Page 9 of 10
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:26 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:But gman, the name on the paper will eventaull decompose, be eaten and damaged...why is burying not considered in vain?
And it is just ink on paper...if the name was revered when writing, isn't that what matters?
The Jews treat it like a human body. So they bury the dead, the same as they bury a scroll. There is no shame in that..
Again this is their tradition..
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:27 pm
by cslewislover
But you're not writing it that way.
And we are allowed to say it, with the vowels, since otherwise we couldn't do it. So I don't understand. As Zoe said, it's a heart issue, and as it says in the bible, we worship in spirit now - that's the difference, is it not?
I just saw your post to Zoe. So, are you only speaking for the Jews?? You didn't sound like it.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:34 pm
by zoegirl
I always thought that it just referred to the lack of vowels that made it that way, not the idea of reverence....Like YHWH....
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:37 pm
by Gman
cslewislover wrote:But you're not writing it that way.
And we are allowed to say it, with the vowels, since otherwise we couldn't do it. So I don't understand. As Zoe said, it's a heart issue, and as it says in the bible, we worship in spirit now - that's the difference, is it not?
I just saw your post to Zoe. So, are you only speaking for the Jews?? You didn't sound like it.
Huh? I'm just telling you how the Jews view it, not how Christians view it.. As another example the divine name of God is spelled with four Hebrew letters yod, hei, vav, and hei or in English YHVH. Also known as the tetragrammaton.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:40 pm
by cslewislover
OK, thanks.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:40 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:I always thought that it just referred to the lack of vowels that made it that way, not the idea of reverence....Like YHWH....
Well in other words not to defile Exodus 20:7.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:41 pm
by RickD
zoegirl wrote:I always thought that it just referred to the lack of vowels that made it that way, not the idea of reverence....Like YHWH....
I also thought there were no vowels to use, so it was YHWH. God is what we call him in English, and we use vowels in the English language, correct? Didn't God himself say that His name is "I AM THAT I AM" (when translated to English)? Should we say "- -M TH-T - -M"?
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:43 pm
by zoegirl
Gman wrote:zoegirl wrote:I always thought that it just referred to the lack of vowels that made it that way, not the idea of reverence....Like YHWH....
Well in other words not to defile Exodus 20:7.
But I''m still not making the connection between not taking it in vain and not using vowels....I thought this was simply more of an alphabetical issue...
Why does inserting vowels (other than the idea that we really don't know what the real name is) have to do with not in vain?
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:50 pm
by RickD
zoegirl wrote:Gman wrote:zoegirl wrote:I always thought that it just referred to the lack of vowels that made it that way, not the idea of reverence....Like YHWH....
Well in other words not to defile Exodus 20:7.
But I''m still not making the connection between not taking it in vain and not using vowels....I thought this was simply more of an alphabetical issue...
Why does inserting vowels (other than the idea that we really don't know what the real name is) have to do with not in vain?
Zoe, I really don't think there is a connection. It just seems like a way for someone to look pious to others. Kinda like people in church babbling in tongues when the pastor is speaking, so people will look at the babbler, and not be able to hear the speaker. I was in a church when the pastor was praying, and someone was loudly babbling, so I couldn't hear the Pastor. It was very disturbing.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:54 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:Gman wrote:zoegirl wrote:I always thought that it just referred to the lack of vowels that made it that way, not the idea of reverence....Like YHWH....
Well in other words not to defile Exodus 20:7.
But I''m still not making the connection between not taking it in vain and not using vowels....I thought this was simply more of an alphabetical issue...
Why does inserting vowels (other than the idea that we really don't know what the real name is) have to do with not in vain?
The Jewish scribes were just very careful with the name of God. So careful that they didn't want to write it down correctly for defilement.. No one really knows how to pronounce the name of God either.. In fact there are many Jews today that believe we shouldn't even be talking in Hebrew anymore either. It's suppose to be a sacred language. Some even say we may be speaking it in heaven.
As for me it's what you attribute to God, not really in the name since we truly do not know how it is pronounced.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:56 pm
by zoegirl
Okay, I can see that...just...
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:00 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:just...
Barely.?
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:05 pm
by zoegirl
well, it does make it cumbersome to teach, doesn't it....rather like Voldemort "he that shall not be named"
It's a bit of a paradox...we need to revere His name and yet be bold to approach His throne and be intimate with His name...
Rather like the picture CS Lewis uses with the lion where she is scared to approach the stream because Aslan is there and yet Aslan says "you must approach me if you want to drink"
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:07 pm
by cslewislover
RickD wrote:
Zoe, I really don't think there is a connection. It just seems like a way for someone to look pious to others. Kinda like people in church babbling in tongues when the pastor is speaking, so people will look at the babbler, and not be able to hear the speaker. I was in a church when the pastor was praying, and someone was loudly babbling, so I couldn't hear the Pastor. It was very disturbing.
It's not funny, actually, but . . . One guy I heard speaking in tongues in church once freaked me out too. It sounded disturbing, not like the tongues of angels.
Re: The historical evidence for Christ
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:11 pm
by Gman
zoegirl wrote:well, it does make it cumbersome to teach, doesn't it....rather like Voldemort "he that shall not be named"
It's a bit of a paradox...we need to revere His name and yet be bold to approach His throne and be intimate with His name...
Rather like the picture CS Lewis uses with the lion where she is scared to approach the stream because Aslan is there and yet Aslan says "you must approach me if you want to drink"
Well... I guess we can blame that on the Jewish scribes.. I don't know where God told the Jews to write it like YHVH.. It's just a tradition or even paranoia.. But then again, we use the name "God" in vain all the time.. At least I do sometimes.. Maybe it's better it wasn't written correctly..