by slimboyfat 152 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
By the way, the phrase "name of the Father"does not need to be associated with the Tetragrammaton
In the context of being written on forehead as with the high priest it most probably does refer to the divine name. But in view of the references to the trigram Yaho in the first chapter of Revelation, perhaps in the form Yaho rather than YHWH.
@slimboyfat
The passages in the Book of Revelation, specifically Revelation 3:12, 14:1, and 22:4, do not refer to the Jewish High Priest (Kohen Gadol). According to the New Testament, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is only one High Priest, Christ Himself. Therefore, the idea that the name written on the forehead refers to the Tetragrammaton, as associated with the high priest, is not biblically supported in these contexts.
The Book of Revelation belongs to the genre of apocalyptic literature, which is rich in symbolism. The name written on the forehead is one of many symbolic elements within the text. The assertion that this name is directly connected to the Tetragrammaton or the "trigram" (???) "Yaho" (???) from the first chapter of Revelation is speculative at best and lacks any scriptural evidence.
In Revelation 3:12, the promise of "a new name" given to the overcomers is symbolic of their transformation and eternal belonging to God. This new name is a reference to the changing names of Philadelphia, highlighting a new identity granted by Christ to the faithful. The writing of God's name, the name of the New Jerusalem, and Christ's own new name on the faithful signifies their complete and eternal inclusion in God's kingdom. Here, "name" represents divine nature; through sanctifying grace (and even more through the light of eternal glory), we become partakers of God's nature (cf. 2 Peter 1:4).
In Revelation 14:1, "the name of the Lamb and the 'name' of His Father written on the foreheads" of the 144,000 are symbolic of their total dedication and belonging to God. This is not a literal reference to the Tetragrammaton but a figurative expression indicating that these individuals are wholly claimed by God. The symbolism of "the Lamb and His Father’s 'name' on the foreheads" reflects their divine ownership and protection, underscoring the spiritual nature of the relationship rather than a physical inscription of a specific name, such as the Tetragrammaton.
Hence the references in Revelation to the name written on the forehead should be understood symbolically, emphasizing divine ownership and identity in Christ, rather than a literal reference to the Tetragrammaton or the practices of the Jewish High Priest.
Everything in Revelation is symbolic, and the reference to writing the divine name on the forehead is a symbolic reference to Tetragrammaton on the headband of the high priest. I don’t know what you’re intending to dispute here, that the high priest wore a headband with the divine name, or that the author had this in mind, or that we should notice the connection?
In terms of the use of the divine name in the book of Revelation check out the work of Gerard Mussies and Sean McDonough, in particular: Sean McDonough (1999). YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1: 4 in Its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. Mohr Siebeck.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/YHWH-Patmos-Hellenistic-Jewish-Setting/dp/1610971558
@slimboyfat
In the Jewish tradition, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was indeed inscribed on the headband worn by the Kohen Gadol (High Priest). The Tetragrammaton was not written on the high priest's forehead, but on a gold plate, which according to Jerome's description was worn on the high priest's forehead. This plate, bearing the Tetragrammaton, was fixed above the cap on the head of the high priest, and placed on his forehead, where it was tied with a blue cord. However, it's crucial to recognize that this practice was exclusive to the High Priest and was not a general practice for all priests or worshipers. In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Hebrews, Christ is identified as the ultimate High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16, 5:5-10, 7:23-28). As such, the role of the High Priest in the Christian context is uniquely fulfilled by Jesus Christ, not by any other individual or group.
In the Book of Revelation, references to names written on foreheads are clearly symbolic. The passages you refer to (Revelation 3:12, 14:1, 22:4) do not mention the Tetragrammaton. Instead, they speak of the "name of the Father" and the "name of the Lamb" being written on the foreheads of the faithful. This symbolism points to ownership, protection, and identity rather than a literal inscription. It signifies that those who bear these names belong to God and Christ, reflecting their allegiance and sanctification. The imagery of writing a name on the forehead in Revelation, particularly in passages like Revelation 3:12 and 14:1, represents divine ownership, identity, and protection. The text does not necessitate a correlation with the Tetragrammaton or the high priest's headband.
McDonough’s work might argue for the influence of Jewish traditions on the text, this does not conclusively establish that the references to the name in Revelation are direct allusions to the Tetragrammaton. Instead, their research can be understood as an examination of how early Christian writings navigated and reinterpreted Jewish concepts within a new theological framework.
You assert that the symbolism in Revelation must necessarily connect to the high priest and the Tetragrammaton. However, the New Testament reinterprets and re-contextualizes many Old Testament symbols. The role of the high priest, for instance, is reinterpreted in the person of Christ (Hebrews 4:14-5:10), and the concept of divine ownership is expanded to all believers (1 Peter 2:9). The high priest's headband, bearing the divine name, symbolized his unique role, but in Revelation, the "name on the forehead" extends this symbolism to all who belong to Christ. It indicates their identity as God’s people and their eternal belonging to Him, rather than directly invoking the imagery of the High Priest's headband.
It is also worth noting that the New Testament frequently reinterprets Old Testament symbols to fit the new covenant in Christ. The emphasis is often on the spiritual fulfillment of these symbols rather than their literal Old Testament counterparts. While the high priest's headband carried significant meaning under the old covenant, under the new covenant, the "name on the forehead" symbolizes a deeper spiritual reality—believers' transformed identity in Christ, who is now our High Priest.
"
You don't need to make up stuff like that. A revelation by Jesus Christ which God gave him. When Jesus was a human, he did not know that only 144,000 would serve in heaven with him. Neither did Paul. Both of their teachings were thus wrong and old light. So that recent Watchtower about whether what Jesus said about the Sodomites was hyperbole is moot.
"Jesus is eternally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. His divine nature did not change or diminish when He became incarnate. As John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus, as the Word, is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father."
No, Jesus is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent and neither is Jehovah God.
John 1:1 is John's word, not God's word. He did not state that the Word was God. Why would he do that? IT was a prologue to a biography, written 65 years after the person's death. If he meant Word was God, why? Because for those 65 years people didn't believe it and he needed to correct that?
Well, in Acts there is no mention of Jesus being God. Quite the opposite all teachings is that Jesus was not God.
So John 1:1c was just John stating that this guy was not some magician but he was a spirit being in heaven prior.
aqwsed said
"The accusation that Trinitarians are "idiots in their reasoning" misunderstands how deeply Trinitarians engage with the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity in its crystallized form was developed over centuries of careful study, debate, and reflection on the entire biblical text, not just isolated verses."
Yes, trinitarians are idiots in their reasonings. Because the rely on the weakest, and madeup arguments to support their position and ignore strong reasonings against -
They take something like John 8:58 Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" and they take Ex 3:14 where Jehovah said "I am that I am" and think that Jesus was quoting that and applying that to himself which was outside of the context of the conversation. (He was talking about age, not identity and with Abraham which was earlier than Moses)
Now, who was the first person to make that connection? I've been asking people and no one knows. The apostles never made that connection. So who made it? Not joe blow reading the Bible. Some pastor supporting the trinity.
On the other hand take Ps 110:1 ASV "A Psalm of David.
yes, Matt 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is spurious.
Jesus gave a command but yet there is no record of anyone following through with it.
That's because it is not meant the way most think it does. It is not saying to baptize 'in the name of' any of or each of the 3 mentioned. It means that they have authority to go baptize with the said behind them/supporting them.
It's like saying, STOP, 'in the name of the law'. A policeman can tell a person to STOP with the authority of the law backing him.
" It means that they have authority to go baptize with the said behind them/supporting them.
It's like saying, STOP, 'in the name of the law'. A policeman can tell a person to STOP with the authority of the law backing him."
That's a copout. Acts 2:28 "Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins"
How did it get changed from 'name of F, S & HS' to just name of Jesus Christ?
I've been reading into Conybeare and his writings and he believes the scripture is spurious.
“Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between A.D. 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. There are eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
There are eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.”
Even if that is the case it doesn't change what it means there in saying 'in my name' or 'in the name of'. Saying that does not mean disciples take on to themselves the name "Jehoshua'. It means that they would be going making/teaching with the authority of Jehoshua behind them to go and do that disciple making work.
The only name said to be given to use/apply to disciples is 'Christians'.
[ 18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”]
[ 38 Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.]
@Rattigan350
The fact that Jesus receives revelation from the Father does not contradict His divine omniscience. In His incarnational role, Jesus operated within the limitations of human nature while still retaining His divine attributes. The Council of Florence affirms that while the Son receives everything from the Father, this is within the context of an eternal relationship, not a temporal limitation: "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." This reception is part of the eternal communication within the Trinity and does not imply that Jesus lacked divine knowledge.
The purpose of John 1:1 is not merely to correct misunderstandings but to provide a theological foundation for understanding the identity of Jesus as the divine Logos. The text explicitly states, "the Word was God", affirming the full divinity of Christ. The absence of the definite article before "theos" in the original Greek is a grammatical feature that emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the Word's divinity, not a denial of His deity.
The doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one essence, one divinity, and one power. The distinction between the persons does not imply a division in the Godhead but rather a relational distinction within the unity of God's nature. This means that when Jesus, the Son, receives knowledge from the Father, it is not a sign of inferiority but a reflection of their eternal relationship within the Godhead.
Only God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:8-10, Proverbs 15:3, Acts 17:27-28). The Father is omnipresent (Matthew 6:6, John 14:11, 2 John 9), the Son is omnipresent (Matthew 18:20, 28:20, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Colossians 1:17, 2:6, Hebrews 1:3), and the Holy Spirit is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7, John 14:17), yet there are not three omnipresent Gods, but one.
Only God is omniscient (1 Kings 8:31-32, Psalm 44:21-22, 94:9-10, 139:2, Job 21:22, Daniel 2:20, Romans 11:33-34). The Father is omniscient (Matthew 6:4,32, 10:29-30), the Son is omniscient (Luke 2:46-47, John 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Colossians 2:3, Matthew 25:31-45, Hebrews 4:12-13), and the Holy Spirit is omniscient (Isaiah 11:2, 40:13, Daniel 4:6, John 14:26, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), yet there are not three omniscient Gods, but one.
Only God is omnipotent (Genesis 17:1, Exodus 6:3, Psalm 72:18, Matthew 19:26, 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 11:17, 19:6). The Father is omnipotent (Mark 14:36, 2 Corinthians 6:18), the Son is omnipotent (Matthew 28:18, John 3:35, 5:19, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 1:8), and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent (Job 33:4, Zechariah 4:6, Luke 1:35), yet there are not three omnipotent Gods, but one.
Read this:
The connection between Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I am") and Exodus 3:14 ("I AM WHO I AM") is not just a later theological construct. Early Christian writers and even the Gospel of John itself present Jesus as identifying with the divine name, which would have been a profound statement of His divinity to His audience. This identification is a critical part of understanding Jesus' nature as more than a prophet or teacher but as God incarnate.
The assertion that the apostles or early Christians did not make this connection is incorrect. Early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, recognized this connection. The Gospel of John was written precisely to show that Jesus is the Logos, the divine Word, who existed with God and was God.
Trinitarians do not ignore Psalm 110:1. On the contrary, this passage is crucial in understanding Jesus as both Lord and Messiah, who sits at the right hand of God. Trinitarian theology interprets this as a recognition of Christ’s authority and divine nature, not as a denial of His divinity.
The New Testament mentions baptisms performed "in the name of Jesus," which reflects the early Church's understanding of Jesus’ authority. Baptism "in the name of Jesus" does not express the form of the sacrament but rather its nature: it distinguishes it from John's baptism and indicates that it is performed by the authority of Christ, committing the baptized to Christ's name. Indeed, if in the apostolic era they had baptized only by invoking the name of Jesus, Saint Paul could not have asked the Ephesians, who had never heard of the Holy Spirit, "Into what, then, were you baptized?" (Acts 19:2-3). Early Christian tradition does not recognize any other formula than the invocation of the Trinity. The Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") has been consistently upheld by the Church as reflecting the full revelation of God’s triune nature. Early Church tradition and teachings confirm this understanding.
Claims that Matthew 28:19 is "spurious" are not supported by historical evidence. The use of the Trinitarian formula in early Christian writings and practice shows its authenticity and importance in the Church’s understanding of God’s nature.
