God's Name is God

[101G]

So you quote the gospel to a Muslim that Jesus is God, and the Muslim is going to quote back from the quran that Jesus was not God. What have you accomplished?

Exposer, they might not have heard the "TRUTH".....

101G

 

[101G]

The author of John, wrote some philosophical prose that resembles Philo's logos, as in Hellenistic Jewish philosophy .. with the added twist of incarnating into Jesus.
The author probably thought that he was being very clever, and believed it to be true.

your first mistake with me, as said personal Opinions don';t move me, so keep them to yourself.... thanks in advance.

However, Jesus is not reported to have said anything about a logos, and that he was God incarnate.

he is the LIVING WORD/LOGOS. listen, who was in the prophets prophesying? the Holy Spirit... God right. scripture,
2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

so it was the Holy Spirit in them.

now this,

1 Peter 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:" 1 Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."

WHO WAS IN THE PROPHET OF OLD? GOD, AND WHO IS GOD? "the Spirit of Christ which was in them". bingo, there is God, JESUS the Word, just as John 1:1 clearly states.

101G.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..so it was the Holy Spirit in them..

Sure, a moron can be filled by the Holy Spirit, but that does not make them babble philosophy without prior knowledge.

The Gospel of John prologue does not look like speaking in tongues, don't you think?

You can ignore wikipedia .. ignore educated people's discussion .. and replace it with "insert your denomination stuff here", and feel that you are right .. the problem is, that we can't all be right.
..not unless we make some sort of compromise, and not rely on literal Bible thumping.

 

[101G]

To all,
concerning God Personal NAME. YHWH, or YHVH, or what ever. that is not his name as to WHO he is in NAME. it is "WHAT" he is in Name. do u understand? let's take a little test. if I ask u "What is the First woman Name", and you answer EVE, then u would be in ERROR, the correct answer would be "Adam". did u fellas get that?

now school is open.

101G.

 

[101G]

Sure, a moron can be filled by the Holy Spirit, but that does not make them babble philosophy without prior knowledge.

so, are u saying that God babble by his, his, his, chosen prophet? is that what u are saying?

You can ignore wiki .. ignore educated people's discussion .. and replace it with "insert your denomination stuff here", and feel that you are right .. the problem is, that we can't all be right.
..not unless we make some sort of compromise, and not rely on literal Bible thumping.

I do not comprise the Word of God........ YIKES!

101G.

 

[muhammad_isa]

so, are u saying that God babble by his, his, his, chosen prophet? is that what u are saying?

Is that what you think?
..that the author of "John" is a prophet?
..that the author of all the Gospels are prophets?
..that Paul(Saul) is a prophet?

Wow .. lots of prophets .. do you think that there are loads of prophets around today as well?

 

[101G]

Is that what you think?

no that's what I asked..... and?

Is that what you think?
..that the author of "John" is a prophet?
..that the author of all the Gospels are prophets?
..that Paul(Saul) is a prophet?

Wow .. lots of prophets .. do you think that there are loads of prophets around today as well?

yes, did you not read? 1 Corinthians 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

do u now understand? ... now, if you have a problem with that .... take it up with God, not 101G.

101G.

 

[muhammad_isa]

do u now understand? ...

I think so .. you believe that lots of people are prophets,
and that God fills them with the Holy Spirit, and they become infallible. Is that it?

Personally, I don't rate anybody other than John the Baptist, Jesus and Muhammad as being authoritative in the last 2,030 years or so.
i.e. as in infallible

The question also arises as to why we should be so focused on doctrine about Jesus Divinity, rather than the worship of God.

Jesus did not worship himself, and He taught us the Lord's prayer.

 

[101G]

I think so .. you believe that lots of people are prophets,
and that God fills them with the Holy Spirit, and they become infallible. Is that it?

did the bible say that? .... why ask 101G?

Personally, I don't rate anybody other than John the Baptist, Jesus and Muhammad as being authoritative in the last 2,030 years or so.

personally, that not my problem

The question also arises as to why we should be so focused on doctrine about Jesus Divinity, rather than the worship of God.

Jesus is God manifested in Flesh. I worship him every day, as I'm doing RIGHT NOW....... Lord JESUS the ONLY TRUE and LIVING GOD.

101G.

 

[Muffled]

Is that what you think?
..that the author of "John" is a prophet?
..that the author of all the Gospels are prophets?
..that Paul(Saul) is a prophet?

Wow .. lots of prophets .. do you think that there are loads of prophets around today as well?

I believe all the apostles heard God speak to them as Jesus and performed miracles of casting out demons. That pretty much describes a prophet other than predicting the future which Jesus keeps as His own.

I believe it is somewhat rare but it is included as one of the gifts of the Spirit in I Cor. 12.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I believe all the apostles heard God speak to them as Jesus..

..so why is it that YHWH spoke to Moses and not Jesus?
The OT must have got it wrong.

 

[Muffled]

..so why is it that YHWH spoke to Moses and not Jesus?
The OT must have got it wrong.

I believe Jesus was not born at that time. But the memory of YHWH speaking would be the memory that the Spirit of God in Jesus would have.

 

[Soapy]

@questfortruth

I agree with you that the defacto name of God is God in monotheism. That's why we capitalize the G -- because it is a proper noun. However, if you dig into the Hebrew texts, you find that the name given to God is Yad Hey Vav Hey (YHWH). You can read more about it here: Tetragrammaton - Wikipedia

‘YHWH’ is not the name given TO GOD. It is the everlasting, the eternal, NAME that the God of the Israelites GAVE FOR HIMSELF.

Because of either superstition or fear, of both, the scripture writers decided not to even wrote the name of God where it appears in scriptures, but, instead, use a substitute CAPITALISED TERM, ‘LORD’.

This term must always be used in capitals, and additionally, should be single quoted, as an emphasis to show that it is not the original word.

But I see postings in this thread that are already using the substitute word uncapitalised and unquoted. This will lead to confusion and false claims where the word, Lord, is used for Jesus Christ.

In fact, that mis-use leads to the intentional or mis-intentional claim that Jesus Christ is the very same ‘god-person’ as the one true God of the Israelites.

So, it’s advised that anyone who does not know, does not care, purposely, inadvertently, mistakenly, … claims that ‘YHWH’ is the same as ‘Lord’, must be treated with deep suspicion as to their claims - as the error is grievious to the truth of scriptures.

It is therefore recommended (I say) that ‘YHWH’ be written as ‘YHWH’, or, ‘LORD’ with clear reference ti the fact it is a substitute for ‘YHWH’.

 

[Soapy]

So you quote the gospel to a Muslim that Jesus is God, and the Muslim is going to quote back from the quran that Jesus was not God. What have you accomplished?

This is something I just cannot understand - Why would a Christian debate with a Muslim or, in fact, with any denyer of Jesus Christ?

At the best, Muslims and Christians have the same old testament heritage. But forward of that it’s a pure game of ‘Christians say… Muslims say’, and ne’er the Twain shall meet!

 

[Soapy]

Exposer, they might not have heard the "TRUTH".....

101G

There is ‘virtually’ nobody in the world today who has not heard of Jesus Christ.

I would agree, if it were said, that changing the belief of many hardline religions is very difficult and I do fear for those who have been appointed to carry out such tasks. But they must be like Jonah [when he finally gave in to God’s command] and have faith in almighty God that their task may be accomplished even if they are to die in the execution- their reward is secure in Heaven or Paradise., which is a greater reward than they can realise since they would be saving many lives - those of whom are persuaded to believe in God and in Christ.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is something I just cannot understand - Why would a Christian debate with a Muslim or, in fact, with any denyer of Jesus Christ?

I've always assumed that the truth matters, and that if we care about our fellow human beings, we will try to show them the truth, and will also in turn listen to them, since they may have the truth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

‘YHWH’ is not the name given TO GOD. It is the everlasting, the eternal, NAME that the God of the Israelites GAVE FOR HIMSELF.

Because of either superstition or fear, of both, the scripture writers decided not to even wrote the name of God where it appears in scriptures, but, instead, use a substitute CAPITALISED TERM, ‘LORD’.

This term must always be used in capitals, and additionally, should be single quoted, as an emphasis to show that it is not the original word.

But I see postings in this thread that are already using the substitute word uncapitalised and unquoted. This will lead to confusion and false claims where the word, Lord, is used for Jesus Christ.

In fact, that mis-use leads to the intentional or mis-intentional claim that Jesus Christ is the very same ‘god-person’ as the one true God of the Israelites.

So, it’s advised that anyone who does not know, does not care, purposely, inadvertently, mistakenly, … claims that ‘YHWH’ is the same as ‘Lord’, must be treated with deep suspicion as to their claims - as the error is grievious to the truth of scriptures.

It is therefore recommended (I say) that ‘YHWH’ be written as ‘YHWH’, or, ‘LORD’ with clear reference ti the fact it is a substitute for ‘YHWH’.

I'm not sure why you are arguing. It is indisputable that the name of God in the sacred texts is יְהוָה, which transliterates as YHVH. There really is nothing here to discuss. No one is saying that יְהוָה means Lord. It is just that there is a tradition of respect for the name, so that it is never written casually. When we read teh Torah, and arrive at the name, we substitute Adonai (Lord) as a way of treating the divine name with the utmost respect. Similarly, when the Torah is translated into English, the translators substitute LORD (usually in all caps) as a way to not use the divine name casually. But no one is saying that יְהוָה means "Lord."

 

[Soapy]

I've always assumed that the truth matters, and that if we care about our fellow human beings, we will try to show them the truth, and will also in turn listen to them, since they may have the truth.

Please read again what I said…

Showing the truth is discussion … not debate. That’s the point I’m making.

Two ‘Christian’s’ can debate with each other since the ‘belief’ is the same… the scriptures is the same… the beginning and end are the same (or should be…!). The debate would then be about the precise details within.

But a Muslim has every right to claim their belief is the true belief in the same way the Christian claims his belief is the true one. The beginning is the same but the ends are completely different. A DEBATE can only result in pointless non-progressive argument since in a debate both sides will simply dig their heels in and present ideologies unrepresented in the other belief. How can a Christian prove that Mohammed say, or did not say, this or that… or to a Muslim that Jesus Christ ‘WAS ALMIGHTY GOD in the flesh’ (Trinity Christian view - not mine!!).

A discussion… not a debate!

 

[Soapy]

I'm not sure why you are arguing. It is indisputable that the name of God in the sacred texts is יְהוָה, which transliterates as YHVH. There really is nothing here to discuss. No one is saying that יְהוָה means Lord. It is just that there is a tradition of respect for the name, so that it is never written casually. When we read teh Torah, and arrive at the name, we substitute Adonai (Lord) as a way of treating the divine name with the utmost respect. Similarly, when the Torah is translated into English, the translators substitute LORD (usually in all caps) as a way to not use the divine name casually. But no one is saying that יְהוָה means "Lord."

Again, you are not reading what I am writing. You are projecting a point of view from yourself that was not in my intent.

You claimed that MANKIND GAVE GOD the name ‘YHWH’.

I said ‘No! It was YHWH who gave Himself that name!’

There is a significant difference between the two statements (or claims!)

The rest of what I said was just as you said and I agree totally - except the ‘Usually’ in all caps. Unless it is in all caps it would not translate as the name of God and would fuel the trinitarian claim that Jesus is God because both are called Lord… which we who are in the truth know is not the case.

But no one is saying that יְהוָה means "Lord."

When last did you debate/discuss with a trinitarian about the name of God and titles of Jesus. Ok, I admit that it is the ones whom are purposely ignorant, not even desiring to look at the Hebrew text - but if they are unopposed in this then they will propagate the error in writing and in teaching until it adds to the many other trinitarian established mis-beliefs.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Showing the truth is discussion … not debate. That’s the point I’m making.

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.