Is Jesus the Saviour of the whole World?

[shepherdsword]

It appears that you are comfortably confident and content in your usual state of ignorance. Now it’s time to wrap yourself in a blanket and enjoy a well-earned rest.

You are a bit insulting in your arrogant self overestimation aren't you?

Please explain what you believe you have accomplished here, and address me directly in your response.

Address you directly? I will be happy to. You have just the sort of arrogance that needs to addressed.

What argument has been presented and what have you presented?

Your post reminds me of an overly enthusiastic, irrational news reporter who thinks they have uncovered a groundbreaking story worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. So, have you actually discovered a scandalous revelation that could bring significant recognition to yourself, inflate your pride once more, and that can boost and massage your ego, such as winning a Pulitzer Prize ? Or should we consider this just another failure and false alarm?

@ProDeo you can also be considered a part of this post.

One of the primary ways to identify a cult is by the way they treat the Godhead. For example: Because the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that Jesus is God, they will take, what I call, “borderline verses” to prove their point. The Mormons believe in a plurality of gods who evolved from men-to-gods, and that all Mormons will one day be gods themselves. The Oneness believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are only manifestations of Jesus. I am not sure which group you belong to but you obviously deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Let's take this to another thread. In the mean while chew on this. You seem to have missed it the last time I posted it. The Shema proves the Trinity:

 

[Wrangler]

It appears that you are comfortably confident and content in your usual state of ignorance.

What I love is how they claim victory with a copy and paste of language translation AS IF it proves anything they are claiming.

 

[shepherdsword]

What I love is how they claim victory with a copy and paste of language translation AS IF it proves anything they are claiming.

I can't help but notice how you keep avoiding such presentations as they destroy your arguments. If the Shema proves your position them please post why. Stop complaining about text copied from a valid source and present your objections.

 

[JustMe]

You are a bit insulting in your arrogant self overestimation aren't you?

Address you directly? I will be happy to. You have just the sort of arrogance that needs to addressed.

One of the primary ways to identify a cult is by the way they treat the Godhead. For example: Because the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe that Jesus is God, they will take, what I call, “borderline verses” to prove their point. The Mormons believe in a plurality of gods who evolved from men-to-gods, and that all Mormons will one day be gods themselves. The Oneness believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are only manifestations of Jesus. I am not sure which group you belong to but you obviously deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Let's take this to another thread. In the mean while chew on this. You seem to have missed it the last time I posted it. The Shema proves the Trinity:

View attachment 77002

The phrase 'borderline verses' is quite intriguing—I will give it some thought.

That said, your perspective on certain religious groups is fine, but I was hoping for a deeper discussion about the debates related to your earlier posts on the use of 'Lords and LORD' and Kyrios in the Old Testament versus the New Testament, and how you arrived at what you might consider a breakthrough supporting your beliefs. From my point of view, nothing in these posts has convinced me to reinterpret scripture for you and your support group. I suggest you carefully read scripture for its context and meaning before making quick, impulsive judgments presented as truth.

 

[JustMe]

What I love is how they claim victory with a copy and paste of language translation AS IF it proves anything they are claiming.

Well, that's the typical run of the mill product you can always expect to receive from these fringe groups. They lack rigor and study.

 

[Wrangler]

I can't help but notice how you keep avoiding such presentations as they destroy your arguments. If the Shema proves your position them please post why. Stop complaining about text copied from a valid source and present your objections.

The main proof against your claim is twofold:

1. It contradicts Scripture
2. There is no verse that states your dogma.

Regarding the Shema, you pretend one God means a 3-in-1 God. You don’t want to grasp how these are not the same.

The one God has a name, YHWH. He says this is his eternal name. You construe this to mean in 17 centuries, he’ll go by another name.

Because there is no trinity verse, you have to rely on extreme eisegesis to read you trinitarian IDOL into unitarian text. That’s right, the whole Bible, with the possible exception of Luke, was written by unitarian Jewish authors, who reject the trinity b to this day.

Your claim that copying and pasting something destroys my argument is false.

 

[JustMe]

@shepherdsword ... more info for study and reproof..

Here's a starter intro to the subject that you are arguing about that I just rigged up. It is a serious subject.

-------------------------------------------
The Greek language does not have a direct equivalent for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH, which is the personal name of God in the Old Testament.

As a result, early Greek translators of the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in the Septuagint (LXX), rendered YHWH primarily with the Greek word κύριος (kyrios), meaning "lord" or "master".

This single Greek term was used to translate multiple Hebrew concepts, including both the divine name YHWH and the more general term אָדוֹן (adonai), meaning "lord" or "master".

This linguistic convergence or adaptation into scripture creates much ambiguity and confusion (as I notice on this site), as κύριος can refer to God, a human lord, or even Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

This lack of distinction in Greek has led to interpretive challenges in Scripture, to say the least, particularly when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, it often reflects the Septuagint's use of κύριος for YHWH, which can obscure whether the reference is to God, the Father or to Yeshua the Christ, especially when the term is applied to Yeshua.

For example, in Psalm 110:1, the phrase "The Lord says to my Lord" uses κύριος twice, but the first refers to God (YHWH) and the second to the Messiah, the Son, a distinction that is not always clear in translation.

This ambiguity is further compounded because the Greek word κύριος was also used to translate the Hebrew word for "master" in human contexts, making it difficult to discern the intended referent without careful contextual analysis.

And here's a couple of sources for some of this text

Writing the name of God in Greek – Tyndale House

Dirk Jongkind traces the history of scribal innovations for writing God’s name and explores how these innovations still appear in churches today

tyndalehouse.com

The Significance of the word 'Lord' when applied to Christ

Knowing what the Bible says about the deity of Christ is important on various levels since there are many who deny that the Bible teaches this doctrine in the first place.

www.historicalbiblesociety.org

The Divine Name - EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

Jesus showed the utmost reverence for His heavenly Father and esteemed His name above all others, giving it primary importance in the Lord’s prayer. Jesus emphasized that the divine name was both sacred and holy. The Lord’s prayer was to serve as a model prayer, for all of His disciples...

earlychristianbeliefs.org

and I do not vouch for all their contents either.

Hope this helps...

 

[JLB]

If I say, "I am he" does that make me YHWH?

No that makes you an imposter.

 

[JLB]

The one God has a name, YHWH.

Yehowshuwa

YeHoWsHuwa


Jesus

Joshua

yashua


For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 NKJV


For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 KJV


Jesus and Joshua both mean the LORD is Salvation.

 

[amigo de christo]

Yehowshuwa

YeHoWsHuwa


Jesus

Joshua

yashua


For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 NKJV


For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 KJV


Jesus and Joshua both mean the LORD is Salvation.






View attachment 77022

That could be why it says JESUS in hebrews when explaining How Joshua brought them in and rest was not given .
Because the names seem to be similiar or even the same .

 

[JLB]

That could be why it says JESUS in hebrews when explaining How Joshua brought them in and rest was not given .
Because the names seem to be similiar or even the same .

Yes.

The book of Hebrews was, I believe, written originally in Hebrew to Hebrews.

The Name Jesus and Joshua are the same.


Say Joshua.

Now say Joshua without using the J sound because there are no “J”’s in Hebrew.


It would be more of a Y sound.


Yashua.

 

[JustMe]

Yehowshuwa

YeHoWsHuwa


Jesus

Joshua

yashua


For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 NKJV


For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Hebrews 4:8 KJV


Jesus and Joshua both mean the LORD is Salvation.






View attachment 77022

So what do you infer from your statement, "Jesus and Joshua both mean the LORD is Salvation?" There is only one logical and truthful inference.

 

[Wrangler]

No that makes you an imposter.

Well, that's a fine assessment apart from the linguistic analysis you are presenting, isn't it? In other words, you are falling to Circular Reasoning, starting with your conclusion. Then, you look for evidence to support your conclusion.

In this case, Jesus said "I am he," which you take as proof he is YHWH. The weakness of this claim is what happens when someone else says I am he?" D'at different is not an argument. Silly to say the logic you use does not apply when imposters say it. Hope you understand that.

 

[Wrangler]

they will take, what I call, “borderline verses” to prove their point.

Interesting. In law, the analogy might be dicta; an expression made by a judge that is a casual observation and not Germaine to the decision at hand.

Some attempt to use dicta as precedent. This is specious.

As it relates to our discussion, I find invoking the expression from Genesis to be dicta or a “borderline verse” as you put it; made in our image to support a multi-person person BECAUSE it presumes who God is talking to.

By contrast, the decision hinges on the text of the Shema, as you pointed out and the 1st commandment. It’s so important, God put it first. And he said, you shall have no other gods before me. This is decisive as it is not a throw away dicta comment, a command and has no ambiguity; God is a single person.

Advocates of your position thrive on dicta, on ambiguity. The more ambiguous, the more you doctrinally invest in it. See John 1:1

 

[Taken]

Is Jesus the Saviour of the whole World?

The Whole World…
Ie. This World “Earth”.

Savior…
Ie. One WHO IS … the Authority TO Save.

Savior…
Ie. One WHO IS … the Power TO Save.

What IS the Authority … TO Save?
* The Creators’ Word
* The Makers’ Word
* The Creators Power.
* The Makers Power.

Who IS the Creator?
God
Who IS the Maker?
Gods Word
Who IS the Word?
Lord Jesus
Who IS the Power?
Christ
Where Does the Word Come From?
Gods Mouth
Where Does the Power come From?
Gods Spirit

When Gods Word comes forth out from Gods Mouth… IS God “empty” of His Word?
No…
Mystery…Gods Word comes forth AND remains IN God.

When Gods Power Comes forth out from God…IS God “empty” of His Power?
No
Mystery…Gods Power comes forth AND remains IN God.

Can God Save?
Yes
Can Gods Word Save?
Yes
Can Gods Power Save?
Yes
Can the Lord God Save ALL humans?
Yes
WILL the Lord God SAVE ALL humans, persons, “Earthly men”?
No

Why Not?
Because Not ALL human “persons”…
Will Freely ”choose” to “accept / take”…
The Lord Gods Offering to become “MADE” Saved.

What “IS” a “human person”?
An ALIVE earthly manKind of being.

When Can a “human person” Accept The Lord Gods Offering?
While the manKind of being “IS “Bodily” ALIVE.”

When IS a human mans Body… ALIVE?
While the “BLOOD” is flowing IN the Body.

Why?
Because Blood IS the Life of a human body.

WHEN Will The Lord God “MAKE” a mans “Soul” Sav-ED?

AFTER ….
* a living (Life/ Blood Life) In a man … Heartfully Believes IN “The Lord God…
AFTER …
* The Lord God “Forgives” the man, For having formally “NOT Believed”
AFTER
* The man has “Freely Given his own Bodily Life… unto the Lord God…”unto Death”…
Verifying his True Belief IN the Lord God
AFTER
* The Lord God HAS Entered into “His” “Books and Records of Evidence”…
* That mans Belief and FREEWILL to Lay Down his Own LIFE … For his BELIEF…. IN the Lord God.

AFTERWARD
A Promise From the Lord God…
IS Applied to THAT man.

WHAT Promise?
In the “Future” (express date / Hour) Secret for manKind to know…
the Lord God SHALL …
“Gift” a rebirth of that mans NATURAL spirit , with a “New Seed…. Gods Seed”…

WHAT IS… a mans “Natural spirit”…
The mans Natural TRUTH, IN his MIND ….?
No
Mans Truth In his Heart ?
Yes.

AND (unknown Day, hour)…
For a mans, Spirit, Made “Reborn of Gods Seed…
God SHALL…Rise UP that mans BODY … a new Spiritual Ever living Body…
that Which
Can Never Die…
that which
Can Never be Destroyed
that which
Can Never be Divided or Separated From the Lord God.

The Offering Applies to the whole world of “manKind earthly Alive (blood life human beings)…”

The Saving … ( of the soul)
The Rebirth … ( of the spirit)
IS the “Offering”…. Any individual human “person”…
CAN freely “Accept”
Or
CAN freely “Reject”….

Once a human mans natural body Becomes “mortally Dead”….
That mans “Option for Choosing” IS MOOT.

Dead men Know Nothing.
Dead men Choose Nothing.

Choice of man to accept or Reject Gods Offering…
IS While the man IS Alive.

God “Giving” the man “A Gift of Soul Salvation
AND
“Giving” the man the Gift of Gods Seed…
IS AFTER the mans body is Accounted Mortally Dead …
And …
Spiritually Alive…
In Gods Books of Evidence.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[JLB]

So what do you infer from your statement, "Jesus and Joshua both mean the LORD is Salvation?" There is only one logical and truthful inference.

Yes.

 

[JLB]

Well, that's a fine assessment apart from the linguistic analysis you are presenting, isn't it? In other words, you are falling to Circular Reasoning, starting with your conclusion. Then, you look for evidence to support your conclusion.

In this case, Jesus said "I am he," which you take as proof he is YHWH. The weakness of this claim is what happens when someone else says I am he?" D'at different is not an argument. Silly to say the logic you use does not apply when imposters say it. Hope you understand that.

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:58-59



Why did the Jews pick stones to stone Jesus to death, when He said I AM?

 

[JustMe]

Interesting. In law, the analogy might be dicta; an expression made by a judge that is a casual observation and not Germaine to the decision at hand.

Some attempt to use dicta as precedent. This is specious.

As it relates to our discussion, I find invoking the expression from Genesis to be dicta or a “borderline verse” as you put it; made in our image to support a multi-person person BECAUSE it presumes who God is talking to.

By contrast, the decision hinges on the text of the Shema, as you pointed out and the 1st commandment. It’s so important, God put it first. And he said, you shall have no other gods before me. This is decisive as it is not a throw away dicta comment, a command and has no ambiguity; God is a single person.

Advocates of your position thrive on dicta, on ambiguity. The more ambiguous, the more you doctrinally invest in it. See John 1:1

Very Good assessment

 

[marks]

Do you believe God was manifested in the flesh?

Yes I do. Do you?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The basis for calling Him "Yeshua" lies in the Hebrew origin of the name, which means "salvation". Yeshua is a common Aramaic and Hebrew form of the name Joshua (Yehoshua), used during the Second Temple period. While the New Testament was written in Greek and refers to the Messiah as "Iēsous," the original Hebrew name is preserved in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition. Some argue that since the Messiah was known as Yeshua in His earthly context and among Jewish people, using the name "Yeshua" honors His Jewish heritage and restores a pronunciation closer to the original.

I've heard 3 or 4 different Hebrew names that people have suggested. To me it's conjecture. Meanwhile, we have what we know in truth.

Much love!