 Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC) Posts: 695   Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
|
I recently received the following email message from a friend: Quote:
RICHARD, ROBERT ASKED ME TO LOOK AT THE LETTERS YOU SENT, AND FRANKLY I'M MORE CONFUSED THAN EVER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GETTING THESE NOTIONS FROM, BUT YOU SEEM TO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ IN THE BIBLE. IF THIS IS SO, ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR BELIEF AND FAITH ? ACCORDING TO STRONG'S CONCORDANCE CRIST MEANS ANNOINTED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT "DRUGGED" FROM.
WHO IS THIS YadaE CHARACTER, AND WHAT ARE HIS CREDENTIALS ? I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND SARCASTIC, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE TANGLED UP IN SOME KIND OF CULT. BESIDES THINKING THAT ONE MUST USE YAHWEH AND YASHUA WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ? AND WHY ? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR TRANSLATIONS FROM ? ON WHO'S AUTHORITY ?
ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THE HOLY SPIRIT "RUACH HACHODAESH" IS A WOMAN ? WE KNOW OF COURSE THAT BEING CREATED IN HIS IMAGE THERE MUST BE MALE AND FEMALE CHARACTERISTICS IN US ALL. ALL OUR ASPECTS ARE FROM HIM. GOOD AND EVIL ARE FROM HIM. ISAIAH 45:7 I FORM THE LIGHT, AND CREATE DARKNESS: I MAKE PEACE, AND CREATE EVIL: I YEHHOVAW (#3068) DO ALL THESE THINGS. PROVERBS 16:4, PSALM 17:49, AMOS 3:6, DEUTERONOMY 32:39, 1 SAMUEL 16:14, PROVERBS 16:33, LEVITICUS 14:34, ISAIAH 54:16.
TRY USING THE BIBLE TO PROVE YOUR POINTS, NOT WEB PAGES. BYE THE BYE, I'M NOT SHOUTING, CAPS ARE EASIER FOR US OLDER FOLKS TO SEE.
I AM CONCERNED FOR YOU AND YOUR SOUL.
Below is my response, for which I would appreciate feedback from the assembly: Quote:Hi, nameremoved. I am not a member of any religious organization, movement, or cult. Nor do I heedlessly subscribe to notions, theories, or teachings from anyone, regardless of their credentials. I do my homework. I take the time to study. I research references. After doing all that, I make up my own mind. I disagree with Yada on more than one point, as do several others who participate in the Yada Yahweh forums. He's cool with that. We would disagree with him whether he were cool with it or not, because we serve Yahushua, not Yada. I have spent countless hours verifying and debunking what others write, nameremoved, because in the end I am responsible for what I have allowed myself to believe. Yahushua commanded us, "See to it that no man deceives you." I take that command just as seriously as all His others. Some people strive to learn all there is to know about a certain science or technology or sports team; I choose to invest my time and energy in getting to know my God. It is a matter of priorities, I suppose. The work of Dr. James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., is not the final authority on Hebrew and Greek translations, nameremoved. Dr. Strong was heavily influenced by traditional "church" teachings, which he proves by including "J" and "V" in the Hebrew sections of his best-known work. The letters and sounds of "J" and "V" did not exist in Hebrew. Period. The "V" is a rabbinic invention; "J" did not appear in any language prior to the 1500's. So using Dr. Strong's erroneous pronunciation and translation of YHWH (#3068) as the final word on the matter demonstrates to me that the one doing so has not done their own research. I treasure my copy of The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible because it is a valuable resource and tremendously helpful. Nevertheless, I realize it has its shortcomings, so I supplement my studies with other resources, such as The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon and various resources from the web. I purchased my own copy of the 10-volume set, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, as well as a copy of the complete works of Flavius Josephus, the Hebrew who was also a Roman historian in the first century. The resources are out there for everyone with Internet access. It is up to the individual to take the time to actually do the research for themselves. I do not recognize nor place any value on the credentials of man, nameremoved. Yahuwah uses whomever He chooses, however He chooses, whenever He chooses. Moreover, yours is a common reaction: if you cant' refute the message, then attack the messenger. Politicians and their speech writers do it all the time. The Pharisees did it when they couldn't refute Yahushua's teachings ("From where did THIS man learn letters?!" "These people who do not know the Torah are cursed.") Do you want to know Mr. Winn's qualifications? Write to him and ask for them. Do you have a problem with something he has written? Do your homework and prove him wrong. If you cannot prove him wrong, then you ought to consider the very real possibility that he is correct. What you definitely do NOT want to do is take the easy way out and dismiss what he says just because you don't think him qualified to say it. He did his research; have you? He was willing to invest the time and energy to do the research; are you? That's the bottom line. Regarding the Ruach ha Qodesh, or Holy Spirit, sis, let me point you to what one of the Yada Yahweh forum administrators wrote. Ken Powers, a forum administrator, frequently disagrees with Yada about things, but he is still a forum administrator because we are all brothers in Christ. KP writes: Quote:I'd say that it would be just as erroneous to think of the Ruach Qodesh as a "woman" as it is to think of Father Yahweh as a "man." But something's going on here. It is an undeniable fact that ruach is a feminine Hebrew noun. And going on my foundational premise that "God doesn't make stupid mistakes," it is incumbent upon us to figure out what He's trying to tell us.
I think we're thinking about this backward: any tendencies and strengths attributable to the sexes are a reflection of the way God made us, and not conversely---His attributes are not a reflection of ours. So Yahweh, who is One, has manifested "Himself" in both masculine and feminine roles in order to help us understand His nature. And "He" created us male and female so we might comprehend what the difference is. Some of us can't easily understand what's going on because we grew up in dysfunctional households. I, happily, did not---my father and mother created a "normal" home (note that I didn't say "average") in which traditional gender roles were assumed and fulfilled---much as they had been for much of the human race since the dawn of time. My father was the acknowledged authority in the home, though he and mom were never (that I could see) out of sync. He was the basic provider, though mom helped and contributed, and she was the conduit through which whatever dad brought home came into the lives of my brothers and me. Mom, in contrast, was the comforter, the consoler, the nurturer, the one who confronted me with my shortcomings. She helped with the homework. And she was the one who administered the spankings when they were necessary. Mom felt the pain when I was born, and she felt it again whenever I let dad down. She was, in short, into our lives in a very personal, intimate, hands-on way. Dad was there, but she was THERE, if you know what I mean. As far as I was concerned, they weren't really two separate people---they were the "corporation" that produced our family. They remained married and devoted for 52 years, and though he seemed to be in perfect health, dad only outlived mom by a year or two. I can't really think of one of my parents without thinking of the other.
That, in a way, is how I think Yahweh wants us to conceive of "Him"---not as our Father, but as our Parents. "He" does both masculine and feminine things. But Yahweh isn't really "male," nor is His Spirit "female." These are merely teaching devices "He" has built into our world to teach us about His own nature. It's an eye-opener, however, to realize that Yahweh's human manifestation, the Son, Yahshua, actually is masculine---He extends and projects the authority of the "Father." (provided link to actual post) In an earlier posting in the same thread, Ken addresses, among other things, the word "Christ". I've added my own emphasis (bolding and/or italics): Quote:William, if you knew how often I disagree with Yada (about little things) you'd blush to call me his "follower." I love the man and value his insight, but I'm far from being in lock step with his doctrine or interpretation---and he respects that, as long as I've done my homework. A glaring example is your insistence that "True Christianity" is not wrong. I agree with you, but the real point of contention is not the fact of the matter, but the symantics. Yada looks at the religion of Christianity, including all of the groups that claim the title, from Catholics and Orthodox splinter groups, to apostate Protestants to Mormons, to JWs to...well, you get the idea. And he notes (quite rightly) that there's something systemically wrong here. If you get it down to statistics, I'm sure you'd agree that as a percentage, what you'd label "true Christians" are a very very small part of the "religion" as a whole. Then he goes one step further (and this is where we disagree a bit) and says that "Christ" is not a legitimate word---that it's not a proper translation of "anointed one," never mind what the lexicons say, because the root from which it is derived (not the actual word Christos, but its root, chrisos) can mean "drugged" or "whitewashed." I remain unconvinced. Adding to the controversy is that "Christos" is a nomina sacra in all the pre-Constantinian manuscripts---it isn't actually spelled out [in the biblical texts]. Unlike Yada, I'm prepared to accept Christos at face value, and therefore don't have a problem calling real followers of Yahshua "Christians." But as I said, our differences are on fine points, nuances of symantic usage---not about fundamental doctrines. We each reserve the right to think for ourselves and listen to what the Holy Spirit (another designation Yada hates because "holy" is so often a misapplied and misunderstood word---which it is) tells us.
By the way, I attend a regular Bible (Yada hates that word, too---pagan roots) believing church (another symantic nightmare) at least twice a week, and teach home Bible studies as well, so please don't tell me I "no longer attend." As with everything else, you need to get your facts straight. The people I fellowship with don't know everything. Nor do I. But they love Yahweh and are eager to learn (unlike the fast preponderance of the religion of Christianity). That's good enough for me. [provided link to actual post] Just so you know, nameremoved, that root word, chrisos, means drugged, whitewashed, smeared over, which is why christos is said to mean "anointed", or more literally, "smeared with oil". But it could just as well have meant "drugged", as Yada suggests. "Drugged" is just as valid a meaning of the root word as is "whitewashed" and "smeared over with". Ken Powers says that he remains unconvinced. I, on the other hand, am more than comfortable with Yada's assessment. Do I believe in "the Bible"? No. Do I believe in what is written in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, what you call the Old Testament? Yes. Do I believe the records of Matthew and John? Yes. Mark? Yes. Luke? Mostly, but I know he was a companion of Paul's, so I have my doubts. Do I accept the book of Revelation? Yes. The letters of the apostles? Yes. The letters attributed to Paul? No. The book of Acts? I'd have to say I'm undecided on that one. What you call "The Holy Bible" is a thrown-together collection of documents approved by a council of Roman Catholics; therefore, I do not accept it as being indisputably divine. There are documents within it that have been proven to be forgeries, such as the book of Galatians, and it lacks other documents which may have been inspired. In my opinion, no Roman Catholic is qualified to tell me anything about what belongs in the canon of scripture, for the very fact that they're a Roman Catholic tells me that they have rejected the Truth. Therefore, what could they possibly have to offer me? Absolutely nothing. "The Holy Bible" is a collection of documents approved by a council of the most powerful Roman Catholics several centuries ago, during the height of their power, and not all of its books were divinely inspired. That is an indisputable fact. nameremoved, I hope I have answered your questions in a manner that satisfies your curiosity and adequately addresses you concerns for my soul. I remain, Your brother and your friend, Richard M. McCord |
