What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 263 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  Vanderhoven7: "My take is that God wanted His Son's name to be glorified among men above every other name that is named. So He made sure there was no salvation outside of that name; that unless we receive the Son we cannot be adopted as sons... Jesus says: "Come unto me" while the Watchtower says, "Come to Jehovah's organization to be saved"."

  There is no doubt that Christians have to accept Jesus as their Savior in the name of God. (John 14.6, Acts 4.12) Other entities vying to take the place of Christ are in the wrong. I think the WTS is overstepping the role and authority of Jesus Christ by giving themselves the role of 'the oracle of Jehovah.' Jesus stated that he himself 'will be with his followers until the conclusion of the age.' -Mt. 28.20. In his physical absence, he promised them the manifestation of "the helper" by means of "the spirit of the truth" sent from the Father. (John 15.26)

  Thus, every noble effort springing from a human organization is severely limited compared to what the Father can accomplish through his Son.
• 

  Fisherman

  compared to what the Father can accomplish through his Son.

  “Although I may be the Christ, the Messiah, the son of the living God

  —but—Jehovah is salvation, salvation comes from Jehovah.” That’s what is being emphasized here.

  Jesus was Jehovah by power of attorney, by proxy. ( “Blessed is he who comes in Jehovah’s name.”) “I have made your name known.”

  So, it is not either Jesus or Jehovah. The question is invalid.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes it’s a very odd approach to simply count the number of times a name is used to claim that someone is more important than God and totally ignore what the text actually says about Jehovah being the source of salvation and Jesus being his obedient servant.

  An excellent book on Jesus’ role in the New Testament is James McGrath’s book The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context (2006). It really cuts away later dogma to show what the New Testament authors said

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Only-True-God-Christian-Monotheism/dp/0252078799
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Well it seems to me that some on this forum think that Jesus name is getting sufficient coverage and consideration at kingdom halls across the globe.

  And when I say "name" I mean person, not merely a bunch of syllables.

  My take is that Jesus is all but marginalized by so called Jehovah's Witnesses and relationship with Jesus aka Michael the super angel is not only not promoted but also not possible .
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life is all but ignored at the kingdom halls of Jehovah's Witnesses and anyone using the actual name of Jesus more than that of Jehovah will be looked on with suspect.

  Let's review

  Who is the way, the truth and the life? (John 14:6)

  To whose name would Christians witness? (Acts 1:8)

  For whose name would Christians be hated? (Matt. 10:22)

  For whose name would Christians be reproached? (1 Peter 4:14)

  For whose name would Christians be persecuted and killed? (Luke 21:12,16,17)

  For whose name would Christians make sacrifices? (Matt. 19:29)

  By whose name alone were people be saved? (Acts 4:12)

  By whose name were people healed? (Acts 3:6; Acts 4:10)

  By whose name were demons expelled? (Luke 10:17; Acts 16:18)

  By whose name would people receive Holy Spirit? (John 14:26)

  By whose name would believers be named? (Isa. 62:2; Acts 11:26)

  By whose name would people be reconciled to God? (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18)

  By whose name would people be forgiven their sins? (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38; Eph. 1:7)

  By whose name would people be resurrected (John 5:28)

  In whose name would people pray to God? (John 15:16)

  In whose name would people be baptized? (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16)

  In whose name were people to put faith? (John 2:23)

  In whose name would people be judged? (John 5:27)

  In whose name was Paul commissioned to preach? (Acts 9:14-16)

  In whose name were Christians to gather together? (Matt. 18:20)

  In whose name will every knee in heaven and on earth bend? (Philippians 2:10)

  Jesus - not Jehovah
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vanderhoven7's question (to Wonderment) of "Why do you think God made sure His full name did not appear once in the NT ..." is very presumptuous (though perhaps it was not intended to be such). I say that because it incorporates the presumption (or claim) that "God made sure His full name did not appear once in the" ancient manuscripts of the NT despite the fact it has not been proven God did such. [It is false/inaccurate to say it is not in any copy of the NT, since the name is in the NWT copies of the NT and in copies of other translations made after the year 1800, and in many earlier translations of the NT made after the year 1500, as documented by the WT. This observation allows another question to be asked. Namely the following. If God both exists and was opposed to his full name appearing even once in the NT, then why did he avoid preventing his name from appearing in the NT of the NWT, in the Emphatic Diaglott, and in many non-WT translations of the NT into Hebrew and other non-English languages? Some of those translations were made for the purpose of converting people who worshiped a god/God or gods (that is, what the people considered to be such) other than Jesus and Jehovah/YHWH.]
  

  Even if YHWH God exists we do NOT know God made sure His full name did not appear once in any ancient manuscript of the NT. What we do know is that, if hypothetically God exists, then God allowed/permitted His full name to not appear once in the known extant ancient copies of the NT. In other words, even if God exists, God may have been passive instead of active in regards to his His full name not appearing once in the known extant copies of the NT. Even if the full name never appeared in any ancient manuscript (whether a copy or an original) of any book of the the NT, that does not mean God made sure that was the case.

  Vanderhoven7, a better question to ask to someone who is convinced that God exists and who is convinced that God's full name was never in any ancient manuscript of the NT, is the following. "Why do you think God allowed (or avoided preventing) his full name to be completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT?"

  Vanderhoven7, I agree that compared to what the NT often says about Jesus (including about the importance of the Jesus Christ in the personal lives of Christians), Jesus is all but marginalized by the religion which is called "Jehovah's Witnesses". That is because the religion teaches that modern-day JW are to avoid worshiping Jesus and are to even avoid praying to Jesus. As a result, even if Jesus exists, faithful Jehovah's Witnesses (even ones who consider themselves part the anointed ones, even the governing body) can NOT have a personal relationship with Jesus (unless the relationship is one-sided, with Jesus contacting a JW, but not a JW also contacting Jesus or communicating to Jesus). In contrast the WT encourages JWs to have a personal relationship with Jehovah God. The WT's JW religion is a more Judaic leaning version of Christianity than the vast majority of the types of modern-day Christianity.

  Vanderhoven7, regarding your comment of the name in which people would be baptized, you left out Matthew 28:19. That verse says baptizing is to be done "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit". Note the order of the 'names' and that such might indicate an implied degree of priority.
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Well phrased DJW, especially your last paragraph.

  Let me add a bit to "our" question.

  Why do you think God allowed or avoided preventing or perhaps planned that his full name to be completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT?"
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vanderhoven7, after you made your most recent post in this topic thread I added one more paragraph to my prior post.

  Regarding your question, I don't think God had any role (whether active or passive) in his full name being completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT. That is because I am now an atheist and a scientific naturalist and thus I believe/think with a high degree of certainty that God does not exist. The fact that his full name is completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT is one thing which contributed to me (when I was a Christian) to doubt his existence (since the OT claims God emphasized his name of YHWH so incredibly much), and which contributed to me eventually becoming a positive/strong atheist. By "positive/strong atheist" I mean an atheist who is extremely certain that no God or god exists.

  I view the OT, the NT, and the Apocrypha as entirely works authored by humans and consisting entirely of human ideas, of which a great many of the ideas are erroneous. [Ever since I stopped believing in the existence of Jehovah God (namely since the year 2010 or so) I stopped believing the OT is God's word and I stopped believing that the NT is God's word. I never believed the Apocrypha is God's word, though while I was an independent Christian I came to view the Apocrypha as providing insight into the emergence of Christian ideas, and of its possible influence upon the writing of parts of the NT.] But in a prior post (within the past few days in this topic thread) I mentioned that I currently think the full name of YHWH was probably originally in the NT. In the post I also say I think humans in the 2nd century CE began writing the word "Kyrios" in substitution of the name "YHWH" in the NT, and I mentioned what I think might have been reasons for doing so.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  " I mean person, not merely a bunch of syllables

  Funny bunch of syllables emphasize Jehovah, the source of the Christ.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  to claim that someone is more important than God and totally ignore what the text actually says about Jehovah being the source of salvation and Jesus being his obedient servant

  SBF, as always, you rock.