Spurma from YHVH

[sonofYah]

Spurma transliterated noun, Strongs [G4690 spurma] the seed from which anything develops... From [G4687] something sown that is seed (including the male spurm) by implication offspring; specifically a remnant...
Acts 13:22b-23 ...”I (Yah veh) find David of Jesse a man after My (Yah veh’s) own heart, who does all My (Yah veh’s) will. Of the spurma of this man (David), according to His (Yah veh’s) promise, Yah veh raises to Israel a saviour, Yah Shua (Yah’s salvation) ”...
Rom 1:3-4 ...”concerning His (Yah veh’s) son Yah Shua messiah (Yah’s salvation Yah’s anointed one) our ruler; who, according to flesh, became (came into being) of the spurma of David; and according to spirit of holiness, determined son of Yah veh in power, by the rising out from the dead (ones)”:
2 Tim 2:8 ...“Remember that Yah Shua messiah (Yah’s salvation Yah’s anointed one) of the spurma of David was raised out from dead (ones) according to my evangelism”:
1 John 3:9 ...“Whoever is birthed of Yah veh sins not; because His (Yah veh’s) spurma abides in him: and he cannot sin, because he is birthed of Yah veh. In this are the children of Yah veh and the children of diabolos (an opposer) manifest”:
Matthew 1:1 “Book of genesis ORIGIN, BEGINNING of Yah shua messiah ( Yah’s salvation Yah's anointed one”)…
Matthew 1:18…”Yah shua messiah (Yah's salvation Yah’s anointed one) the (who’s) genesis ORIGIN, BEGINNING thusly was”…
Yah shua, (Yah's salvation) DID NOT pre-exist his genesis ORIGIN, BEGINNING according to Matthew 1:1,18… Yah shua DID NOT float down from the sky and enter the womb of Mary..
Mk 13:6
πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου λέγοντες ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν .
many will come on the name of me saying that I AM, and many they will deceive.
QUESTION... Who died for your SIN? Your so called "Jesus incarnate" OR The spurma
from Yah veh the true ONE?

 

[Deborah_]

QUESTION... Who died for your SIN? Your so called "Jesus incarnate" OR The sperma
from Yah veh the true ONE?

Both. They are one and the same person.

Yah shua DID NOT float down from the sky and enter the womb of Mary..

True. Yeshua the human being did not exist before His conception - but as the eternal Son of God He has always existed. The Word became flesh...

 

[sonofYah]

They're NOT the same PERSON. John 1:14 is usually interpreted by trinitarians to mean the Second Person of the Trinity became a human being when he descended into the womb of Mary. However, the text itself says nothing of the sort. Yah veh's word is something which is expected to be fulfilled. For example, Paul said the mystery of godliness was manifested in flesh which means that a human being of flesh named Yah shua manifested godliness during his ministry. In the same way, "the word became flesh" refers to the fact that the word of the Father was manifested in all the things that flesh said and did. The word came to be flesh when the spirit descended upon Yah shua and he began to walk according to that word, that is, the Good News of the Kingdom which Yah veh anointed him to proclaim.

John 18:37 ...”I (Yah shua) have been brought into existence (Gk from gennao) and have come into the world for this particular purpose”... this links the son’s beginning of existence with his “coming into the world”

Acts 13:33 ...”By raising Yah shua up (as Messiah) ... this is just as described in the second Psalm; “You are my son; TODAY I (Yah veh) have brought you into existence (Gk from gennao)”... From Psalm 2:7

Heb 1:5 “Indeed, to which of the angels did Yah veh ever say, “You are my son, TODAY I (Yah veh) have brought you into existence (Gr from gennao)” In quoting Psalm 2:7 both Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 show Yah shua as having been brought into existence at a particular “TODAY,” When Yah veh miraculously father Yah shua in Mary’s womb.

1 John 5:18 ...”but the one (Yah shua) who was fathered (the Gk aorist tense of gennao) by Yah veh, continues to keep them (believers) safe”... This is a “ONE TIME” coming into existence of Yah shua as shown by the use of the aorist tense...

Matt 1:20 ...”for the child having been fathered (the Gk aorist tence of gennao) IN her (Mary) is by holy spirit”

Luke 1:35 To Mary: “For this REASON the child being brought into existence (Gr from gennao) will be holy; he will be called the son of Yah veh.”

John 1:12-13 KGV “As many as did except him, He gave the right to become Yah veh’s children-to those giving their allegiance *to him (Yah shua) who was brought into existence (the Gk aorist tense of gennao,) not by common processes nor by human choice nor by husbands decision, but of Yah veh”

*In harmony with Matthews and Luke’s Gospels, this rendering shows that John acknowledged Yah shua’s coming into existence as Yah veh’s direct son through a virgin. The basis for this rendering is the 1920 German translation by Albrecht who’s notes state:

“I am following here in john 1:13 an extremely old reading found in Irenaeus and Tertullian, the singular verb “was begotten” referring to Jesus, not to believers, prevailed in text from the second to fourth century in the West, and left important traces in the East also. John confesses expressly here his belief in the virginal begetting and birth of Jesus, which Matthew and Luke describe in mush more detail.”
Similarly, the Jerusalem Bible renders the verse as “him who was born not out of human stock or urge of the flesh or will of man but of God himself.”
The New Jerusalem Bible reverts to the old reading but has provided a footnote on this issue.
So all these texts show that the “generation/origin” i.e., the being brought into existence,” and the “coming into existence” of Yah shua occurred IN Mary’s womb and ONLY IN Mary’s womb and therefore precluding any thought of a pre-existent PERSON who becomes Yah shua.

The real question of John 1:1 is this: Who or what is “the logos?” Genesis1:1 clearly tells us that Yah veh, ALONE, existed “in the beginning.” Therefore, it was Yah veh who communicated to man “in the beginning”. That communication to Adam was the first “logos.” It was Yah veh’s word. His law... It is a fact that the term “logos” was used for Yah veh, Yah shua and PAUL. This makes perfect sense because the word “logos” means “communication” PAUL was called “the logos” in Acts 14:1. Yah veh’s “logos” comes first in the form of law commands to Adam. Later, when Yah shua comes on the scene, Yah veh’s “logos” took on the form of “flesh”. That came NOT in the beginning but AFTERWARD! Don’t miss read it. Yah veh communicates to mortal man. In Heb 1:1-2 we read: Yah veh who at sundry times and divers manners SPOKE in time past to the fathers by the prophets, Has in THESE last days SPOKEN (communicated) to us by His (Yah veh’s) son, whom He (Yah veh) has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He (Yah veh) fulfilled the ages...” Yah veh spoke (communicated) to Adam and to the prophets. But NOW Yah veh speaks (communicates) THROUGH His son, Yah shua. “PAUL, too, spoke as Yah shua’s “logos”. In the beginning Yah veh spoke. Later His word came via His prophets. Yah shua was, of course, His greatest “logos.” Yah veh reveals Himself to man in three ways: (1) By spirit: Yah veh inspires people. (2) By His word: the scriptures: (3) By His son, Yah shua Messiah: Our reigning King...

 

[101G]

First thanks for the reply, second you said they are not the same, then you said,

In Heb 1:1-2 we read: Yah veh who at sundry times and divers manners SPOKE in time past to the fathers by the prophets, Has in THESE last days SPOKEN (communicated) to us by His (Yah veh’s) son, whom He (Yah veh) has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He (Yah veh) fulfilled the ages...”

this is what we would like to address.

you said, usung your words, "Yah veh who at sundry times and divers manners SPOKE in time past to the fathers by the prophets".

ok, who was this speaking to the prophets of old? 1 Peter 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
1 Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow".

who is the Spirit of Christ?.

PICJAG.

 

[Windmillcharge]

The real question of John 1:1 is this: Who or what is “the logos?”

John answers your question:- the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
and made even more clear:-
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:13 ...”the name of him who WAS brought into existence (the Gk aorist tense of gennao) not by common processes nor by human choice nor by a husbands decision, but by Yah veh.”

Says nothing aboutthe nameof him who was brought into existence.
It is talking about people who believe in Jesus becoming children of God.

 

[sonofYah]

1 Peter 1:11
Concerning this salvation, the prophets searched and inquired carefully, prophesying of the grace coming to you, inquiring what circumstances or what time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating, foretelling the sufferings of Christ and the glories which followed.

Doctrinal Contradiction

This Trinitarian claim is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine and is usually advanced by laypeople who do not realize the implications of such a claim. It is either supposed that the Spirit of Christ IS Christ, or it is supposed that if the Spirit of Christ pre-existed then that must mean Christ pre-existed.

However, in Trinitarian doctrine, the Spirit of Christ is NOT Christ. The Spirit of Christ is someone else, the Holy Spirit (see 1:12). In Trinitarian doctrine, the Spirit of Christ is a person, the third person of the Trinity and NOT the second person of the Trinity. In Trinitarian doctrine, the Spirit of Christ is also not a reference to a "WHAT" but to a "WHO." The Trinitarian "Spirit of Christ" is a reference to another person who is NOT Christ just as the Spirit of the Father is not a reference to the Father but to someone else, the third person of the Trinity. Any one of the three persons of the Trinity is not the other. It was the Holy Spirit which came upon the prophets (2 Peter 1:21) not another Spirit. Hence, according to Trinitarian doctrine, the existence of the Spirit of Christ can only mean the Holy Spirit existed, not the second person of the Trinity. Therefore, this Trinitarian claim doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The fact that this verse says the “spirit of messiah (Yah’s anointed one)” was upon people in the Old Testament has caused people to believe that messiah (Yah’s anointed one) was present in the Old Testament. But, as we will see, such is not the case. In the first place, the phrase “spirit of messiah” never appears in the Old Testament. The “spirit of Yah veh” or “the spirit of Elohim (Yah veh)” appears over and over, but never the “spirit of messiah.” The spirit that Yah veh places upon people takes on different names as it refers to different functions. This can be abundantly proven. Nevertheless, the spirit is the same. Yah veh always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions. When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the “spirit of wisdom” (Ex. 28:3; Deut. 34:9; Eph. 1:17). When it is associated with grace, it is called the “spirit of grace” (Zech.12:10; Heb. 10:29). When it is related to glory, it is called the “spirit of glory” (1 Pet. 4:14). It is called the “spirit of adoption” when it is associated with our life in messiah (Rom. 8:15, which is translated as “spirit of sonship” in some versions). It is called “the spirit of truth” when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17; 16:13). When it came with the same power as it brought to Elijah, it was called “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15). These are not different spirits. All the names refer to the one gift of holy spirit that Yah veh gives. Ephesians 4:4 states clearly that there is “ONE spirit,” and that spirit is Yah veh’s gift of holy spirit given to some people in the Old Testament and to all believers today.

When Peter mentions that “the spirit of messiah” was upon prophets as they “predicted the sufferings of messiah (Yah’s anointed one) and the glories which followed,” it is easy to see that the spirit is called the “spirit of messiah” because it is associated with messiah and FORETOLD of messiah, not because messiah (Yah’s anointed one) was actually alive during the Old Testament. * Notice how he refers to the sufferings of messiah and the glories which followed, a reference to a future human being.

 

[sonofYah]

The logos, that is, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Yah shua.
Yah shua is the “image of the invisible Yah veh” (Col. 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative and agent. Because Yah shua perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that Yah veh could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Yah shua could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Yah shua in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose or wisdom of Yah veh for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a “spirit-book” somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as Yah veh gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

John 1:12-13 KGV “As many as did except him, He gave the right to become Yah veh’s children-to those giving their allegiance *to him (Yah shua) who was brought into existence (the Gk aorist tense of gennao,) not by common processes nor by human choice nor by husbands decision, but of Yah veh”

*In harmony with Matthews and Luke’s Gospels, this rendering shows that John acknowledged Yah shua’s coming into existence as Yah veh’s direct son through a virgin. The basis for this rendering is the 1920 German translation by Albrecht who’s notes state:

“I am following here in john 1:13 an extremely old reading found in Irenaeus and Tertullian, the singular verb “was begotten” referring to Jesus, not to believers, prevailed in text from the second to fourth century in the West, and left important traces in the East also. John confesses expressly here his belief in the virginal begetting and birth of Jesus, which Matthew and Luke describe in mush more detail.”

Food for thought... Genesis 1 (Masoretic text) uses the word Alhym (which can be read plural), so it presents the possibility of creator beings (“let us make man in our image”). Compare the Aramaic Tanakh, which uses the singular Alha in Genesis 1.

 

[bbyrd009]

Nice to meet you, i'm mark : )

Who died for your SIN? Your so called "Jesus incarnate" OR The spurma from Yah veh the true ONE?

ty

funny how we choose to read phrases like died for your sins,
slain from the foundation of the world, etc huh.
like we weren't even there for...both of those

No Son of Man may die for another's sins

haven't sifted the...middle two yet, blind now, might like them too
no one here believes a word of that i guess,
but ty

 

[sonofYah]

Nice to meet you, i'm mark : )
ty

funny how we choose to read phrases like died for your sins,
slain from the foundation of the world, etc huh.
like we weren't even there for...both of those

No Son of Man may die for another's sins

haven't sifted the...middle two yet, blind now, might like them too
no one here believes a word of that i guess,
but ty

Son of God DOES NOT mean God the Son... Can God DIE?

 

[bbyrd009]

Son of God DOES NOT mean God the Son... Can God DIE?

my time here is done, special site though...well, to me
first site that ever allowed an attack on "death more abundantly," out of...a whole bunch.
anyway, if you have a blog or another contact, ty
and i hope you enjoy your um walk through the valley herenow, k

 

[bbyrd009]

Well I take it back this forum does appear in recent posts, hmm. How did I came here every single day for the past umpty ump months and not ever see this thread in new posts? @FHII ? Wait are you a mod? Do we still even have those?

 

[bbyrd009]

Son of God DOES NOT mean God the Son... Can God DIE?

Anyway, yes and no i guess. Or rather the prop is moot to Abba, I AM?
Iow God cannot die imo Bc He never lived!

 

[FHII]

@FHII ? Wait are you a mod? Do we still even have those

I am not a mod...

 

[bbyrd009]

Son of God DOES NOT mean God the Son... Can God DIE?

Well?