Thread: God's Name

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Maybe in your branch of Christianity but not on this side of the world. If that were the case, does that mean that the God was crucified? I really am confused by this as I have never heard this God being referred to as Jesus or as them being one in the same.

Well, the Holy Trinity is divine, isn't it? So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. Christ is both man and god. As far as I know this is a farily standard concept in both Catholic and Orthodox confessions. I'm not so sure about the protestants though. Maybe for them it is different. Jeudaism does not recognize Christ as a god and neither does Islam (to them Isa was mere a phrophet, though an important one).

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Using word "god" and all corresponding names in vain is quite normal in colloquial speech in Russian. According to Hollywood movies it is also quite normal in USA. And according to the text of "Arabian nights" it is also quite normal in Islamic tradition. Russian Jews use something like "Б-г" instead of "Бог", which looks funny.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Turning into a very interesting thread!

My Nana, the one who passed a way this year at 106 who was from Austria, she always used to write, “G-d willing” in her letters to me. Like, “G-d willing I will see you in November.” She was the only person I knew who did that!

There was an old or even ancient superstition in Russia about bears (of course we do obsessed with bears ): it is a bad omen to call a bear by "his name". Here "his name" stands for the word "bear" (медведь). If you will "call" the bear i.e. pronounce the word "bear" the bear can think that you are calling him and come to you. As a result there are only few possibilities: you can became the bear's breakfast, lunch or dinner. So there is a tradition to use nicknames for bears instead of the word "bear". There are plenty of them: Михайло Потапыч, Топтыгин, Косолапый etc. There is no any other animal in Russia which has so many nicknames.

Maybe using "G-d" is somewhat similar to this. People don't call the "God" without an extremely need.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

There was an old or even ancient superstition in Russia about bears (of course we do obsessed with bears ): it is a bad omen to call a bear by "his name". Here "his name" stands for the word "bear" (медведь). If you will "call" the bear i.e. pronounce the word "bear" the bear can think that you are calling him and come to you. As a result there are only few possibilities: you can became the bear's breakfast, lunch or dinner. So there is a tradition to use nicknames for bears instead of the word "bear". There are plenty of them: Михайло Потапыч, Топтыгин, Косолапый etc. There is no any other animal in Russia which has so many nicknames.

Actually, "медведь" is not a real name of this beast. It is also a nickname, the real name is lost in time.

This kind of superstitions was very widespread everywhere.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Maybe using "G-d" is somewhat similar to this. People don't call the "God" without an extremely need.

No, AFAIK this is specifically Judaic tradition and it is related to Kabbalah somewhat. It was assumed that the essence of holy texts (Torah) are not to be understood by the human mind, and people should follow the instructions literally. So Torah says "Don't mention in vain the name of God". OK, but it says nothing about mentioning in vain some substitutes. Everything that is not prohibited, is allowed. A kind of pettifoggery, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Actually, "медведь" is not a real name of this beast. It is also a nickname, the real name is lost in time.

You should have studied the calculus better. The tetragrammaton is МДВД (Медвед or Медведь, depending on the local dialects) and it's rather appalling you say it could be lost. The crocodiles remember. Also, you should capitalize Beast so as not to confuse between Beast and the various pagan beasts. You should also know that "the beast" with a serial number 666 is not the same as Beast. In addition, according to Получка (=the Kaballa of the ancients), there is a sacred 22-letter name which could only be revealed to those studying Poluchka for a long time. There are many pre-requisites to start studying Получка and one of them requires the medium to be able to enter the trance by means of the sacred potion named Водка. With time, the tradition of drinking Vodka attributed to Poluchka has transformed to the famous modern custom which makes the medium travel on his four as his soul connects to Beast and he experiences a sense of being part of something much greater than he is.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say people should or shouldn't believe in God. It makes more sense to me, personally, not to, but people have the right to believe what they believe. I know many people who are religious, who can argue the case for their own belief articulately, and who are genuinely good people. I know just as many atheists who I could say the same for.

The point of the poster campaign is that those who fund it believe that religion is generally a force for evil in the world; similarly to how Christians may fund campaigns to get people to join their church, because they believe that Christianity (or their particular branch of Christianity) is a good in the world and will help people get into heaven. I can't say I agree with either of these positions really, but that's not to say that we shouldn't be able to debate the position of religion in society, or that criticism of religion should somehow be "taboo". It's only when people try to enshrine religion (or lack thereof, such as under communist rule) in law, that I think they've really overstepped the line from exercising their own freedom of expression to curtailing others'.

(Anyway I'm really sorry for turning this topic into a political discussion, I should really learn to keep my mouth shut on internet forums...)

Originally Posted by Demonic_Duck

I think you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say people should or shouldn't believe in God. It makes more sense to me, personally, not to, but people have the right to believe what they believe. I know many people who are religious, who can argue the case for their own belief articulately, and who are genuinely good people. I know just as many atheists who I could say the same for.

The point of the poster campaign is that those who fund it believe that religion is generally a force for evil in the world; similarly to how Christians may fund campaigns to get people to join their church, because they believe that Christianity (or their particular branch of Christianity) is a good in the world and will help people get into heaven. I can't say I agree with either of these positions really, but that's not to say that we shouldn't be able to debate the position of religion in society, or that criticism of religion should somehow be "taboo". It's only when people try to enshrine religion (or lack thereof, such as under communist rule) in law, that I think they've really overstepped the line from exercising their own freedom of expression to curtailing others'.

(Anyway I'm really sorry for turning this topic into a political discussion, I should really learn to keep my mouth shut on internet forums...)

Well , thank you for clearing that up . I just thought you were totally anti religion , so , I must say , I get sort of mad when I see stuff like those posters or bill boards which put down religion .

Originally Posted by Will

Well , thank you for clearing that up . I just thought you were totally anti religion , so , I must say , I get sort of mad when I see stuff like those posters or bill boards which put down religion .

Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are wrong.

What about worshiping the sun or Joe Pesci? And Will, what about the divine plan??? Got to admit, George does make sense here. Just so you know, I'm not anti religion here. I just find George's bit insightful and funny... and fits the thread.

George Carlin On Religion

Originally Posted by rockzmom

What about worshiping the sun or Joe Pesci? And Will, what about the divine plan??? Got to admit, George does make sense here. Just so you know, I'm not anti religion here. I just find George's bit insightful and funny... and fits the thread.

Well , you have to remember , people may worship the sun , and Joe pesci , but they are not religions , so I don't care .

Well , you have to remember , people may worship the sun , and Joe pesci , but they are not religions , so I don't care .

Overwhelming majority of people on this planet are totally convinced that Cristianity is not a religion. They don't care either.

I think it is accepted that the Trinity is impossible to fully understand.
But as far as I have been taught it (Lutheranism, Church of Sweden) for a Christian believer it is NOT wrong to say that Jesus is God.
But Jesus is also Gods son and it's ok to find this confusing, as long as you believe in it (according to the creed).

However my church has gone increasingly insanely politically correct. Can't take them seriously anymore because they change their minds about everything all the time! Lately, anything that Paul or Jesus or any of the writers of the evangeliums say.... that is not "politically correct".... they simply dismiss as irrelevant, or a personal opinion of the writer. At the rate they are going, it won't be necessary to even believe in God, salvation etc, in about a decade from now! As they try to keep up with the times, they also undermine their own credibility.

Well, here's a Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs

Everyone agrees that the Son is fully god, fully man.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, here's a Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs

Everyone agrees that the Son is fully god, fully man.

That is to simplify it extremely. Many people have died in the pursuit of settling this dispute. Arianism for example was a very strong school of thought within early Christianity, and it was violently stamped out in the wake of the Council of Nicaea, on which its ideas on the nature of Jesus was rejected. Various other Christian sects even today reject the notion of the trinity (keywords nontrinitarian and unitarian).

There isn't a single religious idea in existence which is common to all religions. Not even the existence of something divine. And schism is the direct and immediate result, as soon as the founder of the religion in question dies.

@ Hanna: as critical historical research (by theologians by the way, no need to look to atheists for that) shows, various parts of the New Testament, including passages within the gospels as well as whole letters of Paul and passages in others of those, are forgeries inserted at a later date to prove this or that point, especially in the attempt to stamp out the Gnostic scools of thought. So criticism is something any church even worth a little respect should show. It's not as if the Bible is a book that was written at a specific point in time. It is a changing collection of copies of material written over a span of hundreds of years, compiled from versions of texts which may exist in dozens of
different versions each. And compiled by different people in different times at that, so that not even the different versions of the Bible as used by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches include the same set of books.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, here's a Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs

Everyone agrees that the Son is fully god, fully man.

Okay, so I asked this of my sister-in-law, who is VERY Catholic/Religious... attends church every Sunday and such... and she looked at me as if I had three heads. She was like "What do you mean, God is called Jesus? Jesus is God's son. They are not the same."

And then what about the Creeds? They don't say anything about God AND Jesus being the same or calling God by the name Jesus.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

The Credo

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Okay, so I asked this of my sister-in-law, who is VERY Catholic/Religious... attends church every Sunday and such... and she looked at me as if I had three heads. She was like "What do you mean, God is called Jesus? Jesus is God's son. They are not the same."

This is the matter about the word 'Lord'. It is translated as Господь in Russian -- basically the same as god.

The Nicene Creed in Russian

Веруем во единого Бога Отца, Вседержителя, Творца всех видимых и невидимых.

И во единого Господа Иисуса Христа, Сына Божия единородного, рожденного от Отца, то есть из сущности Отца, Бога от Бога, Света от Света, Бога истинна от Бога истинна, рожденна, не сотворенна, единосущна Отцу, Имже вся быша, яже на небеси и на земли; нас ради человек и нашего ради спасения сшедшего, и воплотившася и вочеловечшася, страдавша и воскресшего в третий день, и восшедшего на небеса, и паки грядущего судити живым и мертвым.

И во Святого Духа.
Глаголющих же о Сыне Божием, яко бысть время, егда не бе, или яко преже неже родитися, не бе, или яко от не сущих бысть, или из иныя ипостаси или сущности глаголющих быти, или превратима или изменяема Сына Божия, сих анафематствует Кафолическая и Апостольская Церковь. Аминь.

And in Latin (I'm not an expert, but see the bold words -- the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father):
Credimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, omnium visibilium et invisibilium factorem.

Et in unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei, natum ex Patre unigenitum, hoc est, de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, Lumen ex Lumine, Deum verum, de Deo vero, natum, non factum, unius substantiæ cum Patre, quod Græci dicunt homoousion; per quem, omnia facta, sunt, quæ in cælo et in terra; qui [propter nos homines et] propter nostram salutem descendit, incarnatus est et homo factus est, et passus est; et resurrexit tertia die, et ascendit in cælos; venturus judicare vivos et mortuos.

Et in Spiritum Sanctum.
Eos autem qui dicunt: erat, quando non erat, et antequam nasceretur, non erat, et quod de non exstantibus factus est, vel ex alia, substantia aut essentia, dicentes [creatum, aut] convertibilem et demutabilem Filium Dei, hos anathematizat catholica [et apostolica] ecclesia. Amen.

And then what about the Creeds? They don't say anything about God AND Jesus being the same or calling God by the name Jesus.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

But the concept of Trinity says basically that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spririt are one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity_of_Jesus

So, IF Jesus and God are the same, then why is Jesus seated at the right hand of God? How can you sit next to yourself?

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So, IF Jesus and God are the same, then why is Jesus seated at the right hand of God? How can you sit next to yourself?

Well, I guess a better question is how could he ever sit as a spirit? So, you know, there's always a canonical interpretation to those things. Like, it's been an allegory to somehow understand things that are beyond our logical grasp blah-blah-blah. Other religions are no better in this respect. In Judaism, for example, you have a very nice little concept of Tzimtzum Tzimtzum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which basically tries to reconcile a logical discrepancy between the monotheistic 'infinite' definition of God and the fact that the humble finite species could exist bearing their own personal responsibility (and thus a potential personal reward or punishment).

Originally Posted by rockzmom

So, IF Jesus and God are the same, then why is Jesus seated at the right hand of God? How can you sit next to yourself?

I think that God can empower any number of 'physical' bodies with his essence or here's where the Holy Spirit fits.

I hope we haven't scared off Misha Tal (who started the thread) with all this talk about Christianity.
Feel free to participate Misha! This could be an interesting discussion, since all religions are represented.
I think probably one or two regular participants are Jewish - I have some Jewish relatives so I am more up to scratch on it than the average Christian.

I have 100% respect for Islam, partly thanks to a great friend of mine who is a moslem, and educated me a bit about it.
Everything she's told me about Islam is positive.
I've known her since I was a kid and she is one of the most decent people I know.
One of the things she's said is:

1) Islam recognises Jesus as a major prophet, but not (I think?) as the son of God.
2) Islam is the religion of the decendants of Hagar in the Old testament. (The woman who got kicked out into the desert by Jacob, together with her son She gets treated in a terrible way, in my opinion! ).



About Jews and the name of God: I have noticed that religious Jews say "Hashem" when they talk about God. That means "The Name" in Hebrew or Jiddish.