- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Frank………..Keep the message the same, you are right on brother. They simply can not bear the truth , but it is a wittiness to them that they have heard it anyway. We have been called to be witness of the testimonies of God and His Christ and your doing a good Job. Keep up the good work Brother.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………………gene
Quote (t8 @ May 22 2012,19:29) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,14:00) t8, So you believe that the so called “Book of John” has nothing whatsoever to do with Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word?
Frank, the book is about Jesus Christ.John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.If you read that book from beginning to end, you will see it is about Jesus.
The first verse is about him, the last verse, and the stuff in between.
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.John: 25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
t8,You never answered my question:
So you believe that the so called “Book of John” has nothing whatsoever to do with Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word?
I am well aware that the book is about Yahshua, since I study it. But there is mention about Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word right from the start that Yahshua is the spokesman of in this last time period. There is also mention of Yahchanan the Immerser in the very beginning of this book. Most important of all this book is about Father Yahweh and His inspired prophetic word. In fact, The majority of the so-called “New Testament” is about Yahshua and his and our Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. The fact is though, there is nothing whatsoever in this book about Yahshua pre-existing his birth as literally being his and our Father Yahweh's word and as “a god”.
Did Yahshua Create Or Pre-exist His Birth?
…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2012,13:11) Frank, The last line of my post was a question. And my prior post to you had a couple of “WHY?” questions for you. Are you “owning me” again?
Mike,I have owned you from the very beginning!
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ May 23 2012,02:04) T8……………..Frank is right, but you your preconceive conviction have prevented you from seeing and understand this simple truth. Jesus did not preexist his berth on the earth as a sentinel being of any kind. God was not dealing with Morphed Angels or demigods, He was dealing with Mankind by a Human being Born of Flesh and Blood Just as we are in “EVERY WAY” a man who recieved into himself at the Jordan river the Holy spirit of God and was from that time sent out into the world to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD. Since it was by man sin entered the world it was by a man it is removed. Jesus' sacrifice would not have fulfilled the law of God if he was Not a complete human being in every way without any exceptions. God proved through Jesus he could perfect human kind and Jesus was the First to reach the perfection from the human race. He did not preexist his berth on the earth, that is a great false teaching and itself is Anti-Christ, because it diminishes His sacrifice and give him advantages other them a simple human being, which he did not have.
You and Mike an others have taken the Christos of GOD and turned it into a Man instead of it being (in) A MAN YOUR HAVE MADE THE MAN THE CHRISTOS and denied the Spirit of the Anointing that was (in) him. Giving the Glory of God to a MAN . But scripture say God give his glory to NO MAN> Not even JESUS.
Not matter what you teach T8 or Mike if it does not match up to the Original Testament it is a false teachings. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………………………gene
To the torah and to it's written instruction: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isayah 8:20).Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,20:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2012,13:11) Frank, The last line of my post was a question. And my prior post to you had a couple of “WHY?” questions for you. Are you “owning me” again?
Mike,I have owned you from the very beginning!
Frank,I forget……………does “owning me” mean “being SCARED to answer my questions”, or “being UNABLE to answer my questions”.
Please remind me.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 23 2012,13:23) Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 22 2012,20:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 22 2012,13:11) Frank, The last line of my post was a question. And my prior post to you had a couple of “WHY?” questions for you. Are you “owning me” again?
Mike,I have owned you from the very beginning!
Frank,I forget……………does “owning me” mean “being SCARED to answer my questions”, or “being UNABLE to answer my questions”.
Please remind me.
Mike,What was the question?
Here they are again, Frank. I've numbered and emboldened them for your convenience:
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,14:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 19 2012,14:24) Hmmmmmmmm…………. Frank, you claim that the word “dia” in Heb 1:2 means “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF”, correct?
Well, the same word “dia” is used in John 1:3. So does John 1:3 teach that all things were made “FOR, BECAUSE OF, or ON ACCOUNT OF” the Word?
Mike,How the word di' or dia is translated into our English language strictly depends on the content. It can be properly translated as 'by' or 'through' depending on to context.
1. Okay. So in Hebrews 1:2, what is the context that tells you “dia” should be translated as “ON ACCOUNT OF” instead of “THROUGH”?2. And what context in John 1:3 tells you that “dia” should be translated as “THROUGH” instead of “ON ACCOUNT OF”?
3. Please explain to me the SCRIPTURAL reason(s) you came to the conclusions you did about the word “dia” in these two verses.
Quote (Frank4YAHWEH @ May 21 2012,16:34) This word di' (dia') is often translated “for,” “because of,” or “on account of.” Any one of these is much better in Hebrews 1:2 than by or through. Why? Because neither by nor through agrees with the message in the sentence. On the other hand, because of and on account of do agree.
Great!4. Now tell my WHY. WHY doesn't “by” or “through” agree with the message?
5. And WHY does “because of” agree with it?
6. If the whole gospel of John is to teach us more about Jesus, then who do you suppose John is teaching us about when he teaches of the Word of God who BECAME FLESH and had the glory of GOD'S ONLY BEGOTTEN?
Hi Mike,
Was not the word of God what Jesus delivered to us?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi MB,
You say
“6. If the whole gospel of John is to teach us more about Jesus,..”No all scripture is about God much more than about the vessels he uses.
Quote (Ed J @ May 23 2012,19:47) Hi Mike, Was not the word of God what Jesus delivered to us?
Absolutely, Ed. The spokesman of God, whose name is “The Word of God”, delivered the words of God to us – exactly like his name implies he would do.Just like in Abyssinia, where Kal Hatze (The Word of the King) delivered the words of the King to others.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 23 2012,19:49) Hi MB,
You say
“6. If the whole gospel of John is to teach us more about Jesus,..”No all scripture is about God much more than about the vessels he uses.
John 20
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.John 21
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.All scripture is overshadowed by God, the reason for our very existence. But the PRIMARY reason John wrote his book was to teach about the Son of God – as can be seen from his own words. Notice that John doesn't say he wrote so that we would know Jehovah is God. He says he wrote so that we would know Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2012,11:10) Quote (Ed J @ May 23 2012,19:47) Hi Mike, Was not the word of God what Jesus delivered to us?
Absolutely, Ed. The spokesman of God, whose name is “The Word of God”, delivered the words of God to us – exactly like his name implies he would do.Just like in Abyssinia, where Kal Hatze (The Word of the King) delivered the words of the King to others.
Hi Mike, let me get this straight, OK?Your claim is: Jesus is what he delivers to us, correct?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi MB,
Jesus Christ is the way to God and John points to him.
But the whole message is about God not man.Once again, Nick:
John 20
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.John 21
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.John's book was to teach us about JESUS.
Quote (Ed J @ May 24 2012,20:54) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 25 2012,11:10) Quote (Ed J @ May 23 2012,19:47) Hi Mike, Was not the word of God what Jesus delivered to us?
Absolutely, Ed. The spokesman of God, whose name is “The Word of God”, delivered the words of God to us – exactly like his name implies he would do.Just like in Abyssinia, where Kal Hatze (The Word of the King) delivered the words of the King to others.
Hi Mike, let me get this straight, OK?Your claim is: Jesus is what he delivers to us, correct?
God bless
Ed J
Ed,Please don't play dumb, okay? Jesus is not the very words of God that he delivered. Jesus is called the Word of God because he was the main spokesman who delivered the words of God to us.
Was Kal Hatze the very words of the King that he spoke, Ed? Of course not. Yet, as spokeman for the King of Abyssinia, he was entitled “the Word of the King”.
Ed, do you have similar troubles understanding Exodus 4:16, when Aaron is said to become Moses' “mouth”? Are you able to understand that Aaron did not LITERALLY become the mouth of Moses? If so, then why can't you understand that Jesus, as the Word of God, didn't LITERALLY become God's words?
Hi MB,
Jesus without the anointing could have done nothing.
Men are only useful as vessels for God.
2Tim 2
As Paul said “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me”Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 26 2012,11:08) Hi MB,
Jesus without the anointing could have done nothing.
Show me the scripture that say that, Nick.I know of the ones that say without GOD, he could do nothing. I'm not aware of what you claim.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 27 2012,11:08) Hi MB,
Jesus without the anointing could have done nothing.
Men are only useful as vessels for God.
2Tim 2
As Paul said “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me”
Nyou still don't get it ,
Christ is not Paul and Paul is definitively NOT Christ
and you are far from being like Paul or Christ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
