Search results

I would say to the person that he or she should not have allowed himself/herself to be indoctrinated with the belief that the Torah has been abolished, set aside, or done away with: for then the person might actually spend quality prayerful time reading and studying the Torah, and discover that...

It isn't clumsy at all. Just think about the first time you yourself ate from the tree of the knowledge good and evil: or do you suppose that has never happened in your case? That would mean you've never sinned because that is what the narrative is portraying. If so, you, and the rest here who...

Yep. I don't see it as meaning two deaths but I see no reason at this point to argue that point with you, (I still think we are pretty close on this anyway). That is straight from the scripture; both from a very well known Psalm, and from Paul. The following Psalm of David, which is quoted...

I read "a death you shall die". Matthew 15:4 KJV 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. [Exodus 21:17] Exodus 21:17 WLC (consonants only) ומקלל אביו ואמו מות יומת׃ ס Exodus 21:17 17 The one cursing his father...

Without vowel pointing both netzer and natzar are written with the same Hebrew letters, נצר, (and there was no Hebrew pointed text in the first century). It is curious but true that there are certain forms of natzar that give us very close approximations of both city or town names found in the...

I fully believe everything the Meshiah teaches including the passage you have quoted here. However I am curious how you know that this is speaking of the Bema Judgment? Those accursed that are sent away into everlasting fire are going to the place "prepared for the devil and his angels".

We're done, have a nice life.

I not only believe but know what Paul says in that passage, but as I have already shown you: I do not believe Paul says "Christ" in that passage because of the understanding of that nomen sacrum which the Word of the Father has taught me. You learned it from the RCC interpretation: I learned it...

I heard what you said but I disagree in the case of Acts 13 because the author specifically lays it out as a line of sequential events by using δε in a critically important place, and δε is also a particle of continuance, but, translators render it here as and, though it should more commonly be...

Perhaps more explanation is necessary. The following image file contains 2Cor 5:10 from Codex Vaticanus. It contains the nomen sacrum Chi-Upsilon because by this time church scribes had already added case endings to the original nomina sacra and were now removing the second letters and leaving...

Your dilemma is that I did not remove anything from those two posts of yours in my previous response: those were the full quotes, and in neither one of them did you quote Genesis 1:1. Your compounded dilemma is therefore the fact that you believe that whatever you say is true just because you...

What I spoke about was as I stated: your illegitimate gematria, which you foist upon the scripture so as to alter just about every scripture you post concerning your belief that Elohim is three, and which you are running around spreading across the board. And moreover I already stated to you...

I found it here: (Reply #383) https://www.christianityboard.com/threads/jesus-is-the-son-of-his-god.73306/page-20#post-2160234

@Matthias, yeah, that's probably the best way to refute the nonsense. Another example would be the numbered days in the opening creation account. The first day is called Yom Echad. Does that mean some sort of secret unity or unified oneness? If so then the same should be true for the remainder...

So now I have seen the same illegitimate gematria again here in this thread. And you think that means anything? It doesn't: it's just word sorcery imo.

Sorry, not interested, I have already seen enough of your brand of illegitimate gematria in other threads.

Where did you learn that the nomina sacra Ι̅Η Χ̅Ρ mean "Jesus Christ" in this particular passage? I am very serious: you learned that interpretation from the early RCC, whether or not you realize it, for no scholarship that I know of has ever even questioned their interpretations of the nomina...

The reading which I posted in the OP is really not any different than most semi-literal translations except that my reading highlights the issues I brought up, 1), that if we are going to capitalize the emphatic "ho Logos" in John 1:1 then we should also do so anywhere else in at least the same...

Lol, please reread what I posted: I wrote John 12:48, not John 14:28! Here it is in Greek, even though it was also already in the OP, in English, which you were so sad about: John 12:48 N/A - W/H 48 ο αθετων εμε και μη λαμβανων τα ρηματα μου εχει τον κρινοντα αυτον ο λογος ον ελαλησα εκεινος...

So then, if you are going to capitalize Logos in your translation of John 1:1, ("Word"), then you need to do so in other places also where it is critical to the understanding of the text and the text has an impact on doctrine, like John 12:48, where the Meshiah, Anointed One, or Christos...