1987 years failure of Christianity to build God's kingdom. Jesus' teaching recorded correctly?

Continuted....

9 Let not a widow be taken into the number [for charity] under threescore years old [i.e., 60 years old],... 11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry (sic: "desire to marry" ASV); 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

Obviously, Paul is repeating the same notion we read in 1 Cor. 7:32-34 and 2 Cor. 11:2 that somehow, by marriage to another human, we necessarily take our eyes off Christ, our spiritual husband, and hence these "younger widows" become "wanton against Christ" reflected by a "desire to marry" which here Paul equates to "damnation, because they have cast off their "first faith."



But does God ever teach a 100% love and devotion for God necessarily means that human love is such a distraction that we should abandon it, as Paul claims? Since God does command love for our neighbor (who is everyone, Jesus teaches) and otherwise does not like 'long prayers,' as Jesus taught (contrary to Paul's requirement that we "pray incessantly"), then God has not only allowed us time and flexibility to form loving relationships with others, but also has commanded it. Therefore, we must conclude the love and devotion to God does not mean cutting off all other human love and devotion. As Jesus taught, such loving human relationships simply cannot be a love deeper and bigger than our Love and Devotion for God.

So in sum, Paul teaches that one "should not seek to marry," and that those who do marry necessarily for companionship (ordained in Genesis) are no longer concerned "about the Lord's affairs." Thus Paul has changed marriage to a nonbeneficial institution which is contrary to God's word to Moses. As Paul's sympathizers even admit: "He is counseling Christians of both sexes who are unmarried to remain so, and thus to be celibate." (Decker, "Patriarchy.") And while Paul in 1 Corinthians said it was not a sin to marry, by the time of 2 Corinthians, Paul implies by marrying we adulterously have abandoned Jesus.

(How many Paulinist churches preach all Paul taught, like "do not seek marriage" if you are unmarried? Or that by marrying you become worldy? Perhaps you are even an adulterer by marrying after finding Christ! NONE IN MY EXPERIENCE! Instead, they urge marriage, are pleased to marry off their daughters, and hope for children -- Praise God they do not listen to Paul at least on this one important issue!)

SELF-CONTRADICTION WARNING: Paul's letter to Timothy contains a contradiction, as Paulinists admit. Paul writes: "I will therefore that the younger women marry," says 1 Tim. 5:14 (KJV), "bear children, guide the house." How do die-hard Paul fans handle this?

Scholars suspect, based on style as well as content, that Paul's words to Timothy and Titus are not Paul's words at all, but those of someone writing in his name, years after Paul's death...." (Decker, "Patriarchy.")

As to other points of tension between Paul and Jesus, we will expose them as we next discuss specific verses.

Head Coverings: Does God Command This?

One of the proofs that Paulinists are selective in what they obey from Paul is not just they ignore Paul's command "not to seek to marry," but also his command that women wear veils at church. They contort his words to try to claim he is talking about long hair, but this is contextually and historically false. And more important, Paul's words on head coverings from women appear contrary to Biblical commands / observations.

Let's start with Paul's command on veils. Paul stated that the head covering / veil by a woman was to be observed not for cultural reasons but because of the angels (1 Corinthians 11:10): “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

Paul then says in 1 Corinthians 11:5: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…” Hence, Paul makes wearing a head covering / a veil a MORAL command.

By contrast, a man was not to wear one. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:4 says: “Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head.”

Some insist this covering is simply long hair because Paul uses as a proof that "nature" proves similarly that long hair is a glory for women but long hair is shameful for men. (1 Cor. 11:14-15.) However, Paul means that "nature" shows you a similar principle to what he is saying. Paul is not talking about only hair length when he speaks of having a covering while praying. The problem was not short-hair among women while praying. We know the true meaning is demonstrated by the words Paul uses -- a "covering" and the tradition found in the early church (under Paul's influence no doubt) of women wearing a veil while praying or reading Scriptures. Paul writes:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn [i.e., head shaved] but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." (1 Cor. 11:6.)

The reference is to a veil, not hair, as we shall demonstrate. Paul means that being shorn of hair is as shameful as having no head covering. Paul in essence says: if you go without the veil, you might as well go without any hair. Both are supposedly shameful. The fact hair length is a natural example of the same principle proves Paul is not saying "long hair" is the covering during prayer or 'prophesying,' but the natural principles about "hair length" is a reflection of the same principle of why women should wear veils while men should not.

How Do We Know Paul Speaks of A Veil?

How do we know it is a veil? Because Paul brought from Arabia and placed in the Christian church the practice of veiling woman in worship. The Christian leader, Tertullian of Carthage, in 200 AD describes the need for this practice of modesty of veiling women -- first generally and then during worship activities in church, identical in verbiage to that which Paul was talking about. Tertullian first makes clear he is talking of a veil over one's hair in this first quote:

But we admonish you, too, women of the second [degree of] modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their mitres and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up ; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions—I suppose for fear of pressing the head—and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound ; in order that the necks too may be encircled.***

Tertullian in this next quote in the same passage then clearly says the head is properly "covered" (same as Paul's language) during reading of Psalms or using God's name when a woman wears a "veil":

But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who, amid [the recital of] the Psalms, and at any mention of [the name of] God, continue uncovered; [who,] even when about to spend time in prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread whatever, on the crown of 'their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered? Of so small extent do they falsely imagine their head to be! Others, who think the palm of their hand plainly greater than any fringe or thread, misuse their head no less.... (Tertullian, The Veiling of the Virgins Ch. XVII, in Tertullian, Writings of Q.S. Tertullian (1870) Vol. 3 at 179-180.)

Thus, Paul was enjoining a woman wearing a veil while praying or worshipping in church -- for within just a bit over a century after his death this was the demonstrable practice in Tertullian's church in North Africa.

Where Did Paul Get This Practice?

Where did Paul get this notion in favor of women wearing a head covering / a veil? It is not in the Bible. Not once! It even appears to be condemned for women.

1. Bible References to a Veil -- Almost Exclusively Negative

To the contrary, the prophet Ezekiel quotes God as condemning the "prophets who prophesy out of their own mind...who make veils for persons of every stature in the hunt for souls." (Ezek. 13:17-18.) God promises the false prophets that one day "your veils also I will tear off and deliver my people out of your hand." (Ezek. 13:21.) The false prophets had invented the idea that women should wear veils, and gave them out. God hated this practice and condemned this as a false practice of false prophets.

Where else is a veil discussed in the Bible? Is it a command of God? In Isaiah 3:16-21, God refers to veils apparently as adornment which, along with "jinkling anklets" etc. were displeasing to God. God says He will strike the "crown of the head," and remove all "scarves," pendents, "headbands," jinkling anklets and rings.

A second reference is negative as well. In Genesis, the use of a veil was shameful. A veil that also covered the face apparently indicated one was a prostitute. Timnah "covered herself in a veil" and when "Judah saw her he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face." (Gen. 38: 14, 15.)

The only mention of a veil that was not negative was when Sarah veiled herself in Genesis 20:16. It is just a fact mentioned, with no observation whether it was right or wrong.

Hence, this practice of veiling a woman does not come from any command in the Bible. If anything, the Bible appears to view it negatively especially if some prophet commands its use or if it is combined with excessive adornment or is worn over the face.

Thus, where did Paul find such practice of veiling at worship time done for modesty sake?

2. Secular Source For Paul's Positive View of a Veil

Paul likely got this practice of a head covering at worship time from Arabia. In Arabia, women also made the covering cover the face, allowing only the eyes to see through. (Tertullian mentions this in the passage quoted above. Id., at 179.)

We thus realize it is no coincidence that Paul says after his conversion he went to Arabia (Gal. 1:17) where he stayed for 14-17 years before embarking on any missionary activity. Arabian Jews had a distinct practice on Sabbath from all other Jews. Within Judaism in the 2d century, Judaism did not allow a woman on Sabbath to veil herself unless she lived in Arabia, where it would be permitted. This was in the Mishnah. The command from 2d century Judaism's Mishnah text reads that for Sabbath:

A woman may go out in hair ribbons...and with a headband, sewn head bangles, a hairnet or false locks...Arabian women may go out veiled. Median woman [i.e., women from Mede] may go out with cloaks looped up over their shoulders. (The Mishnah (trans. Jacob Neusner)(N.Y.: Yale University Press, 1988) at 186, from Shabbat 6.5 & 6.6.)

At all other times except Sabbath, a Jewish woman outside Arabia was allowed to go out veiled. In fact, Jewish woman were recognized in public by such practice on non-Sabbath days. Tertullian mentioned, "Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognized." (Tertullian, De Corona ch. 4, Anti-Nicene Fathers Vol. 3 at 95.)

Hence, only Jewish women in Arabia wore a veil on Sabbath, but it was otherwise prohibited on Sabbath for Jewish women elsewhere as apparently too attractive of an adornment.

Thus, it appears, unless Paul is a proven prophet speaking always under inspiration, that Paul lays down commands of wearing a veil in the religious assemblies of Christians nowhere found in the Law or Scripture. It was only practiced among the Jewish woman of Arabia on Sabbath, but everywhere else was prohibited on Sabbath as too attractive. Despite Sabbath-veiling only being the practice of Arabian Jewish women while prohibited on Sabbath (then a traditional day of worship) for all other Jewish women, Paul elevates veiling at worship time to a moral command for every woman, including women in the assembly at Corinth / Greece.

Paul relied therefore on heathen practices to influence the Christian church which in the Bible were condemned as too attractive and the teaching of false prophets who "imagined" such commands. (Ezekiel 13:14-21.)

And Paul's commands are in accord with the gender prohibitions that suppressed women's full participation in religious life that Jesus clearly was breaking down. Paul made this explicit, saying the veil was necessary to demonstrate at church the superiority of a male over a female, while a male being uncovered proves he is the image and "glory of God." (The latter quoted statement opens a whole other can of worms.) See 1 Cor.11:7-10.

Hence, it appears that the spirit of Paul's command on head coverings / veils (a) lacks corroboration from inspired Scripture; (b) is at odds with inspired Scripture; and (c) is at odds with Jesus' deliberate breaking of the gender restraints on women.

Must Women Not Speak or Inquire At Church?

God created the woman Eve to be a friend / companion of Adam, and to allow humans to be fruitful and multiply. In Gen. 1:28, we read: "God blessed them saying: 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it". God then saw that "it is not good that the man be alone, I will make him a help mate ..." Gen. 2:18. Nowhere in the Original Bible does God ever say a woman is subject to a man, or should be silent in the congregation, or that a woman should only ask spiritual questions from her own husband.



Once again, for anyone who's interested....there's much more at "Jesus' Words Only".

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I will use this reply (as all the others as well) to deepen my own contribution to the discussion, not necessarily answering only you (or someone else, pls do not be offended if you feel something I write has nothig to do with your posts!)

Mother Theresa experienced "dark night of soul" as most mystic saints have. Vatican explained that after the information w as leaked to the MSM who were quick to conclude Mother Theresa has lost her faith in God...I think our problem is not that though. She proved how one could be good and show the goodness of the Lord in practice, and not necessarily goodness only to Christians from your own town (and many do not show even that to their own neighbors or relatives).

I often wonder why preachers answering questions of suffering in the world preach how Jesus "didn't promise earthly happiness in this world". Perhaps they speak otherwise when they go to convert people to Christianity in the Third world. Number of hospitals and other aid show the opposite - but there. Perhaps they forgot those hundreds millions who live in the already Christianized part of the world and who continue to need generation after generation the mercy of the Lord in their everyday needs, not spiritual but practical physical. As Mother Theresa showed with her houses even in the heart of New York.

Who stripped the gospel of Jesus from much of its humanity? Not entirely, we still have the sermon of the mount and other instances when Jesus talked "social justice" and "concrete acts of love" - "I was hungry and you gave me food" - to the saved ones at the final judgment day, "I was hungry and you didn't give me food" - to the damned. if we may say that way. Otherwise there wouldn't be brave souls like the Albanian Theresa to go forth and show it in India. They were inspired by that goodness in the physical life, therefore IT WAS ALSO PROMISED. But apparently, theologians of old and new used skillfully the trimmed gospels to justify a non-physical approach to Jesus and much more - to the world we are living in everyday. Thus, the promises of Jesus become surreal of some future judgment and obscure reward, and doing good only to die good.

Let remember again the words of John in his epistle who warned, whoever denies Jesus came into flesh, has the spirit of the antichrist. In t he time when many intelligent people looking for explanations of the world's absurdity, are tempted to seek antichrists as a proof of the end times, that strangely why the people want upon them, may be the place to look for such is not the right one.

There is nothing bad if the Good God promised good things to happen in this life. And He did, He promised that to Abraham and his descendants FOREVER, as well as to all nations (and people therefore) who would bless the nation of Abraham. It is that simple! Jesus never denied that. Or perhaps those who trimmed the gospels wanted him looking like denial of those promises of God for well being in this life? Christian history proves how that could be negatively accomplished, instead of what Jesus preached as Kingdom of God is among you, it already arrived.

So I go back to the title of this thread. What the Christianity did so wrong, that in all those 1987 years after Jesus we saw very little of that goodness promised in the REAL LIFE, and we saw it thanks to people like Mother Theresa who walked AGAINST the mainstream of church practices at their time, every now and then? And if the Christendom did it wrong for most of those years, what is wrong if we want now to do it right? Shall we be called antichrists and his servants? It is absurd, but the team to call us that seems already formed. I have no illusion they would ever change. Seem they never accepted the quote of John as correct one. But that doesn't mean we to stop our efforts to bring the goodness in this life, the life that we should gain heaven with. Today it might be service of the poor mostly, under so many various forms not necessarily the form of Mother Theresa. Tomorrow it may take completely other form, such as believing God's promises to Abraham are going to fulfill before our eyes and for our children too.

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I will use this reply (as all the others as well) to deepen my own contribution to the discussion, not necessarily answering only you (or someone else, pls do not be offended if you feel something I write has nothig to do with your posts!)

Mother Theresa experienced "dark night of soul" as most mystic saints have. Vatican explained that after the information w as leaked to the MSM who were quick to conclude Mother Theresa has lost her faith in God...I think our problem is not that though. She proved how one could be good and show the goodness of the Lord in practice, and not necessarily goodness only to Christians from your own town (and many do not show even that to their own neighbors or relatives).

I often wonder why preachers answering questions of suffering in the world preach how Jesus "didn't promise earthly happiness in this world". Perhaps they speak otherwise when they go to convert people to Christianity in the Third world. Number of hospitals and other aid show the opposite - but there. Perhaps they forgot those hundreds millions who live in the already Christianized part of the world and who continue to need generation after generation the mercy of the Lord in their everyday needs, not spiritual but practical physical. As Mother Theresa showed with her houses even in the heart of New York.

Who stripped the gospel of Jesus from much of its humanity? Not entirely, we still have the sermon of the mount and other instances when Jesus talked "social justice" and "concrete acts of love" - "I was hungry and you gave me food" - to the saved ones at the final judgment day, "I was hungry and you didn't give me food" - to the damned. if we may say that way. Otherwise there wouldn't be brave souls like the Albanian Theresa to go forth and show it in India. They were inspired by that goodness in the physical life, therefore IT WAS ALSO PROMISED. But apparently, theologians of old and new used skillfully the trimmed gospels to justify a non-physical approach to Jesus and much more - to the world we are living in everyday. Thus, the promises of Jesus become surreal of some future judgment and obscure reward, and doing good only to die good.

Let remember again the words of John in his epistle who warned, whoever denies Jesus came into flesh, has the spirit of the antichrist. In t he time when many intelligent people looking for explanations of the world's absurdity, are tempted to seek antichrists as a proof of the end times, that strangely why the people want upon them, may be the place to look for such is not the right one.

There is nothing bad if the Good God promised good things to happen in this life. And He did, He promised that to Abraham and his descendants FOREVER, as well as to all nations (and people therefore) who would bless the nation of Abraham. It is that simple! Jesus never denied that. Or perhaps those who trimmed the gospels wanted him looking like denial of those promises of God for well being in this life? Christian history proves how that could be negatively accomplished, instead of what Jesus preached as Kingdom of God is among you, it already arrived.

So I go back to the title of this thread. What the Christianity did so wrong, that in all those 1987 years after Jesus we saw very little of that goodness promised in the REAL LIFE, and we saw it thanks to people like Mother Theresa who walked AGAINST the mainstream of church practices at their time, every now and then? And if the Christendom did it wrong for most of those years, what is wrong if we want now to do it right? Shall we be called antichrists and his servants? It is absurd, but the team to call us that seems already formed. I have no illusion they would ever change. Seem they never accepted the quote of John as correct one. But that doesn't mean we to stop our efforts to bring the goodness in this life, the life that we should gain heaven with. Today it might be service of the poor mostly, under so many various forms not necessarily the form of Mother Theresa. Tomorrow it may take completely other form, such as believing God's promises to Abraham are going to fulfill before our eyes and for our children too.

You have a way with words, and there is beauty if much of them.
Allow me to expound on a few things you said...
First, I don't think the "god" of Abraham was good. I'm sorry if that offends you, but any god that requires you to cut a defenseless animal into 3 parts and walk between them to make a covenant with him...isn't good...by any stretch of the imagination.
Honestly, if someone did that today and said, "god told me to do that"..or better yet, offered their child up as a burnt offering (whether they were able to fully go through with it or not) would be considered insane by today's society.
So, why is "god" let off the hook on those types of things?
I know for sure I wouldn't be to keen on killing a defenseless animal, cutting it into three sections and then walking between those sections to make a covenant with this said "god". Nor, would I got to a mountaintop with sticks and kindling, to offer up one of my 4 boys as a burnt offering.
Somehow, Christians check their brains at the door when they read those passages.

On another note....good things happen to ALL people in this world, as do BAD things. It doesn't matter if you are as good as gold....ca-ca will happen to you. Why is it that WE are supposed to be "good" and help those in need, while said "god" sits back and lets atrocity after atrocity happen. Or, he lets babies be born with deformities, or those who serve him faithfully be wracked with cancer and all kinds of other illnesses. I meet these people daily. It breaks my heart.
Are we to only live for a promise that one day it will be better, while "god" seems to be on vacation?

I'm sorry. It doesn't make any kind of dang sense to me. I know the Bible's explanation for it. I could quote you chapter and verse. Still doesn't add up.


So, back to Mother Theresa....I totally get why she questioned everything she thought was true. Totally.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

It is hard to answer. Even if I say those in the Church hi levels didn't answer much for all that time, it is hard for me to give an answer as well. It remains to believe that God will fulfill his promises in our lifetime, not after another century.

I thought of the sacrifice of animals, why so. Compared to sacrifice of people in other religions, it is quite much more merciful, first to the people. I really don't know, it seems rooted back in the fall of Eden garden.

I want to add to my previous post and the whole thread. I do not deny the mysticism of the Church, the sacramental life, and so on. It is all there for people who always obeyed God and served the others, regardless of doctrines.

At the same time, to cut off the gospels to the extend to deny the existence of Jesus' wife and children is quite big trespass for those who did it. Today we know they indeed did it. A mysticism based on that knowledge, with living children of Jesus perhaps taken up to where he dwells and not on earth, will be something completely different higher level of relation with him. For whoever has ears let him hear.

I thought of the sacrifice of animals, why so. Compared to sacrifice of people in other religions, it is quite much more merciful, first to the people. I really don't know, it seems rooted back in the fall of Eden garden.

a reply to: 2012newstart

Not to that baby lamb, or cow, or goat. Animals are innocent. People aren't. Yes, the whole sacrifice theme is rooted in the garden of Eden....which is why I don't believe Yahweh is the true MOST HIGH. Elohim never told man to eat animals, nor did He tell him not to eat of any trees in the garden. Something went seriously foul between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2:4.
There was a "switcherooni" of Gods...either that, or some priests wrote two accouts and the "redactor" didn't quite make them fit.
I have 3 goats as pets. One, is a survivor of a huge fire. She was burned over 80 percent of her body. She was a pet to a couple of kiddos. That goat fought hard to survive that trauma. The owners fought just as hard to save her. She made it, but with all kinds of nerve damage. All her hair grew back..her hooves grew back deformed, but she is the sweetest thing...and loves tortilla chips. She calls to me when I go outside, to come pet her. I wound up with her when her owners had to move into the city and couldnt' take her with them. I went and bought two more goats to keep her company. They are funny as heck...and I could never see killing them are using them for food. They are my buddies. They have personalities...and they love each other.
For anyone who thinks an animal is stupid or is just here for our use...then they are idiots. They also do not truly understand the Father's heart. Or Jesus'.
You can find many references in the scriptures that show the true God's heart towards the animals on this planet...you just have to have a discerning spirit. There are two (maybe more) voices in the Bible....one good...the other evil. Elohim is good...Yahweh isn't. Jesus is good...Paul isn't. It's really not hard to see if you have a heart for life.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Elohyim isn't a name, it's a plural noun. In Hebrew it means "gods". God is a title, not a name. What you said above would be like someone 2000 years from now on ATS saying "President was good.. Barack Obama was evil". YHWH is a proper name, it used over 8000 times in the Tenakh.

When it says in the English "The LORD your God", in the Hebrew text it says "YHWH Eloheinu". There is only one Name of God, yet there are dozens and dozens of euphemistic references and titles for Him.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I disagree with you. YHWH is holy.

The question about the animals should be discussed in its entirety, from the creation of those animals. They were created for many things including for being used as food for humans. They are not equal to humans, sorry. You may love a dog or a cat or a lamb. That doesn't mean that you have to love all millions of cows who are favored in India more than the people, while people are starving and sometimes dying from hunger and malnutrition.

We cannot deny the natural order, where we see one animal eating another one, to survive itself. The lions would have died of hunger if they did not kill other animals. Humans may not die of hunger in principle,s till we need the meat for food. Our society is made in a way we need to eat meat. May be a better society in the future would not need that. May be you don't eat meat, I know such people, it is good there are people who don't eat meat, But there isn't said in the Holy Scripture we should not eat animals' meat at all, or that they are equal to men with soul etc. They are not, sorry.
Messianic kingdom may change the natural order where we will see a lion next to a lamb. I hope it will happen in my lifetime. I think for my part the question is exhausted with that.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

"God" has at least 72 names and YHWH isn't one. Thats called the Tetragrammaton and It has a deep meaning to the Hebrews and has feminine and masculine properties.

El is the original name of God from old Canaanite mythology and he had a wife (Asherah, who later was wife of Yahweh and was worshipped in the Temple until Jeremiah (?) got rid of the Asherah pole and the Brazen serpent) and 70 little Elohims who were each God of a nation (sounds familiar right?).

Baal was his most powerful descendant out of the 72 Elohim and would eventually come to be known as Yahweh to the Hebrews but the Greeks easily recognized he was the same as the Phoenicians (Canaanite's) IAHU.

I might be off on a minor detail like spelling but nothing major and not that I am aware of. This is information available to any who want it.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Further the notion in Judaism of 70 leaders is based off the 70 Sons of El+ Asherah. 70 disciples in the New Testament are mentioned and 70 rulers are chosen for the new world after the deluge. 70 nations, 70 tongues.

So in Judaism you could go look it up you have 72 names of God. I don't know them all YHWH might actually be one but I am almost certain that it is not. Shemhamephorash is part of it.

Solomon was known as a, THE sorcerer, who could control demons and that's how the (impossibly extravagant) Temple was buillt.

There are 72 and you can look up their names too.

a reply to: enterthestage

I think you mean the 72 letter name of God, not 72 names of God. And that comes from the Talmud and Midrash, not the Tenakh. The Name of God used over 8000 times in the Tenakh is YHWH.

Jesus' Hebrew Name is Yeshua, meaning Yah is salvation. He said He came in His Father's Name, which is YHWH (Yah is short for Yahveh/Yahweh).

a reply to: NOTurTypical

No, I meant everything I said as I said it. would not have said one thing if I meant another. 72 names of God, 72 demons obeyed Solomon and I know all about the 72 letter name but I wasn't talking about it and didn't mean it.

You just don't know what I'm talking about and want to fit what I said into the only related thing you know.

I say what I mean and mean what I say, for future reference.

a reply to: enterthestage

72 letter name?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: enterthestage

I think you mean the 72 letter name of God, not 72 names of God. And that comes from the Talmud and Midrash, not the Tenakh. The Name of God used over 8000 times in the Tenakh is YHWH.

As I said before I mean the 72 names of God and of course it's from Judaism but I guarantee you don't know what book and are just saying Talmud and Midrash without having ever read either. Don't try correcting people who are correct, especially when you are not knowledgeable about the topic.

Jesus' Hebrew Name is Yeshua, meaning Yah is salvation. He said He came in His Father's Name, which is YHWH (Yah is short for Yahveh/Yahweh).

Yesha means salvation, Yeshua is SAID to mean Yah saves but really doesn't. It just means salvation or savior but not Yah saves. I guess it's popular to say it means that but it doesn't. It's the same name as Joshua of the Tanakh.

Now you assume that I need to be educated about the Tetragrammaton and the Hebrew version of Jesus for what logical reason?

Because I know a whole lot more than you and you can tell from our messages I find it silly that you're "informing" me of the most basic of things Judeo-Christian when I am talking about advanced Judaism and things you are so unaware of you assume that I am mistaken.

I am not, and I think it is obvious that I don't need to be educated about anything you just said. Use logic and deduce information based on what I say and you should realize that I knew this already.

You're funny though. Stop assuming things unless you can learn how to properly deduce information from facts stated.

a reply to: Akragon

There is a 72 letter name but it was NuT that brought it up so ask him.

There are other names of lesser letter amount that I don't know off hand but I was just reading about that on Encyclopedia Judaica so it's true.

HaShemhamephorash is part of it. I am not an expert on the topic I just know of it.

And the 72 names, demons, etc. It's a popular number because of El+ Asherah and the 70 Elohim= 72 according to the Ras Shamra tablets.

a reply to: enterthestage

How can God have a name IF a name is given?

originally posted by: enterthestage
a reply to: NOTurTypical

"God" has at least 72 names and YHWH isn't one. Thats called the Tetragrammaton and It has a deep meaning to the Hebrews and has feminine and masculine properties.

El is the original name of God from old Canaanite mythology and he had a wife (Asherah, who later was wife of Yahweh and was worshipped in the Temple until Jeremiah (?) got rid of the Asherah pole and the Brazen serpent) and 70 little Elohims who were each God of a nation (sounds familiar right?).

Baal was his most powerful descendant out of the 72 Elohim and would eventually come to be known as Yahweh to the Hebrews but the Greeks easily recognized he was the same as the Phoenicians (Canaanite's) IAHU.

I might be off on a minor detail like spelling but nothing major and not that I am aware of. This is information available to any who want it.

I must correct myself here it was Josiah that ousted Asherah worship and her tree/pole plus the Brazen Serpent from the Temple.

Although her worship would continue outside the temple for generations as Yahweh's consort. "Yahweh and his Asherah" is inscribed on many archeological finds.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: enterthestage

How can God have a name IF a name is given?

He can't and doesn't. Who would name the Name himself?

Jews literally call him The Name (HaShem).

He is Ineffable and his "name" is just what we call him. I prefer the Most High God but others prefer Allah, Lord, Yahweh, Ja, El Shaddai etc.

The 72 names are more like aspects of Him. Look into it, it's something worth learning if you like spirituality. I plan on doing it but I am busy with another project.

a reply to: enterthestage

Personally i prefer "Father"

a reply to: Akragon

But if you are asking how Yahweh/Baal got HIS name, I would guess his parents El and Asherah (his later consort) gave it to him and the Jews copied the Phoenicians IAO or IAHO, another name for Baal/Bel.