The false theologies of the hebrew language only movement.

Lost4words · Jun 8, 2019

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
You say the name does not matter because the Lord knows who you are referring to. If that is the case call him anything you want to, and no matter the name he will know who are speaking of and bless you.

If that is not the case then what name we call him is indeed important. At the very least the right name is important at baptism, since it must be in his name and none other. Can we agree that the Lord's name is important, and that what we call him is important? Or do you still believe what we call him is not important and does not matter?

Jesus is how i know the Lord. Same as millions and millions in the world today and yesterday. Thousands that went to their death with 'Jesus' on their lips and in their minds.

You are being pedantic and unrealistic.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jun 8, 2019

Lost4words said:
Jesus is how i know the Lord. Same as millions and millions in the world today and yesterday. Thousands that went to their death with 'Jesus' on their lips and in their minds.

You are being pedantic and unrealistic.

Yes and they were saved according the knowledge they had received. If they had not known the name they were not accountable for the name. You and I have heard the name and are therefore accountable for that knowledge and whether or not we accept it.

The Lord demands that we study his word and seek the high calling in Yahshua the Christ. He gave us one name to be saved by, it is not unrealistic to seek out, preach, and teach that one name. So it is very realistic to use the name give to us by God and not some other name or a name created by men. It would be unrealistic to use a false name when the true one is easily found with a little bit a searching. Remaining in the darkness when the light is brought to you is unrealistic brother.

Der Alte · Jun 8, 2019

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
I am sorry you disagree brother, I am also sorry you had such a bad experience in the past. But if you disagree with what was written I ask that you prove from scripture where it says the son's name was not Yah(Yahshua) as the Fathers name is Yah(YHWH).
That is what was written in the encyclopedia, if you believe it is wrong take it up with them. It is not a main part of what I believe so I will not argue about it here, if you disagree with what was written I will accept that.

I don't believe the Jewish Encyclopedia is wrong. It was prepared by 50+ native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars. I believe that they know Hebrew better than any anonymous person on a discussion forum.

T

he name Yah is God's name, I have shown this from the Strong's concordance. And I have shown that Christ came in the Lord's name(Yah) if you disagree with this then show from scripture where Christ's name does not bear the Lord's name(Yah). Because I have shown where it says Christ's name was in fact Yah(Yahshua).

Strong's concordance, published in 1890, is NOT a Hebrew lexicon all it shows is how the words were translated in the KJV. It has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. There is no such name in Hebrew as Yahshua as I have shown from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Coming in the Lord's name does not mean that Jesus' name is spelled Yahshua. In the name of means in the authority of.

Joshua should not be translated as Yahshua, since they are not the same name. Those of the circumcision called him yeshua(jeshua), the name Jesus is derived from that name given to Christ by them. The name Yeshua comes from the name Joshua, so then we know that it makes sense for the Jews to translate the common name Joshua to Iesous, just as they would translate the name yeshua/jeshua to Iesous.

Yeshua is the diminutive of Jehoshua, As Jim is the diminutive of James. Yeshua and Jehoshua are the same name. There is no Hebrew name Joshua that is how Jehoshua has been transliterated in English. Search the Hebrew scriptures you will not find the name יושע/yoshua

The Name Yahshua is the one name given under heaven by which man can be saved, it is a unique and powerful name given by the Lord God. No man gave the Lord this name, and there is none other with his name Yahshua.

There is no such name as Yahshua. it does not exist in Hebrew. That is an invention of sacred names who know nothing about Hebrew.

I would also point out I did show/give you a better understanding of what those who believe in the true name(or at least some of those who believe in the true name) believe concerning the Mosaic Law and dietary restrictions.
May God bless and Guide you to the truth and light of his word brother.

Here is definition of Yehoshua from Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. The first two head words are pronounced Yehoshua. The one which is preceded by "later" is pronounced Yeshua. The vowel points for pronunciation were supplied by the Masoretes in the early years of AD.

יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ S3091 GK3397, and (later יֵשׁוּעַ S3442, 3443 GK3800, 3801, n.pr.m. (& loc., v. 9 infr.) (י׳ is salvation, or י׳ is opulence, cf. אֱלִישָׁע, אֱלִישׁוּעַ, אֲבִישׁוּעַ, & Nes 1892, 573 f.; in any case it came to be associated with ישׁע, cf. Mat 1:21; on יֵשׁוּעַ v. especially Frä iv, 1890, 332 f. Müll 1892, 177 f. who cite analog. for change of וֹ to later—ֵ, & Nes)—1. Moses’ successor, son of Nun, ( Ἰησοῦς) יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Dt 3:21 Ju 2:7; = יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Ex 17:9, 10, 13, 14; 24:13; 32:17; 33:11 Nu 11:28; 13:16; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:65; 27:18, 22; 32:12, 28; 34:17 Dt 1:38; 3:28; 31:3, 7, 14(), 23; 34:9 Jos 1:1 + 167 times Jos; Ju 1:1; 2:6, 7, 8, 21, 23; 1 K 16:34; 1 Ch 7:27; = יֵשׁוּעַ Ne 8:17 ( Ἰησοῦς); according to P, name changed by Moses from הוֹשֵׁעַ q.v. Nu 13:8, 16 ( Αὑση) Dt 32:44 ( Ἰησοῦς). † 2. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ a Bethshemite 1 S 6:14, 18 ( Ὡσηε, A Ἰησοῦς, L Ἰωσηε). † 3. h.p. after the restoration, son of Jehozadak יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ( Ἰησοῦς) Hg 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zc 3:1, 3, 6, 8, 9; 6:11; = יֵשׁוּעַ ( Ἰησοῦς) Ezr 2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2; 10:18; Ne 7:7; 12:1, 7, 10, 26. † 4. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ governor of Jerusalem under Josiah 2 K 23:8 ( Ἰησοῦς, L Ἰωσηε). † 5. יֵשׁוּעַ ( Ἰησοῦς) head of one of the classes of priests 1 Ch 24:11, possibly also Ezr 2:36 = Ne 7:39. † 6. יֵשׁוּעַ ( Ἰησοῦς, etc.), a Levitical family-name of frequent occurrence: a. Ezr 2:40; 3:9 = Ne 7:43; 8:7; 9:4, 5; 10:10; 12:8. b. 2 Ch 31:15; Ezr 8:33; Ne 12:24. † 7. יֵשׁוּעַ ( id.), father of a builder at the wall Ne 3:19, perhaps = † 8. a Judaite family-name ( id.), Ezr 2:6 = Ne 7:11 (cf. Sm 12). † 9. n.pr.loc. in south of Judah Ne 11:26 בְּיֵשׁוּעַ ( ἐν Ἰησού, L ἐν Σουα).
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 221). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

An out of copy right edition of this lexicon can be downloaded at internet archives.

Contenders Edge · Jun 8, 2019

Alithis said:
There is this growing trend of teaching for some years now which has sprung out of the " Hebrew roots" type movment.
The belief that to fully understand scripture you need a deeper understanding of Hebrew language and culture.
Which is really null and void since the New testiment is originally in Greek and true understanding of the word inspired by the Holy Spirit comes by the same Holy Spirit who leads into all Truth.
From that erronious theology of hebrew roots another more insidious doctrine has risen .
it teaches Hebrew language only can be used in reference to God for it to be valid.
Even going as far as to teach ..based upon NO scripture what so ever.. That the name of Jesus has MORE power if you pronounce it correctly in Hebrew .
it also teaches that any other lingual translation is false. And not valid.
( and ,not surprisingly ,it also demands days and festivals of law be observed..)
In short it is just another attack to bar the way to life by confusing the use of the name of JESUS and dragging oeople back under the Law by which they can be condemned.

It is SO FLAWED as a theology yet is gaining vast numbers of followers . you can tell them by thier increasing use of yeshua or yehashua when they are conversing in General with English not hebrew audiences.
I.e if a hebrew speaking israeli is using Yeshua ..that is not a sign they are into or influenced by that false theological movment... That is thier native tongue..
But if an every day middle class Australian (for eg only) who has no isreali heritage starts using the name of Jesus in hebrew form only... Whether they realise it or not they have been influence By this false theology.

Its being used to confuse... Where once people plainly prayed..now they are confused so the sprinkle thier prayer wiyh a few "Yeshuas" in hrbrews along with Jesus in English or jesu in chinese.. Just in case. Displaying the confusion and anxieties the false theology has caused them..

My friends who love the lord JESUS...
Be FREE to use his name within the realms of your own language for it is GOD not man and not the devil who caused the languages to br multiplied on the earth .
They All came from God.
And there is Zero ... ZERO!.. Scripture to base such confusing and false theology and doctrine on.

While a deeper knowledge and understanding of the Jewish culture may be useful in enhancing the understanding of the faith in Christ we have embraced, the Hebrew roots movement, if it is what you describe it to be, is nothing more than a repackaging of the Judaizing doctrine the Apostle Paul had contended with in his day when Jews seeking to overthrow the Gospel of Christ were infiltrating the ranks of Gentile believers for the purpose of deceiving them into placing their trust in the Jewish laws and customs for their salvation more than in the salvation by grace through Christ alone. (Gal. 2:4) What the unbelieving Jews in the days of the Apostles could not destroy from without and with force, they attempted to destroy from within.

It is no different today.

Whether we call the Messiah “Yeshua” or Jesus does not matter, God knows who we are calling on in our own language and the name of Jesus has the same power in any given language it is spoken because His name is the same in any given language, even if it is pronounced differently in each tongue.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jun 8, 2019

Der Alter said:
I don't believe the Jewish Encyclopedia is wrong. It was prepared by 50+ native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars. I believe that they know Hebrew better than any anonymous person on a discussion forum.

Strong's concordance, published in 1890, is NOT a Hebrew lexicon all it shows is how the words were translated in the KJV. It has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. There is no such name in Hebrew as Yahshua as I have shown from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Coming in the Lord's name does not mean that Jesus' name is spelled Yahshua. In the name of means in the authority of.

Yeshua is the diminutive of Jehoshua, As Jim is the diminutive of James. Yeshua and Jehoshua are the same name. There is no Hebrew name Joshua that is how Jehoshua has been transliterated in English. Search the Hebrew scriptures you will not find the name יושע/yoshua

There is no such name as Yahshua. it does not exist in Hebrew. That is an invention of sacred names who know nothing about Hebrew.

Here is definition of Yehoshua from Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. The first two head words are pronounced Yehoshua. The one which is preceded by "later" is pronounced Yeshua. The vowel points for pronunciation were supplied by the Masoretes in the early years of AD.

יְהוֹשׁוּעַ, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ S3091 GK3397, and (later יֵשׁוּעַ S3442, 3443 GK3800, 3801, n.pr.m. (& loc., v. 9 infr.) (י׳ is salvation, or י׳ is opulence, cf. אֱלִישָׁע, אֱלִישׁוּעַ, אֲבִישׁוּעַ, & Nes 1892, 573 f.; in any case it came to be associated with ישׁע, cf. Mat 1:21; on יֵשׁוּעַ v. especially Frä iv, 1890, 332 f. Müll 1892, 177 f. who cite analog. for change of וֹ to later—ֵ, & Nes)—1. Moses’ successor, son of Nun, ( Ἰησοῦς) יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Dt 3:21 Ju 2:7; = יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Ex 17:9, 10, 13, 14; 24:13; 32:17; 33:11 Nu 11:28; 13:16; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:65; 27:18, 22; 32:12, 28; 34:17 Dt 1:38; 3:28; 31:3, 7, 14(), 23; 34:9 Jos 1:1 + 167 times Jos; Ju 1:1; 2:6, 7, 8, 21, 23; 1 K 16:34; 1 Ch 7:27; = יֵשׁוּעַ Ne 8:17 ( Ἰησοῦς); according to P, name changed by Moses from הוֹשֵׁעַ q.v. Nu 13:8, 16 ( Αὑση) Dt 32:44 ( Ἰησοῦς). † 2. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ a Bethshemite 1 S 6:14, 18 ( Ὡσηε, A Ἰησοῦς, L Ἰωσηε). † 3. h.p. after the restoration, son of Jehozadak יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ( Ἰησοῦς) Hg 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zc 3:1, 3, 6, 8, 9; 6:11; = יֵשׁוּעַ ( Ἰησοῦς) Ezr 2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:3; 5:2; 10:18; Ne 7:7; 12:1, 7, 10, 26. † 4. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ governor of Jerusalem under Josiah 2 K 23:8 ( Ἰησοῦς, L Ἰωσηε). † 5. יֵשׁוּעַ ( Ἰησοῦς) head of one of the classes of priests 1 Ch 24:11, possibly also Ezr 2:36 = Ne 7:39. † 6. יֵשׁוּעַ ( Ἰησοῦς, etc.), a Levitical family-name of frequent occurrence: a. Ezr 2:40; 3:9 = Ne 7:43; 8:7; 9:4, 5; 10:10; 12:8. b. 2 Ch 31:15; Ezr 8:33; Ne 12:24. † 7. יֵשׁוּעַ ( id.), father of a builder at the wall Ne 3:19, perhaps = † 8. a Judaite family-name ( id.), Ezr 2:6 = Ne 7:11 (cf. Sm 12). † 9. n.pr.loc. in south of Judah Ne 11:26 בְּיֵשׁוּעַ ( ἐν Ἰησού, L ἐν Σουα).
Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 221). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
An out of copy right edition of this lexicon can be downloaded at internet archives.

Strong's concordance is more accurate than the Jewish encyclopedia. I would say the strong's is accurate and the Jewish encyclopedia is the one that contains the errors brother. You would say otherwise so that portion of the discussion cannot be advanced since it would profit nothing to say over and over again that we simply disagree on which book we look to for a more perfect understanding of the Hebrew language used in the KJV bible(the most correct translation of the bible we have today).

Yahshua is the Name given by God from heaven, it is a name that did not exist before it was given by God in Christ and no other man since has possessed this name. So it would make sense why there is no record of this name outside of Christian teachings, it makes even more sense when you consider it is the Jews who would first have suppressed the name and tried to change and erase the true name from history.

"Yeshua is the diminutive of Jehoshua, As Jim is the diminutive of James. Yeshua and Jehoshua are the same name. There is no Hebrew name Joshua that is how Jehoshua has been transliterated in English. Search the Hebrew scriptures you will not find the name יושע/yoshua"
Joshua is the name transliterated into English, I agree. I have not said different thus far. The Jews called him Yeshua since they did refused to call him his true name. They gave him a common name(Joshua) to replace his God given name Yahshua.

Yahshua is the name given by and invented by God.
God's name is Yah and he came in his name. Why you think the Lord Names given on earth would not bear his true name Yah I do not know. Scripture tells us it does, it tells us it is a name unlike any other name, it is a name given from heaven. Not a common name already given to or known to man.

You can find my answer to the briggs and Jewish books in my first post on this thread from the strong's concordance.

Der Alte · Jun 8, 2019

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
Yes and they were saved according the knowledge they had received. If they had not known the name they were not accountable for the name. You and I have heard the name and are therefore accountable for that knowledge and whether or not we accept it.
The Lord demands that we study his word and seek the high calling in Yahshua the Christ. He gave us one name to be saved by, it is not unrealistic to seek out, preach, and teach that one name. So it is very realistic to use the name give to us by God and not some other name or a name created by men. It would be unrealistic to use a false name when the true one is easily found with a little bit a searching. Remaining in the darkness when the light is brought to you is unrealistic brother.

Yes it is wrong to remain in darkness when the light is brought to you so why do you choose to ignore all the evidence provided to you that your information is wrong? It does not matter how fervently you believe it, it is still wrong.

Der Alte · Jun 8, 2019

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
Strong's concordance is more accurate than the Jewish encyclopedia. I would say the strong's is ac Strong's concordance is more accurate than the Jewish encyclopedia. I would say the strong's is accurate and the Jewish encyclopedia is the one that contains the errors brother. You would say otherwise so that portion of the discussion cannot be advanced since it would profit nothing to say over and over again that we simply disagree on which book we look to for a more perfect understanding of the Hebrew language used in the KJV bible(the most correct translation of the bible we have today).
Yahshua is the Name given by God from heaven, it is a name that did not exist before it was given by God in Christ and no other man since has possessed this name. So it would make sense why there is no record of this name outside of Christian teachings, it makes even more sense when you consider it is the Jews who would first have suppressed the name and tried to change and erase the true name from history.
"Yeshua is the diminutive of Jehoshua, As Jim is the diminutive of James. Yeshua and Jehoshua are the same name. There is no Hebrew name Joshua that is how Jehoshua has been transliterated in English. Search the Hebrew scriptures you will not find the name יושע/yoshua"
Joshua is the name transliterated into English, I agree. I have not said different thus far. The Jews called him Yeshua since they did refused to call him his true name. They gave him a common name(Joshua) to replace his God given name Yahshua.
Yahshua is the name given by and invented by God.
God's name is Yah and he came in his name. Why you think the Lord Names given on earth would not bear his true name Yah I do not know. Scripture tells us it does, it tells us it is a name unlike any other name, it is a name given from heaven. Not a common name already given to or known to man.
You can find my answer to the briggs and Jewish books in my first post on this thread from the strong's concordance.

I am not interested in your opinion of the sources I provided. What makes you think Strong's is more accurate than the Jewish encyclopedia and BDB? What credible evidence can you provide other than your opinion?

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jun 8, 2019

Der Alter said:
Yes it is wrong to remain in darkness when the light is brought to you so why do you choose to ignore all the evidence provided to you that your information is wrong? It does not matter how fervently you believe it, it is still wrong.

Actually when looking at scripture, the Hebrew, and using a strongs concordance I have found the true name to be Yahshua. So I do not deny the truth but instead reject the lie/the false name.

So again why do you remain in darkness brother?

May God bless and Guide you to the truth and light of his word.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jun 8, 2019

Der Alter said:
I am not interested in your opinion of the sources I provided. What makes you think Strong's is more accurate than the Jewish encyclopedia and BDB? What credible evidence can you provide other than your opinion?

And I am not interested in your opinion on the sources I have provided. Only proof directly from the word of God that shows his name to be anything other than Yahshua. He came in the Lord's name Yah, not in the Lord's name Jesus.

If you want more information on the name Yahshua you can check out this link and then I would ask that you seek out others for yourself.
I do not agree with everything believed by these people but I do agree with their explanation(for the most part) of how the name was changed and how we know the true name is Yahshua.
The True Name Of The Savior

God bless and Guide you brother.

Lost4words · Jun 8, 2019

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
Yes and they were saved according the knowledge they had received. If they had not known the name they were not accountable for the name. You and I have heard the name and are therefore accountable for that knowledge and whether or not we accept it.

The Lord demands that we study his word and seek the high calling in Yahshua the Christ. He gave us one name to be saved by, it is not unrealistic to seek out, preach, and teach that one name. So it is very realistic to use the name give to us by God and not some other name or a name created by men. It would be unrealistic to use a false name when the true one is easily found with a little bit a searching. Remaining in the darkness when the light is brought to you is unrealistic brother.

Alithis · Jun 8, 2019

Contenders Edge said:
While a deeper knowledge and understanding of the Jewish culture may be useful in enhancing the understanding of the faith in Christ we have embraced, the Hebrew roots movement, if it is what you describe it to be, is nothing more than a repackaging of the Judaizing doctrine the Apostle Paul had contended with in his day when Jews seeking to overthrow the Gospel of Christ were infiltrating the ranks of Gentile believers for the purpose of deceiving them into placing their trust in the Jewish laws and customs for their salvation more than in the salvation by grace through Christ alone. (Gal. 2:4) What the unbelieving Jews in the days of the Apostles could not destroy from without and with force, they attempted to destroy from within.

It is no different today.

Whether we call the Messiah “Yeshua” or Jesus does not matter, God knows who we are calling on in our own language and the name of Jesus has the same power in any given language it is spoken because His name is the same in any given language, even if it is pronounced differently in each tongue.

Exactly... It is the same undermining religious spirit working against the truth as the judaizers were influenced by.
And we know what murderous false spirit they were under.
Persecuting arresting and trying to execute diciples of JESUS... And saying they were doing the lords work...

ChicanaRose · Jun 9, 2019

Alithis said:
Exactly... It is the same undermining religious spirit working against the truth as the judaizers were influenced by.
And we know what murderous false spirit they were under.
Persecuting arresting and trying to execute diciples of JESUS... And saying they were doing the lords work...

Philippians 3

"If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6as to zeal, persecuting the church; as to righteousness under the law, faultless.

7But whatever was an asset to me I count as loss for the sake of Christ..."

ChicanaRose · Jun 9, 2019

Gracia Singh said:
Less and less, if any, emphasis on the Cross, the Crucifixion, the deity of Christ, baptism as a rite or Sacrament, traditional Christian theology or history, the Trinity, God being Triune, the New Testament except as a proof text for Torah observance, Hebraism, etc.

I have personally witnessed this also. But then I only attended one congregation, so I may not have the whole picture.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jun 9, 2019

Lost4words said:

God bless and Guide you to his truth brother.

Alithis · Jun 9, 2019

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
God bless and Guide you to his truth brother.

We know you refer to your preferred doctrine when you say " his truth" ...
Not actually Him ..

Grip Docility · Jun 9, 2019

Alithis said:
There is this growing trend of teaching for some years now which has sprung out of the " Hebrew roots" type movment.
The belief that to fully understand scripture you need a deeper understanding of Hebrew language and culture.
Which is really null and void since the New testiment is originally in Greek and true understanding of the word inspired by the Holy Spirit comes by the same Holy Spirit who leads into all Truth.
From that erronious theology of hebrew roots another more insidious doctrine has risen .
it teaches Hebrew language only can be used in reference to God for it to be valid.
Even going as far as to teach ..based upon NO scripture what so ever.. That the name of Jesus has MORE power if you pronounce it correctly in Hebrew .
it also teaches that any other lingual translation is false. And not valid.
( and ,not surprisingly ,it also demands days and festivals of law be observed..)
In short it is just another attack to bar the way to life by confusing the use of the name of JESUS and dragging oeople back under the Law by which they can be condemned.

It is SO FLAWED as a theology yet is gaining vast numbers of followers . you can tell them by thier increasing use of yeshua or yehashua when they are conversing in General with English not hebrew audiences.
I.e if a hebrew speaking israeli is using Yeshua ..that is not a sign they are into or influenced by that false theological movment... That is thier native tongue..
But if an every day middle class Australian (for eg only) who has no isreali heritage starts using the name of Jesus in hebrew form only... Whether they realise it or not they have been influence By this false theology.

Its being used to confuse... Where once people plainly prayed..now they are confused so the sprinkle thier prayer wiyh a few "Yeshuas" in hrbrews along with Jesus in English or jesu in chinese.. Just in case. Displaying the confusion and anxieties the false theology has caused them..

My friends who love the lord JESUS...
Be FREE to use his name within the realms of your own language for it is GOD not man and not the devil who caused the languages to br multiplied on the earth .
They All came from God.
And there is Zero ... ZERO!.. Scripture to base such confusing and false theology and doctrine on.

Sacred Name movements are silly. It only helps to understand the root Hebrew for uses of certain words that are theologically hinged on the Hebrew.

As for Jesus, Yeshua, Joshua and the like... Jesus knows what we mean.

If someone wants to call Him Yeshua, so be it.

But if some start debating on what matters before God, the understanding is silly.

On Hebrew Root... We have 1 John 4:8, yet Hate is used in the Greek root there.

The OT usage of the word is not even remotely close to the Greek and current use of the word.

We know this because God is not duplicitous.

All blessings in our Lord God, Jesus Christ, to you.

Alithis · Jun 9, 2019

On observation there seems to be two Main groups that fall for this..
Sorry but just an observation...
Grouo one ..MIddleage woman prone to every new wave of doctrine
And 18 to 25 year old males that have been indoctrinated by it.
And dont yet realize that there is NOTHING in scripture to base it on .

Quasiblogo · Jun 9, 2019

I am a member of a evangelical charismatic church within which a few of us have taken a look at our Hebrew roots for general edification. For me, the blessing has primarily been that I have found in it an authentification of my trust in the Lord Jesus to get me beyond the grips of Higher Criticism. As a result, I am more assured that the original Scriptures (whether Hebrew for the OT or Greek for the NT) were 100% accurate in their original take. My pastor is not "HR" in any movement sense, but for emphasis, and to give OT references a sense of immediacy and "you were there", he will say names of God, people and places in the Hebrew/Greek way.

So, congregation at-large, all of us understand that we have been grafted into believing Israel. Some HRers wear a prayer shawl to services as a sign of dedication and not for show. I like to take the standard OT (Parasha) readings for the Jewish Sabbath and read them along with the recommended NT readings outlined by Stern in the Complete Jewish Bible. Still, I use the NKJV, NASB and Spanish Reina-Valera for general reading.

I believe certain thoughts must be concurrently accepted: (1) that the original scriptures came in specific languages, making the transmission of them the most accurate for reference, (2) that God intended for the Scriptures (old/new) to be spread via translation. In the latter, there certainly is a degree of trust placed on the Holy Spirit to guide interpreters (I have no problem with that, because I have seen more truth being communicated by preachers of the Gospel in Spanish than by liberal theologian well-versed in Hebrew/Greek). I wonder if St. Paul anticipated translation issues when he admonished that not many should be teachers. And all this does make me ponder that perhaps it is a degree of uniform liturgy and sacraments (are those ever debated on CF!) that allows original intent to stick despite translation.

There is a hardcore HR para-church group that meets in my city, about all gentiles. They are outstanding believers and go out of their way to not undermine their very "gentile minded" pastors. I was interested until I understood that there is among them a line of reasoning that says we can understand the NT better if we study the OT via the teachings of extra-biblical teachings of rabbis--then, this would make us better hearers of the Word expressed in the NT. The jury is not out for me on this, as I can see some validity in this as far as understanding custom and context, while it still strikes me that there is is a very fine line that might even cause one to sway away from the Root of Jesse into the speculations that Paul cautioned us about. But, the jury might say that studying those rabbis some, with a seeking heart and discerning spirit, is like archeology. Even the stones can tell us things that affirm and even elucidate on the scriptures.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Jun 9, 2019

Alithis said:
We know you refer to your preferred doctrine when you say " his truth" ...
Not actually Him ..

I refer to the word, doctrine, and traditions of Christ and the Apostles brother, as that is the Lord's truth.

God bless and God you to the truth of his word brother

Yeshua HaDerekh · Jun 9, 2019

Matthew 1:21

The false theologies of the hebrew language only movement.

Jesus I Trust In You

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus I Trust In You

Disciple of Jesus .

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus .

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus .

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Similar threads