5. What name did the angel tell the Virgin she should call him?
6. Why do you verbally attack Sacred Name people?
7. What possible good can come from such a negative web site?
8. Why don't you just promote what you do believe, instead of criticizing what other people believe?
1. Why do you hate Yahweh?
Whoa, there. Hold on a bit. There is no hate here for the person you call Yahweh or for the name Yahweh. If that is the notion this web site has conveyed to you, it was not intentional. We have nothing but sorrow for that, and it is hoped that such an error can be rectified.
Please, read and accept the following explanation of the position we hold regarding the name h w h y and its pronunciation.
The Creator confirmed his name to Moses at the burning bush. Exodus 3:15 has this to say to us: "And God said yet further unto Moses -- Thus shalt thou say unto the sons of Israel, Yahweh, the God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob hath sent me unto you. This is my name to times age-abiding. And this is my memorial to generation after generation." (The Emphasized Bible)
This name has come down to us in the Hebrew language as a word of four consonants, sometimes referred to by scholars and others as the tetragrammaton. Tetragrammaton is a technical word which simply means four letters. The tetragrammaton is usually transliterated into English as YHWH, sometimes as YHVH.
The pronunciation used by Moses and the other Old Testament writers is not known to anyone today. That original pronunciation has been lost in antiquity. There is some historical evidence that the Name was pronounced Yahveh or Yahweh in the early centuries AD. This evidence is from the writings of Greek and Latin "Christian" scholars regarding how the Samaritans pronounced the name.
It is quite ironic, perhaps even tragic for them, that the major teachers and preachers in the sacred name movement who use these two pronunciations are dependent on Greek and Latin Christian scholars and misguided Samaritans for their "original" pronunciation on the Sacred Name.
Let it be very plainly stated that in the time of our Savior, the Jewish people did not pronounce the name. There is not a single shred of evidence that Jesus, Peter, Paul, or any other New Testament person ever spoke the name. The name was not recorded for us by a single writer of the new Testament.
In modern times, biblical scholars tell us that Yahweh is the most nearly correct pronunciation of the name. Most nearly correct, means that this is the spelling and pronunciation agreed on and used today by most Christian biblical scholars.
However, we should keep in mind that it was Christian biblical scholars of this same sort who gave us Jehovah. At that time and for many years afterward that was the pronunciation they counted most nearly correct. In other words, we cannot rely on the word of biblical scholars. They are not dependable. They change their minds. New discoveries are made which they consider. Their writings are not inspired. The word of biblical scholars is not the word of God.
Yahweh is one of the names used of our Creator. Please, understand that I also call him God and Lord. Sometimes, I enjoy reading Bible translations which use this spelling, Yahweh. I have had The Emphasized Bible, translated by J. B. Rotherham, on my book shelves for many years. It is a favorite version of mine. I especially like the way he translates the Greek tenses. I also notice that after the manner of honest scholarship Rotherham does not put Yahweh into the New Testament. On occasion, I also make reference to The Jerusalem Bible. It also has Yahweh for the Tetragrammaton in the Old Testament.
It is a fundamental error of history, logic, and biblical scholarship for anyone to say, state, indicate, teach, preach, write, or in any other manner convey the idea, as the sacred name movement does, that Yahweh (or any other name for the Creator currently used within the sacred name movement) is the way God pronounced the name to Moses. No one knows how the name was pronounced. Anyone who says he does, is going beyond the facts.
The concept that the original pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton can be known and is known is the very foundation of the sacred name doctrine. However, no one knows how God pronounced this name. No one knows how Moses, Elijah, David, Isaiah, Joel, Amos, or anyone else in the Bible pronounced the name. Neither the Bible nor historical linguistics give us lessons on pronouncing the name.
What little about the pronunciation that can be gleaned from history is unreliable and certainly is not the word of God. For any point of our salvation, we cannot and will not rely on the writings of secular teachers and liberal biblical scholars who have the audacity to call themselves Christian.
The people in England a thousand years ago spoke English. However, if you could be there and hear them, you could understand little if any of what they said. Language changes. Spellings and pronunciations evolve from place to place and from time to time.
The tetragrammaton was confirmed by God to Moses more than three thousand years ago. In the intervening time, the Hebrew language has used at least two alphabets. It ceased to be the language of the Jewish people and then was revived. Hebrew was mixed with Spanish and became Lindie. It was mixed with German to form Yiddish.
These are only a few of the major changes. Yet the sacred name teachers pretend that nothing about Hebrew has changed. Within the time span of the writing of the OT, the spelling of the name of Joshua the son of Nun changed three times. Yet these teachers want, yea, expect us to believe that the Hebrew language has remained static.
While some, a few even in the sacred name movement, argue for w h y (YHW, pronounced Yahoo) as the original spelling in Hebrew, it is quite probable that we have the original spelling of the name in h w h y (YHWH or YHVH).
However, the vowel sounds used with the name were never written down for posterity. The Hebrews had no symbols for vowels in order to write them. When the Masoretes put vowel points with the tetragrammaton in about the sixth century of the common era, they put the vowel points of Adonai with it. (In succeeding years, this would aid in bringing about the hybrid and monstrous name jehovah.) These Masoretic Jewish scholars are of no help to us in ferreting out the correct and original pronunciation of the name. No one knows just what vowel sounds are correctly put with the four consonants.
The Jewish custom of not pronouncing the name is of ancient origin, growing up about twenty five hundred years ago. This custom has greatly diminished our ability to find out the original pronunciation.
When men today tell us how the tetragrammaton or, for that matter, Joshua’s name were originally pronounced, they are guessing. Albeit some of these are educated guesses, they are guesses nonetheless.
To find the story of the best educated guesses about the true pronunciation of the Name, you might like to check an encyclopedia or dictionary. The New Bible Dictionary, published by Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1973. Page 487, has this to offer:
The pronunciation Yahweh is indicated by transliterations into Greek in early Christian literature, in the form iaoua (Clement of Alexandria) or iabe (Theodoret; by this time Gk. b had the pronunciation of v).
It can be easily seen here why some people prefer the pronunciation using the v instead of the w. If Theodoret used the Greek spelling Iabe, and the Greek letter beta was at that time equivalent to our v, the pronunciation would have been Yahveh. The sacred name people who prefer Yahvah and Yahveh as transliterations may have a point after all.
Numerous dictionaries, encyclopedias and other works have this same information. You can see that sacred name teachers are dependent on Greek Christian scholars for documentation of Yahweh as the original pronunciation of the name. These are the same scholars who in other settings they deplore.
The pronunciation Yahweh, used by about half the sacred name movement, is based on information garnered from these Greek writings. Testing the truth of their hypothesis that they have found the true pronunciation of the Name by research into the writings of Greek and Latin scholars is a very large inconsistency for sacred name teachers. The Greek Christian scholars, upon whose work the pronunciation Yahweh is dependent, are of the sort whom Sacred Name teachers claim are responsible for substituting Lord and Jesus for the sacred names in the New Testament. Such is the weakness of the doctrine of the original pronunciation of the name.
Here is a clear picture of the inconsistency as sacred name teachers give it to us. We can't trust the Greek New Testament because early Christian Greek Bible scholars took the name out of it. However, we can trust the pronunciation, Yahweh, which is based on the writings of these same men.
No, I do not hate Yahweh. I also do not hate the name Yahweh. I just know the truth about this name and when I tell it, sacred name people assume I am disparaging the name.
I hope you will read again the essay which left the impression that I hate either Yahweh or his name. If you will point this essay out to me, I will revise it to be more clear.
Thank you for your question.
2. Please do not paint all who call on the Sacred Name with the same brush. We are sorry to hear of the things that happened to you and your family when you left a sacred name assembly. Some people in the movement are exclusive and excessive. But, do you not understand that all sacred name people and assemblies are not like the one you describe in your personal experience story?
Yes. I most certainly do. I know a number of good and honorable people who are in the sacred name movement. I have also met more of them because of these web pages. They seem to me to be humble, sincere, and surely earnest about how they worship Yahweh. Some of them even regard me as their spiritual brother, a misguided brother but a brother nonetheless.
These fine people would never even think of practicing any of the hate motivated misdeeds described in my personal story. Still, my personal exploration of the sacred name movement, as well as that of numbers of other people, has found the movement to be grotesque, to say the least.
Many good and sincere people use the name Yahweh and think of themselves as sacred name people. In spite of this fact, it is my belief that the sacred name movement is largely made up of exclusionists, fear mongers, hate mongers, holier-than-thou modern day Pharisees (and proud of it), egomaniacs, and cultists.
Perhaps it is true that the movement was not stared by such men. But somewhere along the way, men of this kind usurped the use of the name and the bulk of the movement promoting it. I did not cause this anomaly within the movement. As an observer, I cannot help but note it. Good and honest people within the sacred name movement have also observed this reproach upon the whole movement and it worries them.
This conclusion is based on some years experience with and study of the movement. Until someone shows me differently, I will continue to believe that most sacred name assemblies and leaders are of this ilk.
It is also my very considered conclusion that even the earnest and sincere sacred name people are deceived in believing that they know and use the "original" pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.
3. Don't you know that there was never a letter "J" in Hebrew and not one in English until the 17th century and therefore, your word "Jesus" could not have been our Savior's original name?
Before the letter J and the name "Jesus" are relegated to the scrape heap, let me challenge you to do a little more research.
The English letters J and I, have a very ancient heritage, going back much, much further than the 17th century. Their Phoenician and Semitic parent letter yodh is part of one of the most ancient alphabets known.
Here are four reasons why the I/J is a much better transliteration of the initial letter of the tetragrammaton and of our Savior’s name that the English Y . It is the Y which is used as the initial letter for these names by most of the sacred name movement. Only a few in the movement have the courage to go against the grain and use I as the initial letter.
First, the I is descended from the yodh. Please note that the first King James Version of the Bible had our Savior's name "Iesus" with an initial I.
The Latin and English Y is a corruption of the Greek letter Upsilon. Upsilon is child of the Phoenician and Semitic letter Waw. This is also true of the U, V, and W.
Second, I retains much of the ee sound which scholars assume was attached to the yodh. While Y in a few English uses has the ee sound, these are generally forced and somewhat quiescent rather than obvious.
Third, J is used only as a consonant. Yodh in Phoenician and Semitic (Hebrew) alphabets has the value of a consonant. At the time the Bible was written, yodh was only a consonant. The I can only be a vowel. But during the medieval period of European history, the custom grew up of giving the I a below the line curl if it was in the initial position in a word. From this custom, we have our letter J. The J is an I with a tail and was used for many years before the 17th century. Over the years, J became its own letter. It is a consonant and no longer connected with the I. This evolution was not complete until the 17th century.
Fourth, the I certainly is a better transliteration of the initial letter of the Savior's name than Y. The Iota is the initial letter of our Savior's name in the inspired Writings. The I is not just a transliteration of Iota. It is Iota. While the Anglicized pronunciation of the Greek letter Iota is I-ota, many scholars believe the letter is more correctly pronounced Ee-ota. Again the EE sound in the J works well here as a transliteration.
Since the Iota is in the initial position the J fits perfectly. The fact that J can only be a consonant works for the Hebrew yodh which can only be a consonant.
IhsouVis how his name is written in the inspired Scriptures. I know his mother and father did not call him IhsouV. Certainly the angel Gabriel did not say, "Thou shalt call his name IhsouV." I also know that I was not personally there to hear and report to you what they did call him. But then, neither was any sacred name teacher who purports to know exactly what they called him. I only know what is written down in the Scriptures.
I have neither interest nor concern for what the angel, his mother, his father, his kinsmen and friends called him. However, I am interested and very concerned about what one group of people called our Savior. I want to know what his disciples called him as the Holy Spirit moved on them when they wrote the New Testament. The writings of these men are the inspired Writings. These Writings are what I am interested in and concerned about. What do these writings call him?
I will not and I cannot go by what his mother said, what his father said, what the angel said, and what his kinsmen and friends said. I do not and cannot know what they said.
But, I can know what is written. I can also know what is not written. It is not written, "Thou shalt call his name Yahshua." It is not written in any Holy Scriptures that his mother called him "Yeshua." It is not written that Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahvahshua."
Here, look at what is written, "Thou shalt call his name IhsouV.." This is what is written. It is the Writings, the Scriptures, that matter. It is of no weight what sacred name teachers think should be in the Writings. The disrespect these men have for the Writings in seen in how they change the Holy Scriptures by adding into them their own thoughts and ideas. Many good and earnest people have let sacred name teachers steal the Scriptures away from them and replace the Writings with what they think someone said.
Let's get to the very crux of the matter for what the Savior is called. In Acts 26:15-16 Paul is recounting his trip to Damascus and his meeting with our Savior. He tells that Jesus spoke to him in the Hebrew language and said, "I am Jesus." There is no doubt that the Master here spoke his name in Aramaic (then the language of the Hebrews). I do not know and will not plead for the word he used here.
I do plead for what Luke wrote down. Luke wrote of this occurrence to his friend Theophilus so that this Greek man could be informed as to what was believed among the early followers of the Messiah. Today we have copies, not translations, not transliterations, but copies of what Luke wrote. Here is how one of those copies reads, " ... egw eime IhsouV ..." Brought into English it is "...I am Jesus..."
Perhaps you don't like what Luke wrote. Perhaps you believe that Luke, the educated Greek medical doctor, would have written in the Hebrew language to his Greek friend, whom he called be the official title "most excellent." That is quite a stretch. But it is exactly the position taken be the sacred name movement in their doctrine of the sacred name.
If we have no, "It is written," then we have nothing upon which to base our faith. Must we go by what "should be written"? Will we stand against Satan with, "It ought to have been written." That sounds a bit weak.
The written word of God has power; it is sharp; it is alive. What could-a, would-a, should-a been written in The New Testament is invalid and has no value or power in our lives.
Yes I will continue to call him Jesus. This is the English word derived from the Greek Writings. It has not been filtered through any sacred name teacher's mind.
Remember, there is no Hebrew name for our Savior of which it can be said, "It is written." Not even a single one.
4. The name "Jesus" means Son of Zeus. How can you keep using it for the name of the Savior, knowing that it is really the name of a pagan god?
OoooK. I knew this would come up sooner or later. I am happy for a chance to address this point.
That the word Jesus in Greek means son of Zeus is one of the favorite myths of the sacred name movement. It is not uncommon to see Sacred Name converts, who have no idea of the derivation of the information, quoting this myth or one of its variations as though it were fact. A favorite variation is that Jesus in Greek means "healing Zeus." Another variation is that IhsouV, Iesous, is a combination of the names of Zeus and the goddess Ie, Ie-Zeus, Ie-Sous, Jesus. One should not be amazed at what the human mind can conjure into being.
A. B. Traina, without a shred of documentation, put this "Healing Zeus" misinformation in the introduction of his corruption of the King James Version which he called The Holy Name Bible.
Since then, the myth (read, lie) has taken on a life of its own among Sacred Name assemblies and individuals. Sacred name people state it as one of those facts that "everybody knows." Numerous non Sacred Name people take for granted that sacred name teachers have done their homework and believe them.
Except in the minds of sacred name people, there is absolutely no connection between the name Jesus and the name Zeus. I will admit that it is easy for sacred name teachers to pull this doctrinal rabbit out of the sacred name hat and fool people into thinking it is real. It is not of any substance. But, it is especially easy to trick folks who want to be deceived. Many of them are not interested in and are trained not to ask for any documentation of evidence.
You may be sure of one thing, when this mythical teaching is put before a group of people, the sacred name teacher is casting aspersions and disdain on the name of Jesus.
Let a few poignant words be said here.
1. This is the word Jesus in Greek letters:
Upper case: IHSOUS Lower case: ihsouV
This is the word Zeus in Greek letters:
Upper case: ZEUS Lower case: zeuV
Not much similarity here is there? But, the two letters both words have in common at their ends are just enough similarity to convince die hard sacred name converts.
2. Zeus in Greek in the genitive case, the possessive case, is DioV, meaning "of Zeus." Son of Zeus then would be uioV DioV . This is not even close to IhsouV. Need I state the obvious? Jesus is one word. Son of Zeus is two words. But, I guess you could tell that?
3. The Old Testament was translated into Greek beginning in the third century B.C. The translators were rabbis, Jewish scholars. It was they who transliterated the Hebrew u c w h y (Joshua) into Greek. In the Greek texts of the OT we find IhsouV for u c w h y.
These Rabbis did not make the name of that great Israelite hero into "the Son of Zeus," "Healing Zeus," and certainly not "Ie-Zeus." Ihsous is the transliteration of u c w h y. The first recorded use of this transliteration was by these very Jewish rabbis. This seems obvious to everyone except the few sacred name people who still propagate this lie. Most of them have given it up.
When our savior was born into a Hebrew/Greek mixed culture, it was already known how his name should be transliterated into Greek. That had been settled about three hundred years before.
That Jesus lived in a mixed culture is shown be the sign above him at his death, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Remember also that Galilee is called in Scripture, "Galilee of the Gentiles." The area had been under gentile domination for centuries before Jesus was born.
No "Healing Zeus." No "son of Zeus." No "Ie-Zeus." Here again, one is able to see that sacred name teachers are caught off base. More’s the pity.
[For Those interested in going a step further into the investigation of the name Jesus among the Hebrews in the Diaspora, please see the apocryphal book of Ecclesiastics. (c. 200 B. C. E.) In the first chapter, the translator tells that his grandfather, Jesus, wrote this book of wisdom in Hebrew and how he, the grandson, translated it into Greek. You will notice that he does not translate the name of his grandfather, u c w h y, as "Yahweh is salvation," but simply transliterates it into Greek as IhsouV, Jesus.]
Sorry, sacred namers. The devil didn't do it. God's Jewish people transliterated the name as IhsouV.
4. Into this mixed culture and into these customs our Savior was born. When his early followers began to write of his life for evangelistic reasons, they wrote in Greek. Since the Savior's name was the same as the Jewish hero u c w h y, (Joshua) they already had years, decades, even centuries of precedent for transliteration of the name into Greek. For the Savior's name they, without fail, put IhsouV, Jesus. The empirical evidence for this is overwhelming. Manuscript copies of these writings are still in existence today. I do not mean to say that the originals exist, but copies a few generations removed from the originals exist in manuscript form.
The transliteration of the Hebrew u c w h y into Greek as IhsouV during the time both before and after the Savior lived is attested to by much manuscript evidence. These are available for study at any major university library.
Again we can find no Healing Zeus connection in the name of Jesus. This lie is just another Sacred Name fabrication.
[For those wanting to delve into the matter a bit deeper, might I suggest one manuscript for consideration. It is 5/6 Hever Babatha Archive, Greek Document 2 (5/6 HevBA 2). ]
A copy of the manuscript on film, with all its tears, damage, and other imperfections, can be found in the E. L Sukenik Memorial Volume (1889 - 1953), editors N. Avigad, et. al., Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1976.
A non manuscript copy set in modern type (it is easier to read) can be seen in Eretz-Israel, Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, Volume Eight, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Shrine of The Book, et. al., pg. 50. This copy has both the Aramaic and Greek text with brackets for the missing sections of the manuscript.
Another copy in modern type is on page 162 of A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, (Second Century B. C. --- Second Century A. D.), ed. Joseph A Fitzmyer, S.J., et. al., Biblical Institute Press, Rome, 1978. This copy has only the Aramaic section, lines 11, 12, and 13. But it has a nice English translation on the facing page.
This interesting if somewhat unusual manuscript was found at Nahel Hever. It certainly is poignant to our discussion of the transliteration of our Savior’s name into Greek in the first and second centuries of the common era. The document bears the date August 19, A. D. 132. It is a receipt given by Babatha to the Jewish guardian of her son for payment of six denarii for food and clothing for her son, Jesus. It is written in both Aramaic and Greek.
On line 12, in the Aramaic portion, twice repeated is the name u w c y, a shortened form of u c w h y. On line 16 of the Greek portion, is the transliteration, IhsouV .]
Even in secular documents of that time period, the name Jesus is put for the name Joshua.
5. This question implies that sometime in the history of the New Testament, apparently at a very early date, someone conspired to rid all the various writings of Paul, Luke, John, Peter, Matthew, et. al. of the name of u c w h y and in its place put IhsouV.
These documents were not brought together under one cover until two or three centuries after their writing. It would have taken someone of great influence to collect, change, and destroy the various manuscripts from the various parts of the world where they were. Whoever did this apparently did it well, for not a single manuscript of a single New Testament book with the name u c w h y for our Savior has survived.
Still, this is the theory of the sacred Name doctrine. The theory is based not on historical evidence, but rather on the need for it to have been done. Such is the scholarly standing of this and much of the teaching of the Sacred Name Movement.
- Who substituted the name Jesus into all these manuscripts?
- What kind of logistics brought the thousands of manuscript copies into one place to have them changed and destroyed?
- Did someone travel about the empire changing them and destroying the copies of the originals?
- Where are the Hebrew manuscripts now?
- Why has not a single one survived to sustain the Sacred Name position?
- There exists not a single piece of evidence supporting the Sacred Name theory of changing the manuscripts.
- Here again, the Sacred Name Movement position falls far short of reality.
- No, the name of Jesus does not mean Healing Zeus. It does not mean son of Zeus. It is not a combination of the names Ie and Zeus. Born of need to discredit and disparage the name of Jesus, these ideas are Sacred Name doctrinal myths. They are nothing more than lies. These mysteries are akin to that larger and more important sacred name myth, The Original Hebrew New Testament.
5. What name did the angel tell the Virgin she should call him? Why don't you just call him that instead of fighting against the truth?
[Other forms of this question are: What name did the angel tell Joseph he should call him? What did his family call him? What did his disciples call him? He was Hebrew; would he not have a Hebrew name?]
I do not know what the angel said for his mother or Joseph to call him. Neither I nor anyone else can know. We weren't there; how could we know?
Neither his mother, the angel, nor Joseph wrote down what was said in these conversations. Therefore, we do not have their word for what was said.
There were some men who did make a written record of these conversations and we have what they wrote. Every one on these men wrote in the Greek language, everyone of them. The inspired written record has his name as IhsouV, Jesus. That is what I call him. That is the name I use.
You see, the spoken word is not something we are able to go by. We don't even have the spoken word. It is the written word which is inspired. Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
One of the very large problems with the Sacred Name Movement is this willingness to forsake the written word and cling to the spoken word. The spoken word, by its very nature, is nebulous and unclear. In other words, it is not knowable. This, in a great degree, is responsible for the many different names held sacred by people within the Movement.
This vain attempt to make use of the spoken word has caused a very large number of people in the movement to repeatedly change the name which they call God. Their search for the sacred name has become some sort of quest. Going from one name to another, these people continually search for the most correct name.
The weakness of Sacred Name Movement people depending on the spoken word is epitomized by an email letter I have received. Here is a quotation from the letter.
"We are using the name Yahweh at this point in time, because that is as far as our research has taken us. If we find out that the name Yahweh is incorrect, by the Creator's grace, we will correct the mistake. We are confident that the Creator in His time will reveal His name to us, if 'Yahweh' is not His correct name. He will reveal His name in such a way that we will know without a doubt, and without disputing. We know this because the Creator rewards the obedient and the humble. We pray much and try to stay close to Him, and not lean on our understanding."
Such sincerity is admirable. Such humility is to be commended. But, sincerity and humility are not faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. The written word calls his name IhsouV - Jesus.
Here is part of another letter which shows how folks within the Movement are getting away from the written word and following the spirit of uncertainty.
"As to the pronunciation of Our Messiah you must now use the Holy Spirit and your Faith to see the name and hear it with your mind not your ears."
On this point, one can see that the Sacred Name Movement teachers have left the written word and are holding to the spoken word. Yet, they do not even know what the spoken word was. They have become more interested in what his mother called him and less concerned with what the writers of The New Testament called him.
When one goes away from the written word, he goes into speculation. Speculation is not productive of faith and without faith we cannot please God. Without faith we cannot be saved. For faith we are dependent on the written word of God.
Thanks for this question. It is a very common one. Sacred Name people need to know the answer.
6. Why do you verbally attack Sacred Name people?
We do not and have not attacked individual Sacred Name people. On this web site, we are defending our Scriptural and personal positions against attacks made by Sacred Name people. Read our personal story.
We have been aquatinted with the Sacred Name doctrine for many years. But, we were first accosted by the doctrine of the Sacred Name in 1993 when the church of which we were members went into the Sacred Name Movement. At that time we defended our positions in other smaller ways, but this web site was not launched until 1998. We were under a consistent, often harsh, and sometimes even illegal barrage of harassment during the intervening years. Eventually we built and launched two web sites by means of which we defend ourselves. Perhaps we should have done so sooner.
Certainly, we pull no punches about the shameful practices and false teaching of Sacred Name people. That is what our two web sites are about.
Neither do we have any compunction about trying to get people to come out of the Sacred Name doctrine or out of any SN assembly. That is also what these web sites are about.
But again, we do not attack any individual sacred name person's character, honesty, morals, and sincerity. That is for God alone to judge. We humans can only know fruit. Personally, I don't see how much good fruit can come from such a tree as the Sacred Name Movement.
7. What possible good can come from such a negative web site?
These sites are only negative if you are in the Sacred Name Movement.
Thanks for the question.
8. Why don't you just promote what you do believe instead of criticizing what other people believe?
We promote what we believe about other matters in many other ways and in many other places. These are often at great expense to us. These web sites are free. They cost us only the time it takes to write the material and build the pages. Sometimes that, coupled with all the other things we do, is really more than we can get accomplished.
As to the good these sites do: Our purpose is stated very early on our home page. The primary purpose is to get people out of the SNM and to help others get someone out. Judged on this criteria alone, these web sites are a raging success.