Posts by Disillusioned JW

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

waton, I am sorry that my use of the word "touché" in a reply to you seemed dismissive to you. I merely used the word to concisely convey the idea that you made an excellent rebuttal to what I had said in an earlier post about the frequency of the use of the name "Jehovah" in the scriptures.

slimboyfat, the idea that very early "editors of the New Testament wanted to blur the lines between Jesus and Jehovah" is an idea I had for many years and It is an idea that the WT has long taught, but I am currently unsure if the idea is correct. I was thinking that it is very hard to believe that is true since not even one extant NT manuscript has the name YHWH in it. If any manuscripts had had it I thought it would have been nearly impossible to eradicate all copies which had it.

But perhaps you and Trobisch are right in saying some ancient NT manuscripts had it. I think that because a lot of ancient Jewish (including Torah keeping Jewish Christian) religious literature and a lot of ancient alternative Christian literature were so effectively destroyed by Christians that the literature is no longer extant. Scholars also say that some passages in ancient rabbinical literature seem to say that a number of Jews long ago destroyed all copies they found of Christian literature which contained the divine name (YHWH). In numerous cases scholars say we know the names of numerous ancient religious books (due to citations) though we have no extant copies of them, not even known tiny fragments of them.

Just as we know (due to a leaked document) that the WT now instructs that all copies of certain old WT literature be removed (and in a number of cases, be trashed) from all kingdom hall literature counters, perhaps some 2nd century CE church leaders instructed all Christian congregations to replace all their NT manuscripts with revised ones which entirely lacked the name "YHWH".

But here is the thing. If the name YHWH was removed from all extant manuscripts of the NT books (or if so many copies of the NT containing The Name were destroyed such that no extant copies exist), why did YHWH allow that to happen? If it did happen doesn't it indicate that YHWH doesn't actually exist. To me, if such did happen then it is strong evidence that YHWH is entirely a figment of human imagination. To me it is inconceivable that if YHWH as described in the OT really exists, that he would allow such to happen to the NT.

What living author who uses his or her own personal name many times in his or her multiple copyright protected books (especially in autobiographies), who owns the copyrights to those books, would allow any editor and/or any publisher of those books to eradicate all mention of the author's name from the author's books?

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

This post is a recreation (but with modifications, including enhancements and expansions) of what I intended to post earlier but accidentally deleted.

Rattigan350, I agree with you that according to the New Testament Jesus is one of the witnesses of Jehovah. I also agree with you that the context of what was said is important. I also agree that it is not necessary that a specific phrase be used, provided the context clearly indicates the same meaning.

blondie, according to John 17:4-17 Jesus is one the witnesses of God the Father (Jehovah/YHWH). According to the chapter those verses are a record of some of what Jesus said in prayer to God the Father (Jehovah). Note the following. In verse 4 Jesus tells the Father that he (Jesus) has glorified the Father on the earth. Verse 6 (1984 NWT) records Jesus as saying to the Father "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world." Verse 8 says that Jesus gave the men the sayings which the Father gave to Jesus, and Jesus says he came as the representative of God the Father. In verse 14 Jesus says he gave the word of the Father to the men. In verse 17 Jesus says that the Father's word is truth and in verse 18 Jesus tells the Father "you sent me forth into the world".

Clearly those verses in the Gospel of John (that is, the Gospel attributed as being according to John) indicate that according to that gospel Jesus is a witness of God the Father (Jehovah/YHWH). The NT also says that Jesus is a great prophet of Jehovah God the Father. Revelation 1:5 (1984 NWT) even says that Jesus Christ is "the Faithful Witness" and Revelation 3:14 (1984 NWT) says that the "Amen" (whom the verse says is the "the beginning of the creation of God", whom we know the Bible says is Jesus Christ) is "the faithful and true witness". Doesn't such mean that according to the NT that Jesus is thus a great witness of Jehovah God the Father?

Vanderhoven7, the fact God Jehovah (Jehovah God) did not make sure that his name was included in the New Testament, coupled with the fact that modern-day biblical scholars do not know for sure the correct pronunciation of his name, is part of the strong evidence to me that Jehovah God doesn't exist.

That is because the OT claims that numerous times YHWH, when speaking to a number of the prophets, said that his specific name of YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) must be proclaimed to the people! According to the OT YHWH wanted his name, not merely his reputation and accomplishments, but his literal specific name of YHWH, to be proclaimed extensively to the people! If such a God exists then it is shocking that the NT (in any of the extant ancient manuscripts) doesn't use his name even one time. But if Jehovah/Yahweh God doesn't exist, then there no mystery why the his name isn't used in the NT. These things are thus part of the evidence that the Bible (whether the OT or the NT or both, like the Apocrypha) is entirely the word of humans, and not at all the world of YHWH God or of any god.

Folks, regarding John chapter 17 there is something I find very puzzling in verse 11. There it claims that Jesus told God the Father "... your own name which you have given me ...". What name is this gospel account claiming Jesus said was the Holy Father's name which was given to Jesus?

Is it the name YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah? If so, then why doesn't the NT ever mention that name in any of the extant ancient manuscripts? Granted NT says that the name Jesus was given to Christ by God (according to Matthew 1:20-21), and that name means "Jehovah is salvation", but that is not the same name as "Jehovah". The NT says that Christ, besides being named Jesus, was also called "Lord" and said to be "God/god". Are either of those 'names' the name of the Father that the NT says was given to Christ? In at least one verse Paul applied the word "Lord" to Jesus when quoting a verse in the OT in which the word "Lord" is used in the Greek Septuagint in place of the name Yahweh/Jehovah.

Matthew 1:22-23 says that Jesus was to be called "Immanuel", but nowhere else in the NT is that name used. I wonder why it is used nowhere else in the NT.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Hey GodBeliever. in your post, the one dated to three hours prior this post of mine, you used four verses that I had had planned to use in an upcoming post (the pending one I said I had accidentally deleted). You preempted me; impressive.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

Rattigan350, blondie, and Vanderhoven7, I typed up a post which was a reply to all of you, but I accidentally deleted it from computer memory before saving a copy of it in a text file. I will try to recreate it from my memory but it probably won't be as good as what I originally wrote.

JW GoneBad, the examples you gave of the manner of usage of the name "Jehovah" at Kingdom Halls of JWs, including in public prayers, also sounds strange to me. I never used it in that manner at the Kingdom Halls or elsewhere, and I was a ministerial servant for several years.

waton, I don't know French, except for a few French words. But according to Google, I learned that "jusqu'à quel profondeur?" means "how deep?", or something like that. But the word "profondeur" seems very similar to the English word "profound" and based upon the context I wonder if "jusqu'à quel profondeur?" is more accurately translated into English as "how profound?' Google even says "profound" in English translates into "profond" in French. Do you speak much French?

I used the word "touché", despite it being French, because it is often used in English as part of English sentences and I thought it was a fitting reply to make to you. Likewise the French word "résumé" is often used in English, but because of widespread communication using computers with keyboards which lack non-English characters, in the USA and on the internet (on English language sites) it is now often spelled without the accent marks.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

waton, touché.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

According to the book which is commonly called the "Holy Bible" what name does the God of that book most frequently emphasize? Is it the name Jehovah (Yahweh/YHWH) or Jesus (Iesous/Yeshua/Joshua)? It is the name Jehovah (Yahweh/YHWH). Right?

Before the New Testament began to be written, what name did the holy scriptures of the Christians use the most? It was Jehovah (Yahweh/YHWH), [though probably they most often read it as Kyrios (Lord)]. Right? The Old Testament is still considered a part of the holy scriptures of Christians. Right? What name does the Old Testament in Hebrew emphasize?

36

New Light, New Light!

by BoogerMan in

more accurately known as a reversal of a long held 'truth.'.

september 2022 study watchtower - par.

14 p. 18 - "in the past, we understood jesus’ words to refer to the deeds the resurrected ones will practice after their resurrection; that is, some will come to life and practice good things while others will come to life and practice vile things.

Disillusioned JW

On page 3 of this topic thread I wrote the following. "Well the WT's new interpretation of John 5:27 (as described in the first post of this topic thread) is now in harmony with Daniel 12:2, and the Bible's stated time frame for the fulfillment of that is revealed in Daniel 12:1." I notice that in "STUDY ARTICLE 40" of the same WT issue that the WT confirms what I said about Daniel 12:2, for there it says the following in paragraph 6.

'Read Daniel 12:2. What happens after the great crowd survive this time of distress? This prophecy is not referring to a symbolic resurrection, a spiritual revival of God’s servants that occurs during the last days, as we previously understood. * Rather, these words refer to the resurrection of the dead that takes place in the coming new world. Why can we draw that conclusion? The expression “the dust” is also used at Job 17:16 as a parallel of the expression “the Grave.” This fact indicates that Daniel 12:2 is referring to the literal resurrection that will occur after the last days have ended and after the battle of Armageddon.'

I am surprised though that the WT says that previously they (and other JWs) thought Daniel 12:2 was referring to a symbolic resurrection rather than a literal resurrection during the new world. For several years, from my independent study of the Bible, I had deduced that verse was about a literal resurrection under the reign of the Messiah (which according to the book of Revelation, is indicated to be during the 1,000 years in which Satan is in the abyss). Furthermore, a number of commentaries of 'Christendom' say that is what it was about. I also had thought (at least for several years) that the WT also taught that, and I also thought I had that view even when I was an active JW serving as a ministerial servant. But the WT now says they didn't have that view in the past. That means that I, and much of Christendom before me, reached the correct biblical meaning of Daniel 12:2 years before the WT did! [Update: Revelation 20:5 says most of the dead do not come to life until the end of the 1,000 years.]

A moment ago I looked through the First Printing of the Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy! book (copyright 1999) and I noticed on pages 290-291. There the WT says the verse does not refer to a general resurrection in the future, but that instead it "refers primarily to another kind of resurrection--one that has already occurred", namely a spiritual resurrection. I am surprised that it says such. It appears they said such in part due to their false teaching that Christ began ruling over the Earth in the year 1914.

Interestingly, paragraph 16 says the following. "But the majority of perfect mankind will pass this final test. Their names will then be written permanently in the book of life." That statement contradicts an earlier teaching of the WT which said that even after passing the test at the end of the 1,000 years some people might sin and thus be killed by Jehovah God.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

Disillusioned JW

I had thought that original edition of the Gospel which is attributed as being according to Matthew (the one commonly called the "Gospel According to Matthew" and the "Gospel of Matthew") might have originally been in Hebrew or Aramaic and that it might have contained the name YHWH in it. But maybe no ancient copy of that gospel ever contained the name YHWH (or any variation of the divine name) - especially when quoting the words of Jesus and other Christians.

Various books and articles about the Jewish religion say that at about the 3rd century BCE the Jewish religion started forbidding Jews from pronouncing the name out loud. As a result if Jesus had used the name out loud publicly, he probably would have gotten in major trouble with the religious authorities specifically for doing such. Yet the Gospels never say the religious authorities (or anyone else) faulted him or anyone else for using the name. Surely if Jesus really existed and if he had spoken the name out loud publicly the Gospels would have said that the religious leaders faulted him for speaking the name. [A number of times the 'Gospel of Matthew' even says the "kingdom of heaven" as way to avoid saying the "kingdom of God", and that gospel was especially written to convert Jews to Jesus.] Though the gospels say that Jesus was charged with blasphemy, for claiming to be God (such as when using the phrase "I am" in reference to himself) and for claiming to be the divine Son of Man of heaven - it was not for speaking the name YHWH. Furthermore, all of the extant Greek NT manuscripts lack the name YHWH and virtually all of the extant Greek manuscripts of the OT lack it also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism says the following. 'It had ceased to be spoken aloud by at least the 3rd century BCE, during Second Temple Judaism.[19] ... Rabbinical Judaism teaches that the name is forbidden to all except the High Priest, who should only speak it in the Holy of Holies of the Temple in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur. He then pronounces the name "just as it is written."[26] As each blessing was made, the people in the courtyard were to prostrate themselves completely as they heard it spoken aloud. As the Temple has not been rebuilt since its destruction in 70, most modern Jews never pronounce YHWH but instead read Adonai ("My Lord") during prayer and while reading the Torah and as HaShem ("The Name") at other times.[27][28] '

The Gospel of Matthew and in the Gospel of Luke tell the wording of what is now called the "Model prayer" (also known as the "Our Father prayer" and the "Lord's prayer'). That prayer though addressing God, never uses the name YHWH nor any form it, nor even the word "God" ("Theos" in Greek). Instead it addresses God as "Our Father who/which is in Heaven" (in the Gospel of Matthew) and simply as "Father" (in the Gospel of Luke). Online sources (such as the one mentioned above) say that even in our modern time, that when praying to God Jews are to avoid using the name "YHWH"/"Yahweh" or even "Elohim" (God). They are allowed to say "Adonai' ("my Lord") instead. The Gospels thus depict Jesus is adhering to the Jewish requirement of not uttering the divine name.

However there are writings from about the 1st century CE which say that some people used the divine name in magical rites, such as in incantations for expelling demons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus states reasons why people of the religion of Judaism reject Jesus as the foretold Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of the reasons, ones based upon the Hebrew Scriptures, are ones I was not aware of. I am impressed by the vast majority of their reasons (note what is said under the headings of "Background" and "Jesus as the Jewish Messiah"). Such makes a strong case for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, for rejecting Christianity as being the true religion, and thus for rejecting the NT as holy scripture. It can thus be used as part of set of arguments useful to atheists to persuade some Christians towards atheism. I appreciate that.

36

New Light, New Light!

by BoogerMan in

more accurately known as a reversal of a long held 'truth.'.

september 2022 study watchtower - par.

14 p. 18 - "in the past, we understood jesus’ words to refer to the deeds the resurrected ones will practice after their resurrection; that is, some will come to life and practice good things while others will come to life and practice vile things.

Disillusioned JW

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HSCB) in the revision of 2003, though saying "freed" in the main text of Romans 6:7, in the translators' note says "Lit acquitted, or justified". That note agrees with the Emphatic Diaglott, for both in its interlinear translation and its 'modern' English translation it says "justified" at that verse.

The Twentieth Century New Testament, A Translation Into MODERN ENGLISH; Made from the original Greek (Westcott & Hort's Text) by a company of about twenty scholars representing the various sections of the Christian Church; REVISED EDITION (of 1904) translates the verse as follows. "For the man who has died has been pronounced righteous and released from sin." That rendering conveys both the idea of "acquitted" and the idea of "freed". In that NT translation verse 6 clarifies that the dead "man" of verse 7 who is "pronounced righteous" are those who metaphorically were "crucified with Christ".

As a result of those renderings and of quotes of translators' notes I posted in my prior post, I am now convinced that the NWT thus has a scholarly reasonable basis for saying "acquitted" in Romans 6:7 instead of "freed".

36

New Light, New Light!

by BoogerMan in

more accurately known as a reversal of a long held 'truth.'.

september 2022 study watchtower - par.

14 p. 18 - "in the past, we understood jesus’ words to refer to the deeds the resurrected ones will practice after their resurrection; that is, some will come to life and practice good things while others will come to life and practice vile things.

Disillusioned JW

Wow, I found something in a parallel Bible which agrees with the NWT's rendering of "acquitted" at Romans 6:7! It is an edition of "Today's Parallel Bible" (copyright 2000) which includes the 1995 revision of the NASB. In that Bible though the main text of the NASB says "freed" the translators' note says "Or acquitted'! The same parallel Bible for the Cambridge Paragraph Bible edition of the KJV (of 1873) has the translators' note of "Gr. justified".

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible was edited by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener and one of objectives in the making of that edition was "to create the most thorough standardization of the text ever attempted." I consider that edition to be the definitive edition of the text of the KJV.

The NKJV gives in the translators' note gives an alternate rendering of "cleared" for the word which the main text translates as "freed". The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha (REB) translates verse 7 as "because death cancels the claims of sin." The New American Bible (NAB) in its 1991 revision, a Catholic Bible, translates verse 7 as "For a dead person has been absolved from sin." Similarly The New Testament In Modern Speech, An Idiomatic Translation Into Everyday English From The Text of The Resultant Greek Texament - Fifth Edition (as reprinted in 1937), by Weymouth and revised by Robertson, translates verse 7 as "for he who has died is absolved from his sin."