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

by Vanderhoven7 258 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • GodBeliever
    GodBeliever

    Vanderhoven,

    There is another noticeable difference to consider.

    And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

    Revelation 19:8

    After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands;

    Revelation 7:9

    Great crowd has white robes, whereas the bride of Christ is wearing fine linen.

    and he called to the man clothed in linen, who had the writer’s inkhorn by his side. And Jehovah said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry over all the abominations that are done in the midst thereof. Ezekiel 9:3‭-‬4

    "And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath came, and the time of the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, the small and the great; and to destroy them that destroy the earth."Revelation 11:18

    John is shown three classes of people here at rev. 11.

    The prophets of the old, the saints who belong to the bride class and to them that fear God name.

    And I don't have any reason to run, I know where I belong to.

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    GB

    And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Revelation 19:8

    Great crowd has white robes, whereas the bride of Christ is wearing fine linen.

    You are grasping at straws. Are you sure the white robes of the GC are not made of linen or covering linen garments? Does it say the GC is not wearing linen garments, i.e. that the GC members don't have any righteous acts and that they are not saints?

    I notice that you are contrasting the "Great Crowd" and the 144,000 as a basis for making doctrinal conclusions. I don't think this is the intent of the scriptures here. For example, the 144,000 are described in Revelation 14 as being male virgins, so does that mean that none of the "Great Crowd" can be male virgins. Is that a legitimate conclusion?

    - I think it's safe to say that we shouldn't contrast the 144,000 with the "Great Crowd" based on missing information as a basis for constructing doctrines.


    All Christians are declared righteous based on their faith in Jesus; all Christians have one hope, all Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit or they do not belong to Christ. Romans 8:9

    BTW, You can buy white linen robes through Amazon real cheap.

    Linen

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    GB

    As Boogerman suggests, why don't you just accept what the Bible says

    Based on the scriptures, surely everyone who has faith/believes in Jesus' ransom is declared righteous - not just 144,000? God isn't partial, as Peter said.

    (Romans 3:24) ...and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus.

    (Romans 3:28) For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.

    (Romans 4:3) For what does the scripture say? “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

    (Romans 5:1) Therefore, now that we have been declared righteous as a result of faith,...

    (Romans 5:9) ...we have now been declared righteous by his blood,...

    (Galatians 2:16) ….a man is declared righteous, not by works of law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ.

    (Galatians 3:24) So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.

    Romans 3:21-26 21 But now God has shown us His righteousness; the law and the prophets tell us about it...God's righteousness comes to all who believe, just by their believing in Jesus Christ. There is no distinction. All have sinned and are without God's glory. They become righteous by a gift of His love, by the ransom Christ Jesus paid to free them. God set Him up publicly to pour out His blood before God to take away sin through faith, to show His righteousness...Now He wanted to show His righteousness, to be righteous Himself and make righteous anyone who believes in Jesus. (Beck)

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    GB believes that if he can't be declared righteous the way God says to do it, then he can a least be God's friend. How? By dis-believing and dis-obeying God. It's crazy, But this is exactly what he was taught.

    God says to eat and drink of the new covenant "for the forgiveness of sins". The WT says not to. Whom to believe? We have a choice - free will.

    This is a link to the official WT teaching on how you can be declared righteous by disobeying Jesus.... with some of my own notes of course.

    https://www.bibleready.org/_files/ugd/7f3e67_280498c8ef394dc796a2fd2e45636c76.pdf

    Fortunately, Jesus cleared this matter up on whether or not we need to be born-again with a new spirit or not. This way we don't get confused and misdirected:

    But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9 KJV)

    If you are not spirit-begotten you are not friends with Jesus. You are rejected.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    There just seems to be something a little extra perverse and extra fallen in the mindset of active JW's. I had it too, I remember.

    But, the further I get away from it, the clearer I see my past mindset. It's like a guy who insists on crashing a party where everyone was already invited. He just couldn't couldn't go in through the door. Or, like a kid who will lie when the truth sounds better. Looking back, it was just such a contrarian way to live.

  • smiddy3
    smiddy3

    Is it just me ? or is their anyone else on this forum that thinks pronuncing wrongly the name of God by a religion who has set themselves up to spokespersons for God matters ?

    This post has more than justified settling the issue that Jesus name is the one that Christians should be emphasising and proclaiming and not the name Jehovah or even Yahweh .

    But you think an organization that prides itself in speaking and witnessing for GOD would at least get his name right ? wouldn`t you ?

  • jhine
    jhine

    GB l haven't read all of your posts but you mention

    " l have other sheep not of this fold .......and they will become one flock with one shepherd "

    How's about the other sheep are Gentiles? Jesus was talking to Jews who believed up to that point that only they were God's people.

    Jesus was saying that Gentiles would be saved by His blood too and all who are saved Jew and Gentile would be one flock.under one shepherd, Jesus.

    Apologies to any who has already mentioned this . As l said l haven't read all of this extensive thread.

    Jan

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Even over the time period when the Bible was written the divine name was pronounced differently. The first century Jews said Yaho, the Samaritans said Yahweh, and who knows exactly how the prophet Isaiah would have pronounced the name 800 years earlier. In modern English we say Jehovah, in German it’s spelled similar but pronounced more like Yehofah, which some argue is very close to ancient pronunciation. Names change over time and in different languages. The different forms of the divine name are all pretty similar really: more similar than Pierre and Peter, or Johannes and John. Not to mention the fact that, of course, the early Christians would not have even understood the name “Jesus” as we currently say it in English. How come the people who insist the pronunciation of the divine name is a deal breaker don’t say the same about Jesus, whose pronunciation in the first century clearly does not match?

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    GB l haven't read all of your posts but you mention:
    " l have other sheep not of this fold .......and they will become one flock with one shepherd "
    How's about the other sheep are Gentiles? Jesus was talking to Jews who believed up to that point that only they were God's people.

    Jhine,

    This is very obvious and thanks for pointing that out. The whole world knows that the other sheep are gentiles. Only JW's maintain that the "other sheep" are some secret group of people (heretics), unknown to the apostles that have a different way of getting into the kingdom other than the new covenant "for the forgiveness of sins". The apostles never preached this. And scriptures say that if we preach a gospel that the apostles didn't preach we are cursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)t

    This parable reinforces the importance of entering through the invitation process, and not "some other way".

    So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. (Everyone is invited - both bad and good)

    11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: (clothed with righteousness)

    12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how did you get in here not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

    13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    GodBeliever is this man with no wedding garment. Take the invitation GB.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    slimboyfat what you said is exactly right. Furthermore, the Catholic who is claimed to have transliterated the divine name as Jehovah, actually did so as Iehovah into Latin - since "J" as a separate letter of the alphabet hadn't yet been invented. Furthermore in late Latin in modern German, the letter "J" has the same pronunciation as the English letter "Y". Not only that, but the Catholic who transliterated the name as Iehovah (now spelled Jehovah) didn't really invent the name. [Note: The original printings of the KJV it is spelled as "Iehovah", instead of being spelled as "Jehovah", in four verses where the divine name is used. I know that because I had a facsimile of the original printing.] He merely transliterated the name from a vowel pointed Hebrew text. Perhaps he didn't know that the Jews used the vowel points along with YWH to remind readers to say Adonai (My Lord) instead, but still since the vowel points were there he faithfully transliterated them.

    Interestingly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#cite_note-Kotansky-12 in footnote number 12 says 'Although most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (c. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai (the traditionally pronounced version of יהוה), many magical texts in Semitic and Greek establish an early pronunciation of the divine name as both Yehovah and Yahweh'. WOW! Jehovah might be right after all, at least if the "J" is pronounced the German way (as the sound of the English "Y")! The same article also says the following.

    "Some Karaite Jews,[16] as proponents of the rendering Jehovah, state that although the original pronunciation of יהוה has been obscured by disuse of the spoken name according to oral Rabbinic law, well-established English transliterations of other Hebrew personal names are accepted in normal usage, such as Joshua, Jeremiah, Isaiah or Jesus, for which the original pronunciations may be unknown.[16][17] They also point out that "the English form Jehovah is quite simply an Anglicized form of Yehovah,"[16] and preserves the four Hebrew consonants "YHVH" (with the introduction of the "J" sound in English).[16][18][19] Some argue that Jehovah is preferable to Yahweh, based on their conclusion that the Tetragrammaton was likely tri-syllabic originally, and that modern forms should therefore also have three syllables.[20]"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit