Yes, for good reason appellation Father is dominant in the NT over Jehovah

by QC 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  QC

  The purpose of the Christian era is to moves descendent of Adam into the family of Jesus, the "last Adam eternal father." 1Co 15:45; Isa 9:6 So, the Christian order is familial, it is about Jesus' family pleasing the Father.

  This is why Jesus is the center piece of the NT Greek text. He is God's reconciliation solution for the alienated family of the first "son of God" on earth, Adam." Lu 3:38 His mission to earth carries his teachable righteous orientation originating in the righteous culture surrounding God. Conspicuously, God's realm has a familial aura of dignity wherein God is addressed lovingly as "Father" and "Abba Father." This etiquette of "Abba Father" devotion is dominant (akin to our Papa or Daddy), and is why formal name Jehovah1 is not a feature of the Christian Scriptures. Mt 23:9 The Christian narrative cast in this intimate family culture of adoration and righteousness is detail guidelines for all destined to be Christian "born anew" sons of God, resolving the absent sons of God failure by Adam. Ga 3:26; Ro 8:14, 19; Mt 5:9

  This brings the importance of Jesus' emphatic dialog with Nicodemus into sharper focus. Jn 3:3-11 "Born anew" means, one receives a spiritual rebirth (sprinkled clean water...and you will be clean" and "a new heart and...new spirit" Eze 36:25-27 cleansing "from a guilty conscience." He 10:22 into the family of Jesus. Thus, ALL true disciples of Jesus receive this spiritual righteous pedigree, i.e. a born anew spirit "anointing." "Born again" and spirit "anointing" are synonymous.

  The Rutherford understanding of "born again" is not just wrong, it's "evil." It's an attempt to diminish the purpose of what it means to be "born again" for ALL Christians. It seeks to reduce the unique Christian population, those with a "born again" righteous pedigree. It's a veiled defamation of "the Son;" as is the JW obsession to insert Jehovah in the NT, an attempt to cloud of the "glorification" of the Son. Jn 13:31

  Bottom line: The Memorial is a celebration for ALL righteous disciples of Jesus. The "little flock" and the "great multitude" have the same righteous born anew pedigree. And, just as the 12 apostles is a fixed number, the "little flock" is a fixed number. The Father makes the call on heavenly "Levite" assignments. Mt 20:23; Mk 10:37 They are selected from among the pool of born anew righteous Christians, in the same way the apostles were selected from among born anew righteous Christians.
• 

  QC

  @trujw

  JW's make much of calling God Jehovah as if somehow this makes them better

  Great insight, you are on to something.

  Trinitarians and JWs represent opposite sides of the same coin. Arch theological enemies with one another, but each in their own way are a trafficker in spiritual ruin, clashing with the Father and the Son false theology. Both customize the Bible accommodate their own theological agendas. This makes them members of the antichrist crowd, "evil" masquerading in a Christian disguise. Mat 23:15; 2Th 2:3-8; Ac 20:29-30
• 

  designs

  I say bring back the desert God woohooo
• 

  prologos

  QC great bottom line. really, ALL CHRISTIANS ARE THE "ISRAEL OF GOD" THE TWELVE SPIRITUAL TRIBES OF REV 7 (MINUS DAN &EPHRAIM) The little flock was the small nr. of disciples in Jesus' day, who at the time still had an earthly hope. The "other sheep" are the gentiles that were not of the FOLD of old ISRAEL.

  The 144 000 come OUT OF the 12 tribes of the Isael of God. only the angels and up know their identities.( neither the vatican court nor our partaker headcount lifts that veil. JESUS SERVED THE BREAD AND WINE TO THE 11 THAT HAD AN EARTHLY HOPE. SO ALL CHRISTIANS MUST PARTAKE IN ORDER TO HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE AND BE RESURRECTED ON THE LAST DAY. JOHN chapter 6. please see http//www.beabeorean.com blessings to all.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Very interesting QC, and I think true.
• 

  NoStonecutters

  Great post, QC.
• 

  Phizzy

  Just a slight cavil about the thread title QC, Father is not just dominant, it is supreme in the NT, in no early manuscript does the name Jehovah, or the the Tetragrammaton YHWH appear. (Apart from forming parts of proper names and being part of the word Hallelujah in Revelation).

  The reason for this is because the writers felt no need to use a proper name for the Father, they were all, to a man, monotheists and were asking converts to be the same.

  If they had felt impelled to use a proper name, would they have chosen to use YHWH ? we do not know.

  The point of particular note is that the NWT inserts "Jehovah" with little warrant in the cases were writers quote from the Septuagint, and no warrant whatsoever elsewhere, if they actually believed they would have been too fearful to put it 11 times in Revelation, with Rev.containing explicit instruction not to add to it !

  Why does the NWT do this ? it is to hide and obfuscate the obvious references to the divinity of Christ.
• 

  The Searcher

  @ PROLOGOS

  "JESUS SERVED THE BREAD AND WINE TO THE 11"

  It's easy to repeat the false teaching that Judas never partook of the emblems of the New Covenant - but read Luke's account (22:19-23) for a bit more detail, and you will see the inspired account confirms that he did partake!!

  He was not present for Christ's revealing of the Kingdom Covenant, something for which no emblems were used.
• 

  designs

  hint- Jesus was not 'Divine' just atoms, molecules and cells like any other human. Lived (maybe) and if so died end of story.
• 

  Phizzy

  I agree Designs, I am not a believer, but what I said about the motives of Freddie Franz and the NWT committee (if ever there was one, it might have been made up of a quorum of Freddie and Freddie) I think to be true, their motive was theological , not for the sake of an improved Translation or rendering.

  So, assuming one is a Bible believer to some degree, surely you would want the best and most honest translation ? This is difficult to achieve of course, as the translators theology always affects him or her to some degree, as do other prejudices of course.

  The name Jehovah should not appear in the N.T in my opinion, as there is no manuscript evidence that it ever did, to use the argument that just 'coz it's not there now it may well have been in the originals is about the poorest argument one could use, and gives licence to insert anything the translator wishes, as the WT has.

  No, translate honestly and use the words Father, Lord or God etc in a consistent and honest way.