The Law: Was it so Hard

[liamconnor]

Protestant branches of Christianity present ancient Judaism as an impossible religion in which members are always in despair because they can never obey the law. Out of this assessment arises the value of Christianity: The Jewish Law is impossible to fulfill; but good news, one does not have to fulfill it!

Question: Is the Jewish Law really that hard? I have read the O.T. several times. I have read much of Rabbinic Law. None of it seems terribly hard.

[JehovahsWitness]

I have never said that Adonai was a translation or even a transliteration of YHWH. It is a title like "Lord".

So why do you substitute the name for the title? Do you have a reason for this to be systematically done? or are you just following the Catholic tradition without question? Are there any other bible names you choose to remove from you lexicon entirely or is YHWH/YAHWEH The only one that merits complete elimination?

[Elijah John]

I have never said that Adonai was a translation or even a transliteration of YHWH. It is a title like "Lord".

So why do you substitute the name for the title? Do you have a reason for this to be systematically done? or are you just following the Catholic tradition without question? Are there any other bible names you choose to remove from you lexicon entirely or is YHWH/YAHWEH The only one that merits complete elimination?

Bluethread answered this in post 65. Also, it is Jewish, Rabbinic tradition, not Catholic tradition. In fact, the RCC published a few translations which honor the name of God, namely the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles. Both render the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh".

It was only under the reign of Pope Benedict in recent years that the RCC has determined that they would follow the Jewish prohibition of writing or pronouncing the Divine name, to honor and respect that religion. Going too far, imo, but nonetheless. Catholics did not invent the prohibition.

[bluethread]

And who are the caretakers of the Scriptures. Sounds as though you are giving authority to the Rabbis. Do you consider yourself a Noahide, under their authority?

What I am referring to is (Rom. 9:4-5) "the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen."

I do not accept the Noahide designation. As Paul goes on to say. (Rom. 9:6-8) "It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.� In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring." This is based on the one law principle. (Lev.9:34) "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." As a work around, the rabbi's have come up with the Noahide laws and interpreted "foreigners" as proselytes. The problem with that is that the verse says "you were foreigners in Egypt." The rabbis clearly do not believe that the children of Israel were proselytes in Egypt.

Also, are you familiar with Karaite Jews? They embrace the Tanakh but reject the Oral Law, the teachings of the Rabbis. Including their prohibition on pronoucing the Divine Name. The Karaites most often render the Divine Name as "Yehovah" but also acknowledge the validity of such renderings as "Yahweh".

Also, do you think the Rabbinic prohibition is a binding, and well reasoned one?

I am somewhat familiar with some Karite views. However, I have never met or spoken with one, so I am not sure how their philosophy really works. As I have stated more than once to JW on this thread, I see it as a fence and therefore do not consider it to be binding on others. I understand the reasoning, but see it as a matter of fear and not faith on their part. Therefore, as a matter of respect and deference to what I consider to be the "weaker brother", I use the name YHWH only when it is integral to a specific discussion.

combined with the fact that the Scriptures first present it as a reluctant response to Moshe's request.

Seems so, at first anyway. Perhaps the Buring Bush theophany was an opportunity to explain the meaning of the Name, (I AM that I AM) before actually giving Moses the Name itself and it's pronounciation. Subsequently, YHVH seems quite comfortable with the usage of His Name, he owns it, so to speak. And this culminates in the First Commandment, where YHVH introduces Himself to the Hebrew people...by name.

I am YHVH thy God, ....thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Yes, that is in the context of differentiation. They are not commanded to use that name. Back to the rabbinic reasoning for avoiding the use of it. They see next commandment as referring to a misuse of that name. I see it more as a commandment prohibiting misidentifying oneself as one of the people of YHWH. However, again I do not see how not using YHWH are a common reference should be offensive, as long as one does not prohibit it's use by others.

Also, I am concerned with the idea that any collection of letters can truly convey the character.

The Tetragrammaton is not just a "collection of letters", it is a remnant. Pretty much all we have left of the Divine Name, thanks to the Rabbinic prohibition on pronoucing it. There are some good recovery attempts, and reconstructions, but we can never really be absolutely sure how it was orignally pronounced.

And actually, was the Divine name ever intended to convey the entirety of God's character? I doubt it, nothing can. No reason to dismiss it out of hand. But if one reads the Psalms in a translation which honors the Name of God, one can see what a gift it is, what a vital link to the Divine, and focal point of prayer. That is how King David seems to have used it.

O give thanks unto YHVH, call on his name:

(Psalm 105.1)

Then we have this, YHVH though the prophet Isaiah:

I am YHVH, that is my name....

(Isaiah 42.8)

That is true and the most common pronunciation uses the vowels of Adonai. YaHoWaYi. That is all well and good, and I do not fault the JWs or anyone else for using it as a common term. However, just as I do not agree with the rabbi's prohibition against using it, I do not agree with the JWs' insistence that it be used. In both cases neither is consistent, the rabbis with the Scriptures and the JWs in practice.

It is really interesting how some people will label being careful with word usage as either sophistry or legalism. Christians often jump on "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life", but then insist that people use the words and letters that they prefer, in the way they prefer. Personally, I don't really care what words one uses, but I do expect them to be able to explain what they mean, when asked. That is what I think the true meaning of that passage is.

I think you are addressing someone else here, I have no problem with folks using and or mixing Hebraic terms with English, Greek or Aramaic.

How many Christians, for example, exclaim "Hallelujah" into their English prayers and/or liturgy.

I was just curious with my question, and with the follow up attempting to make a general case for reverent usage of the Divine Name.

I was not faulting you, but speaking generally. The current context is my discussion with JW, where I am being pressed to us some variation of YHWH in common discourse. I do not see that as a consistent practice, even among the JWs, so I am not going to accept the charge that I am being irresponsible in my choices regarding when and where to use the term.

[bluethread]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 312#915312]

"Out Father who art in the heavens hallowed be thy Name."

I think Jesus was saying something most profound.
There are thousands of names for God today and throughout history.
It is the affection and the feeling we have for the One we look up to.
Ancient people would have addressed God by innumerable names.
They've never read a book had nobody to teach them but they perceived that there is Sombody who has all power.

In the Lord's prayer 'our Father' is the most profound name for God that Jesus so lovingly introduced to us.

I do not think that Yeshua is establishing Abba as sacrosanct either. I think when He says, "hallowed be thy Name" He is using the concept of a name as the embodiment of one's character. In the Scriptures a name generally signified one of three things, a prominent relative, a significant event, or a significant characteristic. In that passage, the characteristic usage appears to be the best fit.

[bluethread]

I have never said that Adonai was a translation or even a transliteration of YHWH. It is a title like "Lord".

So why do you substitute the name for the title? Do you have a reason for this to be systematically done? or are you just following the Catholic tradition without question? Are there any other bible names you choose to remove from you lexicon entirely or is YHWH/YAHWEH The only one that merits complete elimination?

You mean, why do I use a title rather than YHWH? I am not saying that this should be systematically done, nor do I eliminate it completely. It is just my practice to use it only when it is integral to a particular issue being discussed. I haven't gone back and counted, but I would venture to say that, on this thread, I have used YHWH as much or more than you have, primarily because you have made it a focal point of the discussion. That said, I follow this practice out of deference to the rabbinic tradition, not the RCC tradition. If you do not wish to follow my example in that regard, feel free.

[Elijah John]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 312#915312]

"Out Father who art in the heavens hallowed be thy Name."

I think Jesus was saying something most profound.
There are thousands of names for God today and throughout history.
It is the affection and the feeling we have for the One we look up to.
Ancient people would have addressed God by innumerable names.
They've never read a book had nobody to teach them but they perceived that there is Sombody who has all power.

In the Lord's prayer 'our Father' is the most profound name for God that Jesus so lovingly introduced to us.

I do not think that Yeshua is establishing Abba as sacrosanct either. I think when He says, "hallowed be thy Name" He is using the concept of a name as the embodiment of one's character. In the Scriptures a name generally signified one of three things, a prominent relative, a significant event, or a significant characteristic. In that passage, the characteristic usage appears to be the best fit.

Yes, the name can somewhat express the character of God, but don't you think Jesus is alluding to the specific name of God, the same name that king David in the Psalms and the Prophets used, over and over and over again?

[bluethread]

Yes, the name can somewhat express the character of God, but don't you think Jesus is alluding to the specific name of God, the same name that king David in the Psalms and the Prophets used, over and over and over again?

Yes and no. That is a very complicated verse. Yeshua refers to Abba(the father), HaShem(the name), Shamayim(the heavens), HaMalkuw(the kingdom) and HaEretz(the earth). These are not just simple terms, but represent complicated priniciples that are at the root of Scriptual philosophy and have been topics of dicussion by the sages throughout history. If one attaches any one of these terms to a singular defintion, one loses the richness of it's cultural significance. That is why I have a problem with the "sacred words" and "sacred names" movements. IMO they tend to make idols out of parts of the living word.

[JehovahsWitness]

That said, I follow this practice out of deference to the rabbinic tradition, not the RCC tradition.

Why?

Is there any indication in SCRIPTURE that replacing the Divine Name with a title is what God desires?

How did Jesus feel about Rabonnic traditions that violated scriptural law and principle?

[Elijah John]

Yes, the name can somewhat express the character of God, but don't you think Jesus is alluding to the specific name of God, the same name that king David in the Psalms and the Prophets used, over and over and over again?

Yes and no. That is a very complicated verse. Yeshua refers to Abba(the father), HaShem(the name), Shamayim(the heavens), HaMalkuw(the kingdom) and HaEretz(the earth). These are not just simple terms, but represent complicated priniciples that are at the root of Scriptual philosophy and have been topics of dicussion by the sages throughout history. If one attaches any one of these terms to a singular defintion, one loses the richness of it's cultural significance. That is why I have a problem with the "sacred words" and "sacred names" movements. IMO they tend to make idols out of parts of the living word.

Do you think, then, that folks have made an idol out of Jesus?

An idol out of Rabbinic tradition?

An idol out of the Law?

An idol out of the Torah?

An idol out of the Bible?

An and idol out of the "blood"?

I suppose all of those things could be considered "idols" or they, like the name of God, can be embraced as links to the Divine.

One can look at all of these things, or some anyway, as tangable gifts from an Almighty and invisible God, as ways for His finite creatures to embrace Him and relate to Him.

[bluethread]

That said, I follow this practice out of deference to the rabbinic tradition, not the RCC tradition.

Why?

Is there any indication in SCRIPTURE that replacing the Divine Name with a title is what God desires?

How did Jesus feel about Rabonnic traditions that violated scriptural law and principle?

Are you saying that it is a violation of Scriptural law to replace YHWH with "the Divine Name" or "God"? If not, why is the use of Adonai any different?