Banned by Josiah on ning hebrewisraelites discusson of virgin birth....

[Darrell K Whitfield]

What do you think that the teaching that Mariam was not of the seed of Dude so her seed would not qualify to make Yahu'shua of Natsareth a son of ha Malak Dude(King Dauid)?

I believe she was a virgin and Gabriel brought her the living Word of Yahu'ah which she recieved which caused her ovum or seed to concieve without male sperm. I believe on her mother's side she was of the tribe of Leui and her Father was of the tribe of Yahu'dah through Nathan the son of Dude ha Malak. I believe the the anti-Nicene(before Nicean council) Fathers that tell us Luke's geneology was really that of Mariam to solve this problem since he heard the stories of the early life of Yahu'shua he recorded from Mariam after Yoseph was dead. I believe Mattithyahu's geneology was of Yoseph literally which accepted Yahu'shua as conceived by the Holy Spirit because Mattityahu got his record from Natsareth and Yoseph or one of Yoseph's sons who was not a child of Mariam since he was a Leui whocollected tribute for Rome before he left this to follow Yahu'shua.

See this link http://www.2besaved.com/2BSVirgin.html and maybe go listen to the two hour tape I find too long in explaining Josiah's position on Hebrew Israelites and let's have a discussion about the virgin birth of Yahu'shua. What does "the seed of the woman" mean? Does "alma" as described of Mariam who said "I know not a man" according to Luke's record a virgin?

[Yaacov]

What kind of religion did Isavel/Jezebel actually promote?

Originating perhaps in the observation of the fertilizing effect of rains and streams upon the receptive and reproductive soil, Ba'al worship became identical with nature-worship. Joined with the Ba'als there would naturally be corresponding female figures which might be called 'Ashtarts, embodiments of 'Ashtart.

Through analogy and through the belief that one can control or aid the powers of nature by the practice of magic, particularly sympathetic magic, sexuality might characterize part of the cult of the Ba'als and 'Ashtarts. Post-Exilic allusions to the cult of Ba'al Pe'or suggest that orgies prevailed. On the summits of hills and mountains flourished the cult of the givers of increase, and "under every green tree" was practised the licentiousness which was held to secure abundance of crops. Human sacrifice, the burning of incense, violent and ecstatic exercises, ceremonial acts of bowing and kissing, the preparing of sacred cakes (see also Asherah), appear among the offences denounced by the post-Exilic prophets; and show that the cult of Ba'al (and 'Ashtart) included characteristic features of worship which recur in various parts of the Semitic (and non-Semitic) world, although attached to other names. But it is also possible that such rites were performed to a local Ba'al 'Lord' and a local 'Ashtart without much concern as to whether or not they were the same as that of a nearby community (source)

Well you have some problems Thomas, I don't have a guild system where the craftsmen are expected to participate in eating food sacrificed to idols, nor do i encourage anyone to attempt to gain sympathetic magic through sex orgies and the like. I don't believe in any such thing as a fertility deity, don't promote human sacrifice, just because Ba'al and Ashtoreth were pathetic idols that hijacked maybe remotely a scant few of the descriptions of the True Living Elohim, that doesn't prove anything.

It'd make about as much sense as me calling you an "Islamicist" or a "Muhammed" because of your promotion of a severe yachid deity-- which is something that I'm not doing, I merely mentioned it for the purpose of illustrating the absurdity of your childish non-sequiturs.

[Zealot X]

Yochanan 17:5
5 And now My Father, glorify Me with You with the glory that I had with You before the world was.

This is yet another Christian interpretation. Christians imagine his glory as some awesomeness that he could simply take off before coming in human flesh and then put back on.

Exodus 16:7 - And in the morning, then ye shall see the glory of YHWH; for that he heareth your murmurings against YHWH: and what are we, that ye murmur against us?

Exodus 28:40 - And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.

Glory
1 a: praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent : renown b: worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving

Yeshua knows he is going to die. However, his death is also not random. It was planned.

Revelation 13:8 - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

He was honored to fulfill this destiny; honored to be used in YAH's plan of salvation. And he knew that YHWH always knew it would be HIM (personally) that would be chosen. He was pre-ordained to this end. He wasn't saying, help me put my super powers back on. He was saying, let me die so that I can fulfill that which is my birthright from the very beginning of the world. If you keep reading you will see that Yeshua was getting his glory from saving others.

but first look at this:
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

"even as" means what? He's is saying that the same way that he is not of the world, THEY are not of the world. You've simply misunderstood what "of the world" means because you saw it used of Yeshua.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

so his followers were given the glory of a god? No......

Again, Yeshua shares with those he loves that which has been bestowed upon him. Very much unlike most humans which is part of why people think he is alien. But he wasn't. He was simply the unrealized potential of us all.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Verse 24 also backs up Hebrews 1 which tells us that all these things people have mistaken as making him godly were GIVEN to him BECAUSE YHWH loved him. And why did he love him? Let's listen...

John 10:17 - Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

The reason why YHWH loved him is the same reason why he had glory. It wasn't because of anything he did before the world was but what he did while he was in the world (but not of the world). It is because he lived up to the standard of YHWH. It is because he represented the image of the Father. It is because of all his accomplishments that, at least Yeshua says, that YHWH loved him. And because of this love he gave him great honor and because of that great honor people who don't know him mistake him for being G-d.

[Yaacov]

Nothing that you said excludes Yehoshua having glory before creation, Nothing that you said excludes Yehoshua from being Divine.

[ali]

Added by Yaacov at 9:35am on July 31, 2009
Yochanan 20:28-29 28 And Toma answered and said to Him

o , "MY MASTER AND MY ELOAH."
^^^^^^
o 29 Yahushua said to him, "Toma,
o BECAUSE you have seen Me,
^^^^
o you have BELIEVED:
^^
o BLESSED
^^^^^
ARE THEY THAT HAVE NOT SEEN,
^^^^^^^^^^^^
o AND YET HAVE BELIEVED."

>>
o Yehoshua DOES NOT REBUKE Toma for acknowledging His (Yehoshusha's) Divinity.
>>

ALI
true, Yehoshua did not rebuke but at the same time HE DID NOT BLESS THOMAS for his outburst.

Thomas was a disbeliever from the start. so this was a mild form of rebuke. Yehoshua reminded him of his disbelief.

Yehoshua addressed him as a disbeliever.

more importantly, Yehoshua blessed the future generations of believers and NOT Thomas.


Case in point -note:
the divinity was scaled down -- from GOD to Son.

peter was blessed for it.

1. And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
^^^
(Matthew 16:16 KJV)

2. And Jesus answered and said unto him,
BLESSED ART THOU, SIMON BARJONA:
for flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven.
^^^^^
(Matthew 16:17 KJV)


look at the contrast


TURNS INTO A BELIEF SYSTEM - DULY IGNORED BY Yehoshua

3. And we believe

^^^^^^

and are sure that

^^^^^^^

thou art that Christ,
the Son of the living God.
^^^^^
(John 6:69 KJV)

Yehoshua IGNORED HIM!


4. Jesus answered them,
Have not I chosen you twelve,
and one of you is a devil?
(John 6:70 KJV)


peter said the same thing but Yehoshua IGNORED HIM the
2nd time around.


on another occasion Yehoshua rebuked the BLESSED peter.


o But he turned, and said unto Peter,
Get thee behind me, Satan:
^^

thou art an offence unto me:
^^^

for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but those that be of men.
(Matthew 16:23 KJV)


o But when he had turned about
and looked on his disciples,
he rebuked Peter, saying,
^^

Get thee behind me, Satan:
^^


for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but the things that be of men.
(Mark 8:33 KJV)

[Zealot X]

calm down stud. His eyes were not literally fire nor were his feet literally brass. He would sound far beyond human if he had no eyes or feet to describe. How about we get G-d out of the human box you've placed him in?

[Yaacov]

No kidding, that was Yochanan's poetic and symbolic way of describing a phenomenon far beyond human. Who's placing Who in a box? You are the one who insists on denying Yehoshua's Divinity.

[Zealot X]

He's not god. Therefore I AM placing him in a HUMAN BOX; the SAME box he placed himself in when he called himself "son of man" (= "hu man"). I'm not placing G-d in a box because he is NOT G-d. Your circular logic cannot work on me. You need to first prove that he is G-d. Only THEN can you accuse me of putting G-d in a box. This accusation is just silly. Like I said.... you are the one putting G-d in a box because who says G-d has eyes at all? Humans have 2 eyes in order to see. Our sight is very limited. Can you see behind your head? Not without a mirror. If YHWH isn't limited to sight in one direction then how do you suppose he has 2 eyes like you do? Same goes for hearing, touching, tasting. He is a spirit. What does he need lungs for? These things exist in the HUMAN box in which you have placed him. We need these things because we were created to live on EARTH in side a specific environment with specific parameters. Your body doesn't work in space, therefore it is LIMITED to Earth. YHWH has no such limitations.

[Yaacov]

Zealot X says:

"He's not god. Therefore I AM placing him in a HUMAN BOX I'm not placing G-d in a box because he is NOT G-d. Your circular logic cannot work on me."

Thanks for doing the circular logic thing on yourself. Saves me the trouble.

[Yaacov]

Zealot X says:

"9. YHWH called Yisra'el his son. Children, like Samuel, were also dedicated to YHWH. YHWH said first born males belonged to him. These things are of a spiritual nature. Yisra'el, again, existed because of a divine intervention by YHWH. However, Ishmael was entirely human because his parents were human. When YHWH said "your seed", talking to Abraham, he did not mean he was going to get it on with Abraham's wife and he would have to adopt this as his son. YHWH preserves righteousness by making promises to FAMILIES. He blesses or curses their offspring based on their choices and actions."

Who is" the Son of YHWH" in

Gilyahnah/Revelation 2:18?

18 And to the teaching overseer of the congregation in Thyatira write; These things says the SON OF YHWH, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like fine brass;

[Zealot X]

yes.... the SON OF G-D...... not G_D

"of" is not a replacement of "is"

[Yaacov]

Yochanan 20:28-29

28 And Toma answered and said to Him, "My Master and my ELOAH."

For which Toma is not rebuked by Yehoshua for using the title "Eloah", so therefore it appears that Yehoshua approved the title that Toma gave him.

Of does NOT necessarily exclude is.

Let's say for example that Zealot X had a son named Ziggy and X is Ziggy's last name (X being the surname).
You could say that Ziggy is a son of X.
and you could also say that Ziggy is an X.
Let's pretend Zealot X buys a new Escalade.
The neighbors then get jealous and try to keep up with the Xs.

[Zealot X]

It was only a matter of time. I'm quite used to Christians hopping from one bunker to the next, not really dealing with the destruction of the previous argument. You're just all over the place. You can't decide whether you want to talk about the virgin birth or whether you want to talk about whether Yeshua is god. You clearly, however, want not to talk about what the subject became and that is about your female consort theory.

You should already know there is a lot of contention around what Thomas meant. As well there is a lot of debate about kurios and theos. But if you want to take the fact that he wasn't corrected as a sign then what of Mark 12:29-34? Clearly, the scribe says "and none other but he" and clearly he wasn't talking about some 2nd or 3rd person of the trinity. Clearly. Not only does he not get corrected, but he is told that he is close to the kingdom of elohim.

on to your "of" logic...

Ziggy would not be a son of X. Ziggy would be a son of Zealot. X is just our last name. X did not conceive him. Zealot X isn't even necessarily a son of X. And if you want to talk about last names in a real way, John's son was not called John unless he was John Jr. or John II or John III. His last name was John's son or "Johnson". This is how last names like Johnson, Smithson, etc. evolved. Once the last name becomes a last name, instead of a reference to someone's father then it can be treated differently. John's son might have been Paul. But Paul's son isn't called Peter Paulson. It's Peter Johnson. Peter is NOT John's son. You mistakenly tried to use the X as a last name only, not a relationship between father and son. Again, the father's name would be Zealot, not X. G-d is a title, not a family's last name. Neither is it a species.

If G-d was a last name YHWH would have never allowed himself to be called el or elohim because that would have given him the same name/last name as a false god. However, as a title there is no problem.