Our Father

Yahweh-modern-image

Because of the monstrous images used by people to represent God and the Lord, these images have been approved for use by God. It is only logical that they, being perfect eternally, would be two handsome fellas.

Yahweh (YHWH, יהוה)

I am reintroducing the human family to Our Father, YAHWEH, the only true God. There should be no other gods and no other name of God under Heaven. He is Almighty but lowly. He will listen when you talk to him. He is a person like us, but perfect, with unlimited power and ability.

Our Father is warm, funny, loving, and wonderful to know. His dream is to fill the Earth with happy healthy people. And it will happen, His Son shares his vision for people. He believes in it so much He was willing to die to make it happen.

From God,

“I am a person, my love is what I am”.

It was with the kind voice of a loving father that he told me these words.

Whenever I ask God what to say to someone or to the world, the answer is always the same.

“Tell them I love them”.

Our Father could not risk Our lives, or the life of His Son, because the scripture says “his spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground”.  If he had become only flesh for us, all His memories of 20 billion people and His Son might be lost.  Also, God needed to be alive to restore Y’shu’s countless eons of memories and His life.  Otherwise they might be lost.  Also, God has a perfect memory but can’t remember a beginning, therefore He has always existed.  If He has always existed, then it is logical that He always will exist.  Therefore he likely could not die and be the ransom sacrifice we so desperately needed. But He would have done it in a heartbeat if it was possible.

Y’shu has told you how much He loves you by dying for you in the flesh. But look! He is alive again, and once again living His parallel existence with Our Father.

YHWHNAME-814x350@2x

God’s Name is Yahweh in Hebrew

Physical Evidence c. 860 B.C.E. Meshe Stele (Moabite Stone)

As seen on the Mesha Stele (YYHWH). The Mesha Stele (also known as the “Moabite Stone”) is a stele (inscribed stone) set up around 840 BCE by King Mesha of Moab (a kingdom located in modern Jordan). Note the extra yohdh outside the drawn circle, confirms the pronunciation of YHWH as Yahweh ייהוה

Exif JPEG

YHWH

by Michael S. Heiser

The “a” vowel in the first syllable is quite secure. We know this because an abbreviated form of the divine name (“Yah” – always vocalized with “a”) appears in the Hebrew Bible nearly 50 times, mostly in Psalms (e.g., Exod 15:2; Exod 17:16 – note, this is the same book as the longer form; Isa 12:2; Isa 26:4 – along with the longer form; Psa 68:5; Psa 68:19). The most familiar form to readers is no doubt the phrase halelû-Yah (“praise Yah!”; e.g., Psa 146:10; Psa 147: 1).

The real controversial part of all this for scholars comes with the second syllable (scholars lead exciting lives). Here’s what must be accounted for:

1. The form itself must be the imperfect conjugation, since the “y” of the first syllable is prefixed to the verb root (hyh/hwh).

2. The first syllable must have an a-class vowel (“yah”) to account for the abbreviated form of the name noted above.

3. The second syllable must be an i-class vowel because of the verb root (lemma). The ancient Semitic root hwy also requires an i-class vowel in the second syllable.

There is only one morphological verb formation (parsing) that makes sense of these elements: Hiphil stem, third person, singular, imperfect conjugation, from hyh/hwh. This form is vocalized yahyeh / yahweh and would mean “he who causes to be” (the Hiphil is a causative stem in Hebrew). This is controversial because the verb hyh/hwh does not appear in the Hiphil causative stem elsewhere. Hence scholars are uneasy about taking the divine name this way. Personally, the logic here doesn’t feel compelling to me. I;m not sure why it’s necessary to have a verb form appear elsewhere for it to be considered coherent where it does / might occur. I understand the desire for another example, but it is not a logical necessity if it makes sense. And in the context of Israel’s God in effect creating a nation out of the slave population of Israel, it makes good theological / conceptual sense. But I’m in the minority here, probably because of the (in my view, overly cautious and logically unnecessary) desire for an external example of this lemma in this stem.