Hebrew of the OT, including Semitic questions

[Theopesta]

dear all beloved venered Fathers, Mothers, brothers and sisters:
If any one interested to learn hebrew with the audio file and dictionary of words of O.T. her
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/7_alephbet.html
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/
I need your blessed prayer in the 50 resurrection days, thanks

[Eugene]

Dear Theopesta,

Thanks for good links. I'm also learning Biblical Hebrew. Here are some other useful Hebrew learning resources:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/
http://foundationstone.com.au/
http://www.faithofgod.net/davar/download.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

In Christ,
Evgeny

[Marie-Duquette]

Theopesta Dem,

Christ is risen! Thank you for posting these web sites for study of the Biblical Hebrew.
for the past few years I have studied the alefbet, certain words and phrases, trying to enter more fully into the Mind of Christ, allowing Him to Live more fully in me.

At present I read the Jerusalem Bible most frequently. this is my favorite translation. It speaks to my soul and heart. I believe that it is the prayerful work the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem; and, the translation was researched, studied and cross referenced from the Hebrew and Greek, then compared to the French in which language it was initially published. Then translated into English.

Again, Thank you. You are in my prayers. Please also pray for me, a sinner.

marie_duquette

[Theopesta]

thanks, evgeny for your links.
thanks marie_duquette.

I find an analytical hebrew and chaldee english lexicon: hendrickson publisher,
isbn: 0-913573-03-5, printed in usa sorry for not response from 9 may as the computer not work this long period, I am in need for your prayer all.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Dear Members,

We still have to be very careful with the Jerusalem Bible, even though it is a Catholic Bible version, it is not a perfect translation.

Remember the Greek language is gender inclusive, just as the Hebrew is, so why is the Jerusalem Bible "traditionally gender non-inclusive"? The whole Theology of the incarnation could be jeapourdised by prefering "Man" to the more correct "human" in translating Greek Anthropos. En-Anthropisis is to become-human not to become the male gender (Man). This is just the tip of the iceburg. If you look at the OLd Testament, although it may be good for scholars to see that they use the name of God YHWH and Elohim but the MT (hebrew bible) is wrong and edited by the Jews of the 2nd Century. We use the Greek LXX.

Review:
The Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition carries the imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church. It meets the need for a modern translation based on the most reliable ancient texts. While it avoids the archaic language of the King James Version, it still holds to the traditional (noninclusive) language that appeals to conservative Catholic and Protestant Christian.

The Jersulam Bible, Reader's Edition is filled with several appealing features:

the complete canon of Holy Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books an English translation that is as close as possible to the literal meaning of the ancient texts traditional, noninclusive language brief introductions to each book that orient the reader to the historical setting limited footnotes where necessary to clarify only the literal meaning of the text

http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerusalem-bible.html

Please look at the OT review of the JB in the above link. I'm sure there are other reviews out there too.

Here is another link telling us about the objections to the use of the Hebrew OT in English translations.

http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.nrsv.html

Here is an objection to the JB and the KJV in the NT for not translating the text properly and removing the evidence for the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/faith.htm
this is an explanation of what's happening.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp

IN PEACE
ICXC NIKA

KOSMAS

[Eugene]

Yes, we do need to be carefull. NRSV is a bad translation mainly because is was done apart from the Church tradition and understanding of the Scriptures.

Here is the approach on this issue accepted in Russian Orthodox Church today:

1. Scriptures can only be translated in the context and on the basis of the Church tradition and exegesis.
2. Masoretic Hebrew text is not 100% accurate. In case of discrepancy between Septuaginta and Masoretic text the Septuaginta version is considered to be more reliable.

In addition to this, the discovery of Kumran scrolls showed that there actually were no standard OT text at that time. In cases of textual discrepancy the Kumran OT texts sometimes correspond to LXX version, sometimes to Mastoretic one, and sometimes to neither of them. Discoveries in Kumran and other sites cover most of OT texts , so we now have lots of original OT texts not touched by Masorets, and it is safe to use them for translation.

Here is an example. For a long time Christians beleived that Masorets changed the word "betulah" (virgin) with the word "almah" (young woman) in Is.7.14. However, it was found that the Kumran Isaiah scroll actually has "almah" in that verse.

I beleive we should still use original Hebrew texts for deeper understanding of the Scriptures. Exactly like you said, Kosmas, that it is difficult to adequately translate from Greek to English, is is even more difficult to adequately and accurately translate from Hebrew. Biblical ancient Hebrew is very much different from modern non-semitic languages. The variety of English OT versions that are so much different from each other only proves this fact.

In Christ,
Evgeny

[Eugene]

PS: To be exact, "almah" means solely "virgin", "betulah" has two meanings - "young woman" and "virgin", so LXX translation is correct here, but depends on exegesis.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Are we (Orthodox Christians) Anti-Semitic?

http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=787

I Have NO COMMENT at this moment!!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There was a lengthy discussion about this at monachos. Follow the link (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1626).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Kosmas,

Fr Raphael is correct that the topic of antisemitism has been dealt with elsewhere, though such an important issue, what the auther of the article you post cites as the major sin of Christianity, cannot in my humble opinion be exhausted as a topic of conversation.

The article by Y. Tabak is an interesting, if disturbing, read. I have three points to raise:

1. Is Orthodox Tradition as inherently antisemitic as the author claims?
2. If the Church Fathers have indeed written mostly negatively about Jews, what is our responsibility today as contemporary Orthodox in how we understand and receive their writings? In other words, should we read the Fathers like Fundamentalists, unable to bring our own prayerful understanding to what is read?
3. If indeed some misguided portion of the Church, including hierarchs and even saints (who again, may be illumined by God, but does that make everything they do and are totally perfect, or are they growing in perfection within the context of their culture and times?), if as I say some portion of the Church sometimes practises hatred and persecution in the name of God, does that reflect on the whole body of the Church and the very meaning of its Tradition? One does not have to be holy to be civilised and intelligent; a little education and human feeling will suffice. Here is an article by Professor Romanides on Jewish-Christian dialogue (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.24.en.jewish_and_christian_orthodox_dialogue.h tm).

Why can´t people solve their religious differences through theologically engaging others in dialogue like this, instead of condemning each other wholesale with all the depth and grace of monkeys in the jungle (or more accurately, demons in hell)? Forgive my boldness, but I say let him who propounds doctrines of hatred for human beings be anathema!

How easy it is to forget! What bliss is the sleep of sin! Let's blame the entire Jewish race for the Crucifixion of our Lord, forgetting that He himself was Jewish in the flesh, and that we are ourselves crucifying Him daily in our sin.

In humility

Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron- just my two cents worth of thoughts (if even that)...and a lot of this is from our last discussion on this topic and the very helpful observations of others.

Your questions point by point:

1.By definition Tradition since it is an exprssion of the All-Holy Spirit guiding & working through the Church cannot be hate & ignorance driven. So Tradition in its Orthodox & correct sense cannot be a racist brand of antisemitism.

Here though we need to make a distinction between how we proclaim that Orthodoxy is the expression of the fullness of Christ's Truth- as this relates to other religions such as Judaism (the Church's teaching is that Judaism is fulfilled in Orthodoxy); and modern anti-semitism which is race based. This last is what is so pernicious and should be allowed no place in our hearts as Christians. It goes against every teaching of the Church on man (Orthodox anthropology) in saying that moral character is determined by something which even scientists have increasing trouble accepting actually exists- race. Of course though racism is more pernicious than this for it disguises itself as a scientific fact when this is just a disguise for trying to justify 'us' feeling superior to 'them'. So on every score any type of racism is deeply and inherently anti-Orthodox and thus not of the Tradition of the Church.

2.The negative comments from the Jews for the most part are based on the fact of the Church being the fullness of God's Truth. In relation to Judaism it is also the fulfillment of their deepest aspirations for a Messiah.

But at times some frustration does show through in the words of the Fathers for salvation is so close for the Jews but yet for the most part has been rejected by them. There is also the sad fact that in pre-Christian Rome and under Muslim rule, the Fathers knew how Jews persecuted Christians. On the other hand the article leaves out the many charitable expressions from St Paul to modern times about the Jews.

In any case I recall extremely few (actually I haven't encountered any myself) of what are really racist anti-semitic statements in the Holy Fathers & saints. If there are are- then these can with humility be rejected. If I understand your question correctly about "should we read the Fathers like Fundamentalists, unable to bring our own prayerful understanding to what is read?"

3.I would say that we must always try to bring a prayerful understanding to what we read. On the one hand we should not have a worldly critical spirit when we read but on the other we should not be like mindless & heartless automatons either. When we read the Holy Fathers we must be humble above all but this is an active and engaging humility of love. I think the closest analogy would be how we hope to relate our spiritual father.
About your last question- of course there are in the Church just plain hateful things which we can hear or read which we should reject. But why things can get like "monkeys in the jungle" (as someone said why insult the poor monkeys by comparing them to us!). It's just like this discussion we are having. The double edged sword of Orthodoxy that we are each called to carry the Spirit and be active members of Christ's Body & how this touches the deepest part of what we are & believe. But on the other hand our expression of this is often not perfect.

So the answer here seems not be to root up everything entirely (even the things that we say that sound stupid afterwards) but rather to try to grow in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[leandros]

Dear brothers,

I think there is a "semantics" problem that has to be solved here, in the first place.

Most of the Jewish people have a self determined notion of themselves as "the people of the God". In this context the secular anti-Semitism - as a racist rejection of a nationality - is actually identified with anti-Jewish - as a theological rejection of false practice of the Jewish religion, not only of Jews of the same race but of every Jew of the same faith.

So if I, as an Orthodox Christian, reject a Jew as a religion practicer, I am mistakenly called Anti-Semitic.

I can very well reject a protestant German, by fighting his theology and his religion practice without being called anti-German. I can also fight against the racist self determination of a German as a Nazi, Superhuman Arian predominance people of human history, and I still will never be called anti-German.

So I think what makes the difference is that, anti-Jew (in the case of religion practise) or anti-Zionism (in the case of political superiority theory) as long as they are combined with God's original (still valid) eschatological plan for Jews, can be considered as anti-Semitism.

But, as long as they are disconnected from God’s eschatological plan, by the cause of Jewish refusal to accept the true original eschatological God's plan, it is just an objection to a false religion or political practise and not a racist behaviour against a whole Nation.

Of course this semantics differentiation can be absent from members of the Orthodox Church, but it exists, nevertheless, in Christian anthology and Christian Theology.

[Theopesta]

I read many researshs on the net on the jewish sites, and in christians who are from jewish origin, and some christians courage the rites of jewish as keshort food (tame and tahor, nearly all these groups feel we leave the jewish cermonies under effect of origen, and the condamen st. chrysostome for his homilies contra jews, and all the fathers of the early church, I amnot till now read homilies contra jews of chrysostom.

but I am reading now Justin the martyer (JUSTIN DESCRIBES HIS STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND OTHER ARTICLES)from chapter xi to xxiii:

I feel he explain the real problem which in 1-the misunderstanding of the symbolytical significance of the rites which accomplish in Christ, this is which the jews refuse.

2- make the carnal observaces only, and leave the soul filled with wicked leaven,

3- what is the true sabbath, the circumsion...
these things make jews feel the early fathers unneutral in their opinion towards the jews.

but we all from the early fathers till now respect the old testament very much.
as what the misunderstanding of the people is thing and what God says is anthor.

also in the spritual life we say about the christian, the spritual Israel, or spritual Zion

many learn the hebrew to understand more what the behind meaning in the words with neutral feeling brothers and fathers, I pig your pardon I invite you to read (JUSTIN DESCRIBES HIS STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY AND OTHER ARTICLES)from chapter xi to xxiii
I hope my words are understandable

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael and all,

I am personally grateful for the encouraging thoughts offered by Fr Raphael. I also agree with Leandros that the Jewish faith is one thing, the Jewish "race" another, and political zionism yet a third. It is comments against the jews on a purely racial basis I find offensive and unjust, although I do also believe that antisemitism (the racial variety of hatred) is also sometimes concealed beneath negative attitudes ostensibly directed towards the Jewish faith or the state of Israel. That doesn't mean, however, that as Christians we should get paranoid in case anyone takes us for antisemites if we want to make fair and properly informed critiques of the Jewish religion or the uses and abuses of zionism.

My emphasis here would be on the words "fair" and "properly informed" in the above paragraph.

I have previously said that I am of part-Jewish ancestry. Many of my relatives, an entire side of my family, in fact, perished in the concentration camps during WWII. Though they were not Eastern Orthodox, I do pray for them, and my spiritual father here in Cyprus says they died martyr's deaths, adding even that one does not have to be Christian to die as a martyr. I have come to believe that Christ is the fulness of the Truth, even though I have never seen an angel or had any experience which science would not have a perfectly rational explanation for; I am willing to accept that my Jewish ancestors failed to perceive the Messiah when He was here among us; does that mean, however, that they are inherently evil, and that every single statement about the nature of man or Divinity made by the Jews is a false and demonic doctrine, rendering the writings of men like Martin Buber useless? Aren't all men made in the image of God? If we do believe in Christ the Saviour(and I for one do, however poorly), then surely our attitude should be like that expressed by Fr Raphael here, one of concern both for the Truth and for our fellow men, regardless of their race.

I thank God that there are good Fathers and Mothers in the Church, and men like Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh and Fr Alexander Men who surely made mature choices about their Jewish backgrounds.

ICXC
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Right now I am reading a book called Fontanka 16 which is a history of the Okhranka- the Tsarist secret police. It has some very good sections which examine the asserion often made by historians & others that both the pogroms & the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion were secretly engineered by Tsarist officials & police.

First it goes through how such an idea arose- mainly through the media (journals) of the time, then through some in the the emigree community later on. Of course the Soviets presented something similar.

Then it convincingly shows how not only did the Tsar & high officials in government & the police not encourage pogroms. They actually tried to stop them and saw them as a danger to the order of the Russian Empire. Although anti-semitism was quite prevalent throughout Tsarist Russia there was not at all an official policy of pogroms or other illegal activites against Jews. The actual source of The Protocols was also not the government or police as is often claimed by historians but the far right wing press in Russia. (Quite conclusively the authors show how the actual origin was a French document- not antisemite- written against Napoleon III in 1864 which a later French anti-semite lifted and transformed into the Protocols). So the case about Russian anti-semitism is more complex than often presented.

In any case from the accounts of the pogroms in Russia I realised that there is another question about anti-semitism that wasn't discussed too much last time around. This is what are the actual roots of anti-semitism in our culture & how this relates to us as Orthodox.

One of the best explanations that is recently being presented by those who study this issue is that in western society in the 19th & 20th century the Jew was seen as a symbol of cosmopolitan liberalism. In a way this is not surprising since Jews from the time of the French Revolution supported liberalising legislation that would encourage their emancipation and allow them to be equal citizens. So in a way Jews had a vested interest in the rise of the modern nation state. And the others who did likewise on the political level were of course liberals themselves (by the old definition not the modern) & moderate socialists. Thus modernised 19th century Jews were also naturally drawn towards liberalism & some to socialism. Thus the connection often drawn between Jews & socialists.

There is in the 19th & 20th centuries however a competing philosophy against liberalism and that is nationalism. Against the Enlightenment ideal of the secular state of equal citizens under the law there was the vision of the race or culturally based state in which citizens are those of the same culture. In this vision of the state Jews were always an uncomfortable anomoly that didn't quite fit in- and for those who came to be preoccupied with questions of survival of their culture as the defining question of what the state is- the Jews were seen as a very threatening presence. For those like this the Jew is the ultimate threat to all that one holds most sacred. (This also answers the quesion of why other foreigners are not seen as so threatening. Someone Chinese for example may be foreign- but he is not by nature a symbolic cosmopolitan)
Because of Nazism & fascism in the 20th century extreme racism has been cast out by most (rightfully) as a legitimate driving force of culture and state. But this has led us to forget that the basic question of how we define ourselves - by culture (race, religion)- or as equal citizens- is still very much with us & most importantly that these two are in mutual tension or opposition. Indeed much of the violence of the past decade has been driven by this question and countries such as Russia are in the process of defining who they are by how they try to answer this question.

So the important question still remains of how WE define ourselves as Orthodox Christians in relation to our society- do we define ourselves as equal citizens before the law or as members of a community based on similarity of culture & religion? If the former then historically this has always gone hand in hand with a secular state not religious. If the latter then what of the rest of the society in which we live that is not Orthodox? Either way there is an unresolved tension & most of the time we are trying to find the middle ground.

In any case this question which preoccupied Tsarist & modern Russia is also with us even if we do not formulate it too clearly. It is still one of the deepest unresolved ambiguities of our modern western history (basically the tension between the Enlightenment & Romantic strains in our culture) and deeply affects how we as Orthodox both as individuals and as members of our Church try to live within & relate to society.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

I think this topic will never be exhausted as Byron has said already. I'm quite scandalised by the amount of rejection and persecution these poor people suffered "by our own hands" so to speak. I am equally as disapointed with the subjective and negative portrayal of Orthodoxy in Encyclopaedias and History Books with regard to the Jews.

Previously I posted an article talking about "Anti-Semitism" in Russia. Here is an interesting link on the Greeks. I think this (1999) publication sheds new light on this topic.
The Jewish-Greek Tragedy During the Holocaust (by Curt Leviant)

http://www.laborzionist.org/frontier/jf_11-99_leviant.html

Although I believe that we should forgive and forget. I also feel that for the sake of historical reference and objectivity, these things and more have to become documented in order to get a better balanced idea. Have a look at this too.

http://www.greecetravel.com/jewishhistory/index.html

We see that the Orthodox Church at many times and with cooperation with the faithful people in many instances helped the Jews either escape (but with little success) or to hide in their homes (at their own risk).

[leandros]

Fr Vereshack,

I agree with your analysis, which examines the issue in a broader frame, as an historical fact. I honestly think that in this context you covered the issue brilliantly.

The issue has an internal - let me say non historical - factor. Let me focalize to what I think is the main problem in Hebrew "society", that has a profound importance to Christian "society" too.

Let's say that an angel was presented before your father and had told him, that from his seed would have come into human history the Messiah, the most greatest of all the prophets, the King of the Kings. Now how would you behave in the expectance of His coming? This is the issue of Hebrew nation, as lived from inside. It has this burden of a well defined Divine future to carry, as a national responsibility.

This is a problem that no other nation/people on earth has ever faced. Of course several other national leaders have announced in advance of the alleged superiority of their race, which was based on argumentative theories, but they had no definite Devine promise of their everlasting superior status on earth. Their nations were never enforced to follow such a destiny. They had the freedom either to choose to follow their inspired leader, as long as he could defend his arguments (in theory and in practice), or to select a new leader to follow his new promises - following a future that is going to be re-shaped. Hebrew nation does not have such an option. Hebrew people are obliged to follow their divine destiny. No other nation has ever realized for them such an eschatological destination.

Being a member of such a society is a burden that consists of the enforcement of the LAW. The implementation of the divine Law makes the promise of God valid, inasmuch the Promise of Messiah constitutes a Testament (agreement) between Abraham (and his descendants) and God Himself.

So even, if the Hebrews would have wanted to introduce other people into the original Testament, they have no power to do that. The Testament can not be changed or annexed because God could not make a better agreement at a later time, as He would prove Himself as a less wise God in the first place. Further, the Testament is between God and Abraham, it is a personal agreement that can not be expanded to non participants.

In this context, the Hebrew nation/society is the most racist one. Not in a way of supporting a superiority of their human nature over other humans, but in an eschatological way: God has given to them a superiority of being in a higher future status from all other peoples. This future superiority is inherited from their natural ancestors. The twelve tribes of Israel are the only and exclusive heirs of this future Kingdom. Nothing and nobody can change this.

Living under such a tradition of binding with God in the practice of His Law, every non-Hebrew human being is regarded as irrelevant quality and quantity. Nothing else really matters, except from God and his Law and His Promise that the ancestors have hand over to their natural descendants: the Hebrews.

This is an obligatory racism, which is innocent of guilt, in the same context that birds are flying without guilt for chickens being forced never to leave the earth and taste the sky, although they are fowls. It is all being done according to God's original eschatological plan. In this context Hebrew people are anti-everybody, themselves excluded.

So, a Hebrew is not a man that is responsible for the exclusive gifts that he will receive from God. He just can't change the future. All that he needs to do is to accept his natural inherited destiny by following and practicing the Law.

In this context, Hebrew presence on earth has a non-historical dimension. It can not be presented through an historical analysis. It receives a justification that it was given in the past and it will be eschatological fulfilled in the future.

This same non-historical self determination notion of Hebrew people is also erroneously believed by many Christians as a true Christian self determination doctrine.

In this context many Christians (including Orthodox ones) are anti-everybody , themselves excluded.

I think that we may learn from Hebrew errors in order not to make the same mistakes they do - ourselves as Christians no to think that we are the alleged nation of God.

We always must have in our hearts the words of Apostle Paul Hebrews 13:10-14:

We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.
For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Thank you for your interesting and significant posts. Kosmas, thank you also for your web links. The story of Mayor Karrer and Bishop Chrysostomos of Zakynthos moved me. It seems to me that they acted as true Christians, and I pray that they may both be enjoying the warmth of Abraham's bosom this very moment.

Leandros, forgive me, but I have a feeling that you want to say something basically true, but you may be using the wrong ideas to express it. The Jews are indeed a special community of people, and so are the Orthodox Christians as you suggest. But it is dangerous to suggest that they are in some way "to blame" for what has happened because of their specialness. Would you say that our Lord was "to blame" for the attitudes of Pilate or the religious authorities, or the crowd, because He believed He was (is) the Son of God? Just as His executioners had a choice, so did Germans, Greeks and other Europeans during WWII, and so do we Orthodox Christians today.

In Christ,

Byron

[Kosmas Damianides]

Byron thank you, I was also moved by this story.

By the way Byron I noticed you are from Cyprus. Do you, or your parents, by any chance know a very special priest by the name of Papa Tsestos In Nicosia who has passed away in recent years? He was my Mum's Uncle.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Kosmas,

I have not had the honour of meeting Papa Tsestos, or even hearing of him. This may be partly because I lived abroad (in the U.K.) for many years and only returned to Cyprus relatively recently.

Do you know which parish he served?

ICXC
Byron

[Kosmas Damianides]

Hi Byron,

He served at St Constantine and Helen's in Palouriotissa. Most people knew him in Nicosia. Ask any oldie close to the Church, they should know.

God Bless

Kosmas

[Vasilis Kirikos]

I purchased a book titled "The First Christian Emperor The Life and > Times of Constatine the Great" by D.G.Kousoulas. It is well > written. But I had no idea how bloody a man was Constatnitne. At > least according to this book. For a review of the book or it can be > purchased from Amazon by going to the URL. > fromhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1887750614/104-8546161-4212727?v=glance > for about $17. > Vasilis

[Kosmas Damianides]

I loved Macheras Monastery . I stayed there a while in 2003? It was very nice. I also met the blessed Fr Arsenios who died recently of the shores of Mt Athos and His Grace Metropolitan Athanasius of Limamsol. They are doing very good work there in Cyprus, especially with the drug rehab close to Machera Monastery.

Troditisa Monastery was something else.

[leandros]

Dear Byron,

My point is that, what makes someone "special" is not a God given "promise" for him.

What makes someone "special" is the personal relationship with God. The "promise" is actually this relation with a Divine Person, not a promise about his future status in a perfect divine environment.

Once we separate our "specialness" from God's origin, and we take it as our own attribute given from God to us, we fail and we become self-justified entities.

And unfortunaltely, many Christians are taking the Christian identity as a "gift", as an attribute of theirs, and they fail to find the gift of Christianity in personal relationship with other people. By doing this, we isolate ourselves in a life of "divine loneleness" for the sake of our predetermined Christian future that -suppositionally- demands from us to separate ourselves from the "non divine/non christian future" of others.

This makes us "anti-everybody", in the same context that Hebrew people have determined their "divide future" and by that they failed to realize the real future that Christ was offering to them.

It is an Orthodox Tradition not to think for ourselves to be "special", because we are Christians. On the contrary we are adviced to think for ourselves to be the smallest and most unworthy of all people, by our nature and by our condition.

In this context our salvation comes as a singular result from God' mercy. There is no "agreement" between us and God. We do not contribute anything else but our affirmation to the given "special" gift. There is no special future for us in opposition to some "other future" that God prepared for the "others".

God has prepared the same future for everybody. In this context, we are all "special". Everybody is included in our common future.

What is exclusively different for each and every one of us, is that we preserve our unique personality by having a personal relation - which is not one and the same for all- with God, but these separate relations are unified in the One Person that is on the other side of all these separate relationships: the man-God Christ.

We are, therefore, alerted not to make the same mistake as Hebrew people did thinking that, we are "special". Definitely, we are not "special".

[Theopesta]

dear celestial friends,
hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/Aleph (http://www.monachos.net/forum/hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/Aleph)
in this link a very interested context:

Mysteries of Aleph

In Kabbalistic literature, the upper Yod (meaning an arm) represents the hidden aspect of YHVH, (ein sof - “without end”), whereas the lower Yod represents the revelation of YHVH to mankind. The Vav, whose meaning is “hook,” shows connectedness between the two realms. Vav is also thought to represent humanity, since Adam was created on the sixth day. Vav is diagonal since it is humbled in the face of God’s mystery and His revelation. The two Yods also indicate the paradox of experiencing God as both hidden and close, far and near.

ketav Ashurit:

1- classical Hebrew script used for writing Torah scrolls

2- was the script that Jesus would have read

ketav Ivri:

1- was an older script, similar to ancient Phoenician, but was not the script used when Moses received the Torah from the LORD on Sinai.

2- Ketav Ivri is also sometimes called the Temple Script because samples of it are extant dated to the time of Solomon’s Temple

[Theopesta]

www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet)

Aleph is a picture of Messiah’s Intercession From a Messianic point of view, Aleph represents Yeshua the Mashiach as our Intercessor and Kohen Gadol.

The two Yods represent outstretched arms or hands reaching both to mankind and to God. The diagnonal Vav represents the sacrifice of Yeshua on our behalf.

And since Yeshua is the Aleph and the Tav, the letter represents His divinity, His humility in silence as He opened not His mouth when He was unjustly accused, and so on. holy moments

[helen]

hi theopesta dem ///

Very interesting what you wrote.... I remember reading a prophecy relating to the hebrew letters.something like that, and I could not quite understand what it meant...

take care
God bless
IX
helen

[Theopesta]

Helen

welcome, thanks for your message but I can not understand your mention by:


I remember reading a prophecy relating to the hebrew letters.something like that, and I could not quite understand what it meant.