"Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?" WT Aug 1st 2008 (page 2)

justhuman

WT uses the same reasoning regarding "God's" name. But there are many other aspects regarding YHWH that they ignore, or actually they don't like to comment. Here are the basic facts that they ignore:

1.Jesus followers accepted to be named CHRISTIANS not Jehovah's Witnesses. By the way the name it was adopted in the Antioch Congreagation and not the "Governing Body" in Jerusalim, and the rest of the Christian Congregations accept it. What a huge difference between Booze Jo's changing name from Bible Students to JW's!!!

2.Jesus said to his desciples that "You will be my witnesses untill the end of times" He didn't said you will be the Witness of YHWH

3. The Father -Son - Holy Spirit, share the same name since Jesus told to His followers to Baptize in the Name of the Father -Son -Holy Spirit, and the name that the 3 persons share is YHWH

4. The Isralites had a Master-Slave relation with Jehovah that is why they were calling Him Jehovah, while Christians have a Father - Son relation that is why they are refering to Him as Father Jesus Lords Day prayer(in the Greek days we don't use the Latin, and for Sunday we call it Lords day -Kyriaki) begins with "Our Father". So a child respects the father by calling Him dad and not using the name

Regarding the New Testament or Greek Scriptures it was the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church that set the Biblical Canon at the 4th century AD. Plus the Bible is NOT the only expression for God to humans. There are many other Early Christian writtings that they hold the Christian faith and are not included in the Biblical Canon. Indeed the Papal Church burned those who try to translate the Bible. On the contrary in the Romanae Empire(known to the West World as Byzantine)there was no dark ages. Science, arts, literature, and Christian faith never was persecuted. In fact it was kept for 2000 years and the Church never involved into Science matters like the Papal did with Galileo.

The following links show regarding the Bible and Christian faith

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/grafi1.htm Do Christians accept only the Bible

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/grafi3.htm Is the Bible the only source of Christian faith

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/genika/logos_theou1.htm Is the Bible the word of God

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/kritiki/protest_nootr1.htm Protestand misconcepts about the Bible

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/biblia.grafis1.htm Biblical Canon

http://www.oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/kanonas0.htm The definition in the Holy Synodos of the Biblical Canon

metatron

If anyone doubts the idea that the open pronunciation of "Jehovah" had faded away by Jesus' time, just read the Bible itself.

The Jews started avoiding using "Jehovah" when speaking to pagans like the Babylonians - and that's why Daniel was using euphemisms like Ancient of Days or other phrases. You can observe the name disappearing in Esther and Nehemiah as pagan contact continued. Eccesiastes and Esther lack the name completely.

metatron

oompa

OTWO.........I think I love you...............oompa

glenster

The main reason the JWs leaders put YHWH, which they define as just the
Father, in the NT is to put it in verses in which "Lord" could mean Son. The
rest is secondary effort toward that goal. Even if you allow the use of YHWH
in NT verses which quote OT verses with YHWH, the batch of NT verses otherwise
for which the JWs leaders want to steer readers away from the idea that Lord
is meant as Son are really their first concern and clearest case of JWs leaders
rewriting a lot of NT verses. Their priority is to affect distinction with
their theology of Father/Jesus/Michael etc., which is the weak case for what was
originally intended.

As usual in such things, the JWs leaders will misuse research material
deliberately, so I would phrase it in terms of stances and not beliefs.

Robert222

I have learned so much reading these messages than sitting in any kingdom hall for the past 30 yrs!! It is clear the "new" religion was Christianity, followers of Christ.

Jehovah (or variations) was used by the jews, the Christ put and end to the Jewish system, he said you are to call God "the father", that's it.

End of story - as was expertly brought out on this topic here on these message boards, Jesus had two major opportunities to let Jehovah's name be known, he didn't. It was God or Father....

Just makes me furious that no JW sitting in a kingdom hall will critically think about that August WT article, and see the JWs have no scriptual basis - they choose to worship the jewish god Jehovah and ignore Jesus.

AllTimeJeff

This reminded me of a conversation I had over 10 years ago when I was still in. I was defending the bible to an athiest who was clearly better educated on the subject then the cult member he was talking to. (me) Still, trying to be a good borgbot, I defended the bible as totally inspired, saying that surely God would be powerful enough to preserve his own thoughts. I was totally unaware of the gaping hole in that arguement that the man blew open.

He asked me why I believed Gods name was Jehovah. I said because it was in the bible over 7000 times as YHWH. He asked why I believed it was used in Jesus time and in the NT when no Greek MS contains anything resembling Jehovah as it is used in the NWT. I responded that Satan, being the ruler of the world, made sure that to confuse people as to the identity of God and Christ, the Tetragram was removed. At this point, my brain gasped as I was saying it. I sub conciously realized for the first time that I contradicted myself. Not that I had to wait long for the athiest to point this out.

"So, you believe that Jehovah is powerful enough to preserve these 66 books as his unerring word to us, but he isn't powerful enough to keep his own name in the NT? Is Satan THAT strong?" He said this with a smug smile. I was mad. Yeah, I REALLY lost that argument, and I don't like losing. But I was sort of mad at myself. I stammered something that I have faith, and the conversation wrapped up pretty quickly after that exchange.

For years that question came back in various forms "Why, if Jehovah is strong and powerful enough to preserve the bible was he unable to keep his own name in the Greek Scriptures/NT?" You can come to your own conclusions on this question, I know I have.

As far as JW's are concerned, (or I should say, the GB) when you take on the name of "Jehovah's Witnesses", isn't it clear that you have a vested interest in promoting that name? The fanciful, artful, and deceitful reasoning of the GB on the subject is for self preservation only.

I thought it telling that at Gilead that to support the use of Jehovah in the NT of the NWT, the "J" references were highlighted. All 237 occurrences of Jehovah are supported by these references, all of which are from the 15th century on. These references were by people (often Jewish) with their own bent and agenda as to the inclusion of the tetragram in the NT. These translators that the NWT relies on 237 times are hardly authoratative. Their only value to the GB is so that they can say "We aren't the only ones who think Jehovah should be here..."

I still don't have an answer as to why Jehovah isn't powerful enough to make sure his name was included in his own book that he supposedly authored. I can tell you on my own journey that if I ever worship god again, I sure won't be calling him Jehovah.

Narkissos

Early Jewish writings indicate that Jewish Christians used the divine name in their writings. The Tosefta, a written collection of oral laws completed about 300 C.E., says with regard to Christian writings that were burned on the Sabbath: "The books of the Evangelists and the books of the minim [thought to be Jewish Christians] they do not save from the fire. But they are allowed to burn where they are,... they and the references to the Divine Name which are in them.
This is an interesting reference that the WT uses from time to time. I would like to know more about the background to this. From what I have read it is not agreed that the reference is necessarily to Christians, or if they were they may have been the Ebionites who were ostracised by the wider church. If the Ebionites used the Tetragram in their texts this is not necessarily an argument in favour of the Tetragram being in the original New Testament.

This point caught my eye, as I didn't remember the WT using this argument...

Apparently it is from the Shabbath treatise of the Talmud Babli (Talmud of Babylon). An online translation dating to 1903 can be read at http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0128.htm ; the relevant passage seems to be:

The schoolmen asked: May the blank pieces of the Scroll of Laws which had become detached from the Scroll be saved from a conflagration on Sabbath or not? Come and hear: The Gilyonim (blank pieces of the Scroll) and the Sadducean books need not be saved from the conflagration. They, together with the holy names contained in them. Does not the word Gilyonim have reference to the blank pieces of the Scroll? Nay; the blank pages of the Sadducean books. How can it mean the blank pages of the Sadducean books. Why, it is not even allowed to save the Sadducean books themselves? Perhaps the Boraitha means, that the Sadducean books are considered as blank pages, and hence must not be saved.
The text of the Boraitha says further: The Gilyonim and the Sadducean books must not be saved from a conflagration; R. Jose says, that on week-days the Holy Name must be torn out wherever it appears and preserved, and the remainder must be burned; but R. Tarphon says: May I bury my children, if I would not burn such books together with the Holy Name, whenever they reached my hands; for when a man is pursued by murderers or by a snake, it were better for him to seek refuge in the temple of an idol than to enter the houses of such people; for the idolaters serve their idols because they know not God, but the others know God and deny him; they (the latter) are referred to by the verse [Isaiah lvii. 8]: "And behind the doors and the doorposts hast thou placed thy remembrance" (implying that they remember the Lord very well, but nevertheless place their memory behind the doors and doorposts).

This should be digged further, but the WT inference seems to rest on a debatable identification of the gilyonim to the Christian Gospels (canonical or not). Whereas there is evidence for a rabbinical pun on the Greek euaggelion (pronounced evangelion, = Gospel) in the phrase `awen gilyon, "scroll of iniquity," in other contexts, it doesn't follow that gilyonim alone means "Gospels". Otoh minim is a very general term embracing all kinds of heretics from the Pharisaic/rabbinical perspective, including Sadducees (whence, I suppose, the above translation).

jwfacts

When the Watchtower is attempting to make a JW feel the Bible is inerrant - the perfect word of God - they have a very different message.

no important omissions

Reasoning from the Scriptures

a dependable Greek text

All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial

dogon2

What I do not understand, is it was not removed out of the old testiment, but it got removed out of the new? Does this make sence to anyone else?

FairMind

oompa
yep JW's dragged the god of the jews kicking and screaming into christianity......and pretty much them alone....

oompa, the God of the Jews is God Almighty and the creator of all things including Jesus. So IMO this god of the jews is also the god of Christians.

Alltimejeff
I still don't have an answer as to why Jehovah isn't powerful enough to make sure his name was included in his own book that he supposedly authored

The answer might be that Jehovah isn't concerned as much with mankind knowing his name as he is with mankind knowing him and submitting to him in worship and the way we live our lives.

"Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?" WT Aug 1st 2008

Share this