The Lords prayer ;Our Father prayer...."Let your name be sanctified " from Jesus.

by smiddy3 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  smiddy3

  slimboyfat ,johnamos ,

  i`m not disputing the fact that the name Jesus and other biblical names have reference to the name of God , I`m simply pointing out the fact that the Greek text by Westcott and Hort that the WTB&TS based their NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures on doesn`t contain the Tetragrammaton either in Hebrew letters or the equivalent Greek letters.

  When the WT publication "The Kingdom Interlinear of The Christian Greek Scriptures" inserts the name Jehovah in the WT interpretation marginal column ,when it does not appear in the word for word translation ,that is dishonest and shows a distinct bias.

  slim,

  the evidence indicates that the divine name in the form Yaho was in common use among Jews in the first century. Jesus using this form the divine name would probably have been unremarkable, which is why there was no controversy.

  Where in the Christian Greek Scriptures of the NWT/KI is the divine name in the form of Yaho used by Jesus or anyone else ?

  I`m not talking about God`s name whatever it is/was used in the Hebrew Scriptures / OT ,I`m specifically talking about the New testament and whether Jehovah`s Witnesses have been honest in putting a name their or whether they are just speculating that it should be their without the evidence to back it up .

  a day ago
• 

  Phizzy

  If it mattered to God that some Personal Name were used by his worshipers, he would have had it preserved in all of Scripture.

  He just don't care " evidently".

  I have heard the argument that as there is only one true god, a personal name is not necessary. The JW's are like the early Israelites, who believed other gods were real, but not supreme, so J.W's feel they need to identify which god they are talking about !
• 

  DomineIvimus-DI

  It’s an interesting point Smiddy3. Even if the Divine name was in the original texts around 200 times, that is significantly less frequent than the 7000 times in the Greek Scriptures. Some books don’t have the name Jehovah even once. There is a definite shift in emphasis between the two sections of the Bible - Old Testament/New Testament. Old Covenant/New Covenant. Jehovah/Jesus. Nation of Israel/Israel of God. God’s friends/God’s children. And that is he importance of the start of the prayer- rather than Jehovah in the heavens, Jesus said we should call Him “Our Father in the heavens”
• 

  slimboyfat

  The Watchtower has never disputed that the Greek text of Wescott and Hort doesn’t include the divine name. (Except the shortened form Jah, in Revelation) In fact they have stated this fact a number of times when discussing the topic.

  Their argument is that the original NT used the divine name, and on that basis they restore it. How much clearer could they be? On this issue a number of NT scholars agree with them, that the divine name occurred in the original NT.

  My point about Yaho is that there is evidence that this is how first century Jews called their God, and therefore it would not have been unusual for Jesus to have done so.

  It’s like asking if President Lincoln or President Nixon used the word television, or TV. Even without direct evidence it seems reasonably likely that Nixon used this common word and that Lincoln couldn’t have used it, for obvious reasons.

  Since Yaho was a common designation for the Jewish God in the first century it is on the face of it reasonable to suppose that Jesus and his contemporaries used the name. The later NT manuscripts that don’t include the divine name date from a period when the divine name had been removed from the LXX also, so are not good evidence for use in the NT period itself.
• 

  smiddy3

  slimboyfat

  The Watchtower has never disputed that the Greek text of Wescott and Hort doesn’t include the divine name. (Except the shortened form Jah, in Revelation) In fact they have stated this fact a number of times when discussing the topic.

  .

  "Their argument is that the original NT used the divine name, and on that basis they restore it."

  There are no Original New Testament manuscripts in existence so how can they make such a claim ?

  Where is the evidence for such a claim ?
  
  
  
• 

  jhine

  l believe that many religious Jews nowadays won't say God's name because of the possibility of accidentally profaning it . Also they won't write it and l have read articles written by Jewish writers where God's name is blanked out . l think that many just say " The Name "

  Could that have been the way back then ?

  Jan
• 

  Tenacious

  If God the Father wanted His name to be exalted He could have easily preserved it just like He did with THE ENTIRE BIBLE. It would be stupid to say God had the ability to preserve His Son's name just not His. But the JW false argument and those that agree with the exalting of the Father's name is the reason why He did it. The whole Bible is about His Son not Him. It would be even STUPIDER to think the Father needs to hear His name to make sure you are praying to Him. How comical is that?

  So what did Jesus mean when he said YOUR NAME BE SANCTIFIED?

  It meant for His name to remain pure and clean or spotless. So how was this to be accomplished?

  By people obeying His Son! His Son came in His Father's name! Because Jesus came in the name that His Father gave Him which literally translates "God is Savior or God saves."

  When the Vice President visits another country they come representing (i.e. the U.S.A. i.e. the President) his boss the President and all that he stands for which is the country as a whole. Disobeying or attacking the VP would be the same as doing it to the one who he represents. So when Jesus came to earth He came in His own name but representing His Father and all He stood for. That is what is meant by coming in "the name" of His Father! Otherwise, would Philippians 2:9 make sense about the name of Jesus?

  Moreover, the name Jah is not a shortened version of jehovah. It is the first three letters (no "J" back then but you get the point) of God the Father's proper first name which is Jahweh. Even the GB admits to sticking to "tradition" about the proper name of God the Father instead of reverting to His real name which is Jahweh not jehovah. So much for caring about using God's real name. But they stick to "jehovah" because that is the Masonic version for the devils name. The name jehovah is used by satanists when worshiping the devil.

  When a person says "Hallelujah" they are in essence saying "Praise be to God" but in reality they are saying "Praise be to Jah" for HalleluJAH.
• 

  Phizzy

  I think the argument about whether Jesus actually used/enunciated the name will continue. I think the JW Org reasoning on the closest pronunciation for YHWH being Jehovah in English, and of course Yehovah or similar in many other tongues that do not use the hard "J" is soundly based.

  Of course one thing to remember is that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic, so in his actual usage of the Name (assuming he did) it would sound nothing like Yehowah or Yehovah.

  So, we come back to the again sound argument of JW Org that in English Jehovah is recognized for what it is, the commonly known English rendition of YHWH.

  The other argument as to whether the name was written in the Autograph copies will never be solved or concluded, unless an Autograph copy were found, as likely as me winning the Lottery methinks !

  Again, I rather favour the idea that it probably was, it is certainly plainly there in the Qumran MS. so why would the Gospel writers and more importantly perhaps Paul ( the earliest Christian writer), shy away from writing it ?

  Then we come back again to the old argument, when reading the Text, did the readers pronounce the name, or substitute something ?

  By the time the Gospels were written the Christian outreach was to Gentiles, having failed to convert many Jews, so, again why not actually pronounce the Name ? Nobody would be offended, except a very strict Jew perhaps,who was now Christian, but their being offended could be dealt with no doubt.

  I am rarely, if ever before ??, in the position of defending the JW Org position, but we have to take the scholarly consensus on all this.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I agree completely with what Phizzy said on all points. I couldn’t put it better.

  I confess I find it somewhat amusing or striking, depending on my mood, how good a case JWs have on the divine name, and how they appear to have been ahead of the game in terms of scholarship on this issue.
• 

  jhine

  So we don't know if the Divine Name is in the Autographs or not . Some THINK it would have been , but the WT make out that they know that it DEFINITELY was in and that it was taken out deliberately by nasty Christendom . They make this assertion with no proof , that seems to me to be the real issue . They use this non fact to attack Christendom , to keep their members suspicious and afraid of other Christian groups . l shouldn't say other because l don't believe that they are Christian .

  Jan