frosbel:

how come the old testament is silent on Jesus except in Prophecy ?

Also if Jesus pre-existed, and according to your logic there is ONE GOD but Three persons, how come there is only ONE Throne in Heaven with the one sitted on it referred to as the ancient of days, why should there not be 3 thrones for 3 persons ?

Have you ever read of the visitation of the Angel of the Lord to certain people in the Old Testament like the parents of Samson, Gideon . . . ? Guess who He is. He is the Pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Read the exclamation of Samson's father, when the Angel of the Lord departed after they had seen him.

Ndipe:

Have you ever read of the visitation of the Angel of the Lord to certain people in the Old Testament like the parents of Samson, Gideon . . . ? Guess who He is. He is the Pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Read the exclamation of Samson's father, when the Angel of the Lord departed after they had seen him.

I asked you a question, in fact 2 , where are my answers ?

frosbel:

I asked you a question, in fact 2 , where are my answers ?

And I have given you answers.

Ndipe:
Micah 5:2

King James Version (KJV)


2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


The Biblical Verse refers to Jesus Christ and further proves that He has always been in existence prior to coming to earth as a human to die for our sins.

"... in the book of Micah it says: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. This is further proof that He {Jesus} has no beginning, therefore making Him the Eternal God and Saviour my friend.


Jesus most definitely does have a beginning. Matthew speaks of the ‘genesis’ of Jesus Christ. [Matt 1:1]. Neither Matthew nor Luke in their narration about how Christ came into existence, has any concept of literal pre-existence.
Now let us look at the phrase ‘from everlasting’.
The Hebrew is OWLAM (Strong’s 5769). Now note how it is translated in the following verses:
(In each case the word(s) translated from OWLAM are CAPITALIZED)

•mighty men which were OF OLD: Gen. 6:4;

•for those nations were OF OLD: 1 Sam. 27:8;

•the ANCIENT people: Isa 44:7;

•in the generations OF OLD: Isa 51:9;

•Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far ... it is an ANCIENT nation: Jer 5:15;

•the prophets ... OF OLD: Jer 28:8;

•the people OF OLD TIME: Ezek 26:20;

•tabernacle of David ... as in the days OF OLD: Amos 9:11;

•days OF OLD: Micah 7:14, Mal. 3:4

Although OWLAM in the right context can be used to denote ‘eternity’, it is clear to see that OWLAM in the above cases cannot mean eternal/eternity i.e. eternal mighty men, eternal nations, eternal prophets, eternal people, etc.
And this goes also for Micah 5:2 which is a verse simply speaking about the coming (that is, his first coming) and birthplace of the Messiah (as used in Matt 2:5-6, John 7:42). It is simply saying that the Coming of the Messiah had been depicted and spoken of from days of old, from of old time, even from the time of Abraham, who rejoiced to see his day. [John 8:56]
The KJV English translators being biased by their trinitarian theology used the words ‘from everlasting’.
Therefore, using the same Hebrew word, Micah 5:2 could so easily be
translated: ”… yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from old time.”"
SOURCE: http://adonimessiah..com/2006/08/concerning-micah-52.html

@Frosbel

Am really going against my intent by addressing this issue on this thread.

For what the bible says is far superior to my views.

frosbel:

how come the old testament is silent on Jesus except in Prophecy ?

Also if Jesus pre-existed, and according to your logic there is ONE GOD but Three persons, how come there is only ONE Throne in Heaven with the one sitted on it referred to as the ancient of days, why should there not be 3 thrones for 3 persons ?

However, if Jesus did not preexist, how did Jesus come to be Yahweh's "only begotten son" from a virgin ?

By God just putting any and any how person in the womb of marry, how can that person be Yahweh's only begotten son ?

Does God have a physical spermatozoa to copulate with mary to have an only begotton son ?

How then did Jesus become an only begotton son from a physical woman ?

Do we accept that Jesus is Just any or any how person that was just form into mary's womb or Yahweh slept with her or imputed a physical spermatozoa into her ?

Does Yahweh have a physical spermatozoa ?

But that Yahweh had personally created Jesus in heaven as a spirit person first(begotton, since other things was created by Jesus) befor any other thing, like Adam was physically created first and was called son of God, and Yahweh via a miracle transfered the life of Jesus into marry's womb to be born as a man is what some of us see as what the bible teach.

Will the formation of any and any how person into the womb of marry make Jesus special there and then even having power over the Demons that are older and existed befor him?

I dont think so, other angels in heaven will be greater than him, by virtue of them(angels haven been created also directly by Yahweh himself in the absent of Jesus "who had NEVER preexisted" ) having existed befor Jesus.

Since the bible said he was made lower than the angels, on what basis/reference point is this "lower than the angels" made since he "NEVER existed" befor ?

Unless, except, Yahweh's spermatozoa did it.

Peace.

truthislight:

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

^
it is really a pity that that ^ plans of Yahweh is futile, curtsey of you Frank4YAHWE.

Of what use is that ^ statement in scripture then if translation has rendered "all" the plans of Yahweh invalid in all translations !

No thanks to you.

I have never said 'Translation has rendered "all" the plans of Yahweh invalid in all translations! Note that 1 Timothy 2:2:3-4 speaks in the future tense and that redemption is also a future event.

frosbel:

I asked you a question, in fact 2 , where are my answers ?

Lol, I wonder how you can legitimately expect answers from people while dodging other people's questions. Did you not read in your bible that whatever measure you use shall be measured to you?

Please frosbel we need your response to this:

https://www.nairaland.com/1321883/did-jesus-preexist-birth-honeychild/6#16527706

Frosbel, you have claimed that Jesus did not exist before he was physically born

Jesus has answered by saying:

No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.(John 3:13)


Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. (John 6:37-38)

......When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?" But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see [size=14pt]the Son of Man ascending to where he was before[/size]? (John 6:60-62)

I believe the words of Christ are clear. Now please respond and stop being a coward.

frosbel:

how come the old testament is silent on Jesus except in Prophecy ?

Also if Jesus pre-existed, and according to your logic there is ONE GOD but Three persons, how come there is only ONE Throne in Heaven with the one sitted on it referred to as the ancient of days, why should there not be 3 thrones for 3 persons ?

This is because Yahshua existed only in his and our Father Yahweh's plan which is His prophetic word. Yahshua did not literally pre-exist his birth as an actual being as Father Yahweh's word and he was not a spokesman of His word until the last time period and long after he was born or came into existence.

Yahshua also did not LITERALLY "come down from heaven". This is Yahchanan speaking FIGURATIVELY about Yahshua being sent by Father Yahweh Who is in heaven.
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/708052764/yahshua-came-down-from-heaven

Frank4YAHWEH: One does not have to be fluent in "the two languages" to legitimately claim a mistranslation has occured.

Lol, really? how does that work exactly? How exactly do you go about correcting the translation of a language you don't understand?

As I have made known in previous posts, Yahshua did not LITERALLY "come down from heaven":
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/708052764/yahshua-came-down-from-heaven

Lol, did He literally ascend into Heaven? Mind you in John 6:62 He said He would ascend to Heaven where He was before. So if you think He didn't really descend from heaven, you cannot hold that He ascended either. You need to be consistent.

When Yahshua parabolically discribed himself as the "bread from heaven" he was speaking of his being the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh's word in this last time period, not that he pre-existed his birth. Yahshua was not the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh's word until long after his birth. The prophets of old were the spokesmen of Father Yahweh's word before Yahshua came into existence as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear.

Lol, this is just you trying to desperately dig yourself out of a hole. No prophet was ever referred to as the bread of life so your argument that "bread of life" means "God's spokesman" is moot. Also it was very clear to everyone present there that Christ was talking of coming from heaven in a very literal sense.

Note that my statement still stands true that nowhere in Scripture is it ever said "Jesus pre-exited his birth." This is a prime example of one twisting Scripture in that they are saying Scripture says something that it plainly does not.

lololol, this is the funniest bit of your reply. Are you seriously demanding for theexact phrase "Jesus pre-existed His birth" to be provided? Surely you know how irrational such a demand is.
Secondly, I wonder what scripture you think I 'twisted' when all I did was post the passages verbatim.

Mr anony:
Lol, really? how does that work exactly? How exactly do you go about correcting the translation of a language you don't understand?


Lol, did He literally ascend into Heaven? Mind you in John 6:62 He said He would ascend to Heaven where He was before. So if you think He didn't really descend from heaven, you cannot hold that He ascended either. You need to be consistent.


Lol, this is just you trying to desperately dig yourself out of a hole. No prophet was ever referred to as the bread of life so your argument that "bread of life" means "God's spokesman" is moot. Also it was very clear to everyone present there that Christ was talking of coming from heaven in a very literal sense.


lololol, this is the funniest bit of your reply. Are you seriously demanding for theexact phrase "Jesus pre-existed His birth" to be provided? Surely you know how irrational such a demand is.
Secondly, I wonder what scripture you think I 'twisted' when all I did was post the passages verbatim.

The Scripture is corrected by those who understand. They are perverted by those like you who don't understand in that you add unto Father Yahweh's prophetic word what it simply does not say.

I do not believe that he literally meant that he came down from heaven for the simply fact that he did not literally pre-exit his birth in heaven as an actual being, but he did literally exist here on earth when he came into existence and so in turn he could literally asend to heaven.

You twisted it in falsely suggesting that when Yahshua spoke parabolically about coming down from heaven that he meant this literally. Those present who took Yahshua coming down from heaven literally are those who these parables are hidden.

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of Yahweh has been given to you, but not to them. ... This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand (Mattithyah [Matthew] 13:10-13).

The bread of life is FATHER Yahweh's word that Yahshua His SON spoke in this last time period and the prophets of old most certainly did speak the bread (His word) of life as Father Yahweh directed them.

Yes, I do seriously demand for the exact phrase "Jesus pre-existed His birth" to be provided, since you believe that your so-called "Holy Bible" actaully says this. The fact is, there is no mention in Scripture that Yahshua pre-existed his birth. Yahshua could not have pre-existed his birth, since he had to be a man just like us in every way. Since he had to be like us in every way, he did not pre-exist his birth, but was born (came into existence) in the flesh as a mortal man just like us. We did not pre-exist our birth, so Yahshua did not pre-exist his.

Frank4YAHWEH: The Scripture is corrected by those who understand. They are perverted by those like you who don't understand in that you add unto Father Yahweh's prophetic word what it simply does not say.

Lol, it is interesting to note that even in accusing me of perverting the scripture, you have conceded that it is those who actually understand a language that can correct it. Both of us who don't understand Greek and Hebrew will simply have to rely on the English translations that we actually understand.

I do not believe that he literally meant that he came down from heaven for the simply fact that he did not literally pre-exit his birth in heaven as an actual being, but he did literally exist here on earth when he came into existence and so in turn he could literally asend to heaven.

This is what we call circular reasoning. You are arguing that "Christ coming from heaven is not literal because you believe He didn't pre-exist His birth and that Christ did not pre-exist His birth because you believe that the passages that say He came down from Heaven are not literal". That's fallacious reasoning my friend.

You twisted it in falsely suggesting that when Yahshua spoke parabolically about coming down from heaven that he meant this literally. Those present who took Yahshua coming down from heaven literally are those who these parables are hidden.

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of Yahweh has been given to you, but not to them. ... This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand (Mattithyah [Matthew] 13:10-13).

John 6:62 destroys this argument. . . .or do you also want to suggest that Jesus Christ was also trying to deliberately confuse His disciples too by also telling them that He will ascend back to Heaven where He was before?

The bread of life is FATHER Yahweh's word that Yahshua His SON spoke in this last time period and the prophets of old most certainly did speak the bread (His word) of life as Father Yahweh directed them.

Interesting. Yet this Word has seen the Father and only does what He has seen the Father do. Also in John 3, This Word has been in Heaven and seen and heard things which He now testifies.

Yes, I do seriously demand for the exact phrase "Jesus pre-existed His birth" to be provided, since you believe that your so-called "Holy Bible" actaully says this. The fact is, there is no mention in Scripture that Yahshua pre-existed his birth. Yahshua could not have pre-existed his birth, since he had to be a man just like us in every way. Since he had to be like us in every way, he did not pre-exist his birth, but was born (came into existence) in the flesh as a mortal man just like us. We did not pre-exist our birth, so Yahshua did not pre-exist his.

Lolol, wow was that really what you wanted? perhaps I should have demanded that you show me where the bible uses the exact phrase "Jesus did not pre-exist His birth".

Frank4YAHWEH:

My mistake! That was ijawkid that I was agreeing with, not you.

therefore are you willing to answer on his behalf then?

Mr anony:
Lol, it is interesting to note that even in accusing me of perverting the scripture, you have conceded that it is those who actually understand a language that can correct it. Both of us who don't understand Greek and Hebrew will simply have to rely on the English translations that we actually understand.


This is what we call circular reasoning. You are arguing that "Christ coming from heaven is not literal because you believe He didn't pre-exist His birth and that Christ did not pre-exist His birth because you believe that the passages that say He came down from Heaven are not literal". That's fallacious reasoning my friend.

John 6:62 destroys this argument. . . .or do you also want to suggest that Jesus Christ was also trying to deliberately confuse His disciples too by also telling them that He will ascend back to Heaven where He was before?


Interesting. Yet this Word has seen the Father and only does what He has seen the Father do. Also in John 3, This Word has been in Heaven and seen and heard things which He now testifies.


Lolol, wow was that really what you wanted? perhaps I should have demanded that you show me where the bible uses the exact phrase "Jesus did not pre-exist His birth".

I rely on English translations since this is the language that I speak. I have never suggested that I know Hebrew or Greek fluently and I do not believe that one does to understand Scripture. When I study Scrtipture I compare the diverse translation, consult the footnotes and give reference to the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons for definition. Your major perversion of Scripture is in that many times you state that the Scriptues say this and that, when in fact what you say they say is never found said in ANY Scripture translation. I believe that Yahshua did not pre-exist his birth for the simple fact that Scripture nowhere says that he did. In fact, Yahshua had to be born (come into being) as a man and be like us in every way. It only stands to reason in accordance with this Scriptural fact that since we did not pre-exist our birth, Yahshua also did not pre-exist his birth, since he had to be like us in every way. He was different in that he obeyed his and our FATHER Yahweh's commandment and in turn for doing so was without sin. We are in turn to follow in his example in being perfect as his and our Heavenly Father and Creator in Heaven is perfect. Since he had to be made like us in every way, he also was not born of a "virgin."

TABLE TURN!: You are arguing that "Christ coming from heaven is literal because you believe He did pre-exist His birth and that Christ did pre-exist His birth because you believe that the passages that say He came down from Heaven are literal". That's fallacious reasoning my friend.

On some occasions, even his disciples did not understand his parables, and asked him to explain (Mt. 13:36; Mark 8:14-17).

Yahshua is not LITERALLY Father Yahweh's word. Father Yahweh's word is not a separate being that pre-existed with Him in the beginning. There is no such teaching in Scripture that the word seen the Father. Father Yahweh's word is simply that, Father Yahweh's word. Yahshua is the spokesman of his and our Father Yahweh's word in this last time period as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes perfectly clear. He was not a spokesman of Yahweh's word until long after his birth. Before Yahshua came into existence (was born) the prophets of old were the spokesmen of Father Yahweh's inspired prophetic word. This fact is also make quite clear in Hebrews 1:1-2.

WHO IS THE WORD?
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/757140248/who-is-the-word

hisblud: therefore are you willing to answer on his behalf then?

Never mentioned or suggested that I would answer on ijawkid's behalf. I don't even know what the question was that you posed to ijawkid. I probably have already answered the question in a previous post to someone else. Ask me a question directly and I will do my best to answer it. Again, I was just simply agreeing with ijawkid's post.

Frank4YAHWEH:

Never mentioned or suggested that I would answer on ijawkid's behalf. I don't even know what the question was that you posed to ijawkid. I probably have already answered the question in a previous post to someone else. Ask me a question directly and I will do my best to answer it. Again, I was just simply agreeing with ijawkid's post.

what are you ? I am interested , Messianic Jew / Hebrew Israelite/ Church of GOD / Simply a Christian ?

I like your theology, BUT, disagree with you vehemently on the Virgin Birth.

frosbel:

what are you ? I am interested , Messianic Jew / Hebrew Israelite/ Church of GOD / Simply a Christian ?

I like your theology, BUT, disagree with you vehemently on the Virgin Birth.

I do not accept any of these labels that you have mention in reference to myself as to who I am. As close as I can come to in labeling myself is to say that I am a "Yahdah or Yahudah" which literally and completely has the meaning '[B]A praiser of Yahweh[/B] [I]with outstretched hands[/I]' The groups that you mentioned above do not believe as I do.

I believe that the "virgin birth" doctrine was added on to Scripture in an attempt to support the erroneous "Jesus IS God!", "Holy Trinity", "God the Son" doctrines. Christians that promote these doctrines say that since their "God" impregnated Mary this in turn makes him a hybrid "God-Man" or in actually "God."

Frank4YAHWEH:

I do not accept any of these labels that you have mention in reference to myself as to who I am. As close as I can come to in labeling myself is to say that I am a "Yahdah or Yahudah" which literally and completely has the meaning '[B]A praiser of Yahweh[/B] [I]with outstretched hands[/I]'

but the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch, what is wrong with being called a Christian ?

frosbel:

but the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch, what is wrong with being called a Christian ?

Yeah, frosbel, what's wrong with it?

Ihedinobi:

Yeah, frosbel, what's wrong with it?

It says that they were "called Christians", not that they called themselves Christian:

"Dictionary of the Bible by James Hastings (1963 Charles Scribners's Sons), pg. 138, states under the caption, "3. The Spread of the Name. - Since "Christian" was not originally a self-designation of the followers of Jesus, it is not surprising that it is rarely found in the New Testament." Hastings Dictionary of the Bible further states that Roman authorities gave the Messiah's followers the name "Christians" but the word itself to the pagans is associated with heinous crimes and vices. In this section "4. The Meaning of the Name.- The Roman authorities, who first designated the disciples of Jesus as Christians, attempted thereby to characterize them as a political group or party, held together by their loyalty to the party head, Christos. While originally the title was given for juridical convenience without implying a derogatory sense, the pagan mob must at a very early time have associated it with heinous crimes and vices ... Not too much emphasis should be placed, therefore upon the etymology of christos. Though literally meaning the "Anointed One," i.e. the Messiah, the title soon lost its original denotation and became a personal name in the Greek-speaking church."

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 4, (copyright 1982), pg. 460 states under the caption Christianity: "The concept of "Christianity" (Christianismos), which denotes what is "essence," does not appear in the New Testament writings. Not until the time of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e., The Christian thinkers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries) was it used as a Christian parallel to the concept "Judaism" (Ioudaismos), which the Apostle Paul had used in his letter to the Galatians, chapter 1, verse 13 to characterize the Jewish way of faith and Life. The term Christianity was first used in such a manner by Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch (died c. AD 110), in his Letter to the Magnesians."

Christian - the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). - Easton's Bible Dictionary 1897

1779, from Fr. Alpine dialect crestin , "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from V.L. *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow.", from Latin ChrÄstiÄnus, Christian; see Christian.] Related: Cretinism (1801).

SOURCES:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cretin

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cretin

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=idiot+savant

Virgin Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/773295646/virgin-birth

^^ Who ask you?

Frank4YAHWEH:

It says that they were "called Christians", not that they called themselves Christian:

"Dictionary of the Bible by James Hastings (1963 Charles Scribners's Sons), pg. 138, states under the caption, "3. The Spread of the Name. - Since "Christian" was not originally a self-designation of the followers of Jesus, it is not surprising that it is rarely found in the New Testament." Hastings Dictionary of the Bible further states that Roman authorities gave the Messiah's followers the name "Christians" but the word itself to the pagans is associated with heinous crimes and vices. In this section "4. The Meaning of the Name.- The Roman authorities, who first designated the disciples of Jesus as Christians, attempted thereby to characterize them as a political group or party, held together by their loyalty to the party head, Christos. While originally the title was given for juridical convenience without implying a derogatory sense, the pagan mob must at a very early time have associated it with heinous crimes and vices ... Not too much emphasis should be placed, therefore upon the etymology of christos. Though literally meaning the "Anointed One," i.e. the Messiah, the title soon lost its original denotation and became a personal name in the Greek-speaking church."

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 4, (copyright 1982), pg. 460 states under the caption Christianity: "The concept of "Christianity" (Christianismos), which denotes what is "essence," does not appear in the New Testament writings. Not until the time of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e., The Christian thinkers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries) was it used as a Christian parallel to the concept "Judaism" (Ioudaismos), which the Apostle Paul had used in his letter to the Galatians, chapter 1, verse 13 to characterize the Jewish way of faith and Life. The term Christianity was first used in such a manner by Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch (died c. AD 110), in his Letter to the Magnesians."

Christian - the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). - Easton's Bible Dictionary 1897

1779, from Fr. Alpine dialect crestin , "a dwarfed and deformed idiot" of a type formerly found in families in the Alpine lands, a condition caused by a congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones, from V.L. *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow.", from Latin ChrÄstiÄnus, Christian; see Christian.] Related: Cretinism (1801).

SOURCES:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cretin

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cretin

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=idiot+savant

Virgin Birth?
http://frank4yahweh.xanga.com/773295646/virgin-birth

Thank you for the exposition.

Ihedinobi: ^^ Who ask you?

You talkin' to me? If so, frosbel asked me.

Frank4YAHWEH:

Never mentioned or suggested that I would answer on ijawkid's behalf. I don't even know what the question was that you posed to ijawkid. I probably have already answered the question in a previous post to someone else. Ask me a question directly and I will do my best to answer it. Again, I was just simply agreeing with ijawkid's post.

ok My question to Ijawkid that you can choose to answer

Question what did Jesus Christ become after forfeiting the form of God according to Philippians 2?

Frank4YAHWEH:

You talkin' to me? If so, frosbel asked me.

Why you quote me then? Couldn't you direct your answer to frosbel?

Frosbel what those this mean; no one has ascended into heaven except he wh descended,the son of man.

Ihedinobi:

Why you quote me then? Couldn't you direct your answer to frosbel?

Why did you ask frosbel when frosbel was asking me? Am I not the one that should be responding to this question when it was directed to me? Since frosbel asked me, why would you ask frosbel what he asked me of something that he did not know? I was giving the answer to both of you since frosbel did not know the answer. You are the one who was dipping into the conversation, not I.

Frank4YAHWEH:

Why did you ask frosbel when frosbel was asking me? Am I not the one that should be responding to this question when it was directed to me? Since frosbel asked me, why would you ask frosbel what he asked me of something that he did not know? I was giving the answer to both of you since frosbel did not know the answer. You are the one who was dipping into the conversation, not I.

In case you are new to NL, what I did could never be construed as dipping into your discussion. You have no idea what I was asking him and I would rather you limit your responses to those who asked you questions. I don't care about your great knowledge. I was calling out frosbel's gross hypocrisy not "dipping into your discussion".

Ihedinobi:

In case you are new to NL, what I did could never be construed as dipping into your discussion. You have no idea what I was asking him and I would rather you limit your responses to those who asked you questions. I don't care about your great knowledge. I was calling out frosbel's gross hypocrisy not "dipping into your discussion".

Yes, I do know what you asked him. You asked him "Yeah, frosbel, what's wrong with it?" in response TO A QUESTION THAT HE ASKED ME, which was "... what is wrong with being called a Christian." He did not ask you this question, so why would you dip in and say in response to him "Yeah, frosbel, what's wrong with it?" when he did not know my answer yet, since I had not yet anwered him? This is most definately dipping into our conversation! You need to take your own advise and "limit your responses to those who asked you questions." In other words, Stop dipping! This question was directed to me, not you! Frosbel did not show one bit of "gross hypocrisy" as you have erroneously claimed. You are the one who is showing "gross hypocrisy." Yes, a hypocrite is one who gives advise and does not themselves go by the advise that they have given, but instead does the exact opposite.

Frank4YAHWEH:

Yes, I do know what you asked him. You asked him "Yeah, frosbel, what's wrong with it?" in response TO A QUESTION THAT HE ASKED ME, which was "... what is wrong with being called a Christian." He did not ask you this question, so why would you dip in and say in response to him "Yeah, frosbel, what's wrong with it?" when he did not know my answer yet, since I had not yet anwered him? This is most definately dipping into our conversation! You need to take your own advise and "limit your responses to those who asked you questions." In other words, Stop dipping! This question was directed to me, not you! Frosbel did not show one bit of "gross hypocrisy" as you have erroneously claimed. You are the one who is showing "gross hypocrisy." Yes, a hypocrite is one who gives advise and does not themselves go by the advise that they have given, but instead does the exact opposite.

I like your articles, quite interesting and educative , obviously we have one area of disagreement , the virgin birth.

My only question is why it has taken so long for many in Christendom to realise they have been hoodwinked for hundreds of years with false doctrines, like TRINITY, eternal torment etc ?

la cosa nostra: Frosbel what those this mean; no one has ascended into heaven except he wh descended,the son of man.

FROSBEL u see dis

Geez! These self-proclaimed wise men are the worst. I said nothing to you, mister. Nothing prevented you from quoting the person you were answering, why quote me? I couldn't care less what you think about anything. Quoting me only serves to irritate me. I have nothing to do with you.

Anyhow, keep shooting off your half-assed theories. I'm sure someone will make out time to put you out of your intellectual misery.

Freaking dumbo!

frosbel:

I like your articles, quite interesting and educative , obviously we have one area of disagreement , the virgin birth.

My only question is why it has taken so long for many in Christendom to realise they have been hoodwinked for hundreds of years with false doctrines, like TRINITY, eternal torment etc ?

* The Fruit of His Loins, According to the Flesh

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that Yahweh had sworn with an oath to him, that of * the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Messiah to sit on his throne; (Acts 2:30).

Kepha quoted from the following:

‘Yahweh declares to you that Yahweh Himself will establish a house for you: When your time is over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever’ (2 Samuyl 7:8-16).

This clearly contemplates this Dawidic heir is of the "flesh and blood" of Dawid. See also similar Dawidic-lineage prophecies for Messiah in Isayah 11:1-2 and Yeremyah 23:6.

Shaul too understood Yahshua was born of the flesh of Dawid:

Yahshua the Messiah our Master ... was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh;.... (Romans 1:3-4.)

Yahshua the Messiah of the seed of Dawid ...[2 Timothy 2:8].

Of this man’s [i.e., Dawid’s] seed has Yahweh, according to his prophets, raised unto Ysryl a redeemer, Yahshua. (Acts 13:23).

Yahshua being of the seed of Dawid or of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh as prophsied in Scripture can not be born of a "virgin". I choose to believe *THE PROPHETIC WORD of Father Yahweh that Yahshua, his disciples, and the Apostles lived by rather than the LATER TRANSLATIONS that erroneously translate Yahshua as being born of a "virgin."

* Most Christians religions "of this world" are out to "do away with" Father Yahweh's "Law and the Prophets" and say that it is "no longer in effect, anulled, made void, and that it is "for the Jews only" and that "it is a burden."

Yahshua said differently:

"Do not even think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to establish them (Mattithyah [Matthew] 5:17).

Shaul also said differently:

Do we then make void the law through belief? Yahweh forbid: Yes! We establish the law! (Romans 3:31).

Yes! The anti-messiah has certainly come as Yahshua proclaimed and they have perverted Father Yahweh's prophetic word to their own destruction. Note that the anti-messiah was there when Yahshua was here on earth. This tells me that there has been a perversion about the Messiah and the words of his and our Father Yahweh that he spoke ever since then and that this perversion has come down to us through erroneous translations of His word.

And every spirit that confesses not that Yahshua the Messiah * is come in the flesh is not of Yahweh: and this is that spirit of anti-messiah, that you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world (1 Yahchanan [John] 4:3).

* the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh


Yahshua: Born of a Virgin?
http://www.freewebs.com/frank4yahweh/pareidolia.htm