House Altar Network

Indien hierdie beskrywing wel aangewend kan word, wat behels dit? Ter aanvulling van die skrywer se boekreeks aangebied op hierdie webwerf, "Die Christelike Geloof, Sy Grondslag en Ontplooiing", bestaande uit nege dele, onder Christian Jewish Studies. Lees gerus hierdie insiggewende artikel deur Ester Blomerus Hersien deur skrywer : 2015/06/03. Tans word net die vier gegewe boeke op hierdie webwerf aangebied.

ERRATUM: (p. 15) LATYN (nie Engels nie!!) was die skolastiese en diplomatieke taal van Wes-Europa). Jammer maar die fout het selfs na proefllees nog bly steek!!

NEEM ASB KENNIS! Yeshua hou verband met Yeshuah (yod+shewa, shin, vav (met dagesh) ayin, he). Daar is ook ander beskrywings wat "verlossing"(salvation/deliverance) oordra soos Yeshayahu (salvation of Yah),Yeshayah en Yesha (yod+shewa shin, ayin), ook Yasha (yod+shewa, shin, ayin (deliverer). Yeshua is the Naam wat algemeen in Israel aangewend word, dit is vir die vertaalde "Jesus" dit is vir die Hebreeuse yod (plus sere), shin, vav met dagesh en ayin op die ent). Laasgenoemde se uitspraak is dan, streng gesproke, wel Je (met lang e klank) en nie Je (met shewa, dit is die "vinnige" byklank nie).

Moet ons noodwendig die Naam "Yeshua" gebruik? Hoe het die gebruik van Yeshua na die Griekse en Latynse gemeenskappe oorgespoel? Wat was die werksmetode van die apostels en die sendelinge wat uitgestuur was? Wat was die Germaanse invloed op Engels, ook Grieks?

Lees gerus hierdie interessante artikel en ondersoek dan die saak verder self indien nodig. Dink goed na oor die gees en gesindheid van Jesus en wat bedoel word met "verjoodsing". Kyk na die Antiochie-vergadering asook die Jerusalem (50 n.C.) Konvent en wat daar vereis was van die heidene.

Waaroor het alles nou eintlik gegaan? Hierdie artikel is die hersiene uitgawe (geredigeer op 2015/05/12).

Vir meer oor Jehoshua en Yeshua (Heb) ook 'Iesous (Grieks), `n Levitiese familienaam, raadpleeg "The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon", p. 221, 3091 3442.

Met betrekking tot Hebreeuse geskrifte: Geskrifte het beide kursiewe skrif (soos wat ons dit veral in Moderne Hebreeus kry) en formele skrif behels, dit is met ander woorde die neerskryf of oorskryf van Hebreeus soos wat ons dit tot vandag toe in die Ou Testament te lese kry. Grieks werk op dieselfde patroon.

Hou verder in gedagte dat I in Grieks uitgespreek word as ie (iota) terwyl Iesous uitgespreek word as `n harde J-klank, dus as Jesoes. Die Griekse Jesous (in transliterasie) begin dan wel met `n vokaal (Jota wat as I (ie) uitgespreek sou word) maar dit word as `n konsonant uitgespreek as dit aan die begin van `n woord staan.

This Module was edited a couple of times, also including a discussion on the Nazarene sects. The subject-matter must always be approached objectively and those interested are urged to supplement the study material offered with their own research. Always keep an open mind and work diligently. Assignments are part of our self-study project but it would be appreciated if those participating would share interesting things they have come accross. Should data be added, due credit will be given for material that can be added to our Modules. Enjoy this very interesting and lively topic. YHWH is on the whole the accepted transliteration of the Sacred Name, however, there are dedicated Jews who prefer YHVH and just as "vav" would be written. It is reasoned in the latter case that it is the "proper" version, i.e. then with the "V" pronunciation in mind - as in "very" and then spoken/pronounced as Yahweh (as in "very") in stead of Yahweh with a "who" pronunciation. NOTE ADDED: With ref to my statement that Christ became subject to Creation, I would like to be more explicit, namely that the Son was intimately, as God's Messenger, involved with creation, and His being was definitely brought forth by the Father before the world was (Gen. 1.3, see also Paul's 2 Cor. 4.6) and in the fullness of times He put on flesh (Phil. 2; Gal. 4). However, it would perhaps be better to state that Christ interacted with creation on a "personal" level, as God's Angel/as Son of God made flesh - but this would then indeed have bonded Him with creation in a unique way whereas the Father continually lived in obscurity. "Messenger" is then indeed a very appropriate title for the Son of God for He acted as God's Agent revealing God - then not only His Word and message - to the people for He acted as God's direct Representative. He was then intimately involved with God's creation and unlike the Father He could appear as an angelic messenger (even Himself was that angelic being). There is lately an idea not to speak of theophany but rather of Christophany - it was then Christ as angelic messenger who appeared either as a man or as an angel to e.g. David, Moses, Abraham, etc. What should be clear to us is that, in New Testament times, the Son did subject himself completely, even to creation, and in the sense that He was prepared to put on flesh and so that salvation for man could be wrought through His shed blood. This is fully Scriptural. This was then something God the Father never did for He remained the Spirit being God who could only be seen in and through (1) His angelic messenger of ancient times, and (2) through His Son made flesh (Phil. 2; John 1; Gal. 4; Heb. 10.9). See also Mal.3.1 and Mic.5.1-2.

In this very interesting Module, Jesus'/Yeshua's pre-existence with His Father as the most important heavenly messenger and Son of God, is discussed also in relation to the creation of Planet Earth and its purpose for us, humans. Diverse interrelated ideas and doctrines are also touched on, e.g. the End Times over against End of the Times, also a section on the Second Coming of Jesus/Yeshua. Those participating are advised to follow the assignment section, using it as a guideline to enrich their studies. Concepts, e.g., the "sons of God"and how to address it in relation to the Scriptures are presented in this Module. Enjoy!

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: Justin Martyr testified ... "...there was a man among us prophesying that Christ will reign upon the earth with His saints a 1000 years (with reference to Barnard's work).

ALSO NOTE: With reference to God the Father as the "First Cause" is phraseology that is rejected by some Christian philosophers and theologians, rather depicting God the Father as "Uncaused" - He who was not brought forth by anybody/He who is absolutely without beginning).

CONCERNING THE "SECOND" COMING OF JESUS (the Greek "parousia"): We don't find the description, "second" coming of Jesus written in the Bible. It is a phrase applied by Christians believing that Jesus will come again and we do have ample evidence in the New Testament confirming this dogmatic stance. Should one talk, e.g., with a traditional Jew, one would immediately be told that Jesus already came. The idea that Jesus never rose from the grave, then persists in the mind of Jews who don't believe in Jesus. Jesus' first coming was when He was made flesh (Jn 1; 1 Jn 4; Phil. 1; the Gospels, etc). His Second Coming can indeed be worded this way but the Second Coming will then differ remarkably from His first coming (Gal. 4). His Second Coming is very explicitly depicted for us by the Apostle Paul (1 Thes. 4.13 ).

Jesus said: "ALL power in heaven and on earth was GIVEN unto me" (Matt. 28,18)

This Document forms part of our Biblical Studies and is presented as Module 7. Follow the usual assignment procedure.

Mainline theology is on the whole ruling that Christ was endowed with two natures. Is it perhaps time to look more objectively at this "infallible" stance?

We all have our own style of studying, but it is always good to have a Concordance as well as two or three Bible translations close by.

Make it your aim to have faith (!) in Jesus! He is the Path of Life and Life is Truth! (Jn 14.6; 1 Jn 5.12).

Concerning the "Ebionites" - there's a diversity of opinions on this label, however, it pertains to the Greek-speaking Jews who were bent on keeping their type of Jewishness in place yet their faith was not without pagan influence. It is briefly dealt with in this article.

A main theological stance is that "God became flesh" (God was, as they say, born in a manger), however, what this article points out is Biblical for God Most High (God the Father) prepared a body for His Son!!! And the Son put on flesh. Read this article in conjunction with the previous article on John 14.

We must therefore differentiate between God Most High and His Son for God Most High, the Originator of everything, could never become equal to creation (He could not become man but His Son put on flesh, 1 Jn 4) - See Phil. 2 on Jesus, the Son. We will only make doctrinal progress once we are prepared to accept the Biblical text as God has meant it to be applied. "Christ is the beginning of Creation" (Paul, Col. 1.15). This has been the major bone of contention for the Trinitarians reason that Christ is before Creation. Although we want to bring glory to Christ (of course! we all want to do so), once we can shed our own reasoning, replacing it with Scriptural understanding, we will begin to make progress in the right direction for Paul's theology, "Christ is the beginning of creation" , tells us that Christ was brought forth by God, His Father, as the very first on God's (divine/heavenly abode) creation list.

God's creation, meaning, far beyond our thoughts and reason, also "divine" (heavenly) pertaining to heavenly principalities, rulers and powers (Paul, Eph 1). "Let there be Light!" (Gen. 1.3 explicated by Paul in 2 Cor. 4.6) proving that God's "creation" (the bringing forth/into existence) of His Son, is not heresy but indeed Scriptural truth.

God's "Time, indeed "eternal time" can then indeed pertain to relevant times or timing" within eternity, namely Christ's "eternal existence with His Father" (which is Scriptural) surely implying God as Originator's existence (having no beginning) in relation to that of His Son who was brought forth by God His Father as first-born of Creation, namely as "Light" of the world, speaking then indeed of a time-period within eternity when only God the Originator had existed.

This viewpoint will of course challenge Tertullian's weird idea on the Son's eternity: the Son having been in the mind of God and with whom God the Originator (Father) would then, in Tertullian's doctrinal idea, have had intimate discussions - the Son then having been in the mind of God the Father fully grown (!), making Him then equal in eternity to the Father, namely fully equal to God the Originator! It should be clear that Tertullian's weird idea is to be rejected as it makes a farce of God Most High! It is a pure Trinitarian stance but which can then also be rejected as heresy (from an apostolic viewpoint).

Let's cleanse our minds of Greek reasoning, returning to the plain Scriptural truth as God had delivered it unto His New Testament leadership of whom Paul was the most important apostolic teacher. Paul clearly desired the simplistic Word - stripped of philosophical reasoning (Col. 2.18; 1 Cor. 11).

God the Father had clearly brought forth His Son as Instrument of Creation through Whom He, the invisible God, could make contact with creation (Prov. 8.22+) appointing Christ as Ruler of the Universe and Who put on flesh to tabernacle among us (Phil. 2) preparing an utterly sanctified body then for His Son in the virgin to enable Him, the Son, to indwell that body, and walking among His own in the flesh (Master/Kurios). This is eternal (from generation to generation) Scriptural Truth!

For this very reason Christ as (Pauline) first-born of all creation, serving in the capacity of "Angel of God" in Old Testament times, was rejected especially by the Western Church - He was made "Logos" instead (coming from Greek philosophy, namely "Reason") in order to accommodate an abstract concept of indivisibility in Trinity. There was virtually zero tolerance for any alternative viewpoint in post-apostolic Christendom! The post-apostolic church ruled on all the major theological issues, therefore it is accepted that believing Jesus only had one nature (holy and unblemished, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit) means that Jesus could not relate to humans as He was too divine. But, briefly, just as Adam was created pure and holy, Jesus also was. His relation to humans around him was indeed not unreal, for He was made flesh to mingle with man, to identify with man and so that He could meet satan face to face on behalf of mankind, yet He was without sin for He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and He was therefore totally separated unto God, His Father and utterly holy in nature. Yet He could suffer, He could feel pain, He could sympathize with His fellows, etcetera. So this stance is fully Biblical just as the Virgin birth is. In Afrikaans: Meer oor die diofisitisme en die monofisitisme - kyk Kruispaaie (3).

KINDLY NOTE THAT ALL OUR PODCASTS ARE DOWNLOADABLE ... see AUDIO - ON THIS WEBSITE

According to Luke's Acts the Apostles of Jesus baptized in the Name of Jesus (2.38).

After the Apostles had left the scene, the water baptism was adapted to Matt. 28.19.

This document is published here in order to understand how the transition from "apostolic" to "post-apostolic" had influenced water baptismal practices. How it was reasoned and having become the compulsory form of baptism applied.

Is this KJV text apostolic?

A very important centre in Christian History

The Truth shall set you free! (Jesus)