| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 19:26:34
|
Dear David,
I do think you presume too much.
Yahushuah was known by many names, one of which he mentioned about his Being was; Son of man. Peter called him the Messiah, without any rebuke.
Isaiah 9:6...and his name shall be called, 1] Wonderful, 2] Counsellor, 3] El-Elyon {the mighty God}, 4] The Everlasting Father, 5] The Prince of Peace.
A name is only part of the description of a living Being.
Since I am born a second time, quiz you on your reference to my parents: water or spirit parents?
YaHuWeH as Father, mother being New Yerusalem.
See, I was born in a sack of water, baptised into this world. My Dad pronounced the name upon this natural born being. Then again We have a new name. Not necessarily a "re-newed" name. {Robert James vs. Robert James}.
Yes, I could call myself "Mickey Mouse" if I cared too, as long as fraud is notinvolved. Consider "Madonna".
You really need to consider John 3rd chapter...word by word.
I am an Israelite, and don't pay much attention to your perverted concept's via Khazar's are legitimate Judah. {You still BELIEVE German's gassed 6,000,000 Jew's} {Care to cry a tear, or propagate 50,000,000 white Russian's died at the hand of communism?}
BTW, I repented of any involvement with the IRS and usury borrowing back in '1983'.
Don't think yu could make me boil over, under any circumstances.
A high I.Q. can, and usually is, a great hinderance to entering into the Kingdom. For a self elevated man to humble himself, and believe as a child does, makes no sense to the egoist.
Jefferson an egoist, and very intelligent man, gifted in fact, thought the book of the Revelation of Yahushuah, was the "ravings of a mad man".
We have noticed that certain one's, will never spell Yahushuah, with the Yah, or, Yahu, attached. THEY alway's must put an e in there. They esoterically are stating that Yahu-Shuah did not come here, in his Father's name. Even Jew's today in Palestine, are using the given name Y{E}hushua. As do you....hummm.
HalleluYah, or do you say, "HalleluYeh?
I have friend's who call me, Bob. When I played baseball, till age 50, on the field it was Bobby.
Depending on who say's what and for what purpose, I may, or may not, answer to the name they call out.
As a judge once stated to a man at bar, THEY, i.e. the Persecutor, i.e. the D.A. can call you anything he likes. You can answer to the name or not.
I have walked through the fire in the dungeon, for not having a LAST NAME.
Maybe it is time for you to admit that you aren't the only ONE who know's?
Or, am I wasting the ecclesia's time and space? Aren't you on record stating Yahushuah didn't die, i.e. he faked his death. I read "Holy Blood holy Grail many year's ago, and it gee...was written by one of your Khazar mentor's? Yep.
Since I live more east than you, I get up earlier than you do...usually.
If I wanted to call myself Micha-El, the only way you could talk to me was to call me by the name I introduce myself to you.
I minded not one whit you wrote Robert James, vs. Robert-James. For your court is not my court, and we have no arguement, albiet, I'd rather be called most anything except a usurious man. But I forgive you in your mere presumptions, ok?
As a side bar to your heart's health, who want's their first estate? You? The only one's I know of who have lost their first ESTATE, are those in chain's awaiting the "final judgement day". I pray you are confused of sort's and not one of THOSE. As a reference, consider Hebrew's 11: 14-15-16. We want a better "estate". The state of Zion, a state of Being.
But then Abraham was taught by the father's, that resurrection is real.
"They" were NAKED in the old garden. At law, you must know 'naked' means...incomplete.
I do not want to Stand "naked"..."in that Day", which is today.
Put on the whole armour, Ephesian's 6:11-24.
To you west of the great divider, {Mississippi} Peace.
|
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 21:04:03
|
Dear Readers;
Robert James said:
quote:
Dear David,
I do think you presume too much.
Yahushuah was known by many names...
That is all I read. Like the last page, I have said what I wanted to say. "Burn me once shame on you; Burn me twice, shame on me." If Robert James insists on protecting the "Yehu" prefix, I know better than to try to change his mind. That is what I learned last time.
The Topic is specifically that the "Yehu" prefix is wrong. So go ahead and debate it without accepted expertise and standards if you wish.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Jul 2004 21:05:24 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 21:14:50
|
Brother David,
re-search your thought's on the woman caught in the act of adultry and the "writings in sand". Is this versage in Ferrah Fenton's translation? It was not in the earliest translations. As, thinking and reading at the same time, one will conclude, this |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jul 2004 : 21:42:23
|
I am so sorry folk's that i pushed thewrong button-key and delivered an incomplete thought.
David, I think you can't even read. You are the one who protect's the YEHU rather than Strong's Yahu, not me, crazy guy.
You are loosing credulance daily, neighbor.
Wonder why many will not respond to your or Batkol's posts? Ever give it a thought?
How can I not offend you yet correct you? That episode with Yahushuah and the woman caught sexing with one not of the tribe's of Israel, well, sir fellow, this verse is NOT in the earliest rendention's. It was an add on. The add on, defies the Law. Check Ferrah Fenton.
David, you spell Yahushuah everytime...as...YEhushua. Shall we call you the yo-to boy? I think not, but your own word's make us suppose so.
Could I receive an appology for your accusal of me being a man involved in usury? I quit the Babylonian system way before you, friend. It takes a real man to say, "sorry". Girly boy's admit to forget the obvious.
Yahushuah said the even He, He Himself, was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. {James 1:1}
I just re-read your latest post, and nowhere did I defend the Jehu concept. I think you must be an idiot savant. This is by no mean's meant to be a slur, but brilliant in respect's, beyond most, yet unable to tie the shoe lace's. Hi John, ya wiling to loose your head?
We are not here to win an Arguement, so much as to boost a fellow brother unto Overcomership.
Get with the program Brother. |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 04:33:27
|
Dear David Merril,
You said,
quote:
You bring up a wonderful point about Yehoshuah and how he would have referred to the Father in heaven. Of course being post John Hercanus (125 BC) in Jewish company Yehoshuah would have used titles like "Adonia" and "Elohim" verbally. I linked an article with Aish.com about the reverence a page back, "A comprehensive guide to the philosophy and laws of pronouncing the Name of God."
Well, I have to disagree with you here. Yehoshuah would not have used the Hebrew names you
mentioned above, except in temple. Hebrew was not the language for everyday parlance at all
in his day, as it has become now. A reference for the use of Alaha is at:
www.atour.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi
search for 'God' in English, or '0hl0'in Aramaic.
I have also seen it spelled Allaha, as I spelled it above. If one takes YHVH as the name for
God from the OT, and uses Strongs definition of its meaning, the meaning of the two words,
as I have learned them is the same. From Strong's:
quote:
Jehovah = "the existing One"
"The existing One", with 'One' as a proper noun has exactly the same meaning as 'Unity'. The
difference between YHVH and Alaha being the language used. One was a language for the temple,
the other the language of people in their everyday lives. Since a major part of Yehoshuah's
message was to offer the opportunity of the Kingdom to all irrespective of class, I am confident
in most cases he actually spoke 'Alaha'. I find the translation 'Unity' more natural than,
"The existing One."
You also stated,
quote:
... I would never be one to underestimate God's grace. However, I think that is a Futuristic Christian concept that is oriented about an eternal afterlife, irrelevant to a kingdom of heaven on earth.
As for Grace, being a futurism. I would say that is an artifact of the culture that adopted his
adapted teachings, and spread them to the world different than they were intended. Grace need not
be a futurism at all, and I am sure it was not intended that way by Yehoshuah. Grace is a gift to
us in the eternal present. Grace is always NOW! The futurism gets put in it, either by accident
because a lack of reference for the true concept of eternity, or deliberately as a control mechanism
for a politcized religeon. We can be assured though, that futurism was never a part of the Master's
message. From __The Gospel of Thomas__:
quote:
His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
In the initial post, Daron apparently argues for a name that neither you or Robert-James would use.
I wonder, though. If you have not found the Kingdom does the name you use matter ? And, if you
have found the Kingdom, how can it matter what name you use ? The latter question presumes a
conscious choice to use a particular name in specific circumstances as guided. Some food for thought.
Thus my simply taking what I saw to be the import of Robert-James message.
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 08:22:21
|
Dear Readers;
The thread exists. So that is why I expressed my opinions on the matter. I have studied this extensively and I believe equipped myself with authenticated texts. Point being that Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances all answer the questions about the Name of the Father and the Messiah.
If you have been familiarizing yourself with my opinions on the matter of kingdom then you know that it is a matter of establishing proper claim in the image of God. This is the acquisition or appropriation of designated portion. Property rights. quote:
And, if you have found the Kingdom, how can it matter what name you use ?
I believe there is a flaw in the syntax. If you are not using the Name correctly, physics, the numero-linguistic interface prevents you from finding the Kingdom (on earth). If you cannot establish identity, both in yourself and the Creator; Relationship is flawed. There however is really where God's grace kicks in.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Robert James going by three names here on the last page, and enunciating the Name incorrectly became a perfect example for me to make my point. I was not attacking Robert James, just the parataxic distortion he is spouting. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Jul 2004 08:25:33 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 08:30:03
|
Robert-James said: have walked through the fire in the dungeon, for not having a LAST NAME.
BatKol: Nonsense. I was there. You got 'thrown into the dungeoun' for no tag, no license. You were in jail for three days and then plead GUILTY and PAID the penalty. Then you were REPEATEDLY made to jump through HOOPS like a circus poodle, driving back and forth from NC to TN until YOU came up with some STATE DOC with ALL CAPS to get your van out of IMPOUND which cost you the 'upmost farthling'.
Robert-James: Wonder why many will not respond to your or Batkol's posts?
BatKol: You need to learn how to read. I have pages and pages of folks reponding to my posts including debates taken down to the root (remember the elohim debate with brother Robert where ultimately NO proof could be brought forth showing the word elohim being used for a non-Israelite ruler?) I have challanged you repeatedly to a 'once and for all' debate but you consistently bow out. If you had the gonads I'd Love to go a few rounds and dismantle your "black folk have not the breath of life" theory you liked to spout (I notice you never did have that 'conversation' for the edification of the 'body of messiah'.. were you defeated that easily?). There are other pork-chop doctrines you like to spout that I'd love to publicly debate you on but you have not the attention span to handle such a task OR you just strait up know they don't hold up to close examination? Making short work of me should be no problem for a self appointed priest with a self proclaimed 'unadultrated walk'....
P.S. - Many people read my posts who are not members of this forum. People you know very well. I have received personal messages of 'well done' concerning my dealings with some of your pet doctrines. As for the haters, well, hate the game not the Player....
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
Edited by - BatKol on 27 Jul 2004 09:42:20 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 13:56:13
|
Dear David Merrill,
You may consider it to be due to a lack in my capital integration, or you have misunderstood my question. Where my heart is confident that there is not only one name for Him, is that there were men before and after Yehoshuah who reputedly found the Kingdom. Some of these men, because of their culture, are very unlikely to have used the Hebrew name for Him.
Are you really claiming that only the inheritors of Hebraic culture have keys to the Kingdom? There are many who would make such a claim, but my heart knows that He would not be so exclusive. It is even possible that from our limited perspective in this time that the Hebraic name seems to create the "best" world for men today that we can imagine. However, if that were so, I doubt that we would be like a cancer upon our Mother, the earth, and flirting with the possiblity of destroying most of the life, as we know it, upon her.
I have an extraordinary appreciation for what I think you are trying to do, and I support it. However, I have a stronger allegiance to truth. Hence, I express my knowledge that there is not a single name for Him, but that it is relative to time, person, place and intention. I would never be so bold as to limit Him in anyway. Especially not by the choice of vibration that I use to address Him, or to express His beingness.
Shalom,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 14:35:29
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
I am sure my claim is much simpler. If you want to know the Name of the Father or Messiah just open a good concordance and/or lexicon. That's all. But you give me some insight into why there would be such debate about it.
I took a look at Batkol's Reply above. There was mention of why so few people respond to my posts. I do not read Robert-James' posts so I had no seen that.
The sight is a medium. Several people have thanked me for sharing my experiences. I believe it more a chronicle and as it develops I find it a good resource for hashing through things, spotting correlations and timing; like a journal. Criticism or even synicism helps me to pick apart the flaws in the attack and then share the strength of my gist. Like with Lewis and Dan.
Let's face it. These correlations and concidences, verifiable timelines and so on; a bill of exchange for $3.6q, they are really extraordinary. Lewis said something about 'getting a life'. Well that gets me chuckling. [I would not trade the one I have for all the money in the world.] These events are not delusions of grandeur. They certainly feel like it sometimes but the psychotherapist and medical doctor suitors assure me I am passing every reality check. I actually pull them out of the psychotomimetic delirium of pseudonomania and they are quite grateful about that. One told me that I am a psychotherapist. Well!
But something else Lewis said, about me spinning this all up as I go. I forget how he put it. Now for all the readers who do not respond with a Reply, I suspect you are getting some entertainment value out of this Internet yarn.
I had not noticed how few people make responses. In fact, if I do not like the response, I consider it a nuisance. But like I have said, you may attack and if you hold any credibility I may explain or even put up a defense. As for James Robert, nope. He insists on falsity so I am smart to steer clear of his arguments.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Without further research, I am certain that "Allehu" is a deviation (probably Aramaic like you say) of Elohim. Hebrew has plenty of suffixes and prefixes. You can say an entire sentence in two words if you know suffixes and prefixes. Almost all the word roots are only three consonants long. So the vowels, while they have significance are lost in transliteration to English. Allehu and Elohim are nearly the same word; Elohim being plural "gods". |
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Jul 2004 14:55:25 |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 18:00:55
|
How about this: if any of you know his Name as He Speaks it of Himself, can any one of you truthfully tell me that Yahu'w'veh Himself did stand before you, smile at you, and tell you verbally His Name so you can hear it?
Quibble, Quabble, a strife and envy over words, of which not a one out of millions invented by men, no, not a word invented, can carry the connotation of truth untainted by self-interpretation.
His Name is Unspeakable except by those to whom He has revealed it.
You may call Me Berkano, but that is not My Name: "unto him will be given a white stone whereupon a New Name is written, which no man knows save he that receiveth it . . ."
He, the Creator of All, the Almighty Father, writes his own unspeakable Name on your heart, in your hand, and on your forhead and marks you, seals you, as his, if you will let Him. Is His Name written on your heart and mind? Or do you seek a name that you can write onto a physical stone that you see with eyes, rather than the heart of stone softened by spirit? Hmmm?
Peace be with you,
-- Berkano
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 20:16:39
|
Dear Readers;quote:
Ishmael Aylwin said:
Are you really claiming that only the inheritors of Hebraic culture have keys to the Kingdom?
And the phrasing seems funny so I am presuming I understand. I wanted to think about that for a few minutes.
Mastering the machinations of process (without studying law and becoming an attorney and officer of the [bankruptcy] court) requires an understanding of physics and more, metaphysics. So if I understand the question, which I still am confused about, the answer is a resounding YES. That is what I am doing here. Since the beginning. Assessing who is competent to acquire the character of heir apparent in the current conveyance and disbursal (the bill of exchange is just a paper representation).
Metaphysics required for law link
The above snippet is from the notes at the end of "The Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas".
I think you are delineating that a man must become a suitor, or a Hebrew scholar and I reject those boundaries. I am saying a man must acquire a firm sense of identity and identifying the Creator for a sound relationship to ensue. But here on this Topic people say things like:quote:
His Name is Unspeakable except by those to whom He has revealed it.
And that, to me is the biggest cop-out ever. That leaves as many Names for God as people who think they are having a back-door conversation with Him. That is the food-for-thought you gave with the question Ishmael Aylwin. That kind of recklessness is akin to Christian Qabbalah, this charismatic hypnosis and finger-pointing about who is demon possessed. Doesn't it make sense that God would reveal His Name through reliable sources like Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances? Which, by the way, all agree. Did two plagierize the first?
Regards,
David Merrill |
Edited by - David Merrill on 27 Jul 2004 20:34:17 |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2004 : 20:54:22
|
Greetings,
Are you insinuating that the rocket, nuclear, atomic, biology scientists, etc... are all experts In Law? I mean... there are millions of experts on all "fields," not to mention the millions "learning" on their educational institutions by these towering intellects and look to what has been happening. Surely, many have dropped the ball, wouldn't you say? Or simply these physics experts look the other way?
Would you say that The Christ, knew well when He told the pharisee hypocrites that their outward appearance looked clean, but the inside was filthy? I would. No Thing new... no thing.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 03:11:47
|
Dear David Merrill,
You too have piqued my curiosity. When I asked, "And, if you have found the Kingdom, how can it matter what name you use?" I assumed that one can enter the Kingdom without knowing a specific name.quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
I think you are delineating that a man must become a suitor, or a Hebrew scholar and I reject those boundaries. I am saying a man must acquire a firm sense of identity and identifying the Creator for a sound relationship to ensue. But here on this Topic people say things like:
I concur with your expression that the real issue is one of a man knowing his identity, and that of His maker without doubt. That is exactly what I was trying to point at. If this relationship exists, then I can't see how it matters what word he uses for His name. And, whatever word he does use, I imagine, would be perfect for the situation for which he is using it. The word literally becomes an operator used to produce a desired result, and is no longer a signifier. You might understand my position on this better if you read what I have written on the "Free Will?" thread.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=389
I never thought that a man must learn the Hebrew, it is exactly his relationship to himself and to Unity that ultimately matters, irrsepective of words. However, I may have misunderstood what you were saying, as I took you to say that only men who knew a certain Hebrew word, and its correct pronounciation, could possibly have the correct relationship. That is what I claim to be false. Please forgive
me if I have misunderstood you. All scientific theories aside, I would need to see real evidence before I could even consider that their is only one absolute true name for Him. I can not conceive of limiting Him in that way. That a specific name has power in a certain time under certain circumstances, would not satisfy my need for evidence that it was the one and only correct name for all times
and all circumstances. I may be proven wrong, but I find just thinking of the idea quite humorous.quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Doesn't it make sense that God would reveal His Name through reliable sources like Strong's, Young's and Richardson's concordances? Which, by the way, all agree. Did two plagierize the first?
"Reliable" sources, like words for God tend to be quite culture bound. As for which Concordance is more correct for Aramaic, ones that Westerners have developed, or one by the continuous users of Aramaic is an argument I have neither the time nor resources to get into. It is quite possible that two of the Western Concordances plaigerized the first. I have not done any research to have an opinion
about that, but it would not be the first time that it happened in scholarship.
Quotes like the following mean nothing to me, and that is what I am happy to take from them. Logically, once His name is revealed, it could also be spoken, by anyone who heard it. (It is possible the author considers that as an acceptable kind of revelation, too.) This would not necessarily give someone repeating the name the right relationship, though, and that _is_ what matters.quote:
His Name is Unspeakable except by those to whom He has revealed it.
Your response below, to the quote above, is differrent than mine. For me it is not a cop-out, but simply ignorance. I am lost about the relationship between the "cop-out", what I wrote, and Christian Qaballah. I will concur that "finger-pointing about who is demon possessed," is not a good thing. I see any one taking such actions as primarily ignorant, even if dangerous as well.quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
And that, to me is the biggest cop-out ever. That leaves as many Names for God as people who think they are having a back-door conversation with Him. That is the food-for-thought you gave with the question Ishmael Aylwin. That kind of recklessness is akin to Christian Qabbalah, this charismatic hypnosis and finger-pointing about who is demon possessed.
I am happy to have given you food-for-thought. You have offered banquets for thought to the rest of us. I never meant to suggest that all names claimed to be His name were accurate. What I was claiming is that the right relationship
is not dependent on any specific form of His name. Those are two very different ideas. If you thought I was claiming all names as valid, I see the connection, I could not see above between the "cop-out", what I have written, and Christian Qaballah, but it is based on a miscommunication.
Thanks & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 05:57:46
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
Please forgive me for my sluggish and vague Replies. You said it plainly in your latest Reply:
quote:
All scientific theories aside, I would need to see real evidence before I could even consider that their is only one absolute true name for Him. I can not conceive of limiting Him in that way.
Thank you for pointing out the Pseudonomania. The noun in specific.
quote:
A form of insanity characterized by a morbid propensity for lying.
I have been speaking on the premise that we all understand God has only one name. The image of God within us demands we each have only one true name. The Topic title makes no sense otherwise. Why are we arguing over the proper name for the Messiah if we agree he has more than one?
God and the Messiah each have only one name. That is the basis of monotheism. The Shema:
quote:
Hear O' Israel. The Lord our God is One Lord.
The Jewish have another common substitution for His only Name - H'Shem. This means in Hebrew; The Name.
Thank you for explaining so eloquently why so many of you do not see my simple point about where to find it; the Name. You actually accuse the divine Creator of dichotomy and even multiple personality (disorder), to have more than one name. Dabbling in polytheism; probably out of projections of your own identity crisis (Robert James with three names etc).
I implore you all to accept that the Godhead has only one name. Also that each of you reading has only one name. I have been wondering how eight Pages of this debate can be generated all to deviate from the obvious truth. Now I think I have the answer.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Now I am starting to wonder if the dichotomy Christians project onto Yehovah stems from deifying the Messiah. That makes wonderful sense all of a sudden. "God in the flesh" with a different name.
P.P.S. With these new revelations to hash over, I will probably be found on the "advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics" thread. Presuming anyone is interested.
http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=378&whichpage=2 |
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Jul 2004 10:08:17 |
|
|
|
iammai
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 12:30:18
|
Dear David Merrill,
There are elements of epistemology that you ignore.
Granted they are all artifacts of mind, but that is
what we have to use to discuss the issue at all. I
won't try and argue with your faith, but to put a name
to Him as His only true name, is to limit the truth of
his omnipresence and Unity. In Unity there is no
separation, not even for a name. To say there is only
one name is not the same as saying there is only one
God. So, I think your arguement that monotheism requires
a single name is a bit specious. The Shema is an excellent
basis for monotheism, but not in its interpretation as a
name, but in its interpretation as a light/vibration that
is co-extant with all of creation. It is exactly the belief
in a singel name for God, and all that goes with it, that
has led men to miss the truth of Unity, and needlessly
damage each other. A man who relates to a name, but has
not felt the truth of Unity is not in the fullness of
Kingdom.
I fully appreciate your sharings. I feel we have much in
common, yet are on different sides of a looking glass, or
the field of parallel universes. (Yes, more poetry. :)
I think for me that is enough said for this topic.
Take Care & God Bless!,
Ishmael Aylwin
-------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts are things
The story your living is the story your telling yourself
The map is not the territory |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 12:45:26
|
Dear Ishmael Aylwin;
I think you overlook the simple definition of NAME. See EPITHET, NICKNAME, TITLE, SURNAME, SLANG, SHINGLE, INFERENCE, CORPORATE SOLE, LEGAL NAME etc. etc. Of course there is only one true name for God. It is inconceivable to me that this somehow limits Him. I suppose that is because God is in my mind unlimited and unlimitable. The concept of monotheism is in my opinion stengthened by the fact He only has one name.
I apologize that this premise has been the source of my contention. That there could be so much confusion about the true name of God and the Messiah. I thought we were debating what that true name is. Now, if representative of others I have been arguing with, it turns out that many people here think there can be many names.
It defies logic (to me, anyway) that we have been debating which of many different names is the true name for Yehoshuah. I thought we were trying to select the one true name. So therefore I was suggesting authentic sources like concordances and respected lexicons. So I said contentious things to people for not doing it the way we do it in the "real world".
So I am sorry for my presumption about Christianity or whatever being monotheistic. But by definition, I think you will find with things, especially proper nouns like names are clearly called by one true name.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 28 Jul 2004 13:25:16 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 18:45:27
|
I know a brother who calls the Master Teacher, "Immanuel", which I find no fault with.
Paul heard the name, on the road to Damascus, when he asked, "who art thou"? in the hebrew tongue. Yahushuah was the word he heard. Then again the Father-Son are Spirit. Proverb's 30:4.
To Darling David, neighbor I never use the prefix yehu.
You do, not me. Read slower, it may help. HalleluYah.
Like in i-o-w-a. Yahuwah. Vibrations. Ejaculations from the ADAM'S apple.
You never read my post's...liar, liar, pant's on fire?
Lighten up pal.
Iammai,
Allah is certainly interesting...as a word name.
Melchisedec [english rendition] was the Priest of El Elyon. {Our Arab friend's can not comprehend how the Most High could have a son, i.e. that would mean the Most High was 'married'. And He was, to Wisdom. This concept still is the stumblingstone that trip's them up.They seem to want to defend the honor of "Allah" as ONE, rather than understand that Father want's to produce a family...which is the whole purpose of being here. One Family, Yahushuah being the Firstborn son, among many.}
The Creator of the universe can be compared to nothing, but, we preceive Him as a diamond, many faces cut to perfection, each face reflecting His Glory.
Our ancestor's, at times, are and were accused of worshipping the sun. The sun is but a symbol of...in the natural...the lifegiver.
I also know a brother who call's him, Jesus. This same brother travel's about daily without tag's and license plate's...for five year's now, nary a pullover. {Daniel-Jacob}. He pray's for Jesus to blind the AGENT'S eyes.
Who am I to judge my brother?
We are here to help one another to come into the full redemption that has already been provided.
Unles one believes as a child.
Certainly Yahushuah called His Father...abba. And he was hated by the Jew's of his day, for using the tetragram casually. Yahuweh is The covenant God of scripture fame. YHWH is the symbol of this.
Name sake...a fine study.
Most people call me Bob, a pet name. Now, if I go play in a COURT, this is another matter.
Question: do you folk's tithe into a treasury of Israel your 10% to care for widow's and the helpless? For brethern coming out of Babylon. Don't answer me, answer El Elyon.
Wisdom from above is first Peaceable...
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 18:45:27
|
Dear Readers,
It is new and under trial but quite a fully functional mental construction you have delivered to me - reciprocal confirmation between legal name/true name and Father/Messiah; even multiple names for both Yehovah and Yehoshuah. Dualities can be blended together in confusion or become distinct in lucidity. This answers why abatements for misnomer fail sometimes. After a few days amid the confusion of jail or threatening letters from the IMFIRS, the former dichotomy (legal name/true name) seems not to matter. To many, the latter (Father/Messiah) never did and many are willing to die for the belief that Jesus is God. So if a man can have more than one name, why not Yehovah? Or Yehoshuah?
But anything other than true name is misnomer. Misnomer is a fatal error in any court.
I truly am grateful and also apologize about all the stuff I said, all the while presuming that you saw this concept the same way I do. Something brought me back here curious how pages could be filling with such a two-minute no-brainer in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 19:37:50
|
Oh, Oh, Oh . . . .
Thoughts and miscellany . . .
So much strife over a word. Words are the imperfect inventions of men who try to convey that which transcends speech. With God Almighty, His words are not spoken with the mouth but with the whole heart and soul. His are words of love. He is not in the business of restricting the freedom of others to get lost in inane human thought. He is above that. Go to Him, and He will go to you. Call on his Name with your heart, and with your actions, not with your mouth . . . "in that day, they will call me Lord, Lord, but I will say, depart from me ye workers of iniquity. . ." Do his will, seek to enoble others instead of yourself, and only then will he inspire others to love and care for you in your time of need.
Some insecure men may use this kind of forum to show others how smart they are. Let each man instead testify of his own ignorance and of the greatness of God's mind, for God comprehends it all.
Without His Almighty Mind moving Me, I know nothing worthy of notice.
I love you all even if I think so much talk can be a waste of time when you could just get together and work for each other in building up your dreams of peace and plenty. Some of you are my brothers and friends and to see you verbally cut each other apart like monsters pains me. It pains me worse to see the most courageous slandered by one who does not understand him and his heart.
Seek to know yourselves better instead of being so ready to instruct everyone else. Know yourself, know who you are and whom you serve, and you will find Salvation.
BTW, Robert-James is correct, eeya-ou-wa (i-o-w-a) is closest to His name as it was spoken by those who saw Him face-to-face. Another name He answered to is Ah-men (Amen), or Aumen. Do not limit Him where he has not limited Himself or you. He does have more than one *spoken* name, but only One Real Name.
I answer to over a half-dozen pet names that assorted people have given me as tokens of our bonds to each other. Does that make me "schizo" as was suggested earlier? A name is a note, mark, token, given to one in subjection by one in authority over him. To make a friend is to delegate authority to him or her over you, even the authority to command your attention when he or she calls your name.
When you play court, you've gotta be careful of what name you answer to, and you've got to explain it to preserve honor on both sides.
Peace be with you,
-- Berkano
|
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2004 : 20:08:30
|
Greetings Robert-James and all,
It is my belief that the reason we are here is to absorb the good and separate from that which is evil. Many here have felt the wrath of the criminaly insane possesive tricks of their trade... therefore to visit here and teach ways to come out, is of vital im-portance between Life and death.
Some have had their seeds torn from them via the wretched middle-men/women, along with much labours and patience and love for His Truth along the way.
It is my belief that those whom critisize what we learn and condemn the "not so popular" ways to keep away, have evil sentiments and even be of that same mob whom screamed "crusify Him... crusify Him!" for it was those which by their mistaken believes thought they could hide behing the rocks. Little did they know yesterday as well as today, that "quick fixes" are like blowing The Breath of Life Into a fire to at-tempt to extinguish.
We are witnessing a world where the evil ones think they can "kick ass and take names" (pardon my English), but fail to realize that The Truth cannot be hidden, and will come right back to haunt them and bite them on their glutimus maximus.
I ask myself... what logic is there for seeing this way? Well... simply because I am a sinner, and everytime I over indulged myself with that which was toxic, I ended up throwing it back out. But then, understanding that dogs return to their own vomit, then and only then did I see and felt the difference between being a man created In His image versus an actors inventions.
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
His name is not Yahushua
