sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is the point at which your reference to “pearls before swine” would be apropos, rather than the aphorism you blurted onto the page instead.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Misty Woods
A Child of Our Almighty Creator Jehovah
LOL I knew that you just couldn't help yourself
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I seem to find myself in the unfortunate position of having to correct ad hominem fallacies and untrue, entitled statements from you, when a simple “thank you for your help” would have sufficed.
When faced with a choice between “what I believe” as an ontological statement, and “the facts as we know them to be” as a statement of the same, “the facts as we know them” is the only correct statement.
Fact: This “new translation” is not such at all, by the definition of what constitutes a translation.
Fact: The publisher admits his agenda. That agenda is, by definition, fallacious.
Fact: “Jehovah” does not appear in Hebrew texts.
Fact: The appellation “Jehovah” is an attempt at making the Tetragrammaton pronounceable (when it was not meant to be spoken by the writers).
Fact: The Divine Name is YHWH.
You may “believe” something else, but that “belief” doesn’t constitute fact.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Shouldn’t that be immediately followed by a “TM?”
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You said that the ancient Jews were “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” That’s a direct allusion to the cult bearing that name. Let’s just turn that question around: “Are you for real” when you make that assertion?
But ancient Jews are not “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” as you asserted. You don’t get to appropriate them into your cult, simply because you both purport to engage in the same activity.
I think you need to get over the appropriation and disingenuous insinuations. It makes you look childish.
But not a Witness.
Well, here on RF (and other places) you’re known for making outlandish faith-claims, as if they were ontological fact, and for making the claim that none of the rest of us are True Christians
.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Who ever it was addressed to, read your previous post, it was ad hominem. This is like the rogue thinking everyone around are rogues.
So your point is that it should be YHWH, not Jehovah. Jews believe the name of God should not be used here and there, so you believe the same? But see that's your belief, that's your faith, while others may have a different faith and they may believe that it is okay to pronounce it but what's not okay is to not follow Gods teachings. You dont have to agree with other peoples faiths but you can respect them because what you are doing is an exchange of faith statements.
I would like to understand if you have scriptural evidence to say that God's divine name should not be pronounced. Then your analysis would be an objective answer to an obvious error, if not its just a simple faith statement.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No it wasn’t. It was a quote from the Bible, whose meaning is that trying to teach wisdom to those who can’t listen is futile. That’s not an ad hom in the least.
No, my point is precisely what I said: it is YHWH in the source texts.
Nope. Jews traditionally don’t pronounce it and, since they don’t, we have no reference for what the implied vowel sounds might be. We don’t know that they’re “e,” “o,” and “a.”
No, those are facts. Doesn’t matter what I believe. Those are facts, and yet they come along and assume facts not in evidence, make a faith-claim that “that’s the Real Divine Name” and that the rest of us who pay attention to facts are wrong. Then, they claim that, because we’re wrong on that count, we must not be True Christians
. Sure I respect their faith. What I don’t respect is their appropriation and entitlement through fallacious means, such as we see here with “The Real Divine Name” and its implications for other people of faith.
AFAIK, it’s Tradition and not textual. But that’s hardly compelling. As I said, the only reason it matters is because it renders any authentic Knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton impossible. That renders “Jehovah” nothing more than conjecture, which pulls the rug out from under their claims to “authenticity.”
cataway
Well-Known Member
i wounder what would happen if ya pray'ed to Jehovah in Jesus' name for maybe a month . would lightining strike ?No it wasn’t. It was a quote from the Bible, whose meaning is that trying to teach wisdom to those who can’t listen is futile. That’s not an ad hom in the least.
No, my point is precisely what I said: it is YHWH in the source texts.
Nope. Jews traditionally don’t pronounce it and, since they don’t, we have no reference for what the implied vowel sounds might be. We don’t know that they’re “e,” “o,” and “a.”
No, those are facts. Doesn’t matter what I believe. Those are facts, and yet they come along and assume facts not in evidence, make a faith-claim that “that’s the Real Divine Name” and that the rest of us who pay attention to facts are wrong. Then, they claim that, because we’re wrong on that count, we must not be True Christians
Sure I respect their faith. What I don’t respect is their appropriation and entitlement through fallacious means, such as we see here with “The Real Divine Name” and its implications for other people of faith.
AFAIK, it’s Tradition and not textual. But that’s hardly compelling. As I said, the only reason it matters is because it renders any authentic Knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton impossible. That renders “Jehovah” nothing more than conjecture, which pulls the rug out from under their claims to “authenticity.”
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Why would lightning strike? I don’t understand why you think I’d have a problem with that.
These statements appear to be about semantics.....but it is pedantic, legalistic nit picking IMO. Paul’s words seem to ring true here.....
1 Timothy 6:3-4....
“If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions” (ESV)
Christians are identified by what they do...not what they call themselves and especially not whether they have degrees in Christendom’s theology. Apparently you do not practice a form of Christianity that is even accepted by the churches in which you claim accepted ordination.
Hmmmm....I wonder what you are known for? Flashing your credentials as if they mean something to God.....and practicing something different to “the rest of us” which is apparently other “Christians”. I really can’t quite figure out what “Christian/Sharmanic” actually means....would you care to enlighten us? Can you tell us what “The Direct Experience of Mystical Communion” actually is in practice? Let’s explore your religion as much as you seem to have explored ours.....will you run away again? Isn’t this about your credibility as our critic? Let’s point the fingers back at you....isn’t that fair enough?
Sorry, but I can’t let this go......
Yes, “YHWH”, pronounced “Yahweh” by some as a transliteration, but widely accepted even in Christendom as “Jehovah” which is a translation rather than a transliteration. This is demonstrated even in the KJV at Psalm 83:18. How many “Christians” even know that God’s name is in their own precious translation of the Bible?
To suggest that God’s is pedantic about language is to deny that it is his creation. He can actually understand all languages because he created them. The divine name is not just translated into English but is seen in many translations in different languages. Are they all wrong then?
“Jesus” is not the correct pronunciation of his name either, but you don’t see the same legalistic approach to that. Since Christendom believes that Jesus is God, it seems ridiculous to make an issue of God’s name in English, but not Jesus’.....go figure...
Yes, it has been suggested that it was basically put into practice because many Jews were making frivolous oaths using God’s name and then failing to honor them. So instead of prosecuting the offenders, (which would have overwhelmed their judicial system) they outlawed the use of God’s name in their speech, but kept it in their written texts. So every time the Tetragrammaton appeared in the text, when it was read out loud, God’s name was substituted with “Adonai” (LORD) which the KJV carried over and rendered it this way in all but 4 verses. Other translations left the divine name out of the OT altogether.
When we read scripture such as Exodus 3:13-15, we see how ridiculous this really was. God’s “name” is not “the Lord”. His personal name was to be “mentioned” by his worshippers in their generations “forever”. (Read this in the Tanakh) This also gives the Jews no credible reason for refraining to speak the name that God gave them through Moses.
Failure to render God’s name changed the way God’s word was read by both Jews and the first Christians. (Who were all Jewish) And more importantly, it confused the separation between Jehovah and Jesus....both of whom rightfully carried the title “Lord”. This confusion in identity is the only reason why Christendom could promote their trinity.
The “implications” for those who refuse to accept that God has his own, personally identifying “name” (the only name he has ever had) and failing to see God and his Christ as two completely separate entities, leads them into blasphemy.....which will never end well for anyone.
What is “authentic” according to you? Failure to honor God’s name has implications for all who identify as “Christians”.
The Lord’s Prayer leads with this very important component in our approach to God in prayer....”hallowed be thy name” means that we must know God’s name in whatever language we speak, and give it the honor it deserves.
Your arguments ring hollow IMO.
Yes, “YHWH”, pronounced “Yahweh” by some as a transliteration, but widely accepted even in Christendom as “Jehovah” which is a translation rather than a transliteration. This is demonstrated even in the KJV at Psalm 83:18. How many “Christians” even know that God’s name is in their own precious translation of the Bible?
To suggest that God’s is pedantic about language is to deny that it is his creation. He can actually understand all languages because he created them. The divine name is not just translated into English but is seen in many translations in different languages. Are they all wrong then?
“Jesus” is not the correct pronunciation of his name either, but you don’t see the same legalistic approach to that. Since Christendom believes that Jesus is God, it seems ridiculous to make an issue of God’s name in English, but not Jesus’.....go figure...
Yes, it has been suggested that it was basically put into practice because many Jews were making frivolous oaths using God’s name and then failing to honor them. So instead of prosecuting the offenders, (which would have overwhelmed their judicial system) they outlawed the use of God’s name in their speech, but kept it in their written texts. So every time the Tetragrammaton appeared in the text, when it was read out loud, God’s name was substituted with “Adonai” (LORD) which the KJV carried over and rendered it this way in all but 4 verses. Other translations left the divine name out of the OT altogether.
When we read scripture such as Exodus 3:13-15, we see how ridiculous this really was. God’s “name” is not “the Lord”. His personal name was to be “mentioned” by his worshippers in their generations “forever”. (Read this in the Tanakh) This also gives the Jews no credible reason for refraining to speak the name that God gave them through Moses.
Failure to render God’s name changed the way God’s word was read by both Jews and the first Christians. (Who were all Jewish) And more importantly, it confused the separation between Jehovah and Jesus....both of whom rightfully carried the title “Lord”. This confusion in identity is the only reason why Christendom could promote their trinity.
The “implications” for those who refuse to accept that God has his own, personally identifying “name” (the only name he has ever had) and failing to see God and his Christ as two completely separate entities, leads them into blasphemy.....which will never end well for anyone.
What is “authentic” according to you? Failure to honor God’s name has implications for all who identify as “Christians”.
The Lord’s Prayer leads with this very important component in our approach to God in prayer....”hallowed be thy name” means that we must know God’s name in whatever language we speak, and give it the honor it deserves.
Your arguments ring hollow IMO.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
The synoptic Gospels differ from the Gospel of John.. Go figure?! The experts say to go with the synoptic Gospel
Catholic Answers
The Evangelists and critics generally agree that the Last Supper was on a Thursday, that Christ suffered and died on Friday, and that He arose from the dead on Sunday. As to the day of the month there seems a difference between the record of the synoptic Gospels and that of St. John. In consequence some critics have rejected the authenticity of either account or of both. Since Christians, accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, cannot admit contradictions in the sacred writers, various attempts have been made to reconcile the statements. Matt., xxvi, 17, says, “And on the first day of the Azymes“; Mark, xiv, 12, “Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch”; Luke, xxii, 7, “And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed”. From these passages it seems to follow that Jesus and his disciples conformed to the ordinary custom, that the Last Supper took place on the 14th of Nisan, and that the Crucifixion was on the 15th, the great festival of the Jews. This opinion, held by Tolet, Cornelius a Lapide, Patrizi, Corluy, Hengstenberg, Ohlshausen, and Tholuck, is confirmed by the custom of the early Eastern Church, which, looking to the day of the month, celebrated the commemoration of the Lord’s Last Supper on the 14th of Nisan, without paying any attention to the day of the week. This was done in conformity with the teaching of St. John the Evangelist. But in his Gospel, St. John seems to indicate that Friday was the 14th of Nisan, for (xviii, 28) on the morning of this day the Jews “went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch”. Various things were done on this Friday which could not be done on a feast, viz., Christ is arrested, tried, crucified; His body is taken down” (because it was the parasceve) that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that was a great sabbath day)”; the shroud and ointments are bought, and so on.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
Misty Woods The Apostles creed was written in the forth Century at The Council of Nicea it was a direct response to the Heretic Arius!
Arius was a Christian he was AMONG Christians until he started teaching False Heresies. Arius taught "Jesus is not God" he was removed from AMONG Christians thus the creed was produced to make it clear what Christians believe!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Seems to apply to your posts rather well. Your posts appear to teach a different doctrine from orthodoxy. Yet your posts don’t appear to portray a good understanding of the doctrine you teach. For example, you posted a load of claptrap about John 1 a while ago, and when I corrected your “analysis” of the Greek, I heard crickets. You were the one who posted that the ancient Jews were “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” and attempted to back that up with a Biblical text. Seems an awful lot like being “puffed up” and “quarreling with words, producing dissension, slander, etc.”
That really bothers you, doesn’t it?
Apparently you’re quite mistaken, and trying to deflect your badly written posts by raising suspicion about my spiritual integrity won’t work.
Obviously they do — otherwise, God would not have called me to accept those credentials.
Well, I certainly don’t practice making false claims about the Christian sandbox, build a new sandbox and then claim that the new sandbox is the original, disenfranchising the majority of the Christian household, as you apparently do.
Apparently you can’t quite figure out what John 1 means, either. it’s not a crime.
No. This isn’t about me. It’s about the disingenuous content of the post under discussion here.
See above.
Deflection is not an option.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
God’s name is YHWH in the Bible. We’re well aware of that.
I never suggested that God is pedantic about language. You’re the one who brought that up.
Immaterial. You posited that “Jehovah” is the “real name” of God, and suggesting that because your religion uses that particular appellation, that makes your religion True Christianity
. I merely pointed out that that opinion is mistaken. God’s real name — according to the Bible — is YHWH.No. God’s name is YHWH. And this isn’t about the Jews.
It wasn’t changed. It was always written YHWH. And the First Christians were not only Jewish, but Greek as well.
You’re confused. That’s not the only reason — and it’s not even a good reason.
We do accept that God’s name is YHWH. And that’s the only thing at issue here.
YHWH.
Yeah, but we don’t fail to do that; you claim that we fail to do that.
And so we do.
Of course they do.
Yes!....and thank God for that! 'Orthodoxy' was not what Jesus taught....it was introduced by an apostate church hundreds of years after Christ was executed. We made a thorough search of Christendom's doctrines, found that they were all adopted like helpless orphans from paganism and we threw them out into the trash where they belonged. We make no apology for that. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
Perhaps you'd like a list of the adoptees...its a long one.
No, my posts don't appear to portray a good understanding of what "you" teach.....there is a difference. Who said you must be right?
I stand by every word in it.....you didn't prove me wrong. The crickets were heard the loudest when I asked you to explain what your own religion teaches and practices.
Isaiah 43:10....(NASB)
"You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor shall there be any after me."
Who is "the LORD" here in capital letters? it's YHWH....Yahweh...Jehovah.
That makes Israel Jehovah's witnesses. That was a pretty clear statement as I went on to demonstrate what it means to BE one of Jehovah's witnesses. Jesus was one too (Revelation 3:14) but you stumbled over the capital letters when we identify ourselves as "Jehovah's Witnesses".....it is the official name of our denomination....look at your own identification...did not capitalize the letters of your denomination's name?
Your empty protestations are pedantic nonsense IMO.
It wasn't me quibbling about capital letters and words.....
....good grief.No, actually I find it rather sad that you feel the need to do that in order to elevate your own status....like it matters to anyone but you. That to me would be like the Pharisees flashing their credentials at Jesus or Peter because they never attended the rabbinical schools....it would just be pathetic.....sorry. Why do you suppose that none of the 12 were educated in Judaism?
Who is deflecting now? Can't stand and take the same scrutiny that you dish out to us...? I wonder why? It makes me think that you have something to hide.
Which god would that be? And you have a direct line apparently...? What did he call you?
Ducking for cover....doesn't help your argument. If you think my posts are disingenuous, then perhaps it will help if we can see if your own claims are disingenuous...? That sounds fair to me.
Running away is not an option.....are you afraid that someone will discover that your beliefs and practices are not really "Christian", despite your 'label'?
According to Wiki (I had to look it up)...
"Shamanism is a religious practice that involves a practitioner, a shaman, who is believed to interact with a spirit world through altered states of consciousness, such as trance.[1][2]
([2] Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 20, 2020. Shamanism, religious phenomenon centred on the shaman, a person believed to achieve various powers through trance or ecstatic religious experience. Although shamans’ repertoires vary from one culture to the next, they are typically thought to have the ability to heal the sick, to communicate with the otherworld, and often to escort the souls of the dead to that otherworld). . . .
The goal of this is usually to direct these spirits or spiritual energies into the physical world, for healing or some other purpose. . . . In the 20th century, many Westerners involved in counter-cultural movements have created modern magico-religious practices influenced by their ideas of Indigenous religions from across the world, creating what has been termed neoshamanism or the neoshamanic movement. . . . It has affected the development of many neopagan practices, as well as faced a backlash and accusations of cultural appropriation,[4] exploitation and misrepresentation when outside observers have tried to represent cultures to which they do not belong....
Hmmmm, no wonder you don't want to discuss it....
Last edited:
Neither does “Jesus.”
Say it....
Say it....You posited that “Jehovah” is the “real name” of God, and suggesting that because your religion uses that particular appellation, that makes your religion True Christianity
Say it....
The very first Christians were all Jewish......gentiles were not added until after Jesus’ death and resurrection.....after Pentecost. Peter used one of the keys of the kingdom to open the way for Gentiles to become Christians without the need to convert to Judaism. It was part of the new covenant.
Jesus said he came to make his Father’s name known.....so did he? (John 17:6; John 12:28)
So....say it.....please tell us how you say it.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
The Jews would not speak the name of the God of Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob, instead they substituted the name of their God with the word "LORD."
Why do you mob translate the Hebrew scriptures into English, and yet refuse to translate the Hebrew name for their God into English.
Now you know what JHWH means when translated into English, so let us hear you speak his name by saying; "I am true to my God, to my God (English translation please,) Come on mate say it, 'come on 'Say it.'
What is it to be? "I am true to my God, to my God. Who I Am." Or, "I am true to my God, to my God, Who I Will Be."
Last edited:
Already established that. Read post #391. Try to keep up...OK?
According to Exodus 3:13-15, in the Tanakh, God’s name was to be “mentioned” throughout their generations...”forever”...so why did they stop ‘mentioning’ it? What excuse can they use to justify losing the pronunciation of the most important name in existence?
How do you lose the name of the world’s most famous author and substitute his title in his own book? What human author would tolerate such a thing?
Sorry....what?? What do you think “Jehovah” is? “Yahweh" is the transliteration but “Jehovah” is the English translation....just like “Jesus” is.
The English translation of YHWH according to the Tanakh is “I Will Be What I Will Be”..... I can say “Jehovah” to translate it like I have been for almost 50 years. The Jewish Bible writers had no difficulty saying God’s name. Does your name have a meaning? Every Jewish name did, including God’s. Most of the “J” names in the English Bible incorporate the divine name....including “Jesus”. They were known by their names, because our name is our personal identification.
I think you have lost the plot.....
Last edited: