Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Infallible!?

Expand Messages
  • CELSO, JR. BARRERA
    It is really good to know that not all people believe on the same one thing. Though many claim it their way but cannot prove it properly using the records
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 6 5:49 AM
      It is really good to know that not all people believe on the same one thing. Though many claim it their way but cannot prove it properly using the records (scriptures). What often happens is that they thought it to be that way. They always forgotten that God's thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and not our ways. The heavens are very far from the earth so is the mind and ways of God. Therefore, it is always best to use the scriptures when proving something by sighting verses...


      From: Ken Ruffle <kenruffle@...>
      To: "Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com" <Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: Ken Ruffle <kenruffle@...>
      Sent: Monday, 7 May 2012, 20:23
      Subject: Re: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Infallible!?

       

      I have read many quotes about the trinity and glad that i am not alone in believing that the Father sent his son and not himself in the flesh as many tend to believe. It is interesting how they will pick and choose only a handful of scripture they believe proof their point yet in reality it does the opposit. Take for example in John 1:1-5 I believe, where it said that the father was manifested in the flesh. it sounds good until you read the deffinition of the word manifested. It simply states to show etc. Jesus did just that. He showed us who the Father was throughout his ministry. We do the same as Jesus taught us yet we are not Christ himself in the flesh. I also like Exodus 7:1 where Moses is called GOD in the NKJV. Does this mean that Moses was GOD in the flesh also? Of coarse not. It meant He was to be judge over the Egyptions and their false gods. Most Christians seem to stumble over titles and confuse them as to what they mean. I hope more peole are out there who share our views on the true words of GOD and not that of the Roman empire via the Roman Chatholic church which gave birth to all those that followed her.
       

      From: Richard <orasmust@...>
      To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2012 11:12 AM
      Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Infallible!?

       
      Study of the AENT is fairly new to me, but it certainly shows the textual changes and variations that exist between the Roman hand-me-down texts VS those maintained in ancient times by the Eastern Church.

      AENT pg 1058, 1059 outline the matter of 'Y'shua to Zeus'.

      Since the translation to Greek, from the original language, obliterated His actual given name and substitued throughout the texts 'Jesus', I'm sure what we've been handed down has been significantly perverted from what was originally given.

      I'm hopeful though. When I came face to face with the actual doctrine taught by Y'shua, it is as He said - His words are imperishable and still exist today. Through considering each teaching, one can still know the truth by being His disciple indeed, and not just in hearing.

      The AENT was pointed out to me by another poster at a Christian apologetic web site, since what my web site was saying is largely what the AENT study helps were also saying. It was like meeting a 'spiritual twin' on the other side of the globe:-) (but I believe the matter is observence of the Doctrine of God and not so much in Torah keeping, as the fulness of Grace and Truth are centered in Y'shua and what He taught. The law was an elemental schoolmaster unitl He came to reveal the fullness of truth and grace and will of God - that we 'hear Him' and 'follow' Him. (II John)

      http:www.onediscipletoanother.org

      'Y'shua Mashiyach is the government of YHWH, he is altogether Righteous, Just and Lawful, but most Christians are adamant that 'Jesus did away with the Law.' There is plenty of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mashiyach Y'shua has been utterly betrayed by the vast majority of Christianity. But the greatest 'slap in the face' to Mashiyach, is that when Christians are Scripturally presented with the truth about Mashiyach Y'shua, rather than repenting and turning to YHWH, most choose to ignore Truth, and continue to follow pagan customs. Most Christians ask, 'What difference does it make?' because they see no difference between the absolute Truth of the Perfect Mashiyach versus a false religious system that invented Je-Zeus according to a mixture of truth and paganism.'

      'While it is true that Jesous became the Greek substitute for Yehoshua (Greek Septuagint translation of the Tanakh), it is also true that the Greek language is very capable of reproducing the name of Yehoshua (Y'shua) with exact sonic pronunciation. However, and etymological link evolved between Iesous, Zeus, and Jesus, pronounced: Je-soos; Zoos; and Jee-zuhs. Regardless as to whether one recognizes sonic similarities or not, there are many other factors that connect the Christian worship of Jesus to Zeus. Notice 'Elizeus' in the 1611 King James Version (Luke 4:27), spelled exactly as seen here, is a name that weds the pagan diety Zeus with Elohim of Israel. While this is clear evidence of a blatant pagan connection to Zeus worship, we've only begun to scratch the surface'

      There is significantly more material contained in the AENT, and I plan on going through my web site on the teachings of Jesus to see if only the name was changed. Thankfully we know that God upholds His Word higher than His Name.

      --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "retrofit1965" <retrofit1965@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hi Richard,
      >
      > Thanks for responding to my question. What I was wondering about when
      > you quoted the Apostle John is that you attributed to him as having
      > referred to Iasous as MASTER Yahweh. However, that is not what is
      > written.
      >
      > In Matt. 3:3 John was quoting the prophet Isaiah who said the following
      > in Isa. 40:3:
      >
      > The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of
      > Yahweh; make level in the desert a highway for OUR Elohim.
      >
      > The Hebrew word for MASTER is not found anywhere in that verse of Isaiah
      > so John certainly could not have meant MASTER in the actual sense when
      > he used that Greek word or he would have misquoted Isaiah.
      >
      > Although it is true that Yahweh is MASTER that is not what John or
      > Isaiah were making known to Israel in their respective times. What they
      > were making known was that THEIR Elohim, Whom they knew as Yahweh, was
      > about to pay them that long promised visitation. Otherwise I do agree
      > with you that it was Yahweh Who John was speaking of.
      >
      > Also, will you be telling me how you deduced that the name of Jesus
      > "could well be slang for 'Hail Zeus'"?
      >
      > In truth,
      >
      > Kevin
      >
      >
      > ================================================
      > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <orasmust@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > The quote from John the baptist is in Matthew 3:3; 'It is him for whom
      > it was spoken through Yesha'yahu the prophet, 'A voice of one crying in
      > the deseart 'Prepare the way of Master YHWH and make straight his path.'
      > Sort of provides additional meaning to 4:7; 'Y'shua said to him, 'Again
      > it is written that you will not test Master YHWY your Elohim."
      > >
      > > If you need any other specific passages, just let me know, but those
      > are the ones I was referring to.
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "retrofit1965"
      > retrofit1965@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Hello Richard,
      > > >
      > > > I am not exactly sure as to what you are attempting to convey in
      > your
      > > > post? Are you suggesting that we should rather use the AENT
      > Translation
      > > > over the other currently available translations because Jesus Christ
      > and
      > > > His apostles only spoke Aramaic and therefore is more accurate? Or
      > is it
      > > > because you dispute the use of the English form of His name?
      > > >
      > > > Also, it would help enormously if you could provide Scripture
      > references
      > > > in those instances where you make claims about what the Word of God
      > says
      > > > so that I can confirm if it so written. I acknowledge your quote of
      > Acts
      > > > 3:22, 23 but you also made other apparent Scriptural quotes and
      > > > attributed a saying to John the Baptist.
      > > >
      > > > In addition, how did you deduce that the name of Jesus "could well
      > > > be slang for 'Hail Zeus'"?
      > > >
      > > > In His Truth,
      > > >
      > > > Kevin
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > ==============================================
      > > >
      > > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <orasmust@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > We have our text from Greek texts roots. Scripture has also been
      > > > preserved in the East, quite seperate from the Greek, holding to the
      > > > original Aramaic, as spoken by Y'shua and His apostles.
      > > > >
      > > > > Just one example:
      > > > >
      > > > > No where in the AENT (Aramaic English New Testament) is the name
      > > > 'Jesus' found. He is named/called either Yohoshua or Y'shua
      > throughout
      > > > the text. 'There is no other name'? Going further, the name Jesus
      > could
      > > > well be slang for 'Hail Zeus'.
      > > > >
      > > > > Jerome, while writing about his actions, stated that the NT books
      > were
      > > > translated into Greek, but no one knew who had done it. Were they
      > > > inspired translations if they didn't even try a transliteration of
      > the
      > > > name of Master YHWH, or other names that Christ is known by?
      > > > >
      > > > > You can fuss over 'interpretations', but the stated doctrine of
      > our
      > > > Lord is what matters, and He always taught being hearers and doers
      > of
      > > > His word - not faith alone, grace alone or belief alone. 'If you
      > abide
      > > > in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the
      > truth,
      > > > and the truth shall set you free.'
      > > > >
      > > > > Except one is a disciple of Jesus, they are not a 'Christian' at
      > all.
      > > > See the definition of 'christian' in the very text of the NT:
      > disciples
      > > > were called christians, so the root is discipleship - not pretending
      > to
      > > > have the most correct doctrines not given by God Himself. John the
      > > > Baptist called Y'shua 'Master YHWH', the term for the Most High God
      > of
      > > > Isreal.
      > > > >
      > > > > The great commission of Matthew says to make disciples of Him,
      > baptize
      > > > them (immerse), and teach them to keep His commandments - whatsoever
      > He
      > > > says to you - Acts 3:22,23.
      > > > >
      > > > > http://www.onediscipletoanother.org
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >





    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.