I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

The [Athanasian Creed](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm) , printed in copies of the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer, declares that our Lord Jesus Christ is >"God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting." What is meant by "begotten" in this quotation?

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being a God? And there are sects *within religious circles* who diss the idea of Christ really being Deity. Some of those sects fly under the banner of "Christianity." ***Since a "Christian"--in normal patois--is defined as someone who is a disciple of Christ***, it follows that that disciple would believe and teach faithfully whatever the essence of Christ is. But many interpret the Bible as declaring that ***Christ taught He was Deity (God in the flesh)***. >Israelites...whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:5) >I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me. (John 6:38; also 8:24,42) >Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32) Note that the second half of this verse is engraved on the portals of Harvard University! Yet none would say that Harvard wishes to promote Christ's divinity. Could all others who claim to be Christian, whether sect or individual, ***but do not believe in His divinity*** still legitimately fall under the umbrella of the title, ***Christian***? Or is that deceptive? Is that unwarranted? ***Is that contradictory to the words of Jesus in these verses?*** >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9, NIV)

Of course Christianity believes Jesus is God, but I am interested in this question for the argument that Jehovah (I AM), the name of God which later Jews were not allowed to speak, is a term not unique to the Father. In other words, is this special name 'I AM' just as valid for the Son, as it is the Father? Is Jesus = (Jehovah/Yahweh/YHWH) in the flesh? Note: Yahweh/YHWH are just more original Hebrew representations of the English word Jehovah or capital LORD in our Bibles. These are all the same meaning, i.e. the name 'I AM'.

In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as both fully divine and fully human. This raises the question of whether He exercised attributes like omniscience while living on earth. For example, Philippians 2:6–8 speaks of Christ “emptying Himself” (κένωσις) by taking the form of a servant, which some interpret as a limitation of His divine prerogatives. Luke 2:52 also records that Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature,” suggesting a human process of learning. On the other hand, there are passages where Jesus seems to demonstrate supernatural knowledge, such as knowing people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8; John 1:48). Yet, in Mark 13:32, Jesus says that “no one knows the day or the hour… not even the Son, but only the Father,” which appears to imply a limitation in knowledge. How do Christian theologians reconcile these passages? Did Jesus, as a human, retain omniscience and choose not to use it at times, or did He genuinely limit His knowledge while on earth?

Related answered questions: [Chalcedonianism is a moderate between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19867/is-it-proper-to-state-that-chalcedonianism-is-a-moderate-position-in-between-nes) , [What does it mean that the two natures of Christ cannot be separated?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31552/what-does-it-mean-that-the-two-natures-of-christ-cannot-be-separated?rq=1) , and [Does the Chalcedonian definition mean Christ has two minds? ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66264/does-the-chalcedonian-definition-mean-christ-has-two-minds) Related unanswered question: [How would miaphysites approach monothelitism versus dyothelitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism) I know the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirms the orthodox position of the two wills of Jesus and rejects monothelitism. And the Chalcedonian definition states >One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in **Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably**; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather **the properties of each Nature being preserved**, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; **not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons**, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the indivisbility of the two natures means we can't attribute particular adjectives or actions that apply to the Person of Christ to the individual nature, though that may be its source. Such as, it would be incorrect to say that "Jesus' human nature died on the cross, but his divine nature did not." Or even "Jesus' divine nature is omnipotent, but his human nature is not." Though we may know that the source or origin of his omnipotence from his divinity, we cannot attribute omnipotence to Jesus' divine nature but the person as a whole. It seems the Chalcedonian definition supports this, unless "the properties of each Nature being preserved" implies the opposite of that. By "attributing" a property, or perhaps "identifying" a property to be of one nature, I am referring to the accuracy of statements such as "Jesus' human nature slept, but Jesus' divine nature was always awake" (because "God never sleeps", Psalm 121:4). If we can't attribute a property to a particular nature, then we must stop at saying "Jesus slept" (the person of Christ) and cannot say anything in particular about what each individual nature experienced, though we perhaps could say that the origin of Jesus' ability to sleep is from his human nature. The same applies with Jesus' omnipotence. Perhaps we could say that the origin of Jesus' omnipotence is his divine nature, but we can only say that Jesus is omnipotent (not saying 1/2 of his natures is omnipotent). The communication of properties between Jesus and God seem to come into play here, as well. If we can say that Jesus slept, then that means God slept. But, if only His human nature slept while His divine nature was awake, then perhaps we could escape concluding that God slept? Except that the Bible seems to be denote the person of Jesus with actions or adjectives, rather than an individual nature. It seems like this being the case, we could only attribute the will of Jesus to the person of Jesus, and not either individual nature when the two are inseparable. It seems like the same arguments apply for His wills as for various adjectives. "Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he didn't have a human will." "Well, Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he wasn't limited in knowledge, and yet he possesses omnipotence." Or something like that. Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how that wouldn't fulfill the "fully human" requirement. It seems that to say otherwise is just based on how we define what "human" is (which of course would be important). **If we can't attribute adjectives or actions to either individual nature, why can we attribute wills to the individual nature? How is that not separating the two natures that should be indivisible?** From a typical orthodox Trinitarian view, I want to know how this doctrine is properly formulated in light of these concerns, whether through Church creeds or early church fathers or theologians of the day or through someone's explanation. Edit: suggested from comments below, **how do do we know it is acceptable to attribute a property to one nature and not the other given that the two natures are inseparable? What does it mean for them to be inseparable if you can identify properties of each individual nature rather than the Person?**

In the Gospels, Jesus is led into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1–11, Luke 4:1–13). As the Son of God, He would have known in advance both that Satan was coming and the kinds of temptations he would present. For Christians, however, temptations often come suddenly and without forewarning. We usually don’t know in advance what form they will take. My question is: Does Jesus’ foreknowledge of the devil’s tactics set His experience of temptation apart from the temptations Christians face, or should it be understood as fundamentally the same kind of testing?

The Gospels record that at Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32). Immediately afterward, we read that the Spirit led Him into the wilderness to be tempted (Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1). Does this mean that the Holy Spirit entered or moved into Jesus only at His baptism, and then guided Him into the wilderness? Or should the descent of the Spirit be understood differently, since Luke 1:35 indicates that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore already had a unique relationship with Him before baptism?

> 11“I, only I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. The OT especially has a strong emphasis on there being only one God, Yahweh, and there are only a few scattered and cryptic references to God even having a Son. Trinitarian doctrine tries to solve this problem at least by stating that God is one Being, but represented by three Persons. Non-trinitarians challenge this saying that God and the Son are distinct beings. They would say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father and yet this passage seems to be saying that there is no Savior apart from the Father. The Word of God is manifested plainly in the New Testament, where Jesus seems to be distinct from the Father. But what do non-trinitarians do hermeneutically with passages in the OT like this one that seem to deny the separate existence of the Word? Why would Yahweh say there is no other Savior, whether person or being, knowing that he would be sending his Son to be the Savior of the world? Anyone should feel free to answer the question regardless of their beliefs about the trinity. Here is the verse in its immediate context. > 10“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I > have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I > am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after > Me. 11“I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. > 12“It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was > no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, > “And I am God. 13“Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who > can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?”

The Oriental Orthodox Church holds to Miaphysitism—that in the person of Jesus Christ, divinity and humanity are united in one nature (mia physis) without separation, confusion, or change. This view differs from the Chalcedonian definition, which speaks of two distinct natures united in one person. What passages of Scripture are used by the Oriental Orthodox Church to support the doctrine of Miaphysitism?

>In his letter dated 28 March 1941 addressed to the believers throughout the West, Shoghi Effendi emphasizes: As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.... ("The Promised Day is Come", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1980); p. 109) With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, they believe that although there was no physical bodily resurrection, “His Spirit... ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.” - [Resurrection of Christ and the Bible](http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible) . I would like to know the perspective of Christian denominations (any who subscribe to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed) on the beliefs of the Baha’i Faith (especially with regard to the person of Jesus Christ).

In Luke 2:26 the text states that Simeon would not see death before he had seen τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου (‘the Christ of the Lord’). How can Trinitarian theology reconcile the genitive construction — ‘of the Lord’ — which implies belonging or being sent, without diminishing Christ’s ontological equality with the very Kyrios? (Lk. 2:26 BGT) > καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν **χριστὸν κυρίου**. Luke 2:26 (KJV) > “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”

There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, > when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that > hear shall **live**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

In Philippians 2:6–7 (ESV), Paul writes of Christ: >*“Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”* Some interpret this "emptying" (Greek: kenóō) to mean that Christ temporarily gave up or set aside His divine attributes, and became fully human in appearance and function. Others argue that He remained fully divine while also taking on full humanity — the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Does this passage support the idea that Jesus ceased to operate in divine nature during His earthly life, or is it describing something else (e.g., a voluntary humility or servant posture)? How do major theological traditions (e.g., Chalcedonian Christianity, kenotic theology) interpret this “emptying”?

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

Acts 1:9–11 records Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Hebrews 1:3 and other passages state that He "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Yet other verses, such as Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25, describe Him as interceding for believers. Revelation 3:21 also speaks of Him sharing His Father’s throne. According to Christian theology, since His ascension, has Jesus been permanently seated on His throne, or is this meant to describe His authority while He remains actively engaged in roles such as interceding, reigning, and preparing for His return? I’m seeking an explanation based on Scripture and Christian doctrine about what Jesus has been doing since He ascended to the Father.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin? Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation? Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this? **Psalm 51:3-5 ESV** > For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. > > Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. > >Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. **Psalm 51:3-5 CEV** > I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt. > > You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me. > > I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.