Rosh Hashanah and the Second Coming

The B'rit Chadasha Pages | 9/20/06 | Michael D. Bugg

[jude24]

Using the Lord and His Apostles' Hebrew names is not a matter of self-elevation.

No, not at all. At worst, it could be pretentious, although I would not attribute that to you. Instead, it is due to your affinity for the Hebrew background of the New Testament. Now, personally, I believe your extent of affinity is a little extreme, but Mr. Terrell has completely missed the mark in attributing the motivation of self-elevation.

neither is there anything wrong with using the Name by which He was called for the 33 years that He walked this earth in such a fashion that people know what it is.

And yet, the New Testament saw fit to Hellenize the name....? Perhaps the Anglicization is not such a bad thing?

My friend, I honestly believe your writings are detracted by needless Hebraisms. Now, I would say the same thing if it were Grecisms - I am bothered by those who unnecessarily use Greek words if they add little to the conversation. Or by those who unnecessarily use legalese when it is not needed. Of course, terms of art or key words that need to be translated to amplify a particular point should always be fair game. But I would challenge yout consider trying a few of your essays without the Hebraisms. I bet you will see see it makes them less distracting.

[William Terrell]

My observation wasn't based on whether anyone may or may not understand you.

Whether you are a liar is not for me to answer. A person need not be aware of the foundation beneath his actions. Sometimes it's deeply ingrained by traumatic events or rearing. That's my opinion. That opinion comes from one who is tempted that way much and has given in more than once, so it irritates me when I see it.

My main twitch, though, is using methods to gain deeper color of authority on spiritual matters. I know some Protestant ministers who tend to use a similar oar. Not to speak of televangelists. I'm an equal opportunity judger.

I can say my first question was just from seeing people write using Yeshua and wondering, why just not use Jesus, by which name He's well known to the world?, then moving on to something else. First chance I've had to ask.

The rest came out of the conversation and other posts.

If you feel you'll be judged or though less of by God for your lack of respect to Christ by calling Him Jesus instead Yeshua, I don't have or ever have had that belief. Maybe that's why I see the other side.

Being what I think about the usage is correct, I don't think it's good.

[AnnaZ]

The English word is "Jesus".

Your name in Spanish is Guillermo. But, if you were good friends with a Spaniard, he would probably call you William.

[Quix]

If it's not fruit cake . . . you can have it all. LOL.

Now who will be the first one to say

"That figures!" LOL.

May your intimacy this coming year with your loved ones be double your wildest dreams and hopes.

And with God, quadruple.

LUB,

[DouglasKC]

Yom Teruah is a day which ultimately calls all of God’s people together in repentance in anticipation of the glorious Second Coming, in which He will once again visit His people in the Person of the Messiah Yeshua to Resurrect the dead, awaken the living, and judge all mankind together.

Thanks for the excellent article. Trumpets is indeed a glorious, holy day full of meaning. When Christ returns, at the last trumpet, we will indeed be resurrected to glory.

Looking forward to future Atonement and Tabernacles installments.

[Buggman]

And yet, the New Testament saw fit to Hellenize the name....? Perhaps the Anglicization is not such a bad thing?

And have I ever said it was? :^)

But I would challenge yout consider trying a few of your essays without the Hebraisms. I bet you will see see it makes them less distracting.

Again, I'm not seeing all that many people who find them distracting and bothersome. In fact, quite a few seem to like it. Those that object are pretty much confined to one small circle who have already decided in their minds that I'm a heretic and are just looking for nits to pick.

Because you've asked in love and lateral respect, I'll definitely consider your request in prayer--though I'll say that it was prayerful consideration that led me to start up the Hebraisms in the first place. But until and unless the Spirit leads me to change my practice, I'd greatly appreciate it if everyone would just accept it as one of my little quirks and actually comment on the substance of my arguments.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Post #120: Simple fact of the matter is that you've always been good to correspond with, and while I disagree with you, its based on ideas, not personality. Your insights have always been interesting, even if from different assumptions than mine.

Ditto, my friend.

[Alamo-Girl]

There is obviously a difference in the way the parties are approached by the media - but I'm not sure whether the reason is physical or spiritual. Thanks for the ping!

[Quix]

There is obviously a difference in the way the parties are approached by the media - but I'm not sure whether the reason is physical or spiritual.
= = = =

Not sure what you mean physical . . . do you mean in the natural realm vs the spiritual?

Certainly it's spiritual--at least. I don't think any major thing on this planet currently is devoid of a significant spiritual component--if such was ever the case.

If you mean in the natural . . . evil men driven by demonic forces are wholesale trying to rush the planet into the global government. This is no longer a question. There's no longer any doubt for folks who are well informed, paying attention or even "just" praying earnestly and listening to Holy Spirit.

So, at some level satan's stool pigeons do effect many things in the natural in natural ways. But, I don't think--it's ever without spiritual forces tagging along and for more than just window dressing or neutral effect.

[Alamo-Girl]

Yes, when I said "physical" I meant "natural."

It was sloppy, but the point is simply this: the media's behavior may be their behaving like the liberals they are --- or, it could be just one of many parts in an end time scenario playing out in front of us. If so, then Praise God! Maranatha, Jesus!

[Quix]

True. true.

Though given all the givens . . . I think it's more than the media just being liberals. And, I think if you prayerfully ponder it, you'll feel the same way.

For example, why virtually no mention of the scarier aspects of Iranian nut job and Chavez nut job's speech content in the MSM? Who gave that order? Why?

[.30Carbine]

I am in great need of much more sweetness and much more wisdom, dear Quix!

[Quix]

I am in great need of much more sweetness and much more wisdom, dear Quix!
= = =

Obviously . . . join the club! LOL.

Thx.

[ScubieNuc]

I didn't read your whole post, but just skimmed over it...it looks like a great read! I did go to your church web site, and all I can say is WOW! It is such a rush to my soul every time I come across Messianic Jews! We had a Lady come to our church and explain the symbolism of the Sedar meal....It leaves you breathless to see the amazingness of God.

Keep up the good work!

Brother in Christ.

[1000 silverlings]

Why thank you Quix, that's very kind of you.

[1000 silverlings]

I'd greatly appreciate it if everyone would just accept it as one of my little quirks and actually comment on the substance of my arguments.

Well, when you put it that way, I'd have to say "okay". Nothing wrong with quirky, I like quirky. Thanks for pinging me by the way.

[Star Traveler]

I had a post from way back when. You might take a look at it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39e032ca390d.htm

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, I think they are driven. Thank you for your reply!

[ET(end tyranny)]

There's nothing wrong with using the English mispronounciation of a Latin transliteration of a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name, mind--I'm not into the Sacred Name nonsense ("If you don't pronounce it right, you're not saved!"). I just prefer to call Him by the original Name.

I sometimes type Jesus and other times Yehoshua, though I suppose Joshua would be more correct over Jesus since there was no J common in the English language until around the 16th century. Prior to that time, those words now shown with a J were pronounced as though the J was a Y. So 'Joshua', even in English, is proven conclusively to be (Yeshua, Yahshua, or Yehoshua) when the original Y sound is used. Thus, it is impossible for 'Jesus' to be anything close to the true name, because the 'J' sound did not exist when he was alive.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Quite frankly, what do we as Christians have to learn from Christ-rejecting rabbis?

Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

He placed 'moral' law above 'ceremonial' law.  This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law.  You have to remember that Jesus taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of interpretation in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath.

For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees of which Jesus belonged, but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Jesus. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt.

These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws.   Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.

Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.

Notice that works is mentioned twice.  The 'moral laws' and 'ceremonial laws'.

[ET(end tyranny)]

So, you think that Jewish parents, that were strong adherents to the Judaic principles and lived in a Jewish contextual setting would give their son a Greek name?