Congratulations Daqq, This Thread is just for you. (Exposing your Deceit)

Status
Not open for further replies.

daqq

Well-known member
What do you mean they are blasphemers? You are wrong!

Evil Eye says he believes that "Jesus became Azazel" for him. Azazel is clearly a demon in the book of Enoch. When I showed him that from the scripture, (Leviticus 16), he told me I blasphemed his Jesus. The truth is that I showed him that he is the one blaspheming the Messiah, and that it was his own fault, because he cared not to take the time to study and understand the Torah. The only thing that truly may have been offended was his own wicked version of "Jesus Bar-Abbas Azazel". Moses wrote of Azazel, in Leviticus 16, where the goat sent away into the desert, with all the sins of the people upon its mortally wounded head, was sent away to Azazel, (the goat itself is not Azazel), and Messiah is neither the goat nor Azazel. Evil Eye is simply trying to cover up for his own multiple blasphemies at my expense, (he now claims at least two blasphemies which are together a double hideous blasphemy because he is claiming "Jesus is YHWH" while at the same time claiming "Jesus is Azazel"). When I posted a thread about this controversy he posted the same slew of scripture verses, (without any explanation whatsoever), as he posted at the start of this thread. His entire atonement theory was demolished as he ran away crying and started yet another call out rebuttal thread so as to give himself an excuse for ignoring my thread where he was beaten to a pulp by the truth of the scripture. You can now find the link to my thread on the first page of this thread and see also that his entire theology is what is now burning down to the ground just like his flaming strawman video on the front page herein. He is all talk and no walk. :)
 

RBBI

New member
Let all who read this see... That RBBI and Marhig again.. have no answer for what Isaiah 9:6 and Luke 2:11 are saying.

And Marhig... Isaiah 9:6 ... Can anyone but Avi-'ad be called "Avi-'ad"?

His name will be "Avi-'ad" (MIGHTY FATHER)

Again... Please address Isaiah 9:6 and Luke 2:11

????????????

And Marhig...

This is from another discussion... But it directly addresses what you are talking about...



I wasn't done editing... ; )



Modelism denies the relationship of The Father to the Son... it further denies the WORK of the Son and our Marriage to The Son... (Ephesians 5:30)

I do not... but... go on and wag your tongue... full of deceit... every time you say such.

Philippians 2:6,7,8,9 but... especially Philippians 2:6, 9

And... super especially...

Philippians 2:10-11

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and tthat every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Sincerely... it's okay! It's true... Behold.. The Prince of Peace and King of Kings... He can dwell in Y-O-U.

I'll quote a post for you.... brb

[MENTION=4465]Name Ommitted[/MENTION] was kind enough to allow me to sharpen my scriptural iron by answering an excellent question he had asked.

I had asked if I could attempt to answer the question... and the following dialogue followed.









Yet... I'm the same person that wrote this...

I told you before I don't live on this board, so don't assume you're going to get a prompt answer. In this case, you're not going to get one at all as it appears you've been told to stop with the excessively long posts and you keep doing it, I suspect because it makes it so difficult to reply to all the points thereby "winning" by default in your eyes. Have at it and stay blissfully unaware of who the Son is, which would shake your earth like the earthquake you need, as there's nothing like a good earthquake to break the fallow ground that refuses to be broken any other way. ;)
 

marhig

Well-known member
Since you think you have studied better than I have then tell me exactly what I said that is in error about the meaning of Titus 2:13.
From what I've read, there was no punctuation in the original scriptures punctuation was added later, so titus 2:13 could read like this

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.(KJV)
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Not a bit hard if you know who the Son is. Go back to the law and read the law of the seed. Then tell me who the Son is, or consider yourself a law-breaker.

Wow, what a windbag he is.

Nice to see you back RBBI.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
You and Daqq worship at the same false alter! Daqq BLASPHEMES THE SPIRIT!!! If I'm so theologically wrong.. Riddle me this...

Isaiah 9:6 and Luke 2:11

What do they mean?

# That's what I thought!
# Now throw your sucker in the dirt, so Jesus can give you the MANNA FROM HEAVEN!

# Peace

; )

Maybe his belt is to tight.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
From what I've read, there was no punctuation in the original scriptures punctuation was added later, so titus 2:13 could read like this

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.(KJV)

Of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ- Greek: tou megalou theou kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou.

Greek grammar says when one article 'tou/the' is used with two adjectives separated by 'kai/and', there is
one object in view. In other words in this verse Christ is both the great GOD and also the Saviour.
The grammar is the same in 2Peter 1:11.

2Pe 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The kingdom is of the one person who is both Lord and Saviour.



Therefore in Titus 2:13 Jesus Christ is both the great GOD and the Saviour.


by Marhig: so titus 2:13 could read like this

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.(KJV)

[/QUOTE]

Regardless of punctuation, in the Greek text there is not a 'that' and a 'the'.
There is only one definite article....;tou/the' which describes the one person, Jesus Christ who is both the great GOD and Saviour.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
From what I've read, there was no punctuation in the original scriptures punctuation was added later, so titus 2:13 could read like this

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.(KJV)

There are many studies on this. Of course the all disagree with something.

It is nothing to support trinity doctrine of two Gods, one of which is greater than the other who sent the other God down from Heaven, divesting Him of all His power and Glory, to become a little baby who would need to learn wisdom, was tempted, and died.

That is what trinity teaches.

LA
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
There are many studies on this. Of course they all disagree with something.

It is nothing to support trinity doctrine of two Gods, one of which is greater than the other who sent the other God down from Heaven, divesting Him of all His power and Glory, to become a little baby who would need to learn wisdom, was tempted, and died.

That is what trinity teaches.

LA
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
There are many studies on this. Of course the all disagree with something.

It is nothing to support trinity doctrine of two Gods, one of which is greater than the other who sent the other God down from Heaven, divesting Him of all His power and Glory, to become a little baby who would need to learn wisdom, was tempted, and died.

That is what trinity teaches.

LA

That is emphatically not what Trinitarianism teaches.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Where did you get the idea that I'm a Oneness/Modalist?

I'm far from it.

YHWH is very clearly The FATHER in manifold Tanakh passages.
Have you not already confessed elsewhere that you believe, "Jesus is YHWH" ???
That is not traditional Trinitarianism.
 

daqq

Well-known member
YHWH is very clearly The FATHER in manifold Tanakh passages.
Have you not already confessed elsewhere that you believe, "Jesus is YHWH" ???
That is not traditional Trinitarianism.

Deuteronomy 32:1-6
1 Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth!
2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of YHWH: ascribe ye greatness unto our Elohim.
4 He is the Rock,
[not the Cela but the Tsur] His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: an El of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.
5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of His sons: they are a perverse and crooked generation.
6 Do you thus requite YHWH, O foolish and unwise people? is He not your Father that has purchased you? has He not made you and established you?

Isaiah 63:16
16 Doubtless you are our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: You, O YHWH, are our Father, our Redeemer; your name is from everlasting.

Isaiah 64:8
8 But now, O YHWH, You are our Father; we are the clay, and you our potter; and we all are the work of you hand.

Jeremiah 3:4
4 Will you not from this time call unto Me, "Abiy, ("my Father"), you are the guide of my youth"?

Jeremiah 3:17-19
17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of YHWH; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of YHWH, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart.
18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I gave for an inheritance unto your fathers.
19 And I said, How shall I place you among the sons, and give you a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of the nations? So I said, You shall call Me "Abiy", ("my Father"), and shall not turn away from following Me.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Diving right in.......

Diving right in.......

Good link.

(link now gone?)

This guy's comment from the comment section under that video is spot on.

christopher laing2 months ago
"The verse should read that the blessed hope we have is in the appearing of the great glory of our God who is Yeshuah HaMashiach as He is the glory of Yahuwah God."

Hi all, - just responding to posts as I read them here...past the OP :)

Yes,...the video is from Brother Kel,....I've shared his videos on Trinity proof-texts here before as well, he also has a wonderful website resource being the pioneer of 'The Trinity Delusion' resource. - what is odd though is that in LA's original post, there is no video link,...but its in his post in your response to it. Did he delete it from his original post? Kinda odd. I included the video earlier on Titus 2:5 with my commentary response to drbrumely in another thread here.

Again, I've stated that from my perspective that much of the Unitarian/Trinitarian debates that have taken up a good many years of church council deliberations (with more than a few head-aches along the way) are mere 'cosmetics' and complications in terminology, metaphysics and doctrinal preferencing. Thats it folks. Well, there's more to it of course,...just nuancing the statement to perk things up:)

I may address the OP here, since I'm friends with both daqq and EE,..which presents a curious 'tension' in the mix. As EE takes off his kids gloves,...I've always like daqq kept my surgery gloves ON in exegesis, and maybe a tad bit eisegesis,...when needed :) But then again, I'm all about 'expanding consciousness' and espousing a much more liberal and universal theology, but for the sake of our discussion here on the subject, am circumscribed within the parameters of a judeo-christian context, its terms.

I've had threads on both historical Unitarianism and Arianism so have some schooling in that area under my belt, so am equipped there with other augments to enhance the discussion. I in these sharing do espouse for the sake of 'creative dialogue', a more Unitarian view, obvously. Its just a 'view'. Its not a dogma. I try not to invest too much into it, except ever hone and sharpen my insight, understanding and knowledge of the subjects (relationally speaking), tempered with love and wisdom, since these religous values and principles rule at the end of the day, while only the pure in heart see God. So we have to be careful that our insistence and demand to conceptualize or believe in a certain way or assume one one point of view is somehow 'absolute', does not obscure or prevent our spirit to be sensitive to the Spirit, and be its fruit-bear...not its griever. It must be one of the gravest of sins to grieve the Spirit, and a much worse sin along the same lines to grieve the spirit of your brother. This is in ancient scripture by the way in one of the earlier gospels, so I bring it up so we can re-evaluate in what 'spirit' we are addressing each other in, and what manner any accusations are being made. (remember the accuser of the brethren? Who is that?).

Yes, this is point blank...but I'd rather present these important sentiments up front, that we be fair stewards and respecters of one another as children of God, and servants in his kingdom, differences of opinion or Christology asides. Henceforth, love and wisdom must be our constant guides in the conduct of doctrine, and even much more in PRACTICE. It still stands that we will be judged "according to our works". Your faith must be demonstrated to show that is both 'real' and 'alive'. OR it is not. - and this is just the truth. Grin and bear it.

I ask an important question here about what is so wrong with an Arian view of God and Jesus? Really. I find the 'reasons' shared by trinitarians...so far to be unconvincing. For some its just "because I say so", or some other presuppostional doctrines held which precipitates or requires Jesus to be God, and so on :idunno: - really,...I can love 'God' and approach him thru His Messiah, just as well....as a Unitarian. - I'm doing awesome :) Whose protesting? well, only 'protestants' against Unitarianism...thats it. - its all conceptual belief contesting, merely intellectual. I still value and celebrate the 'God' in Jesus, Jesus revealing 'God' to us, absolutely. Jesus came in the flesh,....certainly. The Spirit bears witness with the blood and water (divinity infused with matter)....Jesus did come....and you dont need the added 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum) to still be a real Jesus lover ;) - really.

I'm only using the 'Arian' example because EE has expressly called it out specifically and apparently has generalized it as a broad 'catagory' in which he has lumped a good many of us :) - daqq already corrected him about NOT being a true Arian, since there are a few things he does not agree with as held by traditional Arianism. I think it important to know the differences. So while some of COULD be put into an 'Arian' catagory, (do your homework before label pasting)...I think only a few might really qualify to believe exactly like Arius did, and there are sub-catgories and different forms of Arianism too. - for anyone who has studied the Arian Controversy, knows the whole thing is a metaphysical guagmire - and so much over the Father and Son being of either 'like' substance,...or the 'same' substance....OR some variation thereof.AT BEST,...daqq and some of us holding more unitarian views, would probably best be placed under the broader catagory of general 'Unitarian' (with variances individually). I frankly dont mind that, since I understand the term, its history and what it entails or might include. I recognize it as just a 'label', but a helpful one descriptionally speaking. Who we really are as children of God, is the offspring of DEITY. - Pure Spirit, even that seed of potential immortality in us,...transcends religious or finite descriptions,...its beyond words, but we must use words of course to communicate our approximations of such. However, the 'word' is not the 'thing' itself. Be mindful.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
I took it off, I did not think he was all together correct.

but here it is again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBlgBH8SAzM

You'll find that all of us have our own unique individual perspective and interpretation on a subject-matter, but if we agree in principle, even within our own 'school',...variations and different facets of a thing can be shared and appreciated. Brother Kel is just one of those teachers, who offer thoughts and reflections for us to consider.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Well said, Freelight, (I did not want to quote your entire post #56 above but that is what I refer to). I also already gave a "label" for myself and have done so on more than a few occasions when this has arisen, (always due to false accusations). That "label", (and I really do not like labels), would be "Adoptionist". The only other label that might truly apply would be monotheist, (or "monotheist-adoptionist"), but even Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, (lol). :)
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
The key-note of David.....opening the harmonic gates......

The key-note of David.....opening the harmonic gates......

Apparently so: either play the harp or dodge the flaming spears of the Saulites. :)
(1 Samuel 16:14-23 KJV, 1 Samuel 18:10-12 KJV)

I prefer to resonate with the song of David and play my own celestial harp in heavenly concert :)

Indeed,....the Tabernacle of David is being restored in the last days,...and I believe it will include the restoration of the true harmonies and instruments of worship as in the days of old. And let us not forget the key-note of David....which his house has access to. - the congregation with-in the Messiah, opens and shuts the doors of different dispensations and portals in the Spirit (sound is one medium thru which the cosmic currents flow). What an amazing time to be in! The return to the Beloved.


View attachment 25358
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Well said, Freelight, (I did not want to quote your entire post #56 above but that is what I refer to). I also already gave a "label" for myself and have done so on more than a few occasions when this has arisen, (always due to false accusations). That "label", (and I really do not like labels), would be "Adoptionist". The only other label that might truly apply would be monotheist, (or "monotheist-adoptionist"), but even Trinitarians claim to be monotheists, (lol). :)

Blessings daqq,

I tried to condense my first post here, but so many things need to be clarified. The logos must go forth :) I dont mind the catagory of 'Unitarian' since I resonate with alot of the key precepts and tenets of the school, which also by the way extols the use of conscience, reason and logic in one's religious practice and devotion....we must also include the discoveries of modern science to our acumen of knowledge....for science and spirit compliment each other. - such is the benefit of having a Holistic Theology.

I can also live under a label of 'mono-theist'....but also in my more philosophically liberal pursuits,...I can seem like a 'monist' as well,...my more pan-entheistic tendencies. Nevertheless,....it all comes back to One Universal SOURCE....out of which all springs, a Manifold ONE,...the Infinite One. All that IS....is this ONE, and out of IT comes the multiplicity of creation....a pluralistic UNITY. On a most pure ontological level we can say with 'God'..."I AM". - this pure reality of existence itself, is at the core, the heart of our own 'being' and 'identity'. This reality is also 'self-evident'. But this is a deeper and higher teaching that goes beyond the 'terms' and 'restrictions' of traditional, pre-packaged 'theology'. Thats another thread :)

The more fundamental truth can be contemplated in the 'Advaita' tradition of Non-Duality, from the ancient Advaita Vedanta school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top