"The biggest mission field in America is professing Christianity".
John MacArthur
OK, a few clarifications and definitions to answer questions like,
"What does that mean? Why did you use that word?"
G-d = Elohim. Elohim is a term used for greatness, strength, or deity. G-d is derived from pagan deities. It's not a good thing to call the King of the Universe by the name of some false deity. See Leviticus 23:13
Why do I put a hyphen in the word g-d? To prevent any kind of glory being given to a false deity.
The L-RD, or the L-rd = Yahweh (YHWH). When the Psalm writer says (in our English translations) "Blessed be the name of the L-ORD" we remain ignorant of just what His Name is. YHWH are the four consonants of His Name. There is some discussion over just which vowels are between the consonants, but most scholars agree it should be Yahweh.
What we do know for sure is that His Name is NOT L-RD. L-rd is also derived from pagan deities, so it falls into the same category as G-d. Besides, there are many pagan L-rds such as the thousands you'll find in Hinduism.
George Harrison of the Beatles fame sung of "My Sweet L-rd." He was not referring to Yahweh, but a Hindu deity. Sorry if that bursts your bubble.
Sadly, "My Sweet L-rd" probably is sung in some worship services today. It's not hard to believe, since so many "Christian" rock/worship groups simply re-record old classic rock songs. It amazes me now how we could sing so many "worship" songs that never even mentioned G-d directly at all. I could've been singing to, or about, anybody.
Old Testament = Tanak, or the the Torah of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms as Yahshua referred to them in Luke 24:44
Testament = Covenant. The Scriptures version quotes Dr Bullinger in The Companion Bible, Appendix 95:
"The word Testament as a translation of the Greek word diatheke (which means covenant), has been nothing less than a great calamity; for, by its use, truth has been effectively veiled all through the centuries; causing a wrong turn to be taken...errors of tradition have usurped the place of important truth. The word Testament as a name for a collectionof books is unknown to Scripture. It come to us through the Latin Vulgate."
Testamonium was a Roman "omen of death." Therefore, we should say Old Covenant at least.
New Testament = Renewed Covenant. See previous blogs for this explanation.
Jesus = Yahshua. Yahshua is the Hebrew name of the Jewish Messiah
Christ = Annointed = Messiah = Moshiach in Hebrew.
Names that begin with "J" = Names that begin with "Y"
Joshua = Yehoshua
Joel = Yo'el
John = Yohanan
Joseph = Yoseph
Jude = Yehudah
James = Ya'acov
Y'all understand that? (Sorry, had to throw that one in. That's southern Hebrew)
Did you notice James in the list? Yep. The Book of James is actually Ya'acov. It's not even close is it?
Another name that needs to be corrected:
Mary = Miriam
One more,
Paul = Sha'ul
Looking at the names of Mary and James certainly brings up a question.
Why are the true Hebrew names for both of these used repeatedly in the Tanak, yet when we get to the Renewed Covenant they are changed to an name form which hides their Jewishness?
Is this intentional? Many say it is, that it betrays an underlining antisemitism in modern translations. In any case, it is certainly a subtle way of influencing and prejudicing our understanding of Scriptural matters.
Law = Torah. While law is the closest English word to convey the Greek word nomos, the Hebrew word Torah is much broader in meaning. Such meanings include "to teach"and "to instruct." Torah refers to the first five books of Scripture, also known as the Law of Moses.
No, Virginia, this is not the same as the movie, "Tora, Tora, Tora" about the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor.
The Greek word may also represent ideas or meanings other than Torah from time to time. Some times it refers to a body of rules or system of behavior that may be man made. This is part of what leads to so much confusion regarding the writings of Sha'ul. Just which set of laws is he referring to at any given time?
Perhaps this is one of the reasons Peter (Kefa) warns us that the writings of Sha'ul are difficult to understand and easily twisted.
Are you aware Rabbinic Judaism considered their own writings and commentaries on Torah to actually supersede the written Torah?
"My son, be careful concerning Rabbinical decrees even more than the Torah...the Torah contains prohibitions...but anyone who violates Rabbinical decree is worthy of death." Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 21b.
Most, if not all, of the Scriptures used as proof texts to show the Law is done away, come from the writings of Sha'ul. Keep in mind that Sha'ul was a Pharisee. He knew all about the Rabbinic decrees. He had probably taught them himself before his encounter with the Messiah.
It is clear to me now that when you finally grasp the understanding Sha'ul refers to more than one "law", it will go a long way toward clearing up the confusion about Yahweh's Torah. Hopefully, you'll begin to realize that it was the man-made laws that needed to be done away - not the loving instructions a loving Elohim gave to His children.
2 comments:
I have often wondered why you left a letter out of the generic terms for deity. I had assumed (shame on me) that it was a holdover from Jewish tradition of fear to even write The Name (Hashem).
Though I have often thought that refering to our Creator as simply "God" was a bit disingenuous. As far as I could tell, "God" was derived from Germanic languages anyway. In the least, referring to Him by his TITLES differenciates Him from all pretenders (and thus the first commandment).
As I am of Germanic/English heritage, I am not sure that we should be so fast to distance ourselves from the various vocalizations of Biblical names as you have done. And ONE of your Hebrew names seems to be a concession to the current Hebrew language with its disavowing of the New Covenental record.
You insist on calling Paul(us) Sha'ul. The vocalization of the "S" may have indeed been "S" rather than "Sh" (both are possible). However, early on, Saul began to be called "Paul." [I guess this COULLD have been discriptive: Paulus = "little"] This seems to be the prefered name he took when he adressed the church in his epistles. Unless, of course, the entire record has been corrupted in being translated into Greek (though "Saul, called Paul" seems to be intentional in Luke's record).
As for James = "Ya'acov," I finally found the derivation of "James." It seems that for some phonetic reason, the "m" replaced the "b" in the Latin form "Jacobus" > "Jacomus" > "Ja'mus" > "James." Apparently the lazy speech of "southern" England just couldn't handle three syllables! The week "co" just disappeared.
And why not "B" as a vocalization of the Beth? The actual SOUND of the letter is actually a cross between the "B" and the "V."
And what's with the "ph"? Why not just spell it with the "f" (a Germanic invention from the Greek "digamma," I believe). In the Hebrew transliteration you may as well write a "p."
You touch on an important point. The Jews have as much pagan influenced baggage as do Christians. They picked up the idea you shouldn't say the Sacred Name in Babylon. Hence, today the Chumash and other Jewish Biblical publications use terms like Hashem, or Adonai in place of where the Scripture actually says YHWH.
Today modern Jewish sources that use G-d or L-rd insert the hyphen just as I have here. The reason they give is that it prevents them from writing out the Sacred Name - thus, they avoid violating what they consider to be a commandment not to mention His Name except on Yom Kippur.
It's easy to fall into that belief. Early in my walk, I heard a highly respected Hebraic Scholar expound on why you should not speak the Name. His argument was quite persuasive. Briefly, he said we wouldn't call our earthly Father by his first name - it would be disrespectful. So, neither should we address the Almighty by His Name. After his talk, I found myself agreeing with him. I thought that perhaps I had been wrong about using Yahweh instead of Hashem.
Fortunately, I caught myself by remembering to ask the question: "Where does is say that in Scripture?" It doesn't.
R.C Sproul, a modern theologian I highly respect, said ( I paraphrase) that all of us 'fall asleep at the wheel' at one time or another. What he meant was that as hard as we try, there are times when we just plain blow it. Our logic goes out the window and we end up making an erroneous assumption. I believe the Jews have had one of those moments when it comes to the Name of YHWH.
But, now that it's done, tradition has cemented it in place. This doctrine is now as firmly set as Scripture itself.
Alas, in the Christian church, there is a list of such hardened 'doctrines' that would be totally foreign to the first century believers, yet are considered orthodox today.
Post a Comment