Gman2001 I agree that an appropriate Bible based name for Christians would be "Jesus' Witnesses" (or "Witnesses of Jesus), but I also think an appropriate name would be "Witnesses of Jehovah and Jesus" (or more accurately "Witnesses of Jahveh and Jesus" or "Witnesses of Yahweh and Yeshua'). Regarding Genesis 19:24 I am well aware aware it and that it seems to say there are two divine beings who are named Jehovah (and I know that trinitarians use in support of their ideas). When I was an independent Christian (after I had ceased to think of myself as a JW) I asked a JW elder (one who looked up to) about it. The explanation he gave me was not satisfactory to me. But I see that scripture as being an anomaly in the OT Bible. I see the vast majority of the Bible as portraying God (despite using a plural form of word "El") primarily as a singular being - in that respect interpret as do the Jews in their study of their Hebrew Scriptures. I have read the entire Holy Bible and the Apocrypha (all of the scripture books of the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Jewish - in English of course). I have also some other books (and parts of some other books) which some Christians accept as scripture, such as the Gospel of Thomas, Jubilees, and the Book of Enoch.
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 263 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Disillusioned JW
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: In my post to Gman2001 there are many typos, consisting mostly of missing words (words which I should have typed but didn't). I didn't discover such until it was too late to make corrections within that post, but I hope readers know what I meant.
-
Disillusioned JW
Slimboyfat I am not sure if your most recent post about Psalm 110:1 is directed to me or not. I did not say the first Christians (such as those who died prior to the year 100 CE) attempted to confuse the identities of YHWH and Jesus. I meant that the attempt began in the 2nd century CE, and in agreement with you I said it seems that the Name "YHWH" began being replaced with the word "Lord" in the Septuagint and in the NT during the 2nd century CE.
However, I now think that if Jesus interpreted Psalm 110:1 the way the gospels said he did, for example in saying that David wrote that verse and that the phrase "my Lord" refers to the Messiah (instead of to King David or any of the Kings of Judah who after him and were also anointed), then Jesus was in error and thus not the divine Christ and not the divine Son of Man and not the divine Son of God.
In reading commentaries (primarily study notes of some study Bibles) about Psalm 110:1 I learned that the verse was part of a coronation song written by someone (or some people) in the court of David and that the expression "my Lord" referred primarily to David, but also to other humans who were said to have sat "on the throne of David" on Earth. This makes sense, instead of the way the Gospels and many Christians apply it, for consider the following.
The kings of Judah (and the united kingdom of Israel), including David, literally ruled among their enemies. Opposed kingdoms existed around the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The ones who 'sat on the throne David' in Judah thus literally ruled among their enemies. The ancient Jews probably thought that the foretold future Messiah would rule on Earth initially among his human enemies also, but that the Messiah would later conqueror those rival kings. But despite what the WT teaches Jesus has never ruled in that way.
Jesus is not the ruler in a literal sense of any people of Earth (though among believers of Christ he can be thought of as spiritually ruling Christians in their figurative hearts since Pentecost of the year 33 CE, or so). No part of the world has been conquered by Jesus Christ. Every part of the Earth inhabited by humans has a human government or some other human authority over it, instead of being run by a government of Jesus Christ. Even if hypothetically Jesus Christ is alive and in heaven, he is not ruling over any part of the Earth in a literal sense.
Though the governing body of the JW religion (the religion created by the WT) teaches that the WT organization is Jehovah's earthly organization and that Jesus is ruling through the JW governing body, the governing body is still subject to human governments (including the USA federal government, the government of the state of NY, city governments in the USA, and human governments outside of the USA). None of those human governments (except maybe the Vatican) recognize Jesus Christ as king ruling over planet Earth or any part of it. None of them (except maybe the Vatican in the minds of its officials) submit to Jesus Christ as their governmental authority.
Jesus Christ does not communicate to any human rulers. Jesus Christ does not governmental orders or governmental instructions to any human rulers, nor any other way exercising authority over the Earth (such as by supernaturally going to war against any human government or executing people for defying his alleged laws). As a result Jesus Christ can not be correctly said to be the ruler of planet Earth, nor any part of Earth.
No kingdom of Jesus Christ became established in the year 1914 CE in oversight of planet Earth. The WT is very wrong in teaching that Jesus Christ began ruling over the Earth in the year 1914 CE (or any other year, such as in 1874 CE).
-
Disillusioned JW
Gman2001 and Slimboyfat and other Christian, the Christians who wrote the four Gospels of the NT, and much of the rest of the NT, misunderstood parts of the OT (whether of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek Septuagint, or both). If Jesus existed and said all that the Gospels say he said, then he also misunderstood parts of the OT. Believers in Judaism have good reason for rejecting the New Testament as the word of the God of the OT - but even the OT is not the word of God.
-
slimboyfat
Hi Disillusioned, my post on Psalm 110 was intended for Gman.
I agree with you that the NT authors took a meaning from Psalm 110 that was different from what the author originally intended. But I don’t know that means the interpretation is not valid. The Bible itself contains the idea that authors sometimes do not fully understand what they are writing. And it’s not so much that Christians tend to deny the original meaning of a text, but that they add another meaning on top. For example, I’m pretty sure the original Christians realised that when God ‘called his son out of Egypt’ in Hosea 11:1, it meant the nation of Israel. When Matthew applied this verse to Jesus I tend to think that he was not denying the original meaning of the verse but that he was adding a prophetic significance and applying it to Jesus. The NT makes such typologies explicit when Hebrews says Jesus is the greater Melchizedek, when Jesus talks about the ‘sign of Jonah’, and when Paul says that Jesus is the rock that the Israelites followed in the desert. It is true that Acts 2 apparently argues against applying Psalm 110 to David, but even here, I suspect, what the author means is ‘not only to David’ and picks out a clue that a more appropriate application of the text can be made to Jesus.
As for the matter of ruling among enemies, I don’t know. There are lots of possible ways of understanding this if the current JW interpretation is wrong. For example, during the millennium there will continue to be unbelievers, culminating in the rebellion at the end of the thousand years. Jesus could be said to be ruling among his enemies at this time and they are only finally put under his feat at the end, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 15.
-
Disillusioned JW
On second thought maybe some first century CE Christians believed that Jesus Christ existed as a divine being in heaven who never became born as a human. Perhaps they also thought he in some sense he could truly be called YHWH, perhaps stemming from a belief that he had literally been begotten from the YHWH God the Father.
Perhaps some first century CE Christians thought Jesus Christ (or a divine being who was someone like a Son of Man) came down from heaven and entered into the body of an existing human (perhaps one named Jesus or one named Yeshua son of Joseph) and later exited the body of that human, and went back to heaven.
There were likely multiple types of Christians in the 1st century CE besides the kinds mentioned in the NT. Archaeologists have found scrolls from prior to the 1st century CE, penned by some messianic minded Jews, which contained some Christian teachings within them. Therefore, some form of Christianity might even have existed in the 1st century BCE.slimboyfat, I am pleasantly surprised to read that you think that some OT verses (including Hosea 11:1 and in Psalm 110) had an original meaning than what Christians later interpreted them to mean. I also think your idea of that "... it’s not so much that Christians tend to deny the original meaning of a text, but that they add another meaning on top" is interesting. Your ideas about the matter of ruling among enemies is also interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.
-
Fisherman
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
This is not a proper question because Jesus is God’s agent The question implies 2 separate issues. However, there is one subject only, Jehovah’s kingdom by means of his appointed king, Jesus the Messianic king of Jehovah’s kingdom. Like asking what name does the book of the kings of Israel emphasize and while it is true that Bible stories are about a particular Bible character it is fallacy and deceptive logic to suggest that it is either the Bible character or Jehovah. While we cherish and appreciate the gift, the giver of salvation and relief is Jehovah.
-
Wonderment
"What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?"
This odd question cannot be answered by tallying up two names in two columns to see which one appears most frequently.
The NT is not a replacement of the OT. It is a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The NT offers a culmination or presentation of multiple prophecies from the OT leading to, and surrounding the Messiah. One portion of the Bible is incomplete without the other.
Since the Trinity teaching is most popular among mainstream Western religions, the OT often ends up in the back seat by having the "unpopular" but important Tetragrammaton appear more often than any other name in the Bible. Here is a list of most popular names (i.e. 'male') in the Bible, according to this source: https://www.bonpounou.com/namesinbible.html):
"Most Mentioned Men in the Bible:
David - 1,118 times
Jesus - 973 times
Moses - 740 times
Aaron - 339 times
Saul - 338 times
Abraham - 306 times"Should we then emphasize the name of "Saul" over that of "Abraham" in the Bible since it is mentioned more?
Although Jesus Christ is at the center of the NT revelation of God, it normally does so within the context of God fulfilling his will of the salvation of mankind through the person of Jesus Christ (John 3.16, Acts 4.12). Jesus never usurps the place of the Father, God (John 17.3, 20.17, 1 Cor 15.28). He comes in the name of God to do His will. All post-NT efforts to explain the trinitarian claim that Jesus was both God and man at the same time flies against the general biblical teaching of simple monotheism, which the Jewish people so adhered to.
Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that Jesus was "both God and man." Can anyone name a single scripture that makes this statement in clear language? In fact, the popular tripartite language has more in common with Greek philosophy than biblical teaching. We actually lose accuracy by superimposing a convoluted fourth century dogma over the simple original concept of the first century monotheistic doctrine.
-
Vanderhoven7
@ Wondrment,
Why do you think God made sure His full name did not appear once in the NT, not once on the lips of Jesus nor the apostles?
My take is that God wanted His Son's name to be glorified among men above every other name that is named. So He made sure there was no salvation outside of that name; that unless we receive the Son we cannot be adopted as sons, and unless we eat His flesh and drink his blood we will have no life in us.
Jesus says: "Come unto me" while the Watchtower says, "Come to Jehovah's organization to be saved"
-
Fisherman
full name
Funny because Yehoshua (Jesus) means Jehovah is salvation and not the man Jesus is salvation so the name Jesus comes from Jehovah. Jesus’ name is a deputy name. The great name is Jehovah.
In other words when addressing the Christ by his name: “Good day Jehovah is salvation !” “Is your name Jehovah is salvation?”