Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the few that find the way....home....
It is claimed that Iesous is a transliteration of Yeshua into Greek...
The full Hebrew of the name is Yehoshua; yet it was a common name of the time to shorten it into Yeshua.
Yeh like Victory, and Victorious, clearly the slight nuances in language have a reason for being there.
Yet trying to make a whole case by translating a phrase, with the words needed to make that ideology, rather then fit within the nuances, leads to error.
Plus if you ask Hebrew speakers, the word Yeshua means to save, not victory; no where is it translated as victory.
Would explain the whole case of the Taunting Riddle, and why it isn't by power or might; yet by the spirit of God, that everything would be fulfilled; if you weren't so convinced on what you already believe.
so only the Jews get to become gods?
The word used in both the Greek and Hebrew has several meanings, including God and his elect such as Judges, Kings, etc.
You really should read the whole contexts:
There is no 'J' in Hebrew; that is a translation of Yehoshua which we find translated as Joshua in Zechariah 3.
that one portion.....the works I do in my Father's name....No.
In John 10 Jesus is not claiming to be GOD, - he has challanged the Priest Judges, saying he is Anointed, Judge, or Magistrate. The Messiah was to bring the end and FINAL JUDGMENT!
When they claim he blasphemes, he quotes from Psalm 82 - Which is a whole section on bad judges, where they are told -
Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are (Elohiym), And all of you are the sons of the Most High."
Jesus is saying (as per the OT quote) He is a/or THE Anointed Judge/Magistrate = Messiah.
Joh 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christos/Messiah, tell us plainly.
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said, you are theos?
Joh 10:35 If he called them theos/elect/sons of God, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Both Elohiym in the Hebrew and theos in the greek have the meaning - elect - Judge/Magistrate - son of God, as well as God.
*
I agree.....the Carpenter was not an ordinary Man
Following an example, does not imply that one can do exactly the same
Hmm interesting.
I agree with part of what you said, but not all of it. I agree that the Son is not the Father, and that without the Father, there could be no Son. But I definitely believe the Son has a will of His own. If He didn't, the following would make no sense: "Not my will, but thine be done."
) sense, sounds a bit of keeping one's ego. "I want to keep my decisions even though I want to submit to god". As a Christian can you have both?
Well, for starters, we as Mormons don't believe in the Trinity, so we see the Father and the Son as physically distinct from one another. When Jesus prayed to His Father in Gethsemane, He knew what was coming and He definitely wasn't looking forward to it. I'm not speaking solely of the crucifixion either, since Mormons believe a big part of His Atonement took place in Gethsemane when He bled from every pore and required the assistance of a angel to survive the agony. He knew that His mission required that He suffer and die, but as the Son of a mortal woman, Mary, He had human qualities as well as divine qualities. The human part of Him reached out to His Father and merely asked for an alternative. He asked if there was any other way that His Father's plan be accomplished other than for Him to go through what lay ahead. At that moment, it was His will that He not have to be sacrificed. But, He told His Father that He would willingly relinquish His own will, if the Father's will was different. And when He received spiritual confirmation that this was the only way for mankind to be redeemed, He was willing to let go of His own will and unite with His Father. Even though He must still have been afraid, He was willing to say, "You know best." The thing is, He was in a position to be able to say, "Sorry, but I'm not going to go through with this after all." He was capable of avoiding death had He chosen to, but in the end, it was both His will and His Father's that He die.Katzpur, I had to poke you with this one. If Jesus is one with his father, does what his father wants of him, submissive to his father, and always teaches on his father's behalf, why would we assume that he has a will of his own when "it is not his will be done, but thine be done"? (assuming thine is the father?)
I changed pronouns so it can make sense in my paragraph. If he says "it is not my will" and the son has his own will, then he isn't in union with his father's decision.
It's like a marriage. Both parties say "I do" sure, but it's not their individual will as a marriage, it's a union-both their wills together.
To me, saying that anyone has their own will in a Christian (rather than Buddhist
You really should read the whole contexts:
(WEB) Psalms 44:4-7 You are my King, God. Command victories for Jacob! (5) Through you, will we push down our adversaries. Through your name, will we tread them under who rise up against us. (6) For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. (7) But you have saved us from our adversaries, and have shamed those who hate us.
Thus it states clearly it isn't about war, thus victory is a terrible translation of the Hebrew; where the root YSH means to save, to deliver, etc.
There is no 'J' in Hebrew; that is a translation of Yehoshua which we find translated as Joshua in Zechariah 3.
Well, I would say that He can make decisions of His own and that, in that sense, He could rebel against His Father. The thing is that it is not in His nature to do so. He and His Father have the exact same goals for mankind. They love equally, are equally merciful, and are always on the same page, so to speak. The Son does the Father's will because it's His will, too. For a brief moment in Gethsemane, it seemed as if His will was not the same as His Father's, but once that moment passed, they were forever "one."
If He is a separate person from His Father, He would have to have His own will, it seems to me. He will could mirror His Father's, which it does, but it is still associated with Him.
To me, it's kind of like the unity in a marriage. When two people get married, they may receive wedding greeting cards from their guests which say, "Now you two are one." Well, no... they're not one. They are two distinct individuals, each of whom has a will of his own. But, if the marriage is a good one, they are "one" in their values, standards, goals for the future, etc. Their two wills are functioning as one.
Don't need to re-read it; you're not getting YSH means 'to save', not to bring a victory ('to win'); it is a terrible translation that doesn't fit the contexts.
Haven't said it does, said Yeshua would have seen his name there, as it is the same root, saying that it is possible that was what it was implying...
Don't need to re-read it; you're not getting YSH means 'to save', not to bring a victory ('to win'); it is a terrible translation that doesn't fit the contexts.
Haven't said it does, said Yeshua would have seen his name there, as it is the same root, saying that it is possible that was what it was implying...
Christians don't know this, Jews don't accept any of it...
It is an observation based on the numerous Tanakh quotes within the NT, that have his name within them (YSH).
Sorry tho, this is a waste of our time; it's repeating like a broken record, that isn't open to new information.
Peace B With U