The pork thing I'm still sceptical of, to be honest. The analogy to a car manual is great, and I'm sure that holds well for extramarital relations and a lot of other things that the Old Testament spelled out. The dietary restrictions on scavengers was also pertinent at the time, I imagine. In Boy Scouts we were warned to avoid pork sausage, etc. on camps because it doesn't keep well and it must be cooked well. Millenia ago proper hygenic and culinary conditions were hard to insure, so the best bet was just to stay away. But these days... U.S. pigs have nothing to scavenge in the first place but quality feed soaked in antibiotics. I can't imagine that the FDA and consumer advocates like Ralph Nadar would keep mum on something that is unhealthy, laden with parasites and unhealthy levels of toxins.

Have you read Benedict XVI's book Jesus of Nazareth? I liked it. Parts of it are a bit on the academic side, parts are more pious. In the section on The Kingdom he addresses the question of whether the Messiah wanted an organized religion or not (the Pope argues, well, I think, that the answer is yes). In several sections he discusses the danger of legalism. He also feels that moral teachings have to be grounded in truth, the nature of man as created by God, etc.

Hello D,

It's great to hear from you so quickly. I enjoyed our conversation and would be happy to continue on anytime you like. I'm very interested in all the topics we touched on.

Regarding pork, here are a couple of videos on YouTube that you might like to check out:

The original "Coke Test" http://jp.youtube.com/wa...PLcs&feature=related
2. A follow-up to the test by someone who was skeptical: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=OI41cgqHZmg
As for the Pope's book, I'm afraid that my experience with the Jesuits led me to a deeper search for God which ultimately resulted in my decision to leave the Church. I stumbled across a book entitled "Yada Yahweh: A Conversation with God" written by American author Yada. Here's a sampling from the opening paragraph:

"Most folks haven't studied the underlying texts of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, or ancient Chinese religions or the foundational sources for Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or Socialist Secular Humanism. You may not know, as I do, that these belief systems aren't credible. But thankfully, it won't matter. The moment you come to realize that Yahuweh's Scriptures are inspired, trustworthy and true; all conflicting paths to God will become irrelevant. For that matter, so will all religions. And that's because the God who inspired the prophets whose words we are going to study is too merciful to be tolerant of deception - no matter how enticing man's words may seem, or how clever the counterfeit."

The complete chapter "Re'shith – Beginning" is here: http://yadayahwehcom/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis.YHWH

At the very least, I would encourage you to read this chapter as well as the subsequent ones that deal with the Genesis/Creation account – just brilliant.

Yada is also the author of several other books (all free and available online) including "Prophet of Doom – Islam in Muhammad's Own Words" - http://prophetofdoom.net...uhammads_Own_Words.Islam

My decision to leave the Church was by far one of the most difficult I've ever made. I am/was a "cradle Catholic." I have an uncle who's a Diocesan priest and aunt who is a Benedictine nun. My announcement was not well received.

Anyway, I'll leave that for a future discussion.

Regards,

-Yada

-----Original Message-----
From: DK
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 8:45 AM
To: Yada
Subject: Re: Thank You

Disgusting, I gotta admit. I mean the pork. Still, I would go more on data than gross-me-out visuals. So far, all I saw says that meat should be fresh, and pork is safer when cooked. Coke doesn't measure toxins.

In high school my brother and I made wine and beer. We tried meed once, made with honey. Fermentation can be a little tricky - you want the yeast germs to get cooking, but all other bacteria and fungi to get out of there. A little SO2 can help in that regard, but it gives a slightly acidic taste. I don't remember what we did wrong, but when we came back to look the container was full of the most bizarre fungi you've ever seen. My brother took it school to show off. Some said "Cool!"; most said "Barf!" I don't think anyone swore off honey after seeing that, though.

Tapeworms, ringworms, etc., are parasites. They attach themselves to the intestinal tract and sap out nutrition. Maggots are not. If swallowed (I have known cases) they are quickly killed by stomach acid. Since you only find them in rotten meat, they are usually accompanied by germs that can be very toxic. But many kinds of larva and worms are edible, and in fact some cultures have cultivated them. To modern Westerners it sounds gross, but that's not a measure of how healthy they are.

As for the theology... that'll take more time. I'll try to keep an open mind to all this, but the starting point strikes me as erroneous. He says once you know scripture (ahem - it sounds flippant to me to toss aside the scholarship of millenia of scholars. If there's one thing that impresses me about the current Pope, it's his knowledge of scripture and the world in which it was written), you won't need religion. But the scriptures show Yahweh establishing a people, priests, a temple, etc. And in the New Testament, the Kingdom Jesus desires has a visible, hierarchical structure, his sacraments form the basis of a community, apostles have authority to bind and loose... Jesus wrote no scripture, but his church, aided by his Spirit, did, and it even has guarantees regarding correct interpretation (something needed for any religion of the Word, or you end up with anything and everything, by anyone that poses as a theologian or prophet).

Of course, it's not just a question of argumentation. I'll be keeping you and these questions in my prayers.

DK

-----Original Message-----
From: DK
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:00 PM
To: Yada
Subject: Online Bible study

I took a quick look at the site you recommended. A lot of it is good, some of it I have questions about, but it's the kind of thing that I haven't gone through well enough to say anything generic about it yet.

Have you seen this site? Scott Hahn knows his scriptures, and I find many of his observations rewarding.

http://www.salvationhist...nline/gettingstarted.cfm

DK

You have asked me to respond to the letter a Catholic sent to you. On the first subject, Ken Power has done a far more comprehensive study on the foods Yah advises His people not to eat, so there isn't much I can add. This subject is covered in The Owner's Manual.

The Catholic's theological position is typical of those who are unaware of the enormous differences between Catholicism and Scripture. He may be a smart person, but bereft of the evidence, he's unable to see just how ignorant (lacking knowledge) irrational (lacking judgment) his opinions really are.

Catholics are won't to see their popes as holy and somehow enlightened. It is the basis of the religion. But if what your Catholic acquaintance said were true, that this pope were particularly knowledgeable on Scripture, then he would have to be the world's most effective hypocrite. Hundreds of Catholicism's most important positions and teachings are substantially different than those found in the Scripture upon which they claim authority. That being the case, regardless of whether Scripture is inspired, Catholicism has to be untrue. It is simple logic.

Yahweh takes credit for freeing His people, who are Yahuwdym, not Catholics or Christians, and for helping them during the Exodus and again as the entered Yahudah. There is no rational correlation between Yahuwdym, the Exodus, and Yahuwdah with Catholics, Catholicism, or Rome. To make such an argument in favor of a religion is ignorant and irrational.

As you know, Yahuweh's Temple was singular, and it was in Jerusalem--on Mount Mowriyah. There were not multiples of them, nor was His Temple in Rome. It's basis, which is profoundly important spiritually as it relates to salvation, has absolutely nothing in common with St. Peters, or any RCC facility. Not only does the RCC miss all of the spiritual symbolism inherent in the Temple, Catholic Churches are filled countless violations of the Second Commandment. Moreover, Catholicism's images are almost universally pagan (steeples, obelisks, crosses, madonna and child, candles, holy water, sunbursts, statuary, clerical hats, religious clothing, and kneeling aids, etc.).

There is no correlation between the Levites and Catholic clergy. The Levites were not paid. They were not ordained. There were no "Fathers, Bishops, Cardinals, or Popes" among them. Their sole basis and authority came from the Torah. No Levite ever claimed to have the authority to establish a religion or contract Yah.

The Levites performed functions related to the seven Miqra'ey. There isn't any example of a RCC priest or pope doing any of these things. The RCC has created a counterfeit of each of Yahweh's Called Out Assembly Meetings, so to infer that Catholic clergy are somehow validated by the Levites is ignorant and irrational.

There was no Levite hierarchy. There was no hierarchy among the apostles. The fact that each follower of the Way has different gifts, and thus responsibilities, doesn't make one more important than any other. The Kingdom Yahushua speaks of isn't Earthly, but instead Spiritual. It's Yah's Kingdom, and in it He is our Father and we are all His children.

Yahushua is the Word made flesh. He is the author of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, which is the totality of Scripture. As for the Renewed Covenant Writings, most of it is comprised of citations from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, commentary on the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, or Yahushua's words, illustrating how He is the embodiment of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. So Yahushua is the source and living embodiment of every Word of Scripture.

The Renewed Covenant isn't called Scripture by Yahuweh, Yahushua, or the apostles. Moreover, since there is no "church" in the Old Covenant Scripture or in the Renewed Covenant Writings, the church could not have been the source of such.

Catholics are universally clueless as to the meaning, content, and purpose of Yahushua's remarks to Peter. Ignorant of what was said, and why, they have falsely been led to believe that entrance to heaven is granted by the Church, rather than on reliance upon the seven-part path laid out by Yahuweh and fulfilled by Yahushua. They are so badly deceived, Catholics don't even know that there is no word remotely related to "church" in the Old or Renewed Covenant. And beyond all of this, there is no connection between Peter and any pope, so even if the RCC's misinformed, contradictory, and arrogant claim were true, it still wouldn't garner them any authority.

Yahushua didn't have any "sacraments." Yahushua observed the seven Miqra'ey. Catholics not only ignore them all, they have substituted a Babylonian sungod festival for each of them. In this regard, Yahushua's conversation regarding breaking bread and drinking wine was not only set into the context of Passover, it was designed to have us appreciate the fact that He was the fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, and for us to appreciate the fact that the Miqra'ey pointed the way to paradise.

Yahuweh's Set-Apart Spirit is willing and able to provide Scriptural insights, however, Scripture doesn't need to be "interpreted." Yah is an expert communicator. He presents a consistent story and explains it from every possible perspective.

The reason that Catholics speak of "Scriptural interpretation" is to justify their religion's consistent contradictions of it. But there is no spiritual, literal, or rational interpretation of Passover which gets one to Easter, of Tabernacles which gets one to Christmas, of the Sabbath which gets one to Sunday, of Yah's redemptive authority and plan being usurped by men and religious institutions, or of Yah's Word and Catholic doctrine.

The problem isn't "interpretation," but instead ignorance and a lack of reason. The problem is (according to Yahushua's open letter in Revelation) that Catholicism has become the seat of power for the wrong spirit, and that the church has married this lord.

It all boils down to: who do you trust? Is it Yahuweh or the Church. They tell a very different story so both cannot be true.

Yada

This Saturday I'm booked already, but I do hope to continue this somehow, for truth and for friendship's sake. To really digest what he wrote would require some hours, which are hard to come by now, so I don't know when or how, but I'm still game. This gentleman is not the most politic person in the world, to put it mildly, but that in itself I find kind of fun, and I understand that he was not saying this to me personally, but rather to you, knowing you would know how it was intended. All the same, calling Ratzinger/Benedict either an ignoramus or a first-class hypocrite shows he's not very familiar with the man, and these diatribes don't speak well of him either. Nor do his frequent spelling and grammatical errors.

DK

Please thank Yada for taking the time to answer what I wrote. The YY site, etc., must be a gargantuan investment of time, all for the love of the Word. I read his comments about six times already. The first time it was almost like reading a different language. "Wow, what sort of a far-out sect is this?" was sort of the feeling. But you quickly get used to the jargon, for which I'm sure there is a rationale. Renewed Convenant Writings is roughly equivalent, I gather, to what is often referred to as the New Testament (I'm curious as to which books he regards as authentic and which as apocryphal). I'm guessing he translates it Renewed because (in addition, probably, to etymological evidence) he doesn't think there's anything really new about it; Jesus (Yehushua) was just calling us to live by what God (Yehuwah) had already told us.

Sincerely,

DK

OK, I've taken a closer look at a few of the YY chapters, starting with Genesis. It's obvious that the author put a lot of time, thought and love into it. But I frequently have doubts as to how reliable it is.

Take, for instance, his negative comments on the use of the words Bible, testament and Christ, based on supposed etymologies that are irreverent or even blasphemous. It's not that I have any objection to using the terms scripture, covenant or Yahushua (although, in the case of the last one, only YY adepts would understand who you're talking about).

Our word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "βιβλος", meaning "book" (whence our word "bibliography"). If biblos comes from an earlier Phoenician or Babylonian word, to me that seems irrelevant. When we use the word "book," we don't give a thought to the Anglo-Saxon word from which it is derived. That is buried in the past. It could even be irreverent – In Jesus' ancestry there are public sinners, but nevertheless he is the Holy One of God.

Similarly, Chrism and Christ are from a Greek root, χρυς, meaning "oil". Jesus Christ means Jesus, the Anointed one of God, i.e., the Messiah. I was unaware that there is also a related word with a less respectable meaning, but I can't see that it matters. When we use the English word "oil," we needn't be concerned that it sounds a lot like "owl," or perhaps a few dirtier words, or that "oily" has a negative feeling to it. Even a nice word like "sweet" has negative usages like "sweet-talk." I don't understand why someone would make an issue of using a legitimate word that has less legitimate cousins. Drawing parallels between words is so risky it can easily be parodied. The Japanese word for ground, "jimen", looks a lot like our word for an FBI agent, G-man, but I wouldn't be too quick to draw any conclusions based on that.

A "testament" is a contract in which only one party takes the initiative, giving the other some possession or right to which he had no previous claim and which he did nothing to deserve. That's not a bad way to describe the deal Yahweh gave us. These days practically the only use for the word is for bequeathing an inheritance at death, but I think it is unfair to mock the way Christians have used this word for the Bible. "Covenant" is certainly a good alternative, although in modern English this word is not used outside of religious terminology.

The use of ancient languages makes everything look erudite, but some of the argumentation strikes me as so overdone, so reliant on imagination or circumstantial evidence, that it almost makes me wonder if there isn't something else that's motivating all his criticism. Whether or not that's so, I wish he could keep things at a more rational level of discourse. I often get the feeling he's making connections where no connection exists, and taking jabs where it's uncalled for.

In his thoughtful answer to my email to you, Yada said, "The reason that Catholics speak of "Scriptural interpretation" is to justify their religion's consistent contradictions of it." The question of scriptural interpretation comes up inevitably because any observer will quickly see that there is and always has been disagreement over what exactly is contained in scripture and how it should be read. This is not just a problem between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants disagree with each other, even when all disagreeing parties are commenting on Scripture. This problem is insoluble to anyone who takes the Bible as his or her sole authority, because that is precisely what is being disputed.

On the YY website, you will find claims that this or that word of this or that text actually refers to some modern country or people or river or war. What is this if not interpretation? Or does Yada think that this is the only "rational" approach to these texts, that any intelligent person would see that, if only he put aside his prejudices? Or are we simply to accept it on his authority? The same is true of some of the doctrines espoused, like annihilation of souls, for instance.

Relying exclusively on the Dead Sea Scrolls does not eliminate the problem. Those scrolls themselves were written by scribes who make errors, and there were surely other manuscripts not contained in that set. At the time of Christ, it seems likely that the most commonly used Hebrew texts were actually a back-translation from the Septuagint Greek version. And who can say that God never intended or sanctioned the influence of the Greek translation? If Yahweh can inspire one author, he can extend a providential arm over a writing process that takes a century or more and involves several people and steps.

Is it really true, as Yada says, that scripture doesn't need to be interpreted? The ten commandments are about as black-and-white a list as you could hope for, but even there questions arise. Thou shalt not kill, but what about self-defense, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, war? Thou shalt not commit adultery, but does that include masturbation, soft porn, contraception, new-fangled techniques for artificial insemination?

The issue of interpretation is inextricably related to authority, or, as Yada puts it, it all comes down to who you trust. I believe that God speaks through His Church. God was good enough to give us a manual, but that's not all. Microsoft provides manuals, but they also have a customer service center, because sometimes people want to ask things. To understand a line of scripture, we need to look well at what's written, compare to other passages, and of course ask the Holy Spirit for his aid. But it sure helps to have a representative of the author nearby to be able to point the way, or at least warn us of mistaken interpretations, which unfortunately abound.

So, which text do we use? Which readings of them are likely to strengthen or weaken our spiritual life? Catholics are grateful when the teaching "magisterium" gives their assurance that a certain version of the Bible or a certain (pardon me) interpretation is reasonably safe, or not so. If you don't have that, most people inevitably end up following a scholar or tradition or authority of their choosing. What else can you hope for? Yada points out correctly that "Yah is an expert communicator", but given our limitations, is a one-time-only communicative act, with no later follow-up and no chance for authoritative clarification optimal?

So it's a question of who you trust. There are people who from an early age have heard nothing but stories of clerical abuse, witch-burning, science-hating, inquisition, etc. Most of this is but a caricature of the reality, but if that's all you hear, it predisposes you not to want to accept certain ideas, like "church." Someone could quote scripture in favor of a certain view of ecclesiology, and the gut reaction will be…"That word isn't used that way…That text can't be authentic…I don't see how that conclusion is justified…"

In Paul's travels we see him evangelizing a community, and then appointing "presbyters" for them through a ceremony of laying on of hands. So there were communities, with regular meetings for study, prayer, worship and fellowship, and they had appointed ministers. But Paul's authority was of an even higher jurisdiction, as we see in a letter to the Corinthians: Paul was not pleased with the laxity of the faithful and those responsible for them, and so he personally intervened, by excommunicating an adulterer in their midst. Since most such communities were still small in apostolic times, and the apostles themselves were still alive and active, we wouldn't expect to see every city endowed with a bishop and several priests providing pastoral care full-time to the faithful, but there are cases such as the one I mentioned (Paul, with full apostolic authority – a bishop, we might say; appointed community leaders (ordained priest); community of faithful) which show that the concept of hierarchy is not alien to the Bible and the People of God.

In the early church a controversy arose as to whether the Law of Moses was still valid. A council was held, Peter spoke, and the case was resolved. What I find interesting is not only that the case was so decided, but also the wording of the letter that was sent to the churches, in which the Christian community recognized a special working of the Holy Spirit in acts of authority ("It is plain to the Holy Spirit and to us that…").

John himself says that there are many things that were never written down because all the libraries of the world wouldn't suffice. Catholics (and some others) also place heavy weight on the testimony of the Church Fathers and other documents from the first centuries such as the Didache- these teachers were close to the original source and would have access to many of these unwritten oral traditions, plus many of them had a reputation for holiness. If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an excellent reference work), the first most often cited text is, of course, the Bible; next come the Fathers of the early Church; works of the "magisterium" (Church Councils and papal documents) come third, I believe. There is an interesting record from the first century in which one of the local churches has the bishop of Rome (Clement) settle a matter in their turf. This is corroborated by other testimonies from the first centuries.

I completely agree with Yada that ministry should not be seen as a career, power, etc. Too often it is, but God gives a plethora of gifts, and their exercise is meant to be a service to God and others. In the excommunication referred to above, Paul was acting to preserve faithfulness to Jesus, to maintain the unity of the flock, to prevent corruption before its pernicious effects spread even farther. I have known shepherds with this spirit of service toward their flock. And I don't say this because "we Catholics are wont to be gullible about these things." I have known them personally, practically as well as I know my Dad and Mom.

Wow, I didn't expect to write four pages. And I don't expect that with these four pages all is resolved. I don't mind if you send it to Yada or put it online, if you think that's appropriate.

DK

I'm writing this from out of town, on a borrowed PC. I haven't installed the software to participate in the YY blog. I'm not sure if I will, I'm still undecided. It started out as an email from me to you, and it has become a kind of dead-end back-and-forth between Yada and me. I enjoyed it, and I think I learned some things, but Yada is a busy man, and seems a bit chafed about it, understandably. But here are a few further thoughts on the matter(s):

"By their fruits you shall know them." When I look at the legacy of people like Mother Teresa of Calcutta or John Paul II I see sinners converting, I see people learning to have a deep life of prayer, I see people who had no interest in God take an interest in His Word and read it assiduously, I see the walls of fortresses of evil crumble. I do not doubt for a second that these "modern saints" had many faults for which they had to ask God for forgiveness, but people like Yada say that they were idolaters in love with the Whore of Babylon, workers of evil in league with Satan. I'm sorry, but this just does not figure, and if he says it is the only logical conclusion from his reasoning and his sources, then ... you'll have to pardon my slowness to jump on his bandwagon.

I read the Bible in four languages. Unfortunately, Hebrew is not one of them, and I don't hope to engage Yada in a dialog on his own terms. I'm sure that it would be very profitable to read scripture in its original language, and it would also be interesting to read through the 1,500 pages of YY in detail, but that's not going to happen soon.

I have known professional exegetes that assured me that the neovulgate is very good. For the time being, that's what I'll be using.

DK

-----Original Message-----
From: DK
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:31 AM
To: Yada
Subject: Names

You asked what I think of using the name "Yahweh" for God. I hadn't given this any thought until now, so thanks for asking.

"Yahweh" is, of course, the name God gave us, and therefore it is perfectly compatible with the Catholic Faith. I don't often use it, though. I reflected a bit on whether there is a good rationale for this.

I’m afraid the Vatican does not agree you as they have recently barred the use of the Name “Yahweh” in Catholic churches. Here are a couple of headlines and links to articles from Catholic sources:

Quote:

“Catholics to Stop Saying/Singing the Name Yahweh”

In an interesting development, the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a directive to all bishops’ conferences on June 29, 2008, stating that Catholics are to no longer say the name Yahweh. The US Bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship, which is the responsible committee for liturgical issues in the US, forwarded the directive to all dioceses on August 8. It is expected that it will take some time to implement the change.

To those who have been a fan of the song, “Yahweh, I Know You Are Near,” such a change is surprising, if not disappointing. I’ve been on many retreats and participated in many Masses where this song has captured the hearts of the people and helped us to pray more deeply. Ironically, last Sunday while on travel we sang this song at Mass in a small town. Now, the song needs to be changed to replace the name Yahweh...

Read on

Another headline/excerpt:

Quote:

“No 'Yahweh' in songs, prayers at Catholic Masses, Vatican rules”

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- In the not-too-distant future, songs such as "You Are Near," "I Will Bless Yahweh" and "Rise, O Yahweh" will no longer be part of the Catholic worship experience in the United States.

At the very least, the songs will be edited to remove the word "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses...

Read on

I started a thread on the YY Forum devoted to this topic. You can find (and contribute to) it here.

Is the use of the Name “Yahweh” important? Here’s the opening to an article you might like to read:

Quote:

“Is it important to worship and call upon the True Name of our Creator? What does scripture have to say?”

Exodus 3:14-15
And Elohim said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and He said, you shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. And Elohim said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Yahweh the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever , and this is My memorial from generation to generation.

Here Yahweh responds to Moses' question regarding His name, He does not say His name is 'I AM', in verse 14 He declares His eternal existence and in verse 15 He states that His Name is "Yahweh" forever!

Another excerpt/quote:

Jeremiah 23:26-27
How long is this there in the heart of the prophets, the prophets of lies; yea, the prophets of the deceit of their own heart? They plot to cause My people to forget My name by their dreams which they tell, each one to his neighbor, even as their fathers have forgotten My name for Baal.

Do your preachers and Bible teachers tell you that it is not important to acknowledge the Name of Yahweh? Note: the English word "Lord" is a direct translation of the Hebrew word "Baal". Are you praying to Baal or are you praying to Yahweh? In 1 Kings 18:21-40 we read the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal, the priests of Baal called out to "the Lord", Elijah called out to Yahweh.

You can read the entire article with all supporting verses for the importance of using the Name “Yahweh” here.

First, I guess I might distinguish between whether I'm talking about God or to God. When I talk about my brother I would probably call him my brother, but when I'm talking to him he's Tom or Mike or Gerry or Peter or Paul. If I'm talking about my brother with someone who is close to the family I might use the name, not just "my brother."

If I'm talking about God to someone who might not share my Faith, I usually say "God." When talking to God, what name do I use? Depends.

To Yada, Yahweh would be the name to use, I'm sure, because he doesn't believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation. Jesus told his disciples to baptize "in the name (NB singular, because there is only one God) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (i.e., in God, there are three persons). He revealed this because thanks to Jesus' redemptive work we are anointed in the Holy Spirit in baptism and, in this New Covenant, are brought to share in this mystery of God's inner life. When I pray, I tend to address one or another of the divine Persons.

When Jesus prayed, he called God "Father". Sometimes he used the word "Abba," the intimate word that children use (Daddy, Papa). He taught us to pray this way in the Our Father; the prayers of the Mass are also directed to the Father. I find this too beautiful for words. Many times, daily, I take this consideration to my prayer. He is always watching over us, always ready to listen and forgive, always desirous to teach us, to form us, sharing all he has and trusting us to help with his work.

I use Jesus, not Yehushua, because that is how it is usually pronounced in English. Hebrew names are not just sounds, they have a meaning; any good catechism teaches that Jesus means "God saves". I wouldn't think Jesus would mind if I pronounce his name Jesus. My name is pronounced differently by Mexicans, Japanese or Chinese. I don't mind, personally. I'd rather have them pronounce it their way than to insist they try to do it the way I do, because the only thing that would do is force a poor imitation of an American pronunciation.

If we are adopted sons of God, we are brothers of Jesus. He came to show us the way, he advised us to come to him. And I go to him, by name. The early Christians often invoked the name of Jesus. St. Ignatius was wise (inspired?) to choose the name of Jesus for his order, which later further spread devotion to His holy name.

This discussion reminds me of a consideration made by Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth. It is significant that God chose to reveal his name. He is not just a force, but a personal being that wants to have a relationship with us. By revealing his name he enters our history. He walks with us, we can invoke him, praise his name. But there is also a risk, because we can just as easily dishonor his name, committing acts unworthy of a believer. Thus Jesus taught us to ask in the Our Father: " Hallowed be Thy name."

The Holy Spirit. In the Acts of the Apostles we see his activity in the lives of Christians and the growth of the Church. He is especially active in the sanctification of souls, and I want to be holy, I want to be an effective instrument of His, so I go to Him in my prayer, too.

St. Josemaria Escriva called the Holy Spirit "The Great Unknown." We hear about the Father often, and about Jesus, but the third person of the Trinity seems almost unnoticed sometimes. I forget the Greek word that theologians have for this "hiddenness" of the Holy Spirit, but it is characteristic of him, it seems. The second person of the Blessed Trinity is eternally begotten of the Father by way of His intellect. In knowing Himself, a relation is engendered between the Knower and the Known, the Father and the Word, each equally eternal and infinite. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the love between the Father and the Son. And it is typical of a lover to want nothing other than the exaltation of the one that is loved. So the Holy Spirit is active directing our attention to the Father and the Son, and doesn't mind taking a back seat, if it were, though he is equally Divine.

I also call God Lord, meaning I give Him my allegiance, I credit Him with being (Al)mighty, I recognize Him as my Ruler, and in fact not just the ruler of my heart and life but the Ruler of All. Yada seems to have a problem with this word. I haven't studied carefully his argument, but a cursory look at YY (from Yada’s last response: ““Since he hasn't pointed out any specific error in the Scriptural text, in the translation, or in my reasoning, I have no argument with him. He's going to continue to be a Catholic. One has to want to know the truth, and be willing to invest the time to learn it, before the truth will do them any good.” As Yada wrote - If you want to know the truth, you have to invest the time necessary to learn it. I hope that you will read YY and not just give it a “cursory look” – its well worth it. ) left me with the impression that a large part of his reasoning is that (1) This is not the name God gave for himself; the Jews outside of Palestine started using the term when they came in contact with other cultures and translated scripture into Greek (2) This is the term that some pagan cultures used for their Gods; thus, using this word is tantamount to assuming pagan religious notions.

A note on the use of the Hebrew Names in the 70 extant Greek manuscripts:

“With all of these misconceptions swirling around the pundits of religion, let’s see what the author of relationships had to say. More than anyone on the planet at the time the divine writ was being completed, Paul, as a Tanach scholar, recognized that the Renewed Covenant was simply the affirmation and fulfillment of the Old. With that in mind, let’s dive into his letter to the set-apart assembly at Colossae to see if we can make sense of what has confused so many.

Paul began by articulating the message of Yahushua, which put him in the center of Yahweh’s will, making him useful and productive. He was engaged in the business of educating others about how to form a reciprocal familial relationship with God. He calls Timothy his brother, as well as those he was writing to in Colossae, because they all shared the same Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. They were family. "Paulos, one who is sent forth with the message of (apostolos) the Anointed Messiah (ΧΡΥ) Yahushua (ΙΗΥ) through (dia) the desire, choice, and pleasure (thelema - the will, mind, and purpose) of Yahuweh (ΘΥ), and our brother (adelphos) Timotheos (meaning one who values God), to the set-apart (hagios - revered and cleansed) in Colossae, to those trusting (pistos - convinced and reliant) brothers in the Anointed Messiah (ΧΡΩ). Grace (charis - favor and mercy, loving-kindness and joy) and a state of a unified and reciprocal relationship (eirene) to you from Yahuweh (ΘΥ), our Father (ΠΡΙ)." (Colossians 1:1-2)

As a reminder, the capitalized Greek letters within the parenthesis represent the placeholders used throughout all of the 70 extant first-, second-, and third-century Renewed Covenant manuscripts for the two names and five titles attributable to Yahuweh, Yahushua, and the Set Apart Spirit. The names were not transliterated and written out because there was no Y, H, or W sound attributable to the letters in the Greek alphabet, and the titles were represented by placeholders rather than translated words because the Hebrew terms were more accurate and descriptive than their closest Greek replacements. Furthermore, by using placeholders rather than transliterations and translations, we are required by design to examine Hebrew Scripture to understand Greek - viewing the Renewed Covenant through the perspective of the Old.

There is a considerable effort currently underway by well-meaning Yahuwdym to suggest that the Renewed Covenant was originally scribed in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. On the positive side, in the Aramaic Assakhta Peshitta, the names and titles attributed to God were accurately conveyed. But while the claim of linguistic authorship may be true, and at times even helpful in removing Roman Catholic corruptions, there is a problem with the language theory. The oldest extant Aramaic Renewed Covenant fragment dates to the sixth century and the oldest Peshitta manuscript dates to the eleventh century. Therefore, until much older texts are found, even as translations, the 70 pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant remain the most reliable witness of Yahushua’s testimony”

I think the way Yada draws conclusions from etymologies is sometimes exaggerated, and doesn't reflect the psychology behind language use. We are able to use words in more than one way, and redefine words, giving them new usages. "Chief" is used for the head of a tribe, but this doesn't mean that when police use the word they are thinking tribally, or that when we use this word for tribes we attribute to them all the qualities of police. When the British speak of their Prime Minister, they do not intend to imply any religious connection, even though the word "minister" is also used for the clergy, and etymologically both usages are related.

Speaking of police chiefs, if I remember correctly, in the first Jaws movie, the name of Roy Scheider’s character was “Chief Brody.” The issue here is distinguishing between names and titles. “God” is a title, not a name.

The Jews outside Palestine came into contact with seekers of wisdom who were fascinated by the beauty of scriptural teachings, but who were reluctant to abandon their own social frameworks, become circumcised and absorbed into the life of the Twelve Tribes. The Greek translations of Hebrew scripture needed a way of referring to God, since simply saying "God" was not powerful enough (to a polytheist, "god" doesn't mean much – just think how trivial Shinto or Greek gods seem compared to Yahweh). Outside of the Hebrew world "Yahweh" had no meaning, though, and the Jews in the diaspora ended up opting for " the Lord." "Lord" may have also been used for Baal, but that is not the only way it was used, and using it does not necessarily mean I equate the one, true God with idolatrous abominations. "The Lord" is used frequently throughout the New and Old Testaments (though not in the oldest Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, if I am not mistaken – and I admit I am no expert in exegesis) and was used by the early Christian community. I see no problem with it.

More on the importance of the Name “Yahweh” and not using “Lord” – this time from YY:

“There is no doubt Yahuweh knows us. He is under no illusions. Too bad the same cannot be said for humankind. Look at what we have done to ourselves in spite of Yahuweh's prophetic warning. "They invent and scheme (chashab - calculate, fabricate, plot, and contrive, reckoning and imputing devices, planning to determine value and values) to cause My family ('am - people, specifically Yisra'el) to forget and ignore (shakach - mislay and become oblivious to) My personal name (shem - proper designation, reputation, renown, information, title, honor, character, authority, and position) by their dreams (chalowm - series of feelings, images, and revelations) which through relationships and associations ('asher) they relate and recount (caphar - rehearse, declare, and record; officially enumerating in written material) to mankind ('iysh), to friends, neighbors, companions, fellow citizens and associates (rea'). Sadly broken and cowed through intimidation (ka'ah - to have one's resolve and courage subdued and destroyed; to be disheartened and discouraged) as their fathers ceased to care about, forgot and ignored (shakach - mislaid, allowing to wither, becoming oblivious to) My name because of Ba'al (Ba'al - the proper name of the supreme male sungod divinity of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Canaanites, and now Israelites meaning Lord, Owner, and Master)?'" (Jeremiah 23:27)

Proving Yahuweh right, the translators of every popular English Bible carelessly and inaccurately replaced Yahuweh's personal name with "LORD" and yet carefully and accurately transliterated Satan's moniker as "Ba'al." These clerics, scholars, and pastors demonstrate a greater respect for the Adversary than they do for the Creator and Savior.”

Here’s a link to the complete chapter: http://yadayahweh.com/Ya...n_Religion_Pergamos.YHWH

So, to sum up my answer to your question: Yahweh is a perfect name to use for God. I also use Father (Abba), Jesus (Christ), Holy Spirit, and Lord. I think there is a solid scriptural basis for all of these.

-DK

You’re right about one thing, there is a “Scriptural basis” for using “Lord.” And, that’s exactly why you shouldn’t use it.

Again, I encourage you to read the whole of Yada Yahweh: www.yadayahweh.com

-Yada

p.s. In one of your earlier e-mails, you mentioned that “Bible” comes from “biblos.” Here’s some additional information on it’s origins:

The following is taken from - Yada Yahweh
Book II : Called-Out Assemblies, Understanding the Basics , Chapter 9, Yowbel, The Power of The Lamb:

“Fulfilling what was predicted by the prophet: "The scroll (biblion - written sheet, roll or book) of the prophet (prophetes - inspired forth-teller and foreteller who reveals the hidden things of God and future events) Yasha’yah (Hesaias - transliteration of Yasha’yah; from yasha’ and Yah meaning: Yah-Has-Saved; errantly transliterated: Isaiah in most English Bibles) was delivered to Him. He unrolled the scroll (biblion - from biblos - the inner bark of the papyrus plant used to make scrolls for writing), and came upon the place (topos) where it was written (grapho - delineated on parchment or described on papyrus with pen or stylus; to express information, convey meaning, and communicate instructions and directions by the use of alphabetic characters):.." (Luke 4:17)

While the papyrus scroll Yahushua unfurled was called a biblion, the inspiration on the scroll was "Grapho," - the Written Word, Scripture - not Bible. Bible is a moronic transliteration of the Greek word biblos - the papyrus bark used to make written scrolls, sheets, or books. Turns out, sadly, that biblos is from Biblia, of the name of the Canaanite sun goddess. The Phoenician town known for weaving papyrus into scrolls was named in her honor. I am certain that we have offended Yahuweh by attributing His Scripture to a sun goddess.”[/color]

1. Lord/Yahweh
2. Argumentation, scriptural and otherwise
3. Iconoclasm, etc.
4. Recap and suggestion

I did a quick search of the Old Testament to see if and where "Lord" is used for God. There were too many places to begin to count, e.g.: "I am the Lord your God who led you out of the land of Egypt…" (Exodus 20:1, whence God goes on to dictate the Ten Commandments).

True, most of these were originally YHWH in the earliest texts. In an earlier email I mentioned some of the reason for opting for Lord in the Greek translation. I didn't mention an even more important reason, which is simply respect for God's holy name. The Tetragrammaton YHWH was used in writing, but the Hebrews showed their awe and respect by not pronouncing it when reading aloud. Other words were substituted, like Elohim (an old plural form of god), or, more often, adonai, which means "Lord." Many Jews today still follow this practice, the most common substitute being Ha-Shem (The Name). Adonai became Kyrios in Greek, later Dominus in Latin and Lord in English. Adonai/Kyrios was already fairly standard in the second century BC, and was incorporated into the Septuagint..

Jesus did not condemn this practice. On the contrary, as a good Jew, respectful for the holy name of the God of Israel, he followed it. Mark 12:29, for example, has Jesus saying, "The first commandment of all is this: Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord (Kyrios) our God, the Lord is one. You shall, then, love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind, and your whole strength."

Jesus had people call Him "Lord." At the Last Supper he said, "You call me Teacher and Lord, and this is well spoken, because I am. Well if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you, too, should wash each others' feet" (Jn.13:13 & 14). I believe the only time Jesus pronounced the Tetragrammaton was when he claimed divinity in Jn.8:58: "Before Abraham existed, I am" (he was almost stoned for this – a calculated risk, no doubt). After the Eucharistic dialogue in John 6, Jesus asked the apostles if they, like so many others, wanted to leave him instead of accepting this "hard saying." Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life, and we have believed and come to know that you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Such quotes could easily be multiplied, citing the words recorded in scripture of the apostles James & John, Thomas, and others. And if that isn't enough, I can provide at least a dozen good quotes from the letters of St. Paul (Must I? I hate to belabor the obvious).

So I use "Lord." Not Baal, "Lord." As my Savior did. I don't know how that "Baal" got into the text you sent me. Perhaps an unfortunate back-translation of Kyrios? I hope biblical scholars can shed some light on that, but there is a strong scriptural case that supports the millennia-old practice of Christians.

The Chosen People had a history of neglecting Yahweh, either because they fell to worshiping the false gods of their neighbors, or because they relied on their own strength and did not invoke any god. When prophets lamented that God's name was no longer spoken among the people of Israel, this is surely what they referred to, not the reverent silence when reading scripture in public. When we consider how casually some people use the words Jesus, Christ or Lord in common speech today, it is not hard for me to sympathize with the Vatican's recent concern to maintain a special reserve for Yahweh.

All of this is entirely scriptural, and the logic is, I feel, transparent. If you don't think so, maybe you could let me know where you think my logic drifted, as I do not claim to be God's gift to human thought.

Since I was accused of muddled thinking, though, I will repeat my complaint about the bizarre (forgive me, I know it is a strong word) gaps of logic I find on the YY website. Yada says, for instance, that Catholics practice cults of Phoenician, Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian gods that most of them have never even heard of. He says, in all seriousness, that church steeples are a pagan phallic symbol. Does he have a scriptural quote to "prove" that? Sure, obelisks were pagan, but what about the Washington Monument, the Empire State Building or a TV broadcasting antenna? If an architect wanted to design something that was tall and visible, and that symbolized an upward path to Heaven, wouldn't this shape naturally suggest itself (among other options, like the arch/dome, but this requires much more structural sophistication)?

If I may be allowed another example of oddity (or so it seems to me): You told me a couple of months ago that "Santa" is "Satan," with the final "n" somehow shifted to medial position. This just doesn't fly. The standard explanation of Santa Claus being a corruption of Saint Nicholas is infinitely more plausible, historically and linguistically (I'll look at some of the theology below).

Maybe those last two paragraphs weren't scriptural arguments. Just common sense? God's Word can trump our "common sense," as when Jesus took bread and said it was His Body. But when I see religious writers making claims that sound "muddled," to use your word, I do think it's useful to examine the claim closely from religious and rational viewpoints. Sometimes this is an occasion to look more closely at scripture and discover a deeper and more correct understanding of its richness.

Like the abstinence from pork. I told a doctor, and he literally laughed in my face. He said, "If that is true, it's not just a matter for believers, it's a public health issue. I challenge them to take it to the FDA or a similar competent authority. If a warning is issued, I'll lay off my BLT's."

That sounded like a sensible comment – they issue warnings for so many other things on the shelves these days, so how could they overlook something so (supposedly) toxic as pork? So I checked scripture on the point and what do I see? Peter is told in a vision from God to eat a feastful of un-kosher food. He objects, and is told, "Don't call unclean what God has made clean" (Acts 10:15). In Acts 15:1-12 (and many places in Paul's writings), scripture puts forth the doctrine that those who believe in Jesus are saved by the grace of God, not by fulfillment of the old law (Later, centuries of theological reflection has delved into the relationships between Faith, Grace, fulfillment of the Moral Law, etc.).

Examples like church steeples and Santa seem to me to be like using any fact or pseudo-fact available, no matter how stretched, to get in a criticism of what some consider to be the anti-Christ. And if you scratch a little more beneath the surface of some of the more off-the-wall examples, it seems to me that some are at least partly motivated by doctrinal disputes (many of which were settled ages ago, with scriptural arguments). Aversion to church steeples, for instance, is perhaps linked to Iconoclasm (aversion to other symbols like the cross surely is), i.e., the dispute about the appropriateness of using material things to direct our attention to God.

The Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:15-16) forbids making any representation of God. But we have eyes, ears, bodies, etc., we live in a geographical world with places near and far; our spiritual life is fed by very physical realities sometimes, and God uses this aspect of human nature pedagogically. He made His presence more physically sensed in clouds and fire (Sinai), Moses' tent, the Jerusalem temple. God ordered that an Ark be built to house the tablets of the Covenant, and had statues of cherubim adorn his sanctuary (Exod. 25: 10-12; 1 Kings 6:23-8 & 7: 23-6). He had a bronze serpent be put on a high rod for all to see when they needed healing (Numbers 21:4-9); Jesus later said this should also be taken as a symbol of his crucifixion (Jn. 3-14-15). Symbols do not seem to be entirely out of place in scripture.

Yada (many Protestants share this) also shows a distaste for many other symbols, like images of the saints, the cross, etc. Clearly, other doctrinal issues are involved here (saints, Christ's passion, etc.), which I won't go into in this email. But I find it silly to assert that the cross, for instance, is derived from pagan rites. The origin of Catholic devotion to (not worship of) the cross is the fact that Christ let himself be nailed to a cross to redeem us. Obviously. No need to look further, even though one may disagree with the correctness of this popular piety.

Whoever started that Santa/satan gibberish was also probably motivated by doctrinal issues, i.e., he or she believes that Satan is active in the Church, or that the Church is Satan, and/or that the birth of the Word made flesh should not be celebrated, and/or that the only legitimate celebrations are the ones recorded in scripture, as they are recorded in scripture. I wish, then, they could stick to these key doctrinal points. When outside readers see all the pettier stuff, it makes even the meatier material seem all the less credible.

I will say, though, that I see very positive points in YY, like (1) Its strong preference for scriptural argumentation. (I regard this as very positive, though I also feel that other kinds of data and arguments can sometimes help shed light on the meaning of a scriptural text) (2) The effort to work out a good text based on the oldest available manuscripts (3) The effort to read the New Covenant together with the Old (I wish there were more effort to read the Old in the light of the New, not vice-versa. But Yada doesn't believe in many traditional tenants of the New Covenant - numerous theologians wouldn't even regard him as Christian, since he doesn't believe in the Incarnation or in the redemptive value of the Paschal mystery, i.e., Jesus' passion, death and resurrection).

I admit I've been sloppy at times, too, but the main thrust of what I've said I still stand by. I've made points that I still think are valid, and they have not been adequately answered. Sometimes I've been told my reasoning was faulty, but no one pointed out where or how. Another (understandable) reply was "That's been explained elsewhere – Go read it." Fine, but that's not really an answer, and I can play the same game, for that matter.

Without getting into what I consider some really core issues, I wanted to point out that sometimes the YY website strikes me as a bit specious, belligerent, and/or unfair. One specific issue I wrote about a little more at length, namely interpretation. The only substantive statement Yada made on that was that his policy is (1) To establish as well as possible what was originally written in scripture, based on a careful study of what we know to be the oldest and most reliable manuscripts (2) Give it the reading that is closest to the literal meaning of the text.

I pointed out that (1) is not as sure as it may sound. One argument I offered is that Yahweh might have even intended that later versions become the standard version of his "manual." The example I gave in this email, I feel, substantiates that somewhat (Jesus adopted the shift from Yahweh to Lord).

I agree that (2) is a very good principle to work with. Too many people read all kinds of crazy things into the text of the Bible. But sometimes it really is not clear just what the closest reading might mean, as even a quick look at the Book of Revelations will illustrate. Also, there are cases where the "closest reading" can seem to be in conflict with the "closest reading" of another passage. You gave me quotes that seem to encourage saying "Yahweh" and never "Lord." I counter today with many quotes (and historical data) that seem to say otherwise. I don't see that Yada has any God-given authority to declare that his reading is the only reading and that everyone else is inventing "interpretations." He's interpreting, too, and in some cases it may come down to, as he put it, "who you trust." And it makes you wonder if God might have wanted to spare us from uncertainty and confusion by working in a special way through some institution made by the Savior.

There are plenty of important points that have been only lightly (or not at all) referred to (Church, Incarnation, cross, the action of the Holy Spirit, etc., etc.). Of these, I would guess the most central one is the Incarnation, i.e., who is Jesus and what did he do? My suggestion, though, would be to go back to your original suggestion: Go out for a beer and just shoot the sh-t a bit. I wouldn't be up for attending a class or joining a group, but if it's just you and me, with nothing particular on the agenda, I would look forward to that.

-DK