Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew

Again, YHWH/LORD is not in the Septuagint, which was used by Jesus.

I really would like to know how you came to that conclusion.

Let's take a look at Matthew 27:46...

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I've got news for you, that's not Greek that Jesus is speaking there. It's Syro-Chaldaic.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by truejew

 

Again, YHWH/LORD is not in the Septuagint, which was used by Jesus.

I really would like to know how you came to that conclusion.

Let's take a look at Matthew 27:46...

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I've got news for you, that's not Greek that Jesus is speaking there. It's Syro-Chaldaic.

That Jesus could speak another language does not take away from the fact that He read from the Septuagint.

reply to post by truejew


Where is your source to back up that claim? Let me guess, you have none.

reply to post by truejew


If Jesus was ever using the Greek Septuagint to quote Psalm 22, which is what he was doing in Matthew 27:46, why didn't he quote it in Greek?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by truejew

 

Where is your source to back up that claim? Let me guess, you have none.

The New Testament.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by truejew

 

If Jesus was ever using the Greek Septuagint to quote Psalm 22, which is what he was doing in Matthew 27:46, why didn't he quote it in Greek?

Maybe so the listeners could understand. We are not told if the listeners knew Greek or not.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by truejew

 

Where is your source to back up that claim? Let me guess, you have none.

The New Testament.

Lame answer. The New Testament hadn't been written yet when Christ quoted Psalm 22. Which also makes it obvious that Psalm wasn't originally written in Greek, since Jesus quoted it using Syro-Chaldiac.

I love Catholic apologist Tim Staples. He has this way of explaining the faith. Tim, raised Baptist, an Assemblies of God youth minister ran into a Catholic in the service that challenged him about his beliefs. Watch this snippet
of Tim's conversion story. It will not take much time, its two minutes long.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by truejew

 

Where is your source to back up that claim? Let me guess, you have none.

The New Testament.

Lame answer. The New Testament hadn't been written yet when Christ quoted Psalm 22. Which also makes it obvious that Psalm wasn't originally written in Greek, since Jesus quoted it using Syro-Chaldiac.

The New Testament is not "lame". The New Testament not be written yet has nothing to do with the discussion.

Psalm 22 was originally written in Paleo-Hebrew and no longer existed in the days of Jesus. All copies were destroyed after the perverted translations into Aramaic from Bablyon. All that existed in the days of Jesus was the perverted Aramaic translations and the Septuagint. That when Jesus quoted Esaias 61:1 without the YHWH found in the Aramaic, was proof that Jesus did use the Septuagint. My proof is Luke 4:18, the New Testament.

Originally posted by jcutler12888

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by truejew

 

Where is your source to back up that claim? Let me guess, you have none.

The New Testament.

Lame answer. The New Testament hadn't been written yet when Christ quoted Psalm 22. Which also makes it obvious that Psalm wasn't originally written in Greek, since Jesus quoted it using Syro-Chaldiac.

The New Testament is not "lame". The New Testament not be written yet has nothing to do with the discussion.

Psalm 22 was originally written in Paleo-Hebrew and no longer existed in the days of Jesus. All copies were destroyed after the perverted translations into Aramaic from Bablyon. All that existed in the days of Jesus was the perverted Aramaic translations and the Septuagint. That when Jesus quoted Esaias 61:1 without the YHWH found in the Aramaic, was proof that Jesus did use the Septuagint. My proof is Luke 4:18, the New Testament.

She meant your method of answer was lame. I'm sure you already know that that's what she meant...but you like to feign ignorance to these things.

You've been on this site long enough. You should know this by now and I'm sure you do. People here expect you to SHOW them something (such as cited source material from external sites) other than just some words you've typed up.

I've never seen you source anything. All I've ever seen you do is give vague and broad answers or specific answers with no source material cited.

You do understand that this site is for intellectual discussion backed by cited source material from external sites, right? It is not for arguing and running your mouth ad nauseum with nothing to back your word up but your word itself. That would not be conducive to an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

I have the feeling that you know all this and you simply don't care. I think you don't feel the need to participate here at the standards that others do because all that matters here to you is arguing with people, feeling like you are right, and gaining some misguided sense of superiority.

TJ...raise your standards for discussion here and start doing better. No one takes you seriously or listens to you because you won't participate in these conversations in a correct manner.

P.S. "The New Testament." isn't fit to be a post, all posts must be more than one line/sentence. If you refuse to truly contribute to intelligent conversation, at least follow the rules and guidelines of the site so your posts don't get reported to the moderators and erased.

edit on 8/28/2013 by jcutler12888 because: (no reason given)

I have posted a source. The New Testament, Luke 4:18. Perhaps you should ask where his source is? Where is an Aramaic Esaias 61:1 without YHWH?

Perhaps you should recheck what it says under the reply and preview buttons. It does not say "minimal posts", it says "minimal posts that contribute nothing". My "the New Testament" post did contribute to the thread as it was a repeating of what my source is.


Your post, as long as it was, contributed nothing to the discussion.

reply to post by jcutler12888


What a joke...

Biblical sources don't count, only antichrist sources from the Internet do?


Another line added to make jcutler happy.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

What a joke...

Biblical sources don't count, only antichrist sources from the Internet do?


Another line added to make jcutler happy.

No, no, no...you're reading me all wrong. I'm not here to insult or offend you, I'm actually trying to help you. You are really passionate about what you talk about here and it's really sad to see passion and devotion met with derision and irritation because of how you're presenting it all. I'm not saying I see things exactly how you do, I'm just saying I think that your communication would be much more effective if you tweaked your approach a bit to better relate to people here.

I never said Biblical sources don't count so don't put words in my mouth! I said you should try adding more links and sources for further reading into those Biblical sources and otherwise. The Internet isn't the Antichrist and neither is everything on the Internet. There is literally an unlimited amount of sources and writings on the Internet (including some from your church and your church leader). If you included some of the writings from your church or church leader or another theologian and theosophist that has written on the topic you're addressing whose writing you find to ring true to you, then maybe people wouldn't be so dismissive of everything you say...maybe they'd click the link and read further about what you're trying to get across.

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

And you can call me Jennifer! Thanks for adding an extra line and following the rules!

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

I never said Biblical sources don't count so don't put words in my mouth!

You did say that the New Testament.

Was not a source.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

I never said Biblical sources don't count so don't put words in my mouth!

You did say that the New Testament.

Was not a source.

No, what I was saying was that simply typing out the words "The New Testament" is not including a cited source with a link and excerpt/excerpts of what you want to reference specifically. You're doing that thing where you pick one detail to argue over...that's part of the problem, TJ. Try not to be so combative and argumentative...it shuts down conversations and makes people not wanna talk with you.

What did you think about everything else I said? Are you willing to maybe give some of it a shot? Please?

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

No, what I was saying was that simply typing out the words "The New Testament" is not including a cited source with a link and excerpt/excerpts of what you want to reference specifically.

I had previously typed out the scriptures. If you ignore them the first time, reposting them will just be a waste.

Originally posted by jcutler12888


You're doing that thing where you pick one detail to argue over...that's part of the problem, TJ. Try not to be so combative and argumentative...it shuts down conversations and makes people not wanna talk with you.

I do think that you are the one being combative and shutting down the conversation .

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by jcutler12888
reply to post by jcutler12888

 

No, what I was saying was that simply typing out the words "The New Testament" is not including a cited source with a link and excerpt/excerpts of what you want to reference specifically.

I had previously typed out the scriptures. If you ignore them the first time, reposting them will just be a waste.

Originally posted by jcutler12888


You're doing that thing where you pick one detail to argue over...that's part of the problem, TJ. Try not to be so combative and argumentative...it shuts down conversations and makes people not wanna talk with you.

I do think that you are the one being combative and shutting down the conversation .

The problem with that is that you've posted MANY Scriptures from the New Testament...with everything you talk about, one can easily get confused as to which ones you're referencing that you've already posted.

No, I'm not being combative at all! I'm just trying to have an amicable conversation with you about maybe making your posts a little more reader friendly. I don't wanna shut down the conversation at all, I really wanna talk about this with you. I've read the last thirty to forty pages and while you've spoken extensively about your beliefs, which you are clearly passionate about, you've gotten an overwhelmingly negative response from people. I don't think people should be so hard on you, or anyone who displays true passion for and devotion to their beliefs. I just think you'd get better responses and deeper conversation if you added more to your posts and approached communication here a bit differently.

reply to post by truejew

I do think that you are the one being combative and shutting down the conversation .

Truejew, you shut down the conversation every single time you throw out a statement like "YHWH is Ba'al" with absolutely NO explanation as to why you even feel that way. If you truly want a discussion, explain to us WHY you feel this way and then provide us with a SOURCE as to how you came to that conclusion. Just because you say that YHWH isn't mentioned in the New Testament (because it's been translated into Greek) does not mean that YHWH is Ba'al. Yet in the same breath, you'll admit that Jesus was God in the Old Testament, when it's clear that Jesus' name was not mentioned in the Old Testament once. So, what's with the double standard?

Somehow, I think we all know (even with this said), that you still will provide neither. Therefore, you will effectively be shutting down the entire conversation...again. Because you have no argument.

In an attempt to get the discussion back on track...

In Luke 4:18 Jesus did not say YHWH, which is in the Aramaic texts of Esaias 61:1 and absent from the Septuagint. Therefore Jesus quoted from the Septuagint and did not use "YHWH".


Luke 4:18 KJV
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Esaias 61:1 Brenton's translation of Septuagint

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;

Isaiah 61:1 KJV
[1] The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Note: in KJV, LORD and GOD (in all caps) is translated from the Aramaic "YHWH"


Jesus did not come preaching YHWH. It was the Jews involved in Baal worship who did.