A Message for Jews

Post Reply New Topic

Well, with logic like this I don't see how there are still jews. Have you considered emailing this to the Israeli embassy?

I suspect that the Israeli embassy gets similar mailings quite frequently.

If you might be willing, I would be interested in hearing what you men there. It is the sectarian "Jesus" that is *not* a Jew.

It's a joke. Sarcasm.

The joke being that the argument is so convicing that the jews should have converted to christianity by now. But I don't really think it's persuasive, so it's a joke I'm making.

Okay, but if my argument truly was convincing, it would be modern-day "Christians" making a move of some sort, not Jews.

He is the Son of God. That makes him God.

You are the son of a man. Does that make you a monkey?

Ah, but I'm responding to the original post, not yours.

I can tell you few Jews will ever serve a god or God who demands human blood as a sacrifice. It goes against the grain.

Your plea to Jews will fall on deaf ears (for the most part) I am very happy to say.

Jews will not fall for that kind of sh*t.

ruveyn

Yesterday is but a distant memory ...

I am going to have to say that a lot of these prophecies are really not to be considered prophecies, or not really to be considered known as fulfilled. Hosea 11:1, "out of Egypt I call my son", was referring to the Exodus. The deaths of children isn't believed to have happened by other historical accounts, meaning that it is plausibly just BS to fulfill some theological justification. Isaiah 7:14, on being born of a virgin just isn't valid as it is misinterpreted. Etc...

Also mistranslated since the original Hebrew never mentioned any virigns.

ruveyn

Let there be no confusion Jesus is a god. “God” from the Hebrew word ’El simply means a strong one. Christ is called “The mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, “a god” at John 1:1 (unless otherwise noted all quoted scriptures are from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures), and “the only-begotten god” at John 1:18. Jehovah is not the only god or strong one. The very fact that he is called the Almighty God (Genesis 17:1; Exodus 6:2-3; Ezekiel 10:3-5; Joel 1:15; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:16-17; 15:3; 16:7; 19:6; 21:22) indicates that there are other gods not so mighty, not almighty like him. So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not ALMIGHTY God. Three verses later Jesus is called “the Son of God,” as we read at John 20:30-31: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.” So there was no objection to John’s reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity, and certainly John does not say that Thomas’ address to Jesus was to make us believe that Jesus was The God, but says it was to make us believe Jesus was God’s Son. In this same chapter (John 20:17) Jesus said: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” He was not ascending to himself.

So Jehovah is THE God; Jesus Christ is one of many who are called gods. Satan is called “the god of this system of things,” (2 Corinthians 4:4) Moses was said to be as god to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), and in the Psalms human judges in Israel where called gods. This was appropriate since they were to serve as God’s spokesmen and representatives (Psalm 82:6). Jesus referred to this and argued that hence the Jews should not say he blasphemed when he said he was God’s Son. (John 10:33-36) The apostle Paul also said there are many called gods. (1 Corinthians 8:5) But to argue that these many different ones called gods are, by virtue of this fact, The Almighty God Jehovah would be absurd. Similarly, it is absurd to try to argue that Thomas’ reference to Jesus as god proves Jesus is The God, and doubly so when just three verses later Jesus is identified as God’s Son.

Incidentally, in view of the existence of so many called gods, does it not establish the need for The God, the Almighty God, to have a distinguishing name, that is, Jehovah? Some say His name is Yahweh and it is entirely possible this is true. The name Jehovah is very distinct and has been used for many centuries. It is most familiar form of God's name earth wide today.

Last edited by kxmode on 17 Feb 2011, 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have heard "YHWH" and "YHVH" equally represent the ends of the perceived range of his nature.

“Jehovah” (Heb., יהוה, YHWH), God’s personal name, first occurs in Ge 2:4. The divine name is a verb, the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Hebrew verb הוה (ha·wah′, “to become”). Therefore, the divine name means “He Causes to Become.” Other translations render this as "I Am That I Am" “I Am Because I Am”; “I Am Who Am”; “I Will Be That I Will Be.” This reveals Jehovah as the One who, with progressive action, causes himself to become the Fulfiller of promises, the One who always brings his purposes to realization. (Genesis 2:4; Exodus 3:14)

The greatest indignity that modern translators render to the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures is the removal or the concealing of his peculiar personal name. Actually his name occurs in the Hebrew text 6,828 times as יהוה (YHWH or JHVH), generally referred to as the Tetragrammaton (literally meaning “having four letters”). By using the name “Jehovah,” we, Jehovah's Witnesses, have held closely to the original-language texts and have not followed the practice of substituting titles such as “Lord,” “the Lord,” “Adonai” or “God” for the divine name, the Tetragrammaton.

Today, apart from a few fragments of the early Greek Septuagint where the sacred name is preserved in Hebrew, only the Hebrew text has retained this most important name in its original form of four letters, יהוה (YHWH), the exact pronunciation of which has not been preserved. Current circulating texts of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Syriac Peshitta (Sy) and Latin Vulgate (Vg) substitute the mere title “Lord” for God’s unique name.

It is worth noting the shorter form of the divine name occurs 50 times in the Masoretic text as Yah, rendered “Jah.” Following is a list of its occurrences: Exodus 15:2; 17:16; Psalm 68:4, 18; 77:11; 89:8; 94:7, 12; 102:18; 104:35; 105:45; 106:1, 48; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1, 9; 115:17, 18, 18; 116:19; 117:2; 118:5, 5, 14, 17, 18, 19; 122:4; 130:3; 135:1, 3, 4, 21; 146:1, 10; 147:1, 20; 148:1, 14; 149:1, 9; 150:1, 6, 6; Song of Solomon 8:6; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4; 38:11, 11. The common word "Hallelujah" is a transliteration of the Hebrew expression ha·lelu-Yah′, appearing first at Psalm 104:35. In the New World Translation it is nearly always translated “praise Jah, you people.” Even though Christendom removed Jehovah's name from His Word I find it interesting that they left Hallelujah. Obviously they don't know the word's meaning.

How important is Jehovah's personal name in worship? Jesus said in his famed Sermon on the Mount “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified." (Matthew 6:9). In order to sanctified his name we need to know his name. And by knowing God's name it helps us to form a closer, personal relationship with him. (James 4:8) People cannot form relationships with people if they don't know the person's name. In fact when meeting people for the first time we tell them our name! How much more so should people be aware of God's personal name?

I am far from being a scholar here, but that fits with my point.


Even at risk of offending our Jewish fellows, I agree.


Whose name?!

Personally, and just as with your own mention of peculiar, knowing Yah's name makes it possible to identify him exclusively.

kxmode"

"The divine name is a verb, the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Hebrew verb הוה (ha·wah′, “to become”). Therefore, the divine name means “He Causes to Become.”"

Unless you are far more deeply enmeshed in early - certainly PreHebrew - Semitics than you appear to be, and have unpublished data on languages of the period of Ugaritic but NOT Ugaritic, you cannot make this fly. In the absence of evidence beyond what I have looked at over the years [including teaching courses in Comparative Semitic Linguistics], I am unlikely to revise conclusions rooted in Hebrew-internal attestation and structural insights from other Semitic.

If you have some background [basic familiarity with phonology and morphology of at least two Semitic languages will do] I will happily expand on this privately. Otherwise, take my word - or not, the Spanish proverb applies: If this is your theory, think again; if it is what someone has told you, question anything else you have heard from that source.