God Rebukes Lady Who Knows His True Hebrew Name For Continuing To Use The J Name?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 

I provided evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic, from the fact that the gospels quote words and phrases that he used (e.g TALITHA KOUM, ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI).
I do not need, and did not claim, to provide evidence for what languages he did not speak.




edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


In debate what you just said is called "arbitrariness". It's meaningless to just arbitrarily assert something as a fact statement that is unsupported. Where is your source?


I am not debating, I am speaking the truth.

Those with an antichrist spirit want to wipe out the only saving name of Jesus. They create this idea of no "j" sound, change God's name to a guess name based off the Babylonian YHWH, and use the name of the Egyptian moon god in most of their guess names. They then claim that the name of Jesus means "pig god".

While you have not fully accepted their teachings, you are on the path they have created. Once a person is on a path, they may pause in a spot for awhile, but they usually continue on to the end. I am concerned that you may someday, completely deny the name of Jesus.


Show me one source from an expert in the Biblical languages that either Greek or Hebrew have a "J" phonetic sound. You'll make history.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


In addition, the name of Yahveh is made up of two words. Yah, the Egyptian moon god and the Hebrew word "ahveh".

What does "ahveh" mean? Let's check Strong's concordance.

----------------------------------------------
Strong's # 5773

1) distorting, perverting, warping
---------------------------------------------

Yahveh means "moon god of distortion/perversion/warping"
edit on 19-10-2012 by truejew because: (no reason given)


Wouldn't that be "Yahahveh" then?

Btw, do you know what Elijah's Aramaic name is? Elijah is how we say it in English, but that's not Aramaic. Do you know?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by truejew
 

I provided evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic, from the fact that the gospels quote words and phrases that he used (e.g TALITHA KOUM, ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI).
I do not need, and did not claim, to provide evidence for what languages he did not speak.




edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


Not to mention it's impossible to prove a negative.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by truejew
 

I provided evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic, from the fact that the gospels quote words and phrases that he used (e.g TALITHA KOUM, ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI).
I do not need, and did not claim, to provide evidence for what languages he did not speak.
edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


Do you have the originals with the Aramaic in them?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Show me one source from an expert in the Biblical languages that either Greek or Hebrew have a "J" phonetic sound. You'll make history.


I can, but won't.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Show me one source from an expert in the Biblical languages that either Greek or Hebrew have a "J" phonetic sound. You'll make history.


I can, but won't.


Then your argument remains arbitrary and irrelevant, your choice.


Likewise, when it comes to logic, we are not permitted to be arbitrary. This is the whole point of rational debate. The goal is to show that we have a good reason for our position, and that it is not arbitrary. In a debate, to be arbitrary is to concede defeat. It is to say, “I don’t really have a good reason for my position.”


Arbitrariness.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
Do you have the originals with the Aramaic in them?

I repeat the point I made before.
ALL the gospel manuscripts which contain the words of Jesus include the Aramaic words and phrases.
The evidence that Jesus used Aramaic as just as strong as the evidence that Jesus said anything at all, or even existed, because it is exactly the same evidence
Once you start denying that evidence, you are denying the existence of Jesus. And where does that put you?

And your demand for "originals" is a little hypocritical, is it not, because you have no "original" documents whatever for any of the claims that you're making?


edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 



Show me one source from an expert in the Biblical languages that either Greek or Hebrew have a "J" phonetic sound. You'll make history.


I can, but won't.


Then your argument remains arbitrary and irrelevant, your choice.


Likewise, when it comes to logic, we are not permitted to be arbitrary. This is the whole point of rational debate. The goal is to show that we have a good reason for our position, and that it is not arbitrary. In a debate, to be arbitrary is to concede defeat. It is to say, “I don’t really have a good reason for my position.”


Arbitrariness.




I am not debating. I am telling the truth. What you do with the info is up to you and the other posters and readers.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by truejew
Do you have the originals with the Aramaic in them?

I repeat the point I made before.
ALL the gospel manuscripts which contain the words of Jesus include the Aramaic words and phrases.
The evidence that Jesus used Aramaic as just as strong as the evidence that Jesus said anything at all, or even existed, because it is exactly the same evidence
Once you start denying that evidence, you are denying the existence of Jesus. And where does that put you?

And your demand for "originals" is a little hypocritical, is it not, because you have no "original" documents whatever for any of the claims that you're making?


edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


Not hypocritical at all. You said you have manuscripts that prove Jesus spoke Aramaic. For that to be, they would have to be the originals.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
You said you have manuscripts that prove Jesus spoke Aramaic

That is false. Never at any time did I claim to possess any manuscripts.
We are now down to repetition of statements.
As I said before, ALL manuscripts of the gospels contain the Aramaic words and phrases.
.

For that to be, they would have to be the originals.

As I said before, exactly the same logic applies to ALL the teaching of Jesus. We have absolutely nothing of Jesus except in copied manuscripts. Once you deny that evidence, you are denying the existence of Jesus. And who, without the spirit of antichrist, denies the existence of Jesus?

And as I said before, your demand is hypocritical because you are demanding from others what you are unwilling to provide yourself. You say you want "original" manuscripts, which don't exist for any part of scripture, or for any other literature of that time. And yet you cannot provide such "originals" for your own argument. That is operating a double standard,. That is being a hypocrite.




edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Yes, that's a special pleading fallacy.


Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Special Pleading Fallacy.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 


Debating or not it's still irrational logic. One doesn't need to be is a classically defined "debate" to be using faulty logic, or on the other hand, one doesn't get a free-pass to be irrational and illogical if not in a classic or official "debate",.. sorry.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

That is false. Never at any time did I claim to possess any manuscripts.


You did claim that you had proof that Jesus spoke Aramaic. That could not be without the originals or some other proof that shows that the words really were spoken in Aramaic.


Originally posted by DISRAELI

As I said before, ALL manuscripts of the gospels contain the Aramaic words and phrases.


Unless you have at least seen all manuscripts, I don't know how you could say that for sure.


Originally posted by DISRAELI

As I said before, exactly the same logic applies to ALL the teaching of Jesus. We have absolutely nothing of Jesus except in copied manuscripts. Once you deny that evidence, you are denying the existence of Jesus. And who, without the spirit of antichrist, denies the existence of Jesus?


So those who are not sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic, deny His existence? Does not make sense to me.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Debating or not it's still irrational logic. One doesn't need to be is a classically defined "debate" to be using faulty logic, or on the other hand, one doesn't get a free-pass to be irrational and illogical if not in a classic or official "debate",.. sorry.


I do not want to post a source due to the personal attacks that occurred the last time I posted a source. I think that is very rational logic.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew
You did claim that you had proof that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

That is untrue. You are a sloppy reader. I said I was providing evidence.

[ That could not be without the originals or some other proof that shows that the words really were spoken in Aramaic.

Manuscripts of any kind are evidence, which is all I was claiming.
Copied manuscripts need to be used as evidence because they are all we've got.
For that matter. you haven't got anything better for your own statements.




So those who are not sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic, deny His existence? Does not make sense to me.

Those who deny the value of the gospel evidence that Jesus used Aramaic words and phrases are also denying the value of the evidence that he said anything at all or that he existed, BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME EVIDENCE.
You cannot deny one without denying the other.


[
edit on 19-10-2012 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Show me one source from an expert in the Biblical languages that either Greek or Hebrew have a "J" phonetic sound. You'll make history.
Bruce M. Metzger, one of the most respected New Testament scholars, in Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, he has a chart on the transliteration of Greek letters and for Ι or ι, when at the beginning of a word and followed by a vowel, is pronounced j, and he gives the examples of, jot, and Jesus.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Show me one source from an expert in the Biblical languages that either Greek or Hebrew have a "J" phonetic sound. You'll make history.
Bruce M. Metzger, one of the most respected New Testament scholars, in Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, he has a chart on the transliteration of Greek letters and for Ι or ι, when at the beginning of a word and followed by a vowel, is pronounced j, and he gives the examples of, jot, and Jesus.


Well, show us this.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew
 


Debating or not it's still irrational logic. One doesn't need to be is a classically defined "debate" to be using faulty logic, or on the other hand, one doesn't get a free-pass to be irrational and illogical if not in a classic or official "debate",.. sorry.


I do not want to post a source due to the personal attacks that occurred the last time I posted a source. I think that is very rational logic.


I was in that thread. Your source was attacked for running a diploma mill and for having a Doctorate of Divinity which is not an expert in Biblical languages.
edit on 19-10-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by truejew
 





You did claim that you had proof that Jesus spoke Aramaic. That could not be without the originals or some other proof that shows that the words really were spoken in Aramaic.


Disraeli provided biblical evidence Jesus spoke aramaic by his quoting Jesus on the cross "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani" and that is aramaic. It was biblical evidence, and he was daring you to contradict the scriptures, because if you don't believe the only thing we have written of Jesus, then you have nothing to go on but your own imagination.






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join