a study in the understanding yhwh & elohim

[BlaznFattyz]

• Elohim is translated as God and stands primarily for God the Father, the Almighty one. Elohim is used with reference to God's sovereignty over all. Elohim also stands for the plurality of God (holy trinity).
  
• Yahweh (Jehovah) is translated as LORD. This is the pre-incarnate Jesus. Yahweh is used with reference to God's personal relationship with man.
• Adonai is translated as Lord, My Supreme Lord. The context determines which of the Trinity is being addressed.
• Yahshua: The prefix Yah is an abbreviation of Yahweh. The Bible makes great use of this short form. "Shua" means "salvation", "savior". The whole name signifies "Yah is salvation".

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Septuagint version translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. It was done about 200 B.C. in that translation the word YHWH was translated to the Greek word kurios ("Lord").[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Jesus used the Greek word kurios ("lord") to translate YHWH. This is done consistently in the New Testament, which is inspired by God. Hence, God has shown us that it is proper to translate YHWH as "Lord." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The use of all capitals is used by translators to indicate that YHWH is behind the word "Lord" and not the normal Hebrew word adhon.[/FONT]

The prophecy of Jesus Christ
Is.40:3,5: The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (YHWH), make straight in the desert a highway for our GOD. And the glory of the LORD (YHWH) shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD (YHWH) hath spoken it.
The fulfillment of the prophecy by Jesus Christ
Mat.3:1-3: In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD (YHWH), make his paths straight.

The prophecy of Jesus Christ
Joel.2:32: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (YHWH) shall be delivered
The fulfillment of the prophecy by Jesus Christ
Act.4:12: There is salvation in none other, for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, by which we must be saved.

 

[moseslmpg]

Do you have a source fro the shua translation? I've never heard that before.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

you can easily do a search for the meaning of "shua"
i have this for you to read:
excerpt from:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/3_10/whythatname

""Y'shua is necessarily the name of the only one through whom we can find salvation. An examination of the meaning of the name and its background in the Jewish Scriptures reveals why this is so.

Y'shua means "the Lord saves." It involves a combination of the name YHWH (the Ineffable Name) and the Hebrew root YASHA'.4 YASHA' is related to an Arabic word, "to make wide, to make sufficient" as contrasted with TSARAR, meaning "narrow." Wideness came to connote "freedom" or "safety" which led to the root YASHA', having the meaning: to be delivered to a position of freedom or safety.

In the Tenach, God is presented as the source of salvation, "Our God is a God who saves" (Psalm 68:20). Human agents are effective only as they are empowered by God. Ultimately, salvation had only one source—The Lord:

"…And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21b,22).

Although many of our people assume that the Tenach speaks only of salvation from physical distress, this is not so; the concept developed in the sacred writings to specify the promise of salvation from sin..."

 

[moseslmpg]

OK, well that's not the exact etymology I have seen but the point is taken. In Qabala, yeshua/yehoshua/yahshua is seen as the letter shin which represents the fire of the holy spirit, descending in between the letters of YHVH, which each represent something else which I forget.

Are you saying YHVH is Jesus' pre-incarnate name, which can also be translated as the Lord? The way I understand it YHVH is the personal name of the Father and should not be translated since He specifically said He wanted to be called that.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

yes, the personal name you call on is that of jesus (yhwh), for he is our lord and saviour.

 

[E99]

Hi Blazn:

Your Quote:

Elohim is translated as God and stands primarily for God the Father, the Almighty one. Elohim is used with reference to God's sovereignty over all. Elohim also stands for the plurality of God (holy trinity)

​

True, regarding the first points but, no, sorry, there is no holy trinity god to be found in the name Elohim. It can be forced in if you want to superimpose a triune God into it, but in the reality by the way the scriptures are written regarding the ancient Hebrews syntax and grammar regarding Elohim, and many other aspects, it is only on a false and 'bottom of the barrel scraping' basis that three gods in one can be theologically rammed and jammed into this plural term. When referring to the creator God 'Elohim' it tends to imply, by far, a singular God..........



Elohim is a general term for God (deity), it is also used when describing false gods and angels etc. Elohim is plural in form, however, when it refers to the true God, it refers to only one being. This is known because it is consistently used with singular verbs, and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular, so that by the rules of Hebrew grammar it must be understood and translated as singular (God).
For instance, Exodus 20:2-3 declares: "I am the Lord thy God [Elohim] which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt . . . Thou shalt have no other gods [Elohim] before me."



The term "Elohim" is, grammatically plural in form, shown both by the "im" suffix and by the fact that at various places in the bible it is used to designate plural entities, such as "mighty ones" or "gods" (false gods ). This is only grammatically plural, but not in the real world where the plural Elohim is singular when used in line with singular verbs. When transposed upon the reality of the matter true to the way God exists it is describing a singular entity. It does not mean multiplicity in the essence of the creator God.


By Jehovah Gods inspired word and what he was trying to say to us about his substance via the ancients, looking at the first usage of the name Elohim; and Elohims attributes; and what Elohim actually consists of, we need to look at how Elohim is used. An example.....


Genesis 1:1 : 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'



In-beginning >(Brashith) HE created > (Bara) Elohim > (Aleim) the heavens >(ath- eshimim) and >(uath) the earth > (eartz)



The very important point to note here is that the verb Created (bara) is in the singular form. More specifically, it is in the third person, masculine, singular form. i.e HE (GOD) created, and NOT THEY created. This is why the designation "Elohim" used for God in this instance, (and nearly all others) is considered as referring to a singular entity even though "Elohim" is technically a plural form. The construction of the sentence gives the context, and 'created' in its singular form gives meaning to who did the creating...A singular entity.


The Hebrew subject (HE...God) and verb (created) in Genesis 1:1 would have been written completely differently had Gods 'breath' at Genesis 1:1 been trying to describe some form of triune multiple essence (THEY) in one God.... creating the heavens and the earth. And for those that take the whole scripture as Gods inspired word, would God lie and try to confuse us ? Is he saying that he is of a multiple essence in the very first words that are indirectly telling us about his being ....Elohim, as a singular entity, words that he spells out for us through the original language...'HE' the singular God that created ...(singular....Bara) ?



Elohim appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number.
Please compare the above context with Genesis 1.26 'Let US make'...... God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30). This conglomeration of pre-human existance is commonly known as the divine court consisting of many spirit creatures. God, in Genesis 1:1 belies the concept of a multiple faceted God, so the 'US' and 'in OUR' image later in Genesis 1:26 is only stating facts about who was standing with Jehovah God at the time of the (HE) the one and only true God when he was deciding upon the creating of man.


Quoted material:...
"Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).
"No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute."



The singular pronoun is nearly always used with the word Elohim. A study of the word will show what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as "He," not "They," or "I," not "We") always follows Elohim. Furthermore, when the word Elohim is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." To some, the evidence is clear: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel. End quote.


No one has a sure claim to knowing. What is clear is that at the time Genesis was written, context and singular modifiers identify those places where the God inspired authors intended the term Elohim to refer to a singular God.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

god created... whatever god does, the word and the spirit do as well. you cannot leave one out as they are all god.

 

[E99]

Hi Blazn

Your quote:

Yahweh (Jehovah) is translated as LORD. This is the pre-incarnate Jesus. Yahweh is used with reference to God's personal relationship with man.


True, Yahweh, Yahoweh or Jehovah is translated as Lord, but it is not the correct transliteration. It is only by the want by some ancient Jewish scribes and copyists to obliterate the name Jehovah from the scrolls due to superstitious beliefs that occured in the past, ( possibly around 300 to 100 BCE) One where it became translational practice due to superstition to avoid uttering or even writing the holy name Jehovah, the name that was said to be too sacred to write or mention. Instead the name was substituted with the term Lord. If it had not undergone this way of superstitious translation, then the name Jehovah would rightfully appear in the places that it should appear in the Greek (and Hebrew) scriptures today, in nearly all bibles. But the holy name when translated to Greek has been substituted with the terms kyrious and theos ...Lord and God to this day.


Jehovah is not the pre-incarnate Jesus, there is nothing concrete found in the scriptures to even suppose this especially using the name Elohim that is intrinsically a singular God found to be so by the context of the original scriptural language. The fact that Jehovah is translated as Lord (Kyrios) or theos into the Greek does not make him the Lord Jesus as these are transliteral misconceptions, especially regarding the above and below explanations.

​

YHWH Yahweh can be translated in its Anglisized form as Jehovah just as Yeshua is translated as Jesus. Jehovah is Gods holy name that he wants all to use and not simply a reference to be used in relationship with man.

Jehovah wants his name to be known.......

"That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Ps 83:18 King James Version

A prophecy regarding how his name would be abandoned......

"And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes." Ezekiel 36:23 ASV

Words of Jesus. A need to make the holy name of his Father glorified, to be made known.

John 12:28 (ASV) "Father, glorify thy name. There came therefore a voice out of heaven, [saying], I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again'


Your quote:

Adonai is translated as Lord, My Supreme Lord. The context determines which of the Trinity is being addressed.

Adhon, adhonim, adhoni and adhonai all refer to deities, lords and masters in singular or plural, but each term is specific to its usage. There is no trinity in the scriptures referring to the almighty God and the Lord together, commonly found in Psalm 110.1 which I believe you are getting the concept of the trinity from. Here the Hebrew words Adhonai and Adhoni are used. They have totally different meanings.


Adhon-i refers to 'My Lord' Usually used when referring to the king of Israel or human superiors.


Adhon-ai always refers to God almighty. Jehovah alone


Please notice the suffixes. The single ' i ' suffix refers to 'my' hence it is a separate being that is mentioned, whereas the suffix ai of adonai always refers to the Almighty God Jehovah alone. Adonai is translated as Lord because the name YHWH was taken out ( as explained above.) The second Adhon 'Lord' in this scripture is not the same as the almighty Jehovah, it is a lesser being, defined by the Hebrew term Adhon-i (Lord)


By taking out YHWH Jehovah, the name of God in the scriptures and plunging in Lord after the translation has been done you can end up with grammatical nonsense and an unholy incest that would make some think that there are lords or gods in two parts of the so called trinity that are conversing with each other.


The (mis) translation comes out as such.............

e.g.. Psalms 110:1 in the NASB:

"The LORD says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand."
or
>The LORD (Adhonai...Almighty God YHWH) says to my lord (Adhoni.... Lord)<


In reality, pre-translation, and pre-obliterating of Gods name, the first Lord 'Adhonai' is the Divine Name Jehovah, the second word is Adhoni, 'Lord'. They are two different entities by definition of the original language, grammar and words used and not one entity as some would like to enforce into the misconstrued transliteration of the Hebrew words and the subsequent messed up grammar.


By rightfully putting in the name of God YHWH where it was taken out, the truth comes out, It is saying Jehovah (Adhonai) says to the pre-human Lord Jesus (Adhoni) sit at my right hand. He is speaking to his son just as he would have done if he was speaking to the Lord Jesus when he was on earth.


Your quote:
Yahshua: The prefix Yah is an abbreviation of Yahweh. The Bible makes great use of this short form. "Shua" means "salvation", "savior". The whole name signifies "Yah is salvation".


The name Jesus or yeshua is a shortened version of Yehoshua (Greek Ieous)........ Similarly, the name Joshua means Jehovah is salvation. Joshua is a shortened version of Jehoshua (Jah-shua)...

Are we then to say that Joshua is the pre-incarnate Jehovah ?

And is Joshua also the saviour of mankind ? No, the prefix Jah was a common abbreviated noun used in names of the ancient Israelites and the Hebrews. Each and every name with the prefix variation of the abbreviated name of Jehovah, Jah etc, and the suffix shua would have the meaning Jehovah is salvation. Shua means salvation via Jehovah and not through Jesus alone.
Whats in a name ? A lot, it seems then a lot of the biblical characters are saviours of the world of mankind... Yeshua is a saviour, but only through the almighty God Jehovah.


Jehovah is the principle saviour. Accordingly, Jesus Christ can rightly be called "our Savior," even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah. The name Jesus, given to God’s Son by angelic direction, means "Jehovah Is Salvation," for, said the angel, "he will save his people from their sins.

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Blazn:​

Your Quote:​

Elohim is translated as God and stands primarily for God the Father, the Almighty one. Elohim is used with reference to God's sovereignty over all. Elohim also stands for the plurality of God (holy trinity)​

True, regarding the first points but, no, sorry, there is no holy trinity god to be found in the name Elohim. It can be forced in if you want to superimpose a triune God into it, but in the reality by the way the scriptures are written regarding the ancient Hebrews syntax and grammar regarding Elohim, and many other aspects, it is only on a false and 'bottom of the barrel scraping' basis that three gods in one can be theologically rammed and jammed into this plural term. When referring to the creator God 'Elohim' it tends to imply, by far, a singular God..........



Elohim is a general term for God (deity), it is also used when describing false gods and angels etc. Elohim is plural in form, however, when it refers to the true God, it refers to only one being. This is known because it is consistently used with singular verbs, and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular, so that by the rules of Hebrew grammar it must be understood and translated as singular (God).
For instance, Exodus 20:2-3 declares: "I am the Lord thy God [Elohim] which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt . . . Thou shalt have no other gods [Elohim] before me."



The term "Elohim" is, grammatically plural in form, shown both by the "im" suffix and by the fact that at various places in the bible it is used to designate plural entities, such as "mighty ones" or "gods" (false gods ). This is only grammatically plural, but not in the real world where the plural Elohim is singular when used in line with singular verbs. When transposed upon the reality of the matter true to the way God exists it is describing a singular entity. It does not mean multiplicity in the essence of the creator God.


By Jehovah Gods inspired word and what he was trying to say to us about his substance via the ancients, looking at the first usage of the name Elohim; and Elohims attributes; and what Elohim actually consists of, we need to look at how Elohim is used. An example.....


Genesis 1:1 : 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'



In-beginning >(Brashith) HE created > (Bara) Elohim > (Aleim) the heavens >(ath- eshimim) and >(uath) the earth > (eartz)



The very important point to note here is that the verb Created (bara) is in the singular form. More specifically, it is in the third person, masculine, singular form. i.e HE (GOD) created, and NOT THEY created. This is why the designation "Elohim" used for God in this instance, (and nearly all others) is considered as referring to a singular entity even though "Elohim" is technically a plural form. The construction of the sentence gives the context, and 'created' in its singular form gives meaning to who did the creating...A singular entity.


The Hebrew subject (HE...God) and verb (created) in Genesis 1:1 would have been written completely differently had Gods 'breath' at Genesis 1:1 been trying to describe some form of triune multiple essence (THEY) in one God.... creating the heavens and the earth. And for those that take the whole scripture as Gods inspired word, would God lie and try to confuse us ? Is he saying that he is of a multiple essence in the very first words that are indirectly telling us about his being ....Elohim, as a singular entity, words that he spells out for us through the original language...'HE' the singular God that created ...(singular....Bara) ?



Elohim appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number.
Please compare the above context with Genesis 1.26 'Let US make'...... God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30). This conglomeration of pre-human existance is commonly known as the divine court consisting of many spirit creatures. God, in Genesis 1:1 belies the concept of a multiple faceted God, so the 'US' and 'in OUR' image later in Genesis 1:26 is only stating facts about who was standing with Jehovah God at the time of the (HE) the one and only true God when he was deciding upon the creating of man.


Quoted material:...
"Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).
"No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute."



The singular pronoun is nearly always used with the word Elohim. A study of the word will show what Gesenius stated, that the singular attribute (such as "He," not "They," or "I," not "We") always follows Elohim. Furthermore, when the word Elohim is used to denote others beside the true God, it is understood as singular or plural, never as "uniplural." To some, the evidence is clear: God is not "compound" in any sense of the word. He is the "one God" of Israel. End quote.


No one has a sure claim to knowing. What is clear is that at the time Genesis was written, context and singular modifiers identify those places where the God inspired authors intended the term Elohim to refer to a singular God.

This is of course your opinion. There are those who have spent their lives studying the Bible and they disagree with you, as do the greater majority (95% +) of those professing to be Christian in faith.

v/r

Joshua

 

[BlaznFattyz]

yhwh is the name the father shares with his son, they also share the throne and the worship of all things, as they are one. but for the most part, yhwh is our personal saviour who is our lord god that the father has given all authority to and whose name he has given above all things. we call on the lord yhwh it is jesus, for he has come and there is no other way to god the father but through him.

 

[aburaees]

This is of course your opinion. There are those who have spent their lives studying the Bible and they disagree with you, as do the greater majority (95% +) of those professing to be Christian in faith.

v/r

Joshua

Being in the majority (95%+) isn't so comforting in light of Matthew 7:13.

There are those who have spent their lives studying evolution, yet they often run into Christian creationists who will disagree with them...

 

[Quahom1]

Being in the majority (95%+) isn't so comforting in light of Matthew 7:13.

There are those who have spent their lives studying evolution, yet they often run into Christian creationists who will disagree with them...

Ironic coming from one who prefers the Qu'ran and Islam to the Bible and Christianity. Well at least your faith is about 1500 years older than the JW's declared faith (though 300 years younger than the originator of the root belief of the JW concept (Arius), who was excommunicated, before, there was a Roman Catholic Church.

Evolutionists have proved nothing yet. Theory and speculation with gaps in between. Yet they love to call their "evidence" truth. Christians call their "truth" by "faith". Can't argue with faith. Can't disprove it either.

Tell me, which version of Islam is the right path? Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, or some other variation? Who in the Islamic world is on the high and narrow road, and who is destined for destruction?

Kind of like calling the kettle black, when one isn't even a pot of similar mold.

v/r

Joshua

 

[aburaees]

Ironic coming from one who prefers the Qu'ran and Islam to the Bible and Christianity. Well at least your faith is about 1500 years older than the JW's declared faith (though 300 years younger than the originator of the root belief of the JW concept (Arius), who was excommunicated, before, there was a Roman Catholic Church.

Why is it ironic? We're talking about Bible here, and it's quite clear from the scripture that the majority (broad gate) are often in error, whilst the minority (narrow gate) are said to attain eternal life.
I'm simply illustrating how it might not be wise to take comfort in being in the majority.

Evolutionists have proved nothing yet. Theory and speculation with gaps in between. Yet they love to call their "evidence" truth. Christians call their "truth" by "faith". Can't argue with faith. Can't disprove it either.

Can't disagree with you here.

Tell me, which version of Islam is the right path? Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, or some other variation? Who in the Islamic world is on the high and narrow road, and who is destined for destruction?

It's not my call to make, but I doubt any of them have the whole truth, they should be learning from eachother.

Kind of like calling the kettle black, when one isn't even a pot of similar mold.

v/r

Joshua

Not really, I happen to accept that other groups may have a point against me in some issues... whilst I might have a point against them in others.

But in this thread, I get the impression that many are claiming to know the whole truth - and couldn't possibly learn anything from the minorities.

So how about addressing Matthew 7:13 instead of disqualifying my contribution based on my personal choice of faith?

.

 

[wil]

Am I missing something? It is my understanding that we have two groups of authors that were merged in the early books of the bible. The Yahwists, and the Elohists...hence we get Gen1 and Gen2 versions of creation, and the two versions of the animals on the ark.

We've got oral traditions which like oral traditions the words and thoughts are modified over generations to fit beliefs. Then when the stories are eventually written down by various groups in the land they naturally vary.

Like the bible being 66 books culled together out of hundreds in the early centuries of Christianity, the Hebrew books and stories were culled together at some point in time and to satisfy some of the people some of the time, some of each of their stories had to show up in the book (Genisis) So we get two names from the two belief systems which are translated later from Hebrew into Greek...

Am I at a loss in this regard? Now I know this information is viewed differently as well in Judaic traditions...we have the Orthodox who have the 5 books brought down by Moses. On through the conservative, reformed, liberal, and qabalists... I believe the information above is accepted from the middle down...and expanded upon as we go....

 

[cyberpi]

Being in the majority (95%+) isn't so comforting in light of Matthew 7:13.

There are those who have spent their lives studying evolution, yet they often run into Christian creationists who will disagree with them...

If a person hasn't met or heard from .01% of alledged Christians, then who listens when the person says 5% or 95%? I see no vote or opinion poll taken or presented here.

I agree with you, or rather the Gospel verse you present. if the minority followed the majority then nobody today would have ever heard of Christ (pbuh) or of any prophet.

 

[Quahom1]

Why is it ironic? We're talking about Bible here, and it's quite clear from the scripture that the majority (broad gate) are often in error, whilst the minority (narrow gate) are said to attain eternal life.
I'm simply illustrating how it might not be wise to take comfort in being in the majority.



Can't disagree with you here.



It's not my call to make, but I doubt any of them have the whole truth, they should be learning from eachother.




Not really, I happen to accept that other groups may have a point against me in some issues... whilst I might have a point against them in others.

But in this thread, I get the impression that many are claiming to know the whole truth - and couldn't possibly learn anything from the minorities.

So how about addressing Matthew 7:13 instead of disqualifying my contribution based on my personal choice of faith?

.

So, you equate 6,000,000 JWs and other fringe faiths calling themselves Christian, with the narrow path, while main stream Christianity is on the broad road to hell? And, you ignored my question about your own faith...

Anything to cause the Christian faithful to stumble, if it is possible?

lol, you can be seen coming for miles.

I don't blame you actually. Human reason and logic is all we know for certain. Faith on the other hand, is a different ball game all together. That requires a "leap". Not many are willing to take that leap. It's safer to stay on familiar ground.

v/r

Joshua

 

[aburaees]

So, you equate 6,000,000 JWs and other fringe faiths calling themselves Christian, with the narrow path, while main stream Christianity is on the broad road to hell?

No I don't actually, if I did then I myself would want to be a JW. All I'm saying is, from a Biblical POV majority does not rule... so being in the 95%+ is not going to save anyone.

And, you ignored my question about your own faith...

I did not. You asked me which version of Islam was the right path, and I told you it wasn't my call to make - I simply said that nobody has a monopoly over the truth.

Anything to cause the Christian faithful to stumble, if it is possible?

I don't want to stumble any of the faithful. I would however like to be able to identify the faithful so that I may learn from them.

lol, you can be seen coming for miles.

I don't understand this... my record on this forum simply shows me having a voice for the minorities. I would like to see 11 players on each team for a good soccer match.

I don't blame you actually. Human reason and logic is all we know for certain. Faith on the other hand, is a different ball game all together. That requires a "leap". Not many are willing to take that leap. It's safer to stay on familiar ground.

v/r

Joshua

Couldn't disagree with this, except for the assumption that I'm not willing to take a "leap" of faith. I've made too many "leaps" to talk about here, and not one of them was ever easy.

 

[Quahom1]

No I don't actually, if I did then I myself would want to be a JW. All I'm saying is, from a Biblical POV majority does not rule... so being in the 95%+ is not going to save anyone.



I did not. You asked me which version of Islam was the right path, and I told you it wasn't my call to make - I simply said that nobody has a monopoly over the truth.



I don't want to stumble any of the faithful. I would however like to be able to identify the faithful so that I may learn from them.



I don't understand this... my record on this forum simply shows me having a voice for the minorities. I would like to see 11 players on each team for a good soccer match.




Couldn't disagree with this, except for the assumption that I'm not willing to take a "leap" of faith. I've made too many "leaps" to talk about here, and not one of them was ever easy.

Majority does not rule, is correct, Biblically speaking. But the "majority" have got it right.

I wouldn't want to be a JW either. I wouldn't want fear of dis-fellowship, as my primary reason for being one.

There is only one leap of faith that matters to me. Once taken, can't be taken back.

There is only one Faith on this planet that promises redemption, by grace and faith (also a grace). All other "faiths" seem to fall somewhat short of the goal.

Only one claimed to be the King of Kings, the savior, the redeemer, the messaiah. Only one claimed to be "the way, light and truth". Only one claimed to have inroads to the Father. Only one claimed to be One with the Father. Only one claimed to be the beginning and the end...bold statements for a mere human. Especially one that seemed to back His claims up with evidence...

v/r

Joshua

 

[aburaees]

Majority does not rule, is correct, Biblically speaking. But the "majority" have got it right.

No room for debate then.

I wouldn't want to be a JW either. I wouldn't want fear of dis-fellowship, as my primary reason for being one.

Why is it that you believe most JWs are faking it to avoid dis-fellowship? You can pm me on this one because I believe I have hijacked this thread for a little too long now.

There is only one Faith on this planet that promises redemption, by grace and faith (also a grace). All other "faiths" seem to fall somewhat short of the goal.

The Christian concept of grace is what keeps me hanging around the Christian board, maybe a hope that I might be graced for being open to change.

Only one claimed to be the King of Kings, the savior, the redeemer, the messaiah. Only one claimed to be "the way, light and truth". Only one claimed to have inroads to the Father. Only one claimed to be One with the Father. Only one claimed to be the beginning and the end...bold statements for a mere human. Especially one that seemed to back His claims up with evidence...

v/r

Joshua

Claims that I'm here to take seriosuly.

 

[Quahom1]

No room for debate then.

Nope. Absolutely no room for debate. Unless one is a fringe Christian.

Why is it that you believe most JWs are faking it to avoid dis-fellowship? You can pm me on this one because I believe I have hijacked this thread for a little too long now.

No problem, we can discuss here. I don't think anyone is "faking" it. They believe what they have been told. Unlike others, they can not dispute what they are told, without being set up for dis-fellowship. Me, I could care less whether the Church accepts me or not. I worry only about one person's opinion of me. That is Jesus. He is GOD. And I am saved, because I believe Him. Because of that I can pretty much speak my mind. I can tell stories, express my opinion, critisize the church, and I don't have to worry about what some elder might think.

The Christian concept of grace is what keeps me hanging around the Christian board, maybe a hope that I might be graced for being open to change.

Oh, man. You just did something no one as done to me in a long, long time. You brought tears to my eyes. I too hope for grace, for you and me, on a daily basis.

Claims that I'm here to take seriosuly

.

Take this seriously. There is no God but God (as you believe). Jesus, is the grace of God, to man. Jesus is God, who became man, in order to embrace humanity. Then, He put on His divine mantle once His mission was accomplished.

v/r

Joshua