No, it doesn't.

michaelkaroh:


Man, you are just trying to be politically correct. So I should respect idol worshippers that make human sacrifices to their gods?, I should respect moon worshippers(muslims) even as they persecute and kill Christians daily worldwide?.....you obviously have spoken this of yourself and not of the spirit of truth.

See, no true believer would hate unless those of the world therefore I hate all unbelievers with perfect hatred for their works are abominable.

You don't quite understand, Iburus are the firstborn of the children of the most high and accordingly, receive the portion of the firstborn. Just like the master who gave different potions to his servants, so it will be done in the kingdom. Even Chizor (Jesus) the Messiah made it clear in the Scriptures that He was sent to the house of Israel only. This has been the order of things, Iburus receive salvation from God directly, and the gentiles receive salvation through the works (preaching) of the Iburus.

You didn't really read what I wrote.

Read it, read it and read it again till you get the message.

Then answer the questions I asked you.

Use the Scriptures to fault what I have written down.

It is only then that I will communicate with you further on this issue.

Till then, zilch.

Nooooooo...
All religious are scam
Jesus story is a myth.
A pastor whose wife has been sick for years in a church I know has been praying for years. No result yet..
Don't remind of Job story oooo... Another myth!
Jesus story is just invention just for political reasons

RandomGuy48:

I am not sure why it doesn't make sense. Knowledge of Greek was common among Jews at the time, with some Jews being far more competent in Greek than in Hebrew. Meanwhile, the non-Jewish didn't know Hebrew very well but understood Greek just fine. Writing in Greek, therefore, would render the New Testament scriptures understandable to the greatest number of people back then, as it would be understandable to both Jews and non-Jews alike.

It doesnt make sense...how was greek the most notable den and for christ sakes why how did the writers come to speak and write in greek? Iirc most were not that educated even and hardly well travelled.

Help me understand well bros.

kimco:


It doesnt make sense...how was greek the most notable den

I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking here. Greek was the most notable language because it was the language that would best be understood by the highest number in the early church. Many of the Jewish members of the church, even if we relegate ourselves to the Jewish territories, knew Greek to at least some degree (the Septuagint, a translation of the New Testament into Greek, was quite popular among Jews at the time), and obviously the Greek converts would speak Greek.

Technically speaking, the official language of the Roman Empire was Latin, but Latin was mostly relegated to the western part of the empire, which (due to its greater distance from Jerusalem) was not initially preached to as much as the eastern areas that spoke Greek.

and for christ sakes why how did the writers come to speak and write in greek? Iirc most were not that educated even and hardly well travelled.

Well, some of them were most certainly educated, like Paul. But even for those who may have been uneducated at the time Jesus called them, they absolutely could have learned how to write Greek afterwards.

But, of course, there was another possibility. When writing, they could have gotten someone who was fluent in Greek to help them out (either by direct translation or in serving a more editorial role). There would certainly have been other Christians available who could do that.

Let me park here and learn something.....keep it up guys

RandomGuy48:
I'm a bit confused as to what you're asking here. Greek was the most notable language because it was the language that would best be understood by the highest number in the early church. Many of the Jewish members of the church, even if we relegate ourselves to the Jewish territories, knew Greek to at least some degree (the Septuagint, a translation of the New Testament into Greek, was quite popular among Jews at the time), and obviously the Greek converts would speak Greek.

Thanks for the education boss. I have a fair idea of the whole thing now. But here is the fact.. and the problem i have. Even before Jesus came into the picture the name yashua was lesous in greek, isaiah was esias jacob as iakobos and so forth..not jux the text but the name translation was completely into greek. So how come joshua is joshua still, yet Jesus remains Jesus today? Why is Joshua not Jesus now...why the distinction? Why do we still maintain the latin name for the spiritual messiah and not for the physical one?

RandomGuy48:




Well, some of them were most certainly educated, like Paul. But even for those who may have been uneducated at the time Jesus called them, they absolutely could have learned how to write Greek afterwards.

Could have learnt to write from where? This is a stretch to take into account. I dont doubt dey cud have spoken the language but writing is on a whole diff level. I doubt they had time to go about learning to write

RandomGuy48:


but, of course, there was another possibility. When writing, they could have gotten someone who was fluent in Greek to help them out (either by direct translation or in serving a more editorial role). There would certainly have been other Christians available who could do that.

This one seems more plausible. I will get behind this train of thought. Much better to imagine and very possible what might have happened. If they were indeed those who wrote it.

kimco:

Thanks for the education boss. I have a fair idea of the whole thing now. But here is the fact.. and the problem i have. Even before Jesus came into the picture the name yashua was lesous in greek, isaiah was esias jacob as iakobos and so forth..not jux the text but the name translation was completely into greek. So how come joshua is joshua still, yet Jesus remains Jesus today? Why is Joshua not Jesus now...why the distinction? Why do we still maintain the latin name for the spiritual messiah and not for the physical one?

This I am not so sure about. I expect part of it was a desire to differentiate Jesus of the New Testament from the Joshuas mentioned in the Old Testament when translating the Bible into other languages.

Interestingly, I believe that to this day, Jesus and Joshua are still written the same way in Greek.

RandomGuy48:
This I am not so sure about. I expect part of it was a desire to differentiate Jesus of the New Testament from the Joshuas mentioned in the Old Testament when translating the Bible into other languages.

Interestingly, I believe that to this day, Jesus and Joshua are still written the same way in Greek.

Yes they are,according to my research Joshua of old was written as Jesus den.

Now this is what im thinking. Jesus never once mentioned that dere is power in his name(unless im wrong here) Saying by the mention of his name knees will bow etc is not proof that if invoked his name holds supernatural power. Its jux like saying messi name strike fear into players...dats true...but it doesnt mean if messi doesnt play the players will continue to fumble vrs if he actually played. I think the whole, in Jesus' name has been greatly misconstrued. Name of Jesus will not avert a point blank bullet ma guy...lets stop this once and for all.

Horus:


Yashua

There is NO letter "J" in the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Latin language! The letter "J" as this letter did not exist some 2,000 years ago.
The letter "J" is only 500 years old. If Jesus was a Jew and there is no letter J in the hebrew language then his name could not have been Jesus.
It is all a fabrication; The Jesus Story was taken out of ancient Tamare (falsely called Africa and Egypt). These are the records of Haru (Horus) mixing with Greek, Roman, Hinduism to give you the Jesus story. Basically the Jesus story was based on the life of the ancient African Haru (who the Greeks called Horus) and they mixing it with their mythlogies to create a new religion. His was done by the PISO FAMILY.
Do your own research to Investigate Josephus Flavius Piso.

What were the original forms of Jacob, Joshua, Jude, Judas, John, Jabez, Jordan, Jonathan, Jehoshaphat? They all had J’s even before Jesus came into the picture.

kimco:
I'm curious, truly. Finding out that the name "Jesus" is just a translated name (greek, english, correct if wrong) and the original Hebrew name being Yahushua, got me thinking hard. So normally the English name today would be Joshua. So with this, i ask, will mentioning the name differently still have the same effect and if so, will saying "in the name of Joshua" also have the needed effect?
i would love a detailed explanation on this.

I am afraid it doesn't work in the way mainstream Christianity pretend it does and Jesus Christ did not teach it to be used as if some magical phrase either.

It is instead a way of referencing the New Covenant agreement between God and man.

Kobojunkie:
I am afraid it doesn't work in the way mainstream Christianity pretend it does and Jesus Christ did not teach it to be used as if some magical phrase either.

It is instead a way of referencing the New Covenant agreement between God and man.

That was my whole point.

kimco:
That was my whole point.

Yes, it's more an invocation of rights one has under the agreement.

Kobojunkie:
Yes, it's more an invocation of rights one has under the agreement.

Im too tired for this.

iSpread:
These things are all in the scripture. The bible didn't say "In the Name of Yahushua or Joshua", though they are translated names and you cannot start saying "In the name of Joshua..." Satan is not going to hear you.

Way too many of you distract yourselves by focusing on what Satan can or can't do.

kimco:
if you do say mentioning the name will not work then you are telling me that the original name wields no power. if the original name wields no power how can the made up translation( there was no "J" back then until later) name wield the power instead? unless ofcos you dont know that Jesus Christ isnt his original name and even then the appropriate modern translation is Joshua actually.

I think I get a better idea where you are going to with this.

I believe It does not matter what language translation the name is used in as long so long as it it used in reference to the New Covenant agreement , Jesus/Yesu/Iesus/Yisa etc., between God and man.

Think of the name, Jesus Christ, as a pointer to the New Covenant Law of the Kingdom of God. So long as what you reference is the Covenant, that name carries with it the Power of the Law and agreement. Regardless of the language translation, so long as it is used in reference to that same agreement, the Power of that Law and agreement is what is referenced.