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!
Actually, I did not say that. What I said, and listen carefully, is that the verse in Timothy about all scripture being given by inspiration, refers only to Moses and the Prophets, because those are the only scriptures the church had at that time.
I think what you missed is that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a definition of what scripture is. You did indeed say that what God says is not inspired. You are trying to argue that the new testament scriptures are not from God. When the new testament scripture come out of the law and the prophets and the teachings of Jesus.
There is nothing in 2 Tim 3:16 that defines anything. You are imagining things.
Yes you cannot see anything if you close your eyes to see and your ears to hear *Isaiah 6:9-10. Many did this in Jesus day according to the scriptures. Seems you only see what you want to see so please forgive me but I do not believe you, so we will agree to disagree once more.
I don't know, but what I just said was that the NT would not be included in the described "sacred writings".
Acts was written supposedly by someone called Luke, who was supposedly a comrade of the false prophet Paul, and according to Luke 1, if Luke wrote the book, was from third person sources, which makes it unusable to determine any matter. (Mt 18:16) Your "Acts" wouldn't even stand up in a civil case.
You are using the followers of the "enemy"/"devil" (Mt 13), the "tares", as arbiters of what is "scripture". You might as well use the figment of the imagination of Islamist, Mohammad. We are now at the "end of the age" and the "tares", those who "commit lawlessness", are about to be gathered and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30). You can repent and turn to righteousness, and produce fruit with respect to your repentance, or be thrown into the fire (Mt 3).
Joshua is the English form of Yeshua, but Joshua was not a prophet, whereas Yeshua was, and his prophecy was that the "son of man" will return directly after the coming great tribulation, which is portrayed in Zechariah 14, whereas the nations will fall upon Jerusalem and Judah (Jews), and the nations will come under a plague of God and fight among each other. The Sunnis just killed over 100 Shia just the other day, and Joshua blew his trumpets at Jericho, and Jericho is the home of the Palestinian authority, and the nations are supporting the Palestinian authority. Don't be surprised if you go to Jericho and you hear trumpets in the night. Yeshua and Isaiah (Is 26:20) suggest that one prepare and take action, less like the wife of Abraham's nephew, things don't go well.
You are confused, so please allow me to be clearer.
Okay. I clearly misunderstood you. Sorry for the error.
According to the "Book of Joshua", Joshua was chosen not as a prophet, but to take the people across the Jordan to inherit the land given to their fathers. The book of Joshua is a history of that journey.
Yehoshua means "the LORD is salvation. Yeshua means the same thing. Should You Really Be Calling Jesus by the Name Yeshua?
You would be twisting the scriptures to your own destruction if that is what you believe and teach.
It is true Acts of the Apostles is in disagreement with everything you have posted earlier. Whatever you believe it also proves your claims that the Apostle Paul did not meet with Jesus. Just like the bible is in disagreement with your unbelief and false teachings. How about we discuss the detail to your claim and put everything on the table and see how true or not true your words are. Please prove to me from the scriptures alone that the Apostle Paul is a false prophet? Lets go one step at a time ok? Lets test your claims to see if what you believe passes the test of scripture ok?
No! 2 Timothy 3:16 is defining what scripture it. 2 Timothy 3:16 say that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof instruction and correction in righteousness. Receive Gods correction and be blessed ignoring it does not make it disappear. According to Jesus the words of God we accept or reject become our judge come judgement day (John 12:47-48).
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a masculine given name derived from Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς; Iesus in Classical Latin) the Ancient Greek form of the Hebrew name Yeshua (ישוע).[1][2] As its roots lie in the name Isho in Aramaic and Yeshua in Hebrew, it is etymologically related to another biblical name, Joshua. I suggest you read the complete Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek to English history and etymology (Jesus name - Wikipedia) which is in disagreement with you here.
He was also a prophet. This is why Jews put the book of Joshua in the section for the Prophets.
It's irrelevant. The Hebrew text does not use the name Yeshua to refer to the successor of Moses. It uses the name Yehoshua. And that is who we are discussing, the successor to Moses and author of the book of Joshua.
Except... that he is correct.
Yes in your mind as an unbeliever who rejects Jesus as Gods Messiah and Gods savior of mankind and all the new covenant scriptures to you that would be true. However you cannot see if you close your eyes and ears and those who do not believe according to the scriptures are lost in their sins and unbelief. To those who have had their eyes opened to see and their ears opened to hear Jesus is indeed Gods promised Saviour for all mankind and the new covenant scriptures are indeed Gods Word and according to the scriptures, those who reject them God will also reject.
And what were his prophecies?
You use the name Joshua, which means the same as Yeshua. The word Joshua did not exist until the 17th century, for there was no letter "J". As for the early Hebrew, it had no vowels. It is like the Arabic of the old time Arabs and their supposed Koran. It had no vowels or dots and could be made to mean anything one chose to get out of any written text. In the 1st century, Aramaic was the common language of Jerusalem, as English is the most common language of today for the commerce. From the archeological record, the Aramaic term used was Yeshua, in the first century.
My point was that the pronunciation of "Jesus", to a latin speaker, comes out as earth pig. Ge as in earth, sus as in pig. The importance of the name is in its meaning, which is that the LORD saves, not the "son of man"/"Lord". The "son of man", who now sits at the right hand of the LORD, in heaven, is Lord, not LORD (Psalms 110), and after judgment of the LORD (Ez 34), the tribulation and judgment of Mt 24 & 25, David will be made sole shepherd/prince (Ez 34:20-24). Or in the terms of Jeremiah 30:9, David will be made king. Right now, according to Yeshua, the ruler of the world is not him, and his message is that the "son of man" does not return until "immediately after the "tribulation" (Matthew 24).
"All scripture" would pertain to what Timothy was taught in his youth. Your NT is a later compilation of the message of the "enemy"/"devil", "planted" in the same "field"/book, next to the "message" of the "son of man" (Mt 13). As for the judgement at the "end of the age" (Mt 13:30), the tares, the wicked, who "commit lawlessness" (Mt 13:37-42), will be the "first" to be "gathered" (Mt 13:30) and are thrown into the furnace of fire.