Shadows and Realities

[gadar perets]

It all depends on your perspective.

You see...all things "were" before the foundation of the world.

So the real questions is...what do you consider "reality?" If you consider reality to be what the world sees...it's all shadows (in the image of), and you would be wrong every time.

The Feast Days did NOT literally exist before the foundation of the world. They did, however, exist in YHWH's plan of salvation. The same is true of their realities. Yeshua was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, but he was NOT literally slain at that time. When he was literally slain before the eyes of the world, then and ONLY then was the shadow of the Passover lamb literally fulfilled making Yeshua the reality. Had Yeshua not been slain, we would still be sacrificing Passover lambs today because the shadow could NOT be abolished until it was fulilled. The same holds true for all other unfulfilled shadows.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The interpretation that YHWH gave Peter is in Acts 10:28;

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
​

You have given the vision a FALSE interpretation.
You say "not bound by", but Paul said, "Let no man judge you". Another FALSE interpretation.

No - the answer to the rescinding of the dietary Laws in in Acts 10:15:

Acts 10:15
The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.
No "False" interpretation there . . .

If YOU'RE still keeping Kosher - then you don't know Christ (Col. 2:16).

Don't you ever read the verses you post? Not one of the passages/verses says believers have supreme authority to ordain.

You're right - but that's NOT what I said.

I said that Jesus gave his CHURCH - not the individual - Supreme Authority on earth. WHATEVER that CHURCH ordains (loosed or held bound) on earth shall also be ordained in Heaven.

You reject His CHURCH - you reject HIM and the ONE who sent Him.

Again you FAILED to read my words. I said the "WRITTEN WORD" did not exist.

God's Word is ETERNAL.
Just because none of it had been written down at the beginning of the world in OUR time - does NOT mean that the Son is NOT the Word (Logos) of God).

God is outside of time, so HIS Word was written down in eternity. This is the SAME concept as His sacrifice being an ETERNAL one. He was put to death in the 1st century - in OUR time - but Rev. 13:8 shows the LAMB in Heaven SLAIN before the foundations of the world.

Jesus is the ENTIRE Word of God.

I fully admit that I am directly rebelling against your interpretation of His Word.

No - YOU are in heresy because you deny the deity of Christ.

He NEVER taught that he was God. He ALWAYS taught that he was the Son of God. When he said, "the Father and I are one," he taught us exactly what he meant in John 17:11, 22. That believers are to be one IN THE EXACT SAME SENSE that he and his Father are one. That is NOT a oneness of being, but of purpose, beliefs, etc.

As for John 14:9, are you declaring the Son IS the Father???? Are you anti-trinitarian? Trinitarians do not believe the Father is the Son or vice versa. Yeshua meant that because he is the exact image of the Father, when you see him, you see the Father. They have the exact character, goals, beliefs, etc. If Yeshua is the Father, then John 6:46 is nonsense. The fact is, your interpretation is nonsense.
It is also the SAME phrase the blind man used in John 9:9;

ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν· ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι.​

YHWH did not write or speak Greek to Moses. However, in the Greek Septuagint, the full phrase is ego eimi o on (I am the being). If Yeshua wanted to tell the Jews he was the great "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, he would have said, "I am the being".

Exo 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. LXX
Exo 3:14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. Brenton's translation of LXX
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.​

As you can see, it is the latter part of the phrase that matters in Greek.

This is your dumbest argument yet.

WHAT did the Pharisees do right after Jesus told them, "I AM" in verse 58??
In verse 59, it says that they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy. Under the Law - they had every right to stone a blasphemer.

They understood EXACTLY what He was saying because He was calling himself God.

Prior to his earthly birth, he existed in the mind/plan of YHWH, not as a literal living being.

We read in the NT that God was "with" and "in" Yeshua. We never read that He "was" or "is" Yeshua. That concept does not exist in Scripture. Only in the creeds of men.

Yes, if you choose to read Yeshua into the text. The "logos" was not a living being prior to Yeshua's conception. It was a thing; the Father's spoken words and thoughts including His plan of salvation. Major translations prior to the KJV make that clear. For example, Tyndale's translation, from which we get most of our KJV, reads as follows;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. (Notice "worde" is not capitalized)
John 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
John 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. ("it", not "him")
John 1:4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men​

Tyndale, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, and several others all translate the passage similarly.

Forget what I said about your last comment beg the "dumbest" - this is by FAR the most stupid. Allow me to educate you . . .

Instead of going to Tyndale or Geneva - why don't we go directly to the GREEK text, hmmmm?? THIS is what it says:
John 1:1-4
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
HE was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through HIM, and without HIM nothing came to be.
What came to be through HIS was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

The Greek word used here is not "IT".
The word used is αυτοσ (ow-tos') which means "He", Him", "Himself".
This is where we get the word "AUTObiography" - a life story written by the person himself.

As for your blasphemy regarding the Son - He ALWAYS was. He wasn't just a "thought" in the Father's head. Your heretical arrogance is alarming . . .

 

[ScottA]

The Feast Days did NOT literally exist before the foundation of the world. They did, however, exist in YHWH's plan of salvation. The same is true of their realities. Yeshua was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, but he was NOT literally slain at that time. When he was literally slain before the eyes of the world, then and ONLY then was the shadow of the Passover lamb literally fulfilled making Yeshua the reality. Had Yeshua not been slain, we would still be sacrificing Passover lambs today because the shadow could NOT be abolished until it was fulilled. The same holds true for all other unfulfilled shadows.

Time is an illusion, scientifically, only eluded to in the scriptures, and yet no secret. With a little study, the use of past tense language is undeniable.

Meaning...this is all just "a revelation" of what "was" (while people "slept"), rather than events on a timeline. Time then is simply a media used by God...not a reality per se.

 

[gadar perets]

BreadOfLife, This has got to be the most carnal reply I ever received from anyone. Your crass reply reveals just how carnal you are. The only reason I am replying to you is for the sake of anyone else reading this thread so they are not misled by you.

No - the answer to the rescinding of the dietary Laws in in Acts 10:15:
Acts 10:15

The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.

No "False" interpretation there . . .

If YOU'RE still keeping Kosher - then you don't know Christ (Col. 2:16).

Right after the vision ended we read, "Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, ..." Acts 10:17. The great Apostle Peter did not know what the vision meant, but you do?? It took God Himself to reveal the meaning to Peter and that meaning is revealed in Acts 10:28; "...but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

You're right - but that's NOT what I said.

I said that Jesus gave his CHURCH - not the individual - Supreme Authority on earth. WHATEVER that CHURCH ordains (loosed or held bound) on earth shall also be ordained in Heaven.

Only one of your five references pertained solely to the church. The others pertained to either the apostles or all individual believers.

You reject His CHURCH - you reject HIM and the ONE who sent Him.

And what “CHURCH” would that be? The Roman Catholic Church that murdered millions of people or some other church?

God's Word is ETERNAL.
Just because none of it had been written down at the beginning of the world in OUR time - does NOT mean that the Son is NOT the Word (Logos) of God).

God is outside of time, so HIS Word was written down in eternity. This is the SAME concept as His sacrifice being an ETERNAL one. He was put to death in the 1st century - in OUR time - but Rev. 13:8 shows the LAMB in Heaven SLAIN before the foundations of the world.

Jesus is the ENTIRE Word of God.

The word (logos) became the Son. The Son did not become the Son.

No - YOU are in heresy because you deny the deity of Christ.

One man’s heresy is another man’s truth. Yeshua was a heretic, but his doctrines were truth. The same holds true with me.

This is your dumbest argument yet.

WHAT did the Pharisees do right after Jesus told them, "I AM" in verse 58??

In verse 59, it says that they picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy. Under the Law - they had every right to stone a blasphemer.

They understood EXACTLY what He was saying because He was calling himself God.

In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yeshua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yeshua said to his disciples, "...that...ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in John 18 when the Jews came to arrest Yeshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yeshua of Nazareth, Yeshua said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yeshua was not claiming to be the "I AM."

After Yeshua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Matthew 26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yeshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yeshua said in John 8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from John 8:58?

The point about Mtatthew 26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yeshua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yeshua of Nazareth.

Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion in John 8:58? The context shows that Yeshua;

1) accused the Pharisees of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of God (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing his Father YHWH (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yeshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yeshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yeshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he cut them down to size and was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

Forget

what I said about your last comment beg the "dumbest" - this is by FAR the most stupid. Allow me to educate you . . .

Instead of going to Tyndale or Geneva - why don't we go directly to the GREEK text, hmmmm?? THIS is what it says:

John 1:1-4

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
HE was in the beginning with God
All things came to be through HIM, and without HIM nothing came to be.
What came to be through HIS was life, and this life was the light of the human race;

The Greek word used here is not "IT".

The word used is αυτοσ (ow-tos') which means "He", Him", "Himself".

This is where we get the word "AUTObiography" - a life story written by the person himself.

Thayer’s definition:
1) himself, herself, themselves, itself
2) he, she, it
3) the same

Strong’s definition:
autos: (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third pers. pron.) (3) the same

“The familiar pronoun αυτος (autos) means "self", and can as such be applied to "(him)self", "(her)self" or "(it)self", and in plural: "(them)selves". As such it serves as the third person personal pronoun (he, him, his; she, her, hers, it and its, and in plural: they, their and theirs).” Abarim Publications' Biblical Dictionary: The New Testament Greek word: αυτος

 

[gadar perets]

Time is an illusion, scientifically, only eluded to in the scriptures, and yet no secret. With a little study, the use of past tense language is undeniable.

Meaning...this is all just "a revelation" of what "was" (while people "slept"), rather than events on a timeline. Time then is simply a media used by God...not a reality per se.

That philosophical approach doesn't address the issue. The fact is, YHWH uses time for our understanding. He made the heavens and the earth in six days. He sanctified and blessed the 7th day. He designated certain days to be holy shadows. He fulfilled some shadows at the appointed time. Other shadows remain to be fulfilled at their appointed times. That is our reality that the Almighty gave to us.

 

[ScottA]

That philosophical approach doesn't address the issue. The fact is, YHWH uses time for our understanding. He made the heavens and the earth in six days. He sanctified and blessed the 7th day. He designated certain days to be holy shadows. He fulfilled some shadows at the appointed time. Other shadows remain to be fulfilled at their appointed times. That is our reality that the Almighty gave to us.

No...you are just looking at it all from the perspective of the world (which is fallen) and relying on your own understanding. There is a reason why the things of God are a revelation to men, because they otherwise don't see things as God sees them, and only see things as the world sees them. Paul warned us of this, saying "I am afraid for you, for you keep days and weeks", etc... In other words you keep the time elements of the world, you see as the world sees. But the scriptures which you have taken what you believe from, are not to be viewed as the world would, but discerned spiritually. This is not philosophy, but "spirit and truth."

All worldly perspective aside, and all of the shadows you have spoken of are revealed in "a time, times, and half a time", which definition could not be true, if you hold to the shadows and days and seasons definitions. These things are all spoken of, not actually different, but metaphorically different...but speak of the same thing - which are the [subject] of the metaphors, not the [object]. The objects, meaning, the days, and seasons, and shadows - are not the subject. And by focusing on the objects, you remain blind to the real subject. Thus, the objects have no "reality" as you have supposed, but only the subject has reality. But if you refuse to look at only what can be seen, you will miss what is unseen - and you have.

 

[gadar perets]

No...you are just looking at it all from the perspective of the world (which is fallen) and relying on your own understanding.

I am relying on what YHWH has revealed to us in His Word.

There is a reason why the things of God are a revelation to men, because they otherwise don't see things as God sees them, and only see things as the world sees them.

I am well aware that YHWH sees thing differently than the world does. I am not of the world. The world cannot see the realities of the Feast Days. Nor can they see why certain days are Holy Days. Sadly, neither can the majority of Christians. The world can't see these things because they are carnal. Christians can't see these things because they have been deceived into believing the law no longer applies to them.

Paul warned us of this, saying "I am afraid for you, for you keep days and weeks", etc... In other words you keep the time elements of the world, you see as the world sees. But the scriptures which you have taken what you believe from, are not to be viewed as the world would, but discerned spiritually. This is not philosophy, but "spirit and truth."

Paul was addressing several different issues throughout his epistle which was written to Jews living among Gentiles in Galatia. They were Hellenized Jews that were living like Gentiles. That is why verse 8 reads;

Howbeit then, when you knew not God, you did service unto them which by nature are no gods.​

They were idolaters who did not know YHWH or His laws. They were worshiping false gods. Paul goes on to say;

But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
​

When the Jews he was addressing became believers and came to know YHWH and YHWH them, they continued to or went back to observing the weak and beggarly elements of the Gentiles as they were used to doing. They were observing pagan days, weeks, months and years.

Second, if Paul meant the Jews should not be keeping "the time elements of the world", then how is it that Christians observe time elements as well? They observe the season of lent, holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas, Pentecost, and a host of other "special" days throughout the year.

Third, the "weak and beggarly elements" are not YHWH's holy days. The same word translated "elements" here was translated "rudiments" in Colossians 2:8, 20, both referring to the traditions and commandments of men.

All worldly perspective aside, and all of the shadows you have spoken of are revealed in "a time, times, and half a time", which definition could not be true, if you hold to the shadows and days and seasons definitions. These things are all spoken of, not actually different, but metaphorically different...but speak of the same thing - which are the [subject] of the metaphors, not the [object]. The objects, meaning, the days, and seasons, and shadows - are not the subject. And by focusing on the objects, you remain blind to the real subject. Thus, the objects have no "reality" as you have supposed, but only the subject has reality. But if you refuse to look at only what can be seen, you will miss what is unseen - and you have.

I did not say the shadows were the reality. This entire thread is about the reality that casts each shadow. Yeshua was the reality that cast the shadow of the Passover lambs slain every year. Yeshua is NOT the reality of Yom Teruah, Shavuot, Sukkot, or Shabbat. It is not I that has missed what is unseen. It is you that has added things that were never supposed to be seen with spiritual eyes. Why? Because you and the rest of Christianity have abolished all holy days and are desperately seeking to find valid reasons why in order to justify your unjust actions.

 

[ScottA]

I am relying on what YHWH has revealed to us in His Word.

I am well aware that YHWH sees thing differently than the world does. I am not of the world. The world cannot see the realities of the Feast Days. Nor can they see why certain days are Holy Days. Sadly, neither can the majority of Christians. The world can't see these things because they are carnal. Christians can't see these things because they have been deceived into believing the law no longer applies to them.

Paul was addressing several different issues throughout his epistle which was written to Jews living among Gentiles in Galatia. They were Hellenized Jews that were living like Gentiles. That is why verse 8 reads;

Howbeit then, when you knew not God, you did service unto them which by nature are no gods.​

They were idolaters who did not know YHWH or His laws. They were worshiping false gods. Paul goes on to say;

But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
​

When the Jews he was addressing became believers and came to know YHWH and YHWH them, they continued to or went back to observing the weak and beggarly elements of the Gentiles as they were used to doing. They were observing pagan days, weeks, months and years.

Second, if Paul meant the Jews should not be keeping "the time elements of the world", then how is it that Christians observe time elements as well? They observe the season of lent, holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas, Pentecost, and a host of other "special" days throughout the year.

Third, the "weak and beggarly elements" are not YHWH's holy days. The same word translated "elements" here was translated "rudiments" in Colossians 2:8, 20, both referring to the traditions and commandments of men.

I did not say the shadows were the reality. This entire thread is about the reality that casts each shadow. Yeshua was the reality that cast the shadow of the Passover lambs slain every year. Yeshua is NOT the reality of Yom Teruah, Shavuot, Sukkot, or Shabbat. It is not I that has missed what is unseen. It is you that has added things that were never supposed to be seen with spiritual eyes. Why? Because you and the rest of Christianity have abolished all holy days and are desperately seeking to find valid reasons why in order to justify your unjust actions.

1. As I said, and as it has been made clear: the word is not enough, but must be discerned spiritually. This is what Christ referred to that we should be lead unto all truth, because by the word, we have only heard in part.
2. Paul spoke to both the Jews and to the gentiles, but in Galatians, referring to the law and the beggarly elements, he specifically called them "Brethren", meaning the Jews and the former things of the old covenant that was no longer in effect under Christ who gave a new covenant. As for days that are kept by the church: some are indeed in error, while others we do in remembrance of Christ, as He commanded.
3. Yes, the elements or rudiments referred to the traditions and commandments of men, men under the first Adam - but do NOT apply under the Last Adam. Which things Paul spoke against, that those who follow Christ should not walk in the flesh as those born of the first Adam, but rather walk in the spirit and follow the Last Adam, a life-giving Spirit.

In other words, by pursuing the feast days of old, you are advocating for walking in the ways of the flesh.

But, if you struggle with understanding how the feasts of old are fulfilled, or how or if they apply to our times, then please...let us take them one at a time, and I will tell you the truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Right after the vision ended we read, "Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, ..." Acts 10:17. The great Apostle Peter did not know what the vision meant, but you do?? It took God Himself to reveal the meaning to Peter and that meaning is revealed in Acts 10:28; "...but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

Yes - and WE only know BECAUSE it was explained, Eijnstein.

Only one of your five references pertained solely to the church. The others pertained to either the apostles or all individual believers.

WRONG.

First of all - NONE of them refers to the individual believer.

Here's a little hermeneutical help for you:
When Jesus is teaching the crowds - He is teaching ALL individuals.
When He is instructing His inner circle (Apostles, stec) - He is instructing the leaders of His Church.

And what “CHURCH” would that be? The Roman Catholic Church that murdered millions of people or some other church?

This has GOT to be my favorite ignorant anti-Catholic claim.

Please provide documented historical evidence for this ridiculously stupid claim that the Catholic Church "murdered millions" of people.

The FUN part is watching you guys trip all over yourselves trying to come up with an answer . . .

The word (logos) became the Son. The Son did not become the Son.

WRONG.
The Word became FLESH (John 1:14).
The SON always existed in Heaven.

John 3:16-17
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The Father sent the SON.

One man’s heresy is another man’s truth. Yeshua was a heretic, but his doctrines were truth. The same holds true with me.

WRONG.
Jesus was NEVER a heretic.

Show me ONE example of His heresy . . .

In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Yeshua used "ego eimi" with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yeshua said to his disciples, "...that...ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)" in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in John 18 when the Jews came to arrest Yeshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yeshua of Nazareth, Yeshua said to them, "Ego eimi." At that they fell backward to the ground. It is not made clear why they fell to the ground, but what followed will make it clear that Yeshua was not claiming to be the "I AM."

After Yeshua's arrest, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Matthew 26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yeshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yeshua said in John 8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from John 8:58?

The point about Mtatthew 26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yeshua say "Ego eimi." They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yeshua of Nazareth.

Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion in John 8:58? The context shows that Yeshua;

1) accused the Pharisees of "judging after the flesh" (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of God (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing his Father YHWH (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Yeshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yeshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yeshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, "ego eimi," but because he cut them down to size and was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

HUH??
What an asinine and Scripturally-bankrupt response.

As evil as the pharisees were - the ONE thing they were NOT was stupid. Look at all of the trouble they went through to have Jesus crucified legally. They were not about to commit murder under Roman Law and have themselves executed for it.

Talk about a desperate response . . .

Thayer’s definition:
1) himself, herself, themselves, itself
2) he, she, it
3) the same

Strong’s definition:
autos: (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third pers. pron.) (3) the same

“The familiar pronoun αυτος (autos) means "self", and can as such be applied to "(him)self", "(her)self" or "(it)self", and in plural: "(them)selves". As such it serves as the third person personal pronoun (he, him, his; she, her, hers, it and its, and in plural: they, their and theirs).” Abarim Publications' Biblical Dictionary: The New Testament Greek word: αυτος

Yup - and the fact that you are taking the SECONDARY defiition shows how truly desperate you are.

Unbelievable . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[gadar perets]

1. As I said, and as it has been made clear: the word is not enough, but must be discerned spiritually. This is what Christ referred to that we should be lead unto all truth, because by the word, we have only heard in part.

The Spirit will not contradict the Word. The Spirit "causes" believers under the NC to keep YHWH's statutes (Ezekiel 36:27). It is I that am spiritually discerning the truth while you fight against it.

2. Paul spoke to both the Jews and to the gentiles, but in Galatians, referring to the law and the beggarly elements, he specifically called them "Brethren", meaning the Jews and the former things of the old covenant that was no longer in effect under Christ who gave a new covenant. As for days that are kept by the church: some are indeed in error, while others we do in remembrance of Christ, as He commanded.

I know they were brethren, but they were returning to their pagan lifestyle. I do as Messiah commanded as well, but NOT to the exclusion of what YHWH commanded. If you choose to disobey Him by trampling on His holy days, that's your choice.

3. Yes, the elements or rudiments referred to the traditions and commandments of men, men under the first Adam - but do NOT apply under the Last Adam. Which things Paul spoke against, that those who follow Christ should not walk in the flesh as those born of the first Adam, but rather walk in the spirit and follow the Last Adam, a life-giving Spirit.
In other words, by pursuing the feast days of old, you are advocating for walking in the ways of the flesh.

The traditions of men do not apply under either Adam. No one should ever obey the traditions of men (the weak and beggarly elements/rudiments of the world) over YHWH's holy, just and good laws.

The Feast days are not commandments of men. Therefore, bringing up the last Adam is irrelevant. Under the both Adams, we are to not sin (not break YHWH's laws).

In reality, it is the carnal man who walks according to the flesh who will not subject himself to the Law of YHWH (Romans 8:7).

But, if you struggle with understanding how the feasts of old are fulfilled, or how or if they apply to our times, then please...let us take them one at a time, and I will tell you the truth.

OK. Let's start from the beginning with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Explain how it is fulfilled.

 

[gadar perets]

I deleted most of your carnal outbursts, derogatory remarks, etc.

Yes - and WE only know BECAUSE it was explained, Eijnstein.

Yes, the meaning was explained in Scripture. So how is it that you give the vision a meaning that is not the same as the meaning explained in Scripture???

Here's a little hermeneutical help for you:
When Jesus is teaching the crowds - He is teaching ALL individuals.
When He is instructing His inner circle (Apostles, stec) - He is instructing the leaders of His Church.

So what are you saying? That the Spirit of truth in John 16:13 only guides the Apostles and not every individual believer. Or that, in Luke 10:16, a person despises Messiah only when they refuse to hear the Apostles, but not when they refuse to hear individual believers?

This has GOT to be my favorite ignorant anti-Catholic claim.

Please provide documented historical evidence for this ridiculously stupid claim that the Catholic Church "murdered millions" of people.

It is difficult to prove how many people the RCC murdered. It is not that they kept records of their wrongdoing or had to report the number of their atrocities to a government agency. The highest estimate I read was 98 million. The lowest estimate by RCC authors was between 3,000-5,000 people. That is 3,000-5,000 people too many for a "church" claiming to be the one true church seeing how Yeshua said to love our enemies and pray for them. Their murderous ways turned to sexually deviant ways even to today as one Catholic official after another is exposed for their sex crimes.

The Word became FLESH (John 1:14).
The SON always existed in Heaven.

John 3:16-17
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The Father sent the SON.

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
​

Did John always exist in heaven until God sent him?

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.​

Every person that was ever born comes "into the world".

Jesus was NEVER a heretic.

Show me ONE example of His heresy . . .

Definition of her·e·sy​

1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.

Definition of her·e·tic​

1. A person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
2. A person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

Why do you think the Jews sought to kill him on various occasions? Because he agreed with them? No. Claiming to the the Son of God was a heresy as was claiming to be the Messiah. When the Jews accused him of blasphemy, they did so because he did something or said something contrary to their generally accepted beliefs.

As evil as the pharisees were - the ONE thing they were NOT was stupid. Look at all of the trouble they went through to have Jesus crucified legally. They were not about to commit murder under Roman Law and have themselves executed for it.

So, are you saying Yeshua was crucified legally? That they didn't have a hand in murdering him? Are you saying they were not stupid? Having the Son of God put to death is probably THE MOST STUPID act in the history of the world.

Yup - and the fact that you are taking the SECONDARY defiition shows how truly desperate you are.

You just can't take it when you are proven wrong over and over again.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I deleted most of your carnal outbursts, derogatory remarks, etc.

Because you couldn't answer them . . .

Yes, the meaning was explained in Scripture. So how is it that you give the vision a meaning that is not the same as the meaning explained in Scripture???

The meaning of Peter's vision was that there were no longer and dietary restrictions.
If YOU are taking something other than that from this vision - then you are inventing somethig new . . .

So what are you saying? That the Spirit of truth in John 16:13 only guides the Apostles and not every individual believer. Or that, in Luke 10:16, a person despises Messiah only when they refuse to hear the Apostles, but not when they refuse to hear individual believers?

The individual doesn't have the full authority of the Church.
If they did - Jesus would have given it to ALL of them. He DIDN'T.

This is Herneneutics 101 . . .

It is difficult to prove how many people the RCC murdered. It is not that they kept records of their wrongdoing or had to report the number of their atrocities to a government agency. The highest estimate I read was 98 million. The lowest estimate by RCC authors was between 3,000-5,000 people. That is 3,000-5,000 people too many for a "church" claiming to be the one true church seeing how Yeshua said to love our enemies and pray for them. Their murderous ways turned to sexually deviant ways even to today as one Catholic official after another is exposed for their sex crimes.

I need to you substantiate YOUR claim of "millions".
I don't care what you've read on some anti-Catholic site. I want historical facts.

It's irresponsible to go around claiming things as "facts" - when YOU don't even have your facts straight. Can you at least give me some examples of a Pope ordering the executions of 100 people?? 50 people?? 10 people??

The fact is that many of the so-called "murders" you refer to were matters of STATE - and NOT the Church. And they did NOT number in the "millions".
Kingdoms had an interest in people remaining in the same church working toewards a common goal. ANY departure from that usually means rebellion within the kingdom so they took care of it in their OWN way. It was usually a matter of the stability of a state - and NOT Church "evil".

You've been watching too much skewed Hollywood manure and reading too many Jack Chick tracts . . .

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Did John always exist in heaven until God sent him?
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.​

Every person that was ever born comes "into the world".

The point is that Jesus told Nicodemus about Himself:
John 3:13
"Nobody has ever gone into except the one who came from heaven".
He ALWAYS existed.

Definition of her·e·sy

1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.

Definition of her·e·tic​

1. A person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
2. A person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

Why do you think the Jews sought to kill him on various occasions? Because he agreed with them? No. Claiming to the the Son of God was a heresy as was claiming to be the Messiah. When the Jews accused him of blasphemy, they did so because he did something or said something contrary to their generally accepted beliefs.

YOU said that Jesus WAS a heretic. He NEVER was.
He was falsely accused by the Pharisees and Saducees.

The definition of "heresy" that you posted doesn't support your blasphemy that our Lord was a heretic.

So, are you saying Yeshua was crucified legally? That they didn't have a hand in murdering him? Are you saying they were not stupid? Having the Son of God put to death is probably THE MOST STUPID act in the history of the world.

No - they were NOT stupid. Making a bad decision and being stupid are completely different things. They would have been well within their rights for stoning Him for open blasphemy in John 8:59 when He declared that He was God (I AM). They were wrong, however, because He IS God - but the law would have allowed for them to do it - just like when they tried to stone the adultress earlier in John 8.

WHY do think they sought to bring charges against Jesus of blasphemy and heresy??
WHY do think they took Jesus to Pilate??
WHY do think they took Jesus to Herod??
They were cunning and clever - NOT stupid . . .

You just can't take it when you are proven wrong over and over again.

Prove wrong and we'll see . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[gadar perets]

Because you couldn't answer them . . .

I answered all your points. It is impossible to answer derogatory remarks like "asinine".

The meaning of Peter's vision was that there were no longer and dietary restrictions.
If YOU are taking something other than that from this vision - then you are inventing somethig new . . .

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
​

That is not something new, but something true. That is the true interpretation. Your interpretation is false and man made. Wake up.

I need to you substantiate YOUR claim of "millions".
I don't care what you've read on some anti-Catholic site. I want historical facts.

Since I can't produce historical documents, I withdraw my "millions" comment and change it to "thousands". There were either no records kept or all were conveniently destroyed including records to verify the death toll according to Catholic sources. Do you care what I read on Catholic sites? Please explain/justify the 3,000-5,000 heretics killed in the Inquisitions in Europe. Feel free to explain all the sexual perversion going on in the RCC as well.

The point is that Jesus told Nicodemus about Himself:
John 3:13
"Nobody has ever gone into except the one who came from heaven".
He ALWAYS existed.

I do not deny the Son had his origin in heaven. He existed inside the mind of his Father until the appointed time to be made flesh.

YOU

said that Jesus WAS a heretic. He NEVER was.
He was falsely accused by the Pharisees and Saducees.

The definition of "heresy" that you posted doesn't support your blasphemy that our Lord was a heretic.

Yeshua held views that were not in accordance with the generally accepted views of the Jews. Therefore, he was a heretic which, BTW, is not something bad unless his views were wrong. The fact is, the views of the Jews were wrong, not Yeshua's. They believed healing was forbidden on Sabbath. They believed hand washing was necessary before eating, etc ...

No - they were NOT stupid. Making a bad decision and being stupid are completely different things. They would have been well within their rights for stoning Him for open blasphemy in John 8:59 when He declared that He was God (I AM). They were wrong, however, because He IS God - but the law would have allowed for them to do it - just like when they tried to stone the adultress earlier in John 8.

They were not allowed to stone the adulteress without stoning the adulterer as well. However, Roman law did not allow them to execute anyone.

Also, Yeshua is NOT God and he never claimed to be God. He claimed his Father (YHWH) was the "ONLY TRUE GOD" in John 17:3. YHWH cannot die and He is omniscient unlike Yeshua who died and did not know the hour of his return. Yeshua has a God (YHWH). If he is also God, then we have two Gods.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I answered all your points. It is impossible to answer derogatory remarks like "asinine".

That's a cop-out.

"Asinine" is merely an adjective - not the subject of a sentence.
If I had said, "intelligent" - you would have answered the points I made . . .

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

​

That is not something new, but something true. That is the true interpretation. Your interpretation is false and man made. Wake up.

Ummmmm, understand that he was not to call anybody "unclean" based on what they ate because they were no longer bound by dietary Laws.

Wake up.

Since I can't produce historical documents, I withdraw my "millions" comment and change it to "thousands". There were either no records kept or all were conveniently destroyed including records to verify the death toll according to Catholic sources. Do you care what I read on Catholic sites? Please explain/justify the 3,000-5,000 heretics killed in the Inquisitions in Europe. Feel free to explain all the sexual perversion going on in the RCC as well.

As I already explained to you - these were matters of STATE - not Church.
A rudimentary study of history will show you this fact.

As for the charge of sexual perversion going on "right now" in the Church - I will explain that as soon as YOU explain the even HIGHER numbers of sexual perversion and child molestation going on in PROTESTANT churches . . .
Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson

Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis : NPR

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’

Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics

There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

ANY time you want to discuss this - you know where to find me . . .

I do not deny the Son had his origin in heaven. He existed inside the mind of his Father until the appointed time to be made flesh.

Show me where the Bible says He only existed in the Father's "mind".
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

Yeshua held views that were not in accordance with the generally accepted views of the Jews. Therefore, he was a heretic which, BTW, is not something bad unless his views were wrong. The fact is, the views of the Jews were wrong, not Yeshua's. They believed healing was forbidden on Sabbath. They believed hand washing was necessary before eating, etc ...

WRONG.

He held views that they SHOULD have recognized but weren't. Remember what He said to Nicodemus:
John 3:10
“You are Israel’s teacher", said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?"

Jesus was NEVER a heretic. He was FALSELY accused of being one by the Pharisees.
BIG difference . . .

They were not allowed to stone the adulteress without stoning the adulterer as well. However, Roman law did not allow them to execute anyone.

Also, Yeshua is NOT God and he never claimed to be God. He claimed his Father (YHWH) was the "ONLY TRUE GOD" in John 17:3. YHWH cannot die and He is omniscient unlike Yeshua who died and did not know the hour of his return. Yeshua has a God (YHWH). If he is also God, then we have two Gods.

Spoken like a person who is completely blind to the ROLES of the Godhead.

Jesus was not only FULLY God - He was also FULLY Man. It is in this sense that He has a God.
There mere fact that the Pharisees wanted to stone Him to death in John 8:58 should have been your first clue. Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy.

John 10:30
"I and the Father are ONE."

 

[gadar perets]

That's a cop-out.

"Asinine" is merely an adjective - not the subject of a sentence.
If I had said, "intelligent" - you would have answered the points I made . . .

What is wrong with you? I answered every point you made. I answered every subject you brought up and deleted your derogatory remarks.

Ummmmm, understand that he was not to call anybody "unclean" based on what they ate because they were no longer bound by dietary Laws.

That is NOT why Gentiles were considered unclean. They were considered unclean because they were sinners who did all sorts of abominable things like idolatry, adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, lying, bestiality, having sex with menstruating women, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc.

As for the charge of sexual perversion going on "right now" in the Church - I will explain that as soon as YOU explain the even HIGHER numbers of sexual perversion and child molestation going on in PROTESTANT churches . . .
Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson

Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis : NPR

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’

Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics

There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

ANY time you want to discuss this - you know where to find me . . .

I am not a bit surprised that the same is true of Protestants. That's what happens when people do not value the laws of YHWH. BTW, I am not a Protestant.

Show me where the Bible says He only existed in the Father's "mind".
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

Was Yeshua a pre-existent spirit being living side by side with YHWH that was transformed into an embryo placed in Miriam's womb or was he actually "inside" YHWH? John 17:8 teaches the latter. It reads, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee , and they have believed that thou didst send me." The Greek word "exerchomai" translated "came out" specifically means to go out of something that you were inside of. In this case, Yeshua existed "inside" of YHWH in a similar sense that Levi existed inside the "loins of his father" before he was born (Hebrews 7:5-10). In that passage, Levi was not born yet, nor was his father Jacob. Yet, Levi was said to be in Abraham's loins (in the sense of future lineage). (The lineage of Messiah is spoken of in Micah 5:2 and it traces all the way back to his Father YHWH). While it is difficult to perceive of the Almighty having an "inside," that is what the text is saying. Yet, this, too, is figurative and equates with the mind of YHWH.

You will probably misunderstand my words, so let me clarify this. I am not suggesting the Almighty has "loins." Nor am I suggesting Yeshua was conceived in any manner similar to the manner in which all men are conceived (through procreation/copulation). YHWH is Spirit. His Holy Spirit "came upon" Miriam and miraculously caused her egg to receive the necessary DNA to create a 100% male child in her womb.

Luke 1:35 says, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Yeshua declared this truth in John 16:27-30 as well. "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowestall things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." Yeshua could not come from YHWH's side and from inside of YHWH at the same time. Only one can be true.

A verse that goes hand in hand with the phrase "came down from heaven" is John 6:62; "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Yeshua's origin is not in question here. He existed in the loins of His Father YHWH (in the sense of future lineage) until the appointed time of his earthly birth. Through YHWH's miraculous Holy Spirit power He then created in Miriam's egg a 100% man.

Jesus was NEVER a heretic. He was FALSELY accused of being one by the Pharisees.
BIG difference . . .

In which verse was he falsely accused of being a heretic?

Spoken like a person who is completely blind to the ROLES of the Godhead.

Jesus was not only FULLY God - He was also FULLY Man. It is in this sense that He has a God.
There mere fact that the Pharisees wanted to stone Him to death in John 8:58 should have been your first clue. Stoning was the penalty for blasphemy.

John 10:30
"I and the Father are ONE."

I know full well what Christians teach about the roles of their fictitious Godhead. The word itself conjures up images of a three headed God. Yeshua was never "fully God". That is an unscriptural phrase applied to him by trinitarians. Christians want to attribute all sorts of miracles and mighty deeds to "Jesus" as God, but then when something like having his own God comes up, then they switch gears and say it was the fully man part that has the God. Nonsense. There is only one true God, Yeshua's Father, Almighty YHWH.

Even after he was resurrected, glorified, and sat down at the right hand of his God, he still referred to YHWH as "my God" (Revelation 3:12).

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is NOT why Gentiles were considered unclean. They were considered unclean because they were sinners who did all sorts of abominable things like idolatry, adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, lying, bestiality, having sex with menstruating women, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc.

WRONG.

Your blanket statement about Gentiles is ignorant. Not "ALL" gentiles did these things.
They were considered unclean because they did not adhere to the Law - period.

I never even implied that they were unclean simply because of their dietary habits - but that was definitely PART of why they were considered unclean.

I am not a bit surprised that the same is true of Protestants. That's what happens when people do not value the laws of YHWH. BTW, I am not a Protestant.

No, you're not. Protestants are followers of Christ - incomplete as they may be.
YOU live in rebellion against God.

Was Yeshua a pre-existent spirit being living side by side with YHWH that was transformed into an embryo placed in Miriam's womb or was he actually "inside" YHWH? John 17:8 teaches the latter. It reads, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee , and they have believed that thou didst send me." The Greek word "exerchomai" translated "came out" specifically means to go out of something that you were inside of. In this case, Yeshua existed "inside" of YHWH in a similar sense that Levi existed inside the "loins of his father" before he was born (Hebrews 7:5-10). In that passage, Levi was not born yet, nor was his father Jacob. Yet, Levi was said to be in Abraham's loins (in the sense of future lineage). (The lineage of Messiah is spoken of in Micah 5:2 and it traces all the way back to his Father YHWH). While it is difficult to perceive of the Almighty having an "inside," that is what the text is saying. Yet, this, too, is figurative and equates with the mind of YHWH.

You will probably misunderstand my words, so let me clarify this. I am not suggesting the Almighty has "loins." Nor am I suggesting Yeshua was conceived in any manner similar to the manner in which all men are conceived (through procreation/copulation). YHWH is Spirit. His Holy Spirit "came upon" Miriam and miraculously caused her egg to receive the necessary DNA to create a 100% male child in her womb.

Luke 1:35 says, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Yeshua declared this truth in John 16:27-30 as well. "For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowestall things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God." Yeshua could not come from YHWH's side and from inside of YHWH at the same time. Only one can be true.

A verse that goes hand in hand with the phrase "came down from heaven" is John 6:62; "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" Yeshua's origin is not in question here. He existed in the loins of His Father YHWH (in the sense of future lineage) until the appointed time of his earthly birth. Through YHWH's miraculous Holy Spirit power He then created in Miriam's egg a 100% man.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.

It doesn't say that the Word came FROM God. It says that the Word WAS God.

In verse 14, it says: The Word became FLESH and made HIS dwelling among us.

In which verse was he falsely accused of being a heretic?

In which verse did He espouse heresy - as YOU claim??

I know full well what Christians teach about the roles of their fictitious Godhead. The word itself conjures up images of a three headed God. Yeshua was never "fully God". That is an unscriptural phrase applied to him by trinitarians. Christians want to attribute all sorts of miracles and mighty deeds to "Jesus" as God, but then when something like having his own God comes up, then they switch gears and say it was the fully man part that has the God. Nonsense. There is only one true God, Yeshua's Father, Almighty YHWH.

Even after he was resurrected, glorified, and sat down at the right hand of his God, he still referred to YHWH as "my God" (Revelation 3:12).

The reason YOU find the Trinity so offensive is because it is a stumbling block to you, a non-believer. Not only did the Prophets state that Jesus was God - Jesus stated it plainly (John 8:58, John 10:30, John 17:20-23).

Rev. 1:8 explicitly quotes Almighty GOD:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Finally - JESUS says in Rev. 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

YOU lose because the WORD wins.

 

[gadar perets]

Your blanket statement about Gentiles is ignorant. Not "ALL" gentiles did these things.
They were considered unclean because they did not adhere to the Law - period.

I never said they "ALL" did those things. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I never even implied that they were unclean simply because of their dietary habits - but that was definitely PART of why they were considered unclean.

You specifically said Peter was not to "call anybody "unclean" based on what they ate". Does that mean he could call them unclean for other reasons? No! Therefore, you limited it to what they ate.

No, you're not. Protestants are followers of Christ - incomplete as they may be.
YOU live in rebellion against God.

And you falsely accuse a child of God. You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. I'm not the one who tramples on YHWH's holy days or eats what He considers abominable. I'm not the one who turned His Son into the only true God thereby promoting polytheism.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.

It doesn't say that the Word came FROM God. It says that the Word WAS God.

The key to understanding this lies in the word order of John 1:1c. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.​

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force. (Parenthesis and bold mine).​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word/logos/spoken words and thoughts. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

The reason YOU find the Trinity so offensive is because it is a stumbling block to you, a non-believer.

Dig, dig, dig. Matthew 12:37, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Not only did the Prophets state that Jesus was God - Jesus stated it plainly (John 8:58, John 10:30, John 17:20-23).

Really? The Prophets called him "God"? I didn't know the Prophets spoke English. I know the Prophets called him "elohim". That is acceptable since angels and other men were also called "elohim", but to call him "God" with a capital "G" is unacceptable. It denies the monotheism Yeshua revealed in John 17:3.

Also, None of the verses you cited (John 8:58, John 10:30, John 17:20-23) have Yeshua saying "I am God". You love to read things into the text.

Rev. 1:8

explicitly quotes Almighty GOD:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Finally - JESUS says in Rev. 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

You ignorantly believe Bible publishers who erroneously put those words in red letters as though Yeshua was speaking. His Father is speaking in both of those verses.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never said they "ALL" did those things. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You generalized. The FACT is that they were considered "unclean" because they were OUTSIDE of the Law.

You specifically said Peter was not to "call anybody "unclean" based on what they ate". Does that mean he could call them unclean for other reasons? No! Therefore, you limited it to what they ate.

No - I never "limited" anything.

A person WAS considered unclean by what they ate. They were ALSO considered unclean by many other purity and ceremonial Laws.

And you falsely accuse a child of God. You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. I'm not the one who tramples on YHWH's holy days or eats what He considers abominable. I'm not the one who turned His Son into the only true God thereby promoting polytheism.

You ARE the one who refuses to accept that these things were all SHADOWS of Christ. HE is the reality - the fulfillment. If you're still waiting for Him to show up - you're about 2000 years LATE.

As for your last lie in RED - neither did I.
I never stated that the Son alone is God. He is the 2nd Person in the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The key to understanding this lies in the word order of John 1:1c. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.​

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force. (Parenthesis and bold mine).​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word/logos/spoken words and thoughts. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

That's NOT what Mounce is saying at ALL.
He is stating the Christian view that Jesus is GOD - not your non-Christian aberration.

Funny how you can pervert not only Scripture - but even the commentaries on it . . .

Dig, dig, dig. Matthew 12:37, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Luke 17:3
"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

1 Tim. 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Admonishing a sinner is a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

Really? The Prophets called him "God"? I didn't know the Prophets spoke English. I know the Prophets called him "elohim". That is acceptable since angels and other men were also called "elohim", but to call him "God" with a capital "G" is unacceptable. It denies the monotheism Yeshua revealed in John 17:3.

Also, None of the verses you cited (John 8:58, John 10:30, John 17:20-23) have Yeshua saying "I am God". You love to read things into the text.

This is a really impotent response.
There isn't a single verse where Jesus says "I am a human being", either.

We deduce that from what Scripture tells us, Einstein . . .
- He was born of a human being.
- He ate and drank.
- He cried.
- He suffered pain and bled.
- He DIED.

He ALSO tells us He is God:
- "I and my Father are ONE" (John 10:30)
- "Before Abraham was - I AM" (John 8:58).
- "And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as WE ARE ONE" (John 17:11).

It's not rocket science . . .

You ignorantly believe Bible publishers who erroneously put those words in red letters as though Yeshua was speaking. His Father is speaking in both of those verses.

This is the problem with people like YOU who reject the Word of God.
Read the verse in CONTEXT . . .

Rev. 22:12-26
“Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates.
Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.

“I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright morning star.”

Once again - YOU LOSE because the WORD WINS . . .

 

[gadar perets]

You generalized. The FACT is that they were considered "unclean" because they were OUTSIDE of the Law.

That is what I said. Therefore, the interpretation of the vision is exactly what YHWH told Peter, NOT what you are telling me.

I never stated that the Son alone is God. He is the 2nd Person in the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You mean the second God in your triune, polytheistic "Godhead".

That's NOT what Mounce is saying at ALL.
He is stating the Christian view that Jesus is GOD - not your non-Christian aberration.

I know Mounce is trinitarian and does not hold my view. However, he fully understands that the Greek is NOT to be translated, "and the Word was God".

This is a really impotent response.
There isn't a single verse where Jesus says "I am a human being", either.

Correct, but I never said Yeshua claimed to be a human being whereas you said he claimed to be "God". He did no such thing.

He ALSO tells us He is God:
- "I and my Father are ONE" (John 10:30)
- "Before Abraham was - I AM" (John 8:58).
- "And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as WE ARE ONE" (John 17:11).

It's not rocket science . . .

So then, do you believe John 10:30 is teaching us that The Son is the Father? That is not what trinitarians believe. Nor is it what Yeshua meant. Are you a oneness proponent? That's even more ridiculous than the trinity.

If your interpretation of John 10:30 is correct, then Yeshua prayed that his followers would also become God as well (John 17:11, 22). Yeshua did NOT say "my Father and I are God". Nor did he say of believers, "that they may be God, even as we are God". The truth is, Yeshua wants us to be one in the same exact sense as he and the Father are one. That is NOT a oneness of being or deity, but of purpose, goals, etc.

Read

the verse in CONTEXT . . .

Rev. 22:12-26
“Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates.
Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.

“I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright morning star.”

I see you did not bring up Rev 1:8 again. Do you now realize that is the Father speaking?

As for Rev 22:12, YHWH is coming as well.

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, Adonai YHWH will come with strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him: behold, His reward is with him, and His work before him.
​

"His arm" is a reference to Yeshua. They are both coming in a sense. Yeshua will come as YHWH's representative. When he comes, it will be as though YHWH (Yeshua's Father and "God") will come as well. Yeshua will bring YHWH's reward/recompense with him and will do the work YHWH assigned him to do.

 

[Enoch111]

Correct, but I never said Yeshua claimed to be a human being whereas you said he claimed to be "God". He did no such thing.

Well if we want to be totally honest, that statement is a BLATANT LIE.

We know from Exodus that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob told Moses that He was "I AM THAT I AM ", and that Moses should tell the Israelites that "I AM" had sent him to deliver them. Furthermore He added this to establish this name: ...this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations (Exod 3:15).

We know from the Gospel of John that Jesus said that He was "I AM". For Christians that alone settles the issue. But the naysayers make Jesus a liar when they insist that Jesus never claimed to be God. And that is a very serious sin.