Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Maybe he's scheduling his re-baptism in the name of Joshua

Or maybe Iesous?

Jesous is the same name as Jesus.

What is "Jesous"?

Are you inventing Koine Greek letters?

The Greek is "Iesous", pronounced "EE-A-soos".

(Reference Strong's #G2424)

You have been shown that the "I" when followed by a vowel had a "J" sound.

What does Strong's #G2424 say about that?

And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

reply to post by truejew

YHWH is Baal. You are worshiping Baal, who btw, along with Ashtoreth and Tammuz, was the first trinity god.

Be a little less vague next time. Ba'al is the cannanite word for "Lord" or "Master". It's just a title by itself. Anytime you call Jesus "Lord" or "Adonai" you are calling him Ba'al and he never commanded being referred to by titles, which is why we use his name. A Ba'al can be any god, it's just a loose term which is why he told Abraham his name was Yah to be specific. What you're doing is playing languages to decieve the weak minded and ignorant.

Also, Ba'alzebub, Ashtoreth and Tammuz were not by any means the first "trinity" gods, those were just yet more fake gods based off Nimrod and Semiramis and their son Tammuz. The Judeo-christian "trinity" is One God, aspects are Body, Spirit and Soul and he is all "male" if Abraham is to be believed. Our Creator is the Son of God, whom we know as Jesus Christ, the Glory of God and Light manifested in flesh and he is the one who was with Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Dude just stop posting already, your inaccurate information is misleading people and you make of yourself a deciever using peoples ignorance against them, and your own ignorance exposes you for a fraud.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

The Judeo-christian "trinity" is One God, aspects are Body, Spirit and Soul and he is all "male"

What religion is this you speak of? Is this some new fusion?

Talmudic and Kabbalah religion has a few trinities. Just off the top of my head, here is one:
1) The Torah
2) The Jewish people
3) The "Land of Israel"
These are not three gods but one god, the presence of whom is "the Sabbath Bride" aka "Shekinah", quite female.

Are your rabbis not telling you the truth?

Even the trinity you do list, seems quite flawed. Body, Spirit, Soul? All male?
Doesn't your own scripture say, that God made man in his own image, male and female? What God therefore has joined, let no man put asunder.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, which other "messiah" are Talmudist Jews preaching? Or teaching that came in the flesh? Talmudic Jews are still looking for a Moshiyach to come.

If they reject Christ, they are antichrist.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Baal does not mean as you claim. Baal is Bel. Bel is a corruption of El.

Baal may be your Lord, but not mine.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You are rejecting the Apostle's teaching, because they said to baptize in Joshua's name, not "gee-zus". The Apostles didn't speak English.

Yeshua = Iesous = Jesu = Jesus

You were baptized in a name that the Apostles would never have said. You need to either change your theology to the more sensible "it doesn't matter", or else you need to get yourself re-baptized in the name of Joshua.

Incorrect. Scripture and thousands of years of Church history shows that His name is Jesus. Jesus was not originally an English name.

Yes, it is, derived from the Latin "Jesu", which is derived from the Greek "Iesous", which is derived from the Hebrew "Yeshua". Those are the historical facts, and the only reason that you're refusing to admit to the truth is that you've been brainwashed into thinking that Reckart cannot possibly be wrong.

Jeshas = Iesous = Jesus

Yeshua is a different name.

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

You need to either abandon your foolish theology that says you have to be baptized with a certain word, or else you need to be re-baptized in the name that the Apostles used, which was not "gee-zus".

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

Who cares what Reckart has to say about it? He's not a scholar of ancient documents, an expert in dating or a credible source of information on any subject that conflicts with his claims.

He feeds off people who accept his word for something he knows nothing about (like saying that the Didache was written in 1000AD) because of their complete lack of critical thinking.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

Who cares what Reckart has to say about it? He's not a scholar of ancient documents, an expert in dating or a credible source of information on any subject that conflicts with his claims.

He feeds off people who accept his word for something he knows nothing about (like saying that the Didache was written in 1000AD) because of their complete lack of critical thinking.

What? The Did ache dates to the mid to late first century. Scores of early church fathers debated on whether it should be considered a part of the canon or not.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

edit on 26-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I was mistaken earlier, when I posted the above it was from the archaeologists who found and dated the scrolls.

They are from king Josiah's reign, while the first temple was in operation. Now that you are aware of them will you admit that the Name YHVH wasn't added or changed in the OT during the Babylonian exile?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, which other "messiah" are Talmudist Jews preaching? Or teaching that came in the flesh? Talmudic Jews are still looking for a Moshiyach to come.

If they reject Christ, they are antichrist.

I agree, but where are the posts from these Talmudic Jews?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

Who cares what Reckart has to say about it? He's not a scholar of ancient documents, an expert in dating or a credible source of information on any subject that conflicts with his claims.

He feeds off people who accept his word for something he knows nothing about (like saying that the Didache was written in 1000AD) because of their complete lack of critical thinking.

What? The Did ache dates to the mid to late first century. Scores of early church fathers debated on whether it should be considered a part of the canon or not.

Reckart apparently believes that either the early Church Fathers could see into the future, or that the author of the Didache had a time machine and took it into the past, because despite the historical evidence that it existed in the First or Second Century, Reckard's "scholarly analysis" of the text leads him to the conclusion that it was written in the Tenth or Eleventh Century, a fact repeated by "TrueJew" in this thread (or the other one, I forget.)

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not exactly credible when it comes to the name of God. The reason for that is that YHWH has been forged into them.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not exactly credible when it comes to the name of God. The reason for that is that YHWH has been forged into them.

Even if that was true, what difference would that make? Yeshua in DSS and Iesous in Septuagint, one to one correlation -- that is historical evidence. What do you have? Mystery names and guesses that don't appear in any historical document.

Delusional thinking, at best.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

edit on 26-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I was mistaken earlier, when I posted the above it was from the archaeologists who found and dated the scrolls.

They are from king Josiah's reign, while the first time was in operation. Now that you are aware of them will you admit that the Name YHVH wasn't added or changed in the OT during the Babylonian exile?

My previous post on them is correct.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not exactly credible when it comes to the name of God. The reason for that is that YHWH has been forged into them.

Even if that was true, what difference would that make? Yeshua in DSS and Iesous in Septuagint, one to one correlation -- that is historical evidence. What do you have? Mystery names and guesses that don't appear in any historical document.

Delusional thinking, at best.

I think that it would make a big difference if a source is not credible.

Jeshas means God delivers in Hebrew. Yeshua does not.

reply to post by truejew

I just picked this post at random so as to jump in again.

There seems to be a slight bit of superstition involved with regards to pronunciation and such.

Hebrew and Greek both derive from Phoenician. There is nothing holy about Hebrew. That is the false claim made by the Kabbalah-ists. They say it's magical and holy. "Hogwash", says I, "It is just another human script for spoken language!"

If Pastor R. is playing into superstition about Hebrew names and alphabets, then he is playing in Kabbalah turf. He should forget about Hebrew.

Here is a little quote from Wikipedia. You should actually read the beginning too.

Phoenician had foreshadowed the development of vowel letters with a limited use of matres lectionis, that is, consonants that pulled double duty as vowels, which for historical reasons occurred mostly at the ends of words. For example, the two letters wāw and yōdh stood for both the approximant consonants [w] and [j], and the long vowels (u) and (i) in Phoenician. By this point in time Greek had lost its [j] sound, so Phoenician yōdh was used only for its vocalic value, becoming the Greek vowel letter iota (i). However, several Greek dialects still had a [w] sound, and here wāw was used for both of its Phoenician values, but with different forms:
History of the Greek Alphabet

As for what pagan god's name may be part of some word: Here's the deal, almost all abstract thought words have some element of old mythology in it. If we can only say or write words that don't have reference to old myths or old god names, then we wouldn't be able to say anything without it being polytheistic.

I hate to have to appeal to the authority of Star Trek, but in this case, I think that I must. The episode is called "Darmok"- the 102nd episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation. If it doesn't ring any bells, then you may have to actually watch the episode.

Though the universal translator can translate their words, the Tamarians only communicate through metaphor which baffles the Enterprise crew. Likewise, the Tamarians cannot understand Picard's straightforward use of language.
...
On the surface, Dathon utters the metaphorical phrase "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" and tosses Picard a dagger. Picard mistakes this as a challenge to a duel and refuses. As night falls, Picard fails to make a fire and Captain Dathon shares his fire with the phrase "Temba, his arms wide". The next morning, Dathon comes running and then Picard realizes that there is also a hostile predator in the area that is stalking them both. Picard finally begins to understand the way the other race communicates when he recites one of the metaphors and sees the meaning underneath it.

We are all polytheists, every time we think or speak in abstract.

I do not think that any thing I say is going to change your dislike for the name of Jesus.

Unless someone else speaks up and wants me to continue, I think I am about done.

reply to post by pthena


There is no Holy language, however the name of Jesus was originally a Hebrew name. The name of Jesus is just as Holy whether spoken in Hebrew, Greek, English...