Preexistence

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 25 2012,12:07)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 25 2012,11:56) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 25 2012,11:47) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 25 2012,11:16) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 25 2012,11:09) Shalom Frank, Hebrew has no such phraseology as 'i am'; I thought you knew this? B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā) עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34) Ed J, And where is it I have ever said 'Hebrew has a phraseology 'i am.''? Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 25 2012,11:02) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 25 2012,10:47) Hi FRank, Yes men have their theories . But God IS Before anything. Nick, Yes, Father Yahweh most certainly is before anything but, Yahshua referred to himself as “I am” just as anyone else refers to themselves as “I am”. This “I am” that Yahshua spoke was not Father Yahweh [“God”] speaking through His son Yahshua on behalf of Himself as “The Great I Am” as I believe you are proposing, but was Yahshua simply giving reference to himself. What did Yahshua mean when he said: “Before Abraham Was, I Am.”? Hi Frank, I have enlarged the part of your post where you infer this. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org Ed J, I have not even mentioned anything about the Hebrew language in this post and as you will also note I have never said 'Hebrew has a phraseology 'i am.'' I asked you to show me where I have ever said this and you have yet to present such a statement where I have said this. Hi Frank, What is:  'the great i am'?    …I know of NO SUCH BEING   …do you? God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed J,

As you will note in my post, I have placed “The Great I Am” in quotation marks indicating that Father Yahweh [“God”] is frequently referred to by such a phrase and as you will also note, I have never said that Scripture refers to Father Yahweh by such a phrase.

[Ed J]

Hi Frank,

            YHVH means: Causes to become.

When Moses Asked God His name, he said…
[אהיה אשר אהיה] ěhyäh ăsher ěhyäh, which translates into English as…
“I will be what I will be”  or  “I will be that I will be“

               YHVH=63 and “will be”=63

Theomatics(numbers relating to God) clearly illustrate who God is.
The Divine=63 Deity=63 of The Bible=63 is YHVH=63.
[יהוה] translates directly into English as YHVH.

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
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
(LINK to the thread THAT PROVES GOD’s EXISTENCE)

[Ed J]

Hi Frank,

Lucifer is ‘the problem’ that has coerced the AKJV translators to perpetuate
a name-distancing title-substitution, ‘the mother of all deceptions’. Current
divisions of the church trace back to ‘the incorrect’ English translation of
[אהיה אשר אהיה] ěhyäh ăsher ěhyäh. Although the King James transcribers
translated this phrase into ‘I AM THAT I AM’, it is the Greek where this
erroneous phraseology originates. The Septuagint Bible is the first to
use this ‘I AM’ phraseology as {εγω ειμι} in Exodus 3:14. The AKJV
correctly translated [“אהיה”] into English as [“I WILL”] hundreds of times.

The King James translators would have had to transcribe this Hebrew
phrase אהיה אשר אהיה, into “I Will That I Will” or  “I Will What I Will”,
because of the strict “word for word” translating parameters.
Neither of these phrases makes much sense in English, so instead
they derived the English verse from the Greek Septuagint Bible. The English
AKJV transcribers should have translated this phrase אהיה אשר אהיה instead to
“I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE”; but because of the strict parameters, the AKJV
instead mislabeled this future tense TRUTH (“I will become what I will become”),
into a present tense lie {‘I am that I am’}. The phrase ‘I am’ cannot be translated
back into Hebrew. As a matter of fact if the Hebrew doesn’t have a word for something,
they believe that it doesn’t exist. ‘I am’ has become ‘the false god of religion’. (2Thess. 2:4 / Ezekiel 28:2)

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
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

[terraricca]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 25 2012,16:47)

Hi Pierre, Are you suggesting that Acts 10:38 is referring to 'after'(?) Jesus' resurrection? Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the HolySpirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. God bless Ed J (Joshua 22:34) http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

edj ,Frank

to be truthful I do not know why I say it but it start with me questioning it ,then time past and I am so much in talking with nick I must have my brain crossed,

no matter I apologies to all this was not done by intended to deceive anyone ,

Pierre

[Ed J]

Hi Pierre,

Thanks for the clarification.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 25 2012,11:45)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,15:48) Mike, So, you believe that Father Yahweh's word is a “who” as a separate being that exist apart from Him, but with Him? Now, who do you say that is confused here? You and Nick are the confused ones, Frank – to answer your question. Yes, the Word of God is and was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.  After creating him as the first of His works, God then created all other things through him.

Mike,

Where in Scripture does it ever teach that Father Yahweh's word “was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.” and that Father Yahweh created His son Yahshua “as the first of His works” and “then created all other things through him.”?

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 25 2012,12:27)

Hi Frank, Lucifer is ‘the problem’ that has coerced the AKJV translators to perpetuate a name-distancing title-substitution, ‘the mother of all deceptions’. Current divisions of the church trace back to ‘the incorrect’ English translation of [אהיה אשר אהיה] ěhyäh ăsher ěhyäh. Although the King James transcribers translated this phrase into ‘I AM THAT I AM’, it is the Greek where this erroneous phraseology originates. The Septuagint Bible is the first to use this ‘I AM’ phraseology as {εγω ειμι} in Exodus 3:14. The AKJV correctly translated [“אהיה”] into English as [“I WILL”] hundreds of times. The King James translators would have had to transcribe this Hebrew phrase אהיה אשר אהיה, into “I Will That I Will” or  “I Will What I Will”, because of the strict “word for word” translating parameters. Neither of these phrases makes much sense in English, so instead they derived the English verse from the Greek Septuagint Bible. The English AKJV transcribers should have translated this phrase אהיה אשר אהיה instead to “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE”; but because of the strict parameters, the AKJV instead mislabeled this future tense TRUTH (“I will become what I will become”), into a present tense lie {‘I am that I am’}. The phrase ‘I am’ cannot be translated back into Hebrew. As a matter of fact if the Hebrew doesn’t have a word for something, they believe that it doesn’t exist. ‘I am’ has become ‘the false god of religion’. (2Thess. 2:4 / Ezekiel 28:2) Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17) 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

Ed J,

And still you have yet to point out to me where I have ever said ''Hebrew has a phraseology 'i am.''

[Ed J]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 25 2012,12:46)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 25 2012,12:27) Hi Frank, Lucifer is ‘the problem’ that has coerced the AKJV translators to perpetuate a name-distancing title-substitution, ‘the mother of all deceptions’. Current divisions of the church trace back to ‘the incorrect’ English translation of [אהיה אשר אהיה] ěhyäh ăsher ěhyäh. Although the King James transcribers translated this phrase into ‘I AM THAT I AM’, it is the Greek where this erroneous phraseology originates. The Septuagint Bible is the first to use this ‘I AM’ phraseology as {εγω ειμι} in Exodus 3:14. The AKJV correctly translated [“אהיה”] into English as [“I WILL”] hundreds of times. The King James translators would have had to transcribe this Hebrew phrase אהיה אשר אהיה, into “I Will That I Will” or  “I Will What I Will”, because of the strict “word for word” translating parameters. Neither of these phrases makes much sense in English, so instead they derived the English verse from the Greek Septuagint Bible. The English AKJV transcribers should have translated this phrase אהיה אשר אהיה instead to “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE”; but because of the strict parameters, the AKJV instead mislabeled this future tense TRUTH (“I will become what I will become”), into a present tense lie {‘I am that I am’}. The phrase ‘I am’ cannot be translated back into Hebrew. As a matter of fact if the Hebrew doesn’t have a word for something, they believe that it doesn’t exist. ‘I am’ has become ‘the false god of religion’. (2Thess. 2:4 / Ezekiel 28:2) Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17) 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 Ed J, And still you have yet to point out to me where I have ever said ''Hebrew has a phraseology 'i am.''

Hi Frank,

Thanks for agreeing with me that Hebrew has NO SUCH phraseology!
And that there is NO SUCH BEING as a 'great i am';
it is merely the product of religion!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,19:41)

Mike, Where in Scripture does it ever teach that Father Yahweh's word “was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.”

Frank, do you believe God Himself was WITH God Himself in the beginning?

Tell me (IN YOUR OWN WORDS) who your sources have taught you to think the Word refers to in John 1:1.

And then tell me how that Word can both be WITH God and also BE God at the same time.

(We'll start with that one)

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 25 2012,13:04)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,19:41) Mike, Where in Scripture does it ever teach that Father Yahweh's word “was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.” Frank, do you believe God Himself was WITH God Himself in the beginning?   Tell me (IN YOUR OWN WORDS) who your sources have taught you to think the Word refers to in John 1:1.   And then tell me how that Word can both be WITH God and also BE God at the same time. (We'll start with that one)

Mike,

Have I ever posted anywhere in this forum “I believe God Himself was WITH God Himself in the beginning.”?

When Yahchanan says “In the beginning was the word …” it is quite clear to me that he is speaking of Father Yahweh's word that He spoke and that he is giving reference to the Book of Genesis about Father Yahweh creating in the beginning by means of His word …

For He (Father Yahweh) spoke, and it came to be; He (Father Yahweh) commanded, and it stood firm (Psalm 33:9).

It is quite clear that Father Yahweh's word was not a separate being apart from Himself in the beginning, since Scripture clearly teaches that Father Yahweh “ALONE”, “BY HIMSELF” with “NO ONE BESIDE HIM” created the heavens and the earth and ALL THINGS IN THEM.

Yahchanan says that Father Yahweh's word was with Him and that His word had might, strength and power [yl – “god”]. The meaning of the Hebrew word 'yl' designates in our English language 'might, strength, or power.

[Ed J]

Hi Frank, Good post!

Psalms 33:9-10 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
The LORD(יהוה YÄ-hä-vā) bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought:
he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org

[NickHassan]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 25 2012,12:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 25 2012,11:45) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,15:48) Mike, So, you believe that Father Yahweh's word is a “who” as a separate being that exist apart from Him, but with Him? Now, who do you say that is confused here? You and Nick are the confused ones, Frank – to answer your question. Yes, the Word of God is and was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.  After creating him as the first of His works, God then created all other things through him. Mike, Where in Scripture does it ever teach that Father Yahweh's word “was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.” and that Father Yahweh created His son Yahshua “as the first of His works” and “then created all other things through him.”?

Hi Frank,
Do you believe God spoke through Yashua?

[NickHassan]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 25 2012,13:04)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,19:41) Mike, Where in Scripture does it ever teach that Father Yahweh's word “was a separate being who was WITH his God in the beginning.” Frank, do you believe God Himself was WITH God Himself in the beginning?   Tell me (IN YOUR OWN WORDS) who your sources have taught you to think the Word refers to in John 1:1.   And then tell me how that Word can both be WITH God and also BE God at the same time. (We'll start with that one)

Hi MB,
Do you think it is wise to try to understand what is spiritual using natural logic?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,20:36)

Yahchanan says that Father Yahweh's word was with Him and that His word had might, strength and power [yl – “god”]. The meaning of the Hebrew word 'yl' designates in our English language 'might, strength, or power.

While it is not completely clear, the best guesses of experts are that “el” referred either to “might”, or to “one to be feared (revered)”.

So, I'm with you on that point.  Here's my problem:  It simply makes no sense to treat the words God speaks as if they are a separate being that can be WITH God.

And I know you guys try to put on a straight face while telling us that our words are WITH us, and ARE us, but you are simply pretending this makes sense.  No one in their right mind would say, “John went to the store today, and his words went WITH him”.

Nor do you have a way to address the fact that this particular Word of God BECAME flesh at one point.  And not only did it BECOME flesh, but when it did, it had the glory of the SON of God.  Is a spoken word of God now His SON?  

Nor do you acknowledge the scriptures that say all things were created, not ONLY through the Word of God, but also through “the Son of God” and “our Lord, Jesus Christ”.

So while all of you (except for Ed – for some odd reason) accept that it is Jesus who is called “The Word of God” in Rev 19:13, you REFUSE to make the connection that the same exact author calls the same exact person by the same exact title in his gospel and in his revelation.

And I use the word “REFUSE” because I know you all can see this connection as clear as the rest of us do.  It's just that you guys have a WISH for Jesus to have been “exactly like us” (as Gene puts it), because you feel that if you can convince yourselves that Jesus was “exactly like us”, you have a better chance of following his teachings and having success like he did.  And because of your personal WISH for Jesus to have been “exactly like us”, you must PRETEND that you can't see this very obvious connection.

Frank, the fact is that the Word BECAME flesh.  HE did not come to “be in someone who was flesh”, like you guys imagine.  HE BECAME flesh, had the glory of the Son of God that he was, and John was unfit to untie his sandals.  This was all said about “The Word of God”, Frank.  Does a spoken word of God wear sandals?

Anyway, to say the least, it is interesting for us to see the lengths to which you guys will go when twisting the scriptures to get them to teach what you WANT them to teach.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 24 2012,21:04)

Hi MB, Do you think it is wise to try to understand what is spiritual using natural logic?

That is what we have been given by our Creator, Nick.  Do you think it is wise to use the weak claim “the spirit must show you this” to get around the fact that the scriptures don't actually teach your doctrine?  This is the claim the Trinitarians make to avoid the fact that the scriptures don't actually teach their doctrine.  Do you agree with them that YOU personally just can't “see” the truth of the Trinity Godhead because “the spirit hasn't shown it to you”?

If you don't, then please don't use that weak claim against me or anyone else, okay?

It is impossible for the spirit to show you anything that would contradict the scriptures.  If the scriptures don't back up what your spirit is showing you, then you are being fooled by an evil spirit masquerading as an angel of light.

[GeneBalthrop]

Mike…………You fail to understand what a word (IS). Go and get the definition of what a WORD IS, it is a “intelligent utterance' and expression of the MIND, Now you expect us to believe Your body goes some where but you mind does not go with you. How foolish, every one know a persons Mind goes where he or she goes, so His word which are the expression of that mind goes also with him. Just that simple even a child should be able to understand that , There is not a PERSON called a WORD, SEPARATED FROM A MAN OR GOD> God and His word are one and the same and everyone who has his words (expressed intelligence) (IN) him are at one with GOD. Therefor it say let this “MIND” be (IN) you that was (IN) Christ Jesus our Lord” You can't separate a word from a mind it is the expression of the mind MIKE> Your Metaphysical mind set has seriously tripled up you complete understanding of the word of GOD Mike. IMO

peace and love……………………………………………………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Feb. 25 2012,08:40)

Go and get the definition of what a WORD IS, it is a “intelligent utterance' and expression of the MIND………….

So then it doesn't make any sense that an “intelligent utterance” BECAME flesh, does it Gene?

[NickHassan]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 26 2012,00:13)

Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ Feb. 24 2012,20:36) Yahchanan says that Father Yahweh's word was with Him and that His word had might, strength and power [yl – “god”]. The meaning of the Hebrew word 'yl' designates in our English language 'might, strength, or power. While it is not completely clear, the best guesses of experts are that “el” referred either to “might”, or to “one to be feared (revered)”. So, I'm with you on that point.  Here's my problem:  It simply makes no sense to treat the words God speaks as if they are a separate being that can be WITH God. And I know you guys try to put on a straight face while telling us that our words are WITH us, and ARE us, but you are simply pretending this makes sense.  No one in their right mind would say, “John went to the store today, and his words went WITH him”. Nor do you have a way to address the fact that this particular Word of God BECAME flesh at one point.  And not only did it BECOME flesh, but when it did, it had the glory of the SON of God.  Is a spoken word of God now His SON?   Nor do you acknowledge the scriptures that say all things were created, not ONLY through the Word of God, but also through “the Son of God” and “our Lord, Jesus Christ”. So while all of you (except for Ed – for some odd reason) accept that it is Jesus who is called “The Word of God” in Rev 19:13, you REFUSE to make the connection that the same exact author calls the same exact person by the same exact title in his gospel and in his revelation. And I use the word “REFUSE” because I know you all can see this connection as clear as the rest of us do.  It's just that you guys have a WISH for Jesus to have been “exactly like us” (as Gene puts it), because you feel that if you can convince yourselves that Jesus was “exactly like us”, you have a better chance of following his teachings and having success like he did.  And because of your personal WISH for Jesus to have been “exactly like us”, you must PRETEND that you can't see this very obvious connection. Frank, the fact is that the Word BECAME flesh.  HE did not come to “be in someone who was flesh”, like you guys imagine.  HE BECAME flesh, had the glory of the Son of God that he was, and John was unfit to untie his sandals.  This was all said about “The Word of God”, Frank.  Does a spoken word of God wear sandals? Anyway, to say the least, it is interesting for us to see the lengths to which you guys will go when twisting the scriptures to get them to teach what you WANT them to teach.

Hi MB,
Your own view is so powerful to you that all others are twisting scripture?

[NickHassan]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 26 2012,03:34)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Feb. 25 2012,08:40) Go and get the definition of what a WORD IS, it is a “intelligent utterance'  and expression of the MIND…………. So then it doesn't make any sense that an “intelligent utterance” BECAME flesh, does it Gene?

Hi MB,
Scripture must pass your MAKING SENSE filter before it can be truth?

[mikeboll64]

My view is nothing less than what the scriptures actually teach, Nick.

Hmmmmm……………. John calls Jesus “The Word of God” in Rev 19:13. The same author calls the same person by the same title in his gospel.

Who else became flesh and had the glory of God's only begotten Son? Think it out, Nick. Jehovah is not the God of confusion – this shouldn't be as hard as you're making it.

[Author]

Posts