Did Jesus say he was God???

[AK4]

Quote Dirty Penguin
Also you do realize that the writer of Matthew, who ever he was, never met Yeshua...right...?

How would anyone know this for sure? That is “scholars” speculation.

So the reference given is purely the writer's interpretation of OT scriptures. This is why I say there is no place in any scripture, even in other places in Matthew, where the biblical Yeshua was referred to as Immanuel. Not even his own mother, who supposedly received news from an angel of her son being born into the world, never called him that. In fact she was told by the angel what his name would be.

But we do have them recorded calling Him Lord and not just ordinary lord and they did know that the Lord was their God.

Quote:
I was just pointing out that careful study of the supposed prophecy was meant for the king of that day and time and not an idle prophecy told to the king of an event that was supposed to happen seven hundred years later.

There are plenty of prophecies that go “on this route” or some will call it as having a dual fulfillment. For example the physical Israel of God [the ancient Israelites coming out of a literal Egypt] and the spiritual Israel of God [coming of what Egypt symbolically stood for sin]

Quote:
Again, this was you trying to use Peter as evidence he viewed Yeshua as "God" but right there in chapter one he clearly doesn't. You gave me chapter and verse and in order for me to understand the context I read beyond what you posted. I found your interpretation weak considering his own testimony that followed...showing that in fact he did view "God" and Yeshua...to be separate.

Okay lets look at the context
2 Peter 1:1-4 -
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

Comment: We will contrast this verse with the next verse and see if your theory holds true. According to your theory one can say of the president of the US something like this and mean 2 different people. “by the righteousness of our commander in chief and president, Barak Obama”. Now how can this mean to separate people? There is no distinction made there at all. Now the next verse

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;

Comment: Notice the distinction made here. Yes we do agree and the scriptures do teach that the Father and Son are separate “entities” and Peter did know that Jesus was not THE Father, but as you can see from the first verse compared to this verse its not saying the same thing. The first verse acknowledges Jesus as OUR God AND Saviour. The second verse say “OF God AND OF Jesus” deliberately showing a distinction unlike the first verse. Now compare these two again with that practice line

“by the righteousness of our commander in chief and president, Barak Obama”

“Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of the commander in chief and of Barak Obama, the president”?????

See this second one doesn’t make sense if you are talking of the same person, but in the first verse it does.

Even in the very first words “Simon Peter, a bond-servant AND apostle”---talking about the same person---no distinction made

“of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”---talking about the same person. It doesn’t say of our God and of our Saviour to make a distinction.

And now the distinction-- “of God and of Jesus our Lord;”---its like saying knowledge of God and knowledge of Jesus. You wouldn’t say “knowledge of commander in chief and knowledge of the president” in the same sentence when talking of the same person, but you would say “knowledge of [place anything here] and of [place anything different here] when distinguishing between two people.




3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

Quote:
Actually you misquoted the verse. I don't know if this was intentional or by accident so I can't really hold you at fault other than to admonish you to get the proper quote next time. The verse goes like this.....;

Yeah I did misquote and in this instance by not using any second witnesses, you would be right.

Quote:
The frequency is not that important. My point was that while your scriptures do show ("God") as the saviour it tells you that "God" sends saviours. Acts 5:31 is an example of that. The biblical Yeshua was given a task. The task was to do what his god taught and commanded him to do. In his prayer to his god he says that he has completed this task. This task was to save a lost people.

Yeah, but there is a complete distinction with Jesus. These other saviours were not worshipped and if they were about to the corrected the people. Jesus didn’t correct anyone that I can think of except for the person that called Him good Teacher, yet this was not a “worshipping moment”. These other saviours have not accepted worship like Jesus did thus a huge difference. And out of Jesus’ own mouth He says “you are to worship the Lord thy God only” thus more proof on that matter otherwise Jesus was a liar and not sinless because He allowed people to worship Him and didn’t correct them.

Quote:
Now you understand the "circular"....arguments and reasoning we are going through. The OP has been addressed.....so it comes down to what you believe and how you interpret your scriptures because you seem to be acting as the rest who gaze upon them must not be able to understand them...because we haven't been unable to produce a scripture that the biblical Yeshua (didn't) teach he was God. I could give you verse, after verse...of him implicitly and explicitly refuting being viewed as (God) but where will that really get us...?

Not necessarily true, I don’t always think that those who gaze upon them must not understand them, but what I do constantly see is that people don’t use the whole bible as the context, thus not “rightly dividing the word” and or seeing that there is “here a little, there a little” and not knowing that “no scripture is of its own interpretation”. I see the god of context come to play a lot, but even when they do that they fail to realize the context of the whole bible thus you really cant take something out of context. Just like what you had above and proved me wrong in that Acts verse, but that was only because I just stuck with the “context” of those verses.

 

[AK4]

The name Jesus (Greek) Iesous corresponds to the (Hebrew) name Jeshua or in fuller form Jehoshua,(Yehohshua) meaning: Jehovah is Salvation.

The Tetragrammaton is only applied to Jehovah (YHWH)

Christ (Greek) Khristos or (Hebrew) Mashiach (Messiah) means Anointed One.
Jesus is uniquely or preeminently: the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Although this is one of the sacred name societies, they still prove my point
From WHERE DID THE NAME JESUS COME FROM

WHERE DID THE NAME JESUS COME FROM?

STRONG’S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE, page 37 of the Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, reference 2424 under the name Jesus, “Iesous, of Hebrew origin (3091); Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of the Lord…” Reference 3091 in the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary under the name Jehoshua, “Yehowshua; from 3068 and 3467. Reference 3068 is the name of the LORD in the Old Testament, which we know is YAHWEH. Reference 3467 is the suffix “yasha,” pronounced yaw-shah’, meaning to free, save, deliver, help, defend, bring (having) salvation, saviour, to get victory. Notice the name of Christ is derived from the name of God (YAHWEH) and the suffix ‘yasha.’

THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE EDITION, page 88 states that the word “saved” is a translation of the Hebrew word “yasha.” This is the root word from which the name Jehoshua or Jesus came, “…for he shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).”

THE NEW WESTMINSTER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, page 478, under Jesus. (Latin from Greek Iesous, which is from Hebrew Jeshua, a late form of Jehoshua or Joshua - Yahweh is salvation).

If you look at many other names like Elijah, Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel, you will notice they are all Hebrew names. We know Jesus was a Hebrew, so how could His name have been a Latin name from the Greek. In fact, in the Hebrew alphabet, there is no J sound. Wherever you see the letter J, it is pronounced with a Y sound. For example, in our alphabet we use the letters ‘ph’ to produce the ‘f’ sound such as in the word telephone. In fact, the capital letter J was non-existent until the 16th century.


Notice the Lord spoke in the HEBREW TONGUE! The Lord could not have said His name was Jesus, because Jesus is not a Hebrew name. The Apostle Paul wouldn’t even know or recognize the name Jesus.WHAT IS THE TRUE NAME OF THE LORD?

In Revelation 2:13 it states, “I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith.” The Church of Pergamos, where Satan’s seat was, had those that still held fast to His name. The Church of Philadelphia, in Revelation 3:8, was commended by Christ for not denying His name. Now, almost 1,900 years later, it is obvious that something happened. Now we have the name Jesus that came from the Greek name of Iesous, which in turn came from the Hebrew names of Jehoshua or Joshua. What was the name these people held fast to and did not deny?

The true name of the Lord is YAHWEH-YASHA. YAHWEH (the Lord) of the Old Testament is YAHWEH-YASHA (the Lord) of the New Testament. In Hebrews 1:4, it tells us that the Messiah inherited His name from His Father. In Jeremiah 23:5-6, YAHWEH says that He is going to raise unto David a righteous branch and a king (Christ) and that the name of the Messiah would be called YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Notice that Christ, the Branch, will have the same name as God.

There are some, mostly the Jewish people, who call the Messiah Y’shua, Yeshua or Yahshua. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible under Yah states that Yah is a short form of YAHWEH. The suffix “shua” (7769)* means cry or riches. To call the Lord Y’shua, Yahshua or Jesus eliminates His eternal name, YAHWEH. Just like Abram’s name was changed to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, yet it is the same man; likewise YAHWEH has become YAHWEH-YASHA, yet it is the same Lord. YAHWEH was going to save His people from their sins through YAHWEH-YASHA. YAHWEH-YASHA has become the Lord of the New Covenant by His blood shed on the cross.

In John 1: 10-12 it states, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” In John 2:23 it says, “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, the feast days, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.” John 3:18 also says, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Luke 24:47 states, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations.” Now we understand what He really meant when YAHWEH-YASHA said, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive (John 5:43).”

Many people believe that the name of the Lord is Jesus. I, myself, believed in and loved the name, Jesus. However, loving truth is an important characteristic in the makeup of any man, woman or child who loves and fears God. The truth is that the name spoken to the Apostle Paul was YAHWEH-YASHA, not Jesus. Remember that the Lord spoke to the Apostle Paul in Hebrew and gave him His name directly. He would have never used or spoken any other name. Paul did not know the name Jesus. This may be hard to comprehend at first, but the apostles or the early church never even knew or heard of the name Jesus.THERE IS ONLY ONE NAME!



In Acts 4: 10-12 it tells us in our English Bible that there is no other name but Jesus Christ to call upon to be saved. Yet in Joel 2:32 it says that whosoever calls on the name of YAHWEH shall be saved. This passage of scripture is quoted again in the New Testament in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13. What happened to the name of YAHWEH? We know the name of YAHWEH endures forever, so what happened to it?

The truth is that the name of the Lord God and the Lord Christ has to be the same. Otherwise, there are two names we can call upon. Hebrews 6:10 states that the saints were commended for laboring for God’s name. Revelation 2:3 states that the Church of Ephesus was commended for laboring for Christ’s name. Is it possible that these two churches labored for two different names?

In Isaiah 45:23 and Romans 14:11, the Bible tells us that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear to YAHWEH. Philippians 2:10 says that at the name Jesus every knee is going to bow. This means that either everyone is going to bow at two names or that the true name of the Lord is YAHWEH-YASHA. In Acts 9:15, the Apostle Paul was commissioned to bear the name of Christ to the Jews and Gentiles. Yet in Acts 15:14-17, the Gentiles were called out to take on God’s name.

Psalms 72:17 states about Christ that “His name shall endure forever: his name shall continue as long as the sun and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.” Yet in Exodus 3:15 and Psalms 135:14, the scripture tells us YAHWEH'S name endures forever. Are two names going to endure forever? Zechariah 14:9, prophesying about the future, tells us that YAHWEH shall be king over all the earth, and His name one. There is only one name that Christ can possibly have, and that is YAHWEH-YASHA. Jeremiah 23:5-6 declares quite plainly that the name of YAHWEH would be in the name of the Messiah.


It may very well be that the beauty of the name YAHWEH-YASHA may not only come by prayer and study of scriptures, but a strong desire for truth that supersedes man’s own doctrines and traditions. There has been a great outpouring of the Holy Ghost on many people in these last days. God is in the process of restoring His church to be like the church in the book of Acts. In Acts 3: 20-21 it tells us that our Lord is coming back but is kept in heaven until the restitution of all things. It may very well be that the next thing to be restored is the Lord’s true name. As we begin to believe on His name, the Lord will confirm His true name in our hearts with an abundance of peace.

 

[AK4]

Quote:URAVIP2ME

Originally Posted by AK4
You are probably right cuz most christians are sheeple and they dont "dive" into the Word
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number:[/FONT]odedOriginalWord[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT] ישע [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]a primitive root[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]yasha`[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]yaw-shah'[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]TWOT[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Verb[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]929[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]

1. to save, be saved, be delivered
   1. (Niphal)
      1. to be liberated, be saved, be delivered
      2. to be saved (in battle), be victorious
   2. (Hiphil)
      1. to save, deliver
      2. to save from moral troubles
      3. to give victory to

[/FONT]

URAVIP2ME
The name Jesus (Greek) Iesous corresponds to the (Hebrew) name Jeshua or in fuller form Jehoshua,(Yehohshua) meaning: Jehovah is Salvation.

The Tetragrammaton is only applied to Jehovah (YHWH)

Jesus was a common name in the first century.
That is why which Jesus is specified such as Jesus the Nazarene.

Christ (Greek) Khristos or (Hebrew) Mashiach (Messiah) means Anointed One.
Jesus is uniquely or preeminently: the Christ, the Son of the living God.
- Matt 16:16.

Don't you just love it when people prove your point for you..?

I wonder if he thinks the "prophet" Elijah was "God" in the flesh as well considering it means (my god Yah).

Yea, I don't think people went around thinking Elijah was "God" incarnate.....

Dont you just love it when people prove your point for you..? :yes: (see post before this)

 

[Katzpur]

I find nothing in scripture that supports this notion. Here are two verses that I believe contra-indicate it:

I'm not surprised. And I don't see them in the same way as you do at all.

Joh 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

God was Jesus' Father, and Jesus was equal to God in that He had the same perfect nature. He was perfect in all things, all-knowing, all-powerful and absolutely loving and merciful. Who else who has ever lived could say that? Since this verse does not even mention the name "Jehovah," I'm not even sure why you used it as an example. Incidentally, one thing cannot be equal to itself. In order for there to be a comparison, there must be two things. On the other hand, Jesus also said that His Father is greater than He. He was not referring to their divine nature when He did, but to His (i.e. Jesus') subordinate place within the Godhead.

Ge 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

That's right. Jehovah created the Heavens and the Earth. He did so under His Father's direction. Ephesians 3:9 states that God "created all things by Jesus Christ."

In these two verses we see that Jesus is God, The Father is God and Jehovah is God. Since God is one, these verses are only revealing that God has many names and titles.

Yes, we see here that Jesus is God. We don't see that He is God the Father, though. Since I don't believe in the Trinity, I see God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ (also God) as not being physically "one," but "one in will and purpose."

Since God is the only Savior, it is another proof that Jesus is God in the flesh.

God the Father is not the Savior of this world. It is His Son, Jesus Christ who is the Savior of this world. Jesus was "God" before His birth. He was "God" during His mortality. He is "God" today. He reigns in Heaven where He sits on the right hand on His Father. Would you care to explain how one being sits on his own right side?

 

[saltandlight]

Hi Katzpur,
I would like to point out that the passage Ephesians 3:9 states that: "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
So, how did God create anything by Jesus Christ?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How would anyone know this for sure? That is “scholars” speculation.

And your point? It's widely known in the field that the writers of Matthew and Luke drew very much of their material from Mark. The book of Matthew's estimated dating ranges between 80 and 100 CE. In fact, no one knows who wrote the scroll but later, I think it was the church, assigned the name to Matthew.

But we do have them recorded calling Him Lord and not just ordinary lord and they did know that the Lord was their God.

No we don't and I've already gone over this. We just simply disagree is all.

Okay lets look at the context
2 Peter 1:1-4 -
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord;


3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.

Yeah I did misquote and in this instance by not using any second witnesses, you would be right.

.... Look, It's how you're putting "special" attention to the word (and). Even in this case above it's just a simple joiner. It doesn't mean one in the same being. Really, we're debating over mere semantics here and interpretations. You went through great lenghts to show that it's not but it's no different that Matthew 28:19 where the word appears there but in their rendering of the verse they say (and of the). This goes against your argument. In some areas (Matt. 28:19) they "DO" include the (and of the).

 

[The Enlightened One]

Jesus was called "The Son" because He was born of a woman. That was needed for Him to be 100% human (as well as 100% God)

But if he is God, then he shouldn't need to be born of a woman to be human.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dont you just love it when people prove your point for you..? :yes: (see post before this)

No...I maintain what I said. I read that post and I pretty much disagree with them.

YHWH
The name YHWH, Yahweh, Jahweh: meaning, origin and etymology

Nowhere have I seen the Jews interpreting their god's name as "YAWEH-YASHA". You may even get a serious frown if you spoke their god's name out loud and like that. I'm pretty sure they would consider it blasphemous. I give that post and (B) for the effort but fails at trying to convince me considering the Jewish understanding of the name of their god disagrees with this person.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Katzpur,
I would like to point out that the passage Ephesians 3:9 states that: "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
So, how did God create anything by Jesus Christ?

Are you saying your Bible doesn't have the words "by Jesus Christ" after it says "God, who created all things"?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So, how did God create anything by Jesus Christ?

Please notice that Jesus at Col 1:15,16 is 'firstborn' in the heavens.
Being 'firstborn' in the heavens before earth's creation, then at Genesis 1:26, the 'us' would be God and Jesus. According to verse 2 God used his powerful spirit to create, so create through Jesus. God supplying the needed power or dynamic energy - Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 32:17.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Please notice that Jesus at Col 1:15,16 is 'firstborn' in the heavens.
Being 'firstborn' in the heavens before earth's creation, then at Genesis 1:26, the 'us' would be God and Jesus. According to verse 2 God used his powerful spirit to create, so create through Jesus. God supplying the needed power or dynamic energy - Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 32:17.

You can't compare the scriptures of the OT to the NT because they were written in entirely different time periods, and are specific to two entirely different religions. That's why I had such a hard time remaining "faithful" and ended up denouncing my Christianity in the first place.

 

[arimoff]

Please notice that Jesus at Col 1:15,16 is 'firstborn' in the heavens.
Being 'firstborn' in the heavens before earth's creation, then at Genesis 1:26, the 'us' would be God and Jesus. According to verse 2 God used his powerful spirit to create, so create through Jesus. God supplying the needed power or dynamic energy - Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 32:17.

Where do you get all this information? there is only one way to explain Genesis 1:26, the Jewish way, and Jews don't know anyone by the name of Jesus. Genesis was written way before.

 

[AK4]

And your point? It's widely known in the field that the writers of Matthew and Luke drew very much of their material from Mark. The book of Matthew's estimated dating ranges between 80 and 100 CE. In fact, no one knows who wrote the scroll but later, I think it was the church, assigned the name to Matthew.

No i believe this is only believed by those who believe that there was a Q document which as wikipedia states "Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found." So their belief is unfounded.

No we don't and I've already gone over this. We just simply disagree is all.

okay

.... Look, It's how you're putting "special" attention to the word (and). Even in this case above it's just a simple joiner. It doesn't mean one in the same being. Really, we're debating over mere semantics here and interpretations. You went through great lenghts to show that it's not but it's no different that Matthew 28:19 where the word appears there but in their rendering of the verse they say (and of the). This goes against your argument. In some areas (Matt. 28:19) they "DO" include the (and of the).

No special attention. See i dont just look at one passage and interpret or whatever, i use "context" of the whole bible. Remember no scripture is its own interpretation so therefore you couple this verse with dozens of other verses without contradicting any other or any precept and principle and you have your answer.

Oh BTW that Matt 28:19 is a spurious verse so it doesnt belong in any manuscript so no need to put much thought to it.

http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/...tantin - Discovery of Sinaitic Manuscript.pdf

 

[AK4]

No...I maintain what I said. I read that post and I pretty much disagree with them.

YHWH
The name YHWH, Yahweh, Jahweh: meaning, origin and etymology

Nowhere have I seen the Jews interpreting their god's name as "YAWEH-YASHA". You may even get a serious frown if you spoke their god's name out loud and like that. I'm pretty sure they would consider it blasphemous. I give that post and (B) for the effort but fails at trying to convince me considering the Jewish understanding of the name of their god disagrees with this person.

Of course not because they are too afraid to even say the title God or as they put G-d. It absolutely amazes me that people look to a people on how to say His name or know His name when they are so afraid to "call upon the name of the Lord" and wont spell it out right nor say His name. Do anyone else think about this besides me? Any way heres an excerpt that explains it better than i could

In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," then, actually contains the name "YHWH" in abbreviated form. While YHWH simply describes who God is, when it is combined with a verb it describes what God does. The name "Jesus" describes the fact that YHWH has become salvation. Who is Christ? He is YHWH, saving His people from their sins. If YHWH is not God's name, then Jesus' name becomes meaningless. To deny that God's name is YHWH is to ultimately deny the name of Jesus.

We should pick up on the fact that God is never referred to as "Yeshua" (Jesus) in the OT. He is always referred to as YHWH. If God's name has always been Jesus (as some claim) it would seem strange that He never referred to Himself as such, nor was He ever called that until the NT. It might be counter-argued that while God was called YHWH in the OT, He is never called by such in the NT. But is God called YHWH in the NT? Yes, in its expanded form as "Jesus," meaning "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," found exclusively in the NT, is a continuation of the revealed name of God found throughout the OT. "Jesus" is not a new name. The name of Jesus encompasses the fullness of God's revelation of Himself to man--as Savior. The name "Jesus" is so important to us because it is an expanded form of the same divine name revealed in the OT. It is not a different name. It is only greater in that it more fully expresses who God is to us--Savior. Truly God's name is Jesus, because God's name is YHWH. We confess that God's name is YHWH every time we confess Him as Jesus.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No i believe this is only believed by those who believe that there was a Q document which as wikipedia states "Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found." So their belief is unfounded.

Well, i understand what scholars mean by "Q" so I agree. It is a hypothetical document that we have no tangible evidence of. But when it comes to textual study and comparison scholars agree that Matthew and Luke drew a lot of their material from Mark.

No special attention. See i don't just look at one passage and interpret or whatever, i use "context" of the whole bible.

I do as well...but I feel as though you're trying to interpret your scriptures from the English stand point that was originally in Greek. Your emphasis on (and) in that passage is not consistent with other verses in the NT nor is it consistent with the Peter's view when you consider the verses after that one. Verse 1 and 2 are prime examples. "The translators" leave out the (of) in verse one but add it in verse two even though the Greek is the same in both verses. They could have simply added (and of Jesus) but they didn't so I feel as though they were being biased in their translation.

Oh BTW that Matt 28:19 is a spurious verse so it doesn't belong in any manuscript so no need to put much thought to it.

I simply used it as an example. I am well aware of it being spurious. I was using it to show how they wrote in those days. As far as the verse itself there is no consensus on removing it from your bible as of yet. When scholars and theologians met to render the RSV Bible they left it in but took out other verses. For now it remains....but continues to remain "suspected" interpolation.

 

[Ba'al]

No i believe this is only believed by those who believe that there was a Q document which as wikipedia states "Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found." So their belief is unfounded.

Just because they haven't found Q it doesn't mean historians beliefs are unfounded! Historians rely on evidence and they have enough of it that 85% of NT scholars believe in the Q document. Luke and Matthew share word for word statements and yet were written independently. Even if they were written from the same oral tradition that would be quite a coincidence. If you and me told the same story what are the chances we'd use the same sentences?

 

[sojourner]

You can't compare the scriptures of the OT to the NT because they were written in entirely different time periods, and are specific to two entirely different religions. That's why I had such a hard time remaining "faithful" and ended up denouncing my Christianity in the first place.

I don't think you can make such a cut-and-dried distinction as that, and remain on the safe side of factual.

 

[sojourner]

No i believe this is only believed by those who believe that there was a Q document which as wikipedia states "Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found." So their belief is unfounded.

Q has little to do with the popular nomenclature of the gospels. Fact is, even the scholars who dismiss the existence of Q know that the earliest documents have no authorial ascription.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course not because they are too afraid to even say the title God or as they put G-d. It absolutely amazes me that people look to a people on how to say His name or know His name when they are so afraid to "call upon the name of the Lord" and wont spell it out right nor say His name. Do anyone else think about this besides me? Any way heres an excerpt that explains it better than i could

In Hebrew Jesus' name is spelled as "Yeshua." The "Ye" in Yeshua is the abbreviated form of YHWH. "Shua" is from the Hebrew word for salvation, yasha. Jesus' name literally means "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," then, actually contains the name "YHWH" in abbreviated form. While YHWH simply describes who God is, when it is combined with a verb it describes what God does. The name "Jesus" describes the fact that YHWH has become salvation. Who is Christ? He is YHWH, saving His people from their sins. If YHWH is not God's name, then Jesus' name becomes meaningless. To deny that God's name is YHWH is to ultimately deny the name of Jesus.

We should pick up on the fact that God is never referred to as "Yeshua" (Jesus) in the OT. He is always referred to as YHWH. If God's name has always been Jesus (as some claim) it would seem strange that He never referred to Himself as such, nor was He ever called that until the NT. It might be counter-argued that while God was called YHWH in the OT, He is never called by such in the NT. But is God called YHWH in the NT? Yes, in its expanded form as "Jesus," meaning "YHWH is salvation." The name "Jesus," found exclusively in the NT, is a continuation of the revealed name of God found throughout the OT. "Jesus" is not a new name. The name of Jesus encompasses the fullness of God's revelation of Himself to man--as Savior. The name "Jesus" is so important to us because it is an expanded form of the same divine name revealed in the OT. It is not a different name. It is only greater in that it more fully expresses who God is to us--Savior. Truly God's name is Jesus, because God's name is YHWH. We confess that God's name is YHWH every time we confess Him as Jesus.

I'm sorry...but I feel as though you're stretching and trying to draw unproven parallels here.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Where do you get all this information? there is only one way to explain Genesis 1:26, the Jewish way, and Jews don't know anyone by the name of Jesus. Genesis was written way before.

Little by little. Genesis 3:15 does not name Jesus as the 'seed' that will deal Satan the fatal death bruise to his head either. Messiah is not named at Daniel 9:25,26 either. So little by little or gradually prophecies are revealed by increasing information.

Yes, Genesis was written way before Jesus. However, according to Colossians 1:15,16; Rev 3:14 Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was.- Psalm 90:2, but Jesus as 'firstborn' in the heavens was at the beginning of all creation.