Why Don't Christians refer to god as yahweh

[Godscreated]

Funny, that, GC....Jews would disagree. The temple meant the temple, not some after the fact christian shoehorning with Jesus.

That's why for the most part they missed Him. If there prophetic expectations of Christ were to be met, then He is never coming, the time of His coming for them has passed, I think because of that we can reject what they believe about Christ.

GC

[Bad Writer]

Nah. The OT Jews were just as wrong about a future messiah as the Xtians are about there being one.

[Minimalist]

I've already dismissed that in another thread, why are you over here trying you lame tricks.

No one puts any stock in your bullshit apologetics, G-C. The Jews - you remember them...you fuckers stole their religions - were talking about the fucking building. Funny thing is, at the time you liars pretend your story happened there already was a temple so the godboy would have had nothing to rebuild.

I laugh my ass off at your "dismissals." You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Godscreated]

Nah. The OT Jews were just as wrong about a future messiah as the Xtians are about there being one.

No they weren't they just expected Him to be different from what He is. They were so blinded by their own self importance to God that they missed His gift. You know, saying this made me really sad.

GC

[Bad Writer]

Nah. The OT Jews were just as wrong about a future messiah as the Xtians are about there being one.

No they weren't they just expected Him to be different from what He is. They were so blinded by their own self importance to God that they missed His gift. You know, saying this made me really sad.

GC

Most things that you write make me sad.

[evenheathen]

They were so blinded by their own self importance

Irony, folks. GC is full of it.

(and I don't mean just the irony)

[Aractus]

OT/NT naming is basically weird.

That point I do not agree with but we can come back to it later...

As I understand it Jesus was actually Joshua - why they couldn't use that name I have no idea.

This was going to be my other point, that "we" redily use 'Jesus' as opposed to 'Joshua' or 'Yoshua'/'Yesus'/'Yeshua' (more "correct" pronunciation of Heb./Grk./Arm.) And also that three times in the NT translators "change" 'Iēsous' to Joshua (Lk 3:29, Acts 7:45, Heb 4:8), and the remainder of the time it's "changed" to 'Jesus'. I only say changed in as much as it's not directly transliterated although 'Jesus' is a pretty close transliteration of the Greek.

The bit in Matthew that says "and he shall be known as Emmanuel," is weirder still - as it doesn't appear he ever was.

Incorrect.

Immanuel, meaning "God [is] with us". it is literally stating that Jesus is deity, and will be called as such. John 20:28 is one such obvious example.

The Yahweh bit is deliberately written in Hebrew without vowels precisely so you can't actually say it. Its all to do with the instruction to never take the lord's name in vain.

Rubbish. Hebrew was a spoken language, and didn't have vowels in written form until the time of the Masorites - by which time it was largely a written language and no longer a spoken language. The Masorites put the vowel points in, and that's where we get the rendering "Jehovah". That's as an approximate transliteration, a more accurate rendering would be "Yehowah".

A number of Biblical scholars are convinced that the vowel points over the Tetragrammaton are not for it but rather are from Adonai, but as I already said in my previous post, they ignore the fact that the closest Hebrew name in the Bible to YHWH is YHWDH and it has exactly the same vowel points over it, and has been transliterated into Greek, so it's a rather flimsy assumption, along with the fact that it would mean that the Jewish people had to "forget" how to say the name of God, which itself seems dubious because there are a number of early sources which talk about it, including Josephus - all of this has to be ignored in order to change the vowels from what was written in the 9th century to something different that transforms "Ye•ho•wah" to "Yah•way".

Even the pseudonym Adonai is written in a way that's impossible to pronounce and even then Jews don't take risks with that one and when practising or teaching prayers they use Ashem to replace Adonai.

That's an entirely different discussion.

[max-greece]

Actually the line "she (his mother) shall call him Emmanuel" is not in Matthew. It's in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is not called Emmanuel anywhere in the New Testament. It's supposed to be a fulfilled prophecy, but there's no evidence that the passages in Isaiah are referring to Jesus at all. Even if they were, it's not any sort of fulfilled prophecy, because Jesus is just a character in a book written by someone who could have read the older parts, and then claimed prophecy fulfilled. It's like me making a prophecy that the word "sentence" will be the last word in this sentence.

Matthew 1:23

The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and they will call him Immanuel which means "God with us."

The fact that he is never called immanuel thereafter is indeed puzzling - but it is specifically mentioned in Matthew.

---

"John 20:28 is one such obvious example."

My lord and my God?

That's the weakest link I've ever seen. How do you get from "God is with us" to Immanuel meaning Jesus is God?

[Aractus]

Why not try quoting it in context:

• Matt 1:20-23:
  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
  
  [Is 7:14b] “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
  and they shall call his name Immanuel”
  
  (which means, God with us).

This is an example of the NT quoting the OT pretty much verbatim, with the exception that Is 7:14b:

Behold, the maiden shall conceive and bear a son, and [they] shall call his name Immanuel.

And I don't believe for a second that Matthew is quoting from "the LXX", nor is he actually exercising "creative license", rather he is translating Hebrew to Greek, all translation involves some level of interpretation, and he has correctly interpreted 'almah' as virgin and noted the more general context of "call his name Immanuel". 'Immanuel' isn't a name anyway, I mean in contemporary context it is, but it's not a real Hebrew name like Daniel, Joshua, Noah, Abraham, etc. So it isn't intended to be strictly literal, it'd be like saying "his name shall be called water" or something like that, at the end of the day it's not a literal name, nor is it meant to be.

[max-greece]

" at the end of the day it's not a literal name, nor is it meant to be"

And why is it capitalized if it isn't meant to be a name?