What does Jehovah rightly expect of His worshippers?

[Samael_Khan]

I did, Mat 4:10, we say Jesus did not alter the passage. The original writings do not exist sir. The so called NT was written by Jesus' disciples, not the Jews who had no say in the matter, therefore their tradition is irrelevant.

The Kingdom had already been taken from them sir by the writings of the NT had began. They were so disgusting in Jehovah's site that before the writings were complete, Jehovah had Jerusalem destroyed.

The NT manuscripts we have of Matthew 4:10 say "kurioj" meaning "Lord". So there is no evidence that the original NT manuscripts have the divine name. Until you show those manuscripts showing that the divine name was used, there is no reason to think the the first century Christians didn't stick to Jewish tradition regarding replacing the divine name with Lord.

 

[eldritchsleep]

Well, according to the Bible, Jehovah demands numerous laws depending on your interpretation including obeying the 613 commandments of the Torah i.e. Laws of Moses which includes not working on Saturday, not eating shellfish or pork, not wearing clothing of mixed thread, and sacrificing animals in Jerusalem (and ONLY on a specific place there) every year. Often the punishment for not doing so is death by stoning.

Let's not forget these as well:

• Deuteronomy 20:10-14
• Deuteronomy 22:28-29
  
• Deuteronomy 22:23-24
  
• Exodus 21:2-6
  
• Exodus 21:7-11

 

[Rival]

Well, according to the Bible, Jehovah demands numerous laws depending on your interpretation including obeying the 613 commandments of the Torah i.e. Laws of Moses which includes not working on Saturday, not eating shellfish or pork, not wearing clothing of mixed thread, and sacrificing animals in Jerusalem (and ONLY on a specific place there) every year. Often the punishment for not doing so is death by stoning.

Let's not forget these as well:

• Deuteronomy 20:10-14
• Deuteronomy 22:28-29
  
• Deuteronomy 22:23-24
  
• Exodus 21:2-6
  
• Exodus 21:7-11

Torah is only for Jews.

 

[eldritchsleep]

Torah is only for Jews.

Sure I was just pointing out what Jehovah wants making my statements still true. So yes, Jehovah wants the Jews to do all that is listed then. He doesn't care about gentiles and in fact encourages the Jews to slaughter and enslave them. After all, he is only the god of Israel. Who cares about the rest of us? Definitely not the creator of the universe.

 

[Rival]

Sure I was just pointing out what Jehovah wants making my statements still true. So yes, Jehovah wants the Jews to do all that is listed then. He doesn't care about gentiles and in fact encourages the Jews to slaughter and enslave them. After all, he is only the god of Israel. Who cares about the rest of us? Definitely not the creator of the universe.

No, He doesn't want that and He does care about non-Jews. The whole Book of Genesis is about non-Jews.

Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...ish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm

The Modern Noahide Movement - My Jewish Learning

 

[sojourner]

Wonder why all translators of the Divine name in English render it Jehovah? As I stated, with the expansion of His people, and the good news being declared earth wide, evidence shows He accepts the English rendering of His name.

They don’t. The NRSV renders it as LORD.

 

[eldritchsleep]

No, He doesn't want that and He does care about non-Jews. The whole Book of Genesis is about non-Jews.

Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...ish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm

The Modern Noahide Movement - My Jewish Learning

Only because Jews didn't exist yet. Can't have Jews without Jacob. Everything before Jacob was about Noah then only Abraham then Isaac then Jacob. Everything after that point was 100% Israel, good bye gentiles. Gentiles get 7 laws and one whole book out of five in the Torah while Jews get the entire rest of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible)? Seems a little biased. Especially since the rest of the book is nothing but kill the Canaanites, enslave the foreigners (and take their women and children for yourselves) and don't you dare to do anything in the likeness of those pesky gentiles, especially not worship their gods or I'll enslave you to them. He cares about non-Jews to make sure the Jews obey him.

 

[capumetu]

The NT manuscripts we have of Matthew 4:10 say "kurioj" meaning "Lord". So there is no evidence that the original NT manuscripts have the divine name. Until you show those manuscripts showing that the divine name was used, there is no reason to think the the first century Christians didn't stick to Jewish tradition regarding replacing the divine name with Lord.

There you have it sir, it was written at Deut 6:13, you say Jesus changed it to Lord, we say he used the original passage so only one of us can be correct.

 

[capumetu]

They don’t. The NRSV renders it as LORD.

What was written originally Sojurn? Do you believe Jesus would have altered the original?

 

[sojourner]

What was written originally Sojurn? Do you believe Jesus would have altered the original?

Non-argument. Here’s why:
1) No text is original, so no “alteration of the original is possible.” There is no such thing as “what was originally written.”
2) “What Jesus might do” is conjecture at best, and a moot point, since Jesus was of a completely different culture and religious praxis than we. we have different textual needs than Jesus would have.
3) Jesus was not a biblical literalist. That mistake didn’t happen until the texts had all been written down, and gone through several bouts of editing and redacting.
4) “Jehovah” sure as heck represents a “change from the original” that didn’t happen until 1600 years after Jesus, so you don’t get to judge.
5) What was written in the oldest texts we have was “YHVH.” Since Judeans of Jesus’ time didn’t pronounce the Holy Name, a substitute was used when reciting. “LORD” is as good as any other, and is much closer to an English equivalent of what Jesus would have used than is “Jehovah.”

Yes. Jesus “altered” what he read when he recited.

 

[capumetu]

Non-argument. Here’s why:
1) No text is original, so no “alteration of the original is possible.” There is no such thing as “what was originally written.”
2) “What Jesus might do” is conjecture at best, and a moot point, since Jesus was of a completely different culture and religious praxis than we. we have different textual needs than Jesus would have.
3) Jesus was not a biblical literalist. That mistake didn’t happen until the texts had all been written down, and gone through several bouts of editing and redacting.
4) “Jehovah” sure as heck represents a “change from the original” that didn’t happen until 1600 years after Jesus, so you don’t get to judge.
5) What was written in the oldest texts we have was “YHVH.” Since Judeans of Jesus’ time didn’t pronounce the Holy Name, a substitute was used when reciting. “LORD” is as good as any other, and is much closer to an English equivalent of what Jesus would have used than is “Jehovah.”

Yes. Jesus “altered” what he read when he recited.

There you have it sir, we teach Jesus quoted what was written exactly.

 

[sojourner]

There you have it sir, we teach Jesus quoted what was written exactly.

You have no way of backing up that teaching with evidence.

precisely because, for people of that time and culture, “exactly what was written” wasn’t on their radar. You, I’m afraid, have it wrong.

 

[metis]

There you have it sir, we teach Jesus quoted what was written exactly.

Why would your GB assume as such? He spoke Aramaic, which is not exactly the same as Hebrew, and then this all got written in Koine Greek to form the NT. Either way, "Jehovah" simply doesn't fit as previously covered, nor can we be certain what language he cited scripture in.

Again, as we've seen way too many times, the GB puts out "information" that is all too often simply not true, plus many other teachings that are conjectural at best. So, it's best to do some of the homework on your own versus blindly believing what they say, and a lot of their more "questionable" teachings deals with their attacks on other denominations, so much of which is categorially false. I've read many copies of "Awake!" and "The Watch Tower" over the years, so I'm not speculating about this.

 

[capumetu]

Why would your GB assume as such? He spoke Aramaic, which is not exactly the same as Hebrew, and then this all got written in Koine Greek to form the NT. Either way, "Jehovah" simply doesn't fit as previously covered, nor can we be certain what language he cited scripture in.

Again, as we've seen way too many times, the GB puts out "information" that is all too often simply not true, plus many other teachings that are conjectural at best. So, it's best to do some of the homework on your own versus blindly believing what they say, and a lot of their more "questionable" teachings deals with their attacks on other denominations, so much of which is categorially false. I've read many copies of "Awake!" and "The Watch Tower" over the years, so I'm not speculating about this.

What are you talking about Metis? Please get to the point.

 

[metis]

What are you talking about Metis? Please get to the point.

I can't put it any simpler than in my last post.

 

[capumetu]

I can't put it any simpler than in my last post.

Nor can I, again, we teach Jesus quoted Deut 6:13 as written, not altering the most critical of words like changing YHWH to Adonai as you did.

 

[metis]

Nor can I, again, we teach Jesus quoted Deut 6:13 as written, not altering the most critical of words like changing YHWH to Adonai as you did.

I did no such thing, and you continue to ignore the simple fact that there are numerous names for God found in Hebrew in the oldest versions of the Tanakh that we have. I linked you twice to such proof, and yet you seemingly either didn't read them or you chose to ignore reality.

Again, here: Names of God in Judaism.

 

[capumetu]

I did no such thing, and you continue to ignore the simple fact that there are numerous names for God found in Hebrew in the oldest versions of the Tanakh that we have. I linked you twice to such proof, and yet you seemingly either didn't read them or you chose to ignore reality.

Again, here: Names of God in Judaism.

I say He has one name, show me any others found in the Bible. Don't send links, send scripture.

 

[metis]

I say He has one name, show me any others found in the Bible. Don't send links, send scripture.

The links I provided did that for you, but you just continue on without thinking about what you read-- if you read it at all.

All Christian scriptures, including yours, are translations, which is something that you don't seemingly even begin to understand. "Jehovah" simply does not show up in the Hebrew accounts nor the early Christian translations. Thus, if you continue to blindly believe what the Governing Body has told you on this, then your ignorance on the subject will just continue.

 

[capumetu]

The links I provided did that for you, but you just continue on without thinking about what you read-- if you read it at all.

All Christian scriptures, including yours, are translations, which is something that you don't seemingly even begin to understand. "Jehovah" simply does not show up in the Hebrew accounts nor the early Christian translations. Thus, if you continue to blindly believe what the Governing Body has told you on this, then your ignorance on the subject will just continue.

As you seen sir, you could not produce one other name for Him, that is because He has but one. That name is Jehovah in English sir.