posted 08-27-2000 09:51 PM            

My Friend, good day to you.

>>it's seems TheJamesWa is conceding the point that originally began this thread (Because of his lack of defense for that specific position, "Zeus-Jesus connection") he then comes back with a litany of problems he has with Christianity (as if to say his intentions were in the right place when he started this thread) Then he goes on to attack Christian's who applaud good intentions (it's starting to make me dizzy).

<>No my Friend, I am defending nothing. For I am no longer a defender of the faith.
For my faith---my establishment of Torah---Dwells, Tabernacles within the G-d of Israel. As for my days as a Christian. I must say that I only have fond, beautiful, and wounderful times. I walked away from the Gentile Church because I could no longer abide the paganist ways and the total rejection of the precipts set forth by the G-d of Israel.
The intentions that are based, that are rooted within the precipts of the G-d of Israel is that pavement of Gold that the streets of the New Jerusalem are paved with.
The intentions of paganism are "ash-fault."

posted 08-27-2000 10:18 PM            

"What is really at issue is revealed by reading Acts 16:17-18 . . .In Acts 16:31, Paul said "Believe on ha-Adon Yeshua" He did not say "ha-Adon Yeshua ha-Meshiach" and that is significant because had he said "ha-Meshiach" the Greeks would have translated it as Xpistos."
         What is your point? Yeshua was identified as both Xristos, translated, and Messias, transliterated, in the NT. Also you're kinda forgetting that in this same chapter, Acts 16:18, Paul cast out the spirit of divination in the slave girl in the name of Iesous Xristos
"And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And he came out that very hour."
"I have placed the term "most high god" in single quotes to point out the fact that, to the Greeks, "the most high god" was a reference to Zeus and this was what became a grievance to Paul."
         Supposition! You don't think Paul would have been upset with someone following them "for many days", constantly interrupting their affairs, crying out,
"These are the servants of the 'most high god' which show unto us the way of salvation"
         The Greek religions had no concept of "salvation". Their practices were to appease the gods with sacrifices, etc. and thus win their favor.
"Further he did not "Christen" his converts, he immersed them (baptized them)"
         So? Baptizo is used throughout the NT. What is your point? the Greek word for "anoint", i.e. Mashakh/Messiah, is Xristos! Greek speaking gentiles believers would have understood Xristos and Greek speaking Jewish believers would have understood Messias.
"These are the facts at issue and have nothing to do with language,"
         What facts? All you have posted is supposition and speculation.
"The long-haired bearded-lady is the anti-Meshiach"
         Huh?

Zaqunra'ahyahuw
Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia

[This message has been edited by OldShepherd (edited 08-28-2000).]

IP: Logged

posted 08-28-2000 12:15 AM            

"Interesting---I never gave a thought that the G-d of Israel may be a guru. What do you suppose?"
         And did you get the information about the letter "J" and the so-called Jesus-Zeus connection directly from the G-d of Israel? Or did you get it from White or Koster?
"Does that mean that if I go to a multi-million or billion dollar religious organsation that I will truly receive the truth?"
         Are you familiar with a concept called "context?" Evidently not, because the only thing you seemed to read in that response was "$5." The price of something is usually relative to its value. A book which demonstrates in-depth knowledge of a particular subject and extensive research, printed by and sold through legitimate publishers, is generally more reliable than, for example, the three so-called authors I named, and others like them.
         They are not known for any expertise in any field, they do not do legitimate research or document, and they pay, up front, to have their scribblings printed because legitimate publishers will not touch them. The so-called books are a mish-mash of various topics and subjects printed on inferior paper with paper backs and are not sold in legitimate book stores. And perhaps most important of all, they are not recognized as authoritative, used, or recommended by any college or university, as a resource. All of which contributes to the low cost.
         On the other hand, buy a copy of "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament", for example. It is written by renowned experts, well documented, used by major colleges and universities, printed on high quality paper and professionally bound, to last for years, and costs about $55-60.
         Do you have any more flip, childish, comments?
"However can these scientists truly say without a shadow of a doubt that an entrance as such did not happen?"
         Are you an archaeologist and have you examined all the evidence? If so, then you would be qualified to make these objection. If not, all your objections are nothing but sour grapes. You offered nothing but assertions and opinions, yourself, and when the real evidence doesn't match, from the safety and comfort of you home, as opposed to actually being on site, digging in the dirt, with absolutely no expertise, "Well, the evidence is faked. Those experts with years of experience don't know a real artifact from a fake."
"So therefore my Friend, the actual date of the "scratching" by no means indicated that it was scratched in the coffin in 41 CE.
         Only some were scratched, others were "inscriptions." Didn't read that did you? Had you bothered to actually dig a little deeper at that URL, the Jerusalem Christian Review, other related articles show that the site, being discussed, was a family tomb, not a public catacomb, and that it was sealed and had a building built on it in 41 AD. It was discovered when the building was torn down. Now, do you have anything but sour grapes objections to refute the real evidence?
"And again, the letter "J" was not introduced into the English language until 1665.
          What is your source? Or did the G-d of israel reveal this to you personally? And so what? Read the other posts about the etymology of the name "Jesus." And how the name came to be transliterated that way.
         If you ever do some "real" study on this, read about Martin Luther. When he translated the scriptures into the common language, German, he wrote "Jesus" for the Greek "Iesous." A matter of easily verifiable fact, in German, the letter "J", which is called "Yaht", is pronounced as "Y". Therefore in German, "Jesus", is pronounced "Yay-sooce", just like "Iesous." No conspiracies, no pagan influences, just fact.

Zaqunra'ahyahuw
Lo'Qor 'Azar Yadah

[This message has been edited by OldShepherd (edited 08-28-2000).]

IP: Logged