Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Scripture says that Christ's name is Jesus. I am not the one using other, non-Jewish/Christian sources to redefine Scripture.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Scripture says that Christ's name is Jesus. I am not the one using other, non-Jewish/Christian sources to redefine Scripture.

Ofcourse, an english translation would, because we speak english.

In arabic they call him Isa, in chinese they call him Ye'su'ji'du, shall i go on or are you going to continue to play this fruitless game of languages?

Originally posted by pthena
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?

Well, I think that the term "malevolent" is both subjective and convenient for those who want to "roll their own" religion, but my personal opinion is that the Hebrew Bible is the story of God's relationship with his chosen people, and it is history, prose, poetry, wisdom and apocalyptic literature, so assuming that it is an accurate picture of the God of the Israelites, in every aspect, is not something that I share.

I do not believe that the God of the Hebrew Bible is malevolent, and believe him to be the person referred to as "Father" in the New Testament.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Scripture says that Christ's name is Jesus.

No it doesn't.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

Kindly underline "gee-zus" in that passage.

reply to post by adjensen

Well, I think that the term "malevolent" is both subjective

So you do understand that that is my opinion.

convenient for those who want to "roll their own" religion

Quite a few people who are not interested in religion also find it quite rational in accordance with modern standards of ethics.

assuming that it is an accurate picture of the God of the Israelites, in every aspect, is not something that I share.

But essentially correct, perhaps.

I'm not an expert on how the Creeds came about. My guess is that the framers took certain philosophical ideas about a theoretically unitary deity and went from there, rather than sticking with the Exodus mythos.

Such that the Creeds say:
"We believe in one God, the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth..."

rather than:
"We believe in one God the Father, who delivered Israel, His chosen people out of Egypt, and delivered unto Moses a Law, by which Israel carved out for itself a nation from territory already inhabited..."

If the framers had insisted upon a historical connection to Old Testament Yahweh, rather than to an abstract monotheism, wouldn't it have been just as easy for them to write the 1st article of the Creed as I have written it above?

Originally posted by pthena
If the framers had insisted upon a historical connection to Old Testament Yahweh, rather than to an abstract monotheism, wouldn't it have been just as easy for them to write the 1st article of the Creed as I have written it above?

Well, the obvious question is why would they? Why replace a fairly concise ten word declaration with a wordy, rambling discourse that interjects a bunch of not very relevant facts, doesn't include the bit about creation and doesn't include the key phrase "one God"?

Practically, it's not necessary, since all of that stuff can be sorted out by anyone who cares by making the obvious connection that Jesus was Jewish, so when he's talking about God, he's talking about the God of the Israelites, not some abstract god.

And, pragmatically, the church at the time of Nicaea was essentially non-Jewish, in that almost all Christians had a Gentile, not Jewish, heritage, so intentionally focusing on the Judaic roots of the faith weren't high on the list of priorities, one presumes.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by truejew

 

Ofcourse, an english translation would, because we speak english.

In the original Greek it was Jesous, which is the same name.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by truejew

 

Ofcourse, an english translation would, because we speak english.

In the original Greek it was Jesous, which is the same name.

In the original Greek it was "Iesous", pronounced "ae-soo", not even close. In Latin, it is pronounced "yay-soo", not even close. If you want to get technical, your best bet is German or Spanish, which are far closer to the Greek pronunciation than the English is. Your non-omniscient god has no idea you're calling on him when you say "gee-zus", because it's not even close.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Scripture says that Christ's name is Jesus.

No it doesn't.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

Kindly underline "gee-zus" in that passage.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by truejew

 

Ofcourse, an english translation would, because we speak english.

In the original Greek it was Jesous, which is the same name.

In the original Greek it was "Iesous", pronounced "ae-soo", not even close. In Latin, it is pronounced "yay-soo", not even close. If you want to get technical, your best bet is German or Spanish, which are far closer to the Greek pronunciation than the English is. Your non-omniscient god has no idea you're calling on him when you say "gee-zus", because it's not even close.

In Greek, Iesous is pronounced Jesous. The "j" sound existed. The written "j" came around later to help with the confusion, not to create a new sound.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Scripture says that Christ's name is Jesus.

No it doesn't.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

Kindly underline "gee-zus" in that passage.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

** BUZZ **

Nope, not prounounced "gee-zus" -- see How to pronounce Jesus in Spanish, German, etc...
Care to try again? Underline "gee-zus" in that passage.

reply to post by truejew

In Greek, Iesous is pronounced Jesous.

Where is your non-Reckart evidence of that? Strong's says your wrong. The ATS members who know ancient Greek say that you're wrong. Every scholarly paper that I've read says you're wrong.

So who says you're right?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

Scripture says that Christ's name is Jesus.

No it doesn't.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

Kindly underline "gee-zus" in that passage.

2:38 Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und lasse sich ein jeglicher taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung der Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes. (Apostelgeschichte 2:38 Luther Bible)

** BUZZ **

Nope, not prounounced "gee-zus" -- see How to pronounce Jesus in Spanish, German, etc...
Care to try again? Underline "gee-zus" in that passage.

Your thinking that I would say Jesu is a different name than Jesus, shows that you do not understand what we teach.

We do not teach that the name cannot be translated into other languages. However, Yeshua, which means Jeh is the Egyptian sky god, is not Hebrew for Jesus.

Originally posted by truejew
We do not teach that the name cannot be translated into other languages. However, Yeshua, which means Jeh is the Egyptian sky god, is not Hebrew for Jesus.

... and you continue to labour under the delusion that history goes backwards.

Yes, Yeshua was the name that the Apostles used to refer to him, because that was his name.

Yeshua -> Iesous -> Jesu -> Jesus

Yeshua - not pronounced "gee-zus"
Iesous - not pronounced "gee-zus"
Jesu - not pronounced "gee-zus"
Jesus - pronounced "gee-zus"

You have yet to provide any credible evidence to refute this, so continuing to deny it is merely proof of your lack of independent and critical thinking.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

In Greek, Iesous is pronounced Jesous.

Where is your non-Reckart evidence of that? Strong's says your wrong. The ATS members who know ancient Greek say that you're wrong. Every scholarly paper that I've read says you're wrong.

So who says you're right?

Bruce M. Metzger

There is also the fact the "j" sound is found in ancient Egyptian. Much before the written "j" in the 16th century AD.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

In Greek, Iesous is pronounced Jesous.

Where is your non-Reckart evidence of that? Strong's says your wrong. The ATS members who know ancient Greek say that you're wrong. Every scholarly paper that I've read says you're wrong.

So who says you're right?

Bruce M. Metzger

Throwing out someone's name is not providing evidence. Where does Metzger claim this, and what evidence does he provide to support his claim, which is in opposition to common knowledge?

There is also the fact the "j" sound is found in ancient Egyptian. Much before the written "j" in the 16th century AD.

That's completely irrelevant.

The reason that most languages pronounce Jesus as "yay-soo" or something close to it is that they're translating from the Greek or Latin, not from English. As you said, there's nothing "wrong" with translating his name into other languages, but they're going to translate from the original, not from a derivative language.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, Yeshua was the name that the Apostles used to refer to him, because that was his name.

The apostles spoke Greek. The apostles wrote His name in Greek. They called Him by the name they wrote, which was Jesous.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yeshua -> Iesous -> Jesu -> Jesus

Incorrect. It is Jeshas = Jesous = Jesu = Jesus

Yeshua is a different name and does not mean "Jeh saves". Jeshas does.

Again, the spelling and pronunciation does not have to be the same in every language, but they are the same name.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

That's completely irrelevant.

It is relevant since you claim the "j" sound did not exist until the letter "j" was created in the 16th century. Also, the Hebrews would have had knowledge of that "j" sound since they spent a long time living in Egypt and spoke Egyptian when they did.

The evidence from Bruce M. Metzger has been posted before.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

That's completely irrelevant.

It is relevant since you claim the "j" sound did not exist until the letter "j" was created in the 16th century. Also, the Hebrews would have had knowledge of that "j" sound since they spent a long time living in Egypt and spoke Egyptian when they did.

I don't believe that I've ever said anything about the letter "J", but in order to make your point, you're going to have to show that Greek is a child language of Egyptian, which it is not, since you're claiming the introduction of the "J" sound came in the Greek word, not the Hebrew.

The evidence from Bruce M. Metzger has been posted before.

Well then it shouldn't be too much of a problem for you to post it again, should it?

reply to post by truejew


The late Dr. Metzger wasn't a lexicographer, he was a scholar and textual critic. You should refer to any native Greek language phonologist or lexicographer.