Why do the Abraham religions not use God’s true name?

[Greatest I am]

Why do the Abraham religions not use God’s true name?

Ex 3; 13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

God is given many names by Christians and Muslims and the other Abrahamic faiths.


Yet the Bible says that I Am or I AM THAT I AM is the true and eternal name of God.

Could it be that the Church or Mosque fathers do not want people to recognize the Gnostic implications of the God within being recognized by the rank and file?

Is that a form of deception?

Is God’s true name, I Am and why are we not using it?

===============================

Further, while speaking of names and titles.

"I, even I am the LORD and beside me there is no Saviour." Is.43:11

If God is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers should never have called anyone else by that exclusive title.

Why then is Jesus, who is not the Lord, called saviour?

He should not be unless you buy into that ridiculous trinity doctrine.

Regards
DL

 

[retro]

Uh, the worship of Yahweh alone is one of the principle tenets of Judaism. In Exodus 3:13-15, God names himself with three names:

... יהוה אלהי אבתיכם... זה־שמי לעלם... אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃
"I AM THAT I AM [...] Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you [...] YHWH God of your fathers, [...] this is my name for ever"

Where it says "LORD God" in what you posted is YHWH, or Yahweh.

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was the human incarnation of Yahweh. So that covers the first two Abrahamic religions. I can't speak for Islam though.

You can call the Trinity doctrine ridiculous if you'd like, but it's something that millions of Christians believe. It makes perfect sense that YHWH would say that there is no savior but him if Jesus was in fact the human incarnation of Him.

 

[pjbleek]

Yahweh,I believe the Lord liked to be called, that or Mr. Creator of the universe....

 

[Minor Axis]

Yahweh,I believe the Lord liked to be called, that or Mr. Creator of the universe....

And I thought it was Big Guy. Lol.

 

[mazHur]

Thank goodness God did not call himself ""WE ARE''!!

LORD is referred to as metaphorically; I don't think anywhere in the Bible does Jesus declare himself that he is a God!!

We all are children of God...and if the Bible says, MY SON, it doesn't imply that Jesus was termed as God's son-no way!! That's just a way of addressing someone beloved , Jesus here, an attribution but not a literal connotation that Jesus is God.
And, Why would the THIRD ONE be also made to stand in line with the Single God?

Muslims, like the Jews, believe in One God only......HE was neither begotten nor begotted

 

[BornReady]

You can call the Trinity doctrine ridiculous if you'd like, but it's something that millions of Christians believe.

I think it would be more accurate to say that millions of Christians try not to think about it. Early Christianity was very diverse. The Catholic church discarded some Christian beliefs, particularly the gnostic ones, and tried to harmonize what they couldn't discard. The doctrine of the Trinity was their best attempt to harmonize a conflict in how many gods there are and whether Jesus is God. They actually borrowed the concept of the Trinity from the Egyptians because they thought it solved their problem. But if we're honest, one plus one plus one does not equal one.

 

[retro]

I think it would be more accurate to say that millions of Christians try not to think about it. Early Christianity was very diverse. The Catholic church discarded some Christian beliefs, particularly the gnostic ones, and tried to harmonize what they couldn't discard. The doctrine of the Trinity was their best attempt to harmonize a conflict in how many gods there are and whether Jesus is God. They actually borrowed the concept of the Trinity from the Egyptians because they thought it solved their problem. But if we're honest, one plus one plus one does not equal one.

I'd disagree with that statement, because of the existance of passages such as these

John 1:1-5
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

It's accepted that this passage is referring to Jesus as "the Word", and it states very clearly that the Word was God. The Mormon faith actually takes that passage and adds an "a", the Word was a God.

John 1:14
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So, the Word, who is God and was with God in the beginning, became flesh... thus making Jesus fully God and fully man.

John 1:32-34
32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Now we have mention of the third part of the Trinity, the Spirit of God. Now we have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... all of which are God. The three aspects of God, mentioned within the same passage of the New Testament.

 

[Greatest I am]

Uh, the worship of Yahweh alone is one of the principle tenets of Judaism. In Exodus 3:13-15, God names himself with three names:

... יהוה אלהי אבתיכם... זה־שמי לעלם... אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם׃
"I AM THAT I AM [...] Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you [...] YHWH God of your fathers, [...] this is my name for ever"

Where it says "LORD God" in what you posted is YHWH, or Yahweh.

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was the human incarnation of Yahweh. So that covers the first two Abrahamic religions. I can't speak for Islam though.

You can call the Trinity doctrine ridiculous if you'd like, but it's something that millions of Christians believe. It makes perfect sense that YHWH would say that there is no savior but him if Jesus was in fact the human incarnation of Him.

Sure but this and many more quotes like it say that he was not.

John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

As to the stupid trinity -------

Originally Posted by animefan48 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...not-use-gods-true-name-908204/ / post22548787Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.




Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

Link

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Yahweh,I believe the Lord liked to be called, that or Mr. Creator of the universe....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHj0dtSwxqQ

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Thank goodness God did not call himself ""WE ARE''!!

LORD is referred to as metaphorically; I don't think anywhere in the Bible does Jesus declare himself that he is a God!!

We all are children of God...and if the Bible says, MY SON, it doesn't imply that Jesus was termed as God's son-no way!! That's just a way of addressing someone beloved , Jesus here, an attribution but not a literal connotation that Jesus is God.
And, Why would the THIRD ONE be also made to stand in line with the Single God?

Muslims, like the Jews, believe in One God only......HE was neither begotten nor begotted

You are right about Jesus.

What do you make of theses us and our words?

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

I would say there is more than one God and since A & E -----

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,

then I would say there is more than one God.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I'd disagree with that statement, because of the existance of passages such as these

John 1:1-5
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

It's accepted that this passage is referring to Jesus as "the Word", and it states very clearly that the Word was God. The Mormon faith actually takes that passage and adds an "a", the Word was a God.

John 1:14
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So, the Word, who is God and was with God in the beginning, became flesh... thus making Jesus fully God and fully man.

John 1:32-34
32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Now we have mention of the third part of the Trinity, the Spirit of God. Now we have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... all of which are God. The three aspects of God, mentioned within the same passage of the New Testament.

Yet they are not equal. I can curse the father and son and be forgiven but not the holy spirit.

Now why can I curse only two of the three heads?

Seems like the holy spirit is the boss.

Regards
DL

 

[BornReady]

Now we have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... all of which are God. The three aspects of God, mentioned within the same passage of the New Testament.

Three "aspects" of God is actually an anti-Trinitarian view that tries to make sense of the nonsensical Trinitarian view. The less you think about it the better off you are. Which is why I think millions of Christians try not to think about it.

 

[mazHur]

You are right about Jesus.

What do you make of theses us and our words?

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

I would say there is more than one God and since A & E -----

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,

then I would say there is more than one God.

Regards
DL

Actually it is hard to believe a word which has been changed over and over again, such as in the case of the Bible or Torah. Only the word of Quran hasn't changed for the last more than 1400 years and is still living and 'operative', hence I would rather take it as more authentic. The Muslims do believe in the Bible , Torah and Talmud but will not take the present 'manipulated' editions as word of God because once a word is changed it amount to 'novation' and except the Quran you will find 'novations' inserted by human hands in all other books.

According to Muslims, it is also held that God created Man in His own image...and if i were to interpret it I would say God created Man allowing him HIS own attributes only ....and an example of this may be Jesus who rose dead to life, cured the lepers, gave sight to the blind, etc etc.....and which we call miracles! Thhose miracles were bestowed on Jesus and other Prophets by His leave only ....

In ordinary talk if you say 'He is one of us' that doesn't mean that 'he' is the same as you--it only means he is one of your friends or someone who sides with you or is in your lobby!!

 

[Greatest I am]

Actually it is hard to believe a word which has been changed over and over again, such as in the case of the Bible or Torah. Only the word of Quran hasn't changed for the last more than 1400 years and is still living and 'operative', hence I would rather take it as more authentic. The Muslims do believe in the Bible , Torah and Talmud but will not take the present 'manipulated' editions as word of God because once a word is changed it amount to 'novation' and except the Quran you will find 'novations' inserted by human hands in all other books.

According to Muslims, it is also held that God created Man in His own image...and if i were to interpret it I would say God created Man allowing him HIS own attributes only ....and an example of this may be Jesus who rose dead to life, cured the lepers, gave sight to the blind, etc etc.....and which we call miracles! Thhose miracles were bestowed on Jesus and other Prophets by His leave only ....

In ordinary talk if you say 'He is one of us' that doesn't mean that 'he' is the same as you--it only means he is one of your friends or someone who sides with you or is in your lobby!!

Islam may not change it's book but the various sects certainly interpret the words differently.

As to miracles, do you ever wonder why no one has ever healed an amputee.

Now I wonder what god has against amputees.

Regards
DL

 

[BornReady]

It's true the Quran hasn't changed since it was compiled into a single book. That's something. However it wasn't compiled until after Muhammad's death and it was very fluid before that. On the other hand, the Quran was compiled much sooner to Muhammad's death than the New Testament was to Jesus' death assuming Jesus was even a historical person.

Then again, how much something has changed isn't really an indicator of how valuable it is. In fact, I think religion should change to keep up with society. Society's needs and values are changing. It is natural for religion to change too.

 

[mazHur]

Islam may not change it's book but the various sects certainly interpret the words differently.

As to miracles, do you ever wonder why no one has ever healed an amputee.

Now I wonder what god has against amputees.

Regards
DL

I take your point that various sects of Muslims interpret the Quran differently. However, most of these differences do not hit the fundamental beliefs...but are mostly related to peripheral or surrounding matters.
For example, a few sects don't believe in the way other Muslims say their prayers (those are Aga Khani's), while the majority offers the same prayer with mild differences on where to start from! Then the two biggest sects, Sunni's and Shia's are fighting and killing each other for differences on Sharia ...the former believe in the Sharia of Muhammad while the later, without shunning Muhammad, believe in the Sharia of Ali. In a way that is more like a fight of personalities....Ali versus the Early Caliphs and the right of Caliphate.

Life and Death is in the hands of God...the universe is full of variety; you will find capable men lagging behind in life while rogues on higher most position. One must not be impressed by the variety of things in this world...as that is natural and from God!

 

[mazHur]

It's true the Quran hasn't changed since it was compiled into a single book. That's something. However it wasn't compiled until after Muhammad's death and it was very fluid before that. On the other hand, the Quran was compiled much sooner to Muhammad's death than the New Testament was to Jesus' death assuming Jesus was even a historical person.

Then again, how much something has changed isn't really an indicator of how valuable it is. In fact, I think religion should change to keep up with society. Society's needs and values are changing. It is natural for religion to change too.

Unlike Jesus,the life history of Muhammad is fully documented..
Even during the life time of Muhammad there were scribes who jotted down the Quranic verses as told to them by Muhammad himself. Then there were Hafiz's or Huffaz who memorized it by hear instantly! Immediately after the death of |Muhammad all members of his Cabinet who were also his close friends and some were relatives
unanimously approved the assembling of various Quranic verses in a book by the Caliph himself. This was also endorsed by Ali. The Caliph of the time then made out copies of the Quran and dispatched it to rulers of all Muslim states of the world. Since then (or even before) there had been no change or controversy over the Quranic contents or its status ...Muslims ALL over the world read the SAME QURAN in ARABIC...and more than 1400 hundred years is a time for nobody to have changed it!! The best part of the Quran is that it is memorized by heart by many Muslims all over the world, regardless of their nationalities. There may be some American Muslim too who must have memorized the Quran word by word and if somebody tries to change a single stress or word he will atonce object! Same is the case every where..

Since the Quran is regarded as the word of God there is hardly any need to change it. All that is needed is to interpret and understand it honestly in the perspective of modern times.

 

[Greatest I am]

It's true the Quran hasn't changed since it was compiled into a single book. That's something. However it wasn't compiled until after Muhammad's death and it was very fluid before that. On the other hand, the Quran was compiled much sooner to Muhammad's death than the New Testament was to Jesus' death assuming Jesus was even a historical person.

Then again, how much something has changed isn't really an indicator of how valuable it is. In fact, I think religion should change to keep up with society. Society's needs and values are changing. It is natural for religion to change too.

Yes. No Word speaks to abortion, in vitro fertilization, cloning or producing chimeras.

Actually it does speak to god creating a chimera Jesus but few Christians think of him as the true way that he was. If he existed at all that is.

Regards
DL

 

[BornReady]

Also, slavery is immoral, women have rights, we don't stone children for disobedience or burn witches and heretics. Population control is necessary now, arranged marriages are out and premarital sex is in. We live in a different world than the writers of ancient scripture.

 

[mazHur]

Yes. No Word speaks to abortion, in vitro fertilization, cloning or producing chimeras.

Actually it does speak to god creating a chimera Jesus but few Christians think of him as the true way that he was. If he existed at all that is.

Regards
DL

Quran is not a book of Science. I haven't checked the Quran for the things you mention but I will try to get information about that and revert, anyhow.

As regards abortion, since premarital sex is forbidden by Islam the question of abortion does not arise in unmaried women. However, it is permissible if it poses threat of life to a married mother ...

Meantime, here is a link I just found but have not read it...will try to find a more authentic one which I know..

http://www.quranmiracles.com/?gclid=CK3-xpuV_qQCFcJS6wodqgOwjA