Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by jmdewey60

That's right.
It's two different words in the Greek.
And that's how they are used.

I guess this Barbarian language that I read isn't all bad after all, well, as long as I can compare 2 or 3 translations.

You might want to fact check the claims I made a couple of posts back about the lies being told. I was pretty emotional and may have misspoken.

Every once in a while when some one catches me in a lie I respond,
"No, I wasn't lying, I was just wrong!"

reply to post by pthena

All the time knowing that there was yet someone/something greater than the gods.
Someone/Something the gods themselves couldn't explain.

All the religions are based on a universe where the earth is the center and the stars are lights on the dome above the earth.
If there were some really huge number of "earths", then the current great world religions have no explanation for that.
Such as, are there gods for each of those "earths"?
If so, the entirety of all those god's would be beyond description, other than to just say "God", but meaning something beyond what that means in describing an individual god.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The major religions are pre-Copernican, pre-Einstein, pre-the current genius.

I need to break.

reply to post by pthena

I think adjensen mentioned it somewhere: that Jesus (Greek) doesn't mean anything.

It only exists as a word in the Greek language as a way to spell the name of the Old Testament character we normally think of as Joshua, from reading the English translations.
"Jesus" has no other meaning than that, in Greek, that it is the version of that name used in the Septuagint.

reply to post by pthena

You might want to fact check the claims I made a couple of posts back about the lies being told.

I believe that the "reconstruction" of the Old Testament, not counting what happened later, was the reconstruction of what the Hebrew text meant, since for a long time it was a dead language.
They had to read the Greek version for figure out what the Hebrew meant.
The only example of Biblical Hebrew, is the Hebrew Bible.
Greek is not like that, where you have examples of other writings that you can compare with, to figure out word meanings and usages.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by truejew
First they say Jesus had a Hebrew name. Did he? No, he had a Greek name. There is no Hebrew New Testament Gospel, that's a modern invention. The angel said, "You shall call his name Jesus(Greek spelling)"

I don't understand how you go from "The New Testament was written in Greek" to "Jesus had a Greek name."

Jesus wasn't Greek, he was Jewish and would have a Hebrew, not Greek, name, and even if he did have the Greek name "Iesous", that is the Greek equivalent of Yeshua, not "Jesus", as TrueJew claims. The name "Jesus" did not exist until it was derived in English from the Greek "Iesous".

TrueJew's dismissal of clear historical evidence is a result of his brainwashing by Reckart's cult, which makes patently false statements in order to claim superiority over Reckart's former religion, the United Pentecostal Church.

(To answer another question of yours, Reckart is a "Bishop", in that he was named that by "The Church of Jesus Christ", based in Cleveland, TN, in 1973. As he is no longer affiliated with that church, his continued use of the title is probably not valid, though it's not much of a title in the first place, as "The Church of Jesus Christ" has no Apostolic authority to name Bishops, as the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches do. Contrary to Christ's teaching in Matthew 23 Reckart likes to flaunt his supposed titles, including "Cohen", "Bishop" and "Doctor", though whether he's entitled to any of them is questionable.)

reply to post by adjensen

. . . Jesus wasn't Greek, he was Jewish and would have a Hebrew, not Greek, name . . .

Everyone in the area of what had been the Greek Empire, would be in at least one sense, "Greek".
The reason that there was a Septuagint was that, when it was made, most Jews spoke Greek.
Hebrew at that time was a dead language that only the clergy spoke.
The Hebrew scripture was not read in the synagogue without an interpreter.
There is no reason to believe that Jesus of the 'Galilee of the Gentiles' would have any name other than the Greek version.
Another interesting fact that you will learn from Adela Yarbro Collins' commentary on Mark is that there was a very large and influential Greek speaking synagogue in Jerusalem at that time.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I believe that the scholarly consensus is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. He may have known Greek, but there is no evidence that he did, and absolutely no evidence that he had a Greek name. As I said earlier, I am reading a book that goes into great detail on Jewish names in the period when Jesus was alive and, while many had Greek counter names, Jewish ossuaries have Hebrew names on them.

Jesus' given name was Yeshua, not Iesous.

reply to post by adjensen

I believe that the scholarly consensus is that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

That was true in the past but the momentum is going in the other direction, that Jesus preached his sermons in Greek.

He may have known Greek, but there is no evidence that he did, and absolutely no evidence that he had a Greek name.

Galilee was especially known for its Jewish authors who wrote in Greek.
So you toss out the New Testament in favor of a theory, that is pushed by obviously biased people who apparently have an agenda? The "evidence" is that all the writers of the New Testament use the Greek version of the name, when there was nothing to prevent them from using the Aramaic, since it does use such words when called for.

. . . I am reading a book that goes into great detail on Jewish names in the period when Jesus was alive . . .

OK, so who is the author, so we can find out if he works for zionists?

Jewish ossuaries have Hebrew names on them . . .

People may have thought that Hebrew had magical qualities, just like some people do today.

Jesus' given name was Yeshua, not Iesous.

Your opinion, and not a fact, and not something supported by any evidence.
You are taking the side of the enemies of Christianity, who hate the New Testament.

Top ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews, 330BCE - 200CE

1) Simon
2) Joseph
3) Eleazar
4) Judah
5) Yohanan
6) Joshua
7) Hananiah
8) Jonathan
9) Mattathias
10) Menahem

(Source: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham, pg 85)

Most of these have different versions in English when derived from Greek (Yohanan, for example, is "John" in English) but in non-Greek sources, these are the actual Hebrew names. Bauckham addresses why these names were the most popular which, again, demonstrates the Judaic, not Greek, basis for the names:

It is very striking that six of the nine most popular males names are those of the Hasmonean family, while the three most popular female names, Mary, Salome and Shelamzion, were also the names of members of the Hasmonean ruling family. Since it was the Hasmoneans who won Jewish independence in the second century BCE and were the last Jewish rulers of an independent Jewish state, the popularity of their names into the period of Roman rule was no doubt patriotic. (Bauckham, pg 74)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

I believe that the scholarly consensus is that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

That was true in the past but the momentum is going in the other direction, that Jesus preached his sermons in Greek.

What is the evidence of this?

The "evidence" is that all the writers of the New Testament use the Greek version of the name, when there was nothing to prevent them from using the Aramaic, since it does use such words when called for.

The writers of the New Testament were writing in Greek, so they would use the Greek version of his name, just like the writers of the Septuagint used the Greek version in that text, which corresponds to the name Yeshua in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pre-dates the Septuagint.

Jesus' given name was Yeshua, not Iesous.

Your opinion, and not a fact, and not something supported by any evidence.

Unless you dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew Bible and Septuagint as evidence, of course it's supported by evidence -- "Iesous" is the Greek transliteration of "Joshua", not "Jesus".

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy for you? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

reply to post by adjensen

. . . which, again, demonstrates the Judaic, not Greek, basis for the names:

How is that relevant to the discussion?
No one thinks that the name, Jesus, is ultimately derived from anything but the character in the books of Joshua and Exodus.
What you are looking at are names stripped of their Greek and later versions. So, what? It's meaningless.

reply to post by adjensen

What is the evidence of this?

I guess that you never read my thread, People Who Pronounce and Spell the Name of Jesus In Weird Old Testament Variants are Going to Hell,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If you had, you would see quite a few posts offering evidence.
In particular, that is a quote from Wallace, Daniel B. (2009-05-11). The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar, and can be found in this post, www.abovetopsecret.com...

The writers of the New Testament were writing in Greek, so they would use the Greek version of his name,

You are ignoring the fact that the NT will use Aramaic or Hebrew words. If Jesus had a "real" name, other than the one that the NT uses, they could have said something like, "as spelled in the Greek, though among those who knew him, he always went by another name, in his own language, and not Jesus".

just like the writers of the Septuagint used the Greek version in that text, which corresponds to the name Yeshua in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pre-dates the Septuagint.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written in English, so I doubt that you can find "Yeshua" in them.

Unless you dismiss the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew Bible and Septuagint as evidence, of course it's supported by evidence -- "Iesous" is the Greek transliteration of "Joshua", not "Jesus".

"Jesus" is how it is written in English. No one is saying that Jesus spoke English.

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy for you? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

Maybe you should go to a forum not on a conspiracy web site.
Let me tell you what I know. I am close to 60 years old and until recently I have never heard anyone call Jesus, Yeshua, nor did I ever hear anyone call God, Yahweh.
I think there is a reason for that. You call it a conspiracy, I call it a long term agenda, by people who make no secret of what they do, counting on most people only seeing what is spoon fed to them.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

. . . which, again, demonstrates the Judaic, not Greek, basis for the names:

How is that relevant to the discussion?
No one thinks that the name, Jesus, is ultimately derived from anything but the character in the books of Joshua and Exodus.

TrueJew's cult thinks that the true eternal name of God is, and has always been, Jesus, pronounced "gee-zus", and if you're baptized in any name other than "gee-zus", you cannot be saved.

In that context, it is rather important to note that "gee-zus" was not the fellow's name when he walked the earth. I agree that it makes no difference otherwise.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

. . . which, again, demonstrates the Judaic, not Greek, basis for the names:

How is that relevant to the discussion?
No one thinks that the name, Jesus, is ultimately derived from anything but the character in the books of Joshua and Exodus.

TrueJew's cult thinks that the true eternal name of God is, and has always been, Jesus, pronounced "gee-zus", and if you're baptized in any name other than "gee-zus", you cannot be saved.

In that context, it is rather important to note that "gee-zus" was not the fellow's name when he walked the earth. I agree that it makes no difference otherwise.

Again, we are not a cult. The Catholic Church actually fits the characteristics of a cult better than we do.

Tell us what other name is there salvation in? Was your own Catholic Church wrong for thousands of years for preaching the name of Jesus?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The Dead Sea Scrolls were not written in English, so I doubt that you can find "Yeshua" in them.

Yeshua in Hebrew is verbal derivative from "to rescue", "to deliver". Its usage among the Jews of the Second Temple Period, the Biblical Aramaic/Hebrew name יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua‘ was common: the Hebrew Bible mentions several individuals with this name - while also using their full name Joshua. This name is a feature of biblical books written in the post-Exilic period (Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles) and was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, though Haggai and Zechariah prefer the spelling Joshua. (Source)

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy for you? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

Maybe you should go to a forum not on a conspiracy web site.
Let me tell you what I know. I am close to 60 years old and until recently I have never heard anyone call Jesus, Yeshua, nor did I ever hear anyone call God, Yahweh.

Neither have I, but I don't think that makes it a conspiracy. Who cares what word you use? I have enough faith in God to believe that he knows you're talking to him, whether you say "gee-zus", "hay-soos" or "yay-shoo-a" (or however it's pronounced.)

Originally posted by truejew
Tell us what other name is there salvation in?

How can you be saved in the name of "gee-zus" if that wasn't his name?

You need to treat this with a bit more seriousness -- you claim that you have to do exactly what the Apostles taught, or you cannot be saved, and they did not teach that one should be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", because that was not his name.

If your theology is correct, then everyone in the "Jesus only" movement before you did not have a valid baptism and was not saved by God, whom you said intentionally damns everyone who isn't baptized in Jesus' name, and without a re-baptism, you will be similarly condemned, by your own teaching.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Tell us what other name is there salvation in?

How can you be saved in the name of "gee-zus" if that wasn't his name?

You need to treat this with a bit more seriousness -- you claim that you have to do exactly what the Apostles taught, or you cannot be saved, and they did not teach that one should be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", because that was not his name.

If your theology is correct, then everyone in the "Jesus only" movement before you did not have a valid baptism and was not saved by God, whom you said intentionally damns everyone who isn't baptized in Jesus' name, and without a re-baptism, you will be similarly condemned, by your own teaching.

His name is Jesus. It is the only name given in Scripture. It means I AM delivers in Hebrew. It is the name preached by Christians for thousands of years.

Originally posted by truejew
His name is Jesus. It is the only name given in Scripture. It means I AM delivers in Hebrew. It is the name preached by Christians for thousands of years.

No, it is not. Jesus means nothing in Hebrew, because it is not a Hebrew name or word.

Jesus' Hebrew name is Yeshua, which is a shortened version of Yehoshua. Yeshua means 'he will save', and is translated into English as Joshua.

Yeshua translated into Greek is Iesous.

Iesous transliterated into Latin is Jesu.

Jesu became Jesus in English.

Jesus' name is actually "Joshua". There's no special power in the name itself. (Source)

You are delusional. If your theology is correct, your delusions will condemn you.

reply to post by adjensen

TrueJew's cult thinks that the true eternal name of God is, and has always been, Jesus, pronounced "gee-zus", and if you're baptized in any name other than "gee-zus", you cannot be saved.

I don't feel especially threatened by this cult you are talking about.
I would go along with Paul, where he says that the name is "Lord", in Philippians 2.
If you were going by Acts 4:12, you would have to be baptized in the name of, "Jesus Christ of Nazareth".

In that context, it is rather important to note that "gee-zus" was not the fellow's name when he walked the earth. I agree that it makes no difference otherwise.

That seems a bit oversimplified, if that is how people are taught to pronounce it.