos, not ‘the
God’ (v.1b).] [Thematically similar to *Immanuel, which is ‘With us is the Elohim’ (Mt
1:23) i.e. the Elohim acts in the person/life of Yeshua in power of (holy) spirit.]

[Yeshua was the Logos Incarnate – the mystery in the whole Scripture – embodiment of
the word (Logos) of the Elohim. Not 'God' in heaven coming down into a god-man or
demigod on earth – which belongs something of reincarnation [god →man → god but
with spirit – body, not soul-body relation].

The expression ‘the Mashiah, the mystery of the Elohim’ (Col 2:2) refers to who He is as
the Logos Incarnate. [Cf. ‘the mystery of the Mashiah’ Eph 3:4; Col 4:3 = things hidden
until revealed which are held by the Mashiah. Cf. ‘this mystery ~ which is the Mashiah
in you’ Col 1:27).]

[A Trinitarian mind-set would claim that ‘the Word’ in vv. 1 & 14 is ‘Jesus’ [sic].]
Jn 1:14ff ‘only brought-forth’ ‘only begotten’

The one-and-only Son [of the Elohim] ░░ (see = 1:18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9; Heb 11:17) [See
Appendix: Jn 1:18 monogenēs theos for full discussion of mss variants and exegesis] {/mss}
{/the only Son}; {/the only one} {/the only God} {/only God}; [Only some from Alexandrian
family of mss read as ‘God’. Church Fathers used mss with ‘Son’.] ░░ /the one-and-only Son;
/the only begotten Son – KJV; [{/mss} from Gnostic corruption. See EE for textual variants:
/xx: the only God – ESV; /xx: the only one, himself God – NET; /x: the only begotten god –
NWT; {/mss} /the one and only Son, who is himself God – NIV;]
https://youtu.be/W_BGX28er9Y

[This thematically significant word appears in only G-Jn among the Gospels, especially
in reference to Yeshua.] [traditionally ‘only-begotten’, a translation predating KJV. Not
only it is archaic, but also such anthropomorphic expression, somewhat misleading when
used in reference to God’s.] [‘begotten’ as from male principle is literally understood to
make the Son (the Logos Incarnate) as a literal [absurdly biological] son of God-being (as
in literal understanding by Muslims) and as a figurative son of a created being (as
entertained by most taking anti-Trinitarian positions).
Revering the name YHWH

"Revering [the name of] YHWH is

the beginning of knowledge:
but fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Pro 1:7)

To revere is to love, to learn and to live with. How does a translator to help the
readers then?

First of all, the name should be translated in the O.T. throughout and reflecting its
accurate pronunciation. Notable are KJV and many in which the name is replaced
with 'the LORD' except in only very limited number of place, in contrast to several
such as ASV, NWT, Jerusalem Bible, etc. a The consequence of such practice of
'shunning' the very name of the Elohim has been not appreciated.

“You shall not take the name of ‫( יהוה‬YHWH) your Elohim

in a manner unworthy44 for it.” (Exo 20:7; //Deu 5:11)

You are to revere YHWH your Elohim,

serve Him to take your oaths by His name. (Deu 6:13)

Revere YHWH your Elohim, serve him, be faithful to him

and only in His name you shall take oaths. (Deu 10:20)

Do not take an oath by my name falsely,

to be profaning the name of your Elohim;
I am YHWH. (Lev 19:12)

The very name deserves to be also in the translated text of the N.T. as well. This is
very important. Unfortunately, however, such practice has been seen often in the
Bibles implicated in unorthodox theological agenda. The more frequent it appears,
the less regard and respect to the very name which should be known to the readers.

a
'Jehovah' (inaccurate pronunciation) and 'the Lord' – most; 'Yahweh' – Jerusalem Bible.
 The praise of YHWH my mouth will speak;
And let all creature bless His holy name
to time indefinite, even forever. (Psa 145:21)

How wonderful it is to come to give thanks to YHWH

And to sing praise to your name, O Elyon!
(Ps 92:1) (Elyon = ‘Most High’)

YHWH who made [earth],

YHWH who formed it to set it firmly
— YHWH being his name —
says this:
“Call out to Me and I will answer you…” (Jer 33:2-3a)

On that day you will say,

"Give thanks to YHWH! Call on His name!
Proclaim His deeds to the nations,
declare His exalted name.
Sing to YHWH, for He has done marvelous things
— let it be known throughout the earth. (Isa 12:4-5)

Problem of ‘*I am’ phrase:

[The phrase ‘I am’ with the verb copula; does not have sense of ‘exist’. The latter can
in the context of time and space with conditional explicit or implicit.]

I am who I am;
I am the one who ~
I am what I am
I am why I am
I am how I am

The translated English phrase ‘I am’, spelt also as ‘I Am’ and ‘I AM’ is erroneously
thought of a God’s name.

Used as a translation word in the English Bible, the English word ‘God’ is not a name but
a label or title and its referent can be men as well. Cf. divine being; God-being; god; God;
the God, etc.
OT: Exo 3:11-15 (3:14)
Ex 3:11
But Moshe said to the Elohim,
“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh
and that I should bring the sons of Yisrael out of Egypt?”
Ex 3-:12
And to this He said,
“Indeed, I shall be there with you.a
This is the sign for you [Moses] that I myself the one who has sent you:
When you have led the people out of Egypt,
yoů all shall [first come here and]
be worshiping the Elohim at this [very] mountain.”
Ex 3:13
Then Moses said to the Elohim,
“Behold, when I come to the sons of Yisrael and say to them,
<the Elohim of yoůr fathers has sent me to yoů,>
and they ask me, <What is His name?>a
what shall I tell to them?”

Exo 3:14
And the Elohim said unto Moshe, b
‘I am who I am’
and he said,
‘Thus shalt thou say unto the sons of Israel,
[the One who] I am sends me unto you.’

Exo 3:15
And the Elohim said moreover unto Moshe,

“Thus shalt thou say unto the sons of Israel,

YHWH, the Elohim of your fathers
— the Elohim of Abraham,
the Elohim of Isaac,
and the Elohim of Yaakob —
hath sent me unto you.”

“This is my name forever,

and this is to be remembered unto all generations.”

a “I shall be there with you. ‫( ־אֶֽהְיֶ֣ה ִּע ָָֹּ֔מְך‬/> I am) (LXX esomai meta sou)
b
Exo 3:14 "I am who I am" ░░ "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH / I will be-there howsoever I will be-there"
"I am" ░░ "EHYEH / I-WILL-BE-THERE" – Everett Fox
YHWH in the Bible translation:

Ref. www.yrm.org/challenges-sacred-name-answered/

[extracted and edited – AJR]

A long tradition of avoiding the revealed Name of the Heavenly Father, YHWH
(Isa 42:8) from Judaism and Christian religions, even in the Bible translations.

1. Doesn't He have many names, not one to use? [Q is from confusion of names,
attributes and titles.]
2. Doesn't He know whom I mean no matter what I choose to call Him?
3. "The pronunciation of the Name has been lost; do we how His Name was
spoken?"
4. “But there are no vowels in the Hebrew, so how can we know how to pronounce
the four letters of YHWH correctly?”
5. “When the Bible speaks of His name, doesn't it just mean His authority, not His
literal name?"
6. "I speak English, not Hebrew, so I use the English God and Lord." "I have had
prayers answered using the words so it must be okay to use those titles."
7. Isn't the use of the name associated with people of religious doctrines different
from orthodox tradition?
YHWH in O.T. translation.
A number of translation has appeared which renders YHWH (the Tetragrammaton) in
O.T. rather accurately as:

Jehovah – ASV (1901), Darby (1890), NWT (1961).

Yahweh – Jerusalem Bible (1966) and New Jerusalem Bible (1985) – Catholic).

History of translation of God’s name in O.T.:

William Tyndale (1530) used the English word ‘Lorde’ (in archaic spelling).

KJV 1611 followed used using LORD (in a misleading typographic scheme of all caps),
but only in a small number of places as ‘IEHOVAH’,a establishing longstanding English
Bible translation till very this day. This is serious distortion which is no longer acceptable
to replace His name with a misleading typographical representation that can easily be
confused with Jesus’ title for His Mashiah Yeshua in their Christian Scriptures.

Most English Bibles render it as ‘LORD’. They cannot be accurate as far as translation of
the Name is concerned. Tyndale translation of the several books of O.T. (published 1530)
has it

It is appropriate to render the Hebrew word Tetragrammaton consistently wherever it

occurs in O.T as it should be, to resist the practice of avoiding and neglecting the name in
translation work in the style of Jewish tradition (also the example of LXX translation of
TaNaKh) – an effort of restoring the sacred name. This should not be confused so-called
Sacred Name Movement.

a
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=139
(facsimile)
YHWH in N.T. translation

The main and sole purpose of keeping the divine name of Elohim the Most High within the
translated text of NT is linguistic and literary. The linguistic and literary approach which
is the fundamental position for the IRENT translation itself, not doctrinal and theological.

The purpose is to remove any confusion on the innocuously simple word ‘Lord’. Its
meaning is not clear; and used in various senses and usage. [Many words have same
problem. A similar concern is what prompted to render Gk. arthrous ho theos (‘the God’)
as ‘the Elohim’, not ‘God’.]

The result is that to the readers of the Bible the very name is revealed and make know with
His name. Most does not know His name and why it matters. Instead they have different
name as the name of their God (i.e. ‘The name of our God is Jesus’). It result is because of
how rightly to translate the very name of God within NT. In turn, it tells us that it should
not be used and uttered frivolously.a

IRENT Jehovah (NWT)

(for ‘LORD’ or ‘Lord’) 221 (237)
YHWH Adonai for ‘LORD’ for ‘Lord’ for ‘God’
G-Mt 7 10 18
G-Mk 6 4 8 (9)
G-Lk 13 23 34 (36)
G-Jn 2 2 4 (5)
Act 0 16 51 (52)
Rm 8 2 15 (19)
1Co 3 5 14 (15)
2Co 3 6 8 (10)
Gal 1
Eph 3 6
Col 5+1*
Heb 10 4 12
Eph 0 3 6
2Tm 1 2 3 (4)
1Th 1 1 4
2Th 0 2 3
Jam 1 5 11 (13)
1Pe 1 2 2 (3)
2Pe 2 1 6
Jude 2 1 3
Rev 12 1 12
LORD – Gk. anarthrous kurios in direct OT quote

a
Treating G‑ d's name with reverence is a way in Judaic life to give respect to G‑ d.
Elokim instead of Elohim for the same reason.
www.jewfaq.org/name.htm#Pronouncing Nothing in the Torah prohibits a person from pronouncing the
Name of God. … However, by the time of the Talmud, it was the custom to use substitute Names for God.
… Although the prohibition on pronunciation applies only to the four-letter Name, Jews customarily do not
pronounce any of God's many Names except in prayer or study.
Lord – same but not from OT quote
GOD – Gk. theos
# of verses (# number of matches)
* Col 3:22 Lord {/mss – the God}
 From BeDuhn a

NWT: There are actually seventy-eight (incorrect listing and counting as those crossed
out or some more – ARJ) passages where a New Testament author rather directly quotes
an Old Testament passage in which YHWH appears in the original Hebrew. [an asterisk
the eight cases where the NWT translators inconsistently chose not to put "Jehovah" into
their translation.] –
Mt 3:3; 4:4, 7, 10; 5:33; 21:9, 42; 22:37, 44; 23:39. (10)
Mk 1:3; 11:9; 12:11, 29 (x2), 30, 36. (7)
Lk 2:23; 3:4; 4:8, 12, 18, 19; 10:27; 13:35; 19:38; 20:37, 42. (11)
Jn 1:23; 6:45; 12:13, 38 b (4)
Act 2:20, 21, 24, 34; 3:22; 4:26; 7:49; 15:17. c (8)
Rm 4:3, 8; 9:28, 29; 10:13; 11:2*, 8*; 34; 14:11; 15:11. (10)
1Co 1:31; 2:16; 3:20; 10:21d, 26. (5)
2Co 10:17. (1)
Gal 1:15*; 3:6 (2)
2Th 1:9*. (1)
Heb 2:13; 7:21; 8:8, 9, 10, 11; 9:20*; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6; 13:6. (12)
Jam 2:23 e (1)
1Pe 2:3*; 3:12 (x2), 15*; 4:14. (5)
Rev 4:8. (1)

In English translation of N.T.

In a few places in NT, the Greek word kurios (‘Lord’) almost demands to be
translated as the Divine Name itself. While no ‘superstitious attitude’ as
claimed as such should prevent to show the Divine Name, but it is in reverence
to Him that His name is to be known and be honored. Thus, use of the Divine
name itself in English N.T. translation deserves a careful consideration. In
reality the Elohim is turned into a nameless Godf in Christian religions, who

a
Ref. Jason BeDuhn (2003), Truth in Translation pp. 168ff Appendix: The Use of ‘Jehovah’ in the NT.
– a copy is in IRENT Vol. III Supplement (Collection #3A).
b
(10). In the NWT translation of Jn 12:38 the second "Jehovah'' is based in an Old Testament quote with
YHWH. The first "Jehovah" of Jn 12:38, however, is based on a "Lord" (kurie - vocative) in the Greek
Old Testament which has no corresponding YHWH in the Hebrew text.
c
(11). Of the two occurrences of "Jehovah" in the NWT version of Act 15:17, the first has no basis in the
original Hebrew of the Old Testament quote
d
.(12). There are two occurrences or "Jehovah" in the NWT's translation of 1Co 10:21. The first "Jehovah"
has no basis in any Old Testament passage. The second is part of the phrase "the table of Jehovah". Such
a phrase does appear in Mal 1:12. Assuming that Paul is making an allusion to that Old Testament passage,
this second "Jehovah" is justified according to the NWT's principle.
e
(13). In Jam 2:23 the first "Jehovah" of the NWT translation is based upon YHWH in the original
Hebrew of the Old Testament quote. The second "Jehovah" is used in place of God saying "my" in both
the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament texts.
f
‘A nameless God’ – (a cosmic God; a God of deism; a generic God). Conceptually ‘the nameless God’
cannot exist, unless it is meant when a speaker say as ‘a nameless God particularized by him’. It is in
league with the idea of ‘God has many names’ [s.v.]. The Bible is read the God (=Elohim) who has one
 goes by a nonspecific title ‘Lord’ or ‘God’ which as appearing in N.T. English
translations often obscures who really is referred to in the Scripture and
psychologically and mentally gets transformed to something like a generic god
or deity, a miracle worker par excellence, as in Deism, New Ageism, or
ecumenical syncretism.

Within the N.T. we have it only as Greek word kurios to refer to the very God
of the Creator. However, this Greek word is non-specific and used in several
different senses and may be rendered as Lord, lord, master, or, owner, and, in
vocative, as ‘sir’, depending on its referent in the context.

In modern English ‘lord’ has a limited usage. The word ‘Lord’ (with initial
letter in upper case) in English bible translations is a title which may be applied
to the God or Yeshua (cf. LORD in all in upper case in O.T. instead of
YHWH).

When the word ‘Lord’ occurs in the New Testament, even in the Gospels, the
readers often get confused and not easy and clear whether God or Yeshua is
referred to. [E.g. Mt 22:43-45].

IRENT resolve this issue, purely on the linguistic and literary basis, not on any
doctrinal or theological ground by rendering it in several different ways when
the Greek word Kurios refers to the very God of the Scripture, YHWH Elohim.

• Kurios as LORD (all in upper case) – one problem with this is that there is no
distinction apparent when read aloud. Another point is the word may have the
referent non-specific as to whether YHWH Elohim or Lord Yeshua.
• Kurios as Adonai (Hebrew word) – it is used especially when it is necessary
to show its referent clearer (e.g. LORD and Lord/lord appearing within a
single, though ‘master’ may be more appropriate than ‘Lord/lord’). Simply the
typographic device of word capitalization itself is not enough.
• Kurios as YHWH – in a very limited number of instancesa it is rendered as
YHWH when the word is used to refer to the name itself rather than a title, and
the sacred name itself is to be revealed and manifest in the appropriate context
and speaker-audience setting. It may be vocalized as ‘Adonai’ as in the
Masoretic tradition Hebrew text of TaNaKh (Hebrew Scripture; Old
Testament). The correct pronunciation is close to Yehuweh (ye-HU-weh).
Many scholars favor ‘Yahweh’. However convincing detailed Scriptural and

revealed name as having many names (from confusion of name with title). This gives a way to an idea of
a replacement by a nameless God – a global, universal, and cosmic God – a man-conceived syncretic God
of religious pluralism, to be offered not only as a compatible God (devoid of any particularity to make
people of religions tolerant to each other), but also as a means to achieve ‘paradise’ or ‘nirvana’ on earth.
It is nothing other than a human-faced comic God.
a
Examples of YHWH within the N.T. translation of IRENT: Importantly in the text of OT
quotations where MT text has it as YHWH.] [The examples where having ‘YHWH’ is
undesirable – e.g. Mk 11:9 ‘Praised be the One who comes in the name of Adonai’, which comes
out of the crowd’s voice.]
 phonetical arguments for their preference are lacking and all quotations from
writings, commentaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias one may come across
are simply a copy of copy of copy of someone’s proposition who had started
at the beginning.

In the practice of rabbinic Judaism in its history, they have refrained from
pronouncing the sacred Name. However, the Rabbinic authority which God has
mandated has NEVER banned the use of the sacred Name. It is not due to some
superstitious attitude to avoid the name, but is to have God’s name and that which
it stands for be kept sacred and honored. [Cf. Exo 20:7 “You shall not take the
name of ‫( יהוה‬YHWH) your Elohim in a manner unworthy for it (/> ‘in vain’ –
KJV).”] [Cf. 1Ti 6:1. “... the name of the Elohim and the teaching be not maligned
(/blasphemed).”] [See *blasphemy]

From www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/1_2_intro.pdf (2001)

… Contemporary thinkers from diverse fields have taught us that language does more than
describe the objective universe around us: Words shape our understanding of reality and
how we relate to the world. The logos creates, as it were, our universe. The Torah considers
names crucial, expressing and perhaps determining the character and destiny of their
bearers. If this is true about persons in space and time, it is true a fortiori about how we
understand God, who has no independent empirical character. Halakhah’s insistence on the
careful use of the divine Name reflects this philosophic awareness. That sanctifying God is
conceived of as ‘qiddush Ha-Shem’ — sanctifying God’s Name — is no coincidence.

For various examples of English translations of N.T. where the God’s name based
on Tetragrammaton appear, see EE here.45]

What we see in their translations may be correct – lexicographically and

theologically on their own. However, such practice is not appropriate for
translation work which should be based on the linguistical and literary approach
with due attention to Sitz im Leben of people in cultural and religious setting - the
intended and applied readers of the Scripture and the translations.

Regarding a zeal to restore sacred name in the Bible translation, here in dealing
with N.T., one thing is clear: it is one thing to put the Divine Name (YHWH or
in its equivalent) where the Name needs to be revealed and manifest, justifiably
and rightly so, as IRENT have done. However, it is an entirely different matter to
put the sacred Name everywhere conceivable (to the translator’s eyes). This
would achieve their goal of making a Bible to serve their doctrinal agenda very
well. By doing that, they are oblivious to the context and the intention of the text
passages and are ignorant of the speaker-audience setting, whether the audience
is intended or implied. Would anyone use one’s father name spelled out and
pronounced everywhere and everyplace he is to be mentioned, instead of ‘father’,
or even ‘dad’? It is a common sense they have missed, having fallen into scholar’s
fallacy. It is not restoration of the sacred Taken off a doctrinal and sectarian veil
covering the eyes, anyone can see the name is not honored. In fact, it is treated in
a manner unworthy for it and impertinent regarding His name.
 In summary, it is imperative for an honest translator to pay due consideration to
have the God’s personal name in the New Testament English translation. The
only rule of our life in the Mashiah is to have the very name of God Himself
honored – that means,
• to respect the name – not ‘to take up in vain, unworthy to this name’, no
frivolous treatment of His name; (See ‘*blasphemy’)
• to revere – ‘revering [the name of] YHWH is the beginning of knowledge’
(Prv 1:7)
• to remember
• to reveal and have it revealed – not to let it buried wherever the name has to
out
• so that the Elohim is shown to be clearly the very God of Scripture, not
having been confused or mixed up with one of many Gods popping out from
human minds of intellectual, metaphysical, or religious bent.

It is not a theoretical opinion but a living principle. God loves us; we love others.
We just do not love others as a consequence. But we are to love others in order to
have His name honored through our life in the Mashiah of YHWH.

The most important of all among other things about a person is the name itself,
which stands for who a person is.

Cf. ‘face’ – notion of ‘face’ in Hebrew and oriental culture. [Check for
Introduction to Fox’s Five Books of Moses on this topic.]

Next to this subject of God’s own name, important is how we can divorce ungodly
use of the most common word ‘God’ itself from what it meant originally before
being adopted as an English word for Elohim (in Hebrew), theos (which is its Greek
translation). Though a typographic convention of using the initial letter in upper
case, it does not help the readers to have a clear word picture, association, and, more
importantly, linkage to the very Elohim, who is revealed in TaNaKh and by Yeshua
the Mashiah. One should check for how and why IRENT renders the arthrous Greek
ho theos (‘the God’) as the Elohim, and also to check for also why, how and where
YHWH is used in IRENT. The primary purpose, an agenda if you will, is to remove
linguistic and literary confusion which beset most of English translations, including
those with sacred Name restoration into N.T.
To have the Divine name placed rightly in the New Testament

It is serious to undertake bringing the very name of the Elohim into the NT translation – a
task quite different from ‘restoring’ His name in the OT translation (e.g. ASV, Jerusalem
Bible, NWT).

It is seen in quite a number of translations (in a variety of spelling and pronunciation of the
Tetragrammaton, in Hebrew script by some). The New World Translation of the Bible by
the Jehovah’s Witnesses is well known for this practice as its prominent feature. Such a
practice does have a merit on its own commended, however, it is marred by other serious
problems of the translation itself. Also their own principle of implementation is not kept
diligently (bordering frivolity) with the result to hamper acceptability and appreciation.

The sole need is to help read the text clearly without confusion and contradiction. His name
is the most important of all pertaining to God and the Bible. It is at the beginning and at
the depth of all the prayers to God (Mt 6:9). Without His name to be known and revealed
there would be no kingdom reign of the Elohim for us; without His reign there would not
be His will done on earth. The very name which represents His character is to be revered,
guarded and kept honored. Failing this is the most serious offence to God himself. No
frivolity should be tolerated; with linguistic and literary scrutiny any doctrinal and
denominational agenda should be exposed.

When His name is hidden away and remain obscured in the NT it does not help to purge
confusion, contradiction, and self-deception, mired in various theological, doctrinal, and
ecclesiastical contentions and objections. It is a distinctive feature of NWT, a translation
by Jehovah’s Witnessesa. However it is found to be difficult to see its merit because of
other associated problems with the translation. [Note: all the things doctrinal and
theological is of human product, hard to tell where the teaching in the Scripture (Word of
God) is alive to the truth.]

IRENT position is simpler – linguistic and literary scrutiny. The English word ‘Lord’ is
one of the most ambiguous, used in different meaning with different senses. The fatal
problem is that it leads to referent confusion, between Elohim the Most High and His only-
begotten Son, Yeshua, the risen Mashiah.

An English Bible translator today must communicate that same meaning to his English
reading audience. What and how did the inspired writers of the Scripture communicated to
their intended readers? An English Bible translator today must communicate that same to
his English reading audience. A Bible is out of a human work and the translation cannot be
by itself the Word of God. [Cf. The issue of biblical inerrancy, biblical authority, and sola

a
Ref. Jason BeDuhn (2003), Truth in Translation pp. 168ff Appendix: The Use of ‘Jehovah’ in the NT.
– a copy is in IRENT Vol. III Supplement (Collection #3A).
Ref. Rolf Furuli (1999), The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the
New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses
[Cf. the expression ‘witness to YHWH’ found in OT refers to Israel as the nation, unrelated with the New
Testament.]
scriptura. It is just for opening our eyes to go back to the (original) Scripture from which
we can hear it.]

Gk. anarthrous kurios as rendered as ‘Master’ ‘lord’ ‘Lord’, ‘Adonai’ or ‘YHWH’ (x:
Jehovah): No one would use or call even one’s own father’s name. Translation of His name
should be only for the purpose of making the name revealed and known. The Sacred Name
should not be casually thrown in; cannot be treated in frivolous way. The first thing in
whatever we do is to keep His name honored and be sanctified. If we come short of it,
nothing else matters much. [Mt 6:9]

Group One: within the Greek text for direct OT quotation –it is straightforward, accurate
and unambiguous, except (in 2 places) where it comes of the mouth of the crowd,
unthinkable to hear the sacred name – as well attested by the tradition of Judaism.

Group Two: (1) the context is tied to O.T. setting for the anarthrous kurios, often in
genitive: E.g. aggelos kurio – IRENT renders it ‘angels of Adonai’, not as ‘angel of
YHWH’, or ‘angel of the Lord’.
(2) Hebrew fixed phrase for the Most High esp. in Revelation – ‘YWHW El Shaddai’ ( >
Lord Got the Almighty).

Group Three: the referent in the text is ambiguous as to the Elohim vs. Mashiah. However,
these examples are rather small in number. Here NWT tends to render it as ‘Jehovah’.

[Table data – edited from www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/about.htm

OT Hebrew text == Adonai YHWH

OT KJV = Lord GOD

NT Greek text = Kurios
NT KJV = Lord
IRENT = Adonai YHWH

Old Testament Verse New Testament Quote

Isa 10:23 (Rom 9:28)

Isa 25:8 (Rev 7:17)
Isa 61:1 (Lk 4:18)

OT Hebrew text == YHWH

OT KJV == LORD
NT Greek text == Kurios
NT KJV = Lord
IRENT = YHWH

Old Testament Verse (New Testament Quote)

 Gen 15:6 (Rm 4:3; Gal 3:6; Jam 2:23)
Exo 24:8 (Heb 9:20)
Num 16:5 (2Tm 2:19)
Deu 6:4 (Mk 12:29)
Deu 6:5 (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:27)
Deu 6:13 (Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8)
Deu 6:16 (Mt 4:7; Lk 4:12)
Deu 8:3 (Mt 4:4; Lk 4:4)
Deu 18:15 (Acts 3:22)
Deu 32:35, 36 (Rm 12:19; Heb 10:30)
1Kg 19:10 (Rm 11:3)
Psa 2:2 (Acts 4:26)
Psa 16:8 (Acts 2:25)
Psa 24:1 (1Co 10:26)
Psa 34:15,16 (1Pe 3:12)
Psa 94:11 (1Co 3:20)
Psa 110:1 (Mt 22:44; Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42; Acts 2:34)
Psa 110:4 (Heb 7:21)
Psa 117:1 (Rm 15:11)
Psa 118:6 (Heb 13:6)
Psa 118:23 (Mt 21:42; Mark 12:11)
Psa 118:26 (Mt 23:39; Lk 13:35)@
@ Mt 21:9; Mk 11:9; 19:38; Jn 12:13 ‘Rendered Adonai as it was from the
crowd’s shouting, rather than direct quotation.

Pro 3:11, 12 (Heb 12:5, 6)

Pro 3:33, 34 (Jam 4:6; 1Pe 5:5)
Isa 1:9 (Rm 9:29)
Isa 8:13 (1Pe 3:15)
Isa 8:18 (Heb 2:13)
Isa 28:11-13 (1Co 14:21)
Isa 29:10 (Rm 11:8)
Isa 40:3 (Mt 3:3; Lk 3:4; Jn 1:23)
Isa 40:5 (Lk 3:6)
Isa 40:13 (Rm 11:34)
Isa 40:13, 14 (1Co 2:16)
Isa 41:4, 8 (Jam 2:23)
Isa 52:11 (2Co 6:17)
Isa 53:1 (Jn 12:38; Rm 10:16)
Isa 54:13 (Jn 6:45)
Isa 61:1 (Lk 4:18)
Isa 61:2 (Lk 4:19)
Jer 9:23,24 (1Co 1:31)
Jer 31:31-34 (Heb 8:8-12)
Jer 31:33 (Heb 10:16)
Eze 36:20 (Rm 2:24)
Joel 2:31 (Act 2:20)
Joel 2:32 (Act 2:21; Rm 10:13)
Amos 9:12 (Act 15:17)

[End of the File]

1
Human being vs. human person – person vs. being; Person vs. person:
 Ref. Adrian Thatcher, Truly a Person, Truly God (Ch. 7 Person, nature and Man, p. 80.)
“ … the most contentious element of incarnational doctrine, viz. that Christ, the divine
Person, had a human nature but lacked, or was not, a human person. Rather he became
‘man’, but the subject of his human nature, like that of his divine nature, was the divine
Person of the Son. God the Son is a metaphysical Person whose divine nature becomes
perfectly united to a human nature. There is one Person not two, and there are two
natures, not one. In what sense, then, is a Jesus a human person? …”
2
“Non-human person”? An article in www.reuters.com Captive orangutan has human right to freedom,
Argentine court rules

3
Eerdmans Bible Dictionary p. 747

Significance of Name: Because of the vitality ascribed to words, a name signifies

first and foremost existence. Everything and everyone has a name (Eccl 6:10), and
the very naming brings them into being (Isa 40:26; cf. Gen 2:19). The name
represents the person (Num 1:2; cf. Act 1:15, KN; RSV "persons") and the
personality (e .g., Nabal, "fool"; 1Sam 25:25). Because a name is a social reality,
kept by memory and through posterity (cf. Psa 72:17), to cut off a person's name
means not only death but the very obliteration of one's existence (e.g., 1Sam
24:21 [MT 22]; Psa 9:5 [MT 6]; 109:13).

The name conveys the authority of the person even when absent. To speak or act
in another's name is to participate in that person's authority (1Sam 17:45; 25:9; Act
4:7). The principle is that of prophecy and revelation (Exo 3:13-14; Deu 18:19; Jn
5:43) . God's name reveals his character and salvation in which people may take
refuge (Psa 20:1 [MT 2]; cf. Isa 25:1; 56:6); to treat God's name as empty is to
despise his person (Exo 20:7). Similarly, to act in the name of Christ is to
participate in his authority (Act 3:6; 1Co 5:4; 2The 3:6; Jas 5:14) as well as to
share in his contempt (Lk 21:12-19; Act 5:41). Elsewhere the name of Christ
stands for the whole of his salvation (4:7; 1Co 6:11).

To bestow a name is an act of authority, denoting possession, responsibility, and

protection for some person or object (2Sam 12:28; Psa 49:11; Isa 4:1). The naming of
creation is thus an exercise of dominion, part of the "image of God" (Gen 2:19-20; cf. 1:28).
Changes of name confer new status, either greater or lesser (32:28; 2Kg 24:17). Similarly,
baptism into (Gk. eis) Christ's name signifies a new status, from death into life (Rm 6:2ff.),
and a new Lord (1Co 1:2). Believers are not given a new name, but bear Christ's name
(Act 11:26; 1Pe 4:16; Rev 14:1); their names are known by God (13:8).

4
www.philosophy-index.com/nietzsche/god-is-dead/

Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher, has his famous declaration ‘Gott ist tot" (God
is dead) several times throughout his works.

The meaning of the phrase is often misunderstood — many have interpreted that
Nietzsche believed in a literal death or end of God. Instead, the line points to the western
world’s reliance on religion as a moral compass and source of meaning. As he explains in
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Section 125, The Madman):
 “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort
ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all
that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe
this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of
atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this
deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear
worthy of it?”

Nietzsche’s works express a fear that the decline of religion, the rise of atheism, and the
absence of a higher moral authority would plunge the world into chaos. The western world
had depended on the rule of God for thousands of years — it gave order to society and
meaning to life. Without it, Nietzsche writes, society will move into an age of nihilism.
Although Nietzsche may have been considered a nihilist by definition, he was critical of
it and warned that accepting nihilism would be dangerous.

Nietzsche’s statement prompted several replies from his more religious opponents, and
from later existentialists. Albert Camus, for example, considered the human need for
higher order absurd. He argued that the “death” of God was inconsequential—that
humanity had no need of a higher authority or the threat of divine wrath to live a good
and moral life. Some other philosophers were less prepared to part with the concept of
higher authority and instead tried to imagine an absolute morality that didn’t depend on a
supreme being.
The following are a list of occurrences of the "god is dead" statement in Nietzsche's work:
• (1882) Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (‘Cheerful Science’) in Sections 108, 125 and
343. Ideas such as the "eternal recurrence of the same", the parable on the
"death of God", and the "prophecy" the "prophecy" of the Übermensch, were
first introduced in this work.
• (1883) Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen (‘Thus Spoke
Zarathustra: A Book for All and None’) in Prologue and XXV.

Of course, we can say their God is not Elohim the Most High. It is not much different
than any pagan god.

5
From Anton LaVey (1969), Satanic Bible
www.thesatanicbiblefree.com/files/Download/The%20Satanic%20Bible%20Ebook.pdf

Book II. The Book of Lucifer,

(p. 40)
It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept of
"God", as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist
simply accepts the definition which suits him best. Man has always created his gods,
rather than his gods creating him. God is, to some, benign - to others, terrifying. To the
Satanist "God" - by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all - is seen as the
balancing factor in nature, and not as being concerned with suffering. This powerful
force which permeates and balances the universe is far too impersonal to care about
the happiness or misery of flesh-and-blood creatures on this ball of dirt upon which we
live.

6
3:13 <verse> ░░ Cf. parallel expression in
 Jdg 13:17 Manoah said to YHWH’s angel, "Tell us your name, so we can honor you when
your announcement comes true."39
Jdg 13:18 YHWH’s angel said to him, "You should not ask me my name, because you
cannot comprehend it.

7
3:14 Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh ░░ ‫ אֶֽהְ יֶ֖ה אֲ ֶ֣שר אֶֽהְ יֶ֑ה‬/‘I am the One who is [here and now with
you]!’ – ARJ; /Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I m (/will be) what I am (/will be)] – CJB; /‘I am who I am
[here and now with you]!’;- ARJ; /I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be – NWT; /I AM
THAT I AM – KJV’ ASV; /I AM WHO I AM – ESV trio, HCSB, NASB, NKJV, NIV trio; /I
AM that I AM – NET; /I am that I am – Bishops; /I am who I am – GNB; /I Am That I Am –
Geneva; /I am that which I am – ISR; /x: I am the eternal God – CEV; /
[See BW ‘*I am’]

Exo 3:14

Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh

LXX: egō eimi ho ōn (I, I am the one Being)

hayah 1961 asher 834 hayah 1961~~ hayah 1961

I AM WHO I AM ~~~ I AM -- ESV, ERV, ISV,

I AM WHO AM ~~ HE WHO IS - DRB
I AM WHAT I AM ~~ I AM
I AM THAT I AM ~~~ I AM - KJV, ASV, JPS, JUB, LITV, MKJV
I AM that I Am ~~ I Am - NET
I am that I am -~~ I am - Bishops, Geneva, LEB
I am who I am ~~ I AM - GNB
I Am Who I Am ~~ I AM - GNB, GW
I am that which I am ~~ I am - ISR
I AM THAT WHICH I AM ~~ I AM - YLT
わたしは、<有って有る者> ~~ <わたしは有る> というかたが - JSS
나는 스스로 있는 자니라 ~~ 스스로 있는 자 – KRV
I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE ~ I SHALL PROVE TO BE -
NWT3
I will Become What I Choose to Become ~~ I Will Become - NWT4

NET tn The verb form used here is ‫'( אהְיה‬ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common
singular, of the verb ‫( ָֹהי ָֹה‬haya, "to be"). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So
when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, "I am." When his
people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same
verb, they say "he is."

Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, "I will be who I will be," because the
verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the
future. They argue that "I am" would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a
translation of "I will be" does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The
idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present
("I am") he will always be present, even in the future, and so "I am" would embrace that as
well (see also Rth_2:13; Psa_50:21; Hos_1:9). The Greek translation of the OT used a
participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful "I am"
with this [what] significance (e.g., Joh_8:58). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly
 independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf.
Isa_41:4; Isa_42:6; Isa_42:8; Isa_43:10-11; Isa_44:6; Isa_45:5-7).

Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of "I will cause to be," but nowhere in the Bible
does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel.

A good summary of the views can be found in

GH Parke-Taylor (1979), Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible.
www.scribd.com/doc/9629729/Yahweh
See among the many articles:
B Beitzel, " Exo_3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical
Paronomasia," TJ 1 (1980): 5-20;
CD Isbell, "The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite
Tradition," HAR 2 (1978): 101-18;
JG Janzen, "What's in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical
Context," Int 33 (1979): 227-39;
JR Lundbom, "God's Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate," HTR
71 (1978): 193-201;
AR Millard, "Yw and Yhw Names," VT 30 (1980): 208-12; and
R Youngblood, "A New Occurrence of the Divine Name 'I AM,' " JETS 15
(1972): 144-52.
www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57625-ehyeh-asher-ehyeh/

Following the analysis by William F. Albright, the use of the 1 st person qal-causative-indicative
verbal form of Hebrew hwy as ’ehye [Exodus 3:14 = egō eimi in John 8:58, where “I am” in the
KJV is discussed in a footnote: “The term I AM used here in the Greek is identical with the
Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah. (Cp. Also John 4:26.)”[1]], the actual
meaning is “I-Cause-to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-I-who-Create” (Exodus 3:14), i.e., a divine
epithet rather than name. Jesus’ use of that very term, undoubtedly in Hebrew, was considered
blasphemy by Jews there in the temple precincts in John 8:58-59. WF Albright, Yahweh and the
Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London, 1968), 147-149, nn.
44-52; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (1957), 15-16.

The current LDS “Bible Dictionary” provides the meaning for Jehovah as “Unchangeable One;
the Eternal I AM” (Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 ǁ2 Nephi 22:2; Isaiah 26:4),[2] even
though Jehovah is the modern, inaccurate Germanic-English form of the Hebrew
Tetragrammaton YHWH, presumably pronounced Yahwe, and meaning “He-(Who)-Causes-
to-Come-Into-Existence; It-Is-He-Who-Creates” (Exodus 6:3), the 3rd masculine singular form
of the epithet in Exodus 3:14 (cf. the jussive Yahu),[3] Hebrew YHWH (with conventional
vowels of ‘Adonai “My-Lords”), was, according to F. M. Cross, originally descriptive of "’El
as patron deity of the Midianite League in the south." YHWH first appears in 14th & 13th
century B.C. lists of Edomite toponyms in Egyptian as yhw3, to be read as ya-h-wi, or the
like.[4] Cf. YHWH in the 9th cent. B.C. Mesha Stele, line 18, in Moabite. It also appears in the
8th cent. B.C. Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions as “Yahweh and his Asherah”;
translated as either Greek IAW, or LXX Greek Κύριος.
 Exo 3:14 "I'm who I'm" > not "I am who I am"

H595 anoki – Exo 3:12 /I, I -ARJ; /I myself – Fox; /It is I who – NIV; (have sent
you)
Isa 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore, in that day, behold, I, I am
the one who speak [to them].

H589 ani ‫˒ ֲאנִּי‬ănı̂ y, contr. from 595; (1) I, I (2) as for me, I ~ (3) myself,
Isa 48:12; Gen 6:17 -- /And, behold, I, I bring; /As for me, here I am about to bring
– Fox; /I, even I – KJV; /NASB]

‫( ֲאנִׁי‬ʾǎnî): p. (personal 1cs.); ≡ Str 589; TWOT 129—1. LN 92.1–92.3 (subjective)

I, (obj.) me, i.e., a discourse reference to the speaker (Ge 6:17), note: in some
contexts, a grammatical singular “I” should be plural “we” (Jdg 1:3); 2. LN 85.1–
85.31 I am here, i.e., an affirmation that one is present (1Ki 18:8); 3. LN 69.1 Yes,
i.e., a marker of affirmation (Jdg 13:11)

8
3:14 I'm [who I'm] ░░ (Heb. ehyeh) (The word is a part of the Name YHWH.)

QQ /the Being}; /Ehyeh [I am or I will be] – CJB; /xxx: I AM – most; /I am – ISR; /

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am#Intertestamental_Judaism

9
E.g. on pronunciation of YHWH
(Rabbi Arthur Waskow https://theshalomcenter.org/content/why-yahyhwh )

“The name of God that in transliteration comes out YHWH (Yod-

Hei-Waw-Hei)

1) is in my view unpronounceable not because it is are forbidden

to pronounce it — that understanding is a way of avoiding the
deeper truth — but because if one tries to do so, pronouncing
these four letters (semi-vowels, semi-consonants; linguists call
them aspirate consonants) WITHOUT any vowels, one simply
breathes. … The real Name is BEYOND pronunciation, unless
you consider breathing pronunciation.
As the Siddur (prayer-book) says, "Nishmat kol chai tivarech et
SHIMCHA." ("The breathing of all life praises your Name.") For the
Breathing of all life IS Your Name.
2) The notion of YHWH as "the Breath of Life" accords with a deep
sense of God as intimate and transcendent at once. If we have no
breath in us, we die. If there is no breath beyond us, we die.

3) Moreover, it makes profound sense for at least one of the real

Names of the real God to be not a Hebrew word, nor a word … in
any single language but in all of them, or in some form of
expression that both underlies and transcends language: just
breathing, which all humans of all peoples do.

4) Still more, Breathing encompasses not only all humans but all
life-forms. What the trees breathe out is what we breathe in; what
we breathe out is what the trees breathe in. So YHWH as a
breathing sound evokes "kol ha'neshama," all breathing beings,
and "nefesh chaya," all those in which is the life-breath.
It includes not only specific life-forms but the interwoven life-
process, in which all earth - even aspects that we often think of
as not alive, like rocks and the ozone layer - take part in a
planetary breathing.
And one metaphor for the universe itself, since the Big Bang, is
that it is experiencing a great out-breath, in which all the galaxies
are continuing to expand into and shape the space-time that is
the Universal Breath.
5) So we could just pause at "YHWH" and breathe. Or we could,
as has been the Jewish convention, substitute some word. That
word has traditionally been "Adonai," meaning Lord, which in
Christian tradition became Kyrie, Dominus, Lord.
But this substitute takes us away from the experience of God as
Breath of Life, and — in the thoughts and feelings of many people
in our generation —names God in an untruthful way. For powers
that once were beyond all human ken, such as destroying all life
on earth or creating new and literally "inconceivable" species like
the spider-goat created by mixing DNA, are now in human hands.
For many, therefore, God no longer seems a totally transcendent
Lord, King, Judge — but the interwovenness of all, for which the
Breath is a somewhat more accurate metaphor.
6) For all these reasons, it is attractive to many people to use
"YAH" as a different substitute for this unpronounceable Name,
instead of using "Adonai," "Lord," the conventional substitute.
"Yah," if pronounced with a strong out-breath, gives the feel of
the Breath of Life.
This practice simply uses the same Divine Name as is used in
many of the Psalms, as in "HalleluYAH," "Let us praise YAH, the
Breath of Life." It is itself one of the traditional Names.
7) In brachot. blessings, this then comes out: "Baruch attah Yah,
elohenu . . . " or, using the feminine pronoun and verb, "Brucha
 aht Yah, eloheynu. . . " and in translation, either "Blessed are
You, Yah," or "Blessed are You, Breath of Life."
In accord with this change, many of us also change "melech,"
"king," in the conventional bracha to "ruach," "breath/wind/
spirit." "Ruach" also has the extremely unusual characteristic of
being a Hebrew word that can take either a masculine or feminine
verb. Again, appropriate for God.
Thus the bracha becomes, "Baruch attah [or, "brucha aht"] Yah,
eloheynu ruach ha'olam. . ." - "Blessed are You, Breath of Life,
Spirit of the Universe. . . "
8) Perhaps one of the defining characteristics of Jewish renewal
is that what — at least in public — only the High Priest did during
Temple days — address the deep meanings of "YHWH" directly,
at noon on Yom Kippur — and what no one at all did in Rabbinic
Judaism — we are now calling forth as a process for the whole
Jewish people to explore.
The mind-set that says only the High Priest — therefore no one
— can do this is the same mind-set that says only married men
over forty who have studied all of Talmud are permitted to study
Kabbalah. Most people in Jewish renewal have gone beyond this
view.
9. In my own practice when leading prayer, I invite people to
experience "YHWH" in this way and then make clear that "for
God's sake," they should choose a way of addressing God that
brings them close to God. If they continue to feel closer by using
the more familiar "Adonai," that is what they should do.

10
History of J - Y vs. J: Since English capital letter J in Gothic font did not acquire j sound
until mid-17th century. In IRENT, most of ‘j’ for Hebrew names and words are replaced,
leaving only a few – ‘Jews’ ‘Judean’ ‘Judas’ (of Iscariot) within the translated text of N.T.
[cf. ‘phonetic sound’, ‘phonetic symbol’, ‘glyph’ for a letter in different alphabets.]

Note: the u and v are not differentiated in KJV 1611. Later the w became added (“double u”).
The u, v, and w occur together in the alphabet, making the 21st, 22nd, 23rd letters of the English
alphabet, respectively. This fact is more than coincidence. It shows the relationship a common
derivation (just as the J follows the I, to which it is related).
The Hebrew letter ‫א‬, ‫ה‬, ‫ו‬, and ‫ י‬are called vowel letters, as having been originally used to
represent vowels, and they still frequently serve as vowels in combination with the points…Of
these a represented the sound a; w o and u; y e and i; and h a, e and o final, but not i and u.

[Numerous articles easily found. See several references on the history of the letter J and the
sound j. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J http://yncainfo.org/?p=211 [The MISTAKEN J];
:
11
‘God’ by itself is but a countable noun, not a person. “God is not a person” as He is not in a
place (space), nor He was, is and will be at a point of time. “Elohim (= the God) in the Scripture)
is not a God, nor God.” It is not a name, nor a replacement of name. It does point to the reality
behind as to what God is and used as a title. [Note: outside the Scripture or major religions,
some label it Force or Power, inanimate principle.] By itself the word is not concerned with
who God is. Only when we comes to grip of ‘who God is’, He is a personal God – not that He
is a personable God, nor that He is a God one has conceptually as a person, but the One who
comes as person-in-relation to mortal humans, in Yeshua Messiah for those who put their faith
in Him. In short, God is not just a person (as if one of many persons in existence somewhere),
but is the person who is supra-personal. Only through Yeshua the Messiah, our approach to
God can be an approach which is possible to another person. [Cf. When C.S. Lewis wrote in
Christian Reflections (1995, p. 79) “We must remind ourselves that Christian theology does
not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is
consistent with a unity of Deity” the word ‘God’ he used does not mean the God of the
Scripture, that is, Elohim, but rather ‘Godhead’, God the Trinity.]

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong

gives it the superficial appearance of being right.”
~ Thomas Paine.

The truth (as it is in the Scripture)

and the traditions of men
(including their ‘biblical’ truths
and doctrinal claims)
— they are often not one and the same.

When we say or hear ‘God’ in our everyday speech in diverse religious or even non-
religious settings, are we all clear about what we mean by ‘God’?

We can observe easily in our everyday speech: when we say ‘Do you believe God’ the
answers would be (1) yes, (2) No, (3) I don’t know, or (4) Why (or what is) you really
ask.
Even at the superficial level, we can see such a question itself is incomplete. Thus any
answer would be not complete or correct, since we have not made ourselves clear of (1)
what is meant by ‘believe’ and (2) what does it mean by ‘God’. Therefore, we can realize
that it is not whether one believes God or whether God exists. The real question we have
to confront is ‘who God is’, that is, who is the true God. What is the reality which we call
God and refer to?

Almost all of the books and articles published, Christian or otherwise, geared to the
general readers, when they mention ‘God’, fail to reveal who God is and never mention
the personal name of the God. Many are unscriptural and many hide their real nature
behind – children of the Devil (1Jn 3:10) and from the synagogue of Satan (Rev 2:9; 3:9),
as Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light (2Co 11:14).
Superficially it sounds biblical and attractive and wholesome, but underneath they are full
of psychological babbles, spiritual gibberish, with the ultimate god in each of them is no
other than one’s own self in place of the true God. They all sell with a big label ‘God’.

The word ‘God’ alone does not tell who God is. Even when people read the word ‘God’
on every page of their Bible, they may not see it how radically different from ‘God’ of
their everyday vocabulary. This reflects ecumenical and syncretic ‘tolerant’ spirit in the
realm of psychological, spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical and religious thought. The
God of the Scripture is not same as God of any religion or quasi-religion. Their God of
 religion is plagiarized from the Scripture and, having disconnected from the truth, the
divine reality, it is re-created after their own image. The problem does not simply come
across in cultic teachings. Instead it is pervasive, having also infected the (major
orthodox) religions of today – to serve the basic human desire turned away from God’s
will. The very desire is to pursue power and pleasure as their purpose their life. Bliss,
nirvana, awakening, and transcendence are the goals to reach (spiritualized version of
‘possibility’ ‘positive thinking’ ‘purpose-driven-ness’, etc.) by homo potestas et
hedonicus (of power and pleasure) a final stage of its own evolution from homo sapiens
(of wisdom with knowledge and thinking), to see other person ultimately as a prey to
provide them what they crave. Conclusion: when people say God, it is not God, but God
of their own thought. There is only presumed but not genuine common ground we have
together in order that meaningful communication can occur between each other’s thought
about ‘God-being’, even before we can talk about whether one believes in God.

The same hold true in case of ‘Lord’. We ask: what do we mean by ‘Lord’? Who He is
referred to?

12
‘*gods’ in plural:

‘gods’ (in plural): Jn 10:34, 35; Act 7:40; 14:11, 12; 19:26; 1Co 8:5; Gal 4:8;
[Cf. In common English usage, ‘gods’ (uncapitalized) usually connotes
gods in paganism.] Likewise, ‘god’ (in singular) may be applied to a
human. [See ‘my Elohim’ in Jn 20:17 vs. 20:28.]

Not to be confused with

eidolon 1Jn 5:21; (idols, false-gods); 1Co 8:7; /statue of gods – NIrV; /
daimonion Act 17:18; (deities) /x: gods
Dioskouroi Act 28:11; (Castor and Pollux, twin-gods of Greek mythology)
deisidaimonesteros Act 17:22; ‘awed by deities’ (religious)

Note: The Scripture does not say ‘there is only one God’, which is what
‘monotheism’ is. There are many gods. People of Elohim believes in One God –
monolatry or mon(o)altruism but not henotheism.

13
"God is dead" (‘Gott ist tot’ in German; also known as ‘the death of God’):

A phrase in Die fröhliche Wessenschaft (Hegel 1882); Nietzsche in Also sprach Zarathustra
(Nietzsche 1883), etc.

[A quotable: “Today's radical theologians argue that the "death of God" frees us for the world
and for the neighbor.” quoted from Stanley R. Moore (1969), ‘Religion as the True Humanism:
Reflections on Kierkegaard’s Social Philosophy’ in J. Am Acad Religion
http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXXVII/1/15.full.pdf+html. Yeah, it frees us to throw
into the very slavery of man, indeed.]

[If one defines God as something immortal, the God who is claimed to be dead (or
rather put to death) is not ‘God’, but their god. They want to see God of others to be
dead or to disappear from human consciousness. They simply forgot that when their
god is dead, there is God still alive and working hard – their ‘own Self’ to whom they
are ferously serving till their own death.]

Cf. ‘Unknowable God’ – is logically excluded from any God notion. The God of the Scripture
is a Self-revealing God; not a God-being which humans come to know through one’s mental
power and ‘enlightment’ process.
14
;-<
The name YHWH bears no resemblance whatsoever to the English generic words 'LORD'
or 'God' which aren't even names but titles.

That would be a bit like calling King David as 'Czar', the Russian for a King or an
Emperor. You would never guess who 'Czar' was because the original name would have
been mutilated beyond recognition. There have been many Russian Czars so which one
would 'Czar' be referring to? You might be shocked to learn that the Russian 'Czar' comes
from the Latin (Roman) 'Caesar’, and that 'Caesar' was simply the last name of a man
called Julius Caesar (the first Roman Emperor). That might not bother you too much until
you learned that the Latin caesar means ‘hairy'. You might, upon learning that, not be so
flattered when someone called you, 'O mighty Hairy One'!
[quoted from an article “The Divine Name YHWH - How is It Properly Pronounced”
(www.nccg.org/644Art-YHWH.html )

15
‘Elohim’ instead of ‘God’ for the arthrous ho theos (‘the God’) – two special places to
consider upon:

• In Jn 20:28 the phrase ‘ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou’. (‘the Lord of me and the God of
me’) (‘My Lord and my Elohim’ – IRENT). Most renders as ‘My Lord and my God’. IRENT
renders as it renders the arthrous ho theos here also as ‘Elohim’ as it is done consistently
throughout the entire N.T. translation. The phrase should be read with linguistic, literary,
and logical approach. Most often it is read as a code which is to be deciphered with
theological and doctrinal interpretation. Translation should not follow theology.Theology
itself should follow a translation faithful to the Greek text.
It was Thomas’ exclamation he uttered as he realized whom he was confronted by – not a
confession of his ‘faith’, as if ‘Jesus, once as God-man, but now as God’. In nominative,
not vocative, the two phrases are connected by KAI which can be additive here, not
appositive. The first phrase: ‘Oh Master¡ you’re truly the Lord I have known.’
The second phrase: ‘Here my Elohim is with you’. Thomas does not mean ‘Yeshua is now God, not
just a man once He was’. He is not referring the risen Yesua as YHWH Elohim, nor calling out to
the God as with vocative, but the reality of Elohim he is experiencing in the person of the risen Lord,
as he was confronted by.

• In Heb 1:8 the phrase ‘ho thronos sou, ho theos eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos’. (1) “Your throne,
O God, is forever and ever” – most (KJV – ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever’), vs.
(2) ‘God is your throne’ (NET mg, and NWT in NT and OT).
(3) IRENT renders as ‘Your throne, Elohim, into the aeon to aeon.’.
(4) If a verb is made explicit, ‘Elohim is your throne’. [To bypass the two alternative
controversial readings of the text, IRENT takes Elohim as appositive, not exclamatory or
vocative with Elohim being the One who establishes the throne for His Son. For formal
 equivalence it is closer to the Greek syntax.] [throne - metonymic for the Kingdom reign
of the Son, established by Elohim.]

In these two particular places, ‘theos’ is often taken as if the title ‘God’ is applied to the risen
Lord Yeshua. The Trinitarian doctrine tries to read these texts to prove that ‘Christ = God’.
However, by consistently rendering Gk. ho theos as Elohim, these exegetically controversial
texts deserve a refreshed look for understanding the text in the context and interpreting it in
harmony with the whole Scripture.

16
‘Elohim’, ‘the God’ vs. ‘God’ in Korean language: In Korean translations, the traditional word
‘하나님’ (ha-na-nim > ‘하나’ means ‘one’) has been exclusive for the God in the Scripture. In some
newer translations by Catholics, it is replaced with ‘하느님’ (ha-neu-nim, with ‘하느’ from ‘하늘’
meaning ‘heaven’ ‘sky’). from their traditional ‘천주(天主) 님’ meaning ‘heavenly Lord’, similar to
Chinese ‘Shangdi’ 上帝 (상제). In Korean culture it is a generic god (신, 神, a common native (sky)-
god. Cf. ‘ghost’ 귀신 鬼神). It is apparently not on linguistic or theological ground, but from purely
polemic-political stance with a need of being different from the Protestant tradition. The two words,
however, are found to provide a solution in a fresh translation. The first fits well for ‘the God’ (‘Elohim’);
the latter for ‘God’. Another option for ‘God’ as in the sense of ‘God-being’ is ‘’하나님되시다. [It is
one word. This should not to be confused with a verbal phrase ‘하나님이 ’되시다 (becomes God),
though the postfix is derived from the verb ‘to become’ itself.]
[Note that in ‘하나님’ and ‘하느님’, one syllable difference with 나 (‘na) and 느 (‘neu’), evolved
from a now extinct vowel sound (represented by a dot to be placed below the consonant). The vowel
sound for the latter is ɯ in IPA notation. It is absent in English language. Cf. 님 ‘nim’ is honorific
post-script is not optional but essential to use.]

17
contra Poythress, Logic p.88
18
For the common idiom ‘part and parcel’ –see Origin of the expression "part and parcel" - English
StackExchange One of the earliest example of the phrase is shown - ‘euerie part and parcel of the Gods
worde’ – in A Christian Directive Guiding Men to their Salvation (1585).

19
God as Father

[Needs Editing]

*Father; *Fatherhood

Father as to Elohim in O.T.:

Deu 32:6; Isa 63:16a; 64:8 (‘You, O YHWH, are our Father’); Jer 3:4, 19 (call ~
to me ‘My Father’); Jer 31:9 (a Father to Israel); Mal 2:10 (all have one father –
one God); Psa 89:26
Or the Father of His son/sons (2Sam 7:14; 1Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Psa 68:5;
Mal 1:6).
At times the father imagery is present although the term "Father" is not used (‘as
to his son or sons) [Exo 4:22-23; Deu 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Psalm 103:13; Jer 3:22;
31:20; Hosea 11:1; Mal 3:17].
In the whole Scripture, the Aramaic word abba (meaning father19) to address
Elohim is only in Greek N.T. in the phrase ‘abba, pater’ with Gk. pater as its
translation word – Mk 14:36 (from the lips of Yeshua); Rm 8:16; Gal 4:6.

Yeshua addressed YHWH Elohim as ‘(my) Father’; referring to their (‘your’)

Father He taught His discples to address their Father as ‘Our Father’ – Mt 6:9.
Over 40x in Pauline Epistles, Elohim is addressed to ‘Father’. Also in 1Pe 1:3;
1Jn 3:1

God as Father

In Lord’s prayer, Yeshua told the disciples to call their God

‘Father!’ (Lk 11:2);
‘Father, O our heavenly Father’ (//Mt 6:9)

‘Father’ as to Elohim is an anthropomorphic term reflecting special relationality

of Elohim with Yeshua – also introduced to us by Yeshua Himself. It is not a
gender-related, biological-social construct. [Note unscriptural statement: “God
is a Spirit (Jn 4:24 KJV) without sexual parts.” – Elohim is not a spirt, nor a
Spirit; ‘God is a Spirit’ is a serious blunder in KJV translation. ‘Elohim is
Spirit’. ‘without sexual parts’ is a frivolous statement.]

[‘Abba’ in Aramaic, the everyday language at the time of Yeshua – as in

addressing God as ‘Abba Father!’ (Mk 14:36; Gal 4:6; Rm 8:15b) with a word
picture of authority, warmth, and intimacy of a loving father’s care. (The
expression Abba does not mean something like ‘daddy’.)] [Only those who are
privileged to have become children of God (Jn 1:12) can call Him Father, as He
is Father to Yeshua. Prayer is their privilege and life-line; and He hears them
all the time. So-called ‘Universal Fatherhood of God’ is an unscriptural
concept.] [Cf. That one is a child of God, such a person is a child of God
forever. One does not have to work to be such a child – contra legalism.]

[Father! – it is not just of calling (addressing) Him, but confessing (acknowledgment)

that we are His children, a privilege God gave to become to those becoming to believe
in His Son (Jn 1:12).]

[Fatherhood of God, Not anthropomorphism or projection of an image after human

fathers, but from Him true fatherhood comes. Nor it is ‘Universal Fatherhood of God’.
Rather than He is of ours (as if in possession) but God comes to us as Father, as He is
to Yeshua. He is the One who, in His love, sent His son to the world to be crucified.
He is to be called as Father not by imitation or by analogy, but by invitation of Yeshua
to those who have become children of God.]

[Alford – p. 60
pater hēmōn – this was a form of address almost unknown to the Old Covenant; now
and then hinted at, as reminding the children of their rebellion (Isa 1:2; Mal 1:6), or
mentioned as a last resource of the orphan and desolate creature (Isa 63:16); but never
brought out in its fullness, as indeed it could not be, till He was come by whom we
have received the adoption of sons.]

Πάτερ ἡμῶν [The true God is God of relationship; He relates to us; thus we the
people in His living community are granted with relation to God in person (rather
than ‘I have relation with God’)] [Cf. 1Pe 2:10 …. But now you are [reclaimed as]
God’s people] [The very beginning of a prayer is ‘to call Him’; but not ‘calling out’
or ‘invoking’ a God. It is rather a response to His waiting, calling and embracing (cf.
Lk 5:20-21). Prayer is our coming into His presence on the multi-lane highway of
faith to be in communication, bringing ourselves in thanks and praise in response to
His love. He is not ‘Force’ ‘Power’ ‘Luminosity’ ‘Voice’ ‘Enigma’ ‘Mystery’
‘Source’, etc., to call down on us, as such one can wish to tap one’s need or desire
from.]

CBL p. 109: “Our Father” emphasizes the availability [sic] (relationship with us
which is established because of His Son. He comes to us as our Father – – ARJ) of
God (expressed as the trusting relationship btw a father and a child). At the same time,
“which are in heaven” is a reminder that He must be approached by the new and living
(resurrected) Way, the Lord Jesus who is, having seated at His right, interceding for
believers (Heb 10:19, 20).

[‘Our Father’ – all petitions are of ‘our’ of the corporate Body of the Messiah, not as
‘my father’. Cf. Abba as Yeshua called Him ‘my Father’. Only He can address Him
as ‘My Father’. We are children of God; God is our Father, whose image is not to be
fused with a certain image of his/her own earthly father.]
[God comes to us as the Father – as the ideal Father. It is not that we model God the
Father on a good father, but that God the Father is the model for parenthood in general
and fatherhood in particular.]

[Isa 63:16; 64:8; 1Ch 29:10, etc. ‘Our Father’ as to the Israelites.]

[JFB: God called as ‘our Father’ for the Israelites in O.T. It is true that the paternal
relationship of God to His people is by no means strange to the Old Testament. (See
below). But these are only glimpses - the “back parts” (Exo 33:23), if we may so say,
in comparison with the “open face” of our Father revealed in Jesus. (See on 2Co 3:18).
• Jer 3:4, 19
• Exo 4:22-23 - And you must say to Pharaoh, 'This is what YHWH has said:
"Israel is my son, my firstborn. [not the only son, not the only child.] And I
say to you: Send my son away that he may serve me.” (cf. Pharaoh, as son of
the sun god Ra.)
• 1Ch 29:10; Consequently David blessed Jehovah before the eyes of all the
congregation and David said: "Blessed be you, O YHWH the God of Israel,
our father, forever and ever."
• Isa 64:8 And now, O Jehovah, you are our Father. We are the clay, and you
are our Potter; and all of us are the work of your hand.
 • Isa 63:16; For you are our Father; although Abraham himself may not have
known us [as we are now, having gone astray] and Israel (=Jacob, the
patriarch) himself may not recognize us, you, O YHWH, are our Father. Our
Redeemer is your name from long ago.
• Isa 63:8 He [YHWH], "They are indeed My people, children who are not
disloyal," and He became their Savior. Cf. Ps 95:10 For forty years I kept
feeling a loathing toward [that] generation, And said: "They are [now] a
people wayward at heart, And they themselves have not come to know my
ways";
• Deu 32:6 (Moses’ Testament): Is it to YHWH that YOU keep doing this way,
O people foolish and not wise? Is he not your Father who has produced you,
He who made you and proceeded to give you stability?
• Deu 14:1a “Sons YOU are of Jehovah YOUR God. You – Israelites
• Deu 14:2 For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God, and Jehovah has
chosen you to become his people, a special property, out of all the peoples
who are on the surface of the ground.
• 2Sa 7:14 I myself shall become his father (referring to Solomon, David’s son),
and he himself will become my son. When he does wrong, I will also reprove
him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam. – God who
does not spare chastisement is who Father of love is.
• Mal 2:10 Don't we all have the same (one) father? Didn't one God create us
all? Then why do we go unfaithful to each other, profaning the covenant of
our ancestors? Mal 1:6 “<A son, for his part, honors a father; and a servant,
his grand master. So if I am a father, where is the honor to me? And if I am a
grand master, where is the fear of me?'> YHWH of Hosts has said to YOU, O
priests who are despising my name! And YOU reply: <In what way have we
despised your name?>

[Cf. God called as ‘our Father’ in N.T. - //Lk 11:2 v.l.; Rm 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Gal
1:4; Eph 1:2; Phi 1:2; 4:20;Col 1:2; 1Th 1:1, 3; 3:11, 13; 2Th 1:1,2; 2:16; 1Ti 1:2; Pm
1:3] [Cf. Elohim as His own Father of Yeshua – Jn 5:18]

Willimon and Hauerwas, Lord, Teach Us – The Lord’s Prayer & the Christian Life
pp. 25-33
Stanley Hauerwas
Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics
http://divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/stanley-hauerwas

–p. 25, 26 … When we say “our”, we are not (- to mean- ARJ) ‘being possessive’ (-
that we are the possessor. God graciously comes to us as a father (reclaiming His
own children and restoring the alienated relation– ARJ).
Recognition that this God, the one who created the universe …., the great God of
heaven and earth, has willed to become (reclaim to be) our God’. Before we reached
out to God, God reached out to us and claimed us, promised to be our God, promised
to make us God’s [own] people. Thus, not because of whom we are or what we have
done, but rather because of what God in JC has done, we are privileged to say, “Our
Father”.

Thomas Aquinas says that we are created for no greater purpose than friendship with
 God, The “Our” reminds us that we cannot pray without friends. (Prob. the authors
got confused btw ‘friendship’ and ‘love’.)

p. 26 …. Our relationship to God – that we can boldly come to God saying “Our
Father”, is due to God’s choice of us, rather than our choice of God.

p. 30 We say, “Our Father.” In calling God Father we are speaking first and
foremost about Jesus’ relationship to God, not our own. That is to say, God is called
Father because we have come to know Jesus as the Son. “Father” and “Son” is the
way we have been taught to name a certain relationship within the inner life of God.
The important thing is not that these two terms are of the male gender, for Christians
have always believed that God is greater than any human concept (x: conceptions) of
gender. What is important is that these names attempt to describe the familial
relationship that is part of God’s own life. We can’t say “Father” without
remembering the Son; we can never know the Father unless the Son reveals the
Father to us. … [With ‘Our Father’,] we are not merely declaring that God created
us. We are saying that, in J.C., God has saved us (- in the sense of ‘restored
relationship’ – AJR). …. we are not looking at creation in order to deduce a Creator,
rather we are looking at the Son in order to know the Father. We’re not saying
something about the origin of creation but rather we are naming the nature of our
salvation (- or rather, relationship – ARJ). Only because Jesus is the Son, do we
know God as “Our Father” [as revealed to u through the Son.]
Our relationship to God as Father finds expression in what is known as the
Apostles’’ Creed: <I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
and in JC His only son, our Lord … >
Note that the creed assumes that we know God as Father prior to our knowledge (-
or rather acknowledgment) of God as ‘maker of heaven and earth’… Our knowledge
begins in no generalized, natural way. Rather, we know God only because God has
been revealed to us by Jesus Christ. From our knowledge of God as Father, we are
moved to a new understanding of what is going on in ‘heaven and earth’… The one
who has been revealed to us by Jesus as ‘our Father’ is also Creator.

http://youtu.be/ZC4KR9X6smg Spirit, Soul, and Body Part 1

20
gods
[this word may be rendered as ‘(false) mighty ones’ – e.g. HalleluYah Scriture (Exo
23:13; Jos 23:7)]

The Scripture does not say there is only one God. It tells there are many – that’s where
the problem of human beings lies, since by nature they are born god-seekers and god-
worshipers. So-called Monotheism is belief in one and only God, not belief that there
is only one. Some try to see it different from henotheism or monolatry, but it seems to
have not substance.

1Co 8:5-6
8:5
Yes, if indeed there are so-called ‘gods’
 whether in heaven or on earth,
((as there [really] are even many such ‘gods’
and many such ‘lords’)), [cf. Gal 4:8; Deu 10:17]
8:6
but to us there is ☼one God — the Father, {☼Mal 2:10}
out of whom all things are and we are for Him,
and one Lord — Yeshua the Messiah,
through whom all things are and we are through him.[Rm 11:36]

Deu 10:17

"YHWH your Elohim is God of gods and Lord of lords".

Hebrew: "Ki YHWH Eloheichem Hoe Elohei ha'elohim v'adonei
ha'adonim"
literally: For YHWH your God He God of the gods and Lord of the
lords

Jn 10:34, 35 (gods) //Ps 82:6 (elohim)

10:34
Yeshua answered them,
“Is it not written in the Torah yoů have with yoů, this way?
<I myself have said, declaring that
yoů all [judges] are [to rule] as ‘elohim’.>{Ps 82:6; cf. Ps 82:1}
10:35
Here, those to whom these words came from the very Elohim
are referred as ‘elohim’
— yes, this scripture passage cannot be pushed aside!

Ex 23:13 "Make no bring out (/x: invoke; /> mention) the names of other gods,
neither let them be heard out of your mouth."

Every idol or god may have a personal NAME - and it is the bringing out these
NAMES that is forbidden, as in worshiping, promoting, or getting involved
with.

Cf. www.revelations.org.za/Elohim.htm God or Elohim

Pagan gods/idols: named in N.T.

Act 7:43 Molock (/Molekh); Remphan (/Rephan) [See EE here20]

Act 19:24, 27, 34, 35 Artemis (Greek goddess) [ = Roman goddess Diana]
Act 19:35 Zeus
Act 28:11 Dioscuri [Gk. Dioskouroi. ‘twin’ gods (cf. Consternation Gemini),
Castor and Pollux, reported to be the sons of Jupiter and Leda.]
21
Exalted name of Yeshua (Phi 2:9)

For this reason indeed,

Elohim has highly exalted Him
 and bestowed on Him the very name,
the name above every name;[Jn 14:28]
22
The name Yeshua in different languages: [Note ‘J’ has different sound in different languages]
(approximate sounds. Capitals for accented syllable)
‫ישוע‬ ye-SHUa or, ya-SHUA (by some)
Hebrew
‫"ישו‬ YE-shu (by Jewish tradition)
Greek Ιησούς i-Ē-sus
Latin Iesus
English Jesus GEEzus
Spanish Jesús HEI-sus
French Jésus ZE-sy
Italian Gesù GEE-su
Irish Íosa
Hungarian Jézus
Czech Ježíš
Ukrainian Ісус
Russian Иисус
Bulgarian Исус
Polish Jezus YE-zus
Finnish Jeesus YE-sus
Romanian Iisus
Esperanto Jezuo (Jesuo) ye-ZU-o; ye-SU-o
Irish Íosa
Welsh Iesu
German Jesus YE-sus
Croatian Isus
Hausa Sai (an African language)
Arabic ‫ عيسى‬,(Isa) EE-sa
Persian isâ
Chinese 耶稣 YE-su
Japanese イエス i-E-su
Korean 예수 YE-su

23
Question of ‘real Jesus’ and ‘historical Jesus’:
Everywhere we are confronted by any faces of different ‘Jesus’, within the religions as well as
outside the wall of churchs – all have nothing to do Yeshua and not connected to the Scripture:
This finds its beginning in the so-called Quest for the historical Jesus, a movement in the
theologian's circle with academic effort since the 18th century using historico-critical methods
to provide a plausible portrait of historical Jesus to their intellectual satisfaction. The label is
derived from the English title of Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung ("History of Life-of-
Jesus research") by Albert Einstein (1906). The result of such fertile and half-futile mind of
man is production of a plethora of denatured and distorted Jesus-images which is re-created
after their own image – thelogical, religious, or even atheistic. At the root of such human mind
is the linguistic and literary disconnection between Yeshua of the Scripture and Jesus of the
Bibles, eventual result of effectively having God’s very name shoved away from their linguage
and liturgy.
24
3:1 the One God has sent forth, Kohen haGadol of our faith we publicly profess░░ /who was sent
forth to make known the faith which we profess and to be its high priest – Cass; /the apostle and high
priest of our confession – most; /the A- ~ and High Priest ~ - ALT, NASB; /the messenger and High
Priest of the faith we hold – PNT; /whom we acknowledge publicly as God's emissary and as cohen gadol.
– JNT;
25
‘Yeshua the Mashiah, (cf. Yeshua the Mashiah vs. Yeshua the Messiah vs. Yeshua Messiah)
inserting an definite article is for the purpose of English diction. In English, without an added
definite article as with ‘Yeshua Messiah’, it carries a different sense (‘Yeshua-type Messiah’).
It would be actually true also with ‘Jesus Christ’, except that this ingrained phrase has become
used to. [Cf. NWT3 Mt 16:21 –‘Jesus Christ’ is corrected as ‘Jesus’ in NWT4 (2013 edition).]

26
Why not translate as ‘Jesus Christ’ as in most English translations instead of ‘Yeshua the
Mashiah’? The aim of a worthy translation should be afresh and free from religious traditions
so that the truth and the true good news are presented as it was once to the original readers.
There is no place of ecclesiastical anachronism in the translated text.

27
www.greekingout.com/2011/06/nt-wright-on-translating-christ/

From an interview (Australian Broadcasting Co) with N.T. Wright:

For many people in the western world, “Christ” is simply a swear-word. Many have forgotten, if
they ever knew, that this word has for two thousand years been firmly attached to one human being
in particular.
Many who have not forgotten that basic point, however, have assumed that “Christ” is simply, so
to speak, the “surname” or family name of Jesus of Nazareth, so that “Jesus Christ” corresponds
to “John Smith” or “Mary Fitzpatrick.”
Again, many who have not made that mistake have supposed that the word “Christ” conveys, and
always did convey, the Christian belief that Jesus was and is the second person of the Trinity, so
that “Jesus” is the “human” name of the person concerned and “Christ” is his “divine” name or
title. Books have appeared with titles such as “Jesus Who Became Christ,” hinting that Jesus started
off as an ordinary human and was only subsequently elevated to divine status.
There we have three quite different meanings of “Christ” which people today may well “hear”
when they hear the word. And here’s the point: none of these corresponds to what the word
conveyed in the first century.
In the first century the word “Christ,” or rather the Greek word Christos which occurs hundreds of
times in the New Testament, was the translation of the Hebrew or Aramaic term Meshiach,
“Messiah.” “Messiah” means “anointed” or “anointed one.”
In ancient Israel various people were anointed as the sign of God’s commissioning: prophets,
priests and above all kings. But in Jesus’ day the various meanings of “the anointed one” had
narrowed down to a single focus: the coming king from the line of David, the one who would rule
the whole world and establish God’s justice within it. This expectation was popular (though not
universally so) in first-century Judaism, and there were various interpretations of who such a
“Messiah” would be, what he would do, and so on.
Jesus’ followers believed that this range of interpretations had been suddenly and sharply redefined
in and around their Master, who had proclaimed God’s kingdom, who had been executed by the
Romans as the would-be “King of the Jews,” but who had been raised from the dead by God and
thereby declared to be truly the Messiah, Israel’s king, the world’s rightful lord.
Comparatively few modern Christians, let alone modern non-Christians, have much inkling of all
this. But unless we try to understand it we shall never grasp two-thirds of what they were talking
about.
The word “Christ,” then, serves both as a central example of the problem of translation, and also
as a pointer to the reality (God’s claim on the whole world through his anointed servant) which is
the ground-plan on which the project of biblical translation stands, from which it gains its raison-
d’etre and legitimacy.
Jesus’ own radical redefinition of what “lordship” was all about demands it. He will not impose
his rule on people from a great height in a language they do not understand. He wants them to
 know, to love. Biblical translation aims to embody that quite specific aspect of the divine plan and
intention.
All right: how then shall we translate Christos? No one English word or expression will convey
what the Greek word meant to Paul, say, or to Matthew. But to leave it as “Christ” is,
straightforwardly, to falsify it. Perhaps the only solution, given our linguistic, historical and
theological confusion, is to vary the terms “King” or “Messiah” or “the anointed one” as the
different contexts demand, or at least to permit. This wouldn’t solve everything. But simply
persisting with “Christ” gets us nowhere – except back into multiple misunderstandings.

28

Messiah vs. Christ: The crucial importance is how far the Christian concept of
Christ is moved away from the Judaic concept of Messiah (Mashiah).

Most so-called Christians believe ‘Jesus Christ’ (or equivalent in their

vernacular language). Would it be same as ‘believe Yeshua the
Mashiah’? The same biblical person has become a different one though
there remains connectivity and semblance. Jesus Christ (differently
understood as to who He is by different belief groups) is not same as
Yeshua the Mashiah in the Bible. If this is acknowledged any
Christological argument should come down to a negligible level much
easier to tackle, since they would not be barking at different trees.

It seems that Judaim does not believe Jesus claimed as the ‘Christ’;
Christianity has failed to believe ‘Yeshua as the Mashiah’. Different
Christian sects and cults believe not the same Jesus Christ, but different
ones created out of their doctrinal and ideological mindset. Jesus Christ
has become different one to different person or group. It is difficult to
deny that we don’t believe one and same Jesus Christ. Christology has
split Him into different images, portraits and christs to become just an
object of liturgy and doctrine. Linguistically we have become de facto
agnostic Christianism (with inherent polytheism – everyone believes
ones’ own god modeled from the Bible, either from others’ or from one’s
own creation, whether or not gods of religion or religious substitute, such
as science or ‘scientism’. Can the real ‘Jesus’ rise up?

[Ref: Shirley Lucass (2011), The Concept of the Messiah in the

Sciptures of Judaism and Christianity. ✶✶✶✶✶]

On the word ‘Messiah’ from O.T. perspective:

‘The Mashiah’ in the N.T. is in the sense of ‘the promised Mashiah’ (as a king, prophet
and kohen), not is a title attached to Yeshua for the role or position.

Condensed from www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/011.html

The Hebrew word ַ‫(משיח‬mashiach/mah-shee-ahch) is usually transliterated as

Messiah.

Let us first examine how this word is transliterated and translated. In the Tanach
(Old Testament) this word is usually translated in the English as "Anointed One"
and occasionally transliterated as "Messiah". In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) this
Hebrew word is translated with the Greek word "christos" and is transliterated as
"Christ".

The root word of meshiyach is the verb mashach meaning "to anoint" for a task
of king, priest, or prophet. In the ancient Hebrew culture is customary to pour oil
on the head of one who is being given a position of authority. This practice is
called "anointing". One of the most common misunderstandings about meshiyach
is that there is only one, but the Tanach identifies several. The word is used 39
times and just a few of these are listed below.
Lev 4:3 If the anointed (mashiyach) priest (kohen) sins bringing guilt to the
people....
1Sm 24:6 And he (David) said to his men, YHWH forbid me if I should do
this thing to my lord (Saul) the anointed (mashiyach) of YHWH
1Ch 16:22 Do not touch my anointed (mashiyach), my prophets do not harm.

These three passages are chosen for one reason, it demonstrates from a Hebraic
perspective who mashiyach are to be. The Priests, Kings and Prophets of Israel
are the mashiyach of Israel; they are the ones who are anointed as men of
authority.

While the original meaning of the word mashiyach is applied to one who is
actually anointed with oil, it by extension can also refer to anyone who holds an
office of authority whether they were anointed or not. The Tanach identifies
Cyrus, the King of Persia as a mashiyach.
Isaiah 45:1 Thus says YHWH to his anointed (mashiyach) Cyrus (the King of
Persia)

29
A concordance list for ‘ho Christos’ with the definite article. [Rendered in IRENT
as ‘the Mashiah’ and, in a few places as ‘the very Mashiah’ when it is in emphatic
sense in the text)]
30
On translation of Jn 12:44 – It is important to render it as what the written text says as it
shows how Yeshua and Elohim are one (not same). Praise and prayer, that is worship, to them
are the same. (Jn 14:1, 6). This point can be easily removed by seemingly smooth, but misleading
rendering as appeared in a few English translations:
 /xx: not only in me but also – GNB; /xx: does not believe in me only – ISV; /xx: He
that puts faith in me puts faith, not in me [only], but in him [also] that sent me –
NWT3; /xx: Whoever puts faith in me puts faith not only in me but also in him who
sent me – NWT4; /x: Everyone who has faith in me also has faith in the one who sent
me – CEV; /Everyone who believes in me is really believing in the one who sent me –
ERV. [ERV omits the important contrastive Gk. word alla (‘on the contrary’, ‘but’).]
31
“A Study on Jn 20:28” – Thomas addressed to the Risen Yeshua, “ho kurios mou kai ho theos
mou!”, usu. translated as ‘My Lord and My God’. Even though it was in post-resurrection setting
Gk ‘kurios’ (nominative as vocative for exclamation) should still have the same nuance carried by
‘Master’, a translation word in IRENT for Greek word used as to Yeshua (sames as Jn 20:25 by
Mariam the Magdalene). That the word should now be used as if for a divine person (not ‘divine
God’) is linguistically constrained and surely from eisegesis. As for the phrase ‘ho theos’, the text
is read by the Trinitarian mind that here ‘Jesus was called God’. Rendered in consistent manner
throughout NT, IRENT reads ‘[O] my Master and my Elohim [the Father]!’ with intra-text
expansions. Thomas now encounterd his Master, now risen, and through Him, he encounters the
presence of Elohim, who is with His people (Immanuel), in the person of Yeshua (‘salvation’ from
Elohim). The risen Yeshua Mashiah, exalted to the right of Elohm, is the Lord (Phi 2:11 = Heb.
Adon; not Adonai as translated wrongly in CJB.)
32
A case study for translating the very common Greek word kurios in NT. (See Lk
4:18-19)

The text in Lk 4:18-19 is in the voice of Yeshua reading from Torah. In Isa 61:1 we have
pneuma kuriou in LXX (same in GNT) which is Adonai YHWH in MT text. In Isa 61:2a
we have eniauton kuriou dekton in LXX (and GNT), which is ַ‫תַרצַליהוָה‬ָ ‫‘נ‬Jubilee year of
YHWH. From the fact that the Greek word is in anarthrous genitive as ‘LORD’, not as ‘the
Lord’, and from the text context itself, it is the word for YHWH. – correct and accurate,
no one can argue about.

However, the question for translators is this – is it right one for the purpose of translation?
What is served and who is served by a particular translation? The fact is, a translation work
is not just a scholarly work to serve the writer more than the readers. When a Bible
translation work has its intended audience as wide as possible [both within and without a
religion] only the Scripture-based linguistic and literary approach is a valid one. When it
is to serve a limited audience as an officially sanctioned translation, presenting as a
denominational or sectarian one, it is obvious that something other than clearly presenting
the Scripture in a vernacular langue is in their agenda, further away from the Truth. On top
of it, they would certainly claim that how such a work is most correct and accurate!

In the particular text of Luke, GNT is quoting the text in TaNaKh from LXX, not Hebrew
text. Yeshua was reading from the scroll in Hebrew in the synagogue at the very
beginning of Yeshua’s ministry. [This by itself, however, would not prove or indicate
that Yeshua pronounce the name of God.]

Now, what is a right and appropriate rendering is entirely dependent on how the
message is communicated from the source to the target. We have to pay attention
not just to what the source could have been correctly, but how it was delivered the
audience (here the people of Nazareth) in speech and then how it is to be delivered
to the readers in translation. How does ‘YHWH’ (or whatever of its transcription
 scheme) in translation help this communication line – the line to transmit the truth,
not the idea or mindset and agenda of a translator? Does the text indicate that
Yeshua set out to remind people it was as YHWH that they should know the divine
name, as if He was pointing out how they were ignorant of it, or negligent to keep
pronouncing it, or superstitious about uttering it? Or, are we to buy some claim that
“in many places the GNT text is corrupt [sic]”. [Never mind that the term ‘corrupt’
in the textual criticism is in a special sense and is not what the word means in
common English parlance.]

On the other hand, it does not help have it as ‘the Lord’ as in most English
translations, simply because it fails to clearly communicate to the readers. Indeed,
this word is not only used as a title for YHWH Elohim, but also for Yeshua the
Messiah, not mentioning that it is also any ordinary man (used in the sense of
master or owner in the Scripture, as well as or a person of special position in
modern UK). “[God Himself] has bestowed on His Messiah the very
name, the name above every name, that at the very name Yeshua
everyone shall kneel — those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth,
and everyone shall openly confess that Yeshua the Messiah is ‘Lord’
to the glory of Elohim the Father.” – (Phi 2:9-11). Elohim Himself does not
require us to kneel down at His name YHWH, but at the name of Yeshua, His Son.
No one would keep uttering one’s father’s name on every conceivable occasion –
in the oriental mindset. Such a thing may be conceivable only from the logical
western mindset with grammatical and quasi-scholarly precision and doctrinal
agenda. [E.g. Look at NWT – it has ‘Jehovah’ in NT over 230 places! (Everything
would look like a bone for the dog intent on looking for a bone!) What else can be
a better example for frivolous and irreverent to His name?]

33
YHWH in LXX translation:

Ref. W. G. Waddell, The Tetragrammaton in the LXX, JTS 45 (1944) 158-161. (NOTES
AND STUDIES.)

(p. 161) “… The question remains: at the service in a Hellenistic synagogue what did the
reader of this papyrus roll utter instead of the sacred name which he might not say aloud?
Either, in keeping with the Greek context, he would recite Kyrios or, like any reader of the
Hebrew O.T., he would say Adonai (Lord): in the time of St. Jerome (…) ignorant readers,
taking it to be a Greek word, actually pronounced it 'Pipi'!” [? – written as PIPI, but actually
pronounced? – ARJ]

34
[A dog can smell of food whenever it comes upon something which looks like a bone.]
www.tomorrowsworld.org/commentary/criticism-of-the-bible

There is no issue with an approach of “proving” the Bible. In 1Thessalonians 5:21, it

says to “Prove all things” (KJV). The problem is in the attitude and approach. If the
mind is already made up, the approach is to prove what is already preconceived. In
psychology, this is called “confirmation bias.” Ambiguous evidence may be viewed
as supportive of the preconception, and other evidence is discounted because it isn’t
 supportive of the preconception. Facts are interpreted with greater weight arbitrarily
given to those that support the predetermined conclusion. This is called the
“irrational primacy effect”.

Another psychological principle is called the “*illusory correlation.” Events are

perceived to be related, when in reality they are not. As the old sayings go: “If you
look for trouble, you’ll find it”; and, “You will find what you are looking for.” In
other words, the critic may be biased toward confirming his or her own existing belief
rather than discovering the truth.

Numerous psychological experiments have found that people selectively collect

evidence. They look for evidence that supports their hypotheses and existing beliefs
or assumptions. They are biased in their search for information and in their
interpretation of it. Evidence that goes against the belief or hypothesis is subjected to
a higher standard than evidence that is favorable. And evidence is also subject to
selective memory. And, amazingly, even hypotheses that are completely discredited
may continue to persist in the mind. It is well established that human reasoning, even
of a “higher critic,” is fallible. What we think we know may not be so.

35
Problem with ‘pray in the name of Jesus’ – a church jargon. The commonly heard phrase
‘in Jesus’ name’ is at the end of a prayer. It should be clear that the name does not refer to that
which is spelt and uttered (as if a mantra), but to what the name stands for – that is, who he is
to us and to Elohim. Many think they are doing something ‘spiritual’ ending up something
superstitious, … superstitious because praing in the name of Jesus doesn’t mean saying ‘in the
name of Jesus’ … It actually means the prayer is over – for a prayer, not of one’s personal but
when uttered for others to hear …Dispense empty words [www.str.org/articles/in-the-name-
of-jesus#.UtQrsrQYj-o ] … Simply say something appropriate for ending of a prayer together
– ‘Now let’s thank our Lord and partake the gift of your words, food, etc.’

36
‘upon the basis of the name of Yeshua the Messiah’ Act 2:38 Rec. fn.
The New Testament uses three different prepositions to describe baptism's relationship to the
Lord:
(1) En, in (10:48). To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is to be baptized in the sphere
of the name of Jesus Christ, within which is the reality of the baptism.
(2) Eis, into (Mt 28:19 into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the holy spirit;
Acts 8:16; 19:5 into the name of the Lord Yeshua; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27 into the Messiah;

To be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or into the
name of the Lord Jesus, is to be baptized into a spiritual union with the all-inclusive Christ,
who is the embodiment of the Triune God. See notes 162 in Ch. 8 and 194 in Mt. 28.
Cf. into the name of Paulos (1Co 1:13); into Mosheh (1Co 10:2);
(3) Epi, [up]on, (2:38). To be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ is to be baptized upon
the ground of what the name of Jesus Christ stands for. It stands for all that the person of
Jesus Christ is and all that He has accomplished, both of which constitute the belief (the
faith) of God's New Testament economy. It is on this ground that the believers in Christ are
baptized.

37
‘into the name of the Lord Yeshua’ Act 8:16 Rec. fn.
Not in the name but into the name. The name denotes the person. To be baptized into the name of the
Lord Jesus is to be baptized into the person of the Lord, to be identified with the crucified, resurrected,
and ascended Christ, to be put into an organic union with the living Lord. See below the notes in Act
2:38 and Mt 28:19b.

38
Ref. Footnote on ‘into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ Mt 28:19b
[Recovery Version]

[Quoting From Act 8:16 fn.] In Mt 28:19 the Lord charged the disciples to baptize the believers into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [sic]. But later, in practice, the believers were
baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, here and in 19:5, and into Christ, in Rm 6:3 and Gal 3:27. This
indicates
that (1) to be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus is equivalent to being baptized into the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, because the Lord Jesus is the Triune God, the
embodiment of God Himself (Col 2:9),
and (2) to be baptized into the name of the Triune God or into the name of the Lord Jesus is equivalent
to being baptized into the person of Christ.
[Mt 28:19 fn.:]
Into indicates union, as in Rom. 6:3 and Gal. 3:27. The same Greek word is used in Acts 8:16; 19:5; and
1Co 1:13, 15. To baptize people into the name of the Triune God is to bring them into spiritual and
mystical union with Him.

39
Various ancient sources on this verse Mt 28:19b:
1. Didache 7.1 adds [ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι] (in running water) at the end of this particular baptismal
phrase.]
2. The Diatessaron of Tatian ca. 160 CE – trans. by J.H. Hill (1894) The Earliest Life Of
Christ Ever Complied From The Four Gospels – pp. 262-263
55.4 Then saith Jesus unto them,
All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth: (Mt 28:18b)
55.5 for even as my Father sent me,
so I also send you. (Jn 20:21b)
Go ye therefore into all the world,
and preach my gospel to every creature; (Mk 16:15b)
55.6 and teach all the nations,
and baptize them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: (Mt 28:19b)
55.7 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you:
and lo, I am with you all the days unto the end of the world. (Mt 28:20)
55.8 For he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned (Mk 16:16)

3. A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (such as Shem-Tov version, 1385 CE) does not have this v.
19b. Ref. Hugh J. Schonfield (1927), An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew's Gospel:
Translated, with an Introduction, Notes and Appendices.
40
Gospel texts in the voice of the Evangelist as the editor:
The Gospel narrative in the Bible can be heard in the several layers of voices – the
speakers, the narrator, the edition (Evangelist), and the translator. Purely seeing from the
linguistic and literary point of view, this sentence may be thought of a voice of the editor
(‘Evangelist Matthew’) reflecting an ecclesiastical liturgical development, which was
then put into the voice of Yeshua.
 There are a few examples in which importance of recognizing such different level of
voices present in the Gospel work.
• E.g. Mk 2:26a ‘epi Abiathar [tou] archiereōs’ – this phrase is mistranslated by
most as ‘when Abiathar was High Priest’ when the true sense is ‘in the Scripture
passage concerning Abiathar High Priest’.
• E.g. Jn 3:13-17 is best read as the voice of the Evangelist, not the voice of Yeshua.
• E.g. Jn 4:9b ‘… Judeans refuse to have anything to do with Samaritans.’
• E.g. Mk 7:19b ‘thus purging out all foods eaten’

These editor’s voices are comparable to footnotes which modern writers would use to
give additional information to the readers.]

41
Cf. John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (1989), p. 94 “Augustine also stresses the
psychological analogies based on the human soul, according to which the Logos is the verbum mentis of
the Father. This tradition will find its full flowering in Aquinas who understands the processions of the
Son and the Spirit as acts of intellect and will.” [Verbum mentis (Lat. ‘mental word’) - The concept; the
intra-mental product of the act of intellection.]

42
‘God’ in Korean translations. There are two related words derived from one.
‘하느님’ – ‘하느’ from 하늘 (heaven) vs. ‘하나님’, a dialect. Since the word 하나
means ‘one’, this was adopted at the beginning of Korean Bible translation. However
the Catholic translation has this traditional generic word 하느님.
43
They further went on to the so-called angel Christology. They claim that the Archangel
Michael became Jesus, and after His death and resurrection got approved and promoted to a
position of a god (? a picture of being seated on a throne on the right side of the Almighty
Jehovah God). The Logos of Elohim is denied of the fullness of God - divinity, divine power,
authority and glory.

44
Exo 20:7
‘take in a manner unworthy for it’ (bring to dishonor – cf. Mt 6:9). Most English
translations are inadequate and misleading.

E.g. /x: take in vain – KJV, ESV duo, NASB, ASV, NET; /x: misuse – NIV, HCSB;
/take up in a worthless way – NWT; /

[Cf. ‘vain’– word picture of ‘vanity’] [Cf. English word group - ‘frivolous’ ‘flippant’
‘trivial’ ‘superficial’] vain – Webster Dictionary - 1. Having no real substance, value,
or importance; empty; void; worthless; unsatisfying. “Thy vain excuse.” ... 2. Destitute
of forge or efficacy; effecting no purpose; fruitless; ineffectual; as, vain toil; a vain
attempt.

Greek words translated as ‘in vain’ in KJV

eikē Rm 13:4 1Co 15:2; Gal 3:4; 4:11; 1Th 3:5
 matēn Mt 15:9; Mk 7:7; [Danker p. 223 ‘IE, acc. of math ‘folly’ adv. to no
purpose] (worship ‘in a manner unworthy of it’)
kenos 1Co 15:10, 58; 2Co 6:1; Gal 2:2; Phi 2:16, 1Th 2:1; 27
kenōs Jas 4:5;
kenoō 2Co 9:3;
dōrean – Gal 2:21

45
Some examples of the NT translations having Tetragrammaton-based God’s names:

The Divine Name Lord Master

NWT-4 (2013) Jehovah 237 411 49
Sacred Name KJV (J. Hurt, 2001) YHVH 359 ? ?
The Scripture (C. J. Koster, 1998) ‫יהוה‬ 190 0 572
Restored Name KJV (R. Lattier, 1994) ‫יהוה‬ 1257 0 28
JNT (D. H. Stern, 1989) Adonai 143 439 39
신세계 성경 (New World Bible)
여호와
(1984), Korean version based on 224
[Yeohowa]
NWT-3)

Even if the count may not be precise, it does to give some idea how the task has been
carried out – how much and why of their positions).
[* www.jwstudies.com/The_Divine_Name_in_Shem-Tobs_Matthew.pdf]

We may find in ‘Lincoln President’ an example of naming a person which illustrates a

problem in translating NT with a goal towards ‘restoring Sacred Name’: In a book on
Lincoln’s biography, we expect to find ‘Lincoln’ far more often than ‘President’. However,
in a book covering the period of his presidency, it would be opposite. In that book, no one
expect to find him referred as Lincoln, whenever he is to be mentioned. That would be
frivolous, flippant and irreverent. It is no different case when a translator chooses to put the
divine name wherever He is referred in the pages of the New Testament.