Offensive Christian Sites
Dec. 16th, 2005 11:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acresofhopeI feel like I want to puke. I don't see how people can point to certain denominations/Bibles/etc. are tools of Satan or somehow blasphemous. I didn't read all of either of these because I thought they were argumentative, and in my opinion pointless, not to mention moronic.
"False" Bibles?
Now this article claims that modern Bibles are Satanic, because of a few discrepancies in text. When "proving" this, they don't even mention which translation they are refuting (at least not from what I read). And the points made are ridiculous, considering I think any thinking Christian knows Joseph wasn't the true father of Jesus and that His blood is the reason we have forgiveness of sins. Besides, most Christians I know, though they use mostly one translation for their daily reading, they use multiple translations for study.
Yeshua or Jesus?
I'm especially upset with this in light of my recent interest in Messianic Judaism. Not that I'm thinking of "converting", though I wouldn't see it as that. Now it has it's good points, but one main point (or lack thereof): this article basically says you have to call Him Jesus to be saved. Now obviously I don't think calling Him Jesus is wrong, because I do it myself, but I'm growing very fond of His Hebrew name. It just sounds beautiful to me (not that Jesus doesn't, but you know what I mean). The main part of the article that bothers me is this:
The argument itself has flaws. Even if you follow it through, His name would be Iesous and not Jesus. Regardless of that fact, as I understand it, there is no actually name "Iesous" in Greek, and the name was converted from Hebrew to Greek phonetically, where possible. (I got that info from a Messianic site, mind you, but I don't remember which.) And even then, "Iesous" is still just the English transliteration of the Greek, as "Yeshua" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew. So to say one name is better or more correct than the other is kinda...stupid?
But anyway, I'd love to rant some more, but Dad's home and he want's the computer. Let me know your thoughts.
Edit: A few more thoughts added to the end, since I can now ^^ They are in bold.
"False" Bibles?
Now this article claims that modern Bibles are Satanic, because of a few discrepancies in text. When "proving" this, they don't even mention which translation they are refuting (at least not from what I read). And the points made are ridiculous, considering I think any thinking Christian knows Joseph wasn't the true father of Jesus and that His blood is the reason we have forgiveness of sins. Besides, most Christians I know, though they use mostly one translation for their daily reading, they use multiple translations for study.
Yeshua or Jesus?
I'm especially upset with this in light of my recent interest in Messianic Judaism. Not that I'm thinking of "converting", though I wouldn't see it as that. Now it has it's good points, but one main point (or lack thereof): this article basically says you have to call Him Jesus to be saved. Now obviously I don't think calling Him Jesus is wrong, because I do it myself, but I'm growing very fond of His Hebrew name. It just sounds beautiful to me (not that Jesus doesn't, but you know what I mean). The main part of the article that bothers me is this:
Yeshua people are trying to build a case with no proof from the New Testament. Again, the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but rather in Greek and translated directly into English for our English speaking society to read. So God wanted the known Greek speaking inhabited world at that time of the first century to know the name of Messiah, which brings salvation, healing and power over demons, to be "Iesous" (or Jesus in English) and not "Yeshua." If God wanted the Jewish writers of the New Testament to use Yeshua they would have but they didn't. To say Yeshua means "salvation" is not a clear connection to the Savior from Nazareth. It doesn't identify the one who shed his blood on the cross of Calvary, rose from the dead and is coming back again, as the NT identifies Jesus of Nazareth.
The argument itself has flaws. Even if you follow it through, His name would be Iesous and not Jesus. Regardless of that fact, as I understand it, there is no actually name "Iesous" in Greek, and the name was converted from Hebrew to Greek phonetically, where possible. (I got that info from a Messianic site, mind you, but I don't remember which.) And even then, "Iesous" is still just the English transliteration of the Greek, as "Yeshua" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew. So to say one name is better or more correct than the other is kinda...stupid?
But anyway, I'd love to rant some more, but Dad's home and he want's the computer. Let me know your thoughts.
Edit: A few more thoughts added to the end, since I can now ^^ They are in bold.
