James: How dumb is this guy?

[Solo]

Georges scholarship is lacking due to a belief system biased on private interpretation of the person of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

Uh....private interpretation....I thought I made my points overtly....it's free for all men....nothing I keep to myself....Solo...it ain't easy bringing difficult, unorthodox points into the lions den (or should I say snake pit)....I better know what I'm writing about. Ever consider the Holy Spirit may have led me to the conclusions I've reached? or, do you hold the exclusive rights to Jehovah's Holy Spirit.

You have exposed your doctrines of devils with your private interpretation to all, unfortunately. You have also proved that you listen to the spirit of antichrist, not the Holy Spirit.

Hopefully one day he will be born of God so that the Holy Spirit can put salve on his eyes to see the truth of the gospel of the LORD Jesus Christ.

It's already happened....care for some salve...I've got extra...I just don't subscribe to the Gospel of Solo.

It is too bad that you don't subscribe to the Gospel of Jesus Christ of which I subscribe. Your salve binds, Jesus' salve looses.

False Teachers are rampant today, and those that adhere to the doctrine that Jesus is not God fail to accept that God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ. Those that do not accept this truth are led by the spirit of antichrist, according to the Word of God.

I accept Jesus as God as Thomas declared....it is the interpretation of God (Elohim) that is the question.

Thomas declared Jesus truthfully as "my Lord, and my God". You and Thomas differ on your understanding of Jesus Christ. You should really do a study on Elohim; as I have shown, Jehovah and Elohim are the same according to the Hebrew scripture. Thomas understood this so much more than you, as you have shown.

A disagreement with the truth that Jesus is God goes directly against the statement of faith of this forum.

I never said Jesus wasn't God....just your interpretation of God (Elohim) is what I disagree with...

Your twisting of words and syntax of same does not free you from the false teachings that prevail in your posts. Jesus is almighty God, the First and the Last, Everlasting Father. You fail to subject yourself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, as he is not God almighty come in the flesh. I have shown you numerous times that Jesus is Jehovah, and Jesus is Elohim, and Jesus is Adonai, and Jesus is Immanuel, and Jesus is Alpha and Omega, and Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and Jesus created all things and without him was not anything created, and Jesus is not just a portion of God but is wholly God. You my friend have been deceived by the spirit of antichrist, and your words manifest your lost state.

Georges can continue to believe the false doctrines of devils if he chooses, but he will not be permitted to teach false doctrines on this forum.

I choose not to believe the false doctrines of devils....what in the world do you think I've been doing for the past month...preaching against the false doctrines...

You have been spreading the doctrines of devils, and you have been manifested to be a false teacher led by the spirit of antichrist.

Solo.....Can I take it I'm not getting a Christmas card from you this year?

I still luv ya anyway....PS...are you ever going to post anything of substance, or are you going to continue to be the forum hit man....You know "historically" Paul was a hitman for the High Priest....Yep, he persecuted the Nazarene believers.....I see a pattern.... :-D

No fellowship from me, and don't expect a Godspeed. You wouldn't know substance if it hit you between the eyes for you have been blinded by the father of lies and deceptions and you prefer his fellowship.

 

[Vic C.]

Take it to PMs boys. :-?

 

[Imagican]

Agreed Vic,

Are we NOT to seek to EDIFY rather than accuse and judge others? To the 'edification of ALL'. I see no positive offering or even ANY love offered by one that would simply judge his brothers through his OWN limited understanding. For if there were ANY 'true' understanding, the BEGINNING of understanding is that WE are NOT our brothers JUDGES, but 'their KEEPERS'. And him that would choose to be 'GREATEST' among his brothers is him that SERVES the MOST. NOT the one who places themselves in the 'high seats', 'thinking that they are greater', but the ones that PROVE this by their servitude.

MEC

 

[Abila]

Why Is the Trinity Being Bashed?

:D

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God in nature, essense and power. Plus, the Bible is filled with it and thus, its sound doctrine.

 

[Solo]

Agreed Vic,

Are we NOT to seek to EDIFY rather than accuse and judge others? To the 'edification of ALL'. I see no positive offering or even ANY love offered by one that would simply judge his brothers through his OWN limited understanding. For if there were ANY 'true' understanding, the BEGINNING of understanding is that WE are NOT our brothers JUDGES, but 'their KEEPERS'. And him that would choose to be 'GREATEST' among his brothers is him that SERVES the MOST. NOT the one who places themselves in the 'high seats', 'thinking that they are greater', but the ones that PROVE this by their servitude.

MEC

Not all are brothers dear Mike. Some are wolves in sheeps clothing trying to spread ridiculous heresies to the sheep of the LORD Jesus Christ. Perhaps you can be comfortable with the myth that Jesus is a created angel, but the truth is that He is God, and the Statement of Faith of this forum states the same. If you have a problem with it, take your heresy else where. I do not consider you a brother because you do not know Jesus Christ.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The memra is individual and yet the same as God

Please explain how this is not 2 Gods.

 

[Georges]

The memra is individual and yet the same as God

Please explain how this is not 2 Gods.

If that is from me...it was a poor attempt to explain the OP....clearly, the OP shows that the Memra "creative word" is something other than Jehovah...it is not God because it acts under the direction of Jehovah, and does not act of it's own accord....however, it can be percieved as Jehovah (by representation (according to the Jewish law of Agency) when dealing with man as outlined in the OP....

Brad..my mistake...it wasn't the OP...I thought it was....anyway here is the article developed from the http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com article on the Memra...I just broke it down in numerical steps...

here tis...

J...Just for you, I did the leg work. I took the liberty of breaking down the http://www.jewishencyclopedia article on "The Memra"....From the article, I made a list of the attributes of the Memra....read the list and substitute Jesus (The Angel of the Lord) in place of Memra...you will get the gist of John 1:1 + from a Hebrew perspective...

To the article.....read the list and see how many descriptives apply to Jesus.

"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

In the Targum (an Aramaic paraphrasing of the Hebrew, Aramaic was the language of the common man), the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

1. "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27).

2. The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35).

3. "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.).

4. Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there").

5. "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22).

6. Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18).

7. "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.).

8. Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12).

9. Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4).

10. His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]).

11. The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12).

12. The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.).

13. It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35).

14. Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34).

15. Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14).

16. It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11).

17. Through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25).

18. With the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27).

19. In the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

20. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7).

21. The Memra shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29).

22. The Memra works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3).

23. As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4).

24. So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

25. "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10).

26. The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41).

27. "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).


I also have a list of all of the passages that use "Memra" in the Targum paraphrase of the OT....if you like...it does help in idenfiying as the Rabbi's interpreted.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The memra is individual and yet the same as God

Please explain how this is not 2 Gods.

[quote:aa7c0]If that is from me...

[/quote:aa7c0]

Sorry George, no, that was for Solo :smt006

 

[Georges]

The memra is individual and yet the same as God

Please explain how this is not 2 Gods.

[quote:9ac19]If that is from me...

Sorry George, no, that was for Solo :smt006

[/quote:9ac19]

Good luck on that one.... :-D

 

[Solo]

The memra is individual and yet the same as God

Please explain how this is not 2 Gods.

I will not be able to spend enough time on this subject for you as it would just confuse you further. Perhaps you should pray to God for wisdom and understanding after you accept the salvation that he has provided to you.

 

[reyjamiei]

James the Just.....leader of the Chruch at Jerusalem, commissioned by Jesus, affirmed Bishop by the disciples....BROTHER OF JESUS. A man so revered that when Rome leveled Jeruselam in 70 AD, the people were convince it was because of the muder of James.

James lived with Jesus all of Jesus' life, and his own....

yet....

In the most serious of tenets in Mainstream Christianity, The Trinity......

James, never once......never once refers to his brother as God......for such an important tenet...he sure was ignorant of it...

If my brother was God....I'd be shoutin from the roof tops....."MY BROTHER IS GOD!!!!! MY BROTHER IS GOD!!!!!!

Instead James refers to God, and then he refers to the Lord Jesus. The King and the Prince...


Maybe there was a reason he didn't shout it from the hills....I really don't think it was because he was Dumb.....

It's because in Judaism the Messiah is not the Son of God, it's blasphemous to even suggest that God could have a son. That's why there was such an uproar over Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. If the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be the Son of God, they would not have been so quick to charge him with blasphemy.

In Judaism, the Messiah is supposed to be a fully human future Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil and inducted to rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.

 

[Georges]

James the Just.....leader of the Chruch at Jerusalem, commissioned by Jesus, affirmed Bishop by the disciples....BROTHER OF JESUS. A man so revered that when Rome leveled Jeruselam in 70 AD, the people were convince it was because of the muder of James.

James lived with Jesus all of Jesus' life, and his own....

yet....

In the most serious of tenets in Mainstream Christianity, The Trinity......

James, never once......never once refers to his brother as God......for such an important tenet...he sure was ignorant of it...

If my brother was God....I'd be shoutin from the roof tops....."MY BROTHER IS GOD!!!!! MY BROTHER IS GOD!!!!!!

Instead James refers to God, and then he refers to the Lord Jesus. The King and the Prince...


Maybe there was a reason he didn't shout it from the hills....I really don't think it was because he was Dumb.....

It's because in Judaism the Messiah is not the Son of God, it's blasphemous to even suggest that God could have a son.

You aren't quite right there.....

According to the http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com article on "Son of God" is quoted..

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain a few passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the Messiah (see Enoch, cv. 2; IV Esdras vii. 28-29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9);

....The application of the term "son of God" to the Messiah rests chiefly on Ps. ii. 7, and the other Messianic passages quoted above.

end of quote....

How about "adopted" Son, as in Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary, the Adopeted Son of God? Special from birth, given the complete Holy Spirit of Jehovah (Isa 11:2) at baptism to accomplish His/Jehovah's will.....Does that qualify him as "The" Son of God? All believer's are sons of God....but there is only one Son of God...as in importance...status...position...

That's why there was such an uproar over Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. If the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be the Son of God, they would not have been so quick to charge him with blasphemy.

The charges were a sham and a set up....Jesus did not blaspheme in his claim, the Messiah was considered by, yes, even the wicked High Priest to be the Son of God...

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

The HP understood that whoever the Christ was, he would be the Son of God as his words show.

In Judaism, the Messiah is supposed to be a fully human future Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil and inducted to rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.

Agree 100%....he will even have son's that rule under him...according to Eze. 46

me in red...

 

[reyjamiei]

It's because in Judaism the Messiah is not the Son of God, it's blasphemous to even suggest that God could have a son.

You aren't quite right there.....

According to the http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com article on "Son of God" is quoted..

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain a few passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the Messiah (see Enoch, cv. 2; IV Esdras vii. 28-29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9);

....The application of the term "son of God" to the Messiah rests chiefly on Ps. ii. 7, and the other Messianic passages quoted above.

end of quote....

How about "adopted" Son, as in Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary, the Adopeted Son of God? Special from birth, given the complete Holy Spirit of Jehovah (Isa 11:2) at baptism to accomplish His/Jehovah's will.....Does that qualify him as "The" Son of God? All believer's are sons of God....but there is only one Son of God...as in importance...status...position...

That's why there was such an uproar over Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. If the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be the Son of God, they would not have been so quick to charge him with blasphemy.

The charges were a sham and a set up....Jesus did not blaspheme in his claim, the Messiah was considered by, yes, even the wicked High Priest to be the Son of God...

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

The HP understood that whoever the Christ was, he would be the Son of God as his words show.

In Judaism, the Messiah is supposed to be a fully human future Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil and inducted to rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.

Agree 100%....he will even have son's that rule under him...according to Eze. 46

me in red...

All Jewish kings were considered the sons of God so in that manner, the Messiah would be the son of God but he wouldn't be the Son of God or the begotten son of God or God incarnate.

 

[reyjamiei]

What about it? Jesus had no brothers or sisters. At the crucifixtion he gave his mother over to John to take care of her because she had no other children to do so.

If he had siblings, this would have been a tremendous insult and really wouldn't make sense if he had Christian brothers and sisters.

If Jesus didn't have siblings, why is he referred to as Mary's firstborn son in Matthew and Luke. It would have been just as easy to say her only son or only child, if he was in fact her only child.

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

 

[Lewis]

I did not write that quote up above.

 

[reyjamiei]

I did not write that quote up above.

I apologize for that mistake, I found where I quoted it from and edited it accordingly.

 

[Georges]

It's because in Judaism the Messiah is not the Son of God, it's blasphemous to even suggest that God could have a son.

You aren't quite right there.....

According to the http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com article on "Son of God" is quoted..

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha contain a few passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the Messiah (see Enoch, cv. 2; IV Esdras vii. 28-29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9);

....The application of the term "son of God" to the Messiah rests chiefly on Ps. ii. 7, and the other Messianic passages quoted above.

end of quote....

How about "adopted" Son, as in Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary, the Adopeted Son of God? Special from birth, given the complete Holy Spirit of Jehovah (Isa 11:2) at baptism to accomplish His/Jehovah's will.....Does that qualify him as "The" Son of God? All believer's are sons of God....but there is only one Son of God...as in importance...status...position...

That's why there was such an uproar over Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. If the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be the Son of God, they would not have been so quick to charge him with blasphemy.

The charges were a sham and a set up....Jesus did not blaspheme in his claim, the Messiah was considered by, yes, even the wicked High Priest to be the Son of God...

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

The HP understood that whoever the Christ was, he would be the Son of God as his words show.

In Judaism, the Messiah is supposed to be a fully human future Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil and inducted to rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.

Agree 100%....he will even have son's that rule under him...according to Eze. 46

me in red...

All Jewish kings were considered the sons of God so in that manner, the Messiah would be the son of God but he wouldn't be the Son of God or the begotten son of God or God incarnate.

I agree...but here is the point I think you are misssing...that is if your posts are directed at me...

I in no way consider Jesus a physical "biologically created (ie copulation in the human criteria of conception)". I believe that Jesus is the first born of Mary, by Joseph, although I don't rule out the possiblity of an immaculate conception (reception if you are a Steeler's fan) of Mary by Jehovah.

He (Jesus) is the Son of God and he is also a son of God, not as in Phycically begotten of Jehovah, but he's The Son of God because God chose him to be the Messiah... I think you are confusing the capitol "S" as having to mean "incarnate" when it doesn't in this case....the capitol "S" in this case means rank.....

 

[jgredline]

All Jewish kings were considered the sons of God so in that manner, the Messiah would be the son of God but he wouldn't be the Son of God or the begotten son of God or God incarnate.

I agree...but here is the point I think you are misssing...that is if your posts are directed at me...

I in no way consider Jesus a physical "biologically created (ie copulation in the human criteria of conception)". I believe that Jesus is the first born of Mary, by Joseph, although I don't rule out the possiblity of an immaculate conception (reception if you are a Steeler's fan) of Mary by Jehovah.

He (Jesus) is the Son of God and he is also a son of God, not as in Phycically begotten of Jehovah, but he's The Son of God because God chose him to be the Messiah... I think you are confusing the capitol "S" as having to mean "incarnate" when it doesn't in this case....the capitol "S" in this case means rank.....

Heresy
and I rebuke you in Jesus name.

 

[Georges]

All Jewish kings were considered the sons of God so in that manner, the Messiah would be the son of God but he wouldn't be the Son of God or the begotten son of God or God incarnate.

I agree...but here is the point I think you are missing...that is if your posts are directed at me...

I in no way consider Jesus a physical "biologically created (ie copulation in the human criteria of conception)". I believe that Jesus is the first born of Mary, by Joseph, although I don't rule out the possiblity of an immaculate conception (reception if you are a Steeler's fan) of Mary by Jehovah.

He (Jesus) is the Son of God and he is also a son of God, not as in physically begotten of Jehovah, but he's The Son of God because God chose him to be the Messiah... I think you are confusing the capitol "S" as having to mean "incarnate" when it doesn't in this case....the capitol "S" in this case means rank.....

Heresy
and I rebuke you in Jesus name.

I'm rubber you're glue....and he'd laugh off your rebuke, I'm sure...Heresy, maybe in your religion...I may consider your opinion heresy...It depends on what side of the fence you stand...

J, I haven't stated anything (except the steeler's remark) that the early Christians didn't consider...

The Nazarene/Ebionites who were the hiers (and direct relatives of Jesus, James and Jude) stated the same...historically.

 

[reyjamiei]

I agree...but here is the point I think you are misssing...that is if your posts are directed at me...

I in no way consider Jesus a physical "biologically created (ie copulation in the human criteria of conception)". I believe that Jesus is the first born of Mary, by Joseph, although I don't rule out the possiblity of an immaculate conception (reception if you are a Steeler's fan) of Mary by Jehovah.

He (Jesus) is the Son of God and he is also a son of God, not as in Phycically begotten of Jehovah, but he's The Son of God because God chose him to be the Messiah... I think you are confusing the capitol "S" as having to mean "incarnate" when it doesn't in this case....the capitol "S" in this case means rank.....

Fair enough