Frank4YAHWEH:

Yahshua said that ALL power (authority has been GIVEN to him in heaven and also in the earth. Since what he says is true then he most certainly has the power (authority) to redeem mankind from sin and death. This is the refuge or protection that Yahshua offers under the authority of his and our FATHER Yahweh Who is in heaven. As I have asked many times on this forum ... Since you believe that Yahshua is Yahweh, why would he need to be GIVEN power and authority when He has already had power and authority. FATHER Yahweh Who is ALLmighty would have no need for another to give Him power and authority, since He has always had all power and authority from the very beginning. There are definitly two separate beings spoken of here!

Frank4YAHWEH:

And I have told you time and time again that the word 'elohim' is not always in reference to FATHER Yahweh Who you foolishly beleive is His SON and can in turn be his own FATHER. I also told you that the first part of the verse is in reference to FATHER Yahweh's SON and then when it makes mention of Who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth an ALL THINGS IN THEM, this is in reference to FATHER Yahweh. Just because I do not agree with your false and deceptive teaching does not mean that I am being unresponsive to your questions, but only unresponsive to what is not taught in Scripture that you keep insisting is taught in Scripture which you have yet to present any evidence that it is.

hisblud: evidence? Ok who claimed that the hebrew rendering of ps 45.6 by strong's concordance is pro-trinitarian to discredit evidence against your failed association of Judge to God in v6? I have shown that the hebrew word for "Judge" is not same for the word "God" which you couldnt deny, also i showed you that the hebrew word for "god" is not same as "God". And how can the scholars you presented at the same time be evidence [be logically correct] against Yashua being God when ALL were not in agreement but contradicted themselves? You call their disagreements evidence for anti trinitarian as logical proof? SMH! Bros yeh! You fail big time. Period.

truthislight: why do people wish to tell themselves that we did not inherit the sin of Adam ? :


"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation sacrifice through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of "sins that occurred in the past", through the forbearance of God;" (Romans 3:25).
.................

benalvino:

because it was created for him and through him...

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil (Prov. 16:4).

But the Apostle Paul wrote the following about Jesus:
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him (Col. 1:16).
you get the deal? it was created for him in the first place and by him...

Frank4YAHWEH:

I have never "claimed that the hebrew rendering of ps 45.6 by strong's concordance is pro-trinitarian. I did say James Strong has a Trintarian bias, but not that this bias was concerning "ps 45.6." So, you do not believe that the word 'elohim' can designate malakim [angels] (non-human servants of the one Yahweh) or foreign, pagan deities, judges or even mere men? If not, then do you believe that the word 'elohim' only gives reference to Yahweh?


"STRONG'S CONCORDANCE describes ELOHIM as follows..."....plural of 433 (Eloah); gods in the ordinary sense; but specially used (in the plural, especially with the article..["the"] of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative; angels...exceeding God (gods), goddess, godly, (very) great, judges, mighty."
SOURCE: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/Elohim.html

benalvino1:

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken,' and, as another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced' (John 19:34-37).

The only Scripture that John could have been referring to when he wrote, "... as another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have[b] pierced[/b]'" is the following one:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son (Zech 12:10).

YHWH spoke those words through the prophet Zechariah, as is apparent if we would read from Zech. 12:1 down through verse 10. Note: YHWH is speaking and uses the word me in conjunction to being the one that gets pierced. Yet the Apostle John referred to the same Scripture (Zech 12:10) and says that it was fulfilled when Jesus was pierced on the cross by the Roman soldier's spear! Who was pierced, YHWH or Jesus? Since Jesus is YHWH this puzzle is solved, along with John 5:37.

is this not yet another clue? let me know if you need another sign i wont wait to post it.

Bidam: Good one benalvino.It takes a fool to deny that God came down in the flesh.I am not the one saying that,it is scriptures.

frosbel:

It takes a 'PAGAN' to believe that god is 3 and that the no.2 god descended into a baby and immediately lost all sense of awareness and divinity, lol.

frosbel:

It takes a 'PAGAN' to believe that god is 3 and that the no.2 god descended into a baby and immediately lost all sense of awareness and divinity, lol.

benalvino:

You are right... Judges are translated as elohim in the bible... Judges and magistrates that is what YHWH means by ye are gods... The JW thinks it means humans are god In the nature of God in heaven... That is why YHWH keep saying he is the only God. And God manisfest in the flesh... There are verses i have giving you that caused problem for you. You ask why question i answered... So why did YHWH said they pierce him? Isn't Jesus the one that was pierced? What about seeking refuge ? You can't answer both.

Frank4YAHWEH:


Zecharyah 12:10

Yahweh Almighty speaks:

“...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son” - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.

This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that "Jesus IS God!" since Yahshua was “pierced” by the Yahdah ["Jews"].
Unfortunately for this trinitarian interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

“...when they look upon him whom they have pierced” - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; CEV; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10 “According to some MSS. [manuscripts], ‘him’.” Also see Rotherham footnote.)

Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him), Yahweh continues with “they shall mourn for HIM”! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The “me” in the first half simply does not agree with the “him” of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word “him” in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as “him” (or “the one”).

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 ["him"]. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is especially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!

But most important of all is Yahchanan [John] 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by Yahchanan! All translations show Yahchanan here translating Zecharyah 12:10 as “They shall look upon him [or ‘the one’] whom they pierced.” So we have this Apostle and inspired Scripture writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zecharyah 12:10 should read: “They shall look upon him (not ‘me’).” Therefore, Yahweh is speaking in Zecaryah 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

Frank4YAHWEH:

Yes, this verse refers to the sins that one personally commits in the past, not to the sins that Adam and Eve comitted in the past.

frosbel:

It takes a 'PAGAN' to believe that god is 3 and that the no.2 god descended into a baby and immediately lost all sense of awareness and divinity, lol.

Frank4YAHWEH:
I have never "claimed that the hebrew rendering of ps 45.6 by strong's concordance is pro-trinitarian. I did say James Strong has a Trintarian bias, but not that this bias was concerning "ps 45.6." So, you do not believe that the word 'elohim' can designate malakim [angels] (non-human servants of the one Yahweh) or foreign, pagan deities, judges or even mere men? If not, then do you believe that the word 'elohim' only gives reference to Yahweh?

"STRONG'S CONCORDANCE describes ELOHIM as follows..."....plural of 433 (Eloah); gods in the ordinary sense; but specially used (in the plural, especially with the article..["the"] of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative; angels...exceeding God (gods), goddess, godly, (very) great, judges, mighty."
SOURCE: http://frank4yahweh.tripod.com/Elohim.html

The only way that you disappoint me is in that you can actually believe in the foolish, false, deceptive, and demonic so-called "Holy Trinity" doctrine! James Strong's work is not "the literal hebrew rendering" and he is in fact a Trinitarian and his works reflect his bias.

benalvino:

But the right translation is me... I will show you more examples... One little example is that God bought the church by his blood... All are connceted... And you can't run for ever lol more is coming

frosbel:

It takes a 'PAGAN' to believe that god is 3 and that the no.2 god descended into a baby and immediately lost all sense of awareness and divinity, lol.

hisblud:

What is the seed of David?

frosbel:

Let the bible speak for itself.

“And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:” Acts 13:22-23

“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” Revelation 22:16

“He (Jesus) shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end”. Luke 1:32-33

“THE LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.” Psalm 132:11

WHAT is the Seed of David?

WHO is the Seed of David

hisblud:

Beautiful... i agree with the verses.... my question is

Not ...

hisblud:

https://www.nairaland.com/1341369/anti-trinitarian-please-kindly-frosbel-answer/5#17192456

Good to know you have owned up to what you wrote. Now how can you claim that Strong is biased in his work, which has put a hole in your scholarly reference then you turn around and claim he cannot be with respect to ps45.6? This sounds like confusion becos your wrangling is weak at best.

Now lets simply look at the word "God" rendered by Strong's concordance below. It showed literally "Elohim" not "Hashopet" which stands for "Judge". From the strong concordance you now claim, though trinity baised, it uses the word "occassionally" which means from time to time, but not regularly or frequently Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
.

Thus implying that in this context and verse, it is not used as JUDGE [Hashopet][Haa'²lohiym], nor gODS['²lohiym] nor ANGEL [mee'²lohiym] thus differentiating the above from God [Elohiym] literally.

Therefore, i can boldly state that in context, ps 45.6 is refering to "Elohim" as well as in v2....

frosbel:

sperma: that which is sown, i.e. seed
Original Word: σπέρμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: sperma
Phonetic Spelling: (sper'-mah)
Short Definition: seed, offspring
Definition: (a) seed, commonly of cereals, (b) offspring, descendents.

hisblud:

Great!... please kindly allow this to be started on a new thread of its own... i like your flow... because this is all about Heb 1.8, Ps45.6. ok?

Frank4YAHWEH:

Oh no! Me thinks there be a false revelation of a "Triune God" coming to head!

Frank4YAHWEH:

No, the right translation would not be "me."

ALL righteous things come from FATHER Yahweh and rightfully are His concerning His people. Scripture teaches that life is in the blood so Yahshua's life and blood is most certainly his and our FATHER Yahweh's just as our life and blood is. All throughout Scripture FATHER Yahweh is illustrated as having human body parts and He most certainly can be illustred as having blood also. I can say of my son that his blood is mine, but that does not make my son me. This is just a way of saying that he is my rightful son.

No, I'm not running from anything!

I believe the following translation to be more accurate:

1903, "with the blood of his own Son" The Holy Bible in Modern Speech, by F.Fenton

1966, "through the death of his own Son" Todays English Version, American Bible Society.

There are more that could be cited, they being:

The Authentic New Testament (Schonfield, 1954)

The New Testament: A New Translation (W.Barclay, 1963)

The Translator's New Testament (1973)

New Revised Standard Version (1989)

Contemporary English Version (1995)

The J. N. Darby's translation translates the last part of Acts 20:28 as,

"which he [God] has purchased with the blood of his own."

Darby in a footnote to this verse says:

"I am fully satisfied that this is the right translation of ver.28. To make it a question of the divinity of Christ(which I hold to be of the foundation of Christianity)is absurd. It has been questioned whether 'of his own' can be used thus absolutely in the singular. But we have it in John 15.19, and in the neuter singular for material things, Acts 4.32. ..."

'[b]What Darby here shows from his referring us to John 15:19 and Acts 4:32 is that "idiou" can be used without an accompanying noun in the Greek and to indicate that which is 'possessed' by the referent mentioned previously. In Acts 20:28 he believes that "idiou," "own," is a reference to God's own "son" not to God's own "blood."

In agreement with Darby is what is stated in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture (SPCK, London, corrected reprint of March, 1946, page 369):

"In [v]28 the subject of 'purchased' is more naturally God not Christ. But the phrase 'the blood of God' is incredible in St. Paul. Some have conjectured that the word 'Son' has fallen out. Otherwise it is best to translate blood that is His own."-italics theirs.

There are a number of manuscripts that read not "God," but "Lord," so the latter part of Acts 20:28 would then read as from the Revised Standard Version, "to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood." Apparently the manuscript evidence for either is balanced[/b].'
http://onlytruegod.org/defense/acts20.28.htm

benalvino:

This is why we have so many bibles... has your religion released their own? that is the one i want to use.

hisblud:

False..no..no.. The Truth that has always been that you dogmatically and deliberately ignore coming soon.

Frank4YAHWEH:

I am of no specific religious organization. I use various translations of Scripture in my reading and studying of Scripture.

Frank4YAHWEH:

Oh no! Me thinks there be a false revelation of a "Triune God" coming to head!

Emusan:

I asked Frosbel this question maybe he didn't see it, but let me ask you too.

Who gave Moses the Ten Commandment in the Old Testament, is it Yeshau or YHWH?

benalvino:

the truth is you will accept any argument that supports what you are looking for. even if the argument says green is black.
so all you have been saying is based on your bias.