aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 840 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Somehow he just wrote: "My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ." and unproven theories "should not be used as a surety for belief", JWs still do this. So this was not a "restoration" of the "Divine Name", but an arbitrary solution with the lack of evidence. Have you read Raymond Franz argumenst about the "use" of the name?
  
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Philo of Alexandria used Prov 8:22–23 in De ebrietate 31 in the wording different from that in the Septuagint:

  ‘God acquired me as the first of all of his works, and before the age he founded me’ (ὁ θεὸς ἐκτήσατό με πρωτίστην τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἔργων, καὶ πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με).

  Here you can check it in original Greek.

  Why would Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus want to favor the Christians? And again: "create" does not means "poio" in Arian sense. Neither 'qanah', nor 'nacak' means 'poio'. As for Dionysius of Rome:

  "But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling, but a very great impiety, to say that the Lord was in any wise made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not; but He always was, if, as He Himself declares, He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power — for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know — assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence; and thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. But why should I discourse at greater length to you about these matters, since you are men filled with the Spirit, and especially understanding what absurd results follow from the opinion which asserts that the Son was made? The leaders of this view seem to me to have given very little heed to these things, and for that reason to have strayed absolutely, by explaining the passage otherwise than as the divine and prophetic Scripture demands. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways. For, as you know, there is more than one signification of the word created; and in this place created is the same as set over the works made by Himself — made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this created is not to be understood in the same manner as made. For to make and to create are different from one another. Is not He Himself your Father, that has possessed you and created you? says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy. And thus might any one reasonably convict these men. Oh reckless and rash men! Was then the first-born of every creature something made?— He who was begotten from the womb before the morning star? — He who in the person of Wisdom says, Before all the hills He begot me? Proverbs 8:25 Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord."

  As for Origen, are you like a stuck record player? Eh... I can't belive it. Or do you just not want to understand? Do you only function as an output, no input? How many times do I have to warn you? His writings at most show Subordinationism (rather than Arianism), which is a form of Trinitarianism that was not yet formally condemned, this is still so far from WTS Christology, and still much closer to the Catholic one.

  Your sources may keep coming up with quoting out of context from Origen, it is true that he was an exotic theologian, he often used confusing formulations, but you can only understand what he really taught if you read his entire writings, not by abusing some one-liners. It is no coincidence that the Arians did not refer to the authority of Origen to justify their position, since Origen clearly taught that the Son is begotten of the Father in the sense of eternal generation, within the being of God. Check: De Principiis IV.27, I.6, II.2.2, II.4.3, etc.

  Origen was a highly influential, but controversial and heresy-suspected teacher, who his contemporaries also had a hard time judging clearly. In hindsight, we cannot ignore his speculative thinking (allegorizing Bible interpretation), his gnostic origin belief in the existence of the human soul before physical birth (pre-existence), but especially that he considered the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father, and denied that it would be permissible to pray to the Son (cf. Acts 7:55-60). So, the Society wanted to build on the authority of Origen, someone they would reject due to his majority of false teachings, and whose theology the church neither considered nor considers authoritative at that time or today.

  I have drawn your attention many times to the fact that Origen was a diverse theologian, if he had lived later, he would have become likely a Jesuit, they often used speculations, thought experiments and thought processes that are even confusing. But you can't abuse Origen's theology as an authority to support for your own position by just picking out one quote, without evaluating his work as a whole. The later church also considered his Christology to be orthodox as a whole, and consequently it cannot be said that he professed WTS-like Christology, otherwise he would have been declared a heretic for his Christology. Quoting an author out of context and falsely portraying him to support a position that the author did not actually support, is disrespectful to the author, and it is incompatible with scientific methodology and elementary decency.
  The literature of the ancient church is abundant and diverse, but it does not at all support the conspiracy theory propagated by the Watchtower Society, according to which the Christians of the first centuries believed in what they teach according to their current "light": the "use" of the name Jehovah, Jesus as Michael, the Holy Spirit as "active force," two-group salvation, endtime speculations, 1914, true worship disappearing for 1800 years, "preaching" "house to house" "preaching", only yearly Eucharist without "partaking", etc ec..
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  slimboyfat
  

  "In fact the majority of the 237 times the NWT uses the divine name are accounted for by quotations and OT “stock phrases”."
  

  Wrong: The name Jehovah appears 237 times in the "Christian Greek Scriptures" of the NWT, of which 82 are quotes from the Old Testament that contain YHWH, but the other 155 cases were chosen completely arbitrarily. It's not "the majority", but only about a third.

  "George Howard says he “does not believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah”"

  Since there is no God named "Jehovah", this is a medieval misreading, a serious Hebraist will not argue with it, and the WTS does not assert that this could have been the original pronunciation, only that it is "established" and "traditional". There is no /dʒ/ sound in Hebrew. It is ironic how much they can scold "traditions" in other cases.

  I note that the position of the WTS is not very strong according to this, if without the New Testament being filled with "Jehovah", that is, in the absence of an unproven conspiracy of the "apostate copyists", based on the established text by existing Greek manuscripts, Jesus is just as much Lord (thus God) as the Father.

  Here, the burden of proof would be on the Watchtower, which it obviously did not fulfill. The gathering "a people for his name", which simply means "people for him" (check: Raymond Franz - In Search of the Christian Freedom, chapter 14), did not begin in 1931 according to the New Testament (when the WTS adopted the name "Jehovah's witnesses"), but on the Pentecost of 33 AD, when the church was established. According to theim, God had no people for almost 1900 years then. The followers of Chirst were simply called Christians in the NT (Acts 11:26), and according to Ignatius of Antioch the Church was called καθολικός since the Apostolic Age.

  Only a few marginal authors came up with such a theory (apparently every researcher wants to stand out with some revolutionary idea), and that too only as a definite hypothesis.
  

  And yes, if the conspiracy assumed by WTS or Howard is true, then God's word has certainly been damaged, since to this day no authentic manuscript has been found that contains the New Testament message intact.
  
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  I can believe, that translation also has its own camp, but it would not hurt you to accept that the authorities I have cited are have also at least, if not of the higher weight, like Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Jerome. You may translated it as "created" but still cannot interpret in the sense of 'poio', or "creatio ex nihilo". Even the NWT doesn't render it as "created", but "produced".

  Neither the Book of Wisdom nor the Ben Sirach is recognized as canonical by the JWs, the Catholics and the Orthodox do, but somehow it didn't bother them in their theology. By the way, the relevant parts of those books are not available in Hebrew. The details of the book of the Ben Sirach have been found in Hebrew, but the ones you mentioned have not.

  "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, 'I have gotten [qanah] a man child with the help of the LORD.' (Genesis 4:1)

  It doesn't suggest that Eve 'created’ anything. No, rather, it says that she had received, gotten, or acquired a child with the [help of the LORD]. Thus saying, it was through the LORD which she had acquired a child.

  "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought [qanah] and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter." (2 Samuel 12:3).

  If 'qanah' = 'create,' then did the poor man "create" his little lamb? The poor man did not "create" the little lamb, rather he owned it. So overall the verb 'qanah' used in reference of 'creating.' It is always used in terms of receiving, getting, acquiring, possessing. Words translated from the Hebrew term 'qanah' are words such as, acquire, acquired, acquires, bought, buy, buyer, buying, buys, formed, gain acquisition, gained, get, gets, gotten, owner, possessed, possessor, purchased, purchaser, recover, redeemed, sold, and surely buy.

  "Submit yourselves to every ordinance ['ktisis'] of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;..." (1 Peter 2:13).

  In addition, the verb "created" also has a meaning that is not used much in English, but was fully used back then, and this is referring it not to the actual existence, but to to appoint to a position, place. For example, some church writer quoted Revelation 1:6 by heart, saying "creavit" instead of "fecit" (made, ie. here: appoint), thus "has also CREATED us kings and priests", this also shows what the verbs "to create" meant for the ancients.

  In modern English, this use of the verb "create" is very rare, but surely known. The English word 'create' can also potentially mean 'ordain,' though its more familiar use is to bring into existence: "create...To originate or cause; to bring into being; to cause to exist; to make or form, by investing with a new character; to constitute; to appoint ( to create a peer)..." (Webster's International, 1965). Also used when the Pope "creates" cardinals. So I can still say that yes, let's say for the sake of theory that he "created", but the word "created" here actually does not mean "not ex nihilo bringing into existence", but "set up", "appointed", "installed".

  The concept of personified wisdom (in Proverbs 14:1, personification is merely a literary device) developed in Israel after the Babylonian captivity, when polytheism no longer posed a serious threat to monotheism. While in Job 29 and Baruch 3:9-4:4, wisdom appears as a thing, a desirable value, in the newer parts of Proverbs, in the first part (1:20-33; 3:16-19; chapters 8-9), it already appears as a person. Here (8:22-31), she herself recounts her own origin (verses 22-26) and her active participation in the work of creation (verses 27-30), as well as her role among people, that is, to lead them to God (verses 31.35-36). Ben Sirach will further develop this teaching: Sirach 1:1-10 still reminds us of Job (Job 28), but Sirach 4:11-19; 14:20-15:10 and especially 24:1-9 go beyond Proverbs 8. - But in all these texts, where Wisdom - in other places the Word or the Spirit - takes on a personal character, it is difficult to determine what is a poetic device, what is the product of religious imagination, and what should be considered a new revelation. - Finally, Wisdom 7:22-8:1 gives the impression that Wisdom (the pure emanation of the Almighty's glory - 7:25) is part of the divine nature, but the abstract expressions used to describe it can equally apply to the attributes of God or to a separate person. - The teachings laid down in this way in the Old Testament are significantly further developed in the New Testament by applying them to the person of Christ. Jesus is called the wisdom of God (Matthew 11:19, cf.: Luke 11:49; cf.: Matthew 23:34-36; 1Corinthians 1:24-30). Like Wisdom, Christ also participates in the creation and maintenance of the world (Colossians 1:16-17). - Finally, the prologue of the Gospel of John endows the Word with the characteristics of the creative Wisdom, and Christ is presented throughout the Gospel of John as the wisdom of God (John 6:35). From this, it is understandable that the Christian tradition has seen Christ in the Old Testament Wisdom since Justin.

  Overall I don't think it's theologically that relevant, because the wisdom here is not literally the Son, but at most a type for the Son, which means this poetic image, this allegory of the Wisdom can be applied to the Son, but not identified / equated with the Son, especially doctrinal truths cannot be deduced from this. Interestingly, the entire book of Proverbs is about the wisdom, but only verses 8:22-36 of it are understood as referring to Jesus, and we can indeed find similarities. However, this does not entitle you to direct and straightforward correspondence.

  Do you believe that Christ is a woman who cries in the streets? (Proverbs 1:20,21) Was there a time when God had no wisdom? No. Wisdom is eternal as God. Messianic references in the Old Testament are either completely clear (e.g. Isaiah 53), or even if they are not completely clear, the New Testament clearly refers them to Christ (e.g. in Acts 2 in Peter's speech, etc.). However, nowhere in the New Testament did anyone apply Proverbs 8 to Jesus, nor does Solomon suggest that we should see more in the chapter than the description of wisdom. That is why, although the identification with Jesus seems like a nice parallel, it definitely lacks strict a biblical basis.
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

  "The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1Peter 1:25)

  "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book" (Revelation 22:18)

  If we trust in the Lord's promise, then his word cannot be falsified without a trace, and consequently we must start from the fact that the surviving version is the revealed New Testament scripture itself without distortion. And nothing should be added to this based on all kinds of conspiracy theories, unproven speculation.
  

  https://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/tetra-appenD.pdf

  https://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm
  

  George Howard's theory has been rejected by most - if not all - modern Biblical and Textual scholars. In any case, his theory is that the New Testament authors retained the Tetragrammaton whenever they quoted verses from the Old Testament that contained it. His theory thus has no relevance to most of the 237 instances where the NWT translators inserted "Jehovah" into their "Christian Greek Scriptures."

  Professor Howard wrote these letters that have been made public which clarify his position:

  ---

  The University of Georgia
  College of Arts & Sciences

  June 5, 1989

  Bob Hathaway
  Capistrano Beach, CA 92624

  Dear Mr. Hathaway:

  My conclusions regarding the Tatragrammaton and the New Testament are:

  1) the N.T. writers might have used the Tetragrammaton in their Old Testament quotations, and 2) it is possible (though less likely) that the Tetragrammaton was used in a few stereotype phrases such as "the angel of the Lord." Otherwise it probably was not used at all. I disagree with the Jehovah Witness translation that uses Jehovah many times. This goes beyond the evidence. I do not believe Jesus Christ is Jehovah. If the Jehovah Witnesses teach this (I’m not aware of most of their theology) they are off the mark.

  Sincerely,

  George Howard
  Professor

  ---

  The University of Georgia
  January 9, 1990

  Steven Butt
  P.O. _____
  Portland, ME 04104

  Dear Mr. Butt:

  Thank you for your letter of 3 January 1990. I have been distressed for sometime about the use the Jehovah’s Witnesses are making of my publications. My research does not support their denial of the deity of Christ. What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.

  Sincerely,

  George Howard

  
  

  
  
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The writings of the Watchtower consistently muddle the legitimate demand to indicate in the translations at the appropriate places in the Old Testament that it is Yahweh or Jehovah - and your demand, plucked from thin air, to attempt this also in the New Testament, at the two hundred or so places they determined, despite the fact that here, the faintest semblance of manuscript and historical evidence is entirely lacking.

  These insertions are labeled as "easier to understand" only by the Watchtower. In reality, it's a sectarian stamp: the branding iron, fired up by the "discreet slave" and pressed on the body of their congregation, of the desire to be different at all costs. The brazen disregard of the Greek text we have at hand. Double standards. Because they do the same thing as the "great harlot" they condemn, while they, in principle, are willing to renounce their custom and issue many translations abundant in the name Jehovah / Yahweh, the Watchtower is not willing to do the opposite.

  The fact that the New Testament refers to the Old Testament at certain places does not turn into a fact, a text, a data, their underlying assumption that in the original, apostolic-evangelistic text YHWH stood there. And yet, they say in their writings (although they can no longer defend it in a factual debate), that the apostate copyists left out the Name etc. But they cannot produce a single New Testament manuscript that would support them here. The hypothesis of the "apostate copyists" is good for everything and good for nothing. With this method, they could even prove that reincarnation was in the Bible, only those pesky apostate copyists left it out.

  Don't forget: the New Testament writers often quote the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Hebrew text. And despite the few manuscripts they have unearthed, the Septuagint contains a tendency (and not just on the side, but as a mainstream, and well before the writing of the New Testament), to represent the name YHWH with the word Lord. JWs can argue with this tendency, and qualify its cause as superstitious - but it seems, the New Testament authors did not consider it superstitious or offensive to God, because whenever they quote the Old Testament, they do not transcribe the tetragrammaton with Greek letters, but call it Lord. In this regard, therefore, they approved the Jewish custom they call superstitious. And at least in this, they testify against them that the name YHWH would be so important and indispensable in the New Testament that without its proclamation, the church itself would collapse.

  In response to the question that if it is allowed to rewrite the name YHWH in our translations of the Old Testament, then why aren't you allowed to "rewrite" it in the New Testament, I answer this: JWs are ignoring a very important aspect. We are free to consistently write out the name YHYH as Yahweh or Jehovah in our translations (like J. N. Darby), and the mainstream churches don't bite the head off of anyone who might circumlocute the Name out of excessive fear due to the "do not take in vain" commandment or for some other reason (e.g. because they don't want to pronounce it incorrectly). Therefore, we have freedom: the (non)pronunciation, the (non)translation of the name YHWH is not a matter of faith for us. Moreover, newer translations also distinguish between Lord (Adonai) and LORD (YHWH), so anyone who wishes can reconstruct the original for themselves by looking through the usual substitution. This is what many Bible translations do.

  You cannot use our freedom to justify how they falsify the New Testament Greek manuscripts, which deal with the Tetragrammaton in a similarly cool manner and translate it as freely into Lord as we do. Moreover, JWs blaspheme as apostate everyone who removed the name YHWH from both covenant documents. But it has become certain that this accusation of them first hits the apostles. For if they had taken it as a matter of faith, as they do, they would have avoided the Septuagint like the plague.

  No one said "YHWH is not the name of God." Just that it is not the only name of God, and not an indispensable name for him. Learn to understand their opponents' statements in the sense they represent, and do not project onto their place some concocted, albeit obviously easier to attack, nonsense. And do not expect me to defend this nonsense on behalf of everyone. No: here their schizoid, either-or logic has misled them, which shouts into their ear that God can only have one true and indispensable name (YHWH), and whoever denies this also denies that YHWH is the name of God.
  

  Has God changed? The answer is a definite no. God did not change either when he said that his name YHWH was not yet known to the patriarchs. Nor did he start to change when he declared himself in Jesus as the Father (as the Father of Jesus Christ and our Father). This would lead to another thread of argument, so I will not elaborate further here.

  The ancient Israelites lived in a polytheistic, pagan environment and were, in some respects, a rather undeveloped civilization. In such an environment, monotheism was a revolutionary idea on the one hand, and on the other hand, they were constantly exposed to the constant temptation from paganism. In fact, as we know, the common Israelites often fell into the sin of idolatry. (This also shows that the common man was never a high-level theologian in any era, and it would be pointless to ever expect this.) The role, meaning, purpose, and significance of the name "I AM" (Yahweh) can only be understood in this environment. But why?

  For an ancient common man, for whom the existence of multiple gods was as evident as the cellphone is for us today, if you had been living in the Near East during the Egyptian captivity, it would have been evident to you that every nation has its own god, with its temples and priests. People talk about it, sacrifice animals to it, etc. No one questioned its existence. The various nations didn't say that our "gods" exist and yours are the products of religious fantasy and mythology, but rather said things like our gods are stronger than yours. In such an environment, saying that these so-called gods do not exist at all would have caused considerable confusion. "What, Osiris doesn't exist? But there is his temple, my neighbor regularly sacrifices to him, how could he not exist?". And God chose a brilliant way in the cultural environment to communicate the basic religious truth about Himself to His chosen people.

  Because whenever a Jew pronounced the word God as YAHWEH, they thereby professed that He alone is "The One Who IS" (therefore, other "gods" do not exist). The name YAHWEH clearly refers to God as the absolute being, whose real characteristic and essence is that He IS, He exists: He is the Eternal. Compared to Him, other deities are nothing, non-existent, see Is. 42,8. When God in the Bible emphatically declared several times, "I am Yahweh", He essentially said, "understand that I alone am the existing God, no other god exists besides me". Therefore, this Name had a pedagogical aim and role, somewhat like telling a small child that the "name" of the plug is "Don'tStickYourFingerInIt". It is perfectly clear that this "name" is not a name in the sense of, say, Carl, but serves the purpose of reminding the person, when recalling this "name", of the most important thing they should think of first in relation to this matter. So the purpose of the name Yahweh was to remind Jews in a fundamentally polytheistic environment that their God is the only true God, they can only believe in Him, only worship Him, etc. - while the many "gods" of other peoples do not actually exist.

  The Holy Tetragrammaton is both a revelation and a rejection of the Name. The essence of God, His existence, is fundamentally different from this world, so we cannot "essentially" know God - we can only say, "what is not He".

  From this it follows that the name YAHWEH fulfilled its role when monotheism was still on weak legs - even among Jews! - , when the religious development of the Israelite people was not high. God, therefore, in this matter as well, gradually led the people carrying the revelation to a higher religious standpoint. He did not anticipate the normal intellectual development as a Deus ex machina, but involved his revelations in its individual phases. Therefore, the naming of God as Yahweh is an early stage of the development of monotheism.

  From this it follows clearly that later, when monotheism was strong, the oneness of God had largely become evident to the Jews, there was no longer a need for this "crutch" for God. Just as the side wheels are only needed on a bicycle until the child is too small to balance on two wheels, after which there is no longer a need for them. We will not perceive the removal of the side wheels as a negative or a lack, on the contrary. The same was true here.

  This is confirmed by the fact that the name Yahweh fell out of common use. We all know that God punished the Jewish people by sending them into Babylonian captivity. Well, this punishment was quite effective, as we all know how effective a religious reform Ezra carried out among the Israelites who returned to their land. His basic act was regular Torah study, so the "theological" knowledge of the average people also increased a lot. Monotheism was no longer questionable, other kinds of "dangers" (such as those later condemned by Jesus among the hair-splitting, Pharisaic interpretations of the Torah) were of course threatening, but that is another story.

  There was no longer a need for the name Yahweh to maintain monotheism, so when God providentially led his people to a new level, there was not only no longer a need for any nominator, but it was specifically a hindrance - just as the side wheels used to learn to ride a child's bike can later function as a hindrance. God's Providence is ultimately behind the Name's exclusion from common use.

  The ancient gods could be invoked at any time by their names. Hence, the knowledge of a god's name in some sense encompassed the belief that a human could possess its power, or in some sense rule over it. In this sense, the Name became a kind of speakable magic spell. Traces of this can be found in certain Semitic, Arab legends, where to use the power of the djinn, one must know its name. Although in the Bible the use of the Name YHWH is free from such misuse, nevertheless – if we tie God to a specific "Name" this in some sense carries the danger of the emergence of this phenomenon (even if it is not consciously functioning).

  What are we talking about? The Name becomes objectified, which is treated as a kind of property. Like the medieval mystical Jewish rabbis who used the Tetragrammaton as a kind of magic spell. They wrote it on the golem, and it came to life. They can essentially misuse it as magical automatism and as a guarantee of salvation. Indeed, the use, the utterance of the word "Jehovah" does not guide anyone, and it does not cause any additional salvation, because the Bible does not aim for us to "use" the Tetragrammaton, a Hebrew word, zealously for salvation, like some magic key, but to know the person of God, to love him, and to become His children.

  The Old Testament Jews gradually understood that there is no name, word, or phrase in human language that could describe the essence of God. "The divine is unnameable", says Theologian St. Gregory. "Not only does reason show this, but so do the oldest and wisest Jews. Those who respected the Divine by writing His name with special signs, and did not allow God's name and creatures to be written with the same letters... could they ever have dared to pronounce the Name of the indestructible and unique nature in a fleeting voice? Just as no one could ever take in all the air, so reason could not fully embrace, and words could not encompass the essence of God."

  By not pronouncing the name of God, the old Jews showed that contact with God is possible not so much through words and expressions, but rather through devotion and humble silence. So the real reason is that this is a mystery, not because it's taboo. The reality of God surpasses the world. Compared to Him, we do not even exist. The pure linguistic version of the Holy Tetragrammaton was also used by other Semitic peoples, and by the Jews before Moses. However, this embodiment into a purely human word was a prefiguration of the embodiment into Jesus, just as the burning bush was a prefiguration of the transfiguration on Mount Tabor. If we deny the incarnation of Christ, this leads to the denial of the Holy Tetragrammaton. The "namers" just pronounce a generally used Semitic designation of divinity, moreover in the Latin reading (Jehovah => Latin reading of the Holy Tetragrammaton), so they just do what someone would do if they were scrutinizing the human nature of Jesus, which is possible, as he was truly human. However, they do not reach the essence of the Holy Tetragrammaton, only its "garment", and never pronounce it as heretics, because they cannot "possess" the knowledge of the Name, they can only defile it.

  Since it is undeniable that the name YHWH does not appear in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, except for the four Hallelujahs, only the transcription of Kyrios (Lord), what prevents us from keeping these in the New Testament translations? Precisely this entitles us to do so, if the New Testament writers (following the Septuagint) mentioned the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in Greek, why shouldn't we accept from their mouths the Greekization of the name YHWH to "Kyrios"? And it cannot be an argument against this that "apostate copyists left out the name YHWH from the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament," because 1. there is no evidence for this, 2. why couldn't anyone say about this that "then let's re-Hebraize the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in the New Testament!"?

  I see the storm with which Jehovah's Witnesses force the name YHWH on the New Testament as quite novel and contrived. How the Septuagint and today's translations were handled, I do not consider a matter of salvation in any way, and I read Darby as gladly as King James. I don't know if this is laid down as a program for them, but I feel that they were the first to make this a matter of salvation. And if the debate has reached this point (that one party is accusing the other of heresy and apostasy on the basis (also) that it wants to translate the name YHWH as Kyrios, LORD, Eternal), then he who has so far considered his practice to be free and innocent is quite helpless if he wants to maintain it as a custom. Because we admit that among us this is not a law, not a question of salvation, and in principle can be changed at any time (of course, rewriting translations does not happen overnight, especially if there is no compelling reason) - but they are pressing us, and they blame us for everything because of this.

  The question is how this writing of YHWH in the LXX (which was not universal among Jews either, as we know from various sources) could have made its way into the New Testament in such a way that not a single copy of it has survived. One of the Bodmer papyri (p66) contains the section Johnn 1:1-6:11, in its entirety, including for example Jn 1:23. According to WTS, the tetragram should be here. Well, this papyrus is from the 2nd century, and we hardly have longer New Testament sources from before that time. I haven't looked into what kind of textual witnesses are available for the places in question, but you already have to place the action of the "apostate copyists" team without gaps at a very early time.

  Jesus declared: "I came in my Father's name." He also emphasized that what he does, he does "in his Father's name." - Indeed, and he did not say that he came in the name of Yahweh or Jehovah. This proves that the Father is not just a title, but also a name. (As is, I might add, the Son and the Holy Spirit, for in this triune name is baptism.)

  "In the Greek Scriptures, God's name appears in abbreviated form. In Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, God's name is part of the expressions "alleluia" or "hallelujah"." - According to this, those "apostate copyists" were not vigilant enough to root this out as well. These four examples rather weaken JW's case, because in a fixed liturgical formula it preserves the name Yah in the New Testament. Therefore, the copyists could not have been led by superstition or pagan prejudice, as JWs are prone to assume as a reason.

  "Is the New World Translation the only translation in which God's name has been restored to its place in the Greek Scriptures? No" - In fact, it is not even "the only one," because there is no such translation. The ones they mention did not "restore" but, on a speculative basis, contrary to the evidence of the manuscripts, inserted the name Yahweh (Jehovah) into their translations. But this does not make JW's position more secure, but theirs more shaky. I am only reacting to one of the missing sources, but it is enough to prove their bad faith.

  The Watchtower is sitting on the horns of a dilemma here. Because if that mass of Greek manuscripts, on which he is forced to base the authenticity of God's word in other respects, fell victim to the tendentious "apostate copyists" at this point, then what prevented them from forging whole doctrines into the Scripture elsewhere so that they uniformly appear in all surviving copies? And then WTS is forced to make itself the measure of authenticity not only in terms of the occurrence of the JHWH name in the New Testament, but also in many other textual and theological questions.
• 
  73

  "Jehovah" In The New Testament.

  by LostintheFog1999 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  A shared treasure of Judaism and Christianity, an important element of faith is the name of God; Christians have no particular objection to the name "Jehovah", but they do not insist on it, because it is a theological term.

  The Hebrew language originally only recorded consonants, and it was only supplemented with vowel marks in the early Middle Ages. Since when reading the letters YHWH, they always said Adonai ("Lord") instead of Yahweh, the vowels of Adonai were written above and below the consonants YHWH in the Middle Ages (1520, Galatinus). Thus the form "Jahovah", "Jehovah" or "Jehovah" was created, which sounds impossible to Hebrew ears.

  This theological term has nevertheless become quite widespread in theological literature, in translations of the Old Testament (!), and in poetry over the centuries.

  In Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who I Am" (in Hebrew: ehyeh asher ehyeh), or "I Am" (ehyeh) himself sends Moses to the people. The meaning of the introduction is obvious from the context: God is who He is, and He doesn't have a name in the sense of the pagan gods, who could be invoked and influenced by their names, but He is always with them and will be.
  

  "I Am" is none other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because in verse 15 he continues: "...YHWH, the God of your fathers...". The origin and pronunciation of the word YHWH (approx. Yahweh) is highly debated among experts. The Watchtower has adopted the interpretation that this is the causative form (hifil) of the old, rare version of the verb to be (havah), which would mean: "the Creator"; YHWH in Israeli translations is Adonai ("Lord"), Shaddai ("Almighty").

  The Jews were not afraid of "superstitiously" pronouncing the name, but of unnecessary invocation of the Person behind it, reckless, insignificant, aimless, or malicious mention (the "in vain" in Exodus 20:7 refers to this). Understandably, due to their terrifying experiences with God, they avoided the "vain" use of God's name.

  The Jews copied the Scripture letter by letter, but certain errors occurred; when the scribes noticed this, they indicated the correct reading with marginal notes, thus distinguishing between the ketib ("written") and the qere ("to be read") text. However, they did not mark God's name with a special qere because they expected everyone to know: if they read YHWH with their eyes, they should say Adonai ("the Lord") with their mouth. Jews still often refer to God simply as "the Name" (ha-Shem).

  If Jesus in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21) had pronounced the Name while reading Isaiah (61:1-2), wouldn't that have caused an outrage among the "superstitious" Jews, wouldn't they have attacked him immediately? Instead, we read that they listened attentively to the reading (4:20), and even initially received his added words positively (4:22).

  Indeed, Jesus "did not teach like the scribes", but not merely because he was against the traditions that contradicted the law. Unlike the scribes who referred to the Scripture and to each other, Jesus stated things "as one who had authority", as one who could refer to himself (see at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 7:29). What does this have to do with the use of the Name in the synagogue scene?

  The "Lord's Prayer" is a prayer addressed to our Father. If Jesus really wanted to encourage the use of the Name with the Lord's Prayer, why should we call God Father, why doesn't the prayer start like this: "Our Lord...", or like this: "Our Jehovah"?

  How could a prayer addressed to God encourage us, people, to consider God's name holy? The word "hallow" is not in the optative but in the imperative mood, and it does not ask something from man, but from God. Translated literally: "let your name be hallowed", i.e., by God, i.e., God should make it holy among people, so that finally his royal rule may come, and his will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven (Mt 6:9-10).

  If the use of God's name is really so important, then why do Jehovah's Witnesses address God with a theological hybrid word alien to Hebrew, why not according to the most probable pronunciation (e.g. Yahweh)?

  Some fragments from early times of the 3rd-century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint, LXX) that have survived contain the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text.

  However, this does not mean that they later left it out because of "superstition", as the substitution of JHVH with Kyrios in later editions was not a translation of JHVH, but of Adonai, thus drawing attention to the correct reading (the kere).

  This was obviously not needed for the Jews, but for the pagans who were already reading the LXX.

  But the pagans would not have been able to do anything with the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text anyway, they would have misunderstood it, so Kyrios was needed from the outset.

  In the era of the emperors, who deified themselves and also had themselves called kyrios, it was a testimony on the part of the Jews that their God was "the Lord" (ho kyrios), and not the emperor.

  Jehovah's Witnesses' own Bible translation, the New World Translation, has a very debatable feature: it uses the name Jehovah in the New Testament as well, which they call the Christian Greek Scriptures. Witnesses have a hard time defending this stance, because:
  

  • There is not a single New Testament manuscript left to us that contains the name Jehovah.
  • The organization's Wescott-Hort text also does not use the name Jehovah.
  • No contemporary work mentions that the name was in the New Testament.
  • Even in the works of Christian writers, there is no trace of this.

  The topic of the divine name has already produced several studies from the critics. The foundations of the argument are not solid. The Society's argument (as a recent study pointed out) is based on some assumptions. We would like to highlight a few of these.

  One assumption is that the Septuagint (LXX) translation quoted by Christians used the divine name. There is insufficient evidence for this. The appendix contains 12 fragments, but these prove: there were LXX versions that included the divine name. However, many other LXX fragments do not use it. When the New Testament writers quote the LXX, they used several versions, not just one. But the JHVH name is indeed in the original Scriptures, so this assumption can be overlooked.

  The main question is whether Jesus' disciples used the Name? Not a single Christian writer, not a single early Christian group's surviving writings contain the Name. Why?

  The apostles indeed quoted the Old Testament either from the Hebrew text (from memory, or possibly from scrolls in their possession), or according to the first-century, commonly used editions of the Greek LXX.

  There is not a single fragment of the Greek New Testament that contains even a single Hebrew letter or the Greek transcription of YHWH.

  There is no historical record that such a New Testament text ever existed, or that anyone ever saw anything like it.

  Is there any factual basis for the Watchtower's claim that the New Testament authors also inserted the Hebrew JHVH into the Greek text?

  If not, why does it present as a fact something for which there is no evidence, and which contradicts the well-known facts?

  According to the appendix, some have falsified the New Testament writings. However, this is just a theory, as the Society acknowledges (although a theory cannot be treated as a historical fact...). George Howard invented this theory, but he himself did not dare to declare it as a fact. Why not? Because there is no evidence for it. A step as significant as the editing of the Gospels would have required a joint resolution, a joint conspiracy. There would have been traces of this, the Jewish religious leaders would have attacked immediately. But nothing like this happened.

  There is not a single written record within Christianity that the church called upon the copyists or translators of the Scriptures to erase JHVH. Such a decision would have required at least a universal council resolution, would have provoked significant internal resistance, and could not have been carried out secretly.

  There is not a single written record outside Christianity either, that would verify or at least indicate something like this, although this could have been a strong argument for the Jews in religious debates.

  The Watchtower's claim of Bible forgery is thus only an assumption without proof, i.e., a hypothesis. Nevertheless, they accuse the Christianity of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of capital crime, i.e., Bible forgery, because due to their alleged crime, anyone could have believed until the 20th century, based purely on the Bible, that JHVH was among us in Jesus. It fundamentally questions whether God's revelation was successful and whether His Word has been preserved; this contradicts Jesus, who said that his words will remain forever (see Mt 24:35). They also accuse the writers of 20th century Christian Bible translations, hymn books or creeds of hatred against the Name of God, because they mostly omit the name "Jehovah" that still appears in old translations, and replace it with "Lord".

  None of the surviving Greek New Testament copies contain Hebrew letters, and there is no historical trace of the Name being "erased." The Society, therefore, presents unproven assumptions as facts (slander). The name Jehovah appears 237 times in the "Christian Greek Scriptures," of which 82 are quotes from the Old Testament that contain YHWH, but the other 155 cases were chosen completely arbitrarily. If we start from the existing copies and the facts: the New Testament calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit both Lord and God.

  Isn't it theological bias to present something as a fact for which there is no evidence? Isn't the Watchtower afraid that its claim contradicts even the words of Jesus? Does the Watchtower rightly accuse Christian churches, who do not object to the Name, as they regularly use the "Yahweh" accepted by the Jews, and even the form Jehovah in specialist literature, sermons, some Bible translations and hymn books, and who, not out of resentment against God and his name, but primarily to distance themselves from the teachings of the Watchtower and its separate Bible, were forced to avoid the variant name "Jehovah"?

  The written revelation has been preserved by God's providence; through the many hundreds of preserved copies, thousands of fragments, references, and ancient translations, the sacred text could be completely reconstructed except for a few disputed details. The internationally accepted Hebrew and Greek texts: Biblia Hebraica, Novum Testamentum Graece (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart), The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, New York).

  The New Testament writers (except for Luke), who were native Aramaic speakers, did not use the Hebrew letter YHWH, nor did they try to reproduce its Greek phonetics. In quotes from the Old Testament, they always translated YHWH as "the Lord" (kyrios). They referred to Jesus with the same word: "the Lord" (kyrios), and even to the Holy Spirit (e.g. 2Cor 3:17). In the New Testament there is no rule or indication that the kyrios would have a different meaning specifically for YHWH, and another one specifically for Jesus.

  Based on the above facts, we only have three possibilities by the method of exclusion:

  • if the authors of the New Testament had not paid attention to the fact that the reader could confuse YHWH with Jesus, they would have written with a degree of irresponsibility that would fundamentally question the inspiration and sanctity of their writings;
    
  • if the aim of the authors of the New Testament had been deliberate deception, then we could forget the whole issue
  • if the authors of the New Testament wrote consciously and carefully, and had no intention of deceiving others, then based on the facts, it is logical to conclude that they also professed the deity of Jesus.

  The WTS presents its own assumption as fact. No one can know what or all that was used in the 1st century. As for Jesus, he knew Hebrew and likely read from the Hebrew scrolls in the synagogues of Palestine, not from the LXX.

  According to linguistic research, the Apostles mostly quoted from the Hebrew originals of the Hebrew Scriptures, rarely from the LXX's Old Greek versions, and probably often quoted from memory. The appendix of The Greek New Testament (United Bible Sociates, New York, 4th edition, 1993) lists all Old Testament quotations and allusions, separately marking those taken from the Septuagint with LXX. As I counted, only 62 out of 309 quotes come from the LXX, and only 41 out of about 1200 references. The ratio of quotes and references taken from the Hebrew text and its Greek translation (LXX) is fifteen to one!

  Undoubtedly, some copies of the LXX that contained the Name survived even after the 1st century. The WTS itself mentions the 2nd-century (converted to Judaism) Aquila LXX edition, and the 4-5th-century publication by Jerome (Hieronymus), who still saw such copies. However, it is a question why there is not a single fragment or at least a reference to the Tetragrammaton being included in the Christian Greek Scriptures, contrary to the LXX. Why is there no historical data about anyone ever seeing such a thing?

  If Jesus had pronounced the Name (the third word of Isaiah 61:1) in the synagogue, the Jews would have immediately reproached him, who, according to the WTS, never uttered the Name out of "superstitious" fear. Instead, they listened to him and only became upset when Jesus claimed that the text he read was being fulfilled right there, in him.

  Jesus taught differently from the scribes, not because he freely pronounced the name, but because he taught with authority [exousia] during the Sermon on the Mount. While the rabbis could only refer to the Scripture or to some other famous rabbis, Jesus taught with his own authority: "You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…" (cf. Jn 6:45). Such a sermon ended with Mt 7:28-29.

  Jesus' disciples knew God's YHWH name: they knew how to write and pronounce it, as the people could hear it year by year from the mouth of the high priest who presented the sacrifices. Jesus did not make his disciples acquainted with God's name in the sense that he had to betray a sequence of sounds, and there is no biblical data that he would have encouraged them to use the name freely. To "make someone known by name" means to introduce someone personally or to present someone's personality. Thus, Jesus introduced God's essence, personality to his people who had distanced themselves from God (cf. Jn 1:18).

  Few Jehovah's Witnesses can look up the Greek base text used, although the Society published it in 1985. Even it does not contain the divine name!!! The Watchtower Society refers to so-called 'J sources'. The problem is that the 'J sources' are all late (1385–1979) translations, not copies made from the Greek text.

  The evidence that the organization has brought up over the years in favor of this characteristic of the translation has all been refuted. The July 15, 2001 issue of The Watchtower came up with a new "proof" that quickly turns out to be, to put it mildly, misleading.
  

  The article starting on page 29 deals with Origen. On page 31, there is a picture showing a part of Origen's work Hexapla, with the Greek transcription of YHWH circled. The explanatory text next to the picture says:

  "Origen's work titled Hexapla proves that the name of God was used in the Christian Greek Scriptures."

  The article no longer makes this claim, only that the Hexapla contains the name of God and this is the proof that the Christians used the name Jehovah.

  A research-minded Witness might be satisfied with this and be reassured that something still confirms the Governing Body's position. Is this really the case?

  The magazine itself provides the answer on page 30, where it honestly acknowledges what the Hexapla is. It writes, "The Hexapla is a large fifty-volume edition of the Hebrew Scriptures." So, it is an OLD TESTAMENT! Nobody disputes that the name Jehovah has a place in the Old Testament. But the fact that the Old Testament and its translations use the name Jehovah does not prove that it was also in the New Testament. Therefore, the caption on page 31 is highly misleading and does not reflect reality.

  The J-sources

  What are these so-called J-sources? Several in-house Witnesses asked us. This was partly our fault because we used a designation that the Witnesses do not know. Therefore, we owe an explanation. To prepare a translation, texts are needed on which we base the translation into a given language. These are the sources we use. There are several thousand manuscripts available for the New Testament. These texts had to be distinguished from each other. Therefore, each of these usable source materials received an individual code with a combination of a letter and a number. The earliest material in time, for example, is P52, made in AD 125. Each papyrus manuscript received a P sign. The book mentions the New Testaments translated into Hebrew. The Watchtower Society (but not others!) refers to these with a J letter.

  What's wrong with these J-marked sources? The P-marked sources were created between AD 100 and 300 (these are copies of copies made from the original writings and their copies, etc.). The Hebrew alef-marked Codex Sinaiticus is also from the 4th century AD. The A-marked Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century AD, etc. What are the J sources? New Testament translated into Hebrew. So these are not copies, but translations, which is a significant difference. Translations are generally less accurate (more distorted) than copies. It is generally not professional to justify a translation process with another translation when talking about deviation from the copies! It's like justifying my wrong action with someone else's wrong action.

  Another big mistake is that the copies marked with P, Hebrew alef, A, B, C, and D are fairly early. The time gap between them and the original Writings is between 25 and a few hundred years. The reader may smile at a few hundred years. But do they know how many years are between the translations marked with the letter J and the original Writings? The Society lists 27 such translations. The earliest translation is from 1385 (distance 1287 years), the latest is from 1981 (distance 1883 years); so a few hundred years really is a trifle compared to this.

  But why is this important? Because the J sources are the most fundamental from the point of view of the NWT. Only these use the divine name. Not a single copy, only these translations! We think it is understandable how significant this is. The New World Translation reference version lists these translations in detail.

  At first glance, it may not be striking, but the age of the so-called "J" sources is of great significance. According to the information found in KIT and NWT,
  

  • the earliest "J" labeled Hebrew translation, "J2" (containing the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew), dates from 1385 AD, thus from the 14th century, the Middle Ages;
  • the most frequently quoted Hebrew translation, "J7" (the entire New Testament in Hebrew), is from 1599 AD, on the threshold of the new era;
  • the most recent is the 1979 "J22" (also a complete translation).

  In contrast, it is a well-known fact that the earliest Greek manuscripts in our possession, which contain the words "kyrios" and "theos", were copied only about 30 years after John wrote the Book of Revelation. The earliest Hebrew translation brought up to substantiate the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament was thus created at least 1300 years later than the Greek copies! In rendering the text, the Society attributes greater authority to 14th-century and later Hebrew translations than to 2nd-5th century Greek copies. On what basis?The Watchtower Society essentially argues in favor of the NWT by saying that the Tetragrammaton appears in such Hebrew translations that were made from the well-known Greek text which does not even contain the Tetragrammaton! After this, several questions arise:

  • The Society does not consider the existing Greek text (Westcott-Hort, 1881), which it also uses, to be intact because, according to its theory, Christians of the 2nd-3rd centuries erased the divine name from it. So, did Jesus and the apostles not tell the truth? (Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:25)
  • In the text's translation, the Society attributes greater authority to Hebrew translations from the 14th century and even later than to the Greek copies from the 2nd-5th centuries. On what basis?
  • The word "kyrios" ("Lord") appears 714 times in the Greek text; the NWT replaces this 224 times with "Jehovah". The question is, why did it do this in exactly these 224 cases and why not in the other 490 cases?
  • The word "theos" ("God") appears 1318 times in the Greek text; the NWT replaces this 13 times with "Jehovah". The question is, why did it do this in exactly these 13 cases and why not in the other 1305 cases?
  • Although 82 out of the 237 cases involve quotes from Hebrew texts that contained the Tetragrammaton, what justifies the other 155 cases? What does not justify the rest? Do you think the "J" sources can substantiate the replacement of the words "Lord" and "God" with "Jehovah"?

  The Society treats Professor Howard's theory similarly to its own as a fact ("historical fact"), or presents it misleadingly as a statement ("used the tetragrammaton"). Howard's theory remained what it was in professional circles: a hypothesis, an unproven assumption. Regarding the Talmudic passage, Howard also only hypothesized, and did not claim that these were Jewish-Christian texts.

  This theory of Howard's also remained what it was: a hypothesis. Moreover, Howard at least inaccurately provided the title of the Talmud quotation: "Talmud Shabbat 13,5" simply does not exist. According to Ezra Bick, an Israeli Talmud scholar, the most probable place for the text is Shabbat 116a. The Society claims that the word here "minim" (heretics) refers to Christians, but in reality, we can guess among three possibilities. The "minim" or heretics refers to Jews (according to Bick's opinion), or to Christians (according to the Society), or to Judaizing Christians, who were also considered heretics by the early Christian church (e.g., the Ebionites).
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  slimboyfat

  Long, or not too long, these materials are not available on the Internet, although it would probably be more comfortable to simply throw a bunch of links to you like Blotty did, and say: "Go and read, These links totally refute

  I think that Raymond Franz showed a very deep love for his uncle and did not speak disrespectfully of him at all ever. He described his experiences about the organizational structure of the Watchtower, which are in line with the statements of other former members who used to work at the WTS headquarters.

  From Raymond Franz's description as well, it is clear that the Watchtower does not have any scientific apparatus, there are no members who have a solid knowledge of the biblical languages, they do not conduct independent research, practically only utilize works of theologians whom they label as "false Christians" or - if the interest so requires - of secular-agnostic authors, of course with a lack of respect for the original author (e.g. Howard), the way I call the "dung beetle" method.

  The New World Translation has indeed "stimulated debate" (just like the Book of Mormon), but not because of its scientific value, but because of its shameless translation "culture" that subordinates the basic text to JW theological deviations and interests. By the way, JW apologist, like Furuli also criticized the 2013 NWT.

  Fred Franz must have known about as much Greek as I, who had studied Koine a bit in a self-taught way, and set about the task with a dictionary. I would have enough modesty to not start to translate the Bible by myself. JWs had previously used such texts as the Emphatic Diaglott - a translation of marginal importance from 1864 (!) based on an antiquated text edited by Griesbach, which Russell chose because he could acquire the rights to it , and this was spread until 1950, and even after that for Greek. They were not led by revolutionism, because then they would have used WH instead. Their rendering of John 1:1c wasn't their own invention, they simply adopted the solution of the Emphatic Diaglot previously used by the WTS in this regard, which was Benjamin Wilson's translation, who was also just an autodidact translator rather than a real Bible scholar. Btw. his Christology was not Arian/JW-like, but denied the preexistence of Jesus. Placing "Jehovah" in the New Testament is completely rejected, even George Howard distanced himself from it.

  I have drawn your attention many times to the fact that Origen was a diverse theologian, if he had lived later, he would have become likely a Jesuit, they often used speculations, thought experiments and thought processes that are even confusing. But you can't abuse Origen's theology as an authority to support for your own position by just picking out one quote, without evaluating his work as a whole. The later church also considered his Christology to be orthodox as a whole, and consequently it cannot be said that he professed WTS-like Christology, otherwise he would have been declared a heretic for his Christology. Quoting an author out of context and falsely portraying him to support a position that the author did not actually support, is disrespectful to the author, and it is incompatible with scientific methodology and elementary decency.

  The literature of the ancient church is abundant and diverse, but it does not at all support the conspiracy theory propagated by the Watchtower Society, according to which the Christians of the first centuries believed in what they teach according to their current "light": the "use" of the name Jehovah, Jesus as Michael, the Holy Spirit as "active force," two-group salvation, endtime speculations, 1914, true worship disappearing for 1800 years, "preaching" "house to house" "preaching", only yearly Eucharist without "partaking", etc ec..
  

  Catholic theology professes that the Son submits Himself to the Father according to His human nature. The Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted Himself (hypotasso) to the Father (1Cor 15:28), "so that God may be all in all", but this does not imply (ontological) inferiority, since He also submitted Himself (hypotasso) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 asserts that "Christ is all in all". The Bible verses (such as Jn 17.3; 20.17; 1Cor 11.3 and similar statements in the New Testament) abused by the Jehovah's Witnesses can only be correctly understood from the perspective of the economy of salvation ("status oeconomiae" - the state of salvific orders) and from within the Trinity (the mutual relations of the divine persons). God, the Father, has placed His Son above all creation, "everything has been put under His feet (27 v.). However, this is valid only until the final fulfillment of all things. In the end, the Son hands everything over to the Father, who subjected everything to Him, and He Himself will forever exercise His filial position ("submission"), which He had assumed in relation to the Father even before the foundation of the world, and this self-submission applies to his human nature. Otherwise, He would not be the Son - even if begotten by the Father from eternity, without a beginning - and thus divine in essence. That is, Jesus only differs in His sonship - this is expressed by "begotten by the Father from eternity, without a beginning" -, otherwise, He possesses the same divine essence, power, from eternity, without a beginning. Why would He not submit, if He Himself was born of the Father, thus coming after the Father in terms of origin (not in time, not in dignity, but in logical order)? The relationship between the Father and the Son is based on love, so this self-submission in the economy does not diminish Christ's true divinity, as if He were renouncing some of His dignity.
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  It is no wonder that the Watchtower Society relies on authors when it wants to prove the alleged distortion of Christian teaching in the first centuries, who do not believe in the truth and historical authenticity of the New Testament in the first place, because one can consistently believe in this only if one also rejects the fact that the Church is supernaturally founded reality. If it is, then it could not fall into "great apostasy". And if fell indeed, then there is nothing supernatural in Christianity, and then authors like Bart D. Ehrman are completely right to throw Jesus and the Bible in the trash.
• 
  136

  Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

  it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

  instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  I refer to Karl Barth's critique for you regarding the so-called "biblicists", his critique over the methodology and ideology of biblicism is extremely instructive.
  

  The principle of biblicists: the consistent adherence to the principle of scripture. They believe that only the Bible can give the content of theology, and therefore they systematically and exclusively refer their theology to the Bible. They criticize and even despise doctrines and creeds, they want to eliminate all teachings and philosophies and want to give the Bible alone a voice, because only the Bible is certain to be the word of God, everything else is human writing and human book. The Bible is not a dogmatic doctrine divided into paragraphs, but a harmonious "historical whole". Menken calls this inner whole of the Scripture "the system of the Scripture", and Beck calls it its "organism". However, biblicists only appear to adhere consistently to the principle of scripture, because in the Bible they see not the word of God, but the history of salvation. Hofmann wants to describe the story that connects heaven and earth between God and man, and he brings thousands of biblical quotes as evidence for this. Beck, on the other hand, wants to systematically organize God's truth almost scientifically as a given fact. When they want to free themselves from all philosophy, they become prisoners of their own concept, and when they want to eliminate all dogma and teaching, they read their own dogmas into the Scripture. Barth aptly notes that they throw themselves on the Bible with the same arbitrary titanism as their contemporary modern theologians on the phenomena of spiritual life and history, and as these take reason, emotion, or experience as the principle of theology, so do biblicists make the material of the Bible the principle of theology. The fundamental methodological error of biblicism is precisely this arbitrariness, which wants to start church and dogma history anew with an open Bible on its desk. Barth rightly criticizes them for wanting to enforce the principle of scripture of the reformers, but not in their example of obedient respect for the ecclesiastical community, but with complete sovereign freedom, so they do not really listen to the Scripture, they do not allow it to speak to them freely, according to the grace that justifies the sinner, but they dominate it. "The reformist biblicism certainly did not intend to appeal to the Bible in such a sovereign way to get over the relative, but no less serious authority of the church." According to Barth, we cannot start from the present in such an absolutist way, and we cannot claim for ourselves such a "creatio ex nihilo" ("creation [of the theology] out of nothing"). The theologian cannot teach about the Scriptures if he has not first heard it in the church community. The Bible is read by the church and in it the church hears the Word of God. This means that when we read the Bible, we must also hear what the church has so far read and heard from the Bible. Dogmatics working with the method of biblicism can only be a hotbed of sectarian heresies, but never ecclesiastical dogmatics. The dogmatician is obliged to keep in mind the order in which God placed him; he cannot be a spaceless and timeless "monad", he cannot stubbornly and stubbornly stick to the bare written word. According to Barth, the principle of biblicism has weight and truth only if it departs from the neighborhood of other modern titanisms with respect for dogma. Biblicism is right that the church is entirely under the law of Scripture and is only a church insofar as it listens to Scripture. But the dogmatician, as a member of the church, can only reach the hearing of the Word together with the church, not in a vacuum or arbitrarily chosen space, but within the church. Barth requires strictly biblical behavior from the dogmatician, but not in the sense of the material biblicism of the biblicists, because it is not the task of the dogmatician to reproduce the theology or theologies of the Bible, but to perform critical-reflexive work. This is where it differs from exegesis, which is a constant prerequisite and accompaniment of its work (indeed, the correct theological exegesis is the norm of dogmatics!). A great mistake of material biblicism is that it believes it can directly reproduce the Word of God from the words and conceptual material of the Holy Scripture; it forgets that the Word in the Scripture is only presented to us in the shell of human words and no matter how we systematize and analyze the words and thoughts, we have not yet received the Word of God. Barth understands biblical behavior to mean the thinking behavior of the prophets and apostles, which always starts from an absolutely given precondition: the Deus dixit. The prophets and apostles do not refer in a neutral way, they do not philosophize, but always start from this: And God said! They bear witness to this. The true biblicism is not about stacking up biblical quotations, nor about reproducing the theology of the Bible, but about the fact that the form of our thinking is indeed determined by the precondition of the Deus dixit. That at the same time our thinking must also be biblically substantive, is, as we have seen, a crucial requirement of theological objectivity.

  Here, biblicism does not merely cover the view that emphasizes the 'Scripture as the fundamental authority'. This is fundamentally a fideistic-fundamentalist direction. Fideism is an anti-rationalist movement, which emphasizes that human reason alone is incapable of metaphysical and religious knowledge. It does not recognize the significance of knowledge through reason and philosophical science for the believer's insight, and even for the possibility of faith in God. According to them, ONLY revelation leads to these.

  And this is where we arrive at biblicism, which strives to form the single, solid point of reference for belief from solely reading and interpreting the Scripture. They consider only the Scripture to be the Word of God, and they want to reveal the truth of the Scripture with only one method, denying the necessity of broader exegesis.

  And here we reach the greatest absurdity of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious organization, which starts from the idea that essentially there was nothing but 'paganism', 'false Christianity', 'Christendom', 'apostasy' between the first century and Russel. Beyond the arrogant assumption that everyone was foolish for nearly two thousand years, and not a single theologian could correctly read the Bible, this mentality completely conceals a false ideal of the church: the church without history.

  This unhistorical view of the church is almost dogmatically encountered in such Protestant-background sectarian communities. The followers of this view think of the period before the formation of their own organization, denomination, and communities as if it were not the history of the universal church, but 'just the history of the Catholic Church'. They see that in the history of 'the Church', between the first, great century and their movement born in the 19th century, there is only a long pause, a break. They only understand 'the Church' to be their own community and in the pages of church history, they only want to recognize 'true Christianity' in those communities or individuals that meet their own doctrinal criteria, so referencing them is of precedent value. This is the approach of the 'non-denominational' churches grown out of the 19th-century American 'restoration' (restorationist) movement, the Adventist and New Apostolic churches with the identity of the 'church of the end times', and the Mormon religion. Although they all see the essence of restoration differently, they all believe that the 'original' Christianity of the first century has risen in them.

  First of all, however, Christ claimed that he himself is building his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mt 16:18). Whoever believes that the church practically ceased for centuries (i.e., the forces of hell did triumph after all) – consciously or unconsciously – also claims that Jesus did not keep his promise, but lied. His church was not just injured and languishing over the centuries, but it had to be exhumed after many centuries.

  What kind of arrogance does it take for someone to simply open the Bible after two thousand years, and without any kind of pre-qualification, and then poke at some arbitrarily selected Bible verses (such as Ecclesiastes 9:5) and say, "Gotcha! You've all been fools and ignorants until now, but NOW it was ME, who found it!" That's not exegesis, that's BS.
  

  The glorious and miserable sides of church history, its exemplary and greatly erring figures are just as much the Protestants' as the Catholics' and the Orthodox's – and vice versa. Whoever has never read from ancient and medieval Christian teachers does not know what they are missing, even if they are a zealous Protestant.

  Third, this selective filtering of the past has only ever served sectarian pride. If all the sins of the past are the Catholics', we can easily distance ourselves from them, and by doing so we can feel more and better – but isn't this the logic of the Pharisees (cf. Lk 18:9-14)? The history of the Church is not there for us to forget or to selectively pick from it what we identify with, but rather to learn from every page - just like from the Old Testament or the good and bad days of our own faith life.

  The "great apostasy" only occurs immediately before the appearance of the antichrist; the "man of sin" will be the antichrist, who will deceive people with miracles, and will declare himself as God in the newly rebuilt Temple (see 2Thess 2:1-12). Anyone who claims that the "great apostasy" has already occurred in the Church: they have also lost their authority, read: Mt 16:18; 2Thess 2:3-7.

  However, the universal Christian Church could not have ceased for millennia in spite of all problems, because according to Christ, the forces of hell cannot prevail over it (Mt 16:18, Jude 24-25 cf. Eph 5:25-32). So who lied: Jesus or the Watchtower? The New Testament also writes about the need for constant defense of faith (Jude 3), not about a complete disintegration and theological breakdown after the 1st century until the 1870s. The original text of 2Thess 2:3 is not "great apostasy", but "falling away" or "defection" (without any further detail), and this is when the Antichrist also appears, who sits in the temple of God, deifying himself etc. None of this has happened yet.

  WTS leaders Fred Franz also talked about the church's "Babylonian captivity", but how long did the Babylonian captivity of Israel last? And compared to that, how many years of "nothing" are there between the alleged "pure Christianity" of the first century and the formation of the Watchtower organization?

  Although everyone who only has a basic knowledge of church history, patristics, and the history of dogma, is well aware that in the first centuries of Christianity there was no drastic break in the organization of the Church, nor in the teaching. So this legend of the "great apostasy" is just a silly conspiracy theory, which, in addition to being unsupported by either biblical or historical data, apparently only serves to "make room" for the Russelite movement that arose out of nowhere to explain that the depository of the alleged "true religion", the WTS only established at the very end of the 19th century, and why does it have no historical continuity at all with the origins of Christianity.

  I would focus on Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18, which excludes the disappearance of God's church for 1800-1900 years, and the fact is that there is no data to suggest that the theology of the early Christians was even remotely similar to today's JWs By the way, which one is for today's JWs? The current "light"?

  In the first place, why did the apostles establish churches, congregations, if true Christianity was destined to disappear in a few decades for almost two thousand years?

  Why didn't the apostles write that everyone should wait for 1914, because what we are doing now is irrelevant anyway.

  See also Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 2:13.

  The Witnesses believe that the influx of pagan converts brought in doctrines and concepts from Greek philosophy and religion which were then integrated into the Christian faith, resulting in such “false” teachings as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the immortality of the soul, and eternal punishment in hell. According to the Watchtower Society, Christendom lived in darkness for 18 centuries after this apostasy. Yet they believe there were always individuals who were faithful to divine truth — a truth more fully unveiled when their founder, Charles Russell, began to study the Bible in earnest in the 1870s. To support this view, Watchtower literature regularly cites passages from the church fathers to demonstrate that, even after the apostasy, there were some who believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

  In light of this line of argumentation, it is worthwhile to examine the writings of the early church fathers. If indeed such writings reveal that early Christians believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today, then surely a reevaluation of orthodox Christian teachings is needed. If these writings fail to support Watchtower claims, however, then one must conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses represent a new religious tradition of the late 19th century, with no historical connection to apostolic Christianity.

  The body of literature of the postapostolic church is substantial, and a full review would be outside of the scope of a limited survey such as this. The most critical period is that prior to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, because it is historically closest to the apostles.

  Did a Great Apostasy Occur?

  Was the true faith taught by the apostles lost or corrupted within the first generation after the apostles? If so, then the true faith was not successfully transmitted anywhere in the evangelized world of the first and second centuries — including churches established by the apostles, with leadership appointed personally by them. A “great apostasy” would require an extraordinary event: the simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of Christians throughout the civilized world. Included in this apostasy would be disciples of the apostles themselves, as well as those who witnessed the thousands of martyrs who, just a short time previously, refused to deny Christ, either explicitly or by worshiping pagan gods.

  A great apostasy, wherein the doctrines of Greek pagan philosophy replaced apostolic teaching, would most likely have begun in areas where the church was accepting a large number of converts with backgrounds in Greek religion and philosophy, such as Alexandria, Egypt. The prominent western churches established directly by the apostles, such as those in Rome and Antioch, would likely have fallen into heresy more slowly. But the historical facts do not support this (or any other) scenario of a “great apostasy.” Had a great apostasy begun immediately after the death of the apostles, as the Watchtower claims, a mixture of “true Christianity” (i.e., Watchtower–type teachings) and “pagan heresy” (i.e., orthodox Christian teachings) would be discernible in the literature of the early church, which was widespread in its geographical points of origin.

  Is it possible that all the writings of the followers of the “true faith” were completely destroyed by the paganized church? Such a view is highly improbable. Many manuscripts have survived from Gnosticism (a widespread religious movement of this period which combined elements of Greek paganism and eastern mystery religions), despite several centuries of concerted attack and condemnation by the church. Yet not a single document exists pointing to a group who believed as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

  The absence of such early “Watchtower” literature causes one to doubt the existence of the so-called “faithful and discrete servant class.” After all, the stated purpose of these 144,000 anointed servants in Jehovah’s plan is to provide “meat in due season” — that is, literature that imparts “accurate knowledge” about the Bible. If these early Jehovah’s Witnesses were true to the kingdom gospel, handed down to them by the apostles, they would have written sufficiently to provide the faithful with an understanding of the Scriptures. Keep in mind that the Watchtower Society teaches that the Scriptures cannot be properly understood without such aids. The Watchtower Society, while claiming to use the Bible alone, actually teaches that the Bible cannot be understood without the aid of the “meat in due season,” the literature provided by the Society — its interpretation of Scripture being the only valid one. Yet where is the Watchtower literature of the first and second centuries — or for that matter, of any century prior to the 1870s? Its absence is most telling, and highly damaging to the claim of a general apostasy with just a few of the dedicated faithful surviving.

  Perhaps the most compelling argument against a universal early apostasy may be found in the commissioning and empowering of the apostles themselves. If a universal apostasy occurred immediately after the death of the apostles, we would have to judge the apostles as incompetent or negligent evangelists who utterly failed to accomplish Jesus’ commission to make disciples. Such an apostasy would reflect poorly on Jehovah God as well, whose “holy spirit” was unable to preserve His followers for even a single generation.

  There is, therefore, no reason to believe that a great apostasy occurred following the death of the apostles, with the resulting loss of the “true” Christian faith for over 1800 years. This conclusion seems undeniable in view of the Great Commission, the power of the Holy Spirit, the absence of literary evidence for an alternative group of believers with a gospel similar to that preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the implausibility of the required simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of geographically dispersed Christians.