Someone mentioned this at church today and I promptly googled it. The Question is are we Jews or Christians?

Check out CNA news archive sept 8 2008

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/showarchive.php?date=2008-09-03



‘Yahweh’ not to be used in liturgy, songs and prayers, Cardinal Arinze says

Vatican City, Sep 3, 2008 (CNA) - The Hebrew name for God is not to be used or pronounced in liturgical celebrations, songs and prayers, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has said in a letter addressed to the bishops’ conferences of the world.

The letter concerns the use of the “Tetragrammaton,” the name which uses the four Hebrew letters YHWH. In English the name is pronounced “Yahweh.”

Cardinal Arinze’s letter teaches that the Tetragrammaton is to be translated as the equivalent of the Hebrew title “Adonai” or the Greek title “Kyrios.” He lists as examples five acceptable translations of the title in five European languages: Lord, Signore, Seigneur, Herr, and Señor.

Regarding translations in the liturgical context, the letter instructs, “Adonai” is to be translated in English as “Lord” and the Tetragrammaton YHWH is to be translated as “God.”

“The words of sacred Scripture contained in the Old and New Testament express truth which transcends the limits imposed by time and place,” the letter explains. “They are the word of God expressed in human words, and by means of these words of life, the Holy Spirit introduces the faithful to knowledge of the truth whole and entire, and thus the word of Christ comes to dwell in the faithful in all its richness.”

Cardinal Arinze, citing the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, explains that translators must use the “greatest faithfulness and respect” regarding the name of God.

He describes the YHWH as “an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God,” which he says “was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: Adonai, which means Lord.”

This translation tradition has importance for understanding Christ, the cardinal explains, since the title “Lord” in fact “becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah of the Christian faith.”

Cardinal Arinze particularly cites St. Paul’s writings in the Letter to the Philippians, in which he wrote: “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name… every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

Bishop Arthur Serratelli, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, said in a note to U.S. Bishops that the instructions do not force any changes to “official liturgical texts” but might result in “some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the general intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments.”

To fulfill the directive, songs with phrases such as “Yahweh, I know you are near” will need to be modified.

We are Christians, however we do show respect to other faiths, especially the Jewish faith considering that our faith is based on their faith. There is nothing wrong in showing respect. If the Jews have such fear of God that they dare not say his name who are we to feel as if we are on the same level as God.

Now I personally don't have a problem with saying Yahweh, however there is also nothing wrong in showing reverence for the Lord by saying you are not even worthy to say his name.

i don't think there should be boundary btw us and GOD because hes our father and close relationship should exist in btw the FATHER and HIS CHILDREN, it shouldn't be distance, if we call him YAHWEH or any of his names, it makes us closer to him, in as much as we don't call it in vain, all these reasons stated above is uncalled for, its an excuse to worship the devil indisguise,cos they use lord for the devil too.

Once again its obvious that the RCC is always imposing its own rules and dogmas. If God introduced Himself as Yahweh, then that is what He should be called. It was Hebrew that God's people spoke, and that language so happened to have pronounced that name.

uplawal:

i don't think there should be boundary btw us and GOD because hes our father and close relationship should exist in btw the FATHER and HIS CHILDREN, it shouldn't be distance, if we call him YAHWEH or any of his names, it makes us closer to him, in as much as we don't call it in vain, all these reasons stated above is uncalled for, its an excuse to worship the devil indisguise,cos they use lord for the devil too.

I wonder, as an african, can you call your father's name? Ever since I've been in africa, apart from Fela Kuti, I've never heard any african child calling his father by name.

uzygirl:


Cardinal Arinze’s letter teaches that the Tetragrammaton is to be translated as the equivalent of the Hebrew title “Adonai” or the Greek title “Kyrios.” He lists as examples five acceptable translations of the title in five European languages: Lord, Signore, Seigneur, Herr, and Señor.

Why don't we just call him sir? Or even mister?

Hey mister, who art in heaven
hallowed be thy name

Bobbyaf:

Once again its obvious that the RCC is always imposing its own rules and dogmas. If God introduced Himself as Yahweh, then that is what He should be called. It was Hebrew that God's people spoke, and that language so happened to have pronounced that name.

Pastor AIO:

I wonder, as an african, can you call your father's name? Ever since I've been in africa, apart from Fela Kuti, I've never heard any african child calling his father by name.

anyways its all depends on ur relationship with God,as for me o am honestly closer to God than to my earthly father even if i can't see him, not joke at all

Bobbyaf:

Once again its obvious that the RCC is always imposing its own rules and dogmas. If God introduced Himself as Yahweh, then that is what He should be called. It was Hebrew that God's people spoke, and that language so happened to have pronounced that name.

1) The Catholic Church is the only one with authority from Christ, Go and read your Bible for that one
2) Imposed what and on whom? Are you a Catholic? Did it say all non-catholics must follow the rules? You just want to open mouth and say something so people will think ur intellingent when ur not.

~Lady~:

1) The Catholic Church is the only one with authority from Christ, Go and read your Bible for that one
2) Imposed what and on whom? Are you a Catholic? Did it say all non-catholics must follow the rules? You just want to open mouth and say something so people will think ur intellingent when ur not.

Where did you find that one?

davidylan:

Where did you find that one?

In the Bible sweetheart, in the Bible. Christ gave authority to his Church, not to a book.

~Lady~:

In the Bible sweetheart, in the Bible. Christ gave authority to his Church, not to a book.

I thought He gave the authority to WHOSOEVER calleth on the name of the Lord. But of course i am still waiting for the bible reference.

davidylan:

I thought He gave the authority to WHOSOEVER calleth on the name of the Lord. But of course i am still waiting for the bible reference.

You will have to show me the Bible reference where he says he gives authority to whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord.

But here are my Bible references.

The authority of the apostles

Matt. 10:40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism). Take note that not all his disciples recieved this authority. If so we can all start binding and loosing and making decisions in heaven. That means if David hates me and says on his power to bind and loose, ~Lady~ shall go to hell, and then ~Lady~ says by her power to bind and loose she shall not go to hell, God is going to have a hard time choosing which one to honour o.

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ's ministry and authority.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word "foundation" proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession

That authority given to the apostles are transferred by means of ordination.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church. Ore mi u do not have authority over your own self on this matter. No one in the Bible reads the Bible and decides on his own, if he did show me o.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
In short this one I will post the whole passages here for you and others to see as I love it so much. It is the greatest rebuke of all preachers not in the Catholic church.
22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.
23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment:
25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things

This passage tells us that there were men that were NOT commissioned by the Apostles, and they got up and started preaching, and because they weren't commissioned by the apostles they were teaching error. But notice how organsied the Church is, the Church sent a letter to the community along with soldiers, apostles that they commissioned themselves. Aburo mi it is not small matter, when men gave themselves authority as your pastors and yourselves have done, they Church spoke against them.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize ("deliver to satan".
whooo weee that Paul of a man, anathemizing people left and right, and he's a man o, who gave him that right eh?

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are "ambassadors" for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ's mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Now there are so much more, but I think this will suffice. Hope it's not too much sha.

But I think there's a question u may want to ask, and I think that will be so how is the Catholic Church, the Church in the Bible?

Answer is simple. The Catholic Church has stood for 2000years, and is directly linked to the apostles, and the oldest instance where we see written down that the Church of Christ is called Catholic is by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 100-110 AD, and even at that time, the word Catholic seems to have been a frequented word in describing the Church of Christ.

Now aburo mi, I agree that the Church or rather some members of the Church have done some very despicable things that should never have been thought of, but no where does it say that all the members in the Church will be sinless and free of evil. Infact Jesus states that there will be the good and the bad. But just because there are bad people does not mean that the Church's teachings are wrong. Because Christ already says he will guide us into all truth, and that's why for 2000 years the teaching of the Catholic church has not changed and will not change.

Also if you think we're teaching the wrong thing, ore mi, do research about the beliefs of the early christians, check with historians about what they did, how they lived, how they acted, and what they believed.

You won't believe me I know, so check with historians.

lol christian sectarian wars, fun to watch

1) The Catholic Church is the only one with authority from Christ, Go and read your Bible for that one
2) Imposed what and on whom? Are you a Catholic? Did it say all non-catholics must follow the rules? You just want to open mouth and say something so people will think ur intellingent when ur not.

But you and I know that whatever is passed on to the bishops and priests, it will be passed on to the other denominations over which the RCC desires dominion. It takes intelligence to know that the RCC wants total control, but is simply using a front of unity in order to achieve its goals.

As an insider you certainly have not a clue as to what your denomination is up to,

Let me tell you something. The RCC has not received one instruction from Jesus Christ, because it is not, and never will be the true church. It is the counterfeit organization that was predicted to have come to bring about the tribulation upon God's true church.

God's true church will never abuse little boys. God's true church will be spotless when Jesus Christ bursts through the clouds of heaven to redeem His people. God's true church will show respect for God's commands and instructions, unlike the RCC that has placed images and idols for people to kiss and adore. The true church will not accept indulgencies from its members so that their relatives will be taken from purgatory. The true church will not pay homage to dead people including Mary. The leaders of God's true church will not take on titles that only belongs to God.

I could go on.

God's true church will never abuse little boys

Just like God's true church will neve abandon him at his death or deny him during trial right?

God's true church will be spotless when Jesus Christ bursts through the clouds of heaven to redeem His people. God's true church will show respect for God's commands and instructions, unlike the RCC that has placed images and idols for people to kiss and adore.

I won't even bother with this one as this is u grasping for straws here.

The true church will not accept indulgencies from its members so that their relatives will be taken from purgatory.

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY, AND HERE ALL THIS WHILE I THOUGHT YOU KNEW WHAT INDULGENCES WERE. THIS IDIOT THINKS INDULGENCES ARE WHAT PEOPLE PAY TO GET THEIR RELATIVES FREED FROM PURGATORY.

TAAAAA IDIOT YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU KNOW NOTHING, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD QUICK QUICK. GO AND FIND A NEW STRATEGY, THIS ONE JUST EXPOSED YOU FOR AN IGNORANT BUFOON.

I AM NOT ONE WHO IS QUICK TO CURSE, BUT YOU DERSERVE THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AND NOW I KNOW NEVER TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!! AT ALLL

TAAAA SO YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT INDULGENCES ARE. YOU THINK IT'S A PAYMENT. AT LEAST GO AND FIND OUT WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS BIKO NU, U ARE A DISGRACE TO ALL ANTI-CATHOLICS. AT LEAST THEY GET THEIR POINTS STRAIGHT.

CHAI CHINEKE SEE DISGRACE NA.

DAVIDY, COME AND TEACH YOUR BROTHER HOW TO PROPERLY HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW.

HA!!!! NNA YOU ARE DISMISSED!!!

YOU HEAR ME DISMISSED!!!!

GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD JO!!!!!

1. Can one call the name of the Creator in vain - Yes
     
- Because the heart of man is desperately wicked, hence any man can easily use the True Name of the Creator in Vain via their ulterior motives.

2. What does it mean to use the name of the Creator in Vain

- When the name is used for Ulterior physical or spiritual motives/actions.
- When the name is used for purposes contradictory to what the bible says.
- When the name is used for sincere but stupid reasons that are not based on the Bible.
- When someone is telling a joke.



3. Does that mean one should never use the name of the Creator - No
   
    - Because there are genuine cases during prayer, praise and worship and baptism that the name of the Creator is genuinely required.
    - The use of the name of the Creator is thus intricately entwined with the intent of the heart of the person using it in accordance with bible.


4. Is the word God the name of the Creator - No
   
    - The word God is a generic word that has been used to infiltrate the church.
    - There are many[i] false gods[/i] and false beliefs that also use the capitalised form "God" for their own false gods, hence their is need for proper identification.
    - There is no difference in pronounciation between the word God or god, hence it is important to use the True Name of the Creator for proper identification.
    - Using the True Name of the Creator allows one to be 100% sure that one is only refering to the Creator alone and not to any false generic god.


5. Did the Creator tell us never to use His name - No
   
    - The Bible tells us when, where and how to use the Creator's True Name in a way that would not amount to using it in vain.
    - Baptism is one specific example of where the Creator told us to specifically use the[b] Name of the Creator[/b], the Name of the Son and the Name of the HolySpirit.


6. What did the Creator tell us about His name :
   
    -  He told us not to call it in vain
    -  He never told us not to use it at all. 
    - The fable that we should never use the True Name of the Creator under the right biblical circumstances, is just another Tradition of men, meant to enslave many.



7. So what does it mean in terms of what the Catholic Church said about never using the name of the Creator
   
    - It means they are lying,
    - It means they are heretic,
    - It means they are unbiblical,
    - It how they continue to be an apostate church
    - It shows that they are talking through their asses.



8. Is the Catholic Church the final authority on all things Biblical and Spiritual - NO


9. Who or What is the Final Authority on all things Biblical and Spiritual - The Bible itself



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-

~Lady~:


You will have to show me the Bible reference where he says he gives authority to whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord.

But here are my Bible references.

The authority of the apostles

Matt. 10:40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, "he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me." Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism). Take note that not all his disciples recieved this authority. If so we can all start binding and loosing and making decisions in heaven. That means if David hates me and says on his power to bind and loose, ~Lady~ shall go to hell, and then ~Lady~ says by her power to bind and loose she shall not go to hell, God is going to have a hard time choosing which one to honour o. 

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, "he who hears you, hears Me." When we hear the bishops' teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, "he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me." He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ's ministry and authority.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word "foundation" proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession

That authority given to the apostles are transferred by means of ordination.

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his "bishopric" is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church. Ore mi u do not have authority over your own self on this matter. No one in the Bible reads the Bible and decides on his own, if he did show me o.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
In short this one I will post the whole passages here for you and others to see as I love it so much. It is the greatest rebuke of all preachers not in the Catholic church.
22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.
23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment:
25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things

This passage tells us that there were men that were NOT commissioned by the Apostles, and they got up and started preaching, and because they weren't commissioned by the apostles they were teaching error. But notice how organsied the Church is, the Church sent a letter to the community along with soldiers, apostles that they commissioned themselves. Aburo mi it is not small matter, when men gave themselves authority as your pastors and yourselves have done, they Church spoke against them.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize ("deliver to satan".
whooo weee that Paul of a man, anathemizing people left and right, and he's a man o, who gave him that right eh?

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are "ambassadors" for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ's mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Now there are so much more, but I think this will suffice. Hope it's not too much sha.

But I think there's a question u may want to ask, and I think that will be so how is the Catholic Church, the Church in the Bible?

Answer is simple. The Catholic Church has stood for 2000years, and is directly linked to the apostles, and the oldest instance where we see written down that the Church of Christ is called Catholic is by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 100-110 AD, and even at that time, the word Catholic seems to have been a frequented word in describing the Church of Christ.

Now aburo mi, I agree that the Church or rather some members of the Church have done some very despicable things that should never have been thought of, but no where does it say that all the members in the Church will be sinless and free of evil. Infact Jesus states that there will be the good and the bad. But just because there are bad people does not mean that the Church's teachings are wrong. Because Christ already says he will guide us into all truth, and that's why for 2000 years the teaching of the Catholic church has not changed and will not change.

Also if you think we're teaching the wrong thing, ore mi, do research about the beliefs of the early christians, check with historians about what they did, how they lived, how they acted, and what they believed.

You won't believe me I know, so check with historians.

----------------------
@Lady

First and foremost, I have missed you gan ni, how you dey, how is your husband to be, hope you never put on weight sha,

--------------------

@Lady, secondly,


Please what you just did above with those bible verses you quoted is absolute nonsense, because we are not interested in being indoctrinated with your intepretation.

Please its is wrong for you to claim to be quoting bible verses and instead of showing the bible verses themselves, you are only giving us your interpretation alone,

Please we don't need to know your own interpretation, instead we are interested in knowing what those bible verses says so that we can compare and contrast,

Please do us a favour and properly quote those bible verses exactly the way it is written in your own bible, and stop trying to feed us what you think they mean,

Please do not try to tell us what each bible verses says or does not say,

Please let your interpretation be different from the bible verse you are quoting,


--------------

@Lady

Finally please for goodness sake change your profile picture, that bloody picture would have spent up to 6months there now wetin , abeg we want a fresh picture to look at    ,  Hope you comply , otherwise BAN 

No2Atheism:

1. Can one call the name of the Creator in vain - Yes

- Because the heart of man is desperately wicked, hence any man can easily use the True Name of the Creator in Vain via their ulterior motives.

2. What does it mean to use the name of the Creator in Vain

- When the name is used for Ulterior physical or spiritual motives/actions.
- When the name is used for purposes contradictory to what the bible says.
- When the name is used for sincere but stupid reasons that are not based on the Bible.
- When someone is telling a joke.



3. Does that mean one should never use the name of the Creator - No

- Because there are genuine cases during prayer, praise and worship and baptism that the name of the Creator is genuinely required.
- The use of the name of the Creator is thus intricately entwined with the intent of the heart of the person using it in accordance with bible.


4. Is the word God the name of the Creator - No

- The word God is a generic word that has been used to infiltrate the church.
- There are many[i] false gods[/i] and false beliefs that also use the capitalised form "God" for their own false gods, hence their is need for proper identification.
- There is no difference in pronounciation between the word God or god, hence it is important to use the True Name of the Creator for proper identification.
- Using the True Name of the Creator allows one to be 100% sure that one is only refering to the Creator alone and not to any false generic god.


5. Did the Creator tell us never to use His name - No

- The Bible tells us when, where and how to use the Creator's True Name in a way that would not amount to using it in vain.
- Baptism is one specific example of where the Creator told us to specifically use the[b] Name of the Creator[/b], the Name of the Son and the Name of the HolySpirit.


6. What did the Creator tell us about His name :

- He told us not to call it in vain
- He never told us not to use it at all.
- The fable that we should never use the True Name of the Creator under the right biblical circumstances, is just another Tradition of men, meant to enslave many.



7. So what does it mean in terms of what the Catholic Church said about never using the name of the Creator

- It means they are lying,
- It means they are heretic,
- It means they are unbiblical,
- It how they continue to be an apostate church
- It shows that they are talking through their asses.



8. Is the Catholic Church the final authority on all things Biblical and Spiritual - NO


9. Who or What is the Final Authority on all things Biblical and Spiritual - The Bible itself



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------
@Lady

First and foremost, I have missed you gan ni, how you dey, how is your husband to be, hope you never put on weight sha,

--------------------

@Lady, secondly,


Please what you just did above with those bible verses you quoted is absolute nonsense, because we are not interested in being indoctrinated with your intepretation.

Please its is wrong for you to claim to be quoting bible verses and instead of showing the bible verses themselves, you are only giving us your interpretation alone,

Please we don't need to know your own interpretation, instead we are interested in knowing what those bible verses says so that we can compare and contrast,

Please do us a favour and properly quote those bible verses exactly the way it is written in your own bible, and stop trying to feed us what you think they mean,

Please do not try to tell us what each bible verses says or does not say,

Please let your interpretation be different from the bible verse you are quoting,


--------------

@Lady

Finally please for goodness sake change your profile picture, that bloody picture would have spent up to 6months there now wetin , abeg we want a fresh picture to look at , Hope you comply , otherwise BAN

NO 2 ATHEISM YOU SAID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE THE FINAL AUTHOURITY ,HOW COME IT WAS CATHOLICS THAT SELECTED THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.

chukwudi44:

NO 2 ATHEISM YOU SAID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT HAVE THE FINAL AUTHOURITY ,HOW COME IT WAS CATHOLICS THAT SELECTED THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.

1. Simple, because all things (both good and evil) work out for good, i think you know the rest.

Romans 8:28
[RNKJV] And we know that all things work together for good [/b]to them that love יהוה, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 

    Hence even all the evils/good perpetrated by the Catholic Church is still only possible if and only if its permited by יהוה (the Creator).


2. Simple, because  even demons and lucifer cannot do anything if it is not permitted by  יהוה (the Creator) ([b]e.g. Job), hence because they were given permission to compile the books does not mean they are the authors of the books or authority over the books.
    This becomes easy to understand when you consider that just as Lucifer did not become good overnight because He had permission from  יהוה (the Creator) to do certain things during the time of "Job", likewise it does not mean that the Catholic Church is the final authority on the bible just because they were given permission to compile it.


3. History shows that the Catholic church still tried to smuggle in the "heretic books" known as the Apocryphal Books into the bible, however Glory be to יהוה (the Creator) they were only able to succeed for so long, more and more people are getting to know their dark and dirty little secrets,



WE DO NOT NEED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR ANY OTHER PASTOR FOR THAT MATTER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAYS, THAT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,


HENCE WE DON'T NEED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO TELL US WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD USE THE NAME OF יהוה (the Creator), THE BIBLE CLEARLY TELLS AND SHOWS US THAT WE CAN, HOW WE CAN AND WHEN WE CAN.

Lady I feel you, take it easy and don't be angered to ulter words you are not supposed to. how are you doing. I miss u really, quite a long time.

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY, AND HERE ALL THIS WHILE I THOUGHT YOU KNEW WHAT INDULGENCES WERE. THIS IDIOT THINKS INDULGENCES ARE WHAT PEOPLE PAY TO GET THEIR RELATIVES FREED FROM PURGATORY.

Once again you're in plain denial. Let me refresh your selective memory a bit. Pope Leo X accepted monies from the people under false pretense. Martin Luther protested against Pope Leo X , being niggardly, because of his cunningly devised plans to find ways to collect money. And this he achieved via the following cunning plan. He would publish absolution-of-sins documents (indulgencies) on which he would write that he has power to forgive sins for both the living and the deceased and even to those in purgatory. He pretended that the money collected thus would be used to help the armies fighting in the east. Via these indulgencies, Leo informed the people that whoever would give the expenses of a whole year for one soldier, would have absolution for all sins he/she would commit within a time period of five years; those that would give more money than this would have a bigger right in order to sin for more years!!!

Can you imagine the audacity of the pope? Telling people that they are free to sin as long as they pay in advance a certain amount in monies. The more the merrier,

TAAAAA IDIOT YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU KNOW NOTHING, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD QUICK QUICK. GO AND FIND A NEW STRATEGY, THIS ONE JUST EXPOSED YOU FOR AN IGNORANT BUFOON.

Obviously your selective memory forces you to be not only ignorant of your own church teachings, but to be disrespectful and rude on top of it. Christians don't insult others when they disagree with each other. We discuss issues rather than people.

I AM NOT ONE WHO IS QUICK TO CURSE, BUT YOU DERSERVE THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AND NOW I KNOW NEVER TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!! AT ALLL

This is what is called cheap psychology.

TAAAA SO YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT INDULGENCES ARE. YOU THINK IT'S A PAYMENT. AT LEAST GO AND FIND OUT WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS BIKO NU, U ARE A DISGRACE TO ALL ANTI-CATHOLICS. AT LEAST THEY GET THEIR POINTS STRAIGHT.

So I guess Pope Leo X, and those priests in the 16th century didn't collect monies from the people under false pretense, huh? There can be no time lapse between what the RC church taught in the past when it was convenient for them to do so based on the gross ignorance under which it held the people, and now. The RCC is a very cunning organization. It knows it cannot deceive so easily people who are educated about its past.

The obvious point I made was that the RC church based on its evil practices then cannot be compared to Christ's true and spotless church in which there is no guile and hatred for people who disagree with its teachings.

CHAI CHINEKE SEE DISGRACE NA.

DAVIDY, COME AND TEACH YOUR BROTHER HOW TO PROPERLY HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW.

HA!!!! NNA YOU ARE DISMISSED!!!

YOU HEAR ME DISMISSED!!!!

GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD JO!!!!!

Really!

@All, Greetings,

If I'm understanding the article correctly, it seems that the Vatican (per Cardinal Arinze) has said for the Hebrew name for God 'YHWH' is not to be used during certain situations and conditions (i.e., during liturgy, and in song and prayer).  It does not say we should not use or speak his name at all.  In other words, Catholics are asked to not use YHWH (Yahweh) during worship, prayer and song.  It seems to me that outside these specific situations we may use this name for God (without breaking the 2nd Commandment of course).  Also, I think they maybe issuing this in keeping with our older brothers in the faith (aka the Jews).

‘Yahweh’ not to be used in liturgy, songs and prayers, Cardinal Arinze says

Vatican City, Sep 3, 2008 (CNA) - The Hebrew name for God is not to be used or pronounced in liturgical celebrations, songs and prayers, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has said in a letter addressed to the bishops’ conferences of the world.

In addition, this applies only to Catholics and not to other faith traditions, be it non-Catholic Christian, Hindu, Islam, etc.  So, I don't know what all the GRA GRA about the Catholic Church trying to control the world is coming from.  The reason for him issuing this request is because the name YHWH is very important in understanding Christ.  The tetragrammoton, YHWH, can be translated as Adonai, Kyrios, Lord, Senor, etc.  In other words, the name 'Lord' can be used interchangeably for the God of Israel (the Old Testament) and for Jesus Christ (Messiah).  It seems to me that Cardinal Arinze and the Vatican does not wish for the faithful to distinguish between the God of Israel and our Lord Jesus Christ; when as Christian we are to seem them as one (just my understanding).     

This translation tradition has importance for understanding Christ, the cardinal explains, since the title “Lord” in fact “becomes interchangeable between the God of Israel and the Messiah of the Christian faith.”
Cardinal Arinze particularly cites St. Paul’s writings in the Letter to the Philippians, in which he wrote: “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name… every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

My 2 cents,

@OMENUKO

  The tetragrammoton, YHWH, can be translated as Adonai, Kyrios, Lord, Senor, etc. .

Its sad that the best you did was to quote a fallible human being as your source of scriptural authority, instead of checking the scriptures themselve to see whether what they are saying is right or wrong.

If the human beings you are quoting were perfect and all knowledgable then they themselves would not need to be saved via the birth, death and ressurection of the Messiah.

Being a Cardinal or Pope of the Solar System does not mean the person is right, please open your eyes and stop being fed bullshit.


-  The operative phrase here is "can be".

-  Who said it can be used and translated as the words you listed.

-  When was it said it can be translated and used as the words you listed.

-  Does the bible support what you just said.

-  What name did the Creator use to call himself.

-  Did the Angel tell Mary to call the Messiah an english or latin or greek name.

-  Did the Creator Himself ever told us not to use is name at all, or did He just tell us not to use His name in vain.

-  Is the use of the Creator's name during prayer, worship, baptism an act of using it in vain.

-  Which name were we told to use during Baptism.

-  Why is it that the identity of an ordinary human being is preserved whether speaking english, yoruba, hausa or spanish or greek, yet it seems so difficult for people to understand that there is a serious problem somewhere when we  find out that the words and names "God" and "Jesus Christ" cannot be traced back to ancient scriptures.

- "Emmanuel Adebayo" is still pronounced "Emmanuel Adebayo" whether you are speaking english, french, german, dutch, slavic, russian, czech, latin, or hebrew hence who had the audacity to remove the name of the Messiah (an Hebrew) into the words "Jesus Christ" considering that the words "Jesus Christ" do not have an Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent.

- When did people started calling the Creator "God" and what was He called before that.

- When did people started calling the Messiah "Jesus Christ" and what was he called before that.

- Why did the bible put an emphasis on the "Real name" of the Creator and the Messiah if it were not important as it is being insinuated.





@OMENUKO

In other words, the name 'Lord' can be used interchangeably for the God of Israel (the Old Testament) and for Jesus Christ (Messiah)

-  Who said the word "Lord" was interchangeable for the Creator and the Messiah.

-  When did that word become interchangeable.

-  Was there something wrong with the original names of the Creator and the Messiah.

-  Why was it necessary to do an interchange.

-  Did the 10 commandments ever told us not to use the real names of the Creator and the Messiah.

-  Was the Messiah called "Jesus Christ" while He was still living amongst people on earth.


PLEASE LET US BE BIBLE STUDENTS AND STOP SWALLOWING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE INDOCTRINATED WITH, SALVATION IS A PERSONAL THING, HENCE YOU ALONE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WHEN YOU STAND BEFORE THE JUDGEMENT THRONE, THOSE WHO SUCCEED IN DECEIVING YOU WOULD NOT STAND WITH YOU.

STUDY THE BIBLE AND GET TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH

THE MESSIAH WAS NEVER CALLED "JESUS CHRIST",  WHY AND WHO REMOVED THE REAL NAME OF THE MESSIAH FROM THE BIBLE KNOWING THAT THE REAL NAME CARRIES SPIRITUAL POWER.

THE MESSIAH NEVER TOLD ANYONE TO CREATE A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, HENCE WHY AND HOW DID IT START.

PETER NEVER CREATED THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, HENCE WHY AND HOW DID IT START.

THERE WERE NO CHURCH BRANCHES DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES, INSTEAD WHAT YOU HAD WERE SEPARATE GEOGRAPHICAL CHURCH UNITED IN THE MESSIAH ALONE.

THE MESSIAH NEVER TOLD ANYONE TO KILL IN HIS NAME, HENCE WHY AND HOW HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ITS DAUGHTERS KILLED PEOPLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS SUPPOSEDLY IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO THEY CALL "JESUS CHRIST".

THE MESSIAH NOR APOSTLES NEVER TOLD ANYONE TO COLLECT TITHES.

THE MESSIAH NOR THE APOSTLES NEVER TOLD ANYONE TO BECOME BAPTISED AT BIRTH.

THE MESSIAH NOR THE APOSTLES NEVER TOLD US TO CELEBRATE EASTER.

THE MESSIAH NOR THE APOSTLES NEVER TOLD US TO CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS.


WAKE UP PEOPLE AND STOP SWALLOWING THE BULLSHIT

Just a small observation:

Hi Omenuko,

How body? I see your point, and think it's important, though:

Omenuko:

@All, Greetings,

If I'm understanding the article correctly, it seems that the Vatican (per Cardinal Arinze) has said for the Hebrew name for God 'YHWH' is not to be used during certain situations and conditions (i.e., during liturgy, and in song and prayer). It does not say we should not use or speak his name at all. In other words, Catholics are asked to not use YHWH (Yahweh) during worship, prayer and song. It seems to me that outside these specific situations we may use this name for God (without breaking the 2nd Commandment of course). Also, I think they maybe issuing this in keeping with our older brothers in the faith (aka the Jews).

You've given a good summary of Cardinal Arinze's consideration. This is not directed at you; but methinks the reason why there are mixed reactions to the Cardinal's take is because it does not make good theological sense. Outside of "worship, prayer and song", what other circumstances may (in his view) be considered 'appropriate' for the use of God's Name? I don't mean to be funny here; but it would suggest that if God's holy Name could not be used in any of the aforementioned circumstances, then perhaps it makes one wonder if less honourable situations are more 'appropriate' for the use of the divine Name. Just a thought.

@No2Atheism, my guy, calm down

I googled Yahweh and I found this interesting article by Jason Dulle (he seems to be a Protestant scholar).  Note the part in bold.

In the OT God declared that His name was YHWH (Exodus 6:3; 20:7; see also 3:14). Scholars believe that "YHWH," or "Yahweh" is the third person singular form of the ancient Hebrew verb, "haya," meaning "to be." The basic thrust of this verb describes the state of existence. As the third person form of haya, Yahweh literally means "He is," or "He exists." It is a description of who God is. He is the self-existing one.

To understand the import of this we must understand the nature of Hebrew names. Hebrew names are not simply nominal devices used to identify one person from another as they are in the English language; they are actually sentences in themselves. It is similar to how the Indians named their children "rising sun" or "running bear." These were not quite complete sentences, but they were descriptions (partial sentences). God's name, YHWH, is a full sentence. It just so happens to be the shortest sentence in any language--"I am."1

Has YHWH always been God's name? While it is possible, it is unlikely. God existed long before the Hebrew language, so it would seem unlikely that God has always had a Hebrew name. It must be remembered that God did not reveal a name to the Hebrew people that they were unfamiliar with; God revealed Himself to the Hebrew people using existing Hebrew vocabulary (haya) to express to His chosen people who "He is" (pun intended). It was a word/sentence they were familiar with because it already existed in their language before God declared it to be His name. . .

Jesus vs. Yahweh?

. . .In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," then, actually contains the name "YHWH" in abbreviated form. While YHWH simply describes who God is, when it is combined with a verb it describes what God does. The name "Jesus" describes the fact that YHWH has become salvation. Who is Christ? He is YHWH, saving His people from their sins. If YHWH is not God's name, then Jesus' name becomes meaningless. To deny that God's name is YHWH is to ultimately deny the name of Jesus.

[b]We should pick up on the fact that God is never referred to as "Yeshua" (Jesus) in the OT. He is always referred to as YHWH. If God's name has always been Jesus (as some claim) it would seem strange that He never referred to Himself as such, nor was He ever called that until the NT. It might be counter-argued that while God was called YHWH in the OT, He is never called by such in the NT. But is God called YHWH in the NT? Yes, in its expanded form as "Jesus," meaning "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," found exclusively in the NT, is a continuation of the revealed name of God found throughout the OT. "Jesus" is not a new name. The name of Jesus encompasses the fullness of God's revelation of Himself to man--as Savior. The name "Jesus" is so important to us because it is an expanded form of the same divine name revealed in the OT. It is not a different name. It is only greater in that it more fully expresses who God is to us--Savior. Truly God's name is Jesus, because God's name is YHWH. We confess that God's name is YHWH every time we confess Him as Jesus.[/b]

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/yahorjesus.htm

Of course I'm no bible scholar, but I found this article interesting.

Hallo No2Atheism,

While I admire your cogent style, I'm wondering if you could expatiate on the following, among other things:

No2Atheism:

STUDY THE BIBLE AND GET TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH

[color=#000099]THE MESSIAH WAS NEVER CALLED "JESUS CHRIST",  WHY AND WHO REMOVED THE REAL NAME OF THE MESSIAH FROM THE BIBLE KNOWING THAT THE REAL NAME CARRIES SPIRITUAL POWER.

In what context do you mean that the Messiah was never called Jesus Christ?

@pilgrim.1,

Nice to see that your back.  I'm doing quite well.  I look forward to dialoging with you on matters of faith,  you seem to be well versed in yours. 

You've given a good summary of Cardinal Arinze's consideration. This is not directed at you; but methinks the reason why there are mixed reactions to the Cardinal's take is because it does not make good theological sense. Outside of "worship, prayer and song", what other circumstances may (in his view) be considered 'appropriate' for the use of God's Name? I don't mean to be funny here; but it would suggest that if God's holy Name could not be used in any of the aforementioned circumstances, then perhaps it makes one wonder if less honourable situations are more 'appropriate' for the use of the divine Name. Just a thought.

I definitely understand where you're coming from.  From reading the article there seems to be two things the Cardinal is advocating: 1) The tetragrammaton 'YHWH' should not be distinguished from who we know and worship as Jesus Christ.  It seems to me that the Vatican does not want the faithful to see 'YHWH' and Jesus as separate, but rather as one and the same.  Alot of Christian denominations use the name 'YHWH' in a way that divorces the God of the Israel (the OT) from the Messiah (Jesus Christ).  Maybe this phenomenon is trickling its way into the Catholic Church and they (the Vatican) want to emphasize the oneness of God, I don't know.  Why limit the usage of 'YHWH' in liturgy and prayer and song?  I don't know.  What are the other circumstances where we may use the name 'YHWH'?  I'm clueless; and 2) The Cardinal may have issued this request in giving deference to our Jewish brothers/sisters (just my thoughts).  I believe the Jews do not call out or speak aloud the name 'YHWH' (I could be wrong).  What do you think of the article I posted?

pilgrim.1:

Hallo No2Atheism,

While I admire your cogent style, I'm wondering if you could expatiate on the following, among other things:

In what context do you mean that the Messiah was never called Jesus Christ?

Pilgrim.1 longtime no see, am really grateful that you decided to ask this question and , cus i have really been seeking out serious bible study people as concerns this topic.

First and foremost, the main context i was talking about centers on the following points,

- The Messiah was an Hebrew living amongst Hebrews under a Roman occupation, hence normal bible pattern tells us that He was bound to bear an Hebrew and/or Aramaic name.

- Joseph and Mary were also Hebrew hence were bound to have given the Messiah an Hebrew and/or Aramaic name.

- The Bible indicates that the Messiah was supposed to come in the Name of His Father, yet the name "Jesus Christ" does not fufill that condition.

- The name Jesus Christ is actually an English translation of a Greek version  "Iesus Khristos" .

- All possible Hebrew/Aramaic names that have been suggested as the original name of the Messiah do not give the Greek name version "Iesus Khristos"  even if they were translated to greek. (this was one of the most worrisome alarms)

- The name of the Messiah carries a lot of power and spiritual meaning and purpose hence why change it considering that names of ordinary mean still retain most (if not all) of their spelling and pronounciation over time e.g. Julius Ceasar.




Secondly,

1. Yes I know its highly dangerous and scary to even consider what am talking about, yet the truth is that one must consider it if one truly wants to follow the Bible and find out the real truth. Hence you can only imagine how worried i was about my own sanity during the beginning.

2. However i discovered to my own amazement that a lot of research by some other people has actually gone into this topic by a lot of other people more knowledgable than me,

3. I did some personal study on the topic before being able to form an opinion, because most nigerian contact emails that i tried to contact did not reply nor give me answers.

4. The conclusion i came was quite disturbing to say the least, Infact I have been asking myself questions (trying to find where i was wrong), been trying to question my own logic so as to make sure there are no loopholes, I have been trying to find a way to explain away the reason why the Messiah was called Jesus Christ in present day bibles, unfortunately uptill now i am yet to find a Biblical/Historial answer as to why the Messiah was being called "Jesus Christ" in our bibles.
It bothers me that when the name of an ordinary pagan like "Julius Ceasar" did not change much over the years, yet somehow some people managed to changed the name of the Messiah to something else entirely.

5. My understanding of the bible, human history brought me to the conclusion that in other for me as a believer to be on the save side and avoid being deceived into worshipping the wrong person, its better I try as much as possible to change my vocabulary and instead try to find out and use the real names of the Creator and the Real names of the Messiah.

6. Penultimately, I was forced to seek answers concerning this topic by sending email messages asking detailed questions about the topic to some email address of Deeper Life and Redeem that i could get my hands on, unfortunately, till today i am yet to get even a single reply from them.

7. Nevertheless i was both suprised to notice that this very topic about the name of the Messiah and the name of the Creator has even caused some people to have leave their former churches and their seems to be a lot of underground christian groups discussing this very important topic.

Finally to answer your question, would require me to point out some very very long explanations/things i have already pointed out before in some other threads and hence causing me to repeat them. Hence even  though am not trying to dogde the question, however I would please beg you to kindly please check the following posts i made in the following threads for the answer you are looking for:

     - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=261362.msg3724851#msg3724851
   -  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=257235.msg3685799#msg3685799
   -  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=261362.msg3724851#msg3724851
   -  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=257235.msg3684752#msg3684752


Since i just recently encountered this problem, hence i am likewise not a complete expert on the subject, nevertheless i believe i have come to understand enough to know that there is a really serious problem with calling the name of the Messiah "Jesus Christ". Thus to help get further information about this particular topic kindly check the following useful websites include

http://www.eliyah.com/yahushua.html
http://www.yrm.org/yrm-videochannel.htm
http://yahushua.net/


(please take note while checking those websites that it does not mean i am endorsing everything on those websites, i am only refering you there because they discussed this very important topic over there).


Thirdly please note that i am currently doing my best to use only the bible version known as "RNKJV" this version basically restores all the Real Names of the Creator and Messiah and some other people that had gone missing from the KJV versions,

i.e. if you ignore the names, this RNKJV is basically 99.9% the same thing as KJV version.

I don't claim to be an expert either , instead I am more interested in diligently searching the scriptures to make sure that that which i hold to be true is actually true, cus it is appointed unto man to die once after that judgement, hence i don't want to waste my life and eternity based on indoctrination and brainwashing by evil forces working to deceive and destroy souls via the infiltration of the church.

In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," then, actually contains the name "YHWH" in abbreviated form.

1. The points i have highlighted are enough to set off alarm bells, about whether or not they are true or not, cause you would notice that the "author" just performed what is known as bait and switch on you.
    Please notice the following:

- The author explained the name Yeshua but never showed how Jesus is a translation for the name Yeshua. Instead the author subsconsciouly conned you into thinking that Jesus was a translation of the name Yeshua. it was not shown how "Yeshua" translates to "Jesus".

- Have you ever come across anywhere in the bible which says that the name of the Messiah was abreviated, hence why is it that you want to believe it when he claims (without proof) that the name "Jesus" was an abbreviated form of the phrase YHWH is Salvation

- A full Hebrew name that likewise translates to "YHWH is Salvation" is YAHUSHUA, so why was this not used intead of the greek word "Iesus Khristos". 
    The yoruba name "Babatunde" means "F[/b]ather [b]h[/b]as [b]c[/b]ome [b]b[/b]ack" yet you never see anyone write it as the abbreviation "[b]FHACB" instead it continues to be written as "Babatunde" whether or not you are writing english, german or somalian or whatever.

- There is no letter "J" in Hebrew, just as there was no letter "J" in english until a few centuries ago, hence how exactly did the "J" become part of the so called abbreviation.

-  Jesus is actually the english translation of the greek work "Iesus", so does your quoted author now mean to say that "Iesus" is the greek abbreviation of the Hebrew phrase YHWH is Salvation or what. Likewise the english word "Christ" was translated from the greek word "Khristos".

- Even so do you realise that the word "Christ" is not really a name, instead it is a title which means "The Annointed", so can kindly tell me which part of the susposed Hebrew name that was supposed to have been translated or abbreviated to form the word "Christ or Khristos".

- Did the Messiah go about bearing an "abbreviation as a name or what" , if not then why are we using a so called abbreviation as His name, when we clearly have the real version of His name.


Secondly,

1. Good that you are also trying to find out information from "scholars", nevertheless whatever any so called scholar says mus still be crosschecked with what the bible says.

2. I have nothing to gain by being right and you being wrong, the important thing is that correct and truthful information is tabled as biblical truth.

3. Concerning Hebrew and the possible Hebrew names of the Messiah and which one is considered the correct one and please do yourself a favour by accessing this websites (although it does not mean i believe/support everything they say there).

http://www.eliyah.com/yahushua.html
http://www.yrm.org/yrm-videochannel.htm
http://yahushua.net/

4. Instead of telling me to cool down , one way of helping yourself grow and also avoid brainwashing and indoctrination is by trying to understand and answer the questions i have raised point by point and line by line.

@No2Atheism,

Thank you for your outline, I'm sure there's much to digest that's of benefit to all who may consider them. As I would not like to rush to any premature conclusions, let me thank you for the links you offered - in due course I'll take some tiem to consider them as well.

That said, I think something of the nature of your enquiry has crossed my path sometime or another (even before I became a Christian, it was one of the features that accentuated my quest to seek out God's name, whatever language that may be). Yet, the remarkable thing is that while I never was able to come to a 'scholarly' conclusion about what that 'Name' was, I was amazed that just calling the name of Jesus Christ turned my life around, saved me and evidently wrought miracles that are still evident in my family. I don't mean these things to negate your points; but isn't it amazing that when His Name is called in 'every tongue and language' of the world in their own translation - and He answers? Men have been saved by that same Name - whether they called Him 'Jesus', or 'Jesu' or 'Yeshua'. This does not suggest, however, that His name should just be translated just about anyhow.

A second point is that God is not seeking to make Greeks or Hebrews of any believer. I say this respectfully; for if we contend that His Name should never be translated at all, then none of the Biblical names today would make any sense, don't you agree? Even the appellation 'Messiah' is neither Hebrew nor Greek nor Aramaic, but rather an anglicized term. Perhaps this may also open up a research as to which of the semitic terms is correct between -

    - Mašíaḥ
    - Māšîªḥ
    - Moshiach
    - משיחא
    - Məšîḥā
    - لمسيح‎
    - al-Masīḥ

or even . .

    - מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ

We may never arrive at a conclusion, for in this instance every scholar may argue for his own scholarship and language as being the only correct one on the divine term/appellation. Should it be 'Messiah' or 'Christ' or even 'Kristos'? Do these not all carry the same import? Just a thought, though.

I must say your exercise and research is worthwhile, so please don't despair. I trust that God Himself will reward your labours for His Name; and whether or not we arrive at the precise articulation or pronunciation (some say 'Yahweh', others 'Jehovah'), may all the Glory be His and His alone for the blessed salvation we have in His Son.

Rejoice.

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:

@pilgrim.1,

Nice to see that your back.  I'm doing quite well.  I look forward to dialoging with you on matters of faith,  you seem to be well versed in yours. 

I definitely understand where you're coming from.  From reading the article there seems to be two things the Cardinal is advocating: 1) The tetragrammaton 'YHWH' should not be distinguished from who we know and worship as Jesus Christ.  It seems to me that the Vatican does not want the faithful to see 'YHWH' and Jesus as separate, but rather as one and the same.  Alot of Christian denominations use the name 'YHWH' in a way that divorces the God of the Israel (the OT) from the Messiah (Jesus Christ).  Maybe this phenomenon is trickling its way into the Catholic Church and they (the Vatican) want to emphasize the oneness of God, I don't know.  Why limit the usage of 'YHWH' in liturgy and prayer and song?  I don't know.  What are the other circumstances where we may use the name 'YHWH'?  I'm clueless; and 2) The Cardinal may have issued this request in giving deference to our Jewish brothers/sisters (just my thoughts).  I believe the Jews do not call out or speak aloud the name 'YHWH' (I could be wrong).  What do you think of the article I posted?

Thank you again. Like I said, your summary of the Cardinal's take is well appreciated. We may have mixed reactions (Catholics and non-Catholics alike); but the highlighted part well captures for me his concern - which, I think, should be calmly considered by all readers. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@No2Atheism,

Thank you for your outline, I'm sure there's much to digest that's of benefit to all who may consider them. As I would not like to rush to any premature conclusions, let me thank you for the links you offered - in due course I'll take some tiem to consider them as well.

That said, I think something of the nature of your enquiry has crossed my path sometime or another (even before I became a Christian, it was one of the features that accentuated my quest to seek out God's name, whatever language that may be). Yet, the remarkable thing is that while I never was able to come to a 'scholarly' conclusion about what that 'Name' was, I was amazed that just calling the name of Jesus Christ turned my life around, saved me and evidently wrought miracles that are still evident in my family. I don't mean these things to negate your points; but isn't it amazing that when His Name is called in 'every tongue and language' of the world in their own translation - and He answers? Men have been saved by that same Name - whether they called Him 'Jesus', or 'Jesu' or 'Yeshua'. This does not suggest, however, that His name should just be translated just about anyhow.

A second point is that God is not seeking to make Greeks or Hebrews of any believer. I say this respectfully; for if we contend that His Name should never be translated at all, then none of the Biblical names today would make any sense, don't you agree? Even the appellation 'Messiah' is neither Hebrew nor Greek nor Aramaic, but rather an anglicized term. Perhaps this may also open up a research as to which of the semitic terms is correct between -

    - Mašíaḥ
    - Māšîªḥ
    - Moshiach
    - משיחא
    - Məšîḥā
    - لمسيح‎
    - al-Masīḥ

or even . .

    - מלך המשיח, Méleḫ ha-Mašíaḥ

We may never arrive at a conclusion, for in this instance every scholar may argue for his own scholarship and language as being the only correct one on the divine term/appellation. Should it be 'Messiah' or 'Christ' or even 'Kristos'? Do these not all carry the same import? Just a thought, though.

I must say your exercise and research is worthwhile, so please don't despair. I trust that God Himself will reward your labours for His Name; and whether or not we arrive at the precise articulation or pronunciation (some say 'Yahweh', others 'Jehovah'), may all the Glory be His and His alone for the blessed salvation we have in His Son.

Rejoice.

Thanks for the intelligent and well thought out reply,

Secondly, I am not saying that everyone should learn hebrew or greek or english in other to be saved far from it, salvation is not a matter of language, instead what i am saying is that even while people use their language to converse, it would go a long way to avoid deception if the correct spelling/or translation and pronunciation of the real name of the Messiah is used in all the languages.

Nevertheless my concern is that if the names of the Creator and the Messiah were not of uttermost importance, the bible would not have place a[b] high emphasis[/b] on them, hence it becomes a highly dangerous thing to continue to allow the wrong names to be used in any of the languages. Infact, the mere fact that we are even discussing this issue now shows you how dangerous it has become because it was not restored in the past.

Take for example:

", Everyone has been indoctrinated to believe that the Messiah is White , when world and bible history actually shows us that he's not white, hence imagine the danger such a brainwashing poses to the decisions that would be made by people during the Second Coming of the Messiah, when they find out that the Messiah does not look like they think. Infact am sure some racist white people would simply be too proud to accept such a realisation".

Now imagine the kind of catastrophic confusion that would happen during the second coming of the Messiah when people expect him to come in a particular name called "Jesus Christ" and yet instead find out that is actually not His name, don't you think there is a very serious danger of people mistaking the "Real Messiah" for the Anti-Christ and the Anti-Christ for the[i] Real Messiah[/i] merely on the basis of indoctrination with a wrong name.

The bible shows that the Devil has always been very good at mixing both truths and lies since the beginning, hence as bible believers i believe its our duties to ensure we speak the truth at all times even if even don't know or can't quantify the effect such a truth would have on what is going on or what might happen.



Thirdly, Yourself would notice that all translations of the word Messiah look and sound similar in all the languages that you listed, yet non of them sounds or looks similar to the word "Khristos or Christ"


1. I am not too bother about spelling "so long as they are close " and they bear similarity under different languages.
2. I am also not too bother about pronunciation  "so long as they are close" and they bear similarity under different languages.


For example, the words Khristos and Christ [/i]both mean "[i]The Annointed" and[b] do not[/b] mean The Messiah, thus there is already a problem just by comparing the spelling, pronunciation and meaning of those words.


Please don't take this the wrong way, however one thing i have come to understand is that:

The best possible scenario that i have realised is that it is possible the Creator is just showing us grace and mercy for the miracles to keep happening because of the sincerity of heart of the people using the names "Jesus Christ", otherwise, I rather not even conside the other scenario.

----------------

@No2Atheism,

This is why I've missed people like you - good reasoning, simple and well contained. Thank you.

No2Atheism:

Secondly, I am not saying that everyone should learn hebrew or greek or english in other to be saved far from it, salvation is not a matter of language, instead what i am saying is that even while people use their language to converse, it would go a long way to avoid deception if the correct spelling/or translation and pronunciation of the real name of the Messiah is used in all the languages.

Good point, aye.

No2Atheism:

Nevertheless my concern is that if the names of the Creator and the Messiah were not of uttermost importance, the bible would not have place a[b] high emphasis[/b] on them, hence it becomes a highly dangerous thing to continue to allow the wrong names to be used in any of the languages. Infact, the mere fact that we are even discussing this issue now shows you how dangerous it has become because it was restored in the past.

Yes, I see your point.

No2Atheism:

Take for example:

", Everyone has been indoctrinated to believe that the Messiah is White , when world and bible history actually shows us that he's not white, hence imagine the danger such a brainwashing poses to the decisions that would be made by people during the Second Coming of the Messiah, when they find out that the Messiah does not look like they think. Infact am sure some racist white people would simply be too proud to accept such a realisation". Now imagine the kind of catastrophic confusion that would happen during the second coming of the Messiah when people expect him to come in a particular name called "Jesus Christ" and yet instead find out that is actually not His name, don't you think there is a very serious danger of people mistaking the "Real Messiah" for the Anti-Christ and the Anti-Christ for the[i] Real Messiah[/i] merely on the basis of indoctrination with a wrong name.

I was coming to that as well, but you anticipated me. Having thought about such things as well even recently again, it was such a comforting thought to read 2 Cor. 5:16 - "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." One of the points that the verse highlights for me is that the skin colour of our Saviour is not half as important as His work of saving us. To even drive this home, the apostle John says in 1 John 3:2:

[list][li]"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is"[/li][/list]

What that says to me is that I don't even know in what 'skin colour' I shall appear or the texture of my African beautiful skin I may assume (makers of 'Dove' pomade go suffer for my hand, walai fa!). Hehe, but the important thing is that as one who is redeemed, we all shall see Him as He appears and we shall be like Him. It's amazing that the apostle was deeply honest enough to not assume anything, but committed such a revelation to God who knows all things.

Thus, one may not actually say with exactitude whether Christ was white, black, brown, or any other - at best, only 'circumstantial evidence' may lead one to assume either one thing or the other.

No2Atheism:

The bible shows that the Devil has always been very good at mixing both truths and lies since the beginning, hence as bible believers i believe its our duties to ensure we speak the truth at all times even if even don't know or can't quantify the effect such a truth would have on what is going on or what might happen.

Agreed; and thus also the reason why we should be careful in these matters.

No2Atheism:

Thirdly, Yourself would notice that all translations of the word Messiah look and sound similar in all the languages that you listed, yet non of them sounds or looks similar to the word "Khristos or Christ"

I noticed; but I also made the remark that they carry the same weight of import in their various renderings.

No2Atheism:


1. I am not too bother about spelling "so long as they are close " and they bear similarity under different languages.
2. I am also not too bother about pronunciation "so long as they are close" and they bear similarity under different languages.


Please don't take this the wrong way, however one thing i have come to understand is that:

The best possible scenario that i have realised is that it is possible the Creator is just showing us grace and mercy for the miracles to keep happening because of the sincerity of heart of the people using the names "Jesus Christ".

I don't even want to consider the other scenario,

Lol, I didn't take it the wrong way. And indeed, I'm reminded of Isaiah 35:16-17 where such a scenario occurs -

[list][li]"Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern; Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards."[/li][/list]

There - "a land like your own land" is not nearly the same as "your own land", no be so?

My bros, I grab your concerns quite well; that's why I would leave you with the same greeting as earlier:

pilgrim.1:

I must say your exercise and research is worthwhile, so please don't despair. I trust that God Himself will reward your labours for His Name; and whether or not we arrive at the precise articulation or pronunciation (some say 'Yahweh', others 'Jehovah'), may all the Glory be His and His alone for the blessed salvation we have in His Son.

Rejoice.