/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

What specifically are you taking about? Certain things were done away with after Christ's resurrection, and some were actions that the government would follow.

Also, delete your pic.

>>647271

>isn't the Messianic Judaism that the Apostles practiced the most original and oldest form of Christianity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

>Messianic Judaism is a modern syncretic religious movement that combines Christianity—most importantly, the belief that Jesus is the Messiah—with elements of Judaism and Jewish tradition, its current form emerging in the 1960s and 1970s.

No apparently not.

>>647271

Obligitory:

BEGONE YID!

And techinally no, Christianity isnt jewish. Christianity goes beyond the genetic bounds and traditions of those that call themselves jews but are not. The jews of the bible and the gentiles became one with Jesus when He died on the cross.

>>647271

Read Acts 15.

>What changed with Christians living a more Jewish lifestyle?

Ceremonies of Old ceased to be when what they signify came. They are dead. And deadly.

> The original Apostles were Jews and followers of the Torah.

They followed Christ who full fulfilled Torah. For Torah is precepts, judgments and ceremonies with narrative. Narrative led to Christ. Ceremonies pointed to him. Judgments were merely application of percepts in setted time and place. And percepts we kept for they are the same.

>Why is it now that the majority of Christians are gentiles and it is strictly a gentile religion?

Rather why Jews abandoned their religion, Christianity and corrupted outward letter of pre-Christ true faith?

>Technically, isn't the Messianic Judaism that the Apostles practiced the most original and oldest form of Christianity?

No. That was and always will be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Also, get the pooh out with this Jesus bullshit. If you want to use Hebrew for Jesus, use it the way is always was done in english - Joshua. Or better yet, sue the pronacioution that Jews from time used - Iēsous.

>>647303

>If you want to use Hebrew for Jesus, use it the way is always was done in english - Joshua. Or better yet, sue the pronacioution that Jews from time used - Iēsous.

Alright, first of all, the New Testament was written in Greek. It is the original unchanged word of God, that was the form it was given in, we need to understand that and respect that.

Philippians 2 says—

<Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

<That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

<And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Given the fact this was written in Greek like the rest of the New Testament, that means the name every tongue will confess is Jesus, which is based in the Greek form of the name. Not Hebrew. So Joshua is out, much less "Yеshua" which is a corrupted form of Joshua based on (((modern Hebrew))).

The name is Jesus, which in the original Greek is rendered Ἰησοῦ. Same name in a different script. And a different name than Joshua, which is how we render a name from Hebrew into English. If you use Joshua or any of its forms in any other language, you are implying you got the name from something other than the New Testament, which uses the name Jesus every single time. So it's a form of denial of Scripture.

It is a denial to try to change his name from Jesus, which is literally what Scripture tells us that his name is. That is THE name given in Philippians 2:10, and nowhere does the Bible say otherwise.

>>647376

Also the Greek form could have the nu or the sigma ending in some cases, that doesn't change anything though.

>>647393

>Every other version in existence that I have seen says "joshua" instead of "jesus".

Another reason why the KJV is technically correct while many other versions fail to preserve the distinction.

The reason the KJV uses the Greek forms of names in the New Testament is because they are actually different. They are not merely transliterated words, they are actual Greek words that may be the translated equivalent of but that used Greek language norms.

Consider the difference between the two:

John 1:38

Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

John 20:16

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Rabbi was the transliteration of the actual word, it had to be "interpreted" into Greek, whereas Rabboni was the Greek form of the word being used. It did not have to be interpreted because it was already in Greek.

Likewise, the Greek form of Jeremiah was used in Matthew 16:14 because it is a quote of what someone said, but the transliteration of Jeremiah was instead used in Matthew 2:17 and in Matthew 27:9, being part of the narration. They are different words, and the KJV recognizes the distinction by using the Greek forms of names, and other words, in the New Testament. So Jesus is not the same as Joshua either.

You can see Jesus use the transliteration "Jona" in John 1:42 but the Greek form "Jonas" in John 21:15. Same difference exists between Canaan (Matt. 15:22)/Chanaan (Acts 7:11 & 13:19) and between Sinai/Sina, Eloi/Eli, and many OT names as well that are only given in Greek form. But modern versions erase this distinction. They selectively choose which names to keep in Greek form (Jesus) and which to change to transliteration (Noah, Isaiah, Sarah, etc.)

KJV keeps Greek form Noe, Esaias, Sara and so on. Consistent to that, it keeps Jesus as well.

>>647401

I only bring up the acts 7:45 verse because in all other versions I have checked it would make God a liar if it were true that joshua was the one that led them, and not the Lord Jesus in deutoronomy 31.

>They selectively choose which names to keep in Greek form (Jesus) and which to change to transliteration (Noah, Isaiah, Sarah, etc.)

And there's nothing in that, that would make God a liar if they were true. The difference between "noah" and "noe" is how you read it, it still means the same. But in acts 7:45 it could not be true and deutoronomy 31 also be true, or at the least is very very deceptive. But God can not lie titus 1:2.

>>647411

>The difference between "noah" and "noe" is how you read it, it still means the same.

It refers to the same individual. The only difference is the implication as to which language is being spoken and/or who is being quoted here. Whether the author is taking something straight from the Hebrew OT and trying to directly transliterate the word into Greek or if they are using the Greek form of the name that is modified to fit into the Greek language of the time. Those are technically two different things, and can give two different resulting words, as John 1:38 and John 20:16 clearly shows. So the people all called him Jesus as it was and is in the Greek, and that was and is his actual name (where Jesus is the exact English form of that name) and nobody used the name "Joshua" which instead represents a name used by the ancient Hebrew speakers in the Old Testament. That is a different word in a completely different language, and this is the reason it gets translated into English as a completely different name, and they are not equivalent.

>>647271

You don't know what the Torah is

>>647393

>Every other version in existence that I have seen

Douay-Rheims translates it as Jesus as well. Just as well since it came out long before the KJV. Really makes me think.

>>647271

>Torah

>j*daism

>Old covenant

>j*daism

Read on the Talmud, friend. Particularly what was Christ's destiny according to it.

>>647376

>Same name in a different script. And a different name than Joshua

You do know that Joshua in Greek is Jesus, do you? Ιησούς του Ναυή, sixth bok of Septuagint.

Also, anglo-saxons need to drop this idiotic dʒ to use proper pronunciation of Christ's name. Use I, short or long but not dʒ.

>>647401

Is it bad to use Joshua instead of Jesus? I mean I'd prefer Jesus, but I understand the translation. I am slightly confused. If they choose to stick with a certain translation isn't that alright, or does it change meanings to much?

>>648083

>If they choose to stick with a certain translation

If you mean the guys who wrote the New Testament, they wrote it in Greek original. Jesus is the literal name that he was called since the First Century up until today. So it's not a translation.

If you mean the people who are trying to replace his name with Joshua or anything other than Jesus, it is not alright. Because they are in effect denying the actual New Testament, acting under the pretense that Philippians 2:10 in the New Testament is false, and everywhere else that says Jesus as well. That is why this change should be a big deal to you, it signifies a shift away from the word of God and into some new "source" for the name of Jesus.

>>648118

Apologies friend, I am still poor in my knowledge of scripture. I can see the devious reasons for translating it differently. I just figured someone was going a bit to literal on their translation project.

>>647271

no. see galatians.

Paul says if you think circumcision is necessary you should just cut your whole junk off

>>648287

Thanks for asking the question, I'm always glad for the opportunity to answer.

Yeah, beware of the "scholars." They act like they've gone back to the source but they have actually abandoned it, ever since Westcott and Hort. They're just using non-received sources now, of things that were lately discovered.

It's no better than the other fake fields of "study" that have appeared in broader academia of late. And you can see the results of trusting their work nowadays.

Well, there's the Seventh-Day Adventists to be fair. The ones I know hate the Jews though.

>>647271

I think I understand your post now, OP.

Are you asking why Jews are unitarian while Christians (majority) are trinitarian?

This divide would explain alot between the Jews and why you see Christianity as a "gentile religion".

>>647271

>The original Apostles were Jews and followers of the Torah.

Sure, but modern judaism and messianic judaism are based on/derived from rabbinical judaism… that is, it's not just the torah. It's the talmud too. Most of what we think of as "judaism" is rabbinical halakha.

Rabbinical judaism comes from phariseeism, and at the time of christ and the apostles, judaism wasn't just phariseeism – you had them, the sadduccees, essenes, hellenistic jews (see philo's weirdness for an example), and even "god fearers" (non-jewish monotheists who respected and helped jews, but wouldn't convert due to things like circumcision).

Sadduccees went extinct when the temple was destroyed (they mostly consisted of kohanim aristocrats).

Pharisees wrote their "traditions of men" in to a book called talmud. These are modern "jews".

So the rest of them?

>Why is it now that the majority of Christians are gentiles and it is strictly a gentile religion?

Bingo – christianity spread like wildfire among hellenstic jews, essenes (it's even speculated that the early christians were essenes) and god-fearer communities

Essenes were celebate, hellenistic jews intermarried with greeks until they were more greek than jew, and god-fearers were never jewish to begin with.

Also, it's not strictly a "gentile religion" – jews are free to join, it's just that after 2000 years of being at odds and with judaism being an ethnic cult, there's kind of a stigma for jews to convert. theyre not coming to us, even if we'd like them to, and so you don't see many jewish christians.

>isn't the Messianic Judaism that the Apostles practiced the most original and oldest form of Christianity?

The "messianic judaism" that the apostles practiced is alive and well in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It's not really that surprising when you realise just how different even a sadduccee was from a pharisee or an essene from a hellenist.

>>647271

>What changed with Christians living a more Jewish lifestyle?

Um, we don't?

>The original Apostles were Jews and followers of the Torah.

*fixed

>Why is it now that the majority of Christians are gentiles and it is strictly a gentile religion?

Because more gentiles converted than Jews, eventually capturing most of the Roman Empire.

>Technically, isn't the Messianic Judaism that the Apostles practiced the most original and oldest form of Christianity?

Yes, but what matters more: form or theology?

Also, don't try insinuating Torah practices into this. Think more modern Messianic Jews than modern Jews in terms of practice. These men had been with Christ, the temple curtain was torn, the Holy Spirit had talked Peter out of food restrictions. They weren't "religious" jews. Paul spends considerable words rejecting this notion.

>>647303 >>647376 >>647393

>people getting stressed over what name to call the Christ

< A rose by any other name . . .

>Also people thinking Greek and Hebrew were the languages Jesus or the Apostles spoke

I've seen Mel's movie. I know what language Jesus' name was spoken in.