There is no spiritual gift called "the gift of tongues".
- Thread starter 2 Peter 1:10-11
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Invincible Ignorance
Description:
The arguer defends a position simply by refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments supporting the opposing view.
Comments:
Some phrases characteristic of this fallacy may include, "I refuse to listen..." "I don't care what you say..." etc.
Examples:
"Capital punishment is just wrong, no matter what you say."
"The earth is flat. The evidence for a round earth, such as the so-called landing on the Moon, was faked. They shot the whole thing in a Hollywood studio."
"Fake news!" - Donald Trump, on too many occasions to be worth documenting.
"I'm not going to read these transcripts...I find the whole process to be a sham, and I'm not going to legitimize it." - Sen. Lindsey Graham (referring to transcripts of testimony by State Department employees claiming that Trump attempted to trade U.S. military assistance for a personal political favor).
Discussion:
This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended. In general, one should defend ones own beliefs. Consistency is a better policy than being too gullible and indecisive. Moreover, since people who have thought a position through tend to be fairly loyal to their conclusions, a person who holds to a position can sometimes appear to be more rational and thoughtful than someone who is too easily swayed by every argument he hears, or who has no particular convictions at all.
The fallacy of Invincible Ignorance mimics the consistency that comes from having a well-thought-out position. However, it asks us to overlook the distinction between rational consistency and sheer stubbornness.
Source: I first became aware of this fallacy from W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther, Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument (1959). The term "invincible ignorance" has its roots in Catholic theology, where it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The earliest use of the term seems to have been by Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur (1677), although discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen. When and how the term was stolen by logicians to refer to the state of persons who pigheadedly refuse to attend to evidence remains unclear. [I'd like to thank email correspondant Robert Weil, who benefited from an undergraduate class from a Jesuit philosophy instructor, for bringing the origins of this term to my attention.]
Description:
The arguer defends a position simply by refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments supporting the opposing view.
Comments:
Some phrases characteristic of this fallacy may include, "I refuse to listen..." "I don't care what you say..." etc.
Examples:
"Capital punishment is just wrong, no matter what you say."
"The earth is flat. The evidence for a round earth, such as the so-called landing on the Moon, was faked. They shot the whole thing in a Hollywood studio."
"Fake news!" - Donald Trump, on too many occasions to be worth documenting.
"I'm not going to read these transcripts...I find the whole process to be a sham, and I'm not going to legitimize it." - Sen. Lindsey Graham (referring to transcripts of testimony by State Department employees claiming that Trump attempted to trade U.S. military assistance for a personal political favor).
Discussion:
This is a fallacy of circularity because it assumes what is in question, namely the truth of the position being defended. In general, one should defend ones own beliefs. Consistency is a better policy than being too gullible and indecisive. Moreover, since people who have thought a position through tend to be fairly loyal to their conclusions, a person who holds to a position can sometimes appear to be more rational and thoughtful than someone who is too easily swayed by every argument he hears, or who has no particular convictions at all.
The fallacy of Invincible Ignorance mimics the consistency that comes from having a well-thought-out position. However, it asks us to overlook the distinction between rational consistency and sheer stubbornness.
Source: I first became aware of this fallacy from W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther, Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument (1959). The term "invincible ignorance" has its roots in Catholic theology, where it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The earliest use of the term seems to have been by Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur (1677), although discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen. When and how the term was stolen by logicians to refer to the state of persons who pigheadedly refuse to attend to evidence remains unclear. [I'd like to thank email correspondant Robert Weil, who benefited from an undergraduate class from a Jesuit philosophy instructor, for bringing the origins of this term to my attention.]
Argument by Pigheadedness
(also known as: argument by stubbornness, invincible ignorance fallacy)Description: This is a refusal to accept a well-proven argument for one of many reasons related to stubbornness. It can also be the refusal to argue about a claim that one supports.
Logical Form:
Argument X is well-argued.
Person 1 has no objections to the argument, besides just refusing to accept the conclusion.
Therefore, argument X is not true.
Example #1:
Dad: You are failing math since you moved the Xbox to your room. You have been playing video games for at least 6 hours each day since. Before that, you consistently got A's and B's. Don't you think that the video games are the real problem here?
Blake: No.
Explanation: Blake is offering no counter argument or reasoning for rejecting his dad's well-articulated argument. He is simply being stubborn.
Explanation: Unreasonable people tend to engage in black-and-white thinking and are committed to an ideological position at any expense—including reason. Cathy is one of those people.
Exception: Don’t confuse unwillingness to engage with the argument by pigheadedness.
Street Preacher (to a woman walking by wearing a t-shirt that reads “Thank God I am an atheist!”): You are going to burn in hell!
Woman: (keeps walking)
Street Preacher: (frantically quoting Bible verses that support his claim).
Woman: Yeah, I don’t think so.
Street Preacher: (Yelling Bible verses louder as the woman gets farther away, while trying to keep up with her).
Woman: I don’t buy it, sorry! By the way, you just stepped in dog poop.
In this example, the woman is not sincerely engaging in the argument. She might have no interest, no time, or simply sees using the Bible to support claims in the Bible as circular reasoning, and not see the street preacher as a worthy interlocutor.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Jesus compared these last days to Noahs day-Luke 17:26)-99.9% mislead in Noahs day. 99% minimum today. They laugh at truth. I share teachings from Jesus found in every translation on earth, yet every trinitarian rejects those teachings-Why? Because it proves the JW,s correct and the rest as false religion. But those haughty hearts can't be wrong so they reject Jesus' truths. The problem is trinity religions teach little of what Jesus actually taught. So they do not know what Jesus actually teaches. Where as JW,s are taught-EVERY utterance from God as Jesus said man must live by them. Learn and obey.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
You use altered translation=the removal of Gods name in over 7000 places against Gods will. Every one who knows Jesus knows that in the Lords prayer he clearly shows that to him and all followers his Fathers name is the #1 issue. Hiding it is satans will. The righteous run to that name as a strong tower. Its 100% fact--LOOK-- The religions using the altered translations are giving support to satans will on the matter of Gods name over Gods will. You best look again.
Rich R
Well-Known Member
It's kind of mind boggling what KJV translators did sometimes:
Exod 6:2-3,
2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD:
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
In verse 2 they translated the Hebrew "Yhvah" as "LORD" while the exact same Hebrew word is translated "JEHOVAH" in verse 3. Gotta wonder why they got it correct in verse 3 but totally mangled it in verse 2. What were they thinking? Maybe something to do with tradition instead of truth? I think that's it.
In any case it's clear that God's name is decidedly not "LORD"
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Only the wicked fear using Gods name. Its why the wicked removed it from Gods word. The righteous run to his name as a strong tower. Prov 18:10
In 2015 the divine name kjv came out. With Gods name put back in nearly 6800 spots of OT and over 200 spots in NT.
List that you think I reject. The watchtower is never correct, has dishonest "scholarship" which I proved by posting the misquotes of their booklet, including their use of a spiritualist NT to justifly their false teachings.
Correcting The False Teachings Of The Sacred Name Movement
There are many men who have come into the Church speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30). One of the current things to confuse believers and have the get into...
- Joel 2:32 (a YHWH text) is applied to Jesus in Romans 10:9-13.
- LORD has cultural value: “The LORD” has become a very common way of addressing God. And LORD avoids offending Jewish friends and some Jewish siblings in Jesus who do not pronounce God’s name.
- There are limits to our knowledge of the theological motives behind the use of kyrios, mara, and theos for YHWH in early manuscripts. As Jonathan Pennington shows in his book Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew, our long-standing assumption that reverential circumlocution stood behind the use of “the kingdom of heaven” instead of “the kingdom of God” needed to be critically examined (then dumped).
Reverential circumlocution certainly seems far more likely to be in play when kyrios and other words are used for Yahweh. But the aversion may have been partial rather than total. Bruce Metzger has suggested that early Jews moved away from pronouncing YHWH in part to avoid the appearance of polytheism. Other scholars such as James Barr and as Emanuel Tov have urged caution in drawing conclusions about theological motives and the degree to which they were held. It’s often overlooked that names using Yah—-the shortened form of the shortened form of Yahweh—-were widely employed in Jewish names of this era: John and Joanna, for instance. - The christological value of LORD is not lost when we use Yahweh. All that is true of what we call “kyrios Christology” (say, the use of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9-13) could just as easily be described as “Yahweh christology.” Moreover, facilitating theological connections is not a widely accepted principle for contemporary translation. Translation is about accurately communicating the meaning of words, phrases, names, and concepts. In any event, LORD is too great a departure from YHWH to set an unalterable standard.
- The Holy Spirit came upon people to empower them for specific tasks (Judges 6:34; 1 Chron. 12:18; 2 Chron. 24:20).
- interpretation of dreams (Gen. 41:38, Dan. 5:11)
- special skills (Ex. 31:1-7)
- prophesy (1 Sam. 10:6, 2 Sam. 23:23, Ezekiel 11:5, 24, Joel 2:28-29)
- The Spirit of God was involved in creating the universe (Gen. 1:2, Prov. 8:22-31, Ps. 33:6, Is. 40:12,13).
- The Spirit gave wisdom (Prov. 8, Is. 11:1-3). mind=ruah.
- The Spirit moved people geographically (Ezekiel 2:2, 3:12-15, 11:24, 37:1, 37:14, 43:5).
- Brings righteousness (Psalm 143:10; Isaiah 4:4).
- Gives life (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4).
- Sustains life (Psalm 104:10-14, 30).
- Takes life (Is. 40:7; Psalm 104:29; Job 34:14-15).
- The Spirit is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10).
- Finally, a feminine Holy Spirit, with a Father and Son as the rest of the Trinity, may help explain why the family is the basic unit of human society.
Other Tasks of the Holy Spirit
- Enabled Mary to conceive Jesus.
High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of
God. (Luke 1:35)
- The Holy Spirit was the author of Scripture
- The Holy Spirit is the interpreter of Scripture
On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit gave birth to the Church as a body of living members of which Christ is the risen, exalted and living Head. (Acts 2:1-4). The foundation of the Church is the death and resurrection of Christ. (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 1:20-23; 2:15-16). The "new man" is the Church.
The Holy Spirit possessed and indwelt the church as the temple of God. The Holy Spirit indwells the whole church and individual believers simultaneously (Ephesians 2:19-22; Romans 8:1, 11; John 14:17; 2 Corinthians 1:22).
What Does the Holy Spirit Do Now?
The Holy Spirit confers gifts and graces upon the Church for life, fruitfulness and service (John 6:63). The Lord's life is brought to us by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 8:2). The life of Christ is "the law of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:22-23). The Holy Spirit is the fruitbearer; the word "fruit" is singular, not plural.
The Holy Spirit imparts anointing, illumination, and guidance for the Church (2 Corinthians 1:21; 1 John 2:20, 27; Rom 8:14). The Holy Spirit's strategic relationship to the understanding of the truth. The Holy Spirit is the One who seals and anoints (associated with sealing). The Holy Spirit sets apart the child of God for the ministry of God.
The Holy Spirit presides over and directs the Church into the will and plan of God. This explains apostolic ministry in missions (Acts. 13:1-3; 15:28; 20:28; 1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
The Holy Spirit baptizes the believer into the Body of Christ (Matthew 16:18, Acts 1:4-5, 2:3, 2:47, 11:15; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 6:15-17; Ephesians 2:16; 4:4-5, 16; 5:30-32; Colossians 1:24; 2:19; Galatians 3:27).
Gives Us Union With Christ
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. (Romans 6:5)
Romans 6:5. The phrase "in Christ" with its equivalents such as "in Him" "in Whom" "in Christ Jesus" and so on appear in the New Testament no less than 130 times. It is found twelve times in the first chapter of Ephesians alone. Union with Christ is very closely associated with the doctrines of 1) regeneration and 2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Union with Christ is achieved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 discusses the way in which believers are made members of the church which is Christ's body. Neither the church nor the baptizing of the Spirit were known prior to the death of Christ. In Romans 6:3-6 the placing of believers in Christ is mentioned and union with Christ is plainly the issue in verse 5. Water baptism is in view as a figure of the words "in the likeness of his death" (vs. 5)
Union with Christ is inseparable from the doctrine of adoption. Romans 8:15 speaks of "the Spirit of adoption" which we interpret to mean "the Spirit Who Adopts". The text thus means that the Holy Spirit places believers in the church as mature and responsible sons. At the rapture and resurrection, Christians will receive the final benefit of adoption, which is the resurrected body (Romans 8:23). Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5 support the concept of this age enjoying a position of responsible adult sons.
Union with Christ is identified as a new Creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15 refer to the unique believer in this age who is "in Christ". Both passages are positional and speak of the Risen Christ and His members. Resurrection is in view in Romans 8:23.
Union with Christ is the motive for Christian living. The figures of marriage (Romans 7:4; Ephesians 5:32), the vine and the branches (John 15:1-8), the Head and the body (Colossians 1:18, 234; 2:6-7), etc. indicate that the believer is to cultivate Christlikeness (2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 3:1-3) on the premise that we should live what we are in Christ. There may be no more sublime truth to be embraced than that of which our Lord spoke in John 14:20. "At that day (i.e. Penetcost) you shall know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." This is the very heart of the doctrine of union with Christ.
The Filling of the Holy Spirit
"From the viewpoint of practice and experience, the filling with the Spirit is the most important aspect of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" according to Ryrie. (Ephesians 5:18, Acts. 2:4, 33; Acts. 4:8, 31; 6:3; 13:9)
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. (Romans 6:5)
Romans 6:5. The phrase "in Christ" with its equivalents such as "in Him" "in Whom" "in Christ Jesus" and so on appear in the New Testament no less than 130 times. It is found twelve times in the first chapter of Ephesians alone. Union with Christ is very closely associated with the doctrines of 1) regeneration and 2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Union with Christ is achieved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 discusses the way in which believers are made members of the church which is Christ's body. Neither the church nor the baptizing of the Spirit were known prior to the death of Christ. In Romans 6:3-6 the placing of believers in Christ is mentioned and union with Christ is plainly the issue in verse 5. Water baptism is in view as a figure of the words "in the likeness of his death" (vs. 5)
Union with Christ is inseparable from the doctrine of adoption. Romans 8:15 speaks of "the Spirit of adoption" which we interpret to mean "the Spirit Who Adopts". The text thus means that the Holy Spirit places believers in the church as mature and responsible sons. At the rapture and resurrection, Christians will receive the final benefit of adoption, which is the resurrected body (Romans 8:23). Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5 support the concept of this age enjoying a position of responsible adult sons.
Union with Christ is identified as a new Creation. 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15 refer to the unique believer in this age who is "in Christ". Both passages are positional and speak of the Risen Christ and His members. Resurrection is in view in Romans 8:23.
Union with Christ is the motive for Christian living. The figures of marriage (Romans 7:4; Ephesians 5:32), the vine and the branches (John 15:1-8), the Head and the body (Colossians 1:18, 234; 2:6-7), etc. indicate that the believer is to cultivate Christlikeness (2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 3:1-3) on the premise that we should live what we are in Christ. There may be no more sublime truth to be embraced than that of which our Lord spoke in John 14:20. "At that day (i.e. Penetcost) you shall know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." This is the very heart of the doctrine of union with Christ.
The Filling of the Holy Spirit
"From the viewpoint of practice and experience, the filling with the Spirit is the most important aspect of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" according to Ryrie. (Ephesians 5:18, Acts. 2:4, 33; Acts. 4:8, 31; 6:3; 13:9)
Observant Jews have traditionally not used the name Yahweh, refusing to pronounce the so-called proper name of God out of respect
According to Jewish teachings and law, one may not pronounce this name phonetically according to the way it’s written in Hebrew. The reason for this is because the Name is so holy that merely invoking it can have tremendous effects such that being uttered within the wrong circumstances or in the wrong way can be very harmful, aside from being included in the prohibition of taking G-d’s Name in vain.
This is based on the idea that we have access to Holy Names for positive, constructive purposes. G-d created complementary spiritual and physical worlds. Just as man was given the ability to manipulate the physical world, so too he was given the ability to manipulate the spiritual world. Man exerts this influence through the use of holy names of G-d or of angels. However, just as man’s influence on the world is dictated and limited by the laws of nature, so too his influence on the spiritual is circumscribed by certain laws and limitations. Therefore, only specific names mentioned in specific circumstances will cause the desired effect, and misuse thereof can be harmful (The Way of G-d 3:2:5-9).
The general way it works is as follows: When a person utters one of G-d’s names, it arouses an illumination particular to that name. The illumination is transmitted through the spiritual world until its influence is perceived in the physical realm. An example of this is the verse “In every place that My Name is mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Ex. 20:21). Since there are great forces involved behind the scenes, this can only be used by someone who has attained a great closeness and attachment to G-d.
Thus, the legal code establishes: “One is permitted to use holy names because G-d imparted in them strength to accomplish things when used by the righteous. And one who uses them demonstrates the greatness and power of G-d, as long as they are used with holiness and purity for the purpose of sanctifying G-d’s name or for the purpose of a great mitzvah. But this is not common in our generations, as a result of our transgressions …since we are unable to act with adequate purity and holiness” (Y.D. 179, Shach 18, from Ateret Zahav).
This is true regarding the various names of G-d in general, and particularly so regarding the tetragrammaton. The Talmudic Sages taught (Kiddushin 71a) that this name, comprised of the Hebrew letters “yud”, “hey”, “vav” and “hey”, is called the “unique name”, in that it hides within its mystical meaning an allusion to the deepest aspect of G-d we can comprehend. This is what is meant by the verse “This is my name forever” (Ex. 3:15). It was this unique name that was pronounced only by one person only once a year in only one place: by the High Priest on Yom Kippur in the Holy Temple. Our sources relate that anyone who heard it uttered, miraculously forgot exactly how it was pronounced.
The fact that it was Divinely ordained to be clouded in secrecy is hinted at in the Torah by the verse “This is My Name and this is my remembrance forever” where the Hebrew word for “forever” also connotes “hiddeness”, and it was thus explained by the Sages that the Name as written, when spoken, is to be hidden. Meaning that while one writes the Name with the four Hebrew letters mentioned earlier, one pronounces it with the Hebrew letters “alef”, “dalet”, “nun”, “yud” – “Adonoy”. In fact, original Jewish teachings take this so seriously that the Talmud declares, “One who pronounces the Name according to the letters with which it is written has no portion in the World to Come” (Sanhedrin 90a).
That being said, of both of your ways, since your brother-in-law’s way is closer to the actual pronunciation, ironically it is also the more “incorrect” way to refer to that name of G-d. In this light, your phonetically less-correct way is actually better!
According to Jewish teachings and law, one may not pronounce this name phonetically according to the way it’s written in Hebrew. The reason for this is because the Name is so holy that merely invoking it can have tremendous effects such that being uttered within the wrong circumstances or in the wrong way can be very harmful, aside from being included in the prohibition of taking G-d’s Name in vain.
This is based on the idea that we have access to Holy Names for positive, constructive purposes. G-d created complementary spiritual and physical worlds. Just as man was given the ability to manipulate the physical world, so too he was given the ability to manipulate the spiritual world. Man exerts this influence through the use of holy names of G-d or of angels. However, just as man’s influence on the world is dictated and limited by the laws of nature, so too his influence on the spiritual is circumscribed by certain laws and limitations. Therefore, only specific names mentioned in specific circumstances will cause the desired effect, and misuse thereof can be harmful (The Way of G-d 3:2:5-9).
The general way it works is as follows: When a person utters one of G-d’s names, it arouses an illumination particular to that name. The illumination is transmitted through the spiritual world until its influence is perceived in the physical realm. An example of this is the verse “In every place that My Name is mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Ex. 20:21). Since there are great forces involved behind the scenes, this can only be used by someone who has attained a great closeness and attachment to G-d.
Thus, the legal code establishes: “One is permitted to use holy names because G-d imparted in them strength to accomplish things when used by the righteous. And one who uses them demonstrates the greatness and power of G-d, as long as they are used with holiness and purity for the purpose of sanctifying G-d’s name or for the purpose of a great mitzvah. But this is not common in our generations, as a result of our transgressions …since we are unable to act with adequate purity and holiness” (Y.D. 179, Shach 18, from Ateret Zahav).
This is true regarding the various names of G-d in general, and particularly so regarding the tetragrammaton. The Talmudic Sages taught (Kiddushin 71a) that this name, comprised of the Hebrew letters “yud”, “hey”, “vav” and “hey”, is called the “unique name”, in that it hides within its mystical meaning an allusion to the deepest aspect of G-d we can comprehend. This is what is meant by the verse “This is my name forever” (Ex. 3:15). It was this unique name that was pronounced only by one person only once a year in only one place: by the High Priest on Yom Kippur in the Holy Temple. Our sources relate that anyone who heard it uttered, miraculously forgot exactly how it was pronounced.
The fact that it was Divinely ordained to be clouded in secrecy is hinted at in the Torah by the verse “This is My Name and this is my remembrance forever” where the Hebrew word for “forever” also connotes “hiddeness”, and it was thus explained by the Sages that the Name as written, when spoken, is to be hidden. Meaning that while one writes the Name with the four Hebrew letters mentioned earlier, one pronounces it with the Hebrew letters “alef”, “dalet”, “nun”, “yud” – “Adonoy”. In fact, original Jewish teachings take this so seriously that the Talmud declares, “One who pronounces the Name according to the letters with which it is written has no portion in the World to Come” (Sanhedrin 90a).
That being said, of both of your ways, since your brother-in-law’s way is closer to the actual pronunciation, ironically it is also the more “incorrect” way to refer to that name of G-d. In this light, your phonetically less-correct way is actually better!
You really called us out on this one. We Jews have an absolute obsession with avoiding uttering G‑d’s name. (Notice that we don’t even spell it out fully when writing the English word for G‑d. See: Why Don’t You Spell G‑d’s Name?) Actually, we are careful not to pronounce G‑d’s names except when reading the Torah or prayers.
Our caution is founded on an understanding of the third of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not take His name in vain.” Although this verse is classically interpreted as referring to a senseless oath using G‑d’s name, the avoidance of saying G‑d’s name extends to all expressions, except prayer and Torah study. In the words of Maimonides, the great Jewish codifier:
Similarly, when the Psalmist regularly refers to praising G‑d’s name, he refers to praising G‑d’s wondrous deeds.
This brings us to the obvious question: If the Psalmist means to say that we should be praising G‑d Himself, without mentioning His name, why not just say “praise Him,” instead of the constant use of the phrase “praise His name”?
This question is addressed by the great chassidic master, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi. In very short, he explains3 that praise, by definition, is the expression of some degree of appreciation—either emotional or intellectual—for the greatness or beauty of the object of praise. The greatness of G‑d Himself, however, entirely transcends anything comprehensible to the human mind.
Our praise of G‑d is generated by the emotional or intellectual appreciation of His greatness, but only as He makes Himself known to us through His various manifestations—embodied and described in the various names that the Torah calls Him. Hence, the expression “Praise His name.”
Please see our additional articles on Divine Names.
Please let me know if this helps.
Best regards,
Rabbi Baruch S. Davidson
Ask the Rabbi @ Chabad.org
Our caution is founded on an understanding of the third of the Ten Commandments, “You shall not take His name in vain.” Although this verse is classically interpreted as referring to a senseless oath using G‑d’s name, the avoidance of saying G‑d’s name extends to all expressions, except prayer and Torah study. In the words of Maimonides, the great Jewish codifier:
Considering the awe with which we are meant to approach G‑d and His names, the verses in the Prophets which speak of making G‑d’s name known are not referring to His actual name. Rather, the prophet is saying that the Jewish people should let the world know about G‑d’s existence, how He is Creator of the world and constantly supervising and recreating every living thing.
Similarly, when the Psalmist regularly refers to praising G‑d’s name, he refers to praising G‑d’s wondrous deeds.
This brings us to the obvious question: If the Psalmist means to say that we should be praising G‑d Himself, without mentioning His name, why not just say “praise Him,” instead of the constant use of the phrase “praise His name”?
This question is addressed by the great chassidic master, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi. In very short, he explains3 that praise, by definition, is the expression of some degree of appreciation—either emotional or intellectual—for the greatness or beauty of the object of praise. The greatness of G‑d Himself, however, entirely transcends anything comprehensible to the human mind.
Our praise of G‑d is generated by the emotional or intellectual appreciation of His greatness, but only as He makes Himself known to us through His various manifestations—embodied and described in the various names that the Torah calls Him. Hence, the expression “Praise His name.”
Please see our additional articles on Divine Names.
Please let me know if this helps.
Best regards,
Rabbi Baruch S. Davidson
Ask the Rabbi @ Chabad.org
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Matt :5-The meek will inherit the earth= the great crowd of other sheep( John 10:1) who are not of that- fold= the little flock=144,000 bought from the earth( Rev 14:3= bible facts.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Twisting truth doesnt help you- LORD is not what God inspired at Joel-YHVH(Jehovah) belongs at Joel--Thus YHVH(Jehovah belongs at Acts 2L21 and Romans 10:13-- LORD makes you believe Jesus is being spoken of, but its not true.Correcting The False Teachings Of The Sacred Name Movement
There are many men who have come into the Church speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30). One of the current things to confuse believers and have the get into...www.godtube.com
- Joel 2:32 (a YHWH text) is applied to Jesus in Romans 10:9-13.
- LORD has cultural value: “The LORD” has become a very common way of addressing God. And LORD avoids offending Jewish friends and some Jewish siblings in Jesus who do not pronounce God’s name.
- There are limits to our knowledge of the theological motives behind the use of kyrios, mara, and theos for YHWH in early manuscripts. As Jonathan Pennington shows in his book Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew, our long-standing assumption that reverential circumlocution stood behind the use of “the kingdom of heaven” instead of “the kingdom of God” needed to be critically examined (then dumped).
Reverential circumlocution certainly seems far more likely to be in play when kyrios and other words are used for Yahweh. But the aversion may have been partial rather than total. Bruce Metzger has suggested that early Jews moved away from pronouncing YHWH in part to avoid the appearance of polytheism. Other scholars such as James Barr and as Emanuel Tov have urged caution in drawing conclusions about theological motives and the degree to which they were held. It’s often overlooked that names using Yah—-the shortened form of the shortened form of Yahweh—-were widely employed in Jewish names of this era: John and Joanna, for instance.- The christological value of LORD is not lost when we use Yahweh. All that is true of what we call “kyrios Christology” (say, the use of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9-13) could just as easily be described as “Yahweh christology.” Moreover, facilitating theological connections is not a widely accepted principle for contemporary translation. Translation is about accurately communicating the meaning of words, phrases, names, and concepts. In any event, LORD is too great a departure from YHWH to set an unalterable standard.
Its why satan had wicked men remove Gods name and replace it with titles-TO MISLEAD, like its doing to you.
- Status
Similar threads
