Grailhunter’s Corner

[Grailhunter]

Wow, sorry Grailhunter, i didn't read your entire article, but this is entirely antithetical reasoning. You'll have to take the time to explain much more of what you are trying to say. Is it that you are denouncing this logic, or supporting it? For, again, it sounds absolutely absurd to me for the reasons that I gave - no wisdom and soundness, then no glory to God, then no viable doctrine.

The norm is a very difficult thing to escape, even if it is not the truth or reality. You can read what the apostles said about the unity of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Then you can read how Christ explained this oneness concept. Then read how God Father and God the Son related during the Gospels and actually see that in motion. And I explained that in detail referencing the Gospels with a lot of scriptures. God so loved the word He gave His only begotten Son...Father and Son...two...He did not begot Himself. God the Father gave authority to God the Son...one gave and one received. God the Father and God the Son spoke to each other....separate wills defined, not by will but yours. Christ explained that there were requests that only the father could do. He admitted that there were things that God the Father knew that God the Son did not. It is all explained in detail but the norm has been around for a while so it is hard to escape the lies.

 

[Heart2Soul]

When someone bumps a thread that hasn't been posted in for a while, it makes it easier for others to find and helps it to get noticed more.

So if a thread gets buried among a lot of other threads, and then someone bumps it, it's back at the top of the most recent posts and the thread is easily seen again.

Thanks Josho!

 

[DNB]

The norm is a very difficult thing to escape, even if it is not the truth or reality. You can read what the apostles said about the unity of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Then you can read how Christ explained this oneness concept. Then read how God Father and God the Son related during the Gospels and actually see that in motion. And I explained that in detail referencing the Gospels with a lot of scriptures. God so loved the word He gave His only begotten Son...Father and Son...two...He did not begot Himself. God the Father gave authority to God the Son...one gave and one received. God the Father and God the Son spoke to each other....separate wills defined, not by will but yours. Christ explained that there were requests that only the father could do. He admitted that there were things that God the Father knew that God the Son did not. It is all explained in detail but the norm has been around for a while so it is hard to escape the lies.

Thank you for that, but, sorry, I meant explain your predicate that, if to man a conclusion or doctrine is absurd, then it must be divinely inspired.

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you for that, but, sorry, I meant explain your predicate that, if to man a conclusion or doctrine is absurd, then it must be divinely inspired.

That is the premise that they were running on. Three persons, one God does not make any sense and is contrary to the storyline of the Gospels. So when people objected, they were accused of not thinking spiritually...Because....the fact that it didn't make any sense, was the proof that it was of God. In other words if you could not understand it, the insinuation was, that it was that point that made it of God. Sort of the effect of "The Emperor's New Clothes" by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen,

When Emperor Constantine invited / commanded the Bishops of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor and North Africa to Nicaea, his goals was to standardize and unify Christianity. Such was the way of the Romans. The Christian beliefs among these churches varied. There were a lot of conflicts beliefs and the council of Nicaea "was an argument" to say the least. Before this the "one God formula" was not popular, or even known by many. But the "one God formula" shutdown a lot of the arguments. I say shutdown, because, it did not resolve the issues nor did they come to an agreement.

In true Roman fashion if four people had four opinions, the Romans would come up with a fifth to prove they were the smartest and everyone else was wrong. To enforce their decision the differing beliefs and arguments were more or less made Illegal. There decision on the "one God formula" was so unpopular it was initially ignored. For one thing, the Christians of the time period were use to believing what they wanted to believe and they were set in those beliefs, and had already demonstrated their willingness to die for the beliefs they believed in and resented Rome's intrusions into their beliefs.

So once the council made the decision on the one God formula, being that Christianity was the state religion of Rome, any disobedience or disrespect was seen as a crime of the state. So the ecumenical council ruled if you did not believe in the one God formula, you would be excommunicated and you were not going to Heaven. And then, if you preached against it, you would be labeled a heretic and the Romans would kill you.

Through the years the deception carried on. It was made easier by the fact that Yahweh's name had been removed from the Old and New Testament and replaced by the word God or Lord or both, so people reading it did not just see that it was referring to God the Father only. It took 6,800 changes to remove God the Father's name from the OT. So it was just the word God and people could push all kinds of beliefs on that. Being that we are mostly talking about Gentiles here and they came from mythology that gods could have three aspects, this was kind of seen as a norm, except those gods would manifest in each of the aspect of them, individually.

 

[DNB]

That is the premise that they were running on. Three persons, one God does not make any sense and is contrary to the storyline of the Gospels. So when people objected, they were accused of not thinking spiritually...Because....the fact that it didn't make any sense, was the proof that it was of God. In other words if you could not understand it, the insinuation was, that it was that point that made it of God. Sort of the effect of "The Emperor's New Clothes" by the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen,

word God and people could push all kinds of beliefs on that. Being that we are mostly talking about Gentiles here and they came from mythology that gods could have three aspects, this was kind of seen as a norm, except those gods would manifest in each of the aspect of them, individually.

From the patriarchs, to Moses, to David, to Ezra, Malachi and Mordechai, to the Maccabees, Sadducees & Pharisees, to Christ to John, all these people were monotheists. The 'one god formula' did not offend anyone, that was the only orthodox statement in all the ecumenical councils and creeds. it was the diabolical notion of three persons within the godhead that is where the controversy lay. Arius, Constans and Constantius all denounced the three-in-one nonsense. And it was due to this fact that the Empire vacillated between Nicaen Christianity and Arianism within the early years of Christian toleration (313 edict of Milan) and official religion status (380 edict of Thessalonica).

But, again, it if makes no sense, it is from the author of chaos and confusion himself, the devil. Biblical hermeneutics 101.

 

[Grailhunter]

The 'one god formula' did not offend anyone, that was the only orthodox statement in all the ecumenical councils and creeds.

This one sentence here is in conflict. True that it was the only orthodox statement in the ecumenical councils and creeds. The purpose of the councils was to standardize and unify Christianity, so they were not going to generate opposing doctrines or multiple doctrines. But false that it did not offend anyone. The one god trinity formula was very unpopular to the point that it had to be enforced upon threat of death.

 

[DNB]

This one sentence here is in conflict. True that it was the only orthodox statement in the ecumenical councils and creeds. The purpose of the councils was to standardize and unify Christianity, so they were not going to generate opposing doctrines or multiple doctrines. But false that it did not offend anyone. The one god trinity formula was very unpopular to the point that it had to be enforced upon threat of death.

Yes, if the formula that you were referring to (but didn't actually write), was the 'one God trinity formula', then yes, this was point of controversy and indignation. Monotheism was never contested.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes, if the formula that you were referring to (but didn't actually write), was the 'one God trinity formula', then yes, this was point of controversy and indignation. Monotheism was never contested.

The monotheism is the belief in one God. That only legitimately existed in the Old Testament. Christianity has God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The oneness formula calls that one God but it is false.

 

[DNB]

The monotheism is the belief in one God. That only legitimately existed in the Old Testament. Christianity has God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The oneness formula calls that one God but it is false.

I do agree. But, you do confuse me all the time. I believe that, on the first page of your dissertation, you stated that you accept the doctrine of the trinity (Nicaen Christology), ...which I both unequivocally and vehemently denounce, or any doctrine that deifies Jesus. When you say oneness then, do you mean trinitarian theology, or modalism? Or, if I may, what is your Christology - just so that i can follow your line of thinking (the history I already know). I, myself, personally believe that the only divine being in all the universe, is God, the Father. And that Jesus was a created being with no existence or consciousness prior to 4bc+-, and was exalted to God's right-hand side to judge all mankind, and be ruler of all God's creation.

 

[Grailhunter]

I do agree. But, you do confuse me all the time. I believe that, on the first page of your dissertation, you stated that you accept the doctrine of the trinity (Nicaen Christology), ...which I both unequivocally and vehemently denounce, or any doctrine that deifies Jesus. When you say oneness then, do you mean trinitarian theology, or modalism? Or, if I may, what is your Christology - just so that i can follow your line of thinking (the history I already know). I, myself, personally believe that the only divine being in all the universe, is God, the Father. And that Jesus was a created being with no existence or consciousness prior to 4bc+-, and was exalted to God's right-hand side to judge all mankind, and be ruler of all God's creation.

Ya know just to kid with ya.....there is a long write up here to make it clear. What we know, what we cannot know, and what we can speculate on. To put it in other words.....
God the Father....Yahweh....Full fledged God and God Supreme.....Creator of heaven and earth...and Man.
God the Son....Yeshua....Full fledged God...begotten Son of God...in all respects Son of God....Savior of Mankind.
God the Holy Spirit....name not revealed...Full fledged God....as described helper, teacher, guide, spirit of faith and all that is good.
All three Gods are separate, with their own mind, wills, abilities, and presence, such as they can sit side by side on three thrones. Spirit... physical...as they choose. The ecumenical councils tried to define their nature....that would be the folly of fools. Even to attempt to determine that they are the same nature....lol...like a nature we could comprehend...lol
Is Christ created or born....do Gods perceive time and interact with time differently then humans....Can a God that is born, have a presence in the past and the future...? It is an interesting topic.

The union is defined as three Gods in perfect accord. Not merged or a God with three aspects, which would be a common Pagan theme. And there is another thing to consider, Yeshua was a unique being, in that He was man and God. As we say 100% Man and 100% God, now where is the dividing line....Spiritually God and physically man? Hard to say, but I do not think a mere man could have taken the beating He took and still stand up. So I think that 100% Man and 100% God is reasonably accurate, in that it was an intermingling of God and human....speculation of course.

So here is the other thing to consider, when Christ ascended to the Father, did he take His humanity with Him? Did this change anything? Did this bring the Gods and humanity even closer together? Some people will argue that....it is admittedly a speculation.

So this union, is not about arithmetic. There is no mystery here. Christ describes this unity Himself and it is solidarity. This "oneness" is solidarity in a form of a relationship that Christ explains, that we will achieve with the three Gods....which still can be called the Trinity. but as Christ said.
John 17:22 “And the glory which to them; that they may be one just as We are one.”....we are not going to be Gods, it is the glory of our relationship with the Trinity....the family of God....the children of God, that Christ is referring to.

So now on the history side of it. The oneness formula for the Trinity was enforced...it was not true. Still the question is, to be fair, was it the best decision under the circumstances? There were various beliefs and concerns being argued by the churches that this doctrine stops. It did not resolve the issues, it stops the disagreements, even some of the issues of the Gnostics. It allowed the churches to unify and Emperor Constantine orders and financed the copying of the selected texts to be bound in the first Christian book....the Bible...the Fifty Bibles of Constantine.

Not that the churches were in perfect agreement, the Coptics were out there doing their own thing, but if Constantine would not have been successful in bringing the churches together and they would have went on to go different directions, at that point, where would we be today?

 

[DNB]

Ya know just to kid with ya.....there is a long write up here to make it clear. What we know, what we cannot know, and what we can speculate on. To put it in other words.....
God the Father....Yahweh....Full fledged God and God Supreme.....Creator of heaven and earth...and Man.
God the Son....Yeshua....Full fledged God...begotten Son of God...in all respects Son of God....Savior of Mankind.
God the Holy Spirit....name not revealed...Full fledged God....as described helper, teacher, guide, spirit of faith and all that is good.
All three Gods are separate, with their own mind, wills, abilities, and presence, such as they can sit side by side on three thrones. Spirit... physical...as they choose. The ecumenical councils tried to define their nature....that would be the folly of fools. Even to attempt to determine that they are the same nature....lol...like a nature we could comprehend...lol
Is Christ created or born....do Gods perceive time and interact with time differently then humans....Can a God that is born, have a presence in the past and the future...? It is an interesting topic.

The union is defined as three Gods in perfect accord. Not merged or a God with three aspects, which would be a common Pagan theme. And there is another thing to consider, Yeshua was a unique being, in that He was man and God. As we say 100% Man and 100% God, now where is the dividing line....Spiritually God and physically man? Hard to say, but I do not think a mere man could have taken the beating He took and still stand up. So I think that 100% Man and 100% God is reasonably accurate.

So here is the other thing to consider, when Christ ascended to the Father, did he take His humanity with Him? Did this change anything? Did this bring the Gods and humanity even closer together? Some people will argue that....it is admittedly a speculation.

So this union, is not about arithmetic. There is no mystery here. Christ describes this unity Himself and it is solidarity. This "oneness" is solidarity in a form of a relationship that Christ explains, that we will achieve with the three Gods....which still can be called the Trinity. but as Christ said.
John 17:22 “And the glory which to them; that they may be one just as We are one.”....we are not going to be Gods, it is the glory of our relationship with the Trinity....the family of God....the children of God, that Christ is referring to.

So now on the history side of it. The oneness formula for the Trinity was enforce...it was not true. Still the question is, to be fair, was it the best decision under the circumstances? There were various beliefs and concerns being argued by the churches that this doctrine stops. It did not resolve the issues, it stops the disagreements, even some of the issues of the Gnostics. It allowed the churches to unify and Emperor Constantine orders and financed the copying of the selected texts to be bound in the first Christian book....the Bible...the Fifty Bibles of Constantine.

Not that the churches were in perfect agreement, the Coptics were out there doing their own thing, but if Constantine would not have been successful in bringing the churches together and they would have went on to go different directions, at that point, where would we be today?

Ok, you still refrain from stating what your convictions are. No problem, you are not obligated to divulge anything in particular.
There cannot not plausibly be more than one divine being, anywhere, at any given time. As Aquinas was refuting polytheism, he recognized that for there to be more than one all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent being in the universe, there would, first of all, be a profound unnecessity and redundancy in such a dynamic, and secondly, absolutely nothing to differentiate between them, neither in purpose, power or circumscription.
Utter, utter, nonsense.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ok, you still refrain from stating what your convictions are. No problem, you are not obligated to divulge anything in particular.
There cannot not plausibly be more than one divine being, anywhere, at any given time. As Aquinas was refuting polytheism, he recognized that for there to be more than one all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent being in the universe, there would, first of all, be a profound unnecessity and redundancy in such a dynamic, and secondly, absolutely nothing to differentiate between them, neither in purpose, power or circumscription.
Utter, utter, nonsense.

I am not trying to be coy, trying to answer your question.
Thomas Aquinas made a series of errors, as well as St Augustine that resulted in some very very bad atrocities. Sent the Church down a path of evil that it is just recently has been able to recover from. And I am happy for them.
What I give you is information....no harm no foul if you do not agree.

 

[Heart2Soul]

Spirit and Flesh are distinctly set apart from each other. The only thing that gives flesh life is when the spirit enters it.
Jesus was at the beginning of creation...He was the Word. And the Word of God went forth and created all things.
As per Yahweh's plan for salvation...Jesus obeyed Yahweh to enter the world in the flesh. [The Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word BECAME flesh].
So Jesus's Spirit entered the flesh form that Yahweh prepared for Him and was born of woman.
The Flesh is strictly limited to the physical realm....whereas the spirit can exist in both realms.
So IMHO...Jesus rose from the dead and re-entered His fleshly body until He was finished teaching the disciples...then He ascended into heaven and transfigured into His heavenly body as He was ascending.
So will those who are alive at His return...since they won't die a physical death. His Word says He will put off the corruptible body (flesh) and give us an incorruptible one. (Spirit).
That's my thoughts anyway.
Have a blessed day.

 

[Grailhunter]

Spirit and Flesh are distinctly set apart from each other. The only thing that gives flesh life is when the spirit enters it.
Jesus was at the beginning of creation...He was the Word. And the Word of God went forth and created all things.
As per Yahweh's plan for salvation...Jesus obeyed Yahweh to enter the world in the flesh. [The Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word BECAME flesh].
So Jesus's Spirit entered the flesh form that Yahweh prepared for Him and was born of woman.
The Flesh is strictly limited to the physical realm....whereas the spirit can exist in both realms.
So IMHO...Jesus rose from the dead and re-entered His fleshly body until He was finished teaching the disciples...then He ascended into heaven and transfigured into His heavenly body as He was ascending.
So will those who are alive at His return...since they won't die a physical death. His Word says He will put off the corruptible body (flesh) and give us an incorruptible one. (Spirit).
That's my thoughts anyway.
Have a blessed day.

Hey there Heart2Soul,
What you stated here is very well received and I know a lot people believe exactly what your saying. It is a difficult balancing act to walk the fence of sola scriptua....God so loved the world He gave His only Son.....but to be a disciple you have to hate your mother and father...His advise to the young rich man to be saved and his disciple....give everything you have away and walk with Him....easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven....advocates a bohemian lifestyle....no indication of rich Christians in the Bible....nor with any of the Early Church Fathers...

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it".......few who find it....from that era. The 144,000 mentioned in Revelation...some believe that will be the number of people that make it to heaven, only 144,000. "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," Have any of us stopped sinning? Christ told them he would return and the end would be within their generation and every Apostle testified that they were living in the last days...last times...the time was short...Christ would return quickly....They Apostles are talking days, not months or years, much less centuries. well He did not return and the end did not come....according to the biblical rules of prophecy....if a prophecy does not come about exactly as told, the prophet was false. Christians have tried to explain this away for centuries. "Christ did not really mean that!" "The Apostles got it wrong!" Well if Apostles got something like that wrong....how many other things did they get wrong? Ya know it is kind of a "biggie"

So what is the answer? How do people reason this out? I would mostly say faith and trust in God. There lies the problem with sola scriptua and fundamentalism...Christianity is like an apple....the Bible is an abbreviated story of the first 65 years of Christianity. There was a lot going on outside the Bible....before the biblical era...during the biblical era...and after the biblical era, a lot happened. The NT is like the skin of the story, but there is a lot going on underneath that skin, there is a lot going on behind those words. Some of this explains the more difficult scriptures and some of it brings other scripture into clarity. And I have done what I can to explain what was going on. I am multi-denominational, I fellowship with a lot of churches and I am fine with what people believe....within reason.

If you believe that Yeshua was in the Old Testament...go find His name....find where Yahweh is talking to Yeshua....like He does in the New Testament. Find where Yahweh is referring to Yeshua. Find where Yahweh is talking about the things that Yeshua was going to do...by name, as a God. Find were Yahweh is taking about His other aspects....Removing Yahweh's name caused a lot of confusion. The Old Testament is strictly monolithic, no other God, no other being, no other name, no one like Him....over and over again. If you do not believe me, ask the Jews?

You can look into the facts and you can believe whatever you want to believe.....the good thing, salvation is not dependent on what formula you believe that the Trinity exist....it does not affect salvation, only understanding. Back in the day when the books of the NT were separate, as they went along the Apostles told of God turning so many things over to Christ. I am not sure if they knew the other Apostles were doing the same thing....when you take all that into consideration....in the end God the Father is left with very little....not much more than a shell of a God. This was one of the reasons for the one God formula, if they were one person than they all did it, in effect and God the Father got to participate a little bit. Yahweh said, Kill all that breaths and do not forget the little one....Christians of the day saw a difference in the character of the Yahweh and Yeshua and of course did not believe that Yeshua would say such a thing....and there is a lot of that in the Old Testament.... a lot of misogyny in the OT. The history of it all is very involved.

The "Word" the "Logos" was a Greek metaphysical term that the Greek philosophers used 6 centuries before Christ. A buzz word....very popular and very popular with the Gnostics. Of course they did not call themselves that back then. The Christians of the day did not look at the Gnostics as negatively as they do today....so some of their concepts were popular. The Gnostics did not think much of the Old Testament God so they believed Christ was "the God" Some of that made its way into the scriptures. Everything turned over to Christ, He made the world and Adam and Eve, and He was the God of the Old Testament. Because God's name was removed and replaced with the words God or Lord, then it was easy for people to say, Looky here, the Trinity was in the Old Testament!....well it was not. The Gnostics were messed up and still are, and eventually the Early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils denounced them.

You can look this stuff up, or not....Like I say, I am OK with people's beliefs...I will fellowship with the best of you. God Bless.

 

[Heart2Soul]

If you believe that Yeshua was in the Old Testament...go find His name....find where Yahweh is talking to Yeshua....like He does in the New Testament. Find where Yahweh is referring to Yeshua. Find where Yahweh is talking about the things that Yeshua was going to do...by name, as a God. Find were Yahweh is taking about His other aspects....Removing Yahweh's name caused a lot of confusion. The Old Testament is strictly monolithic, no other God, no other being, no other name, no one like Him....over and over again. If you do not believe me, ask the Jews?

I would have to use the original scrolls because the translations have changed those certain names with God or Lord.
How can I show you what was changed or removed?
Oh, BTW.....I seek His Truth continually, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me and teach me His wisdom, knowledge and understanding of scripture.
I could spend months sharing what He has helped me to see in His Hidden Wisdom.
God Bless!

 

[Grailhunter]

I would have to use the original scrolls because the translations have changed those certain names with God or Lord.
How can I show you what was changed or removed?

I know....due to discovered texts that Yahweh's name appeared around 6,800 times....of course nothing is that simple....In Paleo-Hebrew His name appeared as Yahweh....Hebrew letters...Later the Jews replaced His name with the tetragrammaton representing YaHWeH. But and also God is also referred to as El-this and El-that, several of those names and some still exist in the Old Testament.

They do have copies of these fragments online and in books. It is no secret that God's name was replaced in the English translations as God or Lord, or both. It is no secret that "J's" cannot appear in the scriptures because that letter did not appear in any language until 1400 years after Christ. If you read the word Jesus, it should be Yeshua and if you read the word Christ, it should be messiah, and the phrase Jesus Christ is a rearranging of the sentence....Christ is not Yeshua's last name. Yeshua the messiah or the messiah Yeshua would be the more correct translation.

It is the apple thing....do you want to know truth...seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened. Well to know truth you have to dig deeper than the skin. Nothing of value is free....salvation was a free gift of Yeshua...lol....but ask Him if it was free. I call myself Grailhunter because only the the worthy deserve the truth. It actually works out that way. The worthy will take what I say and research it for themselves, the unworthy will not believe.....and that is the way it works. I have done the forum a favor and try to explain things in simple terms that can be verified, but it is anything but simple because everything ties into everything else. You have to dig for yourself to get to the core of the Apple.

 

[Heart2Soul]

@Grailhunter ....
I was searching online for Yeshua in the OT and this is the best I found at the moment....
We’re going to look at just ten of the most significant lies about Jesus and His Jewishness that separate Him from His Jewish People.

Lie #1: Jesus Only Appears in the New Testament
A common argument claims that Jesus is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures– the Old Testament and that He is a Christian or Gentile creation only mentioned in the New Testament. True, the name “Jesus” is not found in the Old Testament, as it is an anglicized version of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). However, Jesus was born in Israel among a Hebrew-speaking people. His name in Hebrew is “Yeshua.” Matthew 1:21 refers to what was well understood by the Jewish People: the name Yeshua means “salvation” or “God saves.” Matthew 1:21 says, “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.” His Hebrew name, Yeshua, means “the LORD saves,” and this is confirmed in many Bibles that contain a footnote such as “Hebrew: Yeshua (Joshua), meaning The LORD saves.”

Biblical names commonly reveal the character, attributes, or destiny of a person. This is exactly the case with the name Yeshua. The reason for His coming to earth was for salvation, to save His People from their sins. Here are just a few examples:

• Adonai is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation” (Exodus 15:2 TLV).
• Adonai has made His salvation known” (Psalm 98:2 TLV).
• So I will give You as a light for the nations, that You should be My salvation tot the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6 TLV).

In these verses—and more than 150 times throughout the Old Testament— the word “salvation” is the Hebrew word Yeshua (ye•shu•ah). Yeshua (Jesus) existed from the beginning, and His Hebrew name is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in amazing prophecies.
Here is the link...
10 Biggest Lies about Yeshua, His Jewishness, and What Some Call ‘Jewish Christianity’ | Jewish Voice

 

[Heart2Soul]

I know....due to discovered texts that Yahweh's name appeared around 6,800 times....of course nothing is that simple....In Paleo-Hebrew His name appeared as Yahweh....Hebrew letters...Later the Jews replaced His name with the Transmigration representing YaHWeH. But and also God is also referred to as El-this and El-that, several of those names and some still exist in the Old Testament.

They do have copies of these fragments online and in books. It is no secret that God's name was replaced in the English translations as God or Lord, or both. It is no secret that "J's" cannot appear in the scriptures because that letter did not appear in any language until 1400 years after Christ. If you read the word Jesus, it should be Yeshua and if you read the word Christ, it should be messiah, and the phrase Jesus Christ is a rearranging of the sentence....Christ is not Yeshua's last name. Yeshua the messiah or the messiah Yeshua would be the more correct translation.

It is the apple thing....do you want to know truth...seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened. Well to know truth you have to dig deeper than the skin. Nothing of value is free....salvation was a free gift of Yeshua...lol....but ask Him if it was free. I call myself Grailhunter because only the the worthy deserve the truth. It actually works out that way. The worthy will take what I say and research it for themselves, the unworthy will not believe.....and that is the way it works. I have done the forum a favor and try to explain things in simple terms that can be verified, but it is anything but simple because everything ties into everything else. You have to dig for yourself to get to the core of the Apple.

Thank you for your reply...I was in the middle of posting another comment so your post already kind of replied to what I just sent.
Sorry.
Have a blessed day!

 

[Grailhunter]

@Grailhunter ....
I was searching online for Yeshua in the OT and this is the best I found at the moment....
We’re going to look at just ten of the most significant lies about Jesus and His Jewishness that separate Him from His Jewish People.

Lie #1: Jesus Only Appears in the New Testament
A common argument claims that Jesus is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures– the Old Testament and that He is a Christian or Gentile creation only mentioned in the New Testament. True, the name “Jesus” is not found in the Old Testament, as it is an anglicized version of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). However, Jesus was born in Israel among a Hebrew-speaking people. His name in Hebrew is “Yeshua.” Matthew 1:21 refers to what was well understood by the Jewish People: the name Yeshua means “salvation” or “God saves.” Matthew 1:21 says, “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.” His Hebrew name, Yeshua, means “the LORD saves,” and this is confirmed in many Bibles that contain a footnote such as “Hebrew: Yeshua (Joshua), meaning The LORD saves.”

Biblical names commonly reveal the character, attributes, or destiny of a person. This is exactly the case with the name Yeshua. The reason for His coming to earth was for salvation, to save His People from their sins. Here are just a few examples:

• Adonai is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation” (Exodus 15:2 TLV).
• Adonai has made His salvation known” (Psalm 98:2 TLV).
• So I will give You as a light for the nations, that You should be My salvation tot the end of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6 TLV).

In these verses—and more than 150 times throughout the Old Testament— the word “salvation” is the Hebrew word Yeshua (ye•shu•ah). Yeshua (Jesus) existed from the beginning, and His Hebrew name is found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in amazing prophecies.
Here is the link...
10 Biggest Lies about Yeshua, His Jewishness, and What Some Call ‘Jewish Christianity’ | Jewish Voice

Keep going.....
This is an example of someone trying to justify their beliefs
the word “salvation” is the Hebrew word Yeshua (ye•shu•ah). Yeshua
This is not true but it kinda sound the same. His name is not salvation. Yeshua in Hebrew means to rescue or to deliver, it is exactly what the Jews expected the messiah to do. It is not the same word and the word he references is an imported word from the Chaldean language. (Look it up) Salvation in the Old Testament usually referred to saving someone life or saving a nation. So when the word salvation is used it not directly referring to the God Yeshua. There is no heavenly salvation in the Old Testament. God never offered heaven as reward in the Old Testament and never threatened anyone with hell for sins in the Old Testament. By no stretch of the imagination is Yeshua referenced 150 times in the Old Testament.

This is one of the reason that all of this has lasted so long. It is a common deception. When they talking about Yeshua's name, and talk about running it through the Greek, through the Latin or whatever, it is a deception. Yeshua was Hebrew and His name was Hebrew and it can be phonically pronounce in English...end of story.

 

[Heart2Soul]

I was rereading the beginning of this thread again because I had forgotten what it originally stated. It really dawned on me how much I really need the Holy Spirit to teach me His Word....mainly because man has made so many errors in translations simply to make the bible fit their narrative.
SMH.....Help us Holy Spirit!