Do Freemasons worship demons!? I used to think not. Then I read this.

reply to post by NarrowGate


If your religious beliefs need to be taken on faith and not evidence...

Then what do you say to all the other religions that disagree with you and also claim faith is the path to their beliefs?

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Straight from the horses mouth! Thank you for confirming God's Word for me again btw. You would have had to actually read the Gospel to understand that statement..so I doubt you will.

You do realise that I long since stopped taking your posts seriously don't you?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

If your religious beliefs need to be taken on faith and not evidence...

Then what do you say to all the other religions that disagree with you and also claim faith is the path to their beliefs?

What other religions? You would have to be specific and then I would have to look up what they actually believe.
Past that the way you worded that post is deceptive. I believe in the One True God. If they believe in something else, they are on the path to destruction - not their beliefs.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Straight from the horses mouth! Thank you for confirming God's Word for me again btw. You would have had to actually read the Gospel to understand that statement..so I doubt you will.

You do realise that I long since stopped taking your posts seriously don't you?

You were serious stop lying.

or are you admitting that the Bible is more reliable than google!? You can't eat your cake and have it too in this situation.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
This is not a rational debate.

I know this and stated as much, you are very far from rational.

I could play your stupid quote game and show you exactly how insulting you have been...

We all know your past history when asked to supply quotes and sources so why bother.

SO, this is how this works, I do not consider that a credible source and past that I have no audio spoken in Hebrew from a reliable institution. 0. I do not believe you.

See, the thing is, I do not care if you believe me. I posted the links so other people would not believe you and your rampant misinformation. This has been accomplished succinctly.

Otherwise all I see is the spelling changing to fit the language, not the pronunciation.

I know it is hard for you to grasp but Hebrew and Aramaic existed before English.

If you can not provide this, I am calling you a liar. It would be ALL OVER the internet.

Why Uncle Ponto, it is all over the internet, you can use any search engine you want and type in 'Jesus etymology' and get 6,040,000 results. Check a few out and report back to us with what you find.

That is if you can bear removing your blindfold for more than a few seconds.

It would be taught in school.

Why, Uncle Ponto, it is taught in school, as evidenced by this list of scholarly publications used to source the online etymology dictionary where is found this supporting origin of the name Jesus:

Jesus
late 12c. (Old English used hælend "savior"), from Greek Iesous, which is an attempt to render into Greek the Aramaic proper name Jeshua (Hebrew Yeshua) "Jah is salvation," a common Jewish personal name, the later form of Hebrew Yehoshua (see Joshua).

eta by reliable I mean Catholic btw.

Oh, looky, Uncle Ponto, even your Catholic Church recognizes this with the Catholic Encyclopedia which was designed to help the Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus
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."

And finally, Uncle Ponto, from the Holy See itself:

The name Jesus (‘Yeshua’ or ‘Yehoshuah’ in Hebrew) is usually understood to mean ‘The Lord saves’.

Is the Vatican a high enough authority for you my dear, dear Uncle?


I am so sorry Uncle Ponto that you had to learn this from me, it gave me no joy to show you the gross error of your history-ignorant ways.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


So I take it I am getting no audio from a reliable institution? all that for nothing.

to quote your source

Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common (Josephus, "Ant.", XV, ix, 2; XVII, xiii, 1; XX, ix, 1; "Bel. Jud.", III, ix, 7; IV, iii, 9; VI, v, 5; "Vit.", 22) it was imposed on our Lord by God's express order (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21), to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins."



AS for your quote, Jehova is not the name of God, or part of it, and never has been a name for God. It was developed in the middle ages. tell me you don't need a source for that...

You are misconstruing things? You can't just give me the audio huh?

Originally posted by NarrowGate
So I take it I am getting no audio from a reliable institution?

all that for nothing.

Nah, I figured that as a self avowed Catholic you would take the Vatican's word for it. By I see that in the the 3 minutes between my posting an extensively sourced reply and your one line, brainless retort, you did not bother to read what your own Mother Church had to say about the J-man's name origins.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
AS for your quote, Jehova is not the name of God...

It was certainly Jesus name according to the all-powerful Catholic Church, who kind of invented Catholocism if memory serves me:

Jesus
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."

The name Jesus (‘Yeshua’ or ‘Yehoshuah’ in Hebrew) is usually understood to mean ‘The Lord saves’.

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Straight from the horses mouth! Thank you for confirming God's Word for me again btw. You would have had to actually read the Gospel to understand that statement..so I doubt you will.

You do realise that I long since stopped taking your posts seriously don't you?

You were serious stop lying.

or are you admitting that the Bible is more reliable than google!? You can't eat your cake and have it too in this situation.

edit on 20-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Right - the Old Testament is a great account by a Bronze and then Iron Age people of what they witnessed. Or kind of witnessed, because there have been claims that some parts, such as the bits about the size of the kingdom created by Saul, then David and then Solomon, were manipulated for political purposes by subsequent kings. The New Testament I find to be extremely suspicious, mostly because we have no real idea what's been cut out of it by the early church. Oh and then there's the bits by Paul. Who seems to have taken the early church in a different direction than might have been originally intended before the Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NarrowGate
So I take it I am getting no audio from a reliable institution?

all that for nothing.

Nah, I figured that as a self avowed Catholic you would take the Vatican's word for it. By I see that in the the 3 minutes between my posting an extensively sourced reply and your one line, brainless retort, you did not bother to read what your own Mother Church had to say about the J-man's name origins.

? They never said it was pronounced different. Just spelled different.

Can you provide audio or not?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Straight from the horses mouth! Thank you for confirming God's Word for me again btw. You would have had to actually read the Gospel to understand that statement..so I doubt you will.

You do realise that I long since stopped taking your posts seriously don't you?

You were serious stop lying.

or are you admitting that the Bible is more reliable than google!? You can't eat your cake and have it too in this situation.

edit on 20-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Right - the Old Testament is a great account by a Bronze and then Iron Age people of what they witnessed. Or kind of witnessed, because there have been claims that some parts, such as the bits about the size of the kingdom created by Saul, then David and then Solomon, were manipulated for political purposes by subsequent kings. The New Testament I find to be extremely suspicious, mostly because we have no real idea what's been cut out of it by the early church. Oh and then there's the bits by Paul. Who seems to have taken the early church in a different direction than might have been originally intended before the Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD.

You just wasted your time. Answer the question or stop trying to do...whatever it is you are trying to do.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NarrowGate
AS for your quote, Jehova is not the name of God...

It was certainly Jesus name according to the all-powerful Catholic Church, who kind of invented Catholocism if memory serves me:

Jesus
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."

The name Jesus (‘Yeshua’ or ‘Yehoshuah’ in Hebrew) is usually understood to mean ‘The Lord saves’.

Out of context quotes. They never said that. Further, you should bother looking into it..... I already have....

Great here it comes...now you are going to tell me Jesus was an Archangel. Get off of my doorstep.

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Straight from the horses mouth! Thank you for confirming God's Word for me again btw. You would have had to actually read the Gospel to understand that statement..so I doubt you will.

You do realise that I long since stopped taking your posts seriously don't you?

You were serious stop lying.

or are you admitting that the Bible is more reliable than google!? You can't eat your cake and have it too in this situation.

edit on 20-1-2013 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Right - the Old Testament is a great account by a Bronze and then Iron Age people of what they witnessed. Or kind of witnessed, because there have been claims that some parts, such as the bits about the size of the kingdom created by Saul, then David and then Solomon, were manipulated for political purposes by subsequent kings. The New Testament I find to be extremely suspicious, mostly because we have no real idea what's been cut out of it by the early church. Oh and then there's the bits by Paul. Who seems to have taken the early church in a different direction than might have been originally intended before the Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD.

You just wasted your time. Answer the question or stop trying to do...whatever it is you are trying to do.

Ok. Google is far, far, more reliable than the bible. Happy now?

Originally posted by NarrowGate
They never said it was pronounced different. Just spelled different.

And being that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have the letter 'J' (or the 'J' sound) how could it have been pronounced the same? Hell, even the Romans and Greeks did not have the letter 'J' so it would not have been pronounced the same there either.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


No, I am saddened. I am only happy that you finally admitted it. You told a lie to make yourself look better.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

No, I am saddened. I am only happy that you finally admitted it. You told a lie to make yourself look better.

Which lie would that be then?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by NarrowGate
They never said it was pronounced different. Just spelled different.

And being that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have the letter 'J' (or the 'J' sound) how could it have been pronounced the same? Hell, even the Romans and Greeks did not have the letter 'J' so it would not have been pronounced the same there either.

Is this a serious post?


Put up or shut up please. I know you are an expert at taking things out of context, I am looking for audio proof from a reliable institution of your claims.

BTW, good job explaining why it was spelled different......

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

No, I am saddened. I am only happy that you finally admitted it. You told a lie to make yourself look better.

Which lie would that be then?

5 steps back great. I thought we were making progress.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
Out of context quotes. They never said that.

They most certainly did if you had taken the time to visit the Vatican website and the Catholic Encyclopedia. They explain the origins of the name 'Jesus'.

Great here it comes...now you are going to tell me Jesus was an Archangel.

Huh? Do you always go off on non-sequitors when you cannot address sources properly?

Try using the Vatican (like I did) to support your point. Quote something that refutes what they already have posted on their official website.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
5 steps back great. I thought we were making progress.

Nope, I'm just sitting back and enjoying myself right now. What was your point again?