Discussion Hebrew Roots; error or something else?

[Ken Rank]

Heresy - G139
αἵρεσις
hairesis
Thayer Definition:
1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
2) choosing, choice

Over time the meanings of words change. As I stated in an earlier post, "gay intercourse" once meant "happy discussion." The word "adoption" once meant being joined to a family in order to do the WORK of that family. Today it is taking in an orphan, or one who otherwise is without home or family. Heresy is like this... the idea of "agreement" or "choice" has always been a part of the word, but the main thrust has always been centered on force and manipulation. If somebody didn't agree with you and you tried to force your view on them, manipulate them into seeing things as you do, that is heresy. When people were being beheaded and burned at the stake for heresy... those being killed weren't the heretics, the ones swinging the axes and lighting the matches were.

When we share our love of the Lord in forums like this, it can't be an "in-your-face/ take it or leave it" manner. We can't force anyone to think as we think or practice as we practice. We each answer for ourselves, we each give an account of our words and actions to the Lord, and while we are to hold each other accountable, that should come from a position of mercy, patience, and love.... which is what God extended to us when we were still part of this world. I am sharing all this to ask that we each watch what we say and how we say it, for we don't want to become a heretic, one guilty of trying to force another into conforming with our views.

 

[Ken Rank]

Nobody knows what his name was in any language other than Greek because the only record from that time of his name is in Greek. People speculate that is name was Joshua and that may well be correct but the facts are that the inspired record of the Lord's name is that it is Jesus.

This isn't true. In 300BC Jewish translators transliterated the name Yehoshua, the one we know as Joshua, into Greek as Iesous. So we have the practice of taking that Hebrew name, or the shortened Aramaic form Yeshua, into Greek as Iesous. The name of Messiah in the Greek manuscripts is Iesous... which when rolled back into Hebrew or Aramaic is Yehoshua or Yeshua. We also have Matthew 1:21:

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name _____, because he will save his people from their sins."

The definition of the name is found in the latter part of the sentence. "He will save HIS people from their sins." Who is "His?" The answer is God, the Word was God, God was manifested in the flesh. There are only two Semitic names that fit this description:

1. Hebrew - Yehoshua... it literally means "YHWH has become salvation." And, YHWH (God) did indeed by coming in the form of man to save man.

2. Aramaic - Yeshua - "He saves" or "He will save." This doesn't exactly fit the definition but Aramaic was the language of most Jews in Judea in that day.

Either becomes Iesous when taken into Greek... which is pronounced yay-soo-us, then into Latin as Iesus (retaining the "s" ending which is a Greek cultural thing, not representative of the name in it's original form) where it remained until the late 17th century when the J, which first carried the Y sound, was created. He will answer to Jesus, I think He would answer to "Bob" if done with a pure and loving heart.... but that is not the name He heard with His own ears by those He taught or who knew Him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This isn't true. In 300BC Jewish translators ...

Jesus wasn't born in 300 BC.

 

[Ken Rank]

Jesus wasn't born in 300 BC.

Of course not... not the reply I have come to expect from you. Regardless, if for 330 +/- years the practice of taking Yehoshua into Greek as Iesous was known, and since he is Jewish and they spoke Aramaic in the land at that time, then only our religious pride would cause us to not see what is fairly obvious here. And by saying, "religious pride" I am not directing anything at you, I am talking to me as much as anyone. I was once a KJV only, Jesus only advocate... I saw the world in very black and white, up or down, right or wrong way... and I have since learned, almost 2 decades ago now, that that type of approach does nothing but place God in a box and cause our learning to minimize or cease. In the end, Yeshua was a Jew raised in a land that spoke Aramaic and he was not Hellenized which means he wasn't given the name Iesous. He was a Torah keeping Jew. Thankfully... our salvation does not hinge on learning another language so call him what your heart leads you to call him. Out of respect for him based on what I know now, I chose to call him Yeshua.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course not...

The point made in one of my earlier posts is that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that we have in holy scripture is Jesus. I know as well as you that Jesus is an English spelling using Latin Letters of a Greek word. The Greek word, as we both know is ’Ιησοῦς. Neither you nor I object to Joshua as a Hebrew source word for Jesus. ְיהוֹשׁוַּע is fine to use as Jesus' name if one is speaking Hebrew. It isn't what the Lord is called in the new testament because the new testament was written in Greek and Ιησοῦς is his name in Greek. In English Jesus is his name. Using "Yeshua" in English for whatever reason is not helpful. Where does it come from? What's so good about it? Don't answer, those are rhetorical questions and the answer is "it comes from treating Hebrew as if it were a special holy language" and "it does no good whatever". It's part of the mentality that saint Paul advised saints Timothy and Titus to rebuke and avoid. There's no good reason to repeat the arguments that have already been presented in this thread. It is fruitless discussion, empty talk, time consuming babbling to keep going over what's already been covered.

The final goal at which this instruction aims is love, issuing from a pure heart, a clear conscience and a sincere faith. Some people have missed the way to these things and turned to empty speculation, trying to be teachers of the Law; but they understand neither the words they use nor the matters about which they make such strong assertions.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7 NJB)​

Let us all take the time to do what's beneficial and do it from a pure heart and avoid empty teachings that only lead further and further away from true religion.

 

[Steeno7]

Of course not... not the reply I have come to expect from you. Regardless, if for 330 +/- years the practice of taking Yehoshua into Greek as Iesous was known, and since he is Jewish and they spoke Aramaic in the land at that time, then only our religious pride would cause us to not see what is fairly obvious here. And by saying, "religious pride" I am not directing anything at you, I am talking to me as much as anyone. I was once a KJV only, Jesus only advocate... I saw the world in very black and white, up or down, right or wrong way... and I have since learned, almost 2 decades ago now, that that type of approach does nothing but place God in a box and cause our learning to minimize or cease. In the end, Yeshua was a Jew raised in a land that spoke Aramaic and he was not Hellenized which means he wasn't given the name Iesous. He was a Torah keeping Jew. Thankfully... our salvation does not hinge on learning another language so call him what your heart leads you to call him. Out of respect for him based on what I know now, I chose to call him Yeshua.

"Hellenized" being the key word there folks. It is at the root of all the HRM is about.

 

[Ken Rank]

The point made in one of my earlier posts is that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that we have in holy scripture is Jesus. I know as well as you that Jesus is an English spelling using Latin Letters of a Greek word. The Greek word, as we both know is ’Ιησοῦς. Neither you nor I object to Joshua as a Hebrew source word for Jesus. ְיהוֹשׁוַּע is fine to use as Jesus' name if one is speaking Hebrew. It isn't what the Lord is called in the new testament because the new testament was written in Greek and Ιησοῦς is his name in Greek. In English Jesus is his name. Using "Yeshua" in English for whatever reason is not helpful. Where does it come from? What's so good about it? Don't answer, those are rhetorical questions and the answer is "it comes from treating Hebrew as if it were a special holy language" and "it does no good whatever". It's part of the mentality that saint Paul advised saints Timothy and Titus to rebuke and avoid. There's no good reason to repeat the arguments that have already been presented in this thread. It is fruitless discussion, empty talk, time consuming babbling to keep going over what's already been covered.

The final goal at which this instruction aims is love, issuing from a pure heart, a clear conscience and a sincere faith. Some people have missed the way to these things and turned to empty speculation, trying to be teachers of the Law; but they understand neither the words they use nor the matters about which they make such strong assertions.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7 NJB)​

Let us all take the time to do what's beneficial and do it from a pure heart and avoid empty teachings that only lead further and further away from true religion.

I don't agree at all that the NT was written in Greek. Even Eusebius, a contemporary of Constantine and one who would certainly have had a Greek bias, said that Paul wrote Luke and that Luke translated from Hebrew to Greek. He also said that Mark (gospel of) was written in Hebrew by Peter and translated by Mark. Jerome when translating the Vulgate claimed to have "Hebrew originals" of certain NT books, including Matthew. John (gospel of) without question was written in Aramaic.. I can show that by sharing some nuances of the language present in the Greek but that make far more sense when rolled back into Aramaic. That said, I already shared Isaiah 28:11 and admit that A. all we have outside of the Peshitta is the Greek NT and B. that God is more than capable of speaking through ANY language. However, we are to study to show ourselves approved as workman unto the Lord and to ignore languages that might shed some light only causes us to leave food on the table God prepared for us to eat. Again, call him what you are convicted of... he answers to a pure heart!

Peace.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

"Hellenized" being the key word there folks. It is at the root of all the HRM is about.

To a point... Greek philosophy stands in contrast to the Hebraic paradigm and seeing the authors of the NT and it's main subject (Jesus) are all Hebraic... then considering their words through their paradigm and not according to the modern Greek influenced western paradigm does shed additional light. That isn't to say that one who reads in English and thinks in this Greek centered western mind that they can't belong to God or discern much of His will for them... they can.... but again, I believe they leave food on the table.

And just so you know, I have avoided reading many of your posts as well. You seem to be looking for a fight not in having an adult Christian discussion. If you can do so, even if we disagree, I will spend all day discussing the Word with you. But if this becomes a point of strife, I am done.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't agree at all that the NT was written in Greek. ...

Produce some credible evidence from reputable sources to support the claim that the new testament was not written in Greek or admit that the claim is vain babbling.

 

[Steeno7]

To a point... Greek philosophy stands in contrast to the Hebraic paradigm and seeing the authors of the NT and it's main subject (Jesus) are all Hebraic... then considering their words through their paradigm and not according to the modern Greek influenced western paradigm does shed additional light. That isn't to say that one who reads in English and thinks in this Greek centered western mind that they can't belong to God or discern much of His will for them... they can.... but again, I believe they leave food on the table.

And just so you know, I have avoided reading many of your posts as well. You seem to be looking for a fight not in having an adult Christian discussion. If you can do so, even if we disagree, I will spend all day discussing the Word with you. But if this becomes a point of strife, I am done.

As I have said before, you erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, which is why you claim that the New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought. When the truth is that it is you in the HRM who are attempting to impose old covenant Hebrew thought on what is all written from within the context of the new covenant. The renewing of the Christians mind is not backwards towards thinking like a Hebrew.

 

[Ken Rank]

Produce some credible evidence from reputable sources to support the claim that the new testament was not written in Greek or admit that the claim is vain babbling.

Well, we are now done too. "Vain babbling" is hardly a comment made with spiritual maturity, until now, despite some disagreement, I have enjoyed your posts!

As for proof.. I just gave you some. Do I need to provide the page numbers in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History where he claims Paul and Peter wrote Luke and Mark in Hebrew? Do I need to get Jerome's comments for you? You're a Catholic, you have access to his comments. I cited two references, didn't supply chapter and verse but will if you need me to. That isn't vain babbling, those were sources. And, they are time period sources.

Have a great life. Blessings!
Ken

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, we are now done too. "Vain babbling" is hardly a comment made with spiritual maturity...

The words come from saint Paul's second letter to saint Timothy where he says: But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Timothy 2:16 KJV) The paragraph in which that verse falls says:

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
(2 Timothy 2:14-19 KJV)​

PS: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History was written long after the gospels according to saints Luke and Mark. His claims do not appear to be correct for a number of good reasons not least of which are the opening words to the gospel according to saint Luke and also the opening words of The Acts of the Apostles. I will not quote the opening words because every reader of this thread can check them for him or her self and see what is said.

 

[Ken Rank]

As I have said before, you erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, which is why you claim that the New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought. When the truth is that it is you in the HRM who are attempting to impose old covenant Hebrew thought on what is all written from within the context of the new covenant. The renewing of the Christians mind is not backwards towards thinking like a Hebrew.

Not at all... Koine Greek has been dubbed "gutter Greek" for some time. Do you know why? It is because it is a Semitic Greek, it was the Greek that Jews used and we know that because it, outside of Classical Greek, contains certain Hebraic idioms and phraseology which make it more like what Yiddish is to German. I have NO ISSUE with NT Greek..... and have said similar things repeatedly here. My desire to look into the Hebraic roots of the faith is less with Hebrew (though I will often roll a NT Greek word back to the LXX to see what Hebrew word is used in the same place in order to gain an additional perspective) and more with the mindset of that day. There are many cultural influences on the NT we are not familiar with. One of them is the 7 Rules of Hillel which Paul uses upwards to 60 times.... these rules effect context, that is the intention of them. Yet, we are not even taught they exist let alone bother applying them. Paul uses them 60+ times, they effect context, and we don't even know they exist and yet will argue our case to show how smart we are.

Have a great life. Blessings.
Ken

 

[Steeno7]

Not at all... Koine Greek has been dubbed "gutter Greek" for some time. Do you know why? It is because it is a Semitic Greek, it was the Greek that Jews used and we know that because it, outside of Classical Greek, contains certain Hebraic idioms and phraseology which make it more like what Yiddish is to German. I have NO ISSUE with NT Greek..... and have said similar things repeatedly here. My desire to look into the Hebraic roots of the faith is less with Hebrew (though I will often roll a NT Greek word back to the LXX to see what Hebrew word is used in the same place in order to gain an additional perspective) and more with the mindset of that day. There are many cultural influences on the NT we are not familiar with. One of them is the 7 Rules of Hillel which Paul uses upwards to 60 times.... these rules effect context, that is the intention of them. Yet, we are not even taught they exist let alone bother applying them. Paul uses them 60+ times, they effect context, and we don't even know they exist and yet will argue our case to show how smart we are.

Have a great life. Blessings.
Ken

That it was written in the Greek language is not a hindrance but a help in our understanding. God obviously intended for the NT to be written in Greek. It was the dominant language of that world at the time. The Koine Greek language has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary which is a help not a hindrance, as you claim, to communicating the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to us under the New Covenant.

 

[Ken Rank]

That it was written in the Greek language is not a hindrance but a help in our understanding. God obviously intended for the NT to be written in Greek. It was the dominant language of that world at the time. The Koine Greek language has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary which is a help not a hindrance, as you claim, to communicating the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to us under the New Covenant.

Not sure where you think I said otherwise. I will say that the earliest full Greek manuscript doesn't even come close to the earliest Aramaic manuscript. But... I have no issue with the Greek... I have said this multiple times and for you to make your comment as you did shows me you are not reading my posts... you are digging through them looking for keywords to argue against. So, please pay attention because I am not repeating myself again.... I have no issue with the NT Greek and the use of it is in part what caused me to enter into the HRM.

Now, you can tell me what I believe based on what you heard others say... or you can ask me directly. But my time is short and I am not going to deal with strife, I told you this....though you probably didn't read that either!

 

[Steeno7]

Not sure where you think I said otherwise. I will say that the earliest full Greek manuscript doesn't even come close to the earliest Aramaic manuscript. But... I have no issue with the Greek... I have said this multiple times and for you to make your comment as you did shows me you are not reading my posts... you are digging through them looking for keywords to argue against. So, please pay attention because I am not repeating myself again.... I have no issue with the NT Greek and the use of it is in part what caused me to enter into the HRM.

Now, you can tell me what I believe based on what you heard others say... or you can ask me directly. But my time is short and I am not going to deal with strife, I told you this....though you probably didn't read that either!

You have already said what you believe. It's just others don't pick up on it. The key word to understanding the HRM is Hellenized.

 

[Ken Rank]

You have already said what you believe. It's just others don't pick up on it. The key word to understanding the HRM is Hellenized.

Not at all... you know more about my beliefs than I do, apparently. It isn't the language, it is the paradigm. If you think the philosophies of people like Aristotle or Plato have not permeated Christianity, then you need to be shown these things. It is very clear they have and they have redirected the direction of the faith. The Greek "form centered" mindset is not compatible with the Hebraic "function centered" mindset and that is just a fact. You can argue against it, but you would be arguing from a position of ignorance. And that is NOT SAYING you are dumb, I am saying on this topic you are lacking information. You could have asked, "Hey Ken, share some things and let me ask Father if there is anything for me." Instead, you mounted a defense on a topic you are not well versed in at all. And I say that because you have clearly indicated you have no idea what I believe.

Peace.
Ken

 

[Frogster]

The reason I have not bothered to even read your posts is because you don't seem like one seeking a conversation, but rather, as one who is seeking to make all conform to you. As for your comment, while the beginning of the chapter is speaking about things that will happen beyond the point in time from where they currently stood, you do not see that as the case throughout the context of the point being discussed. For example, "For it IS sanctified by the word of God and prayer" is not future tense, it is present... which is why I made sure to point out that there was no NT at that time. So you have the Spirit revealing things to come and then we have starting in verse 4, a return to the present. This is simple grammar.

I can't promise I will read your reply, again, when folks get combative and seek to cause strife, I tune out, just being honest. But whoever is being spoken of in the first 3 verses is doing a few things here and if it can be done like a brother, I wouldn't mind hearing your view here. They are forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving. If we take the time to understand how marriage was ordained before this time, and what happened to the institution after that time... and consider decrees made post 1 Timothy that involved food (yes, man had to pass decrees to change their practices... you might start with the council of Elvira) we can see which aspect of Christianity had a hand in altering many things back in that day, causing us to be born into an altered paradigm.

Sorry, it is clear, that Paul was speaking by the Spirit, and it was written after the OT, and about a future time, so Paul can't be saying, it is sanctified by the OT text. How can he be? He was writing from a much later vantage point, and it was prophetic by the Spirit, he said it was by the Spirit, that is simple grammar. The word there was a rhema word, by the Spirit.

Just Like Rom 14:14, "by the Lord" the food is clean, he is saying that Jesus told him, the food is clean, sanctified by the Lord, same basic thing as 1 Tim 4, and the verse at issue.

Please keep your personal views about me to yourself.

 

[Ken Rank]

Please keep your personal views about me to yourself.

You have been combative and divisive... that is not in harmony with how brethren are to treat one another. The litmus test is not knowledge... we are brothers because of our identification with Yeshua as Lord. That said, I won't respond to you again... will just click ignore once I know you have seen this. Be well.

 

[Steeno7]

Not at all... you know more about my beliefs than I do, apparently. It isn't the language, it is the paradigm. If you think the philosophies of people like Aristotle or Plato have not permeated Christianity, then you need to be shown these things. It is very clear they have and they have redirected the direction of the faith. The Greek "form centered" mindset is not compatible with the Hebraic "function centered" mindset and that is just a fact. You can argue against it, but you would be arguing from a position of ignorance. And that is NOT SAYING you are dumb, I am saying on this topic you are lacking information. You could have asked, "Hey Ken, share some things and let me ask Father if there is anything for me." Instead, you mounted a defense on a topic you are not well versed in at all. And I say that because you have clearly indicated you have no idea what I believe.

Peace.
Ken

Ummm, yep, it is your "paradigm" that is the problem, that's the point. It is your "paradigm" that continues to confuse language with culture. As your posts so clearly show. Because that is the basis that you use to justify your promoting of old covenant concepts and principles as applicable and necessary for new covenant believers.