Cite one scripture in the N.T. that chargers Christians to be witnesses of / for Jehovah.....Not one.using K.I ./ WTB&TS

by smiddy3 94 Replies latest jw friends

  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    johnamos:

    No matter what you believe, I'll still be happy to get you a hot cup of coffee and a sweet roll if your in the mood!

    Even though there are many different opinions on this board, we can still treat everyone with respect and dignity.

    Atlantis!

  • smiddy3
    smiddy3

    Their is not one scripture in the N.T./ Christian Greek Scriptures where christians ,followers of Jesus Christ are instructed to be witnesses of Jehovah

    Whereas we have seen by many posters here that there are about 27 scriptures in the Christian greek Scriptures / The new Testament that followers of Jesus are to be witnesses of ,for,and about Jesus and not Jehovah..

    That is the system God has set up until the end of the 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ .

    And then everything will be handed back to Yahweh ,but not before.

  • johnamos
    johnamos

    Quote - Your inferring they must have used Gods personal name because they quoted an OT scripture is just interpretation on your part – End quote

    smiddy, I don’t know if you saw what I said to blondie but here it is again:

    [just as you can tell me that I can't say for certain that the originals and those that followed up until the oldest now on hand did have the DN there, I can tell you that you can't say for certain that it was not there.]

    So you are saying that my inferring that God’s personal name was used when they quoted from the OT is just interpretation on my part. Okay, so can you say for certain that the DN was not written at all in the originals? If you say it was not written, then is that speculation on your part as well?

    Quote -. We have the words of Jesus written down, as we do with the Apostles and the Disciples and not one of them is recorded as uttering the personal name of God as Jehovah. - End quote

    Again, you are saying based on the copies on hand that the name is not recorded as being said but can you say for certain that the DN was not written at all in the originals?

    When you say we have the words of Jesus written down that would included his words saying:

    "The works I do in my Father’s name"

    “I’ve made your name known to them and will continue to make it known"

    “I have revealed your name to the people you gave me from this world.”

    “This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent”

    Based on that, do you find it reasonable that when Jesus and his apostles did quote from the Hebrew Scriptures that they would have said the name?

    If you do not believe they used the name, then can you tell me what reason they would have had to refrain from using it?

  • blondie
    blondie

    @johnamos

    "Based on that, do you find it reasonable that when Jesus and his apostles did quote from the Hebrew Scriptures that they would have said the name?"

    If Jesus did use God's name when speaking to his followers (one version is Jehovah), I am surprised that those recording his words did not put that very important info in their writings, not just letting the reader infer that they must have, or logically they must have, evidently they must have heard Jesus use God's name. The words, logically and evidently and must have are only some of the words that the WTS uses to add info to the bible account, especially when the bible does not say it. If God wanted to be direct, he would have inspired these men through the holy spirit to put the name in the record.

    If it were so important to make god's name known, using it in the bible record would be the best way, for the people then and all the people after that read those bible accounts.

    Examples of evidently and "must have" being used

    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102013264?q=%22the+bible+does+not+say%22+evidently&p=par

    Did she know of the prophecy about Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah? The Bible does not say. We cannot rule out the possibility, for the fact was evidently common knowledge among religious leaders and even people in general. (Matt. 2:1-7; John 7:40-42)

    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102009059?q=%22the+bible+does+not+say%22+evidently&p=par

    Early in the trip, while still in Pamphylia, Mark had left his assignment and gone home to Jerusalem. The Bible does not say why he left, but the apostle Paul evidently viewed Mark’s action as irresponsible. Paul might have had questions about Mark’s dependability.

    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1967207?q=%22the+bible+does+not+say%22+evidently&p=par

    However, when considering the account at Genesis 9:20-27, one does well to realize that nowhere in His Word did Jehovah God register condemnation of Noah because of this incident. Of course, this does not mean that God winks at drunkenness, for the Bible shows that this is not true. (Prov. 23:20, 21, 29-35; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10) Yet, in Noah’s case Jehovah may have taken extenuating factors into consideration. The record of this matter in the book of Genesis is brief and the incident is not dealt with elsewhere in the Scriptures. Evidently, though, Noah was unwittingly overtaken as a result of drinking the wine, whether out of weariness or because of a heavy heart or for some other reason, the Bible does not say.

    Let me add this WT quote:

    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1980083?q=jesus+%22use+god%27s+name%22&p=sen

    Jesus himself clearly indicated that he used the divine name. For instance, he said in prayer to his Father: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. . . . I have made your name known to them and will make it known.” (John 17:6, 26) Moreover, Jesus taught his followers to pray: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matt. 6:9) Why would Jesus make those statements unless he had used God’s name?

    ---Why then did the writers of the Gospel, not directly use God's name in the bible? Why would it be necessary for the WTS or anyone infer that he did (must have)?

  • Wonderment
    Wonderment

    The tendency for centuries has been to read Scriptures through modern trinitarian spectacles. Why bring this up?

    Well, most people see Christ being emphasized throughout the New Testament, including those Scriptures which show his followers were to be his Witnesses. There is no denying that. Jehovah's Witnesses should be made aware of this.

    On the other hand, the Christian Scriptures are a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures, not a replacement of it.

    The Old Testament extolled the name of "Jehovah" over all others, and this was fitting under the Jewish concept. Nonetheless, the OT mentioned prophecies that in due time there would be a ‘Sent One’ from God to bring prosperity to all of earth's inhabitants, such as this one in Ge. 22:18. "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth
    will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’” Hundreds of such prophecies made their way into Scriptures foretelling of the time where ‘the Savior of the world’ would show up. After nearly two thousand years after God's promise to Abraham, the Messiah thus appeared. The Jewish people were monotheists, and were accustomed for centuries to the practice of worshiping the one God of the universe, YHWH.

    Would it be easy for them to now incorporate Jesus the Messiah in their lives? Not really. The Jews had difficulty dropping the old customs of worship in a physical temple, circumcision, Jewish feasts, the Sabbath, and many other Jewish practices. The book of Romans, Galatians. Ephesians, Hebrews, etc. give testimony to this fact.

    Hence, it was necessary to repeat time and again how important was Christ now in their lives. Salvation depended upon such acceptance. No easy task for traditional Jews. Jesus thus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

    Since the Trinity became established in people's mind, traditional believers ignore the Father, and focus almost entirely on the Son. The many differences found in hundreds of manuscripts reveal the struggle people of that time had between the old Jewish belief of the Father as God, and the philosophical trinitarian belief (usually with Jesus at the top in relevance) of later times.

    Thus, it was expected that Christ would receive the spotlight for God's followers. John 3.16 shows that belief in Christ is essential for a Christian. The thing is that the Father was never far away when Christ was to be honored. This is so because the Son was sent as God's representative. The Son was never to replace the Father altogether. The God and Jesus worship pattern was now the new norm. The Jews were already ‘Jehovah's witnesses’ in a sense (not in the WT sense), but now they needed to be ‘Jesus' witnesses’ (but not in the trinitarian sense). To reject Jesus is to reject his Father who sent him.

    John chapter eight shows that Jesus was fully dependent on the Father. A Christian has to accept and honor both the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, equally within the new Christian concept. The Trinity didn't help the people at all, it made matters worse by pushing Greek concepts within the Christian's mold of thinking.

  • johnamos
    johnamos



    quote - A Christian has to accept and honor both the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, equally within the new Christian concept. - end quote

    “This is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent”

  • johnamos
    johnamos

    quote - If Jesus did use God's name when speaking to his followers (one version is Jehovah), I am surprised that those recording his words did not put that very important info in their writings - end quote

    blondie,

    Do you personally think that when Jesus and his apostles did quote from the Hebrew Scriptures that they would have said the name?

    If you do not believe they used the name, then can you tell me what reason they would have had to refrain from using it?

    If you believe they did use the name, can you say for certain that the DN was not written at all in the originals?


  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    johnamos:

    The Bible in Living English--Byington Bible--1972

    What are some of the important factors about this Bible published by the Watchtower?

    1. What does this Bible say about the name 'Jehovah'?

    "As to the Old Testament name of God, certainly the spelling and pronunciation "Jehovah" were originally a blunder. But the spelling and the pronunciation are not highly important." (See p. 7 par. 3)

    Atlantis!

  • johnamos
    johnamos

    Again, just like referring me to JWfacts, I don't see the point in showing me WTS quotes. I am not a JW nor ever was, so I don't care what they think is important or not. The only 'blunder' I see in the spelling of the name is using a V. It should be spelled JEHOAH.

  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    Watchtower leadership under oath.


    Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?

    A. I agree that.

    Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

    A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erroneous and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.

    Q. Unity at all costs?

    A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.

    Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

    A. That is conceded to be true.

    How can anyone accept anything Jehovah's Witnesses teach when they admit these facts in court?

    As my old friend Leolaia said once: "This is the "mother" of all quotes"!

    https://www.godandscience.org/cults/falseadmission.html

    Atlantis!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit