Posts by PSacramento

56

Jehovah explained by WT

by PSacramento in

can anyone confirm what i read on another website that the aid to bible undertsanding, 1971 pages 884-885, admit that the term jehovah is a combination of yhwh and the words adonia and elohim and that scholars generally favour "yahweh" as the correct pronunciation?.

is this correct?.

.

PSacramento

Spike,

I know why the Aid was removed, as I am sure so do other here.

The "new" definition should have take into account what is on the WT website in the article "The Divine name that will endure forever", because it basically says the samething that the Aid book did.

Fact is, we have to be truthful in the admission that not only is the pronunciation of YHWH unknow, so is the spelling and until we have verifibale proof and not specualtion and possibilites, we can't say trutfully that, by say Jehovah, we are saying God's TRUE AND DIVINE name, because base don what we knwo eight now, that is NOT the case.

54

Romans 10:13

by PSacramento in

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?.

PSacramento

BurnTheShips,

I have read that before, it is quite possibly one of the most through commentaries on that passage aavialable to us.

54

Romans 10:13

by PSacramento in

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?.

PSacramento

Stephen,

I see Jesus as the Son of God, our Lord and Saviour, the Manifestation of all that God is, simply because that is what is plainly stated in the bible, the rest tends to require more interpretation and a tad more "going beyond what is written" than I am comfortable with.

39

The Last (Lord's) Supper

by PSacramento in

i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.

why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.

in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .

PSacramento

Spike,

You seem to be putting the NT scriptures into much question, if you don't mind me saying so.

First it is the Divine name that scripes consipred to remove from ALL the exsiting NT scriptures that we have on record, some dating to the 3rd century or earlier ( in terms of ignatius's work) and now it seems that Luke was wrong in, at least if not more, his chronology.

13

What does it mean in Revelation where it talks about God's name, Jesus' name and the name of new Jerusalem being written on the foreheads of the conquerors/144,000?

by slimboyfat in

there is revelation 14:1. and i saw, and, look!

the lamb standing upon the mount zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his father written on their foreheads.. did the author have in mind the tetragrammaton here?

revelation is rich with allusions to the ot and other jewish texts that obviously used and made reference to the divine name; in particular the law where the high priest wore a headband with the tetragrammaton inscribed must surely be the basis for this image.

PSacramento

Of course there is also the chance that John was on one heck of an acid trip !

;)

39

The Last (Lord's) Supper

by PSacramento in

i wanted to ask this question beacuse at the last memorial supper it caught my attention more than it ever did:.

why do some (not just the jw's) believe that judas did not partkae of the lord's supper, the bread and the wine?.

in the synoptic gospels of matt, mark and luke, there is nomention of judas being sent away, indeed in luke jesus says "behold the hand of the betrayer at the table with me".. while in john judas is sent away, he is sent after the supper, though it is not clear if this was the lord's supper since there is no mention of the the partaking of the wine and bread in john.. help would be greatly appreciated.. .

PSacramento

Spike,

If it wasn't on video, it never happened !!

LOL !

Of course we mustn't forget that, in the end, we can agree to disagree :)

61

I agree with Jehovah's Witnesses!

by UnDisfellowshipped in

i agree with jehovah's witnesses!.

(i bet reniaa will be shocked to see this thread!).

to jehovah's witnesses: i commend your zeal for god, your desire for accurate knowledge and truth of the bible, your goals of drawing close to jehovah, and following and obeying christ's teachings, and your time spent studying the bible.

PSacramento

RE: the "works" issue,

More than anythign else, the motivation behind what we do is what we will be judged on.

Doing good out of love for Jesus and God is great, it is why we shoudl do good (other than the fact that it is right to do good), we shoudl not do any works based on recompense or fear or intimidation or pressure, ones motivation will not be correct under those circumstance, regardless of faith.

Like Paul said, of the greates gifts ( Hope, Faith and Love), Love is the greatest.

God is a God of Love, His Son is love personified and as such, neither want anyone coming to them under duress or fear or for recompense, but out of Love and Faith.

Of course the issue of what TYPES of works is an issue, but in that the bible is also clear as per Matthew and in Jesus's own words:

Matthew 25:34-40 and even in James, what does James mention right off the bat as a sign of good works? Taking care of widows.

54

Romans 10:13

by PSacramento in

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?.

PSacramento

If one accepts the view that Jesus is the fullfilment of the OT passages that are quote in the NT, due to his role as Lord and Saviour in the New Covenant, there really isn't many issues at all.

54

Romans 10:13

by PSacramento in

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?.

PSacramento

Spike,

I don't see an issue with Us disagreeing on the interpretation of Romans 10:13, to me its not a case of right and worng, but a discussion that hopefully brings people closer to God.

To me its not about it being Jesus or God because I don't choose between them, it's not a case og either/or for me, its a case of Both in union.

God is our Father and His Son Jesus is our Lord and saviour, redeemer and judge THROUGH the father, Jesus is the new convenant because the Father made it so, and all the Jesus is, the father is, for all the Jesus is, is throught the father NOT instead of.

163

Is God's name absent in the Christian Scriptures?

by Spike Tassel in

perhaps this article will help you know for yourself: http://www.tetragrammaton.org/godsnameabsent.htm.

PSacramento

Spike,

May I ask, why you "remain in fear of Jehovah" ?