'Mousetrails' and the dark side of the Old Testament

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

The new YHWH who replaced the old one which was an angel operating as an agent and using that as an authorizing designation.

Wow, what do you think "Eliyahu" (Elijah) means in the Aramaic? Jesus's Hebrew name is Yahshua, what do you think that means? I'll give you a hint, both are what's called a "consecrated name" which means it carries the name of God.

There are 557 different documented Yahwistic names. See Thou shalt have no other Gods by Jeffery H. Tigay.
Jesus' "Hebrew" name is Jesus. It comes from the person we call in English, Joshua.
The name is a Hellenized name that people who were Greek speaking persons would be named, such as people in the diaspora, as Jesus lived in for years in his early life, or in gentile Galilee, where Jesus spent the rest of his life,

"Eliyahu" (Elijah) in Aramaic means = "My God is YHWH"

And Jesus says John carries the spirit of Elijah, so we have a man who's name means "My God is YHWH" heralding that we should prepare a way for the "Lord"????

Yahshua (Jesus) in Hebrew means = "YHWH saves"


Both are consecrated names, that means they carry the name of God. Which means they both considered YHWH to be God, especially "Eliyahu".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

YHWH is His proper name, Elohim is a plurality of "God" used in a singular context, it's a title.

Moses and the Israelites and Pharaoh wanted to know the angel's name but it refused to give it so he told Moses that when they asked his name, to just tell them the I Am told you to do such and such.
So YHWH is the opposite of a proper name and is the angel refusing to be identified but just to be understood as the representative of the Lord who had appeared to his ancestors.
Elohim can refer to anyone or anything which is not just an ordinary flesh and blood human being.
It can also be referring to a nebulous concept of powers beyond human understanding and would explain how it is being used in the creation story, in the plural, to designate it does not mean an individual, identifiable entity.
So, "some great unimaginable divine force or something" would be one way to translate it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

The new YHWH who replaced the old one which was an angel operating as an agent and using that as an authorizing designation.

Wow, what do you think "Eliyahu" (Elijah) means in the Aramaic? Jesus's Hebrew name is Yahshua, what do you think that means? I'll give you a hint, both are what's called a "consecrated name" which means it carries the name of God.

There are 557 different documented Yahwistic names. See Thou shalt have no other Gods by Jeffery H. Tigay.

Aramaic = "Eli" means "My God" as when Christ exclaimed "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthini" (My God, My God...") Yahu, "YAH" is short for YHWH.

Eliyahu in Aramaic means "My God is YAH", (YHWH)

Jesus' "Hebrew" name is Jesus. It comes from the person we call in English, Joshua.

Yahshua is the Hebrew, Joshua is the English. Jesus is the Latin of the Greek "Iesous". Hebrew has no letter "J". The Hebrews and Semitic languages have no phonetic sounds made with clenched teeth as a 'J" Latin sound is made.

The name is a Hellenized name that people who were Greek speaking persons would be named, such as people in the diaspora, as Jesus lived in for years in his early life, or in gentile Galilee, where Jesus spent the rest of his life,

No, Yahshua means "YAH saves" (YHWH is my Savior), Eliyahu means "My God is YAH".

You. Are. Wrong.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

YHWH is His proper name, Elohim is a plurality of "God" used in a singular context, it's a title.

Moses and the Israelites and Pharaoh wanted to know the angel's name but it refused to give it so he told Moses that when they asked his name, to just tell them the I Am told you to do such and such.

What "angel", Jesus Himself tells the Pharisees that it was Him talking to Moses from the burning bush. It was a thorn bush what was burning but not being consumed, a picture of Christ anyways. Thorns are Levitical symbols for a curse, and fire for judgment. So that was a picture of the curse being judged but not destroyed. Christ became a curse for our behalf, sin was judged at Calvary, and Christ wasn't destroyed. He was resurrected before his body saw corruption (flesh decayed).

So YHWH is the opposite of a proper name and is the angel refusing to be identified but just to be understood as the representative of the Lord who had appeared to his ancestors.

No, "YHWH" is His proper name. Anytime you see "LORD" in all caps in the OT, the Hebrew text reads "YHWH".

Elohim can refer to anyone or anything which is not just an ordinary flesh and blood human being.

HUH? Elohim is "Gods", it's a plural form of "El" o(God). It's always used in plural form but a singular context. it's actually a grammatical error in the Hebrew, it's a hint to the three-in-one of the Trinity. YHWH is a proper name, Elohim is a title "God".

reply to post by 1nOne

Yes, but the English translation of Genesis 4:1 twists words around to make it seem as if Adam fathered Cain. It never says this in the original Hebrew version. It is, in fact, quite clear that it is YHWH who sired Cain and Abel. Further still, the Apocryphon of John specifically details YHWH's seduction and impregnation of Eve. Why is it that in Genesis Cain's descendants are listed separately from Adams? Why is it that Cain is not included in the geneology of Adam?

wə·hā·’ā·ḏām, yā·ḏa‘ ’eṯ- ḥaw·wāh ’iš·tōw; wat·ta·har wat·tê·leḏ ’eṯ- qa·yin, wat·tō·mer qā·nî·ṯî ’îš ’eṯ- Yah·weh

"Now the man had Eve his wife conceived and gave to Cain said have gotten A manchild from the Lord"

Adam is the father of Cain, but please quote where John says he is not.

Possibly Cain is excluded because of his curse, the book picks up at the birth of Adam's son Seth. Cain too had a son, so are we to assume that the curse affected Cain's descendants?

So is it any stretch of the imagination to consider YHWH doing the same to Eve, especially when it is sworn by John the Apostle that this is what actually occurred? Is John lying? Is the OT lying?

It would have been said...

When you read the letters of the Apostles that were omitted from the Bible, that is precisely what they are saying.

Never read those.

You can make all the comparisons you want but the truth remains that the God of Israel is the Father of Yeshua

reply to post by jmdewey60

What is demanded of God today is belief in Jesus, something you apparently have none of so I have to assume you are someone who fancies himself as a supporter of Judaism or Zionism in general and is not actually a Christian, otherwise you would have seen the problem with your statement as soon as you wrote it down.

True Yahweh, demands the belief in Yeshua as Lord and savior for soul salvation, Yeshua inturn reflects it back to his Father: Love him will all your heart, soul, and mind. I'm not a supporter of Judaism, I have no religious affiliation. I'm just no born again Christian who feels that because of the gracious Lord's sacrifice they are entitled to throw the Old Testament into a fire and live like heathen, and tip toe their way into the Kingdom.

Israel was created as a nation in Egypt

Are you that convoluted? The Lord brought them out of Egypt, end of story.

This was not something understood by the people in this mythology. It was not until the time of the Babylonian captivity that there was any concept of a Messiah

Of course the isrealites didn't know, this was Yahweh's plan and he issued orders to his people to consummate it.

It is perfectly reasonable to question an old mythology which is designed basically to instill into the believers of it a feeling of a certain pride of identity and a feeling of superiority for themselves and a disregard for anyone else, to where slaughtering them is not felt as a crime but a worship of their god who drinks the blood of the slaughtered innocents.

Stop defiling the Lord God's name, that never happened.

So what cult is it exactly which teaches you this sort of nonsense, or is this something you have discovered in your research, that YHWH was in the habit of making and destroying creations? The Book of Genesis credits YHWH with planting a garden. The Elohim gets credit for making the bigger creation.

Wtf are you talking about? I'm only reading what's in the Bible, I don't know what edition you're reading.

They are one in the same. Elohim is a noun, it can either be singular or plural. Not a proper noun

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God (elohim) is one LORD

Stop detracting from the Lord God's glory.

Like people who do not accept that the god of the Old Testament is not an accurate portrayal of the real God, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Well if you really understood what Yeshua said:

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Torah, I said, Ye are gods?" John 10:34

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true." John 8:17

"One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Duet.19:15

reply to post by CaptainNemo

Are you that convoluted? The Lord brought them out of Egypt, end of story.

Is this the first experience you've ever had with anti-Semites?

Yes, His people entered Egypt as a family, and He called them out as a nation after 400 years.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

is this the first experience you've ever had with anti-Semites?

Your definition of an anti-Semite is anyone who is not a Zionist of the most extreme variety such as yourself who applauds the concept of a select group of people murdering other people for not being of their group and justifying it all by placing the label, God, on the whole thing.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

is this the first experience you've ever had with anti-Semites?

Your definition of an anti-Semite is anyone who is not a Zionist of the most extreme variety such as yourself who applauds the concept of a select group of people murdering other people for not being of their group and justifying it all by placing the label, God, on the whole thing.

edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

You hate Jews, stop hiding it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

is this the first experience you've ever had with anti-Semites?

Your definition of an anti-Semite is anyone who is not a Zionist of the most extreme variety such as yourself who applauds the concept of a select group of people murdering other people for not being of their group and justifying it all by placing the label, God, on the whole thing.

Yeah, and they were JUDGED for that, it was called the "Diaspora". But you can't simply ignore everything that talks about Him restoring them a "second time". You can't just pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe based upon what Bart Ehrman says or how Jewy the passage reads. Anti-Semites hate/rebel against/criticize anything to do with the nation of Israel (the one God promised to regather a "second time"), Jews, Hebrew language, culture, customs, rituals, feast days, Hebrew names or history. Even Paul; says everything that was written before was for our learning, everything about the OT points to Jesus Christ.

The modern State of Israel is surrounded by enemies, and is under attack from all sides and the UN relentlessly. The Arabs didn't give 2 squirts of camel pee about Jerusalem for over 1,000 years until they found out the Jews wanted it back for a national homeland. They let it go to ruin and dust for 1,000 years and now somehow it's the third most holy place in Islam even though it's never mentioned in the qur'an.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well yes, Israel has always been a nation of people since they left Egypt. And now they are the prophesied "second regathering" from the OT. That makes you angry does it not?

No because it is something you made up so how would it make me angry?
There was something said about The Lord coming, in the OT, which was fulfilled by Jesus, where Jesus is the Lord.
He started out in the early part of his ministry by reading from the Prophets in the Synagogue, and saying, 'Now these are fulfilled'. What he was claiming was that he was what the expectation of the Prophets was.
What you apparently are doing is being the anti-christ by taking that away from Jesus, and I can sometimes get a little angry as I watch Satan at work to deceive people into not believing in Jesus.
Actual real Christians (unlike quasi-Jewish posers) understand that the gathering in is of the expanded New Israel which incorporates all the world who believe in Jesus, making them all sons and daughters of God.

reply to post by jmdewey60

No because it is something you made up so how would it make me angry?

Isaiah 11:11-12

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

When was this "second time" the nation of Israel was regathered after the Babylonian captivity am I missing here? "The dispersed" of Judah: The Diaspora.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Yahshua is the Hebrew, Joshua is the English. Jesus is the Latin of the Greek "Iesous". Hebrew has no letter "J". The Hebrews and Semitic languages have no phonetic sounds made with clenched teeth as a 'J" Latin sound is made

People did not speak Hebrew unless they were especially trained in a rabbinic type of Hebrew, or you are talking about people who were actually reading the Hebrew in the Torah or other parts of their canon, in the synagogue.
Jews worldwide generally spoke whatever the local language was and the universal language of the Roman Empire was Greek. Even before the Romans gained the ultimate ascendancy in the region, the people had already adapted and spoke Greek in Palestine. Especially in places where there were Roman Colonies, like where Jesus lived, in gentile Galilee. The fact that there may not have been the same sound in Aramaic (which I doubt, in an area so mixed in with Greek speakers) does not mean there was not in Greek.
At least I hold to the veracity of the authentic parts of the NT which calls Jesus, Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What "angel"

The angel who went around appearing as the voice of God, in the OT.
The NT describes it that way, where it was always really only angels and never God, himself, who does not go walking about on earth as a person.

Jesus Himself tells the Pharisees that it was Him talking to Moses from the burning bush.

I doubt that Jesus said that. If you have a verse for that, you should cite it for our general education.

No, "YHWH" is His proper name. Anytime you see "LORD" in all caps in the OT, the Hebrew text reads "YHWH".

It could be that, later on, the writers of the OT started using it that way, that is just a word usage, for the lack of a real proper name. People can do that, if they feel like it, I suppose, but they are just deluding themselves. That would be acceptable for Jews to do but is out of place in Christianity because the name of God now is Jesus.

it's actually a grammatical error in the Hebrew

hmm, turning agnostic now, are we?
I think I have it right, plural to indicate they don't know really who or what created everything, and the grammar to indicate that it worked as if it was a single thing.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Replacement Theology" is just that, a heresy.

Heresy according to your sect which you decline to name.
Can you find that heresy in the lists of heresies in Church history?
Actually it has always been Christian doctrine and is today, except for in dispensationalist sects.

"
It's a heresy according to the Bible, even Augustine admits he formerly believed in prominent Christian doctrine of "Chiliasm" (Dispensational, pre-millinnial):

Augustine admitted that at one time he had espoused the prominent doctrine of "Chiliasm" the sound biblical truth that was taught by the apostles, the belief in a future millennium, in which the Church and redeemed Israel will be blessed by the personal return and reign of Christ on the earth. However, he had since come to what he calls "more satisfactory" view that the Church has replaced Israel forever. Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in fulfillment of prophecy, and the Jews were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. The question would be which of Augustine views is more sound the previous views he espoused? Or his newer one? In other words, which doctrine is more sound, the original one, or the one that has been used longer? One would think that the original supersedes, it is closer to what the apostles taught and to what their master Jesus Christ taught as well.

Augustine admits Chiliasm was the dominant belief of the Christians and acknowledges it was the apostolic tradition. Which I actually agree with 100%.

History of Replacement Theology

reply to post by CaptainNemo

True Yahweh, demands the belief in Yeshua as Lord and savior for soul salvation . . .

You are not a Christian and are a quasi-Jew since you reject the New Testament.
Christ's name is Jesus, according to the New Testament.
Jesus is the I Am, according to the New Testament.
You have a anti-christ, and an anti-god.
Now if you want to discuss the Old Testament, which the thread is about, go ahead but I am not interested in discussing salvation theology with a non-Christian who could have nothing to offer to me. I believe in the Bible and you apparently reject the part of the Bible, the New Testament, which I would use to know about salvation.

Stop defiling the Lord God's name, that never happened.

My Lord is Jesus. You are just committing idolatry by worshiping a character in a book which you have no idea is even a true story.

Well if you really understood what Yeshua said:

I don't know anyone by that name.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The angel who went around appearing as the voice of God, in the OT.

Oh, you mean the pre-incarnate Jesus? The Son of God? The Word of God? The same "angel" that appeared with two real angels and talked with Abraham face to face that the text said is the "LORD" in Genesis 18? The same "LORD" Isaiah saw seated on His throne? The same "angel" that appeared to Moses in a burning bush that Jesus tells the Pharisees was actually Him? "Before Abraham was, I AM!" The same "Son of God" Nebuchadnezzar saw in the fiery furnace?

Jesus only said no man had seen "FATHER" at anytime, He never said any man had ever seen the Son.