are you sensitive talking about God's name? We can stop, we don't have to continue. but if you wish to continue, please keep reading below
*****************
yes, God's personal name is used just under 7000 times, but that's all in the Old Testament. and it's not consistently throughout the Old Testament.
1 When God says he's going to make his name known to the nation's, I think he means his reputation, his name in the sense of reputation. think of all the passages where he says he will make his name great. he means he's going to get lots of cred.
2 And this fits perfectly with what Peter says in I think it is Acts chapter 4, that there is no other name available to humans by which we must be saved except Jesus. that part about being available to humans, or given among men, or under heaven fits well I think with the current situation of our not knowing the vowels of God's personal name or it's exact meaning.
3 But his reputation, oh yes, we know that! And I love how the first part of God's name is incorporated into Jesus!
4 and yes I believe in just one creation. So let's call it two sections. in the first section God's personal name is not used. yes it's the same God. but I'm talking about the actual use of God's personal name.
5 I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the Septuagint. maybe they made good choices, maybe they didn't. but the New Testament writers were inspired by God. when they quote the Old Testament, they don't use YHWH.
6 yes I'm okay with Satan being called God. that's what God inspired the New Testament writers to write. God is a title, and yes for many people that title fits when applied to Satan.
7 that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew is a theory that comes up every now and then. no one knows with absolute certainty. I'm not surprised that there is a 13th century manuscript in Hebrew for Matthew.
8 the theory is generally based on a line from one of the ancient historians writing in I think the 4th century. that's like 300 years after the original book, so how did he know?
9 But in the end, that's just one of 27 books.
10 regarding what the rabbis might have done, I think they would have had very little influence related to the letters of Paul that were circulating in the Gentile world.
I believe we have talked about the use of His name a number of times, Im not going to re quote each time but I will reply to the lines you made, im numbering your uote then go accordingly:
1.
Jeremiah 16:19-21, "O YHWH, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles will come to You from the ends of the earth, and will say:
Surely our fathers have inherited nothing but lies and vanity of no use at all! Do men make gods for themselves? Yes, but they are powerless! Therefore behold,
I will make them to know--this time I will teach them My power and might; and they will know that My Name is YHWH!"
Jeremiah 12:14-17, "This is what YHWH says against all My evil
neighbors who touch the inheritance which I have caused My people Israyl to inherit: Behold, I will pluck them up from off their land, and I will pluck up the house of Yahdah from among them. And it will come to pass, after I have plucked them out, that I will return and have compassion on them, and bring them back; everyone to his heritage and everyone to his land. And it will come to pass,
if they will diligently learn the ways of My people, to vow by My Name, saying; As surely as YHWH lives--as they once taught My people to vow by Baal (Lord) then they will be established in the midst of My people. But if they do not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, says YHWH."
2.
One I have never said a person is "condemmed" for using Jesus, but the name Jesus DID NOT EXIST when Peter was alive, it was not until the 16th century that the letter "J" was made. and to say that "we dont know the vowels" Hebrew vowels did not exist until sometime from 600ad to 1200ad, and they knew His name just fine for thousands of years. The meaning of His name comes from a root word "hayah" and it means to exist, YHWH means the self existant one, NO OTHER being can claim that the are self existant.
ALso:
Jeremiah 23:5-6, “See, the days are coming,” declares יהוה, “when I shall raise for Dawiḏ a Branch of righteousness, and a Sovereign shall reign and act wisely, and shall do right-ruling and righteousness in the earth. In His days Yehuḏah shall be saved, and Yisra’yl dwell safely. And this is His Name whereby He shall be called: ‘יהוה our Righteousness.”
3.
I would say we are in full agreement here, very beautiful, that is why I love Yahshua/Yahushua so much... YHWH is Salvation!
4.
We agree here.
5.
I agree about the Sept. maybe maybe not about good choices, my point was that it was common to replce YHWH with theos/kyrios, same as we see in the "NT" when speaking of the Father. Also that if the ones who knew hebrew and greek better than anyone on the planet thought those were viable translateble words, I think the same for using YHWH for theos/kyrios. If it is talking about YHWH how could someone have a problem with the use of YHWH for theos/kyrios but not have a prioblem with the use of theos/kyrios for YHWH, aslo theos/kyrios were use for nearly any pagan god of the greeks, they are titles, not "divine" as many scholrs claim, if they were divine Paul would have not use theos for satan right?
6.
we are here, my reasons are as stated above, it is rather a title showning some type of power rather than a word linked to YHWH only.
7&8.
No its not based on one line, its based on many things, Yahshua's teaching, the religious groups of that day, the teaching of the apostles, history, manuscripts, and manuscript deviation, and much more. I have studied this topic for years with all the things mentioned aboive and fact is we were not alive at that time but I dont go in the direction of a doctrine unless it has a lot of evidence pointing in that direction. Im not saying it is the original Matt, but its content is more original than anything we have is the grammar is compared to the aramaic and greek it is not even debatable and yes the people that lived in times post Messoah say Matt wrote His gospel in greek and it was translated into other languages. I take the grammatical evidence as first importance however.
9.
this is true and honeslty there is not major diviation in doctrine but there are serious errors that are not in Hberew version of matt, to me, having spent much of my life seeking truth I enjouy every shred of truth I can get, even if I have to have some times of unertianity.
10.
well you may be and if we look at the surface probably are right about this, however this view does not include Paul's past nor hellenistic influence. and to say that is not important is not true, even if one changes their past experience shapes who they are, sometimes makes you better to go through difficulties, and the hellenistic influence, if this did not exist the Septuagint and the NT would not be in greek. To say exaclty what impact this htad is WAY too much to talk about here, one would need to read a number of hisotry books and study the times and culture and know the Scriptures well to have real insogth. but in the end I would not say it's of 100% vital importance to know truth, but something to further uinderstand the nuiance and details.
