This day have I begotten you

S-word

BANNED
Banned
There are many posters like him here. And many like them too.

But their motives are the same, trying to convert or silence people with their seemingly loving, gentle and kind manner. Remember how he approached you and GT and you took the bait for a while but GT saw his true color right away refused to take it.

Many posters here approaches me the same way too.

Freelight, and EE are the one of best example, and Lon just joined them it seems..

They are very much like politicians.

If you don't take their bait you become one of their arch enemy.

Just my observation and insight.:)

The observations and insight of one who admits that they are too lazy to study the words of the Prophets, through whom the Lord has revealed the future of mankind,
 

daqq

Well-known member
There are many posters like him here. And many like them too.

But their motives are the same, trying to convert or silence people with their seemingly loving, gentle and kind manner. Remember how he approached you and GT and you took the bait for a while but GT saw his true color right away refused to take it.

Many posters here approaches me the same way too.

Freelight, and EE are the one of best example, and Lon just joined them it seems..

They are very much like politicians.

If you don't take their bait you become one of their arch enemy.

Just my observation and insight.:)

Just because I almost always "take the bait" does not mean I do not know it is bait. I take the bait because I give everyone the benefit of the doubt at first, (unless they immediately give me some reason not to do so). But when someone shows their true colors, which we always do, I reserve the right to cut them off. In my book, (which I am constantly quoting, just as above, because I mean the scripture when I say that), Evil is considered a murderer according to the doctrine of Messiah and his disciples and apostles. You do not need to actually have physically murdered with your hands to be considered a murderer in the kingdom of Elohim; all it takes is to reject the Testimony of Messiah, (who was not ashamed to call those willing to become sanctified his brethren), and to hate by speaking evil of his disciples, apostles, and messengers, and their words, (no doubt when they speak the Testimony of Messiah). Need I say more? I already said it with the scripture posted in my previous post above. But you see that Evil has been used to expound many things in his nasty, blasphemous, and accusative threads. If he wishes to put himself in that position then that is no doubt how Elohim will use him, (whether his heart is good or evil he will still be used). :)
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
You don't seem to consider freelight is one of them.

He is so clever. He is working for humanism point of view.

His comments can take from every side. Jesus' way is only one side.

FL is a friend of the world. Remember what Jesus says, He is the way and the life and the truth.
 

daqq

Well-known member
You don't seem to consider freelight is one of them.

He is so clever. He is working for humanism point of view.

His comments can take from every side. Jesus' way is only one side.

FL is a friend of the world. Remember what Jesus says, He is the way and the life and the truth.

Why do you continue to try to tell me what I do and do not know?
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Why do you continue to try to tell me what I do and do not know?

I am just giving you the insight regarding your post.

You seem to resent EE's late posts.

You seem upset. Do you disagree with my assessment?
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
I am just giving you the insight regarding your post.

You seem to resent EE's late posts.

You seem upset. Do you disagree with my assessment?

I am just giving you the benefit of the doubt too since you are non-trin and consider my brother in Christ.
 

daqq

Well-known member
I am just giving you the insight regarding your post.

You seem to resent EE's late posts.

You seem upset. Do you disagree with my assessment?

You think you are giving me "insight" but I have already cut off two people here: are you blind? I will be updating my stupid "friends list" now to give you some insight of your own after all the times you have said such revealing and unwarranted things; first off trying to divide Evil.Eye. and myself, when I already knew the division was there; and secondly now for trying to divide freelight and myself, when I already knew the division was there. All you have done is shown that you are divisive and no friend of truth.
 
Last edited:

Wick Stick

Well-known member
~*~*~
Then we have the title of 'Son of God', emphasized more in John's writings (as a whole) - it seems a sense of divinity is highlighted within a somewhat subtle gnostic inflection, even though parts of John's writings have an anti-gnostic polemic, perhaps with some modifications that took place in some redactions that occurred (another subject). In any case, could you reflect on the these two titles in the light of our subject here, especially within the Adoptionist school.
"Son of man" is obfuscated by our translations. The phrase is Old Testament, and therefore Hebrew in its derivation.

But in Hebrew it might readily be given as "Son of Adam," and it is only our translators that have decided to translate the word Adam. Now take the next step, and realize that Adam and Edom are precisely the same word.

It all comes back to the same old conflict - Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom, the true Israel and the false Israel, the elect, and the pretender living among the elect.

The prophets, and particularly Ezekiel, self-identify as "sons of Edom" to highlight their unworthiness, and their outside-the-camp status.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
I think we've probed the essentials on the 'Sonship' issue, although some still choose to hold to the 'eternal generation' concept of the Son, as being one among a 3 person Godhead. Indeed Jesus is the Son of Man and Son of God,...but we note in the synoptics he usually refers to himself as the 'Son of Man', except in the gospel of John if my memory serves me.

Let us look at the way that the Unitarians understood the term "son of man" in regard to the Lord Jesus. They say:

"He did not 'toot his own horn,' but instead called himself 'the son of man,' which, in the Aramaic language he spoke, meant 'a man'" (biblicalunitarian.com).​

Since in the Aramaic language the term "son of man" means "man" then we can understand that in the same language the term "son of God" means "God."
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
You think you are giving me "insight" but I have already cut off two people here: are you blind? I will be updating my stupid "friends list" now to give you some insight of your own after all the times you have said such revealing and unwarranted things; first off trying to divide Evil.Eye. and myself, when I already knew the division was there; and secondly now for trying to divide freelight and myself, when I already knew the division was there. All you have done is shown that you are divisive and no friend of truth.

Wow, you make the same accusation that EE has been making.

And you are doing the same thing as freelight is doing too.

I guess you are looking for someone who just give you a sweet agreement.

I didn't know you were so shallow.

good day.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Wow, you make the same accusation that EE has been making.

And you are doing the same thing as freelight is doing too.

I guess you are looking for someone who just give you a sweet agreement.

I didn't know you were so shallow.

good day.

Thanks for making my point: I do not come here to talk about me and trade accusations with haters. I come here to discuss the scripture and am tired of the games, name calling, accusations, blah, blah, blah. Discuss the thread topic or find another thread: I don't care who is your friend and who is not, or who you think I should be friends with and who you think I should shun.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Thanks for making my point: I do not come here to talk about me and trade accusations with haters. I come here to discuss the scripture and am tired of the games, name calling, accusations, blah, blah, blah. Discuss the thread topic or find another thread: I don't care who is your friend and who is not, or who you think I should be friends with and who you think I should shun.
\

good day.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Tid-bits on the Son of Man......

Tid-bits on the Son of Man......

Again, TESTIMONY IS SPIRIT, and he who was Anointed to speak the Word in the Gospel accounts is not himself that TESTIMONY. He clearly tells you so himself. This is the same thing again and again which the likes of Jerry Shugart, Evil.Eye, (and all the others from the thread which is now closed, The Logos-Word), refuse to acknowledge or accept because it utterly annihilates their false doctrine. The Testimony IS the Son of Man because it is both spoken and written by MAN from Genesis to the Revelation of Messiah. The Son of Elohim descended from the heavens in the bodily form of a dove: He is the Spirit of the Father, Ruach Elohim, who is Ruach Meshiah, because He is the Word of the Father, because TESTIMONY IS SPIRIT, because the Testimony of the Anointed One is SPIRIT and LIFE. Again, this is precisely why the Anointed One never calls himself the Son of Man but ALWAYS speaks of the Son of Man in the third person. There is only one place where he appears to do so and it is contested because it has clearly been altered in the Textus Receptus, (because no doubt someone saw the problem with the Anointed One NEVER once calling himself the Son of Man).

Again, the plain simple flow of systematic logic straight from the Testimony:

The words of the Anointed One are Spirit:

John 6:62-63
62 What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending up to where he was before?
63 It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you,
they are Spirit, and they are Life.

The Father judges no one but has committed all judgment to the Son:

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

The Anointed One does not testify of himself and therefore does not claim to be Elohim:

John 5:31
31 If I testify of myself, my testimony is not true.


The Anointed One emphatically states that he himself judges no one:

John 8:15
15. You judge after the flesh: I judge no one.

There is only one who judges and he is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: one there is, the Seeker and Judge. [Rev 2:23]

The Logos-Word is the Seeker and the Judge:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but that the world might be delivered.
48. He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the LOGOS-WORD that I have spoken, THAT ONE shall judge him in the last day [Rev 19:11-16].

The Logos-Word the Anointed One speaks is not his own:

John 14:24
24. He that loves me not, keeps not my sayings: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, but of the Father who sent me.

The Father judges no one, (John 5:22).
The Anointed One judges no one, (John 8:15, John 12:47-48).
The Father has committed all judgment unto the Son, (John 5:22).
The Anointed One does not testify concerning himself, (John 5:31).
The Anointed One testifies concerning the Father and the Son.
The Son is therefore the only Judge.

The Father is not the Judge.
The Anointed One is not the Judge.
The Logos-Word the Anointed One speaks is the Judge.
The Anointed One therefore cannot be the Logos-Word himself.
The Logos-Word is the only begotten Elohim-Son of Elohim, (John 1:18).
The Testimony of the Anointed One is never going to pass away, (Mt 24:35, Mk 13:31, Lk 21:33).
(Condensed from "The Logos-Word" Post#2 and previous posts also in this thread).

:thumb:

The title 'Son of Man' is also used in the Book of Enoch, do you see the title in that tradition as being both 'propetic' and 'messianic' as well?

Your 'logos-word' thread here was a good one, unfortunately some became quite bitter and condenscending to the point Sherman chose to 'close' it. I think it was more of the 'contentions' arising from some imposing their negativity on the thread, but the subject of the thread itself, which seemed adversarial to the 'Jesus is God' concept also factored in. Unfortunately some who name the name of 'Christ' fail to express the fruit of his Spirit, and instead give into carnal cruelty and name-calling to defend their 'theology', a posture which actually discredits them.

I still do not see any problem with some variations within the Unitarian Camp and still having Jesus in such a theology be all that Jesus claims to be (his testimony), full honor and glory given to his humanity and whatever divinity he had or was bestowed upon him (all the fullness of God revealing thru him, in whatever way, shape or form). Jesus is still the Messiah-Son and can fit any number of the roles or offices that the Messiah is supposed to have, and maybe even MORE :) - Since Jesus identifies with both the 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God', it is his testimony and the Spirit of truth that bears witness to the logos of the LORD.

The 'logos' of YHWH carries out its prophetic and messianic ministry, thru the man Jesus, and REVEALS 'God' to us (Immanuel). Much of the contentions, divisions (some really unnecessary) are in the details, mechanics, metaphysics, difference of perspective of the Sons' relationship with the Father, doctrinal preferences and presuppositions, equivocations, etc. Because of the intellectual diversity and different philosophical perspectives,...each religionist holds to that 'view' or 'Christology' that suits their best understanding or logic at any given time. A student of truth is also ever open to 'progressive revelation'...."for all shall be taught of God".

In an Adoptionist view the main rejections of it are mostly from Trinitarians of course, since they deem Jesus to be the eternal Son within an eternal Trinity who became flesh on our behalf, and was ALWAYS 'God the Son'. No matter, even if Jesus was 'adopted' by God at his baptism (or even at his resurrection, which both qualify as proving his 'Sonship'), he is still the Lord-Messiah, anointed and appointed by God, to the glory of the Father. His testimony must hold for any who see him as the way, truth and life. - some complications are perceived by some to be introduced by Paul's gospel, and how it factors into anything or changes anything, but that's another thread ;)
 

daqq

Well-known member
Not specifically, but perhaps indirectly.

It is my own understanding of the text. My hypothesis of the authorship of the Pentateuch is colored by the Documentary Hypothesis, but differs in major ways. I will explain:

I believe that Deuteronomy was the original composition of Moses (&/or his scribe). I believe this is the book which was lost, and then found in the time of King Josiah. By contrast, the Documentary Hypothesis proposes a late date of authorship for Deuteronomy ("D"), making it a pseudonymous composition of one of the prophets.

I believe that the tribes were keeping (at least) 2 historical records, the "Book of Jasher" which is mentioned in the Bible (not to be confused with the modern 'book of Jasher' used by the Mormon church), and presumably a "book of Judah" or similar. These are roughly analagous to "J" and "E" in the Documentary Hypothesis ("hereafter DH"). However, the DH proposes a single author and a composition date somewhere around the reign of David, while I a hypothesize multiple authorship over a prolonged period of time.

I do believe somewhere between Saul and Solomon, when the tribes organized a united monarchy, a redaction of the two national histories was undertaken, and they were combined. These form the bulk of the books of Exodus and Numbers. Also combined into the mix were 2 other notable documents.

First, it appears that at some point the Levites authored documents on conduct of priests and procedure for performing sacrifices. In the DH, this is "P." This forms the bulk of the book of Leviticus.

Additionally, it appears that someone contributed to the redaction project a collection of genealogies, catalogued under colophon statements, and therefore probably written in antiquity on clay or stone. The DH does not recognize these as a separate data source. These form the bulk of the book of Genesis.

The DH obviously influences my views, but there are some other sources I should credit:

The Amarna Letters, without which I would never have understood the competing polities of the Ancient Near East and their importance to the text.

The gibberish-until-they-suddenly-aren't writings of Ken Sublett (the notorious Piney/blituri). I disagree with most of Ken's theology, but his mastery of pagan mythology and its influence in the Bible is quite remarkable.

The archaeological reports (mostly the summaries thereof) from the digs at Timna, which proved to me the priesthood was corrupted even before it arrived in Canaan.

Midian, Moab, & Edom by Sawyer and Clines, for elucidating the relationship between Israel, Midian & Edom, as well as systematically proving the dating of the original settlements of Israel (to Iron I) through comprehensive treatment of archaeological digs.

Several books on textual criticism, of unremembered names and authorship. Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua opens the Scriptures like nothing else.

Jarrod

I remember Blituri, (Ken Sublett), from "that old forum", (which appears to be off-line now because I just searched it to make sure I was correct about where I remembered him from [edit: I see it is back up now]). What I have read in some places about the Hathor temple in Timna is that it is a fair guess that whoever converted it into a "desert tabernacle" must have intentionally defiled it to do so, (which makes sense). On a more inquisitive and more important note though I am curious how you understand the statement from Exodus 6:3 and how that might affect our reading of the book of Genesis? (how can Abraham be using the Tetragrammaton when Exo 6:3 explicitly tells us he did not know that name?). Look here at the bottom most answer, (the final response which is labeled "1" in the side bar), for some hints at what I am getting at regarding the Documentary Hypothesis and other such theories in juxtapostion with the Septuagint and perhaps how and why they may have rendered it the way they did in some highly critical places. If the original exilic Ashuri script did not have final form letters, did not have vowel pointing, and did not have spacing between the words, (all of which it did not), and was using the waw|vav sometimes as a "word-separator" but only when necessary, (sporadically), then how in the world would you divide the following, for example, except by the context in which it is found: יהוהאלהים, (pretend there is no final form mem and imagine this in a string of text like in Greek and Latin scripta continua). See what I mean? There are two ways to "rightly divide" what is written, (depending on the context in which it is found). :)
 
Last edited:

daqq

Well-known member
:thumb:

The title 'Son of Man' is also used in the Book of Enoch, do you see the title in that tradition as being both 'propetic' and 'messianic' as well?

Your 'logos-word' thread here was a good one, unfortunately some became quite bitter and condenscending to the point Sherman chose to 'close' it. I think it was more of the 'contentions' arising from some imposing their negativity on the thread, but the subject of the thread itself, which seemed adversarial to the 'Jesus is God' concept also factored in. Unfortunately some who name the name of 'Christ' fail to express the fruit of his Spirit, and instead give into carnal cruelty and name-calling to defend their 'theology', a posture which actually discredits them.

I still do not see any problem with some variations within the Unitarian Camp and still having Jesus in such a theology be all that Jesus claims to be (his testimony), full honor and glory given to his humanity and whatever divinity he had or was bestowed upon him (all the fullness of God revealing thru him, in whatever way, shape or form). Jesus is still the Messiah-Son and can fit any number of the roles or offices that the Messiah is supposed to have, and maybe even MORE :) - Since Jesus identifies with both the 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God', it is his testimony and the Spirit of truth that bears witness to the logos of the LORD.

The 'logos' of YHWH carries out its prophetic and messianic ministry, thru the man Jesus, and REVEALS 'God' to us (Immanuel). Much of the contentions, divisions (some really unnecessary) are in the details, mechanics, metaphysics, difference of perspective of the Sons' relationship with the Father, doctrinal preferences and presuppositions, equivocations, etc. Because of the intellectual diversity and different philosophical perspectives,...each religionist holds to that 'view' or 'Christology' that suits their best understanding or logic at any given time. A student of truth is also ever open to 'progressive revelation'...."for all shall be taught of God".

In an Adoptionist view the main rejections of it are mostly from Trinitarians of course, since they deem Jesus to be the eternal Son within an eternal Trinity who became flesh on our behalf, and was ALWAYS 'God the Son'. No matter, even if Jesus was 'adopted' by God at his baptism (or even at his resurrection, which both qualify as proving his 'Sonship'), he is still the Lord-Messiah, anointed and appointed by God, to the glory of the Father. His testimony must hold for any who see him as the way, truth and life. - some complications are perceived by some to be introduced by Paul's gospel, and how it factors into anything or changes anything, but that's another thread ;)

When the Most High speaks to Moses, in Exodus 6:3, He says that He made appearances unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, literally "in El Shaddai", (באלשדי), and Luke by way of the testimony of Stephen tells us who that concerns; for Stephen himself says in the following passage quoted below, "the God of the Glory", (not just "the God of glory"), and we know by many passages who is the express image and the Glory of the Father:

Acts 7:2 W/H
2 ο δε εφη ανδρες αδελφοι και πατερες ακουσατε ο θεος της δοξης ωφθη τω πατρι ημων αβρααμ οντι εν τη μεσοποταμια πριν η κατοικησαι αυτον εν χαρραν
2 And he said, Brethren and fathers, hearken: the El of the Glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran:


The El of the Glory is thus El Shaddai whom the Father beforetime, (before Moses according to Exodus 6:3), made His appearances unto the patriarch-fathers IN or THROUGH, (by way of, because the Father is non-corporeal Spirit). So the heavenly Father made appearances in El Shaddai who is the El of the Glory of the Father, (His express image who is also His Word).

The Master expounds the difference between himself and Meshiah in several related passages. If you follow the corrupt Textus Receptus you will be misled but from the W/H this is plainly expounded:

John 13:13 W/H
13 υμεις φωνειτε με ο διδασκαλος και ο κυριος και καλως λεγετε ειμι γαρ
13 You call me "the Teacher", (ο διδασκαλος), and "the Master", (ο κυριος), and you say well, because I am.

Matthew 23:8-10 W/H
8 υμεις δε μη κληθητε ραββι εις γαρ εστιν υμων ο διδασκαλος παντες δε υμεις αδελφοι εστε
9 και πατερα μη καλεσητε υμων επι της γης εις γαρ εστιν υμων ο πατηρ ο ουρανιος
10 μηδε κληθητε καθηγηται οτι καθηγητης υμων εστιν εις ο χριστος

Matthew 23:8-10 (W/H rendering)
8 But you shall not be called "Rabbi", for one is your Teacher, (ο διδασκαλος - John 13:13), and you are all brethren.
9 And "Father" shall you not call yourselves [or call or be called] upon the earth, for one is your Father: the Heavenly [Father].
10 Neither shall you be called καθηγηται-guide-leader-commander: for one is your καθηγητης-Guide-Leader-Commander: the Meshiah.


Thus our Rabbi-Teacher, (ο διδασκαλος), is not the exact same as our Leader, Commander, and Guide, (our καθηγητης who is ο χριστος). And according to John 13:13 our Rabbi-Teacher is likewise the Master, (ο κυριος, which most often when employed with the article is not the Tetragrammaton). So we have in the above two passages the teaching that our Rabbi-Teacher is a man, (now resurrected), and Meshiah is our Guide, (the Word), and our Guide ultimately brings us back and restores us to our one and only Heavenly Father.

Now therefore please read carefully:

Matthew 28:2-7
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake: for Malak YHWH descended from the heavens, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat thereon.
3 His countenance was like lightning and His raiment white as snow:
4 And for fear of Him the watchers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the Malak answered and said to the women, Fear not, for I know that you seek Ι̅H who was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said; come, see the place where he laid.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goes before you into the Galilees; there shall you see him: behold, I have told you.

Mark 16:5-7
5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a νεανισκον-young man seated on the right side, invested all about in a long white stole; and they were utterly astonished.
6 And he said to them, Be not astonished; you seek Ι̅H the Nazarene who was crucified: He is risen; He is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that He goes before you into the Galilees: there shall you see Him, just as He told you.

What therefore does Thomas mean when he says, "my Master and my El? :chuckle:
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
What I have read in some places about the Hathor temple in Timna is that it is a fair guess that whoever converted it into a "desert tabernacle" must have intentionally defiled it to do so, (which makes sense).
Part of what I read, they questioned an Egyptologist about whether the Timna Hathor temple was consistent with other temples of Hathor from the same period in Egypt. Apparently "red" leather tabernacles were standard fare for Hathor. (Biblical "red" in quotes because it usually isn't the color we would call red.)

On a more inquisitive and more important note though I am curious how you understand the statement from Exodus 6:3 and how that might affect our reading of the book of Genesis? (how can Abraham be using the Tetragrammaton when Exo 6:3 explicitly tells us he did not know that name?).
I read Ex 6:3 as being a gloss. Nonetheless, it may mean that the priests went back and "changed the names" in the original sources as a form of pious forgery. It seems to me that men care about names and not so much God, so that makes enough sense to me.

Look here at the bottom most answer, (the final response which is labeled "1" in the side bar), for some hints at what I am getting at regarding the Documentary Hypothesis and other such theories in juxtapostion with the Septuagint and perhaps how and why they may have rendered it the way they did in some highly critical places. If the original exilic Ashuri script did not have final form letters, did not have vowel pointing, and did not have spacing between the words, (all of which it did not), and was using the waw|vav sometimes as a "word-separator" but only when necessary, (sporadically), then how in the world would you divide the following, for example, except by the context in which it is found: יהוהאלהים, (pretend there is no final form mem and imagine this in a string of text like in Greek and Latin scripta continua). See what I mean? There are two ways to "rightly divide" what is written, (depending on the context in which it is found). :)
No idea where you're going with this, but I guess I would separate it as YH HALHM, with the second H becoming the definite article.

Just for fun, that Waw shows up between the L and H in ALHM quite a bit. Job has an alternate form of the word as well - ALWH. So maybe there should be a word-break after AL to boot?

YH HAL HM = Jah, the God (of) the many
OR
YH HAL HM = Jah, the God (of) Ham

Sounds reasonable, but I don't buy it. I think the Thayer's derivation from HYH is correct. The Dead Sea Scrolls show a pattern of Y to W transformations when words are prefixed with an initial Y. YHWH follows that pattern.

That also may mean that the correct pronunciation doesn't have a V/W sound in it at all. yeHaYaH
 
Last edited:
Top