• 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!

Yeshua / Jesus Vs Saul / Paul Points

wizanda

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
MountainPine said:
Well, if you want to say Paul was a false prophet, you may as well say that Peter was one too:
Click to expand...
Sorry if not done so in this thread, my understanding is Yeshua called Simon a small stumbling stone as he would mislead everyone.
MountainPine said:
(Ebionite) community grew after the time of Christ.
Click to expand...
The Ebionites were possibly the original follows of Yeshua we see at the start of Acts, as Ebionites mean the poor ones; they believed by giving up wealth, and following the commandments, they gained eternal life, as Yeshua taught.

Christianity came after established by Paul and Simon the stone in Antioch; where they were teaching by his death you gained eternal life, which isn't true, and defiles the Law.
Torah4Yah said:
Yahowsha told us Peter wouldn't remain
Click to expand...
Yeshua told us that Simon was like satan following the ways of man more than God, and on that rock he would build his church.
Torah4Yah said:
She'owl (indistinguishable from Sha'uwl - they are interchangeable terms in Hebrew)
Click to expand...
Excellent point, hadn't noticed that. :)
Torah4Yah said:
Sha'uwl, is a prototype for Sha'uwl of Tarsus.
Click to expand...
1 Samuel 10:12 ....Therefore it became a proverb, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" :innocent:
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
oldbadger said:
I enjoy many of your posts about Yeshua/Jesus.
I liked most of it, but number 29 is wrong, I think. Jesus loved to eat and drink with his friends, and sometimes might have taken a little more than he could hold. See G-Mark about that?
Since others have questioned the value of the source, have you ever thought of 'marrying' each point with a parrallel from the synoptics?
My suggestion for clarity would be that the real 'Jesus' could be called 'Yeshua' and that Paul's be called 'Christ' since he was 'into' Greek.


Oh yes...... a concoction, changing the face of Yeshua from 'Son-of-man' into 'Lord' and Christ'.
Casting demons was not good enough for John, and Yeshua's vocation to bring back God's Laws to God's Land was trashed for some new agenda.


Simon? Yeah..... Well hard. Rock-hard! :)
I notice that at least hald of the disciples had nicknames, all suggesting hardness, ruthlessness and toughness. I therefore believe that they all might have had nicknames. That's just on the side.

Paul has caused so much heartache, for so long. :)
Click to expand...

I don't believe you have a rationale for any of this.
 
T

Torah4Yah

Member
image.png


oldbadger said:
I enjoy many of your posts about Yeshua/Jesus.
I liked most of it, but number 29 is wrong, I think. Jesus loved to eat and drink with his friends, and sometimes might have taken a little more than he could hold. See G-Mark about that?
Since others have questioned the value of the source, have you ever thought of 'marrying' each point with a parrallel from the synoptics?
My suggestion for clarity would be that the real 'Jesus' could be called 'Yeshua' and that Paul's be called 'Christ' since he was 'into' Greek.


Oh yes...... a concoction, changing the face of Yeshua from 'Son-of-man' into 'Lord' and Christ'.
Casting demons was not good enough for John, and Yeshua's vocation to bring back God's Laws to God's Land was trashed for some new agenda.


Simon? Yeah..... Well hard. Rock-hard! :)
I notice that at least hald of the disciples had nicknames, all suggesting hardness, ruthlessness and toughness. I therefore believe that they all might have had nicknames. That's just on the side.

Paul has caused so much heartache, for so long. :)
Click to expand...


Yeshua from Yeshu a Hebrew acronym insult.
 
wizanda

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Can show numerous prophecies with derivatives of his name Yeshua, which is the root 'to save' in Hebrew YSH... So removing a vowel doesn't change the root into a totally different meaning. :innocent:
 
T

Torah4Yah

Member
oldbadger said:
Yeah.....
I read that rubbish! :)
And then I saw scores and scores of sensible links which explained how Yeshua was simply a name.

Yeshua BarYosef. That's as close as possible, I reckon. :)
Click to expand...

They must be right... What would two back to back <dictionaries> in one screenshot know? Next time I will use links to find word meanings (sensible ones) and toss the dictionaries (word meanings) in the trash. Screw etymology.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Torah4Yah said:
They must be right... What would two back to back <dictionaries> in one screenshot know? ...............
Click to expand...

You have taken a lot of trouble in your attempts to show that Yeshu is an anagram for 'badness'.
I just don't accept it.
What's in a name?

Our children have many names which could be construed as given to show 'badness'. A little girl lives down the road and her first name is 'Lucy'. Do you think she is secretly the Devil's spawn or something?

Yeshua BarYosef was a Peasant of the second order, a (land) displaced handworker, who was so upset about the way in which most of the upper-class (the priesthood) were copying the fashions, cultures, practices and greeds of the controlling nationality, at the expense of God's laws and guidance, quislings all, that he initiated a movement in Galilee to rouse the working classes to do something about it.

And here is you, spinning 'angles' on his name.............. :)
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
oldbadger said:
I enjoy many of your posts about Yeshua/Jesus.
I liked most of it, but number 29 is wrong, I think. Jesus loved to eat and drink with his friends, and sometimes might have taken a little more than he could hold. See G-Mark about that?
Since others have questioned the value of the source, have you ever thought of 'marrying' each point with a parrallel from the synoptics?
My suggestion for clarity would be that the real 'Jesus' could be called 'Yeshua' and that Paul's be called 'Christ' since he was 'into' Greek.


Oh yes...... a concoction, changing the face of Yeshua from 'Son-of-man' into 'Lord' and Christ'.
Casting demons was not good enough for John, and Yeshua's vocation to bring back God's Laws to God's Land was trashed for some new agenda.


Simon? Yeah..... Well hard. Rock-hard! :)
I notice that at least hald of the disciples had nicknames, all suggesting hardness, ruthlessness and toughness. I therefore believe that they all might have had nicknames. That's just on the side.

Paul has caused so much heartache, for so long. :)
Click to expand...

I believe there is no rationale for saying that Yeshua is the "real" Jesus which implies that Paul's isn't. In other words there simply is nothing in the Bible that supports that kind of thinking.

As for the name:
Ro 4:24 but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,

I believe it is an error to say it is a concoction. Jesus Himself said that He was the Messiah.
John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

I believe the agenda was not a trashing of what others had said: It was reported in Luke and Matthew as well:
Luke 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

I believe people cause their own heartache and Paul provides a message of salvation from heartache.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Muffled said:
I believe there is no rationale for saying that Yeshua is the "real" Jesus which implies that Paul's isn't. In other words there simply is nothing in the Bible that supports that kind of thinking.

As for the name:
Ro 4:24 but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,

I believe it is an error to say it is a concoction. Jesus Himself said that He was the Messiah.
John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh (he that is called Christ): when he is come, he will declare unto us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

I believe the agenda was not a trashing of what others had said: It was reported in Luke and Matthew as well:
Luke 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.

I believe people cause their own heartache and Paul provides a message of salvation from heartache.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. So for you, Paul is Jesus, and John which was written 70-80 years after Yeshua died, these are your prophets for Christianity?
And you write about rationale?
 
MountainPine

MountainPine

Deuteronomy 30:16
Torah4Yah said:
Read romans 7:4
Dead to torah and united in a covenant with a corpse. But the Messiah is the Passover Lamb, and no bone remained until morning. The body was completely consumed, just as every Passover Lamb before it. Who is this dead god Sha'uwl speaks of who has another Covenant?
But Yahowsha came to fulfill Torah as the Passover Lamb. How then did He remain a corpse to rise? No, His soul rose from She'owl (indistinguishable from Sha'uwl - they are interchangeable terms in Hebrew), the grave. Not a physical resurrection. What good does a corpse with a physical body (in a spiritual realm) do when all earthly things must pass away? Why do we get new bodies but the son of God remains a corpse?
Click to expand...

Yahushua is not the Passover Lamb. Virtually every comparison one can make between him and the original Passover lamb fails to fit the bill. For one thing, the lamb chosen for slaughter was supposed to be without blemish (Exodus 12:5), which includes any sort of physical defect in its description (even a slight injury), and while Christians find this in accordance with Christ’s lack of sin, the fact that he was beaten and tortured before enduring three hours of agony on a stauros hardly lends support to their claim. How is this “kosher”? For another, the lamb was supposed to be roasted in fire (Exodus 12:8-9), a practice for which there is no credible evidence that the Romans subjected Christians to until centuries later. Any flesh of the lamb which remained until morning was supposed to be burned (Exodus 12:10), whereas Yahushua’s body had to remain intact for three full days before he was resurrected. Its blood was also to be poured into a basin, and a bunch of hyssop was to be dipped into it to strike the lintel and side posts of the door with blood (Exodus 12:22), yet the Shroud of Turin provides the proof we need to be certain that he was buried with as much of the blood from his wounds as naturally flowed from his wounds, rather than that it was absorbed and the wounds cleaned. (The burial was done in accordance with ancient custom and expectation of resurrection. For example, a soldier who died on the battlefield was buried in his armor, rather than being embalmed or dressed, as in the heathen customs practiced now in all First World nations. This stems from the idea that the blood is life, and no less essential to a person’s body than his flesh; you would not want to be resurrected without it.)

Yahushua also does not fit the description of a Passover lamb for several other reasons. For instance, he was murdered on a mountaintop, not sacrificed on an altar. His killers were Roman soldiers, not Levite priests, and to whatever extent that the high priest Caiaphas can be said to have participated in this “sacrifice” at all, the fact that his heart was filled with malice and vengeance is hardly consistent with the reverence with which the priests were supposed to conduct their offerings. So it is an invalid sacrifice just for that reason alone; it was sufficient enough to get the sons of Eli killed over their lust for animal flesh—never mind Caiaphas’ lust to see Yahushua murdered. Yahushua himself called the priests and the teachers of the Law “blind” no less than five times in the rant recorded in Matthew 23:16-26, in contrast with their outwardly going through the motions of presenting themselves as spotless, which means that on his authority, they were incompetent to offer an atoning sacrifice even in a strictly spiritual or metaphorical sense. In fact, the priest is only ever doing his job if he is teaching the precepts of the higher law in conjunction with the metaphor, as his first duty, otherwise the entire purpose of the ritual is lost and it becomes an abomination in every single case of sacrifice across the board.

And יהוה spoke to Mosheh, saying, “Speak to Aharon, saying, ‘No man of your offspring throughout their generations, who has any defect, is to draw near to bring the bread of his Elohim. For any man who has a defect is not to draw near: a man blind [Matthew 23:16-26] or one lame or disfigured or deformed, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. No man among the offspring of Aharon the priest, who has a defect, is to come near to bring the offerings made by fire to יהוה—he has a defect, he does not come near to bring the bread of his Elohim. He does eat the bread of his Elohim, both the most set-apart and the set-apart, only, he does not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profanes My set-apart places. For I am יהוה, who sets them apart.’” Leviticus 21:16-23
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
oldbadger said:
Oh dear. So for you, Paul is Jesus, and John which was written 70-80 years after Yeshua died, these are your prophets for Christianity?
And you write about rationale?
Click to expand...

For me I believe I am Jesus. So I recognize myself in Paul and John.

I believe Paul is Jesus the same way I am through the Paraclete.

I believe you are in error by at least 20 years. Even if John were a young 30 when Jesus died and lived to be 100 it could not have been more than 70 years. My Bible commentary says 55 to 60 years. However the amount of time is not an issue because the Paraclete refreshes the memory.

I don't believe these are technically prophets but certainly the Paraclete acts in the same way as God interacted with prophets.

I believe at least I have one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top