Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
David Bauscher Peshitta Translation
Preaching done in the name of Yeshua and in the name of Jesus is not preaching two different Gospels. Pronouncing Jesus as "Hay-soos" is the same as saying "Gee-zus" or Yeshua. It is just ways to say the name in different languages. I called on the name of the Lord Jesus and I was saved. Jesus is just as good as Yeshua.
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:This is not making an idol. Elohim is actually a plural noun used for God, not denoting a Trinity as some would say, but the majesty and infiniteness of God. God is simply the English word to describe a deity. God knows who you're talking to, whether you call Him Yahweh, Jehovah, Adonai, Adown, Elohim, Alaha, Allah, Eloah, Jesus, Lord, Yeshua, Eshoa or simply Christ. God and "gad" are simply pronounced the same way, they are not the same word! Jesus is not a pagan name either, it is simply the English translation of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek version of Yeshua/Yehoshua. I am sure that when Paul was preaching to the Gentiles in Rome, referred to the Messiah as Iesous Christos and not Yeshua haMashiyach. Iesous means "YHWH salvation", just like Yeshua.
Amen. Accepting this linguistic and textual truth will allow you to bear much fruit. I pray that the scales of the Sacred Name movement (SNM) would one day be removed. An idol is nothing, let us forget them all. When we make reference to who they were we are mentioning their "name" and are guilty of the Torah command which says to not even mention them. This command, despite modern misinterpretation by the SNM, has nothing to do with verbally pronouncing a certain sound, but everything to do with mentioning character and reputation. So in trying to make a case for their silly "verbal-sound-theologies", the SNM actually transgresses the very command they're obsessively trying to uphold. Truly vain worship by teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. Doctrines not supported by any legitameant interpretation of any text. But alas, this is what happens when there is no (or very poor) spiritual covering.
If Yeshua is the only way we should pronounce the name of God's Son, then probably about 80% of truly dedicated Christians are going to Hell.
The Name of our Saviour in Aramaic to English is --> "Eshu".

Here is something neat to know: See His Name?

Hebrew = Y "eshu" a
Greek = I "esou" s
Latin = I "esu" s
English = J "esu" s

<!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

That's cool! I never noticed that!
The Texas RAT Wrote:Luc, YHWH never referred to his own Character by any definition that G-D is connected with,
Oh yeah?

God /god/ Show Spelled[god] Show IPA
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

That right there is a definition that is conncted to the word God (the most common one that English speakers are familiar with) and also one that the Mighty One of Israel has certainly identified Himself with many times.
Yes, we have to remember that the Scriptures were inspired in Hebrew and Aramaic, not English. But, the word for God in Hebrew and Aramaic (Elohim/Alaha) was equally applied to pagan deities, so it's really no different. However, as all those pagan deities are false and powerless (lest you choose to believe in their power and thus feed the demonic unnecessarily) it doesn't matter either way.

The Texas RAT Wrote:In this I would say I agree 100% is how the pagan traditions of calling upon YHWH with words/names/titles that He never used for Himself came about in the first place.
Your grammar in this sentence makes it sound almost as if you were asking how this happened in the first place. The answer is simple. The Scriptures were writtein in Hebrew. The Catholic Church spoke Greek and Latin. These are different languages. Problem solved.

I hope you don't think that the Almighty only speaks Hebrew or Aramaic though. I can call on the Eternal One in the local vernacle of any part of the world and He knows I am speaking to Him. Perfect example, my congregation just sent over some money to some congregations in Africa that are under our spiritual covering so that they could purchase Bibles in the local language (Swahili). These bibles do not contain the Hebrew tetragrammaton or Hebrew transliterations like Elohim, but it is evident that the Almighty wasn't so concerned with this. How do I know? The local LDS church tried to put a stop to this project and "out of the blue" their children were immediately hospitalized with life threatening sickness, bringing them to repentance. Our Father fought for us and ensured that His Word got into the hands of His people, despite their lack of Hebrew transliterations.

We may have the luxury of argueing over pointless semantics in our countries, but in the grand scheme of things it bears no fruit and is nothing more than a misinterpreted ritualistic stumbling block.
One problem we have with YHWH is that we don't know how to actually pronounce it! Most Christians are not Jewish, we are Gentiles and we do not have to be absorbed by a Jewish identity, just like the Jewish people do not have to be absorbed by a Gentile identity. The names we use for God have everything to do with His character, because most of them are translations of Hebrew terms:

YHWH/MarYah- Yahweh/Jehovah/LORD
Adonai/Mar- Lord
Elohim/Eloah/El/Alaha- God
El Shaddai- God Almighty
Mashiyach/Meshikha- Messiah/Christ
El Elyon- Most High God
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh- I Am Who I Am
YHWH.MarYah Shalom- Yahweh/Jehovah/The LORD our Peace
YHWH/MarYah Nissi- Yahweh/Jehovah/The LORD will Provide
YHWH/MarYah Tzevaot- Yahweh/Jehovah/The LORD of Hosts

I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to refer to the Lord God Almighty by His Hebrew names, but I have always known God by His more modern names. I am a Greek primacist, so I believe that in the inspired Scriptures the Messiah was referred to as Iesous in writing, but I am sure they referred to Him as Yehoshua or Yeshua during His life on earth. Millions of Jews are coming to see the Messiah in Jesus Christ by calling Him by His Hebrew name: I have no problem with that. If a Jew asked me, a believer in Jesus' name baptism, to baptize him in the name of Yeshua according to Acts 2:38, I certainly would have about as much of a problem with that as I would baptizing in the name of Jesus: no problem at all! Hebrew is not the "holy language" and neither is Greek or Aramaic. They are just the languages God revealed His Word in.
The Texas RAT Wrote:As for your dictionary quote, it is not a credible dictionary because instead of taking the definition of the word from the language it was transliterated from they just used what modern day people are hoodwinked into believing it means.
And that believe/faith is what is most important. Sounds/Words change meaning depending on the culture in which they are used, therefore it is the faith or belief of the local populace that counts. If you really study Paul's ministry, you will see that he believed the same.

The Texas RAT Wrote:And if you think that it bears no fruit to try and teach the truth then why do you bother? I on the other hand think it does no good to sit back and let lies be taught, and therefore I think it is better to present the truth of the matter even if others try their best to belittle the truth, calling it pointless. And to you it might seem pointless, but as for fruitless I doubt that just because you can not receive it does not mean that no one else will
Did you know that I've read the entire Scripture, front to back, using what I believed to be the divine names (a variation of the Tetragrammaton and other names such as Elohim instead of G-d, Set-Apart instead of Holy, etc.), having once believed the exact same thing as you? I even tried to teach such things but the Holy Spirit did not permit me and exposed the error of my beliefs in due time. So in case you're wondering, I've been there and done that, and praise the Almighty, I was brought out of it. There are no lies being taught here, only linguistic misunderstanding and cultural misinterpretations. These I came to understand from a diligent study of the original languages and a heart open to receive from our Heavenly Father.

As for the question of bearing fruit, I encourage you to forget about being right and defending your theology, and instead for the sake of your life honestly ask yourself if you are bearing fruit because of this. If, after having been convinced of this theology, you are truly better off? If your relationship with your Heavenly Father is any better? Has this helped you to bring anyone to a saving knowledge of Meshikha? Has it brought joy, warmth and comfort to the people in your life? Right now we are merely engaged an internet debate, but those are the pertinent questions that truly matter for your life once the browser window is closed. So please consider that, and in the meantime, we can simply agree to disagree <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:The names we use for God have everything to do with His character, because most of them are translations of Hebrew terms:
Amen. And one thing not mentioned in your list is the meaning of the Tetragrammaton, which can be broken down a number of ways such as "He Exists/Breathes" or "He Is / He Who Is" which can be paraphrased as "the Eternal One" or "the Self-Existing One". Truly, it denotes His eternal nature, the fact that He is "ein sof" - without end (or beginning), and does not change. The very source of everything. Reminds me of a song we sing in Shul sometimes based on a passage in Revelations - "Asher haya, v'hoveh, v'yavoh" - who was, who is and who is to come! (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->)

Shabbat shalom.
Can this discussion be over here yet? It's pretty tired.

Ask yourselves one question...then see if you can find the answer.

Q: What was the language the messenger Gabriel used when he told the blessed Virgin what to call the M'Shikha she was going to give birth to? Was it Hebrew or Aramaic?

Shlama Khulkon:
I want all of you to get back on topic and drop the theological discussion/debate. It's going nowhere and it's against forum rules. What started as a comparison of various versions of the Aramaic New Testament has escalated into a theological debate.

Stephen Silver
Forum Moderator.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)