What is God's name and His son's name?

AKAE777 said:

ישוע Yahshua is (Ancient Aramaic.)

Click to expand...

No it isn't...I already gave you His name in Aramaic and its spelling...why do you ignore evidence presented to you??

AKAE777 said:

You gave me a name in modern Aramaic.

Christians tell me we can call God what ever we want, but not the name Yahwah. I also have Christians say we can call Christ what ever we want, but not Yahshua.

I find that rather fishy.

Click to expand...

If you think what I gave you was "modern" then "Yahshua" is definitely not ancient lol...everything you say is "fishy" because it is wrong...but you can say anything you want to and you do...I am just providing you correct information...what you do with it is up to you.

AKAE777 said:

ישוע Yahshua is (Ancient Aramaic.)

Click to expand...

So please do tell us why that is a problem to you? Wasn't Biblical Aramaic a form of Aramaic that was used in the books of Daniel and Ezra in the Hebrew Bible?. Is "Yahshua" not an acceptable spelling to your particular academic learning? Are you suggesting that the "Word" no longer recognizes Aramaic or that there is only one way to spell and pronounce His and His Son's name to satisfy your learned way?

At least 10 years ago there was a regular contributing Messianic member that became adamant as only one way to pronounce Yeshua and any other was displeasing (she no longer posts).

Isn't our Father far more interested in one's loving relationship with the Word (His Son) and others than say ... "Who is more correct when it comes to his/her proper/preferred spelling and/or pronunciation of "Yeshua/Yahshua"?

Another name of the Son is the Word ... Hebrew Word Definition: Word | AHRC


Why is it that Word is not commonly accepted as another name of Yeshua/Yahshua/Jesus ???

The more you 3 continue to debate eventually Xposes righteous pride. Does your ongoing debate impress the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit or yourself or others?

In all of the most ancient and most important Uncial manuscripts and codices we do not find Iesous written out in full plene form, rather, we find what is called a nomen sacrum, (sacred name), which is abbreviated in one way or another. The most ancient form is Iota-Eta with an overstrike above both letters with no case ending on the oldest form, like so: Ι̅Η.

That's it, and yet there are places where Iesous is spelled out in full plene form but they are few, either two or three, and I say two or three because some manuscripts contain "Jesus who is called Justice" in full form in Col 4:11a, but others contain the nomen sacrum in that instance. The other two include the first occurrence in Acts 13:6, in the name Bar-Jesus, (Son of Jesus), the sorcerer, and then Hebrews 4:8a apparently speaking of Yhoshua/Joshua.

Revelation 19:12 N/A-W/H
12 οι δε οφθαλμοι αυτου φλοξ πυρος και επι την κεφαλην αυτου διαδηματα πολλα εχων ονομα γεγραμμενον ο ουδεις οιδεν ει μη αυτος

There is an extreme likelihood that there is an ellipsis in the above text because, technically, ει μη = "if not".

Revelation 19:12
12 And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and upon his head were many diadems having a name written, which on one is knowing if not ________ him.

From the testimony of Paul:

1 Corinthians 12:3 N/A-W/H
3 διο γνωριζω υμιν οτι ουδεις εν πνευματι Θ̅Υ λαλων λεγει αναθεμα Ι̅Η και ουδεις δυναται ειπειν Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η ει μη εν πνευματι αγιω

1 Corinthians 12:3
3 Wherefore I make known to you that no one speaking in/by the Spirit of Θ̅Υ says, Anathema Ι̅Η! and no one is able to say Κ̅Ϲ Ι̅Η if not in/by the Holy Spirit.

It appears to me that everyone is arguing from a church interpretation of the nomen sacrum Ι̅Η rather than having learned and understood the meaning from the Word, the Son.

daq said:

It appears to me that everyone is arguing from a church interpretation of the nomen sacrum Ι̅Η rather than having learned and understood the meaning from the Word, the Son.

Click to expand...

So you're implying a church interpretation of the "nomen sacrum Ι̅Η" is lacking when it comes to the correct interpretation of the Word, the Son.

What do you acknowledge (If not the indwelling of His Spirit) that may or has enabled you and hopefully others to have thee learning, understanding and interpretation of the Word, His Son. beyond that of "a church interpretation"?

A correct interpretation of the Word that is not lacking in the teaching, counsel and understanding as that provided by His Holy Spirit?

AbbaLove said:

So you're implying a church interpretation of the "nomen sacrum Ι̅Η" is lacking when it comes to the correct interpretation of the Word, the Son.

What do you acknowledge (If not the indwelling of His Spirit) that may or has enabled you and hopefully others to have thee learning, understanding and interpretation of the Word, His Son. beyond that of "a church interpretation"?

A correct interpretation of the Word that is not lacking in the teaching, counsel and understanding as that provided by His Holy Spirit?

Click to expand...

One of the reasons I quoted the two scripture statements which I did in the previous post is because they reveal that the most likely reason for the nomina sacra to begin with is to force the reader-disciple to study the scripture in much depth and come to truly know the Word. The Word is both the Rhema-Word and the Logos-Word. The Rhema is both spoken, then written, and then afterwards and now also spoken again whenever it is read aloud, whether in a congregation, or a synagogue, or at home, or anywhere.

However the Rhema is not the same as the Logos: the Rhema consists of the words, sentences, sayings, context, etc., the body of the text. The Logos is the understanding which is contained within the context and sayings contained in the Rhema: it is therefore the Logos which is the Wisdom of Elohim because it is the understanding of the Rhema spoken-written Word.

The nomen sacrum Ι̅Η must surely and absolutely be interpreted, there is no way around the obvious reality: the question therefore becomes, Whose interpretation? Unfortunately most do not even realize that this is the case. There were four original nomina sacra, but two of them are essentially a slam dunk, (Kurios and Theos), however, not so much with the other two, Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ.

AKAE777 said:

Exodus 23:21
Be attentive to him and listen to his voice. Do not defy him, because he will not forgive your acts of rebellion, for My name is in him.

Click to expand...

According to the Master himself that statement applies to Yohanne the Immerser.

Matthew 11:9-10 ASV
9 But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.
10 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.

The underlined above is a direct, word-for-word, verbatim quote taken straight from the OG LXX-Septuagint.

Matthew 11:10 N/A-W/H
10 ουτος εστιν περι ου γεγραπται ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου

Exodus 23:20 LXX Brenton English Translation
20 And, behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee.

Exodus 23:20 OG LXX
20 και ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ινα φυλαξη σε εν τη οδω οπως εισαγαγη σε εις την γην ην ητοιμασα σοι

Even if you cannot read Greek you can see that the two statements are identical.

ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου - Mat 11:10
ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου - Exo 23:20 LXX

1) This is not a quote from Mal 3:1, (despite what all the commentators purport).
2) Both companion passages to the above Matthew portion read the same, (Mrk 1:2, Luk 7:27).
3) Regarding the name in the statement, "My name is in him", it is Eliyah, (El-Yah) - Mat 11:13-14.

AKAE777 said:

John 17:11
I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by Your name that You have given Me, so that they may be one as We are one.

John 17:12
While I was with them, I was protecting them by Your name that You have given Me. I guarded them and not one of them is lost, except the son of destruction, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled.

Click to expand...

The HCSB is reading from the N/A, (Nestle Aland), which contains a singular relative pronoun form, (ᾧ), in the most critical place. However most all other major texts or compilation texts, (BYZ Majority, Greek Orthodox, and the T/R), contain a plural relative pronoun form, (οὓς), in that same place which is the critical place of discrepancy in both of these two verses.

Both verses are therefore in dispute because of this, and yet the portion in dispute is at the very heart of the point you are attempting to make, (and of course it is never good to formulate doctrine based on disputed passages or verses in the scripture). However the correct understanding may be found by adhering to the overall context. I will highlight the location of the critical relative pronoun in the KJV below.

John 17:6-12 KJV (T/R)
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom [οὓς] thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that [οὓς] thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

AKAE777 said:

Hebrew scribes omitted the "h", changing Jeho (יְהוֹ‎) into Jo (יוֹ‎), to make the start of "Yeho-" names not sound like an attempt to pronounce the Divine Name.

Because Hebrews dropped their 'ayins', to keep from saying God's name, hence we have "y'shua." Also spelled Yeshua.

The single Hebrew initial letter Yod stands for the short form of God's name Yah.

“Initial,” as in the “Initial” letters of your name.

If Christ did not have the name Yah in his name, then he was not the Messiah to come.

Exodus 23:21

Be attentive to him and listen to his voice. Do not defy him, because he will not forgive your acts of rebellion, for My name is in him.

I am done talking about this subject.

Click to expand...

Yeshua DOES have His Father's Name...you do not understand any of this. You are done talking about the subject because you obviously can't talk about...

HARK! said:

That's modern fabrication. I reject it.

Click to expand...

LOL no it isn't. You reject it because it proves you wrong...

HARK! said:

Let's see if you do.

Click to expand...

LOL I guess you don't!

daq said:

The nomen sacrum Ι̅Η must surely and absolutely be interpreted, there is no way around the obvious reality: the question therefore becomes, Whose interpretation? Unfortunately most do not even realize that this is the case. There were four original nomina sacra, but two of them are essentially a slam dunk, (Kurios and Theos), however, not so much with the other two, Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ.

Click to expand...

Those "Christograms' are on many of our Icons and are ancient. IH XP...Iesous Christos...ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ...sometime IC XC...ΙΣ ΧΣ

Hazelelponi said:

That's now .. don't you suppose?

Click to expand...

Would not Joseph have understood these words (even moreso 23) as applying only to Jews (not gentiles). Therefore my takeaway is that all Israel will not hear and speak the name "Immanuel" (GOD with us) until the return of their Messiah (Yeshua - Lamb of GOD) and during His 1000 year reign s KING of kings and LORD of lords. Because Israel rejected their Messiah then gentiles also may not here the name Immanuell used until they see Him coming again in the clouds and for the next 1000 years during His reign in Yerusalem.

What do you think?.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Those "Christograms' are on many of our Icons and are ancient. IH XP...Iesous Christos...ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ...sometime IC XC...ΙΣ ΧΣ

Click to expand...

The last four you've mentioned may be found in Sinaiticus, they are essentially the first letter of a nomen sacrum with a case ending while the second letter has been removed. The first bad thing that happened, very early, was that at one point someone decided to start adding case endings to proper nouns. You can see that this wasn't always the case by looking through the names in the Matthew and Luke genealogies. This addition of the case endings made three-letter nomina sacra in the instances with those used for the Son/Meshiah. Later on someone else then came along and decided to shorten those forms, leaving the case endings intact while removing one of the actual letters of the original nomen sacrum. So what you have there in what you have posted are essentially single letters with case endings.

IC XC... the symbol looking like a C is a lunate sigma, and in these instances they are case endings, so you have there Iota plus a case ending, and Chi plus a case ending. The other two, (ΙΣ ΧΣ), simply have the more modern sigma as the second letters, and those are also merely case endings, same as the lunate sigma, just a more modern script. These four at the end of your post are four single-letter nomina sacra with their case endings. They are corrupted: the Eta and the Rho have been removed, and they were original letters in the original nomina sacra. In a process that probably took several hundred years the most important, the Eta, was removed: and in some instances it stood for El or Elohim, and it ended up being erroneously replaced with a practically meaningless sigma case ending.

Edit-Addendum for those who may come to read this thread at a later time.
Early example of the two original nomina sacra forms under discussion above:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_18

HARK! said:

Laughing it off, and denying the facts, doesn't change the facts. Modern Hebrew is the invention of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda.

Again I don't subscribe to his invention.

Click to expand...

Laughing because it is so silly not because of any "facts" (because you did not provide any)...none of this depends on EB-Y or any "modern Hebrew" no matter how much you say it is...