O.T. quotes in the N.T.

[FredVB]

You have zero objective evidence.

There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

What is your problem, about me saying what I think, you go on about not having evidence, shouting that? Why care about what I think, as if you don't think anything without evidence? And the only evidence to you is manuscript evidence? I believe things which are said in the Bible, I don't need access to manuscripts for believing those things, though you disregard or dismiss those things at least in some of these cases.

 

[Origen]

What is your problem, about me saying what I think,

None whatsoever. I am simply pointing out the fact your claim have no support.

you go on about not having evidence, shouting that?

Because it is a fact. It is the objective evidence that proves your claim false.

And the only evidence to you is manuscript evidence?

First, you have NONE. Thus your claim cannot be supported with any objective evidence.

Second, you are wrong.

(a) There is not only the Greek manuscript evidence but also the fact that NO Church Father ever claimed the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts.

(b) Moreover no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

Third, to simply gloss over the fact there over 5000 manuscripts which do not support your claim is asinine. Since you have no eivdence you must ignore all the evidence that does not support your claim.

I believe things which are said in the Bible

So do I.

though you disregard or dismiss those things at least in some of these cases.

I follow the evidence, and the fact is you have zero objective evidence.

There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

 

[FredVB]

None whatsoever. I am simply pointing out the fact your claim have no support.

Wrong. You could only be right saying I have no new testament manuscript support. I do have Bible passage support.

Because it is a fact. It is the objective evidence that proves your claim false.

Wrong. There is no such evidence shown.

First, you have NONE. Thus your claim cannot be supported with any objective evidence.

Second, you are wrong.

You are wrong.

(a) There is not only the Greek manuscript evidence but also the fact that NO Church Father ever claimed the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts.

(b) Moreover no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

Third, to simply gloss over the fact there over 5000 manuscripts which do not support your claim is asinine. Since you have no eivdence you must ignore all the evidence that does not support your claim.

It is irrelevant.

There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

These are things I think. I can think as I may, no one should argue with me about whether I have evidence for how I think. You are a hypocrite if you say that all you think of is with evidence supporting all that.

The name of God is shown in the Scriptures originally written 6995 times. It was said the name was to always be remembered, in all generations. Not one passage shows the name was to not be used anymore. The old testament passages are authoritative, new testament quotations of passages do not negate that, old testament passages stand, as they were written. Jesus Christ supported the Scriptures as written and did not support changes from the traditions of men, Jesus Christ spoke to his followers revealing the name of God. You might disregard these points, already shown with Bible passages, then you do disregard things the Bible shows and do not believe all the Bible. Does any "church father" say the name of God was to not be used anymore? They do not say that from authority of Bible passages, that would speak against Bible passages.

So as Jesus Christ revealed the name of God speaking to his followers, it is logical that the first time Bible passages were quoted where they had the name of God included, that would be included in the quotes.

Matthew 15:3 "Why do you transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"
Matthew 15:9 "But in vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

The Bible condemned the lying pens of the scribes.

The name of God is never obsolete.

 

[Origen]

Wrong. You could only be right saying I have no new testament manuscript support.

Then name the manuscripts.

Wrong. There is no such evidence shown.

It is really comical that you really believe that. There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

 

[FredVB]

Then name the manuscripts.

It is really comical that you really believe that. There are over 5000 manuscripts and not one has the divine name. No Church Father ever claim the divine name was removed from the N.T. and they quote the text thousands of time. Funny they NEVER EVER mention such a thing and they were closer in time and place using actual manuscripts. And lastly no early translation of the N.T. (i.e. Coptic, Syriac, Latin etc.) ever uses the divine name in the text.

I think it would be dense to think I meant I had manuscript evidence when I was not talking about that. It is not the same as having no evidence, I value what I see in the Bible, which I have from what is passed to it from manuscripts, and it is still the word of God to me.

The name appeared almost 7000 times in Bible passages, and no passage mentions it should not be used anymore.

Genesis 15:7
He said to Abram, “I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it.”

Genesis 28:13
Behold, Yahweh stood above it, and said, “I am Yahweh, the God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon you lie, to you will I give it, and to your offspring."

Exodus 6:2
God spoke to Moses, and said to him, “I am Yahweh".

Exodus 6:6
"Therefore tell the children of Israel, ‘I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments.' "

Exodus 6:7
"I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God, who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians."

Exodus 6:8
"I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage: I am Yahweh."

Exodus 6:29
Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, “I am Yahweh. Speak to Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I speak to you.”

Exodus 7:5
"The Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I stretch out my hand on Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.”

Exodus 7:17
Yahweh says, “In this you shall know that I am Yahweh. Behold, I will strike with the rod that is in my hand on the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood."

Exodus 8:22
"I will set apart in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end you may know that I am Yahweh on the earth."

We don't go wrong if we see passages with the name in them the way they were revealed at the first. Yahweh wanted the name that was revealed to be remembered, forever, from what was said, and Jesus was not dismissing that but observed it, just as what he prayed shown in John 17 shows.

The revealed name was for always being remembered, it is said that Jesus was showing the name to his followers, and those of us who do so should not be faulted for observing that.

There is no reason to presume Jesus, who spoke certainly for being against traditions not consistent with what Yahweh says in the scriptures, which he was obeying perfectly, would not remember the name for always before those who were his followers, even as he said he did do in John 17. They respected him fully. They never did though fully follow his examples in everything. Whatever is lacking for showing how Jesus said it is not evidence, we have those things that are said to still remember the name that was revealed to be the name forever.

I make no issue of how the name of God is said by any. What I said is right, I have enough for me, I can stand by that and don't have to prove it to another. I have abundant evidence for me.

Exodus 3:15, God said to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations."

Jesus said, as shown in Matthew 5, "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Also Jesus said, to Jewish scribes and Pharisees, shown in Matthew 15, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?"

Mark 7:6-9, Jesus answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
But they worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

“For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things.” He said to them, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition..."

And verse 13, "making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down."

Hebrews 5:8-9, he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered. Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation.

In John 17, Jesus prayed for his followers, including in verse 6, "I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world."
Verse 12, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name. Those whom you have given me I have kept."
Verse 26, "I made known to them your name, and will make it known."

 

[FredVB]

I trust my understanding to God's revelation, for that is the only way to know ultimate truth that is needful for us, not being available though science. And Jesus is indeed the "I AM" that God claimed he himself is, which is apparent from a number of Bible passages. We should submit ourselves to what Jesus says, he is Lord. About translations, they are derived, if they are at all trustworthy, from manuscripts of the original languages, which are copies derived from the autographa, the original writing from revelation, and so such manuscripts are quite trustworthy, although a method is to be used to find original intent where there are the few very minor deviations, much less than with copies of any other ancient writing. God's hand has been indeed on the translating of a number of the versions, but they do not and cannot be held to have the weight of inspiration that is manifest to have been with the original writing, and can be understood from the manuscripts that are used in the original languages. We indeed do not have the original writing, but access to these manuscripts is available, and we can find them viewable from online. And regarding the name of God, it is found in the Hebrew we have for the old testament, and is used close to 7000 times, incuding clearly from many passages where people of God freely used the name of Yahweh, in speaking of him and to him, and not speaking his name in vain, which would be the case if not really speaking of him or to him.

It has been a convention that follows Jewish tradition of the time that Jewish leaders pushed followers to not pronounce the name of God, which I was saying is not a good idea, keeping in mind that the Lord Jesus did not endorse Jewish tradition which contrasted with what the scriptures taught. I see that there are many correct ways to see God. Yet I suggest that we do not close ourselves off from teaching we have not previously considered that is derived out of the Bible correctly.

 

[FredVB]

God said, "Say, 'Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.'. This is my name forever, and this is to remember for all generations."
Exodus 3 verse 15

God's name was used the most frequently in the original writing of the scriptures, the Hebrew scriptures. In these, certainly in Exodus 3:15, God, shown by this name, which was "Yahweh", required the name be known for remembering, in all generations, with revealing himself with this name. There is nothing wrong with referring to Yahweh, while seeking obedience to him, trusting in Jesus Christ for needed righteousness.

Jesus went about making the name known, he certainly then used the name, "the Father" wasn't the name. With the name originally given there would be that inclusion. We also can know, from the baptism that is said there should be for believers, there is the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God.

The original writings of the Hebrew scriptures were filled with the revealed name of God, that we render Yahweh, the name that is to be remembered. The King James Version and most other versions differ from those writings with "the LORD" put in place of that name in most passages where it occurs, and so are not truly that faithful to the original writing in that, but going with a convention, not from faultless result of God's Spirit guiding.

 

[FredVB]

I find there are some people who respond to this remembering the name of Yahweh being communicated with argument against the cult this must be. There is no cult just in remembering the name with use of it, the Bible directly speaks for that. That response is only with strawman arguments. It is not being involved with a sacred name movement, there is not the claim of salvation only with using the right name. Salvation shown in the Bible, through Christ, is expressed with still observing that truth in the Bible, along with the rest of the truth in the Bible. Jesus did this, and from Jesus there was no misquoting of Scripture passages, which then were those in Hebrew. When there were the inspired writings from his chosen apostles, they originally wrote with then using quotes without misquoting. For the early church the movement did not yet have gentiles, it seems to me that among those earliest believers they tried to have the movement of following Christ be more Jewish to be more involved with the Jewish people all around them, the believers then had after all not stopped being Jewish. And though it was remembered at first when Christ taught among them the name was used, to fit in with the Jewish people generally more, as those others avoided using the name, the greater number of believers then dropped away from use of the name too. When gentiles were included, the use of the name was mostly forgotten. And copies of the first writings were changed with quotes altered. I think this very strongly. Yet I am not saying any of you have to think this.

 

[FredVB]

There was praise to Yahweh through all the ages. Every time anyone says Hallelujah that means that.

Psalm 92:1-4
It is a good thing to give thanks to Yahweh,
to sing praises to your name, Most High,
to proclaim your loving kindness in the morning,
and your faithfulness every night,
with the ten-stringed lute, with the harp,
and with the melody of the lyre.
For you, Yahweh, have made me glad through your work.

 

[FredVB]

George Howard published a thesis, in which he proposed that the original texts of the new testament had "YHWH" (either in Hebrew characters or in a Greek transliteration) in their quotations from the old testament, but not elsewhere, and that it was replaced in the copies made during the second century.

Didier Fontaine observes that Howard's postulate is built on three observations: "It is possible that when quoting the OT, the NT authors retained the tetragram in their writings where it figured in the Greek text, the Septuagint. 1) the translators of the LXX retained the divine name in Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew in the Greek text—that, at least, is what the manuscripts of the pre-Christian era indicate; 2) it was the Christians, not the Jews, who replaced these instances of the name with κύριος; and 3) the textual tradition of the NT contains variants that are explained well in this context."

 

[FredVB]

I post communication that I do to point out such things that there are which are commonly neglected. Godly things. I do what I do, with Yahweh's grace, growing spiritually. Others do, too. The Bible, the revelation from Yahweh, is certainly important in that, with finding the will of Yahweh for us. Where there is something said in the Bible, for people to do, that does not become obsolete without something in the Bible showing it no longer applies, clearly enough that it can be understood by those reading the Bible. Traditions do not count for that.

 

[FredVB]

God is one being, there is one being that is
Yahweh. The heavenly Father is the being who is Yahweh, Logos the Word with God who came in incarnation as Christ is the being who is Yahweh, the Spirit of God is the being who is Yahweh. The heavenly Father, Logos who came as Christ, and the Spirit of God communicate together and each are in full agreement on everything as one in being.

 

[FredVB]

The Creator, Yahweh, unlimited essential being, made all of the heavens and this earth, at the beginning, and it was not a world of suffering. As the Creator is perfect with perfect goodness, so this was in the Creator's creation from the beginning. Yahweh made the light and separated it from darkness, Yahweh made the skies with the atmosphere and separated waters with it, Yahweh made the land with separating it from seas, Yahweh made the plants including the great trees, Yahweh made the sun, the moon, and all the celestial bodies, Yahweh made all the creatures of the seas, Yahweh made all the creatures that fly in the skies, Yahweh made all the land-dwelling creatures, and Yahweh made humanity, with humans to reflect the image of the Creator. It was all good. Humans were given responsibilities in this world, to care for it with stewardship of the Creator's world, as it is the Creator's creation. There was no suffering in this, there was not any death with the world as Yahweh made it, this way. And Yahweh took the first humans, and put them in the garden in this world that was the perfect environment for them, and the creatures with them, and it would be for their children. This was made for it to always last this way.

There was always necessary existence, that there is existence at all. Necessary existence, being necessary truly, is not limited, as limitations are arbitrary and what is truly necessary is not limited, so anything of necessary existence is infinite in extent, and is eternal, being truly necessary. Ability to create, infinitely without limit, is part of that, as the Creator is the necessary existence from which all creation, the contingent existence, is from. The Creator is not material, as we can see material existence is not everywhere and it has limitations. But what we see as abstract of the reality are characteristics of the Creator, the goodness of the Creator, without limit, consisting of justice, love, compassion, mercy, knowledge, and wisdom. And the Creator, Yahweh, is personal in being, without being limited in that.

You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27.

 

[FredVB]

When Enosh was born to Seth, shown in Genesis 4:26, men began to call on Yahweh by name. Calling on Yahweh goes back to the earliest people. The Bible does not show that it was to be stopped, and, importantly, Jesus never showed it was to be stopped. Jesus made the name of God known to his disciples, this suggests that calling on Yahweh had been fully forgotten, with the people who were to still do that coming to have the tradition from corrupted leaders to never pronounce God's name. And early Christian believers not wanting to still be separated from the Jewish people they were among and had been of willingly dropped the appearance of the name in the writings they had, while the name was still in the Jewish Septuagint, which shows there was a change among the early Christians. Gentiles coming into the churches among them were not going to contribute a return to calling on Yahweh by name, which they had never been familiar with. And other things were dropped as traditions became more prominent, with accommodation for gentiles included in those.

 

[FredVB]

I know that the original writing of the Hebrew scriptures were filled with the revealed name of God, that we render 'Yahweh', the name that is to be remembered. The King James Version, as most other versions, differs from those writings with "the LORD" put in place of that name in most passages where it occurs, and so is not truly faithful to the original writing in that, but going with a convention, not from faultless result of God's Spirit guiding.

Those who are created are all to have a chance for the redemption that has always been according to the will of Yahweh. We are to change turning from sinfulness with coming to Christ knowing our need, and we can expect to give an account for when we don't take turning from sin including disrespecting Yahweh and abuse in dealing with others seriously.

 

[FredVB]

With a believer reading the Bible and believing what is read, being in Christ and praying, most things from it would be understood rightly. There should be other believers who also read the Bible around, and more could be understood from them, but really, having Jesus is needed and hearing from what the Spirit of Yahweh shows is most important.

Nobody is infallible. Not you and not I, not any leader and not teacher and not any pope. We all disagree on some things and we all make mistakes. It is unrealistic to expect that any one person is an exception to that. Only what is inspired from God is without error. And that which is without error was what was originally written of what is in the Bible. Copies got almost all of those writings right, but there are some mistakes in the copies themselves, where different copies are different in some certain different places. We have the name of Yahweh shown in so many places in the Hebrew scriptures, with it said that the name was to always be remembered, with Yahweh knowing already if that would be obeyed or not, what would Jesus Christ disagree with from those scriptures? I am sure there was nothing, he disagrees with the traditions that got in their way.

 

[FredVB]

The name of Yahweh is holy. All of what is holy is desirable for any of us who are believers and are in Christ, none of it is for not remembering. The new testament of the Bible is not contrary the rest of the scriptures, it would be consistent. Traditions contrary to any of it are not right. And there is a lot of neglect of Yahweh's perfect will.