Using God's Name: What Does It Prove?

Comment by katrina on 2017-08-04 08:04:18

"in a Bible discussion flags someone as a member of false religion, what would failure to use the name “Jesus” indicate?"

Say Jesus to often then your bordering on being a Trinitarian apostate. It always comes down to the trinity I have found, any deep conversation on the org and failings JW will bring up the trinity. Its weird.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-08-04 08:38:59

  I've been able to stop the conversation dead in a field service car group by saying, "Isn't it wonderful how our Lord Jesus is blessing our ministry." Witnesses are not comfortable with the phrase "our Lord Jesus" even though it is entirely Biblical. Makes them think of evangelicals.

  • Reply by amoreomeara on 2017-08-05 04:51:54

    evangelical (iːvanˈdʒɛlɪk(ə)l,ɛvanˈdʒɛlɪk(ə)l/), adjective
    
    "of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion."
    
    Oh the irony! ;-)

  • Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-08-05 20:28:36

    I'm shocked - SHOCKED, do you hear? - that Christians would mention the name of Christ.
    
    (liberally borrowed from Casablanca :-))

  • Reply by mailman on 2017-08-06 02:10:06

    Why? because our minds have been programmed and re-wired so much that the mere mention of Jesus Christ becomes alien. It's like listening to a rhythm you have listened to for many years and suddenly a new lyric is inserted inadvertently. It won't sound right.
    
    I think the brothers are not used to discussing Jesus in an informal way let alone praise him in the midst of the group in a casual way. Every discussion should be anchored on Jehovah. This is sad.

Comment by Tadua on 2017-08-04 08:27:23

Jesus Christ barely got a look in on the Regional convention this year. I heard a few mentions early on, but that was about all. As you say all the attention is focused on Jehovah, and if you try to redress the balance as katrina says they often resort to looking at you as if you are apostate, believing in the trinity. So sad.

Comment by Christian on 2017-08-04 08:30:56

The points made in this article are so true. I have felt, for years now that JWs use God's divine name too often. For me, our Heavenly Father's name is very sacred. As such, I believe it must be used with deep respect and discretion. Personally, whenever I pray, I will use the name Jehovah once, at the beginning of the prayer along with reference to our Lord Jesus Christ as my redeemer and saviour. Then I feel able to talk with our Father in an intimate way. There seems to prevail, amongst many JWs the feeling that by using God's sacred name it will act as a talisman, warding off all evil. I know for a fact, that if, when I was a child, I referred to my own Father by his Christian name in a common or casual way, that he would view me as being disrespectful. The flippant over-use of God's holy name could in fact lead to a person's downfall. As Heb.10:31 reminds us:"it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-08-04 08:36:09

  Well put, Christian

Comment by Keepitsimple on 2017-08-04 11:41:04

If we use to often Jesus or by pronouncing lord Jesus most jw feel uncomfortable
i can't believe it...
are we loosed our mind?
jw religion look more and more man made,
with time the share of the devil grow up,
i try to speak about that to some in the congregation and i've got almost no reaction,we do things by tradition, we do things mostly by feelings not by reasoning and they are comfortable with that.
we are no better than the first century when
they refuse to pronounce the personal name of God
except we do the same with His son's name.

Comment by Robert-6512 on 2017-08-04 15:46:48

WT makes the assertion that YHWH/JHVH means "He who causes to become". That may or may not be completely accurate, but for sake of discussion, let's suppose it's close to the correct meaning. If so, what English word most closely conveys the idea of that definition? "Creator".

Now, suppose that every instance of "Jehovah" in the NWT were replaced by "Creator". Would it substantially change the Bible's meaning? Would it be disrespectful, or fail to give God His due and proper credit? Could any false gods, whether mentioned in the Bible or not, properly be called "Creator" other than Him? Would someone beginning a prayer by saying, "Our Father and Creator ..." really be saying ANYTHING different than another person saying "Our Father Jehovah ..."?

NO.

Now, if you as the reader are willing to agree with the reasoning above, then I ask you, if a religion exclusively referred to God as "Creator", then would that alone ...

1. make them THE true religion?

2. identify them as "Christian" more so than any other group?

3. prove that they did not believe in a Trinity?

4. provide evidence that they understood Bible prophecy or God's purposes more than anyone else?

Can you see the problem with all this? Merely saying "Creator" all day doesn't prove anything. Anyone who has even the slightest faith or belief in the Bible already knows that we were created. That much is certain. A careful reading of the Bible shows very few people that even indirectly believed they were NOT created, even if they thought the creator was some god other than YHWH.

Mankind's primary dilemma is not a failure to acknowledge that we are created beings, but that we are doomed to sin and death. Constantly reiterating the assertion that we have a "Creator", whether using that word, or "Jehovah" or any other, doesn't really help. We need MORE than a Creator. We need a redeemer.

For WT to negligently (and dismissively) minimize the name and role of Christ, whom God generously made available to redeem mankind, is highly disrespectful to both of them, no matter how much "praise" they imagine they are devoting to God, at His son's expense.

WT ought to face reality and tell the truth. MUCH of the over-emphasis on God's Hebrew name is artifact or "side effect" of their deliberate effort to create an artificial distinction between themselves and other Christian religions. The idea is, "we must be 'true' because we are so different".

There is an expression, "having a distinction without a difference". For instance, two nickels and a dime are different objects but have no monetary difference. Likewise, "Creator" and "Jehovah" are literally different words, but have no important difference either in meaning or doctrinal importance.

If you agree that this is true, then does giving oneself the manmade name of 'the Creator's Witnesses' prove you "have the truth"? How could it?

Jesus said, "you will be witnesses of ME", not his Father.

WT has tried to relegate the word "Father" and all it implies to a select few (who they just happen to be part of), and in doing so, makes orphans of all other Christians. But that is not what Jesus said or did to us.

We need only look at the wording and context of the Lord's Prayer. Here is Jesus, speaking to a multitude of "interested persons", most of whom were not really (or not yet) his followers, coming from all parts of the region. To these many Gentiles, Jews, and everyone in between, before Jesus died, before he was resurrected, and BEFORE any gifts of the spirit enabled even one person to lay claim to the term "anointed", WHAT DID HE SAY?

YOU MUST pray this way, "Our Father ...".

(1) YOU means EVERYONE in attendance, not a select few.

(2) MUST means it is a command. For that command to be valid and make any sense, the God/Father/Creator/Jehovah of Jesus himself had to be THEIR father too. Right? Otherwise his command for people to pray in that manner would be nonsensical, even hypocritical.

WT has imposed the word Jehovah/Creator on its followers, by taking away our Father and our Savior. By also reserving to themselves the benefit of having Christ as a mediator (contrary to the Bible's clear statement that Christ is the only mediator between God and men), they have "stolen" both our Father and our Mediator, effectively placing themselves in that position and role.

Remember in Acts where the people trying to curry favor with Herod cried out, "a god's voice and not a man's", and Herod was struck dead for not repudiating such undeserved adulation? How do you suppose our Father views a self-proclaimed group of imperfect men who go around saying they are the "sole channel of communication between God and mankind"?

That is not a nice thing to do.

For the WT to do these things, they blasphemously set themselves up as a false god, and encourage their followers to commit idolatry.

That is not what a "true" religion does.

Comment by Mike West on 2017-08-04 18:10:02

Another good question would be, if I am a true Christian (which means a follower of Christ and really believe he is Jehovah's son) and a JW, what does Jesus expect of me personally? By his own words in Matt. 28:18- "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." So, is it respectful to Jesus and our Father Jehovah to bypass the authority of Jesus and the means of our salvation by constant references to only Jehovah, even if we are well meaning? If one really contemplates and then believes Jesus own words, then it would actually be disrespecting both Jesus and the will of Jehovah by speaking the vast majority of the time about only Jehovah. Remember, every prayer and word spoken to Jehovah can only be heard by him through Jesus. Usually, that serious fact is only mentioned by JW's in an almost template like manner at the end of a prayer.

• Reply by mailman on 2017-08-06 02:01:25

  Hey Mike, do not marvel at this for in the last days, the "Governing Body" will occupy a more special place in the organization than Christ Jesus. Why?
  
  In our recent meeting with a Circuit Overseer, he said that "as per the Governing Body, family worship is already a way for salvation." I just couldn't believe what I heard.

Comment by rogerkirkpatrick on 2017-08-05 00:33:31

I enjoy showing JWs this quote by the New World Bible Translation Committee on page 23 of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures: "While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century." If 'Yahweh' is "the more correct way," it follows that 'Jehovah' is not really God's name. I suspect the real reason for retaining the form Jehovah was that Rutherford had named the religion Jehovah's Witnesses. In the mind of the average JW, Jehovah and Watchtower are synonymous. Thus, when one leaves the Watchtower, JWs will say that one left Jehovah. Similarly, when inviting ones to return to the Watchtower, JWs will say "return to Jehovah."

• Reply by THE DRIFTER on 2017-08-05 17:06:52

  A fairly recent study point (within the year I believe) emphasized the need to >not< be overly dogmatic when pronouncing Gods name.
  
  Seriously?
  We are talking about Gods name, yes?

• Reply by mailman on 2017-08-06 01:55:43

  Hi Roger. If Yahweh is the more correct way than Jehovah other than the latter being more popular during that time, what else are the other important reasons for using the name until now?
  
  Likewise, a specific term or event can be so popular at a given time, but if such thing is not anchored on the truth, associated with a source from Christendom, erroneous or even dubious, should God's people be using it, going to the extent of being extremely proud of sharing it with others?
  
  Should popularity be the overriding factor in the use of God's name - Jehovah?

Comment by Keepitsimple on 2017-08-05 01:25:58

JW are judeo-christian religion with a big emphasis on judeo,
The WT dig with energy in Jewish laws,looks like they never receive the memo... 'check for updates'

Comment by Ifionlyhadabrain on 2017-08-05 03:39:09

I think it highly likely that the organisation are violating the third commandment you should not take up the name of the lord in vain , apparently originally this had to do with using the name in an oath to convince others that what we are saying is genuine and true , while hypocriticaly having another agenda ,We have already said they cite the use of gods name as a proof that the religion and it's adherents have the truth , if we use gods name in this way then practice hypocrisy we then take the Lords name in vain ,

• Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-08-05 20:03:09

  Looking at comparisons of Exodus 20:7 where this command is found, it appears that taking the name of God in vain means to treat it as worthless or unimportant, or to somehow use it dishonestly, or for dishonest purposes.
  
  If people were to focus on God's Hebrew name and effectively "erase" the name and purpose and accomplishments of His son, that would be an attempt to nullify God's purpose for redeeming mankind. The Bible says that bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophecy. It was never God's purpose for His son to "sit on the sidelines", receiving whatever "scraps" of attention that WT deems sufficient to prop up the claim that their religion is "Christian" (at least on paper).
  
  Treating His son in that manner by focusing on God's name in an attempt to almost make Christ 'disappear' is, just as you were alluding to, a dishonest use of the divine name.
  
  Does that constitute taking the name of God in vain, or treating it as unimportant or being dishonest in how it is presented?
  
  Sure seems like it to me.
  
  [p.s. I perceive you do indeed have a brain ...]

Comment by Lone Survivor on 2017-08-05 10:19:27

A warm hello to all,
Yes that is a great argument if the ones you are speaking to have true motives and are honest hearted. I don't know about the atmosphere of all the different localities but where we are at that could possibly get us disfellowship so far we have dodged that Bullet and it has made some elders mad. I think some elders are so use to having their way that when they didn't win it gave them a stiff jab in the ego especially from someone like me that they view as insignificant we came to this organization because of the love we have for truth and our fellow man in honesty and not to fill a void in a personality disorder and now the ones with the personality disorders are damaging and even killing the ones with a true hearts. This is a CRIME. Brothers and sisters Jehovah has called us out and continues calling it's up to each individual as to where he or she will stand it's boiling each individual down to what they truly are and I continually look at myself. Best wishes to all.

Comment by THE DRIFTER on 2017-08-05 17:00:58

@Mike
You said, "Usually, that serious fact is only mentioned by JW’s in an almost template like manner at the end of a prayer."
--
Several years ago I opened the meeting with prayer and began it "in Jesus name."

After the meeting, the presiding overseer approached me and mentioned that I didn't close the prayer "in Jesus name" and that the congregation was waiting for me to do that.

I said that I opened the prayer in "his" name which was entirely appropriate to which he said that confused the congregation.

I said, "un-confuse" them.

It looked like he wanted to say something then turned and walked away.

The next time I offered prayer I again opened "in Jesus name"

No rebuttal...

Chip, ...chip, ...chip...

• Reply by Ifionlyhadabrain on 2017-08-06 04:54:42

  Your quite right , drifter , it struck me a while back it makes much more sense to open the prayer in jesus name , to my mind jesus is a type of medium through whom we gain access to the father , to use a very crude illustration here , if you want to talk to someone you have to pick the phone up first and then speak , not speak and then pick up the phone after you've finished speaking , haha haha haha, , sorry about that !

  • Reply by Ifionlyhadabrain on 2017-08-06 05:22:56

    In fact while we are on this subject of prayer , what's the problem with talking to jesus himself , surely we are allowed to do that , people spoke to him when he was on earth as a man , why not now , it seems to me that as far as the JWS are concerned jesus seems to be somehow disfellowshipped , and the witnesses are banned from speaking to him , yet allowed to speak freely to anyone else ,

    • Reply by mailman on 2017-08-07 22:14:40

      Why not? He said he would be with his followers until the end of age/system of things. To ignore him in prayer as if he is just there to deliver our prayers to the Father automatically when we say "in Jesus name" is perhaps one of the most misapplied principle in the organization.

• Reply by Mike West on 2017-08-06 14:55:39

  Agreed. It brings to my mind Matt. 6:5 where Jesus said not to pray like the Pharisees who liked to be seen by men. I know it's also proper to pray for the congregation, but it's good to mix it up a bit within scriptural parameters.

Comment by mailman on 2017-08-06 01:44:42

Going deep in reflection, can we say that unnecessary use of God's name would include mentioning the name in a prayer or a talk so many times that it makes the name like a name of any average/ordinary person on the street? Sometimes I feel it's tantamount to downgrading the value of the name.

God's name is sacred and holy and while we are not as superstitious as the Jews, I just think there's no need to mention the name very frequently in a public talk, ordinary conversation with the brothers in faith, nor in prayer. He is our Father and when we talk about our earthly or biological father, we just don't mention his plain name a lot of times repetitively during a conversation. Instead, we say "well, my father is like this, does this or does that", etc. To do the opposite would sound disrespectful, wouldn't it?

• Reply by Thaddeus on 2017-08-06 12:32:44

  Exactly, at a midweek in a closing prayer which lasted roughly 2min he said the name Jehovah 11 times! No, exaggeration. It really was 11 times.

  • Reply by Ifionlyhadabrain on 2017-08-06 17:15:24

    The name is etched into minds of the witnesses , not surprising really th watchtower does it as well , last week's study there were times when the name was mentioned 3 times in a single paragraph as for prayer , jesus even said "don't be saying the same things over and again , they are using the name as a word whisker , sometimes , and in actual fact jesus said about approaching God calling him father , not by his name , no there's something very wrong with the whole JW set up funny you know my son's used to call me by my personal name , and the witnesses pulled them up about it saying they were disrespecting me , of course I told them well what do you call your heavenly father , they didn't know what to say after that !

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-08-06 18:00:38

      "A word whisker", yes. That is precisely how it is often used in prayers.

Comment by Thaddeus on 2017-08-06 12:29:59

Sounds logical to me.

Comment by THE DRIFTER on 2017-08-07 21:36:27

@ifionlyhadabrain
Things that make you go hmmmmm...

Side note - wanna really jolt the elder body? When closing the public prayer with "in Jesus name", ...let there be a really long pause before amen.

Some in the congregation will automatically blurt out AMEN!

Then you say amen!

Was approached on that one too. I explained that I was the one offering the prayer and it's contents were reaffirmined (yes) by the congregation. I then repeated their acceptance with amen (yes) with the hope of the congregations prayer reaching our Heavenly Father.


Funny true life story -
Three older sisters immediately came up to me (ambush? nope!) and thanked me. Said that they thought it was more appropriate to close that way.

Shucks and wazzzoo!

Comment by Rynda on 2017-08-13 18:40:50

You really want to 'bother' them try using the Hebrew name of Yahuweh (Yahuah) as opposed to Jehovah, and the Hebrew name of Yeshua, as opposed to Jesus. I also referred to Yahuah as "Abba" and had to explain to a witness that that was the Hebrew term for "Father" and was an affectionate term a small child uses for their beloved Daddy. I thought her eyes were gonna pop out of her head! LOL!!

• Reply by Robert-6512 on 2017-08-14 19:48:21

  That's funny; I am glad you made this comment.
  
  Personally, I have felt that it would be really odd for the word YHWH to be rendered as anything like "Yahweh", because all such proposed spellings seem to make the H letters de-emphasized to the point where they would be 'whispered' and almost disappear. That would effectively make the name sound like "Yawe" and thus the Tetragrammaton would be reduced as if to a 'digraph' of YW because the H's would not be needed. This doesn't make sense to me.
  
  It is more reasonable that the consonants were pronounced in a way that noticeably drew attention to each of them individually.
  
  I suspect a closer rendering might be more like "Yahowahe".
  
  I would be interested to hear what others thought of this concept.

  • Reply by fitrah on 2019-09-26 15:08:01

    YHWH is not a name. It means 'he who is' or 'the being'. The name of God is El/elohim/Allah. YHWH , used as a reference to El was introduced later.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-09-26 18:06:20

      I think there are a number of Jewish scholars who would disagree with you. Check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J84zSeKaDkU

      • Reply by fitrah on 2019-09-27 05:56:55

        Well of course they would, because YHWH makes God look as only the God of the Israelites, while El was also worshipped by other peoples.
        
        See the video that you shared in your previous reply:
        
        In the burning bush story in the Bible, it tells how and when the name YHWH was introduced for the first time. Please note that God says there to Moses 'Say: I am (EHYE) has sent you. Moses changes that to the third person He is (YAHWE).
        
        So it is clearly not a name, only a reference to God/El. Later is was used tot make it look like YHWH was only the exclusive God of the Israelites.
        
        Bible scholars describe this as the Elohist versus the Yahwist writers. YHWH was edited into the older Elohim stories. See Genesis 1:1 where Elohim is used, not YHWH.
        
        The explanation of the JW's why Moses and the Israelites did not know the name YHWH while it was supposedly used by all earlier prophets in the Bible ("they did know it but not it's meaning') makes no sense at all.