Why Christians Avoided Gods Name (part2)

by metatron 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  So, as we've seen, Jesus carefully avoided using 'Jehovah'/Yahweh - because the Jews
  would have killed him immediately, as the Septugint says (Lev.24:15,16 LXX).
  He avoided it consistently, refering to God as "Father" down to his sacrificial death
  (Luke 23:46) and even avoided it in ordering baptisms (Matt. 28:19 "the name of the
  Father", not 'Jehovah').

  Jesus must have avoided using it even when speaking to his disciples since many could
  not be trusted to hold such a confidence (John6:66) - as well as the apostles, since
  Judas was amoung them and was foreknown to betray him(John6:71).

  Christians avoided using the Name for an additional reason, besides the threat of immediate
  violence by Jews. That reason is:

  The "Lex superstitio illicita" - a Roman law that forbade introducing a new unauthorized
  deity UPON PAIN OF DEATH. No one was allowed to have new or different gods, neither could
  they worship unknown private gods, unless they had public authorization to do so.
  Socrates was put to death because of this law - and the Apostle Paul was well aware of this
  restriction (Acts 16:21, 17:18, 18:13). He was charged with a very serious allegation
  in Acts 17:18 - that of being "a publisher of foreign deities". If you have any doubts
  about this prohibition, check Clarke's Commentary on Acts 16 and 17 for Roman testimony
  on the matter.

  Paul wisely avoided death by avoiding the use of 'Jehovah'/Yahweh - and using substitutes
  like "Lord of heaven and earth" and the "Divine Being". (Acts 17). He also claimed that
  god was everyone's Father (Acts 17:28) and that they were worshiping God unknowingly (Acts 17:23).

  As a result, the Christian standard of faith became " there is actually to us one God,
  the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus
  Christ" (1Cor.8:4). Paul's avoidance of the Name is consistent with the pattern that
  dominates the Christian Greek scriptures - God is identified habitually as the "Father".

  Later on, after the Temple was destroyed, in writing private letters to congregations
  near the end of the first century, John avoided using 'Jehovah'/Yahweh completely,
  even as translated by the Watchtower. (check the Concordance - 1,2,3 John) Only in Revelation
  can the Watchtower Society find oblique possible references to the Septuagint and
  force 'Jehovah' into the text.

  You can also check the writings of Clement of Rome or Polycarp, Church Fathers who
  spent most of their lives in the first century - and credibly taught by the apostles.
  They don't use the Name - and are as enthusiastic about the name of Jesus as any other
  Christians of the period.

  There is no direct manuscript evidence that Christian Bible writers ever used the
  Tetragram in their books. Even the Watchtower Society admits that they did not always
  quote the Septuagint - showing that they could chose, as they wished, without being
  slaves to quotes from its text. Perhaps they wrote in the Tetragram in scriptures that
  would be confusing without it (like Matt.22:43,44) but we cannot be sure. Nevertheless,
  the pattern of public avoidance in preaching is clear and "Father" was commonly
  preferred.

  There is nothing wrong with using 'Jehovah' - except, perhaps, in the way that the
  Watchtower has - as a source of contentious hostility towards other Christians, who
  often prefer the common scriptural pattern of "Our Father". To use this Name as a
  club against other sincere believers is a perversion of the spirit that caused
  early Christians to look at God as everyone's Father in the heavens.

  The final part is next.

  metatron
• 

  kenpodragon

  I will just make it easy ... Jehovah, Jesus, Zeus, Hercules, Athena, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary ... all fit in to one word "Myth!!!" All made up by man.

  My thought

  Dragon
• 

  metatron

  As to myths, my point here is that the Watchtower is based on a complete fiction - that early Christians spoke the Name

  as commonly as Witnesses do today - that just isn't so.

  metatron
• 

  Francois

  I say that Jesus never used the name Jehovah because that is NOT God's name. We don't know the name of the Universal Father. We only know the name of the primitive god of a primitive, savage bunch of bedouin tribes who wondered around in the deserts of the Levant, and that's all.

  "The God you can name is not the Everlasting God" - Lao Tzu

  -francois
• 

  kelsey007

  Amen dragon- myth it is- good book- "The Christ Conspiracy- The Greatest Story Ever Sold" written by Acharya S and published by Advetures Unlimited Press [email protected]
• 

  ozziepost

  Later on, after the Temple was destroyed, in writing private letters to congregations
  near the end of the first century, John avoided using 'Jehovah'/Yahweh completely,
  even as translated by the Watchtower. (check the Concordance - 1,2,3 John) Only in Revelation
  can the Watchtower Society find oblique possible references to the Septuagint and
  force 'Jehovah' into the text.

  You can also check the writings of Clement of Rome or Polycarp, Church Fathers who
  spent most of their lives in the first century - and credibly taught by the apostles.
  They don't use the Name - and are as enthusiastic about the name of Jesus as any other
  Christians of the period.

  There is no direct manuscript evidence that Christian Bible writers ever used the
  Tetragram in their books.

  This to me is a very persuasive reason to believe that the uttering of the actual word "Jehovah" is not the crucial matter that the WTS makes it out to be.

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  Earnest

  metatron:

  I appreciate much of what you have written in your second salvo - on the use of God's name by the early Christians. I particularly endorse your final paragraph:

  "While There is nothing wrong with using 'Jehovah' - except, perhaps, in the way that the Watchtower has - as a source of contentious hostility towards other Christians, who often prefer the common scriptural pattern of "Our Father". To use this Name as a club against other sincere believers is a perversion of the spirit that caused early Christians to look at God as everyone's Father in the heavens."

  However, many of your assumptions have little support.

  For example, you say:

  "Jesus carefully avoided using 'Jehovah'/Yahweh - because the Jews would have killed him immediately, as the Septuagint says (Lev.24:15,16 LXX)."

  It has already been shown that this verse was understood to refer to the name in a blasphemous or unseasonable way ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=35865&site=3) and so does not support your suggestion.

  You say:

  "He even avoided it in ordering baptisms (Matt. 28:19 "the name of the Father", not 'Jehovah')."

  This argument might have had weight had the baptismal formula been "in the name of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the holy spirit" but as it is there is no more evidence of avoiding God's name than of avoiding the name of Christ in this verse.

  You say:

  "Jesus must have avoided using it even when speaking to his disciples since many could not be trusted to hold such a confidence (John 6:66) - as well as the apostles, since Judas was among them and was foreknown to betray him (John 6:71)."

  It is quite likely he more often referred to "my Father" than to "Jehovah" but your assumption that it was dangerous to use God's name at that time is simply not substantiated by available evidence. For example, there is no valid instance outside Monty Python of anyone being stoned to death for this reason in the time of Jesus.

  You make the point that John avoided using 'Jehovah'/Yahweh completely in his private letters.

  The fact that he didn't use God's name doesn't mean that he avoided it. And if one accepts the principle that it would be used when quoting from the OT then he would have used it at John 1:23 (Isaiah 40:3); 6:45 (Isaiah 54:13) and 12:38 (Isaiah 53:1) which was roughly contemporaneous with his letters.

  If it is true that later copyists of the gospels replaced God's name with "lord" as they did in the Septuagint, then they would have had no hesitation in treating the letters of Clement of Rome and Polycarp in the same way. So the absence of God's name in their letters is really not evidence of anything.

  Finally, you refer to the "lex superstitio illicita" as a reason the early Christians avoided using the Name. Clarke's Commentary on Acts 16:21 translates this law as: "No person shall have any separate gods, nor new ones; nor shall he privately worship any strange gods, unless they be publicly allowed."

  However, this law would not refer to the use of God's name because Jehovah was recognised as the god of the Jews, and Judaism was included in the "religiones licitae" or "licensed faiths" which were publicly allowed. It is far more likely that the use of Jesus' name would have resulted in such a charge because the Christians had already been declared "strana et illicita", strange and unlawful, in a senatorial decree as early as 35 C.E.

  So my conclusion to your second salvo is similar to that of your first: You provide a strong argument that the term "Father" was preferred to using God's name, but I do not find the evidence convincing that His name was not used at all.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 6 September 2002 22:11:26