[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[Avenio]

Yahweh is the only God. I call him God because he is the only God and his Name is Yahweh.

'God', in English at least, is a name as well as a title.

But if that were the case you could be using any name and He would understand and not care. But he has said there is only one name by which you can achieve salvation and that name is Yahshua. If getting the name right about himself or about his son was not important then he would not have given any names at all.

Technically speaking, though, you are using the right name by calling him 'Jesus', you're just pronouncing it slightly differently. Στέφανος (Stephanos), for example, is the same name as 'Stephen' in English, just modified by the types of sounds used in our language when compared to Greek.

[Divair2]

If you place so much stock in using its original name, why do you keep calling it 'God'?



One would hope that an omniscient, omnipotent being would be able to tell who you were praying to.

Yahweh is the only God. I call him God because he is the only God and his Name is Yahweh.
But if that were the case you could be using any name and He would understand and not care. But he has said there is only one name by which you can achieve salvation and that name is Yahshua. If getting the name right about himself or about his son was not important then he would not have given any names at all.

How can Dog be the only god if Odin exists?
Checkmate, Dogists.

[Menassa]

And on what ground does Jesus have to rescind the Law given by God?

Deuteronomy 30.

He was Yahweh Manifest in the flesh. He fulfilled all the things the prophets said would be done. By the authority of his father Yahweh, who sent him to die for our sins.

Only God has that right, and Yeshua must prove himself to be God.
It's a shame God said that he was not a human.

I did not get that meaning from what I read. From my understanding of Deuteronomy 29 and thirty, he was telling them of the covenant between them and of the curse that would befall those that fell away from him. Could you show me in Deuteronomy 30 where it says that

It states in Dueteronomy 30 that the Law is forever standing, God calls heaven an earth as witnesses to this covenant between God and the nation of Israel.

" the idea that The Messiah requires belief in him at all negates much of the Hebrew Scriptures messianic detail. Of which it is stated that the entire world will be immediately aware of the Messiah, just as they will be of God, and just as they will be of forgetting war."?

This is not in Deuteronomy 30 but a combination of Messianic prophecies listed throughout the Jewish scriptures.
Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures does it say 'believing' in the Messiah is the path to salvation.
Probably because the Messiah will not require your belief, just as the world will be filled with the universal knowledge of God, and the universal lack of war, so too will the Messiah be known.

[ThePeacekeepers]

The oldest manuscripts we have today were written in Greek, but given the fact that most of the apostles were Hebrew there must have been a text written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Do note that they were living in a melting pot of Hellenization, though. The apostles would have likely known at least a bit of Greek (a few of them probably much more, given their previous economic statuses), and it stands to reason that if they wanted to reach a larger pan-Mediterranean audience they might have wanted to write in Greek first and foremost, since Aramaic was basically a regional language that was rarely spoken outside of the Near East.

I agree with you on this point but it stands to reason that they would also of wanted to reach those who only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, there would have had to of been some form of the new testament written in these languages at some point.

[Avenio]

Do note that they were living in a melting pot of Hellenization, though. The apostles would have likely known at least a bit of Greek (a few of them probably much more, given their previous economic statuses), and it stands to reason that if they wanted to reach a larger pan-Mediterranean audience they might have wanted to write in Greek first and foremost, since Aramaic was basically a regional language that was rarely spoken outside of the Near East.

I agree with you on this point but it stands to reason that they would also of wanted to reach those who only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, there would have had to of been some form of the new testament written in these languages at some point.

Considering the demographics of the people that only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, writing down anything at all may not have been very useful. Literacy was a lot less common in the 1st century AD than it is today; those that knew how to read and write Aramaic or Hebrew would also have been well off enough that Greek would have likely been in their educational curriculum as well, particularly if they were destined for civil service positions or part of the merchant or artisanal classes.

Keep in mind as well that Classical Hebrew was itself becoming more and more a liturgical language that wasn't particularly commonly-spoken amongst the common people in Judea. The average commoner in Judea may have been able to understand the spoken language, but being able to work their way through a developed piece of literature, let alone read, was probably beyond their ability.

[Mavorpen]

Do note that they were living in a melting pot of Hellenization, though. The apostles would have likely known at least a bit of Greek (a few of them probably much more, given their previous economic statuses), and it stands to reason that if they wanted to reach a larger pan-Mediterranean audience they might have wanted to write in Greek first and foremost, since Aramaic was basically a regional language that was rarely spoken outside of the Near East.

I agree with you on this point but it stands to reason that they would also of wanted to reach those who only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, there would have had to of been some form of the new testament written in these languages at some point.

No. Those people would have been introduced through the spoken word more so than through texts.

[ThePeacekeepers]

[...] But he has said there is only one name by which you can achieve salvation and that name is Yahshua.[...]

Where did he say this?

You cannot bring evidence from a books written about Yeshua.

Yahweh spoke through the prophets of the old testament that someone would be sent to fulfill the law and in Yahshua was the law fulfilled as were the things the prophets said the savior would do.
I will provide you with some sources for the prophets on Monday or Tuesday at the latest since my time is running short again.

[Menassa]

Where did he say this?

You cannot bring evidence from a books written about Yeshua.

Yahweh spoke through the prophets of the old testament that someone would be sent to fulfill the law and in Yahshua was the law fulfilled as were the things the prophets said the savior would do.
I will provide you with some sources for the prophets on Monday or Tuesday at the latest since my time is running short again.

God did not do any of this, I'll happily await them.

[ThePeacekeepers]

I agree with you on this point but it stands to reason that they would also of wanted to reach those who only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, there would have had to of been some form of the new testament written in these languages at some point.

No. Those people would have been introduced through the spoken word more so than through texts.

I would imagine that they would want a copy in their churches so that their minister could read it to them and show them where it says that in the bible. But I agree to a point that many of them would have preferred the spoken word but I think after awhile they would want to see the actual bible, or new testament in this case.

[Menassa]

I agree with you on this point but it stands to reason that they would also of wanted to reach those who only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, there would have had to of been some form of the new testament written in these languages at some point.

Considering the demographics of the people that only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, writing down anything at all may not have been very useful. Literacy was a lot less common in the 1st century AD than it is today; those that knew how to read and write Aramaic or Hebrew would also have been well off enough that Greek would have likely been in their educational curriculum as well, particularly if they were destined for civil service positions or part of the merchant or artisanal classes.

Keep in mind as well that Classical Hebrew was itself becoming more and more a liturgical language that wasn't particularly commonly-spoken amongst the common people in Judea. The average commoner in Judea may have been able to understand the spoken language, but being able to work their way through a developed piece of literature, let alone read, was probably beyond their ability.

While the literacy rate among the Pharisees was probably high, attempting to spread the gospel to them then would be like attempting to do that to a Rabbinical student today.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Yahweh is the only God. I call him God because he is the only God and his Name is Yahweh.

'God', in English at least, is a name as well as a title.

But if that were the case you could be using any name and He would understand and not care. But he has said there is only one name by which you can achieve salvation and that name is Yahshua. If getting the name right about himself or about his son was not important then he would not have given any names at all.

Technically speaking, though, you are using the right name by calling him 'Jesus', you're just pronouncing it slightly differently. Στέφανος (Stephanos), for example, is the same name as 'Stephen' in English, just modified by the types of sounds used in our language when compared to Greek.

Yahweh did say that there was only one name given unto man by which they could achieve salvation. Getting the name wrong is a matter between salvation and burning in the lake of fire for eternity so I do not believe that technicalities are something to be relied upon. Would it not be better to not take the chance and just say his original name rather than take the chance on saying Jesus? I do not think the benefits are worth the risk.

[Divair2]

'God', in English at least, is a name as well as a title.



Technically speaking, though, you are using the right name by calling him 'Jesus', you're just pronouncing it slightly differently. Στέφανος (Stephanos), for example, is the same name as 'Stephen' in English, just modified by the types of sounds used in our language when compared to Greek.

Yahweh did say that there was only one name given unto man by which they could achieve salvation. Getting the name wrong is a matter between salvation and burning in the lake of fire for eternity so I do not believe that technicalities are something to be relied upon. Would it not be better to not take the chance and just say his original name rather than take the chance on saying Jesus? I do not think the benefits are worth the risk.

I'll go with Jeebus.

[Benuty]

Erm, God never said the Law was supposed to be fulfilled, rather he said that the Law will stand forever and he called heaven as earth as witnesses.
He also never said the Belief in the Messiah was critical to salvation because the real Messiah will not require belief.

Forever has end. Forever and ever is eternal. The forever ended when the law was fulfilled in Yahshua and gods new law was put into place where only through the true name could man be saved for it is the only name given unto man by god by which they may achieve salvation.
Just as the real god does not require belief? So tell me, when the "real" messiah comes will all be saved unknowingly or against their own will even if they had lived their whole lives in sin?
Through faith and works only can man be saved. James 2:14-26

If forever has an end does that mean the end is forever ergo eternity is finite?

[The Rich Port]

Out of all the arguments, the only ones with any credence are those that religious belief are integral to the mental and social spheres that compose humans.

As an atheist, I can't argue with that without stepping on toes, imposing my view on others.

I feel that leaves me, however, out in the cold during... You know... Intellectual debates.

[Divair2]

Forever has end. Forever and ever is eternal. The forever ended when the law was fulfilled in Yahshua and gods new law was put into place where only through the true name could man be saved for it is the only name given unto man by god by which they may achieve salvation.
Just as the real god does not require belief? So tell me, when the "real" messiah comes will all be saved unknowingly or against their own will even if they had lived their whole lives in sin?
Through faith and works only can man be saved. James 2:14-26

If forever has an end does that mean the end is forever ergo eternity is finite?

Is nothing everything? Or is something nothing?

[Avenio]

Yahweh did say that there was only one name given unto man by which they could achieve salvation. Getting the name wrong is a matter between salvation and burning in the lake of fire for eternity so I do not believe that technicalities are something to be relied upon. Would it not be better to not take the chance and just say his original name rather than take the chance on saying Jesus? I do not think the benefits are worth the risk.

To quote John 14:6, though, he doesn't say 'No one comes to the Father except through my name, Yeshua, and no other' he says 'No one comes to the Father except through me'. The person of Jesus is what was emphasized, not a specific word,

[ThePeacekeepers]

Considering the demographics of the people that only knew Hebrew or Aramaic, writing down anything at all may not have been very useful. Literacy was a lot less common in the 1st century AD than it is today; those that knew how to read and write Aramaic or Hebrew would also have been well off enough that Greek would have likely been in their educational curriculum as well, particularly if they were destined for civil service positions or part of the merchant or artisanal classes.

Keep in mind as well that Classical Hebrew was itself becoming more and more a liturgical language that wasn't particularly commonly-spoken amongst the common people in Judea. The average commoner in Judea may have been able to understand the spoken language, but being able to work their way through a developed piece of literature, let alone read, was probably beyond their ability.

While the literacy rate among the Pharisees was probably high, attempting to spread the gospel to them then would be like attempting to do that to a Rabbinical student today.

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that even for the small portion of the people who could read it at the time one of the apostles would have written one in Aramaic or I think more preferably Hebrew to possibly preserve the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua in the texts. I also believe that it would be possible that if one was written in Hebrew they would've used those names and the Pharisees would have sought to destroy them once they learned of their existence. This is all speculation though and until one turns up we will never know but I pray that one will so that my beliefs can be affirmed and those who do not believe may yet believe.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Yahweh did say that there was only one name given unto man by which they could achieve salvation. Getting the name wrong is a matter between salvation and burning in the lake of fire for eternity so I do not believe that technicalities are something to be relied upon. Would it not be better to not take the chance and just say his original name rather than take the chance on saying Jesus? I do not think the benefits are worth the risk.

To quote John 14:6, though, he doesn't say 'No one comes to the Father except through my name, Yeshua, and no other' he says 'No one comes to the Father except through me'. The person of Jesus is what was emphasized, not a specific word,

And it says you must be baptized to be saved. So in whose name do you baptize?
I am out of time today but I will get back to everyone who has questions on either Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

[Menassa]

While the literacy rate among the Pharisees was probably high, attempting to spread the gospel to them then would be like attempting to do that to a Rabbinical student today.

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that even for the small portion of the people who could read it at the time one of the apostles would have written one in Aramaic or I think more preferably Hebrew to possibly preserve the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua in the texts. I also believe that it would be possible that if one was written in Hebrew they would've used those names and the Pharisees would have sought to destroy them once they learned of their existence. This is all speculation though and until one turns up we will never know but I pray that one will so that my beliefs can be affirmed and those who do not believe may yet believe.

And I get that you say it is all speculation, because none of it is based off of historical facts. The pharisees didn't have very much to do with Christianity, it wasn't a global issue to them.

Regardless the original New Testament documents were written in Greek, do you believe all those people didn't attain salvation because they said Iesus and not Yeshua? I would think not, Paul on many occasions preached in Greek did he not?

[Avenio]

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that even for the small portion of the people who could read it at the time one of the apostles would have written one in Aramaic or I think more preferably Hebrew to possibly preserve the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua in the texts.

The early Christians were distinctly iconoclastic and unorthodox in character. Given their opinions about most other liturgical traditions in Judaism, I really rather doubt they would have been so hyper-traditionalist in their usage of language.

I also believe that it would be possible that if one was written in Hebrew they would've used those names and the Pharisees would have sought to destroy them once they learned of their existence. This is all speculation though and until one turns up we will never know but I pray that one will so that my beliefs can be affirmed and those who do not believe may yet believe.

Considering that the early Christians were largely dispersed from the Near East thanks to the Sack of Jerusalem and the associated wars and expulsions, and thereby they landed in communities that didn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic, that's not particularly likely.

[Ashmoria]

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.

thank you for your continuing diligence.

are you suggesting that this yahshua is a spiritual being only? what presence would have had in the real-world based ancient world?

[Hakio]

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that even for the small portion of the people who could read it at the time one of the apostles would have written one in Aramaic or I think more preferably Hebrew to possibly preserve the original names of Yahweh and Yahshua in the texts. I also believe that it would be possible that if one was written in Hebrew they would've used those names and the Pharisees would have sought to destroy them once they learned of their existence. This is all speculation though and until one turns up we will never know but I pray that one will so that my beliefs can be affirmed and those who do not believe may yet believe.

And I get that you say it is all speculation, because none of it is based off of historical facts. The pharisees didn't have very much to do with Christianity, it wasn't a global issue to them.

Regardless the original New Testament documents were written in Greek, do you believe all those people didn't attain salvation because they said Iesus and not Yeshua? I would think not, Paul on many occasions preached in Greek did he not?

What is the point of that anyways? As far as I'm concerned it seems to me that someone was foolish enough to fall into the tangential waste of time that is Christian word games arguments.

[Menassa]

And I get that you say it is all speculation, because none of it is based off of historical facts. The pharisees didn't have very much to do with Christianity, it wasn't a global issue to them.

Regardless the original New Testament documents were written in Greek, do you believe all those people didn't attain salvation because they said Iesus and not Yeshua? I would think not, Paul on many occasions preached in Greek did he not?

What is the point of that anyways? As far as I'm concerned it seems to me that someone was foolish enough to fall into the tangential waste of time that is Christian word games arguments.

What is the point of what?

[Anollasia]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

[Benuty]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

The religious hive-mind is strong on NS it pushes and flows in the subconscious of all its members.