we all know that the passage from paul's letter to romans, romans 10:13 says:.
"all those who call on the name of the lord will be saved".. now, in the nwt they translate that as jehovah instead of the word "lord", because this is a quote from joel 2:32 and in the ot the tetragrammaton yhwh is used, which the nwt translates as "jehovah" (not only the nwt does that, the asv,yng and dby, do it also in regards to joel).. however, of the 16 translations i have seen, all translate that passage in romans as lords and all the commentaries i have read so far, point to view that paul was applying that passage to jesus, being his name that is salvation.. commentaries by james, fausset and brown, by matthew henry and by barnes, to name only 3.. comments?.
The May 1, 1978 Watchtower (page 12) says that Romans 10:13 is about Jesus:
There are verses in the Hebrew Scriptures about Jehovah that are quoted in the “New Testament” in a context speaking about the Son. (Isa. 40:3—Matt. 3:3—John 1:23; Joel 2:32—Rom. 10:13; Ps. 45:6, 7—Heb. 1:8, 9) This is understandable, for Jesus was the Father’s foremost representative.
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Yes, the internal evidence of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures is against the idea that Jesus or the early Christians emphasized the name "Jehovah" in their everyday speech or in their worship.
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Well, Spike, it was nice chatting with you. I wish you the best in your spiritual life and hope we can discuss more another time.
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
All very nice speculations but none of them are scriptural, there is no scripture saying to no longer use Jehovah's name quite the contrary, And so Jehovah stands as God's name until such a scripture happens. Any speculation on Jesus name or actions somehow replacing this is just reading into the scriptures your own viewpoint, explanations and justification.
I've never said that people should not use "Jehovah" or "Yahweh." I use it occasionally myself. Having said that, we have to accept the fact that the Divine Name was not emphasized in the New Testament, by either Jesus or his followers.
Even in the New World Translation's translation of the Greek Scriptures the name "Jehovah" is not emphasized. For example, as I've already mentioned, Jesus never utters "Jehovah" in any of his prayers. In fact, how many times does Jesus say "Jehovah" when he's not quoting the Old Testament? I did a search once and came up with only 3 possible places in the NWT where Jesus says "Jehovah" apart from OT quotations. The rest of the time Jesus uses "Father" and "God" when talking about his Father.
How many times does the name "Jehovah" appear in the book of Philippians in the New World Translation? Or in First Timothy? Zero. In several other books of the NT in the NWT, the name "Jehovah" appears on a scale much less than it does in many OT books.
Can you imagine a Watchtower study article that did not contain the name "Jehovah"? Or, someone praying at a Kingdom Hall and not saying "Jehovah"? Or, someone who mainly only used the name "Jehovah" when they were quoting from the Old Testament, but not in their everyday speech?
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Spike,
Would it be okay for us to just use the designation "Father" when we pray to God instead of "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"? That was what Jesus did. True, in a couple of his prayers he spoke of the "name" of God, but that's the closest we can get to any use of a "name," a reference to God's "name." In most of his prayers he simply uses "Father."
So, is it okay for Jesus' followers to imitate his example and just use "Father" when addressing God in prayer? Is just an occasional reference to something like "glorifying your name" or "hallowed be your name" enough when they pray?
perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.
Since true Christians rely on both OT and NT as interdependent, then it follows that when Jesus spoke to Jehovah in prayer at John 17:6 that he had "made your name manifest", he was thus referring to the name of God that English-speaking Christians commonly call Jehovah, etc.
Thanks for the reply. My question was whether there was any Scripture that records Jesus uttering the Divine Name in a prayer. You reply with that he 'referred' to the Divine Name. Just to make the point clear:
Is there a Scripture that records Jesus uttering the Divine Name in prayer?
If not, then does the usage of "name" by Jesus refer to "Yahweh" or "Jehovah"? "Name" can be used metaphorically to refer to "reputation," "character," and "authority." Interestingly, the Watchtower referred to this metaphorical use of "name" in the May 1, 1973 Watchtower, page 259:
WHAT GOD’S NAME MEANT TO JESUS
God’s “name” is also important to Jesus Christ. Just before his death he prayed: “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world . . . watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me . . . And I have made your name known to them and will make it known.”—John 17:6, 11, 26.
We are not to believe that when Jesus said, “I have made your name known” or “manifest,” he referred to only the pronunciation of the divine name. His listeners were Jews who, reportedly with the exception of the high priest, did not know the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters making up the name. Then, how did Jesus, by more than pronouncing the name correctly, ‘make God’s name known’ to the apostles? Note the answer given by one noted Bible commentator:
“The word name [in John 17] includes the attributes, or character of God. Jesus had made known his character, his law, his will, his plan of mercy. Or in other words, he had revealed God to them. The word name is often used to designate the person.”—Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Gospels by Albert Barnes (1846).
So, as Jesus ‘explained the Father’ by his own entire perfect life course on earth, he was really ‘making God’s name known.’ He demonstrated that he spoke with God’s full backing and authority. Jesus could therefore say: “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.” God’s “name” thus took on greater meaning to his early followers. Accordingly, an appreciation of it and the Personality that it stood for should be reflected in every aspect of the Christian’s life.—John 14:9; 1:18; 5:19, 30; Matt. 11:27.
* the bible teaches that there is only one true god, only one person who is almighty god, and this one person is the father.
(see john 17:3; john 5:37, 5:44; john 8:54; isaiah 63:15-16; malachi 1:6; 1st corinthians 8:6; ephesians 4:6).
(john 5:19-20; 5:30; 8:28; 12:49).
Well, if Scripture does not show Jesus praying using "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" then I guess it's not that important for Christians to pray using a name for God either.
i think that some people deserve to be excommunicated, such as pedophiles.
but what about the tens of thousands of others that have their life wrenched out from under them by being disfellowshipped?.
and what about those that have a family member that died because of not receiving a blood transfusion?
Reniaa,
If JWs don't have the truth, then:
1) Those JWs who die over the blood issue have died in vain.
2) Those JWs who shun ex-member family and friends have done so in vain.
3) Those JWs who do not pursue a higher education because it's discouraged by the Watchtower Society have done so in vain.
Many of us here are persuaded that the JWs don't have the truth. It's not bitterness or hatred for us to see the ramifications of that.
You may disagree about the "if" in my first sentence and therefore you most likely believe that those who do these things do so for Jehovah.
We have different world views.
i think that some people deserve to be excommunicated, such as pedophiles.
but what about the tens of thousands of others that have their life wrenched out from under them by being disfellowshipped?.
and what about those that have a family member that died because of not receiving a blood transfusion?
Those who die over the blood rules.
For example, here's one story:
2009 bearing thorough witness about god's kingdom--pdf!
(all credit goes to yknot) bookmarked searchable reduced click the link at the bottom of the next page.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/mc7ofr cheers!
Well, it makes sense if one views the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses as successors of the Apostles. But, I didn't think JWs believed in Apostolic Succession.
