Thursday, January 08, 2009
FACTBOX-Emerging Gaza ceasefire plan
08 Jan 2009 15:33:52 GMT
Jan 8 (Reuters) - Israel, Hamas and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have entered talks with Egypt to try to iron out the terms of a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Western diplomats predicted a difficult negotiation ahead. Israel is seeking international and regional security guarantees to ensure Hamas cannot rearm.
The Palestinians, in turn, want Israel to end its crippling blockade of the aid-dependent coastal enclave.
You need to find a carrot for both sides. That's the only way it will work," said a senior European diplomat. Hamas officials in Gaza said the group was still considering the plan, denying reports that they had rejected it. Based on interviews with diplomatic and political sources, here are the main components of the emerging ceasefire plan:
CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES
Once agreement is reached, Israel would unilaterally end its military operation, though it is unclear how quickly. Before stopping, it may opt to widen its ground offensive. Israel will not enter into any formal ceasefire with Hamas because, it believes, doing so would only bolster the Islamist group's standing, both at home and abroad. As Israel pulls out, Egypt and other Arab states would get Hamas to stop firing rockets. The Islamist group said the rockets would stop if Israel would
lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip and halt cross-border raids.
This is the important issue for Israel. Talks have centred on a proposed international deployment along the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt to help prevent the Islamist group from bringing in more rockets and funds. Israel wants the deployment to include both armed forces and experts that can search out and destroy tunnels along the narrow Philadelphi corridor, which separates the two sides. Israeli aircraft have dropped bunker-buster bombs along the corridor, and large numbers of nearby Palestinian homes have been destroyed. Israel's stated goal is to destroy as many of the underground passages as possible. The unstated aim may be to widen the no-man's land between Gaza and Egypt for future border fortifications, both above and below ground. Israel and Western powers are also discussing a naval contingent to prevent smuggling by sea. But differences remain.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said hunting for tunnels would "be done probably with technology, not with people". Israeli officials say advanced sonar can detect some tunnels but they were sceptical technology alone would prevent Palestinians from rebuilding them.
Unwilling to compromise on its sovereignty, Egypt has raised objections to armed international forces on its side of the border but would accept teams of technical advisers that would oversee the hunt for tunnels. Formal consent for any deployment on the Palestinian side of the border would come from President Mahmoud Abbas, who is bitterly at odds with Hamas. But Hamas objections could make their work impossible.
This is the most important issue for the Palestinians. The negotiations centre on reopening Rafah, Gaza's only border crossing with Egypt, under the auspices of Abbas's security forces and European monitors. Rafah has been largely closed since Hamas routed Abbas's secular Fatah forces and took full control of Gaza in June 2007. Unarmed European monitors have not returned to the border terminal since then. Reopening Rafah to passengers and some limited humanitarian supplies would give Abbas a foothold in Gaza. It would also meet a long-standing Hamas demand, though the group could object to being denied any role in border operations.
Abbas, the European Union and the United Nations want Gaza's main crossings with Israel -- Karni, Kerem Shalom, Sufa, Nahal Oz and Erez -- to be reopened to humanitarian goods. Abbas has long sought to retake control of the Palestinian side of the crossings. But it is unclear how much power Israel would be prepared to cede to Abbas or groups like the United Nations.
A senior European Union diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the bloc was not satisfied with merely combating the tunnels and was pushing for a broader monitoring and verification mission that would ensure both sides meet their obligations. The diplomat said this would include having monitors verify that Israel opens border crossings with the Gaza Strip to humanitarian and other goods. Israel has been cool to this idea. (Reporting by Adam Entous; Editing by Samia Nakhoul)
That "senior diplomat" clearly works for Javier Solana and is speaking for him words that Javier Solana has so far not chosen to publicly say. If the plan works, Javier Solana is likely to come out of this smelling like a rose. As I have said before, I sure wish Herb Peters were here to talk with me about it!
I decided to copy/paste my two replies to you from the previous thread this morning, because I wouold like to have an answer from you - and you tend to move quickly to new threads and overlook the previous ones.
My first post:
TO CONSTANCE (9:28 AM):
Re: "Jesus did say, 'I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'
It is a favorite New Age argument, you should know, to say Jesus never intended to start a religion."
I am absolutely shocked and appalled that you would, not only DENY, but twist around, the words of Jesus as CLEARLY stated in the following ORIGINAL and COMPLETE Sciptural passage in the Bible.
"And I say unto thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
It's as if you're calling Jesus a "New Ager" - AND denying that He started the Catholic Church and made Peter His first Pope all in one offensive post!!!
You owe Catholics everywhere an immediate apology!!!
My second post:
To Constance (9:22 AM):
Re: Your post to Joyce: "I am sorry that there is such nasty internet stalking of you on this board."
When are you going to wake up, Constance and face the reality that Joyce has been "stalking" both Orthodox Jews and Catholics ever since she came to this blog last April (9 MONTHS ago)???
Her non-stop inflammatory comments day in and day out - week after week - month after month can only be interpeted as a form of "stalking."
But, I guess you would only NOTICE (and chastise her for it) if her daily attacks were on Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans instead!!!
"Israel and Western powers are also discussing a naval contingent to prevent smuggling by sea. ...Egypt has raised objections to armed international forces on its side of the border but would accept teams of technical advisers that would oversee the hunt for tunnels..."
Joyce and Constance, in my own
opinion, would seem to agree that
it's not our respective denominations
that save us. It's our simple
belief in Jesus and our gratitude
to him, very simply. Religion
may be mostly good. But religion
doesn't save us. And there is
no religion on earth which is
flawless because they are
all: Jewish, Catholic and
Protestant, (and I don't know
enough about Islam to speak
for it ), they are all corruptable.
It's just "What did you do about
and " Who is Jesus to you ?"
It's about Jesus.
In Hebrew I'm told it's
But it's the same ONE.
A few of His credentials:
Eternal One of Jacob
Holy one of Israel
Son of God
Anointed of God
King of Kings
Lord of Lords
High Priest of the order of
Author and finisher of the faith
Bright morning star
Lamb of God
Lamb slain before the
foundation of the world
Ram of Consecration
He who holds the seven
Lion of the tribe of Judah
Bread of life
The good shepherd
The Way, the Truth and the Life
The still small voice of Elijah
Lover of my soul
and many many more...
Religion is usually tradition
filled. That's not necessarily
bad, but to be a friend of
Jesus is the goal and the hope
and the good religion
and it's within churches
but it's personal, then
corporate. Jesus is personal
He was personal with his
I don't expect my denomination
to save me. I love them though.
The body of Christ is invisible
on earth right now.
It's not made by hands.
I think that's what Joyce is saying.
I think that's what Constance is saying.
I like to call it Iconoclastic,
but whatever it is it
isn't an attack on Judaism
or Catholicism that's for sure.
My only issue with Joyce is her lack of RESPECT and her relentless non-stop attacks on Orthodox Jews and Catholics on a daily basis - period (nothing more).
I have always accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, but I have the right to continue to practice my traditional Catholic faith in peace.
I also have the right to participate in posting on this blog without being subject to Joyce's daily attacks on my Catholic faith.
If I were to start "rants" against Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. (which I would never dream of doing) - I can GUARANTEE you that the majority of the posters on this blog would be calling for Constance to delete my posts, block me, or - at the very least - strongly chastise me for my inflammatory comments.
There IS a double standard here.
and then there's apocrypha.
Does anyone know the Word of
God so well that they need
to "move on" to apocrypha ?
The depth and the width and the
breadth of the Bible is more
amazing, awesome, enlightening,
mystical, wonderful, enthralling,
and interesting than all the
many many apocryphal books,
combined, and then some.
Constance, you said:
"I mislead nobody. Moreover, it was you and your ilk that most likely misdirected Niki away from the Theosophical motivation of Martin Buber and into your own grand synthesis clearly designed to prepare people for what the New Agers call 'planetary initiation.'"
You posted on this blog:
"the Communitarian puzzle is a vital part of global governance mechanisms being put in place and Niki despite our differences over Israel and her false premise that it is a Zionist scheme -- This will finish that series."
That is an unsubstantiated, statement which impugns the quality of Niki's research, and damages her character.
In the simplest terms, ITS A LIE.
You have insisted that her reference to Martin Buber's Communitarianism, and his influence on Etzioni does not establish a connection with Zionism.
The common bond between Etzioni and Buber is their Zionism:
"Buber was a utopian Zionist. He believed strongly that the most important possibility for Zionism was in changing the relationships between people. He wrote powerfully in favor of Arab rights in Palestine." Jewish Virtual Library
Could I recommend the book?
The First Buber: Youthful Zionist Writing of Martin Buber, by Martin Buber
If you need more:
Google Zionist "Martin Buber" 29,000 results
"Martin Buber was an Austrian-born Jewish religious philosopher", but neither Niki or I have ever tried to make that an issue. In fact we have ignored that aspect of Buber.
Your information associating him with the New Age is not news. I made the connection between New Age, Communitarianism and Zionism no later than November 2006 when I wrote about it.
Constance, you need to retract your negative remarks against Niki and myself, which appear to be influenced by some aversion to having Zionism brought into this discussion on Communitarianism.
You accepted Niki's apology which means she forgave you, although your hurtful remark still stands against you.
By refusing retraction, you are implying that she has compromised her standards of truth by accepting your lie. And lets not kid ourselves, if it isn't true, then its a lie.
"Buber had been a Zionist since 1888, but as far back as 1918 (soon after in the Balfour Declaration the British recognized a Jewish National Home in Palestine) he rejected what he called the concept of "a Jewish state with cannons, flags and military decorations." He and his colleagues worked for a bi-national Palestine based not on a colonial alliance but on cooperation and parity between Jews and Arabs.
"A year after official Zionist policy achieved its aim of Jewish statehood in 1949, Buber expressed his fears that after the war peace, when it comes, will not be peace, a real peace which is constructive, creative (but) a stunted peace, no more than nonbelligerence, which at any moment, when any new constellation of forces arises, is liable to turn into war.
"And when this hollow peace is achieved, how then do you think you'll be able to combat "the spirit of militarism" when the leaders of the extreme nationalism will find it easy to convince the young that this kind of spirit is essential for the survival of the country? The battles will cease -- but will suspicions cease? Will there be an end to the thirst for vengeance? Won't we be compelled, and I mean really compelled, to maintain a posture of vigilance for ever, without being able to breathe? Won't this unceasing effort occupy the most talented members of our society"? (1949)." - What Sort of Peace?
Jewish Virtual Library
The First Buber: Youthful Zionist Writing of Martin Buber, by Martin Buber
Google Zionist "Martin Buber" 29,000 results
"Martin Buber was an Austrian-born Jewish religious philosopher"
Martin Buber's "Tales of the Hasid"
is a monumental work
of fiction / non-fiction.
Truth / Fiction
What is that ?
Is truth/fiction like the mixing of
the things of God with the
things of the pagan Canaanites,
Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites,
Hittites and yes the Perizzites
_in the Temple,? and how grievous
it was to the Lord ?
Where should I file the Buber
books in my library ?
Under: fictio-/non-fiction ?
Occasionally non fiction ?
With waht's been going on here of late,I'm almost ready to join Prince's sister and declare that I'm an Apostolic Pentecostal Jehovah's Witness Seventh-Day Adventist Jew.
I too miss Herb Peters and the valuble work he did. While Adam and Holy Pivec have done their best to make sure his work continued, its just not the same. Herb had a passion for his work and it showed. I barely got aquainted with his work before he passed, but have since grown to greatly appreciate the time he invested. I have shared this with no one except Hopper, but I had struggled with a few things regarding where the world was in corolation to prophecy. After many hours of prayer, I had a dream that was very prophetic. After much time spent in prayer for discernment it was actually a combination of he and Constance's work with much help from the Lord's spirit, that were direct answers to those prayers. It has been these same people who have since helped to point me in the right direction, when looking at world events. To both I owe a huge amount of thank yous. For keeping me looking in the right places, and helping me to stay tuned.
Are there different types of Catholics? Or are all Catholics Catholics? Please explain as I am very confused.
To someone else, who's preferably a historian and not a Jew, Catholic, Protestant or Indian Chief...
What is the difference between the terms Semite, Hebrew and Jew?
After all the garbage floating back and forth here in the past couple weeks, I am completely confused.
While I figure the answers will still confuse me, a simple historical answer is all I am searching for , AND PLEASE DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
I don't remember Tales of the Hasidim coming up in my previous search, but I went back for a second look and sure enough there it is.
Here's what it says:
Relevance of Hasidism
"Buber's explorations into Hasidism, the result of his resolve to become better acquainted with the Jewish tradition, led him into the spiritual dimension of Judaism and thereby into his mature philosophy. The Hasidic movement (hasid means pious) revitalized eastern European Jewry in the 18th century, although by Buber's time it had become isolated and fossilzed. Original Hasidism was a deeply joyous, world-affirming mysticism which sought God in a "hallowing of the everyday" and in human community. Buber believed this to be the essence of Judaism and of religion itself. Buber believed that the peculiar genius of Hasidic piety was the encounter with the divine in the midst of everyday life with its neighbor-to-neighbor responsibilities and joys. This insight, reinforced by existentialism's intense focus on concrete human life and ethical decision, provided the basis for Buber's "philosophy of dialogue," in which the presence of the divine Thou is encountered within, and for the sake of, the concrete relationships 'between man and man.'"
All medical records will be computerized within 5 years.
Schools will be modernized with computers, broadband will be expanded to remote areas, alternative energy will be expanded, infrastructure will be improved, unemployment benefits will be expanded.
"...more than any program or policy it is this spirit that will enable us to confront these challenges with the same spirit that has led previous generations to face down war, and depression and fear itself. And if we do, if we are able to summon that spirit again, if we able to look out for one another and listen to one another and do our part for our nation and our posterity....."
No mention of abolishing social security or medicaid that I heard.
I commend to all of you the words of St. Paul / Apostle Paul who called for CHARITY.
I am sorry, but I am seeing hatred, not charity in at least what I have read and it has been more directed towards Joyce than Joyce towards the rest.
The Catholics doing this need to go for the Rite of Reconciliation / Confession. The Protestants doing it I would commend getting down on their knees, confessing the sin and earnestly seeking forgiveness.
Then, go and sin no more!
The Scriptural test of antichrist is 1. A Denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) and a denial that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. I had a dear friend, now dead, a Catholic priest by the name of Vincent Miceli who wrote a book called THE ANTICHRIST. He said it best -- he is antichrist who divides Christ. Some Catholics meet that test, some Catholics don't. Some Protestants meet that test, some don't.
Catholic theology as expressed in the Nicene / Apostle creeds is fundamentally sound in my humble opinion.
Jesus did say he would build his church -- Catholics and Protestants disagree upon which rock: Peter / Petra (Catholic interpretation); Jesus as the 'cornerstone' - Protestant interpretation.
I have no doubt there would be those clamoring I would delete your posts and as you know by now, I do have starch in my spine and I would not succumb to those pressures unless the personal name calling, e.g. "Scientologist", "stalker" started. Then and only then I might reluctantly consider it.
"Five Fundamentals of the Faith: [from Berit's website
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20)."
Can we Christians be unified on these points? Isn't this Fundamentalism what the NAM wants us to compromise, and then eliminate?
The person who attacked you in the first comment on this thread, without thoroughly reading what you had written, sounds very much like the person that attacked me last week, without provocation. They shoot from the hip because they are trying to be divisive.
JD and others have encouraged me to continue posting here, and so I shall do that.
Yes, as Constance said, (in a slightly different way) there are some here who would be VERY surprised who the pot and kettle are. I am very glad that Constance has no osteoporosis in her spine!
Love can conquer all, and love is to Jesus, as hatred is to Satan.
You know, that erroneous info may have been posted by the same "anon" who stated that Obama had proposed Deeprak Chopra for a cabinet post, in a previous thread.
Maybe, just an attempt to spread disinformation.
Or, maybe they just read the report incorrectly!
"You posted on this blog:
"the Communitarian puzzle is a vital part of global governance mechanisms being put in place and Niki despite our differences over Israel and her false premise that it is a Zionist scheme -- This will finish that series."
"That is an unsubstantiated, statement which impugns the quality of Niki's research, and damages her character."
"In the simplest terms, ITS A LIE."
No Garner, you are the one lying here. Per Niki's pen:
"Communitarianism is Zionism. This is why most people avoid writing about it. This is its connection to Christianity. It's a bizarre, convoluted philosophical, economic, political and legal, global religion. And obviously, its God requires untold numbers of human sacrifices (including the real Semitic Jews)."
At least be honest with what you think rather than putting it out there then denying it.
The whole exchange has become petty and disgusting and really no longer serves a purpuse other than to argue and get the last word.
I personally found Niki to be a likable person as I listened to her broadcast on Constance's show. I am also very concerned for her and do not like what I am seeing take place here.
Bobby, you are not helping this situation one bit.
If I am not mistaken, I believe that Constance googled that erroneous information regarding Obama supposedly choosing Deepak Chopra for that cabinet post of Surgeon General.
So, Google got it wrong.
The correct answer was Dr. Sanjay Gupta (of CNN).
So, that original information did NOT come from an anonymous poster from her blog.
(However an anonymous poster just straightened YOU out. LOL)
He had such wonderful insight into all of this.
I went to buy tickets for the Empowering U event and it is cancelled due to a scheduling conflict! Hmmm....
I hope we will get to meet some other time. I have some materials I'd love to show you and get your opinion of.
I can't immediately think of another Protestant who has "confronted" Joyce but me. Are you asking me to ask forgiveness for something?
I graciously requested that Joyce be considerate in regards to her posts because she comes across as belittling and arrogant, at times, and I truly believe that it can hinder the Word of God rather than bless with the Word of God.
In this I feel no remorse for discussing it with her.
I have not attacked her, nor do I feel dislike in any way for her.
Open discussion and gentle reproof is a good measure to be utilized when offense is taken in matters such as religious differences.
By His Grace,
Thanks for providing the opportunity to put the whole thing in perspective:
"I can't [not allowed to] forget Zionism is an extremist racist political ideology cloaked behind the Holocaust religion [NOT Judaism]. I do believe a lot of innocent Jews died in WWII, but I don't believe in the Holocaust as a sacred, holy, untouchable, beyond questionable historical event. To me that's ridiculous. I also believe a lot of other nationalities and religious people died in WWII too. I'm sure the Japanese consider nuking cities something very much worth remembering, but they're not forcing me to bow before their shrines or pray to their God. I know my grandfathers honored their dead comrades buried at Normandy. It was a WORLD war and people died in horrible ways, en masse, across the globe.
"It's so horrible in Gaza now that even some leading Israelis are calling for an end to the Palestinian "holocaust," (but I only know that because I get Myers' email forwards). It's amazing that we are only "allowed" to hear the Bush/Obama Israeli's side of the Middle Eastern wars, wars they started with my countrymen's tax dollars, wars being fought by my country's sons (including my own... my 18 year old boy is a Marine now). The whole "free" Western world is fighting for the Zionist cause, shouldn't we know more about it? Hell no. The last thing we need is a bunch of taxpayers thinking they can comprehend an ancient dialectical conflict ideology.
"I'd still like to find out more about the "missing" 5 million Germans. I'm still trying to understand why the Americans handed Berlin's women and children over to the Soviet rapists for ten whole days. And I'm still trying to understand why NOBODY in the mainstream OR alternative press will write ANYTHING about Herr Doktor Amitai Etzioni's connection to the founders of the Mossad or his Zionist influence on US domestic AND foreign policy. In 1948 Etzioni was assigned to bring in the Irgun troops who some say murdered Arab women and children in the town of Dier Yassin.
"The Israelis didn't disband their "brownshirts," they brought them into the regular army. The REASON this matters to me is because the Israelis are training American military AND domestic COPS. The Israelis are training our local police to assassinate suspects in the U.S. The Israelis are training our local police to spy on our citizens and to create a database of all our most personal information. And since 2002 the US Supreme Court has been openly basing it's decisions on Talmudic Law.
"Communitarianism is Zionism. This is why most people avoid writing about it. This is its connection to Christianity. It's a bizarre, convoluted philosophical, economic, political and legal, global religion. And obviously, its God requires untold numbers of human sacrifices (including the real Semitic Jews).
"It's amazing how well the sides play out the deception. The stupid right wants you to think it's Soviet communism (which is only PART of the theory) and the equally stupid left wants you to think it's not worthy of a second glance. This is why nobody will explain EU case law to you or identify what KIND of law the International Court practices. We're never supposed to get the connection between the conflicting "sides." We're supposed to believe the International Court is above petty politics. We're supposed to believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will protect people the same way the U.S. Bill of Rights did (before the communitarians "balanced it). And we're required to believe the Israelis actually hail from the Middle East." - Is hating our enemies a crime enforced by our enemies?
I just read your post to Constance, sorry I'm not trying to but in. I just wanted to say that I find your answers and gentle spirit so refreshing and calming. I only hope that I can be as calm and Christ-like when I get tempted to speak out in haste or retaliation.
I am not in any way saying that I have issue with Joyce's posts, actually I like them because I get to consider things and learn things I may not have been exposed to before. I liked Dorothy's and others input for the same reasons.
Thank you for setting a fine example.
I have been exasperated with Joyce since last April. Please help me have more patience with her and "turn the other cheek" whenever she attacks the Catholic Church.
I can say, before God, that there is no "hatred" in my heart for anyone on this blog.
Even though I feel that I have been unfairly accused of "spreading disinformation" and/or "causing dissention" (if I make an error in judgement by misunderstanding or misreading a post), that is not my intention or what is in my heart.
I ask my accusers to please forgive me, as I also forgive them.
I actually got a frantic phone call from a family member about Obama canceling social security and Medicaid, I didn't think I posted it anon but perhaps in my rush I did. I checked the speech and he didn't mention it. It could have been another speech? Or like you said, misinterpreted.
The post about Deepak, I was alarmed when I first read it posted by ANON 9:26pm (A Nice word of Encouragement) then searched for it and posted 9:47pm that it was Gupta. Constance had the same reaction by her post at 10:54pm
UK e-mail law 'attack on rights'
Here it is...
"President-elect Barack Obama said today that reforming massive government entitlement programs — such as Social Security and Medicare — would be "a central part" of his effort to control federal spending."..."'We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part of those plans," Obama said. "And I would expect that by February in line with the announcement of at least a rough budget outline we will have more to say about how we're going to approach entitlement spending.'"
It was from yesterday, not today's speech.
By The Associated Press
Thu Jan 8, 1:30 pm ET
Chorus Call for a New World Order
Oh, that is just aweful.
Thanks. Now I can clarify that with my relative, and stay tuned.
You almost sound like Ahmadinejad with your hateful ranting against the 'Zionists.' You are obviously completely ignorant about the history of Israel and 'Palestine.'
Here is a suggestion: Why don't you go and spend many months traveling through Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iran. Then go and live in Israel for a few years. I have done just that.
In fact, my wife and I have sold our house and all our possessions and are moving to Israel in 4 weeks.
Israel is a shining beacon in a region full of nasty brutal dictatorships. Believe me - the 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel would not trade their Israeli citizenship for citizenship in any other M.E country!
I've spent all week at work defending Israel from ignorant fools like you. Stop watching CNN for a while and maybe you will learn what is really going on over there.
Thanks, I guess it might make sense to read through all the posts before replying to one or two. Great link to pass on.
And sorry I refered to you as "he" in another thread, but I have since figured out you are a lady.
May Yahweh God protect you and your family and guide you on your move and bless you in your new location.
On 20 November 1999, Javier Solana, who is the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) of the EU, was also appointed Secretary-General of the WEU. His being head of both organisations permits him to oversee the ongoing transfer of functions from the WEU to the EU.
Thought this was interesting. They are folding into the EU apparently.
Thank you for pointing this out!
Israel has a lot of things going for it as we know from scripture. First and foremost GOD.
It's never good to be against Israel. It's in ones best interest to be for Israel, in my opinion!! We know that God will be on her side until the end of time.
Blessings on your family's new adventure.
YOU ARE MISTAKEN: CONSTANCE NEITHER GOOGLED NOR PUT UP ANYTHING ABOUT DEEPAK CHOPRA receiving an Obama appointment. After another poster put this up, which you should easily be able to find, it was me, CONSTANCE CUMBEY, who did a google search and found the correct information, that it was CNN's highly esteemed Dr. Sanjay Gupta who had been offered the Surgeon General post. I personally am delighted for my state over the appointment. Dr. Gupta is a native of Novi, Michigan, in the same county where I live and practice law. He is a graduate of University of Michigan's medical school. I personally think, based on my present level of knowledge about him that he is a first rate choice!
To Jolo0.sa (7:12 PM):
If I am not mistaken, I believe that Constance googled that erroneous information regarding Obama supposedly choosing Deepak Chopra for that cabinet post of Surgeon General.
So, Google got it wrong.
The correct answer was Dr. Sanjay Gupta (of CNN).
So, that original information did NOT come from an anonymous poster from her blog.
(However an anonymous poster just straightened YOU out. LOL)
If so, your definition of the coming of Christ as an event in everybody's "mind's eye" takes on even deeper signficance. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 2:22.
Also, by changing the form of Jesus to a "mind's eye" one, you are definitely preaching a different gospel with a different Jesus and by the Apostle Paul's definition, you are to be anathema to believers!
Niki has done valuable research. I do believe you are out there to confuse and confound the public on her work as well as mine.
Thank you for your kind words. I can be very foolish at times, though I try to honor God in all things. I appreciate that you took valuable time to express your observations. May you know His peace and blessings.
If I have created a conflict, it is unwittingly. My objective is not to come here to your blog with an arrogant spirit or to cause dissension, but to have a spirit of humility that shows how grateful I am for your service and for the service of the many contributors here. I want to add to an element of discernment and understanding, not frustration and confusion.
You have my attention if you feel that I have violated this in any way.
May God bless and keep you,
European Leaders Call For New Global Order
The leaders of Germany and France along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair have all called for a new global order in the wake of the financial crisis.
Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy all made the tandem appeal at a conference in Paris on the future of capitalism.
Merkel criticized what she described as a lack of regulatory powers afforded to global bodies such as the IMF, stating that it has “not managed to regulate global capitalism”.
The German leader called for the creation of a new global economic body under the UN, similar to the Security Council, to judge government policy.
Merkel also criticized the US budget deficit and attempts by the US federal government to spend its way out of the crisis, but then stated that “there is no other possibility.”
Sarkozy called for a “new world, new capitalism” during his speech, as he commented “In capitalism of the 21st century, there is room for the state.”
Meanwhile, Blair called for a new financial order which he said should be constructed upon “values other than the maximum short-term profit.”
Both Sarkozy and Merkel have previously called for a new global financial order, along with Top EU officials and current British Prime minister Gordon Brown, who has repeatedly stated that the financial crisis should be used to make world leaders agree to fresh rules and regulations.
The leaders will meet again, along with a host of other world chieftains, to discuss the global economy in London on April 2.
I hope you will keep your website! I have sent so many people to it. I really appreciate all the work you put into it. I'll be praying for your move to Israel.
Thanks for your kind words!
God always honours his promises and covenants. He said Israel will be a light and blessing to the Nations, and I believe that they will, in a mighty way!
If you are interested, here are a couple of articles from two websites I am the webmaster for:
I'd like to clarify something here. My intention is not to attack Catholics, Jews or anyone else on the blog, having said that if my remarks are offensive to you I apologize again. What I have tried to point out is how we have gotten to where we are today. Try to put emotions aside for a minute and think about what I am saying. God did not create religions, denominations...Yeshua did say, "I'm coming to put an end to Israel, and start Christianity". He came to die for our sins, plain and simple. Some of the Jews accepted Him and some didn't.
Okay here is the Thayer's Greek lexicon explanation of the word "ekklesia" translated church:
1577. e˙kklhsi÷a; ekkleœsia, ekklesias, heœ (from ekkleœtos called out or forth, and this from ekkaleoœ); properly, a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly; so used
In the Greek Septuagint, written 200 years before Yeshua it is used in this passage for the word assembly to talk about Israel:
Deut. 31:30 ¶ Then Moses spoke the words of this song until they were finished, in the ears of all the assembly of Israel:
Let's look at the Hebrew definition of the Hebrew word used here for assembly which is qahal:
6951. lDh∂q qahal, kaw-hawl´; from 6950; assemblage (usually concretely):—assembly, company, congregation, multitude.
You can see that we are talking about the same word in different languages. Yeshua did not speak Greek to His disciples, but Hebrew, so chances are He would have said qahal, not ekklesia. You have to take time to think these issues through, not just accept what your English Bibles say.. When we see the same word used in the Septuagint to describe an assembly in the Torah, Yeshua's disciples would have ONLY been familiar with that assembly since obviously NO CHURCH existed at that time. As Hebrews they would have known the story of Moses and the "rock" and the numerous references to the Rock being the Lord, all throughout the Psalms.
God did not move the capital of His people from Jerusalem to Rome. Yeshua is coming back to put His feet on the Mount of Olives.. Replacing Israel with Rome should give everyone on this blog a heads up, since we are talking about a revived Roman Empire when we discuss Javier Solana and EU.. Can you see this? Israel was dispersed within the Roman Empire and some of Israel assimilated just like ever other time Israel went into exile. Today we have Israelites in exile in the empire called America and many of them have assimilated into the culture instead of being "set apart". This is one of the greatest problems of exile. If you don't understand what exile is in Biblical terms, you cannot properly understand the Bible.
The first exile was from Gan Eden, the place of delight.. Man has been trying to devise ways to get back ever since. The New Age Movement is an example of the counterfeit. Yeshua crushed the head of the serpent and therefore He is the only way back. We must cross over to get into the Promised Land. We must be Hebrews. Abraham wasn't born Hebrew, he was Babylonian, but he became a Hebrew when he "crossed over".
Read the entire Bible and you will see that God had a people, that He set apart to glorify Him. This people was called Israel, and they descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who had a name change to Israel, had 12 sons. God promised NEVER to forget Israel, even if they turned from HIm. They had consequences from turning away from Him, but not permanent ones, Throughout Torah and the Prophets rests the hope of restoration. Today we are still waiting for restoration..
Now, what was the role of Israel? Israel was to point the nations to the true God, because at that time the nations worshipped false gods. Torah is all about Yeshua. Remember God took Abraham from Babylon and Abraham "crossed over".. that's the meaning of the word Hebrew. We too "cross over" when we leave our life of sin and come to the Living God. Israel "crossed over" when they left Egypt. We must cross from death to life and become new creations. That's the meaning of immersion. We die with Yeshua and are raised up with a new identity. That's why Israel is always crossing water ( Red Sea, Jordan River). They must come into the Promised Land. This is a hebraic way of thinking...
After Solomon the kingdom was divided and 10 tribes went into semi-permanent exile, and Judah remained ( Judah, Benjamin, Levy...the Southern Kingdom). Today we call the House of Judah, Jews. Most people who have forgotten history believe the Jews are ALL Israel, just like most people forgot Joseph when he was exiled to Egypt. Joseph looked like and Egyptian ( Just like Moses did when he was saved by Pharaoh's daughter).
So what happened to the Northern Kingdom of Israel and is God done with them? Israel was scattered in the nations. Some people call the Northern Kingdom the "lost tribes" . I prefer to refer to them as Yeshua did. He said "I have come for the lost sheep of the "House of Israel". If you know your Bible you will know this is a specific reference to the Northern Kingdom who were scattered in Assyrian exile and never corporately became a kingdom again. Were we not lost, until Messiah found us and called us out of darkness?
You see, just like God cares about ever single one of us He cannot forget Israel, ALL of Israel!. This is why Yeshua came. He said:
Matt. 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to athe lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Does that mean He doesn't care about the nations? No..not at all. They are supposed to be grafted in to Israel, but as soon as we form "a church" instead of an "called out assembly" we cannot see the plan. Israel was not alone when they left Eygpt. There was a "mixed multitude". There have always been foreigners. Yeshua has foreigners in His bloodline like Ruth and Rahab. Does God have a plan for the nations? You bet He does, but it's not a seperate plan from Israel. Ruth joined Israel.. Your people will be MY PEOPLE, Your God will be MY GOD. She is the great-grandmother of King David, from who Yeshua descends.
Yeshua came to reunite the family, but the family is not limited to physical Israelites. There were ALWAYS other people who joined the family. In fact Joseph's two sons had an Egyptian mother, just like Ishmael did, so what's the difference between Ishmael and Ephraim and Manassah? The difference is Ephraim and Manassah are ADOPTED into the family. They become sons.
All I am pointing out are the repetitive themes in the Bible, so you can see yourselves as part of the "called out assembly" called Israel. The Church never "replaced" Israel. Having said that, the nations are to be one with Israel. History has made this difficult, but if we don't see it, we won't realize what the kingdom is God is building. We risk to attach ourselves to a counterfeit kingdom.
All I've been trying to say is God has a plan for one people, but if you don't hear His voice, you won't hear what the plan is. It's that simple. I had been reading the Bible for a good number of years when I discovered this in the Scriptures. It was always there, but because I happened to be crying out to God at that time asking Him questions and studying, I saw it. I found too many contradictions between what has been taught traditionally about the nations and Israel, and what Scripture says. If you read carefully you will understand. The NEW COVENANT ( which can be better translated newer, or renewed) is with the House of Judah and the House of Israel.. There is no "church" mentioned. The "new covenant" is Torah on our minds( the Hebrew word leb means mind, not heart).
Jer. 31:31 ¶ “aBehold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a bnew covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Jer. 31:32 not like the acovenant which I made with their fathers in the day I btook them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My ccovenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
Jer. 31:33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “bI will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and cI will be their God, and they shall be My people.
My biases that I had learned through well-meaning believers had prevented me from just hearing God's Word and really examining what IT SAYS.
If you read your English Bibles and don't use lexicons, you will never be able to read with 100% accuracy because the translators have their own biases when they translate the Bibles. They interpret the Scriptures for you.
The reason I talk about the Catholic Church so much is because it was the first visible "institution" that began to alter what the pure Word of God says. Prior to that there were individuals who tried to and we can read their writings. Some of them were hateful anti-semites. Constantine was anti-semitic. Sorry Constance, but this is a matter of historical fact that the Romans had no great love for the Jews because of the history between them.
Constantine changed the feast days to not identify with the Jews.. How sad. Did he not know that Yeshua was a Jew? This is from a Catholic source, Fordam University, a well-respected Catholic University. I highly recommend you read it:
It is proof of the historical fact that Constantine wanted to separate from the Jews, but God never told us to do this..Do you think Constantine read Paul's epistle to the Romans:
Rom. 11:17-20 But if some of the abranches were broken off, and byou, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the 1rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that ait is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you astand by your faith. bDo not be conceited, but fear;
Constantine was being "arrogant" towards the natural branches, but he wasn't the only one. There were others who wanted to disassociate from anything Jewish, and said the Jews killed Jesus, when the truth was Yeshua laid down His life willingly. The Romans were the only ones who had the authority to nail Yeshua to a tree anyway. Some of the Jewish leadership who were corrupted by their dependance on Rome, betrayed Yeshua, but the fact is He died willingly for ALL of our sins.
John 10:18 “No one has taken it away from Me, but I blay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
If you want to interpret the Scriptures through the mindset of a Roman Emperor, instead of a mindset of the ORIGINAL HEBREW WRITERS, then you will not be able to understand the texts.. Remember the Roman Empire was totally influenced by Greek thought, but Yeshua and His disciples were Jews, thus they thought hebraically. In order for the gospel to go out to the nations it had to be in Greek to touch the maximum number of people, but the writers were Hebrews and thought hebraically so we should try to too, in order to understand.
If you don't understand the history of what caused the Gentiles and Jews to separate, you will not see God's heart. God's heart is for "shalom". Shalom, not only means peace it means wholeness.
There are probably a couple of you on the blog that will hear what I'm saying and try to understand through the Scriptures.. If it's only one or two, then my time is well spent.
As for those who are hurt or angry, all I can say is my words are not directed personally. I am trying to make a distinction between true peace that God has planned from the foundations of the earth, in Messiah and the false peace we are seeing today.
If you think through what I'm saying and begin searching the Scriptures, you will see that I'm not making anything up. God's plan is for one called out people. Either we are part of that people or we aren't. Either we attach to the olive tree, or we are attaching to something else.
A tree has only one set of roots and receives it's nourishment from the same source, the living water. The grafted branches produce the same fruit as the natural branches. He is making us "echad" in our day, just like He is "echad" and we need to be able to distinguish between that which is of Him and that which is not. The test is His Word.
We should be relieved that God has not forgotten His promises to Israel because this means He will not forget His promises to us, but we can either attach ourselves to Israel ( the called out assembly) or attach ourselves to "a church"... It's a question of seeing accurately and hearing.
If I'm sharing, it's because there are riches in the Word of God that we've been missing by imposing our theology over the Bible, instead of just reading the Bible and letting the Word say what it says. It's easy to think we are doing that but we all come with cultural baggage. The Jews come with theirs, so they don't see Messiah.. The Christians come with theirs and the see a Greek Messiah who has cut of His Hebrew roots and detached Himself from the Torah, even though HE is TORAH!. HE is the Tree of Life. If we eat of this tree we will not die. I could go on and on because I love the Scriptures and in falling in love with God and His Word, you never get bored...so all I can say is stop taking offense and just open the Scriptures and seek His face and see what He will reveal to you. The Word is not a dead history book, it's the mannah in the wilderness, it's living water...If you hunger and thirst after it you will be satisfied.. That's all I'm really trying to share.
It's easy to be misunderstood on a blog and when you don't know someone, you don't see what their heart is.. No, I don't care for the Catholic Church, but it's not the only thing I don't care for. I see in the big picture how religion in general cuts us off from knowing God through His Word. We need to attach ourselves to Israel the Olive tree, then as Paul says, "we will provoke the Jews to jealousy". I don't think the Jews are jealous of what they see in Christianity today, to be quite honest because for them, Torah is God's Word, and Christianity has cast it aside.
It is horrible that for centuries, that Jews have hardened their position about Yeshua and so have the Christians. Today, that dividing wall is coming down. Some of us see it and some of us don't. It is happening. For the first time in many centuries there are congregations of Jews and Gentiles worshipping together in Spirit and in truth. This is the real testimony to the power of the gospel. We haven't seen this, in these numbers since the First Century and there's a reason for that. People are going back to the roots of the faith and examining the reasons that the split took place to begin with and they are turning around and going back to Scripture.
I have said a lot of this before, but I hope if someone wants to respond they will take the time to read what I wrote and not just respond with emotion. It's easy to let our emotions drive us, but in the end I think we all want to be seekers of the truth..There is only one source of truth and that is God and His Word.
My heart (mind-leb), like the Father's heart (leb)is for true Shalom, ( wholeness) and I know it is impossible with the cultural and religious history we have. My heart is also that we don't fall into the counterfeit "oneness" which will attempt to reconcile us, but not according to the truth of Scriptures, but according to the plan of the antimessiah. I actually do care about Catholics and Jews, as well as others, but I care enough to speak truth. Maybe I don't always do that in as loving a way as I should and for that I apologize. My intentions are not to hurt people, but to help them to see what I have seen.
I don't care about being insulted because I believe it's important enough to get the truth out that I will risk a few insults, in fact I expect that I will be misunderstood by some, so I don't hold that against anyone on the blog...although for Constance's sake, it would be nice if we could communicate without anger.
If someone says this is off subject of the blog, I will say, absolutely not. We are talking about the New Age and the confusion coming upon all of us and God has said "come out of Babylon, come out of her my people" We are to be hebrews like Abraham and "cross over".
Shalom in Yehsua,
You have made a Jew jealous...I wish I was moving there. Lord willing, one of these days soon.. May God bless you and keep you and shine His face upon you.
Blessings in Yeshua,
Can't wait to hear your answer.
SV has demonstrated a humble and sweet spirit which exemplifies how that Christianity plays out.
Paul shows that he knows the name of the LORD: “I will lift him on high because he hath known my NAME.”
Can the eye say ‘I have no need of the ear?’
“For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Don’t we all proclaim a personal experience with Him? How many Hims are there?
John 17 is the prayer we all should pray and His Spirit will open our understanding.
In the mean time I lift all of you up to Him, that your confidence will not be in yourselves, your minds, your works, but in Him “who is able. . .”
You have a long post and I am still reading . . . but a few preliminary reactions in regards to your comments that no church was intended. To believe that, one would have to toss out the whole book of Acts as well as Revelation (Apocalypse for Catholics). A structure was definitely put in place: first under the Apostles and Matthias was selected by lot to take Judas' vacated place. Next, a structure of deacons was put in place to take care of serving the people so the Apostles could concentrate on study and prayer. Jesus had clearly prophesied a destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, it made sense that it might have a headquarters elsewhere. I will finish reading when I get another opportunity to day and will have more reaction for you later.
I've got to tell you.
You've been a source of gentle
Christian love and correction
to me and I really appreciate it.
Bless the Lord oh my soul,
and all that is within me bless his
Do you think this tunnel hunt had another purpose? Trying to secure escape routes for some future exodus (no pun intended) as mass amounts of people try to flee from coming situations? Since the RFID chip is not too far away, I would assume they are trying to eliminate any way that people would be able to survive outside the system. For instance the Doomsday Seed Bank in Norway. http://www.globalresearch.ca/
These tunnels would provide that opportunity. They are covering all the bases.
I have been in a tunnel in Germany created by Hitler, his were extensive, it was rumored amongst the military stationed there that he had an entire air base underground.
Matt. 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
He sent His disciples to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel:
Matt. 10:6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Let's see what else the Bible says about the restoration of Israel:
Deut. 32:43 “Rejoice, O nations, with His people;
For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
And will render vengeance on His adversaries,
And will atone for His land and His people.”
He is the one who will redeem them. This is the last book of the Torah where He's talking about bringing them back after they've been dispersed.
Deut. 33:29 “Blessed are you, O Israel;
Who is like you, a people saved by the LORD,
cWho is the shield of your help
dAnd the sword of your majesty!
eSo your enemies will cringe before you,
fAnd you will tread upon their high places.”
It is the Lord who saves them.
Jer. 31:36 “If this fixed order departs
From before Me,” declares the LORD,
“Then the offspring of Israel also will cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
He's saying they will be a nation FOREVER before Him.
Jer. 33:7 ‘I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel and will rebuild them as they were at first.
He's going to show favor to them, as He did when He called them out the first time as a nation, from Egypt.
Who is the bridegroom?
Jer. 33:11 the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who say,
“Give thanks to the LORD of hosts,
For the LORD is good,
For His lovingkindness is everlasting”;
and of those who bring a thank offering into the house of the LORD. For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were at first,’ says the LORD.
Yeshua is also referring to Himself in this verse, as the Bridegroom. There is only one bridegroom:
Matt. 9:15 And Jesus said to them, “The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.
Israel knew their kingdom would be restored, but let's see what Yeshua said after the resurrection:
Acts 1:6-8 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to dthe remotest part of the earth.”
He doesn't say that it's not happening...notice.. He says it's not for you to know the time..
But, He did say ALL Israel will be saved:
Rom. 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
Heb. 8:10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Here's the New Jerusalem which will be as a bride adorned for her spouse:
Rev. 21:12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve bgates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
Rev. 21:2 And I saw athe holy city, new Jerusalem, ccoming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Again we have the bridegroom imagery which applies to Israel, according to the verses above.
The prophecy of His birth:
Matt. 2:6 ‘AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH; FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.’”
Yeshua came for Israel, and the nations were to come into the covenant with Israel:
They were once strangers and have now been brought near:
Eph. 2:11-14 Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; and now, in Christ Jesus, ye being once afar off became nigh in the blood of the Christ, for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down,
So the idea is not that God doesn't have a plan for the nations, but that the nations are to join themselves to His people. Sadly, for 1800-1900 years the nations who know Yeshua have been doing the contrary, but I think the evil one has done his best to assure that.
Can you please tell me what scripture source you got those verses from? I LOVE having the original Holy Names of God in my readings; it makes everything richer and clearer. Thanks
Well said. My friend and I have been discussing this separation for some time. We are increasingly getting the feeling that there is error in all churches, regardless of denomination. My reasoning on this is that only Jesus/Yahshuah was perfect on this earth. So only He can have the full, complete, unerring understanding of Yahweh God the Father. EVERYONE else has only a partial understanding. Our imperfect human nature translates into imperfect understanding (and dissemination) of the complete knowledge of God. Some persons, groups certainly have more truth than others. But NONE are perfect; there was only One who can claim that. Everyone else, regardless of their affiliation, commitment, “time in service”, or degree of piety is imperfect. In other words, ALL humans, if they numbered their beliefs 1 to 100, would have at least 1 thing that is incorrect. We just can’t claim perfection, for ourselves or others.
At the risk of sounding New Age, I will add that I have formed a new theory about truth and the plan of satan to conquer God's people.
I have heard frequently the quote that America could never be conquered from without; it would have to be conquered from within. I believe the same is true of "the church" or Christianity. My theory is this (and it's my theory so I accept that it is flawed.)
Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. But Jesus is The Light. So satan transforms himself into the Messiah, The Word, The Way. This is more than antiChrist/antiMessiah; this is also in spreading The Word, The Way, The Truth. In the garden satan did use truth mixed with his lies. The truth he spoke was when he told Eve she would become like God knowing the difference between good and evil. After she ate, she did know the difference between good and evil, a Godly quality or knowledge. She did not become a god, which is the lie that satan is continuing to promote with the NAM. He lied when he said that she wouldn't die, although because it wasn't instant, some people may see it that way if they do not understand the rest of the story. (This is particularly important to point out to very young children as they have things like Snow White in their heads and think you take one bite and fall to the ground.)
One of the most effective ways to destroy The Truth, The Church (ecclesia) is to take absolute scriptural truths and place one part of truth in one group, another scriptural truth in another group (denomination etc.) and so on. Satan has been around since before man, he does have a knowledge of God and history that man does not, he also must have a pretty good handle on scripture or he wouldn't be working in the manner he is. Add to each group lies that antagonize and minimize the opinions and interactions of the groups towards each other and you have one messed up, mixed up religious system. Group A rejects anything and everything group B teaches because they are heretics... or a cult...or Protestant...or Catholic...or Jewish, fill in the blank. How could God's people ever find the whole truth if they are indoctrinated by their perspective church doctrines to accept without question the whole of their particular teachings and to denounce and reject (some groups even forbid the looking at) of the "apostate" materials or teachings of the other groups? I will use Jehovah's Witnesses as my example since I have a limited but fair amount of knowledge about them. They are forbidden to read any religious material other than that produced by the Watchtower Society. They have a rigid and time consuming expectation for participation in the activities of the organization and yet they DO have some Biblical truth. They are almost wholly and succinctly discounted, marginalized and rejected because they are considered a cult. (I believe they are as they fit the definition but so do some groups that many would argue aren’t.) However, we cannot fully reject EVERY SINGLE ONE of the things they believe/teach because we would actually be denying some of our own beliefs, such as that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. All (true) Christians believe that. That is one truth that they have. They believe there is only one God; they call Him Jehovah, an acceptable although not great version of the Hebrew tetragrammaton. They try to keep God's name in use, which is better than I can say for the church I grew up in where I didn't know God had a name; I thought His name was G-o-d God, or LORD. If you wanted to get really holy you would pronounce it Gawd, as if that made it more personal and distinguished who you were talking about. Those are adjectives, not names.
I will add that I think satan has also planted scriptural truth in pagan religions. I have noticed that Buddhists are very good at living in peace. Is peace not one of the greatest characteristics of Jesus? I have often said that if Christians were doing a better job of representing Jesus (myself included) we wouldn't be losing so many to other faiths. Look at how many horrible things have been done to people in the name of God. THAT is taking the LORD's name in vain! I am not promoting any New Age agendas by saying that Buddhists try to live in relative peace compared to much of the world, just pointing out the fact that Satan is the great imitator; he will try to reproduce HIS version of light wherever he can to confuse the world. Even if that includes spreading some real Godly Light and Truth in with his own mixed bag of tricks. Putting Godly characteristics in the ungodly and influencing God’s people to act ungodly, could he get a better plan to make the world want to unite into one government and religion?
In the end (i.e. now) I think we will all have to find The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Not based on ANY branch of religion, Christianity, denomination or group, it will only be pure Scripture. That becomes increasingly difficult as well because Scripture has been tainted and watered down.
I know of people who think that The Bible is somehow protected from mans contamination, however this is easily refuted by the fact that there is a group producing a gay bible and The Message has the satanic saying "as above, so below" in the Lord’s prayer passage. Not all Bibles are the same, some are fairly accurate, and some grossly compromised, as are our “churches”.
Sorry, my posts are long. I'l try to shorten them but these are hard theological concepts that sometimes require more detailed explanation...
The Book of Acts starts out with a scene on the feast of Sukkot that is "Pentecost" in Greek, but where they were primarily Jews from the diaspora coming to Jerusalem for one of he 3 pilgrim feasts. At the time there were already some Gentiles who had joined themselves to the Jews, who were called god-fearers and there were also outright circumcised converts. . The converts were the only ones who had the right to go into the inner court. The god-fearers stayed in the gentile court.
All that to say, Israel had a history of having Gentiles join to it and this was the problem that we run into by Acts 15 is were the Gentile believers in Yeshua were being told that circumcision was the criteria for salvation.. This lead to the council of Jerusalem where James decides they are to not sacrifice to idols, not eat blood, abstain from sexual immorality, not eat things strangled ( a pagan method of killing animals) because MOSES WAS TAUGHT IN THE SYNAGOGUES EVERY SHABBAT IN EVERY CITY.. So the understanding at this time was new gentile believers would go and hear Moses..IT was the only place Scripture was available and the only Scripture available was Tanakh.
Later on the schism occurred because of the persecution of Romans toward the Jews ( all Jews, believing and non-believing alike). The Gentile believers separated from them to avoid persecution. Then the Simon Bar Kochba rebellion caused believing Jews to be kicked out of the synagogue in about 135 a.d. because they would not follow the false messiah who rose up against the Romans.
All that to say, yes, you are correct in saying their are historical reasons for the development of this separation between the believers and the Jews, however they began to cut themselves off from the roots of the faith which the disciples never did. This is where the error came. This happened over a period of about 300 years and culminated in a state church. Remember, Constantine was an emperor.
What I mean when I say there should not be a separation, is that believers have left the roots of the faith. They might have had to leave the synagogue because it became impossible to worship there without renouncing Yeshua..but they did not have to leave the hebraic roots of the faith which was more related to anti-semitism than anything else. . Read Marconian who was labeled a heretic ultimately but influenced the church by diminishing the respect for Tanakh ( he wanted to eliminate it all together) and Chrysostum and many others. Augustine incorporates Greek philosophy.
What I am trying to say is that a great schism developed between the believers and the synagogue and ultimately the roots of the faith were cut off.
In the Last Days, I believe this will be reversed because God is restoring Israel, and with Israel come the hebraic roots of the faith.
Zech. 8:23 Thus said the LORD of Hosts: In those days, ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold — they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”
This is a reference to the tzizt representing the keeping of God's commandments which is what the tzizit represent. It doesn't mean that God didn't use the Church in spite of it's flaws.. God uses all of us and we are flawed..but the plan of restoration will be for all Israel.
Now, I'm not saying we should all go back to the synagogue, but I do think everyone owes it to themselves to revisit the Hebrew roots of the faith.
There are treasures and riches that the folks in the Church have been missing.. As the Church becomes more and more apostate, there will come a time for true believers regardless of what you call yourselves that it will become intolerable. This is a result of antinomism ( lawlessness).
Rev. 1:4 John to the seven assemblies that [are] in Asia: Grace to you, and peace, from Him who is, and who was, and who is coming, and from the Seven Spirits that are before His throne,
You personify the verse in Proverbs17:17, "A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity."
I appreciate your insight and wisdom.
By His Grace,
Amen. God wants true believers to be His children without being separated into artificial groupings. The lineage of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew is a beautiful example to us.
This much you would not gather from nativity narratives, from hymns and carols, or from the art that fills the churches of Christendom. The last thing Jesus looks on the cross is Jewish. Ask me how I would wish artists to have shown the Jewishness of Jesus and of course I have no answer. What - outside the cartoonery of abhorrence - does a Jew look like?......Read the rest at the Guardian UK:
Well! I have certainly learned from this short exchange to check the original comment before replying to a posting! (smile)
Constance, I didn't mean to mark you as the poster of the incorrect SG info: you were not.
Suzette, didn't mean to be the forwarded of any false information.
Soooo sorry! I apologize and hope no irreparable harm has been done.
I think I shall just stick to posting relevant NA links, as I have done in the past.
On your posting about errors in all Christian denomination, I can concur, from a personal standpoint.
My pastor has fairly recently (2 years ago) embraced the Purpose Driven Life message. I'm kind of at a loss over what to do about it.
I certainly don't intend to sit there and let him be deceived and unwittingly deceive others; but I don't want to come across as arrogant or condescending, or, heaven forbid; thinking that I know all the answers!
I stood up for Israel and Jews a little while back (about 2 months ago) by sending a detailed email to the Imam of a local mosque here. It wasn't large--probably about 40-50 folks, but this guy was part of an islamic group that has vowed to take over parts of my city, one small portion at a time.
Unfortunately, he probably can; because his clientele are the kinds of folk who will take somebody's word on something and not research for themselves (ironic smile, on my part because of my inadvertant part in the Chopra/Gupta posting).
Naturally, the Jews/Isrealis were the scum of the earth and responsible for all ills, past, present and future.
I took a long time and with much prayer sent him a list of the wonderful accomplishments in medicine and technology that the Israelis were producing, and ended the letter with the quote about "all the earth being blessed by Abraham's children (paraphrase).
I listed about 70 Israeli advances in medicine and technology and wrly pointed out that he would surely refuse any such technology if he or his adherents needed it since it was made by the "awful" Israelis/Jews.
Needless to say, I never got a reply!
Anyway, can anybody help me on approaching my pastor? Shall I take a detailed, footnoted, bibliographic approach? Should I just try to "feel him out" and gently point out the errors based on RWs purposeful mangling of the Scriptures?
He's a young (about 37), earnest preacher who does, I believe, love the Lord. He doesn't give "Slice of Laodociea (sp?) sermons, and acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Jewish, virgin-born, prophecied, real-in-the-flesh, Old Testament/New Testament sole savior of mankind.
Help on my approach, please.
Amen! Jesus lineage was far from perfect, which is a beautiful example for us to see that He will reject no one who comes to Him with a sincere heart . I do agree that it is impossible to find a true church- there have been apostasies and heresies in every church! Can any of us truly believe that we have the perfect church or the perfect religion?
You message rings true to me. I agree that if we can replace the word churches with the word assemblies, we'd see things quite differently. Thanks for taking the time to help this person understand her Hebraic roots a little better! ( i did lose you on the "tzizt " part, but don't worry about it.)
Thanks for trying to articulate some of the things that I've tried to bring up here myself. I am afraid there are some here that think I'm New Agey, too!If it is bad to feel loving and tolerant of a Scientologist than I suppose I'm a New Ager. My heart breaks for the Travolta family right now, and I can only wish that somehow out of this tragedy they will come to see the folly of their church's doctrines, and ultimately find salvation through Jesus/Yeshua.
Just look at how Jesus treated the woman at the well, a Samaritan, whom the Jews considered unclean and despicable. He treated her with love and respect while calling attention to her faults at the same time. What an example! In my mind, there is no doubt that the enemy puts a grain of truth into everything, in order to plant confusion and chaos. I appreciated everything that you just said and agree with it.
I must admit that as a result of some of the strife here lately, my head has been in a state of confusion. That's when I knew the enemy was trying to put me back in the "wilderness". The enemy is extremely subtle at times, especially for those who are not easily fooled. We need to remember that, as it is true that the enemy comes dressed as an Angel of Light.
Was there harm? I don't know what, but I hope you won't be intimidated to post. There's no misgivings on my part. Truthfully, I can't keep up with who posts what (especially with anon posting). I only try to correct info that is inaccurate if I am sure of the true, or another version. I don't mean to slam the poster. I also try to respond to things that I find of particular interest or wow factor, although there's so much good information, I barely make a dent.
I'm personally ok with anon posting, I think it was Dorothy who said that ideas were more important than personalities here. Forgive me if I'm wrong on attributing that to her.
Your apology, whether necessary or not, is a fine example for us all in being "peace makers". No NA message intended. : )
I think you are all getting what I've been driving at..
Here's the verse about tzizit:
Num. 15:38-39 “Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make for themselves atassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they shall put on the tassel of each corner a cord of blue.“It shall be a tassel for you 1to look at and aremember all the commandments of the LORD, so as to do them and not 2follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you played the harlot,
The wonderful think about the blue cord is it is a made out of a very special dye and is called tekhelet.. It's a blue that represents the righteousness of Yeshua, the blue of heaven if you will.. Wikipedia is not always the best source, but it will give a little more info on the blue cord:
When the woman with the issue of blood touched the "corner of Yeshua's garment" she actually touched his tzizit. That puts this story in a whole new light and illustrates the point that understanding of the hebrew roots is important. There is so much we miss in the Apostle's writings if we don't study the Torah. It's all related. It takes a little digging to understand these things but if you pay attention to the smallest details you will find many riches..There is not one idle word in the Scriptures.
Rev. 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to amake war with the rest of her 1bchildren, who ckeep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
is intentionally crude, purposefully offensive , and appeals to an audience who no doubt must derive great pleasure in the ridicule of others. He obviously has his fans or he would
not be a regular commentator for The Independent, UK.
The fact that he is Jewish regarding his ethnicity,in my mind, only serves to make this current article all the more disgusting.
Jacobson is not funny in spite of his popularity in some circles. Only someone with a similarly warped conscience and depraved mind could find humor in Jacobson and his “literary style”. This is one case
where I’m not interested in trying to salvage any wheat. -Rudi
Link immediately following is a bio of Howard Jacobson. Second link is an article he wrote for The Independent UK :
“A Jew Answers Back” I can’t help but wonder what motivated our 1:36 PM anonymous contributor to share The UK Guardian article by Jacobson.
"The fact that he is Jewish regarding his ethnicity,in my mind, only serves to make this current article all the more disgusting."
I can appreciate "Jewish humor" while at the same time understanding there can be a subtle shift when an attempt at humor is implemented as a passive aggressive form of outright disdain toward an intended target.
Jacobson although Jewish, exhibits his anti-Semitic "humor" toward a very specific target in this piece.
Shame on him. -Rudi
Anon 1:36 pm
Interesting post. I'll have to read the accompanying article.
Thank you. I really have to say that this blog, even in the short time I have been here has helped me see the error of even those I thought were on the right track.
Our church has been going down the NA road I fear. I'm new so I don't know quite how to approach it either. I have repeatedly taken in printouts to our pastor and study group. Most of the time feeling like it was ignored. I would go in with for instance, the website of The Georgia Guidestones or the Ark of Hope and think this is so big they'll call a special meeting or send out a bulletin. But that almost never happened. I say almost because I printed the Share International Christmas miracle story along with the Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer and gave it to my pastor. That next Sunday, at the end of all the Christmas style service he incorporated into his sermon a brief warning on false Messiahs. He didn't mention the article, he didn't go into great detail, but he did reiterate that there is only one Jesus, one Savior, One God and that Allah, Buddha and the New Age aren't it. And he mentioned them by name. I felt very reassured and excited to have shared something he apparently took to heart.
I know that God also wants to work on me in not relying on the kudos and praises of men. It is Him I should please, Him I should be seeking, Him I should be wanting to accept me. I often felt discouraged when I got no reaction to the information I took in. It all seemed so blazingly important and time critical, but it didn't seem to register. Except for a very few close friends "my" discoveries are largely ignored, and frequently violently opposed.
I've had to learn to understand that God does want me to share truth, help spread the Gospel and warn others, I am a watchman, understanding that alone was a giant comfort. But, so many will ignore, reject, insult, oppose and distrust the information I share that I've had to learn to rely on Him for my sense of direction, worth and (for lack of a better word) purpose. I cringe now when I use that word, and others. Doesn't that just make you angry, I find an aversion to the word "light" now and always having to pause and consider how I use that term and so many others, for fear of sounding or being New Agey.
I don't know if this helps, but I thought it might at least encourage you. I don't think there are very many people who understand that there are real 21st century humans that worship Lucifer. They think Satan worshippers are a small, crazy, black garbed sect that are easily identified by the pentagrams hanging around their necks and their black painted fingernails, and that they are easily ignored.
I believe it helped to include the very obvious antiGod material (that is professional, organized and not from some dusty old book in an antique shop) to show that the other material (Rick Warren) is connected. I would probably print off some Emergeant church info to include with the synopsis of Warren's book APDL. Find something from their own material that is irrefutably "out there". Personal quotes are hard to argue with. Contradictions in scripture are the best. Berit Kjos has a detailed breakdown on APDL,
as does Dr. Stanley Monteith http://www.radioliberty.com/
but I would supplement that with the other to show the connection. Something that doesn't look too conspiracy theorist. Thats a new scapegoat and sends people running.
Sorry this is so long. And I hope it helps.
Pray first, that's most important.
Thanks for taking the time to read my very long piece. I'm glad I am not the only one feeling there is no true church at this point because the apostacy is so great. Obviously it was creeping into the early church as well because there is quite a mention of it in the NT.
And they were pretty "fresh" from the original material. But God is gracious and patient and merciful, I trust Him to reveal enough to those who are truly seeking.
I must go, my baby will be home from school soon. Oh, in his bedtime prayers last night he said "let everyone in the universe have a good day tomorrow, except the devil and his demons." It still gives me a tickle in my heart. Although I'm wondering why he is saying everyone in the "universe"? Something from school perhaps?
Blessings to all.
Historically, the final separation and distinction between the Christians and the Jews did not come about during the reign of Constantine, but rather in the wake of the Council of Jamnia which is said to have been convened by followers of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai around 90 A.D. about twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Romans in 70 A.D.
Here is the story of Yochanan ben Zakkai from the JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY:
The following describes the Council of Jamnia:
Today, there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Nevertheless, the outcomes attributed to the Council of Jamnia did occur whether gradually or in a definitive, authoritative council. Several concerns of the remaining Jewish communities in Israel would have been the loss of the national language, the growing problem of conversions to Christianity, based in part on Christian promises of life after death. What emerged from this era was twofold:
1. A rejection of the Septuagint or Koine Greek Old Testament widely then in use in Hellenistic Judaism along with its additional books not part of the Biblical Hebrew/Biblical Aramaic Masoretic Text.
2. The inclusion of a curse on the "Minim" which probably included Jewish Christians (Birkat ha-Minim). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Min: "In passages referring to the Christian period, "minim" usually indicates the Judæo-Christians, the Gnostics, and the Nazarenes, who often conversed with the Rabbis on the unity of God, creation, resurrection, and similar subjects (comp. Sanh. 39b). In some passages, indeed, it is used even for "Christian"; but it is possible that in such cases it is a substitution for the word "Noẓeri," which was the usual term for 'Christian'... On the invitation of Gamaliel II., Samuel ha-Ḳaṭan composed a prayer against the minim which was inserted in the "Eighteen Benedictions"; it is called "Birkat ha-Minim" and forms the twelfth benediction; but instead of the original "Noẓerim" ... the present text has "wela-malshinim" (="and to the informers"). The cause of this change in the text was probably, the accusation brought by the Church Fathers against the Jews of cursing all the Christians under the name of the Nazarenes."
Sociologically, these developments achieved two important ends, namely, the preservation of the Hebrew language at least for religious use (even among the diaspora) and possibly the final separation and distinction between the Jewish and Christian communities, though the separation is more complex than just a single event, see also List of events in early Christianity. (Through nearly the end of the first century, Christians of Jewish descent continued to pray in synagogues.) But see also John Chrysostom#Sermons on Jews and Judaizing Christians, dated 386-387.
Some of the books not admitted into the Hebrew canon, such as Wisdom and 2 Maccabees, gave the only textual support for the common first century Jewish belief in the after-life. The martyrs' prayers for the dead and the living praying and offering sacrifices for the dead motivated Martin Luther to reject these books as apocryphal because they supported Catholic doctrine and practice.
The "curse" was probably the Jewish equivalent of the Catholic "anathema" or "excommunication" reserved for the most serious "heretics" according to the traditional Jewish meaning of the word.
By the way, regardless of present disagreements between Catholics and Protestants over which books ought to be included in the Old Testament canon, historically, it is the Septuagint - the official Old Testament canon of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics - that was quoted by the inspired authors of the New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers.
The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek and it was done at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelpus for his library at Alexandria in Egypt somewhere between 285-246 BC.
A very important point to note is that in the Septuagint, the Greek equivalent for "JHVH," "Adonai" and "Shaddai" was "Kyrios" ("Lord").
Except for the Gospel according to St. Matthew which was written in Aramaic, the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek. The designation of Christ as "Kyrios" in the New Testament - especially frequent in St. Paul - is equivalent, in practice, to a clear declaration of Christ's divinity since its Hebrew equivalents - especially JHVH - were never used to refer to anyone BUT God.
Given the fact that St. Paul was a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christians before his dramatic conversion, he would have known EXACTLY what he was doing when referring to Christ as "Kyrios."
At the end of the day, whatever differences Catholics and Protestants may have about the "petros/petra/kephas" debate or about the concept of "Church" ("ecclesiology") you are absolutely correct in saying that it was clearly Christ's intention to establish a Church against which the powers of hell would NOT prevail.
In Matthew 16:13-18, Christ says ".....I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT."
One last thing....contrary to what many might think, Catholics do NOT regard Protestants as being "outside the Church" established by Christ.
In regards to your comment on not taking offense at being a "peacemaker": read "NOT NA," none taken (laugh)!
Thanks for the encouraging words. I enjoy posting here and will continue as long as I have info that is germane to the topic and that glorifies God.
I know what you mean about being ignored or considered a borderline "kook" when NA stuff is brought up. I can attest to this going on in my own family.
I'm the middle of three sisters, who all, (thank God) are His own. I thank Him for the godly basis He started in both great-greats- and grands, up to the parents, on both sides; so that this was always the environment in which I grew up.
However, once adulthood sets in, things can certainly change. Older sis married a minister; but says: "I don't get into the Bible that deeply," when I mentioned how JS is seemingly fulfilling many of the Biblical prophecies about the coming AC.
I pointed out Daniel's 70 weeks and other passages to support my position. She just brushed me off with a rather condescending look (you know the one all big sisters give their younger siblings--no matter their age :-) and verbally negated my position.
My church brethren seem to just want to sing hymns and arrange coffee hours. I know that sounds rather harsh--and it's not the totality of the congregation; but it's really hard to start a serious, scholarly eschatological discussion.
Well, you're right on one thing(and many more, probably): prayer is always the start of any solution.
Your statement re: Yeshua came to put an end to Israel can be found in paragraph two, third from last sentence in your previous post. I quoted you accurately. As I suspected it was a false statement. Your accusing me of misquoting you is a personal attack.
I posted the "commentary" by Jacobsen with the intent of showing how real religious bigotry reveals itself in "mainstream" newspapers. I thought the "commentary" was completely out of line and it reminded me of the the Theosophical Society's plan to pit the monotheistic religions against each other. Both would come away from that writing despising the other. And not only that, but it seems they would both be discredited in the eyes of third parties (people of neither faith). I should have posted my name and my intent but I thought it would was so egregious that everyone here would be able to recognize it for what it is. I found this linked in the articles section of Lucianne.com.
Next time I'll make sure to sign my name and write a short commentary when I post controversial articles.
Thanks for explaining the reasons
for posting the article. With all the mis-understanding of recent days,
I wasn't sure - especially after I read more on the commentator and his 2003 "A Jew Answers Back". I'm with you, the glaringly obvious does slap one right in the face. -Rudi
That was an excellant historical piece. I have always had a hard time understanding the different early scriptures, Septuagint, Codex, Torah, Tanak (sp?), etc. and their timeline. Is there a concise, printable perhaps, chart of this information?
Thank you for clarifying the Catholic position on whether or not you/they consider Protestants to be outside the church. In all the debating back and forth I thought the opposite, since it is the Catholic belief that the Peter Jesus referred to is the CC. (Not wishing to open that can of worms again for any reason.) But it's nice to understand your thoughts / beliefs on that.
Here is some information. I hope you find it helpful.
This article is about the general history of Bible translations.
The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), which later became the accepted text of the Old Testament in the church and the basis of its canon. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the masoretic text), and on the Greek text for the deuterocanonical books.
Other ancient Jewish translations, such as the Aramaic Targums, conform closely to masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, and all medieval and modern Jewish translations are based upon the same. Christian translations also tend to be based upon the Hebrew, though some denominations prefer the Septuagint (or may cite variant readings from both). Bible translations incorporating modern textual criticism usually begin with the masoretic text, but also take into account possible variants from all available ancient versions. The received text of the Christian New Testament is in Koine Greek, and nearly all translations are based upon the Greek text.
The Latin Vulgate was dominant in Christianity through the Middle Ages. Since then, the Bible has been translated into many more languages. English Bible translations in particular have a rich and varied history of more than a millennium.
Some of the first translations of the Jewish Torah began during the first exile in Babylonia, when Aramaic became the lingua franca of the Jews. With most people speaking only Aramaic and not understanding Hebrew, the Targums were created to allow the common person to understand the Torah as it was read in ancient synagogues. The most well-known movement to translate books of the Bible appeared in the 3rd century BC. Most of the Tanakh then existed in Hebrew, but many had gathered in Egypt, where Alexander the Great had founded the city that bears his name. At one time a third of the population of the city was Jewish. However, no major Greek translation was sought (as most Jews continued to speak Aramaic to each other) until Ptolemy II Philadelphus hired a large group of Jews (between 15 and 72 according to different sources) who had a fluent capability in both Koine Greek and Hebrew. These people produced the translation now known as the Septuagint.
Origen's Hexapla placed side by side six versions of the Old Testament, including the 2nd century Greek translations of Aquila of Sinope and Symmachus the Ebionite. The canonical Christian Bible was formally established by Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 (although it had been generally accepted by the church previously), confirmed by the Council of Laodicea in 363 (both lacked the book of Revelation), and later established by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 (with Revelation added), and Jerome's Vulgate Latin translation dates to between AD 382 and 420. Latin translations predating Jerome are collectively known as Vetus Latina texts. Jerome began by revising the earlier Latin translations, but ended by going back to the original Greek, bypassing all translations, and going back to the original Hebrew wherever he could instead of the Septuagint. The New Testament was translated into Gothic in the 4th century by Ulfilas. In the 5th century, Saint Mesrob translated the bible into Armenian. Also dating from the same period are the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and Georgian translations....read entire article...
Note: Books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) are listed in the left hand column.
Note: There is a chart included in this article that can be compared with the list of the books included in the Hebrew Bible.
Again, I hope you find this helpful.
Thanks, as usual, for your scholarly and thoughtful posts! You must have been born in a room lined with encyclopedias! LOL -- but I AM IMPRESSED!
"Your statement re: Yeshua came to put an end to Israel can be found in paragraph two, third from last sentence in your previous post. I quoted you accurately. As I suspected it was a false statement. Your accusing me of misquoting you is a personal attack."
No I wasn't accusing you.. I wasn't sure if I had made a typo or you did. I wasn't attacking you.. If one or the other of us made a mistake it's not a big deal.
Thank you for your kind words.
As usual, the credit goes to God for His gifts and to those wonderful educators by whom I have been taught.
LOL... I may not have been born in a room lined with encyclopedias, but as a child I DID live next door to my grandmother - a professional schoolteacher with a phenomenal memory who was like a "walking encyclopedia!"
"Except for the Gospel according to St. Matthew which was written in Aramaic, the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek. The designation of Christ as "Kyrios" in the New Testament - especially frequent in St. Paul - is equivalent, in practice, to a clear declaration of Christ's divinity since its Hebrew equivalents - especially JHVH - were never used to refer to anyone BUT God."
I prefer to say that the Scriptures were "preserved" in Greek. We don't know with absolute certainty whether they were originally written in that language or not. There are scholars still studying this today and I will not try to enter into a discussion that hasn't been resolved. As recently as 1948 the Dead Sea Scrolls which are very old, were discovered so I would be as quick to jump to the conclusion that there aren't other manuscripts floating around. It's sure that in order to spread the good news in a Greek Empire, translating texts into Greek would have been critical. I accept the Greek Scriptures as authoritative because God preserved them, so that's not in question.
Paul would have been educated in Greek and Luke for example, but don't forget that Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee educated by Gamileil. They would have had the ability to write directly in Greek because they were highly educated. It's more likely that some of the disciples spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and sometime later the texts were preserved in Greek. Whether they themselves could all write Greek is debatable. The fact is that there are expressions in the Apostolic Scriptures that are not "common Greek" because the hebrew mindset was so different that certain things could not be translated. Don't forget the big battle of the Maccabees was to fight off Greek Hellenism. Having said that, we know that Greek thought had an influence on the Empire. That's why the Chanukah scene in John 10:22 is so significant. Yeshua's declaration to be "echad" with His Father would have blown the Jews away at that time.
The Greek and Hebrew mindsets are utterly different, so that's what we need to look at.
There are also words that do not have equivalent in Greek and therefore lose something in translation.
Law does not adequately describe "torah" Torah is teachings, instructions and in a sense law, but not exclusively. The root is a word for arrow, like hitting the target.
Law in Greek can been civil law, the law of sin and death, or the Torah, so when we read it in English we don't always make the distinction when Paul is talking about the "law of sin and death" or the "Torah". The Bible was certainly spread in a Greek speaking empire in Greek. That would have provided the largest circulation for it, but lets just say things were lost in translation.
I notice you speak French, so you would know that there are French expressions that don't exactly translate into English like every other language and Hebrew is no different. Anyone who speaks a foreign language knows this. The mindset and culture of the Yeshua and His disciples was Hebrew. The Greek worldview was very different from the Hebrew one. In fact, we know from the Maccabees that this would have been no small issue in First Century Judaism because they were very aware of the idea of not assimilating the pagan Greek culture, which is why Yeshua's disciples needed help to understand that the gospel was to go to all the nations. The disciples would have avoided contact with the gentiles of their day because they were pagans. Now the Jews living outside of Israel would not have had a choice. They would need to know Greek to function, and thus the Greek Septuagint was written as you also noted a couple of hundred years before Yeshua, but we need to make a distinction between Jews living in the Land and Jews living out of the Land.
I believe the intention of the Gospel being written in Greek, as much as it was written to touch the nations, was also to touch the House of Israel who was already assimilated at that time into the nations according to Josephus.
There is no doubt that the period between 70 ad and 135 ad was pivotal because of the destruction of the Temple, the reciting of the prayer in synagogues cursing followers of Yeshua and the unwillingness of the Jewish believers in Yeshua to back to the Simon Bar Kokhba rebellion. The point is that over time many of the Greek pagan ideas crept into the faith and the church that developed became antinomian. In cutting off the hebraic roots of the faith, they failed to heed Paul's prophetic warning about not becoming arrogant and forgetting that they were dependent on the roots.
Part of this could have developed because of the sheer distance from Jerusalem as the gospel moved out to the "ends of the earth" but a lot of it was a result of anti-semitism and the hostility that had developed toward the Jews in the Roman Empire and crept ( unfortunately) into what developed into the church, as exhibited by the rulings in the Council of Nicea which were designed to remove any and all connections of the faith in Yeshua to the Jews.
There are problems that have arisen from this ever since. The Jews did there part too to distance themselves from the believers in Yeshua, so I'm not putting full responsibility on the Church, but I do think the Church ignored and subsequently misinterpreted Paul which is another huge and long subject. We are still living with the effects of this today, but gradually it's changing.
there part too to distance them
as you can see, anonyous I don't always proofread my comments.
Thank you for the info.
I'd like to point out the translation
by one George M. Lamsa.
Mr Lamsa was a native of Syria and
and Hebrew / Aramaic scholar.
He may have had some ulterior
motives behind his translation.
I don't know.
That has been said about him,
though I don't really know why.
But the introduction to his translation,
which he took from the Peshitta,
which is the translation used by
the Orthodox Church of the East,
is a very interesting set of points
and comments, worth reading.
He says that the Gospels and Epistles
of Paul and the others were actually
originally written in Aramaic, which
by the way was a dialect of Hebrew
which speakers of Hebrew would
easily understand. Aramaic grew
out of Hebrew and Arabic grew
out of Aramaic, he says.
That makes sense to me. Paul says
that the Good News was given to
the Jew first, then the Gentiles,
didn't he ?
I mean, why would John have
written his Gospel in Greek?
My point is only that the
introduction to his translation is
a fascinating read for any student
of the Bible and Bible history.
Whether Mr Lamsa was correct or
not, I'm sure I don't know...
He also claims that some of the
Kurds in between Iraq and Turkey
are still speaking a dialect which is
almost the same as Jesus spoke.
Talk about your lost tribes.
I can tell you that I've read the
entire volume from Genesis to
Revelations and haven't found
a need to change any of my basic
doctrines of the faith as put
forth in the Apostles Creed, but
rather a few small things did
come clearer to me: for instance,
"It is easier for a rope to pass
through the eye of a needle than
it is for a rich man to enter in to
heaven" The word "rope" is a
hominum to the word "camel"
in Aramaic. Mr Lamsa maintained
that there were euphemisms and
figures of speech which were lost
on the non Aramaic speakers and
scholars of the Septuagint.
One other thing:
I don't find anywhere that the word
"Christian" was a term of derision.
My Bible says in Acts that "..it was
in Antioch that the disciples were first
called Christians" No mention of
it being an insult.
Now, the word Cretin is a common
insult, but as I understand it, it was
originally a term of compassion for
a mentally deficient person, as in
" that poor Cretin child ", which is
to place God's blessing on the person
in question, out of sympathy. It
was after that fact that the word
took on it's condescending meaning.
The bottom line is that
is word for word the same in almost
every verse and chapter with only
a very few very small differences,
which don't change anything.
God's Word is perfect. And the
Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that too.
The word Christian is only used 3 times in the Bible and was originally given by the Romans as an insult to which Peter says if he suffers in the name he doesn't mind, but it was never a name the followers of Yeshua called themselves. They were called "the Way" and were considered a sect of Second Temple Judaism for quite a number of years.
Here's what Vine's says about it:
"Christian," a word formed after the Ro. an style, signifying an adherent of Jesus, was first applied to such by the Gentiles and is found in Ac. 11:26; 26:28; 1Pe. 4:16. Though the word rendered "were called" in Ac. 11:26 (see under CALL) might be used of a name adopted by oneself or given by others, the "Christians" do not seem to have adopted it for themselves in the times of the Apostles. In 1Pe. 4:16, the Apostle is speaking from the point of view of the persecutor; . "as a thief," "as a murderer." Nor is it likely that the appellation was given by Jews. As applied by Gentiles there was no doubt an implication of scorn, as in Agrippa's statement in Ac. 26:28. Tacitus, writing near the end of the first century, says, "The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius, been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate" (Annals xv. 44). From the second century onward the term was accepted by believers as a title of honor.
Acts 9:2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Acts 18:26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him nthe way of God more accurately.
Acts 19:9 But when some became stubborn and hcontinued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.*
Acts 19:23 ¶ About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way.
Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to ethe Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,
Acts 24:22 ¶ But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.”
Yeshua and His followers are also called sometimes the Nazarenes.
As for the whole discussion about the language that the Scriptures are written in, I am a firm believer that we have to go with what we have for the moment, but we don't have to check our brains at the door. The Apostles were Hebrews. Peter was a fisherman. Now since the empire was Greek speaking they may have had some knowledge of Greek, but unlikely that many of them wrote it.
God is sovereign and just like He preserved the Gospel in an imperfect Church, He can easily preserve the Gospel in an imperfect language. Now it's up to us to go back and attempt to put these things in context which is the proper way to do interpretation of the Bible.
The question is, today in the 21st century with all the tools we have to look back and attempt to understand what broke down we don't have to just passively accept the historical interpretations when there are so many things that don't add up..
Today as we enter into prophetic time and the nation of Israel is once again in existence and we see the signs of Matthew 24 before our eyes, not to mention many other Scriptures what do we do about the thousands of Scriptures that speak of Israel. Israel is mentioned in the Bible over 2000 times and the word Christian 3 times, sometimes 2 depending on what translation we're talking about. That should cause us to think, especially when God said the promises to Israel are "olam". forever.
I have already taken careful pains to explain the word "church" which is really the same as "qahal". The word Christian can be translated Messianic because the Greek word for Messiah is Cristos is Messiah, so the even using the word 2 or 3 times in the Bible does not mean that God meant to start a "new religion". God has a people, His body, the called out assembly, those who are part of the Hebrews 11 hall of faith starting with Abraham. We are ONE people. God's people are echad. God is not a God of confusion. He doesn't have one plan for the Jews and another for the Christians. There is ONE plan of salvation.
If we as believes in Yeshua, continued to see ourselves as part of Israel and instead of making all the changes that were made by the 2 and 3rd centuries we might actually render the Jews jealous. If we continue to cling to doctrines that are so contrary to Torah that they bear no resemblance we won't. The problem is Christians, the Church, do not see themselves as part of Israel. They either themselves as replacing Israel entirely or as a separate entity called "the Church".
Just as we have a new identity in Messiah Yeshua and the old man is dead and buried in the waters of baptism and it is no longer we who live in our old nature, but a our new creation in Messiah that is alive, we also need to attach ourselves to Israel. Those who are gentiles have been grafted in and those who are native born, like myself have be re-grafted back to the olive tree. This is the whole point of Romans 11, but do you see it.
I've been writing for months on this blog to try to explain to you who we are. We are new creations and we belong to the ekklesia, the qahal. One day very soon, many Jews will have the veil lifted and see their Messiah. It's happening in our day. Are you ready to attach yourselves and take hold of the tzizits of a Jew, because that's what will happen in our day. The we will be the full olive tree composed of the house of Judah, the House of Israel ( who became the fulness of the nations) and the nations who have joined themselves to God's treasured possession. Israel is God's treasured possession and if we forget this and if we think we are a separate entity we will get it wrong.
You don't have to be Jewish to be Israel. You have to be Ruth and be determined to love the God of Israel and His people.. in Yeshua of course!
This is the great mystery that Paul is talking about that he doesn't want you to be ignorant of in Romans 11. Paul understood that the veil that kept many of the Jews from seeing Yeshua would be lifted one day, and then his brother Ephraim who literally became the fulness of the nations ( Gen 48) would join together with him and all who are associated with the two houses of Israel.
Ezekiel 37- read the whole chapter very carefully and once you see it, you will understand the point I've been trying to make.
Sometimes, if I sound like I'm being hard on Christians or on the Church, it's not that at all. I am frustrated that believers in the Messiah do not see themselves as part of Israel. It has to do with history, language, anti-semitism, biased translations and many obstacles that have kept people from seeing their identity as part of Israel. The last verse I will quote from is in the Kingdom and this should explain it all. Rich Medford quoted it the other day, but I'm not sure he and I meant exactly the same thing:
Zech. 14:9 ¶ And the LORD will be king over all the earth. On that day the LORD will be sone and this name one. ( echad)
Zech. 14:16-21Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem kshall go up year after year to worship lthe King, the LORD of hosts, and mto keep the Feast of Booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship lthe King, the LORD of hosts, pthere will be no rain on them.
And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain;* there shall be jthe plague with which the LORD afflicts the nations that do not go up mto keep the Feast of Booths. This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up mto keep the Feast of Booths. And on that day there shall be inscribed on the bells of the horses, r“Holy to the LORD.” And the pots in the house of the LORD shall be as the bowls before the altar. And every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holy to the LORD of hosts, so that all who sacrifice may come and take of them and boil the meat of the sacrifice in them. And sthere shall no longer be a trader* in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day.
EVERYONE is going up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord on that day, everyone from the nations who survives and we will be with Judah who will be holy to the Lord, and the Lord's name will be "echad".
Sometimes I say things that might seem very blunt, but what I'm trying to point you to is the verses in the Bible that explain what God is restoring in these Last Days. He's restoring Israel but because most of us think of Israel as the partially secular nation it's hard to see. It is very exciting though when you see that all of the promises from 4000 years ago are coming to pass in the midst of everything else that is going on. It's nothing short of amazing!
well two more sorry:
Eph. 2:12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to bthe covenants of promise, having cno hope and dwithout God in the world. But now in aChrist Jesus you who formerly were far off 1have cbeen brought near by the blood of Christ.
You were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel and now you have been brought near! It's not the Jews that have to join the Church, the nations have to attach themselves to Israel, the Israel that is being restored in our day, in Messiah Yeshua!
Sorry to have to pass this on -- I bought a Lamsa translation back in 1980 and found clearly in 1981 that the guy was clearly a NEW AGER and active in Unity Church circles at that. Billy Graham had endorsed the Lamsa translation which probably led many to think it straighter than it was.
Check this although I don't take everything CRI has as gospel either:
I would greatly appreciate it if Joyce and Susanna could help shed some light on this subject. I hesitated to bring it up, thinking it would be deemed controversial, but it seems very relevant to the conversations between Joyce, Susanna, Constance, Suzette, and Paul.
A valued contributor to this blog, whose name I won't mention, sent me an email recently,as it pertained to the discussion we were having of anti-Semitism as it applied to this blog recently. We were discussing a link (that went back to Nikki Rapanna), and she sent me a link that called itself Catholic and linked to Nikki's link. I actually think it is a front for a Catholic link, and not a truly Catholic website, in the sense that I know Catholicism. (That being said I was never an astute Catholic the way that Susanna is astute about her church). I believe this link is another way that the enemy tries to create divisiveness amongst Christians and promotes anti-Semitism. I hope Susanna will look at the link and give me her thoughts about its authenticity.
Here is the link:
At this link is an article that says the following:
"The tetragrammaton YHWH was added to the Jewish Tanakh (their falsified version of the Old Testament) after the time of Christ. Today, in their Masoretic Text, it appears almost 7,000 times, but not once does it appear in the authentic Septuagint (although a few late retrofitted versions clearly sought to incorporate it). Nor is the term ever used in the New Testament; it was unknown to the early Christians. So potent and undeniable are these facts that many YHWH diehards feel driven to claim that the term was systematically excised from the Greek scriptures by unscrupulous Christians! The idea that unscrupulous agents of a different persuasion might have added it to the Hebrew text never occurs to them.
Furthermore, Holy Church has never permitted this name, however vocalised, to be used in her sacred liturgy or her Bible translations (at least not formally and not until very recently, e.g. the frequent references to Yahweh in the Jerusalem Bible).
Now, according to modern ecclesial cant, the Church regards this name as so holy as to be unpronounceable. This was the position of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship earlier this year (2008) when it asked for all references to Yahweh to be removed from the liturgy. But this claim is pure fiction. If Jesus, the most holy name of God the Son, is so eminently pronounceable, why on earth should the purported name of God the Father be treated in such a markedly contradictory fashion? No, despite what the CDW directive may say, it is only the Jews and the uninformed who claim that YHWH is unpronounceable, not the Catholic Church.
The true reason why the Church refuses to use the tetragrammaton is that the Holy Spirit living within her prevents her from insulting God the Father with this bogus appellation. YHWH is a name derived from pagan gods, a name that fittingly appears on Tarot cards and in the first syllable of the name of the Masonic god Jahbulon (a compound of three pagan deities, an anti-Trinity in fact). It was inserted into the revised Hebrew scriptures of the 1st century AD, presumably as a kind of magical counterweight to the name of Jesus, now so hateful in Jewish ears.
Readers may disagree with our admittedly stark assertions, but the onus probandi lies on them to proves otherwise. If Holy Church has always rejected the name YHWH, even for the most private prayers, Catholics had better be very sure that they are not unwittingly offending and blaspheming God by utilising it themselves. They should recall that Holy Church has never claimed that the Hebrew Masoretic Text contains the pure, unadulterated Word of God - such is a Protestant belief."
This article then links to this article, which seems to be a bonafide Catholic site, and which verifies that the word Yahweh is being removed from all Catholic hymnals and texts:
I would appreciate it if some of the scholars here could shed some light on this subject. Why is the name Yahweh too sacred to utter, if the name of Jesus is not? Especially since, as Joyce pointed out, God is Echad, or ONE.
My own belief is that the Gnostics inserted their own counterfeit explanation of the Tetragrammaton into oral beliefs, to propagate confusion and to point blame at the Jews.
I still am confused at why the Catholics are so against the use of the word, Yahweh, however. I noticed Joyce doesn't use it. Nor does Susanna. However, Paul and Suzette have used the term and so have I, before I came across this controversy.
I hope no one will accuse me of bringing up a controversial subject. I almost brought it up yesterday , after reading Howard Jacobson's disgusting article. Then I thought better of it.
I think it is very important to continue to clear the air amongst the Catholics and Protestants here, so that we can continue to recognize the New Age agenda without falling prey to the next Bobby Garner.
Thanks in advance for helping me with this.
I just wanted to thank you for your wealth of information about history and religion. I am glad that you mentioned the Books of Maccabees in a different post as I was ignorantly unaware of this history of Israel. Although these books are not considered divinely inspired and therefore are not included in the Protestant bibles, after reading them, I can see how very revelant they are to understanding the history of Israel just prior to the coming of Jesus. The horrific persecution of the Jews at that time certainly helps explain the political climate between Jews and Gentiles as well.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention, as I think it's a relevant part of history that Protestants should become familiar with, too. My old CAtholic bible is big and bulky, but I'm glad I have it!
Re:He says that the Gospels and Epistles
of Paul and the others were actually
originally written in Aramaic, which
by the way was a dialect of Hebrew
which speakers of Hebrew would
easily understand. Aramaic grew
out of Hebrew and Arabic grew
out of Aramaic, he says.
I would not have a problem conceding that possibility if presented with evidence conclusive enough to convince me that this was true.
However, if the Gospels and Epistles of Paul WERE written in Aramaic, I have not yet seen any such conclusive evidence.
In fact the only evidence that I am aware of which indicates that even Matthew's Gospel was written in Aramaic is to be found in the writings of one of the Church Fathers whose name was St. Irenaeus, Bishop and martyr of Lyons. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, Bishop and martyr of Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, author of the Fourth Gospel.
St. Irenaeus is mentioned in the following Catholic Answers discussion. Interestingly, a Fundamentalist Christian is reportedly claiming just the opposite of Mr. Lamsa - that Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek:
Q: Is there any truth to the claim that Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek? A Fundamentalist I know, who insists Matthew wrote originally in Greek, argues that there's no evidence in favor of the idea that his Gospel was written first in Aramaic, because there's no extant Aramaic original.
A: This peculiar argument against the long-standing belief that Aramaic (or Hebrew) was the language in which Matthew originally composed his Gospel was first raised in the sixteenth century by the Dutch theologian and patristics scholar Desiderius Erasmus. He reasoned that, since there is no evidence of an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew's Gospel, it is futile to argue that the work originally appeared in Aramaic and was subsequently translated into Greek (as most patristics scholars hold).
This is not really much of an argument. It is an argument from silence and can be used just as effectively against the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, since there are likewise no extant originals of the Gospel in Greek. After all, the earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They're all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can't conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.
Your Fundamentalist friend is wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it's wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia" (Against Heresies 3:1:1).
Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).
Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).
Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).
There doesn't seem to be any debate that the Gospels (except for Matthew) and the rest of the New Testament were written in Greek since all the evidence that does exist indicates that this was the case.
Archeological records indicate, moreover, that Greek remained the common language of the writings of church leaders for hundreds of years.
Also, it is to be noted that ancient manuscripts of Flavius Josephus, a Jew who wrote history for the Romans at about the same time as the Gospels, are also in Greek.
Those who refuse to consider the possibility that Jesus' disciples could have known or written in Greek make several unverifiable assumptions without documented evidence.
If you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, then a case can easily be made that God arranged for the disciples to learn and write in Greek so the Good News could be easily spread.
Indeed, if the inspired authors of the New testament were not naturally bi-lingual or multi-lingual could they not have been made so at Pentecost vis a vis the gift of "speaking in tongues?"
1When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. 5Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. 6And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. 7Amazed and astonished, they asked, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs--in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power." 12All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"
When all is said and done, this is truly a fascinating subject to study, is it not?
First, the site "Catholic voice" for which you provided a link appears to be a rabidly anti-Semitic site that unfortunately insists on going by the name of "Catholic." The article, which bashes Protestants as well as Jews, is not only just plain wrong about the Tetragrammaton, it is downright blasphemous!
While you may inadvertantly missed my posts, I actually have mentioned the name "Yahveh" - in the form of "JHVH" - i.e. when I explained the meaning of this most sacred name of God a few threads ago.
On August 8, 2008, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. bishop's Committee on Divine Worship, announced a new Vatican directive regarding the use of the name of God in the sacred liturgy. "Specifically, the word 'Yahweh' may no longer be 'used or pronounced' in songs and prayers during liturgical celebrations."
This is the article for which you provided a link from the Catholic News Service which is an authentic
No 'Yahweh' in songs, prayers at Catholic Masses, Vatican rules
By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- In the not-too-distant future, songs such as "You Are Near," "I Will Bless Yahweh" and "Rise, O Yahweh" will no longer be part of the Catholic worship experience in the United States.
At the very least, the songs will be edited to remove the word "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.
Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, announced the new Vatican "directives on the use of 'the name of God' in the sacred liturgy" in an Aug. 8 letter to his fellow bishops.
He said the directives would not "force any changes to official liturgical texts" or to the bishops' current missal translation project but would likely have "some impact on the use of particular pieces of liturgical music in our country as well as in the composition of variable texts such as the general intercessions for the celebration of the Mass and the other sacraments."
John Limb, publisher of OCP in Portland, Ore., said the most popular hymn in the OCP repertoire that would be affected was Dan Schutte's "You Are Near," which begins, "Yahweh, I know you are near."
He estimated that only "a handful" of other OCP hymns use the word "Yahweh," although a search of the OCP Web site turned up about a dozen examples of songs that included the word.
OCP is a nonprofit publisher of liturgical music and worship resources.
Limb said the company would be contacting composers to "ask them to try to come up with alternate language" for their hymns. But he said hymnals for 2009 had already been printed, so the affected hymns would not include the new wording for at least another year.
Even when the new hymnals are out, "it may take time for people to get used to singing something different," he added in an Aug. 11 telephone interview with Catholic News Service.
At Chicago-based GIA Publications, another major Catholic publisher of hymnals, no major revisions will be necessary, because of the company's longtime editorial policy against use of the word "Yahweh."
Kelly Dobbs-Mickus, senior editor at GIA Publications, told CNS Aug. 11 that the policy, which dates to 1986, was based not on Vatican directives but on sensitivity to concerns among observant Jews about pronouncing the name of God. As an example, she cited Heinrich Schutz's "Thanks Be to Yahweh," which appears in a GIA hymnal under the title "Thanks Be to God."
Bishop Serratelli said the Vatican decision also would provide "an opportunity to offer catechesis for the faithful as an encouragement to show reverence for the name of God in daily life, emphasizing the power of language as an act of devotion and worship."
His letter to bishops came with a two-page letter from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dated June 29 and addressed to episcopal conferences around the world.
"By directive of the Holy Father, in accord with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this congregation ... deems it convenient to communicate to the bishops' conferences ... as regards the translation and the pronunciation, in a liturgical setting, of the divine name signified in the sacred Tetragrammaton," said the letter signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze and Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, congregation prefect and secretary, respectively.
The Tetragrammaton is YHWH, the four consonants of the ancient Hebrew name for God.
"As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, it was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: 'Adonai,' which means 'Lord,'" the Vatican letter said. Similarly, Greek translations of the Bible used the word "Kyrios" and Latin scholars translated it to "Dominus"; both also mean Lord.
"Avoiding pronouncing the Tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the church has therefore its own grounds," the letter said. "Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated."
The two Vatican officials noted that "Liturgiam Authenticam," the congregation's 2001 document on liturgical translations, stated that "the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew Tetragrammaton and rendered in Latin by the word 'Dominus,' is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning."
"Notwithstanding such a clear norm, in recent years the practice has crept in of pronouncing the God of Israel's proper name," the letter said. "The practice of vocalizing it is met with both in the reading of biblical texts taken from the Lectionary as well as in prayers and hymns, and it occurs in diverse written and spoken forms," including Yahweh, Jahweh and Yehovah.
The name "Jesus" is indeed a sacred name in so far as it refers to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But there has never been a tradition of avoiding the pronunciation of the name of Jesus as there was of avoiding the pronunciation of the name JHVH - probably because as Julian of Norwich once indicated, Jesus intends that we should think of Him in terms of "our familiar and courteous Lord."
Yes, I missed that. I'm sorry you had to repost again!
I am glad that my assessments were correct.
When I tried to find Yahweh in my concordance, I couldn't find it. That worried me. There is so much to learn and so little time to learn and evaluate everything.
Thanks so much for the information about the tzizit. Is it cobalt blue? Or ultramarine? Or cerulean?
I had no idea that it referred to an article of clothing.
Like Suzette, I am trying to learn, and frankly never had a very in-depth bible foundation. I appreciate what everyone here has to offer.
Conclusion, we who are not scholars cannot say whether the Gospels were written in another language, whether the disciples could or could not write Greek. The jury is still out on this. What is important are the hebraisms that we find in the Greek texts that can only be properly understood by going back and translating the texts into Hebrew. I think that confirms what I have been trying to say, which is that the disciples were native Hebrew speakers and more importantly thought hebraically as opposed to Greek.
The day of Shavuot, they were "hearing" in their own language. It is never recorded after that time that people suddenly were able to write in other languages. Of course God can do anything, but...we don't want to stretch Scripture. It's entirely likely that scribes could have translated the texts into Greek or maybe they were written in Greek originally, but IF they were, one thing is for sure..the writers were Hebrews through and through, not only by birth, but in the true sense of "crossing over". They spoke in terms that the Jews of the 1st Century would have understood based on the Torah, not based on Plato or Aristotle.
If we are to understand the Apostolic Scriptures thoroughly we must spend lots of time studying the Torah, Prophets and Writings or much of it will not really make sense..
YHVH is God's name which Susanna rightly said is translated into our English Bibles into LORD, all caps indicating that it is a substitute for the name. Jews also use the expression Adonai. They also use the expression HaShem, literally meaning "the Name".
There are several reasons the name is not pronounced. In the 10 Words ( 10 commandments as it is referred to by Christians) it says we should not take the name of the Lord in vain. Literally it means that we should not make His name empty. We have taken that to mean we should employ God's name in a curse, which is true, but there is much more to making God's name empty that just that. It is when we don't give Him His real weight and value and in this way render His Name as something less, than who He actually is.
Because Ancient Hebrew did not use vowels, we don't really know that the name is pronounced "Yaweh or Yaveh". Most people speculate that that is the pronunciation, but no one is really certain.
The history of this was in order to not take God's name in vain, the Israelites would only use it one time a year. When the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to make atonement for his sins and the sins of all Israel, he would pronounce the name.
Outside of that the name Adonai ( Lord) was used.
Since there has not been a Temple for almost 2000 years now to do the Yom Kippur offering in the exact pronunciation has been lost.
God is sovereign and could reveal the name, but it appears that He gave us another name which every one must confess if they want to be saved and that is the name Yeshua, so while the loss of the pronunciation seems accidental, I personally doubt it is.. I believe God neatly allowed this to be.
In some sense, I believe that Israel's loss of the pronunciation of the name was due to a wrong interpretation of the commandment not to make His Name empty. God intended for His name to be known. He says to Moses:
Ex. 3:15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘aThe LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
What He literally said to Moses is I will be what I will be, and that is the name that the children of Israel would know Him by and it was up to them to discover "what He would be"...We can't put God in a box even though we try sometimes..
Today Jewish people will often write G-d and leave out the vowel to denote that they don't want to disrespect His name even though G-d is a generic word for Him and can be used for other gods, it is their way of being respectful and interpreting that commandment.
I do not agree with the attempts to write Jehovah or Yaweh because we just don't know and so these may or may not be accurate. The Jehovah witnesses make a big deal out of using God's name, but they fail to tell people that is not His Name. They also say that Yeshua was "created" and have stricken John 1 from their Bibles..
Zech. 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only bone, and His name the only one.
Now the word for LORD in this verse is YHVH and in the same passage, Yeshua says He is coming to reign. So YHVH is going to put His feet on the MT of Olives and Yeshua is going to come and reign for 1000 years from Jerusalem before the New Jerusalem comes down from above.. so I ask you, what should we say about God. Is He echad, or not?
Let's look at this:
Acts 1:9 And after He had said these things, aHe was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
Acts 1:10-12 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, atwo men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, aMen of Galilee, why do you stand looking into 1the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will ccome in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.” Then they areturned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.
Let's look at the rest of passage in Zechariah 14:
Zech. 14:3-4 Then the LORD will go forth and afight against those nations, as 1when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will astand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
So, conclusion. YHVH is going to come to Mt. of Olives and Jerusalem will be split in two and Yeshua is coming back to Mt. of Olives, where He ascended from. Zechariah says His name will be "echad". so I ask you to tell me who is YHVH.. and is God one, or is He "triinity".
As I said, if we don't know Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, it's pretty hard to really understand the Apostolic Scriptures.
I forgot about "tekhelet is said to be a Prussian blue. It comes only from a certain snail, so is hard to find and expensive today:
here's a video on it:
Heheheh. I do love Prussian blue, though its dye is so powerful that I rarely use it "straight" in my paintings. When mixed with a little white, it is indeed a gorgeous blue.
Thanks for the information about the name of G-d. Something interesting that OldManoftheski told me recently, was that a Lakota friend of his told him that there is no "gee" sound in Lakota or Hebrew, or Aramaic, so even the disciples could not have called our Lord Jesus unless they were speaking Greek. I don't know whether or not this is true, but it does add another interesting facet to using the name of the Lord.
The name Jesus is a transliteration of ieosus which is the Greek. There is no "j" sound in Hebrew.. that's correct. Jerusalem in English is really Yerushalyim. All of the names in our English Bibles are anglicized. like Jacob, which is Yacob, etc.
I don't know if Prussian blue is exactly right, but maybe that is the closest?
I'm wrong on one, two, three counts.
I don't mind, really. I'm thankful
for this forum and for these brothers
and sisters in The Way.
Thank you Constance. Thank you
Grasshopper, and Susanna, and Joyce.
Rudi, thanks for another important
Not to cloud the issue further
but, what I heard about the name
Adonai, is that IT is/was a
blasphemeous "name" and not
just another way to say "Lord".
I'm sure I don't know...
I have noticed that the name
of Jesus is continually used
by people to try to bring more
power to their speech. No one
ever seems to invoke Buddha
or Muhammed or Krishna when
they need strong emphasis to
enhance their statements.
The name Jesus is powerful in
everyone's mind, whether they
believe in him or not.
I mean what's the first thing that
comes out of a startled or
frightened person's mouth ?
Adonai is generic and simply means lord and can be used for humans or gods. It can be translated my lord . It was used in the Masoretic text to replace YHVH.
Jehovah came from using the consonants from YHVH and adding the vowels of Adonai, and that is a really confusing way to "replace" God's name. It's a great way to witness to Jehovah Witnesses who make a big deal out of using that name. The main error of JWs is they don't believe Yeshua was there at the creation but that He is a created being, which
is heretical ( even though they introduce themselves as Christians...so do Mormons by the way who believe that Lucifer is Jesus' brother...that's really confusing stuff and very secretive). You can see how the name "Christian" has been used and abused over the centuries, to the point where it is very confusing to others who don't understand your faith.
As for Yeshua's name, I think we are instructed by Him to pray to the Father, in His Name, so this is the name we are given.
Gal. 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” He is our Abba, and we can approach Him with confidence because of Yeshua's atoning work. We pray in Yeshua's name, yes, because His Name is above all other names.
Re:Not to cloud the issue further
but, what I heard about the name
Adonai, is that IT is/was a
blasphemeous "name" and not
just another way to say "Lord".
I'm sure I don't know...
Good point, Paul. I have often wondered about the Old Testament use of "Adonai" in reference to God myself.
"Adonai" as used in the Bible is not a blasphemous name simply because it is NOT a personal name at all, but rather a title "Lord.". Its Greek equivalent in the Septuagint, moreover, is "Kyrios" which also means "Lord."
For example, the title "Adonai" is used in the "SHEMA YISRAEL" the first two words of a section of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) that is a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services.
 Shema Yisrael
The first, pivotal, words of the Shema are:
שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד
Judaism teaches that the Tetragrammaton (י-ה-ו-ה) is the ineffable name of God, and as such is not read aloud in the Shema but is traditionally replaced with אדני, Adonai ("my Lord"). For this reason, the Shema is recited aloud as:
Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad.
The literal word meanings are roughly as follows:
Shema — listen, or hear (according to the Targum, accept)
Yisrael — Israel, in the sense of the people or congregation of Israel
Adonai — often translated as "Lord", it is read in place of the Tetragrammaton
Eloheinu — our God, the word "El" or "Elohei" signifying God (see also: Elohim), and the plural possessive determiner suffix "nu" or "einu" signifying "our"
Echad — the Hebrew word for the number 1
In common with other ancient languages, connective words such as "is", and conventions regarding punctuation, are usually implied rather than stated as they would be in modern English.
This first verse of the Shema relates to the kingship of God. The first verse, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord," has ever been regarded as the confession of belief in the One God. Due to the ambiguities of the Hebrew language there are multiple ways of translating the Shema:
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God! The LORD is One!" and,
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God — the LORD alone."
Many commentaries have been written about the subtle differences between the translations. There is an emphasis on the oneness of God and on the sole worship of God by Israel. There are other translations, though most retain one or the other emphases.
In the following article we read:
In the Bible the Israelite god Yahweh is sometimes referred to as Adon, though the term is used as a title, not as the personal name of Yahweh. Eventually, the appellation "Adonai" (my Lord) became a substitution name for pronouncing in prayer the unutterable name Yahweh, which by the early rabbinical period (first and second centuries A.D.) had become too sacred to pronounce. To this day, when Jews encounter the consonants of "Yahweh' (YHWH) in prayer, they pronounce it "Adonai." They might be shocked to learn that this substitution word is related to the Phoenician "Adon" and the Greek Cypriot "Adonis." Further, Muslim, Jews and Arabic-speaking, Aramaic/Syriac-speaking Christians might be shocked also to learn that their words for God come from the Phoenician god's name of "El" as in "Elah," "Allah," "Elahona,""Eloh," "Elohaino," "Eli," "Eloi," "Elohak"...etc .
Adonis was certainly based in large part on Tammuz. His name is Semitic, a variation on the word "adon" meaning "lord" that was also used, as "Adonai", to refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament. When the Hebrews first arrived in Canaan, they were opposed by the king of the Jebusites, Adonizedek, whose name means "lord of Zedek" (Justice). Yet there is no trace of a Semitic cult directly connected with Adonis, and no trace in Semitic languages of any specific mythemes connected with his Greek myth; both Greek and Near Eastern scholars have questioned the connection (Burkert, p 177 note 6 bibliography). The connection in cult practice is with Adonis' Mesopotamian counterpart, Tammuz:
As for the comments about Allah, etc. Allah was the pagan moon good among 360 in pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia who Mohamed's family worshipped prior to introducing the monotheistic religion, Islam, but it is also a generic name for the god in Arabic so Christian Arabs use it too. Today it is strongly associated with the god of Islam.
"In the preface to his book of essays TRAIL OF THE DINOSAUR (1955), Koestler declared his literary-political career over. During 1958 and 1959 he travelled to India and Japan, in order to discover whether the East could offer a spiritual aid to the West. For his disappointment, he did not find what he was looking for and reported on his failure in THE LOTUS AND THE ROBOT (1960). Koestler's article about Anglo-American 'drug culture, 'Return Trip to Nirvana' appeared in Sunday Telegraph in 1967 and challenged Aldous Huxley's defence of drugs. He experimented at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor with psilocybin and combined its effect to his vision to Walt Disney's Fantasia. "I profoundly admire Aldous Huxley, both for his philosophy and uncompromising sincerity. But I disagree with his advocacy of 'the chemical opening of doors into the Other World', and with his belief that drugs can procure 'what Catholic theologians call a gratuitous grace'. Chemically induced hallucinations, delusions and raptures may be frightening or wonderfully gratifying; in either case they are in the nature of confidence tricks played on one's own nervous system.""
Thanks for your contributions regarding my questions.
At least my BS sniffer was working correctly, regarding the CAtholic voice site.
Also you can donate through the CHIP IN box on the main page of Micro Effect Radio. It's a paypal donation. Just let Joe McNeil know you are putting this toward Constance's show only.
Some have already donated. Thanks! Margie
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]