Jehovah's Witnesses say "in the name" mean authority except when?

The JWs on here are liars! Note what their own literature has to say about John 17:6:

"When Jesus Christ was on earth, he ‘made his Father’s name manifest’ to his disciples. (Joh 17:6, 26) Although having earlier known that name and being familiar with God’s activities as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, these disciples came to know Jehovah in a far better and grander way through the One who is “in the bosom position with the Father.” (Joh 1:18) Christ Jesus perfectly represented his Father, doing the works of his Father and speaking, not of his own originality, but the words of his Father. (Joh 10:37, 38; 12:50; 14:10, 11, 24) That is why Jesus could say, “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.”—Joh 14:9." - Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 page 467

"In his final prayer with his 11 faithful apostles, Jesus showed the connection between knowing God and growing in love, saying: “I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” (John 17:26) Jesus helped his disciples to develop the kind of love that existed between him and his Father, revealing both by word and by example what God’s name represents—God’s wonderful qualities. Hence, Jesus could say: “He that has seen me has seen the Father also.”—John 14:9, 10; 17:8." - The Watchtower, October 1, 2006 page 21, paragraph 5

Do you see what their own literature is here acknowledging? They're acknowledging that Jesus' statement about making his father's name known at John 17:6 and John 17:26, is not in reference to the use of a verbal appellation but has to do with God's character. Jesus made God's true character known to his disciples through his teachings and example.

So when JWs on here quote John 17:6,26 as if to imply that its about him making known the pronunciation of God's name, they're either lying or manifesting ignorance of what their own organization teaches.

But there is another significant way in which JWs manifest hypocrisy in picking and choosing when "in the name of" is literal and when it's not. That has to do with the issue of their past false predictions. The JW organization made several false predictions in the name of God by virtue of proclaiming them as coming from God. They used terms like "God's dates" and "the Creator's promise" when referring to their false date predictions. So they definitely appealed to God's authority - God's name - to give credence to their false predictions. They presented them as coming from God.

But do you know what dishonest JWs who are too ashamed and afraid to face the truth about their false prophet organization, do? They resort to transparently desperate and pitiful technicalities like saying: "we did not say 'such and such will happen and we predict this in the name of Jehovah' therefore we have not predicted in God's name". Yes, they actually claim that the false prophet must use the phrase "in Jehovah's name" for him to be guilty of falsely prophesying in God's name. So it's ok for a false teacher to mislead people into thinking that his false prediction is coming from God and he's not guilty of falsely prophesying in God's name just as long as he does not use the phrase "in Jehovah's name". Really, JWs? Are you that desperate? Are you that dishonest with yourselves? Are you so devoid of honesty and truth?

Both uses of 'in the name of...' are correct when used in their right context.

The JWs are correct to say that it means an appeal to the authority of someone or something (like, 'in the name of the Law'). It's also true that a personal name of a real person enables us to point to the actual name as important.

Both the Father and the Son have personal names so both senses apply to both of them too. But the JWs have a problem with two verses in the Bible that deal with such names. The first is where Jesus said that the Father had given Him His own name. That's in John 17:11. JWs refuse to take that literally, insisting it is only the authority of the Father that Jesus was given.

The other is Matthew 28:19 where we learn of a singular name 'covering' the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. One name, three persons. This is so trinitarian in nature that the JWs have had to become disobedient to Jesus' command here. They used to baptise people "in the name [singular] of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" but they have stopped that now.

I'm not going to go into that here because you didn't ask for that. But this illustrates the selective way in which JWs choose to apply one meaning, or another, to 'in the name of'. Why can't they do as all Christians do and acknowledge that it equally means 'in the authority of' as that the name is literal as well?

They cannot because they do not bear the name of Jesus, nor do they operate under His authority. They have decided to bear the name of Jehovah, not Christ; and they reject the authority of Jesus by saying His authority is inferior to Jehovah's authority - that despite what Jesus said in Matthew 28:18!

Not a JW, but haven't you ever heard 'Stop! In the name of the Law!' That means in the authority of the Law. If I come in someones' name, it means I have their authority.

It's for the same reason that one verse about the 144,000 is literal and the rest is symbolic. Translation: I don't think anyone knows the reason or how their channeled spirits come up with theology.

Or it could be that they know it's a verse about the Godhead and they're trying to find reasoning to go around it.

I believe there is something to the name Jehovah. I don't know what yet but there is something behind it, some reason they insist upon that specific name and require its use.

What you will find with Jehovah's Witnesses - for the most part with a few exceptions - is that they will manipulate any and all verses that support their theology and dismiss any others or try to explain them away using the NWT, all the while berating anyone who refuses to march along with the Hitler "Sieg Heil!" salute & parrot everything that organization tells them.

Pity, isn't it?

http://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/de/...

Context and usage of words determine meaning.

"Did you eat, Grandpa?"

or

"Did you eat Grandpa?

Same words, but a totally different meaning. The only change was a comma, denoting a pause in the sentence.

"Made known" and "in the" carry two separate and different meanings, Your trying to make them say the same thing is wrong. and actually disproves the point you are trying to make.

CF gave you a wonderful answer, the pity is you will probably ignore him.

Just as you ignored the fact that GC said the same thing CF said, only with less words.

.

Point #1: God does have a name.

Point #2: It would be good to use it.

Point #3: God has authority

Point: 4: Respect it.

Phrases, like most words, have a first, second and even a third definition.

Its about nuance.

Why do you think "holy spirit" is a proper noun?

The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father—Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit.

Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw “Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit. (See also Revelation 7:10; 22:1, 3.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God.” (1967, Vol. XIII, p. 575) It also reports: “The Apologists [Greek Christian writers of the second century] spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally.”—Vol. XIV, p. 296.

Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” Hence baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ implies recognition of that spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.

Further evidence against the idea of personality as regards the holy spirit is the way it is used in association with other impersonal things, such as water and fire (Mt 3:11; Mr 1:8); and Christians are spoken of as being baptized “in holy spirit.” (Ac 1:5; 11:16) Persons are urged to become “filled with spirit” instead of with wine. (Eph 5:18) So, too, persons are spoken of as being ‘filled’ with it along with such qualities as wisdom and faith (Ac 6:3, 5; 11:24) or joy (Ac 13:52); and holy spirit is inserted, or sandwiched in, with a number of such qualities at 2 Corinthians 6:6. It is most unlikely that such expressions would be made if the holy spirit were a divine person. As to the spirit’s ‘bearing witness’ (Ac 5:32; 20:23), it may be noted that the same thing is said of the water and the blood at 1 John 5:6-8. While some texts refer to the spirit as ‘witnessing,’ ‘speaking,’ or ‘saying’ things, other texts make clear that it spoke through persons, having no personal voice of its own. (Compare Heb 3:7; 10:15-17; Ps 95:7; Jer 31:33, 34; Ac 19:2-6; 21:4; 28:25.) It may thus be compared to radio waves that can transmit a message from a person speaking into a microphone and cause his voice to be heard by persons a distance away, in effect, ‘speaking’ the message by a radio loudspeaker. God, by his spirit, transmits his messages and communicates his will to the minds and hearts of his servants on earth, who, in turn, may convey that message to yet others.

EDIT: It´s against Jehovah´s will for His name to be hidden.

Psalms 83:18

May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah,

You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 68:4

4 Sing to God; sing praises* to his name.

Sing to the One riding through the desert plains.

Jah* is his name! Rejoice before him!

Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13.

And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.