Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Come Here Trinity, I Will Expose You!

newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?

I know the trinity's history. Defend that three-in-one god teaching right here, but don't question what I am about.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:18:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?

I know the trinity's history. Defend that three-in-one god teaching right here, but don't question what I am about.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.

I'm having to question what you are about because you use John 5:26 for the basis of your statement but don't take verse in its context with the rest of Jesus's words. John 5:19 starts his speech with "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life , even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."
And that my friend is Jesus himself describing the Trinity. I'm failing to understand why you want to argue about this. Jesus is the son of God and he came to earth as a man, was crucified and died and rose again. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and to Jesus himself at his baptism in the river Jordan.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:21:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:18:37 AM, kperry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?

I know the trinity's history. Defend that three-in-one god teaching right here, but don't question what I am about.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.

I'm having to question what you are about because you use John 5:26 for the basis of your statement but don't take verse in its context with the rest of Jesus's words. John 5:19 starts his speech with "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life , even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."
And that my friend is Jesus himself describing the Trinity. I'm failing to understand why you want to argue about this. Jesus is the son of God and he came to earth as a man, was crucified and died and rose again. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and to Jesus himself at his baptism in the river Jordan.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

In this context of John 5:2 - 5:47, but beginning in John 5:16, Jesus is going to capitalizing on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in "hades." Jesus made use of this popular belief several other times, not to endorse it, but to impress upon the minds of his hearers of different important lessons. Many of Jesus" hearers had come to believe in a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection, though such a belief is foreign to Scripture. R32;

You see, the Greek word "hades" came into Biblical use when the translators of the Septuagint chose "hades" to render the Hebrew "sheol." The problem is that "hades" was used in the Greek world in a vastly different way than "sheol." In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the underworld, and then the name of the nether world itself. Charon ferried the souls of the dead across the rivers Styx or Acheron into his abode, where the watchdog Cerberus guarded the gate, so that none might escape. The pagan myth contained all the elements of the medieval eschatology: there was the pleasant Elysium, the gloomy and miserable Tartarus, and even the Plains of Asphodel, where ghosts could wander who were suited for neither of the above. R32;

This Greek conception of "hades" influenced Hellenistic Israelites, because of the conscious decision of Alexander the Great. He used what is called "religious syncretism," Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms. R32;

The Hellenistic Israelites adopt the belief in the immortality of the soul and the idea of a spatial separation in the underworld between the righteous and the godless. The souls of the righteous proceeded immediately after death to heavenly felicity, there to await the resurrection, while the souls of the godless went to a place of torment in "hades." When Jesus came on the scene, the current Israelite concept of Hades became a subterraneous region where the light of this world does not shine. This region is allowed as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one"s behavior and manners. R32;

According to Hellenistic Israelites, "hades" is divided into two regions. One is the region of light, where the souls of the righteous dead are brought by angels to the place known as the bosom of Abraham." The second region is in perpetual darkness, and the souls of the ungodly are dragged by force by the angels allotted for punishment. These angels drag the ungodly into the neighborhood of hell itself, so that they can see and feel the heat of the flames, but they are not thrown into hell itself, until after the final judgment. But a chaos d
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:49:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:21:37 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:18:37 AM, kperry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?

I know the trinity's history. Defend that three-in-one god teaching right here, but don't question what I am about.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.

I'm having to question what you are about because you use John 5:26 for the basis of your statement but don't take verse in its context with the rest of Jesus's words. John 5:19 starts his speech with "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life , even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."
And that my friend is Jesus himself describing the Trinity. I'm failing to understand why you want to argue about this. Jesus is the son of God and he came to earth as a man, was crucified and died and rose again. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and to Jesus himself at his baptism in the river Jordan.


This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;
You're taking some good hallucinogens, there is nothing in the whole of John 5, from beginning to end, that would even hint that Jesus didn't have eternal life in him as he walked the Earth or that Jesus ever addresses the issue. No conclusion can be made to even hint at that knowledge being made available to anyone. Claiming Jesus was somehow referring to a particular type of life eternal or otherwise is dishonest. Who blinded you with this assumption? Forget it, I don't need to know.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:03:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
: At 3/30/2016 4:21:37 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:18:37 AM, kperry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.


This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

In this context of John 5:2 - 5:47, but beginning in John 5:16, Jesus is going to capitalizing on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in "hades." Jesus made use of this popular belief several other times, not to endorse it, but to impress upon the minds of his hearers of different important lessons. Many of Jesus" hearers had come to believe in a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection, though such a belief is foreign to Scripture. R32;

You see, the Greek word "hades" came into Biblical use when the translators of the Septuagint chose "hades" to render the Hebrew "sheol." The problem is that "hades" was used in the Greek world in a vastly different way than "sheol." In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the underworld, and then the name of the nether world itself. Charon ferried the souls of the dead across the rivers Styx or Acheron into his abode, where the watchdog Cerberus guarded the gate, so that none might escape. The pagan myth contained all the elements of the medieval eschatology: there was the pleasant Elysium, the gloomy and miserable Tartarus, and even the Plains of Asphodel, where ghosts could wander who were suited for neither of the above. R32;

This Greek conception of "hades" influenced Hellenistic Israelites, because of the conscious decision of Alexander the Great. He used what is called "religious syncretism," Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms. R32;

The Hellenistic Israelites adopt the belief in the immortality of the soul and the idea of a spatial separation in the underworld between the righteous and the godless. The souls of the righteous proceeded immediately after death to heavenly felicity, there to await the resurrection, while the souls of the godless went to a place of torment in "hades." When Jesus came on the scene, the current Israelite concept of Hades became a subterraneous region where the light of this world does not shine. This region is allowed as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one"s behavior and manners. R32;

According to Hellenistic Israelites, "hades" is divided into two regions. One is the region of light, where the souls of the righteous dead are brought by angels to the place known as the bosom of Abraham." The second region is in perpetual darkness, and the souls of the ungodly are dragged by force by the angels allotted for punishment. These angels drag the ungodly into the neighborhood of hell itself, so that they can see and feel the heat of the flames, but they are not t


There is no point in discussing anything with you, bro.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:05:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:49:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:21:37 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:18:37 AM, kperry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?

I know the trinity's history. Defend that three-in-one god teaching right here, but don't question what I am about.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.

I'm having to question what you are about because you use John 5:26 for the basis of your statement but don't take verse in its context with the rest of Jesus's words. John 5:19 starts his speech with "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life , even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."
And that my friend is Jesus himself describing the Trinity. I'm failing to understand why you want to argue about this. Jesus is the son of God and he came to earth as a man, was crucified and died and rose again. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and to Jesus himself at his baptism in the river Jordan.


This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;
You're taking some good hallucinogens, there is nothing in the whole of John 5, from beginning to end, that would even hint that Jesus didn't have eternal life in him as he walked the Earth or that Jesus ever addresses the issue. No conclusion can be made to even hint at that knowledge being made available to anyone. Claiming Jesus was somehow referring to a particular type of life eternal or otherwise is dishonest. Who blinded you with this assumption? Forget it, I don't need to know.

Words used to mean something. John 5:26 "to have life in himself" what part of to have do you not understand.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:06:47 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
My thoughts about being disingenuous with arguments, testing doctrines against the word of God the way the Bereans did to Paul. Let"s begin with the assertion that there are "many" verses proving the Deity of Jesus Christ, showing that Jesus is God incarnate. The following references play havoc with that Doctrine. R32;

James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for GOD CANNOT be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. R32;

Hebrews 4:14-15 - Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. There is already a conflict"but there is much more. R32;

Matthew 4:1-11 - Tells how Jesus was led up of the spirit into wilderness to be tempted of the devil and it lists the temptations. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Matthew"s account contradicts James"another conflict. R32;

Mark 1:9-13 - Mark describes how the spirit drove him into the wilderness where he was in the wilderness 40 days, tempted of Satan. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Mark"s account contradicts James"another conflict. R32;

Luke 4:1-13 - Tells how Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the devil. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Luke"s account contradicts James"another conflict. Until these conflicts can be resolved, it is useless to further study the word of God. Something is bad wrong here and must be seriously considered.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:31:11 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 5:06:47 AM, newnature wrote:
My thoughts about being disingenuous with arguments, testing doctrines against the word of God the way the Bereans did to Paul. Let"s begin with the assertion that there are "many" verses proving the Deity of Jesus Christ, showing that Jesus is God incarnate. The following references play havoc with that Doctrine. R32;

James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for GOD CANNOT be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. R32;

Hebrews 4:14-15 - Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. There is already a conflict"but there is much more. R32;

Matthew 4:1-11 - Tells how Jesus was led up of the spirit into wilderness to be tempted of the devil and it lists the temptations. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Matthew"s account contradicts James"another conflict. R32;

Mark 1:9-13 - Mark describes how the spirit drove him into the wilderness where he was in the wilderness 40 days, tempted of Satan. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Mark"s account contradicts James"another conflict. R32;

Luke 4:1-13 - Tells how Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the devil. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Luke"s account contradicts James"another conflict. Until these conflicts can be resolved, it is useless to further study the word of God. Something is bad wrong here and must be seriously considered.

The only thing you are exposing here is that you are a troll or really just can't read.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:43:27 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 5:31:11 AM, kperry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 5:06:47 AM, newnature wrote:
My thoughts about being disingenuous with arguments, testing doctrines against the word of God the way the Bereans did to Paul. Let"s begin with the assertion that there are "many" verses proving the Deity of Jesus Christ, showing that Jesus is God incarnate. The following references play havoc with that Doctrine. R32;

James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for GOD CANNOT be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. R32;

Hebrews 4:14-15 - Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. There is already a conflict"but there is much more. R32;

Matthew 4:1-11 - Tells how Jesus was led up of the spirit into wilderness to be tempted of the devil and it lists the temptations. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Matthew"s account contradicts James"another conflict. R32;

Mark 1:9-13 - Mark describes how the spirit drove him into the wilderness where he was in the wilderness 40 days, tempted of Satan. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Mark"s account contradicts James"another conflict. R32;

Luke 4:1-13 - Tells how Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the devil. If Jesus is God incarnate as the "many" verses prove, then Luke"s account contradicts James"another conflict. Until these conflicts can be resolved, it is useless to further study the word of God. Something is bad wrong here and must be seriously considered.

The only thing you are exposing here is that you are a troll or really just can't read.

Name calling and attacking. There is no reasoning with the "without questioning" the trinity has. This challenge to the traditional view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has been long over due, because for most of its history, Christianity by and large has held to a view of human death and destiny which has been largely influenced by Greek thought, rather than by the teachings of Scripture. Basic structures are part of any kind of Greek city in the Ancient World. And what Alexander the Great and his successors did was they took that basic Greek structure, and they transplanted it all over the Eastern Mediterranean, whether they were in Egypt or Syria or Asia Minor or anyplace else. One can travel right now to Turkey or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt, and one can see excavations of towns, and it"s remarkable how they all look so much alike, because they"re all inspired by this originally Greek model of the city. R32;

Alexander and his successors Hellenized the entire eastern Mediterranean, and that meant, every major city would have a certain commonality to it. It would have a certain koine to it; that is, a Greek overlay, over what may be also be there, the original indigenous kind of cultures and languages. Just what was this high priest named Jason thinking, when he built a gymnasium in Jerusalem in 175BC; he also founded a Greek City structure.

The Greek polis, which is simply the Greek word for city, had several institutions that are very important; They all practiced a certain kind of Greek education. The Greek word paideia, means education, but it also means more than simply role learning or memorization or learning to read like we think. Paideia is the Greek word that means the formation of the young man.

Throughout all this it was mainly young men and boys who were educated, girls could be given some education, if their families were wealthy enough, but the cities didn"t really concern themselves so much with girls" education. Their family might, but the cities concerned themselves with the education of their boys. So paideia referred to the education of the young man, both mentally, but militarily-so one was taught to fight-and culturally; one might be taught other things about culture. R32;

One might even have some music training or something like that. The place where this education took place was the gymnasium. Now a gymnasium doesn"t mean what it means in English, it actually comes from the Greek word for naked, gymnos. And the reason it was called "the naked place" is because, of course, young Greek men always exercised in the nude and played sports in the nude. But this also became the place where one would do other kinds of learning. R32;

So if one was learning rhetoric, for example, you might practice giving speeches at the gymnasium. But also men in town would just kind of gather there, it was kind of a place where men gathered and they had gone to school at the same place. One would meet your friends, play games; so this would all take place in the gymnasium.

Another institution was what they called the ephebeia. When one was a young boy, one would have studied just reading and writing Homer. When one got to be 16 or 22 around their, one might enter the ephebeia; one would become an ephebe, and that just meant that one was past their sort of early secondary training and now one was being really in training to be a warrior and a citizen. R32;

They would march together in a parade in town. They would go on military training perhaps together. They would also engage in sports together, and they would develop a camaraderie because they were expected then to be the fighting force for their city, their city-state. So the ephebeia was this institution that every boy had to go through in order then to be a full citizen of a city. R32;

Their also was these political structures, the first political structure is the demos. Demos just means the "people," It"s just a Greek word for "the people." But it actually referred more politically to all of the male citizens, and in Greek cities, by tradition, only men were citizens of a city. But all the men who were citizens had a vote, and the demos referred to that political body of voting men. R32;

Now they kept this idea that the demos=that is, the adult citizen males of a city-were a political body. And that"s when, if you had everybody come to the theater for a big debate about something, you could still have people voting in certain things that the city might decide to do, although they couldn"t rule themselves completely by themselves. R32;

Then they had a smaller council that might be 50 people. It varied the size, according to the city. The council was called the boule, and that referred to a smaller council of older men, usually, who made decisions that they then would put before the whole the demos the whole voting population. These are the basic structures that are part of a Greek City, and Jason just brought Alexander"s dream to Jerusalem. R32;

Their was a group of former high priests, who have been dislocated and other priestly families withdrawing from Jerusalem, and apparently going out in the desert, and maybe building a community out there, and we find out about them in the twentieth century when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the late 1940"s. So that may have been another way to respond to this increasing Hellenization in Jerusalem, to just pull away and from a different community.

The Romans, when they came on the scene, in the East, and they gradually became more and more powerful, they destroyed Corinth in a big battle in 144BC. Pompey was the Roman general who took over Jerusalem in 63BC. So the Romans were in charge of Judah from 63BC on. And this is very important, because the Romans, as their power grew in the East, they simply moved increasingly into the eastern Mediterranean and they adopted the whole Greek system, the Greek world, and they didn"t even try to make it non-Greek.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 5:54:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago

The only thing you are exposing here is that you are a troll or really just can't read.

Name calling and attacking. There is no reasoning with the "without questioning" the trinity has. This challenge to the traditional view of death as the separation of the soul from the body has been long over due, because for most of its history, Christianity by and large has held to a view of human death and destiny which has been largely influenced by Greek thought, rather than by the teachings of Scripture. Basic structures are part of any kind of Greek city in the Ancient World. And what Alexander the Great and his successors did was they took that basic Greek structure, and they transplanted it all over the Eastern Mediterranean, whether they were in Egypt or Syria or Asia Minor or anyplace else. One can travel right now to Turkey or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt, and one can see excavations of towns, and it"s remarkable how they all look so much alike, because they"re all inspired by this originally Greek model of the city. R32;

Alexander and his successors Hellenized the entire eastern Mediterranean, and that meant, every major city would have a certain commonality to it. It would have a certain koine to it; that is, a Greek overlay, over what may be also be there, the original indigenous kind of cultures and languages. Just what was this high priest named Jason thinking, when he built a gymnasium in Jerusalem in 175BC; he also founded a Greek City structure.


The Greek polis, which is simply the Greek word for city, had several institutions that are very important; They all practiced a certain kind of Greek education. The Greek word paideia, means education, but it also means more than simply role learning or memorization or learning to read like we think. Paideia is the Greek word that means the formation of the young man.

Throughout all this it was mainly young men and boys who were educated, girls could be given some education, if their families were wealthy enough, but the cities didn"t really concern themselves so much with girls" education. Their family might, but the cities concerned themselves with the education of their boys. So paideia referred to the education of the young man, both mentally, but militarily-so one was taught to fight-and culturally; one might be taught other things about culture. R32;

One might even have some music training or something like that. The place where this education took place was the gymnasium. Now a gymnasium doesn"t mean what it means in English, it actually comes from the Greek word for naked, gymnos. And the reason it was called "the naked place" is because, of course, young Greek men always exercised in the nude and played sports in the nude. But this also became the place where one would do other kinds of learning. R32;

So if one was learning rhetoric, for example, you might practice giving speeches at the gymnasium. But also men in town would just kind of gather there, it was kind of a place where men gathered and they had gone to school at the same place. One would meet your friends, play games; so this would all take place in the gymnasium.

Another institution was what they called the ephebeia. When one was a young boy, one would have studied just reading and writing Homer. When one got to be 16 or 22 around their, one might enter the ephebeia; one would become an ephebe, and that just meant that one was past their sort of early secondary training and now one was being really in training to be a warrior and a citizen. R32;

They would march together in a parade in town. They would go on military training perhaps together. They would also engage in sports together, and they would develop a camaraderie because they were expected then to be the fighting force for their city, their city-state. So the ephebeia was this institution that every boy had to go through in order then to be a full citizen of a city. R32;

Their also was these political structures, the first political structure is the demos. Demos just means the "people," It"s just a Greek word for "the people." But it actually referred more politically to all of the male citizens, and in Greek cities, by tradition, only men were citizens of a city. But all the men who were citizens had a vote, and the demos referred to that political body of voting men. R32;

Now they kept this idea that the demos=that is, the adult citizen males of a city-were a political body. And that"s when, if you had everybody come to the theater for a big debate about something, you could still have people voting in certain things that the city might decide to do, although they couldn"t rule themselves completely by themselves. R32;

Then they had a smaller council that might be 50 people. It varied the size, according to the city. The council was called the boule, and that referred to a smaller council of older men, usually, who made decisions that they then would put before the whole the demos the whole voting population. These are the basic structures that are part of a Greek City, and Jason just brought Alexander"s dream to Jerusalem. R32;

Their was a group of former high priests, who have been dislocated and other priestly families withdrawing from Jerusalem, and apparently going out in the desert, and maybe building a community out there, and we find out about them in the twentieth century when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered in the late 1940"s. So that may have been another way to respond to this increasing Hellenization in Jerusalem, to just pull away and from a different community.

The Romans, when they came on the scene, in the East, and they gradually became more and more powerful, they destroyed Corinth in a big battle in 144BC. Pompey was the Roman general who took over Jerusalem in 63BC. So the Romans were in charge of Judah from 63BC on. And this is very important, because the Romans, as their power grew in the East, they simply moved increasingly into the eastern Mediterranean and they adopted the whole Greek system,


I'm not name calling or attacking, i'm merely pointing out a fact. This was about the Trinity, and you keep going off on the difference between Hades, Hell, and Sheol. I asked you a legitimate question about why Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are not the Trinity and you give me an answer that I rebutted with facts from the bible and then you go off topic because you won't answer anything straight. You use one verse, John 5:26 out of context with everything else that came before it. So if i'm calling you a troll, it's probably because you are a troll. I am trying to make my questions and statements as easy to follow as I can but your responses go way off the original point.
You wanted to 'expose the Trinity' well good luck, bro, because you have done a bang up job of accomplishing nothing.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:15:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Without questioning, let's look at the facts of history. No side stepping this, we all know about trinities load questions, then trinity will power dump all their out of context versus. What part of TO HAVE do you not understand!

Alexander the Great also used what is called "religious syncretism," Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. Alexander even started claiming divine status for himself. Alexander went around passing out rumors that his mother had actually been impregnated by the god Apollo, when he appeared as a snake in her bed. So, Alexander is putting himself forward as divine. Why? This is not a Greek tradition, but it"s very much a tradition in the East for kings to be considered by their people to be gods. R32;

Alexander says, "Well, if they can be gods, I can be a god." So Alexander starts spreading rumors that he is divine himself. Alexander probably even believed it; and so he had a god father, he had a human mother, and so then he would identify himself with whoever was a god in the different places. So Alexander would identify himself as a Greek god with a Persian god. Alexander would identify the goddess Isis with some Greek goddess; and so all the time these different gods from different places were basically all said to be simply different cultural representations, different names, for what were generally the same gods all over the place. R32;

Also, though, what they would do is sometimes they wouldn"t try to simply say these gods are the same. What they would just do is add on more gods. They"d get to Syria, "Look at all these god that the Syrians worship. Well, we"ll just add those into our pantheon of gods too." And this is part of what ancient religion was like, is that people were not exclusive. You didn"t have to worry. Just because you worshiped one god, doesn"t mean you couldn"t worship another god or several gods or five gods or a hundred gods. Gods knew who everybody was-they weren"t particularly jealous, in that sense. So this is the way people did it. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:32:07 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Trinity doesn't want people to know this history. Alexander the Great, remember, wanted to set up a one world, a universal empire. He taught a sort of syncretism of religion, he taught a common language, Greek, he set up these Greek cities all around; that process is what is called Hellenization, so the Hellenization of the world in that time, the Hellenistic Period. The reason Hellenism is so important, is because what happened to Alexander's empire after he died. After much confusion and fighting among his major generals, after Alexander"s death, Alexander"s kingdom ended up being divided up into four major empires. R32;

One of Alexander"s generals Ptolemy II got the Kingdom of Egypt, and set up his own sort of Greco-Egyptian kingdom there. This Greek veneer when on, then came Antiochus IV reign from 175 to 165 BC; while Judah, though, was under Antiochus control, a lot of Israelites tried to figure out, how do you deal with this whole process of Hellenization? In other words, if you want your own kids to get ahead in the world, in this time, and you"re going to have an elite family yourself in a town, in a city, it makes sense for your kids to get a Greek education. R32;

You want your sons, for example, to be able to speak, and read, and write Greek. In fact, there was conflict in Jerusalem at this time over how much Hellenization you should go alone with. Apparently, a majority of the priests and the lay nobility supported the Hellenizing group, that is the Israelites leaders who wanted to bring more Hellenization into Jerusalem itself. This high priest at this time named Jason, in 175 BC, he built a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Why did he build a gymnasium in Jerusalem? Well, if you"re going to have Greek education, you have to have a gymnasium. R32;

This Jason also founded a Greek polis, that is an Greek city structure, and Jason apparently paid Antiochus for the privilege of having Jerusalem recognized as a Greek city. This would have consolidated the power of those Israelite leaders who wanted to press Greek culture more, rather than those Israelite leaders who wanted to hold back on Greek culture. If you control the gymnasium, and you control the means of education, you actually control the citizenry, because you can"t become a citizen of a Greek polis, a Greek city, unless you yourself have Greek education, so sons would-sons of people would go to the gymnasium. Notice what this would do also, it would disenfranchise those leading families, who didn"t want to have their sons Hellenized. By holding the control of the eduction, you disenfranchise conservative Israelites, who are resisting this Greek influence.

So Romans didn"t go around trying to get people in the East to speak Latin. They might put up an official inscription in an Eastern City in Latin, but they"d almost always, if it was an official inscription, it would also be listed in Greek, So Romans who ruled in the East were expected to speak Greek. And by this time all educated Roman men were expected to be able to speak Greek, well if possible. So the Romans didn"t try to make the East Roman, in that sense, culturally, nor did they try to change the language. Greek language, culture, and religions, different religions and the syncretism, Greek education, the polis structure-all of these things remained in the East throughout the Roman rule of the East, all the way up until the time you had a Christian emperor with Constantine and later.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:37:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
: At 3/30/2016 6:15:55 AM, newnature wrote:
Without questioning, let's look at the facts of history. No side stepping this, we all know about trinities load questions, then trinity will power dump all their out of context versus. What part of TO HAVE do you not understand!

Alexander the Great also used what is called "religious syncretism," Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. Alexander even started claiming divine status for himself. Alexander went around passing out rumors that his mother had actually been impregnated by the god Apollo, when he appeared as a snake in her bed. So, Alexander is putting himself forward as divine. Why? This is not a Greek tradition, but it"s very much a tradition in the East for kings to be considered by their people to be gods. R32;

Alexander says, "Well, if they can be gods, I can be a god." So Alexander starts spreading rumors that he is divine himself. Alexander probably even believed it; and so he had a god father, he had a human mother, and so then he would identify himself with whoever was a god in the different places. So Alexander would identify himself as a Greek god with a Persian god. Alexander would identify the goddess Isis with some Greek goddess; and so all the time these different gods from different places were basically all said to be simply different cultural representations, different names, for what were generally the same gods all over the place. R32;

Also, though, what they would do is sometimes they wouldn"t try to simply say these gods are the same. What they would just do is add on more gods. They"d get to Syria, "Look at all these god that the Syrians worship. Well, we"ll just add those into our pantheon of gods too." And this is part of what ancient religion was like, is that people were not exclusive. You didn"t have to worry. Just because you worshiped one god, doesn"t mean you couldn"t worship another god or several gods or five gods or a hundred gods. Gods knew who everybody was-they weren"t particularly jealous, in that sense. So this is the way people did it. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms.



Alright, alright. You like history and you believe in oneness. Fine, fine. You think you know more about the bible then the apostles and the God that wrote it, that's fine. There are always people like you in abundance. I'm out, later.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 6:53:02 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Their were some early Christians who believed not that Yeshua had always been divine, but that at some point in his life he was adopted by Yahweh, either at his birth, or at his baptism, or his resurrection. Luke 3:22, it was believed according to Luke"s version of the baptism of Yeshua, a voice comes from heaven, and at least in some of the manuscripts say, "Today I have begotten you." Of course that is a quotation from Psalm 22, but the person quoting it is implying that Yeshua was adopted by Yahweh, or begotten by Yahweh at his baptism, not at his birth or before.

Now if one disagreed with that interpretation, and if one is a good orthodox Christian, one should disagree with that interpretation, because that"s not now Christian orthodoxy. Orthodoxy in the way it is believed, think of it now, it didn"t exist of course in the first century in a fully defined way, it took a few centuries to develop. At that this time if one is an orthodox Christian, one is not supposed to believe that Yeshua was simply adopted by Yahweh at his baptism.

If someone came to that person with that reading of that text in the Gospel of Luke, arguing for an adoptionist Christology, how would one argue against that interpretation? One might have argued, for example, by saying, let"s look at how this story is told, in say the Gospel of Mark or in other places, where that -today I have begotten you- is not found. One could say, well one is supposed to use Mark in order to interpret Luke, but the other interpreter could just come back and say, well Mark didn"t include it, but that"s not a denial of it. Luke obviously included it for some other reason.

One could also say, well that"s probably not what Luke meant, what the author of Luke meant to say, because Luke seems to have other passages in Luke and Acts, where it seems he"s accepting that Yeshua was divine in some sense before his baptism, maybe even at his birth, because the angels announce it, and there"s the worship of Yeshua that happens then. One could just come right back and say, well, who says? I mean this is the clearest key in Luke of when precisely Yeshua actually becomes the Son of Yahweh. It"s not contradicted by anything else in Luke, so one should take this verse much more heavily than what one is willing to take it.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:17:43 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Trinities KINGDOM, but the Gentiles were never promised a particular territory upon earth as an everlasting possession, only Israel had been given that promise, they were promised a messiah.

From the time that God sent Moses to deliver them from their Egyptian captivity, Israel was give things to see, to witness for themselves in order to visually verify God"s presence and his purpose with them, yet, for all the visual evidences that God gave to Israel, Israel would not believe God. R32;

This isn"t the first time Israel would not believe. The fall of Jerusalem shattered the national and territorial basis of Israel"s culture and religion. The Babylonians had burned the temple to the ground, they carried away most of the people to exile, to life in exile in Babylon, leaving behind mostly members of the lower classes to eke out a living as best they could. And it was the completion of the tragedy that had begun centuries earlier, and it was interpreted as a fulfillment of the covenant curses. R32;

Yahweh doesn"t retire to heaven, nor abandons his people. Yahweh doesn"t remain behind with those left in Judah, but Yahweh moves into exile; those left behind are guilty. Yahweh does not stay with them; Yahweh moves east with the righteous exiles. The kavod went eastward with the exiles, so the kavod will return with the reestablishment of Israel in her home. The kavod returning from the east and back to the temple, Yahweh is not liked to a particular place, but to a particular people; Yahweh was with his people, even when they are in exile.

It was the end of the Davidic monarchy, although the son of Jeholakim was alive and living in Babylon, kind of holding out hope that the line hadn"t actually been killed out, hadn"t been completely wiped out. But the institution seemed to have come to an end for now. It was the end of the temple, the end of the priesthood, the end of Israel as a nation; as an autonomous nation, the Israelites were confronted with a great test. R32;

One could see in these events a signal that Yahweh had abandoned Israel to, or had been defeated by the god of the Babylonians, and Marduk would replace Yahweh, as the Israelites assimilated themselves into their new home. And certainly there were Israelites who went that route, but others who were firmly rooted in exclusive Yahwism did not. R32;

Yahweh hadn"t been defeated, the nations"s calamities were not disproof of Yahweh"s power and covenant, they were proof of it. Yahweh"s desire for morality as expressed in the ancient covenant, the prophets had spoken truly when they had said that destruction would follow, if the people didn"t turn from their moral and religious violations of Yahweh"s law. The defeat and the exile had the potential to convince Israelites of the need to show absolute and undivided devotion to Yahweh and his commandments.

Vehement denunciation moral decay and social injustice of the period, leading up to the fall of the northern kingdom and southern kingdom of Israel. A prophet criticizes the sins of the nation, he is critical of everyone, the middle class, the government, the king, the establishment, the priesthood; they"re all plagued by a superficial kind of piety. Amos, and all the prophets, the idea of covenant prescribes a particular relationship with Yahweh, but not only with Yahweh; also with one"s fellow human beings. R32;

The two are interlinked. It is a sign of closeness to Yahweh that one is concerned for Israel"s poor and needy. The two are completely interlinked. Amos denounces the wealthy. He denounces the powerful and the way they treat the poor. The crimes that are denounced, are crimes that are prevalent in any society in any era. The crimes that are denounced as being utterly unacceptable to Yahweh, infuriating Yahweh to the point of destruction of the nation, are the kinds of crimes we see around us everyday, taking bribes, improper weights and balances, lack of charity to the poor, indifference to the plight of the debtor. R32;

Injustice is sacrilege, the ideals of the covenant are of utmost importance. These prophets are called the standard bearers of the covenant, harking back to the covenant obligations. And without these, without the ideals of the covenant, the fulfillment of ritual obligations in and of itself is a farce. Morality is not just an obligation equal in importance to the cult or religious obligations, but that morality is perhaps superior to the cult. R32;

What Yahweh requires of Israel is morality and not cultic service. The prophets raised morality to the level of an absolute religious value, and they did so because they saw morality as essentially divine. The essence of Yahweh is his moral nature. Moral attributes are the essence of Yahweh himself, one strives to be Yahweh-like by imitating his moral actions. The prophets insisted that morality was a decisive, if not the decisive factor in the nations" history; Israel"s acceptance of Yahweh"s covenant placed certain religious and moral demands on her.

One sin is singled out as being historically decisive for the nation. Other sins are punished, absolutely. But only one is singled out as historically decisive for the nation, and that is the sin of idolatry, particularly the idolatry of the royal house. The tragic history of the two kingdoms as essentially a sequence of idolatrous aberrations, which were followed by punishment. And this cycle continued until finally there had to be complete destruction. R32;

While it is certainly true that moral sins and other religious sins in Israel were punishable, it is really only the worship of other gods that brings about national collapse, national exile. Idolatry was what provoked Yahweh to drive the nation into exile. The prophets are claiming that the nation is doomed because of commonplace wrongs, because of bribe-taking, because of false scales and false weights that are being used in the marketplace. R32;

For the prophets, the national catastrophes are just punishment for sin, but not just the sin of idolatry, for all sins no matter how petty, no matter how venial, because all sins violate the terms of the covenant code, which is given specially to Israel. And the terms of the covenant-being vassals to the sovereign Yahweh means treating co-vassals in a particular way, and it is breach of covenant not to do that. R32;

The prophets were harking back to an older tradition, to ancient traditions about Israel and its covenant relationship, traditions according to which Israel"s redemption and election entailed moral obligations. The prophets warned that unless they changed, the people were going to suffer the punishment that was due them. R32;

And, in fact, the people were very foolish to be eagerly awaiting or eagerly expecting what was popularly known as the Day of Yahweh. And so the prophets refer to the Day of Yahweh as if it were a popular conception out there in the general culture. It was a popular idea at the time that on some future occasion, Yahweh would dramatically intervene in world affairs and he would do so on Israel"s behalf. R32;

Yahweh would lead Israel in victory over her enemies. They would be punished. Israel would be restored to her full and former glory. And that day, the Day of Yahweh, in the popular mind, was going to be a marvelous day, a day of victory for Israel, triumph for Israel and a day of vengeance on her enemies. The people are very confident that this is going to be a day of light, a day of blessing, a day of victory. R32;

But the prophets, according to them, if there is no change, then this Day of Yahweh is not going to be some glorious thing that the people should be eagerly awaiting. It"s not going to be a day of triumph for Israel. It will not be a day of vengeance on her enemies. It is going to be a day of doom, when Yahweh will finally call his own people to account.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:25:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
This is a back breaker here Trinity. There have been many attempts to equate this man of sorrows with all kinds of figures. Early on, Yeshua"s followers saw Yeshua as the suffering servant of Yahweh in Isaiah. New Testament writers specifically borrowed passages from Isaiah, particularly in chapter 53, when constructing their narratives of Yeshua, taking those verses and using them in describing his story. R32;

So Yeshua is depicted as the innocent and righteous servant who suffered for the sins of others. In the teachings of Paul, however, you have a different use of these verses. Christians, generally, are identified as the servant who suffers with and for Yeshua. Isaiah chapter 53 wasn"t talking about a remote Nazarene teacher and charismatic healer who would live more than five centuries later. R32;

The servant is Israel herself, the punishment that Israel suffered even if excessive-that punishment isn"t meaningless, it will lead to redemption. Israel will be healed by her wounds. Israel"s suffering is serving a purpose in the divine plan, it"s necessary. Israel needs purification and redemption and that will prepare her for a new role in world history. R32;

The Babylonian Empire was itself defeated by the Persians under the leadership of Cyrus-Cyrus of Persia. Cyrus manages to establish the largest empire in the Ancient Near East to date, a huge empire. Unlike other ancient empires, the Persian empire espoused a policy of cultural and religious independence for its conquered subjects and Cyrus gave the Israelite exiles permission to return to Jerusalem and reconstruct the temple.

Many of the exiles returned to this now Persian province and they exercised a fair degree of self-determination. The building doesn"t proceed smoothly and that"s due largely to the hostilities of the surrounding communities. The Samaritans offer to assist in the project of reconstruction. Their offer is rejected, and as a result the Samaritans, insulted, persuade the Persians that this is a bad idea.

Rebuilding a potentially rebellious city is a bad idea, and the Persians listen to them and they order the rebuilding stopped. Along comes two prophets, they urge the continuation of the building. A Persian official objects, the Israelites appeal to the new Persian Emperor Darius. And they ask him to search through the court records, look for the original authorization by Cyrus-we have been authorized to do this. Cyrus" edict is found. Darius agrees not only to enforce it, but to honor Cyrus" obligation to supply money for the rebuilding.

This is under Persia imperial sponsorship, and Darius will honor the obligation to supply money for the rebuilding and to procure sacrifices as well. The temple is finally dedicated and a Passover celebration is celebrated in the sanctuary. The post-exilic period following is also known as the Persian period, at first, but the Persians won"t rule for long. The prophet Ezra may have unified Israel around a common text, but he didn"t unify them around a common interpretation of the text. So that widely divergent groups now, in the Persian period and as history moved into the Hellenistic period, widely divergent groups will claim biblical warrant for their specific practices and beliefs.
tarantula
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:27:29 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.

Are you drunk or on an illegal drug, your posts give that impression?
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:43:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Not at all, just exposing the Trinity. My atheist friends would enjoy reading this, the ones trinity is always condemning to what (EXPOSED)

Before that kingdom could be realized, there was a prophetic event that had to take place first. The way Jesus taught has special application to that tribulation period to those people who were being taught to pray in this manner. This will be a very heartfelt prayer during the tribulation period. During the time of Jacob"s trouble, the Israelites will be under tremendous persecution from the antichrist. He will be putting Israelites to death for their faith. The Israelites will be praying at that time, "thy kingdom come" the promised earthly kingdom to be set up right here on earth, because the only hope of deliverance for the believing Israelites at that time, will be the coming of the king and setting up of the earthly kingdom. R32;

"Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" is a divine definition of the millennium. The kingdom is when the will of Yahweh is carried out in the earth to the same degree it is carried out in heaven. The Israelites have an earthly hope, they were promised the earth forever. At the time when Israel will be facing the wrath of Satan - the time that Israel was being prepared for when they were being taught how to pray - Satan will have been kicked out of the heaven and cast down to the earth and Yahweh"s will, will indeed be being done in the realm where Satan has just been cast out. R32;

This prayer is appropriate for the Israelites of that day, they will be praying at that time just as the disciples had been taught to pray. It is recited in churches across the country in our day. It is recited as though it is a prayer for today. While we are not to use vain repetition, it is recited like vain repetition as people stand up and uttering together. At the time this prayer was being taught to pray "our Father" meant that you recognized, if you were an Israelite, that you had a covenant relationship with Yahweh; you were his children. R32;

These saints of the earthly kingdom program will be praying in the day "Give us this day our daily bread." They will be worrying about that day, not the next day as that earthly kingdom becomes a reality for those Israelites. "Debtors" Israel"s status as a nation above all nations depended on this very thing. The believers of Israel will be seeking forgiveness in respect to their willingness to forgive. Yahweh will not restore that nation to a place of national prominence above all nations of the earth until they adhere to the exhortation, forgive us our sins as WE (corporately) are willing to forgive those who have sinned against us. R32;

There will be a people for Yahweh on the earth during those eventful years, and Yahweh indeed has provided for their instruction, and warning, and encouragement, in the second and third chapters of the Book of Revelation. Right at the beginning, they are the first subjects of Divine remembrance, provision, and care. Their needs must be first provided for, before anything else is recorded of the things which John saw; and there they will find what is specially written for their learning. But those readers will be at once be reminded of the various stages of their own past history, and they will find in almost every sentence some allusion to the circumstances in which they will find themselves as described in these seven letters.
kperry
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:45:52 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
: At 3/30/2016 7:27:29 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.

Are you drunk or on an illegal drug, your posts give that impression?



You see what I have been dealing with?
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:50:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
My atheist friends see what you have been putting up with.

You see, if Israel could have their sins remitted nationally, then Israel could indeed become that holy nation and kingdom of priests. And if Israel could become that holy nation and kingdom of priests, then the Gentiles would be able to come to Yahweh through Israel"s rise. That is why it would be important for Jesus "the messiah" to be risen, so Israel could have their sins remitted, and they could arise, and the Gentiles could come to Yahweh through the nation Israel. It was only Israel having access to that eternal life that would make it possible for the Gentiles to have that eternal life through Israel"s rise, through the nation Israel. R32;

But you see, Israel nationally did not accept the Gospel of the Kingdom of Yahweh. They did not accept the Gospel of Yahweh; that Jesus was the son of Yahweh or that Jesus was the risen messiah. They did not accept that at all, so rather than rise, Israel fell. Yet, when it comes to Jesus being risen from among the dead, how could Israel"s promised earthly king sit on the throne of David in a promised literal, earthly kingdom, if the king Yahweh anointed for that kingdom remained a dead king. R32;

If Jesus be not risen, there is no earthly king. If Jesus be not risen, there is no earthly kingdom. If there is no earthly kingdom and that is when Israel is supposed to be forgiven, then there is no forgiveness for the nation Israel; for the saints of the kingdom program. And if there is no forgiveness, there is no salvation. And if there is no salvation, there certainly is no bodily resurrection. And if there is no bodily resurrection, all this is a story, a fairytale. R32;

Israel as a nation was still the focus in Acts chapter 2, as they were given a taste of their promised earthly kingdom there with Yahweh"s empowerments for The Tribulation endurance and for the earthly kingdom entrance. Focus is still that land and the attempt to get Israel"s leadership to change their minds about the source of their righteousness and accept Jesus as indeed their Messiah. Peter promises Israel that if she will change her minds, Yahweh will send Messiah back and their promised Kingdom can get back underway, just as it was promised. Peter called it the times of refreshing speaking of a direct reference there to the millennial reign of Messiah on the earth. R32;

R32;The beginning of Israel"s last days of her program, they were being equipped for the upcoming time of tribulation right on their horizon. They were more abundant than ever, God used the physical senses in every respect in connection with his sign nation at Israel"s high holy feast day called Pentecost. R32;

This was not a mystery, this was not a secret, it was exactly what the bible had foretold would take place when it came to the sign nation. R32;

God gave his sign nation things to see and to hear and to speak, the physical senses were used through God"s power from on high, that Israel might witness their deliverance; "before our eyes" and "in our sight" tell us how God"s power from on high worked as Israel was approaching the last days of her program, which was to culminate in an entrance to her promised earthly kingdom. R32;

The visual manifestations of God"s power from on high was directly involved in as the nation Israel was given every visual opportunity to change their thinking about the identity of their Messiah and their ability to perform up to the standard of God"s righteousness, when it came to the law contract.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 1:02:25 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I took out something that makes no since, some kind of superiority teaching that seems to be added to the beginning of Hebrews? Hebrews is not for you Trinity, nor is 1st and 2nd Peter or James or Jude or 1 John or 2 John or 3 John.

Hebrews 1:1-3:15;
From of old, Yahweh spoke to the Israelites fathers by the prophets in every manner, and in all ways; but in these later days, Yahweh has conversed with us, by his son; whom Yahweh has constituted heir of all things, and when Yeshua made a purgation of sins, then Yeshua sat down on the right hand of Yahweh. Wherefore, my brethren, who are called with a calling that is from heaven, consider this high priest of our profession, Yeshua the Messiah; because Yahweh has said, "O, if you would but heed my charge this day; do not be stubborn as at Meribah, in the wilderness, when your fathers put me to the test, tried me, though they had seen my deeds.

Forty years I was provoked by that generation; I thought, they are a senseless people; they would not know my ways. Concerning them, I swore in anger, they shall never come to my resting-place!" Beware, therefore, my brethren, lest there be in any of us an evil heart that believes not, and we depart from the living Yahweh; but we need to examine ourselves all the days, during the day which is called today; and let none of us be hardened, through the deceitfulness of sin; for we have part with the Messiah, if we persevere in this firm confidence, from the beginning to the end; as it was said, "O, if you would but heed my charge this day." Do not harden your hearts to anger Yahweh.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 2:09:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.

Yahweh"s salvation of his people from Egypt, not the Christian sense of personal salvation from sin; that"s anachronistically read back into the Hebrew Bible. It"s not there. Salvation in the Hebrew Bible does not refer to an individual's deliverance from a sinful nature. This is not a concept that is found in the Hebrew Bible. Salvation refers instead, to the concrete, collective, communal salvation from national suffering and oppression, particularly in the form of foreign rule of enslavement. R32;

Israel"s descent to Egypt sets the stage for the rise of a pharaoh, who, didn"t know Joseph, and all that he had done for Egypt. And this new pharaoh will enslave the Israelites, and so embitter their lives, that their cry will rise up to heaven. Yahweh as Israel"s redeemer and savior, is Yahweh"s physical deliverance of the nation from the hands of her foes. But the physical redemption of the Israelites is going to reach its climax in the covenant that will be concluded at Sinai. R32;

Yahweh"s redemption of the Israelites, is a redemption for a purpose, for at Sinai, the Israelites will become Yahweh"s people, bound by a covenant. The covenant concluded at Sinai is referred to as the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant differs radically from the Noahide and the patriarchal covenants, because here Yahweh makes no promises beyond being the patron or protector of Israel; and also, in this covenant, he set terms that require obedience to a variety of laws and commandments. R32;

The Mosaic covenant is neither unilateral, it"s a bilateral covenant, involving mutual, reciprocal obligations, nor is it unconditional like the other two. It is conditional; the first bilateral, conditional covenant. If Israel doesn"t fulfill her oblations by obeying Yahweh"s torah, his instructions, and living in accordance with his will, as expressed in the laws and instruction, then Yahweh will not fulfill his obligation of protection and blessing towards Israel. R32;

So the Mosaic covenant, understanding of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel; the history of Israel will be governed by this one outstanding reality of covenant. Israel"s fortunes will be seen to ride on the degree of its faithfulness to this covenant. The nature of the biblical text, it reflects a range of perceptions about Yahweh and his relation to creation and to Israel. Understanding the making sense of the historical odyssey of the nation of Israel in covenant with Yahweh-that is its concern.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 12:37:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
The Lord: The Hebrew states God"s name, YHVH, meaning according to v.14): "He Will Be." The Lord is actually a translation of "adonai" (lit. "my Lord") because that is what the Israelites now pronounce whenever the consonants YHVH appear. YHVH was probably originally pronounced "Yahweh," but in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Israelites began to avoid uttering it, substituting "adonai" and other surrogates. (As a reminder to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah [I.e., "Yehovah" or the consonants Y-H-V-H with the vowels from "adonai"].)R32;

Paul (Philippians 3:4-6) would have never used Lord in Romans 10:9! Paul would have insisted that a person confess Jesus as Savior, not Jesus as Lord.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 12:46:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Then Yeshua said to him, "Begone, Satan; for it is written, revere only Yahweh, and worship him alone, to him shall you hold fast, and swear only by his name. R32;Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels came, and ministered to him.

Wisdom was in the beginning, and that very wisdom was with God, and God was that wisdom. Wisdom was in the beginning with God. Everything came to be by God"s hand; and without God, not even one thing that was created came to be. The life is in God, that life is the light of men.R32;

Wisdom was indeed in the beginning with God, Proverbs 8:22-26. Wisdom recounts her creation and her presence during the creation of the world. She was the very first of God"s creations. "Created me" wisdom existed from eternity and was coeval with God. Some Christian groups identified wisdom with the Logos, which was in turn identified with The Christ. It is, however clear from v.23 that wisdom is a created being. Wisdom declares that she was present when God produced the inhabited world.
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 12:51:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:21:37 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:18:37 AM, kperry wrote:
At 3/30/2016 4:00:32 AM, newnature wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:50:12 AM, kperry wrote:
: At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.


And I see we are right back to you talking circles.
But that's okay, i'll do my best to make sense of this.

I'm getting that you are an old testament buff, and you believe in oneness. Right?

I know the trinity's history. Defend that three-in-one god teaching right here, but don't question what I am about.

This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.

I'm having to question what you are about because you use John 5:26 for the basis of your statement but don't take verse in its context with the rest of Jesus's words. John 5:19 starts his speech with "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself, he can only do what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life , even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live."
And that my friend is Jesus himself describing the Trinity. I'm failing to understand why you want to argue about this. Jesus is the son of God and he came to earth as a man, was crucified and died and rose again. The Holy Spirit came to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and to Jesus himself at his baptism in the river Jordan.


This is who Jesus Christ himself is. Let"s start with the one thing that will define who God really is? What is eternal life? John 5:26b"For as the Father HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF; so has he given to the son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF. The life Jesus referred to is eternal or everlasting life. R32;

By his declaration and definition, he declared that he himself did not have eternal life at the time he was walking the earth or he was a complete liar! If you truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you have to believe that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. If so, from his own mouth, he declared that only God had eternal life. Christ himself only had the promise of eternal life! R32;

In this context of John 5:2 - 5:47, but beginning in John 5:16, Jesus is going to capitalizing on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in "hades." Jesus made use of this popular belief several other times, not to endorse it, but to impress upon the minds of his hearers of different important lessons. Many of Jesus" hearers had come to believe in a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection, though such a belief is foreign to Scripture. R32;

newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 12:52:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
You see, the Greek word "hades" came into Biblical use when the translators of the Septuagint chose "hades" to render the Hebrew "sheol." The problem is that "hades" was used in the Greek world in a vastly different way than "sheol." In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the underworld, and then the name of the nether world itself. Charon ferried the souls of the dead across the rivers Styx or Acheron into his abode, where the watchdog Cerberus guarded the gate, so that none might escape. The pagan myth contained all the elements of the medieval eschatology: there was the pleasant Elysium, the gloomy and miserable Tartarus, and even the Plains of Asphodel, where ghosts could wander who were suited for neither of the above. R32;

This Greek conception of "hades" influenced Hellenistic Israelites, because of the conscious decision of Alexander the Great. He used what is called "religious syncretism," Alexander took this tendency of syncretism, of mixing together different religious traditions from different places, and he used it as a self-conscious propaganda technique. But what Alexander and his successors did, was they made sort of a conscious, propagandistic decision to use religious syncretism to bind together their kingdoms. R32;

The Hellenistic Israelites adopt the belief in the immortality of the soul and the idea of a spatial separation in the underworld between the righteous and the godless. The souls of the righteous proceeded immediately after death to heavenly felicity, there to await the resurrection, while the souls of the godless went to a place of torment in "hades." When Jesus came on the scene, the current Israelite concept of Hades became a subterraneous region where the light of this world does not shine. This region is allowed as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one"s behavior and manners. R32;

According to Hellenistic Israelites, "hades" is divided into two regions. One is the region of light, where the souls of the righteous dead are brought by angels to the place known as the bosom of Abraham." The second region is in perpetual darkness, and the souls of the ungodly are dragged by force by the angels allotted for punishment. These angels drag the ungodly into the neighborhood of hell itself, so that they can see and feel the heat of the flames, but they are not thrown into hell itself, until after the final judgment. But a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that has compassion upon them, cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it. R32;

Jesus did indeed capitalized on the popular understanding of the condition of the dead in "hades," not to endorse such views, but to drive home the importance of heeding in this present life the teachings of Moses and the prophets, because this determines bliss or misery in the world to come. In John 5:21, the word "quicken" means give life to, which was universally believed by the Israelites. The word "raise" means awake or to rouse up from sleep; the resurrection. R32;

Jesus was explaining that he was given the authority to give the promise of this eternal life to whomever he wished. He was not the source of that eternal life, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. Jesus did not have life in himself, so he could not be the source of that life; however, that being said, he was given the authority to give the promise to whomever he wished. He was not the source, but he was the only way to obtain the life from God himself. This is not semantics, the scriptures make it quite plain to anyone who reads it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 10:37:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.

No argument there. Jehovah will prove to be exactly what he has always claimed to be, the creator and God of all.

We do not know that Moses was ignorant of God's name since, whilst being brought up in Egypt and taught as a son of Pharaoh, he was brought up by his own mother, posing as his nurse. His mother was a Hebrew, and a worshipper of Jehovah so I would be amazed if she had not taught Moses Jehovah's name, though possibly not stressed it's true meaning as you rightly point out.

It must be remembered that in scripture names always carry a meaning, hence Jehovah changed Abram's name to Abraham, and Sarai to Sarah, to give just two examples. In Jehovah's world names are more than mere labels as they are for us.

It should also be stressed that the version of the holy name that any use is language dependent, as is it's transliteration into Romance characters. Thus we can have YHWH, YHVH, JHWH and JHVH as well as IHVH.

Jehovah is nothing more than the accepted English Language version, for English speakers.

Also, we do not actually know with absolute certainty that the vowel pointing are accurate, thus any language version can only be regarded as best guess, if an essential best guess in the light of scriptures such as Joel 2:32 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, just as Jehovah has said,
The survivors whom Jehovah calls."

A passage abut which it has to be remembered both Peter and Paul remind us of at Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13, Paul even going as far as stressing the need for people to be taught the name by those who bear it in truth.

Unfortunately many of the false translators of Christendom have followed Satan's lead and done all they were allowed to do to hide that vital name, since Satan wants none to survive if he can manage it. Especially since by now even he must realise he has lost his challenge Job chapters 1 & 2.

As for different language versions of the divine name:

LIST OF 99 LANGUAGES THAT USE A VERNACULAR FORM OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
CHIHOWA: Choctaw
I"HVE: Portuguese
IEHOUA: Mer
IEHOVA: Gilbertese; Hawaiian; Hiri Motu; Kerewo; Kiwai; Marquesas; Motu; Panaieti (Misima); Rarotongan; Tahitian; Toaripi
IEHOVAN: Saibai
IEOVA: Kuanua; Wedau
IHOVA: Aneityum
IHVH: French
IOVA: Malekula (Kuliviu); Malekula (Pangkumu); Malekula (Uripiv)
JAHOWA: Batak-Toba
JAHU": Chacobo
JAKWE: (Ki)Sukuma
JAHVE: Hungarian
JEHOBA: Kipsigis; Mentawai
JEHOFA: Tswana
JEHOVA: Croatian; German; K"l" (Gabon); Lele (Manus Island); Nandi; Nauruan; Nukuoro
JEHOV": Spanish
JEH"VA: Fang; Tsimihety
JEHOVAH: Dutch; Efik; English; Kalenjin; Malagasy; Narrinyeri; Ojibwa
JEOVA: Kusaie (Kosraean)
JIHOVA: Naga (Angami); Naga (Konyak); Naga (Lotha); Naga (Mao); Naga (Ntenyi); Naga (Sangtam); Rotuman
JIOUA: Mortlock
JIOVA: Fijian
JIWHEY?WHE: Gu (Alada)
SIHOVA: Tongan
UYEHOVA: Zulu
YAHOWA: Thai
YAHVE: Ila
YAVE: Kongo
YAWE: Bobangi; Bolia; Dholuo; Lingala; Mongo (Lolo); (Lo)Ngandu; (Lo)Ntumba; (Ke)Sengele
YEH"A: Awabakal
YEHOFA: Southern Sotho
YEHOVA: Chokwe; Chuana (Tlapi); (Ki)Kalanga; Logo; Luba; Lugbara; (Chi)Luimbi; (Chi)Lunda (Ndembu); (Chi)Luvale; Santo (Hog Harbor); Tiv; Umbundu; (Isi)Xhosa
YEHOVAH: Bube; Mohawk; Nguna (Efate); Nguna (Tongoa)
YEHOWA: Ga; Laotian; (Ki)Songe; Tshiluba
YEKOVA: Zande
YEOBA: Kuba (Inkongo)
YEOHOWA: Korean
YHWH: Hebrew
YOWO: Lomwe
ZAHOVA: Chin (Haka-Lai)

All of which refer to the "God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 1 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 1:3 et al.

Despite Jehovah being Jealous for his name, I am supremely confident that, in the circumstances, he will accept our best efforts to use it.

Exodus 34:You must not bow down to another god, for Jehovah is known for requiring exclusive devotion. Yes, he is a God who requires exclusive devotion.
Exclusive devotion does not mean we cannot give any devotion at all to any one or any thing else, since justice demands devotion is due in proportion to why it is due. However the maximum devotion, and in the final analysis the over-riding devotion must go to Jehovah, and Jehovah alone.

No-one and nothing can or should be put before Jehovah or his requirement. Not even his son.

That do ya?
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 11:20:06 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:39:40 AM, newnature wrote:
My Atheist friends and I are tried of all your out of context versus and your out of context concepts. For starters, I took away your 'I AM'.

Exodus 3:13-14 - Moses said to God, "When I come to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?" And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh." He continued, "Thus shall you say to the Israelites, "Ehyeh sent me to you." "R32;

Not having been raised among his own people, Moses is ignorant of their God"s name and fears he will lack credibility with the Israelites. God"s proper name, disclosed in the verse 15, is YHVH (spelled "yod-heh-vav-heh" in Hebrew; in ancient times the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning: "I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning "My nature will become evident from my actions." R32;

Then God answers Moses" question about what to say to the people: "Tell them: "Ehyeh" ("I Will Be," a shorter form of the explanation) sent me." This explanation derives God"s name from the verb "h-v-h," a variant form of "h-y-h," "to be." Because God is the speaker, he uses the first person form of the verb.

There is no argument disproving it.