logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Camille  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, November 6, 2012 3:07:33 PM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

Shalom,

Having come up through the ranks of Christianity, I was taught to believe that the "moral law" of the books of Moses remains, whereas the "ceremonial law" has been done away with. Assuming that these are Pauline-derived distinctions and are not the true doctrine of Yah, the question arises: if we are to observe all of Torah, does this include animal sacrifice, too? Are we to stone to death an adulterer or one who does not keep the Sabbath? Or does Yahoshua himself, as the Lamb, serve as the substitute?

Offline dajstill  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:55:17 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Camille wrote:
Shalom,

Having come up through the ranks of Christianity, I was taught to believe that the "moral law" of the books of Moses remains, whereas the "ceremonial law" has been done away with. Assuming that these are Pauline-derived distinctions and are not the true doctrine of Yah, the question arises: if we are to observe all of Torah, does this include animal sacrifice, too? Are we to stone to death an adulterer or one who does not keep the Sabbath? Or does Yahoshua himself, as the Lamb, serve as the substitute?




Welcome Camille,

I also spent the majority of my life as a Christian. My advice would be to start at the beginning. To try to understand the nuance of Torah without 1) a foundational understanding starting at the beginning and 2) a good uncorrupted (or less corrupted) Hebrew to English translation you will torture yourself. Observing Torah isn't about "obey this, do that", it is about understanding what Yahowah said and why He said it. Not all the instructions were for all the people (some are specific to being in a protected place where the only ruling authority is Torah). It takes a while to shake off the shackles of the religious mindset. I got caught up in that at one point. I would have saved myself time and confusion is I focused first on understanding who Yahowah is, what He said, and what the covenant is all about; not from a "doing" perspective, but from an "understanding" perspective.
Offline pilgrimhere  
#3 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:11:11 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Quotes from previous post deleted.

Camille's questions are relevant and worthy of examination.

Edited by user Friday, November 9, 2012 4:56:08 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Camille  
#4 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 11:51:10 AM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

I confess that this response left me unsatisfied, because it is understanding that I am seeking. I take for granted that my head is messed up from all my Christian programming, and I want my present understanding to be challenged and stripped of any and all delusions.

It might help if I explain my rather unusual path. After leaving Catholicism, I spent years in Sabbath-keeping churches struggling greatly with why they would keep the Sabbath and dietary practices, yet disregard the seven appointed times and all the other Torah teachings. For example, a woman with a newborn baby girl would not sit out the 66 days before returning to church; when I'd ask the pastor about this, he'd look at me like I had two heads. I seemed to be the only person on earth wrestling with these questions, but kept studying and searching until eventually becoming convinced that we are to observe all of Torah. After getting tired of eating my matzah during Passover/Unleavened Bread while my brethren obliviously chowed down on chicken, I left the congregation in search of like-minded fellowship, which was hard to come by. For the next several years I tried to observe all of Torah to the best of my ability, with great passion. I even hand-made my own tzit-tzit. Though I never could reconcile the observance of Torah with certain "New Testament" scriptures, I did feel certain that either we are to observe the whole Torah, or none of it, but that it didn't make sense to only keep the Sabbath and eat kosher. Eventually, though, the pendulum swung the other way, as the inability to harmonize the scriptures eventually forced me to reconsider that maybe the traditional Christian doctrine has been right all along, and truly "the law has been done away with." All these years later, after having backslidden from Torah observance and found fellowship in a Sunday church, I now stumble across YadaYah (on GCN) when I wasn't even looking and find my world shaken up once again: it had never occurred to me that the whole problem with being unable to harmonize the scriptures is PAUL. What a mind-boggling concept.

Now all of my old questions come flooding back, and with all of the passion. So that's the spirit with which I asked the above questions, and I look forward to having my questions and my understanding and language reshaped by you all.

I also don't understand the quotes of the person who responded to my post--those aren't the things that I said, so where is he quoting from? Or is it sarcasm?

Offline dajstill  
#5 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 12:06:31 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Camille wrote:
I confess that this response left me unsatisfied, because it is understanding that I am seeking. I take for granted that my head is messed up from all my Christian programming, and I want my present understanding to be challenged and stripped of any and all delusions.

It might help if I explain my rather unusual path. After leaving Catholicism, I spent years in Sabbath-keeping churches struggling greatly with why they would keep the Sabbath and dietary practices, yet disregard the seven appointed times and all the other Torah teachings. For example, a woman with a newborn baby girl would not sit out the 66 days before returning to church; when I'd ask the pastor about this, he'd look at me like I had two heads. I seemed to be the only person on earth wrestling with these questions, but kept studying and searching until eventually becoming convinced that we are to observe all of Torah. After getting tired of eating my matzah during Passover/Unleavened Bread while my brethren obliviously chowed down on chicken, I left the congregation in search of like-minded fellowship, which was hard to come by. For the next several years I tried to observe all of Torah to the best of my ability, with great passion. I even hand-made my own tzit-tzit. Though I never could reconcile the observance of Torah with certain "New Testament" scriptures, I did feel certain that either we are to observe the whole Torah, or none of it, but that it didn't make sense to only keep the Sabbath and eat kosher. Eventually, though, the pendulum swung the other way, as the inability to harmonize the scriptures eventually forced me to reconsider that maybe the traditional Christian doctrine has been right all along, and truly "the law has been done away with." All these years later, after having backslidden from Torah observance and found fellowship in a Sunday church, I now stumble across YadaYah (on GCN) when I wasn't even looking and find my world shaken up once again: it had never occurred to me that the whole problem with being unable to harmonize the scriptures is PAUL. What a mind-boggling concept.

Now all of my old questions come flooding back, and with all of the passion. So that's the spirit with which I asked the above questions, and I look forward to having my questions and my understanding and language reshaped by you all.

I also don't understand the quotes of the person who responded to my post--those aren't the things that I said, so where is he quoting from? Or is it sarcasm?



Camille,

I think a post was deleted that was being quoted from.

Even in reading your response, I still stand by simply relaxing and starting at the beginning. Have you read An Introduction to God? It can be found here: http://anintroductiontog...What_Does_He_Want.Torah. It is a long document, and there is another one also written by Yada called Yada Yah found here: http://yadayahweh.com/pd...hweh_Genesis_Shabat.pdf. I would still start with An Introduction to God. This will really help you frame your thoughts a bit more. The reason why it is hard for people to address your question is because it starts from a premise that is shaky. You are asking from a "do" perspective, while Yahowah wants to you approach Him from a "know" perspective. The Torah is a set of loving instructions from a loving father. However, to understand the context we have to start with understanding Yahowah and what He was trying to tell us. One can "do" all the Torah and still not have a relationship with Yahowah, while David/Dowd was obviously flawed in his "doing" while his understanding and relationship were intact. That is why I mentioned starting from the beginning. Religion demands we "do this" and we "do that" in fear of reproduction from an angry God. Until we can fully shake off the religious mindset it is hard to even find the truth and the beauty of Torah. It is also important to understand the flaws and limitations in many of our English texts. For instance, what version of the bible are you reading now?
Offline Camille  
#6 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 1:24:06 PM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

"Knowing" is really what I am seeking and what motivates my desire to observe Torah and how to walk with Yah; not fear of retribution. My attempt to reconcile "seemingly" incongruous teachings (that is, from a "Christian" worldview) likewise comes from that passion to learn and understand, out of my love for what Yah has to say; I am still clueless, but will try to devote more time to study of Intro to God if that's the best way to reframe and get on board. I have read pieces of each of Yada's materials and listen often to his GCN broadcasts and his podcasts.

I mostly read the KJV. What version(s) do you recommend? How about for "New Testament" scriptures? I have learned much from Yada's corrections of the standard translations and find it refreshing.

Another topic that interests me is the feminine nature of the Spirit--I began to read about this, and then later couldn't remember where I read it. Can you direct me to which of the documents it is in?

Also, I see a reference to seven volumes of Yada Yah, but I count only six. What is the title of the seventh?


Thanks for your help.

Offline dajstill  
#7 Posted : Thursday, November 8, 2012 2:02:45 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Camille wrote:
"Knowing" is really what I am seeking and what motivates my desire to observe Torah and how to walk with Yah; not fear of retribution. My attempt to reconcile "seemingly" incongruous teachings (that is, from a "Christian" worldview) likewise comes from that passion to learn and understand, out of my love for what Yah has to say; I am still clueless, but will try to devote more time to study of Intro to God if that's the best way to reframe and get on board. I have read pieces of each of Yada's materials and listen often to his GCN broadcasts and his podcasts.


Definitely dig into ITG, it helps a lot. It also introduces you to the problems with English translations of the bible. He has done a great deal of research and it a good place to start.

Camille wrote:
I mostly read the KJV. What version(s) do you recommend? How about for "New Testament" scriptures? I have learned much from Yada's corrections of the standard translations and find it refreshing.


There is no "good" English translation of Scripture. I know that sounds overwhelming, but understanding that helps with your study. What I use most often is the Scriptures Bible. While still very flawed, they at least have the names right along with less offensive translations. I keep a copy of the KJV, 1611 KJV, Amplified, and Geneva handy to look for various changes/corruptions and for discussion with my many Christian friends. Some of the great people here have some Hebrew to English translations available for some books, like Genesis. The guys can point you to where they are because I think the files got a little junky after a software update. At some point, you will find an urge to be able to "know" some things on your own and will find a desire to translate on your own and there are resources available with links on in the "resources" page here on the forum - but that can come with time. I often times use a Strong's Concordance and do a lot via internet searches. If you are short on time and want ITG broken down into more bite sized pieces, I have a "Yada for Littles" thread on the Fellowship Forum. It's original intent was to help people with children go through an Introduction to God slowly, but many adults are going through it along with us. It makes it not so overwhelming and we also do a "Hebrew word" that will help you get introduced to the nuance of the Hebrew language as well. I don't at all "speak" Hebrew, but have learned to do word based studies, nothing at all as big or complex as Yada. As far as translations, the KJV is one of the most corrupt in my estimation, but I will let others weigh in.

Camille wrote:
Another topic that interests me is the feminine nature of the Spirit--I began to read about this, and then later couldn't remember where I read it. Can you direct me to which of the documents it is in?


The Set Apart Spirit is the Ruach Qodesh is female, it is written as a feminine word. Reading An Introduction to God will give you a much better introduction to her. Be prepared, what you discover will blow your mind! It will be different than anything you have ever heard or been introduced to, but there is plenty of verifiable information so that you can take comfort in the large aspects. While no one, including Yada is infallible - he is solid in his Hebrew to English translations on scriptures concerning the Ruach Qodesh and his interpretations work when you use both inductive and deductive reasoning. But again, what you find out about "Her" will amaze you - get ready for an exciting ride!

Camille wrote:
Also, I see a reference to seven volumes of Yada Yah, but I count only six. What is the title of the seventh?


Yada did a pretty big re-write of Yada Yah, mainly with new understanding and deeper translations he developed over time. I thought he mentioned not being able to salvage the 7th chapter, but I am not sure. One of the guys should be able to speak better on that one.

Again, you are in a good position because you are questioning. We are all still questioning and learning/growing together daily. It is a wonderful journey. As you go through the forum you will be able to see the constant struggles/debates/etc. people have. Mainly because the truth has been so hidden by evil religious men and women that we have to fight for every nugget of truth we get. Sometimes, we even have to go back to nuggets we thought we learned and readjust. I wasn't here during the "Paul" debate, but I can tell the wounds are still fresh and deep for many. This journey can be painful at times. But, one thing I have always been is welcome here. The personalities that you "meet" will be just like family. Some gentle and patient, while others are so hungry for truth and right that they can bark a big loud at times. It's not out of anger at you, so much is their absolute hate of the shackles and pain of false teaching they seek to devour falsehood anytime the see it rear its ugly head. That is what happened a bit on to your thread I believe. One thing I have found is that there is not question that can't be posed here. Sometimes you will get many responses, others times one or two, and occasionally none. Just having the freedom to question is wonderful though! Again, welcome!

Thanks for your help.


Edited by moderator Friday, November 9, 2012 2:58:16 AM(UTC)  | Reason: need to change the quotation marks

Offline Camille  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:33:27 AM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

As if in answer to my question, today on Yada's broadcast, he defined what it is to "observe" Torah. That clarified much of what I had been struggling with. Thank you, Yada!

On another recent broadcast, Yada spoke of the need for men to be circumcised in order to participate in Pesach and have eternal life.

Putting these two things together, would I be right in saying that the desire to "keep" or "do" may naturally flow from the understanding of what is "observed" in Torah? I struggle with this because I have personally never conceived of a wrathful God who threatens you to obey "or else"-- and because that has never been my motivation for wanting to partake in the "doing," I don't yet grasp the shakiness of my foundation. All I know is that the Torah that I have wanted to "do" was motivated out of love and joy of knowing Yah and being close to whatever He has to say. How this relates to salvation and to the Lamb is still something that I have yet to discover (or to integrate more fully). When I left the Sabbath-keeping churches, I often found myself having to defend the accusation that I was leaving to seek my salvation in the "law," but that just wasn't "it."

The distinctions are not always clear. The teaching about circumcision and Pesach was a revelation. But what about men who don't wish to have beards? What about one who is extremely busy and wants to work on the Sabbath, or perhaps partake in only half of the Sabbath days as something that feels like a better fit?

Is there possibly a simple way to answer (or address the shaky frame), as though you were answering a three year old?

Thank you, PilgrimHere, for defending my search for knowledge. Even though I have tasted some of Yada's delicious fruits, I can't just blindly accept doctrines that I don't yet understand (isn't that what the Christians do?), and expect that the context of my questions and the kinds of words that I use will all change accordingly when I have seen for myself that there is a solid foundation that I can begin to step out on. I think I had actually been headed in the right direction in my earlier years, but abandoned that quest due to a lack of satisfying answers and convinced myself that I had been headed in the wrong direction. I sense that I will find satisfying answers here, and it is exciting to come full circle in my quest.


Offline cgb2  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:11:39 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Welcome Camille,
I enjoyed reading your story. I had 38 years in xtianity and over 3 years out now. At times got off in the weeds with the law, obey, replacing one religion with another. I even still have my tzit-tzit and occasionally wear them.

ItG is a must read, then YadaYah. Verify every thing, replace faith with knowing. Yes God gave us a nesamah, seems pretty silly to me now that religion teaches one to throw it away and just believe.

I was here during the Paul shakeup, and what a big liberation. Now I can easily see thru Paul and his lies, but sickens me all the billions who trusted their souls. He had some nerve demeaning the torah while shackling folks with his rules, babble and nonsense.

Yah is faithful and those who deligently seek him will find him.
At first it seemed monumental and a huge burdensome task to sort out deception get my bearings, but quickly fell in love with Yah and his word, and all the additional connections from the Ruach as I studied were mind-blowing at times. Although I've come a long way, I'm sure there's still far more gunk to toss and truth to learn.

About the Ruach, may I recommend (even in poor translations):
Gen 1:27.
Then Proverbs Chapters 1-8 with the grand creshendo in 8:22-36 (then read Gen 1:2 :)

Some helps:
http://forum.yadayahweh....ESword-The-Word-etc.aspx

http://forum.yadayahweh....y-Version.aspx#post24491

Paul:
http://questioningpaul.com

http://jesuswordsonly.com/ (excuse the jebus ref but hundreds of way Paul contradicts)
Offline cgb2  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:36:28 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Sabbath - Interesting words Yah chose:
Lev 23:3
Six (ses) days (yowmym) the service of the spiritual messenger (mala’kah) shall be performed (‘asah - accomplished), so then (wa) in (ba) the (ha) seventh (shaby’y) day (yowm) will be a Sabbath (shabat - time of rest and reflection), a set-apart (qodesh) called-out assembly (miqra’) for rest and reflection (shabatown). All (kol) service of the heavenly messenger (mala’kah) shall not (lo’) be done (‘asah - performed). It is Yahowah’s Sabbath (shabat - time for rest and reflection) in (ba) all (kol) your (‘atem) dwelling places and throughout time (mosab - wherever and whenever you assemble).

Mat 12:8 “For the Son of Aḏam is Master of the Sabbath.”

In Scriptures-only link above, check out old_compliations Leviticus.pdf mostly of amplified Leviticus 23 the 7 miqra.

Enter the door, cross the threshold into matza, become one of his firstfruits, be washed and empowered by the spirit, shout for joy and sound the warning, being reconciled unto him, camping out with Him throughout eternity in his shelter.
Offline JamesH  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:08:49 PM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Camille wrote:
Shalom,

Or does Yahoshua himself, as the Lamb, serve as the substitute?



Hi Camille 

The question you have just asked is the source of all my questions and debate recently. And still unsure of the answer.

Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

Seems like this is a deciding question for many, any one want to address the question?
Offline James  
#12 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:48:26 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Camille wrote:
Putting these two things together, would I be right in saying that the desire to "keep" or "do" may naturally flow from the understanding of what is "observed" in Torah?


I would say this is a very accurate statement. Just as you listen and do what your father tells you because you understand that he is giving you good advice and you want to please him.

Familial relationship is the key to understanding most everything in Scripture. As a child your father gave you rules and limitations, not out of a sense of spite, not so he could punish you when you violated them, but so that you would be safe. Yahowah is our father, and he has done the same thing. He told us not to eat certain animals, not so that He could punish us if we did, not so He could disown us if we did, but because they are bad for us. He told us to rest on the Sabbath, because it is good for us, and so we would spend time with Him. The main purposes of the Towrah are:

To give us instruction and guidance on how to live our life the most beneficially, the same a good father gives to their child.

To introduces us to Yahowah who wants to be our Father. His character is explained throughout the Towrah, He is offering to adopt us, and wants us to be able to get to know Him before we decide rather or not to accept the offer.

To give us instructions and guidance as to the path that leads to His home so that should we choose to go there we can.

To describe how an ideal society on Earth should be.


So if your father explains to you that if you touch the stove while it is on you will get burned, and trust your father, you will listen and follow his instruction.

If Yahowah tells us that we should rest on the Sabbath, and spend it with Him, and we trust Him, we will listen and follow.

If you trust your father but touch the stove out of curiosity and get burned, your father is not going to be angry and punish you, or kick you out of his house. Most likely he is going to wrap you in his arms and hold you while you cry, and then explain again that you shouldn't touch the stove.

If you trust Yahowah, but have to work on the Sabbath He is not going to disown you, but like a father who is hoping to spend the day with his child He will be disappointed.

I have found with most every instruction Yahowah gives us there are two sides, physical and spiritual. The physical aspect is completely for our benefit, it's either good advice on how to live, there to explain something important to us, etc. The spiritual aspect is for the benefit of our relationship. The spiritual aspect is what is most important in terms of our relationship with Yahowah.

Take the dietary instructions. Yahowah gave us a way to tell rather an animal was okay to eat or not. Through modern science we have come to find that Yahowah was right and what he told us not to eat, especially in ancient times, was not good to eat and could kill a person. But what we eat hurts us, not our relationship with God. That is the physical aspect of the dietary instructions. The spiritual aspect is that we need to be careful what we ingest lest we become abomination. Just as there are physical things that can hurt us there are spiritual things that can hurt us. When we inject religious and political poison it corrupts our spirit and affects our relationship with Yahowah. All of us have grown up ingesting religious and political poison, and are suffering the consequences now. It is the reason we struggle as much as we do to understand Yahowah, we have so much muck to get out of our system. The reason food and what you eat is such a great metaphor for ingesting religious and political poison is because even if you spend most of you life eating bad, you can always make the choice to stop eating that way, eat better and reverse the effects. We can choose to leave religion, to leave politics and remove that poison from our system, with Yah's help.

I hope this helps Camille.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#13 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:01:03 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Another note that I find interesting. The Hebrew word most often translated as "do" is 'asah.

What is interesting is that 'asah most literally means to make, form or fashion, but can mean to do in the sense that you do X to make, form or fashion y, but the underlying connotation of all of these is to gain or profit from. So the most accurate rendering would be to make, form or fasion so as to gain and profit from, do so as to gain or profit from.

In the context of Yahowah's Towrah this is particularly telling. We do what Yah instructed so that we can gain and profit from it, or even that when we do as Yah instructed we gain and profit from it.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline JamesH  
#14 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:45:29 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James

Your to posts are most revealing and helpful. You might think I'm crazy but I agree with you!  Excellent Greek/ English metaphor from concrete Hebrew words. A wonderful example of relationship .

So here is the question I truly don't understand .

Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

Why would Yah need to sacrifice himself as God to save us?


Aren't we saved through the relationship of the Torah covenant ?

Doesn't the picture of the doorway of Passover already exist in exodus?

Not in a human sacrifice of a man god?
Offline dajstill  
#15 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:26:07 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
James

Your to posts are most revealing and helpful. You might think I'm crazy but I agree with you!  Excellent Greek/ English metaphor from concrete Hebrew words. A wonderful example of relationship .

So here is the question I truly don't understand .

Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

Why would Yah need to sacrifice himself as God to save us?


Aren't we saved through the relationship of the Torah covenant ?

Doesn't the picture of the doorway of Passover already exist in exodus?

Not in a human sacrifice of a man god?



JamesH,

Here are questions for you to answer first: What does a covenant relationship mean? What are the terms of a covenant? What happens if someone breaks a covenant? What was the significance of Yahowah walking the covenant while Abraham slept?
Offline FredSnell  
#16 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:17:42 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Hello! Myself, I don't view it as Him being a sacrifice anymore, really. If you can't kill God, then it really isn't a sacrifice in my mind. I tend to view it as an example for us to stay away from the religious and political aspects of this world if we want a relationship with Him. Christianity has viewed Him as a shepard tending the flock, when He's the lamb Himself butting heads with those around Him. Yah asked Abraham, "remove yourself from this system to know Me." Then Abe and his son perform the passover dress rehersal 40 yowbel before the perfect lamb would actually do so. Sort of showing us many things besides Passover, that will be coming in the future. So not long afterwards the hebrews being who they are of course fall back into babel and start their pleads to God all over. Again Yah being past present and future, will again show us that you have to heed His instructions by painting this door red you'll know this is the door to knock on and come through to be saved. Can't enter a door without stepping pass it's threshold. Staying locked into the system of man will doom you, making you a prisoner, even though you wouldn't know you're one unless you read Yahs Word. And that's the point of Him playing the role of our Perfect lamb. A perfect lamb would behave perfectly, right. Behaving perfectly in a place dear to you and all those around you during the Passover festival wasn't what Pilate expected so three times he claims this man innocent before sending Him to Herod Antipas...anti-pas-sover? Well, it’s amazing. Yahowsha does not defend Himself. He doesn’t cry out about His innocence. Nor does He even answer this man with all the ultimate supreme authority given to Him. Herpds view of Yahowsha I'm sure at this time is that this man is nothing like he had ever heard (a rebel rouser) about. Imagine yourself standing there silent while they prick you for answers about your fate and you not giving them what they want. So they in turn do Gods will, without knowing, by placing a shining white robe around Him. Here we have now two witnesses finding Yahowsha not guilty. Kings and rulers, along with the religious men tempting them to do their bidding that had gathered against Him, as told to us in Psalm 2, fulfilling what God had wanted us to see. Govt's and religion go hand in hand and they lead you away from His Covenant. Just some of my thoughts as I slog through this day, but I know God is my shepard, I shall not want. Showing us it's Him serving us, so we choose to live in His house by entering His door that was clearly marked for us to knock on and enter.
Offline JamesH  
#17 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:12:52 PM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Dajstill 


The question I had is the same one as Camille. That no one seems to want to answer

Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

The other questions that I listed, I don't need answers to I just listed them as arguments against the posted question in advance.

Anyone have an answer to just the one question ?    Yes, no , don't know and may be a little explanation .


Encounterhim  I think said " he doesn't view Yahowsha as a sacrifice " but the lamb and substitute. I don't think he addressed.
Offline Sarah  
#18 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:27:16 PM(UTC)
Sarah
Joined: 11/4/2012(UTC)
Posts: 103
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
JamesH

Are you asking if Yahowsha serves as a substitute in OUR place?

If that is the correct question, I would say 'yes'; He received punishment in our place; He "bore our iniquities".

Offline FredSnell  
#19 Posted : Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:40:55 PM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Pilate and Antipas were two witnesses that even though they knew of His innocence and proclaimed it out loud, set out to please their constituents. Yet they were wrong for doing so, b/c in, Dabarym/errantly called Deuteronomy 19:15 proves this.

The next two witnesses though, will be spewing the truth like fire from their mouths and many will hate these two, wanting them dead just as those in Yahowshas day, that wanted Him dead for telling the truth.

So if Yah made us a promise about things to come and told us how we can come to understand what He was willing to do for us, is this really a sacrifice, or keeping a promise instead? To me at least, He told of this day that played out, and kept His promise by seeing to it He arrived right on time to perform His promise for our eyewitness. Doesn't God own everything there is since He's the Creator of all.

So what's to sacrifice if all is His?

"He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His NAME'S sake."

Yahowshas mission was to reveal the Fathers Name, by coming in the Fathers Name. Like I tell ppl, all you need to do is take any hebrew scribes name that you think you hear Fathers Name and 'google' it in the search bar by writing something like, "Jeremiahs name in hebrew." Or, christians love pulling up verses from Isaiah. So then, 'google' his name in hebrew and see what it reveals. Sure He took our blows for us, but it was for blasphemy by teaching the Fathers Name, and Yah knew where this would lead to. Man wanting to keep it hidden. How would you do this? By killing the one that brought it forth. Low they didn't know they couldn't kill His Set-apart.
Only the body used to convey His message and this is why we burn what's not consumed on Passover night. Forget the body, it's done with and served its purpose housing the Set-apart.
Offline Nitram  
#20 Posted : Friday, November 16, 2012 2:51:17 AM(UTC)
Nitram
Joined: 10/23/2012(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Mannford, OK

encounterHim wrote:
...and this is why we burn what's not consumed on Passover night. Forget the body, it's done with and served its purpose housing the Set-apart.


I never really though of it this way. Interesting thoughts on why we burn what is not consumed.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around it not being a sacrafice since it is just fulfilling a promise. I personally appreciate this response. It gets me to thinking more.
Thank You
Martin Maynard (KD5JKH)
In Loving Memory of our Daughter Bailey DeLonais Maynard
January 13, 2005 - March 28, 2005
S.I.D.S. ITS REAL!
www.healingokhearts.org
Offline James  
#21 Posted : Friday, November 16, 2012 4:07:57 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

Short answer Yes.
Long answer. The lamb was a symbol, a placeholder if you will, for Yahowsha. The first and most clear example of this in the Ba’reshiyth 22 where Yahowah provides a lamb to take the place of Yitshaq. Yahowah asked ‘Abraham to sacrifice his only begotten son, Yitshaq, which Abe was willing to do because he trusted fully in Yahowah. Just before he was about to make the sacrifice Yahowah interceded and provided a lamb for him to sacrifice in his place. The lamb is symbolic of Yahowsha, Yahowah’s only begotten son, taking our place.

JamesH wrote:
Why would Yah need to sacrifice himself as God to save us?

Aren't we saved through the relationship of the Torah covenant ?


We are saved through a relationship in the covenant, but there are terms and conditions to that covenant which must be fulfilled. There are consequences and penalties for violating the terms and conditions of the covenant. The consequence of violating the covenant is death, and the penalty for violating the covenant is separation. Since man is the party guilty of violating the covenant, Yah has kept His end, we are the ones who should suffer the consequence and pay the penalty, and most will. But Yahowah being a loving father, and the non-guilty party, opted to suffer the consequence and pay the penalty for us.
So yes we are saved through relationship with Yah, and through the covenant, because the covenant contains the provisions, Pesach and Matsah, to deal with the consequence and penalty of violating it.


JamesH wrote:
Doesn't the picture of the doorway of Passover already exist in exodus?

Not in a human sacrifice of a man god?


The story of Passover in the Exodus explains the provisions to us, you can’t trust and rely on that which you do not know and understand. During the Exodus the blood of the lamb was what spared the Israelite children from death, just as it spared Yitshaq from death. The lamb in and of itself is irrelevant, it is what it represents that matters.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline FredSnell  
#22 Posted : Friday, November 16, 2012 5:37:11 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
^
James said,

"Yah has kept His end, we are the ones who should suffer the consequence and pay the penalty, and most will. But Yahowah being a loving father, and the non-guilty party, opted to suffer the consequence and pay the penalty for us."


That's pretty good, James. That sentence is loud and clear to me. When you love your children it's not actually a sacrifice by helping them see the way. Learn what your Father is saying to you, and live!

With the symbolism, wasn't He, like a father and child would be, telling His children a story. And then when they either forget, or just don't heed His Word, He thus brings the Word phsically through the Perfect Lamb that is His Set-apart to prove to us that can see it, that He's willing to suffer anything to get you to see. It's a perfect plan that for the life of me why folks can't come to grips with 7's being everything when He starts the story on that premise, and ends it with the same revelation. To me, suffering is not sacrifice when you love beyond what's even knowable. What greater love is there? I haven't seen it.

This took too long b/c of biz..sorry.
Offline JamesH  
#23 Posted : Friday, November 16, 2012 9:01:40 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Thanks everyone here at YY forum for all your input, I have see that their is definitely more than one view and that is the reason I'm going to go spend some more time in the TP/P

Don't worry cgb2 I'll be back, unless the end comes first :)



Offline Camille  
#24 Posted : Friday, November 16, 2012 4:10:49 PM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

Thanks everyone, for these very helpful responses.

I have so many questions:

1) Another way to ask the question about the Lamb would be: what is NOT true about the traditional Christian teachings on this? Especially the things that Yada's family would all agree on. It seems to me that the fact that you can't kill God is the point, in terms of the power of resurrection that no animal sacrifice could accomplish! i.e., has the Lamb who has redeemed us through His blood... (Rev 5:9) in that act of atonement also accomplished for us the victory over Satan's power to destroy us through sin by this very resurrection power?

I also can't help but wonder whether Paul was right on a few points in this regard, that in union with His death we are dead to sin and resurrected with Him?

2) I understand from ITG why we pronounce God's name as Yahwah. Why use the spelling Yahweh and not Yahwah? Is Yahweh supposed to be pronounced like Yahwah?

3) Accordingly, why Yahoshua and not Yahushua? It would seem to me that Yahushua would better match the sound of Yahwah: ee-ah-oo-ah. Is there a known vowel point that would establish a cholam maleh instead of the shuruk?

4) How do you use the dang quote button?

5) I was trying to quote from James' post:

James:
About the Ruach, may I recommend (even in poor translations):
Gen 1:27.
Then Proverbs Chapters 1-8 with the grand creshendo in 8:22-36

My question being: Has anyone here ever considered whether she may be a she who may soon be coming in the flesh?
John 14:16,26, John 16:7-14
Offline James  
#25 Posted : Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:05:19 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Camille wrote:
1) Another way to ask the question about the Lamb would be: what is NOT true about the traditional Christian teachings on this? Especially the things that Yada's family would all agree on. It seems to me that the fact that you can't kill God is the point, in terms of the power of resurrection that no animal sacrifice could accomplish! i.e., has the Lamb who has redeemed us through His blood... (Rev 5:9) in that act of atonement also accomplished for us the victory over Satan's power to destroy us through sin by this very resurrection power?

I also can't help but wonder whether Paul was right on a few points in this regard, that in union with His death we are dead to sin and resurrected with Him?


It’s difficult to get into what is not true about traditional Christian teachings, because they vary so widely among Christians. I think the focus is much better served by examining what is true and accurate. So with that in mind here is my simple breakdown of what occurred in 33CE on the upright pole.

To start with you have to understand the nature of Yahowsha. There were three parts to Him which are essential. The first two are the reason He took on human form, body and soul. Yahowah could not have a body and a soul without taking on human form. The third portion is His spirit, to be more accurate Yahowsha’s body had a neshamah the same as other humans, but his was filled with Yah’s spirit.

So with those three in mind let’s examine what occurred on Pesach. Yahowsha’s had sin associated with Him, ours, and in accord with the 2 Samuel 7:14 prophecy He was punished with the rod of men and blows of the sons of Adam. He was then nailed to an upright pole.

At the final moments before it ended His last words were, “My God, My God why have you forsaken me.” A direct quote from the 22nd Psalm, study that if you really want to understand what was happening this day I can’t do it justice by Dowd did. What Yahowsha was saying here was that God had separated Himself from Yahowsha, the Hebrew word translated forsaken means separate. So what happened was that Yahowah’s spirit separated itself from Yahowsha’s body and soul. As long as God’s spirit was within Yahowsha he could not die, but once it was separated the body died shortly.

Once the spirit separated itself from the body and soul, the body died. The spirit then reunited with the rest of Yahowah. The body suffered the consequence of our sin, it died. And the soul then suffered the penalty for our sin, it was separated from Yah and went to Sheowl. The body was destroyed that night, in accord with Pesach. Then on the festival feast of First Fruits Yah retrieved the soul from Sheowl, bringing with those souls who had been separated from Yah until this point, reunited it with His spirit making it eternal. Yahowsha at this point was capable of taking on physical form, but it is obvious from the text that it was not the same body as before.

So the fulfillment of the first three miqra were completed. Pesach was fulfilled when Yahowsha’s body was destroyed, Matsah while the soul was separated from Yah in Sheowl, and Bikiriyum when the soul reunited with the spirit was waved before Yah as a first fruits offering with the other redeemed souls.

The Salvation volume of YY covers this pretty well.

Camille wrote:
2) I understand from ITG why we pronounce God's name as Yahwah. Why use the spelling Yahweh and not Yahwah? Is Yahweh supposed to be pronounced like Yahwah?


Yahweh was used first because we didn’t know any better. It wasn’t until about a year and a half two years ago that based on studying Hebrew more and more that the Yahweh rendering was inconsistent. I remember when Yada first emailed me his conclusion that Yahowah was more accurate, I had started having the same thought myself just before that when I was explaining how we can know how to pronounce God’s name, and based on using other examples in Hebrew I could not come up with Yahweh or Yahuweh, but rather I was coming up with Yahowah.

So the short answer to your question is that Yada used the Yahweh rendering because when he first started writing the book he assumed that the scholarly rendering was accurate, but has since learned otherwise.

Camille wrote:
3) Accordingly, why Yahoshua and not Yahushua? It would seem to me that Yahushua would better match the sound of Yahwah: ee-ah-oo-ah. Is there a known vowel point that would establish a cholam maleh instead of the shuruk?


Same basic reasoning. Once we studied the Hebrew language it became clear that the tradition transliterations didn’t really fit. The ITG explains why Yahowsha fits better.

Camille wrote:
4) How do you use the dang quote button?


There are several ways. The easiest is use these tags:
[ quote=Name ] What you want in the quote box here. [ /quote ]

I had to add a space between the [ and the start of the tag so that it would show up and not just put it in quotes, so delete the space and there you have it.

Another way, if you are not using the Quick Reply option, but the regular is to highlight what you want in the quote box and then select the quote option from the menu at the top.

Camille wrote:
5) I was trying to quote from James' post:

James:
About the Ruach, may I recommend (even in poor translations):
Gen 1:27.
Then Proverbs Chapters 1-8 with the grand creshendo in 8:22-36

My question being: Has anyone here ever considered whether she may be a she who may soon be coming in the flesh?
John 14:16,26, John 16:7-14


I don’t see this as the Ruwach taking on physical form, but merely becoming active in our lives. Ruwach means spirit, so I am inclined to say that She will not on a physical form, that was the role of the Son, Her’s is different. If it was speaking of Her coming in physical form than She would have come shortly after, because Yahowsha spoke those words to the people standing there, and She never came to them. Just my two cents.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline FredSnell  
#26 Posted : Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:18:48 PM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
James wrote

"I don’t see this as the Ruwach taking on physical form, but merely becoming active in our lives. Ruwach means spirit, so I am inclined to say that She will not on a physical form, that was the role of the Son, Her’s is different. If it was speaking of Her coming in physical form than She would have come shortly after, because Yahowsha spoke those words to the people standing there, and She never came to them. Just my two cents."


Had me thinking today. Yahowsha is the manifestation of God on earth and that would give Him all the power Father would bestow on His own/and one begotten Son. So is Yahowsha actually the only one so far to receive the full benefit of Gods fullness in spirit(s)?

In YashaYah/Isaiah 11:2 it does tell me there are 7 spirits, and was Yahowsha actually the very first to receive all 7? I can see in His Word, where others have the other spirits, but the very 1st spirit might be what none other got except, the 1st, Yahowsha?

1. The Spirit Yahowah...maybe the Ruwach?
2. The Spirit of wisdom.
3. The Spirit of understanding.
4. The Spirit of counsel.
5. The Spirit might.
6. The Spirit of knowledge.
7. The Spirit of fear/ hebrew root:yara/in awe of YHWH

Edited by user Sunday, November 18, 2012 6:45:13 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline dajstill  
#27 Posted : Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:40 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
encounterHim wrote:
James wrote

"I don’t see this as the Ruwach taking on physical form, but merely becoming active in our lives. Ruwach means spirit, so I am inclined to say that She will not on a physical form, that was the role of the Son, Her’s is different. If it was speaking of Her coming in physical form than She would have come shortly after, because Yahowsha spoke those words to the people standing there, and She never came to them. Just my two cents."


Had me thinking today. Yahowsha is the manifestation of God on earth and that would give Him all the power Father would bestow on His own/and one begotten Son. So is Yahowsha actually the only one so far to receive the full benefit of Gods fullness in spirit(s)?

In YashaYah/Isaiah 11:2 it does tell me there are 7 spirits, and was Yahowsha actually the very first to receive all 7? I can see in His Word, where others have the other spirits, but the very 1st spirit might be what none other got except, the 1st, Yahowsha?

1. The Spirirt Yahowah...maybe the Ruwach?
2. The Spirirt of wisdom.
3. The Spirirt of understanding.
4. The Spirirt of counsel.
5. The Spirirt might.
6. The Spirirt of knowledge.
7. The Spirirt of fear/ hebrew root:yara/in awe of YHWH



encounterHim,

I wonder how this would correspond with the trees in the garden. Maybe theses were the "other trees" from which Adam and Chawah were allowed to "freely eat" and partake of. Hmmmmm
Offline cgb2  
#28 Posted : Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:35:41 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
dajstill wrote:
encounterHim,

I wonder how this would correspond with the trees in the garden. Maybe theses were the "other trees" from which Adam and Chawah were allowed to "freely eat" and partake of. Hmmmmm


Seems they could and did eat of the "tree of life", and after their fall Yahowah posted a gaurd:

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground יהוה Elohim made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:16 And יהוה Elohim commanded the man, saying, “Eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat of it you shall certainly die.”
Gen 3:22 And יהוה Elohim said, “See, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...”
Gen 3:23 so יהוה Elohim sent him out of the garden of Ěḏen to till the ground from which he was taken,
Gen 3:24 and He drove the man out. And He placed keruḇim at the east of the garden of Ěḏen, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Sometimes I wonder where any support is for the notion of - universe was perfect, no death and decay, until Adam/Chawah fell. Seems to me they did have immortality/perfection while in the garden and eating from the tree of life.
Offline JamesH  
#29 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 5:42:00 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James 

Why would you remove Isaiah 53 from my post # 23 and say it doesn't apply to the topic ?????

Camille in post #. 1 
The question is, "do we observe  all the Torah?  OR    Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

Isaiah chapter 53 is the only place in the TP/P that mentions the substitute?

James you addressed the the topic of the substitute, but when I post Yah,s word on the subject you remove it from the debate????

Then you also remove the most recent post which was Yahs word and a contrast between observing Torah and the substitute

My posts are on topic and not offending, unless you are offended by Yah's word.

James as moderator of this site, If you do not want me posting please state so and I will stop

James H 
Offline James  
#30 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 6:09:05 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
James 

Why would you remove Isaiah 53 from my post # 23 and say it doesn't apply to the topic ?????

Camille in post #. 1 
The question is, "do we observe  all the Torah?  OR    Does Yahowsha himself, as the lamb, serve as the substitute?

Isaiah chapter 53 is the only place in the TP/P that mentions the substitute?

James you addressed the the topic of the substitute, but when I post Yah,s word on the subject you remove it from the debate????

Then you also remove the most recent post which was Yahs word and a contrast between observing Torah and the substitute

My posts are on topic and not offending, unless you are offended by Yah's word.

James as moderator of this site, If you do not want me posting please state so and I will stop

James H 


I did not see the relevance of what you posted concerning Isiah 53 in regards to the topic at hand, and did not want to see this thread go off on a tangent as others have.

As for you last post that was an accident, I was using my phone to approve posts, and my fat fingers hit the wrong button and there is no way to undo the deleting of a post. I apologies , and feel free to re post it.

I don't wish for you to stop posting, but I do wish that you would address the points raised rather than go off on tangents, or ignore anything that doesn't confirm what you believe.

So while you are free to post, I will not ban you, I for one am just going to ignore your post from now on since it has become abundantly clear to me that you are not interested in discussion, but only proving that you are right. I have spent enough time replying to you to provide abundant proof to anyone reading that whenever you are unable to address the facts presented you change the subject which makes a discussion with you pointless and waste of time and energy.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline JamesH  
#31 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 7:38:22 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James

You keep making the debate personal, it is not about me trying to be right, it's about finding the truth.

In the last post you deleted, " which one are you teaching you children? "

YHWH's WORD?

Or 

The lords word?


DELETED  POST.   (is About observing the Torah ) compared to the ( the substitute ) topic

Exodus chapter12

 24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. 25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which YHWH will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service. 26 And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ 27 that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of YHWH, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.’” So the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 28 Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as YHWH had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.


Then the lord said, " when I come in 33ce born of a virgin from the holy spirit, the son of god, and the messiah.  I will become the Passover lamb, the human sacrifice and you shall drink the cup of my blood and eat my body and believe in me for I will become your substitute because every one of you people deserve the punishment I endured for you.
Then the lord said, " when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service" you can tell your children that the lord has changed your service it's called the NEW TESTAMENT praise the lord! Because now you no longer have to keep the WAY of YHWH.

JamesH
Offline needhelp  
#32 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 7:48:06 AM(UTC)
needhelp
Joined: 5/19/2011(UTC)
Posts: 197
Location: US

James has been good enough to answer your "bull" politely and to the point,
your last paragraph is absolutely putrid.

Edited by moderator Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:23:33 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline Camille  
#33 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 12:12:55 PM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

dajstill wrote:
encounterHim,

I wonder how this would correspond with the trees in the garden. Maybe theses were the "other trees" from which Adam and Chawah were allowed to "freely eat" and partake of. Hmmmmm



Maybe here:

"She is a Tree of Life to those who lay hold of her; and happy are those who retain her."
(Proverbs 3:18)

"Be not afraid, ye beast of the field--for the pastures of the wilderness do spring; for the tree beareth her fruit--the fig tree and the vine do yield her strength."
(Joel 2:22)


I agree that the "only begotten [unique] Son" suggests that the Son alone is the manifestation of Yah in the flesh.

Maybe She would be just an ordinary person among the sheepfold--an Esther, or a Deborah, or maybe Eliyah in feminine manifestation--a prophet or judge given the Ruwach to do extraordinary things?

And maybe YET to come.




Offline Camille  
#34 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 1:30:21 PM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

Four more questions:

1) Re: Rev 20:6-10 "1000 years."

I am listening to podcasts and ITG on audio, and I can't remember where it was said, but somewhere in all my listening I heard one of Yada's staff engaging with Yada and said that this was a mistranslation.

To me it makes much more sense that we are at the end of that 1000 years, and that after Gog does his thing, we will reign with Yahoshwa for ever and ever.

Can someone explain the translation error so I can know if my thesis might be accurate?


2) Which books of the scriptures does Yada consider reliable? Everything in T/P/P? And beyond that only Matthew, John and Revelation?


3) How does one define Torah? Genesis to Deuteronomy? Or also including the books of the earlier prophets--Joshua up to Nehemiah? Are the writings (Esther, etc) considered part of Torah? How about Proverbs?


4) You recommended The Scriptures. Do you feel that the translation itself is superior to other versions (such as KJV), or is it mainly recommended because of the names? (I actually do have a copy from my earlier venture down this path--it has been collecting dust ever since I returned to Christianity, because I had associated it with a shameful experience of having "erred" and "gone back under the bondage of the law.")

I am excited about Yada's translations of words and how it deepens the journey, but I am still uncertain about many of his interpretations, which will take time for me to read and study and engage and sort out. I do, though, find it disconcerting that there is such a wide variety of opinions coming from the upper tiers on the subject of the Lamb, when it is such a crucial question.

It seems to me that we need to rally the whole body to consider Yada's expositions and wrestle through whatever kinds of problems arise and see what kinds of solid foundations might be established out of it. It would be awesome to bring Christian pastors and theologians into it. Truth stands on its own merit, and it is certainly worthy of that level of study for those who claim to love God.

I know you will probably say that they can't hear it because they follow another god, but I am not convinced of that (yet). I think that there may be enough substance of Yah there, and that even if the path is filled with errors, He knows that we do not worship other gods in our hearts. It seems more likely to me that the reason why Christians/pastors can't hear it is because it is human nature to defend one's body of knowledge, rather than seeking knowledge because we love knowledge. It is our sin nature to be narcissistic fools who like to defend our territory with pride and spew forth the contents of the mind's computer banks like a knee-jerk reaction. People don't think outside the box easily.

Anyway, I'm grateful to Yah for leading me here. The forum is helpful.

Offline cgb2  
#35 Posted : Monday, November 19, 2012 5:00:39 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Hi Camille,
While I'm not "staff", I've been around awhile and will hopefully give helpful answers.

Camille wrote:
Four more questions:

1) Re: Rev 20:6-10 "1000 years."

I am listening to podcasts and ITG on audio, and I can't remember where it was said, but somewhere in all my listening I heard one of Yada's staff engaging with Yada and said that this was a mistranslation.

To me it makes much more sense that we are at the end of that 1000 years, and that after Gog does his thing, we will reign with Yahoshwa for ever and ever.

Can someone explain the translation error so I can know if my thesis might be accurate?



Rev 20:6 Blessed and set-apart is the one having part in the first resurrection. The second death possesses no authority over these, but they shall be priests of Elohim and of Messiah, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years have ended, Satan shall be released from his prison,
Rev 20:8 and he shall go out to lead the nations astray which are in the four corners of the earth, Goḡ and Maḡoḡ, to gather them together for battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9 And they came up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the set-apart ones and the beloved city. And fire came down from Elohim out of the heaven and consumed them.
Rev 20:10 And the devil, who led them astray, was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet are. And they shall be tortured day and night forever and ever.

I think that the general thesis is that creation days were also prophetic, and a day is as a thousand years. Yahowsha appeared 4k Yah, and yes we are near the end of 6k Yah. The millenial shabat will be the 7th day. Gog/Magog #1 occurs soon, and Gog/Magog #2 occurs on the tail of the millenial shabat to test those born during that time...after that the great (white throne/light) judgement.

Camille wrote:

2) Which books of the scriptures does Yada consider reliable? Everything in T/P/P? And beyond that only Matthew, John and Revelation?


T/P/P are about 50% accurate in english translations, DSS shows some tampering by the massoretes. NT is very poorly maintained with about 20% accurate in english translations (1 in 5 words). I think it's more the pre-constantine manuscript witnesses Yada uses to gauge reliability, For instance Revelation has pre-constantine manuscript witness except much of the end (after Chap 17??).

Camille wrote:

3) How does one define Torah? Genesis to Deuteronomy? Or also including the books of the earlier prophets--Joshua up to Nehemiah? Are the writings (Esther, etc) considered part of Torah? How about Proverbs?


Books wrote by Moses (1st 5 books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Dueteronmy). SOme include Joshua, but that seems silly to me that Moses could have wrote it :^)

Camille wrote:

4) You recommended The Scriptures. Do you feel that the translation itself is superior to other versions (such as KJV), or is it mainly recommended because of the names? (I actually do have a copy from my earlier venture down this path--it has been collecting dust ever since I returned to Christianity, because I had associated it with a shameful experience of having "erred" and "gone back under the bondage of the law.")


It's my opinion that ISR The Sriptures and Halleluyah scriptures are the best complete english translations. I got ISR long ago by Yada mentioning on BTR it was the least worse english translation. Vastly improved by "the Names", hebrew names, and removal of pagan terms....but still greatly lacking. It was driving me crazy to see "the LORD" used constantly (as if the hebrew said "ha BAAL"). At least after learning what shama, shamar, mitswah etc when TS uses words like "obey", "command", etc it will be easier to grasp the real meanings as you're reading.

Funny, your comment about .."erred" and "gone back under the bondage of the law." Once you read QP (maybe JWO) and study the T/P/P well, and then go back and examine Paul it's like doh, what a liar! How was I ever fooled by him? Then seeing thru him (Satan's little helper) is like falling off a log. Paul had some nerve demeaning the torah as bondage and a cruel taskmaster...Paul has gazillions of rules when you think of it. After 38 years of Christianity, I found the Torah absolutely liberating, Paul/Chrisitanity was bondage.

Camille wrote:

I am excited about Yada's translations of words and how it deepens the journey, but I am still uncertain about many of his interpretations, which will take time for me to read and study and engage and sort out.


If you're like I was: Finding out I had been lied to (and paid good money for it), not willing to just go believing another, so verified much for myself. At first it seemed like a overwhelming task, but then I simply fell in love with Yahowah and his word as the most enjoyable thing I could do. Fun times!

Camille wrote:

I do, though, find it disconcerting that there is such a wide variety of opinions coming from the upper tiers on the subject of the Lamb, when it is such a crucial question.


I'm not sure that is neccesarily the case. Could it more that a certain individual has some newer willing to engage, but the "upper tiers" mostly ignore this individual as a proven waste of time and effort?

The Salvation volume on YY has some great insight.

Camille wrote:

It seems to me that we need to rally the whole body to consider Yada's expositions and wrestle through whatever kinds of problems arise and see what kinds of solid foundations might be established out of it. It would be awesome to bring Christian pastors and theologians into it. Truth stands on its own merit, and it is certainly worthy of that level of study for those who claim to love God.


...and when you do you will often find those persecution verses you learned as an xtian will be most vicious coming from xtians - even trying to be gentle, just simply asking questions. Especially from those who make a living and garner power from misleading others.
There's only one path, and xtians ain't on it. They are on Paul's path. Broad is the path that leads to destruction, narrow and unpopular is the path that leads to life and few find it. Makes one ask, "can the worlds most popular religion (+2 billion), be the way?" ;^)

Camille wrote:

I know you will probably say that they can't hear it because they follow another god, but I am not convinced of that (yet). I think that there may be enough substance of Yah there, and that even if the path is filled with errors, He knows that we do not worship other gods in our hearts. It seems more likely to me that the reason why Christians/pastors can't hear it is because it is human nature to defend one's body of knowledge, rather than seeking knowledge because we love knowledge. It is our sin nature to be narcissistic fools who like to defend our territory with pride and spew forth the contents of the mind's computer banks like a knee-jerk reaction. People don't think outside the box easily.


Glad you realize that most here would say that :^) . Study, verify everything, seek Yah with an open mind and with all your heart no matter where it leads. Follow Him, not men...and the world will hate you....but He truly is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. With study and the Ruach certain pictures emerge, and then cross confirming from many directions to find truth. Pro 8:17 “I love those who love me, And those who earnestly seek me do find me.

Camille wrote:

Anyway, I'm grateful to Yah for leading me here. The forum is helpful.


Glad that you're here. Yep, this forum has been really helpful, and for fellowship which can be quite scarce.
Offline FredSnell  
#36 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2012 1:46:11 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
dajstill wrote:
I wonder how this would correspond with the trees in the garden. Maybe theses were the "other trees" from which Adam and Chawah were allowed to "freely eat" and partake of. Hmmmmm


Possibility, as all these would bear good seed for men. To my way of thinking, in the midst of the garden stood these trees. The "tree of life" represents the upright pillar on which He hung and the "tree of good and evil" represents the two thieves hanging along side of Yahowsha.

One place, the garden, is built by Yah and is beautiful and represents all that we would love to have for ourselves, peace and tranquility, and always being looked over by our Dad, being in total safety, and full of life, paradise.

The other place, Golgotha, was man made, and dead, sense, it is represented by a skull. As Yahowsha hanged there, one thief (good) excepted the promise of life, while the other thief, (bad) renounced the promise.

No matter how I see it, I think to view Adam and Chawah as the two thieves might be presumptuous on my part, but this could be the fact sense the two of 'em did something explicitly forbidden by YHWH.

Yahowsha told the good thief he would be in paradise today. This world has always been divided (good and evil), and always will be divided, with YAHowsha at its center.


p.s. and Camille, pls don't view my points in the left column as significant (upper tier). Everyone here knows I should be in the minus's. All I do is seek the comfort of my Father, dailey, and the bread He gives me.
Offline cgb2  
#37 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2012 2:27:50 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Camille wrote:
Shalom,
Having come up through the ranks of Christianity, I was taught to believe that the "moral law" of the books of Moses remains, whereas the "ceremonial law" has been done away with. Assuming that these are Pauline-derived distinctions and are not the true doctrine of Yah, the question arises: if we are to observe all of Torah, does this include animal sacrifice, too? Are we to stone to death an adulterer or one who does not keep the Sabbath? Or does Yahoshua himself, as the Lamb, serve as the substitute?


Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete.
Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.
Mat 5:19 “Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.
Mat 5:20 “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,1 you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.

Heaven and Earth will pass away first. But; are we in the land? is it possible to have due process with the lewy? is there a temple? Context is important. Seems well before Yahowsha's time Yahowah divorced the other tribes (including lewy <levites>) and destroyed/scattered them all over. Yahuda was still in the land but corrupted with unauthorized illegal rulers & Rabbis (Pharasees, Saducies <see Isa 10>). This has not improved with age. While we can obeserve the Torah, we can't presently perform, do, many parts of it. I get excited when I read the last half of Ezekial and how its all restored in 7k Yah.

I look back at how Paul had once clouded my thinking, and his bable made so much of the rest contradictory. Once one weeds their mind of his doctrines its amazing the harmony.

I was visiting Isa 7:13 thru 11:11 lately and still have to check history and peoples, but seems utterly about Yahowsha and the time of visitation.
Offline James  
#38 Posted : Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:23:02 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
JamesH wrote:
James

You keep making the debate personal, it is not about me trying to be right, it's about finding the truth.


I have continually addressed what you wrote point by point, only to have you ignore most everything I have wrote and change the subject. I have not made it personal other than to say that I am tired of trying to debate with someone who refuses to engage in a rational debate, who refuses to address evidence and reason, who changes the subject whenever he can not address it, and who twists and distorts the Scriptures to fit his agenda. I have not once attacked you personally, everything I wrote above is the reason that I have chosen to no longer debate with you, and each is verifiable by reading the debate we had on metaphors in Hebrew. So as I stated I have chosen to not bother with you anymore and would encourage everyone else to ignore you as well.

Edited by user Wednesday, November 21, 2012 4:08:27 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline JamesH  
#39 Posted : Wednesday, November 21, 2012 2:30:20 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
needhelp wrote:
James has been good enough to answer your "bull" politely and to the point,
your last paragraph is absolutely putrid.



Needhelp

I agree with you, " the last paragraph is putrid! " all the statements I made are right out of the NT

That is why I made the comparison.

Are we keeping the Torah and teaching our children what Yah says about Passover?

Exodus chapter12

 24 And you shall observe this thing as an ordinance for you and your sons forever. 25 It will come to pass when you come to the land which YHWH will give you, just as He promised, that you shall keep this service. 26 And it shall be, when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ 27 that you shall say, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice of YHWH, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households.’” So the people bowed their heads and worshiped. 28 Then the children of Israel went away and did so; just as YHWH had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.

OR

Are we teaching something putrid ? 
Like

Then the lord (Baal) said, " when I come in 33ce born of a virgin from the holy spirit, the son of god, and the messiah.  I will become the Passover lamb, the human sacrifice and you shall drink the cup of my blood and eat my body and believe in me for I will become your substitute because every one of you people deserve the punishment I endured for you.
Then the lord (Baal) said, " when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service" you can tell your children that the lord has changed your service it's called the NEW TESTAMENT praise the lord! Because now you no longer have to keep the WAY of YHWH.


Which one are you teaching your children ?
(the question is general, not directed at anyone specific)
Offline needhelp  
#40 Posted : Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:14:50 AM(UTC)
needhelp
Joined: 5/19/2011(UTC)
Posts: 197
Location: US

James is right. You don't say anything, just argue. Your last question is
silly/stupid, or do you know which forum you are in?
Offline FredSnell  
#41 Posted : Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:58:50 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Celebrate by remembering Passover. If that means you think you have to slaughter a lamb for actual nourishment, and feed your family, then by all means do it if you are able, as long as you remember what it represents. But most places have ordinances to prohibit such, though you sound to me, JamesH, as if you might buck their laws and do Passover like the early Hebrews did. I say go for it, but don't think actions and ideals do not have consequences where you are. And don't forget the ever loving PETA.
Offline JamesH  
#42 Posted : Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:57:33 AM(UTC)
JamesH
Joined: 1/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 356
Location: Fresno, CA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Thanks encounterhim 

That is exactly what I extend to do, what I am hoping for is to fully understand the meaning of all the details of Passover like Yah instructed. I also have intentions to slaughter and cook on the altar within my gates. Which I previously posted.

In my study's I have been separating the differences between the altar in the Temple and the altar within your gates and which sacrifices are preformed where and why. Very interesting study

And you already know by now I don't think it has anything to do with a messiah 

I have butchered and prepared lamb before but never according to Yah's instruction. So I think it will be interesting 

Another person in my area that also raises sheep has told me he sells them to the Muslims for there sacrifice.

There is also a Russian messianic group in my area that slaughters a lamb at there church. Which I think is wrong. No church . No  synagogue. 
Only the Temple,       can't wait
Offline Camille  
#43 Posted : Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:23:16 AM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

Yah has been speaking to me about the names, and I'm now beginning to feel/grasp it from the inside out. Wow.

As I was trying to conceptualize how the name of the Son is consistent with the name of the Father, it didn't occur to me that the sound of "Yah-wah" could just as easily be accomplished with an "oh" sound in the middle instead of an "oo"--it goes by so fast that you can easily miss the subtleties that distinguish this.

When I was meditating on this, I was given Revelation.

Just like the pronunciation, "Yahweh," always sounded awkward and not quite right to my ears, there is something about Yada's pronunciation of Yahoshua that also sounds awkward to me. Is it possible that Yahoshua might more appropriately sound more like a drawn out "Joshua" with a "Yah" preceding it and an "oh" sound instead of the "ow" sound that Yada speaks (as in "Ow, that hurts!")?

To me, I don't hear an "ow" in Yahowah, but an "ah-oh." Likewise, Yah-oh-shua.

How many syllables are in Yahoshua--two, three or four? I think four, which may sound more like the three syllables of "Joshua" when the "Yah" part goes by fast.

Offline Camille  
#44 Posted : Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:33:54 AM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

Camille wrote:
:

"She is a Tree of Life to those who lay hold of her; and happy are those who retain her."
(Proverbs 3:18)

"Be not afraid, ye beast of the field--for the pastures of the wilderness do spring; for the tree beareth her fruit--the fig tree and the vine do yield her strength."
(Joel 2:22)





What I should have done is prefaced Joel 2:22 with verse 21 for a clearer view:


"Fear not, O Land; be glad and rejoice! For Elohim will do great things!"
(Joel 2:21)

"Be not afraid, ye beast of the field--for the pastures of the wilderness do spring; for the tree beareth her fruit--the fig tree and the vine do yield her strength."
(Joel 2:22)
Offline Camille  
#45 Posted : Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:47:06 PM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

Hi again--I hope I'm not being a pain. I've only gotten ten pages into ITG. So far I see a clear presentation of the name, "Yahowah" (which is very satisfying to now finally grasp), but have not yet seen a similar exposition of Ma'aseyah's name.

I'm also noticing on the cover of a book by David Stern, that the name of Ma'aseyah is spelled differently than in ISR's The Scriptures: it is given as yod-shin-waw-ayin. The waw also is placed after the shin instead of before it. Of course this fits with the rabbinical-derived "Yeshua." I can understand how pronunciation might be debated, but isn't there a historical record somewhere that would establish how His name was actually spelled, so we don't have to debate the spelling too?

In both cases, I see no "ah" sound at the end, so I'm wondering how the "ah" gets in there. Does the ayin make it so? (I thought the ayin is supposed to be silent?)

Could my rendering of Yahoshua be right, or am I wrongly putting an extra vowel in there with the "oo" in "shua"?

Must the accent always be on the "Yah" syllable in names with "Yah" in it?


Thanks for your help.

Offline cgb2  
#46 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 1:38:09 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 17 post(s)
^ Not a pain at all. Glad you are here, and like all of us searching.

Greek & Strongs slight of hand (changing the name):

Mat 1:21 AndG1161 she shall bring forthG5088 a son,G5207 andG2532 thou shalt callG2564 hisG846 nameG3686 JESUS:G2424 forG1063 heG846 shall saveG4982 hisG848 peopleG2992 fromG575 theirG846 sins.G266

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Yahushua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

Say what? So Ma'asayah's name is the same as Mosheh's successor then? Well then why jebus instead of Joshua in english?...and how do they justify pronouncing Yod-Hey Yeh instead of Yah?

H3091
יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Yahushua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Yahushua, Yahushuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.

H3091
יהושׁע / יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛
Total KJV Occurrences: 218
joshua, 216
Exo_17:9-10 (2), Exo_17:13-14 (2), Exo_24:13, Exo_32:17, Exo_33:11, Num_11:28, Num_14:6, Num_14:30, Num_14:38, Num_26:65, Num_27:18, Num_27:22, Num_32:12, Num_32:28, Num_34:17, Deu_1:38, Deu_3:21, Deu_3:28, Deu_31:3, Deu_31:7, Deu_31:14 (2), Deu_31:23, Deu_34:9, Jos_1:1, Jos_1:10, Jos_1:12, Jos_1:16, Jos_2:1, Jos_2:23-24 (2), Jos_3:1, Jos_3:5-7 (3), Jos_3:9-10 (2), Jos_4:1, Jos_4:4-5 (2), Jos_4:8-10 (5), Jos_4:14-15 (2), Jos_4:17, Jos_4:20, Jos_5:2-4 (3), Jos_5:7, Jos_5:9, Jos_5:13-15 (5), Jos_6:2, Jos_6:6, Jos_6:8, Jos_6:10, Jos_6:12, Jos_6:16, Jos_6:22, Jos_6:25-27 (4), Jos_7:2-3 (2), Jos_7:6-7 (2), Jos_7:10, Jos_7:16, Jos_7:19-20 (2), Jos_7:22-25 (4), Jos_9:3 (2), Jos_9:6, Jos_9:8 (2), Jos_9:15, Jos_9:22, Jos_9:24, Jos_9:27, Josh 10 (29), Jos_12:7 (2), Jos_14:1 (2), Jos_14:6, Jos_15:13 (2), Jos_17:4, Jos_17:14-15 (2), Jos_17:17, Jos_18:3, Jos_18:8-10 (4), Jos_19:49, Jos_19:51, Jos_22:1 (3), Jos_22:6-7 (3), Jos_23:1-2 (2), Jos_24:1-2 (2), Jos_24:19, Jos_24:21-22 (2), Jos_24:24-29 (6), Jos_24:31 (2), Jdg_1:1, Jdg_2:6-8 (4), Jdg_2:21, Jdg_2:23, 1Sa_6:14, 1Sa_6:18, 1Ki_16:34, 2Ki_23:8, Hag_1:1, Hag_1:12, Hag_1:14, Hag_2:2, Hag_2:4, Zec_3:1, Zec_3:3, Zec_3:6, Zec_3:8-9 (2), Zec_6:11
Yahushua, 1
Num_13:16
Yahushuah, 1
1Ch_7:27

Also it is said that "Yeshua" is a jewish acronymn for "may his name be blotted out"....I think I've heard it's from the talmud.
Offline James  
#47 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 3:25:52 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,606
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 208 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Camille IF you are interested Yada address the why and how of both names in the ITG.

If you want to skip ahead to understand why and how those pronunciations are derived they are discussed at length, as well as the meanings of the names, in the His Name chapter of ITG. Yahowah is discussed from page 54 to page 58 directly followed by a discussion of Yahowsha from page 58 to page 66.

I hope this helps.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline FredSnell  
#48 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 3:38:55 AM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
cgb2 wrote,
Yeh instead of Yah?...))...He came in the Fathers Name...YAH!....I actually feel sorry for scholars these days.
Offline Camille  
#49 Posted : Monday, November 26, 2012 11:20:06 AM(UTC)
Camille
Joined: 11/6/2012(UTC)
Posts: 55
Location: Boston, MA

cgb2 wrote:


Greek & Strongs slight of hand (changing the name):

Mat 1:21 AndG1161 she shall bring forthG5088 a son,G5207 andG2532 thou shalt callG2564 hisG846 nameG3686 JESUS:G2424 forG1063 heG846 shall saveG4982 hisG848 peopleG2992 fromG575 theirG846 sins.G266

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Yahushua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.

Say what? So Ma'asayah's name is the same as Mosheh's successor then? Well then why jebus instead of Joshua in english?...and how do they justify pronouncing Yod-Hey Yeh instead of Yah?

How interesting. Presumably Greek and Strong's merely report the "Jesus" that previous translators had already changed.


H3091
יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Yahushua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Yahushua, Yahushuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.

Does this mean that BOTH of the Hebrew spellings are given in Strong's? -- Like one could be an alternative spelling? If so, the one with six letters gives me the "oo" that I was looking for, but the one with five letters would give the pronunciation that Yada uses!

I haven't yet read the section in ITG that James recommended (thank you, James!), so I'll go do that now. I can't tell you how cool this is for it to begin to make sense. When I walked away from this path in frustration many years back, there were so many different renderings of the names that I had even convinced myself that the study of the names was a tactic of deceivers to get us to waste a whole lot of time debating something that is impossible to know, and that the same deceivers were possibly trying to trick us into leaving the churches and going back "under the bondage of the law" so they could get us in line with the Kabbalist/Talmudic/Noahide agenda! Good teachings are so scarce and disinformation so prevalent that at times it can be tricky to know what's what!



Also it is said that "Yeshua" is a jewish acronymn for "may his name be blotted out"....I think I've heard it's from the talmud.


In that case, the name, "Yeshua" should be blotted out!

I once had an Israeli roommate who told me that to say "Yeshu" instead of "Yeshua" was to curse His name. She also said that in Israel, whenever the name "Jesus" or "Yeshua" is heard, a curse commonly said in response goes something like, "Y'mach schmo vizi chrono;" which I think means something like, "May His name be blotted out," or, "May His name and memory be blotted out forever." It comes from a verse somewhere in T/P/P that says that the names of the wicked will be blotted out.

(Somehow I ended up in the box with cgb2 and couldn't find my way out, so I went back and put my responses in boldface.) javascript:insertsmiley('Confused%20','/images/emoticons/msp_confused.gif')
Offline csluyuan  
#50 Posted : Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:42:52 PM(UTC)
csluyuan
Joined: 4/27/2013(UTC)
Posts: 6
Location: csluyuan

I responded to your post in Announcements.

You are asking questions and engaging in Yah's Word! This is what it is all about!! This is what Yah gave us the intelligence for!! This is what He expects from us to come into relationship with Him and be part of His family!

It does take work and time to observe, know, understand, and ultimately respond to Yah and His Word.

Answers to your questions are in Yah's Word, and probably have been addressed throughout the forum.

I have been listening to Yada Yah Radio and Shattering Myths since day one, and have been educating myself as well.

I am still struggling with my "imperfections" as this is part of being human, but the comfort I feel in the continual enlightenment I am receiving is truly awesome!!

Welcome to the family!

Edited by moderator Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:21:17 AM(UTC)  | Reason: removed advertisment

Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.