Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

The "J" sound evolved over time,

The "j" sound has existed since at least ancient Egypt.

Who cares? The people who study and speak Greek say that the name of Christ, in Greek, does not have a "J" or "J sound" in it. The people who study and speak Hebrew say that the name of Christ, in Hebrew, does not have a "J" or "J sound" in it. Your own cited source, Strong's, says that the word "Yesha" does not have a "J" or "J sound" in it.

So what's left? You? Gary Reckart? Neither one of you is a credible source on the matter.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Those verses are about the self righteous, not those made righteous through Christ.


Ephesians 4:24 KJV
[24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

edit on 21-8-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

However you wanna justify it buddy. IMHO it's absurd to say that what Wolf said was "unchrsitian" considering the things I pointed out that the Bible records Jesus and Paul saying.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Those verses are about the self righteous, not those made righteous through Christ.


Ephesians 4:24 KJV
[24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

edit on 21-8-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

However you wanna justify it buddy. IMHO it's absurd to say that what Wolf said was "unchrsitian" considering the things I pointed out that the Bible records Jesus and Paul saying.

The things said by Jesus and Paul are not the same.

Originally posted by adjensen

Who cares?

I and others who seek truth care. The "j" sound existing in ancient Egypt shows those who claim that there is no "j" sound before 300-400 years ago (the ones you put your faith in), are liars and not to be trusted. The Church, even the heretical Catholic Church and Protestants, have taught that the name of Christ has the "j" sound. That would not have been the case if it did not originally have the "j" sound. Neither the Church, nor Catholics/Protestants, have perverted the name of Christ.

reply to post by truejew


Jesus called a woman a "dog", the most offensive thing anyone could call a woman other than a whore in that culture. He told the Jewish leaders that basically their own mothers had sex with Satan. And Paul suggested the Judaizers cut of their own penises and balls in Galatians.

This was already pointed out earlier.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Jesus called a woman a "dog", the most offensive thing anyone could call a woman other than a whore in that culture. He told the Jewish leaders that basically their own mothers had sex with Satan. And Paul suggested the Judaizers cut of their own penises and balls in Galatians.

This was already pointed out earlier.

Yes, this was pointed out earlier and still I say that the words typed by lonewolf were a different situation and not Christian.

Now let's move on.

reply to post by truejew


Its a good thing then that you aren't a spiritual authority in anyone's life.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Its a good thing then that you aren't a spiritual authority in anyone's life.

Remain in sin if that is what you want, but let's move on.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Its a good thing then that you aren't a spiritual authority in anyone's life.

Remain in sin if that is what you want, but let's move on.

Now you're accusing me of sin Pharisee? What did I do?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Who cares?

I and others who seek truth care.

Well, here's clue one -- the truth is not found by inventing facts, a process which is calling "lying".

The Church, even the heretical Catholic Church and Protestants, have taught that the name of Christ has the "j" sound. That would not have been the case if it did not originally have the "j" sound.

No, it did not teach that.

What is wrong with you, that you cannot even grasp a simple concept like "In Latin (the language of the church,) Christ's name is 'Jesu', which is pronounced 'yay-soo', not 'jay-soo'". That's the language, and as has been shown to you, there is no "J sound" in the Hebrew, Greek or Latin forms of his name, so you and Reckart are wrong, wrong, wrong.

That's a serious question -- what is wrong with you? Are you so devoid of independent thought that you are incapable of reading that sentence and understanding it? Are you so sold on the idea of your magic words that it doesn't matter if God himself came down and told you that no one called him "gee-zus" until centuries after the crucifixion? Do you think God is in favour of you lying about him, particularly when it is so patently obvious that you are lying, so much so that a non-Christian might listen to you and tell others "oh, those Christians, they're just a bunch of liars."

What is the matter with you?

reply to post by adjensen


I do not believe that the name of Jesus has been perverted.

reply to post by truejew


How is pronouncing it differently "perverting" it? You're saying that the Germans, Chinese, and Spanish speaking people are perverting the name of Christ, because in their language it isn't pronounced "gee-zus", huh? And that all stems from your belief that the name of Jesus is a magic word.

There is something seriously wrong with your brain.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

How is pronouncing it differently "perverting" it? You're saying that the Germans, Chinese, and Spanish speaking people are perverting the name of Christ, because in their language it isn't pronounced "gee-zus", huh? And that all stems from your belief that the name of Jesus is a magic word.

There is something seriously wrong with your brain.

There is a difference between mispronouncing and perverting on purpose. You are saying that the Church has changed the "I" sound to the "J" sound on purpose.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

How is pronouncing it differently "perverting" it? You're saying that the Germans, Chinese, and Spanish speaking people are perverting the name of Christ, because in their language it isn't pronounced "gee-zus", huh? And that all stems from your belief that the name of Jesus is a magic word.

There is something seriously wrong with your brain.

There is a difference between mispronouncing and perverting on purpose. You are saying that the Church has changed the "I" sound to the "J" sound on purpose.

Which church? The Roman Catholic church? Since the official language of the church is Latin, if there was any official teaching on it, which I doubt, it would be that Christ's name is pronounced "yay-soo", just like it has been pronounced in Latin for almost 2,000 years.

It is highly unlikely that any church decreed that Christ's name be pronounced as "gee-zus" (apart from yours) -- it just happened that when people who spoke English encountered the Latin name "Jesu", they read it as "gee-zus", not "yay-soo", just like how Spanish people see "Jesus" and pronounce it "hay-soos".

The only one in this who is doing anything deliberate is you, who claims that Christ's name when he walked this Earth was something that it couldn't possibly have been, and all evidence, every bit of it, indicates that it was not.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Ask yourself, how Mary can be the Mother of God?

Actually, to say that she is not the mother of God is to stray into Arianism. Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, fully man and fully God. So, unless you want to say that Mary didn't give birth to him, provide half of his DNA, didn't raise him as her child, and wasn't referred to as "Mom" by Jesus; or unless you reject Jesus as being God, then yes, Mary is the mother of God.

However, in no way does the Roman Catholic church teach that she is superior to God, that she pre-existed God, or that she is to be worshipped as God. It clearly rejects all of those things in the Catechism.

My position is, he always existed.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Ask yourself, how Mary can be the Mother of God?

Actually, to say that she is not the mother of God is to stray into Arianism. Jesus is the incarnation of the Word, fully man and fully God. So, unless you want to say that Mary didn't give birth to him, provide half of his DNA, didn't raise him as her child, and wasn't referred to as "Mom" by Jesus; or unless you reject Jesus as being God, then yes, Mary is the mother of God.

However, in no way does the Roman Catholic church teach that she is superior to God, that she pre-existed God, or that she is to be worshipped as God. It clearly rejects all of those things in the Catechism.

My position is, he always existed.

Well, that's the position of the Roman Catholic church, as well. But one can't separate "fully man" and "fully God" without straying into Arianism (TJ, for example, claims that sometimes Jesus was a man, sometimes he was a god -- obvious Arianism,) so Mary, in being the mother of Jesus, may be referred to as the mother of God. The only way that one can say that Mary wasn't the mother of God is to either say she wasn't the mother of Jesus (obvious folly) or there was a point where Jesus wasn't God (obvious Arianism.)

Once again, I recognize your issue with the term, Mariology is one of the aspects of Roman Catholicism that I really do not get, but one need not draw anything out from the term (like thinking that Mary pre-existed God,) it's just a description of her role in the plan of salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

 

TJ, for example, claims that sometimes Jesus was a man, sometimes he was a god -- obvious Arianism

I do not. I believe that Jesus was at all times fully God and fully man. God humbled in the role of a man without giving up His divinity.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

just like it has been pronounced in Latin for almost 2,000 years.

Are you a eye witness of it being pronounced that way in Latin 2,000 years ago? I think it is safe to say that your answer will be no and that you are only taking the word of those who lie about the "j" sound being invented 300-400 years ago.

reply to post by adjensen

The [j] sound (technically called consonantal i) appears in the beginning of the words before a vowel or in the middle of the words between two vowels, as in ius [jus] and cuius ['kujus]; the compound words preserve the [j] sound of the element, that begins with it, cf. coniunx [konjunks] and adiectivum [adjektivum]. For convenience we will use the letter j (named jota) to mark the [j] sound, as it is common from the Middle Ages onward; so we will write the above words as jus, cujus, conjunx and adjectivum.

Source: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin

In Latin the letter "I" had a "J" sound when followed by a vowel. The same as Greek.

The written "J" was then created in the Middle Ages to make it less confusing.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Its a good thing then that you aren't a spiritual authority in anyone's life.

Wonderful, reading your comment NTT. I make a prediction, when the "awakening" as Protestants know it in
prophecy. Catholics hear it called the Great Warning or the "illumination of conscience" in their prophecy.

When it happens, you are going to run to Christ, cross the Tiber and forever be Roman Catholic.

This is what most Protestant ministers have said, one of two reasons they converted to the faith. The
question of authority, by whose authority do you believe what you do?