"Hallowed be thy Name!" - WHAT name?

[101G]

Yes, anything that makes sense doesn't not interest you.
And "I am he" is NOT a name!
But, whatever,
The Level of gullibility church people show is just STAGGERING!

neither am I into any church gullibility, I suggest you stick to the scriptures, and the topic.

second, I disagree with you on I Am as a name, it's an Appellation. would you like to discuss that?.

 

[Guestman]

When Moses was tending to a flock of sheep near Mt Horeb, he saw a "burning bush", but was curious as to why it was not being consumed when a voice came forth from the "burning bush" that told him to remove his sandals.(Ex 3:1-5)

This was an angel that was speaking to Moses (Ex 3:2) and that was God's spokesman, speaking as if he were God: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob".(Ex 3:6) This angel had been sent to commission Moses as God's spokesman to Pharaoh.(Ex 3:7-10)

Moses began to have questions, such as "who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt ?" to which the representative angel replied, reassuring him: "I will prove to be with you".(Ex 3:11, 12) But then Moses asked concisely: "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ' The God of your forefathers has sent me to you, ' and they say to me, ' What is his name ? What should I say to them ? "(Ex 3:13)

The representative angel explains to Moses what God's name really means, without revealing God's name yet: "I Will Become What I Choose to Become".(Ex 3:14) The ambassadorial angel now provides God's name: "This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ' Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you'. This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation".(Ex 3:15)

Proverbs 18:10 says: "The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous one and receives protection". And Joel 2:32 says: "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved". The apostle Paul quoted from Joel 2:32, telling the Roman Christians: "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved".(Rom 10:13)

God's name of Jehovah is in the original Hebrew almost 7,000 times, but which the churches have tried their best to hide it, just as the apostate nation of Israel did, and in which Jehovah told them: "They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baal".(Jer 23:27)

All the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, freely used the name of Jehovah, such as when Abraham wondered who would be his heir after his death: "Sovereign Lord Jehovah, what will you give me, seeing that I continue childless and the one who will inherit my house is a man of Damascus, Eliezer ?"(Gen 15:2, see also verse 8)

At Isaiah 56, "this is what Jehovah says: "as for the foreigner who joins himself to Jehovah to minister to him, to love the name of Jehovah and to be his servants.....I will also bring them to my holy mountain (picturing Jehovah's governmental sovereignty showing that they have been granted the right to life forever)".(Isa 56:1, 6, 7)

Thus, those who deny God's name of Jehovah by not exercising faith in it, will not be among those who are saved, for only those who exercise faith in that "unreachably high" name will live forever.(Ps 148:13)

 

[101G]

When Moses was tending to a flock of sheep near Mt Horeb, he saw a "burning bush", but was curious as to why it was not being consumed when a voice came forth from the "burning bush" that told him to remove his sandals.(Ex 3:1-5)

This was an angel that was speaking to Moses (Ex 3:2) and that was God's spokesman, speaking as if he were God: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob".(Ex 3:6) This angel had been sent to commission Moses as God's spokesman to Pharaoh.(Ex 3:7-10)

Moses began to have questions, such as "who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt ?" to which the representative angel replied, reassuring him: "I will prove to be with you".(Ex 3:11, 12) But then Moses asked concisely: "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ' The God of your forefathers has sent me to you, ' and they say to me, ' What is his name ? What should I say to them ? "(Ex 3:13)

The representative angel explains to Moses what God's name really means, without revealing God's name yet: "I Will Become What I Choose to Become".(Ex 3:14) The ambassadorial angel now provides God's name: "This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ' Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you'. This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered from generation to generation".(Ex 3:15)

Proverbs 18:10 says: "The name of Jehovah is a strong tower. Into it the righteous one and receives protection". And Joel 2:32 says: "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved". The apostle Paul quoted from Joel 2:32, telling the Roman Christians: "For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved".(Rom 10:13)

God's name of Jehovah is in the original Hebrew almost 7,000 times, but which the churches have tried their best to hide it, just as the apostate nation of Israel did, and in which Jehovah told them: "They intend to make my people forget my name by the dreams they relate to one another, just as their fathers forgot my name because of Baal".(Jer 23:27)

All the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, freely used the name of Jehovah, such as when Abraham wondered who would be his heir after his death: "Sovereign Lord Jehovah, what will you give me, seeing that I continue childless and the one who will inherit my house is a man of Damascus, Eliezer ?"(Gen 15:2, see also verse 8)

At Isaiah 56, "this is what Jehovah says: "as for the foreigner who joins himself to Jehovah to minister to him, to love the name of Jehovah and to be his servants.....I will also bring them to my holy mountain (picturing Jehovah's governmental sovereignty showing that they have been granted the right to life forever)".(Isa 56:1, 6, 7)

Thus, those who deny God's name of Jehovah by not exercising faith in it, will not be among those who are saved, for only those who exercise faith in that "unreachably high" name will live forever.(Ps 148:13)

Guestman, first thanks for your post. but may I ask you a question?. the tetragrammaton is it a verb or a noun. this is my first question. please answer.

 

[Richard_oti]

but may I ask you a question?. the tetragrammaton is it a verb or a noun. this is my first question. please answer.

<snort>

 

[101G]

<snort>

well Richard, How should I take that, as an natural or an apology

 

[Richard_oti]

but I'm guided by the Holy Spirit.

the spirit HAS guided us

I always find it interesting the people who claim they are guided by the Ruakh haQodesh.
Two individuals in essence making said claim. Yet both pronouncing differing and opposing opinions.

Both can not be correct.

OTOH: It is possible that neither is correct.

OTOH: It is possible that 'Elohim is using / working through both of them for the good of the whole according to His purpose. Which is not to say either of them nor one of them is correct or incorrect.

 

[Richard_oti]

well Richard, How should I take that, as an natural or an apology

<chuckle> You may take it however you wish. But it ain't an apology.

 

[Richard_oti]

Correct, it was the Masorete

<chuckle> Like I need you to affirm that for me.

<snip>

but arbitrarily when they injected vowels into the tetragrammaton that "change" the word, it's form, and it's meaning

What "vowels" did they interject?

How in your opinion do those "vowels" change the word?

Does 'AHYH change with the nikud? 'ehyeh? No. Because even without the nikud, it is still readily recognizable as the 1st pers. sing. future tense. In fact, even with the addition of the nikud, it is the 1st pers. sing. future tense in / across all of the binyanim.

So do the nikud really change 'AHYH? Do they change it's "form"? Do they change it's "meaning"?

IF the nikud change the word AHYH, it's form and it's meaning, would you care to demonstrate for us in what manner it is truly changed. I would use a question mark rather than to leave it a statement that is rhetorical in nature but we both know that you will not and can not do so.
Perhaps I shall be surprised. You knows ... Only the Shadow knows ... <grin>

IF you can address AHYH, which is a known quantity / quality. Then we can return to YHVH.

IOW: I am directly stating that you are making assertions that you can't backup. That you can't support. Your assertions are nothing more than supposition.

to a man made object of worship. and that type of worship is Idolatry, this is their error.

All things may become as such. For some, the "Bible" has become that object. For others, their own "understandings" have become that object. However, your general statement is not true with regard to the many, only of the some.

errors can be correct, for to be human is to error. but when someone refuse to accept truth, and refuse to correction the error, they put the noose around their necks and get entangle in bondage.

Of which, who amoung us is not susceptible to such. Some of us may think "not I". But it is those who think they can't, who are indeed the most susceptible.

 

[Richard_oti]

I have no idea what Nikud means- unless its a typo for Naked.

By this, may I also take it that you are less than familiar with the work of the Masoretes. From which, the MT text has come down to us. The nikud, are the vowel points in Hebrew. Remember that, for I shall not explain it to you again.

One question that keeps recurring to me right now: Is that since I mentioned the Masoretes, and spoke of the nikud in connection and direct response to your statement of two vowels, how did you not make the connection for one, and two, you did not give such even a cursory perusal.

Such truly gives me reason to wonder.

You posted a picture of a fragment of the LXX, I inquired of you regarding it. Your response is deafening.

Nor haDhem, nor Shemo.

In my reply, I gave you the English equivalent of shemo (his name) in the first occurrence in which I used it. You could not remember that for 6 lines of text. Which is why I do not always include an English equivalent. Because as you yourself have demonstrated and displayed here, as long as I do, you shall not remember or learn.

As for hashem / ha-shem, it is the-name. Again, remember this, for with you, I shall no longer repeat explanation in response to you. It is not that difficult, heck you could have highlighted and searched it, number one hit.

It sure would be nice if you didn't mix languages.

What do you think "Jehovah" is? Or ruakh (ruach as you know it).

You came in and attempted to use "Jehovah" as a battering ram. You broke through to no one. In fact, what you did accomplish, is to cause them to re-double their defenses in so that now, not even your battering ram can penetrate them. Those who are (to their credit), more open minded and receiving of others, some have backed away from you. And rightfully so.

What is sad, is that you put them in such a place. That through your "actions", they were forced after welcoming and receiving you, to step away. You have brought sorrow unto them. Not that you genuinely care about such.

You appeared brandishing your "weapon(s)" of "truth", with regard to ruakh / pneuma. With regard to some name. I have not seen anything with regard to those, that lends any real credibility to you. I have seen a couple of posts worth reading, but of your as of the time of my writing this, 352, less than 1% of your posts have been worth reading. I'd like to see you move forward. I'd like to see some depth to you. If you have any.

I shall post in the manner that I shall post to whomever I shall post. You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your judgment of it. "You can laugh at my behavior, that'll never bother me, say the devil is my savior, but I won't pay no heed".

Two things may occur, one of which being that perhaps your depth of knowledge shall increase ... Ultimately, it shall be your choice, and your choice shall reveal yet more of your character.

I watch the manner in which people post. I watch what they reply unto, and how they reply unto it. In some cases, such as yourself, it is that which you don't say, that is more revealing than what you do say. And in many instances, that which you do say, is an attempt to cover or distract from that which you didn't say. Don't worry, you are not alone in such. But is it really the manner in which you wish to be perceived.

I have watched and tested you, and I have found that while you have a little, your knowledge base is indeed shallow. Your replies exhibit a degree of laziness, which I must wonder if that same amount of effort, or lack thereof, is prevalent in other areas. Which would explain the "shallowness" that I perceive. Almost reminiscent of those you like to call "churchoids".

 

[Richard_oti]

And, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
THREE vowels?
Sure its nor 4 or 5?

Perhaps it is 5, or even 6.

You use "JeHoVaH", how many vowels are there?


Josephus Wars 5.5.7 ... was engraven the sacred name [of God]: it consists of four vowels.
Now add the nikud ... <grin>

Certain consonants in Ivrit, can also function as vowels.

 

[101G]

<chuckle> Like I need you to affirm that for me.

<snip>



What "vowels" did they interject?

How in your opinion do those "vowels" change the word?

Does 'AHYH change with the nikud? 'ehyeh? No. Because even without the nikud, it is still readily recognizable as the 1st pers. sing. future tense. In fact, even with the addition of the nikud, it is the 1st pers. sing. future tense in / across all of the binyanim.

So do the nikud really change 'AHYH? Do they change it's "form"? Do they change it's "meaning"?

IF the nikud change the word AHYH, it's form and it's meaning, would you care to demonstrate for us in what manner it is truly changed. I would use a question mark rather than to leave it a statement that is rhetorical in nature but we both know that you will not and can not do so.
Perhaps I shall be surprised. You knows ... Only the Shadow knows ... <grin>

IF you can address AHYH, which is a known quantity / quality. Then we can return to YHVH.

IOW: I am directly stating that you are making assertions that you can't backup. That you can't support. Your assertions are nothing more than supposition.




All things may become as such. For some, the "Bible" has become that object. For others, their own "understandings" have become that object. However, your general statement is not true with regard to the many, only of the some.




Of which, who amoung us is not susceptible to such. Some of us may think "not I". But it is those who think they can't, who are indeed the most susceptible.

↑
Correct, it was the Masorete
<chuckle> Like I need you to affirm that for me.

<snip>

↑
but arbitrarily when they injected vowels into the tetragrammaton that "change" the word, it's form, and it's meaning
What "vowels" did they interject?

How in your opinion do those "vowels" change the word?

By this, may I also take it that you are less than familiar with the work of the Masoretes. From which, the MT text has come down to us. The nikud, are the vowel points in Hebrew. Remember that, for I shall not explain it to you again.

One question that keeps recurring to me right now: Is that since I mentioned the Masoretes, and spoke of the nikud in connection and direct response to your statement of two vowels, how did you not make the connection for one, and two, you did not give such even a cursory perusal.

Such truly gives me reason to wonder.

You posted a picture of a fragment of the LXX, I inquired of you regarding it. Your response is deafening.




In my reply, I gave you the English equivalent of shemo (his name) in the first occurrence in which I used it. You could not remember that for 6 lines of text. Which is why I do not always include an English equivalent. Because as you yourself have demonstrated and displayed here, as long as I do, you shall not remember or learn.

As for hashem / ha-shem, it is the-name. Again, remember this, for with you, I shall no longer repeat explanation in response to you. It is not that difficult, heck you could have highlighted and searched it, number one hit.




What do you think "Jehovah" is? Or ruakh (ruach as you know it).

You came in and attempted to use "Jehovah" as a battering ram. You broke through to no one. In fact, what you did accomplish, is to cause them to re-double their defenses in so that now, not even your battering ram can penetrate them. Those who are (to their credit), more open minded and receiving of others, some have backed away from you. And rightfully so.

What is sad, is that you put them in such a place. That through your "actions", they were forced after welcoming and receiving you, to step away. You have brought sorrow unto them. Not that you genuinely care about such.

You appeared brandishing your "weapon(s)" of "truth", with regard to ruakh / pneuma. With regard to some name. I have not seen anything with regard to those, that lends any real credibility to you. I have seen a couple of posts worth reading, but of your as of the time of my writing this, 352, less than 1% of your posts have been worth reading. I'd like to see you move forward. I'd like to see some depth to you. If you have any.

I shall post in the manner that I shall post to whomever I shall post. You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your judgment of it. "You can laugh at my behavior, that'll never bother me, say the devil is my savior, but I won't pay no heed".

Two things may occur, one of which being that perhaps your depth of knowledge shall increase ... Ultimately, it shall be your choice, and your choice shall reveal yet more of your character.

I watch the manner in which people post. I watch what they reply unto, and how they reply unto it. In some cases, such as yourself, it is that which you don't say, that is more revealing than what you do say. And in many instances, that which you do say, is an attempt to cover or distract from that which you didn't say. Don't worry, you are not alone in such. But is it really the manner in which you wish to be perceived.

I have watched and tested you, and I have found that while you have a little, your knowledge base is indeed shallow. Your replies exhibit a degree of laziness, which I must wonder if that same amount of effort, or lack thereof, is prevalent in other areas. Which would explain the "shallowness" that I perceive. Almost reminiscent of those you like to call "churchoids".

Let's see you agreed with me in Post #81, so to show you , read post #9 again.

 

[Richard_oti]

But you SHOULD on the rare occasion they are RIGHT!

Do you think you are one of those?

Using your 'standards' for not honoring and using God's name because of how its pronounced in English, you would never use the name "Jesus" either...not any other biblical name....

According to your perception(s) / understanding(s).

However, remember the flip side of your coin above, for there is to both honor and dishonor.

Can you attempt to "honor" haShem and at the same time, bring dishonor?

 

[Richard_oti]

The Level of gullibility church people show is just STAGGERING!

Do I detect a "reflection" in your words?

 

[Richard_oti]

↑
Let's see you agreed with me in Post #81, so to show you , read post #9 again.

Like I said, you can not and will not. And gee, I was hoping for a surprise today.

 

[101G]

Like I said, you can not and will not. And gee, I was hoping for a surprise today.

read,..... no surprise, no cracker jack for you..... if you can't understand post #9 just ask me.

 

[Richard_oti]

read,..... no surprise, no cracker jack for you..... if you can't understand post #9 just ask me.

Ah man! And here I was hoping for one of those secret decoder rings so that I also might be able to interpret things as I see fit.

As for post #9, I seem to be experiencing déjà vu. Haven't we been there before.

 

[theQuestion]

Since most of you claim we cannot know God's Name you realize that means we cannot listen to what Jesus said when he said to hold it "hallowed" (sacred), don't you?

That means TWO of your God are Nameless....

 

[101G]

Since most of you claim we cannot know God's Name you realize that means we cannot listen to what Jesus said when he said to hold it "hallowed" (sacred), don't you?

That means TWO of your God are Nameless....

LOL, NO, it's you don't know God PERSONAL, NAME. .......

and for this, U said, "you realize that means we cannot listen to what Jesus said when he said to hold it "hallowed" (sacred), don't you?". my answer, Colossians 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him".

 

[Richard_oti]

Since most of you claim we cannot know God's Name you realize that means we cannot listen to what Jesus said when he said to hold it "hallowed" (sacred), don't you?

Care to offer any verses in support. Aside from Jesus teaching them how to pray that is.

<snip>

 

[theQuestion]

So, when Jesus taught all to honor God's Name, and said he had come to make it known- he wasn't REALLY talking about a Name?
Just a Reputation?....