Sermon on the mount

[Wootah]

What was the point of this sermon?

[marco]

A person that doesn't think the Bible is trustworthy and thus doesn't even care to read what it says is starving themselves of 'all things' that can be known.

Well we must shun such a person whoever or wherever he is. I am just a tiny bit suspicious when someone says he has explored everything. That would seem to mean every possible interpretation of every statement and every nuance in translation. I would be in awe were this so. I suspect what is meant is that OTHERS have done most of the investigative work; he simply accepts their investigations and conclusions.

[2timothy316]

A person that doesn't think the Bible is trustworthy and thus doesn't even care to read what it says is starving themselves of 'all things' that can be known.

Well we must shun such a person whoever or wherever he is. I am just a tiny bit suspicious when someone says he has explored everything.

I'm the opposite. It costs me nothing to hear what someone has to say even if they say they have explored everything. Who am I do say they haven't explored everything that can be explored without investigating? What if they know something that was not known to me before?

What if the apostles thought this way? Jesus, who truly does know everything, what if they shunned him because they were suspicious? We can be suspicious all we want. Even the Bible says to be cautious. (Matthew 10:16) But to just shun someone because they say they know everything about a matter....wow really? It doesn't take much for some people I guess. Also, for a person to say another doesn't know everything, doesn't that imply that the person that is 'suspicious' does know everything. Just saying that 'no one can know everything' how can they know that unless they themselves 'know everything'. It's an oxymoron. A paradox.

Also you jumped to 'has explored everything' but the Bible says that person that 'explores all things'. This wording has seemed to confuse you. It is not that a spiritually minded person 'has explored everything' but 'explores all things'. Huge difference because other than Jehovah and maybe Jesus what human has explored all things? If a person had to wait until they 'had explored all things' to be spiritually minded, then no one could be spiritually minded. This only leaves us with one conclusion that a person that continues to 'explore all things' is spiritually minded.

[bluethread]

The Adonai of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yocav, and also of Yeshua, who gave the sermon on the mount.

Does that Adonai have a name?

JEHOVAHS WITNESS[/quote]

Yes.

oonewithhim wrote

brianbbs67 wrote:

Yes, and whose proper name is still hidden. Correct?

How is it still hidden? It was plain to all in the Hebrew text before some men, later on, removed it from the text and inserted "Adonai" instead. All we have to do is go back and look at the Hebrew text, and the Tetragrammaton is all over the place (7,000 times).

That is correct and it is nowhere in the Greek. In every place that the word "Lord" appears in the Apostolic Writings the word is kurios, not YHWH as it is in the Tanakh. So, if it is a necessary reference in all cases, why is the word kurios used without exception in the Apostolic Writings?

[JehovahsWitness]

So, if it is a necessary reference in all cases, why is the word kurios used without exception in the Apostolic Writings?

Why are you asking me that? Are you suggesting that The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has changed his name?

By using Hebrew terms, I hope to at least denote that those are not my views, even if the casual reader does not understand the Hebraic viewpoint.

Is the Divine Name of God the only name that is not afforded this protection? Jeremiah is "Yermiyahu", Judah is "Yehudah" Isaac gets to be "Yitzchak" but Yaheweh/Yehowah loses his name entirely? And this from someone that insists on remaining faithful to the Hebrew text?

I do not believe in the RCC/Protestant view of replacement theology, but see the writings of the Yeshua's Talmudim(Disciples) as simply a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In every place that the word "Lord" appears in the Apostolic Writings the word is kurios, not YHWH as it is in the Tanakh. So, if it is a necessary reference in all cases, why is the word kurios used without exception in the Apostolic Writings?

What are you suggesting? That the "Apostolic Writings" replaced the Divine name? Would that not be some kind of "replacement theology"?

I do not use the phrases Hebrew Bible or Jewish Bible, because it again tends to artificially divide what I consider to be an unbroken tradition.

If there is an "unbroken tradition" what difference does it make where The Divine Name appears*?


JW



* There is an ample evidence the Divine Name (YHWH) did originally appear in the Christian Greek scriptures and is retained in its shortened form in the book of Revelation chapter 19 "Hallelujah!"

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, THE DIVINE NAME and ...THE DIVINE PERSONALITY

[marco]

Jesus, who truly does know everything,

Perhaps you forgot this: Matthew 24: 35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

But to just shun someone because they say they know everything about a matter....wow really? It doesn't take much for some people I guess.

I guess your comprehensive understanding of Scripture excels your interpretation of my post. I must stop using irony.

This only leaves us with one conclusion that a person that continues to 'explore all things' is spiritually minded.

Ha ha - a person who "explores all things" might swiftly lose his spirituality. Language is such a tricky thing to handle, isn't it? We should return to the sermon on the mount and explore everything Christ is trying to say. Go well.

[bluethread]

So, if it is a necessary reference in all cases, why is the word kurios used without exception in the Apostolic Writings?

Why are you asking me that? Are you suggesting that The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has changed his name?

No, I am wondering why YHVH is found nowhere in the Apostolic Writings. I don't think that the concept is not there. It is just not necessary in all cases to use the name YHWH.

By using Hebrew terms, I hope to at least denote that those are not my views, even if the casual reader does not understand the Hebraic viewpoint.

Is the Divine Name of God the only name that is not afforded this protection? Jeremiah is "Yermiyahu", Judah is "Yehudah" Isaac gets to be "Yitzchak" but Yaheweh/Yehowah loses his name entirely? And this from someone that insists on remaining faithful to the Hebrew text?

Why did you refer to it as "the Divine Name of God"? Aren't you insisting that it is the Divine Name of YHWH? Since you seem to have no problem using that phrase above, do you also oppose the phrase HaShem(The Name)? Isn't that just a shortened version without the use of the term "God"? If we are talking about the Hebrew text, I refer to the Hebrew text. Also, I do not always refer to the people in the Scriptures by their names, I use adjectives and titles also. It is just when I do refer to them by name, I try to use the name that is most likely the one that they went by. I do the same with YHWH. The problem is that the Scripture also refer to YHWH in many and various ways. El Shaddai, El Elyon, Elohim,, and many others that incorporate Yah. Those are generally references to particular characteristics related to particular circumstances. Am I permitted to do the same? In fact, the book of Esther does not mention YHWH at all. Should it then be removed from the canon?

I do not believe in the RCC/Protestant view of replacement theology, but see the writings of the Yeshua's Talmudim(Disciples) as simply a continuation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In every place that the word "Lord" appears in the Apostolic Writings the word is kurios, not YHWH as it is in the Tanakh. So, if it is a necessary reference in all cases, why is the word kurios used without exception in the Apostolic Writings?

What are you suggesting? That the "Apostolic Writings" replaced the Divine name? Would that not be some kind of "replacement theology"?

If that is your concern. It does not appear to be the concern of the Apostles. They are not replacing what you call "the Divine name", but simply referring to YHWH using the Greek equivalent of Lord or Adonai.

I do not use the phrases Hebrew Bible or Jewish Bible, because it again tends to artificially divide what I consider to be an unbroken tradition.

If there is an "unbroken tradition" what difference does it make where The Divine Name appears*?

To me it doesn't.

* There is an ample evidence the Divine Name (YHWH) did originally appear in the Christian Greek scriptures and is retained in its shortened form in the book of Revelation chapter 19 "Hallelujah!"

Yes, it is transliterated in verse four. However, in that exact same verse it says that they were falling down before Theos, when they said that. It is also retained in it's shorten form in Isou, a transliteration of Yah-shua.

Mind you, I am not insisting that anyone use any term. It is you and others who are insisting that I use particular terms, and also refrain from using others. So, why am I being made out to be the bad guy here? If you are all permitted to speak as you please, why am I not?

[2timothy316]

Jesus, who truly does know everything,

Perhaps you forgot this: Matthew 24: 35 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

You never defined what was everything did you. I never meant everything there is to know. Jesus knew everything about himself but it seems you assumed everything meant literally everything.

But to just shun someone because they say they know everything about a matter....wow really? It doesn't take much for some people I guess.

I guess your comprehensive understanding of Scripture excels your interpretation of my post. I must stop using irony.

If you say so. Perhaps an emoticon to let someone know that you're being ironic?

This only leaves us with one conclusion that a person that continues to 'explore all things' is spiritually minded.

Ha ha - a person who "explores all things" might swiftly lose his spirituality.

Not from my experience. A person that 'explores all things' also explores what they can't see. This will continue to be a mystery to many. "What they can't see" will always be a line they can't cross. A person that is not spiritually minded only explores what they want to hear and 'shuns' (your words) what they don't care to understand from whatever excuse they have come up with. Yours is speciousness. How many answers do you get with being overly specious of everything? More questions than answers I'm guessing.

There are people that can only see a fact if it is proven in front of them. That is not a spiritually minded person.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, if it is a necessary reference in all cases, why is the word kurios used without exception in the Apostolic Writings?

Why are you asking me that? Are you suggesting that The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has changed his name?

No ...

So if God's name has not changed why have you removed it from your lexicon?

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, it is transliterated in verse four. However, in that exact same verse it says that they were falling down before Theos, when they said that.

So? So what? What is your point? If the bible writers used BOTH Gods numerous titles (Father, God, Lord, King, Saviour, etc) AND his personal name (YHWH/Yahweh/Yehowah/Jehovah/Jah) why not respect that and do the same?

[JehovahsWitness]

If you are all permitted to speak as you please, why am I not?

You are of course permitted to do as you please, I am just seeking to understand why someone that chooses to try and pronounce bible names as they were originally pronounced, also freely substitutes the Divine Name of God (Jehovah/Yahweh) ?

I am not obliging you to respect the principles you claim to hold, I am simply seeking to understand how you reconcile the apparent inconsistency of advocating the merit of transliteration from the Hebrew (presumably for accuracy's sake) and the wholesale removal/elimination from use of the most important name in human history?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 172#915172



RELATED POST

Must bible names be pronounced exactly as the original?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 179#915179