Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
.You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary..You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.gee I wonder how Moses spoke face to face with God. You jews sure like the western wall, and now even want a third temple to begin sacrifices again, the horror.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
You also deny that which you never knew, that being the use of Hebrew words.
You would not learn to fly a plane by going to a boating instructor, then why read Judaic scripture & Prophecy through Pagan Rome's NT?
Your interpretation of Genesis is sadly passed to you, the plurality clearly shows it's the hosts(Elohim) leaving their RIGHTEOUS Essence IMAGE, that is called reflecting and manifesting the nature of being righteous-being Shalem (stable/complete/whole).
I didn't mention a trinity. So what are you reading or saying?
Do you believe in the virgin birth?
Yes I do. And you?
No, but I find it strange you think Jesus is the real son of God (impregnated by the HS), and yet do not believe in the trinity. Jesus never mentions Yahweh, he only says , my Lord and my God, and Father.
Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name = ( YHVH(Jehovah)
John 17:6,26-- Jesus promises to keep making that name known.
Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.
I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?
Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.
No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.
The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some, incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios (“of one substance”) into a creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father. The emperor then exiled Arius, an act that, while manifesting a solidarity of church and state, underscored the importance of secular patronage in ecclesiastical affairs.
Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.
No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.
Jehovahs Witness?
.You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
Sources:
Isaiah 42:8 we can't pray to any image of anything physical- Exodus 20:3-7 and Deuteronomy 5:8-10
God is not a man nor form-(Isaiah 2:22, 14:13, I Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, and Hosea 11:9, Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and the 13 major principles of the Jewish faith based on the Rambam's teaching of "ain lo demus haguf ve'ayno guf" -- that Hashem has no physical form.)
THEREFORE any "Name" actually is a description.
In both Judaism and Islam God has many Descriptions for the power & source of Creation.
THEREFORE: only the Mediator who describes that Essence and named that Essence understands the secret of the name of God which is why it says in the scrolls: MOSHIACH (WHO IS THAT MEDIATOR) is the one who knows
the secret wisdom of the name of God(4Q300I ii4=4Q299 2 i I4).
NOW your pronunciation is mistaken on YHWH,
Y=H sound remember I keep telling you this and as you stated w=V sound=Hahvay sound........build the Temple (Mikdash) and you will get the punchline.
gee I wonder how Moses spoke face to face with God. You jews sure like the western wall, and now even want a third temple to begin sacrifices again, the horror.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary..You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.gee I wonder how Moses spoke face to face with God. You jews sure like the western wall, and now even want a third temple to begin sacrifices again, the horror.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
You also deny that which you never knew, that being the use of Hebrew words.
You would not learn to fly a plane by going to a boating instructor, then why read Judaic scripture & Prophecy through Pagan Rome's NT?
Your interpretation of Genesis is sadly passed to you, the plurality clearly shows it's the hosts(Elohim) leaving their RIGHTEOUS Essence IMAGE, that is called reflecting and manifesting the nature of being righteous-being Shalem (stable/complete/whole).
NO WAY did Josephus write the books attributed to Paul.I would infer that Josephus wrote most of the Pauls books. You might want to read Josephus so you can get a handle on the NT.
The 3/4 the NT could have been Apollonias of Tyana (Pol) used for the Paul character who owned a vast library to plagiarise the myths from, or
Sergius Paulus called Paul who's friend was a maggis named BarJesus or the wicked Woman the followers of John says was responsible for texts that they burned (which might be the central source Q which has the same story.)
Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.
..You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.gee I wonder how Moses spoke face to face with God. You jews sure like the western wall, and now even want a third temple to begin sacrifices again, the horror.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
No, but I find it strange you think Jesus is the real son of God (impregnated by the HS), and yet do not believe in the trinity. Jesus never mentions Yahweh, he only says , my Lord and my God, and Father.
Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name = ( YHVH(Jehovah)
John 17:6,26-- Jesus promises to keep making that name known.
Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.
I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?
YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.
Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.
No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.
Jehovahs Witness?
Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.
..You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
and that has a bearing on -
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.
Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.
No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.
Jehovahs Witness?
Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.
Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.
I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.
Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.
Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary..You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..YOUR MISTAKES is YOUR PROBLEM and like any human ego you blame others for your lacking comprehension (Displaced behavior -psychology 101 first chapter). In not following directions you lose insight.
Direction 1: not to make a figure or form from an Essence.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
Example: piece of art can speak to you- does not literally speak to you, it is an EXPRESSION.
Placing your paper face down does not literally have a face, it's an expression just as the expression "face of a nation" is not literal it denotes "an Essence" of a nation.
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
Car mechanics can say "she runs perfect" doesn't mean your car has a gender. It's an expression.
As long as the rule is established not to make a figure or form out of Creations source and power then any term on gender is not to be construed as literal figure and probably shouldn't be used because obviously it confuses those who forget the most basic cardinal rule not to bring form into the expression of the Creations source and Power (God). So blame away, and make excuses, but don't act like it's the problem of those who clearly told you proper precepts for your inability to obey those precepts when you go way off course and complain about yourself.
That would be liken to a swimmer being told about red flags and not to swim then complaining about the creators of the flag warning system that currents almost drowned you.
Learn to post blame wisely, a mirror would be a good start.
WITHOUT KEEPING THAT CONCEPT THAT IT'S AN ESSENCE "you lose sight"(context) and forget that certain commentary are figures of speach and in context "not used to describe form".
In Genesis the word image is not the Hebrew word for Physical image it denotes a nature/essence type image.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
You also deny that which you never knew, that being the use of Hebrew words.
You would not learn to fly a plane by going to a boating instructor, then why read Judaic scripture & Prophecy through Pagan Rome's NT?
Your interpretation of Genesis is sadly passed to you, the plurality clearly shows it's the hosts(Elohim) leaving their RIGHTEOUS Essence IMAGE, that is called reflecting and manifesting the nature of being righteous-being Shalem (stable/complete/whole).
100% fact--In Hebrew==Elohim is NEVER plural for the true living God. Only for false gods.
Your scholars know this fact--they hide it to deceive.
Yes I do. And you?
No, but I find it strange you think Jesus is the real son of God (impregnated by the HS), and yet do not believe in the trinity. Jesus never mentions Yahweh, he only says , my Lord and my God, and Father.
Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name = ( YHVH(Jehovah)
John 17:6,26-- Jesus promises to keep making that name known.
Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.
I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?
YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.
Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"
She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away
Christians have always, by definition, worshiped Jesus as God. And always will.
No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.
Jehovahs Witness?
Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.
Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.
I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.
Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.
the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one
No, but I find it strange you think Jesus is the real son of God (impregnated by the HS), and yet do not believe in the trinity. Jesus never mentions Yahweh, he only says , my Lord and my God, and Father.
Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name = ( YHVH(Jehovah)
John 17:6,26-- Jesus promises to keep making that name known.
Yet he never calls out for Jehovah, just Our Father, who art in heaven.
I would say you are imagining stuff. Why would Jesus , a peaceful man, be summoning a tribal war god?
YHVH is the God of Israel---- Liars must have written he was cannanite. Satan fools mortals 99 out of every hundred things they believe is truth in this world.
Penny somehow KNOWS that there was a CANAANITE "war god" that bore the name spelled as Yud, He, Vav, He. She also knows that this informations EXISTS somewhere in the "JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA"
She is a "health care worker"----There is something IMPORTANT that all health care workers EVENTUALLY
learn. THERE IS NO ARGUING A
PSYCHOTIC DELUSION away
No that is not true. At the first council of Nicea-no trinity was taught. It was added later at another council. The trinity does not exist.
Jesus himself calls the trinity a lie-John 20:17, Rev 3:12---Its harder than pulling teeth to get a trinitarian to believe Jesus over dogmas of men.
Jehovahs Witness?
Why yes. The facts of Israelite God worship history and the teachings of Jesus back the JW teachers. Trinitarians do NOT know what Jesus taught. Its 100% clear to a 10 year old at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus tells all his Father is the only true God---they outright refuse to believe him.
Its ok is you are a JW and not a trinitarian, I just think Church teaching trumps the bible, after all you got Jesus from Rome. They created Christianity.
I know its confusing when Jesus is the son of God, we are all a product of our upbringing. How can the son because equal with the Father, in life the son becomes equal to the father when he himself has children and Jesus children are gentiles.
Think of Jesus as Titus, his God and Father was Emperor Vespasian. See how this works. Then when Vespasian died, Titus became Emperor.
the person "JESUS" was no roman-------during his time, it is a fact that the
Romans so admired the greeks that they considered greek sorta superior to
Latin. Your "father son equal" sophistry does not really work in the
Hebraized Aramaic used by the person
"JESUS" ---------you used three shoehorns and a crowbar to come up with that one
Your Jesus was Jesus bar Abbas, (Barabbas) to you, and that is who the Jews wanted to be free. LOL, there were what 11 Jesus's by the time of the destruction of the temple , mainly by zealot Jews themselves.
...You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form..
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
whatever difference it might make the awful quote above, genesis does insinuate a physical form for the likeness found in the Everlasting for the ruling deity ... and thus would be identifiable by name.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
and that has a bearing on -
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.
...You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
and that has a bearing on -
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I guess the trees in the forest got in the way ... not so the above quote, irregardless the greek, form and figure are exactly the subject matter for the forged 4th century quote bestowed to man. transgently conveying the same as the creators - makebelieve religions, whichever is not the subject matter including islam. in arabic most likely ...
it is your contradiction not mine.
....
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
the quotes meaning in making man couples their existence to their select creation of man and vice versa where both the metaphysical, image and physical, likeness are attributes for both parties and are the same ... where as the quote would be for all beings were the likeness removed that further distinguishes the (physical) characteristics given to man being the same as theirs.
... NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
giving figure and form is exactly what the awful genesis quote accomplishes by defining man as being the same as the entity that created them ... which only proves the quote is a forgery. obviously mans metaphysical presence is unknown to non existent while living as a mortal. and all beings are made equally for remission to the Everlasting.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
and that has a bearing on -
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I guess the trees in the forest got in the way ... not so the above quote, irregardless the greek, form and figure are exactly the subject matter for the forged 4th century quote bestowed to man. transgently conveying the same as the creators - makebelieve religions, whichever is not the subject matter including islam. in arabic most likely ...
it is your contradiction not mine.
breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout? There is a line in the poetry called "genesis" at the very beginning which seems to be giving you trouble.
It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "...in our image..." seems to be your problem. It is a trick of Hebrew grammar. The
plural first person is used as a kind of SUPERLATIVE------and the word image is
a translation of the TZSELEM which is a kind of vague word sometimes translated as "shadow" which is kinda closer than "image" In the lingo of optics------it may be something like a virtual image. The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance
breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout?
It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "
"...in our image..." seems to be your problem.
The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance
...Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
and that has a bearing on -
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
both you and HaShev are defending a written religion that tangentially contradicts itself particularly by the highlighted quote and your rebuttals as evidence - whereas the spoken religion of Antiquity clearly refers to the specific deity as the Almighty in reference to all things, form and figure included. though physique may not be the uttermost importance ... for common discourse.
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
are you referring to the word which is
approximately " AL " and pronounced something like "ale"???
I missed the "TANGENTIAL CONTRADICTION", breezeeee dear.
You need to read what I wrote carefully, you need to understand in Hebrew the word used is not the word for physical image. The word for "image" in Gen. 1:27 is "tzelem," which refers to the nature or essence of a thing and not a form.
Your insinuation was not proven by what you wrote and is not conveyed in a manner that even allows one to get to your conclusion.
IN OTHER WORDS you used your opinion based on no evidence of how you got that conclusion.
Actually our image = the ability to love and reason.
You are using an ad hominem selective argument, you destroy the Bible by ignoring the verses I posted that contradict your precepts then selectively use a few verses you interpret using NT versions of the OT or your own interps not the Tanakh version with Rabbinic commentary.
Ijust explained to you what it really means---the capability to love and reason.
Because it uses the word US and it is a plural form of the singular noun elo'ah it most likely refers to plural hosts as "the strong ones" but even if it's singular the context using US still refers to making mankind strong in righteousness like US the hosts(Kohanim). In other words no matter how you perceive the word Elohim in this verse you still get the same expression and in no way is it pluralizing God.
GOD IS NOT A MAN NOR FIGURE OR FORM TO HAVE A NAME.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I guess the trees in the forest got in the way ... not so the above quote, irregardless the greek, form and figure are exactly the subject matter for the forged 4th century quote bestowed to man. transgently conveying the same as the creators - makebelieve religions, whichever is not the subject matter including islam. in arabic most likely ...
it is your contradiction not mine.
breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout? There is a line in the poetry called "genesis" at the very beginning which seems to be giving you trouble.
It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "...in our image..." seems to be your problem. It is a trick of Hebrew grammar. The
plural first person is used as a kind of SUPERLATIVE------and the word image is
a translation of the TZSELEM which is a kind of vague word sometimes translated as "shadow" which is kinda closer than "image" In the lingo of optics------it may be something like a virtual image. The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance
breeezeee darlin' what is you talkn' 'bout?
It is a very old poem and was written long before the fourth century. "
it was codified w/ that one religion in the 4th century composite and consistent to the other two ....
"...in our image..." seems to be your problem.
in our image, after our likeness:
The nature of the "creation" --would seem to pick up something of the ESSENCE of the creator but not its form
or substance
- And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
the above is a declarative statement preeminent to the three desert religions irregardless language, humanity is the form and figure of its creator ... it is your religion, not mine and does contradict a denial of form and figure written in your particular text that is tangential to the depiction of the Almighty by the quote.
