by Johnny Brown 62 Replies latest watchtower bible
Then in the 1961version of the NWT on page 2454 they say
"Below we give a concordance of all the places where the name " Jehovah" occurs in the Christian Greek scriptures ."
Now those two statements cannot both be true .
Please research this if only to prove me wrong , but I do not think that you will. In 5,000 manuscripts found some very early YHWH has not been found in the NT . It's use by the Watchtower is not supported in any way
Jan
I have a serious issue with the NWT's insertion of "Jehovah" in the NT when there isn't a single Greek NT manuscripts containing the name of God. The insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT of the NWT has corrupted some NT texts. Romans 14:8 is a notable example of this, where the NWT erroneously renders "kyrios" (Lord) as "Jehovah" even though the very next verse (Romans 14:9) makes it clear that the "kyrios" of Romans 14:8 refers to Jesus and not Jehovah.
However, even though I don't agree with the NWT replacing "kyrios" with "Jehovah" at Romans 10:13, the fact is that that particular "kyrios" does in fact refer to "Jehovah" (YHWH). I say this because Romans 10:13 is quoting an OT text - Joel 2:32 - that uses YHWH. It might be tempting, from a Trinitarian standpoint, to use Romans 10:13 to suggest that Jesus is Jehovah given that Romans 10:9-11 speak about the importance of faith in Jesus.
But Romans 10:13 is only being used to bolster a point made in Romans 10:12 and the point being made at Romans 10:12 is the impartiality of God. Romans 10:13 was quoted by the writer as an OT example of God's impartiality because it says EVERYONE who calls on God's name will be saved. It's simply not an attempt on the part of the writer to suggest that YHWH of the OT is the same Jesus of the NT.
Having said that, it is also possible that the writer of Romans 10:13 considers calling on the name of Jesus to be tantamount to calling on the name of Jehovah and therefore in fulfillment of Joel 2:32 - all without intending to suggest that Jehovah is Jesus. How so? Think about it: Jesus means "YHWH is salvation" and Joel 2:32 says people will be saved by calling on the name of YHWH. The name Jesus embodies in one word the message of Joel 2:32. Jesus is YHWH's provision for salvation. By calling on the name Jesus in faith, one is putting faith in YHWH's provision of salvation and is therefore putting faith in YHWH. He is quite literally saying: "YHWH is salvation". So calling on the name of Jesus is really calling on the name of Jehovah by proxy, as it were. So it is very possible and very reasonable for the writer to apply Joel 2:32 to calling on the name of Jesus in faith without believing or intending to suggest that Jesus is Jehovah.
"It is certainly true that JWs do not view Jesus in the same way as early christians. . . .
However it is a mistake to go to the other extreme and try to read the trinity back into the text. The trinity is a post-biblical attempt to reconcile monotheism with worship of Jesus."
Amen to that! The bible does not teach a trinity, but does clearly show that Jesus has a very high positioned and should be honored greater than the JWs are honoring him. Trinitarians and JWs have extreme opposing viewpoints of the nature of Jesus that is inconsistent with what the bible says of him. The Jesus of the bible is somewhere in the middle. First century christians did not believe in a trinity, but they definitely esteemed Jesus more than JWs do.
1st cent Christians or 1st cent people in general had their way of interpretation of ancient manuscript ot or otherwise, why should that fact impact on contemporary society ?
We are better educated, enlightened through scientific advancement and with the hindsight of religious conflict and disagreement resulting in despicable acts because of belief in various deities we should care less about contradictions in the bible and it's variant interpretations and discard same in favour of working towards a better world.
Best wishes and happy new year to all .
I don't thnk that this will carry much weight with doubters , but I will point out the words of Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon
born 120-140 AD died 200-203 AD
"Christ Jesus is our Lord , and God and King and Saviour " Against Heresies Book 1 ch 10 , section 1
He also makes the claim
" We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation , than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us , which they did at one time proclaim in public , and at a later period , by the will of God handed down to us in the Scriptures , to be the ground and pillar of our faith "
Now Iranaeus was influenced by Polycarp who may have known the Apostle John , but certainly knew people who were contempories of Jesus .
Also Ignatius of Antioch who died in 115 AD had no doubt about the Divinity of Christ . I understand that this stuff is very boring and of little consequence to many but there is no doubt that the idea of a Trinity was in the VERY early church with the claim that it was passed down from the Apostles themselves .
Jan
Jan - The deity of Jesus is not the same thing as the Trinity.
During the first century there was a process during which Jesus went from son of man, to son of god, to god the son. Christians worshipped and adored him. The trinity was a ridiculous attempt to reconcile this practice with monotheism.
The holy spirit was not added to the mix until long after Jesus had been officially deified.
For those that are interested is this age-old dispute, you should look into the Arian Controversy. According to the evidence, I, personally, would have sided with Arius, which would make me an Arian, therefore a heretic in the eyes of the Church:
The
Arian controversy describes several controversies between the priest and
theologian Arius and the Church Father, Bishop Athanasius, related to
Christology which divided the Catholic Church from before the Council of Nicea
in 325 to after the Council of Constantinople in 381 into two opposing
theological factions. There was no formal schism, but instead it remained an
internal conflict in the Church. The most important of these controversies
concerned the substantial relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ.
The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The Trinintarian historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, when Arian made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was criticised for his slow reaction against Arius. Like his predecessor Dionysius, he has been charged with vacillation. The question that Arius raised had been left unsettled two generations previously. Therefore Alexander allowed the controversy to continue until he felt that it had become dangerous to the peace of the Church. Then he called a council of bishops and sought their advice. Once they decided against Arius, Alexander delayed no longer. He deposed Arius from his office, and excommunicated both him and his supporters, etc. (See Wikipedia)
Does anyone have any thoughts , in light of this topic as to why the Tetragrammaton was left out of the NT writings , even when quoting from the OT ? Was this done ,as seems , on purpose and if so why ? Is it of any significance ?
Jan
