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

Jehovah's Witnesses, and like-minded ones, please consider the following.

Hypothetically speaking, if Jesus Christ exists, then the following is true.

Since the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses (by their own admission) does not pray to Jesus Christ or in any other way talk to Jesus Christ, then the governing body is shunning Jesus. They do not seek for Jesus Christ to fellowship with them prior their death - despite knowing what the NT teaches. As a result, if they they continue to be that way until their death, then they will never be co-rulers with Jesus in heaven (or on the Earth during the 1,000 years). In support of that consider the following.

Matthew 16:24 claims that Jesus spoke of those who want to come after Jesus (that is, come to Jesus). Is the governing body seeking to come to Jesus? Do they attempt to have a personal relationship with Jesus now? Do they ever talk to Jesus Christ?

John 10:27-28 (1984 NWT) claims Jesus said the following. " 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." Do any of the members of the governing body follow Jesus in that full sense, of having a personal relationship with Jesus? If not, is it unlikely they will obtain everlasting life?

Revelation 3:20-21 (1984 NWT) claims that Jesus (in what is claimed to be a vision to John) said the following. "20 Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into his [house] and take the evening meal with him and he with me. 21 To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." Does the governing body figurative open their door to Jesus and fellowship with Jesus? If not, according to Revelation 3:20-21 will they be barred from ruling with Jesus Christ?

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

Vanderhoven7, after you made your most recent post in this topic thread I added one more paragraph to my prior post.

Regarding your question, I don't think God had any role (whether active or passive) in his full name being completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT. That is because I am now an atheist and a scientific naturalist and thus I believe/think with a high degree of certainty that God does not exist. The fact that his full name is completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT is one thing which contributed to me (when I was a Christian) to doubt his existence (since the OT claims God emphasized his name of YHWH so incredibly much), and which contributed to me eventually becoming a positive/strong atheist. By "positive/strong atheist" I mean an atheist who is extremely certain that no God or god exists.

I view the OT, the NT, and the Apocrypha as entirely works authored by humans and consisting entirely of human ideas, of which a great many of the ideas are erroneous. [Ever since I stopped believing in the existence of Jehovah God (namely since the year 2010 or so) I stopped believing the OT is God's word and I stopped believing that the NT is God's word. I never believed the Apocrypha is God's word, though while I was an independent Christian I came to view the Apocrypha as providing insight into the emergence of Christian ideas, and of its possible influence upon the writing of parts of the NT.] But in a prior post (within the past few days in this topic thread) I mentioned that I currently think the full name of YHWH was probably originally in the NT. In the post I also say I think humans in the 2nd century CE began writing the word "Kyrios" in substitution of the name "YHWH" in the NT, and I mentioned what I think might have been reasons for doing so.

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

Vanderhoven7's question (to Wonderment) of "Why do you think God made sure His full name did not appear once in the NT ..." is very presumptuous (though perhaps it was not intended to be such). I say that because it incorporates the presumption (or claim) that "God made sure His full name did not appear once in the" ancient manuscripts of the NT despite the fact it has not been proven God did such. [It is false/inaccurate to say it is not in any copy of the NT, since the name is in the NWT copies of the NT and in copies of other translations made after the year 1800, and in many earlier translations of the NT made after the year 1500, as documented by the WT. This observation allows another question to be asked. Namely the following. If God both exists and was opposed to his full name appearing even once in the NT, then why did he avoid preventing his name from appearing in the NT of the NWT, in the Emphatic Diaglott, and in many non-WT translations of the NT into Hebrew and other non-English languages? Some of those translations were made for the purpose of converting people who worshiped a god/God or gods (that is, what the people considered to be such) other than Jesus and Jehovah/YHWH.]

Even if YHWH God exists we do NOT know God made sure His full name did not appear once in any ancient manuscript of the NT. What we do know is that, if hypothetically God exists, then God allowed/permitted His full name to not appear once in the known extant ancient copies of the NT. In other words, even if God exists, God may have been passive instead of active in regards to his His full name not appearing once in the known extant copies of the NT. Even if the full name never appeared in any ancient manuscript (whether a copy or an original) of any book of the the NT, that does not mean God made sure that was the case.

Vanderhoven7, a better question to ask to someone who is convinced that God exists and who is convinced that God's full name was never in any ancient manuscript of the NT, is the following. "Why do you think God allowed (or avoided preventing) his full name to be completely excluded from all ancient manuscripts of the NT?"

Vanderhoven7, I agree that compared to what the NT often says about Jesus (including about the importance of the Jesus Christ in the personal lives of Christians), Jesus is all but marginalized by the religion which is called "Jehovah's Witnesses". That is because the religion teaches that modern-day JW are to avoid worshiping Jesus and are to even avoid praying to Jesus. As a result, even if Jesus exists, faithful Jehovah's Witnesses (even ones who consider themselves part the anointed ones, even the governing body) can NOT have a personal relationship with Jesus (unless the relationship is one-sided, with Jesus contacting a JW, but not a JW also contacting Jesus or communicating to Jesus). In contrast the WT encourages JWs to have a personal relationship with Jehovah God. The WT's JW religion is a more Judaic leaning version of Christianity than the vast majority of the types of modern-day Christianity.

Vanderhoven7, regarding your comment of the name in which people would be baptized, you left out Matthew 28:19. That verse says baptizing is to be done "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit". Note the order of the 'names' and that such might indicate an implied degree of priority.

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

On second thought maybe some first century CE Christians believed that Jesus Christ existed as a divine being in heaven who never became born as a human. Perhaps they also thought he in some sense he could truly be called YHWH, perhaps stemming from a belief that he had literally been begotten from the YHWH God the Father.

Perhaps some first century CE Christians thought Jesus Christ (or a divine being who was someone like a Son of Man) came down from heaven and entered into the body of an existing human (perhaps one named Jesus or one named Yeshua son of Joseph) and later exited the body of that human, and went back to heaven.

There were likely multiple types of Christians in the 1st century CE besides the kinds mentioned in the NT. Archaeologists have found scrolls from prior to the 1st century CE, penned by some messianic minded Jews, which contained some Christian teachings within them. Therefore, some form of Christianity might even have existed in the 1st century BCE.

slimboyfat, I am pleasantly surprised to read that you think that some OT verses (including Hosea 11:1 and in Psalm 110) had an original meaning than what Christians later interpreted them to mean. I also think your idea of that "... it’s not so much that Christians tend to deny the original meaning of a text, but that they add another meaning on top" is interesting. Your ideas about the matter of ruling among enemies is also interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

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

Gman2001 and Slimboyfat and other Christian, the Christians who wrote the four Gospels of the NT, and much of the rest of the NT, misunderstood parts of the OT (whether of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek Septuagint, or both). If Jesus existed and said all that the Gospels say he said, then he also misunderstood parts of the OT. Believers in Judaism have good reason for rejecting the New Testament as the word of the God of the OT - but even the OT is not the word of 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

Slimboyfat I am not sure if your most recent post about Psalm 110:1 is directed to me or not. I did not say the first Christians (such as those who died prior to the year 100 CE) attempted to confuse the identities of YHWH and Jesus. I meant that the attempt began in the 2nd century CE, and in agreement with you I said it seems that the Name "YHWH" began being replaced with the word "Lord" in the Septuagint and in the NT during the 2nd century CE.

However, I now think that if Jesus interpreted Psalm 110:1 the way the gospels said he did, for example in saying that David wrote that verse and that the phrase "my Lord" refers to the Messiah (instead of to King David or any of the Kings of Judah who after him and were also anointed), then Jesus was in error and thus not the divine Christ and not the divine Son of Man and not the divine Son of God.

In reading commentaries (primarily study notes of some study Bibles) about Psalm 110:1 I learned that the verse was part of a coronation song written by someone (or some people) in the court of David and that the expression "my Lord" referred primarily to David, but also to other humans who were said to have sat "on the throne of David" on Earth. This makes sense, instead of the way the Gospels and many Christians apply it, for consider the following.

The kings of Judah (and the united kingdom of Israel), including David, literally ruled among their enemies. Opposed kingdoms existed around the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The ones who 'sat on the throne David' in Judah thus literally ruled among their enemies. The ancient Jews probably thought that the foretold future Messiah would rule on Earth initially among his human enemies also, but that the Messiah would later conqueror those rival kings. But despite what the WT teaches Jesus has never ruled in that way.

Jesus is not the ruler in a literal sense of any people of Earth (though among believers of Christ he can be thought of as spiritually ruling Christians in their figurative hearts since Pentecost of the year 33 CE, or so). No part of the world has been conquered by Jesus Christ. Every part of the Earth inhabited by humans has a human government or some other human authority over it, instead of being run by a government of Jesus Christ. Even if hypothetically Jesus Christ is alive and in heaven, he is not ruling over any part of the Earth in a literal sense.

Though the governing body of the JW religion (the religion created by the WT) teaches that the WT organization is Jehovah's earthly organization and that Jesus is ruling through the JW governing body, the governing body is still subject to human governments (including the USA federal government, the government of the state of NY, city governments in the USA, and human governments outside of the USA). None of those human governments (except maybe the Vatican) recognize Jesus Christ as king ruling over planet Earth or any part of it. None of them (except maybe the Vatican in the minds of its officials) submit to Jesus Christ as their governmental authority.

Jesus Christ does not communicate to any human rulers. Jesus Christ does not governmental orders or governmental instructions to any human rulers, nor any other way exercising authority over the Earth (such as by supernaturally going to war against any human government or executing people for defying his alleged laws). As a result Jesus Christ can not be correctly said to be the ruler of planet Earth, nor any part of Earth.

No kingdom of Jesus Christ became established in the year 1914 CE in oversight of planet Earth. The WT is very wrong in teaching that Jesus Christ began ruling over the Earth in the year 1914 CE (or any other year, such as in 1874 CE).

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

Correction: In my post to Gman2001 there are many typos, consisting mostly of missing words (words which I should have typed but didn't). I didn't discover such until it was too late to make corrections within that post, but I hope readers know what I meant.

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

Gman2001 I agree that an appropriate Bible based name for Christians would be "Jesus' Witnesses" (or "Witnesses of Jesus), but I also think an appropriate name would be "Witnesses of Jehovah and Jesus" (or more accurately "Witnesses of Jahveh and Jesus" or "Witnesses of Yahweh and Yeshua'). Regarding Genesis 19:24 I am well aware aware it and that it seems to say there are two divine beings who are named Jehovah (and I know that trinitarians use in support of their ideas). When I was an independent Christian (after I had ceased to think of myself as a JW) I asked a JW elder (one who looked up to) about it. The explanation he gave me was not satisfactory to me. But I see that scripture as being an anomaly in the OT Bible. I see the vast majority of the Bible as portraying God (despite using a plural form of word "El") primarily as a singular being - in that respect interpret as do the Jews in their study of their Hebrew Scriptures. I have read the entire Holy Bible and the Apocrypha (all of the scripture books of the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Jewish - in English of course). I have also some other books (and parts of some other books) which some Christians accept as scripture, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Jubilees, and the Book of Enoch.

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

Regarding Acts 12:21-23, the Jewish historian named Josephus gives a considerably different account of what happened than what the book of Acts says. The account by Josephus is quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa under the heading of "Reign and death". The account by Josephus is far more in harmony with scientific naturalism than the Christian account in Acts. As a result, the account by Josephus is far more believable and worthy of trust by rational minded people who wish to avoid being superstitious.

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

Vanderhoven7 (on page 15 of this topic thread) you made the following interesting comment. "If the New Testament is not reliable, and the name Jehovah was completely removed from all ancient manuscripts, God did not preserve His word." My conclusion is that the NT and the OT have indeed been revised and that they (even the best critical texts scholars have of them) are not entirely reliable, and thus that God did not preserve the original texts (the original wording) of the Bible as his word. I further conclude that means the God of the Bible does not exist and that he never existed.

Sanchy (on page 16 of this topic thread) you made the following interesting comment. "If as WT suggests, shadow groups have been able to alter Bible manuscripts by, for example, removing God's name from the NT, then what else might have they altered?" I conclude that the Bible has indeed been altered (at least by by making copies which include revised wording of earlier copies), including in specific ways that scholars have not yet discovered. The manuscripts of the NT available to scholars show that over time the NT did undergo many revisions, and furthermore that the Alexandrian text type of the NT is one of the best representatives the wording of the 3rd century CE text of the NT. But most likely even the 3rd century CE text of the NT is significantly revised from the original texts of the books of the NT.

Hopefully, to me, the above quoted comments of the two of you indicate that the minds (the figurative eyes) of the two of you are beginning to be opened to the following three truths. The original wording (and hence the original meaning) of much of the Bible was not accurately preserved by God. The Bible is not the word of God. The biblical God does not exist.