so if Jesus is "GOD"

[Black Panther]

The book of Romans is the New Testament and does not qualify. Once again, the Hebrews do not believe in such a thing, because their scripture clearly says no man can die for the sins of another.

And in Isiah it still does not say the messiah is supposed to die, and be a sacrificial lamb in a mock passover sacrifice. I see the part about salvation, where is the part about sins.

GTFOH! Having this discussion is not even fun, because you people are irrational and easily defeated.You said a whole bunch of nothing with smilies and presented an invalid argument. Please come correct

By the way:

I'll go no further than that. And I won't be responding beyond this.

Welcome back.

The book of Romans is the New Testament and does not qualify.

According to who? You?

Once again, the Hebrews do not believe in such a thing, because their scripture clearly says no man can die for the sins of another.

You're talking about Psalms 49:7. And what it says is true.

Believing that the Messiah can die for you sins and not believing that any other can do so is not mutually exclusive. Neither Jews nor Christian purport that men can generally die for another person's sins. Believing that Jesus as Messiah could do it doesn't automatically mean I'm okay with you dying for my sins.

When you pick out individual verses without allowing for both immediate and broader context or being informed by other scripture, I can see how you can come up with weird interpretations like this, but understanding context is extremely important to the bible's interpretation.

And in Isiah it still does not say the messiah is supposed to die, and be a sacrificial lamb in a mock passover sacrifice. I see the part about salvation, where is the part about sins.

"7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth."

"8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken."

Pretty clearly compares Him to a lamb (which would have been a pretty clear allusion to Passover for Jews at that time), says He died as a result of the suffering described, and even follows up by saying that He was stricken "for the transgressions of my people". Once again, "transgression" and sin are synonymous, and some translations even say "sin" specifically.

GTFOH! Having this discussion is not even fun, because you people are irrational and easily defeated.You said a whole bunch of nothing with smilies and presented an invalid argument. Please come correct

For something that's not fun, you certainly seem to like doing it.

You can dismiss my comments as "a whole bunch of nothing", but that doesn't really answer my rebuttals now, does it?

Like I said, it's crazy how people who don't read the Bible try to tell people who do what it means or how it's interpreted.

 

[Lamar Givens]

The ball was in your court. I gave you the ball when I brought the bible verse of Peter saying that there is ONE name (which he said in HIS language) that people are saved by under heaven. Or the dime I threw you when I said that there was no "J" in those times. Or the one where I said Hebrew names always meant something while "Iesous" and "Jesus" mean nothing at all. Then theres the fact that from the same general area the letter "J" came about, so did he name "Jesus". And with it a slave ship they used to import Israelites err.. I mean "Africans" to the West that they also named "Jesus". I dropped one off for you (or maybe CJ) when I said Deuteronomy 28's curses matches what happened to blacks in the west with slavery and onwards..

These were all passes to you and you ducked them all. And instead practically said you're smarter than me and Im brainwashed lol. Thats a person who doesnt want dialogue. Me bringing up all those things, shows that I did. But you nor @BigJohnsons didnt seem to want to touch anything about it. Just wanted me to throw the name out lol. I cant do that in good faith after seeing you duck these things so we can end it here if you wish

1. There is nothing to duck in your statements because your assertions about the name of Yehowshuwa/Yeshua/Jesus is false.

2. You continue to assert that the letter J was never used, but documented history contradicts your statements. You have not provided any evidence for your claims.

3. You realize more than one slave ship brought hundreds of thousands of slaves to various parts of the world in the slave trade? But I suppose you believe every single slave was brought over on the one ship supposedly called Jesus. All of the claims you have been making so far are ridiculous.

4. You have provided no evidence for your claims.

5. Anyone who has studied the Old Testament knows Hebrew names have meaning. I gave you the definition of the Hebrew name Yehowshuwa יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (Joshua). You claim to be Hebrew but don't even know your own language and letters.

But, I guess you will claim the Hebrew word I just typed is not real Hebrew but some other language from outer space.

Keep ducking the question we asking you. I'm going to continually expose you breh.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Let me reword that, the Hebrews didnt say that the Most High's name was Jehovah. And thats proven by the fact that there was no "J" when they were around in ancient times...

...........LOL. You're a 'Sacred Namer' and the 'J' sound existed back then.
​

So resistant that they were pagans in the wilderness not even decades after being freed from Egypt?

And look what happened to them in the wilderness as a result. THAT'S why they refused to worship anything else. J's disciples were devout Hebrews.​

And Africanus is hardly a "Hebrew" and thats who you pointed to as "legitimately" coming up with the Dec 25th date despite his people already celebrating pagan holidays on or near that date

1. Since I never stated Africanus was Hebrew, that objection is moot.......

2. 'His' people didn't celebrate pagan holidays since they were forbidden from doing so.......​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

2. You continue to assert that the letter J was never used, but documented history contradicts your statements. You have not provided any evidence for your claims.

He's a 'Sacred Namer', breh. He believes that Hebrew doesn't use/have the 'J' sound.

Guess he's never spoken to any Sephardic Jews......​

 

[Black Panther]

By the way:




Welcome back.



According to who? You?



You're talking about Psalms 49:7. And what it says is true.

Believing that the Messiah can die for you sins and not believing that any other can do so is not mutually exclusive. Neither Jews nor Christian purport that men can generally die for another person's sins. Believing that Jesus as Messiah could do it doesn't automatically mean I'm okay with you dying for my sins.

When you pick out individual verses without allowing for both immediate and broader context or being informed by other scripture, I can see how you can come up with weird interpretations like this, but understanding context is extremely important to the bible's interpretation.



"7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth."

"8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken."

Pretty clearly compares Him to a lamb (which would have been a pretty clear allusion to Passover for Jews at that time), says He died as a result of the suffering described, and even follows up by saying that He was stricken "for the transgressions of my people". Once again, "transgression" and sin are synonymous, and some translations even say "sin" specifically.



For something that's not fun, you certainly seem to like doing it.

You can dismiss my comments as "a whole bunch of nothing", but that doesn't really answer my rebuttals now, does it?

Like I said, it's crazy how people who don't read the Bible try to tell people who do what it means or how it's interpreted.

 

[Black Panther]

You do know that this "suffering servant" is said to have his days prolonged and have many offspring? Hardly the case for the one you call "Jesus" right?

Well, if you read it in context, it says that His days will be prolonged after He was "cut off from the land of the living", so that's not hard to understand. The Hebrew word translated as "offspring" in v. 10 does not always mean physical kids.

So in your view, God has a throne, creates David, then leaves His heavenly throne to come reign on a throne made for His creation FOREVER? Instead of the simple explanation that this is David's throne for David and his descendants?

Jesus's parents descend from David. Jesus, in the flesh, is David's descendant. So yes, you are correct, David's throne is for his Descendant.

The same book of John that has Jesus praying and saying he has a God that is your God? You cant see the confusion that is purposely in the bible?

"Purposefully" implies "intent". I would require evidence of intentional confusion.

He's pretty on point with what he said.The reason you celebrate the birth on Dec 25th is BECAUSE of paganism. Nothing to do with the bible. Heck, no one in the bible celebrated births yearly to my recollection, so where did Christians get the idea? Pagans. If you're a christian, you might as well call the catholic church daddy

I didn't disagree with Christmas's pagan origins; it's a well-known fact. It was his assertion of how they arrived at the December 25th date that was wrong. [/QUOTE]

 

[cleanface coney]

not all africans that came to america are/were hebrews

 

[Everythingg]

1. There is nothing to duck in your statements because your assertions about the name of Yehowshuwa/Yeshua/Jesus is false.

My assertion is that people are saved by one name like Peter said and not three like the three you just put up that sound and are spelled differently. Of course, you ducked it...

2. You continue to assert that the letter J was never used, but documented history contradicts your statements. You have not provided any evidence for your claims.

I never said the letter J was NEVER used. I said it wasnt around during the times of the one you call "Jesus". Another thing you didnt address... If your assertion is that it WAS used in his times, then just say so and we can continue from there. But ducking, is all you're doing...

3. You realize more than one slave ship brought hundreds of thousands of slaves to various parts of the world in the slave trade? But I suppose you believe every single slave was brought over on the one ship supposedly called Jesus. All of the claims you have been making so far are ridiculous.

Thats not the point. The point is why does Deuteronomy 28 match black people but not the JewISH people? Why was the first ship to take blacks over here named "Jesus"? How come the same group of people (Europeans) who came up with the letter J, and subsequently the name "Jesus" are the same ones that brought blacks to the Americas on slaveships (one of which that was NAMED "Jesus")? You havent addressed any of this because you rather duck...

4. You have provided no evidence for your claims.

You didnt either till this post. Which was another one of my points that you didnt address in the way that you're clamoring me for a source, yet not providing one yourself. And even in what you provided, you just provided names written in Hebrew. Thats hardly proof that the name is that which you say. Because I can google a name, translate it to Hebrew, and bring it back here. That doesnt mean it was the name..

5. Anyone who has studied the Old Testament knows Hebrew names have meaning. I gave you the definition of the Hebrew name Yehowshuwa יְהוֹשׁוּעַ (Joshua). You claim to be Hebrew but don't even know your own language and letters.

But, I guess you will claim the Hebrew word I just typed is not real Hebrew but some other language from outer space.

Keep ducking the question we asking you. I'm going to continually expose you breh.

Breh your understanding is so lacking its embarrassing. For instance, the Hebrew they speak today, isnt the Hebrew Moses was speaking. Two, there werent consonants in the written Hebrew Moses used. Third, why dont you take a look at the these names in Hebrew and tell me what they have in common.

Zechariah
Isaiah
Jeremiah

When you do that, come back and tell me how the name is anything that starts with a "Yeh". But thats besides the point as my point has always been Peter said people are saved by one name while you point to three different names, with different meanings as names that are legitimately utilized the reference the one person under heaven people are saved by. So either Peter was wrong and we're saved by HUNDREDS of names that man chose to "transliterate" the name to, or his words are right, that people are saved by ONE name that he said in his LANGUAGE. You've been ducking ever since. Im not going to throw something holy (the name of the Most High) out where dogs lie breh. And there are dogs on the coli. But my points, you've been ducking. Guess you cant keep up lol

 

[Everythingg]

...........LOL. You're a 'Sacred Namer' and the 'J' sound existed back then.
​

I dont know what a sacred namer is but do I think its better for me to seek the way the Most High wants me to refer to Him rather than to take the cac's interpretation of what I should call Him (God/lord/lord god/jesus)? Yes. But no, the J sound did not exist around the time of Moses. It came with Europeans just as the name "Jesus" and the ship named "Jesus" that brought some blacks to this side of the world did too...

And look what happened to them in the wilderness as a result. THAT'S why they refused to worship anything else. J's disciples were devout Hebrews.​

Except they didnt refuse to worship anything else. There was king after king in the writings of the prophets who were pagans and had Israel behaving like pagans. Guess you didnt read that part lol

1. Since I never stated Africanus was Hebrew, that objection is moot.......

2. 'His' people didn't celebrate pagan holidays since they were forbidden from doing so.......​

1. Not really. If he wasnt Hebrew, then it doesnt matter what "date" he came up with

2. No matter your ducking, the point is there is no reason to believe he "legitimately" came up with the date when people were celebrating their pagan holidays on or around that date BEFORE he "legitimately" came up with the date.

 

[Everythingg]

He's a 'Sacred Namer', breh. He believes that Hebrew doesn't use/have the 'J' sound.

Guess he's never spoken to any Sephardic Jews......​

Ancient Hebrew didnt have the J sound since that came with the Euros

And go ask a Sephardic Jew about Deuteronomy 28....

 

[Everythingg]

Well, if you read it in context, it says that His days will be prolonged after He was "cut off from the land of the living", so that's not hard to understand. The Hebrew word translated as "offspring" in v. 10 does not always mean physical kids.

When Adam and Eve's son Abel was replaced with Seth, she used the same Hebrew word translated as offspring in verse 10 of Isaiah 53 (zera) to refer to her new offspring Seth. Read that in Genesis 4:25. So thats false breh. The fact of the matter is, he's right. The Ancient Israelites never believed that a man would come in the future to literally die for their sins. Nor did they think/believe that the slaughtering of a man would replace their passover sacrifice. These are pagan beliefs...

Jesus's parents descend from David. Jesus, in the flesh, is David's descendant. So yes, you are correct, David's throne is for his Descendant.

Isnt your assertion that "Jesus" is "God" though? So how does that work that "God" leaves His heavenly throne to come rule eternally on the throne of His creation? If you're not saying that "Jesus is God" then I dont think we're in disagreement...

"Purposefully" implies "intent". I would require evidence of intentional confusion.

Well, the bible says that:

Jeremiah 8:8
'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

I didn't disagree with Christmas's pagan origins; it's a well-known fact. It was his assertion of how they arrived at the December 25th date that was wrong.

Oh I didnt read that part of his assertion. But when he says "Paul doesnt count" I think he's referring to the fact that many people consider Paul to be a false apostle.

 

[Everythingg]

not all africans that came to america are/were hebrews

Go on breh... Because I am of the understanding that everyone that came out of the Egyptian slavery werent Israelites (Exodus 12:38) just as you now say that about the second bondage for the Israelites...

But what makes you say this the second time?

 

[Μαρία]

I'm not religious but I believe in God. Now from what I have read, the only one who could have defeated all sin was God, thus Jesus was the physical manifestation of God. Not a literal "Son" as in a child that one would conceive.
Notice in Revelation 1:8 Jesus says "I am the ALPHA and the OMEGA, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

 

[Black Panther]

When Adam and Eve's son Abel was replaced with Seth, she used the same Hebrew word translated as offspring in verse 10 of Isaiah 53 (zera) to refer to her new offspring Seth. Read that in Genesis 4:25. So thats false breh. The fact of the matter is, he's right. The Ancient Israelites never believed that a man would come in the future to literally die for their sins. Nor did they think/believe that the slaughtering of a man would replace their passover sacrifice. These are pagan beliefs...

Like I said, it's not always taken to mean physical offspring. It actually has six individual definitions:


seed, sowing, offspring

1. a sowing
2. seed
3. semen virile
4. offspring, descendants, posterity, children
5. of moral quality
   1. a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
6. sowing time (by meton)

Pulling Gen. 4:25 as the only example of how it's used is not only incorrect, but disingenuous.

Isnt your assertion that "Jesus" is "God" though? So how does that work that "God" leaves His heavenly throne to come rule eternally on the throne of His creation? If you're not saying that "Jesus is God" then I dont think we're in disagreement...

Well, my belief is that God the Father is not the God of this world, but that's another story. Basically, the process of mankind's redemption is to both remove the god of this world (Satan) and give it to Jesus.

Well, the bible says that:

Jeremiah 8:8
'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Context matters. This is not the Bible talking about itself here.

 

[cleanface coney]

Go on breh... Because I am of the understanding that everyone that came out of the Egyptian slavery werent Israelites (Exodus 12:38) just as you now say that about the second bondage for the Israelites...

But what makes you say this the second time?

idk bro i just dont think were all the same

i do believe some of us are hebrews, some but not all

theres history of african muslims and other spiritual beliefs too