jasonc65 wrote:The same goes for you. How do you know you have the name right?
I don’t read translations. When I study I use a number of Lexicons, and Dictionaries along with transcripts of the oldest manuscripts. As I’ve stated I don’t trust English translation, and studying has reinforced that view a thousand fold.
As for how do I know I have the name right. I don’t, not 100% anyway, but I do know 100% that Jesus was not his name. There was no J in any language of the time, so we know; the translators of every English translation know that it is not Jesus, so their refusal to even attempt to ascertain His true name discredits them and their work.
While there may be some debate as to rather it is Yahushua, or Yeshua. To me after studying Hebrew it quite clear that Yod Hey Waw Shin Ayin is pronounced Yahushua. The Yod Hey combination appears in many names in Scripture, i.e. YashaYahu/Isaiah and of course Yahuweh. The Ye in Yeshua is a rabbinical pronunciation used by many Messianics, because they believe that we should not pronounce Yahuweh’s name.
But why Yahushua is correct and Yeshua is incorrect is beside the point since virtually every English translation uses the obviously wrong Jesus.
jasonc65 wrote:You evidently don't have a high opinion of the New Testament, which I do believe is part of the Word of God. It is just as valid as the Old Testament. It is what God revealed to the apostles through the Holy Spirit.
I actually have a very high opinion of much of it, i.e. Yahuchanon/John, other parts I think are horrible, and should never have been considered Scripture, i.e. Galatians.
I am however leery of trusting what we find in our bibles, since they are not based on the oldest manuscripts, but instead on the majority text, which are mostly based on much later text, where whole sections and stories have been added to fit religious agendas.
Nothing Yahushua said or did contradicted anything Yahuweh inspired in the “Old Testament”. So if something does than one of two things is going on, either it shouldn’t have been there and considered Scripture, or it has been miss translated, and it is up to us to determine which the case is.
Psalm 19:7 wrote: Yahuweh’s Towrah (towrah – law and prescriptions for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahuweh’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded.
Matthew 5:19 wrote: Do not assume that I have come to weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish the Torah/Law or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and the earth pass away not one jot (iota – the smallest letter, or yodh in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia – the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by, be ignored, disobeyed, of be disregarded from that which was established in the Torah until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses the least of these commandments or teaches people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven.
jasonc65 wrote:And how do you know they were really placeholders? They might have simply been abbreviations.
It’s actually simple to determine that they were placeholders, by looking at Torah and other citations, and there use. If in the Torah Yahuweh’s name appears, and in the Greek KY with a live over the top appears, we know that the KY is a placeholder for Yahuweh.
jasonc65 wrote:I have seen people talk about these same issues on other forums, and they usually don't agree about the underlying causes of the facts. Yada says KY is a Greek acronym that means "Upright One"; others think it's short for Kyrios.
Again it is simple to determine what it means by looking at what we know. We know what was written in the Torah, Prophet and Psalms, and we can easily look at how they were used in the citations from them. If Kyrios was intended, why would they not just write Kyrios? And why would they decide it was okay to copy edit God.
jasonc65 wrote:I don't know who exactly is right, but I don't think God is going to throw me into hell over such a matter.
That’s a nice straw man since no one said he would.
My point was that while there was a perfectly good Greek word for Spirit, it was not used in the oldest manuscripts, that universally they used a placeholder, and that we can determine what that placeholder was for by looking at the Torah.
Then I suggested a reason why a placeholder might have been used when there was a Greek word that could have been used, namely the gender of the word. In the Hebrew the gender for every mention of the Spirit is Feminine, something which would have been impossible to reproduce with the Greek, since the word in Greek is gender neutral.
Your point was that there is not mention of the Spirit as being female, I was simply showing you evidence for why we should consider such. I never said that if you don’t view the Spirit as a female you would go to hell, or even that you wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t think such so I wouldn’t say such. I do think the realization that the Spirit plays the role of our Spiritual Mother does add to our understanding of God, which is the intent of Yada Yahuweh and thus this forum. We are all here to try to better understand Yahuweh.
So if you want to ignore all the evidence for the feminine nature of the Spirit, fine it doesn’t hurt me none. Your original post made it sound as though you were interested in understanding why we view it this way, and I was attempting to show you the reason. So again I don’t think you are going to hell for not seeing it this way. Personally I don’t know you or anything about you, so I am in no position to say one way or another, heck even if I knew you personally and knew most everything about you, it’s still not position to say such. All I can say is what I know, and what I understand, and then explain myself, which is all I have attempted to do. I think understanding the feminine nature of the Spirit adds to our understanding of Yahuweh.
It makes sense to me that Yahuweh would model himself in the familial relationship he wishes to enjoy with us. Father, Mother and Child that is what a family is, it makes sense to me that Yahuweh would model himself in that way. Which is why I think as cgb pointed out the Genesis 1:27 verse was worded the way it was.
Genesis 1:27 wrote: And God created the man in His image, in the image of God He created him – male and female He created them.
jasonc65 wrote:I have been on forums where people argue about the nature of the Holy Spirit, too. I gather that in some Eastern Orthodox traditions, the idea that the Holy Spirit is our mother is entertained. Still, I am not certain that is what the scripture clearly teaches. The Messiah's model prayer begins, "Our Father who art in heaven", not "Our father and mother who are in heaven".
Yes that prayer was directed at our Father that in no way negates the Spirit being feminine in nature. I pray to my Father every day. But look at the role that the Spirit plays, it is very much that of a mother. I.E. We are born of Spirit, who gives birth the mother or the father.
jasonc65 wrote:I don't think your idea of Yahshua's commandments is accurate. Yahweh gave the Torah through Moses to reveal our sins so we would be driven to Messiah. Messiah has fulfilled the law.
The Messiah has not fulfilled all of the Torah; three of the seven miqra have not been fulfilled. Yahushua said that till heaven and Earth pass away not one jot or tittle would be done away with. Not the smallest letter or stroke would be changed.
jasonc65 wrote:Yahshua has given his own commandments, such as to love one another.
That was not a new commandment or an abrogation of anything. He was asked the most important commandment and replied with Love Yahuweh your God with all your heart all your all your strength all your soul and all your mind, and that second is love your neighbor as yourself. i think he included mind in there for a reason, he wants us to think about and reason through His Word.
This was not new, and not an abrogation, it was an answer to a question, the question being the most important commandment, not what are your commandments, or which commandments should we follow.
jasonc65 wrote:I do not understand by this saying that we must keep the whole Torah. The very nature of the commandments is that we cannot keep them all.
So because we can’t keep it perfectly we shouldn’t try? We should just ignore them? No we can’t keep them all perfectly, which is why Yahuweh built within the Torah the means for our forgiveness, but just because we can be forgiven from our transgressions doesn’t mean we should just go about transgressing.
A friend of mine use to tell a joke: “Jesus died for your sins, so if you don’t sin then he died for nothing.”
Sadly that seems to be the mindset of many.
Yahuweh’s Torah was given for our benefit. Observing it benefits us in many ways, most importantly they teach us about the nature of Yahuweh and the nature of the relationship he desires.
Another thread discusses this pretty well
http://forum.yadayahweh....with-YHWH.aspx#post18362 Post 6 is great.
jasonc65 wrote:Moses put up with divorce and polygamy because of the hardness of men's hearths.
Divorce was also necessary in that Yahuweh knew the time would come when he would have to divorce Israel because of her infidelity, Hosea.
jasonc65 wrote: Sacrifices were part of the law, and yet I'm sure we both agree that that part of the law was fulfilled. Just as Yeshua and the apostles do not tell us to continue to make sacrifices, they do not tell us to keep other parts of the Torah, including circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and celebrating feasts, days, and weeks.
One I think verses like the Matthew one above make it very clear that yes he did teach that we should follow all those.
But more important than what he says is what he doesn’t say, nowhere does he tell us that we are to disregard any of it. Nowhere does he say not to keep the feast, not to keep the Sabbath, not to circumcise, not to observe the Torah. In fact he says that whoever dismisses the least of these commandments or teaches people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven.
So yes he does tell us to keep all of them.
jasonc65 wrote:Maybe Yada didn't, but that sure sounded like his tone in some parts of his books. In other words, you don't have to be circumcised, but if you were truly saved, you would be.
What Yada does is point out several verses which link lack of circumcision to being left out of the covenant. But if you love Yahuweh why would you not want to honor his request and be circumcised. I’m not saying that those who are uncircumcised will be kept out of heaven, but I don’t see why someone wouldn’t just do it. Why do so many people strive to find reasons not to.
jasonc65 wrote:This is the condescending tone used by Lordship Salvation proponents.
I don’t know what Lordship Salvation is so I can’t comment on that.
While I don’t see Yada’s style as condescending, I could easily see how some might consider it abrasive. Yada is very convinced of his understandings, and states them very bluntly. That said he is very open minded and very open to critique provided it is reasoned and claims are backed up.
jason65 wrote:You are changing the subject. I was addressing the fact that Yahshua called Elohim Father. He does so in his prayer, when his disciples ask him to teach them to pray. I nowhere said he called his Father Lord.
It’s not changing the subject; your statement was that you don’t hear Yahushua refereeing to Yahuweh. My point was that our English translation have removed it, and that anytime you see him use LORD, he is really using Yahuweh, so yes Yahushua does refer to our Father as Yahuweh, in addition to Father. I have no problem using Father; I use it all the time when I talk to Him. But my point was a direct response to your statement that he doesn’t refer to Him as Yahuweh.
jasonc65 wrote:I'm not saying we shouldn't try to understand the best we can. But there comes a point where arguments about words become pointless. We get sidetracked about the the form of words, and we lose focus on their meaning. We get sidetracked about trivial matters and leave behind the essentials.
I disagree completely. I think the better we understand the words that Yahuweh and Yahushua used the better and deeper we understand the message. Using as an example the cross, when you study the word and learn that it is not cross, but upright pole, you are then able to link it to a concept that flows throughout the Torah, Prophet and Psalms. And you gain a deeper understanding.
Can you take this to an extreme? Yeah. If I were to say that if you use Messiah instead of Ma'aseyah you are going to hell and you don’t know Yahuweh at all, then I would be an idiot. But if as friends discussing Yahuweh’s word I explained that Ma’aseyah is more accurate, and that it means implement doing the work of Yah, as opposed to Messiah which means anointed one. I think the one gives us a deeper understanding of His mission, but if you choose to continue to use Messiah then fine.
Another example I would never say that no one who calls Him Jesus knows Him. But I would say that Jesus is entirely wrong, and we shouldn’t, and I would wonder why someone who knows the Truth would ignore it.
jasonc65 wrote:We take a mystery-novel approach to the good and beneficial message and render it indiscernible.
I don’t think we take it that way at all. I think we view Yahuweh’s word as an onion with many many layers, and the deeper understanding we can get the better.
jasonc65 wrote:The Gnostics sought esoteric knowledge; now you are seeking historical secrets that are just as esoteric because they are inaccessible to all but the most studious scholars.
A difference being esoteric is un provable and historic is. But again it’s just trying to peel back the onion and get a deeper understanding. Yahushua said seek and you shall find, or more accurately continuously seek and you shall find. All we are doing is continuing to seek. I don’t see what is wrong with seeking to better understand Yahuweh, and I don’t see any better way to understand Him than to closely examine and study His Word.
jasonc65 wrote:And then you all but base your salvation on them.
I don’t base my salvation at all on my knowledge. But I find I strengthen my relationship with Yahuweh when I study his Word. I almost never feel as close to Him as I do when I am dissecting His Word verse by verse and Word by Word.
I don’t go around looking down on people and condemning them because they don’t have as much of an understanding of the underlying Hebrew of Scripture as I do, just as those who have a better understanding than I don’t look down or judge me. Now if I am having a conversation with someone and it comes up, I will point out what I view as inaccuracies in their understandings, and point out why. I will point out to my Christian friends and family that the cross is a pagan symbol and not in Scripture, but if they choose to ignore it I am fine with that. My only job is to expose lies and corruptions and witness to the truth.
This forum is a place where we have come together and study, so yes here we are more demanding that people don’t use incorrect vocabulary. We don’t want people using Jesus here when it is demonstrably incorrect.
jasonc65 wrote:The healing and beneficial message (which Yada calls it) is not a big secret; it was plainly taught by the apostles and revealed in the New Testament.
Yes it was clearly taught, however over the centuries religion has attempted to cover up, and corrupt it. Which is why exposing things like Galatian’s which contradicts Yahuweh and Yahushua is important.
jasonc65 wrote:The scholars you are learning from are no less fallible than the ones the church has relied upon. They can just as easily be wrong. You can be just as wrong about your interpretations of the facts as all traditions of men.
YES, YES and YES. I acknowledge I can be wrong; I have been wrong before and will be wrong again. That said if I am wrong, I want to be told I am wrong, but I also need to be convinced that I am wrong. I was an atheist/agnostic, and it took a lot of convincing for me to finally acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It took years of studying for me to come to the understandings I have, and they have been refined and polished along the way, as people were able to explain to me that I was wrong and why. So if you think I have come to errant conclusions please explain to me why. That was the whole reason I engage in this forum.
jasonc65 wrote:Actually, you are setting up a religion with your knowledge, which is not the facts but your interpretation of the facts.
While everyone here would agree that it is our understandings of Scripture that we are espousing, I fail to see how it is a religion. All we are doing is stating our understanding, which is not the same for everyone here (if you really take a look around the forum you will find a lot of disagreement), and defending it. How is this religion? No one here has said that you have to read Yada Yahweh and come to the exact understanding it has to go to heaven. Heck even YY itself has changed over the years. If you were to read it now and 6 years ago you would think they were two different books. So I fail to see how we are creating a religion. We are merely trying to help each other better understand.
jasonc65 wrote:The right way has been known all along, by people who call themselves Christian, whether you acknowledge it or not.
Which people calling themselves Christian would that be, the Catholics, the Greek orthodox, or did they only get right with the reformation and Martin Luther, or was it Calvin’s Christian ideas that had it right? Or is it only the Christians you know? Baptist think that you’re going to Hell if you drink alcohol do they have it right? Mormon’s think Caffeine will do it. If a Christian today were to travel back 400 years they couldn’t be recognized as a Christian by the Christians of the day.
Have there always been those that Knew Yahuweh, yes, usually they were a minority, but they did exist, did they have the same understanding I have NO. I’ve said elsewhere on the forum that the one thing I think all of Yahuweh’s family has in common is a mindset, a desire to want to know Him. It’s not how much you know and understand, but how much you want to know and understand. While I would include some Christian’s in this category, most of the ones I have meetI think are apathetic and happy just to go to church on Sunday and call it quits at that, they have now desire to seek Him.
jasonc65 wrote:You are teaching another way which is not another.
I’m not teaching anything. I am a student as much as anyone, I explain what I have learned to others in hopes of r3efining my understanding, but I do not claim to have all the answers at all. Christians however do claim this, which is why most don’t bother to seek, they feel they have already found all the answers.
jasonc65 wrote:The way that has been known is to believe in the Son of God (John 3:16), whom God sent into the world so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
Here is a perfect example of where language and words are important, and why our translations are so bad. The word is not believe, it is trust and rely, trust and reliance is not the same as belief, it is the antithesis of it. Belief is in that which one doesn’t know and understand, trust and reliance is dependent upon knowing and understanding.
jasonc65 wrote:If people in the church who have understood and taught this way have not understood it, then I don't know who has; certainly you haven't. It is the way I believe and I am not changing my mind. Either John 3:16 is inspired, or I am damned. That is where I stand.
Yes trusting and relying on Yahushua and Yahuweh is the key, but why stop there? And you have to get to the point where you can trust and rely on them, and that requires effort, that requires getting to know them, getting to understand them, coming to love them. A good fiend once said that Salvation is the byproduct of having a relationship with Yahuweh, not the reason to have a relationship with Yahuweh.
All I do is seek to better my relationship with Him, and to learn more about Him. If you are satisfied saying you believe in Him and that is all that matters to you, then that is fine with me, but don’t condemn me. I 100% trust and rely on Yahushua for my salvation, but I still seek to get to know him better. I trust my friends to be there for me when I need them, but I still seek to know and understand them better as well, it is the essence of having a relationship with them.
jasonc65 wrote:This arguing about words is silly. It does not increase anyone's understanding, and it does not save anyone.
Then don’t engage in a discussion about words. I find it very enlightening to study and discuss the words Yahuweh choose, so I choose to engage in it. No one come on to a forum dedicated to studying Yahuweh’s word, word by word, and engage in a debate. If you find it useless and pointless that is fine, what does it hurt you if we find it to be helpful and insightful for us to study it. If we want to spend hours discussing rather chodesh is new or renewed, what does it hurt you, no one is making you engage.
You came on here and started a discussion about rather the Spirit is feminine or masculine, a subject of interest to many of us we engaged in the discussion. If you think it doesn’t matter rather one views the spirit as feminine or masculine, then disengage from the discussion.
jasonc65 wrote:Agreed. I don't know if it's really painful or not, but I have heard people say it is, and I am secure enough in my salvation in Jesus that I know I do not need to go through this whatever it is.
That’s good for you. I hope for your sake you are right. Like I said I had no say in my circumcision, like most people who have it done I was an infant. That said when I have a son I will have him circumcised, not because I think either he or I will go to hell if I don’t, but because Yahuweh said we should, and asked me to do it, and there’s really no reason not to. I think the symbolism behind it is profound, and when and if my son asks why I did it I will explain it to him, it’s a great teaching tool.
jasonc65 wrote:I am interested in understanding and studying what Yahweh (or however you pronounce his name) has said. I would rather be with Christianity and with what Yeshua has said than to be against both.
As I see it there are times when I am with Christian’s and times when I think what Yahushua taught is completely against Christianity. I think when Christianity teaches the celebration of pagan festivals like Easter and Christmas, they are diametrically opposed to what Yahuweh taught.
