Is Yeshuah YHVH? (2)

[Bananna]

"Is Yeshua YHWH" doesn't seem to be at topic that very many people can discuss polietly, JMO.

Yes,

It is outside most peoples comfort zone. However those who love God will treat those made in His image with love and respect.]</p>
Love ya brother.</p>

 

[Bananna]

Bro, shes a Talmudist...dont even bother with her.
BTW long time bro....

Well that comment was not real edifying.]

I'm a follower of Christ and technically a lot of the Oral teachings in the Talmud can be found coming right out of Yeshua's mouth. It is certainly better commentary than most of the Christian commentaries I've read.


It helps me understand Mormon theology too. That which brings understanding is good. One does not have to agree with it. We don't have to agree with one another. We just have to love and respect one another.</p>
farmer,
I'm not sure I understand your view on anything. So what was your stand on YHVH and Yeshua?
</p>


Bananna

 

[2ducklow]

I'll give her that much.being he served under General Lee,your invited over for supper any time you like(not kidding)
btw bro,thought you were a German.....lol
(you know me,keep up the good fight)

Well, those of us who do not believe Jesus is God but that YHWH is the one and only true God are in a minority. Um, I'm only 1/8th german on my paps side,

 

[FarmerBobsPeachWar]

Well, those of us who do not believe Jesus is God but that YHWH is the one and only true God are in a minority. Um, I'm only 1/8th german on my paps side,

Bro, think 1/8 is nuttin?.cut a Pecan pie into only 8 slices(only happens when Family isnt around) and see how good "1/8" is.....lol
PS think im joking?.....try this....lolGod Bless you(keep up the good fight)

 

[2ducklow]

Bro, think 1/8 is nuttin?.cut a Pecan pie into only 8 slices(only happens when Family isnt around) and see how good "1/8" is.....lol
PS think im joking?.....try this....lolGod Bless you(keep up the good fight)

Well I got saved in Germany, does that count? besides I only speak german like 1/8th of the time.

 

[Frank4YAHWEH]

To ALL,

An Aaronic priestly blessing to you and yours! (Numbers 6:24-26).

 

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Your twisting scripture to create a god of your liking.

Thomas said MY GOD!

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, saying "My Lord and my God!"

Following is an excerpt from my Xanga blog at: http://www.xanga.com/Franklin4YAHWEH

Did Thomas Call Yahshua "God"?
Explanations proposed:

1. Thomas was surprised when he saw the Lord in their midst. &#8220;My God!&#8221; was just an expression, a &#8220;statement of surprise.&#8221;
2. Thomas was actually addressing both the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ when he said, &#8220;My Lord and my God.&#8221;
3. It is not a teaching text (non-didactic text); actually Thomas made a mistake when he said, &#8220;My Lord and my God.&#8221;

Webmaster's Comment: It is my stance that Thomas exclaimed "My master (lord) AND my Almighty One ('God')!". He said "my master ['lord']" giving reference to Yahshua as his master AND "my Almighty One ('God')" giving reference to Father Yahweh as his Almighty One.


Here is the entire text from the 'New American Standard Bible' John 20:27-28:

"Then he (Yahshua) said to Thomas, 'Reach here your finger, and see my hands, and reach here your hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

Please observe the mark of exclamation (!) at the end of the phrase. The King James Version does not use an exclamation mark.
Please notice there was no question asked in the entire narration. Hence, the text which reads "Thomas answered" is inaccurate.

The last phrase "My Lord and my God!" was not an answer but it was an outburst by Thomas, having seen something inexplicable and baffling. It is not unusual that a man cries out; "O' my God!" when he sees something totally bizarre.

Below are the texts from two reputed versions of the Bible
that support what Thomas said was not an answer to any question.

'New English Bible': Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!"

'Phillips Modern English Bible': "My Lord and my God!" cried Thomas.

Study Supportive Passage:

Apostle Yahchanan writes, immediately after the discourse between Yahshua and Thomas; "Many other signs therefore Yahshua also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Yahshua is the Messiah."

If Yahchanan had recognized the answer by Thomas to be a testimony for the 'Deity of Jesus', and the observed silence by Jesus to be his acquiesce to such a testimony, then the apostle Yahchanan would have asked us to believe "Yahshua is Yahweh", instead of "Yahshua is the Messiah" in the above verse. SOURCE
Also see:
Thomas 'Sees' God by Phil Maxwell 11/25/02

Resolving the Dilemma Making sense of the apparent contradiction between John 17:3 and John 20:28 By Phil Maxwell June 2000

YAHSHUA IS CALLED &#8220;GOD&#8221;

DID THOMAS CLAIM THAT JESUS IS GOD? by Ivan Maddox

Did Jesus' Blessing of Thomas's Testimony Mean That Jesus Agreed With Thomas Calling Him God?
By Bassam Zawadi

 

[Bananna]

Personally I don't believe that it would be plausible for Thomas to exclaim, 'my God.' as is often done today. That being something I'd think rather horrifying to a Jew from what I can tell. I do understand the term Theos to be more like Master.

My lord and Master. When it speaks of The Living God YHWH, that the end of the chapter the definite article changes.

I appears to me qualified:

John 20:31
Yet these have been enscribed that{looks like a pun of heart as enscribed on the heart.}you should be believing that Jesus is the annointed the son of THE GOD
and that believing ye may have life in THE NAME of HIM.{specifically THEGOD HASHEM}

O ieosus O christos
TO' onomati Ton Theon in the 31st verse

as apposed to
O kurious kai o theos
in the 28th verse.

That is to say lord an soveriegn king in 28 as apposed to the clear positioning of Jesus under The God in verse31 of the same passage.

KWIM.
Yeshua as Prince of the Kings of the earth is our sovereign and even as Pharoah was god of Egypt and over Joseph, Joseph was over all the Egyptian world as a god... small g.

The word Elohim or mighty ones was translated as theos. This term applies not in the common English usage but as the proper Hebrew concept of a person of power and position over subjects.

To take the usage outside the context of The chapter which defines its meaning and change the intent of the passage is not IMO a good way to interpret scripture in the first place.

Bottom line is John Wrote it and John defined it in verse31 as a clear declaration of sonship, not being The One true God.
bananna

 

[GuardianShua]

Personally I don't believe that it would be plausible for Thomas to exclaim, 'my God.' as is often done today. That being something I'd think rather horrifying to a Jew from what I can tell. I do understand the term Theos to be more like Master.

My lord and Master. When it speaks of The Living God YHWH, that the end of the chapter the definite article changes.

I appears to me qualified:

John 20:31
Yet these have been enscribed that{looks like a pun of heart as enscribed on the heart.}you should be believing that Jesus is the annointed the son of THE GOD
and that believing ye may have life in THE NAME of HIM.{specifically THEGOD HASHEM}

O ieosus O christos
TO' onomati Ton Theon in the 31st verse

as apposed to
O kurious kai o theos
in the 28th verse.

That is to say lord an soveriegn king in 28 as apposed to the clear positioning of Jesus under The God in verse31 of the same passage.

KWIM.
Yeshua as Prince of the Kings of the earth is our sovereign and even as Pharoah was god of Egypt and over Joseph, Joseph was over all the Egyptian world as a god... small g.

The word Elohim or mighty ones was translated as theos. This term applies not in the common English usage but as the proper Hebrew concept of a person of power and position over subjects.

To take the usage outside the context of The chapter which defines its meaning and change the intent of the passage is not IMO a good way to interpret scripture in the first place.

Bottom line is John Wrote it and John defined it in verse31 as a clear declaration of sonship, not being The One true God.
bananna

Most likely Thomas said: My lord, a god. I know, the article "a" is not there in scripture. That's my 2 cents worth.

 

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Personally I don't believe that it would be plausible for Thomas to exclaim, 'my God.' as is often done today. That being something I'd think rather horrifying to a Jew from what I can tell.

Yahweh's Law Vs. Jewish Law

It is no surprise to me that many professing "Jews" do exclaim "My God!" just as do many professing Christians. Many Jews and Christians adhere to the understanding that to exclaim "My God!" is "using the LORDS name in vain, and do not make such exclamations believing it to be a sin. The Scriptural definition of sin is the transgression of the Law. This Law that is said to be transgressed against is most definitely in reference to Father Yahweh's Law. Thomas being taught under the direction of Yahshua, and I believe not to be an adherent to "Jewish Law", would obviously know the truth as revealed through Yahshua that it is not a sin to exclaim "My Mighty One ('My God) !" in reference to Yahweh our Heavenly Father and Creator. If Thomas were a strict adherent to "Jewish Law" he certainly also would not address Yahshua as "My God and My Lord." If you believe that Yahshua was a "Jew" and a strict adherent to "Jewish Law", you would have to explain why he made the exclaimational question to Father Yahweh with a loud voice saying:

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 - A.K.J.V.)

Yahweh Can!

 

[2ducklow]

In my opinion, God isn't going to identify who he is by having someone say in a moment of exclamation "my god". Besides Jesus didn't comend THomas on corectly identifying Jesus as God, Jesus commended Thomas on his believeing that Jesus was risen from the dead. Too weak a case for Jesus being God, considering the import of identifing who God is.

 

[Bananna]

Yes Duck I agree any exclaimation stated by one person is not a theological statement of proof.I also agree that saying MY God MyGod can be used in a righteous manner to call upon God and and unrighteous manner as just a casual exclaimation or accusasion of God.Bananna

 

[Frank4YAHWEH]

In my opinion, God isn't going to identify who he is by having someone say in a moment of exclamation "my god". Besides Jesus didn't comend THomas on corectly identifying Jesus as God, Jesus commended Thomas on his believeing that Jesus was risen from the dead. Too weak a case for Jesus being God, considering the import of identifing who God is.

Great point about the context in that Yahshua was commending Thomas on his believing that he was raised from the dead. Another point is that it was Father Yahweh Who raised (resurrected) Yahshua from the dead. Yahshua did not raise himself from the dead.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Great point about the context in that Yahshua was commending Thomas on his believing that he was raised from the dead. Another point is that it was Father Yahweh Who raised (resurrected) Yahshua from the dead. Yahshua did not raise himself from the dead.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Guess the entire early church that quoted this verse got it wrong, although they spoke and read Greek. But now 2000 years later anti-Trinitarians who could not parse a Greek verb is their life depended on it, somehow got it right.

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [210-280 AD]

Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God.

And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God."276 And, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us."277 And, "My Lord and my God."278 And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore."279

The Treatises of Cyprian – TESTIMONIES [200-258 AD]

Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God![/SIZE]​

​

 

[2ducklow]

Great point about the context in that Yahshua was commending Thomas on his believing that he was raised from the dead. Another point is that it was Father Yahweh Who raised (resurrected) Yahshua from the dead. Yahshua did not raise himself from the dead.

TRue, it is but one point of logic amongst multitudes where trinity fails. the whole doctrine is chock full of illogicalities.

 

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Guess the entire early church that quoted this verse got it wrong, although they spoke and read Greek. But now 2000 years later anti-Trinitarians who could not parse a Greek verb is their life depended on it, somehow got it right.

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [210-280 AD]

Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God.

And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God."276 And, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us."277 And, "My Lord and my God."278 And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore."279

The Treatises of Cyprian &#8211; TESTIMONIES [200-258 AD]

Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: &#8220;Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.&#8221; Also in the Gospel according to John: &#8220;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.&#8221; Also in the same: &#8220;The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.&#8221; Also Paul to the Romans: &#8220;I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.&#8221; Also in the Apocalypse: &#8220;I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.&#8221; Also in the eighty-first Psalm: &#8220;God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.&#8221; And again in the same place: &#8220;I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.&#8221; But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!​

Der Alter,

Note what you have posted is private interpretation and is not thorough Scripture where we are to get our doctrine for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness but, is adding unto and a twisting of Father Yahweh's inspired word and tradition and mere doctrines of men in which there is no profit. It is only Father Yahweh's inspired word that is profitable!

All scripture is given by inspiration of Yahweh, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Yahweh may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all righteous works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mattithyah [Matthew] 15:9; also cf. Yahchanan Mark 7:7; Colossians 2:22; Titus 1:14).

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive ... (Ephesians 4:14).

For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, Yahweh shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Yahweh shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19; also cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverb 30:6).

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Kepha [Peter] 1:20).

To Believe "Jesus IS God" Is To Be Deceived!

Yahshua Did Not Pre-exist His Birth!

 

[Bananna]

Frank I did not care much for the first link listed by the second was a nice recap from many of the statements made in this thread.The Hebraic mindset actually is quoted in the scriptures themselves so that we need not even rely on the Talmudic record to convince the bretheren, I'm very fond of Much of the Rabbinic argumnents as the style of learning lends itsself to orderly and logical thinking. I much preferred the second source. Thanks for the interesting reading.bananna

 

[Frank4YAHWEH]

Peace greetings ALL,

First off, I would like to make it known that I do not refer to Father Yahweh by the mere name/title "God". I refer to Father Yahweh as our Almighty One in the original sense of the translated Hebrew words 'yl' and 'wl' which denote 'might, power and strength. It is known to me that Yahshua, the "apostles" (those sent forth) and his disciples (students) never refered to Father Yahweh by the corrupt English words "God" and "the LORD". I also do not believe that He was refered to by the names/titles of El (Elohim - plural) and Baal (Baalim - plural) by those who worship Father Yahweh in spirit and in truth. In light of this
understaning, I have concluded that Thomas and most certainly not Father Yahweh refered to Yahshua as "God".

Baal Gad

This being said, I would like to submit the following studies that are excerpts from my Xanga blog at: http://www.xanga.com/Franklin4YAHWEH :



Does Isaiah 9:6 Claim That "Jesus is God"?

JPS version, done in 1917. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America reads as follows:
"For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor (See END NOTE) -Abi-ad-sar-shalom."
The 1985, and the revised e-edition of 1997, render Is. 9:5b as:

"... he has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace (d);
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler."
(d) = as in 25:1
Many question why the the JPS 1917 transliterate this portion of the passage as opposed to translating it. The reason is quite obvious. Christian translations have traditionally understood this prophecy to refer to "Jesus", and then used this quite complicated name as a series of messianic titles. The JPS wanted to avoid
this, and to emphasize that this is a (real or symbolic) personal name. Just
like "Jonathan" is not translated "Yahweh-has-given" in the A.K.J.V. of the Bible. The A.K.J.V.does not translate "Immanuel" in 7:14 and etc. as "God-is-with-us".
For not having a better explaination of this passage, I have on a number of occasions in the past explained that the A.K.J.V. reads "... his name shall be CALLED ...", not that his name IS all of these names. This passage is worded in a future tense. Understanding this passage as a future prophecy concerning Yahshua, would this not stand true? Is he not given all of these attributive names/titles at this time? None of these are his GIVEN name (singular) though. There was only one name ("... for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven GIVEN among men ..." Acts 4:12) GIVEN to him at birth.
A messenger ("malak, angel") of Yahweh conveyed to Yahseph [Joseph] that he was to call his name Yahshua and he did as the messenger of Yahweh had told him.
"And [Yahseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name YAHSHUA. (Matthew 1:25)
The name Yahshua was GIVEN to him by Father Yahweh which was conveyed through His messenger.
"Wherefore Yahweh also has highly exalted him, and GIVEN him a name which is above every name: ..." (Philippians 2:9)

Father Yahweh Is Our Supreme Redeemer


The Name YAHshua means 'YAHweh Is Redeemer'. Yahshua came in the Name of our Heavenly Father and Creator (Yahchanan [John] 5:43). Father Yahweh is our Supreme Redeemer THROUGH his son Yahshua. Yahshua said "No man comes unto the Father, but by me." (Yahchanan [John] 14:6). Yahshua is our advocate with Father Yahweh (1 John 2:1). He is our mediator with Father Yahweh (I Timothy 2:5).

END NOTE

The Hebrew for "mighty god" in Isaiah 6:9 is gibbor el, which is nearly the same Hebrew as the name of the angel Gabriel.

The Net Bible has this interesting note on the title gibbor el ("mighty God"):

"probably an attributive adjective ("mighty God"), though one might translate "God is a warrior" or "God is mighty." Since this title is apparently used later (10:21, but cf. Hos. 3:5) for God, some have understood it as pointing to the king's deity. Others argue that the title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). The latter sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. Having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as "God" because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Ramses II as follows: "No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique." (See M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67) Isa. 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself."

Notice that the NetBible scholars are Trinitarians, yet they are realistic and fair minded enough to recognize that gibbor el is not a title of deity. Other scholars agree.

Actually, the passage is not a particularly good one for Trinitarians. It would help the Oneness folks a lot more. The Trinitarian does not regard Jesus as the Father, yet the passage says he shall be called "everlasting father." The Trinitarian has to do all sorts of twisting to insist that "gibbor el" should be taken as telling us that Jesus is God, but then the next phrase they have to explain away to tell us that he is not the Father.

ALSO SEE THE FOLLOWING LINKS
The Correct Hebrew Name Understandings The Nature of His Anointed Messiah, “His Arm of Salvation;”

Isaiah 9:5-6 – Historic Events or Messianic Prophecy?

ISAIAH 9 MANIPULATED Hugh Fogelman
OTHER LINKS TO CONSIDER
The Problem of Isaiah 7:14 Rev. William G. Most

ISAIAH 9:6 THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE
LINK TWO For The Above

Prince of Peace B. R. Burton
Isaiah 9:6 by K.N. Stovra

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Der Alter,

Note what you have posted is private interpretation and is not thorough Scripture where we are to get our doctrine for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness but, is adding unto and a twisting of Father Yahweh's inspired word and tradition and mere doctrines of men in which there is no profit. It is only Father Yahweh's inspired word that is profitable![/SIZE][ . . . ]

[SIZE=+1]All I see is the equivalent of a school yard taunt, "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong, Did too! Did Not! Nuh Uh! Nuh Huh!" And then a bunch of out-of-context scriptures quoted at me which do NOT address anything I posted.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops​

.
Anti-Trinitarians want me to believe that Jesus was a liar. They would have us believe that not only did the gates of hell prevail against Jesus' church, but it virtually disappeared from the world until it was discovered by one of these guys; Joseph Smith-1830, Charles Russell-1860s, John Thomas-1860s, R.E. McAlister-1915, Herbert Armstrong-1920.

I have asked repeatedly for anti-Trinitarians to show me credible, verifiable, historical, evidence of their "church" in the years between 90 AD, when the N.T. was completed, and 1830. And all I ever get is crickets chirping.

OTOH I have quoted the ONLY recorded history of that church and I get unsupported accusations of private interpretation. And I don't have discussions with links.[/SIZE]

 

[Bananna]

Okay I'm at a loss as to how this argument has anything to do with the topic.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops
.
...They would have us believe that not only did the gates of hell prevail against Jesus' church, but it virtually disappeared from the world until it was discovered by one of these guys; Joseph Smith-1830, Charles Russell-1860s, John Thomas-1860s, R.E. McAlister-1915, Herbert Armstrong-1920.

OTOH I have quoted the ONLY recorded history of that church .........

Quoting obvious translations of the Church Fathers.
I use Scripture4all
BlueLetterBible
Online language translator
context
Jewish Historical sites.

How many are trying to prove Yeshua is YHVH?
bananna