https://www.facebook.com/249651258862706/

Children of YEHOWAH, Laguna and, Laguna (2026)

22/05/2026

To anyone willing to think it through,

Most people today pray and say “God” or “Lord,” and think that’s enough to know exactly who they’re talking to. But here’s the simple problem: those words are not unique. “God” is just a word for a deity and “Lord” is just a word for master or ruler.

Back in Bible times, other religions used the same kind of words for their own gods too. Even people used “lord” just to mean “sir” or “master” in everyday life. So if everyone can use the same labels, then the question becomes pretty simple: How do you actually tell one God from another?
Because if two people say: “I believe in God” or “I serve the Lord.” That alone doesn’t tell you which one they mean.

That’s where the Bible itself does something important. It doesn’t only use titles. It also talks about a Name — a specific way God identifies Himself, not just a general label. And in many places, the Bible puts weight on that Name: remembering it, calling on it, not forgetting it.
Which already shows the difference between: a title (which many can share), and a name (which is meant to point to one specific identity).

Now over time, especially in translation and tradition, that Name often gets replaced with “LORD” or just “God.” And most people never question it because it sounds respectful and familiar. But the result is this: You end up with a situation where almost every religion on earth can say:
“God”
“Lord”
“Creator”
“Most High”

So the language becomes very general — but not very specific. And that’s the real issue.
Because if God is real and speaks as a specific being, then the question isn’t just “do you believe in God?” It becomes: which God are you actually talking about?

And if the Bible originally gave a distinct Name, then it makes sense to ask why that Name is no longer the one most people actually use.

Not as an argument. Just as a question about clarity.

Because titles can be shared by many.
But a name is what sets one apart from the rest.

21/05/2026

AN OPEN LETTER TO PASTORS AND LEADERS OF THE FAITH
Concerning the Remembrance of the Father’s Name

To those entrusted with teaching Scripture and shepherding the faith, this is written with seriousness, not hostility; with conviction, not contempt. It is no longer sufficient for this matter to be treated as secondary. It concerns what is plainly written.
________________________________________
1. The Father, according to Scripture, declared: “This is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” — Exodus 3:15.
So the question is not whether the statement exists in Scripture. The question is:
WHY HAS WHAT GOD DECLARED TO BE “FOR ALL GENERATIONS” BECOME SO ABSENT OR MINIMIZED IN MUCH OF TEACHING AND PRACTICE TODAY?
This is not a minor inquiry. It goes to the consistency between Scripture and instruction.
________________________________________
2. The biblical text does not treat the Name as incidental language. It repeatedly presents it as:
• revealed
• remembered
• called upon
• sanctified
• and made known
“My people shall know my name.” — Isaiah 52:6
“I have made your name known unto them.” — John 17:26
The emphasis is not hidden. It is repeated. So the question becomes unavoidable:
HAS THE EMPHASIS OF SCRIPTURE BEEN PRESERVED IN TEACHING — OR QUIETLY REPLACED BY SOMETHING LESS SPECIFIC?
________________________________________
3. No one disputes the legitimacy of titles such as: God, Lord, Almighty, Father. These are found throughout Scripture and are meaningful. But Scripture also distinguishes revelation of identity from general titles. A title describes role. A name identifies the one being referred to. Therefore, if Scripture speaks of a Name being revealed and remembered, it cannot be reduced into titles alone without consequence to the meaning of the text. Titles are not a substitute for what was revealed.
________________________________________
4. The issue is not presence of scripture — but practical removal of emphasis. The concern is not that the Name is missing from the Bible. The concern is that:
• what is repeatedly emphasized in Scripture
• is not equally emphasized in instruction and public faith expression
This creates a tension that cannot be ignored. Either:
• the biblical emphasis is essential or
• it is optional in practice
But it cannot be both.
________________________________________
5. The responsibility of those who teach Scripture carry a weight that cannot be avoided: “For they watch for your souls…” — Hebrews 13:17. If Scripture repeatedly states that the Father’s Name is:
• to be remembered
• known
• and sanctified
Then it raises a direct question of stewardship:
HAS THIS INSTRUCTION BEEN FULLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, OR PARTIALLY LEFT BEHIND THROUGH INHERITED TRADITION?
This is not accusation. It is accountability to the text itself.
________________________________________
6. A point that must be addressed honestly … It is not enough to say: “We honour God.”
Scripture repeatedly ties honour to what is revealed, not generalized reference alone.
“My people shall know my name.” — Isaiah 52:6
So the matter cannot be resolved by substitution of titles alone if the text itself insists on remembrance of a specific revealed Name. This must be addressed directly, not avoided.
________________________________________
7. To those in authority over teaching … with respect, but also with clarity: If something is consistently present in Scripture but absent or softened in instruction, that is not a neutral position. It demands examination. Not defensiveness. Not dismissal. But re-evaluation. Because authority in teaching does not replace responsibility to Scripture.
________________________________________
8. To the faithful listening. Do not assume that what is commonly taught is automatically identical to what is written. Read for yourself slowly, carefully, directly. Ask:
• What is actually emphasized?
• What is repeated?
• What is commanded to be remembered?
Faith is not threatened by honest reading. It is clarified by it.
________________________________________
9. This is not a call for conflict. It is a call for correction where needed, or confirmation if nothing is lacking. But silence on this matter is no longer a sufficient answer to what Scripture repeatedly emphasizes.
“FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN UNTO THE GOING DOWN OF THE SAME MY NAME SHALL BE GREAT AMONG THE NATIONS.” — Malachi 1:11
If this is true, then it must be reflected not only in doctrine — but in remembrance.
And if it is not reflected, then the question cannot be ignored.
WHY HAS WHAT GOD DECLARED TO BE “FOR ALL GENERATIONS” BECOME SO ABSENT OR MINIMIZED IN MUCH OF TEACHING AND PRACTICE TODAY?
________________________________________
Respectfully,
A fellow reader of Scripture seeking alignment between what is written and what is taught.

20/05/2026

Many gatherings within Christian communities are commonly called “Bible Studies.” Yet sadly, in many cases, what actually transpires is not truly study, but indoctrination.

A study, by its very meaning, involves inquiry, examination, questioning, discussion, reflection, and sincere engagement with the subject matter. But in many religious settings, the conclusion is already predetermined before the first verse is even opened. The scriptures are often selected mainly to support an already established doctrinal position. Questions that challenge the framework may be quietly discouraged, redirected, or viewed as rebellion rather than sincere inquiry. That is not genuine study in the pure sense of the word. It is assertion toward conformity.

Now, doctrines themselves are not automatically wrong. Every religion and institution teaches its beliefs. But honesty matters. If a meeting’s primary purpose is to reinforce official teachings, then perhaps terms like “Doctrine Class,” “Instruction Meeting,” or “Church Teaching” would be more transparent. Because the phrase “Bible Study” naturally creates a different expectation.

It suggests that: the Bible itself is the primary authority in the room, questions are welcome, context matters, difficult passages may be examined honestly, participants are free to reason,
and understanding is pursued above mere agreement. A true Bible study should not fear inquiry, for truth does not fear examination.

Better yet, if the term “Bible Study” is to be used sincerely, the topic should be announced beforehand. This allows attendees to prepare by reading the relevant chapters in context, comparing translations, reflecting on the issue, and forming thoughtful questions before arriving.
Without this, the setting often becomes one-sided: the speaker arrives prepared, while the listeners are expected merely to absorb and accept. But genuine study welcomes prepared participants, not passive recipients.

Even in academic environments, serious discussions announce topics beforehand because preparation sharpens understanding and encourages meaningful engagement. Matters concerning scripture, conscience, and faith deserve no less. Perhaps this is one of the clearest distinctions between indoctrination and sincere study: Indoctrination mainly speaks to people and True study is willing to reason with them.

So perhaps, in fairness and honesty, one should not invite others to a “Bible Study” without first clearly stating the topic to be genuinely discussed and examined—especially if the gathering is primarily intended only to assert and reinforce an already fixed institutional belief.

For a true study invites minds to engage, not merely ears to submit. And the moment inquiry is no longer welcome, “Bible Study” quietly ceases to be study at all.

Call it what it is: “Doctrine Class,” “Instruction Meeting,” or “Church Teaching.”
Not—Bible Study!

20/05/2026

THREAD: Scripture First — Why We Keep Getting Interpretation Wrong

Throughout history, many religious groups — not just one — have claimed they are the only true people of God. The only true church. The only true teaching. The only group with full truth.
But one question never changes: What does scripture actually say?
It’s Not what people later built on it. Not what traditions added over time. Not what institutions decided it must mean. But what is actually written in the text itself. That is where everything should start.

A lot of confusion happens because people mix three things: what the Bible says, what people conclude from it and what systems build on those conclusions. They are not the same thing but they often get treated as if they are. When that happens, something subtle but serious occurs: The system starts controlling how the Bible is read… instead of the Bible correcting the system.

The New Testament speaks about: one body, one faith, one Lord. But it also uses many different terms for God’s people: church of God, churches of Christ, saints, brethren, disciples, “the Way.”
But these are descriptions — not brand labels!

So the real question becomes: Is salvation tied to one specific organisation on earth? Or is it tied to faith, repentance, obedience, and transformation — as scripture describes?
People disagree… but the difference often comes down to how they read.

Do we start with the text and build understanding from it? Or do we start with a system and force the text to fit inside it? That one shift changes everything.
Even Jesus repeatedly challenged this pattern: “Have you not read?” “You do not understand the Scriptures.” “Hearing they do not hear.” These weren’t directed at irreligious people. They were directed at deeply religious ones. So knowledge alone is not the same as understanding. Being structured is not the same as being right. Having doctrine is not the same as seeing clearly.
Doctrine itself is not the problem. It helps organise belief and teaching. But it becomes dangerous when it becomes untouchable. When it cannot be questioned by the very text it claims to explain. At that point, something flips: The framework stops serving the scripture… and starts controlling it.

In the Hebrew text, God’s name is written as YHWH (יהוה). Many English Bibles render it as “LORD.” Not because the Hebrew says “LORD”… but because of translation tradition.
So: YHWH = what is actually written, and LORD = a translation convention.
The Name is not missing from scripture. It is already there in the text itself.

So maybe the simplest approach is this: Start with what is written and Read it as it is.
Then build understanding from there, not the other way around.
Because once the system comes first… the danger is we stop reading scripture to find truth… and start reading it only to confirm what we already believe.

Maybe the real question is not:“What does my tradition say this means?” But:
“What is actually written — and am I still letting it speak for itself?”

-gromelian

18/05/2026

There is a statement often linked to Tolstoy that says:
“But Christ could certainly not have established his church. That is, the institution we now call by that name, for nothing resembling our conception of the church—with its sacraments, its hierarchy, especially its claim of infallibility—is to be found in Christ’s word or in the conception of the men of his time.”

Whether a person fully agrees with Tolstoy or not is not really the main issue here. What matters is the question he is raising. He is pointing to the difference between what Christ directly said, and what later became large religious systems built around interpretations, traditions, and structures made by men over time.

Because when you read the words of Christ plainly and directly, you mostly see teachings about repentance, mercy, truth, humility, love, forgiveness, faith, and obedience to God. You see parables, warnings, encouragement, and correction. But you do not really see a detailed religious system with complicated ranks, layers of authority, official titles, or many later doctrines explained in the exact way some institutions teach them today.

Now, having structure is not automatically wrong. Any group needs some order to continue and survive through generations. Without order, things can become chaotic. But the danger starts when the structure itself begins to carry the same authority as the actual words of Scripture—or even greater authority. That is when things slowly change.

Interpretations begin to be treated as if they were directly written in the text itself. Opinions and conclusions become presented as unquestionable truth. And teachings that are not clearly stated in Scripture become defended as if they were plainly written there.

And this is the real issue:
If something is required for salvation, faith, or obedience to God, should it not be clearly and directly stated in Scripture itself?
Because once human interpretation is treated the same as the direct written word, then the foundation becomes unstable. At that point, teachings can continue growing based on tradition, leadership, or reasoning instead of clear biblical wording.

This is what makes Tolstoy’s statement challenging. He is basically asking:
Are modern religious institutions truly continuing the simple teachings of Christ?
Or have many things been added later by men trying to organize and define religion?
That question makes many people uncomfortable because it does not attack belief in God itself. It questions religious systems and the authority they claim.

And honestly, it is a fair question to ask. Are we following what is clearly written? Or are we following interpretations built around what is written? Because there is a difference between the two. Over time, many voices, traditions, explanations, and doctrines can pile up around the original message until people can no longer tell where Scripture ends and human interpretation begins.

And this is why clarity matters. Not to destroy faith. Not to attack every form of organization.
But to make sure we do not confuse the words of God with the systems built by men around those words. Because even sincere and devoted people can slowly become more loyal to an institution, a framework, or a tradition than to the plain meaning of Scripture itself.

And that is really where Tolstoy’s statement leads:
When people say “the church,” are they talking about the actual teachings of Christ and the apostles—or the religious systems that later developed around them?

And when we go back to Scripture itself, we can see warnings about this very problem. Christ said:
“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” — Matthew 15:6

And again:
“In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” — Matthew 15:9
The warning was not against all order or teaching. The warning was about human teachings slowly replacing the direct commandment of God.

The apostles also reminded believers to stay grounded in what is actually written:
“That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written.” — 1 Corinthians 4:6

And believers were told to test teachings carefully:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” — 1 John 4:1

Isaiah also says:
“If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” — Isaiah 8:20

And Paul reminds us where doctrine should stand:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” — 2 Timothy 3:16

So the message stays consistent: The danger is not simply structure.
The danger is when human systems, traditions, and interpretations begin to speak louder than the actual written word itself.

And that is why discernment is important—not blindly rejecting everything, but always checking whether what is being taught is truly and clearly grounded in Scripture, or mainly built upon assumptions and interpretations around it.

-gromelian

09/05/2026

The Divine Name: Its Written Form, Transmission, and Why “LORD” Is Not the Name Revealed to Moses

Having established that God revealed a distinct covenant Name to Moses and attached memorial significance to it, the next important question is this: What exactly is that Name as preserved in Scripture, and how has it been represented through history?
To understand this, we must begin with the way ancient Hebrew was originally written.
The Name revealed to Moses was preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures in four consonantal letters: יהוה
These four letters are known today as the Tetragrammaton, a Greek-derived term simply meaning “four letters.”
Read from right to left, these letters correspond approximately in English transliteration to: YHWH. This is the written covenant Name that appears throughout the Hebrew Scriptures thousands of times.
It is the very Name associated with God’s declaration to Moses: “This is My Name forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.” This is not a title. It is not merely a description. It is the specific covenant Name preserved in the biblical text.
________________________________________
Why the Exact Pronunciation Became Uncertain
Ancient Hebrew was originally written without vowels. Only the consonants were written, while pronunciation was preserved through oral transmission. This was not unusual in ancient Semitic writing systems. For generations, the pronunciation of the divine Name would have been known naturally among Hebrew speakers.
However, over time, particularly after the exile and during the Second Temple period, a growing tradition developed among many Jewish communities of avoiding vocalizing the Name aloud out of deep reverence and caution against misuse.
When readers encountered: יהוה they would often say: Adonai (“Lord”) and in some cases: Elohim (“God”) instead. Because of this long-standing practice, the original vocalization was gradually no longer preserved with certainty.
Later Hebrew scribes, known as the Masoretes, added vowel markings to the Hebrew text.
In the case of the divine Name, these markings were generally not intended to preserve its original pronunciation. Instead, they often reflected substitute readings such as Adonai (“Lord”) or, in certain contexts, Elohim (“God”), signaling to the reader which reverential title should be spoken in place of vocalizing the Name itself.
Different vocalized forms of the revealed Name—such as Yahweh, YeHoWaH, Yahuah, Yahovah, Jehovah, and others—have been proposed through attempts to vocalize its consonantal form using later vowel traditions. These renderings have long been debated, yet complete historical certainty regarding the original pronunciation remains beyond recovery.
This is why humility is necessary.
No honest student of Scripture should claim absolute certainty where history does not permit it.
________________________________________
Why “LORD” Is Not the Name Itself
This is where clarity becomes especially important. In many English Bibles, whenever the divine Name appears in the Hebrew text, translators often render it as: LORD (usually in all capital letters).
This practice reflects longstanding Jewish reverential reading tradition and was later carried into ancient translations such as the Greek Septuagint. But this must be clearly understood:
“LORD” is not a transliteration of the Name revealed to Moses. A transliteration attempts to carry letters from one language into another.
For example: יהוה → YHWH and משה → Moses
But “LORD” is not derived letter-for-letter from יהוה. It is a title substitution, not a transliteration.
It represents what readers were instructed to say in place of the Name, not the Name itself.
This distinction matters greatly. To illustrate:
If a king’s personal name were replaced everywhere with “King,” his authority would still be acknowledged, but his distinct personal name would no longer appear.
The title identifies status. The name identifies personhood. In the same way, “Lord” acknowledges divine authority, but it does not preserve the specific covenant Name God revealed.
This is why saying that “LORD” is simply the Name Moses wrote is not textually accurate.
Moses did not write: “Lord” He wrote the four covenant letters preserved in the Hebrew text.
________________________________________
Why This Matters
Recognizing this is not about rigid pronunciation debates or condemning sincere believers who use translated substitutions. God searches the heart. He knows reverence when it is genuine.
The issue is not whether someone must pronounce the Name with perfect historical precision.
The issue is whether we acknowledge the scriptural reality that God revealed a distinct Name and considered it worthy of perpetual remembrance.
To replace that revealed Name entirely with titles such as “Lord” or “God,” while perhaps understandable through translation history, should not lead us to forget that a specific covenant Name stands behind those substitutions.
A reverent reader of Scripture should at least recognize this fact.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The exact original vocalization of the divine Name may remain uncertain. The forms Yahweh, YeHoWaH, Yahuah, Yah, Jehovah, and others reflect sincere attempts at representation, though none of them can be asserted with complete historical certainty.
Yet uncertainty of pronunciation does not erase certainty of revelation.
What remains beyond dispute is this:
God revealed a distinct covenant Name to Moses.
That Name was written in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It was set apart as a memorial for all generations.
And while later tradition often substituted it with titles such as “LORD,” such substitutions should never cause us to overlook the scriptural reality that behind those titles stands the revealed Name of the God of Israel. The proper response is not dogmatism about exact pronunciation, nor indifference toward the Name itself, but humble reverence toward what God chose to reveal.
________________________________________
Closing Reflection: How the Name Is to Be Remembered
When God declared to Moses:
“This is My Name forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations,” He was not speaking of a general title, but of a distinct revealed Name. That Name was preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures in its written form as: יהוה
These four sacred Hebrew consonants, read from right to left, are transliterated into English letters as: YHWH
Over time, as pronunciation became uncertain through the loss of ancient vowel preservation and later traditions of avoidance, various attempts were made to represent the Name more fully, resulting in forms such as: YHWH → Yahweh / Yehowah / Yahuah / Jehovah / and others
These forms reflect humanity’s effort to carry forward what was originally written, even where exact vocal precision can no longer be established with certainty.
What is important to understand is this: At no point did the written covenant Name evolve into: LORD. “LORD” is not the Name written by Moses. It is not a transliteration of the Hebrew letters.
It is a title substitution introduced through reading tradition and later translation practice.
The progression is therefore not: יהוה → LORD
but rather: יהוה → YHWH → reverential attempts at vocal representation. This distinction matters.
A memorial preserves what was originally given.
If a personal name is replaced entirely by a title, remembrance of that distinct revealed identity becomes obscured.
Titles such as: Lord, God, Father are all true and reverent descriptions of Him. But they are not the specific covenant Name God attached to perpetual remembrance.
For this reason, the most faithful way to remember the Name is to preserve and acknowledge it in recognizably transmitted form, as closely as possible to the way it was originally written.
To remember the Name, then, is to remember it as revealed: יהוה
YHWH, and where vocal expression is attempted, to do so with humility rather than dogmatic certainty.
This is not a demand for perfect pronunciation. It is a call to faithful recognition. Not rigid insistence on one exact sound, but reverent refusal to allow the revealed Name to disappear behind translated substitutes.
For in seeing: יהוה
and knowing it is carried forward as: YHWH
future generations are reminded that God did not merely reveal titles by which He may be described. He revealed a distinct covenant Name which He declared to be His memorial for all generations.
And if He Himself declared it to be His memorial forever, then true reverence does not replace it.
It remembers it.

Though the exact sound may remain uncertain, the reality of the revealed Name does not. Faithful remembrance therefore calls for preserving its distinct written identity, rather than allowing it to disappear behind titles alone.

-gromelian

08/05/2026

The Name of God was originally revealed in spoken form to Moses in a direct encounter with God.
The Father revealed His covenant Name to Moses, and that revelation remains significant. While the precise original vocalization may no longer be recoverable with certainty due to the nature of ancient Hebrew writing, this uncertainty does not diminish the Name’s importance.

Whatever uncertainties may exist regarding pronunciation, the scriptural fact remains that God revealed His Name, attached memorial significance to it, and nowhere in Scripture explicitly revoked, replaced, or diminished that instruction.

What matters is a sincere and reverent acknowledgment of the revealed Name as preserved in Scripture, approached with humility rather than dogmatic certainty about pronunciation. I trust that God, who searches the heart, honors sincere reverence even where historical phonetic precision lies beyond human recovery.

Moreover, if God Himself declared His Name to be His memorial forever, and Scripture repeatedly associates that Name with covenant remembrance, reverence, and deliverance, then genuine love for God cannot reasonably treat it as insignificant.

Indifference toward what God Himself marked for perpetual remembrance is difficult to reconcile with true reverence and love.

Now, in response to the claim that “the Name of the Father is simply Father” because Jesus often addressed God as Father, this reasoning does not hold when carefully examined in its proper context.

First, when Jesus Christ speaks of “Father” in the New Testament, especially in Matthew 23:9, He is addressing relationship, not redefining the revealed covenant Name. “Father” describes God’s unique role and relationship to His people. It is a title of intimacy and authority, not a replacement of the specific Name revealed in Exodus 3.

Second, the instruction “call no man father” is not about naming God. It is about human authority and pride. Jesus is correcting religious elevation and misuse of titles among men. The verse itself says clearly: “for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” This establishes God’s unique fatherhood, but it does not say His Name is “Father.”

Third, if “Father” were intended to replace the revealed covenant Name, then Scripture would need to clearly state that transition. But nowhere in the biblical text do we see the covenant Name from Exodus being replaced or redefined as “Father.” Instead, both ideas exist side by side — God is addressed as Father in relationship, while His revealed Name is still treated with reverence, remembrance, and sanctity.

Fourth, even in the New Testament, Jesus speaks of revealing the Father’s Name, as seen in John 17. That only makes sense if “Father” and “Name” are not identical concepts. One is relational title, the other is revealed identity.

So the conclusion that “Father is the Name of God” is not something directly stated in Scripture. It is an interpretive step that goes beyond what the text explicitly says.
A more text-faithful understanding is this: God is rightly called Father because of His relationship to creation and especially to His covenant people.
But the revealed Name given in Exodus stands as a distinct covenant disclosure of His identity, not replaced by relational titles used in prayer and teaching.

-gromelian

Children of YEHOWAH

22/05/2026

21/05/2026

20/05/2026

20/05/2026

18/05/2026

09/05/2026

08/05/2026

Endereço

Telefone

Site

Notificações

Atalhos

Compartilhar

Categoria