Well in Matt 4 Satan studiously avoids using the name whereas Jesus quotes three scriptures with Jehovah's name. (Especially significant in view of the evidence that the LXX in addition to the Hebrew used God's name in Jesus' day) Nowhere in scripture does Satan use Jehovah's name. Satan hates Jehovah's name.
The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name
Satan hates Jehovah's name - SBF
You have retreated into a world of childish delusions.
Either that or you are attention seeking.
You don't deny the facts so instead resort to name calling, as usual. Shame.
Please for one moment consider that, while it may seem perfectly obvious to you that you are correct, and have resolved the outstanding issues of reality, its scope and dimensions, there is a possibility, an oh so remote possibility, you may be wrong, as you have been before.
I am increasingly with Krauthammer on the atheist thing. Atheism seems the most implausible of all the theologies. Anyone who can, with a straight face, insist that all that exists came from nothing and no further explanation is appropriate or meaningful, should not lecture other people on "delusion".
Yeah whatever. You carry on waffling about an almighty god who couldn't prevent a fallen angel from eradicating his name from his biography.
One minute you are trying to impress us with academic research and the next you sound like Benny Hinn.
Do you really not know the difference between allowing something and being "unable to prevent" it? Or are you just pretending not to know the difference?
Is there any way of talking about the possibility of a concerned God which would not sound like Benny Hinn to you?
I have a thousand things to do that are more interesting - and less demeaning - than talking to you about "Satan".
The fact that you apparently believe an academic approach to historical religious questions is incompatible with a religious sensibility to the import of the issues involved only tells me about the poverty of your own intellectual horizon, it doesn't prove any inherent incompatibity between faith and scholarship itself, as you imagine.
Isn't atheism being a theology an oxymoron?
In my opening post I respectfully allowed for the possibility that atheists would find the discussion trivial or uninteresting.
For atheists and others who do not regard the Bible as inspired, the question whether Jehovah's Witnesses are right about the original New Testament employing the divine name may be regarded as little more than historical curiosity.
Nevertheless, in a dozen or more posts, Cofty felt compelled to emphasise that the issue was really really trivial, to the point that now he is bored with explaining just how trivial it is. Well, with that (needlessly) clarified, maybe any of us left, who find the issue interesting and important, may be allowed to confine...
SBF - If you had confined yourself to presenting evidence about the use of the divine name in the early church that might be interesting.
Instead you have turned it into a JW apologist thread complete with references to critical times, last days, Satan, pacifism and more.
I make no apology for criticising you for that bullshit.