Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which question? | Col 3:17 | dr_emery | 1110 | ||
Thank you for your patience! I love the opportunity afforded here, but I am afraid I will have to become more familiar with the proceedings !! Well, in recent casual conversation with a friend, it was proposed that nothing had changed in the concept of Judaism from the Mosaic Law period to the Christian era ( starting with the teachings of the Christ )and following, into the Christian era with the adaptation of principles from the Mosaic Law, principles that would eventually ear mark Christians. Use of the attention to the 'name' of God being rather basic to the model prayer in Matt..... in that all actions were prescribed first in the name of a monotheism, Jehovah. True, tradition later demanded that that name, as represented by the tetagrammaton, not be pronounced. However, this does not exclude the fact that JC was a Jew, that, altho he had authority to generate aspects of a new Theology, if you will, still he was remanded to use, respect, recognize, the inconsonant YHWH. [ Deuteronomy attests to the inclusion of monotheistic adherance to the direction under edict of the one God Jehovah.]Therefore, would JC or Paul have excluded baptism or any other function of 'The Way' from recognition of this name YHWH ? or suggested performance of some act w/o continued respect to this name ? or lowered the use of that name to a multiplicity of personage, adjoining it to Jesus ? Beyond that point, and something I asked about earlier, which was brought up in this dialogue I had recently is this : Jesus transliterated from J(Y)eshua translates to Jah is salvation. Since, during his young manhood, and during his ministry, he had to maintain a monotheistic posture, under Law, as a Jew, would JC have excluded baptism in the literal name of the God that he knew under Law as a Jew ? Just pondering the thoughts. And wondering if there are substantial answers to this line of thought. Respectfully ........ |
||||||
2 | A Third Name? | Col 3:17 | charis | 1131 | ||
Doctor emery, I presume? :-) Am I correct in saying that you are proposing that a third possibility exists in proper usage of the name of the Lord? That of YaHWeH? I must admit that it is an interesting hypothesis, but, though the name is valid, the argument is gobbledegook to me. It sounds more like the Jehovah's Witnesses at worst, or, at best, trying to legitimatize the Messianic Jews as something 'more than a Christian.' Giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding your motives, I would have to say that I can see no practical reason why God would be this cryptic. It would take a doctorate to figure out the proper name for living in the Lord! The verse above, and about 900 other entries, proclaim that His name is Jesus. Though this could be Y'hoshua, Ie_sous, Y'heshua, Joshua, (Iesu, in Japanese) or whatever your translation says, it is not YaHWeH. I cannot help but think that God would be much more clear if He intended us to call upon His Old Testament moniker. Thank you for the brain-teaser! In Christ Jesus | ||||||
3 | A Third Name? | Col 3:17 | kalos | 1444 | ||
Doctor Emery, I must agree with Charis. "His name is Jesus", usually referred to in the NT after the book of Acts as Christ, Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ. In any case His name is Jesus, not JC. We leave that kind of casual reference to Christ to the composers of rock operas and other blasphemous works. | ||||||