The famous novel, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was a book that really opened my eyes to the deception of using euphemisms. Now the definition of a euphemism is an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant. In Rand's fictional book, the author Rand writes about a dystopian United States that becomes a Marxist dictatorship, doing away with private enterprise, fueled by objectivity. (Objectivity is really ethical egoism and rational selfishness. It's a way of getting what you want off your own hard labor that meets your needs and the needs of others. To Rand, this is why capitalism works.
Rand's inspiration clearly came from her own upbringing in communist Russia, in which private enterprise was seized under the idea of a socio-economical system structured upon common ownership, or Communism. In fact, the communists devised deceptive euphemisms to carry out their program, when Rand was growing up!
Now in the book, Government bureaucrats devised deceptive bills that were titled with Euphemisms so that they would be passed without controversy. For instance, one such Euphemism that was used in the book was a bill called "Equalization of Opportunity Bill!" In essence, this Bill limited the number of businesses people owned to one. Of course the name of this bill came under the guise of fairness, equality, and opportunity. After all, who wouldn't want to be fair? As we read in the story, we find out that this bill (deceptive and emotional triggered wording and all) was designed to destroy private enterprise.
Now would you believe that we can find Euphemisms in the Bible? It's rare, but there are a few words that the translators put in place of the real word! Of course this new word also carried a totally different definition from the original word. One such word that is a Euphemism is the word Baptism. In fact this word replaced the original Greek word, Baptizo which means to immerse in water. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added). Of course in the New testament we do not see dipped or immersed, we see the word "baptism." Keep in mind that In Hebrew this idea is known as a mikvah, this act or idea is nothing new as many theologians like to claim.
So here it is, the translators created the word baptism that fit a made up religious practice known as a "sacrament." Doing this of course changed the innate meaning and defined the word under what this sacrament in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Of course we know that many of the translators were of this specific church and often were paid by the church to translate scripture!
So of course turning the word Baptizo to baptism, gives the "church" credibility, putting this particular church and their doctrine all the way back to the days when the Bible was written! This of course would allow them go off on other lies, like saying that Peter was the first Pope in Rome and his remains are in some monolithic Cathedral in Rome! The Bible tells us that Peter and James headed the church in Jerusalem, not Rome.
Please keep in mind that this isn't all a planned conspiracy, the truth is that the translators couldn't even define/translate the Old Testament name of God (LORD) to what it should be (YHWH) because they just didn't know how. Many of them couldn't even understand what this name means, since in Hebrew it is very difficult to for even Jews to articulate/understand. Christ and sin are other names that the English translators could did not translate, so they kept a bastardized Greek variation of these names.
Our journey of Euphemisms doesn't stop in the pages of the Bible, I would like to dive into the world of denominations, or non-denominations for that matter. Now the name, non-denomination is pretty clever, and is an extremely effective Euphemism! It comes across as innately defining a very friendly and open church, without a clear set of doctrinal statements that can satisfy any believer in their faith walk. It also implies the idea that they are the real McCoy since all other churches are "denominational" or are sects/branches. This clever word play is a good way to give "nondenominational" churches a non threatening and highly legitimate appearance, as being the "right" church.
Now going on, please note that I am not writing this to offend anyone. I'm simply trying to shed light on euphemisms and that these words do not always carry their implied meanings. Here it goes, time to break apart this innate contradiction, thank you Jesus. Get on your critical thinking hats.
First off, in order for a church to be truly nondenominational, it would have to mean that this particular church has absolutely no form of doctrine to go by! Which of course, all nondenominational churches have.
Second, if these churches truly were "nondenominational" or not a denomination at all, then you could have people who adhere to the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and Mormon doctrine all being excepted under one roof! Wouldn't that be nice? Imagine, rivaling interpretations of scripture woven together as members in this all inclusive nondenominational abode. Again, keep in mind the innate hypocrisy of not having an official and established doctrine to go by.
Finally, if a church is truly non-denomination, then they literally cannot even exist since they cannot be identified under a specific belief! Boy, if the news got out on this church organization, it would be empty in a hurry!
So what is wrong with nondenominational church doctrine. Two things, they don't believe that baptism is done for the remission of sins as stated many times in the Bible. (Acts 2:38) They simply believe baptism to be an open confession and is that gives a "believer" membership to their church body. Funny, my Bible says that Baptism is not for membership in a physical church body, but the invisible body of Jesus! (Ephesians 4:4-5)
Second, many of these churches teach that the Holy Spirit helps one to come to "accept Jesus as personal savior." Again, nowhere is this idea of "accepting Jesus as personal savior into the heart" in the Bible. How do you even do that and where is this idea in scripture? Please keep in mind that according to Romans 8:9, if you do not have the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ (think oneness of God here) you are none of his. Also keep in mind that you cannot even say that Jesus is LORD, unless by the Holy Spirit. Repeating a phrase doesn't cut it. Espeically considering that LORD is the Old Testament name for God. So here it is, you need to be a filled believer who understands that there is only one God and His name is Jesus. (Keep in mind that LORD is the Old Testament God, and not another person within God.)
Also, these churches teach that speaking in tongues is just one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and not the evidence of first off, having the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that a few years back, all these nondenominational churches thought that speaking in tongues was of the devil. Presently, speaking in tongues is becoming accepted as a private prayer language within many of these Churches. So they're coming around, but unfortunately they are not up to par with what the Bible teaches on speaking in tongues.
Finally these churches are Trinitarian. They reject the idea of Jesus being the same person as God the Father, which clearly goes against scripture. Jesus himself said that he was the I AM (Name God gave to Moses, when Moses asked who he was!) in John 8:58. Not to mention that Isaiah knew the Messiah was going to be the Everlasting Father, according to his prophetic message in Isaiah 9:6. Trinitarian churches separate God into three Spirits in one, the Bible says that God is one and only has one name. Spirit is everywhere and cannot be separated, which is why they use John 1:1 and say that the "word" is separate from the God. Well if the word came from God (out his mouth) then wouldn't the word be a part of God that cannot be separated? If you separate a body from Spirit then one cannot talk, because one is dead. So in order to have words or life (John 6:63) then you have to have a Spirit! Biblically, you can't separate God from His word, even the Jews know this.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that there is none bedsides him and salvation in no other name, not even the titles, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (John 20:28, Isaiah 43:11, Acts 4:12)
To conclude this post, Believers really need to understand what they believe and why, don't get caught up in the comfort of simple word play, putting your faith in men and or organizations. Put on the mind of Christ, by reading and obeying what he says.
Rand's inspiration clearly came from her own upbringing in communist Russia, in which private enterprise was seized under the idea of a socio-economical system structured upon common ownership, or Communism. In fact, the communists devised deceptive euphemisms to carry out their program, when Rand was growing up!
Now in the book, Government bureaucrats devised deceptive bills that were titled with Euphemisms so that they would be passed without controversy. For instance, one such Euphemism that was used in the book was a bill called "Equalization of Opportunity Bill!" In essence, this Bill limited the number of businesses people owned to one. Of course the name of this bill came under the guise of fairness, equality, and opportunity. After all, who wouldn't want to be fair? As we read in the story, we find out that this bill (deceptive and emotional triggered wording and all) was designed to destroy private enterprise.
Now would you believe that we can find Euphemisms in the Bible? It's rare, but there are a few words that the translators put in place of the real word! Of course this new word also carried a totally different definition from the original word. One such word that is a Euphemism is the word Baptism. In fact this word replaced the original Greek word, Baptizo which means to immerse in water. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, "went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added). Of course in the New testament we do not see dipped or immersed, we see the word "baptism." Keep in mind that In Hebrew this idea is known as a mikvah, this act or idea is nothing new as many theologians like to claim.
So here it is, the translators created the word baptism that fit a made up religious practice known as a "sacrament." Doing this of course changed the innate meaning and defined the word under what this sacrament in accordance with Catholic doctrine. Of course we know that many of the translators were of this specific church and often were paid by the church to translate scripture!
So of course turning the word Baptizo to baptism, gives the "church" credibility, putting this particular church and their doctrine all the way back to the days when the Bible was written! This of course would allow them go off on other lies, like saying that Peter was the first Pope in Rome and his remains are in some monolithic Cathedral in Rome! The Bible tells us that Peter and James headed the church in Jerusalem, not Rome.
Please keep in mind that this isn't all a planned conspiracy, the truth is that the translators couldn't even define/translate the Old Testament name of God (LORD) to what it should be (YHWH) because they just didn't know how. Many of them couldn't even understand what this name means, since in Hebrew it is very difficult to for even Jews to articulate/understand. Christ and sin are other names that the English translators could did not translate, so they kept a bastardized Greek variation of these names.
Our journey of Euphemisms doesn't stop in the pages of the Bible, I would like to dive into the world of denominations, or non-denominations for that matter. Now the name, non-denomination is pretty clever, and is an extremely effective Euphemism! It comes across as innately defining a very friendly and open church, without a clear set of doctrinal statements that can satisfy any believer in their faith walk. It also implies the idea that they are the real McCoy since all other churches are "denominational" or are sects/branches. This clever word play is a good way to give "nondenominational" churches a non threatening and highly legitimate appearance, as being the "right" church.
Now going on, please note that I am not writing this to offend anyone. I'm simply trying to shed light on euphemisms and that these words do not always carry their implied meanings. Here it goes, time to break apart this innate contradiction, thank you Jesus. Get on your critical thinking hats.
First off, in order for a church to be truly nondenominational, it would have to mean that this particular church has absolutely no form of doctrine to go by! Which of course, all nondenominational churches have.
Second, if these churches truly were "nondenominational" or not a denomination at all, then you could have people who adhere to the Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and Mormon doctrine all being excepted under one roof! Wouldn't that be nice? Imagine, rivaling interpretations of scripture woven together as members in this all inclusive nondenominational abode. Again, keep in mind the innate hypocrisy of not having an official and established doctrine to go by.
Finally, if a church is truly non-denomination, then they literally cannot even exist since they cannot be identified under a specific belief! Boy, if the news got out on this church organization, it would be empty in a hurry!
So what is wrong with nondenominational church doctrine. Two things, they don't believe that baptism is done for the remission of sins as stated many times in the Bible. (Acts 2:38) They simply believe baptism to be an open confession and is that gives a "believer" membership to their church body. Funny, my Bible says that Baptism is not for membership in a physical church body, but the invisible body of Jesus! (Ephesians 4:4-5)
Second, many of these churches teach that the Holy Spirit helps one to come to "accept Jesus as personal savior." Again, nowhere is this idea of "accepting Jesus as personal savior into the heart" in the Bible. How do you even do that and where is this idea in scripture? Please keep in mind that according to Romans 8:9, if you do not have the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Christ (think oneness of God here) you are none of his. Also keep in mind that you cannot even say that Jesus is LORD, unless by the Holy Spirit. Repeating a phrase doesn't cut it. Espeically considering that LORD is the Old Testament name for God. So here it is, you need to be a filled believer who understands that there is only one God and His name is Jesus. (Keep in mind that LORD is the Old Testament God, and not another person within God.)
Also, these churches teach that speaking in tongues is just one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and not the evidence of first off, having the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that a few years back, all these nondenominational churches thought that speaking in tongues was of the devil. Presently, speaking in tongues is becoming accepted as a private prayer language within many of these Churches. So they're coming around, but unfortunately they are not up to par with what the Bible teaches on speaking in tongues.
Finally these churches are Trinitarian. They reject the idea of Jesus being the same person as God the Father, which clearly goes against scripture. Jesus himself said that he was the I AM (Name God gave to Moses, when Moses asked who he was!) in John 8:58. Not to mention that Isaiah knew the Messiah was going to be the Everlasting Father, according to his prophetic message in Isaiah 9:6. Trinitarian churches separate God into three Spirits in one, the Bible says that God is one and only has one name. Spirit is everywhere and cannot be separated, which is why they use John 1:1 and say that the "word" is separate from the God. Well if the word came from God (out his mouth) then wouldn't the word be a part of God that cannot be separated? If you separate a body from Spirit then one cannot talk, because one is dead. So in order to have words or life (John 6:63) then you have to have a Spirit! Biblically, you can't separate God from His word, even the Jews know this.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that there is none bedsides him and salvation in no other name, not even the titles, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (John 20:28, Isaiah 43:11, Acts 4:12)
To conclude this post, Believers really need to understand what they believe and why, don't get caught up in the comfort of simple word play, putting your faith in men and or organizations. Put on the mind of Christ, by reading and obeying what he says.