Saved by Whom?

Saved by whom?

  • YHWH

    Votes: 10 90.9%
  • Grace

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Grace, and i'm sure if people did name their daughter Grace they aren't thinking about naming their daughter after a fertility goddess

It's a common Christian name, whether in the English form (Grace) or the Greek one (Charis). It's from the New Testament.

As you say, nothing to do with pagan goddesses that have a completely different name anyway.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
(CLV) Isa 43:11
I, I am Yahweh, And there is no Saviour apart from Me.

Yah is the hyphenated expression of YHWH.


(CLV) Ps 106:48
Blessed| be Yahweh, Elohim of Israel, From the eon and until the eon. +Then all the people will say, Amen. Praise Yah!

Hallelu YAH!

Shua is the Hebrew word for save.

Mt 1:21
Now she shall be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Yahshua, for He' (Yah) shall be saving (Shua) His people from their sins."

(CLV) Jn 5:43
I have come in the name of My Father, and you are not getting Me. If another should be coming in his own name, him you will get.

(CLV) Ac 4:12
And there is no salvation in any other one, for neither is there any other name, given under heaven among men, in which we must be saved."

Yah shua!
Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish-Christian pastor and Hebrew scholar, emphatically denies that “Yahshua” was the Hebrew name of Jesus:

The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshu‘a, which is short for yehōshu‘a (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael... Why then do some people refer to Jesus as Yahshua? There is absolutely no support for this pronunciation-none at all-and I say this as someone holding a Ph.D. in Semitic languages. My educated guess is that some zealous but linguistically ignorant people thought that Yahweh's name must have been a more overt part of our Savior's name, hence YAHshua rather than Yeshua-but again, there is no support of any kind for this theory... The original form of the name Jesus is yeshu‘a, and there is no such name as yahshu‘a (or,yahushua or the like). [8]

So, for the record, once again, THERE IS NO SUCH NAME AS YAHSHUA. It didn’t exist in biblical times and it has not existed as a genuine Hebrew name in history — until people who really didn’t understand Hebrew made it up, thinking that it somehow restored the “Yah” element (from “Yahweh”) into the Savior’s name... there’s no such either as Yahushua — Joshua was pronounced ye-ho-shu-ah.[9]
(wikipedia.Yashua)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
IN the future Hark it would be beneficial for you to respond in one post instead of eleven separate ones. It just makes it more easier to follow a train of thought for both particpants and keep the discussion on track. Though I’m beginning to suspect this discussion is of little profit to myself.

Paganism is wrong. Sure, he might be right when he boasts about how big of an evergreen shrub he can stuff through his doorway before the winter solstice; but YHWH still hates his Pagan rituals.

This is not a response to what I actually said. The Pagans were not completely wrong in either their religious motivations or their philosophical speculations. If you want to maintain the position that everything a Pagan said was wrong or evil, then take in mind all it takes is for me to refute such a position is to produce one true statement from Aristotle or Plato to prove you wrong.

You'll end up having to deny even the most simple truths by the end of this discussion if you're determined to undermine everything that isn't Jewish.

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

I’m not sure what you think posting this accomplishes. In another response you quote the Apostle Paul and yet I think by citing this you are casting doubt on the validity of the New Testament in general. You’ve repeated your standard argument and demand for original autographs, as if it proves my use of the Greek New Testament wrong but how does this help you establish your point that we must not use Greek terms like Charis or Kyrios?

Yet standards are a thing that double back on the one who has them. If you are going to impute the Greek text of the New Testament for the lack of autographs, do the same for your fabled and non-existent Hebrew text. Of which there is none, save only recently attempts to translate from the Greek into Hebrew the New Testament. Is this some odd form of KJV onlyism I'm unaware of?

What is your interpretation of YHWH's word? I take it at face value.

I explained in the previous post. You’ve obviously ignored my point in favour of maintaining yours uncritically. This is why I’m seeing debating this with you as a waste of time. You seem unable to interact with opposing viewpoints on any level and you’ve demonstrated this time and time again.

I will not repeat myself. Read what I said in Post #14 again. The argument is sound. If you take Christ’s words literally to call no man father you end up contradicting the Old Testament and other parts of the bible that indicate that there are men who can rightly be called Father. Thus by extension we should take the saying of Christ, to call no man teacher, not literally. As in, Christ was not saying we should call no man Father, but rather pointing out we have a Heavenly Father who is our ultimate Father.

Or do you also believe God is a literal man of war? OR that God was literally walking in the Garden of Eden? Or do interpret Christ’s instruction to eat his flesh as literal as well? No doubt for the latter you do not.

So spare me your claims to simply accept the bible at face value.

Again you're making assumptions in absence of first hand evidence.


Again, I ask; are you asserting that the Apostles broke YHWH's law?


Again, you’re reading your own opinion of what the law means and forcing that on the Apostles and the Jews of that time. You haven’t established that the Apostles abided by your sacred name doctrine, you’ve just assumed it and this is what makes dialogue with you so frustrating. I don’t think you understand the basics of how to form and establish an argument, especially in historical terms. (You should perhaps get some basic education on this regard. Why not read what actual Theologians and scholars say on this?)

You continue to dismiss the Greek New Testament, despite having no argument to counter that it is what the apostolic authors wrote. It uses terms you deem pagan, Kyrios, Theos, Charis and etc. So you deny these terms were originally used, not on the basis of a historical examination of the text or textual criticism, but because it goes against your worldview of what you believe. This is your imposition on the text, not the text itself speaking. Thus you overwrite what the Apostles actually said when they called Jesus 'Lord' and insert your own bizarre doctrine in it's place.

You then go on to say the Septuagint is a product of the Pharisees of which I don’t any basis for saying that since the Septuagint by all accounts predates the Pharisees. But why should I be surprised about this? You believed on the basis of a video by Chick tracts that the Septuagint was a post AD Product. I can’t make up these sorts of Ideas.

Any evidence that we do have of works by Jewish authors in Greek at the time of Jesus and the early Church you would likewise dismiss as not representative. Are we to believe all of Jewish Greek literature was manipulated or was by inauthentic Jews? Does this also mean the New Testament by extension should be distrusted given it’s use of words you deem inappropriate? Take in mind that the Septuagint was used more so in the New Testament than other translations.

How are we to go about this? How do you actually establish that your premise of sacred name theology was readily and strictly enforced by Jews at the time of Jesus? You’ve thrown out all the sources. The only sources you seem to accept are the Old Testament and your interpretation of it which you force on ancient people.

I believe in Yahshua. I believe in YHWH. Abraham didn't have a book. Moses didn't have a book. I have a big head start on drawing near to YHWH.


I know. This probably sounds obsessive.


Why are you relying on the New Testament here? It’s in Greek, a language you deem Pagan and Colossians uses terms you would object to. It cannot be trusted under your own criteria. All well and good for you if you have a special connection that doesn’t require any text but the rest of us need to rely on the bible when it comes to acquiring spiritual knowledge.

We are not at liberty to rewrite the Bible to whatever whims fancy us, unlike yourself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Grace, Greek Charis or plural Charites, Latin Gratia, in Greek religion, one of a group of goddesses of fertility.

Grace | Definition & Facts

Thalia (Grace)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Greek mythology and religion, Thalia or Thaleia (/ˈθeɪlɪə/[1] or /θəˈlaɪə/[2]; Ancient Greek: Θάλεια Tháleia "the joyous, the abundance") was one of the three Charites, referred to as the Gratiae (Graces) within ancient Rome, along with her sisters Aglaea and Euphrosyne.[3] In art, they were usually depicted dancing in a circle.

Thalia (Grace) - Wikipedia

grace (n.)
late 12c., "God's unmerited favor, love, or help," from Old French grace "pardon, divine grace, mercy; favor, thanks; elegance, virtue" (12c., Modern French grâce), from Latin gratia "favor, esteem, regard; pleasing quality, good will, gratitude" (source of Italian grazia, Spanish gracia; in Church use translating Greek kharisma), from gratus "pleasing, agreeable," from PIE *gwreto-, suffixed form of root *gwere- (2) "to favor."

Sense of "virtue" is early 14c., that of "beauty of form or movement, pleasing quality" is mid-14c. In classical sense, "one of the three sister goddesses (Latin Gratiæ, Greek Kharites), bestowers of beauty and charm," it is first recorded in English 1579 in Spenser. In music, "an embellishment not essential to the melody or harmony," 1650s. As the name of the short prayer that is said before or after a meal (early 13c.; until 16c. usually graces) it has a sense of "gratitude." As a title of honor, c. 1500.

grace | Origin and meaning of grace by Online Etymology Dictionary

(CLV) Isa 43:11
I, I am Yahweh, And there is no Saviour apart from Me.

(CLV) Ex 23:13
You shall beware in all that I say to you. And the name of other elohim you shall not mention; let it not be heard coming out of your mouth.
Grace is the gift, YHWH is the giver. If we are saved by grace, YHWH is implicitly the giver. If we are saved by YHWH grace is implicitly the gift. There is no either or as you have presented it. Conflating grace with some sort of pagan god, pagan practices or pagan values is just silly and a strawman. I can't vote because in doing so the other is rejected. Grace is the means or mechanism of salvation of YHWH and it should never be presented in conflict with YHWH.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟991,946.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
(CLV) Isa 43:11
I, I am Yahweh, And there is no Saviour apart from Me.
Yah is the hyphenated expression of YHWH
....
Nonsense. There is not now and never has been a Hebrew name "Yahshua."
Jewish Encyclopedia-Names of God
In appearance, Yhwh (יהוה) is the third person singular imperfect "kal" of the verb ( הוה ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being, probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (אהיה, from ( היה, the later equivalent of the archaic stem ( הוה). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "hai Yhwh" ( חי־יהוה = "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh ((יהוה) or Yahaweh (יהוה). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah (יה ) is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho (יהו ), and Jo or Yo (יו contracted from יהו , which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah (יהו ) in the second part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that in Samaritan poetry יהוה rimes with words similar in ending to Yahweh, and Theodoret ("Quæst. 15 in Exodum") states that the Samaritans pronounced the name Iαβέ. Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect. Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces 'Iαουέ or 'Iαουαί, and Origen, 'Iα. Aquila wrote the name in archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears as Ιαωουηε. At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render κύριος ("the Lord").
Jewish Encyclopedia online

 
  • Winner
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Randy777

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2017
1,174
312
Atlanta
✟91,969.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What was given though Moses was the LAW.
What was given through Jesus was GRACE and TRUTH.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is Gods salvation. Our Passover lamb provided by God Himself not any man.

And what God gives He gives freely. What one receives from man they might have to work hard for.

Stating what was "given" through Jesus, grace and truth, does not set aside the one who gave it. The Father.

I see no problem.
 
Upvote 0

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
2,972
913
Africa
Visit site
✟182,548.00
Country
South Africa
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hark I going to butt into something you never said to me:

The amount of Pagan syncretism that has crept into Yahshua's message is quite disturbing; and many just accept it.
The syncretism you are talking about exists in your own mind only, Hark. It's not in either the Greek or the English Bibles. Hades was also a Greek god, and the word originated in Greek mythology. It just so happens that words like this were the only words in the Greek Dictionary to use for the things Christ and His apostles spoke about. Words like Monday, Tuesday etc are the only words in the English Dictionary to use for the days of the week, yet these too, originally were the sun, the moon, and the gods.

No one reading the Bible thinks about gods and goddesses when reading these words. You're taking it too far and personally I think it's because you concentrate so much on Mosaic Law.

It goes far beyond this one Pagan goddess. Abstract Greek philosophy had already corrupted YHWH's message; before Yahshua came to correct its' Pagan grip on his people. The whole Western mindset is built on Greek philosophy to the point that trying to understand Hebrew from a Hebrew mindset is like starting over as a child.

Indeed our ancestors have let paganism permeate nearly every aspects of our culture. Do you condone this? Are you suggesting that we should just turn a blind eye to it, and accept it?

I think the Hebrew Roots movement has its benefits and its pitfalls. Its benefits are extracting the meaning in some things Jesus and His apostles said and taught which are lost to Western culture. Its pitfall is that it makes people fanatical. In His Revelation, Jesus Himself used the imagery of well-known pagan mythology regarding the incarnation of "the seed of the woman". That "woman" was worshiped by pagans as the fertility goddess, and her "seed" in pagan mythology was the incarnation of the gods. The imagery which the Lord used in Revelation 12 is talking about Virgo and it's the same imagery used by pagans in their mythology - but Jesus turned the pagan mythology on its head by showing that He was the seed of the woman who had come into the world.
In fact I inadvertently, from birth, surrendered far too much power to Paganism. I've since committed to a lifestyle change that submits all to YHWH.
Join me.

I think you've gone "Hebrew roots" and Mosaic Law to the point of not understanding grace (if you'll pardon the pun). Hopefully (and prayerfully) it's a phase you are going through that you will eventually come out of.

John 1:17 "For the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

It is only by the grace of God that comes by Jesus Christ that we are able to obey any of the commandments which you want to keep.

God bless you and keep you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Grace, Greek Charis or plural Charites, Latin Gratia, in Greek religion, one of a group of goddesses of fertility....

To me grace means mercy, forgiveness, not any pagan god. God saves, because he is merciful, not because of what we have done. And I think that is the point, when Bible speaks that we are saved by grace, we are saved because God is merciful.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dkh587

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 6, 2014
3,049
1,770
Southeast
✟552,407.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To me grace means mercy, forgiveness, not any pagan god. God saves, because he is merciful, not because of what we have done. And I think that is the point, when Bible speaks that we are saved by grace, we are saved because God is merciful.
what things might mean to us is irrelevant.

Someone could view a Buddha statue as a statue of Christ, which is what it might mean to them, but it doesn’t change what it is.

we are not saved by grace, we are saved by favor.

grace is a pagan deity. Pagan deities can’t save.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: HARK!
Upvote 0

1213

Disciple of Jesus
Jul 14, 2011
3,661
1,117
Visit site
✟146,199.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
...we are not saved by grace, we are saved by favor.

grace is a pagan deity. Pagan deities can’t save.

Please explain what do you mean with favor, how are we saved by favor, doesn’t that make favor pagan deity?

To me grace is a word that means only mercy, that God is merciful and forgives our sins and so we are saved from the judgment that would come because of sin.
 
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,749
✟287,802.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Then why not use the word mercy over the name of a Pagan god? The word translates better to favor.

You should maybe ask why Paul felt the word was okay to use:

2 Corinthians 8:9 καὶ εἴρηκέν μοι· Ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου, ἡ γὰρ δύναμις...

If Paul deemed it acceptable to use the word Charis in Greek, a literal name of a Greek goddess it seems you have no argument. Unless you want to repeat your canard of the New Testament not being in Greek again (and should you do so you will be proven wrong yet again). Should we follow your example or the Apostolic example?

Grace, within Christianity, describes a concept, not a goddess.
 
Upvote 0