Where do you place Lucifer/Satan? [Archive] - Theology Forum

freelight

July 2nd, 2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

The Question

Can Satan / Lucifer (or any other Creation) violate the Will of God?

End Question

We are not talking about "a plan" here.

A plan could be a path which God allows deviation from, providing that, over time, it "comes around" to where God wants mankind to be.

We are not talking about what "might be" here.

What "might be" can be gone away from for a time providing it comes back around to what "will/shall be" at a later time.

What we are talking about is God's WILL. What God wants _now_.

)=========== Hello JoM,...................to your primary question I would say that in time and space - this world of relativity.....it does appear that violations of Gods Will take place.....via the free will liberties that have been bestwed by God himself...upon conscious beings(angel and human). Within the bounderies of the free will grant given to his creatures......certainly it appears...that sin and the mystery of evil abounds as imperfect beings make imperfect decisions guided by selfishness, greed, innate or imposed wickedness, lack of wholeness/love/faithfulness, fear, etc. Humanity is not perfect (yet).

Satan/Lucifer evidently opposed/or opposes Gods Will as he concurrently is inspired by his own wayward or evil will - again....this transpiring within the relative creation world.

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Rephrasing of Question
Can anything in creation go against what God wants to be, NOW, from being NOW?

Oh, and please feel free to state scripture for and against this, also stories which prove/disprove something can/can't defy God's Will/Wants.

)============ In this very moment.......it would appear that indeed some things/beings in creation are going against what 'God wants to be, NOW'.....or what he wills for to be in existence or actuality NOW.
However,....we could also surmise that even though in this world of relativity......this appears to be the case.......ultimately.....Gods Will will prevail as all relativities are swallowed up in the fullness of His absolute Being-ness or Glory. This is also known as the consummation of all things when God is all in all - the state of spiritual perfection or paradise.
So....I would say....that it is more evident in the relative world...where sin thru free will abounds and Gods Will appears thwarted or violated.......but since God in His absoluteness and transcendency is SUPREME......His Will will ultimately be realized, satisifed, done, enjoyed.......in the fullness of the consummation of all things...when all creation (things/beings) are baptized into the fullness of His BEING...when this corruption puts on incorruption, this mortality puts on immortality,etc.
While in the relative mortal world we partake of mortality and its imperfections, defects, sin, etc. But when we become partakers of the divine nature....and become so perfected in divine Love/Christ.....and are changed into immortal beings having the substance of divinity......then......our wills will become one with his....governed wholly by divine Love and inspiration....for our natures will be changed into the same substance (LIGHT) as He IS. The seed of God shall be so germinated and perfected in us...that we can no longer sin...while we are so governed by the spirit of divinity indwelling us.
Sin (all violations/trangessions of divine law/love)......are more apt to be liberal in conditions within and without free will creatures according to their propensity towards evil. IT appears that Gods WIll is being thwarted......but perhaps it really all is within His Will...for he gave free will knowing all its potentialities and possible outcomes. Even so.....HE allows these still holding the supremacy of His Will as ULTIMATE. So...even though I do not understand all the definitives within these coordinates between Creator Will and creature will.........I say that since God is Absolute and Supreme as the Over-Soul and all-pervading SPIRIT of the UNIVERSE.....His Will will ultimately prevail. THis to me is good news! For it inspires me to will to do His Will.....to persist in the face of all evil, struggle, hardship, adversity, etc.....towards the goal and joy of love, loyalty, honor, ethic, truth, wisdom, soul-progress, even sanctification.

After all, Yahshua says that those who DO the will of His Father...shall enter into the Kingdom and enjoy the fruits thereof.
So....ultimately those who choose to value and DO the will of God.....shall enjoy the prize of Gods eternal intention and desires...unto infinity. AS we are perfected in Love...and anchored in the Christ-Spirit......we find that 'all things work together for the (ultimate) good of those who love God...and are called according to His purpose. Again we know it is Gods will that none perish....but because of the grant of free will....some will choose to self-destruct......according to the laws that govern free will constitution and destiny. Even if some souls utlimately choose destruction and come to be as though they did not exist.....all that is of eternal value of each soul is absorbed back into God the Supreme or God the WHOLE.....and the Will of God in the grand universe shall continue to prosper and be the supernal directing force in Existence....as even now it IS. Gods Will is ultimately SUPREME. Creature will has a certain sovereignty concerning its own conditional destiny within the parameters prescribed by God...and it is evident that some will choose extinction of personhood over eternal life. Nevertheless...those who choose eternal survival conform their souls to the Will of God.....for it is the primary directing force or intention underlying all existence.....and alone the upholder and sustainer of eternal life and prosperity of the soul.

paul

keypurr

July 4th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Do you want your children to love you because they HAVE to, or do you want them to love you because they WANT to?

Are we not the children of the creator? Surely we do not do his will all the time, that is why we ask for forgiveness. We have a free will to do or not to do.

JosephofMessiah

July 5th, 2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

So, I guess that you consider Paul, the apostle to be a moron?

No, a liar.

Paul makes the claim that Yehshua thought it not robbery to be equal to God and Yehshua said quite clearly that YHVH (his Father) is greater than him.

Go figure.

But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Vicarious barberic bloodgodism is humorous to me.

The Lord could not join Himself to anyone who was at enmity with Him.

One God who is in all and through all.
We are all created in the image of YHVH.

Because a son/daughter doesn't listen to their Creator/Father, doesn't make them not the son or daughter of that Entity. Obediance is another issue entirely. Funny thing about obediance however, it is better than your mangod's death and bloody murder anyday.

The only ones who could enter into The Holy of Holies were often killed, because of their sins.

Please tell me a reference for this statement.
I know they wore bells upon them in case God's wrath fell upon them, but tell me a location/reference for when it was used.

We are allowed to come boldly to His Throne, because of the grace given to us by Jesus.Jesus' death occurred by His Own choice:

Nice way of making an abomination not an abomination.
Doesn't matter if it was by choice, that has nothing to do with an atoning sacrifice in actuality. However, since Yehshua was neither Priest (not Levite) nor was he sinner (as Christians claim anyways), he cannot offer himself.

Oh, and you can forget about the utter ignorance of Paul's argument in trying to call Yehshua both messiah and priest, such is utter stupidity in totality. Messiah is of Judah, Priest is a Levite.

(snip)
But, since you don't recognize The Father,

I recognize YHVH and his sacrificial law which labels your false mangod an abomination outright. If "YHVH" is this "father" you speak of then I most certainly do.

However, since this "father" you speak of requires the bloody murder of an innocent simply to forgive you against the doctrine of both Ezekiel and Hosea (which simply requires prayer to forgive you), then I would suppose that I do not recognize this barberic and brutal entity of the mythos of Rome as the YHVH of the Tanakh, much more-so this doctrine and this entity is a barberic pagan bloodgod dressed up to make an abominational act seem salvatory to those that do not know the law of YHVH.

...you don't recognize The Son, either.

Well, there are alot of sons out there, and there is no such thing as a "godman" in existence, YHVH told us clearly that He is not in the Earth, nor Heaven's above, nor water's beneath, so it is easy to sum up that this "son" your pagan bloodgod recognizes is a blasphemy (idol) outright and an abominational idol at that, something you worship instead of YHVH. Or (and this is funny) a corruptible upon which they attempted to place the incorruptible, an image respected as the Actual.

It is only possible to have forgiveness through Jesus' Blood.

Far from the lie you are saying here, there is "atonement" (forgiveness is the wrong term in my view) under the prayers of our lips per Hosea, and Ezekiel tells us clearly that "Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Eze 18:27 Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive."

So, you are quite the liar when taken in context of the prophetic voice of the Tanakh. However, if anyone else who is not a pagan bloodgoder wants more reason to not follow this false mangod of Rome, you can read here-in as to why the death of this pagan god is not atoning in any way what-so-ever at this site:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/blood.html

Trampling It under your feet as you do, is one of the greatest sins of this day.

So I call a liar a liar, a barberic murderous act a barberic murderous act, and an entity which requires the murder of an innocent simply to forgive you against the doctrine of Hosea an abomination outright, and you say it is a sin?

You're a joke, and in totality are not worth my time to respond to you anymore and it would do you well to simply not respond to my posts, Pagan.

:doh:

freelight

July 5th, 2004, 11:52 PM

Hi JoM,

Concerning Jesus as a priest - the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus being of the priesthood of Melchizedek, not of the Levitical(Aaronic) priesthood. Therefore......Jesus as he is described in this book is a Priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' and not Levi. He is as the Son of God whose genology cannot be traced...as it is an eternal priesthood. Like Melchizedek,...Jesus is both King and Priest of Salem(peace). So....since Melchizedeks lineage cannot be traced....(unless u know what tribe he was of)....neither does Jesus lineage need to be traced tribally....for this priesthood is eternal. The Melchizedek priesthood predates the Law and the temple sacrafices.

And a Quest-ion >

If one can be forgiven, receive atonement, be restored, purified thru means other than the shedding of blood.....as in humility, prayer, repentance, reform, penance, etc........why was the sacrificial system of all the blood shedding iniated and set up by YHWH in the first place? What does all this blood shedding teach, reveal or affect in ones soul as they offer up such sacrifices? Were they merely physical acts symbolic of certain metaphysical and spiritual laws at work which work out atonement for the soul?
Because it appears that one could bring their offerings to the temple and priest....yet still inwardly have no true repentance or change of heart/mind.
With this in mind.....do you believe the temple sacrifices will be revived when the temple is rebuilt? Will all Jews then be required to receive atonement for their sins (those that apply) thru the temple system?? or only those that choose this way? OR....can one choose and neglect the temple system (if in operation) and just pray and repent...and still have atonement and/or forgiveness of sins?
Thoughts?

paul

godrulz

July 6th, 2004, 12:46 AM

There are 2 main views:

i) blueprint model (Calvinism). God decrees everything (predestination). His will cannot be opposed. Everything, including evil, is in the will of God. He has meticulous control over the universe.

ii) warfare model (Arminian= foreknowledge with freedom; Open Theism= future partially open and unknowable). God is sovereign by providing providential control. He created everything perfect and declared it 'very good.' Angels and man have genuine free will and are able to oppose God's rule to some degree. They cannot overthrow Him. Jesus did not affirm evil as God's will. He came to oppose evil and restore the Kingdom/rule of God in a universe of rebels. There is a cosmic warfare. Satan and man can and do oppose God with their selfishness. This is the price of love, relationship, and freedom. God chose to not be a control-freak with His creation. This introduced the possibility, but not the certainty of evil. The life and ministry of Jesus supports this view. He revealed the way God and the universe really are. Jesus prayed for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, because it was not always being done. He came to destroy the kingdom of darkness and advance His glorious kingdom of light. The kingdom is now, but not yet. His rulership is being restored in our hearts. Someday it will be eschatologically restored with a literal earthly and heavenly kingdom and the banishment of the rebellion of Satan and man.
We messed things up, but God implemented a plan of redemption bringing His in His will without violating the will of those made in His image (will, intellect, emotions, character, etc.). The existence of Satan and hell show that God's will is not always done. It is contrary to His will and holiness and love to have His creatures run and ruin His perfect intention for them. Evil and suffering are not the will of God, yet He works redemptively at all times.

JosephofMessiah

July 6th, 2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by freelight

Hi JoM,

Concerning Jesus as a priest - the writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus being of the priesthood of Melchizedek, not of the Levitical(Aaronic) priesthood.

The author of Hebrews is an easily prooftexted liar. From his lie of "only through blood is remission" to the lie which is the re-writing of the Psalm 40 to his own end, this author is simply mis-using the Tanakh to his own pre-set ends, and doing a very poor job in the end.

Therefore......Jesus as he is described in this book is a Priest 'after the order of Melchizedek' and not Levi.

Then Yehshua is of this "other" priesthood, which is not bound under Levitical offering codes, and therefore the abomination under levitical offering codes which brings atonement does not apply. How wonderful that you can invent a priesthood which will accept an abomination as salvatory outright with but the pressing of pen to paper.

He is as the Son of God whose genology cannot be traced...

Well, I guess you are calling both the author of Matthew (whomever that was) and the author of Luke (whomever that was) liars because they both tried to "trace" the genology of Yehshua of Nazareth but both in totality failed in their attempt at demonstrating messiahship through their lineages. One is easy enough to discount (linking back to Nathan and not Solomon) and the other is even worse off.

Also, for matter of discussion "son of God" means nothing more than the Creator is your father, and YHVH is the creator of all mankind, every single one of us is created in His image, the problem is with obediance. There is no "single" son of God in existence, we are all equal, and one, God is not a respector of persons per the Tanakh.

...as it is an eternal priesthood.

Sorta like the "eternal" priesthood of Mythra.

Like Melchizedek,...Jesus is both King and Priest of Salem(peace).

The messiah will be of the house of Judah and the priests (clearly spoken of in the Tanakh) will be of the levites. One cannot be both at once unless one invents priesthoods from thin air and makes up abominational pagan idolatry sacrifical law so that a human can defacto become atoning "after the fact."

It is inventing law to fit what has happened so you can make a claim after the fact.

So....since Melchizedeks lineage cannot be traced....(unless u know what tribe he was of)....

Heh, not important as this is in totality an invention of a mind which was a liar to begin with...

...neither does Jesus lineage need to be traced tribally...

And with that statement you have ruled out the law of leviticus as not of YHVH and become heretical to an atoning sacrifice, thus you have placed yourself outside the doctrine of the Tanakh, put your faith in a blasphemous mangod of Rome's false church which follows that an outright abomination unto YHVH can be salvatory, and follow a bloodgod, one which requires utter brutality simply to forgive you against what Hosea and Ezekiel teach us.

...for this priesthood is eternal. The Melchizedek priesthood predates the Law and the temple sacrafices.

Means nothing, when the temple exists the law of leviticus stands and the mangod is an abominational offering, an idol, outright.

Without the temple we have the prophetic voice and warnings of Hosea that our prayers shall remove iniquity.

Your mangod is needless butchery in any age, with or without the temple.

And a Quest-ion >

If one can be forgiven, receive atonement, be restored, purified thru means other than the shedding of blood.....as in humility, prayer, repentance, reform, penance, etc...

You mean, as when someone simply brings charity/money instead of blood...

Exodus 30:16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. (KJV)
{I find it especially funny that this is the King James Version.}

Or perhaps under Levitical law itself when a person offers merely flour as a sin offering under the law...

Lev 5:11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering.

The problem with a lie-question, a false question like you presume to assign here-in is it is founded upon a lie, inthat YHVH setup only through blood as a rule for His salvation method, when in fact there are various methods to find atonement under the law itself and under the prophetic voices of the Tanakh (David, Solomon, Ezekiel, and Hosea agree).

.....why was the sacrificial system of all the blood shedding iniated and set up by YHWH in the first place?

So that Israel would never serve the idols of Egypt.

The lamb was a god to Egypt.

God does hold great respect for the offerings of His people who follow His law, but to those that mock His law and attempt to make an abominational idol as Him, and then to say that this idol is salvatory is blasphemy in the greatest degree, a cursory reading of the Levitical law denotes clearly that no human offering is allowed, and YHVH tells us clearly that He is not a man in the Tanakh, that He is not even in the Earth (at least not seen) and yet the doctrine of Christendom turns everything around, from not only canceling out all the methods of salvation offered under the law a part from blood, but also to that of allowing that which is denoted clearly as an abomination and attempts to make it a salvatory/atoning death.

It is ludicris.

What does all this blood shedding teach, reveal or affect in ones soul as they offer up such sacrifices?

I wonder if you mean on a personal level or theological level.

To me a blood offering denotes either you are hungry (the flesh was cooked and eaten) or that you are following the teachings of the law while at the temple on the Day of Atonement.

Since we have not temple, and we have butchers, there is no need for a blood offering in our day, Hosea tells us clearly what to do, and there is absolutely no room for a "mangod's" existence under the doctrine of the Tanakh. I do not mean the Christophiled "Old Testiment" I mean the real Tanakh when translated properly to remove the influences of Rome.

Were they merely physical acts symbolic of certain metaphysical and spiritual laws at work which work out atonement for the soul?

Why complicate matters so much with words which are meaningless.

What is "metaphysical" and why would anything beyond physical matter much anyways?

Any Entity which requires the brutal beating and killing of an innocent anything simply to forgive you is injust, barberic, and not love. It is lacking mercy and truth when you get down to brass tacts and in fact is a lie of the Church of Rome alone. Anyone trusting in this mangod must place their trust not in Yehshua of Nazareth but in the fact that the Church of Rome and the authors of the New Testament were not liars, when it is easily seen that not only is the Church's barberic history easily discovered but the authors of the New Testament are predominant in their misuse, invention, and misquotation of the Tanakh for their own ends.

It is nothing more than a hollow inheritance held to by the ignorant who fear that their barberic bloodgod might not exist if they questioned such an inhumane entity. But dare not act like Abraham and question God, because this doctrine is based upon blind acceptance of creeds and dogmas...which turn mens hearts cold to actual mercy and truth when they hear it.

Original Sin Doctrine screams at the human pysche that it is injustice inherent and people simply must "accept it without question" when Ezekiel teaches the exact opposite doctrine, go figure.

You get a choice in this life, the entity of Rome actually existed I'd stand against it for all time out of principle alone, luckily I have a few good men who claim the entity of rome is of rome's mythos alone, those men are Ezekiel, David, and Hosea.

I also find it funny that an Omniscient Entity had to take His "eternal law" and do a total re-write in order to accept the mangod's death after the fact, such is utter and total tripe when you think about it, hindsight being 20/20 that is.

Because it appears that one could bring their offerings to the temple and priest....yet still inwardly have no true repentance or change of heart/mind.

Yep, and in knowing their hearts they would not have their atonement.
The heart of the sinner was always more important to YHVH than any offering, case in point the premeditated sins of a sinner could not offer a sacrifice for and yet this person could find atonement if they turned from their wickedness and had a heartfelt repentence. Such demonstrates how small a thing blood sacrifice was/is (for sins we did not mean to do, or sins we do not remember) and how powerful true repentence is (even premeditated sin can be cleansed).

With this in mind...do you believe the temple sacrifices will be revived when the temple is rebuilt?

Prophecy says it will.
Which I find funny that the prophetic voice declares clearly that this mangod of Rome is not the final sacrifice while Christianity claims he/it was/is.

Will all Jews then be required to receive atonement for their sins (those that apply) thru the temple system?

They never were required to find atonement through the temple system, the law sets up many paths of atonement separate from the temple.

If you mean the Day of Atonement, then that was "if you are able, then do" but this does not mean that you are condemned if you did not, other methods under the law still stood in place for those people.

...or only those that choose this way?

The Tanakh clearly denotes that blood is not the atonement point. Ninevah is a great example of this, a pagan people forgiven without any sacrifice or covenant whatsoever. However it does go further, Proverbs tells us through mercy and truth is iniquity purged, Christianity is a lie and the murder of a mangod is anything but mercy.

OR....can one choose and neglect the temple system (if in operation) and just pray and repent...and still have atonement and/or forgiveness of sins?

Again, sacrifice is for lesser unplanned or forgotten sins anyways, the premeditated stuff takes prayer, humbling yourself, turning to God, and repentence.

Thoughts?

paul

That should do for now.

erethnereh

July 6th, 2004, 05:41 AM

JoM, what is the tree of life? How can you obtain eternal life without tasting its fruit? What I'm getting to is all atonement has a single source and this source is God and there is one path and this path was guarded by an angel. It's not our works alone that save and atone for our sins but God. Yet if our works are within God, they lead us closer to God.

Aimiel

July 6th, 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Paul makes the claim that Yehshua thought it not robbery to be equal to God and Yehshua said quite clearly that YHVH (his Father) is greater than him.This gospel (Paul's) was written by one who had a relationship with The Holy Ghost. He understood Jesus' Diety, and His Presence, in his life. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal, since they are different aspects of The Same Being: God.One God who is in all and through all. We are all created in the image of YHVH. Because a son/daughter doesn't listen to their Creator/Father, doesn't make them not the son or daughter of that Entity. Obediance is another issue entirely. One is servant to the diety they 'listen to' and the one they obey. You are a perfect example of that.I recognize YHVH and his sacrificial law which labels your false mangod an abomination outright. If "YHVH" is this "father" you speak of then I most certainly do.If, indeed, you did, you would recognize His Son.However, since this "father" you speak of requires the bloody murder of an innocent simply to forgive you against the doctrine of both Ezekiel and Hosea (which simply requires prayer to forgive you), then I would suppose that I do not recognize this barberic and brutal entity of the mythos of Rome as the YHVH of the Tanakh, much more-so this doctrine and this entity is a barberic pagan bloodgod dressed up to make an abominational act seem salvatory to those that do not know the law of YHVH.That merely means that you're not one of the 'many' that Yeshua spoke of: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."Well, there are a lot of sons out there, and there is no such thing as a "godman" in existence, YHVH told us clearly that He is not in the Earth, nor Heaven's above, nor water's beneath, so it is easy to sum up that this "son" your pagan bloodgod recognizes is a blasphemy (idol) outright and an abominational idol at that, something you worship instead of YHVH. Or (and this is funny) a corruptible upon which they attempted to place the incorruptible, an image respected as the Actual.Or, and this is certainly more likely, since you are but a man, and Yeshua is The Son of God, Yeshua's Words are true: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Far from the lie you are saying here, there is "atonement" (forgiveness is the wrong term in my view) under the prayers of our lips per Hosea, and Ezekiel tells us clearly that "Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Eze 18:22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Eze 18:27 Again, when the wicked [man] turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive."You're missing the point of Yeshua's Life, which He described in Luke's Gospel: "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." He preached that The Kingdom, having a relationship with The Father, was now possible. It is only through His Blood that this can take place. If you find that abominable, then so be it.So, you are quite the liar when taken in context of the prophetic voice of the Tanakh. I would rather be in line with The Son of God, and with His explanations of the true meanings of The Old Testament, which are much more likely, and require less ignorance and scripture-twisting than yours.So I call a liar a liar, a barberic murderous act a barberic murderous act, and an entity which requires the murder of an innocent simply to forgive you against the doctrine of Hosea an abomination outright, and you say it is a sin?Yes, defaming The Lord's Plan of Salvation, and making a mockery of The Word of God is blasphemous, and you're 'tempting' God when you do such things.You're a joke, and in totality are not worth my time to respond to you anymore and it would do you well to simply not respond to my posts, Pagan.Simply because your doctrines and dialogues are circular and shallow, I understand why you would not like to be exposed to The Truth (Yeshua). He refutes the things you hold to be true, which are simple mis-understandings, and false premises. If Yeshua is not The Lord, then, yes, I am a pagan, indeed. If, as He claims, He is, then you are.

JosephofMessiah

July 6th, 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by erethnereh

JoM, what is the tree of life?

I suppose you are referencing the tree in the garden.

How can you obtain eternal life without tasting its fruit?

Eternal life in the flesh isn't possible.

Eternal life isn't what we are discussing anyways, we are discussing the location of that life when it takes place at our death. Everyone has eternal life, some of us apply false doctrines which led us to false gods during our mortal lives however.

That process, the worship of idols, false demi-gods (such as a "Satan"), and false doctrines of false churches is what we are discussing in this thread.

What I'm getting to is all atonement has a single source and this source is God...

Source of atonement is God's law through it realizing to us what sin is and how to find atonement under the law.

Separate from the law, we do not know what sin is, and separate from the law there is no means of atonement to the God of Israel.

...and there is one path and this path was guarded by an angel.

That path was back to the garden of Eden.
Nice story.

It's not our works alone that save and atone for our sins but God.

Faith is a work, so if we are saved by belief in God, we have done a work to be saved.

If we are saved by grace alone and not by belief in something, if truly it is a "gift" then faith nor work means anything, believe what you will.

If the Christian god exists, then you are required to believe upon an idol (mangod) and upon a vicarious butchery atoning death of a mangod for salvation (which is works). And of course the orthodox stance of christendom includes rituals and rites before salvation is gained.

Yet if our works are within God, they lead us closer to God.

Whatever, your mangod is an idol, his death an abomination (with or without a temple)m and violates the Tanakh's codes of atoning sacrifice in every way. Far from being salvatory, such belief systems and dogmas exist only because of barberic false churches and dogmas of barberic unquestioning masses who would rather have bliss than truth.

JosephofMessiah

July 6th, 2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

This gospel (Paul's) was written by one who had a relationship with The Holy Ghost.

This message was written by Paul who mistranslated and/or manipulated the Tanakh to his own ends. This is of course only if you take his "Original Sin Doctrine" as it is stated and do not change it to a "nature" as many attempt to do. This is also true if you simply read his useage of the Tanakh in various instances through misquotation or cutting off the quotation of scripture in order to fit it to his false doctrine.

As prooftext you can read how Yehshua said YHVH was greater than him, and Paul denies what Yehshua says and says that Yehshua is equal to God.

Go figure.

You can also read in Hebrews (but no scholar believes that Paul wrote this text anymore) how this author manipulated the Psalm to his own barberic end.

He understood Jesus' Diety,...

A "square triangle" is not defensible in human terms/concepts.

It is the same as saying "bright darkness" or "square Triangle" or "wet dryness." You do not know what you believe because you cannot articulate it rationally. Your basic concept leads to finite=infinite, something which is outright blasphemy and creates an idol in a man whom you worship as YHVH, who is not in the Earth/seen.

You believe a mystery which is truly an abomination, and you follow that mystery in blasphemy to the actual God which is.

Simple as this, when you take it down to variables, Yehshua was not YHVH.

-Yehshua lacked all knowledge (God has all knowledge).
-Yehshua was contained in a location/flesh (God is Spirit and tells us clearly that He is not in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath).
-Yehshua had (by his own words) no power of his own, only God did the works through him, of his own volition did he nothing. Yehshua says this clearly in "of myself I do nothing..."
-Yehshua also clearly states that there is only one good (God) and corrected a man who labeled him that in the statement "good teacher."
-Yehshua also states that his Father (YHVH) is greater than him. When Yehshua says that he is "one" with the Father it must be understood inthat Yehshua also taught that he was not equal to the Father and the New Testament record teaches us just that and also teaches clearly by what measure they are not equal. In fact, the New Testament tells us that Yehshua is a man ("the man Jesus Christ") and the various contexts denotes exactly how and in what manner Yehshua was not YHVH.

Not only was Yehshua lacking in every single attribute which is attributed to YHVH which allows that YHVH is in fact God, Yehshua's will was directly separate and different from YHVH's will (so much for co-eternal and of one substance/mind) inthat Yehshua proclaimed "take this cup from me...not my will but Thine be done."

Such Trinitarian arguments to get back to thier utter moronic acceptance of the dogma of Trinitarianism is in totality tripe, and spurious when taken in context with a scholarly lesson on the corruption of 1 John 5:7 by the Church (or a scribe who followed the doctrine of the Church) in order to insert a Tri-theism into a document which did not support such a doctrine in the least.

...and His Presence, in his life. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are equal,

You can make statements all day long until you are told to outline how they are equal.

So, by what variable are they equal? That is sorta a dare as I have yet to hear by what variable they are equal. They are not equal in mind, in purpose, in will, in location (omnipresent), nor power per the New Testament teachings, so by what variable would anyone claim that Yehshua is YHVH is beyond anything that can be articulated. It is acceptance of a dogma which is not included even in the New Testament, accepted by those who simply will not question a creed because they have learned it in their youth.

Second, since the Holy Spirit (Shakanah Glory of YHVH) is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient then by what standard do you separate this Entity from the Entity of God itself?

How does this Entity (Holy Spiritual Presence of God) get another "person" and by what is the division told except through utter wordgames? In actuality I am asking you, where is the dividing point between two omnipresent entities? I wonder if you will even clue in to what I am asking, let me try another way...

It is the same as saying,

"there is more than one "A" right here-> "A"

Then you say, no, I see one "A" in quotation marks. There is not "AA," there is "A."

I say, no, you need to understand that the A is composed of another A that has the exact same attributes and is located in the exact same place, and that other A is one and equal to that same A, but it is different. Now, we do not have a variable by which it is different to the single A that you can witness, but of course the other A is there, take our word for it we're good people.

Define the difference between two omnipresent omniscient entities and then I'll listen, until then you are inable to put into words how this "person" is separate from God himself, and in fact the Tanakh represents the Shakanah Glory of God as God Himself. See, it is kinda like when "Steve" enters a room we accept that it is Steve, even though we just have the presence of Steve there. It is not that Steve is one person and the presence of Steve is another person, because there is only One Single Steve.

So the entire wordgames to make YHVH into this three-headed Entity is purely pagan in origin, perhaps from Zorostranism or a type of Persian dualism, but in fact it has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism nor the Tanakh in the least, it is exceedingly a pagan false belief.

For all intent and purpose, there is only one A, and there is only One God. The "division" within God's omniscience perhaps could encompass all knowledge, that of every single creature which has, is, or shall exist, but certainly this knowledge of existence is not limited to a single carpenter's son's single life and death. By being Omniscient, by definition God walks with each of us through life and experiences what we do, but God is not us and we are not Him, but we are in a since One because we share existence together. But the parts do not make the Whole (without us there would still be YHVH), and neither do we sum to His Infinite Nature (we are but a finite part). And also, neither does a single finite entity/man of anything equate to all that YHVH is by definition, it would be a single life, a single perspective, and by definition that is not God. God is all perspective, or as I stated in another thread once, God would have the single objective viewpoint of reality which is not based upon relativity/subjectivity.

All those who claim different are believeing a mystery (something like a square triangle) which they cannot articulate under human terms, and by doing so are holding acceptance of that which they do not understand as their God, and by doing so are utter morons worshiping a square triangle of ignorance and acceptance of a dogma of a given Church simply because that same church told them to, and not because the Tanakh nor the prophets teach us this doctrine.

...since they are different aspects of The Same Being: God.

In other words, "I just keep telling you there is more than one A in the same spot as that same A and you simply won't listen to my creeds. I mean, how hard is it to simply believe because we tell you to?"

One is servant to the diety they 'listen to' and the one they obey.

I'm not servant to anything, anyone, anywhere. Were God to exist or not really affects me little even if I do believe that my existence has provided limited evidence that God does exist is meaningless in the end because evidence is what matters. Also, it seems you are trying to put on your "holier-than-thou" hat in that statement infering that I am of satan because I will not accept your demi-godman's abominational barberic death as a salvatory path of YHVH.

You know what you can do with your mangod and your holier-than-thou attitude.

You are a perfect example of that.

I'm the perfect example of someone who sat down one day and wrote out exactly what he believed on paper, and then questioned it. And once he discovered that he really didn't believe in anything he began to seek (the mystery of Rome is a nothing under human constructs/rationalization) and in seeking I began to listen to the Rabbi which are all over the web and in listening it is amazing what you can learn about the barberic bloodgod of rome and of rome's church with the slightest investigation. It is also amazing to undertake a scholarly approach to the New Testament and the manipulation it has been under over the past centuries by the Church to insert their doctrine into this text.

If, indeed, you did, you would recognize His Son.

Which son?
Yehshua of Nazareth?
Which "Jesus" would that be, the one spoken of by the New Testament doctrine, the one which is historically accurate, or the one which mainstreamism attempts to force upon mankind through creeds and dogmas?

Anyone interested should PM Goose about the Yehshua of Nazareth that he knows of which is historically and theologically accurate.

(snip)
Or, and this is certainly more likely, since you are but a man...

I wonder if you get that you are also but a man, and that all your conclusions are as open to fault as mine are, and that I am merely arguing the point for point creeds of the church of Rome against basic morality and justice, which these creeds fail by any simple measure.

...and Yeshua is The Son of God, Yeshua's Words are true: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Yehshua is the son of God.
So are you, so am I, so is anyone that is born of the Earth according to the Tanakh. We are literally "images of God in flesh." However, obediance is what we are talking about and the terminology "Son of God" is not what we are arguing over here-in. We are arguing over the pagan corruption which is in taking the truthful statement of "Son of God" and generating from that the pagan lie of "God the Son."

Also, anyone with a lick of research in the New Testament OR the Tanakh knows that the text you quote above is a manipulation of Christian translations to make it seem that Yehshua was using "YHVH" (declaring he was God/YHVH in the term "I AM") and anyone with a lick of understanding can find out that YHVH does not mean "I AM" it means "I shall be what I shall be." Therefore in Yehshua claiming that he had pre-existence before his birth (something that the Talmud teaches in fact) is really nothing big, and most certainly the useage of the phrase "I AM" at the end of that sentence means nothing more than "I exist" and second the term "I AM" is a mistranslation of YHVH anyways, it would in fact mean NOTHING to those present if Yehshua would have said such a phrase (as God's name was never "I AM" to the Jews).

So you have yet again failed because you use hack interpretations of the New Testament text which can be defeated in a little over a paragraph of scholarly research.

(snip)
He preached that The Kingdom, having a relationship with The Father, was now possible. It is only through His Blood that this can take place.

You're a liar and are so far from the truth it is humorous to continue this discussion with you, barberic as you are.

If you find that abominable, then so be it.

What I find absolutely hilarious is that you are arguing FOR the existence of an entity which out of one side of his mouth says he is love and out the other is requiring the bloody killing of an innocent to forgive you. Which, by the way, is a direct anti-thetical teaching to YHVH's (read GOD'S) law.

If anything it is very clear that an adversarial entity would wish mankind to follow such a doctrine in ignorance because it does everything that an adversary would want, it creates an idol to be worshiped instead of YHVH (Je-Zeus), it labels injustice (original sin doctrine) as justice so that a further injustice (vicarious atonement) can happen against the entirity of the law of YHVH (God).

By every measure possible it is clear that this entity spoken of by the Orthodox Claim is nothing more than barberic fear of a deviant entity of murder for salvation, who would torture all of humanity who would not listen to him out of sheer delight at cooking them eternally.

God's omnipotent and yet must serve the majority of His creation over to a demi-god fallen angel because a church says so and coddifies a few manipulated and falsely quoted texts?

It is ludicris.

I would rather be in line with The Son of God, and with His explanations of the true meanings of The Old Testament, which are much more likely,

Yehshua said that God is One.
Yehshua said that His Father (YHVH) is greater than him.
Yehshua said that he does nothing of his own, and that his Father does everything through him.
Yehshua declared his will separate and opposite to that of God's will.
Yehshua declared that his followers could be one as he and his Father are one.

How in heck do you get Trinitarianism out of such a text I will never know. Also, how Paul says that Yehshua is equal to God I will never know either, such would contradict Yehshua doctrine in totality.

...and require less ignorance and scripture-twisting than yours.

I dare you to name one single scripture (of the Tanakh) or even a textual quote from the New Testament that I have use out of context or in a "twisting" manner.

That is a direct dare.

Yes, defaming The Lord's Plan of Salvation,

Yehshua's plan of salvation has absolutely nothing to do with the ideology of Rome, in fact the creeds of Rome were not taught by Yehshua at all AND Yehshua spoke of the commandments when the rich man ask the path of salvation. This involves some type of commitment to act right under Yehshua doctrine. However, this would of course be too long of a dicussion under this thread, and would remove this thread away from intended direction, so I will simply say that the creed and path of salvation taught by the church of rome is most certainly not the path of atonement of YHVH, and is in fact the belief upon an idol and an abominational act as salvatory. It is blasphemy outright in totality.

...and making a mockery of The Word of God is blasphemous,

I have not spoken against the word of God, the Tanakh (even if it does have some problems when read critically, seek Skeptic's Annotated Bible for prooftext of this), but I do mock in totality the collected works of Rome's church which are not the word of God but are simply texts which manipulate the Tanakh to preconcieved ends.

I would simply ask you to start a thread upon the book of Matthew if you want some education as to how the author of Matthew (whomever it was) manipulated the history and the holy scriptures to his own end, even in one point inventing a prophecy which did not exist.

...and you're 'tempting' God when you do such things.

Nope, I might anger you in your blasphemous existence to think beyond your enculturation to false dogma of a church of lies, but most certainly what I am telling you is acceptible to God who is TRUTH. The problem is that Christianity doesn't want relative "truth," they want ignorant bliss.

Simply because your doctrines and dialogues are circular and shallow,

I dare you to denote how my doctrine or diaolgue is in any way circular or shallow, in fact that is yet another dare on my part to you.

I understand why you would not like to be exposed to The Truth (Yeshua).

First, your vicarious human atonement barberic bloodgodism is far from "the truth" and is in fact blasphemy, but I guess that is easy enough prooftexted by anyone who has read Ezekiel 18:20 and took it to heart.

He refutes the things you hold to be true,

Nah, the manipulations of Rome are so great that I cannot trust that the words attributed to Yehshua were in fact his, and in fact because of these manipulations I can pretty much denote what is/was the words of Yehshua, and when Yehshua conflicts with the Tanakh it is not his words. Otherwise Yehshua would be a liar.

...which are simple mis-understandings, and false premises.

Name a single misunderstanding or false premise.
Just one, that is another dare.

If Yeshua is not The Lord, then, yes, I am a pagan, indeed.

Yehshua can be a lord, an anointed man even.
Yehshua cannot be (by definition of being a man in the Earth) YHVH.

If, as He claims, He is, then you are.

Yehshua did not claim to be equal to God, those things were attributed to him much later through the evolution of Christian creeds and doctrine centuries after his life. So, since Yehshua did not claim to be YHVH, he is not a liar, but if you find someplace that Yehshua did claim to be God then that phrase is a lie, or Yehshua a liar, for God is not man.

Aimiel

July 7th, 2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

This message was written by Paul who mistranslated and/or manipulated the Tanakh to his own ends. ...

As prooftext you can read how Yehshua said YHVH was greater than him, and Paul denies what Yehshua says and says that Yehshua is equal to God.Yehshua, The One Who came down from The Father, created everything there is, took on the 'form' of flesh, in other words, surrendered His 'Godness' and put on flesh (for a time) making Himself subject to time and space, willfully. It is not that He couldn't make use of His Father's Throne and Authority, it is just that, for our sake, He didn't.You can also read in Hebrews (but no scholar believes that Paul wrote this text anymore) how this author manipulated the Psalm to his own barberic end.So now you're not only throwing out Pauline epistles, but everything that doesn't agree with your 'slant'? Sounds familiar. You do not know what you believe because you cannot articulate it rationally. Your basic concept leads to finite=infinite, something which is outright blasphemy and creates an idol in a man whom you worship as YHVH, who is not in the Earth/seen.Your 'hang-ups' aren't contagious. Because you have problems finding in God the ability to climb into an 'earth-suit' and walk on this planet, doesn't mean that everyone does.You believe a mystery which is truly an abomination, and you follow that mystery in blasphemy to the actual God which is.No, I believe that God has revealed much of His Mystery to me, personally, because I take Him at His Word, and have allowed His Holy Spirit to fill my flesh.Simple as this, when you take it down to variables, Yehshua was not YHVH.They are different 'facets' of The Same Being, much as your body is not your spirit, yet you are the same being.-Yehshua lacked all knowledge (God has all knowledge).Where do you believe that He lacked any knowledge?-Yehshua was contained in a location/flesh (God is Spirit and tells us clearly that He is not in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath).He never said that He would never be in the earth, just that (at the moment that He said such) He wasn't, meaning currently. -Yehshua had (by his own words) no power of his own, only God did the works through him, of his own volition did he nothing. Yehshua says this clearly in "of myself I do nothing..."Would you dare say the same? Do you believe that what Jesus said was true? Do you believe that He did nothing of or for Himself, that it was The Father in Him, doing the works?-Yehshua also clearly states that there is only one good (God) and corrected a man who labeled him that in the statement "good teacher."Was what He said for correction or identification? I believe the latter.-Yehshua also states that his Father (YHVH) is greater than him.Which is also why He told the apostles that where He was going, they could not follow. When Yehshua says that he is "one" with the Father it must be understood inthat Yehshua also taught that he was not equal to the Father and the New Testament record teaches us just that and also teaches clearly by what measure they are not equal.You mean that, "In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God..." only means that God is God, but His Word is not? You're confused. The Word (Yehshua) is God.In fact, the New Testament tells us that Yehshua is a man ("the man Jesus Christ") and the various contexts denotes exactly how and in what manner Yehshua was not YHVH.When you come to an understanding of Him, and come into a relationship with Him, there are many texts which take on entirely new meanings, many of which cannot be mis-understood any more.Not only was Yehshua lacking in every single attribute which is attributed to YHVH which allows that YHVH is in fact God, Yehshua's will was directly separate and different from YHVH's will (so much for co-eternal and of one substance/mind) inthat Yehshua proclaimed "take this cup from me...not my will but Thine be done."Had He given in to the temptation of flesh, then, yes, He would have been less than perfect; but, since He didn't, we see that He was, is and always will be perfectly in obedience and submission to The Father, since they are One in purpose, Spirit and Truth.Such Trinitarian arguments to get back to thier utter moronic acceptance of the dogma of Trinitarianism is in totality tripe, and spurious when taken in context with a scholarly lesson on the corruption of 1 John 5:7 by the Church (or a scribe who followed the doctrine of the Church) in order to insert a Tri-theism into a document which did not support such a doctrine in the least.So you say. I choose to believe The Word of God, and His Spirit's Witness. Jesus is Lord.Second, since the Holy Spirit (Shakanah Glory of YHVH) is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient then by what standard do you separate this Entity from the Entity of God itself?He manifests as He wills, and leads those who are led by Him wherever He wills. He doesn't jump through your 'hoops' of definition and bow to your 'logic.' His Thoughts are higher than yours, as are His Ways. You need to stop trying to 'weigh' the evidence to see what you come up with and seek The One Who wrote The Word, so that you can be more obedient than you have been, and come together with Him, so that you can reason together WITH Him, instead of trying to reason Him away.How does this Entity (Holy Spiritual Presence of God) get another "person" and by what is the division told except through utter wordgames?I believe that God can manifest Himself as Flesh, Spirit, Flame, Cloud, Judge, Lion, Lamb or however He wills. I don't place my pre-conceived limits on Him.In actuality I am asking you, where is the dividing point between two omnipresent entities?Why do you not understand, there is only One God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are our 'perception' of Him.It is the same as saying,

"there is more than one "A" right here-> "A"You mean like the letter, "A," that is on my screen, the one shining on the back of my eyeball and the one that is conceived and understood in my brain?Then you say, no, I see one "A" in quotation marks. There is not "AA," there is "A."You're being silly.I say, no, you need to understand that the A is composed of another A that has the exact same attributes and is located in the exact same place, and that other A is one and equal to that same A, but it is different. Now, we do not have a variable by which it is different to the single A that you can witness, but of course the other A is there, take our word for it we're good people.You're not trying to understand God, you're trying to prove that you're smarter than He is.Define the difference between two omnipresent omniscient entities and then I'll listen, until then you are inable to put into words how this "person" is separate from God himself, and in fact the Tanakh represents the Shakanah Glory of God as God Himself. Just because God is everywhere, and chooses to manifest, as He wills, in flesh or as The Holy Ghost, that doesn't make me think that there are two or three or more Gods; The Lord is One.See, it is kinda like when "Steve" enters a room we accept that it is Steve, even though we just have the presence of Steve there. It is not that Steve is one person and the presence of Steve is another person, because there is only One Single Steve.God is not a man. He took on the form of flesh, so that His Plan of Salvation could be presented. He was / is / always will be God. You're trying to compare Him to man, instead of comparing yourself to Him, and finding that you just don't quite measure up. For all intent and purpose, there is only one A, and there is only One God.Yes, but perception is a tricky thing, isn't it?The "division" within God's omniscience perhaps could encompass all knowledge, that of every single creature which has, is, or shall exist, but certainly this knowledge of existence is not limited to a single carpenter's son's single life and death.Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. He was, is and always will be The Son of God.And also, neither does a single finite entity/man of anything equate to all that YHVH is by definition, it would be a single life, a single perspective, and by definition that is not God. God is all perspective, or as I stated in another thread once, God would have the single objective viewpoint of reality which is not based upon relativity/subjectivity.That is why Jesus was able to say, "Before Abraham was, I Am."All those who claim different are believeing a mystery (something like a square triangle) which they cannot articulate under human terms, and by doing so are holding acceptance of that which they do not understand as their God, and by doing so are utter morons worshiping a square triangle of ignorance and acceptance of a dogma of a given Church simply because that same church told them to, and not because the Tanakh nor the prophets teach us this doctrine.The Word teaches us that our ways are not His Ways, that His Ways are past finding out, and yet you believe that you can define His Ways and limit Him with your finite 'understanding'.I'm not servant to anything, anyone, anywhere.You're a slave to your own 'reasoning' which is outside of God's instructions, since He said, "Come, let us reason together." His Holy Spirit is available to you, and He can reason together with you, and bring you to The Throne of Grace, but you refuse.Were God to exist or not really affects me little even if I do believe that my existence has provided limited evidence that God does exist is meaningless in the end because evidence is what matters.No, faith is. He rewards those that diligently seek Him.Also, it seems you are trying to put on your "holier-than-thou" hat in that statement infering that I am of satan because I will not accept your demi-godman's abominational barberic death as a salvatory path of YHVH.I hate the 'holier-than-thou' spirit, almost as much as God does. I apologize, if you were offended by my speech, and I'll be, perhaps, more pointed in my comments in the future. The spirit that makes use of those who are not led by The Spirit of The Lord is demonic, and their only 'outlet' or voice in this earth is the voice of those that will yield their members to their thoughts and make their doctrine known. If you don't allow yourself to be led by The Spirit of The Lord, you're led by the spirit of the enemy, whether you know it or not.I'm the perfect example of someone who sat down one day and wrote out exactly what he believed on paper, and then questioned it.Maybe you should seek God for answers, believing that He exists, instead of seeking words on paper, and crowning your own reasoning as king of your little world.It is also amazing to undertake a scholarly approach to the New Testament and the manipulation it has been under over the past centuries by the Church to insert their doctrine into this text.It's even more amazing to see someone who bows down to his own intellect as his god. I wonder if you get that you are also but a man, and that all your conclusions are as open to fault as mine are, and that I am merely arguing the point for point creeds of the church of Rome against basic morality and justice, which these creeds fail by any simple measure.Yup, sure do.So are you, so am I, so is anyone that is born of the Earth according to the Tanakh.Yehshua is The Onlybegotton of The Father. We are adopted.Also, anyone with a lick of research in the New Testament OR the Tanakh knows that the text you quote above is a manipulation of Christian translations to make it seem that Yehshua was using "YHVH" (declaring he was God/YHVH in the term "I AM") and anyone with a lick of understanding can find out that YHVH does not mean "I AM" it means "I shall be what I shall be." So, when Jesus said, "I Am," and the whole troop of soldiers went backwards and fell down, it was just because they were clumsy?Therefore in Yehshua claiming that he had pre-existence before his birth (something that the Talmud teaches in fact) is really nothing big, and most certainly the useage of the phrase "I AM" at the end of that sentence means nothing more than "I exist" and second the term "I AM" is a mistranslation of YHVH anyways, it would in fact mean NOTHING to those present if Yehshua would have said such a phrase (as God's name was never "I AM" to the Jews).You're making no sense. Jesus saying, "I Am," was clearly because He is I Am. He wasn't saying that He existed the way that everyone existed (in God's thoughts) but that He was, is and always will be The I Am.So you have yet again failed because you use hack interpretations of the New Testament text which can be defeated in a little over a paragraph of scholarly research.Again, you worship your 'knowledge' and not The One True God.You're a liar and are so far from the truth it is humorous to continue this discussion with you, barberic as you are.Where have I lied? One. Name one lie that you have 'caught' me in. Just one. If you can't, then kindly retract your accusation.What I find absolutely hilarious is that you are arguing FOR the existence of an entity which out of one side of his mouth says he is love and out the other is requiring the bloody killing of an innocent to forgive you. Which, by the way, is a direct anti-thetical teaching to YHVH's (read GOD'S) law.His Love could not have been demonstrated any better way, than to give His Own Son's Life up, in exchange for our death-sentence for being sinners.If anything it is very clear that an adversarial entity would wish mankind to follow such a doctrine in ignorance because it does everything that an adversary would want, it creates an idol to be worshiped instead of YHVH (Je-Zeus), it labels injustice (original sin doctrine) as justice so that a further injustice (vicarious atonement) can happen against the entirity of the law of YHVH (God).Since All Power in Heaven and in earth is given to Yehshua, then, in your little world, the devil is now God.By every measure possible it is clear that this entity spoken of by the Orthodox Claim is nothing more than barberic fear of a deviant entity of murder for salvation, who would torture all of humanity who would not listen to him out of sheer delight at cooking them eternally.It is not His Will, but men are rebellious, as was their father, Satan.God's omnipotent and yet must serve the majority of His creation over to a demi-god fallen angel because a church says so and coddifies a few manipulated and falsely quoted texts?The Word is not based on a few scriptures, but on all of them.Yehshua said that God is One.He is.Yehshua said that His Father (YHVH) is greater than him.

He was in this earth, under the covenants which God had with men, at the time. Yehshua said that he does nothing of his own, and that his Father does everything through him.Amen.Yehshua declared his will separate and opposite to that of God's will.No, He gave voice to the will of His Flesh, that of His Carnal Nature, but did not give in to it, since He was resistant to it. All other men have failed, at least once, since we are all sinners. He never sinned.Yehshua declared that his followers could be one as he and his Father are one.Yes, we can be, with one another. We are, in spirit, and, one day, in Truth. When The Body of Christ matures, you will see many miraculous things done by Her (His Body).How in heck do you get Trinitarianism out of such a text I will never know.God knows how to reveal His Truths, even if you refuse to see them.Also, how Paul says that Yehshua is equal to God I will never know either, such would contradict Yehshua doctrine in totality.How do you mean?I dare you to name one single scripture (of the Tanakh) or even a textual quote from the New Testament that I have use out of context or in a "twisting" manner.Well, it would be easier to list those which you have understanding of.

{crickets chirping}

OK, I'm done.Yehshua's plan of salvation has absolutely nothing to do with the ideology of Rome, in fact the creeds of Rome were not taught by Yehshua at all AND Yehshua spoke of the commandments when the rich man ask the path of salvation. This involves some type of commitment to act right under Yehshua doctrine. However, this would of course be too long of a dicussion under this thread, and would remove this thread away from intended direction, so I will simply say that the creed and path of salvation taught by the church of rome is most certainly not the path of atonement of YHVH, and is in fact the belief upon an idol and an abominational act as salvatory. It is blasphemy outright in totality.In blasphemy of your 'concept' of God, yes. You conceive Him as less than Who He really is.I have not spoken against the word of God, the Tanakh (even if it does have some problems when read critically, seek Skeptic's Annotated Bible for prooftext of this), but I do mock in totality the collected works of Rome's church which are not the word of God but are simply texts which manipulate the Tanakh to preconcieved ends.God's 'ends' are not yet made clear, and you don't know what they are, any more than I do. He works all things together for good, to them that love Him, and are called according to His Purposes.I would simply ask you to start a thread upon the book of Matthew if you want some education as to how the author of Matthew (whomever it was) manipulated the history and the holy scriptures to his own end, even in one point inventing a prophecy which did not exist.I have spoken prophecy, stand in the office of the prophet, and yet don't think that I know every prophecy ever spoken. When you claim that a prophecy is not from God, you need to be careful what you say, and be led of The Spirit of The Lord, lest you make the mistake which many have, and find yourself fighting against Him.Nope, I might anger you in your blasphemous existence to think beyond your enculturation to false dogma of a church of lies, but most certainly what I am telling you is acceptible to God who is TRUTH. The problem is that Christianity doesn't want relative "truth," they want ignorant bliss.I believe in The Sprit of Truth, Who lives inside of me. I have more experience in hearing His Voice, trusting Him, and reasoning together with Him, than I do with you. I have to side with Him. He never lies.I dare you to denote how my doctrine or diaolgue is in any way circular or shallow, in fact that is yet another dare on my part to you.I believe that I have, already. You don't allow your idea of God to include the possibility that He could have been flesh, and so, your idea is not large enough to cover God.Nah, the manipulations of Rome are so great that I cannot trust that the words attributed to Yehshua were in fact his, and in fact because of these manipulations I can pretty much denote what is/was the words of Yehshua, and when Yehshua conflicts with the Tanakh it is not his words. Otherwise Yehshua would be a liar.If He didn't line up with The Word of God, He would be a liar. He is not, because He is The Word of God, in The Flesh.Name a single misunderstanding or false premise.
Just one, that is another dare.Bloodgodism.Yehshua can be a lord, an anointed man even.
Yehshua cannot be (by definition of being a man in the Earth) YHVH.He is The Son of God.Yehshua did not claim to be equal to God, those things were attributed to him much later through the evolution of Christian creeds and doctrine centuries after his life.He didn't want people to know His Stature, because He didn't want men to bow to Him out of fear. He came to demonstrate His Father's Love for us, to cause us to come to Him out of a heart of love, which is Him moving upon us.

JosephofMessiah

July 7th, 2004, 09:57 PM

I hope to make this much shorter than it was...here goes nothing...

Originally posted by Aimiel

(snip)
So now you're not only throwing out Pauline epistles, but everything that doesn't agree with your 'slant'?

I'm merely quoting the Tanakh and how Paul et al's (your) doctrine is in blasphemy to it, most certainly it is not my personal slant more-so than the ideology and theological set of modern day Rabbi (plr useage).

Because you have problems finding in God the ability to climb into an 'earth-suit' and walk on this planet, doesn't mean that everyone does.

If YHVH is in the Earth, then YHVH would then be a liar, for YHVH told us He is not in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor waters beneath nor mortal.

So, again, God did not take upon Himself flesh as we are the images of God in flesh. All of mankind created in His image, not just a premeditated select few that follow a false abomination and idol.

Also, Omniscience would by default contain all knowledge of every single lifeform that has, is, or will exist, not just one man.

No, I believe that God has revealed much of His Mystery to me, personally, because I take Him at His Word, and have allowed His Holy Spirit to fill my flesh.

And by what measure do you claim to know what is and is not God's word? At least admit that the democratically created works of Rome's Church might not be the work of YHVH, for it in totality changes the law of sacrifice (dismisses it) and in totality takes that which was once an abomination (human pagan sacrifice without priest or temple upon a cross) and attempts to define it as salvatory.

I mean, even in context of myself I admit that it is in totality a guess at what is and is not the Word of God, for unless a man is in fact inspired by God, that man does not know what is of God (and even an inspired man would not know whether it was God or another which spoke to him).

I realize you have claimed at other points to be a prophet of this mangod, and all I can say to that is so be it, mental disease asside for a moment (which is of course a possibility) there is no way for you to personally know if what has revealed itself to you is in fact YHVH, God, or another and anything telling you different is delusional on your part.

When God spoke to Abraham to kill his child, there was in fact no way that Abraham knew it was the voice of God, that is why Abraham questioned God all the way through it.

That is also why Abraham questioned God when He came to him and told him that He was about to destroy S&G.

They are different 'facets' of The Same Being, much as your body is not your spirit, yet you are the same being.

In fact we are all an image of God in spirit. I do not deny that a man can have God's Spirit in him as per my belief God is omnipresent and in all and through all.

But neither is one man all that God is by definition AND by the doctrine of the New Testament AND by the words of Yehshua of Nazareth ("my Father is greater than I"), neither is one man the lone son of God.

Where do you believe that He lacked any knowledge?

Too easy, you really make this too easy.

Mar 13:32 But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

He never said that He would never be in the earth, just that (at the moment that He said such) He wasn't, meaning currently.

I guess you do not realize that God is without change under Jewish doctrine? Perfection does not change to imperfection and by definition that is all that perfection would have to change into.

(snip)
You need to stop trying to 'weigh' the evidence...

If a man does not question that which is a lie, then he would (much like you are pagan) be servant to a hollow lie.

(snip)
I believe that God can manifest Himself as Flesh, Spirit, Flame, Cloud, Judge, Lion, Lamb or however He wills.

Funny thing, so do I.

But those manifestations are not God by definition, they are representations of Him that is not seen.

God is not a man.

That is the entire blasphemy to your own code/ideology.
How you could type that with a straight face is utter ignorance to the doctrine of Rome which teaches that a mangod exists.

Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph.

Then he was not messiah of the Tanakh, the house does not pass through the lineage of the mother.

He was, is and always will be The Son of God.

He is a son of God by being human.
There is no such thing is "God the Son" in existence, even was never will be. God told us long ago that our ways are NOT His ways.

That is why Jesus was able to say, "Before Abraham was, I Am."

I already told you that this is a manipulation done by CHRISTIAN translators to attempt to allude to the useage of the YHVH name of God in the end, when in fact the "I AM" is a false translation/manipulation and YHVH does not mean "I AM."

In essence, you repeating this ignorance weakens your argument all the more as to how upon ignorance it is based.

The Word teaches us that our ways are not His Ways,

We are mortal and God is not.
About time you GET that through your thick head.

I hate the 'holier-than-thou' spirit, almost as much as God does.

You are the epitomey of that "spirit."

So locked into the lies of the church of rome and this false godman that you will not answer the direct statements that I make about the NT's false doctrine and misuse of the Tanakh.

(snip)
It's even more amazing to see someone who bows down to his own intellect as his god.

What more does a man have than his knowledge base as to make a just and reasonable decision?

Are you suggesting that you have a means by which you make decisions which is not based upon your utterly and in totaity stupid insipid arguments based upon the doctrine of Rome's false church and false blasphemous texts?

The rest is just an attempt at indoctrination. Utter stupidity as far as I am concerned.

godrulz

July 7th, 2004, 11:01 PM

JOM: I used to ask what group or writings you identify with. I never did get a straight answer, but was able to find a website with your religion/beliefs.

Refresh my memory what group you are with and their website.

I am an evangelical, Protestant, Pentecostal Christian (I have nothing to hide. How about you? It helps us understand your unique ideas).

JosephofMessiah

July 8th, 2004, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

JOM: I used to ask what group or writings you identify with.

I answered as to the best of my memory.

I never did get a straight answer,

Now now, I give what is asked for to the best of my ability.

...but was able to find a website with your religion/beliefs.

What website was that?

Refresh my memory what group you are with and their website.

1. Not with any "group."
2. Not with any particular "web site."

I quote from various sources and visit (when I feel like it) various churches.

I am an evangelical, Protestant, Pentecostal Christian (I have nothing to hide. How about you? It helps us understand your unique ideas).

1. I am a Buddhism Jew-ish open-minded questioner of barberic ideologies.
2. I am very closely linked to the teachings of many Rabbi but I take a critical viewpoint on anyone claiming any particular text as infallible.
3. I believe Trinitarianism is a sickness of injustice, a type of plague upon the human pysche which children are brainwashed to accept without question. I teach against Original Sin Doctrine (quote Ezekiel 18:20 against that doctrine). I teach against the various misuses of the Tanakh by the New Testament authors (whomever they were). And I teach against any form of atonement which is a violation to the levitical code of offering outright.

I believe God is One, Spiritual, Not Mortal, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent. I believe that even the evil of our world has purpose in the end (as did when Joseph of the coat of many colors was thrown into the well by his own brothers, such evil was what brought about the salvation of all of Egypt and his family) even if that momentary evil is not realized as useful to hedonistic man.

I believe that all spirits/messengers are from God for purpose. The Tanakh teaches that even "evil" (relative to human viewpoint alone) spirits are sent by the LORD. Even the messenger known as Satan was commanded by, limited by, and created by God according to the Tanakh scripture. I believe the Christian Orthodox viewpoint of Satan to be blasphemous (it give authority to Satan, which is labeled a fallen angel which would make God an imperfect Creator).

I believe that God set before mankind both the life and death, good and evil but that we are to a great extent the products of enculturation, indoctrination, genetics, and nurturing. (Nurture/Nature.) I do not accept the term "free will" until someone tells us by what that will/choice is free of. Is it free from environmental impact, educational impact, or other? If a variable is not found by which our will is free of, then defacto the term "free will" is meaningless. I have yet to hear by what variable our will is in fact free of in every instance I have asked this.

I believe the early teachings of Yehshua of Nazareth are of the teachings of Hillel. In fact it is believed that Yehshua was a student of Hillel and that the Golden Rule as well as other teachings which history has said are of Yehshua were in fact of Hillel's school and his teachings. I do not accept that a finite is equal to a God which claimed to not be finite/mortal. Nor do I accept that a man who claims to be limited in mind, body, and power and denies equality to God (my Father is greater than I) is equal to God in any measureable way. To claim such is to make a meaningless argument which is not defensible.

I believe that the levitical law (which was in place during Yehshua's life due to a temple existing) would decree that in every single way to offer a human upon a cross is barberic and blasphemous to God and not atoning/salvatory in any way.

I believe that the genealogical records of Yehshua are exceeding poor if they are trying to lay claim to messiahship according to the Tanakh's proviso's.

I believe that the New Testament, far from agreeing upon whom Yehshua is/was, disagrees at various points. One labels Yehshua directly as a man ("the man Christ Jesus") while another says things which hint that he believed Yehshua to be God ("Word was God"). I do not accept that this document in any place denotes that the holy spirit is separate from God Himself, how would one go about arguing the separation point between two omnipresent entities anyways?

I especially do not accept that the texts Rome collected are infallible. An EASILY prooftexted example is the textual history of 1 John 5:7 which even Christian scholars have removed from the text.

I believe that Paul's message is exceedingly different from Yehshua's/Hillel's message in totality.

I believe that either through historical error, scribal error, or other, that even the Tanakh contains errors from that which the prophets heard from God. Anyone reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible who can believe it is without error is delusional.

I believe that the Church's history of barberic actions and suppression of scientific relative truths denotes exactly what and of whom it is of.

I believe that the Creator (be it mindless fusion system of our solar system or Sentient All Powerful Being) gave us the ability to question so that we would not be servant to false mangod's and false churches, so that we would not be sitting in a church in simple ignorance and acceptance that the Earth is upon Pillars and the center of the universe, was created in six 24hr periods, and that we must take part in a cannibalistic rite in order to have salvation.

I believe that Yehshua was a man, a son of God, an image of God in flesh, but so is any other man born on the Earth by definition of being of Adam.

I believe it was a pagan lie adopted by the Early Church, a form of Persian dualism (trinity vs. satan), which allowed that Yehshua was "God the Son." I also believe the entire "virgin birth, Son of God, died, resurrected," story is pagan in origin in totality. At least it is certain that the Tanakh does not speak of a virgin giving birth and neither does the Tanakh speak of a mangod's existence ever taking place (in fact such a belief is heretical to the teachings of the Tanakh).

I believe that the lie which is the Christian Orthodox "hell" was created along with the lie/mythos which is the fallen demi-angel god which guards and commands it. A manipulation/mistranslation of Isaiah's morning star reference. Temporal sin generating eternal punishment cannot be justified unless you are a philosophical moron.

I believe that there is nothing standing between God and man except ignorance. (My people perish from lack of knowledge.)

I think the author of Hebrews (whomever he was) is the easiest of the New Testament authors to disprove as a liar and manipulator of the Tanakh. So easy it pains me to even bring it up again.

I believe that Omniscience by definition would contain all knowledge of all life, that which has been, is, or shall be. And by definition would not carry with it only the perspective of a single carpenter's son's death upon a cross but the perspective of any lifeform which has, is, or shall exist within the Omniscience. By default, whatever we have done to anyone we have done unto Omniscience.

I think it illogical that a person being temporarily tortured upon a cross for a few hours and then coming back from death would be a greater payment then a few million years in a hell, aflame and tortured as the Othodox claim. And to claim such is utter philosophical ignorance.

I find it extremely funny that Yehshua of Nazareth is called the "morning star" in Revelation and that this might be a hint.

I teach that YHVH is personal to those that seek Him, and impersonal to those that do not. So far from accepting the "personal God" of Orthodox claim, I teach that God is relative to His peoples' perspective of Him (also perhaps a reason for conflicting religions, human subjectivity).

Whew, any questions?

Aimiel

July 8th, 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

At least admit that the democratically created works of Rome's Church might not be the work of YHVH, for it in totality changes the law of sacrifice (dismisses it) and in totality takes that which was once an abomination (human pagan sacrifice without priest or temple upon a cross) and attempts to define it as salvatory.The death of Yehshua was due to the request of the High Priest. He, Himself, was, is and always will be The Temple. Rome did not invent salvation, by grace through faith in The Only Begotton of The Father, God did. I mean, even in context of myself I admit that it is in totality a guess at what is and is not the Word of God, for unless a man is in fact inspired by God, that man does not know what is of God (and even an inspired man would not know whether it was God or another which spoke to him).That is due entirely to the fact that The Holy Spirit is not able to communicate with someone who is at odds with The Word of God, as you are, since you are still at enmity with Him.I realize you have claimed at other points to be a prophet of this mangod, and all I can say to that is so be it, mental disease asside for a moment (which is of course a possibility) there is no way for you to personally know if what has revealed itself to you is in fact YHVH, God, or another and anything telling you different is delusional on your part.

When God spoke to Abraham to kill his child, there was in fact no way that Abraham knew it was the voice of God, that is why Abraham questioned God all the way through it.

That is also why Abraham questioned God when He came to him and told him that He was about to destroy S&G.You bring up an excellent point. Who (according to your belief) was Abraham speaking to, and feeding, on His way to Sodom and Gommorah?I guess you do not realize that God is without change under Jewish doctrine? Perfection does not change to imperfection and by definition that is all that perfection would have to change into.Yehshua was not imperfect. He was God, in the flesh, but walked as a man, under the covenants which God made with men, fulfilling them, and cut The Greatest Covenant in Gethsemene, the night before He yielded to the terms of that covenant.If a man does not question that which is a lie, then he would (much like you are pagan) be servant to a hollow lie.I didn't say you shouldn't question that which you 'think' or 'know,' but that you've elevated what you think that you know to a point where you allow it pre-eminence above The Lord.Then he was not messiah of the Tanakh, the house does not pass through the lineage of the mother.So The Seed which came from The Lord (The Root of David, in fact also The Root of Abraham, indeed even Adam) counts (in your little mind) as nothing? Nothing? Yehshua inherited His Father's Throne, by birth, even though He had it from eternity.He is a son of God by being human.But He is The Only Begotton Son of God by Conception.We are mortal and God is not.If He chose to lay down His Life, can you stop Him, are you greater than Him?What more does a man have than his knowledge base as to make a just and reasonable decision?

Are you suggesting that you have a means by which you make decisions which is not based upon your utterly and in totaity stupid insipid arguments based upon the doctrine of Rome's false church and false blasphemous texts?No, I'm not just suggesting, I'm telling you that we have that which you desire, without even knowing that it is available to you. We have The Inward Witness of The Holy Ghost. We have A More Sure Word of Prophecy than any eyewitness account to The Voice which was heard on The Holy Mount:
"And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

We don't follow cleverly devised fables of men who study and think that they know something. We follow The Living God, who loves all of His Sons and desires that they come to Him. The only way that they can do so is through The One and Only Begotton Son, Yehshua. Otherwise they are just following their own 'knowledge' and not getting their full inheritance.

godrulz

July 8th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Thank you JOM for an elaboration of what you believe (syncretism). It is appreciated.

Are these beliefs unique to yourself? It seems it does not really matter what any of us believe; we will be OK in the end.

It is clear that you are outside biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. This probably does not bother you since you have dismissed Christianity as corrupted. I do feel that the Deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection of Christ are salvific issues.

The one thing I agree with you on is that the Augustinian 'original sin' doctrine is not true. I am a minority among evangelicals on this point.

The Christian understanding is that the Messiah is the God-Man (Is. 9:6; 10:21). In the incarnation, He is one person with two natures (100% Deity; 100% humanity). He is unique. This is why some verses correctly say He is God, and others correctly show that He is a man. He is both the Son of Man and the Son of God.

I disagree with your understanding of Satan and evil. God is a perfect Creator. He did not make Satan or evil. God chose to make a universe with the possibility of love, relationship, and righteousness. Inherent to genuine freedom (which you deny), is the equal possibility of evil. Lucifer and Adam were perfect until THEY volitionally rebelled against God. This is the type of universe God made. The alternative would be to excise love, relationship, and freedom and make robotic creatures that had to follow Him with no possibility of disobedience.

I am grieved at your bizarre views that do not have the authority of the Word of God. We pray that your eyes will be opened to your deception.

JosephofMessiah

July 9th, 2004, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Thank you JOM for an elaboration of what you believe (syncretism).

For anyone that doesn't know I want to stress the definition of this absolute lie you have attempted to place my beliefs under...

www.dictionary.com
synÂ·creÂ·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkr-tzm, sn-)
n.
Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.
Linguistics. The merging of two or more originally different inflectional forms.

So while you have attempted to label my beliefs as syncretic, your utter stupidity to the fact that Chrisitanity is by far the most syncretic of all religions on the face of this planet is utterly humorous. Christianity evolved from God is One and Yehshua as a man to the pagan abomination which is now taught in the Orthodox, that of a godman who must be butchered by the requirements of a bloodgod in order for anyone to have salvation. This virgin birthed mangod who comes back to life and saves only those who believe upon him is a copycat of many of the mystery religions of Rome, and in fact is a syncretic belief system which adopted many of the rituals and symbols of the pagans.

It moved away from the commandments of God (no images) and councils voted under the guidance of a pagan ruler to allow these blasphemies to exist in their churches. Not this alone as if that is enough to demonstrate the utter stupidity which is your claim, but the adoption of basic cannibalism inthat anyone who wishes to be saved under this unholy church must eat the body and drink the blood of this mangod in order to find salvation. Such barberic mindedness is hillarious that you can believe upon such utter evil and then below think to call/label my beliefs inwhich simply prayer can remove iniquity as bizzare when in fact it is your muder for salvation and drinking of human blood which is in fact utterly and in totality abominational to God, you Pagan idolator.

Judaism is not syncretic, neither are my viewpoints, and that you would wish to apply a term which is used in scholarly theological circles to describe the Christian faith and rituals and symbols is utter hillarity to myself personally.

(snip)
Are these beliefs unique to yourself?

No, many "secular" Rabbi (less conservative Rabbi) share many of my viewpoints.

It seems it does not really matter what any of us believe; we will be OK in the end.

Since the manipulation of Rome's church invented a demi-fallen angel god which rules the under-world through the mistranslation of Isaiah's morningstar reference, and since Yehshua of Nazareth is labeled as the morning star in Revelations, either Yehshua of Nazareth is the evil one or the doctrine which labels the morning star as an evil entity is a lie. Pick one. You can't say that the morning star of Isaiah is the "evil one" and then claim that when Yehshua of Nazareth is labeled as the morning star in Revelation it is not making him evil, to do such is to be lacking in internal co-herency.

It is clear that you are outside biblical,...

Does this "Bible" you speak of contain the collected and in great blasphemy, democratically voted upon works/texts of Rome's church?

Does this "Bible" you speak of have the correct Tanakh or the Christianized manipulations of Rome as it's foundation?

It is important to note that the Tanakh agrees with everything I have said, and that the collected works of Rome do not. It is also important to note that you are relying upon a democratical system of men and a politically minded institution/church in order to tell you what is of God.

You do not know what actually is the Tanakh because you wish to live in ignorance and not seek theologically and historically. And therefore it is hillarious that you would continue on below to say what you do...

...historical, orthodox Christianity.

Anyone who learns the real history of Christian doctrine (roots, foundational beliefs, the teachings of Yehshua prior to Paul, and such) returns to the Jewishness which was the foundation it was set upon. And they reject the lies which was the syncretic take-up by the church in the centuries after, they also reject that a finite is the Infinite One by definition, or that YHVH, Who is One, is divided in any way what-so-ever. Even Yehshua proclaimed that God is One.

Historically, and scholarly, the manipulations of the New Testament when investigated remove faith in a "trinity" (due to texts such as 1 John 5:7 being removed and the baptismal blessing being an implant) and move us back to God is One as it should be. It is those who would live in ignorant bliss to actual investigation which would maintain their blind faith in a hollow lie because they fear what questioning that lie would bring.

(snip)
I do feel that the Deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection of Christ are salvific issues.

It is not about "feeling."

It is about historical, theological, textual, and scholarly evidence driven ideas which are developed with critical investigation so that we will not be misled to worship that which is not God as God.

Your feeling and emotions are much like the prophets of BAAL had, when they "felt" like they were servant to the real God, and when in fact because they did not seek beyond their hollow enculturation and barberic bloodgod they did not know the One Who Is God.

The one thing I agree with you on is that the Augustinian 'original sin' doctrine is not true. I am a minority among evangelicals on this point.

Without the "Original Sin Doctrine" any child is without sin and could be an offering. Were it not for "Original Sin Doctrine" then you have taken the pagan idea of human offering and returned it to the purest form of Magog. Inthat any innocent child (because without Original Sin upon them they would be innocent) could be atonement. Paul was right to argue for this belief in his doctrine or the utter chaos of child offerings would have returned to the Chriistian church.

That is why when I hear morons say that accept the human blood offering as salvatory, but reject Original Sin Doctrine as "not just" that it pains me to hear it, for it is these minds who worshiped Magog and sent their innocent children into the flames for him.

Since Paul taught Original Sin Doctrine against Ezekiel's justice (18:20) it is clear that Paul did not wish the Church to return to the teachings of Magog, however, without the theological "block" to tarnish all children under the sin of Adam, any child would do on a philosophical level. That is why the Original Sin Doctrine is required for Christianity to maintain any meaning what-so-ever. Without Original Sin Doctrine, Yehshua specifically did not have to die, it could have been any innocent child's death.

So when you discount a portion of this doctrine as "injustice" I find it absolutely hilliarious that you can hold on to the other part which is the more pagan/barberic part, inthat the god you follow required the bloody murder of an innocent simply to forgive you. And that to be saved you much cannibalize this entity known as a mangod in order to cleanse your sins. It does not get more henious, disgusting, and sick than this.

The Christian understanding is that the Messiah is the God-Man (Is. 9:6; 10:21).

Isaiah 9:6 is a verse which many Christian translations has manipulated up through time to Christophile the Tanakh and retroactively insert their mangod into the ancient texts. It is clearly a lie and it is funny that you would try to back this false god with such flimsy evidence when speaking to me, I am not an uneducated blissful person (read ignorant) like most Christians, try again.

5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this.

With the most cursory of reflection we can realize that Isaiah 9:6 (when properly translated) has nothing to do with the Christian mangod.

19 And the remnant of the trees of his forest shall be few, that a child may write them down. {S} 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto God the Mighty. 22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth. {P}

How exactly you get that 10:21 says anything about a mangod I'll never know I guess. I guess I should read the manipulated form of it (KJV) to find out, but it is obvious to me that you are an uneducated waste of my time.

In the incarnation, He is one person with two natures (100% Deity; 100% humanity).

You have just said nothing.
It is as if you have said, "and when you cut on this light here, there will be darkness and light as one." Or "when you apply water here, there will be wet dryness." Or "when you place the triangle and the square together as one, you have a "Square Triangle."

It is not hard to play wordgames but as they say that proof is in the pudding. You have claim that Yehshua has two natures as one, and that each nature is not decreased by the other nature. Inthat, although Yehshua was human, he did not give up any of his God nature, and althought Yehshua was God, he did not give up any of his human nature.

I believe it is easily demonstrated by the New Testament that Yehshua was limited in mind (not Omniscient) when he said, "only my Father knoweth the hour, neither the son" and that Yehshua believed he had no power of his own when he said, "my Father doeth the works through me." Contrary to other teachings, Yehshua's will was opposed to and separate from the will of God in the garden, "not my will but Thine be done." This is evidence that Yehshua was not always a mangod. In the moment he did not have knowledge, he lacked Omniscience and by definition was not God. When Yehshua said he had no power of his own he was not God. So while you might want to claim that Yehshua was a mangod "all the time" it is clear that Yehshua was not a mangod all the time and had human qualities for the most part, including that he was mortal and died.

So again, if you wish to claim the ignorance that Yehshua was a mangod "all the time" then you must explain away your own documents and texts, and while I find it funny that any Trinitarian will do so simply to be servant to that pagan church of rome's doctrine instead of the NT's doctrine, it means little to me personally.

You believe a pagan mystery that goes beyond human understanding, and in doing so you have accepted the unknown as your god. And you have accepted an idol (a mangod) as your god and injustice (vicarious atonement) as your path of salvation.

How silly is it that I waste my time on you? Pagans such as yourself would go to your death before questioning the likes of Rome's church's doctrine but I guess it is that I find you so easily defeated in reasoned discussion that I enjoy tearing down this blasphemous and pagan hollow inheritence given to you by your fathers.

I'm not sorry to do it, it is quite fun, but when you attempt to label my teaching as bizarre when you are servant to a barberic bloodgod you can of course expect me to respond in a hostile manner.

(snip stupidity)
I disagree with your understanding of Satan and evil.

You have to in order to maintain the Persian dualistic corruption of your faith. You can't have God in control of all messengers (monotheism) because you need the pagan duality (Trinity vs Satan) in order to have something to blame the "bad stuff" that happens to you upon.

Of course a cursory reading of the Tanakh (EVEN THE KING JAMES VERSION) defeats duality and once again tells you that there is only One Single God and all things answer unto Him, even those "spirits" we would not think "good" relatively speaking. For instance, goto any KJV search engine and type in the words "evil spirit" and seek who is their "Commander" if you doubt what I am saying.

God is a perfect Creator. He did not make Satan or evil.

All things were created by Him.
God claims to create evil twice that I know of, and more than likely in other places as well. God says, "see that I have set before you the life and the good, the death and the evil." God also says, "Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]." While Christian translations have manipulated that verse for centuries realize that the actual translation of that verse is evil and that the LORD claims responsibility for it's existence directly. All things are for purpose to those that follow His will.

God chose to make a universe with the possibility of love, relationship, and righteousness.

God also gave the possibilty (and allowed the environments and characters which generated) hate, betrayal, and unrighteousness. What I find funny is that Christians teach that the "snake" in the garden is Satan, when clearly it is not Satan nor possessed by Satan in the storyline (the snake itself is cursed, not the spirit within it).

So while we have mankind being manipulated by a demi-fallen angel god of pagan belief systems, the Jewish take is that God created it all (everything) for purpose to teach His creation something.

Inherent to genuine freedom (which you deny),

You simply are uneducated I guess. It is clear that we are products of enculturation and genetics. Anyone claiming different is a liar or ignorant. Define "free will" and tell me by what variable it is free of. Until then it is a meaningless statement outright.

...is the equal possibility of evil. Lucifer and Adam were perfect until THEY volitionally rebelled against God.

If they were perfect in character they would not have made such a choice. It was a fault in their character which allowed them to fail. Had they lacked that fault then they would not have failed. Therefore when you make the claim that God created them "perfect" and yet they failed anyways you are saying that God is an imperfect Creator who didn't do it right.

Judaism teaches that everyone was created for purpose and that all things are simply walking the path they were created to do. Such is the messenger known as HaSatan doing was he was created for and such is any man also doing so. In such a fashion God has created a "perfect" creation, for HaSatan is doing perfectly that which he was created to do, and so is each man (although we are to strive to be moral of course). But again, our paths are directed daily by our environments and genetics and training and education and law and morality...we are not "free" by any measure what-so-ever.

This is the type of universe God made. The alternative would be to excise love, relationship, and freedom and make robotic creatures that had to follow Him with no possibility of disobedience.

False choice.
Your claim is that there is only "freedom of choice between good and evil" vs. "robots."

You are forgetting the other choices of type of reality which might exist. There is of course the two you have demonstrated in your insipid argument but there is also two other (and perhaps more) choices.

There is the "freedom of choice between good and evil, making only those who would always choose good" and also the "freedom of choice between good and evil, making only those who would always choose evil."

God did not have to allow evil to exist to prove anything. God knew who would and wouldn't listen to His law and His path long ago. God doesn't require anything to know, God just knows. And that any single person would choose Him or not really isn't what the case is here anyways, it is the possibility of choosing against Him. Therefore God could generate a universe inwhich everyone chose Him because they wished to choose Him, and no sin nor evil need exist.

The problem with the false choice senario you draw up above is that it is based upon ignorance and stupidity, not upon reasoned philosophical claims. It is a story that works great on those that are wanting you to confirm their faith in the mangod, but fails in totality when you meet anyone who is not servant to your false god.

I am grieved at your bizarre views...

Let us let history and all of anyone who ever reads this decide for themselves who they think has "bizarre" views.

I teach that God is like any father that exists. And that when a child comes to their father and has failed the father looks for remorse and if present forgives. Such that the repentant man of any culture or tradition if they are truly repentant can be forgiven of their failure/iniquity. In this manner God crosses cultures, traditions, and even religious orthodoxy in order to save His creation and let them learn without being vicious and henious in His response to disobediance.
My argument lines up with the teachings of Hosea, Ezekiel, David, and Solomon. It has an example in the people of Ninevah and in the way that God has deal with His people up through the ages in fairness. It is also perfectly demonstrated in the righteousness gained by Abraham through mere faith in the LORD, not in a godman.

Your faith requires the belief upon generational sin against the teachings of Ezekiel 18:20 which is taught by Paul. You reject this because you realize it is injust but of course that makes you even more pagan and you might start child sacrifices any day now when you realize that any innocent child will do. You believe that to appease this bloodgod you must brutally murder an innocent man upon a pagan cross, then eat and drink this person's blood in order to be saved, not to mention all the other rituals required to have "full salvation" by the Orthodox such a baptism.

So, let us let mankind and history, as well as an educated viewpoint of theology and history decide which one of our belief sets is "bizarre" my barberic pagan friend? Shall we?

...that do not have the authority of the Word of God.

Far from your lie here, everything I have taught is backed 100% by the Tanakh's teachings. It is not however taught by the blasphemous works and heretical pagan texts of Rome's church however.

We pray that your eyes will be opened to your deception.

I find such holier-than-thou statements to be made by morons who have no real stance to stand upon, I've always wanted to say it back and I think I will..."I pray that your pagan butchery for salvation and cannibalistic eyes will be opened to the utter brutality and horrors which is the deception you live under."

erethnereh

July 9th, 2004, 04:10 PM

You simply are uneducated I guess. It is clear that we are products of enculturation and genetics. Anyone claiming different is a liar or ignorant. Define "free will" and tell me by what variable it is free of. Until then it is a meaningless statement outright.

I think it's really necessary to define something that only God defines. I mean we believe God yet we don't define who God is completely. The freedom spoken here is of creation.

You believe that to appease this bloodgod you must brutally murder an innocent man upon a pagan cross, then eat and drink this person's blood in order to be saved, not to mention all the other rituals required to have "full salvation" by the Orthodox such a baptism.

Ok, Deut. somewhere says "man shall not live on bread alone but every word from the mouth of the living God" and to instruct His people on this very important lesson God sent down manna. What do you believe is the word of God?

godrulz

July 9th, 2004, 06:42 PM

Is. 9:6; 10:21

There is only ONE (Deut. 6:4) 'Mighty God' ('el gibbor'). The messianic prophecy of Jesus in 9:6 combined with the same title in 10:21 (Ex. 3:6= God of Jacob) about YHWH shows that the Messiah is more than a man, He is Almighty God.

This is a good combo. when dealing with JWs.

Also add Jer. 32:18 (el gibbor)

JOM...learn about context

If you cannot say amen (syncretism), say ouch.

JosephofMessiah

July 10th, 2004, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

Is. 9:6;

Let's quote it YET AGAIN, to demonstrate to everyone here how utterly stupid your claim is.

5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this.

So, yet again, with but a moment of reading we can see that in absolutely no way is this "prophecy" speaking of the mangod of Rome, it is an invention of the Christian mind to discount specific parts of a scripture ("and the government is upon his shoulder") while continuing to quote a mistranslation of their corrupted works to support their blasphemous idol.

10:21

And again, I quote 10:20 to give anyone reading this ludicris argument pause as to why this person continues to quote it...

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto God the Mighty.

This is speaking of YHVH, not of messiah anyways, so again your argument is based upon a mistranslational manipulation to attempt pious fraud to Christophile the Tanakh. It is so easy to defeat your claims it saddens me.

22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth.

This is about Israel returning and being a "remnant" setup in this age. I fail to see how this either speaks of your blasphemous idol.

There is only ONE (Deut. 6:4) 'Mighty God' ('el gibbor').

You are of course correct, however you are ignoring what the Tanakh says about the messiah at various points. For one it does not say that messiah is God Himself it says that it shall be His arm. Much like any person can be used by God for purpose, this messiah to come will be used of God and shall fullfill the prophetic voice, but of course you simply can't read that the government shall be upon his shoulders and somehow through utter stupidity ignore that this cancels out your mangod as being messiah. But go figure.

The messianic prophecy of Jesus in 9:6...

Without equivocation I have demonstrated that 9:6 says nothing about your mangod.

...combined with the same title in 10:21 (Ex. 3:6= God of Jacob)...

Whatever, 10:21 speaks of God Himself. Read it for yourself in a non-Christophiled lie such as you must still be reading.

...about YHWH shows that the Messiah is more than a man, He is Almighty God.

Your blasphemy not withstanding, God told us long ago that He is not in the Earth and that nothing in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath is to be served as Him. He also said very clearly that He is not mortal/man and that His ways are not our ways, but of course you simply appologize your way out of such a statement somehow so you can serve your idol and believe upon an abominational act as salvatory.

Your a joke.

(snip ignorance)
If you cannot say amen (syncretism), say ouch.

If you cannot say [edited for content by author], say ouch.

Again, your argument is defeated and your a joke.

JosephofMessiah

July 10th, 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Aimiel

The death of Yehshua was due to the request of the High Priest.

Well, your NT makes this claim, which I could argue against since it is not recorded anywhere but in the NT and the NT is not perfect by historical record, but let's say this is true for a moment.

It makes no matter if any priest were to call for anything abominational as an offering. Such a priest is sinning against the law and defacto the offering is an abomination under the law. So your argument (even if I allow that the lie you attempted to say happened) fails anyways.

He, Himself, was, is and always will be The Temple.

The way I hear it by most Orthodox, they claim that their bodies (note plurality) are the "temple." Go figure.

Rome did not invent salvation, by grace through faith in The Only Begotton of The Father, God did.

YHVH did not.
The mystery religions of Rome included many "only begottens" who were "born of virgins" and "died/killed" and "came back to save those who believe upon them." So again, the Tanakh does not support your mangod as YHVH, but labels him an idol. And this whole doctrine of Rome is of mystery religions and most certainly is not spoken of by the prophets of the Tanakh.

(snip utter ignorance)
Who (according to your belief) was Abraham speaking to, and feeding, on His way to Sodom and Gommorah?

A golem.
A manifestation.
Matter representing the Creator.

But what is seen is reflected light, and what light comes off of was created, nothing seen is God. Even the burning bush is not worshiped as YHVH but is respected as an image that God used to come to mankind. However, please understand I'm not arguing that God cannot appear as a man, I'm just saying that Yehshua denied being YHVH outright. ("My Father is greater than I.")

Yehshua was not imperfect.

"Take this cup from me."
"Not my will but Thine be done."

(snip blasphemy)
So The Seed which came from The Lord (The Root of David, in fact also The Root of Abraham, indeed even Adam) counts (in your little mind) as nothing? Nothing?

Not sure what you are getting at here, but Yehshua was not of the "root of David" but had a virgin birth. And neither of Yehshua's genealogical records holds to critical view. Also, (just in case you make this rediculous claim) the House (Kingship) does not pass through the mother's bloodline.

(snip attempt at indoctrination)
We have The Inward Witness of The Holy Ghost.

What you have is an inward delusion of the mentally ill. Go get some Prozac, your pagan god asside for a moment.

I wonder if you have ever had the thought that you are being manipulated to believe in this barberic mangod by an angel of light for just a second?

(snip delusion)
We don't follow cleverly devised fables of men who study and think that they know something.

If you follow rome's church, you follow a demi-mangod Persian dualism pagan bloodgod corruption incorporating vicarious atonement, generational sin doctrine (original sin doctrine), and cannabalism as a form of salvation against everything that is Holy.

(snip utter stupidity)
Otherwise they are just following their own 'knowledge' and not getting their full inheritance.

All we have is our "own knowledge" unless you are claiming to be inspired, and even then you'd have to somehow demonstrate that it is not an angel of light misleading you to this barberic bloodgod against the law of YHVH, good luck on that one, Pagan.

JosephofMessiah

July 10th, 2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by erethnereh

I think it's really necessary to define something that only God defines.

What in heck does that mean?

You "think it really necessary to define something that only God defines."

I read it three times and it makes no sense at all.

Clarify it.

I mean we believe God yet we don't define who God is completely.

God does that for us, but of course What/Whom God claims to be is hotly debated upon what is in actuality God's Word.

The freedom spoken here is of creation.

And yet again with the sentences that mean and say nothing.

Ok, Deut. somewhere says "man shall not live on bread alone but every word from the mouth of the living God" and to instruct His people on this very important lesson God sent down manna. What do you believe is the word of God?

The parts of the Tanakh translated correctly not under the manipluations of rome's church and the teachings which line up with it and the precidents which it sets.

godrulz

July 10th, 2004, 01:39 AM

Is Judaism or Christianity the full, progressive revelation of God? Much of the Old Testament is the shadow and type. If your beliefs are primarily based on the OT, you will not have full illumination of their meaning.

Hebrews 1:1-3 "In the PAST, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, BUT in these LAST days He has spoken to us by His SON (Messiah)...through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the EXACT representation of His very being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word." (He is God)

Gnostic

July 10th, 2004, 03:03 AM

Quoted: "the exact REPRESENTATION of His very being"

Jesus is a "representation." The representation is not the thing being represented. If I'm my boss's Rep then I'm not him.

You said: "He is God"

That is what you say, but where does your scripture say it?

And even after centuries of corruption and mutilation to make Jesus God one cannot find the verse where Jesus is declared Almighty God. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Atonement (human sacrifice AZTEC style) and the accompanying heresy that one must believe in this Abomination of abominations to be forgiven by God, is also not found in the New Testament. Nope, it's not there. You would think THE pivotal points of Christianity would be clearly supported by the Christian Scripture. They should be on every page! You would think that these blasphemies would be declared like this:

I, Jesus, am God.

Only belief in my slain blood will save you, nothing else.

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the trinity; one yet three yet one yet three anyway.

But nope, no one can show me their scripture to support what does not exist. And then they have the face to call others hell-bound heretics. Very amusing. Now everyone excuse me and please continue.

*

erethnereh

July 10th, 2004, 07:43 AM

You "think it really necessary to define something that only God defines."
I read it three times and it makes no sense at all.
Clarify it.

We do not have to define exactly each and every creation of God in terms of primative elements. This is impossible, I think, and I see no reason that free will could not be like God's creation matter. We don't know exactly what matter is, but we do know some of the properties. Of course, we can give a circular definition. We know that free will is gift given to creation where by creation is able to choose to do God's will or not. But this definition, as you can see, is somewhat circular because choice is not defined.

The parts of the Tanakh translated correctly not under the manipluations of rome's church and the teachings which line up with it and the precidents which it sets

Because God is the only Teacher and the words are from God's very mouth and Moses said that the law is within the people's hearts, it is reasonable that the Tanakh is a dead weight until God breaths life into it.

JosephofMessiah

July 10th, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Is Judaism or Christianity the full, progressive revelation of God?

Many of the things taught by Yehshua of Nazareth come from the school of Hillel, a Rabbi who invented such things as the Golden Rule (before Yehshua spoke of it even) and also was the one (if memory holds) who was the first to say that all the law held on two principles, Love the LORD GOD with all your mind, heart, body, soul, spirit and love thy neighbor as yourself.

In fact, (humorously) Rabbinical Judaism took a strong turn to the interpretations of Hillel years after Yehshua walked the Earth (that is why Judaism doesn't have a very hard time with much of what Yehshua says) however Judaism has an exceedingly had time with the statements made later on by Yehshua's followers which conflict what Yehshua taught.

An example would be where Yehshua says, "my Father is greater than I" and yet Paul writes "he thought is not robbery to be equal to God." Go figure. Judaism would also have problems with any interpretation which attempts to draw up a pagan mangod, such as the phrase "Word was God" and such things which are used to declare that Yehshua was/is God. What I find funny is that Yehshua told mankind to not label any man upon the Earth their Father and yet that is exactly what the Orthodox have tried to do against the teachings of the Tanakh.

Much of the Old Testament is the shadow and type.

Sorry, you're a liar. The Tanakh sets forth very clearly Whom/Who God is, and does not allow it to be changed for of course Perfection is without change. We are also directly warned to not follow any god which our forefathers did not know, therefore due to this any "revelation" which would remove from YHVH Who/What He is and/or redefine Him in a new manner separate from what our forefather's knew Him as is a lie, outright.

This "Trinity" is a great example, it is a god that our forefathers had no knowledge of and therefore we are commanded to not worship it as YHVH for most certainly it is not. By definition an Omnipresent Entity has no point of separation/division.

If your beliefs are primarily based on the OT, you will not have full illumination of their meaning.

I doubt any single man (due to the complexity of the Hebrew language and such) can contain within him "the full illumination of the Tanakh." Men have spent their entire lives studing it and are still labeled as students. But this to the side for a moment it is clear to me (if not to you) that the pagan texts of the church of rome do not "enlighten" anyone to the truths of the Tanakh but remove them into blasphemy, idolatry, and belief upon an abomination as salvatory. So far from the incorrect statement which you make above, the Christophiling of the OT and the ignorances found in the NT most certainly do not illuminate men's minds but bind them under the lies of a false pagan church.

Hebrews 1:1-3 "In the PAST, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, BUT in these LAST days He has spoken to us by His SON (Messiah)...through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the EXACT representation of His very being, sustaining all things by His powerful Word." (He is God)

The author of Hebrews is an easily prooftexted liar. So when you attemp to quote a liar to back your mangod it is of course laughable to me personally.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/blood.html

The New Testament quoted the following Psalm:

Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. (KJV){Emphasis Added}

This Psalm carries an important message. Coupled with other verses from throughout the Bible, we learn that while G-d does place an importance on blood sacrifice, He puts more importance on penitence and the resolve to do better. This Psalm presented a theological problem for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. (KJV) {Emphasis Added}

How does "mine ears hast thou opened" change to "but a body hast thou prepared me?" This is not the only time one will come across this kind of behavior went into the penning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the entire New Testament for that matter. How are we to trust a document that exhibits this sort of behavior?

Christian apologists will argue that Jesus was unblemished of sin. To be frank, this dogma genuinely frightens me. This is the logic that pagan societies used in offering up their children in human sacrifices -- they reasoned that their children were sinless.

The Diaspora was prophesied, such as in this passage:

Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and [without] teraphim: [5] Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their G-d, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days. (KJV)

Now, when we see this, a Christian will try to fix this into a problem for the Jews, saying, "but without blood sacrifice, how do you receive atonement for your sins?" After all, you have this verse below:

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (KJV)

With this verse, the author successfully placed the new Christian theology outside of Judaism, because this in no way is a Jewish concept.{Emphasis Added}

Nowhere in the Jewish Scriptures do you find the message that without blood there is no remission. Time and time again, the prophets preached repentence and obedience, placing these things above sacrifice.

1 Samuel 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams. (KJV)

Given how often this theme is given (such as in the Psalm quoted above) the Christian position of there being no atonement without blood becomes a little puzzling. Hosea also gave a startling message that prayer can take the place of sacrifices:

Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. (KJV)

Now, given the language that KJV used in its translation, this is likely rather confusing. For that reason, let us use the American Standard Version's translation:

Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto J---vah thy G-d; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and return unto J---vah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good: so will we render [as] bullocks [the offering of] our lips. (ASV){Emphasis Added}

So, the prophet is telling us that prayer can substitute for sacrifice.{Emphasis Added} Surely, this creates a dilemma for Christian theology, so let's see how they deal with this:

Hosea 14:1 Return, O Israel, to the Lord your G-d, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity. [2] Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity And receive us graciously, That we may present the fruit of our lips. (NAS)

So, we see that Christian Bible translators will resort to word changing.{Emphasis Added} Are we to trust a translation that exhibits this sort of behavior?

You can trust the liar unknown author of Hebrews all you want to, I will take the word of the prophet Hosea over the liar of Hebrews (whomever he was) anyday.

JosephofMessiah

July 10th, 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by erethnereh

We do not have to define exactly each and every creation of God in terms of primative elements.

"Humans do not have to explain exactly each and every creation of God in terms of simple building blocks."

I tried and tried to get your sentence to make sense, I just don't get what you are saying. If you feel like it is important, you can try again, I'm really tired of trying to get you to say what you mean.

This is impossible, I think, and I see no reason that free will could not be like God's creation matter.

Matter has no free will. It is perfectly controlled in every way by the rules of Physics which it is under and by the laws which govern the universe. So trying to come to "free will" through the subject of matter is...silly.

We don't know exactly what matter is, but we do know some of the properties.

What does this have to do with anything?

Of course, we can give a circular definition. We know that free will is gift given to creation where by creation is able to choose to do God's will or not.

To be able to choose what is "not God's will" you have to know perfectly what God requires of you in any given instant. Other than the law of YHVH we have no guide and even this is not perfect in our own day because we are so far removed from the culture of that law and the texts are so far removed from what was originally penned. So it is up to a guess really what it is that God wants for our lives inthat we are to Love Him and Love our Neighbor and beyond that it is pretty much window dressing.

But again, until you name a variable by which your "will" is free of, the term "free will" means absolutely nothing.

I can say "free triangle" all day and say it has an effect on how the world works, until I define how that triangle and what that triangle is free of, and specifically state how this "free triangle" effects/affects me then it is meaningless wordage.

But this definition, as you can see, is somewhat circular because choice is not defined.

Look, we are products of our enculturation, learning, knowledge base, genetics, society, culture, (on and on) and all this along with the limitations of our given environment directs and manipulates our choices daily. I am not saying that at some points we do not have the ability to go right or left or to stay home or go to work, what I am saying is that whether you go right or left is based upon your knowledge base, your genetic ability to travel, and the allowance by your environment to do so. And if you believe in God, you are also allowed by God to do that which you choose OR NOT by God's actions (Jonah per example). So in actuality all I'm asking is by what variable do people who use the term "free will" denote that this will is free of?" What variable is the will they speak of free from? And if you cannot denote a variable, then so be it, it is meaningless words.

Because God is the only Teacher and the words are from God's very mouth and Moses said that the law is within the people's hearts, it is reasonable that the Tanakh is a dead weight until God breaths life into it.

I hear Christians say often that the law is a burden or a weight or a hinderance. What is so hard about being nice to people, loving your neighbor, and eating properly? What is the "dead weight" of a law given for your protection and so that you can know in part the will of your Creator for your path in this world, to encorporate that which will make your journey more of a blessing. Far from the lie you state above without the law mankind would not even know what sin is, and therefore we would not know when we were following God's will or not. So, again, the lie that the law/Tanakh is a dead weight is only from moron's who do not grasp the importance of what it says and how vital the teachings are to help prevent mankind from being servant to false gods of false churches, much like the mangod of Rome is.

godrulz

July 10th, 2004, 02:41 PM

Hint, JOM:

Do a word study in Greek on 'better' and 'greater'.

Whether you believe it or not, attempt to understand the incarnation/kenosis (Phil. 2) and consider Hebrews 1.

Things do not make sense to you, because you do not understand them. You reject a straw-man caricature of Christianity and remain in the Old Covenant.

As a man on earth, the Son of Man/Son of God could say the Father is positionally greater than He was. As the Son of God in heaven, the equality Paul emphasized is true. For a time on earth, the angels were positionally greater than the Son of Man. In heaven, He was BETTER than them by nature since He created them (Heb. 1).

Distinguish between essential nature and position.

Bush is greater than us positionally by authority, but he is not better than us in our humanity (essence).

freelight

July 11th, 2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

To be able to choose what is "not God's will" you have to know perfectly what God requires of you in any given instant. Other than the law of YHVH we have no guide and even this is not perfect in our own day because we are so far removed from the culture of that law and the texts are so far removed from what was originally penned. So it is up to a guess really what it is that God wants for our lives inthat we are to Love Him and Love our Neighbor and beyond that it is pretty much window dressing.

But again, until you name a variable by which your "will" is free of, the term "free will" means absolutely nothing.

I can say "free triangle" all day and say it has an effect on how the world works, until I define how that triangle and what that triangle is free of, and specifically state how this "free triangle" effects/affects me then it is meaningless wordage.

Look, we are products of our enculturation, learning, knowledge base, genetics, society, culture, (on and on) and all this along with the limitations of our given environment directs and manipulates our choices daily. I am not saying that at some points we do not have the ability to go right or left or to stay home or go to work, what I am saying is that whether you go right or left is based upon your knowledge base, your genetic ability to travel, and the allowance by your environment to do so. And if you believe in God, you are also allowed by God to do that which you choose OR NOT by God's actions (Jonah per example). So in actuality all I'm asking is by what variable do people who use the term "free will" denote that this will is free of?" What variable is the will they speak of free from? And if you cannot denote a variable, then so be it, it is meaningless words.

)============ Hello JoM,.............it would appear to me...the general defintion of 'free will' is self explanatory. It evidently refers to a will that is 'free' (or bearing a freedom to direct its concsiousness towards whatever means the soul chooses). By 'free' such implies that it has a measure or degree of freedom to make independent choices - it indicates that the soul has free agency. The term 'free will' is thus understood.......despite any technicalities involved with its defintion. You have 'free will'...meaning you have free agency - the ability to make choices/decisions.......take a certain course of action amid a range of various possibilities at any given moment. I am not sure what your insistence with 'variables' concerns. Otherwise....I dont think the term 'free will' is 'meaningless' - it is the most popular and understood term we have denoting the general meaning of free agency......especially in these respective forums.

Sure the variables with you site above are influencial factors in our everyday thoughts, actions, choices, etc.

paul

Aimiel

July 12th, 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

The way I hear it by most Orthodox, they claim that their bodies (note plurality) are the "temple." Go figure.Correct. The Holy Spirit is with believers, and lives inside of those who invite Him to do so. The Lord has sought to dwell in Temples not made with hands (the bodies of believers).Aimiel said: "So The Seed which came from The Lord (The Root of David, in fact also The Root of Abraham, indeed even Adam) counts (in your little mind) as nothing? Nothing?"

JosephofMessiah replied: "Not sure what you are getting at here, but Yehshua was not of the "root of David" but had a virgin birth. And neither of Yehshua's genealogical records holds to critical view. Also, (just in case you make this rediculous claim) the House (Kingship) does not pass through the mother's bloodline."That's what I'm speaking to. You either deny that God was Jesus' Father (He is The Only One Who can claim that inherent Birthright, all other sons are by adoption); or simply are dismissing it as irrellevant. He is The Root of all life. The Root and The Offspring of David.If you follow rome's church, you follow a demi-mangod Persian dualism pagan bloodgod corruption incorporating vicarious atonement, generational sin doctrine (original sin doctrine), and cannabalism as a form of salvation against everything that is Holy.Sounds like you're not only blind, but angry that we have found The One Who searched us out, Who you claim to be searching for in your scriptures, and still can't understand that He's not in there, He lives in the hearts of Born-Again Believers who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.All we have is our "own knowledge" unless you are claiming to be inspired, and even then you'd have to somehow demonstrate that it is not an angel of light misleading you to this barberic bloodgod against the law of YHVH, good luck on that one God demonstrates as He wills, not as un-believers such as yourself demand of Him. I am often 'inspired' to prophecy on His Behalf, and He always confirms His Word.

JosephofMessiah

July 12th, 2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by freelight

Hello JoM,
...it would appear to me...the general defintion of 'free will' is self explanatory.

What is this "will" free of?

I date you to name it...no one has yet answered that simple point. An as per example, you go into a long winded moronic paragraph about how you do not have to define what it is free of, when you totaly admit in the end that I am correct.

So, again, I dare you (ANYONE) to name what it is that "free will" is free of.

I will give a simple example:

My dog is free of his chain.

So I have a "free dog."

But if I say to you, "I have free will" and cannot context what it is that the will is free of, I have just said NOTHING, it is a meaningless statement outright.

It evidently refers to a will that is 'free' (or bearing a freedom to direct its concsiousness towards whatever means the soul chooses).

And yet again I argue that this "will" you speak of it influenced by enculturation and genetics. It is limited by environment, controlled by morality and law, and is not "free" by any measure.

By 'free' such implies that it has a measure or degree of freedom to make independent choices - it indicates that the soul has free agency.

Someday we might have the ability to trace the inputs/variables by which influence every single choice we make, inthat we will know what it is that was causal to our choice at any given moment. There are many times when this is already knowable, example: When you drive a car you decide freely to go left or right but your choice is already made for you by the location of the place you are going and the location you are at. What I mean by this is that you decide to go "right or left" but your decision to do so is based upon what your environment allows you to do, and the location you wish to attain. In other words, your environment (location of roads, traffic patterns, signs, etc) and where you want to go are causal to choices you make.

As such it is possible that we are influenced in all decisions by environment and nurturing, and in such the term "free will" is a non-term, because no one has yet to define by what this will is free of.

The term 'free will' is thus understood...despite any technicalities involved with its defintion.

You are claiming a moronic thing.
In other words you just said, "there are unknowns in the definition of this term but we understand it."

You are philosophically without defense and just backed yourself into a corner. Try and get out, that's a dare.

You have 'free will'...meaning you have free agency -

What (since you wish to play wordgames now) is this so-called/labeled "agency" free of?

Give a variable by which this will/agency is free of or your statement is meaningless hogwash.

the ability to make choices/decisions...

Making a choice/decision is not what free will entails. We all can make decisions daily but what IS IN QUESTION is if these choices are in fact free of a given variable or not. So far you have yet to denote what our will is free of and defacto have failed in totality to offer evidence of your claim. You've been playing wordgames.

....take a certain course of action amid a range of various possibilities at any given moment.

Given any choice, define by which any given choice is "free" of something and by what it is free of. If you are trying to make the claim that any given choice is free of influence, then your argument is in totality flawed from the start.

I am not sure what your insistence with 'variables' concerns.

When I say, "what variable by which is will free of" it is only inthat I want someone who claims "free will" to define what this "will" is "free of" inthat if there is nothing by which this will is in actuality free of then that claimant has made a non-statement.

I am gathering in this post, as I respond to it, that you do not grasp the philosophical claim I have made and due to such you are really in over your head.

(snip)I dont think the term 'free will' is 'meaningless'

I do not care what you think. It is about evidence driven proof and by such the simplest evidence ever is simply to say the answer to my exceedingly simple question.

"What is your will free of?"

If you cannot answer that, then the term free will is meaningless.

...it is the most popular and understood term we have denoting the general meaning of free agency...

Just renaming a non-statement means nothing. If you want to get into the question of "What is this agency free of?" then I guess we can, but all you are doing is substituting the non-statement "free will" for another non-statement "free agency."

I am arguing that all choice is influenced, and by such to have actual free choice you would have to limit all influence. If you have some other means of making a "free will" claim then I very openly request you do so instead of playing wordgames and changing "will" to "agency."

...especially in these respective forums.

Just because a bunch of "ignorant blissful ideology followers" decide to use a non-term for something which is meaningless, doesn't remove from you the necessity to define and support your non-claims when someone asks a pointed question.

Sure the variables with you site above are influencial factors...

Are you making the philosophical claim that an influenced will/choice/agency is "free" of something?

What exactly is this influenced choice/will/agency free of?

...in our everyday thoughts, actions, choices, etc.

paul

You haven't answered by question in the least, and have wasted my time and your with utterly moronic wordgames.

erethnereh

July 12th, 2004, 07:19 PM

I tried and tried to get your sentence to make sense, I just don't get what you are saying. If you feel like it is important, you can try again, I'm really tired of trying to get you to say what you mean.

Yes, I think it's somewhat important.

"This is impossible, I think, and I see no reason that free will could not be like God's creation matter."
What I'm telling you is that there are primative creations from which God created matter. We can say this is an atom, then can go further and divide it into protons and neutrons etc. Eventually, we reach a form of matter that cannot be reduced; it must be created directly by God. At this point we ask "what is it" and we can only know by what the matter does.

Matter has no free will. It is perfectly controlled in every way by the rules of Physics which it is under and by the laws which govern the universe.

To my knowledge there's no universal theory that says this. Quantum physics seems to be based upon chance, so matter is not described perfectly by our physical laws. We ask "what is data?" and we can only answer is that data is described by its interactions.

But again, until you name a variable by which your "will" is free of, the term "free will" means absolutely nothing.

Then you make every mystery into nothing. Can you define exactly who God is? Does that make God nothing?

Loosely speaking one could define the variable being "God" and then go on to say there's a possibility that man's action can be indepedent of God. Independence has a formal mathematical definition based upon probality but that does not seem to make sense here. Best to think of this at the the conceptual level. There's a possibility for mankind's actions to be "free" from God's will. We define free will only by interaction: it's possible for us to do something that God has not decided.

I hear Christians say often that the law is a burden or a weight or a hinderance. What is so hard about being nice to people, loving your neighbor, and eating properly?

Well, you cannot say the law or anything from God is a "burden" as God specifically said that the one who says "the burden of the lord" will be punished. What I'm speaking is true, however.

Far from the lie you state above without the law mankind would not even know what sin is, and therefore we would not know when we were following God's will or not.

Excuse me? No, I specifically said without God the law(ie., the written page) is dead.(Well, maybe not specifically, this is what I meant.) If you believe that the Law is God, then perhaps your point is valid.

add yasaf

July 12th, 2004, 07:20 PM

Luke 7:30 - But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.

Janes 2:12 So whenever you speak, or whatever you do, remember that you will be judged by the law of love, the law that set you free. 13 For there will be no mercy for you if you have not been merciful to others. But if you have been merciful, then God's mercy toward you will win out over his judgment against you.

Ultimately God's will will not be frustrated. He has got a contingency plan for everything. God allows us to be secondary causers and so shape the future, but it will never slip out of God's hands

freelight

July 13th, 2004, 11:32 AM

Hello JoM,

Obviously you have placed demands on extracting a proper definition from the term 'free will'. Based on your priori presumption upon this inquiry to know what free will is 'free' of...you have your answer already. So be it.
Of course our choices/decisions are not entirely free of influencial factors - thats common sense. Nonetheless,..the gerneal term 'free-will' sustains a common meaning/understanding for most people.....despite your stringent demands for defining the terms.

good day,

paul

JosephofMessiah

July 14th, 2004, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by erethnereh

Yes, I think it's somewhat important.

"This is impossible, I think, and I see no reason that free will could not be like God's creation matter."

The above statement makes little to no sense...

What I'm telling you is that there are primative creations from which God created matter.

Matter is another form of energy, energy is another form of matter.

But these "primative creations" are meaningless unless you define the scientific reasoning for them or some evidence of them.

We can say this is an atom, then can go further and divide it into protons and neutrons etc.

And into quarks even...

Eventually, we reach a form of matter that cannot be reduced;

No, we will quite possibly never reach a form of matter that cannot be reduced. In fact Super String Theory states that matter's basic component is energy strings which are bunched up into over ten dimensions at once.

...it must be created directly by God.

"There is no natural explaination for (this) therefore God did it."

Your God of the Gaps mentality will someday end up with a Being that does and created nothing. Just because we do not know yet the basics of matter (but have theories about it, such as Super String) does not mean that there is not a natural way by which these things were generated from the Singularity.

At this point we ask "what is it" and we can only know by what the matter does.

I find little meaning in what you say here, if you mean that we observe some quantum events through interaction (electron mag's and such) then you are correct, but "what is it" is simply relative in nature, if something is something it is deemed that by human concepts by what it is relative to. Such that we know what an atom is because we know what it builds to (molecules) and we know what it is composed of (nucleus and electron cloud). But in trying to say that something is something because it is, is meaningless philosophically and in trying to define something. Even these primal (smallest) parts of matter (which theories believe are strings of energy) have names and are relative to what they compose. Also there is no evidence anywhere that any deity had a part in the natural creative process. But that is for another thread I guess.

To my knowledge there's no universal theory that says this.

Not yet.

Quantum physics seems to be based upon chance,

Quantum mechanics appears to be at this time, but of course very complex systems of "chaos" are deemed to be such until patterns are FOUND.

...so matter is not described perfectly by our physical laws.

It means little that we do not have a total statement yet, it is sooner or later going to develop, given time and investment, and Super String Theory is very possible going to be that answer given current predictions any validity.

We ask "what is data?"

Another term for information.

...and we can only answer is that data is described by its interactions.

Perhaps that is all you can say, but data is simply information, and whether that information has "interactions" or not would depend in totality upon that data/information being shared or used/applied.

A book contains data, but unless it is read you can say nothing about the "interactions" of that data. So you are again playing wordgames and wasting my time with useless non-statements.

Then you make every mystery into nothing.

No, you make a mystery something to be defined. A mystery something to be investigated until it is understood. A mystery something which pushes knowledge and investigation forward. A mystery which is not just "accepted because you are told to."

Can you define exactly who God is?

No, but God did that in various texts, of course which text is from Him has been debated from the beginning of time. The Jewish texts however denote clearly that God is not mortal, not in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath, is a Spirit Being (non-material based), has all knowledge, is located everywhere, and is Almighty (unlimited power). But of course these variables of God are ideas about His nature given in a text and are only as meaningful as a given person accepts that text as from God.

The NT's doctrine holds to many of these things but the doctrine of Orthodox Christianity attempts to redefine God in various mysteries which go unexplained to this very day because they are meaningless wordgames of ideologies of a false church.

Does that make God nothing?

No, it makes the idea about God and the variables which help us to grasp a small understanding of Him to be even more intriguing. It also means that we as a people should always question everything so that we will not be servant to that which is not God, and also so that we will not serve that which is not God, as God.

Loosely speaking one could define the variable being "God" and then go on to say there's a possibility that man's action can be indepedent of God.

The Jewish understanding of the Omnipotent One does not allow for an understanding that a finite human can do something which the Almight directly does not wish to take place. But granted under this notion is that God created evil for purpose (Isaiah 45:7) and that God set before mankind both life/good and death/evil for purpose. So all the things we label as "evil" is in fact for purpose in His viewpoint, that is why it takes place. Course from my human viewpoint there are many things which I have a problem with His allowing such attrocities to happen/exist.

Independence has a formal mathematical definition based upon probality but that does not seem to make sense here.

Randomness builds to a choice which is less and less influenced and becomes more and more removed from causal variables. But this randomness which creates the appearance of less influence is merely complex order in the long run, which can be broken down to a form of causality given enough data about the interactions taking place.

Best to think of this at the the conceptual level. There's a possibility for mankind's actions to be "free" from God's will.

While I might accept that a human can vary God's plan such that it takes place in a different method than the human first envisions it, God's will is done in the end always. Jonah is a wonderful example of a finite human attempting to change the Infinite Will of God by taking a different ship and yet ends upon the shore which he was to be upon due to God's will in the end.

"You can take any ship you want but you will always end up upon the shore you were meant to be upon."

We define free will only by interaction: it's possible for us to do something that God has not decided.

An Omnipotent (Almighty) Entity that contains All knowledge exists.

There is nothing that takes place which this Entity does not know about, and there is nothing that takes place that this Entity could not stop, rewind, or alter IF HE WISHES IT. Thus it is logically coherent to claim that everything which takes place is allowed to become by God, and nothing comes about without His knowledge of it and His allowance of it (not even evil, Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7).

Well, you cannot say the law or anything from God is a "burden" as God specifically said that the one who says "the burden of the lord" will be punished. What I'm speaking is true, however.

You were the one speaking down about the law, calling it dead. I was the one defending it.

Excuse me? No, I specifically said without God the law(ie., the written page) is dead.(Well, maybe not specifically, this is what I meant.)

The law is the print/ink and paper it is written upon. I do not get what you are saying here and again I think you are perhaps wasting my time.

If you believe that the Law is God, then perhaps your point is valid.

No, the law was given by God to Moses to protect us from false mangod's of false churches and to protect us from the acceptance of an abominational act (murder of mangod) as salvatory.

godrulz

July 14th, 2004, 01:27 AM

God-Man, not mangod.

JosephofMessiah

July 14th, 2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by freelight

Hello JoM,

Obviously you have placed demands on extracting a proper definition from the term 'free will'.

It is the utmost simplest of questions which any person would place upon any term useage.

If I say to you that my dog is free, and then you ask me what my dog is free from, I can say a chain, fence, yard, or perhaps even free from my specific command (not listening).

When I ask you what "will" (volition, choice, or any of the other terms you wish to use) is free of, you have yet to denote what it is in fact free of, and by not having that which it is free of (or being able to articulate it), it is merely will which exists. Until you define a philosophical THING/subject/variable by which will is free of, it is meaningless wordgames.

Based on your priori presumption upon this inquiry to know what free will is 'free' of...you have your answer already. So be it.

No, I do not have my answer already.

Again, until you declare what it is that "will" is free of, you are playing wordgames, and simply claiming that I have my answer, when you know you have not given an answer, and such things are wasting both our time.

Of course our choices/decisions are not entirely free of influencial factors...

Then you have just given over, in totality, that our choices/decisions are not free, they are influenced.

In other words, you have just given over in totality to the conclusion that our will/choices/decisions are caused in some way by outside, internal, cultural, or nurture/nature influences.

- thats common sense.

No, it is not common sense for people who go around declaring that "will" is "free of something," and then end up agreeing with me that will is not free of anything and that it is in fact influenced by outside, internal, nature/nurture variables.

I could not have picked a better person to discuss this with in order to provide evidence of my claims.

Thanks.

Nonetheless..the gerneal term 'free-will' sustains a common meaning/understanding for most people...

No, the term "free-will" contains meaning only-so-far-as it is not questioned and asked to be defined on a philosophical level, a rational level. It is the "square-triangle" of modern day theological sets, much like the claim that a godman can exist, without defining that term either.

It (free-will) is a meaningless phrase given off by people with a small bit of education to make them seem like they understand something, when in fact the very useage of the term should denote ignorance instead of knowledge.

...despite your stringent demands for defining the terms.

good day,

paul

Again, I do not see how asking what "will" is "free of," when trying to denote that "free will" exists (which is your claim not mine), is exactly "stringent."

It is a very simple question which anyone who has ever used the term "free" or "will" has had to take a moment and think about. Again, when you see something and declare it free, you must then back up your claim by having something which that thing is free of...until then your argument is meaningless wordgames and without any backing.

JosephofMessiah

July 14th, 2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

God-Man, not mangod.

A Triangle that is Square, not a Square-Triangle.

:doh:

godrulz

July 14th, 2004, 06:02 PM

God-Man= one person with 2 natures (cannot separate his person artificially)= Jesus Christ; 100% Deity and 100% humanity (not 50-50; not 1/2 god and 1/2 man). I know you do not believe this, but at least represent the Christian view accurately.

A square is not a triangle and a triangle is not a square (expain your analogy). The triune God and the incarnation/kenosis are not reduced to a formula.

JosephofMessiah

July 14th, 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

God-Man= one person with 2 natures (cannot separate his person artificially)= Jesus Christ;

Yehshua of Nazareth claimed to NOT be equal to God ("my Father is greater than I"). Yehshua of Nazareth claimed that he was limited in knowedge (only the Father knows the hour, neither the Son), so he was not a god-man when he said this phrase, he was a limited in mind man.

I realize your argument is the "two natures" idea of Yehshua (as many Orthodox claim) but again the NT doctrine does not present this idea, it presents in many instances that Yehshua is limited in mind and has no power of his own, and by such is claiming that YHVH/God has all power and that Yehshua is a man. In fact, the monotheistic NT's doctrine does not line up with the claims you/Orthodox are making.

But again, we will disagree here-in because of the inherent ignorance and unquestioning nature which is required to accept the illogical statement of godman or mangod.

100% Deity and 100% humanity (not 50-50; not 1/2 god and 1/2 man).

God is not mortal.
God is Spirit.
God has unlimited power, knowledge, and location.

Yehshua was flesh/mortal.
Yehshua claimed to not be equal to God (that his Father was greater than him), that he was limited in knowledge, and that nothing supernatural done was done by him but by God.

The idea that you can have limited knowledge and unlimited knowledge at the same time is a meaningless statement.

The idea that you can have limited power and unlimited power at once is a meaningless statement.

The idea that you can be in one location and yet omnipresent is a meaningless argument/statement.

So when anyone says the term mangod, realize that what you are saying is a meaningless statement that even you do not understand nor have any ability to conceptualize because it is inherently illogical and irrational. It is the same thing as naming a Square Triangle as your god.

I know you do not believe this, but at least represent the Christian view accurately.

A non-coherent statement, when represented as a non-coherent statement, has been represented accurately.

A square is not a triangle and a triangle is not a square (expain your analogy).

But "God can do anything he wants and thus the being known to us as the square-triangle is simply two natures in one."

That was so funny I laughed out loud.

The triune God...

Is without scholarly backing and is a prooftexted lie of scribes of the church of rome who inserted such phrases as 1 John 5:7 into the NT's text.

...and the incarnation/kenosis are not reduced to a formula.

You cannot reduce a noncoherent statement to a formula because math has to make sense, theological statements can be forced upon men's minds through mere decree and unquestioning dogma, however formulas are questioned and tested. So you are correct that you without rational meaning idea of a mangod is in fact a non-coherent idea in totality, the same as declaring a square triangle as your god.

godrulz

July 14th, 2004, 06:34 PM

Misunderstanding the Trinity and the incarnation does not negate its veracity. You are rejecting a straw-man caricature of God/Jesus.

JosephofMessiah

July 14th, 2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Misunderstanding...

I do not misunderstand* the statements of the Trinity nor of the mangod.

...the Trinity and the incarnation does not negate its veracity.

Making non-rational claims about God inwhich a man contains both unlimited knowledge and limited knowledge, unlimited power and limited/no power, and unlimited location and limited location (at once) does in totality negate the veracity because the claims are irrational by definition.

You are rejecting a straw-man caricature of God/Jesus.

No, I am rejecting a non-coherent statement and labeling it a non-coherent statement.

PS:
*-Now, this is a direct dare to you personally for trying to say something which is a lie and represent yourself as more learned upon something when in fact I think you are ignorant. If you in actuality DO believe that I am unlearned or misrepresenting this dogma, then it is a dare that you represent it clearly, and detail exactly how I have misrepresented it. Until and unless you can do this, my argument stands and you are a liar outright prooftexted by your undefendable claims against me.

godrulz

July 14th, 2004, 08:01 PM

These are not my weird ideas (like your unique views). This is biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity that has stood the test of centuries. Your odd minority views seem stuck in the Old Covenant. The resurrection of Christ validates the New Covenant. Get with the program (the Deity and Trinity have been discussed with you on other threads, including a cogent explanation of your Arian proof- texts like "My Father is greater than I" ...remember the different word in Hebrews about Jesus being BETTER than the angels by nature, though angels were GREATER than Him positionally only while He was on earth before returning to His former glory. You conveniently reject the authority of the NT, so you are left to your subjective syncretism and OT types and shadows= Hebrews 1:1-3).

erethnereh

July 14th, 2004, 09:28 PM

I find little meaning in what you say here, if you mean that we observe some quantum events through interaction (electron mag's and such) then you are correct, but "what is it" is simply relative in nature, if something is something it is deemed that by human concepts by what it is relative to.

Ok, I'll try another example, pretend you are programing in C, and you write "int num_dogs." What is this data? Is it a mathematical value representing all numbers between INT_MIN and INT_MAX? Or could it be the number of dogs that a household has? There are infinite possible meaning to any particular bit of information.

It means little that we do not have a total statement yet, it is sooner or later going to develop, given time and investment, and Super String Theory is very possible going to be that answer given current predictions any validity.

It's unlikely. Didn't Newton say that he knew how gravity behaved but did not understand it? If we presume everything we know of the universe is based upon observation, then from a scientific standpoint we can only know how something behaves and produce a model that corresponds to this reality. There could, of course, be infinitely other models that correspond to a reality, even a reality whose difference escapes our means of measuring. Science, however, typically only picks the most simple, going by Occam's razor, but there's no underlying law that says what is simple corresponds to reality.

While I might accept that a human can vary God's plan such that it takes place in a different method than the human first envisions it, God's will is done in the end always. Jonah is a wonderful example of a finite human attempting to change the Infinite Will of God by taking a different ship and yet ends upon the shore which he was to be upon due to God's will in the end.

Sin would then have to be God's will. Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat of the fruit. I think if it was God's will that they eat of the fruit, God would have told them.

Randomness builds to a choice which is less and less influenced and becomes more and more removed from causal variables.

Yes, I think the distinction between free will and "probability" is what we call our own will is dependent upon our own soul, while God/instinct/Satan are exterior variables. Thus, our own soul being a "random" singular variable seems to be above all atempts of decomposition.

But this randomness which creates the appearance of less influence is merely complex order in the long run, which can be broken down to a form of causality given enough data about the interactions taking place.

There's no natural process that has been completely broken down, but most who believe in the soul believe it exists as a supernatural entity.

There is nothing that takes place which this Entity does not know about, and there is nothing that takes place that this Entity could not stop, rewind, or alter IF HE WISHES IT. Thus it is logically coherent to claim that everything which takes place is allowed to become by God, and nothing comes about without His knowledge of it and His allowance of it (not even evil, Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7).

God does not do Evil. If he did, he would be imperfect. If God does not do Evil, then we do Evil. But for us to do Evil, we must have chosen to do Evil of our own accord.

You were the one speaking down about the law, calling it dead. I was the one defending it.

How is calling someone a liar defending the law?

JosephofMessiah

July 15th, 2004, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by godrulz

These are not my weird ideas (like your unique views).

Of course not, these non-coherent dogmas are products of the church of rome's tradition. And (humorously) are not even defendable using the NT's doctrine.

This is biblical,...

The idea of a mangod and Trinity are heretical to the Tanakh in every single way. So if the term "biblical" would include the Tanakh then no it is not biblical. However, there are verses within the NT which were implanted by scribes of rome which do hint as a trinity (such as 1 John 5:7) but these verses have been removed even from Christian tradition as not defensible historically. They are spurious in nature.

...historical,...

Again, the idea of the Trinity is not supported in the NT nor the Tanakh but in the traditions of rome alone.

...orthodox Christianity that has stood the test of centuries.

That is an argument from number which is fallible. Just because masses of people do not question a given tradition makes no claim about the volition nor correctness nor rationality of that given tradition. And the doctrine of the Trinity and the mangod/godman is labeled a mystery even by the Church because it is a non-coherent statement, irrational.

Your odd minority views seem stuck in the Old Covenant.

An eternal covenant is never "old" but it might be dated/ancient.

That something is of course "old" makes no claim as to whether it is truthful, correct, nor does something being newer make it more truthful or correct. The argument stands upon whether it is rational or not, and it is of course not rational thus the church labeling it a mystery.

The resurrection of Christ validates the New Covenant.

The resurrection accounts are very poor in relation to eachother, and there is no record of this event other than the NT record, which is supported by followers of this mangod/godman. Therefore, because various others were noted to have risen from the dead by their followers it is a meaningless argument which is a non-topic, even if it did happen there is no evidence that this man was in fact dead nor that he in actuality came back except the word of followers, which is thin to say that least.

Get with the program (the Deity and Trinity have been discussed with you on other threads, including a cogent explanation of your Arian proof-texts like "My Father is greater than I" ...remember the different word in Hebrews about Jesus being BETTER than the angels by nature,

Meaningless unless how he is better is denoted.

...though angels were GREATER than Him positionally only while He was on earth before returning to His former glory.

Since the NT claims that Yehshua is without change, I find it humorous that people say that he was God, then man/god, then God again. I also find it humorous that the God of the Jews is denoted to be unchanging (as per Perfection does not change) and therefore this godman/mangod is not the Jewish God defacto.

But again, if you wish to make an argument, you need to rationalize away the statements which defunct this ignorance, which you have in totality ignored.

God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent.
Yehshua was limited in mind, in a location, and had no power of his own by his own words. Therefore it is meaningless wordgames inwhich people attempt to argue that Yehshua had unlimited power/limited power, unlimited knowledge/limited knowledge, and unlimited location/limited location at once. Basically they are making a non-logical / irrational statement and it is the same as worshiping a square triangle.

But of course this "mystery" is required in order to have:
-an idol (worship Yehshua as YHVH).
-to accept an abomination as salvatory against YHVH's sacrificial law.
-to divide an Omnipresent Entity (YHVH) by wordgames which are irrational into "three" at a given point without denoting by what factor this division is warranted.

You conveniently reject the authority of the NT,

Well, the author of Hebrews is an easily prooftexted liar by his use of "a body has thou prepared for me," Matthew's author invents a prophecy (shall be called a Narzine), that doesn't exist, misuses Tanakh scripture to his own end ("out of egypt I have called"...is not messiah scripture), and invents historical events that didn't take place (Herod's murdering of children is not recorded, never happened, but was a good attempt to link Yehshua's death to be like that of Moses). John's anti-semetic useage is off the wall attrocious and of course don't get me started on the ignorances of Original Sin Doctrine of Pauline Christianity which is easily prooftexted lie when simply reading Ezekiel. The genealogical records of Yehshua are also without defense on a critical view and would in totality destroy any claim he would hold of messiahship outright.

So, yes, it is convenient to discredit that which is very clearly a collected group of lies to lead mankind to an abominational act as savlatory (vicarious atonement), injustice masked as a path of salvation (original sin doctrine), and to place an idol (a mangod/mystery/irrational concept/idea) before YHVH (God is One) in the hearts of man and have man worship a false god in place of Actual God, YHVH, God is One.

...so you are left to your subjective syncretism and OT types and shadows= Hebrews 1:1-3).

All any man has is subjective/finite views, dare you to prove different, but some men seek beyond youthful enculturation and become more-learned on a given topic (such as philosophy and theology) than others, and by such come out from under barberic bloodgodism and seek what there may be beyond such pagan rituals and beliefs.

"Sure, I'll forgive you, just as soon as you murder an innocent man."

It is for morons that simply will not question a false church because they were taught that this church was of God.

JosephofMessiah

July 15th, 2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by erethnereh

Ok, I'll try another example, pretend you are programing in C,...

Not a programmer.

...and you write "int num_dogs." What is this data?

I would guess that "int" is a command and that "num_dogs" is a variable which this command would use.

Is it a mathematical value representing all numbers between INT_MIN and INT_MAX?

Parle vous francais?
(phonetically:) "Sprekenzi Dorcht?"

What I'm saying here is that what you are setting up is without meaning to me personally, not being a programmer.

Or could it be the number of dogs that a household has?

I believe that the command "int" would look at the Int_dogs as a variable, is this what you mean?

But again, variables and data are meaningless unless they are applied/read/used and RELATE to something else.

There are infinite possible meaning to any particular bit of information.

That is why you must DEFINE terms and be clear about what you say. When making a claim you must state it clearly with terms that are very well defined in order that you are saying something which meaning. This is of course something I cannot teach you to do.

It's unlikely. Didn't Newton say that he knew how gravity behaved but did not understand it?

It has been demonstrated through general and specific relativity that Newton didn't even know how gravity behaved, he merely set the groundwork up.

If we presume everything we know of the universe is based upon observation,

Makes sense. But then you are discounting theory (Super String Theory is a mathematical statement that CANNOT be observed in less than ten+ dimensions, thus we cannot even draw it out because our visual and spacial reality is only four dimensions (including time, of course).

...then from a scientific standpoint we can only know how something behaves and produce a model that corresponds to this reality.

Again, our models of this reality many times go greatly beyond what we can observe and prove. Even the concept of the "Singularity" used by many to explain where it all came from is not exactly explainable because our math breaks down at this point (laws become unconstant).

There could, of course, be infinitely other models that correspond to a reality, even a reality whose difference escapes our means of measuring. Science, however, typically only picks the most simple, going by Occam's razor,

And, humorously, Occam's razor has demonstrated to be very truthful.

...but there's no underlying law that says what is simple corresponds to reality.

Our observations have demonstrated what you said above to be ignorance. Much of the time the simplest explaination is truthful.

Sin would then have to be God's will.

I would use the term "allowed."

A Perfect Being (again it would be impossible for a man to define what a Perfect God is) but let us say this Being experiences all pain/death/horrors Itself (Omniscience), then all that "bad" stuff that we label as "evil" then is allowed to be for purpose by this Greater Being, which we as finites do not see purpose to from our relative viewpoints.

Sin is allowed, if the concept of allowance would be included in your understanding of "will" then I agree that sin (temporarily) is a part of God's will, otherwise it would not be taking place (His omnipotence can stop that which He does not will to be.)

Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat of the fruit. I think if it was God's will that they eat of the fruit, God would have told them.

Whatever, telling them what would happen to them if they ate it, and then telling them to not eat it, and then giving them less punishment than was promised them, is evidence of a Merciful God. Also, there is really no way to argue that God did not want our reality (all parts of it) to exist, He ALLOWS IT TO EXIST and therefore God's desire is for it to be.

Yes, I think the distinction between free will and "probability" is what we call our own will is dependent upon our own soul, while God/instinct/Satan are exterior variables.

Our knowledge base and genetic traits drive our behavior which is limited by our environment. We have no will which is free of any variable and by such the person who is making the declaration of "free will" must declare what that will is free of or it is meaningless wordgames.

Thus, our own soul being a "random" singular variable seems to be above all atempts of decomposition.

I really hope you are not saying that a finite human's decisions are not easily decompositioned to knowing exactly what that person would do in a given environment based upon enough data. Such would be a meaningless statement (not evidence by current understandings) of the unlearned alone. Humans are basically hedonistic and beyond this there is very outlined ways of defining but any particular human will do in a given context. The "decomposition" of a human is of course not perfect, but it is flawed only in so far as enough data collection has not been done.

There's no natural process that has been completely broken down,

Yes, there is. The method by which our cells reproduce, the way plants get energy from the Sun, birth/sexual activities, and various other. We know a great deal about viri and other life forms and have mapped the human genetic makeup. The idea of "completely" is open to extreme subjectivity and of course there will always be more we could learn, but we are getting to a point where it is very difficult to go beyond many of the barriers we have reached due to the way things are (such as we cannot observe beyond a given microscopic level because electrons are only so small).

So I would say that your argument above is again very flawed, and I would argue it was a waste of our time because it does not correlate to this discussion very well.

...but most who believe in the soul believe it exists as a supernatural entity.

Whatever, supernatural this and that means little. I can claim I have a pink invisible unicorn that eats invisible wheat and doesn't affect the reality we exist in, in any observable way...and by such nothing can prove nor disprove my invisible pink unicorn. So, this argument about the soul isn't what really matters it is moronic ideas such a "free will" thrown around by people who argue for pink unicorns like the soul which cause problems because they fail to realize the causal environments inwhich we live.

God does not do Evil.

Amos 3:6.

If he did, he would be imperfect.

A God, by definition, has no law to follow. He did not give the law of Moses (Thou Shalt Not Murder) to Himself, He gave it to us. There are various things which YHVH promised us in the Tanakh (like not lying to us and such, and the eternal covenant of the law) but again, doing something that a finite subjective human defines as "evil" is meaningless from His perspective.

The Egyptian farmer who had lost his crops, his firstborm, his home, his health, and seen darkness and the destruction of his civilization would not view the Entity of YHVH as good, but would clearly label YHVH as HaSatan, a meaningless argument in totality when you think about it as we are finites and truly would not comprehend why any given "evil" action comes our way, even if it was for purpose.

Then again, the record of the Tanakh is that there is but One Single Omnipotent Commander and that even spirits which mankind label as "evil" are sent directly by the LORD. If you doubt me I DARE you to use EVEN a JKV text and look up the term "evil spirit" and see who sent them (for purpose of course).

If God does not do Evil,

Amos 3:6.

then we do Evil. But for us to do Evil, we must have chosen to do Evil of our own accord.

That's a moronic statement outright.
My entire argument all along has been an attempt to let you realize that you do not have to do a choice/will of your own accord. In fact, it is quite possible that the majority (if not all) of choice is influenced in totality, and thus is not "free" by any definition.

You made this too easy for me.

How is calling someone a liar defending the law?

You labeled it (the law) dead, and I said you were a liar.
That is how.

godrulz

July 15th, 2004, 11:59 AM

Christianity is not Catholicism (Rome). Please do not equate the two as being identical. My beliefs are only valid if rooted in Scripture, not creeds or church history.

The Bible is progressive revelation. God hammered home that He is 'one God' (monotheism) in the midst of pagan nations (Deut. 6:4). In the fulness of time, the invisible God became a man, fully revealing who God is. Then Jesus taught us about another Comforter of the same kind, the Holy Spirit, who is with us after His ascension. The Old Testament is valid truth, but it has been expanded on and clarified with the coming of the 'Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

Do you still offer animal sacrifices and follow hundreds of OT laws?

The immutability of God (God is absolutely changeless) is a concept borrowed from pagan Greek philosophy (Philo, Plato). Not all traditional understanding in Christianity is biblical. God is unchanging in His character (holy, love, faithful) and essential attributes like eternal, uncreated, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, etc.

He is not changeless in His relations or works, but experiences an endless duration, succesion, sequence of time (vs pagan 'eternal now'/timelessness concept most Christians believe in).

God's creation and the incarnation of the Son are examples of changes within God, that do not negate other aspects that are unchanging (character, etc.). A proper understanding of immutability allows for the possibility and reality of the eternal God becoming the God-Man in Jesus Christ (the triune nature of God, which you reject, also makes it cogent; the Father did not come and die, only the Son did; 40 verses show the Deity of Christ; you have 6 Arian proof texts that merely show that He also became a man or had a different role than the Father cf. JWs).

JosephofMessiah

July 15th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Christianity is not Catholicism (Rome).

The NT's soul and lone authority is based upon the inspiration of the church of rome's councils who coddified them. If you deny that these church fathers were not inspired by God in order to have a democratical vote and decide upon what was and was not of God's word, then you are negating the validity of the NT.

Please do not equate the two as being identical.

You really are a silly person when it comes down to it, you make claims and then go on without stating what you mean by it. If your beliefs are different from the mangod of Rome who is the Son of God, yet God the Son, yet mangod, who is in fact "the Father in flesh" then it is up to you to denote exactly how your views differ from Rome's doctrine and the NT. I am not dealing with every single cult and version which might exist but with Rome, if I could discredit the NT or the church of Rome then the entire argument is done, and since you seem to already discredit the church upon which the document of the NT was coddified, I find it a silly thing altogether.

My beliefs are only valid if rooted in Scripture,...

"Scripture" as a term is thrown around plenty but let us not mince words. The real scripture comes from inspired men who heard from YHVH and not the church of rome's documents which were collected inwhich no one really knows who authored them. To claim that a document is inspired without knowing who wrote it is without defense unless another prophet tells you that it was of God. Since you are seeming to discredit the church of rome who is the lone authority which claims the NT is of God, then I find your argument lacking.

...not creeds or church history.

The Bible is progressive revelation. God hammered home that He is 'one God' (monotheism) in the midst of pagan nations (Deut. 6:4).

Too bad the church attempts to divide an Omnipresent Entity through meaningless wordgames and mysteries.

In the fulness of time, the invisible God became a man,

No, the Tanakh clearly tells us that God is not a way, is not mortal, is not man. It clearly demands of us to make no image of anything in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath because if we were to do so then we are in idolatry. I understand that the mystery which is the Trinity (an illogical statement/concept outright) is used to cover this idolatry, but it is still of course just that, it is labeling a man as the Father, against what YHVH said for us to do. YHVH was very clear when He told us that His ways are not our ways, neither are His thoughts our thoughts.

...fully revealing who God is.

Far from the church of rome revealing anything in their documents, it is hiding the actual truth of Whom God is in a mythos of a false mangod.

(snip pagan ignorances and indoctrination attempt)
Do you still offer animal sacrifices and follow hundreds of OT laws?

Such questions just demonstrate your ignorance of the law and the prophets than demonstrate knowledge. In fact it is easily demonstrated by the words of Hosea what we are to do when the temple does not exist. Also, no, we (those that follow the Tanakh and law) do not have to give a blood offering because that is not the only means of removing iniquity, which is the lie only contained within the NT book of hebrew.

I do follow much of the Tanakh's law however because it is just a good law (what applies to myself such as no pork and such, of course the priesthood law and female laws would not apply to me, so I cannot follow "all the law"), when you read it within context and understand what it is requiring. Animal sacrifices were a single method of removing the most innocent of sins, they could not remove premeditated sins anways. So, again, your question is based upon ignorance of Judaism and the law and the prophets then knowledge. We never had to kill anything to find removal of iniquity, this is even more-so defended by the word of Hosea who predicted that the temple would be gone and that Israel would use prayer to remove iniquity.

So when you ask ignorant questions like the above it gives me understanding as you why you serve the barberic bloodgod of rome, it is because you have no even read the Tanakh nor have understanding of the prophetic voice in the least.

The immutability of God (God is absolutely changeless) is a concept borrowed from pagan Greek philosophy (Philo, Plato).

No, it is simply how God is percieved. God also told us that His ways are not our ways so even IF God changes it is not like unto man, for God is not mortal by His own words.

(snip unneeded verbage)
God's creation and the incarnation of the Son are examples of changes within God,

God declared such beliefs to be idolatry (placing Him upon flesh is definitely this) and and of course the only reason anyone would believe upon this "mystery" is because they have not questioned the following:

-A man cannot have all knowledge and limited knowledge at once.
-A man cannot be in one place and in all places at once.
-A man cannot have no power and unlimited power at once.

Therefore the idea that Yehshua of Nazareth was a mangod is not upheld by the NT in the least, but yet it demonstrates repeatedly that Yehshua was limited in mind, had a will separate from God and opposite of God (not my will but Thine be done), and was in flesh (called a man). So when people say that Yehshua was a godman they are simply cutting off their mind and not questioning pagan blasphemy because a false church created this blasphemous doctrine and they will not question that church's doctrine. Truly if they would but read the Tanakh it would set them straight, and very much so the levitical law of offering would denote to them clearly that an innocent man's death is an abomination and is not salvatory nor atoning to the God of Israel.

...that do not negate other aspects that are unchanging (character, etc.). A proper understanding of immutability allows for the possibility and reality of the eternal God becoming the God-Man in Jesus Christ (the triune nature of God, which you reject, also makes it cogent; the Father did not come and die, only the Son did; 40 verses show the Deity of Christ; you have 6 Arian proof texts that merely show that He also became a man or had a different role than the Father cf. JWs).

What is demonstrated is that during those verses Yehshua was not a mangod but a man. While you could argue that from time to time Yehshua "became a mangod" and at other times was merely a "man," you cannot make the claim that Yehshua was always a mangod, the NT record does not support such a claim. The coolest thing however is that God told us that He is not mortal, is not man, therefore there is at no time that Yehshua was a godman because God is not man. Therefore your entire doctrine is pagan blasphemous idolatry created only for the purpose of declaring an abominational act as salvatory against everything that is holy and against the holy law of YHVH.

You are lost in idolatry [the belief upon an idol (mangod)], upon an abomination as salvatory (vicarious human atonement), upon injustice as a path of salvation (original sin doctrine against the words of Ezekiel), and are without defense when you simply read what the Tanakh has to say about your blasphemy and idolatry and what the levitical law has to say about your abomination and whether it can be atoning in any way.

erethnereh

July 15th, 2004, 08:34 PM

I would guess that "int" is a command and that "num_dogs" is a variable which this command would use.

Sort of. "int" defines an integer type.

What I'm saying here is that what you are setting up is without meaning to me personally, not being a programmer.

Ok, I still think you should be able to understand. (I understand your French but I'm probably less than capable of giving an example from physics) Data always has meaning outside of the information, and often what the information means is dependent on context. For instance, what does 'C' mean? Well, 'C' could mean the capital letter, the C programing language, slang for see, 68(ie., the ascii code) or the musical note.

Now you claim that the variable is meaningless without the larger program is valid but it's only a matter of scale of meaningless. The entire program is data, and the behavior of the program exhibit the same problems.

Makes sense. But then you are discounting theory (Super String Theory is a mathematical statement that CANNOT be observed in less than ten+ dimensions, thus we cannot even draw it out because our visual and spacial reality is only four dimensions (including time, of course).

Yes, observation has many more problems such as Heisenburg's principle. How can a finite brain possibly produce a correct understanding of the universe, which is multitudes larger? Hence, it takes a certain amount of trust that what we observe and know is what is important to the model. Occam's razor has proven to be a successful method to eventually find a physical "truth," but it is almost never right on the first try. (Newton Mechanics verses Relativity and Early models of the atom).

The Jewish understanding of the Omnipotent One does not allow for an understanding that a finite human can do something which the Almight directly does not wish to take place.

I don't think the Jews I know would believe this persay, though I think most Jews would probably leave the question unanswered. It really seems to be just an issue of priorities. God's desire to allow mankind a choice is more important than a world without that choice, even if His creation chooses to disobey Him.

But granted under this notion is that God created evil for purpose (Isaiah 45:7) and that God set before mankind both life/good and death/evil for purpose.

This is correct. In Deut Moses says that before the Isrealites was water and fire, the choice to do good and to do bad. Since a word similar to choice is used in the Torah, can you define what choice is?

So all the things we label as "evil" is in fact for purpose in His viewpoint, that is why it takes place.

I'm using capital E in Evil to emphasize the broken relationship with God and not any attrocities that may have happended.

erethnereh

July 15th, 2004, 11:00 PM

Christianity is not Catholicism (Rome). Please do not equate the two as being identical.

I dobn't know why JoM keeps on using Rome to refer to Catholicism?

my beliefs are only valid if rooted in Scripture, not creeds or church history.

godrules, JoM is exaggerating the influence that the latter Church Father's had in the selection of the books. In the early church the 4 gospels along with Paul's writings were widely used by early Christians, some of whom were taught by the apostles.

"Scripture" as a term is thrown around plenty but let us not mince words. The real scripture comes from inspired men who heard from YHVH and not the church of rome's documents which were collected inwhich no one really knows who authored them.

How is a common man like myself supposed to determine which scripture was inspired by YHVH and which was inspired by Rome?

To claim that a document is inspired without knowing who wrote it is without defense

Who wrote Deuteronomy? Clearly some parts were not written by Moses because it refers to Moses in the third person. Other common examples can be found within Genesis, Chronicles, and Levicticus.

unless another prophet tells you that it was of God.

Yes, there are seers and saints who say the Bible is from God. That doesn't mean *your* or *my* interpretation is always from God.

A God, by definition, has no law to follow. He did not give the law of Moses (Thou Shalt Not Murder) to Himself, He gave it to us.

Compare "Be holy as I am holy" with what Jesus said "Be perfect as the Lord your God is perfect."

The Egyptian farmer who had lost his crops, his firstborm, his home, his health, and seen darkness and the destruction of his civilization would not view the Entity of YHVH as good, but would clearly label YHVH as HaSatan, a meaningless argument in totality when you think about it as we are finites and truly would not comprehend why any given "evil" action comes our way, even if it was for purpose.

Irrationally, the farmer might but since all these things were given to him by YHVH, he does not really have too much of a stake with these things.

Then again, the record of the Tanakh is that there is but One Single Omnipotent Commander and that even spirits which mankind label as "evil" are sent directly by the LORD.

I'm aware that the text says that God sent an evil spirit to Saul. My understanding concerning hebrew thought is that Satan gradually grew as revelation became clear. In the beginning, there was a tendancy to attribute God to everything outside man's choice, and although this isn't entirely wrong if it's understood that God does not always directly participate, it leaves God doing Evil.

By the way, what is your interpretation of the scapegoat on the day of atonement?

JosephofMessiah

July 17th, 2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by erethnereh

I dobn't know why JoM keeps on using Rome to refer to Catholicism?

Roman Catholicism.
Please tell me you have heard the term?

The Church of Rome?
Please tell me you have heard this as well.

The entire NT text souly (and in totality) requires that you believe the church fathers were inspired in their vote to accept the NT as God's word. If you deny the church fathers, you have little coherence.

godrules, JoM is exaggerating the influence that the latter Church Father's had in the selection of the books.

There were hundreds of texts, some such as the book of Thomas, and many many others were not used. Paul's letters were used more-so than even those which were claimed to be written by those who met Yehshua. Go figure. But of course, even in the "selection" of these text, they were not left alone after this, scribes began their insertion of the trinity doctrine even after the texts were "accepted" (such a 1 John 5:7 per example).

In the early church the 4 gospels along with Paul's writings were widely used by early Christians, some of whom were taught by the apostles.

At least these guys did label the books with guesses of authorship in order to make people believe in the texts more. The average Christian, none of them know that the texts were labeled by pure guesses.

How is a common man like myself supposed to determine which scripture was inspired by YHVH and which was inspired by Rome?

Find an online Tanakh and read it.

If your NT doctrine conflicts with the levitical law, the justice of Ezekiel, God's description of Himself, or with the primal understanding that God is One, then you know it was inspired by church fathers who voted and not from YHVH.

It is through indepth study that we discover the lies which rome has placed over man's eyes for centuries and it is only through questioning their texts that we can do so.

Who wrote Deuteronomy?

Want a scholarly answer or a more faith based answer?

The faith one is Moses, the scholarly one is that no one is 100% certain due to removal of time and the possibility of scribal error.

Clearly some parts were not written by Moses because it refers to Moses in the third person.

Yes, and we are all certain that "Joseph of Messiah" couldn't write in third person, aren't we.

Silly argument outright.

Other common examples can be found within Genesis, Chronicles, and Levicticus.

The faith answer is that the entire Torah (law) was given down from YHVH to Moses at the Mount. The scholarly answer was that this tradition was involved with a people and many placed themselves within the text.

I admit that this text is not 100%, but none are (humanity touches something it is corrupted instantly), and as time goes on and transcription and translation happens (as well as manipulation by KJV scribes) mankind begins to accept lies more-so than ever before.

But again, as you seek you find and the more you seek the more you find out that Christianity is a lie of a false church and the "fathers" of this church who voted upon what was and/or was not of God's mouth were blasphemous idolators, accepting vicarious atonement of an innocent against everything the Tanakh and Ezekiel's law (as well as Hosea's truths) tell us.

Yes, there are seers and saints who say the Bible is from God.

Which Bible?
What version?
What translation?
Does it include the texts Rome collected?

The term "Bible" has many meanings, and of course from myself the term does not include the collected works of Rome outright.

Also, listing the prophets and saints that said these collected works were from YHVH might help out this discussion. A prophet that says that the NT is from the God known as YHVH would help plenty of people out, not that the NT is from this trinity which is blasphemous and scholarly indefensible.

That doesn't mean *your* or *my* interpretation is always from God.

At least you have learned that our understandings are finite and therefore fallible, each of us following the knowledge base we have aquired to that end.

Compare "Be holy as I am holy" with what Jesus said "Be perfect as the Lord your God is perfect."

The LORD's perfect does not compare to a man's perfect. The LORD has no law to follow, His Will is Done (even if it means killing innocent children in Egypt). So to compare what the LORD would compare to the law of Moses, it wouldn't work out.

Again, the idea of "holy" is exceedingly meaningless in a relative environment, it is such that men even try to label wars as holy.

Irrationally, the farmer might...

I do not understand why logically (if you accept that a "satan" exists) you would not believe that all this "evil" which has come upon you is his fault. Any Christian I have ever listened to thanks God for the "good stuff" and blames "satan" for the bad. Silly really, they might need the good and bad (and both are from YHVH anyways in the end) for purpose.

Never heard a Christian healer tell someone that the LORD gave them that illness for purpose, go figure. It is always "blame satan." Heh.

...but since all these things were given to him by YHVH, he does not really have too much of a stake with these things.

All any man has is his perception of reality. That is all he has. The farmer making a just decision to think the God which destroyed his town is evil is not a "wrong" conclusion. Just like an American making the claim that it was "satan's work" that caused 9-11, or an Iraqi calling Bush the "great satan." Anyone in either of these person's shoes would believe the same thing. But of course it could be that YHVH is involved in all things, or not involved in anything, that is left up to Him.

But Egypt is a great example of how we apply "good/evil" on a finite scale which in relation to YHVH doesn't work. To the Israelite, YHVH was justified for everything He did to Egypt. To the Egyptian, Ra failed them and YHVH is an "evil" god that helped out the Jews. That is how relativity works, you view it from your finite perspective and place fairly meaningless temporal/cultural morality upon something, all the while believing that "your people" are in the right.

Kinda funny when you think about it. This even happens within religions. Joan of Arc was a saint to the french and a heretic to england and burned for it. Go figure, there is no convincing the englishman or english priest that God was "against" his people beating France when Joan was around, it just doesn't enter into our minds that we might be the very ones that God isn't happy about.

Take modern day pagan America (for the most part a hedonistic and secular society which is going more and more atheistic in culture and in schooling) for example. You could never convince anyone that "God Bless America" is an oxymoron anymore than you could convince the fanatical Islamic regimes that Allah was not pleased with them. Each holding firm beliefs that "God" is on their side alone and they are the "righteous ones."

It takes a very reflective person to see the barberic natures of his own people, the Imperialistic acts of his leaders, and at the same time realize that modern day fanatical Islam is destroying the Arab world. I'd say that God wasn't on either side from the standpoint I'm taking and that is why the world....sucks.

I'm aware that the text says that God sent an evil spirit to Saul.

Good, now you get to appologize that away in order to give power to the demi-fallen-angel-god Satan.

My understanding concerning hebrew thought is that Satan gradually grew as revelation became clear.

"Satan" (the mythos of the fallen angel) developed due to a mistranslation of the morning star reference of Isaiah. Has roots in Greek paganism (Hades and the Ruler of Hades) and in Persian Dualistic religions. Has NOTHING to do with Judaism in the least.

The "HaSatan" that tested Job is not the "Satan" that Christianity teaches of, just in case you tried that one.

In the beginning, there was a tendancy to attribute God to everything outside man's choice,

In the very least, an Omnipotent Entity is ALLOWING IT to take place, and of course that goes into the philosophical argument that allowing with the ability to stop it is "desiring it to exist," in a sense. But that is for another thread perhaps.

...and although this isn't entirely wrong if it's understood that God does not always directly participate, it leaves God doing Evil.

Amos 3:6.
Isaiah 45:7

The funny thing is you can use the Christophiled KJV on these verses. Go figure. Newer Christian translation realized the "error of theology" and attempted to change (read: MANIPULATE) them however so to be internally consistent. Didn't work however because the word used there is of course correctly translated as EVIL (big E).

But all this really does is vindicate the perspective of the Egyptian farmer, nothing more, nothing less. God has no law that we can hold Him to in order to label Him "unholy," so any action He takes (no matter what it is) is "holy." Bet ya never thought of that, did ya?

We can measure a man's righteousness against the law.
There is nothing to measure God's against.

By the way, what is your interpretation of the scapegoat on the day of atonement?

A levitical offering at a levitical temple by a levitical priest following the Law of God in order to bring about atonement for Israel, remind them to repent, and to cleanse sins they either do not remember or did not premeditate. Not a mangod's butchery, not upon a pagan cross, not a human. When the temple is gone however, we can offer prayers to remove iniquity according to the words of Hosea (again, no mangod's butchery needed according to Tanakh).

erethnereh

July 17th, 2004, 09:52 PM

There were hundreds of texts, some such as the book of Thomas, and many many others were not used. Paul's letters were used more-so than even those which were claimed to be written by those who met Yehshua. Go figure.

There's no quotations from the early church using the book of Thomas because it was created by gnostics. The origin of the book and the claimed author are suspect in that the projected date when it was created was 140AD. The "secret knowledge" is antithetical to what the gospel teaches.

But of course, even in the "selection" of these text, they were not left alone after this, scribes began their insertion of the trinity doctrine even after the texts were "accepted" (such a 1 John 5:7 per example).

I think 1 John 5:7 was mistranslated by the creators of the KJV.
I believe we have manuscripts that date before the doctrine of the Trinity was declared. In any case, writers such as Ignatius refered to the "blood of God" 200 years before the declaration of the Trinity, so the belief that Jesus was God occurred well before the theological framework was in place.

At least these guys did label the books with guesses of authorship in order to make people believe in the texts more. The average Christian, none of them know that the texts were labeled by pure guesses.

This is untrue. There's evidence from the writings of Papias, Jerome, and Iranaeus. Papias tells us who wrote the gospels, and even if his writing is a forgery, he would most likely conveying the tradition.

Yes, and we are all certain that "Joseph of Messiah" couldn't write in third person, aren't we.
Silly argument outright.

No, the verse in question is a bit more specific on chapter 34:10. "Since then no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face." It's unlikely that it was Moses who wrote everything. Perhaps Aaron or one of the elders of the comunity helped write it. But my point is that all Scripture is to teach and debating who wrote each verse might distract from the message.

The LORD's perfect does not compare to a man's perfect. The LORD has no law to follow, His Will is Done (even if it means killing innocent children in Egypt). So to compare what the LORD would compare to the law of Moses, it wouldn't work out.

To some respects, "yes." Moses did not tell the Israelites to become God; however, there's also no reason to assume that our Father is completely unlike us in every respect. We were made in his image

Again, the idea of "holy" is exceedingly meaningless in a relative environment, it is such that men even try to label wars as holy.

This is untrue. "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul" is not a relative command. God is everywhere. If he sees through all observation points, there is nothing that is relative to him.

Any Christian I have ever listened to thanks God for the "good stuff" and blames "satan" for the bad. Silly really, they might need the good and bad (and both are from YHVH anyways in the end) for purpose.

I try not to give credit to Satan for anything. Unless if the physical event was caused by sin, it does not seem possible that man could judge whether it is good or bad. Although we could use "good," we do not always mean the good that comes from God.

Never heard a Christian healer tell someone that the LORD gave them that illness for purpose, go figure. It is always "blame satan." Heh.

I've never seen a genuine Christian healer(as in the ability to cure physical ailments).

"Satan" (the mythos of the fallen angel) developed due to a mistranslation of the morning star reference of Isaiah. Has roots in Greek paganism (Hades and the Ruler of Hades) and in Persian Dualistic religions. Has NOTHING to do with Judaism in the least.

The funny thing is you can use the Christophiled KJV on these verses. Go figure. Newer Christian translation realized the "error of theology" and attempted to change (read: MANIPULATE) them however so to be internally consistent. Didn't work however because the word used there is of course correctly translated as EVIL (big E).

If I'm correct in my understanding, the hebrew word used means the opposite of Shaloam(peace or good). Hosea 5:15 says "I will go back to my place until they pay for their guilt and seek my presence." I think there's whole realm that you have not explained: that God is omnipresent but his presence is not something every creature has. I don't think the absence of God's presence is something that we can say God created. Rather, it seems to be something that man can "create" to become his own god.

In the very least, an Omnipotent Entity is ALLOWING IT to take place, and of course that goes into the philosophical argument that allowing with the ability to stop it is "desiring it to exist," in a sense. But that is for another thread perhaps.

Ok, I'll give an example. I have a girlfriend that I love and believe we have a future together, so I ask her to marry me. Do I want her to say "yes." Of course I do, but I not in the very least want to force her to marry me. I desire the choice while at the same time desiring the "yes." But to take away the choice would mean the "yes" could never happen.

JosephofMessiah

July 22nd, 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by erethnereh

There's no quotations from the early church using the book of Thomas because it was created by gnostics.

"Book of Thomas" was used as example only, inthat there are various books which were picked between and I find it funny that the Mithra of Tarsus writer Paul was used and his doctrine developed over that of Yehshua of Nazareth. The teachings of Rabbi Yehshua directly separate him from Paul's doctrine, if you'd like a critical thread about this difference you can setup a post/thread topic.

The origin of the book and the claimed author are suspect in that the projected date when it was created was 140AD. The "secret knowledge" is antithetical to what the gospel teaches.

Take your word for it, it was only used as an example, nothing more or less, and I do not hold to this book as of God or not (since not having read it).

I think 1 John 5:7 was mistranslated by the creators of the KJV.

1 John 5:7 was not IN the original manuscripts. It was added by a scribe in a margin, and then adopted later by other manuscript writers as this "verse." It is in fact spurious and is the only verse in the entire NT which teaches "are one."

I believe we have manuscripts that date before the doctrine of the Trinity was declared.

The NT (when taken into account a scholarly critical viewpoint) does not teach a tri-theism but is strictly monotheistic. Yehshua specifically stated to call no man upon the Earth your Father (God) because God is in heaven, this links back to the statement made in the Jewish Tanakh that God is not a man, nor mortal. It was Paul's lie that Yehshua thought it not robbery to be equal to God (against what Yehshua taught) that allowed for the idolatry in modern day Christian doctrine.

In any case, writers such as Ignatius refered to the "blood of God" 200 years before the declaration of the Trinity,

Did Ignatius claim to be a prophet and hear the voice of God or are you basing your salvation upon a mere mortal's assumption?

This is especially strange argument when God tells us that He is not mortal and to make no image of anything in the Earth, because nothing in it is Him, so if you agree with what Ignatius claims you are separate and heretical to Judaism and are in idolatry. Just want to let you know where you stand if YHVH is actual God.

...so the belief that Jesus was God occurred well before the theological framework was in place.

This is untrue. There's evidence from the writings of Papias, Jerome, and Iranaeus. Papias tells us who wrote the gospels, and even if his writing is a forgery, he would most likely conveying the tradition.

Even Christian scholars admit this, it is not an argument. The labels of the NT authors are assumptions, "educated guesses" and are not in any way backed by real evidence. In fact, Christian scholars admit this so really we have little to discuss about this. The authors of many/much of NT gospels is unknown, labeled by guess (even if educated guess).

{In response to not using third person...}
No, the verse in question is a bit more specific on chapter 34:10. "Since then no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face." It's unlikely that it was Moses who wrote everything.

I would agree on a scholarly level and disagree on a faith-based level.
As a rational mind, I keep options open to investigation and granted who in actuality penned the Torah or Tanakh is hard-pressed to evidence.

Perhaps Aaron or one of the elders of the comunity helped write it.

I am certain that much of the law was invented in councils, only because of the nature of much of it.

But my point is that all Scripture is to teach and debating who wrote each verse might distract from the message.

It is important to lay doubt to the NT's doctrine inthat it is uncertain of whom wrote it (and if it can be trusted). In fact, the lone reason it is given any import at all is the Church's decision to rule it as of God, and if these men who voted upon this text were not inspired then they commited blasphemy. The prophets of the Tanakh claim inspiration of YHVH and their doctrines match, the NT's doctrine is a direct change (in a directly opposite direction) to the teachings of the Tanakh.

Acceptance of the modern day Christian claim is to place one under the idolatry of acceptance of a mangod (idol/abomination/blasphemy), the mystery of the Trinity (when God is One is of the utmost command of the Tanakh), and to believe upon an abomination as salvatory when it remains that it is idolatry (mangod) and against the eternal levitical law of atoning offering, and is against the words of Hosea which lay down exactly what we are to do without a temple. However, when Yehshua died a temple existed and the levitical law was in effect, and his death upon a pagan cross (a human death at that) is not salvatory nor atoning in any way, shape, form if you simply read the levitical eternal law of God.

{in response to...."The LORD's perfect does not compare to a man's perfect. The LORD has no law to follow, His Will is Done (even if it means killing innocent children in Egypt). So to compare what the LORD would compare to the law of Moses, it wouldn't work out.
"}

To some respects, "yes." Moses did not tell the Israelites to become God; however, there's also no reason to assume that our Father is completely unlike us in every respect. We were made in his image

Yes, there is according to the Tanakh. "My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts." God also says that He is not mortal, not the son of man, and to place none of your trust in princes of this world. YHVH declares that He alone is God, and there are none like Him. That nothing in the Earth can be used as an image of Him, because nothing is as He is.

The word used "image" of God, is a link inthat we are finites of the Infinite, that God also shares our perspectives, but that God is not us, and we are not Him. Omniscience has our perspectives, but He is ONE by His decree.

{in response to..."Again, the idea of "holy" is exceedingly meaningless in a relative environment, it is such that men even try to label wars as holy."}
This is untrue. "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul" is not a relative command.

Sure it is. It relates to each person as to what it means. All terms are subjective and finite in nature or you cannot understand/grasp them. Subjective/finite are relative to those perspectives outright.

God is everywhere.

Yes, the Tanakh says we can not hide from Him, even if we were in "Hell" (poor translation of course) itself, He is there.

If he sees through all observation points, there is nothing that is relative to him.

Exactly, God has the soul lone objective viewpoint because He is not relative, His viewpoint is without bias and without variation, His is also not subjective but Infinite. OUR (human) perceptions and subjective finite viewpoints are all relative in nature.

I try not to give credit to Satan for anything. Unless if the physical event was caused by sin, it does not seem possible that man could judge whether it is good or bad. Although we could use "good," we do not always mean the good that comes from God.

You just reduced "Satan" to nothingness and gave credit to God for all things. I can't argue with that as that is what the Tanakh teaches.

I've never seen a genuine Christian healer(as in the ability to cure physical ailments).

Seen many "claimers." Never seen actual except once and that was my dad (exceedingly long story). And as a rational critical thinker, I can discredit that event if I think about it long enough, even though I guess those that saw the Sea part could discredit that event if they thought about it long enough.

If I'm correct in my understanding, the hebrew word used means the opposite of Shaloam(peace or good).

It means "Evil." Hardships, sickness, horrors, etc. All that "stuff" that Christianity links to Satan and Satan's actions/desires/powers.

These things are all given to YHVH under Judaism, because all things are for great purpose in the end, the story of Job teaches this clearly and this cannot take place under the Christian doctrine.

Hosea 5:15 says "I will go back to my place until they pay for their guilt and seek my presence."

I think there's whole realm that you have not explained: that God is omnipresent but his presence is not something every creature has.

Every creature has it, they may not FEEL it but God is present always.

A creature's (finite's) perception is limited by definition.

I don't think the absence of God's presence is something that we can say God created.

Since God is everywhere present, there is no where you can go that can remove you from His presence. You (as a human finite) might not have witness to His presence, but He is always-present, He claims so anyways in the Tanakh.

Rather, it seems to be something that man can "create" to become his own god.

{In response to..."In the very least, an Omnipotent Entity is ALLOWING IT to take place, and of course that goes into the philosophical argument that allowing with the ability to stop it is "desiring it to exist," in a sense. But that is for another thread perhaps."}

Ok, I'll give an example. I have a girlfriend that I love and believe we have a future together, so I ask her to marry me. Do I want her to say "yes." Of course I do, but I not in the very least want to force her to marry me. I desire the choice while at the same time desiring the "yes." But to take away the choice would mean the "yes" could never happen.

No, this is not what Christianity claims. Here is a better example of the god you serve.

You have a girlfriend that you have affection for (but do not care if she feels pain in the end, so it is a form of affection but not the love that I know of for the love that I know of entails empathy, lacking by the Christian mangod) and believe that you have fun together, so you ask her to marry you and threaten to burn her alive if she decides she does not want to marry you. You want her to say "yes" but of course she can by her own will choose to be burned alive. Of course, you do not in the very least want to "force" her to marry you [and of course letting her choose to burn alive, the "other option," somehow (in great stupidity) allows a free choice, not trying to force her to choose you in the least, are you? (note sarcasm)]. You desire the choice while at the same time desiring the "yes." But to take away the choice would mean the "yes" could never happen.

You serve a demi-god-man-blood-god born of ignorance and blasphemy, a form of idolatry that places you in sin and disobediance to the God of Israel formed by the false doctrine of the lie of Rome.

God is quite merciful in His true path of salvation (Ezekiel and Hosea both tell us this true path), and no mangod (idol) is involved, no blood-death-torture is required, no threat of "hell" nor the demi-fallen-angel-god is required, God is as any father that exists, true repentence brings salvation, you do not have to destroy your brother upon a pagan cross, nor believe upon such paganism to be saved, and far from such belief being salvatory, it is abominable. The problem is in knowing what to be sorry for...and of course anyone under Christiain doctrine does not know what to be sorry for (idolatry, belief upon an abomination as salvatory, blasphemy, and ignorance to the law of YHVH's offering.)

To those under such ignorances and false doctrines, it is a blessing to realize that there exists a truly Merciful God, and not the barberic bloodgod of rome's false church that requires a hell to threaten in great hedonism those that would not fall servant to this rediculous and anti-Tanakh claims.

JosephofMessiah

July 22nd, 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

I have you on ignore Aimiel, your arguments are nothing but indoctrination without insight, scholarship, historical evidence, or theological meaning. It is like a broken record of the church of rome that can't think for itself, you would do Galileo's sophist character an injustice.

JosephofMessiah

July 22nd, 2004, 06:06 PM

Even with Aimiel on ignore, this was too "good" (easy) to pass up...

Originally posted by Aimiel

Correct. The Holy Spirit is with believers, and lives inside of those who invite Him to do so.

YHVH is everywhere present and His location (being always present) is not "controlled" by the decisions of finite creations.

The Lord has sought to dwell in Temples not made with hands (the bodies of believers). That's what I'm speaking to.

If whatever you are speaking to is telling you that the church of rome's doctrine is correct, then it is an adversary of man sent to corrupt you.

You have no ability to know if what comes to you is of good or evil, as a finite it is all left up to a guess and since Rome's doctrine is in totality against the law of YHVH it is blasphemy and idolatry, and since whatever it is that you are speaking to is in defense/support of this false doctrine it is also servant to a lie and injustice as a means of salvation against the prophetic voice of the Tanakh.

You either deny that God was Jesus' Father...

Yehshua the man was born, therefore he was a son of God created in the image of God, just as Genesis denotes that all mankind are.

(He is The Only One Who can claim that inherent Birthright, all other sons are by adoption);

That is not what the Tanakh teaches, this is what the NT false doctrine teaches.

...or simply are dismissing it as irrellevant. He is The Root of all life.

YHVH, the Entity that created all that is, is responsible for all life that He created/generated. It is a duality of cause, a link to responsibility inwhich God cannot remove from Himself some cupability for the actions of all that have, are, or shall exist for He allowed them to become and has the ability to prevent anything from becoming.

The Root and The Offspring of David.

The NT text denotes that Yehshua of Nazareth was born of a "virgin" which is not a prophecy found in the Tanakh, it is a manipulation/mistranslation of the word "alma" which does not denote virginity, but is better written as "maiden." Also, since the NT claims that Yehshua was born of his mother alone (and due to the very easily disproven genealogical evidence provided by the NT authors), no messiahship can be claimed as the House passes only through the genetics-blood-link of the father and of course Nathan is not of the messiahship family line anyways.

So again you are easily discredited, like a broken record afraid to seek above whatever it is that is your particular self delusion..

(snip stupidity)God demonstrates as He wills,

Yep, told us He is not mortal/man, not in the Earth, and to worship nothing in the Earth as Him. And yet the doctrine of Rome creates a mangod (idol) anyways, go figure.

...not as un-believers such as yourself demand of Him.

I am not an unbeliever.
I am a heretic to your false mangod which is blasphemy to the Tanakh's God named YHVH, the God of Israel.

I have a different belief set than you, but I do believe in God.
I just deny that your false mangod has anything to be based upon but ignorance to history, theology, and the actual teachings of Yehshua above/before/instead of Paul.

I am often 'inspired' to prophecy on His Behalf, and He always confirms His Word.

I think your funny, that is the only reason I waste my time responding to you from time to time.

I ask that you PM me this answer, I've removed you from ignore for this purpose...humor me.

Ask whatever in heck it is that you say communicates with you about me and tell me the response, quote "it."

Aimiel

July 23rd, 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

I have you on ignore Aimiel, your arguments are nothing but indoctrination without insight, scholarship, historical evidence, or theological meaning. It is like a broken record of the church of rome that can't think for itself, you would do Galileo's sophist character an injustice. Well then, I guess that your curiosity is still searching for The Truth, even though your dogma and your ignorance keep trying to silence it. Keep searching. It is only when you search for The Lord with all of your heart that you will find Him. He promised that.

Aimiel

July 23rd, 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Even with Aimiel on ignore, this was too "good" (easy) to pass up...You have to be the most arrogant, thoughtless person that I've ever communicated with. You give Narcissus a bad name. Heady words, but you haven't persuaded me of your 'truth' yet once, so I guess you're vain AND weak.YHVH is everywhere present and His location (being always present) is not "controlled" by the decisions of finite creations.You'll have to argue with Him, then, since His Tabernacle is with men, and has decided that will be His Dwellingplace.You have no ability to know if what comes to you is of good or evil, as a finite it is all left up to a guess and since Rome's doctrine is in totality against the law of YHVH it is blasphemy and idolatry, and since whatever it is that you are speaking to is in defense/support of this false doctrine it is also servant to a lie and injustice as a means of salvation against the prophetic voice of the Tanakh.We have the ability to be witnessed to by The Spirit of The Lord, Who does so with great assurance. It is more sure that an eyewitness account of The Voice that said, "This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." He is The One Who gives us faith in God. Without Him, none of us would even believe that there is a God. Yehshua the man was born, therefore he was a son of God created in the image of God, just as Genesis denotes that all mankind are.Except that He came 'from' God. He had no earthly father, and God is His Father. There is none other that is begotton. The rest of us have been adopted (those of the household of faith in Yehshua as Messiah).That is not what the Tanakh teaches, this is what the NT false doctrine teaches.The Tanakh was fulfilled (most of it) in Yehshua. He will fulfill every jot and every tittle. There is none other who can.YHVH, the Entity that created all that is, is responsible for all life that He created/generated. The Word of God teaches us that Yehshua is The Creator, in The Flesh. Without Him, nothing was made that was made.It is a duality of cause, a link to responsibility in which God cannot remove from Himself some cupability for the actions of all that have, are, or shall exist for He allowed them to become and has the ability to prevent anything from becoming.I've never said otherwise. He does, however, grant free will to His creation. He is not 'responsible' any more than you are for a dog that you once owned biting someone in his new owner's house. We are responsible for our sin, and only The Blood of The Lamb can change that. If you don't believe it, then you don't get the pardon that He offers; you have to try to get into Heaven on your works, which no one (except Yehsha, The One Who came from Heaven) has ever done.Also, since the NT claims that Yehshua was born of his mother alone (and due to the very easily disproven genealogical evidence provided by the NT authors), no messiahship can be claimed as the House passes only through the genetics-blood-link of the father and of course Nathan is not of the messiahship family line anyways.Is God's Bloodline completely irrellevant to you? I guess so, since you not only overlook It, but fail to ever, once, mention any type of reply to this fact.Yep, told us He is not mortal/man, not in the Earth, and to worship nothing in the Earth as Him. And yet the doctrine of Rome creates a mangod (idol) anyways, go figure.I don't believe that anyone bows down to any idols and worships them, even in Roman Catholic churches. I have many friends and relatives who are Catholic believers, and I don't have any problem relating to the majority of their theology. These ideas you have of what Christianity is / does are completely unfounded in reality. You're clueless. The Lord came to this earth, in the form of Flesh, and He was ignored, as you're continuing to do, to this day. You'll probably not reply to this, but I'll keep letting you know about it until you do:

The Lord DID say that He was not a man, but He didn't say that He would never become A Man. He DID say that He could not be seen, but never said that He would never be seen. The people who saw Jesus weren't seeing God, they saw A Man. He was God, in The Flesh, but He was still God. I talk to you, by reading what you've said, once in a while looking at your avatar, and replying by typing my responses. I know that you're not words. But I still relate to you. When my daughter (four years old) gives me a puppet show, I know that her puppet is not a kitten, it is merly her right hand, in the form of a kitten, because she put on a sockpuppet, which my wife made her, which looks like a kitten. Don't you think that God might be able to place His Right Hand in front of us, to accomplish His Will in the earth, in The Form of Flesh that He wishes to use, to that end. I'm not saying Yehshua was a sockpuppet, but this is just for your understanding, which is obviously darkened quite a bit. I am not an unbeliever.Yes, you are. Yehshua said that He was / is / always will be The Messiah, and you have not believe the things that He said.I am a heretic to your false mangod which is blasphemy to the Tanakh's God named YHVH, the God of Israel.Yes, it is blasphemy to the false god that you've settled for, which isn't found in the Holy Scriptures, but is only found in the traditions of men, who you're following to your doom. Your traditions have made The Word of God of none effect.I have a different belief set than you, but I do believe in God.Good. So does the devil. He also trembles at the thought of God. What about you? Don't you believe that He knows every single thing about you? Don't you realize that your contempt for everything that calls itself Christian is an affront to Him. "Oh, God's Plan of Salvation is not good enough for me. He'll have to slap me in the face and show me the nailprints in His Hands before I believe that Yehshua is God." Is that what you're saying? How long will you fight against The Truth? How long will you avoid asking Him to show you The Truth about Himself? I just deny that your false mangod has anything to be based upon but ignorance to history, theology, and the actual teachings of Yehshua above/before/instead of Paul.Well, I don't see where there's any ignorance of history, theology or the 'actual' teachings of Yehshua; and, if you don't believe the things that Paul wrote, that's fine too. But God decided that what He wrote should belong in The Scriptures, and there they are. Deal with them, or ignore them. That's your choice. That's not basing your faith in The Word of God. When you wish to tear portions of it out, because your false theology can't deal with the truth, then you've become ignorant, and that just isn't right.I think your funny, that is the only reason I waste my time responding to you from time to time.I don't think the same of you. I think that your blindness was for my good. I'm called to preach to everyone, to the Jew first, but also to the gentile.I ask that you PM me this answer, I've removed you from ignore for this purpose...humor me.OK, I will also send you a PM with the completed message. Ask whatever in heck it is that you say communicates with you about me and tell me the response, quote "it." Whatever are you referring to?

godrulz

July 23rd, 2004, 11:32 AM

JOM has a pseudo-intellectualism that has led to one of the most confusing series of beliefs that are hard to pin down. They are certainly not NT/biblical Christianity. I do not know his heart and motives (arrogant or humble truth-seeker).

My turn to be put on ignore (this is OK, since I am not persuasive with JOM, nor is he with me).

JosephofMessiah

July 24th, 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

(snip attacks)You give Narcissus a bad name.

Wow, for a pagan murder-for-payment god worshiper you really throw words around.

Heady words, but you haven't persuaded me of your 'truth' yet once,

Never will, no matter how many times I refer you to the spuriousness of 1 John 5:7, the mistranslation of the false prophecy of the virgin birth through the misuse of "alma," the anti-messianic family history of Yehshua, the misuse of the Tanakh by various (if not all the) NT authors, the manipulation (outright) by the author of Hebrews to fit a Psalm into his false doctrine, the number of times I have asked you to explain Original Sin doctrine so that it is just, and why the law of God given to setup the means of atonement defines your mangod as an abomination and idol, you seem incapable of addressing a single point, in fact all you do is preach the same old same and, like you throw up the same dogma each time, without investigation of anything I have said. It is a one sided conversation (if such is possible) inwhich I give evidence of why no one should believe in your false god of abomination for salvation and you simply give over time-old dogmas of a false church. It's kinda sad realy.

...so I guess you're vain AND weak.

I have an ego, we all do.
I'm not weak, in argument or other, dare you try to address the issues I bring up in a single post someday you might realize how indepth my investigations and research have been into the lies of the orthodox.

(snip)
He had no earthly father, and God is His Father.

If Yehshua was born of a virgin (unlikely due to this not being fullfillment of prophecy and is misuse of the Tanakh outright) then this is not fullfillment of prophecy but violation of prophecy. The House (Kingship/Messiahship) is given down through the father's line, blood line, not adopted line. So if Yehshua was not the blood linked relative of his father he is not the messiah spoken of by the Tanakh. Of course there are all the other prophecies about the messiah that he did not fullfill as well but that is for another thread, this one is about the false demi-god-fallen-angel which is yet another mistranslation of the Tanakh.

(snip)
The Tanakh was fulfilled (most of it) in Yehshua.

Name the messianic scripture which your mangod fullfilled.

List them for me and I will reference and see if it works out, granted I have already done this and it doesn't but that is still a challenge for you to try.

He will fulfill every jot and every tittle.

No, your mangod destroys the law of atoning offering so that his abominational death can be seen as salvatory. You neither fulfill nor uphold something that you destroy.

There is none other who can.The Word of God teaches us that Yehshua is The Creator, in The Flesh.

YHVH says that nothing in the Earth is Him, there are no other like Him. He also says that He is not mortal/man, neither the son of man.

YHVH claims to be the Creator, so Yehshua the man was not, because Yehshua's own words deny being YHVH (my Father is greater than I). It was only after the adoption of Paul's lie (thought it not robbery to be equal) that mankind allowed the idea/blasphemy that Yehshua was YHVH. Yehshua never claimed to be YHVH, and outright denied it a few places in the NT record.

(snip)
He does, however, grant free will to His creation.

From another thread, "free will is a meaningless argument until you tell what it is that will is free of. In other words, a "free dog" can be free from the chain. Until you denote what it is that "free will" is free of, all choice is influenced and is not free.

The Christian god does not offer free choice, this is something that is not even an argument. The Christian god declares (orthodox) that you will either believe upon the murder of the mangod as your salvation or he will burn you forever and forever. This is not a "free will" choice this is a very influenced and coercive (forced) choice by a barberic blood god of killing/murder/death for atonement.

If you would simply read the Levitical code and realize that YHVH setup this law, it is easy enough demonstrated that your mangod's death cannot be atonement in any way, what-so-ever. Far from salvatory, it is an abominational idol dressed up by a pagan church as a method of salvation. Go figure.

He is not 'responsible' any more than you are for a dog that you once owned biting someone in his new owner's house.

I didn't create the matter that the dog is composed of, nor did I have foreknowledge and omnipotence to stop it. This of course gets into the philosophical argument of if you have the ability to stop something and you do not, you desired it on some level.

We are responsible for our sin, and only The Blood of The Lamb can change that.

The Passover Offering (lamb) is not allowed to be used for atonement.

This is a very strict rule in the offering code. So when you hear a Christian going on about "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" you can yet again realize it is based in totality upon their ignorance of the atonement law and their confusion of the Passover Offering (remembrance of Egypt and being "passed over" by the angel of death) and the atonement offerings under Levitical law. Yehshua's death fits neither in actuality.

(snip)
I don't believe that anyone bows down to any idols and worships them, even in Roman Catholic churches. I have many friends and relatives who are Catholic believers, and I don't have any problem relating to the majority of their theology.

You do not have to "worship" an idol/image to sin. The Tanakh states that we are not to even make them.

(snip)
The Lord DID say that He was not a man, but He didn't say that He would never become A Man.

God is Perfect, without change.

Your claim is that the Perfect changed, ignorance to the Tanakh and the statements of God of Himself in the Tanakh.

(snip)
Yehshua said that He was / is / always will be The Messiah,

Please cite the NT text where Yehshua claims to be the Messiah.
This will help me in future debates and I'd like to have those verses if you have them handy. I want to restate this, where YEHSHUA says this about himself, not a follower.

...and you have not believe the things that He said.

There is no possible way for me to know what Yehshua said, and what was placed into Yehshua's mouth by the church or by Yehshua's followers. So I doubt/question it all to save me time.

(snip)
Is that what you're saying? How long will you fight against The Truth?

I am not fighting against truth, I am fighting against ignorant (historically and theologically) blind-faith blood godism and the followers that that tradition.

(snip)
But God decided that what He wrote should belong in The Scriptures, and there they are.

"God" didn't decide anything about the NT text, this was a collection of the church of rome by uninspired men who voted in councils.

Deal with them, or ignore them. That's your choice. That's not basing your faith in The Word of God.

Let's get something straight, Pagan.

What you label the "word of God" isn't. It includes the collected writings of the church of rome, inwhich there is very clearly problematic misuse of the Tanakh, invention of prophecy, misquotation, manipulation, and claims about messiahship which do not hold up to critical investigation.

So, again, just because you (a finite) declare that a given text is the word of God, realize what you claim is really meaningless to me personally, all you are to me is a laughable waste of time that continues to play the sophist to my Galileo.

And you do that quite well I might add, you make this too easy for me.

godrulz

July 24th, 2004, 05:36 PM

For someone who is anti-Rome, JOM sure pontificates alot.

God_Is_Truth

July 25th, 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

For someone who is anti-Rome, JOM sure pontificates alot.

stop using words i have to look up! :D

godrulz

July 25th, 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

stop using words i have to look up! :D

I do not mean to show off. It is important to communicate with clarity (which usually means smaller words). I get a word in my head from reading, and I usually have to look it up to remember what it means. I am not a walking dictionary. It is not what you know, but knowing where to look and be willing to do so. A good vocabulary beats profanity. Einstein apparently did not want to clutter his mind with his phone number so he wrote it down rather than memorize it.

I could not resist 'pontificate' for JOM's anti-Catholicism. He does what he accuses them of doing.

noun= government of Catholic church
verb= to talk in a dogmatic or pompous manner

Here is another one: 'discombobulate' or 'disingenuous' or 'obfuscation' (got that one from Enyart fans).

We need words like this to impress people at cocktail parties (not that we go to them anyway).:D

Zakath

July 25th, 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by godrulz
I could not resist 'pontificate' for JOM's anti-Catholicism. He does what he accuses them of doing.Of course he does, he's arguing theology with a bunch of quasi-evangelicals. Pontification just seems to fit well with that sort... plus it has the added advantage of either confusing them or ticking them off. ;)

Here is another one: 'discombobulate' or 'disingenuous' or 'obfuscation' (got that one from Enyart fans).Yep. Enyart needs to have that last one on his wall in LARGE letters...

Eschew Obfuscation

We need words like this to impress people at cocktail parties (not that we go to them anyway).:D Truly said, though I do go to an occasional cocktail party. :cheers:

godrulz

July 25th, 2004, 04:17 PM

I think Jesus went to cocktail parties (in the world, but not of the world). As much as I disagree with your views, Zak, I consider you a friend. This is not just being a 'friend of sinners'. I value your input.

Zakath

July 25th, 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

I think Jesus went to cocktail parties (in the world, but not of the world). As much as I disagree with your views, Zak, I consider you a friend. This is not just being a 'friend of sinners'. I value your input. Don't let you know who hear you say that, he thinks you're hell-bound already... :chuckle:

Thanks, by the way. :thumb:

godrulz

July 25th, 2004, 04:39 PM

We are exhorted to love our enemies and our brethren. Sometimes it is harder to love those in the family of God when they have attitudes that are less civil than the unbeliever. It is also sometimes easier to love the family of God even more than our natural families who do not share our love for God.

Jesus did not like everyone equally. He had an inner circle. We are to love, but this does not mean we have to like everyone equally.

I do not consider you a personal enemy, BTW.

Do you consider yourself a malicious atheist and enemy of the Christian church, or are you simply a 'good guy' who is not persuaded anymore about Christianity?

Do you accept full responsibility, if you are wrong, and are separated from God for eternity? If there is a God who judges you, do you think He would be unfair to judge you? Would you go out kicking and screaming in protest or will you take your lumps like a self-determining man and bow and confess (too late) that He is Lord (Phil. 2)?

How is the Mrs.? She must be busy. Have not heard from her here.

Zakath

July 25th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by godrulz
I do not consider you a personal enemy, BTW.Nor I, you.

I try to keep the debates apart from personal likes and dislikes. Though some folks do their best to make that difficult.

Do you consider yourself a malicious atheist and enemy of the Christian church, or are you simply a 'good guy' who is not persuaded anymore about Christianity?I'd consider myself an "average Joe" who is not religious. I'm not an activist atheist who consciously votes against a candidate merely because they hold strong religious views, for instance.

Do you accept full responsibility, if you are wrong, and are separated from God for eternity? If there is a God who judges you, do you think He would be unfair to judge you? Would you go out kicking and screaming in protest or will you take your lumps like a self-determining man and bow and confess (too late) that He is Lord (Phil. 2)?If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will take what I get. (What other choice to I have? ;) ) If I'm right, and I truly think I am, I will be no worse off living the best life I can in the time I have here on earth.

How is the Mrs.? She must be busy. Have not heard from her here. She's swamped - we spent a couple of hours today working on one of her projects.

She's also, how shall I put it, less than impressed with the calibre of debate on many of the threads here.

[edited to fix incorrect tag - Z]
C'est la vie! :thumb:

godrulz

July 25th, 2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

How is the Mrs.? She must be busy. Have not heard from her here.

I concur that many debates here are fluff or ad hominem attacks. You must find it entertaining at times as we snipe at each other. We are passionate about truth and lose our heads at times.

Zakath

July 25th, 2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

Comments on the above paragraph if it pleases you (it is not a trap)? I concur that many debates here are fluff or ad hominem attacks. You must find it entertaining at times as we snipe at each other. We are passionate about truth and lose our heads at times. I had answered it above, but it got lost when I used an incorrect tag. I just fixed it, see if it answers your question adequately... ;)

Aimiel

July 26th, 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Name the messianic scripture which your mangod fullfilled.

List them for me and I will reference and see if it works out, granted I have already done this and it doesn't but that is still a challenge for you to try.Well, here's a short list of 1,093. (http://biblia.com/jesusbible/types.htm)No, your mangod destroys the law of atoning offering so that his abominational death can be seen as salvatory. You neither fulfill nor uphold something that you destroy.He fulfilled the law, by His death (as I've told you several times) being required by the High Priest, making Him a legal sacrifice. The Father, in Heaven, accepted this sacrifice, once, for all. The fact that you don't merely speaks of your own ignorance.YHVH says that nothing in the Earth is Him, there are no other like Him.Jesus is no longer in the earth, He ascended to The Right Hand of Majesty on High. He is not only 'like' His Father, He has inherited all Power, both in Heaven and in earth.He also says that He is not mortal/man, neither the son of man.Jesus is The Son of God, The Only Begotton of The Father. You can deny it all you want, it is still Truth.It was only after the adoption of Paul's lie (thought it not robbery to be equal) that mankind allowed the idea/blasphemy that Yehshua was YHVH.I think it started a lot earlier than that, in fact, three wise men came and worshipped Him as a newborn infant.The Christian god declares (orthodox) that you will either believe upon the murder of the mangod as your salvation or he will burn you forever and forever. This is not a "free will" choice this is a very influenced and coercive (forced) choice by a barberic blood god of killing/murder/death for atonement.You are not being forced to shun hell. The Lord will be 'forced' by your persecution of Him, to allow you the choice of going there, which you demonstrate that you want. I pray that you should be struck blind, physically, as Saul was, when Yehshua asked Him, "Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Then you'll repent.If you would simply read the Levitical code and realize that YHVH setup this law, it is easy enough demonstrated that your mangod's death cannot be atonement in any way, what-so-ever. Far from salvatory, it is an abominational idol dressed up by a pagan church as a method of salvation. Go figure.That is exactly what the doctors of the law thought in Yehshua's day as well.The Passover Offering (lamb) is not allowed to be used for atonement. The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (if they but believe) is.This is a very strict rule in the offering code. So when you hear a Christian going on about "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" you can yet again realize it is based in totality upon their ignorance of the atonement law and their confusion of the Passover Offering (remembrance of Egypt and being "passed over" by the angel of death) and the atonement offerings under Levitical law. Yehshua's death fits neither in actuality.John the Baptist, the greatest of the Old Testament type of prophets, announced Yehshua's Title, as Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world.You do not have to "worship" an idol/image to sin. The Tanakh states that we are not to even make them.You've made one out of your Tanakh.God is Perfect, without change.Yehshua Messiah, The Same yesterday, today and forever.Your claim is that the Perfect changed, ignorance to the Tanakh and the statements of God of Himself in the Tanakh.God is not limited by your finite understanding of His Word.Please cite the NT text where Yehshua claims to be the Messiah.OK, here's one:

John 4:25-26
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.There is no possible way for me to know what Yehshua said, and what was placed into Yehshua's mouth by the church or by Yehshua's followers. So I doubt/question it all to save me time.Yes, and that is good news, and is a part of God's Good News to men. Yes, it is great news that we can be saved from damnation, and it is great that we get eternal life; but the truth (and, IMHO a much-overlooked truth) is that The Lord did not just come to this earth to save people from hell, though that is the main thrust of His Campaign to bring salvation to men; He came to seek and to save that which was lost. What was lost, you may ask? Well, the relationship that He had with Adam and Eve before the fall. He walked and talked with them and they heard His Voice and He spoke with them every day. That is now possible, once again, because Yehshua went into The Holy of Holies, to offer His Own Blood on our behalf, and, since He never once sinned, and yet died, that mis-carriage of justice allows Him to now impute His Innocence upon whomsoever believes in His Sacrifice being imputed upon their behalf so that they might be saved.

Not only is this possible, but The Holy Spirit, Whom The Father gives to them that ask Him for Him, will confirm The Word of God, and give us a more sure word of prophecy than an eyewitness account of these things that we read in His Word. I am not fighting against truth, I am fighting against ignorant (historically and theologically) blind-faith blood godism and the followers (of) that tradition.No, you're fighting against The Truth, because Yehshua said that He is The One and Only Way, The One and Only Truth and The One and Only Life.What you label the "word of God" isn't.What you have chosen to limit God to won't stick. You can't keep Him in your little box, He doesn't fit, and He's too Big for that.It includes the collected writings of the church of rome, inwhich there is very clearly problematic misuse of the Tanakh, invention of prophecy, misquotation, manipulation, and claims about messiahship which do not hold up to critical investigation.Could you list just a few? I don't think you're being very specific. I gave you 1,093 fulfilled prophecies. Could you show me just the scriptures that you believe do not belong in The Bible?

JosephofMessiah

July 27th, 2004, 12:52 PM

First, let me restate the part of my post the Aimiel, in order to continue in his ignorance to history and scholarly theology, had to ignore to remain in his roman church dogma:

Originally Posted by JosephofMessiah

Never will, no matter how many times I refer you to the spuriousness of 1 John 5:7, the mistranslation of the false prophecy of the virgin birth through the misuse of "alma," the anti-messianic family history of Yehshua, the misuse of the Tanakh by various (if not all the) NT authors, the manipulation (outright) by the author of Hebrews to fit a Psalm into his false doctrine, the number of times I have asked you to explain Original Sin doctrine so that it is just, and why the law of God given to setup the means of atonement defines your mangod as an abomination and idol, you seem incapable of addressing a single point, in fact all you do is preach the same old same and, like you throw up the same dogma each time, without investigation of anything I have said. It is a one sided conversation (if such is possible) inwhich I give evidence of why no one should believe in your false god of abomination for salvation and you simply give over time-old dogmas of a false church. It's kinda sad realy.

So, that he ignores all these points to continue on like they were never brought up demonstrates ignorant blissful existence on his part, the ability to overlook very indepth discussion in order to yet again try to indoctrinate through repeating the same old dogmas. In fact, I am only responding to the actual answers in his post and will snip everything that is mindless attempts at indoctrination to this blasphemous mangod that he serves in order to save me time.

Originally posted by Aimiel

Well, here's a short list of 1,093. (http://biblia.com/jesusbible/types.htm)

I looked at that site, same old same old from the dogma liars of Christendom who attempt to Christophile the Tanakh to their pre-set beliefs. The old "shoot the arrow then draw the circle around it" routine.

He fulfilled the law, by His death (as I've told you several times) being required by the High Priest, making Him a legal sacrifice.

Any "high priest" who called for an abomination as a sacrifice would be in sin and make that offering/sacrifice an abomination. A sacrifice must fit under the law of YHVH in order to be atoning in any way, it makes no difference if a high priest called for it or not, the law deems the high priest to be in sin if that high priest were to use anything other than what the law allows.

So even if your ignorance was true, it matters not because in calling for the death of a human heretic and handing him over to rome to be killed, in no manner is atoning under the law of YHVH which is eternal.

(snip)
I pray that you should be struck blind, physically, as Saul was, when Yehshua asked Him, "Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Then you'll repent.

I pray that you get hemoriods.

You are the funniest pagan I have ever taken the time to disprove.

(snip)
The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world (if they but believe) is.

The lamb offering (Passover) cannot remove iniquity. It is strictly defined under the law. Any Christian who references Yehshua's death as the "lamb offering" is denying outright that it is atoning in their own statement. The lamb offering (passover) is not for iniquity removal.

When you hear someone say, "lamb of god who takes away the sins of the world" you can first denote their utter ignorance of the law, of the meaning of the passover lamb, and also that they are under the paganism of the church of rome.

(snip)
OK, here's one:
John 4:25-26
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Cool, at least he said it.

Now, the meaning of Christ is not demi-mangod. It means a man.

So, if Yehshua used the term Christ/Messiah for himself, he was declaring himself a normal mortal man (finite), not a god/God.

(snip)
Could you list just a few?

Love to:

-1 John 5:7 was implanted by a scribe of the church of rome and has been removed from even Christian translations.

-Matthew's author invents a prophecy (he shall be called a Nazarine), misuses a non-messianic verse as if it were messianic (called from egypt), invents history that didn't happen (herod killing kids), and misuses the word "alma" to mean virgin.

-the author of hebrews misquotes Psalm 40 to his own doctrinal ends, changing a "ears you have opened" to "a body thou hast prepared me."

-the author of hebrews is mistaken in his claim that "only through blood is remission of sin" attained, inthat the Tanakh teaches that through atonement money (charity), repentence, levitical offering you can find atonement. This is a direct separation point between the doctrine of the Tanakh and the new bloodgodism which was developed under the mangod dogma of the church of rome.

-The House (Kingship/Messiahship) is given down through father-blood line. Matthew claims that Yehshua was of a virgin birth but traces his lineage through Joseph (strange) and also the lineage given by Matthew when critically evaluated directly cancels out any claim to the throne/messiahship. There is another family history given inwhich Nathan is listed, this again cancels out any claim to messiahship because the messiah must come from Solomon's line. The "virgin birth" is a mistranslation of the word "alma" which means maiden but makes no claims over whether the woman had known a man or not. Also, if Yehshua was of a virgin birth (as many other pagan traditions teach about their mangods) then Yehshua is in violation of prophecy for YHVH promised David that his blood-link-seed will be messiah.

-Paul teaches in his doctrine of the Original Sin. Inwhich the actions taken by Adam are upon all men unto eternal damnation unless another comes to save them. This doctrine is taught in Romans NT book. Ezekiel 18:20 teaches the exact opposite of "Generational Sin/Original Sin" doctrine. Inthat it states, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." To setup mankind to accept the injustice of vicarious atonement through human blood offering, Paul setup the injust doctrine known as Original Sin. Modern day Christianity has realized how injust this seems (to hold someone eternally responsible for actions of a man they never met) so they change the words of Paul to bring about a "sin nature." Inthat we are no longer responsible for the actions of Adam eternally but we have the "nature to sin" given down through time. This of course is not what Paul taught and is heretical to the actual text written by Paul. I, however, dislike it that Christianity has moved away from Original Sin as Paul defined it because without the exact statements made by Paul then a pagan could use any child for their barberic offering to their bloodgod, it is "Original Sin Doctrine" that makes Paul's mangod the only offering acceptable by his bloodgod, and without this injustice the bloodgod would be just like Magog.

-Yehshua makes claims which do not come true. He says that generations shall not pass away. He claims he will be in the earth three days (it was less than this no matter which NT author you use).

-Paul claims in various points that the time is short. 2,000 years have gone by, Paul's prophecy of when the return would happen was a lie, making him a false prophet.

-Every single viewpoint of the resurrection is conflicted by the various authors. In fact, the day the crucifixtion took place is changed by John from when the others report it.

-The claim of Christianity is that without the mangod there is no means of removal of iniquity. Hosea the prophet tells us clearly that without the temple we, "Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto J---vah thy G-d; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and return unto J---vah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good: so will we render [as] bullocks [the offering of] our lips. (ASV)" This demonstrates that YHVH setup a means of iniquity removal for when the temple was gone long before the blasphemous idol/mangod was ever invented, and it was simple prayer. The funniest thing of all is that Christianity claims God requires the brutal beating and murder of an innocent man simply to forgive you while Hosea, Ezekiel, and Solomon teach us that God merely requires heartfelt repentence and prayer to remove iniquity when the temple is gone. When you think about it, the bloodgod of rome is one of the greatest evil entities ever forced upon unquestioning mankind, and the lie of vicarious atonement is the gravest of sins instead of being salvatory in any manner.

-God tells us many times in the Tanakh to not focus upon the offering, but upon the heartfelt repentence and prayer of the wicked man who turns to a righteous path. Ezekiel 18:20 (and surrounding verses) give wonderful statements of a salvatory path. Also, "Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [17] The sacrifices of G-d [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O G-d, thou wilt not despise. (KJV)" tells us directly that God's sacrifices are a broken spirit and contrite heart. Compare this to a brutally beaten innocent man as a method of atonement against the law of YHVH.

-The godman who comes of a virgin, dies, comes back to save only those who accept him is not of Judaism in any form. It is born of mystery religions. The demi-fallen-angel-god is not of Judaism either, it is born of Persian dualism, perhaps Zoroastrianism or the like. This mangod lie of paganism goes back as far as Hercules, Zeus, Osiris, Mythra, and the rest. It is just that they took a Jewish Rabbi of the school of Hillel (which became rabbinical Judaism) for their blasphemous idol under Roman Catholicism. It is still an idol (mangod), a belief upon injustice (original sin/vicarious atonement), and denial of the law of offering of God (Levitical law) in order to have this blasphemy as your god.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

Christianity is based on the unique belief that Jesus was God's Son, born of a virgin, sacrificed for the Salvation of man. In reality, as sacrificed virgin-born Savior Son of God, Jesus was not unique. Not even close. The Jesus mythos simply followed the traditional model of the ancient pagan savior-gods.

At the time of Jesus of Nazareth, as for centuries before, the Mediterranean world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar. Roughly speaking the ancients' gods:

Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
Were born of a Virgin-Mother
Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber
Led a life of toil for Mankind
Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer
Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness
And descended into Hell or the Underworld
Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world
Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism
Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals
Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris. The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son. Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was originally the pagan birthday of Mithras, the sun god, whose day of the week is still known as "Sunday." The halo of light which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun god. The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular, the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.

I don't think you're being very specific.

I hope that was specific enough for you, Pagan.

(snip)
Could you show me just the scriptures that you believe do not belong in The Bible?

Sure:
Those that conflict with the Tanakh and the doctrine of the Tanakh.

Also, here are the prophecies which Yehshua failed to complete in his lifetime (and there is no allowance of a second coming for the Jewish messiah as he must complete it in his lifetime, first time through).

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/messiah.html

What does scripture say about the messiah and the age he will bring to the world? I would encourage you to read Ezekiel 37. In this well known chapter, the prophet clearly teaches that we can recognize the coming of the messiah when: the resurrection of the dead, the building of the final Temple that will stand forever in Jerusalem, the universal knowledge of God and obedience to His Torah, the restoration of the lost tribes (Ephraim or the Kingdom of Israel whom Assyria carried off), and the complete restoration of the Jewish people to their land all take place.

When we carefully consider that none of this has occurred, we can be assured that although many thousands of individuals have claimed to be the messiah throughout the centuries, Jesus included, none of them is. Moreover, when we ponder whether Jesus is the messiah, it is obvious that the very opposite occurred immediately after the Christian movement began; that is: During the first century the Romans slaughtered many thousands of Jews, the Jewish people were exiled from their land, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the knowledge of Torah and its observance decreased, and the nation of Israel was dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Clearly, there is no relationship between what the Bible says about the messiah and what the Messianic movement teaches about Jesus.

Missionaries often insist that Jesus will somehow accomplish these things in a second coming. While this notion conveniently explains away any failed messiahship, it is completely and utterly antithetical to the Bible.

So, there is my response.

logos_x

July 27th, 2004, 01:28 PM

Hi Joseph,

Your question reminds me of Captain Kirk when he causes a mischeivious robot or android to fry it's own circuits.

To answer your original question, I can see only one way to do so, and even it can be picked apart to show all it's flaws.

1. is it possible to be outside of God's will.

As far as what God allows to be, what He permits...No.

2. Is it possible to be outside of God's will Ultimately

as far as what He wants for everything...Yes.

I have no commentary on this apparent dillema.

But, given where this thead has ended up, I have a question of my own.

Is it possible for God to become a man?

JosephofMessiah

July 27th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by logos_x

Hi Joseph,

Your question reminds me of Captain Kirk when he causes a mischeivious robot or android to fry it's own circuits.

(snip)

But, given where this thead has ended up, I have a question of my own.

Is it possible for God to become a man?

Only if YHVH of the Tanakh is not the "god" you are referencing because YHVH of the Tanakh directly says that He is not a mortal/man. Taken in context that God told us He would not lie to us, you can see the problem with anyone who holds to the Tanakh as God's Word in allowing that a mangod exists. Especially when the Tanakh directly labels such a thing as an idol.

(I also find it funny that it requires this idol in order to destroy the law of YHVH to have the abominational offering of the mangod to become as salvatory against everything that is holy.)

There is another (easier) way to do this:

"Is it possible for God to become a man?"

God is Omnipotent (all powerful / Almight).
God can become man.

God declared that He is not a liar (or at least would not lie to us).
God declared that He is not mortal, neither in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath and not the son of man.

A man (finite in mind, location, power) is not God by definition.

Therefore no man is God, even though in God's omnipotence God could be a man as a manifestation of Himself, this of course only works if you take the Tanakh as the Word of God above what the NT authors state.

A man is created of matter, material. God is Spirit. The bush contained the Spirit of YHVH within it when it spoke to Moses, it was a manifestation of YHVH. We do not worship the bush nor do we say that this bush is equal to God. Those that say that Yehshua = YHVH are committing idolatry and blasphemy according to the Tanakh and they are not listening to the words of Yehshua that he was lesser than his Father.

So, I hope that answered your question.

erethnereh

July 27th, 2004, 11:06 PM

"Book of Thomas" was used as example only, inthat there are various books which were picked between

True, there were certain books such as the shepherd of hermes and the book of Enoch and letters of the Church Father's that were read within church. But the book of Thomas, however, was not even read within theses churches.

Take your word for it, it was only used as an example, nothing more or less, and I do not hold to this book as of God or not (since not having read it).

You can read it at www.earlychristianwritings.com

I think 1 John 5:7 was mistranslated by the creators of the KJV.

1 John 5:7 was not IN the original manuscripts. It was added by a scribe in a margin, and then adopted later by other manuscript writers as this "verse." It is in fact spurious and is the only verse in the entire NT which teaches "are one."

I'm a little uncertain by what you mean here. The KJV says "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." This could probably be used as an consise sumarily of what the gospel of John says. But my translation says "This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord." I think my translation would have given a footnote if there was significant evidence. For instance, the longer ending of Mark.

Yehshua specifically stated to call no man upon the Earth your Father (God) because God is in heaven, this links back to the statement made in the Jewish Tanakh that God is not a man, nor mortal.

Jesus only assumed human flesh after the annunciation of Gabriel. Any reference to God not being mortal before that would indeed be true. Much the same way that there are quotes that say that God does not sleep nor rest. He doesn't rest but has rested, as is written.

It was Paul's lie that Yehshua thought it not robbery to be equal to God (against what Yehshua taught) that allowed for the idolatry in modern day Christian doctrine.

Most people don't even think that Paul wrote hebrews.

Did Ignatius claim to be a prophet and hear the voice of God or are you basing your salvation upon a mere mortal's assumption?

No, I don't think Ignatius considered himself a prophet, nor is their any written evidence to suggest that Ignatius was given audible locutions from God. My point, however, was that there existed Christians who believed that Jesus was God before the doctrine of the Trinity. My understanding is that they believed that Jesus was of God the Father, of the same substance of God the Father.

This is especially strange argument when God tells us that He is not mortal and to make no image of anything in the Earth

God has told specific people to make images(ie., Moses). Jesus is not an image in the sense of stone or brick, nor was he created by man. If man was made in the image of God, then God has an image. Correct?

Even Christian scholars admit this, it is not an argument. The labels of the NT authors are assumptions, "educated guesses" and are not in any way backed by real evidence.

Rmember that you have even less evidence that Moses wrote Deuteronomy. In fact, the only evidence that I consider credible that Moses wrote is that Christ said that the law was given to us by Moses and Moses was known to be educated. On the other hand, the writers of the gospels are routinely named the memoirs of the apostles and quoted by people such as Ignatius who knew the apostles as the apostle's work. Hence, it's like that signficant portions of each gospel were written by the apostles.

I would agree on a scholarly level and disagree on a faith-based level.
As a rational mind, I keep options open to investigation and granted who in actuality penned the Torah or Tanakh is hard-pressed to evidence.

Well, I understand this but what's so terrible about Moses writing the book and the a scribe adding some completion to the story?

In fact, the lone reason it is given any import at all is the Church's decision to rule it as of God, and if these men who voted upon this text were not inspired then they commited blasphemy.

My understanding, abeit incomplete, is that those who decided, determined whether the text was consistent with what the Church teaches.

Yes, there is according to the Tanakh. "My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts." God also says that He is not mortal, not the son of man, and to place none of your trust in princes of this world. YHVH declares that He alone is God, and there are none like Him. That nothing in the Earth can be used as an image of Him, because nothing is as He is.

This is consistent with what Jesus said being from heaven and not of the world.

Sure it is. It relates to each person as to what it means. All terms are subjective and finite in nature or you cannot understand/grasp them. Subjective/finite are relative to those perspectives outright.

My understanding is that it is not man who chooses to love God completely, but it is man who accepts God's love. Because it is God's love, it is without bound yet also nonrelative.

Yes, the Tanakh says we can not hide from Him, even if we were in "Hell" (poor translation of course) itself, He is there.

I only remember David saying this and this was in Poem. He's everywhere but he's certaintly not substantially everywhere. For instnace, you don't worship a tree just because God is within the material of the tree. There is evidence, however, that God dwelled substantially within the ark and that which was within the ark could be worshiped.

In general materialism fails in that it would mean the only way we could worship God would be through our own material image of him, which would mean we would be worshiping an idol.

You just reduced "Satan" to nothingness and gave credit to God for all things. I can't argue with that as that is what the Tanakh teaches.

Well, Satan is not nothingness. He exists, creating nothingness. Besides, how could Jesus' teachings be so twisted by mortal men without supernatural help?

Seen many "claimers." Never seen actual except once and that was my dad (exceedingly long story). And as a rational critical thinker, I can discredit that event if I think about it long enough, even though I guess those that saw the Sea part could discredit that event if they thought about it long enough.

I've heard stories of people who've been healed by God. But these were the result of prayer and not by some so-called "faith healer." I've also believe in some exorcism accounts but the exorcist is not a "faith healer."

It means "Evil." Hardships, sickness, horrors, etc. All that "stuff" that Christianity links to Satan and Satan's actions/desires/powers.

No, God is allowing this world to decay. The decay is not of God, but something that is natural.

Every creature has it, they may not FEEL it but God is present always.
A creature's (finite's) perception is limited by definition.

I agree but you must differentiate between God's presence within everything and God's Presence(which can be worshiped).

No, this is not what Christianity claims. Here is a better example of the god you serve.

Well, we could go into all the details of God's bridegroom.

You have a girlfriend that you have affection for (but do not care if she feels pain in the end, so it is a form of affection but not the love that I know of for the love that I know of entails empathy, lacking by the Christian mangod) and believe that you have fun together, so you ask her to marry you and threaten to burn her alive if she decides she does not want to marry you.

I understand Hell to be the consequence of saying "no." It's God were speaking of, rejection of Him.

You serve a demi-god-man-blood-god born of ignorance and blasphemy, a form of idolatry that places you in sin and disobediance to the God of Israel formed by the false doctrine of the lie of Rome.

I do?

To those under such ignorances and false doctrines, it is a blessing to realize that there exists a truly Merciful God, and not the barberic bloodgod of rome's false church that requires a hell to threaten in great hedonism those that would not fall servant to this rediculous and anti-Tanakh claims.

So Hell does not exist?

logos_x

July 28th, 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

"Is it possible for God to become a man?"

God is Omnipotent (all powerful / Almight).
God can become man.

God declared that He is not a liar (or at least would not lie to us).
God declared that He is not mortal, neither in the Earth, Heaven's above, nor water's beneath and not the son of man.

A man (finite in mind, location, power) is not God by definition.

Therefore no man is God, even though in God's omnipotence God could be a man as a manifestation of Himself, this of course only works if you take the Tanakh as the Word of God above what the NT authors state.

A man is created of matter, material. God is Spirit. The bush contained the Spirit of YHVH within it when it spoke to Moses, it was a manifestation of YHVH. We do not worship the bush nor do we say that this bush is equal to God. Those that say that Yehshua = YHVH are committing idolatry and blasphemy according to the Tanakh and they are not listening to the words of Yehshua that he was lesser than his Father.

So, I hope that answered your question.

So you're just saying that God was IN Christ?

Would it be safe to say that Jesus and God are one? Not as one and the same...but as "in Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily? That God "tabernacled" in Jesus?

JosephofMessiah

July 28th, 2004, 12:56 AM

To save us both times I will cut out what we have agreed upon or what has been talked out and only respond to that which we can continue to discuss. If I cut something out you wanted a reply to just ask.

Originally posted by erethnereh
You can read it at www.earlychristianwritings.com

Thanks for link.

I'm a little uncertain by what you mean here. The KJV says

"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8: And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

This could probably be used as an consise sumarily of what the gospel of John says. But my translation says

"This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth. So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord."

I think my translation would have given a footnote if there was significant evidence. For instance, the longer ending of Mark.

Note the extreme theological difference between being in agreement and being "One." The KJV form was an addition by a scribe of the church of rome in a margin which was adopted by later manuscript writers. It is not defendable and is spurious. This is evidence that the idea of "three are one" is blasphemy to God, who declared long ago that He is One and there are no other like Him.

Jesus only assumed human flesh after the annunciation of Gabriel.

As does any finite spirit of man.

If you are trying to say that God's Spirit went into a man, that would remove from God something that He claims to be (without change), omnipresent. A Spirit can not be omnipresent and only within flesh and make any reasonable sense.

Any reference to God not being mortal before that would indeed be true. Much the same way that there are quotes that say that God does not sleep nor rest. He doesn't rest but has rested, as is written.

God does not require rest, but when the job is done, God rests. The creation story of Genesis demonstrates this.

Most people don't even think that Paul wrote hebrews.

No, I don't think Ignatius considered himself a prophet, nor is their any written evidence to suggest that Ignatius was given audible locutions from God. My point, however, was that there existed Christians who believed that Jesus was God before the doctrine of the Trinity.

The prophets tell us that God is not mortal/man and a non prophet tells you that Yehshua was equal to YHVH.

An you decided to side with the non-prophet. Go figure.

My understanding is that they believed that Jesus was of God the Father, of the same substance of God the Father.

Wordgames are fun, but sense I contain a spirit directly given to me by God, and am an image of God in flesh, then I am a Son of God and of the same substance of God in the Spiritual sense. In the flesh sense I am of my mother and father's matter/atoms and grew from that, just as Yehshua's matter came from his mother (and perhaps father given that the virgin birth is a false prophecy and a violation of prophecy).

But this whole thing about Yehshua being separate in some way from an ordinary man is more clearly defined under paganism and has no origin at all in Judaism. The messiah is to be a man, human mortal, and not a demi-mangod. The Tanakh declares that he will be the direct seed of David through the father's line in order to have the House/Kingship/Messiahship upon him. So if anyone is claiming virgin birth or that Yehshua was a godman they are directly violating the Tanakh's prophetic voice.

God has told specific people to make images(ie., Moses). Jesus is not an image in the sense of stone or brick, nor was he created by man.

He was generated by woman in a womb, in the very least. If you are able to question the virgin birth (seeing as how it is a mistranslation of the hebrew "alma") then it is more than likely that he was generated exactly like a normal human.

If man was made in the image of God, then God has an image. Correct?

God demands of us to not make images, but God made man in His image. We do not worship men, nor images of men as God because no man represents all that God is (by definition one finite life is not all Omniscience at once). Thus the idea that they who serve a mangod are serving an idol stands under the doctrine of the Tanakh.

(snip, I will agree with you about evidence of authorship stuff)
Well, I understand this but what's so terrible about Moses writing the book and the a scribe adding some completion to the story?

Moses was inspired and lead by God.
Who was this scribe and did he know God like Moses did? What if he got something wrong. This opens the flood gates for horrible things.

My understanding, abeit incomplete, is that those who decided, determined whether the text was consistent with what the Church teaches.

It was the old "shoot arrow then draw circle" routine. In other words, the Church had a paganized doctrine of mangod/bloodgodism and sought out texts that supported their claims, and when the Tanakh did not fit their claims, they Christophiled it (KJV) so that it would.

(snip)
I only remember David saying this and this was in Poem. He's everywhere but he's certaintly not substantially everywhere.

I disagree, I believe that YHVH's presence is everywhere present.

For instnace, you don't worship a tree just because God is within the material of the tree.

Exactly, the bush which came to Moses was a manifestation of God, but was not God. It was a material way of YHVH demonstrating His presence to His people/prophet.

There is evidence, however, that God dwelled substantially within the ark and that which was within the ark could be worshiped.

I allow that with a very strict understanding that the ark was not being worshiped.

In general materialism fails in that it would mean the only way we could worship God would be through our own material image of [Him], which would mean we would be worshiping an idol.

All I am saying is that anything you see with your eyes, behold with your senses, is not YHVH by definition. It is created that which is seen, therefore it is not YHVH.

Well, Satan is not nothingness. He exists, creating nothingness. Besides, how could Jesus' teachings be so twisted by mortal men without supernatural help?

How can the Tanakh be so misused by pagan churches without supernatural help?

Fallible men sat in councils and in great blasphemy voted as if they were inspired to decide what God had said. This was not the act of a demon nor a satan, this was egotistical and politically minded men setting up their own religion separate from what the Tanakh teaches and separate from the law of YHVH.

(snip we agree about possible healings, though rare and that "faith healers are more than likely liars)
No, God is allowing this world to decay. The decay is not of God, but something that is natural.

God set before us the good and evil, life and death. The life and the death are both of God, both from God, and are natural. Growth and decay both in His will and plan for this existence that we share.

I agree but you must differentiate between God's presence within everything and God's Presence(which can be worshiped).

I think of the universe(s?) as God's Body/Friend. It is not Him, but He exists within/without(?) all of it. He has been around while it formed from the very beginning and it is a finite part of Him, but even if it were not, He would be, yet without Him, it could not be.

Well, we could go into all the details of God's bridegroom.

I understand Hell to be the consequence of saying "no."

Then it is not a free will choice it is a coercive forced hedonistic choice. Serve my mangod and the injustice of vicarious atonement and original sin doctrine or "I" will fry you for eternity.

And they try to label this entity as love?

Go figure. Their definition of love lacks every measure of empathy and justice known.

It's God were speaking of, rejection of Him.

The idea that an eternal punishment would take place due to temporal actions is the result of a lie which begins by labeling the actions of this temporal realm as "eternal offenses which offend an Infinite God."

Were anyone with any actual sense of justice to think for but a moment they could realize that this realm is temporal and mankind is finite.

That punishment is not based upon the person you offend against (the victim, an Infinite God) but upon the abuser/victimizer (a finite temporal human).

We do not hold retarded people to the fullness of the law, neither would a just God hold temporal mankind to an "Infinite eternal offense" for "temporal actions." Such would be injustice outright.

Even though mankind's sin is an offense it is [by the very act of it being temporal in nature (even murder to the faithful is but a type of kidnapping if an after-life exists)] a finite temporal offense in the most to a just Judge who, rightly, bases the offense in question upon the victimizer and not the victim. Especially when you take into account that this "Judge" is one with Omniscience and Infinite Justice.

Again, rejection of God is not what we are talking about under Christianity, for even those that believe upon "God" and even "repent" are doomed to eternal hellfire under this doctrine for the most part.

Specifically requiring the belief upon vicarious atonement and an idol (mangod) against the prophetic voice of the Tanakh and against the atonement sacrifical law of YHVH is ludicris when you simply read that the law claims to be eternal and what the mangod's death is under this law, an abomination.

{in response to being servant to an idol and under blasphemy according to Judaism...}
I do?

So far from what I have read.

So Hell does not exist?

Here is a Jewish Rabbi's response to that question:

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_heavenhell.htm

I personally do not accept this Rabbi's answer (that some are punished eternally) because there are statements made by others that state that a soul is in this fallen realm for 12 months max. Those that would "never leave" this fallen realm are only those that so sided with evil in their lives that to separate themselves from those actions and attitudes would destroy their existence. It would be the same as telling the color pink that it could go into the box as soon as it became yellow in other words.

JosephofMessiah

July 28th, 2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by logos_x

So you're just saying that God was IN Christ?

Yehshua? I do not necessarily like to say "christ" in a capital "C" because people have taken this term to mean mangod. Therefore I want to stress that YHVH's Spirit is omni-present (always present) therefore Yehshua has no choice of where YHVH is, and there is no question as to where YHVH's Spirit is at all times (everywhere).

Would it be safe to say that Jesus and God are one?

It is not wrong to make the claim that you are one with God. Being that we are finites within an Infinite Spirit, we are one with God. The problem is when you make the attempt to claim, "one and equal." Then you have committed blasphemy and created an idol. You have also negated the words of Yehshua when he said that he was lesser than his Father(YHVH).

Not as one and the same...but as "in Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily?

This phrase "fullness of Godhead bodily" is a manipulation of what is actually written. A proper translation is "fullness of Deity bodily." Inthat the translator who used the term "Godhead" had a pre-set agenda to add a Trinitarian take to this verse when there is no Trinitarian take in the original, it merely says "Deity."

That God "tabernacled" in Jesus?

Since God's Spirit is Omni-present (always present) you would be hard pressed to explain where God's Spirit is not tabernacled.

logos_x

July 28th, 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Yehshua? I do not necessarily like to say "christ" in a capital "C" because people have taken this term to mean mangod. Therefore I want to stress that YHVH's Spirit is omni-present (always present) therefore Yehshua has no choice of where YHVH is, and there is no question as to where YHVH's Spirit is at all times (everywhere).

I see your point.

It is not wrong to make the claim that you are one with God. Being that we are finites within an Infinite Spirit, we are one with God. The problem is when you make the attempt to claim, "one and equal." Then you have committed blasphemy and created an idol. You have also negated the words of Yehshua when he said that he was lesser than his Father(YHVH).

agreed

This phrase "fullness of Godhead bodily" is a manipulation of what is actually written. A proper translation is "fullness of Deity bodily." Inthat the translator who used the term "Godhead" had a pre-set agenda to add a Trinitarian take to this verse when there is no Trinitarian take in the original, it merely says "Deity."

You're right.
How do you percieve the meaning of "the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Since God's Spirit is Omni-present (always present) you would be hard pressed to explain where God's Spirit is not tabernacled.

True, I suppose. But there was "the Holy place" in the Tabernacle of Moses, the place where the High Priest entered into "God's presence". A "place" where God makes His presence unmistakable and known. Verses that say "I saw the LORD, and he was high and lifted up" is how the prophets describe their visionary experiences. So I guess I'm asking: was this how you would percieve Yeshua, as a person through whom God made Himself known?

Aimiel

July 28th, 2004, 09:56 AM

Thank you, for your most gracious and verbose responses.

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

I looked at that site, same old same old from the dogma liars of Christendom who attempt to Christophile the Tanakh to their pre-set beliefs. The old "shoot the arrow then draw the circle around it" routine.So, you ignore all these points to continue on like they were never brought up? That demonstrates ignorant blissful existence on your part, the ability to overlook very indepth discussion in order to yet again try to indoctrinate through repeating the same old dogmas. I'm afraid that you made that shoe fit, now you have to wear it.Any "high priest" who called for an abomination as a sacrifice would be in sin and make that offering/sacrifice an abomination.Yehshua is not an 'abomination.' He is the only sin-offering that is acceptable. He entered into The Holy of Holies, the real one, in Heaven, and offered His Blood, on your behalf.A sacrifice must fit under the law of YHVH in order to be atoning in any way, it makes no difference if a high priest called for it or not, the law deems the high priest to be in sin if that high priest were to use anything other than what the law allows.The Lamb of God. He was slain from the foundation of the earth. His Plan, not ours.So even if your ignorance was true, it matters not because in calling for the death of a human heretic and handing him over to rome to be killed, in no manner is atoning under the law of YHVH which is eternal.He said He was God's Son, and committed no heresy, so why do you call Him a heretic? If you believe He was a fakir, say so. If you believe He was honest, and that what He said is worthwhile, why do you oppose His Church? Why (because executing criminals while under Roman occupation was illegal) would the High Priest personally calling for the death of someone not be considered a legal sacrifice by The Lord. He looks upon Jerusalem, who murdered every one of His Prophets, and decides to send her One Whose death will vindicate all of His bretheren. Why can't you see that?I pray that you get hemoriods.

You are the funniest pagan I have ever taken the time to disprove.Thanks, now I have to sit on this stupid doughnut pillow. I hope you get someone to read this to you.The lamb offering (Passover) cannot remove iniquity.He is The Peace Offering, between God and men. Angels proclaimed it at His birth, to shepherds.When you hear someone say, "lamb of god who takes away the sins of the world" you can first denote their utter ignorance of the law, of the meaning of the passover lamb, and also that they are under the paganism of the church of rome.It was during Passover that He was killed. The Lord decided to foreshadow Yehshua Messiah in the Old Testament, and the (over 1,000) prophecies that He fulfilled in His life, alone, point out the fact that more than mere coincedence is in effect. He is the 'middle' pieve of bread (the one that is eaten) during Passover. He is The True Manna from Heaven. We have to get a 'fresh' dose of The Bread of Life (The Word of God, Yehshua Messiah) each day. This is the most important teaching in Christianity, that we (each of us) need to read from His Word every day. What we had yesterday will 'rot' if we try to rely on it. There are far more things that The Lord has revealed to me of His Son from His Word, but your ignorance prevents me from sharing them with you. Cool, at least he said it.Do you deny that Yehshua was Messiah?Now, the meaning of Christ is not demi-mangod. It means a man.No, it means: The Anointed One.So, if Yehshua used the term Christ/Messiah for himself, he was declaring himself a normal mortal man (finite), not a god/God.He was mortal, but that was His choice, since His Life belongs to Him, He is able to lay it down, as He wills.Love to:

-1 John 5:7 was implanted by a scribe of the church of rome and has been removed from even Christian translations.I don't think so. Anti-Christians remove scripture from their Bibles, not Christians.-Matthew's author invents a prophecy (he shall be called a Nazarine),He Shall Be Called A Nazarene
by Peter J. Leithart

Matthew 2:13-23 has a tripartite structure, reporting briefly three events of the early years of Jesus' life. Matthew ends his narrative of each event with a "fulfillment formula." Jesus' flight to Egypt and His Exodus back into Israel was a fulfillment of Hosea's words, "Out of Egypt I call my Son" (Mt. 2:15, cf. Hos. 11:1). The slaughter of the infants of Bethlehem was the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy about Rachel weeping over her children (Mt. 2:18; cf. Jer. 31:15). Both of these fulfillments strike the modern reader as somewhat forced, but explainable. The underlying assumption about the fulfillment of Hosea's prophecy is that Jesus was the true Israel, and that He "recapitulated" and reversed the history of God's people. Similarly, the parallels between Jeremiah's prophecy and the slaughter of the innocents are evident, though the event in Rachel's life to which Jeremiah (and Matthew) referred is obscure, if indeed a reference to a particular event in Rachel's life was even intended.

The problems with the third fulfillment formula are more acute. The most obvious problem is that there is no Old Testament reference to Nazareth, or to the Messiah being a resident of that town. As commentators have pointed out, however, Matthew's language suggests that he is pointing to a prophetic theme, rather than a particular prophecy; he says that Jesus' residence in Nazareth fulfills "what was spoken through the prophets," not "what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet," as in 2:15. That is, the plural "prophets" used in verse 23 indicates that Matthew was not claiming to provide a quotation from a particular prophecy.

Even if we are correct that Matthew was referring not to a single prophecy, but to a prophetic theme, we are still confronted with the question of where this theme appears. Since Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament, it evidently represents something else. But what?

Commentators have given a variety of answers to this question. R. T. France points out that the title "Nazarene" is sometimes a title of contempt in the New Testament, and the fact that Jesus was from Nazareth of Galilee was treated by the Jews as definitive proof that Jesus was not the Messiah (cf. Jn. 1:46; 7:41-43, 52). Thus, to say that Jesus was a Nazarene is to say that He was a suffering and rejected Messiah, in fulfillment of such Old Testament prophecies as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Similarly, H. N. Ridderbos suggests an alternative translation of hoti in 2:23: it does not introduce the content of the prophecy, but rather should be translated "for." Thus, the verse does not imply that the prophets foretold that Jesus would be a resident of Nazareth, but rather implies that Jesus' residency in Nazareth fulfilled something that the prophets foretold. Like France, Ridderbos suggests that "Nazarene" is a "badge of inferiority" that fulfills the meaning, though not the letter, of the prophecies about the humble status of the Messiah.

Barclay connects Matthew 2:23 with Isaiah 11:1, where the Messiah is called a branch (nezer) from Jesse. He suggests the possibility that Matthew was making a pun on the Hebrew word for branch, but admits that no one really knows which prophecy Matthew had in mind. France dismisses this interpretation because the pun works only in Hebrew, but not in Greek. But if, as is commonly supposed, Matthew's original audience was Jewish, Barclay's interpretation cannot be so readily dismissed. More serious is the objection that it is not clear what a "nezer from Jesse" has to do with residence in Nazareth, apart from the (vague) verbal similarity.

Others have suggested that Matthew was referring to the institution of the Nazirite. There is no direct reference to the Messiah as a Nazirite, but the Greek word in Matthew 2:23 (Nazoraios) differs by only slightly from the LXX description of Samson the Nazirite in Judges 13:5 (some texts of LXX have Nazeiraios; others have Nazir). Moreover, one might argue that Matthew needs no direct Old Testament quotation to affirm that all the Old Testament types are fulfilled in Jesus. Against this interpretation, the objection has been raised that it seems, like the reference to the branch, to have little to do with the historical event that Matthew is describing.

Is it plausible to argue that Matthew believed that Jesus fulfilled certain Old Testament types only because He lived in places that had a verbal similarity to Old Testament types? If Matthew is simply using the "charades" method of Old Testament exegesis ("A sounds like B, therefore A fulfills B"), what implications would this carry for Matthew's concept of fulfillment?

I believe that a way can be found out of this dilemma by recognizing the partial truth of the various interpretations described above. I believe that France and Ridderbos are correct that Jesus' residence in Nazareth fulfilled prophecies about the Messiah's humility, and His people's contempt for Him (cf. Jn. 1:11). This interpretation anchors the fulfillment formula of 2:23 firmly to the historical event described in the previous verses. France and Ridderbos err, I believe, in not recognizing that 2:23 points at the same time to Jesus as the Greater Nazirite. In other words, there is an "inner connection" between the humiliation of living in Nazareth and Jesus fulfillment of the type of the Nazirite. In order to understand this "inner connection" we need to understanding something of the character of the Nazirite vow.

The word nazir means separation, and in particular the nazir was separated to a particular task. Often this task involved the prosecution of holy war. Thus, the Nazirite was a temporary priest consecrated to carry on holy war. The Nazirite's uncut hair points to his special consecration to the Lord (Nu. 6:5). The Nazirite's abstinence from alcohol should also be seen in this context. Wine has a sabbatical-eschatological character; the Nazirite was forbidden to drink wine, to rest from his labors and to enjoy their fruits, until his task was complete, until the holy war was won. (For a fuller discussion of the Nazirite vow, see James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism, pp. 221-28).

There is, of course, much more to the Nazirite vow, but these few details shed light on Matthew 2:23. As France and Ridderbos indicate, Jesus' residence in Nazareth was a part of His humiliation. Jesus' fulfillment of the Nazirite institution points in the same direction: As the True Nazirite, the True Separated One, Jesus Christ took up the task set before Him on behalf of His people. Nazareth is a sign of self-denial, of kenosis; so also, the True Nazirite denied Himself the joy that He had had with the Father from eternity, and took on the form of a servant. Jesus Christ was willing to empty Himself of glory, to become a Nazarene, so that He could, as the True Nazirite, prosecute the holy war against Satan. As both Nazarene and Nazirite, He was a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief. As both Nazarene and Nazirite, He endured the cross for the joy set before Him, the eschatological feast that He would enter upon the completion of His task, where He could sit to eat and drink among His people.

This interpretation may seem directly to contradict those passages of the gospels in which Jesus is called a drunkard (cf. Mt. 11:19). There is no reason to believe that the rumors about Jesus' drinking were fabrications (though, of course, the rumors of drunkenness were false); Jesus, after all, did not defend Himself against these rumors by denying that He drank wine. But if Jesus was known to drink wine, how can He have been a Nazirite?

There are two answers to this question. First, though Jesus drank wine throughout His life, He was still "spiritually" a Nazirite because He fulfilled the meaning of the Nazirite vow: total consecration to the Lord in holy war.

Second, it seems that Jesus took a literal Nazirite vow at a specific moment in His ministry on earth. At the Last Supper with His disciples, Jesus said that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine "from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (Mt. 26:29; cf. Lk. 22:18). When He was offered wine mixed with gall before His crucifixion, He refused it (Mt. 27:34; Mk. 15:23). On the cross, it was only when He knew that "all things had already been accomplished" that Jesus accepted a drink of sour wine (Jn. 19:28-30). It makes sense to see all this from the perspective of the Nazirite vow. Facing the culminating battle of His holy war against Satan, Jesus took His Nazirite vow to abstain from the fruit of the vine. And He was faithful to that vow until He was victorious. Following His faithful fulfillment of "all things," He accepted wine and gave up the ghost. Now He enjoys it with His disciples in His kingdom.

On this interpretation, we might reconstruct Matthew's thinking as follows: Jesus lived in Nazareth of Galilee, a place held in contempt by the Jews; this fulfilled Old Testament prophecies about the suffering Messiah; and the suffering Messiah is the consecrated Nazirite who denies Himself until His task is done. Jesus was from Nazareth, and hence was a Nazarene; the fact that He was a Nazarene indicates further that He faithfully carried out His Nazirite vow to deliver His people (cf. Jud. 13:5), though it cost Him His life.... misuses a non-messianic verse as if it were messianic (called from egypt),Hosea 11:1 is The Lord, and He is clearly stating that He called (future perfect) His Son out of Egypt. ... invents history that didn't happen (herod killing kids),It did happen. C'mon, really. That's like saying that Adam and Eve weren't really created, or that male infants weren't murdered in Goshen, when Mose was born.
Maybe this article (http://www.tektonics.org/slaughtinn.html) can help. ... and misuses the word "alma" to mean virgin.I'm not a student of languages, other than French and German.-the author of hebrews misquotes Psalm 40 to his own doctrinal ends, changing a "ears you have opened" to "a body thou hast prepared me."I don't believe that the Psalm was meant to be quoted, but The Lord, Yehshua, Who the text refers to. You might note that The Lord spoke many times using phraseology and figures of speech which appear throughout the Old Testament, because He is The One Who inspired it. Remember that He said that before Abraham was, I Am; and He also said that the prophets rejoiced to see 'His Day.'-the author of hebrews is mistaken in his claim that "only through blood is remission of sin" attained, inthat the Tanakh teaches that through atonement money (charity), repentence, levitical offering you can find atonement.The Lord said, "...you shall surely die." He did not say, "...you'll have to make pennance." The wages of sin is death, and after this the judgement. There is no payment that can be made for sin. The sinner has to die. When we believe in the substitutionary death of Yehshua Messiah, we die. Our sin-nature dies, and we become born-again. You cannot see The Kingdom of God, because you're not born-again. We preach the cross, which is foolishness to you, because you are perishing (your ways will never lead to Heaven, no one has been saved by obedience of the law).This is a direct separation point between the doctrine of the Tanakh and the new bloodgodism which was developed under the mangod dogma of the church of rome.Yes, God accepted Christians, and now rejects Jews (the ones who don't receive their Messiah). I know more than a few who have accepted, and now know Him as Lord and Savior, and have a dynamic relationship with Him.-The House (Kingship/Messiahship) is given down through father-blood line.Yes, He is The Son of God (Only Begotton) and inherits all thrones and authority, in Heaven and in earth.Matthew claims that Yehshua was of a virgin birth but traces his lineage through Joseph (strange) and also the lineage given by Matthew when critically evaluated directly cancels out any claim to the throne/messiahship.I've often thought that this is strange, too.

The following paragraph (italicized) is from The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, an article on http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/genealogy.htm
by Steven Breedlove, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Copyright Â© 2003.

As Matthew continues to follow the line from David to Christ, Matthew traces the lineage through Jesus' earthly father, Joseph. This, too, indicates that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. During first century times, if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son receives the father's lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.There is another family history given in which Nathan is listed, this again cancels out any claim to messiahship because the messiah must come from Solomon's line. This was arrived at by tracing His 'natural' (through Mary, His only earthly parent) bloodline. His inheritance stems from His adopted dad. His Righteous and Eternal Inheritance stems from His True Father's Blood.The "virgin birth" is a mistranslation of the word "alma" which means maiden but makes no claims over whether the woman had known a man or not.You're not grasping that the impossible (never happened before or since) has happened, that a woman conceived without sperm being introduced.Also, if Yehshua was of a virgin birth (as many other pagan traditions teach about their mangods) then Yehshua is in violation of prophecy for YHVH promised David that his blood-link-seed will be messiah.We already covered that one. David's 'seed' is on the throne, Jesus was adopted into his bloodline by Joseph.-Paul teaches in his doctrine of the Original Sin. Inwhich the actions taken by Adam are upon all men unto eternal damnation unless another comes to save them. This doctrine is taught in Romans NT book. Ezekiel 18:20 teaches the exact opposite of "Generational Sin/Original Sin" doctrine. Inthat it states, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." To setup mankind to accept the injustice of vicarious atonement through human blood offering, Paul setup the injust doctrine known as Original Sin. Modern day Christianity has realized how injust this seems (to hold someone eternally responsible for actions of a man they never met) so they change the words of Paul to bring about a "sin nature." Inthat we are no longer responsible for the actions of Adam eternally but we have the "nature to sin" given down through time. This of course is not what Paul taught and is heretical to the actual text written by Paul. I, however, dislike it that Christianity has moved away from Original Sin as Paul defined it because without the exact statements made by Paul then a pagan could use any child for their barberic offering to their bloodgod, it is "Original Sin Doctrine" that makes Paul's mangod the only offering acceptable by his bloodgod, and without this injustice the bloodgod would be just like Magog.I don't see the distinction between original sin doctrine and sin-nature. The original sin caused Adam and Eve to die. That nature, being prone to sin, is ours by way of inheritance. We all are sinners (desirous of pleasure, regardless of law).-Yehshua makes claims which do not come true. He says that generations shall not pass away.Let's look at the entire prophecy:

[i]And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

I believe that we have seen these things come to pass, but the generation has not passed away. I believe that a generation (liberally) might be considered to be 70 years. If you mark 1948 (Israel reclaimed) as the beginning, you have to count 70 years (2018) and then, if these things aren't fulfilled, you can say His Words weren't fulfilled. He claims he will be in the earth three days (it was less than this no matter which NT author you use).Being as any portion of a day can be counted as a day, He was in the ground three days. -Paul claims in various points that the time is short. 2,000 years have gone by, Paul's prophecy of when the return would happen was a lie, making him a false prophet.The time is short, by God's Standards.[/QUOTE]-Every single viewpoint of the resurrection is conflicted by the various authors. In fact, the day the crucifixtion took place is changed by John from when the others report it.[/QUOTE]No, they aren't in conflict. He was crucified on the Passover, which prohibits the explanation of a solar eclipse from occurring, when the sky was darkened upon His death. He rose on Sunday, the third day. If you rent a DVD or VHS from Blockbuster, today, and it's due back the third day, it might be less than 72 hours that you have it, but it will still be called a three-day rental.-The claim of Christianity is that without the mangod there is no means of removal of iniquity.True. The wages of sin is death, and then judgement. Yehshua will allow us to not only not be judged, but also to never see death.Hosea the prophet tells us clearly that without the temple we, "Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return unto J---vah thy G-d; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. [2] Take with you words, and return unto J---vah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good: so will we render [as] bullocks [the offering of] our lips. (ASV)" This demonstrates that YHVH setup a means of iniquity removal for when the temple was gone long before the blasphemous idol/mangod was ever invented, and it was simple prayer.No one ever got into Heaven by obeying the law. It takes faith in The Son of God. Without going through Him, no one has ever entered Heaven, nor ever will.The funniest thing of all is that Christianity claims God requires the brutal beating and murder of an innocent man simply to forgive you while Hosea, Ezekiel, and Solomon teach us that God merely requires heartfelt repentence and prayer to remove iniquity when the temple is gone.If this is what you believe, then don't worry about it, you'll be fine. If you're right, then I will apologize to you; since I believe that repentance and prayer are a way of life, and not an act to go through once (though many so-called christian churches don't even teach this most basic of doctrines). If I'm right, you won't get into Heaven; but, don't worry about it, since you don't believe in hell, either. You'll be fine. :devil:When you think about it, the bloodgod of rome is one of the greatest evil entities ever forced upon unquestioning mankind, and the lie of vicarious atonement is the gravest of sins instead of being salvatory in any manner.Inflamatory and superflous. No content or factual basis. -God tells us many times in the Tanakh to not focus upon the offering, but upon the heartfelt repentence and prayer of the wicked man who turns to a righteous path. If that 'seems' right to you, then why should you care if Christianity brings this doctrine (repent, pray and seek a righteous path) to sinners, who might never do such a thing on their own, without Christianity? Is it personal?Ezekiel 18:20 (and surrounding verses) give wonderful statements of a salvatory path. Also, "Psalms 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [17] The sacrifices of G-d [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O G-d, thou wilt not despise. (KJV)" tells us directly that God's sacrifices are a broken spirit and contrite heart. Compare this to a brutally beaten innocent man as a method of atonement against the law of YHVH.God did not make any laws that Yehshua's crucifixion broke. He made the law so that Yehshua could fulfill it, and by His Death, He satisfied all of it.-The godman who comes of a virgin, dies, comes back to save only those who accept him is not of Judaism in any form.No, it isn't. We (believers) are Jews by adoption, The One Who made Jews decided that we are such. He will come back for the Jew, as well, but they will have seven years of repentance. I believe that when Jews see the cross in the sky, and realize that Yehshua is Messiah, they (the world over) will repent, as a nation, in fulfillment of prophecy.It is born of mystery religions.Hogwash.The demi-fallen-angel-god is not of Judaism either, it is born of Persian dualism, perhaps Zoroastrianism or the like.Satan wants you to believe that he does not exist, and to tell others the same. You are one of his best disciples.This mangod lie of paganism goes back as far as Hercules, Zeus, Osiris, Mythra, and the rest.Hogwash.It is just that they took a Jewish Rabbi of the school of Hillel (which became rabbinical Judaism) for their blasphemous idol under Roman Catholicism.I don't believe that you realize that Jewish Rabbi (Yehshua) was The Creator, Who we call: Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace.It is still an idol (mangod),Only in your tiny little mind. ... a belief upon injustice (original sin/vicarious atonement), Not so, see above answer. ... and denial of the law of offering of God (Levitical law) in order to have this blasphemy as your god.The law of 'offering of God?' What does that mean?I hope that was specific enough for you, Pagan.Thank you, blind person. Enough with the name-calling. It just makes you look like you have to resort to that to make your ways (holier-than-thou) seem so much beyond my mere comprehension that you're assured that since you're so smart and I'm so stupid, that I couldn't possibly conceive of the REAL God, much less worship Him in spirit and in truth, which, by the way, I do. Please refrain from calling one who reverences The Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as King of the Universe a pagan. You make yourself look silly.

Note: I will reply to the remainder at a later date.

Again, I want to thank you, very kindly, for your responses. I believe that the things that I believe are strengthened and that I learn more by corresponding with you than with anyone else that I have ever corresponded with. It really is enjoyable.

erethnereh

July 28th, 2004, 02:56 PM

Note that the prophesy concerning the Nazarene does not have to be held to be within the Scriptures. Since we do not have John the Baptist's prophesies, other than that he prophesied of the Messiah, it's reasonable to assume that he might have mentioned this. Other speculate that the word Nazarene is a play on the word "to bud."

Note the extreme theological difference between being in agreement and being "One." The KJV form was an addition by a scribe of the church of rome in a margin which was adopted by later manuscript writers. It is not defendable and is spurious. This is evidence that the idea of "three are one" is blasphemy to God, who declared long ago that He is One and there are no other like Him.

I was on the belief that the translators of the KJV used Greek manuscripts and did not rely too much on the vulgate. In any case the Protestants who translated it were unaffiliated with Rome.

As does any finite spirit of man.

If you are trying to say that God's Spirit went into a man, that would remove from God something that He claims to be (without change), omnipresent. A Spirit can not be omnipresent and only within flesh and make any reasonable sense.

You would not know anything of God if it were not for the finite to understand the infinite. But the unchangefulness of God seems to be matter of divine mind and nature. These traits do not stop God from speaking to man or saving man: these are actions that God undertakes.

The prophets tell us that God is not mortal/man and a non prophet tells you that Yehshua was equal to YHVH.

An you decided to side with the non-prophet. Go figure.

Someone's *claim* to prophethood does *not* make them a prophet.

Wordgames are fun, but sense I contain a spirit directly given to me by God, and am an image of God in flesh, then I am a Son of God and of the same substance of God in the Spiritual sense.

You're not the image of God, though Genesis says that Adam was made in the image of God, and every man born of Adam shared his likeness and his faults.

The Tanakh declares that he will be the direct seed of David through the father's line in order to have the House/Kingship/Messiahship upon him. So if anyone is claiming virgin birth or that Yehshua was a godman they are directly violating the Tanakh's prophetic voice.

This is kind of irrelevant, but I don't think there's any more records of David's line because they were destroyed.

He was generated by woman in a womb, in the very least. If you are able to question the virgin birth (seeing as how it is a mistranslation of the hebrew "alma") then it is more than likely that he was generated exactly like a normal human.

Actually, the virginal birth would not matter in this case. The only thing necessary would be for Jesus to exist before being conceived in Mary's womb.

I allow that with a very strict understanding that the ark was not being worshiped.

True, I was careful to say who was within the Ark, meaning the dwelling of God.

Moses was inspired and lead by God.
Who was this scribe and did he know God like Moses did? What if he got something wrong. This opens the flood gates for horrible things.

The idea that Moses was helped by the elders should not really be a novel thing. We remember that along with Elijah and Elisha were other true prophets and that Joshua was given the task to lead the people after Mose's death.
How can the Tanakh be so misused by pagan churches without supernatural help?

Fallible men sat in councils and in great blasphemy voted as if they were inspired to decide what God had said. This was not the act of a demon nor a satan, this was egotistical and politically minded men setting up their own religion separate from what the Tanakh teaches and separate from the law of YHVH.

What is the difference between the rabbies who choose what books were in the Jewish canon after Christ's death? Although we know the Jews used the books in Septuagint, there's also more writings than your current canon. Now you could claim that the Jews who chose your canon were somehow infalliable, but that's not any different than our Church council.

Then it is not a free will choice it is a coercive forced hedonistic choice. Serve my mangod and the injustice of vicarious atonement and original sin doctrine or "I" will fry you for eternity.

Not if hell is an effect of the denial of God, wis reasonable because the only way that man improves his condition is by God. Complete denial makes even this impossible.

Zakath

July 28th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by erethnereh

I was on the belief that the translators of the KJV used Greek manuscripts and did not rely too much on the vulgate. In any case the Protestants who translated it were unaffiliated with Rome.

One point of information...

The KJV translators used Erasmus's Greek translations (aka "Textus Receptus) to create the King James Version. Erasmus was a Catholic priest, an Augustinian if memory serves. So, yes, there was a definite link between the RCC and the KJV Bible.

Without the RCC there might not have been any texts available to the British to translate into English.

erethnereh

July 28th, 2004, 03:48 PM

Ok, thank you. What I meant by unaffiliated was that the Church did not authorize the translation, nor were the people involved catholic.

I don't think Erasmus was a priest? http://www.eldrbarry.net/heidel/deras.htm

Aimiel

July 29th, 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

Sure:
Those that conflict with the Tanakh and the doctrine of the Tanakh.Oh, I agree with you there. But your doctrine is messed up. Here's a little of what I believe is the case in your life:

Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, he hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.Also, here are the prophecies which Yehshua failed to complete in his lifetime (and there is no allowance of a second coming for the Jewish messiah as he must complete it in his lifetime, first time through).Again, you're placing limits upon The Lord, which you presume is your place to do. The Lord does things by His Own Timing, not yours.quote:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/messiah.html

What does scripture say about the messiah and the age he will bring to the world? I would encourage you to read Ezekiel 37. In this well known chapter, the prophet clearly teaches that we can recognize the coming of the messiah when: the resurrection of the dead, the building of the final Temple that will stand forever in Jerusalem, the universal knowledge of God and obedience to His Torah, the restoration of the lost tribes (Ephraim or the Kingdom of Israel whom Assyria carried off), and the complete restoration of the Jewish people to their land all take place. I believe that this will take place, and that you will then have to admit (every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Yehshua is Lord) that He, indeed, IS Messiah.When we carefully consider that none of this has occurred, we can be assured that although many thousands of individuals have claimed to be the messiah throughout the centuries, Jesus included, none of them is.He said otherwise, as did many who believed, and would not recant, even upon pain of death. There is far too much convincing proof, The Best of which is His Holy Spirit, Who gives us assurance, in our hearts.Moreover, when we ponder whether Jesus is the messiah, it is obvious that the very opposite occurred immediately after the Christian movement began; that is: During the first century the Romans slaughtered many thousands of Jews, the Jewish people were exiled from their land, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the knowledge of Torah and its observance decreased, and the nation of Israel was dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Clearly, there is no relationship between what the Bible says about the messiah and what the Messianic movement teaches about Jesus.The One Who created the Jewish people came to visit them, was rejected by them and put to death. He has now caused their eyes to be blinded to The Truth, since they have hardened their hearts towards Him, and will deliver anyone (Jew or gentile) who seeks Him with all of their heart, being no respecter of persons.Missionaries often insist that Jesus will somehow accomplish these things in a second coming.He's The One Who said that He would return, we just believe Him. We don't know exactly when, but believe that it will be soon.While this notion conveniently explains away any failed messiahship, it is completely and utterly antithetical to the Bible.No, it is completely congruent, and even explains more of The Word of God than previously understood. The Word of God (even all of creation) points to Yehshua, and to His credentials.

JosephofMessiah

August 2nd, 2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

Oh, I agree with you there. But your doctrine is messed up. Here's a little of what I believe is the case in your life:
(snip indoctrinational bull)

Again, you're placing limits upon The Lord, which you presume is your place to do.

I am merely holding YHVH to His Word, which of course we disagree on what is of YHVH.

(snip stupdity)
The Lord does things by His Own Timing, not yours.I believe that this will take place, and that you will then have to admit (every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Yehshua is Lord) that He, indeed, IS Messiah.

No, you see, by your own statement above, Yehshua is not yet messiah he is a messiah-wannabe that didn't do it the first trip through by your own claims. The "return trip" might make him the messiah spoken of by the Tanakh, or not, but most certainly he is not the messiah spoken of by the Tanakh yet, by your own words.

Funny that you deny your own messiah by your own claims.

(snip)
We don't know exactly when, but believe that it will be soon.

Paul wrote the exact same thing 2,000 years ago.
You have just about the same credibility of Paul in making such a stupid claim.

(snip)
The Word of God (even all of creation) points to Yehshua, and to His credentials.

The Tanakh denies that a mangod can exist (God denies being mortal/man or even that His ways are like our ways or that our thoughts are like His thoughts), outlaws all forms of human offering (mangod is still 100% human), details exactly the path of atonement and righteousness over and over and never mentions a mangod nor vicarious atonement (in fact Ezekiel outright outlaws all forms of vicarious atonement), and also of course we have the Levitical law which details exactly and repeatedly how the mangod of rome is an abominational idol more-so than being salvatory.

So, yet again, you are wrong. Now, let me restate the points you have ignored or not answered:

-The church's manipulation of the Tanakh at various points to fit their blasphemous doctrine. The misuse of the term "alma" to invent a false prophecy of virgin birth (which is a violation of prophecy), the manipulation/mistranslation of "like a lion" into that of "pierced hands" in Psalm 22, the misuse of scripture by the authors of the NT, the addition of 1 John 5:7, Matthew's invention of prophecy which did not exist, invention of history that did not take place, and of course the generational history of Yehshua which would deny him messiahship outright; Hebrew's author saying that "only through blood is remission" when this is entirely against the doctrine of the Tanakh in every way; Luke's family history which denies messiahship due to linking back to Nathan.

You have developed more questions than answers (and your response/quote to the misuse of "Nazarine" by Matthew was hillarious by the way), and you are arguing for the existence of an abominational bloodgod against the doctrine of the Merciful YHVH that offers righteousness to the faithful, as Abraham found righteousness in his simple faith in YHVH (the LORD), not in the mangod or vicarious atonement.

Aimiel

August 3rd, 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

(Ignorance edited)
Hebrew's author saying that "only through blood is remission" when this is entirely against the doctrine of the Tanakh in every way; Luke's family history which denies messiahship due to linking back to Nathan.The wages of sin is death. The life is in the blood. Without shedding every drop of one's blood, sin has not been paid. Yehshua paid your penalty for sin (only if you believe in His Atonement) so that you don't have any more debt to sin. It's that simple. The Lord will have to treat you as you have treated His Son. If you have rejected Him, you have rejected The Lord, so He must reject you, and will have to say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you."You have developed more questions than answers (and your response/quote to the misuse of "Nazarine" by Matthew was hillarious by the way), and you are arguing for the existence of an abominational bloodgod against the doctrine of the Merciful YHVH that offers righteousness to the faithful, as Abraham found righteousness in his simple faith in YHVH (the LORD), not in the mangod or vicarious atonement.Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

I'm sorry that you missed the point of Yehshua's witnessing to the Jews of Abraham's faith in Yehshua as Messiah, seated at The Right Hand of All Power and Authority. One day, you will see it; I only pray that it occur before it is eternally too late to change your mind.

logos_x

August 3rd, 2004, 09:56 AM

Isa 52:13-15; 53:1-12

13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah began to prophesy about A. M. 3236, and about seven hundred and seventy years before Christ.

JosephofMessiah

August 3rd, 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

The wages of sin is death.

So says your NT. Mortality came upon all mankind for purpose, but of course you apply to this the lie which is Original Sin Doctrie of Paul which stands against the justice of Ezekiel (18:20) outright.

So again, you are wrong.

The life is in the blood.

I'm certain that all lifeforms which exist and have life without blood would (if they had sentience) find you a humorous man indeed.

Blood is not "life" any moreso than air or water. It is a substance by which life is maintained.

Of course, the blood of a murdered man however, if offered to the God of Israel, is an abomination outright according to YHVH's law specifically.

Without shedding every drop of one's blood, sin has not been paid.

This is without backing, as there is really no way to get "every single drop" of blood out of a person, you could get plenty out but there is really no way to get all the blood out, the heart would stop beating before too long having little volume to pump.

Also, again, the blood of a mangod is an abomination unto YHVH outright, it is still 100% human under even your doctrine making it an abomination outright.

Yehshua paid your penalty for sin (only if you believe in His Atonement)

No, I'm afraid that Ezekiel prevented such barberic ignorance before Mithra, Osiris, Hercules, or the mangod of rome were invented.

Righteousness and iniquity can not be shared between anyone. Your failures are your own, a duality of cupability between you (a finite) and God (an Infinite who allowed the action to happen). But, again, no belief upon vicarious atonement, especially of an idol (mangod) is salvatory in any manner what-so-ever.

(snip)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This is a common tactic of missionaries, they take something which was manipulated and use it as a proof. The silliest and easiest thing to demonstrate is that YHVH (God's name) has never been, ever, "I AM." Understand that the context of YHVH means (and has always meant) "I will be what I will be." It could also mean "I shall be as I shall be." But it has never, not once, meant "I AM."

So when Yehshua stood before these Jews and said, "I exist," (a better translation of this text if you look at the original language) realize he was neither claiming to be equal to nor claim to be YHVH, in any way, shape, nor form. Yehshua is easily demonstrated to be claiming to be a "Judge" much like the prophets of old. The NT translators who attempt to force into Yehshua's words the statement of "I AM" are doing two things wrong. First, they are basing the entire argument on a mistranslation of YHVH, for YHVH does not (nor did it ever mean) "I AM." So in trying to say that "I AM = YHVH" they have failed already. Secondly it would mean little to the Jews at the time anyways, because the term "I AM" does not stand (nor did it ever represent in common language useage) the Name of God.

So when Aimiel pulls out these tired old and worn out defenses which are so easily and with totality defeated using but the simplest of investigations, it stands to reason that he will continue to slip into doctrine and dogma...once the sand is demonstrated all the bloodgoders can do is repeat their murderous doctrine in an attempt to brainwash.

Sad really.

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Yep, Yehshua spoke some very mean and hard things to them, even claimed that he had pre-existence to Abraham's natural life. This is not so difficult when taken in context that everyone has pre-dated the flesh (your soul was not created when you were born, in other words) but it would be very hard on a people who did not know what Yehshua was claiming, even to the point that they would think blasphemy and take up stones.

But again, Yehshua was not claiming to be, nor claiming to be equal to YHVH...Yehshua denied equality to YHVH outright several different ways, one time, quite clearly (my Father is greater than I).

I'm sorry that you missed the point of Yehshua's witnessing to the Jews of Abraham's faith in Yehshua as Messiah,

Understand that the term Messiah means man. It literally means "anointed man." So when you call Yehshua a messiah you are directly defeating your own mangod claims. Messiah does not mean equal to God in fact it directly is taken to mean an "arm" of God, a servant of God, NOT God.

Yehshua claimed to be messiah, which to him would mean the direct claim of being a man, not a mangod by any way, shape, nor form.

Concidering the virgin birth turns out to be a false prophecy and a violation of prophecy due to the church's manipulation of "alma" it would seem proper that anyone who wants to base their theology upon knowledge instead of ignorance would seek beyond the orthodox claims, but of course most people do not and call "lord lord" never actually knowing the historical Rabbi Yehshua of the school of Hillel who declared himself less than God and that God is One. Go figure.

A really good book for anyone seeking the roots of Christendom is "The Origins of Our Faith." I think it is available to read online.

http://www.shalom-crmi.org/origins.html
(I took the time to look up the URL, it is that good a read.)

...seated at The Right Hand of All Power and Authority. One day, you will see it; I only pray that it occur before it is eternally too late to change your mind.

Too late? God's mercy endureth forever, His wrath is temporal. I'm certain you are trying to say that I am doomed to some pagan Hades inwhich "Set" (you label this demi-angel-god "Satan") will rule over me and most of creation for eternity, but such paganism doesn't really do it for me...I prefer mythos inwhich a blue fairy comes from Jupiter with large breasts personally, I mean if you are going to talk about fantasy it should involve cool looking faires in my book.

JosephofMessiah

August 3rd, 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by logos_x
(Snip attempt to use Isaiah 53 as messianic)

My answer to your post:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah2.html

In Isaiah 53:10, the verse about which you were asking, the servant is promised long life and seed. Letâ€™s read Isaiah 53:10.

And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, He shall prolong his days, and Godâ€™s purpose shall prosper in his hand.

For the church, this verse presents numerous problems. To begin with, Jesus did not have any biological children. The Hebrew word zerah (seed) used in Isaiah 53:10 can only refer to biological offspring when used in connection with a personâ€™s children, never metaphoric children, such as disciples. The Hebrew word that can refer to metaphoric children is ben. Moreover, according to church teachings, Jesus died when he was approximately 30-40 years old, only about half the lifespan of a man as declared by King David in Psalm 90:10. Obviously, neither the blessing of seed, nor the blessing of long life has been fulfilled in Jesusâ€™ case.

Missionaries attempt to ameliorate this serious problem by explaining that Jesus had long life in the resurrection where he lives forever. Therefore, they would argue, as you have pointed out, that Jesus indeed lived a very long life.

This response, however, does little to relieve their problem. To begin with, the Hebrew words yaâ€™arich yamim (long life) in this
verse do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end.

These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in Tanach to anyone who is to live forever. In fact, the words yaâ€™arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout Jewish scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13. In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one. When the Jewish scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words used are lâ€™chayai olam.

So anyone trying to use Isaiah 53 to back the claims of Christianity is doing so out of ignorance, not knowledge of the actual Tanakh and what it says.

One important note:

"if his soul makes itself restitution"

This has bothered me for a long time and I want to point it out specifically. The Christian doctrine makes no claims about Yehshua's soul being restitution but claims that his death upon a pagan cross is for atonement. However, Isaiah 53 does not say anything about a body being used as restitution to YHVH, it says that a SOUL will be used. So, again, Christianity practices selective reading of scripture in order to continue in the blissful ignorance of the orthodox.

Aimiel

August 4th, 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

So says your NT.Yes, and since Yehshua fulfilled so many (at least 1,000) Old Testament prophecies, and did so in ways that pointed out the truth of long mis-understood and obscure scriptures, along with healings, raising the dead, being crucified as prophecied in Psalm 22, ressurrecting by The Power of God, ascended into Heaven in front of so many witnesses and giving eternal life to as many as believe upon Him, and The Holy Ghost to all that ask; we have many 'more-than-convincing' proofs that He is Who He said He is: King of Kings and Lord of Lords, The Messiah, The Only Begotton Son of The Living God, Emmanuel, God with us and Only Savior.I'm certain that all lifeforms which exist and have life without blood would (if they had sentience) find you a humorous man indeed.Most of them have some 'form' of blood, be it ectoplasm, or other. Starfish use water to circulate their nutrients. The Lord meant that the life of men was in their blood. You fail to notice the context, as usual, of the things which The Lord says, and lose your way by not making notation of the important clues that The Lord left in His Old Testament for you to find your way to His Throne of Grace. Pity.Blood is not "life" any moreso than air or water. It is a substance by which life is maintained.That's exactly what I said, "The life is in the blood." Duhh. :doh:Of course, the blood of a murdered man however, if offered to the God of Israel, is an abomination outright according to YHVH's law specifically.Then why did the veil in the temple get torn, from top to bottom, at the moment of His death? Why did God accept His Sacrifice for our sin? Why did He get a Glorified Body? Why did He ascend into Heaven after confirming these things to His disciples?Understand that the term Messiah means man. It literally means "anointed man." So when you call Yehshua a messiah you are directly defeating your own mangod claims. Messiah does not mean equal to God in fact it directly is taken to mean an "arm" of God, a servant of God, NOT God.He, actually, is The Right Hand of God. No one on this earth could ever even claim to be the right pinky toe's hangnail, much less His Strong Right Hand. He is The Very Righteousness of God, manifested in Flesh.Yehshua claimed to be messiah, which to him would mean the direct claim of being a man, not a mangod by any way, shape, nor form.He did not come to become a 'mangod' as you keep obsessing on. You have a problem with the fact that God took on human form, because you believe that you know enough about God, from the Old Testament, to place limits on God. He is not able to conform to your 'picture' of Him, because He is above it, not beneath it. He could fit all of Himself into a single molecule, if He chose to, and you'd deny it all day long, because you believe that you can limit Him. It just won't fly.

Satan deceived many angels, but is no more in charge of a bunch of rebellious devils than they are in charge of their own rebellion. They hate each other almost as much as they hate humans. Satan will not be in charge of anything in the Lake of Fire, either, where every single lost soul will be cast into the outer darkness, where there will be no light, no sound (other than their own screams and I doubt they'll be able to hear those over the sound of the flames), for ever and ever. That's a long time to suffer. Yes, hell is real, and death and hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire, to suffer for eternity. You shall all likewise perish, except you repent, and turn to Yehshua for salvation. Yehshua is The One and Only Way into the bosom of The Father. Abraham saw that, and rejoiced. Anyone who tries to reach The Father any other way is a thief and a robber. :thumb:

logos_x

August 4th, 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

My answer to your post:

(snip)

irrelevent and changing the subject

The reason I posted Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12 above is because you said :

The Tanakh denies that a mangod can exist (God denies being mortal/man or even that His ways are like our ways or that our thoughts are like His thoughts), outlaws all forms of human offering (mangod is still 100% human), details exactly the path of atonement and righteousness over and over and never mentions a mangod nor vicarious atonement (in fact Ezekiel outright outlaws all forms of vicarious atonement), and also of course we have the Levitical law which details exactly and repeatedly how the mangod of rome is an abominational idol more-so than being salvatory.

Again, Isaiah says:

53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Seems to contradict your claims...

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Jesus was the promised seed of the woman who would crush the serpent's head:

Gen 3:15 (God speaking to the serpent in Eden) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Notice that this is clearly talking about a death and burial and a resurrection. And the seed here is spiritual.

and then the rest of the story:

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Sorry JoM, It's all too obvious. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.

And...Jesus said this:
John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

it's up to you now JoM...You really have to try hard not to see it.

JosephofMessiah

August 5th, 2004, 09:13 PM

As is normal when speaking to many Christians, you explain very clearly how their mangod does not fit under the scripture of the Tanakh, and they ignore every single claim you make in order to say things which are not found under the scripture of the Tanakh. They also gloss over/ignore every single statement which directly refutes their false doctrine, it is better to bang your head against a wall then even talk to such ignorance and denial, but since I have nothing better to do and CIS is a repeat...

Originally posted by logos_x

The reason I posted Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12 above is because you said:

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah
The Tanakh denies that a mangod can exist (God denies being mortal/man or even that His ways are like our ways or that our thoughts are like His thoughts), outlaws all forms of human offering (mangod is still 100% human), details exactly the path of atonement and righteousness over and over and never mentions a mangod nor vicarious atonement (in fact Ezekiel outright outlaws all forms of vicarious atonement), and also of course we have the Levitical law which details exactly and repeatedly how the mangod of rome is an abominational idol more-so than being salvatory.

Again, Isaiah says:

quote:
53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Originally posted by logos_x
Seems to contradict your claims...

No, not in the least, not when you look beyond the Christophiling of the Tanakh to what is actually written.

It is important to understand who is speaking at each point during Isaiah 53, so you can grasp what is being said and about whom it is being said. Let's investigate this further, even though your mangod does not fulfill the statements of this prophecy (short life and no children and a soul as restitution) it is very easily demonstrated that this prophecy is not about a mangod nor messiah anyways...

First, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is named by Isaiah various times. Directly and repeatedly Isaiah says that Israel is the suffering servant.

There is nothing vicarious about this scripture (as the Christian doctrine seems to want to claim) and it is easy enough to demonstrate by just reading what is written in the proper context and with knowledge of whom/who is talking. The "gentile kings" are speaking about how their actions caused Israel to suffer at their hands (bearing their iniquities as suffering under their rule).

I'll cut and paste a very good explaination of what I am saying off of Rabbi Singer's site to save me time, which is a good read for any Christian wishing to question the blasphemous doctrine of rome.

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah2.html

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah begins with an extraordinary biblical text in which the prophet vividly describes the surprised reaction of the gentile kings of nations at the end of days as they finally behold the righteous remnant of the Jewish people raised up and glorified. The astonished reaction of the gentiles to the messianic age is a common theme in the prophets and is emphasized in this chapter. What has caused these leaders of the worldâ€™s nations to be so startled? Why are they so amazed? Everything that they have ever heard or considered is in stark contrast to what they are finally witnessing in the messianic age. They will place their hands over their mouths in numbed bewilderment as they behold the glory of the remnant of the Jewish people, finally vindicated and redeemed by the arm of the Lord. Letâ€™s examine Isaiah 52:15-53:1, which are the introductory verses to Isaiah 53.

So shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand. Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

In verses two through eight, the kings of nations continue to speak as they sorrowfully express their heartfelt confession. They finally
understand that as a result of the sins of their peoples, the nation of Israel had suffered brutally throughout their long and bitter exile. In the past, these world leaders surmised that because the Jewish people stubbornly refused to embrace the ways of their nations the Jews were stricken and smitten by God. But now, as they bear witness to the glorious messianic redemption, they finally understand that Israel suffered as a result of the destructive arrogance and devastating recklessness of their own peoples.

By Isaiah 53:9, however, the speakers are no longer the gentile kings, but rather the Almighty Himself. In 53:10, the verse about which you were asking, God is enumerating the blessings that are bestowed on those who have chosen the path of devotion and â€œhave made their souls a restitution.â€?

[Note that the translation of the KJV does not say "their souls a restitution" but was manipulated by the church to Christophile the Tanakh.]

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/isaiah2.html

continued...
These manifold blessings mirror the promised blessings to the faithful at the end of the Book of Deuteronomy. In these last chapters of the Pentateuch, the Almighty promises prolonged life and children to those who are devoted to the life-giving teachings of the Torah.

(snip for context) In an effort to support their christological position, missionaries often try to argue that Isaiah 53 is speaking about Jesus. In fact, Isaiah 53 stands out as the biblical text most used by missionaries. There are, however, countless ways to prove from this chapter and the chapters that surround it that Isaiah 53 is referring to the faithful remnant of Israel and not to the Christian messiah.

In Isaiah 53:10, the verse about which you were asking, the servant is promised long life and seed. Letâ€™s read Isaiah 53:10.

And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see seed, He shall prolong his days, and Godâ€™s purpose shall prosper in his hand.

For the church, this verse presents numerous problems. To begin with, Jesus did not have any biological children. The Hebrew word zerah (seed) used in Isaiah 53:10 can only refer to biological offspring when used in connection with a personâ€™s children, never metaphoric children, such as disciples. The Hebrew word that can refer to metaphoric children is ben. Moreover, according to church teachings, Jesus died when he was approximately 30-40 years old, only about half the lifespan of a man as declared by King David in Psalm 90:10. Obviously, neither the blessing of seed, nor the blessing of long life has been fulfilled in Jesusâ€™ case.
{Edited for length}

There is much more the Rabbi says here which is important, I only shorten this because what has been said is enough to discredit the Christophiling of the Tanakh and return to this chapter the actual meaning (that the suffering servant is Israel), which does especially not reference the mangod described by rome's doctrine in the least.

(snip)
Notice that this is clearly talking about a death and burial and a resurrection. And the seed here is spiritual.
and then the rest of the story:

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Again, your mangod does not fulfill this prophecy in the least, his soul is not restitution neither did he have children, nor was he (under orthodox claim) born of David's seed but of a virgin birth which removes from him messiahship outright, adoption does not pass down the House/Kingship.

But even without that knowledge, you can simply read what Isaiah says, about their souls and their souls making resistution. That is what is funny, that the KJV translated it in such a way to mislead demonstrates pious fraud outright. Also, it is evident that the prophecy does not fit the mangod of rome inthat he did not have long life nor seed (direct bloodlink offspring).

Sorry JoM, It's all too obvious. Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.

No, very easily just read it and he did not. It is funny when you think about it that you have to ignore everything it says and rely on a false translation to come to the conclusions you have come to.

And...Jesus said this:

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

...it's up to you now JoM...You really have to try hard not to see it.

Not that I give much credit to documents under rome's control/manipulation, but no, your are not correct in your interpretation.

It is not hard to see that Hosea tells us directly that iniquity is removed with prayer when the temple is gone, that Ezekiel outlaws directly any and all forms of vicarious atonement, that Proverbs says that through truth and mercy is iniquity purged, that under the law both flour and atonement money (charity) can be used to atone for your soul. I find it humorous when Christians use such outdated lies of pious fraud to back their blasphemous claims, we are in 2004 and you would think that they would have investigated their own mangod to a greater degree to ensure they are not servant to a false pagan church or in the least to have better answers to the easily demonstrated prooftexts of the Rabbi.

That is the saddest part of all, you can realize that God is not the butcher of rome in but a few simple verses which Paul attempts to re-write to fit his false doctrine, but due to either stupidity, ignorance, or enculturation they never question enough to seek beyond the idol they hold in their hearts and the abomination they label as salvatory.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 08:57 AM

JoM

What you call the "Christophiling of the Tanakh" I see as the actual fulfillment of scripture by the Messiah Yeshua.

I quess anyone can put their own spin on things.

If you believe that Yeshua was a false messiah then you have to resort to trying to demonstrate the negative, and if you believe He was the true Messiah you will demontrate the positive.

Not all Christians believe that Rome held the correct interpretion of scripture. In fact, the Protestant Revolution came about because of Rome's corruption. Many even now believe that the Roman Church is the antichrist at work, or at least that antichrist works through it's government.

Ther are books missing from our cannon of scripture that I feel should have been included. The book of Enoch and Jubilees for example. There are many things I believe still needs reforming, like the doctrine of eternal conscious torment as the judgement of a just and merciful God upon all sinners.

Anyway, it isn't that Christians refuse to see anything. We see all scripture as pointing to Jesus because we know Him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That is the foundation of His Church. He is the second Adam. The founder of a New Covenant that extends to all nations, the cornerstone of an entire economy of God with man.

He is the Messiah.
He prophesied Himself about what would happen after His "ecclesia" was established...

Luk 21:12-24
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The times of the Gentiles is close to it's end.
Then Jesus returns.

Spin it any way you like. Refute the good news of Christ.
Nevertheless...He died, He got up! And He's coming again.

John 14:1-4
Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

Aimiel

August 6th, 2004, 09:52 AM

Excellent post, officer.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 02:27 PM

thanks Amiel.

Aimiel

August 6th, 2004, 02:29 PM

You're quite welcome. Keep the faith. I always find conversing with Joseph quite interesting, but he always seems to get angry and can't get over the things that I believe, and then tries to show me why I believe the way that I do, when I know better.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 02:39 PM

I know. he is very interesting, but seems to believe that only the Tanakh is God's word. I Don't know enough about Judaism to be compelling enough to win him over, and he seems to pidgeonhole all Christians into an errant stream. But I like him., and he sure makes you think about why we believe what we believe.

Iron sharpens iron...

Aimiel

August 6th, 2004, 02:44 PM

As I've said before, I feel that I've learned more trying to convince Him that Yehshua is The Only Messiah, than just about any other 'fight' I've ever been in during my short (49 years) life. I like what the Oracle's bodyguard said, "You don't really know someone, until you fight them."

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 02:49 PM

Eze 18:20-32
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.
31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

I fail to see where Christ is in disagreement with this.
Do you?

Aimiel

August 6th, 2004, 02:52 PM

He always tries to say that when Jesus was lifted up, and the great exchange took place (that is to say when He took the punishment (death) of believers' sin in exchange for His Righteousness that He gives us) that it is neither scriptural or possible. He believes that the Old Testament proves that Jesus is NOT The Messiah.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 03:02 PM

Jer 31:28-29
And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Christ ratified this New Covenant in His blood.

Aimiel

August 6th, 2004, 03:05 PM

You're preachin' to the choir, but I like it. I always love to hear and to tell the story. I believe that He cut this New Covenant in His Blood in the garden of Gethsemane, when He said, "Thy will..." and simply paid for it the next day, but that's another story. I believe that His Flesh wanted to live, and that the spirit of death, in anticipation of its prey, was putting the pressure on Him, to avoid having to be arrested and killed, knowing that He knew that He was about to be arrested.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 03:09 PM

Have you read his prayer in John 17 too...wow!

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Aimiel

He always tries to say that when Jesus was lifted up, and the great exchange took place (that is to say when He took the punishment (death) of believers' sin in exchange for His Righteousness that He gives us) that it is neither scriptural or possible.

It fails the very scripture which he denoted above. Ezekiel teaches against the Original Sin Doctrine of Paul and also in the same breath/text denotes exactly the eternal justice of YHVH upon creation, inthat no righteousness nor wickedness is shared.

"the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

No sharing, giving, transfering of your iniquities takes place, you are responsible unto YHVH for your actions and no one else's. Not Adams or anyones. Paul attempted to rewrite this to his own doctrine which is exceedingly injust if you but read what he wrote, so much so that Christian sects have changed the idea of Original Sin from what Paul taught (that we are responsible for Adam's actions directly) to a type of Original Sin Doctrine inwhich it is a "nature" that is given down. Of course that is not what Paul taught but a sectation due to the easily demonstrated injustice of the Original Sin doctrine.

Most people never question it and realize that the Tanakh nor Judaism accept nor teach that Original Sin exists or that we are responsible for actions of another.

He believes that the Old Testament proves that Jesus is NOT The Messiah.

There is no such thing as the "old testament" and I believe that the Tanakh (when you remove the influence of rome from it) demonstrates the pious fraud that was undertaken in order to Christophile this document. From the manipluation of Psalm 22, to the chaning of Psalm 40 in the NT book of Hebrews, from ignoring Ezekiel's justice for Paul's injustice the Tanakh demonstrates exactly what you have said.

However, the NT also demonstrates problematic things when you critically read it, such that the family history of Yehshua removes from him any messianic claim and the statements made by the authors of the NT in various instances misrepresent the Tanakh's words to their own ends and misquote directly scripture in order to come to the preconceived ideas. The author of Matthew and the author of Hebrews do this so readily it is hard to believe that people still teach from these books as inspired. Another major problem of course is the idea of the virgin birth. The Hebrew word "alma" does not mention whether the woman was a virgin or not, but mentions youth. It is better translated as "maiden." There is nothing about the prophecy/scripture of the Tanakh which demonstrates that a virgin will give birth on the other hand it would be a violation of scripture were messiah not the direct seed blood birth offspring of a root of David. Matthew (strangely) claims virgin birth but then traces Yehshua's family line through Joseph, and this is not possible for the House/Kingship does not pass through adoption.

Luke on the other hand in totality gets it wrong because he traces Yehshua's line back to Nathan, a non-messianic line in totality which would mean that Yehshua is not the messiah. I have heard it argued that Luke is talking about Mary's line, but since Kingship/Messiahship is traced through the father's bloodline it means nothing to trace the mother's line.

So again, the Tanakh directly demonstrates that Yehshua failed to complete the scripture that the messiah would do in his lifetime (Christianity argues he will do it upon return, but again, in saying this he is not messiah yet) and the NT gives more evidence that Yehshua was not the messiah of the Tanakh than the Tanakh possibily gives.

Either / Or, Yehshua's death is not atoning in any manner what-so-ever, such an offering is an abomination outright and the law is very clear on such a point. You are claiming that an Omniscience God setup a law specifically to teach His people justice and how to have atonement and then directly violates that law in order to give mankind atonement, such is ludicris and a cursory reading of the levitical code demonstrates that no human offering (mangod is still 100% human) is acceptible to God for any purpose what-so-ever. It might be acceptible to Magog however.

Hosea gives the most damaging evidence of all (and it is for this reason that the translators of the KJV manipulated his words). Inthat Hosea tells us that Israel will go without a temple for a long time and that during this period we shall offer the offerings of our lips as sacrifices to remove iniquity. No mangod required to find atonement.

Anyways, that is my point.

Zakath

August 6th, 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by erethnereh

Ok, thank you. What I meant by unaffiliated was that the Church did not authorize the translation, nor were the people involved catholic.

I don't think Erasmus was a priest? http://www.eldrbarry.net/heidel/deras.htm Try reading the links you post....

1492 - Loaned as a secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai who ordained him as a priest and then sent him to University of Paris in 1496...

:doh:

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 03:34 PM

JoM

I agree. There are problems with the "original sin" idea.
Especially when it is erroneously transfered over into the issue of God's justice.
Original sin was an attempt to account for WHY men sin. It was never intended to be construed as the source of God's anger or wrath and judgement of sin. The "mysery of iniquity", Why is man as he is.
Original sin served to explain why all men have to propensity to sin themselves...it should never be seen as though all men are sinners because of Adam's sin and be judged for another man's sins.
If any Christian teaches that we are judged for another's sins they are in error.

As far as Jesus' death...His death removes sin in the same way that sacrifices did according to the Tanakh. His sacrifice was the final sacrifice...fulfilling what all those animal sacrifices were for.
The symbology of the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat each year was accomplished fully. God "sees" the blood...not our sin, and we can enter into His presence.

Zakath

August 6th, 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by logos_x

I know. he is very interesting, but seems to believe that only the Tanakh is God's word. Well since the Tanakh are the Jewish Scriptures, (which are exactly the same canon as the Protestant Old Testament), it would seem reasonable that he'd reject the Christian NT as non-authoritative for much the same reason that many posters here reject the Book of Mormon...

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by logos_x

JoM

I agree. There are problems with the "original sin" idea.
Especially when it is erroneously transfered over into the issue of God's justice.

So you are basically saying that Paul was not inspired.
We do agree then.

Original sin was an attempt to account for WHY men sin. It was never intended to be construed as the source of God's anger or wrath and judgement of sin.

Paul directly teaches in his doctrine that judgement fell upon all mankind because of the actions of one man, and that by one man (inference Yehshua's death) it was removed. The injustice of Original Sin Doctrine sets up the injustice of vicarious atonement.

The "mysery of iniquity", Why is man as he is.
Original sin served to explain why all men have to propensity to sin themselves...it should never be seen as though all men are sinners because of Adam's sin and be judged for another man's sins.

That is what Paul directly claims, Paul did not mince words and stated directly that Adam's sins were upon all unto judgement. So when you say what you are saying, you are conflicting with Paul's doctrine and basically calling him a liar. I agree with you but I find it strange that you would do so.

If any Christian teaches that we are judged for another's sins they are in error.

The very basis of christian doctrine is that a person was judged for another's sins. Period. If you do not accept that we are being held responsible for Adam's actions then by what injustice doctrine are you saying that Yehshua can be held for our actions. Original Sin sets up Vicarious Atonement, without the one you do not have the other.

As far as Jesus' death...His death removes sin in the same way that sacrifices did according to the Tanakh.

The Tanakh directly and repeatedly says that no human offering of any kind will be acceptible to God, and in fact labels such offerings as abominations outright. Far from Jesus' (Yehshua's) death removing anything, it is an abomination according to the law of the Tanakh.

His sacrifice was the final sacrifice...

Of course you can make a claim but Ezekiel as well as many other prophets looked through time and saw that the temple and sacrifices will return. So when you claim he was the "final sacrifice" you are ignoring a majority of prophecy within the Tanakh. You are also negating the levitical codes and denying God's justice found in the doctrine of Hosea, Ezekiel, Solomon, David, etc.

...fulfilling what all those animal sacrifices were for.

The animal sacrifices were setup by God for purpose, they were eaten and done in a merciful manner. The animal had to be without physical flaw and killed by a knife across the neck. It had to be under a year old. The offering has very specific actions which must take place or the entire thing is an abomination. Not a single precept was followed in the offering of Yehshua of Nazareth and in fact to offer a human is a violation outright. In no way what-so-ever is Yehshua's death in any manner atoning for anyone's sins.

The symbology of the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat each year was accomplished fully. God "sees" the blood...not our sin, and we can enter into His presence.

The blood upon the mercy seat was done under levitical law from the proper animal type. To use human blood would invalidate the entire offering and make it an abomination outright. God sees all things in His omniscience, including your sin, but promises that His mercy endureth forever and Ezekiel and Hosea both tell us of paths which do not require a bloodgod's murdered mangod to find atonement.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Zakath

Well since the Tanakh are the Jewish Scriptures, (which are exactly the same canon as the Protestant Old Testament), it would seem reasonable that he'd reject the Christian NT as non-authoritative for much the same reason that many posters here reject the Book of Mormon...

Indeed.
In fact the ealiest Christians were Jewish, and there was no written "New Testament". They saw Jesus as the fulfillment of Tanakh. I'm sure they ran into much of the same arguments against this as JoM is putting on the table. Most Christian Jews faced severe reprisals for their faith that Jesus is the Messiah....yet they believed, and nothing, even the threat of death, could convince them otherwise.
Their taking the gospel to the gentiles was quite the controversy then.
We have believers in the Tanakh who believed in Jesus as messiah to thank for "Christianity".

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

So you are basically saying that Paul was not inspired.
We do agree then.

Paul directly teaches in his doctrine that judgement fell upon all mankind because of the actions of one man, and that by one man (inference Yehshua's death) it was removed. The injustice of Original Sin Doctrine sets up the injustice of vicarious atonement.

That is what Paul directly claims, Paul did not mince words and stated directly that Adam's sins were upon all unto judgement. So when you say what you are saying, you are conflicting with Paul's doctrine and basically calling him a liar. I agree with you but I find it strange that you would do so.

I believe Paul was an apostle and will not call him a liar. But he was a man, and as such may have said or wrote things that aren't perfect. Paul himself says that 'the mystery of iniquity" is , in fact, a mystery...and that even he saw "through a glass darkly".
In fact, I think Paul would probably be upset at the notion that everything he said was "inerrant". (I know I would be)

The very basis of christian doctrine is that a person was judged for another's sins. Period. If you do not accept that we are being held responsible for Adam's actions then by what injustice doctrine are you saying that Yehshua can be held for our actions. Original Sin sets up Vicarious Atonement, without the one you do not have the other.

Not necessarily. Again, animal sacrifices were used in the Tanakh and there is no need for the original sin idea in that economy...why should it then follow that it is necessary to believe in original sin to be Christian?

The Tanakh directly and repeatedly says that no human offering of any kind will be acceptible to God, and in fact labels such offerings as abominations outright. Far from Jesus' (Yehshua's) death removing anything, it is an abomination according to the law of the Tanakh.

Of course you can make a claim but Ezekiel as well as many other prophets looked through time and saw that the temple and sacrifices will return. So when you claim he was the "final sacrifice" you are ignoring a majority of prophecy within the Tanakh. You are also negating the levitical codes and denying God's justice found in the doctrine of Hosea, Ezekiel, Solomon, David, etc.

Christians believe that all the sacrifices of the past in the Tanakh looked forward to Jesus' death and to His blood being sprinkled., that God instituted the sacrificial system to forshadow it's fulfillment in Him. The future sacrificial observance will look back in memorial of what Jesus accomplished in the same way they looked forward in the Tanakh. Human sacrifice would be an abomination, if for no other reason, because that would be tantamount to a sinful man being equal to the sinless one worthy to take away the sins of the world, and that God would accept such a sacrifice. The animal sacrificial ordinances looked forward to a substitionary death that would take it all.
Jesus was introduced by John as "the lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world". His was to be THE only sactrifice that could. No other human sacrifice would do any good, anyway.

The animal sacrifices were setup by God for purpose, they were eaten and done in a merciful manner. The animal had to be without physical flaw and killed by a knife across the neck. It had to be under a year old. The offering has very specific actions which must take place or the entire thing is an abomination. Not a single precept was followed in the offering of Yehshua of Nazareth and in fact to offer a human is a violation outright. In no way what-so-ever is Yehshua's death in any manner atoning for anyone's sins.

I bet Yehshua wished He knew that...:doh:

The blood upon the mercy seat was done under levitical law from the proper animal type. To use human blood would invalidate the entire offering and make it an abomination outright. God sees all things in His omniscience, including your sin, but promises that His mercy endureth forever and Ezekiel and Hosea both tell us of paths which do not require a bloodgod's murdered mangod to find atonement.

Then don't believe for those reason's.
Is there any reason to believe in Yehshua that you would accept.
If the current Christian precepts of Yehshua are wrong...what are the right one's.

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by logos_x

I believe Paul was an apostle and will not call him a liar.

If he is telling something that is not true, what is he?
Liar or Decieved?

But he was a man, and as such may have said or wrote things that aren't perfect.

So we are going toward the "gray" area, inthat what Paul said may not have been fully correct, but wasn't in totality right either. I have to say that I have yet to meet an absolutist Christian who makes claims such as to allude to a gray area in theology.

Personally I think that since Paul's doctrine in the exact opposite of Ezekiel it is easily demonstrate that he was a liar, but go figure.

Paul himself says that 'the mystery of iniquity" is, in fact, a mystery...

2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Really don't get how this helps this conversation. Perhaps you could be more specific in your claims of what Paul meant?

...and that even he saw "through a glass darkly".
In fact, I think Paul would probably be upset at the notion that everything he said was "inerrant". (I know I would be)

In fact in many instances Paul directly states that he has nothing from [Yehshua] on this topic but his own opinion. When people try to say that the entire NT is inspired I laugh a little at that claim for they have to ignore the very words of Paul as he wrote them.

(Snip for context)Again, animal sacrifices were used in the Tanakh and there is no need for the original sin idea in that economy...why should it then follow that it is necessary to believe in original sin to be Christian?

Without the idea/concept of Original Sin doctrine, inwhich a newborn infant is marked by the sin of Adam, then you could use any single newborn infant for redemptive purpose. It would return to what it in actuality is, Magog and offering the innocent children in the fires. Without Original Sin Doctrine there is no requirement of special birth nor the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

So when I hear a Christian has turned against Paul's doctrine of Original Sin I wonder how long before they realize how barberic their doctrine actually is, inthat since a child is innocent at birth it could be used for atonement just as Yehshua was. It is the doctrine of Original Sin as written by Paul which marks all newborns as under Adam's sin which keeps Christianity separate from other pagan religions of child sacrifice.

When you remove Original Sin doctrine, any child could have been used under the "innocense die for sinful" doctrine of Christainity.

Christians believe that all the sacrifices of the past in the Tanakh looked forward to Jesus' death and to His blood being sprinkled.,

Yehshua died on a pagan cross away from a temple, was 33 years old, with spot, wrinkle, and blemish upon his flesh. Was human. Was not killed by a priest in a levitical manner (knife across neck). His blood was not sprinkled upon any altar what-so-ever except the fictional altar in another realm invented by NT authors to justify such butchery as salvatory.

The Tanakh is very clear that no human offering can be used for atonement.

that God instituted the sacrificial system to forshadow it's fulfillment in Him.

Concidering that Hosea sets up a very clear method of removal of iniquity without the requirement of any offering when the temple is taken. Concidering that Ezekiel's method of finding righteousness does not involve any mudered mangod. Concidering that the prophets say that the temple and sacrificial system will return. I'd say that the sacrificial system was not forshadowing of any abominational mangod's blasphemous death at all. But of course that is my opinion.

(snip)
Jesus was introduced by John as "the lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world". His was to be THE only sactrifice that could.

The passover lamb is not for removal of iniquity. Whenever I hear a Christian use such ignorance I wonder if they have any knowledge of the law in any manner what-so-ever. For certain the law specifically denotes that the passover offering is not for atonement, and the lamb given on this date is to remember deliverance from Egypt, is not for atonement. When a Christian says "lamb of God who takes away sin" it demonstrates the syncretic ignorance and stupidity of this theological set, demonstrates that they have no knowledge of the law, and their attempt to place atonement upon the passover offering in direct blasphemy to the law.

I bet Yehshua wished He knew that...:doh:

Then don't believe for those reason's.
Is there any reason to believe in Yehshua that you would accept.

Had Matthew's author not misused prophecy in order to make false claims and use non-messianic verses as messianic, had Hebrew's author not manipulated the Psalm to fit his abominational doctrine, had the family histories of Yehshua made any messianic claim what-so-ever, had they not invented false prophecy through misuse of the Tanakh (virgin birth), had the author of John not been so anti-semetic in his doctrine, had the pagan savior-godman who comes of a virgin and dies only to save those that believe upon him not been the basis for all the mystery religions of Rome and the surrounding area, then perhaps the syncretic paganism inherent within Chrisitanity would make more sense. Had the NT not been written as monotheistic perhaps I would accept claims of Trinitarians and had Yehshua doctrine and statements declared himself equal to YHVH then perhaps those that place him equal to God would have a leg to stand on.

Until then, the doctrine of Christian evolved over ages to what it currently is, and it is nothing more than an idol (mangod) which was murdered by rome upon a pagan cross in an abominational act.

If the current Christian precepts of Yehshua are wrong...what are the right one's.

There is the historical Yehshua and the deity mangod of Rome's doctrine. It is a far cry from the claims of the church which match what Yehshua actually said (inthat YHVH is greater than him and One), but of course that takes detailed research and investigation to not accept what is handed to you on a silver platter.

I have found the book "The Origins of Our Faith" and many sites by the Rabbi to be of very great imporance to anyone that is seeking to come out from under the paganism of the church of rome's and modern orthodox christianity's doctrine.

logos_x

August 6th, 2004, 07:28 PM

JoM

There are many Jews that see Yehshua as the messiah. How would they reconcile this if the Tanakh so ardently goes against this?
I know that the church has adopted many pagan concepts over time. But it was Jews that first preached the gospel...to gentiles.

I guess I'm asking how a Jew would view Yehshua. and the more important aspect of the fact that he rose from the dead?
Yehshua said:

John 14:5-13
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

How would a Jew see Yehshua when He says this? Many of them came to believe. If what you say is true, how could they? There has to be some way to reconcile Yehshua's death, burial, and resurrection with what the Tanakh teaches for them to believe in Him without becoming pagans.
Even if you claim that the Roman Church was responsible for the paganization of Christian doctrine, Jews were the first to believe in Him, and preach about Him to gentiles. What would they have preached...if not what Paul preached?

godrulz

August 6th, 2004, 07:38 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

It fails the very scripture which he denoted above. Ezekiel teaches against the Original Sin Doctrine of Paul and also in the same breath/text denotes exactly the eternal justice of YHVH upon creation, inthat no righteousness nor wickedness is shared.

"Original Sin" is NOT a Pauline doctrine. It is an Augustinian idea and includes the Federal Headship of Adam theory.

straw man/caricature (to say Paul was wrong)

JosephofMessiah

August 6th, 2004, 11:53 PM

Version 1.1
(Clarify, Updated, some spelling corrections.)

Originally posted by logos_x

JoM

There are many Jews that see Yehshua as the messiah.

There are many Jews that are atheists as well.

Because "many" of any type of people follow a given creed is meaningless as to whether that creed it truthful or a lie, or a bit of a mix of lies and truths.

A creed should be held by what is claims, and on the type of people is produces. In such a manner the Nazi cannot say that past fallen Nazis did not incorporate or use nazism in a proper way, thus blaming the failure upon the fallen nazis and not upon the vacant ideology of the present day nazi.

The ego and intolerance found in modern day Trinitarianism, along with the required ignorance to theological history of the NT and the evolution of the doctrine of rome and rome's syncretic pagan past, is something which demonstrates it is not that "those people in the past were not Christians" it is that this ideology is a failure in an of itself.

How would they reconcile this if the Tanakh so ardently goes against this?

You can not "reconcile" the justice of Ezekiel (18:20) with Paul's doctrine. You can not reconcile the differences and utter destruction of the levitical law of sacrifice in order to accept the mangod's abominational death as salvatory. You can not follow the Tanakh and the NT, they teach exact opposites.

The NT is not about reconciling anything it is over-steping and destroying the levitical codes in order to put in place a "new priesthood" that will accept this abominational offering as salvatory.

There is no way to make the doctrine of the Tanakh fit the claims of pagan christendom in any way, shape, nor form. You either listen to the doctrine of the church or not, and the doctrine of the church is not even taught in the NT saddly.

I know that the church has adopted many pagan concepts over time. But it was Jews that first preached the gospel...to gentiles.

The first Christians were a heretical group of messianics who believed that a murdered innocent man named Yehshua of Nazareth would return to fulfill the statements made about the messiah in the Tanakh. It was a method of answering why this supposed messiah did not do what the real messiah is to do in his lifetime and to hold on to their respected leader after his death.

The ideas/dogma/belief creeds of the church formed / evolved over ages/centuries, which adopted a virgin birth against the prophecy of the Tanakh, and this virgin birth fit with the cultures/beliefs of the day (all godmen of rome had virgin births from Osiris, Mythra, and Hercules) and also the resurrection of this mangod is just a retold event of the mangods of rome, many followers of various mangods told that they saw or witnessed their respective mangod being alive after his death. There is no more reason to accept Yehshua as the "single mangod that is salvatory in death" than there is to accept Mythra or Hercules. The stories are almost identical, it is just that they took a Rabbi of the school of Hillel this time as the focus of their mangod story.

That a mangod can even exist is heretical and blasphemous to God in the Tanakh. It is an idol to claim that God is man, or a man is God, and such is in totality against the doctrine of the Tanakh in every single way.

I guess I'm asking how a Jew would view Yehshua.

As any other teacher. He could be mistaken, he could be misled, he could be decieved, he could have been prophet or not. He most certainly is not YHVH in flesh any more than any other man is (we are all created in God's image, but God is not man/mortal by His own words) and his death is not atoning in any way, shape, nor form for YHVH does not accept human offerings under His eternal levitical (sacrificial) law.

...and the more important aspect of the fact that he rose from the dead?

The evidences of this event are as questionable historically as any other mythological event recorded by followers of a given godman. That you accept these stories without question would immediately make me ask you why you do not believe upon the godman Mithra who was born on December 25th of a virgin and he was also called "Savior."

Again, that any godman is in fact "the truth" or is in fact the "single savior of mankind" has no foundation in the Tanakh what-so-ever. The Tanakh does not teach faith in the messiah, you are to trust in YHVH alone as your Savior and believe upon the coming messiah, but faith in that coming messiah is not required for atonement in any form what-so-ever.

Yehshua said:

{{Edit, it would be better to say, it is stated by the author of John that Yehshua said...}}

John 14:5-13
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

Notice that Yehshua does not claim to be equal to God, but One with God. Also notice in the NT record that Yehshua denies being equal to God, claiming directly that Yehshua is less than God (my Father is greater than I).

The NT directly labels Yehshua as a man in various points, claiming he is limited in knowledge, has no power of his own, and is located within flesh. God is none of these things being that He is Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent.

How would a Jew see Yehshua when He says this?

If the Jew sees this as Yehshua claiming to be YHVH, they would immediately want to stone him (in that day, in our day they would seek mental help for the guy). However, because he never says he is YHVH (not once) and denies it in other locations, there would be little problems with him claiming to be one with God or a son of God...all mankind is "one" with God's omnipresent spirit, and we are all sons of God. The problem was when Rome invented the lie "God the Son" and generated an idol.

The problems of course come about when you look at the world today and attempt to apply Yehshua's words to reality.

He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do...

No one is walking on water nor healing the sick (empirically, despite Benny Henn's claims), so when you try to hold him to what he says it fails.

Also...whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do is really a non-statement in an age which realizes that sickness is a result of biological and genetic faults and not caused by "evil spirits." But again that is more of my critical evaluation of what Yehshua said. The proof is in the pudding so-to-speak, if Yehshua wasn't a liar or misquoted then Christians should be easily able to walk up to people and heal them, making doctor's obsolete. Ever since the scientific methodology became well used to prove empirical evidence of what really happens, "faith healers" are as popular in society as are voodoo witchdoctors.

Again, if you were to hold Yehshua's words critically they do not respresent our reality as we see it, you have to not apply them to reality and hold them in a type of non-questioning state for them to have any value at all. How many Christian families throughout the world have asked repeatedly for Yehshua to stand by his words and how many have been answered?

I'm not talking about the vague answers to prayer which everyone hears about, I'm saying that Yehshua said "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," and he really isn't doing what he said he would. So it is my viewpoint that a great deal of what was said is either told for purpose (to help mankind question) or was misquoted over the ages. After all if such were in actuality possible (what Yehshua claimed) then the tests of Job would never take place (people would simply pray and be healed) and God would change from Whom He Is into a type of hedonistic entity that gives mankind what mankind wants making God a Big Bellboy in the sky.

Many of them came to believe. If what you say is true, how could they?

I'm sorry that you are lacking in historical evidence here. Jews did not follow the doctrine of Christianity and were not led to accept this dead christos of rome. In fact the temple was destroyed and the Jews were sent away from Jerusalem (the exact opposite of what is to come in the messianic age). So in making the claim you are above you are forgetting the centuries of persecutions of the majority of those that would follow Judaism because they would not serve the mangod of rome nor this pagan mangod doctrine.

Those that follow Christianity in all honesty have very little education in what the Tanakh actually says (the NT is easily discredited when compared to the Tanakh and actual scripture) and are misled just like the Gentiles which had no sound footing in the law and ways of YHVH.

Christianity was readily accepted by the gentiles because it fit into the other mystery religions of the day perfectly, and Christianity adopted many pagan rituals and holidays moving over time (evolving) to a point of being the exact opposite of what the founder had taught.

There has to be some way to reconcile Yehshua's death, burial, and resurrection with what the Tanakh teaches for them to believe in Him without becoming pagans.

Since Christianity is a pagan religion for the most part, and the rituals, holidays, and practices of this theological set evolved from paganism for the most part, it is really strange that we keep it separate from the other mystery religions of rome, it has the exact same beliefs of these other religions, just different names of key figures. So, no, there is no way for "a Jew" (or anyone for that matter) to reconcile the godman's atoning death and resurrection with what the Tanakh teaches.

Even if you claim that the Roman Church was responsible for the paganization of Christian doctrine, Jews were the first to believe in Him,

Understand that the first jewish messianic followers of Yehshua's belief system had absolutely no/zero relation to modern day Christianity. The virgin birth, godhood status of Yehshua, atoning death upon the pagan cross, immaculate conception of Mary ("god's mother"), confession, body/blood meal, God's Holy Spirit being somehow separate from Him (generating the three headed god of rome, trinity)...everything that modern Christianity claims is salvatory did not exist for the first jewish messianics which believed that (simply) a prophet/anointed man died and will return to complete the messiah's works spoken of by the Tanakh (which they held as the only scripture). The hellenization and Persian dualism (Devil vs Trinity) which was adopted much later, as well as several councils which removed semetism from the church and allowed images back into the church, cause Christianity to fall into nothing more than pure paganism over the centuries.

The "Messianic Jew" (Yehshua is not YHVH, no atoning death, God is One, Yehshua as a man messiah direct descendant of David through his father Joseph) of the early church was overtaken by the Roman Christian and later by the control of Constantine and the like.

There are, however, very interesting people in existence to this day who claim to be the original followers of Yehshua and to follow his doctrine as it was originally taught, Goose (a member on TOL) can tell you more about them or you can read about them here:

http://www.netzarim.co.il/

...and preach about Him to gentiles. What would they have preached...if not what Paul preached?

Like I said, the godhood status as well as the virgin birth and all the other modern day things attributed as salvatory beliefs setup under the modern day Christian church had no place in early christianity but were adopted by the church centuries later.

Read this site's front page:

www.messiahtruth.com

Lighthouse

August 7th, 2004, 12:13 AM

I place Satan nowhere. God has already placed Satan under my feet. For I am in Christ, and Christ is in me.

JosephofMessiah

August 7th, 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by JosephofMessiah

It fails the very scripture which he denoted above. Ezekiel teaches against the Original Sin Doctrine of Paul and also in the same breath/text denotes exactly the eternal justice of YHVH upon creation, inthat no righteousness nor wickedness is shared.

Originally posted by godrulz

"Original Sin" is NOT a Pauline doctrine. It is an Augustinian idea and includes the Federal Headship of Adam theory.

straw man/caricature (to say Paul was wrong)

Paul states in Romans:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul is not claiming a "sin nature" but is directly stating that by Adam's actions you/we are being held responsible unto death, but not only unto mortality but unto judgement to condemnation.

So when you try to claim that this "creed" was not of Paul you are not correct, it is directly taken from Paul's words and is a FUNDAMENTAL claim of Christianity, for if the doctrine of Original Sin were not in effect ANY CHILD'S DEATH could have been the sacrifice. Paul required that all innocent children be marked by the sin of Adam so that Chrisitanity would be different from other pagan religions which offer children to their god. This also sets up that then only Yehshua is/can be the sacrifice to atone (if you ignore the levitical law against this of course.)

Because this doctrine makes Yehshua a sinner (he still had Mary's DNA by the creedo of the Church which says that Mary's matter was used to form Yehshua's body) the Church had to invent the immaculate conception of Mary in order that Yehshua would be without sin. This "special birth" of Mary was so that he womb would be without sin and her child could be labeled sinless. The doctrine of immaculate conception of Mary however has no foundation in scripture, but is a tradition alone.

Basically, I am only holding Paul to what he said, and I was not quoting Augustine at all, I do not need to as Paul's words are clear enough in support of generational sin/original sin doctrine in direct opposition to Ezekiel's justice claims (18:20). If you are making the claim that it is only a "sin nature" then any fetus that dies is innocent of sin (not having Adam's sin upon it) and therefore there have been thousands of innocent lives that have died which are salvatory/atoning. Without this doctrine Christianity becomes exactly what it is, a pagan bloodgodism of child sacrfice.

So again, I have not created a strawman in any way, shape, nor form.

godrulz

August 7th, 2004, 07:03 PM

There is a difference between moral depravity (not inherited) and physical depravity (inherited). Romans 5 requires careful exegesis. It does not teach 'original sin'. Babies are born innocent morally (realm of choices), but are subject to physical death.

The Messiah is and was sinless. Sin is not a substance passed from Adam, but is a wrong moral choice or lawlessness. He was tempted, yet without sin (Hebrews).

Immaculate conception of Mary is unique to Roman Catholicism and is contra/extrabiblical. It should not be confused with biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity (straw man caricature again).

I agree with Ezekiel that it is the soul that sins that will die. We cannot blame Satan nor Adam. We alone are culpable for our sin.

What on earth are you talking about with child sacrifice and Christianity?

JosephofMessiah

August 8th, 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by godrulz

There is a difference between moral depravity (not inherited) and physical depravity (inherited). Romans 5 requires careful exegesis.

You are trying to separate where Paul saw no separation. Clearly Paul is speaking of both of these types of depravity in his text, for he begins by speaking of the physical depravity and ends with the jump to moral depravity. It is why I put into bold the words which demonstrated my point, and for you to claim different is to simply ignore what Paul stated in Romans.

Let me requote where Paul said that it was a moral depravity.

Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.

Paul is clearly saying that it was "the judgment was by one to condemnation. Under Christianity, condemnation does not carry a mortal death meaning as it perhaps would carrry under Judaism, condemned means hell fire and a type of separation from the Trinity in the afterlife. So when you attempt to say that Paul was not teaching inherited moral depravity, you are wrong, he was in actuality teaching both in the same text.

Paul's physical depravity:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Paul's moral depravity:

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul does not mince his words, he directly means that Adam's failure made many sinners, and directly states that judgment came upon all men (not just many but ALL men) to condemnation. This is Paul's statement of not only physical depravity (mortal death) but also of moral depravity). There is an exceedingly great need for the moral depravity of a newborn under Paul's doctrine. Paul's claims are that Yehshua of Nazareth is the only one who can be the sacrifice due to being without sin. If just any newborn were without the sin of Adam upon it, then it could be used as an offering because it would be sinless. When Paul gives moral depravity to all infants he has setup the standard that only Yehshua is the sacrifice and no child sacrifice can remove iniquity. Without Paul's moral depravity statement upon children then any newborn could be used... :shocked:

It does not teach 'original sin'. Babies are born innocent morally (realm of choices), but are subject to physical death.

You are not reading it I guess, how you could miss that it directly teaches moral and physical depravity I can't understand, but of course that is the congnitive dissonance that most Christians live under.

You'd have to first explain what Paul meant by "as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation...as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" and attempt to cover up the fact that Paul was stating that moral depravity is upon the unborn, to the point of eternal condemnation to the unborn due to Adam's actions (they are born in sin).

Now, I realize that with all the sectations of Christianity there is really no way to say you "have" to believe that Paul is claiming this, but I just want to point out that your statements that he didn't say it is misleading to anyone with a critical viewpoint who can simply read the NT text and take what it says at face value.

The Messiah is and was sinless.

Prophets and messiahs failed daily. David was a messiah and he sinned and failed many times. There is no place in all of Jewish text that says that messiah would have to be sinless.

Sin is not a substance passed from Adam, but is a wrong moral choice or lawlessness. He was tempted, yet without sin (Hebrews).

Under Paul's doctrine (if you take it at face value and not attempt through cognitive dissonance to cover what he says) Yehshua is a sinner because Mary was a sinner at birth. The church required that Mary be born of an Immaculate Conception so that the Original Sin would be removed from Mary's womb. The Protestant movement simply does not teach this because they have realized the injustice of Paul's Original Sin Doctrine and attempt to change what Paul ment into other things (from only physical depravity, to only a sin nature). They are of course simply not able to read what Paul wrote and accept it at face value because it is injustice and impossible to defend it when you read Ezekiel's justice (18:20).

Immaculate conception of Mary is unique to Roman Catholicism and is contra/extrabiblical.

With the Original Sin Doctrine as Paul wrote it in effect, the only way to declare Yehshua as sinless is with the doctrine of Immaculate Conception of Mary in place, otherwise Yehshua is marked by Original Sin due to being his mother's son. The invention of this doctrine by the Church was very important for it "fixed" a logical hole in their doctrine that existed for a very long time. The Protestant movement, never one to be based upon logical reason anyways, has no answer for this other than to change Paul's words to something he did not say.

It should not be confused with biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity (straw man caricature again).

Orthodox Christianity is Catholic if you want to mince words. The religions has no foundation what-so-ever except in the power of the church which decreeded what was the "word of God." If you do not accept that the Church speaks for God in this world then you have no reason to accept their collected works as of God. Most Christians put Catholics and the Church of Rome down while holding Rome's books in their hands, it is funny.

But again, the Original Sin Doctrine of Paul includes by types of depravity even unto eternal condemnation by Paul's own words, your inability to read it as it is written is something that I can't help you with.

I agree with Ezekiel that it is the soul that sins that will die. We cannot blame Satan nor Adam. We alone are culpable for our sin.

Neither can you count on an idol's abominational death as being salvatory against the levitical law either.

What on earth are you talking about with child sacrifice and Christianity?

Original Sin Doctrine (inwhich newborns are marked and under the sin of Adam) is what separates Christian doctrine from the doctrines of other pagan religions such a Magog.