Hebraic-Believer Position Paper:(FaceBook URL):
https://www.facebook.com/notes/wm-ben-carl/very-important-critical-read-for-all-believers-heed-this-to-escape-these-snares-/10151362206258627
(Re-printing an excellent article from DiscoverHebrewRoots Blog):A VERY IMPORTANT & CRITICAL READ FOR ALL BELIEVERS (not just applying to Messianics) ! NOTE: If you really want more victory in your walk with Messiah, then heed this to escape these snares of the enemy...!The Mayan Calendar and Messiantics
Posted on December 12, 2012 by Frank Houtz
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I will still be alive on planet Earth on December 22, 2012. I have had so many people tell me of the Mayan calendar and how things are going to change because the Mayan calendar ran out of dates on Dec 21 of this year. I find it interesting when Hebrew Roots people get carried away with such ideas. It concerns me, and it depicts a serious problem in the way we think, form conclusions and assess information.
Whenever we find some information that we desire to incorporate into our understanding of God and what He is doing on this earth, we must consider many things. The source is one vital part of discerning whether the information is worth our attention. People are wanting to find out when God is going to wrap up His work on earth and usher in His kingdom. So we are looking for any clue that might give us that extra tidbit of information that will put the pieces of the puzzle together. The Mayan people were an Indian tribe in the Americas. They were polytheists and to some extent the worst kind. They practiced human sacrifice and the story as told in National Geographic was so graphic, that I could not read the complete article. I won’t give details, but the numbers of human sacrifices from babies to adults found under one of their temples was astounding.
Messianics are so paganophobic that I could not imagine anyone caring two hoots about what some polytheistic, human sacrificing, heathen predicted. Well, I have listened to this for years and I can hardly believe my ears. If a Moslem had given a prophecy, Messianics would not give it a seconds thought even if it agreed totally with our understanding of end time events. They are monotheistic and claim to follow the God of Abraham. Their claims fall on deaf ears though and many Messianics call them moon worshipers. Then someone finds some calendar that has an ending date, and the date is a miscalculation of the winter solstice1 which is probably an end to the year, 2 a date which has been demonized by many Messianics as a pagan date of worship and then people get all excited because it confirms their suspicions about the end times. If you have something about God that you desire to discover, and use heathen sources as a proof of your theory, you are way too determined to accept anything that validates your thesis. God certainly has not shared his hidden wisdom with the heathen when He has left His people with veiled messages and abstract imagery.
Sometimes I think God gave veiled messages just to test us and see who we will deem the enemy and who we will consider a friend or a wise instructor. Well if we have added ancient Mayan priests as our advisors and dismissed Christian theologians, I think we failed the test. So I am here to say, if you are fearful of the coming date of Dec 21, 2012 relax, God reveals His secrets to His people, not some Heathen, human sacrificing, idol worshiper. And when nothing happens on Dec 21, 2012, and someone finds another miscalculation which once again will change the date, don’t be alarmed, the source is the same. The source is vital to consider when reviewing ancient documents. If we do not consider the source, we are likely to be deceived.
The Talmud is a vital source — but for what? It certainly explains what a sect of the Jews did in the centuries after Messiah. It has little to do with representing the original practices of Judaism during the time of Messiah. They were one sect, but only one and hardly represented the whole. Everything recorded in the Talmud has certain biases. They have the bias that Yehoshua was not messiah, the bias that the Pharisees should have been the dominant sect when they were merely one of many. The Talmud exhibits the bias that all Pharisee practices were the proper practice and any alternative was an anathema. If we can understand all the reasons we should not use it as a source, I suppose it is a good source for some things. Admittedly, I use it often, but it should be reserved for purposes that do not include determining Messianic halakah. It does expose certain historical events, give context to arguments of the day and show what many Christian doctrines were combating. Using the Talmud for much more than these few things is dangerous.
I have seen a Jewish encyclopedia cited to prove a certain doctrine on the Sabbath. Too many Messianics think that if it is Jewish, it must be a good source. This Jewish Encyclopedia was compiled by atheists who desired to rid themselves of fictitious notions of the Jewish religion. With a bias like that, it is no wonder that they cite the Egyptians as source of the Sabbath. People of similar ilk can also be found showing YHWH as the Sumerian god of war even though the Sumerian writings are in Cuneiform and are not phonetic,3 so four of their letters could never be used to designate four Hebrew consonants. Therefore any source they use to prove this is suspect.
Source and bias are not the only things one must consider when looking through ancient documents. Linguistics is of utmost importance. Understanding several things about the source language is very important. One must know a lot about languages in general before he can catch little errors that may arise from knowing only English. Even knowing several languages may not afford one with the knowledge needed to properly discern between good linguistics and native tongue bias. Linguistics is a scientific analysis of languages which when applied correctly will enable the student to better study Scripture gaining clearer insights.
Too often people misunderstand a second language to have a word meaning exactly the same as their native language. Usually the concepts associated with a particular word will differ greatly between languages meaning that we often try to limit the meaning of the word or expand its meaning to fit our native language. We often read the word cattle in the Bible and most English speakers immediately visualize a herd of animals including bulls, cows, and calves. This is limiting the meaning of the Hebrew word hmhb beheimah. Beheimah is the word used in the original text but its meaning is not exactly the pictures we conjure up when thinking of cattle. While it is almost always translated as cattle, it includes sheep, goats, camels, deer, antelope, as well as those The Mayan Calendar and Messy Messiantics animals in our English concept of cattle. Beheimah are mostly domesticated farm animals plus some non-domesticated herd animals. This is one example, but most Hebrew words have a similar different assembly of concepts from their English equivalent. A good study of linguistics will prepare one for further study of Scripture allowing us to use the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages as valuable resources in our study. Without the science, we may think we are learning a lot when we are only approaching the text with an English bias.
A historical analysis also needs to be scientific. There are rules in every discipline that enable one to form better conclusions. Tying events together that span millennium is at least anachronistic and possibly blatantly ignorant. I know of several Messianic teachers who jump languages, centuries of time, cultures and people groups to form some conclusion that is really nothing more than non-sense. It is important to keep something in the same general time period in order to make associations. The similar sound of two words in different languages may have no direct connection. This is especially so if the languages come from dramatically different time periods and had no linguistic family connection. In order for there to be good historical associations between events we must find the trail of connections that span the appropriate time to consider them related. Anything less is a false association.
In conclusion, we will be less likely to run off on fruitless tangents, scare people about ancient heathen calendars, divide over silly doctrines and generally follow after false teaching if we learn how to use the scientific methods of study and properly reason out the value of other relevant texts. Keep on studying, but also learn how to study.
Frank Houtz
1 The winter solstice has moved to the 20th since the turn of the century because the year 2000 was not aleap year. This has moved the date one day forward until it slowly moves back to the 21st.2 The Mayan year consists of 18 months of 20 days each with a five day intermediate period. Thisequaled 365 days. It seems the new year began after the winter solstice.3 Cuniform later became more phonetic, but during the suggested time period was not.
ARTICLE URL: http://discoverhebrewroots.com/blog/2012/12/the-mayan-calendar-and-messiantics/
Hebraic-Believer Position Paper: HOW YESHUA BECAME JESUS...(FaceBook URL): https://www.facebook.com/photo.phpfbid=420117271349122&set=a.101379583222894.3164.100000525582384& IF YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT THIS, YOU ARE IN DECEPTION AND TEACHING/BELIEVING A LIE...!(WORDS IN THE BLUE PART OF THE PICTURE IF YOU CAN’T READ THEM:
Yeshua; but don’t fall for the junk ‘scholarship’ that falsely says Jesus is Zeus!
Iota in Greek is the closest to the Hebrew Yud.
Greek names ending in “A” are female.
Greek names ending in “S” are male.
Jesus & Zeus only sound somewhat similar in English; in Greek they sound different, and are NOT the same word!
Messiah’s Hebrew Name is Yeshua. And while Jesus is only an English rendering of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, yet it is NOT a form of the Greek name for Zeus !
…& THOSE WHO SAY DIFFERENTLY CLING TO A LIE !!) [NOTE: In addition to the message in this photo]...
Truth is Truth. While His Name was/is Yeshua, not Jesus - yet Iesous is a correct Greek Transliteration of the Hebrew - and Jesus is the English form of that. - Jesus is NOT Zeus, and Believers are wrong for putting down people saying they are following a pagan god who say Jesus. Are there things that the Catholic church and later skewed into false teachings that are in discord with Scripture?...Yes: But that does NOT equate that those who don't know the fullness of the Hebraic-Judaic nature of Scripture do not have a relationship with YAH. - Remember: Shem, Enoch, Noah, Abram...all walked with YAH BEFORE there was even a "Judaic/Hebraic" nature of Tanakh. - Biblical-Judaism is as a beautiful garment given to us by our betrothed...but it is NOT something to be worshiped of itself ! - Some, it would seem, have fallen in love with the garment and forgotten their Lover !
Here are a five of several links that talk more about this subject...
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=501948787543
http://www.sacrednamemovement.com/JesusZeus.htm
http://www.toolong.com/ZEUS.htm
http://www.torahtimes.org/legacy_site/page_reviews/jesusnotzeus.html
http://askdrbrown.org/ask-dr-brown/35-ask-dr-brown/79-what-is-the-original-hebrew-name-for-jesus-and-is-it-true-that-the-name-jesus-greek-isssous-is-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus [INTRO COMMENTS FROM ANOTHER POST: While Yeshua is Messiah's Hebrew Name; yet: Jesus is NOT at all the Greek word Zeus ! - They are two totally different names in Greek, and only sound somewhat similar in English. While the Catholic church did introduce some pagan practices, and they got rid of some Biblical-Judaic practices, in the 4th century AD; yet: Saying Jesus in Greek is Zeus is a demonic lie that actually keeps people from wanting to hear more about the Biblical-Judaic roots of Messianic/Hebraic Belief ! Virtually 100% of all Messianics/Hebraic-Believers started out as Christians, and they found out about Yeshua's Hebrew Name and Biblical-Judaism BECAUSE they had a relationship with Jesus Christ, and they were able to hear from Him lovingly telling them the Truth ! – But trying to drive people to the Truth with a lie is a deception and sin ! - Again: Jesus is NOT Zeus ! ][LATER SUMMARY ON THIS SUBJECT:
STOP & THINK PEOPLE ! ...When you say Jesus is zeus/pagan (which is a FALSE teaching: See photo with attached text below), what you are doing is insulting Believers who use the Name Jesus, which is also Who (Jesus) 99.9% of all Messianics FIRST came to know Messiah Yeshua as. Will you now curse the Name of your Beloved, Who you first knew when you gave your life to YHVH Elohim, Jesus...Because later He showed you what His Name is in Hebrew? ! - You might as well call someone's wife a whore, as that would be far less offensive, than teaching/repeating to Believers this FALSE teaching that Jesus is zeus/pagan ! - And yet we're called all manner of names for strongly standing against this heretical teaching. - Let me say again: Yes, Messiah's Name is Yeshua; but NO: Jesus is NOT zeus/pagan ! ]ANOTHER RELATED POST:
The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"?
by Dr. Daniel Botkin
Dr. Daniel Botkin explains the Hebrew linguistics of the names "Yeshua" and "Yahshua" and how "Yahshua" is a mistransliteration by Sacred Name advocates to fit an erroneous interpretation of John 5:43 and how "Yeshua" is far more accurate. He also clearly establishes the fact that the English name "Jesus" has absolutely no pagan connection and is simply a derivation of "Yesous," the Greek transliteration of "Yeshua." Most important, Dr. Botkin addresses that slander and criticism surrounding the name controversy in entirely non-Scriptural and not glorifying to the Holy One of Israel.
The Messiah’s Hebrew name is usually transliterated as either Yeshua or Yahshua. Under normal circumstances I would not bother to write an article about something as trivial as the difference between the vowel sounds "e" and "ah." There is a need to address the subject, though, because some people who use the Yahshua form say untrue things about those who use the Yeshua form. The opponents of the Yeshua form claim that this pronunciation is the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name. Those who call the Messiah Yeshua are accused of perpetuating a Jewish conspiracy and "denying His name" or "degrading Him" by their use of the Yeshua form. If you have never read or heard these outlandish accusations, you probably will eventually. From time to time I receive personal letters to this effect.
The proponents of the Yahshua form claim that the Messiah’s name was the same as Joshua’s, written [vwhy or [wvwhy (Strong’s #3091). The only problem is that neither of these Hebrew spellings of Joshua’s name can possibly be pronounced "Yahshua." The third letter in Joshua’s name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav (w) and a vav cannot be silent. The letter vav must be pronounced as either a "v" or an "o" or an "u." (In the case of Joshua, it takes an "o" sound, giving us "Ye-ho-SHU-a." Strong’s confirms this pronunciation.) For a name to be pronounced "Yahshua," it would have to be spelled [wv--hy, and no such name exists anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. You don’t have to just take my word for it, though. Dr. Danny Ben-Gigi says of the Yahshua form that "there is no such name in Hebrew" and that "people invented it to fit their theology."[1] Dr. Ben-Gigi is an Israeli and the former head of Hebrew programs at Arizona State University. He is the author of the book First Steps in Hebrew Prayers, and he designed and produced the "Living Israeli Hebrew" language-learning course. Dr. David Bivin, a Christian, says that the Yahshua form "is rooted in a misunderstanding."[2] Dr. Bivin is a renowned Hebrew scholar and teacher and author of Fluent Biblical Hebrew.
I do not know of a single individual that knows Hebrew well enough to actually read it and understand it and converse in it who uses the Yahshua form.
Please do not misunderstand. A person does not need to know Hebrew and Greek linguistics in order to be spiritual. However, if a person is going to take it upon himself to instruct others about subjects of a linguistic and Hebraic nature, he should know the Hebrew language and he should know some basics about linguistics. This is especially true if he is going to use his Hebrew-based linguistic teachings to accuse his brethren of being part of a "Jewish conspiracy" to "deny the true name of the Messiah."
To people who actually know Hebrew – people like Dr. Ben-Gigi, Dr. Bivin, and others – it is very obvious that those who insist on the Yahshua form know very little about the Hebrew language. The only Hebrew that most of these self-appointed scholars know is what they can learn from a Strong’s Concordance.[3] Strong’s is a great study tool and a fine place to start, but it is not a means by which a person can learn the Hebrew language.
The English form Jesus is derived from the New Testament Greek name Ihsouß, pronounced "Yesous." According to Strong’s, Yesous (Strong’s #2424) is "of Hebrew origin" and can be traced back to Joshua’s Hebrew name, Yehoshua (#3091, [wvwhy). But how do we get the Greek Yesous from the Hebrew Yehoshua? Someone armed with nothing more than a Strong’s Concordance may have difficulty answering that question. Someone who reads the Bible in Hebrew, though, knows that the name Joshua sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua ([wvy) in Neh. 8:17 it is apparent even in English: "Jeshua the son of Nun." (The letter J was pronounced like a Y in Old English.) Strong does not tell the reader that the Greek Yesous is actually transliterated from this shortened Hebrew form, Yeshua, and not directly from the longer form Yehoshua. The process from "Yehoshua" to "Jesus" looks like this:
Hebrew Yehoshua à Hebrew Yeshua
Hebrew Yeshua à Greek Yesous
Greek Yesous à English Jesus
There is no "sh" sound in Greek, which accounts for the middle "s" sound in Yesous. The "s" at the end of the Greek name is a grammatical necessity, to make the word declinable.
In Neh. 8:17, Joshua’s name is 100% identical to the name which today’s Messianic Jews use for the Messiah, Yeshua ([wvy). Strong’s confirms this pronunciation, and tells us that there were ten Israelites in the Bible who bore this name (#3442). Therefore the shortening of Yehoshua to Yeshua predates the Christian era by at least 500 years, and cannot be the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name.[4] To claim that the shortened form Yeshua is the result of a Jewish conspiracy is to ignore the facts of history and the facts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The form Yeshua existed for several hundred years before the Messiah was even born. Even in the pre-Christian Septuagint, we see the Greek form IHSOUS (Yesous) in the title of the Book of Joshua. (This is also proof that Yesous has no connection to the pagan god Zeus.)
So where did the transliteration Yahshua come from? This form of the name can be traced back to the beginnings of the Sacred Name movement, a movement that grew out of the Church of God, 7th Day, in the late 1930s. I have in my files an article entitled, "A Brief History of the Name Movement in America" by L.D. Snow, a Sacred Name believer.[5] According to this article, "John Briggs and Paul Penn were the FIRST to pronounce and use the name Yahshua" (emphasis Snow’s). This was in 1936 and in 1937, the article states. No information is given about how Briggs and Penn came up with this (mis)translation.
Later Sacred Name literature appeals to the Messiah’s statement in John 5:43 as "proof" of the Yahshua form: "I am come in My Father’s name," He said. In the minds of Sacred Name believers, this means that "Yah," a shortened form of Yahweh, must appear in the name of the Son. However, the Messiah did not say "My name contains My Father’s name" or "My Father’s name must appear inside My name" or any such statement. He said absolutely nothing here about His own name. The only "name" mentioned here was the Father’s name. He said, "I am come in My Father’s name," which simply means that He was coming by His Father’s authority, on His Father’s behalf. If we take Yeshua’s statement "I am come in My Father’s name" to mean that His own name must contain the Father’s name, then we ourselves cannot do anything "in the Father’s name" unless our own personal name happens to contain the syllable "Yah." The folly of this interpretation is also evident if the same line of reasoning is applied to the rest of Yeshua’s statement: "…if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." If the logic of Sacred Name believers is applied to this half of the verse, it would be saying "a person’s name must contain his own name," which is meaningless. If, on the other hand, "in his own name" means "by his own authority," then the statement makes sense.
Why is the Yahshua form used by no one but Sacred Name believers and people who have been influenced by Sacred Name believers? Probably because no such name exists in the Hebrew Bible and, to my knowledge, no such name exists in any extra-Biblical Hebrew literature. It appears that Dr. Ben-Gigi is correct when he says that people invented the name Yahshua to fit their theology.
I have read a lot of literature from writers who seek to expose the "errors" of those who refer to the Messiah as Yeshua. The only thing these writers actually expose is their lack of knowledge. I could give several examples of statements which are absolutely ridiculous. I do not have the space in this publication to give all the examples I have in my files, and I do not wish to embarrass sincere people for their honest but misguided efforts. There are some examples, though, that grossly misrepresent the facts, and some of these examples need to be exposed.
In one popular booklet published by a well-known Sacred Name organization, the anonymous author makes this statement: "Most reference works agree with Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the NT statement on page 284, which states that the name Yahoshua was shortened after the exile to the short form Yahshua." This statement makes it sound like Kittel uses the forms Yahoshua and Yahshua. I went to the library and looked at this page in Kittel’s. The words Yahoshua and Yahshua do not appear even one time on this page. This can be verified by going to a library and looking up this page. (It’s in Volume III.) If your library does not have Kittel’s, I can send a photocopy of this page to any skeptics.
This same Sacred Name organization which misrepresents Kittel’s also misrepresented a Jewish author. In a magazine article written by this organization’s main leader, a lengthy segment is quoted from a book published by KTAV, a Jewish publishing house. When copying this quotation for his magazine article, this Sacred Name author freely used Yahshua, making it appear tat the Jewish author used that transliteration in his book. I got the book from the library, though, and discovered that "Yahshua" did not appear in the book. I wrote to this Sacred Name leader asking for an explanation. I told him that unless he had some other explanation, I could conclude one of three things: either he deliberately misrepresented the facts, or he did it accidentally, or the book I got from the library was a different version from his, in which case I would owe him an apology. My letter was sent September 1, 1997, and I am still waiting for a reply. I will not embarrass this man by mentioning his name or the name of his ministry. It is not my intention to embarrass anyone.
I am not writing this article to persuade people to quit saying "Yahshua." If people want to continue using a mistransliteration that was erroneously contrived by early Sacred Name pioneers who didn’t know Hebrew, it really doesn’t matter to me. I don’t that the substitution of an "ah" sound for an "e" sound matters much to the Lord, either. What does matter, though, is the spreading of false accusations against Messianic Jews and others who called the Messiah "Yeshua."
Paul warned Timothy about "doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmising [suspicions]" (1 Tim. 6:4). Unfortunately, this is an accurate description of what goes on among many people in the Sacred Name movement. Personally, I would rather fellowship with non-contentious people who call the Messiah "Jesus" than with contentious people who insist that everyone call Him "Yahshua."
NOTES
[1] Love Song to the Messiah newsletter, March 1999, p. 1.
[2] "The Fallacy of Sacred Name Bibles," Jerusalem Perspective Nov.-Dec. 1991, p. 12.
[3] These teachers very heavily rely on Strong’s Concordance, yet when Strong proves them wrong, as he does with the pronunciation of Yehoshua, they insist that Strong’s rendering is erroneous! I have a Sacred Name publication which actually claims that Strong wrote down incorrect pronunciations because "his understanding of the Name was lacking." Anyone who wants to disprove this ludicrous assertion can simply look at Joshua’s name in a Hebrew Bible and see that Strong used the very same vowel marks that are used in the Bible.
[4] There is some debate over whether or not the Jews’ final shortening of Jesus’ name to Yeshu (wvy) was a deliberate attempt to avoid acknowledging Yeshua of Nazareth as Savior.
[5] This article first appeared in a publication called The Eliyah Messenger in May-June 1966, and was reprinted in 1975 in World Today Analyzed, a publication of the Assembly of Yahvah in Tahlequah, OK.
URL/Link FOR THE ABOVE ARTICLE: http://www.yashanet.com/library/yeshua_or_yahshua.htm NOTE: See the following photo/note with video-link on discovery of Yeshua's Name found in ancient Israel -
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527475647279950&set=a.185477824813069.48143.100000525582384&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F487270_527475647279950_989645798_n.jpg&size=495%2C246
.
ALSO: Click here to see a note/study on the Name YHVH - Hebraic-Believer Position Paper: THE-NAME/HaSHEM -(The LORD)- YHVH. - https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&¬e_id=10150095837958627
Hebraic-Believer Position Paper:
The "Lost" Tribes: Ephraim? Goyim? - Both?
http://tshuvah.weebly.com/hebraic-believer-position-paper-the-lost-tribes-ephraim-goyim---both.html
This issue has become quite a divisive subject over the last few years. But regardless of which side of this issue you take: I do not believe it is, nor should it be elevated to, a point of such contention that it causes Believers to break off fellowship and shun one another over it.
This "dogma" causes division I think, as people are too emotionally attached to their own position(s) to examine it circumspectly. It's kind of like when you find out something that you always thought was true your whole life is false, and it shakes your world view :-)
Let's examine some things that can be shown to be facts....
Israel, the Northern Tribes mostly as a whole were in the Diaspora, and their location was known in the first centuries A.D., (I say: mostly as a whole, as "some" came back, and "some" are shown being in Israel besides Benjamin, Judah, Simeon and Levi later.*[See Notes below]) Their identity was lost; however: I believe it is still represented in greater Israel to a lesser degree. Many are not identified with Israel, but were lost amongst the Goyim/Gentiles.- YHVH ONLY knows who they are for sure. The two sticks are both together today (as no one except the Cohanim know for sure who they are) - and yet the two sticks are shown as still being brought together again later - as the lost come in with the Goyim who come into the Congregation of Messiah, - both in Gentile expression and Messianic-Judaic expression, as grafted into the root of Israel. One could perhaps say then of the "grafted-in" branches: some are wild, and (YHVH knows who's who): some are "natural" that were grafted into (so to speak) the Wild Olive Tree when they went into dispersion, so that they had taken on the identity of the "wild" and not the natural; so that they were cut-off - but have not (in a way) lost their identity as natural, (noting their parents who left of course), but have grown up in the "wild" so to speak.
So far nothing too controversial just basic observation of history and what Scripture plainly says; but then the problems start to arise...
Some say that if you are a Believer and start going to a Messianic Congregation that you HAVE to be of physical descent of the literal children of Israel. - This is not so. While I'm sure there are "SOME" who are physically Israel (YHVH knows who's who) - there are others who are not. Else how could the Goyim/Gentiles of the "wild olive tree" be grafted into Israel during the 1st two centuries A.D. in the first place! And what about the Scripture that talks about the Goyim/Gentiles/Nations bringing their glory into Yerushalayim during the 1000 year reign of Messiah - etc.... Or that as AVRAM believed YHVH (as a Goy/Gentile) and became AVRAHAM and the father of "the Jews" by Covenant through FAITH - so to do the Believing Goyim become children of Believing Avraham! All kinds of doctrines get skewed if ALL people who go to a Messianic Congregation suddenly HAVE to be physical descendants of Israel. Even history and the Talmud and the New Covenant show us that their were two types of GOYIM - (not Israel in Diaspora) - that became Ger and Gar Tzadukim. Those who converted, and those who were "proselytes of the gate": ones who kept Torah, yet did not become circumcised and thus part of Israel in the flesh. That of course addresses conversion, but the point is they were GOYIM. Also, if the wild are really ALL natural, then there would be no point of the darash that Rav Sha'ul/Paul gives and thus no need to identify the wild as "grafted and commonwealth" AFTER they are grafted in - if they're only a re-grafting of the natural who "thought" they were wild! This sounds rather convoluted I must admit, but honestly think this through and I think that it will become clear.
So... what can one say then? - Some in the Root of Israel are Natural that Believed and remained; some are grafted in of the wild Nations/Goyim that hold to a more Gentile expression (as in we see in Corinthians); some are grafted in that are of the wild Nations/Goyim that embrace Torah-Judaism but remain "Gentile" (in the good sense of the word Goyim - as simply meaning: 'Nations') - as we see in: the "Gar Tzadukim" or "Proselytes Of The Gate" as Talmud talks about and the New Covenant notes; and some are grafted in that were amongst the wild that were really natural way back with pysical Israel (these may or may not embrace Torah fully however, depending on how closely they listen to YHVH) - and finally some of this group "MAY" -(and I stress MAY) be led to become circumcised to re-identify with Israel. -[BUT: This must ONLY come about as the Ruach-HaKodesh/(Holy Spirit) leads, and NOT on their own volition. Otherwise they are violating the injunction: "...Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called...." - 1Cor.17:17-24. - Although we do have and example contrary to the rule in Scripture with Timothy. And we also note that Avram, as a Gentile, was specifically told to become circumcised by YHVH, not by man.]
Now, this group needs to also be further broken down into two categories: those who are of "Judah/Jews" who find out that they are Jewish and their parents/grandparents didn't tell them - or didn't even know themselves - (there are been several cases of this that I've seen); - and the second group that "MAY" be of Israel from the dispersion who don't/can't know except from direct revelation from YHVH. Why do I say "direct" revelation? - Because there are those who say that you are automatically of Israel, yet this can be show to be false premise. In this case, the best advice I could give is: MAKE SURE YOU ARE HEARING FROM YHVH! - and not just your own desire to be "natural" Israel, so that your emotions in this matter will not allow you to examine the possibility that you are a Righteous Gentile Believer - a "Gar" Tzadukim" (yet not a literal "Ger") - one who desires to keep Torah, but are grafted-in from the wild, and not specifically "Israel", yet still part of the "Commonwealth of Israel", a child of Avraham, and in the Root of Israel in Messiah Yeshua. Remember, Israel is brought back to the land 'from' the Nations, but Israel is not 'the Nations' - else the whole world would be "Israel". When the Goyim are grafted into Israel, they are "of" Israel, and a child of believing Avraham - but are admonished to fear lest they boast against the Natural Branches. That is one danger one can enter into if one is not circumspect in this "dogma".
So, everyone is right :-) - unless you say that your slant alone is right, then you're probably wrong :-)
...However: A serious problem arises when 2 House teachings are in the extreme that are not constrained by the literal Word of Scripture (which is where some have entered into error) and borders on British-Israelism & Replacement-Theology falsehood. - I've heard some 2 house teachers who I agree basically with the majority of what they say; and then there are others who call themselves 2 house I don't agree with most of what they say. - Discern by the Word - "...yea, let Elohim/God be True, but every man a liar; as it is Written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." - Rom.3:4b.
The following is an very important article that also gives some circumspection that touches on this subject....
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=326008353626Shalom
*Notes:
{via public Email an on: [email protected]}
{...} Nachmanides discusses these prophecies and distinguishes between them. Just as part of Judah was exiled with the northern tribes so too did some people from the ten tribes remain with Judah. Their descendants are now to be found amongst the present-day Jews. The overwhelming majority of the Ten Tribes however were exiled by the Assyrians and NEVER returned though they are destined to do so. The Ten Tribes (said Nachmanides in ca. 1260 CE) are still in Tserefath (Gaul and its region) and "at the ends of the north." {...} They said in the Midrash Seder Olam: Of those who came into the Land in the time of Ezra the whole community together numbered 42,360. The total whose names are recorded however only numbered 30,360. What happened therefore to the missing 12,000? These were those from the other Tribes who came up with Ezra. {...} It also appears from the simple meaning of the text, that before the exile of the northern country by Senacherib there were gathered into the cities of Judah people from the neighboring tribes of Menasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon and these then dwelt in the heritage of Judah. Or . This explains what was said concerning King Josiah, "They delivered the money that was brought into the house of God which the Levites that kept the doors had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin" (2-Chronicles 34; 9). Prior to that time in the period King Asa it was written, "And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Menasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance when they saw YHVH/The-LORD his God was with him" (2-Chronicles 15; 9). {...} Those from the Tribes of Ephraim and Shimeon from Israel that were present (2-Chronicles 35;18) with Judah were they who dwelt in the Land of Judah or perhaps to some degree also those who had dwelt in their own territories adjoining Judah and had fled to Judah. They are referred (in 2 Chronicles 35;18) to in a general sense as "from Israel" and not by their specific tribes since they represented only a small portion of their tribe. These are they who returned under Ezra with the Jews from Babylon. They were not expressly mentioned by their tribes since they were attached to Judah. They all settled in the cities of Judah. There was no Redemption for the Ten Tribes who remained in exile. {...} [Another authority however, Tosefot in Arakin 32;a, says that, "from each and every tribe a few returned"]. These few were not enough to be termed a tribe in their own right or even part of a tribe - due to their minority position they were included amongst the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin and dwelt in their cities.
Hebraic-Believer Position Paper:
THE-NAME/HaSHEM -(The LORD)- YHVH
http://tshuvah.weebly.com/02232012thenameyhvh.htmlHaShem or: YHVH – Part I:
As much as we'd all like to "think" we have the proper understanding of this - there is much more to it than you might think...
Yes, many (not all) of the Orthodox will not use YHVH in writing, and in speaking many will say HaShem or Adonai instead. Other Orthodox consider Adonai too Holy to use and say: AdoShem. Sometimes you will see Rabbinic writings using YHVH in both English and Hebrew letters, in religious commentaries and discussions, and sometimes when quoting Scripture or directly discussing Scripture - since YHVH without vowels isn't pronounceable is one consideration. Sometimes they just use "Yod-Hay" without vowels in Hebrew letters for a contraction (which is YAH with the vowels – and is in Scripture). Some Orthodox will write and say Elohim, some others consider it too Holy to say and only say EloKim. Some Messianics believe that one should only use Adonai or HaShem; Other Messianics believe that we are to Reverence His Name - and so believe that by not using It in praise and worship those who refrain are deliberately miss-pronouncing His Name (if you will) in that they are substituting something else where His Name should be used - such as when reading Scripture where it is used in the Text - and thus failing to observe the Commandment/Mitzvah to "Remember" Elohim's Name/YHVH to keep It Holy. Some Messianics will only write YHVH when in Scripture or directly discussing Scripture - but as the writing or conversation approaches the mundane will then say HaShem (or some will then use Adonai) to refrain from taking His Name in vain; and of course most Messianics will be sensitive of this issue when speaking to the Orthodox. There is much evidence that "The Name"/YHVH of Elohim was used during David's time - and there is some indication that from about Ezra's time on (maybe from somewhat earlier during the captivity) that it ceased to be pronounced except in the Temple. In Talmud it says that It was (came to be?) spoken only once per year during Yom Kippur by the high-Priest/Cohen-hagadol, and that then an angel would then come along and smack the people in the head so they'd forget how it was pronounced. A very small child may mispronounce the term of endearment "Daddy", but the father is happy to hear his child speak to him in love. I will not come between an earthly child and his father - so neither should we I'd think want to come between the Brethren and their heartfelt respect and love unto YHVH in the use of His Name - whether that manifests in them either speaking, or refraining from speaking, out of love and respect to their Heavenly Father - Romans 14 comes to mind. Arguing in condemnation of the Brethren over another's use or non-use, or their possible miss-pronunciation, of Elohim's Holy Name/YHVH seems to me to be worse than their using It, or not using It, out of devotion. So enough already!Now: Discussion in love is one thing, where a matter is so important - yet when I see folks leveling condemnation upon one another for their heart felt and careful respect in their personal walk before YHVH in this matter, that is another thing, and grievous. To further clarify...
There are many things that are dogmatic that need clarification, even by heated exchanges, and especially lf ones dogmatic approach to Scripture in a certain areas approaches violating Doctrine and the weightier matters of the Torah. I think everyone who knows me is aware that I'm one of the first to jump into such discussion when need be. Then there are direct violations of Doctrine and the Mitzvot of Torah which must be addressed immediately and harshly if a more gentle rebuke is dismissed. Yet there are disputable dogmatic matters, that are highly personal, that even though there might be a stronger position in the matter (of course - everyone thinks theirs is the stronger position - who really admits and says: I am the weaker brother!), those are just too personal to go beyond gentle discussion into an 'attack' mode, or condemnation, or ridicule of a Brother, whether they are the 'weaker' brother in these matters or the 'stronger' brother. Over the many years that I've been a Believer - I've held three positions on this subject of The-Name/YHVH; and each time, I was shown more, until I came to where I am at today; which now: I believe that I've heard more clearly from YHVH on this matter, but it took years of Him speaking to me till it made sense. To use a mundane example: one very small child calls his father Da-Da, the little bit older child calls him Dad. The older then tells the younger: his name is Dad - not Da-Da, the younger then says: No it’s not; then the older responds: yes it is so; and on and on - that is discussion, and that is fine. - But should then the older (or the younger) child then say: I'm offended that you call Dad - "Da-Da", and you are wrong stupid - repent idiot (whatever - you get the picture), now then THEY have become the offender and are themselves an offense! - As they have offended their brother and set up a stumbling block before him. Of all the things that fall into this disputable/dogmatic category that can cause an offense if not discussed in love for the Brethren - this is right up there at the top. Dogmatic you'll say? - Yes, though many will not admit it: There is no dictionary in Tanakh that tells us exactly how to pronounce YHVH. / His Name. But having said all that, personally, I don't have a problem with people using the Hebrew word "HaShem" (Lit. in Hebrew: TheName); but I do have a problem with someone using Adonai when reading Scripture when it is used to replace YHVH - when YHVH is plainly right there in the Scripture, such as when someone is doing the Torah reading. So at least use HaShem if you feel so led, since you don’t believe you can speak the Name of YHVH; but don't substitute an entirely different word (Adonai or Lord). But even then would I condemn them if they do so, as some are so quick to do? -No- But as led I'd point out the above out to them.) Why do I feel this way? Because it says YHVH ! And because while YHVH Alone is Adonai/(Lord), yet all others who are called with the title adonai (lord) are not YHVH ! - At least when one says HaShem they are acknowledging The-Name/YHVH; but when they say Adonai, when reading or quoting the Scripture directly where is says YHVH, they are not remembering The Name - rather, they are replacing The Name with another word entirely ! And that much should be obvious. Furthermore - the use of such variants as AdoShem and EloKim is less than about 50 or so years old anyway (HaShem has been used by the Orthodox for a long time though, and of course Adonai for centuries.) Pick up The Agadah To The Babylonian Talmud for example by Rabbi Glick (I think that is where I remember seeing this) and you'll see that the English word Jehovah is used in the Rabbinic Orthodox commentary at times if I'm not mistaken - (It's been a long time since I've looked; but then - you'll even see some Orthodox Jews using Rev. as a title about 100 years ago too, but I digress :-)
Now as was pointed out, we are not to offend someone if avoidable, such as in witnessing to the Orthodox. - Which brings up my conclusion. - Two will argue and say: I'm offended that you (say/don't-say, or pronounce, or pronounce incorrectly) The Name of God. Well I'm offended at both of your offenses! To me what one feels led to do in sincerity and love, as best as they know based upon what they believe Scripture says, in crying out in their heart to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is between themselves and Him – and He will deal with how His children speak to Him Himself. Now, do you have an opinion, even a contentious one, then use Scripture and and by all means share it - but don't hammer it ! - To use another mundane example: This particular subject is to me even more than on the level of my talking about making love to my wife, as far as this being a personal matter between me and YHVH. Now, while I 'might' discuss the subject concerning my wife and I under certain circumstances - I'm sure not going to enter into a contentious argument about it !
So... guess you might just want to think of me as a referee giving a warning - that just perhaps: Entering into bitter arguments with your Brother concerning The Holy Name/YHVH of Elohim might just be bordering on taking The Holy Name/YHVH of Elohim in vain! Maybe Yeshua Messiah did reveal The Name of YHVH to us - when He told us that "God is Love" - for if you speak those vowels into the Tetragrammatan you then will also hear echoed in the Hebrew: "Y`aHaVaH" - "God is love" - think about that for a moment!ShalomTHE-NAME/HaSHEM -(The LORD)- YHVH – Part II:
While I think discussion on The Name of YHVH {HaShem} and the way It "might" be pronounced is fine - I believe that The Sacred Name of YHVH is too Holy for us as Believers in Messiah to argue over.
One think everyone agrees on (or at least they should) is that the proper way to say the contraction of YHVH is "YAH". All evidence shows that is the case; but...
I've heard some cut-down others for the way they pronounce YHVH (or don't pronounce YHVH) and that is just not right. While there is evidence that it probably is pronounced either one of three different ways as presented by scholars (out of the couple dozen ways or however it could be pronounced!) We still do not absolutely know. And not knowing, (short of possibly ALL the ways being Holy as His Name is Holy), then it is wrong to put down others for how they call on YHVH out of a sincere heart.
For (but one) example...
Many years back, I read and article by a scholar of Hebrew (I was sure it was Prof. Young, but I have since been unable to find the article) Professor Young, author of Young's Concordance and Young's Literal Bible Translation - who is one of the foremost Hebrew scholars in the last 150 years. There are many people/scholars that insist that "Yahweh" is absolutely the correct way to say YHVH; however: Prof. Young proves in his article that saying the Hebrew letter 'vahv' as a 'w' appealing to a "wav" imperative is impossible! - And thus "YahWeh" can't be correct (YahVeh by this criteria at best).
But I also believe that it is wrong to tell folks that they are in error for their sincere worship of YHVH using this form of The Name. And what if it is YahWeh?! Sure sure there is less proof for this specific two sylable form - but there are three forms of YHVH out there that have a very well reasoned argument (to one degree or another) for their usage. (I'm sure that most on here have their favorite) - but it still is not 100% conclusive beyond controversy for any one of the three or so! And I'm not going to take the position that one is in error - and I'm correct, when no one is 100% sure who is correct! Even in: The Scriptures 1998, Institute For Scripture Research (PTY) LTD: Messianic translation of the Holy Scriptures {South Africa http://www.messianic.co.za} they couldn't 100% agree amongst their scholars as to the exact way of rendering It in English - and so just use YHVH in Hebrew letters.
Should we study it, yes, and I'll continue to study the issue myself. - But there are few arguments that could cause as much disunity in the Body of Messiah as this one (and judging by the things I see going on lately...oy!) So let's be careful when we tell others that they're in error - or that the form of YHVH they use is perversion - when the issue is still dogmatic as it is not 100% proven - (except in some folks minds).
Again - there are scholars, Messianic included, on all sides of the issue of about 12 or so of the couple dozen or so ways to pronounce YHVH! It doesn't really matter whether there is the in-the-middle contraction (as in Y'hoshua) or the end (as in Eliyahu) as we still just don't know, because in peoples proper names in Tanakh we only have a contraction! - Add to that that some believe it is probably related to Ehyeh from Exodus - yet we still don't know! -(While I personally like one way and believe it to be right, though perhaps two others are correct)- I have read from Professor Young to bubkis, and the bottom line is: NO ONE is 100% sure! Even the Rabbis state that only Mashiach when He comes (again) will be able to reveal the correct pronunciation of YHVH – perhaps in this case they are right.
But I will offer something to consider... usually the notion is to error on the side of caution - having said that: If one reads the Sacred Texts of Tanakh as they've been handed down from the Massoretic Scribes for the Name of YHVH - then they also can't be in condemnation for doing so. Even that Rabbi's say that it is permissible to read It as such if one doesn't catch oneself in time to stop oneself. - (So here is consideration for those who say YHVH should be pronounced as: Yah'hovah or Yehovah.)- So, did the Massoretic Scribes leave YHVH as It was to be used with vowels, and only "say" it was changed? - Some scholars also think this is so. - But again: Even that being the case, we still don't 100% proof this specific form is correct either (regardless of what some would tell you).
Lately some have been discussing the possibility that perhaps as YHVH is unique and Holy in Hebrew - so then all Hebrew vowels with it are Holy. - And I kind of like this reasoning - perhaps it is so.
One final thought...Some years back I was praying to YAH about this, and asked Him how He felt about those who mispronounce His Name. I believe He told me: Do you get upset when your small grandchild comes to you and says your name incorrectly?... No?...Neither am I upset when My Children speak My Name in love and praise and worship to Me.
But there IS one Biblical poetic form of His Name/YHVH used in Scripture, that I’d guess no one would disagree is correct, and that is: "YAH".
FaceBook URL to this article: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150095837958627 [NOTE: I didn’t get into the correct Name of Messiah in this note/study. – That is a separate issue, as we can determine and know that Yeshua is the correct form from several supportive evidences: Hebrew linguistics, historical and manuscript sources, etc… See below for a link of this subject.]...NOTE: For a note/links/study on the Name Yeshua/(Jesus), see attached to this photo: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=420117271349122&set=a.101379583222894.3164.100000525582384&&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F399050_420117271349122_975953416_n.jpg&size=899%2C659
|
RSS Feed
