Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[bravo]

^ STOMP!

 

[girlthatsblanco]

https://carm.org/jesus-name-really-yeshua

Did you even read your link? It clearly shows your statement is not even as issue.

 

[blastercombo]

The Idea of the trinity is completely contradictory to the bible. The word trinity isn't even inthe bible.

Jesus looked up and prayed to God. God did his work through jesus. Jesus does not know the time of judgment. Jesus died. Jesus is MAN in nature. Jesus was born. Jesus asked God to forgive mankind. Jesus is known as the ONLY MAN to not sin.

Where does any of that line up with the Idea that he is God?

 

[blastercombo]

Did you even read your link? It clearly shows your statement is not even as issue.

It's not an "issue" but it's not his name

 

[wr]

Did you even read your link? It clearly shows your statement is not even as issue.

Explain why you think it is not an issue. I think the link provides excellent information for this discussion. .

 

[blastercombo]

Explain why you think it is not an issue. I think the link provides excellent information for this discussion. .

"Well it's just his name", would be a rebuttal, but it just adds to the pile of translation "non issues".

 

[boris]

I am disagreeing with the claim, that the verse may be only discussing just homosexual sex under the context of pagan worship is an abomination. I am saying the Bible is clear to me in other passages that the act of homosexual sex is an abomination so that there is no misinterpretation in the verse to me. 

According to the second link notes, something can be to'evah in one culture but not another. So, which culture does this apply to? The other verses that both you and the link explained all state who  the abomination applies to. Why is that not the case in Leviticus?

But on to your recent link. I see no issue with the use of the word abomination in some versions or the word loathsome in other versions I use. Your source makes some valid points, but doesn't take into account a full context of what Moses is writing in Genesis or Exodus. You would be correct, that you will need background information to come to my understanding of the verses which is why I earlier stated that it is more than helpful to read and study the Bible with others. It is also helpful to have some knowledge of the culture and history of different people groups in the Bible if you don't already. Some info on culture is provided in the Bible, while some is not. Either way that is how I am coming to my conclusion that there is no misinterpretation for the word abomination.

Did you do similar background research on other religions?

You still did not answer.

Because my views on homosexuality do not affect how the author intended the verse to be understood. If you want to discuss homosexuality, we can have a separate discussion.

Like I said before, this is how I see that the translations are appropriate. This is my view just like your source has theirs. Are you in agreement with your source or do you have a different view?

I don't speak the languages, nor do I know significant details about the time period, so it's hard to say. It's definitely interesting and worth researching though! 

 

[girlthatsblanco]

It's not an "issue" but it's not his name

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Rabbi Yeshua ben Josef >

 

[wr]

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

What about Greek scholars who substituted words when a direct translation couldn't be found? Would you argue that approximations are the same as translations?

 

[boris]

 

And... the Bible didnt waste time showing how its full of contradictions and misunderstandings of previously written texts by the fact it magically converted from a polytheistic religious book to a monotheistic book with just a translation of one word on the very first verse on the very first page of the "Holy" Book.

The Bible has never had polytheistic God. It seems you have a misunderstanding of what is referred to as The Trinity. I can explain it if you like or you can research it yourself, but in no shape or form was the Bible ever polytheistic so your claim is not accurate.

A while back, I was reading a book called A History of God  by Karen Armstrong about the evolution of Judaism. If I recall correctly, it discusses how it evolved from polytheism. Definitely worth looking into and I definitely want to get back to reading it!

 

[blastercombo]

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)

Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i). In the same way, we can refer to Jesus as “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “YehSou” (Cantonese) without changing His nature. In any language, His name means “The Lord Is Salvation.”

Changing the language DOES change meaning in some instances. Take the word love. The Greek language doesn't have a word for love, they have Eros, agape, and philia. Those words do NOT mean the same thing as love in the English language.

 

[gwap]

Girlsthatblanco obviously only speaks one language. He thinks the comparison of nouns between two languages that exist at the same time is proof that translations are infallible.

 

[Coupé It]

Why are you guys arguing about this grand 3000 year old fairytale?

Can we argue about something more productive? Like Santa Clause?

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Changing the language DOES change meaning in some instances. Take the word love. The Greek language doesn't have a word for love, they have Eros, agape, and philia. Those words do NOT mean the same thing as love in the English language.

But that doesn't apply in the comparisons of the names to Yeshua and Jesus. Show me how it does. He is refered to as Jesus because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same...the Lord is salvation.

 

[darthska]

Scripture (scribed by people of a COMPLETELY lesser intelligence than us) does not value one language over another

Fixed. And that distinction is at the core of one of the main issues, extracting modern relevance from something written by veritable dummies, and doing that extraction in cherry-picking fashion.

Fwiw, I used the word 'scribed' very deliberately, staying away from 'written' to avoid the response 'No, it was written by God.'

 

[blastercombo]

But that doesn't apply in the comparisons of the names to Yeshua and Jesus. Show me how it does. He is refered to as Jesus because, as English-speaking people, we know of Him through English translations of the Greek New Testament. Scripture does not value one language over another, and it gives no indication that we must resort to Hebrew when addressing the Lord. The command is to “call on the name of the Lord,” with the promise that we “shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). Whether we call on Him in English, Korean, Hindi, or Hebrew, the result is the same...the Lord is salvation.

NOT what I was addressing. You said changing languages doesn't change meaning. That's false. Some words DO NOT have translations to them. They are then "translated" to the "interpreted" meaning. That's where the grey area kicks in. The interpretation is at the mercy of the transcriber.

A name is a name is a name. Is it? If I refer to Someone as lord that is NOT the same a calling them King, master, or God. Calling someone all powerful is NOT the same as calling them the MOST powerful. So YES, the name DOES matter.


Let's make it even more simpler. Call a white man named George, Jorge and see what reaction you get

 

[blastercombo]

Fixed. And that distinction is at the core of the main issue, extracting modern relevance from something written by veritable dummies, and doing that extraction in cherry-picking fashion.

Fwiw, I used the word 'scribed' very deliberately, staying away from 'written' to avoid the response 'No, it was written by God.'

Another point where key "lables" are important. The bible wasn't WRITTEN BY GOD, it was written by man allegedly doing their best to interpret what God was saying. HUGE difference.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

NOT what I was addressing. You said changing languages doesn't change meaning. That's false. Some words DO NOT have translations to them. They are then "translated" to the "interpreted" meaning. That's where the grey area kicks in. The interpretation is at the mercy of the transcriber.

A name is a name is a name. Is it? If I refer to Someone as lord that is NOT the same a calling them King, master, or God. Calling someone all powerful is NOT the same as calling them the MOST powerful. So YES, the name DOES matter.


Let's make it even more simpler. Call a white man named George, Jorge and see what reaction you get

You're the one that brought up the topic of Jesus' name, yet you have not shown how different languages change HIS nature or the meaning of HIS name. Scroll up and see where I show you that his nature and meaning have not changed with the use of different languages. It seems like you want to change the focus since you have yet to support evidence to your original claim. Once again, focus on the topic you started which is the name of Jesus.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Fixed. And that distinction is at the core of one of the main issues, extracting modern relevance from something written by veritable dummies, and doing that extraction in cherry-picking fashion.

Fwiw, I used the word 'scribed' very deliberately, staying away from 'written' to avoid the response 'No, it was written by God.'

I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Explain because you said you are avoiding the the reponse that the Bible was written by God. Why are you deliberately avoiding that response? Are you saying the Bible is not from God?

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

I'm not here to enter the debate(s) going on here but here is an example of how the trinity can exist and one can believe in the trinity and not be worshipping multiple dieties. For those that don't understand atleast.

Paraphrased this from a conversation a christian had with a Muslim to explain the concept of the trinity.

The Sun is 93 million miles away from us. We cannot ever go to the sun for two main reasons. One, we just cannot travel that far. Two, if we approach the Sun, we will burn up. In the same way, God is so far away that we cannot approach him. But the Sun can come to us in some limited form By its light. This is how God came down to earth; through his Light, Jesus. So Jesus is the light that came down from heaven. The light that is here with us came from the ball of fire that is far from us, and yet they are one. We can say figuratively that the fire is the father of the light.
Exactly like the fire has light and they are not separated even though the light travels all these millions of miles, God the Father and Jesus the Son are inseparable. They possess the same nature. This is the only way we could experience God; by him coming down to our level. We cannot possibly go to him ourselves. He came down to us because he loves us and wants us to live in the light, not in darkness. (Here you can have a discussion on what “darkness” means, spiritually.) What does the Light bring with it? What do we experience other than being able to see everything around us? Heat or Energy. So the Holy Spirit is the heat.

 

[darthska]

Fixed. And that distinction is at the core of one of the main issues, extracting modern relevance from something written by veritable dummies, and doing that extraction in cherry-picking fashion.

Fwiw, I used the word 'scribed' very deliberately, staying away from 'written' to avoid the response 'No, it was written by God.'

I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Explain because you said you are avoiding the the reponse that the Bible was written by God. Why are you deliberately avoiding that response? Are you saying the Bible is not from God?

I was avoiding it simply as a preemptive strike. If I say, "It was written by men," you'll say, "No, it was written by God." So to move past that matter of semantics, I said 'scribed'.

As in, "Fine, it was written by God. But at the very least, it was scribed by men."

To answer that last question: yes. I'm contending that the bible is from the minds of much earlier man, man who was fat leases intelligent than us.

There are 2 positions in there, both of which can be proved. The rebuttal is, "The Bible was recorded by those less intelligent men, but the words were FROM God," and that position is nowhere close to be proven, or even supported by anything other than belief (which again, is in the mind).

 

[darthska]

I'm not here to enter the debate(s) going on here but here is an example of how the trinity can exist and one can believe in the trinity and not be worshipping multiple dieties. For those that don't understand atleast.

Paraphrased this from a conversation a christian had with a Muslim to explain the concept of the trinity.

The Sun is 93 million miles away from us. We cannot ever go to the sun for two main reasons. One, we just cannot travel that far. Two, if we approach the Sun, we will burn up. In the same way, God is so far away that we cannot approach him. But the Sun can come to us in some limited form By its light. This is how God came down to earth; through his Light, Jesus. So Jesus is the light that came down from heaven. The light that is here with us came from the ball of fire that is far from us, and yet they are one. We can say figuratively that the fire is the father of the light.
Exactly like the fire has light and they are not separated even though the light travels all these millions of miles, God the Father and Jesus the Son are inseparable. They possess the same nature. This is the only way we could experience God; by him coming down to our level. We cannot possibly go to him ourselves. He came down to us because he loves us and wants us to live in the light, not in darkness. (Here you can have a discussion on what “darkness” means, spiritually.) What does the Light bring with it? What do we experience other than being able to see everything around us? Heat or Energy. So the Holy Spirit is the heat.

Key difference: the light and the heat are both sensed.

The Spirit and the Christ and God are only sensed... mentally.

 

[gwap]

I'm not here to enter the debate(s) going on here but here is an example of how the trinity can exist and one can believe in the trinity and not be worshipping multiple dieties. For those that don't understand atleast.

Paraphrased this from a conversation a christian had with a Muslim to explain the concept of the trinity.

The Sun is 93 million miles away from us. We cannot ever go to the sun for two main reasons. One, we just cannot travel that far. Two, if we approach the Sun, we will burn up. In the same way, God is so far away that we cannot approach him. But the Sun can come to us in some limited form By its light. This is how God came down to earth; through his Light, Jesus. So Jesus is the light that came down from heaven. The light that is here with us came from the ball of fire that is far from us, and yet they are one. We can say figuratively that the fire is the father of the light.
Exactly like the fire has light and they are not separated even though the light travels all these millions of miles, God the Father and Jesus the Son are inseparable. They possess the same nature. This is the only way we could experience God; by him coming down to our level. We cannot possibly go to him ourselves. He came down to us because he loves us and wants us to live in the light, not in darkness. (Here you can have a discussion on what “darkness” means, spiritually.) What does the Light bring with it? What do we experience other than being able to see everything around us? Heat or Energy. So the Holy Spirit is the heat.

so god exists in a location in space-time?

i thought he was omnipotent and omnipresent?

wouldn't everything in existence be of god ?

like... the atomic structure and forces that exist only exist as an expression of God?

 

Fixed. And that distinction is at the core of one of the main issues, extracting modern relevance from something written by veritable dummies, and doing that extraction in cherry-picking fashion.

Fwiw, I used the word 'scribed' very deliberately, staying away from 'written' to avoid the response 'No, it was written by God.'

I'm not clear on what you are claiming. Explain because you said you are avoiding the the reponse that the Bible was written by God. Why are you deliberately avoiding that response? Are you saying the Bible is not from God?

the bible was written by human men... verified fact....

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Key difference: the light and the heat are both sensed.

The Spirit and the Christ and God are only sensed... mentally.

Who are we to say how a christian senses God's presence?