The dead don't know anything, and can't talk or praise the LORD

[Scribe]

The word that you refer unto was made after the males begin having children with the female helpmates the LORD had formed from the beginning of mankind on earth. More specifically, after they began taking unto themselves the daughters of the men as wives.

It was at that time that the LORD said that he wasn't going to argue with a man over his word for that he was flesh also. As such, he set man's days to 120 years. However, the interpretation that you quoted states that the LORD said human beings are mortal which is quite different than saying the days of man in the flesh are 120 years.

However, those that claim that the reference to 120 years in Genesis 6:3 is referring unto the number of years till the flood need to toss those Bibles and get the one your using, the Bible you quote completely eliminates the necessity for fabricating an explanation for the 120 years reference by removing it completely from the text. It is pretty obvious the point on the timelines was after men began multiplying, somewhere around the 9th month, or in the beginning, if you will. And yet it was before the children of those men began to have children which could be said to be as many as 16 years later.

It is extremely difficult to say that something which was said around 40 years after the beginning of life on earth had anything to do with the time till Noah who wouldn't be born for another 900 years, not 120 years.

But you are right about death, it is the cessation of life, and once life ends it no longer exists. Good thing that the flesh is animated by life and not the other way around since that would mean that when the flesh ceases to be animate, the life is dead.

Of course the 120 years was the time left before the flood, give or take a few years. It is obvious by the length of life of some of those after the flood as well. No bibles need to be tossed, you just need to humble yourself to admit your mistake in hermeneutics and learn from it. It is ok, many have made that same mistake. The statement was made after the sons of God, the lineage of Seth had fallen away and only Noah was left. You made a mistake about the 40 year idea as well. Context of chapter 4 is important.

 

[Blade]

Bud62.. should not we respect the other family members? The caps.. I know its not forced on. Yet you seem to still ignore those asking. Your not alone here as we can see. Other just have to cap it and then use a bigger font..

Maybe there blade is not that sharp so they have to really swing hard , saw back and forth to cut..

Dead in Christ are with the Father. Other's await judgement day.. I believe. Christ talked to Moses and Elijah.. God did say..Hes a God of the living not the dead.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

you just need to humble yourself to admit your mistake in hermeneutics and learn from it.

If it was my hermeneutics I would admit it, nor am I claiming that I was given a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak as Jesus claimed. I am just sharing what the Holy Ghost taught me, so if the Holy Ghost said that his word would not always strive with man, neither will I.

(I rechecked what I heard, so if you care to show me where you see that it was closer to the flood than from the beginning of man on earth then I would appreciate it cause I am blind in one eye and can't see out of the other....)

 

[Scribe]

If it was my hermeneutics I would admit it, nor am I claiming that I was given a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak as Jesus claimed. I am just sharing what the Holy Ghost taught me, so if the Holy Ghost said that his word would not always strive with man, neither will I.

(I rechecked what I heard, so if you care to show me where you see that it was closer to the flood than from the beginning of man on earth then I would appreciate it cause I am blind in one eye and can't see out of the other....)
View attachment 223619

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.)

Verse 4 is like a parenthesis explaining the decline of the sons of god and the reason for his statement in Verse 3 which was directly associated with the sons of god (mentioned in Gen 4:26) marrying the daughters of men (mentioned in Gen 4:22) and then that the result of this union was that they fell into this state of affairs. For this reason God is making this statement that he will only give them 120 years and destroy them from off the face of the earth. It is so easy to understand someone would have a draw a graphic to try to confuse you.

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Verse 3 and verse 7 are repetition. Verse 7 gives more detail as a follow up to verse 3. "My spirit will not always strive with man, for that he is flesh, yet his days shall be 120 years.... I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth
both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD."
And as you can read in most commentaries and bible dictionaries, it was approximate numbers not exact.

Also as you can clearly read from Gen 11:12 on, that Noah's sons had children after the flood that all lived well over 120. They started at over 400 years each and then as each generation continued it declined gradually, to over two hundred and eventually down to Abraham and they were still living to 180 at Issacs time. So no one in the list died at 120 even Jacob died at 148. The youngest in the list.

There is no record of any of them living to only 120 after the flood therefore it is impossible to support your interpretation that God was giving them an age span of 120. Therefore it must mean that he was giving them 120 (approximate) before he wiped them out, and the reason was because they had become completely given over to evil after the sons of god married over into Cain's camp leaving only Noah and his family left of the original sons of God of Seth's lineage.

And so shall it be right before the Son of Man comes again. Many will fall away by marrying the culture of this world and will be occupied with all sorts of pleasure oriented pursuits making no time for the Lord until they are caught unawares and unprepared.
They will face a series of judgments that will depopulate the earth.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

There is no record of any of them living to only 120 after the flood therefore it is impossible to support your interpretation that God was giving them an age span of 120.

The word of the LORD is forever settled in heaven, meaning it was, is, and will always be, or else it isn't. Nothing says the number of his days is set at 120 years, but the number of his days in the flesh on earth will not be more than 120 years.

If you cannot perceive that Genesis 6:3 was after Genesis 6:1-2 yet before 6:4 then I am sure you didn't know that the bow that was set in the cloud as a sign that the flood of waters that covered the earth in Genesis 1:2 would never again become a flood of waters to destroy all flesh was set in Genesis 1:7.

As far as your statement, it is written: And Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

But when the days of Moses in the flesh ended, you probably did notice that he did give up his spirit, because the life in his flesh didn't perish. However, I take it you haven't asked the LORD to teach you to number your days? (See Psalms 90:12)

 

[ChoirLoft]

Since Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English it is a valid English transliteration.
OK, I looked it up. Yesuah is the transliteration from Hebrew for Joshua (also a transliteration) but since they were mostly speaking Greek at the time of Christ (very few knew Hebrew or used it in the 1st century) they used the Greek spelling Iesous (Ἰησοῦς), from which, through the Latin IESVS/Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.

So then when speaking English Jesus is closer to Iesous (Greek) which was no the lips of the apostles not yesuah since they did not use Hebrew.

What makes you think it is closer to the original? Original WHAT? Not the original word that was on the lips of the Apostles. The apostles used the word Iesous (Ἰησοῦς), because it is well known that they were not speaking Hebrew. They also spoke in Aramaic in which case they would have said Yeshu, but they spoke in Greek just or more especiall when conversing with non Jews and therefore the name Iesous (Ἰησοῦς),

Think about it. You've been duped. If you want to use the word that the apostles used use Iesous (Ἰησοῦς), or Yeshu, both since they used both.

Also consider your audience. If you are speaking to southerners in Tennessee people know who you are talking about when you speak about Jesus, when you insist on Yesuah, and you can't speak Hebrew then they suspect you are in a cult. If you like that, and want to confuse people keep using it.

Three points I'd like to expand upon here - all highlighted in the quote above.

Firstly, MOST Jews including the Son of God spoke Hebrew.

Some scholars are now convinced the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew as well. There are a number of reasons for that, including the clue of Hebrew idioms translated to Greek and then English, but without going into a lot of linguistic mumbo-jumbo allow me to make the statement that Hebrew was the primary language spoken BY the Son of God, not Aramaic.

At the time of Jesus, Greek was still the primary language throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin due to the conquest of Alexander and the subsequent occupation of Israel by the Ptolemaic generals/governors. The Maccabean revolt of 168 BC restored Hebrew as the predominant language among Jews. However the entire area was still multi-lingual as is much of Europe to this day. It was efficient, therefore, to promote the gospel in the most commonly understood language of Greek, but Greek was NOT used by Jesus because the hostility between Jews and Greeks still festered. The Jewish festival of hanukkah is a reminder of that conflict to this day.

There is no mention in the epistles that anybody associated with the Jesus cult spoke or wrote in Aramaic. They used either Hebrew or Greek.

Secondly, a good point is made about audiences - with a sad caveat.

Southerners in Tennessee are openly anti-semitic as well as Biblical illiterate. You make a good point here Mr. Scribe.

I've been there. I know. Mention ANYTHING Jewish or even wear Jewish jewelry (such as a mezuzah, menorah or Jewish star) and Tennesseans will reward you with an angry disgusting facial twist at best. At least you'll get a sarcastic remark. Most Tennesseans, like most post-protestant Christians today, are vehemently IGNORANT of the Bible or what it teaches. They worship their ignorance and prefer it to anything approaching scholarly examination of words names or dogma. Additionally, pastors everywhere are more concerned about preserving their own little ego-maniac empires than spreading the gospel. The average church in America is in debt approximately three to four million dollars because of their irresponsible desire to preserve their "ministry". They do NOT extend themselves into the community either for social or spiritual edification.

Evangelism is dead in America along with most of our ingrown churches.

Nobody does it any more. It's all on internet web sites that nobody visits. Post protestant churches are only concerned about themselves. Introducing the Hebrew spelling or pronunciation of the Name of Jesus (either Y'shuah or ha-mashiach) WILL INDEED confuse them. Anything not smelling of their own stale religious ideology will be assumed as a cult. They do not realize that they themselves have become a cult in their own right.

Mr. Scribe - how do you suppose the gospel can be preached to people or among people that have no idea what it's really all about? You are absolutely correct in your statement regarding their ignorance and willful rejection of anything outside their comfort zone. (Which is really a sort of Twilight zoned-out condition as they are numb to anything new.) Lest anyone at this point believes I'm picking on Tennessee, please be aware this is a national condition not just one for the residents of the volunteer state.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[JaumeJ]

Joshua is the older form of Yeshua, pronounced Yahoshua. Yeshua is simply the transliteration of yod shin vav heh from the Hebrw to English, however Iesous became Yesu in Latin. From the Latin it became Jesus.

So if you like Yeshua or Yahoshua, you are just as correct. Personally my accent and preference is Yeshua, Yeshi is my Redeemer Yahu is Yahswe or God.

What I do hope for all to know is when the angel told Mary to call the Babe, Jesus, for He will save His people, that it actually translates, call His name My Redeemer, Yahweh. Why? Because it lends clarity to understanding the Angle;s announcement.

Related. Jesse, the father of David, translates My Redeemer, Yeshi. David translates Beloved. These little Hebrew nudges of true Light are great blessings, for me anyways. God bless all ... j

 

[ChoirLoft]

The word that you refer unto was made after the males begin having children with the female helpmates the LORD had formed from the beginning of mankind on earth. More specifically, after they began taking unto themselves the daughters of the men as wives.

It was at that time that the LORD said that he wasn't going to argue with a man over his word for that he was flesh also. As such, he set man's days to 120 years. However, the interpretation that you quoted states that the LORD said human beings are mortal which is quite different than saying the days of man in the flesh are 120 years.

However, those that claim that the reference to 120 years in Genesis 6:3 is referring unto the number of years till the flood need to toss those Bibles and get the one your using, the Bible you quote completely eliminates the necessity for fabricating an explanation for the 120 years reference by removing it completely from the text. It is pretty obvious the point on the timelines was after men began multiplying, somewhere around the 9th month, or in the beginning, if you will. And yet it was before the children of those men began to have children which could be said to be as many as 16 years later.

It is extremely difficult to say that something which was said around 40 years after the beginning of life on earth had anything to do with the time till Noah who wouldn't be born for another 900 years, not 120 years.

But you are right about death, it is the cessation of life, and once life ends it no longer exists. Good thing that the flesh is animated by life and not the other way around since that would mean that when the flesh ceases to be animate, the life is dead.

In your last line you refer to 'life' and animation. You wrote the flesh is animated by life. This is a bit confusing because the flesh has life in and of itself. It isn't animated by some external or internal force other than organs, blood, etc.

I presume you mean SPIRIT. In this sense the spirit ALSO dies at the point of physical fleshly death. There are a number of other scriptures I can quote that will bring this principle into a more focused light without going back to ancient teaching about obvious physical limitations of life span in the flesh.

In attempting to paraphrase you, I might say here that the flesh animates the human spirit, not the other way around. The human spirit doesn't animate the flesh. When the flesh dies, the spirit dies as well. This is a basic point in the Bible. When it speaks to the Second Death it is speaking to spiritual disintegration and permanent dissolution.

If you don't believe me, go out and talk to someone who isn't religious and who is near death themselves. Ask if they're afraid of death. Most won't even want to talk about it. Some resist the idea and attempt to put up a good show right to their last breath. Some claim they don't care. Deep inside many fear death because for them there is nothing beyond their last breath. The death bed is a good place to learn the facts of life. Try it.

The GREAT MIRACLE revealed by the gospel is God's plan to integrate part of His spirit with that of man. The resultant creature is a new thing as mentioned in Corinthians. One is thus born again when one's spirit is intermingled or married to the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is immortal, this second birth thus results in animation/preservation of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit. The human body cannot be reinvigorated, thus it is necessary for God to house the new spiritual being in a body that is as immortal as the combination spirit within it. Jesus demonstrated this new body in the gospels and book of Acts.

Secular and post-protestant ideology would have us believe that everyone possesses an immortal spirit or spark. This is Biblically untrue. The Bible teaches that humans die like dogs. Their spirit is destroyed totally and completely.

Thus the great miracle, greater even than creation itself, is the second birth. There has been nothing like it in all of creation or in any other religious interpretation of the spiritual life. This great miracle has been masked by the fog of secular self-aggrandizement and religious self-importance to the point that it has been forgotten by post-protestant Christians. Most of them are so ignorant of it that they will actually argue against God's Word. The spirit of anti-christ is thus alive and well in our debauched churches.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[ChoirLoft]

Joshua is the older form of Yeshua, pronounced Yahoshua. Yeshua is simply the transliteration of yod shin vav heh from the Hebrw to English, however Iesous became Yesu in Latin. From the Latin it became Jesus.

So if you like Yeshua or Yahoshua, you are just as correct. Personally my accent and preference is Yeshua, Yeshi is my Redeemer Yahu is Yahswe or God.

What I do hope for all to know is when the angel told Mary to call the Babe, Jesus, for He will save His people, that it actually translates, call His name My Redeemer, Yahweh. Why? Because it lends clarity to understanding the Angle;s announcement.

Related. Jesse, the father of David, translates My Redeemer, Yeshi. David translates Beloved. These little Hebrew nudges of true Light are great blessings, for me anyways. God bless all ... j

amen

CL

 

[Scribe]

Three points I'd like to expand upon here - all highlighted in the quote above.

Firstly, MOST Jews including the Son of God spoke Hebrew.

Some scholars are now convinced the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew as well. There are a number of reasons for that, including the clue of Hebrew idioms translated to Greek and then English, but without going into a lot of linguistic mumbo-jumbo allow me to make the statement that Hebrew was the primary language spoken BY the Son of God, not Aramaic.

At the time of Jesus, Greek was still the primary language throughout the eastern Mediterranean basin due to the conquest of Alexander and the subsequent occupation of Israel by the Ptolemaic generals/governors. The Maccabean revolt of 168 BC restored Hebrew as the predominant language among Jews. However the entire area was still multi-lingual as is much of Europe to this day. It was efficient, therefore, to promote the gospel in the most commonly understood language of Greek, but Greek was NOT used by Jesus because the hostility between Jews and Greeks still festered. The Jewish festival of hanukkah is a reminder of that conflict to this day.

There is no mention in the epistles that anybody associated with the Jesus cult spoke or wrote in Aramaic. They used either Hebrew or Greek.

Secondly, a good point is made about audiences - with a sad caveat.

Southerners in Tennessee are openly anti-semitic as well as Biblical illiterate. You make a good point here Mr. Scribe.

I've been there. I know. Mention ANYTHING Jewish or even wear Jewish jewelry (such as a mezuzah, menorah or Jewish star) and Tennesseans will reward you with an angry disgusting facial twist at best. At least you'll get a sarcastic remark. Most Tennesseans, like most post-protestant Christians today, are vehemently IGNORANT of the Bible or what it teaches. They worship their ignorance and prefer it to anything approaching scholarly examination of words names or dogma. Additionally, pastors everywhere are more concerned about preserving their own little ego-maniac empires than spreading the gospel. The average church in America is in debt approximately three to four million dollars because of their irresponsible desire to preserve their "ministry". They do NOT extend themselves into the community either for social or spiritual edification.

Evangelism is dead in America along with most of our ingrown churches.

Nobody does it any more. It's all on internet web sites that nobody visits. Post protestant churches are only concerned about themselves. Introducing the Hebrew spelling or pronunciation of the Name of Jesus (either Y'shuah or ha-mashiach) WILL INDEED confuse them. Anything not smelling of their own stale religious ideology will be assumed as a cult. They do not realize that they themselves have become a cult in their own right.

Mr. Scribe - how do you suppose the gospel can be preached to people or among people that have no idea what it's really all about? You are absolutely correct in your statement regarding their ignorance and willful rejection of anything outside their comfort zone. (Which is really a sort of Twilight zoned-out condition as they are numb to anything new.) Lest anyone at this point believes I'm picking on Tennessee, please be aware this is a national condition not just one for the residents of the volunteer state.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Nice post. I like your writing style.

I must take issue with your understanding of the common language at Jesus time.

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Aramaic_place_names_in_the_New_Testament

Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic,[1][2] the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[3] This is generally agreed upon by historians. The villages of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[4] It is also likely that Jesus knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Judea, and it is reasonable to assume that Jesus was well versed in Hebrew for religious purposes.[5][6][7]

The full article is very detailed and will give you plenty of sources to follow for more information.

I have been reading this same information or similar from many of my Bible College text books. The best explanations were found in the New Testament Survey books where they cover the history of the Jews between the Testaments from Babylonian Exile until the Roman occupation. Several historians wrote during this time as well so there is plenty of detailed information about it recorded from the time period.

Personally I am highly suspect of the efforts to say Jesus or YHWH in some Hebrew translation. God looks at the heart. Why would I suddenly need to change how I say Jesus? Any attempt to explain to me why I should change is an attempt to say that God likes it better the new way. I am not buying that. It is a subtle form of legalism.

Now give me three years of Hebrew and I will speak all the words in Hebrew and not just one. That I can understand doing. There is no reason to insist on speaking Hebrew for one word and not all the others in the Bible.

For example, those who insist on how to pronounce YHWH. It is futile. They are all wrong. It was not supposed to be pronounced. But if you add vowels you can attempt it, but nobodies effort is more authoritative than the others since it never had vowels in the original. I have heard all the arguments but I side with the best Scholars such as Robert Alter who says LORD is probably the best translation. It was not to be pronounced. All those efforts are wood, hay, and stubble.

If you are Jewish and speak Hebrew then by all means use Hebrew words. All of them.

But don't be trying to convince me that you are getting brownie points with God by not using the name Jesus and using a different language spelling. Not buying it. As if there is magic properties if you get the pronunciation just right in the right language. As if the magic door opens for you. Not buying it.

I suspect an evil desire to be elite. To be different, like "look at me, look at me, I am one of the initiated into the mystic revelation of the Name secrets and you're not. Follow me and I will show you the ways of the special names speaking people"

pfffftttt

 

[ChoirLoft]

Nice post. I like your writing style.

I must take issue with your understanding of the common language at Jesus time.

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Aramaic_place_names_in_the_New_Testament

Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic,[1][2] the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[3] This is generally agreed upon by historians. The villages of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[4] It is also likely that Jesus knew enough Koine Greek to converse with those not native to Judea, and it is reasonable to assume that Jesus was well versed in Hebrew for religious purposes.[5][6][7]

The full article is very detailed and will give you plenty of sources to follow for more information.

I have been reading this same information or similar from many of my Bible College text books. The best explanations were found in the New Testament Survey books where they cover the history of the Jews between the Testaments from Babylonian Exile until the Roman occupation. Several historians wrote during this time as well so there is plenty of detailed information about it recorded from the time period.

Personally I am highly suspect of the efforts to say Jesus or YHWH in some Hebrew translation. God looks at the heart. Why would I suddenly need to change how I say Jesus? Any attempt to explain to me why I should change is an attempt to say that God likes it better the new way. I am not buying that. It is a subtle form of legalism.

Now give me three years of Hebrew and I will speak all the words in Hebrew and not just one. That I can understand doing. There is no reason to insist on speaking Hebrew for one word and not all the others in the Bible.

For example, those who insist on how to pronounce YHWH. It is futile. They are all wrong. It was not supposed to be pronounced. But if you add vowels you can attempt it, but nobodies effort is more authoritative than the others since it never had vowels in the original. I have heard all the arguments but I side with the best Scholars such as Robert Alter who says LORD is probably the best translation. It was not to be pronounced. All those efforts are wood, hay, and stubble.

If you are Jewish and speak Hebrew then by all means use Hebrew words. All of them.

But don't be trying to convince me that you are getting brownie points with God by not using the name Jesus and using a different language spelling. Not buying it. As if there is magic properties if you get the pronunciation just right in the right language. As if the magic door opens for you. Not buying it.

I suspect an evil desire to be elite. To be different, like "look at me, look at me, I am one of the initiated into the mystic revelation of the Name secrets and you're not. Follow me and I will show you the ways of the special names speaking people"

pfffftttt

I salute your scholarly assumption that "many of my Bible College text books" are correct. I do so because you admit to actually working on documented support of your argument. Most are too lazy to do that.

I hold a Masters Degree in theology from seminary, the same one attended by Rev. Martin Luther King, jr., and am familiar with the stacks and much of what they hold. Today textbooks are written for the purpose of making $$$ for the author and his/her publisher. The same is true for supermarket tabloids and religious novels read by the laity. Sit in any Bible college, secular university, or seminary and sooner or later you'll be required to buy or consult a document written by your instructor. Does this mean the information is correct? Not necessarily.

THE PURPOSE of Bible college, secular university or seminary is to equip the student with the skills and tools necessary to conduct their own search for information. Additionally, such an education instructs the student as to how to collate the information and to write it or present it in such a fashion as to be clearly understood by the community. It's the tools and skills that matter, not what institution one attends or certificate one earns from it.

That being said, there is a growing amount of scholarly work being done on the language of Jesus' time as well as translations into Greek from Hebrew. As I stated earlier, major clues exist in English translations that suggest Hebrew origins of such books as the Gospel of Matthew. For instance, most English translations of Matthew begin their sentences with the word AND. The number of sentences that begin with AND in the gospel of Matthew is dizzying. The use of this construct is of Hebrew origin and is generally referred to as a linguistic idiom. Look up the definition of IDIOM.

As to your anti-semitic remarks about people who seek to embrace Jewish tradition, I suggest you have gone off the rails.

Are those who embrace Jewish tradition seeking brownie points with God? How do you know God did not command them to do so? If God told them to do it, then you may find yourself opposing God or at the very least insulting those who are struggling along their own spiritual journey. Is your way of doing things the only way pleasing to God? You could probably quote Bible verses to support your arrogant opinion, but I'd have to say up front they wouldn't qualify as accurate truthful or appropriate.

The use of the name Y'shuah to identify the Son of God is acceptable to God. The discussion here has been academic up to this point and I've enjoyed it. When you disrespect those who choose to follow Jewish tradition I take vehement exception. You are very close to hate language and religious arrogance when you do so. Please revise your approach. You have much good to share. Keep your venom to yourself.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[Scribe]

I salute your scholarly assumption that "many of my Bible College text books" are correct. I do so because you admit to actually working on documented support of your argument. Most are too lazy to do that.

I hold a Masters Degree in theology from seminary, the same one attended by Rev. Martin Luther King, jr., and am familiar with the stacks and much of what they hold. Today textbooks are written for the purpose of making $$$ for the author and his/her publisher. The same is true for supermarket tabloids and religious novels read by the laity. Sit in any Bible college, secular university, or seminary and sooner or later you'll be required to buy or consult a document written by your instructor. Does this mean the information is correct? Not necessarily.

THE PURPOSE of Bible college, secular university or seminary is to equip the student with the skills and tools necessary to conduct their own search for information. Additionally, such an education instructs the student as to how to collate the information and to write it or present it in such a fashion as to be clearly understood by the community. It's the tools and skills that matter, not what institution one attends or certificate one earns from it.

That being said, there is a growing amount of scholarly work being done on the language of Jesus' time as well as translations into Greek from Hebrew. As I stated earlier, major clues exist in English translations that suggest Hebrew origins of such books as the Gospel of Matthew. For instance, most English translations of Matthew begin their sentences with the word AND. The number of sentences that begin with AND in the gospel of Matthew is dizzying. The use of this construct is of Hebrew origin and is generally referred to as a linguistic idiom. Look up the definition of IDIOM.

As to your anti-semitic remarks about people who seek to embrace Jewish tradition, I suggest you have gone off the rails.

Are those who embrace Jewish tradition seeking brownie points with God? How do you know God did not command them to do so? If God told them to do it, then you may find yourself opposing God or at the very least insulting those who are struggling along their own spiritual journey. Is your way of doing things the only way pleasing to God? You could probably quote Bible verses to support your arrogant opinion, but I'd have to say up front they wouldn't qualify as accurate truthful or appropriate.

The use of the name Y'shuah to identify the Son of God is acceptable to God. The discussion here has been academic up to this point and I've enjoyed it. When you disrespect those who choose to follow Jewish tradition I take vehement exception. You are very close to hate language and religious arrogance when you do so. Please revise your approach. You have much good to share. Keep your venom to yourself.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

And I have seen the fruit of the Hebrew Roots movement for decades now and I reject it as another form of Judaism/Gnosticism which has been around since the beginning of the church. Nothing antisemitic about that and claiming antisemiticism is like pulling the race card when there is no good defence. I am not intimidated.

As to your Masters in Theology, it is difficult to imagine being able to graduate without knowing that Aramaic was the common language of the Jews at the time of Christ. Modern textbooks, oldest text books, or ancient historians all agree.
But no one ever concedes in CC so we can just move on.

 

[oyster67]

Whoa Dude!!! Don't Spray it, just say it.

Amen! That is good advice for all of us.

My favourite verse from Ecclesiastes also pertains to the dead:

Ecclesiastes 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

Actually, I think that the dead in Christ have it pretty good, though. This verse must pertain to Pagans who still have the opportunity to come to Jesus.

 

[oyster67]

pfffftttt

OICU812

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Sorry about the delay in responding, just seen your comment.

This is a bit confusing because the flesh has life in and of itself. It isn't animated by some external or internal force other than organs, blood, etc.

The ability of the physical body to move is the result of the living system, the beating heart, the breath and the brain stem which provide the ability for the flesh to move. Without these three organs which form the living system, the body of flesh is incapable of animation.

Should the body cease to breath, the blood will cease to be oxygenated, should the blood lack oxygen the heart will quite beating, and without the pumping blood the brain stem will not be able to produce the neurons that provide the ability of the flesh to generation motion. Hence the flesh without the 'pneuma', being the 'living system' is dead, or no longer capable of animation.

This like my other comments are my opinion, just saying...

I presume you mean SPIRIT. In this sense the spirit ALSO dies at the point of physical fleshly death.

Although you make some good points, and I agree that the 'spirit' and the "Spirit' are different, the spirit is derived from the Greek word 'pneuma' which is the force that produces animation, which is the living system. So yes, the cessation of the living system is what is used to determine death, called cardiopulmonary arrest.

The human spirit doesn't animate the flesh. When the flesh dies, the spirit dies as well.

The death of the flesh is the cessation of the living system, being the spirit born of the Spirit, then yes, the living system is what animates the flesh, and yes, you're right that the cessation of the living system is the death of the flesh.

However, the scripture reads that the waters brought forth the moving creatures that hath life, not let the waters bring forth the life of the creature that moves.

When it speaks to the Second Death it is speaking to spiritual disintegration and permanent dissolution.

The days of the flesh are numbered, which is not the death of the life in the flesh, but the end of the animated flesh. If life dies, it is dead and death is the permanent cessation of life.

If one is dead in Christ then should they hear that is the first death, or can it be considered a mulligan since he that is dead is freed from sin?

Yet it is written that those that hath life in them will not see death, so I guess I'll have to wait to see if you are right about the word dying when the days of the flesh come to an end.

 

[ChoirLoft]

And I have seen the fruit of the Hebrew Roots movement for decades now and I reject it as another form of Judaism/Gnosticism which has been around since the beginning of the church. Nothing antisemitic about that and claiming antisemiticism is like pulling the race card when there is no good defence. I am not intimidated.

As to your Masters in Theology, it is difficult to imagine being able to graduate without knowing that Aramaic was the common language of the Jews at the time of Christ. Modern textbooks, oldest text books, or ancient historians all agree.
But no one ever concedes in CC so we can just move on.

Did I write that I wasn't aware of the assertion of the use of Aramaic in Jesus time? I did not.

In fact, I did write that the education I received enabled me to dig further into more recent discoveries. Those discoveries DO indicate Hebrew, not Aramaic, was generally spoken and written. What have you done with your education? Has it become stale over the years due to misuse?

Did you never encounter a text book that was wrong?

Are you now stating text books are inherently true? They aren't, you know. As a recent employee of a local college, I'm aware that text book publishers alter their books so as to increase profit and deliberately change the presentation of previously accepted ideas. For instance, a chemistry professor once complained to me that text book publishers were seeking ways to change the Periodic Table of Elements. It is therefore critical that each of us dig into matters of concern to determine what is and what is not real. Text books can be wrong. In this case, they may be wrong about the use of Aramaic. It behooves us to look more deeply into the matter and not reject it out of hand.

We are entering a new dark age. Censorship, restrictions of information retrieval and our ability to publish or share what we've learned in open debate or the written word is common and becoming more pronounced. Our freedom to learn is at risk.

The word Gnosticism has been thrown about quite a bit, albeit without justification. The Christian church is as guilty of this as any other expression of religion on the planet. Merely studying truths buried in scripture does not imply some sort of cultish behavior. Jews do it all the time to study Talmud. Christian scholars do it all the time (mostly to sell their own books). Muslim scholars study and debate constantly. Most Christians don't study or read at all, but vehemently defend their ignorance. (I'm not implying the reader of these words is among them.)

What's wrong with "another form of Judaism?"

Are you not aware the Bible itself states the first Christians were accused of being a cultish form of Judaism? What's the difference? I submit that Christian anti-semitic attitudes have infested church congregations, church ideology and church action since Christianity became a legal institution under Emperor Constantine. The RCC doctrine of Replacement Theology or Supersecessionism has been accepted by the post-protestant church and is a constant and consistent reminder of embedded anti-semitism in the Christian religion.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

PS Even the pope would realize he's not infallible if he were married.

 

[JaumeJ]

It occurs to me that there were no denominations quite yet at the time of Jesus-Yeshua. The umbrella title, Judaism, cropped up either right after His departure or a bit longer.

These of Judea considered themselves the descendants of Israel with the faith of Abraham. The only religion they had ever had was the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets.

Israel had completely strayed from what was the format at the time of Moses writings being implemented as a kind of theocratic constitution for all who believe God.

It would seem , had any in Judea taught anything related to the faith of Abraham in any other language than Hebrew would most likely offend even the least hypocritical of the hypocrites.

Yes the spirit of apostasy was quite prevalent, even at the time of Jesus-Yeshua for already there were at least three "schools of thought" on how one must practice his faith. Thought \, here, here should reveal the error of all three.

The so-called Israel on our maps today does not even begin to reflect the Israel outlined in the books of the Old Testament, nor the Israel given us by our Father.

And so the great apostasy continues its growth. Maranatha, as some borrow this transliteration from the Greek.

 

[Scribe]

It occurs to me that there were no denominations quite yet at the time of Jesus-Yeshua. The umbrella title, Judaism, cropped up either right after His departure or a bit longer.

These of Judea considered themselves the descendants of Israel with the faith of Abraham. The only religion they had ever had was the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets.

Israel had completely strayed from what was the format at the time of Moses writings being implemented as a kind of theocratic constitution for all who believe God.

It would seem , had any in Judea taught anything related to the faith of Abraham in any other language than Hebrew would most likely offend even the least hypocritical of the hypocrites.

Yes the spirit of apostasy was quite prevalent, even at the time of Jesus-Yeshua for already there were at least three "schools of thought" on how one must practice his faith. Thought \, here, here should reveal the error of all three.

The so-called Israel on our maps today does not even begin to reflect the Israel outlined in the books of the Old Testament, nor the Israel given us by our Father.

And so the great apostasy continues its growth. Maranatha, as some borrow this transliteration from the Greek.

It was the LXX that Jesus and Paul quoted from. It was the Greek Translation that they were using in synagogues at the time of Christ. Jesus read from the LXX when he read Isaiah and after which they wanted to throw him off the cliff.

Why insist that they were reading and speaking Hebrew? Is this necessary for the "saying the correct name doctrine" Does the teaching fall apart if they were reading and quoting Greek Translations and the time of Christ?

 

[JaumeJ]

There is no insistence that anyone agree with what I have determined in my studies. I wonder just how people know the Author of all the Word, Who is the Word and He is our Maker would need to read in what you have declared to be eternal truth here? Now you did not say it is, however when dealing with what you Savior is and has done for us all, it would be eternal.
No, I am not actually saying you must believe me, but it is always good to pray for true knowledge from our father, for the knowledge of this age is truly foolish mess come the Kingdome.

 

[JaumeJ]

There is no insistence that anyone agree with what I have determined in my studies. I wonder just how people know the Author of all the Word, Who is the Word and He is our Maker would need to read in what you have declared to be eternal truth here? Now you did not say it is, however when dealing with what you Savior is and has done for us all, it would be eternal.
No, I am not actually saying you must believe me, but it is always good to pray for true knowledge from our father, for the knowledge of this age is truly foolish mess come the Kingdome.

Last line should reed foolishness..............glitch in auto correct, forgive that. God bless you.