Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The name of Messiah

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

    Internal examination of Greek texts show that it's translation of originally inspired Hebrew/Aramaic NT. Greek NT is heavily dependent on LXX. I:m not saying that having Greek NT is entirely wrong but must be studied in its original Hebraic roots. Some fragments of DSS show that original LXX had the Name of YHWH intact in original Hebrew. Most likely the later LXX replaced YHWH with Kyrios and Theos. Same with NT Greek. God was very serious of His Name in 10 commandments in Exod 20 and in Jeremiah.

    Yahusha/Yehoshua/Yeshua is none other than YHWH Himself as highlighted in Aramaic Peshitta and also the most recent Eth Cepher English translation.whicu is obscured in Greek texts.
    What kind of internal examination? Can you give examples of what you mean? Many of what people term "Semitisms" in the NT are from the LXX, not directly from any Hebrew-Aramaic influence, and some can even be attested in the general writings of the time, and so are not Semitisms at all. There is absolutely no manuscript evidence for YHWH in the NT, and the evidence for the LXX is limited to a very small part of the traditions.

    And are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? No prejudice in asking, but knowing where people are coming from helps discussion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

      What kind of internal examination? Can you give examples of what you mean? Many of what people term "Semitisms" in the NT are from the LXX, not directly from any Hebrew-Aramaic influence, and some can even be attested in the general writings of the time, and so are not Semitisms at all. There is absolutely no manuscript evidence for YHWH in the NT, and the evidence for the LXX is limited to a very small part of the traditions.

      And are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses? No prejudice in asking, but knowing where people are coming from helps discussion.
      That's exactly the problem! We have been made to believe that The Name YHWH is not important. But it's a command from YHWH Himself that His Name not be brought to naught unless one believes that commadments are done away with:

      Exod 20:7 You do not bring the Name of יהוה your Elohim to naught, for יהוה does not leave the one unpunished who brings His Name to naught.

      Jer 23:27 who try to make My people forget My Name by their dreams which everyone relates to his neighbour, as their fathers forgot My Name for Baʽal.

      That's exactly what has happened according to Jeremiah's Prophecy.

      YHWH is replaced by Ba'al which means LORD (generic title)

      Original: בּעל

      Transliteration: ba‛al

      Phonetic: bah'-al

      BDB Definition: Baal = " lord"

      John in one of his epistle says that SIN is transgression of The Law. If there is no Law there is no sin. Messiah came to put away sin and not Law.

      The commandments served to know God (YHWH Elohym).

      Epistle to the Hebrews 8:10-11 shows that The Law written in our hearts is the key to the knowledge of YHWH - as also prophsied by Jeremiah 31.

      Besides, the cause of major and diabolic doctrinal differences in Christendom is because of the elimination of the Name YHWH and thus failure to recognize Who Yahusha/Yehoshua/Yeshua Messiah is in reality.

      Internal examination of Greek texts also shows that the puns or the play of words of original language is missing. When one reverse translates Greek to Hebrew they are visible. For example : God will have stones raised up to being sons of Abraham. There is play of words there as stones in Hebrew is Abanym and sons is Banym. Only difference is of the first letters Alaph and Beyt.

      There are so many Hebrew words left untranslated in Greek texts which make no sense in Greek.

      It also shows that Greek texts were translated for Greek speaking audience or Hellenistic Jews and not for those staunch Jews living in Judah (the only house left after division of Israel). They were well versed in Hebrew. Most of the quotations in NT are from Hebrew scriptures before being converted to Masoretic texts. Original LXX too was direct translation of Hebrew (pre-Mesorite) OT. That's why there are differences between LXX and Masoretic texts.

      However, it is evident that even LXX presently available to us are changed to be in harmony with NT Greek texts. Fragments of DSS both Hebrew and Greek shows that the present LXX and Masoretic texts do vary in some places but otherwise they are fine.

      That's why it's very important to exercise discernment while studying the texts available to us today as Messiah has told us that The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

      Another example I want to leave with you is John 1:41.

      Greek transliteration of Hebrew Mashyach is : MESSIAS
      ​​​​​​
      However, Greek makes it sure that CHRISTOS is only an interpretation of Hebrew Mashyach.

      So how should we understand Greek texts? Definitely by studying it in its proper Hebraic context and not in a Greco-roman mindset as Christians have not replaced Israel but rather part of Israel being grafted among natural olive branches as Paul teaches in Rom 11.




      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

        That's exactly the problem! We have been made to believe that The Name YHWH is not important. But it's a command from YHWH Himself that His Name not be brought to naught unless one believes that commadments are done away with:

        Exod 20:7 You do not bring the Name of יהוה your Elohim to naught, for יהוה does not leave the one unpunished who brings His Name to naught.

        Jer 23:27 who try to make My people forget My Name by their dreams which everyone relates to his neighbour, as their fathers forgot My Name for Baʽal.

        That's exactly what has happened according to Jeremiah's Prophecy.

        YHWH is replaced by Ba'al which means LORD (generic title)

        Original: בּעל

        Transliteration: ba‛al

        Phonetic: bah'-al

        BDB Definition: Baal = " lord"

        John in one of his epistle says that SIN is transgression of The Law. If there is no Law there is no sin. Messiah came to put away sin and not Law.

        The commandments served to know God (YHWH Elohym).

        Epistle to the Hebrews 8:10-11 shows that The Law written in our hearts is the key to the knowledge of YHWH - as also prophsied by Jeremiah 31.

        Besides, the cause of major and diabolic doctrinal differences in Christendom is because of the elimination of the Name YHWH and thus failure to recognize Who Yahusha/Yehoshua/Yeshua Messiah is in reality.

        Internal examination of Greek texts also shows that the puns or the play of words of original language is missing. When one reverse translates Greek to Hebrew they are visible. For example : God will have stones raised up to being sons of Abraham. There is play of words there as stones in Hebrew is Abanym and sons is Banym. Only difference is of the first letters Alaph and Beyt.

        There are so many Hebrew words left untranslated in Greek texts which make no sense in Greek.

        It also shows that Greek texts were translated for Greek speaking audience or Hellenistic Jews and not for those staunch Jews living in Judah (the only house left after division of Israel). They were well versed in Hebrew. Most of the quotations in NT are from Hebrew scriptures before being converted to Masoretic texts. Original LXX too was direct translation of Hebrew (pre-Mesorite) OT. That's why there are differences between LXX and Masoretic texts.

        However, it is evident that even LXX presently available to us are changed to be in harmony with NT Greek texts. Fragments of DSS both Hebrew and Greek shows that the present LXX and Masoretic texts do vary in some places but otherwise they are fine.

        That's why it's very important to exercise discernment while studying the texts available to us today as Messiah has told us that The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

        Another example I want to leave with you is John 1:41.

        Greek transliteration of Hebrew Mashyach is : MESSIAS
        ​​​​​​
        However, Greek makes it sure that CHRISTOS is only an interpretation of Hebrew Mashyach.

        So how should we understand Greek texts? Definitely by studying it in its proper Hebraic context and not in a Greco-roman mindset as Christians have not replaced Israel but rather part of Israel being grafted among natural olive branches as Paul teaches in Rom 11.



        I'm not going to address any of your theological claims at this point. Linguistically speaking, the NT documents make perfect sense written as they are, and again show no signs of having an underlying Semitic original. This is a huge problem for you, that the NT documents were written in Greek and cheerfully use both θεός and κύριος even in their OT quotations (which look suspiciously like the LXX). Nothing you've cited above supports your claims.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

          I'm not going to address any of your theological claims at this point. Linguistically speaking, the NT documents make perfect sense written as they are, and again show no signs of having an underlying Semitic original. This is a huge problem for you, that the NT documents were written in Greek and cheerfully use both θεός and κύριος even in their OT quotations (which look suspiciously like the LXX). Nothing you've cited above supports your claims.
          That's the problem with Christendom. Instead of investigation coming to obscure conclusions.

          Why did James write his epistle to the 12 tribes scattered abroad? (James 1:1). Why did Peter write to the same people of dispersion? (1Pet 1:1). Why is there an epistle to the Hebrews? Why does the Book of Revelation use Candlestick (Manors), Stars, Synagogues, seals, trumpets, vials, 144000, sealing of 12 tribes, etc? Why does Paul speak of Israel as a child is heir under schoolmaster of the law and being redeemed from The Turah by Messiah in Gal 4?

          I can give you hundreds of examples of Hebraic roots in NT. Why in any sense Moses, David and Prophets in OT ever needed LXX? Definitely, LXX came much later after the house of Israel dispersed in its captivity to Assyria. Nobody in his right mind would say LXX is original inspired language but rather a translation.

          If NT Greek is founded in LXX, then 100% guaranteed it's not the originally inspired. But I caution everyone to exercise discernment while studying all these transactions. We are left with no option. One has to entirely depend on Messiah as our true Rabbi. After all we are grafted to the same natural olive branches with enmity being destroyed between Jews and non-Jews (nations).

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

            That's the problem with Christendom. Instead of investigation coming to obscure conclusions.

            Why did James write his epistle to the 12 tribes scattered abroad? (James 1:1). Why did Peter write to the same people of dispersion? (1Pet 1:1). Why is there an epistle to the Hebrews? Why does the Book of Revelation use Candlestick (Manors), Stars, Synagogues, seals, trumpets, vials, 144000, sealing of 12 tribes, etc? Why does Paul speak of Israel as a child is heir under schoolmaster of the law and being redeemed from The Turah by Messiah in Gal 4?

            I can give you hundreds of examples of Hebraic roots in NT. Why in any sense Moses, David and Prophets in OT ever needed LXX? Definitely, LXX came much later after the house of Israel dispersed in its captivity to Assyria. Nobody in his right mind would say LXX is original inspired language but rather a translation.

            If NT Greek is founded in LXX, then 100% guaranteed it's not the originally inspired. But I caution everyone to exercise discernment while studying all these transactions. We are left with no option. One has to entirely depend on Messiah as our true Rabbi. After all we are grafted to the same natural olive branches with enmity being destroyed between Jews and non-Jews (nations).
            You seem to be arguing against claims I never made. I'm talking primarily about language. Yes, the NT and the Tanakh are complements to one another, which was recognized by the ancient church, Novum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet. No, nobody here is arguing that the LXX is was inspired, even though the NT quotes it as authoritative. The only thing I've really taken issue with is your assertion about the name יהוה.

            Oh, and Acts shows clearly that the gospel belongs equally to Jew and Gentile, and precisely how much of the Torah is binding on the Gentiles.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

              You seem to be arguing against claims I never made. I'm talking primarily about language. Yes, the NT and the Tanakh are complements to one another, which was recognized by the ancient church, Novum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet. No, nobody here is arguing that the LXX is was inspired, even though the NT quotes it as authoritative. The only thing I've really taken issue with is your assertion about the name יהוה.

              Oh, and Acts shows clearly that the gospel belongs equally to Jew and Gentile, and precisely how much of the Torah is binding on the Gentiles.
              So the LXX is authoritative but uninspired. What exactly does that mean ? That it is the word of God, but not really ?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                You seem to be arguing against claims I never made. I'm talking primarily about language. Yes, the NT and the Tanakh are complements to one another, which was recognized by the ancient church, Novum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet. No, nobody here is arguing that the LXX is was inspired, even though the NT quotes it as authoritative. The only thing I've really taken issue with is your assertion about the name יהוה.

                Oh, and Acts shows clearly that the gospel belongs equally to Jew and Gentile, and precisely how much of the Torah is binding on the Gentiles.
                But The Name of YHWH is part of His 10 commandments. You break that deliberately then you are left without God and excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel.

                I'm not against translations. But when translations bring the Name of YHWH to naught, I know that it's not as originally as inspired.

                The Law and grace go together. You take the Law out then you are left out of grace.

                If anyone loves YHWH one is obliged to love Messiah because He is the personification of The Law (Way, truth and life). Messiah in us is the hope of glory. That's what Hebrews 8:10-11 means when it says Law is written in our hearts (circumcised hearts). That's what also anointing is about. That's what faith working in good works of The Law.

                You take the Name out, you are left with no hope Because Messiah's Name means YHWH is salvation.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                  So the LXX is authoritative but uninspired. What exactly does that mean ? That it is the word of God, but not really ?
                  Yes, you are right in questioning the obvious.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dannyfortruth View Post

                    But The Name of YHWH is part of His 10 commandments. You break that deliberately then you are left without God and excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel.

                    I'm not against translations. But when translations bring the Name of YHWH to naught, I know that it's not as originally as inspired.

                    The Law and grace go together. You take the Law out then you are left out of grace.

                    If anyone loves YHWH one is obliged to love Messiah because He is the personification of The Law (Way, truth and life). Messiah in us is the hope of glory. That's what Hebrews 8:10-11 means when it says Law is written in our hearts (circumcised hearts). That's what also anointing is about. That's what faith working in good works of The Law.

                    You take the Name out, you are left with no hope Because Messiah's Name means YHWH is salvation.
                    Your theological point again runs afoul of the NT. They simply didn't do what you think they should have. You also might want to think about the implications that Matt 28:19-20 has concerning the name of God.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                      So the LXX is authoritative but uninspired. What exactly does that mean ? That it is the word of God, but not really ?
                      I believe that God inspired his word in the original languages. I don't believe he inspires through translations. I might still quote the NIV or the ESV of the KJV as authoritative in so far as they accurately reflect the original language. The NT authors without apology or qualification quote the LXX, or what would become the LXX.

                      BTW, the Greek Orthodox Church does believe that the LXX is inspired and supersedes the Hebrew text.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                        I believe that God inspired his word in the original languages. I don't believe he inspires through translations. I might still quote the NIV or the ESV of the KJV as authoritative in so far as they accurately reflect the original language. The NT authors without apology or qualification quote the LXX, or what would become the LXX.

                        BTW, the Greek Orthodox Church does believe that the LXX is inspired and supersedes the Hebrew text.
                        Apostle John seems to disagree with you when he sanctions the translation of the Divine name in the LXX at Exodus 3:14 in Revelation 1:4. I can give other examples from other writers of the NT on this score.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                          Apostle John seems to disagree with you when he sanctions the translation of the Divine name in the LXX at Exodus 3:14 in Revelation 1:4. I can give other examples from other writers of the NT on this score.
                          Which translation of the Bible do you think is inspired? We are not talking about translation which occurs within the Scripture, which then becomes part of Scripture, but translations like the LXX in ancient times or modern versions such as the NIV.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                            Which translation of the Bible do you think is inspired? We are not talking about translation which occurs within the Scripture, which then becomes part of Scripture, but translations like the LXX in ancient times or modern versions such as the NIV.
                            I'm only talking about the translation of the Hebrew into the Septuagint Greek . English translations are a whole different ball game. At the least we can say that portions of the LXX were translated correctly and faithfully (I don't like the word "inspired" on this score) so that the apostles sanctioned such in the GNT.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                              I'm only talking about the translation of the Hebrew into the Septuagint Greek . English translations are a whole different ball game. At the least we can say that portions of the LXX were translated correctly and faithfully (I don't like the word "inspired" on this score) so that the apostles sanctioned such in the GNT.
                              (Checking all around to make sure still in the same universe), now that's just what I would say, "correctly and faithfully." I would also say that any translation from the original languages of Scripture so done bears the authority of the original.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                                (Checking all around to make sure still in the same universe), now that's just what I would say, "correctly and faithfully." I would also say that any translation from the original languages of Scripture so done bears the authority of the original.
                                You have very little capacity in this regard, starting with your translation of John 8:58..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X