It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Calling Out Jewish and Christians- Please Answer ONE Question

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by manna2
reply to post by sacgamer25

I feel you are misreading what is in the Bible.
We do not have a new covenant.
We have a testament.
A testament is something that comes into force after death, in this case the savior.
He did it all.
The only part we play in the salvation is to lay our sins at the foot of the cross.
He did it all, he fulfilled the law.
"It is finished"
A covenant is an agreement between 2 parties and broken once either party transgresses the agreement.
We have a testament that replaces the covenant.
This is one of those areas where the translations seriously skew the meaning of scripture and confuses the issue.
I will repeat, we are no longer bound by law if we live in the Spirit by grace through faith.
Yes, we do take His yoke upon us, but most definately free from the law which can only lead to death.
We did not take on another burden to replace the old burden, which is the law.
All the law, every jot and tittle is fulfilled in His sacrifice at calvary.
You are free indeed through His sacrifice.
In Him you have no covenant, only life in the Spirit.

I must urge you to continue to read and understand.

Mathew 26:26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:23-25
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 “This is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

I believe that you are close in understanding but you need to go back to the word and read with your heart open. This is clearly a covenant, and the message is clear.

edit on 3-12-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:45 PM
While yashayah was in the flesh, he too was bound by the law. Yes, your scripture quotes show this.
But when He died after paying the price for sin the covenant was replaced by the testament that we can share in His glory as fellow heirs in the Kingdom.
A testament only becomes valid after death, not before.
We have a new testament of faith by grace through faith in Him that abides only in life. Death was conquered so no need for anymore covenants, which man simply could not keep.

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:57 PM
read Hebrews 9:14-23
Blood has no part in a will or a testament, but a covenant does.

This Greek translation of the term “covenant” as “testament” had far-reaching implications for the way
in which Jesus and the apostles speak of God’s covenant, or better, “testament,” with his people and
of the promised “new covenant / testament.” The New Testament consistently follows the Septuagint
in using the word “testament” and not “covenant.” For many New Testament expositors, who interpret
רית  ב . broadly in terms of a “contract” or “covenant,” this has caused considerable embarrassment. It
has therefore been popular to interpret the word diaqh/kh in the broad sense of “contract,” despite all
the lexical evidence to the contrary.6 The New Testament, which emphasizes the death of the testator
(Hebr. 9) and the terminology of inheritance (cf. Gal. 3:15-18), clearly understood the term diaqh/kh
(“testament”) in its normal sense. It amounts to special pleading to take the term otherwise, although
many have succumbed to this. For this reason many translations of the New Testament frequently
use the word “covenant” to translate the Greek “testament.” This, however, not infrequently leads to considerable confusion. A good example is Hebrews 9:15-18 where the author consistently uses the
word “testament,” but translations translate the same word sometimes with “covenant” and
sometimes with “testament.” If we read this passage with the concept of a testament in mind we see
how clearly the author speaks:
And for this reason he [i.e. Jesus] is the mediator of a new testament, in order that since a
death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the
first testament, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a
testament is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it
lives. Therefore even the first testament was not inaugurated without blood.
in summary:
 every time you read the word ‘covenant’ in a translation of the New Testament, you ought to
read the word ‘testament’.

Jesus leaves us a testament: The new testament in Jesus’ blood
The Lord in his glory (shechinah) finally returned to his people in the person of his only begotten Son,
Jesus Christ. The apostle John alludes to this aspect of Jesus’ incarnation when he speaks of the
Word which was God (Joh. 1:1), which became flesh and “tabernacled” among men who beheld his
glory (Joh. 1:14). Jesus himself announced the inauguration of the new testament in his blood when
he instituted the Lord’s Supper among his disciples at the Passover meal before his crucifixion.
According to Luke 22:20 Jesus spoke specifically of the new testament in his blood. We have already
seen above how Jesus alluded to the covenant ceremony in Exodus 24, and to the expiation his
blood would provide for sin. The disciples, having grown up with the Greek Septuagint translation, will
have been accustomed to thinking of the old covenant in terms of a testament. Jesus, at the last
supper, added a new dimension when he spoke of the new testament in his own blood. The term
“testament” now receives most appropriately its proper significance—he would die in order that they
might inherit!

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by manna2

Thank you for that, it increases my knowledge. But the New Testament/Covenant is still sealed by an act. I will agree that the sins have been forgiven, but it is not until one has complete faith in the bible, every word, that one can truly live under the New Testament/Covenant.
This is the faith required by Christ. You must have faith in four things God, the Son, the Spirit, and the Word. Without this complete faith you really have no faith. Most Christians do not have this type of faith as they continue to debate the word and accept man’s knowledge as truth, over the bible.

I will include several examples.

If one believes in Evolution one does not have complete faith.
If one believe the Earth is more than 6000 years old one does not have complete faith.
If one does not believe that they are capable of being free from sin one does not have complete faith.
If one does not believe that they can be given the power to heal and perform miracles one does not have complete faith.

If you go to a church that does not require women to cover their heads they do not have complete faith.
If you go to a church that does not teach Christ can free you from sin they do not have complete faith.

Without this complete faith it is as if you have no faith.

edit on 3-12-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2011 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by manna2

. . .way then you make Yashayah a liar and a partial sacrifice . . .

If you were a Christian, I would be happy to discuss Christianity with you but apparently you are a heretical follower of a rival religion so it makes no sense for me to discuss whatever your religion is, seeing how you do not believe in Jesus and have invented your own messiah to replace him with.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:51 AM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Are you offended by His Hebrew name? My use of it?
Did He not claim to come in His Fathers name?
Hayah Hayah (I AM I AM)
Is Yeshua more fitting (I "will be" savior")Or Yashayah (I AM Savior)
When He appeared to Saul of Tarsus what language can we assume they conversed in?
Jesus taught in Aramaic to His disciples.
He spoke Hebrew. Saul as well.
Did they converse in greek? English? (that "J" sound)
Was that really what you expect them to speak in during that conversation?
Is Yah an unfamilar name to you? How come?
Acts 26:14, Acts 4:12 and The Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words English word: "Savior" 3467 (yâsha) Hebrew word: 3467 "yâsha" (yaw-shah)

There is no letter "J" in the Hebrew or Greek languages.

Christ’s Name~

Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS?: for he shall save his people from their sins.


in Hebrew means

to save, be saved, be delivered
to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
to be saved (in battle), be victorious
to save, deliver
to save from moral troubles
to give victory to


Am I to understand you find me blasphemous to seek out His name in His language out of the respect I chose in wanting to know it in His language?
Or are we to be more concerned with honoring the traditions of man?

I can feel comfortable calling Him Jesus in public so as not to confuse the unknowing because this is more of a heart issue at this point I believe.
He is concerned with peoples hearts.
He reads hearts, not lips.
But I do believe it is His name and out of the UTMOST respect I use it in His honor simply because He IS SAVIOR
He is the great "I AM"

The trouble I have found is this.
How in the world do we translate from Yashayah into Jesus?
In the 1611 KJV it is the greek which is Iesous. Again, no "J" sound
I like this guys work on word studies

I don't know.
Maybe you have done a better word study on His name than me so I will wait for you to show where I am wrong.
I am simply a beggar seeking to show other beggars where to find bread and you might be able to steer me on the right path and I humbly wait for you to show me my errors.
edit: I believe Yeshua or Joshua translated into "Will be Savior" which makes sense from an old testament perspective as He had not come yet and all was looking forward to that day of Emmanuels coming.

What I am sure of is that God is about the worst use I have found.
I use it but as time goes on it is becoming harder and harder as it just does not feel right anymore.
I mean, to the world, which god?
Words have meaning, do they not?

oh, Yah hates religion.
Religions are divisions of the truth.
Religions seek to earn the acceptance of a god/God/God for favors or entrance.
I am a disciple of the Savior and I seek His acceptance and want to do His will, though I am a horrible failure in doing so on a daily basis, yet I know He loves me and will not forsake me. I trust and believe He will not give up on me until His work in me is perfected.
I am learning not to care so much anymore in the acceptance of man or the multitude of sects or religions. I crave His love. I someday hope to be worthy of it is all.

edit on 4-12-2011 by manna2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2011 by manna2 because: Because I never can seem to complete my thoughts before I post

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by manna2

That is all philosophy over the Bible, and I mean the Christian Bible,
which is commonly called the New Testament.
So you apparently reject the Bible which would tell you about salvation,
and have created your own system, thus making it a rival religion,
commonly called the anti-christ.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:27 AM
reply to post by jmdewey60

I used scripture to reason with you and you accuse me using your own understanding.
You make a claim using philosophy, YOURS!
I attempt to reason with you using the Word and nothing but the word in the same way the Bereans tested Paul, with scripture.
I have to say, I expected more from you than blanket accusations with no foundation to support yourself.
I guess there is a club I need to belong to for it to appeal to you?
I used no philosphy of the world but ONLY that within the Bible.
Nothing else, nada!
I guess Martin Luther isn't someone you are too fond of eh?
I need a priest to interpret plain as day scripture for me?
Do I need to attend a seminary first?
I never once ventured outside of the scriptures addressingh you and yet you accuse me of blasphemy and antichrist meddling.
I will patiently wait for YOU to begin using scripture for something other than a weapon to beat those you disagree with over the head.
And I assume you assume they cannot read and reason for themselves to get away with it.
You are found wanting sir, not by me but by the Word that has been presented to you and everyone else in the open and easily discerned by those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
I used nothing but the word and everything in context.
You seem bound by the traditions of man and seek to teach those traditions in a way that serves the accuser and not Yah.
This saddens me.
I expected more. Sorry I got in the way of your ego trip.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by AllUrChips

Nobody, because if they have a need to argue then they are wrong. I am a Christian, but I am right because all I do if focus on the word, the demonstration that those who have seen Jesus told us about. Thats why I am seperate from religious people, they put themselves in a vulnerable position because by having those religious beliefs they allow themselves to be argued against for the standing they take in life. The reason why I think it is wrong is because they are standing up for wordly beliefs and not spiritual beliefs. Jesus would not agree with standing up for worldly systems and beliefs.

It's not easy to be right, but I stand up for it.

By the way I just totally called you out.
edit on 4-12-2011 by greyer because: I called you out

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by manna2

. . . and yet you accuse me of blasphemy and antichrist meddling.

you would not be committing blasphemy according to the standards of your own religion but your religion is not Christianity. It is one you invented. To me, a religion which believes in a Christ but this Christ is someone other than Jesus, then that religion is anti-christ, as in presenting another Christ as a substitute for Jesus.
Christianity is based on the New Testament, which was written in Greek and it shows Jesus as being named, Jesus. That is not a translation of his "real" name, but is his actual name. There are some Aramaic words in the NT where the original words need to be used to show a specific meaning to the people involved in the story or for the readers of theses stories. If there was actually another name that Jesus was called, there is no reason it would not just come out and say so. Since it does not, then it is safe to assume there is no reason to call Jesus any name other than, Jesus.

When I was young (as in 40 years ago, or so) I remember people, in church and at school and things, would say something like, "If there is a persecution of Christians, then I know I will never renounce the name of Jesus."
Well now we have a multitude of so-called Christians who are only too eager to renounce the name of Jesus for the sake of a new, snazzier sounding philosophy, and no torture chambers or prisons necessary.
The world is undergoing a tribulation right now but a spiritual shaking and those who fall will be lost eternally.
Here is a verse I was looking at this morning in relation to the thread on Paul.
Revelation 2:3,4
I am also aware that you have persisted steadfastly, endured much for the sake of my name, and have not grown weary. But I have this against you: You have departed from your first love!

edit on 4-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by manna2

IMO Martin Luther was a depraved man who dragged many to hell. Same with Calvin. They're not ideal role models if you actually read their words and actions.

The new covenant is communion.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

And I can assure you I have not departed from my first love.
It was not but a few hundred years ago that the "J" sound was added and most definately not used by the church fathers.
The "J" sound is not in the greek language.
I am beginning to believe you that we do not worship the same Lord.
Mine is found in scripture and supported in scripture and I seek scripture for discernment, not the traditions of man.
Words have meanings my friend and is the reason for my word studies in scripture that I may be discerning.
What you are doing is using copyrighted books edited by men to discount the history that is easily found by common study tools.
I told you before I have no problem using the name Jesus to share with the unknowing as Yah reads mans hearts where we cannot.
They, as you are, are ignorant to this history of the wordsmiths that have been at work to hide simple truths about our savior.
You have judged yourself by ignoring scripture to seek a god that answers to your dictation and you are proving to lack discernment when presented with simple truths.
So yes, I believe you that you choose to honor a god that is different from who I choose to honor in both deed and truth.
We shall know them by their fruits, right?
You do the work of your father accusing the brethren day and night and weild the Word as a weapon accusing the innocent to serve your self righteous piety.
I stand in and upon the Word and have brought to the table simple and provable truths. Show me where I am wrong.
Test my heart and do as the Bereans and search out the scriptures to reprove me.
I love it when men correct me in the Word where I am at fault.
But you have yet to attempt that even a little.
Instead, you seek to accuse me using a tradition of man that cannot be supported by the Word itself.
I will repeat, the "J" sound does not exist in the Greek or the Hebrew.
It is a fairly recent tradition that was COMPLETELY nonexistant to the early church fathers.
So I have to ask you. Why do you choose to accuse the brethren on this site?
Is that supported in scripture anywhere?
Hint: Jesus confronted it claiming it was the actions of the enmeies children as they did as their father did, accusing the brethren night and day.
I originally set out to engage in dialogue with you but I now am aware you don't seek the approval of our Father in Heaven but that of men. You can accuse me all you want but I am confident in the Word that it supports me and not you.
That is why you cannot use scripture in any way other than as a weapon to accuse the brethren.
You have dug a deep hole here.
I have to say I am surprised.
The only leg you have to stand on is that of a man that must believe Jesus talked in English to English speaking disciples.
And as a result all those that cannot accept that as truth is a heretic.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:43 PM
ok, I will ask you a VERY simple question.
Did Jesus teach in Greek or Aramaic.
He was a Rebbi remember.
I really don't want to ask you if He taught his disciples using the english language, that would just be too silly.

Having said that, He taught that a house divided is sure to fall.
I have not ventured away from His teachings or scripture at all, but you have.
I guess we are both to be judged by our fruits and I am not offended at all, anymore, that you accuse me of being a heretic. You don't seem to want to use scripture to support your accusations at all, unless we accept your chosen transliteration from a transliteration.

I don't know why I didn't think of this.
So, you are accusing all the mexican and spanish speaking Christians of blasphemy and heresy? They pronounce it Iesous, as it is in the Greek.
As it was in the KJV 1611 Authorized version, which btw is in English.
So only English speakers are saved?
edit on 4-12-2011 by manna2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by AllUrChips

As a Catholic, I'd like to say I think all religions have some element of truth to them.

If God is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, it only stands to reason that He is a Myriad of expressions, manifestations and so forth...I don't think it should really be thought of as Us vs Them, but more "oh cool, we do something similiar..." and the sharing of expressions and traditions.

You know, kind of reverse engineering the Tower of Babel.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by GENERAL EYES

If there was an actual god of Babylon, then you would be all set.
God does not need anyone's permission in order to be omnipresent.
God's existence is not dependent on being recognized.
Our continued existence is dependent on us recognizing the existence of a good spiritual entity, where that path has been spelled out for us by His son, Jesus.
Having a good God means we need to be good ourselves and to do the will of God in order to live, and in a way we would find preferable over something such as Hell, for example.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by manna2

He was a Rebbi remember.

That was commonly used as an honerary title of respect for a teacher one would like to learn from and possibly become a disciple of.
For the rest, I would refer you to my thread, People Who Pronounce and Spell the Name of Jesus In Weird Old Testament Variants are Going to Hell.

edit on 4-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by redbarron626
The Buddhists are right.

Jim Morrison was right, but he died.

" 5 is 1 and 1 is 5. No one here gets out alive."

'5 IN 1, 1 in 5,' not is

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:10 PM
By post number three you had given you self away, it was clear you intentions were combative. When John the Baptist baptized Jesus, Jesus came up from the water immediately, and behold, the Heavens were opened to him, and He saw The Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on Him........ and suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". Thus, the Son of God....
Later.... Jesus said.
"do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill, For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled"

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His Spirit. Then behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. thus the open access all man have to God through the death of Christ. Both Jews and Christians...

When the curtain was torn, the old testament continued into the new testament, and all men could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The new testament superseded the old testament.

Why do you seek to confound yourself? The new testament is the Word of God. the evidence should be clear, buy I fear you don't really want an answer, If you believe man to be fallible, then seek the Lord, you will find your answer there. If you believe in God, then his word you must believe as well. Christ many times refered to himself as the 'Word' and said "no one comes to the Father but by ME", God had said, " This is My beloved Son whom I am well pleased"

May you find the answer in your heart through the inspiration of God.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by Plotus

. . . Christ many times referred to himself as the 'Word' . . .

You may want to quote one of those verses because I am not finding one.
Jesus is "the name", more than "the word", which is the Gospel.

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:34 PM
Start with John 1 verse 1 ... John 1 verse14..... Revelation 19 verse 13.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in