You apparently have not challenged my previous scriptural attestation to the eternality of Christ's person (which to this point have not answered either way)
I asked you to SHOW me what scripture says. All you did was present me scripture references, but not what they indicate.
The scriptures you presented, in my estimation, don't clearly explain your position of preexistence. I asked you to show me. Perhaps that request was too simplistic for you.
ELABORATE FULLY on each scripture and how it explains preexistence.
I'll define it for you for this specific application:
Yes I gave you some in the form of scripture, are you to0 lazy to call any out and discuss whatever alleged discrepancies you see in my interpretation?
Col 1:15: (eikôn). In predicate and no article. On eikôn, see 2Co 4:4; 3:18; Ro 8:29; Col 3:10. Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation (Joh 17:5) and is now (Php 2:5-11; Heb 1:3). Of the invisible God (tou theou tou aoratou). But the one who sees Jesus has seen God (Joh 14:9). See this verbal adjective (a privative and horaô) in Ro 1:20.
The first born (prôtotokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in Joh 1:1-18 and to Heb 1:1-4 as well as Php 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (LXX and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely "Biblical" (Thayer)
since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Lu 2:7 and Aleph for Mt 1:25; Ro 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" (pâsês ktiseôs, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prôtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col 1:18; Ro 8:29;
Ro 8:29; Heb 1:6; 12:23; Re 1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like eikôn we find prôtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikôn (Image) and to the universe as prôtotokos (First-born).
Let me understand this clearly. Are you saying all the information you just put up was/is the works/writings of another man? Not your personal work from your personal exegesis and study?
If so, you have failed to answer my question. You have merely regurgitated the purposely confused teachings of another man.
Unlike you, I don't formulate my theology ahistorically and acontextually, Robertson is an excellent exegete whose conclusions are consistent with mine and the church as a whole.
Do you disagree with the way protokos is utilized in Col. 1:15 and Robertson's summation of verse in question?
Let's plow through the verse and I will display how conversant I am with the protognostic heresy Paul was countering in Collosians. Stop playing games and man up.
It is hermeneutically fallacious to formulate one's theology based one subjectivism, as the Lord has encapsulated Holy Writ in propositional form. Now put your money where your mouth is and let's extrapolate the truth from said scripture based on authorial intent.
You are like a dog behind a fence. Lots of bark, yet no bite. you feign something you are not. Yet when tested a little you show whose you really are.
I made a request of you and yet you still refuse to honor that request. I will not play your game as your game is pointless. Your game will not lead me to any kind of conversion because you refuse to talk to me. You merely use your knowledge as a crutch to hide the real you.
You've not tested me in the slightest; where are your scriptural rebuttals? Your interaction with the texts in question, and you can cease cretinism with the ad hominem attacks (devils child by implication).
BTW, I've been sytematically exposing your little cult here to various people I know with your defacto denial of the trinity and the deity of Christ.
NYTN said you are pronouncing anathemas on the man as if your were some prophet...
I think you know you are theologically out of your league and seem to be back-peddling whilst vociferously denouncing me to give you some semblance of dignity.
I am talking to you, and am challenging you, and it is the IDEA you are arguing against, not the man. I can't even cite one verse or an attempted rational explanation contra my position, your an empty uniform.
There is ONE primary purpose of the Gospel. To reach the Lost.
If I am lost, all you have shown us is that you could care less about my soul and my relationship with the Father and the Son. Your are vain and selfish like your friend NYTN. Your goal is not restoration, but one of condemnation.
The Love of Many Waxes Cold. You epitomize that scripture.
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
So unlike me, a person who reads the scriptures for himself, as we are commanded to do so, by the Very scriptures themselves, your responses are those of other men. Whether they are accurate or not.
So Sad, So Sad.
I will continue to study scripture for myself and you will continue to lean on the understanding of other men.
All the beliefs you have set forth are those of other men. WHo really knows what YOU truly believe but YHWH himself. This effort was a waste of time.
I have answered your question. Show me what scripture says.
Just because you don't like the FORM of my answer doesn't make it less an answer. It is MY answer. Now if you want to continue this, do thusly. Show me what the scripture has to say.
WOW. So all this time we have wasted. You could have just asked that question.
Of course if you watched the video in full you would have found your answer.
My wife and I are not Christians. We are Disciples of The Messiah. hence we are outside ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. Learn to be direct. it saves time. And Yeshua is NOT YHWH.
I saw the video in full, It didn't answer my queries on your christology. Yeshua, is God, and I just scripturally proved the eternality (preexistence of Christ).
Just a "taste" of why I believe in the preexistence of Christ: Isa.9:6-7, Dan.7:9,13, Heb.1:2 ,Micah 5:2,Heb. 1:8, Prov. 30:1-4 , Col. 1:15, John 1:1-3, Col. 2:9...now chew on those verses...there are more!
How is it that you are turning the burden of proof on me? I asked YOU whether you believed He is created or eternal, with no hesitation nor reservation do I hold to His eternal nature, how about you?
Deity - Oxford English - the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
Do I think Yahushua is YHWH? No.
Do I think he was Divine in Nature?
Divine - Oxford English - of, from, or like God
Yes, I believe he is Divine.
That is why I reject the trinity. The Notion that Yahushua is God. No one has been able to definitively convince me otherwise. I am done drinking the Kool-Aid. My Brother is amazing, but he is NOT YHWH. No MPD here.
My query specifically invoked the term "deity" which is not synonymous with divine. Another question: Do you believe Christ to be created being or eternal? I'd like to argue the affirmative on the Deity of Christ after we've fleshed out your christology.
Nothing chauvinistic about calling you a "pretty lady", just calling it how i see it. Yeah, go take your discussion you the blog out of reach or true critique of the open world. Lastly, i didn't hate on you, i just called you out.
According to her comment towards me that would make you, chauvinistic. Furthermore, me calling her pretty doesnt undermine the fact that she told lies in her video that I pointed out in my first response. She talks as if God is a knowable and IF what she says is true then shoe doesnt need faith. Thanks for you F.Y.I but it wasnt worth saying.
p.s. I went by your channel to have a look around and quickly noticed that you disable your rating. I wonder why?
Please make sure you go to the website blog as you've been invited and prove that i lied. Just because you will not allow YHWH to speak to you and because you've chosen not to know him doesn't make him unknowable and untouchable. Live with your choices! Don't be bitter because you don't believe what I believe and speak with the confidence which I speak. I am assured of what I believe, whom I believe and why I believe it. You will never change that through your rants or empty accusation.
You call me a lie because I share what my Father speaks to me. I have proof that he speaks to me, and I am not the only child he has and whom he speaks to. It is his character as is any good father to speak to his children. It is obvious by your comments whom you belong to, but again, that is YOUR CHOICE. I and some others live by the Words he speaks which is all backed by the Bible which is his book; inspired by his spirit through its writers.
You don't ever have to believe it, but just because YOU don't believe it, doesn't it make it false. Then you lash out at the viewer here as if he has to bend to your will and do as you wish. It is HIS CHOICE not to allow ratings on his channel. Really, dude you think way to highly of yourself. That's too bad.
as you see SouthernContrarian has some serious anger issues. I am sure they stem from his childhood, but he would not be willing to tell me the truth of this because after all I am a liar.... LOL, right!
Keep watching... things will get stranger around here. Anytime truth is being told the prince of darkness has his seed on the scene to stir up confusion.
Anywhere confusion is, know it's author is the DEVIL, and those whom he uses are none other than his children.
WAM I disagree according to the word no one can lose there salvation no scripture speaks on that...also we are to be in the unity of faith speaking the same thing let there be no division amongst us Christ is not divided.
Non-sequitur, The catergorical error is that the aforementioned 3 are intiated by human will, so it does follow logically...what does not follow is the assumption built into the premise of your argument that salvation is intiated (thus maintained by man) hence your argument fails.
Are you implying the gnostic belief that you just go down an aisle say a few words and you are "saved" and then you can do whatever you want to do and never lose your salvation?
It is a bit of an anachronism to sugggest Finny's approach of alter calls is gnostic, methodologically speaking...the protognostic heresy in Colossians and 1st john was one of dualism and antinomianism. To suggest the aforementioned is to display an ignorance of the gnostic heresy, historically.
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand.
Note the personal pronouns of "I" which clearly follow back to Christ, and which is further enforced by God the Father. Your pelagian/arminian subsets are anthropocentric (a soteriology that is predicated upon libertarian freewill). And if 'no man" can plucjk one out of the Father's hands, than how does it logically follow that you can pluck yourself out...aren't you zoologically classified as a "man" (human)?
When the subject of Eternal Security is posted, the door will be open to delve more deeply. At this time it is not expedient to start a textual discussion when a Video presentation is in the cue.
I'm still have not rec'd an answer regarding the adiphorous nature of ancillary doctrines. Also, on what biblical basis do you reject the trinitarian doctrine yet assert a non-modalistic position?
Please spare me your multi-syllabic words of which it is obvious you don't have clear understanding. If you were CERTAIN in your understanding of modalism, you would not question my position as anti-trinitarian and non-modalist .
Red-herring. You claim I haven't an inkling of the terminology I employ but you've have yet to substantiate such a claim.
I am quite aware of the modalistic heresy prevalent in the 3rd/4th century. My query was predicated upon modalism being non-monolithic. Since you reject trinitarian notions, logically you would have to be unitarian in your view of God. I am certain of the terms I employ, you are merely utilizing a tactic-poisening the well.
Regarding POS, yes I completely understand hence my delineation, perhaps you should attempt to provide me with meaningful responses instead of filling the com-box with useless semantics.
What many who have fallen for the doctrine of eternal security fail to do is realize the verses prior to these SHOW RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BELIEVERS PART.
BELIEF IN YESHUA
AND HEARING HIS VOICE
Hebrews 5:9
Yeshua became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that OBEY HIM.
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Remember the children of Israel where his chosen yet they rejected him, and where destroyed. YHWH is no respector of persons... HE DOES NOT CHANGE. those who reject him, he rejects. Those whom receive him he receives. This is not a one time event: this receiving and accepting is a LIFESTYLE.
Logical fallacy. The israelites had no earnest of the Holy Ghost and where under a theocratic dispensation. Curious as to how Lot and Samson ended up in Hebrews 11.
He that OVERCOMETH, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
These are a few of many From the BIBLE which place the final position of your salvation in your hands. The gift of salvation is free to all, however each individual is responsible for maintenance, and believe me that costs you something.
We'll talk again on this subject after the videos are posted and viewed.
At 1:52 - 1:58 you lied. At 2:382:45 you lie again as if god spoke to you. Youre just selling your interpretation of a bible book thats wrong and known to have been wrong for years. At 4:44 you finally utter a truth, congrats. Pretty lady you have a highly evolved delusion. You talk about god as a knowable. You speak of the bible as if its true. The bible is too ambiguous, thats why you think you have a special view of the bible. Bible is MAN MADE.
WE have taken the liberty to move move this discussion over to our blog. We find YouTubes 500 character limit quite inhibiting. Please join us over there as we delve into these things more thoroughly.
Blog URL is located in the "more info" pane of this video
What is eternal security and by what scriptures do you base this doctrine?
Also, Please shoot me your information (in an email) concerning the Strong Man Being the Comforter. What are his Goods?
Finally, The Body of the Messiah cannot be divided. There are no IN HOUSE debates. The Bible makes it plain that there is nothing Hidden that shall not be revealed.
WAMProject: The Holy Scriptures does not specifically say the words, "eternal security", however, it is suggested that eternal life, denotes the term. To be in Christ means to be sealed in Him for the day of redemption, (Ephesians 4:30) i.e. eternally secured in Yahshuah. Here are the scriptures which I base this doctrine: (Phillipians 1:6)
There was a a litany of "in-house" debates over the christological formulation for the 1st 4 centuries of the church, There were "in-house" debates over soteriological issues between Paul and Peter over the ceremonial law. Such suppositions are logically/ biblically/historically untenable..
That there were /are no "In-house" debates..this is specifically true of adiaphoric issues. How conversant are your with the evolution christological and trinirarian formulation, or are you modalistic?
I am not modalistic I reject the entire notion of the Trinity. However I disagree with you concerning issues of "doctrine" being adiaphoric. All issues can cause harm or provide benefit.
Finally, I am aware of the History of the church and it's doctrinal formations. I discuss it only when necessitated.
Well good thing for me I am not bound by your thoughts and opinions. At this point it isn't necessitated. Why? Because Church History has nothing to do with obedience to YHWH.
Let me try this again: Calvinism, arminiamisn, baptismal modes, eschatological pardigms,the nature of apostolic gits(glossalalia) are not adiaphorous? Pray tell, why not.
Again, what do these Denominationally based interrogatives have to do with Obeying YHWH? Can you please provide DETAILED scriptures for my enlightenment. And don't just toss out scriptures, Please break them down so I may easily teach this to my 6 year old.
On what objective basis do you instantiate the claim of denominationalism, sheer strawma?. You said all that pertains to doctrine is non-adiaphorous, correct?
In terms of scripture, which issue do you wish to address? There are myriad issues we can address in scripture, pls. specify.
I'm not speaking to your 6 yr old, you are the one that is supposed to be theologically didactic.
Salvation is simple and not confusing as many have made it. Satan wants us to think we can lose God's salvation.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
In regards to eternal security sister, how can we break the seal or the power of the Holy Spirit, who is able to keep us from falling. Can we bind the strong man, (The Holy Spirit) and take His goods? These types of in house debates, should never divide the Body Of Christ, for we are of One Body, No? Yah bless you.
Hey, lady. I REALLY enjoy your videos, and am looking forward to learning from this series. I have a new video going up now called "The American Christian Church Is Illiterate". Would you please post your video as a video response? Thanks and keep doin' whatcha doin'!
God bless you I am not speaking of just confession but also believing in the heart as the word says...the blood of Jesus forgives us of our sins and our future sins. You have no scriptures that proves that salvation can be lost. Thanks for responding so quick.
Salvation is a gift...Salvation is eternal life the scripture that says work out your own salvation means to live your life that shows you have been saved this is the part that we need the Holy Spirit to help us with....We can do nothing for salvation it is a gift we accept through Christ and that is it. Many folks want to add on legalism or other things we must do and that is error like being baptised or denominations save you or works.
I agree, the theological postulates of WAM Project are of a works oriented salvation (a soteriology predicated upon human merit)
If I make it to heaven on by maintanence of my own salvation, I have every right to boast, Jesus vicarious atonement was only a doorway, not the complete package, in that case He should have announced on the cross " I t has begun!"
A little leaven makes alot of error i told the young lady she has no scriptures to prove Salvation can be lost. Salvation is not based on works but God wants us to walk worthy and live right....Jesus said it is finished....
Again, to both of you. When the videos on Eternal Security are posted, then you will "Know" what we believe and will be able to comment accordingly. Until then, I enjoy your speculation. It's humoring :)
Such vacuity is neither meaningful nor substantive as you are ignorant of the ideas you argue against (I've not stated my theological position, have you noticed?)
I am challenging your suppositions, hence you are to argue the affirmative but I'll humor you: look up the 1689 London Baptist Confession to understand my theological position en-toto
In summary though, I am a trinitarian, calvinistic, credo-baptist, Lordship advocating, Christian who holds to the veracity, tenacity, infallibility and inerrancy of Sacred Writ. Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed).
Tautology, you don't define the word in question by utilizing that same word per its definition.
For the record, I am no baptist, my beliefs seem more in line with the 1689 London Baptist Confession, also the Westminster Confession of Faith, shall I go on?
Interstingly enough, many a cultists have a subjective experience and claim to have the "truth", how do you differ?
Your last statement is riddled in ambiguity, what meanest thou?
Out of love for YHWH and his Son I use his Hebrew name, not the corrupted Greek "translation" Nor would I call myself a Christian. But that is a topic for another set of videos my wife is preparing.
I love YHWH And Jesus is not a corrupted "greek translation";the consonant "J" is non-existent in the greek either.
Ah, and all this time I thought I was speaking your wife...much better! Not a Christian huh? Another semantical reason for a differing apellation, a rose by any other name is still a rose, or is there a reason you really do not consider yourself a christian?
"Out of love for YHWH and his Son I use his Hebrew name, not the corrupted Greek "translation"
This is relevant to the field of textual criticism as you've presupposed scribal emendation in the "Greek translation" so yes, you did speak to textual critical issues, just not in that syntax. Yes I can read, comprehend and logically deduce the rather sprurious conflations in your argument, apparently you are not following your arguments to their logical conclusions.
"Only a fool responds to something he has not READ and COMPREHENDED. :)"
I agree, and my argument above dismantles the very application to my argument/person (argumentum ad hominem) so your response is immaterial, and rather puerile.
I understand scripturally what you are referring to(Gen 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:8), what I DON"T understand is the rigid literalism (and apparent contradiction ontologically) that you are suffusing when interpreting these texts. Would my wife be conversely debating this issue though she's not so much as offered a rebuttal nor known of our interlocution predicated upon our being one flesh?
Your argument seems more like the Crimson twins from G.I Joe than a working biblical definition of becoming one flesh. You're right, your definition escapes me.
Guess it's time for you to stop being a fence rider and elucidate your position.
The bible tells me to know them that labour among me.... Typically I fall back on the scripture that says a tree is know by the fruit it bears and the fruit of your typing leads one to certain conclusions. Now take the covers off and tell us who you are and what your position is. We have shown our hand, now show yours. You have been called. No raising allowed.
??? Logically, I can only be a "fence-rider" if I have no position, not very erudite regarding Aristotelian logic, are we? The very premise of your statement is self-refuting
Matthew 7 speaks specifically about false prophets, not spuriously derived notions of one's position based on a priori assumptions
And no, I still don't know your "hand" so, who is Jesus Christ per your interpretive schema?
I do KNOW, but your theological caprice is a non-sequitur, thus neither here nor there.
I know denotatively of the ecumenical movement (ain't me) and yes I do subscribe to the subsets of the Nicean Council, I'd like to know your apprehension for the latter (prepares for some conspiracy theory explanation)
My apprehension to the latter is irrelevant. It will not improve your walk with Yeshua, nor will it improve my relationship with YHWH. If you have something you'd like to teach me, have at it.
Some Shai Linne for your non-trinitarian taste buds?
Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
Working as a unit to get things done
Our salvation began in eternity past
God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
Cont'd
scribe7580 3 years ago
The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
--Shai Linne
Reformed rappers have a better grasp on theology than you guys, it appears. =)
scribe7580 3 years ago
bgiles114,
Do you think Jesus ever claimed deity?
scribe7580 3 years ago
What is your scriptural basis for this question?
bgiles117 3 years ago
Beacause I believe He has...
scribe7580 3 years ago
You apparently have not challenged my previous scriptural attestation to the eternality of Christ's person (which to this point have not answered either way)
scribe7580 3 years ago
I asked you to SHOW me what scripture says. All you did was present me scripture references, but not what they indicate.
The scriptures you presented, in my estimation, don't clearly explain your position of preexistence. I asked you to show me. Perhaps that request was too simplistic for you.
ELABORATE FULLY on each scripture and how it explains preexistence.
I'll define it for you for this specific application:
Show - [ trans. ] demonstrate or prove
bgiles117 3 years ago
Also, if I didn't believe I did I would not posit the affirmative....logically anyway.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Not a scriptural basis.
Perhaps my simplicity confused you.
I am asking YOU for information from the Bible specifying the underlying support or foundation for YOUR inquiry.
I await your fulfillment of my request.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Yes I gave you some in the form of scripture, are you to0 lazy to call any out and discuss whatever alleged discrepancies you see in my interpretation?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Dan.7:9,13, Heb.1:2 ,Micah 5:2,Heb. 1:8, Prov. 30:1-4 , Col. 1:15, John 1:1-3, Col. 2:9...now chew on those verses...there are more
scribe7580 3 years ago
Col 1:15: (eikôn). In predicate and no article. On eikôn, see 2Co 4:4; 3:18; Ro 8:29; Col 3:10. Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation (Joh 17:5) and is now (Php 2:5-11; Heb 1:3). Of the invisible God (tou theou tou aoratou). But the one who sees Jesus has seen God (Joh 14:9). See this verbal adjective (a privative and horaô) in Ro 1:20.
To be cont'd
scribe7580 3 years ago
The first born (prôtotokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in Joh 1:1-18 and to Heb 1:1-4 as well as Php 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (LXX and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely "Biblical" (Thayer)
To be cont'd
scribe7580 3 years ago
since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Lu 2:7 and Aleph for Mt 1:25; Ro 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" (pâsês ktiseôs, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prôtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col 1:18; Ro 8:29;
To be cont'd
scribe7580 3 years ago
Ro 8:29; Heb 1:6; 12:23; Re 1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like eikôn we find prôtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikôn (Image) and to the universe as prôtotokos (First-born).
--Robertson
scribe7580 3 years ago
How's some Robertson for an exgeteical rebuttal, complete w/ scriptural attestation.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Let me understand this clearly. Are you saying all the information you just put up was/is the works/writings of another man? Not your personal work from your personal exegesis and study?
If so, you have failed to answer my question. You have merely regurgitated the purposely confused teachings of another man.
Please clear this up for me with certainty.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Unlike you, I don't formulate my theology ahistorically and acontextually, Robertson is an excellent exegete whose conclusions are consistent with mine and the church as a whole.
Do you disagree with the way protokos is utilized in Col. 1:15 and Robertson's summation of verse in question?
Let's plow through the verse and I will display how conversant I am with the protognostic heresy Paul was countering in Collosians. Stop playing games and man up.
scribe7580 3 years ago
It is hermeneutically fallacious to formulate one's theology based one subjectivism, as the Lord has encapsulated Holy Writ in propositional form. Now put your money where your mouth is and let's extrapolate the truth from said scripture based on authorial intent.
scribe7580 3 years ago
You are like a dog behind a fence. Lots of bark, yet no bite. you feign something you are not. Yet when tested a little you show whose you really are.
I made a request of you and yet you still refuse to honor that request. I will not play your game as your game is pointless. Your game will not lead me to any kind of conversion because you refuse to talk to me. You merely use your knowledge as a crutch to hide the real you.
bgiles117 3 years ago
bgiles117: the tu quoque fallacy is getting old.
You've not tested me in the slightest; where are your scriptural rebuttals? Your interaction with the texts in question, and you can cease cretinism with the ad hominem attacks (devils child by implication).
BTW, I've been sytematically exposing your little cult here to various people I know with your defacto denial of the trinity and the deity of Christ.
NYTN said you are pronouncing anathemas on the man as if your were some prophet...
scribe7580 3 years ago
bgiles117,
I think you know you are theologically out of your league and seem to be back-peddling whilst vociferously denouncing me to give you some semblance of dignity.
I am talking to you, and am challenging you, and it is the IDEA you are arguing against, not the man. I can't even cite one verse or an attempted rational explanation contra my position, your an empty uniform.
I
scribe7580 3 years ago
2 Timothy 3
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:
bgiles117 3 years ago
There is ONE primary purpose of the Gospel. To reach the Lost.
If I am lost, all you have shown us is that you could care less about my soul and my relationship with the Father and the Son. Your are vain and selfish like your friend NYTN. Your goal is not restoration, but one of condemnation.
The Love of Many Waxes Cold. You epitomize that scripture.
Swim Well.
bgiles117 3 years ago
you were*
scribe7580 3 years ago
He that hat ears to hear:
Titus 1:10-16
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake.
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
bgiles117 3 years ago
Titus 1:14 Titus 1:16 (KJV)
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
bgiles117 3 years ago
**Colossians*
scribe7580 3 years ago
So unlike me, a person who reads the scriptures for himself, as we are commanded to do so, by the Very scriptures themselves, your responses are those of other men. Whether they are accurate or not.
So Sad, So Sad.
I will continue to study scripture for myself and you will continue to lean on the understanding of other men.
All the beliefs you have set forth are those of other men. WHo really knows what YOU truly believe but YHWH himself. This effort was a waste of time.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I'm listening.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Not to make a book of it, but what is a REGULAR christian to you?
bgiles117 3 years ago
Comment removed
unkie888 3 years ago
Let's deal with whether scripture ascribes deity to Christ or not.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Sorry, We serve YHWH, not Allah.
Allah is a god (Deity), just not My God.
bgiles117 3 years ago
ok, just checkin.
so how do you guys differ from regular christians?
unkie888 3 years ago
Comment removed
unkie888 3 years ago
I await your answer. What does the scripture say?
bgiles117 3 years ago
You're not going to give your answer? What leve of irrationality is this, why will you not divulge whether you believe Christ is eternal or created?
scribe7580 3 years ago
I have answered your question. Show me what scripture says.
Just because you don't like the FORM of my answer doesn't make it less an answer. It is MY answer. Now if you want to continue this, do thusly. Show me what the scripture has to say.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Just did! I think you are under the bogus assumption that I am not versed in Holy Writ.
scribe7580 3 years ago
BTW: I still don't have an anser so my assumption is you feel that Christ is a created being.
scribe7580 3 years ago
When I return, I will be contending for the Deity of Christ.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Ahh, assumption is a mother.
What is the purpose of this discourse?
bgiles117 3 years ago
To prove you deny the deity of Christ and thus are outside orthodox christianity.
scribe7580 3 years ago
WOW. So all this time we have wasted. You could have just asked that question.
Of course if you watched the video in full you would have found your answer.
My wife and I are not Christians. We are Disciples of The Messiah. hence we are outside ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. Learn to be direct. it saves time. And Yeshua is NOT YHWH.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I saw the video in full, It didn't answer my queries on your christology. Yeshua, is God, and I just scripturally proved the eternality (preexistence of Christ).
scribe7580 3 years ago
Just a "taste" of why I believe in the preexistence of Christ: Isa.9:6-7, Dan.7:9,13, Heb.1:2 ,Micah 5:2,Heb. 1:8, Prov. 30:1-4 , Col. 1:15, John 1:1-3, Col. 2:9...now chew on those verses...there are more!
scribe7580 3 years ago
Do you attend "church" services?
bgiles117 3 years ago
wow, it's all going on tonite.
do you deny the deity of allah?
unkie888 3 years ago
I do will you now accuse me of being in a "MSI? LOL. Let's take our fight to Holy Writ.
scribe7580 3 years ago
No argument, you disagree with my assertions.
Give me what the scripture says regrading that question.
bgiles117 3 years ago
The issue of whether Christ is eternal?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Yes, give me scripture to your question....
"Christ: created or eternal?"
bgiles117 3 years ago
How is it that you are turning the burden of proof on me? I asked YOU whether you believed He is created or eternal, with no hesitation nor reservation do I hold to His eternal nature, how about you?
scribe7580 3 years ago
My opinion doesn't matter, what does the scripture say?
bgiles117 3 years ago
I asked you for your christology yet you are merely arguing in circles. I agree, scripture is the supreme authority, so Christ: created or eternal?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Bottomline: Do you accept the deity ofJesus Christ (sans semantics on name derivation), and if so, in your estimation , is He also the Father?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Deity - Oxford English - the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
Do I think Yahushua is YHWH? No.
Do I think he was Divine in Nature?
Divine - Oxford English - of, from, or like God
Yes, I believe he is Divine.
That is why I reject the trinity. The Notion that Yahushua is God. No one has been able to definitively convince me otherwise. I am done drinking the Kool-Aid. My Brother is amazing, but he is NOT YHWH. No MPD here.
bgiles117 3 years ago
My query specifically invoked the term "deity" which is not synonymous with divine. Another question: Do you believe Christ to be created being or eternal? I'd like to argue the affirmative on the Deity of Christ after we've fleshed out your christology.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Nothing chauvinistic about calling you a "pretty lady", just calling it how i see it. Yeah, go take your discussion you the blog out of reach or true critique of the open world. Lastly, i didn't hate on you, i just called you out.
SouthernContrarian 3 years ago
We have moved this discussion over to my blog page (link is in the more info section next to my profile photo)
I have provided an open forum there for you to express in detail and prove the lies which you accuse me of telling in this video.
See you there.
ALL ARE INVITED!!!
WAMProject 3 years ago
yea, she pretty lady, but she married tho.
4096x 3 years ago
According to her comment towards me that would make you, chauvinistic. Furthermore, me calling her pretty doesnt undermine the fact that she told lies in her video that I pointed out in my first response. She talks as if God is a knowable and IF what she says is true then shoe doesnt need faith. Thanks for you F.Y.I but it wasnt worth saying.
p.s. I went by your channel to have a look around and quickly noticed that you disable your rating. I wonder why?
SouthernContrarian 3 years ago
Please make sure you go to the website blog as you've been invited and prove that i lied. Just because you will not allow YHWH to speak to you and because you've chosen not to know him doesn't make him unknowable and untouchable. Live with your choices! Don't be bitter because you don't believe what I believe and speak with the confidence which I speak. I am assured of what I believe, whom I believe and why I believe it. You will never change that through your rants or empty accusation.
WAMProject 3 years ago
You call me a lie because I share what my Father speaks to me. I have proof that he speaks to me, and I am not the only child he has and whom he speaks to. It is his character as is any good father to speak to his children. It is obvious by your comments whom you belong to, but again, that is YOUR CHOICE. I and some others live by the Words he speaks which is all backed by the Bible which is his book; inspired by his spirit through its writers.
WAMProject 3 years ago
You don't ever have to believe it, but just because YOU don't believe it, doesn't it make it false. Then you lash out at the viewer here as if he has to bend to your will and do as you wish. It is HIS CHOICE not to allow ratings on his channel. Really, dude you think way to highly of yourself. That's too bad.
WAMProject 3 years ago
as you see SouthernContrarian has some serious anger issues. I am sure they stem from his childhood, but he would not be willing to tell me the truth of this because after all I am a liar.... LOL, right!
Keep watching... things will get stranger around here. Anytime truth is being told the prince of darkness has his seed on the scene to stir up confusion.
Anywhere confusion is, know it's author is the DEVIL, and those whom he uses are none other than his children.
WAMProject 3 years ago
God bless you WAM.
servicesource 3 years ago
WAM I disagree according to the word no one can lose there salvation no scripture speaks on that...also we are to be in the unity of faith speaking the same thing let there be no division amongst us Christ is not divided.
servicesource 3 years ago
Anything you don't maintain can be lost.
Marraige
Job
friendships
things... the principle is common... why does it change as it pertains to the relationship between us and the Father?
Salvation is a relationship between you and the Father. If you don't keep your end how can you "stay saved?"
WAMProject 3 years ago
Non-sequitur, The catergorical error is that the aforementioned 3 are intiated by human will, so it does follow logically...what does not follow is the assumption built into the premise of your argument that salvation is intiated (thus maintained by man) hence your argument fails.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Are you implying the gnostic belief that you just go down an aisle say a few words and you are "saved" and then you can do whatever you want to do and never lose your salvation?
WAMProject 3 years ago
It is a bit of an anachronism to sugggest Finny's approach of alter calls is gnostic, methodologically speaking...the protognostic heresy in Colossians and 1st john was one of dualism and antinomianism. To suggest the aforementioned is to display an ignorance of the gnostic heresy, historically.
scribe7580 3 years ago
The Doctrine of Eternal Security is a pagan priniciple, it is not Biblical. I know folks love to take the scripture out of context:
John 10:28 John 10:29
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand.
WAMProject 3 years ago
Note the personal pronouns of "I" which clearly follow back to Christ, and which is further enforced by God the Father. Your pelagian/arminian subsets are anthropocentric (a soteriology that is predicated upon libertarian freewill). And if 'no man" can plucjk one out of the Father's hands, than how does it logically follow that you can pluck yourself out...aren't you zoologically classified as a "man" (human)?
scribe7580 3 years ago
When the subject of Eternal Security is posted, the door will be open to delve more deeply. At this time it is not expedient to start a textual discussion when a Video presentation is in the cue.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I'm still have not rec'd an answer regarding the adiphorous nature of ancillary doctrines. Also, on what biblical basis do you reject the trinitarian doctrine yet assert a non-modalistic position?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Please spare me your multi-syllabic words of which it is obvious you don't have clear understanding. If you were CERTAIN in your understanding of modalism, you would not question my position as anti-trinitarian and non-modalist .
Swim Well.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Red-herring. You claim I haven't an inkling of the terminology I employ but you've have yet to substantiate such a claim.
I am quite aware of the modalistic heresy prevalent in the 3rd/4th century. My query was predicated upon modalism being non-monolithic. Since you reject trinitarian notions, logically you would have to be unitarian in your view of God. I am certain of the terms I employ, you are merely utilizing a tactic-poisening the well.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Eternal Security is a misleading phraseology, I am lean more towards the. Perserverance of the Saints
Look forward such interlocution though I strongly believe your postulates to be highly specious.
scribe7580 3 years ago
sans the word 'am" =)
scribe7580 3 years ago
Eternal Security is a different basket than Perseverance of the Saints.
Of course you should know this oh Wise sage. LOL.
I am awake people. Here all night. ROFL!!!
bgiles117 3 years ago
Regarding POS, yes I completely understand hence my delineation, perhaps you should attempt to provide me with meaningful responses instead of filling the com-box with useless semantics.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Scribe, to you I respond thusly,
Swimmer, perhaps you should heed your own advice. LOL.
bgiles117 3 years ago
????
[[really doubts person A has a grasp on how interlocution is to take place in the context of point by point rebuttal]]
The terms "swimmer" is that a pejorative term you've arbitrarily conjured up?
scribe7580 3 years ago
What many who have fallen for the doctrine of eternal security fail to do is realize the verses prior to these SHOW RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BELIEVERS PART.
BELIEF IN YESHUA
AND HEARING HIS VOICE
Hebrews 5:9
Yeshua became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that OBEY HIM.
WAMProject 3 years ago
Obedience is a by-product of saving faith, not an issue. Are you asserting that such obedience is subject to perfectionism?
scribe7580 3 years ago
in the absence of these two elements there is no salvation.
OBEDIENCE IS YET ANOTHER KEY IN SALVATION:
Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
WAMProject 3 years ago
Remember the children of Israel where his chosen yet they rejected him, and where destroyed. YHWH is no respector of persons... HE DOES NOT CHANGE. those who reject him, he rejects. Those whom receive him he receives. This is not a one time event: this receiving and accepting is a LIFESTYLE.
WAMProject 3 years ago
Logical fallacy. The israelites had no earnest of the Holy Ghost and where under a theocratic dispensation. Curious as to how Lot and Samson ended up in Hebrews 11.
scribe7580 3 years ago
I could go on and on...I am currently working on the videos for the Eternal Salvation Hoax... Stay Tuned.
I also posted a blog response to another viewer on this same topic on my website. Blog URL is located in the "more info" pane of this video.
WAMProject 3 years ago
In order for us to speak the same thing, we must all agree that the Bible (The Word of YHWH) is the final authority: not the doctrines of men.
Salvation has been provided for all men, however the responsibility of that salvation is up to each individual.
WAMProject 3 years ago
He that ENDURES TO THE END shall be saved.. (Matthew10:22)
Work out your own SALVATION..
Philippians 2:12b Philippians 2:13
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
WAMProject 3 years ago
Revelation 3:5 Revelation 3:6
He that OVERCOMETH, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
WAMProject 3 years ago
These are a few of many From the BIBLE which place the final position of your salvation in your hands. The gift of salvation is free to all, however each individual is responsible for maintenance, and believe me that costs you something.
We'll talk again on this subject after the videos are posted and viewed.
-Kristal
WAMProject 3 years ago
At 1:52 - 1:58 you lied. At 2:38 2:45 you lie again as if god spoke to you. Youre just selling your interpretation of a bible book thats wrong and known to have been wrong for years. At 4:44 you finally utter a truth, congrats. Pretty lady you have a highly evolved delusion. You talk about god as a knowable. You speak of the bible as if its true. The bible is too ambiguous, thats why you think you have a special view of the bible. Bible is MAN MADE.
SouthernContrarian 3 years ago
We have another one. Haters among us. better know as recipients of the Beast System award.
Seriously though. Pretty Lady? Wow, if that isn't a typical Male Chauvinistic comment. LOL. Too Cute.
We will move this discussion over to my blog page (link is in the more info section next to my profile photo)
P.S. Show me how you did the linking in the vids. Thanks.
See yah there.
WAMProject 3 years ago
valambiguous
WE have taken the liberty to move move this discussion over to our blog. We find YouTubes 500 character limit quite inhibiting. Please join us over there as we delve into these things more thoroughly.
Blog URL is located in the "more info" pane of this video
WAMProject 3 years ago
What is eternal security and by what scriptures do you base this doctrine?
Also, Please shoot me your information (in an email) concerning the Strong Man Being the Comforter. What are his Goods?
Finally, The Body of the Messiah cannot be divided. There are no IN HOUSE debates. The Bible makes it plain that there is nothing Hidden that shall not be revealed.
Thanks.
WAMProject 3 years ago
WAMProject: The Holy Scriptures does not specifically say the words, "eternal security", however, it is suggested that eternal life, denotes the term. To be in Christ means to be sealed in Him for the day of redemption, (Ephesians 4:30) i.e. eternally secured in Yahshuah. Here are the scriptures which I base this doctrine: (Phillipians 1:6)
(John 5:24)
(1Corinthians 1:8)
(Jude 24)...
valambiguous 3 years ago
...I will shoot you an email, with scriptural references, regarding the Strong Man being the
Comforter.
Yah bless you.
valambiguous 3 years ago
There was a a litany of "in-house" debates over the christological formulation for the 1st 4 centuries of the church, There were "in-house" debates over soteriological issues between Paul and Peter over the ceremonial law. Such suppositions are logically/ biblically/historically untenable..
scribe7580 3 years ago
What are the Suppositions you speak of? The postulation of "In-House debates?"
bgiles117 3 years ago
That there were /are no "In-house" debates..this is specifically true of adiaphoric issues. How conversant are your with the evolution christological and trinirarian formulation, or are you modalistic?
scribe7580 3 years ago
I am not modalistic I reject the entire notion of the Trinity. However I disagree with you concerning issues of "doctrine" being adiaphoric. All issues can cause harm or provide benefit.
Finally, I am aware of the History of the church and it's doctrinal formations. I discuss it only when necessitated.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Comment removed
scribe7580 3 years ago
I'd say at current, it's necessitated.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Well good thing for me I am not bound by your thoughts and opinions. At this point it isn't necessitated. Why? Because Church History has nothing to do with obedience to YHWH.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Let me try this again: Calvinism, arminiamisn, baptismal modes, eschatological pardigms,the nature of apostolic gits(glossalalia) are not adiaphorous? Pray tell, why not.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Again, what do these Denominationally based interrogatives have to do with Obeying YHWH? Can you please provide DETAILED scriptures for my enlightenment. And don't just toss out scriptures, Please break them down so I may easily teach this to my 6 year old.
bgiles117 3 years ago
On what objective basis do you instantiate the claim of denominationalism, sheer strawma?. You said all that pertains to doctrine is non-adiaphorous, correct?
In terms of scripture, which issue do you wish to address? There are myriad issues we can address in scripture, pls. specify.
I'm not speaking to your 6 yr old, you are the one that is supposed to be theologically didactic.
scribe7580 3 years ago
I guess you don't read what you write.
I asked you to provide me of something, and you have not. I believe that ends this conversation.
Swim Well.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Salvation is simple and not confusing as many have made it. Satan wants us to think we can lose God's salvation.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
servicesource 3 years ago
Salvation is simple.
With regards to your "Satan" statement, it will be elaborated on during the Eternal Security Doctrine Videos.
The simplicity of our Messiah is why so many people fail to understand. They seek to complicate the Bible, yet for what purpose??
bgiles117 3 years ago
In regards to eternal security sister, how can we break the seal or the power of the Holy Spirit, who is able to keep us from falling. Can we bind the strong man, (The Holy Spirit) and take His goods? These types of in house debates, should never divide the Body Of Christ, for we are of One Body, No? Yah bless you.
valambiguous 3 years ago
Spiritual Ninja? I want to be like you when I grow up. :)
mrsbroom1 3 years ago
Hey, lady. I REALLY enjoy your videos, and am looking forward to learning from this series. I have a new video going up now called "The American Christian Church Is Illiterate". Would you please post your video as a video response? Thanks and keep doin' whatcha doin'!
Shalom aleichem!
NotYourTypicalNegro 3 years ago
I will definitely check that out. Keep me posted please.
WAMProject 3 years ago
God bless you I am not speaking of just confession but also believing in the heart as the word says...the blood of Jesus forgives us of our sins and our future sins. You have no scriptures that proves that salvation can be lost. Thanks for responding so quick.
servicesource 3 years ago
Salvation is a gift...Salvation is eternal life the scripture that says work out your own salvation means to live your life that shows you have been saved this is the part that we need the Holy Spirit to help us with....We can do nothing for salvation it is a gift we accept through Christ and that is it. Many folks want to add on legalism or other things we must do and that is error like being baptised or denominations save you or works.
servicesource 3 years ago
Servicesource,
I agree, the theological postulates of WAM Project are of a works oriented salvation (a soteriology predicated upon human merit)
If I make it to heaven on by maintanence of my own salvation, I have every right to boast, Jesus vicarious atonement was only a doorway, not the complete package, in that case He should have announced on the cross " I t has begun!"
scribe7580 3 years ago
A little leaven makes alot of error i told the young lady she has no scriptures to prove Salvation can be lost. Salvation is not based on works but God wants us to walk worthy and live right....Jesus said it is finished....
servicesource 3 years ago
Again, to both of you. When the videos on Eternal Security are posted, then you will "Know" what we believe and will be able to comment accordingly. Until then, I enjoy your speculation. It's humoring :)
bgiles117 3 years ago
Such vacuity is neither meaningful nor substantive as you are ignorant of the ideas you argue against (I've not stated my theological position, have you noticed?)
scribe7580 3 years ago
You'd be better equiped if you'd only extrapolate my position from clear statements I make... =)
Perhaps such speculation is more than unilateral.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Perhaps your being clear about your position and not ambiguous is more in line.
Yeshua was clear about who he was. I respect people who are clear about who they are.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I am challenging your suppositions, hence you are to argue the affirmative but I'll humor you: look up the 1689 London Baptist Confession to understand my theological position en-toto
In summary though, I am a trinitarian, calvinistic, credo-baptist, Lordship advocating, Christian who holds to the veracity, tenacity, infallibility and inerrancy of Sacred Writ. Scripture is theopneustos (God-breathed).
scribe7580 3 years ago
You are, swimmer, exactly as I described you.
I was once a trinitarian, Yet I saw the truth. So simple and sitting right in plain sight.
I was once a Baptist, but I saw the truth. So simple in plain sight.
Then I tried non-denominaionalism. Then I saw the truth. So simple, in plain sight.
Now I am simply a Disciple of The Messiah. Nothng, A Son of the Living Elohim.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Tautology, you don't define the word in question by utilizing that same word per its definition.
For the record, I am no baptist, my beliefs seem more in line with the 1689 London Baptist Confession, also the Westminster Confession of Faith, shall I go on?
Interstingly enough, many a cultists have a subjective experience and claim to have the "truth", how do you differ?
Your last statement is riddled in ambiguity, what meanest thou?
scribe7580 3 years ago
The word nothing should be removed. That should clear up your confusion.
Now I am simply a Disciple of The Messiah. A Son of the Living Elohim.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Out of love for YHWH and his Son I use his Hebrew name, not the corrupted Greek "translation" Nor would I call myself a Christian. But that is a topic for another set of videos my wife is preparing.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I love YHWH And Jesus is not a corrupted "greek translation";the consonant "J" is non-existent in the greek either.
Ah, and all this time I thought I was speaking your wife...much better! Not a Christian huh? Another semantical reason for a differing apellation, a rose by any other name is still a rose, or is there a reason you really do not consider yourself a christian?
scribe7580 3 years ago
And if you think I am not somewhat conversant with textual critical issues, think again.
scribe7580 3 years ago
WOW. you cant read. I never said anything about TEXTUAL CRITICAL ISSUES. Take the time to read what I write before you respond.
Only a fool responds to something he has not READ and COMPREHENDED. :)
bgiles117 3 years ago
"Out of love for YHWH and his Son I use his Hebrew name, not the corrupted Greek "translation"
This is relevant to the field of textual criticism as you've presupposed scribal emendation in the "Greek translation" so yes, you did speak to textual critical issues, just not in that syntax. Yes I can read, comprehend and logically deduce the rather sprurious conflations in your argument, apparently you are not following your arguments to their logical conclusions.
scribe7580 3 years ago
"Only a fool responds to something he has not READ and COMPREHENDED. :)"
I agree, and my argument above dismantles the very application to my argument/person (argumentum ad hominem) so your response is immaterial, and rather puerile.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Your point being?
bgiles117 3 years ago
Allusions on your behalf. Not my intent or desire.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I just proved the opposite by the very nature of my response. Now is Christ eternal or a created being per your christology?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Define Christian, and use scripture in your definition. WHat you may call christian, may not be what I call christian.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I will give you this after we iron out your christology.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Also, if you are speaking to me, you ARE speaking to my wife.
Unless the concept of "The Two becoming One Flesh" escapes you.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I understand scripturally what you are referring to(Gen 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:8), what I DON"T understand is the rigid literalism (and apparent contradiction ontologically) that you are suffusing when interpreting these texts. Would my wife be conversely debating this issue though she's not so much as offered a rebuttal nor known of our interlocution predicated upon our being one flesh?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Your argument seems more like the Crimson twins from G.I Joe than a working biblical definition of becoming one flesh. You're right, your definition escapes me.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Man's wisdom corrupts. You neither understand nor know. You are only aware.
bgiles117 3 years ago
It is incumbent upon your to substantiate that assertion.
scribe7580 3 years ago
you*
scribe7580 3 years ago
Christ: created or eternal?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Answered below
bgiles117 3 years ago
pls, repeat so I don't have your position mixed up.
scribe7580 3 years ago
Guess it's time for you to stop being a fence rider and elucidate your position.
The bible tells me to know them that labour among me.... Typically I fall back on the scripture that says a tree is know by the fruit it bears and the fruit of your typing leads one to certain conclusions. Now take the covers off and tell us who you are and what your position is. We have shown our hand, now show yours. You have been called. No raising allowed.
bgiles117 3 years ago
??? Logically, I can only be a "fence-rider" if I have no position, not very erudite regarding Aristotelian logic, are we? The very premise of your statement is self-refuting
Matthew 7 speaks specifically about false prophets, not spuriously derived notions of one's position based on a priori assumptions
And no, I still don't know your "hand" so, who is Jesus Christ per your interpretive schema?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Jesus Christ is someone I dont respect nor ascribe to follow.
Yahushua the Messiah is who I follow ;) More on that in the days ahead.
bgiles117 3 years ago
Is this not mere semantics in terms of name variation?
Are we not idealogically speaking of the God/Man, Yahshua?
scribe7580 3 years ago
Not semantics... I would assume with YOUR implied knowledge you would KNOW better. Unless you have been Ecumenicalised and Niceanised.
bgiles117 3 years ago
I do KNOW, but your theological caprice is a non-sequitur, thus neither here nor there.
I know denotatively of the ecumenical movement (ain't me) and yes I do subscribe to the subsets of the Nicean Council, I'd like to know your apprehension for the latter (prepares for some conspiracy theory explanation)
scribe7580 3 years ago
My apprehension to the latter is irrelevant. It will not improve your walk with Yeshua, nor will it improve my relationship with YHWH. If you have something you'd like to teach me, have at it.
bgiles117 3 years ago