101G
Well-Known Member
no..... (smile), now come on with your NEXT question. .... why? ... (smile)... lol,
101G.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last
- Thread starter 101G
- Start date
101G.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So are you saying that God didn't create Eve after He created Adam?
101G
Well-Known Member
read my LIPS. God made man on Day 3, meaning he "Formed" him. now Eve was Formed day 6. but was she not in the MAN he formed on day 3? if not please post chapter and verse that say God got some more dust and blew into her the breath of LIFE.
but we have bible that say EVE was TAKEN, "OUT" of Man... existing material and Formed the woman from the SAME EXISTING material... bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.... who BONES? .... and Who Flesh? ... thank you.
101G.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yeah well since you cannot admit Eve was younger than Adam so long for now.
101G
Well-Known Member
Good, and since you're IGNORANT of God, see U.
common sense has to kick in sometimes. both are ADAM and both was formed, with decay before Sin came in. there was no sin, or decay. the man was not older than the woman. how absurd. she was taken from the FIRST ADAM, same bones, same Flesh. my God is there a brain in the House in use.
ok YT, how old was Adam when God formed the Woman? ..... thank you.... my God how hard is it?
101G.
joelr
Well-Known Member
There is nothing there that is personal opinion?
"
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."
Like I alredy said, Joshua means Yahweh's savior, which shows it's a made up name for a made up savior demigod.
Everything above is the factual way the name Jesus came about.
It is a fact if you went back in time to any point in the first century, the name Jesus would mean nothing to Christians and didn't exist yet anywhere in that context. It's a translation of a translation. Is this troubling for some reason?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Except it's from
Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices by Mary Boyce, the worlds leading expert in the Persian religion.
so if your purpose here is to just hand wave off scholars like you are the king of all knowledge then you clearly don't care about what is true, don't care about rational discourse and are not an honest interlocker and I have no interest in people just looking to waste time with conspiracy theories and nonsense.
But to then top it off with a boastful "next" and an egotistical "smile" is just a loss on every front for you.
Nora Elisabeth Mary Boyce (2 August 1920 – 4 April 2006) was a British scholar of Iranian languages, and an authority on Zoroastrianism. She was Professor of Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London.[1] The Royal Asiatic Society's annual Boyce Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of religion is named after her.
In 1963–64, Boyce spent a research year among orthodox Zoroastrians of the 24 villages of Yazd, Iran. The results of her research there were formative to her understanding of Zoroastrianism and she discovered that much of the previously established scholarship on the ancient faith was terribly misguided. In 1975, Boyce presented the results of her research at her Ratanbai Katrak lecture series at Oxford University. In the same year she published the first volume of her magnum opus, The History of Zoroastrianism, which appeared in the monograph series Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden:Brill). Her Ratanbai Katrak lecture series were published in 1977 as A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism.
In 1979, Boyce published Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, which not only summarised her previous publications (in particular volume 1 of History), but anthologised the role of Zoroastrianism during subsequent eras as well. This was followed by volume 2 of History of Zoroastrianism in 1982 (also as a part of the Orientalistik monograph series), and volume 3 in 1991 which she co-authored with Frantz Grenet. In 1992, she published Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour as part of the Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies which she had delivered there in 1985
101G
Well-Known Member
first ERROR of the day for U, "Jesus" is not a translation, but a TRANSLERATION. see the difference?
see above.
Error again, "Lord" Jesus. one have "Jesus" many, but to us there is ONLY "ONE" ... Lord Jesus....... (smile). so 101G is not interested in the Many "Jesus", only the ONE.
as said 101G is not interested in what men call mythology.
NEXT.
101G.
101G
Well-Known Member
to all, let's see this Ordinal FIRST and LAST as the same ONE "PERSON" in the ECHAD of Father/LORD and Son/Lord.
#1. The Creator of the New Heavens and the New Earth
A. the LORD, the Ordinal First. Isaiah 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."
this is the "LORD" all capitalize speaking, whom we call the Father.
B. the Lord, the Ordinal Last, Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Revelation 21:2 "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." Revelation 21:3 "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."
this is the "Lord" only the "L" is capitalized speaking, whom we call the Son.
this is the same one person in both the OT and the NT.
#2. the One who Laid the Foundations of the Earth.
A. the LORD, the Ordinal First. Zechariah 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."
B. the Lord, the Ordinal Last. Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"
#3. the One who MADE ALL THINGS.
A. the LORD, the Ordinal First. Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
B. the Lord, the Ordinal Last. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
this is inescapable, it's the same one person. to continue in IGNORANCE is a rebellion against God and his Word.
101G.
#1. The Creator of the New Heavens and the New Earth
A. the LORD, the Ordinal First. Isaiah 65:17 "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."
this is the "LORD" all capitalize speaking, whom we call the Father.
B. the Lord, the Ordinal Last, Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Revelation 21:2 "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." Revelation 21:3 "And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."
this is the "Lord" only the "L" is capitalized speaking, whom we call the Son.
this is the same one person in both the OT and the NT.
#2. the One who Laid the Foundations of the Earth.
A. the LORD, the Ordinal First. Zechariah 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him."
B. the Lord, the Ordinal Last. Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"
#3. the One who MADE ALL THINGS.
A. the LORD, the Ordinal First. Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
B. the Lord, the Ordinal Last. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
this is inescapable, it's the same one person. to continue in IGNORANCE is a rebellion against God and his Word.
101G.
joelr
Well-Known Member
First ERROR of the day for you. "TRANSLERATION" is not a word. You might mean "Transliteration"?
The word Jesus has nothing to do with the actual name of the character. Those people didn't know Latin or English. In 1000 years there could be a bunch of new languages and if he is still a character in literary circles he could be called "C3Pio" which has nothing to do with our words.
Second ERROR of the day. Again, if you went back in time no Christian would know what "Jesus" meant. Your response didn't address that. It just preached nonsense.
third and fourth ERROR of the day.
3) you are interested in mythology, Christianity can be demonstrated to be a mythology
4) if you don't care about what is true or actual historical discussion why are you on a debate forum? If you cannot defend your beliefs why are you on a debate forum?
You said your God is "the one" and so on. But earlier Gods also have this claim. By what method do you determine yours is also not just a made up story like the others?
101G
Well-Known Member
by George I think he Got it?..... (smile)...lol, lol, lol... Oh dear.
Oh how Ignorant, there was no "J" syndrome, Oh dear.... listen and Learn. Revelation 19:12 "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself." he, God, Jesus KNEW that the English Language was coming.... Oh my. only he KNEW it. just because John and the rest of you didn't Know the name "JESUS", but YESHUA did....lol, lol, lol, oh my, my, my. this is just too easy.
your third... fourth, ... fifth... ERROR of the Day, no matter. we know it now, that's what counts, JESUS/YESHUA, the same... lol, lol, oh dear.
a dog not only can bark, but talk,,,,,,, (smile), Lol,
u say, not 101G...... ask yourself why are U on a debate forum?......
YIKES!again, U say.
101G.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Oh wow, how ignorant. Listen and learn. Were they talking about English (as if English speakers are so special and now his "actual" name name can be spoken....yes that's rather racist), they could have said the name Jesus. What the passage means is being a son of a God his name, likeness and being are actually indescribable, as scripture points to in other passages. So your misinterpretation of scripture is bad enough but to put yourself in this special future group who speaks the true language is truly ignorant and self centered. And yes, it's very easy to be both.
And he had a name written that no man knew but he himself;
which seems to be his name, the Son of God, as the unknown name of the overcomer, in ( Revelation 2:17 ) is a child of God; and the sense is, that his divine nature, in which he is the Son of God, is incomprehensible, and that the begetting or generation of him, as such, is ineffable, ( Proverbs 30:4 ) and that without a divine revelation the name itself could not be known; or it could not be known that God had a Son, and that Christ is he, and bears that name, ( Matthew 11:27 ) ( Matthew 16:16 Matthew 16:17 ) or else his name Immanuel. The incarnate God may be intended, which is a secret and wonderful name, and contains in it, without controversy, a great mystery, which cannot be comprehended by finite minds; or his name, (alp) , "wonderful, secret", ( Isaiah 9:6 ) ( Judges 13:18 ) . This name is said to be "written"; that is, in the Scriptures of truth, in which it is revealed that Christ is the Son of God, and Immanuel. In ( Revelation 19:16 ) the name of King of kings is said to be written on his vesture, and on his thigh; and the Ethiopic version makes this to be written on his crown or diadem, reading the words thus; "and upon his head a crown, and there was written in his diadem a name, and no man knew it, but he himself only"; as the high priest had "holiness to the Lord" written on his mitre. The Syriac version inserts a clause between the two last, "having names written", and then follows, "and a name written" and so the Complutensian edition.
Revelation 19:12 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary
What does Revelation 19:12 mean? Read commentary on this popular Bible verse and understand the real meaning behind God's Word using John Gill's Exposition of the Bible.
That doesn't respond to the statement. If you went back to the 1st century no Christian would know what "Jesus" means.
not interested in lame metaphors. Christianity looks like a myth in many ways.
To learn. Speaking of which, for the 18th time maybe? Please provide some evidence for your belief in God and Jesus that meets reasonable standards of evidence. So far you have made only claims and statements about your beliefs. That isn't evidence and doesn't make something true.u say, not 101G...... ask yourself why are U on a debate forum?......
When evidence is presented to demonstrate, for example, the Revelation myth was already a fully formed myth used by the Persians, you have no intelligible response.
No, it's not me who says. I'm going by what PhD historical Old Testament and Mesopotamian scholars say. For example,
Francesca Stavrakopoulou
Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter.
3:15 Yahweh is the same as older Greek gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this.
9:30
The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.
101G
Well-Known Member
no, just bible, which you cannot understand. a NAME no one KNEW, but God himself, the Lord Jesus, until he brought English on the scene.
101G.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Not "just Bible", it's a translation and a transliteration of a name.
I'm pretty sure I understand it far better than you since I actually read scholarship that provides analysis. The basic reading believers do isn't complicated at all. Savior demigods and blood sacrifice, why would this be so complicated as to be hard to understand?
What story is Mark actually trying to tell with Jesus and Barrabas?
Sorry, I already demonstrated the Christian interpretation of that passage and it does not refer to English but rather an unknowable name that only God knows.
By simplifying it, demeaning it and making it about one language you disrespect your own scripture as if it's all about this final English version.
101G
Well-Known Member
no
personal opinion.... (smile)... trash can.
the same as all the rest.
if you did... why is it still around?
101G.
joelr
Well-Known Member
provide evidence or my point stands.
exactly, thank you. Your personal opinion is basically worth putting it in the trash can. Scholarship is not based on opinion, it's based on facts. Your personal opinion about theology has no bearing on what is true and is a s useful as a trash can.
Nope, that is wrong. As I said, you don't understand the gospels beyond a literal reading. Mark is creating a masterpiece of metaphor, parables (which he admits), and other literary devices.
It isn't around. In the fictitious story, the name was never revealed and only known by deities. It's been translated into many languages. In Japanese it's IESU KIRISUTO. And some Japanese apologist can say the same as you "this is the true name God spoke about in scripture!"
No, it isn't. It means it's an unknowable thing for human minds. I gave you the commentary by theologians.
101G
Well-Known Member
Evidence, JESUS, or YESHUA it is the Strong's # is (H3442). 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
in the Greek, it's G2424 Ἰησοῦς Iesous (ee-ay-sous`) n/p.
1.Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua) of Hebrew origin (H3091)
2.KJV: Jesus
Root(s): H3091
now lets trace the roots, from H3091, which gets its origins from H3068 which originates from H1961 הָיָה hayah, or “I AM”.
so, the transliteration is "JESUS.... SO YOU CAN SIT DOWN. ...,, (smile)
101G.
joelr
Well-Known Member
This isn't evidence, it's a partial explanation of how the name "Jesus" was created. We already went through this, I guess you don't even really read posts.
In Greek it was Lesous. But you forgot the Latin which was then put to English. In Latin - (Ἰησοῦς; then Jesus in English.
So what? My point stands. No person from the 1st century would know what "Jesus" is. They knew him in the story as Joshua.
As I said, I is translated as Yahwehs savior which is a hint that it's a made up character since his role in the story is Yahweh's savior.
Wow, Yahwehs savior is named Yahwehs savior? Yeah that's not fiction or anything.
All of this has been discussed, so once again your comments about sitting down and the weird (smile) thing is just cringe.
101G
Well-Known Member
your personal opinion again..... you can sit down....
YIKES!until you get something to really talk about that has foundation then we can discuss.
101G
joelr
Well-Known Member
your personal opinion again..... you can sit down....
A name being transliterated, translated, transfigurated, translocated or anything else is not evidence. I can transliterated Harry Potter into Latin than into Chinese it still isn't evidence that Harry Potter is real. He's a real character in a story, like Jesus probably is.
Taking a name and translating it into Greek, Latin and transliterated into English, is not evidence that person was real. That isn't personal opinion, that is how reality works. Do you really not understand basic evidence and logic to that degree?
One deity's name is "कृष्ण", but the english translation is Krishna. So is that evidence he is real? NO!
You seem unable to talk of evidence or historical knowledge whatsoever. When you hear a fact that is not in agreement with your fundamentalist agenda you don't bring counter evidence or ask why scholars would think this, you just get defensive and write non-replies. I do not believe you have intention to discuss anything.
But you still haven't answered to what story Mark is telling with his Gospel.