Jesus never says to worship 'Yahweh'

[Phantasman]

This is just your conjecture, that could be argued either way.
In other words, you don't believe Jesus to pre-exist incarnation, but would rather speculate that it is some form of shamanic trance, the only thing that makes sense to what you wrote.

That is problematic, in so many ways, one being that no wonder you can't use the accepted Scripture, because then your theology would be bizarre, at best.

I don't speculate anything. Just because you "choose" to follow others, in this case the "early catholic church fathers", doesn't mean truth cannot exist elsewhere. Secret James was written the same time as the Gospel of John:

"Therefore, obey me, my brothers. Understand what the great light is. The Father does not need me. For a father does not need a son, but it is the son who needs the father. To him I am going, for the Father of the Son is not in need of you."-Secret James

The Father doesn't need anything. We need the Father. Sorry you believe otherwise.

You appear to need the Bible, and the church. I seek the needed knowledge absent in them:

"Become zealous about the Word. For the Word's first condition is faith; the second is love; the third is works. Now from these comes life. For the Word is like a grain of wheat. When someone sowed it, he believed in it; and when it sprouted, he loved it, because he looked forward to many grains in the place of one; and when he worked it, he was saved, because he prepared it for food. Again he left some grains to sow. Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it.- Secret James

Such words refutes the orthodox view that "works" are of no importance.

I just follow a different path of gospel message than you. Nothing more.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't speculate anything. Just because you "choose" to follow others, in this case the "early catholic church fathers", doesn't mean truth cannot exist elsewhere.

Completely incorrect, as you are basing your made up religion on the texts, however you use other texts.

You appear to need the Bible, and the church. I seek the needed knowledge absent in them:

That is an abstract statement, and you seem to need academia, and some made up texts that weren't included in the Biblical canon, as they are made up.

"Become zealous about the Word. For the Word's first condition is faith; the second is love; the third is works. Now from these comes life. For the Word is like a grain of wheat. When someone sowed it, he believed in it; and when it sprouted, he loved it, because he looked forward to many grains in the place of one; and when he worked it, he was saved, because he prepared it for food. Again he left some grains to sow. Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it.- Secret James

That is a different religion, so matching it to the Bible, makes no sense.

Such words refutes the orthodox view that "works" are of no importance.

I just follow a different path of gospel message than you. Nothing more.

No, you have a completely different religion, and different basis of belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't speculate anything. Just because you "choose" to follow others, in this case the "early catholic church fathers", doesn't mean truth cannot exist elsewhere.

That, my beliefs, would be described as 'Early Church', what you seem to be inferring.

Yes, I would describe 'Early Church', to be correct.

I call that Early Church.

Your inference, here, is obscure, because early church, isn't later church argument for a false Christian religion...early church is what is in the Bible, and the religion , hence, elsewhere, that is the same religion.

In other words, you don't seem to really understand how the religion get's it's beliefs, hence your notion that non religious, sketchy academia is going to be some sort of 'argument', when you present your theories.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't speculate anything. Just because you "choose" to follow others, in this case the "early catholic church fathers", doesn't mean truth cannot exist elsewhere. Secret James was written the same time as the Gospel of John:

The texts that you use, are a different religion. It is a different type of religion, and belief system.
When they were written, isn't really the issue.

 

[Desert Snake]

He said, for it is written, Thou shalt worship YHWH thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8

Lord also means Jesus, so that isn't the best argument.


However, sure.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's still an OT following. Not a gospel one.

So you say, then your arguments should correlate. Jesus cannot be practicing a completely different religion, if your arguments consist of academic theories.

Jehovah is the acceptable English pronunciation for God's name as it appears in the Tetragrammaton.
Yahweh is an acceptable Hebrew pronunciation for God's name as it appears in the Tetragrammaton.
The Hebrew uses some other name for Jesus. Jesus is the accepted English pronunciation for God's Son.

Great, however, it does not address the thread premise, that Jesus never said to worship Yahweh, in scripture, obviously. Find the verse where Jesus says to worship, JHVH, Jehovah, Yehovah, Yahweh, then you will have an argument.

 

[Phantasman]

Completely incorrect, as you are basing your made up religion on the texts, however you use other texts.



That is an abstract statement, and you seem to need academia, and some made up texts that weren't included in the Biblical canon, as they are made up.

That is a different religion, so matching it to the Bible, makes no sense.



No, you have a completely different religion, and different basis of belief.

The early church is something you are missing.

Galatians 1:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,


The Jews religion does not nor did it follow Christ because the Spirit (capital S) was never accepted nor spoken by them. It doesn't appear in the OT. Only Jesus taught it and gave it. The non Canon books teach it as well. But you choose to follow the likes of Moses and Isaiah because the catholics taught you to. I don't listen to them (Jews/OT) because the Gospel tells me not to.

Matthew and Luke:
17 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

I show you clarity, but you would resist to follow what men teach you, instead of what the Spirit would reveal to you.

Jesus had a hard enough time trying to convince the Jews not to follow Moses, which is why he told the disciples NOT to mention the vision they saw until AFTER he arose and the Spirit given.

See what you wish. But it's all there.

 

[Phantasman]

Completely incorrect, as you are basing your made up religion on the texts, however you use other texts.



That is an abstract statement, and you seem to need academia, and some made up texts that weren't included in the Biblical canon, as they are made up.

That is a different religion, so matching it to the Bible, makes no sense.



No, you have a completely different religion, and different basis of belief.

Catholic orthodoxy is your religion. It was they who created the Bible you read. No one else.

Marcions Canon preceded the Catholic Bible by 250 years. You belief is not early church. Paul's Church in Jerusalem preceded the Roman catholic church. The split occurred before 50AD at the Incident at Antioch. I suggest you google it an see it backed up in Acts and Galatians.

 

[Phantasman]

So you say, then your arguments should correlate. Jesus cannot be practicing a completely different religion, if your arguments consist of academic theories.



.

Then it's up to you if you want to follow a god that slaughters men. The Father Jesus spoke of never murdered anyone.

Love doesn't slaughter (men), IMO.

Religions are doctrines of men.

 

[Desert Snake]

Galatians 1:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

This should tell you that the reason, that Jehovah, is in the Christian religion, isn't because 'Jesus was a Jew'.
Thus, Jesus isn't presenting the 'same religion', as the 'Jews religion', here, referred to in the Bible.

The Jews religion does not nor did it follow Christ because the Spirit (capital S) was never accepted nor spoken by them. It doesn't appear in the OT. Only Jesus taught it and gave it. The non Canon books teach it as well. But you choose to follow the likes of Moses and Isaiah because the catholics taught you to. I don't listen to them (Jews/OT) because the Gospel tells me not to.

The 'Jews religion', referred to in the verses, doesn't mean the OT, Old Testament.
Jesus Himself , references the OT.
In the Bible, 'Jews', are in the church, along with gentiles, or rather previous Gentiles, because in the Bible, Gentiles, Jews, and Jesus followers, are all different groups. It is a way to describe, who they were talking about.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe that it is not physical, it is metaphoric.

To be one with God does not make one god literally and physically , it means to be one in the purpose, please
Regards

 

[oldbadger]

Actually, you don't really know.

]
True, indeed I never said I do know. All I can work with is based upon the balance of probabilities and possibilities.
But you don't know either.

Yeshua could be a variation of another name, for all you know, with a similar, or double meaning.

Where I live archaeology and the historical record is moderately well studied, and yet we draw massive blanks for long periods of time, and have to search diligently for communities that are recorded in old papers, and that's in recent centuries!

And so we have to investigate every tiny scrap of possible evidence for Yeshua BarYosef, but in doing so, Christianity takes a massive beating.

 

[Avoice1C]

Sorry I'm so late getting back to your post. I'm new and it took me a while to find the thread.

Yeah but we have to remember that calling people we don't like devils is a pretty common thing. We must take care not to confuse insults with theological reality.

Jesus didn't hate them. He tried to get them to see that robbing widows of their homes was not of God. They were cheating their parents too which was not obeying the commandments either. These priests were using their priesthood to profit themselves with power and money. Have you not read where priests came to Jesus for his message? There were a few who respected their own positions with God enough to stay up on the Torah they were supposed to uphold. Jesus was speaking very seriously when he said the majority of priest (and scribes who came out to test him) were worshiping the devil.

The problem is they had some valid points sometimes. Also, Jesus going around riling people up contributed to Roman crackdowns, which wasn't helping matters. While legalism is a problem (one that Christianity quickly latched onto), we must not forget the critics were human beings going through human drama. Automatically poo-pooing their concerns is how we ended up with our current president, after all.

Jesus preached the Torah. Only those who were not obeying it got riled up. The Roman crackdowns happened after Jesus' death and resurrection. The destruction of the Temple was because the Jews rose up against Rome about 70 C.E. Drama of their own making with the sins I mentioned above.
Politics I'll leave to another thread.

That's a pretty weak/stupid God, then.

God sent Jesus to bring them back to Him. That they prefered to get riled and persecute him instead of listening to his words and obeying him and his Father speaks of their weak stupidity not God's

The NT also has lots of problems, which is weird since it's supposed to be a much better sequel.

Have you bothered to read thru the Greek scriptures. I have and see no problems in them.

Which makes Jesus a liar because there is no scene in which Satan appears where he lies to anyone. Sure, he's a jerk, but at most it can be said he just airs out your dirty laundry.

Satan's lies were about God's intent as Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness and confrontation of Satan shows in spades. Jesus spent more time airing dirty laundry than Satan ever did. Satan actually inspires people to acquire dirty laundry.

Moses was a murderer as well. That's how he ended up on the run in the first place. He was a religious terrorist.

Moses killed an Egyptian who was abusing a Jewish slave. He didn't stay to be a religious terrorist. If you are speaking about the disasters that befell Egypt, all Moses did was predict them and teach the Jews how to be left alone by God.

Because he has some Freudian family issues. Lots of rules in the bible come off as rules from a guy who had an axe to grind. Unless there's abuse, I don't think this rule is very moral. How can Jesus teach us to be compassionate to others and then encourage hatred towards family? Where did that compassion go?

It was the refusing of salvation that Jesus said to leave one's family. He was saying "Put God first" and family second and leave if they cannot live by the law of love. It is the unbeliever that rejects said compassion. Him saying "hate" as God hated Cain and protected him only forcing him into exile for the murder of his brother.

I think you're thinking of Elijah. The wording of the miracle is such that it's possible he used mouth-to-mouth. I mean, it says the kid couldn't breathe, not that his heart stopped or he was decomposing or anything.

You are right about it being Elijah. However, my Bible says the kid was dead. Elijah merely laid on the boy and he recovered. Sounds like from the dead to me.

We're dealing with the word of a couple of guys who had been sleeping.

Surprise wakes a person up pretty effectively. They were cognizant enough to speak of putting up tents for the three of them.

 

[oldbadger]

Nice.

The last part, is there a trinity in your experience?

Hi....
And 'No'..... no Trinity in my experience.

Christianity probably reversed itself into the Roman Trinities, as it reversed itself into so many other aspects of Roman and European cultures and religions.

But what an amazing way to control millions of people, and keep them in fear and under thumb....

 

[oldbadger]

So is Yeshua known globally, as jesus, and has the Gospel gone to all nations?

Yes...... most nations.

If you're thinking we're meaning Yeshua is salvation because his murder brought atonement, please note our rejection of John, Paul, and Simon is because they all teach Balaam teachings, that God required his murder for this reason.

Cool..... No probs.
I discard Paul and the non-gospels because they don't tell me much about the life and mission of the man, but John's anecdotes can be helpful to me and since I think that G-Mark is a collection of Simon's memoirs I take notice of it.

Yeshua taught through his knowledge is how we'd gain salvation, and those who follow this until the end are the ones saved; in other words those wise enough not to fall for all the Pharisaic lies will be in the Messianic Age.

In my opinion.

Wizanda, if you're right then I cannot join you there, because I am a Deist who only studies Yeshua's life and mission historically.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Lord also means Jesus, so that isn't the best argument.


However, sure.

He is quoting a verse where it is YHWH in the Hebrew.

I guess if you think there is more than one, and you think he is talking about himself, then does that mean you think he is saying to worship him and no one else, not even YHWH?

 

[wizanda]

I think that G-Mark is a collection of Simon's memoirs

In Acts it says there is John-Mark, which is most likely the author of Mark, as John attended the transfiguration, and in Mark it included it was as white as snow, which means the person is graphically describing something, which implies they saw it.

Simon was called the stone (petros) by Yeshua for a reason, which is likely to be Zechariah 3:9... Because Zechariah 3:1-2 is also used about Simon (Mark 8:31-33).

In my opinion.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you're reading the Bible with the specific names, it might matter because of how you are interpreting the text, religiously.
So, cross language wise, it can matter, because of how you're reading the text.
The issue here is that the Bible is in more than one language, basically.
So, yes, you can use 'Yahweh', but then you should really know when to use that name, imo.

Good idea also to me as to really know when to use that (or any) name.
For example:
In the Hebrew Psalms 110 talks about two (2) LORD/Lords.
The Tetragrammaton is only applied to the LORD God.
The Tetragrammaton is Not applied to Lord Jesus.

One Jewish professor told me he believed that the Tetragrammaton is a 3-syllable name.
So, some scholars even prefer Ye.ho.wah' as being closer than Yahweh.
Jesus in the Hebrew would be Yeh.oh.shu'a.
Jesus in the Greek would be I.e.sous'

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's orthodox catholic thought. No fallen angels (per Christ). If angels fell from heaven, how better will heaven be for you and me. Jesus clearly says Moses (who wrote Genesis) did not get his knowledge from heaven. (John 6:32).
The Holy Spirit told us to listen to Christ, not Moses. Luke 9:30-36 Matthew 17:1-9

I find Jesus did promise heaven to those like those of Luke 22:28-30.
Those people have a first or earlier resurrection as per Revelation 20:6; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 5:9-10.
Those of John 3:13 ( All who died before Jesus like King David - Acts of the Apostles 2:34 ) await a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection as does Daniel - Daniel 12:2; Daniel 12:13.
Jesus referring to Psalms 37:9-11 clearly says humble meek people will inherit the: Earth.
Not an earth full of suffering, but one with healing for earth's nations as described at Revelation 22:2.
We the living are nearing a soon coming ' time of separation' on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37.
We can remain alive on Earth and continue to live on Earth during Jesus' 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth.
That is when ' enemy death ' will be No more on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi....
And 'No'..... no Trinity in my experience.

Christianity probably reversed itself into the Roman Trinities, as it reversed itself into so many other aspects of Roman and European cultures and religions.

But what an amazing way to control millions of people, and keep them in fear and under thumb....

Hmm. How do you relate jesus and in your faith? Are you christian? (Going by trinity in scripture and CCC which is differant than fundamentlist strict definitiom)