Yeshua / Jesus Vs Saul / Paul Points

[Simplelogic]

Thank you for the link, but I can read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and while I am not very good (indeed I'm pretty awful) at reading actual manuscripts from antiquity (e.g., Greek or Coptic papyri written entirely in some majuscule script), I have no problem whatsoever reading modern editions of texts written in ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and decent enough when it comes to Hittite, Coptic, Gothic, and Sumerian. Which is why I find it particularly ridiculous to attribute or ascribe some special status to a transliteration of a language one can't read as opposed to a different transliteration that is more direct (Hebraic transliterations aren't actually transliterations but renderings of the Greek into the equivalent Aramaic and then transliterating this) and no more "authentic" or somehow more faithful than the transliteration "Jesus". Rather, the insistence upon a transliteration of a name that was never written because it is closer to the actual name of an individual in a language one can't read, pronounce, or speak is nothing other than a pitiful attempt to copy others in order to garner some semblance of authority.

I agree that some may think that using a Hebrew name gives them authority. No argument there. I don't think that is what we are trying to do here. The decision to use the Hebrew name, for me, is more of a rejection of the hellenized roman catholic version of Jesus. Yeshua was a Hebrew who kept the entire law of Moses. Yet Christendom has managed to remake Yeshua into the Greek god Jesus. This Jesus (man-god) is opposed to the law of Moses in every way. He is celebrated on the winter solstice, like every other sun god. He is also celebrated on Eshtar (Easter) services. The same day that pagans would coat eggs in the blood of infant babies!

The point here is that there is a deeper reason for people deciding to use his hebrew name.

 

[Simplelogic]

Thought Yehoshua was Hebrew and Yeshua is Aramaic?

I believe both Yehoshua and Yeshua are the same Hebrew name. Yehoshua was the original name until around the 2nd Temple period. Many names were shortened by this time.

 

[wizanda]

The point here is that there is a deeper reason for people deciding to use his hebrew name.

The reason I'd use Yeshua, salvation, etc, is then you can find the prophecies related to him within the Tanakh. People fail to realize when Yeshua read it, he saw derivatives of his own name throughout.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The decision to use the Hebrew name, for me, is more of a rejection of the hellenized roman catholic version of Jesus.

Only
1) Yeshua isn't Hebrew or Aramaic, it's a transliteration.
2) The entire NT was written in Greek. Jesus was a product of a Hellensized, Romanized world (although contrary to earlier beliefs as to the extent to which Galilee "hellenized" as e.g., popular scholars like Crossan argued is now without basis and should be regarded as defunct). Our sources for anything he said or did are even more so. And they aren't the product of the roman catholic church (which produced and relied upon the Latin Vulgate while it was the Eastern Orthodox church that continued to use Greek).
3) Jesus wasn't Hebrew. Hebrew is a language, and it wasn't Jesus' native language.

 

[Simplelogic]

Only
1) Yeshua isn't Hebrew or Aramaic, it's a transliteration.
2) The entire NT was written in Greek. Jesus was a product of a Hellensized, Romanized world (although contrary to earlier beliefs as to the extent to which Galilee "hellenized" as e.g., popular scholars like Crossan argued is now without basis and should be regarded as defunct). Our sources for anything he said or did are even more so. And they aren't the product of the roman catholic church (which produced and relied upon the Latin Vulgate while it was the Eastern Orthodox church that continued to use Greek).
3) Jesus wasn't Hebrew. Hebrew is a language, and it wasn't Jesus' native language.

Yeshua spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. Might want to look up Shem Tobs Hebrew Matthew. The early church father Papias stated clearly that Matthew was first recorded in Hebrew.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeshua spoke Hebrew and Aramaic.

We don't know what he spoke (some have argued that he almost certainly knew some Greek and perhaps enough that some of his apothegms he'd use he was able to say in Greek). He almost certainly knew Hebrew, but the extent to which Hebrew was spoken is debated; it's harder to find proponent of the idea that it was completely a dead language learned only through study during Jesus' day, but to the extent Jesus spoke it, it wasn't even a second language but something more akin to how people spoke (and were required to speak only in) Latin at Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, etc., not that long ago.

More importantly, his name and native language were an unknown dialect of Aramaic. The most thorough, recent studies on the Aramaic underlying the gospels are those by Maurice Casey

The early church father Papias stated clearly that Matthew was first recorded in Hebrew.

Not really. Mostly because it is quite obvious that Matthew was written in Greek, but different scholars have proposed different solutions to understand what Papias was referring to and/or saying. One common and obvious solution is that to the extent he wasn't just reporting something he heard that was wrong, he was referring to a document that we don't have. Another (not necessarily incompatible) theory is that when Papias writes that "Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο/"Matthaios men oun Hebraidi dialecto ta logia sunetaxo" ("So Matthew arranged the sayings in the Hebrew dialect") he was not referring to "Hebrew" but a language that "the Hebrews" spoke: Aramaic. In daring feats of imaginative scholarship, others still have tried to connect what Papias said of this arrangement by Matthew to the gospel we have by either interpreting Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ ...συνετάξατο to mean "arranged in the Hebrew dialect" in the sense "arranged the way Hebrew writings were arranged in a literary style sense or by interpreting ἡρμήνευσεν in the following clause to mean "translate" rather than the obvious sense "interpret".

What we don't find are arguments (in the scholarship, anyways) that the Greek text of Matthew we have was translated from Hebrew, for a vast number of reasons but one of them being that in e.g., Matthew 27:46 the author gives us a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic and then translates this into Greek. Why, if what we have was originally written in Hebrew, would a would-be translator take the Hebrew, translate this line into Aramaic, represent it using Greek letters, and then translate it into Greek, such that we have "περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥρανἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων, Ηλι ηλιλεμα σαβαχθανι [this is Aramaic]; τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες [this is the Greek translation of the Aramaic]"?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your website promotes drug use. Im not sure explaining anything will sink in, as you seem to be just happy wallowing in bias and misunderstandings.
Your so far "out there" I think anything I say would only effect fantasy and imagination.

I found the thread of posts leading to this quite hilarious. All that "huff and puff" and you (very) apparently had absolutely nothing to actually blow the house down. You just come back with some lame excuse about how you're not sure anything you explain will "sink in". I've seen this "tactic" plenty of times before - redirect, misdirect, pretend it isn't worth your time to make good on your claims or use the "extensive" knowledge you claim to have on the subject. I'll be sure to remember this specific instance of apparent ineptitude whenever reading your posts in the future.

 

[Muffled]

I believe the first line discounting John and Mark are incorrect and therefore anything else is apt to be false as well.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not only Jesus's deeds but all of his parables confirm that salvation is earned through love and our efforts. Regardless of how strong faith in God can be.

I like quoting the Parable of the Vineyard and the two sons, where it is clear that faith is not what saves us. We can say we serve God, but it's deeds which prove it. Not certainly words.
I like quoting this Parable because I firmly believe that (as Pelagius said in his Letter to Demetrias) even atheists or Pagans can attain salvation through their merits.

28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. 31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”“The first,” they answered.

I don't know what St Paul must have thought when he invented the story about Christ's sacrifice and how this should erase people's sins.

 

[wizanda]

I believe the first line discounting John and Mark are incorrect and therefore anything else is apt to be false as well.

The gospel of John is false based on the numerous contradictions between it, and the words of Yeshua in the synoptic gospels.... You can believe what you wish.

Not said Mark is false; just that Yeshua called Simon a stumbling stone (petros).

I don't know what St Paul must have thought when he invented the story about the Christ's sacrifice and how this should erase people's sins.

It's based on Pharisaic Judaism, ' that the death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation'; so Paul didn't make it up, it was what Christ was challenging the Pharisees over, murdering the prophets as sin sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-37.

 

[Muffled]

The gospel of John is false based on the numerous contradictions between it, and the words of Yeshua in the synoptic gospels.... You can believe what you wish.

Not said Mark is false; just that Yeshua called Simon a stumbling stone (petros).

It's based on Pharisaic Judaism, ' that the death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation'; so Paul didn't make it up, it was what Christ was challenging the Pharisees over, murdering the prophets as sin sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-37.

I believe there are none.

I believe I can only believe what God tells me.

I believe what was the case before the reception of the Paraclete is not the case afterwards.

 

[wizanda]

I believe there are none.

I believe I can only believe what God tells me.

If you're not interested in understanding the Great Deception the Bible prophesied; you can believe what you wish....

Glad many of you don't follow Yeshua tho, saves having any of you in the Messianic age.

I believe what was the case before the reception of the Paraclete is not the case afterwards.

The Holy Spirit exists throughout the Tanakh, from the very first lines of Genesis....

It being sent by jesus is made up within John, and continued by Christianity.

 

[MountainPine]

Will you provide scripture references to each one?

 

[wizanda]

Will you provide scripture references to each one?

Here is a start: http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

And you're right, i should get around to adding scriptures to the list...Is there anyone of them in particular, you're unaware of?

 

[Muffled]

If you're not interested in understanding the Great Deception the Bible prophesied; you can believe what you wish....

Glad many of you don't follow Yeshua tho, saves having any of you in the Messianic age.

The Holy Spirit exists throughout the Tanakh, from the very first lines of Genesis....

It being sent by jesus is made up within John, and continued by Christianity.

i beleive the Holy Spirit is throughout scripture but the Paraclete is given by Jesus. They are two different things even though the concept of the Paraclete contains the Holy Spirit.

I believe I can tell you by the Paraclete that John did not make it up.

I don't believe in fairly tales that have no evidence to support them.

I believe if you don't have the Paraclete as John reported Jesus talking about you will not have much chance of being in the Messianic age.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Before we start this, lets make one thing clear, John is made up and Simon was called a stone (peter) for a reason; so neither can be used to argue this case.

This article is old, so admittingly there are lots of things that could be improved on, and overall far more points than this; so feel free to add any you know of.

1. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and not to end it. Paul said he came to end the Law, and if we are in Christ we are free of the Law.

2. Christ said that we are judged by the commandments; Paul said we are free of them, if we are in Christ.

3. Christ said that we should not judge, Paul said that the spiritual may judge and should not be judged.

4. Christ said that God is the judge, Paul said Christ is.

5. Christ said that the inheritance is from God and they killed him to try and steal it, as in the parable of the vine dresser; Paul said that we have an inheritance because of Christ's death.

6. Christ said not to sacrifice the innocent, Paul praised the fact that Christ died.

7. Christ said that God is the lord of the living; Paul said that we should remain with Christ in death.

8. Christ showed that reincarnation happens, as he said John was Elijah, Paul said we only live once.

9. Christ said God is spirit, Paul said Christ is the image of God; breaking the second commandment.

10. Christ said he was sent and was a servant and a son, Paul said Christ is equal to God and even said he was God.

11. Christ said to worship God, Paul said to worship Christ.

12. Christ said to be one in God, Paul said to be one body in Christ.

13. Christ said that faith in God is powerful; Paul said that faith is "the faith' and so turning its meaning in to church attendance.

14. Christ showed and said to have faith in God; Paul said have faith in Christ.

15. Christ said have one father, Paul said he had begotten people in Christ so making him a father to them.

16. Christ said that we should want of nothing and trust in God, giving up wealth and helping the poor after his death, 3 thousand people were practicing this. Paul ended this and then said if we don't work we don't eat, and even went back to work while preaching him self.

17. Christ said it will be hard for a rich man to enter heaven; Paul aspired to have wealth and for two years he rented his own house.

18. Christ said we have forgiveness for forgiving others; Paul said we have forgiveness in Christ.

19. Christ said we are justified by our words, Paul said we are justified by Christ.

20. Christ said God would show mercy to the merciful, Paul said we have mercy in Christ.

21. Christ said to be like children to enter heaven; Paul said not to be like children.

22. Christ said to be the light of the world and to show the bad through love how to be good, Paul said to have nothing to do with bad people and push them out.

23. Christ and the Bible said wisdom will make you shine in heaven, and he said that we should increase the talents we are born with; Paul said to be simple in Christ.

24. Christ said, if you help collect in the harvest (works) you will receive your reward, Paul said it is not by works but by faith in Christ alone.

25. Christ said don't make vain repetition in prayers; Paul established it as a way to pray, through the wording he used and the Pharisee ways he showed.

26. Christ said hate self and love through God's love, then this is unconditional, Paul said who doesn't love them self's.

27. Christ said women can be sisters (equal), Paul said they should remain lower.

28. Christ said we should remember him through the sharing of bread (start of acts, only bread); Paul said to remember him through wine.

29. Christ said that his disciples should only drink water; Paul made the drinking of wine (communion) a religious Ritual.

30. Christ clearly showed and said do not worry about being accepted by man, Paul said to be accepted by many.

31. Christ said take up your cross and follow me, as the cross was a symbol in many cultures for God. Paul turned the cross into only a symbol of Christ's death, and caused it to become idolatry.

32. Christ said he came to bring division, meaning that we all follow God; Paul said Christ came to bring peace.

33. Christ said God is the teacher, Paul said him self is a teacher.

34. Christ warned of those who say the time is near, Paul preached the time is near.

35. Christ said invite the poor to your house and feed the hungry, Paul said let the hungry eat at home, and showed to only invite friends for food.

36. Christ says salvation comes from repentance, Paul said Salvation comes from the death of Christ.

You don't even provide any Scriptures. I can see why: Many of these statements are completely wrong....the rest are twisted. If you think the Scriptures are contradictory, that says more about your misunderstanding of them, than anything else.

 

[wizanda]

You don't even provide any Scriptures.

I've not provided scriptures, as anyone getting into this should really know all the scriptures, especially if they're following them....

Yet it isn't they can't be provided, it is just so many to substantiate the whole case, it becomes extremely long, and people lose interest.

There are websites across the web providing scriptural contradictions, and numerous award winning theologians who have recognized this.

If you think the Scriptures are contradictory, that says more about your misunderstanding of them, than anything else.

Two people can interpret something entirely differently; i will stick with the academics who all recognize it, and not with the Pharisees who say it fits.

P.s Bring up any point, and we can debate the scriptures.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I've not provided scriptures, as anyone getting into this should really know all the scriptures, especially if they're following them....

Yet it isn't they can't be provided, it is just so many to substantiate the whole case, it becomes extremely long, and people lose interest.

There are websites across the web providing scriptural contradictions, and numerous award winning theologians who have recognized this.

Two people can interpret something entirely differently; i will stick with the academics who all recognize it, and not with the Pharisees who say it fits.

P.s Bring up any point, and we can debate the scriptures.

Believe me, I know the Scriptures! You will find out during the course of this debate.

And you must have forgot -- the Pharisees were the academics. They were the ones who misunderstood the Scriptures. Same for modern-day "intellectual ones". What importance do Jesus' words have at Luke 10:21? Can simply anyone understand the Bible, or is something else needed?

You say listing the Scriptures would have made it too long? How would stating the book, chapter, and verse, at the end of each statement -- so, two verses for each bullet point, one verifying what Christ said & one for Paul -- have made it "extremely long?"

Take # 11; where did Paul say to worship Christ?

So long for now.

 

[wizanda]

where did Paul say to worship Christ?

Now assuming we just take all the letters of Paul to be his, even though they're clearly not...

The apostle Paul called Jesus “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13) and points out that, prior to His incarnation, Jesus existed in the “form of God” (Philippians 2:5–8). God the Father says regarding Jesus, “Your throne, O God will last forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8).
http://www.gotquestions.org/worship-Jesus.html

Hebrews 1:6 When he again brings in the firstborn into the world he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”

So because Paul deifies jesus, and follows on from Simon's ideas of calling him Lord and Savoir, he becomes an object of worship, justified by the text.

so, two verses for each bullet point, one verifying what Christ said & one for Paul

Not a bad idea, and have thought about it; yet even on this topic, we can't always define Paul's theology in one verse.

What importance do Jesus' words have at Luke 10:21? Can simply anyone understand the Bible, or is something else needed?

You need a good moral compass to understand his words, and a heart that is in the right place, as you'll never see how it interlinks with the prophets, unless you're like a child.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Now assuming we just take all the letters of Paul to be his, even though they're clearly not...

Hebrews 1:6 When he again brings in the firstborn into the world he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”
Co
So because Paul deifies jesus, and follows on from Simon's ideas of calling him Lord and Savoir, he becomes an object of worship, justified by the text.

Not a bad idea, and have thought about it; yet even on this topic, we can't always define Paul's theology in one verse.

You need a good moral compass to understand his words, and a heart that is in the right place, as you'll never see how it interlinks with the prophets, unless you're like a child.

Thanks for replying. Some sudden health problems have come up. I'll reply in depth when I can.