jwfacts.....Read especially Romans 10 in other translations and compare it with the NWT. You will see exactly how the insertion of "Jehovah" obscures the author's point.
What does Acts 15 mean, people "called by my name"? Help needed!
by jwfacts 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Apostate Kate
2 Corinthians 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.KJV
The vail shall be taken away. They shall then understand the true meaning of the prophecies, and the true nature of their own institutions. They shall see that they refer to the Lord Jesus, the
incarnate Son of God, and the true Messiah.Barnes2 Cor 3: 16 But when there is a turning to Jehovah, the veil is taken away. New World Translation
This passage is the stupidest mistake. To add the name Jehovah here, when you read the whole chapter makes no sense at all. The Jews had a personal relationship with Jehovah. They had the temple, the Arch of the Covenent, Moses. They would see the fullness of Gods glory as revealed in Christ, through which the veil is removed.
2 Corinthians 3:13-18 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
2Co 3:17
Verse 17. Now the Lord is that Spirit. The word "Lord" here evidently refers to the Lord Jesus. 2Co 3:16. It may be observed in general in regard to this word, that where it occurs in the New Testament, unless the connexion requires us to understand it of God, it refers to the Lord Jesus. It was the common name by which he was known. See Joh 20:13; 21:7,12; Eph 4:1,5. The design of Paul in this verse seems to be to account for the "liberty" which he and the other apostles had, or for the boldness, openness, and plainness (2Co 2:12) which they evinced in contradistinction from the Jews, who so little understood the nature of their institutions. He had said, (2Co 3:6,) that he was a minister "not of the letter, but of the Spirit;" and he had stated that the Old Testament was not understood by the Jews who adhered to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. He here says, that the Lord Jesus was "the Spirit" to which he referred, and by which he was enabled to understand the Old Testament so as to speak plainly, and without obscurity. The sense is, that Christ was the Spirit; i.e., the sum, the substance of the Old Testament. The figures, types, prophecies, etc., all centered in him, and he was the end of all those institutions. If contemplated as having reference to him, it was easy to understand them. This I take to be the sentiment of the passage, though expositors have been greatly divided in regard to its meaning. Thus explained, it does not mean absolutely and abstractly that the Lord Jesus was "a Spirit," but that he was the sum, the essence, the end, and the purport of the
Mosaic rites, the spirit of which Paul had spoken in 2Co 3:6, as contradistinguished from the letter of the law. Barnes -
hallelujah
Interestingly Acts is post Jesus death. So Jesus no longer has the opportunity to correct anybody and a whole new theology is built.
Jesus claimed to be a son of God. The Gospel writers after his death claimed that his mother was a virgin - but this unnecessary addition only served to obscure Jesus actual teaching. It is not necessary to deifer the message bearer in order to prove the message. Jesus teachings stand on their own merits, as we are told by the WTBTS was recognised by Mahatma Gandhi. Jesus taught us to also be sons and daughters of God, to pray to our Father in heavens and to love our neighbours - brothers and sisters - as ourselves. Notice that it was not necessary to call God by name, the much more intimate "ABBA" or "Father" was the appropriate name, indicating a relationship of father with son or daugther.
I know it doesn't help much with the original question but it is relevant to the "name" part.
-
mdb
Interestingly Acts is post Jesus death. So Jesus no longer has the opportunity to correct anybody and a whole new theology is built.
Jesus claimed to be a son of God. The Gospel writers after his death claimed that his mother was a virgin - but this unnecessary addition only served to obscure Jesus actual teaching.
Mary being a virgin was not an unneccessary addition. It was a prophecy about the Messiah which came true.
Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. ~Isaiah 7:13,14
It is necessary because it is one proof that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. How does referencing the virgin birth obscure Jesus' teachings anyway?