Question on oneness doctrine?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, still nobody wants to address the fact there is no record of the apostles teaching non native Hebrew speakers to use or prefer a supposed Hebrew version of either Christ's or the Father's name?

Suppose American Christians all started calling Him Isa, and God Allah, and began using Arabic versions of the names of Bible books and persons. None of you would think "Hey, this is weird, almost like an Arab fetish among non Arabic Christians, why is this happening?" Getting REbaptised "in the Name of Isa"? Nobody would think it strange?

Especially if those people (large, vocal numbers of them) were telling folks "Jesus and God are pagan names, Isa and Allah are better"? It would be a "moot" argument?

There's more going on with this issue than mere semantics, brothers.

I'm concluding from the lack of response that this Sacred Name movement is a bunch of LARPing, with a DM laughing hysterically somewhere in Crown Heights. Moving on now to more important and more interesting things.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, still nobody wants to address the fact there is no record of the apostles teaching non native Hebrew speakers to use or prefer a supposed Hebrew version of either Christ's or the Father's name?

Argumentum ex silentio.

The fact there's no record of it doesn't necessarily mean anything, that is, drawing a precise conclusion or determining meaning isn't likely going to happen.

Suppose American Christians all started calling Him Isa, and God Allah, and began using Arabic versions of the names of Bible books and persons. None of you would think "Hey, this is weird, almost like an Arab fetish among non Arabic Christians, why is this happening?" Getting REbaptised "in the Name of Isa"? Nobody would think it strange?

Especially if those people (large, vocal numbers of them) were telling folks "Jesus and God are pagan names, Isa and Allah are better"? It would be a "moot" argument?

Now this would be particularly weird, since Arabic isn't one of the three known languages of the Biblical corpus. Therefore it's a particularly weird example to bring up to try and prove your point.

And who among those truly immersed in the name of Jesus are being re-baptized in the name of Yeshua? Most of the Christian world doesn't even baptize in Jesus' name, let alone Yeshua's, so where is this happening? Among which Oneness or Apostolic group?

There's more going on with this issue than mere semantics, brothers.

That has yet to be proven.

[Esaias]

"ABC is the Bible Truth."

"But the Bible nowhere teaches that!"

"Tut, tut, you're making an argument from silence.'

[Esaias]

Who's been rebaptized in one of the various Sacred Names? Seriously?

https://www.assembliesofyahweh.com/w...-3-Baptism.pdf

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"ABC is the Bible Truth."

"But the Bible nowhere teaches that!"

"Tut, tut, you're making an argument from silence.'

Come on now, that's not accurate at all.

You're arguing because there's no verse that says "You must call your Savior Yeshua at all times" that somehow you must make sure you never do so, because it's not commanded.

That's an argument from silence, because there not being a command to do so doesn't prove that one must not do so.

Or, you're arguing because the name of the Savior in the New Testament manuscripts is always written in Greek, you must make sure you never use the Hebrew or Aramaic version of that name.

But where's the permission to use an English or Spanish or Portuguese or Chinese or Swahili or Hindi or any other language version of the name of the Savior in the Bible?

I mean, I could just as easily say "Since there's no command in the Bible to make sure I always address or refer to the Savior by the Greek version of His name, I am free to not do so as I please".

In this way, you're creating a double-standard. One the one hand, you are attempting to refute any and all efforts by anyone to use the Hebrew/Aramaic version of the name of Jesus (unless, perhaps, the person is Jewish and is a native speaker of Hebrew???) because it's written in Greek only, and yet, on the other hand, you're totally okay with using the English version of the name of Jesus, despite the fact it's never written in English, except by translation.

You might say, "Well, I'm not Greek so I don't use the Greek form of Jesus". So, in this way, it makes it totally okay to not use the Greek form of Jesus, but when someone veers from the Greek and uses the Hebrew form, which appears 197 times in Hebrew, or the Aramaic form (also well-attested to in the Old Testament) you cry foul.

Is not the hypocrisy here evident?

I am not a native Spanish speaker, and yet, I studied Spanish and became fluent and bilingual, and led a Spanish ministry and immersed people in the name of Jesucristo and prayed for people to receive (and they did) the Holy Spirit in the same name, but by the logic you are presenting, this was somehow wrong of me???

I mean, that's what I'm getting from you on this. Explain where I'm wrong if I am.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Who's been rebaptized in one of the various Sacred Names? Seriously?

https://www.assembliesofyahweh.com/w...-3-Baptism.pdf

Advocating rebaptism in a tract or article on the internet and actually performing it regularly on those already immersed in the name of Jesus as a Oneness or Apostolic believer (which was my original contention), are two different things.

So, yes, "seriously".

[Steven Avery]

I would like to emphasize one point.

The devil name Yahweh and/or the non-name Yahshua are sometimes brought into baptisms that were in earlier days fully apostolic baptisms in Jesus name.

It is highly unlikely that there can be an efficacious water baptism for remission of sins the moment such a crapola name is brought in to pollute the baptism. This has happened at Homestead Heritage, where Yahshua would either take over from Jesus or join in as a supposed equivalent compatriot. (Yahshua is NOT an equivalent to Jesus, it is not Hebrew or Aramaic, it was a 1930s fabrication created to support the devil entity "Yahweh" -- Jupiter.)

It is theoretically possible that Yeshua might not destroy the baptism. Since at least that is a real Hebrew representation that is == to Jesus. However, if I was reading the pure English Bible, as with the AV, it would be something to avoid, for spiritual safety and clarity.

And in our English language environment, any baptism that specifically avoided the name of Jesus, clearly and wonderfully invoked, is one that would call for examination, and likely rebaptism in Jesus name.

Steven

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I would like to emphasize one point.

The devil name Yahweh and/or the non-name Yahshua are sometimes brought into baptisms that were in earlier days fully apostolic baptisms in Jesus name.

It is highly unlikely that there can be an efficacious water baptism for remission of sins the moment such a crapola name is brought in to pollute the baptism. This has happened at Homestead Heritage, where Yahshua would either take over from Jesus or join in as a supposed equivalent compatriot. (Yahshua is NOT an equivalent to Jesus, it is not Hebrew or Aramaic, it was a 1930s fabrication created to support the devil entity "Yahweh" -- Jupiter.)

It is theoretically possible that Yeshua might not destroy the baptism. Since at least that is a real Hebrew representation that is == to Jesus. However, if I was reading the pure English Bible, as with the AV, it would be something to avoid, for spiritual safety and clarity.

And in our English language environment, any baptism that specifically avoided the name of Jesus, clearly and wonderfully invoked, is one that would call for examination, and likely rebaptism in Jesus name.

Steven

Is this same Steve (Prax) who said to me on Paltalk once:

"One is Messianic if they use the name "Yeshua" and keep the Sabbath"?

Does that sound familiar to you?

[Michael The Disciple]

It is theoretically possible that Yeshua might not destroy the baptism. Since at least that is a real Hebrew representation that is == to Jesus. However, if I was reading the pure English Bible, as with the AV, it would be something to avoid, for spiritual safety and clarity.

I think it's the other way around isn't it? That Jesus is an English representation of the actual Hebrew name?

The pure English Bible? So is the KJV more pure than the Peshitta or the Greek?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think it's the other way around isn't it? That Jesus is an English representation of the actual Hebrew name? The pure English Bible? So is the KJV more pure than the Peshitta or the Greek?

Definitely far better than the Peshitta, which is missing the Pericope Adulterae, Acts 8:37, has a major corruption on 1 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:18 and the heavenly witnesess is missing, and many other problems, plus often missing five books.

Is there a "the Greek"?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is this same Steve (Prax) who said to me on Paltalk once: "One is Messianic if they use the name "Yeshua" and keep the Sabbath"? Does that sound familiar to you?

Possible. That would be a decade back, or more. You learn.

At one time I even used "Yahweh" at times, not aware that it is a devil name.

Steven