Here is the error in YOUR logic;
I did, but you are too stupid to understand.
The brothers of Joseph worshiped him as lord.
Genesis 42:6-10 WYC 6 And Joseph was the prince of Egypt, and at his will wheats were sold to [the] peoples. And when his brethren had worshipped him, (And Joseph was the prince, or the ruler, of Egypt, and at his will corn, or grain, was sold to people from all the lands. And so when his brothers had bowed before him,) 7 and he had known them, he spake harder to them, as to aliens, and asked them, From whence came ye? Which answered, From the land of Canaan, that we buy necessaries to our lifelode. (and he knew them, he spoke harshly to them, as to strangers, and asked them, Where did you come from? And they answered, From the land of Canaan, so that we can buy necessities to live.) 8 And nevertheless he knew his brethren, and he was not known of them, (And though he knew his brothers, he was not known by them,) 9 and he bethought on the dreams which he saw sometime. And he said to them, Ye be spyers, ye came to see the feebler things of the land (And he said to them, Ye be spies, and ye came here to spy out our weaknesses). 10 Which said, Lord, it is not so, but thy servants came to buy meats; (And they said, My lord, it is not so, but thy servants have come to buy food; ) |
If you don't know what you are asking, why would you assume I would know?
some? ALL 10...we are done here...the rest is commentary...
those some elements you speak
NO Christian I have met thinks he can worship another god...make idols...blaspheme His name...dishonor his parents...murder...steal...commit adultery...bare false witness...covet
not shown from scripture...false witness has it He changed the customs Moses delivered
NOT TAUGHT NOR DEMONSTRATED
peter not once but twice interpreted his vision NOTHING eating swine...3 of the 4 things required dealt with clean meats remaining CLEAN...you do NOT make swine clean to eat by NOT offering it to an idol...
He NEVER needed a building or place...rather Mercy than sacrifice
He NEVER needed levitical system we did...now again we are what the ORIGINAL PLAN WAS...establishing HIM HIS LAW HIS WAY
Moses changed the original...Yahushua changed it back...DUH
nothing there changed...just the application of that LOVE AS I LOVE YOU LAW...MERCY is learned how?
Moses’ Law demanded both man and woman caught in the act to be tried not just the woman...and proper authorities to investigate and sentence...
even love your neighbor was already in the OT...no changes...is why His people retain a sabbatismos...Heb 4:9
No, the Bible states that God sent His Son, it never says God came as a son.
The idea of an unchangeable god comes from the imagination of the Greek philosophers and has no bearing in reality.
You are incorrect. Those laws "written and engraven in stones" were DONE AWAY.
Wasn't that statement made after the false conclusion that Jesus has to be God because someone worshiped Him?
He was objecting to a false conclusion.
Objection: There is nothing in the Bible that teaches anything about a triune being.
You have never met an Orthodox Christian or a Catholic Christian?
John 12:
| These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. 37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. |
| In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said,Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. 8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying,Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I,Here am I; send me. 9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. |
Yes, he did. And Jehovah is the HIS and HIM in John 12:41, not Jesus. Jesus is "the arm of Jehovah". Jesus is Jehovah's servant;
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, maybe you have heard of him?
| "The Unmoved-Mover" in Aristotle's Metaphysics Book L of the Metaphysics touches upon what Aristotle calls the "Unmoved Mover." In short, this is Aristotle's conceptualization of God which is worthy of our attention both because of the inherent interest of the topic and because of the significant influence this writing has had on subsequent philosophers as well as the theologians of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In Chapter 6, Book L, of the Metaphysics, Aristotle begins a discussion about "substances." One of the substances he describes is that of an "unmoved mover" which, he argues, exists by necessity and is eternal. For something to be eternal, it is neither created nor destroyed, but always has and always will exist. For something to be a substance, it exists by virtue of itself ("kath'auton") in the sense that its existence is not dependent on anything else--it just is. In contrast, Aristotle describes things that have "accidental" existence ("kata symbebekos") whose existence depends and adheres to an underlying subject. So according to Aristotle the Unmoved Mover is a certain kind of "being" or "substance" just as a human being is a kind of "substance". It has certain essential qualities which are not accidental modifications. Unlike human beings or other "substances", the Unmoved Mover has a special unique quality--it is neither "moved" nor changed by any external agency. When Aristotle uses the word "moved", he conceives of more than just physical motion, but a state of being the effect of some cause or being affected by some external agency. One of the distinguishing features of the Unmoved Mover is that there are no substances, or entities, in the universe that are able to cause any modifications upon it--in that sense, it is unmoved and thus internally motivated without exception. It is always the ultimate agent of any activity and never (to use an old fashion grammatical term) a "patient" of something external to it. Now that we have a sense of where Aristotle is coming from when he uses the term "Unmoved Mover", it will be useful to consider why he found it necessary to infer such a being. The first assumption that Aristotle makes is the existence of change. Things are always changing in the universe, which he conceived of as a kind of kaleidiscopic dance of substances and accidents. If we are willing to grant the existence of change, we must necessarily infer the existence of time, since in the context of change, there is a before and after. So then Aristotle is left with the following question: If we observe that there is always change and we observe that there is time, where do change and time come from? Aristotle argues that there must be some substance in the universe which keeps things in motion eternally, and so this substance itself must be eternal to do so. Aristotle continues by arguing that "nothing is moved at random, but there must always be something present to move it" (1071b 33-35). And so if one were to identify all the movements in the universe, one could theoretically trace all those motions to some motivating force. Here, one might visualize a billiard table on which all the balls are forever bouncing back and forth into each other and the walls of the billiard table. These balls must have something independent of them that causes them to remain in motion. And so Aristotle continues, "If, then, there is a constant cycle, something must always remain, acting in the same way." (1072a 9-10). In Chapter 7, Aristotle explicates how this mover keeps things in motion. This mover is something that moves without being moved. Aristotle observes, "The object of desire and the object of thought move in this way; they move without being moved" (1071b 26-27). |
It appears that you are delusional.