Search results

Wow, so much gnashing of teeth over my precious little creed from my Master.

@Wick Stick, more resources to add to my previous post: Gospel of the Ebionites, a Gospel harmony including Matthew and Luke: it begins with the immersion account, (missing first two chapters). https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites-panarion.html...

Try putting the commencement of the discourse together with the statement in John 8:25 and then maybe you might be able to understand HIS point, (not my point). John 8:24-25 24 I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am ― ― ― ― ―, you shall die...

Okay, so you do not believe what he tells them in John 8:25. Fair enough: I'll leave that between you and the Logos who is the only Judge. False accusation: I am not an Arianist. I'll also leave that accusation between you and the Logos who is the only Judge.

I was referring to the following comment, which is a reference to Gen 22, and related to John 8:56-58.

Bingo: Genesis 22! That is the day. Soon I plan to be posting a thread on the topic, (Elohim willing), including some of the information from here in this thread, perhaps I will call it Abraham and the Ram. Har Karkom, (Horeb-Sinai) Rock Art

That's pretty good evidence that "I am", (εγω ειμι), isn't always cracked up to what people might think it means. It was a common way of speaking in the first century, having a normal every day usage among the common people. I am, (εγω ειμι), not saying that is always true in the N/T scripture...

1) John 8:58 ειπεν αυτοις ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι Amen amen is a double affirmation, and occurs only in the Gospel of John, and is found twenty-five times therein. This author employs this phrase to inform the observant hearer or reader that the Son is speaking...

This is a difficult question to answer without offering a plethora of links to be studied, (and a lot of study and reading time). The so-called church fathers, those with firsthand involvement concerning this matter, (Jerome, Eusebius, and two or three others), made a mess of this whole thing by...

I hope it turns out that way. :Thumbsup: I see you have just found some of the evidence for Luke in the earliest manuscripts having been missing the first two chapters but I uphold those two chapters and think it is a result of "Mattew" having been missing the first two chapters. Once you do...

What I see is you ignoring plain, bold, emphatic statements from the Savior so that you can maintain something else you believe from Jn 1:1 and Jn 1:14. That's the non sequitur.

Excellent. This is what I had planned on bringing up next but you beat me to it. John 12:47-50 is confirming and expounding Deuteronomy 18:17-19.

So then, those who are believing on/into the (Testimony) of the Meshiah are passing from death into the Life, though they/we are denying ourselves, taking up our own stakes to be crucified with him in the supernal way, and following him. Thank the Goodness and Grace of Elohim that the Testimony...

This is my little Creed from the Gospel of Yohannei, (a.k.a. John), and following below the Creed, concerning what the following bold, plain, emphatic statements from the Meshiah compel me to logically conclude by simply believing every word. John 5:22 22 for the Father judges no one, but has...

To whomever may actually be interested: just on the previous page alone the poster above told this many lies about what I believe and have told him multiple times that I believe. I have never made the above accusation-statement anywhere in all of this forum. I have never said that Christ...

Thank you. Great, (no worries it was not a trick question), so that supports the point I was making: the one in the parable is pretty obviously the Meshiah himself, that is, the Christos or Anointed One. And he it is who was and is a man, the Chosen One, and he was not preexisting or existing...

Statement "a)" is the only fully true statement you've made. The rest are not true because, for one, they do not exist in the scripture, and for two, you are already shown to be ignoring and therefore distorting the true definition and meaning of pros in John 1:1 so as to uphold an RCC dogma you...

Typical: you must ignore the truth because "the Trinitarian theology is the only one that makes sense"....), but more bad news, regarding the second half of your statement that I just quoted: every other Trinitarian argument stems from either twisting the meaning of a verse or passage and-or is...

So then, you understand that "with" is not "within"? The rendering "with" regarding the definitions of pros, surely describes two Gods, not one. It is one God either directly in front of another God, as though face to face, or at the very least one God directly beside another God. This is not...

Since you have mentioned earlier that you are able to read the scripture in Greek, (that was you, correct? forgive me if I am wrong), please explain the meaning of pros.