What do Jews find strange about Christianity and why.

[Samael_Khan]

Those are not translations or even transliterations. They are new formulation, adapted into other languages. None reflects sense or meaning, at least not necessarily. Some do incidentally.

But what sense or meaning is presented by the Anglicized formulation? Names often have meanings and when the name is translated, the meaning should be what drives it. What meaning is at work here?


I guess that depends on what authority you subscribe to. You are already deferring to Jewish thinking when you assign the vowel points that allow you to read the name "Yahweh" but then you deny the same experts the authority to understand the texts which tell us not to pronounce the name.

1. I don't recall criticizing anyone for NOT pronouncing God's name
2. It was lost as an effect of the destruction of the temple. If you are going to blame the Jews for that then you are subscribing to a very Jewish understanding of the history of the time.


A couple of problems here -- one is, as has been pointed out, Jewish law explains the source for not pronouncing the name and not knowing its pronunciation. The second is that the written formulation is still all over our books so it hasn't been taken out (did you know that under Jewish law, one should not speak to a parent using that parent's name? Out of respect, we are taught not to use the name in speech). Next, you seem to have a very non-Jewish understanding of how names operate in Judaism and this might be leading to some of your concern. There are plenty of names of God that we are not allowed to say out loud, and there are plenty that we are. In fact, you quoted a verse that says that God's name is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. We use the word Ehyeh all time. It is a basic Hebrew verb. The four-letter name is actually NOT a word, and has no stated meaning. All the rest is interpretive guesswork. Does "Jehovah" have some sort of meaning that mirrors your interpretation?

Yehowah is a transliteration of the divine name with the vowels of Adonai added inbetween by the Masoretes. The forms Iehouah and Jehovah came about later. The name isn't a translation.

 

[rosends]

Yehowah is a transliteration of the divine name with the vowels of Adonai added inbetween by the Masoretes. The forms Iehouah and Jehovah came about later. The name isn't a translation.

Then, strictly speaking, it would be strange to call it a transliteration of anything, because in the Hebrew, it would not have ever been pronounced in that written combination. It is a transliteration of a scribal shorthand which actually signals "say something else". It is as useful as translating an idiom literally -- the original was not meant to be used in a literal way, so shifting it to another language based on the literal form of it creates a new, meaningless thing.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Then, strictly speaking, it would be strange to call it a transliteration of anything, because in the Hebrew, it would not have ever been pronounced in that written combination. It is a transliteration of a scribal shorthand which actually signals "say something else". It is as useful as translating an idiom literally -- the original was not meant to be used in a literal way, so shifting it to another language based on the literal form of it creates a new, meaningless thing.

It would be a transliteration of the scribal shorthand. Jehovah is a transliteration of the Divine Name combined with adonai (which ironically certain people dislike to use yet it is included in the word they claim is God's name). So it isn't transliterated or translated from the name the Israelites would have actually used.

It then doesn't even mean what they say it means then. They destroyed the meaning of the name. Or at least they must add Adonai or Lord to the meaning.

 

[McBell]

when 1+1+1=1 then yes there is a problem

You take one pile of sand and add it to one pile of sand and then one more pile of sand how many piles of sand do you end up with?

 

[cataway]

You take one pile of sand and add it to one pile of sand and then one more pile of sand how many piles of sand do you end up with?

did you just turn your god into a pile of sand ? then if a third of you god leaves the pile ,being sent by 1/3 of the pile ,you then have an incomplete god.

 

[rosends]

did you just turn your god into a pile of sand ? then if a third of you god leaves the pile ,being sent by 1/3 of the pile ,you then have an incomplete god.

While it isn't my theology, I would assume that a better analogy would be to a flame. It is not diminished when you transfer some of it to another wick. Just a guess.

 

[McBell]

did you just turn your god into a pile of sand ? then if a third of you god leaves the pile ,being sent by 1/3 of the pile ,you then have an incomplete god.

as an atheist I am flattered that you would be so free to give me a god.
Or perhaps a third of one?
Since that is all you seem able to comprehend from my post.

 

[Flankerl]

While it isn't my theology, I would assume that a better analogy would be to a flame. It is not diminished when you transfer some of it to another wick. Just a guess.

Rabbi revolutionises Christian theology on the go after 1900 years of incoherent screaming of its practitioners.

Now to our correspondent in Tel-Aviv

 

[cataway]

as an atheist I am flattered that you would be so free to give me a god.
Or perhaps a third of one?
Since that is all you seem able to comprehend from my post.

as an atheist why would you care? its not like there is an atheist religion . its either a worship of self or of state.

 

[McBell]

as an atheist why would you care? its not like there is an atheist religion . its either a worship of self or of state.

you answered your own question.
Though I have serious doubts you can figure it out.

Not because I think you are stupid.
But because I strongly suspect your ego will not allow it.