 Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC) Posts: 2,616  Location: Texas Thanks: 5 times Was thanked: 215 time(s) in 149 post(s)
|
D J has replied to Carig again. DJ wrote:I am the one deeply sorry for what Satan has done to your mind. The bible says 'But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god (Satan/devil/adversy) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.' 2 Cor. 4:4 Yada wrote:I am not surprised that you have mentioned Satan and based your answer upon 2 Corinthians. In it, Paul not only makes some of the same delusional claims Muhammad made regarding his visit to multiple heavens, he openly acknowledges that he was demon possessed. So it was Satan working through Paul who conceived your religion. Paul's conversion experience was also Satanic according to Yahowsha' and Yahowah. And that is why Paul, in Acts, attributed Dionysus's most famous quote to the flashing light he experienced. That light was the Whore of Babel. And the goad he spoke of is mentioned again in 2 Corinthians where the connection is made to demon possession. It is the same stinger Yahowsha' warns us about. I prove these points and many more regarding Paul in www.QuestioningPaul.com. While reading it won't save your soul, it will point you in the right direction. You see, I was once a Christian. I was an ordained ruling elder. I taught evangelism, and I was a trained Stephen's minister. I gave sermons and led bible studies. But, somewhere along the way I came to realize that God cannot be born or die, and that a cross is a pagan symbol, which not only completely undermined the basis of Christianity, but also directly associated the belief system with Dionysus, Bacchus, Osiris, and Tammuz. And then I came to realize that Christmas, Lent, Easter, Halloween, Sunday Worship, Mass, the Eucharist, and the Madonna and Child were based upon those same religions. I did some investigating and found that the name Jesus was conceived in the 17th century, that there is no basis for it or Christ in Scripture, and that Grace is the name of a pagan goddess, as are Bible and Church. I dug a little deeper and discovered that there are over 300,000 discrepancies between the Textus Receptus and older, more reliable manuscripts. The fact is, it is impossible to accurately reconstruct the accounts and letters written in the first century ce, and even if it could be done, Greek was already a translation of a translation. From this point I learned Hebrew and Greek and discovered that our English translations differ from what is written in the oldest manuscripts by more than fifty percent. And there are entire sections, like the opening of John, who is actually Yahowchanan, 8 which do not appear in any manuscript prior to the 8th century. But that is relatively good news compared to what I found next. While Yahowah's testimony in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms and the translations we have of Yahowsha's testimony match, they are wholly incomparable with Paul's letters and Christian doctrine. If God told the truth, then Paul and Christians are lying. Christians universally ignore the terms and conditions required to engage in the beryth - covenant relationship with Yahowah, the first of which is to turn away from religion and politics. They have been led to believe by Paul that there is a new covenant, one which replaced the old one, and that they were saved from the Torah by it. But that is the antithesis of what Yahowah and Yahowsha' said. And as evidence of this, I've pasted below the entirety of the passage Christians take out of context to infer otherwise. And Christians universally ignore the lone path to eternal life, redemption, and reconciliation Yahowah provided. They do not celebrate Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, Seven Sabbaths, Trumpets, Reconciliations, or Shelters, even though Yahowsha' not only observed them, but also honored Yahowah's promises by personally engaging to to the work required to facilitate the first four of these seven steps. Each has been replaced by a pagan counterfeit. For anyone who has an open mind and who investigates the available evidence, especially the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms and the Ma'aseyah Yahowsha's Sermon on the Mount, it is obvious that virtually all of the available evidence affirms that Christianity is not only wrong, it is Satanic. According to Yahowah, ha Satan, whose name is Heylel ben Shachar, uses religion to deceive and lure people away from Him. His tools are babel, which is the mixing of lies and corruptions of the truth to make the counterfeit beguiling, and to remove His name, Yahowah and Yahowsha', replacing it with Satan's title "Lord - Ba'al." You, and billions like you, have been deceived by the Adversary--falling prey to the same scheme deployed against Adam and Chawah (Eve is a pagan name) in the Sheltered Enclosure of Joy, aka Gan Eden. One day almost ten years ago now, God Yahowah, asked me to expose and condemn Islam using the words of its prophet and god. You like millions of others have stumbled upon the fruit of that labor. But after completing that job, Yah gave me a new one--to expose and condemn the religions of Christianity and Judaism using His Word. And while I have compiled some 3000 pages of amplified translations and etymological studies based upon them, my latest two books are especially relevant for a defender of the Christian religion. I've already given you the URL for www.QuestioningPaul.com. And I have attached my current incomplete draft of An Introduction to God. If you can open your mind, if you can handle questioning your religion, they will be of great benefit to you. Now, here is that excerpt I promised... Quote:“Behold (hineh – look, listen, and pay close attention to what follows), days (yowmym – times) are coming (bow’ – will arrive and will return), prophetically declares (na’um – foretells, predicts, and reveals) Yahowah (YaHoWaH), when (wa) I will cut (karat – I will create, completely establishing and totally stipulating, I will actually make by way of separation (qal stem affirms reality and perfect conjugation speaks of an act which is total, complete, and indivisible)) relationally with (‘eth – as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the household and family (bayth – the home) of Yisra’el (yisra’el – those who strive and contend with, engage, persist, and endure with, are set free and are empowered by God) and relationally with (wa ‘eth – as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the household and family (bayth – the home) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – those who are related to and engage with Yah) a renewed and restored (chadash – a renewing, restoring, repairing, and reaffirming) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth – family and home, a mutually binding partnership promise, solemn oath, and active alliance, and a participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and encourages).” (Yirmayahuw / Yahowah Uplifts / Jeremiah 31:31)
The part of this verse which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament,” miss, is that the renewal and restoration of the “beryth – Covenant” isn’t with Gentiles or their church, but instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christians or Christianity. It’s game over.
As a result, the only question worth debating in this passage is whether chadash should be translated “new” or “renewed,” as both are etymologically acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair the Covenant presented in the Towrah with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?
To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of chadash, sometimes transliterated, hadas, is “to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm.” Of the ten times this verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is translated: “restore and reaffirm” in 1 Samuel 11:14, “renewed and repaired” in 2 Chronicles 15:8, “to repair” in 2 Chronicles 24:4, “to repair and mend” in 2 Chronicles 24:12, “renewed” in Job 10:7, “renew” in Psalms 51:12, “renewed” in Psalms 103:5, again as “renewed” in Psalms 104:30, “repair” in Isaiah 61:4, and “renew and restore” in Lamentations 5:21.
As such, this passage actually reads: “Behold (hineh), days (yowmym) are coming (bow’), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (YaHoWaH), when (wa) I will actually cut (karat) relationally with (‘eth) the household and family (bayth) of Yisra’el (yisra’el) and on behalf of (wa ‘eth) the household and family (bayth) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah) a renewing, restoring, and repairing (chadash – with the secondary meaning being: a renewed, repaired, and restored) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth).” (Yirmayahuw 31:31) And in this way, Yahowah is saying that His Covenant “is renewing,” that it “is restoring,” and that it “will be affirmed,” as it “will repair” the relationship He has had with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el.
While this rendering of the 31st verse of Yirmayahuw is completely valid, it isn’t necessarily the conclusion you would come to if you casually looked up chadash in your favorite lexicon. Strong’s, for example, presents S2319 chadash (חָדַשׁ) as “new,” and then they claim that it was translated “new” 48 times [in the King James Version for which their concordance was created]. But look closely. The initial Strong’s entry regarding this word reveals that it is “From S2318 chadash (חָדָשׁ),” which they define as “to renew, to make anew, and to repair.” But that is misleading. It is actually the same word. As is chodesh (חֹדֶשׁ), which is translated “month” 254 times according to Strong’s. Therefore, the same three letters can be used to convey a verb, an adjective, and a noun—something which is quite common in Hebrew, as well as most ancient languages.
So while there is absolutely no textual distinction between these three forms of chadash in the Divine Writ, the Masoretes created one—and it is that variation which has caused modern lexicons to make three words out of one. This known, there was an additional slight of scholastic hand in operation here. In Hebrew, like most all languages, verbs rule. Because they are active, they shape the meaning of the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs which are based upon them. For example, if you are diligent in your Scriptural study, you will discover that the root of most nouns, adjectives, and adverbs are verbs. But in this particular case, we find a very telling contrived exception to the rule.
I share this with you because the verbal definition, which in the case of chadash/hadas is “to renew, to repair, to restore, and to reaffirm,” should have prevailed. In fact, it is from the root meaning of “chadash – renewal and restoration” that chodesh/hodes became “month,” as the light reflected from the moon’s surface was “renewed and restored.”
That is not to say, however, that the adjective chadash/hadas cannot be translated “new.” It can be when the context dictates. It only means that if there are two equally viable options, as there are in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:31, we should choose the form which is consistent with the verbal root. And that becomes especially important if the other option would have God contradicting Himself.
As further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being an appropriate translation of chadash/hadas in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirmayahuw and Yasha’yahuw, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe chadash/hadas, by rendering it “renewed,” or especially “restored,” we achieve a substantially more enlightening result than translating this word “new.”
These things known, the next line seems to suggest that there will be a new covenant, one different than the one whose terms and conditions were delineated in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without seriously contradicting other statements He has made, and in so doing, rendering Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?
“It will not be exactly the same as (lo’ ka – it will not be identical to) the (ha) Covenant (beriyth – familial relationship, marriage vow, binding agreement, and pledge) which relationally (‘asher) I cut (karat – created through separation) with (‘et) their fathers (‘abowtam) in the day when (ba yowm) firmly grasping Me (hazaq – I repaired, renewed, and restored them, I established, sustained and supported them, I caused them to prevail and grow, as they were strengthened and encouraged by My power and authority) in their hand (ba yad – by them taking initiative, engaging, and reaching out) I led them out (yasa’ – I descended, extended Myself, and I served them by guiding them away) from (min) the realm (‘erets) of the crucible of Egypt (mitsraym – a metaphor for human religious, political, economic, and military oppression and divine judgment), which relationally (‘asher) they broke, disassociating themselves (parar – they violated and nullified, they frustrated, tore apart, and shattered, and they split away) from (‘eth) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – My nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth – family and home, My mutually binding partnership promise, My solemn oath and active alliance, and My participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and encourages), though (wa) I (‘anky) was married to them (ba ba’al hem – I was their husband), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (YaHoWaH).” (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:32)
This affirms that the original Covenant was honored by God when He “hazaq – reached out to His people, and grasped hold of them, to renew and restore them,” “yasa’ min – leading them away from” “mitsraym – the crucible of religious and political oppression and divine judgment.” But, now, since Yisra’el and Yahuwdah subsequently “parar ‘eth beryth – broke their end of the agreement, and disassociated themselves from the relationship, the “beryth – Covenant Agreement” must be “chadash – reaffirmed, repaired, renewed and restored.”
The question now becomes: how is God going to do this without contradicting Himself? And what we find is a solution which is not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion. Yahowah said:
“Indeed (ky – surely and truly) with this (ha zo’th – in conjunction with these conditions and provisions the) Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth – reciprocal partnership, active alliance, and engaged agreement, mutually binding and nurturing promise, solemn oath and participatory pledge, based upon a marriage vow) which relationally (‘asher) I will cut (karat – I will create and establish through separation) with (‘eth – and alongside) the House (bayth – household and family) of Yisra’el (yisra’el – those who strive and contend with, who engage, persist, and endure with, who are set free and are empowered by God) after (‘ahar – following) those days (ha yowm hem – that time), prophetically declares (na’um – predicts and promises) Yahowah (YaHoWaH), I will actually give My Towrah, completely providing and producing My Teaching and Instruction (natan ‘eth Towrah – I will reliably bestow and totally devote My Direction and My Guidance as a gift, putting it (here the qal stem affirms that this will actually occur and the perfect conjugation tells us that the gift of the Towrah will be whole and complete, indivisible and uninterruptible throughout time)) within their inner nature (ba qereb – internally, inside their person, within their core and midst, becoming part of their psychological makeup, thoughts, and emotions). And (wa) upon (‘al – as the Almighty concerning) their heart (leb – speaking of their source of life, and the seat of love, volition, feelings, attitude, and character) I will actually write it (katab – I will genuinely engrave and inscribe it (written in the qal relational stem, telling us that we can rely upon this occurring, and in the imperfect conjugation, affirming that it will produce ongoing results throughout time, with the first person singular prefix, saying that God, Himself will be doing the writing, and with the third person feminine singular suffix, telling us that it is the Towrah, which is a feminine noun, which will be inscribed)). And (wa) I shall be (hayah – I will always, reliably, and without interruption or exception be (qal stem perfect conjugation)) God (‘elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves shall be (hayah – they will always and reliably exist, eternally receiving the complete benefits of (qal relational stem affirming the genuineness of this promise, and imperfect conjugation which tells us that there will be ongoing and unfolding assistance and advantages associated with being considered)) to and for Me as (la la) family (‘am).” (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:33)
The insights provided by the unique relational aspects of Hebrew tenses require greater diligence on our behalf, but they are worth the investment of our time, especially in passages like this one. It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that the affirmations they provide regarding the unfolding and continuous results we can expect from God giving His Torah to us, placing His Instructions and Teaching inside of us, and writing His Guidance and Direction on our hearts, are as essential to our inclusion in God’s Covenant Family as anything ever written. Again, you're not going to tell me Jesus Christ, which ur right, is not a last name; it is referred to stature - the Jesus Anointed one, did not walk the face of the earth for one reason alone. Yada wrote:Wake up, Denise. Think. The name "Jesus" is wrong. It is invalid. It is horribly misleading. It negates the most important possible realization. It was first conceived in the 17th century. There is no basis for it in any of the first through third century Greek manuscripts. Placeholders were used to tell you where to look to know and understand His name. The Ma'aseyah's name is Yahowsha'. It means Yahowah Saves. Understanding this is absolutely essential to a person's salvation. Titles precede names and many, like this one, must be preceded by the definite article. It is not Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, or even Yahowsha' Christ. It is ha Ma'aseyah Yahowsha', meaning "the Work of Yah is Yah's Salvation." If you study the oldest manuscripts you will find that the title you cite as Christ was never written. A placeholder was used to point those who observe Yahowah's Word to the place where they would find and understand Ma'aseyah. Also, if you study Greek, you will learn that Christ was based upon chiro, which speaks of the application of drugs. Further, the evidence available to us tells us that the placeholders for Ma'aseyah were based upon the Greek word chrestus, not chiro, and thus meant "the work of an upright servant." These facts known, there is another problem conveyed in your Christian apologetic. You are not only using an errant and misleading name and title, one that separates Yahowsha' from Yahowah, you are focusing on the diminished manifestation of God rather than upon God. If you knew God, you would be speaking and writing on behalf of Yahowah, as did Yahowsha'. Here is a review of some of the evidence pertaining to the errant name and title you are fixated upon. Quote:Now that we understand the most important name in the universe, let’s turn our attention to the second: Yahowsha’ – or sometimes transliterated Yahuwshuwa’, or simply Yahushua, even Yahshua. (The alternative ending (shuwa’ versus sha’) is derived from Deuteronomy 3:21 and Judges 2:7, where we find יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, as opposed to יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.) This name is equal parts an identity designation and a mission statement. As a compound of Yahowah’s name and yasha’, the Hebrew word for “salvation and deliverance,” Yahowsha’ tells us that Yahowah Himself is engaged in the process of saving us.
As for the name “Jesus,” which is more familiar to most of you, it is important to note that it cannot be found anywhere in God’s Word. As a matter of fact, there was and is no J in the Hebrew alphabet—nor one in Greek or Latin. The letter was not invented until the mid 16th-century, precluding anyone named “Jesus” existing prior to that time.
The letter J was first introduced by the Italian Renaissance humanist and grammarian, Gian Giorgio Trissino, who, while studying Latin texts in 1524, wrote Trissino’s Epistle about the Letters Recently Added in the Italian Language, to advocate the enrichment of Italian by using Greek characters to better distinguish between various sounds. His recommendations were universally ignored, save the modern distinction between the U and V as well as the letter I versus what would eventually become a J. In the aftermath of Trissino’s writings, his J was pronounced similarly to the Y in yet. But by the 17th-century, first in France (with the word junta), then in Germany and England, a new, harder sound, similar to the J in jet emerged, some say in association with Trissino’s Epistle.
The first English book to make a clear distinction between the “I” and “J” was published in 1634, where the new letter débuted on loan words from other languages, specifically Hallelujah rather than Halaluyah (meaning: radiate Yahowah’s brilliant light). (For those who relish dates, you may have noticed that 1634 is twenty-three years after the first edition of what was then called “The King Iames Bible” was printed in 1611. In it, Yahowsha’ was called “Iesous.”)
Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that no one named “Jesus” lived in the 1st-century CE. “Jesus” is a falsified and manmade 17th-century forgery. More troubling still, “Jesus” is most closely allied linguistically with “Gesus” (pronounced “Jesus,”), the savior of the Druid religion (still practiced throughout England), wherein the “Horned One” was considered god.
There are a plethora of Christian (a title we will refute momentarily) apologists who errantly claim that “Jesus” was a transliteration of the Greek Iesou, Iesous, and Iesoun. The problem with that theory is four fold. Yahowsha’ wasn’t Greek; He was Hebrew. The Greek Iota is pronounced like the English I, rather than the come-lately J. The “u,” “us,” and “un” endings were derivatives of Greek grammar and gender, without a counterpart in Hebrew or English. And most importantly, you won’t find Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun written on any page of any first-, second-, third-, or even early fourth-century Greek manuscript. As stated previously, Divine Placeholders were universally deployed (without exception) by the Disciples to convey Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name. Simply stated: it is impossible to justify the use of “Jesus.” It is wrong.
Yahowsha’, as a compound of “Yahowah” and “yasha’ – salvation,” means “Yah Saves.” Yahowsha’ tells us that Yahowah manifest Himself in the form of a man, and that as a man, He Himself delivered us. Yahowsha’ explains who He is and it defines His purpose.
And let there be no dispute: in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, you will find Yahowsha’ (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ) written 216 times—first in Shemowth / Names / Exodus 17:9. The Savior’s name was written Yahowshuwa’ (יְהוֹשׁוּעַ) twice (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 3:21 and Shaphatym / Judges 2:7). Yashuwa’ was scribed in the revealed text on 30 occasions. And Yashuw’ah, pronounced similarly to Yahowsha’, appears another 78 times. Collectively, these 326 Scriptural witnesses to the descriptive name and title of God’s implement and mission tell us that Yahowah is the source of our Salvation.
There are many Messianic Jews, countless rabbis, and otherwise misinformed pseudo-intellectuals who choose to ignore the Scriptural pronunciation of Yahowsha’ (even though it is written 216 times in this form and twice as Yahowshuwa’) in favor of Yeshu (which was never written in the Torah, Prophets, or Psalms). The earliest undisputed extant occurrence of Yeshu is found in five brief anecdotes in the Babylonian Talmud (a collection of rabbinical discussions constituting Jewish Oral Law circa 500 CE). Yeshu is cited as the teacher of a heretic (in Chullin 2:22-24, Avodah Zarah 16-17), as a sorcerer scheduled to be stoned on the eve of Passover (in Sanhedrin 43a), as a son who burns his food in public (in Sanhedrin 103a), as an idolatrous former rabbinical student (in Sanhedrin 107b), and as the spirit of a foreigner who is an enemy of Israel (in Gittin 56b and 57a). Yeshu is also used in the Rabbinical Tannaim and Amoraim as a replacement for Manasseh’s name (he was Hezekiah’s only son, and at twelve upon assuming the throne, instituted pagan worship in direct opposition to his father) (Sanhedrin 103s and Berakhot 17b). The earliest explicit explanation of the Rabbinical term “Yeshu” is found in the mediaeval Toldoth Yeshu narratives which reveal: “Yeshu was an acronym for the curse ‘yimmach shemo vezikhro,’ which means: “may his name and memory be obliterated.”
If that isn’t sufficiently sobering, if that isn’t enough to make you scream every time you read or hear “Yeshu” or its clone, “Yehshu,” then you don’t know Him very well.
Affirming God’s affinity for His name, Yahowah is scribed exactly 7,000 times in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. The four variations of Yahowsha’s name appear over 300 times. But that is not the end of the affirmations. There are another 260 Hebrew words, names, and titles based upon “Yah,” most all of which have been affirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These were scribed in the Divine Writ no less than 3,000 times.
In opposition to these 10,000 affirmations, we have rabbis who universally despise Yahowah, changing it to “‘adonay – my Lord,” and Yahowsha’ advocating “Yeshu” in its place. So it seems reasonable to me to devalue their conflicting testimony in favor of Yahowah’s preference for Yah, not Ye, when addressing the Ma’aseyah.
During their Babylonian captivity in the 6th-century BCE, Yahuwdym (known as Jews today) developed a number of bad habits. As a result of being demeaned and mocked under the slang epithet “Yahoos,” they developed an aversion to all things “yah.” To minimize this irritation, Yahuwdym made it a crime to actually say Yahowah’s name. But they went even further, and purposefully misapplied their Sheva System, where the short e vowel was added to words comprised exclusively of consonants. And so long as the Sheva System only added this vowel to words without an Aleph, Ayin, Yowd, Hey, or Wah, that would have been fine. But they decided to assign an “e” following every occurrence of Yowd (י), irrespective of the fact that the י is a vowel, and is most often followed by another vowel, usually Hey (ה), and thereby altered the existing and proper pronunciation of the most important names, titles, and words found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, including the spelling of God’s name. And while it sounds judgmental, this inconsistent application of their rule was done to keep people from knowing or saying: “Yah.”
While we are on this subject, it is particularly telling that the name ascribed to this artificial contrivance, Sheva, is from shav’ (שׁוא), the Hebrew word for “vanity,” in the sense of “failed and for naught.” Shav’ is “false, worthless, and lying speech which leads to emptiness and nothingness.” The fact that these deceivers labeled their revisionist system “false speech” is devastating to their credibility, and thus to the appropriateness of modern Hebrew vocalizations.
But with some due diligence, it gets even worse. There was no “v” in the paleo or Babylonian Hebrew language, so shav’ itself is a product of linguistic manipulation. Comprised of Shin-Wah-Aleph (שׁוא), this word was originally pronounced showa’, and it meant: “to ravage, destroy, and devastate, creating a desolate, lifeless, wasteland.” Such is the result of removing Yahowah’s name from our collective consciousness, and for changing not only the way it is spoken, but also the relationship between it and other words, titles and names associated with Yah.
By altering the existing and accurate paleo-Hebrew (Scriptural) pronunciation of the vowel following every Yowd (י), to “eh,” even when a Yowd is combined with Hey (ה), which is pronounced “ah,” as in hayah, and by changing the Wah (ו) from the vowel sound “o,” “oo,” or “u,” to the consonant “v,” all four letters in Yahowah’s name (הוהי) were compromised. Further, while showa’ (שׁוא) and shuwa’ (שׁוּעַ), were written differently in the text, because they are transliterated similarly, by implementing the Sheva System, Yahowshuwa’ of the Torah has now been associated with “false speech” by these deceivers—the same Scriptural manipulators later known as Masoretes. They are the ones who brought us the Masoretic Text and the corruption of Yahowah and Yahowsha’. They are the ones who promoted the myth that no one knows how to pronounce the name of God. They are the ones who would have you believe that Yehshu and Yehshua are accurate representations of the Hebrew name of the person known to us as “Jesus.” Do you suppose it was all coincidence? (For Yahowsha’s vivid description of this “brood of vipers,” read Mattanyah / Matthew 23:1-33.)
These things known, the second most misleading myth has been lampooned. The human manifestation of Yahowah, the corporeal implement God would use to do the work required to save us, is Yahowsha’, or Yahowshuwa’, depending upon which pronunciation you prefer. This name, as a synthesis of Yahowah and yasha’, the Hebrew word for “salvation,” affirms that: “Yahowah is our Savior.”
In paleo-Hebrew, the first three letters of Yahowsha’s name mirror those found in Yahowah. So by way of review, the Yowd was represented by way of an arm and hand. It symbolized the power and authority to do whatever work was required.
The second letter in Yahowsha’, like Yahowah, is Hey, which was drawn in the form of a person reaching up and pointing to the heavens. It conveyed the importance of observing what God had revealed, of taking note of His greatness, and of reaching up to Him for assistance.
The third letter is a Wah, which in its pictographic form depicted a tent peg, which were used to secure a shelter and to enlarge it. It spoke of adding to and increasing something.
In paleo-Hebrew, a Shin was drawn to represent teeth, making it symbolic of language and nourishment, even the word.
Ayin is the final letter in Yahowsha’s name. This character looked like an eye, and was used to convey the ideas of sight, observation, and knowledge. Even today, ayn is the Hebrew word for “eye, sight, perspective, and understanding.”
Bringing these images from Hebrew’s past together, we discover that Yahowsha’s name says that He is the power and the authority of Yahowah to do whatever work is required to assist those who look to Him, who observe His Word, and who reach up to Him for help. Those who accept and understand this perspective will be added to His family. They will be sheltered and become secure.
When it comes to affirming God’s preference for names, there is only one unimpeachable source: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And so while we will scrutinize the following discussion from the book aptly named Yahowsha’, fully amplified and in its entirety, in the Towrah section, there is considerable merit to previewing the following excerpt of that message here as well.
“And it came to be (hayah), after (‘ahar) the physical death (mawet) of Moseh (Moseh), Yahowah’s (YaHoWaH’s) servant and coworker (‘ebed), Yahowah (YaHoWaH) spoke (‘amar) as God to (‘el) Yahowsha’ (Yahowsha’ – a compound of Yahowah and yasha’, saves), son of (ben) Nuwn – the eternally existing (Nuwn), who had rendered assistance to (sarat) Moseh, for the purpose of saying (la ‘amar), ‘Moseh, My servant and associate (‘ebed) has died (muwth), and so now, at this time (wa ‘atah) stand upright (quwm) and pass over (‘abar) this (zeth) Yarden (Yarden), you (‘atah) and the entire (kol) family (‘am) into God’s (‘el) realm (‘erets) which as a result of the relationship (‘asher) I am (‘anky) giving (natan) to them (la), to (la) the Children (beny) of Yisra’el – those who strive to live with God (Yisra’el).’” (Yahowsha’ 1:1-2)
“‘In the manner (ka) which relationally (‘asher) I existed with (hayah ‘eth) Moseh, I will be with you (hayah ‘eth). I will not fail you, nor withdraw from you (lo’ rapah), and I will not abandon you or neglect you (lo’... |