Answering jodi lee&#39;s nonsense

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 01 2010,03:11)

Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2010,05:16)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 30 2010,16:34)

Quote (Ed J @ April 29 2010,03:27)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 29 2010,02:47)

Yes Everyone

Make sure that you only listen to EDj for he is the only one around here that has the truth. Don't forget Edj claims that he is personally written about in the scriptures!

His accusations line up with satan who is the accuser of the brethren.

Hi WJ,

What accusations?

Quote (Ed J @ April 28 2010,06:04)

“The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem
controversial to some religiously bound people(Like WJ and LightenUp).

Hi WJ,

Ezekiel 3:27 But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith ;
He that heareth, let him hear (Zech.3:9 / Psalm 118:24); and he that forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house.

The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.

Gal:4:9: But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements(2Peter 3:10), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Rom.8:21: Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Pitiful! Are you and JA related? Must be the same spirit of condemnation!

Hi WJ,

As a matter of fact JAH ([יה] YÄ) is my Father! (Matt.23:9)
Psalm 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him
that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

I condemn No one!
2Tm.3:1-5 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves(Rom.1:21-25), covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection,
trucebreakers, false accusers(Rom.8:1), incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors(Second Post from bottom), heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness(Second Post from top), but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

April 30, 2010 at 8:18 pm#196911

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2010,15:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,04:02)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 30 2010,03:11)

Hi LU,
An arm is a person?
So the arm was never connected to God??

Nick,
Is your son connected to you in anyway? Same name? Same nature? One can be connected with another without having to be attached at the shoulder.

Hi LU,
No my sons are not connected to me.
They are sons not separated parts of me.
Neither do I lack arms because I have sons.

Nick,
Have you broken off your family ties with your sons?? Have they changed their last name so they are no longer “Hassan's?”
When they left your home as young men did you not miss their help? Are you not stronger when they are there to move furniture in and out of the house or just share their lives with you? Did they help with the chores and now they don't? You may have arms Nick but you have lost the strength of your sons if you break your family ties with them and are no longer connected to them. If you have severed your connection with your sons then reconnect…time is short.

Proverbs 14:4
Where no oxen are, the manger is clean,But much revenue comes by the strength of the ox.

The ox here can refer to someone that is as a right arm to you. When he is with you, you will realize his strength but when he is gone his strength is missing.

God the Father has a relationship with His Son as if He was His right arm. It's figurative Nick, figurative…not literal.

It is sad when sons don't feel like they are a part of their dad. The Son of God is a part of His Father for He is in Him and His Father is a part of Him for He is in His Son.

I'll bet that if you think about it, your sons are in you and you are in them. You will have their influence within you for your whole life and they will have your influence within them, if nothing else, for their whole life. The tie that binds…that is what a connection is Nick. That is the connection I was talking about…not a physical attachment. Get it?

April 30, 2010 at 8:23 pm#196912

NickHassan

Participant

Hi LU,
So any form of unity is good enough for you?
But arms are never separate yet alive.

April 30, 2010 at 8:41 pm#196913

Participant

Nick,
A connection can be physical or figurative. You still are connected to your sons if you have a living and active and meaningful relationship with them. So Nick,
I ask you again, do you have a connection to your sons?

April 30, 2010 at 8:50 pm#196914

NickHassan

Participant

Hi LU,
So God is vaguely somehow connected to His Arm which is another god?

April 30, 2010 at 9:07 pm#196915

Participant

Is your connection to your son vague or strong? Compare it with your neighbor down the street that you barely know. You have a connection with them too but the connection with a son is much stronger. You son is connected to you by the name “Hassan,” by bloodline, by family ties, by spiritual ties maybe, through his children-your grandchildren, by the Hassan nature,i.e. “that's a Hassan for you,” by body type, by looks maybe, by common talents maybe. You and your son do not have a vague connection like the one you might have with a neighbor down the street that you might barely know. You and your son have a strong connection even if he were living far away. Do you see the difference between a vague connection and a strong connection?

God has a very strong connection with His Arm/Son. Your son is another man, God's son is another God who is the root of David. God's Son in Mary is another man as Mary is and is the branch of David. The root became a branch but did not stop being the root. The Son of God is 100% root and 100% branch all at the same time.

May 1, 2010 at 2:54 am#196916

Participant

Quote (karmarie @ April 29 2010,11:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying?

Hi Karmarie,

'i am' (Mark 13:6†Job 40:1-14) is Lucifer's title (Rev.22:16)
“Whensoever freedom of speech is obligatorily impinged, an
unequivocal bias of truth is the net cost of such an enactment.”

Authorized King James Version
Ed J (Daniel 11:18 / Joshua 22:34)
Holy City Bible Code (Rev.21:2-3)

May 1, 2010 at 4:13 am#196918

Participant

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

I am just asking you to have some integrity when you quote someone. I realize that quoting a part of someone's post can be reasonable and without misrepresentation and with integrity to respect that person's freedom of speech. When you change people's exact quotes by eliminating parts of the complete thought, or structure, that can be misleading……

…So, Ed J, I think that I would have been somewhat impressed if you had just admitted to hacking up my list and apologizing rather than the self-righteous approach that you took while slinging derogatory names at me. Humility is always a better way when you can clearly see that someone is ticked off at you for doing something like misrepresenting their quotes when it is easy to prove that you actually did do that.

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

May 1, 2010 at 4:58 am#196919

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,16:13)

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

Hi LU,

I don't see that wording in your previous quote; how then could it have been deleted?

May 1, 2010 at 5:17 am#196920

mikeboll64

Blocked

Hi Kathi,

You said:

Quote

Well, I am not convinced that the oldest manuscripts have 'Jehovah' in 19:18 (that is what you meant, right) what made me reconsider that Lot may be praying is the different word he used in 19:18 for 'Lord' than the one he used for 'lords' in 19:2.

Yes, that is what I meant. Why would anyone make up such a thing? What purpose would that serve to anyone? I tried to find those older manuscripts last night, but gave up; it was late. And the older MSS have “adon” in 19:2. And in 19:18, the word the scribes substitude YHVH with is “adonay”. In this occasion it stands for God, for it was used to replace the tetragrammaton.

You said:

Quote

I am going to suggest something here. Since Lot said to 'them', and the 'them' is plural (I just noticed that in the NET Bible looking at the LXXM) and the 'Lord' is singular, Lot may have only said “No please” to the angels and then addressed the one in heaven beginning with “Lord, your servant has found favor…”

That is plausible, since there is no punctuation in the Hebrew.

You said:

Quote

In Gen 18:3, the Lord is singular which tells me that Abe is talking to one of the three men but then the pronouns become plural a little after that which tells me that Abe is now including all three.

But how did he know which one was “Jehovah the Son”?

Quote

Just reading the conversation between 'Jehovah' and Abe at the end of Gen 18 shows two people that are standing there face to face and one of them says that He is going to destroy the city if their outcry can be verified when He goes down to them. Obviously He went down to them and verified their outcry even though it was not specifically recorded since the angels say this:

Gen 19:13
13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
NASU

Okay, so “Jehovah the Son” said he would destroy the city. Then the two angels said “we are about to destroy this place”. Then it actually became destroyed by Jehovah in heaven. Seems to me they were all speaking for Jehovah, (or rather, He was speaking through them) since He is the one who ultimately destroyed the cities.

NET Notes says:

Quote

Some take the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim) as the divine name (“God”) here, but this seems unlikely since v. 21 informs us that Manoah realized this was the Lord’s messenger, not God himself.

That was my point. Although Manoah realized it wasn't actually God, he called him God. I think because they were from God, the Hebrews would address angels as “God” or “Jehovah”, knowing full well they weren't actually God in person.

You said:

Quote

His wife calmed him down and straightened him out…good, wise wife

Most women got a bad rap in the Scriptures, eh?

You said:

Quote

I don't think that Abe had that understanding that He was talking to Jehovah as in the Son of God Jehovah.

Then who? He thought he was talking to the invisible God Almighty on earth? You seem to think he knew which one of the three was Jehovah.

You said:

Quote

Isaiah knew He was an 'arm' of the Lord and that arm was a person.

Yet he kept this info to himself? All the things he spoke from God to all those different people, but the fact that the strictly monotheistic Hebrews actually had two Gods he kept secret?

You said:

Quote

Whew…a long one!

:laugh: Compared to WJ's “million word march” in our debate, this seemed like one of Nick's posts.

peace and love,
mike

May 1, 2010 at 5:38 am#196921

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,00:58)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,16:13)

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

Hi LU,

I don't see that wording in your previous quote; how then could it have been deleted?

Ed J,
You were responding to something karmarie said which included a quote of mine. You went into that quote of mine and eliminated half of it. That is misleading because she was quoting more than what you made it out to be.

I don't believe I can even eliminate part of my own post, why should YOU be allowed to. We can edit our own post by fixing something we have misspelled, minor mistakes that don't affect the post but clarify the post. I am not even allowed to quote someone that quoted me and then eliminate some of my own quote that they quoted. That is a violation of my editing rights. So, YOU can't edit my posts either…don't you get it?

BTW, I am not lucifer because I use 'I am' in a sentence. By accusing me of being lucifer is also falsely accusing someone and against the rules of this board. If you do that again, I might have to ask t8 to help you understand that also.

I have told t8 about this and maybe he can explain it to you.

May 1, 2010 at 5:53 am#196922

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,17:38)

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,00:58)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,16:13)

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

Hi LU,

I don't see that wording in your previous quote; how then could it have been deleted?

I have told t8 about this and maybe he can explain it to you.

Hi Kathi,

Why would you say (in essence) I think you to be 'Lucifer'; don't you 'think' that's rather childish on your part?
In case I didn't make myself clear to you, if you want me to pretend you don't exist I can oblige you.
But please don't interfere with whom I choose to associate with; nobody made you my judge!

May 1, 2010 at 6:03 am#196923

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,01:17)

Hi Kathi,

You said:

Quote

You said:

Quote

That is plausible, since there is no punctuation in the Hebrew.

You said:

Quote

But how did he know which one was “Jehovah the Son”?

Quote

Gen 19:13
13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
NASU

NET Notes says:

Quote

You said:

Quote

His wife calmed him down and straightened him out…good, wise wife

Most women got a bad rap in the Scriptures, eh?

You said:

Quote

I don't think that Abe had that understanding that He was talking to Jehovah as in the Son of God Jehovah.

Then who? He thought he was talking to the invisible God Almighty on earth? You seem to think he knew which one of the three was Jehovah.

You said:

Quote

Isaiah knew He was an 'arm' of the Lord and that arm was a person.

Yet he kept this info to himself? All the things he spoke from God to all those different people, but the fact that the strictly monotheistic Hebrews actually had two Gods he kept secret?

You said:

Quote

Whew…a long one!

:laugh: Compared to WJ's “million word march” in our debate, this seemed like one of Nick's posts.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,
I am just going to address a small portion of your post at this time because it is late. More will come later.

Quote

LU said:
Quote
Well, I am not convinced that the oldest manuscripts have 'Jehovah' in 19:18 (that is what you meant, right) what made me reconsider that Lot may be praying is the different word he used in 19:18 for 'Lord' than the one he used for 'lords' in 19:2.

Mike said:
Yes, that is what I meant. Why would anyone make up such a thing? What purpose would that serve to anyone? I tried to find those older manuscripts last night, but gave up; it was late. And the older MSS have “adon” in 19:2. And in 19:18, the word the scribes substitude YHVH with is “adonay”. In this occasion it stands for God, for it was used to replace the tetragrammaton.

In Gen 18:3
Gen 18:3
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not a
way, I pray thee, from thy servant:
KJV

The 'Lord' here is strong's 113 'adon' not #136 'adonai' yet you say that the NWT translated #113 as Jehovah in Gen 18:3. Is that right? in Gen 19:2 the #113 was translated as 'lords' in the NWT, is that right?

Do you see the inconsistency?

Pretty soon we will be able to say these two chapters from memory

:;): That is good!

Goodnight!

May 1, 2010 at 6:06 am#196924

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,01:53)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,17:38)

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,00:58)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,16:13)

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

Hi LU,

I don't see that wording in your previous quote; how then could it have been deleted?

I have told t8 about this and maybe he can explain it to you.

Hi Kathi,

Is there a psychiatrist here?

May 1, 2010 at 6:45 am#196925

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,18:03)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 01 2010,01:17)

Hi Kathi,

You said:

Quote

You said:

Quote

That is plausible, since there is no punctuation in the Hebrew.

You said:

Quote

But how did he know which one was “Jehovah the Son”?

Quote

Gen 19:13
13 for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
NASU

NET Notes says:

Quote

You said:

Quote

His wife calmed him down and straightened him out…good, wise wife

Most women got a bad rap in the Scriptures, eh?

You said:

Quote

I don't think that Abe had that understanding that He was talking to Jehovah as in the Son of God Jehovah.

Then who? He thought he was talking to the invisible God Almighty on earth? You seem to think he knew which one of the three was Jehovah.

You said:

Quote

Isaiah knew He was an 'arm' of the Lord and that arm was a person.

Yet he kept this info to himself? All the things he spoke from God to all those different people, but the fact that the strictly monotheistic Hebrews actually had two Gods he kept secret?

You said:

Quote

Whew…a long one!

:laugh: Compared to WJ's “million word march” in our debate, this seemed like one of Nick's posts.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,
I am just going to address a small portion of your post at this time because it is late. More will come later.

Quote

In Gen 18:3
Gen 18:3
3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
KJV

Do you see the inconsistency?

Pretty soon we will be able to say these two chapters from memory

:;): That is good!

Goodnight!

Hi Kathi,

What?

You're right, it's late. I don't know what you are asking. Look back to my post of the NWT with all the “Jehovah's”. You can check which Hebrew word for lord was used in each instance by cross referrencing your translation and an interlinear.

The NWT did not choose which “lord” was inserted. They just translated from one of the older MSS that still had the tetragrammaton in those verses. And in the verses it had lord, they put lord.

goodnight,
mike

May 1, 2010 at 6:48 am#196917

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,18:06)

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,01:53)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,17:38)

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,00:58)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,16:13)

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

Hi LU,

I don't see that wording in your previous quote; how then could it have been deleted?

I have told t8 about this and maybe he can explain it to you.

Hi Kathi,

Is there a psychiatrist here?

Hi Kathi,

We don't need a referee between us; Nick Hassan is the moderator here NOT 'you', Kathi?
If you don't like the way I communicate, I won't communicate with you any more; it's that simple.
If you have trouble understanding this very simple concept, you very well may indeed need a psychiatrist!

May 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm#196926

JustAskin

Participant

Edj,

It seems you have been doing the same to Kathi as you have done to my posts, too!

Can you please be mindful not to do that.

Somewhere down the line, your edited quotes with your additions, will appear as my quote, or Kathi's or whomever you copied and mangled it from.

This is not good, right nor fair.

If you need to quote and make modifications, you need to acknowledge, reference, make vusual note, that an alteration has been made from the original and reference the original (the author and source so others can see where you got it from and what the original text said). You may use elipsis to eliminate parts of the text that are'irrelavant' to the context of the quote but not as a way to piecemeal a completely different context from the original.

May 3, 2010 at 2:50 am#196927

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ May 01 2010,00:58)

Quote (Lightenup @ May 01 2010,16:13)

Quote (karmarie @ April 28 2010,19:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 29 2010,07:14)

Ed I would have to agree with Lu here, (and see how I quoted only part of the post but kept it to the full sentance of what Lu was saying? (And without overquoting)

Calm down Ed, apologise and learn not to do it again.ok?

And here are the two quotes that Ed J just hacked with his delete button…in his last post on this page.

Partial truths=distortion of truth=confusion of mind.

Quoting posts is a lot simpler than going within them and deleting and manipulating parts of them. You just hit the quote button and then enter your two cents. See how that works? :cool:

Hi LU,

I don't see that wording in your previous quote; how then could it have been deleted?