Monday, November 25, 2013
acts 10 and the hebrew rights movement
The Myth I will be talking about is acts 10 Peter vision.
IN The past I had listen to debates about those in The Hrm would say that This vision is about Gentiles Being made clean and having nothing to do with Food, they get this idea from where peter says and I see now that I should call no man common or unclean.
They use this as a proof text but they fail to understand Is HOW they were made clean!
God told peter Go and kill and eat, He was given a direct command by God saying peter I want you to Kill and eat ok? This is a huge problem for The HRM view Because, it would not fit within there view that this passage is about Gentiles, nothing to do with animals it self.
If we go with The HRM this part of The passage comes meaninglessness.
then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Do you Get The Point? The HRM view would be, God is saying kill and eat gentiles Because this passage has nothing to do with animals being made clean.
so The question The HRM needs to ask them self was God Just kidding when he said to peter Kill and eat?
The truth of The matter is this! that acts 10 God shows all kinds of unclean things and then tells peter Kill and eat, peter replies back NO I will never eat anything not clean! God replies I had made it clean!
Do you get the point, The HRM needs to twist this passage to their ways but if we just let it read out as in it written, well it does not support The HRM.
God made these animals Clean! that why peter can say Now I see that I should call no man common or unclean.
So anyone read this, you have a choice to side with the HRM or simple let this passage read for it self!
IN The past I had listen to debates about those in The Hrm would say that This vision is about Gentiles Being made clean and having nothing to do with Food, they get this idea from where peter says and I see now that I should call no man common or unclean.
They use this as a proof text but they fail to understand Is HOW they were made clean!
God told peter Go and kill and eat, He was given a direct command by God saying peter I want you to Kill and eat ok? This is a huge problem for The HRM view Because, it would not fit within there view that this passage is about Gentiles, nothing to do with animals it self.
If we go with The HRM this part of The passage comes meaninglessness.
then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Do you Get The Point? The HRM view would be, God is saying kill and eat gentiles Because this passage has nothing to do with animals being made clean.
so The question The HRM needs to ask them self was God Just kidding when he said to peter Kill and eat?
The truth of The matter is this! that acts 10 God shows all kinds of unclean things and then tells peter Kill and eat, peter replies back NO I will never eat anything not clean! God replies I had made it clean!
Do you get the point, The HRM needs to twist this passage to their ways but if we just let it read out as in it written, well it does not support The HRM.
God made these animals Clean! that why peter can say Now I see that I should call no man common or unclean.
So anyone read this, you have a choice to side with the HRM or simple let this passage read for it self!
Time for The Greeek Jesus Vs The hebrew One
Time for The Jesus boxing match! The Hebrew Jesus VS The GREEK Jesus! let's get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!!!
How many of you ever Heard you serve a pig eating law breaking greek Jesus? The anti-Christ and not the true hebrew one?
I have and what I will tell you, this dilemma only exist in the minds of The hebrew roots Movement.
First They would tell us that we Need to have a " hebrew mind set" to understand The scriptures, funny I do not remember anyone in the scriptures, The apostles trying to we program anyone's minds at all lol.
The apostles were not into brainwashing my friends
Think about this, they taught The gospel but at the same time, never said, First let's us teach you the hebrew language or First let us teach you a certain mind set etc.... No they The gospel is understood and receive by The revelation that God gives that no matter what nation what tribe you are, you understand it! read revelations 7 for that.
Also those that Believe in hebrew Jesus Vs a greek One would usually deny The Greek new testament and say that it was written in hebrew or aramaic, The problem with this of course is the textual evidence.
There are around 5000 Most in fragments and some whole pieces that are written in Greek, there is about 30 aramaic scripts that I know that was found for the New testament but even still The Greek fragments some of there are dating way ealry even in the second half of the first century, example The The Magdalen fragments
If anyone wants to say It was written in hebrew then bring me better evidence then what The Greek gives us.
Also I would say Jesus was never a pig eating law breaker, no one would make that claim, what Jesus did to is Preach about The up coming New covenant that he will bring with his death and resurrection, even Jesus told his apostles, I must die and on the third day rise, while Before The cross jesus taught full obedience to The law, to The point It even show so called " law keepers" guilting of hypocrisy, your cup is clean on the outside but dirty on the in etc..... for example Jesus said, you have heard Thou shalt not Murder but i tell you to hate your brother is Murder! or just looking at a women with lust is adultery, even if your not physical doing The act.
Jesus was pretty clear and taught obedience, 100% of it under the Old covenant that it would even prove so called " law keepers" today bearing hypocrisy.
This was before The cross and before Jesus said when The law is fulfilled it shall pass in matthew 5 and then jesus says it is now pass in Luke 24:44 while I was yet with you EVERYTHING written about me needed to be fulfilled, I cover this more on another post, read it, at The cross The law was maid void, The scriptures are clear!
eph 2 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,
what was The barrier that separated Jew from gentile? I think you know The answer, even the Hrm would but dont want to accept it and just deny it.
some more info
http://www.ntgreek.org/
and
http://
http://www.ukapologetics.net/
also with The mind set we must think with a hebrew mind set, One comes a part of israel when in The covenant is to taught by The HRM, this is a nice rebuttal
http://
How many of you ever Heard you serve a pig eating law breaking greek Jesus? The anti-Christ and not the true hebrew one?
I have and what I will tell you, this dilemma only exist in the minds of The hebrew roots Movement.
First They would tell us that we Need to have a " hebrew mind set" to understand The scriptures, funny I do not remember anyone in the scriptures, The apostles trying to we program anyone's minds at all lol.
The apostles were not into brainwashing my friends
Think about this, they taught The gospel but at the same time, never said, First let's us teach you the hebrew language or First let us teach you a certain mind set etc.... No they The gospel is understood and receive by The revelation that God gives that no matter what nation what tribe you are, you understand it! read revelations 7 for that.
Also those that Believe in hebrew Jesus Vs a greek One would usually deny The Greek new testament and say that it was written in hebrew or aramaic, The problem with this of course is the textual evidence.
There are around 5000 Most in fragments and some whole pieces that are written in Greek, there is about 30 aramaic scripts that I know that was found for the New testament but even still The Greek fragments some of there are dating way ealry even in the second half of the first century, example The The Magdalen fragments
If anyone wants to say It was written in hebrew then bring me better evidence then what The Greek gives us.
Also I would say Jesus was never a pig eating law breaker, no one would make that claim, what Jesus did to is Preach about The up coming New covenant that he will bring with his death and resurrection, even Jesus told his apostles, I must die and on the third day rise, while Before The cross jesus taught full obedience to The law, to The point It even show so called " law keepers" guilting of hypocrisy, your cup is clean on the outside but dirty on the in etc..... for example Jesus said, you have heard Thou shalt not Murder but i tell you to hate your brother is Murder! or just looking at a women with lust is adultery, even if your not physical doing The act.
Jesus was pretty clear and taught obedience, 100% of it under the Old covenant that it would even prove so called " law keepers" today bearing hypocrisy.
This was before The cross and before Jesus said when The law is fulfilled it shall pass in matthew 5 and then jesus says it is now pass in Luke 24:44 while I was yet with you EVERYTHING written about me needed to be fulfilled, I cover this more on another post, read it, at The cross The law was maid void, The scriptures are clear!
eph 2 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,
what was The barrier that separated Jew from gentile? I think you know The answer, even the Hrm would but dont want to accept it and just deny it.
some more info
http://www.ntgreek.org/
and
http://
http://www.ukapologetics.net/
also with The mind set we must think with a hebrew mind set, One comes a part of israel when in The covenant is to taught by The HRM, this is a nice rebuttal
http://
matthew 5:17-19 another post about it
Time for Myth 2!
Matthew 5:17-19! I will be talking about The proof text for this passage that the Hrm use.
Let me quote the passage first
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Let me deal with the very first thing that the HRM would say according to this passage ok?
They would say Look heaven and earth is still here! so is The law then? it needs to pass away, only then the law shall pass etc....
First How does one draw such conclusions? did not Jesus say that I came to fulfilled them in the sense He is the fulfillment of these prophecies? did Not Jesus say then The law shall pass when it is fulfilled?
The point is He came to fulfill them, so by that logic this literal Heaven and earth shall already pass in the HRM logic.
What is The cause for the law being done away with? Not that heaven and earth need to pass away but The Lord fulfilling The Law!
The context of passing away is it being fulfilled.
so The question is what is Jesus meaning by heaven and earth? well I think a passage in luke gives us good context for matthew 5:17-19
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. luke 16:17 I would say since Jesus said He came to fulfilled The law, then it shall pass according to his word, Jesus is using the same context of Luke, The only way for The law to not be fulfilled, is that heaven and earth needs to pass away first.
______________________________
Let me deal with also " everything" they would say well not everything is fulfilled, The second coming, The end times etc.... But they fail to understand everything is everything that pointed to what He Must do at his first coming, luke 24:44.
______________________________
Now for The last part, they would often accuse us of teaching to keep some commands but not all, such then we shall be the lesser in the kingdom of God but also at the same time, they to need to t each we are under some laws, Not every jot and tittle and they would agree that is still in place but they dont keep it!
Of course the context this passage is dealing with the Old covenant, those under It and teaching not to keep the fullest extent of God word, not Under The new covenant where Love is The law of the heart to show others and that is what fulfills The Law romans 13:8-13
Matthew 5:17-19! I will be talking about The proof text for this passage that the Hrm use.
Let me quote the passage first
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Let me deal with the very first thing that the HRM would say according to this passage ok?
They would say Look heaven and earth is still here! so is The law then? it needs to pass away, only then the law shall pass etc....
First How does one draw such conclusions? did not Jesus say that I came to fulfilled them in the sense He is the fulfillment of these prophecies? did Not Jesus say then The law shall pass when it is fulfilled?
The point is He came to fulfill them, so by that logic this literal Heaven and earth shall already pass in the HRM logic.
What is The cause for the law being done away with? Not that heaven and earth need to pass away but The Lord fulfilling The Law!
The context of passing away is it being fulfilled.
so The question is what is Jesus meaning by heaven and earth? well I think a passage in luke gives us good context for matthew 5:17-19
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. luke 16:17 I would say since Jesus said He came to fulfilled The law, then it shall pass according to his word, Jesus is using the same context of Luke, The only way for The law to not be fulfilled, is that heaven and earth needs to pass away first.
______________________________
Let me deal with also " everything" they would say well not everything is fulfilled, The second coming, The end times etc.... But they fail to understand everything is everything that pointed to what He Must do at his first coming, luke 24:44.
______________________________
Now for The last part, they would often accuse us of teaching to keep some commands but not all, such then we shall be the lesser in the kingdom of God but also at the same time, they to need to t each we are under some laws, Not every jot and tittle and they would agree that is still in place but they dont keep it!
Of course the context this passage is dealing with the Old covenant, those under It and teaching not to keep the fullest extent of God word, not Under The new covenant where Love is The law of the heart to show others and that is what fulfills The Law romans 13:8-13
Is the name of Jesus pagan?
Another Myth to be taken care of is that Jesus is not The true name of The messiah or his name is so pagan form .
I have a Good saved source for this that I will post, I post The article but leave the link at the bottom to the source, this work is not mine, I do not take any credit for any of this.
______________________________
Myth. The name Jesus is the same as zeus or some female pagan deity, or the abomination of desolation; means pig, horse or other unflattering definitions. ??? is the true name or sacred name...
Myth. YAHshua is the "true" name of Jesus.
Myth. There were no 'J's in Hebrew so His name could not be Jesus
A. The lack of scholarship within Hebrew Roots unveils itself repeatedly with baseless claims such as the above.
Below are some statements that have been heard over the years:
"The name of YAHshua has been replaced by the names of G-zeus (Jesus), and Ea-zeus meaning healing zeus (Iesus, and Iesous) which are pagan in origin."
"Now that we know that his real Hebrew name is YAHshua, we can't use Jesus any more in good conscience."
"I prefer to use the Hebrew name YAHshua, instead of His Gentile nickname Jesus."
"As true believers we need to refuse the blasphemous talmudic moniker of Yeshua and use his true name YAHshua."
“The name Baal means “Lord” in Hebrew. The church translators replaced the true name of the Messiah, YAHshua with the title “Lord”. When people use that title, they are unknowingly worshiping a pagan idol, and that is why it is so important that we restore the true Hebrew name YAHshua back into the English translations.”
"Jesus" is nothing more than a pseudo substitute for the true name YAHSHUA."
"You should not use the name Ge-sus because the Ge means earth or soil in Greek, and the sus means swine or pig in Latin, so you are saying "earth pig".
"Jesus is a corrupted name derived from the Greek IESOUS. Ies, or iysh in Hebrew means man, while sus -soos means horse, so when you speak that name, you are referring to the Messiah as “man horse” or “man beast”."
"The name IESOUS or “hey-soos” means “hey horse”. Just look at this example: Ps.33:17, “An horse (Heb. hey-soos/Grk. Iesous/ Eng. Jesus) is a vain hope for safety; neither shall he deliver any by its great strength.”"
It has been stated by some that the Name Jesus is a false Hellenic (Greek) name that was conspiratorially created by the early church, in an attempt to give glory to zeus and the Greek goddess Iaso while intentionally censoring the "true name" of Messiah which they say is YAHshua. Some have said, that since the Name of Jesus shares the same letter sigma (V) or "s" from the end of the Greek god zeus' name, that at the very least, it constitutes a pagan connection with the Name of Jesus.
... Amazingly, it has been claimed by some that Jesus is the name that actually represents the person of the anti-messiah, and is an indicator of the far greater evils being promoted by traditional Christianity.
Iesou (Ihsou) and zeu (zeus) are not related, and have two completely different spellings and pronunciations, as the most basic scholarship can easily prove. Zeus [also known as Jupiter as found in the KJV – Acts 14:12] is pronounced as dzyooce, while Jesus in Greek is ee-ay-sooce [Iēsous]
“YAHshua” is not a possible Hebrew name as there are no pointings in the Hebrew that would allow for such a pronunciation and it cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is a made up name to reflect a theological agenda that Jesus came “in the Name of His Father, and therefore, must have part of “Yahweh” in His Name in order to be the true Messiah/Son of God. For those who know Hebrew, “coming in the name of” [Hebrew – HaShem] means coming in someone’s reputation, character, and authority. It is not a pronunciation, but that Jesus came in His Father’s authority. There are examples in both the OT and NT that show others who come in the name of the Lord but do not have part of the YHWH in their names.
This same errant teaching promotes that Yahshua means “Yahweh is our salvation”. However; we find that the long form of Yehoshua would translate as "YHVH is salvation" or "He who is (or will be) saves". Where the 'our' could possibly come from in their constructed name of YAHshua is not known.
Some of these same teachers have stated that they do not like to use the name Yeshua [Jesus], because it only means "salvation". This needs to be clarified, as it is an incorrect statement. Yeshuah (H3444) is a feminine noun that means "salvation" [note the “hey” [h] on the end]. Yeshua (H3442) is a masculine noun that means "He is salvation" or "He saves." It is the name that refers to Joshua in the TeNaKh (OT), and is the shortened form of Yehoshua which the name Jesus was derived from. In scripture we find in Matthew 1:21 "for He will save His people from their sins"’
The Name Yeshua was transliterated [not translated] into the Greek - Iesous, then into the Latin – Iesus which then became the same in old English. Eventually, the English “I” [pronounced like a German “Y”] took on the French “J” sound and was changed to Jesus.
Transliteration is a process of replacing letters to change a name for ease in pronunciation from one language to another. The Greek speaking people would not have been able to pronounce “Yeshua” as they were not able to vocalize the “yeh” sound. Nor could they vocalize the “sh” sound. The “yeh” was transliterated to “ee-ay” and the “sh” to the “s” sound. The ending sound of “ah” which would be a vowel sound is not allowed in Greek, therefore, an “s” was added which is how masculine names always end in Greek.. The final transliteration is “Iesous” [ee-ay-soose]. [Note: the middle “oo” sound is different also between Hebrew (“oo”) and Greek (ou)]
If everyone knew Him only as Yeshua, there would have been no need to write His Name in its other transliterated forms of Greek and Latin on the sign above Him when He was crucified.
John 19:19-20 And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. And having been written, it was: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20. Therefore, many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city. And it had been written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin.[LITV]
John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. [KJV]
Hebrew: Yeshua haNotzri Melech haYehudim
Greek: Iesous ho Nazoraios ho Basileus ton Ioudaion
Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
For an expanded discussion of this please see:http://www.SeekGod.ca/
Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus The Sacred Name or True
http://www.seekgod.ca/
Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus The Sacred Name or True Name
www.seekgod.ca
These very same names and titles were chosen by the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint when transliterating the Names Yehoshua/Yeshua to Iesous over two hundred times, and the title
I have a Good saved source for this that I will post, I post The article but leave the link at the bottom to the source, this work is not mine, I do not take any credit for any of this.
______________________________
Myth. The name Jesus is the same as zeus or some female pagan deity, or the abomination of desolation; means pig, horse or other unflattering definitions. ??? is the true name or sacred name...
Myth. YAHshua is the "true" name of Jesus.
Myth. There were no 'J's in Hebrew so His name could not be Jesus
A. The lack of scholarship within Hebrew Roots unveils itself repeatedly with baseless claims such as the above.
Below are some statements that have been heard over the years:
"The name of YAHshua has been replaced by the names of G-zeus (Jesus), and Ea-zeus meaning healing zeus (Iesus, and Iesous) which are pagan in origin."
"Now that we know that his real Hebrew name is YAHshua, we can't use Jesus any more in good conscience."
"I prefer to use the Hebrew name YAHshua, instead of His Gentile nickname Jesus."
"As true believers we need to refuse the blasphemous talmudic moniker of Yeshua and use his true name YAHshua."
“The name Baal means “Lord” in Hebrew. The church translators replaced the true name of the Messiah, YAHshua with the title “Lord”. When people use that title, they are unknowingly worshiping a pagan idol, and that is why it is so important that we restore the true Hebrew name YAHshua back into the English translations.”
"Jesus" is nothing more than a pseudo substitute for the true name YAHSHUA."
"You should not use the name Ge-sus because the Ge means earth or soil in Greek, and the sus means swine or pig in Latin, so you are saying "earth pig".
"Jesus is a corrupted name derived from the Greek IESOUS. Ies, or iysh in Hebrew means man, while sus -soos means horse, so when you speak that name, you are referring to the Messiah as “man horse” or “man beast”."
"The name IESOUS or “hey-soos” means “hey horse”. Just look at this example: Ps.33:17, “An horse (Heb. hey-soos/Grk. Iesous/ Eng. Jesus) is a vain hope for safety; neither shall he deliver any by its great strength.”"
It has been stated by some that the Name Jesus is a false Hellenic (Greek) name that was conspiratorially created by the early church, in an attempt to give glory to zeus and the Greek goddess Iaso while intentionally censoring the "true name" of Messiah which they say is YAHshua. Some have said, that since the Name of Jesus shares the same letter sigma (V) or "s" from the end of the Greek god zeus' name, that at the very least, it constitutes a pagan connection with the Name of Jesus.
... Amazingly, it has been claimed by some that Jesus is the name that actually represents the person of the anti-messiah, and is an indicator of the far greater evils being promoted by traditional Christianity.
Iesou (Ihsou) and zeu (zeus) are not related, and have two completely different spellings and pronunciations, as the most basic scholarship can easily prove. Zeus [also known as Jupiter as found in the KJV – Acts 14:12] is pronounced as dzyooce, while Jesus in Greek is ee-ay-sooce [Iēsous]
“YAHshua” is not a possible Hebrew name as there are no pointings in the Hebrew that would allow for such a pronunciation and it cannot be found anywhere in the OT. It is a made up name to reflect a theological agenda that Jesus came “in the Name of His Father, and therefore, must have part of “Yahweh” in His Name in order to be the true Messiah/Son of God. For those who know Hebrew, “coming in the name of” [Hebrew – HaShem] means coming in someone’s reputation, character, and authority. It is not a pronunciation, but that Jesus came in His Father’s authority. There are examples in both the OT and NT that show others who come in the name of the Lord but do not have part of the YHWH in their names.
This same errant teaching promotes that Yahshua means “Yahweh is our salvation”. However; we find that the long form of Yehoshua would translate as "YHVH is salvation" or "He who is (or will be) saves". Where the 'our' could possibly come from in their constructed name of YAHshua is not known.
Some of these same teachers have stated that they do not like to use the name Yeshua [Jesus], because it only means "salvation". This needs to be clarified, as it is an incorrect statement. Yeshuah (H3444) is a feminine noun that means "salvation" [note the “hey” [h] on the end]. Yeshua (H3442) is a masculine noun that means "He is salvation" or "He saves." It is the name that refers to Joshua in the TeNaKh (OT), and is the shortened form of Yehoshua which the name Jesus was derived from. In scripture we find in Matthew 1:21 "for He will save His people from their sins"’
The Name Yeshua was transliterated [not translated] into the Greek - Iesous, then into the Latin – Iesus which then became the same in old English. Eventually, the English “I” [pronounced like a German “Y”] took on the French “J” sound and was changed to Jesus.
Transliteration is a process of replacing letters to change a name for ease in pronunciation from one language to another. The Greek speaking people would not have been able to pronounce “Yeshua” as they were not able to vocalize the “yeh” sound. Nor could they vocalize the “sh” sound. The “yeh” was transliterated to “ee-ay” and the “sh” to the “s” sound. The ending sound of “ah” which would be a vowel sound is not allowed in Greek, therefore, an “s” was added which is how masculine names always end in Greek.. The final transliteration is “Iesous” [ee-ay-soose]. [Note: the middle “oo” sound is different also between Hebrew (“oo”) and Greek (ou)]
If everyone knew Him only as Yeshua, there would have been no need to write His Name in its other transliterated forms of Greek and Latin on the sign above Him when He was crucified.
John 19:19-20 And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. And having been written, it was: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20. Therefore, many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city. And it had been written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin.[LITV]
John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. [KJV]
Hebrew: Yeshua haNotzri Melech haYehudim
Greek: Iesous ho Nazoraios ho Basileus ton Ioudaion
Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
For an expanded discussion of this please see:http://www.SeekGod.ca/
Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus The Sacred Name or True
http://www.seekgod.ca/
Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus The Sacred Name or True Name
www.seekgod.ca
These very same names and titles were chosen by the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint when transliterating the Names Yehoshua/Yeshua to Iesous over two hundred times, and the title
Hebrew Roots Movement and It's a re-new covenant Not a NEW
time for a Myth to take care of, it a " renew covenant" not a new Covenant.
Well this One is pretty easy to answer, in Jeremiah 31 it Not a re-new One Because in The plan context, God says it will be a different One, that should put that to rest, even with the word " new" in Jeremiah 31, it simple means " new" It can mean to renew if verb is used , Not The objective but the objective is used , also The Phonetic Spelling is different.
here is The word that is used for Jeremiah 31
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/
also The Greek word kainos is used to refer to The New Covenant in the greek, it has no possible meaning to re-new, it means New in the sense of looking back to replace something, Neos another word for New means something that is but Not long had it been, either way neither word means re-new
also let me quote book of hebrews
Hebrews 8:7-13
New International Version (NIV)
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[a]:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[b]
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Let me deal with The argument that verse 13 that Covenant is not in the original, Some would say verse 13 means Priesthood but do we get that from all full surrounding context, I mean Just read 8 :7-13 through, it is talking about The Covenant not The Priesthood and also Priesthood is not in The original in verse 13 and is neither at all mention in the whole chapter of 8 but everything is base around The Covenant it self.
God bless all
Strong's Hebrew: 2319. חָדָשׁ (chadash) -- new
biblesuite.com
a.attrib. Exodus 1:8 (E) a new king; so of house Deuteronomy 20:5; Deuteronomy 20:22, wife Deuteronomy 24:5, cords Judges 15:13; Judges 16:11,12, cart 1 Samuel 6:7; 2 Samuel 6:3 (twice in verse) (but strike out in vb, compare We Dr) = 1 Chronicles 13:7, garment 1 Kings
Well this One is pretty easy to answer, in Jeremiah 31 it Not a re-new One Because in The plan context, God says it will be a different One, that should put that to rest, even with the word " new" in Jeremiah 31, it simple means " new" It can mean to renew if verb is used , Not The objective but the objective is used , also The Phonetic Spelling is different.
here is The word that is used for Jeremiah 31
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/
also The Greek word kainos is used to refer to The New Covenant in the greek, it has no possible meaning to re-new, it means New in the sense of looking back to replace something, Neos another word for New means something that is but Not long had it been, either way neither word means re-new
also let me quote book of hebrews
Hebrews 8:7-13
New International Version (NIV)
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[a]:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[b]
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Let me deal with The argument that verse 13 that Covenant is not in the original, Some would say verse 13 means Priesthood but do we get that from all full surrounding context, I mean Just read 8 :7-13 through, it is talking about The Covenant not The Priesthood and also Priesthood is not in The original in verse 13 and is neither at all mention in the whole chapter of 8 but everything is base around The Covenant it self.
God bless all
Strong's Hebrew: 2319. חָדָשׁ (chadash) -- new
biblesuite.com
a.attrib. Exodus 1:8 (E) a new king; so of house Deuteronomy 20:5; Deuteronomy 20:22, wife Deuteronomy 24:5, cords Judges 15:13; Judges 16:11,12, cart 1 Samuel 6:7; 2 Samuel 6:3 (twice in verse) (but strike out in vb, compare We Dr) = 1 Chronicles 13:7, garment 1 Kings
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Not under The law
In The movement of The HRM you probably seen this as a response, we are not under the law in the means for Justification but we do have to keep it if we love God etc........ This is what I going to tackle and see if scripture really limited The Law just being not for justification in the means One is just not saved by it.
The First Chapter that comes to mind is gal chapter 2 and these verses.
The First Chapter that comes to mind is gal chapter 2 and these verses.
Galatians 2:11-14
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
11 And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,
12 for
before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was
eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself,
fearing those of the circumcision,
13 and dissemble with him also did the other Jews, so that also Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation.
14 But
when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good
news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner
of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the
nations dost thou compel to Judaize?
Now if you read The whole chapter Paul is really against Gentiles keeping The law for them order to be saved, that they had to keep The Law, The HRM would not disagree with this statement but at the same time they say well if your really saved then you will keep Torah, if you do not, then your not because you do not love God.
I find this really talking out of both sides of there mouth, saying one thing but the other going right against it! If we have to keep The Law in order to keep our salvation then that not different then saying One salvation is justify by it and they will say not keeping it is backsliding and losing your salvation, sinning willing.
When we read these verses from 2:11-14 It very Clear Peter was not keeping Kosher, The verses say plainly he was LIVING The same LIFESTYLE of other NATIONS do! In regard to food that is.
Now we see The Law meaning Not for Justification is no different then saying if you really Love God then you will keep it or your not saved because I'm pretty sure peter would of lost his salvation! according to HRM thought or theology to go against Torah is to show your fruit is rotten and thou not good fruit and not saved your back slider etc........
We do not need to keep Torah in order to be saved and we do not need to keep it in order for our salvation with it fruits to be good.
---------------------------------------------------
Lets look at another verse to comment on
matthew 5:17-19
Before I begin I cover this one already with an article but I want to use this verse for another biblical understanding.
http://omegandalpha.blogspot.com/2012/07/matthew-517-19-and-hebrew-roots.html
Now if you read The whole chapter Paul is really against Gentiles keeping The law for them order to be saved, that they had to keep The Law, The HRM would not disagree with this statement but at the same time they say well if your really saved then you will keep Torah, if you do not, then your not because you do not love God.
I find this really talking out of both sides of there mouth, saying one thing but the other going right against it! If we have to keep The Law in order to keep our salvation then that not different then saying One salvation is justify by it and they will say not keeping it is backsliding and losing your salvation, sinning willing.
When we read these verses from 2:11-14 It very Clear Peter was not keeping Kosher, The verses say plainly he was LIVING The same LIFESTYLE of other NATIONS do! In regard to food that is.
Now we see The Law meaning Not for Justification is no different then saying if you really Love God then you will keep it or your not saved because I'm pretty sure peter would of lost his salvation! according to HRM thought or theology to go against Torah is to show your fruit is rotten and thou not good fruit and not saved your back slider etc........
We do not need to keep Torah in order to be saved and we do not need to keep it in order for our salvation with it fruits to be good.
---------------------------------------------------
Lets look at another verse to comment on
matthew 5:17-19
Before I begin I cover this one already with an article but I want to use this verse for another biblical understanding.
http://omegandalpha.blogspot.com/2012/07/matthew-517-19-and-hebrew-roots.html
Matthew 5:17-19
King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus says The law will not make until it is fulfilled and some other verses as well.........
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.luke 24:44-47 And he said unto them, These are the
words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you,
that
**all** things
must be fulfilled,
which were written in
the law of Moses, and in the prophets,
and in the psalms, concerning me
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus says The law will not make until it is fulfilled and some other verses as well.........
Luke 24:27
King James Version (KJV)
Ephesians 2:14-15
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
14 for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down,
15 the
enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done
away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making
peace,
Lets take to Note verse luke 24:27 according to Jesus everything that was written about him was fulfilled and verse eph 2:14-15 mention The commands of The Law it self being put away or done away in His flesh.
The law was perpetual in The original design of it, It would be up and abiding until The resurrection and after that, The letter was no more in the sense obsolete for Believers that Believe and his death and resurrection.
Lets look at romans 7:2-6
Lets take to Note verse luke 24:27 according to Jesus everything that was written about him was fulfilled and verse eph 2:14-15 mention The commands of The Law it self being put away or done away in His flesh.
The law was perpetual in The original design of it, It would be up and abiding until The resurrection and after that, The letter was no more in the sense obsolete for Believers that Believe and his death and resurrection.
Lets look at romans 7:2-6
Romans 7:2-6
King James Version (KJV)
2 For
the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so
long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the
law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
The same way If a women is married and her husband died she is release from that Law no longer abiding to her and aloud to marry again, Paul gives us that same example of this by giving us The perfect example in the Death and resurrection The Law is no longer abiding on us to keep that we discharged from it.
-------------------------------------------------
sources
http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/pleroo.htm The Greek term for “abolished” is katargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity. howing that just as a wife is “discharged” from the law of her husband when he dies, even so, through the death of the body of Christ, men were “discharged” from the obligations of the Mosaic law.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
The same way If a women is married and her husband died she is release from that Law no longer abiding to her and aloud to marry again, Paul gives us that same example of this by giving us The perfect example in the Death and resurrection The Law is no longer abiding on us to keep that we discharged from it.
-------------------------------------------------
sources
http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/pleroo.htm The Greek term for “abolished” is katargeo, literally suggesting the idea of reducing something to a state of inactivity. howing that just as a wife is “discharged” from the law of her husband when he dies, even so, through the death of the body of Christ, men were “discharged” from the obligations of the Mosaic law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)