by slimboyfat 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name
The name "Jehovah" is a 13th Century Catholic Translation mistake.
Promoting the name is stupid.Promoting the name with huge success, is still stupid.
...............
jwfacts there is a lot of evidence for the divine name in the original New Testament. How else do you explain that at least 3 non-JW scholars have arrived at the same conclusion, citing lots of evidence for the position? I think what you mean is that no New Testament manuscript containing the divine name has yet been recovered. The WT Society acknowledge this. But it's not the only thing to consider. As I pointed out above, the KS nomina sacra form is the earliest attested representation of the divine name in the NT, yet scholars tend to assume Kyrios written in full was original. So apparently early NT manuscripts are not conclusive, no matter which side of the fence you find yourself.
Early christians were witnesses of Jesus. JWs are not. So why would they "enjoy (almighty God's) blessing and support"?
On his last evening with his disciples Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit who would;
"Bear witness about me, and you in turn are to bear witness, because you have been with me from when I began." (Jhn.15:26,27)
Immediately prior to his ascension Jesus told them ;
"You will be witnesses of me..to the most distant part of the earth." (Acts 1:8)
Paul said that the minds of unbelievers had been blinded so that:
"The glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. For we are preaching not ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord." (2Cor.4:4,5)
In Revelation the dragon goes off to wage war with those who:
"Have the work of bearing witness to Jesus."
The harlot is seen to be;
"Drunk with the blood of the holy ones and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus."
When John falls down before the angel he receives the rebuke:
"Be careful do not do that. All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who have the work of witnessing to Jesus."
Arguing about a bastardised version of the divine name is nonsense. Christians viewed themselves as children of god and called him Abba, Father.
That is the whole point of the gospel.
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God - John 1
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” - Roman 8
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” - Galatians 4
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed - Galatians 1
Cofty weird to get into theological debate with you, but a few things to consider.
The very name Jesus in itself directs attention to Jehovah God because it means Jehovah the saviour. Any glory, honour or service through Jesus is to Jehovah.
Jesus is said to be given the highest name in Phil 2 which is presumably the name of God.
Revelation 14 describes Jehovah God and Jesus Christ as having their names written on the foreheads of the anointed.
None of this suggests in any way that the name Jesus was intended to replace or supersede Jehovah.
Additionally texts including the divine name are quoted repeatedly in the NT. And the evidence suggests the authors of the NT would have had access to OT copies that used the divine name in those places.
Most crucially the book of Acts repeatedly quotes verses concerning the divine name. Concerning Jesus the book of Acts states:
Acts 4:12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”
And about Jehovah it says:
Acts 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied: “Men, brothers, hear me. Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 'After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, known from of old.’
Really? You are copy-pasting from the NWT to try to to support your point?
Acts 4:12 refers to the name Jesus.
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
Jesus is the cornerstone that was rejected. His is the name by which men must be saved. Read the context!
I'm genuinely astonished by how weak your argument is.
Cofty weird to get into theological debate with you
Why? I wouldn't oppose theism if I didn't first understand it.
Yes Acts 4:12 talks about the place of Jesus as the name given under heaven to bring salvation. And Acts 15 talks about Jehovah selecting a people for his name from the nations. Two distinct names with explicit explantion of the role of each in one Bible book.
What's wrong with quoting a text from the NWT that supports the argument? Weird complaint.
It seems to me you've imbided fully of Doug Harris ("Father" is the new name for God in the NT) variety of pseudo-scholarship.
There is no evidence that it appeared, at best there is circumstantial evidence that it may have been there.
Their argument that this means the divine name appeared in the original NT has been supported by scholars George Howard,...
This is also an over-exaggeration. How speculates that the name may have appeared in the NT, he does not state that his conjecture "means" it is was in the NT.
yhwh is read " backwards"---so gods name is actually huwee - it's a good job the trinity is false.
Otherwise, God could be called Huwee, Dewey and Louis.
Ba-dum-tish ...
You really think the "name" of god in this context has anything to do with the moniker?
