Did Yah Himself Walk Earth as the Son?

[BigBallinStalin]

Where does it say that?

Years of Catholic schooling has battered that concept into my head. So I'll cast the blame on them, and whatever they pull their ammunition from.

[2dimes]

I'd accept that and move on but... Sully didn't present himself as Catholic in my opinion.

I don't jump the Catholic bashing wagon, however I can't name another church that proclaims it's self christian that has more people grow up forced to attend yet become vocal athiests, off hand. I'm pretty sure they still discourage their members from actually reading the bible to prevent them from realising it's not what they present it to be.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd accept that and move on but... Sully didn't present himself as Catholic in my opinion.

I don't jump the Catholic bashing wagon, however I can't name another church that proclaims it's self christian that has more people grow up forced to attend yet become vocal athiests, off hand. I'm pretty sure they still discourage their members from actually reading the bible to prevent them from realising it's not what they present it to be.

Ah, well a thousand pardons to you and Sully for my thinking within a Catholic perspective.

[2dimes]

No worries. It's probably difficult to stop thinking that way after years of programming. I know I had issues after being involved with a group proclaiming to be Neo-chan Buddist as an adult for a while.

I used to fear churches, the catholic ones are particularly gothic. Now the only fearI have is not taking the opportunity to help someone in need. I don't like the idea of getting bit by a snake though.

[tkr4lf]

I've never heard anyone call him Yah or Yahushua. I have heard YHWH, normally pronounced as yahweh.

Here's a link to a guy discussing those names. I don't endorse him or his teachings but if you have any ability to decern things you should be able to come to an understanding of his basic premise.

http://www.eliyah.com/yahushua.html

So far from reading it I loosly agree with the content. Basically it would be kind of like reading about a great guy from somewhere you've never been, since you can't pronounce his name "李振藩" you call him, Kevin. You decide to rewrite the book in english and use Kevin so everyone can pronounce his name and talk among them selves about him. No matter how much you want it to be true, his name is not Kevin. You can decide for yourself if it's important.

I find it interesting that so many people sing about how powerfull and important his name is while not actually using it.

Well, I am definetely not one of those people. I don't really think there is any intrinsic power in a name. Also, I myself am not a christian, so I have no stake in it one way or the other. Also, I think I may have been confused. It seems as though with Yahushua you are referring to the person commonly known as Jesus? If so, my apologies. The YHWH name is the Jewish name for God, if I remember correctly. And that guy and you could very well be correct on that being Jesus' real name, as the bible has gone through soooo many different translations that the name of a person is bound to change. That is one of the reasons I disagree with the bible and people's blind faith in it. To put so much faith in a book that has been translated through a number of different languages, and in many different versions just in the English language, is beyond me. It seems the opportunities for an ever fallible human to adjust things slightly would be too hard to resist. Everybody has their own interpretations of Jesus' words, and everybody has their own ideas on how things should be. Therefore, the way I see it, at least some of the bible was probably not there in the original. That is mere speculation on my part, but it's something I find hard to not beleive.

[2dimes]

A large portion of the bible is still being written in the same language it's allways been written in.

Everybody has their own interpretations of Jesus' words, and everybody has their own ideas on how things should be.

To some extent that was his purpose, to show that people should seek ways of the father and not a church. The way you relate to other people drives that, which is the whole point of the "love your neighbor." thing.

[guardian1357]

Sect? Hmmm.What if I love Yah and I believe He created the heavens and the earth and believe He walked earth as Yahushua and believe Yahushua died for trangressions of others before rising again and yet there is no church building I feel real good about and I have not walked into one in years?

then your a hypocrite and a false teacher...

The bible clearly states that believers should gather in groups to worship in his name and also teaches should someone teach something other than is written in the bible that he is a false prophet.

How do you think you can pick and choose what to obey and follow in the bible?

Way harsh, dude. The single verse you are talking about is Hebrews 10:25, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." The "let us" is a passive construction or subjunctive mood, which is a weak imperative, almost a suggestion or a wish. Certainly "meeting together" is not an absolute imperative of our faith. Paul here says the same about "encourag[ing] one another". How encouraged do you think Lionz is right now to go to the kind of meetings you go to? It's good that you have found the kind of Christian community where you belong and can give and receive encouragement; he obviously has not yet.

Look over Galatians 1:15-2:9. After Saul/Paul was converted God deliberately had him avoid "the Church" so that he would be hearing only from Him, not man. When God finally moved him, years later, to talk to Peter and the others, they gave him "the right hand of fellowship."

...i dont go to any "meetings" I am just observing another "christian" not following what their holy book says.

And according to a more direct translation than yours.

Hebrews 10:25 (King James Version)

25. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching....

that is not a PASSIVE term...dont be ignorant. It is "Not forsaking" in the imparrative...othrwise he would not have mentioned it in a list of things believers should do.

[daddy1gringo]

It seems as though with Yahushua you are referring to the person commonly known as Jesus? If so, my apologies. The YHWH name is the Jewish name for God, if I remember correctly. And that guy and you could very well be correct on that being Jesus' real name, as the bible has gone through soooo many different translations that the name of a person is bound to change. That is one of the reasons I disagree with the bible and people's blind faith in it. To put so much faith in a book that has been translated through a number of different languages,

The idea that the Bible has to be "translated through a lot of languages" is a common misconception. The New Testament was written in Greek, and the Old Testament in Hebrew (and some Aramaic). Current Bibles are translated directly from these original languages. We have ancient copies that there is no reason to believe are not faithful copies of the originals.

The Bible has been translated into thousands of languages, but always from the original languages.

Now names are a different thing, they get transliterated, not usually translated.

"Yahweh", which means "I Am", is the most likely pronunciation of the four Hebrew letters which are kind of used for God's proper name. Moses asked Him what he should tell the people that His name was, and He answered "I am that (who) I am. Tell them 'YHWH (I Am) has sent me'" It is translated "The Lord" in most English Bibles because of the Jewish practice of substituting "Adonai" which means "lord", because they consider His name too holy to pronounce.

"Hosea" or "Hoshea" means "salvation". Combine that with "Yahweh" in the Hebrew manner of combining names and you get "Yehoshuah" or "Yeshua", meaning "The Lord (Yahweh) saves". Transliterate that directly to the Roman letters we use in English, and you get "Joshua". That's why we hear about Joshua in the OT, since the OT is translated from Hebrew to English.

In the New Testament, they first had to transliterate that Hebrew name into Greek, and nouns in the nominative case, used for the subject of a sentence, in Greek end in "s" so it was something like " Iesous" (in Greek Characters). Transliterate that into Roman characters and you get "Jesus"

...and in many different versions just in the English language, is beyond me.

Yes there are different translations in English (also a few other languages, e.g. there are several in Spanish) but they don't disagree, one just brings a different shade of meaning of a given word in the original language, or translates the sense of the whole phrase where another is more word-for-word.

It seems the opportunities for an ever fallible human to adjust things slightly would be too hard to resist. Everybody has their own interpretations of Jesus' words, and everybody has their own ideas on how things should be. Therefore, the way I see it, at least some of the bible was probably not there in the original.

You're not alone in that opinion, but once again it comes from a common misconception of the way things worked. There was not just one copy in someone's hands that they could have made changes in and gotten away with it. The various narratives and letters that make up the New Testament were recognized as the Word of God, or at least good direction, from the beginning, and various copies were made almost immediately for distribution to neighboring cities and around the Roman empire. Changes made, whether accidentally or purposely, are detected and corrected by comparing with "descendants" from different lines. Also, about 75% of the NT can be reconstructed from where it is quoted in such 2nd c. writers as Justin Martyr and (St.) Ignatius, who would have quoted from very early copies, perhaps the originals.

[tzor]

A large portion of the bible is still being written in the same language it's allways been written in.

Ha ha, that's a good one. Written Hebrew has changed signifiantly since the time of Moses; for one thing vowel marks, punctuation marks, and spacing have been added. A few words in the torah are so unique that there are no references to it anywhere else. (Consider the wood that was used to make Noah's Ark ... it's a word not used anywhere else.)

Then you have the Greek; the old testament Greek of the Jews in exile, the Koine Greek (the trader's tongue) of the New Testament writers (and one Gospel was originally in Aramaic and then translated to Koine) that has a lot of changes to modern Greek (just as the language of the King James Bible is strange to modern English readers and several words have had their meanings change significantly even in that short span).

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

I'm a little curious as to why the Christians in this thread are so consumed with arguing over such miniscule details. Aren't their more pressing concerns than languages the Bible has been translated into? It's probably the most carefully translated collection of books in the world, and there is a lot of data to back that up. Why not just point out the flawed initial argument?

To put so much faith in a book that has been translated through a number of different languages, and in many different versions just in the English language, is beyond me. It seems the opportunities for an ever fallible human to adjust things slightly would be too hard to resist. Everybody has their own interpretations of Jesus' words, and everybody has their own ideas on how things should be. Therefore, the way I see it, at least some of the bible was probably not there in the original. That is mere speculation on my part, but it's something I find hard to not believe.

If you accept this as a basis for rejecting the Bible then every written resource is fallible given that it was written and edited by fallible humans. That leaves us rejecting all written resources. You can see the problem with the premise, right? If the counter claim is made "Scientific journals have peer review, etc. to safeguard their results" then the same can be said for the Holy Bible. So, from a secular point of view, it has to be acknowledged that it's as good a resource as anyone could have considering its age, especially since we have many ancient copies for comparison. From a Christian point of view, that's not a surprise since the Holy Spirit was working through those translators to keep it that way.

[2dimes]

A large portion of the bible is still being written in the same language it's allways been written in.

Ha ha, that's a good one. Written Hebrew has changed signifiantly since the time of Moses; for one thing vowel marks, punctuation marks, and spacing have been added. A few words in the torah are so unique that there are no references to it anywhere else. (Consider the wood that was used to make Noah's Ark ... it's a word not used anywhere else.)

Then you have the Greek; the old testament Greek of the Jews in exile, the Koine Greek (the trader's tongue) of the New Testament writers (and one Gospel was originally in Aramaic and then translated to Koine) that has a lot of changes to modern Greek (just as the language of the King James Bible is strange to modern English readers and several words have had their meanings change significantly even in that short span).

So are you saying that people are not copying the portions of text found in the dead sea scrolls that can be read, to use for research? I guess we can't consider the word for the wood used to build the ark because it must have been changed to "cedar".

Thanks for correcting me.

[tzor]

So are you saying that people are not copying the portions of text found in the dead sea scrolls that can be read, to use for research? I guess we can't consider the word for the wood used to build the ark because it must have been changed to "cedar".

Thanks for correcting me.

I thought I was talking about the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE ... as far as the Torah is concerned they are certainly not the "originals"

Many contemporary secular biblical scholars date the completion of the Torah, as well as the prophets and the historical books, no earlier than the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).

If you want to really understand a potential interesting problem ... to which the answer is only through the oral transmisison of the law, consider the following ...

Kosher laws: As indicated in Exodus 23:19 among other places, a kid may not be boiled in its mother's milk. [A kid being a young goat.] In addition to numerous other problems with understanding the ambiguous nature of this law, there are no vowelization characters in the Torah; they are provided by the oral tradition. This is particularly relevant to this law, as the Hebrew word for milk (חלב) is identical to the word for animal fat when vowels are absent. Without the oral tradition, it is not known whether the violation is in mixing meat with milk or with fat.

[2dimes]

That's part of why KFC is a shadow of it's glorious past.

If there are no old Torah's, how is it that you know so much about the fact that they are missing vowels? You say they're not being reproduced anymore. I'm thinking Moses' copies have likely returned to dust.

[daddy1gringo]

If there are no old Torah's, how is it that you know so much about the fact that they are missing vowels? You say they're not being reproduced anymore. I'm thinking Moses' copies have likely returned to dust.

All he said was that the dead sea scrolls were not the originals. There is some debate about when the "originals" were produced. There is no proof either for or against the traditional position that all 39 books were written more or less when, and by whom, they purport to be, starting with Moses, probably in the 13th c. BC up to Nehemiah and Malachi about 400 BC when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity. The most liberal and skeptical scholars assert that the Old Testament as we know it was composed from scraps and oral traditions at that point; the more conservative insist that the works themselves were already written, but that may be the first time they were all gathered together into the TaNaKa (Law, Prophets and Writings) Anyway, the Dead Sea Scrolls date much later.

Since that time at least, the Jews have taken great care in the preservation and copying of the scriptures. and by the time that Christianity started there were copies in synagogues all over the known world. It would be very difficult for some guy to decide to just change it for his own purposes, or for an error to occur that did not show itself as an error because it didn't match all the other copies.

[2dimes]

No it wasn't.

[daddy1gringo]

No it wasn't.

No what wasn't what?

[Lionz]

tky - Is Yahushua Himself not a Jew?

guardian - You might say I pretty regularly have a Yahushua AOL chat room opened that has regulars and gather with believers online at least.

gringo - Yeshua is more commonly used among people you would consider to be messianic believers maybe, but maybe I am being nit picky. What if I try not to drive on the 7th day and I am not sure where a Messiah Jewish synagogue is though? By the way, what if Yahuah or Yahuwah is the closest we can get to properly transliterating The Tetragrammaton? When is yod-heh-waw not pronounced like YAHU?

tzor - Are all five of them not represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls? Esther is the only book of the Tanakh that is not represented among the Dead Sea Scrolls maybe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_at_Qumran

[Nola_Lifer]

Whats the difference between Yah walking as a man and Zeus being a Bull and fucking women? How do you think that words and ideas convey what one would call a God? What you say means f*ck all to us. You argue over what was written in a book that was created when? O wait they still argue over that one too. Would it make a difference to your world if god was a man, if some dude died. Lots of people die. Ever heard of Iraq. You quote Wikipedia. You argue about specific words that are written in the books you like to talk about. Seems like a bunch of religious masterbation. Go outside and get some sunshine. Look at some trees, get some oxygen in your body. Then let me know if you still are worried whether or not aliens are demon or that some mother fucker had feet. GO OUTSIDE!!!!! PLANT A FUCKIN TREE AND LIVE LIFE!!!!!!

[jonesthecurl]

I've just realised that yahoo is divine.

[daddy1gringo]

gringo - Yeshua is more commonly used among people you would consider to be messianic believers maybe, but maybe I am being nit picky.... By the way, what if Yahuah or Yahuwah is the closest we can get to properly transliterating The Tetragrammaton? When is yod-heh-waw not pronounced like YAHU?

I was agreeing with you substantially. Exact pronunciations are tricky when transliterating, especially the vowel sounds from OT Hebrew, since there were no vowels originally. The variation of the pronunciation you use may well be more accurate than mine, no problem. I was just explaining to people what was related to what and how so. That's my thing: word origins.

What if I try not to drive on the 7th day and I am not sure where a Messiah Jewish synagogue is though?

Hmm. I guess you'd be out of luck unless there was one in walking distance, then. I think it would be worth the try though; I think you'd find some kindred spirits there. Oh, they probably have mid-week meetings too. You could contact Jews for Jesus, or just google "messianic congregation" and see if you turn up one nearby. That's what I did when looking for one to see if someone could teach me to do a Messianic Passover Seder at my house.

[daddy1gringo]

Whats the difference between Yah walking as a man and Zeus being a Bull and fucking women?...Would it make a difference to your world if god was a man, if some dude died.

I'm glad you asked that question. The bull thing would be an example of a selfish kind of "love" that takes from others for one's own pleasure. Also, even if it were true it would have little or no significance for anyone except the women, their offspring, and perhaps some people who interacted directly with them. Yah becoming flesh as Yashuah, however is exactly the opposite.

If it is true, it is an example of an unselfish love. It means that God who has everything chose to take on our weakness and limitations, get born among the cow manure, spend about 30 years getting his feet dirty and sore, and suffer arguably the most excruciating imaginable death, in order to give us the opportunity to become like him and share everything that he has. It would have significance for everyone who is not perfect.

Go outside and get some sunshine. Look at some trees, get some oxygen in your body. Then let me know if you still are worried whether or not aliens are demon or that some mother fucker had feet. GO OUTSIDE!!!!! PLANT A FUCKIN TREE AND LIVE LIFE!!!!!!

I very much enjoy the sunshine and the trees and my wife and daughters, and the one who made them all for me. I also enjoy discussing word origins, especially when doing so can clear up, for whoever is interested, the misconception that the Bible has to have gone through a lot of changes. Sue me.

[2dimes]

Whats the difference between Yah walking as a man and Zeus being a Bull and fucking women? How do you think that words and ideas convey what one would call a God? What you say means f*ck all to us. You argue over what was written in a book that was created when? O wait they still argue over that one too. Would it make a difference to your world if god was a man, if some dude died. Lots of people die. Ever heard of Iraq. You quote Wikipedia. You argue about specific words that are written in the books you like to talk about. Seems like a bunch of religious masterbation. Go outside and get some sunshine. Look at some trees, get some oxygen in your body. Then let me know if you still are worried whether or not aliens are demon or that some mother fucker had feet. GO OUTSIDE!!!!! PLANT A FUCKIN TREE AND LIVE LIFE!!!!!!

Thanks for taking the time to type that out. My care givers don't like taking me outside and it's almost winter.

[Nola_Lifer]

For those of you who don't know me. I find discussions about the divine, I don't wanna say pointless, but its a bit silly. Because you can use all these words to describe the divine lose their value when you speak. Experience of life is divine. The rest of what everyone has to say is just a distraction. By the way go buy a premium.

[natty dread]

Did Yah Himself masturbate?



...as the Son?

[daddy1gringo]

By the way go buy a premium.

I have no desire to play more than 4 games at a time...because I have a life.