he was human, wasn't he? human men still have needs, and there are no "scriptures" from his life from 18-30, is there? so you have your OPINION, and i have mine...

It is nice to see u on here. Your knowledge and Desire to know truth is commendable. It is like talking to a brick wall. no matter what u say they want to say oh well that was the OT. Like Yahweh made a mistake. when Zech 14 shows whats coming. and its not a jc I am sure u know what jc and j hovah means . but it is prophecy this would be. Great job. I like people who desire the word and learn for themselves. The Spirit works with those who desire to learn. May Yahweh of Hosts Bless u and Yours.

Num 6:22-27

22 And YHWH spoke unto Moses, saying,

23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,

24 YHWH bless you, and keep you:

25 YHWH make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 YHWH lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.
KJV

Name what name Huh?

Isa 8:20

20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
KJV

To them this was a mistake Yahweh made.

What is human?

Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most high?

"Human" is a secular word. You will not find this term used in the scriptures except in maybe the newer translations, and things loose there meaning after being translated and translated and translated ect.

Jesus made man and woman, these are genders, nothing more. Or otherwise women would be a totally separate species then man.

And what's it matter if a part of his life is not included in the scriptures. The bible isn't a biography or autobiography of Jesus. It is a gathered collection of the scriptures that pertain to the salvation of man.

And also since Jesus was a carpenter at the time in question, no telling where he might have been. Plus Jesus himself didn't write things down, the different apostles did in different letters or epistles. And that is why they are called "books" eg., the book of Mark, the books of Matthew, the book of Genesis, ect. Home "bibles" only contain certain parts of each of these books. A bible would be to large for home use if it included all the epistles and writings from this.

The bible was made so people at home could have/read the imperative things that pertains to salvation and or is connected to it in one way or other, excluding old testament which also includes history for better understanding of the new testament of reasons of why, how, where, ect.

Again, all the bible contains is information that pertains to how to achieve salvation through Jesus. Where Jesus was in this time of his life in question is moot. Has no meaning, yes would be interesting to know. But nevertheless that information contained in the scriptures are only the imperative informative verses to why things are the way they are and how to achieve salvation through Jesus Christ.

You ask what name? Well don't know what KJV you got that out of, but the king James version shows explicitly what name.

Numbers 6:22-27
King James Version (KJV)
22 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,

24 The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

25 The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

26 The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

27 And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.


It is the Lord speaking eg., Jesus Christ.

I am sorry Cowboy. For some reason u just can not see.Only Yahshua can let u

Exodus 34:14 (NASB)
—for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God—

name here

OT:8034

OT:8034 shem (shame); a primitive word [perhaps rather from OT:7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare OT:8064]; an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character:


KJV - base, [in-] fame [-ous], named (-d), renown, report.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright � 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Jealous is what Yahweh is for his people not his name

Also have to keep culture in mind/context. In that day and age people had names such as "Running Bull" and things of that nature. Yes the example is more of an Indian name, but nevertheless same concept. Now find a verse where someone is calling his name, Jealous. Nobody ever calls the LORD Jealous as in a name eg., "And Jealous said..."

Another example of how it's being said -

Psalm 76
76 In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.

People in Israel aren't calling out to someone named "great"

Hey Cowboy...



Why third-party sources when I'm talking about primary source references: the stelae and scriptural artefacts themselves, independently translated? You will need to do some legwork yourself regarding archaic linguistics. It actually isn't that hard if you do the academic work, old-hebrew isn't phonetic nor is it a constructive script, so the vital accommodation you have to learn to make when attempting primary source translations is that it's much more like translating japanese to english than it is latin to english (or hebrew into latin). Later hebrew and pheonican or aramaic are more like cyrillic to english, still nowhere near as handy as something like greek into english (which can still be ridiculously loose, angel begets demon going from greek to latin for example). But with a good imagination and some knuckle-down hard work anyone can do it if they were interested enough in the subject material to have done so before they started arguing about it.

Try the various .edu sites for reliefs and photographs of primary source documentation, and seek independent translations of those, then compare them for yourself. That's how you do it. Asking me to reference some other person to argue the points of another person isn't how you do it, if you had any actual interest I mean. Get off your butt and do some legwork if you want to know.

So many people in this world are caught up in the fairy tale misrepresentation of ancient working political systems that it hardly makes any difference to me what individuals think of my statements, they're for me because I feel like it. Now you go do what you feel like or don't. I'm really not your friend and definitely don't owe you any explanations. I now know, whether you do or don't is up to you, it's all there around you, not in my hands.



The old-hebrew characters srphm and nphlm mean foreign lord or noble entitlement. In the scripts mistranslated in published xtian bibles, say referring to Goliath, it is written as giant. Other places it appears in early hebrew script it winds up mistranslated as angel and half-angel respectively. It means foreign lord or descendants of one. It appears in early hebrew script specifically as a description of old hebrew law which states that when a foreign nobleman marries a hebrew wife and conceives children, they retain their noble title and holdings despite also being recognized as hebrew children from their mother side. At the time, in all other contemporary cultures when a foreign noble married a local woman, their children lost all title and holdings transferred to local authorities as a kind of dowry or it was simply abandoned altogether and they had to make their way from scratch in the new hereditary culture. That's why it's in hebrew scripture (ie. hebrews didn't do that), which as I mentioned is about law and government and not fairy tales. The xtian version is that it says angels married human women and conceived half-angel children which were giants. Not only is that completely infantile to any kind of adult perspective, it is also supremely arrogant, since you must first assume the authors were infantile in their world view to assert such a fairly tale as angels and giants as a basis of tribal government, finally it is quite simply a blatant mistranslation of the old-hebrew verse linguistically.

So you want to know about the veracity of this statement? Feller, look it up. Get off your butt and do some work, don't just sit there waving your hands to this and that. I find it lazy and arrogant.

The reason you offend me is you're more interested in an argument than the subject matter, if it were the other way around you'd have done a bunch of legwork you clearly haven't, and be discussing some point matter you clearly have no idea about.
When I discussed this with a theologist (qualified at university of jerusalem and member of a local science forum I haunted), we were instantly on the same page because he brought up coincidental point matter like the old-hebrew character mistranslated as "the divine immortal soul" in xtian bibles actually means "breathing" and its scriptural context is the medical declaration of a death, and nothing whatsoever to do with any afterlife. There is no afterlife in old-hebrew. Many hebrew passages that also appear in the old testament or other xtian renditions of them are completely inaccurate in this way, for this particular example the context is that a person may not be legally declared dead until they have stopped breathing, as other contemporary cultures allowed for the declaration of death and transfer of holdings to heirs when a person became unresponsive such as comatose, but not clinically dead. The hebrew verse says, only when the breath has left the body is a person dead. The character for "to breathe" is mistranslated as "the soul" so it forms the basis of the xtian belief that when a person dies, their "soul" leaves their body, and some pagan ideal of a spiritual representation of a being is assigned this term's meaning, which was really formalised by Plato in the Greco-Roman world. He was big on the "divinity of man" and it was a ridiculously popular assertion, I guess he was the first american.

It is very easy to mistranslate old-hebrew because it doesn't translate well into phonetic languages, what's worse is biblical scripts are largely translated from old-hebrew into aramaic, pheonican and early-greek, then from those into latin, then from those into middle-english and that's the language of modern bibles (oh ye thou etc.). It is very rudimentary as a written script, virtually all its characters are highly ambiguous and defined largely by context. Elohim can mean "cheers for the drink" or it can mean God, it all depends on the context of the passage, and really God doesn't exactly mean "God" anyway and never did. But those aspects you'll have to discover yourself through research.



Try some etymology ahead of wikipedia references. The word "sheol" literally means "the place in (mesopotamian) cities where the dead are burned". That's what it means literally, but colloquial usage quickly loosened this to represent the entire slum area of disease and impoverishment which coincides with the area in mespotamian cities where the dead were burned, stinking of disease, rotting corpses, burning flesh, homelessness and general extreme impoverishment, it became a colloquial of a very bad place to be, to put it mildly. It doesn't mean anything else. Like the old-hebrew word for "God" it's actually Mesopotamian in etymological origin. So's the flood-legend, elements of genesis and much other of earliest hebrew scripture.



Again, you might want to try eytomology before handing out late mediaeval period xtian mythology as some kind of contextual reference. Hell is a germanic word which really didn't exist prior to about the 1st century BCE and was very regional and exclusive, you'd never hear it south of the Rhine before about the 6th century CE. Hell (Hel) is a Germanic Valkyrie represented in Celtic tongues as Morrigan, later she became a Norse deity. The word Hell means literally "rotting corpse which lives", and it's a feminine term, meaning it's a deity, or a bad name you call someone, or the house of a bad person. Valkyrie means literally "battlefield horror" as in something really really bad you might see on a battlefield. It was the christianisation of viking mythology which mistranslated valkyries as being beautiful angelic agents of the gods (they later wound up as devils/erynies/sirens), originally "gods" didn't mean what we think of as "gods" today, they meant things like being burned alive, or rended to pieces by predatory animals, imagine the experience of that, that's what "gods" meant. The messengers of the gods, those were really bad omens, like your whole village being wiped out by plague, that's what a valkyrie looks like. Hel was one of those. Early monks helped mistranslate, through christian influence in colloquial, because like other early scripts and linguistics, nordic didn't translate so well into latin (so modern english is mixture rather than preferring one before the other and is thus both constructive and descriptive, in old times greek was often used as the catalyst to translate archaic linguistics into latin so you get gross mistranslation by default since the same terms in greek mean completely different things in latin), Hell became a place which was really derived from greek paganism, gehenna. The word they should've used was nifleheim, literally "the poisonous realm" which is where "rotting corpses that live" are to be found. In this context it's loosely an allegory of sheol, but sheol is an earthly descript with no connection to other dimensions, of which early hebrew religion simply had no concept of. There were no other dimensions with magical beings, just this one with regular people good and bad, like Lucifer, better known as Nebudchanezzar III ("the morning star"), or Goliath ("the foreign Lord").

Devil is a middle english word (deuil) which didn't exist prior to the 12th century, in concept or literally. Dark powers were called by name in pagan mythologies, which is where christianity adopted them from. The biblical rendition of "devil" which appears many times in all modern versions doesn't appear in any primary source documentation of scriptures, it arrived in modern bibles by mistranslation. In the 1st century many rabbi elected to use greek to translate old-hebrew as opposed to pheonican or aramaic, the greek word for srphm is damon, it means "divine messenger." This was retranslated around the 3rd century during early formation of the catholic church and its fundamental scriptures, into latin directly as demon, this means "ancestral spirit." This word was retranslated again into middle english as deuil. So that's how angels in primary source documentation became demons in fundamentalist christian dogma, and devil in modern bibles. It's just not written that way in primary source documentation.

Hell doesn't exist, there is no such thing as the devil or demons. That is the primary, most elementary difference between judaism and christianity, which claims its origins, yet utterly contradicts and degenerates it.

If you're really interested in this stuff, go and do your research, don't argue with me. I'm not going to respond. What you do with what I've written is about you, not me. I'm already more than satisfied with myself in life.

That's not what it says.
It says this:

Phonetically, in hebrew:
l.mntzch b.nginth mzmur l.asph shir:
nudo b.ieuede aleim b.ishral gdul shm.u :

Translation:
for it is so it is, together we sing of Asaph,
in Judah as you know, to live is the strength of Israel.




edit to walk you through it just this one time, and you see this is my whole point in its entirety,
forget how it was translated, what references are used (me actually but neither here nor there, irrelevent),
which translations makes more sense?

For yours we'd have to assume these political leaders and the entire political leadership were infantile mythologists talking about giant invisible bearded ghosts living above the clouds talking about and saying nothing at all whatsoever which makes any sense that a political leadership or its peoples can use to effect, with real working effect that actually works (in the way say, monarchism or democracy works actually works to effect).

For mine, we assume the author was actually an intelligent human being just as competent at politics and legislation as any modern human being with the same sized brain, and made a comment which makes perfect sense, in an archaic linquistic which demonstrably translates horrifically into any contemporary language.

And the answer of which is more likely in fact comes down to how arrogant you are. That's my point, and just an aside, it's kind of the point to judaism and the why and how of it, and several other semitic 'religions'. It's a secret they tell you the answer to, but you have to look and think to get it, and that's how they defined adulthood and elder status.
Is it making any sense now?

The whole of biblical quotation is the infantile version of things which actually make perfect sense to any intelligent, independent review, christianity is like a rebellion against adulthood. It's not leadership, and headsup, children are feral and dangerous until they force themselves to civilisation, no primate is born with it, and we're just everyday primates. That's what it's all about. Judaism was just trying to escape the conclusion of unqualified little vipers in the aristocracy of a class imposed society, which is how children make the world when they refuse to educate themselves and grow up. Christian fundamentalism, and all the published bibles where taken literally (pentacostally), they're a backwards step on this not a forwards one. Pentacostal jews by the way are called kabbalists.

Since you did post quite a large statement I won't pick it all entirely to death. But I will point out one thing did not ever find the word srphm, through such things as wiki and just yahoo in general. But in my search of that word it lead me to the word seraphim, which is plural of seraph which means highest order of angels.

And "hell" in how people see it being today, yes is a myth. Hell is nothing more then the grave. It's not a fiery cave with a little red guy with horns. And is why hell gives up it's dead at the second coming. Hell is merely a holding place for the dead awaiting the second coming of Jesus.

And Christianity doesn't branch off any other beliefs my friend. Christianity is focused around Jesus. Not focused around other beliefs, but again Jesus. You think a couple people that followed the supposed "judaism" sat around one day and were like lets screw all these people up and make up a fairy tale for them to follow?

Something is a miss. Nothing I can find to search through can find your hebrew statement there to cross reference and to ensure accuracy in the statement. Don't know if it's from typo or other reason, but would love for you to please find the mistake so that I can in fact research such a statement please.

thanks CBGH, nice post!

in my denomination of Christianity we believe in the Trinity and refer to it as a miracle whereby Jesus is the "son" of God (as we all are), the Holy Spirit (signified by the flame at ascension) is the 3rd leg of the Trinity with (a gender neutral)God at the head of the Trinity. That;s where we get the phrase in Worship of: "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost (or Spirit). That is the Trinity in the Catholic/Angelican/ Luthern (I think) branches. It is a miracle and a a blessed sacrament to be visited by the Holy Spirit, to accept Communion in union with the Holy Spirit. Jesus to me is no more the son of god than anyone. He was simply singularly blessed by God as his son to be the Messenger of the peace and love of God. To bring his people out of the darkness of the oppression and violence of most of the old testament and pagan ways. to abolish sacrifice and choose a loving way. to me it's pretty much that simple.

Those who accept the miracle of the Trinity have an understanding of the Holy Spirit, and the miracle of the 3 in 1.

yes he was human, and the bible is not with out conjugal references. there is much speculation as to his relationship with magdelane. nowhere does he preach total abstinence. I believe his lifestyle did not lend itself to marriage - at least not at the point he began preaching where his life is recorded by the Gospels.

He was a wandering preacher, an outlaw on the run for the last few years of his life...not exactly the marrying kind.

jesus made genders? ...

Man,right now would about be the time for you to pick up a Primer on Anthropology!

and the Beat (over the Heads with Bibleverses) goes on!

Genesis 5:2
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


Adam is not a "name" in the sense that we use names these days. It's not the name of a singular being. "Adam" means mankind. So to answer your question more specifically, yes Jesus did. Of course to avoid people picking at things said here, it was Jesus in a sense before he became "Jesus" in the flesh and blood. But many examples such as but not limited to mention of "lord" and "lord God" through out the creation story.

Genesis 4
4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Since Adam and Eve were created at the same time generally speaking it's clear this verse isn't saying that the Lord went out and found her a mate, a husband. She got him from the Lord for the Lord created him and her.