so if Jesus is "GOD"

[Everythingg]

Prove it..........
​

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...

Which means absolutely nothing since Hebrews were notoriously resistant to pagan influences as proven through archaeology and extensive documentation.

Also, the first Christians WERE devout Hebrews......​

So resistant that they were pagans in the wilderness not even decades after being freed from Egypt? "Jesus" disciples werent "christians". They still followed the ways of their ancestors just as "Jesus" did. Hardly what we see from christians nowadays...


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

 

[Everythingg]

Enlighten me if what I'm suppose to call him

You're not serious about your faith breh..

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

[TransJenner]

You're not serious about your faith breh..

Matthew 7:6
"Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

 

[Everythingg]

All I was tryna do was show you the next step to take. You rather duck it so...

 

[TransJenner]

All I was tryna do was show you the next step to take. You rather duck it so...

 

[Lamar Givens]

All I was tryna do was show you the next step to take. You rather duck it so...

1.You are making all of these claims in a forum that is about SERIOUS conversation and exchange of information (dialogue).

2. All you have been doing thus far is telling others they are wrong and you are right and you haven't even presented an argument other than saying "take my word for it and if not you are lost."

3. Others posters beside myself have asked for you to provide a rational defense of what you are saying and your defense is, "once you acknowledge that you have been deceived you will have the answer." Breh that is not sufficient, I'm sorry.

4. Your position holds absolutely no weight because you refuse to engage in intellectual dialogue. Basically you have drawn a line in the sand and have said, "Unless you come over to my side I am not willing to share my truth." Well I'm sorry, but dialogue/conversation doesn't work that way.

 

[KG1]

What is so illogical of adaption over time. The earth is billions of years old.

 

[SirReginald]

Judaism makes much more sense to me. I believe Jesus was a good man, but the holy man/son of God

 

[Everythingg]

2. All you have been doing thus far is telling others they are wrong and you are right and you haven't even presented an argument other than saying "take my word for it and if not you are lost."

Maybe if you'd address the FACT that Hebrew names meant something, while Iseous and Jesus do not then we could continue. Instead, you ducked it. Maybe if you addressed how Peter said people are saved by one name, while saying the name that people are saved by in his native language, when in all actuality it would be HUNDREDS of names that we are saved by, with some of which not even resembling in anyway in the original name in Hebrew. But again, you ducked it...

3. Others posters beside myself have asked for you to provide a rational defense of what you are saying and your defense is, "once you acknowledge that you have been deceived you will have the answer." Breh that is not sufficient, I'm sorry.

Whats more "rational" than me explaining to you that there was no J in ancient Hebrew therefore the name could not be "Jesus"? Whats more rational than me explaining to you that "Jesus" in the English language means nothing just as Iseous in the Greek language means nothing? You havent addressed any of this yet you want me to spoonfeed you the name?

4. Your position holds absolutely no weight because you refuse to engage in intellectual dialogue. Basically you have drawn a line in the sand and have said, "Unless you come over to my side I am not willing to share my truth." Well I'm sorry, but dialogue/conversation doesn't work that way.

Breh if you're not willing to address the things I;ve said REPEATEDLY and instead want me to spoonfeed you the name, well then that aint happening. It aint on me to spoonfeed anyone and everyone the truth. Because:

Matthew 7:6
6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Yall want that lovey dovey open a book and everything you need is there type of faith. But this aint the world for that. One day, you'll see for yourself..

 

[Lamar Givens]

Maybe if you'd address the FACT that Hebrew names meant something, while Iseous and Jesus do not then we could continue. Instead, you ducked it. Maybe if you addressed how Peter said people are saved by one name, while saying the name that people are saved by in his native language, when in all actuality it would be HUNDREDS of names that we are saved by, with some of which not even resembling in anyway in the original name in Hebrew. But again, you ducked it...



Whats more "rational" than me explaining to you that there was no J in ancient Hebrew therefore the name could not be "Jesus"? Whats more rational than me explaining to you that "Jesus" in the English language means nothing just as Iseous in the Greek language means nothing? You havent addressed any of this yet you want me to spoonfeed you the name?





Breh if you're not willing to address the things I;ve said REPEATEDLY and instead want me to spoonfeed you the name, well then that aint happening. It aint on me to spoonfeed anyone and everyone the truth. Because:

Matthew 7:6
6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Yall want that lovey dovey open a book and everything you need is there type of faith. But this aint the world for that. One day, you'll see for yourself..

1. In other words you are refusing to dialogue, no problem.

 

[Lamar Givens]

What is so illogical of adaption over time. The earth is billions of years old.

1. Being that radiometric dating methods are highly subjective, and have serious problems your claim about the earth being millions of years old is not true.

2. Adaptations/Mutations have never been observed by any scientist to demonstrate NEW COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES. This has been a major stumbling block for Darwinian evolutionists.

3. It is no coincidence that millions upon millions of years are claimed to be needed for adaptation to work, because evolutionists realize it will never be observed. This is called sleight of hand (skillful deception). I repeat no scientist has ever OBSERVED new complex biological structures arising from adaptation/mutations.

The foundation of science is observation. Were you there 3.5 billion years ago to see adaptation (branching off) over time change one species into another species gradually? If you have not then your claim is a belief, not a fact. But evolutionist want you to believe it is a fact. You have just left science and went into religion (philosophical naturalism)

4. What we do know is that mutations cause more harm than good, and DNA desperately tries to correct major errors within organisms. This directly contradicts the foundation for Darwinian belief with regards to BLIND, PURPOSELESS causes being beneficial and building complexity.

You have to critically think breh!!!

 

[Black Panther]

First problem, when they say OUR, they are speaking of Israelites, not of all humanity. So please make sense.

...

Second, so a child was God. Why would God need to be born if he could incarnate and breathe life into him. Please make sense. And for unto us, a child shall be born...once again referring to the Israelites...not all humanity.

6 Indeed He says, `It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.'" --Isaiah 49:6

And also you do not know when any of the Nevi'im was written and attached to the Torah.

~700 B.C. for the book of Isaiah, give or take. And let me guess: my sources are WRONG...but you have the TRUE SOURCES, right?

Sorry, I've done this too many times. Moving on...

AND NEITHER OF YOUR SUPPOSED POINTS SUPPORTS ORIGINAL SIN....so? What are you getting at exactly? God came and died for no reason, just for the Israelites....STOP IT!

"As it is written: 'There is none righteous, no, not one;' " --Romans 3:10

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned." --Rom. 5:12

^^This is where the doctrine of original sin comes from, taught by a former Pharisee (Saul of Tarsus). If anyone would have known what the OT does and does not contain, I'd think it would be a Jewish religious leader.

The more proper trans of Mighty God is God-Like hero. People taking poetic nuance and misconstruing it as its translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. Cmon son. STOP IT!

Poor exegesis.The Hebrew word "El" could be used in that way, but in context of the rest of Isaiah "El" being used in that way only refers to false gods. Every other usage is to Yahweh, and it is never in any other place used to describe the Messiah.

That also does not explain the term "Everlasting Father". Like Isaiah says later in his book:

"16 Doubtless You are our Father,
Though Abraham was ignorant of us,
And Israel does not acknowledge us.
You, O LORD, are our Father;
Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name." --Isaiah 63:16

For the 25th of Kislev do the research, because you have been misinformed. You're right most groups did have a winter solstice festival season, but that was considered Pagan, as in not Judeo-Catholic\Christian so they chose the 25th of December which corresponded with the Hebraic month of Kislev and the commencement of Hannukah. Thats why Jesus birthdate is not mentioned in the Bible, but somehow they picked that date for the Judeo-Roman(Greco-Latin) religion Christmas. Don't be so credulous.....

Those are some impressive $2 words you have there.

I'm not mocking you because I can't understand you, mind you. I know exactly what you're trying to say, and it tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Minister and 15-year serious student of the Bible, breh. I always find it funny that people who don't study the Bible itself try to tell people who do what it means.

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

Somehow I doubt that.

 

[Everythingg]

1. In other words you are refusing to dialogue, no problem.

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

 

[joeychizzle]

It's not that hard to understand.

- Man is god (the one)
- The holy trinity = The different stages/gradients of your existence/perception that you cycle through.

Father, spirit, son
Gas, liquid, solid
Vapor, water, ice

Blah blah blah...same principles.

At what point is an ice cube ever separate from the vapor surrounding it? Never. People say the name Christ like it's a last name when it's really an attainment..a level of mind that understands the illusion of separation.

?

thats zen bruh....but maybe a little too esoteric for most of these nikkas

Esoteric? Do not confuse drivel with deep intellectual discussion. The 'zen' post to which you refer is firmly categorized as the latter.

Attempts to justify religion using science, or indeed naturally occurring states of H20 have historically never held up to scrutiny, for science is the very machine of self refining search for truth that religion as a whole is so vehemently against.

 

[AVTI\/S]

6 Indeed He says, `It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.'" --Isaiah 49:6



~700 B.C. for the book of Isaiah, give or take. And let me guess: my sources are WRONG...but you have the TRUE SOURCES, right?

Sorry, I've done this too many times. Moving on...



"As it is written: 'There is none righteous, no, not one;' " --Romans 3:10

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned." --Rom. 5:12

^^This is where the doctrine of original sin comes from, taught by a former Pharisee (Saul of Tarsus). If anyone would have known what the OT does and does not contain, I'd think it would be a Jewish religious leader.



Poor exegesis.The Hebrew word "El" could be used in that way, but in context of the rest of Isaiah "El" being used in that way only refers to false gods. Every other usage is to Yahweh, and it is never in any other place used to describe the Messiah.

That also does not explain the term "Everlasting Father". Like Isaiah says later in his book:

"16 Doubtless You are our Father,
Though Abraham was ignorant of us,
And Israel does not acknowledge us.
You, O LORD, are our Father;
Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name." --Isaiah 63:16



Those are some impressive $2 words you have there.

I'm not mocking you because I can't understand you, mind you. I know exactly what you're trying to say, and it tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Minister and 15-year serious student of the Bible, breh. I always find it funny that people who don't study the Bible itself try to tell people who do what it means.



Somehow I doubt that.

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