Zone1 YHWH(Jehovah)

[kjw47]

What "prophecies"?

Isaiah prophesied how Babylon would fall and a man named Cyrus would do it-200 years prior to it occurring. All have watched Revelation occurring before their eyes.

 

[Red Front]

Isaiah prophesied how Babylon would fall and a man named Cyrus would do it-200 years prior to it occurring. All have watched Revelation occurring before their eyes.

There's no way to know whether that was written after the fact. Read any bible commentary, even many Evangelical ones, that admit that the book of Isaiah was written by multiple authors i.e. unknown writers. You have no idea if what you are reading is actually a "prophecy". Many so-called prophecies are ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways, hence Christians can project whatever they want unto the text, seeing "prophecy" when there's nothing there.

I remember back in the 1980s, when I used to watch TBN i.e. Trinity Broadcasting Network with Paul and Jan Crouch and Hal Lindsay and other "prophecy teachers" would present their "evidence" for Jesus coming back soon, perhaps before 1990. It was all BS-gobbledygook.

Let me give you an example of "Christian bible prophecy".

Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

The writer of Matthew, whoever he was, is citing Hosea:

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hos 11:2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.


According to the prophet Hosea, this isn't even a prophecy. He's simply describing an event in Israel's history, but Christians take Hosea's words and conjure up prophecy out of nothing. They just decided that Hosea was actually prophecying about Jesus leaving Egypt with his mother and her husband. No, that's not a prophecy that's BS gobbledygook. The son of God that Hosea is referring to is the nation of Israel, not Jesus. You project Jesus into a text in the Hebrew Bible, that has nothing to do with Jesus. That's your "prophecy".

More, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you did have a biblical prophecy, that is accurate and provable. How does that prove that the bible is divinely inspired? How do you know that there aren't other spiritual sources that can accurately predict the future? When was it proven that only an almighty deity or YHWH can predict the future, and no other spirit entities can? Miracles or paranormal phenomena doesn't prove religious dogma or the veracity of what is written in a "holy book".

Christian apologists who debate Muslims will often respond to Muslims who claim that the Quran and hadith literature (i.e. written traditions of Muhammad), contain prophecies by arguing that it doesn't matter if the Quran and hadith have prophecies or any supernatural component because God isn't the only source of prophecy or paranormal activity. They attribute whatever supernatural phenomena the Muslims experience in Islam as demonic, hence they quickly dismiss the Muslim's appeal to miracles or the supernatural. Why is that only true for Muslims but not for Christians? Hello?

At the end of the day, you have no evidence for the bible being the inerrant word of a deity. The bible is just a religious book full of ancient mythology, that Jews and Christians consider divinely inspired. You can also believe the moon is made out of Swiss cheese.

 

[Red Front]

No it does not say that ever.

Yes it does. Your bible is full of gods, and some of them are legitimately identified as gods. Being a god according to the bible is not necessarily an offense to YHWH, the Almighty God. You don't know the bible, that's the problem. You only rely on what your pastor teaches you from the pulpit.

 

[Red Front]

Why didn't Jesus correct Thomas after Thomas said "My Lord and my God"?

As you can see "BS Filter" is jumping to another issue, completely ignoring all of the points I made on his claim about John 8:58. Now he's jumping to John 20:28, another verse that he is isolating from its context and ignoring the original Greek to support his fallacious theology.

Thomas is simply praising both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my Elohim/God.
​

Evangelicals like "BS Filter" completely ignore the immediate and general biblical, Hebraic context of the verses they cite in support of their theological claptrap. Both the NT gospels and of course the Hebrew Bible is full of Hebraic concepts and principles that Evangelicals completely ignore, hence their pretentious confusion and ignorance. One of these Hebraic biblical principles is called "SHALIACH"/AGENCY.

Shaliach is defined as:

“Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.” The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowsky, G. Wigoder, 1986, p. 15.

“Jesus is thus a faithful shaliach, or agent; Jewish law taught that the man’s agent was as a man himself (backed by his full authority), to the extent that the agent faithfully represented him. Moses and the Old Testament prophets were sometimes viewed as God’s agents.”The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Craig S. Keener on John 5:30.

The agent and the principal (the one who commissions or sends the agent), are as ONE. The craftsman and his tools are as ONE (the tools are in total submission to the craftsman's hand/power). The actions of the subordinate who is commissioned to accomplish a mission for and on behalf of his superior are as ONE with his lord. When you grant power of attorney to someone and they sign a document on your behalf, it's as if you were there in person signing the document.

If someone is wearing the ring with your royal seal and has the authority to stamp and seal documents on your behalf, it is you the king (or queen) who impressed the royal seal on the document. You might have been thousands of miles away, but it doesn't matter, you granted that person with authority to seal documents with your royal seal which has your name and reputation, authority, and power. The actions of the Shaliach (the one who is sent or commissioned) are synonymous with the one who sent or commissioned him or her.

Here I'm going to cite a few verses that help to clarify this principle and Thomas' reaction to seeing Jesus (i.e. His name is really Yehoshua/Joshua but as a matter of convention and simplicity I will use the name "Jesus").

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

TO SEE JESUS, IS TO SEE THE FATHER.....

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

PHILIP, IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME, YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IS IN ME. I DO HIS WORK, I AM HIS INSTRUMENT/SHALIACH, AND I MANIFEST HIS NAME/PRESENCE THROUGH MY WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

In John 17, we read:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Only True God is The Father, who Jesus represents. They are ONE in WILL/FUNCTION. There is a functional, not ontological equality between The Father (the only true God) and Jesus who He has sent (shaliach: the sender and the sent are as ONE).

Joh 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

Joh 17:21 That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (shaliach).

SAME ONENESS, SAME GLORY:

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Are you one with YHWH and your fellow disciples in the Trinitarian, ontological sense? NO. It's a oneness of will, action, and function.

The works and even the identity of one are conflated and merged with the other. One in will and function, hence one in action and identity.

Mat_16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.

Mar_8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of Elohim, but the things that be of men.

Luk_4:8 And Yahshua answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahweh thy Elohim, and him only shalt thou serve.

Is Peter Satan? NO. Why is Jesus directing those words at Peter? Peter is a human being, not Satan. Correct? Peter's mouth, his tongue, became a tool of Satan. The work of Satan manifested itself through the words of Peter when he tried to persuade Jesus not to go to the cross. Peter is identified as SATAN HIMSELF. Peter became the mouthpiece of Satan, hence He is identified with Satan.

When the work of YHWH manifests itself in and through Jesus, YHWH and Jesus are ONE. Does that imply that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH Father? No. That's Trinitarian claptrap. They're wrong. Is Peter Satan?

Thomas wanted to see the resurrected Christ. He said that he wouldn't believe it unless he saw Jesus alive and could touch his wounds. What was the reaction of Thomas when he saw the resurrected Jesus? He praised the power and glory of YHWH, manifesting itself in and through the resurrected Christ. That doesn't imply that Thomas became an instant Evangelical Trinitarian theologian, declaring that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH the heavenly Father. That's just nonsense. Again, was Peter Satan?

Identifying Jesus with the one who sent him and was working through him, is not the same as identifying Jesus with YHWH in a Trinitarian sense. It doesn't imply that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH Father (Jesus is the Son not the Father). It doesn't mean that Thomas believed that Jesus was the incarnate YHWH in the Christian sense.

Thomas was simply praising YHWH in and through His risen King. The glory and power of that event overwhelmed Thomas. He saw the Father in the resurrection of Jesus, he saw both of them there as One (John 14:10 - He who sees me sees the Father), but that doesn't imply that Thomas was a Trinitarian theologian. That's just disingenuous and absurd.

If King David could be worshiped alongside YHWH:

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your Elohim. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh Elohim of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Yahweh, and the king.

(David's throne is the very throne of YHWH: 1Ch 29:23)

..and was identified as "God":

Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter.
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore Elohim, thy Elohim, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows/peers.

David is a God who has a God. He is ELOHIM, because he sits on the throne of ELOHIM.

How much more can Jesus, who according to Christianity is the Messiah, can be worshiped and identified with God? However you approach John 20:28, there is no reason to project Trinitarian theology upon what Thomas said.

I could present a lot more evidence that humans are identified as "GOD" when they SERVE GOD IN A SPECIAL WAY. If you are commissioned by GOD then when you act on His behalf you can be identified with Him. That is the biblical principle of agency/shaliach. Don't let these ignorant Evangelicals fool you, they don't know the bible. They just swallow whatever their pastors feed them from the pulpit or what they watch on TBN. Whatever that lady with the blue beehive hairdo and fake eyelashes tells them, that's what they believe.

 

[BS Filter]

As you can see "BS Filter" is jumping to another issue, completely ignoring all of the points I made on his claim about John 8:58. Now he's jumping to John 20:28, another verse that he is isolating from its context and ignoring the original Greek to support his fallacious theology.

Thomas is simply praising both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my Elohim/God.
​

Evangelicals like "BS Filter" completely ignore the immediate and general biblical, Hebraic context of the verses they cite in support of their theological claptrap. Both the NT gospels and of course the Hebrew Bible is full of Hebraic concepts and principles that Evangelicals completely ignore, hence their pretentious confusion and ignorance. One of these Hebraic biblical principles is called "SHALIACH"/AGENCY.

Shaliach is defined as:

“Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.” The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowsky, G. Wigoder, 1986, p. 15.

“Jesus is thus a faithful shaliach, or agent; Jewish law taught that the man’s agent was as a man himself (backed by his full authority), to the extent that the agent faithfully represented him. Moses and the Old Testament prophets were sometimes viewed as God’s agents.”The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, Craig S. Keener on John 5:30.

The agent and the principal (the one who commissions or sends the agent), are as ONE. The craftsman and his tools are as ONE (the tools are in total submission to the craftsman's hand/power). The actions of the subordinate who is commissioned to accomplish a mission for and on behalf of his superior are as ONE with his lord. When you grant power of attorney to someone and they sign a document on your behalf, it's as if you were there in person signing the document.

If someone is wearing the ring with your royal seal and has the authority to stamp and seal documents on your behalf, it is you the king (or queen) who impressed the royal seal on the document. You might have been thousands of miles away, but it doesn't matter, you granted that person with authority to seal documents with your royal seal which has your name and reputation, authority, and power. The actions of the Shaliach (the one who is sent or commissioned) are synonymous with the one who sent or commissioned him or her.

Before we read a few examples of this biblical principle in both the Hebrew bible and the Christian gospels. I'm going to cite a few verses that help to clarify this principle and Thomas' reaction to seeing Jesus (i.e. His name is really Yehoshua/Joshua but as a matter of convention and simplicity I will use the name "Jesus").

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

TO SEE JESUS, IS TO SEE THE FATHER.....

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

PHILIP, IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME, YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IS IN ME. I DO HIS WORK, I AM HIS INSTRUMENT/SHALIACH, AND I MANIFEST HIS NAME/PRESENCE THROUGH MY WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

In John 17, we read:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The Only True God is The Father, who Jesus represents. They are ONE in WILL/FUNCTION. There is a functional, not ontological equality between The Father (the only true God) and Jesus who He has sent (shaliach: the sender and the sent are as ONE).

Joh 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

Joh 17:21 That they all may be ONE; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be ONE in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (shaliach).

SAME ONENESS, SAME GLORY:

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Are you one with YHWH and your fellow disciples in the Trinitarian, ontological sense? NO. It's a oneness of will, action, and function.

The works and even the identity of one are conflated and merged with the other. One in will and function, hence one in action and identity.

Mat_16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.

Mar_8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of Elohim, but the things that be of men.

Luk_4:8 And Yahshua answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship Yahweh thy Elohim, and him only shalt thou serve.

Is Peter Satan? NO. Why is Jesus directing those words at Peter? Peter is a human being, not Satan. Correct? Peter's mouth, his tongue, became a tool of Satan. The work of Satan manifested itself through the words of Peter when he tried to persuade Jesus not to go to the cross. Peter is identified as SATAN HIMSELF. Peter became the mouthpiece of Satan, hence He is identified with Satan.

When the work of YHWH manifests itself in and through Jesus, YHWH and Jesus are ONE. Does that imply that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH Father? No. That's Trinitarian claptrap. They're wrong. Is Peter Satan?

Thomas wanted to see the resurrected Christ. He said that he wouldn't believe it unless he saw Jesus alive and could touch his wounds. What was the reaction of Thomas when he saw the resurrected Jesus? He praised the power and glory of YHWH, manifesting itself in and through the resurrected Christ. That doesn't imply that Thomas became an instant Evangelical Trinitarian theologian, declaring that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH the heavenly Father. That's just nonsense. Again, was Peter Satan?

Identifying Jesus with the one who sent him and was working through him, is not the same as identifying Jesus with YHWH in a Trinitarian sense. It doesn't imply that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH Father (Jesus is the Son not the Father). It doesn't mean that Thomas believed that Jesus was the incarnate YHWH in the Christian sense.

Thomas was simply praising YHWH in and through His risen King. The glory and power of that event overwhelmed Thomas. He saw the Father in the resurrection of Jesus, he saw both of them there as One (John 14:10 - He who sees me sees the Father), but that doesn't imply that Thomas was a Trinitarian theologian. That's just disingenuous and absurd.

If King David could be worshiped alongside YHWH:

1Ch 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless Yahweh your Elohim. And all the congregation blessed Yahweh Elohim of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Yahweh, and the king.

(David's throne is the very throne of YHWH: 1Ch 29:23)

..and was identified as "God":

Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever: the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter.
Psa 45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore Elohim, thy Elohim, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows/peers.

David is a God who has a God. He is ELOHIM, because he sits on the throne of ELOHIM.

How much more can Jesus, who according to Christianity is the Messiah, can be worshiped and identified with God? However you approach John 20:28, there is no reason to project Trinitarian theology upon what Thomas said.

I could present a lot more evidence that humans are identified as "GOD" when they SERVE GOD IN A SPECIAL WAY. If you are commissioned by GOD then when you act on His behalf you can be identified with Him. That is the biblical principle of agency/shaliach. Don't let these ignorant Evangelicals fool you, they don't know the bible. They just swallow whatever their pastors feed them from the pulpit or what they watch on TBN. Whatever that lady with the blue beehive hairdo and fake eyelashes tells them, that's what they believe.

Now that's some funny crap. Thomas was speaking to Jesus and called him his God and you explain it away like a good obedient Arian. Fascinating. Next thing you'll tell me is Enoch died.

 

[Red Front]

Now that's some funny crap. Thomas was speaking to Jesus and called him his God and you explain it away like a good obedient Arian. Fascinating. Next thing you'll tell me is Enoch died.

As you can see, as he did with his earlier claim with John 8:58 about Jesus supposedly declaring himself the "I AM", here "BS Filter" (let's just call him BS from now on), flippantly dismisses every point I made in my post. BS is clearly full of BS. He needs to replace his filter, it's full of his own crap. He's a real piece of work.

 

[Hector12]

Isaiah prophesied how Babylon would fall and a man named Cyrus would do it-200 years prior to it occurring. All have watched Revelation occurring before their eyes.

The consensus of non Fundamentalist Bible scholars is that the first two thirds of Isaiah was written when Babylon was a threat to Judea, and that the last third was written after Cyrus had conquered Babylon.

 

[BS Filter]

As you can see, as he did with his earlier claim with John 8:58 about Jesus supposedly declaring himself the "I AM", here "BS Filter" (let's just call him BS from now on), flippantly dismisses every point I made in my post. BS is clearly full of BS. He needs to replace his filter, it's full of his own crap. He's a real piece of work.

You're really not making points so much as you're denying Scripture and replacing it with Arian propaganda. You remind me of a Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Red Front]

You're really not making points so much as you're denying Scripture and replacing it with Arian propaganda. You remind me of a Jehovah's Witness.

As you can see, BS just makes claims and sweeping statements without providing any biblical evidence. I provided plenty of scripturally based arguments debunking his claptrap, while he just flippantly dismisses whatever his opponent/s present as "propaganda". As I said, he's a real PIECE OF "work".

 

[alang1216]

And yet history records the linkage between atheism and socialism/communism and their consistent subordination of the dominant religion of the land and time.

Subordination of the dominant religion is hardly anything new and unrelated to atheism or any other religion. When the Spanish conquered the new world they spread their Christianity, sometimes brutally. When Muslims conquered North Africa, Islam became the dominant religion. When England became Protestant, Catholicism essentially disappeared.

Is it off topic? This conversation started when I asked you why it mattered to you that the God of Abraham isn't the source of existence. That is totally consistent with socialism always trying to subordinate the dominant religion of the land. You have an ax to grind with Christianity. It's obvious. Apparently it's the only religion you have an issue with.

I don't have anything against Christianity, it is no worse than any other religion.

 

[ding]

Subordination of the dominant religion is hardly anything new and unrelated to atheism or any other religion. When the Spanish conquered the new world they spread their Christianity, sometimes brutally. When Muslims conquered North Africa, Islam became the dominant religion. When England became Protestant, Catholicism essentially disappeared.


I don't have anything against Christianity, it is no worse than any other religion.

You are right. Socialism has always done that.

 

[BS Filter]

As you can see, BS just makes claims and sweeping statements without providing any biblical evidence. I provided plenty of scripturally based arguments debunking his claptrap, while he just flippantly dismisses whatever his opponent/s present as "propaganda". As I said, he's a real PIECE OF "work".

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps we can have a real discussion. So where did Jesus come from?

 

[Red Front]

Thanks for the compliment. Perhaps we can have a real discussion. So where did Jesus come from?

How do you define a "real discussion"? You make claims and throw questions at me, and I spend my precious time and effort addressing them, only to have you flippantly dismiss everything I said as "Arian propaganda"? I don't waste my time playing such games with Christian fundamentalists. I may respond to your claims and objections for the sake of others who are sincerely pursuing the truth, but not rude, pretentious characters like you. It's not worth it. I only respond to your tripe-drivel, for the good of genuine truth-seekers, lest you misguide them.

Here BS opens another topic, after completely ignoring everything I said in my previous posts in response to his biblical "proof texts", which he doesn't even bother to cite correctly, by providing a name, chapter, and verse. This man he calls "Jesus" was a Hebrew named Yehoshua, and a direct translation of his name from Hebrew to English is "Joshua", not Jesus ( a translation of a translation = completely unnecessary and illogical).

The name "Jesus" is taken from the Greek, and the only reason English-speaking Christians do this is to create the illusion, the lie, that their messiah doesn't have a mundane, commonly used name. Joshua sounds too familiar to them so they conjured up this other unused, "mysterious" name, from the Greek, rather than simply translating directly from Hebrew.

Meriweather corrected me. It's a translation from the Latin, not the Greek. ​

Anyways, BS now is asking "where did Jesus come from". Christians believe this man is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH GOD, hence he has supposedly always existed wherever YHWH exists, along with the Holy Spirit, which is another person in their divine trinity.

They were in "heaven" together playing blackjack or UNO, from all eternity, until one of them said "hey, let's create something". So they created this universe with trillions of galaxies, stars and planets. Then Earth was populated with animals, that were all vegans, eating fruits and vegetables.

Carrots were big back then. Sure, some animals had really sharp teeth and claws that could rip another animal's flesh to pieces, but that was just for looks. The animals wanted to look cool and scary, so they were like "Jesus, make me look scary with sharp teeth and claws" and baby Jesus was like "Ok, sure, here you go" . Saber tooth tigers, grizzly bears, sharks, it was all just like a big show. Showing off, pretending to be tough (uuuuu I'm bad look at my fangs), but they were all eating fruits and vegetables. Only plants could die before the caveman and his wife ate from the wrong fruit tree.

The snake was like "What? Jesus told you not to eat from this tree? Why not? Go ahead, don't worry about it. Here's a blender, make a smoothie". She was like "I can't, I'll get in trouble" and the snake was like "how?", and she said "those three guys that float around in white robes will kill me" and the snake was like "nah", she was like "ok". Adam walked in right when she was drinking her smoothie and was like "you're crazy girl, you're going to get us killed". She was like "it tastes good, go ahead, try it". He was like.......alright. As soon as he drank that smoothie, the whole universe went helter-skelter. Rex said, "I don't want carrots, give me a cheeseburger". The three guys in white glowing robes appeared out of nowhere..

"I told both of you not to eat those fruits", Eve said "I didn't eat them, I made a smoothie" and Adam was like "that's true". The old man with the glowing white beared was like "smarty pants huh? This is what I'm going to do. You, your wife, and all of your kids are going to die. I'm going to curse the ground, make you work long hours for $3.50 an hour and your wife will have to cook and make babies, forever". Adam was like "do I get healthcare?", and the old man was like "nope".

That's how it all started.

 

[BS Filter]

How do you define a "real discussion"? You make claims and throw questions at me, and I spend my precious time and effort addressing them, only to have you flippantly dismiss everything I said as "Arian propaganda"? I don't waste my time playing such games with Christian fundamentalists. I may respond to your claims and objections for the sake of others who are sincerely pursuing the truth, but not rude, pretentious characters like you. It's not worth it. I only respond to your tripe-drivel, for the good of genuine truth-seekers, lest you misguide them.

Here BS opens another topic, after completely ignoring everything I said in my previous posts in response to his biblical "proof texts", which he doesn't even bother to cite correctly, by providing a name, chapter, and verse. This man he calls "Jesus" was a Hebrew named Yehoshua, and a direct translation of his name from Hebrew to English is "Joshua", not Jesus ( a translation of a translation = completely unnecessary and illogical).

The name "Jesus" is taken from the Greek, and the only reason English-speaking Christians do this is to create the illusion, the lie, that their messiah doesn't have a mundane, commonly used name. Joshua sounds too familiar to them so they conjured up this other unused, "mysterious" name, from the Greek, rather than simply translating directly from Hebrew. Anyways, BS now is asking "where did Jesus come from". Christians believe this man is co-equal and co-eternal with YHWH GOD, hence he has supposedly always existed wherever YHWH exists, along with the Holy Spirit, which is another person in their divine trinity.

They were in "heaven" together playing blackjack or UNO, from all eternity, until one of them said "hey, let's create something". So they created this universe with trillions of galaxies, stars and planets. Then Earth was populated with animals, that were all vegans, eating fruits and vegetables.

View attachment 764651​

Carrots were big back then. Sure, some animals had really sharp teeth and claws that could rip another animal's flesh to pieces, but that was just for looks. The animals wanted to look cool and scary, so they were like "Jesus, make me look scary with sharp teeth and claws" and baby Jesus was like "Ok, sure, here you go" . Saber tooth tigers, grizzly bears, sharks, it was all just like a big show. Showing off, pretending to be tough (uuuuu I'm bad look at my fangs), but they were all eating fruits and vegetables. Only plants could die before the caveman and his wife ate from the wrong fruit tree.

The snake was like "What? Jesus told you not to eat from this tree? Why not? Go ahead, don't worry about it. Here's a blender, make a smoothie". She was like "I can't, I'll get in trouble" and the snake was like "how?", and she said "those three guys that float around in white robes will kill me" and the snake was like "nah", she was like "ok". Adam walked in right when she was drinking her smoothie and was like "you're crazy girl, you're going to get us killed". She was like "it tastes good, go ahead, try it". He was like.......alright. As soon as he drank that smoothie, the whole universe went helter-skelter. Rex said, "I don't want carrots, give me a cheeseburger". The three guys in white glowing robes appeared out of nowhere..

"I told both of you not to eat those fruits", Eve said "I didn't eat them, I made a smoothie" and Adam was like "that's true". The old man with the glowing white beared was like "smarty pants huh? This is what I'm going to do. You, your wife, and all of your kids are going to die. I'm going to curse the ground, make you work long hours for $3.50 an hour and your wife will have to cook and make babies, forever". Adam was like "do I get healthcare?", and the old man was like "nope".

That's how it all started.

Ok, now I get it. You're using this site to try out new material for your stand-up comedy routine at the local Eagles club. Bye.

 

[Meriweather]

This man he calls "Jesus" was a Hebrew named Yehoshua, and a direct translation of his name from Hebrew to English is "Joshua", not Jesus ( a translation of a translation = completely unnecessary and illogical).

Remember, the English Jesus is not directly from the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. From Greek it went to classical Latin (Iēsous) then to English, Jesus.

 

[Red Front]

Remember, the English Jesus is not directly from the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. From Greek it went to classical Latin (Iēsous) then to English, Jesus.

Even worse, a translation of a translation of a translation. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Meriweather]

Even worse, a translation of a translation of a translation. Thanks for correcting me.

The evolution of language...is each stage worse than the one that came before? Or, does everyone get the reference, even when they do not recall every step throughout the history?

 

[Red Front]

The evolution of language...is each stage worse than the one that came before? Or, does everyone get the reference, even when they do not recall every step throughout the history?

That's a bit too convenient. It's not that English-speaking Christians don't want to call their messiah Joshua, a common name, but it's for some other reason that they call him Jesus and hate it when you point out that his name is actually Yehoshua/Joshua, like the prophet who replaced Moses. Same name. It's not intentional of course, it's just a happenstance of history that they call him Jesus. Nah, not buying it.

 

[alang1216]

You are right. Socialism has always done that.

Yes, and so has communism and capitalism.

 

[Meriweather]

That's a bit too convenient. It's not that English-speaking Christians don't want to call their messiah Joshua, a common name, but it's for some other reason that they call him Jesus and hate it when you point out that his name is actually Yehoshua/Joshua, like the prophet who replaced Moses. Same name. It's not intentional of course, it's just a happenstance of history that they call him Jesus.

'Convenience' doesn't enter into it. Language, cultures, and time do. For example, as Latin came to the island of Sicily, what was known as 'vulgar Latin' emerged and joined to become the foundation of the Romance languages. (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian are the major ones.) The Spanish and French, for example, took the Latin 'Jesus' and pronounced it "Hay-SOOS".

Here is where culture steps in, France and most European nations did not name their children Jesus as a sign of respect. On the other hand, Spain (and subsequent Spanish cultures) did use the name 'Jesus' as a sign of honor.