logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline masters_apprentice  
#1 Posted : Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:18:40 AM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
You folks here use the term Yahweh. Can you tell me, in your own words, without directing me to something someone else said, the answer to my questions?

1. Is Yahweh in your opinion “the Father”?

2. Is Yahweh “the Son”?

3. Is Yashua Yahweh?

4. Is Yahweh the “name” of what we call “God” and if so what does Elohim and El mean?
I ask this question for several reasons. And agan, I don't want to be directed to what someone wrote. I want to know YOUR answer.
Offline matt  
#2 Posted : Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:39:39 PM(UTC)
matt
Joined: 6/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 36
United States

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Yahweh's not our thing.

Edit to add:

I typically read this forum on my phone, so for me, it’s easier not to comment. However, if you sincerely care to know about the personal and proper name of God (which I seriously doubt), I will share the following with you:
YHWH is the personal and proper name of the individual who is the author of the contents of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He has a variety of conduits through this body of work, but the message is his.

Y, H, and W are all open mouth (vowel) sounds. When arranged as YHWH, the make a sound like Yah-o-wah. There are several spellings that people seem to prefer regarding the transliteration, but it’s just that, a transliteration. It sounds like Yahowah. Yahweh is a rabbinical thing. The letters don’t make that sound. The use of Yahweh in association with anything you find here are simply a matter of search engine optimization (which is discussed here somewhere).

YHWH introduces himself by name to the person you probably know as Moses, in the book and verse that you would recognize as Exodus 3:15. If you look it up in an interlinear, you will see as much, and if you use any of the associated tools and lexicons, you will see that the authors of whichever English translation is your favorite knew well that YHWH is the personal and proper name of the individual they have rebranded as “lord.” He says his name is Yahowah, and he is to be known as such by all generations, for all time.

This moniker is not random or meaningless. Yahowah, when drawn in the paleo script is literally a picture of The Covenant, the thing which Yahowah cares about the most. Is it any wonder that He takes the renown of, affiliations to, and disregard of His Name so seriously?

I could go on about Yahowah’s Name. He did, but I expect the above has answered at least part of questions.

Regarding the rest:

1. Yahowah is my Father and the Father of my family. If you are not a part of the family or a genetically Jewish, then Yahowah doesn’t know you.
2. Yahowah is one.
3. See #2. Yahowsha’ is a diminished manifestation of Yahowah.
4. El and Elohim are just the noun for god(s). They are a singular and plural title, not a name.

Your tired old comments betray the fact that you haven’t read Yada Yah, Questioning Paul, Intro To God, or any of the works that participants in this forum have published online to share this information with you. If the length of the content from Yada Yah is keeping you from giving it a read, check out Richard’s site: http://www.blessyahowah.com/a/ftf.html . It is as close to an executive summary of what this is all about that you are going to get. I doubt you’ll read it, but if you did, it would add merit to your questions and comments, even if you disagree, because we could all have a meaningful conversation.

Edited by user Friday, March 20, 2015 3:59:43 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users thanked matt for this useful post.
Sheree on 3/21/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 3/25/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#3 Posted : Friday, March 20, 2015 10:43:44 AM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Matt,

This entire forum is dedicated to Him starting with the name. I am surprised therefore that no one wants to address this question. Is taht all you can say? Is Yashua Yahweh?

You know I find questions like this interesting. I had a debate with the "leader" of a Jehovah Witness cult on evening. After it was over I made him realize he doed not even know who Jehovah is and for years he was leading a Jehovah Witness church! Amazing.
Offline Bubsy  
#4 Posted : Friday, March 20, 2015 1:42:56 PM(UTC)
Bubsy
Joined: 1/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 122
Man
Location: Los Angeles

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 22 time(s) in 19 post(s)
1. The one and only Living God spelled his name in Hebrew as Yod (vocalized like a Y), Hey (vocalized as "ah"), Wa (vocalized as a long O), Hey (again vocalized as "ah"). Many of us tend to spell his name Yahowah to transliterate his name into English, and he is indeed "the Father". We do recognize that many do spell His name "Yahweh".

2. Yahowsha ("Yah-owe-shah") seems to be how the name of the tangible, visible, manifestation of Yahowah is vocalized, though I have also seen it spelled Yahshuah, and heard it vocalized "Yah-shoo-ah". The tangible, visible manifestation of Yahowah is the one commonly referred to as "the Son". Most Christians call him "Jesus", even though the letter "J" wasn't invented until the 16th or 17th century. Yada found that "Jesus" is, however, a sound-alike to "Gesus", regarded as the savior of the Druid sun-worship religion, which regards "The Horned One" as god. (Yeah, "The Horned One"? Guess which spirit THAT religion honors!)

3. Since Yahowsha is a set-apart visible, tangible manifestation of Yahowah, Yahowsha really is Yahowah. Yahowsha even said so explicitly - "The Father and I are One." An analogy that Yada likes to use is to imagine you're on a ship in the middle of the ocean, and you dip two barrels into the ocean. You freeze one of the barrels and the water inside so it becomes solid. It will remain in that visible, tangible state for a while. You boil the water in the other barrel, turning it to steam. That puts it into a more energetic state, capable of doing work and cleaning. The ice state is analogous to Yahowsha, the Son. The steam is analogous to the Set-Apart Spirit (Ruach Qodesh). They both come from the same source, however, the ocean (analogous to Yahowah).

4. Yahowah is the Creator's name, "God" is his title in English. Elohim and El can be used to refer to generic gods, or "mighty ones".
Ha Shem? I'm kind of fond of Ha Shemp, Ha Larry, and Ha Moe myself. And the earlier shorts with Ha Curly.
thanks 2 users thanked Bubsy for this useful post.
matt on 3/20/2015(UTC), Sheree on 3/21/2015(UTC)
Offline matt  
#5 Posted : Friday, March 20, 2015 6:28:39 PM(UTC)
matt
Joined: 6/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 36
United States

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
i added a longer reply as an edit to my prior post.
Offline masters_apprentice  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, March 24, 2015 11:46:50 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Matt and Busby...

First of all about 4 years ago or more I came to this site. Who you call Yada I think is KP correct? For his initials. I downloaded and READ EVERY WORD of his 613 Mosaic Law analysis. EVERY WORD. It took me almost 4 weeks to get through it. I chatted with him and told him I applauded the undertaking. I have also chatted with Swalchy about what he does. Again I applaud his effort. However, there is about 15% of KP I totally disagree with. Not bad considering. And Swalchy? To re-write a translation like he does to give you every possible word is to me not good. I would rather he pick the CORRECT words and leave it at that. Just my opinion. But the point is, I wish you guys would quit telling me "This is what Yada says" or words to that effect. I too have a manuscript in progress that is 2,200 pages at this point and growing. Now back to the topic at hand...

I'll hit the bullet points...

1. Yawheh is not "God's name". It is his TITLE. The name of God is Elohim or El or Eloah. The term Yahweh has nothing to do with whether you are "Jewish" or not. I am not sure why you post that since God divorced the Jews in the OT. Why do you want to be one?

2. The term Yahweh goes further back than Exodus 3:15. That name he used to Moses "eyeh ’asher ’eyeh" is not Yahweh. And I understand this name is very important to the Orthodox Jews as are other things they deem important that are not important.

3. When God (Elohim, not elohim) created the heavens and the earth he was not called Yahweh. In Gen 1 the term Yahweh is no where to be found...

Gen 1:1 In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth came to be1 formless and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim was moving on the face of the waters. Footnote: 1Or the earth became.
Gen 1:3 And Elohim said, “Let light come to be,” and light came to be.
Gen 1:4 And Elohim saw the light, that it was good. And Elohim separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And Elohim called the light ‘day’ and the darkness He called ‘night.’ And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And Elohim said, “Let an expanse come to be in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Gen 1:7 And Elohim made the expanse, and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it came to be so.
Gen 1:8 And Elohim called the expanse ‘heavens.’ And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the second day.

No Yahweh. He is Elohim.

4. Elohim became Yahweh Elohim in Gen 2 at the creation of mankind. Yahweh is Elohim's TITLE in his relationship with mankind. Without mankind he is not Yahweh. Otherwise he is just Elohim or El.

5. The Holy Spirit (Ruach Ha-Kodesh) is not Yahweh. The 2 have nothing to do with each other and the water/ice metaphor is does not apply here. Ruach is not Elohim. Elohim has a Ruach, but the Ruach Ha-Kodesh is its own entity and is not "God" or Elohim or Yahweh and there is absolutely no such thing as a Trinity.

6. The Father and the Son are both Yahweh. The 2 are not the same thing yet are united as one. They are ECHAD not YACHID. They are of the same substance, but not the same thing.

As we read...

2Sa 7:25 “And now, O יהוה Elohim, the word which You have spoken concerning Your servant and concerning his house, establish it forever and do as You have said.

which is different than here...

2Sa 7:28 “And now, O Master יהוה, You are Elohim, and Your words are true, and You have spoken this goodness to Your servant.

2 different Yahwehs.

Offline James  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:58:17 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
masters_apprentice,

Why would anyone here bother to engage with you? You have proven that you have no interest in evidence, reason or rationality. You only wish to state your views and have everyone agree with you. HERE, I asked you to simply provide proof, evidence or reason for your view while at the same time providing proof, evidence and reason against your view. You simply restated your view as fact again, and ignored everything I said. So with that kind of dialoguing history why would anyone here waste their time engaging with you?

I don't care if you have a 2,200 page manuscript, if you cannot back anything you say up.

For the record, Yada and KP are not the same person. KP was a friend of Yada's, but the two had a falling out when Yada came to understand Paul for the false prophet he is, something KP would not even consider.

And thus far 1 person has sited Yada, and that was only twice, once to give him credit for the research he did which we have confirmed (a common courtesy) and the other time to cite an analogy that Yada used. Meanwhile all you have is your own opinion stated as facts.

MA wrote:
1. Yawheh is not "God's name". It is his TITLE. The name of God is Elohim or El or Eloah. The term Yahweh has nothing to do with whether you are "Jewish" or not. I am not sure why you post that since God divorced the Jews in the OT. Why do you want to be one?


WTF???? This is completely back asswards. Elohim, El and Eloah are titles, titles that Yahowah applies to both himself and to false gods. Yahowah is the name.

Exo 3:13 And Mosheh said to Elohim, “See, when I come to the children of Yisra’ĕl and say to them, ‘The Elohim of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His Name?’ what shall I say to them?”
Exo 3:14 And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.”1 And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
Exo 3:15 And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Yaʽaqoḇ, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.’
Exo 3:16 “Go, and you shall gather the elders of Yisra’ĕl together, and say to them, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham, of Yitsḥaq, and of Yaʽaqoḇ, appeared to me, saying, “I have indeed visited you and seen what is done to you in Mitsrayim;

Notice the THE before Elohim, Ha in Hebrew, it is a definite article meaning that what follows is a title and not a name. Imagine how stupid it would sound if you subbed a name in there. The Michael of you fathers, The John of your fathers, etc. It is a title, which is why it gets used for both Yahowah and false elohim. Or the other way, imagine if Elohiem is a name imagine replacing it with another name, Bob of Yitshaq, and the Drew of Ya'aqob, etc. It is clear as clear can be that Yahowah is a name and Elohiem is a title. Furthermore Yahowah is His Name forever, and this is His remembrance to all generations.

Another PROOF, a concept you seem unfamiliar with:
Isa_42:8 “I am יהוה, that is My Name, and My esteem I do not give to another, nor My praise to idols.
Jer_16:21 “Therefore see, I am causing them to know, this time I cause them to know My hand and My might. And they shall know that My Name is יהוה!”

There is no way for any rational and informed individual to think that Elohim is a name and Yahowah a title. The proper pronunciation of יהוה may be up for debate, but the fact that יהוה is a name is not.

MA wrote:
2. The term Yahweh goes further back than Exodus 3:15. That name he used to Moses "eyeh ’asher ’eyeh" is not Yahweh. And I understand this name is very important to the Orthodox Jews as are other things they deem important that are not important.


WRONG. In 3:14 he says "eyeh ’asher ’eyeh" or “I am that which I am.” BUT when one continues to read you find that he goes on to say “Thus you are to say to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘יהוה Elohim of your fathers" Plain and clear as day.

ma wrote:
3. When God (Elohim, not elohim) created the heavens and the earth he was not called Yahweh. In Gen 1 the term Yahweh is no where to be found...


And this proves what? You do realize that:
Gen 2:4 These are the births of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that יהוה Elohim made earth and heavens.

And for the record there are no chapter distinctions in the original text, they were arbitrarily added centuries later.

Please show me 1 place where he says I am Elohim, that is my name, or my name is Elohim. As you can see above there are at least 2 places where he says that his name is Yahowah.

MA wrote:
4. Elohim became Yahweh Elohim in Gen 2 at the creation of mankind. Yahweh is Elohim's TITLE in his relationship with mankind. Without mankind he is not Yahweh. Otherwise he is just Elohim or El.


This is a perfect example of the logical fallacy Non sequitur. The fact that Yahowah does not appear in the 1st chapter does not lead to it being a title when it does appear. You have to examine the use of the words, and when you do that Yahowah is ALWAYS used as a proper name, and Elohim is used as a title, often with the definite article Ha (the). You never once see Yahowah with the definite article. Elohim is often used of false gods, you never once see Yahowah used of false gods. Yahowah is specifically stated by him to be his name, Elohim is never once stated by him as his name.

Elohim did not become Yahowah, Yahowah is, was and always has been Elohim, with or without man.

A few examples of where Elohim is used in reference to false elohim.
Exo 20:23 ‘You do not make besides Me mighty ones(elohim) of silver, and you do not make mighty ones of gold for yourselves.

Exo_12:12 ‘And I shall pass through the land of Mitsrayim on that night, and shall smite all the first-born in the land of Mitsrayim, both man and beast. And on all the mighty ones(elohim) of Mitsrayim I shall execute judgment. I am יהוה.

Exo_15:11 “Who is like You, O יהוה, among the mighty ones(elohim)? Who is like You, great in set-apartness, awesome in praises, working wonders?

In the 10 Dabar Yahowah tells us that He is our Elohim and we are not to have other elohim
Exo_20:3 “You have no other mighty ones(elohim) against My face.

Exo_23:13 “And in all that I have said to you take heed. And make no mention of the name of other mighty ones(elohim), let it not be heard from your mouth.

Here it is clear that elohim is a title, hence the make no mention of the name of other.

Exo_23:24 “Do not bow down to their mighty ones(elohim), nor serve them, nor do according to their works, but without fail overthrow them and without fail break down their pillars.

I can go on and on and on with several dozen such uses. It is clear to any informed and rational person that elohim is a title, and not a name. But you are unable to rationally process information, so I am sure that you will now restate your position as fact, perhaps with a few insults as to how we just don't get it, or we don't understand what you are saying. What you will not do is actually address anything I have said, or provide any evidence to your position. You won't be able to site me anywhere were Scripture says that Elohim is His name, as I have shown where it says Yahowah is His name. You probably won't even attempt a rational response in any way, because as I said in the other thread you are a true believer and no amount of evidence or reason will ever persuade a true believer.

I cannot believe the amount of time I have had to waste today responding to something so ridiculously obvious as this.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/25/2015(UTC)
Offline InHisName  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, March 25, 2015 2:31:47 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 133
Location: MINNESOTA

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 71 time(s) in 46 post(s)
Originally Posted by: masters_apprentice Go to Quoted Post
Matt,

This entire forum is dedicated to Him starting with the name. I am surprised therefore that no one wants to address this question. Is taht all you can say? Is Yashua Yahweh?


Your question was answered, just because you don't want to take the time to look up those big words and/or think about what they
mean or don't know how to argue what he said, is not laziness on Matt's part. Wink

Originally Posted by: masters_apprentice Go to Quoted Post
Matt,You know I find questions like this interesting. I had a debate with the "leader" of a Jehovah Witness cult on evening. After it was over I made him realize he doed not even know who Jehovah is and for years he was leading a Jehovah Witness church! Amazing.


Out of the frying pan and into the fire...
The blind leading the blind...

MA, come on man. You can't prove your point(s), to us, without proof pulled from the bona fide Word of Yahowah. That would be the Torah, Prophets and Psalms. But, find proof of your points there, do not use them out of context, correct them of their translation errors and then we can talk.

Until then you are just wasting our time.

thanks 2 users thanked InHisName for this useful post.
matt on 3/25/2015(UTC), James on 3/26/2015(UTC)
Offline masters_apprentice  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:03:36 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
* Facepalm * James...what's the deal? Are you the "anti-masters_apprentice"? I say up. You say down. I say yes. You say no. I guess the difference is that when you see the color green I see blue and yellow mixed. You look at a word and read it. I see it differently.

Do you not think I have read the verses you posted before?

Look, I just ate a deep dish pizza and have some ice cream to go eat. I will find more joy in eating that ice cream tonight than to write for the next 20 minutes to show you how far off the mark you are. So, I will answer tomorrow afternoon and still not looking forward to explaining this to you. As usual, I predict you will not get what I write. But someone, maybe someone you know, is reading this. And they think, "Yes, that MA guy is spot on". Yet in order to keep their "ranking" they will not agree with the "Ecclessia" here for fear of being moved down in rank. Similar to a religion. Why would a Cardinal confront the Pope? You got an interesting setup.

[So I was at a stop sign in a parking lot. The opposiin lane side coming towards me had a stop sign too. The cross lane to the left and right had no stop sign. The crossing traffice could go, but a car pulled up and stopped in the crossing lane (which had no stop sign). The car sat there for 30 seconds. Of course I DID have a stop sign and instead of going I sat there to let the car go through as it should be. Finally that car turned left. I sat there. As I looked into the SUV I noticed it was a blond. * ha ha *. (That is all. Not implying a joke)]

(hope that pizza does not give me acid reflux)

Okay James, tomorrow I will explain to you when the scriptures say "This is my NAME" that it is not his name.
Offline matt  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:20:15 PM(UTC)
matt
Joined: 6/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 36
United States

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
“M”_A,

You are just wrong about the name. Yahowah tells us his name is Yahowah. James broke it all down for you. That Isa_42:8 verse James quoted is extant in the DSS, and an image of the entire thing is hosted for free online. It says Yahowah, not El or Elohim. God’s name is not “I am.” He does state that unlike the false god’s of man, He is the One who exists. His name is Yahowah. I can’t improve on what James posted above, but I will state that I hold in contempt, I hate, and I am hostile to, anybody who despises, usurps, or belittles the Name of Yahowah. I only expanded my response to you on the OFF chance that you sincerely wanted to know about the personal and proper name of the author of the Torah. Clearly you have some other motive in your participation here.

Disregarding the possibility that you have a good motive for your questioning, let me give you some advice. All effective internet trolls benefit from actually reading the material that they are trying to debunk. I know it’s counter intuitive and all, that your arguments for or against something might actually be strengthened if you know what exactly it is you are trying to debunk. Sure, you’re gonna claim you read QP. If you had, the litany of tired defenses you offered up for the false apostle paul wouldn’t have crossed your keyboard. Literally every point you brought up is explored at length in QP. Every possible excuse that Christians endlessly proffer for the false apostle is thoroughly dealt with, and it’s always the same list. You aren’t the first to offer it, you won’t be the last. Every point is demolished as Paul’s lies are smashed by Yahowah’s Torah. Nobody here needs to reinvent the wheel debating your crazy posts. Read QP, then start a conversation offering evidence to refute a specific central point if you want to. There’d be no shortage of thoughtful responses generated by such a discussion. (I’m hammering on Paul here, because every post of yours seems to come back to the validity of Paul, be it his letters, or an allegation of a new covenant/testament.)

Coming here to apologize for paul is the equivalent of going to Dachau to apologize for Hitler. Nobody wants to hear it.

Paul fails every test that Yahowah gives His children to determine the validity of a prophet. Paul’s letters do not match Yahowah’s test for being inspired. That’s all I need to know, full stop. I can disregard Paul right there, without a second thought. But wait there’s more: Yahowha calls him out by name via Habakkuk, Peter denounces him in 2Peter3 (yeah I know you think it says otherwise), Yahowsha’ tells the disciples about the wolf (Paul claimed heredity to the tribe of Benjamin), Yahowsha’ says not to trust anybody who claims to have met him in the wilderness, he comes in his own (Roman) name, he’s lowly and little, unlike anybody Yah actually speaks through, paul is a megalomaniacal narcissist, and the list goes on. All of that without even getting into Paul’s retarded, Gnostic, Torah negating message which James addressed soundly.

I’m under no obligation to convert you to my point of view. I don’t care if you ever learn the truth or not, and have no interest in whatever you have written. You have wasted enough of our time.
thanks 1 user thanked matt for this useful post.
James on 3/26/2015(UTC)
Offline James  
#11 Posted : Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:12:29 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
MA wrote:
* Facepalm * James...what's the deal? Are you the "anti-masters_apprentice"? I say up. You say down. I say yes. You say no. I guess the difference is that when you see the color green I see blue and yellow mixed. You look at a word and read it. I see it differently.


I am simply pro Towrah and Pro Truth, if that makes me anti you then so be it. I deal in facts and facts only. So when GOD, the creator of the universe says something I take it seriously, I don’t dismiss it to fit my own way of thinking. Therein lies the difference between you and me, I let the evidence guide me to my conclusion, I fit my understanding to that of what Scripture says. You on the other hand let your conclusion shape your understanding of the evidence, you try to make Scripture fit what you believe. When GOD says:
Isa_42:8 “I am יהוה, that is My Name
Or
Jer_16:21 “Name is יהוה!”

I’m going to go ahead and assume that he knows his own name.


MA wrote:
Do you not think I have read the verses you posted before?


Honestly, YES. Because if you had I don’t see how you could possibly come to your twisted conclusion. Especially since it seems you don’t read anything anyone has to say that doesn’t agree with you, evidenced by the fact that you have not responded to a single piece of evidence presented to you, and say the same thing over and over even though it has already been addressed.

MA wrote:
As usual, I predict you will not get what I write. But someone, maybe someone you know, is reading this. And they think, "Yes, that MA guy is spot on".


Here is an idea, maybe backup what you say with some kind of evidence, of address the evidence presented which counters your belief, I’m still waiting for any evidence whatsoever other than your word that Paul was condemning the “oral law” and not the Towrah. And I seriously doubt anyone at this forum would ever agree with you, the people who frequent here are way to intelligent.

MA wrote:
Yet in order to keep their "ranking" they will not agree with the "Ecclessia" here for fear of being moved down in rank. Similar to a religion. Why would a Cardinal confront the Pope? You got an interesting setup.


Point and case to you don’t bother to read anything that disagrees with your belief. I went over this with you before. The “Rank” here means precisely Jack Shit. It is a part of the forum software, knows one knows how the hell it works and no one pays any attention to it.

To quote myself from the last time you tried this inane argument.
James wrote:
masters_apprentice wrote:
10 I used the term bishop, cardinal, etc. to describe EXACTLY what you are doing here. One is either a “newbie”, member, advanced member, and whatever else you guys have. Someone here is giving you “status”. Are you willing to take the side of a newbie if it conflicts with what has been perceived as correct, at the expense of losing status?


I know I said I would not respond, and since the rest of what you posted is just a regurgitation of the same thing you have posted time and time again since you started I am not going to respond to anything save this point because it is something that gets brought up frequently and throws many people off.

The "Rank" in the profile, short of the Moderator and Admin rank is completely software generated and has nothing to do with us. The same is true for the Points, in fact in all the years i have been coming to the forum no one has ever been able to figure out what the points are based on and what they mean. We did not design the software it is YAF (Yet Another Forum) software, which is freeware. All of the ranks are a necessary part of the software for whatever reason, and with the exception of the moderator rank are software assigned, based on the number of posts you have posted (at least the best I can tell anyway). No one who frequents here pays any attention to them because they are entirely meaningless.

Like I said the only rank which is in anyway assigned is the moderator and admin rank, which a handful of us have because we volunteered our time to help keep the forum going. The software requires that a post be approved by a moderator within a certain time frame or else it disappears from the recent posts list and navigating the forum becomes very difficult. Also we get a lot of bots or people trying to post advertisements here, and the moderators delete those posts and ban the posters, so we don't get overrun with posts trying to sell up baby carriages or cars or x y and z.

So no one here is disagreeing with you out of fear of losing status, we are disagreeing with you because you are not making a compelling argument for your case.

edit

Well I guess my rank is based on number of posts theory is shot, dajstill has about 5 times as many posts as you and she is just a member while you are an Advanced Member. So I have no idea what Rank is based on, but obviously you are doing pretty good MA.

edit 2

On closer observation, aside from me you have the highest rank of anyone here, and like I said the only reason I am a moderator is because I opted to volunteer my time to do it.

New Theory rank is based on the number of posts recently? No that doesn't work either because dajstill is relatively new here and has a lot of posts. New Theory rank is completely random based on what the software decides to give someone. Either way, it's still pointless.



MA wrote:
Okay James, tomorrow I will explain to you when the scriptures say "This is my NAME" that it is not his name.


Can’t wait how you explain this away.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#12 Posted : Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:21:57 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
YAY, one problem solved. Since Yow'el set me up as an admin to help him migrate the forum to the new updates I have access to some features I didn't have before. So RANK is no longer a thing. WOOT WOOT, I don't have to deal with stupid attacks about people worrying about loosing RANK, YAY YAY YAY YAY.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline masters_apprentice  
#13 Posted : Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:03:14 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
First of all I meant to say…Yet in order to keep their "ranking" they will not argue with the "Ecclessia". Apparently you picked up on that.

[And you said it is all computer generated anyway. That is funny. Last time I was here I went from one ranking, to another, to a high ranking, argued with you guys, and went back to an earlier ranking. Whatever. But it made me realize how religions do the same thing. Once you have prestige you cannot afford to give it away by arguing with the higher ups even if they are wrong. Funny how a title affects you and can muzzle you. I may have to learn to apply this technique to other areas. Very interesting mind trip.]

Yahweh is the title of Elohim, but before I go there you must realize there is a difference in Elohim and elohim. THE Elohim is what we call “God”. So is El as in El Shaddai – God Almighty. When the writers show the word elohim (lower case e) they are telling you that this entity is not THE God, but is called a god (lower case g). Angels, Satan, Dagon, are all called elohim, but are NEVER referred to as Elohim.

In the beginning Elohim (NOT EL, and not Yahweh) created. Elohim said let there be light. We never see the term Yahweh until Gen 2. Why? Because there are no people. Yahweh is a covenant term between God and his people. And I did not say between God and the Jews or Israelites.

We see the terms used together as Yahweh Elohim. Elohim basically being the pre-incarnate, glorified, part of God that came to earth and took on flesh who we refer to as Yashua. El being the “Father” God. Yet both of these terms can be seen with the word Yahweh used in conjunction with them. [And if this is true then the Jehovah Witnesses are excluding Yashua as Jehovah (Yahweh) which is blasphemous to him. I have said many times the Jehovah Witnesses do not even know who Jehovah is as they exclude the Son as Jehovah {Yahweh).]

When we see the word Yahweh used in scripture it has multiple connotations and is known as the “Yahweh Titles”. For example in the Hebrew Canon:

1. YAHWEH-JIREH = Yahweh will see, or provide. Gen. 22:14.
2. YAHWEH-ROPHEKA = Yahweh that healeth thee. Ex. 15:26.
3. YAHWEH-NISSI = Yahweh my banner. Ex. 17:15.
4. YAHWEH-MeKADDISHKEM = Yahweh that doth sanctify you. Ex. 31:13. Lev. 20:8; 21:8; 22:32. Ezek. 20:12.
5. YAHWEH-SHALOM = Yahweh [send] peace. Judg. 6:24.
6. YAHWEH-ZeBA'OTH = Yahweh of hosts. 1Sam. 1:3, and frequently.
7. YAHWEH-ZIDKENU = Yahweh our righteousness. Jer. 23:6; 33:16.
8. YAHWEH-SHAMMAH = Yahweh is there. Ezek. 48:35.
9. YAHWEH-ELYON = Yahweh most high. Ps. 7:17; 47:2; 97:9.
10. YAHWEH-RO'I = Yahweh my Shepherd. Ps. 23:1.

Additional Yahweh Titles

Yahweh - The Lord - Exodus 6:2-3
Yahweh-Adon Kal Ha'arets- Lord of Earth - Josh 3:13
Yahweh-Bara - Lord Creator - Isaiah 40:28
Yahweh-Chatsahi - Lord my Strength - Psalm 27:1
Yahweh-Chereb - Lord the Sword - Deut. 33:29
Yahweh-Eli - Lord my God - Psalm 18:2
Yahweh-Elyon - Lord Most High - Psalm 38:2
Yahweh-Gador Milchamah - Mighty in Battle - Ps 24:8
Yahweh-Ganan - Lord Our Defense - Ps 89:18
Yahweh-Go'el - Lord My Redeemer - Is. 49:26, 60:16
Yahweh-Hamelech - Lord King - Psalm 98:6
Yahweh-Hashopet - Lord My Judge - Judges 6:27
Yahweh-Helech 'Olam - Lord King Forever Ps10:16
Yahweh-Hoshe'ah - Lord Saves - Psalm 20:9
Yahweh-Jireh - Provider - Gen. 22:14, I John 4:9, Philip 4:19
Yahweh-Kabodhi - Lord my Glory - Psalm 3:3
Yahweh-Kanna - Lord Jealous - Ex 34:14

And many many more actually, but there is only one use of Elohim or El and that is as the God. That thing we call God. El and Elohim do not fluctuate. Yahweh is used in the connotation it is meant for for the act or thing being done for the people. These "Yahweh titles" tell me what God is going to do for me in his role as Yahweh. As my God and Yahweh he is my provider YAHWEH-JIREH. He is my shepherd YAHWEH-RO'I. And so forth.

I use a similar analogy about our “caring” president Barak Obama. Before he was my president his name was Barak. When he became my president he became president Obama and entered into a relationship with my as my president (as my Yahweh). As president he provides for my defense, he provides for my post office, he provides for a multitude of things. He is president Obama. When he ceases to be president he will just be Barak. God is Yahweh Elohim. Same principle.

Now lets look at this confusion over the word “name”.

Exo 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
Exo 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Is the angel named Yahweh? No, but it says God’s “name” is in him right? And in Isaiah of course we read where it says “Yahweh is my name”. Well, you folks here being bible “literalists” need to look up the Hebrew word for name. The Hebrew word for name is –

shêm
shame
A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.

What we see happening is the Hebrew word “shame” is being translated into the English word “name” which totally waters down what is being said. Lets go back and re-read Exodus 23:21…

Exo 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my honor, power, and authority is in him.

Now let’s read Isaiah…

Isa_42:8 “I am יהוה, that is My honor, power, and authority, and My esteem I do not give to another, nor My praise to idols.

The term “name” is a terrible translation for what is being said and what is being implied. Yahweh indicates POWER and AUTHORITY straight from God (Elohim). It is that simple.

In summation for now (since 19 minutes have elapsed and I am on a time budget with you folks) El or Elohim is God, Yahweh Elohim is God in covenant relationship with his creation of people, and Yahweh is the Title and responsibilities he offers us.
Offline James  
#14 Posted : Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:15:13 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
MA wrote:
First of all I meant to say…Yet in order to keep their "ranking" they will not argue with the "Ecclessia". Apparently you picked up on that.

[And you said it is all computer generated anyway. That is funny. Last time I was here I went from one ranking, to another, to a high ranking, argued with you guys, and went back to an earlier ranking. Whatever. But it made me realize how religions do the same thing. Once you have prestige you cannot afford to give it away by arguing with the higher ups even if they are wrong. Funny how a title affects you and can muzzle you. I may have to learn to apply this technique to other areas. Very interesting mind trip.]


No clue, I never pay attention to rankings until someone like you inevitiably makes that accusation that you made. Either way they are gone now, so let there be much rejoicing.

ma wrote:
Yahweh is the title of Elohim, but before I go there you must realize there is a difference in Elohim and elohim. THE Elohim is what we call “God”. So is El as in El Shaddai – God Almighty. When the writers show the word elohim (lower case e) they are telling you that this entity is not THE God, but is called a god (lower case g). Angels, Satan, Dagon, are all called elohim, but are NEVER referred to as Elohim.


There are no lower or upper case letters in Hebrew. In the language of revelation the word used is identical when referring to Yahowah and when referring to false gods.

ma wrote:
In the beginning Elohim (NOT EL, and not Yahweh) created. Elohim said let there be light. We never see the term Yahweh until Gen 2. Why? Because there are no people. Yahweh is a covenant term between God and his people. And I did not say between God and the Jews or Israelites.


1st, as I already pointed out there are no chapters or verses in the original text, they were arbitrarily added centuries later.

Second the fact that Elohim is used and not Yahowah does not make Elohim a name.

MA wrote:
We see the terms used together as Yahweh Elohim. Elohim basically being the pre-incarnate, glorified, part of God that came to earth and took on flesh who we refer to as Yashua. El being the “Father” God. Yet both of these terms can be seen with the word Yahweh used in conjunction with them. [And if this is true then the Jehovah Witnesses are excluding Yashua as Jehovah (Yahweh) which is blasphemous to him. I have said many times the Jehovah Witnesses do not even know who Jehovah is as they exclude the Son as Jehovah {Yahweh).]

When we see the word Yahweh used in scripture it has multiple connotations and is known as the “Yahweh Titles”. For example in the Hebrew Canon:

1. YAHWEH-JIREH = Yahweh will see, or provide. Gen. 22:14.

This is not a title, it is Yahowah performing an action. Yir’eh is a verb.
MA wrote:
2. YAHWEH-ROPHEKA = Yahweh that healeth thee. Ex. 15:26.

Rofe’ekha here is a pure noun participle, a participle with no verbal function in the verbal form. It literally means your healer. Healer is a title being applied to the proper noun Yahowah. They are not one title Healer is the title giving to Yahowah which is being used as a name.
MA wrote:
3. YAHWEH-NISSI = Yahweh my banner. Ex. 17:15.


This is not a title being applied to God, it is Moshe naming a place. Moshe named this place Yahowah my signal pole.
MA wrote:
4. YAHWEH-MeKADDISHKEM = Yahweh that doth sanctify you. Ex. 31:13. Lev. 20:8; 21:8; 22:32. Ezek. 20:12.


Meqaddishkkhem is a verb, it is an action being carried out by Yahowah. Again not a title in any of the verses you reference.
MA wrote:
5. YAHWEH-SHALOM = Yahweh [send] peace. Judg. 6:24.


Again this is a man naming a place, not a title. Do you even read the verses you reference in context?
MA wrote:
6. YAHWEH-ZeBA'OTH = Yahweh of hosts. 1Sam. 1:3, and frequently.

Again there is no way to construe Yahowah as a title here.
MA wrote:
7. YAHWEH-ZIDKENU = Yahweh our righteousness. Jer. 23:6; 33:16.


Again tsidaq is a title being applied to Yahowah.
MA wrote:
8. YAHWEH-SHAMMAH = Yahweh is there. Ezek. 48:35.


Again in context it is clear that this is what people are naming a place, in this case a city.
MA wrote:
9. YAHWEH-ELYON = Yahweh most high. Ps. 7:17; 47:2; 97:9.


Elyon is an adjective here modifying the proper noun Yahowah. This does not make Yahowah a title.
MA wrote:
10. YAHWEH-RO'I = Yahweh my Shepherd. Ps. 23:1.


Ro’I is a pure noun participle here, and is a title given to the Proper noun Yahowah. Again does not make Yahowah a title.

MA wrote:
Additional Yahweh Titles

Yahweh - The Lord - Exodus 6:2-3
Yahweh-Adon Kal Ha'arets- Lord of Earth - Josh 3:13
Yahweh-Bara - Lord Creator - Isaiah 40:28
Yahweh-Chatsahi - Lord my Strength - Psalm 27:1
Yahweh-Chereb - Lord the Sword - Deut. 33:29
Yahweh-Eli - Lord my God - Psalm 18:2
Yahweh-Elyon - Lord Most High - Psalm 38:2
Yahweh-Gador Milchamah - Mighty in Battle - Ps 24:8
Yahweh-Ganan - Lord Our Defense - Ps 89:18
Yahweh-Go'el - Lord My Redeemer - Is. 49:26, 60:16
Yahweh-Hamelech - Lord King - Psalm 98:6
Yahweh-Hashopet - Lord My Judge - Judges 6:27
Yahweh-Helech 'Olam - Lord King Forever Ps10:16
Yahweh-Hoshe'ah - Lord Saves - Psalm 20:9
Yahweh-Jireh - Provider - Gen. 22:14, I John 4:9, Philip 4:19
Yahweh-Kabodhi - Lord my Glory - Psalm 3:3
Yahweh-Kanna - Lord Jealous - Ex 34:14


I thinking addressing ten of these is enough. If even one of them remotely suggested that Yahowah was a title, or in any way made an argument toward that I might continue, but I have already spent a half hour showing how they have no merit so I will continue to your next point.

MA wrote:
And many many more actually, but there is only one use of Elohim or El and that is as the God. That thing we call God. El and Elohim do not fluctuate. Yahweh is used in the connotation it is meant for for the act or thing being done for the people. These "Yahweh titles" tell me what God is going to do for me in his role as Yahweh. As my God and Yahweh he is my provider YAHWEH-JIREH. He is my shepherd YAHWEH-RO'I. And so forth.


You still have not shown any evidence that Yahowah is a title. Not one verse you cited uses Yahowah in a way other than as a name. At least I have found one thing we can agree on, these names and these title that are given to Yahowah are important and we can and do learn what Yahowah has and will do for us.


MA wrote:
I use a similar analogy about our “caring” president Barak Obama. Before he was my president his name was Barak. When he became my president he became president Obama and entered into a relationship with my as my president (as my Yahweh). As president he provides for my defense, he provides for my post office, he provides for a multitude of things. He is president Obama. When he ceases to be president he will just be Barak. God is Yahweh Elohim. Same principle.


This does nothing to show that Yahowah is a title.

MA wrote:
Now lets look at this confusion over the word “name”.


Oh YAY I have been looking forward to the mental gymnastics you are going to have to perform to try and argue that When He says My Name is Yahowah that it doesn’t mean that His name is Yahowah.

MA wrote:
Exo 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
Exo 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Is the angel named Yahweh? No, but it says God’s “name” is in him right? And in Isaiah of course we read where it says “Yahweh is my name”. Well, you folks here being bible “literalists” need to look up the Hebrew word for name. The Hebrew word for name is –


Wow. It’s clear in the context that the Messenger, not angel, being spoken of here is Yahowsha, who has Yahowah’s name in him.

MA wrote:
shêm
shame
A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.

What we see happening is the Hebrew word “shame” is being translated into the English word “name” which totally waters down what is being said. Lets go back and re-read Exodus 23:21…


Agreed. Name is an accurate though inadequate translation of shem.

MA wrote:
Exo 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my honor, power, and authority is in him.


Wrong. It still conveys the concept of name, so while you can add the connotations of honor, power and authority, you cannot at the expense of name. Shem’s first and primary, most basic conveyance is name, i.e., the proper designation of a person, place, or thing. You cannot ignore that connotation of it ever. I had a feeling this was the kind of idiotic reasoning you would use. Honor, standing, power, authority, renown were all intimately tied in with a person’s name in throughout most of time. But names are still names.

So while you could and should render shem here as my personal and proper name, my renown, my authority, my honor, etc you cannot leave out the name connotation simply because it does not suit your agenda, that is dishonest and misleading.

MA wrote:
Now let’s read Isaiah…

Isa_42:8 “I am יהוה, that is My honor, power, and authority, and My esteem I do not give to another, nor My praise to idols.

The term “name” is a terrible translation for what is being said and what is being implied. Yahweh indicates POWER and AUTHORITY straight from God (Elohim). It is that simple.


Wrong it is not that simple, you are completely ignoring the primary meaning of shem in this case simply because it conflicts with your belief.

MA wrote:
In summation for now (since 19 minutes have elapsed and I am on a time budget with you folks) El or Elohim is God, Yahweh Elohim is God in covenant relationship with his creation of people, and Yahweh is the Title and responsibilities he offers us.


It took you 19 minutes to tell your misleading beliefs and it has now took me over an hour to disprove them. It’s true what they say about how hard it is to defeat a lie.

By the way, you still have not shown any proof whatsoever that Elohim is a name.

Tell you what since you are on a time constraint save yourself some time and just go away. I’m getting sick of having to waste time refuting your nonsense. This is two discussions in a row where you have failed to engage in a rational discussion. Please leave, you are not wanted here.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/26/2015(UTC)
Offline matt  
#15 Posted : Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:17:23 PM(UTC)
matt
Joined: 6/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 36
United States

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Okay…

I am not aware of upper and lower cases in Hebrew, so I’m having a hard time following your example.

Also, I see a claim that “Yahweh is the title of Elohim,” but no scriptural, linguistic, or historical evidence to substantiate the claim that either is or is not a name or a title.

Then there’s a claim that YHWH is a “covenant term” whose existence or applicability is dependent upon the existence of people. That’s a theory… but there is no evidence offered for why this opinion is valid or even merits consideration.

You also have included a list called “Yahweh Titles.” Nice list. Again, there is no context or evidence offered for consideration that YHWH is a title versus a proper name.

I like evidence.

PS: I see James beat me to the party.
Offline masters_apprentice  
#16 Posted : Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:21:31 PM(UTC)
masters_apprentice
Joined: 5/14/2012(UTC)
Posts: 60
Location: Los Angeles

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
As I said James, it is pretty obvious you will not open up to something very straight forward and simplistic. All these things written out in this post and in my Paul posts I have written for the open minded people. You are trying to fit all this stuff into a can that fits into a set of rules that fit your dogma based on your understanding. It does not work that way. You are trying to literalize and analyze everything so you have some way to justify to yourself an answer so you can state an opinion. And who knows how well you know Hebrew? And you are trying to use the way you say Hebrew should be to literalize something that is metaphorical anyway??? I see this in many of your posts. (eg. "Why would Yashua say to eat his flesh and drink his blood" as you asked)

The bottom line is, as I mentioned, I was not writing for you. You are obviously "too smart". So the ones that had ears to hear and eyes to see will get what I am saying. You have not been given a gift of discernment either. That comes from the inside James and you are thinking from the outside in. And as I said earlier, you need to circumcise your heart.

Tootles!

Offline James  
#17 Posted : Friday, March 27, 2015 8:10:32 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
MA wrote:
As I said James, it is pretty obvious you will not open up to something very straight forward and simplistic.


I am open to anything, especially straightforward and simple, it’s why I love Yah’s Towrah. What I am not open to is convoluted twisting of the straightforward and simple, which is what you are offering.

I started my life as a Christian, became an atheist, then an agnostic, and finally came to know Yahowah through His Towrah for who He is. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong. Each and every time when evidence and reason were presented to me, I considered them thoughtfully and carefully and then reevaluated my understanding. The problem right now is that you are not offering any evidence. You are stating beliefs that are not backed up by any historical, linguistic, scriptural or reasoning based evidence.
MA wrote:
All these things written out in this post and in my Paul posts I have written for the open minded people.


No they are written for confused idiots, who are looking to be more confused.
MA wrote:
You are trying to fit all this stuff into a can that fits into a set of rules that fit your dogma based on your understanding.


Funny coming from the person who can’t understand something as simple as, “My name is Yahowah” and has to twist the word name to fit his preconceived understanding. I have consistently offered proof to everything I have said, you have consistently stated beliefs without any proof.
MA wrote:
It does not work that way.


You are right, it doesn’t, so stop doing it. Use evidence to support your beliefs are stop spouting them here.
MA wrote:
You are trying to literalize and analyze everything so you have some way to justify to yourself an answer so you can state an opinion.


Actually I take much of Scripture to be metaphors there to teach, but understanding literally what was said is the only possible way to understand the metaphor being conveyed. So yes I analyze everything in Scripture, I examine the words as best as I possibly can to come to understand as best as possible what is being conveyed by Yahowah. And if I can back it up with Scriptural evidence, something you are unable to do, it is not an opinion.

This post is one of the best examples I have ever seen of projection. Every argument you have stated applies to you and not to me.
MA wrote:
And who knows how well you know Hebrew?


Never claimed to be a scholar, just an interested amateur. I am open to being wrong, but you have not shown me any evidence that I am.
MA wrote:
And you are trying to use the way you say Hebrew should be to literalize something that is metaphorical anyway???


I can’t even figure out what the heck you are asking here, but as I stated I do not think everything is literal, but if you don’t understand what is literally being said, you cannot understand what is metaphorically being conveyed.
MA wrote:
I see this in many of your posts. (eg. "Why would Yashua say to eat his flesh and drink his blood" as you asked)


I have no clue when that was posted, and no clue the context, and since you didn’t provide a link or state the thread I cannot address it. For all I know I asked that rhetorically and you took it out of context, you are good at that.

MA wrote:
The bottom line is, as I mentioned, I was not writing for you.


No like all religious people you write for uninformed, ignorant and confused people, they are the ones you can beguile easily and that is all you care about. You have no interest in truth, just convincing people you are right.
MA wrote:
You are obviously "too smart".


Nope, I’m not smart at all, but what I am is discerning. I can tell bullshit like what you are spewing from Truth, by comparing it to Yahowah’s Word.
MA wrote:
\So the ones that had ears to hear and eyes to see will get what I am saying. You have not been given a gift of discernment either.


Discernment is the ability to process information rationally and draw logical conclusions from it. So coming from the guy who has no provided a single bit of evidence, nor refuted a single bit of evidence I say again projection. You are unable to process the evidence presented to you in a rational way so you ignore it, time and time again. You are typical of the religious minded.
MA wrote:
That comes from the inside James and you are thinking from the outside in.


Discernment comes from the Towrah. As I said, I take your irrational babbling and compare it to Yahowah’s Towrah and see that you are an ignorant and irrational fool who has wasted enough of mine and everyone else here’s time.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 1 user thanked James for this useful post.
shamar emet on 3/29/2015(UTC)
Offline Sheree  
#18 Posted : Friday, March 27, 2015 8:42:44 AM(UTC)
Sheree
Joined: 8/1/2012(UTC)
Posts: 63

Thanks: 69 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 14 post(s)
it's so nice to see the little RED HEAD by MA's name ThumpUp
Offline James  
#19 Posted : Friday, March 27, 2015 1:16:09 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Sheree Go to Quoted Post
it's so nice to see the little RED HEAD by MA's name ThumpUp


It was beyond clear that trying to discuss anything with MA was a waste of time. So the options were to either let him post his inane ideas and leave them unanswered, let him post them and waste an hour every day refuting them, or send him packing. I can think of a lot more productive things to do with an hour and I refuse to let propaganda like that run unchecked on the forum. So Paul’s apprentice can go spread his message of lies somewhere else.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 3 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 3/27/2015(UTC), shamar emet on 3/29/2015(UTC), cgb2 on 4/2/2015(UTC)
Offline matt  
#20 Posted : Friday, March 27, 2015 1:46:38 PM(UTC)
matt
Joined: 6/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 36
United States

Thanks: 96 times
Was thanked: 13 time(s) in 9 post(s)
I was giving him too much credit calling him a troll previously. It was optimistic to think that he might try to use evidence and reason to refute what he considered incorrect. M_A was just a stone cold spammer. That’s all his nonsense posts amount to.
Offline Dennis Treacy  
#21 Posted : Saturday, April 4, 2015 9:31:38 AM(UTC)
Dennis Treacy
Joined: 10/22/2007(UTC)
Posts: 18
Man
Location: PA suburbs

Thanks: 1 times
James and Matt are the patron saints of patience. I would suspend MA until 2026.
Offline James  
#22 Posted : Saturday, April 4, 2015 11:21:45 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dennis3456 Go to Quoted Post
James and Matt are the patron saints of patience. I would suspend MA until 2026.


I hate banning people. I love different points of view, different ideas. I like when people disagree because if I am wrong I want to know. So when there is someone who disagrees I want to give them every possible chance to proove me wrong. But there comes a time when it is clear that there is no hope of rational dialogue, that the person staunchly clinging to their position not because of facts or evidence, but because of faith, which I have problem with except when they are spaming the forum with their beliefs. At that point, if they go unanswered we risk someone falling pray to them, and the only alternative to banning them is to respond to each and every post with facts, evidence and reason, a very time concuming process. It takes MA 20 minutes to post his beliefs, and me over an hour to gather the evidence and post a response which he will promtly ignore and repost his beliefs adding even more to it which I then have to respond to. So rebuking his claims becomes a full time job. SO at that point the only option is to ban him.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
thanks 2 users thanked James for this useful post.
matt on 4/4/2015(UTC), Sheree on 4/4/2015(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.