Does God want us to use His name?

[Jane_Doe22]

I remember visiting a JW service, and talking to a gentleman there. He eagerly asked me, in a way that seemed very prerehersed “What is the name of God in the Old Testement- I can show you in scripture.”

I replied “Jehovah”.

He was already pulling out his scriptures, and just kind of stammered. “Uhhh...”. It seemed he was expecting me to argue with him or to put him through some big test, and didn’t know what to do now. It was rather strange, and admittedly kind of amusing in retrospect.

Of course, I believe “ Jehovah” was Christ’s name before being born of Mary. And yes, I’m very very pro using the name “Christ” nowadays.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

If @Happy Trails did reveal their faith, I believe sure you would zero in on something about their faith you don't like. Am I right?

No, I jumped the gun, thinking he was a JW. He even trashes holidays too ... he could fit in with them comfortably. But I assumed wrong and I retracked much of my post. I already said it would be wonderful if he admitted to where he goes to church and this was only to understand where he was coming from.
I really think people on this Forum should reveal such information to save us all much time. It seems many hide behind the internet, already using false names, avatars, and we never really get to know them. It's kind of a superficial fellowship of sorts, not quite reality. To really get to know people, you have to break bread with them face to face. For instance, I get in a long drawn out conversation, disagreeing on many doctrinal points and 20 posts later find out they are Non-Trinitarian or Prederists and if I would have known up front, I would have saved myself lots of banter back and forth. I accept where they are at and would not bother with going there - knowing that there is an impenetrable wall approaching. Instead we all waste much time. If you are a Catholic, say so. If you're a Messianic Jew, be proud of it; a Calvinist - horray! A Non-Trinitarian - oops, I'm sorry for you.

It's better to address the posts, isn't it?

I do and I did.
Btw, I went on a vacation to Saint Lucia long time ago. Stayed near the Peaks, Anise Chastinae hotel?
Now you had a question?

 

[The Disciple John]

No, I jumped the gun, thinking he was a JW. He even trashes holidays too ... he could fit in with them comfortably. But I assumed wrong and I retracked much of my post. I already said it would be wonderful if he admitted to where he goes to church and this was only to understand where he was coming from.
I really think people on this Forum should reveal such information to save us all much time. It seems many hide behind the internet, already using false names, avatars, and we never really get to know them. It's kind of a superficial fellowship of sorts, not quite reality. To really get to know people, you have to break bread with them face to face. For instance, I get in a long drawn out conversation, disagreeing on many doctrinal points and 20 posts later find out they are Non-Trinitarian or Prederists and if I would have known up front, I would have saved myself lots of banter back and forth. I accept where they are at and would not bother with going there - knowing that there is an impenetrable wall approaching. Instead we all waste much time. If you are a Catholic, say so. If you're a Messianic Jew, be proud of it; a Calvinist - horray! A Non-Trinitarian - oops, I'm sorry for you.

Okay. Let me try your approach.
Okay. Waste of my time. I'm not even going to start. I see a wall.
How did that go?

You see, if everyone started thinking that way, how many people would talk. In fact, how many people would be here.
Already, it's a case of, "Whops. SDA - Wall. JWs - Wall. Mormons - Wall... or any we deem unfit to converse with.
So we are judging the person based on our dislike or, emotional feelings toward their religion.
That's not being open to hearing them put forward their "argument". It's shutting them down, and actually, listening to any person, regardless of their religion, may present an opportunity that causes us to think, because that person may have a different, and unique way of conversing.
That's why I like to listen to persons. I learn how they think, and they get me thinking... at times. So there is an open door for both of us to benefit.

If one decides that a person is going to present poison, and it's bad for them, then why start. Would it not be better to just ignore that person, period?
Or if the person is not reasoning at all, and ignoring everything we say, it's understandable, if we don't want to "waste your time", because the person is basically listening to themselves, while ignoring us.
I haven't seen that in this thread though.
However, the 'medicine' we give to others may be given to us. So it's always good to make sure we are being fair to the other person.

You seem sincere about what you believe.

I do and I did.
Btw, I went on a vacation to Saint Lucia long time ago. Stayed near the Peaks, Anise Chastinae hotel?

Yeah. The Caribbean - Sand, Sea, and Sun... Nothing as beautiful as the islands in the sea. :) Every place has something good about it.
I visited the US a long time ago. I liked the quiet where I was staying.

Now you had a question?

Yes, thanks.
I will create the thread, and mention you, since it's not directly related to the topic, although connected. Give me a moment.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Michael is under the command of Jesus. To believe that Jesus is Michael incarnate is false.
The whole Bible is about Christ ... and only five verses about Michael.
You have been deceived!



You need to ask Him about that someday - He'll certainly correct you.



Firstborn from the dead. Firstborn also means preeminent. God became flesh and dwelt among us.



Which Bible are you reading? The NWT was originally translated by Fredrick Franz who had two years of Greek and couldn't translate one verse of Hebrew in a court of law. He was a hack. Christian Scholars throughout the world agree that this is the only Bible translation that was written specifically to conform to the JW belief system. Your doctrines conflicted with the others so they went in and changed words and phrases. Do you know what it says at the end of the Bible about those who add to or take away from God's word? I imagine alterations have been made since that first edition. Nevertheless, concerning these very crucial doctrines, changes are evident that would lead the reader to interpret the meaning differently - as you do.

Jesus is a big part of it Ron, but the actual theme of the Bible is this: The vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the fulfillment of His purpose for the earth by means of His Kingdom under Christ, the promised offspring.

Jesus is the rider of the white horse of Rev 6:2, Michael and HIS angels cast satan out of heaven. Michael is the highest angel, a term that spirit beings with the exception of God applies to. The next step is JESUS returning with his powerful angels in the near future to remove the wicked, and that includes binding satan for a millennium. 2 Thes 1:7. Revelation says an unnamed angel does this. Rev 20: 1,2 and eventually he will be cast into the lake of fire after being released. We know from Genesis 3:15 that the seed that crushes satans head, or in other words kills him is Jesus. Michael means who is like God, and as I stated to you before, he was not called Jesus until he came to earth, which means by the way Jehovah is Salvation.

He was obviously called something before coming, he is number 2 in position just under God, when he returns with the archangels voice, he is not lowering himself sir, he is in fact the highest angel in authority. Your deliberately ignoring evidence to promote Jesus as being Jehovah Himself, that is why you choose to say Jesus is not Michael. I believe he is. Time will of course reveal the truth as right now it is only opinion.

 

[Robert Gwin]

The Scripture I quoted you was not a mistake.

I agree, it was a deliberate alteration. No matter, those who refuse to use God's name will never have a close relationship with Him, therefore they according to the verse will not be saved. Your choice.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Hi Robert, I didn't bother to read through ALL the comments here, so forgive me if this has been covered, but we really don't know what the
correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.

The official website of the Catholic Church states:
“About the 13th century the term ‘Jehovah’ appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of ‘Yahweh’ and pronounced it with the vowels of ‘Adonai.’ This resulted in the sound ‘Yahowah,’ which has a Latinized spelling of ‘Jehovah.’ The first recorded use of this spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270” (www.catholic.com/qa/is-gods-name-yahweh-or-jehovah).

Below are some references to Yahweh:

“The true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced ‘Yahweh’” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 7, p. 680).​

“Early Christian writers, such as Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, had used the form Yahweh, thus this pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was never really lost. Greek transcriptions also indicated that YHWH should be pronounced Yahweh” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. x, p. 786).​

“The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliteration of the name into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form iaoue (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe (Theodoret; by this time Gk. b had the pronunciation of v)…Strictly speaking, Yahweh is the only ‘name’ of God. In Genesis wherever the word sem (‘name’) is associated with the divine being that name is Yahweh” (Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, 1979 p. 478).​

“Such a conclusion, giving ‘Yahweh’ as the pronunciation of the name, is confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers and gentile writers, where the forms IAO, Yaho, Yaou, Yahouai, and Yahoue appear. Especially important is the statement of Theodoret in relation to Ex. lvi, when he says: ‘the Samaritans call it [the tetragrammaton] ‘Yabe,’ the Jews call it ‘Aia’…” (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, “Yahweh,” p. 471)​

In addition to early Christian sources, evidence for Yahweh is also found in the Nag Hammadi codices, dating from the 2nd to 4th century CE. This library of Gnostic writings was discovered in Upper Egypt, near Nag Hammadi, in 1945. In all, there are over 50 texts within this library. Since they are in Greek, as with the church fathers, they preserve the pronunciation.

Interestingly, there is a whole movement under the umbrella SACRED NAME GROUPS that uses YAHWEH in their worship. They have nothing to do with the Jehovah's Witness religion, but have similar basic beliefs.

• Witnesses of Yahweh
• Congregation of Yahweh's Witnesses
• Assemblies of Yahweh
• Assembly of Yahweh
• House of Yahweh
• Restored Israel of Yahweh

Not sure exactly what they refer to themselves as, "I'm a Witness of Yahweh" or "We're Yahweh's Witnesses"

Those among the SACRED NAME GROUPS, have differences among themselves as to the proper pronunciation. There was a group called Assemblies of Yah, Assemblies of Yahvah, Called out ones of Yah. There is even a group called Assembly of YHWHHOSHUA, a hybrid of Yahweh and Hoshua. One group uses the name Yahuwah. Then of course there is Stafford's group that uses the term Christian Witnesses of Jah.

Hi Berean, I hope you are like the Beroeans, who examine the Scriptures to see if what others says is true. Think on this. God either exists or He don't. God either provided the Bible or He didn't. God either gave His name or He didn't. Simply some truths. Many people have said the very same thing you did likely because that is the common explanation of one of the reasons that people use to justify not saying God's name, the other is that it is too Sacred to be pronounced. The truth is that God's name is found in the Hebrew language part of the Bible nearly 7000 times. Yes sir, more than any other name.

So consider this, the official language of the Nation of Israel today is Hebrew. Is it the same language as it was 3500 yrs ago when the Bible began to be penned? Heck, I do not know. But I can say this, if you cannot make heads or tails of YHWH because it has no vowels, then obviously no one can make heads or tails out of any other word penned in the Hebrew passages, correct? Or is that the only word that cannot be known for sure how to pronounce? If so, why? Logic tells me that those who speak Hebrew today, should be able to pronounce His name correctly.

The Bible is an amazing book, throughout history many powerful forces has tried to eliminate it, but have been unsuccessful, why? In fact it is the most publicized and most widely distributed book available in the most languages, why? One very logical reason is that God actually does exist, and He wants people throughout the entire earth to come to know Him. Keep in mind as well, that words are different in different languages, you used the term Jehovah, as did I. What is Jehovah? All translators who did not alter YHWH and translated it into English rendered it Jehovah, why? I speak English, and I know how to pronounce it, but I will say that many of my faith mispronounce it, heck one of the governing body on several occasions pronounces it Jehover, not always, but once in a while he does. We have one in my congregation that pronounces it the same way.

Another line of evidence is to look at the King James Version. That was to become the chief Bible of the English world for hundreds of years, many still use it. The translators did their utmost to remove God's name from that version replacing YHWH with Adonai rendering it LORD. However they were unsuccessful in that Jehovah's name appears in 4 verses in full, others as Jah. So why were they unsuccessful? I submit that Jehovah protected His name, in fact when other versions came out with His name restored throughout the Bible, the translators of derivatives of the KJV were sucessful in removing it, although I know of no English translation that has been able to eliminate it completely.

Adding to this in line with the topic, is it proper to speak God's name? Many examples of God's people doing so throughout the Bible sir, Jesus even making it manifest to his followers Jn 17:6. Since we as his followers are obligated to teach all the things he commanded Mat 28:20 then we too make that name known to all we teach. Hope that helps sir, nice speaking to you.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Can you refresh my memory as to when Jesus used God's name?

Bob I am sorry sir, I replied to this yesterday but I do not see it here today so I will repeat it.

I like Mat 4:10 the best and use it frequently, perhaps you have seen me post it before. Jesus said:
“Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

I am sorry for the delay sir, I was hoping to discuss it further today, but guess it will have to be tomorrow.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Okay. Let me try your approach.
Okay. Waste of my time. I'm not even going to start. I see a wall.
How did that go?

It does not mean you can't talk about something else; it does not mean you condemn the person or put them on your ignore list and it doesn't mean you can't have a relationship with them.
I have wonderful nephews and nieces, in-laws, many Jw's. I am going to lunch with one now. We have a wonderful loving relationship - WE JUST DON'T TALK BIBLE. We know there is a wall and so what is the point. But we talk about every other thing under the sun - oh, not politics either.
I often like and agree with some folks on this forum on certain topics and disagree on others. Once you have been down that road with them several times, no need to get stuck in the mud again.
There are a few on my ignore list though. I don't get along with everyone and that's okay - I don't need to. I try and then if not, move on. Actually I think Robert Gwin is a nice person and so are most JW's. Mormons are too. They put Biblical principles into practice. They know sin and know love. The nature of God ... that's something else.

 

[Bob Estey]

Bob I am sorry sir, I replied to this yesterday but I do not see it here today so I will repeat it.

I like Mat 4:10 the best and use it frequently, perhaps you have seen me post it before. Jesus said:
“Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

I am sorry for the delay sir, I was hoping to discuss it further today, but guess it will have to be tomorrow.

But Jesus was quoting scripture. Does Jesus every use God's name when he isn't quoting scripture?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Are you making God's name known to others?

it is a good question. The debate is over a name spoken for example how we assign names to children or friends. What if “are you making God’s name known to others” has nothing to do with a technical name others judge you as not correctly knowing, but actively living…alive unto God? 1 Peter 4:14-15 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye ; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. [15] But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

Same with making His name manifest or known in places? What does that even mean to manifest Christ in every place? Malachi 1:11-12 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. [12] But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

 

[Jim B]

Bob I am sorry sir, I replied to this yesterday but I do not see it here today so I will repeat it.

I like Mat 4:10 the best and use it frequently, perhaps you have seen me post it before. Jesus said:
“Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

I am sorry for the delay sir, I was hoping to discuss it further today, but guess it will have to be tomorrow.

I'm not sure which translation you're using. My preferred translation, the NET v2.1, has Matthew 4:10 as " Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’”

The NIV has "Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’" Virtually identical to the NET.

The KJV -- not my favorite -- says "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

None of these have "Jehovah your God..." or "sacred service".

 

[Jane_Doe22]

It does not mean you can't talk about something else; it does not mean you condemn the person or put them on your ignore list and it doesn't mean you can't have a relationship with them.
I have wonderful nephews and nieces, in-laws, many Jw's. I am going to lunch with one now. We have a wonderful loving relationship - WE JUST DON'T TALK BIBLE. We know there is a wall and so what is the point. But we talk about every other thing inder the sun - oh, not politics either.
I often like and agree with some folks on this forum on certain topics and disagree on others. Once you have been down that road with them several times, no need to get stuck in the mud again.
There are a few in my ignore list though. I don't get along with everyone and that's okay - I don't need to. I try and then if not, move in. Actually I think Robert Gwin is a nice person and so are most JW's. Mormins are to. They put Biblical principles into practice. They know sin and know love. The nature of God ... that's something else.

The "ignore" feature on forums is certainly a good feature.
In real life, having boundaries on which subjects are good to talk about or not is also good, and healthy.

If you're interested, I did recently put together a thread talking about what "Mormons" like myself believe about the nature of God. Later posts also compare beliefs/practice with JW. LDS Christians believe 1 in God

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Jesus is a big part of it Ron, but the actual theme of the Bible is this: The vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the fulfillment of His purpose for the earth by means of His Kingdom under Christ, the promised offspring

Scholars have said Jesus is on every page. He is the Word, Logos, the exact expression of God, the fullness of glory and grace, the source of Life, the Creator, an eternal Being, in Whom we have salvation, forgiveness, our being. In Him all things consist (are held together *Col. 16, 17). That means every atom in the universe. He and rhe Father are ONE. He could not make that statement unless He is equal to the Father in every way. One could not have all authority over heaven and earth unless you were all knowing, all powerful and omnipresent. Angels are not like God, they are not that knowledgable, not that powerful and can only be in one place at a time.

Jesus is the rider of the white horse of Rev 6:2,

Some some think this because Jesus shows up on a white horse with many crowns in Rev. 19.
The four horses of the apolcalypse
deliver pestilence, war, famine and death. The first horse is the Antichrist, who is given a crown (what I believe is coronavirus) and goes out to conquer the world. That is the power over the entire world that is manipulating mankind into submission to the One World Government, through lies, fear and vaccines.

Your deliberately ignoring evidence to promote Jesus as being Jehovah Himself, that is why you choose to say Jesus is not Michael

No, what has been known since Christ is know now and some are deliberately distorting the truth and it is a dishonor and degrading. Dishonor the Son and you dishonor the Father. You don't worship Jesus because you think He is an angel and we are not supposed worship angels. Michael or Grabriel would prohibit anyone from bowing to them and worshipping them. But every knee will bow to Jesus. We do now.
Well, I can go on but we've reached it again, the impenetrable wall.

 

[DavidB]

Matthew 28:18
“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”

Who gave Jesus that authority?

 

[DavidB]

Regarding John 10:30 and the Trinity:

“Now we come to the supreme claim of I and the Father are one,’ said Jesus. What did he mean? Is it absolute mystery, or can we understand at least a little of it?

“If we go to the Bible itself for the interpretation, we find that it is in fact so simple that the simplest mind can grasp it. Let us turn to the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel, which tells of the prayer of Jesus for his followers before he went to his death: ‘Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one’ (John 17:11). Jesus conceived of the unity of Christian with Christian as the same as his unity with God.”

“Here is the essence of the matter, the bond of unity is love; the proof of love is obedience. Christians are one with each other when they are bound by love, and obey the words of Christ. Jesus is one with God, because as no other ever did, he obeyed and loved him. His unity with God is a unity of perfect love, issuing in perfect obedience.”

William Barclay

 

[The Disciple John]

It does not mean you can't talk about something else; it does not mean you condemn the person or put them on your ignore list and it doesn't mean you can't have a relationship with them.

Okay cool.
What can we talk about, on here... in the event that we did "hit a wall"? ...which I hope we don't. :)

I have wonderful nephews and nieces, in-laws, many Jw's. I am going to lunch with one now. We have a wonderful loving relationship - WE JUST DON'T TALK BIBLE. We know there is a wall and so what is the point. But we talk about every other thing under the sun - oh, not politics either.

Wonderful! You must be thankful to have wonderful nephews and nieces. :) That cannot be said of many.
No doubt, the Bible has had a good influence on your family.

I often like and agree with some folks on this forum on certain topics and disagree on others. Once you have been down that road with them several times, no need to get stuck in the mud again.

I can certainly agree with you here.
If you travel the same road several times, and hit a dead-end, it doesn't seem like the course of widom to go down the same road again.
The next time, you take a different route, and see if it leads anywhere.
So changing the topic works sometimes. ;)

There are a few on my ignore list though. I don't get along with everyone and that's okay - I don't need to. I try and then if not, move on. Actually I think Robert Gwin is a nice person and so are most JW's. Mormons are too. They put Biblical principles into practice. They know sin and know love. The nature of God ... that's something else.

I'm sure your relatives say the same about you.

 

[The Disciple John]

Matthew 28:18
“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”

Who gave Jesus that authority?

Good verse.
Jesus' God and father gave him all authority.

 

[Robert Gwin]

It does not mean you can't talk about something else; it does not mean you condemn the person or put them on your ignore list and it doesn't mean you can't have a relationship with them.
I have wonderful nephews and nieces, in-laws, many Jw's. I am going to lunch with one now. We have a wonderful loving relationship - WE JUST DON'T TALK BIBLE. We know there is a wall and so what is the point. But we talk about every other thing under the sun - oh, not politics either.
I often like and agree with some folks on this forum on certain topics and disagree on others. Once you have been down that road with them several times, no need to get stuck in the mud again.
There are a few on my ignore list though. I don't get along with everyone and that's okay - I don't need to. I try and then if not, move on. Actually I think Robert Gwin is a nice person and so are most JW's. Mormons are too. They put Biblical principles into practice. They know sin and know love. The nature of God ... that's something else.

Thank you Ron for your kind comment sir, I try, but must admit it is a struggle. Although I am unsure at this time, it is quite possible John is of my faith as well, so far we have agreed on all things discussed. Like you say, most every faith will have some agreements, and disagreements with other faiths, that is how they were formed to begin with Acts 20:29,30

 

[Cassandra]

Hey, if YHWH is Hebrew, and Jehovah is the English version of it, the what are Hebrew Jehovah Witnesses supposed to call God?

 

[Robert Gwin]

But Jesus was quoting scripture. Does Jesus every use God's name when he isn't quoting scripture?

Yes sir Jesus was quoting Deut 6:13 when he used God's name there. It is impossible to answer your question, why? Because as you know the original Greek Scriptures do not exist, and no copy contained the Divine name anywhere, that I am aware of anyway. The translators of the NWT did include it in the "New Testament" where "OT" verses was quoted and the Divine name was in the verse, which is logical. We do know that Jesus used it enough that it was manifest to his close followers. Jn 17:6 he concludes his prayer to Jehovah with I have made your name known, and will make it known v 26.

Jesus' disciples have been given the assignment to teach all the things he commanded Mat 28:20, so making God's name known is one of the things we teach. Another place where it is of extreme importance to be included is Romans 10:13 which was a quotation from Joel 2:32, when the translators place Lord there, especially with the preceding verses, one would form the conclusion that this meant calling on Jesus' name rather than Jehovah, but because Jesus' disciples do verse 14, 15 that is no longer an issue, unless of course, those who hear stop their ears from hearing.