Why i love Jesus. Why Jesus is love.

reply to post by petrus4


An evolutionary Christian mysticism draws the very same conclusions, provided it does not seek to do away with the work of the cross as valuable.

I am happy for you that you discovered a path that works for you.

God Bless,

NAM

With Christianity, and the death and resurrection, three things become apparent, at least to me. One, that there is Justice, without compromise, two, that the same high standard of judgement is, simultabeously, if not paradoxically according to our human conceptions of Justice, love and forgiveness, from the top down, and three, that what we're looking at, with the resurrection, is a transformative principal of growth and continuance, and inclusion, without condition or limitation, as an emergent phenomenon within the framework of an evolutionary eternal recurrence ie: eternal life, having been reunited with the eternal Godhead, all of it on account of Jesus Christ and what he accomplished as the full embodiment of the Spirit of God and of God's grace (love in action).

The supreme difficulty and challenge presented to the Christian, isn't the concern about going to hell - but instead, how to receive such a gift of incalculable value that we did and can do, absolutely nothing, to either earn, or deserve!

And if there is a devil, what i just stated there, is an absolute terror!

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If you hate scripture that much to refuse to read it is says quite a bit about your spiritual condition.

I don't hate scripture and this is just what you are using as a diversion, which is what you always do to avoid addressing the issue. You do not defend your position, while you enjoy attacking what other people declare that they believe in.
If you actually believe in something you should declare it and be prepared to defend it. Your main interest is in doing personal attacks, as illustrated in the quote I am giving now from your post, where I asked for your explanation of the New Covenant and you give a few Bible verses, then when I point out that was not what I asked for, you make an implication that I hate the Bible.
What I don't like is people going to hell and the lies that are promoted by Satan which leads people to hell. One such lie is that there is no necessity to be any better of a person as a result of accepting Jesus and his message. The lie that all you have to do is listen and then there is no further requirement on your part, such as following the Holy Spirit beyond just acknowledging that there is some truth to the existence of Jesus and that Jesus died.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It is still only your theory.
If the Apostles who wrote about Jesus knew his name was different than, Jesus, don't you think he they would have mentioned that instead of just going ahead and calling him Jesus? The Angel told Mary to name the child, Jesus. That is in the Bible, so you are anti-Bible.

"Jesus" is the Greek, Latinized of the Hebrew "Yahshua". That's his name. In the Grecco-Roman world and it's aftermath. There is not a "J" sound in Hebrew. You'd think that fact would settle this debate, but apparently the Hebrew scholars are all inferior to you and your theological background??

Like I said earlier, this is all theory and you have no evidence to support your theory. I gave my evidence which is the Jews, during and before the time of Jesus, who were named John. Also you can read Josephus, who was a Jew himself, who wrote about various people named Jesus, back in that time. So, to repeat, you have no proof that Jesus was named anything other that Jesus, and I have proof that he was named, Jesus.
The Bible is proof because it never calls him by another name. What you are teaching is that the Bible is wrong. I say, You are wrong. You have a love for high sounding philosophy, signifying nothing. This philosophy, I believe, is part of another philosophy which is that God is Jehovah or Yahweh, which the New Testament never says.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

If you hate scripture that much to refuse to read it is says quite a bit about your spiritual condition.

I don't hate scripture and this is just what you are using as a diversion, which is what you always do to avoid addressing the issue.

I already did. You asked what the new covenant was, I included numerous verses with God detailing His new covenant. Then you complained that you weren't "reading any of it". That's disdain for the Word.

You do not defend your position, while you enjoy attacking what other people declare that they believe in.

I defend it constantly, usually I get no response. Still waiting for you to address several posts of mine, most are not 24 hours old, but days and weeks old. But hey, I suppose you're just busy, right?

If you actually believe in something you should declare it and be prepared to defend it.

I do, quite often. You're in a hissy because the Word says you're in error and you're in a hairy predicament, if you disagree it's you disagreeing with the Word. You'd rather have me same the same thing as the verses in my own words so you can attack the theological position without having to flatly reject the Word. Your problem is with what God has declared, not me.

Your main interest is in doing personal attacks, as illustrated in the quote I am giving now from your post, where I asked for your explanation of the New Covenant and you give a few Bible verses, then when I point out that was not what I asked for, you make an implication that I hate the Bible.

Still dumbfounded why I cannot use the Bible to address what the Bible says. How does that make sense?

What I don't like is people going to hell and the lies that are promoted by Satan which leads people to hell.

YAH saves, not you or I, we just present the gospel, which is Christ died for us according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again after 3 days according to the scriptures. (Sorry, that's more Bible)

Why do you capitalize "satan"? He's not worth the honor to me.

One such lie is that there is no necessity to be any better of a person as a result of accepting Jesus and his message.

I agree, it'd be nice if you'd stop claiming I think the opposite, considering I've had to correct you no less than a dozen times. We all can dream right?

The lie that all you have to do is listen and then there is no further requirement on your part, such as following the Holy Spirit beyond just acknowledging that there is some truth to the existence of Jesus and that Jesus died.

Are you trying to still promote the idea that justification isn't by grace, but that we must merit it? if so, no, I won't agree to that. We are saved from Hell by God's grace, through faith.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It is still only your theory.
If the Apostles who wrote about Jesus knew his name was different than, Jesus, don't you think he they would have mentioned that instead of just going ahead and calling him Jesus? The Angel told Mary to name the child, Jesus. That is in the Bible, so you are anti-Bible.

"Jesus" is the Greek, Latinized of the Hebrew "Yahshua". That's his name. In the Grecco-Roman world and it's aftermath. There is not a "J" sound in Hebrew. You'd think that fact would settle this debate, but apparently the Hebrew scholars are all inferior to you and your theological background??

Like I said earlier, this is all theory and you have no evidence to support your theory. I gave my evidence which is the Jews, during and before the time of Jesus, who were named John.

It doesn't matter what you said earlier. You were just as wrong then as you are now. There isn't a "J" or "J" sound in Hebrew.


The Hebrew for John is "Yôḥanan. The Latinized version is "Iōhannēs", and the Greek version of Yôḥanan is "Ἰωάννης".

"John" Wikipedia


The "J" sound and letter is only about 500 years old, it wasn't even in the 1611 version of the KJB. In that early Bible Jesus's name is rendered the transliterated "Iesus" from the Greek.

1611 KJB

Encyclopedia Americana:

"Jesus Christ--- ...Although Matthew (1:21) interprets the name originally Joshua, that is, 'Yahweh is Salvation,' and finds it specially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at that time." (Vol.16, p. 41)

Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.)

"Jesus Christ---...The same is true of the name Jesus. In the Septuagint it is the customary Greek form for the common Hebrew name Joshua;" (Vol. 10 p.149)

Barnes' notes: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

"His name is Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where is means Joshua, the leader of the Jews into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should have been retained."

Word studies in the New Testament, by Marvin R. Vincent---

"Jesus. The Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious individuals in former periods of the Jewish History --- Joshua, the successor of Moses, and Jeshua, the high priest, who with Zerubbabel took so active a part in the re-establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews in their return from Babylon. Its original and full form is Jehoshua, becoming by contraction Joshua or Jeshua."

The Acts of the Apostles, by Jackson and Lake

"Jesus--- This is the regular Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua."

Smith's Bible Dictionary:

"Jesus Christ ---- The name Jesus means Savior, and was a common name, derived from the ancient Hebrew Jehoshua."

A dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings

"Jesus -- The Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua. Jeshua ---- Yahweh is Salvation or Yahweh is opulence."

Alford's Greek New Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary:

"Jesus -- The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel."

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion:

"Jesus (The Name) --- Matthew's gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, 'For he will save His people from their sins.' This agrees with the popular meaning as 'Yahweh saves...' " p.1886

Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Sacred Name ---- The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek "Iesous" which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning 'Jehovah is Salvation' " Vol. 8, p. 374

Interpreter's Bible: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

"Jesus: for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means "Yahweh is salvation"

Matthew Henry's Commentary

(on Matthew 1:21)

"Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the greek."

Lean Hebrew JM.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I already did. You asked what the new covenant was, I included numerous verses with God detailing His new covenant. Then you complained that you weren't "reading any of it". That's disdain for the Word.

I'm the one who asked, so I would know if you complied to my request. I said you did not. How can you argue that? I asked you to explain the New Covenant. To me, quoting a few verses is not explaining it.
Let me repeat my little maxim, If you can not explain your message, you are not on a mission.
I could add, Not on a mission of truth. You could be on a mission for lies. My main point being that you have no truth because you are not a speaker of truth. You do not know the truth. If you knew the truth, you could speak of it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I already did. You asked what the new covenant was, I included numerous verses with God detailing His new covenant. Then you complained that you weren't "reading any of it". That's disdain for the Word.

I'm the one who asked, so I would know if you complied to my request. I said you did not. How can you argue that? I asked you to explain the New Covenant. To me, quoting a few verses is not explaining it.
Let me repeat my little maxim, If you can not explain your message, you are not on a mission.
I could add, Not on a mission of truth. You could be on a mission for lies. My main point being that you have no truth because you are not a speaker of truth. You do not know the truth. If you knew the truth, you could speak of it.

It's really funny to me to read this response in the light of all the things around here I've asked you to respond to and there are still the sound of crickets over. Quite hilarious actually. Your hypocrisy is astounding, and I don't know what's worse, your complete ignorance to that fact, or your crabbiness when verses from the Word are given to answer a question about what the Word says and teaches.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It doesn't matter what you said earlier. You were just as wrong then as you are now. There isn't a "J" or "J" sound in Hebrew.

Hebrew was not the spoken language of the time. It was a written language for the old Jewish scripture which was read in the synagogue.
It does not matter what Hebrew did or did not have, other than when it came time to read the scroll in their meeting. There was a lot of cross cultural contact and Judea was part of the Greek Empire, starting from Alexander and up to when Rome took control of it, so there was a very long history of Greek and Roman influence in the land.
Your attitude comes off to me as supporting the continued existence of the old covenant and it shows in your theology and it shows in your worship of the angel who was the administrator of the old covenant. This is why you want to change the name of Jesus, to reflect on that angel of old, and to take away from the new thing which Jesus brought about.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It doesn't matter what you said earlier. You were just as wrong then as you are now. There isn't a "J" or "J" sound in Hebrew.

Hebrew was not the spoken language of the time. It was a written language for the old Jewish scripture which was read in the synagogue.
It does not matter what Hebrew did or did not have, other than when it came time to read the scroll in their meeting. There was a lot of cross cultural contact and Judea was part of the Greek Empire, starting from Alexander and up to when Rome took control of it, so there was a very long history of Greek and Roman influence in the land.
Your attitude comes off to me as supporting the continued existence of the old covenant and it shows in your theology and it shows in your worship of the angel who was the administrator of the old covenant. This is why you want to change the name of Jesus, to reflect on that angel of old, and to take away from the new thing which Jesus brought about.

Pointing out that Hebrew has no "J" sound or letter has noting to do with the old covenant. Yahshua means = YAH saves.

That burns you up doesn't it? That's pretty sad, you hate the given name of our Savior.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I defend it constantly, usually I get no response. Still waiting for you to address several posts of mine, most are not 24 hours old, but days and weeks old. But hey, I suppose you're just busy, right?

Start a thread, All the Unanswered Questions To JM.
I don't know what those questions are because every time I ask, you just say, Go look it up. I have looked it up and there is no question, so it is just a lie you like to repeat, that I refuse to answer this mythical question that can not be found.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

It's really funny to me to read this response in the light of all the things around here I've asked you to respond to and there are still the sound of crickets over. Quite hilarious actually. Your hypocrisy is astounding, and I don't know what's worse, your complete ignorance to that fact, or your crabbiness when verses from the Word are given to answer a question about what the Word says and teaches.

Just more of your diversion.
You don't want to explain the new covenant because you do not believe in it. You believe in the old covenant and are quite happy with it because then it gives you the excuse that you can not possibly live up to it. Then you feel very complacent in sinning, believing in an old covenant style sacrifice being made by Jesus to pay for your sins.
You are utterly horrified with the New Covenant because it might just mean you can not enjoy your sins.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I defend it constantly, usually I get no response. Still waiting for you to address several posts of mine, most are not 24 hours old, but days and weeks old. But hey, I suppose you're just busy, right?

Start a thread, All the Unanswered Questions To JM.
I don't know what those questions are because every time I ask, you just say, Go look it up. I have looked it up and there is no question, so it is just a lie you like to repeat, that I refuse to answer this mythical question that can not be found.

I could do that if I cared.

I don't.

Sorry.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's really funny to me to read this response in the light of all the things around here I've asked you to respond to and there are still the sound of crickets over. Quite hilarious actually. Your hypocrisy is astounding, and I don't know what's worse, your complete ignorance to that fact, or your crabbiness when verses from the Word are given to answer a question about what the Word says and teaches.

You don't want to explain the new covenant because you do not believe in it.

How can I do a better job of detailing the New Covenant God made with us than God's Word's Himself detailing His new covenant that He would make with us? Did that make sense to you when you typed it?

You believe in the old covenant and are quite happy with it because then it gives you the excuse that you can not possibly live up to it.

I could have never lived up to the Old Covenant either, I'm not Christ, I'm not perfect. He fulfilled the first covenant.

Then you feel very complacent in sinning, believing in an old covenant style sacrifice being made by Jesus to pay for your sins.

If someone feels "comfortable" in sinning I'd say they are not reborn. Just my $.02.

You are utterly horrified with the New Covenant because it might just mean you can not enjoy your sins.

I've never said I enjoy sinning.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Pointing out that Hebrew has no "J" sound or letter has noting to do with the old covenant. Yahshua means = YAH saves.
That burns you up doesn't it? That's pretty sad, you hate the given name of our Savior.

The given name of Jesus, is Jesus. You can't say it. It is because your demon refuses it but has no problem with the Old Testament name you substitute in its place.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I could do that if I cared.

I don't.

Sorry.

Then why do you bring it up? Just to have something to complain about?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Pointing out that Hebrew has no "J" sound or letter has noting to do with the old covenant. Yahshua means = YAH saves.
That burns you up doesn't it? That's pretty sad, you hate the given name of our Savior.

The given name of Jesus, is Jesus. You can't say it. It is because your demon refuses it but has no problem with the Old Testament name you substitute in its place.

Explain how Mary and Joseph gave Him the name of "Jesus" when the letter J wasn't even invented, and wouldn't be for some 1,500 more years. Explain how they gave Him the name "Jesus" when there isn't a "J" sound in Hebrew.

The 1611 KJB doesn't even use the name "Jesus".

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I could do that if I cared.

I don't.

Sorry.

Then why do you bring it up? Just to have something to complain about?

? I didn't bring up the idea of making a new thread, you did.



Did you have your coffee today?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I've never said I enjoy sinning.

I can think of no other explanation for your hatred of the New Covenant.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I've never said I enjoy sinning.

I can think of no other explanation for your hatred of the New Covenant.

Here's one:


You don't/refuse to read what people say.

I don't hate the new covenant, it's the only chance and hope we have to be justified before a righteous God. The ONLY hope we have.

(But yeah, I suppose again you'll read out of that what you want and the exact opposite of what I said.)