Christian Conspiracy...... BE AWARE

To Jewish Christians, the name Jesus was probably pronounced Ye·shuʹa‛. And the title “Christ” was Ma·shiʹach, or “Messiah.” Greek-speaking Christians called him I·e·sousʹ Khri·stosʹ, and Latin-speaking Christians Ieʹsus Chriʹstus. Under inspiration, the Greek translation of his name was recorded in the Bible, showing that first-century Christians followed the sensible course of using the form of the name common in their language.

If it was perfectly alright for the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures* to translate names to the names common in their language (Greek in this case), why wouldn't it be OK for translators afterwards to do the same? And that doesn't just count for the name "Jesus", they did it with all the names. It's not like you're arguing that these Bible writers were not inspired by God when they recorded (wrote down) the Greek translation of all these names in the Bible.

*: A designation for the last 27 books of the Bible, commonly called the New Testament. The books were written by eight Jewish Christians: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. (Ro 3:1, 2) Matthew apparently wrote his account in Hebrew and translated it into Greek. His translation and the rest of the books were written in Koine, or common Greek, the international language of the day.​ (Thus the designation “Greek Scriptures.”)

Nor was it a mere coincidence that these inspired Christians, all of them natural-born Jews (Ro 3:1, 2), had their writings sent out in Greek. These were not private communications but were intended for wide circulation, to be read and studied by all the congregations. (Col 4:16; 1Th 5:27; 2Pe 3:15, 16) The writers were under divine command to spread this good news and teaching to the most distant part of the earth, to places where Hebrew and Latin were not read. (Mt 28:19; Ac 1:8) Even in territories closer to Palestine, there was an increasingly large number of non-Jews coming into the local congregations. Also, when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, these writers frequently used the Greek Septuagint. Which also translates the Hebrew names to their Greek equivalents.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Yehovah (no J in Hebrew language)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: DeathSlayer

So the God who has extended peace and mercy to humanity for millennia, sent His Son to die on a cross, who self describes as Love, is so petty,
He gets offended by incorrect use of His name
Your God sounds petty

I believe God measures the heart, measures the motive, so tell me, what does God do to infidels who choose His wrong name, what punishment awaits them/me? Almost as if Jesus isn’t enough, His death was powerless and only getting His name correct is important

And why has God revealed it to you only deathslayer, are you more important? Special?
If it was that big an issue, maybe God would have placed a bit more effort into revealing it to many, more than just a keyboard evangelist

I don’t read the king James bible either, now I have His name wrong, guess eternal separation is my calling

It seems you want to add to the word, a new revelation, a new teaching.

Are you always so angry????

No offense I lurk more than I post these days but all your posts come off extremely hostile

So what if this is what he believes. He's hurt no one. And if you don't believe in what he does then the convo isn't for you......

I don't get being so nasty to people for no reason

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: redchad

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: redchad

Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

I knew you were more comfortable persisting in ignorance.
At the very least I expected at least a more benign remark.
Something like, I see your point as reasonable and must agree
to disagree. But the mind is often educated only for closure.

Hardly scientific.

You continue to just blather on! Criticising me! Don’t shoot the messenger. Just put down your evidence, first of all what does the shroud prove and how? we are all waiting in anticipation but you know what? I know you won’t try because the evidence isn’t there. You will just continue to have a go at the messenger. By the way did you know that the original old translation of angel is messenger.

Time to be more open minded?
www2.cbn.com...

Now, a new scientific procedure dates fabric from the Shroud to roughly 2,000 years ago. That Italian study is just the latest in a long series of scientific testing,

"The pollen samples that were gathered they, a lot of them are from plants that are native to not just the Middle East, but specifically the area around Judea, Palestine, and Syria and stay where it was in that time period," said Hyland.

British filmmaker David Rolfe said of the Holy Grail theory, "You realize that the cloth is a vessel that's containing Christ's blood. I mean, there it is, and it is blood, and not only is it blood, it is type AB, which is the type that's consistent with Palestinian Jews."

I’m really not sure why it is so difficult for some people to believe … after all archaeologists have had carbon dating methods for some time now, so we know that the bones of dinosaurs date back a pretty long time ago and fossils of “cro mignon like humans” dating back 43,000 years exist,.. unless you don’t believe the science of archaeology. fossil.fandom.com...#:~:text=%5B1%5D%20The%20earliest%20known%20remains,the%20ancestors%20of%20modern%20Europeans.
So it’s entirely possibke the shroud of Turin may truly be that of Jesus. I saw a documentary in the early 80’s which included sone of the interesting things around the Shroud of Turin. The recent science is that there is no paint on it to suggest that it was painted. According to accounts of it, there seems to be a mystifying action of a burning into the cloth, by a mysterious process, of the face and body of a crucified man, potentially indicating the process of the resurrection.
I personally met Dr. Elizabeth Caspari, who documented her trip to Hemis where the lama there showed her documents that a Saint Issa was there, which corresponds to the story that Jesus traveled to
India.
Atheists and secular humanists particularly have trouble believing in hinge of this nature, yet somehow believe the very unsound theories of Climate Change.

The sentence "it is entirely possible the shroud of turin may truly be that of Jesus " says it all! Because it is entirely possible that the shroud of turin may not be that of Jesus. In my world I deal with facts and evidence not rumour and supposition.

a reply to: whereislogic

From the beginning of human civilization priests and 'holy men' have invented pious nonsense. For the priesthood the rewards have been immense: power, prestige and wealth. They have fused with, and become part of, the ruling elite.
But times of social stress have always seen the emergence of a counter-priesthood, radicals or fundamentalists, preaching a purity of fable; ascetics, puritans and fanatics who revile and castigate a corrupt and worldly religious establishment and offer themselves as apostles of Truth and Divine Wisdom.
Rome's 1st century colonisation and exploitation of Judaea placed huge stresses on a theocracy that had enjoyed absolute power under the Maccabean kings and had been placated and indulged even by Herod the Great. Pharisees on the one hand – rabbinic guardians of a religious correctness, not part of the Temple hierarchy– and Essenes on the other – egalitarian purists, who withdrew to their own communities and lived by their own rule – trained the cadres, and fashioned the earliest ideology, for a radical recasting of Judaism.
A century of endemic rebellion, civil war, and wars of national resistance, leading ultimately to catastrophic defeat, made ready the seed bed for a violent and profound religious revolution
The earliest Christian communities, remote from power and lacking in wealth, were led by charismatic agitators, peripatetic "prophets" and "teachers" who claimed their doom-laden message was received directly from the Holy Spirit of God (Acts 13.2; 15.23, etc., confirms as much). Their doctrine was spontaneous, variable and idiosyncratic.
Tellingly, the handful of late 1st century / early 2nd century writers (Paul, Clement, Barnabas, Papias) did not quote Jesus at all. They say nothing, or next to nothing, of humanoid "Jesus actions" or miracles. The virgin-born, miracle-working, godman of later legend was unknown to them. When their fantasy required the endorsement of higher authority they turned instead to Jewish scripture, to the patriarchs, the prophets and the supposed utterances of the Jewish God himself

a reply to: whereislogic

Ishvara is what you are looking for and; It's the same thing as saying someone felt as if they were being blessed with his presence.

I'm not sure if Hinduism or Jainism has ever approved of re-naming "him" into other pantheons than just remaining Ishvara in their own. The reason "him" is in quotes as that feeling people are attached to of being blessed with someone's presence is not located in just one individual, other than in the experiencer and not the experienced.

If it were perceived in the individual that was experienced it would equate to an ego which Isvara is said to be without as all he could claim is being a bhramin and yet now has another bull or cow experiencing him and mistaking that feeling as not arising from the self that perceived it as coming from him instead... Not wanting such an attachment as it would keep him from the liberation known as Moksha. Remember it is more phenomenal as an individual where it can be recognized in oneself if awake and aware as it arises and can also be avoided; instead of indulged so one too can achieve moksha or liberation.

Indulging it only equates to further bondage.

the Angel Gabriel told Mary, the mother... the male infant was to be named Emmanuel meaning 'God Among Us

what happpened ? that name 'poofed away' soon after the 'bris' ceremony ...
i thought after John-the-baptist recognized 'god-among-us' the person 'jesus' became JC "Jesus-the-Annointed'

rabbit holes /gopher holes same difference

originally posted by: St Udio


the Angel Gabriel told Mary, the mother... the male infant was to be named Emmanuel meaning 'God Among Us

what happpened ? that name 'poofed away' soon after the 'bris' ceremony ...
i thought after John-the-baptist recognized 'god-among-us' the person 'jesus' became JC "Jesus-the-Annointed'

rabbit holes /gopher holes same difference

I never knew that! How do the modern Christians explain that one?

a reply to: redchad

I'm not a Christian, but I do have a copy of their Canon.

The account of angelic announcements as contained in Matthew 1:20- 23 and Luke 1:28-38 about the name differ widely. For instance in Matthew the angel tells Joseph, in a dream; and in Luke the angel tells Mary, not in a dream. In both cases the English translation of the Greek name is Jesus.

21She shall give birth to a son. You shall name him Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.” 22Now all this has happened that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall give birth to a son. They shall call his name Immanuel,” which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”
Matthew 1 World English Bible

The author of Matthew quite often makes reference to some prophesy being fulfilled. In this case his description of what he describes and the prophesy don't quite line up.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: redchad

The author of Matthew quite often makes reference to some prophesy being fulfilled. In this case his description of what he describes and the prophesy don't quite line up.

Immanuel (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

... “All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet,” Matthew observed. It was a sign that identified the long-awaited Messiah. ...

...

If there seems to be a conflict between the angel’s instructions to Mary (“you are to call his name Jesus”) and Isaiah’s prophecy (“she will certainly call his name Immanuel”), let it be remembered that Messiah was also to be called by yet other names. (Lu 1:31; Isa 7:14) For example, Isaiah 9:6 said concerning this one: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Yet none of these names were given to Mary’s firstborn as personal names, neither when he was a babe nor after he took up his ministry. Rather, they were all prophetic title-names by which Messiah would be identified. Jesus lived up to the meaning of these names in every respect, and that is the sense in which they were prophetically given, to show his qualities and the good offices he would perform toward all those accepting him as Messiah. So also with his title Immanuel. He measured up to and fulfilled its meaning.

Worshipers of Jehovah have always desired God to be with them, on their side, backing them up in their undertakings, and often he reassures them that he is, sometimes giving them visible signs to this effect. (Ge 28:10-20; Ex 3:12; Jos 1:5, 9; 5:13–6:2; Ps 46:5-7; Jer 1:19) If today the personal identity of Immanuel in the days of Ahaz remains uncertain [whereislogic: I skipped the part where they were discussing Isa 7:14 and the Immanuel in the days of Ahaz], it may be that Jehovah so directed in order not to distract the attention of later generations from the Greater Immanuel, when he put in his appearance as a sign from heaven. With the coming of his beloved Son to earth as the promised Messianic “seed” (Ge 3:15) and rightful heir to the throne of David, Jehovah was furnishing his greatest sign that he had not forsaken mankind or his Kingdom covenant. The title-name Immanuel, therefore, was particularly appropriate to Christ, for his presence was indeed a sign from heaven. And with this foremost representative of Jehovah among mankind, Matthew under inspiration could truly say, “With Us Is God.”

a reply to: whereislogic

If today the personal identity of Immanuel in the days of Ahaz remains uncertain [whereislogic: I skipped the part where they were discussing Isa 7:14 and the Immanuel in the days of Ahaz], it may be that Jehovah so directed in order not to distract the attention of later generations from the Greater Immanuel,

I was going to ask if you had actually read Isaiah 7. It basically says while the child is still young, the Assyrians will bring great war on the other two kingdoms. I guess you have read it.

Now I'm starting to worry about the OP. Has he abandoned the thread because it got hi-jacked?

a reply to: pthena

With a little bit of research it wasn’t hard to find

Faking the prophecy of a Virgin Birth: Famously, Matthew maintains that 'Isaiah' had prophesied that Jesus would be born of a virgin:
"Behold, a virgin will be with child, and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel," 
– Matthew 1.23.

Matthew's source is the Septuagint (Isaiah 7.14). But the Greek-speaking translators of this version of Hebrew scripture (prepared in 3rd century BC Alexandria) had slipped up and had translated 'almah' (young woman) into the Greek 'parthenos' (virgin).
The Hebrew original says: 'Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel.'
Honestly translated, the verse reads: 'Behold, the young woman has conceived — and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.'
The slip did not matter at the time, for in context, Isaiah’s prophecy (set in the 8th century BC but probably written in the 5th century BC) had been given as reassurance to King Ahaz of Judah that his royal line would survive, despite the ongoing siege of Jerusalem by the Syrians. And it did. In other words, the prophecy had nothing to do with events in Judaea eight hundred years into the future!
Yet upon this doctored verse from Isaiah the deceitful scribe who wrote Matthew was to concoct the infamous prophecy that somehow the ancient Jewish text had presaged the miraculous birth

a reply to: redchad

If the shroud is a fake science would certainly be able to prove it.

Science instead describes what can easily be interpreted by the Bible
and Christians for 2000 yrs as the resurrection. Like I already said.

The inability of modern science to debunk the shroud at all in any way.
Should speak volumes to any open mind. So are you personally closed
minded on the subject? Because the Shoud of Turin seems to be a fact
you haven't considered partner.

Frankly I don't care what you choose to believe. I just think you should
care if your wrong because it is important.

a reply to: Saloon

There are no definite historical records concerning the particular shroud currently at Turin Cathedral prior to the 14th century. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.[29][30][31] Although there are numerous reports of Jesus's burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently in Turin.[32] So Saloon please tell us all how you link this shroud to a man called Jesus?

a reply to: redchad

i already told you more than once but you're still asking and refusing
to make even the slightest open minded comment towards anything
I've said in regards to the shroud. You don't even see it do you?
What your education has done to you?

Most normal people who come to know about the shroud and the facts
behind it. Are stunned by the fact that the science of your modern day
secular knowledge. Can't even debunk a relic of cloth that carries a
verbal claim of authenticity. Why don't you just try to debunk Christianity
while you're at it?

Oh wait you are

Good luck with that

Kind of sad really that you can't allow yourself any fascination at all.
So much for agendas. You do understand that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence right? Any idea how many people
you've deconverted so far? I bet it's a lot.

a reply to: Saloon
Blah blah blah! Everyone’s still waiting for you to explain to us all how you link the shroud of Turin to a man called Jesus who was crucified? I’ve searched the internet for this information but it’s not there so please enlighten us all! Unless it’s a secret, yes that’s it, it’s a secret lol

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: Saloon
Blah blah blah! Everyone’s still waiting for you to explain to us all how you link the shroud of Turin to a man called Jesus who was crucified? I’ve searched the internet for this information but it’s not there so please enlighten us all! Unless it’s a secret, yes that’s it, it’s a secret lol

If this concept continues to elude you and whom ever you have with you there?

Perhaps you should find one that suits you better?

Interesting OP, I see what your getting at. A name to some people, in their own language, is very important, example: I was in a ‘church’ (English speaking) 20-30 years ago that had a kid named Nathaniel but his father was from Quebec (Mostly french speaking province) and we were told that his name was Nat-in-yell (is how we were to pronounce it) and I was told the father would get upset if we pronounced it the “English” way. reply to: DeathSlayer

a reply to: Saloon
Still won’t answer the question! Ok il make it easy for you 2000 year ago a man called Jesus was crucified covered in a shroud and left in a tomb. The following day the tomb was found empty with the exception of the shroud. (Think that is generally agreed) Q what happened to the shroud then? Who picked it up and what did they do with it? Where did it go next? Nothing is heard of this shroud from then. Where was it?
1200 years later A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 a shroud bearing the image of a crucified man appeared in the village of Lirey, in north-central France, around the years 1353 to 1357.[33] It was owned by a French knight, Geoffroi de Charny, who died at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. In 1390, the Bishop of Troyes, wrote a lengthy memorandum to Antipope Clement VII (recognized as Pope declaring that the shroud was a forgery and that a previous Bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, had identified the artist who had made it.
The history of the shroud from the 15th century is well recorded. In 1453, Margaret de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy. In 1532, the shroud suffered damage from a fire in a chapel of Chambéry, capital of Savoy, where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage with patches. In 1578, Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy ordered the cloth to be brought from Chambéry to Turin and it has remained at Turin ever since.
So no trace of the shroud for 1300 years yes il say that again 1300 years then a knight In France Geoffroi de Charny pops up and says he has it. (Despite the pope saying it’s a fake and the real artist is known). At the time the uneducated took it serious and believed it. Here we are 700 years later and the uneducated still believe it. You do know the holy robe of Christ (worn before the crucification) is in a church in Germany! The crown of thorns is in a Paris cathedral! Parts of the actual true cross are in Rome! A crown made from the nails used in the crucification is in Italy! A cloth used to wipe JCs brow is also in Rome! The holy grail is in Valencia! John the Baptist arm is in Istanbul along with get this the staff of Moses and the prophet Mohammed’s sandals and tooth. And not only the uneducated believe this but fools aswell.

a reply to: redchad

All that and still science hasn't put the shroud to rest in the slightest way.

Which in all honesty wouldn't bother me in the least if it was blown out
of the water by science. So the Shroud remains an historic and remarkable
relic of absolute possibility in regards to being consistent with the Biblical
narrative and history.

And why wouldn't it be hidden away by those who knew Jesus was the messiah?
Christians were being persecuted from hell to breakfast at that time. Again
consistent of the hate for Christians and their undying belief. Do you do
any thinking for yourself at all? Or do you just do recitals?

He died in the same total obscurity as every other victim of the cross at that time.
Died before he made a pimple on a nats ass to history. And it's by my observation
so fitting that only after his death he became the most recognized human
being that ever lived.

With his twelve little disciples always questioning and unsure and even
cowardly sometimes. Filled with doubt according to the Bible til when?

Until after he was crucified when obviously only
then was their fate also sealed. As their own torture and brutal death
came to all of them rather than denounce Jesus Christ. When the one
true God had then become undeniable to them.

Yeah I tuink if believing in someone like that makes me a fool? I can rest easy
with it. In fact I'd be a far bigger fool not to believe it when every murdered
Christian at the hands of Romans. As recorded in history verifies his existence
in the biggest way. People don't let themselves get slaughtered for a lie.

Because men are liars and mostly cowards until they come to know God again.

a reply to: redchad

Doooooh! You've still not answered the question! Where was the shroud between AD 35 and AD 1204? And who other than the French Knight who else at the time said it was the shroud of JC? The British museum has some roman coins from the time of Pilote they were the coins JC knocked off the table onto the floor whilst in the temple. Honest it's true you should tell everyone. You call yourself a Christian but know very little about your religion. Intact all you actually know is what you've been spoon fed at school and at church.