| Author |
Message |
    
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 337
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 9:34 pm: | 
|
Dear David Derush,
Steven (Schmuel) and Daniel Botkin both say that Yahshua is false, not a true Hebrew name. Is this true? They say that the proper name should be Yeshua, and that Sacred namers fabricated the name Yahshua to fit their theology. Is this true?
I noticed in your previous post that this is your reasoning behind the Yahshua form:
---------------------------
"In John 17:11 our Master prayed, "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as we are." Since according to the words of the Savior, the Father’s name is in His name, it will help to know the Father’s name..."
---------------------------
Now, Daniel Botkin, in his article entitled, The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" Or "Yahshua"? which can be found at http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm makes these statements:
---------------------
Later Sacred Name literature appeals to the Messiah’s statement in John 5:43 as "proof" of the Yahshua form: "I am come in My Father’s name," He said. In the minds of Sacred Name believers, this means that "Yah," a shortened form of Yahweh, must appear in the name of the Son. However, the Messiah did not say "My name contains My Father’s name" or "My Father’s name must appear inside My name" or any such statement. He said absolutely nothing here about His own name. The only "name" mentioned here was the Father’s name. He said, "I am come in My Father’s name," which simply means that He was coming by His Father’s authority, on His Father’s behalf. If we take Yeshua’s statement "I am come in My Father’s name" to mean that His own name must contain the Father’s name, then we ourselves cannot do anything "in the Father’s name" unless our own personal name happens to contain the syllable "Yah." The folly of this interpretation is also evident if the same line of reasoning is applied to the rest of Yeshua’s statement: "…if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." If the logic of Sacred Name believers is applied to this half of the verse, it would be saying "a person’s name must contain his own name," which is meaningless. If, on the other hand, "in his own name" means "by his own authority," then the statement makes sense.
-----------------------
So, my question is this, to both you and Steven:
Did the Messiah mean in His prayer, when He said, "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me..." (John 17:11) Did He mean "keep them in Your AUTHORITY, the authority which You have given Me...?"
-------------
David, what answer/s do you have to Daniel Botkin's article? Have you read it?
Thanks--John |
schmuel
Advanced Member
Username: schmuel
Post Number: 772
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.193.219.212
| | Posted on Monday, October 02, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Based on what I have seen, I do not think you will get a responsive answer from David Alexander (Derush). If David ever did try to have a responsible and responsive discussion on a thread I would be happy to bend over backwards to be extra-cordial so folks could try to figure out what is the Twelve Tribe position on such fundamental questions.
Keep in mind that we have another thread where David apparently changed from an earlier claim.
So it is important to see whether he really is affirming the following,
(This is an expanded version of what you saw him claim) ..
"As of xx/xx/xx we have no more new printing of any papers with the Jesus==zeus canard, we only have the existing stockpile to disseminate with the error. x thousands. After that, no more."
(or simply the 'zeus reference' if you prefer)
So did David make a little error in the post the other day ? Trying to give the impression that they had fixed the errant typesets .. despite earlier saying that they would make no special effort to change existing typesets.
Who can tell ?
Clearly TT did not announce any changes.
Even though this is a simple factual
yes/no question
I doubt that you will get an honest answer from David Alexander (Derush).
If you can't get an honest answer on such, clearly the more complex questions like above will be hand-waved, diverted, ignored.
btw, my view doesn't really see a dichotomy between name and authority. Theophoric names with multi-syllables always begin with "Yeh-" in the Hebrew Bible. Dozens of them. And they end in "-yah". So Yehovah can be said to match up with Yeshua or Yehoshua, whether you the emphasis on the authority or the name.
In some cases this the name/authority dichotomy can be considered ...
'A distinction without a difference.'
Shalom,
Steven Avery } |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 338
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Monday, October 02, 2006 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Oh, I think he will give an answer to this most crucial issue. David is my friend. He and I had a good conversation at a pic-nic table this summer, and he is very sincere to find the truth. So, David, I await your reply when you are ready. No pressure. |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 280
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 12:38 am: |
|
Hello, John.
Really, I don't appreciate you publicly asking me questions here. I don't consider this a valid forum for discussion.
To have a worthwhile discussion, one has to be speaking with people who are not scoffers; and this board is primarily frequented by scoffers, as you know.
For that reason, it makes no sense to even try to have a real discussion about anything here. I will answer your question, just out of simple respect for you as the father of one of my sisters; but if you want to carry on a correspondence about this, or anything else, please honor my request to write to me privately at david@parchmentpress.net
It is a pretty provocative and disrespectful way to ask a question, John...to ask, "Steven (Schmuel) and Daniel Botkin both say that Yahshua is false, not a true Hebrew name. Is this true? They say that the proper name should be Yeshua, and that Sacred namers fabricated the name Yahshua to fit their theology. Is this true?"
I mean, what do you expect me to reply to such a question, John? If we thought such claims were true, we would not know Him as our wonderful Master Yahshua, would we?
Of course it is not true. |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 281
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 12:51 am: |
|
Who is Schmuel? Who is Daniel Botkin? They are just two of 2 billion-plus Christians with their own opinions...that's all. (You are a third such person.)
And neither of them have a life that demonstrates in any way that they have truly obeyed the Gospel, or have the fruit of the Spirit, anymore than the other 2 billion-plus have. Neither of them are part of a people that are manifesting the love of John 13:34,35, & 15:9-16; or the unity of John 17:21-23. Since they don't have a Way, a Truth or the Life that actually backs up thier claims to have the revelation of the Spirit, their words have no weight, none at all.
Such men, and their empty words, are clouds without rain, and trees without fruit (other than bad), just like the whole system of Christianity. It is people like them....verbose and articulate and strong-willed enough to "attract a following" who have been behind every one of the 37,000 plus divisions of Christianity.
You can find many thousands of such men touting their claims all over the internet...all of them holding contradictory views that they all claim to be from the Spirit, and that they all support with plausible reasoning and sophistry from the Scriptures.
Take your pick, John. Pick the ones that appeal to your own reasoning the most. So what? You are still on shifting sand, just as they all are...because they are not hearing our Master Yahshua's words AND putting them into practice by forsaking all to come into a common life of love and unity. |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 282
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 12:59 am: |
|
Perhaps you should go and live with Schmuel or with Daniel Botkin? (If they will let you)
Do you think the life they have is anything like what your daughter is enjoying on a daily basis? You know full well what you would find with either of them would be a bad joke compared to the Way, the Truth and the Life that your daughter is part of with us.
Paul exhorts me in 2 Timothy 2:
14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.... 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
I am not about to waste my time "striving about words to no profit" with the likes of Schmuel or Daniel Botkin. There are too many sincere people out there who truly yearn for real faith and a real clear conscience, for me to have a good conscience about striving with such men over their dead words.
You can call our Master Yahshua whatever you want...but if you don't "depart from iniquity" by giving up your life and everything it consists of, including especially your personal sovereignty, to come under the authority of our Master Yahshua in His People as your daughter has had the good sense to do...if you don't pay the price to come into the only place where you can actually live the life our Master died for...a life of completely self-denying love and unity...if you don't do that, John, God and His Son couldn't care less what you call Him. As long as you love your life in the world more than you love Yahshua and His way, you make yourself an enemy of God, no matter what religious opinions you subscribe to.
As for the proper name of the savior, I am not going to get into trying to "prove" we are right about "Yahshua", versus "Yeshua" or Yahoshua or Jesus or any of the other things people contend over. We know we are with our Father, because of the fruit we see in our lives; and we know that since He has given us the grace to give up our lives to love each other and live as one, that He also by the same Spirit that has made that a reality, will guide us into all other truth we need to know...including knowing the true name of our wonderful savior, our Master Yahshua the Messiah.
I find this inarguable, i.e, not worthy of arguing about. So you are on your own with this one.
With regards to Schmuel's amazing obsession....I have said over and over that we are no longer printing any freepapers with the footnote he finds so offensive. This has been the case for many months. We took it out of the article. And we don't simply "reprint" old PDF's...we may take them and update them with new articles and redo them somewhat....and reprint the updated version. But we don't just reprint them. Whatever we are printing now, if it has the "What's In a Name" article in it, it is the updated version without the footnote in question.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
schmuel
Advanced Member
Username: schmuel
Post Number: 773
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.193.219.212
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 1:07 am: |
|
As I expected and shared John, David would not even answer the simple factual question about whether they are still printing the zeus canard.
One has to be concerned that David deceived on the forum the other day. If he did, it is time to make a correction .. the sooner the better. Is that possible for David ?
So if you can get a straight answer from David (very doubtful .. see his posts here) then share away.
btw .. I have had lots of picnics and discussions with people .. a few minutes of light chat does not mean that they are honorable or handle questions with integrity. It is an indication, nothing more. With David we see the truth here and on other forums.
Granted, David Alexander (Derush) is in a very awkward position. He is the spokesman for a group that lives the lie every day of attacking the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Clearly from that position he cannot give straight answers to why they use a mangle-name for the Messiah, what is the pure Bible, why they overrule the Bible and more.
(Now we don't even know if they really are Trinitarian, they play both ends against the middle on that one.)
As for David's switching to an attempt at personal attacks .. its Derush typical .. he never met me, he does not know my life.. so he fakes it, reading a script. What a Derush-Disaster.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 283
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 1:08 am: |
|
One final thing...the "reasoning" about our Master Yahshua's wonderful name was not mine, but was in an article from our main website, found at:
http://www.twelvetribes.com/publications/nameaboveall.html
I agree with it fully. It is what we believe. It doesn't surprise us that many disagree with us, nor does it bother us. None of them have what we do, that is, a life that backs up our words.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
schmuel
Advanced Member
Username: schmuel
Post Number: 774
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.193.219.212
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 1:13 am: |
|
ie. a life of lying every single day about the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Trying to keep alive their zeus lie.
Every day.
Websites.
Literature.
Contacts.
They are a tainted group sans integrity.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
|
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 339
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.219.229.10
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Steven, you said above:
-------------
"Granted, David Alexander (Derush) is in a very awkward position. He is the spokesman...Clearly from that position he cannot give straight answers to why they use a mangle-name for the Messiah..."
-------------
I guess I was hopful that he would do what Shammah of Rosecreek Village has done here when asked about the Yahshua form. Shammah asked Noah (the founder) about why they use Yahshua, and Noah honestly shared, which Shammmah then relayed to us, that early on Noah had heard from some sacred name associates of his in Florida that the true name of the Messiah is Yahshua, and he honestly believed it.
I think that David Derush is afraid to ask Yoneq how they came about using Yahshua in the beginning. Maybe Yoneq himself is now questioning it's validity and they are all afraid to talk about it.
There's nothing shameful with saying, Hey, we may have gotten it wrong... |
anon_e_mus
Advanced Member
Username: anon_e_mus
Post Number: 520
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 71.169.70.153
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi David.... nice to see you here! FWIW, I think that you were a bit heavy handed with John. Are you wounded to the extent that you are over-sensitive? |
schmuel
Advanced Member
Username: schmuel
Post Number: 775
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.193.219.212
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Very well put, Anon, special note on the first post.
Sincere folks make mistakes, or have to review positions, or acknowledge uncertainties, frequently.
Twelve Tribes has an awful lot invested in their pushing the name of yahshua and disrespecting the name of the Lord Jesus Chirst.
I have conjectured that the lack of true communication may actually come from Yoneq. And that would puts David and others in a real bind.
Shalom,
Steven |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.251.40.117
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
I think somewhere in the bible it says that God's word is above his name. Anyone familiar with that? |
rainy_day_woman
Intermediate Member
Username: rainy_day_woman
Post Number: 226
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 74.131.36.14
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
Say, John, I have an idea...
Why don't YOU ask Yoneq yourself
since you are the one who wants to know,
too afraid? |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 340
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 12:29 am: |
|
Good idea.
Ok, here goes. I hope he gets this or someone sees that he does. But here goes:
Dear Yoneq, I have a simple question. There is absolutely no offence or attack intended. How did you come about using the name Yahshua in the beginning? What were the circumstances that influenced your decision to go from Jesus to Yahshua? Specifically, were you influenced by anyone from the Sacred Name Movement?
I would appreciate any reply from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 341
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 12:58 am: |
|
Dear David Derush,
I'm sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention at all. If you read other threads with my dialogue with Steven I actually was trying to defend you all. But then Steven challenged me to be honest and re-read the article by one of my best friends, Daniel Botkin. So I did re-read it and decided to try and get to the bottom of this issue that Steven has been so obsessed and offended by. I think they have a point. So I simply wanted you to honestly read the article and get some in-put from you.
Hundreds if not thousands of sincere folks (who are not scoffers) come here to see what these Twelve Tribers are all about and if they are legitimate. They have probably received one of your Free Papers from somewhere around the world and want to be educated consumers by plugging you all into Google search engine, and they are invariably steered to this sight. They are not necessarily "scoffers".
I will respect your request not to ask you questions here publicly. But is that what the Apostle Paul would have requested when arguing daily on Mars Hill and probably answering hundreds of questions.
Sincerely, John |
hope_20
Intermediate Member
Username: hope_20
Post Number: 287
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 72.74.207.16
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 1:27 am: |
|
John,
I have to say that I have much respect for you, all of your posts are very fair and non confrontational. I think you set a good example here for rational and fair reasoning of differences in opinion. |
lookatall
Intermediate Member
Username: lookatall
Post Number: 413
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 69.114.115.115
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2006 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Mr David Derush , humble yourself under the mighty hand of God.
Practice the word.
Do not be a hearer but a doer.
are the confessions of your mouth in line with God's purpose and vision for your life, or do you look back in anger?
and remember God's word is an offense to those who are perishing. to those who are called according to his purpose Gods words are a light and a lamp to our feet,
none of us can ever lead a righteous life because none of us are righteous save through Jesus Christ, Yashua. |
schmuel
Advanced Member
Username: schmuel
Post Number: 776
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.193.219.212
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 6:38 am: |
|
John ..
"Steven challenged me to be honest and re-read the article by one of my best friends, Daniel Botkin. So I did re-read it and decided to try and get to the bottom of this issue that Steven has been so obsessed and offended by. I think they have a point."
John, good note, but a comment  . If we 'have a point' and Twelve Tribes has deliberately attacked the name of the Lord Jesus Christ with the zeus lie it is correct to say a believer is offended. However, no more 'obsessed' that Paul and the apostles, who were always lifting up His name.
Remember I was known more as a defender of Twelve Tribes on various points on this forum until they showed a lack of integrity on this blasphemy.
And remember John, I was in that 'qodesh name' fix for a good while. Trying to believe the name of Jesus was 'wrong', using the sacred name error of 'yahshua' all the time instead. Hearing everybody say that the Bible should not be trusted, we know better, don't say this, don't say that. (Twelve Tribes has limited that part of the error mostly to 'Jesus', they properly do use words like 'God' and 'holy' and 'Peter' and "Jerusalem" they don't go into all the qodesh name word-fears).
The problem is .. afaik they are the only group in the world of any significance that is still putting forth the zeus lie in print and web sites every day. Even the big qodesh-name groups like Eliyah and ISR have made the correction completely, Eliyah especially coming forth with the type of public statement that really can be an honest review and cleansing .. exactly what Twelve Tribes needs to do ..
'Jesus==zeus was an improper reference .. there is no scholarly support for the idea that Jesus connects to zeus, please disregard the note in any old papers, we have removed the note from new printings and our web pages'
Did you notice how David never responded about what they are currently printing? His lack of response (the question is whether they changed the typesets currently in use) is a good indication that he simply deceived in the last thread and rather than acknowledge that he erred (perhaps it was more an error of exaggeration rather than the deliberate lie that it now appears) he has simply stonewalled and gone off in a Derush-huff.
If David Alexander (Derush) is going to deliberately lie in a carefully-written fluff-piece trying to defend their still using the zeus canard how can he be trusted on anything about doctrine or history or community?
Shalom,
Steven Avery |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 284
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Schmuel, I have a question for you.
What is it about the plain and honest statement that I made above that you don't understand? If you want to to clarify something about it, I will do so. This is what I said:
"With regards to Schmuel's amazing obsession....I have said over and over that we are no longer printing any freepapers with the footnote he finds so offensive. This has been the case for many months. We took it out of the article. And we don't simply "reprint" old PDF's...we may take them and update them with new articles and redo them somewhat....and reprint the updated version. But we don't just reprint them. Whatever we are printing now, if it has the "What's In a Name" article in it, it is the updated version without the footnote in question. "
What is it about the above statement that you find impossible to understand?
We are no longer printing anything with the Jesus/Healing Zeus footnote.
We are no longer printing anything with the Jesus/Healing Zeus footnote.
How many times do you want me to say it? And why do you insist on calling such a statement a deliberate lie? It is as true as the sun rising this morning.
Most of the older PDF's on our site that have the older version of the "What's in a Name" article in them, still have the footnote. So if people choose to download those old PDF's to their own computers (this rarely happens), and print them out, they would be printing out an older version that would have the footnote. That much IS true, and I have never denied it. We just don't see that as something we need to be concerned about. In time, as the old PDF's gradually drop off the site, even that will cease.
Are you trying to pretend that PDF's are "typesets"? That just because we still have the old PDF's with the footnote on our website, that we are still "printing" them somehow?
If there is something about this that you do not understand, here is your chance to ask.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 286
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
John, regarding the name: As I have already posted, from our own article on our website:
"In John 17:11 our Master prayed, "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as we are." Since according to the words of the Savior, the Father’s name is in His name, it will help to know the Father’s name."
"Fortunately this is pretty easy, because the Old Testament was only written in Hebrew and a number of verses are very clear in proclaiming the Father’s name, such as, "Sing to God ... whose name is Yah" (Psalm 68:4). Also the Scriptures are full of the expression Hallelujah, a phrase very familiar to Christians, but do you know what it means in Hebrew? It is actually Hallelu Yah, a command meaning, "Give praise to Yah." None of this is secret stuff, for it is found in the marginal readings of many Bibles today; for example, look at Psalms 116:19 in the New American Standard Bible."
John, that seems quite clear to us. If you want to take it upon yourself to ignore that Yahshua said the Father had given Him His name...and decide the correct interpretation is that "name" does not mean "name" but only "authority", well, go ahead.
It seems pretty obvious to us that in the case of our wonderful Master Yahshua, that our Father's "name" that He has given the Son is not just His "authority" but also His name...YAH...I AM, especially in light of the angels command to Miriam, "you shall call His name YAH-shua (which means "Yahweh's salvation") FOR (meaning 'because') HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS.
This command and prophecy only makes sense if YAH is part of our Master's name.
But we did not just "figure it out". Or get this stuff from sacred namers, though some of them may believe the same thing. Our conviction is that our Father leads His people through apostolic and prophetic authority, and that you can know what people truly have such authority because there, and only there, will you find people living a life of real love and unity that is focused on God's prophetic purpose of being a light to the nations in order to bring about the end of this age.
You know all this, John...but you still kick against it, and hold onto your life.
People do what is in their hearts to do. And what they do (or don't do) determines their destiny. I fear for your destiny,John, I really do.
As long as you are living on your own authority, and not truly coming under His authority, it doesn't matter much what you call Him, as I have said.
And questions are still questions even if you leave off the question mark.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
nabashalam
Advanced Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 728
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 209.103.218.14
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
"His authority"
The crux of the problem is that YOU and the TT claim to be the "Only Ones" on the whole earth to possess that authority!
How arrogant is that!?! |
schmuel
Advanced Member
Username: schmuel
Post Number: 778
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 24.193.219.212
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
David -
"I have said over and over that we are no longer printing
any freepapers with the footnote he finds so offensive."
No David you never said such "over and over." In fact you never said that once... until the statement above on October 3 saying that you had said it "over and over".
In fact it was that aspect of the claim that made me especially wary (albeit a bit unconsciously). How could David falsely claim that he had said this before when he should know full well this is brand new.
Please be accurate in speech here.
Show us the post where you said anything clear before a couple of days ago.
Or else you need to apologize for confusing the issue with a false claim.
You very obstinately had earlier said that you would not change printing typesets unless you were changing them anyway for other reasons. And in fact in the first new article you actually added in the canard.
Perhaps you changed your policy on all that and went in and changed the typesets of all articles being printed and this was your announcement.
If so that is good to hear, one step in the right direction, but you should not falsely claim that you said that "over and over".
The .pdfs remain an abomination, they are often the easiest to change and they remain a testimony to a deliberate rebellion. However that is not the context of our "over and over" discussion. We are talking about new printings, the first of the four things needed.
Even if you were deceiving or confused about "over and over" we all can rejoice that you have stopped printing the zeus-lie.
And if you show where you actually said this clearly before a couple of days ago you will get a very sincere and heartfelt apology from me.
On the other hand, David, please realize that it is hard to trust you if you combine a seeming good move with a deceptive statement that you had said and done this earlier.
So please find the claimed earlier quotes that there was no more printing of the zeus-canard, or not -- and we will see who owes the apology.
If you want to look and/or post after shabbat that is fine.
Preferably this was not meant for tonight, however you seemed to be a bit more attentive at the moment and understandably requesting some feedback.
Shabbat shalom.
Yours in Messiah,
Steven Avery
(Message edited by schmuel on October 06, 2006) |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 287
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 70.181.208.151
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Schmuel, here is one of the many places I plainly stated that we are not printing the footnote in current or future freepapers.
How I could have said it any plainer or clearer, I do not know.
----------------
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 3:05 pm:
Anon, you ask,
"I think Steve's main question is why, in your literature, you all lied about the Zeus thing in your papers and never changed it. Some "authorities" say...whereas those "authorities" are no authorities but they are a group of heretics."
--------
I have gone over this ad nauseum already, Anon...but here is my last shot at this, for your benefit.
This was a footnote...just a footnote, saying essentially, that "some authorities claim" the "healing zeus theory".
If you go on the internet, you can easily find people claiming this. Some of them even sound like authorities, for example, the high-sounding "Institute for Scripture Research".
Steven pointed out to us that there is no real scholarship supporting the idea, that it is false.
It is STILL just a footnote. But you know what we did? Even though we know that Steven is a oneness pentecostal, who will never be satisfied until everyone is baptized in "Jesus Name"...believing that He is not only the Son, but also the Father and the Spirit...even though we KNEW this, we still respected what he said...that the footnote was not well supported; AND WE CHANGED IT! We threw it out!
Of course, that was not enough for him. He thinks we should go back through our whole backlog of many years of freepaper PDF"s and change them...some of which, for technical reasons Steven does not understand or accept, cannot be changed. But even if they could be changed, we would not bother to do so. Why?
Because our perspective is not Steven's. We are not obsessed with the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. We give that name no value, except that sincere people who don't know better, sometimes use it when referring to our wonderful Master Yahshua the Messiah.
We feel no need to go and revise our old PDF's, just to pull a footnote that is not well-supported concerning a name that we regard as having no validity anyway.
Anyone who has had much experience in the real Christian world, as I have, should rather consider it pretty remarkable that we actually responded to him at all; that we actually pulled the footnote from our articles about Yahshua and the name on our main website...and also have pulled it from all freepapers currently being printed, as well as those we will print in the future.
Go to the publications of any Christian group...find a mistake in a footnote, and contact them and try to get them to change it. They will laugh at you. Christian publications in general are full of gross error...and they will generally no more respond to any complaint about a specific error, than they will fly to the moon.
And yet, we responded, we pulled the footnote out of current and future freepapers, and also out of website articles that had it...even though to us, it is nothing more than a poorly supported footnote about a name that is not the name of Our Master Yahshua.
--------------------
Schmuel, I plainly stated above that "we actually pulled the footnote from our articles about Yahshua and the name on our main website...and also have pulled it from all freepapers currently being printed, as well as those we will print in the future.".....
That seems pretty clear to me; but if for some reason it was not clear to you, hopefully it is clear now.
And for sure, I could find more examples of the same kind of plain statement, going back many more months.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 288
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Schmuel, here is another one...many months old, that I posted on "The Twelve Tribes position on the "healing zeus" footnote":
------------------------
Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:48 pm:
Mr. Avery, Barak did say that "we will no longer use" that footnote.
By that we simply meant that we would "no longer use" the footnote in future printings of our freepapers, and we would change the html article "What's in a Name" on our website. (Since we also made the mistake of not making the change in our new booklet, "Nihilism", we will correct the PDF in that also.) You can expect those changes to be made soon; meaning in the next week or so.
---------------------------------------
That has been our clear position for many months, Schmuel, and we have faithfully stood by it. We have not used the footnote since I posted this, way back in March.
We said plainly that, "we would "no longer use" the footnote in future printings of our freepapers".
That seems quite clear to me. I apologize if it was not clear to you...but I don't quite know how I could have said it any plainer.
The truth is, we have never had any interest in "pushing" the jesus=healing zeus theory; we just mentioned it as an aside in a footnote, because at the time that article was originally written, a number of years ago, that particular theory was all over the internet, as you well know.
If we had thought it was something worthy of focusing on and advocating, we would have written a whole freepaper about it; or at least a whole freepaper article advocating it. The fact is, we have never even included a sentence in any of our articles advocating it.
And early last March we specifically told you that we were committed to not using it at all in future freepaper printings. That is a commitment we have kept.
Somehow, that fact seems to have completely escaped you, but it is not because we did not try to communicate it to you. There is no integrity in slandering us as liars when we have in fact truthfully communicated our position to you, and have lived up to it, as we have in fact done.
Sincerely,
David Derush/The Twelve Tribes communities |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 289
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Schmuel, here is another one from the same thread....
-----------------------------
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 11:20 am:
Mr. Avery,
You sent the following to Barak this morning:
" From David's 'response' on the forum, and your lack of response to two requests, I am now publicly concluding that you have no plans to change reprints of the existing dozen or more articles with the error."
Mr. Avery, you are in error. As I have clearly communicated, we have made no commitment to change the old PDF's in our freepaper archive, and we will not make such a commitment.
We have said plainly, though, that we will "no longer use" the footnote in future printings of our freepapers; and we meant what we said.
We do not re-use these old PDF's unaltered when we print papers. If we pull out an old freepaper PDF, we may re-use most of it, but we always make changes to update them; and when and if we do so, our intention is to delete the footnote at that time as a part of doing such an updating.
----------------------------------
Schmuel, I really don't know how I could be clearer than the plain statement, "We have said plainly, though, that we will "no longer use" the footnote in future printings of our freepapers; and we meant what we said."
If you go to the "What's New" page on our website, at:
http://www.twelvetribes.com/current/whats-new.html
you will see listed everything we have done since early April...including 10 new freepapers. The jesus=zeus footnote is not in any of them, as can be verified by downloading and examining the PDF's.
Feel free to keep an eye on new freepapers as they come out. If you find the footnote in any of them, I can assure you it would only be by accident, not intention. We fully intend to avoid using it. We have no "secret" or open agenda to push the idea. It is not something we have anything invested in advocating, contrary to what youj seem to think.
If you have any questions, if this is not completely clear, please ask now, and be done with it.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 290
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Here is another post of mine from the same thread, Schmuel...and your response to it, in which you demonstrate that you do in fact understand that we have communicated to you that we are no longer using the footnote:
----------------
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 12:05 pm:
I do not know why Mr. Avery finds it so impossible to understand. I stated:
"We have said plainly, though, that we will "no longer use" the footnote in future printings of our freepapers; and we meant what we said."
For the record, "future printings" includes what Mr. Avery insists on calling "reprints".
---------------
You responded, Schmuel by saying this:
-----------------
Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 1:31 pm:
Hi Folks,
Wow, David did finally say today something different, more specific. Even did talk about 'future printings', finally.
"we would "no longer use" the footnote in future printings of our freepapers."
Good, one of the four absolutely necessary actions to restore integrity.
------------------------------
So you have known for seven months, Schmuel, that we stopped using the footnote in our current and future printings of freepapers.
Please, if by now you are still not clear about this, tell me what I can do to make things clear for you. It seems from your own words back in March that you were clear about it at one point...but somehow, you got unclear. If you need any additional help to understand this accurately, please don't hesitate to ask for it.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 342
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
I think I will end my part of this discussion by quoting the last paragraph of Daniel Botkins article which I think he put quite nicely.
(The words in brackets are mine.)
--------------------
"I am not writing this article to persuade people to quit saying "Yahshua." If people want to continue using a mistransliteration that was erroneously contrived by early Sacred Name pioneers who didn’t know Hebrew, it really doesn’t matter to me. I doubt that the substitution of an "ah" sound for an "e" sound matters much to the Lord, either. What does matter, though, is the spreading of false accusations against Messianic Jews and others [i.e. Christains] who called the Messiah "Yeshua" [or "Jesus"]. "
--Daniel Botkin
http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm
---------------------- |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 343
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 5:44 pm: |
|
I personally would like to encourage all those in leadership of the TT to consult some of your more scholarly people there, especially any who may have grown up knowing Hebrew or read from the Hebrew Bible currently. Because it really appears as if the entire Hebrew population of the world is laughing at you now. Especially when you say on your web sight that the Messiah Yahshua has the exact same name as Joshua, son of Nun had. They are laughing at you. You are not communicating to them in an effective manner (and I think you would want to).
Because when they read the name of Joshua in say Joshua 1:1 in their Hebrew Bible, they do not see Yah-shua they see Ye-ho-shua. It was later shortened to Ye-shua. It was never shortened to Yah-shua.
Yes, the Joshua in the Bible does have the 1st three consonants of Yahweh's Name, which are the YHW, and then the shua. All Hebrew peoples pronounce it Ye-ho-SHU-a. Not Yah-shua. Your Yah-shua only has two consonants of Yahweh's Name, YH, and then the shua. Just like Daniel Botkin said in his article, http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm this absolutely nowhere appears in any Hebrew Bibles.
Please consult one of your teachers to look into this because Hebrew folks are not taking you serious, and may look at you as, well, maybe some Hillbillies who didn't know any better, and said, "Hey, I think I'll take this last part of Hallelujah, or the "Yah" in Psalms and stick it onto the shua and whalla, I've got Yah-shua." It doesn't work that way.
I've been listening to some websights where Hebrew speaking people are reading Joshua chapter 1 out loud, and they pronounce his name quite clearly as Ye-ho-SHU-a, with the emphasis on SHU.
I'm just saying this to help you, not to cut you down. You should strive for perfection and want to communicate effectively to all Hebrew speaking people around the world, and not give them a reason to laugh at you any longer. That's just my opinion...
Blessings!
John |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 291
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 3:25 pm: |
|
John, if you want to encourage the "leadership of the TT" to do anything, you will need to talk to them personally. Believe me, they do not waste their time reading Factnet. For the most part, I don't even keep up with what is posted here.
We also don't put any stock in worldly scholarship, or any whatsoever in what today's worldly or religious Jews happen to be doing or thinking.
The fact is, none of them have any idea how Hebrew was pronounced in Yahshua's time. Hebrew was a "dead" language for many centuries.
The early zionists Jews, almost all of them atheists and communists, resurrected Hebrew back into a spoken language early last century, primarily with motives that were not at all religious, but rather nationalistic.
They essentially guessed at every question regarding pronounciation. They certainly have no idea how our Father intend YHW-shua to be pronounced...no idea at all. No one alive today has any idea, intellectually.
It is not something that is knowable, except by revelation...by our Father revealing it to a people based on the promise of John 14:21.
And the Jews record of missing things...even not recognizing Messiah when He was right in front of them...and adding "vowel points" to the tetragrammaton... and outlawing even pronouncing the Name at all...substituting "Ha-shem"....I mean, their record is not especially good, is it?
In light of this, why would we look for enlightenment to what modern Jews are doing with regard to Hebrew pronounciation of anything? Especially regarding their pronounciation of the Messiah that they demanded be crucified?
For that matter, we don't look at anything they are doing or not doing. All that they do; how they keep the Feasts, how they keep the Sabbath, all of it...it is all totally polluted by Babylon.
What will provoke the sincere among them to jealousy, in time, will be the quality of our life flowing out of real communion with our Father...not whether or not our faith or practice or pronounciation of our Master's name happens to agree with what they think is proper.
We don't do what they think proper in hardly any way, shape or form. Our plumbline is not them, but our Father and what He reveals to us.
If you want to follow worldly scholarship, and guide yourself by modern Jewish knowledge and wisdom, go ahead. But I don't think you will make any headway with such a suggestion with the leaders of the Twelve Tribes. It is not a suggestion I myself would consider worthy of passing on, either.
We live by John 14:21. That is the only thing that will lead anyone to the Kingdom. He reveals Himself, and His truth, to those who pay the price to actually OBEY what He has already shown them.
Sincerely,
David Derush
(Message edited by davidderush on October 10, 2006) |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 344
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 5:19 pm: |
|
So David, If I'm hearing you right.
You are saying that YHW-shua is pronounced Yah-shua and the proper transliteration is Yahshua, and that Joshua son of Nun was originally called Yahshua, is that correct?
I'm really trying to understand where you are coming from.
Please let me know if I am correct. Thanks, John |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 292
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 9:28 pm: |
|
John, what we believe about this is simple and clear. It is summed up quite simply in our article "What's in a name?" that we put in many of our freepapers. The link to that article is:
http://www.twelvetribes.com/publications/whats-in-a-name.html
What you read in that article is what we believe our Father has revealed to us about this subject. We don't feel the need to defend it intellectually, either to the Jews or anyone else.
We trust that we have the Spirit because that Spirit has given us the power to love one another and live as one. The same Spirit that has given us that power, has also shown us clearly what you read in that article.
The simple fact is that no one can possibly know from intellectual investigation exactly how the name of the son of Nun or the name of the Son of Mary and Joseph was pronounced. This is the plain fact of the situation, and for you to allow yourself to be convinced otherwise by plausible liars and intellectual sophistry is not wise.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 346
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi David,
I read the article "What's in a name?"
I liked it. I always have.
I too, believe the name Jesus is too weak with really no meaning in and of itself.
Actually I think that Yeshua is too weak too, not really incorporating the Father's name (YHWH) into it. Joshua's name seems the most powerful, which incorporates YHW, a full three letters of the Father's name into it, as YHW-shua. This obviously means Yahweh's salvation, and is in the Hebrew text in Joshua 1:1.
Do you also spell your Master's name YHW-shua? or do you spell it YH-shua?
Thanks--John |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 294
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
As you can see in the article, John, we spell our Master's wonderful name Y-a-h-s-h-u-a. Our Master Yahshua.
The only thing that is worthy of His name is to lay down your life to love your brothers just as He did.
Psalms 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name YAH, and rejoice before him.
Strongs 3050. ;hÎy Yahh, yaw; contraction for 3068, and meaning the same; Yah, the sacred name:—Yah, the Lord, most vehement. Compare names in “-iah,” “-jah.”
Sincerely,
David Derush |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 347
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Thanks David,
I think I've got it. I even have a Strongs.
YHWH (yod, hay, waw, hay) is Yahweh's Full Name
YH (yod, hey) is a contraction for His Full Name.
Therefore someone took some liberties and instead of having the Messiah's Name as Joshua's name YHW-shua (yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin)
you are having the Messiah's Name as YH-shua (yod, hay, shin, ayin).
Am I correct?
Thanks again--John |
davidderush
Intermediate Member
Username: davidderush
Post Number: 295
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 69.224.237.101
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
John, all we believe about this is what is in the article "What's in a name".
If you want more than that, I don't know what to tell you. That is really all I have to say about it.
In spite of my best intentions to do otherwise, I have allowed you to draw me into using this board as a discussion board...and that is not what it is. Essentially, it is a slander board, on which occassionally (very rarely) actual discussions happen to occur.
I have no interest in legitimizing it any further.
Any further exchanges will have to be done privately.
Sincerely,
David Derush |
yochanan
Member
Username: yochanan
Post Number: 88
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 63.120.92.68
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
John,
Notice the sleight of hand that David uses when he puts forth his argument on Jesus name.
It's the informal fallacy called the 'appeal to ignorance'.
He writes:
"They (the atheist, communist Jews--- does that sound a little anti-semitic?..)essentially guessed at every question regarding pronounciation. They certainly have no idea how our Father intend YHW-shua to be pronounced...no idea at all. No one alive today has any idea, intellectually."
His argument is:
Proposition 1: The Jews don't know how to pronounce Hebrew...
Therefore: Our pronunciation, ie 'Yahshua' is correct. QED.
I don't think so...
Ignorance on part the Jewish rabbis and scholars,
doesn't mean great linguistic insight among the TT elders...
But further, after he says,' We don't need no stinking Jews to tell us how to pronounce Hebrew...'
(this is paraphrased- but reread what he has written; its pretty anti-semitic.)
he whips out his authority,the Strong's dictionary to prove his point...
Does this make sense?
Do you go to the people, to whom the Hebrew language belongs, who have preserved it through the centuries in their synogogues, in the teachings of their rabbis and scholars?
Or do you go to a secondary source, mangle the information there, and generate a new name to suit your imagination?
There is a real lack of credibility here.
yochanan |
nabashalam
Advanced Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 733
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 209.103.218.47
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Hasn't etymology progressed in the last 100 years? Why do Bible scholars insist on using a dictionary from the late 1800s??? |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 348
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Hi David Derush (or should I say good-bye?)
I am so sorry to hear that you are pulling out of our little chat. I was actually hoping you and I, together could silence both Schmuel and Dan Botkin and their accusations that you have a "mangled-mish-mosh" name for the Messiah.
David, I actually thought (and hoped) you were going to tell me something like this, "Yes, John, we also have the exact same three letters of Yahweh's name incorporated into our Master's Name, i.e., YHW-shua just like in Joshua 1:1.
We, however use and say Yahshua with an unspoken and unwritten apostrophe between the Yah and the shua, like Yah'shua indicating the W (waw) letter of Yahweh's Name. But we call him Yahshua for short, like Ken for Kenneth or Sue for Susan, etc. But we do in fact have the YHW, so as not to be misleading the public on our websight when we tell folks that our Master Yahshua had the EXACT same name as Joshua, son of Nun."
But, on the other hand, David, if you all have YH-shua and not YHW-shua, and indeed are misleading the public, and you are now running from our conversation so as not to face the truth, then I have no respect for you. Please tell me which is the case. I hope for the former.
Sincerely, John |
rainy_day_woman
Intermediate Member
Username: rainy_day_woman
Post Number: 229
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 128.163.110.72
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
All this name stuff is slightly confusing to me with all of these twists and turns...
But, John, to say to David, "if you all have YH-shua and not YHW-shua, and indeed are misleading the public, and you are now running from our conversation so as not to face the truth, then I have no respect for you," is a rather presumptuous statement. Did you forget you are speaking with a man who has given up everything to lay down his life to love his brothers just as Yahshua did?
Geez..John, to me that just sounds totally disrespectful of you, especially after David has asked you multiple times to communicate with him in a personal and private manner, not on this board.
However, I am curious of the answer to your question... |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.125.89.168
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Where did Schmuel go? |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 349
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
yochanan,
thanks for your post above. I had to LOL when you wrote,
"But further, after he says,' We don't need no stinking Jews to tell us how to pronounce Hebrew...' he whips out his authority,the Strong's dictionary to prove his point..."
It surprised me too, especially in light of what Botkin had already said,
(Botkin:
"The proponents of the Yahshua form claim that the Messiah’s name was the same as Joshua’s, written [vwhy or [wvwhy (Strong’s #3091). The only problem is that neither of these Hebrew spellings of Joshua’s name can possibly be pronounced "Yahshua." The third letter in Joshua’s name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav (w) and a vav cannot be silent. The letter vav must be pronounced as either a "v" or an "o" or an "u." (In the case of Joshua, it takes an "o" sound, giving us "Ye-ho-SHU-a." Strong’s confirms this pronunciation.) For a name to be pronounced "Yahshua," it would have to be spelled [wv--hy, and no such name exists anywhere in the Hebrew Bible."
Botkin: "STRONGS confirms this pronounciation."
Derush: "STRONGS confirms our contraction Yah."
----------------
I guess my question is: How DO they spell Yahshua in Hebrew? He seemed to be totally evasive with me. It was like pulling teeth.
Does anyone know for sure? |
yochanan
Member
Username: yochanan
Post Number: 89
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 63.120.92.68
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
John,
To answer your question-- (following Botkins right to left order & with written consonants in parenthesis) Jesus name is in Hebrew:
(ayin)(u-vav)(sh)(y).
According to the Hebrew text in Ezra, where the high priest has the same name, the vowels are filled in as follows:
a(ayin)(u-vav)(sh)e(y) or yeshua.
Ayin is a silent consonant which acts as a place holder for the vowel.
The long form, which you can find in Zechariah for the same high priest is:
(ayin)(u-vav)(sh)(o-vav)(h)(y) and with the vowels filled in:
a(ayin)(u-vav)(sh)(o-vav)(h)e(y) or yehoshua.
So my comments on your Botkin quote:
1. "Joshua’s, written [vwhy or [wvwhy (Strong’s #3091)." I'm a little confused here. I don't see the shin (sh) and is v/w the ayn? -- first part looks good.
2. "The third letter in Joshua’s name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav (w) and a vav cannot be silent. " True. I wrote my vav as (u/o-vav) according to its sound in the word. It does vary and it must be pronounced.
3. "For a name to be pronounced "Yahshua," it would have to be spelled [wv--hy, and no such name exists anywhere in the Hebrew Bible."" This is true for yehoshua.
It should be noted that there is a possibility for 'Jesus' to be pronounced Yahshua with the short form:
(ayin)(u-vav)(sh)(y)
if the vowel underneath the yod were an 'a' sound:
a(ayin)(u-vav)(sh)a(y)
However, the Hebrew text clearly says the vowel is an 'e'. Now David may try to challenge the vowel by saying that it was 'arbitarily' chosen by the Masoretes (the traditionalist) who first started writing the vowels in the 7th century. But the Masoretes were following an oral tradition that goes back long before them and originated in the city of Tiberia in Roman province of Palestine (or Israel). There were competing traditions from the Jewish community in Babylon-- but the Tiberian tradition, from the Jewish homeland prevailed.
Secondly, if he does challenge it, what evidence can he bring to the table that supports an 'a' pronounciation and why would that be better than the Tiberian tradition.
And Schmuel, feel free to add your comments.
yochanan |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 350
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi yochanan,
Do you know how the Twelve Tribes spell their Master's Name in Hebrew?
--------------
1.)Yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin?
or
2.)Yod, hay, shin, ayin?
---------------
Is it door #1 or door #2?
Does anyone know?
Any X-TT folks? |
yochanan
Member
Username: yochanan
Post Number: 90
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 63.120.92.68
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 5:22 pm: |
|
John,
Good question... I don't know.
yochanan |
nabashalam
Advanced Member
Username: nabashalam
Post Number: 736
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 209.103.218.19
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 5:51 pm: |
|
The only written Hebrew I saw was like on banners etc. Never any manuscripts. I never saw Yahshua written in Hebrew. |
rainy_day_woman
Intermediate Member
Username: rainy_day_woman
Post Number: 230
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 74.131.36.14
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Here John, maybe this will help answer your question.
http://www.twelvetribes.com/publications/wish-upon-star/name-above-all.html |
rainy_day_woman
Intermediate Member
Username: rainy_day_woman
Post Number: 231
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 74.131.36.14
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 9:59 pm: |
|
'So His name, which has His Father’s name in it, is Yahshua. And it has such a wonderful meaning that both Yoseph and Miriam marveled over it, because they knew full well their native language. It means Yah (translated "I Am", Exodus 3:14) Shua ("mighty and powerful to save").' |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 351
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:33 am: |
|
Thanks a bunch RDW!
I thought I had seen that article in the past with the five Hebrew letters, but couldn’t find it. Earlier this evening I had been reading Lew White’s sight “Fossilized Customs” online. And I think I am ready to draw my own conclusion about this whole Name issue and be done with it.
Here is what Lew White says:
---------------------------------
"Looking at the Hebrew text (rather than Arabic or Cantonese), and the letters of the name for the man they today call "JOSHUA", we see yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin, or YAHUSHUA (alt. YAHOSHUA). We should not be upset about this either. The Name is also correct if we shorten it to Y'shua; the meaning still stands, "Yah is our salvation". "Ben" is short for "Benyamin" (no letter "J" is possible for Hebrew, Greek, or Latin - it didn't show up in any alphabet until about 1530 CE). One thing is certain, Yahushua was never called "JESUS" while He was on Earth. The letter "Y" at the beginning of the Name is followed by the Hebrew letter "hay", and "yod-hay" is the short form of the proper Name Yahuah (mostly seen as Yahweh), as we see "YAH" used at Psalm 68:4. So, "Yah" is contained in the first part of the authentic Name of the Messiah of Israel, and it is connected to "shua"(save), explaining why Gabriel said, "'Yoseph, you son of David, fear not to take unto you Miryam your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the (Ruach haQodesh). And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His Name (Yahushua): for He shall save (shua) his people from their sins.' Matt 1:20-25”
--------------------
So I see that indeed the Twelve Tribes are correct in their spelling of their Master's Name, i.e., Yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin, just like Joshua, son of Nun.
Lew White says that Y'shua is correct, for the meaning stays the same. I believe that Yahshua also is correct too, for the meaning stays the same. The "waw" is insignificant in the meaning and has therefore been dropped by the Twelve Tribes, and Yahshua is completely acceptable and perfect to me now for the Name of the Messiah.
WOW!
As long as they have the 5 consonants that are in the Hebrew text, then “correct” pronunciation becomes less important. I think David Derush is right when he said, “They certainly have no idea how our Father intend YHW-shua to be pronounced...no idea at all. No one alive today has any idea, intellectually."
Thanks David, and thanks RDW. |
yochanan
Member
Username: yochanan
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 63.120.92.68
| | Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 9:12 am: |
|
John,
"So I see that indeed the Twelve Tribes are correct in their spelling of their Master's Name, i.e., Yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin, just like Joshua, son of Nun." ---
Yes. That spells yehoshua.
Here is what it says in the Bible-- which is the original source.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2303.htm
See
Zech 3:2 (first word in from right. Ignore the initial 'vav' which means 'and')
-- and if you don't know Hebrew letters, I recommend finding them on line and working your way through it, so you know what is really there. (Also I stand corrected in my spelling above. I had put an extra 'vav' in, based on Botkin --although I'd seen it written that way elsewhere-- but this probably the preferred spelling.)
"Lew White says that Y'shua is correct, for the meaning stays the same. I believe that Yahshua also is correct too, for the meaning stays the same."
Y'shua is correct, but Yahshua is not correct, because of the vowel notation under the yod is an 'e' not an 'a'.
For Yeshua, see Zech 3:1 (2nd word in -from the right).
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt35a03.htm
"As long as they have the 5 consonants that are in the Hebrew text, then “correct” pronunciation becomes less important."
No. Vowels although typically not written are important. In Semitic languages, the root (ie. the consonants) remains constant, but the vowels change-- but according to the rules of grammar.
If you use the wrong vowel, people can't understand you.
(Compare this to European languages, which change the prefix--- this isn't arbritary either.)
"I think David Derush is right when he said, “They certainly have no idea how our Father intend YHW-shua to be pronounced...no idea at all. No one alive today has any idea, intellectually." "
What???
yochanan |
yochanan
Member
Username: yochanan
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 63.120.92.68
| | Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 9:34 am: |
|
John,
"So I see that indeed the Twelve Tribes are correct in their spelling of their Master's Name, i.e., Yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin, just like Joshua, son of Nun." ---
Yes. That spells yehoshua.
Here is what it says in the Bible-- which is the original source.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2303.htm
See Zech 3:3 (first word in from right. Ignore the initial 'vav' which means 'and')
-- and if you don't know Hebrew letters, I recommend finding them on line and working your way through it, so you know what is really there. (Also I stand corrected in my spelling above. I had put an extra 'vav' in, based on Botkin --although I'd seen it written that way elsewhere-- but this probably the preferred spelling.)
"Lew White says that Y'shua is correct, for the meaning stays the same. I believe that Yahshua also is correct too, for the meaning stays the same."
Y'shua is correct, but Yahshua is not correct, because the vowel notation under the yod is an 'e' not an 'a'.
For Yeshua, see Ezra 3:2 (2nd word in -from the right).
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt35a03.htm
"As long as they have the 5 consonants that are in the Hebrew text, then “correct” pronunciation becomes less important."
No. Vowels, although typically not written, are important. In Semitic languages, the root (ie. the consonants) remains constant, but the vowels change-- but according to the rules of grammar.
To give you a sense, the root of Jesus name is
y-sh-ayin- which means 'save'
'yasha' is 'saved'
'lishoa' is 'to save'
'yeshuah' is 'salvation'
So you can see, if you use the wrong vowel, people can't understand you.
(Compare this to European languages, which change the prefix--- this isn't arbitrary either.)
"I think David Derush is right when he said, “They certainly have no idea how our Father intend YHW-shua to be pronounced...no idea at all. No one alive today has any idea, intellectually." "
What??? I don't think so.
yochanan |
rainy_day_woman
Intermediate Member
Username: rainy_day_woman
Post Number: 233
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 74.131.36.14
| | Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Doug,
You asked a very good question. Where is Steven Avery, or schmuel? He was so passionate about this issue.
Now, schmuel is gone.
Some of his last words addressed to David Derush were,
"So please find the claimed earlier quotes that there was no more printing of the zeus-canard, or not -- and we will see who owes the apology."
(Message edited by rainy_day_woman on October 13, 2006) |
johncolo_springs
Intermediate Member
Username: johncolo_springs
Post Number: 352
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.64.1.41
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 2:59 pm: |
|
So, my final conclusion is this: Yes, the TT did indeed take some liberties in the transliteration of the name of the Messiah. But they are liberties that are justified, and in my opinion, they even enrichen the Name and help to convey to the rest of the world the true meaning behind yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin that much better.
The TT do not make room for transliterating the "waw" letter of the Name. If they did then the Name would have to be more like Yahoshua. They have simplified it to Yahshua, which retains 100% of the meaning, namely, Yah's (or YHWH's) Salvation. Yah is merely the contraction for YHWH, and because the whole world is familiar with Yah in Halleluyah, I think it is the most appropriate way. It conveys the meaning much better than Yeshua does, in my opinion, especially when they break it down and explain the meanings to us in their literature.
Therefore, Daniel Botkin and Dr. Ben-Gigi, in the article above, have proceeded from a false assumption. Their entire premise was base upon, that just because some folks have transliterated yod, hay, waw, shin, ayin to Yahshua, they therefore must spell Yahshua in Hebrew as yod, hay, shin, ayin. This is not the case. It’s ok to shorten a name in the transliteration, esp. if it helps to convey the meaning better.
And as far as correct pronunciation goes, well, I’d rather say Yahshua than Yeshua, just like most prefer to say Yahweh rather than Jehovah in that great debate. Yahshua, in my opinion is the best way to go. |
doug
Senior Member
Username: doug
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.255.84.246
| | Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 10:33 am: |
|
I don't like people shortening things from the bible. I'd rather see for myself and if an "and" is in there it should be translated so.
If no one leaves anything out there is no or less room for controversy, which some people love to create so they can point their finger and accuse people of straining at gnats, kind of like a pharisee entrapment to get people to judge/hate them based on a small issue rather than just to point it out.
"...don't know much about the middle ages, looked at the pictures and I turned the pages" some song |
john_s
Intermediate Member
Username: john_s
Post Number: 113
Registered: 3-2005
Posted From: 64.24.209.70
| | Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
And here's yet another "scholarly" determination on the Name issue:
http://www.nkox.homestead.com/files/some_additions___corrections__Who_Cganged_God_s_Name_545_568_HTML2.htm
It amazes me to see that there is so much contention over the proper spelling and pronunciation of the Savior's name. Maybe God had a reason for this.
Though I think the main thing to take away from the discussion is the following: As scripture reveals in the story of the Jewish exorcists, even if you are pronouncing the name with all historical and divine accuracy, if you do not "know him", it will profit you nothing.
Conversely, I think it is fair to say that if you do "know him", even if you have accepted some bad scholarship, God will not allow your ignorance of language rules to disqualify you from relationship with Him.
Messiah said that to say "I won't do it" and then to do it, is better than saying "I will do it" but failing to follow through. I have to believe that has some relevance here.
John |
mcsteve
New member
Username: mcsteve
Post Number: 2
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 84.136.118.215
| | Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 6:52 am: |
|
2 Corinthians 3:4-6 KJV
...for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
We are all big bible-teachers, aren't we? Now, I speak german. I do not know, if someone who knows about the gifts of the spirit, so I would ask you, not to raise a new discussion´about that.
In all those years I prayed to Jesus in German, not in Hebrew. So I took the Name, like I knew it from the beginning. When I later believed, that all Power is in this Name, I found myself in a situation, when I was confronted with a demon, speaking out of a person. That was nothing like any Steven King Stuff, and I did not use to jump around getting lout and louder or doing any harm to that person. In my normal speak, I comanded that demon in the german-name-of-Jesus to get wherever God wants Him and he did, after protesting a little. I do not do this very often, nor I do like it a lot. It is one of the things, we are expavted to do by time.
So what, if Demons no try to start a discussion like your. They respect the Name of Jesus Christ, I am sure, they would respect Jeshua and Jashua and any other way the Name could be pronounced as well.
In which spirit do we use the Name of the Lord? To draw borderlines? To keep people out? To obay, what we think is the right way?
The First christians did not have a bible, but the Spirit and the teaching of the apostles. I wonder, why Jesus prophecied the comning of the spirit and not the coming of the bible?
HIS Kingdom comes
McSteve |
|
