• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Why Jews don't say the sacred name of G-d & Maybe nobody should

Pacman said:
This was not my claim. My response was to your statement that they still reject him. And I’m pointing it out as being a factor. Obviously it’s not the only reason... also the idea that it’s “recently” is completely incorrect. Mainstream Christianity has been distorting Jesus teaching since at least Constantine if not before...
Click to expand...

I was just going based off what you said, I have no idea what these claimed distortions are or whence they came. You said centuries; that is recent for a 2 millennial old movement.

I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't let the churches distortions of scripture cause me to reject Jesus. Nor did the Reformers who rejected the Catholic church. We based our faith on the teachings of the scriptures; which also the Jews have. If they don't like the church, let them listen to Moses and the prophets who foretold His coming. We will all be held to account for our own decisions come the judgement.
 
rockfox said:
I was just going based off what you said, I have no idea what these claimed distortions are or whence they came. You said centuries; that is recent for a 2 millennial old movement.

I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't let the churches distortions of scripture cause me to reject Jesus. Nor did the Reformers who rejected the Catholic church. We based our faith on the teachings of the scriptures; which also the Jews have. If they don't like the church, let them listen to Moses and the prophets who foretold His coming. We will all be held to account for our own decisions come the judgement.
Click to expand...

If I may interject, I think the point that @Pacman is trying to make is that the Jews are in a catch22 that Christendom has created, maybe intentionally. Deuteronomy 12:28-13:5 clearly teaches to adhere exactly to the Torah without adding or taking away. Further, if someone comes along with signs and wonders while leading after another god, not only are we to not listen, but we are to stone them for counseling rebellion.

Christianity preaches a Jesus that 'did away with the law', a complete fallacy. Further, Christendom teaches and does things that every Jew and anyone with an encyclopedia or access to Google can quickly figure out has pagan roots.

These are NOT things the Messiah actually taught, but errors willfully brought into the church around the time of Constantine to a) coalesce pagan diversity into a state religion and b) to willfully drive a wedge between non- Jewish Christians and Jews. Note that in 325 CE Constantine's edict enforcing Sunday and Easter required the threat of sword to enforce. Logical conclusion: 300 years after the ascension, at least some believers were still keeping Torah.

Now, @rockfox , you said, 'We based our faith on the teachings of the scriptures; which also the Jews have. If they don't like the church, let them listen to Moses and the prophets who foretold His coming.'

I have two major issues with this seemingly arrogant statement: 1. If they reject the Torahless Jesus as historically presented then they ARE listening to Moses. and, 2. We 'teach Christmas, Easter, ham, shrimp, Sunday, etc.. what 'scripture' did we base that on, because it is nowhere found in my Bible....

Bottom-line, they are responsible before God for their state, but we are culpable for gross misrepresentation of the Messiah. It should radically break our hearts and lead us to tears of repentance both for our sins and the sins of our fathers. Anything less is shameful and will have to be answered to before the Father.
 
PeteR said:
If I may interject, I think the point that @Pacman is trying to make is that the Jews are in a catch22 that Christendom has created, maybe intentionally. Deuteronomy 12:28-13:5 clearly teaches to adhere exactly to the Torah without adding or taking away. Further, if someone comes along with signs and wonders while leading after another god, not only are we to not listen, but we are to stone them for counseling rebellion.

Christianity preaches a Jesus that 'did away with the law', a complete fallacy. Further, Christendom teaches and does things that every Jew and anyone with an encyclopedia or access to Google can quickly figure out has pagan roots.

These are NOT things the Messiah actually taught, but errors willfully brought into the church around the time of Constantine to a) coalesce pagan diversity into a state religion and b) to willfully drive a wedge between non- Jewish Christians and Jews. Note that in 325 CE Constantine's edict enforcing Sunday and Easter required the threat of sword to enforce. Logical conclusion: 300 years after the ascension, at least some believers were still keeping Torah.

Now, @rockfox , you said, 'We based our faith on the teachings of the scriptures; which also the Jews have. If they don't like the church, let them listen to Moses and the prophets who foretold His coming.'

I have two major issues with this seemingly arrogant statement: 1. If they reject the Torahless Jesus as historically presented then they ARE listening to Moses. and, 2. We 'teach Christmas, Easter, ham, shrimp, Sunday, etc.. what 'scripture' did we base that on, because it is nowhere found in my Bible....

Bottom-line, they are responsible before God for their state, but we are culpable for gross misrepresentation of the Messiah. It should radically break our hearts and lead us to tears of repentance both for our sins and the sins of our fathers. Anything less is shameful and will have to be answered to before the Father.
Click to expand...

Yes you summed it up nicely. That’s exactly my point.

@rockfox I apologize for being overly vague.
 
PeteR said:
@Cap , Thank you for asking how we understand this passage from Galatians.

Galatians is the 'go to' passage that Christendom has long used as Paul's rebuke of the Jews and rejection of the Torah. The problem is that most Christians do not understand the context of Paul's argument or some of the language he is using, which is further exacerbated by a lack of understanding of Paul himself. So the BIG picture is necessary.

Paul was a Torah observant Pharisee, a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. There is not a single example anywhere in Scripture of him doing something contrary to the Torah of Moses. In Acts he is recorded as only teaching on the Sabbath as the normative day of weekly worship, he keeps the feasts - even traveling to Jerusalem in haste to do so, offering sacrifices, and testifying of himself that he never broke the Law of Moses or of the Jews. Further, it is recorded that his detractors had to use false witnesses to try to establish a case against him and even then, they regarded Paul as a member of a sect of Judaism known as 'The Way.' He never converted to anything, contrary to the (uninspired) heading in your Bible at the beginning of Acts 9.

Pharisees at the time believed that to be part of God's people, one had to convert to Pharisaical Judaism as a proselyte. The code word, or abbreviated terminology was 'circumcision,' such as 'the party of the circumcision.' Proselyte conversion included not just the Biblical practice of circumcision, but taking on the full weight of the Oral Traditions, or halacha. (pronounced halaKAH) We see Yeshua dressing the Pharisees down for this very issue on multiple occasions, the most serious being Matthew 15 and Mark 7. The 'traditions of the elders' or 'traditions of men' had largely been enacted at and after the Babylonian exile and exist nowhere within the written Torah. Paul, having been well advanced in Pharisaic law (traditions) knew very well the whole sticky and weighty mess. (Aside: Good book to read to see the current issue debated by Jews who love Yeshua is Rabbinic Judaism Debunked. But, before doing the 'I told you so' happy dance, there is just as much religious tradition on the Christian side that we say must be followed for salvation, too... BOTH sides are in the process of having the Father clean their houses...)

Acts 15, esp v 5 demonstrates that this false works based religious thought system was trying to infiltrate the new non-Jewish believers. Paul was livid, and rightly so. Salvation was by faith... always has been, ask Abraham! Obedience to God's Law, the Torah, has always been His expectation, but also brings life, peace, blessings, and righteousness to name a few of the Scriptural promises. Paul affirms these truths throughout his letters. The Acts 15 ruling even affirms the Torah stating that new, non-Jews will at a minimum do four things: avoid things contaminated by idols, fornication, strangled meats and blood. Then they say demonstrate an expectation that the believers will learn the Torah of Moses in the synagogue on Shabbat. (See 15:20-21)

Galatians is written within this context. Scholars debate whether it was written before or after Acts 15. I tend to think it was before with the definitive ruling of Acts 15 settling the issue that Paul was addressing.

One final challenge when we read Paul is that the Greek has only one word for law, nomos. Paul, throughout his letters, speaks of numerous different 'laws.' While Torah is a primary subject in many places, he also speaks of the Oral Law, the law of sin, law of sin and death, law of life, etc.... In each case, we must carefully consider context to determine what he is talking about because 'law' = 'law' but 'Torah' =/= 'traditions/Oral Law.'

In Galatians, Paul is redressing his young congregation for allowing the false idea of Jewish Oral traditions from being salvific. These are the works of the law he rails against. He is not against the Torah. This is the difference between works salvation (oral traditions) and salvation by faith demonstrated by obedience. (Paul and James agreed, however, Paul was fighting a different battle than James in the early congregation.) And, it is this difference that Hagar (works) and Sarah (faith) demonstrate. Abraham still had to 'perform' with Sarah to gain a son, but it was an act of faith, knowing she was barren.

I would recommend taking the time to work through the Pauline Paradox series on YouTube by 119Ministries. Part five may be the longest as it deals with the most difficult book in Scripture: Galatians. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=119ministries+galatians Other shorter videos pop up with that search, though may not be as in depth and Scripture laden.

Blessings!
Click to expand...

And thank you @PeteR for taking the time to address my question. This is going to be difficult but I am going to have to go line by line to try and figure out what each of us think on this matter. Yours black, mine blue.



Galatians is the 'go to' passage that Christendom has long used as Paul's rebuke of the Jews and rejection of the Torah. The problem is that most Christians do not understand the context of Paul's argument or some of the language he is using, which is further exacerbated by a lack of understanding of Paul himself. So the BIG picture is necessary.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding in regards to my position here on how Paul handles the physical reality of the future of the Hebrew/Israelite nation. It is not about Law versus Grace in my mind. God's Law is the rule and the standard for everything we live by on our journey to a better relationship with our Creator. However, we can never fulfill that Law with out the guidance of the Holy Spirit, therefore what Paul is talking about is the understanding that the old way of trying to please God through obedience to the Law has given way to the concept of the gift of the Holy Spirit in ones life for the benefit of guiding one into a better relationship with God based on Grace. The Law is still required, but we can never fulfill the Law, even if we fail at one we fail at them all. So God through His mercy gave us the Holy Spirit so that we can have a relationship with Him not based on our works but His. I don't believe Paul is rebuking the Jews (Judah) for their adherence to the Law (Torah, written or oral) as you say Christendom tries to say but because the people Paul is talking about lack Faith. Ishmael, by Hagar was created by Abraham's works. He heard the Law that God said about his future but decided to act under his on power. Isaac, by Sarah was created by Faith. And these two differences are what he is talking about in the Galatians 4. Not at all about rejecting 'Jews' or those who follow the Law, however it does create two different paths for those who do.

Paul was a Torah observant Pharisee, a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. There is not a single example anywhere in Scripture of him doing something contrary to the Torah of Moses. In Acts he is recorded as only teaching on the Sabbath as the normative day of weekly worship, he keeps the feasts - even traveling to Jerusalem in haste to do so, offering sacrifices, and testifying of himself that he never broke the Law of Moses or of the Jews. Further, it is recorded that his detractors had to use false witnesses to try to establish a case against him and even then, they regarded Paul as a member of a sect of Judaism known as 'The Way.' He never converted to anything, contrary to the (uninspired) heading in your Bible at the beginning of Acts 9.

Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forcesd]">[d]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Paul, here, condemns observing special days, months, and years. I believe he is talking about oral law traditions. So I agree with you on this part. He was trying to create distance from traditions, or 'traditions of the elders' or traditions of men'. This is separate than the actual Law that is required. Paul WAS a pharisee who operated under his on strength to fulfill the Law, and Acts 9 IS his conversion to a man who has been given the Holy Spirit. He is now talking from that NEW Spirit not from the OLD Law.

Pharisees at the time believed that to be part of God's people, one had to convert to Pharisaical Judaism as a proselyte. The code word, or abbreviated terminology was 'circumcision,' such as 'the party of the circumcision.' Proselyte conversion included not just the Biblical practice of circumcision, but taking on the full weight of the Oral Traditions, or halacha. (pronounced halaKAH) We see Yeshua dressing the Pharisees down for this very issue on multiple occasions, the most serious being Matthew 15 and Mark 7. The 'traditions of the elders' or 'traditions of men' had largely been enacted at and after the Babylonian exile and exist nowhere within the written Torah. Paul, having been well advanced in Pharisaic law (traditions) knew very well the whole sticky and weighty mess.

If Paul was a Torah observant Pharisee, why would he speak against circumcision? Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Unless there was something greater at work he is talking about than man's attempt at fulfilling the Law.

Acts 15, esp v 5 demonstrates that this false works based religious thought system was trying to infiltrate the new non-Jewish believers. Paul was livid, and rightly so. Salvation was by faith... always has been, ask Abraham! Obedience to God's Law, the Torah, has always been His expectation, but also brings life, peace, blessings, and righteousness to name a few of the Scriptural promises. Paul affirms these truths throughout his letters. The Acts 15 ruling even affirms the Torah stating that new, non-Jews will at a minimum do four things: avoid things contaminated by idols, fornication, strangled meats and blood. Then they say demonstrate an expectation that the believers will learn the Torah of Moses in the synagogue on Shabbat. (See 15:20-21)

I believe in your understanding that Paul is making the comparison of Hagar and Sarah as those who follow oral traditions and written Law. I don't think that is right. Paul is not preaching obedience to God's Law, oral or written, he is preaching being filled with the Holy Spirit to help one fulfill the Law (Commandments) God requires. And if one takes Act 15 as the bases for the Noahide Laws then that in itself does away with the need to find a place with God by observing the Laws described in the Old Covenant, at least for Gentiles, wouldn't you say? If someone is a Gentile and they try to follow Old Covenant Laws, wouldn't that be considered works when all they have to do is follow some simple rules? Just say'n. I don't see Acts 15:21 as an expectation of new believers to eventually follow the whole Law, just that the Law HAS been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath, so they should at least do these few, according to them. But, even the Noahide laws are not a commandment from God.

Galatians is written within this context. Scholars debate whether it was written before or after Acts 15. I tend to think it was before with the definitive ruling of Acts 15 settling the issue that Paul was addressing.

The context is not that the Law or the Jews (Judah) should be done away with, but that the old order of Law observance is being replaces with the the New order of the Holy Spirit will guide those with faith into a better relationship with God based on His power to Save and not the believers power.

One final challenge when we read Paul is that the Greek has only one word for law, nomos. Paul, throughout his letters, speaks of numerous different 'laws.' While Torah is a primary subject in many places, he also speaks of the Oral Law, the law of sin, law of sin and death, law of life, etc.... In each case, we must carefully consider context to determine what he is talking about because 'law' = 'law' but 'Torah' =/= 'traditions/Oral Law.'

There is the Law of God and there is the 'traditions of men'/Oral Law. We agree. But I don't think the difference between the two is what is being talked about in Galatians 4.

In Galatians, Paul is redressing his young congregation for allowing the false idea of Jewish Oral traditions from being salvific. These are the works of the law he rails against. He is not against the Torah. This is the difference between works salvation (oral traditions) and salvation by faith demonstrated by obedience. (Paul and James agreed, however, Paul was fighting a different battle than James in the early congregation.) And, it is this difference that Hagar (works) and Sarah (faith) demonstrate. Abraham still had to 'perform' with Sarah to gain a son, but it was an act of faith, knowing she was barren.

Here it seems that you are saying that the problem in Paul's discussion is that following the oral traditions is represented by the references made about Hagar and following the written Law is faith, represented by Sarah. That really is a stretch for me. Paul's whole testimony is about Grace, it's not about the two types of Law, oral or written. Neither one can be fulfilled, whether by man or from God. However, the only way to fulfill the commandments OF GOD is by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that is what he is talking about in his whole ministry. Not whether to be Torah observant or not.

Now, to the question of physical return of the 'Jews' to some land. This may very well be true. There may be those who follow their mother Hagar into a physical reality on earth, old Jerusalem, which the prophecies suggest is going to happen. However, I think, Paul is speaking of another group of people who claim Sarah as their mother and the New Jerusalem, Zion, their home and that is what Galatians 4 is all about. Galatians 4:27 speaks of a mother who has no children and is the beginning of Isaiah 54. Isaiah 54 is describing a mother who had no children, then God calls her back and becomes her husband, again. And she then has children who are of the promise, they are the ones who go to the New Jerusalem. That is what Paul is talking about. The children of Hagar remain on earth and fulfill the prophecies regarding the land of Palestine. If you ask me, and I don't know for sure, but that woman spoken of in Isaiah 54 is Israel who God divorced.

As I reread this, it occurs to me that there is a possibility that the representation of Hagar and Sarah could also represent God's relationship to Judah and Israel. Based on what Paul is saying this could very well be true but I have no way to back it up at this time and don't expect anyone to believe anything I say about it. But the idea is intriguing to me.
 
PeteR said:
Christianity preaches a Jesus that 'did away with the law', a complete fallacy. Further, Christendom teaches and does things that every Jew and anyone with an encyclopedia or access to Google can quickly figure out has pagan roots.

These are NOT things the Messiah actually taught, but errors willfully brought into the church around the time of Constantine to a) coalesce pagan diversity into a state religion and b) to willfully drive a wedge between non- Jewish Christians and Jews. Note that in 325 CE Constantine's edict enforcing Sunday and Easter required the threat of sword to enforce. Logical conclusion: 300 years after the ascension, at least some believers were still keeping Torah.

Now, @rockfox , you said, 'We based our faith on the teachings of the scriptures; which also the Jews have. If they don't like the church, let them listen to Moses and the prophets who foretold His coming.'

I have two major issues with this seemingly arrogant statement: 1. If they reject the Torahless Jesus as historically presented then they ARE listening to Moses. and, 2. We 'teach Christmas, Easter, ham, shrimp, Sunday, etc.. what 'scripture' did we base that on, because it is nowhere found in my Bible....

Bottom-line, they are responsible before God for their state, but we are culpable for gross misrepresentation of the Messiah. It should radically break our hearts and lead us to tears of repentance both for our sins and the sins of our fathers. Anything less is shameful and will have to be answered to before the Father.
Click to expand...

It might be beneficial to not take a broad sweep of statements towards Christians. Christians is a generic label for those who follow Christ. Just as polyamory is a generic label for what we believe, biblical polygyny. There are those who have a much deeper understanding and come from that point of reference that does not resonate with some of these statements.

I was told by the OP to check my heart in regards to using the term Zionism. Maybe we should all check our hearts to deal with those of different understandings.
 
Joleneakamama said:
That does not explain why they rejected him back then. Yeshua did not teach corrupted Christian doctrines. They rejected Him for other reasons.
Click to expand...
Right Jolene, so that you (born Gentiles) could get saved; and as soon as the Gentiles became the majority in the church, a new religion was born.

Can we try to reel this thread back towards "speaking the name of G-d out loud?"
Any moderators awake out there?
I'm pretty sure if us Torah keepers were hammering you antinomianists we'd have been cold clocked in about 30 seconds by moderators...
 
Cap said:
This reminds me of the current attempts from some in present day to try and make Caucasian people, sorry Caucasian male people, responsible for slavery over a hundred years ago. But I do agree that both sides need to put down thier weapons and go forward in the path God has provided. The important thing is Christ and not how we each got here. Trying to hold onto past ideologies, from both sides defeats that purpose. In my opinion this seperate forum section further defines the division between the so called chosen and non chosen people, which when you get right down to it, is the reason for all this.
Click to expand...
You can't join an ethnicity ... you can choose your religious associations though so I think the analogy you're making breaks down pretty quickly.
 
rockfox said:
What Jolene said. The Jews of today are the sons of the Jews of yesterday who rejected Jesus. It's a bit rich to claim it's all because of what mainstream Christianity recently began teaching. There is a lot of animosity toward Jesus that comes from historical feelings, not from looking at recent Christian mis-teachings and deciding Jesus was a false prophet.
I read a Jew the other day who observed that a Jew could become Buddhist and no one blinks an eye but accepting Christ? "We don't do that we're Jews." It would seem they've made hating the Messiah part of their identity. They can't pin that on the Gentiles.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, this position is a bit ignorant about the mainstream religious Jewish positions on "Jesus". (I agree with the arguments presented how Christendom has done a horrible job in sharing the gospel to Jews over the centuries, but that's not what I'm responding to).
Many Azhkenazi religious Jews follow the position of the Yavitz (Rabbi Jacob Emden) of Germany a few centuries ago. The Yavitz is a hero of the faith because among other things he defended Judaism against the heretic Sabbotai Sevi.
He wrote a book on Yeshua where he concluded from reading the gospels that Yeshua was a righteous Jew who's mission was to stomp out the horrible idolatry in most of the world. R' Emden concludes that
Yeshua succeeded in this goal, especially in Arabia which was previously pagan; understanding that Islam was a corruption of Christianity but was at least monotheist replacing what had been there before.
The same Rabbi also wrote a book called, "Pilagesh" (Concubine) where he argues for the benefits of informing the people that polygamy was a Lawful choice for them.

Among Azhkenazi Jews, those who have hard feelings against Yeshua it seems to me often based from what happened to their ancestors (many Russian Jews hate Russians and the Christianity they reflected b/c grandma got murdered in a pogrom, etc). It's not a fair and logical survey of "true Christianity" but in the end most humans judge systems by their practitioners: do they bear forth good fruit of thistles?
I think murder and theft do enough to influence people without having to consider if the Romanesque Jesus taught that eternal commands like the 4th command (Sabbath) can be moved willy-nilly or not.

Usually those who "hate Jesus" are Sephardic (Jews from Arabia) though not always. I've never heard an Azhkenazi Jew say "yimach sh'mo" (may his name be blotted out) about Jesus but I have heard an Iranian Rabbi say it. Then if we consider those in liberal Jewish denominations like "Reformed"; well they certainly don't think Jesus was evil because anything goes man. They only frown on conversions to Christianity the same way an Episcopalian family would be upset if someone they cared about became born again. Liberalism is liberalism.

**** I heard a VERY famous Orthodox Rabbi (Eastern tradition) speaking recently and he said something derogatory about Yeshua and one of the orthodox Azhkenazi Jews (a Russian) in the audience corrected him and the Rabbi accepted the correction ***
 
Last edited:
rockfox said:
In the first century, did they not conceive of themselves as Hebrews or Israelites? I always had the impression Jew was a more modern identification that got read into discussions of the ancient peoples.
But He did give him physical offspring and gave them the promised land. It just so happened they rebelled and got cut off. That's certainly not God's fault.
Click to expand...
There's always been a remnant of faithful ones to G-d. heck today there are 250-300k Messianic Jews...
There's also always been the pattern of falling way and coming back. Just like we see with the Christian tradition. Take USA today, you really think we are secure of not being "cut off"? The spirit of Molech is alive and well, millions and millions of innocent children have been slaughtered; Ancient Israel didn't even have the population of adults equaling the number of children we have slaughtered in America.

And yeah, pretty raw deal to promise someone his descendants would inherit the land and then pull a switcheroo. That's some pretty weak theology and I only ever hear that from folks who think Zionism is a dirty word.
 
IshChayil said:
Any moderators awake out there?
Click to expand...
I am impressed with how well everyone is managing to keep calm in this thread, there are all sorts of topics and statements here that somebody could decide to get upset about, and the odd brief argument, but everyone's doing a good job of stopping arguing all by themselves. In my opinion.

Remember that this thread is about God's name. Or G-d's name. :) If you have another topic to discuss (such as Zionism, or Paul's hair length, or whatever), there's no shortage of space for new threads. This thread has a specific purpose.
 
Also want to take advantage of this interlude to mention that there's a "Report" button under every post. If you have a specific complaint about a specific post, please feel free to "report" it to the moderators, along with your reason for reporting it (don't assume that's self-evident).

My two cents: @IshChayil has had the right of it all along. This is a very specific area of the discussion forum, and a lot of the discussion above has been not only off-topic but inappropriate in this thread or any other thread in the MJ/HRG forum. Please respect the boundary going forward.
 
Cap said:
Paul WAS a pharisee who operated under his on strength to fulfill the Law, and Acts 9 IS his conversion to a man who has been given the Holy Spirit. He is now talking from that NEW Spirit not from the OLD Law.
Click to expand...

Sorry, @Cap , respectfully, we disagree greatly. Here are three solid evidences from the Scriptures that directly contradict your quote here.

1. Acts 23:6, Paul, very late in his ministry, testifies of himself, 'I AM a Pharisee...' Was he lying?

2. Acts 9, Paul has an amazing encounter with the risen Messiah, but he never converted to anything. Neither the word nor concept is presented in that chapter. Rather Acts 24:13-14; 25:7-11; 28:17-18 testify that he kept the Torah and never taught against it. Doing so, according to Deu. 13 is grounds for death and he was willing to allow himself to be scrutinized to that degree.

3. There is no such thing as ''OLD Law''. The idea that the Law is old or in anyway reduced is directly contrary to Yeshua's words and contrary to the new covenant. Read Matthew 5:17-19 very slowly and ponder the gravity of it. Then, read the new covenant, in Jeremiah 31 and notice 1. who it is with, 2. what it will do and 3. what the sign of its fulfillment is... ( Hint: we are not in the new covenant yet... we see shadows, but it ain't here. )
 
And on that cheerful note we're going to let Pete have the last word on the more general arguments that have been banging around. Further posts in this thread about anything other than the original topic will be deleted.
 
rockfox said:
If God felt it was too sacred to write down or say, I don't think He'd have had the prophets communicate it too us.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed.

We are not to profane His name, or make it common. We are to treat it with respect and honor.

How many verses actually tell us to use it? The name of YHVH is a strong tower...

The Scriptures suddenly have who new personalization and nuance when you begin reading and inserting the name, Yahweh or Yehovah, everywhere it says 'Lord.' Something more personal happens. Try it.

To @ZecAustin 's comment that we may not even know it, true. We can get close.

I grew up in South America. The locals called me 'Pedrito' but that is not my name. I answered to that and had no problem. The locals that drew more attention were the ones who tried to say it in English, 'Peter.' He is a Father who desires that we know and be personal with Him...while being respectful.

Can we truly say, 'blessed is He who comes in the name of -----?'
 
andrew said:
And on that cheerful note we're going to let Pete have the last word on the more general arguments that have been banging around. Further posts in this thread about anything other than the original topic will be deleted.
Click to expand...

Anyway the offending discussion can be moved to another location. I think it's an important topic. Sorry it got mixed up in something else, it wasn't intentional, and wasn't flagged by the OP in the beginning so it just went the normal way these things go.

I will no longer partisapate in a section designed souly for the Jewish mindset when I don't have that view and can offer nothing beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top