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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline HawleyluYah  
#1 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2008 12:09:53 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Here is a little quiz that when answered honestly, can give some understanding. to why I don't believe in trinity, or maybe help you explain to others.
==========================================

Psa 2:7 "I will declare the decree: Yahweh has said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

Who is the Me?
Who says You are My Son?
What does that make the one saying it?
=========================================

Acts 13:33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Yahoshua. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'

Who has fulfilled this for us?
Is the raising of Yahoshua compared to being begotten?
Who is being compared to the one saying 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
=========================================

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"

To which of the angels did who ever say?
Who said "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
===========================================

Heb 5:5 So also Messiah did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You."

Who is the He in this statement?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
==========================================

Jer 10:10 But Yahweh is the true Elohim; He is the living Elohim and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation.

Who is the true Elohim?
Who is the living Elohim?
=========================================

John 17:1 Yahoshua spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
John 17:2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true Elohim, and Yahoshua Messiah whom You have sent.

Who is the Son in this statement?
Who was given authority?
Who gave the authority?
Who is the only true Elohim in this statement?
What is eternal life?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
==========================================

1 Th 1:9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to Elohim from idols to serve the living and true Elohim,
1 Th 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Yahoshua who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Who is the living and true Elohim in this statement?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
Does this statement make "God" the Father?
============================================

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of Elohim has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Yahoshua Messiah. This is the true Elohim and eternal life.

Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
Does this statement make "God" the Father of the Son?
Who is true in this statement?
Does this statement agree with John 17:1-3?
=========================================

Mat 19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Mark 10:18 So Yahoshua said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

Luke 18:19 So Yahoshua said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.


In the above how many are good?
Who is good in these statements?
Is the son made separate from "God" in 1 Th 1:9-10, Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, Heb 5:5, John 17:1-3
============================================

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Yahoshua cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"


Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Yahoshua cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Who cried out?
Who has a “God” in these statements?
Is the son made separate from "God" in these statements?
Is Yahoshua crying out to the same God as found in Psa 22, and if so what is the name of this God in Psa 22:8?
============================================
John 8:54 Yahoshua answered, "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.

Did Messiah say He was their God, or that his Father was their God?
Who is the God of the Hebrews?
And what name would that give to the Father?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
==========================================

John 20:17 Yahoshua said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"

Who is “God” in this statement?
Who has a “God” in this statement?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
===========================================

Rev 3:12 "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

Where is Messiah speaking from?
Who has a “God” in this statement?
Is the son made separate from "God" in this statement?
============================================

Deu 32:6 Do you thus deal with Yahweh, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?

What is Yahweh in this statement?
==========================================

2 Sam 7:14 "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.

What is Yahweh in this statement?
======================================

1 Chr 17:13 "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son; and I will not take My mercy away from him, as I took it from him who was before you.

What is Yahweh in this statement?
============================================

1 Chr 22:10 'He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'

What is Yahweh in this statement?
=============================================

1 Chr 29:10 Therefore David blessed Yahweh before all the assembly; and David said: "Blessed are You, Yahweh Elohim of Israel, our Father, forever and ever.

What is Yahweh in this statement, and for how long?
=============================================

Psa 89:26 He shall cry to Me, 'You are my Father, My EL, and the rock of my salvation.'
Psa 89:27 Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.
Psa 89:28 My mercy I will keep for him forever, And My covenant shall stand firm with him.

What is Yahweh in this statement?
==========================================

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

What is Yahweh in this statement, and what does it say about his name?
============================================

Isa 64:8 But now, O Yahweh, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand.

What is Yahweh in this statement?
=============================================

Jer 3:19 "But I said: 'How can I put you among the children And give you a pleasant land, A beautiful heritage of the hosts of nations?' "And I said: 'You shall call Me, "My Father," And not turn away from Me.'

What will Yahweh be called?
============================================

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.


What is Yahweh in this statement?
=============================================

Mal 1:6 "A son honors his father, And a servant his master. If then I am the Father, Where is My honor? And if I am a Master, Where is My reverence? Says Yahweh of hosts To you priests who despise My name. Yet you say, 'In what way have we despised Your name?'

In the above why does Yahweh deserve honor?
========================================

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously with one another By profaning the covenant of the fathers?

Who is this Father?
===========================================

John 2:15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables.
John 2:16 And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!"

What was the name of the Elohim (God) of this Temple?
What did Yahoshua say that the Elohim of this temple was?
==============================================

This should help make clear why I say that the name Yahweh belongs to the Father alone, and Yahweh alone is Elohim.

Thank you for your time.
May Yahweh bless.
Offline In His Name  
#2 Posted : Saturday, November 22, 2008 12:43:52 PM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Riddle me this HawleyluYah...

Who is Yahushua and who is the Rauch haQadosh?

And Welcome to the forum, from a (cold) fellow Minnesotan.
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline HawleyluYah  
#3 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 7:11:55 AM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

In His Name wrote:
Riddle me this HawleyluYah...

Who is Yahushua and who is the ?

And Welcome to the forum, from a (cold) fellow Minnesotan.


Simply put, Yahushua is the promise of Yahweh, the line of David, the seed of the women, the last Adam restoring what the first Adam lost.
The Messiah, King over all men, High priest, the payment for sin to those that truthfully follow him, our plea before Yahweh to be excepted our denied.

Rauch haQadosht, simply put, is Yahweh's will in action.

May Yahweh bless you and keep you warm in this lovely Minnesota day
Offline In His Name  
#4 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 10:44:35 AM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Do i understand you to say that Yahushua is a simply a man, human as you and I and the Spirit is simply a thought?
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline Matthew  
#5 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:03:38 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
HawleyluYah wrote:
=========================================

Mat 19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Mark 10:18 So Yahoshua said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.

Luke 18:19 So Yahoshua said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.


In the above how many are good?
Who is good in these statements?
Is the son made separate from "God" in 1 Th 1:9-10, Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5, Heb 5:5, John 17:1-3
============================================

Welcome to the forum HawleyluYah!

What about John 10:30? "I and my [some versions have the] Father are one."
Offline sirgodfrey  
#6 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:15:35 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

Yahushua is God.


/madness
Offline HawleyluYah  
#7 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:52:03 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

In His Name wrote:
Do i understand you to say that Yahushua is a simply a man, human as you and I and the Spirit is simply a thought?

Blessings In His Name.
Although my answer was simple, I would say there is nothing simple about Yahushua. But as far as the question of was he just a man? Maybe not, maybe he was one of the morning stars that sang out when Yahweh laid the foundation of the world, I can't say for sure.
But it seems the thing that I'm suppose to know and confess is that Messiah came in the flesh, so I would think that him being a man was important.
And the Spirit I would say is the power that goes out from Yahweh, thought, will, action.
But I would be glad to here how you understand it
Offline HawleyluYah  
#8 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:54:18 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Matthew wrote:
Welcome to the forum HawleyluYah!

What about John 10:30? "I and my [some versions have the] Father are one."

Thank you Matthew for the welcome, May Yahweh bless.
Offline HawleyluYah  
#9 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:59:26 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

sirgodfrey wrote:
Yahushua is God.


/madness


As in The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Trinity?
Or as God in the role of Messiah, Modalism?
Offline Matthew  
#10 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:21:18 PM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
HawleyluYah wrote:

In His Name wrote:

Do i understand you to say that Yahushua is a simply a man, human as you and I and the Spirit is simply a thought?


Blessings In His Name.
Although my answer was simple, I would say there is nothing simple about Yahushua. But as far as the question of was he just a man? Maybe not, maybe he was one of the morning stars that sang out when Yahweh laid the foundation of the world, I can't say for sure.
But it seems the thing that I'm suppose to know and confess is that Messiah came in the flesh, so I would think that him being a man was important.
And the Spirit I would say is the power that goes out from Yahweh, thought, will, action.
But I would be glad to here how you understand it


The following quote is taken from Yada Yahweh - Called Out Assemblies - Kiurim chapter:

Quote:
John continues to document History’s greatest miracle: the fulfillment of the Miqra of FirstFruits. "And he said to them: ‘The assurance of salvation (eirene - the state of peace and tranquility of being joined to Me in a harmonious relationship, the assurance of freedom and safety, of prosperity and great joy) be unto you.’ When He had said this, He showed them (deiknuo - exposed Himself so as to provide evidence and proof, teaching by revealing) His hands and His side. Then the pupils (mathetes - learners or disciples) rejoiced in joyous salutations." (John 20:20) The resurrection body Yahushua’s now occupied was tangible. It was corporeal, physical, material, and very real. This is exactly what I expect our resurrected triune nature - body, soul, and spirit - to be like.

After manifesting Himself to His disciples, and revealing His hands and side, "Then (oun - therefore, accordingly and consequently, these things being so) Yahushua said to them anew (palin - as a repetition of renewal), ‘Be assured of salvation (eirene - of a state of peace and tranquility, of a harmonious relationship, of freedom and safety, of prosperity and great joy) according to and in the same proportion as is present in the ΠΗΡ (Father) who sent Me (apostello - set Me free and away to go to the place appointed to convey the message). I also send you out to carry a message.’ And when He had said this, He breathed (emphusao - blew His breath) on them and said: ‘Accept and carry (lambano - receive and acquire, take hold of and use productively, choose to associate with, experience and exploit courageously) the revered, cleansing, and set-apart (hagios) ΠΝΑ (placeholder for Ruach, Spirit; from Pneuma)." (John 20:21-22)

The message of FirstFruits is embodied in a single word: eirene. While I have translated it "be assured of salvation," is from the verb eiro which means "to join." When Yahuweh harvests our souls we are brought to Him, joining His family as His sons and daughters. Our assurance of salvation is a derivative of the "harmonious relationship" facilitated by Yahushua’s fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Bread.

Eirene therefore, provides the ultimate "state of tranquility and peace." That’s interesting because the Messianic title "Shiloh" means "Counselor of Peace and Tranquility" - the Renewed Covenant title for the Spirit. Further, according to etymological studies, this favorable and agreeable "state was almost always defined by a binding legal document which conveyed the mutual responsibilities of the parties to the relationship." The Covenant - both Old and New - is nothing more or less than a familial relationship with Yahuweh. The adoption papers and the certificate of marriage are the Scriptures. The Word is our assurance of salvation - our life assurance policy. The fine points are all detailed in the Miqra.

When apostello is used in the context of Yahushua’s relationship with Yahuweh, it is most revealing. Technically, apo designates "the separation of a part from the whole from which the part originated, whereby the individual is separated from the union or fellowship of the source." Stello means "in order to prepare and equip the individual for use." Thus, apostello conveys that Yahushua is a manifestation of Yahuweh, a part of Yahuweh, set-apart from God to prepare us to join with God.

While I have shared this before, and will share it again, the best way I know to covey the nature of the relationship between Yahuweh, Yahushua, and the Spirit is for you to picture yourself on a boat in the middle of the ocean. Dip two large buckets into the sea. Freeze one and carve it into the shape of a man. Place it in the light so that its form can be seen and felt by those in the presence of its brief physical existence. Then boil the seawater in the other barrel, allowing the steam to envelop those on your ship. Possessing more energy than the frozen form, the steam not only moves up, it can be put to work empowering things just like Yahuweh’s Spirit. One radiates light and is easy to see. The other possesses more power and thus enables greater work to be done. And yet they are the same thing - both are pure manifestations of the ocean, just set-apart from it.

Both buckets came from the same place and are thus they are identical in their composition. There is still only one ocean from which they both were derived. Each was set apart from the whole for the purpose of demonstration and revelation. One was corporeal, tangible, touchable in the form of a man reflecting light. The other was steam, representing the Spirit’s power to raise people up and empower them to do the work of God.

This metaphor, while not prefect, helps us understand that Yahuweh is one in nature, one in personality, one in power, and one in purpose. He is one entity and consciousness, not three. Consistent with Yahushua’s words, the Spirit and the Son return to the midst of the living waters from which they came. That is what this passage is telling us.

HawleyluYah, whay do you make of the above passage, well the one in red, do you agree with it? Note: I just provided the rest of the passage for context surrounding the section in red.
Offline In His Name  
#11 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:50:42 PM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Quote:
Blessings In His Name.
Although my answer was simple, I would say there is nothing simple about Yahushua. But as far as the question of was he just a man? Maybe not, maybe he was one of the morning stars that sang out when Yahweh laid the foundation of the world, I can't say for sure.
But it seems the thing that I'm suppose to know and confess is that Messiah came in the flesh, so I would think that him being a man was important.
And the Spirit I would say is the power that goes out from Yahweh, thought, will, action.
But I would be glad to here how you understand it


As Matthew has posted above, I believe that Yahweh exists and that Yahshua and the Spirit are earthly manifestations of Yahweh. Not Modalism, Perhaps not Trinity although it is a difficult concept to be certain about. My questions to you regard the Godly nature of Yahushua and the Spirit. Your words seem to question that and that would concern me. Also from Yada Yahweh:

Quote:
They begin: “The word (dabar - account and testimony) of ‘Aguwr (the one who gathers), the son (ben) of Yaqeh (the blameless who burns brightly and cleanses) and ‘Ukal (the one who consumes): ‘Yshayah’el (a name which means: God (‘el) Existing As (hayah) Man (‘ysh)) bears burdens, lifts up, and carries souls away (massa’ - unburdening and uplifting them). The Mighty and Upright (geber/gabar - the strong and able One who confirms, strengthens, and prevails as) ‘Yshayah’el (God Existing As Man) declares divine revelation (na’um - speaks prophetically as God, delivering an authoritative message).” (Proverbs 30:1-2) The one who “bears our burdens and uplifts our souls is the Redeemer, the Messiyah, the Anointed Implement of Yah, Yahushua. He is ‘Yshayah’el: God existing in the form of a man. He is the source of Divine revelation. He is the Word made flesh.


Yshayah'el, as name or title certainly declares that God existed as man.

Thank you for your statements and questions, debate among brothers and sisters of Yahweh is strengthening.
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline HawleyluYah  
#12 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:57:53 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Blessings Matthew, I can agree that water can be found in three forms, but I would not agree that this helps us see the structure of Yahweh.
Offline sirgodfrey  
#13 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:39:30 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

Quote:
But it seems the thing that I'm suppose to know and confess is that Messiah came in the flesh, so I would think that him being a man was important.


Indeed. Yahweh manifested Himself in the flesh. Quite simple. Yahushua said that if one does not believe He is whom He says He is, then they are dead in their sins. Whom did He say He was? Yahushua consistently pointed to the fact that He was divine -- that He was God.
Offline HawleyluYah  
#14 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:41:21 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

In His Name wrote:
As Matthew has posted above, I believe that Yahweh exists and that Yahshua and the Spirit are earthly manifestations of Yahweh. Not Modalism, Perhaps not Trinity although it is a difficult concept to be certain about. My questions to you regard the Godly nature of Yahushua and the Spirit. Your words seem to question that and that would concern me. Also from Yada Yahweh:



Yshayah'el, as name or title certainly declares that God existed as man.

Thank you for your statements and questions, debate among brothers and sisters of Yahweh is strengthening.

Blessings again In His Name.
I would need to ask you to show me where in scripture this name Yshayah'el is found. Thank you for your time.
Offline HawleyluYah  
#15 Posted : Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:49:00 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

sirgodfrey wrote:
Indeed. Yahweh manifested Himself in the flesh. Quite simple. Yahushua said that if one does not believe He is whom He says He is, then they are dead in their sins. Whom did He say He was? Yahushua consistently pointed to the fact that He was divine -- that He was God.

Blessings sirgodfrey.
I believe you speak of the book of John here, a book that I feel is greatly misunderstood. So before I answer more on this post I quickly want to show you how this book is misunderstood, so one question, what is the theme of the book of John?
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#16 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2008 12:16:42 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Before this goes any further I would like to bring to attention that these forums are primarily for the discussion of YadaYahweh, The Owners Manual, Prophet of Doom and Future History. There is no point getting into a debat about any of this until HawleyluYah is in a position to know where the books affiliated with the forums stand on it.

The discussion is too complex for one verse answers; it also seems that the assumption that we are a Trinitarian group and that you must be Trinitarian if you believe Yahushua to by Yahuweh. This is not the case as most people on this forum would not agree with the theology of the trinity, but would also say that the Messiah was Yahuweh.

Please HawleyluYah read the books affiliated with this forum to get a better understanding of where most people are coming from, we don’t always agree with everything in the books, but if you read you can see how it enables people to draw their own conclusions. It would be quicker for you to read the books then for us to try and explain each viewpoint like this in detail.

http://yadayahweh.com
http://prophetofdoom.net
http://futurehistory.yadayahweh.com
http://theownersmanual.net
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline HawleyluYah  
#17 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2008 3:48:15 AM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

My apologies, I thought by the name of this forum "YadaYahweh" it was primarily for the discussion of , The Owners Manual, the Scriptures.
And you are right most discussions are too complex for one verse answers, but sometimes you need to take on an Idea one verse at a time before you can fully see the big picture.
But ultimately, if this sight is more concerned with interpreting ONES interpretations then it is the actual source (Scriptures), then it's not a place for me, I have had several flags pop up already, and now your last post waves a big one, so I guess I'll withdraw from the forum, and seek one more concerned with the actual scriptures.

I pray Yahweh will enlighten your members.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#18 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2008 4:10:01 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

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

But ultimately, if this sight is more concerned with interpreting ONES interpretations then it is the actual source (Scriptures), then it's not a place for me, I have had several flags pop up already, and now your last post waves a big one, so I guess I'll withdraw from the forum, and seek one more concerned with the actual scriptures.

I pray Yahweh will enlighten your members.


No apology required :)

You obviously have not looked into what the writings connected to this site are about, and have dangerously decided to assume that we do not believe in looking at Scripture. The reason 90% of the people on the forums are here to learn the ways and tools of delving into Scripture itself at its oldest Greek and Hebrew sources, if you had looked you would have found that not only does Yada Yahweh accurately and eloquently amplify and correct a lot of error within current translations, (in comparison to the oldest texts we have) and that one member of the forums is on the mammoth task of completing a word for word amplification of the oldest known Greek manuscripts in to English (which he is now over half way through after a good 2 years work. You can view his work here: www.thewaytoyahuweh.com)

We are not easily offended here, and we are open to listening to people's ideas, but when people are incorrect the truth must be laid out plainly. This can come from both sides; we are not saying we are standing in the 100% truth, but from the evidence acquired, until other such evidence is found, there are certain things that most of us would agree with. One of them is that Yahushua is a manifestation of Yahuweh, as is well documented with ample 'in context' evidence within the book Yada Yahweh. It's your choice to read or not, but until you do you can not assume that we have not looked into the Scripture you quote.

I find it sad when people find error in Christian teaching, which is great by the way, but seemingly catapult themselves right across the spectrum of ideas and land too far on the other side of the park as to say.

Again I ask you to stay and read Yada Yahweh at least, I think you would find it enlightening - as I hope you don't have the arrogance to think that you are correct on everything you believe, especially if you have not studied the earliest Greek and Hebrew texts...
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline HawleyluYah  
#19 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2008 4:38:28 AM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Tell you what, show me the name Yshayah'el in scripture, and I will consider reading the book.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#20 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2008 5:20:29 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hello again.

Well there is a whole section with that title.

Yada Yahweh: Salvation, Yshayahel

YadaYahweh wrote:

The benefits of beriyth are eternal. "He shall rule upon the throne (kicce') of David (dawid - of love) and in the midst of ('al - on behalf of and for the sake of) His realm (mamlakah - kingdom and dominion), rendering it sure and prosperous (kuwn - establishing it upright, prepared, and firm; stable and secure; enduring and steadfast), restoring and renewing it (sa'ad - supporting, upholding, strengthening, and comforting; healing, refreshing, and sustaining) with verdicts that are just (mishpat - judgments and decisions which are proper and fitting), vindicating and justified (tsadaqah - making you appear innocent, righteous, and upright) from this time forth ('attah - now) and forevermore ('ad 'owlam - for continuous existence throughout all eternity, for an unlimited duration of time without end). The passion (qinah - intense feeling, energy, deep devotion, and enduring love) of Yahuweh (YHWH), of the assembled servants (tsaba' - Yahuweh's spiritual messengers (a.k.a. angels)), will accomplish, produce, and perform this work ('asah - will fashion and achieve this effect, endeavor, cause, labor, and offering) as man, as 'Yshayah'el (a compound of 'el, God, hayah, existing as, and 'ysh, man)!" (Yasha'yahu/Isaiah 9:7)

There is some debate as to what the last word of Yasha'yahu 9:7 actually is - even in the oldest text - the Great Isaiah Scroll found in Qumran. The most sophisticated word-study tool, Logos Software, says that it is 'Yshayah'el. The Masoretic says that it is z'oth, which is a "feminine pronoun meaning this woman." Most translations relying upon the Masoretes ignore the fact that z'oth is a pronoun and that it is feminine, and then for good measure, they eliminate woman from their translation, and then end up with "this."


Again to get the full meaning and it all in context, which is obviously important - I would recomend you read the whole section and not just the quote I have made.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline HawleyluYah  
#21 Posted : Monday, November 24, 2008 4:07:04 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Robskiwarrior wrote:
Hello again.

Well there is a whole section with that title.

Yada Yahweh: Salvation, Yshayahel

Quote:
YadaYahweh wrote:

The benefits of beriyth are eternal. "He shall rule upon the throne (kicce') of David (dawid - of love) and in the midst of ('al - on behalf of and for the sake of) His realm (mamlakah - kingdom and dominion), rendering it sure and prosperous (kuwn - establishing it upright, prepared, and firm; stable and secure; enduring and steadfast), restoring and renewing it (sa'ad - supporting, upholding, strengthening, and comforting; healing, refreshing, and sustaining) with verdicts that are just (mishpat - judgments and decisions which are proper and fitting), vindicating and justified (tsadaqah - making you appear innocent, righteous, and upright) from this time forth ('attah - now) and forevermore ('ad 'owlam - for continuous existence throughout all eternity, for an unlimited duration of time without end). The passion (qinah - intense feeling, energy, deep devotion, and enduring love) of Yahuweh (YHWH), of the assembled servants (tsaba' - Yahuweh's spiritual messengers (a.k.a. angels)), will accomplish, produce, and perform this work ('asah - will fashion and achieve this effect, endeavor, cause, labor, and offering) as man, as 'Yshayah'el (a compound of 'el, God, hayah, existing as, and 'ysh, man)!" (Yasha'yahu/Isaiah 9:7)

There is some debate as to what the last word of Yasha'yahu 9:7 actually is - even in the oldest text - the Great Isaiah Scroll found in Qumran. The most sophisticated word-study tool, Logos Software, says that it is 'Yshayah'el.The Masoretic says that it is z'oth, which is a "feminine pronoun meaning this woman. " Most translations relying upon the Masoretes ignore the fact that z'oth is a pronoun and that it is feminine, and then for good measure, they eliminate woman from their translation, and then end up with "this."


Again to get the full meaning and it all in context, which is obviously important - I would recomend you read the whole section and not just the quote I have made.


the Great Isaiah Scroll found in Qumran. The most sophisticated word-study tool, Logos Software, says that it is 'Yshayah'el.

Although I have never seen the original, I have seen copies, the word in question is the last word on the left of line 26, it looks a lot more to me like זאת zô'th then Yshayah'el.
Also about the word zô'th and some of it's uses.
Gen 9:12 And Elohim said, ([This] zô'th) is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

Gen 12:7 Then Yahweh appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give ([this] zô'th) land." And there he built an altar to Yahweh, who had appeared to him.

Gen 12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What is ([this] zô'th) you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?

Gen 15:7 Then He said to him, "I am Yahweh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you ([this] zô'th) land to inherit it."

Gen 15:18 On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given ([this] zô'th) land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates;

Gen 17:10 "([This] zô'th) is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;

And I could list around 500 more none of which say this woman, so not to be rude, but these are some of the reasons why I will not read through what others interpret, there is enough to discover in scripture and history without having to first double check someone elses interpretations.
I may cross reference it but I won't take away scripture time for something else, at least until it proves itself.
But if you don't want me here because of this then it is fine with me, I am on many other boards, and I stay busy enough.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#22 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:33:59 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Well I answered your question, and I asked you to read in full the chapter so you didn’t take it out of context and you got all the information that was presented, and you haven't. Obviously you are a man with an agenda seeking to justify your own cause, I say this because you obviously believe you are right and there is no questioning your interpretation of scripture. Sadly I predicted your answer, but hoped I would be wrong.

Stay if you are here to learn, if not then do not. If you want to make full use of these forums read the affiliated documents, and please pick holes and rip them apart because that is what we try and do here. If your posts are going to be more promotion of your interpretations with no room for anyone else’s ideas then you will not be welcome.

If you have no time for our interpretations we don't have any time for yours.

I hope you do stay, and I hope you do read the documents - and I hope you question every letter, because that is why the forums are here... and you never know, you might be good at it!
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline edStueart  
#23 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2008 3:08:30 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Robskiwarrior wrote:
Stay if you are here to learn, if not then do not. If you want to make full use of these forums read the affiliated documents, and please pick holes and rip them apart because that is what we try and do here.
[snip]
I hope you do stay, and I hope you do read the documents - and I hope you question every letter, because that is why the forums are here... and you never know, you might be good at it!


This could be a 'mission statement'!
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline HawleyluYah  
#24 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:50:14 AM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Robskiwarrior wrote:
Well I answered your question, and I asked you to read in full the chapter so you didn’t take it out of context and you got all the information that was presented, and you haven't. Obviously you are a man with an agenda seeking to justify your own cause, I say this because you obviously believe you are right and there is no questioning your interpretation of scripture. Sadly I predicted your answer, but hoped I would be wrong.

Stay if you are here to learn, if not then do not. If you want to make full use of these forums read the affiliated documents, and please pick holes and rip them apart because that is what we try and do here. If your posts are going to be more promotion of your interpretations with no room for anyone else’s ideas then you will not be welcome.

If you have no time for our interpretations we don't have any time for yours.

I hope you do stay, and I hope you do read the documents - and I hope you question every letter, because that is why the forums are here... and you never know, you might be good at it!


Yes I am a man with an agenda, but you are wrong to say it's to justify my own cause, and I take that to mean my forum do to the fact that you removed my signature from all my post, which by the way is fine with me.
But you seem to have missed what has taken place here. I came across this forum in a search, I joined because it looked like a place of learning.
I was engaged in good conversation with several of your members, not forcing anything on anyone, just voicing my views and hearing theirs.
Then you came into the thread and said stop! HawleyluYah must read the book that this forum is made for first, you also hinted to the fact that I was not prepared for truth in debate. and since that post not one of the people that were here, have returned.
Now do I think I am always right?, NO, this is one of the main reasons I am out here on the web, to learn, but I'll tell you this, what I do believe is based on much research, over many many years, and if someone want's to show me that I am wrong, they need to do it with this source, not just commentary on it.
Now you posted a small peace of the book and yes you suggested I read it all, but I have pointed out some strong flaws in what you did post, which leads me to flag number one. It seems no one on this site wants to learn beyond this book, it seems all all questions and rebuttals are just excerpts from this book.
Now maybe am wrong about that, but that's how it looks, and this is the very thing that happend to the Mormens and the Jew and many others, they let a book other then the scriptures become the definer of what the scriptures mean.
So you might want to look at the insult you hurled at me, and consider if it's not you that has catapulted yourselves right across the spectrum of ideas and landed too far on the other side of the park.
And if this sounds rude, forgive me it's not meant to be.
I type slow and I'm running late for work.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#25 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:23:04 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
HawleyluYah wrote:
Yes I am a man with an agenda, but you are wrong to say it's to justify my own cause, and I take that to mean my forum do to the fact that you removed my signature from all my post, which by the way is fine with me.


I personally did not remove your signature, that was a move independently by another mod.

HawleyluYah wrote:
But you seem to have missed what has taken place here. I came across this forum in a search, I joined because it looked like a place of learning.
I was engaged in good conversation with several of your members, not forcing anything on anyone, just voicing my views and hearing theirs.
Then you came into the thread and said stop! HawleyluYah must read the book that this forum is made for first, you also hinted to the fact that I was not prepared for truth in debate. and since that post not one of the people that were here, have returned.
Now do I think I am always right?, NO, this is one of the main reasons I am out here on the web, to learn, but I'll tell you this, what I do believe is based on much research, over many many years, and if someone want's to show me that I am wrong, they need to do it with this source, not just commentary on it.


As I have said a few times now, the forums are for the discussion of the books attached to it. What I have said is all outlined in the forum rules.

If you had read any of the literature attached to the site, your long little quiz could have been turned into a more pointed and useful question, rather than a loaded one. You could have then read the chapter that I had taken a small section out of and realised that it is the subject you are talking about is discussed in great length and researched very well, not only in this chapter but its also touched on in many other chapters. With this knowledge you would be able to make an informed question, either for or against and we could have started somewhere. Instead you decided to assume.

Because our view point is significantly different from any Christian or any other theologies its better to start with reading a little about who the people you are talking to, then you can make an informed, logical and useful contribution.

HawleyluYah wrote:
Now you posted a small peace of the book and yes you suggested I read it all, but I have pointed out some strong flaws in what you did post, which leads me to flag number one. It seems no one on this site wants to learn beyond this book, it seems all all questions and rebuttals are just excerpts from this book.


The book in itself primarily expands on scripture - and its really left for your own research, which the books educates you how to do correctly and promotes the position that the author is only putting certain ideas forward for discussion. Yada & Ken are the first to admit their work isn’t perfect, and actively look for people to bring up issues with them, actually Yada gets worried if we don’t give constructive feedback. The books are revised when revision needs to be made, nothing in the book is set in stone - but it looks to expand scripture as much as it can, hence its length. Again if you had taken the time to even read the introduction, you would know this too. The books attached to this site, aren’t your average books.

HawleyluYah wrote:
Now maybe am wrong about that, but that's how it looks, and this is the very thing that happend to the Mormens and the Jew and many others, they let a book other then the scriptures become the definer of what the scriptures mean.
So you might want to look at the insult you hurled at me, and consider if it's not you that has catapulted yourselves right across the spectrum of ideas and landed too far on the other side of the park.
And if this sounds rude, forgive me it's not meant to be.
I type slow and I'm running late for work.


In no way does anyone hold anything that these books say (other than the actual scripture inside them) higher than scripture - I understand your concerns about this because I have also seen the result of people taking the writings of man over what is in scripture - I think if anyone ever did Yada and Ken would be mortified, and I would be most perplexed. It scares me when I see Christians taking the word of Rick Warren and other Christian writers as if its scripture!

I know I am in a place where I can take on information, but flags pop up when people come on to this site without regards to the forum rules and expect reasonable debate on their terms when they have no idea about what we think, who we are or anything like that.

We do have a number of people who enter the site promoting their own ideas as fact, its something we guard against.

Have a good day at work; I hope you're not too late! :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline HawleyluYah  
#26 Posted : Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:40:12 PM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Robskiwarrior wrote:
I personally did not remove your signature, that was a move independently by another mod.


And like I said, that's ok with me, but maybe you should develop a policy that when you alter someones post you state what was changed and why, or at least an email.

Quote:
As I have said a few times now, the forums are for the discussion of the books attached to it. What I have said is all outlined in the forum rules.


And according to that page I was in the guidelines of all the rules found there, reading the books was a request, not a prerequisite for posting.
It also states that it is a place to discuss Yahweh's word. So for you to have stopped my thread do to rule violations would mean you are calling my post false teachings, because all other aspects fell within the rules.

Quote:
If you had read any of the literature attached to the site, your long little quiz could have been turned into a more pointed and useful question, rather than a loaded one. You could have then read the chapter that I had taken a small section out of and realised that it is the subject you are talking about is discussed in great length and researched very well, not only in this chapter but its also touched on in many other chapters. With this knowledge you would be able to make an informed question, either for or against and we could have started somewhere. Instead you decided to assume.

Point at hand
your long little quiz AND With this knowledge you would be able to make an informed question, either for or against and we could have started somewhere. Instead you decided to assume.
I have been on the net since before it was networked, I have been on many a forum in that time, and ran a few too. And this is the FIRST time I have seen a poster cut down for posting scripture followed by questions.
And the only thing I assumed was:
Quote:
Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost?
Yahshua and the Set-Apart Spirit - manifestations of Yahweh vs the Trinity or other carbon copies of pagan gods.


Was a category for discussing who played what role in the Father , son, and spirit, and ultimately what scripture says about it, and discussing each others view on it.
And if it was loaded, it was loaded with reasoning.
Bottom line was I entered a empty category that invited debate, I started a thread which in all my years of posting meant that I set the format for the thread. And even so when people answered my post, and did not actually reply to what I posted, I went with it, I was in no way rude, I stuck with scripture, all only to be cut off and told I'm not equipped.

Quote:
Because our view point is significantly different from any Christian or any other theologies its better to start with reading a little about who the people you are talking to, then you can make an informed, logical and useful contribution.


As to say until then I'm not capable of making an informed, logical and useful contribution.


Quote:
The book in itself primarily expands on scripture - and its really left for your own research, which the books educates you how to do correctly and promotes the position that the author is only putting certain ideas forward for discussion. Yada & Ken are the first to admit their work isn’t perfect, and actively look for people to bring up issues with them, actually Yada gets worried if we don’t give constructive feedback. The books are revised when revision needs to be made, nothing in the book is set in stone - but it looks to expand scripture as much as it can, hence its length. Again if you had taken the time to even read the introduction, you would know this too. The books attached to this site, aren’t your average books.


With this in mind, did I not give constructive feedback on the book, you see this is what I noticed, someone points me to a chapter in a book, in response to something I said, this leads me to think that the persons answer can be found in the text. In reading it, I point out what seems to be some very flawed thinking, and I point this out WITH SCRIPTURE.
Now if I am wrong about this, why has no one set me straight on it, or at least pointed me to the page in the book that would set me straight?
So I see two possible answers here, either I am wrong and no one cares to point out why, or I am right and without even reading the book, I have made a good contribution of constructive feedback.
I look forward to knowing which one it is.

Quote:
In no way does anyone hold anything that these books say (other than the actual scripture inside them) higher than scripture - I understand your concerns about this because I have also seen the result of people taking the writings of man over what is in scripture - I think if anyone ever did Yada and Ken would be mortified, and I would be most perplexed. It scares me when I see Christians taking the word of Rick Warren and other Christian writers as if its scripture!


Then honestly you should step back and look at what your saying here, You are trying to make all discussions revolve around what these books say about scripture, now if some here want to do that then great, but to ask all to do this will bring about a group of people that will find authority in these books over scripture, these books might be a good help for some to define scripture, but some people understand that scripture can define scripture better then any other source.
Point at hand, your next quote.

Quote:
I know I am in a place where I can take on information, but flags pop up when people come on to this site without regards to the forum rules and expect reasonable debate on their terms when they have no idea about what we think, who we are or anything like that.


Have you ever tried to teach or talk to a minister or a preacher at a standard christian church to show them how they might be wrong, I have, and they have come up with some very unconvincing arguments against what I tell them, This because you are telling them that they could be wrong about something, and they simply are not going to hear it.
Now do you need to read the book of Mormon to understand scriptures, of course not. In fact it could hinder your understanding, but going to one of their forums you could offer them much good advice, but your above quote sounds exactly like what I would run into on a Mormon forum. They don't put final authority on scripture, they put it on a book that they say is the true understanding of scripture.
It is wrong for you to 1, say I'm breaking the rules, because really I did not, I just did not take it's advice. 2, to say that one must post on your terms {topics from the books) even when they are the topic starter.

Quote:
We do have a number of people who enter the site promoting their own ideas as fact, its something we guard against.

Have a good day at work; I hope you're not too late! :)

And you should guard against that, but you will better do that by prepared responses to their claim, responses that aren't always quotes from a source book other then scripture.
And thank you I made to work with one minute to spare.
May Yahweh bless.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#27 Posted : Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:10:56 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

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

I have been on the net since before it was networked, I have been on many a forum in that time, and ran a few too. And this is the FIRST time I have seen a poster cut down for posting scripture followed by questions.
And the only thing I assumed was:


And again I shall say... your post is something that can be answered by reading the documentation linked to the forums, when you have read it your question can be made more efficient because you would understand more of whom the people you are talking to are.

HawleyluYah wrote:

Was a category for discussing who played what role in the Father , son, and spirit, and ultimately what scripture says about it, and discussing each others view on it.
And if it was loaded, it was loaded with reasoning.
Bottom line was I entered a empty category that invited debate, I started a thread which in all my years of posting meant that I set the format for the thread. And even so when people answered my post, and did not actually reply to what I posted, I went with it, I was in no way rude, I stuck with scripture, all only to be cut off and told I'm not equipped.


I am telling you, you could make a better question from not assuming and reading what the site is referencing, you would and again I say it, be able to formulate a better question.

HawleyluYah wrote:

As to say until then I'm not capable of making an informed, logical and useful contribution.


You are if you understood what you were actually trying to contribute in…

HawleyluYah wrote:

With this in mind, did I not give constructive feedback on the book, you see this is what I noticed, someone points me to a chapter in a book, in response to something I said, this leads me to think that the persons answer can be found in the text. In reading it, I point out what seems to be some very flawed thinking, and I point this out WITH SCRIPTURE.


You didn’t do what I requested, which was to read the whole chapter in context first, instead you decided to take it out of context of the book and fight the little bit you could find without reading what else was in the book about that issue.

HawleyluYah wrote:

Now if I am wrong about this, why has no one set me straight on it, or at least pointed me to the page in the book that would set me straight?
So I see two possible answers here, either I am wrong and no one cares to point out why, or I am right and without even reading the book, I have made a good contribution of constructive feedback.
I look forward to knowing which one it is.


I have pointed you to one chapter - I think most people here are just tiered of this attitude of people that come in here that’s probably why no one replied. You have only read that small section I have posted so you have not read the whole chapter and therefore have taken it out of context and have also not given a constructive feedback because you haven’t even read the chapter to be able to feed back on it.

HawleyluYah wrote:

Then honestly you should step back and look at what your saying here, You are trying to make all discussions revolve around what these books say about scripture, now if some here want to do that then great, but to ask all to do this will bring about a group of people that will find authority in these books over scripture, these books might be a good help for some to define scripture, but some people understand that scripture can define scripture better then any other source.
Point at hand, your next quote.


And again, what I am saying is that if you read the books, you would be able to see what ideas are around about a topic and amazingly formulate a better question suited to people who (mostly - I can't speak for everyone) do not believe in the trinity but do not leap the other way and discredit Yahushua as merely human. And yet again I say these books are nothing more than tools to amplify and expand scripture from its oldest and most reliable sources.

HawleyluYah wrote:

Have you ever tried to teach or talk to a minister or a preacher at a standard christian church to show them how they might be wrong, I have, and they have come up with some very unconvincing arguments against what I tell them, This because you are telling them that they could be wrong about something, and they simply are not going to hear it.


Yes, I had many discussions with my elders, over the course of about 2 years on which we were asked to leave the church. I also have regular discussions with my mother who is a Christian, but that’s another long story...

You also sound like they did, they would not take some time to read the information - instead they decided to stick their own "correct" opinion - even though I wasn’t asking them to agree with the information but just to read it. The books are nothing more than a study tool, but again you won’t find that out unless you take the time to look at them.

HawleyluYah wrote:

Now do you need to read the book of Mormon to understand scriptures, of course not. In fact it could hinder your understanding, but going to one of their forums you could offer them much good advice, but your above quote sounds exactly like what I would run into on a Mormon forum. They don't put final authority on scripture, they put it on a book that they say is the true understanding of scripture.


Again if you read the book - you would find that even the book says not to trust the book... we dont take it above scripture, but I suppose you have already pidgeon holed that issue. The book of Mormon is the greatest work of fiction since William Shakespeare woke up one morning feeling a little depressed.

HawleyluYah wrote:

It is wrong for you to 1, say I'm breaking the rules, because really I did not, I just did not take it's advice. 2, to say that one must post on your terms {topics from the books) even when they are the topic starter.


Posting doesn’t require reading, but if you are posting about a theological view like the trinity which is clearly expanded on in the books affiliated with the forum that is for the discussion of the books that it is linked to, surely reading the books would be more useful, then refuting them if you need to. Again the reason I keep saying this is because we don’t believe what you think we believe - what ever that is. We aren’t a sect of Christianity, or any religious group what so ever... and until you understand where we are coming from questions that attack the validity of the theology of the trinity are pointless, because you don’t know what we think about the trinity. Its like me going to Africa and debating the rights of British hedgehogs to cross their roads safely. The Africans don’t have hedgehogs and would probably pay no attention... it might have been better for me to research their local wildlife before I bought my plane ticket...

HawleyluYah wrote:

And you should guard against that, but you will better do that by prepared responses to their claim, responses that aren't always quotes from a source book other then scripture.
And thank you I made to work with one minute to spare.
May Yahweh bless.


The responses to those are all in the books, if you understood that we don’t believe in 1 verse wonders and that we take the whole of scripture and not just sections of it to twist to our ideas. But you won’t understand that unless you realise what these forums are discussing. The books are merely a tool that expand on certain topics, a lot of which I’m sure you would agree with, but probably a lot that you probably would not.

I will say it again, you would waste less time here if you actually read the work connected to these forums then you can attack from a better vantage point as you will know what we think of something. The books are there to be attacked, to expand and expose scripture and to lay it bare. There is no agenda to them, no theology that must be followed. Yada Yahweh is a simple amplification of the oldest texts, which happily exposes a lot of Christianity and Judaism along the way. The other books are written in the same way to promote whatever truth can be found and to move away from religion into relationship.

So to sum up: Please just do some reading into what we actually believe, then you can refute those believes. I asked you to read the books for this reason and to enable you to debate efficiently. If you are not going to do this then there is no point in you being here, if you are then you are most welcome to stay.
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline HawleyluYah  
#28 Posted : Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:00:32 AM(UTC)
HawleyluYah
Joined: 11/22/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Chishoim, MN.

Again no answers, just the standard "read the book"
It's a shame you let yourselves here miss out on possible growth simply because someones not a "member of the book club".
And before you respond with "It's a shame you let yourselves here miss out on possible growth simply because you won't read the books", I'll say this, if you would have presented yourself a bit more knowledgeable, and then accredited that to the reading of the book, you might have sparked my intrest, but istead you seem unable to stand on your own two feet in response.
I'll waist no more of your time, and let you waist no more of mine
Offline bitnet  
#29 Posted : Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:39:32 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

I've refrained from getting into this but I finally relented and can only say this: we've seen the whole animal and not just its' tail swishin' so we reckon it is an elephant. To get into discussion about the trunk of the animal to identify the animal is too cumbersome at this point. I'd join the chorus and say, "Read the books" and then structure a better enquiry just as Robski says. Many of us are also on other forums and read lots of Scripture and engage in discussions because we want to learn. There is nothing here that cannot be discussed, but if it has been discussed or elaborated upon before then it becomes almost redundant. That said, if anyone has something to share that can enlighten Scripture and throw more light on the Word, we also welcome it. But having read the banter above, it is clear that no new light has shone here. As such, this thread is avoided, not because the readers all share the same beliefs and hold the words of the scribes as equal to or above the Scriptures but merely because we sense that there is little profit in this. Trinitarianism, Modalism, and other 'isms and schisms are merely tags. Understanding the essence of Scripture is what is needed. Put your views across and discuss it's relevance in context of Scripture and the work of the founders of the forum and don't string us along with intellectual superiority. It is this smugness that prompted Robski to respond as he did. And it is not his responsibilty to engage you either, but to moderate this forum and make constructive suggestions. So thank you for visiting and you are always welcome to return and contribute, after reading the YY books and figuring out what the tusks, legs, ears and body resemble.
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Swalchy  
#30 Posted : Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:00:06 AM(UTC)
Swalchy
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 250
Man
Location: England

And on that note - Thread locked and moved to "Twilight Zone"
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.