Blood of Pope John Paul II to go on display at Vatican

[argonath]

From the master religion of picking and choosing.

Jesus said call no man on earth your father. Your religion has thousands.

Paul said abstaining from meat and forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils. You've thousands of molesting perverts behind the robes because they cannot marry.

Your supposed first pope, peter, was married.

You are forbidden before the law, under the law, and after the law to abstain from blood, and yet every mass a priest "changes" wine into literal blood and a cookie into literal flesh and you eat and drink it.

What happens to your god when you digest it and it goes through the urinary tract system? Talk about holy crap.

You bake cakes to the queen of heaven.

The RCC is simply a hybrid of ancient Egyptian and Babylonian religions blended together with Christianity to produce the great Whore of Revelation. She is a perpetual chameleon.

Bingo.

Rome at the time of Constantine not only worshipped Diana, but also Apollo.

This is why coins from the era have a picture of Jesus on one side, and apollo on the other.

Jesus - this is NOT his name, but a name given by Rome because they thought he was the reincarnation of Apollo or Zeus.

Jesus literally means in Latin, the Healing Zeus.

His name is Yeshua... not Jesus. Nor is it Christ, as that is a title.

Jesus THE Christ, not Jesus Christ.

I'll stick with Yeshua my Lord of Lords, and the spiritual Kingdom of God He delivered to those who chose to enter in.

Everyone else can keep their man-inspired and man-created religions.

[argonath]

Didn't Jesus say someplace at some healing event, that is was their faith that healed them? Faith, not blood, not a statue, not his robe, not a magic wand...etc. Faith.

Shhhhhh

Don't scare the Nicolatians with truuuuuuuuuth.

[argonath]

I think its the vanity of men who long ago began the bastardization of Christianity into some hybrid ritual infused dogmatic slurry with the help of various "powers and principalities" whether those men knew about the help or not.

Is there any doubt that Satan would not strain to stick his boney fingers into that newly baked religious pie? The more complicated and ritualistic Satan could make it the better to mystify the people and exert control over them while vain men in positions of power lorded over the rabble. Like the Sadducees and Pharisees of old, they kept a tight lid on any opposition with threats of Hell and damnation, excommunication, the "rack", and the burning stake. How heavenly! "The Church" had arrived. Not the Biblical church... the people... but the iron-fisted organization that immediately went about enriching itself at the expense of millions of lowly, intimidated followers, and who still does to this day. Is the Vatican rich? Yes, filthy rich. Why?

Let us not forget that Satan can do miracles, too. How convenient to add to the repertoire of the sainted church.

Other branches of Christianity have followed the Vatican's lead. Vanity, power, riches are now the leading motivations behind too many "main stream" religions. We've all seen them. Raking it in... raking it in... every Wednesday night and twice on Sundays for some.

A cleansing is coming. It will be a cleansing like no other. When it happens, I much prefer having my personal Jesus that knows me for the sinner I am and yet takes me in anyway than all the priests, robes, and riches in this world.

Its already corrupted from back in the beginning.

The greek words Mysterium, which simply meant the mysteries was interpreted by the Latin followers as Sacraments.

The mysteries had nothing to do with physical works, or requirements, they had to do with understanding the spiritual kingdom of God, the power and foundation of Trust, and who we are in Yeshua and the Holy Spirit.

The Sacraments were created as a means of control over the people. In fact, it is tantamount to re-creating the LAW the Jews lived under. You have to fulfill XXXXX in your lifetimes or you will perish or spend billions of years in some mythical place called purgatory.

If the basic words in the Greek texts were incorrectly interpreted, what else in that institution can we trust to be correct?

[DunDunDuuun]

As I said . .to a modern, western mindset divorced from commonplace first hand experience of death that used to predominate before the advent of modern medicine and hospitals.

It's a matter of perspective. What is morbid, etc to you, is not to others.

Morbid means morbid. It's not subjective.

mor·bid   
[mawr-bid] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
suggesting an unhealthy mental state or attitude; unwholesomely gloomy, sensitive, extreme, etc.: a morbid interest in death.
2.
affected by, caused by, causing, or characteristic of disease.
3.
pertaining to diseased parts: morbid anatomy.

Origin:
1650–60; < Latin morbidus sickly, equivalent to morb ( us ) sickness + -idus -id4

—Related forms
mor·bid·ly, adverb
mor·bid·ness, noun
pre·mor·bid, adjective
pre·mor·bid·ly, adverb
pre·mor·bid·ness, noun
EXPAND

—Synonyms
2. unwholesome, diseased, unhealthy, sick, sickly; tainted, corrupted, vitiated.

—Antonyms
1. cheerful. 2. healthy.



Words mean things.

Just b/c you don't LIKE what they mean doesn't mean you possess the ability to redefine them.

[Theresej]

Morbid means morbid. It's not subjective.

mor·bid   
[mawr-bid] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
suggesting an unhealthy mental state or attitude; unwholesomely gloomy, sensitive, extreme, etc.: a morbid interest in death.
2.
affected by, caused by, causing, or characteristic of disease.
3.
pertaining to diseased parts: morbid anatomy.

Origin:
1650–60; < Latin morbidus sickly, equivalent to morb ( us ) sickness + -idus -id4

—Related forms
mor·bid·ly, adverb
mor·bid·ness, noun
pre·mor·bid, adjective
pre·mor·bid·ly, adverb
pre·mor·bid·ness, noun
EXPAND

—Synonyms
2. unwholesome, diseased, unhealthy, sick, sickly; tainted, corrupted, vitiated.

—Antonyms
1. cheerful. 2. healthy.



Words mean things.

Just b/c you don't LIKE what they mean doesn't mean you possess the ability to redefine them.

You missed my point.

WHAT people find morbid is subjective. :) just because you find something morbid doesn't mean someone else will find it so. It is simply your subjective opinion what is morbid and what is not.

[Theresej]

Bingo.

Rome at the time of Constantine not only worshipped Diana, but also Apollo.

This is why coins from the era have a picture of Jesus on one side, and apollo on the other.

Jesus - this is NOT his name, but a name given by Rome because they thought he was the reincarnation of Apollo or Zeus.

Jesus literally means in Latin, the Healing Zeus.

His name is Yeshua... not Jesus. Nor is it Christ, as that is a title.

Jesus THE Christ, not Jesus Christ.

I'll stick with Yeshua my Lord of Lords, and the spiritual Kingdom of God He delivered to those who chose to enter in.

Everyone else can keep their man-inspired and man-created religions.

Such a plethora of misinformation, myth and falsehoods.

Was the New Testament written in Hebrew or Greek?

http://www.cogwriter.com/jesusname.htm

Should we use the Greek name Jesus to refer to the Son of God?

A feature of the 20th century has been the rise of a movement known as the Sacred Name Movement (SNM). Adherents believe that the Hebrew divine names are the essential names of God, and that those names should be used and not translated into other languages. For instance, the English name Jesus is considered a pagan name that should only be used in its Hebrew form of Joshua or more correctly Yehoshua.

The past century has seen a bonanza of early texts become available through archaeology. Today we have the benefit of being able to read and analyze texts that were written before and shortly after the time of Jesus Christ. This provides us with a new window into this idea. What do these texts tell us about the question of sacred names?

P52 is a fragment of papyrus that records part of John 18 and 19, while P66 contains most of the Gospel of John. P52 is considered the oldest New Testament text known presently, but both manuscripts have been reliably dated to the early part of the 2nd century. The Gospel of John was not written until late in the first century, so P52 and P66 are very early copies--within 50 years of the original. They show that the Greek name ‘Jesus' was being used and treated with reverence...

That the likes of P52 and P66 are valid texts to consider is made clear by the way in which they continue to abbreviate the names of the Father, God and Jesus Christ. They are normally reduced to two or three letters in which the last letter changes according to the grammatical use--see above--and the name is highlighted with a line over the abbreviation. Jesus is abbreviated as Ιη-, (transliterated into English as Je- or Ye-). Christ is abbreviated as Χρ- (literally Chr-). The word God is recorded as Θ- while Father is shown as Πρ- and Lord as Κ-. These abbreviations clearly derive from the Greek terms and not the Hebrew...

This is clear documentary indication that the early followers of Jesus Christ did not place any importance on the Hebrew names as the Sacred Name Movement would claim, but translated the names into the language that was being used for the proclamation of the Gospel and the instruction of the Church.

We can therefore conclude that the earliest available texts of New Testament writings deny the validity of the sacred name concept.
(Nathan P. Early Manuscripts Answer Modern Question about Sacred Names. June 15, 2010,

[Sparrow59]

This is hogwash. I have heard of the Sacred Name movement, but I believe there has been a gross misunderstanding of the language of the Scriptures themselves.

I am a former Catholic who believes the "Jesus Christ" of the Roman Catholic church is nothing but an imposter.he is the "Eucharistic Christ" and not the Messiah of the Scripture. For that reason, I have been led to use His Hebrew Name -- so that others know Whom I am referring to.

As for the "Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek" argument. Please read this article

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Art...esusHebrew.pdf

[Fisheater]

This is hogwash. I have heard of the Sacred Name movement, but I believe there has been a gross misunderstanding of the language of the Scriptures themselves.

I am a former Catholic who believes the "Jesus Christ" of the Roman Catholic church is nothing but an imposter.he is the "Eucharistic Christ" and not the Messiah of the Scripture. For that reason, I have been led to use His Hebrew Name -- so that others know Whom I am referring to.

As for the "Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek" argument. Please read this article

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Art...esusHebrew.pdf

Does being a "Former" Catholic give one more credence ? I think not....

So This teaching from Luke means nothing then ?


Luke.24


[13]That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma'us, about seven miles from Jerusalem,
[14] and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
[15] While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.
[16] But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
[17] And he said to them, "What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad.
[18] Then one of them, named Cle'opas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?"
[19] And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
[20] and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
[21] But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.
[22] Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning
[23] and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
[24] Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see."
[25] And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
[27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
[28]So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further,
[29] but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them.
[30] When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
[31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

[Sparrow59]

Fair enough. I believe it safe to say that Maschiach Yeshua knows MY name. :) and my testimony is quite long and riveting. I was suicidal from age 12 until I was saved at age 29. My father and mother started the Catholic church in our community. My father was a 3rd and 4th degree Knight of Columbus and one time Grand Knight over my home state. But that aside.....

Let's stick to the argument at hand. Your Scriptures have nothing to do with the topic.

How are we to address the Almighty? God has many Names that exude His Character and Nature, but these Scripture comes to mind.

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Ps. 138:2

The name "Jesus" is a transliteration of the Greek rendering Ioesus. There is no "J" anywhere near this poor transliteration. If you will notice in the below article, even the Catholic encyclopedia says it is a transliteration. Transliterations are NOT translations of the actual Name.

Using the correct pronunciation of His Name is a revelation from the Holy Spirit. And I guess then...that is where your above quote from Luke 24:13-31 is "appropo".

http://www.eliyah.com/nameson.htm

<H1>Yahushua is the true name of the Messiah

***** Note that Joshua = Yoshua or Yahushua because there is no "J" sound in Hebrew. The letter "J" is only about 500 years old and isn't even found in the original 1611 King James version. (proof)
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Messiah's name never was "Jesus" and that the name "Jesus" is actually an invention of man.
In the King James Version of the scriptures, we find an interesting problem in its translation:

Acts 7:44(KJV) Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Isn't this scripture referring to Joshua, son of Nun rather than the Savior? Yes. Here is another instance...

Hebr 4:7 (KJV) Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Again, the context reveals that this scripture is referring to Joshua, the son of Nun and not the Messiah. All other translations put "Joshua" here. Why then is it translated 'Jesus'? The answer lies in the Greek/Latin corruption of the Messiah's original Hebrew name. Originally, the name of the Messiah was , pronounced Yahushua. This is the Messiah's original name. When the Gentiles tried to transliterate His name into Greek, they came up with ihsoun or "Iesous". But originally, this word was from #3091 in the Hebrew which is . When Iesous was transliterated into Latin, it became "Iesus", which was then carried over into English it became our modern day "Jesus" when the letter "J" developed.
Therefore, the reason the King James Version has "Jesus" in those two verses is because the Messiah's name is actually the same name as Joshua, Son of Nun... correctly pronounced "Yahushua". It is quite evident that the modern form "Jesus" doesn't even remotely resemble the original name that the disciples were praying in, baptizing in and receiving so much criticism for preaching in. This is fact. Do some research and see for yourself. Secular References

Encyclopedia Americana:

"Jesus Christ--- ...Although Matthew (1:21) interprets the name originally Joshua, that is, 'Yahweh is Salvation,' and finds it specially appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, it was a common one at that time." (Vol.16, p. 41)

Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.)

"Jesus Christ---...The same is true of the name Jesus. In the Septuagint it is the customary Greek form for the common Hebrew name Joshua;" (Vol. 10 p.149)

Religious Scholars

Barnes' notes: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

"His name is Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where is means Joshua, the leader of the Jews into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should have been retained."

Word studies in the New Testament, by Marvin R. Vincent---

"Jesus. The Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious individuals in former periods of the Jewish History --- Joshua, the successor of Moses, and Jeshua, the high priest, who with Zerubbabel took so active a part in the re-establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews in their return from Babylon. Its original and full form is Jehoshua, becoming by contraction Joshua or Jeshua."

The Acts of the Apostles, by Jackson and Lake

"Jesus--- This is the regular Greek translation of the Hebrew Joshua."

Smith's Bible Dictionary:

"Jesus Christ ---- The name Jesus means Savior, and was a common name, derived from the ancient Hebrew Jehoshua."

A dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings

"Jesus -- The Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua. Jeshua ---- Yahweh is Salvation or Yahweh is opulence."

Alford's Greek New Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary:

"Jesus -- The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel."

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion:

"Jesus (The Name) --- Matthew's gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, 'For he will save His people from their sins.' This agrees with the popular meaning as 'Yahweh saves...' " p.1886

Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Sacred Name ---- The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek "Iesous" which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning 'Jehovah is Salvation' " Vol. 8, p. 374

Interpreter's Bible: (Note on Matt. 1:21)

"Jesus: for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means "Yahweh is salvation"

Matthew Henry's Commentary

(on Matthew 1:21)

"Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the greek."

Conclusion
It can be concluded then, that "Jesus" was not the Messiah's name when He walked the earth. That is the purpose of this study. For information on why we should use the Messiah's original name, click here.

</H1>

[Theresej]

This is hogwash. I have heard of the Sacred Name movement, but I believe there has been a gross misunderstanding of the language of the Scriptures themselves.

I am a former Catholic who believes the "Jesus Christ" of the Roman Catholic church is nothing but an imposter.he is the "Eucharistic Christ" and not the Messiah of the Scripture. For that reason, I have been led to use His Hebrew Name -- so that others know Whom I am referring to.

As for the "Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek" argument. Please read this article

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Art...esusHebrew.pdf

I am very sorry you never properly understood your Catholic faith.


As Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do."
ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN -- preface to RADIO REPLIES

Very true words.