Jesus's Divinity?

[yonah_mishael]

From Pesachim 50a in Talmud Bavli:

“And the LORD shall be king over all the earth. In that day shall the LORD be one, and His name one” (Zech. 14.9). So, is He not one now (in this world)? Said R. Aha b. Hanina: “This world is not like the world to come. In this world, for good tidings you say the blessing, ‘He is good, and He does good’ (הטוב והמטי&#1489, while for evil tidings you say, ‘Blessed be the true Judge’ (ברוך דיין האמ&#1514. In the world to come, it will only be said ‘He is good and He does good’ (since no catastrophe will befall us).” ‘And His name one’: what does ‘one’ mean? Is His name not one now (in this world)? Said R. Nahman b. Isaac said: “This world is not like the world to come. In this world His name is written with a yod he (as in יהו&#1492 and read as alef daleth (as in אדנ&#1497, but in the world to come it will all be one and the same: it will be written with yod he (as in יהו&#1492 and also read as yod he (as in יהו&#1492.” Now, Raba considered teaching on this in midrash, but a certain old man said to him, “It is written, le'alem (לְעַלֵּ&#1501.” R. Abina pointed out a contradiction: “It is written, ‘This is my name to be hidden (לעל&#1501’ and also ‘This is my memorial unto all generations.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said: “I am not read as I am written: I am written with a yod he (as in יהו&#1492 while I am read as alef daleth (as in אדנ&#1497.”​

And this is where this concept comes from. The Aramaic for this text is as follows:

והיה ה' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד אטו האידנא לאו אחד הוא אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה על בשורות טובות אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב ועל בשורות רעות אומר ברוך דיין האמת לעולם הבא כולו הטוב והמטיב ושמו אחד מאי אחד אטו האידנא לאו שמו אחד הוא א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה נכתב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ף דל"ת אבל לעולם הבא כולו אחד נקרא ביו"ד ה"י ונכתב ביו"ד ה"י סבר רבא למדרשה בפירקא א"ל ההוא סבא לעלם כתיב ר' אבינא רמי כתיב (שמות &#1490 זה שמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדור דור אמר הקב"ה לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא נכתב אני ביו"ד ה"א ונקרא אני באל"ף דל"ת​

In other words, the justification for not speaking the name was given in that it was said to conceal it. It is hidden in speech but spelled out plainly in writing (in the holy books).

 

[pat34lee]

Even Rashi comments that this is how the word could be read. See Chabad's online English translation of the Bible with Rashi on Exodus 3, especially Rashi's comment on verse 15, as follows:

This is My name forever: Heb. לְעֹלָם [It is spelled] without a vav, meaning: conceal it [God’s name] תהַעִלִימֵהוּ* [so] that it should not be read as it is written. — [from Pes. 50a] Since the “vav” of (לְעֹלָ&#1501 is missing, we are to understand it as לְעַלֵּם, to conceal, meaning that the pronunciation of the way God’s name is written (י-ה-ו-&#1492 is to be concealed. — [from Pes. 50a.]​

Notice that the origin of this reading is from the Talmud, not from a poster called Josephus on ChristianForums.com. It comes from the Talmud and is repeated by Rashi. It's an old opinion within Judaism, so how do you so easily blast it out of the water with your bandwagon argument (argumentum ad populum)?

* The word written תהַעִלִימֵהוּ on Chabad's website is actually העלימהו in Rashi's text and should be pronounced הַעֲלִימֵהוּ ha'alimehu, not as written on their site (which is a typo).

Well, that settles it, as we know the talmud is never wrong, don't we? That is sarcasm, just in case someone new reads this.

 

[pat34lee]

You know what a critical apparatus is in a scholarly biblical text, right? The scholars have examined every available edition so that we don't have to! And there is no textual variant. It reads זה שמי לעלם in every Hebrew copy. The word עולם olam can only be spelled two ways: עולם (plene) or עלם (defective). If Strong's says that olam is spelled sixteen different ways (which I doubt he does), you should disregard that comment. It's not true.

I should wager you since you're so sure without even checking. I'm feeling generous though.

olam: long duration, antiquity, futurity
Strong's Hebrew 5769
438 Occurrences

hal·‘ō·w·lām — 2 Occ.
hal·‘ō·w·lā·mîm — 1 Occ.
hā·‘ō·w·lām — 14 Occ.
lə·‘ō·lām — 174 Occ.
lə·‘ō·lā·mîm — 1 Occ.
lə·‘ō·w·lām — 2 Occ.
mê·hā·‘ō·w·lām — 1 Occ.
m귑ō·w·lām — 15 Occ.
m귑ō·w·lām — 1 Occ.
‘ō·w·lām — 208 Occ.
‘ō·w·lā·mîm — 9 Occ.
‘ō·w·lā·mōw — 1 Occ.
‘ō·wl·mê — 1 Occ.
‘ō·w·lām — 4 Occ.
ū·lə·‘ō·w·lām — 1 Occ.
ū·m귑ō·w·lām — 3 Occ.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I should wager you since you're so sure without even checking. I'm feeling generous though.

olam: long duration, antiquity, futurity
Strong's Hebrew 5769
438 Occurrences

hal·‘ō·w·lām — 2 Occ.
hal·‘ō·w·lā·mîm — 1 Occ.
hā·‘ō·w·lām — 14 Occ.
lə·‘ō·lām — 174 Occ.
lə·‘ō·lā·mîm — 1 Occ.
lə·‘ō·w·lām — 2 Occ.
mê·hā·‘ō·w·lām — 1 Occ.
m귑ō·w·lām — 15 Occ.
m귑ō·w·lām — 1 Occ.
‘ō·w·lām — 208 Occ.
‘ō·w·lā·mîm — 9 Occ.
‘ō·w·lā·mōw — 1 Occ.
‘ō·wl·mê — 1 Occ.
‘ō·w·lām — 4 Occ.
ū·lə·‘ō·w·lām — 1 Occ.
ū·m귑ō·w·lām — 3 Occ.

And I'll wager that you don't know Hebrew, but I'm just being generous. Either you don't know Hebrew, or you're just feigning ignorance. I'll be generous and assume the former.

What you've given here are not spellings of the word עולם olam. You've given prefixes and suffixes that are attached to the word and refer to other things (not to the spelling of the word itself). For example, ל is a prefix for possession or direction. It generally means "to" of "of." Thus, לעולם le-olam means "to/for (an) age," which is generally taken to mean "forever (into the future)." This is not an alternate spelling of the word olam.

Again, olam is either spelled as עולם or as עלם. There are not sixteen ways to spell this word.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Well, that settles it, as we know the talmud is never wrong, don't we? That is sarcasm, just in case someone new reads this.

It certain settles that your claim that it was ONLY Josephus (the forum user) who read לעלם as "to conceal" was absurd. It doesn't show that this is the proper or improper way to read the text. It shows that it is an ancient way of reading the text that was not invented by Josephus (the forum user).

 

[pat34lee]

And I'll wager that you don't know Hebrew, but I'm just being generous. Either you don't know Hebrew, or you're just feigning ignorance. I'll be generous and assume the former.

What you've given here are not spellings of the word עולם olam. You've given prefixes and suffixes that are attached to the word and refer to other things (not to the spelling of the word itself). For example, ל is a prefix for possession or direction. It generally means "to" of "of." Thus, לעולם le-olam means "to/for (an) age," which is generally taken to mean "forever (into the future)." This is not an alternate spelling of the word olam.

Again, olam is either spelled as עולם or as עלם. There are not sixteen ways to spell this word.

You may be good at Hebrew, but you missed the English. I didn't say that 'olam' was spelled 16 ways. I said plainly there were variants of olam spelled different ways.

there are 16 variations of "olam" in the Tanakh; all spelled differently.

Whether they are tenses, conjunctive words, whatever, I don't know and don't really care. What I said was correct as stated.

 

[pat34lee]

It certain settles that your claim that it was ONLY Josephus (the forum user) who read לעלם as "to conceal" was absurd. It doesn't show that this is the proper or improper way to read the text. It shows that it is an ancient way of reading the text that was not invented by Josephus (the forum user).

Correct. I will amend my earlier post #58 and apologize to him for that. Thank you.

 

[yonah_mishael]

You may be good at Hebrew, but you missed the English. I didn't say that 'olam' was spelled 16 ways. I said plainly there were variants of olam spelled different ways.

Whether they are tenses, conjunctive words, whatever, I don't know and don't really care. What I said was correct as stated.

For sure, מעולם is not a variation of the word עולם. It is two words conjoined: מן ("from") and עולם ("age"). A variation of a word would deal with a difference in how a word is spelled on its own. There are only two variations or variants in the Bible for the spelling of עולם, which I gave to you. You may think that your words meant one thing, but the words you used do not mean what you were thinking.

 

[pat34lee]

For sure, מעולם is not a variation of the word עולם. It is two words conjoined: מן ("from") and עולם ("age"). A variation of a word would deal with a difference in how a word is spelled on its own. There are only two variations or variants in the Bible for the spelling of עולם, which I gave to you. You may think that your words meant one thing, but the words you used do not mean what you were thinking.

My Hebrew knowledge may be quite limited, but you will rarely catch me using incorrect definitions in English. As this is beside the original point, I will let it drop.

 

[Hoshiyya]

There have always been some who called him by name. It has never been hidden in the Hebrew, only in translations. Anyway, this prophecy is of the end times, and has not been fulfilled yet. The true language will be returned and we will call him by name.

As far as correct, can you be sure that anything you do is 100% correct? If we live by faith, that includes having faith that he knows our limitations and judges us accordingly.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

Again, practically speaking, how can there BE a correct pronounciation, if we (today) are unable to prove what it is?

There undoubtedly must have been a popular/"correct" pronounciation in the day of Mosheh, and another popular/"correct" pronounciation in the day of Daweed, and another popular/"correct" one in the days of Ezra, and maybe another in the days of after.

Compare any English word of today, with any English word of 500 years ago.
Pronounciations MUST - INEVITABLY - change with time. No language is static.

In fact, what even is "English of today" ?
Jamaican English ?
Appalachian English ?
Cockney English ?
Scotch English ?
Queen's English ?

The Bible, in a famous story, even references the (obvious) fact that there were different dialects and pronounciations in Israel (the story of the "Shibboleth".)

 

[pat34lee]

Again, practically speaking, how can there BE a correct pronounciation, if we (today) are unable to prove what it is?

There undoubtedly must have been a popular/"correct" pronounciation in the day of Mosheh, and another popular/"correct" pronounciation in the day of Daweed, and another popular/"correct" one in the days of Ezra, and maybe another in the days of after.

Compare any English word of today, with any English word of 500 years ago.
Pronounciations MUST - INEVITABLY - change with time. No language is static.

In fact, what even is "English of today" ?
Jamaican English ?
Appalachian English ?
Cockney English ?
Scotch English ?
Queen's English ?

The Bible, in a famous story, even references the (obvious) fact that there were different dialects and pronounciations in Israel (the story of the "Shibboleth".)

You could use that argument to prove either any pronunciation agreed upon by a group, or every pronunciation used by individuals today would be correct.

 

[Hoshiyya]

You could use that argument to prove either any pronunciation agreed upon by a group, or every pronunciation used by individuals today would be correct.

No... please re-read what I said. I don't know what else to say, as your words don't seem to have anything to do with what I said.

What exactly do you think my "argument" is?
I am saying we in all likelihood CANNOT know what the true pronounciation, or pronounciations, was/were at given historical periods.

There was one, or more, pronounciations of any given word 3000 years ago. If we skip another 1000 years forward, there, INEVITABLY, would be another pronounciation(s) of the same word.

Compare the MANY different English dialects today, with the MANY different English dialects of 500 years ago.

 

[pat34lee]

No... please re-read what I said. I don't know what else to say, as your words don't seem to have anything to do with what I said.

What exactly do you think my "argument" is?
I am saying we in all likelihood CANNOT know what the true pronounciation, or pronounciations, was/were at given historical periods.

There was one, or more, pronounciations of any given word 3000 years ago. If we skip another 1000 years forward, there, INEVITABLY, would be another pronounciation(s) of the same word.

Compare the MANY different English dialects today, with the MANY different English dialects of 500 years ago.

As you said, pronunciations change over time. Today's spoken Hebrew would most likely be unrecognizable in Yeshua's time, much less in Moses'. Why would we expect any different of the name Yahweh? You choose the best you can and go from there.

 

[Hoshiyya]

As you said, pronunciations change over time. Today's spoken Hebrew would most likely be unrecognizable in Yeshua's time, much less in Moses'. Why would we expect any different of the name Yahweh? You choose the best you can and go from there.

The pronounciation of Yod-He-Waw-He changed over time, like any other word, most likely.

So which pronounciation is the correct one?
We cannot know.

It's like asking, what is the correct pronounciation of "house".
Do you mean the common pronounciation today, in a specified area?
Or the "one true" pronounciation, whatever that is ?

It's like asking, what is correct, Beyt, or Bayit, or Beet, or Bayat, or what have you. Today we say Beyt and the Ashkenazi say Beys.
How did Daweed say it? How did Ezra say it? How did Abraham say it? How might Adam have said it? Nobody knows. All we have is approximation and research and guesses.

 

[pat34lee]

The pronounciation of Yod-He-Waw-He changed over time, like any other word, most likely.

So which pronounciation is the correct one?
We cannot know.

It's like asking, what is the correct pronounciation of "house".
Do you mean the common pronounciation today, in a specified area?
Or the "one true" pronounciation, whatever that is ?

It's like asking, what is correct, Beyt, or Bayit, or Beet, or Bayat, or what have you. Today we say Beyt and the Ashkenazi say Beys.
How did Daweed say it? How did Ezra say it? How did Abraham say it? How might Adam have said it? Nobody knows. All we have is approximation and research and guesses.

As I said above, pick one and go with it until you know it is wrong. Then pick another.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

 

[Hoshiyya]

As I said above, pick one and go with it until you know it is wrong. Then pick another.

Now you're repeating to me what I said initially. It is all guessing and approximation. We can't know how Abraham said it, or how Moses said it, or how Saul said it, or how Hezekiah said it.

 

[pat34lee]

Now you're repeating to me what I said initially. It is all guessing and approximation. We can't know how Abraham said it, or how Moses said it, or how Saul said it, or how Hezekiah said it.

Not unless someone saved an 8-track tape of them.

The point is, it doesn't matter how they said anything. The meaning is not in the sound, but the information that a word represents.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Not unless someone saved an 8-track tape of them.

The point is, it doesn't matter how they said anything. The meaning is not in the sound, but the information that a word represents.

Yes, but obviously, we have alot of people running around correcting the use of "Jehovah" and so on, and it can be VERY snarky and semanticist and elitist. Ironically, they are often the people who know the least about Hebrew, like with the so-called "Black Hebrew Israelites" who seem to deeply despise anything approximating real linguism.

 

[pat34lee]

Yes, but obviously, we have alot of people running around correcting the use of "Jehovah" and so on, and it can be VERY snarky and semanticist and elitist. Ironically, they are often the people who know the least about Hebrew, like with the so-called "Black Hebrew Israelites" who seem to deeply despise anything approximating real linguism.

True. There are people in error in every way imaginable. You can't live by their errors. You have to make your own.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Not unless someone saved an 8-track tape of them.

The point is, it doesn't matter how they said anything. The meaning is not in the sound, but the information that a word represents.

which brings up a question of example : the seven sons of sceva. they used the Name, and meant the same information (?? or did they)
that the disciples
did, but the demons simply overpowered them and they ran defeated, naked, away.

or, i.e., the meaning is not in the sound, ("or in the meaning") , but in the authority?

i've seen a lot of chruch people controlled by demons, and a few set free, but haven't seen any (in or out of church) overpowered and driven away naked recently.