The Watchtower and JW will resort to gaslighting or say something ridiculous that isn't logical to explain anything away. When I saw that they changed verses in the bible and that they all had to do with the deity of Christ, I saw this was a conspiracy. They are deceiving people. The best liars mix some truth into it. So they are careful about preserving a lot of truth. I heard a story of how they were so careful to get the type of wine correct for the memorial. Why? Because the memorial is a rejection of Jesus. But getting the details right adds to the validity of the deception. We were duped. Our loved ones are duped. We escaped the watchtower, but then we continue the deception by saying God isn't real and guess what? The Watchtower wins again because their original plan is to keep people from being saved by rejecting Jesus! It's genius, really, if you think about it! Evil genius.
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 81 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Rattigan350
(1 Peter 2:3, 4) is not a quote from Psalms.
And they would not be using the septuagint.
"How can the Watchtower Society reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with Hebrews 1:10?"
What is there to reconcile?
Isaiah was addressing the Israelites and they have followed false gods. That is why vs 6 says "There is no God but me". Jesus is not God like him. As vs 7 says "Who is there like me? Let him call out and tell it and prove it to me! From the time I established the people of long ago,"
Here it is not a matter of Jehovah vs Jesus. It is Jehovah vs the gods of the nations. Context is so important.
If Paul quoted that in Heb 1:10, he wasn't referring to Jesus. In Heb 1 he starts out saying "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son". So it is clear that Paul knows that God used people prophets and now a Son. So he recognizes Jehovah and Jesus.
Context is so important.
-
aqwsed12345
Rattigan350
Jesus is eternal and Creator (see Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1, 3, 10; 8:58; 13:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2, 8, 10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18; 22:13). In addition to the above clear references, the Scriptures also state that God alone is the Creator (see Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:28; 44:24; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 2:10).
However, did God actually create only one angel, and then use this angel to create everything "else"? No! The Scriptures clearly state:
"I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me?" (Isaiah 44:24)
God testifies that He Himself created the heavens and the earth, "alone," "by myself." Therefore, the Bible declares that everything was created by the Son, that the Holy Spirit was present at creation (Genesis 1:2), and that the LORD (Jehovah) was "alone" there. This only makes sense if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the one true God.
The idea that a lesser God (demigod) participated in creation, separate from "Jehovah," is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2, 8, as well as the fact that the Father did not create alone but with the Son (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30). Creation is an exclusively divine ability, and no created being can even serve as a means for creation. God is the unique source of creation, as He does not cooperate with any tools, partners, or materials in the work of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. No one and nothing can create as God does. The creative capacity of God is an incommunicable attribute for any creature. To be able to create, that is, to bring existence from nonexistence, one must be God.
You just have to answer the rhetorical questions the Scripture ask you there:
- For to which of the angels did God ever say,
- “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”?
- And, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands"? (quote from Psalms 102:25, where it's stated about YHWH God)
Here the narrator is talking about the Father's statements to and about the Son. It is no coincidence that Paul wrote this letter to the Hebrews, that is, to the Jews, who knew the Old Testament well, and in their eyes to attribute such statements to an angel would be blasphemy, since he makes statements about the Son that, in the light of the Old Testament statements, only are applicable to YHWH God.
You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24. There is clearly no place for a secondary creator demigod. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with "his own hands" (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:2.8, Psalm 95:5-6), thus alone. Creation is the work of God alone and directly. The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this. These statements are explicit and clear, and by the way, common sense also supports this. So there is no room left for the archangel Jesus vindicated by WTS.
Additionally, the Scriptures do not merely ascribe to the Son some kind of cooperation in the creation, but also teach that he is creator of all creatures (which according to them he does not belong to), and creation is only a divine ability. Angels can perform miracles to a certain degree, but they cannot create, that is the exclusive ability of God.
Since the Scriptures clearly state that YHWH God "alone" created the world, at the same time the New Testament states in many places that the Son is also the creator, two possibilities remain:
- Scripture contradicts itself
- YHWH God is not merely the Father, but also the Son.
The creation of the world is an exclusive divine activity. God is the one principle of everything, the creator of everything. This is denied by the Gnostics and all kinds of other dualists, who place a world-creating demiurge between the absolutely supreme and holy God and the completely evil matter, who then, as a creature, carries out creative activity.
Proof. In the Old Testament, God declares: "I am the Lord, the maker of all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Is 44:24). John says of the Word: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (Jn 1:3; cf. Heb 3:4 Ap 4:11. Act 4:11 Rom 11:36).
The Church Fathers first proclaimed the Christian truth against the Gnostic demiurge (Iren. II 1-3; IV 21, 1). However, their main argument against the Arians was: The Word (whom they call a creature) created the world, therefore it must be God; a creature cannot create (Athanas. Ctra Arian. II 21 24; Nyssen. Eunom. II (M 45, 512c); Cyril. Al. C. Iulian. II.). Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1).
No existing or possible created being can possess creative power, not even in a supernatural way. For the creative activity presupposes infinite power. Because a) it creates something against nothing, which is separated from nothing by an infinite distance; bridging this infinite distance demands infinite power. b) Creation is directed towards being itself, the most universal reality, without any limitation from determinations and pre-existing matter; therefore, it is essentially unlimited power: whoever can create something can create anything at will. However, finite creatures cannot accept infinite capacity as a determinant of existence or as an accessory: the extent of the receiving subject sets a limit to the content of being that can be accepted; an infinite ocean cannot be poured into a finite container.
Moreover, a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation. Because a) the task of the instrument is to prepare the material for the acceptance of the activity of the principal cause. But creation does not aim at existing matter; therefore, there is no exercise area (materia circa quam) for its operation. Most importantly, b) the instrumental causes must receive motion from the principal cause and transmit it to the matter, which must be shaped according to the intention of the principal cause. However, a finite creature, as such, is incapable of taking up and carrying the creative activity with infinite content, just as a stone or log is incapable of being the substantial carrier of spiritual activity, even in a supernatural way.
-
slimboyfat
I think there is a good explanation for Heb 1.10 that actually enhances the case the for the divine name in the NT and the distinction between Jehovah and Jesus, or YHWH and kyrios in the original.
Because, as you mention, it is the Greek version, not the Hebrew that is quoted here. The Hebrew doesn’t have Lord in verse 26, but the Greek version does. An English translation of the entire Psalm can be read here:
https://ebible.org/eng-Brenton/PSA101.htm#FN2
The question is what did the Greek of this Psalm say before the divine name was removed? The Greek version of this Psalm can be read as a Messianic Psalm, and the Lord in verse 26 is the Lord Messiah rather than YHWH. This is indicated in verse 24 where is says “he answered him”. Who answered who? This is apparently YHWH and Jesus speaking to each other.
This is similar to Psalm 110 where David says, “Jehovah said to my Lord, sit at my right hand” and quoted so many times in the New Testament, applying the “Lord” to Jesus as distinct from YHWH in the same verse.
This raises a question I never see Trinitarians answer. How can they say Jesus and Jehovah are elided in the New Testament when the most popular OT quotation in the entire NT makes the clear distinction between YHWH and the messianic Lord.
The entire point of quoting Psalm 110.1 throughout the NT is to distinguish YHWH from Jesus. Although it’s more difficult to see, because there’s a difference between the Hebrew and Greek versions in Psalm 101/2, the same thing is going on there as the messianic “Lord” is distinguished from YHWH in the original Greek version.
So the NWT probably got it right, the Greek version of the Psalm probably did have “Lord” rather than YHWH in this particular quotation.
As for 1 Peter 2.3 I think they could have used Jehovah there because it could as easily be a reference to Jehovah God rather than Jesus.
Rom 10.13 applies to God because he is the one who resurrected Jesus in the previous verses.
The Gospel scriptures applying Isaiah to the coming of Jesus makes sense because Jesus comes in the name of Jehovah as his representative.
-
aqwsed12345
slimboyfat
You still don't understand Trinitarian theology... Trinitarian theology says:
"we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one"
When you emphasize that the Father is "distinct" from the Son, what are you proving? Nothing.
When Christian theology says that the name YHWH applies to the Son, it does not mean that we identify the person of the Son with the Father. Of course, due to preconception, you assume that the mention of YHWH in the Old Testament should only be thought for the person of the Father. When we say that Jesus is also YHWH, then we do not identify the Son in person with the Father, since as we see many Old Testament statements about YHWH God are applied to the Son in the New Testament .
Thus the OT divine name YHWH does not only refer to the person of the Father, but to the Deity, the Godhead, the divine essence denotes, of which the Son is also a "part".
-
slimboyfat
Jesus is distinguished from Jehovah, not from “the Father”, in scripture, including in Psalm 110.
110 Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 Jehovah will [send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.This verse is quoted many times throughout the New Testament and each and every time Jesus, as “Lord”, is distinguished from Jehovah.
Trinitarian slicing and dicing of scripture and the meaning of “God” is wild and shows no regard for what the text actually says.
If I made the statement “Jesus is not Jehovah”, you’d probably say that is heresy.
Yet when the Bible says that Jesus is not Jehovah, you say something like: “What you’ve got to understand is that ‘Jehovah’ here just means ‘the Father’, and the Trinity teaches that Jesus is not the Father, so there is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement ‘Jesus is not Jehovah’ from a Trinitarian point of view.”
Psalm 110 shows that Jesus, as Lord and Messiah, is distinguished from Jehovah God. Attempting to mix and redefine “God” and “Jehovah” for each verse in order to prop up a later Trinitarian dogma is desperate.
-
aqwsed12345
slimboyfat
There is no "Jehovah" in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and regarding the Pauline epistles, not even the desperately picked argument that the WTS asserts regarding the Gospel of Matthew (i.e. that it was allegedly written in Hebrew) can play a role, since no one claims regarding the apostolic epistles of the NT that they were not written in Greek. (It is not as if the fact that a biblical book was written in Hebrew means that it MUST contain the name YHWH.)
The fact that the name YHWH refers to the person of the Father in a given place does not exclude that it also refers to the Son in other cases. This is called attribution, or appropriation. Therefore, the typical NT terminology e.g. "the God and Jesus" does not exclude that the Son is also truly God. The New Testament uses many such terms, e.g. "the God" usually refers to the Father, "the Lord" to the Son, and "the Spirit" to the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is good example for this. Of course, the Father is also "the Lord", the Father is also spirit, and the Son is also "the God", he is also a spirit (as God), and so on.
According to Christian theology, the divine name YHWH refers to the Godhead, the Trinity as a whole, so when we say that "Jesus is truly God", we also confess that Son is (also) YHWH God, since there are no other gods than the "one God ", which was revealed in the Old Testament under the divine name YHWH. Check THIS.
Moreover, even the term "the Father" does not always mean the first person of the Trinity, that is, God the Father, since the entire Godhead is "our Father", not just the person of the Father, from whom the Son/Logos was born/begotten. The Scriptures also call the Son Father (e.g. Isaiah 9:6). The name "Father" is given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psalm 103:13; Jeremiah 31:9; Malachi 1:6; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative "Son" is used, Luke 10:22; Luke 22:42; John 1:18; John 3:35; John 5:19-23, John 5:26, John 5:30, John 5:36; Hebrews 1:5; 2 Peter 1:17, etc.
Furthermore, it must also be taken into account that the Son is the messianic king not as God, but as a man, so the statements about his anointing, appointment, elevation, etc. do not refer to his divinity, but to his humanity, and of course Jesus as a man is not God, and therefore not YHWH. Although he received the title "The Lord" as a human also, but by this his human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory. So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which he is really not YHWH God, but a man as the messianic king.
-
pizzahut2023
LOL you backpedalled so hard!! Now you would LOVE it if this hypothetical scenario would read "Lord" instead of "Jehovah" in this supposed "original" Septuagint!!
The question is what did the Greek of this Psalm say before the divine name was removed? The Greek version of this Psalm can be read as a Messianic Psalm, and the Lord in verse 26 is the Lord Messiah rather than YHWH. This is indicated in verse 24 where is says “he answered him”. Who answered who? This is apparently YHWH and Jesus speaking to each other.
I read both the LXX and the MT versions and if you see the MT version has "Jehovah" or "Jah" EVERY single time "Lord" is read in the LXX.
The LXX and MT diverge in reading in vss 23-24 (MT) (24-25 in LXX), but and with the exception of "Oh Lord/Jehovah", the LXX and MT go back to saying the same thing afterwards.
The ENTIRE chapter talks about Jehovah, and even the verse by the context (referring to that "Lord" as the Creator) points towards this hypothetical "original" LXX reading "Jehovah" there!
In any case, the WT readily admits that the verse in Psalms is referring to Jehovah. So they have to do mental gymnastics to say that the text applies to Jehovah in the OT but applies to Jesus in the NT, but it doesn't make Jehovah equal to Jesus... -
slimboyfat
You are correct YHWH is in the MT of Psalm 102 I made a mistake about that. (Edit: No I checked again - I think I was right the first time, YHWH is not used in this verse in the MT.)
But on the wider point what I am saying is that Kyrios in the LXX didn’t always translate YHWH. Sometimes it translated Adonai as it does in its second occurrence in Psalm 110.1.
What did the original LXX of Psalm 101.26 read? If it was understood as a Messianic Psalm in the LXX then it’s possible that the “Lord” here translated Adonai rather than YHWH because the Davidic ruler was viewed as Adonai/Kyrios. The Messiah was not viewed as YHWH but as his servant, as the ubiquitous use of Psalm 110.1 in the NT demonstrates.
This isn’t an argument Watchtower has ever made as far as I know. It is me trying to work out what is going on in Hebrews 1 and the Psalm it quotes.
What convinces me that the early Christians viewed Jesus as distinct and subordinate to YHWH is that when applying the title “Lord” to Jesus they specifically chose Psalm 110.1 where the “Lord” is distinct and subordinate to YHWH. That’s a rather odd choice of what they were really trying to say is that Jesus = Jehovah, don’t you think?
Psalm 110.1
Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.2 Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.Jesus, as “Lord”, is distinguished from and is subordinate to Jehovah/YHWH in this Psalm, and everywhere it is quoted in the NT, such as Acts 2 and elsewhere.
As far as I can work out YHWH is always distinguished from Jesus in NT quotations of the OT. This is true in the vast majority of cases even Trinitarians would agree. There are a handful of cases such as Romans 10.13 and 1 Cor 2.16 where Trinitarians would argue YHWH = Jesus. (In particular the scholar David Capes makes this argument.) But even in those handful of cases it still makes sense to read the text as referring to God rather than Jesus. For example in Romans 10.13 people call of the name of Jehovah because it says God raised Jesus from the dead in verse 9. So an acclamation to God fits here too. In 1 Cor 2.16 Paul’s argument seems to be that scripture says we can’t know the mind of YHWH but that Christians can know ‘the mind of Christ’, who perfectly reflects God’s character. So again a careful distinction is being made between YHWH and Jesus that is lost if you fail to note the difference between YHWH and Jesus as ‘Lord’.
-
aqwsed12345
slimboyfat: and now please read again what I have written above...
Just the point in short: according to the Trinitarian Christian theology Jesus is Christ and Messianic Lord according to his human nature, and his humanity is not God/YHWH, so as the Messianic King of course is distinct from YHWH.
By the way, it must be emphasized that before the Reformation, the Masoretic Text was never considered authoritative within Christianity.
For example, Eastern Orthodox Christianity considers the Septuagint as an inspired translation, primarily based on the Letter of Aristeas, and they argue that the apostles and evangelists considered it inspired, and it is quoted in many places in the New Testament. It can also be argued that Judaism itself considered it so, as testified by Philo and Flavius. The Babylonian Talmud - in the chapter of Moed Megillah - reports that the Lord put in the heart of all 72 rabbis the translation that is literally identical to each other. Therefore, from the perspective of Revelation, they believe that it is not significant that the LXX shows differences here and there from the Hebrew canon. Furthermore, if we approach the question from a scientific perspective, from the viewpoint of textual criticism, then - according to current scientific understanding - the LXX shows more agreement with contemporary Hebrew texts than the Palestinian canon compiled 250-350 years later, or even later.
The Palestinian canon, the Masoretic text is mostly in Hebrew (partly Aramaic) and includes fewer books than the Septuagint. For a long time, it was thought that the differences in the texts were due to translation errors in the LXX, and the deuterocanonical books were later Greek additions, therefore they were not credible. However, time and scholarship have since refuted these ideas. I have already discussed the differences in formulation, the "translation errors". Similar things can be said about the deuterocanonical books: recent archaeological excavations have literally brought to light that some of these writings existed in Hebrew as well, so they are not "Greek additions". (Although, as mentioned, the LXX does indeed contain books originally written in Greek.)
The Palestinian or Masoretic canon, the still in use Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, was assembled according to some concepts by the "Rabbinical Council" held in Jamnia, sometime at the end of the 1st century AD. We need to talk about the significant changes of that time, which fundamentally affected Judaism in many ways. The religious picture of Judaism at the time of Christ was complex, and in many cases the different directions were related to social status. However, radical changes took place in the next few decades.
On the one hand, there were independence movements from the Jews, and on the other hand, the intention to consolidate the region from the side of the empire - and the continuously growing tension eventually leads to local warfare. Many people emigrate, but the Jews also suffer other serious losses, the consequences of which are still decisive today.
The Second Temple was destroyed. The local Jews continue to visit the ruins for a long time, and they present at least the sacrifices of the major holidays, but the daily continuity of the religious life organized around the Temple is lost. With this, the societal role of the Sadducee direction practically disappears. The Zealots are crushed in the warfare with power. The secluded communities of the Essenes, for reasons not closely known, disappear without a trace during these times.
Only the Pharisaic direction remains, which becomes stronger by becoming exclusive. Rabbinic Judaism develops from it, which will henceforth be identical with the Jewish religion. The religious life of the Pharisees is organized around the synagogues, where they read the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim), and the Writings (Ketuvim) in addition to the Torah, the T-N-K acronym is the Hebrew name of the Old Testament Bible, the Tanakh. The synagogue liturgy dates back to the time of the Babylonian captivity, from which it evolved and was continuously refined. During this process, it becomes clear which documents are read and which are not, although we find local differences in both liturgical practice and texts themselves. Therefore, the Tanakh is not assembled at this time, in a certain sense it already exists, but its text is only standardized and finalized.
The LXX is based on the tradition of the synagogue, representing its local - Alexandrian - version. The Palestinian canon considers 24 books to be canonical, which are also included in the LXX. There are around 20 - known today - apocryphal documents, which are rejected by both canons; and the LXX contains 10 writings that the Tanakh does not. Therefore, it is completely understandable that from its inception for a few centuries, the LXX lived parallel to the various Hebrew text versions and was highly regarded within Judaism.
However, this changes towards the end of the first century AD. The Bible of the Church becomes the LXX - since Greek is the lingua franca in the region, it is understood by the native Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians in the Holy Land; Jewish Christians in the diaspora, and Gentile Christians understand exclusively this. As a result, as the LXX becomes more and more associated with Christianity, Judaism increasingly turns away from it. Concurrently, the Hebrew text tradition comes to the forefront, and the standardization of different text versions and different text reading practices takes place.
According to one hypothesis, this happened in Jamnia, sometime between AD 70 and 100, probably around 90. The gathered rabbis held a kind of council where they determined the exact text of the Tanakh, based on their own theology and according to their own liturgical traditions - and different from the LXX.
Others, however, believe that the above - widely known - theory cannot be scientifically substantiated. In Jamnia, if there was any kind of gathering, it could have been some sort of common ceremony, but they did not make "council" decisions. According to this hypothesis, the canonization of the Tanakh's text was an organic process, based on the text-curation activities of the Masoretes, and it was only completed in the 4th-5th centuries. By this time, the uniform and final text of the Hebrew Jewish Bible would have been formed.
Therefore, Eastern Orthodox Christians do not even accept Jerome's translation, and they almost mockingly say that the Old Testament of Western Christianity is the Tanakh. Jerome learned Hebrew, compared the Greek and Latin text versions he knew with the Tanakh, and decided to base his own Latin Bible translation on the latter. From a text-critical point of view, Eastern Christians regard Jerome's approach as commendable, with which he most likely anticipated his time. According to Eastern Christians, however, Jerome could not have known that by choosing the Hebrew text he did not choose the original, and they believe not even the one closest to it. The standpoint of modern text criticism is that the Masoretic text is a thrice-changed or altered variant of the lost original, while the LXX was created only as a single reworking - a translation - of this same original.
From a spiritual point of view, many have disputed Jerome's approach, as Jerome did not take into account the widespread view in Eastern Christianity that the LXX is also considered inspired scripture. Thus, he literally translated the Hebrew text even in those places where the New Testament, however, quotes the LXX.