Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
The Hebrew word for salvation, יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah, is a FEMININE NOUN. It cannot possibly be a name for Jesus unless he was a woman. Nouns in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine and the word for "salvation" is a feminine noun. Missionaries ignore pesky little facts in their zeal to missionize. There was a Hebrew name which is similar to יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah, and that is the name יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a (masculine) -- but do we know for a fact that Jesus' Hebrew name was יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a? No, not at all. Indeed it is very unlikely to have been his name based on what we DO know. All the writings about Jesus were in Greek. There is no known Hebrew name for him. So all the modern "Hebrew Christians" who insist on calling Jesus "Yeshua" are simply making up a name based on nothing really. Based on, what, the HOPE that his name meant salvation? As already pointed out the word for salvation is feminine! The word for salvation, יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah, and the name יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a are spelled differently. Notice not only the heh (ה) at the end of the word for salvation, but notice to that the Masoretic symbols (cantillation) representing vowels (Hebrew is spelled without vowels) are DIFFERENT as well. So while some consonants are similar (with יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah ending with a heh / ה and the name ending with an ayin (עַ) the vowels are different -- changing the pronunciation. The two words' pronunciation is very different: the vowel of the first syllable of יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a is tzéré, a full-valued vowel having the sound of the "ay" in the English word bay and the accented syllable is the שֽׁוּ -shu-, whereas the yod in יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah is pointed with sh'va na, a "snatched" half-vowel that has no sound of it's own and causes the yod to be subsumed into the compound syllable y'shu-, and the stress in this case falls on the final syllable, -ah. There were men named יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a 2000 years ago -- but given what we DO know of Jesus' Greek names it could not have been his Hebrew name. How do we know that Jesus' Hebrew name (if he had one) can't even be יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a? When a Hebrew word or name is transliterated into Greek letters, iota (I,ι) takes the place of the Hebrew letter י yod and sigma (Σ,σ or ς at the end of a word) replaces the Hebrew ש shin (because Greek lacks both consonants y and sh); furthermore in Greek, men’s names regularly end with -s (e.g. Ἀρίσταρχος Arístarchos, Ἀρχιμήδης Archimēdes, etc). The Greek version of יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a would be Jesuas, not Jesus. Also, salvation in the T'nach always refers to our physical lives being saved from danger. Our immortal souls do not need saving. The meaning of יְשׁוּעָה in the Scriptures is very different from the way it is misused in by Christian missionaries. In Hebrew, it simply means being “rescued” from danger—typically by the rescuer engaging in physical combat (fighting) with an assailant who is attacking the person being “saved”. In the T'nach, “saving” is almost always associated with “fighting” or “waging war”.... I refer you to any or all of the following examples: • “Just stand still and you’ll see HaShem’s salvation that He is going to do for your today....” (Sh'mot / Exodus 14:13) • “HaShem saved Israel from Egypt’s power that day....” (Sh'mot / Exodus 14:30) • “HaShem set up a savior for Israel—Otniyél ben K'naz, Kalév’s younger brother....” (Shoftim / Judges 3:9) • “HaShem set up a savior for them—Éhud ben Géra the Bin-y'mini, who had a deformed right hand....” (Shoftim / Judges 3:15) • “....and he, too, saved Israel....” (Shoftim / Judges 3:31) • “If You will save Israel through my hand, as You have spoken....” (Shoftim / Judges 6:36) • “....you didn’t save me from them....and, when I saw that you hadn’t saved me....” (Shoftim / Judges 12:2-3) • “HaShem saved Israel that day....” (Shmuel 1 / 1 Samuel 14:23) • “....so David saved the inhabitants of K'ilah....” (Shmuel 1 / 1 Samuel 23:5) • “HaShem is my Light and my Salvation-- Whom should I fear? HaShem is the fortress of my Life-- Whom should I dread? If evil men approach me To devour my flesh-- [When] my adversaries and my enemies [attacked] me-- Wow! They stumbled and fell! If an army encamps against me My heart will not be afraid; If war breaks out against me-- On this [assurance] I can rely!” (T'hillim / Psalm 27:1-3) The above verses (and these are only a selection—there are many, many more) demonstrate how the verb save and nouns savior, salvation are used in the T'nach, which is nothing like the way christians use them.... The only reason that Christians pretend Jesus' Hebrew name was “Y'shua” is so they can claim that his name meant “salvation”.... but they conveniently forget that the very man to whose throne they pretend he was the heir warned us with biting sarcasm about him: “Do not trust in princes, in the son of men, who has no salvation. His spirit leaves, he returns to his soil; on that day, his thoughts are lost." T'hillim / Psalm 146:3-4). In D'varim / Deuteronomy 33:29 Moses said we are “a nation that has been saved by HaShem” and Y'shayahu / Isaiah 45:17 says the Jewish nation “has been saved by HaShem”, adding that “this is an eternal salvation”). Note that, in both verses, the words used were “has been saved” or "continually being saved." So we don't NEED Jesus to save us -- G-d has saved / is saving us continually, B"H! The Hebrew word used in both verses is נוֹשַׁע nosha, which is a nif 'al (passive) participle and literally means “being saved”. This form, although it may appear to be in the present tense, actually denotes a continuous state, independent of time, that has always existed in the past, still exists in the present, and will continue to exist into the future. Remember. . . “Do not trust in princes, in the son of men, who has no salvation. His spirit leaves, he returns to his soil; on that day, his thoughts are lost." T'hillim / Psalm 146:3-4).
2 Comments
It might surprise you to know that no one knows what Jesus' Hebrew name might have been. All the early writings about Jesus are written in Koine Greek. Although some Christians think they might have originally been written in Hebrew, no early Hebrew texts exist. It is pretty unlikely that they were written in Hebrew as most of the biblical "quotes" are from Greek translations and not from the Hebrew. . . Having said that, no one knows what Jesus' Hebrew name might have been (if he existed at all). It became popular in the 1970s, when the "Hebrew Christian" movement took hold, to say that Jesus Hebrew name was form יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a. There is a Hebrew name form יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a -- it is a masculine name of a few people mentioned in the Talmud (none of whom lived at the time of Jesus -- some predate him by hundred years, others post-date him). But that name won't "work for Jesus. Ἰησοῦς / Iesous (the Greek name given for Jesus in all the early papyri) would equate to the Aramaic יֵֽשׁוּ / Yéshu. It does not and cannot represent the Hebrew form יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a because Ἰησοῦς / Iesous would transliterate into "Jesuas" (not Jesus). Have you ever seen any Christians call Jesus “Jesuas”? Why do so many missionaries want to insist that יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a was Jesus' Hebrew name? Because they want to "tie" him to the Hebrew word for "salvation." The Hebrew word for salvation, יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah, is a FEMININE NOUN. Nouns in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine (there is no "gender neutral). Although the words are spelled somewhat similarly they are not the same word. Notice the spelling difference? יֵשֽׁוּעַ (yud-shin-vav-ayin) is not the same as יְשׁוּעָה (yud-shin-vav-ayin-heh). Notice too that the vocalizations are different -- so although some consonants are similar, the vowels are different. The two words' pronunciation is very different: the vowel of the first syllable of יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a is tzéré, a full-valued vowel having the sound of the "ay" in the English word bay and the accented syllable is the שֽׁוּ -shu-, whereas the yod in יְשׁוּעָה y'shu'ah is pointed with sh'va na, a "snatched" half-vowel that has no sound of it's own and causes the yod to be subsumed into the compound syllable y'shu-, and the stress in this case falls on the final syllable, -ah. But we know without a doubt that although there were men named יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a -- it could not possibly have been a Hebrew name for Jesus. How do we know that Jesus' Hebrew name (if he had one) can't even be יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a? When a Hebrew word or name is transliterated into Greek letters, iota (I,ι) takes the place of the Hebrew letter י yod and sigma (Σ,σ or ς at the end of a word) replaces the Hebrew ש shin (because Greek lacks both consonants y and sh); furthermore in Greek, men’s names regularly end with -s (e.g. Ἀρίσταρχος Arístarchos, Ἀρχιμήδης Archimēdes, etc). The Greek version of יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a would be Jesuas, not Jesus. So, no, Jesus' Hebrew name is not "salvation." IF Jesus had a Hebrew name it would be a shortened version of Joshua / יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ /Y'hoshua. Joshua / יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ /Y'hoshua started to be shortened to יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a during the Babylonian Exile period, and this was shortened still further to יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu in the post-Biblical period after the Return (it is sometimes claimed by certain christians that this form is an insult and “stands for” the Hebrew phrase יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ yimmaḥ sh'mo v'zichro “may his name and memory be blotted out”, but this simply isn’t true). It is a bit ironic that missionaries insist that Jesus' Hebrew name is יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a. Erchin 32b Gemara (commentary in the Talmud) points out that that the verse writes Joshua / יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ /Y'hoshua's name without the letter "Heh" ( יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshu'a). The Gemara says the missing "heh" has a negative connotation; it implies that Y'hoshua should had the Jews observe Sukkot earlier. This is based on Nechemiah / Nehemiah 8:17: "And all the congregation of the returnees from the captivity made booths and dwelt in the booths, for they had not done so from the days of Jeshua the son of Nun until that day, and there was exceedingly great joy." How does the Gemara infer this from the missing letter "Heh" letter "Heh" in Y'hoshua's name? Joshua / יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ / Y'hoshua lost an opportunity for the Jews to perform a very important mitzvah (Sukkot). Thus the "heh" was removed from his name in the verse as a way of showing that he did not fulfill the potential given to him by Moshe Rabeinu (Moses). So why missionaries would pick a name which is considered diminished in honor is anyone's guess! Some missionaries claim that Rabbis have no authority. These are the same people who seem to think that rabbis appeared one day, fully formed -- a bit like the Greek goddess Athena who was born an adult woman from the head of Zeus. Just where do they think rabbis came from? Thin air? But I digress. . . Only priests, the missionaries say, had authority. (They seem to be unaware that Jewish priests still exist). . . These uneducated missionaries reason that only the priests had authority to teach or to make legal decisions. This is an out and out lie, easily disproved by reading the bible. Members from all the tribes have always been the shepherds, judges and leaders of the Jewish nation. Let's just name a few:
Those are just a few, to point out that the priestly role did not make them the sole teachers or judges of the Jews, let alone our rulers. Rabbis are mentioned in the Torah (just not by that term) – they are the judges and the teachers (just as they are today). They were the men Moses told you to listen to! The system of justice (rabbis are judges), then as now, follows the mitzvot (the "do" and "do not" rules) in the Torah -- this includes how courts are established and how they "operate." The Jewish system of judges began under Moses. Read Sh’mot (Exodus) chapter 18: “'Whenever they have a problem, they come to me. I judge between man and his neighbor, and I teach G-d's decrees and laws.'.(remember -- Moses was NOT a priest). . . But you must [also] seek out from among all the people capable, G-d-fearing men - men of truth, who hate injustice. You must then appoint them over [the people] as leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens. 'Let them administer justice for the people on a regular basis. Of course, they will have to bring every major case to you, but they can judge the minor cases by themselves. They will then share the burden, making things easier for you. If you agree to this, and G-d concurs, you will be able to survive. This entire nation will then also be able to attain its goal of peace.'” Sh’mot / Exodus 18:16-23. From the time of Moses to today there have been Rabbis (teachers / judges) from all the tribes who teach and mete out justice. Every single generation from Moses to today had judges / teachers who have maintained the Torah and Jewish law. There has never been a break in that chain. That is right, "Rabbinical Judaism" has been handed down לדור ודור / l'dor v'dor (from generation to generation). Missionaries insist that only the priests can teach? Someone better tell G-d: "'[G-d] also gave to him and Oholiav son of Achisamakh, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach [others]." Sh'mot / Exodus 35:34. Moses said to the Jews (not just the priests): "Now, Israel, listen to the rules and laws that I am teaching you to do, so that you will remain alive and come to occupy the land that G-d, L-rd of your fathers, is giving you. . .Teach your children and children's children. . ." D'varim / Deuteronomy 4:1-9.Moses told the entire nation to teach Torah -- not just the priests. Some missionaries seem to think that the priests (kohanim) “ran things.” This is biblically and historically inaccurate (the priests did not run the Sanhedrin). . . All the tribes were represented in the government, and in the judicial system – as is clearly described in the bible itself. Judaism, Jews observant to the mitzvot in the Torah, have been handed down l’dor v’dor (from generation to generation) from the first Jews to the Jews of today. We actually have lists naming the leaders in each generation. . . So, when someone tries to tell you that the Rabbis changed the “law” (Torah) or invented things, re-read this post. Do a little reading of history for yourself. Lies work only when the truth remains untold. Many missionaries say that "Jesus was without sin." They say this because how could the "perfect sacrifice" be perfect if he sinned? Yet the Christian bible is replete with examples of Jesus sinning -- from lying, to breaking various mitzvot, to dishonoring his parents, to stealing. Stealing? Yes, and encouraging his followers to steal as well. "Not far away there was a large herd of pigs feeding. 31 So the demons begged Jesus, "If you are going to drive us out, send us into that herd of pigs." 32 "Go," Jesus told them; so they left and went off into the pigs. The whole herd rushed down the side of the cliff into the lake and was drowned. 33 The men who had been taking care of the pigs ran away and went into the town, where they told the whole story and what had happened to the men with the demons." Matthew 8:30-33. Here we have a clear case of Jesus stealing a herd of pigs. Why do I say he stole them? Well, ask yourself: did these pigs belong to Jesus? Nope. Those pigs didn't belong to Jesus per the Christian bible. Are pigs wild? No, they are domesticated meaning they belonged to someone. Were they running wild? Also “no.” The Christian bible tells us "Those tending the pigs ran off” Matthew 8:33. So clearly the pigs belonged to someone -- they were being tended. They were not wild. They belonged to someone! Destroying those pigs without buying them first constitutes STEALING. I’ve had Christians say to me “but the men were possessed! Jesus saved them!” Surely a third of a triune god could kill the demons without destroying some innocent person’s property and thus stealing it (breaking the law against stealing). Why couldn't he simply destroy the demons? Why not just command them to leave? And the Christian bible says there were two men possessed and a “herd” of swine. A “herd” indicates more than two, so why kill the whole herd? Why not just put the demons into two pigs and be done with it? (Still stealing, even if just two!). Here is what Torah says about stealing: Sh'mot / Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal." Sh'mot / Exodus 21:37 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep." The Christian bible says Jesus left town. He didn’t pay restitution for the theft of the pigs. The rule of four-fold and five-fold payments applies only to a bull and a lamb. [From B.K. 67b], but the Torah it says that a thief must return the stolen property at all costs -- and Jesus did not return the stolen pigs (they drown!) or repay the cost of them. . . Let's say that Jesus was not "all knowing" (not much of a god!) and the “theft” of the pigs was unintentional. . . after all he was trying to get rid of those pesky demons! Even in the case of an unintentional theft, such as someone who has borrowed money or an item from someone else and forgotten to repay it, we remain with the Din of the Torah that the owner or lender must be located at all costs and the buyer or borrower must bring the item or money to him. Jesus never compensated the man for the monetary loss of those pigs! Theft is theft. This isn't minor. It isn't a gnat. It is a perfect example that Jesus SINNED and stole a man's private property without paying for it. Whether the theft of those pigs was intentional or not (and Jesus knowingly put those demons into pigs owned by someone else) he was obligated to make sure that he is paid at all costs, and even if he would have had to travel to the seller’s home at a higher expense than the amount owed, he was obligated to do so. And he didn't. He sinned. There is a second story in the Christian bible where Jesus condones theft. Remember the donkey Jesus told his followers to steal? . . . Well, everyone but Matthew says it was a donkey. With typical contradiction found constantly in the Christian bible Matthew says Jesus stole a donkey and her colt). “. . . Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the L-rd needs them, and he will send them right away. . .7 They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.” Matthew 21:1-7. A donkey (and or colt) who are tied up obviously belong to someone. Jesus also obviously did not own them or have permission to “borrow” them since Matthew clearly says “if anyone asks you. . .” So Jesus told his men to steal a donkey and / or colt “take them” not “pay for them.” So I guess if you’re caught stealing say G-d wants them! The Christian bible says Jesus left town. He didn’t repay five head of swine for every pig he killed. So he broke another law – he didn’t repay five fold. Vayikra / Leviticus 19:11 " 'Do not steal. " 'Do not lie. " 'Do not deceive one another." D'varim / Deuteronomy 5:19 "You shall not steal. Some missionaries say "but Jesus was (fill in the blank: god, the son of god, the messiah, etc.) so it wasn't a sin! The Christian bible says differently: "G-d sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law." Galatians 4:4. The law he was born under was JEWISH law (he was Jewish, remember?). To read more about biblical requirements regarding repayments for theft, please see the article "Theft and Robbery" at the Jewish Virtual Library website (link). So much for the sinless Jesus. This is simply one example. There are many more. The Torah tells us to honor our parents -- Jesus left his parents for days without telling them where he went. He refused to see his mother very rudely, he lied to his brothers. . . he even told a man whose father was dying to leave his father and go with him. Matthew 10:37 goes so far as to say "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." This is a sin! The bible does not say "honor your father and mother, but honor Jesus more"! These two (stealing and not honoring parents) are just two from a long list of sins of Jesus -- but even one sin shows that Jesus was not "without sin." Just because someone was born a Jew does not mean that they are teaching Judaism and Torah. Karl Marx was a Jew -- are you a communist? If not, why not? After all, Karl Marx was a Jew! Jews in the T'nach (bible) worshiped the false gods of Ba'al and Moloch -- do Christians think they should worship Ba'al and Moloch because some Jews chose that idolatrous path? That makes about as much a sense as a missionary saying "believe in Jesus because he was a Jew!" Jesus (and Paul moreso) taught against the mitzvot in the Torah -- including the one to honor parents -- and just check out how Jesus changed the mitzvah regarding divorce! D'varim / Deuteronomy 13 warns us not to listen to someone who changes the mitzvot in the Torah -- even if that person is "your blood brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly tries to act as a missionary among you." So we are warned not to listen to the lies of the Christian bible, most specifically the argument that we should do so "because Jesus was a Jew" goes against the very words of D'varim / Deuteronomy 13:7. As for Christians being grafted in -- stuff and nonsense. Can Syrians coming to America call themselves Americans -- or is it up to American law to determine who is and is not a citizen of its own country? Are Christians "grafted in"? According to Paul we Jews are not in "the tree". We have been broken off. Romans 11:17-21 (NIV) "If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if G-d did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either." Thus, the gentiles haven't been grafted in "with the Jews" but per Paul we were "broken off" -- the Christians are there in replacement of us (replacement theology). All Jewish unbelievers in Jesus. In essence, Jesus has taken over G-d's "tree" and Christians have taken our place in that "tree" -- even though time and again G-d tells us that His covenant with us Jews is ETERNAL. It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah received at Sinai will never be changed nor become obsolete. This concept is mentioned in the Torah no less than 24 times, with the words: "This is an eternal law for all generations" (Sh'mot / Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Vayikra / Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Bamidbar / Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, and D'varim / Deuteronomy29:28). Link. "He remembers His covenant forever, the word He had commanded to the thousandth generation, 9. Which He had made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac, 10. And He set it up to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an EVERLASTING COVENANT" T'hillim / Psalms 105:8-10 It is hard to imagine a less appropriate metaphor than "grafting" (or "grafted in"), because G-d specifically forbids Jews to graft any plants or trees. Moreover, the prohibition is not "just an invention of the Rabbis" but is written explicitly in the Torah in plain language: שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָֽיִם "Keep My decrees: Do not crossbreed your livestock with other species. Do not plant your field with different species of seeds." (Vayikra / Leviticus 19:19) and לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָֽיִם "Do not plant different species in your vineyard. [If you do so] the yield of both the crops you planted and the fruit of the vineyard will be forfeit." (D'varim / Deuteronomy 22:9). It is noteworthy that the word scion, which properly means a shoot or twig that has been cut for use in grafting, can also be used in English to designate the illegitimate child of a member of the nobility. In other words -- a graft is not legitimate. When a missionary tells you that they love the Jews, and have been grafted in "with us", they are misrepresenting Paul's message. Paul's message is that Jews observant and faithful to G-d and to His Torah have been replaced for "unbelief" in Jesus, in total violation to the words of the bible itself. |
Categories
All
|