השם יהוה נאמר

[daq]

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. First we were talking about the Greek abbreviations/contractions of IH XP and IC XC Are you saying it is NOT IHSOUS, IHΣΟΥΣ and Xhristos spelled ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ? It is NOT Ιησούς Χριστός (IC XC)? If not, what is your suggestion? In your 1 Corinthians quote, it is Theos (God) and Kyrios (Lord) Iesous (Jesus). What do you not agree with exactly??

I have already offered an answer for this, but I offered it from the scripture, not from myself. If one will not accept it from the scripture then why would such a one accept it from me? Does the statement say, But by daq? or does it say, But by the Eastern Orthodox church? No, it says, No one can say, Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η, but by the Holy Spirit.

With its usage within various contexts, in both the LXX and the N/T, we know that by Κ̅Ϲ it is Kurios that is intended here, but by the same principles laid out in the totality of the scripture we can also know that Kurios may be used for YHWH, or Yah, or Lord, or Master, or even lower case lord and master. So on that nomen sacrum alone you have at least four choices and must decide by the context what is intended.

Tell me why I should even try to answer that for you when I could be wrong and mislead you? That is between you and the Spirit of Elohim in His Word: but if you think you can just take the word of your church, and put your faith in church tradition, I would strongly suggest that you are not taking this issue seriously enough. As for Ι̅Η, it is Paul who answers (one of the critical meanings of) this nomen sacrum, not me, and therefore I have quoted his words: and he himself answers it by quoting those who came before him, both king David in Psalm 68, and Yeshayah the Prophet in Isaiah 45, but without hearing the Logos within the contexts of Paul's words and those whom he quotes for background context, one will not receive the answer.

 

[daq]

bet elohim.
Yes the 7 sealed scroll is in the right hand. A correct perspective when reading right to left, blessed Father[yod, hei] is Head of the Son[vav, hei].
So there is no misunderstanding on my part. Nor for anyone perceiving the beautiful script, Word facing back at them. I believe you may have been viewing the script as a mirror instead.
John 6:46

And I believe you are ignoring the scriptures which teach the opposite of what you say.

For anyone else who may be interested in this part of the discussion it was explained in reply #68. Hebrew is written and reads from right to left. One does not arrive at the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text and read waw-hei as being on the right hand side within the Tetragrammaton name of the Father: that is utter confusion.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

And I believe you are ignoring the scriptures which teach the opposite of what you say.

For anyone else who may be interested in this part of the discussion it was explained in reply #68. Hebrew is written and reads from right to left. One does not arrive at the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text and read waw-hei as being on the right hand side within the Tetragrammaton name of the Father: that is utter confusion.

Perhaps try looking at each sequential letter from bet on as being from right hand to right continuously. The Son sits at the Right hand of The Father with a scroll to give. A 7 sealed torah scroll given likened to ruach ha'kodesh to those of the flock.
Ben enosh as you mentioned reminds me of.
Revelation 3:21

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

And I believe you are ignoring the scriptures which teach the opposite of what you say.

For anyone else who may be interested in this part of the discussion it was explained in reply #68. Hebrew is written and reads from right to left. One does not arrive at the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew text and read waw-hei as being on the right hand side within the Tetragrammaton name of the Father: that is utter confusion.

When the 12 spies visited canaan. Imagine that they were confronted with paleo script compared to the abundant fruit. Yet what happened when paleo script was called the giants. A false report caused confusion and doubt because the block script recieved in the desert was considered lesser by dissenters?
Where the root of division began is a lesson worthy of faith.

 

[daq]

Perhaps try looking at each sequential letter from bet on as being from right hand to right continuously. The Son sits at the Right hand of The Father with a scroll to give. A 7 sealed torah scroll given likened to ruach ha'kodesh to those of the flock.
Ben enosh as you mentioned reminds me of.
Revelation 3:21

Ephesians 1:20-21 KJV
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

Philippians 2:9 KJV
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

How about rather this: please explain your pronunciation of the name that is above every name that is named, according to your stated belief that the name of the Son is "vav hei". How do you pronounce that name, "vav hei", which you say is the Son?

Can you spell it out for us all? Is it VaH? or VaHa? WaH or WaHah? VeH or WeH or VeHa or WeHa? And please explain what that name means according to your understanding. And remember, according to the scripture, Paul says it is a name that is named.

 

[daq]

When the 12 spies visited canaan. Imagine that they were confronted with paleo script compared to the abundant fruit. Yet what happened when paleo script was called the giants. A false report caused confusion and doubt because the block script recieved in the desert was considered lesser by dissenters?
Where the root of division began is a lesson worthy of faith.

The original script written in the heavens was also written on casing stones of the Great Pyramid, and some places on the interior which are still found there to this day, and Mosheh, having been an adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter, was instructed in all the wisdom of Mitzraim, (Acts 7:22). However, I am not speaking of Egyptian hieroglyphs: the Gizeh Plateau was not built by Egyptians, Egypt did not even exist as a nation when the antediluvian Patriarchs designed and built the Gizeh Plateau.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I have already offered an answer for this, but I offered it from the scripture, not from myself. If one will not accept it from the scripture then why would such a one accept it from me? Does the statement say, But by daq? or does it say, But by the Eastern Orthodox church? No, it says, No one can say, Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η, but by the Holy Spirit.

With its usage within various contexts, in both the LXX and the N/T, we know that by Κ̅Ϲ it is Kurios that is intended here, but by the same principles laid out in the totality of the scripture we can also know that Kurios may be used for YHWH, or Yah, or Lord, or Master, or even lower case lord and master. So on that nomen sacrum alone you have at least four choices and must decide by the context what is intended.

Tell me why I should even try to answer that for you when I could be wrong and mislead you? That is between you and the Spirit of Elohim in His Word: but if you think you can just take the word of your church, and put your faith in church tradition, I would strongly suggest that you are not taking this issue seriously enough. As for Ι̅Η, it is Paul who answers (one of the critical meanings of) this nomen sacrum, not me, and therefore I have quoted his words: and he himself answers it by quoting those who came before him, both king David in Psalm 68, and Yeshayah the Prophet in Isaiah 45, but without hearing the Logos within the contexts of Paul's words and those whom he quotes for background context, one will not receive the answer.

Except in this case it is Kyrios Iesous. Lord Jesus. Understanding the context and the language is key. So to say Iesous is Kyrios/Yeshua is Adonai, you need the Holy Spirit to confess and believe it. I still don't see your point but whatever.

 

[daq]

Except in this case it is Kyrios Iesous.

If the understanding of the nomen sacrum Ι̅Η is that simple and straightforward then you should be able to prove your assertion for your interpretation from the scripture, without any need to rely on church tradition: yet we both know you can do no such thing. What I get from church tradition is some story about so and so who knew one or more of the Apostles, or was one of John's disciples and John explained it to him, and that's how the church knows that the name Jesus is the correct interpretation, and blah, blah, blah. Give me some real evidence from the scripture for your assertion: our souls may be at stake here, prove that you know the Word and know His name from the Word.

I'm not meaning to be rude here, just trying to drive the point home: I do not believe you nor anyone else have any real evidence for such an assertion, and I believe that is most likely because, like most of us including myself for a very long time, you simply took it for granted until now. It isn't granted, it isn't a given, the truth is taught in the Word of Elohim, by Elohim, and we are all supposed to be taught of Elohim.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If the understanding of the nomen sacrum Ι̅Η is that simple and straightforward then you should be able to prove your assertion for your interpretation from the scripture, without any need to rely on church tradition: yet we both know you can do no such thing. What I get from church tradition is some story about so and so who knew one or more of the Apostles, or was one of John's disciples and John explained it to him, and that's how the church knows that the name Jesus is the correct interpretation, and blah, blah, blah. Give me some real evidence from the scripture for your assertion: our souls may be at stake here, prove that you know the Word and know His name from the Word.

I'm not meaning to be rude here, just trying to drive the point home: I do not believe you nor anyone else have any real evidence for such an assertion, and I believe that is most likely because, like most of us including myself for a very long time, you simply took it for granted until now. It isn't granted, it isn't a given, the truth is taught in the Word of Elohim, by Elohim, and we are all supposed to be taught of Elohim.

Um, why is there even a question? 1000s of years and 1000s of Greek church Saints and scholars that totally understand the context and language say so LOL! The evidence in scripture is it was written in koine GREEK. I don't even understand your problem with it. It is like you think 1+1 does not equal 2...not trying to be rude but Oy Vey! Maybe @prodromos can explain things better than I have...

 

[daq]

Looking at Paleo Hebrew script.

This looks more like Greek then square script Hebrew
!

Yes because the Greeks borrowed the Paleo character set in order to be able to write their language when writing became more widespread and a more standardized character set became a necessity. However I do not mean they borrowed the language itself, just the character set, which the Greeks employed in order be able to represent their Greek language in writing. The similarities are evident in most all of the ancient Greek characters, but one of the most eye-opening is the ancient Digamma, which looks very much like the Paleo waw, and it also originally had a numeric value of six, just as the waw.

When the digamma dropped out of usage for the Greek language it still retained its value as a numeral, (six), and in Latin-English the sixth letter is now phonetic f, as we all know, and this strongly suggests its original relationship with waw as depicted in Reply #13 on page one. The Greek letter phi replaced the sound for phonetic f, and the phi looks very much like the ancient letter feh, (also shown in Reply #13), so phi is very likely a product of the original two-horned viper, the letter feh, but with the horns now having been dropped from the character in Greek.

As for the most ancient form of the original Paleo Hebrew, (written in the heavens by the finger of Elohim), the feh-phi became too confusing with qof, a measuring line, that is, a stick with a ball of twine wrapped around it, which looked very much like both the original letter feh and the Greek letter phi. I believe it was for this reason that the original letter feh dropped out of Hebrew and peh was used to form phonetic f, but anytime we see a single letter being employed for two different phonetic sounds it is a telltale sign that something is missing, (the letter feh in this case).

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

So. The 2 tribes retained the correct pronounciation-tradition more or less but inserted in a foreign script from babylon, while the lost tribes retained the original paleo script more or less, but with foreign pronounciations.
Interesting!

Jews and Christians really do seem to resemble the parable of the two sons.
The Ashuri script is foreign to Ephraim, unique heritage of the 2 house babylonian exile. It makes sense that the New Testament conquered the world in Greek and English the primary tongues of the Ephraimites.

It's plausible that many scribes remained south. But their are a few prophets that went north to speak and were understood.
So, no the hypothesis doest match with history. Because levites(scribes) went north also. [Block script is what set yisrayl apart from paleo semetic scribble(ie the semetic land promised)] And the tzadokite kept it.
The prophets were welcome both north and south by those with ears. Dialect was a non issue. Meaning the scribes wrote in block script what they heard. And who penned the account of eliyahu?

וְהַכֹּהֲנִים, וְהַלְוִיִּם, אֲשֶׁר, בְּכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל--הִתְיַצְּבוּ עָלָיו, מִכָּל-גְּבוּלָם.

13 And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel presented themselves to him out of all their border.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

So you are saying the block script was the original given to Moshes? Isn't this chabad tradition?
Wasn't the original script, hieroglyphic? I think the writing on the wall of Beltshazzar was this ancient hieroglypic script , that none could understand, except the prophet Daniel, and not Ashuri

Yes, I'm saying that block script was given moshe to seperate the nation of yisrayl apart from the paleo semetic land promised. Ie rails on a roof.

כִּי תִבְנֶה בַּיִת חָדָשׁ, וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲקֶה לְגַגֶּךָ; וְלֹא-תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ, כִּי-יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ.

8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a parapet for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence.

Youre welcome to an opinion about the writting on a wall. But consider what wall it was written on!

 

[daq]

Jews and Christians really do seem to resemble the parable of the two sons.
The Ashuri script is foreign to Ephraim, as it is also foreign to the Samaritans. It is of the Jews/2 house, an inheritance from Babylon. It makes sense that the New Testament conquered the world in Greek and English, the primary tongues of the Ephraimites.

I was only speaking of character sets, not languages and tongues.