Used to be in the mentality that I was a Christian, but only with the greatest hope to be even a disciple, a humble and simple slave to the Master and Commander of the Universe seen and unseen.
Christian defined states "to be like in the image of the anointed one." It is the greatest hope to be like him, but when I study the scriptures, I am pathetic. I have not raised the dead, cured horrible diseases, dispatched demons from the infirmed, have the intelligence to engage people in eloquent symbolic metaphoric analogies like Iesous did among many. Though it is of the greatest hope to do so.
An issue that needs to be addressed is this rising fad of the Holy Names movement. (Yes, I have been involved in it for many years.) Many are embracing this so called Hebrew or Ancient Phoenician names. These are the Ancient Caananite languages to which the Israelite forefathers were to utterly annihilate off the face of the earth, but failed to do so and they reside among us this day.
After much study, I can only verify the Greek. Many of these so called Holy names call the Father, Yahweh, Yahovah, Jehovah and the son Yahshua, Yeshua, Yahwashua etc, there are many variations as well as arguments, sometimes vicious by the proponets who claim by their presentation are right, this lends to much frustration and confusion. In the Greek texts (Septuagint-Old Covenant much older than the 1,000 year old Masoretic texts)and (Koine Greek New Covenant), no such names are given. It is simple and to the point with theos = God or gods and kurios = Lord, lords or master.
Many put there credence into the Masoretic texts and the KJV, but at the same time snub their noses at it calling it corrupted, which is true, but yet use it extensively in their teachings. They wield the Strong's Concordance with the Hebrew Chaldee and Greek dictionaries to some how expound the scriptures that it is some type of mystical key that gives insightful knowledge, but fail to realize that James L. Strong stated himself this Bible tool was not to be used as such. It was designed for reference and cross reference for the KJV (King James Version: Version is exactly as it is.
Definition of "version" - a translation from another language; especially : a translation of the Bible or a part of it. 2. A story or description that is different in some way from another person's story or description. King James translators were they interested in literal translation or making sure it was politically correct to please the king? Who he himself believed and wrote in 1597–98. The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron (Royal Gift), in which he argued a theological basis for monarchy. In the True Law, he sets out the divine right of kings, explaining that for Biblical reasons kings are higher beings than other men. Then several years later decides to commission in 1604 The Authorized King James Version of the Bible, which was completed in 1611. This is the most praised English bible to date. At least the Authorized King James puts version right on its cover for a legal disclaimer.
No one is using original sourced document verification, but rather speculation. In conclusion, the Greek is the only VERIFIABLE original sourced documents thus far. The Masoretic texts are only about a 1000 yrs old. Admittedly the orthography of this so-called Hebrew was radically changed by a presumed secular Jewish sect. What was their motivation in doing such a thing? Is truth expounded by corruption or does corruption beget corruption?
In the Greek, The Father is the Father (pater) and the only HOLY name given unto men under heaven to which to be saved is IESOUS. That's it. (The name Jesus is only a few hundred years old after the letter "J" was added to the English alphabet and cannot be sourced to its origin of its verifiable sourced transliteration.)
Many so called scholars suggest the Syriac script is influenced by the Aramaic, another supposed language that is suggested that Iesous spoke along with his disciples during their time. Justifying using these so-called holy names being linked to the Hebrew. Again, much speculation and debate to render absolute confidence in their validity that Aramaic was actually used.
Having studied now for 20 years by reading and studying in depth numerous arguments, debates and much speculation from its adherents to the transliteration, pronunciation and translation to this Holy names movement whether so called Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Hebrew, Phoenician, etc. This is nothing, but confusion.