Homestead Heritage in waco tx

[Michael The Disciple]

But, do you think people like Michael Gibson (a poster on this forum) is lost because he calls God YAH? He doesn't refute the name of Jesus, he even uses the name of Jesus, acknowledges the validity of the name of Jesus. He just prefers to use the word YAH, sometimes Jehovah, and the name Yeshua.

An accurate statement of my position. I highly doubt YAH will be upset when he is called by his name.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

An accurate statement of my position. I highly doubt YAH will be upset when he is called by his name.

So, not Jesus? Yah?

[Michael The Disciple]

Look at what Dom said.

But, do you think people like Michael Gibson (a poster on this forum) is lost because he calls God YAH? He doesn't refute the name of Jesus, he even uses the name of Jesus, acknowledges the validity of the name of Jesus. He just prefers to use the word YAH, sometimes Jehovah, and the name Yeshua.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Look at what Dom said.

But you believe the name of God is Yah?

[Michael The Disciple]

Well yes....

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by diakonos

But you believe the name of God is Yah?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Well yes....

Is God Jamaican?

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Is God Jamaican?

In south Texas you often hear, “¡Ya, güey!” But, it doesn’t mean the same thing.

I guess I don’t see the point for a “oneness” believer to refer to God by any name other than Jesus.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by diakonos

In south Texas you often hear, “¡Ya, güey!” But, it doesn’t mean the same thing.

I guess I don’t see the point for a “oneness” believer to refer to God by any name other than Jesus.

Absolutely

Philippians 2:9-11
King James Version
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Eusebius was here say, and his theory was based on Papias. Which is highly debatable concerning what Papias was even talking about. Matthew was supposedly writing a logia of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew. The Matthew which we have today isn't "sayings" of Jesus, but the biography of Jesus. Also, if Matthew was written in Hebrew, why would the writer have to explain Aramaic words to his readers? Matthew 27:33, and Matthew 27:46. Also Matthew 16:18 makes absolutely no sense in Hebrew or Aramaic. It's a play on words which only works in the Greek. Peter the piece of rock, the church built on the greater rock. Only Roman Catholics hang onto an Aramaic translation to uphold their beloved Papacy proof, that Peter is the rock which the church would be built upon.

Hi!

The Hebrew Matthew, seen and partially described by Jerome from the library at Caesarea Maritima, was a different text than canonical Matthew. And I said above that it is not extant. It likely did not have any internal translations.

Here I have some material on the topic.

Pure Bible Forum
Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew - (not canonical Matthew)
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php...l-matthew.543/

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Anyway, no Hebrew Revelation. If you would like to see the debate on that subject, we pretty much put that puppy to bed. When Elder LeDeay wanted to claim a Hebrew original for Revelation, because the tribe of DAN was missing from the roster of the 144,000.

Sure.

Any info on this I would like to read.

Here is my page so far.

Pure Bible Forum
the claim of grammatical errors in Revelation - Hebrew or Aramaic autograph
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php...utograph.1684/