Hmmm... trying to use this argument to support watchtower doctrine would also raise the question as to why there's never any controversy when Jesus uses the name in the New World Translation. This argument actually contradicts the society's teaching on this as it would suggest Jesus only used the name in secret and was hardly making God's name known.
Does the Gospel of Thomas support the view that Jesus used the divine name?
by slimboyfat 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Phizzy
I also wonder why you seem obsessed with this Slimboy, on several threads you seem to support the WT view, I wonder why ?
Trying to prove this one way or the other is of course impossible, the "Jesus" figure may or may not be historical, all the writings we have about him are from way after his death, and are written with an agenda of some sort.
Not one word of what he may have said can be confirmed, so , why the fixation with "He must have used the divine name " a Slimboy ?
It is my beleif that by the time Jesus lived the theology had gone way beyond thinking that Almighty God needed or wanted a single "name", in fact I think Exodus hints at this, the "I am what I am" meaning that Almighty God could be whatever He wanted and needed to be, A "God of Armies" or a "Grand Instructor" etc, why would he need a personal name, to distinguish Him from other gods who are not real ?
The YHWH nomenclature seems to have taken on a Holy nature by then, so was not pronounced apart from by the High Priest. I know there are plenty of arguments opposing this view, but they are hardly conclusive.
As this cannot be resolved, ever, does it matter ?
-
slimboyfat
I don't think there is good evidence that the divine name had fallen out of general use in Jesus' day. Likely it had become less commonly used by the time the Gospel of Thomas was written, which may explain why it was shrouded in secrecy in Thomas, but the passage may nevertheless preserve a recollection that the divine name was important in Jesus' ministry.
I know Phizzy, I have said before that I seem to be able to hold two contradictory views in my head at once: 1) that Jesus probably used the divine name and was presented as doing so in the original New Testament and 2) that Jesus of the gospels may not have been an actual historical figure.
Why does it matter? Why does anything matter? I just find it interesting that's all. I love reading about then divine name, textual criticism and nomina sacra and stuff like that. I don't believe in God any more but I still find these subjects fascinating.
-
Jaime l de Aragon
No name, no names, so he used Theos was the writings and theos means a range of things, Lord, Sovereign, Almighty, Maker etc
Hebreos 13:8 ιησους { Iesous } χριστος { Xristos } χθες {ayer} και {y} σηµερον ... Mateos 22:32 εγω {yo} ειµι {soy} ο {el} θεος { Theos } αβρααµ {de ...
-
Phizzy
Thanks Slimboy, I see where your interest lies, and I know too about still having Cognitive Dissonance in certain areas. It may seem strange to some that we have an interest in the areas we do, I still study much in the area of the N.T and more or less contempory writings to the N.T
I too do not believe in the God of the bible, or of any other religion, but I am fascinated with the thoughts of believers and philosophers of the past, and the present.
I am interested in any proof, or hint, that Jesus thought of himself as divine, again I am not convinced, what strikes me as real words of his are not concerned with his own divinity.
-
yadda yadda 2
Jesus probably was familiar with and may well have used the sacred name from time to time, but if he did he clearly never placed much emphasis on it as far as a necessary feature of worship goes. Jesus never used the name in prayer. In his longest prayer in John he never used it once. And if he did put some kind of emphasis on use of the sacred name as an identifying mark of his true followers and it was contained in the original NT writings, there would undoubtedly have been disciples that later would have staunchly resisted the so-called heresy that led to the corruption of the sacred name out all later copies of the NT, which in turn would have almost guaranteed we would by now have found at least one extant manuscript with the name in it. Such groups, perhaps of Jewish origin, would have undoubtedly have produced copies that retaining the divine name as a foremost feature of their group.
It seems pretty clear that the sacred name never appeared in the original autographs, and that the 'heresy' that led to its removal of the name from later copies of the Septugant was full blown enough by the time the NT was written. By then the NT writers were of course writing for an almost entirely former pagan, Greek-speaking audience, for whom the tetragrammaton or any variant would have meant nothing. In any event, Paul's direct application to Jesus of some OT scriptures that spoke exclusively about YHWH pretty much proves he was quoting from a Septuagint that had replaced the sacred name with a surrogate.