JESUS IS NOT YHWH

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
LA... you know Beamup exalts Christ's work on the cross. You'll have to go another route.

If you claim the Almighty God was united with man in the womb of Mary then you teach Roman Catholic doctrine, which the trinity doctrine is.

You are blinded by church doctrine.

You need to enter the Kingdom of God which is far above your childish church doctrines , learnt from the minds of blind men.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.



LA
 

daqq

Well-known member
Islam is Arian. Your warshield seems more bloody than our warshield.

Say... what do you get when you cross an Arian with a bible Corrector?
Give up... Daqq! It's you!

And... SON of GOD... Immanuel... which still means God With Us... no matter how many times you twist scripture.

Islam? That is just another low blow and an obvious false accusation, so what is new? By the way, Arius won the debate so your heretical harlot mother church deliberately changed the scripture, and that is plain as day, as already shown in one of my threads. "This day I have begotten you" was used by Arius from Matthew and Luke in his arguments. And since ya'll got beaten to a pulp by what was written in the scriptures at that time; you started altering the scripture, killing people, and forcing everyone at the point of a spear to accept your pagan Romanized dogma, (that is, a spear in one hand and a Trinitarian war shield in the other, lol).

Arian Controversy and Council Of Nicea Explains Alterations
It was only post 325 A.D. that the standard texts of Matthew and Luke were revised to omit "today I have begotten thee" from Jesus' baptism by John-the-Baptist. You will not find it any longer in the KJV, ASV, NIV, etc. This was because of the controversy with Arius in 306 A.D. who claimed the 'begotten' passages meant Jesus was not the "Eternal Son of God." However, the Roman Catholic church by 325 A.D. felt it was imperative to assert this about Jesus even though no verse in the NT ever calls Jesus the 'eternal Son of God.' For background, see Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (Zondervan, 1994) at 243.

Hence, words from the original account were let slip in reproductions, to the point we do not any longer see them in our NT. But it never made any sense. To say Jesus was the "Eternal Son" begotten of God, as was developed in the 300s and beyond, was a contradiction in terms. As Adam Clarke, a Methodist, explained in his commentary:

"…it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas" (Adam Clarke Commentary).

Hence, at Jesus's water baptism, God-the-Father gave Jesus a new birth as Son of God (a unique status), declaring from heaven "This day I have begotten thee." This was an example of how baptism would have similar effects on ourselves although obviously we would not become Divine as Jesus uniquely was indwelled by the Father/Word. (John 1:1, 14:10.)

Incidentally, the Talmud post-Christ -- a work of Jewish scribes -- preserved that Jewish scholars pre-Christ always said this would be how God Yahweh would address Messiah:

"Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to
the Messiah, the Son of David (may he reveal himself speedily in our
day), 'Ask of me anything, and I will give it thee,' as it is said, 'I will
tell of the decree,' erc., 'this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I
will give the nations for thy inheritance.''' (Talmud, Sukkah 52)

(quoted in Problems of Bible Translation (1954) at page 145 (PDF link)

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/235-hebrew-matthew-baptismal-account.html
 

marhig

Well-known member
Oh no..... bwahhhhhhhhh !!!! You really can't hear how rediculous you sound.

Mirror image is you!!! It's your reflection. Rotfl... tearsssss
Nope, my reflection isn't me. It's a reflection of me.

Once we are born of God, we are in the image of Christ. Does that make us Christ?

Romans 8

*And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinateto be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
 

beameup

New member
If you claim the Almighty God was united with man in the womb of Mary then you teach Roman Catholic doctrine, which the trinity doctrine is.

LA

No, it's from the New Testament, and confirmed in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (pre-200 AD).
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them, rather than being lazy.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
No, it's from the New Testament, and confirmed in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (pre-200 AD).
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them, rather than being lazy.

Then they were wrong.

There never was born such a creature as a God man, who would not be in the likeness of all men as the atonement required, and one who learnt wisdom of the word, learnt obedience through suffering, was tempted and died.

Your Jesus is the RCC one .

LA
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
I don't have to only believe Daqq,

Daqq and I believe our Lord Jesus himself!

This is Jesus himself speaking!

Life eternal is this to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.(John 17:1-3 KJV)

I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.(John 14:28 KJV)

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30 KJV)

Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.(John 20:17 KJV)

You don't seem to believe those verses? Yet they are Jesus' own words!

The article linking the God and Jesus of the matter is binding as one. Also, God the Son is Going to God the Father.

Lol... When your God... who's your boss? You are. You would be your own boss. Rotfl.... You guys really make this unbelievably difficult. I'm figuring out it doesn't matter. You hate Him so much you can't give Him His due'

When you see your image in the mirror... do you say that's "a" me?

That's a Marhig...


NOoooooooooooOoooo

You say... that's me!
 

beameup

New member
Then they were wrong.

There never was born such a creature as a God man, who would not be in the likeness of all men as the atonement required, and one who learnt wisdom of the word, learnt obedience through suffering, was tempted and died.

Your Jesus is the RCC one .

LA

My Jesus is the New Testament one.
Since you don't believe the testimony of the Apostles or their Disciples,
then what are you doing on this forum? Are you relying on Gnostic writings?
The Talmud? Hindu writings? Buddist transcripts? Urantia books? Scientology?
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Islam? That is just another low blow and an obvious false accusation, so what is new? By the way, Arius won the debate so your heretical harlot mother church deliberately changed the scripture, and that is plain as day, as already shown in one of my threads. "This day I have begotten you" was used by Arius from Matthew and Luke in his arguments. And since ya'll got beaten to a pulp by what was written in the scriptures at that time; you started altering the scripture, killing people, and forcing everyone at the point of a spear to accept your pagan Romanized dogma, (that is, a spear in one hand and a Trinitarian war shield in the other, lol).

You deserve it! Your theology is disgusting and your lies are fermented harlots.

Yup... One sentence... all sincere

Act shocked and play the pious judge and offended child. I'm sick of your worthless bible twisting and I don't care how deceitful or Whiney you get!
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Nope, my reflection isn't me. It's a reflection of me.

Once we are born of God, we are in the image of Christ. Does that make us Christ?

Romans 8

*And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinateto be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

You say you see yourself in the mirror, unless you're from the planet retard, in the galaxy of Whackadoodle!
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Prediction... Arian drones will say how UnChristlike I am... Scripture taken out of Context will get posted. They'll act like the TriUnity is a conspiracy and they're the shining beacons of Revelated TRUTH.

Guess WHAT!!!


JESUS IS YHWH... Arian Suckers!

Jesus is God!

Jesus Is the Almighty!

Deal with it!
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
My Jesus is the New Testament one.
Since you don't believe the testimony of the Apostles or their Disciples,
then what are you doing on this forum? Are you relying on Gnostic writings?
The Talmud? Hindu writings? Buddist transcripts? Urantia books? Scientology?

No Beameup. Worse... they're relying on their faulty logic and flawed understanding. They're leaning on their own understanding and claiming to be unique snowflakes with all the right answers.

But, Beameup... the only thing they got right is that they're flakes.

:e4e:
 

daqq

Well-known member
Islam? That is just another low blow and an obvious false accusation, so what is new? By the way, Arius won the debate so your heretical harlot mother church deliberately changed the scripture, and that is plain as day, as already shown in one of my threads. "This day I have begotten you" was used by Arius from Matthew and Luke in his arguments. And since ya'll got beaten to a pulp by what was written in the scriptures at that time; you started altering the scripture, killing people, and forcing everyone at the point of a spear to accept your pagan Romanized dogma, (that is, a spear in one hand and a Trinitarian war shield in the other, lol).

Arian Controversy and Council Of Nicea Explains Alterations
It was only post 325 A.D. that the standard texts of Matthew and Luke were revised to omit "today I have begotten thee" from Jesus' baptism by John-the-Baptist. You will not find it any longer in the KJV, ASV, NIV, etc. This was because of the controversy with Arius in 306 A.D. who claimed the 'begotten' passages meant Jesus was not the "Eternal Son of God." However, the Roman Catholic church by 325 A.D. felt it was imperative to assert this about Jesus even though no verse in the NT ever calls Jesus the 'eternal Son of God.' For background, see Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine (Zondervan, 1994) at 243.

Hence, words from the original account were let slip in reproductions, to the point we do not any longer see them in our NT. But it never made any sense. To say Jesus was the "Eternal Son" begotten of God, as was developed in the 300s and beyond, was a contradiction in terms. As Adam Clarke, a Methodist, explained in his commentary:

"…it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas" (Adam Clarke Commentary).

Hence, at Jesus's water baptism, God-the-Father gave Jesus a new birth as Son of God (a unique status), declaring from heaven "This day I have begotten thee." This was an example of how baptism would have similar effects on ourselves although obviously we would not become Divine as Jesus uniquely was indwelled by the Father/Word. (John 1:1, 14:10.)

Incidentally, the Talmud post-Christ -- a work of Jewish scribes -- preserved that Jewish scholars pre-Christ always said this would be how God Yahweh would address Messiah:

"Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to
the Messiah, the Son of David (may he reveal himself speedily in our
day), 'Ask of me anything, and I will give it thee,' as it is said, 'I will
tell of the decree,' erc., 'this day have I begotten thee, ask of me and I
will give the nations for thy inheritance.''' (Talmud, Sukkah 52)

(quoted in Problems of Bible Translation (1954) at page 145 (PDF link)

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/235-hebrew-matthew-baptismal-account.html

Additionally "Son of God" was understood as a title for "the son of David" because of the decree recorded in Psalm 2:7, (which full decree still remains in Luke 3:22 Codex Bezae, which is one of the four great uncial codices being the four most important codices to all of Christianity, (Bezae, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus)). The title "Son of God" was even found in one of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, (4Q246), where the title was not used in the sense of Almighty Divinity but more likely in reference to the Messiah. The following video clip speaks of 4Q246.


Jewish Encyclopedia - "Son of God"
Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

Yet the term by no means carries the idea of physical descent from, and essential unity with, God the Father. The Hebrew idiom conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness (see Godliness). In fact, the term "son of God" is rarely used in Jewish literature in the sense of "Messiah." Though in Sukkah 52a the words of Ps. ii. 7, 8 are put into the mouth of Messiah, son of David, he himself is not called "son of God." The more familiar epithet is "King Messiah," based partly on this psalm (Gen. R. xliv.). In the Targum the
V11p461001.jpg
of Ps. lxxx. 16 is rendered
V11p461002.jpg
(= "King Messiah"), while Ps. ii. 7 is paraphrased in a manner that removes the anthropomorphism of the Hebrew: "Thou art beloved unto me, like a son unto a father, pure as on the day when I created thee."
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13912-son-of-god
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Additionally "Son of God" was understood as a title for "the son of David" because of the decree recorded in Psalm 2:7, (which full decree still remains in Luke 3:22 Codex Bezae, which is one of the four great uncial codices being the four most important codices to all of Christianity, (Bezae, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus)). The title "Son of God" was even found in one of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, (4Q246), where the title was not used in the sense of Almighty Divinity but more likely in reference to the Messiah. The following video clip speaks of 4Q246.


Oh my.... look... lies and more lies.

You set out to deceive the unstable.

Isaiah 9:6 sucker. Eph. 2:8f salvation denier

Php. 2:8f, 9f, 11

Daqq is a deceiver! Warning!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top