• 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's in a name?

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Someone apparently isn't aware the Luke, the author of "Luke":D, was not likely Jewish.

Also, it is virtually impossible to know who all the original authors of all the canonized NT scriptures were. Also, according to Anglican theologian William Barclay, the Catholic Church had to select the Christian canon from over 1000 letters/"books", and 4th century records show that it was no slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.

But don't tell the JW's about the above, OK? ;)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
What I stated is that the word sacrament was not in the Bible.
From scripture, it is apparent that the break away from Judaism saw the Christians as preachers and teachers, not so much as followers of ritual. The only observance that they were told to commemorate was the Memorial of Christ's death. That's it.

As you are probably aware, Jews are not interested in actively gaining converts by preaching. But it was a command from Jesus that we are to concentrate on these aspects of his teachings.

Matthew 28:19-20....
“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (NRSVCE)

Jesus promised to be with those who obeyed "everything" that he commanded them.
What is the church’s record in this regard? How many in past times were converted to Catholicism at the point of a sword? How many converted to Catholicism but retained many of the beliefs and practices of their former faith? How many are aware of Paul’s words at 2 Corinthians 6:14-18?...that you cannot mix true worship with false worship. The Catholic church apparently ignored that memo.

He offered his flesh and blood, within the Jewish liturgy of Passover. It was not then a 'sacrament' as he was still alive.
Of course he did....he was Jewish and so were all his disciples in the beginning. But that was to change with the inclusion of Gentiles and the full implementation of the “New Covenant”. No necessity was placed on the Christians to follow the ways of the “old covenant”.....not in their worship or adherence to the Law....which meant no circumcision, no Sabbath observance, no festivals, no sacrifices, no earthly priesthood, no distinctive garments or headgear, no temples or repetitive prayers or rituals.

Acts 15:28-29...
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (NRSVCE)
That is all that was necessary for Jew and Gentile alike.

By imitating the Jews in their mode of worship, “the church” proved that it had not listened to what the apostles had taught, but had invented their own version of “Christianity” based more on the trappings of Judaism and the teachings of Roman sun worship.....I believe that Christendom is the sad counterfeit that Jesus had warned about.

This may be the one area where there is agreement. I fully believe there exists a real and unique presence in the Eucharist. Jesus' words couldn't have been plainer, holding the bread, 'This is my flesh', the wine, 'This is my blood'.

Nowhere does Jesus state or imply that what he instituted was merely a symbol.
I believe it does....
Matthew 26:29...
"I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
This shows that Jesus was referring to what was in the cup as being “this fruit of the vine”....and that was after Jesus had said, “This is my blood.”

Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other descriptive language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1, JB) None of these expressions implied a miraculous transformation, did they?

I do agree that the Church's attempt to define what is a mystery, and accepted as such, until the Reformation, was an unfortunate attempt to explain the 'how'.
It is unfortunate that the church's attempt to explain many things fell short of the truth. After all, how on earth could they have introduced so many false beliefs if they knew what the Bible said, but defied it anyway. Show us please where Christ taught the church its beliefs....and how is it that I can trace every one of them back to pagan beliefs and worship? Is that just co-incidence?

Imagine that, you preyed on those who did not know their own faith.
You mean like Jesus "preyed" on those "lost sheep" of the house of Israel? Are you serious? Many of these people studied the Bible because they wanted to know what it taught....some even had a Bible study with us to show us how wrong we were....and guess what....as soon as the Bible was allowed to speak for itself, they soon saw that nothing they had been taught by their church was from the Scriptures. When they allowed the Bible to instruct them, like Paul, the scales fell from his eyes and he could see the truth of it.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Exactly, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in its constant interpretation for what it means for the life of Christians today and future generations, and every culture. Its why it is not closed in on itself, does not stagnate, but renews and develops its doctrine throughout the ages.
Who is "the church"? And how has the Catholic church changed its teachings in the last 1500 years or so? Seems to me like it is stuck in a rut.

Where would I see Jesus condoning anything like this....

images
images

images
images


Strange that a God who says he does not change, would suddenly go against everything that he instructed his people and his son to teach....?

What part of this command...
"Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them"
(Exodus 20:4-5 Douay)...does your church not understand?

Just more of your anti Catholic dribble.

Dribble? Haven't done that since I was a baby......I think you mean "drivel" which IMO, is what the Catholic church teaches to those who believe what it says without checking the Bible to see if its true. (Acts 17:10-11) For someone who claims to know the Bible, I see by your responses that scripture almost seems like a last port of call for you.....it should be the first, don't you think? How many times did Jesus quote the scriptures?

The Church is in dialogue with most if not all religions, unlike JWs there is nothing to fear, learning from conversing with others.

I'm sorry, but that is just pathetic.
Am I not conversing with others right here and right now.....? Have I not been doing this here for over a decade? Have you found me fearful of what you believe? I'd say you have to be kidding. What do I have to fear from the truth?

Cozying up to other religions is not what Christians are supposed to do.....no more than Jesus did. Jesus and the apostles offered the good news of the Kingdom to anyone who wanted to listen, but at no time did they fraternize with those who wanted to worship their own way.....and they exposed the religious errors of their own religious leaders and made no apologies for it. Those who claimed to worship the same God were not doing what God instructed them to do...they were following man-made "traditions" invented by their forefathers, which Jesus said was 'making the word of God invalid'. (Isaiah 15:7-9) History is repeating but apparently you and your fan club can't see it. ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

The Bible did not come down from heaven, whole and intact, given by the Holy Spirit. Just as the experience and faith of Israel developed its sacred books, so was the early Christian Church the matrix of the Christian Scripture.
If you mean the Christian Church of the apostolic era of the first century, then you are correct.....but if you are talking about what the church became in later centuries, you can see clearly where they began to fail.....from the second century onward. This is when the "weeds" began to take over in the field as Jesus said they would. (Acts 20:28-30)

The Catholic Church has authoritatively told us which books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore canonical. The Bible, then, is the church's book. The Christian Scripture did not come before the church, but from the church. Peter and the other apostles were given special authority to teach and govern before Scripture was written. The first generation of Christians had no Christian Scripture at all, only Hebrew Scripture -- but they were the church then, must as we are the church today. All that you quote from you have received from the Church.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true. The letters from the apostles that are included in our scripture were circulating in the early congregations before the canon was established. The Bible is God's word, inspired by him and compiled by him under the influence of that same spirit. Who it came through is of no consequence. Not a single Catholic contributed to its contents. Like apostate Judaism in the time of Christ, the Catholic church was certainly not living by the standards set by Jesus, but it was the only "Christianity" there was...and there was "wheat" among them, often murdered because they dared to question the authenticity of the church's teachings......which were set by their own apostate hierarchy....again 'teaching the commands of men as doctrines'.

But as I said....if you cannot see the plain truth, then so be it.....it was offered, and no one can say that I didn't try.....can they? I can 'shake the dust off my feet' knowing that I did my job......(Matthew 10:11-15)
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
How many times did Jesus quote the scriptures?

He did more than quote Scripture, he interpreted anew.


Am I not conversing with others right here and right now.....? Have I not been doing this here for over a decade? Have you found me fearful of what you believe? I'd say you have to be kidding. What do I have to fear from the truth?

A growth in knowledge. Why otherwise would you're group discourage higher education? Obviously, it would not be good for you're group to apply any form of critical thinking, what other reason than fear of questioning?

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. The letters from the apostles that are included in our scripture were circulating in the early congregations before the canon was established.

Of course they were! That's the whole point, we were Church before anything, including the writing of Christian Scripture. Where were the Protestants until 1600, where was your group until 19 cent.?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
He did more than quote Scripture, he interpreted anew.
He gave insight into what the Jews already knew from their own scripture, but only the “lost sheep” and those who saw the truth of his teachings, responded to them. Why were those ones spiritually “lost”, and why did Jesus consign their negligent leaders to ”Gehenna”? Can you tell me?

The same situation applies today, as I have said before....history is repeating because no one it seems want to learn the lessons of the past. Christendom is Judaism’s modern day counterpart. They mirror one another in their reliance on man made traditions instead of the word of God. Only those who fear what the Bible says about their current worship, will ignore it, or twist what it says to excuse their failures.

A growth in knowledge. Why otherwise would you're group discourage higher education?
For the same reason that Jesus chose uneducated men to be his apostles. What use was the education of the Pharisees to them? Jesus said it was corrupt....they disparaged the apostles for not being up to their standard of education.....so what’s new?

What about today?
Another reason we do not pursue higher education is that we have a career that is so much more important than any secular job. We are well aware of our need to pay our way in this world, but Jesus said that we were to be no part of it in the ways that ensnare people to love money and the trappings of wealth in a system that will never allow people to be content with what they have.

John put it quite succinctly...1 John 2:15-17....
“Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.”

Tell me where in this statement that we need higher education....?
You don’t seem to understand that we have many in our ranks who are scientists and doctors and lawyers and scholars, who provide us with all we need in the way of that kind of education, so what gives you the idea that we are all somehow an ignorant and uneducated lot? They thought that about Jesus’ apostles too....but they had the best teacher in existence....we believe we do too because we follow the Bible exclusively. We study it deeply and we know what we believe and why we believe it......do you?

Besides, the campuses of universities are hardly a good moral influence on Christians. The drunkenness, drugs and sexual immorality are not a fit place for our young people. They can get all the education they need via other avenues. (1 Corinthians 15:33)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Obviously, it would not be good for you're group to apply any form of critical thinking, what other reason than fear of questioning?
These are such ignorant second hand and extremely bigoted statements....they make me cringe, since your own church has demonstrated itself to be the most ignorant of all. The rest of Christendom has thrown out a good deal of what Catholicism teaches, so its not just us who think that your beliefs are not Christian....is it? On what basis then can any “dialogue” with other “Christians” take place?
Christendom is a fractured, disunited mess. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

As far as questioning goes, would you like to read back through this thread and see how many questions you have ignored in this discussion? What is your fear? Can you not address them honestly? I have responded to all of yours, but it’s what you don’t address that speaks volumes.

That's the whole point, we were Church before anything, including the writing of Christian Scripture.
I am wondering how you can possibly compare Roman Catholicism with first century Christianity? They are nothing alike!
But I’m sure that you have no idea about that because your church has told you differently.

Roman Catholicism was never the “we” that you imply.....the “church” was weakening under the influence of those whom Jesus warned about. The “weeds” were growing and spreading until we arrive at the fourth century when Roman Catholicism was declared the “state religion” by a pagan Emperor....not because he loved Christianity, but because he wanted a way to consolidate his divided empire. It was a master stroke by God’s adversary to lead all those people away from the true God, and adopting the foreign concept of a multiplicity of gods, but claiming that three gods could live in one head.....where on earth will I find such a concept in the Bible? That is not the God of Abraham.

Where were the Protestants until 1600, where was your group until 19 cent.?

I’m glad you asked that....Where was Jesus before he was sent to the Jews in the first century? When was the last prophet sent to Israel....and with what outcome? How long did the Jews go without a prophet to correct them? Why did over 400 years elapse between God’s dealings with his people, and his sending his son, Jesus Christ to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”? He left them to their own devices until it was time to send the Redeemer. He basically gave them “enough rope”.....

God has always revealed things at his appointed time and because his will is being fulfilled, it takes place in his own timeframe. The Reformation took down the absolute power of the corrupt Roman church and gave the people back the Bible....but that was just the beginning of God re-establishing his worship on earth. Like the Jews, Christendom’s leaders had led the people astray with the rope he had given them....now it was the time to gather them up. They were not to be “many”, but “few”.... hated and persecuted as Jesus and his apostles were. (John 15:18-21)

Have you studied the book of Daniel? Perhaps you should because Daniel was told to seal up his book of prophesy because no one would understand it until “the time of the end”. We believe that we are in the time of the end right now. It began in 1914, according to Daniel’s prophesy and God said that he would “cleanse, whiten and refine” a people at this time of Christ’s return. He said the the wicked would understand nothing and be given no insight as to the things that were unfolding in this time period. (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) He does not tell us when these last days end.....(Matthew 24:37-39) But the signs are unmistakable. (Matthew 24:3-14)

Why was there a need to “cleanse, whiten and refine” God’s worshippers? You “cleanse” something that has become soiled....you “whiten” something that is stained...and you “refine” something that has become contaminated with impurities.....

Does that answer your question?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
They mirror one another in their reliance on man made traditions instead of the word of God. Only those who fear what the Bible says about their current worship, will ignore it, or twist what it says to excuse their failures.

Jesus was faithful in following his tradition and form of worship. He chastised those who made it too heavy a burden that hindered them by laying a heavy burden on them making it impossible to achieve Kingdom ideals. Jesus promised 'My yoke is easy and my burden light'.

What about today?

And what about today, where would we be without the highly educated doctors and nurses etc. during this pandemic? Or the highly educated scientists who developed a vaccine, or the highly educated lawyer to defend you when you're wrongly accused? You cannot hope to change the world by shutting the world out, only by being exposed to it.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I am wondering how you can possibly compare Roman Catholicism with first century Christianity? They are nothing alike!
But I’m sure that you have no idea about that because your church has told you differently.

You do realize, I presume, that Catholic Christianity originated in the East, not the West. And we share with the Orthodox Church the same priesthood, the same apostolic teaching, the same sacraments, though administered differently. As for the original reformers you might be surprised to know that they retained much from the Church.
Martin Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510)

John Calvin: “there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Mt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. comp., V6,1 P. 639



Have you studied the book of Daniel?

Have you considered the context or do you just quote?

This work was composed during the bitter persecution carried on by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167–164 B.C.) and was written to strengthen and comfort the Jewish people in their ordeal. The persecution was occasioned by Antiochus’s efforts to unify his kingdom, in face of the rising power of Rome, by continuing the hellenization begun by Alexander the Great; Antiochus tried to force Jews to adopt Greek ways, including religious practices. Severe penalties, including death, were exacted against those who refused. You're accepting apocalyptic literature, visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel as in Rev., literally.

God has always revealed things at his appointed time and because his will is being fulfilled, it takes place in his own timeframe.

Wasn't there a time, recently, that your group predicted the absolute time when this end occur?


You're literalists reading of Scripture ignores any authorial intent, does not recognize the developing theology of the Evangelists themselves.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Jesus was faithful in following his tradition and form of worship. He chastised those who made it too heavy a burden that hindered them by laying a heavy burden on them making it impossible to achieve Kingdom ideals.
Greetings. You and I haven’t had much interaction on here between us, but I was just wondering... in line with this thread, what exactly do you think are ‘heavy burdens’?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Hi exchemist. Good evening. But He does have one Name and He expects His people to call upon His Name. Isaiah 42:8 says " I am Yahweh, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." One of the reasons why there is so much idol worship is because people have forgotten the Name of the Most High. It's a real mystery to me how people can sit there and say Yahweh's Name is not important, when the Bible is full of scriptures which clearly reveal that the Name of Yahweh is of utmost importance. I don't know if people aren't reading the Bible or if there is a veil spread over the eyes of people. If we want a personal relationship with Yahweh, we should at least revere and call upon His Name. He has one Name and it means everlasting life. His Name is very important to Him and it holds power.

Psalm 86:7-9 says:

"In the day of my trouble I will call upon thee;
For thou wilt answer me.
8 There is none like unto thee among the elohim, O Yahweh;
Neither are there any works like unto thy works.
9 All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Yahweh;
And they shall glorify thy name."

People wonder why Yahweh doesn't answer their prayers. Yahweh expects people to have a level of sincerity when they come before Him and I can only imagine what He thinks of people who don't even call upon His Name. That's not to say Yahweh might not answer prayer, it's to say that if we want a personal relationship with Him, just as if we want a personal relationship with anyone, we have to call upon His Name. And it's a beautiful, glorious name. The abbreviated form Yah is also glorious and it can be shouted as a praise. Amos 5:8 says: "seek him that maketh the Pleiades and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night; that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth (Yahweh is his name);"
Hello, hope you’re doing well!

I’ve come into this thread a little late....if I’ve responded before, I don’t remember... but I like Malachi 3:16.

How many are really following this today?


Take care
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I'm sorry MI, but I think you are running away with a misunderstanding here...it is NOT the name that is in dispute at all...it is the pronunciation....whom even Jews admit is a guess. There are several possibilities as they will tell you. Yahweh can be said different ways depending on the vowels that are missing. The spoken word may not be as it appears in the English alphabet. The vowels may be spoken differently to how they appear in English. YHWH is all we have. No one knows if it was pronounced Yahweh or not.....some feel it may have been....others are not so sure. Write some English words without vowels and see what you end up with....vngr....or scl...or bckch...or fcs....what do you think....is it so easy?



Being a translation, like "Jesus" do people find it offense in using the Anglicized form of his name whilst claiming that he is God? Jehovah is no more offensive to God than Jesus is. Non Hebrew speaking people are not forced to use Hebrew names that are basically foreign in their language.


Oh dear....here you go again...this is an emotional response, not one that addresses the difference in translation between one language and another. Those who pray to "the Lord" are also substituting a title for the divine name in every passage of scripture, not to mention "Hasham" which I find completely ridiculous. You would call the Most High God "the name"? Seriously?



This is why we prefer "Jehovah" (the accepted English translation of Yahweh) to a nameless god who is just known as "Sir" or "Master" (the base meaning of the title "Lord"). Names have meaning and God's name is no different...it is the name he gave himself and one that he commanded to be used by his people in all their generations.....they failed to do this without a valid excuse.



Abraham...Avraham....Isaac...Yitzchak....Jacob...Ya’akov....Israel...Yisroel....David...Dovid...Solomon...Sh’lomo...Isaiah....Yeshayah....Jeremiah...Yirmeya....Ezekiel... Yechezkel....Daniel....Daniel....
Now how many of those names would an English speaking person recognize? Only a couple. Why did we need translations...? Because most of us could probably not pronounce any of those Hebrew names because they are foreign to our tongue.



The name of satan is not his name...it is the description of his character. "Satan" means "manslayer" and "devil" means "slanderer".....no one knows the name of the devil....only what he does to earn those titles. God has never allowed his personal name to be revealed.

The name of God was deleted from human lips by Jews. Their scripture still contains the tetragrammaton to this day...but they are still forbidden to say it or to even write GOD without eliminating the vowel..what kind of nonsense is that? Does God hate vowels for some reason?:shrug:

The KJV actually managed to preserve the name "Jehovah" in 4 places but eliminated it altogether in later translations. Though you do not agree with our English pronunciation, we have restored God's name to all the places where it was taken out....and we have included it in passages of the Greek scriptures where quotations from the Hebrew scriptures originally contained it. We make no apology for that.


I know......but you haven't been listening....Don't you think if God wanted his name to be known in exactly the right pronunciation that he would make it known like he did in the days of ancient Israel.....God's people defended their homeland, going into battle in the name of YHWH.

When David came to fight Goliath, he said....
"You come to me with sword, spear and javelin, and I come to you with the Name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies of Israel which you have taunted. מהוַיֹּ֚אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֔י אַתָּה֙ בָּ֣א אֵלַ֔י בְּחֶ֖רֶב וּבַחֲנִ֣ית וּבְכִיד֑וֹן וְאָנֹכִ֣י בָֽא־אֵלֶ֗יךָ בְּשֵׁם֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֛י מַעַרְכ֥וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר חֵרַֽפְתָּ:"

David knew well how to say God's name out loud and he did not hesitate to use it. He came to Goliath in the name of his God....יְהֹוָ֣ה




I have never denied it MI....not once...but this is about pronunciation, not the existence of the divine name which is clearly in the Hebrew text. We choose to pronounce it in the accepted English form, which to us is better than not using any name at all. We know who Jehovah is and so does he. He knows when we address him by that name, that we are speaking to him, and about him.
Wow, Deeje! You have a thoroughness about you when posting.... I just don’t have it.
I do when talking, but not when writing. My slow typing due to my handicap, plays some role.
Keep it up! (With Jehovah’s help)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Huh?
I see hurricanes being given names all the time. I have yet to see one being controlled, though.
But they are studied, analyzed, and even rated as to strength. People can be evacuated appropriately and property guarded. We’re not entirely at the mercy of the hurricane. But we are entirely at the mercy of God, with little means to really understand God.
 

Shakeel

Well-Known Member
When we can name a thing, we can control a thing.
Verifiably false.
......I wonder why they find his name so difficult to say, especially in view of the "Our Father" which is said repetitiously and meaninglessly by all of them?..
For most of them it's probably just a habit and not something thought through.
Psalm 83:18...NRS Catholic Edition...
"Let them know that you alone,
whose name is the Lord,
are the Most High over all the earth."
Wouldn't be a unique name, to be exact.
The name above all names is Jesus. This is the greatest name. This is the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The name Jesus also, in its original form, is not unique, but the Christians changed it as though in translation (do we usually translate names?) and made it unique.

To be specific, according to Christians, as far as I've witnessed, Jesus is the name of the son. Or is the father also Jesus and the Holy spirit the Father and Jesus? Really, it is a mess you have.
Here is a link to the 99 names of Allah in Islam
Many scholars say He has more names than that.
If you want a name for God, choose anything you want. It makes no difference. It's not what counts.
First of all, that's certainly not permissable in Islam, and secondly, if a person told you their name, would you consider it appropriate to choose to call them whatever you want? Makes no difference?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Jesus was faithful in following his tradition and form of worship. He chastised those who made it too heavy a burden that hindered them by laying a heavy burden on them making it impossible to achieve Kingdom ideals. Jesus promised 'My yoke is easy and my burden light'.
Again....it’s what you ignore that tells the story. Do you honestly think that these posts are an honest response to my questions and statements? Frankly this tells me that you have a party line but little understanding of what the Bible actually teaches about a lot of things. You seem to be oblivious to the clear breaches of Christ’s teachings in your faith. Can I ask if you were born a Catholic or did you choose to become one? Either way, I have to wonder how much scripture was the basis for your decision to stay or to join?

And what about today, where would we be without the highly educated doctors and nurses etc. during this pandemic? Or the highly educated scientists who developed a vaccine, or the highly educated lawyer to defend you when you're wrongly accused? You cannot hope to change the world by shutting the world out, only by being exposed to it.
Good grief! We have doctors and nurses in our ranks working alongside other educated medical personnel during this pandemic....did you miss that point? We have our own lawyers and scientists too.....these chose to become Jehovah’s Witnesses after their education was complete. And as for the current situation with vaccines......I'll leave mine until there is more testing done. I don't have a lot of confidence in the medical establishment as far as their medications go. They know how to treat symptoms with their drugs, but they can't seem to be able to cure anything. Or maybe there is no money in cures....?

What is with this inference that we are somehow uneducated, moronic sheep who just follow what we are told without a sound scriptural education? (That description fits Catholicism more than it fits us)

Education is relative to a Christian.....the correct education involves all the necessary standards of reading writing and numeracy, but a Bible education is paramount for us, just as it was for Jesus. We are admonished to be satisfied with the necessities of life, not constantly chasing the trappings of wealth. (1 John 2:15-17)

When Jesus told his disciples “not to belong to the world” what do you think he meant?

“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. (John 17:14-18 NRSVCE)

If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘Servants are not greater than their master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:18-20 NRSVCE)

In what way did Jesus “not belong to the world”? Why was this difference responsible for the world’s hatred?
Is the Catholic church hated for following Christ, or are the reasons more sinister? ( 1 Peter 3:16-17)

What makes you think that it is our mission to “change the world”?
Is that what Jesus taught? Do you have no concept at all of the reason for Christ’s mission? It is the coming of God's Kingdom that will change the world....when God's will is "done on earth as it is in heaven". (Daniel 2:44)

Tell me what Revelation 21:2-4 means to Catholics.....? What is it about?

Can you please just answer the questions without ignoring them....? It tells me how much you know, compared with how much you believe because you were told what to believe.
 
Top