• 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!

What is the Name of the Lord

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I thought people couldn't say or be able to say God's name anyways. Kind of a pointless commandment if you ask me.

Probably an oversight by its author.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The name of the Lord is whatever you feel deep within you is the Name of the Lord. To take that name "in vain" is to violate your deepest and highest understanding of reality.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The name of the Lord is either 1) Howard, or 2) Shirley Murphy.

“Our father, who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.”

“Shirley, good Mrs. Murphy, shall follow me all the days of my life...”
 

1213

Well-Known Member
You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain.

I think God is also His name. And if you use it in vain, it is not good. For example, people who say “oh my God” pointlessly are doing wrongly. But if you are saying something meaningful, it is not in vain to use His name. I think Jews should understand this.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain.


Muslims say that Allah SWT, God has 99 names. I think that Jews say that the name of the Creator is forbidden to be spoken. Generally, Christians just say God. Though there are splinter groups that are apt to use almost anything. I've heard Jehovah Gyra, YAHWEH, Heavenly Father (Mormons), and ????
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I thought people couldn't say or be able to say God's name anyways. Kind of a pointless commandment if you ask me.

Probably an oversight by its author.
It's not a commandment. It's respect, similar to how one doesn't call one's parents by their names.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain.
That may have meant that they should not swear falsely in His name YHVH. That would be to dishonor His name and make God angry.

People in those days routinely swore oaths by their god of choice. And that was often the only way to know someone was telling the truth. However, many people also swore false oaths.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why would the author of the universe need a name, or care what sounds the myriad organisms on myriad planets used to refer to Him -- if sounds they use?
I don't care what sounds, or gestures, or chemical communicants one or another ant colonies on my lawn use to refer to me.

A name is just a sound or symbol used to communicate an idea between interlocutors. An omnipotent God worrying about such things seems dubious.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
It's not a commandment. It's respect, similar to how one doesn't call one's parents by their names.

that makes no sense given exodus 3:15



why in the world would anyone give you a name that they didn't want you to use?


And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Nobody knows. They just kept calling Him "God" or "Lord".
Yes, and I too find Christendom ( so-called Christian ) often teach that nobody knows.
But teaching ' nobody knows ' does Not necessarily mean nobody knows.
Jesus knew, and according to John 17:6 and John 17:26 Jesus will ' declare ' God's name.
Since Jesus taught we should hallow (hold sacred) God's name - Hallowed be thy Name - then we should.
When the King James Version translated the Bible into English they translated the Tetragrammaton YHWH as LORD.
LORD in all Upper-Case letters as found at KJV Psalms 110.
Whereas, Lord Jesus ( Lord in some lower-case letters) the Tetragrammaton does Not apply.
So, the most common pronunciation in English is found at KJV Psalms 83:18 as Jehovah.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
That's a good question and I know you're going to respond to this post with a stupid response because of some weird fetish you have, but I'm going to answer it anyways since you brought it up and maybe someone else will wonder the same.

The verse quoted is actually the verse we understand alludes to our practice. There are two Talmudic passages that discuss this verse.
One points out that the world "forever" לעולם is actually written "lacking" (ie. missing a letter that actually acts as a vowel here), so that it says לעלם which can be read as "to conceal". In other words the verse is read, "This is My Name to conceal", as though we are being told to conceal this Name.

The other passage points out that the verse contradicts itself. We are told that this word is G-d's Name and we are told that this is G-d's remembrance. Well, which is it then? And why separate it into two completely disparate sentences?
Why not just say, "This is My Name and remembrance" or just "this is My Name"? What new information is being added, that I wouldn't have known with it?
Instead the passage explains that the reference is to two separate Names. It's like G-d is showing Moses both of His Names and He's saying, "This [one] is My Name for ['hiding']" and "This [one] is My Name for remembrance (ie. speaking)".
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
That's a good question and I know you're going to respond to this post with a stupid response because of some weird fetish you have, but I'm going to answer it anyways since you brought it up and maybe someone else will wonder the same.

The verse quoted is actually the verse we understand alludes to our practice. There are two Talmudic passages that discuss this verse.
One points out that the world "forever" לעולם is actually written "lacking" (ie. missing a letter that actually acts as a vowel here), so that it says לעלם which can be read as "to conceal". In other words the verse is read, "This is My Name to conceal", as though we are being told to conceal this Name.

The other passage points out that the verse contradicts itself. We are told that this word is G-d's Name and we are told that this is G-d's remembrance. Well, which is it then? And why separate it into two completely disparate sentences?
Why not just say, "This is My Name and remembrance" or just "this is My Name"? What new information is being added, that I wouldn't have known with it?
Instead the passage explains that the reference is to two separate Names. It's like G-d is showing Moses both of His Names and He's saying, "This [one] is My Name for ['hiding']" and "This [one] is My Name for remembrance (ie. speaking)".


its interesting that the name was revealed out of cham

thank you for sharing

ahmi, ahea, nuk, tat

namaste
 
Last edited:
Top