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

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline TRUTH B-TOLD  
#51 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:04:31 PM(UTC)
TRUTH B-TOLD
Joined: 3/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 133
Man
Location: USA

Shalom James,

James says;
Quote:
On the trinity issue, I don't believe in the christian trinity, of three gods in one, makes no sense to me. I think the idea that there is one God, Yahweh, who has separated a portion of himself from the whole and set it apart from the whole, for a particular purpose. He set aside one part and had it take flesh and tabernacle with us as the messiah, that part has since rejoined with the whole, and another part has been separated, and sent to dwell with in us for a time, it has cleansed us, and made us so we may be with our father.


I'm sorry, I just don't get it, whats the difference, maybe I don't understand the stance of the church on the trinity. Do they believe in three seperate gods that are one in purpose like the mormons do? Or are they just saying that theres One God whom represents his characteristcs to us by three different manifestations. That seems the same as what you are saying. Could someone please explain the difference.
Offline Prophet speaks  
#52 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2009 1:21:08 PM(UTC)
Prophet speaks
Joined: 3/25/2009(UTC)
Posts: 68
Location: Dallas, tx

James...you said this...

I tend to view the part of us saying yeah do it as our nature more so then an evil spirit.

We don't need the Holy Spirit to make us "do good" and we do not "do evil" because of an evil spirit (angel) tempting us all the time. But there are times when we face such extreme temptations that is must be satanically driven through a demon, angel, or spirit (take your pick as to choice of wording). Let me give you an example...

You are on travel, at a bar, having a few drinks, and a drop dead gorgeous gal sits next to you. She gives you a smile that you have seen before. You have a few drinks. She says, "Lets go somewhere else". You say "No I am married". You feel good that you avoided a great sin. You listened to your conscience with the Holy Spirit talking to you. But, a few drinks go by, you are having fun, and she says, "Lets go sit outside and chat". You say "No" again and feel good. But finally later she says "Lets go to my room" and for some reason you get this impulse in you and you say "What the hell. She won't ever know. Lets go."

At that time "satan" entered you. Just as he entered Judas. You agreed to sin. And once you agreed to it you went at it like cats in heat. Then aftewards? Repentence time.

So, my point is I agree with you - man can be very evil, can do good, can do bad, but when he lets that impulse take over it is unstoppable.

What does this have to do with femenine Holy Spirit energy? Heck if I know.
Offline James  
#53 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2009 2:06:24 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)
TRUTH B-TOLD wrote:
I'm sorry, I just don't get it, whats the difference, maybe I don't understand the stance of the church on the trinity. Do they believe in three seperate gods that are one in purpose like the mormons do? Or are they just saying that theres One God whom represents his characteristcs to us by three different manifestations. That seems the same as what you are saying. Could someone please explain the difference.


This is really where it gets kinda tricky, I have heard the "trinity" described in so many different ways, that when someone asks me if I believe in it, I have to say it depends on what YOUR definition of trinity is.

People trying to explain to me how God can be three beings, with three separate consciences', and be one is one of the things that drove me away from christianity.

As I see it there is 1 God, first commandment makes that pretty clear. Sometimes he takes on the form of a human for a specific purpose, and he refers to that manifestation as The Son or The Messiah, or Yahushua. Sometimes a spirit for another purpose referring to that manifestation as the Set Apart Spirt. He might choose a dog sometimes, and just not tell us about it, but what ever form he takes, he is still Yahweh, and still God.
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  
#54 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2009 2:11:56 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)
Prophet speaks wrote:
James...you said this...

I tend to view the part of us saying yeah do it as our nature more so then an evil spirit.

We don't need the Holy Spirit to make us "do good" and we do not "do evil" because of an evil spirit (angel) tempting us all the time. But there are times when we face such extreme temptations that is must be satanically driven through a demon, angel, or spirit (take your pick as to choice of wording). Let me give you an example...

You are on travel, at a bar, having a few drinks, and a drop dead gorgeous gal sits next to you. She gives you a smile that you have seen before. You have a few drinks. She says, "Lets go somewhere else". You say "No I am married". You feel good that you avoided a great sin. You listened to your conscience with the Holy Spirit talking to you. But, a few drinks go by, you are having fun, and she says, "Lets go sit outside and chat". You say "No" again and feel good. But finally later she says "Lets go to my room" and for some reason you get this impulse in you and you say "What the hell. She won't ever know. Lets go."

At that time "satan" entered you. Just as he entered Judas. You agreed to sin. And once you agreed to it you went at it like cats in heat. Then aftewards? Repentence time.

So, my point is I agree with you - man can be very evil, can do good, can do bad, but when he lets that impulse take over it is unstoppable.

I see what you mean, and my only real problem, is that you seem to be saying that once you have made the choice to do something wrong, you have no control. Which I disagree with, you can make the decision to do it, but until you have followed through with it, you can always stop and turn around. I may be miss understanding you however.

Prophet speaks wrote:
What does this have to do with femenine Holy Spirit energy? Heck if I know.

Me either, but sometime tangents are just as informative and useful as the topic.
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 In His Name  
#55 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2009 3:57:27 PM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Swalchy wrote:


Does sound a lot like trying to get 3 gods into 1, whilst sticking to a "we're monotheistic!" sentiment, and failing miserably



I couldn't stop the doublemint twins shouting in my brain: 3, 3, 3 gods in one... LOL ;-)
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline bitnet  
#56 Posted : Thursday, June 4, 2009 8:17:38 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

When Elohim is creating or admonishing, He is the fatherly mode. When He came to earth in the flesh to be crucified, He came in the son mode, and at other times when Elohim works in unseen ways, He is in his spirit mode. This is what many Christians believe -- God has MPD... multiple personality disorder! Let's just think of Yahweh as One, and One who can be any or many if He chooses to. Should we limit Him? Does it matter? Let's focus on what we really know first, in that when He lives in us we shall love Him and each other as He loves us. And in so doing, we shall be living according to the 10 Commandments. That's our real challenge.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline edStueart  
#57 Posted : Friday, June 5, 2009 8:10:10 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Prophet speaks wrote:
edStueart – Leonard Nimoy to me is a practicing Kabbalist.

Perhaps he is now, but I think he was a 'non-practicing-Orthodox' in the 1960's

Prophet speaks wrote:
His Vulcan “V” symbol is Kabbalah ritual right in front of your eyes.

Hmm, the Messanic Congregation that I attend does it as part of the blessing at the end of worship on almost every Shabbat.

Wiki wrote:
Nimoy also devised the Vulcan Salute - a raised hand with palm forward, the fingers parted between the middle and ring finger - based on the traditional kohanic blessing, which is performed with both hands, thumb to thumb in this position: a position thought to represent the Hebrew letter shin (ש). (This letter is often used as a symbol of God in Judaism, as it is an abbreviation for one of God's names, El Shaddai. This usage is seen, for example, on every mezuzah.) Nimoy says he derived the accompanying spoken blessing, "Live long and prosper" from this source; the last phrase of the blessing is "May the Lord be forebearing unto you and give you peace" (Numbers 6:24-26)


Click here for an article by a rabbi regarding the origins of this.

Prophet speaks wrote:
So anything he says I will take as coming from a mystical Satanic spin.


Dude, those pointy ears are fake. His ears are not really shaped that way...

;-)
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline TRUTH B-TOLD  
#58 Posted : Tuesday, June 9, 2009 2:28:03 AM(UTC)
TRUTH B-TOLD
Joined: 3/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 133
Man
Location: USA

Shalom friends,

I was wondering if in the book of Genesis, was the Tree of Life a representation of Yahushua. Were they to eat the leafs and fruit of the Tree of Life as we are to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Yahushua. If Yahushua is the giver of life this seems reasonable, can anyone give more insight on this?
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#59 Posted : Friday, June 26, 2009 2:37:52 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
TRUTH B-TOLD wrote:
Shalom friends,

I was wondering if in the book of Genesis, was the Tree of Life a representation of Yahushua. Were they to eat the leafs and fruit of the Tree of Life as we are to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Yahushua. If Yahushua is the giver of life this seems reasonable, can anyone give more insight on this?



I think its something seperate actually - When I was doing the document on why Todd Bentley was a fake, when he was at large last year, one of the things he taught was "God wants to give you the fruit of the tree of life, send it to us Lord"... but scripture said that the tree was to not be eaten until we are all sorted and it was all ok again. I will find it all a little later and paste it in.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline TRUTH B-TOLD  
#60 Posted : Friday, June 26, 2009 1:17:53 PM(UTC)
TRUTH B-TOLD
Joined: 3/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 133
Man
Location: USA

Shalom Robskiwarrior,

When I posed the question of whether the tree of life was a type, figure, or representation of Yahushua, it was when our now bannished brother "prophet speaks" was questioning all things pertaining to the character of Elohim. Whether they are one or two or three or male or female, etc.,etc. What I came across that made me wonder and pose that question was "Prov.3:18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her." Here we have scripture that refers to Wisdom and the getting of understanding (3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.) as she and the tree of life. When we study wisdom in the scriptures it speaks of it in the manner of being femine and that she was present with Yahuweh from the beginning and those that take hold of her will receive all good and wonderful blessings. Sounds like Yahushua in the form of the Set Apart Spirt to me, I was going to try and show that if the tree of life was a figure of Yahushua and that wisdom is the tree of life, that would tie them together with both male and female characteristics, I hope some of this make sense. You can still post what you found on this, I'm always interested in others understanding of a precept. Thanks.


Offline Constitutionalist  
#61 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 3:59:43 PM(UTC)
Constitutionalist
Joined: 12/25/2009(UTC)
Posts: 12
Man
Location: New River, Arizona

bitnet wrote:
Hello All,

Ron Wyatt's discovery of the Blood in Yeremyahu's Cave beneath Mt Moriah reveals that there are 22 autosomes and only 1 male chromosome instead of the usual 23 pairs. He also claimed that the tests show that the blood is still alive! If the Blood is indeed alive and that of our beloved Messiyah Yahushua, what keeps it alive? Keep this in mind and then try to figure out whether the Ruach Qodesh is masculine of feminine. The original language attributes a feminine quality and it is consistent with the nurturing nature of the Set-Apart Spirit, which emanating from Yahweh, never dies! And we do know that Yahweh is our heavenly Father, so it does keep in step with a Family concept in that the Set-Apart Spirit is seen as motherly and feminine. Because of this initial understanding all other man-made religions try to have their own holy families, trying to supplant the Creator with the creation.


I didn't know about that discovery.
Offline In His Name  
#62 Posted : Friday, December 25, 2009 4:48:18 PM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Constitutionalist wrote:
I didn't know about that discovery.

Greetings and Welcome Ron,

If you haven't found it already, the story is HERE

Much like some of Wyatt's other finds it seemed like this story was being covered up, this time by the Israeli government. I was really disappointed in this, I thought it would be awesome to have this discovery revealed. But not only was the story covered up, so was the site, now covered by a public park. Very disappointing. I thought it was the implications of Yahushua's blood that they wished to hide but then....

I was listening to a story, this week, about Israel's readiness to rebuild the Temple and resume sacrifices (can't remember where I found the story), the interviewee said everything was ready, they even knew the location of the Arc. So, perhaps they weren't covering it up, just delaying/hiding It until the time was right. And I think that is correct, It is not something that should be paraded around the world as an artifact. It should be returned to the Temple. (Not that it will get the respect it deserves there :() But that is God's plan, who am I to complain.
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline kp  
#63 Posted : Saturday, December 26, 2009 3:40:51 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Concerning the ark of the covenant in the final (Millennial) Temple:

Quote:
And what about the Ark itself? Will that be hauled up and placed in the new Holy of Holies? No. Yahweh has kept His promise; it has served its purpose. There will be no more blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat. Yahshua is an impossible act to follow, especially if you’re a bull or a goat. The very man who apparently secreted the Ark out of the Holy of Holies and hid it beneath Mount Moriah wrote: “‘It shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,’ says Yahweh, ‘that they will say no more, “The ark of the covenant of Yahweh.” It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore. At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of Yahweh, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of Yahweh, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given as an inheritance to your fathers.’” (Jeremiah 3:14-18) The Ark will be neither essential temple ritual furniture, nor museum attraction, nor the object of legendary quests. Jeremiah specifically says that no one will even make a replica of it during the Millennium. In the light of Yahshua’s presence, it will simply be forgotten.


From Future History, Chapter 27

kp
Offline bitnet  
#64 Posted : Saturday, December 26, 2009 4:02:31 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Yes, I remember that passage, Ken, but I was also wondering if it does not preclude the Israelis from digging it up to restore it in the 3rd Temple. Perhaps after all the wars that follow that Temple restoration and The Return of The King would the Ark be relegated to the annals of history and inquired after no more. Meanwhile, the Temple implements are already ready, the "Red Heifer" may have been spotted (no pun intended), the Kohanim may have been identified and all that remains is the political will... which is not strong at the moment but which will gather strength when the Deal is made to trade more land for "peace".
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline kp  
#65 Posted : Saturday, December 26, 2009 10:43:38 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

That, to me, sounds like the least likely scenario of all. How could Israel find the ark during the Tribulation, only to forget all about it within seven short years? A replica, maybe; the real thing (with the blood of Yahshua all over it) I don't think so.

kp
Offline RidesWithYah  
#66 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 1:18:13 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

kp,

Your Jeremiah 3 cite, wow.
It continues (KJV)....

Quote:
19But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me. 20Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith Yahweh. 21A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten Yahweh their God. 22Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art Yahweh our God. 23Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in Yahweh our God is the salvation of Israel.


A few things jump out --
a) thou shalt call me My father (abba, not LORD) v19;
b) spiritual adultery v20;
c) in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills v21. Is this a reference to Rome, or is there other history being referred to here?
Offline kp  
#67 Posted : Monday, December 28, 2009 7:14:52 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Quote:
c) in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills v21. Is this a reference to Rome, or is there other history being referred to here?


I believe this is primarily a reference to the "high places" mentioned previously. Also, "mountains" refers to political power, another source of false hope. In other words, the "hills" are the venues for worshiping false gods: Ba'al, Zeus, Allah, and Washington D.C. aren't going to be any help in the long run.

kp
Offline RhodaRose  
#68 Posted : Friday, April 9, 2010 4:11:34 AM(UTC)
RhodaRose
Joined: 4/6/2010(UTC)
Posts: 16
Location: Michigan USA

I, too, find a hidden meaning here:

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy Father and thy Mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

I belief His Holy Spirit is feminine and to consider Her our Mother.

Yahweh desires to have a Family. He patterned the flesh after His wishes and a family consists of a father, mother and children. Why would you think His Spiritual Family would look any different?

John 4:24 God is Spirit: and they that Worship Him must Worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

Isaiah 55:8 For My Thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My Ways, saith YHWH.

You can't think in the flesh and apply it to our Creator who thinks in Spirit. We are limited but He is not. He, also, can not be "boxed" into a "trinity". Yeshua was the First Born of many Sons and Daughters. Our Father desires to have a large Family and not just "three"

Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

"They" were created in His Spiritual image, male and female combined as one. It was only later He seperates this spiritual image into the fleshly reality.

Genesis 2:21-24 And YHWH God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which YHWH God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Marriage between a man and a woman is again making them "one" flesh as it was before they were seperated. Heavenly spiritual things patterned here on earth in the flesh.

Here's something I like to think about:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children...

How was fleshly woman to bring forth childen before this? Possibly "And YHWH God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Woman, and she slept... " Just a thought ... but don't you love to think upon these mysteries?!!

Malachi 3:16-18 Then they that feared YHWH spake often one to another: and YHWH hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared YHWH, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith YHWH of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
John 4:24 God is Spirit: and they that Worship Him must Worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
Offline jasonc65  
#69 Posted : Thursday, October 7, 2010 1:33:19 PM(UTC)
jasonc65
Joined: 10/7/2010(UTC)
Posts: 6
Location: 19809

William wrote:
I want you to answer me with CLEAR (as in don't twist it) Bible references. Maybe you can start with Jesus' baptism and the presence of all three persons of God being present--or tell me where Jesus, the apostles, or any prophet talks plainly and often about a third option after death.

William

I don't hear Jesus and the apostles talk about our having a "heavenly mother", either. I don't hear them talk about having to be circumcised in order to be saved, although I do hear them deny this. I don't hear of Yeshua referring to God as Yahweh, but as Father. So many things I hear Yada talk about but not Jesus and the apostles. I have read much of Yada's online material, and it is full of arguments about words, precisely the sort Paul said we should avoid, and there I don't think Paul could have possibly been misguided.

Relationship is not Yada's focus but religion. The sacrifice of the Son of Man on the cross (there actually was a cross-beam, and Messiah was forced to carry it) as the sole means of our salvation is sidetracked from in so many ways I stopped counting. Circumcision requires submission to pain -- a form of Islam, can I say it? Paul rightly compares it to Hagar the slave (Muslim) woman.
Offline cgb2  
#70 Posted : Thursday, October 7, 2010 6:25:35 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
jasonc65 wrote:
I don't hear of Yeshua referring to God as Yahweh, but as Father.


ISR 1988 (יהוה is YaHWeH)
Luk 19:37 And as He was coming near, already at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the entire crowd of the taught ones began, to praise Elohim, rejoicing with a loud voice for all the miracles they had seen,
Luk 19:38 saying, “ ‘Blessed is the Sovereign who is coming in the Name of יהוה!’ Peace in heaven and esteem in the highest!”
Luk 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from the crowd, said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your taught ones.”
Luk 19:40 But He answering, said to them, “I say to you that if these shall be silent, the stones would cry out.”

Also
http://www.thewaytoyahuw...version1/lucus#chapter19

Read the preface of most any bible. There they will attempt to explain why they have brought his name to ruin (replacing "YaHWeH" with "the LORD" instead). The NASB pretty much says because everyone else does it and because of rabinical tradition. Interesting that the very verse above deals with this rabinical tradition of not saying the name (considered blasphemy). Was saying the name also what got Steven Stoned...evidence Saul used to put believers in Messiah to death, etc?

The set apart spirit (Ruach HaKodesh) is feminine in Hebrew (OT). The Greek word for "spirit" is nueter in the Greek, and would likely use a placeholder in the oldest manuscripts anyway.
An example can likely be found here, you'll see lines over series of letters:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/links19.html
http://www.thewaytoyahuw...ranslations/introduction

Interesting how Proverbs constantly refers to wisdom as "she".

Also catch the way this is stated:
Gen 1:27 And Elohim created the man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them.
Offline James  
#71 Posted : Friday, October 8, 2010 3:21:07 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)
jasonc65 wrote:
I don't hear Jesus and the apostles talk about our having a "heavenly mother", either.


Well to start with you might try finding a translation that calls Him by His name, and not Jesus, because if they can't get it His name right I don't trust them to get anything else right.

Also I would recommend spending less time in the "New Testament" and more in the Torah Prophet and Psalms, the first 75% of Yahuweh's word, as the fidelity of the manuscripts of the "New Testament" is extremely low.

Also in the manuscripts we do have placeholders are used for every mention of the Ruwach Ha Qowdesh. So why were placeholders used? Because there was no way to properly convey the word intended in Greek, the placeholder forced the reader to look to the Torah, Prophet and Psalms. So in the case of the Spirit, why would a placeholder be used, might it be that the Hebrew Feminine Ruwach couldn't properly be conveyed in the Greek, since the Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is gender neutral.

jasonc65 wrote:
I don't hear them talk about having to be circumcised in order to be saved, although I do hear them deny this.


While he may never address circumcision directly, he does constantly and consistently direct us to keep his command and his Torah, i.e. Yahuchanon 14:15 If you love me, keep my commands. So since the Torah says to circumcise your male child on the eighth day, If you love Yahushua and Yahuweh you will keep his command. But while we are on it, no one here that i know of has said that you have to be circumcised to be saved, or that circumcision saves you. All I would say is that if you love Him, you will follow His commandments.

jasonc65 wrote:
I don't hear of Yeshua referring to God as Yahweh, but as Father.


Again, that's because you are using extremely flawed translations. Again placeholders were used, and if you look at Torah verses that Yahushua quotes, that have Yahuweh's name it is easy to determine what placeholder represents Yahuweh's name, so yes Yahushua did use Yahuweh, and did call him by name. Religious translators have opted to render His name as LORD, but that is not what he said, it is not what he intended, and that is not what we should take from it.

jasonc65 wrote:
I have read much of Yada's online material, and it is full of arguments about words, precisely the sort Paul said we should avoid, and there I don't think Paul could have possibly been misguided.


So we shouldn't bother to try to understand what the words that were inspired and the words which were spoken by Yahushua, mean, we should just trust some translators understanding and go with that? I'm sorry but if I study a word and find that our translations are wrong, I'm not just going to accept it. I don't trust our English translations because I don't trust men. Men with agendas translated them, and their agenda is what you get from them.

jasonc65 wrote:
Relationship is not Yada's focus but religion.


Well if by this you mean he is trying to establish a religion, well he must be failing horribly. If you mean one of the main goals of Yada Yahuweh is to tear down religions, then YES, and way to go because it needs to be done.

The goal of Yada Yahuweh is to expose lies and show the truth. Yada's attitude is this is right, this is wrong, this is why, now choose right.

jasonc65 wrote:
The sacrifice of the Son of Man on the cross (there actually was a cross-beam, and Messiah was forced to carry it) as the sole means of our salvation is sidetracked from in so many ways I stopped counting.


There is no cross in Scripture, there is an upright pole, and while there may have been a cross beam, it was not a lower case t cross, it would have been a capital T shape, but that is beside the point. The point is the word's that Yahuweh inspired the apostles to write are what matters, and the word was upright pole, and not cross, so why should we cling to an errant, pagan symbol, just to make it easier?

Matthew 7:13-14 wrote:
Enter through the narrow and upright gate because wide, twisted, and expansive is the way which leads away to utter destruction and perishing and there are many going through it. The Way is narrow and straight that leads to life and there are few who find it.


jasonc65 wrote:
Circumcision requires submission to pain -- a form of Islam, can I say it? Paul rightly compares it to Hagar the slave (Muslim) woman.


well I was an infant when I was circumcised, so I don't know if it was painful or not, but I have known people have had it done later in life, and not one of them thought of it as a painful experience. But once again no one has said that circumcision saves you, all we have said is that Yahuweh said to be circumcised, so we should listen to Him and be circumcised. So why are you and Paul so adamant about ignoring Yahuweh's advice/commandment? By your logic, Yahuweh instituted slavery up until the time Yahushua was sacrificed, and all of His people were slaves.

All we are interested in here is understanding and studying what Yahuweh has revealed, and what he wants from us. If that goes against standard Christian doctrine then so be it. I would rather be against Christianity and with Yahuweh then vice versa.
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 jasonc65  
#72 Posted : Friday, October 8, 2010 10:27:43 AM(UTC)
jasonc65
Joined: 10/7/2010(UTC)
Posts: 6
Location: 19809

James wrote:
Well to start with you might try finding a translation that calls Him by His name, and not Jesus, because if they can't get it His name right I don't trust them to get anything else right.


The same goes for you. How do you know you have the name right?

James wrote:
Also I would recommend spending less time in the "New Testament" and more in the Torah Prophet and Psalms, the first 75% of Yahuweh's word, as the fidelity of the manuscripts of the "New Testament" is extremely low.


You evidently don't have a high opinion of the New Testament, which I do believe is part of the Word of God. It is just as valid as the Old Testament. It is what God revealed to the apostles through the Holy Spirit.

James wrote:
Also in the manuscripts we do have placeholders are used for every mention of the Ruwach Ha Qowdesh. So why were placeholders used? Because there was no way to properly convey the word intended in Greek, the placeholder forced the reader to look to the Torah, Prophet and Psalms. So in the case of the Spirit, why would a placeholder be used, might it be that the Hebrew Feminine Ruwach couldn't properly be conveyed in the Greek, since the Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is gender neutral.


And how do you know they were really placeholders? They might have simply been abbreviations. I have seen people talk about these same issues on other forums, and they usually don't agree about the underlying causes of the facts. Yada says KY is a Greek acronym that means "Upright One"; others think it's short for Kyrios. I don't know who exactly is right, but I don't think God is going to throw me into hell over such a matter. I have been on forums where people argue about the nature of the Holy Spirit, too. I gather that in some Eastern Orthodox traditions, the idea that the Holy Spirit is our mother is entertained. Still, I am not certain that is what the scripture clearly teaches. The Messiah's model prayer begins, "Our Father who art in heaven", not "Our father and mother who are in heaven".

James wrote:
While he may never address circumcision directly, he does constantly and consistently direct us to keep his command and his Torah, i.e. Yahuchanon 14:15 If you love me, keep my commands.


I don't think your idea of Yahshua's commandments is accurate. Yahweh gave the Torah through Moses to reveal our sins so we would be driven to Messiah. Messiah has fulfilled the law. Yahshua has given his own commandments, such as to love one another. I do not understand by this saying that we must keep the whole Torah. The very nature of the commandments is that we cannot keep them all. They required that we live in Israel's civil society such as it was. Moses put up with divorce and polygamy because of the hardness of men's hearths. Yeshua explained that in the case of divorce, and I understand the same to be the case with polygamy and concubines. Sacrifices were part of the law, and yet I'm sure we both agree that that part of the law was fulfilled. Just as Yeshua and the apostles do not tell us to continue to make sacrifices, they do not tell us to keep other parts of the Torah, including circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and celebrating feasts, days, and weeks.

James wrote:
So since the Torah says to circumcise your male child on the eighth day, If you love Yahushua and Yahuweh you will keep his command. But while we are on it, no one here that i know of has said that you have to be circumcised to be saved, or that circumcision saves you. All I would say is that if you love Him, you will follow His commandments.


Maybe Yada didn't, but that sure sounded like his tone in some parts of his books. In other words, you don't have to be circumcised, but if you were truly saved, you would be. This is the condescending tone used by Lordship Salvation proponents.

James wrote:
Again, that's because you are using extremely flawed translations. Again placeholders were used, and if you look at Torah verses that Yahushua quotes, that have Yahuweh's name it is easy to determine what placeholder represents Yahuweh's name, so yes Yahushua did use Yahuweh, and did call him by name. Religious translators have opted to render His name as LORD, but that is not what he said, it is not what he intended, and that is not what we should take from it.


You are changing the subject. I was addressing the fact that Yahshua called Elohim Father. He does so in his prayer, when his disciples ask him to teach them to pray. I nowhere said he called his Father Lord.

James wrote:
So we shouldn't bother to try to understand what the words that were inspired and the words which were spoken by Yahushua, mean, we should just trust some translators understanding and go with that? I'm sorry but if I study a word and find that our translations are wrong, I'm not just going to accept it. I don't trust our English translations because I don't trust men. Men with agendas translated them, and their agenda is what you get from them.


I'm not saying we shouldn't try to understand the best we can. But there comes a point where arguments about words become pointless. We get sidetracked about the the form of words, and we lose focus on their meaning. We get sidetracked about trivial matters and leave behind the essentials. We take a mystery-novel approach to the good and beneficial message and render it indiscernible. The Gnostics sought esoteric knowledge; now you are seeking historical secrets that are just as esoteric because they are inaccessible to all but the most studious scholars. And then you all but base your salvation on them. The healing and beneficial message (which Yada calls it) is not a big secret; it was plainly taught by the apostles and revealed in the New Testament. The scholars you are learning from are no less fallible than the ones the church has relied upon. They can just as easily be wrong. You can be just as wrong about your interpretations of the facts as all traditions of men.

James wrote:
Well if by this you mean he is trying to establish a religion, well he must be failing horribly. If you mean one of the main goals of Yada Yahuweh is to tear down religions, then YES, and way to go because it needs to be done.


Actually, you are setting up a religion with your knowledge, which is not the facts but your interpretation of the facts. Small numbers do not disqualify a belief from being a religion. Islam started out with less than 50 people. I'm sure your movement is bigger than that. Arguments about words become little religions that people fight verbal wars over. They do it about mundane matters, too. I've heard of computer programmers fighting over object-oriented programming and other beliefs. These gripes about words are as petty as following after religions. It is no less displeasing to God.

James wrote:
The goal of Yada Yahuweh is to expose lies and show the truth. Yada's attitude is this is right, this is wrong, this is why, now choose right.


The right way has been known all along, by people who call themselves Christian, whether you acknowledge it or not. You are teaching another way which is not another. The way that has been known is to believe in the Son of God (John 3:16), whom God sent into the world so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. If people in the church who have understood and taught this way have not understood it, then I don't know who has; certainly you haven't. It is the way I believe and I am not changing my mind. Either John 3:16 is inspired, or I am damned. That is where I stand.

James wrote:
There is no cross in Scripture, there is an upright pole, and while there may have been a cross beam, it was not a lower case t cross, it would have been a capital T shape, but that is beside the point. The point is the word's that Yahuweh inspired the apostles to write are what matters, and the word was upright pole, and not cross, so why should we cling to an errant, pagan symbol, just to make it easier?


This arguing about words is silly. It does not increase anyone's understanding, and it does not save anyone.

James wrote:
well I was an infant when I was circumcised, so I don't know if it was painful or not


Agreed. I don't know if it's really painful or not, but I have heard people say it is, and I am secure enough in my salvation in Jesus that I know I do not need to go through this whatever it is.

James wrote:
But once again no one has said that circumcision saves you, all we have said is that Yahuweh said to be circumcised, so we should listen to Him and be circumcised. So why are you and Paul so adamant about ignoring Yahuweh's advice/commandment? By your logic, Yahuweh instituted slavery up until the time Yahushua was sacrificed, and all of His people were slaves.


Paul was saying what I know from what the scripture has revealed, that there is salvation in believing in God's Son.

James wrote:
All we are interested in here is understanding and studying what Yahuweh has revealed, and what he wants from us. If that goes against standard Christian doctrine then so be it. I would rather be against Christianity and with Yahuweh then vice versa.


I am interested in understanding and studying what Yahweh (or however you pronounce his name) has said. I would rather be with Christianity and with what Yeshua has said than to be against both.
Offline cgb2  
#73 Posted : Friday, October 8, 2010 8:13:03 PM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
jasonc65 wrote:
Just as Yeshua and the apostles do not tell us to continue to make sacrifices, they do not tell us to keep other parts of the Torah, including circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and celebrating feasts, days, and weeks.


I see it all over the place. What do you think is meant by "word", "commands", "lawlessness", etc. The apostles kept the sabbaths, feasts/rehersals and etc. Yahushua was the Torah made flesh. Ezekial is an interesting book, millenial temple & animal sacrifice, etc...makes one pause. Read the "old" testament prophecies of yet future events. Do you see indication the Torah is not in effect? Revelation the same (love him and keep commands)

Mat 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets.1 I did not come to destroy but to complete. Footnote: 1The Law and the Prophets is a term used for the pre-Messianic Scriptures.
Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.1 Footnote: 1Lk. 16:17.
Mat 5:19 “Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens.

Look out your window. Is heaven and earth still here?

jasonc65 wrote:
The right way has been known all along, by people who call themselves Christian, whether you acknowledge it or not. You are teaching another way which is not another. The way that has been known is to believe in the Son of God (John 3:16), whom God sent into the world so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. If people in the church who have understood and taught this way have not understood it, then I don't know who has; certainly you haven't. It is the way I believe and I am not changing my mind. Either John 3:16 is inspired, or I am damned. That is where I stand.


Actually "believe" is more properly rendered "trust and rely". Not really anything new, the Torah/Prophets/Writings taught it all along, and spoke of Messiah. Sad that Jn 3:16 is often twisted to just saying a magical "sinners prayer"....and give the religious merchant 10% of your income.

jasonc65 wrote:
This arguing about words is silly. It does not increase anyone's understanding, and it does not save anyone.


Well, guess we should quit wasting our time since all we can use is words.

jasonc65 wrote:
I am interested in understanding and studying what Yahweh (or however you pronounce his name) has said. I would rather be with Christianity and with what Yeshua has said than to be against both.


Yahushua was the Torah made flesh. He taught the Torah and so did his disciples. He followed it perfectly and is the "I am" who gave it to Moses. Christianity is a fushion of messianic belief with paganism, gnosticism, power & money etc....and teaches lawlessness, something the Messiah or his apostles never taught. Much of what Christianity teaches is opposed to what Yahushua taught, and the many warnings about those who teach lawlessness...wolves who make merchandise of you.
Offline James  
#74 Posted : Monday, October 11, 2010 6:22:38 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)
jasonc65 wrote:
The same goes for you. How do you know you have the name right?

I don’t read translations. When I study I use a number of Lexicons, and Dictionaries along with transcripts of the oldest manuscripts. As I’ve stated I don’t trust English translation, and studying has reinforced that view a thousand fold.

As for how do I know I have the name right. I don’t, not 100% anyway, but I do know 100% that Jesus was not his name. There was no J in any language of the time, so we know; the translators of every English translation know that it is not Jesus, so their refusal to even attempt to ascertain His true name discredits them and their work.

While there may be some debate as to rather it is Yahushua, or Yeshua. To me after studying Hebrew it quite clear that Yod Hey Waw Shin Ayin is pronounced Yahushua. The Yod Hey combination appears in many names in Scripture, i.e. YashaYahu/Isaiah and of course Yahuweh. The Ye in Yeshua is a rabbinical pronunciation used by many Messianics, because they believe that we should not pronounce Yahuweh’s name.

But why Yahushua is correct and Yeshua is incorrect is beside the point since virtually every English translation uses the obviously wrong Jesus.

jasonc65 wrote:
You evidently don't have a high opinion of the New Testament, which I do believe is part of the Word of God. It is just as valid as the Old Testament. It is what God revealed to the apostles through the Holy Spirit.


I actually have a very high opinion of much of it, i.e. Yahuchanon/John, other parts I think are horrible, and should never have been considered Scripture, i.e. Galatians.

I am however leery of trusting what we find in our bibles, since they are not based on the oldest manuscripts, but instead on the majority text, which are mostly based on much later text, where whole sections and stories have been added to fit religious agendas.

Nothing Yahushua said or did contradicted anything Yahuweh inspired in the “Old Testament”. So if something does than one of two things is going on, either it shouldn’t have been there and considered Scripture, or it has been miss translated, and it is up to us to determine which the case is.

Psalm 19:7 wrote:
Yahuweh’s Towrah (towrah – law and prescriptions for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahuweh’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded.


Matthew 5:19 wrote:
Do not assume that I have come to weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish the Torah/Law or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and the earth pass away not one jot (iota – the smallest letter, or yodh in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia – the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by, be ignored, disobeyed, of be disregarded from that which was established in the Torah until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses the least of these commandments or teaches people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven.


jasonc65 wrote:
And how do you know they were really placeholders? They might have simply been abbreviations.


It’s actually simple to determine that they were placeholders, by looking at Torah and other citations, and there use. If in the Torah Yahuweh’s name appears, and in the Greek KY with a live over the top appears, we know that the KY is a placeholder for Yahuweh.

jasonc65 wrote:
I have seen people talk about these same issues on other forums, and they usually don't agree about the underlying causes of the facts. Yada says KY is a Greek acronym that means "Upright One"; others think it's short for Kyrios.


Again it is simple to determine what it means by looking at what we know. We know what was written in the Torah, Prophet and Psalms, and we can easily look at how they were used in the citations from them. If Kyrios was intended, why would they not just write Kyrios? And why would they decide it was okay to copy edit God.

jasonc65 wrote:
I don't know who exactly is right, but I don't think God is going to throw me into hell over such a matter.


That’s a nice straw man since no one said he would.

My point was that while there was a perfectly good Greek word for Spirit, it was not used in the oldest manuscripts, that universally they used a placeholder, and that we can determine what that placeholder was for by looking at the Torah.

Then I suggested a reason why a placeholder might have been used when there was a Greek word that could have been used, namely the gender of the word. In the Hebrew the gender for every mention of the Spirit is Feminine, something which would have been impossible to reproduce with the Greek, since the word in Greek is gender neutral.

Your point was that there is not mention of the Spirit as being female, I was simply showing you evidence for why we should consider such. I never said that if you don’t view the Spirit as a female you would go to hell, or even that you wouldn’t go to heaven. I don’t think such so I wouldn’t say such. I do think the realization that the Spirit plays the role of our Spiritual Mother does add to our understanding of God, which is the intent of Yada Yahuweh and thus this forum. We are all here to try to better understand Yahuweh.

So if you want to ignore all the evidence for the feminine nature of the Spirit, fine it doesn’t hurt me none. Your original post made it sound as though you were interested in understanding why we view it this way, and I was attempting to show you the reason. So again I don’t think you are going to hell for not seeing it this way. Personally I don’t know you or anything about you, so I am in no position to say one way or another, heck even if I knew you personally and knew most everything about you, it’s still not position to say such. All I can say is what I know, and what I understand, and then explain myself, which is all I have attempted to do. I think understanding the feminine nature of the Spirit adds to our understanding of Yahuweh.

It makes sense to me that Yahuweh would model himself in the familial relationship he wishes to enjoy with us. Father, Mother and Child that is what a family is, it makes sense to me that Yahuweh would model himself in that way. Which is why I think as cgb pointed out the Genesis 1:27 verse was worded the way it was.

Genesis 1:27 wrote:
And God created the man in His image, in the image of God He created him – male and female He created them.


jasonc65 wrote:
I have been on forums where people argue about the nature of the Holy Spirit, too. I gather that in some Eastern Orthodox traditions, the idea that the Holy Spirit is our mother is entertained. Still, I am not certain that is what the scripture clearly teaches. The Messiah's model prayer begins, "Our Father who art in heaven", not "Our father and mother who are in heaven".


Yes that prayer was directed at our Father that in no way negates the Spirit being feminine in nature. I pray to my Father every day. But look at the role that the Spirit plays, it is very much that of a mother. I.E. We are born of Spirit, who gives birth the mother or the father.

jasonc65 wrote:
I don't think your idea of Yahshua's commandments is accurate. Yahweh gave the Torah through Moses to reveal our sins so we would be driven to Messiah. Messiah has fulfilled the law.


The Messiah has not fulfilled all of the Torah; three of the seven miqra have not been fulfilled. Yahushua said that till heaven and Earth pass away not one jot or tittle would be done away with. Not the smallest letter or stroke would be changed.

jasonc65 wrote:
Yahshua has given his own commandments, such as to love one another.


That was not a new commandment or an abrogation of anything. He was asked the most important commandment and replied with Love Yahuweh your God with all your heart all your all your strength all your soul and all your mind, and that second is love your neighbor as yourself. i think he included mind in there for a reason, he wants us to think about and reason through His Word.

This was not new, and not an abrogation, it was an answer to a question, the question being the most important commandment, not what are your commandments, or which commandments should we follow.

jasonc65 wrote:
I do not understand by this saying that we must keep the whole Torah. The very nature of the commandments is that we cannot keep them all.


So because we can’t keep it perfectly we shouldn’t try? We should just ignore them? No we can’t keep them all perfectly, which is why Yahuweh built within the Torah the means for our forgiveness, but just because we can be forgiven from our transgressions doesn’t mean we should just go about transgressing.

A friend of mine use to tell a joke: “Jesus died for your sins, so if you don’t sin then he died for nothing.”

Sadly that seems to be the mindset of many.

Yahuweh’s Torah was given for our benefit. Observing it benefits us in many ways, most importantly they teach us about the nature of Yahuweh and the nature of the relationship he desires.

Another thread discusses this pretty well http://forum.yadayahweh....with-YHWH.aspx#post18362 Post 6 is great.

jasonc65 wrote:
Moses put up with divorce and polygamy because of the hardness of men's hearths.


Divorce was also necessary in that Yahuweh knew the time would come when he would have to divorce Israel because of her infidelity, Hosea.

jasonc65 wrote:
Sacrifices were part of the law, and yet I'm sure we both agree that that part of the law was fulfilled. Just as Yeshua and the apostles do not tell us to continue to make sacrifices, they do not tell us to keep other parts of the Torah, including circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and celebrating feasts, days, and weeks.


One I think verses like the Matthew one above make it very clear that yes he did teach that we should follow all those.

But more important than what he says is what he doesn’t say, nowhere does he tell us that we are to disregard any of it. Nowhere does he say not to keep the feast, not to keep the Sabbath, not to circumcise, not to observe the Torah. In fact he says that whoever dismisses the least of these commandments or teaches people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven.

So yes he does tell us to keep all of them.

jasonc65 wrote:
Maybe Yada didn't, but that sure sounded like his tone in some parts of his books. In other words, you don't have to be circumcised, but if you were truly saved, you would be.


What Yada does is point out several verses which link lack of circumcision to being left out of the covenant. But if you love Yahuweh why would you not want to honor his request and be circumcised. I’m not saying that those who are uncircumcised will be kept out of heaven, but I don’t see why someone wouldn’t just do it. Why do so many people strive to find reasons not to.

jasonc65 wrote:
This is the condescending tone used by Lordship Salvation proponents.


I don’t know what Lordship Salvation is so I can’t comment on that.

While I don’t see Yada’s style as condescending, I could easily see how some might consider it abrasive. Yada is very convinced of his understandings, and states them very bluntly. That said he is very open minded and very open to critique provided it is reasoned and claims are backed up.

jason65 wrote:
You are changing the subject. I was addressing the fact that Yahshua called Elohim Father. He does so in his prayer, when his disciples ask him to teach them to pray. I nowhere said he called his Father Lord.


It’s not changing the subject; your statement was that you don’t hear Yahushua refereeing to Yahuweh. My point was that our English translation have removed it, and that anytime you see him use LORD, he is really using Yahuweh, so yes Yahushua does refer to our Father as Yahuweh, in addition to Father. I have no problem using Father; I use it all the time when I talk to Him. But my point was a direct response to your statement that he doesn’t refer to Him as Yahuweh.

jasonc65 wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to understand the best we can. But there comes a point where arguments about words become pointless. We get sidetracked about the the form of words, and we lose focus on their meaning. We get sidetracked about trivial matters and leave behind the essentials.


I disagree completely. I think the better we understand the words that Yahuweh and Yahushua used the better and deeper we understand the message. Using as an example the cross, when you study the word and learn that it is not cross, but upright pole, you are then able to link it to a concept that flows throughout the Torah, Prophet and Psalms. And you gain a deeper understanding.

Can you take this to an extreme? Yeah. If I were to say that if you use Messiah instead of Ma'aseyah you are going to hell and you don’t know Yahuweh at all, then I would be an idiot. But if as friends discussing Yahuweh’s word I explained that Ma’aseyah is more accurate, and that it means implement doing the work of Yah, as opposed to Messiah which means anointed one. I think the one gives us a deeper understanding of His mission, but if you choose to continue to use Messiah then fine.

Another example I would never say that no one who calls Him Jesus knows Him. But I would say that Jesus is entirely wrong, and we shouldn’t, and I would wonder why someone who knows the Truth would ignore it.

jasonc65 wrote:
We take a mystery-novel approach to the good and beneficial message and render it indiscernible.


I don’t think we take it that way at all. I think we view Yahuweh’s word as an onion with many many layers, and the deeper understanding we can get the better.

jasonc65 wrote:
The Gnostics sought esoteric knowledge; now you are seeking historical secrets that are just as esoteric because they are inaccessible to all but the most studious scholars.


A difference being esoteric is un provable and historic is. But again it’s just trying to peel back the onion and get a deeper understanding. Yahushua said seek and you shall find, or more accurately continuously seek and you shall find. All we are doing is continuing to seek. I don’t see what is wrong with seeking to better understand Yahuweh, and I don’t see any better way to understand Him than to closely examine and study His Word.

jasonc65 wrote:
And then you all but base your salvation on them.


I don’t base my salvation at all on my knowledge. But I find I strengthen my relationship with Yahuweh when I study his Word. I almost never feel as close to Him as I do when I am dissecting His Word verse by verse and Word by Word.

I don’t go around looking down on people and condemning them because they don’t have as much of an understanding of the underlying Hebrew of Scripture as I do, just as those who have a better understanding than I don’t look down or judge me. Now if I am having a conversation with someone and it comes up, I will point out what I view as inaccuracies in their understandings, and point out why. I will point out to my Christian friends and family that the cross is a pagan symbol and not in Scripture, but if they choose to ignore it I am fine with that. My only job is to expose lies and corruptions and witness to the truth.

This forum is a place where we have come together and study, so yes here we are more demanding that people don’t use incorrect vocabulary. We don’t want people using Jesus here when it is demonstrably incorrect.

jasonc65 wrote:
The healing and beneficial message (which Yada calls it) is not a big secret; it was plainly taught by the apostles and revealed in the New Testament.


Yes it was clearly taught, however over the centuries religion has attempted to cover up, and corrupt it. Which is why exposing things like Galatian’s which contradicts Yahuweh and Yahushua is important.
jasonc65 wrote:
The scholars you are learning from are no less fallible than the ones the church has relied upon. They can just as easily be wrong. You can be just as wrong about your interpretations of the facts as all traditions of men.


YES, YES and YES. I acknowledge I can be wrong; I have been wrong before and will be wrong again. That said if I am wrong, I want to be told I am wrong, but I also need to be convinced that I am wrong. I was an atheist/agnostic, and it took a lot of convincing for me to finally acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. It took years of studying for me to come to the understandings I have, and they have been refined and polished along the way, as people were able to explain to me that I was wrong and why. So if you think I have come to errant conclusions please explain to me why. That was the whole reason I engage in this forum.

jasonc65 wrote:
Actually, you are setting up a religion with your knowledge, which is not the facts but your interpretation of the facts.


While everyone here would agree that it is our understandings of Scripture that we are espousing, I fail to see how it is a religion. All we are doing is stating our understanding, which is not the same for everyone here (if you really take a look around the forum you will find a lot of disagreement), and defending it. How is this religion? No one here has said that you have to read Yada Yahweh and come to the exact understanding it has to go to heaven. Heck even YY itself has changed over the years. If you were to read it now and 6 years ago you would think they were two different books. So I fail to see how we are creating a religion. We are merely trying to help each other better understand.

jasonc65 wrote:
The right way has been known all along, by people who call themselves Christian, whether you acknowledge it or not.


Which people calling themselves Christian would that be, the Catholics, the Greek orthodox, or did they only get right with the reformation and Martin Luther, or was it Calvin’s Christian ideas that had it right? Or is it only the Christians you know? Baptist think that you’re going to Hell if you drink alcohol do they have it right? Mormon’s think Caffeine will do it. If a Christian today were to travel back 400 years they couldn’t be recognized as a Christian by the Christians of the day.

Have there always been those that Knew Yahuweh, yes, usually they were a minority, but they did exist, did they have the same understanding I have NO. I’ve said elsewhere on the forum that the one thing I think all of Yahuweh’s family has in common is a mindset, a desire to want to know Him. It’s not how much you know and understand, but how much you want to know and understand. While I would include some Christian’s in this category, most of the ones I have meetI think are apathetic and happy just to go to church on Sunday and call it quits at that, they have now desire to seek Him.

jasonc65 wrote:
You are teaching another way which is not another.


I’m not teaching anything. I am a student as much as anyone, I explain what I have learned to others in hopes of r3efining my understanding, but I do not claim to have all the answers at all. Christians however do claim this, which is why most don’t bother to seek, they feel they have already found all the answers.

jasonc65 wrote:
The way that has been known is to believe in the Son of God (John 3:16), whom God sent into the world so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.


Here is a perfect example of where language and words are important, and why our translations are so bad. The word is not believe, it is trust and rely, trust and reliance is not the same as belief, it is the antithesis of it. Belief is in that which one doesn’t know and understand, trust and reliance is dependent upon knowing and understanding.

jasonc65 wrote:
If people in the church who have understood and taught this way have not understood it, then I don't know who has; certainly you haven't. It is the way I believe and I am not changing my mind. Either John 3:16 is inspired, or I am damned. That is where I stand.


Yes trusting and relying on Yahushua and Yahuweh is the key, but why stop there? And you have to get to the point where you can trust and rely on them, and that requires effort, that requires getting to know them, getting to understand them, coming to love them. A good fiend once said that Salvation is the byproduct of having a relationship with Yahuweh, not the reason to have a relationship with Yahuweh.

All I do is seek to better my relationship with Him, and to learn more about Him. If you are satisfied saying you believe in Him and that is all that matters to you, then that is fine with me, but don’t condemn me. I 100% trust and rely on Yahushua for my salvation, but I still seek to get to know him better. I trust my friends to be there for me when I need them, but I still seek to know and understand them better as well, it is the essence of having a relationship with them.

jasonc65 wrote:
This arguing about words is silly. It does not increase anyone's understanding, and it does not save anyone.


Then don’t engage in a discussion about words. I find it very enlightening to study and discuss the words Yahuweh choose, so I choose to engage in it. No one come on to a forum dedicated to studying Yahuweh’s word, word by word, and engage in a debate. If you find it useless and pointless that is fine, what does it hurt you if we find it to be helpful and insightful for us to study it. If we want to spend hours discussing rather chodesh is new or renewed, what does it hurt you, no one is making you engage.

You came on here and started a discussion about rather the Spirit is feminine or masculine, a subject of interest to many of us we engaged in the discussion. If you think it doesn’t matter rather one views the spirit as feminine or masculine, then disengage from the discussion.

jasonc65 wrote:
Agreed. I don't know if it's really painful or not, but I have heard people say it is, and I am secure enough in my salvation in Jesus that I know I do not need to go through this whatever it is.


That’s good for you. I hope for your sake you are right. Like I said I had no say in my circumcision, like most people who have it done I was an infant. That said when I have a son I will have him circumcised, not because I think either he or I will go to hell if I don’t, but because Yahuweh said we should, and asked me to do it, and there’s really no reason not to. I think the symbolism behind it is profound, and when and if my son asks why I did it I will explain it to him, it’s a great teaching tool.

jasonc65 wrote:
I am interested in understanding and studying what Yahweh (or however you pronounce his name) has said. I would rather be with Christianity and with what Yeshua has said than to be against both.


As I see it there are times when I am with Christian’s and times when I think what Yahushua taught is completely against Christianity. I think when Christianity teaches the celebration of pagan festivals like Easter and Christmas, they are diametrically opposed to what Yahuweh taught.
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
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
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.