-
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.
The Godhead
- Thread starter DaPastor
- Start date
DaPastor said:Mark C said:
I've always been a lot more inclined to debate about what we should DO as believers rather than how we internally picture certain abstract concepts. I do enjoy a lot of esoteric discussions (I'll have to complete the post I started and referenced a while ago about the "alef-tav" shortly, too) however, so here's my favorite example -- one of the few I use that I think I can claim as truly original: :lol:
What is "time"? Is it echad?
Yet we use THREE separate names to describe it - and comprehend them as separate concepts:
Past, Present, and Future.
We, I will note, can only directly perceive the Present. We remember the Past, and can generally only prophecy about, or "wait on", the Future.
I won't get too hung up on how another person perceives time a bit differently than I do, or whether they call Time "one" or "three".
I'm not a "Timetarian", in other words...
Blessings,
Mark
Hello,
If we are going to discuss the Godhead issue, then let us start another thread. In fact, I will do that...
I briefly considered putting a comment in the "SUGGESTION BOX" about how it would be nice to be able to spin off a thread directly into a new one, and cross-post the last item (i.e., the presumably off-topic intro) into it...
I realize it's not too hard - just quote it in a reply to the OLD thread, and do a copy (after select-all in here; that's what I did above.
Anyway, since I don't have a whole lot to add (OK, I do have another analogy or two like the one above, but I don't think they are as clear as the "time" metaphor - unless one is fairly high on the nerd-coefficient, as I am.
) I did appreciate the input, as always, from our good Doctor.Blessings,
Mark
I have studied this issue from various doctrinal positions for years and I have found that all of the positions have flaws. There isn't a position held that can explain every passage perfectly. Perhaps one reason is that finite man cannot fully comprehend God. Trinitarians, Oneness and Unitarian adherents all try to explain away each other's positions, but why no finality. Why is there such disagreements!? Perhaps we just need to simplify the matter and just believe what each passages says and not try to explain it. Who says we have to explain each passage that doesnt explain itself? Who says we need to understand exactly what all the "we" passages mean? Who says we need to understand how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exactly relate to each other? I have come to a very simple conclusion of the matter. It is actually expressed in one of the first creeds in Church history:
I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day, He rose again.
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic (Universal) Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.
To me, it is simple. I don't have to understand every single detail of God. Just when I think I do, I discover there may be an entirely different way of understanding it. Anyway, this is my two cents on the subject.
I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day, He rose again.
He ascended to Heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic (Universal) Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.
To me, it is simple. I don't have to understand every single detail of God. Just when I think I do, I discover there may be an entirely different way of understanding it. Anyway, this is my two cents on the subject.
Tlaloc
Member
Excellent. I agree with both the statement and sentiment.
The place I've come to be with the issue can be laid out like this. Trinitarianism is a method of understanding the incarnation, the incarnation being a concept more than loaded enough and deep enough to warrant methods for understating it. To its purpose it is a very good method, but the hitch comes in two ways.
One must be able to see God as one, one may see him as three or triune. The oneness is an absolute necessity, the threeness is not de facto outlined by scripture, so is not mandatory.
Second one cannot claim that we have full and perfect knowledge of God, if once accepts that there are three persons of God in scripture, they have no grounds to say there are absolutely three persons in God, they may only say that there are three persons in God that we know of, or that there are three that interact with us.
Neither of those objections are a problem for someone who is trinitarian, but they are a very big problem for those that say the trinity is the only method for understanding God. Its an even bigger problem for anyone who says people who deny the trinity are not saved (I was just talking to such a person).
P.S.
I saw DaPastors Post before I posted. "Why is there such disagreements!? " Sums up my frustration on the topic as well. I agree with his sentiment, I had said in the other argument I was in "When you argue over these methods it becomes a stumbling block to simple faith."
Not that I'm adverse to discussions, its the fights I don't like.
The place I've come to be with the issue can be laid out like this. Trinitarianism is a method of understanding the incarnation, the incarnation being a concept more than loaded enough and deep enough to warrant methods for understating it. To its purpose it is a very good method, but the hitch comes in two ways.
One must be able to see God as one, one may see him as three or triune. The oneness is an absolute necessity, the threeness is not de facto outlined by scripture, so is not mandatory.
Second one cannot claim that we have full and perfect knowledge of God, if once accepts that there are three persons of God in scripture, they have no grounds to say there are absolutely three persons in God, they may only say that there are three persons in God that we know of, or that there are three that interact with us.
Neither of those objections are a problem for someone who is trinitarian, but they are a very big problem for those that say the trinity is the only method for understanding God. Its an even bigger problem for anyone who says people who deny the trinity are not saved (I was just talking to such a person).
P.S.
I saw DaPastors Post before I posted. "Why is there such disagreements!? " Sums up my frustration on the topic as well. I agree with his sentiment, I had said in the other argument I was in "When you argue over these methods it becomes a stumbling block to simple faith."
Not that I'm adverse to discussions, its the fights I don't like.
Tlaloc
Member
Thank you, I'm happy because that is exactly where I intended the emphasis.
I did now note the Sh'ma in that verse. I NEVER would have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out though. I'm inclined to think the translation Hear, does quite to justice to the meaning. The meaning is more along the lines of pay attention, understand, and obey, isn't it? Thank you for pointing that out.
I did now note the Sh'ma in that verse. I NEVER would have noticed it if it wasn't pointed out though. I'm inclined to think the translation Hear, does quite to justice to the meaning. The meaning is more along the lines of pay attention, understand, and obey, isn't it? Thank you for pointing that out.
rusty_armor
New Member
I am a little reluctant to jump in with my own personal bias on the idea of three in one, especially concerning the Shema. My people have used it much like Christians do with the LORD's Prayer. In an earlier time, my people readily accepted the notion of a triune God, but in the last 1500 years of trying to show how our belief was not as the Christians, we have rejected the idea.
The pivotal word in the Shema is echad. It is probably better translated as "unity" rather than "one". We only have to enter the throne room of one god rather than the various portals of a pantheion of gods.
Sadly, my people’s use of echad to disprove Christian notion of three gods as opposed to the "Jewish" view of one god, is a little disingenuous on their part. And it seems to be a stumbling block among many in the messianic community. I am surprised to see that it is also a stumbling block in the Christian community.
But whether there is only one god, or twenty, there is only one name that I am permitted to call upon.
The pivotal word in the Shema is echad. It is probably better translated as "unity" rather than "one". We only have to enter the throne room of one god rather than the various portals of a pantheion of gods.
Sadly, my people’s use of echad to disprove Christian notion of three gods as opposed to the "Jewish" view of one god, is a little disingenuous on their part. And it seems to be a stumbling block among many in the messianic community. I am surprised to see that it is also a stumbling block in the Christian community.
But whether there is only one god, or twenty, there is only one name that I am permitted to call upon.
Thanks, RA - well put.
In the interest of harmony (and, in all seriousness, as one who has talked with many believing Jewish friends who rightfully bristle when quoted the "only one Name" stumbling block from Acts 4:12) --
I would point out that every such person who recites a Hebrew prayer containing a phrase which translates as "Yah saves", or the salvation of God, probably has a better understanding than most such Christians that the name by which that teacher from Nazareth was addressed in life was never "Jesus".
In the interest of harmony (and, in all seriousness, as one who has talked with many believing Jewish friends who rightfully bristle when quoted the "only one Name" stumbling block from Acts 4:12) --
I would point out that every such person who recites a Hebrew prayer containing a phrase which translates as "Yah saves", or the salvation of God, probably has a better understanding than most such Christians that the name by which that teacher from Nazareth was addressed in life was never "Jesus".
And, yes - agreed. The way I am used to hearing "Sh'ma Yisrael, Y--H Elohenu, Y--H Echad" rendered in English is closer to "Hear and DO, O Israel..."
I am reminded by that observation that the Tanakh also often uses the Hebrew word transliterated "Elohim" to refer to Him as well, and that the suffix there designates the plural.
Just stepped out of shower and browsed this. I would love to discuss the Godhead with folks here, some time but current domestics would not afford me the time at this point. Some reading material, should you decide to accept:
http://apostolicarbiter.multiply.com/jo ... CAL_BIGAMY
http://apostolicarbiter.multiply.com/jo ... CAL_BIGAMY
Thankyou for viewing my Multiply Site. I have many others. I have a little time now to touch on the subject of the Godhead. One of my first clues concerning this matter of trinity is that the word itself is not Biblical and was a fabrication of Rome. I think that the words of the Christ pretty much set the standard when he stated that "GOD is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth". I believe that anyone who truly embraces those words of wisdom will also learn that it remains that GOD is a Spirit and anything following this is only secondary to the authentic and actual state of the Godhead. In other words, first and foremost, GOD is a Spirit. It is often after this point that humanity tends to deviate from agreement concerning the Godhead and the various "personalities" or "persons" of GOD.
Some might call me a "modalist" but I would beg to differ. The doctrine of modalism strikes me as rather ambiguous. If one is to believe that the scriptural account is not in error and that GOD did indeed say that He had a soul, or has a soul, the Adam also being created in the image of GOD, and that GOD walked through the garden in the cool of the day, then it should follow that GOD is also a Person. The basis of the trinity is founded on the belief that the Godhead is comprised of a plurality of persons (plural). I am fully persuaded that there is no division or schizm in the Godhead and that GOD is verily ONE in every way. That makes me a strict Monogamist. The belief that GOD should assume some "split personality" or become more than one person in the Godhead is nothing less than conjecture. I am not in any way of this particular polytheistic persuasion and I can find no sound substantiation for this spurious belief in the scriptures; rather the scriptures state that "GOD is ONE" without exception; therefore I maintain that GOD is ONE in every way and there is no way wherein GOD is not ONE.
If the HOLY SPIRIT is not the GOD the FATHER then what SPIRIT was the CHRIST conceived of? (See: Matthew 1:20)
I will leave it at that for now.
May GOD bless you and your house
Edward
Some might call me a "modalist" but I would beg to differ. The doctrine of modalism strikes me as rather ambiguous. If one is to believe that the scriptural account is not in error and that GOD did indeed say that He had a soul, or has a soul, the Adam also being created in the image of GOD, and that GOD walked through the garden in the cool of the day, then it should follow that GOD is also a Person. The basis of the trinity is founded on the belief that the Godhead is comprised of a plurality of persons (plural). I am fully persuaded that there is no division or schizm in the Godhead and that GOD is verily ONE in every way. That makes me a strict Monogamist. The belief that GOD should assume some "split personality" or become more than one person in the Godhead is nothing less than conjecture. I am not in any way of this particular polytheistic persuasion and I can find no sound substantiation for this spurious belief in the scriptures; rather the scriptures state that "GOD is ONE" without exception; therefore I maintain that GOD is ONE in every way and there is no way wherein GOD is not ONE.
- Behold the emblem of the TRINITY:
If the HOLY SPIRIT is not the GOD the FATHER then what SPIRIT was the CHRIST conceived of? (See: Matthew 1:20)
I will leave it at that for now.
May GOD bless you and your house
Edward
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:20)
****************************************************************************
I agree. GOD the FATHER, even the HOLY SPIRIT, revealed this truth to me by His PER-SON.
That which was conceived in Mary was OF the Holy Ghost. It wasn't OF flesh and blood. . . It wasn't OF angels. . . It wasn't OF the devil. . . It was OF the HOLY GHOST, Who is GOD. To coin a term that I've often seen used here, to say that Christ is the Son OF GOD is Christianity 101. It should stand to reason that if that which was conceived in Mary was OF GOD and OF the HOLY GHOST, then the FATHER OF Christ is indeed the HOLY GHOST. How can it be otherwise? Much later though, I also learned that the Greek term for "Spirit" and the Greek term for "Ghost" is the exact, same, identical word. The Holy Ghost is indeed the Holy Spirit; yet the terms are used throughout the BIBLE interchangeably. I have no idea why this is the case. Knowing this, that one of the MAIN TENANTS of TRINITY DOCTRINE states that the FATHER is NOT the HOLY SPIRIT, I must then, in good conscience, conclude that even on this pretext alone, that the TRINITY DOCTRINE is false. The HOLY SPIRIT is indeed the FATHER. Rome has been lying to us for a long time.
King James Word Usage - Total: 385
Spirit 111, Holy Ghost 89, Spirit (of God) 13, Spirit (of the Lord) 5, (My) Spirit 3, Spirit (of truth) 3, Spirit (of Christ) 2, human (spirit) 49, (evil) spirit 47, spirit (general) 26, spirit 8, (Jesus' own) spirit 6, (Jesus' own) ghost 2, miscellaneous 21
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons
The above link is a very good connection for Bible Study tools in case anyone might be interested.
GOD bless
Edward
****************************************************************************
I agree. GOD the FATHER, even the HOLY SPIRIT, revealed this truth to me by His PER-SON.That which was conceived in Mary was OF the Holy Ghost. It wasn't OF flesh and blood. . . It wasn't OF angels. . . It wasn't OF the devil. . . It was OF the HOLY GHOST, Who is GOD. To coin a term that I've often seen used here, to say that Christ is the Son OF GOD is Christianity 101. It should stand to reason that if that which was conceived in Mary was OF GOD and OF the HOLY GHOST, then the FATHER OF Christ is indeed the HOLY GHOST. How can it be otherwise? Much later though, I also learned that the Greek term for "Spirit" and the Greek term for "Ghost" is the exact, same, identical word. The Holy Ghost is indeed the Holy Spirit; yet the terms are used throughout the BIBLE interchangeably. I have no idea why this is the case. Knowing this, that one of the MAIN TENANTS of TRINITY DOCTRINE states that the FATHER is NOT the HOLY SPIRIT, I must then, in good conscience, conclude that even on this pretext alone, that the TRINITY DOCTRINE is false. The HOLY SPIRIT is indeed the FATHER. Rome has been lying to us for a long time.
King James Word Usage - Total: 385
Spirit 111, Holy Ghost 89, Spirit (of God) 13, Spirit (of the Lord) 5, (My) Spirit 3, Spirit (of truth) 3, Spirit (of Christ) 2, human (spirit) 49, (evil) spirit 47, spirit (general) 26, spirit 8, (Jesus' own) spirit 6, (Jesus' own) ghost 2, miscellaneous 21
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons
The above link is a very good connection for Bible Study tools in case anyone might be interested.
GOD bless
Edward
Okay, Mark, let's look at what is so horrible about the verse in Acts 4:12. Why shirk it?
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Should we be so hung up on the text or the pronounciation of a name to claim that unless it is spelled "correctly" or uttered to another person's satisfaction that we cannot find salvation?
IMHO if you speak Yiddish then speak Yiddish, but don't compel others to speak only Yiddish if you are not prepared to do the same. That's just hypocrisy!
If I call my sweet JESUS , YAWEH or JEHOVAH, or YAY-ZEUS, or Ioseus, or declare His name in any other language but YIDDISH does that mean He isn't going to listen to me?
I highly doubt it. GOD knows of Whom I am speaking in my mother tongue. I don't have to impress him by calling him Yeshshua or any other name in any other language.
JESUS will suffice. It's English. It works as good as the others. I know that the Christ is the SHEM of the ALMIGHTY ONE. (No, I'm not referring to the symbology of the idolatry of the text here either.)
The MESSIAH really is the LIVING SHEM of GOD, LIVE, IN PER-SON. The NAME of GOD in the FLESH (which we all know was and is "translated".)
There are Messianics that say that YESHUA is not the right name either and I've read so many different spins on the name of JESUS by them that I think I'll just stick to what I know Christ to be in the English tongue.
After all, my prayers were answered in this name. Does this make me demonic?
Let's examine some additional scripture in that book in the name of JESUS, the Only Wise GOD:
Acts 26
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, [in the HEBREW TONGUE, mind you] I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Well now, JESUS works just fine for this here English speaking fellow. It is a name I can easily pronounce. It works. When I think of this name I think of that Man who died on a cross for my sins and ascended into heaven. When I think of that precious name I immediately recall when He paid me a visit and I spoke in tongues for the first time as the SPIRIT gave me utterance ... FOR HOURS. Yes, it was my LORD JESUS doing the talking while I just took a back seat and listened. Now I'm not saying that I have to learn how to speak Hebrew in order to be saved. Nobody alive speaks it anyway. What they speak is their own modernized version of a Babylonionized corruption that none of the Patriarchs ever resorted to back in their day. The original Hebrew is a dead language. Moses never spoke Aramaic either. My, my, so much unecessary legalism over the pronounciation of a name that was suffice for centuries among the English speaking peoples. Are we then to say that every person who never pronounced the name of GOD according to some particular Messianic sect's rendering of the English word, JESUS, is going to burn in sheol for eternity because they didn't utter it according to the religious persuasion of a handful of people born generations later? That is not only LEGALISTIC, but it Is PREPOSTEROUS!
May JESUS, the only Wise GOD, keep you in the knowledge of FULL BIBLE TRUTH
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Should we be so hung up on the text or the pronounciation of a name to claim that unless it is spelled "correctly" or uttered to another person's satisfaction that we cannot find salvation?
IMHO if you speak Yiddish then speak Yiddish, but don't compel others to speak only Yiddish if you are not prepared to do the same. That's just hypocrisy!
If I call my sweet JESUS , YAWEH or JEHOVAH, or YAY-ZEUS, or Ioseus, or declare His name in any other language but YIDDISH does that mean He isn't going to listen to me?
I highly doubt it. GOD knows of Whom I am speaking in my mother tongue. I don't have to impress him by calling him Yeshshua or any other name in any other language.
JESUS will suffice. It's English. It works as good as the others. I know that the Christ is the SHEM of the ALMIGHTY ONE. (No, I'm not referring to the symbology of the idolatry of the text here either.)
The MESSIAH really is the LIVING SHEM of GOD, LIVE, IN PER-SON. The NAME of GOD in the FLESH (which we all know was and is "translated".)
There are Messianics that say that YESHUA is not the right name either and I've read so many different spins on the name of JESUS by them that I think I'll just stick to what I know Christ to be in the English tongue.
After all, my prayers were answered in this name. Does this make me demonic?
Let's examine some additional scripture in that book in the name of JESUS, the Only Wise GOD:
Acts 26
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, [in the HEBREW TONGUE, mind you] I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Well now, JESUS works just fine for this here English speaking fellow. It is a name I can easily pronounce. It works. When I think of this name I think of that Man who died on a cross for my sins and ascended into heaven. When I think of that precious name I immediately recall when He paid me a visit and I spoke in tongues for the first time as the SPIRIT gave me utterance ... FOR HOURS. Yes, it was my LORD JESUS doing the talking while I just took a back seat and listened. Now I'm not saying that I have to learn how to speak Hebrew in order to be saved. Nobody alive speaks it anyway. What they speak is their own modernized version of a Babylonionized corruption that none of the Patriarchs ever resorted to back in their day. The original Hebrew is a dead language. Moses never spoke Aramaic either. My, my, so much unecessary legalism over the pronounciation of a name that was suffice for centuries among the English speaking peoples. Are we then to say that every person who never pronounced the name of GOD according to some particular Messianic sect's rendering of the English word, JESUS, is going to burn in sheol for eternity because they didn't utter it according to the religious persuasion of a handful of people born generations later? That is not only LEGALISTIC, but it Is PREPOSTEROUS!
May JESUS, the only Wise GOD, keep you in the knowledge of FULL BIBLE TRUTH
Edward,
As I mentioned in my other post, I am not really interested in engaging in endless debates over controversial issues. That is of the enemy and I have better things to do. I now understand things as direct revelation from God on this matter. It makes perfect sense to me, lines up with the entire Word and also makes sense with what we see in the natural realm. However, it is a mystery and one would have to look into the deeper symbolism of the Word to see it.
Again, if you truly wish to know what I believe then you can download my teaching on the Holy Spirit from my web site, as it contains all the explanation of what God showed me. In short though for those interested, Jesus was conceived OF the Holy Spirit and then the ‘embryo’ was placed in Mary’s womb. She was still a virgin when she gave birth to our Lord. God was the Father, the Holy Spirit acted as the ‘mother’ for lack of a better description and Mary was just a surrogate mother, (just as Joseph was a surrogate father). That is why Jesus did not have any sin, since He only came in the ‘likeness of sinful flesh’. If the egg would have come from Mary and God inseminated her as some think, then Jesus would have had sin in His flesh from Mary. The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father or the Son, otherwise why would God have to have these different ‘persons’? If God was only the Father and the Holy Spirit was not in some sense separate from the Father, then why would God even speak of the Holy Spirit? They are all one by unity. The Bible says that God has seven spirits. That is why the number of judgment is 9, because we are judged by God, (Father, Son and seven Spirits). So I guess that the concept of a ‘Trinity’ is wrong.
Be blessed,
Dr. Ray
P.S., I have personally found Mark to be one of the most humble people on this site. I believe that he is trying in his way to follow what he is getting from God. I respect that.
As I mentioned in my other post, I am not really interested in engaging in endless debates over controversial issues. That is of the enemy and I have better things to do. I now understand things as direct revelation from God on this matter. It makes perfect sense to me, lines up with the entire Word and also makes sense with what we see in the natural realm. However, it is a mystery and one would have to look into the deeper symbolism of the Word to see it.
Again, if you truly wish to know what I believe then you can download my teaching on the Holy Spirit from my web site, as it contains all the explanation of what God showed me. In short though for those interested, Jesus was conceived OF the Holy Spirit and then the ‘embryo’ was placed in Mary’s womb. She was still a virgin when she gave birth to our Lord. God was the Father, the Holy Spirit acted as the ‘mother’ for lack of a better description and Mary was just a surrogate mother, (just as Joseph was a surrogate father). That is why Jesus did not have any sin, since He only came in the ‘likeness of sinful flesh’. If the egg would have come from Mary and God inseminated her as some think, then Jesus would have had sin in His flesh from Mary. The Holy Spirit is NOT the Father or the Son, otherwise why would God have to have these different ‘persons’? If God was only the Father and the Holy Spirit was not in some sense separate from the Father, then why would God even speak of the Holy Spirit? They are all one by unity. The Bible says that God has seven spirits. That is why the number of judgment is 9, because we are judged by God, (Father, Son and seven Spirits). So I guess that the concept of a ‘Trinity’ is wrong.
Be blessed,
Dr. Ray
P.S., I have personally found Mark to be one of the most humble people on this site. I believe that he is trying in his way to follow what he is getting from God. I respect that.
Not at all, Edward - and sorry if you took offense.
My point was intended to address the "opposite" situation, where the 'name' becomes a stumbling block to hearing the teaching, or even reading the text. I have used this understanding with Jewish friends on many occasions to diffuse anger at how they may have been 'offended' in the past (many can quote the Torah and Prophets to show how "the Jesus you have been told about" could not possibly 'HaMashiach', and this has been a basis for further discussion: I often then note something like "What you have HEARD he said may not be at all what He REALLY said!" Many are surprised; even if there is no "meeting of the minds", at least there is a bit of iron rubbing against iron. Some of them will later repeat aloud that same prayer that they've said in Hebrew a hundred times, and may think about it a bit differently.)
Perhaps I can state it more clearly, even. What I find wonderful is that if you ask a Hebrew-speaker -- who more than once has challenged ME to "defend that verse" -- a question like "How do you say [careful here - most Orthodox will get VERY offended by someone who speaks the Tetragrammatron] "Ya-saves" in Hebrew?" - they will answer their own question. Again - offense short-circuited.
I'm not one who gets particularly "hung up" on such things - although I HAVE found real value in a study of such Scriptures in the original Hebrew, and in the original cultural context. Certainly it makes sense to me to realize that the Name transliterated "Ya-Hu-Shua" -- and also rendered in English as "Joshua" -- literally means "Ya-whey saves" or "the salvation of YHVH".
Baruch haba b'shem YHVH,
Mark
(Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of [Adonai/YHVH/Ya/'the LORD'])
PS> This reminds me that I have never posted the summary of a midrash I remember about the "alef-tav". It's not to imply that Yeshua/Jesus didn't mean He was the "beginning and the ending" in Rev. 1, just that John probably had and recorded the conversation in Hebrew, and there is some wonderful additional meaning in the Hebrew word "et", spelled alef-tav. For one, "the Word [et]" literally appears IN THE BEGINNING, Genesis 1:1. And THEN when we read JOHN 1:1, there's a whole new layer of miraculous understanding there...
rusty_armor
New Member
Or "He who connects the beginning to the end"
And please accept this little additional "PS" in the spirit offered, Edward - along with a bit of levity:
I, like you, have seen the debates over "Y'shua" vs "Yahushua" vs "Yahoshua" and so on. That kind of thing is why I said I don't get too hung up on it.
But I have a personal story as well. Years ago, when I was beginning to study the Word seriously, I began to accumulate Bibles. I have a very nice copy of an original 1599 Geneva Bible, which has a tremendous set of "margin notes", and is very instructive to compare to the 1619 Authorized KJV. I told a friend at a study that I found it interesting, although it was a bit difficult to read at first "because their print typeface made the "J" look like an "I" back then. You know, "Iesus", and "Ioseph" and the twelve sons of "Iacov" - but you get used to it."
He laughed, and what I learned was interesting:
The letter "J" wasn't invented until the early 1600's. People really liked the new letter, and started using it in lots of places.
By 1619, the most obvious change you will see reflected in the text is that every instance of the leading "I", based on the initial "yuh" sound, or letter "yud", had been replaced by the "juh" sound, spelled with the new "J".
God tells us through the prophet Malachi that He "changes not". But languages do, and pronunciation certainly does.
Blessings,
Mark (or sometimes "Marcos" when I visit Latin America
)
Tlaloc
Member
Well, if that is the hight of the heat in this conversation it's going very well for a discussion on the Godhead.
I can't help but feel my point is well shown here though. God must be seen as one, as shown very well by Ed, and that God cannot be limited to three, which Ray has shown as his position. I know you are both at odds over it a bit but seeing both of you're positions makes me oddly happy.
As we are now I believe that seeing God in fullness would nothing short of kill us. I also there is a point of synthesis between God as one and His activities in many forms, but it is not a point that is readily available to our understanding per our current limitations. So we have different methods of approaching the whole per what we CAN readily understand. The connection between beginning and end Mark and Rusty are talking about is clearly another very important clue for us.
The problem lies in persecuting other's approaches and writing them off as contradictory when they may actually be complimentary. I guess I'm in favour of freedom to earnestly pursue God without imposing one reasonable methodology on another. There are of course unreasonable methodology, and those have to be dealt with, but I don't believe anyone here can be accused of being dishonest in their study.
P.S. In respect to Marks post, I sign this post
Ya'iyr
I can't help but feel my point is well shown here though. God must be seen as one, as shown very well by Ed, and that God cannot be limited to three, which Ray has shown as his position. I know you are both at odds over it a bit but seeing both of you're positions makes me oddly happy.
As we are now I believe that seeing God in fullness would nothing short of kill us. I also there is a point of synthesis between God as one and His activities in many forms, but it is not a point that is readily available to our understanding per our current limitations. So we have different methods of approaching the whole per what we CAN readily understand. The connection between beginning and end Mark and Rusty are talking about is clearly another very important clue for us.
The problem lies in persecuting other's approaches and writing them off as contradictory when they may actually be complimentary. I guess I'm in favour of freedom to earnestly pursue God without imposing one reasonable methodology on another. There are of course unreasonable methodology, and those have to be dealt with, but I don't believe anyone here can be accused of being dishonest in their study.
P.S. In respect to Marks post, I sign this post
Ya'iyr