Did Jesus and his disciples tell others about Jehovah?

[Eloi]

The Jews to whom they were first preached the good news of the Kingdom already knew who God is. Jesus and his apostles were Jews, so they knew it too. The OT is full of references to the person of God and his personal name, so Jews were considered His witnesses (Is. 43:10-12). Jesus even told the Jews that the One they believed to be their God was his own Father.

John 8:54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.

Although Jesus mentioned his Father to them many times, he had to make them understand that he was the Messiah that Jehovah had promised before, but they did not believe him. In time it began to be preached to non-Jews who believed in many gods, and who had no idea of the importance of God's Messiah.

What God did Judeo-Christians speak to non-Jews when Christian congregations began to form in the first century? Did they talk about Jehovah, or did they forget about him? Can a worshiper of Jehovah forget his God?

[onewithhim]

Oh, well ... if you want my post in hebrew or greek, go to Google Translate as I do.

There's no need. The Greek New Testament reports how he read it (exactly, if one believes in plenary, verbal inerrancy):

πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπʼ ἐμὲ
οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με
εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς,
ἀπέσταλκέν με,
κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν
καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν,
ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει,
κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.

Since that's the Greek word for "Lord," we can assume that's a direct translation of Jesus' oral reading. It appears, at least to the extent that the Bible is authoritative, that Jesus replaced the Tetragrammaton with the Hebrew word אֲדֹנָי, 'Adonay.

Jesus would not have failed to speak his Father's name (John 17:6,26), especially in the places where he quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. The Tetragrammaton remained in all of the Hebrew scriptures, so, really, why would he not use it? It was a superstition the Jews had that didn't hold water, to avoid using God's name. (Exodus 3:15) It was they that replaced the Tetragrammaton with "Lord." Jehovah had said not to use his name in a disrespectful way. How is speaking his name using it in a disrespectful way? Translators down through the centuries have taken God's name out of their translations when it actually occurs 7,000 times in the Old Testament.

[Difflugia]

Jesus would not have failed to speak his Father's name (John 17:6,26), especially in the places where he quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. The Tetragrammaton remained in all of the Hebrew scriptures, so, really, why would he not use it?

Who knows? The New Testament reports that he didn't, though.

It was a superstition the Jews had that didn't hold water, to avoid using God's name. (Exodus 3:15)

Jesus was Jewish.

It was they that replaced the Tetragrammaton with "Lord." Jehovah had said not to use his name in a disrespectful way. How is speaking his name using it in a disrespectful way? Translators down through the centuries have taken God's name out of their translations when it actually occurs 7,000 times in the Old Testament.

No argument here.

[onewithhim]

Jesus would not have failed to speak his Father's name (John 17:6,26), especially in the places where he quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. The Tetragrammaton remained in all of the Hebrew scriptures, so, really, why would he not use it?

Who knows? The New Testament reports that he didn't, though.

Where does it report that he didn't?

[Difflugia]

Where does it report that he didn't?

Luke 4:18-19, the verses most recently being discussed. If the New Testament is historically accurate to that level of detail, whatever Jesus called Yahweh is equivalent to the Greek κυρίος, "lord."

[Eloi]

Where does it report that he didn't?

Luke 4:18-19, the verses most recently being discussed. If the New Testament is historically accurate to that level of detail, whatever Jesus called Yahweh is equivalent to the Greek κυρίος, "lord."

"Jehovah" and "Lord" are not equivalent anywhere. Lord is a title, and Jehovah is a personal name.

That the Greek manuscripts of the NT that have come into our hands do not contain the personal name of God, does not mean in any way that it was not there in the originals. That was also believed about the LXX until manuscripts with the name were discovered.

For the reasons stated above, and others, we know that the personal name of the God of Jesus and his followers was written in the original manuscripts. Many scholars have come to the same conclusion.

[Difflugia]

"Jehovah" and "Lord" are not equivalent anywhere. Lord is a title, and Jehovah is a personal name.

That's my point. According to Luke, Jesus said "Lord" when he read the Isaiah scroll.

That the Greek manuscripts of the NT that have come into our hands do not contain the personal name of God, does not mean in any way that it was not there in the originals.

That's an interesting argument. If unanimous manuscript evidence doesn't affect the presumed state of the originals "in any way," what exactly is it that you consider to be authoritative?

That was also believed about the LXX until manuscripts with the name were discovered.

Is the Septuagint inspired or authoritative?

For the reasons stated above, and others, we know that the personal name of the God of Jesus and his followers was written in the original manuscripts.

I think your syllogism is missing a few steps.

Many scholars have come to the same conclusion.

Can you offer any examples?

[Eloi]

The arguments are all over the topic.

[Tcg]

That the Greek manuscripts of the NT that have come into our hands do not contain the personal name of God, does not mean in any way that it was not there in the originals. That was also believed about the LXX until manuscripts with the name were discovered.

For the reasons stated above, and others, we know that the personal name of the God of Jesus and his followers was written in the original manuscripts. Many scholars have come to the same conclusion.

This is an astounding conclusion. It boils down to, "We know it was in the originals because it is NOT in the manuscripts we have now." It's an argument for the existence of something based on it's non-existence. Using this method we could conclude most anything we want about the Bible.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

The arguments are all over the topic.

If you mean that you or someone else has addressed either of my points or answered any one of my questions somewhere in this thread, then you're wrong. If you disagree, then it shouldn't be difficult to provide a link or quote or something. To reiterate:

• Luke records Jesus as replacing "Yahweh" with "Lord" or an implied pronoun when reading from Isaiah 61.
• If Luke's not authoritative for you, what is?
• You claim that different forms of the Septuagint imply that there are similar, but unknown forms of the New Testament. Are the circumstances surrounding the extant manuscripts of the Septuagint and New Testament similar enough to draw this conclusion?
• You've repeatedly asserted that you "know" that the Name of Yahweh appeared in the original manuscripts of the New Testament. You haven't actually supported that, though. So far, your argument amounts to quoting a few Old Testament passages and concluding that, since Jesus would have read them the same way you do, he must have said Yahweh's name.
• You appeal to "many scholars" agreeing with you. Pics or it didn't happen.

[Eloi]

That the Greek manuscripts of the NT that have come into our hands do not contain the personal name of God, does not mean in any way that it was not there in the originals. That was also believed about the LXX until manuscripts with the name were discovered.

For the reasons stated above, and others, we know that the personal name of the God of Jesus and his followers was written in the original manuscripts. Many scholars have come to the same conclusion.

This is an astounding conclusion. It boils down to, "We know it was in the originals because it is NOT in the manuscripts we have now." It's an argument for the existence of something based on it's non-existence. Using this method we could conclude most anything we want about the Bible.


Tcg

As I said before, and you can reread the previous posts if you missed it, the exact same thing happened with the LXX. Scholars thought that Jehovah's name had been omitted in that version originally because the surviving LXX manuscripts did not contain the name. UNTIL older LXX manuscripts were found that did contain it in Hebrew characters. Hence: that it is not in the NT manuscripts that we have is not proof that the name was not originally written there.

We know that the name was there, because we have many evidence showing that and as I said before, they are in the whole thread ... and with more time I will continue to post others.

If you analyze each argument made before thoroughly, you will not ask questions that have already been answered before. Thanks for participating in my topic.