Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

King Josiah was a righteous king, do you even read the Bible?

I did not say he wasn't.

Continue to follow the Talmudist teaching if you like, but I am going to stay with Jesus Christ.

The scrolls would predate the Babylonian Talmuds, they're from the first temple era. And not the era of evil, but from the era of king Josiah.

Just because a king is good does not mean everyone under him is good.

So at what point are you ever going to admit you're wrong? First it was claimed that YHVH was changed during the Babylonian exile. Then when you were confronted with the scrolls which pre-date the exile you claimed they came from Jehoiakim's era. When confronted with the fact that they actually came from the Josiah era you're now claiming that the high priest of his time was evil, yet the Bible says he restored righteousness to the kingdom of Judah during his reign.

It's time to fess up, Reckhart is a hack theologian who just fabricates history to support a narrative that the historical and archaeological record doesn't support.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You have to have evidence to point to in support of a claim. The oldest manuscripts in existence have YHVH for the Name of God, and the oldest known fragment that exists has YHVH for the Name of God. To make the claim that the original was changed to add that Name you would need something older to prove this.

An excellent example of the utter lack of critical thinking here -- given the fact that the oldest texts have those letters in them, one would need something prior, not subsequent, to demonstrate that the letters were added. Instead, we are to believe that these earliest of documents are "not to be trusted", and the only reason given is that they do not support the claims of Gary Reckart.

Unless one dismisses scripture as pointless twaddle, rather than holy texts, it seems outrageous to change them, delete things or ignore reality, simply because they contradict ones opinion, arrived at on faulty data in the 20th Century.

One would think empirical data would trump wild, and wholly arbitrary conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
One would think empirical data would trump wild, and wholly arbitrary conspiracy theory.

Only in a rational world, my friend, only in a rational world.

reply to post by truejew

However, the meaning that Jesus gives the name, is the same as the name's meaning in Hebrew, which is Jeh delivers/saves.

How would Joshua have gotten that name if the name, YHWH, was not known until the Israelites left Egypt?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

There are no "old testament gods", theres only One God.

Only in the ultimate sense beyond our understanding is God One. Old Testament monotheism is a very late comer, people then changed texts and names to make it seem that the Israelite religion was always so. But it isn't so. When people lie and pretend, they are setting themselves up for delusion.

Paul wasn't fake either, he was teaching what Christ taught. He was a pharisee given to the gentile believers because they didn't know Torah raised from the cradle.

Paul is human like us. Just because he wanted to be free of indoctrination, longed for it, prayed for it, strove for it, does not mean that he ever escaped it completely. I'm not one of the people who calls Paul a fake. I sympathize with Paul.

He wrote Philippians. I think all scholars agree on that. Here are some highlights from Chapter 3, World English Bible.

To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not tiresome, but for you it is safe. 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh

This may be where the name truejew comes from, or probably a similar verse.
But Paul goes to describe what a wonderful Hebrew of Hebrews he was, then:

7 However, what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yes most certainly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death;

If you've ever done something like swear that you're going to give something up, then you find yourself doing it anyway, then you can understand that saying something is easier than the carrying it out is.

And was Paul self satisfied that he had achieved all that he had hoped to achieve?

11 if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect; but I press on, if it is so that I may take hold of that for which also I was taken hold of by Christ Jesus.

13 Brothers, I don’t regard myself as yet having taken hold, but one thing I do. Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

I know this isn't new to you, I can remember many sermons, and many Youth speaker talks, and many lessons given on this chapter.

But the people who were giving the sermons, and the talks, and the lectures would turn right around and start talking Old Testament again, as if the Old Testament has more of the knowledge of God in it than do the words of Jesus and Paul (the struggling to be free).

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Moses wrote about him and that the scrolls are about him and even that is found in the book of psalm #40 dating 1000 years before his birth.

So I read Psalm 40. Amazing! On the face of it it seems to be a man who has a personal god, who has seen him through many trials and tribulations. He then goes to the great assembly of gods, and sings the praises of his god to the gods.

That's what it looks like at face value. There's a little added note in my Bible that says, "For the Director of Music. Of David. A Psalm." This David was supposed to have been a king. But before he was a king, he was a singer of Psalms for King Saul. If David wrote this Psalm, then he may have written it for Saul, to cheer him up when evil spirits got him down.

If David was singing it to Saul, then he may have been singing of Saul's glory days.

WEB- 1 Samuel 10:20 So Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken. 21 He brought the tribe of Benjamin near by their families; and the family of the Matrites was taken; and Saul the son of Kish was taken: but when they sought him, he could not be found. 22 Therefore they asked of Yahweh further, “Is there yet a man to come here?”

Yahweh answered, “Behold, he has hidden himself among the baggage.”

23 They ran and fetched him there; and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward. 24 Samuel said to all the people, “You see him whom Yahweh has chosen, that there is none like him among all the people?”

All the people shouted, and said, “Let the king live!”

25 Then Samuel told the people the regulations of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Yahweh. Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house. 26 Saul also went to his house to Gibeah; and there went with him the army, whose hearts God had touched.

So did Moses write the rules for kings to follow (Royal Law) or did Samuel write the Law?

Was this gathering of all Israel by Samuel the "great assembly" of Psalm 40? So is David's Psalm about David, or is it about Saul?

Do you see how confused I get about the Old Testament? I think it's safer for me to leave it alone.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

"Jesus", pronounced "gee-zus", is not a Hebrew name.

The Hebrew name of Jesus would have been Jeshas, short of Jehoshea, Joshua's true name, which means God (Jeh) delivers (oshea).

Originally posted by adjensen

His Hebrew name, which his parents gave him and the Apostles called him, is Yeshua, pronounced "ye-shew-ə."

Jesus was given the name Jesous by his parents and the apostles called Him by that name also. This name is found in the Greek New Testament writings. The Church has preached in the name of Jesous/Jesus. You are going against thousands of years of the Church preaching in the name of Jesus.

I choose to follow Jesus Christ and reject your cult's other messieh. This is not out of being brainwashed as you claim, but out of faith in Christ.

You can follow your cult's other messieh and be blown around with every wind of doctrine if you like, but I will not follow.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

However, the meaning that Jesus gives the name, is the same as the name's meaning in Hebrew, which is Jeh delivers/saves.

How would Joshua have gotten that name if the name, YHWH, was not known until the Israelites left Egypt?

I am not sure I understand your question, but I'll try. EhJeh has no connection to YHWH.

EhJeh was the name God told to Moses. Jehoshea/Joshua was born Oshea. The "Jeh" was added to Oshea later.

The shortened form of Jehoshea is Jeshas.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

"Jesus", pronounced "gee-zus", is not a Hebrew name.

The Hebrew name of Jesus would have been Jeshas, short of Jehoshea, Joshua's true name, which means God (Jeh) delivers (oshea).

As usual, you are using backwards logic -- starting with a name that you want to end up with ("gee-zus") and then taking the steps that you need to go back in time and wind up with that name. Unfortunately, time runs forward, not backwards, and so, as there is no historical record of anyone with the Hebrew name of "Jeshas", you are proven wrong.

Yeshua = Iesous = Jesu = Jesus, the historical record proves this.

Jesus in the English version of Yeshua and, as the Apostles did not speak English, they did not tell people to baptize in the name of "gee-zus". Only your brainwashing and incapability to think for yourself prevents you from realizing that yourself.

reply to post by adjensen


But pastor Reckart said..

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

But pastor Reckart said..

But the antichrist Talmudists said...

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by pthena

 

"Jesus", pronounced "gee-zus", is not a Hebrew name.

The Hebrew name of Jesus would have been Jeshas, short of Jehoshea, Joshua's true name, which means God (Jeh) delivers (oshea).

As usual, you are using backwards logic -- starting with a name that you want to end up with ("gee-zus") and then taking the steps that you need to go back in time and wind up with that name. Unfortunately, time runs forward, not backwards, and so, as there is no historical record of anyone with the Hebrew name of "Jeshas", you are proven wrong.

Yeshua = Iesous = Jesu = Jesus, the historical record proves this.

Jesus in the English version of Yeshua and, as the Apostles did not speak English, they did not tell people to baptize in the name of "gee-zus". Only your brainwashing and incapability to think for yourself prevents you from realizing that yourself.

As I said, nothing I say or show is going to break through your cult's brainwashing. You follow your messieh (the Antichrist) and I'll follow Jesus Christ (the Christ preached by the Church).

Originally posted by truejew
As I said, nothing I say or show is going to break through your cult's brainwashing. You follow your messieh (the Antichrist) and I'll follow Jesus Christ (the Christ preached by the Church).

The dismissal of evidence that is contrary to the teaching of a cult leader is a clear indication of brainwashing. You've been repeatedly asked for evidence to support your claims, and you have provided none. Provided some evidence that proves your own claims wrong, in fact.

A brainwashed person will never admit to error -- you've seen me admit to such in the past. A brainwashed person will never say that their church or church leaders are wrong in any fashion -- you've seen me criticize both the Catholic Church and Pope in the past. And a brainwashed person will never admit that anyone's beliefs can be valid if they disagree with the cult's -- you've seen me say that non-Catholics can be saved, I even think that you can be saved, despite your rejection of Christianity.

So, no, it is fairly evident that I'm not brainwashed.

You, on the other hand, praise Reckart as a "good man", even when he is shown to be a hate-filled manipulator of others, demand that your absolutely illogical theology is not only right, but is the only way to salvation, and you ignore all evidence that clearly demonstrates you are wrong in pretty much every claim that you make.

Denying reality, in favour of your cult's doctrine, due to the inability to harbour independent thought, is a clear indication that you are brainwashed, and likely brainwash others, intentionally or not.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

But pastor Reckart said..

But the antichrist Talmudists said...

I'm not pushing any doctrine that denies Jesus came in the flesh, He did. And I'm not pushing any do trine that denies the distinct relationship the Father has to His Son.

Originally posted by adjensen

The dismissal of evidence that is contrary to the teaching of a cult leader is a clear indication of brainwashing.

You have not provided any credible evidence. YHWH in the Dead Sea scrolls is a forgery. The writing does not match the rest of the writing.

The silver scrolls are not credible due to the time period that they are from and the fact they were made as amulets and used for that purpose.

Examining evidence and coming to a conclusion is not evidence of brainwashing.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

But pastor Reckart said..

But the antichrist Talmudists said...

I'm not pushing any doctrine that denies Jesus came in the flesh, He did. And I'm not pushing any do trine that denies the distinct relationship the Father has to His Son.

Yes you do. You teach Yahweh, not Jesus Christ, came in the flesh.

You also deny that the Son is a real son to the Father. You claim the Son is eternal.

reply to post by truejew


It must be nice to be able to define what a term is rather than let scripture define the term.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

The dismissal of evidence that is contrary to the teaching of a cult leader is a clear indication of brainwashing.

You have not provided any credible evidence. YHWH in the Dead Sea scrolls is a forgery. The writing does not match the rest of the writing.

The silver scrolls are not credible due to the time period that they are from and the fact they were made as amulets and used for that purpose.

Examining evidence and coming to a conclusion is not evidence of brainwashing.

See, here's your problem -- what is your source for both of those claims? Gary Reckart, your cult leader, someone completely biased, and someone who has proven himself to be a non-credible source of historical information. He is not an academic researcher and has shown in the past that he will simply invent facts to meet his expectations, such as proclaiming the Didache to having been written at least 800 years after it really was.

Unless you can provide a document which pre-dates NOTurTyipical's silver scrolls which does not have the Tetragrammaton in it, you have been proven wrong, and your continued defense of Reckart's invalid and arbitrary claims is simply testimony to your being brainwashed.

reply to post by truejew

EhJeh has no connection to YHWH.

EhJeh was the name God told to Moses.

Who is Moses? When did he live? What did he do? What, if anything, did he write?

Is your main contention about the use of YHWH, that someone replaced a real name in the Old Testament for a bogus name, and that if the real name is restored, then everything is otherwise fine with the Old Testament?

reply to post by adjensen

So, no, it is fairly evident that I'm not brainwashed.

So do you think that it is reasonable or sensible to consider that the malevolent character called Yahweh in the Old Testament is somehow the Father? Or is that merely an assumption that you don't care to challenge?