Jesus SEPARATE from Jehovah; calls Jehovah "my God."

Status
Not open for further replies.

daqq

Well-known member
~*~*~


Continuing our Study on Isaiah 9:6 -


We again review the Septuagint rendition of the passage -

6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

No name or title of 'God' in this rendition, but he is the Messenger(Angel) of Great Counsel because he is God's Anointed. There is NO indication of this messenger of the LORD being deity. None whatsoever. Unnecessary. We might note as well, that no NT writer ever even mentions this prolific verse (if so important) as a supporting verse to prove Jesus divinity. (hmmmm,....wonder why) ;) - well, if they were using the Septuagint ...that might help explain? :)

The Jewish translations we've read so far,

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

...speak of 'God' calling this special son The Prince of Peace,....God called his name this...the Prince of Peace. This is an acceptable translation. BUT even if we take the Christian translation, these special titles do NOT by any means indicate that the 'person' is 'God'. Many Jewish commentators as well believe the King being spoken of is Hezekiah, not some person who is to come many centuries later, since the child/son was already given (past tense).

Rashi writes:

For a child has been born to us: Although Ahaz is wicked, his son who was born to him many years ago [nine years prior to his assuming the throne] to be our king in his stead, shall be a righteous man, and the authority of the Holy One, blessed be He, and His yoke shall be on his shoulder, for he shall engage in the Torah and observe the commandments, and he shall bend his shoulder to bear the burden of the Holy One, blessed be He.

and… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.


We would note some significant points from a Jewish perspective as they interpret their own scriptures, which are made clear by Rabbi Skobac in his video presentation below -

1) The passage is speaking of a child/son already born (past tense).

2) The passage according to the greater context points to this person as very probably being King Hezekiah. - the miraculous victory and era of peace gained by Hezekiah spanned thru a century, a very impressive reign as to bringing about an era of peace. Now as to the Messiah's reign being 'forever', well...this must include a lineage of messiah-kings along Davids line, as it represents God's reign of peace and righteousness thru God's government. Obviously Hezekiah's reign or that era of peace may have not lasted 'forever'. But even considering this being a 'double prophecy', as including the coming of another messiah (Jesus) in the future....there was no reign of peace in Jerusalem or the world with Jesus ministry, so he didnt fulfill or satisfy the major requirements laid down from Jewish scripture and tradition, hence their rejection of him as THEIR Messiah. See Jewish Messiah Wanted. - the Jewish Messiah in any case is supposed to bring about world peace and conversion of all to the law of God. What is the state of the world today? Can we blame the Jews for rejected Jesus as their Jewish Messiah? A sincere and honest question.

3) Even if this passage is held in the way Christian translators translate it,...these titles or names of 'God' would not necessarily mean, claim or identify that the child-son is 'God' himself. This would not enter in the minds of any orthodox Jew ever, since God is not a man. God is so ineffable as to be an omnipresent, both immanent and wholly transcending space, time, matter. He is so holy as to be careful of even the mention of his name, which was replaced in many places by a mere title of 'Lord' (Adonai) or 'Ha Shem'. The Messiah-Son in any case is 'elohim', even as the great judges, kings and rulers of old were they being men acting under the sanction of God's authority in the earth-realm (Psalm 82).... and the Son of YHWH-Elohim, who alone is the Most High. No problem here whatsoever from a Jewish Unitarian perspective.


Now for trinitarians or Oneness folks who choose the 'christianized' translation of the above passage, and by it attribute God-hood to the person being described or some kind(degree) of 'divinity',...that is your perogative. But do know a perfectly Unitarian translation is most feasible and appropriate here as well, true to Judaism.

As noted before, I share a Unitarian view in our discussions for the sake of contrasting and creative dialogue. I'm not necessary limited to such a view, since my theology is quite multi-dimensional anyways, being a student of universal religion and philosophy (truly 'eclectic'). 'God' is not limited to any one religious cult or tradition. All opinions, perspectives and points of view are being considered Christologically speaking. Each are free to research the data available and make up their own minds on any given subject. Each are responsible for their own view, and what they choose. Yes,....this implies 'free will' ;)

Good post Freelight, I watched the whole video, and for now I will simply say what I did say earlier: remember that Hezekiah is healed, and then he was promised by the Father through the Prophet Isaiah that he would go up into the House of YHWH the THIRD DAY, (2 Kings 20:1-11, Matthew 27:52-53). He is a type in the typology of Messiah being formed in us, (a child was/is born, a son is given, a zakar-manchild and a nepheg-sprout within the heart). These things happen over and over again, not just once, (as neither modern Jews nor Christians seem to be able to grasp), and this typology reveals how the Father works among His people by way of His Word, (as even the parable of the sower and like parables of the seed of the Word reveal). :)
 
Last edited:

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Good question, perhaps you can butt heads with the theologians of old who battled this one out - you can start by going into the original greek on the word it translated into english as 'begotten',...then flesh that out a bit, but put some metaphysical/philosophical sense into while you're at it. Then look over John 1:18, a peculiar one to throw in the mix...

One of the meanings of monogenes (translated "only begotten") is ”literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus)” (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Moulton and Milligan, p.416-417).
 

daqq

Well-known member
One of the meanings of monogenes (translated "only begotten") is ”literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus)” (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Moulton and Milligan, p.416-417).

The Elohim Seed, (Mal 2:15) is the only genos of its Kind: it is a mystery according to Paul.
Therefore guard your spirit, (Mal 2:15), for the Father seeks an Elohim offspring. :chuckle:
 

daqq

Well-known member
Moreover the above is no doubt why the Kohanim and Yhudim who rendered the LXX-Septuagint rendered at least the first portion of the passage, (in bold and bold italics), in the following manner:

Esaias 9:6 (9:5) OG LXX-Septuagint
9:6 (9:5) οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου
η αρχη εγενηθη επι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος εγω γαρ αξω ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας ειρηνην και υγιειαν αυτω
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/23_009.htm

Isaiah 9:6 OG LXX-Septuagint
9:6 (9:5) For a child is born unto us, and a son is given unto us, of whom
the Arche shall be upon his shoulder: and he shall call his name, Messenger of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the princes; peace and health by him.

According to the Septuagint those who rendered the phrase "El Gibbor" seem to have understood "El" here as "Messenger", (El Gibbor, "Great Messenger" or "Mighty Messenger"), in much the same way that occasionally, in other places such as the Psalms, (cf. Psa 8:5, Heb 2:7, 9), Elohim is/are understood as Messenger/Messengers, (Angels). That seems to be where their understanding of αγγελος-angelos herein is derived, that is, "Messenger", coming from the word for El, (אל). Thus they did not read yoetz as "a counselor" but simply as counsel:

פלא יועץ אל גבור
pele yoetz el gibor : mighty messenger of wonderful counsel

μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος
megales boules aggelos : mighty messenger of (wonderful) counsel

This is likely the reading which the Apostolic authors also had before them because the "tampering charge" certainly does not fit in this instance; for certainly no "Trinitarian scribe" would have come along and changed the reading to make it say this!
:)

εγω γαρ αξω ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας
"for I will bring peace to/upon the princes"

That is the full word abi`ad being read not as "my father of eternity" but as "I will bring (abi) to/unto (H5704 עַד `ad (prep.))", and similar readings can be shown from other places where abi is compounded to make other words which do indeed mean "I will bring" such as the following passages, (among others).

Genesis 42:37
וַיֹּאמֶר רְאוּבֵן אֶל־אָבִיו לֵאמֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵי בָנַי תָּמִית אִם־לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ תְּנָה אֹתֹו עַל־יָדִי וַאֲנִי אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ אֵלֶֽיךָ׃

(if not) "I bring him" — אֲבִיאֶ֖נּוּ

Isaiah 43:5
אַל־תִּירָא כִּי אִתְּךָ־אָנִי מִמִּזְרָח אָבִיא זַרְעֶךָ וּמִֽמַּעֲרָב אֲקַבְּצֶֽךָּ׃

"I will bring" — אָבִ֣יא

Isaiah 60:17
תַּחַת הַנְּחֹשֶׁת אָבִיא זָהָב וְתַחַת הַבַּרְזֶל אָבִיא כֶסֶף וְתַחַת הָֽעֵצִים נְחֹשֶׁת וְתַחַת הָאֲבָנִים בַּרְזֶל וְשַׂמְתִּי פְקֻדָּתֵךְ שָׁלֹום וְנֹגְשַׂיִךְ צְדָקָֽה׃

"I will bring" — אָבִ֣יא

So they in the Septuagint are reading abi`ad, (אבי
עד), from Isa 9:6 as one word meaning "I will bring to/unto/upon", and it is indeed written as a single compound word, (as opposed to something like אבי־עד).

Isaiah 9:6 WLC (Consonants Only)
כי־ילד ילד־לנו בן נתן־לנו ותהי המשרה על־שכמו ויקרא שמו פלא יועץ אל גבור אביעד שר־שלום׃

אביעד שר־שלום
אבי — I bring, (or "my father")
עד — H5704 עַד — to/unto/upon, (or H5703 עַד perpetuity, or H5707 עֵד witness)
שר־שלום — sar־shalom

The point above is not that the Septuagint absolutely must be the correct reading but that they certainly understood ancient Hebrew and were much, much, closer to the original text and much less removed from an understanding of it than those of modern times. And yet they did not see abi`ad, (אביעד), anywhere close to how it is understood by today's modern scholarship. Also one must remember that they did not have the vowel pointing which came a thousand years later with the Masorete Hebrew text.

The ultimate point is this: the Trinitarian readings are nothing more than opinions.

"Exposing Your Deceit" — #69, #70, #71.

 
Last edited:

KingdomRose

New member
Kingdom Rose, What am I speaking, English. Why do the JW's add the a before God in John 1:1. It is an unauthorized addition and not accepted by orthodox Christianity. The Word of God contains a strong admonition for unauthorized additions to the Word. Why did the JW's stray away from use of the KJV. Something from the heretical watchtower maybe?

I guess you need charts and balloons, little Ravenie. Nothing was added to John 1:1. JWs decided that the NWT was more accurate because it does not add anything to the Greek text, whereas the KJV does. "Orthodox Christianity" is only "orthodox" because it has been politically correct for the last 1600 years. What mainstream "Christianity" teaches is not what the earliest Christian disciples taught. But if you want to follow what's popular, it's your prerogative. Jesus said it would be the FEW who would be on the right road. I'm with them.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The Elohim Seed, (Mal 2:15) is the only genos of its Kind: it is a mystery according to Paul.
Therefore guard your spirit, (Mal 2:15), for the Father seeks an Elohim offspring.

That does nothing to answer the definition which I gave for the Greek word translated "only begotten":

One of the meanings of monogenes (translated "only begotten") is ”literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus)” (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Moulton and Milligan, p.416-417).​
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I guess you need charts and balloons, little Ravenie. Nothing was added to John 1:1. JWs decided that the NWT was more accurate because it does not add anything to the Greek text, whereas the KJV does. "Orthodox Christianity" is only "orthodox" because it has been politically correct for the last 1600 years. What mainstream "Christianity" teaches is not what the earliest Christian disciples taught. But if you want to follow what's popular, it's your prerogative. Jesus said it would be the FEW who would be on the right road. I'm with them.

Well, I'll let you continue down your little path to destruction.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Spoiler
I would disagree, especially looking at the whole history and doctrinal development of 'Christianity', most were more Unitarian in the first/2nd century as a budding sect arising out of monotheistic/unitarian Judaism. The ensuing battles over Christology show continued Unitarian/Trinitarian conflicts in the 'crafting' of doctrine during the Arian Controversy of the 4th century onwards, while Trinitarianism progressively gained a foothold by being supported by political powers that gave the Church the support it needed to uphold what they formulated as 'orthodox' doctrine. Even today, among the whole of 'Christendom', not all subscribe to the orthodox definition of the Trinity (most do, catholic and protestants, but only because of taking on the traditional inheritance of their mother-church). Still quite a few Unitarian denominations today, of various sorts and stripes. Monotheistic Judaism, and the earliest Jesus followers were essentially Unitarian,....the Trinity was conceptualized and then 'creedalized' as something that developed over time, becoming more defined during the Arian Controversy as a matter of what the institutionalized church CHOSE to maker her 'creed'. That and the rest is 'history'. - and in a sense it is just stale 'history', because its crystallized theology, religious relics.



I dont see how you assume Islam is the only 'Unitarian' religion, Judaism most certainly is, and Christians who choose to hold to a Unitarian theology which is mainly aligning themselves with their Jewish roots. I'm more liberal to include my cosmological range within a panentheistic monism (which may include monotheistic nuances but is more metaphysical), since I enjoy the universal truth-wisdom traditions in the eastern schools too, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, etc. There is but one universal 'Deity', one omnipresent Spirit, one substance from which all things derive and are but forms of, one irreducible essence at the heart of all reality, unconditioned, but the source from which all conditions spring. All mystics intuit and understand this primordial presence many of us call 'God' :) - in this vein I draw from the Perennial Wisdom, Theosophical schools of antiquity, esoteric teachings.



You're pigeonholing Unitarians and trying to fit them all into one catagory or definition
, while there is variety of views within the general scope of Unitarianism (which we may do well to go over defining later). Some hold to Jesus being wholly human attributing no divinity at all to him, others grant Jesus some measure of divine nature or sharing with divinity, either inherent and/or bestowed, but still maintain an essentially Unitarian Christology.

As I shared in the beginning, I see early Jesus followers as being Unitarian, while Trinitarianism was a later doctrinal development formulated/assumed centuries later, finally more defined in the 4th century by 'necessity' with the doctrinal DEBATES looming. We might note as well, that while a triadic concept of Father, Son and Spirit existed previously, earlier records of some church fathers and theologians shows it was but in a vague or less definitive conceptual frame (intellectually entertained to some degree), yet NOT presented as a cardinal orthodox doctrine until later centuries. Otherwise Jesus himself and his first disciples/apostles remained essentially Unitarian. Consider the historical facts, realities and beliefs of the culture of Jesus and his earliest followers.



Yes I do, and I've been sharing my views, perspectives on religion and theology for some years here and elsewhere, its a wonderfully insightful and progressive journey....with no end to projects and innovations in the near and far future to come :)

Now to touch on a right or appropriate definition of Unitarianism, which will be complex as far as its meaning historically and contextually applied, the wiki article here is a good start which is mainly the Unitarian movement and its history, while there may be views within 'Non-trinitarianism' which may not be be formally classified as 'unitarian',...one must learn and differentiate between certain nuances of the term applied historically speaking and then clarify their views in debate specifically. In the meantime we can use the term 'Unitarian' to mean a monotheistic system that holds God to be singular (uni-personal), but does not accept Jesus as being 'God', - we can use traditional orthodox Judaism or Islam as an example in its formal monotheism as being 'non-trinitarian'.

Unitarianism certainly does not accept the orthodox Christian concept/belief of the Trinity as they define it. I think for simplicity sake, as long as we understand the term in its historical and theological definition and the scope it may include among various schools, we are good, beyond what we define or contest within 'discussion'. I sometimes use the term-symbol 'Unit-arian' for fun, since traditional Arianism (there are different forms) would be included as 'unitarian', although they DO ascribe divinity to Jesus as a pre-existent being (aeon, archangel, divine co-creator, messenger), the firstborn of creation, the personality thru which Jehovah created all things,....so Jesus within Arianism or its variations is 'divine' by origination and his relationship to 'God', although he is not 'The God', but a 'god', the only begotten 'elohim' within the hierarchy of God :) - and we sit back and 'eye roll' over the trins who faint over the translation in John 1:1 about the logos being a god. (I find that entertaining). I have no problems with that translation (among others), protests aside....since Jesus is certainly by his relationship to God, and his special rank and status as being specially 'begotten of Him, a 'god' (elohim), and most certainly subordinate to and the servant of God. - much of the Unitarian/Trinitarian debate as arguing over these little details is somewhat 'petty' as splitting hairs, apples and oranges, straining at gnats, and what not. But we seem to have fun at it :) - again, some mole hills are made into mountains. - and still...'God' is 'God', and His Son and sons, are His offspring. - arguments notwithstanting.
The Church's magisterium is all her bishops in communion with the pope, plus the pope himself.

The United States Constitution says that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the authoritative interpreter of the United States Constitution. The English crown did not have a Supreme Court, that Patrick Henry and the British-American colonists could appeal to in order to settle their dispute about taxation and representation (there weren't any British-Americans in parliament, so Henry and others interpreted the law such that taxing British-Americans was illicit).

The council of Nicaea and the East-West schism of AD 1054 are the two most significant events in the history of the post-apostolic magisterium. In the latter we learned that it is the successor of Peter against which every other bishop's teaching is compared and judged. It is in the main what Jesus meant when He said to Peter, "You are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and hell and death will not subdue her."

Today, you cannot read the Bill of Rights, and interpret for yourself what it means. There is an authoritative interpretation, and it is the SCOTUS case history.

In the first century, when all the Apostles (except for James the brother of John who was killed for his religion) participated in the Jerusalem council, the magisterium endorsed Paul's Gospel.

Paul as much as said that it was Unitarians who crucified the Lord. 1st Corinthians 2:8 (KJV)
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Busted....

Busted....

Spoiler
Thus:

Isaiah 9:6
9:6 כִּי־ ki- [For] יֶ֣לֶד yeled [a child] יֻלַּד־ yulad- [is born] לָ֗נוּ la·nu [unto us] בֵּ֚ן ben [a son] נִתַּן־ nitan- [is given] לָ֔נוּ la·nu [unto us] וַתְּהִ֥י va·tehi [and will rest] הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה ha·misrah [the princely empire power] עַל־ 'al- [upon] שִׁכְמ֑וֹ shikm
·ow [his neck-shoulder] וַיִּקְרָ֨א va·yikra [and he shall call] שְׁמ֜וֹ shem·ow [his name] פֶּ֠לֶא Phele [too wonderful] יוֹעֵץ֙ yo'etz [counsel-counselor] אֵ֣ל 'el [El] גִּבּ֔וֹר gibbor [Mighty] אֲבִיעַ֖ד 'avi'ad [my Father-Progenitor · Testimony-Witness-Everlasting] שַׂר־ sar- [Prince] שָׁלֽוֹם׃ shalom [of Peace].

Isaiah 9:6
9:6 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us, and the Princely Empire Power shall rest upon his shoulder: and he shall call his name, Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibbor-Abi
ad-Sar-Shalom.

The son that is given calls the Princely Power upon his shoulder all those things.
If one might begin with Pele then see Judges 13:18, (Peli - "too wonderful"). :)

Judges 13:18
18 And the Malak of YHWH said to him, Why ask you thus for my name? It is Peli!


Peli ~ secret, too wonderful, wondrous, wonder working, (Palmoni, Dan 8:13 YLT).
Spoiler

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]'s Methods of Deceit (Updated)

(1) Boiling Scripture down to root language and using possible word definitions to distort scriptural integrity.
- this also makes [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] look like a theological Ace. Unfortunately... It's just scriptural smoke, mirrors and scriptural distortion and twisting.

Example: Daqq tampering with Isaiah 9:6 Via Septuagint (Greek Translation)

The Joke? The Great Isaiah Scroll is one of the oldest... full... Hebrew Scrolls in existence. It dates to 125 BCE and all 66 books of Isaiah are intact... Um... Rotfl... Trinity Tampering? You're funny [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery.

The Great Isaiah Scroll Translated... at verse 6 of Chapter 9

23. with burning consuming fire. (5) Because a child shall be born to us and a son is given to us and the government shall be upon
24. his shoulders and he shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father the prince of peace. (6) Of the increase
25. of his government [&waw&} and his peace there shall be no end. upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to order it and to establish it

Isaiah 9:6

For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace,

(2) Long, Spiritual Allegory that is partially accurate, but is infused with commentary from Daqq's doctrinal source.
- I know this is going to sound extreme, but Daqq is listening to a very dark voice and he believes that it is indeed "Godly"... but...

Matthew 6:22-24

(3) Making False Theological Claims about others

(4) Whining

(5) Nit picking a term to hide theological error (Gnat Straining)

(6) Claiming He has rebutted someone, while fully leaving all posted scripture towards him... un-refuted by anything other than tactic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or any combination of them... or all of them.

Prime example This is a link to a post where I directly addressed the myriad of scripture that [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] had failed to address.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
You're clumsy, but you're dangerous, because you're intent is to harm people. It is only your clumsiness that protects people from you.

How can I be dangerous? I don't practice violent or don't own any weapon.

Yes, I am clumsy but I am not dangerous:)
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
How can I be dangerous? I don't practice violent or don't own any weapon.

Yes, I am clumsy but I am not dangerous:)
The telltale sign of your evil intent is denying people the right to defend themselves when attacked. You're among the most dangerous type of person. :)
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Hi...

Jesus isn't God folks... [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] seems to have inadvertently proved that Jesus is God... with his own words parallel to John 1:18...

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is avoiding this post and refusing to answer it... could someone?

Let ALLLL SEE WHAT DAQQ IS TRYING TO AVOID... This is simply one of Many examples.....

Moshe also wrote the second set of Ten Words, (with his "finger of Elohim"). :chuckle:

Again...

Moses couldn't see God's face...

So...

Maybe you misread my post...

Here it is again...

Already addressed all of your junk multiple times in your own threads which you keep closing down like a coward so that they can not be responded to any more. What kind of person posts call out threads calling others all sorts of blasphemous things like demon possessed and being a tool for Satan and then closes the thread so that the person called out cannot respond? That person is a full blown Judas and a coward not worthy of any more responses. Like I said, we are done, so post all the rebuttals you wish but I only respond to you here and now so that everyone else may know why I will not respond to you or your childish antics anymore, or at least until further notice; I reserve the right to respond so long as I am still around here, if and when I see fit, but until then: bye, bye, blackbird. :)

Rotfl

Deceit tactic 6... any response to the pure scripture I have posted without twisting it via point 1?

Wait... since you have refused to address over 45,000 characters of scripture... # Yup...

Lil Elo....

How about this?

Think about this...

"This is the work of God..." (Who is standing before them... John 8:58) "That you believe in the ONE HE Sent (John 1:18 + As [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] pointed out)
Daqq said:
... "be sure to keep the first commandment and do not put yourself on equal footing with your heavenly Father, oh little elohim; for He says, "You shall have no other elohim against My face!", (meaning "equal to Me", Exo 20:3)---
which makes you wonder... How Has Jesus Seen the Face of God, If He isn't God... since no one is equal to God but God?

"John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father's side -- he has made him known."

I mean... think about it... No matter how you render (John 1:1)

"And the Word was God" or "And the word was 'a' God" ... consider this (Isaiah 45:5)

# Daqq using methods (1-6) in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

What will it be?

And about Ravens... Didn't they feed a certain prophet? Rotfl...

Are you scared of scriptural integrity [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] ?

:chuckle:

"Evil's" Prophecy... #Sarcasm... [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is going to wait till I log off, and deploy myriads of tactics 1-6 to side step this scriptural observation.

; )
 

daqq

Well-known member
[/spoiler]

@daqq's Methods of Deceit (Updated)

(1) Boiling Scripture down to root language and using possible word definitions to distort scriptural integrity.
- this also makes @daqq look like a theological Ace. Unfortunately... It's just scriptural smoke, mirrors and scriptural distortion and twisting.

Example: Daqq tampering with Isaiah 9:6 Via Septuagint (Greek Translation)

The Joke? The Great Isaiah Scroll is one of the oldest... full... Hebrew Scrolls in existence. It dates to 125 BCE and all 66 books of Isaiah are intact... Um... Rotfl... Trinity Tampering? You're funny @daqq

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery.

The Great Isaiah Scroll Translated... at verse 6 of Chapter 9

23. with burning consuming fire. (5) Because a child shall be born to us and a son is given to us and the government shall be upon
24. his shoulders and he shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father the prince of peace. (6) Of the increase
25. of his government [&waw&} and his peace there shall be no end. upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to order it and to establish it

Isaiah 9:6

For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace,

(2) Long, Spiritual Allegory that is partially accurate, but is infused with commentary from Daqq's doctrinal source.
- I know this is going to sound extreme, but Daqq is listening to a very dark voice and he believes that it is indeed "Godly"... but...

Matthew 6:22-24

(3) Making False Theological Claims about others

(4) Whining

(5) Nit picking a term to hide theological error (Gnat Straining)

(6) Claiming He has rebutted someone, while fully leaving all posted scripture towards him... un-refuted by anything other than tactic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or any combination of them... or all of them.

Prime example This is a link to a post where I directly addressed the myriad of scripture that @daqq had failed to address.

Hi...

Jesus isn't God folks... @daqq seems to have inadvertently proved that Jesus is God... with his own words parallel to John 1:18...

@daqq is avoiding this post and answering it... could someone?

Let ALLLL SEE WHAT DAQQ IS TRYING TO AVOID... This is simply one of Many examples.....



Again...

Moses couldn't see God's face...

So...

Maybe you misread my post...

Here it is again...



Rotfl

Deceit tactic 6... any response to the pure scripture I have posted without twisting it via point 1?

Wait... since you have refused to address over 45,000 characters of scripture... # Yup...

Lil Elo....

How about this?

Think about this...

"This is the work of God..." (Who is standing before them... John 8:58) "That you believe in the ONE HE Sent (John 1:18 + As @daqq pointed out) which makes you wonder... How Has Jesus Seen the Face of God, If He isn't God... since no one is equal to God but God?

"John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father's side -- he has made him known."

I mean... think about it... No matter how you render (John 1:1)

"And the Word was God" or "And the word was 'a' God" ... consider this (Isaiah 45:5)

# Daqq using methods (1-6) in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

What will it be?

And about Ravens... Didn't they feed a certain prophet? Rotfl...

Are you scared of scriptural integrity @daqq ?

:chuckle:

"Evil's" Prophecy... #Sarcasm... @daqq is going to wait till I log off, and deploy myriads of tactics 1-6 to side step this scriptural observation.

; )

:spam: :baby: :nono: :loser:
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
The telltale sign of your evil intent is denying people the right to defend themselves when attacked. You're among the most dangerous type of person. :)

Wow, all I am doing is what Jesus says and you tell me I am evil?

You are pinhead, indeed.
 

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
:spam: :baby: :nono: :loser:

I can't believe this... So... being fully exposed... you have zero answer. It's that easy?

P.s. Updated your tactics..
Spoiler
So you see, Meshak, those cursing know not the Torah and only curse themselves. :)

So you see [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] ... Your "magic and divination" may work on some... but...

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]'s Method's of Deceit (Updated)

(1) Boiling Scripture down to root language and using possible word definitions to distort scriptural integrity.
- this also makes [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] look like a theological Ace. Unfortunately... It's just scriptural smoke, mirrors and scriptural distortion and twisting.

Example: Daqq tampering with Isaiah 9:6 Via Septuagint (Greek Translation)

The Joke? The Great Isaiah Scroll is one of the oldest... full... Hebrew Scrolls in existence. It dates to 125 BCE and all 66 books of Isaiah are intact... Um... Rotfl... Trinity Tampering? You're funny [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION]

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery.

The Great Isaiah Scroll Translated... at verse 6 of Chapter 9

23. with burning consuming fire. (5) Because a child shall be born to us and a son is given to us and the government shall be upon
24. his shoulders and he shall be called wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting father the prince of peace. (6) Of the increase
25. of his government [&waw&} and his peace there shall be no end. upon the throne of David and over his kingdom to order it and to establish it

Isaiah 9:6

For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; dominion will rest on his shoulders, and he will be given the name Pele-Yo‘etz El Gibbor Avi-‘Ad Sar-Shalom Wonder of a Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace,

(2) Long, Spiritual Allegory that is partially accurate, but is infused with commentary from Daqq's doctrinal source.
- I know this is going to sound extreme, but Daqq is listening to a very dark voice and he believes that it is indeed "Godly"... but...

Matthew 6:22-24

(3) Making False Theological Claims about others

(4) Whining

(5) Nit picking a term to hide theological error (Gnat Straining)

(6) Playing Victim to avoid answering to scripture.

(7) Claiming He has rebutted someone, while fully leaving all posted scripture towards him... un-refuted by anything other than tactic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or any combination of them... or all of them.

Prime example This is a link to a post where I directly addressed the myriad of scripture that [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] had failed to address.


And again... the question you are avoiding...
Spoiler
Hi...

Jesus isn't God folks... [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] seems to have inadvertently proved that Jesus is God... with his own words parallel to John 1:18...

[MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is avoiding this post and refusing to answer it... could someone?

Let ALLLL SEE WHAT DAQQ IS TRYING TO AVOID... This is simply one of Many examples.....

Moshe also wrote the second set of Ten Words, (with his "finger of Elohim"). :chuckle:

Again...

Moses couldn't see God's face...

So...

Maybe you misread my post...

Here it is again...

Already addressed all of your junk multiple times in your own threads which you keep closing down like a coward so that they can not be responded to any more. What kind of person posts call out threads calling others all sorts of blasphemous things like demon possessed and being a tool for Satan and then closes the thread so that the person called out cannot respond? That person is a full blown Judas and a coward not worthy of any more responses. Like I said, we are done, so post all the rebuttals you wish but I only respond to you here and now so that everyone else may know why I will not respond to you or your childish antics anymore, or at least until further notice; I reserve the right to respond so long as I am still around here, if and when I see fit, but until then: bye, bye, blackbird. :)

Rotfl

Deceit tactic 6... any response to the pure scripture I have posted without twisting it via point 1?

Wait... since you have refused to address over 45,000 characters of scripture... # Yup...

Lil Elo....

How about this?

Think about this...

"This is the work of God..." (Who is standing before them... John 8:58) "That you believe in the ONE HE Sent (John 1:18 + As [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] pointed out)
Daqq said:
... "be sure to keep the first commandment and do not put yourself on equal footing with your heavenly Father, oh little elohim; for He says, "You shall have no other elohim against My face!", (meaning "equal to Me", Exo 20:3)---
which makes you wonder... How Has Jesus Seen the Face of God, If He isn't God... since no one is equal to God but God?

"John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father's side -- he has made him known."

I mean... think about it... No matter how you render (John 1:1)

"And the Word was God" or "And the word was 'a' God" ... consider this (Isaiah 45:5)

# Daqq using methods (1-6) in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

What will it be?

And about Ravens... Didn't they feed a certain prophet? Rotfl...

Are you scared of scriptural integrity [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] ?

:chuckle:

"Evil's" Prophecy... #Sarcasm... [MENTION=17195]daqq[/MENTION] is going to wait till I log off, and deploy myriads of tactics 1-6 to side step this scriptural observation.

; )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top