Has Jesus ever disclosed the name of GOD?

Post Reply New Topic

Sigh your boring me.......

Right, because you're really here just to post your ill-informed commentary. Excuse me for pointing out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I once knew a man from mars so insane badly scared he didn't much care for lolipops but loved to eat them any way.

What's funny about this here is that I've already seen that website and thought about linking to it much earlier in the discussion. I was already suspicious about the idea of "Yahweh" being in the NT, and I never once recall seeing it there any time I've read the gospels. I figured I had to be right about it just from having read the Bible a few times, but it's nice to know there's a website out there that confirms my suspicions.

@Joker: In what little I've gotten to know about you from your posts, I have no doubt that you are a Christian. We are bound to disagree on trivial matters--you're a Methodist and I'm a Baptist after all. But for the most part we're fighting on the same side. We need more Christians like you actually willing to share your faith and able to answer the hard questions. In order to do that, people have to be able to take you seriously. The more you read the Bible and really study it, the better equipped you'll be to defend your beliefs. You should also be concerned that everything you say is the truth. If you make claims like "Jesus said 'Yahweh'" when you really don't know and you're unable to back your assertion, it makes it hard for others to find you credible. I'm not a Bible scholar, either, but I know the Bible well enough to investigate claims made about it and call shady claims into question.

I'm sure Jesus probably really did say "Yahweh" at some point, but it's never recorded in the NT. As some of our Jewish friends here pointed out, avoidance of the "Name" is in keeping with Torah, especially the Decalogue--"Do not misuse the Name"--and elsewhere when only the high priest can invoke the Name at only a certain time in the holy of holies. Observant Jews traditionally make a substitution when they read passages containing the Name; publicly, Jesus would have done the same. But we don't know everything that Jesus did privately. Despite being "plausible" that Jesus invoked the Name at some point, we can't know with any certainty that He did. It's just never recorded in the Bible.

People who insist Jesus said Yahweh probably also insist on a lot of things. I know of some who are actually trying to get Christians to observe all the ancient Hebrew laws and celebrate the festivals in spite of Pauline advisement against it. "Name" groups, neo-Judaizers, and other pseudo-Christians cherry-pick what they want and leave the rest to the point that the message of God's grace is lost. That's why you have to be careful of what you claim is in the Bible.

Really? Because I do. I mean, the smart-mouth comment "Why do you care? You haven't even read the damn book." basically says it all in terms of my opinion on the matter.

Oh, don't get me wrong... There are a lot of things that Joker has said before I take issue with. But even you've pointed out the apparent disunity among Christians before. I don't feel it's my place to tear down other Christians by pointing my finger the same way they point fingers at others. I can sympathize somewhat with you on this point, but also being a Christian myself I also fully understand the frustrations others like myself feel in dealing with those who mock us, let alone challenge us on matters of faith.

But I strongly feel that "iron sharpens iron. There aren't that many things Christians have gotten wrong I haven't gotten wrong myself. Making immature mistakes didn't make me less of a believer, though, and I've always felt that faith was a growing process. Joker strikes me as being about the same place I was about 15 years ago. I think it's better for him to hear these kinds of things from me than from an unbeliever. I'll at least try to be nice about it.

Just because the Bible doesn't say he said it doesn't mean that he never said it.

The Bible doesn't say whether Jesus ever urinated. Just because the Bible doesn't mention Jesus urinating doesn't mean he never urinated.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsVAYFSEBrA[/youtube]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. To be blunt, I think Joker is only nominally a Christian. He is definitely a theist. He definitely identifies with Christianity as a cultural group in our society. However, just from my past experiences with Joker, along with this current one, I don't really think he has a solid commitment to or grasp of the Christian tradition, and I don't like to extend the title of "Christian" to somebody who really just isn't.

The point is using the Bible to make the claim. We can probably reasonably assume that Jesus said "Yahweh" at some point. I take no issue with that. I think it's certainly plausible, same as Jesus urinating or taking care of other common everyday business. But the claim has been made that Jesus said it and it was recorded in the Bible. That's different altogether. It would have been recorded had it had some theological significance. That it doesn't seem to belong in the NT speaks volumes about how important it really is, something certain pseudo-Christian groups seem to heavily exaggerate.

To put it another way, I don't feel it is right for Christians to tear each other down. We don't agree on everything among ourselves, some of us make every effort to behave Christ-like while others struggle with it. Part of what you're seeing with Joker is he feels he's having to deal with confrontation and doesn't quite yet understand how to handle it. He may not be handling it well, but he deserves as much patience as any of us. When I say I believe that he is a real Christian, I'm saying I accept that he's a Christian brother warts-and-all. He just needs more time, and it's not my place to mock or ridicule him the way an unbeliever might. Saying he's not a Christian isn't going to help.

I agree with you that he doesn't have "a solid commitment to or grasp of the Christian tradition." But I think it's really more that he doesn't have a grasp of it rather than a commitment. It's hard to commit positively to something you don't fully understand.

But at the same time, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. What many associate with "Christian tradition" is very un-Christ behavior--that is, much of what at one point or another has been deemed "Christian tradition" has been destructive and lacking in compassion. Joker does well to distance himself from those things. Tradition for tradition's sake is not what Jesus taught.

I do believe that Joker doesn't know the Bible all that well. A grasp of the Bible is not necessary for salvation, but it at least helps the believer understand what he's supposed to do. My biggest concern regarding Joker judging from other threads is that he's too willing to compromise his faith for external cultural values. That and the nastiness I believe is just naïvety. He just needs to repent and read his Bible.

But being ugly to him isn't going to help.

AngelRho, by what standard? I mean, if you allow people like him, the term loses any special meaning. Probably most Americans meet the kinds of standards that Joker is meeting. I mean, look, in denying somebody is a Christian, I am doing your faith a favor because people will rightfully judge Christianity on the quality of adherents, because those who believe are also those who are being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, so we really would have to see that kind of behavior.


..... Irrelevant quibbling.


I do a much better job than Joker does at distancing myself from the Christian tradition.

In any case, I put "Christian tradition" because many people identify as Christian because they are shaped by the Christian tradition, so this allows me to avoid dispute on whether they are Christian or not. Also, it's inclusive enough because the Christian tradition also includes the Christian scriptures. I mean... I think you're just making excuses because frankly, in order to properly make sense of the Bible, most(if not all) people need background in the traditions of those who have tried before them, as the book is really really big.


But AngelRho, I'm much closer. All I'd need to do is repent.

He's not compromising his faith for external cultural values. He's only got external cultural values, and those values include identifying as a Christian. This distinction isn't quibbling, it's simply calling a spade a spade, and it's pretty obvious.

I mean, AngelRho, by that lack of discernment, what standard would you place? Would any fool who mumbles "I'm a Christian" count? Is heaven merely filled with the people who called themselves Christians because it was the culturally appropriate thing to do, while the people who actually HAVE intellectual bravery like Bertrand Russell and so many others burned because they actually had the virtue to question? I mean, if he counts, then I am just going to declare at this moment "I am a Christian for as long as I live, regardless of whatever I say in any other context", so bam, we're brothers in Christ now, right? Right?

There's not a "standard." Either someone believes or he/she doesn't. Joker seems to profess faith. That's enough for me. I believe we're all works in progress, and Joker is no different.


"Inclusive enough"? You're joking, right? What you're doing is devising an unrealistic definition of what "Christian" means. The only "inclusive" thing about being a born-again Christian is that grace is available to all who believe. Your apparent definition of "Christian" narrows the term to fit whatever suits your purpose at the moment. By your "standard," I'm not even a "Christian."


Only if he actually accepts Christ as Savior.


I believe the opposite. Claiming Christ out of mere convenience doesn't strike me as very genuine. I wonder that perhaps many of us who arrive at heaven's gate won't be surprised more by who ISN'T there than who is. But in any case, a true follower of Christ will be more concerned with faith than culture.

I think a Christian culture can make it easier to find faith. Being born in a Christian community is no guarantee that one will gain a genuine faith.


Whosoever will...


Is that what you actually believe? I don't believe God turns anyone away who wants to know Him. That's a decision you have to make on your own as to whether you turn God away. But if you are unwilling to place your faith in the atoning work of Jesus, then it doesn't matter one bit what you SAY or do. There are just as many if not more fake Christians than real ones. The real issue is faith, not actions.

Why is it such a big deal, I wonder? If you're feeling some kind of spiritual conviction and are having difficulties understanding that anyone, even yourself, CAN come to a saving faith, feel free to PM me if you want and we can discuss it further.

Every word requires some element to it to allow it to function to distinguish between one set of entities and another. "Standard" works to convey that.


..... No???? By the standard put forward in that definition, you are a Christian. You are influenced by the Christian tradition, most notably the Bible and many theological elements of Protestantism.

My definition could narrow to fit my purpose at the moment, the major issue depends on whether I am open and honest in this definitional switch. The use of words is to pick out certain features. So long as they are defined well and in a manner consistent with the concepts we're trying to pick out of the world then that's fine.


And.... with what seriousness? I mean, fighting in a culture war about Christianity doesn't mean that one actually understands and obeys Jesus.


Ok, so you DO add more than just a claim of belief, but rather you say "a true follower of Christ will" do something.


BS. You certainly know that there is more to the theological debate than mere mumbling of words, but rather a substantive commitment is often held as also necessary.


Ok, so there are fake Christians. Good first start. Why then is it invalid to question Joker? He likes Methodists, sure. He may even go to church. However, has he really done ANYTHING to show that he has really placed his faith there? I mean, AngelRho, even if you say "salvation through faith, not works", the simple issue is that "faith without works is dead", and actually familiarizing oneself with the theology and Bible and all of that, is low-hanging fruit as this goes.


We disagreed. We continued arguing about this disagreement. It's not a big deal, I just don't think that your position is very meaningful. I mean, while I don't believe in "saving faith"(at least in the sense of a Holy Spirit acting in the life of an individual), the question is really about external markers, and the real doubt is about the external markers in this situation.

Not what I meant. I mean there's no standard rule of behavior or standard checklist that makes you a Christian. Either you believe or you don't. You could be a serial killer on death row or perfectly harmless and not even kill a mosquito after it bites you. No amount of "good" makes you a Christian, and no amount of evil disqualifies you from salvation.

I thought you knew this stuff.


I'm beginning to wonder...


We're disagreeing on what it means to be a Christian, then.


There's only one thing anyone has to understand and accept about Jesus. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who completely obeys Jesus all the time. I'm aware that there is a difference between genuine faith and just going along with the crowd.


Yes, more than a mere claim. A belief has to be believed to be an actual belief. I'm not saying a true follower will necessarily do one thing or another, but I do think a true follower is more likely to do certain things consistent with what he believes.


Not at all. Sure, a commitment is necessary, but we aren't excluding anyone from the outset.


It's not invalid. I called his assertion into question and uncovered his unwillingness to ascertain whether something he appeared to claim was actually there. That's how this whole sub-discussion got started.


Alright, then...so what do we really know about Joker? Merely what he posts. What do we know about Christians? Sure there are some fakes, but there are also those like myself who, at varying times and places, momentarily accepted shady positions and compromises on Biblical tenets and behaved poorly around those who openly and actively opposed us. Either Joker is not a Christian believer, or he's just far from perfect. I don't mind giving people the benefit of the doubt, and I feel it would be terribly unjust of me to consign him to hell before his time.

I always read the "faith alone" bit as not relating to the condition of the soul but rather the good it does. Actions are evidence of the beliefs. Lack of evidence for a belief doesn't mean the belief doesn't exist, though. A "dead faith" in the sense James wrote about is not a non-existant faith, just one that doesn't do anyone any good other than the believer. James didn't call the salvation of his audience into question. He just urged them to act on it


Very sorry. I hadn't considered that my comments would have gotten that much attention. I seem to be invisible as of late, but maybe that's a good thing.

I see just enough external markers to give a guy a chance. If he really is a Christian as I assume that he is, then I would be remiss if I didn't call him out on a glaringly obvious error. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Calling his faith into question, whether it is genuine or not, is not a very good way to start.

Don't Southern Baptists generally regard themselves as having the correct views regarding religion (and everything else)?

Having a church-sanctioned "born again" experience is regarded as a prerequisite for "salvation", is it not?

Since United Methodists do not have the "born again" experience as a part of their rituals, United Methodists would not count as "Christian", and would therefore be relegated to Hell. Not only that, but some United Methodist pastors are downright "liberal", and a lot of them are very soft on homosexuality.

Moreover, as you anticipate being surprised at the low numbers of people who ultimately gain entry into Heaven, what makes you think that any United Methodists would get there?

And, if for some reason you didn't quite make the cut into Heaven (for example, your faith just wasn't quite as complete as it should have been, or you simply weren't pre-ordained for it), would you be at all resentful towards Yahweh/Jesus for not letting you in?

You must have us confused with someone else. There are some denominations out there that claim a monopoly on Jesus and heaven, but that wouldn't be SBC. Other than that, you're going to have to be more clear. All churches, to a degree at least, seek to do what is right and tend to follow one strand of teaching or another--and that's what defines us as Baptists, Methodists, Catholic, and so on. I mean, your question here could apply to anyone regardless of denomination.

What do you mean by "church-sanctioned"? As far as I've ever known, accepting Christ is followed by a public profession of faith, followed by baptism by immersion. You need to be clear as to what you mean here.

Unnecessary exaggeration. UMCs are divided on the issue of homosexuality, though the official position is that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian life and that openly gay persons should not be ordained as ministers. Only God ultimately knows a person's heart and whether that person has truly accepted Christ as Savior, so it's not any Christian's place to say who is going to hell for whatever infraction might be in question. It is out of place for SBs to assign other denominations to hell. Your claims here regarding SBC are exaggerated in the present context, which leads me to wonder if you've got the right church denomination.

Anyone who accepts Christ as Savior will get there. It matters not the denomination.

Nothing in my religion demands my faith be "complete" but rather that I have faith at all.