Nibbled, I sent you PM
Lisa
San Francisco or Bay Area Members?
by nibbled 109 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
OnTheWayOut
My understanding is that recently it's was determined that the entire thing was hoax and "Sybil" never existed. OTWO offered it as an explanation for me. He does stuff like that from time to time... contrary to his public statements that he wouldn't. Ah, well... what can you do? Most people never REALLY change.
I asked via PM for this person to show me my " public statements that [I] wouldn't" post such a post. Sybil declined. I was not disrespectful or anything. Sorry to interupt Shirley's wonderful conversation with herself.
-
nibbled
You know OTOW I'm a bit peeved. Not sure why on my threads you're harrassing her. Can you do it elsewhere? You killed the conversation I was enjoying. I can't wait to meet Shelby's 11 other personalities. At least they have personality.
Btw with great mischief it occurs to me that it'd be fun to tackle you with all my separate social media personalities. All in good fun my friend. Keep an eye out for an army of virtual women. :)
but please, pick on Shelby Shirley and Sybil elsewhere so at least you're not busting up my convo, or I'll take to bustin' your balls. ;)
-
OnTheWayOut
You have already met one of Shelby's 11 other personalities.
Just carry on, ignore the man behind the curtain.
-
zed is dead
OTWO,
The toast done slipped off the plate, and landed butter side down.
zed
-
nibbled
Don't mind me, I'm just admiring my ruby slippers, though I prefer tea parties with wonderful hats and rabbits instead of tin can men or scratchy ones with no heart.
I just find the hugs are better when warm.
-
AGuest
DISCLAIMER (for any who might care): LONG post. Honkin’ long. Just so’s you know.
AGuest, I'm glad that we have the forum of writing because I can't imagine doing this in person. I'd get so excited and we'd probably both spontaneously combust (into 12 personalities?) hehe
Maybe, dear one (good day and peace to you!). I’m a pretty cool cucumber, though, for the most part. I think even my “admirer” OTWO would probably agree with that. I’m not really a very “excitable” person. Came up in the “streets” and so saw a lot that kinda taught me to limit my excitement to times when it’s really warranted. Now, that does include times when my Lord gives me something “new”... so, yeah, some excitement, maybe. One personality for me, though. I mean, that’s all I can handle.
Okay, so I feel like I'm getting "your Lord" whose words jump straight out of your mouth. I'm trying to get to your mind to your heart and ask you to engage with me.
Well, my mouth is actually closed when I’m sharing HERE... and I am speaking from the heart (meaning, doing so in truth and out of a truthful heart)... so... not sure you DO “get” him... or me. But no worries – if it’s to be, it will be, I have no doubt.
I don't need to connect to my Father or his Son though any other person, thus, I'm interested in you.
Ahhhh, yes, I see. Well, now, I think that’s something you’re just going to have to let “flow”, you know? Come as it may. I do post as to myself from time to time, but just your usual everyday stuff. I mean, I’m not different than most other folk, so... I share as to me when I feel the discussion warrants it. I wasn’t feeling that here, so much.
Your heart, the soil on which the seeds are planted. I want to get to know you, which is love, but all I'm getting from you is what your Lord told you.
Ah, well, then, just stick around a bit. I’ve been here a long time (and still some feel they don’t know me, while others feel they do very well. Some truth... and not so much... to both). Personally, though, I like to get to know people... and them to know me... as a natural progression of things. I mean, I could TELL you stuff all the day long. So what? What you will find is that my Lord... and what he tells me... is a very integral part of “me”... and so you’re not very likely to get to know me... as well as you might... without that.
I often fear that people will take my inquiries and feel offense, I am so happy that that seems not to be happening with us. Because I am very interested and am searching for the words to elicit the response. Thank you for allowing me.
(Smile) One of the FIRST “lessons” my Lord taught me, dear one... and I have found it TRUE... is this:
“Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.” Ecclesiastes 7:9 (NWT)
At the time, I most probably had allowed myself to become offended over something I shouldn’t have, something that was not intended to... or worth... becoming offended over. He chose the right Bible version to show me that (it’s stated differently in others), though, because I’ve never forgotten the impact that had on me. I no longer offend easily, as a result... so, absolutely NO worries.
I am asking you—you reason with me that your Lord told you that the spelling of all this things begin with "J". Then you went on to speak about "when those scribes, who determined that God's name was too sacred to utter, let alone write," and how it is that they altered names—So, I'm asking you, or if you so desire, even your Lord through you—why is it that cares about what the scribes did to his word, if he would choose to use something that wasn't even used when the scribes did their work?
(Smile) Because he wanted me to understand, dear one... because I want to understand. He does not limit the truth, dear one. He leads into ALL truth, even as to minutiae, if it’s applicable to what he is showing one. The only way I could spell God’s name ACCURATELY would be to either use the Hebrew letters (which would be pretentious, as well as difficult, given the limitations of the board sometimes to present certain letters)... or type out “yodh... het... vav... het” EVERY time. So, he explained how it would be written in our modern alphabet. No big deal, really.
In other words, why would he use the letter "J" to represent his name (which predates scribes) and then explain to you about how scribes screwed things up?
Please see above.
AGuest, I cannot wrap my head around how it is that he would wait until the 13th century C.E. to have his name be able to rendered. The "J" came to be in the 13th century.
I understand (your difficulty here). He didn’t wait until then, actually. The SOUND that is made by the yodh, which corresponds to the letter “j” TODAY was around. Long, long before. As was the letter that was formerly the iota without the foot was around. That a foot wasn’t put on the iota until the 13 th century does not mean my Lord’s name wasn’t properly rendered until then. It was, both properly (yodh) and improperly.
That doesn't make any sense.
I guess if you can’t move past the understandings... and teachings... of the scribes/scholars, no. I can understand why it wouldn’t. But if you went to him... and allowed HIM to teach you... a whole LOT of things that the scribes and scholars say... would no longer make sense, either.
So, please ask him or explain to me why use a letter which didn't exist?
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way, dear one. I can ask for ME... and share with him what he says/tells ME about such things. But I cannot act as a “medium” between you and him and ask something for YOU of HIM... and then tell you what he “said.” I am not your mediator and so my gift does not allow that. You, though, are certainly free (and able, although you might not know/understand that... yet)... to go to him and ask whatever it is you want to know... for yourself. By all means, please DO!
(He did direct me to ask YOU to consider: why use a letter such as “y”... which is derived from the Greek “upsilon”... and not the “iota” OR the Hebrew “yodh”?).
Or, please, before the letter "J" existed, what letter did he tell you was there, when the name was transliterated?
He told me that the Greek scribes used the “iota”... which corresponds to today’s “j”... and not the “upsilon”... which corresponds to today’s “y”...
His Son was fluent in Aramaic Greek and Hebrew, what would he have written?
(Smile) My Lord was only sent to Israel, dear one. Matthew 15:24, 26 And so while he was alive in the flesh, HE spoke primarily to the Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Jews and Samaritans. And when he wrote (John 8:6, 8), it was in that language, as well. And these rarely spoke Greek (although those Jews who spoke Greek almost always also spoke Hebrew). And so, he would have written in the Hebrew: “yodh het vav het”... as would the Apostles... who limited their dealings with the Greek-speaking Jews... because of their limited language skills. This is one of the reasons for the gifts of tongues (which was GIVEN by my Lord... who can speak ALL tongues– Genesis 11:6-9; Revelation 5:9, 7:9): Israel, which had been scattered among the nations... wasn’t not limited to Hebrew OR Greek. Many also spoke other languages. Acts 2:4-18 But ALL pretty much knew Hebrew... because of the Law and worship at the temple. Acts 8:27-36
PAUL, however, would have written to those who spoke Greek IN Greek... and those who spoke Hebrew/Aramaic in that language. That’s why HE became the apostle “to the nations” and not any of the 12 OR my Lord’s brothers.
Please, ask him, to be clear, how was his name transliterated from the original Hebrew to the original Latin alphabet, the old Latin alphabet, and the classical Latin alphabet?
It wasn’t, dear one. It was (mis)transliterated from Hebrew... to Greek... then (mistransliterated) from Greek back to Hebrew. Save the KJV, very few of the Hebrew parts of Bible versions in circulation today come from solely the Latin (Vulgate). Most of the scribes researched texts even older than that.
What you and many others are missing is the truth that the Hebrew text was written BEFORE the Greek. You must realize that the Hebrew we have now came from the Greek Septuagint, which is a translation from the previous Hebrew – HOWEVER, the previous Hebrew was not the ORIGINAL Hebrew, but a form of Hebrew-Aramaic formulated during the exile in Babylon. The ORIGINAL "Hebrew" was actually what is called “Phoenician" or "true Aramaic” today. Even the Paleo-Hebrew and Samaritan Alphabet show the yodh as corresponding to the "u". For example, i n both the Paleo-Hebrew and Samaritan alphabet, the Hebrew “yodh”... was the “jut” (pronounced “yut”)... which made the SOUND of “yuh” The “jut” was NOT a “y”, though, any more than the later “yodh” was.
Forgive me for pressing so hard, but before I can accept your 17th century truth, I'm asking how it is that you or your Lord explains what his name was for the previous 2,400 years. (Latin alphabet dates from 7th century BC, as I understand.)
I understand what you’re asking, dear one. He explains that the previous 2,400 had been an error.
To CORRECT the error, one would have to go back before the Latin... before the Greek... before the Hebrew (which was merely a form of Assyrian/Chaldean “Aramaic” and so before the Jews were exiled in Chaldea/Babylon)... and so before the Paleo-Hebrew... thus, before the Samaritan... to the Proto-Canaanite... or “Phoenician” and FIRST Hebrew Aramaic alphabets. And in THAT language, the name of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAHVEH, would be spelled:
“jod het (NOT ‘he’), wau, het”
Which would be pronounced... “yah veh” (the wau having the “v” sound here).
So, right now, I'm not interested in more and more of what he says, because he sounds like a voice you're hearing which is explaining to you what the scribes did 2500 years ago, but then tells you how to spell his name using letters only hundreds of years old.
No, that’s not quite it, but if you’re not interested... you’re not interested. But I can’t tell you different from what HE tells ME.
Just ask him how his Son spelled his name while he was on earth?
My Lord spelled HIS name to me as:
“jod het he shin wau eyn”...
Which would be pronounced...“yah e sh w ah” (with the “he” representing the short “e” sound, the “wau” having the “w” sound here, the “u” sound supplied by the speaker, and the “eyn” (representing “ayin”) having the short “o” sound).
I'm sorry, but since I can pronounce the name, and know all the letters used to represent it from Hebrew to Latin and Greek, I'm not really concerned with 17th century English.
It’s really pretty easy to pronounce, actually: Yah esh you ah.
Please, with all due respect.
Of course! Always!
Part of me right now is simply evaluating if I should listen to what comes from your mouth, as you claim to speak as a prophet and yet what you say is not valid in antiquity.
Wait, what? WHOA!! I make NO SUCH CLAIM. I am just a good-for-nothing servant. Nothing more. And I have NEVER said that you... or anyone should listen to what comes from MY mouth... ever. I am NOT the Word of God... and HIS is the ONLY voice you should be listening to. HIS mouth is what speaks truth... and HIS mouth toward the sons of man. I am not here to lead or convert you... or ANYONE. I am simply sharing what that One has shared with ME. Whether YOU or anyone else hear... or refrain. Whichever you CHOOSE... is of no concern to me. I am not the source of anyone’s salvation. I am simply trying to work out my OWN... and that of MY household. By telling the TRUTH... about the Truth, the Holy One of the Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), and about his God and Father... and mine... the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAHVEH.
Further our Father wishes us to know him, and in the truest sense that is to seek truth from it's first utterances.
Which is what I have done: sought His Truth... indeed, asked for him... and he came to me. And THROUGH him... through knowing THAT One... by means of a union with him and HIS spirit, holy spirit... came to know Him, the Father. Now, I don’t know how YOU believe you will get to know Him... but what I’ve done has worked out pretty well for me... and my household... so I think it would be foolish not to stick with that.
Thus, while my Father nor his Son speak to me audibly, from generation upon generation through the hands of many fallible humans scribes and heresies, down to modern history and burning at the stake and translating the word so it have so many subtle variances, what remains true is that we were told to dig as if searching for hid treasure.
(Smile) Okay. You do that. I have chosen another path (John 5:39, 40) and I prefer that, if you don’t mind?
The 17th century English, bastardization of Babel, isn't sufficient for my desire to know ??????.
Not quite sure what you’re referring to here, luv.
Moving forward, I now realize I have no idea what you call your Lord, the man commonly referred to as "Jesus"...? So you call him the Christ, I see.
I refer to him as “christ”, sometimes, yes. For myself, I call him “Lord,” or “my Lord.” His name is Jah eShua, and he is the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit and Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), who is the MOST Holy One of Israel... and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
That's a Greek title, Christos. You're okay with that? Why are you not okay with his Greek name then?
Sure! I mean, I don’t use it for me, per se, dear one. Even so, it’s not a name but a title. Like “Lord.” If you notice, I refer to him as the “Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)”... which is almost what “christ” means (it means “chosen” one... but it doesn’t quite designate chosen of WHO. Know what I mean?).
IEOUS became JESUS.
Many believe that, yes. You’re welcome to, as well. I mean, it’s not like I would NEVER use. I have actually known some guys named “Jesus.” It’s not the name of my Lord, though, sorry. Not trying to be contentious, truly. Truly.
You are okay with I becoming Y becoming J in the dilution of linguistics since Babel, but you're not okay with the same progression when applied to his Son's name?
I’m confused – are you saying “Christ” is my Lord’s name? I don’t think that’s accurate
Why his the Son's name more precious than the Father's?
WHOA... who said THAT??
I respect that you hear voices, and I am grateful to you that you respect me testing your spirit to see if it comes from our Father.
No worries; I have nothing to hide, dear one (smile!).
I am however, not asking for what your spirit says, while my spirit doesn't speak to me in audible voices, I have access to him directly—therefore, I do not need you to tell me "the truth".
Then perhaps we should consider discussing another/other topic(s)...
I can go directly to the Father through his Son via the holy spirit to be taught, just as you can. Therefore I am here only and simply to know you, my sister.
I can, as well, to (first) give praise, honor, and glory TO the Father, and ask for HIS kingdom to be established and will to be done... as well as my “daily bread”... and forgiveness for my errors and transgressions. Everything else... I go to the Son... just as he has directed me to (John 14:13, 14).
Thus, you can, if you are willing or if your spirit is willing, give me more. I am not asking for your spirit to speak, I'm asking for your heart, or your mind. Our Father examines our hearts, and knows our minds, therefore there must be something in there—I would like to know what is in yours.
Ahh, dear Nibs. I can tell you all day long “what’s” in my heart. Won’t mean a thing, though, because that doesn’t mean it’s true. What you should really try to do is get to KNOW what’s in my heart... by what I say, perhaps... but even better... by what I do.
Just like the soil which the seed falls upon may be many different conditions, and it isn't just one upon which fruit may be cultivated, what we learn from the holy spirit from whom we are taught (unless you encounter an unholy spirit) settles into our hearts and minds.
Indeed. But again, I could say all manner of “righteous” things. Still doesn’t mean it’s true. The only way you would get to KNOW what’s truly in my heart... is to get to know me. Several here have bothered to do that.
That is what I am desperately, now, attempting to access. I want to know you. Please let me in?
Why? Why me? I am nobody, truly. There are a gazillion folks here who I am SURE you would not only love to know... and love once you know them... even see eye to eye with. Why ME? I’m some lady blathering about God and Christ on an Internet site. What’s the big deal?
Okay, so you quote Jeremiah 31. If you believe the word of God, then you cannot take those verses out of their context. There is a reference in the chapter where he gave us witnesses. You're a lawyer, could you please review the contract of Jeremiah 31, and review the clauses and it's intent with it's original dates. Then, please, can you tell me that you qualify as one of the parties as expressly and explicitly stipulated?
I am not a lawyer, dear one. And yes, I can tell you that as a descendant of Jacob’s son, BenJahMin... I would qualify. At least, that’s what my Lord has told me. Both who I am and why that promise applies to me... as well as that it does apply to me.
Before I'm allowed to take in knowledge from a third party from the voice of a spirit I do not know, I am required to test that spirit.
Indeed! Yes!
Testing that spirit requires that what the spirit says stands up to the written and fleshly Word of God.
Well, not exactly. Sort of. It must stand up to SPIRIT Word of God, the Holy Spirit... as he’s no longer in the flesh... and love. If one can’t HEAR that Spirit speaking to them, then one must test the spirit against love. If one can’t see the LOVE in the spirit... then it can’t be from God... OR Christ. For both ARE love. If one doesn’t have the faith to hear the first... or love to see the second... then one might look to the written document. However, my Lord taught me a lesson about THAT a long time ago, too. He said to me:
“ALL that I tell you is written, but not all that is written is what I will tell you.”
What did he mean by that? That everything he would tell me IS written... somewhere... but not necessarily in the Bible (perhaps in Enoch, Jasher, Barak, the Gospel of Thomas or Mary... or even some secular writing, like a dictionary, encyclopedia, other religious script, whatever... but written, yet)... AND that not everything written... INCLUDING in the Bible... is not what he would tell me... because it’s not ALL truth.
And, well, now... look at that! We’ve come to the end of this particular discussion! And I’ve enjoyed every moment of it! Again, I apologize for the delay in responding but I sincerely hope this will suffice to answer your questions. If there’s anything else I can share with you... or something here that you’d like a little more clarification on, let me know. I will answer if I can and I can and am permitted.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a doulos of Christ,
SA
-
nibbled
AGuest Thank you for taking all the time to respond.
Here's the thing. I don't trust your spirit that teaches you, which leaves me reticent and wary on listening (hearing) what you speak.
I'm upset because I was and still am very much looking forward to conversing with you. But I have the difficulty testing the spirits (in this case yours) to see if they are from God. Honestly, I've never had to do it before. Normally there isn't anyone who seems to be interacting in spirit—which I am seeking out such ones. You obviously are, but then it comes to discerning from the wealth of knowledge you offer, if it is founded in the spirit of truth.
I typed out a post and then, bam, it was gone. So disheartening, because I was complete offering you links and such.
Maybe the devil did it , maybe the spirit wanted me to write a straight forward and simple post after all the thought I had worked through , or maybe it was just Chrome crashing. I know better. I should have been writing offline. Even now I'm writing in the post box and could lose this one too!
So, honey, I'm not going to be convinced to use the sound nor letter which didn't exist in ancient Semitic times nor languages. I prefer to seek out my Father and to know how to say and write (even if transliteration) his name as he presented it to Moses.
You confuse me in circular reasoning. First offering the Y is just the sound the the new J is, then say that you use J because the Y isn't the right sound. All I know is my Father and his Son both predate the alphabet which carries the J, and that the sound that letter carries is a new invention across the world, and the only way to get it in Hebrew is to use a gimmel with a specific vowel point. So the sound would dictate spelling the Hebrew name different at that point.
Yehowah is the name I came to learn by going to my Father directly in prayer, and taking what I knew from the scriptures in prayerful consideration. It had felt like such an easy "game" —"hang man" — and I marveled at how simple it was. How do we think we do not know, I think for we do not! Yosephus gave a clue which puts a secular stamp of approval on it, but that's just a bow on what was simply there for those who seek it from the scriptures.
If this weren't so much about what you were told from your spirit, as I had hoped to enjoy sharing with you, playing, in the word of God, as it were, then we could (and still can) work through the steps together. I'm interested if there's anything else I can learn by sharing what I've learned from/in the spirit of truth with others so that they can share and learn and teach me more. But the letter "J" is a step in the wrong direction. If you're interested, I'm still interested, but I'm so over "J". I study ancient languages, and the roots of linguistics and love etymologies. I can't be stuck in recent history, it's a bore to me. I'm a child who keeps asking my Father, each time I learn something, "why?"
So, I'm aware that the Black God Music uses Jahveh, but not of anyone who actually studies Hebrew or speaks it.
The second reason I come to the point were I do not trust your spirit, as it does not seem that he comes from the Father or speaks from the Word of Truth, is that you call him "my Lord".
The book of Zephaniah is about removing the remnants of Baal, and chapter 3 mentions the purification of the lips so that his people can worship him standing shoulder-to-shoulder. If you just read the opening of chapter 1, then read chapter 3 it'll set the scene for what I'm offering you for consideration. (I know that you offer scripture only for those who walk by sight, but at least we can agree that it's a source of truth from God.)
Hosea chapter 2:16,17 speaks of the unfaithful wife Israel (Zephaniah was Judah) and how he's going to remove the names of the Baal's out of her mouth. I imagine our Father washing her mouth out with a bar of lye soap.
He says, one day you'll no longer reduce me to the level of the baal's calling me your "my baal" while sleeping with other baals, but will instead call me 'your man'.
Let that sink in. "Your Man" is the literal translation, "husband" would be the meaning.
While adonai is the meaning you have, I'm sure, behind using the title "my Lord", I offer you the second point of my concern.
The word "lord" is translated from baal. Adonay, despite translation is not "lord". Those who are sensitive to this fact often use "Master" to translate "Adonay" be distinct from "baal". (As I never learned to say "Lord" anyway, I simply don't. It's an appellation, and I think of him as my brother who gave his life for me, not as "my master", similar to Hosea's thought.)
baal: (primitive root) to marry, rule over. from which we get baal: owner, lord, which became as Hosea's inspired words show, a proper name, Ba'al ; Baal, a Phoenician deity — Baal, (plural) Baalim.
I can't stay around right now, but perhaps this is a good place to leave off so you have food for thought. Please, think. Right now the balance of our relationship lies in what we come to as a conclusion together. Pray. If you speak to your spirit instead, then please, can you please use in this particular conversation "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" who sent his son "Christ the Messiah"? The devil will flee if we oppose him, and you are always safe. Hey, maybe he'll start teaching you earlier history. I'm not interested in the prophets of today, like Joseph Smith, or the alphabet that adorn their day. I am interested in the ones from 4,000 years ago, whose writings (scriptura) have been handed down though time, as if—hey!—inspired of God.
My mouth has been washed clean. I desire to associate with others who are either innocent, or have been washed clean. You are not innocent, you have a spirit. Thus I'm asking you to consider that spirit, and consider the scriptures, and consider why the image keeps going through my mind that you need your mouth washed out with soap.
I am not trying to offend. I'm a child in my heart and mind, and am simply offering the imagery which is best able to convey my thoughts. Storytelling.
When I speak to people who are innocent and they ask why I don't use "Jehovah", I don't dump all that we've talked about on them. I assure them that their Father knows their heart, and that if they seek him they will find him. They then are naturally curious, often worried they are using the wrong name. I assure them that we were taught, as my dad taught me, to pray to "Our Father", as his son instructed us. I explain that when I was scared when I first started learning what I had thought was the truth as a witness of Jehovah wasn't true, I learned to use "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" when I wanted to be specific.
Christ the Messiah is what the woman at the well knew that she and her people were waiting for.
As for Jah, or Jeh, please do some reading... Here's Witches, Whores, and Sorcerers: The Concept of Evil in Early Iran . Jeh or Jah "the whore" may give you light on "Let us be blood the great whore had shed" (think: menstruation) as spoken by the Word, speaking of Babylon the whore of the Medo-Persian empire. See also Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide .
-
AGuest
I hear all that you've stated here, dear Nibs (peace to you!)... and if you knew me you would know that I do refer to the Father as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"... often... and my Lord as "Christ the Messiah". Indeed, when translated literally, that is what "the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)" means (some here might say I do the latter ad nauseum, but you probably haven't read all of my posts).
You've stated a lot here, but I don't feel compelled to respond to it all. Only, perhaps, this:
He says, one day you'll no longer reduce me to the level of the baal's calling me your "my baal" while sleeping with other baals, but will instead call me 'your man'. Let that sink in. "Your Man" is the literal translation, "husband" would be the meaning. While adonai is the meaning you have, I'm sure, behind using the title "my Lord", I offer you the second point of my concern. The word "lord" is translated from baal. Adonay, despite translation is not "lord". Those who are sensitive to this fact often use "Master" to translate "Adonay" be distinct from "baal". (As I never learned to say "Lord" anyway, I simply don't. It's an appellation, and I think of him as my brother who gave his life for me, not as "my master", similar to Hosea's thought.)
If you knew me you would know that (1) I often call my Lord my/the Master... and (2) I do not use the term "Lord" as a translation of "Adonai/Adonay"... but of "Kyrios" (meaning Master, owner... husband)... in the same manner as Sarah called Abraham, her half-brother and husband, "Lord". (Genesis 12:19; 20:2, 12; 1 Peter 3:6) Which, as HIS "brother" as well as part of his Bride... I feel compelled to do. Because that is how I recognize him: as a brother AND "husbandly-owner". The first, by means of being a son of God... as HE is... and so having the same Father... and the second by means of a union with him (John 6:56; 15:4-6) that makes us ONE spirit. As a man and woman become one flesh (hence, he those who belong to him are called his "Bride"). I know him, dear one, as he knows me. And not as in know OF in the abstract... or having "taken in knowledge of"... but... by means of holy spirit... know such that I know his thoughts... and he knows mine.
With all of that said, please know that I understand if you don't understand... or feel you can "receive"... what I've shared with you. Absolutely NO worries. I simply responded to your inquiry as to who might live in close proximity to you... as well as possible "interested" folks that you could "talk" (about a lot) with. I returned your inquiry with an invitation to site where you can do that, as well as encouraged you to participate here as much as possible, as well. The direction of our current discussion was borne of my rejoicing WITH you, by saying "Praise JAH!"... and you not able to accept my use of the letter "j" in that manner. So, okay, you don't agree... and I am TOTALLY cool with that. I don't need you to agree, dear one, truly.
And so, if that is the basis that you believe will stand in the way of our discussing further, then that's okay, as well. I totally understand and can receive that, too, and wish you nothing but peace and goodwill.
So, again, peace to you... truly!
YOUR servant (still) and a doulos of Christ,
SA
-
nibbled
"heis, kyrios, mia pistis, hen baptisma."
Can we do question and answer? I'm really trying to get at the root of the discourse and thought process here.
In the Hebrew Scriptures the name Baal (Ba'al: H1168) appears approximately 80 times. The verb baal (to marry, rule over: H1166) appears approximately 15 times. The masculine noun, baal (owner, lord: H1167) appears approximately 84 times.
It is used just once in the Christian Greek scriptures of the new covenant.
Where does that one instance appear? In what context is this reference? Who were the subject of the quote? To whom was the quoted addressed to in the letter? (Romans 11:4)
We'll come back to this...
When Sarah referred to Abraham, she called him her "adoni". (Hebrew, the "i" following the word shows possessive, as in "my".)
However, to say she called him her Lord is to miss the point of our Father's prophecy to Hosea entirely.
“And she shall pursue her lovers but not overtake them, and shall seek them but not find them. Then she shall say, ‘Let me go and return to my first husband, for then it was better for me than now.’
“And now I shall uncover her shame before the eyes of her lovers, and no one shall deliver her from My hand. “And I shall cause all her rejoicing, her festivals, her New Moons, and her Sabbaths, even all her appointed times, to cease, and lay waste her vines and her fig trees, of which she has said, ‘these are my rewards that my lovers have given me.’ And I shall make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them.
“And I shall punish her for the days of the Ba?als to which she burned incense and adorned herself with her rings and jewelry, and went after her lovers, and forgot Me,” declares ????.
“Therefore, see, I am alluring her, and shall lead her into the wilderness, and shall speak to her heart, and give to her vineyards from there, and the Valley of A?or as a door of expectation. And there she shall respond as in the days of her youth, as in the day when she came up from the land of Mitsrayim.
“And it shall be, in that day,” declares ????, “that you call Me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer call Me ‘My Ba?al.’
“And I shall remove the names of the Ba?als from her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
“And I shall take you as a bride unto Me forever, and take you as a bride unto Me in righteousness, and in right-ruling, and kindness and compassion.
“And I shall take you as a bride unto Me in trustworthiness, and you shall know ????.
“And it shall be in that day that I answer,” declares ????, “that I answer the heavens, and they answer the earth, and the earth answer the grain and the new wine and the oil, and they answer Yizre?el.
“And I shall sow her for Myself in the earth, and I shall have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion.
And I shall say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people,’ while they say, ‘My Elohim!’ ” (Hosea 2:7, 10-17, 19-23 ISR98)
Now, I said we'd go back to the context of the only instance of "Baal" being rendered in the Christian Greek scriptures.
Where does that one instance appear? Romans 11:4.
In what context is this reference? Consider the outline of Romans 2-11.
- The Jews and the Law
- God's Faithfulness, Despite the Unfaithful
- No One is Righteous through Law
- Righteousness through Faith
- Abraham Justified by Faith
- Righteous Apart from Works
- Abraham Justified before Circumcision
- Abraham the Father of Faith
- The Father of Many Nations
- Sorrow for the Nation of Israel
- Chosen Remnant of Israel
- Israel's Blindness
- Until the Fullness of the Nations
Who were the subject of the quote? Elijah, speaking about the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
To whom was the quoted addressed to in the letter? The Jews who were pushing conversion to Judaism on the Christians.
There are multiple threads I've got going on here, and you've been on most if not all of them. Maybe you'll have noted that for me, like Band on the Run speaks the bigger picture, these topics aren't separate but intertwined.
I believe that there are those among us who are of Israel, but not in the "spiritualized" sense as Pterist, BobCat, and I have been exploring together, but I truly believe that we are those who were spoken of as "the lost sheep of the house of Israel".
Paul was fighting for us. What I haven't introduced here as of yet is that in that congregation there were likely Jews from Judah, people who were once from Israel but after being cast out as apostates were known as people of the nations (goyim) and there were other people of other nations. There was, and is, and will always be, Israel, Judah, and the rest of the body of believers.
I probably shouldn't even confuse this dicussion right now, but I suppose the point I'm making, perhaps in a Paul like manner??, is that the people in the context of the ONLY mention of Baal weren't Jews, but Israelites. And Paul points out that even Israel would be called, as the people of the nations, and that they would be redeemed as Hosea had prophesied.
And what did Hosea prophesy regarding those "my people"? It brings us back to those who would no longer refer to their God as "my baal" but rather "my husband".
Now, please note, I'm not making conjecture here but rather stating it as it was written. He said she (his people Israel) would no longer "my baal" (baal'i) but "my man" (ish'i). He said he would remove the names of the Baal's (baalim) from her mouth, and betroth her to him forever.
“Yet the number of the children of Yisra’el shall be as the sand of the sea, which is not measured nor counted. And it shall be in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ they shall be called, ‘You are the sons of the living El.’ “And the children of Yehu?ah and the children of Yisra’el shall be gathered together, and appoint for themselves one head, and shall come up out of the earth, for great is the day of Yizre?el! (Hosea 1:10, 11 ISR98)
There are so many play on words going on in Hosea, it's beautiful! Great is the day of Yizre?el for the children of Yisra’el and the children of Yehu?ah!
“And I shall sow her for Myself in the earth, and I shall have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion. And I shall say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people,’ while they say, ‘My Elohim!’ ” (Hosea 2:23 ISR98)
The "her" is Yisra’el, not Yehudah.
Now, the people of Israel — who we do not know how to identify today, but you can be sure they exist, even as the scriptures say that they themselves don't know that they are the children of Israel — are the ones who will no longer use call their God their "baal".
The research into defining the use of "baal" in Hosea (chapter 2) indicates Israel in their apostate state referred to their god as Baal as they fornicated in the high places.
Now, for me, personally, what spoke to me is that "baal" is translated "lord" and we know "lord" has taken over the proper name of our Father, and his Son. But we don't talk about "baal". And well, as you point out, "lord" isn't "baal". Because when someone started translating from Hebrew and Greek to English they made the choice to translate both "baal", "adonai", and "kyrios" into "lord".
And they rendered the name of YHWH (Yehowah; Jehovah, JHVH, et al.) as "the LORD".
Thus, referring to the Creator of the world, and his Son the savior, became the lowest common denominator—the personal name of the highest false god.
You mentioned that you are of the bride. I am not refuting your claim, just offering clarity for those who may be interested for their personal sake, the variables involved.
The bride of Lamb is clearly his 144,000 chosen—and sealed—who stand with him at Revelation 14:1, which seems to coincide with Isaiah 4:5 (under the chuppah). She is of his family, as the history of brides chosen in ancient times were. She was chosen out of those given to him, as he never lost anyone given into his hand. She is the 12,000 out of the twelve tribes of Israel, and those distinctive cultural elements of her people, including the twelve apostles out of Israel, adorn her as the new city of peace founded by God. (See definition of Jeru-Salem.)
The body of Christ is the whole of those bought from the earth, who were all bought from the earth to reign as a kingdom of Kings and Priests. This is both the 144,000 and the great multitude. While the 144,000 are distinct, she is also a part of his body, as his betrothed wife, and a part of his household. The great multitude are of Abraham their father, who was promised to be the father of a great multitude of nations, which is inclusive of any who believe in his seed, including members of Israel and Judah. Neither Jew nor Greek (Hellene), nor Scythian nor Barbarian, free nor slave, are distinctions in the body of Christ. We are all one.
The body of Christ however, is distinct from the Lamb. The bride is of the Lamb, not the body of Christ. The wedding is based in the customs of his culture. The sheep and the lamb, and the shepherd are all distinct to the writings of Israel.
However, the Christ is the Lamb, sacrificed, and who is raised to become the shepherd, the one head appointed over the children of Judah, the children of Israel, and who reigns with his chosen family, bought out of the earth, both his bride and his body as one family, in one household, fellow citizens in the New Jerusalem above, which decends to reign upon the earth.
Please see: http://www.exaltednamebible.com/exalted-name/other-names/lord-master/
I don't know how to get through to you AGuest. You asserted being enlighted, chosen, spoken to, and spoken for, yet you cannot seem to hear?
Can you not hear me please? I speak softly, kindly. My Father, the spirit of his son which he sent into my heart, the spirit of truth his son sent to be my companion and helper, and the communion among the members of the body of Christ where when two or more meet there he is in their presence is something which is not foreign to me. The only concept foriegn to my experience is audibly hearing external to my flesh a voice. Perhaps I've been mistaken in my understanding of your personal expression—are you hearing his voice within you, or hearing—a word associated with flesh and literal and audible, external and not of the spirit?
I'm posting this two days after having written it. I was busy this weekend!
I think, perhaps if you can see into the wonderful world I see — you'll see the story underneath the story, you can see, as the scriptures tell us the spirit shows us the things to come. (John 16:13) It's important to respect and not "spiritualize" the distinctions in the scriptures. Israel, then Israel and Judah, Jews and Christians, and finally Israel and Christians. There will be a time, and that time may even be now, when the children of Israel will be gathered rousing out of blindness as if waking from sleep, a dream that spanned more than 50 generations.
When they awaken, with eyes with which they may see, and with ears with which to hear, they as Hosea prophesies will no longer have the name of the Baal's upon their lips, and "Afterward the children of Israel shall return, and seek Yehowah ???? their God, and David their king, and shall come with trembling to Yehowah ???? and to his blessings in the last days."
My heart gets funny when I think about those children. I love them as if they were my family. I want to find them, meet them, talk to them.
Since there seems no way to do that, I just go about my time waiting for the due time to arrive, telling the stories my Father told me (through the scriptures).