I should have said: "How many beings were referred here?

NOT

How beings were referred here?

JayAr

Are you trying to suggest that the ISR http://www.isr-messianic.org

and many other scriptures translated into English are wrong in both the OT and NT?

Are you in doubt that Yahshua was the only begotten son of the Heavenly Father?

1 Corinthians 15:46 The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second Man is the Master from heaven.

Yohanan posted many scriptures in his first post and for everyone to verify. There are many more to confirm what he was sharing.

If you don't agree with the many scriptures shown in the first post, then you need serious help.

Keep on hunting to prove scriptures wrong, and see where it gets you.

Please Daron read them again and pray to the Father to give you understanding of the WORD in truth.

Shalom

Amie

[This message has been edited by Amie Li (edited 03-02-2003).]

In Hebrew "Us" and "Our" are not words used alone as a rule, but are joined to other words with meanings. The same is for the Scripture that says Let us make man in Our image.

So my question is why did it translate "He" created them instead of "They created them" if there were two or three beings doing the creating after their image and likeness?

Daron

quote:

---

jlmizejr76 wrote: “John 17:4 4: I have esteemed thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5: And now, O Father, honor thou me with thine own self with the majesty which I had with thee before the world was.”

---

Jn 17:5 O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had (2192) with thee before the world was (1511).

*#2192 echo; AV - have 613, be 22, need + 5532 12, misc 63, vr have 2, total 712; Definition: to have, i.e. to hold, to hold fast keep. Tense - Imperfect The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate, "they are asking," the imperfect would indicate, "they kept on asking."

“Had” should be translated “have,”

**#1511 einai; [present infinitive from 1510]; AV - to be 33, be 28, was 15, is 14, am 7, are 6, were 4, not tr 11, misc 8; total 126; Definition: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present.

“Was” should be translated to be, or to come, (see #1511 used in Mt 17:4, Mk 14:64, Jn 7:4, 1Co 7:26).

You're right. It goes through all Scripture: the Father acting THROUGH the Son, and also saving His sheep THROUGH the Son.

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible ELOHIYM, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven" (Col.1:12-20).

YHWH created man in His image, Yahshua is the image of YHWH. Modalists, and their "mystery religion", are proven to be wrong over and over again.

Shalom,

YbG.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yahwehwitnesses in the "What is the New Covenant" thread:
In Gen 1:26 Elohim said (Lets us make mankind). In Gen 3:22 YHWH Elohim said (The man has become like one of us)

Who is the other Elohim that YHWH spoke to? Clue: Yahshua said I and My Father are one.

---

If you are making a statement of absolute doctrine, you should not depend on clues but clear teaching from scripture.

It is very clear to see that Genesis 1:26 does not name Y'shua as being present and to say otherwise is mere speculation and not scriptural teaching.

quote:

---

Look what You wrote “Dave, I believe the problem you are having is failing to understand that YAHSHUA IS A YAHWEH AND SO IS FATHER YAH.

---

Nowhere in scripture is it said that Y'shua is "A YHWH". Please cite one verse if I am mistaken.

quote:

---

(Dave's) Comment: That seems to be a twisted Jehovah Witness teaching, and that's not what scripture says, and it's against the first commandment to make Yahshua as Yahweh, or equal to Yahweh.

In fact I can show you many more scriptures where Yahshua made it very clear that he was lesser than Yahweh and/or that Yahweh was greater than him.

---

Yes Dave, I fully agree with you as you know.

quote:

---

I'm sorry but your teachings are wrong, and you have no inspired scriptures to back up what you teach.

---

Surely you are kidding. Dave and myself have both quoted many dozens of scriptures which back this up. For you to say this means you simply have not read the many postings both Dave and I have made and therefore you are speaking that which you know not. No sin in ignorance I suppose but please try harder to be more accurate in your reporting.

quote:

---

Though you may have people that want to agree with you, the only thing that matters here is if the heavenly father agrees with what you are teaching to others.

---

If it is what His word says, then we can assume He agrees with it. Take John 17:3 for example. Do you think the heavenly Father would agree with it?

quote:

---

Belive what you want, I'm only trying to share with you what the scriptures really say, and I provide them so you can confirm.

---

You are teaching us what the scriptures "really say"? Thanks anyway, but we have the Ruach for this purpose.

Do you know how many times I hear a line like that? And each time it comes from people who cling to different viewpoints. All of you can't be right, yet all of you claim to have the "true meaning of what the scriptures are saying".

Yisrael Hawkins, Benny Hinn, David Koresh, and Jim Jones all no doubt said or say the same things. Of course I doubt their intentions were good. I'm sure you have good intentions contrary to those others, but the effect is the same. There are many well intentioned people who teach opposing viewpoints and each claims they have the only true doctrine. You can't all be right.

Are you saying that only people who agree with you are right and the rest of the world past and present is wrong? What if someone else disagrees with you and says that they are right, and that they are giving the "true meaning" of what the scripture says? Would you have to have a duel or something?

quote:

---

I can not change you, but with Yahweh can.
He knows your heart, and I see that you have love for him. I ask that you pray and seek the Father with all your heart, soul and mind. I am sure the spirit of truth will show you what was shown to me.

---

That seems mighty presumptious of you.

You realize I can say the same to you.... "I can not change you Yahwehwitnesses, but I am sure the Spirit of Truth will show you what was shown to me." See how presumptious that sounds? It is statements like that which cause so much discord on this forum and in the world of religionists at large as well.

I hope and pray that you alter your tactics. I know you honestly believe you have been given the truth, but have you ever considered that you could be deceived? At least on some things?

Whoever cannot admit that they may be under decption is not facing reality in my humble opinion. Please pray on this matter.

Why did you post this here?
What are your intentions?
Why do you wish to compare me with Benny Hinn, Jim Jones and others?

I got into a disagreement with one of your faithful pals in one of your posts today, and you decide to come here to a much older post of mine to make crude remarks against me.

Here was the disagreement:

Marty wrote and applied the name YAHWEH to the following scripture -
KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YAHWEH(the Father), and the Word was YAHWEH(the Son).
2 The same was in the beginning with YAHWEH(the Father).3 All things were made by him(the Father); and without him (the Son) was not any thing made that was made."

So where is the proof by scripture too back up what he wrote from his KJV for John 1:1-3?

I provided all the scriptures for you and everyone else to verify of what I have posted and believe in. I did ask a few questions that you did not respond to, but instead you accuse me of being wrong.

The truth is you don't agree with the scriptures I posted.

I ask that everyone go back to my artical of this post and study it for yourselves. I provided many scriptures to click and confirm.

http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum10/HTML/000292.html

I Love you T4T and Marty, but I think you are in error.

We all have much to learn from Yahweh

Shalom in Yahweh

Brother Yohanan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yahwehwitnesses:
T4T

Why did you post this here?
What are your intentions?
Why do you wish to compare me with Benny Hinn, Jim Jones and others?

---

YW,

Please read it again and you will clearly see I was saying you were NOT like those others, in fact I said you were CONTRARY to them and I said that your intentions were good.

I brought the topic HERE in this thread where it belongs, in order to try to remove it from the New Covenant thread, where it did not belong. That is my only agenda as far as bringing up this thread.

You are too quick to speak my friend.

I wish you well, I never wanted a quarrel with you as I had said. But when you start with your self-righteous indignation, you lowered the bar a few notches because you not only speak against me, but many others as well. You are not YHWH's interpreter of scripture and you shouldn't put yourself out thusly.

Again I wish you well and mean you no ill. Please take this in the spirit it is written, that of mild yet firm refutation of what at least two of us perceive as self-righteousness on your part, done in love so as to point out something you may be consciously unaware of.

I am not perfect either so when I get such a refutation, I will always keep that in mind.

Shabbat Shalom,
T4T