People Who Pronounce and Spell the Name of Jesus In Weird Old Testament Variants are Going to Hell

reply to post by Praetorius

On a side note, you can also use the septuagint to confirm that the old testament figure Joshua's name - Yahushua, etc., in hebrew - was transliterad as Iesous in greek. Iesous ("Jesus") and Yahushua are the same name, just in different languages - it's merely a case of what language the scripture at hand was written in - and there are hebrew gospels of Christ as well.

Exactly right, this thread was over with on page 2, the OP is clueless.

reply to post by Praetorius

You are the one claiming that all of these sources and accepted history is incorrect. The burden falls to you to disprove common knowledge, argue that point however you wish. If *your* view were in the mainstream, then yes, the burden would fall to me. But the weight of history is on my side, so the ball's in your court to disprove it.

He's also rejected what Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Encyclopedia Americana have all had to say as well.

Linked in this very thread.

reply to post by Praetorius

On a side note, you can also use the septuagint to confirm that the old testament figure Joshua's name - Yahushua, etc., in hebrew - was transliterad as Iesous in greek. Iesous ("Jesus") and Yahushua are the same name, just in different languages - it's merely a case of what language the scripture at hand was written in - and there are hebrew gospels of Christ as well.

Thanks for the side note, as you call it. This is something which may bear directly on the topic.
Yahushua may be the way to say it and we can't tell for sure how it would have been pronounced back in his day. We do have a pretty good idea of how the Jews of Babylon say it, and your version is probably correct. The Greek translation does not match up exactly with the modern Hebrew text but was translated from an older version.
Where any of this relates to my topic is what was going on in Egypt and places in the time of Jesus, since that was were he was brought up, and probably in a metropolitan and Helenized city such as Alexandria where Jesus would have been a perfectly normal sort of name for a person like himself.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Really? Then what is this? Revelation 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The Tabernacle of God with men is Immanuel, God with us. Who else in the Bible does it describe as being God with us? Jesus Christ.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say he will be our God and we will be his sons?
Obviously this is God saying He will be our God and we will be His sons.
You don't have much of an argument to be denying God His throne.
When Revelation is saying "The One on the Throne", that doesn't bring anything to mind? It does me, as in the rest of Revelation, the Ancient of Days, the one the Son of Man comes to (in Daniel) in order to receive his power.
I stand by what I said, that Jesus is not a character in Revelation and what is revealed is "things to come", and not a revealing of a murderous personality of Jesus. If you are in love with the murderous Jesus that you imagine Revelation is showing you, I suggested and will repeat, you should acknowledge what it is you are doing, which is willfully and knowingly rejecting the Jesus of love and life and accepting a counterfeit Jesus of hate and death. You choose an evil god while rejecting the loving God.
While pointing out my harshness by warning people of idolatry, you believe yourself perfectly justified in believing all those people being stuck down, personally and physically by a weapon wielding Jesus from horseback. A whole six billion, going from person to person striking them in the head with a rod of iron and watching the blood spray out, until the earth is filled with their blood. You really believe that. You need to check yourself before judging me for only giving warning.

edit on 20-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Ok I will leave you alone in your delusion and denial. The rest of us who actually believes the Bible for what it says will go on believing it. You have not won the argument against me, you have merely wearied me to the point of tiredness.

If you do not believe Jesus is not the Lamb of God as it says he is then you will not believe that He is the Great Shepherd, the Chief Cornerstone. Immanuel, the Son of God. What you have done is made a theology based on a mixture of tenets found in Reform Theology, Replacement Theology and Hinduism. You have tossed in a few statements from Islam and Jaininsm that you have based it on. So by your mixing and mashing the different faith systems, you don't have an original one and you have proven nothing. You have denied Hebrew as an ancient language, but the ENTIRE Torah is in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven Hebrew as a language before the modern state of Israel.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius

 

No because you are cherry picking from biased "Hebrew scholars" who are going to say things to support their reason for existence. Unbiased historians say there is no evidence that supports the Old Testament mythical version of history.

And yet this thread originated with you apparently claiming that people using old testament names are deceived and will be going to hell, seeming to acknowledge the new testament as valid - the new testament self-admittedly basing itself on the claims and history of the old testament.

Have I missed something here? Do you not sense your disconnect?

Additionally, we've got egyptian (Merneptah stele) and assyrian (Sennacherib's prism) references to Israel, likely among others, the latter confirming the existence of king Hezekian of Judah. As well, the text of the torah confirms egyptian knowledge and influences, the Ipuwer papyrus apaprently validates the account of the exodus, and we've got various archeological evidence for prototypical hebrew inscriptions in Sinai.

That aside, I've personally never heard of any historians supporting your claim here that the old testament is a babylonish fraud - just that there are questions about the exodus and the conquest of Canaan, and one must remember that a lack of evidence is not necessarily disproof of something, and there are evidences available.

Could you provide me some information on your views review? You seem to be very reticent to provide supporting documentation for pretty much any of your claims, and I'd appreciate it if you would as most of what you're tossing out is new to me and I've never been big on just taking someone's word for it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Exactly right, this thread was over with on page 2, the OP is clueless.

You are not adding anything to the topic and only coming on to do a personal attack against me, which I object to.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Praetorius

 

On a side note, you can also use the septuagint to confirm that the old testament figure Joshua's name - Yahushua, etc., in hebrew - was transliterad as Iesous in greek. Iesous ("Jesus") and Yahushua are the same name, just in different languages - it's merely a case of what language the scripture at hand was written in - and there are hebrew gospels of Christ as well.

Thanks for the side note, as you call it. This is something which may bear directly on the topic.
Yahushua may be the way to say it and we can't tell for sure how it would have been pronounced back in his day. We do have a pretty good idea of how the Jews of Babylon say it, and your version is probably correct. The Greek translation does not match up exactly with the modern Hebrew text but was translated from an older version.
Where any of this relates to my topic is what was going on in Egypt and places in the time of Jesus, since that was were he was brought up, and probably in a metropolitan and Helenized city such as Alexandria where Jesus would have been a perfectly normal sort of name for a person like himself.

I have a silly question for you. Do you think perhaps that Jesus was "just a good Palestinian?" I don't believe that, but want to know how you think about that statement.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Exactly right, this thread was over with on page 2, the OP is clueless.

You are not adding anything to the topic and only coming on to do a personal attack against me, which I object to.

I've added scores of information to the topic, the fact that you've ignored it is irrelevant.

reply to post by WarminIndy

If you do not believe Jesus is not the Lamb of God as it says he is then you will not believe that He is the Great Shepherd, the Chief Cornerstone. Immanuel, the Son of God. What you have done is made a theology based on a mixture of tenets found in Reform Theology, Replacement Theology and Hinduism. You have tossed in a few statements from Islam and Jaininsm that you have based it on. So by your mixing and mashing the different faith systems, you don't have an original one and you have proven nothing. You have denied Hebrew as an ancient language, but the ENTIRE Torah is in Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven Hebrew as a language before the modern state of Israel.

Taking Revelation as all literal is a delusion.
John saw things, "in the spirit", meaning that what he saw were signs and figures that need to be understood spiritually, as in, not literally. You choose to make it a concrete world of evil and misery, and if you think that is what Jesus came to bring, then you lost the whole Gospel and have chosen a false god.
You are throwing out a red herring because I was saying that Praetorius needs to show how there was a Hebrew nation before Jews were invented in Babylon. I understand there were writings that were called, Hebrew, that came out of Babylon. Modern Hebrew is based on the old Babylonian Hebrew, but it was reinvented as a conversational language since it was never an ordinary spoken language that we know of or have evidence of.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I have a silly question for you. Do you think perhaps that Jesus was "just a good Palestinian?" I don't believe that, but want to know how you think about that statement.

It is a silly question because I told you Jesus emptied himself of his god nature to be completely human, so as to be able to die to break the god-make blood-oath.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
Jesu, pronounced "Yayzo"

Thanks! I guess all German Christians are going to hell too as per OP. They got both the spelling and pronunciation wrong

reply to post by WarminIndy

I have a silly question for you. Do you think perhaps that Jesus was "just a good Palestinian?" I don't believe that, but want to know how you think about that statement.

Good morning, WarminIndy.

While I can say he was at least that, I can't say he was just that.

I think Lewis addressed it well in his trilemma. Unless the new testament and non-canonical sources are completely fraudulent, which I can't find sufficient reason to believe (given the significant changes in the life of these people, their natures, and their willingness to joyfully turn from the world and die for their newfound beliefs, which is no mean feat if one's aware of a fraud which should be obvious having occurred so recently), then Christ apparently said, did, and claimed the things presented in them.

As such, he's either a liar - which seems highly unlikely given what we know based on the available information; he's a lunatic - equally unlikely for similar reasons (he simply doesn't act like either) - or he's lord, as what he is represented as claiming.

So, I have to give a no on this. Take care.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Jesus/Yeshua was born of a hebrew woman,His name is Yeshua!
Jesus is the anglicized name of Yeshua.

edit on 19-9-2011 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)

Actually, I believe the wife of Joseph was Egyptian, wasn't she? Why else would they flee to Egypt with the baby, rather than to show it to his Grandfather? I believe the mother was an Egyptian High Priestess.
clavielle.wordpress.com...

www.vision.org...

She most certainly wasn't a simple Jewish girl, that much is clear.

reply to post by Praetorius

I've personally never heard of any historians supporting your claim here that the old testament is a babylonish fraud

I did not claim that. I said the current "Hebrew" text came from Babylon.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Exactly right, this thread was over with on page 2, the OP is clueless.

You are not adding anything to the topic and only coming on to do a personal attack against me, which I object to.

Like you have provided anything toward your own topic?

No backing whatsoever.

I think it is time for you to go back under your bridge and continue to stalk goats.

Does your pastor know your thought process?

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Jesus/Yeshua was born of a hebrew woman,His name is Yeshua!
Jesus is the anglicized name of Yeshua.

Actually, I believe the wife of Joseph was Egyptian, wasn't she? Why else would they flee to Egypt with the baby, rather than to show it to his Grandfather? I believe the mother was an Egyptian High Priestess.
clavielle.wordpress.com...

www.vision.org...

She most certainly wasn't a simple Jewish girl, that much is clear.

Thanks, autowrench for posting this link, first one, about the high priestess. I highly recommend any Christian who reads this thread, to follow the link and scroll down to the comments section and read a very insightful comment by Caroln, who is a Jew and tells all Christians the evils of Greek. I think this is a good example of what this thread is about, a counter to this mentality which has taken hold and has passed from the hatred of the Jews towards the New Testament name of Jesus, and has spread into Christianity itself.

There is power in the name. God knows all men's hearts where they believe in Him or not. I believe this situation falls into this verse:

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

OP I understand your plight, but remember Job, from the Old Testament, was saved even though he did not know the name of the Savior. I will find the verse referencing Jesus not by name but by faith.

EDIT: Found it;

Job 19:25-27
25 I know that my redeemer[a] lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet[c] in[d] my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

edit on 20-9-2011 by the4thhorseman because: Found

reply to post by the4thhorseman
Thanks for the links, I am reading the first one and it sort of confirms my suspicion that people have gone ahead and published Bibles where the New Testament has been gone over and the words, Jesus and God, are removed and replaced with Hebrew words.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Just remember not matter what you believe God is a just and judges righteously.

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Jesus/Yeshua was born of a hebrew woman,His name is Yeshua!
Jesus is the anglicized name of Yeshua.

edit on 19-9-2011 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)

Actually, I believe the wife of Joseph was Egyptian, wasn't she? Why else would they flee to Egypt with the baby, rather than to show it to his Grandfather? I believe the mother was an Egyptian High Priestess.
clavielle.wordpress.com...

www.vision.org...

She most certainly wasn't a simple Jewish girl, that much is clear.

Jesus was Jewish. He was circumcised according to the tradition of Moses. Egyptians did not circumcise according the the tradition of Moses.

Luke 2

19But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
20And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.
21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord
23(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)
24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
25And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Not only was Jesus circumcised, Mary was purified according to the law of Moses. She was not an Egyptian priestess.

The Egyptian mythology system did not circumcise according to the Law of Moses. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. Neither of these women were Egyptian. And they went into Egypt after Jesus was circumcised.