God's Name is God

[Soapy]

What is a debate? It's when two people have differing opinions and try to reason with the other, presenting through argument and evidence the case for their point of view. That seems to me to be the optimal way for both to find deeper truth.

Wow! No!!!

We are in a debate thread because we are debating THE SAME BELIEF…!!

It’s not reasonably possible to DEBATE DIFFERING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Jesus Christ debated with the Jews because he was debating the SAME JUDAISM but pointing out the errors that the Jews had introduced to it that stifled the truth that led them into waywardness away from the one true God. Muslims argue AGAINST the teaching of Christ Jesus and for the teachings of Mohammed. Debates here only leads to arguments seeing that both sides can only argue about their own belief which divert in the 400 years (or longer) before the New Testament - in fact, possibly I think, from the departure of Ishmael from his Father, Abraham! It was said by God that there would be enmity between the Ishmael’s offspring and Isaac’s offspring:

• “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” (Gen 16:12)
• “But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit.” (Galatian 4:29)

Discussions are not DEBATES. I think you are purposely misunderstanding the meanings.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Discussions are not DEBATES. I think you are purposely misunderstanding the meanings.

When a discussion surrounds a disagreement, it is a debate. And debates are wonderful -- an excellent way of growing as an individual and learning new things.

 

[Soapy]

When a discussion surrounds a disagreement, it is a debate. And debates are wonderful -- an excellent way of growing as an individual and learning new things.

Now you are changing the context of what we were talking about just now. But this, at least, tells me you understand what I pointed out to you.

Personally, I see no value in DEBATING with people who are not ‘Christian’ but I may DISCUSS aspects of it with them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now you are changing the context of what we were talking about just now. But this, at least, tells me you understand what I pointed out to you.

Personally, I see no value in DEBATING with people who are not ‘Christian’ but I may DISCUSS aspects of it with them.

If you give reasons and evidence for why you hold the beliefs you hold, then you are debating.

 

[Soapy]

If you give reasons and evidence for why you hold the beliefs you hold, then you are debating.

If you disagree vehemently then you are debating.

Reasonable differences in a reasoning manner - that is discussion.

Can you demand that anything is Islam is wrong? No!, because it is the belief system of that person - but you can REASON that it does not appear to be right.

But all that must be seen in the total context of the religious belief.

A Christian is told to ‘Turn the other cheek’ if someone ‘slaps him on the face’. Can you tell a Muslim that he should do the same … isn’t it that the belief is ‘A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye!’?

Which reaction is counter-intutitive?

Women in Islam are told to dress conservatively and not expose any part of their body that might induce sexual feelings in a man who is not their husband. Can that be wrong - consider how Christian women dress in partially exposed sexual inducing garments.?!!!!

But I would ‘reason’ that seeing the hair on a woman’s head can hardly induce sexual feelings in a man UNLESS she purposely wears it and moves herself in such a way to use it to be sexual suggestive (aka: Marilyn Munroe; specific style used by prostitutes; designed innocence or feigning vulnerability; unkempt denoting easy and careless woman)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you disagree vehemently then you are debating.

You don't have to be disagreeing "vehemently" in order for it to be a debate. You simply have to disagree, and provide reasons and evidence.

 

[Soapy]

You don't have to be disagreeing "vehemently" in order for it to be a debate. You simply have to disagree, and provide reasons and evidence.

What are you arguing about!!!!
- You do have to be vehement in RF debate section…! I’m sure there are specific section for polite discussions.

(is there a tongue in cheek emoji?)

 

[Soapy]

``The Lord is His name!'' Amos 5:8. So, the Lord is the name of God, but
God is not the name of God? Strange and inconsistent situation. Why is God a
title (or a profession) and not a name? There are many gods: ``there are
so-called gods.'' 1 Corinthians 8:5. And since God is the name, the rest of the
gods are false gods, having stolen God's name.

‘The Lord’ is not a name. It is a title.

The word ‘God’ is also a title. A title is a word that describes a category of a thing. In this case it describes a worshipped deity - and there are plenty of those seeing that almost all beliefs have at least two and more often more deities that they worship.

A ‘God’ does not have to be real, a living entity, nor a person - it can be ANYTHING that is set as the primary source that is looked upon for benefits of a person. For instance, money can be a God if a person seeks its value as their first source of benefit; another human being can be a God if, say, a wife looks to him (husband?) as being the complete supplier of all her needs (obviously that cannot really be true but only if she THINKS so and he mistreats her into thinking that way!!)

We know, and there is nothing hidden, that many tribes and nations thought of their primary benefactors as ‘GODS’. You see I set things as plural because that’s how they thought they received their benefits - from multiple sources, deities, even from animals, from spiritual entities carved in wood or stone (or even gold and silver).

But the one nation, the Israelite tribe headed up in fatherhood by the man, Abraham, and lead by the man, Jacob (renamed by their deity as ‘Israel’), believed that there was only one deity that should be worshipped. It is noted that this ‘God’ is called (entitled) ‘The one true God’, and ‘God of all whom are called Gods’. This is significant because the belief does not try to deny that there are OTHER BELIEFS THAT ALSO CALL THEIR DEITIES, ‘GOD(s)’.

I say this because too many times I hear persons say, ‘There’s only one God and all else are false Gods’. While this is TRUE if you believe in THEIR RELIGION, it certainly is not true if you are one of those of the other religions. Each religions claims it’s own GODS.

So, ‘GOD’ cannot be a NAME… no one calls ‘GOD’ a name … except those who do not understand language!!!!!!!!!!!

(What is a name?
What is a title?
What is the difference?)

In the Israelite and Christian belief, there is one NAME for the deity that they worship… That deity gave His name to His people plain and simple: ‘YHWH’, in Hebrew language. That NAME has lost its vocal rendering due to superstition and fear of mispronouncing it (superstition) and misusing it (fear).

But here is the dilemma: is it disrespectful to TRY to pronounce it in righteousness, in holiness, in honesty, in integrity, in truth… or to use a TITLE to cover yourself in case you say, pray, swear an oath, speak out of sorts, etc., in a dishonourable way?

Well, here’s the answer: You should never BE SWEARING AN OATH, PRAYING, SPEAKING IN SORT using the NAME OF THE ONE TRUE GOD unless you ARE speaking RESPECTFULLY, HONOURABLY, TRUTHFULLY, HONESTLY….

IT IS DISRESPECTFUL TO PURPOSEFULLY NOT PRONOUNCE the NAME of your God.!!
So, whether you say, ‘Jehovah’, or ‘YAHWEH’, or something that attempts to honour His name, then that would be respectful…. Afterall, we do say, ‘Jesus’, which is NOT the name of the messiah son of God but no one thinks it’s disrespectful seeing his name is actually, ‘Joshua’ (properly, ‘Yeshua’, or similar depending on language variation in time!)
——————————————

But as for the O.P.., NO, ‘GOD’ is not the NAME of God.

 

[101G]

IT IS DISRESPECTFUL TO PURPOSEFULLY NOT PRONOUNCE the NAME of your God.!!
So, whether you say, ‘Jehovah’, or ‘YAHWEH’, or something that attempts to honour His name, then that would be respectful…. Afterall, we do say, ‘Jesus’, which is NOT the name of the messiah son of God but no one thinks it’s disrespectful seeing his name is actually, ‘Joshua’ (properly, ‘Yeshua’, or similar depending on language variation in time!)

Nonsense, did you not read? Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I."

this is crystal clear, and that day CAME. he said, in that DAY, "that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I." here is that DAY, John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." there it is, "I am he". God told us in his word, and he cannot lie. "I AM HE that do speak in that day". it's like reading a newspaper from yesterday. I am he that doth speak. there he is speaking.

here is the implication of not believing the Word of God, "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

now, who is Speaking? just go back a couple verses and we get our answer, John 8:21 "Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come." John 8:22 "Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come." John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
end of story.

101G.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

``The Lord is His name!'' Amos 5:8. So, the Lord is the name of God,

When translators come across the name of God, yad hey vav hey, they substitute the word Lord. In Amos 5:8 in the Hebrew text, it is not Adonai aka lord that is used, but yad hey vav hey. So it is saying that yad hey vav hey is his name, not Lord.

 

[Soapy]

Nonsense, did you not read? Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I."

this is crystal clear, and that day CAME. he said, in that DAY, "that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I." here is that DAY, John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." there it is, "I am he". God told us in his word, and he cannot lie. "I AM HE that do speak in that day". it's like reading a newspaper from yesterday. I am he that doth speak. there he is speaking.

here is the implication of not believing the Word of God, "for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

now, who is Speaking? just go back a couple verses and we get our answer, John 8:21 "Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come." John 8:22 "Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come." John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
end of story.

101G.

I might put you on my ‘Ignore’ list!

 

[Soapy]

When translators come across the name of God, yad hey vav hey, they substitute the word Lord. In Amos 5:8 in the Hebrew text, it is not Adonai aka lord that is used, but yad hey vav hey. So it is saying that yad hey vav hey is his name, not Lord.

The scripture verse says, ‘YHWH is his name’.

There have been many debates/discussions over the NAME of God being wrongfully translated as “LORD” (all caps). And there is a current thread where I explained that people would be confusing ‘LORD’ with ‘Lord’ in their ignorance, or sloppiness. These two TITLES are not the same things (It COULD be, by personage, as bad as confusing ‘PRINCE William’ of the United Kingdom with ‘Prince’ of pop music fame)

IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD when reading the scriptures, and as prefaced in the book, WHEN YOU SEE THE WORD ‘LORD’ in all caps, it is really the word ‘YHWH’, which is the NAME OF GOD but the scripture translator has chosen to NOT EVEN WRITE the NAME of God and has SUBSTITUTED AN ALTERNATIVE TITLE for the NAME of God. This alternative word ‘LORD’, shows DISRESPECT to the great God. Imagine if people decided to substitute YOUR NAME with some other title because they somehow didn’t know his to pronounce your NAME… I mean like not even try to say your name because of superstition or fear. SPEAKING, no less than WRITING, a word DOES NOT ILLICIT SINFULNESS - which is the fear and superstition of the Jews. It is the MISUSE, the WRONGFUL USE, the idea of using the NAME of God as a means of self-profit in some way. That is the problem - but denying the name of God by refusal to even write it LEADS TO THE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE NAME OF GOD. Generations of people down the line will not even know His name but God’s name is eternal and will continue among the remnants who will restore His NAME ‘YHWH’ in time to come!

• ‘And all the world will know the NAME of YHWH’

 

[RestlessSoul]

Interesting, but I suspect that @IndigoChild5559 was suggesting that, for many, "Mark 7:6,7, KJV" is no more authoritative than some snippet from Shakespeare.

Would not a rose by any other name yet smell as sweet?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would not a rose by any other name yet smell as sweet?

Well, no. Because how a rose smells to a human happens in the human. In fact there are humans to whom roses smell not sweet.
A rose smells, but how it smells to a human, is not in the rose, that is in the human.
Now what God is, is one thing. What God is to a human, is another thing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, no. Because how a rose smells to a human happens in the human. In fact there are humans to whom roses smell not sweet.
A rose smells, but how it smells to a human, is not in the rose, that is in the human.
Now what God is, is one thing. What God is to a human, is another thing.

Interesting, and I see your point. In this example though, Juliet was asking whether Romeo would smell as sweet to her, if he wasn't a Montague and therefore her family's sworn enemy. So her question was about how a name alters our perception of a thing, without altering the thing in itself.

In the end they both died, casualties of their two families enmity and prejudice. The two star-crossed lovers couldn't overcome what their names meant to their respective families.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting, and I see your point. In this example though, Juliet was asking whether Romeo would smell as sweet to her, if he wasn't a Montague and therefore her family's sworn enemy. So her question was about how a name alters our perception of a thing, without altering the thing in itself.

In the end they both died, casualties of their two families enmity and prejudice. The two star-crossed lovers couldn't overcome what their names meant to their respective families.

Yes, I get your point. But a part of me as crazy is that I am too literal in some cases. In others cases it serves me "well" because I in effect are objective for how the world works even if subjective.

So I always test for regularities and variations when something is in effect claimed universally relevant.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, I get your point. But a part of me as crazy is that I am too literal in some cases. In others cases it serves me "well" because I in effect are objective for how the world works even if subjective.

So I always test for regularities and variations when something is in effect claimed universally relevant.

It’s cool, you have an enquiring mind that questions everything.

 

[Soapy]

It’s cool, you have an enquiring mind that questions everything.

Do you and Nikel… both enquire about the difference of a Title and a Name?

The thread TITLE is “Is ‘God’ the name of God [of the jews]”?

But ‘GOD’ is a TITLE… not a NAME!

A title, is such that it is usually prefaced by an article, one of the indefinite or the definite (‘a’, ‘an’, ‘the’). But a name is not so prefaced. Additionally, a title is post-faced by a context to differentiate it from another entity of such a title.

The word, ‘God’ is properly prefaced with an article: ‘The God’ or ‘A God’. And if an Israelite were talking with a person of another belief then they would set God in a context: ‘Our God’, ‘The God of our forefathers’, etc.
Contrast that with using the NAME of God: ‘YHWH, our God’, ‘YHWH, the God of our forefathers’, or if the other person has a god by name then the Jew could just say ‘YHWH….’.

So, ‘GOD’ is NOT A NAME!! It is a TITLE.

And it is therefore a dishonour to claim ‘God’ as THE NAME of God. Our God gave us His NAME as ‘YHWH’ and that is what we should use in honesty, in integrity, in honour, in servitude, in love,… in Jesus’ name towards our one true God!

 

[101G]

I might put you on my ‘Ignore’ list!

Fine, please do, your loss..... (smile).

101G.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you and Nikel… both enquire about the difference of a Title and a Name?

The thread TITLE is “Is ‘God’ the name of God [of the jews]”?

But ‘GOD’ is a TITLE… not a NAME!

A title, is such that it is usually prefaced by an article, one of the indefinite or the definite (‘a’, ‘an’, ‘the’). But a name is not so prefaced. Additionally, a title is post-faced by a context to differentiate it from another entity of such a title.

The word, ‘God’ is properly prefaced with an article: ‘The God’ or ‘A God’. And if an Israelite were talking with a person of another belief then they would set God in a context: ‘Our God’, ‘The God of our forefathers’, etc.
Contrast that with using the NAME of God: ‘YHWH, our God’, ‘YHWH, the God of our forefathers’, or if the other person has a god by name then the Jew could just say ‘YHWH….’.

So, ‘GOD’ is NOT A NAME!! It is a TITLE.

And it is therefore a dishonour to claim ‘God’ as THE NAME of God. Our God gave us His NAME as ‘YHWH’ and that is what we should use in honesty, in integrity, in honour, in servitude, in love,… in Jesus’ name towards our one true God!

I am not Nikel.
So for God it is sometimes a name and not just a title.
Now God is philosophy is not a title, it is a name.

Now for what Christianity is in the end, as that becomes relevant, we can then play No True Scotsman until long past the cows have come home.