we all know that the passage from paul's letter to romans, romans 10:13 says:.
"all those who call on the name of the lord will be saved".. now, in the nwt they translate that as jehovah instead of the word "lord", because this is a quote from joel 2:32 and in the ot the tetragrammaton yhwh is used, which the nwt translates as "jehovah" (not only the nwt does that, the asv,yng and dby, do it also in regards to joel).. however, of the 16 translations i have seen, all translate that passage in romans as lords and all the commentaries i have read so far, point to view that paul was applying that passage to jesus, being his name that is salvation.. commentaries by james, fausset and brown, by matthew henry and by barnes, to name only 3.. comments?.
Joseph,
I agree.
Chalam,
I was trying to say that, I don't have issues with YHWH being inserted into the NT where there are quotes from the OT in which YHWH appears, IF the context of the chapter and passage permit it, which is not the case with Romans 10:13.
i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.
why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.
in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .
Spike,
Yes I read that rom the insight book also, after I attended the Memorial celebration, that is why I asked the question, even the bible commentaries I have seen (In regards to Luke)agree that Judas was there, Matthew henry's commentary being one.
just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.
not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.
also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.
Spike,
Paul is quite clear in his letter to Timothy, Jesus is mediator to ALL MEN and ransom to ALL.
Its not subject to interpretation when it is so clearly stated.
It seems you are trying to justify a doctrine when scripture is clearly stating otherwise.
do jehovah's witnesses teach that you must be baptized in order to be saved?.
the watchtower, november 15th, 2008 issue, pages 20-22:.
"we are "saved through faith," "not owing to works" of the mosaic law or of those performed as christians.
Re the guilt trip on parents VIA their children.
Yeah, my Mom does that every so often, though she tends to stop whe I remind her that I want nothing to do with a God that kills innocent Children.
Perhaps if the JW's preached a more loving and caring God it would be better.
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Reniaa,
It seems that wether teh Divine name is or is not, or was or was not, or should or should not be in the NT is based on specualtion, though I do agree that, if the context permits it, it should be in the NT when OT passages are referenced.
Not sure what you mean about speculation in regards to Jesus's name ?
just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.
not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.
also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.
LOL !
OK LWT !
:)
do jehovah's witnesses teach that you must be baptized in order to be saved?.
the watchtower, november 15th, 2008 issue, pages 20-22:.
"we are "saved through faith," "not owing to works" of the mosaic law or of those performed as christians.
LWT,
That is one of the views that most disturbed me in my studies, that children would suffer in such a way.
As for Baptisim, Paul didn't seem to make too much of a big deal about it and its debatable wither Jesus himself baptized, but I do think that the symbolic act of Baptisim is vital for those that believe in its significance, that of the forgiveness of Sins ( water Baptisim).
i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.
why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.
in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .
Isaacaustin,
That is the issue for me, Luke make sit pretty clear the sequence of events and even in John, th eonly Gosple where Judas is noted in leaving, it happens AFTER the only meal mentioned.
just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.
not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.
also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.
Hmmm, isn't believing that Jesus is "A" God almost going into the area of a verison of the trinity ??
I mean, God is God, jesus is A god, that's 2 types of God's right there...
just to confrim, do jw's believe that jesus is divine?.
not that jesus is god, which they obviously don't believe, but that jesus is divine, with the divien qualities of his father?.
also, do jw's beleive or agree that, in the new covenant, jesus has the primary role that was god's in the old covenant?.
Spike, you mention that Jesus is the mediator between God and spiritual Israel, but Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the SOLE mediator Between God and Men, he didn't say specific Men or a specific group of Men and the only other why to tranlate that would be people and again not a specific group of people, just people.
He also states that Jesus gave himself as ransom for ALL.
What do you basis that view on?
