Let's Talk About the Holy Spirit

[djhwoodwerks]

Those who "call on the name of Jehovah (YHWH) will be saved" (Romans 10:13 where Paul was quoting Joel 2:32)...this is what the scriptures teach. But in order to call on the name of YHWH (Yahweh, Jehovah) one must first know who he is.

Your slave tries so hard to replace Jesus, it's very sad indeed.

Romans 10:5-13 (ESV Strong's) 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

With our mouth we confess and are "saved", confess what? That "Jesus" is Lord.

Everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame, believes in whom? Believes in "Jesus".

For the "same Lord" is "Lord of all", who is the Lord? "Jesus" who we must confess as Lord to be "saved".

Why would Paul say that when we confess "Jesus" as "Lord" we will be saved, and then say whoever calls on Jehovah will be saved? Yes, Paul was quoting Joel, but Joel was a "future" prophecy of Jesus

Peter, in the book of Acts said,

Acts 4:11-12 (ESV Strong's) 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

According to your rewritten Bible, who is wrong, Peter or Paul?


Ephesians 1:19-21 (ESV Strong's) 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above "all" rule and authority and power and dominion, and above "every" name that is "named", not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Philippians 2:8-11 (ESV Strong's) 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him "the" name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of "Jesus" every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What rule, or authority, or power, or dominion, or name do those verses leave out?

 

[djhwoodwerks]

But I never would be, that's the point.

Then you have nothing to worry about, that's my point!

We must be "faithful even to death." (Revelation 2:10) Because this life is not all there is

So, if someone was strangling your wife or child, you would tell your wife, "I'm sorry honey, but I have to love my enemy too. Remember, this life is not all there is." Or, "praise Jehovah honey, you're going to be a martyr for God!"

I guess then you will let the person leave? Or maybe, you'll call the police, have the person arrested and let "someone else" (the state) kill him, hmmm! But, if you did that, "you" would be responsible for that persons death, correct?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Then you have nothing to worry about, that's my point!




So, if someone was strangling your wife or child, you would tell your wife, "I'm sorry honey, but I have to love my enemy too. Remember, this life is not all there is." Or, "praise Jehovah honey, you're going to be a martyr for God!"

I guess then you will let the person leave? Or maybe, you'll call the police, have the person arrested and let "someone else" (the state) kill him, hmmm! But, if you did that, "you" would be responsible for that persons death, correct?

I'm a firm believer if able to stand in the gap. This wasn't a push over Christian who said this.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I'm a firm believer if able to stand in the gap. This wasn't a push over Christian who said this.

that implies protecting and (sorry to say but in the example you listed) forcing a Christian especially a Christian to do the most narrow thing when he is only taught "love/peace" fear of his God; love others, he loves his God and Christ, the unconditional love thing, then the narrow of showing uncompromising love. If you were known by Christ; He'll definitely know you on that. It doesn't mean someone has to die.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

that implies protecting and (sorry to say but in the example you listed) forcing a Christian especially a Christian to do the most narrow thing when he is only taught "love/peace" fear of his God; love others, he loves his God and Christ, the unconditional love thing, then the narrow of showing uncompromising love. If you were known by Christ; He'll definitely know you on that. It doesn't mean someone has to die.

Its actually saving lives, you want people to live.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm not sure I follow you here. "Jehovah" comes from a serious misunderstanding of Hebrew. "Yahweh" would be the correct way to say God's name via the OT.

How do you know that Yahweh is the correct way to say God's Hebrew name ?

Doesn't the Codex Leningrad B 19 a have the vowel points between YHWH to read as Yeho-wah ?
Isn't that because scholars think YHWH is a three-syllable word and Not just two syllables?
What does haleluyah stand for? Isn't the Latinized form ending in jah ?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

that implies protecting and (sorry to say but in the example you listed) forcing a Christian especially a Christian to do the most narrow thing when he is only taught "love/peace" fear of his God; love others, he loves his God and Christ, the unconditional love thing, then the narrow of showing uncompromising love. If you were known by Christ; He'll definitely know you on that. It doesn't mean someone has to die.

Unconditional love, or having ' self-sacrificing love ' as Jesus has and taught at John 13:34-35 ?

Jesus gave us the commission of Matthew 24:13-14; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts of the Apostles 1:8 as an indication of self-sacrificing love for others until we see the end of the world of badness comes that surrounds us today.

As far as " It doesn't mean someone has to die." We can see that the living humble people alive on earth at the soon coming ' time of separation' on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33 do Not die. They can remain alive on Earth, and continue to live on Earth, right into the start of Day One when Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth begins.- Revelation 22:2

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Unconditional love, or having ' self-sacrificing love ' as Jesus has and taught at John 13:34-35 ?

Jesus gave us the commission of Matthew 24:13-14; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts of the Apostles 1:8 as an indication of self-sacrificing love for others until we see the end of the world of badness comes that surrounds us today.

As far as " It doesn't mean someone has to die." We can see that the living humble people alive on earth at the soon coming ' time of separation' on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33 do Not die. They can remain alive on Earth, and continue to live on Earth, right into the start of Day One when Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth begins.- Revelation 22:2

Right I do like your paragraph; mid wise, stand in the gap it is what you say, He was the sacrifice,-- I stood on pyramids with this one.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So then, it seems to me, that people know perfectly well that Christianity is built on a foundation of men who had not received The Holy Spirit for if they had, they could not have been confused about it. The Holy Spirit is the opposite of confusion. They were looking for it in a book instead of looking for it at the door. Revelation 3:20 Matthew 7:13-14 John 10:9

That it is obvious they had not received The Holy Spirit, but they wrote the book we have, then I suppose i just might possibly be right it's wrong.

Written with it, translated without it, understood without it, believed in, without it.

If God allowed THEM to write it for us, is it possible that God allowed the Scribes to write it without The Holy Spirit?

Oh no! Then it might mean to someone that there is no God. Think about it.

I just did. So, God is your worker, working to save you with the Bible, but if the Bible isn't right, it means God isn't working, which means what? That there is no God Almighty?

Nonsensical conclusion based on erroneous conjecture.

The Holy Spirit was with the congregation after the death and resurrection of the Christ. Did those who compiled the books of the bible have the Holy Spirit? Maybe not. Does that in any way mean there is no GOD? No it does not.

Peace

 

[Deeje]

Deeje,

How do you treat those who are disfellowshiped members? Did you pray for them or what?

First of all you need to understand the reasons why people are disfellowshipped in the first place. It is a judicial process based on 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:
"9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”

Jesus also provides the basis for discipline in the congregation....

Matthew 18:15-17:
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector."

You will see by these two scriptures that there is a process. First of all a serious sin has to have been committed. It has to become known and the people concerned are to bring this sin to the attention of the sinner first. This will reveal whether the person has remorse over the wrong committed. If that one is not moved to go to the elders and confess the wrongdoing, they will be brought before a committee of three brothers who will ascertain from the witnesses, the severity of the sin. If it is a minor offense, the individual will receive loving counsel. There are never accusing fingers or a hasty judgment. All aspects of the problem will be discussed and God's word will be used to reach the individual's heart and move them to repentance. There will be much prayer over the matter. The last thing the elders want is to disfellowship anyone. But the authority to judge within the congregation is theirs, given to them by God as Paul says. Anyone who identifies themselves as a brother, cannot commit unrepentant sin and expect to remain a member of the congregation.We all know that before we are baptized.

If the sin is serious enough to warrant disfellowshipping, action will only be taken if the person refuses to acknowledge the sin, (denial) blames someone else for their own error (like Adam did) or who tries to stir up support from other members of the congregation, creating division and disharmony. (self justification) Jehovah "hates" that.

Proverbs 6:16-19:
"There are six things that Jehovah hates;
Yes, seven things that he detests:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil,
19 A false witness who lies with every breath,
And anyone sowing contentions among brothers."

This process could take weeks and every opportunity is given to the individual to exhibit a humble spirit of repentance. Discipline can be expected in the form of a loss of privileges in the congregation for a time, but no disfellowshipping will take place where genuine repentance is demonstrated. Any discipline can be a sobering reminder not to treat sin lightly.

At 1 Cor 11:32, Paul gives us the objective of discipline...
"However, when we are judged, we are disciplined by Jehovah, so that we may not become condemned with the world."

Even though discipline may seem harsh, it is from Jehovah and it has the same objective as the discipline we give our own children....we don't want them settling into a pattern of disobedience.

Ecclesiastes 8:11:
"Because sentence against a bad work has not been executed speedily, that is why the heart of the sons of men has become fully set in them to do bad."

Hebrews 12:11:
"True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but grievous; yet afterward to those who have been trained by it it yields peaceable fruit, namely, righteousness."

There is no hatred or malice in the discipline. It is "tough love". Once we hear that someone has been disfellowshipped from our congregation, we grieve. We want them to come back, but we will support the discipline that God's word recommends. If we treated them the same, where is the discipline?
The loss of fellowship can have a deep impact on a person, jolting them into realizing the gravity of what they have done and wanting to come "home".

If you remember the parable of the prodigal son, it was that loss of all that he he formerly had that made him appreciate it once it was gone. This is the reason why it works....because it is from Jehovah.

 

[Deeje]

If Jesus did not exists before His human birth, then that would mean Archangel Michael is not Jesus. Because God created the angels first and foremost.

As God's "firstborn" and "only begotten", this "son of God" was not just an angel. Can we just clear that up first of all? As a spirit, created by the Great Spirit, and the agent "through" whom all creation came, this son was responsible for creating everything else....is this rocket science?

(Colossians 1:15, 16; Revelation 3:14) The pre-human Jesus was not the Creator, but the agency through whom God created. (John 1:2-3)

The spirit being who became Jesus was the same spirit being that was given the name Michael in heaven. He has many names....his name changes and his roles change but the spirit being remains the same since his creation. The role and name of God NEVER change. They are two completely separate beings. The holy spirit is not a person.

Trinitarian doctrine is about the existence of one God, as simple as that. One perfect example is the baptism of Jesus Christ wherein the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were there (in existence).

Do you understand that there was NO trinitarian doctrine in Christianity until it was introduced by the apostate Catholic Church in the 4th century after Jesus died.
Look at the conduct of the church to see that Christ was never 'in the building'. (Matthew 7:23)

The Jews NEVER believed that their God was a triune being. (Deuteronomy 6:4) They still don't. No other "Abrahamic" religion teaches a trinity....yet pagan religions are full of them.

God is one...not three. If God is a multiple personality and one third of him can be a human on earth who prays to the supposedly equal part of himself and does the will of that one as his "holy servant", whilst the other third is floating about giving people special powers, then your god is the weirdest being in existence. It would mean that multiple personality disorder is a healthy condition that makes people more like God.....so why are they treated as mentally ill?

When you are raised to believe this doctrine, it seems as if it alters all other perceptions for some people. You can literally not see past it. I was raised with it too, but it was always complete nonsense to me because it fought with my logic. God gave me logic, so I went looking for answers rather than just swallow what I was taught. To this day, I can back up everything I believe in the scriptures because I needed to know the truth and the truth had to "set me free". I thank Jehovah every day that it did. (Revelation 18:4-5)

 

[ashkat1`]

How do you know that Yahweh is the correct way to say God's Hebrew name ?

Doesn't the Codex Leningrad B 19 a have the vowel points between YHWH to read as Yeho-wah ?
Isn't that because scholars think YHWH is a three-syllable word and Not just two syllables?
What does haleluyah stand for? Isn't the Latinized form ending in jah ?

Haleluyah comes from the Hebrew meaning praise God. Yahweh is standard in the trade, so to speak. The preferred mode by the majority of scholars. The Codex apparently has vowel indicators, but these were probably fro another term, such as Adonai, since it was forbidden to speak the name of God.

 

[savagewind]

Nonsensical conclusion based on erroneous conjecture.

The Holy Spirit was with the congregation after the death and resurrection of the Christ. Did those who compiled the books of the bible have the Holy Spirit? Maybe not. Does that in any way mean there is no GOD? No it does not.

Peace

It was a question mark. OK? I agree with you. My point was if it was copied, translated and copied again WITHOUT The Holy Spirit it can't be trusted. But God can be trusted. Does it being changed prove there is no God? Of course not!

 

[popsthebuilder]

It was a question mark. OK? I agree with you. My point was if it was copied, translated and copied again WITHOUT The Holy Spirit it can't be trusted. But God can be trusted. Does it being changed prove there is no God? Of course not!

My sincere apologies. I obviously mistook what you were trying to say. Thank you for the clarification. I hope you accept my apology.

 

[ashkat1`]

As God's "firstborn" and "only begotten", this "son of God" was not just an angel. Can we just clear that up first of all? As a spirit, created by the Great Spirit, and the agent "through" whom all creation came, this son was responsible for creating everything else....is this rocket science?

(Colossians 1:15, 16; Revelation 3:14) The pre-human Jesus was not the Creator, but the agency through whom God created. (John 1:2-3)

The spirit being who became Jesus was the same spirit being that was given the name Michael in heaven. He has many names....his name changes and his roles change but the spirit being remains the same since his creation. The role and name of God NEVER change. They are two completely separate beings. The holy spirit is not a person.



Do you understand that there was NO trinitarian doctrine in Christianity until it was introduced by the apostate Catholic Church in the 4th century after Jesus died.
Look at the conduct of the church to see that Christ was never 'in the building'. (Matthew 7:23)

The Jews NEVER believed that their God was a triune being. (Deuteronomy 6:4) They still don't. No other "Abrahamic" religion teaches a trinity....yet pagan religions are full of them.

God is one...not three. If God is a multiple personality and one third of him can be a human on earth who prays to the supposedly equal part of himself and does the will of that one as his "holy servant", whilst the other third is floating about giving people special powers, then your god is the weirdest being in existence. It would mean that multiple personality disorder is a healthy condition that makes people more like God.....so why are they treated as mentally ill?

When you are raised to believe this doctrine, it seems as if it alters all other perceptions for some people. You can literally not see past it. I was raised with it too, but it was always complete nonsense to me because it fought with my logic. God gave me logic, so I went looking for answers rather than just swallow what I was taught. To this day, I can back up everything I believe in the scriptures because I needed to know the truth and the truth had to "set me free". I thank Jehovah every day that it did. (Revelation 18:4-5)

I agree with you, though with some major qualifiers. The Trinity is implied in Scripture, but not clearly explicated. Scripture is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. What we get are but snap shots that often conflict. It's up to the reader to try and put them together into a meaningful whole. Therefore, the Trinitarian formulations are generally extra-biblical in nature, use terms not found at all in Scripture, such as "substance." Often, the formulations are contradictory. That is because the fathers leaned heavily on Hellenic metaphysics and standard of perfection., Accordingly, God was defined as a wholly simple, immaterial, immutable, non-relational being, a monad. Then they tried to introduce the highly complex, relational machinery of teh Trinity into this monad. The result was confusing and contradictory formulations, often written off teh the mystery of God, whereas, in point of actual fact, they reflected muddled thinking on the part of the fathers. It's very popular to say God in three persons. But this presents real problems. it reduces God to an abstract, impersonal nature. It means there are three separate, unique personalities. The problem here is that any teaching that insists on three subjectivities I or personalities in the God head automatically degenerates into tritheism or polytheism. There are other, more viable options available, but I don't have time to go into them now

 

[savagewind]

My sincere apologies. I obviously mistook what you were trying to say. Thank you for the clarification. I hope you accept my apology.

I do. Thank you.

 

[Deeje]

Haleluyah comes from the Hebrew meaning praise God. Yahweh is standard in the trade, so to speak. The preferred mode by the majority of scholars.

Yah is the shortened form of the divine name seen in "praise Yah". In English of course, the "Y" becomes "J"...hence Jehovah and "hallelujah".
In the anglicized names in the Bible, almost all the "J" names incorporate the divine name.....Jeremiah, Jehoshaphat, Jehoahaz, Jehonadab, Jehoshua, Jeconiah...etc. None of these name appear in the original Hebrew. So to say that "Jehovah" is not anglicized is not in accord with the the way all the other "J" names are translated.

The Codex apparently has vowel indicators, but these were probably fro another term, such as Adonai, since it was forbidden to speak the name of God.

The whole "forbidden to utter the name" nonsense is no excuse for taking God's name out of his own word. He was the one who revealed it and said that it was to be his "memorial" name "forever". (Exodus 3:15) There was no authorization from God to substitute a title and remove the divine name, which has created the platform for the trinity to even be formulated. That ambiguous title "Lord" masks which "Lord" is being spoken about, blurring the line between God and his son. Titles are not names and God is the one responsible for revealing his own name as well as the names he has given to his son.

The truth be known, it wasn't that the divine name was too sacred to be uttered, because the Bible writers used it frequently and with due reverence. The command not to "take God's name in vain" was at the bottom of it. (Exodus 20:7) Rather than risk 'taking God's name in vain' (which was apparently happening when meaningless oaths were being sworn in God's name) they simply removed the name rather than obey the law regarding it.

The CJB renders Exodus 20:7
"7 “You are not to use lightly the name of Adonai your God, because Adonai will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly." (Complete Jewish Bible)

"7 Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (ASV)

This gives us a little more insight into what it actually meant to "use God's name lightly".

I agree with you, though with some major qualifiers. The Trinity is implied in Scripture, but not clearly explicated. Scripture is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. What we get are but snap shots that often conflict. It's up to the reader to try and put them together into a meaningful whole. Therefore, the Trinitarian formulations are generally extra-biblical in nature, use terms not found at all in Scripture, such as "substance." Often, the formulations are contradictory. That is because the fathers leaned heavily on Hellenic metaphysics and standard of perfection., Accordingly, God was defined as a wholly simple, immaterial, immutable, non-relational being, a monad. Then they tried to introduce the highly complex, relational machinery of teh Trinity into this monad. The result was confusing and contradictory formulations, often written off teh the mystery of God, whereas, in point of actual fact, they reflected muddled thinking on the part of the fathers. It's very popular to say God in three persons. But this presents real problems. it reduces God to an abstract, impersonal nature. It means there are three separate, unique personalities. The problem here is that any teaching that insists on three subjectivities I or personalities in the God head automatically degenerates into tritheism or polytheism. There are other, more viable options available, but I don't have time to go into them now.

I have no confidence in anything that came from the early church, as opposed to that which came from the original.....corruption was foretold and corruption is what history tells us took place. Christendom is not representative of true Christianity at all IMO.

 

[ashkat1`]

Yah is the shortened form of the divine name seen in "praise Yah". In English of course, the "Y" becomes "J"...hence Jehovah and "hallelujah".
In the anglicized names in the Bible, almost all the "J" names incorporate the divine name.....Jeremiah, Jehoshaphat, Jehoahaz, Jehonadab, Jehoshua, Jeconiah...etc. None of these name appear in the original Hebrew. So to say that "Jehovah" is not anglicized is not in accord with the the way all the other "J" names are translated.



The whole "forbidden to utter the name" nonsense is no excuse for taking God's name out of his own word. He was the one who revealed it and said that it was to be his "memorial" name "forever". (Exodus 3:15) There was no authorization from God to substitute a title and remove the divine name, which has created the platform for the trinity to even be formulated. That ambiguous title "Lord" masks which "Lord" is being spoken about, blurring the line between God and his son. Titles are not names and God is the one responsible for revealing his own name as well as the names he has given to his son.

The truth be known, it wasn't that the divine name was too sacred to be uttered, because the Bible writers used it frequently and with due reverence. The command not to "take God's name in vain" was at the bottom of it. (Exodus 20:7) Rather than risk 'taking God's name in vain' (which was apparently happening when meaningless oaths were being sworn in God's name) they simply removed the name rather than obey the law regarding it.

The CJB renders Exodus 20:7
"7 “You are not to use lightly the name of Adonai your God, because Adonai will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly." (Complete Jewish Bible)

"7 Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain; for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (ASV)

This gives us a little more insight into what it actually meant to "use God's name lightly".



I have no confidence in anything that came from the early church, as opposed to that which came from the original.....corruption was foretold and corruption is what history tells us took place. Christendom is not representative of true Christianity at all IMO.

There is no way "Jehovah" can be taken an Anglization of "YHWH." "Jehovah" is based on a misreading of the Hebrew, not some Research has well established that YHWH was eventually forbidden to be uttered simply because it was too holy.

Adonai is really not a name, more of a title than a name.

Writing off the early church and fathers as a bunch of worthless creeps or something is very reckless.

 

[Deeje]

There is no way "Jehovah" can be taken an Anglization of "YHWH." "Jehovah" is based on a misreading of the Hebrew, not some Research has well established that YHWH was eventually forbidden to be uttered simply because it was too holy.

And where will I find that in the word of God, that his name was too holy to be uttered? That is a tradition introduced by the Pharisees. (Matthew 15:3-11) No command from God exists that tells humans to cease uttering his name. In fact Jesus said he came to make it known....but to whom?

At John 17:25-26, Jesus prayed....
"Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you, but I know you, and these have come to know that you sent me. 26 I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

When Jesus got up to read the scroll of Isaiah, pointing to his fulfilling of that prophesy, his Father's name appeared in the text three times (Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:16-21)....do you think he would have followed a Jewish tradition, when he said that those traditions had invalidated God's word?

Adonai is really not a name, more of a title than a name.

Exactly. How would you like someone to substitute a title for your name and never refer to you by that name again? Names in the Bible had great significance, therefore to eliminate a name was to obscure that person's identity and treat his name with disrespect...the very thing the Jews said they were trying to avoid with the utterance of the divine name...yet the Bible writers used it almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures....that is a lot of substitution!...especially when they had no authorization to do so.

Writing off the early church and fathers as a bunch of worthless creeps or something is very reckless.

Where did I write them off as "a bunch of worthless creeps"? I merely said that I have no confidence in the writings of the early church, as opposed to that which came from the original. I believe that there is a good reason why nothing written after the death of the last apostle John is part of the Bible canon.

 

[savagewind]

Where did I write them off as "a bunch of worthless creeps"?