Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah

[rosends]

I call baloney.

Think about Isaiah's name in Hebrew, or Jeremiah's, or the Greek name Matthew in Hebrew...

"Yeshayahu, Yirmeyahu, Mattitayahu..."

"Yahu... 'vah'". Jehovah.

YAHU.

Yahu... "Yahoos"... "Jews".

Cowboy and Rosends, rabbis above the Reform/Revisionist level learn this. Now you can, too. Cowboy, you are a Christian in your avatar. I'm a Jewish Christian. Please don't patronize me by telling me "I don't understand Judaism 101". I do, and 102 and 103 and more, too!

So your claim is that "Yahu" therefore is the single and proper way to say God's name? You DO realize that the names are also Yeshaya (ezra 8:17, 19 for example) and Yirmiya (Yir, 27:1 for example), and yet both still refer to God in them, so the "Yahu" is clearly not the end all and be all. And putting the AH under the vav to make "Vah" is unrelated to God's name.

The "Yehu" which helped create the "Yehudah" which became Judah and then Jew uses different vowels from yAhu in the names you cite so your own proofs contradict each other.

 

[blue taylor]

Yahweh and El were once one and the same. Asherah is listed in ancient texts as the consort of both Yahweh and El. Thus in the OT we have both El and Yahweh.

 

[metis]

Yahweh and El were once one and the same. Asherah is listed in ancient texts as the consort of both Yahweh and El. Thus in the OT we have both El and Yahweh.

It's actually "Eloheim" that's from the "El" tradition, as is "Allah".

 

[blue taylor]

It's actually "Eloheim" that's from the "El" tradition, as is "Allah".

Very good. Who does the OT say was the God of Judah? Just Wondering.

 

[metis]

Very good. Who does the OT say was the God of Judah? Just Wondering.

If my memory is correct, there's 17 different names for God found in the Tanakh.

 

[RabbiO]

Cowboy and Rosends, rabbis above the Reform/Revisionist level learn this. Now you can, too.

You seem to be totally unaware that rosends is, in fact, an Orthodox rabbi.

And can you get me the address of the Revisionist seminary? I can't find anything about that movement on the web, but there must be information about it somewhere since you seem so knowledgeable about it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So your claim is that "Yahu" therefore is the single and proper way to say God's name? You DO realize that the names are also Yeshaya (ezra 8:17, 19 for example) and Yirmiya (Yir, 27:1 for example), and yet both still refer to God in them, so the "Yahu" is clearly not the end all and be all. And putting the AH under the vav to make "Vah" is unrelated to God's name.

The "Yehu" which helped create the "Yehudah" which became Judah and then Jew uses different vowels from yAhu in the names you cite so your own proofs contradict each other.

I have not claimed "Yahu" is the single and only correct way to say God's name. God the Father and Y'shua have dozens of marvelous names in the scriptures.

Nor did I say, "put the AH under the vav". Yahu-vah stems from Gentile misunderstandings. Be honest, however, the Gentiles got Yahu-vah and Yah-veh from their "understanding" of Tanakh.

 

[rosends]

I have not claimed "Yahu" is the single and only correct way to say God's name. God the Father and Y'shua have dozens of marvelous names in the scriptures.

Nor did I say, "put the AH under the vav". Yahu-vah stems from Gentile misunderstandings. Be honest, however, the Gentiles got Yahu-vah and Yah-veh from their "understanding" of Tanakh.

So in post 160, when you cite "Isaiah's name in Hebrew, or Jeremiah's" you are pointing to only one of the various names of God which can then not be definitively the reason that the first part of the 4 letter name is pronounced the way you claim.
And then you say ""Yahu... 'vah'". Jehovah" but you say that this is some thing that I can learn from scripture. Now you say that it stems from Gentile misunderstandings. Why would I want to learn that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So in post 160, when you cite "Isaiah's name in Hebrew, or Jeremiah's" you are pointing to only one of the various names of God which can then not be definitively the reason that the first part of the 4 letter name is pronounced the way you claim.
And then you say ""Yahu... 'vah'". Jehovah" but you say that this is some thing that I can learn from scripture. Now you say that it stems from Gentile misunderstandings. Why would I want to learn that?

Rabbi,

I appreciate your attempting to shield some readers from using the divine name inappropriately. The divine name is "Yahu". I also exhort people not to take it vainly, just like I tell people not to trust Y'shua vainly or take the gospel vainly.

We both know because of the "missing vowels", and changes through language translation, why the Gentiles in America say Jehovah or Yahveh, most often. You can make any protestation you like, we both know there are thousands of Jewish and Gentile scholars who recognize why it is "Jehovah" most commonly heard, and not, say, "Elohim".

I also appreciate honesty. Be honest. Another point of the Decalogue, along with Ha Shem's name being used rightly, is to not bear false witness... and Revelation says those who are dishonest will perish. Respectfully, most respectfully, I urge you and all readers here to be honest to yourself, with G_d, and regarding G_d's Son. Since the wise are exhorted to consider the name of G_d's son in Proverbs (singular, not plural, as in "all those who receive G_d's Word are sons")... consider! Pray. Ask. Be honest.

I have heard a lot of Jewish brothers and sisters give their intellectual, cultural and biblical reasons for not responding to Y'shua. Rarely have I heard someone say they have rejected Y'shua on the basis of prayer to Ha Shem. I've prayed to G_d, "If Y'shua is your Son, I would like to know, and if not, protect me from him and his followers!"

He has answered my prayer.

 

[rosends]

Rabbi,

I appreciate your attempting to shield some readers from using the divine name inappropriately. The divine name is "Yahu". I also exhort people not to take it vainly, just like I tell people not to trust Y'shua vainly or take the gospel vainly.

What you mean is that one of the constructions that is used to refer to God when appended to other roots and used to make a name is "yahu." Unless you can show me otherwise. The letters yod-hey-vav never appear as a word. Those three plus an aleph appears 14 times -- 13 as Yeyhu, a name of various people. Y'hu appears in Kohelet 11:3. This means "it will be." So, no, yahu by itself is not "the divine name."

We both know because of the "missing vowels", and changes through language translation, why the Gentiles in America say Jehovah or Yahveh, most often. You can make any protestation you like, we both know there are thousands of Jewish and Gentile scholars who recognize why it is "Jehovah" most commonly heard, and not, say, "Elohim".

I am making no protestation about what people hear or don't hear, only about your contention about the nature of the name of God.

I also appreciate honesty. Be honest. Another point of the Decalogue, along with Ha Shem's name being used rightly, is to not bear false witness... and Revelation says those who are dishonest will perish.

So you are citing a law you don't understand and a book which has no authority.

Respectfully, most respectfully, I urge you and all readers here to be honest to yourself, with G_d, and regarding G_d's Son. Since the wise are exhorted to consider the name of G_d's son in Proverbs (singular, not plural, as in "all those who receive G_d's Word are sons")... consider! Pray. Ask. Be honest.

Not sure what you are talking about. Do you want me to accept that God has sons? I do -- many in fact. David, for example (Psalms 2:7) or Solomon (I Chronicles 22:9--10) or all of the nation of Israel (Ex. 4:22). Be honest. The text is very clear about this. (oh yeah...angels, Job 1:6).

I have heard a lot of Jewish brothers and sisters give their intellectual, cultural and biblical reasons for not responding to Y'shua. Rarely have I heard someone say they have rejected Y'shua on the basis of prayer to Ha Shem. I've prayed to G_d, "If Y'shua is your Son, I would like to know, and if not, protect me from him and his followers!"

I need to ask God to clarify what he has already taught clearly? Do I need to ask whether everyone on a long list of people is or isn't God's son? Jesus, Yeshua, Y'shua, Joshy...whatever you want to call him, is an object of belief in another religion -- a religion I flatly reject because there is no reason to accept it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Every 53rd letter from the beginning of Genesis goes in this sequence--Y-H-V-H-Y-H-V-H, until the middle of the Penteteuch, and then the palindromic sequence runs backward as H-V-H-Y-H-V-H-Y.

I'm being honest. Honestly, you may have forgotten the admonition of Proverbs. I did mentioned Proverbs in my last post, as you well know:

"Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?"

The Son in Proverbs 30 is singular in nature, not plural.

...There are many reasons to trust in Y'shua, in His death and resurrection. Many of them are in Tanakh. Rejecting a Jewish Messiah "flatly" seems disingenuous to me. As a Jew, we can safely reject "flatly" things like Hinduism and Islam, but a Jewish Messiah should be examined, questioned.

Rabbi, soften your heart.

 

[metis]

Rabbi, soften your heart.

What condescending arrogance the above is, so maybe you should take your own advice for once.

 

[rosends]

Every 53rd letter from the beginning of Genesis goes in this sequence--Y-H-V-H-Y-H-V-H, until the middle of the Penteteuch, and then the palindromic sequence runs backward as H-V-H-Y-H-V-H-Y.

I'm being honest. Honestly, you may have forgotten the admonition of Proverbs. I did mentioned Proverbs in my last post, as you well know:

"Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?"

The Son in Proverbs 30 is singular in nature, not plural.

...There are many reasons to trust in Y'shua, in His death and resurrection. Many of them are in Tanakh. Rejecting a Jewish Messiah "flatly" seems disingenuous to me. As a Jew, we can safely reject "flatly" things like Hinduism and Islam, but a Jewish Messiah should be examined, questioned.

Rabbi, soften your heart.

You completely misunderstand what Agur is saying. His point is that no one knows the nature of God so people ask all sorts of questions which highlight the non-understanding. Be honest, you know the text doesn't name a son, except when it does in the cases I cited (which you ignored...). Instead of trying to invent other identities, why not deal with the explicit "sons" I listed? The Jewish messianic concept excludes Jesus quite handily. You should be more open to the realization that your beliefs are not supported or supportable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You should be more open to the realization that your beliefs are not supported or supportable.

That would be a thoroughly self-defeating honesty.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What condescending arrogance the above is, so maybe you should take your own advice for once.

Not arrogance. I was hard-hearted against Christianity, being zealous for our faith and tradition. I asked the Rabbi to soften his heart, to pray--I was correct in my assumption, since he wrote "Why should I pray to God about Christianity?" Why indeed. We can start by praying about being persecuted as Jews by Christians, but honest, soft prayer opens the door to discussion with God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You completely misunderstand what Agur is saying. His point is that no one knows the nature of God so people ask all sorts of questions which highlight the non-understanding. Be honest, you know the text doesn't name a son, except when it does in the cases I cited (which you ignored...). Instead of trying to invent other identities, why not deal with the explicit "sons" I listed? The Jewish messianic concept excludes Jesus quite handily. You should be more open to the realization that your beliefs are not supported or supportable.

I see. Agur was asking a question of the Jewish people, in Tanakh, to highlight our misunderstanding:

"What is the name of God's Son?"

The explicit sons of Tanakh are plural, Agur's question is regarding a singular son. Agur wrote after others wrote about the sons of God. So Agur's question may be answered thusly:

1. We KNOW who the sons of God are, Agur. We understand!

2. Who is the Son of God, Agur? We misunderstand!

I agree with you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That would be a thoroughly self-defeating honesty.

Is it "I" should be open or "we" should be open? All of us are Jews. I was open to that very thing, that my beliefs are not supported or supportable. Now, I'm a Messianic Jew. Obviously, if you have not converted, you face the self-defeating honesty you accuse me of avoiding. I didn't avoid it!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nor do I buy (what I used to buy) from Jewish people about the ineffable nature of the true name. Note carefully God's admonition:

“And now, O priests, this commandment is for you.
2 If you will not hear,
And if you will not take it to heart,
To give glory to My name,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“I will send a curse upon you,
And I will curse your blessings.
Yes, I have cursed them already,
Because you do not take it to heart.

There is a difference between "God's name is too glorious to be misused" and "God's name is unknown" and "God's NAME is to be glorified!"

Moses was told:

"But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."

YHVH, Yahueh, or if you like, Yahu, for short, is named over 6,000 times in Tanakh. How does covering YHVH with Adonai or Adonai with Elohim glorify His name? His singular name, again, not "names".

 

[rosends]

I see. Agur was asking a question of the Jewish people, in Tanakh, to highlight our misunderstanding:

"What is the name of God's Son?"

The explicit sons of Tanakh are plural, Agur's question is regarding a singular son. Agur wrote after others wrote about the sons of God. So Agur's question may be answered thusly:

1. We KNOW who the sons of God are, Agur. We understand!

2. Who is the Son of God, Agur? We misunderstand!

I agree with you.

Great! So you know that the answer is "David". Or "Solomon." So that means that any theology based on thinking it refers to anyone else is in error! Praise be! You are healed!

 

[metis]

Not arrogance. I was hard-hearted against Christianity, being zealous for our faith and tradition. I asked the Rabbi to soften his heart, to pray--I was correct in my assumption, since he wrote "Why should I pray to God about Christianity?" Why indeed. We can start by praying about being persecuted as Jews by Christians, but honest, soft prayer opens the door to discussion with God.

You have written some pretty nasty stuff from time to time, especially that of often being terribly condescending to the point of arrogance. You have judged people and you have condemned entire religions. Heed you own advice, and don't cite the speck in someone else's eye when you have a plank in your own.