Why there is no clear mention of trinity in the old testament?

[gadar perets]

Please try to quote the specific thing you are addressing rather than quoting my entire post. It is a common courtesy that I always do for you (as well as giving you many scripture references to back up my views).

John 1:1 describes Jesus as God and no verse you quoted technically violates the trinitarian concept of Jesus being God.

John 1:1 describes the "logos", not the Son. The logos did not become the Son until it was made flesh. You need to stop reading your own thoughts into the text if you want the truth.

The despicable organization called Catholic Church practically gave you the scripture in your hands.

First, YHWH Himself gave us the Scriptures. He used the Jews to give us the OT and He used professing believers to give us the NT. The Catholic Church merely recognized what existed as inspired writings. Those writings were already existing and inspired and were recognized as such. Then they were canonized.

Second, the Catholic Church back then is totally different from the Catholic church today. The Cc today is so corrupted it is a shame and a reproach upon the name of Messiah. The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God - to not go beyond the written Word (1 Cor. 4:6). Yet, the Cc has gone far beyond it by adding their own traditions above the Word of God. Worse than that, however, is the FACT that they do not obey the Word. Murder, fornication, idolatry, Sabbath breaking, pedophilia, eating unclean, trampling on holy days, lies, cover ups, etc., run rampant in the Cc. So what profit is it to the Cc to claim to give us the Scriptures if they don't obey the Scriptures?

John 14:24 He that loves me not keeps not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.​

The Holy Spirit was already with the disciples so Paul didn’t need to mention the Holy Spirit, so your basically making an argument based on silence. If the Holy Spirit is not mentioned it means he must not exist as a person, we know that the Father through Jesus sent the comforter to abide with the disciples, it was the Holy Spirit that was abiding with them and allowing them to see those things, so that’s why they didn’t see it because it was already with them revealing those things to them and giving them prophecy.

This answer only addresses question #2. The Father and the Son were both dwelling in Paul when he wrote his epistles (John 14:23; Romans 8:9-10; Colossians 1:27; Revelation 3:20), yet he did not fail to greet them or invoke them.

Also we know the Holy Spirit spoke to the Apostles of Christ in Acts 8:29, if it was just the force of the Father then it would have said the Father spoke to them not the Holy Spirit which is always referred to as distinct from the Father.

The Father puts a part of Himself in us through His indwelling Spirit which allows direct communication. When the Spirit speaks, it is the Father speaking.

The Holy Spirit inserted Jesus into Mary he didn’t create Jesus, so he’s not the Father of Jesus, and we know that the Father begot The Son So he’s his Father.

So you have a third person fertilizing Miriam's egg and you say that is not his Father? BTW, the Son was NOT inserted into Miriam. Her egg was fertilized causing her to conceive a male child of the seed of David. If that is not so, then she was merely a surrogate mother and not his biological mother.

Your basically telling me that Jesus is somehow a man and also somehow the Son of God who has godlike powers. It sounds a lot like Greco/Roman demi gods. Can you show me someone who had full authority on heaven and earth naturally besides Jesus? Eis to Onoma means in the divine authority of something also indicating divinity.

Yeshua had divine authority given to him. He does not have divine authority inherently as his Father has.

John 5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Matthew 28:18 And Yeshua came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

 

[gadar perets]

The early Church classified circumcision as a ceremonial law this dispute is recorded in Acts of the Apostles.

What verse? I don't see the word "ceremonial".

Yahweh commanded one day for worship that was chosen as the Sabbath, the ceremonial obligation is to set aside a day for worship, the ceremonial one makes it on Saturday. There is a distinction between the ceremonial and nature, law that can even be seen in the way the text of sfi other presents them. The moral laws remain their ceremonial obligations have been done away with with the fulfillment of Christ’s atonement in the cross.

This is your man-made box you put the Sabbath into. It is one of the Ten Commandments that were written on stone as a sign of their immutability. It is written on the hearts and minds of true New Covenant believers. If you choose to fight against the Spirit as it leads you to embrace the Sabbath as it is written, so be it. Judgment Day is coming.

BTW, the seventh day (Sabbath) is not only a day of worship, but a commanded day of resting from labors. It is the ONLY day YHWH blessed and sanctified in the Creation week (Genesis 2:1-3). The first day of the week is a common, unblessed, unsanctified, work day. If you choose to ignore that and make the first day the new Sabbath or by saying we no longer need to rest on the 7th day, then you are exalting your tradition over Scripture and exalting your own authority over YHWH's. Judgment Day is coming.

 

[Barney2.0]

What verse? I don't see the word "ceremonial".


This is your man-made box you put the Sabbath into. It is one of the Ten Commandments that were written on stone as a sign of their immutability. It is written on the hearts and minds of true New Covenant believers. If you choose to fight against the Spirit as it leads you to embrace the Sabbath as it is written, so be it. Judgment Day is coming.

BTW, the seventh day (Sabbath) is not only a day of worship, but a commanded day of resting from labors. It is the ONLY day YHWH blessed and sanctified in the Creation week (Genesis 2:1-3). The first day of the week is a common, unblessed, unsanctified, work day. If you choose to ignore that and make the first day the new Sabbath or by saying we no longer need to rest on the 7th day, then you are exalting your tradition over Scripture and exalting your own authority over YHWH's. Judgment Day is coming.

I never claimed the word was there, I claimed the early Church made the distinction between them by its actions. Worship is the moral purpose of the Sabbath, Saturday is it’s ceremonial purpose, a true believer sets aside any day for worship. And it’s not my traditions it’s the one of Jesus Christ who defeated death on the first day and brought about the New Covenant, Jesus said my Father does work on the Sabbath, as Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

 

[Barney2.0]

Please try to quote the specific thing you are addressing rather than quoting my entire post. It is a common courtesy that I always do for you (as well as giving you many scripture references to back up my views).


John 1:1 describes the "logos", not the Son. The logos did not become the Son until it was made flesh. You need to stop reading your own thoughts into the text if you want the truth.


First, YHWH Himself gave us the Scriptures. He used the Jews to give us the OT and He used professing believers to give us the NT. The Catholic Church merely recognized what existed as inspired writings. Those writings were already existing and inspired and were recognized as such. Then they were canonized.

Second, the Catholic Church back then is totally different from the Catholic church today. The Cc today is so corrupted it is a shame and a reproach upon the name of Messiah. The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God - to not go beyond the written Word (1 Cor. 4:6). Yet, the Cc has gone far beyond it by adding their own traditions above the Word of God. Worse than that, however, is the FACT that they do not obey the Word. Murder, fornication, idolatry, Sabbath breaking, pedophilia, eating unclean, trampling on holy days, lies, cover ups, etc., run rampant in the Cc. So what profit is it to the Cc to claim to give us the Scriptures if they don't obey the Scriptures?

John 14:24 He that loves me not keeps not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.​

This answer only addresses question #2. The Father and the Son were both dwelling in Paul when he wrote his epistles (John 14:23; Romans 8:9-10; Colossians 1:27; Revelation 3:20), yet he did not fail to greet them or invoke them.


The Father puts a part of Himself in us through His indwelling Spirit which allows direct communication. When the Spirit speaks, it is the Father speaking.


So you have a third person fertilizing Miriam's egg and you say that is not his Father? BTW, the Son was NOT inserted into Miriam. Her egg was fertilized causing her to conceive a male child of the seed of David. If that is not so, then she was merely a surrogate mother and not his biological mother.


Yeshua had divine authority given to him. He does not have divine authority inherently as his Father has.

John 5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Matthew 28:18 And Yeshua came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.​

The Logos is the Son made flesh according to the early Church Fathers:

Ignatius: Epistle to the Magnesians

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time.



Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Having first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the Word — he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For ‘the beginning’ is in the Father, and of the Father, while ‘the Word’ is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”

Clement of Alexandria: Fragments Part 1

ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate."



Tertullian: Against Praxeas

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

I guess they’re all reading into the text too right? The writers of those texts we now call the New Testament were Catholics the disciples were Catholics. Pedophilia is condemned by the Catholic Church, fornication is also forbidden, idolatry is also forbidden by the Church nor is it practiced, define what is unclean by New Testament standards according to Christ all is clean in Mark 7:19. What Holy days are trampled on, last I looked the Catholic Church honors all holy days. What do coverups and corruption in the Church have to do with the actual teachings and doctrines of the Church.

Each person of the trinity can use another person of the Godhead to interact with man it doesn’t mean they’re both the same person, Jesus said he who sees the Father has seen me, but it doesn’t mean they’re the same person. The Father and Son were using the Holy Spirit to interact with the early Christians and used it two dwell with the disciples and the Church, they weren’t physically present with the early Church though. The Father puts his divine nature into us through the Holy Spirit, but not himself as a divine person.

The Holy Spirit didn’t have sexual intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus, that’s blasphemy. The human nature was fertilized from an egg without sexual contact as a miracle, while the divine nature which was the only nature Jesus had before the incarnation was inserted into Mary. Technically she only produced the human nature of Christ not his divine nature so she was only the biological mother of Christ the man not God the Son.

According to Jesus he had divine glory with God before the creation of the world, after his incarnation as a man he had to have the authority regiven to him. But regardless if the authority was given to him or not it still makes him God.

 

[gadar perets]

I never claimed the word was there, I claimed the early Church made the distinction between them by its actions.

The "early church" is the church spoken of in the NT, not the corrupted church that was overtaken by wolves after Paul's departure. The early church never made such a division of the law.

Worship is the moral purpose of the Sabbath, Saturday is it’s ceremonial purpose, a true believer sets aside any day for worship.

The 4th commandment written on stone and eventually on New Covenant hearts says nothing about worship. The command is to cease from work and rest. Therefore, rest is the moral obligation not only for the Sabbath keeper, but for all in his household. Believers can certainly worship seven days a week, but we cannot work on the 7th day.

And it’s not my traditions it’s the one of Jesus Christ who defeated death on the first day and brought about the New Covenant, Jesus said my Father does work on the Sabbath, as Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

Yeshua did not establish a new tradition by resurrecting on the first day. It was YHWH who resurrected him and YHWH said nothing about changing the Sabbath Day. Neither did Yeshua or any apostle. And yes, it is YOUR tradition. If you accept the false traditions of men, then it is YOUR tradition as well. When you fight against that tradition and walk in the true Sabbath, then it will no longer be YOUR tradition.

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
...
Mat 15:6 ... Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draws nigh unto me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

 

[gadar perets]

The Logos is the Son made flesh according to the early Church Fathers:

Ignatius: Epistle to the Magnesians

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time.



Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book I

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Having first of all distinguished these three — God, the Beginning, and the Word — he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For ‘the beginning’ is in the Father, and of the Father, while ‘the Word’ is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”

Clement of Alexandria: Fragments Part 1

ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate."



Tertullian: Against Praxeas

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

I guess they’re all reading into the text too right? The writers of those texts we now call the New Testament were Catholics the disciples were Catholics.

I identified the "early church" in my last post. The only one you quoted that can be considered part of the early church is Ignatius and his words you quoted (if they were his words) say nothing about the Son being the logos. As for the others, they wrote after wolves took over.

Pedophilia is condemned by the Catholic Church, fornication is also forbidden, idolatry is also forbidden by the Church nor is it practiced,

Since they condemn those things, yet practice them, that makes them hypocrites as well.

define what is unclean by New Testament standards according to Christ all is clean in Mark 7:19.

That verse refers to clean food that is eaten with dirty hands passing through the digestive system and being purged/excreted out of the body. The context of Mark 7 says nothing about eating unclean meat.

What Holy days are trampled on, last I looked the Catholic Church honors all holy days.

They don't keep any of the Feasts written about in Leviticus 23. Instead, they came up with a host of man-made feasts.

What do coverups and corruption in the Church have to do with the actual teachings and doctrines of the Church.[/QUOTE]
They try to cover up the sins of their pedophile priests against their parishioners. It is just another outward symptom of a corrupted church.

Each person of the trinity can use another person of the Godhead to interact with man it doesn’t mean they’re both the same person, Jesus said he who sees the Father has seen me, but it doesn’t mean they’re the same person. The Father and Son were using the Holy Spirit to interact with the early Christians and used it two dwell with the disciples and the Church, they weren’t physically present with the early Church though. The Father puts his divine nature into us through the Holy Spirit, but not himself as a divine person.

Yes, the Father puts His divine nature in us through His indwelling Spirit just as He put it in His Son. That doesn't make us or His Son divine.

The Holy Spirit didn’t have sexual intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus, that’s blasphemy.

I never said the Holy Spirit had sexual intercourse with Mary. Stop twisting my words. Miriam had an egg that was miraculously fertilized by the Father speaking His words/logos. The Spirit that came upon her was the power of the Father as He spoke His Son into existence.

The human nature was fertilized from an egg without sexual contact as a miracle, while the divine nature which was the only nature Jesus had before the incarnation was inserted into Mary. Technically she only produced the human nature of Christ not his divine nature so she was only the biological mother of Christ the man not God the Son.

There you go again making all these man-made divisions in the Word. The NT says NOTHING about Yeshua's "divine nature" or that it came from one source while his human nature came from a different source. The reason trinitarians came up with the false teaching that the Son had two natures is because they could not harmonize his failings to do God-like things without the aid of his Father. He was 100% man.

 

[Barney2.0]

I identified the "early church" in my last post. The only one you quoted that can be considered part of the early church is Ignatius and his words you quoted (if they were his words) say nothing about the Son being the logos. As for the others, they wrote after wolves took over.


Since they condemn those things, yet practice them, that makes them hypocrites as well.


That verse refers to clean food that is eaten with dirty hands passing through the digestive system and being purged/excreted out of the body. The context of Mark 7 says nothing about eating unclean meat.


They don't keep any of the Feasts written about in Leviticus 23. Instead, they came up with a host of man-made feasts.

What do coverups and corruption in the Church have to do with the actual teachings and doctrines of the Church.

They try to cover up the sins of their pedophile priests against their parishioners. It is just another outward symptom of a corrupted church.


Yes, the Father puts His divine nature in us through His indwelling Spirit just as He put it in His Son. That doesn't make us or His Son divine.


I never said the Holy Spirit had sexual intercourse with Mary. Stop twisting my words. Miriam had an egg that was miraculously fertilized by the Father speaking His words/logos. The Spirit that came upon her was the power of the Father as He spoke His Son into existence.


There you go again making all these man-made divisions in the Word. The NT says NOTHING about Yeshua's "divine nature" or that it came from one source while his human nature came from a different source. The reason trinitarians came up with the false teaching that the Son had two natures is because they could not harmonize his failings to do God-like things without the aid of his Father. He was 100% man.[/QUOTE]
Ignatius said the Son existed with the Father in the beginning which means he can only be the Logos. As I said previously show me one figure from the early Church who supports your view of the verse. You practically dismiss the others because you have no argument against them. I’d like you to historically highlight for me who were true wolves that took over and when did they do so and how did they do so?

The Church isn’t the people if that is so that would make Peter and the disciples hypocrites as well. The Church doesn’t practice pedophilia, adultery, fornication, or idolatry unless you can find it for me on the catechism if not then I’m just going to ignore all your claims. The Church isn’t actually doing the cover ups, people within her are unless you can find that for me on the catechism retract the claim.

Why does the Church need to keep the feasts of Leviticus where it clearly says they’re solely for ancient Israel.

The verse says clearly that all foods that go into the belly are clean, which includes meat previously thought to be unclean. Nothing you say will change what it says.

Even though fertilization is an act of sex, just for the sake of argument I’ll assume that’s true, but either way the existence of Christ didn’t start with his birth from Mary.

I’m not making the claim the Son is divine because he’s in us, I’m making the claim that the Holy Spirit is separate from the Father judging from the Bible and unbiblical sources they’re not the same person and are distinct from one another.

The reason the doctrine was defined because it’s obvious the Bible teaches Jesus is God as I’ve proven and it’s obvious he’s also man it wasn’t created to harmonize anything. The idea of the divine and human nature was not the argument or harmonization that took place it was about how these two nature’s functioned with each other through church history.

 

[Barney2.0]

The "early church" is the church spoken of in the NT, not the corrupted church that was overtaken by wolves after Paul's departure. The early church never made such a division of the law.


The 4th commandment written on stone and eventually on New Covenant hearts says nothing about worship. The command is to cease from work and rest. Therefore, rest is the moral obligation not only for the Sabbath keeper, but for all in his household. Believers can certainly worship seven days a week, but we cannot work on the 7th day.


Yeshua did not establish a new tradition by resurrecting on the first day. It was YHWH who resurrected him and YHWH said nothing about changing the Sabbath Day. Neither did Yeshua or any apostle. And yes, it is YOUR tradition. If you accept the false traditions of men, then it is YOUR tradition as well. When you fight against that tradition and walk in the true Sabbath, then it will no longer be YOUR tradition.

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
...
Mat 15:6 ... Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draws nigh unto me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

The Church of the New Testament was the same one inherited from Paul through the centuries until it became the state Church of the Roman Empire. As I previously said who were the wolves, when did they take over and how did they do it? Jesus did work on the seventh day because his Father did so. So then Yahweh started the first day when he resurrected his Son on it. The early Church also did this:

The Didache
“But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

 

[gadar perets]

In order to quote something from my post, you must put the word QUOTE in brackets before the paragraph and /QUOTE in brackets after the paragraph. This post of yours is hard to read.

They try to cover up the sins of their pedophile priests against their parishioners. It is just another outward symptom of a corrupted church.


Yes, the Father puts His divine nature in us through His indwelling Spirit just as He put it in His Son. That doesn't make us or His Son divine.


I never said the Holy Spirit had sexual intercourse with Mary. Stop twisting my words. Miriam had an egg that was miraculously fertilized by the Father speaking His words/logos. The Spirit that came upon her was the power of the Father as He spoke His Son into existence.


There you go again making all these man-made divisions in the Word. The NT says NOTHING about Yeshua's "divine nature" or that it came from one source while his human nature came from a different source. The reason trinitarians came up with the false teaching that the Son had two natures is because they could not harmonize his failings to do God-like things without the aid of his Father. He was 100% man.

Ignatius said the Son existed with the Father in the beginning which means he can only be the Logos. As I said previously show me one figure from the early Church who supports your view of the verse. You practically dismiss the others because you have no argument against them. I’d like you to historically highlight for me who were true wolves that took over and when did they do so and how did they do so?[/QUOTE]
No, it simply means Ignatius was wrong. Not once in the OT will you find the word logos in the Septuagint referring to a person. It means the spoken words and thoughts of YHWH as in Deuteronomy 13:14; 32:47. YHWH inspired the Apostle John to simply write what the Jews already understood; that His "word/logos" is what He used to create all things by speaking them into existence. That is in perfect harmony with the Genesis 1 account of creation where Elohim "said" and it was created and with Psalms 33:6. John was teaching us that His "word/logos" was used to create His Son by speaking him into existence in Miriam's womb.

Our English translations are all done by trinitarians who put their own bias into the translations. They desperately need to have a verse in the Bible supporting their trinity so they turned the logos into a person rather than a thing. Interestingly, the KJV of Deuteronomy 13:14 and 32:47 both translate logos as "thing" albeit erroneously. Translations that preceded the KJV such as Tyndale, Geneva, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, Bishop's Bible, etc., all translate John 1:1-3 similarly as follows;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
John 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.​

Notice they did not capitalize "worde" in order to make it seem like a proper noun and did not use "him" to make the logos into a person.

The Church isn’t the people if that is so that would make Peter and the disciples hypocrites as well. The Church doesn’t practice pedophilia, adultery, fornication, or idolatry unless you can find it for me on the catechism if not then I’m just going to ignore all your claims. The Church isn’t actually doing the cover ups, people within her are unless you can find that for me on the catechism retract the claim.

Of course "church" means the people. Its from the Greek word "ekklesia" meaning "called out". People are called out of the world into the Body of Messiah. They are collectively the "church" or the "called out". How does that make Peter a hypocrite? I did not say the Cc teaches those things should be done. I know they teach they should not be done, but they do them anyway (even the leaders, priests, bishops, and popes) which makes those that do them hypocrites. Does the Pope represent all Catholics? Yes. Therefore, if he covers up the sins of Catholics, then the "church" is doing the cover up.

Why does the Church need to keep the feasts of Leviticus where it clearly says they’re solely for ancient Israel.

They are for YHWH's people and holy to YHWH. They picture the entire plan of salvation from the Lamb dying to protect the Israelites from death to life in the Kingdom with YHWH and Yeshua tabernacling with us. They cannot be abolished until they are fulfilled. THat won't happen until the entire plan is completed (the end of the Millennium).

They are not for "ancient" Israel, but for "Israel". All believers are grafted into the olive tree of Israel and become part of the commonwealth of Israel. We become the "Israel of God" (Romans 11:17; Ephesians 2:11-13; Galatians 6:16).

The verse says clearly that all foods that go into the belly are clean, which includes meat previously thought to be unclean. Nothing you say will change what it says.

Unclean meat was NEVER "food" until deceived Christians made it "food". Food that enters the belly must be clean before it can be eaten. To eat anything unclean is a sin. At that time in history, the Jews would never have eaten unclean meat. Therefore, the context of Mark 7 refers to eating clean food (bread) with unwashed hands. Yeshua summed up his teaching in Matthew 15 by saying,

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man.​

He did not say,

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat unclean meat defiles not a man.
​

Even though fertilization is an act of sex, just for the sake of argument I’ll assume that’s true, but either way the existence of Christ didn’t start with his birth from Mary.

Yeshua is a creature. As such, he was created.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
​

Of all the creatures in the world, Yeshua was the first to be born from the dead unto eternal life.

I’m not making the claim the Son is divine because he’s in us, I’m making the claim that the Holy Spirit is separate from the Father judging from the Bible and unbiblical sources they’re not the same person and are distinct from one another.

I understand what you believe. If there is a separation between the Father and the Holy Spirit, it comes when that part of Him leaves Himself. Before the world was created there were not two beings, the Father and the Holy Spirit. There was only the Father who is Holy (Leviticus 11:44-45) and who is a Spirit (John 4:24). He is a Holy Spirit. He can separate a part of Himself to put in another being.

The reason the doctrine was defined because it’s obvious the Bible teaches Jesus is God as I’ve proven and it’s obvious he’s also man it wasn’t created to harmonize anything. The idea of the divine and human nature was not the argument or harmonization that took place it was about how these two nature’s functioned with each other through church history.

When Scripture uses the word "God" in reference to the Son, it is a translation of the Hebrew word "elohim" or the Greek word "theos", both of which can refer to men. Since Yeshua's Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3), then all others that are called elohim or theos are lesser elohim or theos than the only true "Elohim" or "Theos", Almighty YHWH. There is no doubt that Yeshua is an "elohim", but only in the sense that Psalm 82:6 uses it of the mighty men of Israel. He is not "Elohim" in the sense that his Father is. To elevate Yeshua to be the only true Elohim is blatant idolatry.

 

[Barney2.0]

In order to quote something from my post, you must put the word QUOTE in brackets before the paragraph and /QUOTE in brackets after the paragraph. This post of yours is hard to read.


Ignatius said the Son existed with the Father in the beginning which means he can only be the Logos. As I said previously show me one figure from the early Church who supports your view of the verse. You practically dismiss the others because you have no argument against them. I’d like you to historically highlight for me who were true wolves that took over and when did they do so and how did they do so?

No, it simply means Ignatius was wrong. Not once in the OT will you find the word logos in the Septuagint referring to a person. It means the spoken words and thoughts of YHWH as in Deuteronomy 13:14; 32:47. YHWH inspired the Apostle John to simply write what the Jews already understood; that His "word/logos" is what He used to create all things by speaking them into existence. That is in perfect harmony with the Genesis 1 account of creation where Elohim "said" and it was created and with Psalms 33:6. John was teaching us that His "word/logos" was used to create His Son by speaking him into existence in Miriam's womb.

Our English translations are all done by trinitarians who put their own bias into the translations. They desperately need to have a verse in the Bible supporting their trinity so they turned the logos into a person rather than a thing. Interestingly, the KJV of Deuteronomy 13:14 and 32:47 both translate logos as "thing" albeit erroneously. Translations that preceded the KJV such as Tyndale, Geneva, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, Bishop's Bible, etc., all translate John 1:1-3 similarly as follows;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
John 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.​

Notice they did not capitalize "worde" in order to make it seem like a proper noun and did not use "him" to make the logos into a person.


Of course "church" means the people. Its from the Greek word "ekklesia" meaning "called out". People are called out of the world into the Body of Messiah. They are collectively the "church" or the "called out". How does that make Peter a hypocrite? I did not say the Cc teaches those things should be done. I know they teach they should not be done, but they do them anyway (even the leaders, priests, bishops, and popes) which makes those that do them hypocrites. Does the Pope represent all Catholics? Yes. Therefore, if he covers up the sins of Catholics, then the "church" is doing the cover up.


They are for YHWH's people and holy to YHWH. They picture the entire plan of salvation from the Lamb dying to protect the Israelites from death to life in the Kingdom with YHWH and Yeshua tabernacling with us. They cannot be abolished until they are fulfilled. THat won't happen until the entire plan is completed (the end of the Millennium).

They are not for "ancient" Israel, but for "Israel". All believers are grafted into the olive tree of Israel and become part of the commonwealth of Israel. We become the "Israel of God" (Romans 11:17; Ephesians 2:11-13; Galatians 6:16).


Unclean meat was NEVER "food" until deceived Christians made it "food". Food that enters the belly must be clean before it can be eaten. To eat anything unclean is a sin. At that time in history, the Jews would never have eaten unclean meat. Therefore, the context of Mark 7 refers to eating clean food (bread) with unwashed hands. Yeshua summed up his teaching in Matthew 15 by saying,

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man.​

He did not say,

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat unclean meat defiles not a man.
​

Yeshua is a creature. As such, he was created.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
​

Of all the creatures in the world, Yeshua was the first to be born from the dead unto eternal life.


I understand what you believe. If there is a separation between the Father and the Holy Spirit, it comes when that part of Him leaves Himself. Before the world was created there were not two beings, the Father and the Holy Spirit. There was only the Father who is Holy (Leviticus 11:44-45) and who is a Spirit (John 4:24). He is a Holy Spirit. He can separate a part of Himself to put in another being.


When Scripture uses the word "God" in reference to the Son, it is a translation of the Hebrew word "elohim" or the Greek word "theos", both of which can refer to men. Since Yeshua's Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3), then all others that are called elohim or theos are lesser elohim or theos than the only true "Elohim" or "Theos", Almighty YHWH. There is no doubt that Yeshua is an "elohim", but only in the sense that Psalm 82:6 uses it of the mighty men of Israel. He is not "Elohim" in the sense that his Father is. To elevate Yeshua to be the only true Elohim is blatant idolatry.[/QUOTE]
So you know better then Ignatius a Church Father who knew the Apostles? Your argument reminds me a lot of the Islamic argument Muslims use to descredit Jesus being Kalimat Allah. John 1:1 doesn’t say the Word created something of flesh it said the Word itself became flesh, meaning the Word itself was put into Mary and dwelt among us, which means that Jesus is the Word. The Word didn’t speak something else into existence, it entered into our existence. If that’s not Unitarian bias then I don’t know what else is when the text are so clear. How can The word used for “it” in John 1:2 can easily be translated as “he” which is more accurate since the Word itself is called God which means it’s a person not just a thing:

Strong's Greek: 846. αὐτός (autos) -- (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third pers. pron.) (3) the same

Philo of Alexandria the famed Jewish scholar of Alexandria also taught the Logos is a Person and the begotten Son of God:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H11

Where do you actually see the word creature in Colossians 1:15:

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation" | CARM.org

Peter himself made mistakes, and he didn’t always do what he practiced, but he was chosen as the first Pope for his virtues, yet Peter’s faults don’t make the Church imperfect or at fault. Peter denied Christ three times yet it doesn’t make the Church weak or sinful. Peter did not always do what we preached, yet it doesn’t make the Church corrupt. The Pope for one isn’t doing the cover ups, and two the teachings of the Church isn’t based on the way a Pope acts, because Popes arent sinless. The Pope leads the Church and represents it, but it doesn’t mean every Pope represents it accurately.

Actually the commandments were already fulfilled at the death and resurrection of Christ as he payed the final and ultimate death penalty for all mankind’s sins fulfilling the purpose of the mosaic law which was always meant to point to the coming Christos or Messiah as Jesus said to baptize all nations in his name while he previously commanded preaching to be done to the children of Israel only. Paul also repeated many times that the law has been fulfilled with the death of Christ. So you do infact admit that the Covenant has been expanded to all people not just with the New Covenant and Church as the new Israel. Just a question of common sense what’s the point of drafting people into Israel and bringing a New Covenant if we have to judaize ourselves at the end of the day and be Jews and conform to Jewish practices. According to the decisions in Acts of the Apostles the Church finally decided that salvation is not of the law nor is it to be followed as a means of salvation nor do Gentiles have to judaize themselves or keep the Jewish traditions such as circumcision.

Technically speaking eating with unwashed hands makes food unclean according to the Jewish tradition of the time, and also in Acts 10:14-15 we see Jesus telling Peter that no animal that God has made is unclean which means the meaning of Mark 7:19. According to the early Church of the Apostles were only to abstain from the following foods:

Acts 15:29:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

So when Jesus said he’s going to ask the Father to send the Comforter he was telling the Father to send himself?

There can only be One God, not One God with lesser gods, which is why I already explained that a trinitarian interpretation of the Bible is the only one that makes sense, everything else ends up with polytheism. As for John 1:1 it says the Word was with God in the beginning and was this same God, man doesn’t exist with God from the beginning, as before Unitarian interpretations of John 1:1 fail. Also the word lesser theos or lesser elohim is never used to describe Christ. I also already explained that psalm 82:6 isn’t literal, but figurative And isn’t referring to the rulers of men in a positive light. Idolatry means I worship more then One God, so far you haven’t been able to prove that to be so.

 

[gadar perets]

So you know better then Ignatius a Church Father who knew the Apostles? Your argument reminds me a lot of the Islamic argument Muslims use to descredit Jesus being Kalimat Allah.

I do not deny Yeshua is the "Word of God". I deny he was such before he was conceived in the flesh.

John 1:1 doesn’t say the Word created something of flesh it said the Word itself became flesh, meaning the Word itself was put into Mary and dwelt among us, which means that Jesus is the Word. The Word didn’t speak something else into existence, it entered into our existence. If that’s not Unitarian bias then I don’t know what else is when the text are so clear.

This is your interpretation, not fact.

How can The word used for “it” in John 1:2 can easily be translated as “he” which is more accurate since the Word itself is called God which means it’s a person not just a thing:

The logos is not called God except in erroneous English translations that reverse the order of the Greek words in John 1:1. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force.
​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

Philo of Alexandria the famed Jewish scholar of Alexandria also taught the Logos is a Person and the begotten Son of God:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H11

If you want to build doctrines on the mystical, philosophical ramblings of a man without the indwelling Holy Spirit, so be it. I certainly won't.

Where do you actually see the word creature in Colossians 1:15:

Col. 1:15, "firstborn of all creation" | CARM.org

I have no problem if you use "creation" instead of "creature" as the KJV does. He is the first being of all living things in creation to be born from the dead unto eternal life. All living things in creation are creatures that were made/created by YHWH.

Peter himself made mistakes, and he didn’t always do what he practiced, but he was chosen as the first Pope for his virtues, yet Peter’s faults don’t make the Church imperfect or at fault. Peter denied Christ three times yet it doesn’t make the Church weak or sinful. Peter did not always do what we preached, yet it doesn’t make the Church corrupt. The Pope for one isn’t doing the cover ups, and two the teachings of the Church isn’t based on the way a Pope acts, because Popes arent sinless. The Pope leads the Church and represents it, but it doesn’t mean every Pope represents it accurately.

Correct. One man's mistakes do not make a corrupted church, but that is not the case with the Cc. There are untold numbers of atrocities committed by the Cc throughout their history from the inquisitions to their current sexual immoralities. These were not committed by rogue individuals.

Actually the commandments were already fulfilled at the death and resurrection of Christ as he payed the final and ultimate death penalty for all mankind’s sins fulfilling the purpose of the mosaic law which was always meant to point to the coming Christos or Messiah as Jesus said to baptize all nations in his name while he previously commanded preaching to be done to the children of Israel only. Paul also repeated many times that the law has been fulfilled with the death of Christ.

Fulfilled does not mean abolished. If the law is abolished, then there is nothing telling us what sin is (Romans 3:20), for sin is the transgression of law (John 3:4). Also, Paul said;

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31
​

The Greek word for "establish" means "to make stand".

So you do infact admit that the Covenant has been expanded to all people not just with the New Covenant and Church as the new Israel. Just a question of common sense what’s the point of drafting people into Israel and bringing a New Covenant if we have to judaize ourselves at the end of the day and be Jews and conform to Jewish practices. According to the decisions in Acts of the Apostles the Church finally decided that salvation is not of the law nor is it to be followed as a means of salvation nor do Gentiles have to judaize themselves or keep the Jewish traditions such as circumcision.

I do not teach we need to obey Jewish practices and traditions. We need to obey YHWH's commandments which are not Jewish. Circumcision is not a tradition, but a commandment. Also, we don't keep the law in order to be saved, but because we are already saved. It is a fruit of our salvation.

Technically speaking eating with unwashed hands makes food unclean according to the Jewish tradition of the time,

It makes the food dirty, not unclean, but that dirt does not defile the person. However, eating unclean meat DEFINITELY defiles a person (Leviticus 11:43-45)

and also in Acts 10:14-15 we see Jesus telling Peter that no animal that God has made is unclean which means the meaning of Mark 7:19.

That is NOT what Peter was being taught by that vision.

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
​

According to the early Church of the Apostles were only to abstain from the following foods:

Acts 15:29:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Obviously, the entiles needed to obey many more commands than just those four like no murder, adultery, idolatry, bearing false witness, etc. That was just the beginning. The rest of Torah would be learned as they heard Moses read each Sabbath (Acts 15:21).

So when Jesus said he’s going to ask the Father to send the Comforter he was telling the Father to send himself?

No. He sent a part of Himself, a portion of His Spirit.

There can only be One God, not One God with lesser gods, which is why I already explained that a trinitarian interpretation of the Bible is the only one that makes sense, everything else ends up with polytheism. As for John 1:1 it says the Word was with God in the beginning and was this same God, man doesn’t exist with God from the beginning, as before Unitarian interpretations of John 1:1 fail.

I never said there were "lesser gods". When used of men, "elohim" does not translate as "God" or "gods" unless such a person is being exalted as such.

Also the word lesser theos or lesser elohim is never used to describe Christ.

It is a natural conclusion since Yeshua's Father is the "only true Elohim".

Idolatry means I worship more then One God, so far you haven’t been able to prove that to be so.

Because your eyes are closed. May YHWH have mercy on you and open them up as He has mine.

 

[Barney2.0]

I do not deny Yeshua is the "Word of God". I deny he was such before he was conceived in the flesh.


This is your interpretation, not fact.


The logos is not called God except in erroneous English translations that reverse the order of the Greek words in John 1:1. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force.
​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.


If you want to build doctrines on the mystical, philosophical ramblings of a man without the indwelling Holy Spirit, so be it. I certainly won't.


I have no problem if you use "creation" instead of "creature" as the KJV does. He is the first being of all living things in creation to be born from the dead unto eternal life. All living things in creation are creatures that were made/created by YHWH.


Correct. One man's mistakes do not make a corrupted church, but that is not the case with the Cc. There are untold numbers of atrocities committed by the Cc throughout their history from the inquisitions to their current sexual immoralities. These were not committed by rogue individuals.


Fulfilled does not mean abolished. If the law is abolished, then there is nothing telling us what sin is (Romans 3:20), for sin is the transgression of law (John 3:4). Also, Paul said;

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31
​

The Greek word for "establish" means "to make stand".


I do not teach we need to obey Jewish practices and traditions. We need to obey YHWH's commandments which are not Jewish. Circumcision is not a tradition, but a commandment. Also, we don't keep the law in order to be saved, but because we are already saved. It is a fruit of our salvation.


It makes the food dirty, not unclean, but that dirt does not defile the person. However, eating unclean meat DEFINITELY defiles a person (Leviticus 11:43-45)


That is NOT what Peter was being taught by that vision.

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, You know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
​

Obviously, the entiles needed to obey many more commands than just those four like no murder, adultery, idolatry, bearing false witness, etc. That was just the beginning. The rest of Torah would be learned as they heard Moses read each Sabbath (Acts 15:21).


No. He sent a part of Himself, a portion of His Spirit.


I never said there were "lesser gods". When used of men, "elohim" does not translate as "God" or "gods" unless such a person is being exalted as such.


It is a natural conclusion since Yeshua's Father is the "only true Elohim".


Because your eyes are closed. May YHWH have mercy on you and open them up as He has mine.

My interpretation is based on practically every ancient authority that I’ve quoted, you on the other hand can’t back up anything you say. Again there’s no evidence that he became the Word of God all evidence we have said he was such since the beginning. The correct English translation is " . . . and the Word was God" and not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, " . . . the Word was God" is the correct translation and not "God was the Word."

John 1:1, "The word was a god" | CARM.org

So you yourself admitted that the Word has the same attributes as Yahweh which is good and true, but according to Philo of Alexandria and John the Word is distinct from Yahweh, yet also God. I proved that Hellenistic Jews also believed that the Logos was the pre-existent Son, where’s your proof lie in besides your false interpretation of scripture that can’t be backed up by anything other then the interpretation itself.

The inquisition was hardly an atrocity and it is justified in its historical context, for your sake I’d urge you not to debate me on the history of the inquisition. Sexual immoralities are committed by rogue individuals, not every Catholic in the world is partaking in sexual immoralities. Again I don’t know why you just don’t drop the argument when we both know that you’ve got something personal with Catholics or the Catholic Church.

Show me an authority from the early Church that said the law is the fruit of our salvation? Also the discussion of Acts specifically said circumcision is no longer required as a means of salvation which means the Church at Paul’s time didn’t observe the Mosaic law either rather they interpreted it as fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

By showing Peter that certain animals are no longer unclean he also taught Peter that the Gentiles aren’t unclean either. Again I don’t know how this contradicts what I said.


According to Paul who you quoted in Romans we no longer need to keep the law as a means of salvation:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin.

Romans 3:19-20

This was the whole argument of Acts was about, if the Gentiles have to keep the laws of the Torah to be saved, and according to the council of Jerusalem they don’t which is in line with Paul’s claim and mine.

Why don’t you quote the few verse before Romans 3:31:

“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

Romans 3:27-28-29-30

The law hasn’t been abolished neither does the Church claim it has been abolished, man has been invited to rediscover it in the person and image of Christ, the law points to sin only and Christ redeems us of that sin, so we are set apart from keeping the law as we are under the redeeming faith of Jesus Christ.

So let me get this straight Jesus told the Father so send the Comforter whom the disciples do not know, yet this Comforter is seemingly also a part of the Father? Jesus said I will ask the Father and he will give you another Comforter, if the Comforter was part of the Father Jesus would have said I will ask the Father to send himself on you. The world doesn’t see or know the Comforter, yet the world has seen and known the Father through Jesus Christ his Son.

Elohim literally translates as god or deity.

 

[gadar perets]

My interpretation is based on practically every ancient authority that I’ve quoted, you on the other hand can’t back up anything you say. Again there’s no evidence that he became the Word of God all evidence we have said he was such since the beginning. The correct English translation is " . . . and the Word was God" and not "and God was the word." This is because if there is only one definite article ("ho"="the") in a clause where two nouns are in the nominative ("subject") form ("theos" and "logos"), then the noun with the definite article ("ho"="the") is the subject. In this case "ho logos" means that "the word" is the subject of the clause. Therefore, " . . . the Word was God" is the correct translation and not "God was the Word."

I did not say the correct translation is "God was the Word". I believe it should be translated something like, "and mighty was the word" or "God-like was the word" or "divine was the word", etc., in order to bring out the quality or essence of "theos" rather than the being. Since the logos is a thing throughout Scripture, it should not be capitalized into "Word".

So you yourself admitted that the Word has the same attributes as Yahweh which is good and true, but according to Philo of Alexandria and John the Word is distinct from Yahweh, yet also God. I proved that Hellenistic Jews also believed that the Logos was the pre-existent Son, where’s your proof lie in besides your false interpretation of scripture that can’t be backed up by anything other then the interpretation itself.

I admitted no such thing. I said the "word" has the same attributes, not the "Word". I don't need to support my belief through Hellenistic philosophy. The Scriptures are clear in teaching monotheism and that the logos is a thing, not a person. It is also clear that YHWH created everything all by Himself, alone (Isaiah 44:24). He had NO help. He simply spoke everything into existence.

The inquisition was hardly an atrocity and it is justified in its historical context, for your sake I’d urge you not to debate me on the history of the inquisition. Sexual immoralities are committed by rogue individuals, not every Catholic in the world is partaking in sexual immoralities. Again I don’t know why you just don’t drop the argument when we both know that you’ve got something personal with Catholics or the Catholic Church.

I have nothing personal against Catholics. I am against the Catholic system which is full of false doctrines and whose fruit is evident. Not to mention I received a personal revelation proving the Catholic church is teaching falsely concerning the Sabbath.

Show me an authority from the early Church that said the law is the fruit of our salvation?

Yeshua is all the authority I need, but I'll add in the Apostle John.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
​

Love leads to obedience. It is a natural result of the Holy Spirit working in us (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Also the discussion of Acts specifically said circumcision is no longer required as a means of salvation which means the Church at Paul’s time didn’t observe the Mosaic law either rather they interpreted it as fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

I never said circumcision or any other law is required for salvation. If Paul interpreted the law as being fulfilled to the point of not needing to observe it, then explain Romans 3:31.

By showing Peter that certain animals are no longer unclean he also taught Peter that the Gentiles aren’t unclean either. Again I don’t know how this contradicts what I said.

You choose to add your own interpretation into Peter's vision. Thus, you exalt yourself over YHWH. I choose to stick with YHWH's interpretation that He gave Peter in Acts 10:28.

According to Paul who you quoted in Romans we no longer need to keep the law as a means of salvation:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin.

Romans 3:19-20

First, once again, I do not teach salvation by law, so stop bringing that up. SEcond, this passage is NOT about salvation, but justification. Learn the difference. Without the law there is no awareness of sin. Perhaps that is why so many Catholics are caught up in sin.

This was the whole argument of Acts was about, if the Gentiles have to keep the laws of the Torah to be saved, and according to the council of Jerusalem they don’t which is in line with Paul’s claim and mine.

Acts 15 is about opposing salvation through law. Yet, even though that is true, they still imposed four laws on new Gentile converts. There are more NC laws than there are OC laws.

Why don’t you quote the few verse before Romans 3:31:

“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

Romans 3:27-28-29-30

The law has not been established through faith so that we can be justified or saved by it. It is established because we are to "Go and sin no more" or "Go and no longer break the law anymore".

The law hasn’t been abolished neither does the Church claim it has been abolished, man has been invited to rediscover it in the person and image of Christ, the law points to sin only and Christ redeems us of that sin, so we are set apart from keeping the law as we are under the redeeming faith of Jesus Christ.

Redemption is not a license to sin (break the law). When a judge forgives a person for breaking the law by speeding and let's him go without a fine, it is expected that that person will not break the law and continue speeding. Yeshua freed us from our adulteries, idolatries, lies, murders, thefts, Sabbath breakings, etc. It is expected that we will no longer walk in those carnal ways. I live my life in thankfulness for being forgiven of those sins and I will, by YHWH's grace, no longer continue in them even though men like you try to teach me I can.

So let me get this straight Jesus told the Father so send the Comforter whom the disciples do not know, yet this Comforter is seemingly also a part of the Father? Jesus said I will ask the Father and he will give you another Comforter, if the Comforter was part of the Father Jesus would have said I will ask the Father to send himself on you. The world doesn’t see or know the Comforter, yet the world has seen and known the Father through Jesus Christ his Son.

Yeshua meant "another Comforter" besides himself. You are having trouble understanding because you have been indoctrinated to believe the Holy Spirit is a third person. It is the mind, power, influence, etc., of the Father.

Elohim literally translates as god or deity.

And "elohim" literally translates as gods, judges, great, mighty, angels.

 

[Barney2.0]

I did not say the correct translation is "God was the Word". I believe it should be translated something like, "and mighty was the word" or "God-like was the word" or "divine was the word", etc., in order to bring out the quality or essence of "theos" rather than the being. Since the logos is a thing throughout Scripture, it should not be capitalized into "Word".


I admitted no such thing. I said the "word" has the same attributes, not the "Word". I don't need to support my belief through Hellenistic philosophy. The Scriptures are clear in teaching monotheism and that the logos is a thing, not a person. It is also clear that YHWH created everything all by Himself, alone (Isaiah 44:24). He had NO help. He simply spoke everything into existence.


I have nothing personal against Catholics. I am against the Catholic system which is full of false doctrines and whose fruit is evident. Not to mention I received a personal revelation proving the Catholic church is teaching falsely concerning the Sabbath.


Yeshua is all the authority I need, but I'll add in the Apostle John.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
​

Love leads to obedience. It is a natural result of the Holy Spirit working in us (Ezekiel 36:26-27).


I never said circumcision or any other law is required for salvation. If Paul interpreted the law as being fulfilled to the point of not needing to observe it, then explain Romans 3:31.


You choose to add your own interpretation into Peter's vision. Thus, you exalt yourself over YHWH. I choose to stick with YHWH's interpretation that He gave Peter in Acts 10:28.


First, once again, I do not teach salvation by law, so stop bringing that up. SEcond, this passage is NOT about salvation, but justification. Learn the difference. Without the law there is no awareness of sin. Perhaps that is why so many Catholics are caught up in sin.


Acts 15 is about opposing salvation through law. Yet, even though that is true, they still imposed four laws on new Gentile converts. There are more NC laws than there are OC laws.


The law has not been established through faith so that we can be justified or saved by it. It is established because we are to "Go and sin no more" or "Go and no longer break the law anymore".


Redemption is not a license to sin (break the law). When a judge forgives a person for breaking the law by speeding and let's him go without a fine, it is expected that that person will not break the law and continue speeding. Yeshua freed us from our adulteries, idolatries, lies, murders, thefts, Sabbath breakings, etc. It is expected that we will no longer walk in those carnal ways. I live my life in thankfulness for being forgiven of those sins and I will, by YHWH's grace, no longer continue in them even though men like you try to teach me I can.


Yeshua meant "another Comforter" besides himself. You are having trouble understanding because you have been indoctrinated to believe the Holy Spirit is a third person. It is the mind, power, influence, etc., of the Father.


And "elohim" literally translates as gods, judges, great, mighty, angels.

I already explained that the verse can't be translated as God Was the Word due to grammatical reasons and since the Word was God according to the Gospel of John its definitely not just a thing, but a person as well. You did admit that the Logos has the same attributes as the Father and this is also backed by ancient authorities like Philo of Alexandria and the Church Fathers. So does the Father have more then one Logos.

So the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines such as what? I didn't know you were prophet to receive revelations.

Jesus in the Gospel of John was referring to his commandments which are to love your God and love your neighbour, which is a fulfilment of the law of Moses into two great commandments. The fact he says a new commandment I give to you, which means its fulfilment of the law of Moses.

By upholding faith in Christ we truly uphold the Old Law which was meant to point to sin and point to the one that would cover sin with his blood. We uphold truly the law by believing in its true purpose and pointing to Christ just as Romans 3:31 says in context. Redemption isn't a license to break the law, it is the new law. Where the Jews were once under the law Moses now all people are under the law of grace and redemption of Christ. Salvation comes through justification and vice versa.

Acts 15 taught the natural law while it dismissed keeping the ceremonial law as a means for justification for Jews and Gentiles.

I never said that you are to live in a life of sin, as Christians are to keep a new commandment love your God and your neighbour which sums up all the ten commandments, and I set aside a day to worship the Lord on the day he was risen, so what am I breaking in the eyes of the judge? Nothing because I'm under Christ not the law of Moses, if I'm judged it will be for not loving my God and neighbour.

So why didn't Jesus tell the Father to send himself instead of telling the Father to send this other person called the Comforter. According to scripture the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father, is a he not an it, hears, and speaks so the only rational explanation is that it is a third person.

Elohim literally translates to deity, but is sometimes used to refer to men or false gods figuratively.

 

[gadar perets]

I already explained that the verse can't be translated as God Was the Word due to grammatical reasons and since the Word was God according to the Gospel of John its definitely not just a thing, but a person as well. You did admit that the Logos has the same attributes as the Father and this is also backed by ancient authorities like Philo of Alexandria and the Church Fathers. So does the Father have more then one Logos.

Address my words, not your own thoughts.

The Father still has His own logos (words, thoughts, plans, etc). His Son has taken on the title of the "Word of God" because he embodies his Father's words.

So the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines such as what? I didn't know you were prophet to receive revelations.

Indulgences, purgatory, transubstantiation, infant baptism, Mary as mediator, Mariology, RCC is the one true church, infallibility of the CC, tradition over commandments of YHWH, changing the Ten Commandments, abolishment of all Biblical Holy Days, exaltation of the Son as the only true God, etc. You can learn more here.

Jesus in the Gospel of John was referring to his commandments which are to love your God and love your neighbour, which is a fulfilment of the law of Moses into two great commandments. The fact he says a new commandment I give to you, which means its fulfilment of the law of Moses.

By upholding faith in Christ we truly uphold the Old Law which was meant to point to sin and point to the one that would cover sin with his blood. We uphold truly the law by believing in its true purpose and pointing to Christ just as Romans 3:31 says in context. Redemption isn't a license to break the law, it is the new law. Where the Jews were once under the law Moses now all people are under the law of grace and redemption of Christ. Salvation comes through justification and vice versa.

Acts 15 taught the natural law while it dismissed keeping the ceremonial law as a means for justification for Jews and Gentiles.

I never said that you are to live in a life of sin, as Christians are to keep a new commandment love your God and your neighbour which sums up all the ten commandments, and I set aside a day to worship the Lord on the day he was risen, so what am I breaking in the eyes of the judge? Nothing because I'm under Christ not the law of Moses, if I'm judged it will be for not loving my God and neighbour.

Loving God and loving our neighbor are NOT new commandments. They are part of the "Law of Moses" as are all Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH: And thou shalt love YHWH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am YHWH.​

Nor are they Yeshua's commandments. They were commanded by his Father, Almighty YHWH.

Also, the "law of grace" is not a body of laws as is the "law of Moses". It is a principal whereby YHWH extends His grace to us even if we break the law of Moses. However, if you choose to continue to willfully break His laws and trample on them, and teach people they do not need to obey them even after you have been enlightened that they are for believers today, then you risk having His grace withdrawn from you. He will not allow willful sin to go unpunished.

Elohim literally translates to deity, but is sometimes used to refer to men or false gods figuratively.

Then it is used of the Son figuratively as he is a man. It is merely a title to designate mighty men.

 

[Barney2.0]

Address my words, not your own thoughts.

The Father still has His own logos (words, thoughts, plans, etc). His Son has taken on the title of the "Word of God" because he embodies his Father's words.


Indulgences, purgatory, transubstantiation, infant baptism, Mary as mediator, Mariology, RCC is the one true church, infallibility of the CC, tradition over commandments of YHWH, changing the Ten Commandments, abolishment of all Biblical Holy Days, exaltation of the Son as the only true God, etc. You can learn more here.


Loving God and loving our neighbor are NOT new commandments. They are part of the "Law of Moses" as are all Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH: And thou shalt love YHWH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am YHWH.​

Nor are they Yeshua's commandments. They were commanded by his Father, Almighty YHWH.

Also, the "law of grace" is not a body of laws as is the "law of Moses". It is a principal whereby YHWH extends His grace to us even if we break the law of Moses. However, if you choose to continue to willfully break His laws and trample on them, and teach people they do not need to obey them even after you have been enlightened that they are for believers today, then you risk having His grace withdrawn from you. He will not allow willful sin to go unpunished.


Then it is used of the Son figuratively as he is a man. It is merely a title to designate mighty men.

I did address your words, so prove to me from scripture or tradition that the Son became the Logos and wasn’t always the Logos. At this point I don’t even know where your going with this, if the Son even became the Word of God or the Logos (as illogical as it sounds and may be) it still makes him God and a sharer in God’s divinity.

It’s funny the website you quoted from also lists the Son as the Only True God and is a Trinitarian website, which means you don’t have a problem quoting from sites that contradict your beliefs so long as they prove your point. Mary isn’t a mediator in the sense Christ is in the Catholic Church, for indulgences see here:

Myths about Indulgences

transubstantiation has been taught by the early Church. Virtually no one in Church history can back up the Protestant view point on Christ being figurative in eating and drinking his body and blood. The Catholic Church doesn’t change the Ten Commandments. Please define what is a biblical holiday either by the New Testament or by the early Church. I’m not a Roman Catholic so I don’t per see hold to purgatory as defined in Latin theology, but the idea of praying for the dead can be seen in 2 Maccabees. The Catholic Church abolished no holidays that the Church was commanded to follow. The Son being God is taught in scripture as I’ve explained. How is the study of Mary the Mother of God and Saint a sin?

Actually they are both the fulfillment of the Mosaic law as I’ve said, Jesus summed up the whole mosaic law into two commandments fulfilling its purpose. The law of grace isn’t a principle it is a law that requires we believe in Christ as our savior and risen Lord and follow his example in loving our neighbor. In the end we no longer need to follow the law because we have everything through faith in Christ already, the whole law has been summed up into two commandments that we as Christians must follow and Christ has already paid the ultimate price for our sins, we either believe in him and gain eternal life or punish ourselves in disbelief of our own salvation.

Again as I’ve said Elohim means deity, and you want it to always say man whenever it refers to Jesus even though the meaning is determined from the context of the passage no from who it refers to or your own interpretations of it.

 

[ewq1938]

The Trinity is found in these verses, some from the OT!

2Co 13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

Lord Jesus Christ, God (the Father), the Holy Spirit, the Trinity!

Isaiah 48:16-17 “Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me. Thus says the Lord, your redeemer”

Here is a person speaking who was there from the beginning, and says he is "the Lord, your redeemer", and He mentions "the Lord God and His Spirit" that is the Trinity!

Isaiah 42:1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.”

Here God (the Father) speaks of his elect servant (Jesus) and His Spirit which is the Holy Spirit, and that is the Trinity!

 

[gadar perets]

I did address your words, so prove to me from scripture or tradition that the Son became the Logos and wasn’t always the Logos. At this point I don’t even know where your going with this, if the Son even became the Word of God or the Logos (as illogical as it sounds and may be) it still makes him God and a sharer in God’s divinity.

It is not up to me to prove the Son wasn't the logos. It is up to you to prove he was since nowhere in Scripture is that ever taught. I will not accept the traditions of deceived men. Being called the Word of God does not make him God. It makes him God's word made flesh. All believers share in God's divinity (2 Peter 1:4).

It’s funny the website you quoted from also lists the Son as the Only True God and is a Trinitarian website, which means you don’t have a problem quoting from sites that contradict your beliefs so long as they prove your point.

Correct. I glean truth where I find it and discard the rest.

Mary isn’t a mediator in the sense Christ is in the Catholic Church

She is not a mediator in any sense. She is dead in the grave.

Myths about Indulgences

It is a fact that the church was making money off them. If they want to claim those were isolated abuses, so be it. The fact of the matter is they are not found in Scripture and are the product of men's minds.

transubstantiation has been taught by the early Church. Virtually no one in Church history can back up the Protestant view point on Christ being figurative in eating and drinking his body and blood.

Yeshua never sinned. If he taught his disciples to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then he was teaching cannibalism. His words were meant figuratively in reference to the cup and bread.

The Catholic Church doesn’t change the Ten Commandments.

Whenever Catholics write the Ten Commandments, we don't see the command against graven images and the command against coveting is divided into two commands against coveting in order to make up for the missing command against graven images. Why? Because their churches are loaded with graven images that are prayed to.

Please define what is a biblical holiday either by the New Testament or by the early Church.

All holy days listed in Leviticus 23 are to be kept by believers (Matthew 5:17-19) until all are fulfilled. They will not all be fulfilled until the Feast of Tabernacles is fulfilled at the completion of the Millennium.

How is the study of Mary the Mother of God and Saint a sin?

Studying Mary is not a sin. Teaching that she is the "Mother of God" is. God has no mother. THe man, Messiah Yeshua, has a mother because he is a MAN.

Actually they are both the fulfillment of the Mosaic law as I’ve said, Jesus summed up the whole mosaic law into two commandments fulfilling its purpose.

They are not the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. They are its foundation. Its purpose is to foster love for YHWH and man.

In the end we no longer need to follow the law because we have everything through faith in Christ already, the whole law has been summed up into two commandments that we as Christians must follow and Christ has already paid the ultimate price for our sins, we either believe in him and gain eternal life or punish ourselves in disbelief of our own salvation.

Salvation is not the issue. It is impossible to obey the two greatest commandments without obeying the rest. If we steal, for example, we break both commandments by showing we do not love our neighbor or YHWH. If we loved YHWH, we would keep His commandments. The same holds true for every commandment.

Again as I’ve said Elohim means deity, and you want it to always say man whenever it refers to Jesus even though the meaning is determined from the context of the passage no from who it refers to or your own interpretations of it.

When elohim is used of anyone except YHWH it does NOT refer to deity since Yeshua's Father is the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM. You choose to reject Yeshua's words and make him the only true Elohim as well.

 

[Barney2.0]

It is not up to me to prove the Son wasn't the logos. It is up to you to prove he was since nowhere in Scripture is that ever taught. I will not accept the traditions of deceived men. Being called the Word of God does not make him God. It makes him God's word made flesh. All believers share in God's divinity (2 Peter 1:4).


Correct. I glean truth where I find it and discard the rest.


She is not a mediator in any sense. She is dead in the grave.


It is a fact that the church was making money off them. If they want to claim those were isolated abuses, so be it. The fact of the matter is they are not found in Scripture and are the product of men's minds.


Yeshua never sinned. If he taught his disciples to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, then he was teaching cannibalism. His words were meant figuratively in reference to the cup and bread.


Whenever Catholics write the Ten Commandments, we don't see the command against graven images and the command against coveting is divided into two commands against coveting in order to make up for the missing command against graven images. Why? Because their churches are loaded with graven images that are prayed to.


All holy days listed in Leviticus 23 are to be kept by believers (Matthew 5:17-19) until all are fulfilled. They will not all be fulfilled until the Feast of Tabernacles is fulfilled at the completion of the Millennium.


Studying Mary is not a sin. Teaching that she is the "Mother of God" is. God has no mother. THe man, Messiah Yeshua, has a mother because he is a MAN.


They are not the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. They are its foundation. Its purpose is to foster love for YHWH and man.


Salvation is not the issue. It is impossible to obey the two greatest commandments without obeying the rest. If we steal, for example, we break both commandments by showing we do not love our neighbor or YHWH. If we loved YHWH, we would keep His commandments. The same holds true for every commandment.


When elohim is used of anyone except YHWH it does NOT refer to deity since Yeshua's Father is the ONLY TRUE ELOHIM. You choose to reject Yeshua's words and make him the only true Elohim as well.

I did already prove Jesus is the Word or Logos of God as spoken in John 1:1. 2 Peter 1:14 means we all become close to God in sinlessness and eternal life as Adam was before his fall it doesn’t mean we become God or equal to him it just means we become more like him which is divinization

Actually that’s called hypocrisy as your discarding what you think is true and false based on your own understanding. And no Mary is not dead she’s alive and well along with everyone who believes in Christ’s name all true Christians who die live forever in God’s grace we don’t die.

It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t read the article at all.

According to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist only the being of the bread and wine becomes that of Jesus Christ’s body and blood not it’s matter so it’s not cannibalism. And Jesus said “take my body and blood”, it can’t get anymore clearer then that.

The claim that the Catholic Church hides the second commandment is simply a ridiculous argument that is based in no foundation. The Catholic Church simply groups the commandments together and also graven images are images of worship that are prayed to in the sense of worship Catholics venerate images they don’t worship them just as Moses did with the Ark. Since I don’t take this claim seriously and because I won’t bother with it instead I will direct you to a refutation:

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

According to Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law, and in Romans 7:1-6 Paul explicitly says that we are released from the law by the virtue of Christ’s death, sacrifice, and resurrection.

According to Galatians 5:14 the commandments to Love your God and your neighbor fulfill the whole law.

Mary is called the mother of Elizabeth’s Lord in Luke 1:43 is she not? So why can’t I call her as such?

If you truly love your neighbor or God then you won’t steal from him, which is why I said we only need to follow these tow commandments to follow and fulfill the whole law.

As I’ve said the meaning of elohim is determined from context. It can either be Elohim as used for Yahweh, or refer to men, or to false gods depending on how it is used in context of the passage it is mentioned in.

 

[gadar perets]

I did already prove Jesus is the Word or Logos of God as spoken in John 1:1.

You did not prove he was the “Word of God” prior to his birth. Nor did you prove the logos of John 1:1 is a person rather than a thing.

2 Peter 1:14 means we all become close to God in sinlessness and eternal life as Adam was before his fall it doesn’t mean we become God or equal to him it just means we become more like him which is divinization

It means we are joined to Him through His indwelling Holy Spirit which imparts a small measure of His divine nature to us.

Actually that’s called hypocrisy as your discarding what you think is true and false based on your own understanding.

I discard what the indwelling Holy Spirit leads me to discard. Do you just blindly accept everything your leaders tell you or do you use discernment to reject false doctrine? We are to search the Scriptures under the leading of the Holy Spirit as the Bereans did and not blindly accept everything we are told.

And no Mary is not dead she’s alive and well along with everyone who believes in Christ’s name all true Christians who die live forever in God’s grace we don’t die.

All believers die and await their resurrection from the dead at the appointed time (the last trumpet).

It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t read the article at all.

The article said, “The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.” In other words, there were those who were charging fees and making money off of indulgences.

The article gave no Scripture showing indulgences exist, or are acceptable or desired by YHWH.

According to the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist only the being of the bread and wine becomes that of Jesus Christ’s body and blood not it’s matter so it’s not cannibalism. And Jesus said “take my body and blood”, it can’t get anymore clearer then that.

“Being”, “matter”?? Where do you find that in Yeshua’s symbolic words? He was referring to the bread and cup we partake of on the day of his death to symbolically remember his shed blood and broken body for us.

The claim that the Catholic Church hides the second commandment is simply a ridiculous argument that is based in no foundation. The Catholic Church simply groups the commandments together and also graven images are images of worship that are prayed to in the sense of worship Catholics venerate images they don’t worship them just as Moses did with the Ark. Since I don’t take this claim seriously and because I won’t bother with it instead I will direct you to a refutation:

Do Catholics Worship Statues?

Say what you will. I know of many Catholics that talk to the statues as though the statue hears them. It is utter foolishness, if not worship.

According to Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law, and in Romans 7:1-6 Paul explicitly says that we are released from the law by the virtue of Christ’s death, sacrifice, and resurrection.

Why did you leave out the most important words of Romans 10:4; “for righteousness”? In other words, seeking to obtain righteousness through keeping the law as the Jews were doing has ended. The law has certainly NOT ended.

As for Romans 7:1-6, you took it out of context in which Paul delights in the law of God inwardly (Romans 7:22) and shows how the spiritually minded man will be subject to the law, but the carnally minded man will not subject himself to the law (Romans 8:7). We are released from the condemnation of the law (the death penalty), not from the necessity of obeying the law.

According to Galatians 5:14 the commandments to Love your God and your neighbor fulfill the whole law.

Of course they do, but only when they are both obeyed perfectly. If you break any commandment of the law, for example steal, then you have broken the two greatest commandments.

Mary is called the mother of Elizabeth’s Lord in Luke 1:43 is she not? So why can’t I call her as such?

You have every right to call her the “mother of our Lord”. You have NO RIGHT to call her the “Mother of God”. “God” has no mother.

If you truly love your neighbor or God then you won’t steal from him, which is why I said we only need to follow these tow commandments to follow and fulfill the whole law.

I agree, but if you do steal, it shows you really don’t love your neighbor or God. The same holds true for breaking the seventh day Sabbath or eating swine’s flesh, or trampling on the Day of Atonement, etc.

As I’ve said the meaning of elohim is determined from context. It can either be Elohim as used for Yahweh, or refer to men, or to false gods depending on how it is used in context of the passage it is mentioned in.

I agree. When it is used of the Son, it is used in the context of him being a man since there is only one true God (Yeshua’s Father- John 17:3).