Smiddy I think it’s better to have a discussion without using such insulting language: “deliberate ploy”, “confuse”, “disappointed in you”, “old trick”, “you haven’t been honest”, and so on. Cut it out, and make your case without insults. I am so put off by your rhetoric that I am tempted not to respond, but it’s a topic I am very interested in.
I have argued both that the NT originally used the divine name, and that Jehovah is God in the New Testament and that Jesus is Lord. These two issues are very closely related, as George Howard explained in his seminal article:
This removal of the Tetragram, in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the "Lord God" and the "Lord Christ" which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text Itself. http://www.areopage.net/howard.pdf
David Trobisch and others similarly argue that removal of the divine name from the New Testament resulted in confusion between the identities of Jesus and God. The issues of the divine name in the NT and Christology are inextricably linked. If you don’t appreciate how closely related these issues are then maybe you need to read more on the topic before accusing me.
Authors such as David Capes, Richard Bauckham and others argue that OT YHWH texts are applied to Jesus and “include Jesus in the divine identity”. (To use Baukham’s particular Christology terminology).
Consider this point: if the original NT used kyrios instead of the divine name throughout, then that means that both Jesus and God are described as “Lord” in the NT, and we often need to work out who is meant according to the context. If however the divine name was used in the NT, that means that Jesus is the one who is called “Lord”, and God is rarely, if ever called “Lord” (kyrios) in the NT. In other words, the restoration of the divine name resolves an incredible amount of ambiguity in the NT over which “Lord” is intended. If the original NT consistently used YHWH for God and kyrios of Jesus then it reads better and makes more sense, which is good evidence in itself for the argument that the original NT used the divine name.
It is disputed among scholars what name Phil 2 refers to, whether it is the divine name or Jesus. In whichever case it shows that God can give his name to another if he chooses, so that person acts on his behalf. James McGrath is excellent on this.
This is seen most clearly in Phillipians 2:10-11, [kyrios/YHWH used for Jesus] where Paul applies to Jesus language that is applied to God in the Jewish Scriptures. This use of “Lord” as the divine name can be easily misunderstood, however. In at least some streams of thought within the diversity of first century Judaism, it was not felt to be incompatible with monotheism for God’s supreme agent to bear God’s name as part of his enmpowerment to serve in this capacity. A striking example, which provides an instructive parallel to Paul’s own statements, is the case of the Angel Yahoel in Apocalypse of Abraham. James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context (2009), page 49.
James McGrath says much more on this topic of the divine name given to Jesus worth reading, I only quote the beginning of his discussion.