JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all

First of all, we have to understand what the term 'god' means and how it is used in the Bible.

First thanks for your reply, second let's take your reply one point at a time. to define "God" from his Word, one need to start at the beginning. Genesis 1:1
"God" means, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m. and "ECHAD" of oneself.
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

if one would note, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem')is the plural of H433. now who and what is H433? let the bible definition speak,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

now, the next question, why is God a plurality "of" himself? ... not a plurality "From" himself. because there is no one else. for he, "GOD" is an Ordinal of himself in "PLACE", "TIME", "ORDER", and or "RANK". how do 101G know this, because of the term "beginning" right there in verse 1.

Beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

this is in the NATURE of Spirit, as the "FIRST", the Ordinal First, title Father, because he CREATED, and MADE ALL THINGS in this present world.

and "God", the same ONE PERSON, "Shared" himself in Flesh bone and Blood, in likeness as a man, in the ECHAD, of Ordinal "Last", title Son, Lord, who, REDEEMED, and SAVIED ALL THAT HE CREATED, and MADE IN THE BEGINNING. and in the NEW CREATION that is to come, this same one God as "Lord", with his power of Spirit, in a divine resurrected body will create a NEW HEAVEN, and a NEW EARTH, by himself, alone as he did the First Creation, (per Isaiah 44:24). and Here in the NEW CREATION, in a Body vs Spirit in the Old Creation without a body, is NOW, the First Fruit, the First of ALL THINGS, he is the Head/First/Father of the New creation. supportive scripture. Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

as in the OLD CREATION, he, "God" is the First, correct. here in the NEW CREATION, he God, is the First. for the term "beginning" here in Colossians is the same as the term "beginning" in Genesis 1:1.
G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule
Root(s): G756

notice definition #2. (concretely) Meaning, "God" of the ECHAD is now in Flesh, (can be seen), per Revelation 22:4. also the definition Identify the ECHAD in "ORDER", "PLACE", "TIME", or "RANK", just in Genesis 1:1.

and lastly to confirm this, the term, "preeminence", here in Colossians 1:18 means,
G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

First, as in Ordinal First. just as in Genesis 1:1 he was First, now in the New world to Come, he is "FIRST, meaning now and forever, without END...... BINGO.

recap. God is a ECHAD "of" himself in Ordinal Designations of "First", Father, Spirit, "LORD, just as Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
and that term "ONE" Identifies God as the ECHAD "FIRST", the Ordinal First ... "LORD", meaning the Father,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

definition #2. confirms the ECHAD as in Ordinal Designations. and this Last Designations, or Ordinal Designations afterward came at John 1:1 in the form of a man, the Christ, Shiloh, the Messiah, the REDEEMER, and SAVIOUR, of ALL THINGS.

all of my comments can be reproduced, for my sources for the above definitions come from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

now you may examine my post, and we can discuss it, or you can now post your view as to who and what God is so we can discuss it.

101G.

 

[101G]

His name was Joshua. Jesus is a English translation.

Every God created everything, even computers and cars. Still fiction.

In the Upanishads, Brahman becomes the eternal first cause, present everywhere and nowhere, always and never.
Brahman is the idea of ultimate reality that goes over an above everything else from God (or Gods), Devas, Asuras, humans, living, inanimate, thoughts, deeds, ...

Brahma is said to have created the entire universe, including himself.


In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is the supreme being who creates, protects, and transforms the universe.
Vishnu (or Viṣṇu, Sanskrit: विष्णु) means 'all pervasive'[17] and, according to Medhātith (c. 1000 CE), 'one who is everything and inside everything'.[18] Vedanga scholar Yaska (4th century BCE) in the Nirukta defines Vishnu as viṣṇur viṣvater vā vyaśnoter vā ('one who enters everywhere'); also adding atha yad viṣito bhavati tad viṣnurbhavati ('that which is free from fetters and bondage is Vishnu').



Look a book said it so it's TRUE!!!

one word, the name of God is "YESHUA" transliterated "JESUS".

101G.

 

[rosends]

one word, the name of God is "YESHUA" transliterated "JESUS".

101G.

do you even know what the word "transliterate" means?

Yešu or Yešuaʿ? A Sketch of the History of Jesus’ Names in Hebrew from Antiquity to the Present

In this article, I propose an overview of the history of the names used for Jesus in Hebrew from the time of the historical Jesus and the early Christian movement to the present. I focus on the role of Jewish and Christian mutual perceptions in

www.academia.edu

 

[101G]

do you even know what the word "transliterate" means?

Yešu or Yešuaʿ? A Sketch of the History of Jesus’ Names in Hebrew from Antiquity to the Present

In this article, I propose an overview of the history of the names used for Jesus in Hebrew from the time of the historical Jesus and the early Christian movement to the present. I focus on the role of Jewish and Christian mutual perceptions in

www.academia.edu

LOL, LOL, LOL, YES, do you?

101G.

 

[rosends]

LOL, LOL, LOL, YES, do you?

101G.

great, then using the definition of "transliterate" can you defend the statement which you made, "..."YESHUA" transliterated "JESUS" "

thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

GINOLJC, to all

First thanks for your reply, second let's take your reply one point at a time. to define "God" from his Word, one need to start at the beginning. Genesis 1:1
"God" means, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m. and "ECHAD" of oneself.
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

if one would note, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem')is the plural of H433. now who and what is H433? let the bible definition speak,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

now, the next question, why is God a plurality "of" himself? ... not a plurality "From" himself. because there is no one else. for he, "GOD" is an Ordinal of himself in "PLACE", "TIME", "ORDER", and or "RANK". how do 101G know this, because of the term "beginning" right there in verse 1.

Beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

this is in the NATURE of Spirit, as the "FIRST", the Ordinal First, title Father, because he CREATED, and MADE ALL THINGS in this present world.

and "God", the same ONE PERSON, "Shared" himself in Flesh bone and Blood, in likeness as a man, in the ECHAD, of Ordinal "Last", title Son, Lord, who, REDEEMED, and SAVIED ALL THAT HE CREATED, and MADE IN THE BEGINNING. and in the NEW CREATION that is to come, this same one God as "Lord", with his power of Spirit, in a divine resurrected body will create a NEW HEAVEN, and a NEW EARTH, by himself, alone as he did the First Creation, (per Isaiah 44:24). and Here in the NEW CREATION, in a Body vs Spirit in the Old Creation without a body, is NOW, the First Fruit, the First of ALL THINGS, he is the Head/First/Father of the New creation. supportive scripture. Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

as in the OLD CREATION, he, "God" is the First, correct. here in the NEW CREATION, he God, is the First. for the term "beginning" here in Colossians is the same as the term "beginning" in Genesis 1:1.
G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule
Root(s): G756

notice definition #2. (concretely) Meaning, "God" of the ECHAD is now in Flesh, (can be seen), per Revelation 22:4. also the definition Identify the ECHAD in "ORDER", "PLACE", "TIME", or "RANK", just in Genesis 1:1.

and lastly to confirm this, the term, "preeminence", here in Colossians 1:18 means,
G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

First, as in Ordinal First. just as in Genesis 1:1 he was First, now in the New world to Come, he is "FIRST, meaning now and forever, without END...... BINGO.

recap. God is a ECHAD "of" himself in Ordinal Designations of "First", Father, Spirit, "LORD, just as Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
and that term "ONE" Identifies God as the ECHAD "FIRST", the Ordinal First ... "LORD", meaning the Father,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

definition #2. confirms the ECHAD as in Ordinal Designations. and this Last Designations, or Ordinal Designations afterward came at John 1:1 in the form of a man, the Christ, Shiloh, the Messiah, the REDEEMER, and SAVIOUR, of ALL THINGS.

all of my comments can be reproduced, for my sources for the above definitions come from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

now you may examine my post, and we can discuss it, or you can now post your view as to who and what God is so we can discuss it.

101G.

I'll take the point about plurality. The term 'elohim' is in the plural, that is true, and it does not refer to more than one supreme God, or equals to Him, but rather to his majesty and supremacy. For instance, in an editorial of a newspaper, the editor in chief may address himself as 'we' because of his position over all and agreement of those who work for him. But it mainly applies to the one editor and those under him on his staff.

 

[YoursTrue]

one word, the name of God is "YESHUA" transliterated "JESUS".

101G.

Here's how I think about it sometimes--Jerusalem is pronounced as Yerushalayim sometimes even by people who basically speak Englsh. Although I don't believe that God is triune. But this is about pronunciation. Hope it helps.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll take the point about plurality. The term 'elohim' is in the plural, that is true, and it does not refer to more than one supreme God, or equals to Him, but rather to his majesty and supremacy. For instance, in an editorial of a newspaper, the editor in chief may address himself as 'we' because of his position over all and agreement of those who work for him. But it mainly applies to the one editor and those under him on his staff.

great, then using the definition of "transliterate" can you defend the statement which you made, "..."YESHUA" transliterated "JESUS" "

thanks.

Certainly. The same as Jerusalem being said as Yerushalayim.

 

[rosends]

Certainly. The same as Jerusalem being said as Yerushalayim.

The transliteration of a word is the representation of it shifted from one language to another, in the lettering of the target language. Thus the transliteration of ירושלים would be Yerushalayim. The anglicization of the word to Jerusalem, that is, the shifting of pronunciation to accommodate the sensibilities of a different time or pronunciation using the same alphabet would not be a transliteration.

 

[YoursTrue]

The transliteration of a word is the representation of it shifted from one language to another, in the lettering of the target language. Thus the transliteration of ירושלים would be Yerushalayim. The anglicization of the word to Jerusalem, that is, the shifting of pronunciation to accommodate the sensibilities of a different time or pronunciation using the same alphabet would not be a transliteration.

Be that as it may, there are some letters in Hebrew that are not clear in their original pronunciation. There is no "J" sound in Hebrew anyway. I'm sure you know that. "Some of many examples are Jacob (Yaakov), Joseph (Yosef), Judah (Yehuda), Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu), Jews (Yehudim), Jericho (Yireecho), and Jerusalem (Yerushalayim). This is especially curious since there is no ‘j’ sound in Hebrew." This is from J’s Replacing Y’s in Hebrew - Aish.com
That is not discussing transliteration in particular although the point is made on the site about transliteration, or translating from Hebrew to English or other languages.
I'm not going to make a big deal now about transliteration, but it is clear that there is no "J" sound in Hebrew.

 

[101G]

I'll take the point about plurality. The term 'elohim' is in the plural, that is truequal sharinGe, and it does not refer to more than one supreme God, or equals to Him, but rather to his majesty and supremacy.

101G begs to differ with your assessment, and here's why. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" you didn't READ my post ....... completely, did you? Oh well once more. the term "being" is present tense, "Form" means NATURE. so the Lord Jesus has the same NATURE, but the million dollar question, what kind of SAME NATURE? let the scripture speak. "thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" notice, EQUAL "WITH" not Equal "TO", but EQUAL "WITH". see the difference? do you know what that means? it's the same one person in a SHARED, "EQUALLY", ECHAD, just as Genesis 1:1 definition of God states. because no one is equal "TO" God, but in the ECHAD "of" himself he is equal "WITH" his OWN-self. in the diversity of the ECHAD. supportive scripture scripture..... watch the "WITH". Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the first is "with" the Last. sound like two persons who is First and Last. but notice the singularity "I". .... now listen to this. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." I ... "ALSO"... meaning it the same "I", or the same one person.... (smile).

see it now? same person, same Nature, only in a ECHAD of EQUALLY "sharing" of ONESELF in flesh just as Philippians 2:6 & 7 states.

101G.

 

[101G]

Here's how I think about it sometimes--Jerusalem is pronounced as Yerushalayim sometimes even by people who basically speak Englsh. Although I don't believe that God is triune. But this is about pronunciation. Hope it helps.

a transliteration is not a translation. a Transliteration is the act, process, or result of writing letters or words using the corresponding characters of another alphabet or writing system. Transliteration is not primarily concerned with representing the sounds of the original but rather with representing the characters, ideally accurately and unambiguously. understand now?

101G.

 

[YoursTrue]

101G begs to differ with your assessment, and here's why. Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" you didn't READ my post ....... completely, did you? Oh well once more. the term "being" is present tense, "Form" means NATURE. so the Lord Jesus has the same NATURE, but the million dollar question, what kind of SAME NATURE? let the scripture speak. "thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" notice, EQUAL "WITH" not Equal "TO", but EQUAL "WITH". see the difference? do you know what that means? it's the same one person in a SHARED, "EQUALLY", ECHAD, just as Genesis 1:1 definition of God states. because no one is equal "TO" God, but in the ECHAD "of" himself he is equal "WITH" his OWN-self. in the diversity of the ECHAD. supportive scripture scripture..... watch the "WITH". Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the first is "with" the Last. sound like two persons who is First and Last. but notice the singularity "I". .... now listen to this. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." I ... "ALSO"... meaning it the same "I", or the same one person.... (smile).

see it now? same person, same Nature, only in a ECHAD of EQUALLY "sharing" of ONESELF in flesh just as Philippians 2:6 & 7 states.

101G.

I understand your point, but differ with your conclusion. You use the King James translation for Philippians 2:6, not all will agree with that rendering. For instance, the American Standard Version says, "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped," Thus here the point is that Jesus, unlike Satan, did not try to usurp sovereignty that belongs to the Father. The form of God refers to that form which God gave Jesus. And clearly Jesus did not seize, or grab sovereignty or equality with God as the Devil did.

 

[YoursTrue]

a transliteration is not a translation. a Transliteration is the act, process, or result of writing letters or words using the corresponding characters of another alphabet or writing system. Transliteration is not primarily concerned with representing the sounds of the original but rather with representing the characters, ideally accurately and unambiguously. understand now?

101G.

I am making the point that Jesus is a perfectly appropriate way of saying the name of the only-begotten son of God. in English, of course. And there is where I leave it for now. Thanks, and have a great day tomorrow.

 

[joelr]

one word, the name of God is "YESHUA" transliterated "JESUS".

101G.

Yes I know, the English translation of his name is Joshua. The "Jesus" thing is a mistranslation because it filtered through Greek, Latin, English.
No one ever said "Jesus". It was Yeshua. The Greek text gave him "Lesus" then it was put to Latin - IESVS, and around the 16th century English made it Jesus.
But early Middle English had it as "Iesu". So it's basically completely wrong. "J" wasn't even in common english until the 1700's so the word Jesus has nothing to do with the actual name of the character.

 

[joelr]

GINOLJC, to all

First thanks for your reply, second let's take your reply one point at a time. to define "God" from his Word, one need to start at the beginning. Genesis 1:1
"God" means, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m. and "ECHAD" of oneself.
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433

if one would note, H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem')is the plural of H433. now who and what is H433? let the bible definition speak,
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

now, the next question, why is God a plurality "of" himself? ... not a plurality "From" himself. because there is no one else. for he, "GOD" is an Ordinal of himself in "PLACE", "TIME", "ORDER", and or "RANK". how do 101G know this, because of the term "beginning" right there in verse 1.

Beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

this is in the NATURE of Spirit, as the "FIRST", the Ordinal First, title Father, because he CREATED, and MADE ALL THINGS in this present world.

and "God", the same ONE PERSON, "Shared" himself in Flesh bone and Blood, in likeness as a man, in the ECHAD, of Ordinal "Last", title Son, Lord, who, REDEEMED, and SAVIED ALL THAT HE CREATED, and MADE IN THE BEGINNING. and in the NEW CREATION that is to come, this same one God as "Lord", with his power of Spirit, in a divine resurrected body will create a NEW HEAVEN, and a NEW EARTH, by himself, alone as he did the First Creation, (per Isaiah 44:24). and Here in the NEW CREATION, in a Body vs Spirit in the Old Creation without a body, is NOW, the First Fruit, the First of ALL THINGS, he is the Head/First/Father of the New creation. supportive scripture. Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

as in the OLD CREATION, he, "God" is the First, correct. here in the NEW CREATION, he God, is the First. for the term "beginning" here in Colossians is the same as the term "beginning" in Genesis 1:1.
G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule
Root(s): G756

notice definition #2. (concretely) Meaning, "God" of the ECHAD is now in Flesh, (can be seen), per Revelation 22:4. also the definition Identify the ECHAD in "ORDER", "PLACE", "TIME", or "RANK", just in Genesis 1:1.

and lastly to confirm this, the term, "preeminence", here in Colossians 1:18 means,
G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

First, as in Ordinal First. just as in Genesis 1:1 he was First, now in the New world to Come, he is "FIRST, meaning now and forever, without END...... BINGO.

recap. God is a ECHAD "of" himself in Ordinal Designations of "First", Father, Spirit, "LORD, just as Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
and that term "ONE" Identifies God as the ECHAD "FIRST", the Ordinal First ... "LORD", meaning the Father,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

definition #2. confirms the ECHAD as in Ordinal Designations. and this Last Designations, or Ordinal Designations afterward came at John 1:1 in the form of a man, the Christ, Shiloh, the Messiah, the REDEEMER, and SAVIOUR, of ALL THINGS.

all of my comments can be reproduced, for my sources for the above definitions come from the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments.

now you may examine my post, and we can discuss it, or you can now post your view as to who and what God is so we can discuss it.

101G.

Wow, the Persian God was also the first. So was Inana and Brahman.


"God
Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities. "


Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce

Ahura Mazda was uncreated, existing eternally, creator of all.




The Persians were the first to come up with many doctrines -

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n....."

 

[rosends]

Be that as it may, there are some letters in Hebrew that are not clear in their original pronunciation. There is no "J" sound in Hebrew anyway. I'm sure you know that. "Some of many examples are Jacob (Yaakov), Joseph (Yosef), Judah (Yehuda), Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu), Jews (Yehudim), Jericho (Yireecho), and Jerusalem (Yerushalayim). This is especially curious since there is no ‘j’ sound in Hebrew." This is from J’s Replacing Y’s in Hebrew - Aish.com
That is not discussing transliteration in particular although the point is made on the site about transliteration, or translating from Hebrew to English or other languages.
I'm not going to make a big deal now about transliteration, but it is clear that there is no "J" sound in Hebrew.

Yes, there is none (which is why this is about anglicization and not transliteration). Yosef is the transliteration of יוסף in the same way that Iesus would be a closer transliteration than Jesus. Changing Yeshua to Jesus has nothing to do with transliteration as it doesn't work with material from 2 languages (Yeshua is already an incorrect transliteration of the biblical name יֵשוּע) and it incorporates pronuciation changtes to address cultural shifts.

 

[101G]

I understand your point, but differ with your conclusion. You use the King James translation for Philippians 2:6, not all will agree with that rendering. For instance, the American Standard Version says, "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped," Thus here the point is that Jesus, unlike Satan, did not try to usurp sovereignty that belongs to the Father. The form of God refers to that form which God gave Jesus. And clearly Jesus did not seize, or grab sovereignty or equality with God as the Devil did.

GINOLJC, to all
first thanks for the reply. this is exacitly what I'm speak about. listen to your translation that you gave, "who, existing in the form of God". STOP RIGHT THERE.EXISTING? .... IN THE "FORM" OF GOD IS GOD NATURE. and there is only one God in that NATURE. see how the translation mislead you. the only nature that is EQUAL .... WITH "God" ... is his OWN NATURE, SHARED EQUALLY in the ECHAD. there is no unbalance in God. as the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself in Flesh the "NATURE" is the same MEANING equal. and since it's the SAME ONE NATURE that is "SHARED" the correct language to us is Just what in Phil 2:6 as the KJV states, "EQUAL .... WITH".

notice how your American Standard Version says, "Who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped," ask yourself this question, "if Jesus exist in the form/NATURE/Spirit which is God, how is he not EQUAL" tell us why not?

see, if the Lord Jesus has the exact same nature how is he not EQUAL?

Thus here the point is that Jesus, unlike Satan, did not try to usurp sovereignty that belongs to the Father. The form of God refers to that form which God gave Jesus.

ERROR, GAVE, nothing, SHARED, EQUALLY. LISTEN, and LEARN. the term "Form in Phil 2:6 is
G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

God is a, a, a, a, a, Spirit, per John 4:24a. ONE Spirit, so the million dollar question is , "How did the Lord Jesus have the sane NATURE, "WITH" God, not as God. answer right here in the term "FORM". notice the definition states, perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts). well let's see. the root of G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') is
G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something). well what do "portion" means? answer, "SHARE" the amount allotted is the EQUAL SHARE, just as Phil 2:6 clearly states in the KJV. the dictionary backs up the KJV translation, and exposes other. so we suggest you get a KJV translation for a true and accurate translation.

understand, the devil is not even in the equation, even for an example..

101G.

 

[101G]

I am making the point that Jesus is a perfectly appropriate way of saying the name of the only-begotten son of God. in English, of course. And there is where I leave it for now. Thanks, and have a great day tomorrow.

thanks, we agree, but 101G takes it further, "Jesus is NOT ONLY a perfectly appropriate way of saying the name of the only-begotten son of God". it is the appropriate way of saying the name of the ONLY Father, who is God, who created and made all things". it's the same one Person "EQUALLY" SHARED in flesh and bones as ..... the only-begotten son of God". (smile).

understand, 101G is just being accurate. leave no stones unturned.

101G.

 

[101G]

Yes I know, the English translation of his name is Joshua. The "Jesus" thing is a mistranslation because it filtered through Greek, Latin, English.
No one ever said "Jesus". It was Yeshua. The Greek text gave him "Lesus" then it was put to Latin - IESVS, and around the 16th century English made it Jesus.
But early Middle English had it as "Iesu". So it's basically completely wrong. "J" wasn't even in common english until the 1700's so the word Jesus has nothing to do with the actual name of the character.

personal opinion again? look, Yeshua isis the Strong's # is (H3442), look this Strong’s number up. it is written Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin, it is a masculine noun that means, "He is salvation" or "He saves”. for only God SAVES. H3442 יֵשׁוַּע Yeshuwa` (yay-shoo'-ah) n/l.
1. he will save.
2. Jeshua, the name of ten Israelites, also of a place in Israel.
[for H3091]
KJV: Jeshua.
Root(s): H3091


101G.