Jesus vs the New Testament

[IndigoChild5559]

Therefore?

Therefore you should not refer to the religion of Jesus by the name of Judaic when asked what Jesus' religion was. You should correctly identify it as Judaism, or at least as Second Temple Judaism.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have given many things as names which are not. Adonai simply means Lord -- this is not a name. Elohim simply means God (or gods, or judges, or heavenly beings) and is not a name. El Elyon simply means God Most High and is not a name etc.

Exodus 6:3 states, " and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name [yad hey and vav hey] I made Me not known to them.

In other words, Abraham gave God a title, but after Egypt, the Israelites knew the actual name of God.

The pronunciation of this name is now lost in history. As Jews we do not attempt to use approximations when we read the text. Rather we substitute the word Adonai. And even now I am using Adonai for instructive purposes -- normally when we are not worshiping, we substitute Hashem or Adoshem (the Name). I have been taught that the spelling out of the letter names in print is acceptable if instructing. This is out of the GREATEST respect for the name of God, and the unwillingness to even come close to taking his name in vain.

Those are equivalents to what are names in Biblical belief. Because it's cross language. We have more than one 'name', for God.

 

[Muffled]

Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Or is the new testament a faulty set of texts that don't represent the Man from Nazareth, the divine manifestation. How much of the new testament, is just straight fiction?

And no, this isn't about yoheshua being that 'rabbi', that materialists love to present as some form of quasi religion, the premise is religiously traditional, for this argument,
Divine Jesus, manifestation,
There are many things in the new testament that are valuable, however is it, as a whole, representative.


•

I believe that does not happen.

I believe it is all about Jesus without fault.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was an observant Jew.. He didn't come to start a new religion.

I believe His statement that He had a new Covenant amounts to to a new religion.

 

[Muffled]

There is no definitive answer to your question, except to say that it is very likely the gospels are some combination of historical facts and mythology intended to convey a specific set of religious concepts and ideals to succeeding generations. But which is which is the subject of long-standing and on-going speculation and debate. As are the concepts and ideals that are being derived from them.

I, personally, don't see how this matters, really, since it is the religious concept and ideals that are being conveyed to us that are the essence and intent of the writings. The actual historicity of the texts are irrelevant in that it lends no logical support to the validity of the content, to us.

I believe there is no mythology in the Bible.

 

[PureX]

I believe there is no mythology in the Bible.

Well, isn't that special!

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe that does not happen.

I believe it is all about Jesus without fault.

Great.

 

[Desert Snake]

Constantine was 'affirming' the religious belief.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe His statement that He had a new Covenant amounts to to a new religion.

It wasn't a 'new religion', Jesus is in the context of "religious belief"

That's why Yeshua doesn't say, 'this is a new religion...'
So forth


•
That being said, inference from the book of John, it is certainly "more context", to religious belief.
Incarnation of deity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those are equivalents to what are names in Biblical belief. Because it's cross language. We have more than one 'name', for God.

None of those titles (or "names" if you prefer) are on par with the yad hey and vav hey. None of them. It's in a class all its own.