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

by pizzahut2023 81 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Wonderment

  aqsed12345: But didn't Jesus himself say, "The Father is greater than I am?" Of course he did, because as a man, he was unquestionably lesser than the Father. The "I" from his lips could signify his divinity as well as his humanity. As God, he was equal to the Father, even one with him in unity; but as a man, he was clearly lesser than the Father.

  Could you please provide Scriptural proof for the following statement?: The "I" from his lips could signify his divinity as well as his humanity.

  Could you please provide Scriptural proof for the following statement?: As God, he was equal to the Father, even one with him in unity; but as a man, he was clearly lesser than the Father.

  Please provide one or two scriptures which simply say what you claim! Don't want to see three pages of convoluted material presented. Otherwise, why should anyone take your repeated claims seriously?
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Wonderment

  While indeed this is the main reason, Trinitarians do not have to explain Jesus' kind of "subordination" exclusively from His humanity: it can exist even if we consider that He is the Son, and the Father is the Father. This does not imply a difference in divinity, but only voluntary (love-related) subordination resulting from the order of origin. Another explanation could be what ancient ecclesiastical authors called "economy of salvation," which they understood as mutual adaptation for the sake of salvation in action and operation. For example, when we read about the Son's incarnation that "He did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage, but emptied Himself," etc., it was not some ontological inferiority that compelled Him, but considerations necessary for the salvation of mankind that moved Him.

  It's in vain to deny it: The New Testament itself explicitly teaches Jesus' dual nature. On the one hand, Jesus is called the only-begotten God (John 1:18), and God who was with the Father in the beginning (John 1:1) - on the other hand, it confesses that He became flesh (John 1:14), similar to us, to destroy the devil through death. So what kind of talk is it when JWs claim that the New Testament does not know anything about a "dual nature"? Of course, Trinitarians do not say that "the God of Jesus' human nature is the Father" - but that the God of Jesus, the God-man, is the Father, in terms of his human nature. What they bring up after this is a typical case of "arguing from silence": "Jesus does not say, 'The Father is greater than I am in my human nature'" - and can be easily strengthened with what we find in Philippians 2:5-8:

  "though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross."

  Here, the state of being of God is explicitly attributed to Jesus as an existing state, and the word God is without an article just as much as when mentioning equality with God in the next verse. Therefore, it is entirely natural to refer both mentions of "theos" to the same thing. In addition, equality with God appears as something instead of which Jesus became human, so we must imitate this self-sacrificing mindset. But Paul does not emphasize that we should not strive higher than we deserve, but that we should not even seek what is rightfully ours, and consider others superior to ourselves (Philippians 2:3). From this, it is highly probable to take the word "harpagmos" (booty) in the sense of "res rapta" (seized thing), and not what your translation suggests, namely that Jesus did not want to seize equality with God.

  Every attempt to render "harpagmos" here with "seizing" or a similar action and argue on this basis that Jesus "did not entertain the idea of usurpation to become equal with God", or as the NWT renders it: "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God." is entirely fruitless. The word "hegeomai" does not mean "to consider," but "to regard as." It has a well-defined complement in Greek, which is grammatically expressed with a double accusative. In light of this, the above interpretation would lead here: "Jesus did not regard being equal with God as robbery" - which would grammatically mean exactly the opposite of what JWs want to get out of it: that is, he considered it something that is due to him. This is the basis for Furuli's argument, who wants to exploit that the "-gmos" suffix primarily creates active-minded nouns.

  What JWs confidently claim is also not true, namely that there is no biblical evidence that "this is to be understood only in terms of His human nature". For the Epistle to the Hebrews neatly summarizes how much His becoming lower can be attributed to His being human (5,7-9):

  "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"

  That is, if He had not become human, He would not have needed to pray to the Father, nor to learn obedience, as He was not forced to do so as the Son. Otherwise: If from the beginning the Son were just a creature, so ontologically inferior to the Father regardless of his incarnation, why did he only have to "learn" obedience "in the days of his [being] flesh"? And Col 2:9 clearly proves that Jesus possessed the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes, and not theitotes), not just some kind of demigod, lesser god ("a god") "quality".
• 

  pizzahut2023

  How do you know when the earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jude 5 is in the third/fourth century? And when the tetragrammaton or other forms of God's name occurs in all copies of the LXX prior to 200.

  Uh... because you have ZERO Greek manuscripts pointing towards Jehovah... anywhere in the New Testament!
  
  Whereas there is at least one (actually lots!) of manuscripts pointing towards Jesus. If we go by the EARLIEST manuscript evidence, then it's WORSE for your position because P72 says "God Christ"!!
  
  And lastly:
  
  The LXX is not the New Testament... for the billionth time!!
  
• 

  Riley

  Man

  What a great discussion people. I wish I could write as well as some of you.

  The great point I have come to realize is how little anyone in the Borg realizes the complexities of the old testament and the prospective in which the new testament authors are writing or speaking about Jesus Christ. This was the very issue that woke me up.

  I am of the opinion that the touchable visible manifestions of god in the old testament were Christ who somehow existed as both god and not god at the same.

  Does it make sense ? Not really but that is the story.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  I think it might be wise for Trinitarians to accommodate the idea that the divine name occurred in the New Testament into their theology because, you never know, the evidence for it might get stronger and stronger as more discoveries are made. Two hundred years ago there were no copies of the LXX with the divine name, all we had was outside evidence. Now there are a number of manuscripts with direct evidence and further corroborating outside evidence. It’s reasonable to suppose that fragments of the New Testament with the divine name may be uncovered at some point.
• 

  pizzahut2023

  I think it might be wise for Trinitarians to accommodate the idea that the divine name occurred in the New Testament into their theology because, you never know, the evidence for it might get stronger and stronger as more discoveries are made. Two hundred years ago there were no copies of the LXX with the divine name, all we had was outside evidence. Now there are a number of manuscripts with direct evidence and further corroborating outside evidence. It’s reasonable to suppose that fragments of the New Testament with the divine name may be uncovered at some point.

  LOL I can't wait till the fragments are discovered and they say something you don't want them to say. Luke 2:11 or something saying that Jehovah the Christ has been born... as it DOES say in the Peshitta NT, from the 6th century.
  
  Again, careful what you wish for!
  
  Or maybe 1st century manuscripts, ALSO with Nomina Sacra, pointing to maybe that the autographs already had them. Or maybe then you'll move your goalposts again, as the WT has done and you'll demand early 1st century manuscripts, or even the autographs, to settle the issue!
  
  Again, the LXX is a different scenario. The evidence does NOT only point to "Jehovah" being in there originally, it points towards "Kyrios" having been there originally and "Jehovah" being INSERTED... in a Hebraizing recension.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  slimboyfat

  And it would be all the wiser if the WTS apologists would keep their mouths shut in this regard until such a manuscript is found. Once they find one, we can talk about it. The fact that a number of hitherto unknown manuscripts have been discovered in recent centuries weakens your position: according to them, among thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there is not ONE single one that indicates any kind of deliberate falsification of the Bible, especially in this regard.

  There is no direct or indirect source or evidence for this, only speculation and conspiracy theory. Maybe these evil "apostate" copyist did such a perfect job? Maybe I've been watching too many crime dramas, but I guess there is no such thing as a perfect crime. Do you think so? Jesus seemed to say that the truth cannot be hidden. Or as Seneca's famous quote says: "The truth never perishes" (Veritas numquam perit)
  

  But let's suppose that such a "Jehovist" New Testament manuscript were to be found, but what would that prove? That this was the original reading of the apostolic autograph, the Urtext, and "using" the name "Jehovah" was the original church mainline of the Christianity? Well, because JWs not only claim that there could have been such a reading, but also the latter. However, this would not be far from proving this!

  It is even possible to imagine in principle that there was a minor heterodox Judaizing-Hebraizing sect among some Jewish Christians, that inserted it into the text because they thought it "should" be there. Read up on who the Ebionites were. If the WTS wants to associate itself with such a Galatian-Judaizing trend instead of Pauline Christianity, I would not discourage them, this would befit them. Or Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Gnostics, and Valentinian heretics used Ἰαῶ (Iao), but there is no sign that there was ever such a "Jehovist" trend in the original, primitive mainline church.

  Interestingly, no one claims that in the apocryphal Gospels of the Ebionites, or the Gospel of the Hebrews, there was any kind of YHWH, and where such a thing could be imagined, it is precisely these.
  
• 

  Earnest

  Earnest : How much more likely it is that God's name was used in some form and was subsequently replaced by whatever the copyists of various manuscripts could find to fit.

  pizzahut2023 : The Tetragrammaton was certainly not in Jude 5. Nor anywhere in the NT.

  Earnest : How do you know when the earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jude 5 is in the third/fourth century? And when the tetragrammaton or other forms of God's name occurs in all copies of the LXX prior to 200.

  aqwsed12345 : Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"?

  There would be a burden of proof if I had maintained that the textual variation of Jude vs 5 (regarding who saved Israel out of Egypt) proved that the original text contained God's name in some form. Instead I said it was more likely God's name was used as this explained the subsequent variation in manuscript tradition. On the other hand, pizzahut2023 was quite certain about what was not there in the original which we simply don't know.
  

  pizzahut2023 : If we go by the EARLIEST manuscript evidence, then it's WORSE for your position because P72 says "God Christ"!!

  P72, also known as Papyrus Bodmer VII, contains vss 1-25 and is the earliest witness we have for Jude. It was written in Egypt and dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century, a time when controversy about the identity of Christ was rife. James Royse, in his book on Scribal Habits in early Greek New Testament papyri, says (p.475) that "the significant percentage of nonsense readings in P72 and the very large percentage of singulars resulting from non-standard spelling show that the scribe of P72 was extraordinarily careless", and that the scribe "can also be seen to have increased the rate of production of nonsense as he went further with his copying".

  What were the theological tendencies of this scribe? Marchant King, in his Notes on the Bodmer manuscript (Bibliotheca sacra 121, 1964, p.57), commented on three unique readings in P72 "giving evidence of the fullest acceptance of the deity of Christ by the scribe (or one of his predecessors) and the church in his area". These unique readings are 1 Peter 5:1 where it reads "the sufferings of God" (instead of Christ), 2 Peter 1:2 where it omits the word "and" after "God" so that it reads "in the knowledge of God our Lord Jesus", and Jude vs 5 where it reads "God Christ" as shown below.
  

  

  This reading is unknown in any other manuscripts. It shows two things. First, that scribes had no qualms about correcting manuscripts to what they thought was meant, especially if there was some confusion in what was originally written (like, for example, a Hebrew word appearing in a Greek text). Secondly, it shows that there are texts we only know of by the chance survival of one papyrus in the Egyptian climate, so the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Earnest
  

  "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

  However, if the burden of proof is on you, since it was you've claimed something, then the lack of evidence means that you have failed the case. Unfortunately, speculation and conspiracy theories hardly substantiate the claim.

  The most important evidence here is that "Jehovism" was completely alien to the theological climate of the original New Testament church, just like it was to the mainstream of Judaism in the time of Christ, from which the church simply inherited it, adopted it, as neither Christ nor the apostles ever objected or adressed this practice, which already was an accomplished fact.

  The divine name YHWH simply has no role in the Christ-centered New Testament order of redemption, it already fulfilled its function for the period after the Babylonian captivity. The function of the divine name YHWH was to educate the Israelites freed from Egypt to strict monotheism, which was no longer a question.

  Although the divine name YHWH is also sacred to Christians, to "use" it in the Old Testament manner, specifically in the First Temple era manner, is an anachronistic Judaizing heresy. To claim - as the Watchtower Society does - that this was the original mainstream of the primitive church is an absurd claim without any evidence. Still less can speculation regarding the name YHWH justify the Arian heresy which demotes the Son to an angel, a creature, a made being.

  It is even more ironic that even though the WTS followers "use" the name "Jehovah" in every way, they just don't understand its original meaning and function in the time of the First Temple: to educate them to a strict and absolute monotheism, to always remind that God is "who is", who exists, so he is the absolute Being. Instead, JW's image of God isn't even regular theism. Because they take literally the antopomorphistic descriptions of God found in the Old Testament, their image of God is like that about how a 4-5 year old kind imagines God: literally sitting on a chair above the clouds, with a white beard, watching him, and getting mad at him if he eats the chocolate that mommy forbade him. The Christian image of God teaches the absolute timeless and transcendent nature of God, God himself is the unchanging pure being (actus purus).
  

  For this the legend of the "Great Apostasy" is needed for the WTS to justify its very existence: that the Church became completely corrupted just after a few decades after the apostles, so it must be invented again basicly out of nothing by some self-proclaimed pastor (Russel) opening the Bible on his desk to find out what the "true", "original" Christianity was like. This is quite a bold claim, and even an arrogant attitude to approach the Divine Scriptures. However, if the Church could fall into apostasy two thousand years ago, then Christianity is worthless. Jesus clearly promised that the Church would be indefectible, thus remains intact until He returns. There is no mention of a millennial pause for the true worship in the New Testament: on the contrary.

  Check these:

  • • The Church NEVER apostatized
    • The significance of the name “Yahve”
• 

  Earnest

  aqwsed12345

  Thank you for your thoughts about first-century Judaism and nascent Christianity which was far more variable than you suggest, but you fail to address the substance of my posts which have been about the textual variation of Jude vs 5 and how we can account for it. In addition, you have made no comment on how we can account for the unique reading of Jude vs 5 in P72 which occurs nowhere else even though it supports the Athanasian heresy.