WHAT HAPPENED TO CHRISTIANITY?

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-03-02 AT 11:54 AM (GMT)]PART 1

CHRISTIANITY WAS FORETOLD IN THE BIBLE TO BECOME APOSTASISED IN A BIG WAY.(We are now left with a third of the worlds population being taught an adulterated view of christianity).

100-476 C.E.-SNUFFING OUT THE GOSPEL LIGHT.

"Men have discovered that it is far more convenient to adulterate the truth than to refine themselves."-Charles Caleb Colton, 19th-century English clergyman

BEGINNING in 33 C.E., when Rome put Christianity's Founder to death, that sixth world power of Bible history was at constant loggerheads with the Christians. It imprisoned them and threw some of them to the lions. But even when threatened with the martyrdom of serving as human torches to light Nero's gardens, Roman Christians of the first century continued to let their spiritual light shine. (Matthew 5:14) In time, however, the situation changed.

"In the early part of the third century," says the book From Christ to Constantine, "the church was beginning to become respectable." But respectability had its price, "a lowering of standards." Accordingly, "Christian living was no longer seen to be a requirement of Christian faith."

The gospel light had waned to a glimmer. And "by the fourth century," says the book Imperial Rome, "Christian writers were claiming not only that it was possible to be both Christian and Roman, but that the long history of Rome was in fact the beginning of the Christian epic. . . . The implication was that Rome had been divinely ordained."

Sharing this view was the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. In 313 C.E., Constantine made Christianity a lawful religion. By combining Church and State, putting religious leaders into the service of the State, and allowing State control of religious affairs, Constantine did a real disservice.

Already in the early second century, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, had introduced a new method of congregational government. Instead of a group of elders, the monarchical episcopate provided for a single churchman to be in charge of each congregation. About a century later, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, expanded this hierarchical clergy system into a monarchical seven-grade hierarchy, the supreme position being occupied by the bishop. Under him were priests, deacons, subdeacons, and other grades. The Western church subsequently added an eighth grade, while the Eastern church settled for a five-grade hierarchy.

Where did this form of church leadership, combined with State approval, lead? The book Imperial Rome explains: "Only 80 years after the last great wave of persecution of Christians, the Church itself was beginning to execute heretics, and its clerics were wielding power almost equivalent to that of the emperors." Surely this is not what Christ had in mind when he said that his disciples were to be "no part of the world" and that they should conquer it, not by force, but by their faith.-John 16:33; 17:14; compare 1 John 5:4.

"Saints" and Greek Gods

Long before Constantine's time, pagan ideas had already adulterated the Christian religion. The mythical gods of Greece that had once strongly influenced Rome's religion had also already influenced the Christian religion. "By the time Rome had become an imperial power," says the book Roman Mythology, "Jupiter had become assimilated to the Greek Zeus . . . Later on Jupiter was worshipped as Optimus Maximus, the Best and Greatest, a designation which was to be carried over into Christianity and appears on many a monumental inscription." The New Encyclopaedia Britannica adds: "Under Christianity, Greek heroes and even deities survived as saints."

Author M. A. Smith explains that this meant that "the many sets of gods were becoming intermixed, and the regional differences were getting blurred. . . . There was a tendency for people to think that the various deities were really only different names for one great power. . . . The Egyptian Isis, Artemis of the Ephesians and the Syrian Astarte could be equated. The Greek Zeus, the Roman Jupiter, the Egyptian Amon-Re and even the Jewish Yahweh could be invoked as the names of the one great Power."

While being fused with Greek and Roman thinking in Rome, Christianity was also undergoing changes in other places. Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, and Edessa, all centers of theological activity, developed distinctive schools of religious thought. Herbert Waddams, a former Anglican Canon of Canterbury, says the Alexandrian school, for example, was "particularly influenced by Platonic ideas," assigning allegorical meanings to most "Old Testament" statements. The Antioch school adopted a more literal, more critical attitude toward the Bible.

Distance, lack of communication, and language misunderstandings served to intensify the differences. Chiefly responsible for the situation, however, was the independent spirit and selfish ambition of religious leaders willing to adulterate the truth for personal advantage, thereby snuffing out the gospel light.

"Falsely Called 'Knowledge'"

As early as the first century, Christianity was influenced by false religious teachings, causing Paul to warn Timothy to turn away "from the contradictions of the falsely called 'knowledge.'" (1 Timothy 6:20, 21) This may have been a reference to a movement called Gnosticism that gained prominence early in the second century but that evidently got started in the first century, possibly with a certain Simon Magus. Some authorities claim that this may be the Simon mentioned in the Bible at Acts 8:9.

Gnosticism got its name from the Greek word gno'sis, meaning "knowledge." Gnostic groups contended that salvation is dependent upon special mystical knowledge of deep things unknown to ordinary Christians. They felt that possessing this knowledge enabled them to teach, as The Encyclopedia of Religion says, "the inner truth revealed by Jesus."

The origins of Gnostic thought were many. From Babylon, Gnostics took the practice of attributing hidden meanings to Bible numbers, which supposedly revealed mystical truths. Gnostics also taught that whereas the spirit is good, all matter is inherently evil. "This is the same chain of reasoning," says German author Karl Frick, "that was already found in Persian dualism and in the Far East in China's 'yin' and 'yang.'" The "Christianity" presented by Gnostic writings is definitely based on non-Christian sources. So how could it be "the inner truth revealed by Jesus"?

Scholar R. E. O. White calls Gnosticism a combination of "philosophic speculation, superstition, semi-magical rites, and sometimes a fanatical and even obscene cultus." Andrew M. Greeley of the University of Arizona says: "The Jesus of the Gnostics is sometimes incoherent, sometimes unintelligible, and sometimes more than a little creepy."

Twisting the Truth About Christ

The Gnostics were not alone in twisting the truth about Christ. Nestorius, an early 5th-century patriarch of Constantinople, apparently taught that Christ was actually two persons in one, the human Jesus and the divine Son of God. In giving birth to Christ, Mary gave birth to the man but not to the divine Son. This view did not agree with Monophysitism ("one nature"), which held that the union between God and the Son was inseparable, and that although of two natures, Jesus was in reality only one, wholly God and at the same time wholly man. Accordingly, Mary would indeed have given birth to God, not just to the human Jesus.

Both theories were outgrowths of a controversy that had arisen during the previous century. Arius, an Alexandrian priest, argued that Christ is inferior to the Father. So he refused to use the term homoousios (being of one substance) in describing Christ's relationship to God. The Council of Nicaea rejected his view in 325 C.E., ruling that Jesus is indeed 'of the same substance as the Father.' In 451 C.E. the Council of Chalcedon stated that Christ is God incarnate. The Babylonian-Egyptian-Grecian concept of a triune God had now crowded out Christ's teaching that he and his Father are two separate individuals, in no way equal.-Mark 13:32; John 14:28.

Actually, Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230 C.E.), a member of the North African church, introduced the word "trinitas," which found its way into Christian usage sometime before Arius was born. Tertullian, who was the first theologian to write extensively in Latin instead of Greek, helped lay the foundation for Western theology. So did "Saint" Augustine, another North African theologian of some two centuries later. "[Augustine] is generally recognized as having been the greatest thinker of Christian antiquity," says The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. But its next words are cause for concern for every sincere Catholic or Protestant: "His mind was the crucible in which the religion of the New Testament was most completely fused with the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy; and it was also the means by which the product of this fusion was transmitted to the Christendoms of medieval Roman Catholicism and Renaissance Protestantism."

Catholicism in Crisis

Toward the end of the fourth century, Emperor Theodosius I finished what Constantine had started by making Catholicism the State religion. Soon thereafter the Roman Empire split, as Constantine had feared it might. Rome was captured in 410 C.E. by the Visigoths, a Germanic people who had long harassed the empire, and in 476 C.E., German general Odoacer deposed the Western emperor and proclaimed himself king, thus ending the Western Roman Empire.

Under these new circumstances, how would Catholicism fare? As of 500 C.E., it claimed as members some 22 percent of the world population. But of these estimated 43 million persons, the bulk had been victimized by religious leaders who had found it to be more convenient to adulterate the truth than to refine themselves. The gospel light of true Christianity had been snuffed out. But "Out of Darkness, Something 'Holy'" would soon be born, as our next issue will discuss.


Samples of Gnostic Belief

Marcion (second century) differentiated between an imperfect "Old Testament" God inferior to Jesus and Jesus' Father, the unknown "New Testament" God of love. The idea of an "unknown god is a fundamental theme of gnosticism," explains The Encyclopedia of Religion. This unknown god is identified as "the supreme Intellect, inaccessible to the human intellect." The creator of the material world, on the other hand, is inferior and not absolutely intelligent and is known as the Demiurge.

Montanus (second century) preached the imminent return of Christ and the setting up of the New Jerusalem in what is today Turkey. More concerned about conduct than doctrine, he evidently tried to restore the original values of Christianity, but given to extremes, the movement finally fell victim to the very situation of laxity it condemned.

Valentinus (second century), a Greek poet and the most prominent Gnostic of all time, claimed that although Jesus' ethereal body passed through Mary, it was not actually born of her. This was because Gnostics viewed all matter as evil. Thus, Jesus could not have had a material body or it too would have been evil. Gnostics known as Docetists taught that everything about Jesus' humanity was mere appearance and illusion. This included his death and resurrection.

Manes (third century) was dubbed al-B"abil"iyu, Arabic for "the Babylonian," since he called himself "the messenger of God come to Babylon." He strove to form a universal religion fusing elements of Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism.

So in effect today there is a different christianity on the earth to the one Jesus actually started. We need to get back to the teachings of the scriptures to see the differences between the truth and the false in christendom today.

[vancouver]

PART 2


476 C.E. ONWARD-OUT OF DARKNESS, SOMETHING "HOLY"

"Sins committed in the dark are seen in Heaven like sheets of fire."-Chinese proverb

IN APRIL 1988 the Church in the Soviet Union rejoiced to hear General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev publicly state that mistakes made by the State in its relationship with the Church and its members were to be corrected.

A rift of another kind also seemed to be on its way to settlement when Roman Catholic pope John Paul II sent greetings to the "thousand-year-old sister church as an expression of the heartfelt desire to achieve that perfect union that Christ wanted and that is basic to the nature of the Church." But how did a breach between 'sister churches' come about in the first place?

Loss of a Unity That Never Was

Early in the fourth century, after becoming emperor of the Roman Empire, Constantine the Great moved its capital from Rome to the Greek city of Byzantium, located on the shores of the Bosporus. It was renamed Constantinople, and we today know it as Istanbul, Turkey. The move was designed to unite an empire threatened with dismemberment. In fact, as early as the latter half of the second century, "the blueprint for a divided empire had already been sketched in outline, no matter how faintly," notes The New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Christianity had spread through the eastern part of the empire faster and more readily than through the western part. So Constantine saw in a universal (catholic) religion a force for unity. But even as the empire was basically split, so also was its religion. The Eastern church was more conservative than the one centered in Rome, and it resisted the theological innovations Rome offered. "Right up to the twelfth century there would be many political and theological disputes between the two churches," says The Collins Atlas of World History.

One of these theological disputes involved the Nicene Creed, which furthered the development of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine. As developed by the first three general councils held by the church (Nicaea in 325 C.E., Constantinople in 381 C.E., Ephesus in 431 C.E.), the creed spoke of the "Holy Ghost . . . who proceedeth from the Father." But at a council in the sixth century, the Western church changed the phrase to read "who proceedeth from the Father and the Son." This issue of the filioque (Latin for "and the son") was, and still is, a point of dispute between these "Christian" sister churches.

Disunity became more apparent when the western empire ended in 476 C.E., marking the start of the Dark Ages. As regards Christianity, the Dark Ages were indeed an era of intellectual darkness and ignorance. The gospel light of Christianity had been, for the time being, overwhelmed by the darkness of Christendom.

Religious darkness is not conducive to unity. "The various sections of the Christian world were constantly seeking for a unity which was never achieved," says former Canon of Canterbury Herbert Waddams. "It was not a case of full unity which was later broken," he says, adding that "the idea that Christendom was once one great united Church is a figment of the imagination."

A "Child" Is Born

The "child" born in 800 C.E. on Christmas Day grew up to be called holy. It was a restored western empire born after Pope Leo III broke with the Eastern church and crowned Charlemagne, king of the Franks, emperor. After a short interruption, the western empire was revived in 962 C.E. and later became known by a more pretentious title, Holy Roman Empire.

Actually, the name Roman Empire was a misnomer. The bulk of its territory, present-day Germany, Austria, western Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, eastern France, and the Low Countries, lay outside Italy. German lands and German rulers predominated, so its official name was later changed to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

The empire mixed religion with politics. Collier's Encyclopedia explains that the idea was "that there should be a single political head in the world, working in harmony with the universal Church, each with its own sphere and authority derived from God." But the line of demarcation was not always clear, thus leading to controversies. Particularly between the mid-11th and the mid-13th centuries, Church and State contended for European leadership. Some feel that religion's involvement in politics was unselfish and justified, but as author Waddams admits, "there is little doubt that papal ambition for power did play an important part in the development."

During its last century and a half of existence, the empire degenerated into a loose collection of nations under the shaky control of a common emperor. Most appropriate during this phase of its history are the words of French writer Voltaire, who said that it was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Finally, in 1806, gray with age and with nothing to recommend it for sainthood, the "holy child" died. In 1871 it was revived in the Second Reich (German for "empire") but collapsed in 1918, less than 50 years later. And in 1933, Adolf Hitler's Third Reich began its goose-step through Europe, only to come to an inglorious end in 1945 in the ruins of Berlin.

Germanic Influences in the West

The German reference work Meyers Illustrierte Weltgeschichte (Meyer's Illustrated World History) calls "the three pillars upon which Europe's Middle Ages rest . . . the heritage of classical antiquity in its late Roman mintage, Christianity, and finally the traditions taken over by the Germanic peoples from their ancestors." In corroboration, German author Emil Nack says: "The old Germanic annual festivals were often continued in the form of Christian holidays, since the church, as advised by Pope Gregory the Great, transformed many a pagan festival into a Christian one."

Observance of these religious festivals did not imply a deep sense of religiousness among Germanic peoples. Andreas Heusler, deceased authority on Germanic religion, describes it as being a religion that "forbade very little and demanded nothing of difficulty, including any mythological orthodoxy. A person was considered pious if he made his sacrifices, paid his temple tax, did not dishonor the sanctuary, and wrote no verses of mockery about the gods." He concludes: "It was hardly religious ardor. . . . A German's idealism did not lie in his religion."

Although ancient Germanic peoples believed in gods, they felt that there was actually a still higher power, one that had created the gods. This was "the power of fate," explains author Nack, which, he says, was "not swayed by sacrifices or prayers." Notwithstanding, fate was not viewed as "blindly arbitrary," since it operated in accordance with natural laws. So a person was viewed as "a free agent, not a victim."

Germanic religion had its roots in nature. Sacrifices were often held outdoors, in groves and forests. A Germanic myth speaks of a cosmic tree called Yggdrasill, where the gods daily held court. The Encyclopedia of Religion describes it: "[It rose] to the sky, and its branches spread over the entire world. . . . The symbolism of the tree is . . . mirrored in other traditions. In ancient Babylonia, for example, a cosmic tree, Kiskanu, grew in a holy place. . . . In ancient India, the universe is symbolized by an inverted tree. . . . [But] there is no proof of any Judeo-Christian element in the concept of Yggdrasill."

In view of this background, it is not surprising that in countries that have been strongly influenced by Germanic religion, people are often fatalistic, not very religious, and prone to say: 'Nature is my god!' It is also understandable that many of the pagan customs Germanic religion introduced into Christendom are nature-oriented. Christmas customs, such as using lights and mistletoe, burning the Yule log, or displaying a Christmas tree, are just a few examples.

Meanwhile, in the East

Always at odds with the Western church, the Eastern church was not at peace with itself either, as illustrated by the iconoclastic controversy. Icons, differing from the three-dimensional images, such as statues common in the Western church, are religious images or pictures on a flat surface, including raised work. They generally depict Christ, Mary, or a "saint." They became so popular in the East that, according to John S. Strong of Bates College, they came "to be viewed as direct mirrors or impressions of the figures they represented, [and] . . . were thus thought to be filled with sacred and potentially miraculous power." Nevertheless, in the early eighth century, Byzantine emperor Leo III prohibited their use. The controversy was not finally settled until 843 C.E., since which time the use of icons has been sanctioned in the Eastern church.

Another example of Eastern disunity comes from Egypt. While some Egyptian Catholics spoke Coptic, others spoke Greek, the two language groups disagreeing on the nature of Christ. Even though Byzantine authorities refused to admit it, this led to the de facto existence of two separate churches. All the while, each faction tried to maneuver one of its bishops into the position of patriarch of Alexandria.

Today, the Eastern church is still divided. Some churches of Eastern rite, known as Uniates, accept, for example, the jurisdiction of Rome's pope. The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the so-called lesser Eastern churches, on the other hand, do not.

Like Sheets of Fire

Long before the unholy, scarcely Roman non-Empire ended, "a legacy of hatred of Christians for other Christians had been implanted deep in the hearts of the Christian East," says Anglican churchman Waddams. Certainly, the sin of "Christian" hating "Christian," even if committed in darkness, did not go unnoticed in heaven but was as obvious as sheets of fire.

Furthermore, Christendom's sin of a divided house did not go unnoticed on earth. For example, a certain outstanding Arab of the seventh century C.E., who "knew a good deal about Christianity from his travels and from people close to him," says clergyman Waddams, was not impressed by "the disputes which he observed among Christians." This man sought a way better than the one offered by disunited Christendom. Did he find it? Today in 1989, fully 17 percent of the world population champion his cause. Who this man was and how he felt about "Submitting to God's Will" our next issue will answer.

[vancouver]

PART 3

ONWARD-SUBMITTING TO GOD'S WILL

"Of these messengers We have exalted some above others."-Al-Baqarah (s"urah 2), verse 253, from the Qur´"an

PEOPLE believing in an omnipotent, loving God recognize the wisdom of submitting to his will. They appreciate the guidance he has provided them through messengers entrusted with divine knowledge. Some of these messengers are recognized by more than one of the major world religions. For example, upwards of 800 million followers of Islam view the Judeo-Christian personalities Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus as major prophets of God. But a seventh, they believe, has been exalted above all other messengers-the prophet Mu"hammad.

The name Islam is meaningful, since it denotes submission or surrender-in this context, to the law and will of Allah. A person going this way of submission or surrender is termed a "Muslim," the active participle of the word islam. The one to whom Muslims are to be in submission is Allah. Viewed as a personal name, Allah is a contraction of Al-Ilah, Arabic words meaning "The God." The name appears in the Qur´"an some 2,700 times.

The Foremost Prophet of Islam

Mu"hammad bin Abdullah (the son of Abdullah), the founder of Islam, was born in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, about the year 570 C.E. He was dissatisfied with local polytheistic beliefs and rituals. He apparently felt no affinity for Judaism or for Christianity either. H. M. Baagil, a Muslim author, elaborates: "Because Christianity had deviated a long way from the original teachings of Jesus, Allah then sent as part of His original plan His last Prophet, Muhammad, as revivalist to restore all these changes."

Mu"hammad gave rituals and rites an Arabic flavor. Jerusalem and its temple were replaced by Mecca and its sacred shrine, the Kaaba. Saturday for Jews and Sunday for Christians were replaced by Friday as a day of communal prayer. And instead of either Moses or Jesus, Mu"hammad now came to be viewed by Muslims as God's foremost prophet.

When about 40, Mu"hammad declared that he had been called to be God's messenger. At first he shared his beliefs with relatives and friends, gradually building up a group of followers. The actual beginning of the Islamic era was in 622 C.E., when he emigrated from Mecca to Medina, an event called the hijrah, Arabic for "emigration." Thus, Muslim dates are given as A.H. (Anno Hegirae, year of the flight).

Mu"hammad tried to reconcile the Jews in Medina to his new religion and to his role as a prophet. But persuasion failed. They opposed him and plotted with his enemies both in Mecca and in Medina. In time the main groups of the Jews were driven out, and one clan, the Quray"zah, was destroyed by putting its men to death and enslaving the women and children.

Finally, Mecca was taken peacefully in 8 A.H. (630 C.E.), as was most of the Arabian Peninsula. A few decades after Mu"hammad's death, a controversy over succession led to such civil strife that, in reaction, the community adopted an almost accommodating stance toward non-Islamic groups and ideas.

More Than Just a Religion

Islam is a total way of life, encompassing the State, its laws, its social institutions, and its culture, and therefore it is not just a religion. This explains why the book Early Islam says that for over 600 years, "Islam was the world's most challenging religion, its strongest political force and its most vital culture."

Indeed, within a century after Mu"hammad's death, an Arabic empire, larger than the Roman Empire at its peak, stretched from India across North Africa to Spain, helping transmit inventions that enriched Western civilization. It made outstanding contributions in the fields of law, mathematics, astronomy, history, literature, geography, philosophy, architecture, medicine, music, and the social sciences.

Like a Meteor Soon Spent

"The Arab conquests were the direct product of the preaching of Muhammad," says The Collins Atlas of World History. Of course, other factors also contributed to Islamic expansion. For example, religious conflicts between the Christians of Byzantium and the Zoroastrians of Persia blinded them both to the Arab advance.

Striving to hold a far-flung empire together by means of religion was nothing new. But "Moslems were convinced that they possessed in the Koran the final and incontrovertible statement of truth," explains author Desmond Stewart. They became complacent, "believing that all that was worth knowing was already known, and that the ideas of non-Moslems were of no account." Changes were "stubbornly resisted."

Consequently, by the 11th century, the empire was already in decline. Stewart likens it to "a meteor streaking across the night sky [whose] . . . vitality soon spent itself." Thus, this religion, which created a sense of brotherhood and offered a comparatively easy way of personal approach to God, actually contributed to bringing down the very empire it had once helped create. As rapid as was its rise, so sudden was its demise. The empire was dead, but its religion lived on.

True submission includes obeying God, his laws, and his representatives. Mu"hammad succeeded in uniting the Arab tribes in Arabia, founding an Islamic community (Ummah) centered on him and the Qur'"an. It was a religious state wherein submission helped in making them brothers under one leader. Islam allowed the use of the sword in fighting the enemies of the Arab tribes. This sword helped to expand their empire and their religion. When Mu"hammad died, violent differences arose. These were in the first instance political, arising out of the question of choosing a Khalifah, a leader. It moved many to draw their swords to fight their brothers. The merging of religion with government served to divide the community. "Submission" could not unite the people under one leader.

Tradition says that Mu"hammad himself foresaw 72 heretical sects of Islam developing. But today some authorities speak of several hundred.

The two major divisions are the Shia and the Sunni. Each has, however, numerous subdivisions. Of every 100 Muslims, about 83 are Sunni and about 15 Shiite. The others belong to various sectarian groups as diverse as the Druze, the Black Muslims, and the Abangans of Indonesia, who mix Islam with Buddhism, Hinduism, and local religions.

A feature of the Shiite minority is its belief that religion and the Qur´"an have esoteric, or hidden, meanings. But it was over the question of succession that the Shiite schism actually arose. The Shiites (a word meaning "partisans," in reference to "the partisans of 'Al"i") hold to a doctrine called legitimism, claiming that the right of rulership is restricted to 'Al"i, Mu"hammad's cousin and son-in-law, and to 'Al"i's descendants.

'Al"i and his descendants were imams, leaders with absolute spiritual authority. There is disagreement on how many imams there have been, but the largest Shiite group, called the Twelver Shia, believe there have been 12. In 878 C.E. the 12th imam became "hidden," that is to say, he disappeared after promising that he would return at the end of the world to establish an Islamic government of justice.

Shiite Muslims annually commemorate the martyrdom of "Husayn, Mu"hammad's grandson. Comments author Rahman: "Fed from childhood with such representational enactments of this event, a Sh"i'"i Muslim is likely to develop a deep sense of tragedy and injustice resulting in an ideal of martyrdom."

Evidences of Disunity?

"The introduction of Greek philosophy and logic in the ninth century," comments The Columbia History of the World, "gave rise to a distinct Islamic philosophy (falsafa) which had a far-reaching impact on the rationalistic and theological outlook of Islam. . . . With the passage of time Islam itself, as a religion and way of life, underwent profound changes affecting its unity."

For example, Sufism, the Western term for Islamic mysticism, surfaced in the eighth and ninth centuries and rapidly developed into a mass religious movement. By the 12th century, Sufi orders, or brotherhoods, were widespread. The Sufi monastery began almost to overshadow the mosque in importance. Practices found in Sufism include autohypnotism induced by concentration techniques or frenzied dancing, the chanting of formulas, belief in miracles, and the worship of saints.

Sufis compromised with local customs and beliefs. Turks retained their shamanistic practices, Africans their medicine men, Indians their Hindu and pre-Hindu saints and deities, and Indonesians-as The New Encyclopaedia Britannica expresses it-their "pre-Isl"amic world view beneath an overlay of Isl"amic practices."

A noted sectarian development of more recent times is the Baha'i religion developed from Shiite Islam in mid-19th century Iran. Another is a Sunni sect called the A"hmad"iyah, which developed in late 19th-century India, when Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a self-proclaimed prophet, professed to be a manifestation of Mu"hammad, the returned Jesus, and an incarnation of the Hindu Krishna. He taught that Jesus, after escaping death at Golgotha, fled to India, where he remained active until his death at 120.

In his commentaries on the Qur´"an, Muslim author S. Abul A'la Maududi says: "At the time of the revelation of Al-Baqarah [the s"urah quoted at the head of this article], all sorts of hypocrites had begun to appear." These included "'Muslims,' mun"afiq"in (hypocrites) . . . who were intellectually convinced of the truth of Islam but did not have enough moral courage to give up their former traditions."

So from the very start, many followers evidently failed to submit to Allah in the way Mu"hammad intended. But others did. To ward off the challenge they presented, Christendom was not above "Resorting to the Sword," as will be described in our next issue.

Footnotes:-

"Qur´"an" (which means "recitation") is the spelling favored by Muslim writers and which we will use here rather than the Western form "Koran."

The common view that Islam is strictly an Arab religion is incorrect. Most of today's Muslims are non-Arabs. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, has 150 million adherents.

To Help You Better Understand Islam

The Five Pillars of Islam require that Muslims at least once publicly make the confession of faith known as the Shah"adah-"There is no god but God; Mu"hammad is the prophet of God"; say prayers five times a day; pay zakat, an obligatory tax, now usually collected on a voluntary basis; fast from sunup to sundown during the ninth month, Ramadan; and at least once, if financially able, take the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca.

"Jihad" ("holy war" or "holy struggle") is viewed as a sixth pillar by the Khariji sect but not by Muslims in general. Its purpose, says The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, "is not the conversion of individuals to Isl"am but rather the gaining of political control over the collective affairs of societies to run them in accordance with the principles of Isl"am." The Qur´"an allows for such a "holy war," saying: "You shall not kill any man whom Allah has forbidden you to kill, except for a just cause."-S"urah 17:33.

The main sources of Islamic doctrine and law are the Qur´"an, written over a period of about a quarter century; sunnah (traditions); ijm"a' (consensus of the community); and qiy"as (individual thought). The Islamic law code, the Shar"i'ah, dealing with the total religious, political, social, domestic, and private life of Muslims, was systematized during the eighth and ninth centuries C.E.

Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem, in that order, are Islam's three most sacred places: Mecca because of its Kaaba sanctuary, which tradition says Abraham built; Medina, where Mu"hammad's mosque is located; and Jerusalem because from there, tradition says Mu"hammad made his ascent into heaven.

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
Ok - if I admit if there was no trinity there would be no evidence.
You all know my science views (lets not go into atomic structure again) now look at my trinity of social science:

1) there are three christian religions:
protestants (St Pauls), Catholics (St Peters) and Orthodox (St Sofia).

2) there are three judiac religions:
Jewish, christian and Muslim.

3) there are three global religions:
judiac (one god), hindu (multi-god), buddhist (not necessary any god).

Mohammed was told he would be the LAST and thus God, using Mohammed has decreed that there will be THREE.

A question: I vaguely remember that the Qu'ran says something about "42 Christian sects". I am very interested in this. Was 42 the number mentioned? Can someone let me know the Qu'ran verse that says the number?

[Rasha]

I believe its more like 70 or 71, or 73. I can't remember which though!

And this refers to the sects.. I mean catholics are not just one division... there are people call themselves jahovahs witnesses, mormons...etc. All together there is a 70 or something.... and this is not in the Quraan. It is in a hadith (saying of the prophet).

[vancouver]

It was Muhammad who saw 72 heretical sects of Islam. He prophesied that number to come. There are well over 100 sects in Christendom. I believe that instead of starting a new sect the Jehovah's Witnesses is a revival of the early christians and a continuation of the true witnesses of God from the first witness Abel(the first good male child of Adam and Eve). The Bible writers were very quiet about female children but they were just as important in God's eyes. God used women in vital ways to promote true worship.

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
thanks for that. It was only a light-weight (joke) type question. There is a famous athiest writer (very funny chap) called Douglas Adams. He wrote "the hitch-hikers guide to the universe". He is famous for saying: "the meaning of life is 42"

http://www.epinions.com/book-review-7C38-68B7EE3-395A31EA-prod1

There is something about the "Book Of Job" in the bible and 42? Is it the number of chapters? the number of times god is called in plural form in the book? there is something 42-ish - I was just going to paste it on the athiest board.

[vancouver]

Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy. That was very funny. Mice were found out to be in charge and experimenting on humans. The answer was 42 and the question was why are we here and everything? We were kept in suspense right to the end. Demolish the earth to build a super highway- that was funny.

Yes there are 42 chapters in Job.

It tells us there why God allows suffering to come upon us.:-

Job 1:6-12 ***

6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.

7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: "Where do you come from?" At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: "From roving about in the earth and from walking about in it." 8 And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: "Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad?" 9 At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: "Is it for nothing that Job has feared God? 10 Have not you yourself put up a hedge about him and about his house and about everything that he has all around? The work of his hands you have blessed, and his livestock itself has spread abroad in the earth. 11 But, for a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch everything he has [and see] whether he will not curse you to your very face." 12 Accordingly Jehovah said to Satan: "Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only against him himself do not thrust out your hand!" So Satan went out away from the person of Jehovah.

The sons of the true God were angels including Satan who had decided to go against god when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. Satan did his utmost to get Job to turn against God but he failed even though he bought a tremendous amount of suffering to him. So now we know who wreaks havok on the earth.

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-03-02 AT 01:10 AM (GMT)]PART 4

1095-1453 C.E.-Resorting to the Sword

"Men will wrangle for religion, write for it, fight for it, die for it; anything but live for it."-Charles Caleb Colton, 19th-century English clergyman

CHRISTIANITY in its early years was blessed with believers who lived their religion. In defense of their faith, they zealously wielded "the sword of the spirit, that is, God's word." (Ephesians 6:17) But later, as events between 1095 and 1453 illustrated, nominal Christians, not living true Christianity, resorted to using other kinds of swords.

By the sixth century, the Western Roman Empire was defunct. It had been replaced by its Eastern counterpart, the Byzantine Empire with Constantinople as its capital. But their respective churches, suffering the shakiest of relationships, soon saw themselves threatened by a mutual foe, the rapidly spreading Islamic domain.

The Eastern church realized this, at the latest, when in the seventh century the Muslims captured Egypt and other parts of the Byzantine Empire located in North Africa.

Less than a century later, the Western church was shocked to see Islam moving through Spain into France, reaching to within some one hundred miles [160 km] of Paris. Many Spanish Catholics converted to Islam, while others adopted Muslim manners and embraced Muslim culture. "Embittered by its losses," says the book Early Islam, "the Church worked ceaselessly among its Spanish sons to fan the flames of vengeance."

Several centuries later, after Spanish Catholics had regained most of their land, they "turned on their Moslem subjects and persecuted them without mercy. They forced them to deny their faith, drove them from the country, and took drastic steps to uproot every trace of Spanish-Moslem culture."

At Swords' Points

In 1095 Pope Urban II called on European Catholics to take up the literal sword. Islam was to be deposed from the holy lands of the Middle East to which Christendom claimed exclusive rights.

The idea of a "just" war was not new. For example, it had been invoked in the fight against Muslims in Spain and Sicily. And at least a decade before Urban's appeal, says Karlfried Froehlich of Princeton Theological Seminary, Pope Gregory VII "envisaged a militia Christi for the fight against all enemies of God and thought already of sending an army to the East."

Urban's action was partially in response to a request for help from Byzantine emperor Alexius. But since relations between the Eastern and the Western parts of Christendom seemed to be improving, the pope may also have been motivated by the possibility this offered of reuniting the bickering sister churches. At any rate, he convoked the Council of Clermont, which declared that those willing to engage in this "holy" undertaking were to be granted a plenary indulgence (the remission of all penance for sin). The response was unexpectedly positive. "Deus volt" ("God wills it") became a rallying cry in East and West.

A series of military expeditions began that covered the better part of two centuries. At first the Muslims thought the intruders were Byzantines. But after realizing their true origin, they called them Franks, the Germanic people from whom France later got its name. To meet the challenge of these European "barbarians," sentiment grew among the Muslims for a jihad, a holy war or struggle.

British professor Desmond Stewart points out: "For every scholar or merchant who planted the seeds of Islamic civilization by precept and example, there was a soldier for whom Islam was a call to battle." By the second half of the 12th century, Muslim leader Nureddin had built an efficient military force by unifying the Muslims in northern Syria and upper Mesopotamia. So "just as Christians of the Middle Ages took up arms to advance the religion of Christ," continues Stewart, "Moslems took up arms to advance the religion of the Prophet."

Of course, advancing the causes of religion was not always the motivating force. The book The Birth of Europe notes that for most Europeans, the Crusades "offered an irresistible opportunity to win fame, or collect booty, or carve out new estates, or rule whole countries-or just to escape the humdrum in glorious adventuring." Italian merchants also saw an opportunity to establish trading outposts in Eastern Mediterranean lands. But regardless of motive, all were apparently willing to die for their religion-be it in a "just" war of Christendom or in a Muslim jihad.

The Sword Brings Unexpected Results

"Although the Crusades were directed against the Muslims in the East," says The Encyclopedia of Religion, "the zeal of the Crusaders was exercised on the Jews who lived in the lands from which the Crusaders were recruited, that is, in Europe. A popular motif among the Crusaders was vengeance for the death of Jesus, and the Jews became the first victims. Persecution of the Jews occurred in Rouen in 1096, followed quickly by massacres in Worms, Mainz, and Cologne." This was but a forerunner of the anti-Semitic spirit of the Holocaust days of Nazi Germany.

The Crusades also increased the East-West tension that had been growing since 1054, when Patriarch Michael Cerularius of the East and Cardinal Humbert of the West mutually excommunicated each other. When the Crusaders replaced the Greek clergymen with Latin bishops in the cities they captured, the East-West schism came down to touch the common folk.

The break between the two churches became complete during the Fourth Crusade when, according to former Anglican Canon of Canterbury Herbert Waddams, Pope Innocent III played "a double game." On the one hand, the pope was indignant about the sacking of Constantinople. He wrote: "How can the Church of the Greeks be expected to return to devotion to the Apostolic See when it has seen the Latins setting an example of evil and doing the devil's work so that already, and with good reason, the Greeks hate them worse than dogs." On the other hand, he readily took advantage of the situation by establishing a Latin kingdom there under a western patriarch.

After two centuries of almost continuous fighting, the Byzantine Empire was so weakened that it was unable to withstand the onslaughts of the Ottoman Turks, who, on May 29, 1453, finally captured Constantinople. The empire had been slashed down not simply by an Islamic sword but by the sword wielded by the empire's sister church in Rome as well. Divided Christendom had given Islam a convenient base for moving into Europe.

The Swords of Politics and Persecution

The Crusades strengthened the papacy's position of religious and political leadership. They "gave the popes a controlling hand in European diplomacy," writes historian John H. Mundy. Before long "the church was Europe's greatest government . . . , [able] to wield more political power than any other Western government."

This climb to power had become possible when the Western Roman Empire collapsed. The church was left as the sole unifying power in the West and therefore began playing a more active political role in society than did the Eastern church, which at that time was still under a strong secular ruler, the Byzantine emperor. This political eminence held by the Western church lent credence to its claim of papal primacy, an idea the Eastern church rejected. While allowing that the pope was worthy of honor, the Eastern church disagreed that he had final authority on doctrine or jurisdiction.

Driven by political power and misguided religious conviction, the Roman Catholic Church reached for the sword to stamp out opposition. Hunting down heretics became its business. History professors Miroslav Hroch and Anna Skýbová of Karls University in Prague, Czechoslovakia, describe how the Inquisition, the special tribunal designed to deal with heresies, operated: "Contrary to general practice, the names of informers . . . did not have to be revealed." Pope Innocent IV issued the bull "Ad extirpanda" in 1252, which allowed torture. "Being burned at the stake, the usual method employed to put heretics to death by the 13th century, . . . had its symbolism, implying that by administering this kind of punishment, the church was not guilty of shedding blood."

The inquisitors punished tens of thousands of persons. Other thousands were burned at the stake, leading historian Will Durant to comment: "Making every allowance required of an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition . . . as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."

The events of the Inquisition recall the words of Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French philosopher and scientist, who wrote: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." Of a truth, swinging the sword of persecution against persons of a differing religious persuasion has been characteristic of false religion ever since Cain struck down Abel.-Genesis 4:8.

Severed by the Sword of Disunity

Nationalistic dissension and political maneuvering led in 1309 to the transfer of the papal residence from Rome to Avignon. Although it was restored to Rome in 1377, further strife was caused shortly thereafter with the choosing of a new pope, Urban VI. But the same group of cardinals who elected him also elected a rival pope, Clement VII, who settled in Avignon. Things became even more confused at the start of the 15th century, when for a short time three popes were ruling simultaneously!

This situation, known as the Western, or Great, Schism, was ended by the Council of Constance. It invoked the principle of conciliarism, the theory that final ecclesiastical authority lies in general councils and not in the papacy. Thus, in 1417 the council was able to elect Martin V as the new pope. Although once again united, the church had been seriously weakened. Despite the scars, however, the papacy refused to recognize any need for reform. According to John L. Boojamra, of Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, this failure "laid the foundation for the Reformation of the sixteenth century."

Were They Living Their Religion?

The Founder of Christianity instructed his followers to make disciples but did not tell them to use physical force in doing so. In fact, he specifically warned that "all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." Similarly, he did not instruct his followers to abuse physically anyone who was unfavorably disposed. The Christian principle to be observed was: "A slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed."-Matthew 26:52; 2 Timothy 2:24, 25.

By resorting to the literal sword of war, as well as to the symbolic swords of politics and persecution, Christendom was clearly not following the lead of the One it professed to have as Founder. Already wracked by disunity, it was threatened with total collapse. Roman Catholicism was "A Religion Badly in Need of Reform." But would reform come? If so, when? From whom? Our next issue will tell us more.

Fine Christian Warfare?

Were the Crusades the fine warfare Christians were instructed to wage?-2 Corinthians 10:3, 4; 1 Timothy 1:18.

The First Crusade (1096-99) resulted in the recapture of Jerusalem and the establishment of four Latin states in the East: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, and the County of Tripoli. An authority quoted by historian H. G. Wells says of the capture of Jerusalem: "The slaughter was terrible; the blood of the conquered ran down the streets, until men splashed in blood as they rode. At nightfall, 'sobbing for excess of joy,' the crusaders came to the Sepulchre from their treading of the winepress, and put their blood-stained hands together in prayer."

The Second Crusade (1147-49) was initiated because of the loss of the County of Edessa to Syrian Muslims in 1144; it ended when the Muslims successfully turned back Christendom's "infidels."

The Third Crusade (1189-92), undertaken after the Muslims retook Jerusalem, had as one of its leaders Richard I, "the Lionhearted," of England. It soon "disintegrated," says The Encyclopedia of Religion, "through attrition, quarreling, and lack of cooperation."

The Fourth Crusade (1202-4) was diverted for lack of funds from Egypt to Constantinople; material assistance was promised in return for helping enthrone Alexius, an exiled Byzantine pretender to the crown. "The [resulting] pillage of Constantinople by the Crusaders is something that the Orthodox East has never forgotten or forgiven," says The Encyclopedia of Religion, adding: "If any single date is to be cited for the firm establishment of the schism, the most appropriate-at any rate from a psychological standpoint-is the year 1204."

The Children's Crusade (1212) brought death to thousands of German and French children before they even reached their destination.

The Fifth Crusade (1217-21), the last under papal control, failed because of flawed leadership and clergy interference.

The Sixth Crusade (1228-29) was led by Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, whom Pope Gregory IX had previously excommunicated.

The Seventh and Eighth Crusades (1248-54 and 1270-72) were led by Louis IX of France but collapsed after his death in North Africa.

[sahi_muslim]

Assalaamoalaikum
This is the hadeeth someone was referring to
Sunan Abu Dawood
Book 40, Number 4579:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.

w'salam

[vancouver]

Thats correct. Islam(72 heretical and one true).

[Rasha]

of course its correct.... the prophet said it, it must be correct. And it didn't mean 72 heretics... just doing bid'a and stuff... bi'da is innovation, which include things that are like... celebrating on ocations we are told not to celebrate on, doing things which involve shirk in Allah and so on.

As a matter of fact, most muslims today have lost their zeal and jelousy for this Deen that we do not see lots fight for the sake of this religion.

of all the types of muslims i met, out of the 72 i'd say there are probably like 10 or 20 who are a bit "heretic" as you called them. Most muslims today just want to practice their religion in peace, they are westernizing i guess... which is not good. The one sect that the prophet talked about (in my opinion only) is the one who maintains a balance. We practice the sunnah, are peaceful so long as no one transgresses his bounds. For example, the palestinians are fighting for their land and freedom, the israeli have crossed their land (as signed with the agreement i dunno what year) and so, they are fighting for freedom and protection of their rights.. this is ok. However, going out and killing the non muslims just for the fun of it when they have not harmed you is not of islam.

Anyways this is not a political board... so... i'll stop.

peace

[vancouver]

I was merely quoting what tradition said Muhammad said:-

"Tradition says that 'Muhammad himself foresaw 72 heretical sects of Islam developing'. But today some authorities speak of several hundred".

[Netcurtains]

Hi,

This trinty stuff is just a load of balony!

Christians believe in one god. There is no logical reason why there should just be one god but nevertheless we believe it.

Where we differ from Islamic people is that we believe god can take human form - he or she can be a human being.

The torah and bible (and possibly the Koran) all say "we were made in the image of god".

Explain why you think god cannot take human form?

Ps the word god is derived from the pagan anglo-saxon word GOOD.
To our ancient pagan anglo-saxon ancestors god was explained to us by irish monks as being good. I think this explains the anglo-saxon world view on god. If god no longer appears to anglo-saxons to be good then they will no longer believe in god. Bin Laden has probably made some anglo-saxon christians give up on god. does he know - does he care?

[vancouver]

We were made in God's image in the sense of attributes. That is the four main ones of Love, Justice, Power and Wisdom. These are the four main attributes of God and he has given them to man. Man though through his chosen imperfection has often abused all four of these. God would never make himself vulnerable by becoming a man. Jesus was very vulnerable and had impicit trust and faith that God would resurrect him after his death. Remember for parts of three days Jesus did not exist. God is the only one that cannot cease to exist.

[Netcurtains]

you are missing something.

[vancouver]

PART 5

9th-16th century C.E.-A Religion Badly in Need of Reform

"Every abuse ought to be reformed."-Voltaire, 18th-century French essayist and historian

EARLY Christians taught no purgatory, worshiped no images, honored no "saints," and venerated no relics. They did not engage in politics and did not resort to carnal warfare. But by the 15th century, none of this was any longer true of many who professed to be their imitators.

"Heretics" Call for Reform

"The first seedbeds of heresy [against Roman Catholicism] appeared in France and northern Italy around the year 1000," says The Collins Atlas of World History. Some of the early so-called heretics were heretics only in the eyes of the church. It is difficult today to judge accurately to what extent individual heretics adhered to early Christianity. Nevertheless, it is apparent that at least some of them were trying to do so.

At the start of the ninth century, Archbishop Agobard of Lyons condemned image worship and the invocation of "saints." An 11th-century archdeacon, Berengar of Tours, was excommunicated for questioning transubstantiation, the claim that the bread and the wine used at Catholic Mass are turned into Christ's actual body and blood. A century later Peter de Bruys and Henry of Lausanne rejected infant baptism and worship of the cross. For doing so, Henry lost his freedom; Peter lost his life.

"By the middle of the twelfth century the towns of Western Europe were honeycombed with heretical sects," reports historian Will Durant. The most significant of these groups were the Waldenses. They gained prominence at the end of the 12th century under French merchant Pierre Valdès (Peter Waldo). Among other things, they disagreed with the church on Mary worship, confession to priests, Masses for the dead, papal indulgences, priestly celibacy, and the use of carnal weapons. The movement quickly spread throughout France and northern Italy, as well as into Flanders, Germany, Austria, and Bohemia (Czechoslovakia).

Meanwhile, in England, Oxford scholar John Wycliffe, later known as "the morning star of the English Reformation," was condemning 'the power-grasping hierarchy' of the 14th century. By translating the entire Bible into English, he and his associates made it generally available to common citizens for the first time. Wycliffe's followers were named Lollards. The Lollards preached publicly, distributing tracts and portions of the Bible. Such "heretical" behavior did not sit well with the church.

Wycliffe's ideas spread abroad. In Bohemia they caught the attention of Jan Hus (John Huss), rector of the University of Prague. Hus questioned the legitimacy of the papacy and denied that the church had been founded on Peter. Following a controversy over the selling of indulgences, Hus was tried for heresy and burned at the stake in 1415. According to Catholic teaching, indulgences are a provision whereby punishment for sins can be partially or fully remitted, thereby shortening or eliminating the period of time during which a person suffers temporary punishment and purification in purgatory before entering heaven.

Calls for reform continued. Girolamo Savonarola, 15th-century Italian Dominican preacher, deplored: 'Popes and prelates speak against pride and ambition, and they are plunged in it up to their ears. They preach chastity and keep mistresses. They think only of the world and worldly things; they care nothing for souls.' Even Catholic cardinals recognized the problem. In 1538, in a memorandum to Pope Paul III, they called his attention to parochial, financial, judicial, and moral abuses. But the papacy failed to make the obviously needed reforms, and this provoked the Protestant Reformation. The early leaders included Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin.

Luther and '16th-Century Bingo'

On October 31, 1517, Luther set the religious world aflame when he attacked the sale of indulgences by nailing a list of 95 points of protest to the church door in Wittenberg.

The selling of indulgences originated during the Crusades, when they were granted to believers willing to risk their lives in a "holy" war. Later they were extended to people offering financial support to the church. Soon, indulgences became a convenient method of raising money for building churches, monasteries, or hospitals. "The noblest monuments of the Middle Ages were financed in this way," says professor of religious history Roland Bainton, dubbing indulgences "the bingo of the sixteenth century."

With the sharp tongue for which he became noted, Luther asked: "If the pope does have the power to release anyone from purgatory [on the basis of indulgences], why in the name of love does he not abolish purgatory by letting everyone out?" When asked to contribute money to a Roman building project, Luther retorted that the pope "would do better to sell St. Peter's and give the money to the poor folk who are being fleeced by the hawkers of indulgences."

Luther also attacked Catholic antisemitism, advising: "We should use toward the Jews not the pope's but Christ's law of love." And regarding the worship of relics, he ridiculed: "One claims to have a feather from the wing of the angel Gabriel, and the Bishop of Mainz has a flame from Moses' burning bush. And how does it happen that eighteen apostles are buried in Germany when Christ had only twelve?"

The church responded to Luther's attacks with excommunication. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, bowing to papal pressure, put Luther under ban. This created such controversy that in 1530 the Diet of Augsburg was called to discuss the matter. Efforts at compromise failed, so a basic statement of Lutheran doctrinal belief was issued. Called the Augsburg Confession, it amounted to a birth announcement of Protestantism's first church.

Zwingli and Luther Disagree

Zwingli stressed the Bible as being the ultimate and sole authority for the church. Although encouraged by Luther's example, he objected to being called Lutheran, saying he had learned Christ's teaching from God's Word, not from Luther. In fact, he disagreed with Luther on certain elements of the Lord's Evening Meal as well as on a Christian's proper relationship to civil authorities.

The two reformers met only once, in 1529, at what the book The Reformation Crisis calls "a kind of religious summit conference." The book says: "The two men did not part friends, but . . . a communiqué issued at the end of the conference, signed by all the participants, skillfully disguised the extent of the rift."

Zwingli also had problems with his own followers. In 1525 a group broke away, disagreeing with him on the issue of State authority over the Church, which he affirmed and they denied. Called Anabaptists ("rebaptizers"), they viewed infant baptism as a useless formality, saying that baptism was only for adult believers. They also opposed the use of carnal weapons, even in so-called just wars. Thousands of them were put to death for their beliefs.

Calvin's Role in the Reformation

Many scholars view Calvin as the greatest of the reformers. He insisted that the church return to the original principles of Christianity. Yet one of his main teachings, predestination, is reminiscent of teachings in ancient Greece, where Stoics said that Zeus determines all things and that men must resign themselves to the inevitable. The doctrine is clearly not Christian.

During Calvin's day French Protestants became known as Huguenots, and they were severely persecuted. In France, beginning on August 24, 1572, in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, Catholic forces struck down thousands of them, first in Paris and then throughout the country. But the Huguenots also took up the sword and were responsible for killing many during bloody religious wars during the latter part of the 16th century. They thus chose to ignore the instruction given by Jesus: "Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you."-Matthew 5:44.

Calvin had set the example, using methods to promote his religious convictions that the late Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick described as ruthless and shocking. Under the church law that Calvin introduced to Geneva, 58 people were executed and 76 were banished within four years; by the end of the 16th century, an estimated 150 had been burned at the stake. One of these was Michael Servetus, a Spanish physician and theologian, who rejected the Trinity doctrine, thereby becoming Everyman's "heretic." Catholic authorities burned him in effigy; the Protestants went a significant step further by burning him at the stake.

Finally, "A Fearful Reality"

While agreeing with Luther in principle, some would-be reformers held back. One was Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus. In 1516 he became the first to publish the "New Testament" in the original Greek. "He was a reformer," says the publication Edinburgh Review, "until the Reformation became a fearful reality."

Others, however, pushed ahead with the Reformation, and in Germany and Scandinavia, Lutheranism spread rapidly. In 1534 England broke away from papal control. Scotland, under Reformation leader John Knox, soon followed. In France and Poland, Protestantism found legal recognition before the end of the 16th century.

Yes, as Voltaire so aptly expressed it, "Every abuse ought to be reformed." But Voltaire added the qualifying words, "Unless the reform is more dangerous than the abuse itself." To appreciate better the truthfulness of those words, be sure to read "Protestantism-Really a Reformation?" in our next issue.

[Netcurtains]

At the end of the bible:

"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING star. " Revelations

At the beginning of the bible:

"God liked to walk in the garden of edan in the COOL of the MORNING" Genesis

God is COOL and he is the MORNING STAR - but more, much more then this (Frank Sinatra) - he liked to WALK.

This ideas are just floating into my head from no where - the atoms and electrons that make up my brain waves are just handing me this information - whereas you are beginning to look like cutting and pasting is creeping in again - or is it?

[vancouver]

Since God is a Spirit beyond the power of humans to see (Joh 4:24), any description of his appearance in human terms can only approximate his incomparable glory. (Isa 40:25, 26) While not actually seeing their Creator (Joh 1:18), certain of his servants were given inspired visions of his heavenly courts. Their description of his presence portrays not only great dignity and awesome majesty but also serenity, order, beauty, and pleasantness.-Ex 24:9-11; Isa 6:1; Eze 1:26-28; Da 7:9; Re 4:1-3; see also Ps 96:4-6.

As can be noted, these descriptions employ metaphors and similes, likening Jehovah's appearance to things known to humans-jewels, fire, rainbow. He is even described as though he had certain human features. While some scholars make a considerable issue out of what they call the anthropomorphological expressions found in the Bible-as references to God's "eyes," "ears," "face" (1Pe 3:12), "arm" (Eze 20:33), "right hand" (Ex 15:6), and so forth-it is obvious that such expressions are necessary for the description to be humanly comprehensible. For Jehovah God to set down for us a description of himself in spirit terms would be like supplying advanced algebraic equations to persons having only the most elementary knowledge of mathematics, or trying to explain colors to a person born blind.-Job 37:23, 24.

The so-called anthropomorphisms, therefore, are never to be taken literally, any more than other metaphoric references to God as a "sun," "shield," or "Rock." (Ps 84:11; De 32:4, 31) Jehovah's sight (Ge 16:13), unlike that of humans, does not depend on light rays, and deeds done in utter darkness can be seen by him. (Ps 139:1, 7-12; Heb 4:13) His vision can encompass all the earth (Pr 15:3), and he needs no special equipment to see the growing embryo within the human womb. (Ps 139:15, 16) Nor does his hearing depend on sound waves in an atmosphere, for he can "hear" expressions though uttered voicelessly in the heart. (Ps 19:14) Man cannot successfully measure even the vast physical universe; yet the physical heavens do not embrace or enclose the place of God's residence, and much less does some earthly house or temple. (1Ki 8:27; Ps 148:13) Through Moses, Jehovah specifically warned the nation of Israel not to make an image of Him in the form of a male or of any kind of created thing. (De 4:15-18) So, whereas Luke's account records Jesus' reference to expelling demons "by means of God's finger," Matthew's account shows that Jesus thereby referred to "God's spirit," or active force.-Lu 11:20; Mt 12:28; compare Jer 27:5 and Ge 1:2.

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
you reeled out a great big list of famous historical christians. What you failed mention was all these protestants "evolved" from the Catholic church - not the orthadox church (which being next to islamic states already must be aware that many people did not accept jesus as god). You make these western protestants to be the high-water mark of the christian faith for their time. This must mean that Catholic monks who originally educated these people were great teachers. The ordinary catholic priests were doing a reasonable job of passing the gospel on. You can't really have one without the other - IMHO. ps - I'm off out now - but feel free to reply - I might reply tomorrow or very much later tonight.

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-03-02 AT 10:16 PM (GMT)]There was not much good to say about those protestants as you are about to find out in PART 6.

[vancouver]

PART 6

1530 ONWARD-PROTESTANTISM-A REFORMATION?

"To innovate is not to reform."-Edmund Burke, 18th-century member of Britain's Parliament

PROTESTANT historians view the Protestant Reformation as having restored genuine Christianity. Catholic scholars, on the other hand, say it resulted in theological error. However, what does the rearview mirror of religious history reveal? Was the Protestant Reformation really a reformation, or was it simply an innovation, replacing one flawed form of worship with another?

God's Word Given Special Status

Protestant reformers emphasized the importance of the Scriptures. They rejected traditions, although Martin Marty, senior editor of The Christian Century magazine, says that during the past century, "more and more Protestants have been willing to see a relationship between the Bible and tradition." This was not true of their "ancestors in faith," however. For them "the Bible held a special status, and tradition or papal authority could never match it."

This attitude accelerated interest in the translation, distribution, and study of the Bible. During the mid-15th century-over half a century before Reformation wheels were set rolling-Luther's fellow German Johannes Gutenberg provided forthcoming Protestantism with a useful tool. Having developed a method of printing from movable type, Gutenberg produced the first printed Bible. Luther saw in this invention great possibilities, and he called printing "God's latest and best work to spread the true religion throughout the world."

More people could now possess their own Bible, a development the Catholic Church did not endorse. In 1559 Pope Paul IV ruled that no Bible could be printed in the vernacular without church approval, and this the church refused to grant. In fact, in 1564 Pope Pius IV stated: "Experience has shown that if reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue is permitted indiscriminately, . . . more harm than good arises therefrom."

The Reformation produced a new kind of "Christianity." It replaced the authority of the papacy with individual free choice. Catholic Mass was replaced by the Protestant liturgy, and awesome Catholic cathedrals by normally less pretentious Protestant churches.

Unexpected Benefits

History teaches us that movements originally religious in nature often take on social and political overtones. This proved to be true of the Protestant Reformation. Columbia University professor of history Eugene F. Rice, Jr., elaborates: "In the Middle Ages the Western church had been a European corporation. During the first half of the sixteenth century it broke apart into a large number of local territorial churches . . . [over which] secular rulers exercised a predominant control." This resulted in "the culmination of the long medieval struggle between secular and clerical authority. . . . The balance of power swung decisively and finally from church to state and from priest to layman."

For the individual this meant greater liberty, both religious and civil. Unlike Catholicism, Protestantism had no central agency to monitor doctrine or practice, thus allowing for a wide spectrum of religious opinion. This, in turn, gradually promoted a religious tolerance and liberal attitude that at the time of the Reformation was still inconceivable.

Greater freedom unleashed previously unused energies. It was the stimulus, some claim, that was needed to trigger the social, political, and technological developments responsible for thrusting us into our modern age. The Protestant work ethic was "translated into both government and daily life," writes the late author Theodore White. He defined this as "the credo that man is responsible directly before God for his conscience and his acts, without the intervention or intercession of priests. . . . If a man worked hard, plowed deep, neither slacked nor slothed, and took care of his wife and children, then either fortune or God would reward his efforts."

Should these apparently positive aspects of Protestantism blind us to its shortcomings? The Protestant Reformation was also "the occasion for enormous evils," says the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, adding: "The age of the Jesuits and the Inquisition was brought to an end . . . only to be followed by something lower still. If there was much honest ignorance in the Middle Ages, there is much organized falsehood now."

"Organized Falsehood"-In What Respect?

It was "organized falsehood" because Protestantism promised doctrinal reform but failed to deliver. Often, it was church policy, not the untruthfulness of doctrine, that raised the ire of reformers. For the most part, Protestantism retained Catholicism's pagan-tainted religious ideas and practices. How? An outstanding example is the Trinity doctrine, which is the main basis for membership in the Protestant World Council of Churches. Adherence to this doctrine is very strong, although The Encyclopedia of Religion admits that 'exegetes and theologians today agree that nowhere in the Bible is the doctrine explicitly taught.'

Did Protestantism reform a corrupt form of church government? No. Instead, it "carried over authority patterns from medieval Catholicism," says Martin Marty, and "simply broke from Roman Catholic establishment to form Protestant versions."

Protestantism also promised to restore "the oneness in the faith." However, this Biblical promise went unfulfilled with the development of many divisive Protestant sects.-Ephesians 4:13.

Organized Confusion-Why?

Today, in 1989, Protestantism has crumbled into so many sects and denominations that it would be impossible to determine the total number. Before a person could finish counting, new groups would have been formed or others would have disappeared.

Nevertheless, the World Christian Encyclopedia does the "impossible" by dividing Christendom (as of 1980) into "20,780 distinct Christian denominations," the vast majority of which are Protestant. They include 7,889 classic Protestant groups, 10,065 mostly Protestant nonwhite indigenous religions, 225 Anglican denominations, and 1,345 marginal Protestant groups.

In explanation of how this confusing diversity, called both "a sign of health and of sickness," came about, the book Protestant Christianity mentions that it "may be due to human creativity and human finitude; even more it may be due to prideful men who think too highly of their own outlook upon life."

How true! Without giving sufficient consideration to divine truth, prideful men offer new alternatives for finding salvation, liberation, or fulfillment. Religious pluralism finds no support in the Bible.

In promoting religious pluralism, Protestantism seems to imply that God has no set guidelines according to which he is to be worshiped. Is such organized confusion consistent with a God of truth, who the Bible says "is a God, not of disorder, but of peace"? Is the often heard Protestant go-to-the-church-of-your-choice mentality any different from the independent thinking that led Adam and Eve into erroneous belief and subsequent trouble?-1 Corinthians 14:33; see Genesis 2:9; 3:17-19.

Ignoring the Bible's Special Status

Despite the special status assigned the Bible by early reformers, Protestant theologians later fathered higher criticism and "thus treated the biblical text," says Marty, "as they would any other ancient literary text." They granted "no special status to the inspiration of biblical authors."

By calling into question the divine inspiration of the Bible, therefore, Protestant theologians undermined faith in what the Reformers considered to be the very foundation of Protestantism. This opened the way for skepticism, freethinking, and rationalism. Not without reason, many scholars view the Reformation as a major cause of modern secularism.

Caught Up in Politics

The above-mentioned fruitage is clear evidence that despite the possibly good intentions of individual reformers and their followers, Protestantism did not restore true Christianity. Instead of promoting peace through Christian neutrality, it became embroiled in nationalism.

This was apparent as soon as the division of Christendom into Catholic and Protestant nations became reality. Catholic and Protestant forces trailed blood across the face of continental Europe in a dozen or more wars. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls them "Wars of Religion kindled by the German and Swiss Reformation of the 1520s." The most noted of these was the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), which involved both political and religious differences between German Protestants and Catholics.

Blood flowed in England too. Between 1642 and 1649, King Charles I waged war against Parliament. Since most of the King's opponents belonged to the Puritan wing of the Church of England, the war is sometimes referred to as the Puritan Revolution. It ended with the King's execution and the establishment of a short-lived Puritan commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. Although this English Civil War was not foremost a religious struggle, historians agree that religion was a determining factor in selecting sides.

During this war, the religious group known as Friends, or Quakers, came into being. The group met with strong opposition from its Protestant "brothers." Several hundred members died in prison, and thousands suffered indignities. But the movement spread, even to the British colonies in America, where in 1681 Charles II issued a charter to William Penn to found a Quaker colony, which later became the state of Pennsylvania.

The Quakers were not unique in seeking converts abroad, for other religions had done so before. Now, however, after the Protestant "Innovation," Catholics, together with a large number of Protestant groups, began increasing their efforts to bring Christ's message of truth and peace to "unbelievers." But how ironic! As "believers," Catholics and Protestants were unable to agree on a common definition of divine truth. And they surely failed to demonstrate brotherly peace and unity. In view of this situation, what could be expected "When 'Christians' and 'Heathens' Met"? Read the next installment part 7.

[Netcurtains]

your post 6 sounds a bit like waffle.
For example you said "quakers" introduced converting people from other lands. How did the UK become Christian? How did Christianity get to Moscow? Who took a version of Christianity to Pakistan. What was a catholic monk doing in Indonesia in the 12th century? What ever happened to the vikings?

An alternative view of Jehovahs witnesses. In Victorian England or USA there was a strong streak of inbuilt superiority - racism is you will. In those days we concidered white people to be the best. Now the concept of the Trinty was formed by the church around about the time of Nicene. At that time European Catholics were a minority. The majority of Christians were Indians, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Iranians, Turks, Arabs and Jews. Could it be your founders thought anything that came from non-whites was wrong? If you read your literature the anti-trinity stuff is always hi-lighting that trinity originated from Iran or that Mary is something to do with egyptians. The whole feel of it is that Trinity is wrong because it is Iranian? What is wrong with arguing Trinity is wrong from logic/science/bible rather than race?

Netty.

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 23-03-02 AT 01:17 PM (GMT)]What has race got to do with it? Jesus was brown(not white). There are many more non-white Jehovahs witnesses than white. I do not see your point at all. Race does not come into it. The religion that painted Jesus white and started slavery from India and Africa was the Catholic and Protestant churches. Jehovah's Witnesses in contrast eradicated these problems among those who left their past problems with misunderstanding races by studying with the witnesses and seeing for themselves how society had become conditioned through so called christianity to see God as white. You are taulking to the wrong person when you talk about racial issues I'm afraid. I was totally a world citizen from an infant and have never allowed anyone, not even a relative to condition me otherwise. I saw racism at the hands of my grandmother as a very young child and all it did was distance me from her to a degree.

[vancouver]

PART 7

15th CENTURY ONWARD - WHEN "CHRISTIANS" AND "HEATHENS" MET

"Religion's in the heart, not in the knees"-D. W. Jerrold, 19th-century English playwright

MISSIONARY activity, a distinguishing mark of early Christianity, was in keeping with Jesus' command to "make disciples of people of all the nations" and to be witnesses of him "to the most distant part of the earth."-Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8.

In the 15th century, Christendom embarked on a global program to convert the "heathen." What kind of religion had these "heathen" peoples been practicing up until that time? And did any subsequent conversion to "Christianity" touch their heart or only cause them to drop to their knees in formal submission?

In Africa there are an estimated 700 ethnic groups south of the Sahara. Originally, each had its own tribal religion, although their similarities betray a common origin. In Australia, the Americas, and the isles of the Pacific, dozens of other indigenous religions are to be found.

Most believe in one supreme god and yet, polytheistically, still make room for any number of lesser deities-family, clan, or communal gods. One study made of the Aztec religion lists more than 60 distinct and interrelated names of deities.

In Africa and the Americas, people with the most "primitive" religions believe in a supernatural figure known as the Trickster. At times described as the cosmic creator, at other times as a rearranger of creation, he is always viewed as slyly deceptive and lustful, although not necessarily malicious. The North American Navaho Indians say that he ordained death; the Oglala Lakota tribe teaches that he is a fallen angel who caused the first humans to be banished from paradise by promising them a better life elsewhere. The Encyclopedia of Religion says that the Trickster often appears in "stories of creation," playing "opposite a spiritual creator-deity."

Reminiscent of Babylon and Egypt, some native religions teach a trinity. The book The Eskimos says that the Spirit of the Air, the Spirit of the Sea, and the Spirit of the Moon form a trinity that "ultimately controlled practically everything in the Eskimo environment."

Humans-"Spiritually Indestructible"

Ronald M. Berndt of the University of Western Australia informs us that Australian Aborigines believe that the cycle of life "continues after death, from the physical to the wholly spiritual, returning in due course to the physical dimension." This means that "human beings are spiritually indestructible."

Certain African tribes believe that after death ordinary people become ghosts, whereas prominent persons become ancestor spirits, due to be honored and petitioned as invisible leaders of the community. According to the Manus of Melanesia, a man's ghost or that of a close kinsman continues supervising his family.

Some American Indians believed the number of souls to be limited, necessitating that they be "reincarnated alternately in first a human and then either a spirit or animal being." The Encyclopedia of Religion explains: "A human death freed a soul for an animal or spirit, and vice versa, linking humans, animals, and spirits in a cycle of mutual dependency."

Thus, early explorers were surprised to find Eskimo parents lax in disciplining their children, even addressing them with terms such as "mother" or "grandfather." Author Ernest S. Burch, Jr., explains that this was because the child had been named after the relative indicated by the term used, and an Eskimo father naturally "shrank from the idea of chastising his grandmother, even if she had now moved into the body of his son."

The "hereafter" was depicted by some North American Indian tribes as a happy hunting ground, where both humans and animals went at death. There they were reunited with beloved relatives but were also confronted by former foes. Some Indians scalped their enemies after killing them, apparently believing that this prevented the enemies' entry into the spirit world.

Does the prevalent belief among native religions of some form of life after death prove Christendom correct in teaching that humans have an immortal soul? Not at all. In Eden where true religion got its start, God said nothing about life after death; he held out the prospect of everlasting life in contrast to death. The idea that death is a gateway to a better life was fostered by Satan and was later taught in Babylon.

Human Needs or Divine Interests?

The emphasis in native religions tends to be on personal safety or communal well-being. Thus, of the religion of early Australian Aborigines, Ronald Berndt writes: "[It] reflected the variable concerns of people in everyday living. It focused on social relations, on the crises of human existence, and on practical matters of survival."

Designed to deal with just such human needs are the modes of worship known as animism, fetishism, and shamanism, existing in various societies in various combinations and in differing degrees of intensity.

Animism attributes conscious life and an indwelling spirit to material objects such as plants and stones and even to natural phenomena like thunderstorms and earthquakes. It may also include the idea that disembodied spirits exist who exercise either a benignant or a malignant influence on the living.

Fetishism comes from a Portuguese word sometimes used to describe objects thought to possess supernatural powers that offer their owner protection or help. So Portuguese explorers employed the term to designate the charms and amulets they found West Africans using in their religion. Closely related to idolatry, fetishism takes many forms. Some American Indians, for example, ascribed supernatural powers to feathers, regarding them as effective vehicles in "flying" prayers or messages heavenward.

Shamanism, from a Tunguso-Manchurian word meaning "he who knows," centers on the shaman, a person supposedly able to heal and to communicate with the spirit realm. The medicine man, witch doctor, sorceress-whichever word you wish to use-claims to ensure health or restore procreative powers. Treatment may require, as it does in some South American forest tribes, that you perforate your lips, nasal septum, or earlobes, that you paint your body, or that you wear certain adornments. Or you may be told to use stimulants and narcotics, such as tobacco and coca leaves.

Being weak on doctrine, native religions cannot convey accurate knowledge of the Creator. And by elevating human needs above divine interests, they rob him of his just due. So as Christendom began its modern-day missionary work, the question was: Will "Christians" be able to draw "heathen" hearts closer to God?

In the 15th century, Spain and Portugal began a program of exploration and colonial expansion. As these Catholic powers discovered new lands, the church set about converting the native inhabitants, conditioning them to accept their new "Christian" government. Papal bulls awarded missionary rights in Africa and Asia to Portugal. Then, after the discovery of America, an imaginary line was drawn in mid-Atlantic by Pope Alexander VI, giving Spain rights to the west and Portugal to the east.

Meanwhile, Protestants were too busy securing their own position against Catholicism to give thought to converting others, nor had Protestant reformers urged them to do so. Luther and Melanchthon apparently believed that the end of the world was so near that it was too late to reach the "heathen."

During the 17th century, however, a Protestant movement called Pietism began developing. An outgrowth of the Reformation, it stressed personal religious experience over formalism and emphasized Bible reading and religious commitment. Its "vision of a humanity in need of the gospel of Christ," as one writer described it, finally helped boost Protestantism aboard the "ship" of missionary activity in the late 18th century.

From about one fifth of the world's population in 1500, the proportion of professed Christians had risen to about one fourth by 1800 and to about one in three by 1900. A third of the world was now "Christian"!

Did They Really Make Christian Disciples?

Traces of truth found in native religions are offset by many elements of Babylonish falsehood, but this is equally true of apostatized Christianity. So this common religious heritage made it quite easy for "heathens" to become "Christians." The book The Mythology of All Races says: "No region in America appears to have furnished so many or such striking analogies to Christian ritual and symbolism as did the Mayan." Veneration of the cross and other similarities in ritual "furthered the change of religion with a minimum of friction."

Africans-for some 450 years regularly kidnapped by "Christians" and brought to the New World to serve as slaves-were also able to change religion "with a minimum of friction." Since "Christians" venerated dead European "saints," what spoke against the worship of African ancestral spirits by "heathen Christians"? Thus, The Encyclopedia of Religion notes: "Voodoo . . . , a syncretistic religion pieced together from West African religions, sorcery, Christian religion, and folklore . . . , has become the real religion of many of the people of Haiti, including those who are nominally Catholic."

The Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission admits that the conversion of Latin America and the Philippines was very superficial, adding that "the Christianity of these regions today is riddled with superstition and ignorance." For the Aztecs, the Maya, and the Incas, "'conversion' simply meant the addition of yet another deity into their pantheon."

Of the Akan peoples of Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire, Michelle Gilbert of the Peabody Museum of Natural History says: "Traditional religion continues because for most people it is perceived to be the most efficacious system of belief, one that continues to endow the world with meaning."

M. F. C. Bourdillon, University of Zimbabwe, speaks of "religious mobility" among members of the Shona religion, explaining: "The various forms of Christianity together with the various traditional cults all provide a pool of religious responses from which an individual can choose, depending on his or her needs of the moment."

But if "heathen Christians" are characterized by superficiality, ignorance, superstition, and polytheism, if they view traditional religions as more efficacious than Christianity, if they consider religion just a matter of convenience or expediency, permitting them to move from one to the other as circumstances dictate, would you say that Christendom has made real Christian disciples?

If Not Disciples, What Are They?

True, Christendom's missionaries have set up hundreds of schools to educate the illiterate. They have built hospitals to heal the sick. And to a degree, they have promoted respect for the Bible and its principles.

But have "heathens" been fed the solid spiritual food of God's Word or only the crumbs of apostate Christianity? Have "heathen" beliefs and practices been discarded or only wrapped in "Christian" clothing? In short, have Christendom's missionaries won hearts for God or only forced "heathen" knees to bow before "Christian" altars?

A convert to apostate Christianity adds to his past sins of ignorance the new sins of hypocritical Christianity, thereby doubling his burden of guilt. Thus, for Christendom, Jesus' words are appropriate: "You scour sea and land to make a single convert, and then you make him twice as ripe for destruction as you are yourselves."-Matthew 23:15, Phillips.

Christendom has clearly failed to meet the challenge of making Christian disciples. Has she fared any better in meeting the challenge of world change. In our next issue, the article "Christendom Grapples With World Change" will answer that question.

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
I'm trying to put my mind into the mindset of the victorian people who developed the idea of "jehovahs witnesses". At the time (in the anglo-saxon world) there was a huge dislike of catholics and the non-anglo saxon world. Every single time (without exception) when I read a Jehovahs witness pamphlet it always KNOCKS other christian religions and promotes that the trinity has something to do with Iran or Iraq. I was speaking to a Mormon today. Trying to get him to write here to give the other extreme view to match your own.
Often the truth is in the middle - although I agree, not always.

[vancouver]

As I have posted before the trinity came from the original religion that decided to be organised against God. The person was Nimrod and the World Power was Babylon. The religion had to be also Babylon. Nimrod, his wife and mother(married his mother)were venerated as a trinity of gods after Nimrod's death. That is why the Babylon the Great has to be the world empire of modern day false religion. Any religion that still holds on to the falsehoods promoted by the very first organised false religion is part of Babylon the Great. That includes christendom and islam. Those beliefs include the teaching that the soul is immortal, that God punishes people in eternal fiery torment, the trinity and many others. At Revelation chapter 18 true worshippers of God are told to get out of Babylon the Great. That warning was to all of us including christendom and islam. God is calling people out of all these religions into one fold. All the major religions of the world have held fast onto these false teachings of Babylon. That is why we as Jehovah's Witnesses spend so much of our time warning people about the consequenses of staying in those religions.

[vancouver]

PART 8

17th to 19th CENTURY-CHRISTENDOM GRAPPLES WITH WORLD CHANGE

"Philosophy and religion are irreconcilable."-Georg Herwegh, 19th-century German poet

"PHILOSOPHY," a word derived from Greek roots meaning "love of wisdom," is difficult to define. While doubting that "a universal and all-inclusive definition" can be made, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica ventures that "a first attempt in this direction might be to define philosophy either as 'a reflection upon the varieties of human experience' or as 'the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of those topics that are of greatest concern to man.'"

These definitions clearly show why true religion and philosophy are irreconcilable. True religion is based upon divine revelation, not upon "the varieties of human experience." First and foremost, it revolves around the interests of the Creator, not around the "topics that are of greatest concern to man." False religion, on the other hand, like philosophy, is based on human experience and puts human interests uppermost. This fact became particularly evident from the 17th century onward as Christendom grappled with world change.

A Triple Threat

As soon as modern science was born in the 17th century, a clash between it and religion seemed inevitable. Spectacular scientific breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. In the light of scientific "facts," religious claims suddenly seemed precariously unprovable. Science was new and exciting; religion seemed outdated and dull.

This attitude toward religion was intensified by the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that swept Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Stressing intellectual and material progress, it rejected political and religious authority and tradition in favor of critical reasoning. This, supposedly, was the source of knowledge and happiness. "Its ancestral roots," says The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, were found "in Greek philosophy."

The Enlightenment was mainly a French phenomenon. Prominent leaders in France included Voltaire and Denis Diderot. In Great Britain it found spokesmen in John Locke and David Hume. Advocates were also found among U.S. founding fathers, including Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. In fact, the separation of Church and State demanded by the U.S. Constitution is a reflection of Enlightenment ideas. Outstanding members in Germany were Christian Wolff, Immanuel Kant, and Moses Mendelssohn, grandfather of composer Felix Mendelssohn.

Kant, suspicious of religion, is said to have defined "enlightenment" as "the human being's release from self-imposed tutelage." By this, explains Allen W. Wood of Cornell University, Kant meant "the process by which human individuals receive the courage to think for themselves about morality, religion, and politics, instead of having their opinions dictated to them by political, ecclesiastical, or scriptural authorities."

During the second half of the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution began, first in Great Britain. Emphasis switched from agriculture to the production and manufacture of goods with the aid of machines and chemical processes. This upset a largely agricultural and rural society, sending thousands of people crowding into cities for work. Pockets of unemployment, housing shortages, poverty, and various work-related ills resulted.

Would Christendom be able to cope with this triple threat of science, Enlightenment, and industry?

Easing God Out, if Ever So Gently

People persuaded by Enlightenment thinking blamed religion for many of the ills of society. The idea that "society should be constructed according to the preordained blueprints of divine and natural law," says The Encyclopedia of Religion, "was replaced by the notion that society was, or could be, constructed by man's own 'artifice' or 'contrivance.' A secular, social humanism thus came into being that, in turn, would beget most of the philosophical and sociological theories of the modern world."

These theories included the "civil religion" advocated by influential French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It centered upon society and human involvement in its concerns rather than upon a divine Being and his worship. French memoirist Claude-Henri de Rouvroy advocated a "New Christianity," while his protégé Auguste Comte spoke of a "religion of humanity."

In the late 19th century, the American movement known as the social gospel developed among Protestants; it was closely related to the European theories. That theologically based idea asserted that the main duty of a Christian is social involvement. It finds great support among Protestants to this day. Catholic versions are found in the worker-priests of France and among the clergy of Latin America who teach liberation theology.

Christendom's missionaries also mirror this trend, as a 1982 Time magazine report indicates: "Among Protestants, there has been a shift toward greater involvement with the basic economic and social problems of the people . . . For an increasing number of Catholic missionaries, identification with the cause of the poor means advocacy of radical changes in political and economic systems-even if those changes are being spearheaded by Marxist revolutionary movements. . . . Indeed, there are missionaries who believe that conversion is fundamentally irrelevant to their true task." Such missionaries evidently agree with French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who once suggested: 'The real object of religious worship is society, not God.'

Obviously, Christendom was easing God out of religion, if ever so gently. Meanwhile, other forces were also at work.

Replacing God With Pseudoreligions

The churches had no solutions for the problems created by the Industrial Revolution. But pseudoreligions, the products of human philosophies, claimed they did, and they rapidly moved in to fill the void.

For example, some people found their purpose in life in pursuing riches and possessions, a self-centered tendency pandered to by the Industrial Revolution. Materialism became a religion. Almighty God was replaced by the 'Almighty Dollar.' In a play by George Bernard Shaw, this was alluded to by a character who exclaimed: "I am a Millionaire. That is my religion."

Other people turned to political movements. Socialist philosopher Friedrich Engels, collaborator with Karl Marx, prophesied that socialism would eventually replace religion, itself taking on religious attributes. Thus, as socialism gained ground across Europe, says retired Professor Robert Nisbet, "a prominent element was the apostasy of socialists from Judaism or Christianity and their turning to a surrogate."

Christendom's failure to cope with world change allowed forces to develop that the World Christian Encyclopedia refers to as "secularism, scientific materialism, atheistic communism, nationalism, nazism, fascism, Maoism, liberal humanism and numerous constructed or fabricated pseudo-religions."

In view of the fruitage these philosophical pseudoreligions have produced, British poet John Milton's words would seem most appropriate: "Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy."

Seeking a Compromise

Caught between ineffective ecclesiastical systems on the one hand and deceptive pseudoreligions on the other, millions of people were looking for something better. Some thought they had found it in a form of Deism, also known as "natural religion." Gaining prominence particularly in England during the 17th century, Deism has been described as a compromise that embraced science without deserting God. Deists were therefore freethinkers set on a middle-of-the-road course.

Author Wood clarifies: "In its principal meaning, deism signifies the belief in a single God and in a religious practice founded solely on natural reason rather than on supernatural revelation." But by disallowing "supernatural revelation," some Deists went so far as to reject the Bible almost totally. Nowadays the term is rarely used, although professed Christians who reject ecclesiastical or Scriptural authority in favor of personal opinion or alternate philosophies of life are in actuality adhering to its principles.

Parallel Theories of Evolution

The most dramatic confrontation between religion and science occurred after the publication in 1859 of Darwin's Origin of Species, in which he proposed his theory of evolution. Religious leaders, especially in England and the United States, at first denounced the theory in strong terms. But opposition soon faded. By the time of Darwin's death, says The Encyclopedia of Religion, "most thoughtful and articulate clergy had worked their way to the conclusion that evolution was wholly compatible with an enlightened understanding of scripture."

This may explain why the Vatican never placed Darwin's books on its Index of Forbidden Books. It may also explain audience reaction at the 1893 Chicago conference of the World's Parliament of Religions. As Buddhists and Hindus listened, a "Christian" speaker said: "The theory of evolution fills a gap at the very beginning of our religion, and if science is satisfied in a general way with its theory of evolution as the method of creation, assent is a cold word with which those whose business it is to know and love the ways of God should welcome it." The statement was reportedly greeted with loud applause.

This attitude is not surprising in view of the popularity during the late 19th century of what became known as comparative religion. This was a scientific study of world religions designed to determine how different religions are interrelated and how they came about. English anthropologist John Lubbock, for example, expressed the theory that humans started as atheists and then progressively evolved through fetishism, nature worship, and shamanism before arriving at monotheism.

However, as The Encyclopedia of Religion explains: "Religion in such a view was not absolute truth revealed by the deity, but the record of developing human conceptions about God and morality." So those who accepted this theory found no difficulty in accepting Deism, a "civil religion," or a "religion of humanity" as rungs upward on the ladder of religious evolution.

In the final analysis, where does such a view lead? Already in the 19th century, English philosopher Herbert Spencer said that society was moving into a frame of advancement no longer compatible with religion. And of the 20th century, Professor Nisbet observed that sociologists generally believe that religion "answers certain psychosocial needs in human beings, and until or unless these needs become casualties of biological evolution of the human species, religion in one or another form will remain a persisting reality of human culture." (Italics ours.) Accordingly, sociologists are not ruling out the possibility that "evolutionary progress" may one day lead to no religion at all!

The Search for True Worship Intensified

By the middle of the 19th century, it was obvious that for some 200 years, Christendom had been fighting a losing battle against world change. Its religion had degenerated into little more than a worldly philosophy. Millions of honest people were concerned. The search for true worship intensified. It could truly be said that reformation of Christendom was impossible. What was needed was the restoration of true worship. Learn more in our next issue.

Pressured by World Change, Christendom Compromises

THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN SCIENCE weakened faith in the unseen and created doubt about things science could not "prove." Christendom compromised Bible truth by adopting unproved, supposedly scientific theories like evolution and by seeing in scientific know-how, rather than in God's Kingdom, the panacea for world problems.

THE RISE OF POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES (capitalism, democracy, socialism, Communism, and so forth) created nationalistic conflicts and ideological bickering, thus obscuring the Bible truth that God, not man, is earth's rightful Ruler. Christendom compromised Bible principles by breaking Christian neutrality and becoming involved in wars that pitted members of the same religion against one another. Christendom actively or passively supported political pseudoreligions.

THE HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING made possible by the Industrial and Science Revolutions promoted egotistical self-interest and brought social injustice and inequality to the fore. Christendom compromised by neglecting divine interests in favor of getting involved in human interests of a social, economic, ecological, or political nature.

Up or Down?

The Bible says: Humans were created perfect and were taught how to worship their Creator acceptably; but they rebelled against God, and for some 6,000 years, they have been degenerating both physically and morally, moving ever further away from the true religion they originally practiced.

Biological and religious evolution says: Humans evolved from a primitive beginning and were atheists with no religion; for untold millions of years, they have improved both physically and morally, moving ever closer to a state of Utopian religious, social, and moral development.

Based on your knowledge of human behavior, mankind's present condition, and the status of religion in today's world, which view seems more consistent with the facts?

Darwin's unproved speculations in Origin of Species became the pretext for many to abandon belief in a God of revelation.

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
In the Catholic church a very big aspect of our
religion is being taught to say sorry.
We are meant to go and see a priest from time to time
and tell him face to face what we feel we have done
wrong. He then advises us on how to put it right.
This will normally involve phyiscally putting it
right as best we can.
I say this because a lot of arabic newspapers seem to
not go down this line (re the deaths in america).

When English football supporters
killed those young Italians a few years ago the
whole country felt ashamed as if we had all done it.
This was even though in actuality the deaths were in
some way due the stadium collapsing (Heysel).

http://www.soccernet.com/euro2000/columns/20000609powellfeat.html

The catholic church teaches we should go and see a priest every
week to say sorry. About 0.1% of Cathoics actually do - but
perhaps it is something we should all practice on a weekly
basis. A human being cannot get better without realising
where they currently stand. If you don't think you are a sinner
you cannot improve IMHO

[Rasha]

Nutcurtain...

this message is just a thought not trying to critisize ur belief but.. the islamic stand on this is.... why do u need to confess to a man like u!! Why not confess to God himself????

Muslims repent all the time to god... ask for forgiveness and admit their sins. We pray 5 times a day and during these if we did sin we ask for forgiveness. In everything we do we seek forgiveness for things we did and things we did without knowing their are wrong.

I do not know why it is important for me to go to a priest and tell him i did this or that... God knows and i will ask God to forgive me. not any man... why do we need middle people between us and God!

[Netcurtains]

obviously 99.9% of catholics agree with you.
However I am beginning to doubt this view.
Jesus was a human being.

[Rasha]

yep Jesus was a human being... this is why I don't pray to Jesus!

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
many totally sane rich people spend a fortune to go and see
analysts in the hope that they might have some insight
into what will make them better people. Many (if not all)
of these people believe in god. Why turn your back on
a FREE service open to all - a catholic priest.
Confession is not really how it is protrayed in hollywood.
It takes two forms.
a) you can make an appointment with a priest to talk about
many issues in your life.
b) you can just turn up at the appointed public times (like everyone else) and spend a few minutes a week discussing your problems. I remeber once discussing whether it was a sin not to bother to learn a foreign language - it was a kind of lazyness.

[Rasha]

First of all, I do not say that it is wrong to talk to someone and see if something was a sin or not. We muslims ask the Imaam and knowledgable people about things and see if they are allowed or not, we are not all experts u know!

What we object to is the idea that ur sins will not be forgiven except if you talk to a priest and tell him that you sinned and so on. Not only is this embarresment for you, but also useless. What do u gain??! Nothing.

I am referring to things that you know is 100% wrong. eg. you stole something, you know this is a sin. What do u gain when u go to a priest and say, "I have sinned I have stolen such and such". He will say: "Ok this is wrong, now you are forgiven!!" So?? says who? did the priest talk to God to ask if He forgives u or not? This is what we mean. If you do something and ur not sure if its a sin or not... or if u know its a sin and do not know what or how you would act to be forgiven by God, then you might want to talk to a priest or whatever.. this is different.

i hope i did make sense... :)

peace

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
I cannot say for certain what an individual priest would say.
However in a general sense, the priest will try an get the
individual to give the goods back and to apologise to that
individual. You might say surely that is all that is required?
I'm not so sure. Once you have let sin into the world it has
a life of its own and all sorts of knock on affects result.
It is not in your power to put everything back to how it
should be. I sometimes feel guilt ridden about something in my life (seriously) - I can pray all I want to the spirit in the sky but
I feel another spiritual HUMAN BEING might help "talk me through it".

Does god in the sky talk back to you PERSONALLY when you say "sorry?"

A "representative" of god actually saying "you are forgiven" is of possible benefit. Jesus said "your sins are forgiven". Those around him said "only god can forgive sins". In reply the crippled man got up and walked. You say Jesus is not god and yet he forgave sins. A catholic priest is not god.

[Rasha]

Ok.... as I said, the act of talking to someone about it to help through is not bad, i mean if i did something really wrong and i feel so bad i'd talk to an imaam to seek advice and stuff... but what i personally do not agree with is the fact that the priest says your forgiven etc. How does he know?? Did god choose him??

You said you feel guilt and prayer to God does'nt help u... well, maybe u do not pray the right way, with a sincere heart, or to the right person (not trying to say ur faith is wrong but as we believe jesus is not god... so praying to Jesus is of no use!)

I too feel sad or guilty about things in my life, i'm not perfect. I pray, I seek forgiveness from God, it might not come the same minute.. but the way you know ur forgiven is the feel of ease that follows, the relief of guilt, the being close to God again. If you ever feel that you are far from god, then it might be for a sin u commited. Sins seperate us from God and thus we must do good and seek forgiveness.

Again, "talking you through it" is not the problem... God might not say things personally in our language or terms .. but he says it in many other ways... the blessings that come across ur life, the happiness u get. I don't expect you to understand this as it takes lot of effort to get it.. (personally i think u need to first know ur god, love ur god, worship ur god, build a good relationship with God, and then, you will be able to understand the signs that God shows u). I mean it.

One friend of mine, he's not yet a muslim, but very close. He always asks me, today i felt this, what does it mean. What could it mean? Of course i'm not a magician or something to know.. but things like, I felt sick inside... this shows that maybe ur doing something wrong. Evaluate ur life again... see where u went wrong.

simple signs like these that are shown at a specific time show and mean something... only few of us know them.

I am not saying i'm an expert or something... nor am i saying i'm holly and know what god wants... i'm just saying... once you really get close to God, then God shows u things differently and you start to understand things in a different manner, in a better manner!

The friend was almost a muslim, wel he claimed to be a muslim for awhile and then hesitated back due to his friends mocking him and so on. anyways, he tried to come one day and show that he is happy now this way, he started talking rubbish... i saw right through it. I didn't say anything, but few days later, I said to him... last time we talked was fake!

he admitted that, he was trying to run away from a reality he sees in his heart!

this is what i mean....

(actually i do not know if i explained what i mean properly)

Now you called the priest a representative of God, did God ask him or approve of him representing him??!!

When i read the statement of Jesus, it didn't sound to me like Jesus forgiving them, he is just telling them that they were forgiven.. (by God!)

but the nice part is what the people said: "Only God can forgive sins" Which shows true understanding of the principles that ALL PROPHETS including Jesus himself came to teach... Jesus has taught this to his people or else they wouldn't have thought of it!

:)

just some insight

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
you said "but the nice part is what the people said: "Only God can forgive sins" Which shows true understanding of the principles that ALL PROPHETS including Jesus himself came to teach... Jesus has taught this to his people or else they wouldn't have thought of it!
"

However having just read Matthew, Mark and Luke they all say not the PEOPLE - this is a summary of ALL THREE gospels:

"but some of the SCRIBES were sitting there and reasoned in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone'.......blah blah blah then then Jesus says
'But that you may know that the SON OF MAN has power on earth to forgive sins'......

You have to admit that what is written is different to what you just said. No offence meant, but when a teacher teaches me about the bible I do like them to make a good attempt at getting it right.

It also the same (ish) with Vancouver. He makes a glib statement like "the bible consists of 40 books but they all appear to be from one author". I can tell you try as I might I cannot picture jesus saying such things as "women should not speak in church". I'm not saying Paul was wrong for the times he was speaking to, it just does not sound like jesus.

[vancouver]

Hi Netcurtains, I trust you are happy and well

I wish you would quote me properly or not at all. I said 40 writers(there are 66 books).I was making the point that even though there were about 40 writers spread well over a thousand years it appears that just one author(God)was inspiring the writers to write down the word of God and not the words of 40 men.

Regarding prayer. Although God listens to prayers, in normal circumstances prayers have to be uttered through the name of Jesus Christ to be heard by God. We do not have direct communication to God. Jesus Christ is the mediator in the same way that Moses was to the Isrealites before Jesus gave his life.

It is only because of the sacrifice of Jesus life that sins can be forgiven. Even those before Jesus' time relied on the Messiah coming to the earth and dying a sacrificial death in order for their sins to be forgiven. The animal sacrifices were only temporary and did not give any lasting benefit for forgiveness of sins.

all the best

Vancouver

[Netcurtains]

sorry ;-) Just goes to show a catholic can be just as wrong as anyone else - we're not special - far from it.

I was really thinking of the book of JOB. It does seem very special and about 3,000 years ahead of its time. So out of character with the much of the old testament and yet I love it so.

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-03-02 AT 00:13 AM (GMT)]>sorry ;-) Just goes to show a catholic can be just as wrong
>as anyone else - we're not special - far from it.
>
>I was really thinking of the book of JOB. It does seem very
>special and about 3,000 years ahead of its time. So out of
>character with the much of the old testament and yet I love
>it so.

Yes Job is brilliant. It helps us understand why God allows suffering. Job lost his children for instance, that must have really hurt. Yet he not once blamed God for it and never uttered the expression 'Why me?' His 'friends' were also hurtful to him in their cruel remarks about the reasons for his suffering. Job felt so sad that he wished to be hidden in sheol(grave)until it was God's time to resurrect him. He endured his suffering despite those feelings of utter dejection and had twice as much possessions and in effect twice the number of children(same amount again plus the faith that those lost would eventually be resurrected)afterwards. This book of Job is even more helpful to us if we realise this was about an actual person who lived.We must not forget the role of Satan in all of this. By enduring suffering and still keeping our integrity and faith in God we are proving Satan a liar.

All the best

vancouver

[vancouver]

PART 9

19th CENTURY ONWARD-RESTORATION IMMINENT!

"The best way to see divine light is to put out thy own candle."-Thomas Fuller, English physician and writer (1654-1734)

THE 19th century has been called one of the most vigorous periods of Christian history, ranking with the early centuries and with the Reformation years. The reasons for such an increase in religious awareness and activity are many and varied.

Author Kenneth S. Latourette lists 13 relevant factors, some of which were discussed in the previous issue of this magazine. He says that "never before in so brief a time had human society been changed so profoundly and in such a variety of ways."

In the United States, the religious revival was clearly visible. For example, church membership rose from less than 10 percent of the population at the start of the century to almost 40 percent at the end of it. Sunday schools-introduced in England in 1780-grew in popularity. A reason for this was that, in contrast with Europe, the separation of Church and State in the United States barred religious instruction in public schools. In addition, dozens of denominational colleges and interdenominational Bible societies were founded, and during the first half of the century, at least 25 theological seminaries were established in the United States.

Meanwhile, on a global scale, Protestantism was becoming missionary-minded. British shoemaker and teacher William Carey had taken the lead in 1792 by publishing the book An Enquiry Into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. While serving in India as missionaries, Carey and his associates translated the Bible in full or in part into over 40 Indian and other Asian languages and dialects. The work that some of these early missionaries did in distributing Bibles is commendable.

The relatively new science of Biblical archaeology also gained in status during the last century. In 1799 French soldiers in Egypt discovered a slab of black basalt now called the Rosetta stone. It contained the same inscription written three times, twice in two different forms of Egyptian hieroglyphics and once in Greek. It thus proved invaluable in deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics. Soon thereafter Assyrian cuneiform writings were decoded as well. So when excavations began in Assyria and Egypt soon afterward, unearthed artifacts took on new meaning. Many Bible accounts were confirmed down to the smallest details.

Burning Their Own Candles

As religious interest grew, so also did the number of would-be reformers. However, it was obvious that not all were sincere. The aforementioned author Kenneth S. Latourette candidly admits that some of the new religious denominations "were born of envy, strife, and personal ambition." But reformers burning candles of personal ambition could hardly be expected to be God's choice for restoring true worship.

Amid this confusing flickering of individual candles, theological thinking was thrown into confusion. Higher criticism, mainly a product of German universities, reinterpreted the Scriptures in the light of "advanced" scientific thought. Higher critics viewed the Bible as little more than the record of Jewish religious experience. The authority of the Bible as being essential in determining the way of salvation was questioned, as was the wisdom of the moral standards it champions.

Higher criticism found ready support, particularly among Protestant clergymen. According to one report, by 1897 not a single faculty member of the 20 Protestant theological universities in Germany still held to the traditional views about writership of the Pentateuch or of the book of Isaiah.

A few years later, in 1902, a controversy over higher criticism arose at a conference of the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland. The Edinburgh Evening News reported: "According to the higher critics, . . . the Bible is a collection of mythical stories, from which a preacher may extract a few grains of ethical teaching just as a skilled moralist may extract a few grains of ethical teaching from 'AEsop's Fables.'" However, the paper then observed: "The working classes are not fools. They will not attend church to listen to men who themselves are living in a mental fog."

A second article a few days later was even more blunt, commenting: "There is no use mincing matters. The Protestant church is an organized hypocrisy, and its leaders arrant humbugs. It is actually come to this that if the author of the 'Age of Reason' were alive today he would not be spoken of derisively as Tom Paine, the infidel, but the Rev. Thomas Paine, D. D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, U[nited] F[ree] College, Glasgow. He would have no difficulty in preaching from a Protestant pulpit . . . [and] drawing a handsome salary as a professor of theology."

A Religious Backlash

From its start, Protestantism stressed personal conversion and Christian experience, relied mainly on Scripture, and downgraded sacraments and tradition.

In the 1830's and 1840's, many Protestant Evangelicals began proclaiming the imminent second coming of Christ and with it the beginning of the Millennium. William Miller, a New York farmer, ventured that the second coming might take place about 1843. This millenarian movement helped lay the foundation for a more prominent and aggressive form of Evangelicalism that came to be known as Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism was largely a backlash against the skepticism, freethinking, rationalism, and moral laxity that liberalized Protestantism had nourished. It later adopted its name from a series of 12 works entitled The Fundamentals, published from 1909 to 1912 by the Moody Bible Institute.

Fundamentalism, particularly in the United States, has become well-known through its effective radio and TV ministries, its Bible institutes, and its well-publicized and emotional revival meetings. Recently, however, its reputation has suffered under the financial and sexual improprieties of some of its most prominent leaders. It has also been criticized for its increased political activity, especially since the formation in 1979 of the Moral Majority, which was recently disbanded.

Fundamentalism, while claiming to defend the Bible, has also actually undermined its authority. One way it has done so is by a literal interpretation of texts that are clearly not meant to be taken literally. An example of this is the claim that, according to the Genesis account, the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days. Obviously, these were symbolic days of much longer duration. (Compare Genesis 2:3, 4; 2 Peter 3:8.) Other ways Fundamentalism undermines the Bible is by teaching unscriptural doctrines, such as eternal torment in hellfire, and at times by promoting standards of conduct other than those required by Scripture, such as forbidding the consumption of alcoholic beverages or the use of makeup by women. In these ways Fundamentalism has caused people to reject the Bible's message as naive, unreasonable, and unscientific.

A Matter of Timing

Clearly, what was needed was restoration, the restoration of true worship! But as Ecclesiastes 3:1 says: "For everything there is an appointed time."

Back in the first century, Jesus reactivated true worship in the form of Christianity. Yet, he prophesied that there would be an apostasy. He said that true Christians, like wheat, and pseudo-Christians, like weeds, would "both grow together until the harvest." At that time, angels would "collect the weeds and . . . burn them up," while true Christians would be gathered into God's favor. (Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43) In the latter half of the 19th century, the appointed time for this restoration of true worship was at the doors.

Charles Taze Russell was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1852, and even as a child, he manifested great interest in the Bible. In his early 20's, he turned his attention from the family business to devote all his time to preaching. By 1916, when he died at the age of 64, he had reportedly preached more than 30,000 sermons and written books consisting of over 50,000 pages.

While recognizing the commendable work others had done in promoting the Bible, Russell realized that simply translating, printing, and distributing the Bible is not enough. So in 1879 he began publishing the magazine today known as The Watchtower. Its first issue said: "We are too much inclined to ask, What does my church say about any question, instead of What saith the Scriptures? Too much theology studied, and the Bible not enough. With the thought, then, that 'The Scriptures are able to make us wise,' that 'the testimonies of the Lord are sure making wise the simple,' let us examine."

Today, having completed 110 years of uninterrupted publication, The Watchtower (now published in 106 languages and with a circulation in excess of 13 million copies per issue) continues to examine God's Word. Millions of people have learned to appreciate the help that it provides in study, understanding, and application of what the Bible teaches.

Russell was unlike many of his reformation-minded contemporaries in that he did not preach a special approach to God, did not boast of divine visions or revelations, did not discover esoteric messages in the form of hidden books or otherwise, and never claimed to be able to heal the physically sick. Furthermore, he did not assert that he could interpret the Bible. As a willing instrument in divine hands, he resisted all temptations to allow "his own candle" to outshine divine light.

"It is the truth rather than its servant that should be honored and proclaimed," Russell wrote in 1900, adding: "There is too much disposition to credit truth to the preacher, forgetful that all truth is of God, who uses one or another servant in its proclamation as it may please him." This is the principal reason why writers and translators of Watch Tower publications, as well as members of the New World Bible Translation Committee, choose to remain anonymous.

God's King Enthroned!

In the first century, John the Baptizer announced the imminent appearance of Jesus as God's designated King. In the 19th century, the time had come to announce the imminent appearance of that King in heavenly power. Accordingly, in its March 1880 issue, Zion's Watch Tower declared: "'The Times of the Gentiles' extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then."

Thus, the group today known as Jehovah's Witnesses went on public record well over a hundred years ago in making known that the year 1914 would mark the beginning of God's Kingdom. The enthronement of God's King was a preliminary step toward the final snuffing out of false religion's flickering candle, so that it might no longer obscure divine light.

As the 19th century drew to a close, Christendom's religion had no garments to identify itself as God's servant. It deserved to be abandoned by God. Its time of judgment was drawing near. Learn more about this in our next issue.

Some "Late-Arrival" Children of the Reformation

Church of Christ, Scientist: This religious movement is commonly known as Christian Science. It was founded in 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy, who was very health conscious. Her reportedly instantaneous recovery from a severe accident in 1866 convinced her that she had discovered the principles that enabled Jesus to heal the sick and raise the dead. Her 1875 book Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures teaches that the spiritual prevails over the physical, that sin, disease, death, and other negatives are illusions conquerable by knowledge of truth and positive thinking in harmony with Mind, meaning God.

Disciples of Christ: This church was formed in 1832 by restoration-minded American Presbyterians. Their slogan was: "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." One reference work describes them as "highly tolerant in doctrinal and religious matters." Members allowed politics to divide them seriously during the U.S. Civil War. In 1970 there were 118 denominations, including the Churches of Christ formed in 1906.

Salvation Army: William Booth founded this religious group that is organized along military lines. Booth entered the Methodist ministry in his early 20's and became an independent evangelist in 1861. He and his wife established a preaching mission among the poor in London's East End. The group's name was changed in 1878 from Christian Mission to Salvation Army. The Salvation Army seeks to "save souls" by offering social help to the homeless, the hungry, the mistreated, the underprivileged.

Seventh-Day Adventists: This is the largest of some 200 Adventist denominations. Their name is based on belief in the second coming, or advent, of Christ. The Adventists stem from Baptist lay minister William Miller's movement of the early 1840's. Teaching that the Ten Commandments are still in force, Seventh-Day Adventists keep a literal Saturday sabbath. Some members attribute almost Biblical inspiration to the writings of Ellen Gould White, one of the group's most influential leaders, who claimed she was illuminated by a series of divine visions.

The Rosetta stone has helped confirm the Bible's truthfulness

Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum

[vancouver]

PART 10

1900 onward-Skirts Splattered With Blood

"There is no sure foundation set on blood."-Shakespeare, English poet and dramatist (1564-1616)

DO YOU remember the Jonestown, Guyana, tragedy of 11 years ago this month? Over 900 members of the religious group known as People's Temple committed mass suicide, most of them willingly, by drinking a cyanide-laced fruit drink.

Shocked, people asked: 'What kind of religion is it that sacrifices the lives of its own members?' Yet, innocent blood has been shed in the name of religion for almost 6,000 years. In the 20th century, however, blood has been shed more often and in more ways than at any other time in history. Consider just a fraction of the evidence.

Human Sacrifices to a False God

Since 1914, two world wars and over a hundred smaller conflicts have spilled an ocean of blood. A century ago, French writer Guy de Maupassant said that "the egg from which wars are hatched" is patriotism, which he called "a kind of religion." In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism's cousin, nationalism, "has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values." (Italics ours.) By failing to promote true worship, false religion created the spiritual vacuum into which nationalism was able to pour.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in Nazi Germany, whose citizens at the beginning of World War II claimed to be 94.4 percent Christian. Of all places, Germany-birthplace of Protestantism and praised in 1914 by Pope Pius X as home of "the best Catholics in the world"-should have represented the very best that Christendom had to offer.

Significantly, Catholic Adolf Hitler found readier support among Protestants than among Catholics. Predominantly Protestant districts gave him 20 percent of their votes in the 1930 elections, Catholic districts only 14 percent. And the first absolute majority for the Nazi Party in state elections was in 1932 in Oldenburg, a district 75 percent Protestant.

Apparently, the "void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values" was greater in Protestantism than in Catholicism. Understandably so. Liberalized theology and higher criticism of the Bible were mainly the product of German-speaking Protestant theologians.

Equally significant is what finally solidified lagging Catholic support behind Hitler. German historian Klaus Scholder explains that "by tradition German Catholicism had especially close ties with Rome." Seeing in Nazism a bulwark against Communism, the Vatican was not averse to using its influence to strengthen Hitler's hand. "Fundamental decisions shifted more and more to the Curia," says Scholder, "and in fact Catholicism's status and future in the Third Reich was finally decided almost solely in Rome."

The part Christendom played in both world wars led to a severe loss of prestige. As the Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission explains: "Non-Christians had before their eyes . . . the evident fact that nations with a thousand years of Christian teaching behind them had failed to control their passions and had set the whole world ablaze for the satisfaction of less than admirable ambitions."

Of course, religiously motivated wars are nothing new. But in contrast with the past when nations of different religions warred with one another, the 20th century has increasingly found nations of the same religion locked in bitter conflict. The god of nationalism has clearly been able to manipulate the gods of religion. Thus, during World War II, while Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain and the United States were killing Catholics and Protestants in Italy and Germany, Buddhists in Japan were doing the same to their Buddhist brothers in southeast Asia.

Nevertheless, in view of its own bloodstained clothing, Christendom cannot self-righteously shake its finger at others. By advocating, supporting, and at times electing imperfect human governments, professed Christians and non-Christians alike must share responsibility for the blood these governments have shed.

But what kind of religion would put government above God and offer its own members as political sacrifices on the altar of the god of war?

"They Kept Spilling Innocent Blood"

Those words, said of apostate Israel centuries ago, apply to all false religions and to those of Christendom in particular. (Psalm 106:38) Do not forget the millions of lives snuffed out in the Holocaust, a tragedy in which Christendom's churches were not guiltless.-See Awake! April 8, 1989.

German clergymen also remained silent on another issue, less known, but just as tragic. In 1927, two years after Hitler outlined his thoughts on race in Mein Kampf, Catholic editor and theologian Joseph Mayer published a book bearing the episcopal imprimatur that said: "Mental patients, moral lunatics, and other inferior persons have no more right to propagate than they do to set fires." Lutheran pastor Friedrich von Bodelschwingh found sterilization of the handicapped compatible with Jesus' will.

This religiously supported attitude helped pave the way for Hitler's 1939 "euthanasia decree," which led to the death of more than 100,000 mentally deranged citizens and to the forced sterilization of an estimated 400,000.

Not until 1985, 40 years after the end of the war, did Lutheran Church officials in the Rhineland publicly admit: "Our church did not strongly enough oppose forced sterilization, the murder of sick and handicapped persons, and the performance of cruel medical experiments on humans. We beg forgiveness of the victims still alive and of their surviving relatives."

It is true that the government's euthanasia campaign slowed considerably after the Catholic bishop of Münster delivered a sharply worded attack on August 3, 1941, calling the policy murder. But why did it take 19 months and 60,000 deaths before a public condemnation was heard?

Religion's Bloodguilt

Most religions claim to respect life and to be interested in protecting people from harm. But do the clergy consistently warn their flocks of the physical dangers involved in smoking; in the abuse of drugs, including alcohol; in the taking of blood into the body; and in sexual promiscuity? More important, do they condemn these works of the flesh as the Bible does, explaining that they can rob us of God's approval?-Acts 15:28, 29; Galatians 5:19-21.

Of course, some do. And the Catholic Church as well as many Fundamentalist churches show respect for life to the extent of denouncing abortion as the shedding of innocent blood. Yet, Catholic Italy's abortion law is one of Europe's most liberal.

Buddhism also condemns abortions. But in Japan in a single year, 618,000 were reportedly performed, even though 70 percent of the population adheres to Buddhism. This raises the question: On what basis should we judge a religion, by what its official organs and some of its clergymen say or by what a great number of its members in good standing do?

Another example of failing to warn the wicked one has to do with Bible chronology and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Both indicate that in 1914 God's heavenly Kingdom was established in the hands of Jesus Christ. Although Christendom celebrates Christ's supposed birthday every December, the clergy no more proclaim him as ruling King than the leaders of Judaism accepted him as King-Designate 19 centuries ago.

Clergymen, of whatever persuasion, who fail to warn of the consequences of disobeying God's laws on morality and of refusing to submit to God's ruling Kingdom are, according to Ezekiel 33:8, heaping bloodguilt upon themselves. Their silence amounts to nothing less than standing idly by as millions of their flock become bloodguilty.

Thus, by splashing its skirts with innocent blood, false religion has negated the life-giving shed blood of Christ Jesus. (See Matthew 20:28 and Ephesians 1:7.) For that reason, the blood splattered on false religion's skirts will soon-very soon-be its own!-Revelation 18:8.

"False Religion-Overtaken by Its Past!" will find no escape. Let our next issue explain.

[Footnotes]

This is somewhat reminiscent of the estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 "witches" who, beginning in the 15th century, were murdered with papal blessing.

See You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, chapters 16-18, published in 1982 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

"Religion has, in many parts of the world today, become the handmaiden of revolution . . . It continues to inspire killing in Northern Ireland as much as on the Indian subcontinent and in the Philippines."-The Encyclopedia of Religion

False religion's bloodguilt of the past, as depicted in this 15th-century woodcut of the mass burnings of heretics, is far overshadowed by its record during the 20th century


German church bells were melted down for war purposes during World War I

[Rasha]

sorry i am behind in reading :)

well ok now i get what u mean.... about what u said regarding paul... u said.. it jsut doesn't sound like Jesus...hmm.... so u mean what paul wrote is not what Jesus wanted him to write?? (just asking!)

[Lulua]

Let it rest noted, vancouver...that this term 'heretical' is something of your own addition, and not once mentioned in any rendition of quote of our beloved prophet Mohammed(SAAW). He only said: 72 sects. Period. Nothing heretical. Misguided, yes...heretical? That is your own addition...and no evidence of it in any Islamic source.

Please do cease in putting in something which is not there.

Lulua.

[Lulua]

Some great differences between Islam and Christianity.

Vancouver said:

Regarding prayer. Although God listens to prayers, in normal
>circumstances prayers have to be uttered through the name of
>Jesus Christ to be heard by God. We do not have direct
>communication to God. Jesus Christ is the mediator in the
>same way that Moses was to the Isrealites before Jesus gave
>his life.

In Islam, we have a direct path and route in communication with God. All that we have to do is to direct our prayer to Him, in His Name, without any intercessor...regardless of who that intercessor is, what station is his in religion, whether or not he is dead or alive, etc.

Vancouver said:

>It is only because of the sacrifice of Jesus life that sins
>can be forgiven.

In Islam, we are reassured that as long as we repent sincerely to God, admitting our wrongs, and resolving to correct them in any way possible, as well as with strong and sincere resolve to refrain from making the same mistake again, then we are reassured of forgiveness. The basic requirement being that we seek God's forgiveness. And without any intercessor. Simply, plainly, and purely looking to God, praying to God Alone...for His forgiveness. In Islam, we are also reassured that when a person does so (i.e. return to God in repentance, seeking His forgiveness)...that even if his sins are as much as the vast distances and width of the earth and the heavens combined, or as vast as the foams of the seas combined, (in other words as much as conceivably possible)...still all will be forgiven, providing that the person concerned turns in true and pure devotion to the ONE God.

No intercessor or mediator. No trinity. No complications. Simple logic, and many reassurances of salvation on this pure logic of the unity and single-ness and true omnipotence of the One and Only God.

Lulua.

[Lulua]

SubhanAllah. Glory be to Allah.

Truly, the Quran has an answer to all questions and thoughts.

We cannot begin to fathom the vast wisdom that Allah has in doing what He does, providing what He provides, or withholding what He withholds.

Although the many and different stories of the prophets are told in the Quran, there is a verse which directs generally to this topic of pains or sufferings inflicted from time to time not only on the prophets but on many others of mankind as well. It is a wise reminder and advice for all peoples of all times, as is consistent with the whole theme of the Quran in general.

'And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to as-sabirin (the patient).Who, when afflicted with calamity, say: 'Truly, to Allah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return. They are those on whom are the salawat(i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who)receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided ones.' s. 2, v. 155-157.

What more beautiful reminder and reassurance can be given more that that?

SubhanAllah. Alhamdulillah.

Lulua.

[Rasha]

" We were made in God's image in the sense of attributes. That is the four main ones of Love, Justice, Power and Wisdom. These are the four main attributes of God and he has given them to man. Man though through his chosen imperfection has often abused all four of these. God would never make himself vulnerable by becoming a man. Jesus was very vulnerable and had impicit trust and faith that God would resurrect him after his death. Remember for parts of three days Jesus did not exist. God is the only one that cannot cease to exist." I like your explanation vancouver...

= )

I think from all the christians i met, u get the closest to islamic belief (kind of).

[Sadiq]

Salam to all!!

...

As I have posted before the trinity came from the original religion that decided to be organised against God. The person was Nimrod and the World Power was Babylon. The religion had to be also Babylon. Nimrod, his wife and mother(married his mother)were venerated as a trinity of gods after Nimrod's death. That is why the Babylon the Great has to be the world empire of modern day false religion. Any religion that still holds on to the falsehoods promoted by the very first organised false religion is part of Babylon the Great. That includes christendom and islam. Those beliefs include the teaching that the soul is immortal, that God punishes people in eternal fiery torment, the trinity and many others. At Revelation chapter 18 true worshippers of God are told to get out of Babylon the Great. That warning was to all of us including christendom and islam. God is calling people out of all these religions into one fold. All the major religions of the world have held fast onto these false teachings of Babylon. That is why we as Jehovah's Witnesses spend so much of our time warning people about the consequenses of staying in those religions.

.............

Again>>

"...first organised false religion is part of Babylon the Great. That includes christendom and islam...."

Now this is one of the rules of IWC..Read and reflect!!

.........

Rules of Forums:
1. The Forum provide discussion services free of charge to anyone who wishes to join.
2. Insults, harassment, threats, or inflicting any harm on anyone, including those who participate in the Forums, are not permitted.
3. Any insulting remarks on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), his family, companions, or Muslim scholars means an expulsion from the Forums. The same rule applies to the Holy Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

.................

And i would be gratful...if you keep on telling us what happened to christianity, without adding or taking anything away from islam. As the members have explained.

Can i tell a footballer, how to play football...as i am a scientist?..does not make sense.....if you have questions then ask, but dont make islam, somthing that it isnt...

This is a warning to all members...and read up on the rules...keep on discussing...!

Peace to all! And enjoy IWC!!

Sadiq!

[vancouver]

>Let it rest noted, vancouver...that this term 'heretical' is
>something of your own addition, and not once mentioned in
>any rendition of quote of our beloved prophet
>Mohammed(SAAW). He only said: 72 sects. Period. Nothing
>heretical. Misguided, yes...heretical? That is your own
>addition...and no evidence of it in any Islamic source.
>
>Please do cease in putting in something which is not there.
>
>Lulua.


Tradition says that Mu"hammad himself foresaw 72 heretical sects of Islam developing. Those were not my words but these are:-

Once a belief is formed and accepted as the truth then any new deviation from it into a separate sect is an apostasising of that belief or in other words a 'heretical sect'. One cannot have two different sects and still have absolute truth in both. The word 'heretical' is only a word to denote a going away from the truth of the original.

All the best

vancouver

[vancouver]

PART 11

1900 onward-False Religion-Overtaken by Its Past!

"The key to a nation's future is in her past."-Arthur Bryant, 20th century English historian

BABYLON THE GREAT is what the Bible calls the world empire of false religion, likening it to the ancient nation of Babylon. (Revelation 18:2) What happened to that empire of old bodes no good for its modern-day namesake. In a single night in 539 B.C.E., Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus the Great. After having diverted the waters of the Euphrates River, which flowed through the city, the attacking troops were able to move in undetected over the riverbed.

Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus Christ, a king greater than Cyrus, will achieve a similar victory over unfaithful Babylon the Great. The Bible describes her as being a great harlot sitting on many waters, indicating the support she receives from "peoples and crowds and nations and tongues." But prior to destruction, this support, like "the great river Euphrates," must be "dried up, that the way [may] be prepared for the kings from the rising of the sun."-Revelation 16:12; 17:1, 15.

Evidence that such a drying-up process is occurring today would be invaluable in identifying false religion. Is there any evidence?

A Bright Outlook Dims

As the 20th century dawned, every third person on earth professed Christianity. The outlook for Christendom was bright. In 1900, evangelist and Nobel prize winner John R. Mott mirrored optimism, publishing a book entitled The Evangelization of the World in This Generation.

But "the 20th century," admits the World Christian Encyclopedia, "has proved to be startlingly different from these expectations." Explaining that "no-one in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism, in Russia and later Eastern Europe due to Communism, and in the Americas due to materialism," it says that these and other "pseudo-religions" mushroomed "from a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, . . . to 20.8% of the globe by 1980."

These "massive defections" have left the churches of Western Europe practically empty. Since 1970 the Lutheran Church in the Federal Republic of Germany has lost over 12 percent of its members. More than one third of the churches in the Netherlands have been closed, some converted to warehouses, restaurants, apartments, and even discos. And in Britain almost every eighth Anglican church in existence 30 years ago is no longer used. No wonder a clergyman speaking last year at a conference of European Protestant theologians and clergymen complained that "the former 'Christian West' can no longer call itself Christian. . . . Europe has become a missionary field."

However, the problem goes beyond Christendom and beyond Europe. It is estimated, for example, that throughout the world, Buddhism is losing 900,000 persons a year to agnosticism.

A Lack of Personnel

"To rouse a village first rouse its priests," advises a Japanese proverb. But what priests? In the decade prior to 1983, the number of Catholic priests worldwide decreased by 7 percent. And in 15 years, nuns by 33 percent. Meanwhile, the outlook for replacements is gloomy. In less than 20 years, the enrollment at Catholic seminaries in the United States plummeted from 48,992 to 11,262.

Catholic orders are also suffering. At one time, the Society of Jesus, founded in Paris in 1534 by Ignatius of Loyola, practically controlled education in a number of countries. Its members, popularly called Jesuits, took the lead in missionary activity. But since 1965, membership has dropped by over one fourth.

Bad enough that personnel is dwindling; worse still is that many of them can no longer be trusted. The number of priests and nuns who oppose official church policy on celibacy, birth control, and the religious role of women is increasing. This was demonstrated in January 1989 when 163 European Catholic theologians issued a public statement-by May 1 it had been signed by over 500 more-accusing the Vatican of authoritarianism and misuse of power.

Millions in Christendom have become spiritually dead, victims of spiritual malnutrition. A U.S. churchman admitted as much when he complained: "The church [has become] a supermarket dispensing spiritual junk food to passers-by. The pastor's sermon is little more than the 'special of the week,' offered to customers at a discount of commitment."

Since 1965, membership in five mainline Protestant denominations in the United States has dropped by some 20 percent and Sunday school enrollment by over 50 percent. "Not only are the traditional denominations failing to get their message across," writes Time magazine, but "they are increasingly unsure just what that message is." Small wonder, in view of such a spiritual famine, that many church journals have suspended publication. Already in the mid-1970's, one of them lamented: "The era of the general church magazine . . . has passed."

An Indifferent and Unresponsive Flock

In the 18th century, English statesman Edmund Burke realized that "nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference." If alive today, he would find indifferent religionists aplenty.

For example, when interviewed some years ago, 44 percent of Lutherans in the United States said they would not talk about their faith to nonchurch families if asked to do so by their pastor. A more recent poll showed that over three fourths of U.S. Catholics feel that disagreeing with the pope, even on moral issues, does not disqualify them from being good Catholics.

In Japan, 79 percent of the population say that being religious is important. But since, according to Religions of Modern Man, only one third actually profess a religion, it is apparent that many are too indifferent to follow through.

Religiously indifferent adults do not generally have zealous and responsive children. A survey of 11- to 16-year-olds made by the director of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Bonn, Germany, revealed that more than ever before, young people are looking for personalities on whom to model behavior. But when asked who their role models are, the youngsters failed to mention church leaders even once.

Political Clout on the Wane

No longer does organized religion wield the political clout it once did. For example, the Vatican has been unable, even in major Catholic countries, to prevent the passage of laws on abortion, divorce, and freedom of worship clearly not to its liking. Similarly, circumstances compelled the Vatican to agree to a 1984 concordat that robbed Catholicism of its status as Italy's established religion!

What false religion formerly achieved by subtle political pressure it now tries to accomplish by public protest movements led by its prominent clergymen, such as Anglican archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

A 1910 conference of Protestant missionary societies in Edinburgh, Scotland, gave birth to the modern ecumenical movement. This movement has recently been intensified in an attempt to promote religious cooperation and mutual understanding, allowing "the Christian religion" to speak with one voice.

The ecumenical movement takes many forms. A significant step was taken in 1948 in Amsterdam when the World Council of Churches was formed. Originally composed of almost 150 Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox churches, the council now boasts double that number.

Although not a member of the World Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic Church seems to be inching in that direction. In 1984 at the council's Swiss headquarters, Pope John Paul joined the council's outgoing general secretary in leading an ecumenical prayer service. And in May 1989, Catholics were among the more than 700 European churchmen who conferred in Basel, Switzerland, at what one newspaper called the "largest ecumenical event since the Reformation."

Since the mid-1930's, this willingness to compromise has become more pronounced because of a growing acceptance of the idea that all "Christian" religions have an inherent God-given unity. As "proof" of inherent unity, the World Council of Churches emphasizes that all its members accept the Trinity doctrine, viewing "Jesus Christ as God and Savior."

Christendom has also pursued dialogue with non-Christian religions. According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, this is to find a workable compromise "between an attitude of theological imperialism, which implies that if one faith is the truth no other faiths really have a right to exist, and a syncretism, which implies that there are not enough differences between the faiths to pose an issue and that some amalgamating of them all can create a new faith for the future."

In reality, false religion is like a cord made up of many strands, all of which are pulling in different directions. This is a prelude to disaster, for Jesus' words have yet to be disproved: "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."-Matthew 12:25.

Accept the True, Reject the False!

Some people may choose to ignore the evidence. But unfounded optimism is dangerous. "The churches have lived for more than a generation with the hope that things would get better more or less of their own accord," noted The Times of London in October 1988. It added: "In spite of the gradual long term decline in church membership in Britain, there has been little sustained effort within the churches to explain or reverse it, or to devise policies accordingly." It then logically concluded: "Any commercial organization finding its sales continually reduced would either prepare itself for ultimate disaster or take steps to improve its product and its marketing."

Nothing indicates that false religion will "take steps to improve its product and its marketing." The only basis for optimism for God-fearing persons lies in turning to the one true religion, whose flowing streams of spiritual water are in no danger of drying up. As regards false religion, "The Time for Settling Accounts Is Near." Learn more when that article appears in our next issue.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Their Waters Are Not Drying Up

"As traditional religions slowly decline, their churches and temples getting emptier all the time, Jehovah's Witnesses are experiencing increased membership and are even getting former church buildings and other new facilities in which to gather their new members."-Le Petit Journal, Canadian newspaper.

"There are in Italy about 45 thousand . . . Today the sect has real magazines, which are nice and even interesting (they are rich with news and articles from all over the world), prints small books that are up-to-date and also answer the most expert Catholic Bible scholars, distributes Bibles translated directly from Hebrew . . . With these methods, the Witnesses have had even enormous success."-Famiglia Mese, Italian Catholic magazine (written in 1975; by April 1989, the number of Jehovah's Witnesses in Italy had grown to 169,646.)

"[Jehovah's Witnesses] are baptizing hundreds while we are baptizing twos and threes."-The Evangelist, official organ of the Evangelical Tract Distributors. (Jehovah's Witnesses baptized 69,649 persons in 1962 when this statement was made; in 1988 the number of newly baptized Witnesses was 239,268.)

"In 1962 I concluded a study of Jehovah's Witnesses with this observation: 'That the New World Society will suddenly run out of steam is doubtful.' . . . There are well over twice as many Witnesses today [1979] as then. All signs indicate the Watchtower Society will probably double again in size during the next decade."-William J. Whalen in U.S. Catholic. (The 989,192 Witnesses of 1962 grew to 3,592,654 by 1988.)

Since 1970 the number of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Federal Republic of Germany (and West Berlin) has increased by 38 percent. In the past 30 years, the number of congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Netherlands has increased from 161 to 317, and in Britain from 825 to 1,257, necessitating the erection of many new Kingdom Halls in both countries.

Religion goes largely ignored in the hustle and bustle of today's world.

All the best

vancouver

[Tayeb]

Vancouver:

Let me warn you that we don't allow indirect preaching of other religions by depicting Islam wrongly. Your post is full of errors and you risk being banned from IWC.

[Tayeb]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 02-04-02 AT 05:35 PM (GMT)]Vancouver:

And what does Jehovah mean? What are the roots of the word? Aparently wasn't used before 16th century.

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 02-04-02 AT 06:22 PM (GMT)]>Vancouver:
>
>And what does Jehovah mean? What are the roots of the word?
>Aparently wasn't used before 16th century.

Greetings Tayeb

God or Allah are merely titles and God wishes to be addressed by name in the language of the person addressing him.


God's Name-Its Meaning and Pronunciation

ONE of the Bible writers asked: "Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of both hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in a mantle? Who has made all the ends of the earth to rise? What is his name and what the name of his son, in case you know?" (Proverbs 30:4) How can we find out what God's name is? That is an important question. The creation is a powerful proof that God must exist, but it does not tell us his name. (Romans 1:20) In fact, we could never know God's name unless the Creator himself told us. And he has done that in his own Book, the Holy Bible.

On one celebrated occasion, God pronounced his own name, repeating it in the hearing of Moses. Moses wrote an account of that event that has been preserved in the Bible down to our day. (Exodus 34:5) God even wrote his name with his own "finger." When he had given Moses what we today call the Ten Commandments, God miraculously wrote them down. The record says: "Now as soon as [God] had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai he proceeded to give Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone written on by God's finger." (Exodus 31:18) God's name appears eight times in the original Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20:1-17) Thus God himself has revealed his name to man both verbally and in writing. So, what is that name?

In the Hebrew language it is written <H<%&%*>H>(different script-cannot be printed on most computers such as this one). These four letters, called the Tetragrammaton, are read from right to left in Hebrew and can be represented in many modern languages as YHWH or JHVH. God's name, represented by these four consonants, appears almost 7,000 times in the original "Old Testament," or Hebrew Scriptures.

The name is a form of a Hebrew verb ha·wah' (<H<%&%>H>), meaning "to become," and actually signifies "He Causes to Become." Thus, God's name identifies him as the One who progressively fulfills his promises and unfailingly realizes his purposes. Only the true God could bear such a meaningful name.


"Hallowed Be Your Name"-What Name? ***

Psalms 83:18

"Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth." (Revised Standard Version of 1952)

"To teach them that thou, O Eternal, thou art God Most High o'er all the world." (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, of 1922)

"Let them know this: you alone bear the name Yahweh, Most High over the whole world." (Catholic Jerusalem Bible of 1966)

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (Authorized, or King James, Version of 1611)

Why does God's name look so different in these versions? Is his name LORD, the Eternal, Yahweh or Jehovah? Or are these all acceptable?

How is God's name pronounced?

The truth is, nobody knows for sure how the name of God was originally pronounced. Why not? Well, the first language used in writing the Bible was Hebrew, and when the Hebrew language was written down, the writers wrote only consonants-not vowels. Hence, when the inspired writers wrote God's name, they naturally did the same thing and wrote only the consonants.

While ancient Hebrew was an everyday spoken language, this presented no problem. The pronunciation of the Name was familiar to the Israelites and when they saw it in writing they supplied the vowels without thinking (just as, for an English reader, the abbreviation "Ltd." represents "Limited" and "bldg." represents "building").

Two things happened to change this situation. First, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to say the divine name out loud; so when they came to it in their Bible reading they uttered the Hebrew word 'Adho·nai' ("Sovereign Lord"). Further, as time went by, the ancient Hebrew language itself ceased to be spoken in everyday conversation, and in this way the original Hebrew pronunciation of God's name was eventually forgotten.

In order to ensure that the pronunciation of the Hebrew language as a whole would not be lost, Jewish scholars of the second half of the first millennium C.E. invented a system of points to represent the missing vowels, and they placed these around the consonants in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, both vowels and consonants were written down, and the pronunciation as it was at that time was preserved.

When it came to God's name, instead of putting the proper vowel signs around it, in most cases they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say 'Adho·nai'. From this came the spelling Iehouah, and, eventually, Jehovah became the accepted pronunciation of the divine name in English. This retains the essential elements of God's name from the Hebrew original.

Which Pronunciation Will You Use?

Where, though, did pronunciations like Yahweh come from? These are forms that have been suggested by modern scholars trying to deduce the original pronunciation of God's name. Some-though not all-feel that the Israelites before the time of Jesus probably pronounced God's name Yahweh. But no one can be sure. Perhaps they pronounced it that way, perhaps not.

Nevertheless, many prefer the pronunciation Jehovah. Why? Because it has a currency and familiarity that Yahweh does not have. Would it not, though, be better to use the form that might be closer to the original pronunciation? Not really, for that is not the custom with Bible names.

To take the most prominent example, consider the name of Jesus. Do you know how Jesus' family and friends addressed him in day-to-day conversation while he was growing up in Nazareth? The truth is, no human knows for certain, although it may have been something like Yeshua (or perhaps Yehoshua). It certainly was not Jesus.

However, when the accounts of his life were written in the Greek language, the inspired writers did not try to preserve that original Hebrew pronunciation. Rather, they rendered the name in Greek, I·e·sous'. Today, it is rendered differently according to the language of the reader of the Bible. Spanish Bible readers encounter Jesús (pronounced Hes·soos'). Italians spell it Gesù (pronounced Djay·zoo'). And Germans spell it Jesus (pronounced Yay'soos).

Must we stop using the name of Jesus because most of us, or even all of us, do not really know its original pronunciation? So far, no translator has suggested this. We like to use the name, for it identifies the beloved Son of God, Jesus Christ, who gave his lifeblood for us. Would it be showing honor to Jesus to remove all mention of his name in the Bible and replace it with a mere title like "Teacher," or "Mediator"? Of course not! We can relate to Jesus when we use his name the way it is commonly pronounced in our language.

Similar comments could be made regarding all the names we read in the Bible. We pronounce them in our own language and do not try to imitate the original pronunciation. Thus we say "Jeremiah," not Yir·meya'hu. Similarly we say Isaiah, although in his own day this prophet likely was known as Yesha'·ya'hu. Even scholars who are aware of the original pronunciation of these names use the modern pronunciation, not the ancient, when speaking about them.

And the same is true with the name Jehovah. Even though the modern pronunciation Jehovah might not be exactly the way it was pronounced originally, this in no way detracts from the importance of the name. It identifies the Creator, the living God, the Most High to whom Jesus said: "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified."-Matthew 6:9.

'It Cannot Be Supplanted'

While many translators favor the pronunciation Yahweh, the New World Translation and also a number of other translations continue the use of the form Jehovah because of people's familiarity with it for centuries. Moreover, it preserves, equally with other forms, the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH or JHVH.

Earlier, the German professor Gustav Friedrich Oehler made a similar decision for much the same reason. He discussed various pronunciations and concluded: "From this point onward I use the word Jehovah, because, as a matter of fact, this name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted."-Theologie des Alten Testaments (Theology of the Old Testament), second edition, published in 1882, page 143.

Similarly, in his Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique (Grammar of Biblical Hebrew), 1923 edition, in a footnote on page 49, Jesuit scholar Paul Joüon states: "In our translations, instead of the (hypothetical) form Yahweh, we have used the form Jéhovah . . . which is the conventional literary form used in French." In many other languages Bible translators use a similar form.

Is it, then, wrong to use a form like Yahweh? Not at all. It is just that the form Jehovah is likely to meet with a quicker response from the reader because it is the form that has been "naturalized" into most languages. The important thing is that we use the name and declare it to others. "Give thanks to Jehovah, you people! Call upon his name. Make known among the peoples his dealings. Make mention that his name is put on high."-Isaiah 12:4.

Let us see how God's servants have acted in harmony with that command through the centuries.

[Footnotes]

See Appendix 1A in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition.

See Appendix 1A in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition.

Different scholars have different ideas about how the name YHWH was originally pronounced.

In The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H., page 74, Dr. M. Reisel said that the "vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton must originally have been YeH"uàH or YaH"uàH."

Canon D. D. Williams of Cambridge held that the "evidence indicates, nay almost proves, that J"ahwéh was not the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton . . . The Name itself was probably J"AHÔH."-Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Periodical for Old Testament Knowledge), 1936, Volume 54, page 269.

In the glossary of the French Revised Segond Version, page 9, the following comment is made: "The pronunciation Yahvé used in some recent translations is based on a few ancient witnesses, but they are not conclusive. If one takes into account personal names that include the divine name, such as the Hebrew name of the prophet Elijah (Eliyahou) the pronunciation might just as well be Yaho or Yahou."

In 1749 the German Bible scholar Teller told of some different pronunciations of God's name he had read: "Diodorus from Sicily, Macrobius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Saint Jerome and Origenes wrote Jao; the Samaritans, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Jahe, or Jave; Ludwig Cappel reads Javoh; Drusius, Jahve; Hottinger, Jehva; Mercerus, Jehovah; Castellio, Jovah; and le Clerc, Jawoh, or Javoh."

Thus it is evident that the original pronunciation of God's name is no longer known. Nor is it really important. If it were, then God himself would have made sure that it was preserved for us to use. The important thing is to use God's name according to its conventional pronunciation in our own language.

Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah

Awabakal - Yehóa

Bugotu - Jihova

Cantonese - Yehwowah

Danish - Jehova

Dutch - Jehovah

Efik - Jehovah

English - Jehovah

Fijian - Jiova

Finnish - Jehova

French - Jéhovah

Futuna - Ihova

German - Jehova

Hungarian - Jehova

Igbo - Jehova

Italian - Geova

Japanese - Ehoba

Maori - Ihowa

Motu - Iehova

Mwala-Malu - Jihova

Narrinyeri - Jehovah

Nembe - Jihova

Petats - Jihouva

Polish - Jehowa

Portuguese - Jeová

Romanian - Iehova

Samoan - Ieova

Sotho - Jehova

Spanish - Jehová

Swahili - Yehova

Swedish - Jehova

Tahitian - Iehova

Tagalog - Jehova

Tongan - Jihova

Venda - Yehova

Xhosa - uYehova

Yoruba - Jehofah

Zulu - uJehova

[Box on page 11]

"Jehovah" has become widely known as the name of God even in non-Biblical contexts.

Franz Schubert composed the music for the lyric entitled "The Almightiness," written by Johann Ladislav Pyrker, in which the name Jehovah appears twice. It is also used at the end of the last scene of Verdi's opera "Nabucco."

Additionally, French composer Arthur Honegger's oratorio "King David" gives prominence to the name Jehovah, and renowned French author Victor Hugo used it in over 30 of his works. Both he and Lamartine wrote poems entitled "Jehovah."

In the book Deutsche Taler (The German Taler), published in 1967 by Germany's Federal Bank, there is a picture of what is one of the oldest coins bearing the name "Jehovah," a 1634 Reichstaler from the Duchy of Silesia. Regarding the picture on the coin's reverse side, it says: "Under the radiant name JEHOVAH, rising up out of the midst of clouds, is a crowned shield with the Silesian coat of arms."

In a museum in Rudolstadt, East Germany, you can see on the collar of the suit of armor once worn by Gustavus II Adolph, a 17th-century king of Sweden, the name JEHOVAH in capital letters.

Thus, for centuries the form Jehovah has been the internationally recognized way to pronounce God's name, and people who hear it instantly recognize who is being spoken about. As Professor Oehler said, "This name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted."-Theologie des Alten Testaments (Theology of the Old Testament).

Detail of an angel with God's name, found on the tomb of Pope Clement XIII in St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican

Many coins were minted bearing God's name. This one, dated 1661, is from Nuremberg, Germany. The Latin text reads: "Under the shadow of your wings"

In times past, God's name in the form of the Tetragrammaton was made part of the decoration of many religious buildings

Fourvière Catholic Basilica, Lyons, France

Bourges Cathedral, France

Church in La Celle Dunoise, France

Church in Digne, southern France

Church in São Paulo, Brazil

Strasbourg Cathedral, France

Saint Mark's Cathedral, Venice, Italy

Jehovah's name as it appears in a monastery in Bordesholm, Germany;

on a German coin dated 1635;

over a church door in Fehmarn, Germany;

and on an 1845 gravestone in Harmannschlag, Lower Austria


All the best

vancouver

[Tayeb]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-04-02 AT 03:26&nbsp;PM (GMT)]Dear Vancouver:

If Jehovah is the name of God Almighty, and if the 27 books of the New Testament were inspired by Him, then please explain why don't the other Christian Bibles use the word? The Christians claim that they have in their possession over twenty-four thousand "originals" of their Holy Writ in the Greek language, and yet not a single parchment has "Jehovah" written in it.

You say "tetragrammaton" is "Y H W H!". "Tetra," in Greek means FOUR, and "grammaton," means LETTERS. It simply means "a four letter word." The word "tetragrammaton" aparently seems to have no explanation apart from the interpolation that Jehovah's Witnesses make that the four letters YHWH are "Jehovah".

If we add the vowels YHWH becomes YeHoWaH and not Jehovah as it's made to sound in English. I'd like my name to be always Tayeb which is closest to the name in Arabic, and not Tajeb. Then why would God's name be 'Jehovah' and not simply YeHoWah as it's probable from your own arguments?

Salaams - Peace!

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-04-02 AT 11:54&nbsp;PM (GMT)]Greetings

You surely must know that J and Y are interchangeable from one lanuage sound to another. What about Majorca(not too far from Portugal). Also W and V are also interchangeable(Go to India to find out about that one). So YHWH or JHVH. Take your pick.

Regarding the Interlinear Translation:-

"It Is the Best Interlinear New Testament Available"

THAT is how Dr. Jason BeDuhn describes The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. He explains:

"I have just completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, [U.S.A.] . . . This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students."

Why does Dr. BeDuhn use the Kingdom Interlinear translation in his college courses? He answers: "Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and, by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations in use today."

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is published by Jehovah's Witnesses to help lovers of God's Word get acquainted with the original Greek text of the Bible. It contains The New Testament in the Original Greek on the left-hand side of the page (compiled by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort). A literal word-for-word English translation is found under the lines of Greek text. In the narrow right-hand column is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, which allows you to compare the interlinear translation with a modern English translation of the Bible.

The reason why God's name suddenly exited the Greek in the third century was due to the Catholic Church blatantly changing the original text to omit God's name. I have the evidence but have not got the equipment to transpose it onto the computer screen and at present not the time to type it out.

All the best

vancouver

[Tayeb]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-04-02 AT 07:48&nbsp;PM (GMT)]Dear Vancouver:

In fact YHWH occurs in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6823 times, and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;" 156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in English Bible as "Lord God".

From my knowledge of Arabic, and interpolation with Hebrew I differ with you, in stating that "Huwa" means "He is". "Ya" means "Oh". So instead of "YHWH Elohim" we have "Oh He is Elohim". "Im" of "Elohim" is plural of respect in Hebrew. Hence "Eloh" + "im" = "Elohim". "Eloh" or "Elah" stand for the name "God".

[Netcurtains]

Hi,
Its worth mentioning (as an aside), my Latin teacher at school
used to say you can pronounce latin any way you want (within reason)
as it is a "dead" language and thus no one really knows how the Romans used to speak. I suspect this might also apply (to some extent) to Moses and his words. Languages do evolve. 90% of what an Anglo Saxon said or wrote would make no sense to me at all. Middle English (chaucer) would also be more or less impossible for me. Shakespear is concidered "modern" english but even that is weird.

Some languages WRITTEN words do not change much but we all know Chinese consists of more than one language even though its written down the same. Ancient Greek reads the same as modern Greek but no one really knows if it SOUNDED the same.

The name of God could be FRED for all we know or ALI or SONY... does it really matter? The christian denominations of god like to give some 'meaning' to the name rather than the name. I'm not sure that is correct either. Perhaps it should just be left blank?

An interesting dicussion though - thank you to both of you for giving me your views.

[vancouver]

>Dear Vancouver:
>
>In fact YHWH occurs in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6823
>times, and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;"
>156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This
>combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in
>English Bible as "Lord God".
>
Greetings Tayeb

The English Bibles that have consistently translated it as "Lord God" are totally incorrect.




Regards




vancouver

[Tayeb]

Dear Vancouver:

>>In fact YHWH occurs in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6823
>>times, and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;"
>>156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This
>>combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in
>>English Bible as "Lord God".

> Greetings Tayeb

> The English Bibles that have consistently translated it as "Lord
> God" are totally incorrect.

Why won't you accept that the founders of "Jehovah's Witness" somehow misunderstood the word and assumed that "Jehovah" was the name of "God"? In fact all signs are that YHWH means "Oh He is", and it isn't a name, and reflects the fact that the Jews didn't know the name of God and said "He is". In fact biblically, when Moses asked, "What is his name" God said to Moses, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:13); RSV gives an alternative rendering: " I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be".

An interesting fact in the Old Testament is that the consonant YHWH appears also with attributes such as "YHWH-Jireh", (He will provide [Gen. 22:14]), "YHWH-Nissi" (He is my Banner [Ex. 17:15-16]), and "YHWH-Tsidkenu" (He is our Righteousness, [Jer. 23:6]) and etc.

[vancouver]

Greetings Tayeb

Every name has a meaning. Jehovah actually means 'He causes to become'. Your name means something but you still like to be called by your name and not its meaning. My name has a meaning but I have never been addressed as such. God does not want to be addressed by a mere title, neither does he want to be addressed by the meaning of his name. He is taking out of all nations a people for his name. (Acts15:14) He isn't taking people for his title or for the meaning of his name. Use logical thinking. Remember God gave us his attributes and to an extent we have his mind. Just as we like to be called by name so does he. Mankind for one reason or another does not wish to have God's name known. They seem to be embarrassed by it. I wish I knew what the big deal about this is.

Regards

vancouver

[vancouver]

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-04-02 AT 09:00&nbsp;PM (GMT)]>
>Why won't you accept that the founders of "Jehovah's
>Witness" somehow misunderstood the word and assumed that
>"Jehovah" was the name of "God"? In fact all signs are that
>YHWH means "Oh He is", and it isn't a name, and reflects the
>fact that the Jews didn't know the name of God and said "He
>is". In fact biblically, when Moses asked, "What is his
>name" God said to Moses, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:13); RSV
>gives an alternative rendering: " I am what I am" or "I will
>be what I will be".
>
>An interesting fact in the Old Testament is that the
>consonant YHWH appears also with attributes such as
>"YHWH-Jireh", (He will provide [Gen. 22:14]), "YHWH-Nissi"
>(He is my Banner [Ex. 17:15-16]), and "YHWH-Tsidkenu" (He is
>our Righteousness, [Jer. 23:6]) and etc.

Greetings Tayeb

Following is a more detailed explanation including the 27 Greek books of the 'new covenant':-

Jehovah ***

Part 1

Importance of the Name. Many modern scholars and Bible translators advocate following the tradition of eliminating the distinctive name of God. They not only claim that its uncertain pronunciation justifies such a course but also hold that the supremacy and uniqueness of the true God make unnecessary his having a particular name. Such a view receives no support from the inspired Scriptures, either those of pre-Christian times or those of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Tetragrammaton occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text printed in Biblia Hebraica and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. In the Hebrew Scriptures the New World Translation contains the divine name 6,973 times, because the translators took into account, among other things, the fact that in some places the scribes had replaced the divine name with ´Adho·nai' or ´Elo·him'. (See NW appendix, pp. 1561, 1562.) The very frequency of the appearance of the name attests to its importance to the Bible's Author, whose name it is. Its use throughout the Scriptures far outnumbers that of any of the titles, such as "Sovereign Lord" or "God," applied to him.

Noteworthy, also, is the importance given to names themselves in the Hebrew Scriptures and among Semitic peoples. Professor G. T. Manley points out: "A study of the word 'name' in the O[ld] T[estament] reveals how much it means in Hebrew. The name is no mere label, but is significant of the real personality of him to whom it belongs. . . . When a person puts his 'name' upon a thing or another person the latter comes under his influence and protection."-New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas, 1985, p. 430; compare Everyman's Talmud, by A. Cohen, 1949, p. 24; Ge 27:36; 1Sa 25:25; Ps 20:1; Pr 22:1; see NAME.

"God" and "Father" not distinctive. The title "God" is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make a god of his belly; Php 3:19). In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (´Elo·him') is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16:23, 24; 1Sa 5:7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19:37) For a Hebrew to tell a Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped "God [´Elo·him']" would obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship went.

In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ´Elo·him' (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: "It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living."-Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.

The same is true of the Greek term for God, The·os'. It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury). (Compare Ac 14:11-15.) Presenting the true situation are Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: "For even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many 'gods' and many 'lords,' there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him." The belief in numerous gods, which makes essential that the true God be distinguished from such, has continued even into this 20th century.

Paul's reference to "God the Father" does not mean that the true God's name is "Father," for the designation "father" applies as well to every human male parent and describes men in other relationships. (Ro 4:11, 16; 1Co 4:15) The Messiah is given the title "Eternal Father." (Isa 9:6) Jesus called Satan the "father" of certain murderous opposers. (Joh 8:44) The term was also applied to gods of the nations, the Greek god Zeus being represented as the great father god in Homeric poetry. That "God the Father" has a name, one that is distinct from his Son's name, is shown in numerous texts. (Mt 28:19; Re 3:12; 14:1) Paul knew the personal name of God, Jehovah, as found in the creation account in Genesis, from which Paul quoted in his writings. That name, Jehovah, distinguishes "God the Father" (compare Isa 64:8), thereby blocking any attempt at merging or blending his identity and person with that of any other to whom the title "god" or "father" may be applied.

Not a tribal god. Jehovah is called "the God of Israel" and 'the God of their forefathers.' (1Ch 17:24; Ex 3:16) Yet this intimate association with the Hebrews and with the Israelite nation gives no reason for limiting the name to that of a tribal god, as some have done. The Christian apostle Paul wrote: "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of people of the nations? Yes, of people of the nations also." (Ro 3:29) Jehovah is not only "the God of the whole earth" (Isa 54:5) but also the God of the universe, "the Maker of heaven and earth." (Ps 124:8) Jehovah's covenant with Abraham, nearly 2,000 years earlier than Paul's day, had promised blessings for people of all nations, showing God's interest in all mankind.-Ge 12:1-3; compare Ac 10:34, 35; 11:18.

Jehovah God eventually rejected the unfaithful nation of fleshly Israel. But his name was to continue among the new nation of spiritual Israel, the Christian congregation, even when that new nation began to embrace non-Jewish persons in its membership. Presiding at a Christian assembly in Jerusalem, the disciple James therefore spoke of God as having "turned his attention to the [non-Jewish] nations to take out of them a people for his name." As proof that this had been foretold, James then quoted a prophecy in the book of Amos in which Jehovah's name appears twice.-Ac 15:2, 12-14; Am 9:11, 12.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures. In view of this evidence it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called New Testament. Yet the name does appear in these sources in its abbreviated form at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression "Alleluia" or "Hallelujah" (KJ, Dy, JB, AS, RS). The call there recorded as spoken by spirit sons of God to "Praise Jah, you people!" (NW) makes clear that the divine name was not obsolete; it was as vital and pertinent as it had been in the pre-Christian period. Why, then, the absence of its full form from the Christian Greek Scriptures?

Why is the divine name in its full form not in any available ancient manuscript of the Christian Greek Scriptures?

The argument long presented was that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures made their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky'ri·os or The·os' for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?
ade their quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures on the basis of the Septuagint, and that, since this version substituted Ky'ri·os or The·os' for the Tetragrammaton, these writers did not use the name Jehovah. As has been shown, this argument is no longer valid. Commenting on the fact that the oldest fragments of the Greek Septuagint do contain the divine name in its Hebrew form, Dr. P. Kahle says: "We now know that the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS [manuscripts]. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood any more." (The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p. 222) When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?

I will give you part 2 later.

All the best

vancouver

[vancouver]

>Why won't you accept that the founders of "Jehovah's
>Witness" somehow misunderstood the word and assumed that
>"Jehovah" was the name of "God"? In fact all signs are that
>YHWH means "Oh He is", and it isn't a name, and reflects the
>fact that the Jews didn't know the name of God and said "He
>is". In fact biblically, when Moses asked, "What is his
>name" God said to Moses, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:13); RSV
>gives an alternative rendering: " I am what I am" or "I will
>be what I will be".
>
>An interesting fact in the Old Testament is that the
>consonant YHWH appears also with attributes such as
>"YHWH-Jireh", (He will provide [Gen. 22:14]), "YHWH-Nissi"
>(He is my Banner [Ex. 17:15-16]), and "YHWH-Tsidkenu" (He is
>our Righteousness, [Jer. 23:6]) and etc.

Greetings Tayeb

I guess you have read part 1 of my answer. This is part 2:-

*** Jehovah ***

When did this change in the Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures take place?

It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila's Greek version, dating from the second century C.E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew characters. Around 245 C.E., the noted scholar Origen produced his Hexapla, a six-column reproduction of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures: (1) in their original Hebrew and Aramaic, accompanied by (2) a transliteration into Greek, and by the Greek versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint, and (6) Theodotion. On the evidence of the fragmentary copies now known, Professor W. G. Waddell says: "In Origen's Hexapla . . . the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and LXX [Septuagint] all represented JHWH by <G<PIPI>G>; in the second column of the Hexapla the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew characters." (The Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford, Vol. XLV, 1944, pp. 158, 159) Others believe the original text of Origen's Hexapla used Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton in all its columns. Origen himself stated that "in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones."

As late as the fourth century C.E., Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, says in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: "And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [i.e., <H<%&%*>H>], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters." In a letter written at Rome, 384 C.E., Jerome states: "The ninth [name of God] is the Tetragrammaton, which they considered [a·nek·pho'ne·ton], that is, unspeakable, and it is written with these letters, Iod, He, Vau, He. Certain ignorant ones, because of the similarity of the characters, when they would find it in Greek books, were accustomed to read <G<PIPI>G> [Greek letters corresponding to the Roman letters PIPI]."-Papyrus Grecs Bibliques, by F. Dunand, Cairo, 1966, p. 47, ftn. 4.

The so-called Christians, then, who "replaced the Tetragrammaton by kyrios" in the Septuagint copies, were not the early disciples of Jesus. They were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.-2Th 2:3; 1Ti 4:1.

Used by Jesus and his disciples. Thus, in the days of Jesus and his disciples the divine name very definitely appeared in copies of the Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts. Did Jesus and his disciples use the divine name in speech and in writing? In view of Jesus' condemnation of Pharisaic traditions (Mt 15:1-9), it would be highly unreasonable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples let Pharisaic ideas (such as are recorded in the Mishnah) govern them in this matter. Jesus' own name means "Jehovah Is Salvation." He stated: "I have come in the name of my Father" (Joh 5:43); he taught his followers to pray: "Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified" (Mt 6:9); his works, he said, were done "in the name of my Father" (Joh 10:25); and, in prayer on the night of his death, he said he had made his Father's name manifest to his disciples and asked, "Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name" (Joh 17:6, 11, 12, 26). In view of all of this, when Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures or read from them he certainly used the divine name, Jehovah. (Compare Mt 4:4, 7, 10 with De 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; also Mt 22:37 with De 6:5; and Mt 22:44 with Ps 110:1; as well as Lu 4:16-21 with Isa 61:1, 2.) Logically, Jesus' disciples, including the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, would follow his example in this.

Why, then, is the name absent from the extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures or so-called New Testament? Evidently because by the time those extant copies were made (from the third century C.E. onward) the original text of the writings of the apostles and disciples had been altered. Thus later copyists undoubtedly replaced the divine name in Tetragrammaton form with Ky'ri·os and The·os'. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 324) This is precisely what the facts show was done in later copies of the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Restoration of the divine name in translation. Recognizing that this must have been the case, some translators have included the name Jehovah in their renderings of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures. But as far back as the 14th century the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ´E'ven bo'chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut. Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence. Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.

As to the properness of this course, note the following acknowledgment by R. B. Girdlestone, late principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. The statement was made before manuscript evidence came to light showing that the Greek Septuagint originally contained the name Jehovah. He said: "If that [Septuagint] version had retained the word [Jehovah], or had even used one Greek word for Jehovah and another for Adonai, such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N. T. Thus our Lord, in quoting the 110th Psalm<G<Þ>G> 110:1<G<Ü>G>, instead of saying, 'The Lord said unto my Lord,' might have said, 'Jehovah said unto Adoni.'"

Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds: "Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he would have to consider, each time the word <G<K¨rioV>G> occurred, whether there was anything in the context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in translating the N. T. into all languages if the title Jehovah had been allowed to stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many passages: thus, wherever the expression 'the angel of the Lord' occurs, we know that the word Lord represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression 'the word of the Lord' would be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title 'the Lord of Hosts.' Wherever, on the contrary, the expression 'My Lord' or 'Our Lord' occurs, we should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be used." (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43) It is on such a basis that translations of the Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name Jehovah have proceeded.

Outstanding, however, in this regard is the New World Translation, used throughout this work, in which the divine name in the form "Jehovah" appears 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As has been shown, there is sound basis for this.

Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning. Exodus 3:13-16 and <G<Þ>G>Ex <G<Ü>G>6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah's name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: "Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, 'The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,' and they do say to me, 'What is his name?' What shall I say to them?" But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah's name. The very name of Moses' mother Jochebed means, possibly, "Jehovah Is Glory." (Ex 6:20) Moses' question likely was related to the circumstances in which the sons of Israel found themselves. They had been in hard slavery for many decades with no sign of any relief. Doubt, discouragement, and weakness of faith in God's power and purpose to deliver them had very likely infiltrated their ranks. (Note also Eze 20:7, 8.) For Moses simply to say he came in the name of "God" (´Elo·him') or the "Sovereign Lord" (´Adho·nai') therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites. They knew the Egyptians had their own gods and lords and doubtless heard taunts from the Egyptians that their gods were superior to the God of the Israelites.

Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just "labels" to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram's name (meaning "Father Is High (Exalted)") was changed to Abraham (meaning "Father of a Crowd (Multitude)"), the change being made because of God's purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God's purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses' going to the Israelites in the "name" of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses' question was a meaningful one.

God's reply in Hebrew was: ´Eh·yeh' ´Asher' ´Eh·yeh'. Some translations render this as "I AM THAT I AM." However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yah', from which the word ´Eh·yeh' is drawn, does not mean simply "be." Rather, it means "become," or "prove to be." The reference here is not to God's self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as "I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE." Jehovah thereafter added: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, 'I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.'"-Ex 3:14, ftn.

That this meant no change in God's name, but only an additional insight into God's personality, is seen from his further words: "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, 'Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation." (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb ha·wah', "become," and actually means "He Causes to Become." This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises. Thus he always brings his purposes to realization. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.

This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah's later statement to Moses: "I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them." (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning "Father of a Crowd (Multitude)") while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.

To "know," therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David's name but still asked, "Who is David?" in the sense of asking, "What does he amount to?" (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: "Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away." (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt's king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God's carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, "You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God."-Ex 6:4-8; see ALMIGHTY.

Professor of Hebrew D. H. Weir therefore rightly says that those who claim Exodus 6:2, 3 marks the first time the name Jehovah was revealed, "have not studied [these verses] in the light of other scriptures; otherwise they would have perceived that by name must be meant here not the two syllables which make up the word Jehovah, but the idea which it expresses. When we read in Isaiah, ch<G<Þ>G>ap<G<Ü>G>. lii. 6, 'Therefore my people shall know my name;' or in Jeremiah, ch<G<Þ>G>ap<G<Ü>G>. xvi. 21, 'They shall know that my name is Jehovah;' or in the Psalms, Ps. ix. [10, 16], 'They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee;' we see at once that to know Jehovah's name is something very different from knowing the four letters of which it is composed. It is to know by experience that Jehovah really is what his name declares him to be. (Compare also Is. xix. 20, 21; Eze. xx. 5, 9; xxxix. 6, 7; Ps. lxxxiii. [18]; <G<Þ>G>Ps <G<Ü>G>lxxxix. [16]; 2 Ch. vi. 33.)"-The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, pp. 856, 857.

Known by the first human pair. The name Jehovah was not first revealed to Moses, for it was certainly known by the first man. The name initially appears in the divine Record at Genesis 2:4 after the account of God's creative works, and there it identifies the Creator of the heavens and earth as "Jehovah God." It is reasonable to believe that Jehovah God informed Adam of this account of creation. The Genesis record does not mention his doing so, but then neither does it explicitly say Jehovah revealed Eve's origin to the awakened Adam. Yet Adam's words upon receiving Eve show he had been informed of the way God had produced her from Adam's own body. (Ge 2:21-23) Much communication undoubtedly took place between Jehovah and his earthly son that is not included in the brief account of Genesis.

Eve is the first human specifically reported to have used the divine name. (Ge 4:1) She obviously learned that name from her husband and head, Adam, from whom she had also learned God's command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (although, again, the record does not directly relate Adam's passing this information on to her).-Ge 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3.

As is shown in the article ENOSH, the start that was made of "calling on the name of Jehovah" in the day of Adam's grandson Enosh was evidently not done in faith and in a divinely approved manner. For between Abel and Noah only Jared's son Enoch (not Enosh) is reported to have 'walked with the true God' in faith. (Ge 4:26; 5:18, 22-24; Heb 11:4-7) Through Noah and his family, knowledge of the divine name survived into the post-Flood period, beyond the time of the dispersion of peoples at the Tower of Babel, and was transmitted to the patriarch Abraham and his descendants.-Ge 9:26; 12:7, 8.

The Person Identified by the Name. Jehovah is the Creator of all things, the great First Cause; hence he is uncreated, without beginning. (Re 4:11) "In number his years are beyond searching." (Job 36:26) It is impossible to place an age upon him, for there is no starting point from which to measure. Though ageless, he is properly called "the Ancient of Days" since his existence stretches endlessly into the past. (Da 7:9, 13) He is also without future end (Re 10:6), being incorruptible, undying. He is therefore called "the King of eternity" (1Ti 1:17), to whom a thousand years are but as a night watch of a few hours.-Ps 90:2, 4; Jer 10:10; Hab 1:12; Re 15:3.

Despite his timelessness, Jehovah is preeminently a historical God, identifying himself with specific times, places, persons, and events. In his dealings with mankind he has acted according to an exact timetable. (Ge 15:13, 16; 17:21; Ex 12:6-12; Ga 4:4) Because his eternal existence is undeniable and the most fundamental fact in the universe, he has sworn by it in oaths, saying, "As I am alive," thereby guaranteeing the absolute certainty of his promises and prophecies. (Jer 22:24; Zep 2:9; Nu 14:21, 28; Isa 49:18) Men, too, took oaths, swearing by the fact of Jehovah's existence. (Jg 8:19; Ru 3:13) Only senseless ones say: "There is no Jehovah."-Ps 14:1; 10:4.

Descriptions of his presence. Since he is a Spirit beyond the power of humans to see (Joh 4:24), any description of his appearance in human terms can only approximate his incomparable glory. (Isa 40:25, 26) While not actually seeing their Creator (Joh 1:18), certain of his servants were given inspired visions of his heavenly courts. Their description of his presence portrays not only great dignity and awesome majesty but also serenity, order, beauty, and pleasantness.-Ex 24:9-11; Isa 6:1; Eze 1:26-28; Da 7:9; Re 4:1-3; see also Ps 96:4-6.

As can be noted, these descriptions employ metaphors and similes, likening Jehovah's appearance to things known to humans-jewels, fire, rainbow. He is even described as though he had certain human features. While some scholars make a considerable issue out of what they call the anthropomorphological expressions found in the Bible-as references to God's "eyes," "ears," "face" (1Pe 3:12), "arm" (Eze 20:33), "right hand" (Ex 15:6), and so forth-it is obvious that such expressions are necessary for the description to be humanly comprehensible. For Jehovah God to set down for us a description of himself in spirit terms would be like supplying advanced algebraic equations to persons having only the most elementary knowledge of mathematics, or trying to explain colors to a person born blind.-Job 37:23, 24.

The so-called anthropomorphisms, therefore, are never to be taken literally, any more than other metaphoric references to God as a "sun," "shield," or "Rock." (Ps 84:11; De 32:4, 31) Jehovah's sight (Ge 16:13), unlike that of humans, does not depend on light rays, and deeds done in utter darkness can be seen by him. (Ps 139:1, 7-12; Heb 4:13) His vision can encompass all the earth (Pr 15:3), and he needs no special equipment to see the growing embryo within the human womb. (Ps 139:15, 16) Nor does his hearing depend on sound waves in an atmosphere, for he can "hear" expressions though uttered voicelessly in the heart. (Ps 19:14) Man cannot successfully measure even the vast physical universe; yet the physical heavens do not embrace or enclose the place of God's residence, and much less does some earthly house or temple. (1Ki 8:27; Ps 148:13) Through Moses, Jehovah specifically warned the nation of Israel not to make an image of Him in the form of a male or of any kind of created thing. (De 4:15-18) So, whereas Luke's account records Jesus' reference to expelling demons "by means of God's finger," Matthew's account shows that Jesus thereby referred to "God's spirit," or active force.-Lu 11:20; Mt 12:28; compare Jer 27:5 and Ge 1:2.

Personal qualities revealed in creation. Certain facets of Jehovah's personality are revealed by his creative works even prior to his creation of man. (Ro 1:20) The very act of creation reveals his love. This is because Jehovah is self-contained, lacking nothing. Hence, although he created hundreds of millions of spirit sons, not one could add anything to his knowledge or contribute some desirable quality of emotion or personality that He did not already possess in superior degree.-Da 7:9, 10; Heb 12:22; Isa 40:13, 14; Ro 11:33, 34.

This, of course, does not mean that Jehovah does not find pleasure in his creatures. Since man was made "in God's image" (Ge 1:27), it follows that the joy a human father finds in his child, particularly one who shows filial love and acts with wisdom, reflects the joy that Jehovah finds in his intelligent creatures who love and wisely serve Him. (Pr 27:11; Mt 3:17; 12:18) This pleasure comes, not from any material or physical gain, but from seeing his creatures willingly hold to his righteous standards and show unselfishness and generosity. (1Ch 29:14-17; Ps 50:7-15; 147:10, 11; Heb 13:16) Contrariwise, those who take a wrong course and show contempt for Jehovah's love, who bring reproach on his name and cruel suffering to others, cause Jehovah to 'feel hurt at his heart.'-Ge 6:5-8; Ps 78:36-41; Heb 10:38.

Jehovah also finds pleasure in the exercise of his powers, whether in creation or otherwise, his works always having a real purpose and a good motive. (Ps 135:3-6; Isa 46:10, 11; 55:10, 11) As the Generous Giver of "every good gift and every perfect present," he takes delight in rewarding his faithful sons and daughters with blessings. (Jas 1:5, 17; Ps 35:27; 84:11, 12; 149:4) Yet, though he is a God of warmth and feeling, his happiness is clearly not dependent upon his creatures, nor does he sacrifice righteous principles for sentimentality.

Jehovah also showed love in granting his first-created spirit Son the privilege of sharing with him in all further works of creation, both spirit and material, generously causing this fact to be made known with resultant honor to his Son. (Ge 1:26; Col 1:15-17) He thus did not weakly fear the possibility of competition but, rather, displayed complete confidence in his own rightful Sovereignty (Ex 15:11) as well as in his Son's loyalty and devotion. He allows his spirit sons relative freedom in the discharge of their duties, on occasion even permitting them to offer their views on how they might carry out particular assignments.-1Ki 22:19-22.

As the apostle Paul pointed out, Jehovah's invisible qualities are also revealed in his material creation. (Ro 1:19, 20) His vast power is staggering to the imagination, huge galaxies of billions of stars being but 'the work of his fingers' (Ps 8:1, 3, 4; 19:1), and the richness of his wisdom displayed is such that, even after thousands of years of research and study, the understanding that men have of the physical creation is but "a whisper" compared with mighty thunder. (Job 26:14; Ps 92:5; Ec 3:11) Jehovah's creative activity toward the planet Earth was marked by logical orderliness, following a definite program (Ge 1:2-31), making the earth-as astronauts in our 20th century have called it-a jewel in space.

As revealed to man in Eden. As what kind of person did Jehovah reveal himself to his first human children? Certainly Adam in his perfection would have had to concur with the later words of the psalmist: "I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware." (Ps 139:14) From his own body-outstandingly versatile among earthly creatures-on outward to the things he found around him, the man had every reason to feel awesome respect for his Creator. Each new bird, animal, and fish; each different plant, flower, and tree; and every field, forest, hill, valley, and stream that the man saw would impress upon him the depth and breadth of his Father's wisdom and the colorfulness of Jehovah's personality as reflected in the grand variety of his creative works. (Ge 2:7-9; compare Ps 104:8-24.) All of man's senses-sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch-would communicate to his receptive mind the evidence of a most generous and thoughtful Creator.

Nor were Adam's intellectual needs, his need for conversation and companionship, forgotten, as his Father provided him with an intelligent feminine counterpart. (Ge 2:18-23) They both could well have sung to Jehovah, as did the psalmist: "Rejoicing to satisfaction is with your face; there is pleasantness at your right hand forever." (Ps 16:8, 11) Having been the object of so much love, Adam and Eve should certainly have known that "God is love," the source and supreme example of love.-1Jo 4:16, 19.

Most important, Jehovah God supplied man's spiritual needs. Adam's Father revealed himself to his human son, communicating with him, giving him divine assignments of service, the obedient performance of which would constitute a major part of man's worship.-Ge 1:27-30; 2:15-17; compare Am 4:13.

A God of moral standards. Man early came to know Jehovah not merely as a wise and bountiful Provider but also as a God of morals, one holding to definite standards as to what is right and what is wrong in conduct and practice. If, as indicated, Adam knew the account of creation, then he also knew Jehovah had divine standards, for the account says of his creative works that Jehovah saw that "it was very good," hence meeting his perfect standard.-Ge 1:3, 4, 12, 25, 31; compare De 32:3, 4.

Without standards there could be no means for determining or judging good and bad or for measuring and recognizing degrees of accuracy and excellence. In this regard, the following observations from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959, Vol. 21, pp. 306, 307) are enlightening:

"Man's accomplishments [in establishing standards] . . . pale into insignificance when compared with standards in nature. The constellations, the orbits of the planets, the changeless normal properties of conductivity, ductility, elasticity, hardness, permeability, refractivity, strength, or viscosity in the materials of nature, . . . or the structure of cells, are a few examples of the astounding standardization in nature."

Showing the importance of such standardization in the material creation, the same work says: "Only through the standardization found in nature is it possible to recognize and classify . . . the many kinds of plants, fishes, birds or animals. Within these kinds, individuals resemble each other in minutest detail of structure, function and habits peculiar to each. [Compare Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25.] If it were not for such standardization in the human body, physicians would not know whether an individual possessed certain organs, where to look for them . . . In fact, without nature's standards there could be no organized society, no education and no physicians; each depends upon underlying, comparable similarities."

Adam saw much stability in Jehovah's creative works, the regular cycle of day and night, the steady downward course of the water in Eden's river in response to the force of gravity, and countless other things that gave proof that Earth's Creator is not a God of confusion but of order. (Ge 1:16-18; 2:10; Ec 1:5-7; Jer 31:35, 36; 1Co 14:33) Man surely found this helpful in carrying out his assigned work and activities (Ge 1:28; 2:15), being able to plan and work with confidence, free from anxious uncertainty.

In view of all of this, it should not have seemed strange to intelligent man that Jehovah should set standards governing man's conduct and his relations with his Creator. Jehovah's own splendid workmanship set the example for Adam in his cultivating and caring for Eden. (Ge 2:15; 1:31) Adam also learned God's standard for marriage, that of monogamy, and of family relationship. (Ge 2:24) Especially stressed as essential for life itself was the standard of obedience to God's instructions. Since Adam was humanly perfect, perfect obedience was the standard Jehovah set for him. Jehovah gave his earthly son the opportunity to demonstrate love and devotion by obedience to His command to abstain from eating of one of the many fruit trees in Eden. (Ge 2:16, 17) It was a simple thing. But Adam's circumstances then were simple, free from the complexities and confusion that have since developed. Jehovah's wisdom in this simple test was emphasized by the words of Jesus Christ some 4,000 years later: "The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much."-Lu 16:10.

This orderliness and the standards set would not detract from man's enjoyment of life but would contribute to it. As the encyclopedia article on standards, mentioned earlier, observes regarding the material creation: "Yet with this overwhelming evidence of standards none charges nature with monotony. Although a narrow band of spectral wave lengths forms the foundation, the available variations and combinations of colour to delight the eye of the observer are virtually without limit. Similarly, all of the artistry of music comes to the ear through another small group of frequencies." (Vol. 21, p. 307) Likewise, God's requirements for the human pair allowed them all the freedom that a righteous heart could desire. There was no need to hem them in with a multitude of laws and regulations. The loving example set for them by their Creator and their respect and love for him would protect them from exceeding the proper bounds of their freedom.-Compare 1Ti 1:9, 10; Ro 6:15-18; 13:8-10; 2Co 3:17.

Jehovah God, therefore, by his very Person, his ways, and his words, was and is the Supreme Standard for all the universe, the definition and the sum of all goodness. For that reason his Son when on earth could say to a man: "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God."-Mr 10:17, 18; also Mt 19:17; 5:48.

Name to Be Sanctified and Vindicated. All things relating to God's person are holy; his personal name, Jehovah, is holy and hence is to be sanctified. (Le 22:32) To sanctify means "to make holy, set apart or hold as sacred," and therefore not to use as something common, or ordinary. (Isa 6:1-3; Lu 1:49; Re 4:8; see SANCTIFICATION.) Because of the Person it represents, Jehovah's name is "great and fear-inspiring" (Ps 99:3, 5), "majestic," and "unreachably high" (Ps 8:1; 148:13), worthy of being regarded with awe (Isa 29:23).

Profanation of the name. The evidence is that the divine name was so regarded until events in the garden of Eden brought about its profanation. Satan's rebellion brought God's name and reputation into question. To Eve, he claimed to speak for God in telling her what "God knows," while at the same time he cast doubt on God's command, expressed to Adam, concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. (Ge 3:1-5) Being divinely commissioned and being the earthly head through whom God communicated instructions to the human family, Adam was Jehovah's representative on earth. (Ge 1:26, 28; 2:15-17; 1Co 11:3) Those serving in such capacity are said to 'minister in Jehovah's name' and 'speak in his name.' (De 18:5, 18, 19; Jas 5:10) Thus, while his wife Eve had already profaned Jehovah's name by her disobedience, Adam's doing so was an especially reprehensible act of disrespect for the name he represented.-Compare 1Sa 15:22, 23.

The supreme issue a moral one. It is evident that the spirit son who became Satan knew Jehovah as a God of moral standards, not as a capricious, erratic person. Had he known Jehovah as a God given to uncontrolled, violent outbursts, he could only have expected immediate, on-the-spot extermination for the course he took. The issue Satan raised in Eden, therefore, was not simply a test of Jehovah's mightiness or power to destroy. Rather, it was a moral issue: that of God's moral right to exercise universal sovereignty and require implicit obedience and devotion of all of his creatures in all places. Satan's approach to Eve reveals this. (Ge 3:1-6) Likewise, the book of Job relates how Jehovah brings out into the open before all his assembled angelic sons the extent of the position taken by his Adversary. Satan made the claim that the loyalty of Job (and, by implication, of any of God's intelligent creatures) toward Jehovah was not wholehearted, not based on true devotion and genuine love.-Job 1:6-22; 2:1-8.

Thus, the question of integrity on the part of God's intelligent creatures was a secondary, or subsidiary, issue arising out of the primary issue of God's right to universal sovereignty. These questions would require time in order for the veracity or falsity of the charges to be demonstrated, for the heart attitude of God's creatures to be proved, and thus for the issue to be settled beyond any doubt. (Compare Job 23:10; 31:5, 6; Ec 8:11-13; Heb 5:7-9; see INTEGRITY; WICKEDNESS.) Jehovah thus did not immediately execute the rebellious human pair nor the spirit son who raised the issue, and so the two foretold 'seeds,' representing opposite sides of the issue, would come into existence.-Ge 3:15.

That this issue still remained alive when Jesus Christ was on earth is seen from his confrontation with Satan in the wilderness after Jesus' 40-day fast. The serpentlike tactics employed by Jehovah's Adversary in his temptation efforts toward God's Son followed the pattern seen in Eden some 4,000 years earlier, and Satan's offer of rulership over earthly kingdoms made clear that the issue of universal sovereignty had not changed. (Mt 4:1-10) The book of Revelation reveals the continuance of the issue down until the time when Jehovah God declares the case closed (compare Ps 74:10, 22, 23) and executes righteous judgment upon all opposers, by his righteous Kingdom rule bringing complete vindication and sanctification to his holy name.-Re 11:17, 18; 12:17; 14:6, 7; 15:3, 4; 19:1-3, 11-21; 20:1-10, 14.

Why is the sanctification of God's name of primary importance?

The entire Bible account revolves around this issue and its settlement, and makes manifest Jehovah God's primary purpose: the sanctification of his own name. Such sanctification would require a cleansing of God's name of all reproach and false charges, that is, a vindicating of it. But, much more than that, it would require the honoring of that name as sacred by all intelligent creatures in heaven and earth. This, in turn, would mean their recognizing and respecting Jehovah's sovereign position, doing so willingly, wanting to serve him, delighting to do his divine will, because of love for him. David's prayer to Jehovah at Psalm 40:5-10 well expresses such attitude and true sanctification of Jehovah's name. (Note the apostle's application of portions of this psalm to Christ Jesus at Heb 10:5-10.)

Upon the sanctification of Jehovah's name, therefore, depend the good order, peace, and well-being of all the universe and its inhabitants. God's Son showed this, at the same time pointing out Jehovah's means for accomplishing his purpose, when he taught his disciples to pray to God: "Let your name be sanctified. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth." (Mt 6:9, 10) This primary purpose of Jehovah provides the key for understanding the reason behind God's actions and his dealings with his creatures as set forth in the entire Bible.

Thus, we find that the nation of Israel, whose history forms a large part of the Bible record, was selected to be a 'name people' for Jehovah. (De 28:9, 10; 2Ch 7:14; Isa 43:1, 3, 6, 7) Jehovah's Law covenant with them laid prime importance on their giving exclusive devotion to Jehovah as God and not taking up his name in a worthless way, "for Jehovah will not leave the one unpunished who takes up his name in a worthless way." (Ex 20:1-7; compare Le 19:12; 24:10-23.) By his display of his power to save and power to destroy when liberating Israel from Egypt, Jehovah's name was "declared in all the earth," its fame preceding Israel in their march to the Promised Land. (Ex 9:15, 16; 15:1-3, 11-17; 2Sa 7:23; Jer 32:20, 21) As the prophet Isaiah expressed it: "Thus you led your people in order to make a beautiful name for your own self." (Isa 63:11-14) When Israel showed a rebellious attitude in the wilderness, Jehovah dealt mercifully with them and did not abandon them. However, he revealed his primary reason in saying: "I went acting for the sake of my own name that it might not be profaned before the eyes of the nations."-Eze 20:8-10.

Throughout the history of that nation, Jehovah kept the importance of his sacred name before them. The capital city, Jerusalem, with its Mount Zion was the place Jehovah chose "to place his name there, to have it reside." (De 12:5, 11; 14:24, 25; Isa 18:7; Jer 3:17) The temple built in that city was the 'house for Jehovah's name.' (1Ch 29:13-16; 1Ki 8:15-21, 41-43) What was done at that temple or in that city, for good or for bad, inevitably affected Jehovah's name and would be given attention by him. (1Ki 8:29; 9:3; 2Ki 21:4-7) The profaning of Jehovah's name there would bring certain destruction upon the city and lead to the casting away of the temple itself. (1Ki 9:6-8; Jer 25:29; 7:8-15; compare Jesus' actions and words at Mt 21:12, 13; 23:38.) Because of these facts, the plaintive petitions of Jeremiah and Daniel on behalf of their people and city urged that Jehovah grant mercy and help 'for his own name's sake.'-Jer 14:9; Da 9:15-19.

In foretelling his restoration of his name people to Judah and their cleansing, Jehovah again made clear to them his main concern, saying: "And I shall have compassion on my holy name." "'Not for your sakes am I doing it, O house of Israel, but for my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have come in.' 'And I shall certainly sanctify my great name, which was being profaned . . . ; and the nations will have to know that I am Jehovah,' is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'when I am sanctified among you before their eyes.'"-Eze 36:20-27, 32.

These and other scriptures show that Jehovah does not exaggerate mankind's importance. All men being sinners, they are justly worthy of death, and it is only by God's undeserved kindness and mercy that any will gain life. (Ro 5:12, 21; 1Jo 4:9, 10) Jehovah owes nothing to mankind, and life everlasting for those who attain it will be a gift, not wages earned. (Ro 5:15; 6:23; Tit 3:4, 5) True, he has demonstrated unparalleled love toward mankind. (Joh 3:16; Ro 5:7, 8) But it is contrary to Scriptural fact and a putting of matters in wrong perspective to view human salvation as if it were the all-important issue or the criterion by which God's justice, righteousness, and holiness can be measured. The psalmist expressed the true perspective of matters when he humbly and wonderingly exclaimed: "O Jehovah our Lord, how majestic your name is in all the earth, you whose dignity is recounted above the heavens! . . . When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have prepared, what is mortal man that you keep him in mind, and the son of earthling man that you take care of him?" (Ps 8:1, 3, 4; 144:3; compare Isa 45:9; 64:8.) The sanctification of Jehovah God's name rightly means more than the life of all mankind. Thus, as God's Son showed, man should love his human neighbor as he loves himself, but he must love God with his whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. (Mr 12:29-31) This means loving Jehovah God more than relatives, friends, or life itself.-De 13:6-10; Re 12:11; compare the attitude of the three Hebrews at Da 3:16-18; see JEALOUS, JEALOUSY.

This Scriptural view of matters should not repel persons but, rather, should cause them to appreciate the true God all the more. Since Jehovah could, in full justice, put an end to all sinful mankind, this exalts all the more the greatness of his mercy and undeserved kindness in saving some of mankind for life. (Joh 3:36) He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 18:23, 32; 33:11), yet neither will he allow the wicked to escape the execution of his judgment. (Am 9:2-4; Ro 2:2-9) He is patient and long-suffering, with salvation in view for obedient ones (2Pe 3:8-10), yet he will not tolerate forever a situation that brings reproach upon his lofty name. (Ps 74:10, 22, 23; Isa 65:6, 7; 2Pe 2:3) He shows compassion and is understanding regarding human frailties, forgiving repentant ones "in a large way" (Ps 103:10-14; 130:3, 4; Isa 55:6, 7), yet he does not excuse persons from the responsibilities they rightly bear for their own actions and the effects these have on themselves and their families. They reap what they have sown. (De 30:19, 20; Ga 6:5, 7, 8) Thus, Jehovah shows a beautiful and perfect balance of justice and mercy. Those having the proper perspective of matters as revealed in his Word (Isa 55:8, 9; Eze 18:25, 29-31) will not commit the grave error of trifling with his undeserved kindness or 'missing its purpose.'-2Co 6:1; Heb 10:26-31; 12:29.

Unchanging in Qualities and Standards. As Jehovah told the people of Israel: "I am Jehovah; I have not changed." (Mal 3:6) This was some 3,500 years after God's creation of mankind and some 1,500 years from the time of God's making the Abrahamic covenant. While some claim that the God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures differs from the God revealed by Jesus Christ and by the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, examination shows this claim to be without any foundation. Of God, the disciple James rightly said: "With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow." (Jas 1:17) There was no 'mellowing' of Jehovah God's personality during the centuries, for no mellowing was needed. His severity as revealed in the Christian Greek Scriptures is no less nor his love any greater than it was at the beginning of his dealings with mankind in Eden.

The seeming differences in personality are in reality merely different aspects of the same unchanging personality. These result from the differing circumstances and persons dealt with, calling for different attitudes or relationships. (Compare Isa 59:1-4.) It was not Jehovah, but Adam and Eve, who changed; they put themselves in a position where Jehovah's unchangeable righteous standards allowed no further dealings with them as members of his beloved universal family. Being perfect, they were fully responsible for their deliberate wrongdoing (Ro 5:14) and hence beyond the limits of divine mercy, although Jehovah showed them undeserved kindness in starting them out with clothing and allowing them to live for centuries outside the sanctuary of Eden and bring forth offspring before they finally died from the effects of their own sinful course. (Ge 3:8-24) After their eviction from Eden all divine communication with Adam and his wife apparently ceased.

Why he can deal with imperfect humans. Jehovah's just standards allowed for his dealing differently with Adam and Eve's offspring than with their parents. Why? For the reason that Adam's offspring inherited sin, hence involuntarily started life as imperfect creatures with a built-in inclination toward wrongdoing. (Ps 51:5; Ro 5:12) Thus, there was basis for mercy toward them. Jehovah's first prophecy (Ge 3:15), spoken at the time of pronouncing judgment in Eden, showed that the rebellion of his first human children (as well as that of one of his spirit sons) had not embittered Jehovah nor dried up the flow of his love. That prophecy pointed in symbolic terms toward a righting of the situation produced by the rebellion and a restoration of conditions to their original perfection, the full significance being revealed millenniums later.-Compare the symbolisms of the "serpent," the "woman," and the "seed" at Re 12:9, 17; Ga 3:16, 29; 4:26, 27.

It was long but I feel it answers your questions fully.

All the best

vancouver

[Tayeb]

Dear Vancouver:

To give one attribute to the Almighty is to limit His Infinite Power. I beg to differ with you and that of "Jehovah's Wintesses" because it is evident that the adoption of the word "Jehovah" stems from ignorance of its roots. My name "Tayeb", in Arabic, or "Kind", in English, limits the name and shows that I'm mere human.

The significance of fallacy of the usage of the term "YHWH" is the first word "Yah" which means "Oh!" be it in old Hebrew or Arabic. Why would God want to be called "Oh He is"? It sounds strange!

The prefix "Yah" in both Hebrew, and Arabic, is a vocative or exclamatory particle, mistakably understood by some as abridged name of God. Hence, both "YAH" and "YHWH" ( Isa. 12:2;26:4) were combined in this two verses, and therefore there is something more than that implication. "Yah" occurs 50 times in Hebrew scriptures. In Psalms 68:4, rendered "Yah" in KJV and American Translation.

"Yah" is an exclamation, or utterance of strong feeling in both Arabic and Hebrew, sometimes used to express the Mercy of God. The Biblical scholars, surely will not opposed that "Yah" is usually linked with moving emotion of praise and song, where generally found where the subject theme dwells upon a rejoicing over victory and deliverance, or where there is an acknowledgement of God's Mighty Hand and Power. In Arabic we say "Yah Allah!" "Yah Rahman!" etc. In other words, this is an exclamation utterance as " Oh!" in English equivalent. It is found in the poetic literature of the Bible. James Moffatt rendered YHWH "O Eternal" (Ps. 83:18) which Huwa as the Eternal and Yah is "O", hence "O He is". "Yah", is also found 24 times in the expression "Alleluyah," literally an expression of Praise of God.

So despite all your arguments, it seems there's a mistake in assuming that YHWH to be the name of God. We, Muslims, praise Allah with His 99 Attributes. The word "Allah", in its original pristine Arabic, has no plural or gender. "Hu" in YHWH gives a gender to Allah, a male gender and it shows the weakness of the argument that YHWH may be the name of Allah, something that the Jews would never accept.

Salaams - Peace!

[vancouver]

Greetings Tayeb

The Jews always referred to God by name until they became superstitious about using it. By the way virtually all English translations of Psalm 83:18 refer to God as JEHOVAH and call him the highest being. In the bible God and the Angels are always referred to in the male gender and when the angels materialised human bodies it has always been male human bodies. The female gender only has application on the earth. All bible scholars believe that God has a name but they are not sure of its correct pronounciation and often use Yahweh or Jehovah. Modern Jews would use Yahweh while english speaking christians use Jehovah. Even one of the church of england famous hymn uses the name Jehovah for God. A name does not limit God at all. After all it does mean 'He Causes to become' which is very apt for the Creator or Causer of all life and the universe etc.

All the best

vancouver

[jihsgo]

just an anecdote regards the 'name' of the creator. My father, now deceased, was in hospital in the intensive care unit to undergo a procedure which would either correct his heart or kill him. The night before the procedure, he was naturally restless, and slept only fitfully. He was not classically 'devout' but was nonetheless a very spiritual man. During a sleep period, he was suddenly awakened by a feeling of a 'presence' and an intense brightness. Startled, he questioned who was there. A voice, which he later described as hearing not only with his ears, but he said vibrated into his very soul, replied "I AM THAT I AM". a feeling of peace came over him, and he said he knew whatever the outcome of the upcoming prodedure was God's will. Did he hear this? Was he hallucinating? I don't know. I know he believed and was comforted. He did live a further 5 years. He told this experience to many people, especially those in turmoil. He was assured of the power and very existence of the Creator.

[Tayeb]

Dear Vancouver:

>Greetings Tayeb
>
>The Jews always referred to God by name until they became
>superstitious about using it.

"Oh He is", or "Oh He Causes" has the vocative and exclamatory particle "Yah" which you didn't explain.

> By the way virtually all
>English translations of Psalm 83:18 refer to God as JEHOVAH
>and call him the highest being.

No that isn't true as I mentioned.

> In the bible God and the
>Angels are always referred to in the male gender and when
>the angels materialised human bodies it has always been male
>human bodies. The female gender only has application on the
>earth. All bible scholars believe that God has a name but
>they are not sure of its correct pronounciation and often
>use Yahweh or Jehovah. Modern Jews would use Yahweh while
>english speaking christians use Jehovah. Even one of the
>church of england famous hymn uses the name Jehovah for God.
>A name does not limit God at all. After all it does mean 'He
>Causes to become' which is very apt for the Creator or
>Causer of all life and the universe etc.
>

That's why I stated that YHWH cannot be the name of God as it gives God a gender from the word "Hu". It does limit God because He cannot be just resumed to a definition. What I'm trying to prove is that "Jehovah's Witnesses" have adopted the word "Jehovah" to prove that somehow they have found something new when in fact the word means only part of what God or Allah is.

Salaams -Peace

[JaLaaL]

Hi,

I just wanted to say that "seeing" something in a dream must not be a reason to follow a religion. It could also be possible that Budha, Karl Max or Confusios etc. could appear in his dream.

Would this than be the reason to follow a (new) religion ?

[vancouver]

Greetings Tayeb

The fact that God has a name has never been under dispute in Judaism or Christianity. Also Psalms 83:18 does translate the Tetrogrammaton as JEHOVAH in most english translations- that is an undisputed fact. I think you ought to check out some of the translations such as the King James version for instance. God decided he has a name and not people so how can his own choice limit him? A mere title without a name is what would limit him. Even Pharoah was forced to recognise what the name JEHOVAH meant and that Jehovah was the highest being.

All the best

vancouver

[jihsgo]

remsg66; true, it is not a reason. He never had the opportunity to see a Quran or even meet a follower to compare. Strictly speaking, he wasn't a practising christian either. You don't find many muslims on Indian reserves, although from being on this site I;m sure he would have welcomed the opportunity to learn more.