U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2008, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008

Advertisements

Why dont you research where the word 'Jehovah' came from?

I dont think any JW would like to admit that a Catholic came up with the word. I also don't think that most of the teachings on Jehovah came from Philo who believed homosexuality was not a sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeveenh View Post
A bad translation?

Perhaps Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn't see Jehovah the way Moses did. Jehovah's name means "He causes to be". Abraham was given a promise that God would make a great nation of him. This promise was passed down to Isaac and then to Jacob but upon none of them were God's promises realized. They knew the literal name of Jehovah and used it, but they did not come to know or experience Him as the One who caused these promises to be fulfilled.

It's like knowing someone, but not knowing all sides of that person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-22-2008, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeveenh View Post
A bad translation?

Perhaps Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn't see Jehovah the way Moses did. Jehovah's name means "He causes to be". Abraham was given a promise that God would make a great nation of him. This promise was passed down to Isaac and then to Jacob but upon none of them were God's promises realized. They knew the literal name of Jehovah and used it, but they did not come to know or experience Him as the One who caused these promises to be fulfilled.

It's like knowing someone, but not knowing all sides of that person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 09:50 AM
 
810 posts, read 1,261,318 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by renriq02 View Post
Why dont you research where the word 'Jehovah' came from?

I dont think any JW would like to admit that a Catholic came up with the word. I also don't think that most of the teachings on Jehovah came from Philo who believed homosexuality was not a sin.
The name Jehovah has a long history. Just because some in history used the name in a disrespectful way does not mean that it should not be used at all. Renriq02, you are correct when you say that no one knows the correct pronunciation...I think the effort to use a proper name is noted.

I've seen some of your other posts and we agree on other topics, just not this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008
don't agree with me..agree with the Word of God


15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

I wonder what He is telling Moses that 'THIS IS MY NAME FOR EVER'

Even till this day nobody knows the name of God as it is demonstrated in the book of Revelations.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

BTW I didnt see any earlier history than Philo or the Catholic with the name Jehovah.


Quote:
Originally Posted by beeveenh View Post
The name Jehovah has a long history. Just because some in history used the name in a disrespectful way does not mean that it should not be used at all. Renriq02, you are correct when you say that no one knows the correct pronunciation...I think the effort to use a proper name is noted.

I've seen some of your other posts and we agree on other topics, just not this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Pleasant Shade Tn
2,214 posts, read 5,003,722 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by beeveenh View Post
The name Jehovah has a long history. Just because some in history used the name in a disrespectful way does not mean that it should not be used at all. Renriq02, you are correct when you say that no one knows the correct pronunciation...I think the effort to use a proper name is noted.

I've seen some of your other posts and we agree on other topics, just not this one.

If you look back at my posts, there are reference works that discuss the use of the name of God by jews prior to the fifth century and history of the name as it exists today.

I don't agree with Renriq here either. The scriptures he uses do not belie the fact that the name of God is stated over 6800 times in the Hebrew scriptures alone. SOMEOBODY was saying it.

And that's my passive -agreesive stint. I told Renriq I was done w/ this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008
1. Nobody knows the name of God
2. If you dont know it then how would you know what to look for?
3. Jehovah is nowhere close to the Tetragrammaton
4. The word Jehovah was invented by a Catholic of which nobody has any other record to prove it otherwise. I remember that JW don't believe that Catholics are 'saved' but yet they use the word 'Jehovah'
5. Read the verse as it states the name of God. Neither one of you have you refuted it or any JW that I speak to.
6. The High Priest invoked the name of God one day out of the year during Yom Kippur. This shows how much reverance they had for the name of God, and not common people were saying it. I know it's hard for you guys to understand since you don't know Jewish history/tradition/rituals.

Read up on the history of Jehovah. If I'm wrong then please show me where the name Jehovah was originated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada View Post
If you look back at my posts, there are reference works that discuss the use of the name of God by jews prior to the fifth century and history of the name as it exists today.

I don't agree with Renriq here either. The scriptures he uses do not belie the fact that the name of God is stated over 6800 times in the Hebrew scriptures alone. SOMEOBODY was saying it.

And that's my passive -agreesive stint. I told Renriq I was done w/ this topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 09:19 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 5,059,611 times
Reputation: 957
Default I was looking for the origin of the word Jehovah

I haven't found it yet, but I did find this.

You Canít Be Right, You Canít Be Right (This Rock: February 2000)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2008, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008
I'm sure you can find a lot more than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 12:17 AM
 
3,262 posts, read 5,112,674 times
Reputation: 1470
Default Is Jesus a Created Being?

Is Jesus a Created being?
From reading Colossians 1:15, it does appear that Jesus could be the firstborn of every creature, a created being. Colossians 1:15 says:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

After reading this verse, there appears to be two possible interpretations. Either Jesus is the first created being of creation or He is over all creation being the source of creation, the Son of God. Which interpretation is Scripturally correct?

In order to answer this question, one must understand what the word firstborn means in the Bible. Here are some examples:

And his father Isaac said to him, ‘Who are you?’ So he said, “I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.’ (Genesis 27:32)

Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: “For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house” Genesis 41:52.

Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn Genesis 48:14.

And [Joseph] did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus NKJV emphasis added Matthew 1:25.

And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn emphasis add.

From the context of these scriptures, it is clear that firstborn means the first child born or the eldest child born in a family. Now let’s look at the use of firstborn in other places in the Bible.

In Jeremiah, it says:

They shall come with weeping, and with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a Father to Israel and Ephraim is my firstborn Jeremiah 31:9.

Here it says that Ephraim is the firstborn. Yet in Genesis 41:51 and 48:14 these Scriptures clearly say that Manasseh is the firstborn? So how can there be two firstborns? To some, this may be a contradiction. But upon examining the meaning of firstborn used in Jeremiah 31:9, it appears that Manasseh was simply removed from his first place position because of sin, losing all of his firstborn privileges his birth right allowed him to have (see 2Chronicles 33:1-10 and 2Kings 21:16). Ephraim was not the first son born by birth, and yet he is called the firstborn because after his brother Manasseh lost his firstborn privileges, Ephraim moved up to his brother’s first place position, becoming figuratively firstborn with all of the same privileges.

Let’s examine this further. The Greek equivalent of "firstborn" is prototokos, defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as: "Firstborn (usually as noun, literal or figurative.): —first begotten." Greek scholars agree that prototokos means “first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir.” Also, the word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy which Scripture supports. It is the same Greek word for firstborn in Colossians 1:15. In Jeremiah, it becomes clear that firstborn means first in rank or pre-eminent one.

There are other places in the bible where firstborn is used:

a. Firstborn of death - the most fatal, deadly disease (Job. 18:13).
b. Firstborn of the poor - pre-eminent in poverty (Isa. 14:30).
c. Israel my firstborn - pre-eminent in purpose (Exod. 4:22).
d. Make him the firstborn - highest, etc. (Psa. 89:27).
e. Firstborn ones - all the saved in the church of Christ (Heb. 12:23).
f. Jesus the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29).
g. Firstborn of the dead (Rev. 1:5).

Since there are different uses for firstborn in the Bible, one can see how much confusion reading this word can cause. But once the meaning of the word is fully understood in its (literal or figurative) context, it will help eliminate this confusion.
On page 408 in Reasoning from the Scriptures, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or better known as the Jehovah's Witnesses state that:
Before Colossians 1:15, the expression 'the firstborn of' occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. 'the firstborn of Isreal' is one of the sons of Isreal; 'the firstborn of beast are themselves animals. What, then causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

In response to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's question, what casues some to ascribe a different meaning to Colossians 1:15 is that Jesus cannot be part of creation, since creation didn't parent him. It must be noted here that Paul didn't say that Jesus is the firstborn of God or the firstborn of Jehovah. Had that been the case, then one would naturally ascribe firstborn to mean that Jesus is the firstborn or first created being. It seems to be what the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is literally trying to point out. Yet, their own argument puts them in a bad position because it becomes illogical to argue that Jesus is part of creation when creation didn't parent Him nor could parent Him. Even if one wanted to argue that Jesus is firstborn of creation by being the first to be created, just by reading the next verse blows that interpretation out of the water.
For ALL things in heaven and on earth were created by him-ALL things, whether thrones, or dominions, whether principalities or powers-ALL things were created through Him and for Him.
The way the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society allieviate this contradiction, they just insert the word other after all to assert that after God created Jesus all other things were later created by Jesus. Just reading this verse in any Greek interlinear bible clearly shows that the words other are not in the original Greek and was intserted by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The insertion of other answers their own question regarding its bible usage or belief to which they already hold by altering God's word to fit their own doctrine.

Another point that needs to be made is that Scripture teaches that the firstborn son was given twice as much of the inheritance as the rest of the sons.

But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.(Deuteronomy 21:17)

The firstborn is to be the family priest and chief or head.

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: Israel is My son, My firstborn.(Exodus 4:22).

Here God calls Israel His firstborn son; He also calls Ephraim His firstborn, and in Colossians 1:15 Jesus is also called firstborn. Now we are left with a serious dilemma. If there are three firstborns, then how many firstborns does God have? Just from examining Scripture, it now becomes very evident that the firstborn in Genesis 48:14, Exodus 4:22 , and Colossians 1:15 aren’t dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family. But they deal with the direct result of becoming the pre-eminent one. Even looking at Colossians 1:18 just 3 verses from Colossians 1:15. It reads:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the PREEEMINENCE.
It can't be any clear here than what our Lord's standing is among us. In ALL thinngs He has preeminence. So one sees that Jesus has preeminence over creation, over creatures, over everything, since ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, AND APART FROM HIM NOT ONE THING WAS CREATED THAT HAS BEEN CREATED John 1:3. There is no need to insert OTHER in John 1:3 nor in Colossians 1:16 unless to prove one's view that Jesus is a created being which Scripture clearly doesn't teach.
Looking at the context in Exodus 4:22 appears to refer to the preeminent one (Israel) who is distinctly set apart by God to carry out His prerogatives as well as being heir. Thus, it becomes clear that firstborn can mean first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir, and eldest child. Jesus was simply the cause of the creation, preexisting before God made all creation through him as taught in other places in the bible. It now makes perfect sense why Jesus would be called firstborn over creation. Creation originated with him, and God his father gave him complete authority, rulership, headship, preeminence over ALL THINGS since again ALL THINGS were created for him and by him. AMEN!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2008, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Pleasant Shade Tn
2,214 posts, read 5,003,722 times
Reputation: 545
Wow, antredd-you really put alot of thought into that. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I don't agree that Christ had no beginning. He was the 'beginning of the creation by God' which means, he had a beginning. He also was referred to as a 'firstborn'. Whichever way you slice it-the word 'born' means 'came into existence'. The word 'first' means before all things. Therefore these words cannot apply to God who has ALWAYS existed.

To me, the scriptures support the conclusion that God created Jesus and the heavenly creatures before he created the earth, with Christ as his master worker. It is a beautiful relationship, indeed. But not an equal or internal one. It's the relationship of father and son. Simple and concise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top