Search results

I don't understand this comment. The image on the shroud has shoulder length hair and a beard. Yeshua also has a beard.

You are the one that brought up that one after I told you that I agree with them all in rejecting the JW's position, but that they did not address my understanding of John 1. Since you singled him out, I wanted to know the source so I could read it for myself. You obviously don't know the source...

This verse does not say Yeshua is God. It says God dwelt in Yeshua in all His fulness. And there is no such thing as a "Godhead". That is a trinitarian invention to make it appear as though God is comprised of several heads/parts. The word simply means "divinity" or "deity". God (Elohim) is...

He makes the same mistake everyone else does. He reads the Son into the text. He makes the logos the Son. Major error. YHWH spoke His Son into existence when His spoken words and thoughts became flesh.

I guess you didn't read post #168.

You gave me four sources that quote each other (or plagiarize each other except fr one), but you did NOT quote the source of Dr. Johnson's words. Do your words ooze with love for me and others? No. All you do is mock and belittle people.

Cite the work where Dr. J. Johnson made that statement. Do not cite a reference that says he made that statement unless it cites the source. Even if he did make that statement, it does not change the fact that it has nothing to do with my position. Since you can't actually refute my position...

Of course they support the deity of "Jesus". They read him into John 1 just like all other Christians do. Why? Because they grew up on the trinitarian false translations of John 1. They rightfully destroy the JW position, but they don't go far enough and destroy their own position of reading the...

It is interesting that, in your carnality, you call me "Einstein" and then continue to erroneously post commentaries that have NOTHING to do with my post on John 1:1c. Every commentator you cited is coming against the JW's translation which I also reject since JWs read the Son into the text as...

I spoke nothing against Yeshua as I glorified his Father, Almighty YHWH. It is you all who rob YHWH of His glory and give it to His Son.

You mean no amount of truth will change your mind. I quoted a highly respected trinitarian Greek grammar and a scholar who knows a whole lot more Greek than you, but you ignored it because you have been indoctrinated into trinitarianism. No, the translators established that the ""Word" is GOD"...

Of course it is never used by the Hebrews! Logos is a Greek word, but it was used to translate the Hebrew word for "word". Actually, it is YOU who did not read my post in which I did NOT repeat your verse three, but changed "him" to "it" twice.

I gave the definition for logos. I do not define Biblical words by Greek philosophy. The Septuagint uses logos for word, not Word. Capitalizing "Word" so it appears to be a name for Messiah is a trinitarian invention. As for John 1:3, that is how modern deceived translators translate it. Prior...

The only thing that sounds silly is your reply. Did Elohim speak and create? Genesis 1:24 And Elohim said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. Did globules of tissue come out of His...

First, the Son is being read into John 1:1-4. The "logos" (word) of John 1:1 means "the spoken word" or "something said (including the thought)." In that sense the word is an "it," not a person but a thing. In other words, YHWH spoke creation into existence. This understanding agrees perfectly...

Not "failed", but chose not to. Since you seem to want me to address them I will tonight when I have more time.

All misused and misunderstood verses.

There is only one "President" in your analogy, Almighty YHWH, the ONLY TRUE GOD (John 17:3), Yeshua's Father. He has NO equal. He gave Yeshua his life, power and authority to rule His Kingdom and at the appointed time the Son will turn the Kingdom over to his Father and be subject to Him.

That is what I was referring to. Why can't you agree with the two verses I cited? Is there any other way to view them?

I have no idea what "soft-soaper"means, nor am I a Wednesday crucifixionist. I posted about the hierarchy between the Father and the Son. If you disagree, then refute it without changing the subject.