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

page: 37
2
<< 34  35  36   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


hmm so what about the person who has a speech impediment or is deaf and speaks differently;
are they going to hell too?



it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, it is what is in your heart that matters.
Jesus said it is what comes out of your mouth which defiles you.
So there is a connection between what you say and what you feel.
My original point of this thread is that everyone should be in the habit, daily, of saying "Jesus", if for no other reason that to keep the demons at bay because this is the name given to cast out demons and has power over them, despite what movies may want to tell you otherwise.
People who refuse to say "Jesus" I believe have a demon already.
Now if you are on a religion forum and you have someone giving you their philosophy and it doesn't quite sound like what you heard in church as a kid and they are giving you a name they claim is better, and will not even say the name of what their name is better than, then I would hope that you do not believe such a person because they most likely are saying the words of Satan who has possessed them.




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by eyesdown
Yeshua is what he would have been called, that is most likely his real name. The name Jesus Christ just developed didnt it. In the first king James there are no J's at all he is called Iesus which sounds more like a Y.

I'm not Christian but perhaps people are trying to get religion back to its roots to at least add some credibility to the whole fiasco.
No, it did not "just develop". There were lots of people documented living in Palestine before, during, and after, the time of Christ, named Jesus, who were Jews. So it was not a name invented after the fact, but was in common usage at the time of Christ, as was the Greek language and you should also consider the one and a half million Jews who lived just in Alexandria who were speaking Greek and reading the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint. Also consider how the Gospel has Jesus living for years in Egypt, which could have meant Alexandria, or somewhere thereabouts.
I don't see the movement towards alternative names for Jesus being a quest for authenticity, but as a way to get people away from the Greek influence such as what you have with Christianity having a Greek Bible in the New Testament, which by the way was written in Greek, not translated into Greek from some other language. So this is why I call this (the movement for changing the name of Jesus) the work of anti-christ because it is a step towards moving Christians away from Christianity, and towards a form of Judaism or some (more likely) form of Noahide religion for the slave class to serve the Jews but never have the full status of Jew, which would be reserved for the "pure of blood".
edit on 5-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


this is ridiculous.
If a Jew believes His name in Hebrew means I Am Savior, what you have is a Jew becoming a disciple of Christianity.
You simply made a false assumption and use circle logic trying to support it.

It's amazing the amount of posts you got in this thread....and only 2 flags...your mom and sister?
At that rate, if you are correct, it will be your mom, sister and yourself in Heaven alone with Him.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 
I'm not following you here. Maybe if you could somehow bring yourself to type, Jesus, then you could explain what you mean. You seem to be talking around something you are trying to avoid saying.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
can agree to an extent since I've only heard one invisible (Spirit) mans voice say He was Jesus (just as the spelling sounds) and who was obviously raised, immortal and eternal -as the scriptures also declare


For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first
1Thessalonians (this makes perfect sense)

The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Corinthians15

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
John8


still these bring up a few questions-


There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Psalm19

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Daniel7

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man
Ephesians3
edit on 8-12-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I tried to say is that you seem to strain at the gnat but swallow a camel



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I tried to say is that you seem to strain at the gnat but swallow a camel
Look towards the top of the page, at the title for the thread. There is an interesting word in it, spell, so when you use names, it is a form of magic.
We have a name given to us which has power over demons to cast them out. There are also names that invoke demons to bring them to you and saying the names opens a portal into your soul to invite them in.
There is Christ, and there is the anti-christ, so there is also, it seems, a Jesus, and an anti-jesus, where one drives away demons and the other attracts them.
I think you should find some people who will say the name Jesus over you until you can bring yourself to say the name of Jesus yourself, and you can be freed from the spell you have inadvertently cast upon yourself to become possessed.
edit on 8-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
nah, it's not worth it and the true bin heart Christians here are right. No need to debate what is obvious to the heart. It does noone any good to address this with someone who uses division as a tool.
You do the works of the accuser night and day and are unable to be rebuked nor reproved by scripture and seek to adhere to the traditions of man, instead to accuse and divide those who seek to unite and encourage the brethren.
edit on 8-12-2011 by manna2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 
It looked like you were having problems with the formatting of your post so I waited so you could edit it to whaere I could read it properly. Seems you were not able to resolve the issues so you withdrew your post.
What it looked like was your explanation for how you came up with your version of the anti-jesus.
I would like to direct the attention of whoever might happen onto this thread, to an article in Wikipedia on the concept of the Eternal Return, and specifically the section on Origen as Power. I will go ahead and quote some:

. . . in the archaic worldview, the power of a thing resides in its origin, so that "knowing the origin of an object, an animal, a plant, and so on is equivalent to acquiring a magical power over them". The way a thing was created establishes that thing's nature, the pattern to which it should conform. By gaining control over the origin of a thing, one also gains control over the thing itself.
How I interpret this is in a context of sorcery. You find this in the Book of Acts where the Apostles run into people trying to cast out demons but not in a way they considered proper.
The proper way, I would suppose, is that you inquire into a person or entity as a request, meaning the God or Lord, or whoever or whatever you feel is the divine being who would have ultimate mastery over things like demons, in order to have some demons removed from a subject of your concern.
The sorcerer would take the approach of understanding the name and specifically the origin of the name, as a tool to gain knowledge of the place of origin of the specific divine entity from which the sorcerer wants to gain mastery over, in order to have the entity do his bidding, such as to cast out a demon from the subject of interest to said sorcerer.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I'm looking at a web site called Behind the Name, which is a look-up source for things like coming up with a name for your new baby or something, but is shows where all the different names come from.
I browsed down a bit in the A section and came across ABIGAIL, which is a name used in English and German, and it is the name of the third wife of David, according to the Old Testament. So it would not at all be surprising that there is a Hebrew spelling for it. אֲבִיגָיִל ('Avigayil) meaning "my father is joy". To me, Abigail is not a English "translation" of the Hebrew name, it is a transliteration, letter for letter, from the Hebrew but in the English alphabet. We pronounce it as we would a word spelled that way and there is a certain convention among English speaking people where you can predict how someone would say the word by looking at how it is spelled. Now, not being Hebrew speakers, the English person is not going to have a H sound, followed by a full stop, at the beginning and another H at the end of the name, as it would be pronounced by some one like a rabbi reading from a scroll of the prophet Samuel, or something. People would adopt the name because they like it for some reason or another, but they do not attempt to Hebrewize the pronunciation since it would just sound foreign to the English ear. Over time the name Abigail would be accepted as an English name and any concern for a foreign language pronunciation would be not even considered and if someone did, it would just seem ridiculous.
You could think of Jesus in this way probably, at least I can, where there is this dead language which was not a normal conversational language for hundreds of years but was a specialized biblical language for the priests and rabbis. People spoke Aramaic, in one form or another where in earlier times it would have been the Assyrian version and later the Babylonian version, or more commonly for cosmopolitan coastal areas along the Mediterranean, they spoke Greek. Now some of the Greek speaking Mediterranean people would have some ancestral heritage that hearkens back to the religion generally associated with this temple that was up on a hill in Jerusalem and they knew some of the stories that the priests knew from books, and from the rabbis, and they used names from different characters in these stories to name their children, so they would and the name would be spelled out in Greek because that was their language. It was conventional to use the transliteration of the Hebrew into the Greek and became an integral part of the Greek language.
My point is that however this name was arrived at, it is a "real" name, just like Abigail is a REAL name, even if it is not pronounced the way it was back a couple or three thousand years ago or whatever. Just because some sticklers for self-styled propriety imagine that changing things to fit different languages invalidated names retroactively, does not mean sane people have to buy into such nonsense, and why are they acting like that in the first place? I can just reiterate what I said earlier which is that there are people, it seems, that want Greek to be ignored and that would be fine for them, then we could forget the New Testament and just have the old. Well, no thanks and if people want to just stick with the Old Testament that is their business and they don't have any business telling Christians what a "real" name is.
edit on 10-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
I found this short discussion of the literacy in Greek of the Galileans in the first century in a commentary on James by Ralph Martin that I believe has some bearing on the topic of this thread and will reproduce the section here from this book.

"C. The Letter of James
But what of the "letter" that traditionally bears the name of James? There are several reasons why modern scholarship has queried the direct association of the letter with the historical James. Among the more impressive arguments and the responses they have called forth are:
(i) The Greek style, mirroring the higher Koinḗ language, is consciously literary (see Turner, "style", 115, for a cautious estimate of James' so-called classical flair, against Mayor, ccxliv). Its fluent and elegant style would appeal to readers living in the Greek world. The author makes several allusions (e.g.. 3:6) which would seemingly only be understood in the world of the Hellenism and hellenistic Judaism (Kummel, Introduction, 411). Doubts have also been raised as to whether a Galilean Jew could have composed in this ornate way; but this suspicion has been countered by the argument that such literary composition would not have bee beyond the bounds of possibility for a first-century Palestinian Jew (Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, 3-21; Argyle, "Greek", 87-89; Robinson, Redating, 132-35; Hengel, "Der Jakobusbrief", 251, on the evidence of a bilingual ethos in Jerusalem). We may point to examples that lead Rendall (The Epistle of St. James, 39) to conclude:

It is time surely to discard the figment of Galilean illiteracy. . . . Philodemus the philosopher, Meleager the epigrammatist, Theodorus the rhetorician, and one may almost add Josephus the historian, were all of Galilee.

Rendall's conclusion is that the epistle has its candidate for authorship in a Palestinian Jew, at home in all parts of the Hellenistic Scriptures - a conclusion that may stand, while permitting us to doubt that author is James in the traditional sense. We have still to account for the conscious literary style modeled on the Septuagint, which is the author's main court of appeal, and the presence of rare terms with some 65 hapax legomena, of which 45 are drawn from the LXX. . . ."





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 34  35  36   >>

log in

join