Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by truejew

There is no Holy language, however the name of Jesus was originally a Hebrew name. The name of Jesus is just as Holy whether spoken in Hebrew, Greek, English...

Yes!

Have you heard of New Names? They are names that don't carry a bunch of baggage.

A negative example is: You don't find Christians naming their child Judas. They just don't do that.

Jesus does not need to mean anything in Hebrew, even if it does, it's irrelevant, because Jesus himself gives the meaning to the name. That's the name of the Greatest, because Jesus made it so. I don't think it's an English name originally, but when English speakers say it, they mean the name that Jesus himself has sanctified.

reply to post by pthena


However, the meaning that Jesus gives the name, is the same as the name's meaning in Hebrew, which is Jeh delivers/saves.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

Who cares what Reckart has to say about it? He's not a scholar of ancient documents, an expert in dating or a credible source of information on any subject that conflicts with his claims.

He feeds off people who accept his word for something he knows nothing about (like saying that the Didache was written in 1000AD) because of their complete lack of critical thinking.

What? The Did ache dates to the mid to late first century. Scores of early church fathers debated on whether it should be considered a part of the canon or not.

Reckart apparently believes that either the early Church Fathers could see into the future, or that the author of the Didache had a time machine and took it into the past, because despite the historical evidence that it existed in the First or Second Century, Reckard's "scholarly analysis" of the text leads him to the conclusion that it was written in the Tenth or Eleventh Century, a fact repeated by "TrueJew" in this thread (or the other one, I forget.)

You gotta be kidding.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not exactly credible when it comes to the name of God. The reason for that is that YHWH has been forged into them.

So do you have sources older than the Dead Sea scrolls that show there was never the Name YHVH in them?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

edit on 26-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I was mistaken earlier, when I posted the above it was from the archaeologists who found and dated the scrolls.

They are from king Josiah's reign, while the first time was in operation. Now that you are aware of them will you admit that the Name YHVH wasn't added or changed in the OT during the Babylonian exile?

My previous post on them is correct.

No it isn't. The archaeologists date the scrolls to the reign of king Josiah, you claimed they were from king Jehoiakim.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not exactly credible when it comes to the name of God. The reason for that is that YHWH has been forged into them.

So do you have sources older than the Dead Sea scrolls that show there was never the Name YHVH in them?

Do you have any old, credible sources that do have YHWH in them? If you would do research into YHWH instead of taking the word of the Talmudists, you would see that it is connected to idols and witchcraft.

reply to post by truejew

Jeh delivers/saves

I don't know what that means. Must I become a Hebrew scholar to know Jesus? Must I become a Torah scholar to know Jesus?

John 12:30 Jesus answered, "“This voice hasn’t come for my sake, but for your sakes. 31 Now is the judgment of this world. Now the prince of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”" 33 But he said this, signifying by what kind of death he should die. 34 The multitude answered him, “We have heard out of the law that the Christ remains forever. How do you say, "‘The Son of Man must be lifted up?’" Who is this Son of Man?”
-WEB

Whatever the multitude heard from the law, didn't seem to be matching up. I don't think Jesus has limited his ministry of drawing people to himself to only Hebrew speakers or only experts in the law.

I think that Jesus can call people who have never spoken a word of Hebrew. I think that Jesus can call people who have never seen an Old Testament before. It may help if people have read the Gospels of Mark and John though.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And you have a problem, the archaeologists date the scrolls to the time of king Josiah, not Jehoakim. So what evidence do you have that the Jews corrupted the Name of God in Babylon when the oldest OT fragments/script in existence uses the Name YHVH? Which also predates the exile to the first temple era?

The scrolls are dated to 600 BC. Pastor Reckart thinks they are older, but not the 100 - 150 years older that you claim. King Josiah lived 649–609 BC, which is within that time period like I said.

edit on 26-5-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I was mistaken earlier, when I posted the above it was from the archaeologists who found and dated the scrolls.

They are from king Josiah's reign, while the first time was in operation. Now that you are aware of them will you admit that the Name YHVH wasn't added or changed in the OT during the Babylonian exile?

My previous post on them is correct.

No it isn't. The archaeologists date the scrolls to the reign of king Josiah, you claimed they were from king Jehoiakim.

King Jehoiakim and king Josiah were from around the same time period. The northern kingdoms had been exiled in 740 BC due to their YHWH worship and Judah had been infected with YHWH and would be exiled in 606 BC. The silver scrolls were from this time period of YHWH worship as I said.

I am surprised that the fact that these scrolls were made of silver and found to be used as an amulet, plus the use of YHWH in witchcraft and found in connection to idols, does not set off any warning bells for you.

reply to post by pthena


Jesus is what His name means in Hebrew. He is God delivers/saves. Knowing Hebrew is not necessary to salvation. However, knowledge of Hebrew can help to prove the Yahwehists and their followers wrong.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

There is no such name as "Jeshas" in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and where we see "Yeshua" in them, we see "Iesous" in the Septuagint, demonstrating that Iesous is derived from Yeshua, not your made up mystery name.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not exactly credible when it comes to the name of God. The reason for that is that YHWH has been forged into them.

So do you have sources older than the Dead Sea scrolls that show there was never the Name YHVH in them?

Do you have any old, credible sources that do have YHWH in them? If you would do research into YHWH instead of taking the word of the Talmudists, you would see that it is connected to idols and witchcraft.

You have to have evidence to point to in support of a claim. The oldest manuscripts in existence have YHVH for the Name of God, and the oldest known fragment that exists has YHVH for the Name of God. To make the claim that the original was changed to add that Name you would need something older to prove this.

Can you point to anything older than the DSS or the silver etchings?

reply to post by truejew


King Josiah was a righteous king, do you even read the Bible? And the etching was of the Aaronic blessing, that all the high priests wore.

reply to post by truejew

Do you have any old, credible sources that do have YHWH in them?

The oldest manuscripts in existence, the DSS have YHVH in them. And the silver scrolls which are the oldest fragment in existence has YHVH three times in it. It's from the first temple era. The oldest artifacts that exists all have that for His Name.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

King Josiah was a righteous king, do you even read the Bible?

I did not say he wasn't.

Continue to follow the Talmudist teaching if you like, but I am going to stay with Jesus Christ.

reply to post by truejew

However, knowledge of Hebrew can help to prove the Yahwehists and their followers wrong.

That seems to be a worthy goal. It should be a smaller part of a greater ministry in my opinion.

Weak people like myself have a very difficult time messing with the Old Testament gods. I had to stay away from it.

For myself, I had to take the advice of pseudo-Paul.

Titus 1:14 not paying attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

I could fool myself into thinking I was pure, but no, I'm not pure enough to deal with Old Testament gods. I think Jesus is pure enough. I'm sure of it.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

King Josiah was a righteous king, do you even read the Bible?

I did not say he wasn't.

Continue to follow the Talmudist teaching if you like, but I am going to stay with Jesus Christ.

The scrolls would predate the Babylonian Talmuds, they're from the first temple era. And not the era of evil, but from the era of king Josiah.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

King Josiah was a righteous king, do you even read the Bible?

I did not say he wasn't.

Continue to follow the Talmudist teaching if you like, but I am going to stay with Jesus Christ.

The scrolls would predate the Babylonian Talmuds, they're from the first temple era. And not the era of evil, but from the era of king Josiah.

Just because a king is good does not mean everyone under him is good.

reply to post by pthena

Must I become a Hebrew scholar to know Jesus?

No, the texts were written in 1500 different languages as part of the word being spread to all corners of the earth as part of the great comission. Rather than the arab god who hides his meanings in the arab language of Quran, ours is a multilingual God who seperated the language.

Must I become a Torah scholar to know Jesus?

No but it does help understand him more since all those things written in it are about him, and he said himself that Moses wrote about him and that the scrolls are about him and even that is found in the book of psalm #40 dating 1000 years before his birth.

Whatever the multitude heard from the law, didn't seem to be matching up.

Well Jesus did accuse the pharisees of holding the door to the kingdom, and refusing to allow anyone to enter in and they themselves wouldn't even go in (Matthew 23:13) and ofcrouse we see today that the children of the pharisees still hold to their doctrines which is what Talmud is, Rabbinical teachings from the pharisees.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by truejew

However, knowledge of Hebrew can help to prove the Yahwehists and their followers wrong.

That seems to be a worthy goal. It should be a smaller part of a greater ministry in my opinion.

Weak people like myself have a very difficult time messing with the Old Testament gods. I had to stay away from it.

For myself, I had to take the advice of pseudo-Paul.

Titus 1:14 not paying attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

I could fool myself into thinking I was pure, but no, I'm not pure enough to deal with Old Testament gods. I think Jesus is pure enough. I'm sure of it.

There are no "old testament gods", theres only One God. The prophets spoke explicitly about false prophets, priests and the corruption of the people going on that caused the exiles.

Paul wasn't fake either, he was teaching what Christ taught. He was a pharisee given to the gentile believers because they didn't know Torah raised from the cradle. He had to give them crash courses because heretics kept trying to throw stumbling blocks in the paths of the gentiles which was why he brought the matter to the Council of Jerusalem and he had to crawl up Peter's backside a time or two which caused tension between them.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by pthena

 

There is no Holy language, however the name of Jesus was originally a Hebrew name. The name of Jesus is just as Holy whether spoken in Hebrew, Greek, English...

"Jesus", pronounced "gee-zus", is not a Hebrew name. His Hebrew name, which his parents gave him and the Apostles called him, is Yeshua, pronounced "ye-shew-ə." If one insists on the Greek counterpart, his name is "Iesous", pronounced "ae-soo". Those are the two options of names that the Apostles supposedly said you had to baptize in, and neither is remotely close to "gee-zus", so it's time to stop acting like a brainwashed follower and attempt to do some critical thinking.

Either your theology is wrong, or every single "Apostolic Oneness" person has been condemned to damnation, because they used a name that they misunderstood the Apostles as saying had to be used, and the god of your theology is too cruel to allow any leeway in the matter.

You've criticized me for "rejecting the plan for salvation in Acts 2:38", but now that you've had it proven to you that the Apostles did not say "baptize in the name of gee-zus", it is you whose stubbornness and brainwashing are forcing you to reject said plan.

You have been asked, numerous times, to present credible evidence to support any of your claims, and the best that you've managed is links to Strong's Concordance which say quite the opposite of what you say they do. And this is in counter to actual valid historical evidence which shows Reckart and you are absolutely, without a doubt, wrong. He sticks to his story, because he's an elitist who wants to feel superior to the UPC, and you stick with it because you're apparently incapable of independent thought.

Unless you have actual evidence to present, not speculation and opinion presented as fact, I'm done arguing this point with you -- Jesus' name was not "gee-zus", it was "Yeshua", what we know as Joshua, and if you honestly believe that you must correctly pronounce the name that the Apostles used, then you had better be re-baptized, or you'll be condemned.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
You have to have evidence to point to in support of a claim. The oldest manuscripts in existence have YHVH for the Name of God, and the oldest known fragment that exists has YHVH for the Name of God. To make the claim that the original was changed to add that Name you would need something older to prove this.

An excellent example of the utter lack of critical thinking here -- given the fact that the oldest texts have those letters in them, one would need something prior, not subsequent, to demonstrate that the letters were added. Instead, we are to believe that these earliest of documents are "not to be trusted", and the only reason given is that they do not support the claims of Gary Reckart.

Unless one dismisses scripture as pointless twaddle, rather than holy texts, it seems outrageous to change them, delete things or ignore reality, simply because they contradict ones opinion, arrived at on faulty data in the 20th Century.