If Jesus was God, explain this verse...

[Prophet]

Whether I really am a "prophet" or not, you fell right into another "Clever trap". You proved yourself to be a complete hypocrite, lashing out at anyone who merely asks you civil questions about your claims, and then lashing out at anyone who claims a similar one as you.

Hypocrites love to accuse others of things they are much more guilty of in the same breath. If I were being a hypocrite in this case, I'd be lashing out about how awful you are for lashing out. I'd be being uncivil in my insults towards your uncivility.

This points to you as the pretender. You pretend to care about civil treatment of others, yet your words and actions testify against against you. You are merely acting as if you care about civility, when in actuality, civility means nothing to you. It is merely a selfless appearing ideal that you are picking up and putting on as a costume for when you wish to appear to be taking the moral high ground. Ridicule has always been the card you play first. Please, save me the hypocrite's tears when you get ridiculed right back.

 

[Shermana]

Hypocrites love to accuse others of things they are much more guilty of in the same breath.

Indeed, that explains practically every post of yours.

If I were being a hypocrite in this case, I'd be lashing out about how awful you are for lashing out.

That's basically what you are doing in a passive aggressive manner, sometimes less passive than other.

I'd be being uncivil in my insults towards your uncivility.

You were nothing but in the original "Ask a prophet" thread, and you were hostile each time to me in this one.

This points to you as the pretender.

You're welcome to interpret it however you want, but this is basically you lashing out again. Projectively.

You pretend to care about civil treatment of others, yet your words and actions testify against against you.

When the gloves are off, and you took them off the first time I asked you a civil question, I'm not quite civil either.

'

You are merely acting as if you care about civility, when in actuality, civility means nothing to you

.

When dealing with people like you, no, civility is more of a handicap.

It is merely a selfless appearing ideal that you are picking up and putting on as a costume for when you wish to appear to be taking the moral high ground. Ridicule has always been the card you play first. Please, save me the hypocrite's tears when you get ridiculed right back.

Have you even read your own posts? THC isn't really supposed to cause short term memory problems you know. Must be something harder.

Anyways, that will for now be my final response to you, it's obvious you are completely oblivious to your own behavior and condescending, smearing attitude, and you regard any opposition to your views as a personal threat of sorts, so let's see what your last word is.

 

[Prophet]

Indeed, that explains practically every post of yours.

I feel there is a large difference between lashing out against lashing out and presenting a rational argument against lashing out being conducive to discovery of truth. However, this difference is hidden to you because in situations where lashing out benefits you, you actually support lashing out. I believe that evidence presented by your own testimony supports that you are merely pretending to care about the ideal of civil treatment because you feel it is in your favor in your examination of me. Never will you dare point that lens back on yourself.

That's basically what you are doing in a passive aggressive manner, sometimes less passive than other.

Rest assured that there's nothing passive aggressive about my mocking of your hypocrisy unless you are a moron. I'm mocking your beliefs, and it is not exactly subtle. You think the good is in the words and actions as presented by mosaic law. However, actual properties of good like kindness and patience are only demonstrated when you go beyond what is required of you.

If mosaic law does indeed cover all of goodness and sin, my feigning respect for you should be the exact same as respect. Yet, somehow, you internally sense that the intention of my words should trump their letter, and herein lies the great inconsistency between what you say you believe and what you show.

But, hey, at least you perceived that I was messing with you, just a little over your head, apparently. As for me, I will continue to respond whenever I see someone to disagree with, but if this is truly goodbye, I will miss our exchanges in an egoic, selfish *** kind of way... in the same way a pro boxer would miss the ego massage he got from pounding on amateurs.

In all sincerity, you've been a wonderfully relentless sparring partner.

 

[Shermana]

Well if you were only messing, then I can forgive all the personal remarks.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Shermana,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
Why do you assume that I was arguing against reincarnation in my last post to you? Actually, as you are well aware, resurrection is a form of reincarnation, and I absolutely believe in the resurrection of YAHWEH ELOHIM through the finishing work of Messiah Yahushua; therefore, it could be said that I believe in a somewhat limited concept of reincarnation also for mankind since man is an image or reflection of YAHWEH ELOHIM.
If I was arguing for anything in my last post to you, then I specifically was arguing for the Torah of Moses, and I was beginning to question you concerning your belief in reincarnation, and how your belief in reincarnation relates to the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Eliyah that is found in the last chapter of Malachi.
If your concept of over and over reincarnation is valid for Eliyah and other men and women, how are the hearts of these reincarnated folks turned to their fathers, and since these reincarnated individuals have had multiple fathers, are all the hearts of their previous fathers turned to their reincarnated son or daughter, or is the heart of just one or maybe two of their previous fathers turned to them? Of course, if the present father of a reincarnated individual is still alive when Eliyah appears, then it is evident that the Malachi prophecy may only refer to the living and not the dead fathers. Is that what you believe?
On top of these questions, I at the end of my post was asking you how the Law of Moses will be used by Eliyah to turn the hearts of your previous fathers to you should Eliyah appear in your lifetime?
I hope I have made myself clearer this time, if not, I will be happy to repeat my questions.
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Ken Brown]

Affirmative.

No, he says Naked to the Womb he returns. It's pretty simple.

That in no way disproves the concept.

You're welcome to your view but you're wrong. The verses do not negate the idea whatsoever. You are simply reading into it what's not there. The plain reading explicitly says he returns to the womb, and yes, he loses everything he had alongside. To read anything poetic from it from there and to brush aside what it explicitly says may work for you, but I prefer to not engage in such twisting.

Hi Shermana, interesting. So you believe context of what is written really has no bearing with how one should view this issue? You really feel Job, when confronted with the devastation of catastrophic loss, had his mind on reincarnation? Interesting, very interesting. KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, interesting. So you believe context of what is written really has no bearing with how one should view this issue? You really feel Job, when confronted with the devastation of catastrophic loss, had his mind on reincarnation? Interesting, very interesting. KB

No I believe you simply have the wrong context and that you're reading context into it that doesn't exist.

And yes, Job had dying and being reborn in another life on his mind, in my perspective of the context. It's interesting but makes a lot of sense.

 

[Uberpod]

I think that if God was the person of Jesus and God was in heaven when Jesus was here, then God is two and not one.

A puppeteer is one with his hand. Jesus who faced death did not have the same intensity of anguish or fear as real humans. He had absolute certainty about his continued existence. Don't you wish God gave definitive proof to all people?

 

[Ken Brown]

No I believe you simply have the wrong context and that you're reading context into it that doesn't exist.

And yes, Job had dying and being reborn in another life on his mind, in my perspective of the context. It's interesting but makes a lot of sense.

Hi Shermana, have you considered Job's mindset as he curses the day in which he came forth out of his mother's womb (Chapter 3)? Why would he curse that day and wish he had never been born out of his mother's womb, if he was, as you theorize, looking to come forth out of his mother's womb again (reincarnation)? His desire was death (being naked as he goes back to the dust from which he came), and not to be reincarnated, at least that is what I would consider how his mind was thinking. KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, have you considered Job's mindset as he curses the day in which he came forth out of his mother's womb (Chapter 3)? Why would he curse that day and wish he had never been born out of his mother's womb, if he was, as you theorize, looking to come forth out of his mother's womb again (reincarnation)? His desire was death (being naked as he goes back to the dust from which he came), and not to be reincarnated, at least that is what I would consider how his mind was thinking. KB

I Can easily sympathize, there's been days I want to be reborn. I think it's pretty clear from a plain reading, and he's not even asking for it, he's just claiming that's what happens. He thinks he's going to die, and then acknolwedges the next step is to be cast into the womb.

 

[Ken Brown]

I Can easily sympathize, there's been days I want to be reborn. I think it's pretty clear from a plain reading, and he's not even asking for it, he's just claiming that's what happens. He thinks he's going to die, and then acknolwedges the next step is to be cast into the womb.

Hi Shermana, I think Job's own words will disagree with you here:

Job 7:1
(1) Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling?

Job 7:9
(9) As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more.

Job 7:21
(21) And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away mine iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.

Job saw that he had an appointed time on the earth, and that he would come up NO MORE, and once he slept in the dust of the earth, you could look for him reincarnating, but it shall not be. KB

 

[Shermana]

He's just referring to his present life. By your logic, there's no ressurection either.

 

[Ken Brown]

He's just referring to his present life. By your logic, there's no ressurection either.

Hi Shermana, Job believed in the resurrection, not reincarnation. Please listen to what he says:

Job 14:12
(12) So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Job 14:14
(14) If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

Job is not waiting for reincarnation, he KNEW the resurrection would come. KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, Job believed in the resurrection, not reincarnation. Please listen to what he says:

Job 14:12
(12) So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Job 14:14
(14) If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

Job is not waiting for reincarnation, he KNEW the resurrection would come. KB

How does that in any way remotely indicate from your point of view that Job believed in the single Ressurection instead of reincarnation, especially in light of your previous interpretation of what I said? What would even be the point of your use of the previous verses in the first place? Why would "Til my change come" not mean reincarnation?

 

[look3467]

Hi AJ, thanks for responding. I think maybe I should try to clarify a little further. First, it was Elohim who planned and consigned ALL of mankind to be bound by the slavery of sin:

Rom 7:14
(14) For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

Rom 11:32
(32) For Elohim has shut up all mankind together in disobedience, in order that He might show mercy to all.

Do you see that AJ? Elohim is the One who shut mankind up under the slavery of sin, by creating us FLESH. Adam and Eve were created FLESH, and the FLESH cannot and will not OBEY (Rom 8:6-8). It is impossible to do so. Please consider how Adam and Eve were created:

Gen 2:25
(25) They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.

Adam and Eve were created "naked." What is nakedness? Isn't it the shame of being "sinful:"

Hos 2:3
(3) Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.

Rev 3:18
(18) I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Rev 16:15
(15) Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Adam and Eve were like two little innocent children who knew not their right hand from their left, and this is why they felt no shame:

Jon 4:11
(11) And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

If you do not know good from evil or have a knowledge of it, there is no shame. It is only when a command is given, and THEN, through disobedience, comes the knowledge of good and evil, exposing the shame of their nakedness. This is what happened to Adam and Eve. When the command came, their naked FLESH would not submit, and they sinned, all according to the PLAN of Elohim. Now, when they sinned, their eyes were OPENED, and they realized the shame of their nakedness:

Gen 3:5-7
(5) For Elohim doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
(6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
(7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

They didn't BECOME naked after they sinned, they were naked BEFORE they sinned, and the sinning made them aware of it. It is sort of like where Paul states that before the Law, sin was in the world, but it was not imputed, just as a sinful nature was in Adam and Eve (they were naked), but they didn't realize it until they actually sinned (broke a given command).

This sinning made them to be LIKE Elohim, to KNOW good and evil (Gen 3:22). Before they sinned, they did not have that knowledge, but after sinning, they did, and they realized they were naked.

So what is my point?

Most believe "God" created Adam and Eve with "no inclination" to sin, and with their OWN free choice, decided to be disobedient. Now, this disobedience then is transferred to mankind by their act, and creates a necessity of someone without sin to pay for this disobedience, so that all can be forgiven. So "God" now needs to send his only son to fix this mess that Adam and Eve caused, and have him die in the place of all sinners and if a sinner believes that "God" is doing this "dying in their place," they will be forgiven and saved, and redeemed from the death penalty caused by all their sins.

On the other hand, very few believe the actual Truth concerning Elohim's PLAN. The Truth is that Adam and Eve had no "choice," but to sin. Elohim planned that fleshly mankind FIRST experience the sin of the "flesh" so that we could LEARN to become LIKE Him, to know good and evil, and then choose the good. IF, Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree they were commanded not to eat, they would have FOILED Elohim's plan. You see, ALL of mankind was subjected to be disobedient, so that Elohim could show us mercy, and DELIVER us OUT from our sinful ways. This IS the redemption found in Messiah Yeshua, that He TAKE AWAY your sinful ways, and cause you to turn from that former way, INTO a life of obedience. And as Ezekiel states, when a sinner turns from his iniquity, none of his former sins will be remembered, and Yeshua came to bless us in TURNING us FROM our iniquity:

Act 3:26
(26) Unto you first Elohim, having raised up his Son Yeshua, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

This IS the redemption that Elohim is performing, through the shed blood of Yeshua, and in it, we who have been bound under the slavery to sin, are set free from that old way of life. We ALL as sinners did slay Him (with the help of wicked men), and shed His Righteous and Innocent blood, and this act by us should CUT us to our hearts and make us realize that we can no longer dwell IN sin, sacrificing Him, and shedding His blood. This is the Gospel and the Message that was FIRST delivered to the Saints. KB

Hi, KB

I concur with your post entirely. My problem is in articulating my thoughts just as you have.

I understood what the consequence was for becoming like God,(as one of us) before sin, but because sin was inevitable because of it, the law confirmed it.

I fully understand it as you explained it.

Thanks, and blessings, AJ

 

[Ken Brown]

How does that in any way remotely indicate from your point of view that Job believed in the single Ressurection instead of reincarnation, especially in light of your previous interpretation of what I said? What would even be the point of your use of the previous verses in the first place? Why would "Til my change come" not mean reincarnation?

Hi Shermana, no, what you have done is take one statement from Job and twist it to say he was speaking of reincarnation (naked he came from the womb, and naked he will return there). When in fact, all Job was saying is the same thing Paul stated:

1Ti 6:7
(7) For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

In a nut shell, this is what Job was thinking about and saying, and the last thing on his mind was that he would be reincarnated. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi, KB

I concur with your post entirely. My problem is in articulating my thoughts just as you have.

I understood what the consequence was for becoming like God,(as one of us) before sin, but because sin was inevitable because of it, the law confirmed it.

I fully understand it as you explained it.

Thanks, and blessings, AJ

Blessings to you also AJ, I appreciate your comments. What is it that we need to do now? KB

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, no, what you have done is take one statement from Job and twist it to say he was speaking of reincarnation (naked he came from the womb, and naked he will return there). When in fact, all Job was saying is the same thing Paul stated:

1Ti 6:7
(7) For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.

In a nut shell, this is what Job was thinking about and saying, and the last thing on his mind was that he would be reincarnated. KB

I have twisted nothing. However, you have twisted what he said into saying something about believing in the Ressurection.
You are also twisting 1 Timothy, which not even the Catholic Church considers written by Paul. Such a verse merely says that we carry nothing physical from one life into another. What do you think it means to "bring something" into the world in the first place? You are not one to accuse others of twisting. You did not even answer my question of asking how you even derived your conclusion from the verses you quoted.

In a nut shell, Job could have easily been wanting to be born all over again and escape the shell of that life to a fresh new start. In a nut shell, you are wrong!

 

[look3467]

Blessings to you also AJ, I appreciate your comments. What is it that we need to do now? KB

Though alone in our views, yet we can add spice to the mix.

My view is that there is little to gain and allot to loose because of unbelief.

But allot to gain and nothing to loose were it not for faith in the Son of God.

A very simple message, so simple a child can understand. Child like faith.

Mar_10:14 ...for of such is the kingdom of God...

Blessings, AJ

 

[Muffled]

Really have you not read Revelations?

i have read it many times but I recall no mention of it. I did a word serach for captain and did not find the word in the Book of The Rrevelation. Naturally if you have a verse you think fits, you should present it.