Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen


Jesus is a Hebrew name. I have shown before how it is EhJeh combined with oshea, the Hebrew word for deliver.

reply to post by adjensen

Who cares what word you use?

Apparently some people do care, and why they go around pushing Aramaic as if it was a "Holy"language, making Greek, a un-holy language by inference.
Seeing how the New Testament was written in Greek, I see it as an attack on the very foundation of Christianity and an attempt to de-legitimize it.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Jesus is a Hebrew name. I have shown before how it is EhJeh combined with oshea, the Hebrew word for deliver.

You've shown no such thing. The historical evidence shows that "Iesous" is derived from "Yeshua", not your mystery name that does not exist in the text.

Jesus is not a Hebrew name, and is not the name you so steadfastly swear you must be baptized in, as declared in Acts. Claiming otherwise, particularly with fabricated evidence, is delusional.

reply to post by jmdewey60

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.

So basically, they had some old texts that they didn't understand, so they used the Greek text like a Rosetta Stone to figure out the meaning.

reply to post by pthena

So basically, they had some old texts that they didn't understand, so they used the Greek text like a Rosetta Stone to figure out the meaning.

That is my understanding, based on the books I have read on the history of the Old Testament.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

Jesus is a Hebrew name. I have shown before how it is EhJeh combined with oshea, the Hebrew word for deliver.

You've shown no such thing. The historical evidence shows that "Iesous" is derived from "Yeshua", not your mystery name that does not exist in the text.

Jesus is not a Hebrew name, and is not the name you so steadfastly swear you must be baptized in, as declared in Acts. Claiming otherwise, particularly with fabricated evidence, is delusional.

Yes, I have. The names Moses and Hosea also both contain the Hebrew word oshea, which means deliver/salvation in Hebrew.

Strong's H1954

Notice where it says that it is the original name of Joshua. Which means Jehoshea/Jeshas was Joshua's original name.

reply to post by adjensen

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,

Thank you for reminding me that this is an inter-faith dialog. I understand that split occurred when the Church decided that in order to be Christ, Jesus must first be of Judah and of the royal bloodline of David.

34...No one dared ask him any question after that. 35 Jesus responded, as he taught in the temple, "“How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 For David himself said in the Holy Spirit,

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.”’

37 Therefore David himself calls him Lord, so how can he be his son?”"
- - Mark 12 WEB

Jesus thus rendered bloodlines irrelevant. If Jesus is to be relevant to all peoples, then why must you put such restrictions on Jesus, such that we must ask the rabbis who Jesus was?

brainwashing by Reckart's cult, which makes patently false statements in order to claim superiority over Reckart's former religion, the United Pentecostal Church.

Such things happen. Sometimes when a break is necessary for substantive reasons, the smaller group looks for less substantive reasons to further distinguish themselves. Sometimes, when the break is still sore, these periphery issues get blown out of proportion as to importance, as if they were the reason for the split.

The wise thing would be to allow a cooling off period

I see your point. The group becomes so sectarian and isolated that chances for ecumenical discussion becomes impossible. Has Pastor Reckart reached out to other groups to form loose affiliation with that you know of?

Originally posted by truejew
Notice where it says that it is the original name of Joshua.

You appear to have missed this on that page:

Hosea or Hoshea or Oshea = "salvation"

1) family name of Joshua, the son of Nun

It says that it was his family name, not a different form of Joshua or something that was replaced by Joshua, so the whole "Oshea" thing is irrelevant.

Joshua = Yeshua = Iesous = Jesu = Jesus

You were baptized in the wrong name.

Originally posted by pthena
Has Pastor Reckart reached out to other groups to form loose affiliation with that you know of?

He's something of a pariah within the Apostolic Oneness movement because he makes crazy claims (like saying that "Hallelujah" means praise Lucifer, or that the Didache was written in 1000AD,) and treats anyone who doesn't agree with him rather caustically. The leaders of the United Pentecostal Church are "liars" and "idiots" who are condemned to hell because they baptize people in the name of "the Lord Jesus Christ", which Reckart seems to think is Trinitarian -- it has to be "gee-zus" and just "gee-zus".

For whatever reason, it seems consistent across all Apostolic Oneness pastors that they are ridiculously nitpicky over minor points -- I recently read a lengthy argument between Reckart and some guy who said that Reckart's hot tub baptisms were invalid because "the Apostles didn't have hot tubs" and you could only baptize someone in an ocean, river or lake.

reply to post by adjensen

The leaders of the United Pentecostal Church are "liars" and "idiots" who are condemned to hell because they baptize people in the name of "the Lord Jesus Christ", which Reckart seems to think is Trinitarian

So your bottom line assessment (see how I cleverly avoided judgement? ) is that Pastor Reckart seems to be setting himself up as cult figure? If he is doing this, then, yes, there is something to be concerned about.

I just glanced over the doctrinal statement of United Pentecostal Church International and it seems (cursory glance) to be what one would expect from a group calling itself Oneness Pentecostal.

What you seem to be suggesting, is that Pastor Reckart split off for no better reason than to be the authority of his own group.

Truejew's Pastor should have as much authority over his own congregation as Reckart does over his own. We don't know what secret contacts he may have with the parent group. nudge, nudge,

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen

The leaders of the United Pentecostal Church are "liars" and "idiots" who are condemned to hell because they baptize people in the name of "the Lord Jesus Christ", which Reckart seems to think is Trinitarian

So your bottom line assessment (see how I cleverly avoided judgement?

) is that Pastor Reckart seems to be setting himself up as cult figure? If he is doing this, then, yes, there is something to be concerned about.

I just glanced over the doctrinal statement of United Pentecostal Church International and it seems (cursory glance) to be what one would expect from a group calling itself Oneness Pentecostal.

What you seem to be suggesting, is that Pastor Reckart split off for no better reason than to be the authority of his own group.

Truejew's Pastor should have as much authority over his own congregation as Reckart does over his own. We don't know what secret contacts he may have with the parent group. nudge, nudge,

edit on 24-5-2013 by pthena because: (no reason given)

The problem with the UPCI is that they are increasingly getting away from the teachings that they once stood for. I have been treated very harshly by some from the UPCI just for teaching things that the UPCI used to teach.

The issue of baptism in the "Lord Jesus Christ" has to do with some teaching that Lord is Father, Jesus is Son, and Christ is Holy Spirit. Making it a trinitarian like baptism.

Originally posted by pthena
What you seem to be suggesting, is that Pastor Reckart split off for no better reason than to be the authority of his own group.

No, he has legitimate (to him, I don't see it,) complaints with the UPC's position on various issues. Lately he's been ranting about this (from the page you linked to):

In other words, Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, manifested in flesh to be our Savior.

Because Reckart thinks that the name of God is, and has always been, "gee-zus", he takes particular issue with the names "Yahweh" and "Jehovah", substitutes for the Tetragrammaton, and the UPC including that blasphemy in their statement of doctrine is proof that they've been invaded by Satan or something. Everything else he hates about them and their leader, David K. Bernard, is just icing on the cake.

But he left the UPC a long time ago and doesn't seem to be affiliated with any organization, apart from the churches which he is "Bishop" over.

Any one who knows what Yahweh and Jehovah mean in Hebrew should have an issue with those names.

Originally posted by truejew
Any one who knows what Yahweh and Jehovah mean in Hebrew should have an issue with those names.

I thought they were "fake" words, invented by a Catholic monk in the 1300s? If that's the case, they wouldn't mean anything in Hebrew.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
Any one who knows what Yahweh and Jehovah mean in Hebrew should have an issue with those names.

I thought they were "fake" words, invented by a Catholic monk in the 1300s? If that's the case, they wouldn't mean anything in Hebrew.

They were and they do.

Yahweh means moon god of perversion.

Jehovah means god of ruin.

reply to post by adjensen

No, he has legitimate (to him, I don't see it,) complaints with the UPC's position on various issues. Lately he's been ranting about this (from the page you linked to):

I'm afraid that I will have to bow out here. It seems to be an argument about Jewish mythology.

I already went through that phase when I first joined ATS. It's not something I feel like going back to.

Originally posted by truejew
Yahweh means moon god of perversion.

Jehovah means god of ruin.

Do you have a credible academic source for that?

Googling "what does Yahweh mean in hebrew" doesn't return anything useful, and the few things that I've found that claims that it's a moon god does so under the impression that Moses came up with the name while he was in Egypt, which is not what you're saying.

Originally posted by truejew
Any one who knows what Yahweh and Jehovah mean in Hebrew should have an issue with those names.

And apparently no Jews figured this out in some 5,000 years??

Originally posted by jmdewey60
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.

Where is that in the Bible? The part about the earth being in the center and the stars lights on the dome?

And hasn't the Vatican already acknowledged the possibility of alien worlds?

reply to post by Snsoc

Where is that in the Bible? The part about the earth being in the center and the stars lights on the dome?

And hasn't the Vatican already acknowledged the possibility of alien worlds?

In the creation account, and in other places in the Old Testament.
Christians usually, at least officially, get their creation myth from the OT.

If someone like the Vatican makes an announcement acknowledging worlds beyond our own, it does not somehow reverse the religion that has existed to close to two thousand years.