- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,02:04) Frank4YAHWEH Micah,5;2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity. LXX version
sins you know this ,can you answer this ;art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; why only a few in number ?
Pierre
Pierre,Sins I know what?
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,04:33) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,11:04) Hey Gene, How does one edit their post here when they make an error in their post. I see no option on my end for editing my posts?
make a request for edit rights- to T8 in a PM message
Well, I would request that ALL have a right to edit their posts!
Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 17 2011,16:55) Hi Frank, I'm interested in your opinions as they relate to our views of the Sacred texts.
Here we have a two way conversation, your web-site does not answer questions.
You won't mind if I ask you questions as long as I don't harass you afterwords; right?God bless
Ed J
Hi Frank,No answer?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Nov. 19 2011,05:06) Quote (Ed J @ Nov. 17 2011,16:55) Hi Frank, I'm interested in your opinions as they relate to our views of the Sacred texts.
Here we have a two way conversation, your web-site does not answer questions.
You won't mind if I ask you questions as long as I don't harass you afterwords; right?God bless
Ed J
Hi Frank,No answer?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,This is the best that I can do for you:
Hi Frank,
I'm only interested in hearing some of your opinions, not on your views from A to Z.
Will just have to wait (for clarification purposes) until I have a question; OK, Frank?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Nov. 19 2011,05:55) Hi Frank, I'm only interested in hearing some of your opinions, not on your views from A to Z.
Will just have to wait (for clarification purposes) until I have a question; OK, Frank?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,Whatever!
Okay! I'll do you one better!
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,05:29) Ed J, This is the best that I can do for you:
Hi Frank,I noticed you have a link to my web site at this link. …your the best!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,00:57) ONE CANNOT HAVE 2 POINTS OF ORIGIN. .”. The word for ‘origin’ is also used in Matthew 1:1. There, too, it refers to Jesus’ ancestry as being human – his origin because of his line of descent through David to Abraham. Yet logically Jesus only comes into actual existence at the end of that line –his conception.
Hi Frank.I will read your post properly a little later today, but just thought I would interject something regarding what I have quoted.
We understand that Jesus came as a man and that he must have an ancestry as a result. This is not disputed, but thanks for clarifying what you believe regarding 'ancient times'.
But we also understand that before the Word became flesh, the Word was with God, and we also know in agreement to this, that Jesus existed in the form of God, emptied himself and came as a man. He humbled himself and came in a form a little lower than the angels. He then returned to the glory that he had with the Father before the world began.
My last paragraph cannot be disputed as I am almost quoting scripture and if I quoted it outright the message would be the same.
In addition to all that, we have references to a mysterious messenger who spoke for YHWH before Christ came to Earth. Whatever became of him as he was never mentioned again, when Jesus was here.
This particular messenger also fits the description of one whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
e.g., high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
And what does Paul say of Christ?
“he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”.Quote (t8 @ Nov. 19 2011,07:38) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,00:57) ONE CANNOT HAVE 2 POINTS OF ORIGIN. .”. The word for ‘origin’ is also used in Matthew 1:1. There, too, it refers to Jesus’ ancestry as being human – his origin because of his line of descent through David to Abraham. Yet logically Jesus only comes into actual existence at the end of that line –his conception.
Hi Frank.I will read your post properly a little later today, but just thought I would interject something regarding what I have quoted.
We understand that Jesus came as a man and that he must have an ancestry as a result. This is not disputed, but thanks for clarifying what you believe regarding 'ancient times'.
But we also understand that before the Word became flesh, the Word was with God, and we also know in agreement to this, that Jesus existed in the form of God, emptied himself and came as a man. He humbled himself and came in a form a little lower than the angels. He then returned to the glory that he had with the Father before the world began.
My last paragraph cannot be disputed as I am almost quoting scripture and if I quoted it outright the message would be the same.
In addition to all that, we have references to a mysterious messenger who spoke for YHWH before Christ came to Earth. Whatever became of him as he was never mentioned again, when Jesus was here.
This particular messenger also fits the description of one whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.
e.g., high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.
And what does Paul say of Christ?
“he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”.
t8,I do not believe that Father Yahweh's word was a separate being apart from Himself as His son, a god, or an angel in the beginning. I believe that Father Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN or REVEALED) in the flesh THROUGH (BY WAY OF) His son Yahshua. I believe that Father Yahweh's son Yahshua is the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh word in his last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear. As this passage also makes clear, the prophets of old were the spokesmen of Father Yahweh's word before Yahshua came into existence (or was born) in this last time period. Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”.
Hi Frank,
Since you have chosen to copy some other man's work instead of addressing my question yourself, I will assume that you agree with the man you quoted. Is that a fair assumption on my part?
If so, maybe you YOURSELF could answer some follow-up questions about the things Ray Faircloth stated…………because he is obviously not here to defend the things he said, right?
Quote (Ray Faircloth @ Nov. 18 2011,07:57) Firstly it must be noted that we see that a similar phrase is used to point back, not beyond the world's creation, but only as far as the Hebrew forefathers in: Micah 7:20
“the loving-kindness given to Abraham, which you swore to our forefathers from days of long ago”
Also, Amos 9:11
“In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen…I shall build it up as in the days of long ago.”
And in Psalm 90:2, Moses uses a similar phrase to convey how long Jehovah has been around. Most translators render it as “from everlasting”, although the words really mean “from ancient times” – just like in Micah 5:2. But here's the problem: If the phrase used of Jesus in 5:2 cannot possibly refer to “beyond the world's creation”, then the same phrase used in Psalm 90:2 cannot mean that Jehovah existed from “beyond the world's creation” either.And since we all know that Jehovah is the One who created the world, and therefore had to have existed before it, Ray's first claim has been SCRIPTURALLY debunked, right?
Frank, I hope you will acknowledge the point I just made before I address the rest of Ray's claims.
Do you acknowledge that the phrase could and sometimes in scripture DOES refer to “beyond the world's creation”? Or do you believe that even Jehovah didn't exist from “beyond the world's creation”?
peace,
mikeQuote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,08:37) I do not believe that Father Yahweh's word was a separate being apart from Himself as His son, a god, or an angel in the beginning. I believe that Father Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN or REVEALED) in the flesh THROUGH (BY WAY OF) His son Yahshua. I believe that Father Yahweh's son Yahshua is the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh word in his last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear. As this passage also makes clear, the prophets of old were the spokesmen of Father Yahweh's word before Yahshua came into existence (or was born) in this last time period. Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”.
Frank…………..I see it that way also Brother.peace and love to you and yours……………………………….gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 19 2011,08:42) Hi Frank, Since you have chosen to copy some other man's work instead of addressing my question yourself, I will assume that you agree with the man you quoted. Is that a fair assumption on my part?
If so, maybe you YOURSELF could answer some follow-up questions about the things Ray Faircloth stated…………because he is obviously not here to defend the things he said, right?
Quote (Ray Faircloth @ Nov. 18 2011,07:57) Firstly it must be noted that we see that a similar phrase is used to point back, not beyond the world's creation, but only as far as the Hebrew forefathers in: Micah 7:20
“the loving-kindness given to Abraham, which you swore to our forefathers from days of long ago”
Also, Amos 9:11
“In that day I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen…I shall build it up as in the days of long ago.”
And in Psalm 90:2, Moses uses a similar phrase to convey how long Jehovah has been around. Most translators render it as “from everlasting”, although the words really mean “from ancient times” – just like in Micah 5:2. But here's the problem: If the phrase used of Jesus in 5:2 cannot possibly refer to “beyond the world's creation”, then the same phrase used in Psalm 90:2 cannot mean that Jehovah existed from “beyond the world's creation” either.And since we all know that Jehovah is the One who created the world, and therefore had to have existed before it, Ray's first claim has been SCRIPTURALLY debunked, right?
Frank, I hope you will acknowledge the point I just made before I address the rest of Ray's claims.
Do you acknowledge that the phrase could and sometimes in scripture DOES refer to “beyond the world's creation”? Or do you believe that even Jehovah didn't exist from “beyond the world's creation”?
peace,
mike
Mike,Have you not yet realized and accepted that I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being and that I have no desire whatsoever to enter into an argument, discussion, or debate with you on what it is that I believe? Do you not also realize that I will never believe as you do? I believe that I have been quite clear on this from the very beginning and still you persist in confronting me about what it is that I believe. Will you ever get this through your thick head? As I stated in my previous post to t8:
I do not believe that Father Yahweh's word was a separate being apart from Himself as His son, a god, or an angel in the beginning. I believe that Father Yahweh's word was manifest (MADE KNOWN or REVEALED) in the flesh THROUGH (BY WAY OF) His son Yahshua. I believe that Father Yahweh's son Yahshua is the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh's word in his last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear. As this passage also makes clear, the prophets of old were the spokesmen of Father Yahweh's word before Yahshua came into existence (or was born) in this last time period. Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”.
frank Gene
Quote Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”. this is wrong it can not be OF ALL CREATION in your view it is ;IN ALL FUTURE CREATION not past
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,09:18) frank Gene Quote Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”. this is wrong it can not be OF ALL CREATION in your view it is ;IN ALL FUTURE CREATION not past
Pierre
Pierre,No, this is right and it is not my view “IN ALL FUTURE CREATION” as you have erroneously stated! Following is an excerpt from Voy Wilks' study entitled: “YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST? that I have on my web page at: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html . If you are truly interested in what it is that we believe on this matter of Yahshua pre-existing his birth, I would suggest that you please go there and read the entire study article for a better understanding:
The Word “By”
Yahweh created the world “by” (through) the Son (Heb. 1:2 KJV). The Diaglott says Yahweh created the world “on account of” the Son. Any one of the three (“by,” “through,” or “on account of”) is, technically, a correct translation of the Greek word Di' or Dia. Dia is in the KJV translated several ways, but usually is translated as follows:
By – 243 times; through – 100 times; for – 106 times; because – 24 times; because of – 29 times; for the sake of – 32 times; etc.
The King's Men did not translate the WORD di' incorrectly in Heb. 1:2. By or through is a correct translation of the WORD, but ONLY IF THE MESSAGE in the sentence agrees, or allows it. But alas, in this case the message of the sentence will not allow this translation.
Reason #1. Heb 1:2a reveals Yahshua to be the heir of what was created.
Reason #2. More than 100 Scriptures show it was Yahweh (not Yahshua) who created the heavens and the earth. Heb. 1:2 must agree with the 100 other Scriptures. For a list of these see our paper, “Who Is the Creator?”
For these reasons, the sentence in Heb. 1:2b must have
originally read like the Diaglott reads today, Yahweh “… in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; …”Another acceptable translation would be, “… a Son, FOR whom he created the world.”
Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as “for,” “because of,” “therefore” (meaning “for this reason”). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), ask for our paper, “Hebrews 1:2 – Berry.”
This is not to say the the King's Men purposely mistranslated, nor is this to say they were dishonest. Not at all. On the contrary, they no doubt delivered what they believed to be the correct translation of Heb. 1:2. We must realize, however, that all of the King's Men believed the doctrine of the Trinity (one is three, and three are one). Believing this, they saw no contradiction between this Scripture (as they translated it) and the 100 Scriptures which show that Yahweh the Father is truly and personally the Creator of the heaven and earth.
There are at least two other Scriptures in which di' should have been translated for, or on account of. These are Col. 1:16-17 and John 1:10. Let us review these Scriptures, then return to our study in the book of Hebrews.
Colossians 1:16,17
“For by him [Yahshua] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, … all things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16,17 KJV).
Just as in Heb. 1:2, di' can be translated for, and on account of, as well as by or through. As indicated above, either way is technically correct for this WORD. However, the MESSAGE in this text must decide which is the proper translation. The same is true of the Greek word en (= the English in).
Since Yahweh is the Creator (Heb. 3:4; Ex. 20:11; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:7; Lk. 20:14), and Yahshua is the heir, then Col. 1:16,17 SHOULD TELL THE SAME STORY. Dozens of Scriptures in both Testaments tell us plainly that Yahweh is the Creator, and there is no other El but but him. He alone is the only true El, Eloah, Elohim, and Creator.
Yahshua and the New Testament writers proved everything by Old Testament Scriptures, therefore New Testament Scriptures should (and originally did) agree with Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are based on the older ones. This being true, it seems that a more exact reading of Col. 1:16,17, and one which is agreeable to the Greek text, is as follows:
“For in [en = in, to, unto, as well as by] him were all things created, that are in [en] heaven, and that are on earth, … all things were created on account of [di'] him and for him.”
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,16:55) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,09:18) frank Gene Quote Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”. this is wrong it can not be OF ALL CREATION in your view it is ;IN ALL FUTURE CREATION not past
Pierre
Pierre,No, this is right and it is not my view “IN ALL FUTURE CREATION” as you have erroneously stated! Following is an excerpt from Voy Wilks' study entitled: “YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST? that I have on my web page at: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html . If you are truly interested in what it is that we believe on this matter of Yahshua pre-existing his birth, I would suggest that you please go there and read the entire study article for a better understanding:
The Word “By”
Yahweh created the world “by” (through) the Son (Heb. 1:2 KJV). The Diaglott says Yahweh created the world “on account of” the Son. Any one of the three (“by,” “through,” or “on account of”) is, technically, a correct translation of the Greek word Di' or Dia. Dia is in the KJV translated several ways, but usually is translated as follows:
By – 243 times; through – 100 times; for – 106 times; because – 24 times; because of – 29 times; for the sake of – 32 times; etc.
The King's Men did not translate the WORD di' incorrectly in Heb. 1:2. By or through is a correct translation of the WORD, but ONLY IF THE MESSAGE in the sentence agrees, or allows it. But alas, in this case the message of the sentence will not allow this translation.
Reason #1. Heb 1:2a reveals Yahshua to be the heir of what was created.
Reason #2. More than 100 Scriptures show it was Yahweh (not Yahshua) who created the heavens and the earth. Heb. 1:2 must agree with the 100 other Scriptures. For a list of these see our paper, “Who Is the Creator?”
For these reasons, the sentence in Heb. 1:2b must have
originally read like the Diaglott reads today, Yahweh “… in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; …”Another acceptable translation would be, “… a Son, FOR whom he created the world.”
Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as “for,” “because of,” “therefore” (meaning “for this reason”). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), ask for our paper, “Hebrews 1:2 – Berry.”
This is not to say the the King's Men purposely mistranslated, nor is this to say they were dishonest. Not at all. On the contrary, they no doubt delivered what they believed to be the correct translation of Heb. 1:2. We must realize, however, that all of the King's Men believed the doctrine of the Trinity (one is three, and three are one). Believing this, they saw no contradiction between this Scripture (as they translated it) and the 100 Scriptures which show that Yahweh the Father is truly and personally the Creator of the heaven and earth.
There are at least two other Scriptures in which di' should have been translated for, or on account of. These are Col. 1:16-17 and John 1:10. Let us review these Scriptures, then return to our study in the book of Hebrews.
Colossians 1:16,17
“For by him [Yahshua] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, … all things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16,17 KJV).
Just as in Heb. 1:2, di' can be translated for, and on account of, as well as by or through. As indicated above, either way is technically correct for this WORD. However, the MESSAGE in this text must decide which is the proper translation. The same is true of the Greek word en (= the English in).
Since Yahweh is the Creator (Heb. 3:4; Ex. 20:11; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:7; Lk. 20:14), and Yahshua is the heir, then Col. 1:16,17 SHOULD TELL THE SAME STORY. Dozens of Scriptures in both Testaments tell us plainly that Yahweh is the Creator, and there is no other El but but him. He alone is the only true El, Eloah, Elohim, and Creator.
Yahshua and the New Testament writers proved everything by Old Testament Scriptures, therefore New Testament Scriptures should (and originally did) agree with Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are based on the older ones. This being true, it seems that a more exact reading of Col. 1:16,17, and one which is agreeable to the Greek text, is as follows:
“For in [en = in, to, unto, as well as by] him were all things created, that are in [en] heaven, and that are on earth, … all things were created on account of [di'] him and for him.”
frankI went and see ,this is not a serious site ,it is full of garbage excuse my language ,I expect to see the book but everything but that book I saw ,
if the book is like your site ?this does not look like a trusted site ,sorry men
I will stick with the way scriptures are written
it seems to me you are explaining the car mechanics to one person and by the time you finished the person knows less that he knew before you started your explanation.so you leave only confusion.
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,11:05) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 19 2011,16:55) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,09:18) frank Gene Quote Yahshua later died and was raised from the dead by his and our Father Yahweh and became “the firstborn of all creation”. this is wrong it can not be OF ALL CREATION in your view it is ;IN ALL FUTURE CREATION not past
Pierre
Pierre,No, this is right and it is not my view “IN ALL FUTURE CREATION” as you have erroneously stated! Following is an excerpt from Voy Wilks' study entitled: “YAHSHUA: DID HE PRE-EXIST? that I have on my web page at: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/ByAndThrough.html . If you are truly interested in what it is that we believe on this matter of Yahshua pre-existing his birth, I would suggest that you please go there and read the entire study article for a better understanding:
The Word “By”
Yahweh created the world “by” (through) the Son (Heb. 1:2 KJV). The Diaglott says Yahweh created the world “on account of” the Son. Any one of the three (“by,” “through,” or “on account of”) is, technically, a correct translation of the Greek word Di' or Dia. Dia is in the KJV translated several ways, but usually is translated as follows:
By – 243 times; through – 100 times; for – 106 times; because – 24 times; because of – 29 times; for the sake of – 32 times; etc.
The King's Men did not translate the WORD di' incorrectly in Heb. 1:2. By or through is a correct translation of the WORD, but ONLY IF THE MESSAGE in the sentence agrees, or allows it. But alas, in this case the message of the sentence will not allow this translation.
Reason #1. Heb 1:2a reveals Yahshua to be the heir of what was created.
Reason #2. More than 100 Scriptures show it was Yahweh (not Yahshua) who created the heavens and the earth. Heb. 1:2 must agree with the 100 other Scriptures. For a list of these see our paper, “Who Is the Creator?”
For these reasons, the sentence in Heb. 1:2b must have
originally read like the Diaglott reads today, Yahweh “… in the last of these days spoke to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, ON ACCOUNT OF whom also he constituted the ages; …”Another acceptable translation would be, “… a Son, FOR whom he created the world.”
Many times the King James Version as well as more modern versions translate dia as “for,” “because of,” “therefore” (meaning “for this reason”). For a more detailed layout of the word di' (dia), ask for our paper, “Hebrews 1:2 – Berry.”
This is not to say the the King's Men purposely mistranslated, nor is this to say they were dishonest. Not at all. On the contrary, they no doubt delivered what they believed to be the correct translation of Heb. 1:2. We must realize, however, that all of the King's Men believed the doctrine of the Trinity (one is three, and three are one). Believing this, they saw no contradiction between this Scripture (as they translated it) and the 100 Scriptures which show that Yahweh the Father is truly and personally the Creator of the heaven and earth.
There are at least two other Scriptures in which di' should have been translated for, or on account of. These are Col. 1:16-17 and John 1:10. Let us review these Scriptures, then return to our study in the book of Hebrews.
Colossians 1:16,17
“For by him [Yahshua] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, … all things were created by him and for him” (Col. 1:16,17 KJV).
Just as in Heb. 1:2, di' can be translated for, and on account of, as well as by or through. As indicated above, either way is technically correct for this WORD. However, the MESSAGE in this text must decide which is the proper translation. The same is true of the Greek word en (= the English in).
Since Yahweh is the Creator (Heb. 3:4; Ex. 20:11; Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:7; Lk. 20:14), and Yahshua is the heir, then Col. 1:16,17 SHOULD TELL THE SAME STORY. Dozens of Scriptures in both Testaments tell us plainly that Yahweh is the Creator, and there is no other El but but him. He alone is the only true El, Eloah, Elohim, and Creator.
Yahshua and the New Testament writers proved everything by Old Testament Scriptures, therefore New Testament Scriptures should (and originally did) agree with Old Testament Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures are based on the older ones. This being true, it seems that a more exact reading of Col. 1:16,17, and one which is agreeable to the Greek text, is as follows:
“For in [en = in, to, unto, as well as by] him were all things created, that are in [en] heaven, and that are on earth, … all things were created on account of [di'] him and for him.”
frankI went and see ,this is not a serious site ,it is full of garbage excuse my language ,I expect to see the book but everything but that book I saw ,
if the book is like your site ?this does not look like a trusted site ,sorry men
I will stick with the way scriptures are written
it seems to me you are explaining the car mechanics to one person and by the time you finished the person knows less that he knew before you started your explanation.so you leave only confusion.
Pierre
Pierre,I never mentioned anything about a “book” on my web page for you to see there!. It seems that you have little comprehension and that you can not see very well, since the study article (not a “book”) is still there in it's completeness. In fact, it is one of two articles there that is not linked to another web page. Of course you would think it is not serious, garbage and not to be trusted, since you do not believe as we do. I believe if you were really serious about reading the article (not a “book”) that you would have seen it! I believe that the doctrine that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being to be garbage and I certainly do not excuse my language in saying so, since nowhere in Scripture is it written that he did.
If you seriously want to try again to find it, simply click on the very first hyperlinked text below.
frank
Quote Pierre, I never mentioned anything about a “book” on my web page for you to see there!. It seems that you have little comprehension and that you can not see very well, since the study article (not a “book”) is still there in it's completeness. In fact, it is one of two articles there that is not linked to another web page. Of course you would think it is not serious, garbage and not to be trusted, since you do not believe as we do. I believe if you were really serious about reading the article (not a “book”) that you would have seen it! I believe that the doctrine that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being to be garbage and I certainly do not excuse my language in saying so, since nowhere in Scripture is it written that he did.
If you seriously want to try again to find it, simply click on the very first hyperlinked text below.
now if i have to following the opinions of some guy to explain me what I can read in scriptures this is suspicious to me ,
i have seen that you are a men that is prepared to argue his views but it as to be on is own therm and Yard ,this is also suspicious to me ,
truth can not be changed and if you do it is seen quickly ,this is the way I like it ,because there are hungry wolves out there .even if they look like sheep,
If your understanding and scripture knowledge is so restrain that you have to inviting me to your site it mean that you are not totally true ,because truth can be defended any were any time this is the way of God and Christ and all the true disciples,
THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU DO JUST THAT
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 19 2011,12:02) frank Quote Pierre, I never mentioned anything about a “book” on my web page for you to see there!. It seems that you have little comprehension and that you can not see very well, since the study article (not a “book”) is still there in it's completeness. In fact, it is one of two articles there that is not linked to another web page. Of course you would think it is not serious, garbage and not to be trusted, since you do not believe as we do. I believe if you were really serious about reading the article (not a “book”) that you would have seen it! I believe that the doctrine that Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being to be garbage and I certainly do not excuse my language in saying so, since nowhere in Scripture is it written that he did.
If you seriously want to try again to find it, simply click on the very first hyperlinked text below.
now if i have to following the opinions of some guy to explain me what I can read in scriptures this is suspicious to me ,
i have seen that you are a men that is prepared to argue his views but it as to be on is own therm and Yard ,this is also suspicious to me ,
truth can not be changed and if you do it is seen quickly ,this is the way I like it ,because there are hungry wolves out there .even if they look like sheep,
If your understanding and scripture knowledge is so restrain that you have to inviting me to your site it mean that you are not totally true ,because truth can be defended any were any time this is the way of God and Christ and all the true disciples,
THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU DO JUST THAT
Pierre
Pierre,I see that you can not communicate in the English language very well anyway, so you would be hard-pressed in understanding anyway.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Nov. 18 2011,16:14) Mike, Have you not yet realized and accepted that I do not believe Yahshua pre-existed his birth as an actual being and that I have no desire whatsoever to enter into an argument, discussion, or debate with you on what it is that I believe? Do you not also realize that I will never believe as you do? I believe that I have been quite clear on this from the very beginning and still you persist in confronting me about what it is that I believe. Will you ever get this through your thick head?
Have any others of you noticed Frank's pattern yet? If you ask him about a pre-existent scripture, he is happy to DISCUSS that scripture with you – once in a while in his own words, but more frequently in the words of someone else that he copied.But when one of us scripturally debunks those first words, Frank says “I don't want to discuss it” and starts slinging insults.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
