rekinomtla:


When did eusebius live and whats the earliest manuscript of the new testament?

this is a good start

sonmvayina:


this is a good start

Who is Tony Bushby? and why should i take his conspiracy theories serious?

rekinomtla:


Who is Tony Bushby? and why should i take his conspiracy theories serious?

Because he has done what you are scared to do... Do an actual research on the new testament..

He has stated reference for you to look up....

It is up to you at the end of the day.. Wake up or continue in your delusions..

herlecks:
His Name Matters

Will you believe if you were told that the Messiah is not Jesus but Yahshua? Yahshua was His name when He walked this earth. He says whatever we ask in His name that the Father will do. Do you wonder why satan wants everyone to pray in other names apart from the original? Let us ask questions. Why didn't the interpreters of the English bible rather call Him Joshua? Because this is even closer to His name. The name "Jesus" has no meaning. Truly, the Lord answers prayer when this name is mentioned. Why? Because He chooses to honour His presence through the chosen vessel. But it is time to restore His true name to the church.

His name has been changed and watered over the years. Surprisingly, this name has great authority in the days of the apostles such that there is record that ordinary believers who were not ministers were actively casting out devils in the name. "Jesus" has no meaning. His name is YAHSHUA, which is perfectly meaningful in Hebrew, "God is Saviour." He is not an English man that His name should be translated nor does He belong to any tribe that we should destroy His precious name to make it fit our tongue. He was Hebrew.

And how do you know the name was Yahshua? What is your source? Because it isn't the Bible, which uses Iesous--the Greek version of Jesus's name. I'm also not sure where you get the name "Yahshua" from. The more common speculation regarding Jesus's Hebrew name was Yeshua, which comes from the Hebrew word for rescue. But we don't know for sure it was Yeshua. It could have been Yeshu or Yehoshua--while written differently in Hebrew, those names are all written as "Iesous" in Greek (hence why when the New Testament refers to Joshua from the Old Testament, it also uses Iesous).

Simply put, this idea that there's a problem with using a translated name doesn't add up because the Bible itself uses a translated name and does not provide us with certainty what the original name was.

sonmvayina:
He has stated reference for you to look up....

Okay! Let's look at a few of those references.

Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

Here's a link to Volume 2 of Life of Constantine, where it supposedly comes from:
http://newadvent.org/fathers/25022.htm

The quote's not there. I even, just to make sure, found a physical copy of the "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" and looked at page 518. It's not there. So looking up the source only confirms that they gave a citation that's false.

That's hardly the only case. Examine this one:

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

No page or section of Historia Ecclesiastica is cited here. But a search through Historia Ecclesiastica turns up zero matches for this. In fact, one doesn't even need to do a search to figure out it's fabricated--all they need to know is that Historia Ecclesiastica was written prior to the Council of Nicaea and thus could hardly have included information on the proceedings!

Let's look at more:

Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 ( Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" ( Ecclesiastical History , Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).

Volume 1, page 792 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia can be found here:
https://archive.org/details/newcatholicencyc01thom/page/792

As you can see, it has provides no support for the claim made. Page 792 is about the idea of freedom of association. As for the second, while whether it was set in Osius's palace isn't really that important, does his source back him up? Well, there was a Louis Dupin, but he wrote no book called Ecclesiastical History. Perhaps it means "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques" which sounds sort of similar. Problem is, there is no page 598 in Volume 1, as we can see here:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=NYZDAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1

But it gets worse. He goes on to quote made-up works:

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

Sounds great! Now, where can I find a copy of this "Secrets of the Christian Fathers" book by J.W. Sergerus? Because outside of a handful of quotes (all of them going back to the person who wrote the essay you linked to), I cannot find any proof this work actually exists, nor that there was any "Bishop J.W. Sergerus". This work--and bishop--appear to be made up.

"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

This quote is actually accurate in that the source says it (I have no idea what "S.L. Macguire's translation" is supposed to be, though, as the work was already in English). The problem is the source. "God's Book of Eskra" is part of "Oahspe: A New Bible", the holy book of the group "Universal Faithists of Kosmon" and is a work produced in the 19th century by a dentist who claimed God dictated the whole thing to him. Unless you are asserting that God did in fact dictate the work to him, which I doubt you are, it is useless as a historical source.

More examples of these sorts of errors could be listed, but I believe this should suffice. So the act of looking up the references leads to one of the following conclusions: Tony Bushby is either an outright liar or he just saw some random quotes and jammed them all together without bothering to double check to make sure they were real. Either way, the document you appealed to is hardly worth taking seriously.

That depends on your Language of Reference.

Mind your Language when you pray.

For every Word (Language) is with God at the beginning and is God.

sonmvayina:


Because he has done what you are scared to do... Do an actual research on the new testament..

He has stated reference for you to look up....

It is up to you at the end of the day.. Wake up or continue in your delusions..

You the one believing in crackpot conspiracy theories yet you think im delusional?

khiaa:


Yahshua was a great prophet and a servant of The Most High, there is a reason he was changed from brown to white. Confess your sins only to repeat them as mankind will do.

Why was he changed from brown to white dear? Educate me please

rekinomtla:


You the one believing in crackpot conspiracy theories yet you think im delusional?

There is no conspiracy about it, you just find it hard to accept the fact that you are wasting your life over a lie.. There is no where in the old testament that God said he was sending his son to come and die for sins... When he has already given a solution in 2nd Chronicles 7 :14...no where...

Wake up..

OnPointMan:

Why was he changed from brown to white dear? Educate me please

Nobody changed anything, the story was created by the Romans and there God had to be like them.. And they choose the portrait of ceaser Borgas, the ilegimate son of Pope Alexander as the image of the christ...

God never said he was sending his son to come and due for sins.. He has already provided a solution to the problem of sin in the old testament... Atonement is not a one off thing, it is a process..

sonmvayina:

There is no conspiracy about it, you just find it hard to accept the fact that you are wasting your life over a lie..

Nope, I'm just accepting the fact of his historical existence. You going with pseudohistory.

There is no where in the old testament that God said he was sending his son to come and die for sins... When he has already given a solution in 2nd Chronicles 7 :14...no where...
Wake up..

What fallacious reasoning , by the same logic we can conclude that all messianic claimants never existed because they didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies of the old testament.

sonmvayina:


You don't understand yet, it is just a story.. It is like saying.. "spider said I will save Mary Jane and he did"... Or saying Harry Potter said Dumbledore is the greatest sorcerer in the world, so therefore it must be true...

It is just a story.. Words on paper.. God never said the Messiah was coming to die for sins.. He never did, Jesus was never needed, if you sin.. God said confess your sins and forsake.. No human sacrifice was ever required or necessary...

If it is "just" a story so is your myth of confess and repent.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Don't be deceived, without the blood (life) of Yahshua, everyone would burn.

khiaa:


I posted this same message years ago, they won't believe you. They are heavily brainwashed in the belief of their white Jesus.

It is a testimony against those who will not receive the truth.

sonmvayina:


It is just a story.. We don't argue whether Harry Potter is black or white.. It is not important to anything.. We just read an enjoy the story or movie..

Same, with jesus,.. It is just a story...it is not relevant to God or man..
God says if you sin, confess and forsake your evil ways.. I will forgive and remember your sins no more.. He did not say we have to believe in the death of the messiah.. Never..

There was never any need for the jesus story.. NEVER.

No. It is not just a story, for we testify to that which we have heard and seen, not some myth.

John 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

sonmvayina:


Yes, sin is part of God's plan.. He made us with the ability to choose, remember? If yahshua was a prophet what did he prophesy about, what did he write down.. Other prophet did...

He, did not write anything. All we have is a 3rd person account of his life... Nobody really saw him..

He is just a distraction.. To make you a rebel against God.

Sin is not God's plan. Human make choices. Adam could have chosen obedience but he fell. God never imposes His will upon any man, you either choose evil or good, and He rightly judges you based on your choices.

RandomGuy48:

And how do you know the name was Yahshua? What is your source? Because it isn't the Bible, which uses Iesous--the Greek version of Jesus's name. I'm also not sure where you get the name "Yahshua" from. The more common speculation regarding Jesus's Hebrew name was Yeshua, which comes from the Hebrew word for rescue. But we don't know for sure it was Yeshua. It could have been Yeshu or Yehoshua--while written differently in Hebrew, those names are all written as "Iesous" in Greek (hence why when the New Testament refers to Joshua from the Old Testament, it also uses Iesous).

Simply put, this idea that there's a problem with using a translated name doesn't add up because the Bible itself uses a translated name and does not provide us with certainty what the original name was.

Why not just call Him Joshua? Is His name not Joshua? Why Jesus? Very meaningless. If we go by Joshua, the J was introduced into Hebrew letter some latter time to replace YH. This accounts for why Jehovah witness transliterates YHVW for JEHOVAH. In Joshua, could you try replacing the J for YH? YHoshua? We call His Father YahWeh as the transliteration of YHWH, right. Why is He not Yahoshua? or Yahshua? For no man is certain of the O in Joshua. It should've been J'shua, but men put O there. Some use E, others U. The name given by the angel is Yahshua, for He will save His people from their sin.

herlecks:
His Name Matters

Will you believe if you were told that the Messiah is not Jesus but Yahshua? Yahshua was His name when He walked this earth. He says whatever we ask in His name that the Father will do. Do you wonder why satan wants everyone to pray in other names apart from the original? Let us ask questions. Why didn't the interpreters of the English bible rather call Him Joshua? Because this is even closer to His name. The name "Jesus" has no meaning. Truly, the Lord answers prayer when this name is mentioned. Why? Because He chooses to honour His presence through the chosen vessel. But it is time to restore His true name to the church.

His name has been changed and watered over the years. Surprisingly, this name has great authority in the days of the apostles such that there is record that ordinary believers who were not ministers were actively casting out devils in the name. "Jesus" has no meaning. His name is YAHSHUA, which is perfectly meaningful in Hebrew, "God is Saviour." He is not an English man that His name should be translated nor does He belong to any tribe that we should destroy His precious name to make it fit our tongue. He was Hebrew.

If an Hausa man travels to England today he would still be called his name, it won't be translated to English. Can we just call Him His original name? Because this name carries authority, and it was given even before His birth. The name has great authority that demons would translate it into many languages. Yahshua spoke Aramaic and Hebrew language, He was not English. Only a few will see the danger of calling wrong names in prayer or warfare. Now that you are aware of the Messiah's name, God will no longer wink at your ignorance.

It is either Yahshua or Yahoshua, not Yeshua or Jesus. It has forever been a misinterpretation error probably caused by the Jews who couldn't simply allow Gentiles to call on the same God as they, "Yah," because their law forbids it. Over the years the pronunciation of the Lord's true name have been drastically changed. We need to drive deep into scripture to see or understand His name once again. His Father is Yahweh, He is Yahshua. He came in His Father's name, Yah, and the people received Him not, if another comes in his own name that they will receive. He came to manifest the name of His Father, Yah.

John 5:43
I am come in my Fathers name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 17:6
I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

John 10:25
Yahshua answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me.

If I interpret your English name directly to my Yoruba dialect, with or without preference to its meaning, it would simply cause you to ask me, "to whom do you refer?" Because no man has the right to interpret your name to his or her dialect. You see, if an African travels to Europe, he retains his local name. Why should the Lord's name be twisted? He was Hebrew, why change His name? Because it carries a powerful anointing and authority? Demons are actually behind this! This is the name above every other names, it shouldn't be tampered with.


Share with friends and family!

If you call him Yahoshua, the Son of God will understand that. If you call him Jesus he will understand that too as referring to himself. It all has to do with transliteration and vocalization.

Am not against calling Yahoshua. No. But do no think the Son of God is displeased because you call him "Jesus". Since in English "Jesus" is the English equivalent of Hebrew "Yahoshua".

Good Bible scholars are aware of this. Maybe you are learning it now. You can use the form you prefer. To the English man or many language of the world, "Jesus" in the Bible refers to the son of God.

The 'NT' writers didn't use Hebrew letters for the name of son of God when they wrote the 'New Testament'. The use what we will pronounce as "Iesous". I hope that does not sound "Yahoshua" right? I think Jesus won't be displeased with the inspired writers of the 'NT'.

JMAN05:

The 'NT' writers didn't use Hebrew letters for the name of son of God when they wrote the 'New Testament'. They used what we will pronounce as "Iesous". I hope that does not sound "Yahoshua" right? I think Jesus won't be displeased with the inspired writers of the 'NT'

This is 100% correct!

My little addition is the import of the name or let's just say what calling the name truthfully means!

It's not just about the pronunciation of someone's name that matters when the Bible says "in his name", it encompasses many things!

Whether you call him Jesus/Yoshua/Yeshua/lesous/Yesu or Jesu, what really matters is his teachings!

Satan is NOT interested in whether humans get Jesus' name correctly, his main goal is to blur people's minds towards getting the sense of Jesus' teachings!
Note that the Pharisees whom Jesus referred to as Satan's children were particularly furious against the TEACHINGS of Jesus! John 8:40-44

God will never cast anyone away for the wrong pronunciation of his son's name, but his face is against all those who will not bow to the instructions God himself passed to mankind through the mouth of his only begotten son! John 5:10,8:31 compared to John 7:15-17

The problem most people have is they're NOT Christians! But they wish to be addressed as Christians and the obligations that Jesus Christ gave his faithful followers they're not ready to bear. So they come on social media to teach what they themselves can't even understand! Romans 10:2-3

God bless you!

herlecks:
No. It is not just a story, for we testify to that which we have heard and seen, not some myth.

John 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

God is the creator of both light and darkness, Isaiah 45:7,,he is the Lord of both.. There is no separate God for light and another for darkness.....
Jesus story was created by the Romans as an insult against God..

Maximus69:


This is 100% correct!

My little addition is the import of the name or let's just say what calling the name truthfully means!

It's not just about the pronunciation of someone's name that matters when the Bible says "in his name", it encompasses many things!

Whether you call him Jesus/Yoshua/Yeshua/lesous/Yesu or Jesu, what really matters is his teachings!

Satan is NOT interested in whether humans get Jesus' name correctly, his main goal is to blur people's minds towards getting the sense of Jesus' teachings!
Note that the Pharisees whom Jesus referred to as Satan's children were particularly furious against the TEACHINGS of Jesus! John 8:40-44

God will never cast anyone away for the wrong pronunciation of his son's name, but his face is against all those who will not bow to the instructions God himself passed to mankind through the mouth of his only begotten son! John 5:10,8:31 compared to John 7:15-17

The problem most people have is they're NOT Christians! But they wish to be addressed as Christians and the obligations that Jesus Christ gave his faithful followers they're not ready to bear. So they come on social media to teach what they themselves can't even understand! Romans 10:2-3

God bless you!

Bless u too. I feel he learned it new, hence the zest.

herlecks:
If it is "just" a story so is your myth of confess and repent.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Don't be deceived, without the blood (life) of Yahshua, everyone would burn.

Where did you get the idea that God loves human sacrifice or animal sacrifice... When he sent Jonah to Nineveh, was any sacrifice done before he forgave them?.. What makes you think without blood God can't forgive?..

2nd Chronicles 7 :14 says "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and confess their sin and forsake it, I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land'.. Is God asking for any sacrifice there... Don't be deceived..

JMAN05:


If you call him Yahoshua, the Son of God will understand that. If you call him Jesus he will understand that too as referring to himself. It all has to do with transliteration and vocalization.

Am not against calling Yahoshua. No. But do no think the Son of God is displeased because you call him "Jesus". Since in English "Jesus" is the English equivalent of Hebrew "Yahoshua".

Good Bible scholars are aware of this. Maybe you are learning it now. You can use the form you prefer. To the English man or many language of the world, "Jesus" in the Bible refers to the son of God.

The 'NT' writers didn't use Hebrew letters for the name of son of God when they wrote the 'New Testament'. The use what we will pronounce as "Iesous". I hope that does not sound "Yahoshua" right? I think Jesus won't be displeased with the inspired writers of the 'NT'.

The name "YahShua" is distinct and divinely appointed. Not a name anyone can translate to fit his tongue. It is an anointed name. Seek around why the Jews never wanted the Gentiles to use the name Yah.

JMAN05:


If you call him Yahoshua, the Son of God will understand that. If you call him Jesus he will understand that too as referring to himself. It all has to do with transliteration and vocalization.

Am not against calling Yahoshua. No. But do no think the Son of God is displeased because you call him "Jesus". Since in English "Jesus" is the English equivalent of Hebrew "Yahoshua".

Good Bible scholars are aware of this. Maybe you are learning it now. You can use the form you prefer. To the English man or many language of the world, "Jesus" in the Bible refers to the son of God.

The 'NT' writers didn't use Hebrew letters for the name of son of God when they wrote the 'New Testament'. The use what we will pronounce as "Iesous". I hope that does not sound "Yahoshua" right? I think Jesus won't be displeased with the inspired writers of the 'NT'.

Jesus is meaningless. Yahshua is meaningful. The name "YahShua" is distinct and divinely appointed. Not a name anyone can translate to fit his tongue. It is an anointed name. Seek around why the Jews never wanted the Gentiles to use the name Yah. Of course, the Lord listens when men pray in Jesus name because of their ignorance. And also, when we call on His name, we call on something more than ordinary letters, we call on character, on power, on personality. Why not just call Him His name? If the bible interpreters had not in mind to do damage, why did they not call Him Joshua instead of the meaningless Jesus? Their motive is shady. That name was exercised by the earlier believers to cast out devils and they obey. The name is powerful. Today, hardly can any believer cast devil out in the watered name, because it is not His name. Demons fear His true name. The sound of this is dreadful to them.

sonmvayina:


Where did you get the idea that God loves human sacrifice or animal sacrifice... When he sent Jonah to Nineveh, was any sacrifice done before he forgave them?.. What makes you think without blood God can't forgive?..

2nd Chronicles 7 :14 says "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and confess their sin and forsake it, I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land'.. Is God asking for any sacrifice there... Don't be deceived..

There is the old covenant and the new covenant. Failure to understand the difference will land you in grave error. The old has been done away with, we walk in the newness of life my faith. You see, these things are foolishness to you. It's like teaching Greek to a Chinese.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now what will I say? That you submit your life to Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Only then will you understand these things.

sonmvayina:


Where did you get the idea that God loves human sacrifice or animal sacrifice... When he sent Jonah to Nineveh, was any sacrifice done before he forgave them?.. What makes you think without blood God can't forgive?..

2nd Chronicles 7 :14 says "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and confess their sin and forsake it, I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land'.. Is God asking for any sacrifice there... Don't be deceived..

There is the old covenant and the new covenant. Failure to understand the difference will land you in grave error. The old has been done away with, we walk in the newness of life by faith. You see, these things are foolishness to you. It's like teaching Greek to a Chinese.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Now what will I say? That you submit your life to Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Only then will you understand these things.

sonmvayina:


Where did you get the idea that God loves human sacrifice or animal sacrifice... When he sent Jonah to Nineveh, was any sacrifice done before he forgave them?.. What makes you think without blood God can't forgive?..

2nd Chronicles 7 :14 says "if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and confess their sin and forsake it, I will hear from heaven and forgive their sins and heal their land'.. Is God asking for any sacrifice there... Don't be deceived..

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

herlecks:
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

That is paganism, it has got nothing to do with God.. Have you not heard of illuminati...?

sonmvayina:


That is paganism, it has got nothing to do with God.. Have you not heard of illuminati...?

When we talk about spiritual things, the natural thinks fleshly thoughts. What do you think the blood of Yahshua is? An actual blood? Red and white blood cells like the goat of bulls? You are in error if you think in such way. The blood of Yahshua is a "spiritual" substance. If you are not cleansed by this blood you will die the eternal death. Only by this blood is any man restored unto God. Yahshua was Pagan? Because He also made reference to His own blood.

Mark 14:24
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Don't let false teachers deceive you. This blood is a spiritual substance that must cleanse you before you can be restored to God Yahweh. You may keep all the rules and regulations of this world perfectly, yet if you have not been cleansed in this blood you remain as death in your sins. We have redemption only through the blood of Yahshua.

herlecks:
Jesus is meaningless. Yahshua is meaningful. The name "YahShua" is distinct and divinely appointed. Not a name anyone can translate to fit his tongue. It is an anointed name. Seek around why the Jews never wanted the Gentiles to use the name Yah. Of course, the Lord listens when men pray in Jesus name because of their ignorance. And also, when we call on His name, we call on something more than ordinary letters, we call on character, on power, on personality. Why not just call Him His name? If the bible interpreters had not in mind to do damage, why did they not call Him Joshua instead of the meaningless Jesus? Their motive is shady. That name was exercised by the earlier believers to cast out devils and they obey. The name is powerful. Today, hardly can any believer cast devil out in the watered name, because it is not His name. Demons fear His true name. The sound of this is dreadful to them.

I don't know if you did read my comment at all. Am saying that the Bible writers themselves did not use Yahoshua/Yahshua, they used Iesous. And the English Jesus is from Iesous. Are you saying that the inspired Bible writers don't know that the name was divinely given? Were the Bible writers ignorant?

Am not talking about Bible translators, but Bible writers.

2. Another thing is that the son of God is not the only one with that name. Others bore the name.

JMAN05:


I don't know if you did read my comment at all. Am saying that the Bible writers themselves did not use Yahoshua/Yahshua, they used Iesous. And the English Jesus is from Iesous. Are you saying that the inspired Bible writers don't know that the name was divinely given? Were the Bible writers ignorant?

Am not talking about Bible translators, but Bible writers.

2. Another thing is that the son of God is not the only one with that name. Others bore the name.

Was the Bible translated from Greek to English or from Hebrew? None of the apostles who wrote the letters was Greek, none. They were all Hebrew. How come they used Iesous for Yahshua? How do Iesous sound like Yahoshua? Does Jesus or Iesous have a meaning? None. Iesous was Greek, then from Greek translated to English Jesus. J does not even exist in the Hebrew language. That's the history of the destruction of our Lord's name. Why did they not call Him Joshua? Yh'oshua? Isn't this even more close? Or isn't Joshua also His name? Even though there was no J in Hebrew alphabet but YH. They really destroyed that name! I have only made the post to reveal the truth to everyone who will see the truth. This is not for everyone and will not be enforced upon any soul.

JMAN05:


I don't know if you did read my comment at all. Am saying that the Bible writers themselves did not use Yahoshua/Yahshua, they used Iesous. And the English Jesus is from Iesous. Are you saying that the inspired Bible writers don't know that the name was divinely given? Were the Bible writers ignorant?

Am not talking about Bible translators, but Bible writers.

2. Another thing is that the son of God is not the only one with that name. Others bore the name.

Was the Bible translated from Greek to English or from Hebrew? None of the apostles who wrote the letters was Greek, none. They were all Hebrew. How come they used Iesous for Yahshua? How does Iesous sound like Yahoshua? Does Jesus or Iesous have a meaning? None. Iesous was Greek, then from Greek translated to English Jesus. J does not even exist in the Hebrew language. That's the history of the destruction of our Lord's name. Why did they not call Him Joshua? Yh'oshua? Isn't this even more close? Or isn't Joshua also His name? Even though there was no J in Hebrew alphabet but YH. They really destroyed that name! I have only made the post to reveal the truth to everyone who will see the truth. This is not for everyone and will not be enforced upon any soul.

JMAN05:


I don't know if you did read my comment at all. Am saying that the Bible writers themselves did not use Yahoshua/Yahshua, they used Iesous. And the English Jesus is from Iesous. Are you saying that the inspired Bible writers don't know that the name was divinely given? Were the Bible writers ignorant?

Am not talking about Bible translators, but Bible writers.

2. Another thing is that the son of God is not the only one with that name. Others bore the name.

Was the Bible translated from Greek to English or from Hebrew? None of the apostles who wrote the letters was Greek, none. They were all Hebrew. How come they used Iesous for Yahshua? How does Iesous sound like Yahoshua? Does Jesus or Iesous have a meaning? None. Iesous was Greek, then from Greek translated to English Jesus. J does not even exist in the Hebrew language. That's the history of the destruction of our Lord's name. Why did they not call Him Joshua? Yh'oshua? Isn't this even more close? Or isn't Joshua also His name? Even though there was no J in Hebrew alphabet but YH. They really destroyed that name! I have only made the post to reveal the truth to everyone who will see the truth. This is not for everyone and will not be enforced upon any soul. That name was scarcely used by anyone when Yahshua walked this earth because the Jews counted it sacred to call the name of their God Yah on just occasions, however, Yah was only called once a year since after their return from Babylonian captivity. They called Him Lord, Elohim, but Yah once every year. This is to prove to you the name was scarce when our Lord walked this earth. Btw, the 12 and 72 disciples sent out at different times came back with the report, "even the devils obey at your name." It is a sacred name. This name was given before His birth, no man on earth has the authority or audacity to interpret or transliterate to his or her own language. He was Hebrew, not Chinese or English that we should call Him whatever we like.