What changed with Christians living a more Jewish lifestyle? The original Apostles were Jews and followers of the Torah...

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.
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.

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.

You don't know what the Torah is

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

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

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.

The people who are now in Israel are not the real jews. They follow the babylonian Talmud

The Talmud is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law and theology.

The Babylonian Talmud

The presence of Jesus the Nazarene in boiling excrement is one of the disputed references to Jesus in the Talmud.[2] Onkelos raises up Jesus by necromancy,[3] and asks him about his punishment in Gehinnom.[4][5] Jesus replies that he is in "boiling excrement."[6]

Attached: rev3:9.png (700x522, 475.64K)

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?

(oyvey)

Attached: 543.png (610x406, 325.75K)

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.

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.

no. see galatians.

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

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.

Checked

Attached: e96b0e3bf6c7bccb00093fe340d20e2e325ac57afbb037d800e5d1a64751c6c0.gif (243x274, 635.31K)

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

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".

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?

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.

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.

Um, we don't?
>The original Apostles were Jews and followers of the Torah.
*fixed
Because more gentiles converted than Jews, eventually capturing most of the Roman Empire.
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.

< A rose by any other name . . .

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