What is the "Gospel" of Yashua, (Jesus)?

[completedbeliever1]

9 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

No, proof is something explicit.

It is suggestive, nothing more.

You have no conclusive proof, just something that suggests something happened.

That does not rise to the level of "proof."

 

 

Here are Eusebuis' own words...

 

 “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant? Since, then, I have proved my facts, let us proceed to investigate together the character of the new covenant, and the new song and the new law that were foretold. 

 Such was the message to all nations given by the word of the new covenant by the teaching of Christ. And the Christ of God bade His disciples teach them to all nations, saying: “Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations . . . teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” 

 With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,”  

 I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” 

 Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: “Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.” “But how,” the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, “can we do it? How, pray, can we preach to Romans? How can we argue with Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks? How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldrearis, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?”

But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of ” In my Name.” And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “For this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.”  These words were said in a corner of the earth then, and only those present heard it. How, I ask, did they credit them, unless from other divine works that He had done they had experienced the truth in His words? Not one of them disobeyed His command: but in obedience to His Will according to their orders they began to make disciples of every race of men, going from their own country to all races, and in a short time it was possible to see His words realized.

 And He says to them, “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.’ Hence, of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: “Go and make disciples of all the nations,” and added: “Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you”

[completedbeliever1]

10 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

So you completely reject the Trinity?

 

You read what I wrote, but ask me again?

[thereselittleflower]

6 hours ago, completedbeliever1 said:

Here are Eusebuis' own words...

 

 “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.” What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant? Since, then, I have proved my facts, let us proceed to investigate together the character of the new covenant, and the new song and the new law that were foretold. 

 Such was the message to all nations given by the word of the new covenant by the teaching of Christ. And the Christ of God bade His disciples teach them to all nations, saying: “Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all the nations . . . teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you.” 

 With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,”  

 I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man’s, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: “Make disciples of all the nations in my Name.” 

 Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: “Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.” “But how,” the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, “can we do it? How, pray, can we preach to Romans? How can we argue with Egyptians? We are men bred up to use the Syrian tongue only, what language shall we speak to Greeks? How shall we persuade Persians, Armenians, Chaldrearis, Scythians, Indians, and other barbarous nations to give up their ancestral gods, and worship the Creator of all? What sufficiency of speech have we to trust to in attempting such work as this? And what hope of success can we have if we dare to proclaim laws directly opposed to the laws about their own gods that have been established for ages among all nations? By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?”

But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of ” In my Name.” And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “For this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.”  These words were said in a corner of the earth then, and only those present heard it. How, I ask, did they credit them, unless from other divine works that He had done they had experienced the truth in His words? Not one of them disobeyed His command: but in obedience to His Will according to their orders they began to make disciples of every race of men, going from their own country to all races, and in a short time it was possible to see His words realized.

 And He says to them, “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.’ Hence, of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: “Go and make disciples of all the nations,” and added: “Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you”

 

You do understand that the Trinity doctrine does not hinge on that verse?

Also Eusebuis post dates the teaching of the Trinity by other Early Church fathers in the centuries before he penned those words.

It isn't logical to use one ECF and ignore all the others.

 

[completedbeliever1]

13 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

You do understand that the Trinity doctrine does not hinge on that verse?

Also Eusebuis post dates the teaching of the Trinity by other Early Church fathers in the centuries before he penned those words.

It isn't logical to use one ECF and ignore all the others.

 

"You do understand..."

This is one example of many...

Genesis 18 and 19, is not proof of the trinity.  There is no proof here that Yashua was one of the angels.

1 John 5: 7, 8, was added later.

We see that first, to believe the trinity, we need to believe that Yashua is "god" along side YAHVAH.  

We must also believe that the spirit is "god" along side the messiah and the father.

That they are equal.  Yet, there are scriptures that state he would be at the right hand of the father.  This implies that he is lower than the father in authority.

Read the story of Joseph and Pharoah.  That is the relationship between the father and the son.  

That ECF (Tertullian and others) are accountable for their lies of the trinity because they have introduced a false doctrine that has divided believers.

That this false doctrine has caused confusion and distrust among the fold, and caused wars that have killed millions.

That this heresy started over the question if Yashua was divine or not.  If he was to be placed on the same level as YAHVAH.  

This before the council and just after the apostles died.  There were heresys in the church before Peter ever went to Rome.  


 

[thereselittleflower]

Just now, completedbeliever1 said:

"You do understand..."

This is one example of many...

Genesis 18 and 19, is not proof of the trinity.  There is no proof here that Yashua was one of the angels.

1 John 5: 7, 8, was added later.

We see that first, to believe the trinity, we need to believe that Yashua is "god" along side YAHVAH.  

We must also believe that the spirit is "god" along side the messiah and the father.

That they are equal.  Yet, there are scriptures that state he would be at the right hand of the father.  This implies that he is lower than the father in authority.

Read the story of Joseph and Pharoah.  That is the relationship between the father and the son.  

That ECF (Tertullian and others) are accountable for their lies of the trinity because they have introduced a false doctrine that has divided believers.

That this false doctrine has caused confusion and distrust among the fold, and caused wars that have killed millions.

That this heresy started over the question if Yashua was divine or not.  If he was to be placed on the same level as YAHVAH.  

This before the council and just after the apostles died.  There were heresys in the church before Peter ever went to Rome.  


 

When we try to describe what is not describable in human terms, we are forced to use limited ways of communicating.    

For example, it would be a mistake to take as literal such statements as "at the right hand."

This statement symbolizes power and authority, not physical position.

That God the Son chose to subject Himself to the Father does not take away from any inherent equality of their essence, substance, being.

You have accused the ECF's of lying, yet you have not proved God is not a Trinity.

Scriptures speak of the Godhead  - a strange way to speak of God if God is not a Trinity -  Paul would have said   "in Him dwells the fulness of God bodily" if God is not a Trinity.

My friend, one cannot deny that Jesus is indeed called God in scripture.

 

[completedbeliever1]

15 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

When we try to describe what is not describable in human terms, we are forced to use limited ways of communicating.    

For example, it would be a mistake to take as literal such statements as "at the right hand."

This statement symbolizes power and authority, not physical position.

That God the Son chose to subject Himself to the Father does not take away from any inherent equality of their essence, substance, being.

You have accused the ECF's of lying, yet you have not proved God is not a Trinity.

Scriptures speak of the Godhead  - a strange way to speak of God if God is not a Trinity -  Paul would have said   "in Him dwells the fulness of God bodily" if God is not a Trinity.

My friend, one cannot deny that Jesus is indeed called God in scripture.

 

I know what "at the right hand" means, I gave an example with Joseph and Pharoah.

Because Yashua was born a man, and was not part of the "Godhead" which does not mean "several" as one but means the nature, how he is.

He proved how YAHVAH is by listening to him, and following him, and being LIKE him.

"in him dwells the fulness of the NATURE of YAHVAH, bodily." 

[thereselittleflower]

Just now, completedbeliever1 said:

I know what "at the right hand" means, I gave an example with Joseph and Pharoah.

Because Yashua was born a man, and was not part of the "Godhead" which does not mean "several" as one but means the nature, how he is.

He proved how YAHVAH is by listening to him, and following him, and being LIKE him.

"in him dwells the fulness of the NATURE of YAHVAH, bodily." 

 

Are you saying Jesus is not called God in scripture?

 

[thereselittleflower]

On 1/20/2016 at 7:43 PM, completedbeliever1 said:

Its only "unfounded" because you didnt study it.

I cant say "when" because I dont have a time machine.

I can say "how".  Someone added it.

I cant say "who" because I will need that time machine.

But the proof is Eusebius. He quoted Matthew 28:19 as ..." go forth...and baptize them in my name."

Actually, coming back to this claim, I thought you might find this helpful:  Around the same time this was written in Matthew,  the Didache was written.

In the Didache, which was held almost at the level of scripture by the early christians, it says:

 

• Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
• http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

 

Notice, there's the Trinity again - and the Trinitarian formula for bpatism -   1st century - baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.   This predates Eusebius by 3 centuries and is contemporary with the writing of scripture.    So the earliest christian writing we have about baptism, written in the same time frame as the scriptures, says to baptize using the Trinitarian formula, not just in Jesus name.

 

This is the exact formula I witness at each baptism during Church.   We follow this ancient formula from the times of the Apostles.

And "Didache" is  

• The Didache

  The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

•  

  Not once is it ever denounced by any Apostle or anyone who came after them, by any ECF.   It was held in the highest esteem in the Early Church by all which is testimony to its authenticity as apostolic.

 

 

[gdemoss]

Witches cast spells...legalists use spelling

One had better be careful before they declare Yahshua means something then declaring Jesus means nothing.  That is a pretty bold move.  Are you so sure that the name Jesus does not mean anything?

[gdemoss]

42 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

In plain language, definitions of the dictionaries, ((look it up)).

Also, does it matter ? 

Yahshua means Yahweh's Salvation, all through Scripture, and in Hebrew.

What does the dictionary say about "Jesus" ? 

In any case,  HE IS MESSIAH, SAVIOR, KING, KING OF KINGS and all that Scripture says.

Yahshua IS ALIVE.   Follow HIM.  not religion.  the world church is opposed to HIM.

 

Does the dictionary determine what a word means?