Message: "No [m]" - Behind the Name

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] No [m]

by Sabrina Fair (tigerlilly)

5/3/2008, 11:40 PM

I feel the name fits one person only (Jesus Christ), and no one else. It seems odd when people have the name I feel it's "too much" to live up to.

I think names that are in references to Him are better because it can give Him honour without using His real name.

The only titles I dislike being used are Savior, Sovereign, King, Christ, and Messiah they are way too much to live up to as well and I feel belong only to Christ.

I think names like Shiloh, and Emmanuel (two of the many names I am using for Him) are perfectly usable among others like Shepherd, Peace, Rock. They are in reference to Christ, but in a gentle more suttle way then some other titles like the ones above.

This message was edited 5/4/2008, 12:21 AM

Replies

- Aine (guest) +3

5/4/2008, 12:25 AM

Is Joshua okay?

Considering it is just the anglicised form of Yeshua...

- Sabrina Fair (tigerlilly) +2

5/4/2008, 10:03 AM

I'm not fond of Joshua either, but it bothers me less then the other two name for Christ at all so I while I dislike Joshua I don't mind it being used. Where as Yeshua and Jesus I do mind cause I associate them both with Christ.

This message was edited 5/4/2008, 10:12 AM

- Murasaki (lady murasaki) +1

5/4/2008, 11:27 AM

But Jesus as a history of usage in Hispanic countries, as Christos in Greece, and people actually use it as a form of reverence.

- Sabrina Fair (tigerlilly)

5/4/2008, 2:36 PM

I'm not saying people couldn't use the names I just prefer not to I rather use His titles rather then His name :).

This message was edited 5/4/2008, 2:36 PM

View Message

Replies