Names are very important in the Jewish religion. The name of God (Yahweh) was revealed to Moses as four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton. The divine name was regarded as too sacred to be uttered, and was replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”).
The name of the Messiah was equally as sacred. The New Testament repeats over in over the importance of doing everything “in the name” of this man claiming to be the Messiah.
Matthew 18:5, Mark 9:37, Luke 9:48 — “And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.
Matthew 18:20 — For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”
Mark 9:39 — “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
Mark 9:41 — I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
Mark 16:17 — And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
John 14:13 — And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
John 14:14 — You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
John 14:26 — But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:16 — Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
John 16:23 — In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
For this reason, most Christian prayers end with, “In Jesus’ name. Amen.” But there is a big problem … his name wasn’t Jesus. His “God-given” name was Yeshua. If names are this important to the Jewish and Christian faith, why do so many Christians pray to a twice-removed Anglican translation of his original name?
This could possibly explain why prayers are never answered. I suggest praying to Yeshua as a science experiment to see what happens. Nothing will happen, but it might be a fun new way to waste time.
Tags: Bible, Christ, God, Jesus, Jewish, Name, Torah, Translation, Yahweh, Yeshua
July 7, 2009 at 2:58 am |
Great Question.
Your premise, “The name of the Messiah was equally as sacred.” is not the entirely the case (when it came to speakability). While the name of YHWH was unspeakable, the Angel appearing to Joseph did not require him to call his son, “I AM” growing up, but rather, “[he was] to give him the name Jesus” (Mt. 1:21).
As you aptly pointed out, Jesus is merely an English translation much like Pablo, Maria, or Juan would be Spanish variations of English names. The term is important, but not nearly as important as the intention behind the words, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Mt. 7:21).
Rebellion gets God’s “Deaf ear” turned to you, not poor pronunciation (Deut. 1:43-45).
July 7, 2009 at 3:12 am |
I haven’t done any research but would say that most christians today need to relook at their beliefs. Try reading this version of the bible and see how much different then it is of your version. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html?eref=rss_topstories I find it an interesting story and over the next few months am going to try and get a better understanding of this.
July 7, 2009 at 6:20 am |
I like the Christmas Jesus best when I’m sayin grace. When you say grace, you can say it to grown up Jesus, or teenage Jesus, or bearded Jesus, or whatever you want.
July 7, 2009 at 6:42 am |
Ricky Bobby FTW
July 7, 2009 at 10:57 am |
I know what I will be watching tonight.
July 7, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
Hilarious. “Dear little 8 pound 6 ounce newborn infant Jesus…”
July 8, 2009 at 10:52 pm |
Tuxedo T-shirt all the way.
July 9, 2009 at 7:51 am |
Or “Imaginary Jesus”!!
September 28, 2009 at 10:08 am |
the shame of calling themsleves christians, there was no alphabet 2000 years ago that could produce the sounds or smbols to the name jesus or christ. and we have one name and do not translate it ever! (ian) is a suffix denoting places not persons, pre first grade. they get up set because they were not smart enough to figure it out. o the shame.
July 7, 2009 at 7:12 am |
the name of God (Yahweh)
He had other names as well. Consider Exodus 34:14
July 7, 2009 at 7:55 am |
Here is a short list of Old Testament names given to this God:
Yahweh
Adonai
Qanna (Jealous)
El Shaddai
El Elyon
El Olam
Elohim
Jehovah
-Nissi
-Raah
-Rapha
-Shammah
-Tsidkenu
-Mekoddishkem
-Jireh
-Shalom
-Sabaoth
I think God needed a name for every one of his split personalities. A monotheistic god with a list of names that resembles a polytheistic religion.
July 7, 2009 at 11:51 am |
I’m sorry but this is just sad. You proport to speak on this and you haven’t bothered to even research what you claim. This is so totally off the wall. Your embarrass yourself. I’m done with this childish nonsence. I really came here thinking you were a sincere person who had regretably lost faith. Your a child having fun making fun, yet the only person you insult is yourself. Get some education in history, particularly biblical analysis before continuing to congratulate yourself on your lack of knowledge.
July 7, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Would you care to educate me? You leave a comment accusing me of embarrassing myself, being childish and insincere. But you give no reasons to back up your accusations.
I’m not the one embarrassing myself. When you spout accusations and don’t back them up with facts or knowledge it proves nothing. It is the equivalent of saying, “oh yah … well you’re ugly.”
July 7, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I’m done with this childish nonsence.
Goodby! Have a nice life.
July 7, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“I’m done with this childish nonsence.”
That’s “nonsense”
I’d imagine that if you have such difficulty with childish nonsense, you would have abandoned the childish fairy tales of Christianity by now. For Beat’s post, I don’t find anything childish or nonsensical about it. But, of course, I am not a fool for Christ, so perhaps I don’t see how childish it is like you can through your Peter Pan lens.
And as Beat already said, you said nothing of substance; not a single criticism of anything particular that he said; rather, you just crawled in here on all fours and threw a tantrum, spit up a little, and bounced out.
Would you like a bib Sherry?
coochie coochie coo.
July 7, 2009 at 10:09 pm
*Cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Now, who’s the one who needs some education again?
July 8, 2009 at 9:02 am
I love it when “christians” like Sherry come in to places like this and display the agapé love that their superstition gives them.
July 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
It is rather evident then, that God suffers from MPD ( Multiple personality disorder ) that is kind of scary !!
July 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I think it’s called DID now Dissociative Identity Disorder
September 28, 2009 at 10:17 am |
some say the bible was translate in 1611, others say 1622, but our alphabet with 26 letters was not available until 1630 and was not very popular until far after that, England became a county in 1892. it was great brittain befor that. how do you trust a book written or translated 8 years or more before the alphabet that it came from? pre first grade. there is no item or situation of the bible or book of mormon that was available during the time period of 2000 years ago. camels are from austraila, donkeys are from new mexico taken to the middle east in 1583 they don’t swim that well the old navy took them there. get an education and grow up.
May 20, 2010 at 10:16 am |
To the list of the names of G-d. You forgot Hashem which is one of the most widely used names of G-d in the Jewish faith. This translates to “the name” which is in direct relation to the Jews not wanting to utter the name due to the name being too sacred.
July 7, 2009 at 9:49 am |
Excellent point. Yikes! Thanks for the history lesson. I actually like the name Yeshua better!
Tomorrow you’re going to be telling us he didn’t look like a surfer, aren’t you?
July 7, 2009 at 10:58 am |
It never seemed to matter which Jesus/Yeshua I prayed to. The results were the same… random and not verifiable.
July 7, 2009 at 11:18 am |
Maybe it’s the whole language thing. I read about one guy who actually learned ancient Hebrew so he could pray in “God’s language”.
July 8, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
Why didn`t he just use tongues? “Athalamanathamanalatha… manalathaga…” See, it`s easy when you know how!!
July 7, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
theBEattitude – This is in the top 2 of my favorite posts! Horus Jesus the other. Nice job!
July 7, 2009 at 7:22 pm |
There is one extremely puzzling aspect of Paul’s conception of the earthly Jesus—he didn’t have one. As far as Paul was concerned, the Christ did all his redemptive work in the spiritual realm. He was not of this earth. How could this be? How could a man preaching Christ Crucified not speak of a human being who was physically crucified? That’s easy. Paul didn’t think it had happened. To him Jesus was like other gods of the so-called Mystery Cults, where spiritual redemption in a purely spiritual world was quite common. Osiris, Attis, Isis, Mithras and many other deities around the Mediterranean and in Asia Minor all had a death/resurrection/salvation theme as a core belief, and many had “sacred meals” as part of their rituals. Mithra’s sacred meal consisted of bread and wine.
However, these redemptive struggles all took place in the spirit world where the savior/gods did battle with demons and various forces of darkness. These otherworldly events then provided salvation to those humans willing and able to “receive” these divine revelations. Such beliefs were quite prevalent during this era.
Scholars agree that Paul’s and most other biblical epistles predate the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Thus we have a most disingenuously arranged Bible. Since the Gospels are placed before the epistles, clearly implying earlier origins, the reader will presume, retrospectively, that all the mystical references about salvation in the epistles are referring to an earthly Jesus of Nazareth. But they are not.
If you read the epistles without taking the Gospels into account, no easy task, you will be struck by the total lack of any descriptions of a physical, human life led by someone named Jesus.Why didn’t Paul just tell a straightforward story of “The Life of Jesus of Nazareth”? Jesus was born here, of these parents, was educated by whomever, began his career in this place and so on, leading up to the dramatic crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Wouldn’t that be the least you’d expect? But no. There’s nothing. No cities, no dates, no relatives, no nothing. It’s all mystical references and Old Testament quotations. It’s as if Paul never knew there had been a physical Jesus. But then maybe that’s because there hadn’t been.
Not only Paul, but all the other epistle writers failed to mention:
John the Baptist and Jesus’ own baptism
Mary, virginal or otherwise
Bethlehem, Nazareth and Galilee
Jesus working miracles
Jesus performing healings
Jerusalem as it relates to Jesus
Palm Sunday
Jesus tossing the “traders” out of the Temple
Peter’s denial(s) of Jesus
Calvary (!)
Pontius Pilate
July 7, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
Is it not correct that the epistles were written to various Christian groups to give advice and to answer questions about doctrine? If the recipients were already Christians, it would not be necessary to mention basic facts about the life and death of Jesus because the intended readers would already know all that. Relating those matters was not the purpose of the epistle and such matters would be off topic, and a waste of time and writing materials. As an analogy, in an article about the Constitution one would not expect to see descriptions of the Boston Tea Party, Paul Revere’s Ride, and Valley Forge. For the same reason, the epistles would logically be placed after the Gospels in any reasonably organized anthology of documents about early Christianity because they are more advanced material.
July 9, 2009 at 7:56 am |
Good post, George! But did PAUL even exist? Christians have been trying for donkeys` years to match up the events of the Acts of the Apostles with the chronology of the “Pauline Epistles”, without success. The two people being referred to seem to be entirely different characters!
July 7, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
For the sake of education and playing devil’s advocate, I wanted to reply.
As a former Messianic believer, this was a fun issue to talk about. I remember being so wrapped up in the Hebrew words and biblical history that I thought it was a *gasp* pagan thing to use the name Jesus. It all seems comical, now.
Half of your post is gravy (the Yeshua > Jesus transition through languages), but your argument is really only meant to point fingers at the literalists who don’t understand Hebraic thought. I wonder if you’re familiar with the following concept as well and just didn’t want to go there:
The actual name doesn’t matter. It’s not meant to be a formula or a magic key.
In Hebraic thought (as I understand it), doing something in the name of someone else did not mean literally saying “In the name of Yeshua.” I can bet you dimes to donuts no believing Jew or gentile in the first century said that formulaic bookend when they prayed. You didn’t even have to know his name.
Praying or doing something “in the name” of someone else means taking their place and being their representative. It means honoring and doing what that person would want and doing it as if you were that person. Kind of like having a financial manager invest your money for you. They’re doing it in your name because they’re investing in the way you would want to do so yourself.
So yay for working in some Hebrew for Jesus the Jew, but you really missed the whole point of the idiom when it comes to cultural and historical context.
GG
http://godlessgirl.com
July 7, 2009 at 11:18 pm |
I see your point, but I disagree. Even if you are representing someone, you still are representing them by name. You can’t anonymously represent someone.
As I said, names were very important to the Jewish culture. You’re telling me that Jesus taught his disciples: “take my place when you pray and God will give you whatever you ask”? It’s very clear that Jesus taught his disciples to pray in his name because he is the only way to speak to the father. You pray in his name, and he intercedes on our behalf to God. Jesus is the mediator.
“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”. –1 Timothy 2:5
Granted it is all bunk, but I find the whole translated name of Yeshua thing bizarre.
July 7, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
Yes, that’s the point I was making. I think he [if he existed as narratives even illustrate] probably meant “Do this as if you were me, and my Father will give you what you ask, because I’m his Son and have power.” Mediator also works fine for this, but it still has nothing to do with the letters of his name or pronouncing it correctly. Is somebody in Lebanon pronounces it “Isa”, is that a WTF too? It’s about the person and their character and power that is being represented, not the letters and language of the name. Still, I’m just playing advocate for the Hebraic thought process and idiom, not the fact that this is a sily bunch of hooey.
Side note: I remember my salvation moment and thinking that it didn’t work because I didn’t say “In Jesus Name” at the end. Hahaha. I re-prayed it 5 times or more to make sure it was a done-deal.
July 8, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I found your thoughts interesting here godlessgirl, as I have a similar background to yours, and have had very similar experiences. As a Christian, I always thought that it was the INTENTION that was important (what Christians themselves think being much more important than what the Bible actually says of course – even though it be verbally inspired!!). Later on I began to think, as BEattitude seems to here, that the idea was that this “Name of Jesus” somehow had magical properties, which believers could tap into if they employed it according to the right formula. This is clearly exemplified today in all this “casting out of demons” nonsense so beloved of the charismatics (see http://freethinker.co.uk/ – “Watch what happens when a man is `delivered` from the `homosexual spirit`.) Are you saying that we are wrong here, and that Jews of Biblical times would have understood the concept of using the authority of a person, rather than the magical power of a word?
July 8, 2009 at 5:12 pm
PS: I remember, as a young Christian, thinking: “What would happen if, when someone was baptized, a little bit of their head didn`t go right under the water? Would that invalidate the whole thing?” I was also plagued for years with terrible guilt because one Sunday morning, after The Breaking of Bread, I was hungry, and gobbled down some of the loaf!! I was sure I was going to Hell for that one, and spent hours praying for forgiveness. Can you believe it?
July 9, 2009 at 12:14 am
@barriejohn
Are you saying … that Jews of Biblical times would have understood the concept of using the authority of a person, rather than the magical power of a word?
Yes. The governments of the time, both monarchies and republics, had officials, civil servants, and agents who performed duties by the authority of the state or in the name of the king. In business, especially in international commerce, agents acted on the authority of their (possibly very distant) employers. Remember, the Roman empire was a very mercantile culture. And Pontius Pilate, as governor, acted on the authority (in the name) of Rome.
So any person of the time would have understood the concept of “in the name of Jesus” as the petitioner saying to god, “Jesus tells me you will do this for me if I mention that I am one of his followers.” Note, however, that this is actually a little different from agency. It is more like Jesus said, “Tell god I sent you and he will give you first class service.”
July 9, 2009 at 8:12 am
You`re not telling me anything that I didn`t already know here, Verbifex! This is precisely what all my Bible Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias and Commentaries would have said, but does it fit the facts? Is it not a case of us looking at the First Century through modern eyes? One big problem is the statement: “Where two or three are gathered together UNTO MY NAME (correct translation), there am I in the midst.” This seems to be saying something other than “with my authority”, but no one seems to be able to cast light on it. It sounds very mystical indeed! Of course, I don`t believe for one moment that “Jesus” said all these things, but even the Bible admits that there were many prophets and “messiahs” in those days going around performing so-called miracles “in their name”, and trying to prove that one name was more powerful than another; and the Jesus mythology obviously had its fondation in that fact. I think there is more to this “In My Name” mantra than meets the eye!!
July 9, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Well of course it is very mystical indeed!. It is talking about religious practice. What could be more mystical than that? But the mysticism is in the concepts expressed, not in the language used to express them. It is very mystical indeed to say that some invisible magical entity will grant whatever wish you have if you just just tell it that you are a friend of Jesus. But the mystical idea is expressed in ordinary mundane language because if words and expressions suddenly have special arcane meanings, nobody (certainly not strangers who are being introduced to the religion) will be able to understand what the author is talking about. The more mystical the concept is, the more ordinary the language must be in order for it to be understood.
Ordinary simple language is also used in your new example: “Where two or three are gathered together UNTO MY NAME (correct translation), there am I in the midst.” The ordinary understanding of “gathering unto the name of Jesus” is meeting to talk about him or his ideas or both (or worship him, etc.). The phrase “two or three” is a simple way to indicate that the gathering referred to can be even the most informal of discussions; but it does not rule out larger, more formal gatherings such as church services and bible study sessions. The ordinary understanding of “there am I in the midst” is that Jesus will somehow magically be present at the gathering also. This concept is very mystical indeed, but the mysticism is in the idea of Jesus’s magic presence, not in the words “unto my name”. The concept is hard enough to understand (especially since the presence is probably silent, invisible, and otherwise undetectable) without complicating it by giving arcane meanings to the individual words and phrases themselves.
There is plenty of nonsense expressed by the plain meaning of the words and phrases. It is not necessary to look for hidden nonsense.
July 9, 2009 at 2:47 pm
You may be right for all I know, Verbifex, and there may be absolutely no esoteric meaning to these words at all. I wouldn`t want to get into an argument over it, especially as it is only a suspicion of mine! However, I used to be an evangelical “scholar” so I know that many Bible verses do not have the straightforward meaning that they are supposed to have. I put the word “scholar” in inverted commas, because in fundamentalist circles there is, of course, no true scholarship. They are not “seeking the truth” – they have found it! I had shelves full of tomes on the exposition of the Scriptures etc, but there was little point in reading any of them, as they were all reiterating the same thing. Ayone who put their head above the parapet with an independent view (especially on biblical prophecy, for example) was taken to one side and told in no uncertain terms to stop rocking the boat! I was much in demand as a speaker myself, so I just kept clear of anything controversial and mainly regurgitated what I had read years previously in Darby`s Synopsis. I was quite eloquent, and it always went down very well, though I felt like a complete fraud; but I know that others were doing much the same thing! What I do know is that we have a real problem interpreting the Bible correctly because (a) it is an Eastern (mainly Jewish)book, using Eastern idioms: (b) it was written a long time ago, and it is difficult now to ascertain what it would have conveyed to the original readers; and (c) no translation that we have is 100% accurate anyway, if for no other reason than discrepancies in the documents available. As for what you say about “gathered unto My Name” – you may be right there as well. Perhaps it is as simple as that. My background, though, is with the Plymouth Brethren, and it is over the correct interpretation of this very Bible verse that numerous divisions and sub-divisions have arisen down the years. If that is news to you just look it up at Wikipedia (Plymouth Brethren, Exclusive Brethren, Needed Truth, and so on). Your head will be spinning by the time you have finished!! Thanks for your thoughts anyway – I am keeping an open mind on the subject!
July 10, 2009 at 1:15 am
OK. I read the Wikipedia articles about the Plymouth and Needed Truth Brethren. I see that the Brethren have squabbled and divided and redivided and subdivided over the precise meaning of various scriptural passages, including the “gathered unto My Name” quotation. And of course, believers have been fighting over this kind of trivia since the apostles died and could no longer set matters straight.
To an outsider with no religion, it all seems rather petty and paranoid. It seems that any intelligent prophet (or savior or god) would say plainly what he meant. If there were a magic formula, he would say say so and specify it carefully so there could be no mistake. Etc.
But, since the faithful began finding extra meaning in every tittle and jot almost as soon as the ink was dry on the first manuscripts, perhaps the great author and his disciples had the same kind of mind and were leaving the faithful little puzzles to riot over. Obviously, we are not going to resolve the issue here.
July 7, 2009 at 11:12 pm |
i’m an atheist too and this was amusing but i think “his name wasn’t Jesus, it was Yeshua” is kind of splitting hairs. would “his name wasn’t John, it was Johann” be a very effective gotcha? on the other hand, i always thought the verse that predicts he shall be called Emmanuel was a pretty good biblical contradiction because nobody in that book called him that.
July 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
I agree that it is splitting hairs. I’ve just always found it odd that Christians don’t use his original name. It wasn’t so much a “gotcha” as it was a “WTF?”
July 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
Yes, it’s the same sort of WTF as Christians frequently portraying Jesus as having very light skin and long blond hair.
July 8, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
I believe Emmanuel means the “sacrificial lamb”. Vaguely remember this from cathechism. Could be wrong though…
July 9, 2009 at 8:26 am |
Well – YOU certainly weren`t paying attention, Eta! Go and stand in the corner!! “They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matt. 1:23.) Of course no one ever called him that, and the statement directly contradicts what has been said immediately before it (“Thou shalt call his name Jesus”),but this was supposed to be a fulfillment of Isaiah`s prophecy, and Matthew`s Gospel is a work of pure fiction, written largely to prove that “Jesus” was the Messiah promised to the Jews in the Old Testament.
July 9, 2009 at 8:14 am |
Not if, as I have suggested above, the NAME had some mystical power of its own. Then it would have to be precise, as if to make the spell work. Is this your thought here Beattitude?
July 8, 2009 at 10:26 am |
Christianity appealed to the masses, unwashed if you will—slaves, socially oppressed, disenfranchised—and told people that their unhappy lives were to be accepted graciously, since eternal reward was all that mattered. Its very simplicity, believe and you’re saved, was appealing. Unlike previous gods who often demanded, many of them simultaneously, quite complicated rituals and offerings, this new cult was austerity itself. One God, one belief, no burnt offerings. One stop shopping !
July 8, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
It’s not?!
July 8, 2009 at 7:02 pm |
RECIPE FOR CHRISTIANITY
Savior Soufflé
2 C Old Testament scripture 1qt.Apollonius
1 ¼ C Logos 2 T Osiris
¾ C sifted Mithraism handful of Q Document
poor, wretched people with the desire to “get even” in an afterlife
Beat until downtrodden. Wrap in palm fronds and cook in conventional oven for 2 centuries; microwave for 1 ½ centuries. Serve half baked. Garnish with gullibility. No leavening needed, as it will rise on its own. At Easter be sure to save your soufflé in a tube-shaped cookie jar with the lid rolled open halfway. Serves millions.
July 9, 2009 at 8:28 am |
It gives you dreadful indigestion though, George!!
July 8, 2009 at 8:04 pm |
why do you idiots pray at all? biblical times no doubt shaped the world as we know it and you are all disgusting for taking the bible and religion to where it is today. Until people accept the SUN (or any part of the solar system other than your fairy voodoo god) as their god, earth will continue to plummet into the catastrophic ending we are headed for. Wake up, it is true that “god” gives life…. and the photosynthesis that is not possible without “god” should be researched by you delusionists. What a beautiful world we could have, put your bible down take a walk and check out nature all around you. There are no answers in believing the lies you read the answers are right under your feet. But hands on research is too difficult for your weak minds so you climb into bed, read the bible, talk to yourself and go to sleep.
Wonder why you wake up sunday morning full of sins to repent and find out that you are too fat to fit into your church clothes? well it’s because you are disgusting and instead of bonding with the entity that gave you life you live in your head…. that’s where your world lies.
“A man with a belief in religion is a coward without a belief in himself”.
July 8, 2009 at 10:14 pm |
Yahweh Adonai Qanna (Jealous) El Shaddai El Elyon El Olam Elohim Jehovah –Nissi –Raah –Rapha –Shammah –Tsidkenu –Mekoddishkem –Jireh –Shalom -Sabaoth are most likely the subjects of a myriad of folk tales from a number of tribes, that form the basis of the bible. They seem to come from may different sources and suggest that the bible is a compilation of tales rather than the word or a single all seeing deity.
July 8, 2009 at 11:28 pm |
The word Elohim, used in Genesis is plural. This suggests the original Jewish god was not a single deity, but a polytheistic group of gods. Many Christians today argue that it proves the trinity.
Regardless, there are many names for the god in the Bible. Amazingly all translate into “God” in current Bible translations. It’s amazing how primitive and inconsistent language can translate to something so consistent in modern translations.
July 18, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
what do you hope to accomplish with this page? a bunch of people who dont care and dont believe spending all that time beating down what you dont believe in to make each other feel better about not believing? and as for all your information and studying and proof you had to do so much research for, was it really that important to you to waste your time on it? also, how can you say that prayers are never answered? how would you know? its not a wishing well, you dont just say you want something and poof, there it is. I feel sorry for you all, especially since i believe you are wrong. i mean if it’s a gamble to be a christian and it causes one to live a life of love for others and taking care of widows and orphans as the bible describes true religion undefiled, what can one lose? but the alternative, if we are right? ill say in love and out of a burden for your soul that i hope God shows himself real in your lives before it’s too late.
July 19, 2009 at 2:14 am |
What a load of fucking bullshit! “It`s not a wishing well, you don`t just say something and poof, there it is”…
“If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 18:19)
“Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, `Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea`; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” (Mark 11: 23-24)
Obvously, your faith isn`t strong enough Mr Preach! And as for “what can one lose” by giving yourself over to this delusion, well, you can lose your mind like I did: I had a complete mental breakdown. That was really beneficial to me, and, as I have said before, ruined my life: I can never recover those wasted years. That`s why I spend so much time now warning others of the dangers of these crackpot ideas, so that they are not brainwashed like I was, with similar results!!
July 19, 2009 at 2:17 am |
I forgot to close off the italica BEattitude: how infuriating! How do we edit comments on this site?
July 20, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I don’t see any settings for editing comments but I’ll look into it. I fixed the italic for you.
July 21, 2009 at 2:23 am
Thanks!!!
July 20, 2009 at 10:06 pm |
I’m not looking to accomplish anything specific with this blog. I was a Christian for most of my life and I enjoy discussing the subject. You’re welcome to join in on the discussion.
I didn’t say it is a gamble to be a Christian. People choose Christianity because they fear their own mortality, not because they are risk takers. I simply see religion as a huge waste of time.
By the way, I donate time and money to several charitable organizations to help the homeless, widows and orphans. You do it because a collection of ancient texts tell you to. I do it because I want to help people in need.
July 21, 2009 at 5:38 am |
@theBEattitude
‘You do it because a collection of ancient texts tell you to. I do it because I want to help people in need.’
Wrong! True Christians live by the Spirit, not by the law. You’re assumption that Christianity is just another law to be followed with the threat of damnation if we don’t get it right is flawed. That is Old Testament theology, Judiasm!
The whole point about being a Christian is regeneration into holiness ( sanctification) and this is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ourselves. If this is not evident, if this fruit is not evident, then the chance is that the person has not been saved and theirs is a false conversion.
We cannot earn favour with God with what we do, because even our best efforts fall far short of His glory, which is why we are justified and righteous in His sight through Christ.
July 21, 2009 at 10:50 am
The point under discussion here is Preach’s assertion that “… to be a christian … causes one to live a life of love for others and taking care of widows and orphans as the bible describes …” and the implication that one does not live that kind of life without religion.
Ericw has one valid point: that many religious people do these things because, like theBEattitude, they sincerely “want to help people in need“.
But the fact of sincerity among the religious does not refute theBEattitude’s point: that it is possible to live that kind of life without religion.
July 21, 2009 at 10:58 am
We cannot earn favour with God with what we do, because even our best efforts fall far short of His glory, which is why we are justified and righteous in His sight through Christ.
If it is impossible to do anything by our own behavior that God considers worthy of respect, then we ought to direct our efforts toward being good people to the best of our ability so that we will have self respect and the respect of others around us; and we should not worry about whether God even notices us. Then, if God does notice (assuming there even is such an entity), we will be able to give a good account of ourselves: God cannot reasonably expect us to do more than we are actually capable of doing.
Joining The Jesus Fan Club does not seem to accomplish anything of practical value in and of itself. Many people do find it helpful as a guide and reminder for doing the practical stuff, or as a vehicle for collective practical action. Not everyone needs those kinds of help.
But if the goal is just to hang out with God, then joining The Jesus Fan Club is just plain sucking up. What kind of a God would respect such sycophancy? What kind of person wants the respect of that kind of god?
July 21, 2009 at 11:23 am
@Verbifex
‘But the fact of sincerity among the religious does not refute theBEattitude’s point: that it is possible to live that kind of life without religion.’
This is correct. I agree completely. There are many people in the world who do tremendous work, good deeds etc. That is commendable and right. Many of them will not be Christians.
Which comes back to a point that we cannot be saved by doing good works (if you believe you can be saved). In a Christian the good works are both the fruit of a relationship with God and also the result of the desire for righteousness that God created in everyone.
@Verbifex
‘If it is impossible to do anything by our own behavior that God considers worthy of respect, then we ought to direct our efforts toward being good people’.
All our efforts are corrupted by our sinful nature and the evil that is in the world. As Isaiah once wrote, ‘we are all like dirty rags before God’s holiness’.
This does not mean that God does not bless our efforts. The point again is that these things in themselves do not earn our salvation. We should always direct our efforts to doing good, Christian or not.
‘God cannot reasonably expect us to do more than we are actually capable of doing.’
He knows this. He knows our weaknesses; again this is why Christ died for us. God knows that we struggle with living good lives and looks with love on us. He knows we cannot do enough to be sinless, so Christ died for us to overcome these things.
‘Joining The Jesus Fan Club does not seem to accomplish anything of practical value in and of itself. ‘
Jesus helps us overcome our weaknesses and to live good lives. He gives us the power to stand against evil and to follow Him. But why should we follow Him? I cannot find any reason not too. Nearly everyone will admit that He was a great teacher, and a great man of integrity.
If you had the power to choose whether to follow Him or not, if you felt nothing was holding you back, could you find any justifiable reasons not to?
‘just plain sucking up.’
No, it is a relationship. It is following someone who wants the best for you. Of who else on earth could you honestly say that about?
July 20, 2009 at 10:36 am |
so because you went crazy, we should listen to you? you sound crazy to me now… i know what the Bible says about faith and receiving what you ask for, but since you are such a Bible scholar you should already know that although there are some literal interpretations, there are some figurative phrases as well. “Whatever you ask in my name” refers to asking something in Jesus’ name, in line w/ His will for your life. I would not expect that if i asked in His name for a building full of innocent people to explode that it would happen, but if i ask for something and do as Jesus did and say, nevertheless, your will be done, im going to receive what i need. God is trying to show the believer to believe He knows what you need and as you ask for it he helps you. It’s pretty simple, and as i’ve seen time and time again, it works. Your negative, pessimistic attitude tells me you never were able to believe in any of this in the first place, so how could you have ever expected to receive the answer you wanted? I don’t want to be a jerk, but it is pretty offensive to stumble on this page, but i know you have as much right as i have to your opinion, i just wish you would spend as much time studying your Bible to learn positives instead of supposed contradictions. You wouldn’t seem so hateful toward a God who loves you.
July 20, 2009 at 10:45 am |
No, you`re the crazy one, Preach! The Holy Bubble makes quite clear statements, but you then say that they need “interpreting” correctly (by none other than yourself, of course!), as they couldn`t possibly mean what they appear to mean when you actually read them!! All this chicanery is absolutely pathetic!!!
July 20, 2009 at 10:52 am |
So, Preach, we need to ask for things that God is going to give us anyway? And what about the people who pray who don’t receive what they need? There are plenty of people who are dying of horrifying diseases, especially in third world countries, through no fault of their own. Some of them are even children who are completely innocent. I’m sure they pray to God so that they can live to see adulthood.
Are you saying it’s in God’s will that children die horrific, painful deaths? What kind of plan is that? There is no plan that requires that level of suffering from innocent people, especially if you’re trying to claim that God is perfect. A perfect being can get what it wants without subjecting innocents to miserable deaths.
July 21, 2009 at 5:45 am |
@Janus Grayden – ‘Are you saying it’s in God’s will that children die horrific, painful deaths? What kind of plan is that? ‘
This is not in God’s original plan for creation. Remember creation was made perfect and it was good. We screwed it up and continue to do so through our rejection, disobedience and selfishness. The fruit of our actions is a broken world with suffering and disease etc. It is not only humanity that groans under all this, but so also does all creation.
But there is hope, because one day a new heaven and new earth will be created where there will be no more suffering or tears.
That is God’s ‘new’ plan for us. It started and it will finish with Jesus Christ.
The question do you want to be a part of that, or would you rather continue in this suffering as it is now.
July 21, 2009 at 11:00 am
I don’t think you have thought though your statement “This is not in God’s original plan for creation. Remember creation was made perfect and it was good. We screwed it up and continue to do so through our rejection, disobedience and selfishness.” If humans were able to screw up his so called perfect plan, how could it have been perfect? A perfect plan would not be able to be screwed up by anything or anyone. If you believe god has a perfect plan then you also have to believe he is responsible for everything that happens. Those that don’t believe is because he doesn’t want them to believe and those that worship other gods only do so because he wants them to. If anything or anyone can alter his plan in the least he isn’t all powerful. Take your foolish reasoning and go preach to someone that is as easily fooled as yourself.
July 21, 2009 at 11:29 am
@Baconsbud
‘If humans were able to screw up his so called perfect plan, how could it have been perfect?’
I have thought through the statement. God’s creation of Earth and everything on it was perfect. The factor which caused the problem was that God gave us our free will to choose between Him and ourselves.
We choose ourselves and so do not live our life as God guides us. God is perfect. He knows the best way for us. We do not know better than Him, although pride is one of the biggest acts against God.
Why did God give us our free will: because He created us to be in a relationship with Him.
Imagine getting married, would you deprive your wife / husband of her free will and command her to do exactly as you told her? Do you think the marriage would last long?
July 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm
No you aren’t thinking it though you are making excuses. Either freewill is part of the perfect plan or there is no plan. You are deluding yourself into believing that something that is just a fairy tail is real because you are afraid.
You claim that freewill is so god can have a relationship with man. He doesn’t have a relationship with the angels then? If he wants a relationship then why is there a need for churches and the bible? Again you are going to make excuses for these but in the end all religion is , is people lying to themselves and others about what they are afraid of.
July 21, 2009 at 12:10 pm
The question do you want to be a part of that, or would you rather continue in this suffering as it is now.
This question only makes sense if you first believe the premises that a god exists, that it made a perfect universe, and that humans are somehow powerful enough to have screwed up that universe simply by “rejection, disobedience and selfishness”. Then you are in a position to believe that there might be new plan in which the broken universe is fixed by acceptance, obedience, and altruism.
But since you ask the question that way, I’ll turn down both falsehoods, thank you. It is much simpler to accept that the universe runs the way it does because of natural laws, that humans can learn to mitigate some of the natural effects which cause problems for humans, and that humans can learn to eliminate most of the problems which are caused by human behavior and misbehavior. Best of all, it is not necessary to imagine that human behavior is in some mysterious way the cause of disease and natural disasters.
July 21, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@ericw
Why did God give us our free will: because He created us to be in a relationship with Him.
Imagine getting married, would you deprive your wife / husband of her free will and command her to do exactly as you told her? Do you think the marriage would last long?
Then, when that spouse makes an independent decision that you do not like, imagine punishing that spouse and all that spouse’s offspring with earthly pain and suffering followed by eternal torment after death. Now there’s a relationship to avoid!
July 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Even disregarding the misstep of declaring God’s perfect plan of needing revision later, this poses a problem.
God is supposed to be omniscient. He would know that his actions would result in the horrifying suffering of young children.
It’s one thing to act and accidentally mess something up because you didn’t know what the results of your actions would be. It’s quite another to do something, knowing full well that you’re going to cause unknowable suffering on people you say you love.
Since God is also presumed to be perfect and omnipotent, this poses a problem. Humans are used to dealing with problems that require imperfect solutions and that people are going to come out on the raw end of a deal, but a perfect, all-powerful being with complete knowledge of all possible rammifications shouldn’t.
Either God wants children to suffer or He’s powerless. In either case, there’s no chance that the God of the Bible exists.
July 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm |
PREACH
So you’re saying that the reason why God created the universe, including millions of years of human and animal suffering and death, and the extinction of entire species, is so that at the end of that a relatively minor number of humans who have passed his test can be with him forever. I see.
July 20, 2009 at 9:54 pm |
I don’t hate God. He’s imaginary.
I believed and worshiped an imaginary god for over thirty years. Then I grew up. But I did whole heartedly believed in God when I was a Christian. You can view me as a pessimist, but I’m only a realist. I don’t believe in fairy tales because people tell me I’m supposed to.
July 21, 2009 at 5:54 am |
@theBEattitude
I am just aware of the spirit of apostasy here. I am sure you are aware of these passages.
‘But the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.’ 1 Tim. 4:1.
‘Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart in falling away from the living God.’ Heb. 3:12.
‘How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace’ Heb. 10:29.
July 21, 2009 at 11:19 am
@ericw, you’re acting a bit like Job’s friends all the way back in his book. Certainly the man has his reasons for questioning God – everyone has to go through a religious crisis of faith sometime or another.
You’re not helping things much (let alone even doing God’s work) by taking the accusatory stance and painting the man a sinner. Especially if the cause is an apparent abandonment by God – what fear has someone who thinks God has forsaken him of punishment and fire and brimstone? <_<
July 21, 2009 at 11:36 am
@A chicken passeth by Says
I quoted passages from Scripture. The need is for you to examine yourself against Scripture.
If you do not believe in it and consider it all a fairy story then it should not bother you.
I did not make any judgement. I leave the Holy Spirit to convict or not.
‘painting the man a sinner.’
we are all sinners which is why Christ died for us and we will continue to be sinners until Christ returns and the hope of our salvation is fulfilled.
‘everyone has to go through a religious crisis of faith sometime or another.’
Exactly. I go through testing of my faith many times.
July 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm
There seems to be a disagreement among the Bible experts. One Bible expert:
Then, 16 minutes later, another Bible expert contradicts:
You guys ought to sort these matters out before you go public.
July 22, 2009 at 4:03 am
@Verbifex
‘There seems to be a disagreement among the Bible experts.’
In the country were you live, there must be laws for you to abide by. You follow these laws, this can be either through fear of the consequences if you don’t, because you feel the laws are good and should be obeyed, or you may rebel against these laws because you consider them unjust.
Either way you know that you are under a higher authority in your life and in a way you trust that authority to protect you and care for you and your family.
With God the same applies, yet the authority is higher and it is also perfect, unlike most human regulations. God gave the law for our guidance and to show us our sin and disobedience before Him, they were not a path to salvation, that was never possible because we can never keep all the law. They were given as a means of support until the Holy Spirit came to help us following the resurrection and ascension of Christ.
This is what it means to live in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides us in power to live holy lives.
So the first statement is that we live by the Spirit not by the law.
Yet if we are living a life which blasphemes and profanes God’s name then we cannot be living in the Spirit, and so we are still under the law, still under God’s wrath, because we are not saved. The second statement is a warning against living in this state, not a law.
Do you expect that the authorities in your country would overlook you should you willing decide to break the law of the land. Would you not expect to receive judgement?
How then do you demand that God should pardon you for everything you commit against Him? Stating that He is wrong and unfair, and incompetent and that you are right?
July 22, 2009 at 8:02 am
Perfect? God’s law still states that women have to sit down and shut up when the men are talking.
And you know what? I think every single person who hasn’t ordered genocide has a higher moral standing of God. I certainly never told anyone to go somewhere and murder every man, woman, child, and animal they could find. I didn’t murder everyone on the planet save for a select few.
I don’t know what kind of perfect God doesn’t have a better plan than murdering people when He doesn’t get His way, but it certainly isn’t in keeping with a moral construct.
If the God of the Bible existed, then I would totally be in a position to criticize His authority, moral standing, and capability as a lawmaker. Pretty much everyone would.
July 23, 2009 at 1:08 am
@Ericw
Do you expect that the authorities in your country would overlook you should you willing decide to break the law of the land. Would you not expect to receive judgement?
I expect that the authorities in my country have the same standard, the same laws for every person.
If a country operated as you describe your religion, there would be two classes of citizen: one class whose crimes are punished brutally, and another class whose crimes are not prosecuted at all because these citizens are members of the fan club of the authority’s favorite son. This is a form of tyranny.
How then do you demand that God should pardon you for everything you commit against Him? Stating that He is wrong and unfair, and incompetent and that you are right?
The supposed offenses that you state here are all expressions of opinion or fact. If the opinions are incorrect, what harm do they do to the god? If they are correct, why would a just god want to punish them? Does your god have a law that prohibits the free expression of personal opinions? Does your god punish statements of fact that he does not like?
In my country many citizens say all the time that the government is wrong or unfair about something, that the government is incompetent or worse, and that these citizens are right. Different citizens say these things at different times about different government policies, about proposed laws, about court decisions, etc. At the same time, many other citizens say the opposite. We do not prosecute these citizens for expressing opinions. The concept of pardoning a citizen for criticizing the government never comes up: criticizing the government is completely legal. We call this politics. We call it freedom of speech.
Only two very specific kinds of speech are unlawful: inciting a riot and libel (and the related tort of invasion of privacy). If your coreligionists are in danger of rioting, you have a bigger problem than a little outside criticism. I think a god might count as a public figure so libel would require a showing of reckless disregard for the truth; but I am pretty sure it is impossible to libel a fictitious entity. But, then again, your god probably does not know that he is fictitious.
Yet if we are living a life which blasphemes and profanes God’s name then we cannot be living in the Spirit, and so we are still under the law, still under God’s wrath, because we are not saved.
Are you saying that your god, this high authority with a perfect law, routinely suppresses criticism just because he is angry about it? This is another form of tyranny.
[The laws] were not a path to salvation, that was never possible because we can never keep all the law.
Your god has laws that cannot be kept? What good is a law that cannot be kept?
January 22, 2010 at 7:19 am |
Not only what is said here is true, but Jesus never actually existed. There is not one contemporary account if a supposed miracle worker/prophet. The earliest accounts were written decades after he was supposed to have lived.
Not so strangely, the accounts of Jesus match very well with those of Mithra. You jesus freaks should educate yourselves a bit and learn the truth about your invented religion.
January 22, 2010 at 9:34 am |
theBEattitude wrote:
“Here is a short list of Old Testament names given to this God”
And by admitting this, you undercut the whole premise of your OP.
Doing something ‘in His name’ doesn’t mean that one must utter the name as a magical incantation.
Just as we use the term today, performing an act ‘in another’s name’ means that you have permission to act in their stead, i.e. they have delegated a measure of authority to you, to use in certain defined circumstances.
March 17, 2010 at 7:33 am |
Wow I have to say this is great. Even writing that post must have taken you a seriously long time. Thanks for your effort!
April 11, 2010 at 2:45 pm |
Because they are mentally ill.. Their brain is sick. They have no idea what they worship, where it comes from or why they really celebrate the holidays that they do.. Christian Holidays! Christmas, Easter, bla bla bla etc… No fools.. Those holidays were being celebrated for thousands and thousands of years before the “story” of christ even came to be.. Why? Because those were the holidays of the Sun worshipers.. the Equinoxes.. And now.. It sopped being Sun worship.. and became Son worship.. I am just amazed at the stupidity of the religious..
May 11, 2010 at 8:10 pm |
I just wanted to say hi to Ravious.
Ravious: Unleash the RAAAAAAGGGE!
Yeah, you are an internet meme for me, dude. (I ain’t saying I don’t agree with your positions, all I’m saying is…
Ravious: Unleash the RAAAAAGGGGGEAAAAHH!
It’s entertaining. That’s all.
June 4, 2010 at 9:36 am |
Great post, looking forward to read some of your next work. Confidential Conversions
June 13, 2010 at 4:48 am |
man this is a great post …i luv yr blog!
July 8, 2010 at 11:16 pm |
paul is surely the neatest psychic …!
July 9, 2010 at 4:11 am |
paul is absolutely the most fresh-cut oracle
July 18, 2010 at 2:42 am |
Right on! As a girl in high school, I totally agree with your take on this. It is amazing the things we can learn about our hair, the different hairstyles, especially once we start using all natural hair products.
July 24, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
Very nice information.