|
Post by Dave on Nov 19, 2020 6:26:56 GMT -5
D: "THEY HAD A SPIRITUAL INCOUNTER R Oh, I always thought you support this promise in prayer:
Just by praying this in your mind, daily, Jesus comes to you. It's a promise with His power. Also this promise: This is a wonderful promise, and by praying this, Jesus kindness flows renewed every morning. These promises of Jesus flow every day because you respond to His love: Ec 11:4 -6 Is saying we should pray at least twice per day, both morning and night. This is the same times plant root also drink water eery day, morning and night, : Personally Dave, isn't salvation a spiritual encounter daily with Jesus? Torah Teaching – the message of the Torah(Wiki) The major Jewish holidays are the Pilgrim Festivals— Rosh Hashana (New Year) – from the beginning Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) – I need to question – atonement Sukkoth (Tabernacles)— Know that God has and dose – two part feast – twice had God tabernaceled with man Purim – salvation comes only from the Lord Pesaḥ (Passover), - mark yourself with the blood and God will Passover our sins- a three part celebration Shavuot (Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost) - better known as the Celebration of HARVEST Celebrating the day that the Torah came down from the mountain to each and every man Act 2:1 (TLV) When the day of Shavuot had come, they were all together in one place. Act 2:2 Suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Act 2:3 And tongues like fire spreading out appeared to them and settled on each one of them. Act 2:4 They were all filled with the Ruach ha-Kodesh and began to speak in other tongues as the Ruach enabled them to speak out. Act 2:5 Now Jewish people were staying in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. Act 2:6 And when this sound came, the crowd gathered. They were bewildered, because each was hearing them speaking in his own language. Act 2:7 And they were amazed and astonished, Pen·te·cost 1.the Christian festival celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit on the disciples of Jesus after his Ascension, held on the seventh Sunday after Easter. 2. the Jewish festival of Shavuoth. Gnostic - There are three types of Christian – according to Gnostic Valentinus Spiritual – believers/ordinary – and the lostToday Christianity is divided into these same three camps Charismatic or Pentecostal – Gnostic Spiritual Christians Catholicism – Gnostic believers/ordinary Christians And the lost – cults – JW/Mormon/Snake Handlers (Wiki) Pentecostalism is a form of Christianity that emphasises the work of the Holy Spirit and the direct experience of the presence of God by the believer. Pentecostals believe that faith must be powerfully experiential, and not something found merely through ritual or thinking. D: "THEY HAD A SPIRITUAL INCOUNTERI asked you to watch the Muslim evangelist who converted to Christ He had a vision of Christ on the cross – or he shared that moment with Christ on the cross I know many Christians that will give you their witness with date and time I have posted many examples of people having a ‘spiritual experience’ I have had experience that causes me to believe in the spirit I can tell you the moment I can witness to several moments in my life Can I explain this to you – only with wordsPentecostals believe that faith must be powerfully experiential, and not something found merely through ritual or thinking. Isn’t this what you preach – ritual thinking A daily thing to do – a daily worship obligationQuestion – Acts 2:1-7 – I have read and heard people say this might have been over 250 different languages (from every nation under heaven) How does this happen Answer – Jesus said - Joh 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. YES! Robert – I fully believe scripture – the gift of the HS – the comforter I fully believe that the disciples healed with the laying on of hands I fully believe in the gifts of the spirit I believe I have been gifted and blessed all my life You asked once – have I done a miracle? How do you measure that? – For 28yrs I worked with every pathogen known to man and I am still here. I have been a part of countless ER traumas – people at death’s door – surgeries. I have witnessed to everyone I know and meet.- a little here and a little there I had had complete strangers come up to me and that me – because when they met me a year ago they were hurt or dying and now they are alive and well. One day years ago – my wife and I ate at a Truck Stop in Hope, Arkansas. When I tried to pay my bill, no one was at the register. I waited and waited. Finally the big boss asked if anyone was helping me and when I said no – he stormed off – only to return with a young black girl by the arm. The manager was upset – I was irritated – she was scared – and she said, Gosh most people would have just left. – OUT OF MY MOUTH popped the words One day I will meet my maker and the last thing I want Him to say to me is – remember that day in Arkansas when I didn’t pay? 6 people stopped and took a pause. I have no idea where those word came from – but they were the right words for several people One day in Witnachi Washington – I was skiing Silver Mountain. It is an impressive hill. The beginner trail is always the access road that winds its way to the top – the more advanced hills go straight down the side of the mountain and passes over that access road repeatedly. I was doing my thing when I heard the scream of a little girl. She had fallen on the beginner run and her body why flying down my run – un checked – accelerating straight toward the trees. I saw her friends (parents?) start to run after her – but I passed them up at 40mph. As fast as I could I cut a line to intercept the girl as I skied up in front of her and stopped. She crashed into me. She had been dragging her gloveless hands in the snow trying to stop – and her hands were bleeding and frozen solid. She was bawling with fear and could not speak. I took off my $150 ski gloves that I had used for years and gave them to her. Then I grabbed each boot and showed her how to dig in by stomping her heel into the soft snow. Her dad or guardian was still running down the hill toward her. All I said was – do you know how much Jesus love you? – then I skied away. I went back to the car and had a good cry. I know her dad thought it was a miracle – slamming into the trees a 20mph kills skiers every year. It wasn’t a miracle was it – it was just a coincidence – I was just in the right place at the right time? YES ROBERT – I believe in the spirit – I have felt the spirit – and consider myself a spiritual Christian Is my witness amazing as those on youtube? No – maybe – but my witness is still my witness R You surprise me . Don't you read what I write. you are the one who acknowledges archons, sheds, demons and so called good angels volunteering to influence man to do yester ra. D YES! I do all apart of God’s Will – God’s Plan You deny that it is God’s Will / God’s Plan – you give the credit to another R You admit you are studying the complexities of the enemies influencing our soul. I don't. Neither do I give criedit to them. Nor do I care that much about these enemies influence my soul. But you do.Sorry Robert – I just do not believe youI say God created everything You argue no – God can’t do ra – God cannot ask a volunteer to do a bad thing – God cannot kill God tried to make a TOV world – but sin ans some cherub cata has spoiled all of God tov world You say if I look in a microscope or telescope – I can’t even see God’s tov creation only the effects of sin and satan upon it Then you say – well God had to make ra in response to you’re a satan and sin Some outside force made God do something And you say - Neither do I give criedit to them. Nor do I care that much about these enemies Sorry Robert – I just do not believe youD: "You deny that reality is God’s Will / God’s Plan – you give the credit to another R Oh sorry, you repeat this 4 times, you have switched off listening to me. Well – do you deny that this world and all the ra in it are of God will and Plan? Or do you give the credit to anotherD: "To facilitate God's Will - God's Plan exactly as God designed Because God is the One True Creator - He is absolute - and He is in control R Oh so it's God's plan to bring salvation in, so we see more love developed, the sin choose is less important, so GOD intentionally made a less than perfect world, so this salvation process could be shown, It is God's will all see this love working.www.adventist.org/?s=all+knowing+god#stq=all%20knowing%20god&stp=1There is one God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, If you believe that God is omniscient – then yes – God knew Adam and Eve would fall God set the stage – God made the Garden – God provided the serpent – and God knew Eve would fall before she ever met the serpent God’s Will – God’s design Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life God’s Will – God’s design God was not forced – or tricked into sacrificing Christ God did not create ra or sacrifice Christ because your satan lives And you say - Neither do I give criedit to them. Nor do I care that much about these enemies Sorry Robert – I just do not believe youI get what you're saying, but you are saying God wanted SIN to enter our universe, I am saying SIN was never a part of GOD's perfect world, and is unneccessary to know. However should SIN come GOD had a plan for it, from eternity past, GOD was always in control. You do not admire GOD can make a perfect world, with OUT RA. You do not understand how disruptive SIN is to GOD, and how SIN spoils relationships to GOD.You are saying God din’t know – couldn’t know stupid God God must have been so surprised at Eve – God was clueless of what she would do in the future Then God must have been surprise whey Adam fell – If only God could have foreknowledge of things to come – maybe God could have stopped it – but God was stupid And God must have been really surprise when 1/3 of all his angels walked out from him D: "Nothing of what you say fits with the totality of scriptureR Hmm? I thought I was following the totality of torah, you use Gnostic writings to ADD to torah. So the opponent is only an opponent to Job, in Job's story? Fair enough So where would you go looking to see if "opponent" actually "opposes" GOD? Line upon line, here and there, remember, how to read Scripture? And your answer isAt least we have discovered the value of line by line – it doesn’t matter if it goes against Catholic doctrine D: "Nothing of what you say fits with the totality of scripture
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2020 14:00:58 GMT -5
D: " You asked once – have I done a miracle? How do you measure that? – For 28yrs I worked with every pathogen known to man and I am still here. I have been a part of countless ER traumas – people at death’s door – surgeries. I have witnessed to everyone I know and meet.- a little here and a little there
I had had complete strangers come up to me and that me – because when they met me a year ago they were hurt or dying and now they are alive and well.
R " nice D: " I know her dad thought it was a miracle – slamming into the trees a 20mph kills skiers every year. It wasn’t a miracle was it – it was just a coincidence – I was just in the right place at the right time? R Wow Dave, so nice
God bless you and keep you.
D" Is my witness amazing as those on youtube? No – maybe – but my witness is still my witness R Yes
D: "Well – do you deny that this world and all the ra in it are of God will and Plan? Or do you give the credit to another R Hmm? What does torah say?
Mt 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.
What about this verse? Where did weeds come from? Weeds, or thorns are similes of sin.
D: "You are saying God didn’t know R Dave, GOD did know they would fall, because a sinning angel chose to sin long before. SO GOD planned for sin to come, even the solution to sinning was design trillions of years before an angel even existed. Everything is planned and controlled by GOD. It has to be like this.
D: "Please prove to me that satan is God’s opponet – here are the verses R OK we both know God spoke to an opposer in Job. You say the opposer only opposed mankind and his right to divine salvation?
But isn't opposing man's right to salvation, also opposing GOD, who gives mankind His salvation?
Explain your thinking with this logic?
Suppose this angel had already did sinning, and now still talks to GOD, so this explains his respectful remarks. God did not banish the opposer yet, gave him access to GOD to repent, but the opposer refused to repent.
Explain your thinking with this logic?
D: "D: "Nothing of what you say fits with the totality of scripture R I think it does. How many religions see the opposer in Job opposing God too?
Isn't this part of the war in heaven, as a war on earth? Sure both sides of the war come for respectful chat, than go and kill one's creation.
SHalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 20, 2020 10:55:57 GMT -5
D: "Well – do you deny that this world and all the ra in it are of God will and Plan? Or do you give the credit to another R Hmm? What does torah say?
Mt 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.
What about this verse? Where did weeds come from? Weeds, or thorns are similes of sin.
You are so funny First you say – What does the Torah say – then you quote the agl So – What does the Torah say ?
Gen 3:17 Then to the man He said, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate of the tree which I commanded you, saying, ‘You must not eat of it’: Cursed is the ground because of you—with pain will you eat of it all the days of your life. Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles will sprout for you. You will eat the plants of the field, Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow will you eat food, until you return to the ground, since from it were you taken. For you are dust, and to dust will you return.”
Who made the weeds / thorns / and thistles? – God did Who put these weeds / thorns / and thistles in the garden – God does 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy!
D: "You are saying God didn’t know R Dave, GOD did know they would fall, because a sinning angel chose to sin long before. SO GOD planned for sin to come, even the solution to sinning was design trillions of years before an angel even existed. Everything is planned and controlled by GOD. It has to be like this.
EXACTLY – God’s Will – God’s Plan – God’s design BECAUDE GOD IS THE DESIGNER No one is capable to changing God’s Will – God’s Plan No one can opposed God
Job 23:13 He is unchangeable, and who can change Him? Whatever His soul desires, He does.
D: "Please prove to me that satan is God’s opponet – here are the verses R OK we both know God spoke to an opposer in Job. You say the opposer only opposed mankind and his right to divine salvation? But isn't opposing man's right to salvation, also opposing GOD, who gives mankind His salvation? Explain your thinking with this logic?
Satan is PROTECTING God and His heavens Satan Job is to prosecute / accuse / oppose man’s right to salvation Why – because man is a sinner Sinner are not allowed in heaven
A bouncer at the door – only allows in invited guest – guest that belong there Man is a sinner – man does not belong in heaven
The ticket collector at the door of a theater – only lets in those who have a ticket No ticket – no entry
All men are invited into heaven – but only those holding the ticket of a Divine Pardon are allowed in
D: "D: "Nothing of what you say fits with the totality of scripture R I think it does. How many religions see the opposer in Job opposing God too?
5 minutes of google search
What is the main message of the book of Job? The message of the book of Job is that righteous people can suffer even though they have not done anything wrong. Then in chapter 2 Job asks, “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” The underlying theme of the book is “Why does Job serve God?” The answer is because He is God and we are but men.
What does the story of Job teach us about suffering? God created everything, so God must have created evil. ... In times of suffering, Jews may turn to the Book of Job where God allows Satan to test Job.
What is the lesson of Job? As Job realizes that he has "talked about things . . . beyond my understanding" (42.3) he is ashamed of his former pride. This kind of humility is the first way we are affected when we come to know God as he is. Humility and rising above personal suffering is the key to a greater understanding of the power of God.
Why did God punish job? Job's trials were never intended as a punishment; in fact, he was a pious man and would have nothing to be punished for. Instead, the trials were a test of his faith
Summary and Analysis Job The Book of Job is often referred to as one of the great classics of world literature. Its subject matter is the all-important question, "Why, in a world over which Yahweh has jurisdiction, should innocent persons have to suffer when at the same time the wicked escape suffering and are permitted to have comfort and security?" All people — not just Jews
Isn't this part of the war in heaven, as a war on earth? Interesting – war in heaven as on earth Mat 6:10 Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
But you say that the heavens should act like earth – full of ra I say – that all ended in Gen 1:2 – all that was ejected from heaven to earth
D: "D: "Nothing of what you say fits with the totality of scripture R I think it does. How many religions see the opposer in Job opposing God too? (Wiki) A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period, possibly due to influence from the Zoroastrian figure of Angra Mainyu, the satan developed into a malevolent entity with abhorrent qualities in dualistic opposition to God
The more Catholic you are – the more satanic you are
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2020 17:22:16 GMT -5
D Mt 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this.
What about this verse? Where did weeds come from? Weeds, or thorns are similes of sin.
You are so funny First you say – What does the Torah say – then you quote the agl So – What does the Torah say ?
Gen 3:17 Then to the man He said, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate of the tree which I commanded you, saying, ‘You must not eat of it’: Cursed is the ground because of you—with pain will you eat of it all the days of your life. Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles will sprout for you. You will eat the plants of the field, Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow will you eat food, until you return to the ground, since from it were you taken. For you are dust, and to dust will you return.”
Who made the weeds / thorns / and thistles? – God did Who put these weeds / thorns / and thistles in the garden – God does 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy!
R Herein lies the problem Dave.... You read what you want to read, rather than looking at the bigger picture. Who influnced Eve to sin? Serpent did. ANd you say the serpent did not sin. I say the serpent did sin, in order to make Eve sin. Hence the weeds (everthing is adminsitrated by GOD - as you point out) comes from SIN, and the first SIN comes from the serpent. However since man chose to SIN, man is responsible for his own sin.
When you see contradictions in Scripture, you are missing something...
Yes I agree GOD made the thorns, but the thorns are similes of SIN, similes of opposers opposing God.
When torah says an enemy did this, somebody sowed these similes of sin?
Who did that? The serpent did. Who also sowed similes of sin? Man did.
But your theology refuses to acknowledge any opposer of God's plans?
If an opposer opposes salvation as a gift to man, than is this not an opposer function? Yet you term this a testing function, not an opposing function?
Your twisting the Hebrew words used. Sure Job uses the term "testing" as Job sees his affliction. But GOD never tells Job the real answers He seeks, because he is an type for humans who also are afflicted without all the answers.
You say the serpent never sinned to make Eve sin? Thou salt not die immediately, He said to Eve. Did Eve die immediately when she sinned? I woudl say yes, the process of death began. Since when is death a nanosecond event? It's a process over time, based on relationship.
D EXACTLY – God’s Will – God’s Plan – God’s design BECAUDE GOD IS THE DESIGNER No one is capable to changing God’s Will – God’s Plan R correct
D No one can opposed God
R A sinner opposes GOD , Dave. By defintion that is what a sinner is, a creature opposing GOD. And I say Scripture says one angel also chose to do sinning, hence began opposing GOD's love. SO your statement makes no sense.
However sin does not change God's will. God designed a world should sin come.
But you have no such design. Your design came not from sin, but intentionally from a god creating ra for no reason, but because god wanted to. Gnostic writings are Greek pagan ideas from Simon Magnus, a sinner who wanted to destroy the torah, is what I see Gnostic writings as Dave, sorry to say this.
D Job 23:13 He is unchangeable, and who can change Him?
R Yes God forknew the beginning of sin, and planned for sin when it should come. But you have GOD creating a flawed world before sin came, in fact creating a world with missing perfection is already by defintion a sin??? Your whole theology makes no sense. You say GOD creates RA and calls this good.
I say the ra God creates, only followed after sinning came. Our views are different.
D: "Satan is PROTECTING God and His heavens Satan Job is to prosecute / accuse / oppose man’s right to salvation Why – because man is a sinner Sinner are not allowed in heaven
R Oh and I suppose this angel doing the "prosecute / accuse / oppose man’s right to salvation" has never sinned personally? Thus has no sins of his own?
Thats not what torah teaches Dave?
I beg to differ, the opposer opposes man seeking salvation because the opposer who sins too, does not want sinners repenting, since the opposer refuses to repent, and hates sinners repenting.
I asked you before a lawyer is not supposed to have a conflict of interest in cases, but this sinning angel does, He sins too.
Does this sinning angel also sin?
Mt 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. A angel cannot give you a kingdom, that belongs to God? This is not testing the divine.
Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; Where does all the power of doing come from? Has to be from God. If God limits you power, He does from a reason. How much power does GOD give this opposer? All Job has in his family.
What does the opposer do with this power? He sins. Kills. Destroys.
And you say this opposer does not sin?
1Ki 22:21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.
Notice a ruwach "medium" comes under GOD's control.
Who gave Saul a "ra medium" ? Hmm?
1Sa 16:14 ¶ But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
When the relationship to GOD breaks, this is termed sin. If you sin, other sinners help you to keep on sinning.
But you ignore this idea. No you have only a good angel testing humans to sin?
You say this ra ruwach also came from GOD? Administrated this way, yes, but what is ra? Sin. Where does Sin come from? From other creatures who also sin.
Search Results 2. Satan's Envy of the Kingship of the Son of God: A Reconsideration of "Paradise Lost," Book 5, and Its Theological Background www.jstor.org/stable/436068?seq=1
3. Satan's Part in God's Perfect Plan | Bible.org May 17, 2004 — In Genesis 3, Satan is present in the garden, but he is already fallen.
The Hebrews, Satan, and the Invention of "Lucifer" frm www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl257/bible/satan.htm The Hebrew scriptures, and Jewish theology, views Satan radically differently than does much Christian theology.
1) The character Satan or “Ha Satan” translates literally as “the accuser” or, in other contexts, "adversary", and that is what he is: he either tempts humans or brings their sins to God’s attention 2) Satan is not the force of evil; God is the source of all things, including what humans conceive of as good and evil 3) Satan works for, not against, God 4) There are no references to Satan in the earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 5) There are very, very few references to Satan in the later books, and all of these are in just four of the later books: Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah, written c. 600-500 BCE (see Ancient Israel and Texts Timeline). Satan only occurs as a specific character once, however: in the book of Job. Even today most Jews find the Medieval conception of Satan being the force of evil a rather blasphemous idea because it implies that God is not omnipotent; that is, it implies that God is not the force behind all things, both good and evil. See here for more on Jewish conceptions of The Satan. See also The Absence of Satan In the Old Testament.
"Lucifer" as Satan
One of the reasons contemporary Christians believe there are references to Satan in the older books of the Hebrew Scriptures is due to a misunderstanding of the word "Lucifer". It's worth covering this in depth because it shows how radically translation can change our perception of meaning. Isaiah 14:12: "Lucifer" and "Morning Star" (Venus)
The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh) reads like (translates as) this:
"How are you fallen from heaven, O Shining One, son of Dawn! How are you felled to earth, O vanquisher of nations!" [and the footnote often reads "A character in some lost myth."] The pre-Christian Septuagint Greek version of Isaiah 14:12 uses the phrase “ho heosphoros,” which translates as "morning star" (the star we call Venus). This is similar to another Greek name for this star "phosphorus", which means "burning bright" (Venus is the third brightest object in the sky).
The latin name for this star is "Lucifer" and has the same root as lux; it essentially simply means "burning bright" or "bright light" or "day star"...so when the Greek gets translated into Latin....
Martin Luther’s German version (c. 1534) had “schoener Morgenstern,” that is, “beautiful morning star” as the translation of the Hebrew phrase heylel ben-shachar. The King James (1611) reads like this: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!"
[In the original margin notes of the KJV, however, the original translators included the note that it could also read “O day-starre”.]
Because the KJV was used for hundreds of years as the basic English Bible, most modern versions continued to use the word "Lucifer", and they kept the Old English style of capitalizing it as a formal name. In the 1600s this word began to be used as a synonym for "Satan". And that is how it has passed into not only our own language but our very conception of not only evil but of how the Jews thought of Satan. But Jews do not conceive of Satan as the force of evil, much less as "Venus".
However, Jesus was also referred to as the "Morning Star": Revelation 22:16:
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you [1] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." 2 Peter 1:19,: And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. NIV: Revelation 2:28:
I will also give him the morning star.
Rob's Question: Even today most Jews find the Medieval conception of Satan being the force of evil a rather blasphemous idea because it implies that God is not omnipotent; that is, it implies that God is not the force behind all things, both good and evil.
Why do Jews see God is not omnipotent just because sin occurs in His world?
www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-the-jews-invented-god-and-made-him-great-1.5392677
⦁ /misc/mypage The earliest writing is about genesis myths: God creates Adam, as envisioned by Michelangelo and painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in around 1511. Jörg Bittner Unna / Wikimedia Commons How the Jews Invented God, and Made Him Great The God of the Old Testament started out as just one of many deities of the ancient Israelites. It took a traumatic crisis to make him into the all-powerful creator of the world. By Ariel David Jun 13, 2016
Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in a single, omnipotent deity that created the heavens and earth. But if he was and is the only god, why would God need a name?
“Jeremiah speaks about the many gods of Judah, which are as numerous as the streets of a town. There was certainly worship a female deity, Asherah, or the Queen of Heaven,” Römer told Haaretz. “There was certainly also the worship of the northern storm god Hadad (Baal).” The plurality of deities was such that in an inscription by Sargon II, who completed the conquest of the kingdom of Israel in the late 8th century BCE, the Assyrian king mentioned that after capturing the capital Samaria, his troops brought back “the (statues of) gods in which (the Israelites) had put their trust.”
As the Yhwh cult evolved and spread, he was worshipped in temples across the land. Early 8th-century inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud probably refer to different gods and cultic centers by invoking “Yhwh of Samaria and his Asherah” and “Yhwh of Teman and his Asherah.” Only later, under the reign of King Josiah at the end of the 7th century BCE, would the Yhwh cult centralize worship at the Temple in Jerusalem.
In Jerusalem and Judah, Römer says, Yhwh more frequently took the form of a sun god or a seated deity. Such depictions may have even continued after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile: a coin minted in Jerusalem during the Persian period shows a deity sitting on a wheeled throne and has been interpreted by some as a late anthropomorphic representation of Yhwh.
Not all scholars agree that the iconography of Yhwh was so pronounced in Judah. The evidence for anthropomorphic depiction “is not strong,” says Saul Olyan, professor of Judaic studies and religious studies at Brown University. “It may be that anthropomorphic images of Yhwh were avoided early on.”
R I thought you said Jews never had "anthropomorphic images of Yhwh " ? Clearly they do.
This transformation from polytheism to worshipping a single god was carved in stone, literally. For example, an inscription in a tomb in Khirbet Beit Lei, near the Judahite stronghold of Lachish, states that “Yhwh is the god of the whole country; the mountains of Judah belong to the god of Jerusalem.”
Josiah’s reforms were also enshrined in the book of Deuteronomy – whose original version is thought to have been compiled around this time – and especially in the words of Deut. 6, which would later form the Sh’ma Yisrael, one of the central prayers of Judaism: “Hear, O Israel, Yhwh is our God, Yhwh is one.”
This idea is already present in the book of Isaiah, thought to be one of the earliest biblical texts, composed during or immediately after the Exile. This is also how the Jews became the “chosen people” – because the Biblical editors had to explain why Israel had a privileged relationship with Yhwh even though he was no longer a national deity, but the one true God. R Who are these Biblical editors ?
www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/chapter%203%20religion/problem_of_evil.htm
Maybe God knows about the suffering and would stop it but can not stop it - that would imply God is not omnipotent. Maybe God is able to stop the suffering and would want to but does not know about it - that would imply God is not omniscient. Maybe God knows about the suffering and is able to stop it but does not wish to assuage the pain - that would imply God is not omnibenevolent. These options are explored by those in a tradition of thought known as Process Theology (see below). In the very least, David Hume argues, the existence of evil does not justify a belief in a caring Creator.
so, there are four basic approaches to the problem and each will be examined in the following sections. ⦁ THEODICY explain how the traditional idea of the deity could be consistent with the existence of evil (3) ⦁ TRANSFORMATION of EVIL transform the idea of evil so that it is not evil-(1)change D ⦁ PROCESS THEOLOGY change the idea of the deity-(1)Change A or B or C ⦁ ATHEISM there is no deity at all and thus no problem with evil and its relationship to the deity (2)
No the deity is not the cause of evil
⦁ Deuteronomy 32:4, 4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he. ⦁ Psalms 19:7-8, 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. ⦁ Psalm 145:9 9 The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. ⦁ Micah 7:2, 2 The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains. All men lie in wait to shed blood; each hunts his brother with a net. ⦁ James 1:13 13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; YES the deity is cause of all things GOOD and EVIL ⦁ Isaiah 45:7, 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. ⦁ Jeremiah 18:11, 11 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the LORD says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' ⦁ Lamentations 3:38 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? ⦁ Ezekiel 20:25 25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; ⦁ Amos 3:6 6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?
So when anyone thinks of the deity as the being of the old bible stories the problem of evil is "solved" by abandoning the concept that creates the problem in the first place. If one thinks of the deity as a parent not knowing what its children will do or not responsible for what its children do or as some being testing humans or not able to prevent evil then the problem is "solved" by abandoning the concept that creates the problem in the first place when the deity is changed from a being with infinitely good properties and powers into a mere human.
THE NATURE OF EVIL
"Evil" has a wider range of definitions than that for which human or supernatural agents are responsible. There are two main types of evil: 1. Moral evil - This covers the willful acts of human beings (such as murder, rape, etc.) 2. Natural evil - This refers to natural disasters (such as famines, floods, etc.) Of these two types, we may further divide both of them into the following two classes: 1. Physical evil - This means bodily pain or mental anguish (fear, illness, grief, war, etc.) 2. Metaphysical evil - This refers to such things as imperfection and chance (criminals going unpunished, deformities, etc.) The problem itself arises because of certain qualities which religious believers grant to God, and the consequences of these given certain observations about the world.
R What a weird bunch of thinking. Too confusing, so did not read much of it.
D: "(Wiki) A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, R Really? So this "heavenly prosecutor" does not sinning to Job? The humans killed Job's children, not the heavenly prosecutor? If that is so why does GOD say to this so called heavenly prosecutor, all Job has in in thy power?
I disagree with you idea of heavenly prosecutor, the opposer comes to the meetings to oppose GOD. In fact opposing salvation, a gift GOD gives to man, is clear evidence of opposing. But you term this as a heavenly prosecutor? Hmm?
For this to be true, the heavenly prosecutor cannot sin himself while testing Job to sin.
Hang on, tempting Job to sin, is by definition wounding Job, and a sin to do so.
Was the heavenly prosecutor testing Job or tempting Job? Same Hebrew word, positive meaning or negative meaning? Which is it? Job thinks GOD was testing Job, there is a verse Job speaks about. But is this the story of Job, something Job did not know about.
If Job was perfect, than he needs no further testing.
SO why does the heavenly prosecutor oppose this idea that Job is NOT perfect?
God said Job was perfect, the Opposer says Job is not perfect, and hence requires further testing? Such an idea opposes GOD.
If God says a human is perfect, He needs no further testing. So why does the Opposer argue against God's words? Because this angel is a father of lies.
Notice the reaction of the wife. Barak God, in negative sense, and die. She wants her husband to sin.
The Opposer wants Job to sin. But God does not want Job to sin. Job chooses not to sin. God knew Job would not sin, that's why he allowed the opposer to oppose His own words, Job was perfect.
Since when does the meeting here, have any idea of judgement, or court room here? it doesn't.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 20, 2020 23:47:49 GMT -5
Who made the weeds / thorns / and thistles? – God did Who put these weeds / thorns / and thistles in the garden – God does 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy!R Herein lies the problem Dave.... You read what you want to read, rather than looking at the bigger picture. Who influnced Eve to sin? Serpent did. Yes I agree GOD made the thorns, but the thorns are similes of SIN, similes of opposers opposing God. The thorn and thistles were a curse upon man – by GODGen 3:17 Then to the man He said, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate of the tree which I commanded you, saying, ‘You must not eat of it’: Cursed is the ground because of you—with pain will you eat of it all the days of your life. Gen 3:18 Thorns and thistles will sprout for you. You will eat the plants of the field, Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow will you eat food, until you return to the ground, since from it were you taken. For you are dust, and to dust will you return.” When torah says an enemy did this, somebody sowed these similes of sin?Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy!Who did that? The serpent did. Who also sowed similes of sin? Man did.Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy!But your theology refuses to acknowledge any opposer of God's plans?But you also sayR Yes God forknew the beginning of sin, and planned for sin when it should come.If God knew all about it and did not stop it – then it is God’s Plan Nothing happens that God does not ordain or control You say the serpent never sinned to make Eve sin? Thou salt not die immediately, He said to Eve.Please quote scripture accurately – if you enter death – in the future you will surely die Misrepresenting scripture – is not evidence of an open mind or a true student Did Eve die immediately when she sinned? I woudl say yes, the process of death began. Since when is death a nanosecond event? It's a process over time, based on relationship. If you begin making a false assumption – you can argue anything You can even say – you know the secret of CREATION and will share it for only $69.95 Even build an entire Research Center based upon false assumptions But – most folk just laugh D EXACTLY – God’s Will – God’s Plan – God’s design BECAUSE GOD IS THE DESIGNER No one is capable to changing God’s Will – God’s Plan R correct R A sinner opposes GOD , Dave. By definition that is what a sinner is, a creature opposing GOD. Gee – for a year you have been arguing that sin = missing God Now it opposing God – you have opposing of the mind – you must interject it into ever sentence And I say Scripture says one angel also chose to do sinning, hence began opposing GOD's love. SO your statement makes no sense.YEP! – there is your cherub chata – You just said –D EXACTLY – God’s Will – God’s Plan – God’s design BECAUSE GOD IS THE DESIGNER No one is capable to changing God’s Will – God’s Plan R correct But Now all hail to the angel satan who can = praise satanI say the ra God creates, only followed after sinning came. Our views are different. So you must agree – the angels did not sin – could not sin There was no such thig as a serpent – until after Eve took the fruit Yes – Robert – our views are very different – I do not have to back date anything to make it fit
D: "Satan is PROTECTING God and His heavens Satan Job is to prosecute / accuse / oppose man’s right to salvation Why – because man is a sinner Sinner are not allowed in heaven R Oh and I suppose this angel doing the "prosecute / accuse / oppose man’s right to salvation" has never sinned personally? Thus has no sins of his own? How can you know? Thats not what torah teaches Dave? I beg to differ, the opposer opposes man seeking salvation because the opposer who sins too, does not want sinners repenting, since the opposer refuses to repent, and hates sinners repenting. Only if you deny the entire Book of Job and all of the 49 +23 references to satan in the ahl Search Results2. Satan's Envy of the Kingship of the Son of God: A Reconsideration of " Paradise Lost," Book 5, and Its Theological Background www.jstor.org/stable/436068?seq=1Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha giggle giggle laugh laugh lol lol"Paradise Lost has absolutely nothing to do with scripture – it is a secular novel written by Milton in the 1660s 3. Satan's Part in God's Perfect Plan | Bible.org May 17, 2004 — In Genesis 3, Satan is present in the garden, but he is already fallen. Only in a one dimensional view does the word satan represent ever evil creature I.E there is only one evil creature that does everything and his name is satan Even tho this is not consistent with any scripture let alone the bulk of it
The Hebrews, Satan, and the Invention of "Lucifer" frm www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl257/bible/satan.htmThe Hebrew scriptures, and Jewish theology, views Satan radically differently than does much Christian theology. YES! – satan did not become a god until Rome made him their god
1) The character Satan or “Ha Satan” translates literally as “the accuser” or, in other contexts, "adversary", and that is what he is: he either tempts humans or brings their sins to God’s attention YES! – accuser – adversary – as in a prosceutor2) Satan is not the force of evil; God is the source of all things, including what humans conceive of as good and evil 3) Satan works for, not against, God 4) There are no references to Satan in the earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 5) There are very, very few references to Satan in the later books, and all of these are in just four of the later books: Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah, written c. 600-500 BCE (see Ancient Israel and Texts Timeline). Satan only occurs as a specific character once, however: in the book of Job. Even today most Jews find the Medieval conception of Satan being the force of evil a rather blasphemous idea because it implies that God is not omnipotent; that is, it implies that God is not the force behind all things, both good and evil. See here for more on Jewish conceptions of The Satan. One of the reasons contemporary Christians believe there are references to Satan Isaiah 14:12: "Lucifer" and "Morning Star" (Venus) However, Jesus was also referred to as the "Morning Star": Revelation 22:16: 2 Peter 1:19,: NIV: Revelation 2:28: So – employing the Robert Method – Jesus is the satan – or satan is JesusRob's Question: Even today most Jews find the Medieval conception of Satan being the force of evil a rather blasphemous idea because it implies that God is not omnipotent; that is, it implies that God is not the force behind all things, both good and evil. Why do Jews see God is not omnipotent just because sin occurs in His world?TWIST – no sin – the medieval conception of satan being the force of evil Answer – let’s see you sayGod created a tov only world – but your satan changed everything God says if I look through a microscope or a telescope I can marvel at God glorious creation You say this is impossible – nothing of God’s tov world remains – all we can see it the impact of satan upon it Your God can not even manage to maintain loyal angels Your God cannot make anything perfect because the angels fall and man falls and everything fell And your oppose is waring opposing God in heaven and your God is so weak He cannot stop it SDA literature – that you posted here – even claims that your satan killed Christ Jews find the Medieval conception of Satan being the force of evil a rather blasphemous idea because it implies that God is not omnipotent;
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2020 5:45:50 GMT -5
D The thorn and thistles were a curse upon man – by GOD R Yes God cursed his creation because SIN came flooding in, sinning from mankind. GOD is not mocked, man soweth what he reap. In other words, weeds are a consequence of sin. And who sinned to make Eve also sin? The serpent did. God calls this provider of sin, an enemy. D: "Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy! R OH, so the serpent who sins is only man's enemy, not God's enemy?
Well if that is true, why does the serpent ask Jesus, the Son of God, to worship the Serpent?
D Please quote scripture accurately – if you enter death – in the future you will surely die If you begin making a false assumption – you can argue anything
R I see. So the text says "The day you eat of the fruit you will in the future surely die?"
The muwth-muwth-suffix, implies a future tense, do it?
I note from Bible Hub, the suffix is a "tav/taw" and as a suffix the "tav" means "of"? I think? SO explain my ignorance, where does the meaning of future tense come from?
Ge 2:17 (YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'
YOung's Literal says what I say, thou shalt immediately dying die. The death process began upon sin.
"Mark, it is a Hebrew idiomatic expression that does not lend itself to a meaningful literal translation. The only way to translate it is via a similar expression and, possibly, with added commentary on what the idiom actually means.
UriYosef"
How convenient, a idiom, therefore nobody knows what the Hebrew says.
"Let me explain my previous response in order to take away a sense of "mystery" and give it more clarity.
The Hebrew expression in Genesis 2:17 is מוֹת תָּמוּת (MOT taMUT). The first word, מוֹת (MOT ), is a grammatical element known as the Infinitive Absolute, which is found in Semitic languages, and has eventually also found its way into Greek and Latin, but it has no equivalent in English. It has grammatical attributes in common with both verbs and nouns. The second word, תָּמוּת (taMUT), is the future tense conjugation of the root verb מות inflected in the second-person, singular, masculine mode, meaning "you will die". So, as you can see, the combination of the two terms in this phrase does not lend itself to a literal translation in English.
The expression in Genesis 2:17 is not unique. According to the Even-Shoshan Hebrew Concordance, there are another 12 instances of the exact phrase, מוֹת תָּמוּת, throughout the Hebrew Bible - Genesis 20:7, 1Samuel 14:44, 22:16, 1Kings 2:37,42, 2Kings 1:4,6,16, Jeremiah 26:8, Ezekiel 3:18, 33:8,14. Moreover, the first word, מוֹת, is combined in a similar phrase with conjugations of the root term in various other inflections on 36 other occations throughout the Hebrew Bible.
So, the common English translation of "... shall/will surely die" is not really literal since it contains a certain element of interpretation/commentary.
UriYosef" SO if one why to try to make English words, what would they be?
ProfBenTziyyon "Furthermore, as a footnote in the Artscroll “Stone Edition” T'nach points out, the adam lived 930 years after this incident and, so, God’s warning to him couldn’t have meant that he would die immediately after eating the “fruit”; rather, it must have been intended to convey to him that he would become subject to death."
Nice answer
Exactly so, Mordochai. Moreover, it also shows that Adam & Havah had a mortal nature from the outset, since only by eating from the Tree of Life would they have been able to sustain their lives and avoid death. Having been expelled from Gan Eden, that privilege was no longer available to them.
UriYosef
Rob: " So what I am saying is true, by eating the fruit Adam and Eve, immediately was subject to death, and dying daily they began the process of dying. Muwth by itself is a process. But muwth muwth is the second death, the permanent end of your soul, if your refuse to support God.
ProfBenTziyyon "I’m not sure I follow your logic, Uri. It seems to me that the adam (and also Ḥavvah, as she was originally part of the composite adam) was created immortal, and only lost his immortality when he “ate” from the “Tree”." Here is my reasoning. God commanded Adam מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל (from every tree of the Garden you will surely eat), except וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ (and from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, from it you shall not eat).
My question would be: What would happen to Adam if he would not eat from the Tree of Life, a tree included in those from which he was allowed to eat? It seems to me that eating from this particular tree would have prevented Adam from dying and, therefore, had he ceased to eat from it, Adam would have died.
This leads to yet another question: Had Adam ceased to eat from the Tree of Life, thereby disobeying God's command to eat from every tree, would he have been expelled from the Garden of Eden and become subject to certain death, or would he just have died in the Garden of Eden because he did not eat from it? I do not know the answer to this question.
But, I think we're getting into commentary here, which is taking the discussion off the initial topic.
UriYosef
Mark :"I guess I should explain what led me to ask about this. John Gill, in one of his commentaries, cites "Targum in Ruth iv. 22. & in Eccles. vii. 29", which says, according to Gill, that through the eating of the fruit of the tree, "all the inhabitants of the earth became guilty of death". He then cites "R. Joseph Albo in Sepher lkkarim, l. 4. c. 41", which says, according to Gill, that the doubling of the word in the threatening, "in dying thou shalt die", "without doubt is the punishment of their body by itself, and also of the 'soul by itself'''. Are these citations of Jewish sources accurate?
UriYosef wrote:According to the Even-Shoshan Hebrew Concordance, there are another 12 instances of the exact phrase, מוֹת תָּמוּת, throughout the Hebrew Bible - Genesis 20:7, 1Samuel 14:44, 22:16, 1Kings 2:37,42, 2Kings 1:4,6,16, Jeremiah 26:8, Ezekiel 3:18, 33:8,14.
Uri, thank you very much for providing these references. I looked them up. Is it fair to say that in each case, the person using this expression is making a very serious "threat", one which could (if I may take Gill's inference a bit further) imply this "double death"? And is it further possible that the person using this expression was referring to God's original warning in Genesis 2:17?
I also couldn't help but notice that the One using this expression in Ezekiel 33 is God Himself: "And when I say of the wicked man, "You shall surely die," and he repents of his sin and performs justice and righteousness..." So I'm really wondering - is there a deeper death that the wicked die, a double-death, if you will?
ProfBenTziyyon All this talk of “doubling” is nonsense and I am finding it increasingly tedious. As Uri has already explained, the Hebrew phrase mot tamut is a Hebrew idiom and the same construction may be found throughout the T'nach if one bothers to look, and with other verbs as well as the verb “to die”. For example, Vayikra 10:18 says
Mordochai,
I completely agree with your comments in the last post. This talk of "doubling" is such a ridiculous idea which, I am sure, was "born" out of a combination of misunderstanding the sources being "quoted" and a good dose of theological bias by the Christian commentator.
UriYosef think these two segments go together. It is true that Christians often use references to Jewish sources when they attempt to promote their beliefs. At times they give false references, other times they only quote a portion that suits them and leave out the part that would contradict their point, and still at other times they misapply Jewish sources altogether.
In this case, it is my impression that John Gill misapplied the Jewish sources to push his point that the doubling of the verb implies both the physical and spiritual death of mankind. (I suspect that he is giving the believing Christian the reason/motivation to become "born again"). Whether or not he (and other Christians) realize it, Gill actually created a theological problem (and contradiction) for Christianity. As I pointed out earlier, in the creation of Adam, God gave ("breathed into") him a soul, a "piece" of God, something that is immortal. So, by making this claim, Gill says that Adam caused the death of both body and soul for all the generations that followed Adam. Yet, according to the text, the soul is immortal because it is a "piece" of God.
So, who is to be believed, John Gill or God?
UriYosef I pondered on how to word that part, since I knew you'd pick on it, because I wasn't quite sure on how to express my thought here. So I finally decided to use this terminology and put it within quotation marks to let you know that it is not to be taken literally, but you did anyway...
Humankind was created with the capacity to sin, as the eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil demonstrates - they had both the good inclination and the evil inclination. As long as they had the good inclination in complete control, they were able to benefit from the Tree of Life and all their needs were taken care of. Once they allowed the evil inclination to take over, they disobeyed the command, which got them expelled from the Garde, they could no longer to benefit from the Tree of Life, and they had to fend for themselves, which is where the evil inclination is actually a beneficial component. The evil inclination is not all bad, as long as it is kept under control. It provides us with the desire to survive, it contains the instincts to promote our own well-being, strive for personal achievement and success, and our Sages teach that without it, we would not build a home, marry, have children, and engage in business.
As far as sin and overcoming it is concerned, the Hebrew Bible teaches that we can rule over it (Genesis 4:7), and when we do sin, we have a process of atonement that wipes the slate clean without having to take on the belief that the shed blood of a mangod is the only way to get the remission of our sins.
UriYosef Rob's co,ments: Hmm? Different view to me, but interesting read.
Adonai-God commanded about the adam, to say: “Be sure that you eat from all of the tree [sic] of the garden, apart from the ‘Tree of Knowledge (good and bad)’—you are not to eat from it, because on the day of your eating from it you will definitely [become able to] die.” (B'réshıt 2:16-17) Note that I have taken great care to translate these verses very accurately, which is why the translation does not read well in English and appears somewhat clumsy in places.
These two verses form a natural couplet as v.17 is obviously a continuation of the sentence that begins in v.16; moreover (and I don’t know why this didn’t occur to me earlier), the “doubling” of the verb mot tamut at the end of verse 17 that Mark was obsessing over when he started this thread actually mirrors the corresponding verb achol tochél at the end of verse 16. I wonder if the “translations” he was quoting in that connection similarly reflect the “doubling” in verse 16?
It is also worthy of mention that the word עֵץ étz (“tree of”, but meaning “trees of”) in the phrase מִכֹּל עֵץ־הַגָּן mikōl étz hagan (“from all of the trees of the garden”) is actually singular in form, so this is yet another example of the implied plurals that I have referred to on a number of previous occasions (the plural “trees” is עֵצִים étzim and the genitive plural form “trees of” is עֲצֵי atzei).
Rob's comments: Interesting details from a Jew.
------------------ D Gee – for a year you have been arguing that sin = missing God Now it opposing God – you have opposing of the mind – you must interject it into ever sentence R missing GOD is a relationship is a function of opposing GOD, isn't it. Unintentional, but every time you miss supporting God, you are in fact opposing God. Is this not true?
D : "YEP! – there is your cherub chata – R you mock a Hebrew verse in Scripture Dave? Why do you delete this verse?
D: "Only if you deny the entire Book of Job R so this hey-satan-angel doesn't sin with the power God gives him, He goes to humans to get them to murder Job's children? You would say this hey-satan-angel doesn't sin ?
D: "YES! – satan did not become a god until Rome made him their god R I see. Ezekiel was written by Rome I suspect? not some Jew inspired by God?
D: "So – employing the Robert Method – Jesus is the satan – or satan is Jesus R: "Two bright stars of saraph were upon the pole remember Dave, both were saraphs of burning Beings. One is termed hey-satan-angel, the other archangel-Yashuah. Mankind worships one or the other, but not BOTH.
D: "Jews find the Medieval conception of Satan being the force of evil a rather blasphemous idea because it implies that God is not omnipotent; R I see, so if GOD foreknew the coming of sin, and planned for it's coming, but did not stop the eventual coming of sin, does this make GOD weak because the sin problem is a big problem to GOD, ,even though God plans to deal with sin all the days He allows sin to exist?
No, dealing with sin does not make GOD weak. But you say dealing with sin makes God weak. Sure millions reject God through sin. But the sin problem does not make God weak.
How does allowing sin to do it's ugly work imply God is not omnipotent? Please explain.
God is all powerful, but the sinless creatures who never seen sin before are not. These creatures do not know. So the all powerful GOD has to let sinning for the first time run it's course. Is this not, the only solution to a GOD of love?
Stopping sinning would cause the sinless creatures to fear GOD rather than love GOD. Sure it's sad to GOD to watch people be killed....please explain your view...
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 21, 2020 10:24:58 GMT -5
D: "Is this God’s enemy? – NO – man’s enemy! R OH, so the serpent who sins is only man's enemy, not God's enemy? Did the serpent force God to sin? Did the serpent force Eve to sin? If the serpent was on a mission from God to test man – why do you think it a sin to obey God?
Well if that is true, why does the serpent ask Jesus, the Son of God, to worship the Serpent? Every other Christian in the world APPERICIATES that Jesus – the Son of Man – was tested / tempted just as every man Praise God – Jesus Christ proved that he was more than just a man, because all men sin This is a beautiful thing – Praise God Only you see it as ugly – because you support ugly – you support your satan and question your God
D Please quote scripture accurately – if you enter death – in the future you will surely die If you begin making a false assumption – you can argue anything R I see. So the text says "The day you eat of the fruit you will in the future surely die?" NO! – not at as I translated it It is a conditional statement – if you / when you – enter into death – you (pl) will in the future definitely will die
The muwth-muwth-suffix, implies a future tense, do it?
SO explain my ignorance, where does the meaning of future tense come from? You need to learn to translate instead of playing word games
מות - Verb Qal Infinitive Absolute to die, kill, have one executed תְּמֻתוּן - Verb Qal Imperfect 2nd Mas. Pl. עַד + מות Infinitive Definition: perpetuity, forever, continuing future
The infinitive absolute is an extremely flexible non-finite verbal form and can function as an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, or a noun. Its most common use is to express intensity or certainty of verbal action. (Infinitive Absolute — unfoldingWord® Hebrew Grammar 1 ...)
You keep arguing a return to the ancient Hebrew I am unable to do that – but we can return to the thinking of prominent Jewish Rabbis of their time And what was the Jewish thinking / understanding / perception of 250ish BC
It was not Greeks corrupting the Hebrew It was Hebrews doing their best to express the Hebrew for the Egyptians And your precious KJV is from the LXX not the Hebrew Tanak
Gen 3:4 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ὄφις τῇ γυναικί Οὐ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε·
#1 – two completely different words chosen
θανάτῳ - G2288 - death
ἀποθανεῖσθε· - G599 - to die off (literally or figuratively): - be dead, death, die, lie a-dying, be slain
#2 - θανάτῳ - G2288 – death is a noun in the dative case of θάνατος We know this by its spelling
Dative case words always go together γυναικί - woman – dative case of γυνή We know this by its spelling So – WOMAN (dative case – meaning into / in / enter into / go into) DEATH
#3 – The Greek DOES NOT SAY – if the woman dies die is a completely different word in Greek G2348 – θνήσκω - A strengthened form of a simpler primary word θάνω - to die (literally or figuratively): - be dead, die.
The Greek does say – if/when – the woman enters death
#4 - ἀποθανεῖσθε· = Verb – Future Tense, Middle Voice, Indicative, 2nd person (pl) Future tense – and indicative means an absolute – MIDDLE VOICE: The subject is part or all of the action. In other words, the subject is both the cause and the focus, the agent and experiencer, of a verbal action.
So – in the future you will absolutely – and you be the cause you own self to die “in the future you will surely die”
The Greek says – if she enters death – in the future she will certainly die
Ge 2:17 (YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'
Young's Literal says what I say, thou shalt immediately dying die. The death process began upon sin. No it does not
From Hebrew / English inter-linear = to-die - you(p)-shall-die
The Hebrew expression in Genesis 2:17 is מוֹת תָּמוּת (MOT taMUT). The first word, מוֹת (MOT ), is a grammatical element known as the Infinitive Absolute, which is found in Semitic languages, and has eventually also found its way into Greek and Latin, but it has no equivalent in English. It has grammatical attributes in common with both verbs and nouns.
The infinitive absolute is an extremely flexible non-finite verbal form and can function as an adverb, a finite verb, a verbal complement, or a noun. Its most common use is to express intensity or certainty of verbal action.(Infinitive Absolute — unfoldingWord® Hebrew Grammar 1 ...)
Agree – if/when the woman (finite verb) dies (once)
The second word, תָּמוּת (taMUT), is the future tense conjugation of the root verb מות inflected in the second-person, singular, masculine mode, meaning "you will die". So, as you can see, the combination of the two terms in this phrase does not lend itself to a literal translation in English.
Agree – future tense
if/when the woman (finite verb) dies (once) + "you will die". (future tense)
Rob: " So what I am saying is true, by eating the fruit Adam and Eve, immediately was subject to death, and dying daily they began the process of dying. Muwth by itself is a process. But muwth muwth is the second death, the permanent end of your soul, if your refuse to support God.
OK – if we sin – we will die as a mortal – death of the body – death of the animal Adam and Eve were created immortal – by sinning they became mortal and subject to entropy And in the FUTURE – at the final Judgment = death of Spirit – the second death (lake of Fire) Absolutely agree
This is what God said to Eve in Gen 2:17 If to die a mortal death you will also die a spiritual death at the judgment
Is this a lie – NO – if you die a sinner (without repentance) – you will die a spiritual death
The serpent said – this is not the whole truth – because – if you die in Christ you will not die a second death
You insist that the serpent lied to eve – did he?
Who lied?
Gen 3:1 But the serpent was shrewder than any animal of the field that Adonai Elohim made. So it said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from all the trees of the garden’?” This is a question – it is not a lie – simply asking for clearification Gen 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “Of the fruit of the trees, we may eat. Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat of it and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” Oops! – did God say don’t touch it?
Eve lied before she ever took the fruit Eve lied before the serpent spoke in Gen 3:4
------------------ D Gee – for a year you have been arguing that sin = missing God Now it opposing God – you have opposing of the mind – you must interject it into ever sentence R missing GOD is a relationship is a function of opposing GOD, isn't it. Unintentional, but every time you miss supporting God, you are in fact opposing God. Is this not true?
So – if you sin you are attacking and hurting God? I suppose it does hurt God to watch you deliberately commit spiritual suicide through ignorance
D : "YEP! – there is your cherub chata – R you mock a Hebrew verse in Scripture Dave? Why do you delete this verse? I appreciate this verse very much King of Tyre Any man that gets too big for his britches needs to be knocked down by God
D: "Only if you deny the entire Book of Job R so this hey-satan-angel doesn't sin with the power God gives him, He goes to humans to get them to murder Job's children? You would say this hey-satan-angel doesn't sin ?
Job 2:4 The satan replied to Adonai saying, “Skin for skin! A man will give up all he has for his own life. Job 2:5 But now, stretch out Your hand and strike his bone and his flesh, and he will certainly curse You to Your face!” Job 2:6 Adonai said to the satan, “Very well, he is in your hand—only spare his life!”
Why do you consider it a sin to obey God?
It is a sin to believe in your own soul It is a sin to obey God And cherub chata usurps all of God’s creation so none of God’s tov is left to be seen But – you deny being a Satanist – but claim to be Christian and only support the Creator
D: "YES! – satan did not become a god until Rome made him their god R I see. Ezekiel was written by Rome I suspect? not some Jew inspired by God? So – Judaism changed into your satan as a god view ever since Ezekiel – Hmmmmm You sure are a Jewish expert
How does allowing sin to do it's ugly work imply God is not omnipotent? Please explain. To whom to you give the credit To whom do you give the praise God does it all Praise God Or satan does it praise satan Choose your God
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2020 16:59:18 GMT -5
D "Every other Christian in the world APPERICIATES that Jesus – the Son of Man – was tested / tempted just as every man R I did NOT write this: " the Son of Man" You claim Jesus is GOD, yet you split Jesus into the Son of Man and the Son of God, whereas I don't. This suits you so to avoid verses you don't like.
The serpent-opposer-devil-Satan did not just tempt Jesus the Man, He also tempted Jesus as GOD. Why? Because to get Jesus as Man as GOD to break support to his Father (ie a sin) would spell the end of salvation for man, and for Jesus took, he would be a sinner.
This is why Jesus always supports His Father's words and all power flows via the Father, not from Jesus power, even though He is elohiiym too, and has his own divine power.
Sin is defined as missing a relationship with somebody divine. This defintion also works for elohiym too. The devil-opposer had to get a divine person to break support to another divine person, that is a sin. But the devil failed to achieve this, hence elohiym who came down as a man, nver broke supporting His Father, another divine person. This is faith, maintaining a relationship to divinity.
But on your confusion to assume one person of divinity, you have no faith here, and thus GOD cannot sin, so the opposer only gets the human to sin, which is silly because Jesus had no Baal inside of Him. Jesus Baal inside of Him was His own sinless divine powers, a creative power man does not have.
But getting a divine person to do by himself, is by defintion missing and hence a sin.
But your Gnostic writings say HS can create by herself. Sorry not possible. That would be a sin.
Devil tries to get GOD to turn stones to bread...not something a human can do, only God could do this. Devil tries to get Jesus to be presumptous, jump, Father will help you. Again appeals to the cognitive soul to do things on your own.
Devil tries to show easy way out, worship me, but Jesus only supports His Father. However you split Jesus into the SOn of Man and the Son of God... I do not do this.
Elohiym came down in a human form, took up the fallen flesh and over came as other humans have to, by supporting the Father in heaven.
And the Devil wanted dearly for elohiym to sin, ie break support in the relationship.
---------------------
D: "Eve lied before she ever took the fruit Eve lied before the serpent spoke in Gen 3:4 R Yes Jeff Benner points this out
But you say the serpent never sinned to get Eve also to sin with him...
D: "So – if you sin you are attacking and hurting God? I suppose it does hurt God to watch you deliberately commit spiritual suicide through ignorance R we agree???
D: "I appreciate this verse very much King of Tyre Any man that gets too big for his britches needs to be knocked down by God
R yes but it's not just about man, it's also about a cherub too, you forget this....
D: " Why do you consider it a sin to obey God? R consider your statement: Where does the power of Satan come from?
From God
So the Creature is respectful to do as he is told to do.
Now does the Creature do nice things with this power?
And are these things the Creature does, are they good or ra for Job?
If they are ra, than the Creature is sinning....
Is this correct?
D" Why do you consider it a sin to obey God? R Does this creature Obey God?
Job 1:6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Is this a heavenly court meeting? No, no details given, but you assume it is.
Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
God says JOb is perfect, avoiding ra.
Does the Creature obey God and say, Yes Job is perfect, well done your salvation gift is complete?
Does the Creature say this? no
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
What is this answer? evidence of?
It's called slander, opposing God, disagreeing with God, mocking God....
Yet you call this obey?
Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him,....
What's the hedge for? Hedge against who?
Ever considered this?
The Creature is saying remove your hedge of protection and let me make him sin...
Is this obeying God, getting humans to sin?
Yet you say this is OK its called testing. I would call it mocking God.
D: "You sure are a Jewish expert R I am no expert, you suppose everything go edited...never heard of this, I just read Hebrew on my own and came up with torah on my own, It's in the torah or its not, can't help it if Jews do not read their own torah... how many of them did? How many were saved in the desert? Two. Calub and Joshua
R How does allowing sin to do it's ugly work imply God is not omnipotent? Please explain. You didn't answer my question.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 21, 2020 23:45:31 GMT -5
Every other Christian in the world APPERICIATES that Jesus – the Son of Man – was tested / tempted just as every man[/font] R You claim Jesus is GOD, yet you split Jesus into the Son of Man and the Son of God, whereas I don't. This suits you so to avoid verses you don't like. Correct Robert – I believe in only one God The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob The Trinity of in the beginning was the Word (E) – word was with God (Spirit) – and the Word was God – Christ the image of The Word You have a pantheon of multiple gods – like most pagans --------------------- D: " Eve lied before she ever took the fruit Eve lied before the serpent spoke in Gen 3:4R Yes Jeff Benner points this out[/p] But you say the serpent never sinned to get Eve also to sin with him...
So – how can your serpent cause Eve to sin – if she is a liar before He deceived her with the truth
Why do you consider it a sin to obey God? R consider your statement: Where does the power of Satan come from? From God So the Creature is respectful to do as he is told to do. D" Why do you consider it a sin to obey God? R Does this creature Obey God? So the Creature is respectful to do as he is told to do. What is the difference between OBEY and “do as your told”?
D: "You sure are a Jewish expert R I am no expert, you suppose everything go edited...never heard of this, I just read Hebrew on my own and came up with torah on my own, It's in the torah or its not, can't help it if Jews do not read their own torah... how many of them did? How many were saved in the desert? Two. Calub and Joshua How many laid their live down for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob They I have must respect for – have you face death to defend your Great Controversy with two opposing gods
R How does allowing sin to do it's ugly work imply God is not omnipotent? Please explain. You didn't answer my question. If you agree that everything happens by God’s Plan Then it all happens by God’s Will by God’s hand Then we agree
But you say– satan is not under God’s control In fact – your satan opposes God / hates God
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2020 14:48:43 GMT -5
D: " You have a pantheon of multiple gods – like most pagans R so let me ge this straight, You only believe in 1 being 3 expressions, this is your monotheism Whereas I see 3 in 1, and being my monotheism.
SO please stop quoting the 3 in 1 idea, the reverse of your 1 being 3 expressions idea, because you have only one strong authority.
SO if the archons flog a divine principle to death, the Christian edit the Word of GOD to avoid this pagan flogged to death idea, because it's pagan. I thought you hate edited Scripture?
Is this what the Jews did, they invented a way to avoid the pagan concepts of el, the god they worshipped?
The pagans also had child sacrifice too, but we avoid this too, lucky for us, only Jesus was sacrificed?
The archons have messed up religion long before Abram existed, so how can you know truth from confusion?
I received this from a messanic Jew:
P " He functioned alone for no telling how long until He created angels or, in your belief, until He brought forth the Son. Other beings simply provide Him with an opportunity to project His love out from Himself. Before that, His love was within Himself, loving Himself and His future creation."
R: "So we can love ourselves by ourselves. How then do we know if we are being selfish? Or loving self too much ?"
P: "Keep in mind that we are trying to ascertain if YHWH can love being alone. Since He is sinless, there is no selfishness in Him and He cannot love Himself too much. When you discuss man loving alone, it must be hypothetically since we are never alone. We are assuming the existence of man without any other beings present. What would the man do? He would feed himself. He would seek shelter, etc"
R: "Whats the difference between loving self and not sinning by loving self ?"
P: "Is it a sin to feed yourself or cloth yourself? No. Yet, both are acceptable forms of loving one's self."
R: "If we make the concept of loving self a concept, how than do we define sin, being alone?"
P: " Concerning YHWH, it doesn't matter because He cannot sin."
R: "I also note there is no Hebrew word for self, or selfish, so what does this tell us about loving self ?"
P: "Nothing."
R: "We often say sin is transgression of the law ? But is this true ? What do you think ?"
P: "It is definitely true. However, sin goes beyond that. All unrighteousness is sin. Yet, there is no unrighteousness with YHWH. His self love is perfect and righteous."
R: "So if I am loving self, am I sinning obviously not you say?"
P: " It depends on what kind of fruit your self love bears. Are you sustaining life by feeding yourself? If yes, then it is not sin. Are you partaking of the pleasures of this world to the neglect of the spiritual life? If yes, then it is sin." R: "Lets have a look at the law and see if one can sin alone .
(1) Ex 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Ps 81:10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Ps 81:11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. Ps 81:12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels. This is the closest to what happens if we turn from loving GOD to desiring ourselves. Some might call this loving self as concept of Scripture as shown above , but not pictured in a single Hebrew word. Correct if I am wrong but loving self is a destruction of God loving us , it is the totality of pride, evil and selfishness"
P: "I agree. This kind of self love is sin and destructive".
R: "Notice this text:- ((2) Ex 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
(Ho 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me. Ho 13:5 I did know thee in the wilderness, in the land of great drought. Ho 13:6 According to their pasture, so were they filled; they were filled, and their heart was exalted; therefore have they forgotten me.
Again we find what happens if you fail to respond to God's love as a Saviour.the people becomes self exalted and forget God...this concept is "loving self not that a single word exists for this, but that it is opposing love....it is a evil where one forgets GOD and does what one's likes."
P: "I agree. This kind of self love is sin and destructive".
R: "So we see if your alone and you fill your mouth alone, or you forget where your power is coming from, your are doing sinin other words sin is a relationship word. You cannot sin alone, for another Being is always in you and near you. And thus you cannot love alone, there is always another Being in you and near you."
P: "I agree as far as man is concerned. YHWH, however, cannot sin. Therefore, He can love alone."
-------------------------
Ex 7:1 And YHWH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee 'elohim' to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. G: "Certainly this does not mean that YHWH made Moses into a god, but rather that he would speak to Pharaoh with authority through Aaron who would serve as his mouth-piece in the way that the prophets serve as the mouth-pieces of YHWH. In any event, there is clearly nothing multiple about Moses, even though he was made an Elohim to Pharaoh (Gordon, 2003)."
R Nothing multiple about Moses? Wasn't Aaron and Moses brothers in a family? This is a simile of elohiym?
1Ki 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess "elohim" of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god "elohim" of the Moabites, and Milcom the god "elohim" of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
G: "Here we see three pagan deities each of which is referred to as an Elohim. Obviously the book of Kings is not saying that any of these false deities is a "great God". On the contrary, the verse goes on to rebuke the Israelites for worshipping them. The meaning is that the Sidonians, Moabites, and Ammonites looked upon their deities as great Gods and in this instance Scripture employs the terms used by the pagans themselves to refer to their own deities. At the same time we must observe that Ashtoret, Kemosh, and Milkom are each referred to as Elohim even though there is nothing multiple about any one of them."
R : Again, Gordon says there is nothing multiple about these pagan names of their gods? What are you kidding? The golden calf of el, Jews made was the first letter of Hebrew. The calf bull letter. What did this letter represent? The Father strong authority. Was this a family deity? Yes Is Ahstoret a family deity? Or a feminine elohiym power on her own?
Quote by Hislop: "Will any one after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity? So did the Pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindoos at this hour, in the very same sense in which Rome does. They all admitted A trinity, but did they worship THE Triune Jehovah, the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible? And will any one say with such evidence before him, that Rome does so? Away then, with the deadly delusion that Rome is Christian! (The two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop)".
The pagans worshipped a trinity concept, a family of deities. A king, queen and son like deity. The Jewish response to this is to view YHWH as one authority alone.
G : "Gordon's own theory of faith is different from Scripture. Notice :
"Another description of the heavenly council appears in the book of Job. We read there, "And it was a certain time, and the sons of God came to stand before YHWH" (Job 1:6; 2:1). What follows is a deliberation between YHWH and a satanic angel, similar to that which took place in the vision of Michayahu between YHWH and the spirit of false prophecy. The "sons of God" that comprise the members of the heavenly court are the angels. The angels are called "sons of God" because they are YHWH's holy and chosen messengers.
R No where in Job is there a reference to a "heavenly court".
The mention of angels and ruwach in "Michayahu between YHWH and the spirit of false prophecy" are not similar, the being mentioned are different.
Why are only angels termed "sons of God" when in the NT man is termed "sons of God" ?
(1) Ge 20:13 And it came to pass, when ELOHIM (with plural verb) caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.
G: "So contrary to the expected rule of Elohim getting a singular verb, here Elohim gets a plural verb. Because of this plural verb, we could literally translate this phrase "gods caused me to wander". From this verse alone it indeed appears that Abraham worshipped multiple gods whom he believed had caused him to wander from his father's house. However, this hardly fits the overall picture."
R SO if we find a few texts we don't like, we ignore them?
(2)Ge 35:7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there ELOHIM (with plural verb) appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.
G: " But the basic question still remains. Why are there these three instances in the Tanach where Elohim receives a plural verb?"
(3)2Sa 7:23 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom ELOHIM went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their ELOHIM's (with plural verb)?
G: "Let us remember that the rule of Elohim receiving a singular verb does actually work in some 2000 instances and the three verses just mentioned are the only exceptions in the entire Tanach. ...Could it be that these three anomalous verses hint at some great mystery about the paradoxical and contradictory nature of God? Or is there a much simpler, linguistic explanation?"
(4) Ex 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
But Gordon says the calf was a single calf idol that was called ELOHIM. He asks the question : G: "Why would the Israelites call a single calf "gods"?
R maybe the term elohiym is plural because it is comprised of multiple strong authorities?
Gordon's word twist: "The masculine plural form of the word Elohim had more attractive pull than the numerically singular meaning. As a result, it appears that the Israelites are referring to the golden calf as multiple false-gods when really they meant only a singular false-god."
R: "He fails to notice while a siingle deity is referenced each deity belonged to a family of deities."
P: "It is irrelevant if they belong to a family. What matters is that the individual deity is called an elohim."
Rob's reply, how can somebody ignore this? "It is irrelevant if they belong to a family"
R: "He fails to notice if Hebrew wanted to make a strong case for one, it would use ashtey 6249 or yachiyd 3173 , not echad 259"
P: "Ashtey means eleven and yachiyd means sole. Echad means a numerical one. There is no stronger word in Hebrew for a numerical one than echad." Rob's reply, how can somebody say this?
Ge 22:2 And he said <'amar>, Take now <laqach> thy son <ben>, thine only <yachiyd> son Isaac <Yitschaq>, whom thou lovest <'ahab>, and get thee <yalak> into the land <'erets> of Moriah <Mowriyah>; and offer him <`alah> there for a burnt offering <`olah> upon one <'echad> of the mountains <har> which I will tell <'amar> thee of.
Here both Hebrew words are in one sentence : yachiyd means one, echad means one of many.
How many peaks are there on Mt Sinai? Dr Kim shows the pictures for me? There are two peaks, but one mountain, just as echad says.
The strongest word for numerical one is yachiyd.
P: "You will allow three obscure, out of the ordinary verses to override the preponderance of the evidence that favors a singular Elohim? I will not put any weight on those verses until the Holy Spirit reveals to me why those three verbs are plural."
Rob's reply, how can somebody say this? That's the problem with Jews, they do not follow all of their torah, and ignore contexts they do not like. I can tell you why the word elohiym is plural at times, because the term elohiym is plural all the time. The "m" tells you the Father's love "flows". Just like the picture of Mount Sinai, one mountain but two peaks.
P: "No. You fail to see that one single calf is called "Elohim". Why? It was not a family of calves. It wasn't even two calves".
Rob's reply, yes two calves would have been polytheism. This is why the calf is a single calf termed elohiym.
--------------------- D: "Correct Robert – I believe in only one God R I see.
D: "So – how can your serpent cause Eve to sin – if she is a liar before He deceived her with the truth R Yes correct, Well as Jeff Benner says,
The serpert corrected Eve, you will not die, by simply touching the fruit. He did not say that eating the fruit you will die in the future. He left that part out.
SO the serpert deceived Eve, saying not all the information to edify Eve. So He wounds Eve. And this is a Sin, not saying all the truth.
Am I correct that the serpent sinned, as Eve also sinned, her adding words God did not say did not help her.
D: "What is the difference between OBEY and “do as your told”? R you leave out many themes I presented:
(1) no evidence this is heavenly court meeting? you assume it is.
(2) Creature does not agree with GOD that JOb is perfect. That's a sin right there?
(3) Remove your hedge and let me make JOb sin? You do not consider this - another sin here.
(4) Is this obeying God, getting humans to sin? You say testing. I say mocking God.
(5) All power I give you only take not His life. What does the creature do with his power? RA He uses the power from God to kill, maime and get Job to sin. That makes the creature a sinner. And creatures that sin are by defintion opposing GOD.
So there is some obedience in wicked creatures. Look at the world, Some obedience to rules, some order, some nice things in the city, but overall the nice things hide the ugly RA of continual sin, disobeying of God. Nobody is pure evil, not even Satan, whatever that term means to you and me. Even Hitler had some good in him, though he we evil too.
D: "to defend your Great Controversy R what is this Great Controversy over Dave? not two god's fighting as you claim but dealing with the SIN problem.
DO you acknowledge we have a SIN problem?
Gnostic writings say no, everything was designed flawed to begin with. Sin is about choosing ra or tov, since both came into the world already. So the sin of Adam is considered minor, yes he lost his immortality, but the ra and tov were already in the world controlling them.
I have GOD dealing with angels that sinned and causing ra, banished to earth. Than GOD creates a tov world for man, the ra component of darkness, is there because some angels that sinned already are there, but these angels were there before the creation of earth for humans. SO our world was perfect, until Adam sinned, so the whole of RA came upon us, from the SIN problem.
You have angels created during our Creation. I have angels created before our Creation.
But essentially GOD is dealing with a SIN-RA problem, wrought by creatures sinning. You have GOD creating creatures already doing RA, but this is not sinning? You have mankind immersed in ra an tov intentionally.
what is this Great Controversy over Dave? not two god's fighting as you claim but GOD dealing with the SIN problem.
R How does allowing sin to do it's ugly work imply God is not omnipotent? Please explain. You didn't answer my question. D If you agree that everything happens by God’s Plan Then it all happens by God’s Will by God’s hand Then we agree R you still did not answer my question.
The Great Controversy is about GOD dealing with the SIN problem.
SIN never happened before. SIN is not created by GOD. Sin comes from free will creatures who walk away from GOD.
Creatures who walk away from God are not gods, as you claim. SO dealing with this sin problem is always under God's will.
So allowing sin to do it's ugly work does NOT imply God is not omnipotent?
Other creatures have not seen sin before, so GOD cries alot and allows the sinning to happen.
D: "But you say– satan is not under God’s control In fact – your satan opposes God / hates God
R Do children obey their parents? Can a parent force obedience on their children if they disobey?
A rebellious child often says "I hate you"...what does this mean? I do not want to follow you or obey you or support you, I will do as I please. What can the parent do?
Torah says, we disown the child and pretend the child died, does not exist anymore. Your love towards the child is not getting through to them. Like a prodigal father you watch, pray and hope for your rebellious child to return. Is there any creatures Dave in the tanak that disobey GOD? hence do sinning and ra.
I find two creatures, angels and humans. Some of these creatures love God and some do not. Hence a sin problem.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 22, 2020 23:55:34 GMT -5
You have a pantheon of multiple gods – like most pagans R so let me ge this straight, You only believe in 1 being 3 expressions, this is your monotheismWhereas I see 3 in 1, and being my monotheism. SO please stop quoting the 3 in 1 idea, the reverse of your 1 being 3 expressions idea, because you have only one strong authority. I say 1 = 3 You say it takes at least 3 to make 1D: "Simple – as the Torah says – 3 in 1 = Trinity R What you agree with me? SO why isn't 3in1, not polytheism? E = mc2 There is only one E – there is only one source – there is only one God (m)= E in a different form – God is Christ (c2) = E in a different form – God is SpiritAs for trinity, Scripture never uses the term as a word, but the principle of 3 in 1 is there. Argue words – just to argueD: "Simple – as the Torah says – 3 in 1 R Same theology as I have in general, yet you call mine polythesim and yours is monothesim. Go figure? First - You argue that God and Christ must be two completely different gods – completely independent from one another. But you cannot decide to which God to give credit for creation. ahl says God the Father did it. agl say Christ the Son did it – you must be so confused Second – then you say – Even tho God and Christ are totally independent form one another – you also say Spirit is unable to independent – The Spirit CAN NOT do anything on her own You are so confused - - because you will not admit that the HS is God or that Christ is God They are three independent beings – they must be – and your argument is God cannot love Himself – god must be three different beings separate and independent in order for love to be exchanged between the group You pretend to be a monotheist – then speak of different and separate gods And asks questions like - R So how does one Being express love, a character quality of GOD?See – you deny that God is one- I received this from a messanic Jew: P " He functioned alone for no telling how long until He created angels or, in your belief, until He brought forth the Son. Other beings simply provide Him with an opportunity to project His love out from Himself. Before that, His love was within Himself, loving Himself and His future creation." I agree with this – zero meaning od time – short or long time – no way to reference – Time is not linear His love – was with HimselfJoh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, Love – projected out of Himself / manifested / expressed = ChristJoh 1:1 … and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 He was with God in the beginning. R: "So we can love ourselves by ourselves. How then do we know if we are being selfish? Or loving self too much ?" P: "Keep in mind that we are trying to ascertain if YHWH can love being alone. Since He is sinless, there is no selfishness in Him and He cannot love Himself too much. When you discuss man loving alone, it must be hypothetically since we are never alone. We are assuming the existence of man without any other beings present. What would the man do? He would feed himself. He would seek shelter, etc" I agree – God must have a problem with self-love because He is self-less – all His love showers upon creationR: "Whats the difference between loving self and not sinning by loving self ?" P: "Is it a sin to feed yourself or cloth yourself? No. Yet, both are acceptable forms of loving one's self." AgreeR: "If we make the concept of loving self a concept, how than do we define sin, being alone?" Sin – is not the choice to feed ourselves Sin – is the choice to ignore God or seek GodR: "I also note there is no Hebrew word for self, or selfish, so what does this tell us about loving self ?" P: "Nothing." AgreeR: "We often say sin is transgression of the law ? But is this true ? What do you think ?" P: "It is definitely true. However, sin goes beyond that. All unrighteousness is sin. Yet, there is no unrighteousness with YHWH. His self love is perfect and righteous." Depends on what your definition of the Law isIf the Law = 613 rules to obey – then yes it is a sin to break those laws If the law is ‘Love one another as Jesus Christ loved us’ – then yes it is a sin to break that law If you say the Word of God is law – then to break that word is a sin If God told an angel, archon, or man to go and test another – it is not a sin for the angel to obey God If you vow to God not to drink coffee – drinking coffee is a sin If you vow to God not to smoke – then smoking is a sin If you get on your knees in the hospital when mom is sick and make vows to God that you never keep is a sin R: "So if I am loving self, am I sinning obviously not you say?" P: " It depends on what kind of fruit your self love bears. Are you sustaining life by feeding yourself? If yes, then it is not sin. Are you partaking of the pleasures of this world to the neglect of the spiritual life? If yes, then it is sin." R: "Lets have a look at the law and see if one can sin alone . YES! – Absolutely agree- to choose material life over spiritual life is a sin YES! – to deny spirituality and fail to seek it is a sin Once we know that Joh 3:6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. R: "So we see if your alone and you fill your mouth alone, or you forget where your power is coming from, your are doing sinin other words sin is a relationship word. You cannot sin alone, for another Being is always in you and near you. And thus you cannot love alone, there is always another Being in you and near you." Agree – there is always another being / spirit / multiple beings and spirits in the room with us right now Man is never alone – nothing ever happens in secrete from the HeavensSO the serpert deceived Eve, saying not all the information to edify Eve. So He wounds Eve. And this is a Sin, not saying all the truth. Am I correct that the serpent sinned, as Eve also sinned, her adding words God did not say did not help her. D: "What is the difference between OBEY and “do as your told”? R you leave out many themes I presented: Fact – God test man Fact – doesn’t do it directly – He has a staff for that God sent the angel of death to Egypt – this angel of Death was not sinning 1 Kings 22 – a volunteer angel or archon went for from God to be a deceiving spirit to cause Ahab eventual harm This angel was obeying the lord – it is not a sin to obey the Lord Job – satan was obeying the Lord – it is not a sin to obey the Lord
Eve was tested in the garden – who set up the scenario – God did Who tested Eve – God did Did God do it directly – no the serpent was there The serpent never told Eve a lie – is it a sin not to lie? Who sinned – Eve did She was the only one who choose to disobeyD: "to defend your Great Controversy DO you acknowledge we have a SIN problem? Sin is between God and man – the only creature that has the ability to choose And that ability comes from the fact that we are the only animal – that has a soul
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2020 13:59:51 GMT -5
D: "SO why isn't 3in1, not polytheism? E = mc2 There is only one E – there is only one source – there is only one God (m)= E in a different form – God is Christ (c2) = E in a different form – God is Spirit
R But I have a similar theory Love completed = Provider love + Collector Love + Child like love or E = mc2
There is only one E, the completed love. There is only one SOurce of love. There is only one Being of God.
(m) = Love in a different form (Son-love) the love that collects from parental love. (c2) = Responder love that is feminine and responds to provider love that is masculine.
so I have a similar theory.
Scripture describes these two forms of love as ahab and ahabuh, and these are packaged into two personalities of each animal, that become ONE animal KIND. The collective love comes later when parental love becomes a FAMILY. This kind of biological creation was created intentionally by God for a reason, hence why Scripture says mankind was created gender male and gender female in the image of elohym.
D :"Argue words – just to argue R have you not read how Catholics define their invented term? DO they have a consistent defintion even?
D :"First - You argue that God and Christ must be two completely different gods – completely independent from one another. R "I and my Father are echad "one". Divine love Dave does not change just because it is carried separately.
Take the quantum that makes Hydrogen different from Helium. The basic BEING of the atoms are the same, its the personalities of the combinations that causes the atomic personalities of each. Hence they are NOT independent streams of quantum as you claim, but all sourced from the same overall GOD.
D "But you cannot decide to which God to give credit for creation. ahl says God the Father did it. agl say Christ the Son did it – you must be so confused
They both created Dave, but the Son created primarily, as the Hebrew in Gen 1:1 says masculine He singular created. The Son spoke the words, the HS empowered those words using the powers from the Father.
D: "Second – then you say – Even tho God and Christ are totally independent form one another – you also say Spirit is unable to independent – The Spirit CAN NOT do anything on her own R Dave, the HS is by defintion functioning as a medium, and medium cannot by defintion do anything own their own. The HS in a different function could however as the Shadday. But the SHadday is mostly shown in Scripture as the HS, ie a medium function.
"The Spirit CAN NOT do anything on her own" correct, because its a Medium. Medium only are agencies for power flowing through them.
D: "You are so confused - - because you will not admit that the HS is God or that Christ is God
R: "The proton, neutron and electron are all comprised of quantum, ONE BEING, expressed as three independent personalities of function. I am not confused, there are many examples in nature of this kind of existence. Humans living in sin get used to self love and selfish love, thus ignore that divine love even exists, hence reduce love and loving down to a single entity, rather than a loving entity that is relational. Loving involving others all the time is really hard to do, because we have to gently deal with others. But this is what true loving is, its relational, not solitary.
D: "You pretend to be a monotheist – then speak of different and separate gods And asks questions like - R So how does one Being express love, a character quality of GOD? See – you deny that God is one-
R:" When the proton, neutron and electron come together as ONE entity, we have Hydrogen. One their own each member of Hydrogen loses some of its personality. H+ is still Hydrogen, but barely. We do not call electrons on their own Hydrogen - , do we? Unless each component co-operates, we don't have Hydrogen. This is a poor simile of Elohiym, but as a human I have to have similes in nature, otherwise I can't relate to the Great Uncaused Cause. You cannot provide me with similes. Except maybe an octpus. These have expressions and can live independently from itself, so each cell in the octopus is not so specialized that it needs other cells to make a body.
D: "See – you deny that God is one- R no I don't. Proton and Neutron and Electron on their own is not Hydrogen, only when combined functionally do we get a single atom of Hydrogen.
If you break down creation of matter from the hundreds of families of quantum, you get ONE family kind called Hydrogen. Oszars Razor of simplicity.
This is a good simile, but remember elohiym is beyond matter, but matter is a simile of GOD, just as man is a image of elohiym.
D: "His love – was with Himself Love – projected out of Himself / manifested / expressed = Christ R So before Creation, the Love of elohiym was not manifested. Therefore this quality called love, did not exist as yet.
OK , so why didn't GOD create mankind like that?
Why not just allow the man to transform himself into a feminine expression whenever he liked? After all both qualities of love are carried in each gender kind. Why not have a womb in the man, so that he calls out the woman, to be like him, but expressing a feminine kind of loving? Than I would agree with you, and both could have children since both have wombs of compassion. The earthworm shows this kind of feature, an animal that does this. So what I am saying truly exists functionally and God could have achieved this biological arrangement, but God didn't do it this way, did He?
See GOD created every argument in nature, so that man is not without excuse Rom 1:20 Adam, His love - was with Himself
Adam's love projected out of Himself, manifested / expressed as Eve, a genetic clone of Adam, but not a personality clone, her style of loving was different.
Adam was XY, plus same DNA, Eve was XX, plus same DNA. Eve was built, but Adam was formed and created.
God decided NOT to give Adam a womb, nor the ability to make expressions of Himself, as you claim God is like. Man is a image of elohiym, torah says.
D: "I agree – God must have a problem with self-love because He is self-less – all His love showers upon creation R Adam had self love, all his love was upon, showered on His GOD, but he felt lonely.... DOn't you ever consider that one divine Being would be lonely, showering creation only....??
D: "Sin – is the choice to ignore God R if GOD is ONE, than GOD cannot sin, even if He wanted to.
BUT if there are three divine members of GOD, than GOD could sin.
Doesn't the devil try to make Jesus break faith with His Father? to get Jesus to sin, as a divine Person?
------------
D: "1 Kings 22 – a volunteer angel or archon went for from God to be a deceiving spirit to cause Ahab eventual harm This angel was obeying the lord – it is not a sin to obey the Lord
R No where does "ruwach" mean "angel", so I cannot agree that Adonai asked for an angel to be a lying ruwach, the text does not say it was an angel.
It is the medium of communication that is lying, as to the meaning of ruwach. And a medium is an agency that carries sombody else's words in this case.
If you go to a witch medium, and you hear words, they do not come from the medium itself, they come from somebody else, the medium carries those words to you. In this case, yes sinning angels speak via the medium and you think it is some person from the dead speaking to you.
The context of 1 Kings 22 is about true prophets and false prophets, and what "ruwach" empowers them.
How do you tell a true prophet from a false prophet? One has the HS medium, the other a lying medium.
You suggest GOD sends the lying medium, and thus GOD creates the false prophet. Yes in an adminstrative way, but where does this lying medium come from? From sin, from the provider of sin. You ae suggesting the Devil, the father of lies, belongs to GOD as some department, doing a dirty job, but volunteered to do so? I get your view, but other Scripture suggests this is not so.
D: "Eve was tested in the garden – who set up the scenario – God did Who tested Eve – God did Did God do it directly – no the serpent was there The serpent never told Eve a lie – is it a sin not to lie? Who sinned – Eve did She was the only one who choose to disobey
R your the first person I have ever met that says the serpent never lied to Eve.
When angels sinned in the universe, God banished the sinning angels to earth. Now what? Allow the sinning angels to do nothing anymore?
All of heaven is watching SIN for the first time ever. They are already no jury witnesses because they see sinning already. In order to have fair court room and judgement, you need citizens of heaven, who are innocent to testify to sinning. So GOD creates humans, and tells them of their mission, to watch out for the Father of Sinning.
You are to remain not sinning. This is a test. Please do not sin. I am on trial, and all the heavens are watching how you, the innocent creation play out in the new problem I have, SIN. Please do not sin.
So for over 33 years the Adam and the Eve, do not sin, and enjoy many Sabbaths with GOD.
One day the serpent seeks his chance to deceive Eve with a question? The innocent couple created without SIN now become SINNERS through trickery. If the Devil did not sin, to make the humans sin, GOD woudl not have decided to love them correctly and send salvation to them. However I disagree with you, the serpent did sin, getting Eve to sin also.
Torah says: Ge 3:13 And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me,
nasha "over the nations, the pressing strong" to make one in debt.
This Dave is functional sin. The serpent made Eve into a slave to the serpent.
------
D : "Sin is between God and man – the only creature that has the ability to choose R yes this is your only contraversy, God and man. Yet torah says angels also sinned, but you ignore these verses:
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Angels who sin will experience the lake of fire, just as humans who also sin, the torah says. But you ignore these verses.
You say God created some angels to be sinning and they obey GOD because they were made to be sinning. Wow that makes humans confused? Now your sin idea only is defined for humans. This idea however is not found in the torah, only the Gnostic writings of Simon Magnus, who hated the disciples and their love miracle things they did. Two Peters who went two different ways.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 23, 2020 21:45:25 GMT -5
D: "SO why isn't 3 in1, not polytheism? E = mc2 There is only one E – there is only one source – there is only one God (m)= E in a different form – God is Christ (c2) = E in a different form – God is Spirit
R But I have a similar theory Love completed = Provider love + Collector Love + Child like love or E = mc2
There is only one E, the completed love. There is only one SOurce of love. There is only one Being of God. (m) = Love in a different form (Son-love) the love that collects from parental love. (c2) = Responder love that is feminine and responds to provider love that is masculine. so I have a similar theory.
D :"First - You argue that God and Christ must be two completely different gods – completely independent from one another. R "I and my Father are echad "one". Divine love Dave does not change just because it is carried separately.
OK – if you accept the trinity Explain how Christ the man can pray to God the Father –if your God is also Christ Explain what God incarnate means to you Both of these issues were stumbling blocks for you in the past
D: "Second – then you say – Even tho God and Christ are totally independent form one another – you also say Spirit is unable to independent – The Spirit CAN NOT do anything on her own
"The Spirit CAN NOT do anything on her own" correct, because its a Medium. Medium only are agencies for power flowing through them.
OK – if you accept the trinity Explain why you insist that the HS is not God
D: "You are so confused - - because you will not admit that the HS is God or that Christ is God I don’t think you know what you believe
D: "You pretend to be a monotheist – then speak of different and separate gods And asks questions like - R So how does one Being express love, a character quality of GOD? See – you deny that God is one-
R:" When the proton, neutron and electron come together as ONE entity, we have Hydrogen. One their own each member of Hydrogen loses some of its personality. H+ is still Hydrogen, but barely. We do not call electrons on their own Hydrogen - , do we? Unless each component co-operates, we don't have Hydrogen.
D: "See – you deny that God is one- R no I don't. Proton and Neutron and Electron on their own is not Hydrogen, only when combined functionally do we get a single atom of Hydrogen. The proton by itself is not Hydrogen Christ by Himself is God The Neutron by itself is not Hydrogen The HS is the Spirit of God The electron by itself is not Hydrogen God is always God – in the form of SPIRIT or on the form of a man (Christ) There is only one God – not a family of three different individuals
D: "Sin – is the choice to ignore God R if GOD is ONE, than GOD cannot sin, even if He wanted to. I Agree – anything God does is done in the name of God and it is not a sin
R No where does "ruwach" mean "angel", But it always means SPIRIT YES! – I know you deny the SPIRIT – and this is why you can disrespect the HS If evil spirits and spirits of deception are not spirits – what are theuy? If angels are not spirits – what are they
D: "Eve was tested in the garden – who set up the scenario – God did Who tested Eve – God did Did God do it directly – no the serpent was there The serpent never told Eve a lie – is it a sin not to lie? Who sinned – Eve did She was the only one who choose to disobey R your the first person I have ever met that says the serpent never lied to Eve. Read the text – show me the serpents lie God said if you enter death – you will surely die in the future And this is absolutely correct if you are non-repentant sinner The Serpent said – not And if you enter death in Christ – you will not surely die in the future
Which one of these statements is a lie?
And to answer that Judeo-Christian Western Culture says the serpent lied – I will just call you a Catholic
Who was the first to lie – Eve was Is a it a sin to lie about what God said? – of course it is Eve sinned before the serpent spoke the second time Why didn’t Eve “FALL” when she sinned by lieing? Why did your “Fall” of man had to wait for another sin – an additional sin
When angels sinned (Catholic) in the universe, God banished the sinning angels to earth.
D : "Sin is between God and man – the only creature that has the ability to choose R yes this is your only contraversy, God and man. My controversy – is nt a mystery – it is a public Contest that we each walk alone
Yet torah says angels also sinned, but you ignore these verses: Why is this so important to you – does it affect your walk with God The First Archon sinned with his first though was of self – agreed For his arrogance – he and his was ejected from the heavens into physical creation Agreed
And now they form the ‘satan’s seed’ of Gen 3:15 and the Contest God established
And all this happened by the will of the father so the sum of all chaos may come about God’s Plan – God’s Will – at His direction – by His design Agreed
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 24, 2020 12:28:53 GMT -5
D: "Sin – is the choice to ignore God R if GOD is ONE, than GOD cannot sin, even if He wanted to. I Agree – anything God does is done in the name of God and it is not a sin
Isa 45:7 (KJV) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
You often claim - that if I say God created ra then that would make God a sinner
I say – anything God does is done in the name of God and it is not a sin
Because my God is absolute
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2020 12:49:56 GMT -5
Dave , look up U tube video by Trey Smith
try this one? m.facebook.com/watch/?v=400574631131941&_rdr about donald trump, the ancient Hebrew Resh, He says look like Trump? Hmm? And the counterfeit Shin, the crown, coronavirus thing, take away out crown.
Really good video.
Shalom
------------------------------------
D: "OK – if you accept the trinity Explain how Christ the man can pray to God the Father –if your God is also Christ Explain what God incarnate means to you Both of these issues were stumbling blocks for you in the past
R How could you explain this when the Father and Son are just expressions of the same Person. There would be no need for communion, for praying of Jesus to the Father would there? Since you have One divine person, you also have one congitive mind. Why would one mind pray to itself?
For me, Jesus is supporting His Father, hence this means the power flow from Jesus flows from the Father, this explains why Jesus as to pray. Thus in my theory are two cognitive minds. Jesus entire walking, talking, doing and speaking were the Fathers powers flowing through Jesus. His own divinity was not allowed to be used. You will say why not? Because to do so why be like man using his own powers, rather than allowing divine powers to flow through humanity. It would be missing God's flow, and hence a sin.
D: "Explain what God incarnate means to you R Isn't this a mystery? How divinity took up humanity, in order to be our sin-bearer for sin-offering.
My feeling is we will study salvation throughout eternity... so many levels we don't know.
D: "OK – if you accept the trinity Explain why you insist that the HS is not God
R The Shadday (also expressed as a Medium 'HS') is a member of elohiym, just as the Father and Son are.
D: "There is only one God – not a family of three different individuals
R OK, what about this idea:
There is only one God – a family of three identical quantum powers, that express themselves as different expressions of love.
Question: How can quantum powers be functionally with different properties? The proton, neutron and electron are all quantum powers. But their functional descriptors are different.
Is this not true? Can it also be true for love? The same stuff of love can have different functional properties?
D: "If angels are not spirits – what are they R I can accept that Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (KJV)
D: "Read the text – show me the serpents lie God said if you enter death – you will surely die in the future And this is absolutely correct if you are non-repentant sinner The Serpent said – not And if you enter death in Christ – you will not surely die in the future
Which one of these statements is a lie?
R Hmm? Most religions believe in the immortality of the soul. Since the serpent said thou not die.
And most believe when we die we are living in heaven, or purgatory? Since the serpent said thou not die
It's the greatest deceptions of all time. Sure its a sin. Even you believe in both of these delusions, whereas I don't, nor does milions of SDA people.
D: "Who was the first to lie – Eve was Is a it a sin to lie about what God said? – of course it is Eve sinned before the serpent spoke the second time Why didn’t Eve “FALL” when she sinned by lieing? Why did your “Fall” of man had to wait for another sin – an additional sin
R Hmm? interesting ideas Dave Not all "sins" are sins unto death. See 1 John.
Eating the fruit was the sin that GOD imposed upon man, not the entire law of the ten commandments. God kept missing Him really simple, just one rule.
I think GOD covers much missing, such as Eve making stories up.
The transgression of law was one test, eating the fruit from one tree. Adam was prince of earth, so He had to fall to make His kingdom fall. When Adam fell the princely crown went from Adam to Satan, a change in rulership. Something you do not acknowledge. See Romans 5
D: "If angels are not spirits – what are they R Yes OK, I can accept this idea Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (KJV)
R: "Yet torah says angels also sinned, but you ignore these verses: D Why is this so important to you – does it affect your walk with God R it is important to understand who is the Father of Lies. But you claim the Father of lies never lied to Eve and it was Eve herself who chose to sin. Either we follow Jesus words, or your Gnostic writings? I stick to torah, the same serpent that spoke to Jews in Jesus times, is still the Father of Lies.
The best lie, Dave is a truth, not properly presented. Better still have a Christian Church that claims to follow torah but doesn't.
Is the Scapegoat important too Jews on the day of Atonement? What did this goat represent? The Father of lies.
God cannot be a Father of lies, some other sinning being is. The first angel who sinned is termed the Father of Lies, by Jesus Himself.
---------------------
D I say – anything God does is done in the name of God and it is not a sin
Because my God is absolute R I see. If God cannot sin, why did God die for sinners? Why even have a sin problem?
SO God makes absolute laws, and is free to transgress them? Murder, wound, lie and cheat? In OT days a kings law could never be changed, in Daniel's day.
A king was to live by his own laws. It is the laws of moral behaviour that is absolute, and GOD obeys His own laws.
But you say royal torah does not apply to God, only to man?
I see the royal torah as directives about love.
Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
It does not say Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other "el's" before me. but Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other elohiym's before me.
Why is that important? Because "el" is a single strong authority. And elohiym is many strong authorities.
Hw do I know elohiym refers to many strong aauthorities?
All the verses of context tell you this, especially the 3 Gordon does not like from the thousands of context there are, Gordon allows the majority too over rule the few sentences of context he doesn't like.
Take the context of judges for instance.
Ex 21:6 Then his master <'adown> shall bring <nagash> him unto the judges <'elohiym>; Ex 21:22 and he shall pay <nathan> as the judges <paliyl> determine.
Notice a different word for the individual judge from the word meaning judges (elohiym)
Nu 25:5 And Moses <Mosheh> said <'amar> unto the judges <shaphat> of Israel
A different functional term also meaning to judge
How does elohiym fit with paliyl and also with shaphat? Jeff Benner does a excellent job, saying elohiym means "powers". I would say the term refers to "family-powers", I have not seen a context where this added meaning does not apply.
Ex 20:12 ¶ Honour <kabad> thy father <'ab> and thy mother <'em>: that thy days <yowm> may be long <'arak> upon the land <'adamah> which the LORD <Y@hovah> thy God <'elohiym> giveth <nathan> thee.
Even here elohiym is pictured as family, as humans are also family.
Throughout the royal law, the term "el" is used only once. Why is that?
Ge 14:18 of the most high God <'el>. The Father is a "el", the Most High El.
Ge 17:1 , I am the Almighty <Shadday> God <'el>; The HS is also referenced as "el shadday".
Ex 20:5 YHWH <'elohiym> am a jealous <qanna'> God <'el>,, why reference YHWH, within elohiym as an el?
Nu 23:19 God <'el> is not a man <'iysh 21 .. the LORD <Y@hovah> his God <'elohiym> is with him, 22 God <'el> brought them out <yatsa'> of Egypt <Mitsrayim>;
Why do these verses say el brought Israel out of egypt? not elohiym? and yet el is a part of elohiym.
How many el's are there in the divine elohiym? three el's. How many divine elohiym's? One
Jos 3:10 And Joshua <Yashuah`> said <'amar>, Hereby ye shall know <yada`> that the living <chay> God <'el> is among <qereb> you,
Yashuah-Jesus is one divine el.
Why does Job speak of el much and elohiym so little? And three el's are mentioned "el shadday", "eloah" and "YHWH-el"
Ps 5:4 For thou art not a God <'el> that hath pleasure <chaphets> in wickedness <resha`>: neither shall evil <ra`> dwell <guwr> with thee.
El does not do ra
Ps 22:1 My God <'el>, my God <'el>, why hast thou forsaken <`azab> me? Yashuah is being forsaken by His divine parents, the two el's.
Ps 22:10 I was cast <shalak> upon thee from the womb <rechem>: thou art my God <'el> from my mother's <'em> belly <beten>.
Jesus was raised by a divine el functioning as a mother with a compassion-centre, simile of mother's womb.
How does el fit with elohiym?
It fits with my definition: el + el + el = elohiym.
This applies to both pagan systems and the Godhead in heaven.
The term el does not always mean god, it also refers to strong authorities, such as mountains, trees and mighty men.
Shalom
|
|