ב"ה
While we cannot say something should or should not be done based on how many people do it, I have heard people from various backgrounds use the Name outside of prayer or worship (reverently), either JEHOVAH (which is written out in the English Bible in some places), or YHWH by those who are more interested in the Hebrew end of things, or the names of God in general (which encompasses a broad scope of people).
Maybe it would be good if you state your position more clearly Patrick.
This point is not claiming we follow the majority; it was merely a response to your assertion that it is the Jewish practice of not using G-d's name in ordinary speech, writings, etc. is EXTREME by pointing out that actually most Christians also have not traditionally used G-d's name in their writings, bible translations, and day to day speech. Now you've misdirected with "we shouldn't follow the crowd" and you're further responding that you have heard some people use the name often. I don't see how that in anyway undermines my claim that you are wrong about the Messianic/Jewish position being EXTREME. In point of fact, it demonstrates that those using the name often are EXTREME. This does not speak to the correctness of saying or not saying the name; it only checks your original statement that the Jewish position on this which Christians have generally followed as well throughout the ages is not the Extreme position. I hope we don't need to talk more about that.
He condemned all the tradition of the Jewish elders, because they taught that it was wrong not to keep it. ….. we should condemn the enforcing of the traditions of men…..
I think you need to do some more research brother. I don't have the time to enumerate traditions of Jewish Elders which Yeshua himself performed Himself, I'll let you DuckDuckGo that.
It may be helpful if you do a thought experiment: I humbly suggest you think about how much traditions of men effect every single thing you do in life; including your Hermeneutics .
I would look at the audience that Paul indicated: since he was telling the Corinthians to keep the ordinances that he taught…. Also he does not leave the reasons for this ordinance up to us to speculate on from our knowledge of history, but sets them out plainly: that a man covering his head in prayer is shameful as having long hair
So, by your interpretation a man who took a
Nazarite vow during Paul’s lifetime would have been
shameful in prayer (because he would have had long hair). This view on scripture is hyper-simplistic and will get you into trouble when you deal with enemies of your soul (atheists, etc) who will mercilessly disassemble your world view before your eyes and whatever audience is standing around, with glee. See this is why it is absolutely vital to read scripture not through the traditions we just happened to grow up with, but to try to see things from the perspective in which they were taught.
[I'm not calling you arrogant here, I think it's a common way of looking at scripture in the body so please take it that way, here goes...]
It’s a bit
arrogant to assume
we are more important than the direct receivers of Paul’s letters. I’m not blaming you for this hermeneutical arrogance, it’s part and parcel of much of modern Christian culture. Certainly we can agree that the
first readers of Paul’s letters were
at least as important as we are right? So, why would it be problematic to read them in light of the way they were meant to be read by those initial recipients?
Example:
In America, we have a problem where the leftist judges interpret our constitution in a way which doesn’t require them to consider the “original intent”. We have letters written by the framers of the constitution, so we actually know exactly what they intended but the lefties just ignore all of that. That’s how we got legalized abortion by not reading the document in the way the writers intended it. So, I’d rather interpret the bible whenever possible in this manner; the way in which the author’s intended then; not will-nilly how the words just happen to present meaning to us translated across language, culture, and time, out of context as it were.
Can you see it's a good rule of thumb when scripture seems to not make sense “like a guy wearing a head covering (Paul) who possibly sponsored some guys who took a Nazarite vow [long hair] (in Acts))” says,
“long hair is bad” or “it’s shameful for a guy to cover his head”?
I think it’s absolutely reasonable to examine history and see who the heck where these guys he was writing to otherwise you don't properly understand the supposed blank edict you are assuming Paul is making (which would actually be a big deal back then). If we are dealing with generalized wisdom like proverbs, this is not always necessary; but with Paul it very often is. Sometimes in Proverbs it is as well. (Is it ok to hit kids with metal rods? What is a rod? what was it to that culture?). To ask questions like these is part of what it means to "love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart (means mind in Hebrew and the LXX translation)".
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am....
So here he says the Name in its root form, especially if he was speaking in Hebrew at the time (no doubt he was). And it also shows why he did not make a more public habit of it, if in fact he did not.
Yes, I had that exact same verse in mind when I wrote that
He never breaks the social norm of not saying the divine name and
never teaches others to do so.
The Greek there "ego eimi" maps back through the Septuagint via Exodus 3:16; it's a translation in Greek of the Hebrew "Ehye" which is not the name of G-d. Even G-d Himself when telling Moses what name to say has sent him, doesn't have Moses say His name; instead Moses is to report to the people that "Ehye" sent me.
If you're claim were true that any form of any word which derives from the
same root word from which G-d's name is formed were forbidden well people wouldn't be able to even talk. In Hebrew you often get at least 20 words from one root and in the case of the divine name His name is likely 3rd person singular conjugation [out of 9 conjugations] (of the Hiphil binyan [out of 7 common verbal forms]). By your reasoning we wouldn't be allowed to read the first part of the bible "yehi ohr!" (let there be light) because it uses the same verbal root which forms G-d's name.
In Israel today I can say "Ehye" on the street at Bet Shemesh (a 99% religious neighborhood) and people will answer "OK you will be what?".
"Ehye" is not the name of G-d and that is what you quoted Yeshua as saying. Again, your making points for my position. Sorry, if I baited you into that one; I was curious if you'd bite or not
If God didn't breach this tradition (we cannot prove that he didn't unless he said he didn't),
??? I don't need to prove that He didn't, scripture shows me from His actions He acted in accordance with it; again the burden is on you to prove He/His disciples/Apostles, writers of the Apostolic writings, etc. ever broke with this interpretation of sanctifying G-d's name (notice I didn't say 'tradition'
... Now, this is the 3rd time I'm reminding you of the L-rd's prayer. You may consider ceding this point; there are others you can make your case more strongly on.
Yes, tradition is not bad - Christmas for example. It is bad when it is called wrong to not follow a man made tradition.
Too many negatives in that sentence you made my head spin! Is that an Esperanto thing Patrick?
OK, I marked it up so it's clearer for others to follow.
We are
commanded to set up judges/elders to make
official decisions regarding the Law (this is the Messianic / H.R. Forum so we are Law-keepers in here)... See Deuteronomy 16:18.
So that's an unabrogated command. Judges (religious leaders, elders, etc) make decisions on appropriate behavior. For example: "don't go to a beach where women are in bikinis".
It's not a sin to go to a beach but it
may be a sin to start ogling some lasse there who is married. From the elders' decision, a tradition is born.
That's a good tradition right? In our tradition we aren't allowed to go to beaches like that and it keeps us from sin and the tradition was invented by the Biblical machinery which G-d designed to allow religious leaders to make such judgements ... inventing new traditions. Everything follows the chain of command. Even the tradition of the netilat yadayim (washing of hands) stems from biblical authority. Yeshua, however, dealt with the corrupt individuals standing in front of him. It is an
error in reason to try to take a very specific case and then
over-generalize from that case. Translation: you can't derive from Yeshua's knocking down of hand washing and corn sabbath snatching that the other 40k traditions are all wrong. That's an unreasonable claim to make.
You may want to know also that the Pharisees who took over the Sanhedrin later (Hillelites) overturned many of the decisions of the Pharisees (Shamaites) with whom Yeshua was arguing. These reforms form the basis of the Jewish tradition for the past millennia.
I appreciate your
zeal. May I suggest, you slow down and take some days to ponder and reflect before continuing along this line?
In the end you may be right, but at a minimum I think you aren't processing all the information that's been shared with you.
BTW: thanks for the link on head-coverings. I love seeing ladies wearing those. In the Eastern church (Russia, etc) it's required for gals to wear them and married Jewish gals also.
Final thought: If you feel led by G-d to say His name who am I to tell you not to. I'm glad you've reviewed my best stab at why I think it's a bad idea.
Dankon amiko!
