God's Name Discussion

by garyneal 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Chalam

  Dogpatch It's so irrelevant. The Christians were technically a cult of Judaism

  To the Pharisees, yes.

  that began to worship Jesus instead of the Father.

  No, we worship Jesus and the Father, they are one John 10:30, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 45:5

  John 5:23 (English Standard Version)

  23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

  We believe Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God John 1:1, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:15

  They PURPOSELY wrote the old tribal god out of their Bible.

  The Father is still in the New Testament, just as Jesus is in the Old, God does not change.

  They now worshipped their martyr, and applied hundreds of old Testament scriptures that applied to Jehovah, and NOW aopplied them to Jesus.

  A martyr is dead but Jesus is alive and well :)

  Hundreds of scriptures in the old testament speak of Jesus and the Father because they are one.

  John 5:39-40 (New International Version)

  39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

  Luke 24:27 (New International Version)

  27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

  In essence, the old testament is Jesus concealed and the new is Jesus revealed. The old testament is principally about the law and judgement and the new is about grace and mercy.

  Argue your hearts out on the details of the name, but you're missing the most primal and powerful point.

  Agreed.

  The point is that Jesus is God, was is and always will be. He was begotten, not created, always one with the Father, not a mini "god" that Genesis 1 doesn't even bother to mention in the events of creation.

  Blessings,

  Stephen
• 

  slimboyfat

  how can you justify adding or even subtracting anything ?

  It's called conjectural emendation, where scholars feel that circumstantial evidence suggests the original read differently than all the extant copies.
• 

  slimboyfat

  (I have read many arguments on this , including what Slimboyfat has posted before, but I find them far from convincing)

  That is my failure to make the arguments compelling. I think there is a good case.
• 

  designs

  SBF-

  Greg Stafford certainly spent a lot of time researching this topic and sides with your arguement. We went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls together and the Paleo-Hebraic form of the Divine Name is clearly present in Psalms and Isaiah and these were copies from the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Now whether these copies made their way into the local Synagogues to be read say in a 40 mile radius is the question.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  Ask them, if they are the only ones who use the Divine name, why they could buy a kabbalah tetragrammaton talisman on ebay for around $30.
• 

  PSacramento

  It's so irrelevant. The Christians were technically a cult of Judaism that began to worship Jesus instead of the Father. They PURPOSELY wrote the old tribal god out of their Bible. They now worshipped their martyr, and applied hundreds of old Testament scriptures that applied to Jehovah, and NOW aopplied them to Jesus. Argue your hearts out on the details of the name, but you're missing the most primal and powerful point.

  God was NOT written out, he was explained better ( in the christians view) and God's message was made correct and clear through his Son, the Early Christians, like Christains now, do NOT worhsip Jesus INSTEAD of God, they worship God THROUGH Jesus.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Gary, you will probably want to try using their own words, since those are all that a JW will accept as genuine. Use the appendices of the Reference Bible, and if you can lay your hands on a purple Kingdom Interlinear, the translation procedure the Borg used is laid out in there well, IIRC.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Greg Stafford certainly spent a lot of time researching this topic and sides with your arguement. We went to see the Dead Sea Scrolls together and the Paleo-Hebraic form of the Divine Name is clearly present in Psalms and Isaiah and these were copies from the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Now whether these copies made their way into the local Synagogues to be read say in a 40 mile radius is the question.

  You know Greg Stafford personally? Cool. Where I would disagree with Greg Stafford however is that as a Bible believer he would presumably argue that in most repects the scriptures have been well preserved. I don't think it is tenable to maintain on the one hand that we can trust the text of the New Testament as an accuarate representation of the original, yet on the other hand argue that the divine name was in the original yet survives in no extant copies. I follow Bart Ehrman's thesis in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture that the text of the New Testament was very fluid in the first centuries and that the changes tended in the direction that orthodoxy during that period was taking. Bart Ehrman does not argue that the divine name was in the New Testament, but I think a good circumstantial case can be made that the replacement of the divine name with kyrios was one of the orthodox changes made to the text in early Christianity. David Trobisch makes this argument in his book The First Edition of the New Testament.
• 

  PSacramento

  ...but I think a good circumstantial case can be made that the replacement of the divine name with kyrios was one of the orthodox changes made to the text in early Christianity. David Trobisch makes this argument in his book The First Edition of the New Testament.

  And this is based on what?

  Is there any evidence of manistream Jews ( Where Jesus's apostles came from) using it in their writings at the time?

  Bart is a great guys and smart as a tack and it was his own teacher Bruce Metzger that awakened him to many of his points, yet Metzger and others answerd all his points, I think that Bart's main issue was that HE believed the Bibel to be infalliable and inerrat ( His teacher did not) and as such his "zeal" on what he believes to be major issues.

  It is quite possible that YHWH was still being used by some, but, taking the gospels as gosple, When Jesus taught them to pray to "Our father" he made it clear that this new and very personal connection was what was needed and being offered, far more personal than knowing God by one of his names, is knowing God as OUR Father.

  The apostles and disciples learned from Jesus and understood this.
• 

  designs

  Slim-

  I was never a fan of the Redaction theory even when I was a Witness, not enough evidence and just a lot of theory and you know how theories go.

  Greg and his family, wife and kids, are very nice and we enjoyed our times together. Haven't seen him in awhile, our paths and interests are different now, I'm more interested in my environmental and political affiliations.