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 unity  
#1 Posted : Sunday, April 16, 2017 8:40:32 PM(UTC)
unity
Joined: 1/13/2017(UTC)
Posts: 3
United States

Thanks: 1 times
In the traditional theorie's of atonement, Jesus' crucifixion and sacrifice pays for or defeats sin.

Would it be possible to entertain an alternative view of the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection?

Jesus speaks of providing the "sign of Jonah" to the current "wicked generation" [Matthew (12: 39-42 ) and Luke (11. 29-32)]. As in Nineveh, such a sign would serve as a means of bringing about repentance, in this case by demonstrating Jesus' complete obedience to God's will, God's faithfulness to his servant, God's power and willingness to sustain life, Jesus' status as a true prophet of God, and God's dominion over the Jews and the Gentiles alike (by superceding the will of the Sanhedrin and Rome).


Any thoughts?


As an aside, is it logical that any of the Gospels individually, in addition to the old testament, would be sufficient to bring a person into God's graces? This, after all, is more than the earliest oral tradition Christians would have even had.

Thank you

Edited by user Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:52:03 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline InHisName  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, April 18, 2017 12:25:49 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
[In the traditional theorie's of atonement, Jesus' crucifixion and sacrifice pays for or defeats sin. ]

If this is God’s Word is only theory to you then I fear you have only faith when knowledge available.

You have been on this site for more than 3 months… plenty of time to learn that the name JESUS could not have existed at the beginning of the C.E.. the Son’s name was Yahowsha. HERE is a link for your investigation on that. And you are expected to know this as shown by Yahowah’s own words:

“Who is He who has actually descended from and who is He who reliably ascends to heaven? Who is He who genuinely gathers and receives the spiritual in the palms of His hands? Who is He who wraps up and envelops, actually giving birth by way of the waters in the garment? Who is He finally who comes onto the scene, stands upright, completes the mission, enabling others to stand without ceasing, establishing the entire earth? What is His personal and proper name? And what is His Son’s personal and proper name? Surely you know.” (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 30:4)

[Would it be possible to entertain an alternative view of the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection?]

Anything is debatable, as long as your position is supported by the Towrah, Prophets and Psalms (TPP). But your postulation below is quite spare in details of your own thoughts, not to mention the details of support. It is supported only by the Christian ‘new testament’ (wrong reference and all (Matthew not Mark)). The ‘NT’ can only be trusted as much as it is verified by the TPP.

[Jesus speaks of providing the "sign of Jonah" to the current "wicked generation" [Mark (12: 39-42 ) and Luke (11. 29-32)]. As in Nineveh, such a sign would serve as a means of bringing about repentance, in this case by demonstrating Jesus' complete obedience to God's will, God's faithfulness to his servant, God's power and willingness to sustain life, Jesus' status as a true prophet of God, and God's dominion over the Jews and the Gentiles alike (by superceding the will of the Sanhedrin and Rome). ]

I wish you would have filled this out more, so I was sure of what you are proposing.
* What was the sign of Jonah? Did Nineveh (these were gentiles by the way) repent because of Jonah’s time in the fish. There is no reference that they were told about the fish in the original story (below). They repented because they took Jonah’s telling of God’s Word as true.
*’signs’ do not promote repentance, they promote religion (an evil thing in Yah’s eyes)
*The rest of this is mute.

Jon 3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
Jon 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
Jon 3:6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
Jon 3:7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
Jon 3:8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

[Any thoughts?]

PLENTY:
I think you are a Christian thinking this is a religious forum. This is an anti-christian, anti-religious site!
I think you are trying to make sense of Christian dogma (sorry, but it doesn’t make any sense). Religion is men twisting Yah’s words to control other men.
I think you don’t understand all of what the crucifixion was about. (see 1,2,3 below) This is not theoretical, this is written plainly and supported many times in the TPP. Your ‘theory’ covers the fulfillment of the first 3 of 7 of Yahowah’s annual appointed meeting times. Learning link HERE
1. Passover = no death = eternal life
2. Matsah = removal of sin = perfection
3. Bikuwrym = firstborn = adoption/’birthed into Yah’s covenant family’

[As an aside, is it logical that any of the Gospels individually, in addition to the old testament, would be sufficient to bring a person into God's graces? This, after all, is more than the earliest oral tradition Christians would have even had]

Dude, NO. There are no gospels in His WORD. His testament is not old. There is no grace in Yahowah’s plan. Yahowsha is Towrah observant!! He railed against the JEWISH religious establishment because it was not Towrah observant and if He were here today He would rail against the Christians as well. Learning link HERE.

[Thank you]

You’re welcome to come and question anything. Just don’t expect any religious viewpoint here. (And don’t come looking to spread one.)
Allen
thanks 1 user thanked InHisName for this useful post.
unity on 4/19/2017(UTC)
Offline unity  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, April 19, 2017 9:31:23 AM(UTC)
unity
Joined: 1/13/2017(UTC)
Posts: 3
United States

Thanks: 1 times
Allen,

Thank you for your extensive reply.

I mean no offense by using Jesus rather than Yahowsha. I have read several explanations of alternatives of the "true" spellings and I believe the criticism of the Latin version is valid, but I am not sure which true spelling is correct. I elected to use the latinized version because it is familiar to me and more people would likely know what I am talking about. This is the same reason for using "Gospel" and "Old Testament" .

Although I have attended various Christian churches during my life and have always identified myself as Christian, I do not buy in to most Christian dogma. I do not consider God's Word to be a theory, however, many of the interpretations of the meaning of writings and events recorded in the bible are theories. I do not wish to create or promote alternative dogma, but rather to understand the true meaning of the message God is conveying.

What I am trying to better understand is the relationship of Yahowah and Yahowsha. Modern Christianity focuses heavily on Yahowsha. Personally I think this is incorrect, as I think Yahowah is Yahowsha's focus. The trinitarian dogma sees Yahowsha as being equal to Yahowah, yet this is something Yahowsha explicitly denies. Additionally Christianity focuses on the death of Yahowsha as the point of his message, where as I think his mission is to lead people to observe Yahowah's Towrah. By "grace" I mean "mercy" or acceptance by Yahowah of his Towrah observant people. I see Yahowsha's resurrection as a demonstration of Yahowah's faithfulness to his Towrah observant prophet, and that this demonstration was purposeful to bring people back to Yahowah's Towrah.

Thank you for the Learning links and for pointing out my reference error. I appreciate your view on the NT as being subject to the TPP, a truth that is neglected by Christianity. I will review the links. Thank you for your time.
Offline James  
#4 Posted : Thursday, April 20, 2017 8:33:41 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Unity wrote:
I mean no offense by using Jesus rather than Yahowsha. I have read several explanations of alternatives of the "true" spellings and I believe the criticism of the Latin version is valid, but I am not sure which true spelling is correct. I elected to use the latinized version because it is familiar to me and more people would likely know what I am talking about.

Jesus is not a Latin name. Just like Hebrew, Greek and every other language of the time there was no J. Jesus did not appear until the third edition of the King James Bible, the same one that read, thou shalt commit adultery.

Furthermore names do not change from one language to another. My name is James, if I move to France and speak French my name would still be James. If I moved to Italy and spoke Italian it would still be James. Donald Trump travels the world and is spoken of in many languages, and he is always Donald Trump. Osama Bin Laden is Osama Bin Laden regardless of what language we are speaking. Names should always be transliterated from one language to another, meaning the sounds replicated in the new alphabet. Jesus does not remotely come close to replicating the sounds of Yod Hey Waw Shin Hey.

Further Furthermore when Yahowsha could not be transliterated into the Greek language, because it did not have the sounds capable of doing so, placeholders were universally used in every single one of the 1st-3rd century manuscripts. So even they acknowledged that it would be inappropriate to change Yahowsha’s name.

Names are important in Yah’s Word, and since He choose the name by which He wanted to be known it is fair to say we will benefit from following His lead. Yahowsha is important and tells us a lot about the man whose name means Yahowah is Salvation. Jesus tells us nothing.

You cannot know someone without knowing the name by which they choose to be called. And choosing to ignore their name in favor of what is popular is an insult to that person.

Unity wrote:
This is the same reason for using "Gospel" and "Old Testament" .


Neither Gospel nor Old Testaments are translations of any word actually used by Yahowah or Yahowsha. They are 100% manufactured by man. Gospel is of Germanic orgins and means Gotts Spell. Gott was a Germanic god and spells are feats of magic used to beguile people. And Old Testament and New Testament implies that one is no longer valid and has been replaced, which is so far from the truth.

Yahowah called His Word the Towrah which means teaching, instruction and guidance.


Unity wrote:
Although I have attended various Christian churches during my life and have always identified myself as Christian, I do not buy in to most Christian dogma. I do not consider God's Word to be a theory, however, many of the interpretations of the meaning of writings and events recorded in the bible are theories. I do not wish to create or promote alternative dogma, but rather to understand the true meaning of the message God is conveying.


God’s Word is not theory. It is knowable. Consider the actual Words which He inspired and not the corruption of man, and His Word is clear and simple. To Quote Dowd:
Psalm 19:7 wrote:
Yahowah’s Towrah is complete and entirely perfect, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowah’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the open minded.



Unity wrote:
What I am trying to better understand is the relationship of Yahowah and Yahowsha. Modern Christianity focuses heavily on Yahowsha. Personally I think this is incorrect, as I think Yahowah is Yahowsha's focus.

Here you are 100% correct. As I mentioned earlier one of the reasons Yahowsha is an important name is because of what it means, Yahowah is Salvation. The focus on Yahowsha is errant. Everything Yahowsha did was point people to Yahowah and to His Towrah. Yahowsha is a small and diminished portion of Yahowah, set aside from the whole for a specific purpose.

Unity wrote:
The trinitarian dogma sees Yahowsha as being equal to Yahowah, yet this is something Yahowsha explicitly denies.

Exactly. The trinity is a 100% pagan concept dating back to Ancient Babylon, and has nothing to do with Yahowah. The relationship between Yahowah and Yahowsha would be as though Yahowah removed one of His hands and sent it out apart from Himself to do a task, and then it returned to Him and reattached. The hand is nothing but a small part of the whole temporarily separated.

Unity wrote:
Additionally Christianity focuses on the death of Yahowsha as the point of his message, where as I think his mission is to lead people to observe Yahowah's Towrah.

Again 100% correct. Furthermore Yahowsha could not die, that is the meaning of His final words. The part of Him that was Yahowsha left and a body died.

Yahowsha had but one purpose and that was to serve as the ultimate fulfillment of the Passover Lamb, and while He was getting to that point He pointed people to the Towrah so that they would understand what was going to happen.

Unity wrote:
By "grace" I mean "mercy" or acceptance by Yahowah of his Towrah observant people.

Grace is a word with much religious baggage, namely it being derived from the name of three pagan goddesses. But mercy would be an accurate, albeit incomplete, translation of Yahowah’s chesed, love and mercy genuine affection, steadfast devotion, and unfailing kindness.

Unity wrote:
I see Yahowsha's resurrection as a demonstration of Yahowah's faithfulness to his Towrah observant prophet, and that this demonstration was purposeful to bring people back to Yahowah's Towrah.


To fully understand Yahowsha’s “resurrection” you should study and learn about the Miqray of Bikuwrym:
http://www.yadayahweh.co...ikuwrym-FirstFruits.YHWH
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline InHisName  
#5 Posted : Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:03:56 AM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Quote:
I mean no offense by using Jesus rather than Yahowsha. I have read several explanations of alternatives of the "true" spellings and I believe the criticism of the Latin version is valid, but I am not sure which true spelling is correct. I elected to use the latinized version because it is familiar to me and more people would likely know what I am talking about. This is the same reason for using "Gospel" and "Old Testament" .


My perspective is that the names, titles and key concept words of Yah’s Way are imperative. Primarily because their replacements hide Yah’s true communication.
There is no correct spelling of transliterated words. They are phonetic replacements of the original language, so“True” spellings are irrelevant. I can spell Yahowah several ways in English, Yahoah would work just as well.

The important aspect is in trying to relay these important names/words as transliterations and not translations, so we can find their meaning. For example Yahowsha is a compound word of Yahowah (God’s only name) and yasha (meaning salvation), this gives the name a true meaning = Yahowah saves or salvation is from Yahowah. SO Yahowah is the One responsible for our salvation and Yahowsha through His job title Messiah (Ma’aseyah = implement of Yah) is his tool to accomplish this.

Quote:
Although I have attended various Christian churches during my life and have always identified myself as Christian, I do not buy in to most Christian dogma. I do not consider God's Word to be a theory, however, many of the interpretations of the meaning of writings and events recorded in the bible are theories. I do not wish to create or promote alternative dogma, but rather to understand the true meaning of the message God is conveying.


This is heartening to hear! Many have come on this forum to find or leave religious dogma. I was worried that you might be of that ilk. If you are looking for Yahowah this is the best resource you will find (not the forum per se, but the links I provided). They are long and some find them tedious, but they are the most accurate translations and most thoughtful interpretations available. Your time in studying them will be well rewarded.

Quote:
What I am trying to better understand is the relationship of Yahowah and Yahowsha. Modern Christianity focuses heavily on Yahowsha. Personally I think this is incorrect, as I think Yahowah is Yahowsha's focus. The trinitarian dogma sees Yahowsha as being equal to Yahowah, yet this is something Yahowsha explicitly denies. Additionally Christianity focuses on the death of Yahowsha as the point of his message, where as I think his mission is to lead people to observe Yahowah's Towrah. By "grace" I mean "mercy" or acceptance by Yahowah of his Towrah observant people. I see Yahowsha's resurrection as a demonstration of Yahowah's faithfulness to his Towrah observant prophet, and that this demonstration was purposeful to bring people back to Yahowah's Towrah.


I agree, there is NO trinity (this is Babylonian/Christian thought). Yahowah is God. Yahowsha is son of man, implement of Yah, sacrificial lamb, He is the Word, the Word is Towrah. I think you will find learning more about Yah’s Miqra (7 annual celebrations/meetings) enlightening (see previous post link).

Grace was Paul’s concept/terminology… In Yah’s own (paraphrased) words, Paul’s Christianity is the plague of death.

I agree, Yahowsha was Towrah observant. Everything He said was out of the TPP. Every response He made was to direct the questioner to the TPP. But don’t confuse Towrah observance with the Jewish religion, they are not the same. Yah disdains (mildly put) hierarchical organizations. He is Father, we are children, this is the plan.

Quote:
Thank you for the Learning links and for pointing out my reference error. I appreciate your view on the NT as being subject to the TPP, a truth that is neglected by Christianity. I will review the links. Thank you for your time.


There are others here that can give you a more detailed explanation of why the ‘NT’ (and Christianity) is largely unreliable, but simply put most of it was highly subjected to the will of the Roman Empire to rewrite it to fit their own purposes. Since everything we need to know is in the Towrah, I choose to largely ignore the ‘NT’.

I hope you find the links as life changing as I did. Happy to banter about concepts and try to answer questions, so feel free to engage.

Allen
Offline InHisName  
#6 Posted : Thursday, April 20, 2017 1:13:38 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
James wrote:
Unity wrote:
The trinitarian dogma sees Yahowsha as being equal to Yahowah, yet this is something Yahowsha explicitly denies.

Exactly. The trinity is a 100% pagan concept dating back to Ancient Babylon, and has nothing to do with Yahowah. The relationship between Yahowah and Yahowsha would be as though Yahowah removed one of His hands and sent it out apart from Himself to do a task, and then it returned to Him and reattached. The hand is nothing but a small part of the whole temporarily separated.


Hi James.

So this is where I get unsure of the relationship (perhaps this will help Unity's search as well).

My best explanation is that Yahowsha was a man, born with 'the Towrah written upon his heart' and Yah's spirit upon him. This gives him the knowledge, wisdom and strength, to live a Towrah perfect life.

At the crucifixian, the spirit leaves him (leading to the 'forsaken me' statement). At that point he is only a man, all that is Yah has left him. His body dies. All that is left is his soul and the world's sin which descend to Hell. Somehow (undisclosed) his soul escapes Hell (because it was not his sin?)and then reconnects with Yah's spirit to rebirth Yahowsha as a spiritual being.

Net: Yahowsha is an ordinary(?) man that Yah used as the Maaseyah. He was a separate person with a unique soul. No doubt He had communication with Yahowah, but I question that He had all of Yah's knowledge.

I don't get how Yahowsha was Yahowah (diminished), unless we are just saying that the spirit was with Him.

Like I said I am having trouble piecing all of this together so if this doesn't make sense I'm not suprised.

Please comment.
Offline James  
#7 Posted : Friday, April 21, 2017 8:26:32 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
InHisName, I think your description of the events is pretty much spot on with my understanding. I think I understand what you are saying about Yahowsha not knowing everything Yahowah knows, He admits as much.

The only caveat would be that Yahowsha was not just an ordinary man with Yah's spirit on him. I say this because of the nature of how He came into being. He was created by Yahowah to carry His spirit for a time. The part of Yahowsha that was Yahowah was the spirit, the mortal human body and the mortal human soul were not ordinary, but they were not divine.

This also relates to why I put "resurrection" in quotes earlier. I don't like the term as it is applied to Yahowsha. Resurrection is a return from the dead. Yah's spirit left and returned to the whole, Yahowsha's body died and Yahowsha's soul went to sheowl. When the soul was released from sheowl and reunited with the body that was not a resurrection. The soul was never dead, and the part that was dead, the body, was still dead. So there was no resurrection.

So with that in mind I would postulate that Yahowsha was a body and soul that Yahowah made to hold His Spirit. The body served its purpose as the Pesach lamb, and was destroyed in fire afterwards. The soul served its purpose on Matsah, removing our yeast. The soul was then reunited with the Spirit on Bikuwriym being the sheaf waived before Yahowah celebrating the first fruits of the harvest.

Thinking about it now, the question occurs to me when the soul reunited with Yah’s spirit was it made one with Him or was the soul made into a spiritual being alongside Yahowah. If the latter is the case then Yahowsha would now be a separate being from Yahowah. The latter is what will happen to us, and since Yahowsha was the first fruit of the harvest it would make sense that the same would happen to him.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline James  
#8 Posted : Friday, April 21, 2017 10:51:13 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
I think that the point I was forgetting is that we are told of Yahowah having a soul, and it would make sense then that it was the soul that was in Yahowsha.

Also thinking about it now the soul would have to have been Yahowah's for the Psalm depiction of Matsah to be true. With that in mind I don't see any way for them to be separate.

That's what I get for responding to posts before I have my coffee.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline InHisName  
#9 Posted : Friday, April 21, 2017 5:46:01 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Thanks James, I think the soul connection was the piece I was missing.

Do you know the text reference for that and/or any other text that would be relevant to this. If it is not convenient, that is ok I will ferret them out.

I'm pretty sure we won't miss it, but I bet the coffee is awesome in HeavenWoot.

Allen
Offline InHisName  
#10 Posted : Friday, April 21, 2017 8:45:15 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Ok, now I am the one that needs the coffee.

This shared soul concept, which essentially is Yahowsha equals/is Yahowah, is what is confusing me.

That soul HAS to descend to sheowl.
The definition of sheowl is the absence of Yahowah.
So how can Yahowah's soul enter sheowl?

This is why I stated that after the Spirit left Yahowsha on the cross, all that was left was a man. Nothing of God remained with him.

I think my primary postulate here is that the Towrah written upon his heart is the key. That is what allowed Him to live the perfect towrah observant life to the age of 30. Then the spirit came upon him giving him the strength and courage to accomplish and endure the final 3 years. On Passover the Spirit was with him. On Matsah he was on his own. On Bikurym his soul was rejoined by the spirit and he became a spirit based being.

I see Yahoshaw as a completely separate being. An implement of Yahowah, not a part of Yahowah. I don't see Him as diety. He is after all called sone of man right, not son of God.

OK, guess I will be spending the next month trying to justify all of this.
Thanks for your input!

Offline James  
#11 Posted : Thursday, April 27, 2017 7:47:44 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Originally Posted by: InHisName Go to Quoted Post
This shared soul concept, which essentially is Yahowsha equals/is Yahowah, is what is confusing me.


Here is where I would differ. I don't think shared soul equates to Yahowah is Yahowsha. The soul that was in Yahowsha was and or became Yahowah's soul as in He owns it and it is now a part of Him, but that does not mean that the soul IS Yahowah.

As Yada said on the show last week, Yahowah has a soul, but that soul is not essential to His nature like it is ours.

The question for me, which when you consider Yah is outside of time really is a meaningless question, is rather the soul was Yahowah's before it was redeemed or only after. I would argue that it was not before it was brought out of Sheowl and made eternal, that prior to that it was a mortal soul which Yahowah had created along with a mortal body. But after raising the soul from Sheowl it rejoined with Him and became a part of Him, and that is when it became His soul. But as I said existing outside of time, it doesn't really matter when it became His soul because it was always His soul, just as it doesn't matter when we come to know Yahowah we have always been His children.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Glfnaz  
#12 Posted : Thursday, April 27, 2017 12:15:37 PM(UTC)
Glfnaz
Joined: 7/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 47
Location: Arizona

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)

I've heard yada share this example and I liked it.

James, if you and I are enjoying an afternoon on a sailboat in the middle of the ocean.....if I grab a 16 oz empty drink cup and dip it into the ocean, what do I have in the cup?

I have 100% ocean water in the cup.

Is it 100% of the ocean?

Certainly not. It is simply 100% ocean water set-apart from the rest of the ocean.
Offline James  
#13 Posted : Friday, April 28, 2017 7:42:21 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Exactly. I thikn in eternity there will not be a Yahowsha, that part will have returned to the whole.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline InHisName  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, May 2, 2017 12:03:15 AM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Thanks for chiming in Glfnaz!

Originally Posted by: Glfnaz Go to Quoted Post

I've heard yada share this example and I liked it.

James, if you and I are enjoying an afternoon on a sailboat in the middle of the ocean.....if I grab a 16 oz empty drink cup and dip it into the ocean, what do I have in the cup?

I have 100% ocean water in the cup.

Is it 100% of the ocean?

Certainly not. It is simply 100% ocean water set-apart from the rest of the ocean.


Yes this is a charming analogy and I have heard it from Yada dozens of times, but is it true? Is it any different than the christian trinity (which we ridicule), that defines one god made of 3 'glasses of water':

WIKI wrote:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus, "threefold")[2] holds that God is three consubstantial persons[3] or hypostases[4]—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).[5] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.[6][7][8]


I can't say that this is analogy is wrong, but I am having trouble makeing sense of it.

If anyone has 'scriptural' references to defend or destroy my position, please share them here.

Offline James  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:23:38 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
The problem is we are not really told a whole lot about the relationship between the two. Probably because as three dimensional beings we would not be able to fully understand it. I don’t think understanding the specifics of the relationship between them is necessary. Knowing and understanding who Yahowah is, and what He has done is what matters.

I don’t think there is a definitive answer to this to be had, but for what it is worth here is my thought process on it.

What we do know, or can surmise:

There are 3 parts to Yahowsha (Nesamah, soul and body).
In addition Yahowah’s Spirit was in Him for a time.
Yahowsha was not a normal human, having only one earthly parent.
There is some relationship between the two since Yahowsha literally means Yahowah is Salvation, therefore Yahowah has to be the one doing the work to redeem us.
Yahowsha’s body was destroyed in keeping with Pesach.
The soul went into sheowl for a time, and then rose.
The soul was reunited with the spirit on bikuriym.

Speculation:
The nesmah and soul are linked since it will still be necessary in eternity.
Yahowsha was created so that Yahowah could Himself redeem us. Therefore Yahowsha is not a separate being from Yahowah.
Yahowsha was a temporary vessel that Yahowah created to carry a part of Himself so that He could perform the work necessary.
Since the work is done Yahowsha is no more, hence why when Yahowah arrives on Yowm Kippuriym it is Yahowah not Yahowsha. I.E. we will not see Yahowsha in heaven.

Questions remaining:
Did Yahowah always have a soul, or was it created just as the body for this purpose? <Though existing outside of time if it was created for this purpose then it always existed>

Why and how this is different than the trinity:
The separation was only for a limited time for a specific purpose, not a constant distinctly different beings.
The spirit is just a way of addressing Yahowah’s form when He interacts in our universe, and not a distinctly different being. The whole of Yahowah cannot enter our 3D universe any more than the whole of a square can enter into a 2D universe. When a part of Yahowah enters our 3D realm to do something we call that part the spirit. It’s really just a way of distinguishing when Yahowah interacts directly vs using a malak.
In eternity there will only be Yahowah, as opposed to the trinity where the three are always separate.

That’s how I understand it at least.


Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Glfnaz  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:12:17 AM(UTC)
Glfnaz
Joined: 7/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 47
Location: Arizona

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
James, not trying to argue here, only trying to discuss and evaluate. You wrote:

Yahowsha was a temporary vessel that Yahowah created to carry a part of Himself so that He could perform the work necessary.
Since the work is done Yahowsha is no more, hence why when Yahowah arrives on Yowm Kippuriym it is Yahowah not Yahowsha. I.E. we will not see Yahowsha in heaven.


However, I'm not sure. In Daniel 7, we learn that in the last days, Yahowah arrives and it appears He is undiminished. Then in v 15 doesn't He introduce / present to us Yahowsha, also undiminished, and He (Yahowsha) is given authority and dominion 'forever' such that it will never end?

Brad
Offline James  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:13:30 PM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,497
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 187 time(s) in 132 post(s)
Brad,

I have not spent a great deal of time in Daniel, or studying end times prophecy, so there may be a ton of context that I am missing, and I have only looked over this breifly. But I note that the word ka is used in Daniel 7:13. Ka conveys a comparison and shows a similarity and a connection between two things. So Like the Son of Man, but that does not equate to the Son of Man.

And I am also curious about the relationship between 7:14, the vision and 7:27 the interpretation. The vision says that "He" was given rulership, but the interpretation says that the rulership was given to "the people, the set-apart of the Most High."

So again speaking out of a huge ignorance of the topic here, I would pose the theory that the one who was "Like the Son of Man" in the vision was a representative of all of the "Set Apart of the Most High" and not specifically speaking of Yahowsha.

I will try to delve a little more into this later tonight or tomorrow as time permits, and please share any evidence that would contradict this theory.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Glfnaz  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, May 2, 2017 5:37:54 PM(UTC)
Glfnaz
Joined: 7/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 47
Location: Arizona

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Oh, I don't have any evidence. I am just trying to learn. Thanks for spending time with the thought. BigGrin
Offline InHisName  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, May 3, 2017 1:18:00 PM(UTC)
InHisName
Joined: 11/21/2012(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 18 post(s)
James wrote:
The problem is we are not really told a whole lot about the relationship between the two. Probably because as three dimensional beings we would not be able to fully understand it. I don’t think understanding the specifics of the relationship between them is necessary. Knowing and understanding who Yahowah is, and what He has done is what matters.


Absolute agreement on both counts. Understanding this may well be beyond us and it certainly does not pertain to covenant adoption or benefiting from the sacrifice.

James Surmise wrote:
There is some relationship between the two since Yahowsha literally means Yahowah is Salvation, therefore Yahowah has to be the one doing the work to redeem us.
Or, Yahowah is responsible for providing the sacrifice as he did for Abraham and Isaac. The sacrifice being the implement through which Yahowah works. And Yahowah was with Yahowsha in Spirit at least during the last 3 years when the heavy work was done

James Speculation wrote:
The nesmah and soul are linked since it will still be necessary in eternity.
Another mystery, what is the nesamah?
James Speculation wrote:
Yahowsha was created so that Yahowah could Himself redeem us. Therefore Yahowsha is not a separate being from Yahowah.
Yahowsha was a temporary vessel that Yahowah created to carry a part of Himself so that He could perform the work necessary.
Since the work is done Yahowsha is no more, hence why when Yahowah arrives on Yowm Kippuriym it is Yahowah not Yahowsha. I.E. we will not see Yahowsha in heaven.
I think this assumes the shared soul concept, which means Yahowah’s soul enters Sheowl. Based on Yada’s definition of Sheowl that can’t happen.
James Questions wrote:
Did Yahowah always have a soul, or was it created just as the body for this purpose? <Though existing outside of time if it was created for this purpose then it always existed>
Yahowah states that he has a soul/nephesh (Lev 26:30). There is no reason to believe it is any different than ours, in fact it is surely the part of Yah that we were ‘made in the image of’. So we can expect Yah’s nephesh to contain His unique attributes, His personality, His essence.
If two beings are using the same soul then it is the same person. Again, can Yah enter sheowl?
Also, If Yahowsha is Yahowah then how is he the Bikkur/First Fruit? He would just be Yahowah returning from where He came.

That’s all I got for now. I will probably be taking a break for a week or so to help my wife with medical issues. Not sure how much time I will have.
Thanks, Allen
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.