Three and One?
-
The Hebrews have never believed in a trinity the way the Western world does. They have always believed that there is only one God with a triune nature, and man was created in that image. The Hebrews have recited the prayer of "sh'ma" (pronounced shma) every day for centuries now, and it comes in part from Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." (KJV)
This is the Hebrew text, It reads like this if we substitute our alphabet for the Hebrew symbols, "sh'ma yisrael YHVH elohénu YHVH ekhad."
When the Bible translates the word, (elohénu), it simply gives us "God", "God of us", or "our God". What some people don't know is that all Hebrew words have numeric and gender specific values. This word is both masculine and feminine, but more importantly, its numeric value is three or more. This would seem contradictory to the word, ekhad, which is translated as "one" unless you know that ekhad means one by the joining of many, like a rope. So the meaning of elohénu is, "Our God who is above all gods, three or more in number, both masculine and feminine, superior in power and might, by the joining of many becoming greater in strength in unity as one."
If you take a single strand of rope between your hands and yank really hard, you can easily brake it. However, if you take three or more strands and wind them together very tightly, you probably won't be able to break the rope. The idea of one by the joining of many is that no part or portion is complete without the other. God has no body outside of the Son, The Son has no Spirit outside of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost has no soul outside the Father. They are not separated in any way. They are not three, separate or distinct entities. They are three, separate and distinct facets of one entity.
In Gen. 2:23-24, Adam says two things that are important for us to understand. First, the text says, "because she was taken out of Man." (KJV) Here is the Hebrew, Transliterated into our alphabet it looks like this, "meish luqakhah—zot." The first word, meish, means "from man or from husband." The words, luqakhah—zot, mean "this was taken out." In other words, everything that makes a woman female was inside of the man in the first place. God took those things out of the man, who was created perfect, complete, and whole in the image of God, then He created a woman. Adam then says, "and they shall be one flesh." (KJV) They shall be "ekhad" flesh. This word has absolutely nothing to do with sex in any way. The idea of the man and woman becoming ekhad is that they are incomplete one without the other. Simply put, a man is only half a human, and a woman is only half a human. A man and a woman combining their thoughts, emotions, passions, wants, needs and desires creates one whole Adam which means human.
In John 10:30, the Pharisees (Hebrews) asked the Lord to tell them plainly if He was the Messiah. The Lord didn't answer their question, instead He said, "ani v'haav ekhad." Translated literally into English that simply says, "I and the Father are one." To the Hebrew mind, this was an outrageous and blasphemous thing to say, because to the Hebrews what the Lord said was, "I am God." "I am one of the strands that is God. That makes me God.(the flesh)" We know without a doubt that this is how the Hebrews took the statement, because in the very next verse, they picked up stones to kill Him. The punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning.
There is only one God, and He is made up of many strands like a rope. To split God into three, distinct parts is actually a simplification of who He is. God is Righteousness, Love, Joy, Peace, Power, Might, Flesh, Spirit, Soul, Body, etc., all bound together like the chords of a rope making Him one God, who is Savior and Lord of all. God does not exist without righteousness anymore than He exists without His Spirit.
Shalom,
Robert Allon -
The article did not explain what is the difference between the Western concept and the Hebrew concept.Originally posted by breytonhartge:The Hebrews have never believed in a trinity the way the Western world does. They have always believed that there is only one God with a triune nature, and man was created in that image. The Hebrews have recited the prayer of "sh'ma" (pronounced shma) every day for centuries now, and it comes in part from Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." (KJV)
To me, I don't see any difference in the opening paragraph versus what is being taught in Christian churches.
In my opinion, articles like this are attempting to draw lines as to what is believed - the "correct" Hebraic theology versus the adulterated "church" theology. I have never ever heard any sermons stating that God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are separate entities. -
Shalom!Originally posted by Chin Eng:The article did not explain what is the difference between the Western concept and the Hebrew concept.
To me, I don't see any difference in the opening paragraph versus what is being taught in Christian churches.
In my opinion, articles like this are attempting to draw lines as to what is believed - the "correct" Hebraic theology versus the adulterated "church" theology. I have never ever heard any sermons stating that God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are separate entities.
I think many churches all around the world teach that God is made up of 3 persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, like the hymn goes "God in three persons, blessed trinity"... That is after all the basic teaching on the trinity.
This article seems to try to correct this thinking that God is made up of 3 persons, but rather that He is One God made up of many aspects. Hope this clarifies! -
You are taking a hymn as an example? There are many hymns written in the past with the different depth of understanding. Hymns are not scriptures.Originally posted by Yaffa:Shalom!
I think many churches all around the world teach that God is made up of 3 persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, like the hymn goes "God in three persons, blessed trinity"... That is after all the basic teaching on the trinity.
This article seems to try to correct this thinking that God is made up of 3 persons, but rather that He is One God made up of many aspects. Hope this clarifies!
The basic teaching of trinity is God is three in one. The analogy of the rope is not new and has been used before in sermons where trinity is taught.
... in hindsight, it is rather unfortunate that the early missionaries were not Jews. If Jews were the ones that brought Christianity to the rest of the world, perhaps there is no necessity of such splitting of hairs.
Hope this clarifies. -
Shalom!Originally posted by Chin Eng:You are taking a hymn as an example? There are many hymns written in the past with the different depth of understanding. Hymns are not scriptures.
The basic teaching of trinity is God is three in one. The analogy of the rope is not new and has been used before in sermons where trinity is taught.
... in hindsight, it is rather unfortunate that the early missionaries were not Jews. If Jews were the ones that brought Christianity to the rest of the world, perhaps there is no necessity of such splitting of hairs.
Hope this clarifies.
Yes, this hymn is still sung in many churches around the world and is a reflection of the beliefs of the church.
And the earliest missionaries WERE Jewish, probably to their dying breath! Paul (Shaul), John (Yochanan), Peter (Kefa), James (Yacov) and all the original disciples were the first missionaries of the gospel and you may be sure they were Jewish to the very core!
It is the Romans who have corrupted the truth and we end up where we are today with teachings and traditions in the church which are far from the original. -
The official United Methodist doctrine is that God is one God in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. http://www.bethany-umc.com/AboutUs/methodistbeliefs.htmOriginally posted by Chin Eng:You are taking a hymn as an example? There are many hymns written in the past with the different depth of understanding. Hymns are not scriptures.
The basic teaching of trinity is God is three in one. The analogy of the rope is not new and has been used before in sermons where trinity is taught.
... in hindsight, it is rather unfortunate that the early missionaries were not Jews. If Jews were the ones that brought Christianity to the rest of the world, perhaps there is no necessity of such splitting of hairs.
Hope this clarifies.
The Bible teaches us that there is only one God (" Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" Deuteronomy 6:4). But God exists in three persons ("...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" - Matthew 28:19 - notice that it is "name" and not "names", indicating that there is only one God). Jesus showed that He and the Father are only One God when He said "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). They are related as follows: The Father sent The Son (John 3:16) and the Father and the Son sent the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26).
http://www.lifefebc.com/
The Trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit
The Bible teaches that there is ONE God, and there are THREE persons - Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (the Holy Trinity). The Bible affirms that each of these three persons has divine attributes, titles, and actions and accords to them the worship that is due to Deity.
http://www.livingstreams.org.sg/sac/info/beliefs/index.html
Just a few examples I dug up CE... it is common teaching that Yahweh is believed to be ONE God, but 3 persons. This I disagree with because if Yahweh is one, how can He be three persons? (can you see the oxymoron here?) He is not 3 persons, but different facets of the same Yahweh. It is clearly explained in the article...
Yahweh is ONE GOD, but with 3 different facets or aspects... but there is more to Yahweh than just these, because Yahweh is also Love... etc...
That is why the Jews say Shema Israel Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is ONE God. Nothing mentioned about 3 persons... thought you might like to know. -
Hymns are written based on an individual's understanding of Scripture. No different from contemporary songs written by modern day Christians. They represent the individual's understanding of the Bible. I am sure you know well enough that hymns are NOT DOCTRINE. Till today, there are committees formed to review the lyrics of hymns and some hymns are removed from a church or denomination's selection. I have personally been in a committee where discussions are held to ascertain if some songs are scriptural or not.Originally posted by Yaffa:Shalom!
Yes, this hymn is still sung in many churches around the world and is a reflection of the beliefs of the church.
Having said that, would you have any issue if the word "Persona" is used instead of "Person"?
That being the case, then can we assume that after Paul, John, Peter and James, there are no other missionaries worthy of mention and that after their death, missionaries that spread the word of God were white folks? Also that being the case, can we assume that God allowed Scripture to be adulterated till today, that He sat silent thoughout these years and allow the Romans to corrupt the church.Originally posted by Yaffa:And the earliest missionaries WERE Jewish, probably to their dying breath! Paul (Shaul), John (Yochanan), Peter (Kefa), James (Yacov) and all the original disciples were the first missionaries of the gospel and you may be sure they were Jewish to the very core!
It is the Romans who have corrupted the truth and we end up where we are today with teachings and traditions in the church which are far from the original.
So who brought God's word to the Far East? To the Americas? To Africa? A Jew? and who might that be?
I am not here to say that the church is always right. The church, populated by imperfect people will make imperfect decisions. Isn't that a reflection of our personal journey with God? In your daily decisions, don't you make mistakes too? -
whilst hymns are not doctrine... the three sites I took those exerpts from certainly display them as part of their doctrinal belief system and they do not use persona but persons and one even goes so far as to say that God is one but exists in three different persons... hmmmmOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Hymns are written based on an individual's understanding of Scripture. No different from contemporary songs written by modern day Christians. They represent the individual's understanding of the Bible. I am sure you know well enough that hymns are NOT DOCTRINE. Till today, there are committees formed to review the lyrics of hymns and some hymns are removed from a church or denomination's selection. I have personally been in a committee where discussions are held to ascertain if some songs are scriptural or not.
Having said that, would you have any issue if the word "Persona" is used instead of "Person"?
-
Yahweh did not allow the Word to be corrupted. The church today is corrupted, but there are people today who are following the word of Yahweh outside of the corruption of the church.Originally posted by Chin Eng:That being the case, then can we assume that after Paul, John, Peter and James, there are no other missionaries worthy of mention and that after their death, missionaries that spread the word of God were white folks? Also that being the case, can we assume that God allowed Scripture to be adulterated till today, that He sat silent thoughout these years and allow the Romans to corrupt the church. -
It might be because of the way languages are played out......Originally posted by breytonhartge:Yahweh is ONE GOD, but with 3 different facets or aspects... but there is more to Yahweh than just these, because Yahweh is also Love... etc...
Love, patiences, kindness are facets or aspects, this I agree.....
God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit are NOT FACETS or ASPECTS, they are personas. A guy walking up and down the streets of Nazareth can hardly be called a facet. If any thing, this guy is an individual (regardless of how you'd define him). It is not too inaccurate to say that this gentleman is a "Person".
...to me it still goes back to, where were you guys, when the church is supposed adulterated by false doctrine? and also where was YHVH when that happened?
It is like for a good part of 1,500 yrs, the gospel (let's assume the wrong one) was being spread around and gaining followers everywhere, bringing peace to many, given hope to millions..... and suddenly, we turn around and you guys come in a say, "hey, you've got it all wrong!"
So are you saying now that the billions, since the death of Paul, who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour no longer has salvation - because of a technicality? If you are saying that, please say it in clear English (Hebrew if you prefer) so that we all can understand where we've gone wrong.
You have theorisied enough.... so share with us the practical aspect of everything that happened since Acts of Apostles - especially to those who professed to believe in Jesus Christ and accepted the doctrine of Trinity. Are we doomed to hell? or already in hell? -
which word? the hebrew version or the english one? as I last check, the english version still has Jesus Christ written all over.... so is it corrupted?Originally posted by breytonhartge:Yahweh did not allow the Word to be corrupted. The church today is corrupted, but there are people today who are following the word of Yahweh outside of the corruption of the church.
I am still waiting for the names of the prominent Jewish missionaries after Peter, Paul and Mary (oops, I mean John). You know, those who brought hope to the rest of the world beyond the Mediterrian (sp?)....
Let me put it succinctly, if the church is corrupted today, it's the fault of the Hebrew people who DID NOTHING to stop it.
It the millions who DID NOT find salvation in Jesus Christ, their blood is in your hands, because no one in the past 1,500+ yrs did anything to prevent the adulteration.
Let me ask again, where were you guys when the Romans had supposedly corrupted the church. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
and this is the best you can do? just a fault of languages???
It might be because of the way languages are played out......
Love, patiences, kindness are facets or aspects, this I agree.....
God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit are NOT FACETS or ASPECTS, they are personas. A guy walking up and down the streets of Nazareth can hardly be called a facet. If any thing, this guy is an individual (regardless of how you'd define him). It is not too inaccurate to say that this gentleman is a "Person".
...to me it still goes back to, where were you guys, when the church is supposed adulterated by false doctrine? and also where was YHVH when that happened?
It is like for a good part of 1,500 yrs, the gospel (let's assume the wrong one) was being spread around and gaining followers everywhere, bringing peace to many, given hope to millions..... and suddenly, we turn around and you guys come in a say, "hey, you've got it all wrong!"
[b]So are you saying now that the billions, since the death of Paul, who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour no longer has salvation - because of a technicality? If you are saying that, please say it in clear English (Hebrew if you prefer) so that we all can understand where we've gone wrong.
You have theorisied enough.... so share with us the practical aspect of everything that happened since Acts of Apostles - especially to those who professed to believe in Jesus Christ and accepted the doctrine of Trinity. Are we doomed to hell? or already in hell?
[/b]
I am not theorizing, but asking you to consider the creeds in the light of the Word of Yahweh. Read your bible.
People who belive in Yeshua are still saved, provided they have repented.
Did I say that belief in Yeshua would not gain you your salvation? I merely pointed out that the teaching of the doctrine of the trinity may be misleading and debateable. -
If the church is corrupted today it is the fault of the people who are not open enough to hear what Yahweh is saying, it is the fault of the people like the ROMANS who persecuted the Jewish believers who CHANGED the teachings of Yeshua for their own political purposes, for adopting pagan religions to gain influence, there are many out there who share similar views as mine. I am not the first. The fact that the romans corrupted the church has been recorded well in various documents. It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE... I am saying nothing new.Originally posted by Chin Eng:which word? the hebrew version or the english one? as I last check, the english version still has Jesus Christ written all over.... so is it corrupted? I am still waiting for the names of the prominent Jewish missionaries after Peter, Paul and Mary (oops, I mean John). You know, those who brought hope to the rest of the world beyond the Mediterrian (sp?)....
Let me put it succinctly, if the church is corrupted today, it's the fault of the Hebrew people who DID NOTHING to stop it.
It the millions who DID NOT find salvation in Jesus Christ, their blood is in your hands, because no one in the past 1,500+ yrs did anything to prevent the adulteration.
Let me ask again, where were you guys when the Romans had supposedly corrupted the church.
Do not blame the Jews. They were blinded for our sakes, if they were not you would not have your salvation! Be VERY mindful of that fact! Even if the Jewish people said something to you, in your current state of mind, would you listen? It is easy to pass the blame on to someone else when we have been taught differnt by those in positions of authority. We are to search the scriptures, and the Word is my basis. HOW SO IS IT THE FAULT OF THE JEWS? Do you not have the bible? Do you not read it? It is your responsibility to find out what Yahweh wants of you.
You make very general sweeping statements, there have been many people in the past who have spoken and debated the these very topics. Why is the blood of people who do not find salvation in Yeshua in my hands? I never said that using Jesus is wrong. It is a transliteration of another transliteration. You go figure that one for yourself. No one is responsible for anothers destiny, you are responsible for your relationship with Yahweh. If you do something wrong, you only have yourself to blame and if I do something wrong, I only have myself to blame. If you are so sure of your belief's then why such an emotional reaction?
Initially all of us started the same, we called on Jesus...so did I. But knowing His real name, I use it. If you think that is silly or a technicality, then like I said, up to you. There have been people in the past 1500 years who have been trying to correct this adulteration, but how many are listening? HOw many are so stuck in man made theology that they miss what Yahweh may be saying? -
unless you understand the paradigm and the theory, you can never have the practical application. Even if I told you how...Originally posted by Chin Eng:You have theorisied enough.... so share with us the practical aspect of everything that happened since Acts of Apostles - especially to those who professed to believe in Jesus Christ and accepted the doctrine of Trinity. Are we doomed to hell? or already in hell? -
Shalom!Originally posted by Chin Eng:which word? the hebrew version or the english one? as I last check, the english version still has Jesus Christ written all over.... so is it corrupted? I am still waiting for the names of the prominent Jewish missionaries after Peter, Paul and Mary (oops, I mean John). You know, those who brought hope to the rest of the world beyond the Mediterrian (sp?)....
Let me put it succinctly, if the church is corrupted today, it's the fault of the Hebrew people who DID NOTHING to stop it.
It the millions who DID NOT find salvation in Jesus Christ, their blood is in your hands, because no one in the past 1,500+ yrs did anything to prevent the adulteration.
Let me ask again, where were you guys when the Romans had supposedly corrupted the church.
Sorry, I can't seem to fully follow your train of thought... seems to have gotten out of point altogether, but will try to answer you anyway...
Clearly, the Word must mean the written Word of God, and by the way, several English translations of the Bible have returned to using Yeshua Hamashiach instead of Jesus Christ and have been in print for decades.
In Acts and other books of the New Testament or Covenant, we can see that the first disciples made more disciples and "fellowlabourers " who carried and maintained the gospel around the world, e.g. Titus, Mark, Timothy, Philemon, Onesimus and many others mentioned in the Bible, some were obviously Jewish. Whether they were all Jewish or not, they all taught from the holy scriptures, known to us today as the Old Testament. Paul himself went beyond the Mediterranean, going as far as Rome (not Mediterranean!)...
It seems silly to me to say the Hebrew people did nothing to stop the church from getting corrupted. People have their own minds and will inevitably go off on other tangents for whatever reasons of their own, usually for manipulation or power. Even within the so called church system, there are countless sects and cults, all calling themselves Christians but yet having very differing views of the Bible and Christianity.
God's Word is freely available to most, and it is the duty of each individual to seek out the truth and checking to see if it complies with the written Word. On the Day of Judgment, we will not be able to say to God it was someone else who led us astray since we had the ability to delve into His Word ourselves and discern what is true and what is false.
Not everyone believes in the "adulterated" Christianity, there are many who have challenged accepted traditions and teachings and have gone back to the Word to search for the truth. Not everyone blindly follows...
The history of the Roman influence on the church is readily available on many sites on the internet and is rather common knowledge.
Who is the "you" that you are referring to when you say "where were you guys when the Romans had supposedly corrupted the church" and "their blood is in your hands"? -
Shalom!Originally posted by breytonhartge:Initially all of us started the same, we called on Jesus...so did I. But knowing His real name, I use it. If you think that is silly or a technicality, then like I said, up to you. There have been people in the past 1500 years who have been trying to correct this adulteration, but how many are listening? HOw many are so stuck in man made theology that they miss what Yahweh may be saying?
I agree, we should all be progressing forward and be teachable. Just because some things and traditions were taught in the church for centuries does not necessarily mean they are scriptural or right. We always have to go back to the written Word to keep us on the straight and narrow. Only in searching the scriptures can we discern which theologies are manmade and which are truly God ordained.
-
Please, then, point out the several translations that has made this distinction....Originally posted by Yaffa:Clearly, the Word must mean the written Word of God, and by the way, several English translations of the Bible have returned to using Yeshua Hamashiach instead of Jesus Christ and have been in print for decades.
Isn't Italy in the Mediterranean? That's as far as he went. My point is: are there prominent Jewish missionaries beyond those mentioned in the Bible? You have been very precise in your sharing, so please be precise to share about notable Jewish or Hebrew missionaries beyond Biblical times.Originally posted by Yaffa:In Acts and other books of the New Testament or Covenant, we can see that the first disciples made more disciples and "fellowlabourers " who carried and maintained the gospel around the world, e.g. Titus, Mark, Timothy, Philemon, Onesimus and many others mentioned in the Bible, some were obviously Jewish. Whether they were all Jewish or not, they all taught from the holy scriptures, known to us today as the Old Testament. Paul himself went beyond the Mediterranean, going as far as Rome (not Mediterranean!)...
I don't think so.Originally posted by Yaffa:It seems silly to me to say the Hebrew people did nothing to stop the church from getting corrupted. People have their own minds and will inevitably go off on other tangents for whatever reasons of their own, usually for manipulation or power. Even within the so called church system, there are countless sects and cults, all calling themselves Christians but yet having very differing views of the Bible and Christianity.
[quote]Originally posted by Yaffa:
[b]
God's Word is freely available to most, and it is the duty of each individual to seek out the truth and checking to see if it complies with the written Word. On the Day of Judgment, we will not be able to say to God it was someone else who led us astray since we had the ability to delve into His Word ourselves and discern what is true and what is false.
God's word, the non-Hebrew edition is available to most. For anyone wanting to read the Hebrew version, one needs to know the language. How then can you say that this is available to most. Just go back a couple of years where there is no Internet, one only has either a Chinese, or English, or whatever local language the Gideons people want to reach to - that's the Word of God for most.
That doesn't prove anything. Not everyone believes in wealth and health gospel either. Of course not everyone follows "blindly", which is why there are so many denominations. Everybody thinks they have the unique truth of God. If everyone follows blindly, we will have only ONE theology.Originally posted by Yaffa:Not everyone believes in the "adulterated" Christianity, there are many who have challenged accepted traditions and teachings and have gone back to the Word to search for the truth. Not everyone blindly follows...
I am not denying the Roman influence on the church. I am questioning the lack of Jewish influence on the church throughout history, on the assumption that, as stated by the mod and your kind self, that you guys have gotten it right.Originally posted by Yaffa:The history of the Roman influence on the church is readily available on many sites on the internet and is rather common knowledge.
Yup, churches have sects and cults. Jewish theological system does not? What about the kabbalah? Please I am not trying to deride what you believe in. I am just pointing out that the Jewish traditional (for a want of a better word) is also not free from radical movements.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the concept/theology presented by the writers of the articles here in Deeper Truth is wrong. I am saying that yup, while the points are good, I am looking at the mass of believers of Jesus Christ who has no access to good education and therefore has no way of getting back to the Hebraic of scripture.
I am saying, from the practical aspect, how can all these points be real to the people who does not even understand English, let alone Hebrew.
You, means the Hebrew or people who support the Hebrew.Originally posted by Yaffa:Who is the "you" that you are referring to when you say "where were you guys when the Romans had supposedly corrupted the church" and "their blood is in your hands"?
I have asked my question very clearly: when the missionaries were travelling the world, where were the Jews?
On the assumption that what you guys are saying is real, what have you guys done in the past 1000 plus years to correct the Roman influence.
On the assumption that had the Jews been actively (inspite of the persecution) challenging the Roman authorities on the correctness of the Word, we would not be having this dialogue. Please bear in mind that the white missionaries were persecuted too, yet the are able to go and transform the world, so what kind of persecution that the Jews had undergone that made them so ineffective during those times, that allowed the Roman version to bring forth this "false" message? -
and all that time the Jews did nothing, because they were persecuted? The white missionaries were persecuted too, yet they changed the world.Originally posted by breytonhartge:If the church is corrupted today it is the fault of the people who are not open enough to hear what Yahweh is saying, it is the fault of the people like the ROMANS who persecuted the Jewish believers who CHANGED the teachings of Yeshua for their own political purposes, for adopting pagan religions to gain influence, there are many out there who share similar views as mine. I am not the first. The fact that the romans corrupted the church has been recorded well in various documents. It is COMMON KNOWLEDGE... I am saying nothing new.
Yup I have the Bible, the Bible never asked us to follow the Jewish ways. The Bible states clearly the difference between Jews and Gentiles, The Bible states clearly that we should not subject the Gentiles to the laws and traditions of the Jews. Also my Bible is in English, which to you is not enough. Had there been prominent post-biblical Jewish evangelist (which by now I can conclude that there is none). Perhaps we will not be in this conundrum if there are active prominent post-biblical Jewish evangelist who had successfully challenged the Roman onslaught.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Do not blame the Jews. They were blinded for our sakes, if they were not you would not have your salvation! Be VERY mindful of that fact! Even if the Jewish people said something to you, in your current state of mind, would you listen? It is easy to pass the blame on to someone else when we have been taught differnt by those in positions of authority. We are to search the scriptures, and the Word is my basis. HOW SO IS IT THE FAULT OF THE JEWS? Do you not have the bible? Do you not read it? It is your responsibility to find out what Yahweh wants of you.
So should I call you ____? since that is your real name. Isn't _____ and Brey the same person?Originally posted by breytonhartge:
You make very general sweeping statements, there have been many people in the past who have spoken and debated the these very topics. Why is the blood of people who do not find salvation in Yeshua in my hands? I never said that using Jesus is wrong. It is a transliteration of another transliteration. You go figure that one for yourself. No one is responsible for anothers destiny, you are responsible for your relationship with Yahweh. If you do something wrong, you only have yourself to blame and if I do something wrong, I only have myself to blame. If you are so sure of your belief's then why such an emotional reaction?
[/quote]
Of course you did not SAY that using "Jesus" was wrong,
yet you posted in http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=202572:
Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. (Some say the name Jesus probably developed from the name of the pagan god Zeus, but there is little or no evidence for this.) It is true that Emporer Constatine mistook Jesus for the Greek god Apollo, but that is another story.
....mis-transliteration or transliteration, you decide.
I have also asked you to at least retract on this point, yet you refuse. You wrote: Yeshua means saviour, Jesus has no meaning except that it was a translation or transliteration...
So did you say using "Jesus" was wrong? Probably not. But did you IMPLY that using "Jesus" was wrong? A most definite yes!
So let me ask the question again: A YES and NO answer is required: To you, is the use of Jesus wrong? I will even allow you to qualify your YES or NO... Not difficult, right
?
If Yeshua means saviour (actually I think it means salvation), Jesus too will carry the same meaning, whether it is a transliteration or not. If apple means a red or green edible fruit that has fibre and juice, ping2 guo3 would also mean the same thing, even though it is a translation or a transliteration.
Please don't give me "emotional reaction".... you're free from it?
[quote]Originally posted by breytonhartge:Initially all of us started the same, we called on Jesus...so did I. But knowing His real name, I use it. If you think that is silly or a technicality, then like I said, up to you. There have been people in the past 1500 years who have been trying to correct this adulteration, but how many are listening? HOw many are so stuck in man made theology that they miss what Yahweh may be saying?
Of course we can continue to postulate on whether it's Jesus or Yeshua... but shouldn't the question be: would He mind? as long as we worship Him as our Saviour? I shudder at the thought that our Lord is concern as to how He is addressed......
On the issue of efforts made:
Please don't give "there are people", "things are done", "efforts were made", "people can read", "people can find out", "Word of God is free to all" blah blah blah.... who are these people, what things were done, specifically to the rest of the world, or efforts that were made to familiarise these believers to these Hebraic roots, or putting forward a Hebraic-friendly Bible.
Let me put it that none of the above were done, and all we are doing now is postulating on what we think is right or wrong after a thousand plus years.
In an effort to highlight the wrongs that were done, you are also burying the rights.
Maybe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater..... -
According to this website,
Yeshua is incorrect.
Jesus is incorrect.
The correct name is YAHWEH-YASHA
http://holynameassembly.com/2.html
....and according to this website:
http://www.hcfellowship.org/abouthcf.html Article III of the Constitution of HEBREW CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
Point 2: The Trinity of the Godhead: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
... there sure is a great variation of interpretation of what's what.... -
Teachable - good word!Originally posted by Yaffa:Shalom!
I agree, we should all be progressing forward and be teachable. Just because some things and traditions were taught in the church for centuries does not necessarily mean they are scriptural or right. We always have to go back to the written Word to keep us on the straight and narrow. Only in searching the scriptures can we discern which theologies are manmade and which are truly God ordained.
On the flip side, not all things and traditions are wrong and unscriptural.
Note that I have never ever said that views held by yourself and Brey are wrong. I am saying that based on these views, it opens up a lot of questions that remained unanswered.
Some of which are:
If the name of Jesus Christ is incorrectly used, does it mean that people who claim salvation on the name of Jesus Christ did not receive salvation? That being the case, did people, brey included, need to receive salvation a second time, this time with the name of Yeshua? If these same people, brey included, accepted salvation through Jesus Christ and this salvation is valid, then what's the issue with the name? If the gospel, spread by Roman-influenced Christians, in the early days of the church is in error, does it mean that all the churches built all over the world had been wrong all along? That being the case, how has the gospel been spread all over the world, and by whom? If people are suppose to be able to find the truth only by looking in the scripture, why the need to for missionaries to go forth? Or why the need to correct these "mistakes"?
I am not trying to be funny, I am trying to be practical, based on the information that you have provided. I am very very sure that you or brey can provide the answers for my questions.
Please teach me - I shall remain teachable. The question here, is would you? -
Without knowing my state of mind, I would say that this is a very bad assumption. Did I imply? I merely posted an article and let you make the decision. So in essence, you are doing my implying for me already by making your assumption.Originally posted by Chin Eng:So did you say using "Jesus" was wrong? Probably not. But did you IMPLY that using "Jesus" was wrong? A most definite yes!
Just because I post and article and choose to use Yeshua, does that imply that I impled that Jesus is wrong?
-
I had given you ample opportunity to retract that statement and that stand. Sad to say, you did not....Originally posted by breytonhartge:Without knowing my state of mind, I would say that this is a very bad assumption. Did I imply? I merely posted an article and let you make the decision. So in essence, you are doing my implying for me already by making your assumption.
Just because I post and article and choose to use Yeshua, does that imply that I impled that Jesus is wrong?
I wrote on 31 Jul, 2.51 pm (my time) ... and all I ask from you is this.... don't insist that it is wrong to use the name Jesus because anyone you speak to will know who you are referring to.
Your reply to me on the same day at 3.08 pm (my time)
maybe I am pedantic, but knowing Yeshua makes more sense to me somehow... surely I can be entitled to this opinion especially in my own forum? Yeshua means saviour, Jesus has no meaning except that it was a translation or transliteration...
There will be no mistake from the first post in this thread: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=202345&page=0 on what your stand is with regards to the name "Jesus"
You also wrote in EH on 26 Jul, 12.33 am (my time) replying to laoda,
see my post on the name of Yeshua... it was never ever ever Jesus... Jesus is a transliteration, not a translation. Totally different things.
no meaning???? is ping2 guo3 the same as apple??? is Xxxx the same as Yxxx??? (no need to edit this one... ) you think??? Still being very rude!
.... but instead of going round and round again.... say I am mistaken, say I misread you, would you be willing to write this: it is not wrong to use the name "Jesus" the name of our Lord? Simple enough? I am not even asking YOU to use it. Stick with Yeshua or whatever..... and please, don't say "knock yourself out."
.... back to my questions in the earlier posts... any new insights that I may be taught? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
In my opinion, I want to use Yeshua, if you want to use Jesus, by all means go ahead. If you do not see the little things that are important, that why even bother?
I had given you ample opportunity to retract that statement and that stand. Sad to say, you did not....
I wrote on 31 Jul, 2.51 pm (my time) ... and all I ask from you is this.... don't insist that it is wrong to use the name Jesus because anyone you speak to will know who you are referring to.
Your reply to me on the same day at 3.08 pm (my time)
maybe I am pedantic, but knowing Yeshua makes more sense to me somehow... surely I can be entitled to this opinion especially in my own forum? Yeshua means saviour, Jesus has no meaning except that it was a translation or transliteration...
There will be no mistake from the first post in this thread: http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=202345&page=0 on what your stand is with regards to the name "Jesus"
You also wrote in EH on 26 Jul, 12.33 am (my time) replying to laoda,
see my post on the name of Yeshua... it was never ever ever Jesus... Jesus is a transliteration, not a translation. Totally different things.
no meaning???? is ping2 guo3 the same as apple??? is Xxxx the same as Yxxx??? (no need to edit this one... )
.... but instead of going round and round again.... say I am mistaken, say I misread you, [b]would you be willing to write this: it is not wrong to use the name "Jesus" the name of our Lord? Simple enough? I am not even asking YOU to use it. Stick with Yeshua or whatever..... and please, don't say "knock yourself out."
.... back to my questions in the earlier posts... any new insights that I may be taught? [/b]
I did not say it is wrong. If you think it is right according to you, then who am I to argue with you afterall you are the smart one here, who knows what is best. So follow your way do what you want to do.. just don't blame anybody else when you get before Yahweh and He tells you different.
So what is the difference, I did not say using Jesus was wrong so how is that different from it is not wrong to use Jesus?
I think you have a deluded mind and keep thinking things and making assumptions that are not even true or there to be made in the first place... I think you have laoda's syndrome.... you tell him that we should be past this, yet, you still keep it up... where is your consistency??? -
And did I make a mistake here? It was never Jesus, it was Yeshua. Did His parents call Him Jesus?Originally posted by Chin Eng:You also wrote in EH on 26 Jul, 12.33 am (my time) replying to laoda,
see my post on the name of Yeshua... it was never ever ever Jesus... Jesus is a transliteration, not a translation. Totally different things. -
or what? you are going to sue me? Please! You want me to retract a stand based on what? Like I owe you anything. It is my choice to use Yeshua. I am not going to retract that! You don't like it, you deal with it.Originally posted by Chin Eng:I had given you ample opportunity to retract that statement and that stand. Sad to say, you did not....
Hello, this is a forum. We all post stuff. Like you are all of a sudden the police? Or have you become the PAP?