Comments for divinity III

Código VBDD-E0012-I

VIEW:572 DATA:2020-03-20
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, you follow his vision. God in the bible has only one name, the rest is a title. "God of hosts" was never a personal name. That anyone with the least brains will know. Isaiah 9: 6 says that "his name will be", but Jesus was never called that. His name was simply Jesus, son of Joseph. Besides, I already said that I know that, name has taken on deeper meanings, but it is wise that the only personal distinguishing name of God is YHWH, you can kick as much as you want, you will not change that reality.
You are free to believe in your ideas and inventions, but you will want to push this down your throat ... Each one with their crazy theories, friend.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, you are playing and choosing texts at your pleasure. This is not a belief in the bible, because the verses that are favorable to your idea you accept those that you do not say that is wrong.
But let's read the verse.
Amo 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
"says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.", I will go slowly, "whose name", do you know what a name is? so "whose name is the God of hosts", then the text of the holy bible inspired by God and sent to the prophet Amos says that the name of the Lord is "God of hosts.", that is what is written in the holy Bible, you know that holy book that those who follow God believe in, then this book. God told Amos, a prophet in the Bible that His name is "God of hosts", any little child understands.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo You yourself demonstrated that "name" is also used in a deeper sense in the bible, have you already forgotten ???
Isaiah 9: 6 says that "your name will be" (NO SINGULAR), and then it plays several DESCRIPTIVE titles (NO PLURAL), thus showing no and referring to the simple meaning of the term "name".
You are rowing against the tide now. Your self-centered view of the biblical text is making you defend an unfounded theory. If you don't know how to see the clear difference between YHWH and the descriptive titles, then now I'm more relaxed about my position on Isaiah 9: 6, because the guy who was against me, also has an addicted view.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I said that every name is a title, (every name is a title), you keep generating this idea that a name is not a title. YHWH is title, Abram is title, name has the title function in Hebrew.
Where the name is read is the Hebrew word shêm, it involves a milestone, someone's definition.
A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of ​​definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: -
Shêm can accept different definitions up front. You + Wander Souza N, get lost in that fixed and unbiblical idea of ​​name. The word defines milestone, something that entitles being, one, two, three as many as you wish. Name involves a classification in Hebrew. So there may be several.
YHWH is Shêm, God of hosts is also Shêm. God can choose as many as he wants.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I already said, I understand that the name has a wide range of application in the scriptures, but you could save yourself from this embarrassment.
It is a fact that YHWH is the only personal name of God in the scriptures, it is not me who am making this up, there are millennia of people, theologians of various religious strands, scholars, bibles in their footnotes and prefaces (etc), evidence and the logic.
"God of hosts" is not, and has never been, a personal name, but a descriptive title with respect to an aspect of YHWH.
I will “help” you:
“(for you will not worship any other God); because Jehovah, whose name is Zealous, is a zealous God; ”
Exodus 34:14
Some versions have "Jealous" or "demanding", instead of zealous,
We see how “name” is really applied in another sense, right after the distinctive name of God is applied. "YHWH, whose name is ..." The Zealous Name was used to show that God requires exclusive devotion, but by no means "Zealous" is a personal name for God. The text makes it very clear that it is just a way of describing an aspect of God YHWH, just as "God of armies" describes YHWH's warrior and military chief side towards his people, and his purpose. Anyone with a brain, honesty and a little reasoning, the basis of the script admits this, because it is logical. But you are very committed to your vision. I repeat for the thousandth time, watch your video!
Be honest with yourself. What you are trying to do is prove that your personal point of view is correct. You were very good at the discussion, but now you are hammering water and getting frustrated by yourself. I admire people's faith, I admire your faith in what you created in your head from your personal interpretation of the scriptures, but in no way does your personal opinion reflect reality, on the contrary, in this case it is clearly going against it. Do not try to impose this invention on others. If someone believes and wants to follow you, fine, I have nothing to do with it. That would just be another divergent and strange doctrine if you founded a church.
It really is amazing how people don't need a church. They can follow their own womb. Philippians 3:19
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N,
Let's summarize
YHWH, it can be put on an angel
Exo 23:21 Walk in awareness before him, and hear his voice; do not be rebellious against him, for he will not forgive your rebellion; for my name is on it.
So if an angel has the name YHWH then this name can be placed on the angel of the Lord.
Then we have the verse.
Amo 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
We also have the verse.
Exo 34:14 (because you will not worship any other god; for the Lord, whose name is Zealous, is a zealous God),
So we have a name YHWH that can be put in an angel, we have God to have the name Lord of hosts, we have to the Lord, whose name is Zealous.
And we have an individual who insists on accepting what is written, and accepting only what suits him.
Let's imagine a normal person reading the texts. What does she think?
He thinks that God is wonderful, and that we can talk to him when we address him. Jesus called him Father, so I can call him Father, and I can pray "Our Father .....", I can call him Zealous, because he is a Zealous God, I can call eternal (YHWH = o ( y) eternal (hwh)), because he is eternal God. I can call God of hosts. Because God is so wonderful that there is only one description for God, he cannot be named by just one name, because he is not only eternal (YHWH = the (y) eternal (hwh)), he is also Love. Because "1Jn_4: 8 He who does not love does not know God; because God is love.", And God shows us that there is no importance in the name of God because he generates as many as he wants, because the name of God is made by its character, the important thing is the character of God, in which his name is defined by the frame of his character, (The Eternal (YHWH), Zealous (kanaw), God of hosts (tsabá elohim), Father (ABA), and others). No church creed is needed, just read the texts of the Bible and any child understands that God has a name for his qualities and character.
Look, I'm going to say something, I'm going to put this on my website because it looks good, very well explained. Liked it.
Elias souza 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N Wander why didn't you tell Rubens what your religion would solve that would explain a lot
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Elias souza I know, what you want is for him to change the focus of the question is not it? I have no religion, I just study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. When I defend what I believe I use my own arguments.
So much so that some concepts of the Tjs are not completely accepted by me. For example, the TJs accept Isaiah 9: 6 in the same way as you, and I here in this discussion, what did you see me do about the topic?
I also have many doubts about baptism in the name of the father, the son and the spirit, as the TJs fully accept these words. Who is Tj faithfully accepts what he learns from Tjs.
I make it clear whenever I discuss beliefs, and what I believe, based on my reasoning about the scriptures and my personal research, I don't discuss religion. So it would make no difference to inform that I study with Tjs, oh unless they want to change the focus of the discussion.
I may or may not be a Tj in the future, but regardless of that I will never accept doctrines like the trinity, because it is obvious and factual that it is a doctrine created by the church, which never appears in the bible, except by personal interpretation arising from the will of those who profess this belief.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, let me see if I understand. Any text that you can't organize, do you consider it wrong? For example, the Bible has a verse "baptizing in .....", there is no documentary proof that it is false. Then you + Wander Souza N, due to your decision and the thinking of other individuals, consider that such texts are false. I mean, it is not because it is not possible to understand a text completely, or the text may go against what I think, that I must consider it false. A text is false when we have material evidence. You know what material proof is, it's older documents that don't have the text, or where the text is different. Oh yes. The Bible has writings that we may not understand, or sometimes they are not as we think they are, and that does not give us the right to consider such texts to be false.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Don't confuse things.
I said that I suspect and do not completely accept such texts. I didn't say they are fake. In the case of Isaiah my doubts and arguments are regarding the translation.
I have doubts about the baptismal formula that until today nobody has dissipated, and that's why I suspect the text, that's all, but I never said that the text is false.
Elias souza 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N thanks Wander is it good to know that you have and thinking why I swore that you are defending a belief and not translation or concepts of translation, I ask Wander? I am a layman in translations, for me all this is Greek, I have nothing to say or refute talking about translations, one more thing is a fact for me everything has a rule and I believe for you too but let me see if I understand, what you said in the course of the debate, that there is no translation that is faithful, that was right or I got it wrong
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Elias souza I didn't quite understand what you asked me. But, what I think is that all translations have problems, difficult passages, and tendencies. We know that the holy scriptures were inspired by God, whereas the translations that followed were not inspired by God.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
I will say what the bible says. She says
1Co 13: 5 does not behave inappropriately, does not pursue her own interests, is not irritated, does not suspect badly;
So when reading the bible I don't suspect evil, or I find evil, I prove it, or I accept it.
I accept every text in the Bible until it is proven to be false. While it has not proven to be false, I consider it true.
We must do that with people too. Only when I prove that such a person is wrong do I condemn it, other than that.
So I decided to read in the older versions, in the most original languages. Why can I say where this error is, because while I was not reading I said that the bible was correct, in the way I used it, until I could learn and find out. If a person does not know Hebrew or Greek, defend the Bible as you know it. Because.
Act_17: 30 But God, disregarding the times of ignorance, now orders all men everywhere to repent;
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Legal to see you applying a friendly text, but this Corinthians text is talking about love. And we shouldn't be suspicious when there's no reason to be suspicious.
"But put everything to the test and stick to what is good."
1 Thessalonians 5:21
(ALL things)
"I therefore beseech you, brothers, by the compassion of God, that you present your bodies in a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, who is your rational worship."
Romans 12: 1
If I am not fully convinced of something, I cannot have a rational cult.
Maybe I'm wrong about that too, but what can I do? I have dedicated a good part of my time to clear these doubts so that my faith can increase, and I can strengthen myself. I ask God's help for this, because without him I am nothing. Thanks to him, these doubts do not cause any great damage to my belief. What I do know is that I cannot accept everything they hand in hand. Today we have a wide range of knowledge before us, which can open our eyes, or lead us to robberies, but as I said, I don't trust my own strength and wisdom for that. We no longer live in a time when answers like "it's a mystery" are enough for us.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, loving the word of God is the same. There are things in the word of God, that if you put a "foot in the back" you begin to doubt God, and many times things that would initially seem wrong, may be right. And there is a human feeling that is a plague, that is the definition of creeds, that cannot exist.
In the bible I have to find ways to unite all the verses, not to isolate. It is useless to try to understand everything to define whether something is in fact something or not.
1Co 13:12 For now we see as through a mirror, in enigma, but then we will see face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am also fully known.
If Abraham had thought of questioning, he would probably never offer his son, looking like a pagan, offering his children as a tomboy.
It is not possible to be in doubt in the word of God. We can be sure, no doubt. Do you know why.
Mat 5:37 But let your speech be: Yes, yes; no, no; because what happens there comes from the Evil One.
It is either yes or no.
I don't suspect the Bible, or I think and say yes, or I think or say no. It could be "comes from the Evil One"
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I hadn't seen your answer about the last time I talked about the name.
You simply repeated the same beaten arguments, that is, you are stamping your feet and kicking, trying to change a biblical reality, which is the personal and distinctive name YHWH, with your particular vision.
But since you think that God cannot be named by a single name, you should inform that to yourself in your prayers: Isaiah 42: 8
“And God shows us that there is no importance in the name of God“
Where the Bible says that ??
Our friend, publish even on your blog, because there is potential for another denomination with beliefs to the taste of the customer! maybe you get some followers of your particular view of the scriptures.
God's love according to the Bible is to follow his commandments. 1 John 5: 3
So when you present a text about love towards God, it doesn't mean that the expression is so simple. Loving God involves a lot. Jesus himself said that whoever does not observe his word does not love him. It certainly does not involve denying clear aspects of his word that he himself inspired his servants to write, just because they were later pulled out of the Bible.
You have formulated a series of arguments to dispense with the name, but it all falls apart, when you, yourself, passing a figure that analyzes everything thoroughly, discards important aspects, retaining only what interests you, and denying what is not convenient for you. You attack what you claim to defend, because if you were really so concerned with logic and facts you would be concerned with using texts closer to the originals in your discussions, but you prefer to use the mutilated texts. This is because it is part of the depersonalization of God in the collective, that is, you are just one more in the herd who found a different way of interpreting the scriptures. If you use the closest texts you will make God's personality stronger, and more personal, and that will testify against you. After all, it's thousands of times, not once or twice.
And the truth remains, that YHWH is the only personal name, the rest are descriptive titles that help us understand the personality and purpose of God YHWH. This is what a rational person understands when reading unmutured scriptures. She will be able to differentiate a personal name from titles. Understanding the scriptures is not a matter of intelligence, for if I were Stephen Hopkins I would be a Christian.
Remember that I am not the one to claim this, it is thousands of years of servants and non-servants, scholars of all kinds, and the visible and logical evidence that it is the only distinguishing name, the rest are titles. Always remember that, ok! Keep rowing against the tide and denying what is written, it is your right. Just never forget that it is your personal vision, not a reality.
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N,
Is a name important?
Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and it is now, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; because the Father seeks out those who so worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
You said,
"And the truth remains, that YHWH is the only personal name,"
The Bible says.
Amo 5:27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
Exo 34:14 (because you will not worship any other god; for the Lord, whose name is Zealous, is a zealous God),
In whom I must believe in you + Wander Souza N, or in the Bible.
I'll give you a hint. Of course I will believe the Bible !!!! and I will not believe you. And I will tell everyone that between choosing what the Bible says and choosing what + Wander Souza N says, choose the Bible, because
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is divinely inspired and profitable to teach, to rebuke, to correct, to instruct in justice;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be perfect, and perfectly prepared for every good work.
The bible says that God has other names. So he has other names. For I believe the Bible.
Ps. What the crowd thinks, I don't care, I care what the Bible says. He wants to show that something is wrong, takes an older manuscript, and shows that the term name - it is not the term (Shêm) there. Now what others say or think. The majority crucified Jesus, the majority is not proof of anything. Proof is the truth, the clear demonstration, see if I'm going to stay in speculation, from third parties.
Wander Souza N01 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Wasn't it you who showed that "name" in the bible has a deeper meaning? I myself showed you in that discussion first, the "whose name is zealous". Because I don't need to be biased in this discussion.
The difference between us is that you have chosen to match the unique and personal badge that appears thousands of times to follow your personal vision. "God of hosts" for any thinking being is a title that describes a facet of God, not a personal name. God is a title, an army is the set of a nation's military forces. Didn't get the message ??? To say that this is a personal name is laughable and childish. There is nothing to debate here, because the person who, even after being informed, keeps saying the opposite is because he is determined to follow his own vision, not logic.
When reading or mentioning the scriptures, use a mutilated version in Joel 2:32, otherwise you will testify against yourself, ok !? To invoke is to invoke, unless you change the meaning of that too, and that is a piece of advice from the bible that seems to you that it will have no validity is not it? It clearly says “YHWH”, not a title of your choice. Will it invalidate the scriptures too? Matthew 15: 6-9 Remember that you are not in ignorance, you know very well.
Remember, you must continue to use mutilated Bibles at all times so that your vision remains strong in front of yourself.
As for having doubts, it is not necessarily a permanent state. Faithful servants had doubts and questioned God, and were answered. So if I have faith I can expect an answer from God, the way he answers today, my doubts. For that we have reasoning power, to doubt what is suspect. We cannot accept doubt, and do nothing to remedy it, and have blind faith where we will deceive ourselves.
1Co 13:12 These words were spoken by Paul, and they really make perfect sense, as they were said in the beginning of Christianity and he was far from understanding everything he wrote and taught. I also do not suspect the Bible, I suspect translations and grafts, which, as is well known, may have occurred. We don't have the original scriptures at hand, so trusting translators is trusting men. Jeremiah 17: 5> 17: 7
2 Ti 3:16 Yes, as I said, we must believe in the scriptures, not in the translations of men who are liable to corruption and error, and where names have been knowingly uprooted because of human traditions. You should believe more in this reality and use more approximate texts, because you have more knowledge than the average. At 5:30 pm
“The bible says that God has other names. So he has other names. For I believe the Bible. ”
Does the expression “Names of god” appear in the bible?
No, the bible does not say that God has other names, there are texts that describe the descriptive titles as “name”, but it is known as I said that the word takes on a different meaning in several passages ((Gen. 11: 3, 4; Ecle 7: 1) If we were to understand everything the Bible says without considering the context and everything else ...
In the same way, an atheist could show you the text in which Jesus tells parents to be annoyed (or hate), and say that it is absurd, without accepting his arguments and contextual explanations. Because the atheist is biased, and will never admit a suitable explanation that justifies Jesus' phrase. The same goes for you here. You have clung to what certain texts say at first sight, and as your personal vision depends on it, you will never admit that the meaning is not the same as you want and that corroborates you, even if it is in the face. The fact that "name" is sometimes used to designate reputation, or qualities, does not completely eliminate its primary principle of identifying and representing a person.
The same I say to you, when asked: "Will you believe Rubens' personal vision and his interpretation of" the name (s) "of God, or the thousands of quotes from the original scriptures, evidence and scholars, thousands of years of this reality where even it was forbidden and still forbidden to pronounce such a name, theologians of different religious strands, and especially in the bible and the creator who presents himself with that name (Isa.42: 8), and that says we should CALL the name (Joel 2:32)? "I do
n’t even need to answer which side I’m going to be on, do I?
Rubens Caputo 06/01/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I'll give you an example. There are no Gods in Hebrew. For there is no plural of Elohim, Elohim is already plural. It's like money. If you have 3 out of 10 you don't say money. But the translation poses gods. In Greek we have Theos, which is also in plural, there is no Theoses.
Shêm is the same. When you read the verse Isaiah 9: 6, this name is written, which is Shêm and which can be one or more, but the translator put a name. And there are others. So, when you have shem, and write Blessed be the name of God. The term does not require a name, it can be one or more. It's like Shamaim, Shamaim is rain, if I say blessed be rain, it can be 1000 drops, 2000 drops, it doesn't matter.
Then I arrive at Isaiah 9: 6 and say "it's your name, ......." then I say it's wrong, there are several names when there is only one ... That just means that the individual's ignorance doesn't understand the Hebrew language, that's all.
When the bible says something it says that. I will read it in the reproduction of the old documents, and then I see what is written. If I see that it is not compatible I say that it is wrong before I embarrass myself.
Shêm is used in YHWH, it is used for Zealous, it is used for God of armies in the same way. This is what is written, and I must follow what is written.
If a text is false then it has to show that it is false, but I cannot decide which verse I validate and which not.
When I say that the name has a title factor, I say that it has in everyone, if I will not be partial, and prejudiced. Because if 3 buildings are the same why am I going to analyze a different building from the other, just because I want to? I can't do that, if I have a rule it has to work for everyone, not for those I want, and another for those I don't want. This kind of thing is something of a church creed, which places different values ​​on texts of equal writing.
This name is written in Portuguese, I'll see it in the original, it's written the same, beauty, I'll see if there is evidence that the text is false, there is no evidence, so it's the word of God, period.
God says his name is Lord of hosts, God says his name is Zealous, God says his name is Eternal (YHWH) blz. Now I will not be hypocritical about determining what I like and what I don't like. My role as a servant of God is to accept what my master says, and if he says his name is Zealous, he is Lord of hosts, or eternal, I have to accept that is all.
For me not to accept a text, there must be real proof that the text is false. As in the Joanine coma. Now if not, I believe the Bible and accept what is written, not what a church or creed stipulates, and says.
See that God is the same. Father and son is elohim, son is elohim, father is elohim. Because elohim is the same grammatical class as the word money. 10 reais is money, another 10 reais is money, if I put the two together and make 20 reais is money again. Shem is the same function. two names is shem, three names is shem. When someone says he has money, I don't know how much money he has, a real? two? .... Shêm is the same thing. God says he has Shêm (name), I don't know how many he has. Now if he adds the word unique, then things change. But there is no verse that God says has a single name. He says he has Shêm.
Wander Souza N02 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I understood your explanation perfectly, and it really made sense, but only in the part of Isaiah 9: 6, as this at first glance explains the various titles, instead of just one. When logical reasoning makes sense, I know how to recognize it, no matter what it hurts what I think.
But we cannot relentlessly apply the same meaning, since we know that there is a deeper meaning, just the fact that the word is always in the plural is not enough to indicate that in certain situations there will be difficulties and will depend on the translator's criterion ??? If we are to relentlessly apply the primary meaning of every word, in the end the bible will be full of contradictions.
To apply the meaning carefully is not to be prejudiced, it is to be logical. Without this, the deed would be meaningless, and would contradict itself on several points. If the scripture says at a certain point that “YHWh is the God whose name is zealous”, we have to have criteria to understand what the sentence really says. There is a message being passed, not the primary disclosure of a personal name, this is obvious to thinking minds. It is very clear that “name” is only there to describe a quality of YHWh, whose personal name is mentioned just before. Really, to take "zealous" as a first name, the person must not be thinking very well on the issue.
God of hosts describes YHWH as a warrior and military chief. In most of the texts where “LORD of hosts” is mentioned, it points to God being the supreme commander of his chosen people, of the armies of Israel. Or from angels Sal. 103. 20-21
So YHWH uses the title "God of hosts" to describe a facet, as he did with zealous, but in no way do rational minds say that these are personal names, or even that they rival YHWH. The difference is clear in the scriptures.
As I said before, name is name. God chose his to distinguish him, although he has several descriptive titles:
Dt.6.4 affirms that "YHWH our God is ONE YHWH" (RC. Listen, Israel, the LORD our God is the only LORD in the mutilated bibles).
Although God the Father (YHWH) has his personal name, he also allows his servants to call him with their language terminologies, such as Abba Pai.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, about Yahweh says: “(Encyclopedia Americana, Jehovah topic ) "Yahweh" The Full and Proper Name of the God of Israel, Written With Four YHWH Consonants, Known as the Tetragrammaton. “
Tetragramma as a proper name
“The YHWH Tetragrammath occurs 6,828 times in the Hebrew text of the Kittel Hebrew Bible (BHK) and the Stuttgartensia Hebrew Bible (BHS). The frequency at which the Tetragrammaton appears attests to its importance. Its use in all Scriptures goes far beyond that of any title-names, such as "Sovereign Lord (in Heb. Adhonai)", "the [True] Lord" (in Heb. Ha Adhóhn), Most High (in Heb. Elyón ) "the [True] God" (in Hebrew. Ha Elohím) and "God" (in Hebrew.Elohím). ”
Prof. George Thomas Manley points out: "The name is not a simple label, but it is representative of the true personality of the person to whom it belongs. ... When a person puts his name on something or another person, he comes under his influence and protection. " New Bible Dictionary, edited by JD Douglas, 1985, p. 430.
The tetragrammaton is used commonly as the personal and distinctive name of God. This is very clear throughout the Hebrew text. Not "God of hosts", or "zealous". This is made clear by reading the bible (One that is not mutilated).
The world has a predisposition to reject the divine name, if your argument was a solid basis to say that YHWH, is not the only personal name of God, you can be sure that the majority would have already discarded it and equaled the other titles, based on this his theory without foot and head. To begin with there would be no need to pull it out of the scriptures, as it would be just another title. Why was YHWH in its thousands of appearances taken away ??? This does not clearly set you apart from the titles, and it becomes evidence that you are the only personal name of God ???
Was the people of God of the past, who spoke that name and abandoned it, wrong? They were wrong all along ??? All of this is concrete evidence, and it highlights the name YHWH from the descriptive titles my friend.
"You shall not take the name of YHWH, your God, in vain, for YHWH will not consider unpunished anyone who takes his name in vain." Exodus 20: 7
“Thus, at a certain time, a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong to even pronounce the Tetragrammaton YHWH. It is not known exactly what the discontinuity in the use of this name was based on. Some maintain that the name was considered too sacred to be spoken by unclean lips. But an Old Testament survey reveals no evidence that any of the worshipers of YHWH would ever hesitate to utter His name.
Non-biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Letters of Lachish (written on fragments of pottery found at Tell ed-Duweir in 1935 and three others in 1938), show that YHWH was used in common correspondence in Palestine in the latter part of the seventh century AC All legible letters contain expressions such as:
"May יהוה [YHWH] make my lord hear peace news today." Proving that the Name has never been forgotten. Lachish Ostracon IV, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 322.
Another concept holds that it was intended to prevent non-Jewish (Gentile) peoples from knowing "The Name" and possibly misusing it. However, the Old Testament states that YHWH Himself would cause His name "to be declared throughout the Earth", to be known even by his adversaries. (Exodus 9:16; Isaiah 64: 2; Jonah 1: 1,17) The Name of the God of Israel was known and used by pagan (polytheistic) nations both before the Christian Era and in its early centuries. ” (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. 12, p. 119) It
is so common that the personal name of God was in the meaning of several biblical names:
George Wesley Buchanan explains: "In ancient times, parents often gave their children the name of their deities. This means that they pronounced the names of their children as well as the name of the deity was pronounced. The Tetragrammaton was included in the names of people, and they always used the middle vowel. "
For example, Jonathan appears as (Yo • na • thán or Yeho • na • thán) in the Hebrew Bible, meaning “YHWH gave”. The name of the prophet Elias is 'E • li • yáh or' E • li • yá • hu. According to Professor Buchanan, Elias means: "My God is [YHWH]." Likewise, the Hebrew name for Jehoshaphat (Yeho • sha • phát), means “YHWH judged”.
“How long will this be found in the hearts of the prophets who prophesy lies, of the prophets of the deceit of their hearts?
Which make my people forget my name because of their dreams that each one tells his neighbor, just as his parents forgot my name because of Baal. ”
Jeremiah 23: 26-27
This story shows that the children of Israel were taken into captivity to Babylon in 606 BC, and since that time, the name saint was defiled, defiled and replaced in both, in writing and in worship.
“When they reached the nations, where they went, they profaned my holy name; because it was said of them: These are the people of Jehovah, who left his land.
But I had compassion for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, where they went.
Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord Jehovah: It is not for your sake, house of Israel, that I do this; but it is in regard to my holy name, that you have desecrated among the nations, where you have gone.
I will sanctify my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned among them; the nations will know that I am Jehovah, says the Lord Jehovah, when I am sanctified in you before their eyes.
For I will bring you out of the nations, and gather you from all countries, and bring you into your land. ”
Ezekiel 36: 20-24
Apply the sense of name as you always apply to these texts and you will have a good message. You say that God has "names" and he speaks to "your names / Shêm" (?), But only says that "they will know that I am YHWH", does not parade several descriptive titles.
I know you are going to twist this, but I already said, I read the Bible as it is, with its simple doctrine from beginning to end, your vision is your vision.
Psalm 83:18 in the translation João Ferreira de Almeida, 1995 edition says
"So that they may know that to whom only the name of Jehovah belongs, you are the Most High over the whole earth".
It was only YHWH that was removed and forgotten, and which is still banned at all times by the Catholic Church.
New King James Bible Restores the Divine Name (2012)
In the preface to this version recently released in English on March 9, 2012, we read: “It seems clearer than ever, that Jesus said:“ Hallowed be Your name ”and not“ hidden be Your name ”!…
The name YHWH differs, and stands out from all other titles, that is undeniable and that is drawn in the scriptures. Virtually everyone recognizes this, because there is no reason to say otherwise. But some people like to deny the Bible, even if they claim to be profound researchers of it. What would be the reason for this? Is there anything wrong with YHWH having a personal name before humanity to stand out? Of course, a name will never be enough to name your greatness, but is that a reason he doesn't have one? Where does this say in the scripture, that God cannot have a personal name because it is nameless? They should have said that to himself, before he gave himself a personal name only: Isa: 42: 8
The Most High even wrote His Name with his own "finger".
Exodus 31:18; 32:16
The Name of YHWH appears several times in the original Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1-17). Therefore, the Most High Himself who revealed His Personal Name to man, both verbally and in writing. Why didn't you put several of your “names” in there ??? The only document delivered directly from God to man could not contain anything other than his personal name!
“More God said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, 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 my memorial for all generations. ”
Exodus 3:15
It is not because you interpret the Bible as you please, and make yourself a master of the scriptures that this reality will change. Nor am I capable of such absurdity. You can continue to deny the reality that God has a personal name, through your personal vision, I continue with the scriptures that in its general context say that it has a yes, YHWH.
Rubens Caputo 06/02/2014
+ Wander Souza N, God does not need to parade several titles. YHWH is Eternal, as Zealous is (qannâ '). YHWH is a characteristic of God. If God used this term several times, that does not mean that others are not God's name. To cancel it would have to determine the uniqueness and this does not occur. When we read
Amo_5: 27 Therefore I will take you captives beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is the God of hosts.
We have
Amo 5:27 והגליתי H1540 אתכם H853 מהלאה H1973 לדמשׂק H1834 אמר H559 יהוה H3068 אלהי H430 צבאות H6635 שׁמו׃ H8034
In the end it is yehova elohim tsaba shêm. It has 3 names in shêm has yehova (eternal) יהוה H3068, has elohim (god) אלהי H430, has tsaba (army) exercבאות H6635.
The Verse in the literal way is
So I will take you captives beyond Damascus, the eternal god of armies signed.
Then the translator tries to clean up so it doesn't look strange, but that's how it is written in Hebrew.
And construction similarly permeates yehova (eternal), the elohim (god) tsaba (army) form.
Jer_51: 57 I will make drunk their princes and their wise men, their governors, their magistrates, and their valiant ones; and they will sleep in perpetual sleep, and will never wake up, says the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts.
Jer_51: 19 The portion of Jacob is not like these; because he is what forms all things; and Israel is the tribe of their inheritance; the Lord of hosts is his name.
See for example
Hos_12: 5 yes, the Lord, the God of hosts; the Lord and his name.
Hos 12: 5 (12: 6) ויהוה H3068 אלהי H430 הצבאות H6635 יהוה H3068 זכרו׃ H2143
yehova elohim tsaba yehova zeker
eternal god of armies the eternal, signed.
And there are many times that. In other words, eternal is not the only construction that appears several times. And shêm doesn't use several names only in isaías.
David uses the same construction
1Sa_17: 45 David said to him, "You come to me with a sword, a spear and a shield; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel's armies, whom you have defied.
1Sa 17:45 ויאמר H559 דוד H1732 אל H413 הפלשׁתי H6430 אתה H859 בא H935 אלי H413 בחרב H2719 ובחנית H2595 ובכידון H3591 ואנכי H595 בא H935 אליך H413 בשׁם H8034 יהוה H3068 צבאות H6635 אלהי H430 מערכות H4634 ישׂראל H3478 אשׁר H834 חרפת: H2778
Shem (signed) Yehova (Eternal) Gd (god) tsaba (armies)
signed eternal god of hosts.
So eternal is not God's only signature. eternal god of armies, zealous, god of armies. And shem holds several names for God. And these names are characteristic, eternal (yehova) God (elohim) army (tsaba).
This thing that only the name of God is eternal does not exist, eternal, zealous, god, god of armies, they are all names of God. And they appear in several texts of the bible. The Jews chose eternal, because of Moses, when he said in the Torah that his name is (existing), so the Jews considered that eternal is sacred. But (ye The eternal howah), it is just a signature that God gave. Since the Hebrews considered Moses as the law, and the other books as prophets, they chose to use the eternal, as a symbol, but God never specified a single, and in several places he used shém with different names. That do not appear only in Isaiah, but in every old testament.
Understand that yehova is quality (the eternal), every time you speak (the eternal) you are speaking yehova, just as speaking (gânna) is speaking zealously. Zealous, eternal, are characteristics of God. The eternal sent me said to Moses. It is a characteristic of God. eternal is the word translated from yehova, as zealous is the word translated from (gânna).
You take Psalms
Psa 83:18 to let them know that only you, whose name is the Lord, are the Most High over the whole earth,
shêm yehova bad elion.
signed eternal single highest.
so eternal, highest are other names that God has chosen for himself.
I'm not going to explain, I'm just going to quote, the only construction that defines God in isolation is elion, the eternal (yehova) can be put on angel, but elion is the only term that God isolated to put the term bad, and never separating for another being in the whole scripture from this genesis to the apocalypse. Since eternal is not found in the New Testament, but very high permeates throughout the Bible.
Wander Souza N02 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo The weight (And at the same time simplicity and respect in the way it was used in everyday life and appears in the writings) of the name YHWH in the scriptures, is enough to distinguish it in the matter of the name, in relation to other titles, when related to "name". It is perfectly logical to accept that YHWH does apply the principle of proper name, when "name" is referred to this. It is a fact, and it is not decided by me or anyone, but it is the only proper name that the creator gave himself.
“If God used that term several times, that does not mean that others are not God's name. To cancel it would have to determine the uniqueness and this does not occur. "
The same argument can be reversed against you. For everyone to be God's name, there should be an affirmation of that. Where is the term “Names of God” found in the Bible? "Shem" is always in the plural, but translations should do that if there were such a statement. There is not!
“Altissímo” is another of your faux pas.
You gave a beautiful wrapped in Psalm 83:18.
“You are the Most High over the whole earth”
is self-explanatory.
I use a version that comes close to what is actually written, what the creator really inspired, not mutilations because it suits me:
“So that they know that only you, whose name is Jehovah, You are the Most High over the whole earth.”
Psalms 83:18
Meaning of Altíssimo
adj (lat altissimu) Sup abs sint de alto: very high. sm The divinity, God.
Synonyms of Altíssimo
Synonym of altíssimo: supremo
Definition of Altíssimo
Grammatical class: masculine adjective and noun
Separation of syllables: al-tís-si-mo
So altíssimo is not a proper name. It was not placed on anyone, for the same reason that other terms of it were not. This argument of omission is not convincing, the difference between YHWH and very high is clear, one is a proper name, and the other is not. I am not the one who says this, it is a fact. YHWH may have the meaning of "the eternal", but it is simply the meaning of a name, names have meaning. The proper name is YHWH. There is no use you cannot change this reality, you can believe what you want, but you cannot change a fact.
But you must always use a variation of the scriptures that hides the proper name, otherwise you will testify against yourself, and reinforce the personality of the creator.
Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, you will observe; you shall neither add nor diminish anything ”
Proverbs 30: 5,6“ Every word of God is pure; he is a shield for those who trust him. V.6 Do not add anything to his words, lest he rebuke you and you are found to be a liar. ”
Ecclesiastes 3:14 “I know that everything God does will last forever; nothing can be added to it, and nothing can be taken away; and that God does so that men fear before him: ”
“ David uses the same construction
1Sa_17: 45 But David said to him, You come to me with a sword, with a spear and with a shield; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel's armies, whom you have defied.
1 Samuel 17:45 ויאמר H559 דוד H1732 אל H413 הפלשׁתי H6430 אתה H859 בא H935 אלי H413 בחרב H2719 ובחנית H2595 ובכידון H3591 ואנכי H595 בא H935 אליך H413 בשׁם H8034 יהוה H3068 צבאות H6635 אלהי H430 מערכות H4634 ישׂראל H3478 אשׁר H834 חרפת: H2778
Shem (signed) Yehova (Eternal) Elohim (God) tsaba (armies)
God eternal signed of hosts. "
I'll just leave it in a closer way and that everyone can understand:
“Then David answered him: You come to me with sword and spear and shield; but I come to you in the name of Jehovah of armies, of the God of the troops of Israel, whom you have defied. ”
1 Samuel 17:45
"I am Yahweh your God, who will have no other gods before me"
First name first, then "God" the title, or generic name, as well as "God of hosts", "Zealous" and so many others in the scriptures are generic names.
I am YHWH (Yahweh). From this absolute truth of who God is, all the commandments are spoken below. of his “finger” his only proper name, I’m not going to change that reality.
“The Jews chose eternal, because of Moses, when he said in the Torah that his name is (existing), so the Jews considered that eternal is sacred. But (ye the eternal howah) ... ”
Have holy patience ... Do you mean that the Jews did not know the God they worshiped at all and who brought them out of Egypt? Do you know more than them ??? You can claim that you know more by having the addition of the New Testament, and the complete scriptures, in theory you know more about God because it was revealed to you more, but to mean that you would know that the name is not that one, and that they were wrong there. is playing. If so, why did Jesus not mention anything about it, to clarify this mistake of thinking that YHWH was the name of the God of Israel ??? You can even pick up some interpretive text, but it is a fact that Jesus never touched on the subject. Jesus revealed many mistakes, but said nothing about this basic matter about his father.
"Understand that yehova is quality (the eternal)"
Fallacy. YHWH is a proper name, and everyone knows it. It only has the meaning of "the eternal". Did you want God to give himself a meaningless name?
“The New Catholic Encyclopedia, about Yahweh says: (American Encyclopedia, Jehovah topic)
" Yahweh "The full AND OWN name of the God of Israel, written with four YHWH consonants, known as the tetragrammaton. “
“ More God said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, 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 my memorial for all generations. ”
Exodus 3:15
“is my name forever” Almeida
Apply the meaning of “name” now as you always do!
The name itself is said to be “FOREVER”, and the memorial of God for all generations.
“Jehovah (YHWH)
[causative form, in the imperfect, of the Hebrew verb. ha • wáh (to become; to become); meaning: "He Causes It to Be"].
God's personal name. (Isa 42: 8; 54: 5) Although the Scriptures designate it by descriptive titles, such as "God", "Sovereign Lord", "Creator", "Father", "the Almighty" and "the Most High", his personality and attributes - who and what He is - are fully summarized and expressed only by this personal name. - Ps 83:18. ”
If you cannot distinguish a proper name from generic descriptive names and titles, it is your problem and whoever follows your particular view of the biblical text. I stay with the bible and the concrete facts that say that this is the only divine name. You come up with very unfounded arguments to try to change a friendly fact.
For those who understand the Bible as it is, without trying to modify it according to what they want, there is no difficulty in understanding this reality, that the name of God is YHWH. But as I said, I will not be able to change your vision, you decided that it is the way you interpret the scriptures and that's it. Each with their own beliefs.
"Yahweh (read: Yahweh), 5th century BC, Jehovah or Jehovah, 13th century AD are common vocalizations of God's personal name based on the Hebrew tetragram."
Rubens Caputo 02/06/2014
I will answer in parts Iavé is
not read,
King James Concordance
yeh-ho-vaw '
Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
Rubens Caputo 06/06/2014
About Shêm we can see the verse
Gen 48:16 the angel who has saved me from all evil, bless these young men, and let my name be called upon them, and the name of my parents Abraham and Isaac; and multiply abundantly in the middle of the earth.
Gen 48:16 המלאך H4397 הגאל H1350 אתי H853 מכל H3605 רע H7451 יברך H1288 את H853 הנערים H5288 ויקרא H7121 בהם שׁמי H8034 ושׁם H8034 אבתי H1 אברהם H85 ויצחק H3327 וידגו H1711 לרב H7230 בקרב H7130 הארץ: H776
1 בהם שׁמי H8034 ושׁם H8034 אבתי H1 אברהם H85 ויצחק H3327
Qara Shem: Shem ab abrârâm yitschâq
my March: March ab abrâram yitschâq
Shem accepts many.
Now if the translator agrees to translate this way:
Isa 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Strong God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
It is clear that the translator does not use the need to put names, as he understands the characteristic of the term invariable quantity.
Rubens Caputo 06/02/2014
Another question. I looked for the source you cited to see the document's confidence. You quoted "The New Catholic Encyclopedia, about Yahweh says: (American Encyclopedia, Jehovah topic)"
Which Catholic encyclopedia, and which American encyclopedia? I want to see the veracity of the text, and I only find TJ content, no Catholic content and no American content. Open any of these encyclopedias and write a sentence from a page that is not a copy of TJ, so that I can see the veracity of this information. For this looks like a text multiplied like a parrot. And you don't have the actual document. But I may be mistaken. But for that I need the real source, to read. No repetition of TJ.
Wander Souza N03 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Bom, if it is "Iavé" or not,
As for the quote from the Catholic encyclopedia here it is:
Jehovah (Yahweh)
"The proper name of God in the Old Testament;"
There are several different editions, but they all say basically the same thing. If there's one thing I don't need, it's lying in that discussion.
Rubens Caputo 06/03/2014
+ Wander Souza N
This website contradicts itself.
He says
"Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name."
And says
"the great name, the only name"
Now if it is "only name", as he says "than any other Divine name."
Then he shows that such is the view of the Jews. But the truth it says that God has other names,
So the encyclopedia you sent says that God has other divine names. And he says that for Jews, God has only one name.
So the website you sent says that God has other names besides YHWH.
Wander Souza N03 / 06/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I knew you were going to mention that. I myself have said that YHWH has other names above in my responses, but I always put it as "generics".
I argue that YHWH is God's only personal name. The name by which he presents himself. That's what this and other encyclopedias say, too, that YHWH is God's only personal name, but there are generic names and descriptive titles too.
The encyclopedia begins with "The" name of God in the Old Testament. This is correct, and it is this point that is undeniable.
This was the only proper name that God attributed to himself, and that was marked in the 10 commandments. This is what most distinguishes God, and it strengthens your personality. This is what he refers to when he says that we should not take it in vain.
Rubens Caputo 06/03/2014
+ Wander Souza N, there in the text you mentioned, did I not read the only proper name? Where it is in the text that you sent the only proper name.
You mentioned that and put the reference, but I didn't find the text you mentioned in the reference.
"Yahweh" The full AND OWN name of the God of Israel, written with four YHWH consonants, known as a tetragram. “
I am looking for this "unique first name" definition, and I am not finding it. And I never saw anything about the existence of a proper name in Hebrew, just a name. For in Hebrew Shêm means signature, mark. I would never have the proper name class, because Name was an adaptation for Shêm is not a translation "name ipsis literi". Shêm is "ipsis literi" translation of marco, or signature. And saying that other names is "generic", does not prove that there is a generic name. Which is another thing I have never seen in Hebrew Shêm is no longer a direct translation of a name, let alone the definition of the existence of a "generic name", not even the classification of "proper name". There is no definition for "own milestone", or "generic signature", it is unfounded.
And so the only one, not in the text, the text says it has other names, so possibly the word single you have no basis at all. Another term without any basis is "full name", which is a full name? Where there is a basis in the Bible "full name", I will not even return to the meaning of shêm again. Now "full and unique name" has no reference. And about the term proper name, the text only refers, it does not prove, it is a mere comment, not an analysis. He cites the Jewish view as an idea for that. And the name construction defines proper name, which is an infinitive, gerund or participle of the verb, or a noun, to define a characteristic milestone for being, or offer, being considered a milestone. In what he decided to define as his first name. Even so, he does not define that God has only a proper name,
The text quotes "shem hammephorash", use of names in Kaballa. Imagine now that I am going to give importance to something based on analogies of kaballa, or kabbalistic doctrines, about the importance of the name in your Kabalistic organization YHWH.
I don't even use the question of the 72 names of God. Used for definitions of the name of God centered on YHWH in the development of kabala.
You spoke of the Ten Commandments so do you keep the Sabbath? Because if you are giving reference to the importance of the 10 commandments then you are giving importance to all of them. And when I read it, it's written
"I the eternal God", because that is how it is written, and how it should be translated. Yehovah means eternal, but Jehovah, Lord, or anyone else does not mean eternal. First, because J / g / does not exist in Hebrew. Or keep the original Yehová. Like Moses, it means nothing, neither does Jesus, and neither does Joshua. Now Moshe means, Yehoshua too. Just as in Hebrew there is no God, and no god. It's either all capital or all minuscule. These rules do not exist, if people put them, they put them because of idealisms not based on the Hebrew language.
Well to conclude the text you quoted does not say that God has only a proper name nor does he say that he is unique, much less that there is a full name. So the text you used as a base goes against your statements.
And here analyzing you reading "The proper name of God", did you want to highlight "the" = "o", as if it meant something? It means that if I write "The man to go home", there is something miraculous in "The", for me to say that "the man went home", wow "O", The is article "o, as, os as ", you are looking for things where it doesn't exist. Have you ever thought "The man to go home", look at the man, the rest is not a man, because only that one is "the man to go home". Please, this is already childish.
Now just an addendum. You saw that you made a reference, and I showed that the text you sent does not show that God has a single proper name, or that this is a complete name, on the contrary it mentions that God has other proper names, going against your idea of unique, and complete, or the existence of a generic name,. Well when I make a reference, do the same. Do your research to see if what I am talking about actually does, just as I did with you. Because I try to understand what you think you are. But you do not seek to understand the basis of what I am basing. So get to know the foundation of Hebrew, to be able to say what the formation of Hebrew is, do not come to prove Hebrew with Portuguese, as not even from Semitic lineage Portuguese come.


Participe de nossa rede

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2


Visite o nosso canal e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!

Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?


divinity, debate, study, analysis