Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 02-22-2018, 02:34 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Thank you very much, Votivesoul.
You're welcome.

Quote:
Wow, interesting answer. So according to THIS view it really isn't so much the actual literal articulation of the singular name (Yeshua, Jesus, Isa, etc.) as much as it is the SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY behind the name that matters.
Thanks. Yes, that's how I feel about it. I do not try to delegitimize any of these versions and their respective pronunciations.

Now, there is a point at which one fully steps off the deep end and is no longer invoking any name by which the Messiah was and is known, and that becomes an issue. The Son of God isn't named Dave, or Joe, or Greg, after all.

But phonetically speaking, when it comes to pronunciation, there is literally not a single identical phoneme between Yeshua and Jesus (Gee-zuss?), as I show here:

https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...etic-analysis/

Quote:
Truly, if that IS all that it is, then a lot of the quibbling on this thread about exactly HOW to pronounce that singular name is really completely irrelevant.
That's also how I see it. While it may look like I am demanding the use of Yeshua over Jesus, what I'm really trying to do is show Scripturally that it's an acceptable form of the Lord's name, and that those who would like to use it, even if they aren't native speakers of Aramaic or Hebrew are within their rights to do so, and not be considered heretical or schismatical in the process.

Quote:
If the precise articulation does not matter at the occasion of Water Baptism, and what really matters is faith in the "AUTHORITY" that is behind the mere symbol of the name, truly it shouldn't matter WHAT way we pronounce the name.
The world over, saints have been immersed as the name Jesus was being called over them, and of those many millions, many received the Holy Spirit directly afterward (and many before, too, as we all know), acting as a seal of their repentance and vindication of their immersion.

But many millions, too, did not have "GEE-zuss" said over them, but rather, "HEY-zou Krees-toe", with similar effects. Still others "ye-SHOO-ah" was said, and the effects again the same.

This shows that the Lord accepts the many linguistic variations of His name, and that the actual pronunciation of His name is not, as already mentioned, a charm or special word of incantation, else, the correct pronunciation would be essential to receive desired effects (e.g. remission of sin, promise of the Father, etc.)

Now, that being said, I would go a step further than you did above, where you wrote "...what really matters is faith in the "AUTHORITY" that is behind the mere symbol of the name..." in that, it's not merely the authority behind the name that matters, it's the PERSON that matters. It is the PERSON, Jesus of Nazareth, who holds the authority, because of WHO HE WAS AND IS, and not merely for what His name happens to be.

I therefore find the effect to be somewhat cascading in nature, like so:

IDENTITY----> PERSON----> NAME----> AUTHORITY

Because there is a real person who was intentionally given a specific name in order to bring about a specific scenario (See Matthew 1:21), and because that real person is in identity the Son of God the Father (Mark 1:1 and 2 John 1:3) and Lord of All (Acts 10:36), and because He successfully accomplished His mission (Acts 2:22-24, 36), He has been endowed with all the authority the Creator can possibly give (See Matthew 28:18, Revelation 1:8).

This is what makes immersion, coupled with repentance from dead works and faith toward God, efficacious. Simply saying "Jesus" as you dunk a person is meaningless. When a person is being baptized in the name of Jesus, they, I believe, ought to understand that they are "calling upon the name of the Lord" to literally invoke Him and invite Him to the baptism so that from Him in a very real, present, but invisible way, they may receive the tokens He graciously gives to those who are so immersed.

If people have been led to think that the vocalization of the name "Jesus" is the agent in remission, in place of the Bearer of the name "Jesus", they have been incorrectly taught.

Quote:
And in fact, I suppose that by that reasoning, even completely INCORRECT pronunciations would be adequate so long as the individual believes in sincere faith in the AUTHORITY behind the name symbol.
Yes, with the limitations and stipulations given above. Incorrect pronunciations that go too far afield are worthless.

Quote:
Even the pronunciation "YAHSHUA" would serve just as well for someone who truly believes it is the way to pronounce the name.
This is something that many have a problem with. They argue "Yahshua" is a non-existent name, recently invented by the misled to sound more spiritual. But let's break it down for a moment. Ultimately, when we think of the name "Jesus", and we trace it's course in the Bible back to its source, we come to the name Yehoshua.

Yehoshua is a compound name, meaning it's an amalgamation of two distinct parts. Part 1 is clear to all: the first part of this name derives from a truncated form of the Tetragrammaton. The second part of this name is, with some study, equally clear: that -shua comes from the Hebrew word "yasha", meaning to make safe, and is the root for all concepts pertaining then to salvation. See: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3091.htm

Now, when the Tetragrammaton is truncated elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, it takes the form "Jah", which is merely an Anglicized form of "Yah". And without a doubt, we know how to pronounce this portion of the Tetragrammaton even if the rest of the name of God is elusive, because we have the word "hallelujah", and its Greek equivalent "alleluia".

So, Yehoshua as a compound name is made up of the truncated "Yah", and the idea behind every Biblical concept of salvation (namely, to be made "safe" by God; hence rescue and deliver, for example). So, functionally, the name means "Yah is salvation" or "Yah saves/rescues/delivers (i.e. "makes safe").

So, what's the big deal surrounding "Yahshua"? The issue is the orthography. For some reason, having in English, the name written using an "a" and "h" after the "Y", instead of merely an "e", gives people trouble. But it ought not.

Here's why:

We know that Jesus of the NT and Joshua of the OT share the exact same name, which is Yehoshua in Hebrew, Yeshua in Aramaic. In Hebrew, it's written like so:

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ

Do you see the two dots below the name, farthest to the right, one above the other? It's called "sheva". You can see at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqqud

That one of the several possible transliterations for it into English, is the phoneme /ə/ commonly known as "schwa", a word derived from, you guessed it, "sheva", as in the Hebrew word describing the two vertical dots described above. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa

And in English, "schwa" can easily be represented by the letter "a", and is so many times. So, it's much ado about nothing. Whether one writes an "e" or an "a" in an otherwise Hebrew name, is of such little import that it's surprising that people argue about it so much. Between all of the dialectic possibilities in both English and Hebrew, someone somewhere is going to end up saying the name differently, even if they are linguistically speaking the same language!

And the name "Joshua" is the proof. Phonetically, "Joshua" is pronounced exactly the same way "Jahshua" is spelled, at least here in the Upper Midwest. And when we recognize that the letter "J" was invented, not to have a soft "g" sound, but rather to differentiate between when the letter "i" ought to be pronounced as such, or whether, from the Latin and Greek borrowing, if "i" ought to be pronounced like a "y", we see that the issue is moot.

So, to accommodate, "j" was invented as a cross between an "i" and a "y". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J. Then, after you read that article, note that sometimes, "j", phonetically, is rendered as yod when it's a palatial approximant. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatal_approximant. And yod, for anyone that doesn't know, is the name of a Hebrew letter, the very letter the name Yehoshua begins with in Hebrew. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodh

So, when anyone starts clamoring about J/Yahshua being a false or phoney name, a 19th or 20th century invention or etc., it's clear they aren't aware of the phonetics at play.

In fact, the letter yod is what gave rise to the Greek letter iota, the first letter in Iesous. We cannot therefore quibble over these things.

(continued...)
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/

Last edited by votivesoul; 02-23-2018 at 01:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-22-2018, 02:34 AM
votivesoul's Avatar
votivesoul votivesoul is offline
Administrator


 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: WI
Posts: 5,440
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

(continued...)

Quote:
If "Jesus", with it's distinctly English "J" and it's Greekish "s"-ending, though completely not historically correct, is nevertheless just as valid as the original "Yeshua", then how could we genuinely argue that any other aberrant pronunciation, such as "Yahshua", could be any less authoritative and powerful.
I'll raise you one. When a person is baptized, can the officiant say "in the name of Joshua"? If not, why not? Even the beloved KJV translators used the name "Jesus" to refer to "Joshua, son of Nun" in Hebrews 4:8, as a means to maintain uniformity in rendering Ιησούς properly. It's clear it's the exact same name!

(Some trivia: it wasn't until the year 1524 that "j" came to take on the soft "g" sound we know today, per: http://www.dictionary.com/e/j/).

Quote:
What is more, does it even have to be a version of the "Yeshua" name?
Yes, I believe so. There are too many verses which stipulate it to be so, and not just the typical baptism verses in Acts. Verses like Hebrews 1:3 which reads Jesus by Himself purged us of our sins, or Revelation 1:5, which indicates Jesus washed us from our sins in His own blood, and such like.

Granted, there are deeper theological considerations at play here, that lead to a lot of debate, but for now, I defer to the paragraph above.

Quote:
Could the names "Yahweh", "Jehovah", "Jahweh", "Yahawah", or any other variant of THIS name be evoked just as well?
No, I don't believe so. If so, Matthew 1:21 could or even would have to read "And you shall call His name Jehovah [for example] because He shall save His people from their sins".

But it doesn't read that way for a very good reason, because the name Jehovah, or the Tetragrammaton YHWH doesn't by itself, refer to salvation. The second component of Yehoshua, that is, -shua, is integral to Christ's name, what it means, and how it's used ministerially and in prayer. To subtract the salvation part of the Lord's name and only have Yah remaining dismisses the whole purpose of the mission: to seek and to save that which was lost.

Quote:
We have already established earlier in this thread that BOTH the Old Testament as well as the New Testament names are in fact equally names of the ONE GOD. If that is true, can we make a rational distinction between the use of one name over the other at Baptism?
See above.

Quote:
Using Scripture, obviously we can.
And what else have we available to us, but the Holy Scriptures? If that's the only valid position the Bible gives to us, it's the only one upon which we can stand.

Quote:
But I know of some groups who baptize their converts in a version of the Old Testament Name, and they legitimately and sincerely believe they are correct.
But they are not, regardless of sincerity. Sincerity is never the litmus test for orthopraxy.

Quote:
Is such a Baptism to be taken as valid? If a person baptized in, say, the name of "Yahweh" or in the name of "Jehovah" came to your congregation with a testimony of Salvation, and now wanted to become a member of your congregation, would your pastor require re-baptism of that individual?
I would advocate and urge baptism in the name of Jesus. I would not call it a "re-baptism" since I don't think they were correctly baptized to begin with. So, just as I did above, I would exhort and teach the person what I've stated here, and then let their conscience come under conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Apart from that, we are in a different situation than most in that our congregation doesn't have membership lists or criteria for who can and cannot come and be a part of the meetings. We have no "clergy" in the traditional sense, even though we have those who have been given gifts by grace, to function as shepherds and elders who teach and admonish. There's a longer, more thorough explanation than that, as I expect some who are reading along might have had an eyebrow go up, but let it suffice for now and/or for a different thread.

Quote:
And to add one more thought pebble to the conundrum, What about those who were baptized "in the name of The Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". As Apostolics, we believe that the singular name of all THREE titles is invested in the ONE NAME of the Lord and Messiah. But if a person who is baptized in the Matthew 28:19 model legitimately believes by faith he or she is receiving the ONE GOD by that formula, and if his or her faith is directed toward the AUTHORITY behind the symbolic word articulations, would we STILL require re-baptism of that person according to the Apostolic formula?

Peace
That's a giant can of worms, even if anyone believes it ought not to be. For reasons stated above pertaining to why a baptism done in the name of Jehovah, et al, isn't valid, and for other reasons, I do not personally accept the nominal "triune" method or formula as correct. I think it's a misunderstanding of the verse to make it a prescribed formula requiring recitation at a baptism.

Granted, some could say the same thing about "in the name of Jesus" and logically, the situations are identical, and it would be hard to argue against it.

But, if an actual name is required, when one says "in the name of the Father...etc." no actual name is being articulated. It's akin to saying "I rebuke you, Satan!" Simply saying the word "rebuke" doesn't actually perform the action defined by the verb "to rebuke". In the same way, phrasing out loud "in the name of" doesn't mean anything unless an actual name follows.

Secondly, if "in the name of the Father...etc." refers to the idea of authority, such that it means "in the authority of the Father...etc.", well, Jesus already addressed that in Matthew 28:18. I don't think Jesus was trying to be redundant, and He certainly wasn't trying to waffle from v. 18 to v. 19.

All authority in heaven (where the Father resides) and earth (where the Church resides) was given to Jesus (who transcends both heaven and earth), through the Holy Spirit, which resides in the hearts of believers the world over.

So, again, Jesus is the locus and linchpin of it all. There's no other need to invoke the Father's authority, or the authority of the Holy Spirit, when the authority of the Father and Holy Spirit is already and permanently in the hands of the Son.

As it should be.
__________________
For anyone devoted to His fear:

http://votivesoul.wordpress.com/

Last edited by votivesoul; 02-22-2018 at 02:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:11 AM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Thank you very, very much, Votivesoul,
for that completely eloquent response to my questions. I appreciate your knowledge and your gracious approach.

I am anxious to respond immediately, but I think I want to wait to read some other responses to your very thorough explanation before I do.

Peace
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-22-2018, 05:43 AM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Votivesoul,

I am still kind of new to this forum (less than a year, I think). I noticed a couple of things about you; that you are an administrator on this forum, and that you posted your responses to my questions at some 4:30 in the morning. Those were VERY thoughtful, in depth and scholarly responses for so early in the morning . . . not to mention lengthy. This raises for me many questions about you personally. And concerning your congregational organization . . . I also find that I am curious.

I first came on this forum a little while back and jumped in to the thread concerning the question about whether the Sabbath is for Christians, where I have spent most of my time so far (I do not know if you have been reading any of that thread and the conversation going on there). I have met several there that I consider friends already, and those that I have come to admire. And I have had a lot of fun. But now I am slowly trying to branch out into other threads. This one seemed interesting because of the nature of the original post and the question put there. I have not figured out, yet, how some people here seem able to devote a lot of time to multiple threads, whereas I seem only able to pay attention to three or four at a time at the most (there are MANY other interesting threads I would like to jump into).

Any way, given you are an administrator, I am sure you noticed that the direction of this particular thread kind of veered off of the original question that started the thread; from a question about how TWO separate and distinct names could BOTH be names of a single God, IF as we say, God is ONE. And the bulk of the conversation has been spent arguing about how to PRONOUNCE the specific names. I DID post my own answer to the original question, but did not get much response. But to me, you sound like a very, very thoughtful and knowledgeable person, and I would be curious as to YOUR response to what I proposed, and what YOUR answer to the original question would be.

Perhaps your reply can get the conversation back on the original question. I apologize, but, I am very curious about OTHER views and opinions concerning THAT specific question, and not so interested in how we are supposed to pronounce the name of Salvation (although my assembly and the movement we belong to DOES have some specific views regarding the way Baptism is done and what name to use and how we are to pronounce it.)

So thank you, Votivesoul.

Peace and blessings to you.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-22-2018, 10:46 AM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 26,009
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul View Post
Oh, come off it, man. I've seen you on this very forum use words like halachah, Eretz Yisrael, spell the Tetragrammaton countless times as YHVH, which is much more common among Jewish people (instead of the common among non-Jews as YHWH), written in praise of blowing the shofar, giving someone a thumb's up when they wished you shabbat shalom, quoting from Jewish sources to support your views on head coverings and adornment, and other such like where you drop Hebrew words into you posts where English words would have easily sufficed, and you're going to freak out over some saints using the name Yeshua, WHEN CLEARLY JESUS USED IT OF HIMSELF IN ACTS WHEN HE SPOKE WITH PAUL???

Yeah, no sense being made here.

Better not ever say or write "hallelujah", making sure you only ever say or write alleluia instead, since "hallelujah" is the Hebrew version, and isn't found anywhere in the New Testament. I mean, if you do, you might find yourself eventually wearing a kippah and tefillin, grasping your tzizith as you cover yourself with your tallith in order to enter into your prayer closet to call upon HaShem.

Listen, I know people can easily go off the deepend with trying to Hebraize everything, when they don't speak a word of the language and aren't Jewish, and yes, it's pretty silly and might be laughable if it weren't so sad, generally speaking.

But this constant freak-out over "Yeshua" like it's some damnable heresy to call Jesus by it, goes from bordering on the absurd on the one end to bordering on blasphemy on the other.

You were given PROOF from the Holy Scriptures that both Jesus and Paul used the form Yeshua/Yehoshua for our Savior, and that the most likely conclusion was that Paul was immersed, not in the name of Jesus, not in the name of Iesous, but in the name of YESHUA, and you flew right past all of that so you could continue to stomp around about how some small fringe group on the internet is teaching people to be re-baptized in the name of Yahshua.

Then, you wonder if Nutter-in-Chief Harold Camping was "on to something" and people who use the form Yeshua are the ones with the problem?
I use halachah within a specific context. Same with the other terms.

Did Paul speak English as his primary language?

The truth is there is a movement of non-Jews who wanna be Jews (or as close as they can be) so they live action role play. And the sacred name issue is one of their games.

Camping said all churches are fake so get out of them. I'm suspecting he may have been on to something, religion in America is a sad joke and becoming more irrelevant every day. We're being over populated by people who just can't think but can only parrot.

I'll leave you guys to your discussion, I'm about done with "talking online".

Have a blessed day.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - https://ia800502.us.archive.org/3/it...surrection.pdf

Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-22-2018, 12:52 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Here's a radical question.

A "formula" in this context is defined as being:
"2.a fixed form of words, especially one used in particular contexts or as a conventional usage:"
And, as it relates to Paul's baptism, it was Paul (the one being baptized) who was instructed to call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

So, here's my question...

Is there really a "formula" for water baptism?

I ask this because while we see baptism performed in the name of Jesus, with the solid implication of His name being invoked for the remission of sin throughout the book of Acts, I don't see a set "formula" or prescribed words specified in Scripture.

Can anyone prove a "formula" actually exists?

Last edited by Aquila; 02-22-2018 at 02:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:49 PM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

I would just like to say in fairness to Hebrew Root (HR) people, most of them are genuinely sincere people hungry to know God's Love the same as any other true Believer. Yes, I agree that in some cases there have been extremists among their circles. But that fact is no less true of Apostolic Pentecostals. Isolated extremists don't nullify the whole thing. I think we can all agree on that.

Someone on another related thread made mention that these Hebrew Root people don't even know how to speak Hebrew. To be fair, these people try their best to learn as much Hebrew as they can, with the scant resources available, and in a culture where the first language is overwhelmingly English. Many of these people came into Hebrew Roots late in life AFTER having learned English as their first (and often ONLY) language, and having been told for years that learning Hebrew is irrelevant to Faith. But if you knew Hebrew Root congregations, you would find that in almost ALL, the upcoming generation of young people are being taught Hebrew at breakneck speed. Fact is, not even most actual JEWS in America can speak Hebrew fluently. But I know as a fact that many of the young kids being brought up in Hebrew Root congregations can speak Hebrew better than most American Jews.

HR people are not wrong for wanting to learn about the historic/cultural/scholastic/and mental context from which Apostolic Christianity blossomed. And for most of them, embracing the cultural practice and expression of this is not as a way to copy, mimic, or imitate Jews, or be like Jews, rather most see it as a way to imitate Yeshua and be like Yeshua. These people are so in love with Yeshua that they want to literally be like him, dress like him, talk like him, think like him, eat like him. But that is really just a shallow description. Actually, the truth is, most HR people see the embracing of practices such as learning original Biblical Hebrew, wearing tzitzit, blowing shofars, dancing the hora, etc. all as an expression of worship. An added dimension of worship next to hymn-singing, raising hands, shouting, jumping, and singing in tongues. They don't see it as LARPing, unless one may define "role playing" here as "trying to be like Yeshua".

Just saying.

peace
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-22-2018, 02:32 PM
Michael The Disciple's Avatar
Michael The Disciple Michael The Disciple is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 14,648
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

What is LARPing?
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:09 PM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

LARPing:

Live
Action
Role
Play

Pretending to be something that you are not.
It's a nerd term. In this case applied to extreme "Jesus nerds".

Peace
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-22-2018, 06:37 PM
Raffi Raffi is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 211
Re: Question on oneness doctrine?

Oh, and by the way, I should also mention for those who do not know. there is a distinct difference between those who self-identify as "Sacred Namers" as opposed to those who would classify as "Hebrew Root". There are SOME similarities but they have a different history, theological context, and often differ on many matters. All of the Sacred Name groups are descendant branches of Adventist offshoots, are NOT Pentecostal at all, and trace their line back to the 1930s, and to C. O. Dodd. Most Hebrew Root groups come from deep Pentecostal or Charismatic beginnings in the mid- to late-1990s, and feel just as awkward toward Sacred Namers as most of you here are.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Criticism of oneness doctrine- pinasamb Fellowship Hall 21 03-26-2013 06:43 PM
Oneness Doctrine:Going Deeper Michael The Disciple Fellowship Hall 11 09-06-2012 03:52 PM
Is This Apostolic Oneness Doctrine? Jekyll Fellowship Hall 11 11-20-2007 10:02 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.