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

reply to post by jmdewey60
You don't get to play that game. Either address my entire post or don't bother responding, you don't get to keep dodging questions by picking one thing to counter on.

Address my entire post and I'll gladly answer this question for you, but you've gone far beyond the creation account and called the entire history of the jews in the old testament - and thus, the foundation of Jesus and the entire new testament (which you seem to have no problem accepting) - into question, so you'll either address all of it or not get to play this game anymore.

reply to post by Praetorius

And seeing as how the old testament is exactly everything I just previously said it was in relation to the new testament - exactly what the heck are you basing your belief in the new testament and Jesus on?

When did you stop beating your wife?

reply to post by jmdewey60


My response was two separate thoughts have a lot going on right now...sorry

1. Job new his redeemer was coming and he would see Him in the flesh again one day in THE END. Christ triumphant return. Job had faith in the foreknowledge of Christ his redeemer. Yet Job did not know His name

2. Technically speaking the Son of God has no real name until his earthly form. The "WORD" was with God and IS God..the "WORD" became flesh to dwell among us.

Originally posted by rcanem
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I get that, but what i don't understand is the various factions of Chritianity all have fundamentally different views on that belief, so what makes a Prodestant different from a Cathlic is quite a big difference. Who is right?

I had to look at what I said to you, hoping it wasn't anything rude. I was to some people who I thought were just trouble makers. It seems I took you for being sincere, so I tried to explain something in a non-dogmatic way.
I don't know if any are right, and it may not be possible for an organization to be right. It is something an individual has to decide on their own, and not to just assume that if you are enrolled with an organization, then you are good.
Fundamentally I think it is this concept of an exchange, where you do something wrong and there is a monetary amount attached to that act of criminality, to where you need to compensate for the wrong by making some sort of payment. That is the old tribal justice system and if you don't go along, then you are kicked out of the tribe and then your chances for survival or prosperity goes way down. So you go ahead and pay whatever the fine is, realizing it beats the alternative, no mater how expensive it is.
The Church was created originally to get away from that old concept and to have everyone share everything in common. That is always something to be attacked and done away with by the powers that be because it leaves them out of the loop to where they can live parasitically. So what we have today is a damaged system run by salaried practitioners of the old tribal concept from the Bronze Age.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Egyptians circumcised males 13 and above. And it seems this nation of priests was not in Egypt. Do you know what "according to the law of Moses" means?

Aren't you introducing the esoteric teachings you told us you disliked. Wait, you said I can't take Revelation literally because it was all imagery, that is what esoteric is.

You did not make it clear or I failed to catch the specifics you meant, so I thought you meant, no circumcision, when apparently you were just commenting on at what age they did it.
My esoteric lessen for the day:
Take that very simple concept, as presented in the Lucas movies all about the Force and how to go to the dark side my cultivating anger and turning it into hate, made so even young children can understand it, and see how you can apply that message in your own life.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Since you've started to trickle in responses to most of it, I'll respond.

Are you now going to say that the universe and everything in it was made in six days and that the earth is six thousand years old?

That's one interpretation of the scriptures that Jesus acknowledged and claimed to have fulfilled - which you apparently don't believe in based on your words here - but I personally believe that there was that original creation, then after a period of time, a recreation upon the earth where the in-depth creation story picks up taking place over the 6 days (when the bible says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...and the earth was without form and void", the word translated 'was' [hayah] is better translated 'became'), allowing for a much-older than 6000 year history of the universe.

This is your claim and that is what it is, and not a fact, as you wish it was. All you have to back up your claim is speculation. Jesus is in the New Testament and I point out that it was likely enough to be the name of a person of Jewish descent living in Hellenized Alexandria where he spoke Greek.

This article has some good research and discussion on Jesus' relation to and use of the hebrew language, and the testimony of the dead sea scrolls and other texts is more than enough to confirm the original language of the scriptures that Christ acknowledged and the new testament is based on and which you, again, seem to have issues with.

And I would like to think that you're aware of all the references made to the old testament laws, prophets, and prophecies in the new testament, as well as the fact that Christ regularly went synagogue where they spoke - yes - hebrew. I've referred to the testimony of the church fathers (including Jerome, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement, and others) that Matthew was originally written in hebrew and later translated, as was the epistle of Hebrews.

While you can doubt the validity of the account of the old testament, even though Christ himself didn't and the new testament is patently built on and refers directly to it, I have not seen you make a case that hebrew was not the language of the historical jews from before and during Christ's time.

When did you stop beating your wife?

And now you're not making any sense at all, in addition to trying to squirm around straightforward questions.

So, back to you - if you contest the validity of the old testament, by what measure do you uphold the validity of the new testament since it itself directly upholds the old testament as its basis?

If you can't answer the last question directly - and I don't care about any argument over creation so don't bother - then just let me know you will not be clearing this up and we can stop going round with each other since you are not providing anything of substance in this discussion.

reply to post by WarminIndy

You have told us we are going to hell for believing in Yehushua, even though it is merely His name in Hebrew.

How can this be true?
Let me see if I can see how this would apply.
We can have a hypothetical Jew who was born in Israel who was strictly taught to never utter a word which was not in Hebrew, and spent their life in seclusion or in communities that strictly enforced rules for never speaking a word not of Hebrew. Somehow, this young person is able to escape the ever watchful eye to see or hear about a thing called a New Testament and wants to read it, but needs it to be in Hebrew to understand it. Oops there is no such thing, nor would anything like that ever be allowed in Israel.

Originally posted by the4thhorseman
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

My response was two separate thoughts have a lot going on right now...sorry

1. Job new his redeemer was coming and he would see Him in the flesh again one day in THE END. Christ triumphant return. Job had faith in the foreknowledge of Christ his redeemer. Yet Job did not know His name

2. Technically speaking the Son of God has no real name until his earthly form. The "WORD" was with God and IS God..the "WORD" became flesh to dwell among us.

You seem to be saying that you believe Job was predicting the Apocalypse.
My opinion is that Job is extremely old and probably predates what we think of as the Israel kingdom. I doubt that when the original story started out, there was a concept of the end of the world.

reply to post by Praetorius

That's one interpretation of the scriptures that Jesus acknowledged and claimed to have fulfilled - which you apparently don't believe in based on your words here - but I personally believe that there was that original creation, then after a period of time, a recreation upon the earth where the in-depth creation story picks up taking place over the 6 days (when the bible says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...and the earth was without form and void", the word translated 'was' [hayah] is better translated 'became'), allowing for a much-older than 6000 year history of the universe.

No, I don't think that works. So you are no more a believer in the mythology than I am.
I don't get into all the creationism debate because I don't defend the inerrancy or infallibility concept which I find ridiculous. You have to be off your yo yo to buy into this and drink poison and let snakes bite you.

Could someone please change the title of this thread..?

Edit: for the sake of the guy who created it.

reply to post by Praetorius

This article has some good research and discussion on Jesus' relation to and use of the hebrew language, and the testimony of the dead sea scrolls and other texts is more than enough to confirm the original language of the scriptures that Christ acknowledged and the new testament is based on and which you, again, seem to have issues with.

And I would like to think that you're aware of all the references made to the old testament laws, prophets, and prophecies in the new testament, as well as the fact that Christ regularly went synagogue where they spoke - yes - hebrew.

Whatever . . and so what? In the time of Jesus there existed scrolls on which were written the Babylonian Torah, I acknowledge that. Jesus probably read the Greek translation, from the Haf Torah, which was the Prophets.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius

 

That's one interpretation of the scriptures that Jesus acknowledged and claimed to have fulfilled - which you apparently don't believe in based on your words here - but I personally believe that there was that original creation, then after a period of time, a recreation upon the earth where the in-depth creation story picks up taking place over the 6 days (when the bible says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...and the earth was without form and void", the word translated 'was' [hayah] is better translated 'became'), allowing for a much-older than 6000 year history of the universe.

No, I don't think that works. So you are no more a believer in the mythology than I am.
I don't get into all the creationism debate because I don't defend the inerrancy or infallibility concept which I find ridiculous. You have to be off your yo yo to buy into this and drink poison and let snakes bite you.

No words in my mouth or interpretation of my own that don't belong there, please. I do agree with the creation account, just not with some people's interpretation or translation of it (it works every bit as well as anyone else's theory) - and I don't see any of the bible as mythology, although some of it is admittedly not for literal consumption.

As far as inerrancy or infallibility, I can agree to some extent. I will admit to transcription and translation errors that have and likely occurred, as well as have my arguments with the inclusion of some books, exclusion of others, etc. Just because something's in the bible, I won't necessarily consider it scripture (some of Paul's opinions, for example).

As far as the snakes and poison - that section of Mark doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts and appears to be putting god to the test, so I don't give it much weight either.

Take care.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

You don't get to play that game. Either address my entire post or don't bother responding, you don't get to keep dodging questions by picking one thing to counter on.

Address my entire post and I'll gladly answer this question for you, but you've gone far beyond the creation account and called the entire history of the jews in the old testament - and thus, the foundation of Jesus and the entire new testament (which you seem to have no problem accepting) - into question, so you'll either address all of it or not get to play this game anymore.

edit on 9/20/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

Join the club, he does this constantly to defend whatever cultist mentality he is currently feeling.

What he cannot answer he ignores and when you call him out on it he then runs and claims your attacking him.

it is clear he has issues with the Jews, does not acknowledge YHWH as God the Father, as was told to me does not accept the 1000 year reign of Jesus from the seat of David that was written in Revelations.

So I would take any doctrine he tries to put out with a HUGE grain of salt.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Could someone please change the title of this thread..?

Edit: for the sake of the guy who created it.

edit on 20-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

I would 404 it period.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No you are missing my point with the whole story of Job. Job had faith in a savior, a savior he did not know by name but Job knew he would see his Savoir. Yet he believed in Him. I am saying GOD knows the heart and He knows who we are speaking of when we speak of Jesus, Christ, Son of God, Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus.

What was the name of Christ before He was a man? I can't even seem to find an agreement on how to spell the actual Hebrew name.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Whatever . . and so what? In the time of Jesus there existed scrolls on which were written the Babylonian Torah, I acknowledge that. Jesus probably read the Greek translation, from the Haf Torah, which was the Prophets.

The "and so what?" is that there is plenty of evidence that Christ and the jews of his time were familiar with hebrew and it was primarily (in addition to aramaic) the original language of their scriptures and people as attested by a whole host of evidences going back over 1000 years prior to his arrival...you know, that thing you've been asking for but disregarding proof of this whole time, which is to be found in the textual evidence of the scriptures and alternate sources of it, in addition to the interior support of the new testament grammatical structures and other early gospels themselves, and argues against your claim that it's merely a trick to get people involved in witchcraft or that no one ever would have called him Yahushua or some variant of it, and that people using the hebrew name are going to hell.

And you can assume that he read from a greek translation of haftarah if you want, but that doesn't negate the fact that hebrew was ongoing at the time as the ecclesiatical language of the jewish religious leaders as well as being in common usage by the people, on currency through about the mid-2nd century CE, and so on.

reply to post by Praetorius

So, back to you - if you contest the validity of the old testament, by what measure do you uphold the validity of the new testament since it itself directly upholds the old testament as its basis?

Here is another leading question that has the premise that you are right and how do I explain my being wrong.
That's why I didn't answer your other question posed like that.
What you are saying is ridiculous and is no way to defend your position and is nothing but a distraction.
You just want to attack me personally since you have no defense other that wild speculation.
The old Testament stands as the thing being rebuked and replaced with a better Testament.
The new owes no dependency on the old and can stand on its own, by its own merit.
There was this offer that Jesus was obligated to make to the people who represented the remnant of a former kingdom, so there are references to prophecy in the knowledge of the Jews to point out the nature of his offer to them. Once that was rejected, then those things pass into irrelevance.

reply to post by daikaiju
Eh, I can understand being cautious about a literal thousand year kingdom (although I subscribe to it myself - no harm if I'm wrong that I can see), but I was noticing the rest...a lot of dissembling, finding something mentioned in passing to latch on to be way of getting around the bulk of something else being discussed, and so forth.

So, no worries on doctrinal adoption here, as I haven't even RECEIVED any clear doctrine to adopt at this point, at least nothing I've received clearly enough to make sense of. I'm mainly just confused at this point since the new testament has no basis without the old, and what I seem to have received is a pretty clear disdain for the old testament...just doesn't seem to make much sense.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius

 

So, back to you - if you contest the validity of the old testament, by what measure do you uphold the validity of the new testament since it itself directly upholds the old testament as its basis?

Here is another leading question that has the premise that you are right and how do I explain my being wrong.
That's why I didn't answer your other question posed like that.
What you are saying is ridiculous and is no way to defend your position and is nothing but a distraction.
You just want to attack me personally since you have no defense other that wild speculation.
The old Testament stands as the thing being rebuked and replaced with a better Testament.
The new owes no dependency on the old and can stand on its own, by its own merit.
There was this offer that Jesus was obligated to make to the people who represented the remnant of a former kingdom, so there are references to prophecy in the knowledge of the Jews to point out the nature of his offer to them. Once that was rejected, then those things pass into irrelevance.

Actually, I have yet to personally attack you, jm. What I've done is tried to make sense out of your disconnected statements and haring around, as well as tried to point out some logical inconsistencies.

You've downplayed the validity of the old testament by calling it mythology, argued about the language it was obviously (for the most part) received in, slandered god as presented in the old testament (that being the god that Christ acknowledged), and seem to have forgotten that Christ taught that nothing shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled, he taught from and reiterated the law with his own added extensions to it (making it more strict in some aspects, from murder to mere anger and from adultery to mere lust, and so forth).

I apologize if I've misunderstood some of what you've said, but that's due to the way you've said it - without clarity and with much confusion and running around on the issues, as well as refusing to clearly respond to and clarify things to make sure they're understood.

SUCH AS - in this case, you could respond: "I don't argue against the accuracy of what was written in the old testament, nor do I feel that the god of the old testament was evil and cruel and has been replaced by a new god in the new testament as I seem to have said earlier. It's obvious that the old testament is valid and was recognized as true by Jesus and the jews of his time, you must have mistook something I said, so let me clarify that..." or some such.

You didn't do that to clear the air though - it *seems* you've been obfuscating this whole time, and saying some fairly nasty things about the bible as Christ knew it.

I think the OP's issue, if I can intuit it, boils down to the notion that Jesus, in his death and resurrection, represents a whole new spiritual basis and foundation, but that Yahweh of the OT represents God as an actor or agent, as a separate entity. The NEW Covenent then, is a whole new reality, and Jesus' father in heaven, the Absolute as Absolute Love and Goodness without compromise, not even the creator God as a role that God may have assumed, but God the Most High, as the Transcendant Godhead at one with Jesus, and though him, we ourselves. There is a demarcation here, a delimiter, of before, and after, the death and resurrection of Jesus, a shift and an exchange of kingdoms, spiritually, and to the degree that we might be given to understand it and integrate it, psychologically, as a formative causation, of the love of God through Jesus Christ who said "I have only one commandment. Love one another as I have loved you."