[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[ThePeacekeepers]

1. They both do not refer to the same person, one refers to a god a Greece, the other refers to the man who actually lived and died on earth. Do you not see a difference between a fictional character and a man who actually lived and died on this planet? Do you see a difference between your dad and Baal? Or your mother and Isis?

2. I agree that paul never met Jesus because Jesus was not and is not a man but a fictional character, but Paul did indeed meet Yahshua the Christ. Do as I have done for you and prove that to me. Show me using historical facts that Paul never met Yahshua, or that Yahshua never existed in the first place. If you look at the links I have provided you I ask that you look at the people before you who tried to disprove that Yahshua ever existed and see what their conclusions were. I ask that you research it, pour through ancient texts and accounts from people who lived in Yahshua’s day and prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt using credible evidence that Yahshua was never born and did not die on the cross.

If I you have doubts about my credibility look up scholars who have researched this subject for years or have devoted their whole lives to proving that Yahshua never existed and was made up. I am confident that by the time you are done researching it as scholar Simon Greenleaf and those like him have done, you will see that there is no way disprove that the events within the bible and more specifically concerning Yahshua did indeed occur.

if there is a separate guy knows as yashua we know utterly nothing about him. the NT was written about jesus and contains stories about jesus and his followers. those stories may be false, made up, fictional, whatever but they are the only things we know about jesus. there are no stories about yashua.

have you read the NT? paul never met jesus, never claimed to have met jesus (in the flesh), came to Christianity well after jesus died, and had his own religious experience of the spiritual Christ when on his way to Damascus.

Paul met Yahshua on was way to Damascus where he came to him Paul and spoke to him. On this road is where he met Yahshua and then devoted his life to him, changing completely from a persecutor of Christianity to one of the most inspired people of the faith. In answer to your question he did not meet Yahshua in the flesh but in the spiritual form as he claimed.

Jesus is the corrupted name of Yahshua. Over the many years between the time of Yahshua and now his name has been changed numerous times and appears in the new testament today as jesus which is an incorrect translation of Yahshua.

[Menassa]

if there is a separate guy knows as yashua we know utterly nothing about him. the NT was written about jesus and contains stories about jesus and his followers. those stories may be false, made up, fictional, whatever but they are the only things we know about jesus. there are no stories about yashua.

have you read the NT? paul never met jesus, never claimed to have met jesus (in the flesh), came to Christianity well after jesus died, and had his own religious experience of the spiritual Christ when on his way to Damascus.

[...]

Jesus is the corrupted name of Yahshua. Over the many years between the time of Yahshua and now his name has been changed numerous times and appears in the new testament today as jesus which is an incorrect translation of Yahshua.

Jesus is no more the 'incorrect' translation of Yashua than Judas is of Yehudah.

[ThePeacekeepers]

How is it fictional? Prove it. Show me the evidence.
For now i'll give you this link to read and then more tomorrow.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm

1. This is not a scholarly source.

2. It is not on us to prove that your claims are true. You must prove that the Bible is true, and that has simply not been done for more than a few, specific details. For instance, prove that Jesus walked on water.

3. I'd still like to see you respond to my post.

1. Did not claim that the source was scholarly I just said I was giving it to you so you could read it.

2. It is on you to disprove my claims and the bibles claims. By the testimony of the people who were there when Yahshua walked on water. Look at the works of Sir William Ramsey, and Simon Greenleaf they both provide proof that the men who witnessed the events concerning Yahshua's life, death, and resurrection can be accounted reliable witnesses and their testimonies reliable accounts of the historical events that took place.

3. And so I have.

[Farnhamia]

1. This is not a scholarly source.

2. It is not on us to prove that your claims are true. You must prove that the Bible is true, and that has simply not been done for more than a few, specific details. For instance, prove that Jesus walked on water.

3. I'd still like to see you respond to my post.

1. Did not claim that the source was scholarly I just said I was giving it to you so you could read it.

2. It is on you to disprove my claims and the bibles claims. By the testimony of the people who were there when Yahshua walked on water.

3. And so I have.

2. That's not how it works. You claim a person walked on the surface of the water. That's an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof. The onus is on you to provide it. 2000-year old testimony from people with an interest in the story being true does not count as proof.

[ThePeacekeepers]

[...]

Jesus is the corrupted name of Yahshua. Over the many years between the time of Yahshua and now his name has been changed numerous times and appears in the new testament today as jesus which is an incorrect translation of Yahshua.

Jesus is no more the 'incorrect' translation of Yashua than Judas is of Yehudah.

Jesus and Yahshua do not have the same meaning. Jesus and Yahshua are two separate names and there is only one by which you may be saved. Concerning Judas and Yehudah and other names like it I believe that all names in the bible should be brought back to their original form. Names should not but changed but preserved, the names of many of the people of old have not changed and would seem insane to change a prominent name of the past to simply make it easier on the individual if names did not remain constant but changed every hundred or so years history would be a mess and discerning who did what and at what time would be utter confusion. Why then in this instance should this mans name which holds more importance than any mans name in history be allowed to change? The name should never have been altered or translated into any different form but should have kept its original and true form since it is the only name by which man can achieve salvation.

[Mavorpen]

No. Definitely not.

Still waiting on anything resembling an academic source.

The men in the former link I provided http://www.theconspiracyzone.org/posts/42659 they were men of science and reason look at their works, look at Simon Greenleaf with his testimony of the evangelists. Look at what he did before he wrote it, see that he too did not believe.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... nleaf.html
http://www.creationstudies.org/Educatio ... nleaf.html

That's nice.

Do you have an academic source or not?

[Divair2]

The men in the former link I provided http://www.theconspiracyzone.org/posts/42659 they were men of science and reason look at their works, look at Simon Greenleaf with his testimony of the evangelists. Look at what he did before he wrote it, see that he too did not believe.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... nleaf.html
http://www.creationstudies.org/Educatio ... nleaf.html

That's nice.

Do you have an academic source or not?

You mean a conspiracy site isn't academic?

[ThePeacekeepers]

The men in the former link I provided http://www.theconspiracyzone.org/posts/42659 they were men of science and reason look at their works, look at Simon Greenleaf with his testimony of the evangelists. Look at what he did before he wrote it, see that he too did not believe.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... nleaf.html
http://www.creationstudies.org/Educatio ... nleaf.html

That's nice.

Do you have an academic source or not?

I will continue to look for what you call an academic source but I ask you to read and consider with an open mind what I have provided you. I have a strong feeling that you are not trying to learn from this debate but instead coming in with a closed mind and leaving with one also.

[Mavorpen]

That's nice.

Do you have an academic source or not?

I will continue to look for what you call an academic source but I ask you to read and consider with an open mind what I have provided you. I have a strong feeling that you are not trying to learn from this debate but instead coming in with a closed mind and leaving with one also.

Having an open mind does NOT mean "taking every little piece of nonsense with a face value." I'm open minded, but only to evidence that is from legitimate sources.

[Menassa]

Jesus is no more the 'incorrect' translation of Yashua than Judas is of Yehudah.

Jesus and Yahshua do not have the same meaning. Jesus and Yahshua are two separate names and there is only one by which you may be saved.

Jesus and Yashua have the exact same meaning just as Moshe and Moses do.

Salvation's not through a name, nor is through men but that's not the point.

Concerning Judas and Yehudah and other names like it I believe that all names in the bible should be brought back to their original form. Names should not but changed but preserved, the names of many of the people of old have not changed and would seem insane to change a prominent name of the past to simply make it easier on the individual if names did not remain constant but changed every hundred or so years history would be a mess and discerning who did what and at what time would be utter confusion. Why then in this instance should this mans name which holds more importance than any mans name in history be allowed to change?

Irrelevant and ignoring the point I made which you still have not answered.

The name should never have been altered or translated into any different form but should have kept its original and true form since it is the only name by which man can achieve salvation.

See first response.

[ThePeacekeepers]

I will provide I source for the Hail Zeus meaning tomorrow when I find the time, as to one of your other statements I ask how can the name Jesus which was changed so much from the original name of Yahshua be the same? They sound nothing alike, neither do they have the same meaning, the bible says there is one name by which you can be saved. Are jesus and Yahshua not two completely different names? Just as the name annie and the name Stephen are different. If there is was one name by which you can be saved wouldn't that name be important that you keep it the same.The original. To keep the name sacred. There is only one name and that name is Yahshua.
On your last statement I will have to address tomorrow for I am out of time.

"Joseph" is generally considered the English form of "Jose", despite the two names sounding very different. Like another poster posted:

An interesting point, that. So what did the speakers of English, French, Spanish and Italian call Jesus before that? They called him 'Iesus', a Latinization of the Greek name 'Iesous', which is in turn a Hellenization of the Hebrew name 'Yeshua'.

As for the second point, I await your response.

I am still building my case on the second point but I the first I will address both you and Avenio I believe that the name Yahshua becomes corrupted when it is altered just as Yahweh is corrupted when it is altered. I would not have the name of God changed from Yahweh to another name because that is his one and only name just as I would not have his son's name (Yahshua) changed because that is the one name given unto man by which they might achieve salvation. I ask you, would you change the name of God because it would be more convenient for you? Would you pray to this new name and suspect that he knew what you meant so it was okay? Would you then make idols unto his new name? This is how religions are corrupted. Changing something ever so slightly and saying that it is the same then doing so over and over again adding more and more until only a residue of the original faith is left. Yahweh is God and his name is holy just as Yahshua is the son of god and his name is holy.

[Ashmoria]

if there is a separate guy knows as yashua we know utterly nothing about him. the NT was written about jesus and contains stories about jesus and his followers. those stories may be false, made up, fictional, whatever but they are the only things we know about jesus. there are no stories about yashua.

have you read the NT? paul never met jesus, never claimed to have met jesus (in the flesh), came to Christianity well after jesus died, and had his own religious experience of the spiritual Christ when on his way to Damascus.

Paul met Yahshua on was way to Damascus where he came to him Paul and spoke to him. On this road is where he met Yahshua and then devoted his life to him, changing completely from a persecutor of Christianity to one of the most inspired people of the faith. In answer to your question he did not meet Yahshua in the flesh but in the spiritual form as he claimed.

Jesus is the corrupted name of Yahshua. Over the many years between the time of Yahshua and now his name has been changed numerous times and appears in the new testament today as jesus which is an incorrect translation of Yahshua.

that wasn't a person. it was an ecstatic religious experience that revealed the truth of the Christ to paul.

unless this yahshua is a spirit that isn't who paul "met".

i don't suppose you have some kind of reference to any mention of "yahshua" in the ancient world?

[Larban]

I don't mean to wade into whatever debate is occurring here, but at least let us look at one fact in detail. Some of you may have heard about it before and you can make up your own mind on it. It's about the name of the Hebrew god "Yahweh".
In the Hebrew Language, this is translated as which again is roughly translated as "Yud- hey-vah-hey" by pronouncing the lettering in the Hebrew language.
Now I know that the original word was lost for "G-d" in Judaism because people were too afraid to say the name aloud, but this is focusing on the actual lettering of the name Yahweh.

Firstly, the letter 'Yud' (which has a Y sound in English): means roughly- both worship, and an arm or a hand.
The second letter 'Hey' (pronounced H in English): translates to both 'reveal/ behold' and 'breathe'.
Third letter 'Vav' (pronounced V in English): translates as 'peg/nail/hook'.
Finally fourth letter is 'Hey' again. Meaning Behold.

Now, combining these letters together into the name 'Yahweh' produces something quite remarkable.
It can be approximately translated as 'Behold the hand, Behold the nail'.

And I don't need to explain very much farther, the obvious link here between a certain guy who was put to death on a Roman cross, i.e. crucified using nails/rope, and the name of the Hebrew God.
The fact that the name of Yahweh, who was first mentioned thousands of years, before Jesus' birth, essentially means this message is quite incredible.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Paul met Yahshua on was way to Damascus where he came to him Paul and spoke to him. On this road is where he met Yahshua and then devoted his life to him, changing completely from a persecutor of Christianity to one of the most inspired people of the faith. In answer to your question he did not meet Yahshua in the flesh but in the spiritual form as he claimed.

Jesus is the corrupted name of Yahshua. Over the many years between the time of Yahshua and now his name has been changed numerous times and appears in the new testament today as jesus which is an incorrect translation of Yahshua.

that wasn't a person. it was an ecstatic religious experience that revealed the truth of the Christ to paul.

unless this yahshua is a spirit that isn't who paul "met".

i don't suppose you have some kind of reference to any mention of "yahshua" in the ancient world?

Yahshua came to him in his spiritual form and spoke with him there, Paul saw the light that was surrounding Yahshua and went blind. Yahshua spoke with Paul. In this manner did Paul meet Yahshua.
I have found several that are closer to the name Yehshua which would take us back to Yahshua but still have not found the actual name Yahshua used yet. I can give you links to some sites to prove that Yahshua was jesus's original form but I know you will not be satisfied until you see someone from the ancient world mention his name with reference to the deeds he did in the New testament and even then maybe not. I will continue my search.

[Divair2]

who was first mentioned thousands of years, before Jesus' birth

Source.

[Menassa]

[...]

Firstly, the letter 'Yud' (which has a Y sound in English): means roughly- both worship, and an arm or a hand.
The second letter 'Hey' (pronounced H in English): translates to both 'reveal/ behold' and 'breathe'.
Third letter 'Vav' (pronounced V in English): translates as 'peg/nail/hook'.
Finally fourth letter is 'Hey' again. Meaning Behold.

[...]

That's not very true, individual letters in Hebrew really don't have meanings of an entire word.
You have to source these claims.

[Larban]

who was first mentioned thousands of years, before Jesus' birth

Source.

'Yahweh' itself is an ancient word. If you look in the Bible and trust it as a source then God reveals his name to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3), stating "I am that I am...I am has sent you", so hence He was known as "I am" from then on.If you look up Yahweh on any reputable site encyclopedia, the name yahweh literally means "I am", and the lettering strung together spells the previous (Behold) sentence. The earliest certain mention of the word was at around 850 B.C written on the Moabite Stele, and well I admit it was not 'thousands of years' but it still possibly could have been and it was nearly a thousand when counting, so still a longish time.
Moses lived approx. 1500 years BCE.

[Larban]

[...]

Firstly, the letter 'Yud' (which has a Y sound in English): means roughly- both worship, and an arm or a hand.
The second letter 'Hey' (pronounced H in English): translates to both 'reveal/ behold' and 'breathe'.
Third letter 'Vav' (pronounced V in English): translates as 'peg/nail/hook'.
Finally fourth letter is 'Hey' again. Meaning Behold.

[...]

That's not very true, individual letters in Hebrew really don't have meanings of an entire word.
You have to source these claims.

Just search "tetragrammaton".

[Divair2]

Source.

'Yahweh' itself is an ancient word. If you look in the Bible and trust it as a source then God reveals his name to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3), stating "I am that I am...I am has sent you", so hence He was known as "I am" from then on.If you look up Yahweh on any reputable site encyclopedia, the name yahweh literally means "I am", and the lettering strung together spells the previous (Behold) sentence. The earliest certain mention of the word was at around 850 B.C written on the Moabite Stele, and well I admit it was not 'thousands of years' but it still possibly could have been and it was nearly a thousand when counting, so still a longish time.
Moses lived approx. 1500 years BCE.

I asked for a source. You are not a source.

[Menassa]

Source.

[...]If you look up Yahweh on any reputable site encyclopedia, the name yahweh literally means "I am", and the lettering strung together spells the previous (Behold) sentence.[...]

It doesn't however, there is no truth to the claim you have made.

[Larban]

That's not very true, individual letters in Hebrew really don't have meanings of an entire word.
You have to source these claims.

Just search "tetragrammaton".

And I'm not saying it is the meaning of the entire word, I'm saying that the letters put together and their individual meanings, are an extremely unusual coincidence if there weren't some truth behind them.

[Avenio]

It can be approximately translated as 'Behold the hand, Behold the nail'.

And I don't need to explain very much farther, the obvious link here between a certain guy who was put to death on a Roman cross, i.e. crucified using nails/rope, and the name of the Hebrew God.
The fact that the name of Yahweh, who was first mentioned thousands of years, before Jesus' birth, essentially means this message is quite incredible.

Mmm. Pareidolia at work.

[Larban]

[...]If you look up Yahweh on any reputable site encyclopedia, the name yahweh literally means "I am", and the lettering strung together spells the previous (Behold) sentence.[...]

It doesn't however, there is no truth to the claim you have made.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/YHWH
There's a non christian-mumbo jumbo site, look at etymology

[Menassa]

That's not very true, individual letters in Hebrew really don't have meanings of an entire word.
You have to source these claims.

Just search "tetragrammaton".

1: I don't have to provide the evidence to support your audacious and blatantly false claim.
2: The search result yields nothing to lend to your claim, when I did search 'behold the hand behold the nail' I did receive biased websites and multiple blogs. All without proper source material.

[Hakio]

Also "Saint" Paul was a violent murderer before his conversion....