(October 14, 2013 at 6:54 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Why do you always hear Christians refer to god as the lord or God, but they never call him Yahweh or elohim, which is what he is called by Hebrews in the bible. Intact many don't even seem to be aware that God's name is Yahweh and that by saying god, your not taking anyone's name in vain

For two reasons, and I'll correct you as you said we don't use Elohim, we do, it translates as "God". The first reason is that the pronunciation translation "Yahway" is based on a rather flimsy assumption, the closest name in the Bible to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is Judah (YHWDH) and has been transliterated into Greek and other languages, thereby teaching us its pronunciation. Furthermore, Judah, YHWH and Adonai all have nearly the same Masocretic vowel points over them. So basically that's the first reason, and the second reason, which is really the same point again, is because YAHWAY is not written anywhere in the Hebrew or Greek scriptures.

God's name translates to "I am who I am." So therefore God = Popeye.

OT/NT naming is basically weird.

As I understand it Jesus was actually Joshua - why they couldn't use that name I have no idea.

The bit in Matthew that says "and he shall be known as Emmanuel," is weirder still - as it doesn't appear he ever was.

The Yahweh bit is deliberately written in Hebrew without vowels precisely so you can't actually say it. Its all to do with the instruction to never take the lord's name in vain. Even the pseudonym Adonai is written in a way that's impossible to pronounce and even then Jews don't take risks with that one and when practising or teaching prayers they use Ashem to replace Adonai.

Basically its a bit like when Prince became "The artist formerly know as Prince" and changed his name to a squiggle.

Actually the line "she (his mother) shall call him Emmanuel" is not in Matthew. It's in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is not called Emmanuel anywhere in the New Testament. It's supposed to be a fulfilled prophecy, but there's no evidence that the passages in Isaiah are referring to Jesus at all. Even if they were, it's not any sort of fulfilled prophecy, because Jesus is just a character in a book written by someone who could have read the older parts, and then claimed prophecy fulfilled. It's like me making a prophecy that the word "sentence" will be the last word in this sentence.

Here's the thing; The Hebrew Alphabet is, for the most part, without vowels; to get an idea as to how to properly pronounce the words, it really has to be spoken aloud. The thing about "YHWH" is that Jews tended to be very cautious about saying the name; the interpretations of the third Commandment (second if you're Catholic) have varied wildly, from the common understanding of "don't use God's name unless you're talking directly to or about him" to "don't swear an unfulfilled promise in God's name" to the particular extreme of "don't use God's name at all unless absolutely necessary." Hence, the most spoken term for God, Hashem, translates to "The name." Eventually, it reached the point that "YHWH" only got spoken aloud at a ceremony that took place only once a year, and at the Temple in Jerusalem. That temple was destroyed in 70 AD, so, the ceremony hasn't happened since. And since then, those who knew for sure what the correct pronunciation died off.

And on to why the Christians let it die out, slowly, the Jewish roots of Christianity became less and less relevant to the point that Jews were consistently seen as being the bad guys in the Jesus story, even if saying something like "The Jews killed Christ" made as much sense as saying "White people killed John Lennon." So, even if they did remember it, do you really think they'd have kept it alive?

And, interesting thing, in my experience, the people most likely to refer to God as Yahweh (the currently accepted transliteration of his proper name) tend to be the ones least likely to serve him. It kind of reminds me of how, on Oz, the only people who get the pronunciation of Vern Schillinger's name right are the ones who hate him the most.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-OAi7Tz718

(October 16, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Actually the line "she (his mother) shall call him Emmanuel" is not in Matthew. It's in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is not called Emmanuel anywhere in the New Testament. It's supposed to be a fulfilled prophecy, but there's no evidence that the passages in Isaiah are referring to Jesus at all. Even if they were, it's not any sort of fulfilled prophecy, because Jesus is just a character in a book written by someone who could have read the older parts, and then claimed prophecy fulfilled. It's like me making a prophecy that the word "sentence" will be the last word in this sentence.

Actually - the christ myth COULD NOT have been the Messiah - period

One of the prophecies of the messiah was that he would rebuild the Temple at Jersualem for the third time - and he will unite ALL the world under the Jewish religion and have others admit they were wrong.

The temple of Jerusalem was NOT destroyed the second time until after the supposed time of the christ - so he could NOT have fulfilled the first prophecy

And obviously - not everyone was A JEW - at no time in the common era.

Quote:For two reasons, and I'll correct you as you said we don't use Elohim, we do, it translates as "God".

Except in all other cases in Hebrew the "im" suffix is plural. Goy. Goyim.

So Elohim means "gods." Obviously this constituted a problem for when the jews later became monotheists.

Yahweh means "All within the all" so it's more a description than a name. Christians tend to prefer the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of the Holy Trinity with extra special emphasis on Jesus so that's probably why the OT/ancient Jewish description of God will often be sidelined.

(October 16, 2013 at 4:56 pm)ThomM Wrote:

(October 16, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Actually the line "she (his mother) shall call him Emmanuel" is not in Matthew. It's in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is not called Emmanuel anywhere in the New Testament. It's supposed to be a fulfilled prophecy, but there's no evidence that the passages in Isaiah are referring to Jesus at all. Even if they were, it's not any sort of fulfilled prophecy, because Jesus is just a character in a book written by someone who could have read the older parts, and then claimed prophecy fulfilled. It's like me making a prophecy that the word "sentence" will be the last word in this sentence.

Actually - the christ myth COULD NOT have been the Messiah - period

One of the prophecies of the messiah was that he would rebuild the Temple at Jersualem for the third time - and he will unite ALL the world under the Jewish religion and have others admit they were wrong.

The temple of Jerusalem was NOT destroyed the second time until after the supposed time of the christ - so he could NOT have fulfilled the first prophecy

And obviously - not everyone was A JEW - at no time in the common era.

I've already dismissed that in another thread, why are you over here trying you lame tricks. The Temple has now been destroyed a second time and when the New Jerusalem comes the third Temple will be with it. The biggest mistake you keep making is thinking that Christ was talking about a building, when He was referring to His body.

GC

Funny, that, GC....Jews would disagree. The temple meant the temple, not some after the fact christian shoehorning with Jesus.