The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[JehovahsWitness]

"Jesus made God's name known when he taught people about God. Read John 17:26" This is referring to where the gospel writer Jesus say: "I have made your name known".

I see where you have misunderstood now, thank you.

Evidently you have misunderstood what we (JWs) believe Jesus meant when he said he "made known" Jehovah's name. This does not mean that the Jews were previously unaware what God's name was (they were perfectly aware that their God was called YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah)) rather he (Jesus) "made it known" in that he revealed additional aspects of the person that name represented. He publicized the name and the person it stood for.


If you would kindly turn back to p. 5 of the brochure Good News From God! , look at the sentence at the end of the second paragraph (section 3), you will see it reads:

" Jesus made God’s name known when he taught people about God.​—Read John 17:26"

There is no mention that Jesus revealed a hitherto unknown name only that that he "taught people about God". Jehovah's Witnesses are fully aware that name was initially revealed many thousands of years earlier.

I was only going by what those who visited me presented me with.

I understand. Now I hope you understand that you completely misunderstood what the Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe on this point. Please don't hesistate to ask the people that visit you for further clarification on this topic (or ask me or the other JWs here online)

Regards,


JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[JehovahsWitness]

The reason being that identification isn't enough.
[...] Again, this has nothing to do with identification or establishing God's identity. It is much more than that.

Thank you for your post, I'm having problems however following the logic . Are you saying that the total elimination of the Divine Name from the bible is justified because it didn't "identify God enough"?

No, I'm trying to point out that the Name identifies Who God is, but that identification isn't enough to actually know who God is.

So?

What does this tell us about REMOVING the Divine Name from scripture? Anything? Nothing? Does the above fact justify the removal of the name of God from the bible?

I'm just pointing out that name recognition isn't enough to know God. Jesus , Paul etc. aren't suggesting that recognizing God's Name is sufficient either.

Granted. But are you suggesting Jehovah's Witnesses teach recognizing God's Name is sufficient?

[JehovahsWitness]

He is speaking figuratively as the law has no actual name. He's pointing out that he has been given the authority to detain, arrest and bring criminals to justice by the legal system.

Are you suggesting that God actually didn't reveal his personal name in scripture but that it was "figurative" and that, like "the law" God doesn't actually HAVE a personal name? Is that your point?

No {snip} ...

Okay so we both agree, unlike "the law" God does have a personal name.

Are you suggesting that because "the law" is not a person and does NOT have a personal name, God's personal name should for this reason be removed from the bible?

[shnarkle]

Evidently you have misunderstood what we (JWs) believe Jesus meant when he said he "made known" Jehovah's name. This does not mean that the Jews were previously unaware what God's name was (they were perfectly aware that their God was called YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah)

I agree. I wasn't suggesting they were. The people who were sharing their perspective believed this. When I pointed out that these Jews would all know God's name, they suggested that it was referring to gentiles. I pointed out that Jesus' mission wasn't to reveal much of anything to gentiles.

rather he (Jesus) "made it known" in that he revealed additional aspects of the person that name represented. He publicized the name and the person it stood for.

I don't think so. God is not a person. The definition of person begins as follows: "a man, woman, or child...etc." God is none of these things. Moreover, the word person comes from persona which is "a mask".

Again, from: "it-2 pp. 13-15 Jehovah":

"Since he is a Spirit beyond the power of humans to see (joh4:24), any description of his appearance in human terms can only approximate his incomparable glory. (Isa 40:25,26)." This sentence contains a contradiction. First it claims that Jehovah is a spirit (which is false), and then points out that his glory is incomparable (which is true). The problem is that a spirit is not the same thing as saying that God "is spirit" or " is spiritual". To say that God is a spirit is to say that God is a form or type of spirit. God is not a part of the created order of things. God cannot be subjected to a system of classification. God created everything that can be classified. He creates the system of classification.

In the next paragraph we read: "The so-called anthropomorphisms, therefore, are never to be taken literally, any more than other metaphoric references to God as a "sun," "shield," or "Rock." I have to agree so personification is in no way literally referring to God as a literal person.

While that makes more sense than to claim he was making God's name known, it doesn't really make much more sense than his claims to authority especially given the figurative meaning of "name" being commonly associated with authority. Add to that the fact that this topic is explicitly referred to, and it seems clearly to be the correct interpretation.

you completely misunderstood what the Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe on this point. Please don't hesistate to ask the people that visit you for further clarification on this topic

They gave up. They brought some other people who seemed to know considerably more about this and other subjects, but they also seemed to be too busy for a return visit. I'd like to see some evidence of this claim that it was just referring to Jesus revealing more about God. With so much being said about Jehovah's name, I find this hard to believe, especially when it comes to the insistence that this was (and according to them, still is!) for identification purposes.

[shnarkle]

He is speaking figuratively as the law has no actual name. He's pointing out that he has been given the authority to detain, arrest and bring criminals to justice by the legal system.

Are you suggesting that God actually didn't reveal his personal name in scripture but that it was "figurative" and that, like "the law" God doesn't actually HAVE a personal name? Is that your point?

No {snip} ...

Okay so we both agree, unlike "the law" God does have a personal name.

Are you suggesting that because "the law" is not a person and does NOT have a personal name, God's personal name should for this reason be removed from the bible?

Not at all.

[shnarkle]

What does this tell us about REMOVING the Divine Name from scripture? Anything? Nothing? Does the above fact justify the removal of the name of God from the bible?

I'm not suggesting that the divine name be removed from the bible.

I'm just pointing out that name recognition isn't enough to know God. Jesus , Paul etc. aren't suggesting that recognizing God's Name is sufficient either.

Granted. But are you suggesting Jehovah's Witnesses teach recognizing God's Name is sufficient?

Not necessarily. What I am pointing out is that they are teaching that knowing God's name allows one to know God. JW's told me that identifying God allows us to know God.

[JehovahsWitness]

What does this tell us about REMOVING the Divine Name from scripture? Anything? Nothing? Does the above fact justify the removal of the name of God from the bible?

I'm not suggesting that the divine name be removed from the bible.

Good. Well that was the point I was contesting (to which your initial post # 87 was responding) so I will ignore all your subsequent posts as (interesting as they are) irrelevant.


Best Regards and please, enjoy the rest of your week,


JW

[bluethread]

So, what does all of that say about the import of YHWH and it's place on worship?

You tell me!

• What do you think it says? That there is a division between the Hebrew bible and the Christian bible? That the contents of the latter render null and void the previous? That God's name has expired its use? Been superceded by an alternative title? That we should praise God's name without ever mentioning it?

You tell me what you believe all of this means; I'd be most interested in hearing your conclusions. And then you can go back to explaining how important it is not to mispell the name of ... ABRAHAM

Well, I am not the one complaining about the use of the term YHWH. I don't think that there is a division between the Hebrew canon(the Tanakh) and the Christian canon. In fact, the Christian canon includes the Tanakh. I do not believe that the writings of the Apostles render the Tanakh null and void. I also do not think that the name YHWH has expired it's use or been superceeded by another. If one wishes to use the phrase, "the Devine Name" rather than YHWH in praise, that is fine with me. It is like using "Adonai" rather than YHWH, IMO. For me, I prefer to use the term that best meets the context of the conversation. However, when I use an actual name, I like to use the spelling that best matches how it would have been pronounced in the original language. That is why I write Avraham rather than Abraham, because, to the best of my knowledge, the Hebrew letter bet, in that case, does not have a dagesh(dot) so it carries the English "v" sound when used in that name. That said, I do not correct others for spelling it Abraham, unless it is pertinant to the specific discussion.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do not believe that the writings of the Apostles render the Tanakh null and void.

So why were you telling me that the Apostles didn't use Jehovah/YHWH? What was the point you were attempting to make?

[shnarkle]

What does this tell us about REMOVING the Divine Name from scripture? Anything? Nothing? Does the above fact justify the removal of the name of God from the bible?

I'm not suggesting that the divine name be removed from the bible.

Good. Well that was the point I was contesting (to which your initial post # 87 was responding) so I will ignore all your subsequent posts as (interesting as they are) irrelevant.


Best Regards and please, enjoy the rest of your week,


JW

The funny thing here is that my response was quite relavent in that this idea that a name establishes one's identity actually serves to obscure, not just the identity, but Who is actually behind the identity. In other words, a name is a Symbol for something, right? Knowing a Symbol doesn't allow one to know what is signified, just the Symbol itself. The word associated with the figure Symbol is "substitution".

So while one acquires knowledge about the Symbol over their entire lives, they never get to know Who is signified by the Symbol itself. This is how and why a Symbol can obscure rather than reveal, and this is what seems to be such a common theme throughout scripture.

People makes these claims to knowledge and Jesus comes along and points out that they're hung up on externalities never seeing what's below or beneath the surface at all.

Yes, I'm discovering this theme of ignorance breeding irrelevance more and more It's really pervasive throughout our culture, especially when it comes to debate. People naturally seem to lapse into a myopic track and everything else is exiled to eternal damnation, and therefore incapable of redemption without a strenuous and repetitive battery of posts hammering out virtually the exact same formula of salvation over and over again until finally....the revelation. Which is then followed up with an immediate denial of any future validity, and once again summarily dismissed to penal fire.

My suspicion is that these dismissals are more a matter of inability than one of irrelevance which I will hopefully learn to appreciate them as euphemistic surrender rather than as a slight to attributed delicate sensibilities.

Enjoy your week as well