The True Name Of GOD

reply to post by Sigismundus
I hope you don't actually believe any of that and are just repeating what someone else believes.

The problem is how to distinguish between who were actual Christians and who were instead messianic Jews, the sort that caused Jerusalem and its temple to be destroyed by the Romans. Don't get the two mixed up. One group was all for war, and the other (the church of Jesus) was not.

The harsh reality is that modern Christianity comes from Paul and the other NT writers were followers of his version. There was not another version besides Paul's that the Gospel writers were followers of.

Things like 2 Peter and Jude and Revelation may be examples of NT writers who were representatives of a type of Christianity that believed that to become a Christian, one must first become a Jew.

Racism for the sake of an imagined holding to some form of ancient Judaism which may or may not have ever existed, is a big mistake and is inexcusable in today's world. I would consider that really a form of satanic worship. I don't care how holy of a name anyone used to sanctify it with, Satan is happy to use any and has no fear of the accusation of blasphemy.

reply to post by pthena

The original manuscripts which had been buried in "East Israel", that is Iraq.

The Original Scriptures E1
An obvious hoax to prey on the ignorant (to sell their product) since there would not have been a fully assembled canonical bible before 400 AD.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The problem is how to distinguish between who were actual Christians and who were instead messianic Jews, the sort that caused Jerusalem and its temple to be destroyed by the Romans. Don't get the two mixed up. One group was all for war, and the other (the church of Jesus) was not.

The harsh reality is that modern Christianity comes from Paul

Paul didn't make it any easier for Gentiles. I think your books indicate that Romans was probably the last letter written by Paul. In the end, then, it becomes plain that Paul eventually came to accept the superiority of the Jerusalem church, along with the primacy of the Jews over the Gentiles.

Romans 15:
8 Now I say that Christ has been made a servant of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given to the fathers, 9 and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

“Therefore will I give praise to you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name.”(2 Sam 22:50, Ps 18:49)

10 Again he says,

“Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.”(Deut 32:43)

11 Again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles!
Let all the peoples praise him.”(Ps 117:1)

12 Again, Isaiah says,

“There will be the root of Jesse,
he who arises to rule over the Gentiles;
in him the Gentiles will hope.”(Is 11:10)

16 that I should be a servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest the Good News of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. ... 18 ...for the obedience of the Gentiles,

25 But now, I say, I am going to Jerusalem, serving the saints. 26 For it has been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are at Jerusalem. 27 Yes, it has been their good pleasure, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to serve them in fleshly things.

This was within a handful of years before the rebellion that Paul was engaged in the possible stockpiling of supplies in Jerusalem.

However different Paul's views were from the Jerusalem leaders, he still saw things in terms of the Old Testament Zionist Messianic prophecies being fulfilled. A Davidic ruler over the Gentile World, and the Gentiles paying tribute to Jerusalem (as debtors)

Racism for the sake of an imagined holding to some form of ancient Judaism which may or may not have ever existed, is a big mistake and is inexcusable in today's world.

Then the choice is to go farther than Paul by throwing the whole Old Testament into the rubbish heap, or go along with the Knessit approved forms of Christianity.

Once you go past Paul, you're into the realms of making your own religion. Then it becomes pointless to even hold on to the name Christian.

Those are my views.

reply to post by pthena

. . . their spiritual things . . .

I'll have to take a look at what that means exactly.
And also what it is exactly that "we owe the saints."
Which is all things said by Paul, who I don't understand as well as I imagine I do sometimes.
But thanks for the pointers at the problematic places that need attention.
A possible explanation may be found in this quote,

It is clearly not magical hocus-pocus or even presumptuous effrontery to draw payment on a permanant blank check at the command of your Father. No classical god, as far as we have seen, or mystery deity that we know of, has been so lavish in his concern and so legal minded as to have his contracts put into writing.
Welton, as quoted in Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity: Collected Essays, by David E. Aune. page 411

as to why we don't throw it out and what Paul could have meant by what we owe to "Jerusalem".

reply to post by jmdewey60
[

Hi JM Dew

You wrote:

QUOTE

“I hope you don't actually believe any of that - and are just repeating what someone else believes.

The problem is how to distinguish between who were actual ‘Christians’ and who were instead Messianic Jews - the sort that caused Jerusalem and its temple to be destroyed by the Romans.

Don't get the two mixed up. One group was all for War -- and the other (the Church of Jesus) was not.

The harsh reality is that modern Christianity comes from Paul and the other NT writers were followers of his version. There was not another version besides Paul's that the Gospel writers were followers of…”

UNQUOTE

Actually I DO believe that there existed in the earliest days following the execution of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (for ‘armed sedition against Rome’ during a Feast – read the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel, ‘according to Luke’ whoever he was… chapter 22:35-38 ) several Messianic Jewish groups all claiming to be followers of ‘Iesous’ out there in the wild –

That’s why modern serious textual bibilical scholars use the term ‘Christianities’ in the plural to more accurately describe the actual situation on the ground in real time.

In case this is all news to you, there was NOT a lot of overlap between what the original Palestinian Aramaic & Hebrew Speaking Evionim (Torah Abiding Circumcised Messianic Jews headed up by the Daviddic blood-brother of ‘ho Iesous’ R. Yakkov bar Yosef, haTzaddiq (R. James son of Joseph, the Righteous (i.e. Just) One aka James the Just) and the later Greek speaking Diaspora ‘Hellenised’ Pauline non-circumcised non-Torah abiding ‘Christianities’ that were at war with each other.

The Nazorean Evionim (‘the poor Ones’) were the ones responsible for all the Zionist anti gentile anti Goyim theologies expressed in e.g. the 1st canonical Greek Gospel ‘according to Matthew’, whoever he was – read chapter 15 for example :

“The Bar Enasha was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro’el…”) and also the Zionist anti Gentile stances taken in the so-called Book of Revelation – (‘the sword sharpened with two edges with which He shall rule over all the Goyim and smash them all in pieces like a potter's Vessel when it is dashed to the ground !” )

Both of these two books contain overt Dead Sea Scroll like language – full of anti-goyim theologies and phraseologies, and the same anti Gentile vomit can also be detected also in various other NT writings if you would only care to look closely at the text -

see, e.g. The Epistle of Jude (was this Judah, the other brother aka Thomas i.e. Yehudah ha Tomah – Judas Didymos Thomas?) or also the ‘Epistle of James’ which might represent a later Greek rendition of an earlier Aramaic letter penned by (or recited by) ‘James the Just’ – or maybe just another James – either way, a Nazorean Evionite – who believed not in ‘salvation by Faith Alone’ (a 'heretical' Pauline non Evionite doctrine which caused the schism outlined in Galatians chapter 2 ) but rather ‘salvation by Ma’aseh ha Torah’ i.e. works of the Law.

Certainly the 1st Canonical Greek Gospel ('according to Matthew' whoever he was) contains Torah Abiding zionist phrases which are anti-Pauline (and clearly pro-Nazorean Ebionite)

'Do you imagine the Bar Enasha ('son of man' see Aram. Daniel 7:13-26) was sent to destroy the works of the Torah ('ma'aseh ha Torah') ? The Bar Enasha was not sent to destroy the Ma'aseh haTorah but to ADD to ('interpret'?) them: for Amen Amen I say unto you : for as long as heaven and earth exist , not one jot, not one tittle of the Torah may ever go unperformed - everything contained therein must be done.....'

To overlook the two conflicting ‘salvation’ doctrines that the later councils allowed to co-exist (despire their contradictory stances) into the so-called New Testament is to overlook much of the material that has been left in the actual mangled Greek texts.

As for ho Iesous (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, which Americans call Jeezuzz) and his armed followers, do you really think that the Slave of the High Priest’s ear was sliced off with a butter knife left over from the ‘last supper’ ?

Do you deny that the earliest strands of the traditions ascribed to him had swords cutting real ears off?
What about ‘Do you imagine the Bar Enasha (‘son of man’ see Aram. Daniel 7:12-26) was sent to bring Peace to the land of Yisro’el?

By no means : For the Bar Enasha was sent NOT to bring PEACE but to Bring a Sword, to bring not Harmony upon the Land, but to bring Divisions – to set father against son and daughter against mother etc. so that a man’s enemies be they in his own house !”

Sounds pretty warrior-militaristic to me….and certainly explains some of the historical underpinnings as to why the man was strung up naked and spread eageled & castrated on a Roman gibbet in the first place !

reply to post by Sigismundus

. . . several Messianic Jewish groups all claiming to be followers of ‘Iesous’ out there in the wild –

That’s why modern serious textual bibilical scholars use the term ‘Christianities’ in the plural to more accurately describe the actual situation on the ground in real time.

Do you have any sources for this?
I think this sounds like some story make up by someone, maybe your "secret book" publishers.

You show a disdain for Greek as if it is inherently evil somehow. Hebrew is only a Canaanite dialect and Aramaic is the language of the Arameans, so I don't see them as being magically holy.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Hi Dewey

Here is some source material reading for your perusal - – I could get you a much much much longer list if you want – these are just handy at the moment..

The ones by Dr Ehrman are written for a general (i.e. non-Greek non-Aramaic reading-writing) public – some of the others pre-suppose that the reader understands some Greek & Hebrew and also Latin is helpful.

The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins- by James H. Charlesworth , Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins 1987 Princeton - ISBN 0800625633 (0-8006-2563-3) -Hardcover, Augsburg Fortress Publication

Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture - and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, USA. 2003. ISBN 0-19-514183-0. by Dr. Bart Ehrman, North Carolina University

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam MacCoby

Jesus within Judaism, by James H. Charlesworth - ISBN 0281044066 (0-281-04406-6)- SPCK Publishing

Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, James H. Charlesworth ISBN 0824510003 (0-8245-1000-3) - Softcover, Crossroad Pub Co

The Scrolls and the New Testament - by James H. Charlesworth , Krister Stendahl
ISBN 0824511360 (0-8245-1136-0)- Softcover, Crossroad Pub Co

The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins - by James H. Charlesworth , Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins 1987 Princeton T = ISBN 0800625633 (0-8006-2563-3)

Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future by James H. Charlesworth - ISBN 0824510127 (0-8245-1012-7

The Dead Sea Scrolls by D. Schwartz, James H. Charlesworth , R. E. Whitaker, Joseph M. Baumgarten, J.J.M. Roberts, M. T. Davis, J. Duhaime, Y. Ofer, Henry W. L. Rietz, Brent A. Strawn - ISBN 0664220371 (0-664-22037-1)

Odes of Solomon, the First Christian Hymn Book, by James H. Charlesworth
ISBN 082451257X (0-8245-1257-X) -Softcover, Crossroad Publishing Company

Hilel & Jesus: A Comparison - by James H. Charlesworth , Loren L. Johns
ISBN 0800625641 (0-8006-2564-1) Hardcover, Augsburg Fortress Pub

Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. Oxford University Press, USA. 2006. ISBN 0-19-530013-0.

New Testament Background: Selected Docs: Revised & Expanded Edition – C.K. Barrett (1995)

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. 2005. ISBN 0-06-073817-0.

Ehrman, Bart; Pleše, Zlatko (2011). The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-973210-4.

Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, by James H. Charlesworth ISBN 0300140177 (0-300-14017-7) -Softcover, Yale Univ Princeton

Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary by C.K. Barrett ISBN 0567088170 (0-567-08817-0)

The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1995. ISBN 0-8028-4824-9. Ed. Charlesworth

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, USA. 2011 [1996]. ISBN 0-19-973978-1.

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings. Oxford University Press, USA. 2003. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.

Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-516667-1.

These few listed about will give you a broad overview of the material believed by many o the very earliest Christianities that existed out there in the wild before all the later (and larger) Councils starting hemming them into one batch (read: declared others to be Heretical) which focused on a very limited (read: socially acceptable) set of ideas & theologies.

Elaine Pagels is always a good read if you have the time as well

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (1975), Fortress Press, ISBN 0-8006-0403-2

Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), Vintage Books, 241p., ISBN 0-375-50156-8

Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity together with Karen L. King, (2007), Viking Press, 224 p., ISBN 0-670-03845-8

Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation (2012), Viking Adult, ISBN 0-670-02334-5

Hope this helps !

reply to post by Sigismundus

Hope this helps !

I always like bibliographies but as far as answering my question, no.

I always felt that "YHWH" was only the rough approximation of a sound associated with "God." Onomatopoeia. And what is the sound? Well, it's a Doppler Shift sound created by having a base tone overlayed with a shifting upper frequency tone. Like the sound of a jet or a car zooming by you quickly.

EEEEYYYAAAAHHHHWWOOOOH... (the final "H" is like a nearly silent puff of breath)

This is the true name of God:


The Tuvans also use it in their throat singing: