People Who Pronounce and Spell the Name of Jesus In Weird Old Testament Variants are Going to Hell

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Jesus/Yeshua was born of a hebrew woman,His name is Yeshua!
Jesus is the anglicized name of Yeshua.

Seeing how Josephus talked about people named Jesus and that the New Testament was written in Greek, why would it not be possible for Jesus' name be exactly what it is in the New Testament. You would need to prove that his name was not Jesus, and saying it was Yeshua is only a theory, and not a fact.

Originally posted by daikaiju

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by daikaiju
Wow, this is still going on?
I figured this thread debunked due to the fact that there is no biblical backing to the OP statement.
It is the OP's opinion and nothing more.

Where in the Bible does it say the OP cannot have an opinion?
Where in the Bible does it say you are allowed one?

When the OP tries to cast opinion as dogma, backing is needed or he is just leading others astray.

You are only posting on this thread in order to criticize it and not to add anything to it. The last time I counted you had twenty five posts on this thread, including one post, on page one, right next to my post where I said

No, I really believe it but of course is only my opinion.

So my opinion right now is that you are being less than honest now by saying that I am presenting dogma when I already said, and you know I did, that I was only presenting my opinion.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Frira

If the intent is to avoid using the power of the Name, then to what end?
* Is it to mislead others so as to deny others the power?
* Is it to guard against invoking the power out of thoughtless familiarity?
* Is it to claim for oneself something new and mystical for reasons unrelated to the love of God?

Intent matters.

I see that no one yet has taken JMDs simple hint of doing a word search in the New Testament for 'angel'. Sad.

The intent is to deceive and bring back into bondage to the law, thus imprisoning people. Demon possession is a serious form of bondage, if that is the intent of the demon.

GAL 3:19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

From Paul's perspective, since he was a bar mitzvah (son of law), he had been under the imprisoning power of the law, which had come from angels. Yahweh being an angel.

GAL 2:4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

Enter the spies, they are bound as prisoners of the law, possessed by a spirit of bondage from Yahweh. They do not say simply Yeshua or Jesus, they use the extended Yahoshua or such (Yahweh saves). Thus they pretend to believe that Jesus saves, but actually they proclaim that Yahweh saves.

How should people who do believe that Jesus saves react?

COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Worshipping angels (even Yahweh), according to this writer of Colossians, will disqualify you from the prize.

These are my views on the subject. Bogus Christians, who know they are bogus, will be very careful to always use a name indicating their true allegiance to an angel, so as to please the angel, their true master.

edit on 19-9-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

Interesting. Thanks for the thoughts.

Personally, I will not make the same connection you did regarding Yahweh being an Angel.

Neither the traditional interpretation that Yahweh is the One true God and that the Angels mentioned are Angels of that God; nor your view that the the proper interpretation is that Yahweh is one of the Angels, can be refuted by the received text.

Again, I think of the story of Gabriel and Daniel (Daniel 10, for those following along at home!)-- not as a refutation, but as a counter-point:

The "Princes" of nations, are understood to be Angels, and, it follows, that Gabriel is understood to be the Angel of the Hebrews; equivocal to The "Prince" but not God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Otherwise, In Daniel, Gabriel would be the I AM; yet clearly these two are written of as two distinct entities, I AM being God, and Gabriel being an Angel ("Prince" or lower case, god).

No part of that detracts from the meaning taken from your quotes from Paul, that the Law is a form of bondage.

At the same time, our eyes see that some persons (e.g., ruthless persons) are in need of restraint, while others are far more able to live their lives freely, and because the restraint is not necessary, they also live more fully.

No doubt, the Person of Christ Jesus, is the example of freedom without need for the Law, by fulfillment of it-- not by restraint, but by fullness of life. Which leads to the statement which summarizes the true Gospel: "God became man so that man might become god."

The only example given the Church of what it is to be fully human so happens to also be fully God. The inverse is true: The only physical example of what it is to be fully God also happens to be fully human.

And there, my friend, is the Gospel I hold-- a very ancient understanding; and in it, the call to transcend this present darkness-- to loose the bonds. So despite our different interpretations, have we not come very close to meaning?

reply to post by WarminIndy

That was the Maccabbean Revolt. The Jews celebrate Channukah today because it was the miracle of the 8 nights of oil for the lamp. The reason the revolt failed is at that time because I don't think they had enough support and the Romans were just too big of a force to deal with. We look at history today with our perspectives and world-views without realizing that history was a time of live and let die. That was life for people back then.

No, the Maccabean revolt happened in B.C., not 70 or 135 A.D. It happened because Antiochus IV Epiphanes slaughtered a sow on the brazen altar and erected an idol of Zeus in the Holy of Holies. The revolt resulted in a victory of the Seleucids, not Rome.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
I get your point but...just HOW does that mean these folks are going to HELL? Where does it say in YOUR Bible please....that if one doesnt use JESUS...they are going to Hell because of it? Where exactly does it say that in the New Testament? Thanks

That is my opinion, that people who quote the New Testament and substitute the Jewish names, in place of, God, and,Jesus, are not doing it for good reasons and go against the New Testament which says:
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

This may see too subtle for most but I believe the people promoting this word switching are very aware of the implications. And so, my source for my opinion that God will punish these people who operate with malice of forethought.

reply to post by autowrench

First of all, realize that the New Testament is an agreed-upon list of twenty-seven books. Agreed upon by whom, you ask? Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

The Nicean Council had nothing to do with the canon of scripture, the books of the Bible we have today were already accepted as scripture before that. The Council was convened to address the Arian Controversy.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
"Yeshua!"
That's it then I guess im going to hell.
At least the climate there is hot.

I am guessing you have not read too many of my posts.
I am not condemning people who say, Yeshua, I am condemning people who refuse, apparently out of personal principle, to say the name, Jesus, despite it being in the Bible.
The Bible says by this name will you be saved and these people seek to prevent anyone from using the name as found in the New Testament, which is the Christian Bible.

reply to post by WarminIndy

So the Nicean Council gave us a New Testament book that people today only read perhaps 10 books from. They ignore James and Peter in favor of Paul.

What? James and 1 ans 2 Peter are just as important as the Pauline epistles. What makes you think that??

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Headband7
reply to post by Headband7

 

it all goes back to Constantine imposing Christianity on everyone in Rome and it's territories. Back even farther to Nero burning Rome to blame it on the Christians to bring their cult religion to light, back to the seige of Jerusalem and the exiling/killing of the Jews there so they could not rufute these new Christian ideas. In short there is only God one above all, call him whatever you want.

Your time line is a mess!

* First was Nero, who burned Christians, crucified Christians and threw Christains to the dogs-- for being Christian. He was certainly not involved with any plot to further the Gospel.

* Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans who worshiped the Emperor-- and other gods-- not by Christians. In 70 AD, the Christians were scattered with the Jews, little or no distinction made between them.

* Finally, of your "examples," about two hundred years after Nero, Constantine did not impose Christianity-- he merely made it legal for the first time in the Roman controlled Empire. Prior To Constantine, the Christians (and the Jews) had suffered wave after wave of State sponsored persecution.

But to you, making Christianity legal is the same as imposing it? Yeah. I hear that hate speech all the time.

* Another couple of hundred years pass, and it is the Muslim's being killed by the (pagan) animists.

* Another century or so and the Muslims are killing the Christians and Jews for being Christian and Jews.

* More centuries pass and the Christian crusades take place is response to the Turks.

So, who exactly, has their skirts clean in history?

Oh, "History?" you ask? It refers to a subject with which you are unfamiliar. I, however, recommend it.

I've tried to bring those points up 3 different times in this thread, only to get crickets in response. Star for you Sir.

reply to post by pthena


yeah hell, if what your saying is true maybe I am a demon, who knows? I can't say I give a damn either way, but I think I've wasted way too much time on this ultimately nonthought provoking thread.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by daikaiju

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by daikaiju
Wow, this is still going on?
I figured this thread debunked due to the fact that there is no biblical backing to the OP statement.
It is the OP's opinion and nothing more.

Where in the Bible does it say the OP cannot have an opinion?
Where in the Bible does it say you are allowed one?

When the OP tries to cast opinion as dogma, backing is needed or he is just leading others astray.

You are only posting on this thread in order to criticize it and not to add anything to it. The last time I counted you had twenty five posts on this thread, including one post, on page one, right next to my post where I said

No, I really believe it but of course is only my opinion.

So my opinion right now is that you are being less than honest now by saying that I am presenting dogma when I already said, and you know I did, that I was only presenting my opinion.

edit on 19-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

You yourself,with no help from yours truly have shown you lack wisdom and are a liar, when I caught you in your lie, you ignored it and changed the subject.

As for me criticizing, that is my right on this board, your angry with me because I outed you, spin what you want and even call me names, but it is you my friend that has the cultist mentality.

And I am not the only one who thinks so as proven by other statements, my only regret is I cannot say these things in your face and not over some internet connection.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
"Yeshua!"
That's it then I guess im going to hell.
At least the climate there is hot.

I am guessing you have not read too many of my posts.
I am not condemning people who say, Yeshua, I am condemning people who refuse, apparently out of personal principle, to say the name, Jesus, despite it being in the Bible.
The Bible says by this name will you be saved and these people seek to prevent anyone from using the name as found in the New Testament, which is the Christian Bible.

By what right do you condemn?

reply to post by daikaiju

You yourself,with no help from yours truly have shown you lack wisdom and are a liar, when I caught you in your lie, you ignored it and changed the subject.

Welcome to the "Dealing with JWD Club".

Originally posted by caladonea
In Matthew 27:46 Jesus said: "E-li E-li lama sabachthani" that language is Aramaic...a very common language spoken when he lived here on Earth and also Hebrew was spoken too.
So ...if people pronounce Jesus in other languages...that is normal and acceptable and these people are not going to hell.
Also...you present yourself as a (religious fanatic).......you tell people they are going to hell and that they are demons etc.
Matthew 7: 1-2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged."

Aramaic was a common enough language to where Jesus would have likely been conversant in it, so I would think he did recite some phrases in Aramaic, but I don't find that in itself compelling enough evidence to reject what is clear enough to me from reading the Bible that the name of Jesus was Jesus (or more properly, the Greek version of Jesus)
I am judging, that is true and I understand the ramifications if I judge wrongly but I feel confident in my condemnation of the people who prevent others from using the name of Jesus, based on theory and philosophy but from a source of true hatred of the Christian Lord, Jesus. Such people will never go to heaven, since Jesus said people who prevent others from being saved will be punished.
Jesus commanded his disciples to go town to town casting out demons, so I imagine there are just as many or more demons in people today as there was in the time of Jesus.
I do not consider myself to be a fanatic, and pretty much middle of the road. I just have a personal philosophy that it is my duty to point out evil, and that comes from my interpretation of Jesus' command to take up my cross, which to me means to point out evil regardless of consequences because the ultimate consequence to life is the judgement we face at its end, by God who will not excuse me for not raising my voice in full view of evil being perpetrated before me.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by daikaiju

 

You yourself,with no help from yours truly have shown you lack wisdom and are a liar, when I caught you in your lie, you ignored it and changed the subject.

Welcome to the "Dealing with JWD Club".

Does it come with a secret handshake and a decoder ring?

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by dannotz

 

Perfect example of how religion is great at starting arguments!

I just wish each would kill off the other

How meek of you.

Originally posted by daikaiju

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by daikaiju

 

You yourself,with no help from yours truly have shown you lack wisdom and are a liar, when I caught you in your lie, you ignored it and changed the subject.

Welcome to the "Dealing with JWD Club".

Does it come with a secret handshake and a decoder ring?

No, but we could get some t-shirts and bumper stickers made up.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by daikaiju

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by daikaiju

 

You yourself,with no help from yours truly have shown you lack wisdom and are a liar, when I caught you in your lie, you ignored it and changed the subject.

Welcome to the "Dealing with JWD Club".

Does it come with a secret handshake and a decoder ring?

No, but we could get some t-shirts and bumper stickers made up.

Sounds like a plan

reply to post by jmdewey60

I am judging, that is true and I understand the ramifications if I judge wrongly but I feel confident in my condemnation of the people who prevent others from using the name of Jesus, based on theory and philosophy but from a source of true hatred of the Christian Lord, Jesus.

You haven't even given a single example of anyone who thought or taught this nonsense. You're throwing out random charges without providing sourced evidence to back your claims up. based on my previous dealings with you I believe it's from your hatred of Israel. And you've previously stated that YHWH is not God, but is a demon. So when pointed out that Jesus's Hebrew/given at birth name was Yahshua/Yeshua or Yeshu for short you get in a huge tissy because the meaning of Christ's name is "Yahweh saves".

You deny the Holy Godhead, the divinity of Christ, and don't grasp the concept that Jesus IS YHWH. (Link in my sig)

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by jmdewey60
My Bible says "Jesus", does yours ?
Do you watch movies or hear stories where demons are cast out in the name of Jesus?
Do you ever wonder if people who do not say or write, Jesus, but some Hebrew or Aramaic name instead, are demon possessed?

I'll kindly stay out of the debate, but just as a heads up, your *english* bible might say Jesus, but that's after filter through koine greek to latin, to english...I'm not aware of any other steps in there.

No.

The KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew. No filtering. It was a direct translation from most ancient texts and fragments available at the time. They got most of it right. Unlike the modern NRSV*, they even put their own issues aside in word choice-- a miracle in itself.