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?

[Tcg]

... the Witness position on the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament takes on a completely different dimension. You are arguing that the nature of the text, including the very words of Jesus, has completely changed, but in a short enough period of time that all direct evidence of it was lost. To say that your position is untenable is an understatement.

The conviction that the name of the Jewish God was originally included in early Christian Greek texts is not unique to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Even if that is true, it doesn't prove the JW's right. It could simply mean that other groups are in error just as the JWs are.


Tcg

[onewithhim]

Looks like He wanted it to be used.

Unless we change the New Testament, it looks like Jesus disagreed.

No, he didn't. Did you bother to read the 23rd chapter of Matthew?

Yes, onewithhim.

Maybe you can find somewhere in that chapter where Jesus discusses saying the Holy Name instead of replacing it with an epithet.

He didn't go along with the Pharisees at all.

Since that's obviously not true in any sort of absolute sense (they were all Jewish, after all), the key is figuring out exactly where they would have disagreed. You've projected your own theology onto Jesus to the point that you're willing to believe that the true history of the New Testament runs completely counter to the manuscript evidence. I've been known to indulge in the idea that certain verses contain interpolations despite no manuscript evidence, but the Witness position on the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament takes on a completely different dimension. You are arguing that the nature of the text, including the very words of Jesus, has completely changed, but in a short enough period of time that all direct evidence of it was lost. To say that your position is untenable is an understatement.

You keep saying that Jesus was a Jew and would go along with the prevailing customs. I asked about Matthew 23 and you said you read it. My point was that Jesus obviously did not adhere to the Jews' prevailing customs. He told them they taught the commands of men rather than God's. So he would have undoubtedly used God's personal name.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #109]

An interesting take on the subject, and one not to be ignored. It has the same merit as your ideas:

The NWT Study Bible, pp.1564, 1565 has this to say: "'Restoring the Divine Name.' Throughout the centuries many translations of parts or all of the Christian Greek Scriptures [N.T.] have been made into Hebrew. Such translations, designated in this work by 'J' with a superior number, have restored the divine name to the N.T. in various places. They have restored the divine name not only when coming upon quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures but also in other places where the texts called for such restoration.

"To know where the divine name was replaced by the Greek words for Lord and God, we have determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way we determined the identity to give [the Hebrew for Lord and God] and the personality with which to clothe them.

"To avoid overstepping the bounds of a translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most cautious about rendering the divine name in the [N.T.] always carefully considering the Hebrew Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from the Hebrew versions to confirm our rendering. Thus, out of the 237 times that we have rendered the divine name in the body of our translation, there is only one instance where we have NO agreement from the Hebrew versions. But in this one instance, namely ICor. 7:17, the context and related texts strongly support rendering the divine name."

[Difflugia]

You keep saying that Jesus was a Jew and would go along with the prevailing customs. I asked about Matthew 23 and you said you read it. My point was that Jesus obviously did not adhere to the Jews' prevailing customs.

No? Jesus didn't believe that Yahweh is the god of Israel? That the Torah is sacred? That he shouldn't shave his head? That he shouldn't eat pork?

Because Jesus apparently had issue with some Pharisaic doctrines obviously doesn't mean that he had problems with all of them. Similarly, you don't get to claim that he had problems with any that aren't mentioned, but that you've decided should have been. It's circular to argue that because Jesus is recorded as disagreeing with some doctrines, he therefore disagreed with any others that you'd like to tack on.

He told them they taught the commands of men rather than God's. So he would have undoubtedly used God's personal name.

That's a total non sequitur. You haven't established that Jesus thought the same way about the commandment that you do. This may come as a surprise to you, but you thinking that isn't sufficient evidence that Jesus or any of the evangelists did.

[Difflugia]

An interesting take on the subject, and one not to be ignored. It has the same merit as your ideas:

Your argument seems to be that Witnesses haven't changed the Greek scriptures because it's OK that they did. You've repeatedly made a similar argument in other discussions, like NWT translational paraphrase, mistranslations for theological reasons, and Jesus breaking the fourth commandment.

"It didn't happen because it's OK if it did" isn't logically sound.

Pick a lane. Are you arguing that Witnesses haven't changed the Bible or that it's OK that they do?

[onewithhim]

An interesting take on the subject, and one not to be ignored. It has the same merit as your ideas:

Your argument seems to be that Witnesses haven't changed the Greek scriptures because it's OK that they did. You've repeatedly made a similar argument in other discussions, like NWT translational paraphrase, mistranslations for theological reasons, and Jesus breaking the fourth commandment.

"It didn't happen because it's OK if it did" isn't logically sound.

Pick a lane. Are you arguing that Witnesses haven't changed the Bible or that it's OK that they do?

I'm arguing that the JWs haven't changed the Bible. They adhere to the thoughts of the original languages' texts.

[Difflugia]

Pick a lane. Are you arguing that Witnesses haven't changed the Bible or that it's OK that they do?

I'm arguing that the JWs haven't changed the Bible.

Neither the Tetragrammaton nor "Jehovah" appears nowhere in the New Testament manuscripts. The NWT represents that it does. That's a change.

They adhere to the thoughts of the original languages' texts.

So, the NWT isn't what the Bible says, but what it means to say?