Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 81 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  Just because Trinitarians have come up with a strategy of redefining basic words in the Bible doesn’t mean anyone else needs to be bound by those arbitrary rules. How do you think people read statements in the NT about God and Jesus before the Trinity doctrine was developed? How did a first century Christian read the following:

  Acts 10:38 God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

  As a matter of straight forward reading comprehension, this passage says that Jesus performed miracles because:

  a) he was God

  b) God was with him

  I guess you might not like either of those straightforward options and want a third option something like

  c) he was the fully divine and fully human Son of God the Father the first person of the tripersonal Godhead

  But do you realise just how ridiculous that makes reading such a simple verse which says that Jesus healed people “because God was with him”?
• 

  aqwsed12345

  It's not a "strategy", but the Christian theology itself. The Bible is not a theology book, just as it is not a grammar book, and by definition it does not express the dogmatic accuracy that befits a theology book. In order to understand the New Testament statements about Jesus, it is not only necessary to take into account the Nicene 'homoousios' and 'begotten, not made' statements, but also to take into account the teaching about the dual (divine and human) nature of Jesus, which excludes all contradictions.

  With his incarnation, Jesus took on human nature, in addition to the divine nature he already possessed from eternity. He picked it up and won't put it down. In relation to his human nature, all that can be said about him is that of all humans: creature, mortal, inferior to God. This does not detract from His Divinity.

  It's like having two baskets and a bunch of apples. Red apples go into one basket, green apples into the other. In the Holy Scriptures, statements ("apples") suggesting Jesus' divinity go into one "basket" (referring to his divinity), those referring to his humanity go into the other. Christian theology is precisely about the fact that no "apple" has to be thrown out or distorted, as the NWT does, but only put in the right "basket".

  Of course, as a human being, he was not capable of performing miracles either, only if he received the power to do so from God. From these words of Peter you have cited, it cannot be concluded that according to Peter's faith and teaching, Jesus was only a man. After all, he already declared that Jesus is the Lord of all, and below he says that Jesus is the judge of the living and the dead (verse 42) and that through the name of Jesus, everyone will be forgiven of their sins. So Peter is talking about the activity of Jesus as a man here.

  I note that in the passage you quoted, where Peter preaches to the Jewish common people, even less dogmatic precision can or should be expected. The context of the text, the specific cultural context, the specificity of the genre, etc., must always be taken into account for the exegesis of the given passages of scripture.
  
• 

  Phizzy

  I always like to ask what would the readers of these words, the first ones, have gleaned from them ? how would they have understood them ?

  That way, if you answer your own question with honesty, you do not READ BACK into Scripture later Theology and ideas that were not in the Reader's minds, nor the Writer's either.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The task of theology is not to reveal what the average audience thought then and there (this is completely irrelevant), but to systematize the whole of Divine Revelation in such a way that it resolves all contradictions. Catholic theology does this, JW theology does not. It is no coincidence that the Watchtower is forced to produce conspiracy theories against the thousands of early manuscript testimonies, such as the alleged falsification of the New Testament regarading the YHWH, and the mistranslation of the remaining verses, which are well-known in the Christologically relevant passages of the NT in the the NWT.

  Otherwise, why would Peter have to give a theological lecture to the avarage Jewish audience, who primarily had to emphasize that Jesus is the prophesied Jewish messiah? And according to Christian theology, Jesus is the Messianic King anyway according to his human nature.

  The incarnation of the one true God and the revelation of the Trinity, despite the strong desire for Emmanuel, was an unusually great thing for the strict monotheistic Jews, who have thought of God in unreachable transcendence since the Babylonian captivity. The wisdom that "gently arranges everything" did not allow the great day of the secret to reach midday immediately upon sunrise, to dazzle and frighten with its brightness, but the dawn rays filtering through the clouds of restraint had to accustom souls and gradually educate them to accept the whole content of the mystery of Triune nature of the One God.

  The incarnate Logos had to accomplish the work of redemption through a merit-making life, direct interaction and interaction with people, persecution, suffering, and obedience. However, if he appears to his contemporaries in the effulgence of his divinity, then on the one hand, the possibility of this true human, merit-making life ceases, the whole order of the economy of salvation is overturned; on the other hand, there is no room left for faith in people. If Jesus Christ, in word and deed, shows himself to be God with complete clarity and tangible evidence, then an eschatological state arises, as he set in prospect for his second coming. In the first instance, he did not come to receive homage and rule, but to serve. Therefore, his restrained self-testimony is a sign of his superhuman wisdom and at the same time evidence that this self-confession is not a later invention of people; if people had invented it, they would have impatiently and indiscreetly pushed Christ's divinity to the fore.
• 

  Phizzy

  That might be the task of Theology, to make the whole messy mish-mash of Scripture be not contradictory, to systemise the "whole of Divine revelation", but that is basically a dishonest work, and does a disservice to the original Writers, and if you believe in god, is a bit of an insult to him.

  You theologians are elevating yourselves above the god who inspired the words of Scripture.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  This is not "dishonest work", since humility towards divine revelation is the number one prerequisite for doing theology. And if you look at Bible verses such as Acts 8:26-35, 2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16, then it should be clear that the interpretation of the revelation cannot be approached with such an "oh that's easy, let's do it with an ax" mentality. And this was already written when the revelation at that time was not in a language, in a cultural-historical context existing in an environment fundamentally different from ours.

  Applied to the present case: If the Holy Scriptures teach the real deity of Jesus, but at the same time make statements that seemingly contradict it, then you either do what the Watchtower did, which distorts the statements about his deity in their own Bible translation, or what ancient church fathers did in the first centuries of Christianity: formalating the doctrinne about duel nature of Jesus, and of hypostatic unity, which resolves all apparent contradictions.

  [We] "believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person." (Athanasian Creed)

  "We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord." (Council of Ephesus)

  "We all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ." (Council of Chalcedon)
• 

  Phizzy

  I'm well aware of the processes that have gone on in Theology/Christology over the Centuries, but Apologetics are not exegesis/hermeneutics, and basically is just an exercise in justifying beliefs established not on what the Writers wanted their readers to understand.

  It is Eisegesis, which as I said above, is an insult to the Text, and if you believe it to be inspired by god, an insult to that god, and a haughty, "Well god obviously meant this", implying he was not capable of saying so.

  Of course a magisterium process of later "Revelation" or "Understanding" is necessary, if the original Writings do not confirm the now evolved Theology/Christology.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  This is where the Protestant approach makes a mistake, it rips the Holy Scriptures and the revelation from the Church, and looks at the Scriptures as a "book thrown out from heaven" that God threw here, then "do with it what you will". I recommend you tor read Karl Barth's critique regarding the so-called "biblicists", which I wrote about HERE. The Holy Scriptures were born in the bosom of the Church, you cannot start again from cratch the history of the Church or the history of theology.

  The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is the competence of the Church, just as the Supreme Court is competent to interpret the Constitution. What the Court says about what the Constitution means, then the Constitution actually means that. What you or Steven X or John Y think about it is irrelevant.

  The basis of all heresy is the removal of the Church from the picture: for this, the legend of the "Great Apostasy" is needed, that the Church is corrupted after a few decades after the apostles, so it must be invented again basicly out of nothing by some self-proclaimed pastor (be it Luther or Russel) opening the Bible on his desk to find out what is "true", "original" Christianity. This is quite a bold claim, and even an arrogant attitude to approach like this:

  "Oh, I found Ecclesiastes 9:5 in the Bible! Surely no one has noticed this verse for two thousand years! Until now, all the theologians and church fathers were stupid and ignorant! But now I, ME, realized that the Church has been wrong for two thousand years!"
  

  However, if the Church could fall into apostasy two thousand years ago, then Christianity is worthless. Jesus clearly promised that the Church would remain incorruptible until he comes back. There is no mention of a millennial pause for the true worship in the New Testament: on the contrary.

  Check these too:

  • • Has the Church ever apostatized?
      
  • • The Church NEVER apostatized
    • The Authority of the Church
      

  Also:

  • The significance of the name “Yahve”
  • Is only the Father named “Yahve”?
• 

  Acluetofindtheuser

  I noticed one instance where the NWT showed someone in the NT quoting the OT and the difference was in the identity of the divine being. The OT said the source came from the spirit but the NT said the source was Jehovah. I can't remember the scripture.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  It is worth considering one of the new readings of Nestle-Aland's latest 28th edition, in which there is a truly essential difference that has christological significance. The change in Jude 5 is very interesting:
  

  • NA27:

  • Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι , εἰδότας [ὑμᾶς] πάντα , ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

  • NIV:

  • "Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe."

  • NA28:

  • Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

  • NRSVue:

  • "Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, once and for all, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."

  I think you also see the significance here. From the NA27 reading of πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ, it became ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς in NA28. In a verse that talks about the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, and then about the punishment in the desert, the appearance of Jesus as the subject is very peculiar. The name of Jesus is mentioned in the text, which means that the author here openly says what is implicitly stated in the Gospel of John, that the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) is Jesus Christ himself! It was Jesus who brought Israel out of Egypt and He became flesh. I think that this variant is very important regarding the deity of Christ. According to the apostolic tradition, it was clearly the unincarnated Word who revealed himself to Moses and who freed the Jews from Egypt. Although it is not unique that a christological interpretation is given to an Old Testament scene in the New Testament, as Paul does in 1 Cor 10:4 or in Gal 3:16, but here we undoubtedly face a unique exegesis if we accept the reading of Ἰησοῦς instead of κύριος.

  There are basically two types of MSS text versions here.

  The text versions that contain the expression ὁ κύριος (the Lord) are in the majority. These are typically Byzantine copies, in which the copyists were more careful and, in accordance with their own Byzantine transcription habits, strove to copy the texts as faithfully as possible, correcting all presumably reading and previous errors.

  The other from the Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) version is called the Vatican-, or Western text type version is the majority, and here we find a Coptic origin, and perhaps not surprisingly: this is also in the Vulgate. Also, what is even more important, we find this version in the writings of the church fathers: Origen, Cyril, Jerome, and Bede.

  Very good manuscripts testify in favor of the "Jesus" reading, so in addition to it being the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior), its ecclesiastical history cannot be neglected. For a more detailed examination of the question, see Philipp Barthalomä, "Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Reexamination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5." in Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), pp. 143-158. Despite this, with the exception of ESV, no significant translation has dared to validate this reading in its main text.
  

  Well, a committee had to decide between the two versions, and here the majority wins. In other words, the original will always be the one voted for by the majority. In this case, we know that it was a very close vote. When they make such a decision, they also examine how much the term κύριος in the entire New Testament refers to Christ and how much to the Father. Then they examine the theology of Judas himself and the context. In the end, UBS preferred the second version, at the cost of very serious arguments.