Sabbath

[HisWitness]

A bunch of disgruntled Calvinists that all agree with each other against a Non Calvinist that has vehemently opposed their belief system is not proof of an accusation.

But I would say even if the ridiculous plagiarism accusation were true, which is the most egregious, believers who support a man accused of "plagiarizing" ONE COMMENT in order to prove that Calvinist's were being dishonest in their debate tactics, or Calvinists defending and support a person who has clearly blasphemed the name of God and virtually every fundamental doctrine of the Bible that follows several cults such as Sacred Name, 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses?

also you try to get the focus of attention back on me so you can ramble on with your nonsense--im NOT a JH,NOT a 7thDA, IM A BAPTIST

BTW theres nothing wrong with saying the name of the Father and Son in the Hebrew in which they were given..YAH and YESHUA

 

[RIPP0NWV]

A bunch of disgruntled Calvinists that all agree with each other against a Non Calvinist that has vehemently opposed their belief system is not proof of an accusation.

But I would say even if the ridiculous plagiarism accusation were true, which is the most egregious, believers who support a man accused of "plagiarizing" ONE COMMENT in order to prove that Calvinist's were being dishonest in their debate tactics, or Calvinists defending and support a person who has clearly blasphemed the name of God and virtually every fundamental doctrine of the Bible that follows several cults such as Sacred Name, 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses?

So how do you explain me not being a Calvinist, and the fact after reading many posts, you to be the central problem in all of the angry posts that go back and forth.

 

[DrJamesAch]

also you try to get the focua of attention back on me so you can ramble on with your nonsense--im NOT a JH,NOT a 7thDA, IM A BAPTIST

BTW theres nothing wrong with saying the name of the Father and Son in the Hebrew in which they were given..YAH and YESHUA

You are definitely NOT a Baptist. You have been asked several times what distinguishes you as a Baptist and every time you have ignored, even when moderators asked you. You have more beliefs consistent with JWs, 7DA then you do with any Baptist of any denomination. One can not be 90% 7DA, and 10% Baptist and claim they are actually a Baptist.

And you claim that "there's nothing wrong with saying the name of the Father and Son in the Hebrew in which they were given..YAH and YESHUA" is not the position you have taken against everyone on this forum. You have not espoused that it is OK to use the name, you have INSISTED that it is MANDATORY and that's a huge difference between that, and what you just said above.

There is no problem with using those names as long as you realize they are translations and transliterations from another language, and that it is not mandatory on all believing Christians to use those terms in their original language context because no matter how you translate lthem, it will never MEAN that outside of the language that you THINK IN. If you can not THINK in Hebrew, then simply using a Hebrew will not aid your understanding because you will THINK of that term in ENGLISH.

However there is a problem with your usage of YAH as the Father. Yah is a shortened version of Yahweh (YHWH) and is used to described the Godhead, not just the Father. By claiming that ONLY the Father is YHWH you are denying that Jesus is YHWH. Yah, nor Yahweh is the Hebrew word for Father.

I would not fault you if you choose to use those terms and they are edifying to YOU. It is when you demand and impose those terms on others and assume that if they DON'T use those terms they are somehow less of a Christian and being rebellious toward some standard of Scripture that does not exist. In Revelation 7:9, there appears in heaven all who came from various nations, people and TONGUES , not all of them used the same name for God as the Hebrews or English speaking people.

 

[12strings]

You are definitely NOT a Baptist. You have been asked several times what distinguishes you as a Baptist and every time you have ignored, even when moderators asked you. You have more beliefs consistent with JWs, 7DA then you do with any Baptist of any denomination. One can not be 90% 7DA, and 10% Baptist and claim they are actually a Baptist.

And you claim that "there's nothing wrong with saying the name of the Father and Son in the Hebrew in which they were given..YAH and YESHUA" is not the position you have taken against everyone on this forum. You have not espoused that it is OK to use the name, you have INSISTED that it is MANDATORY and that's a huge difference between that, and what you just said above.

There is no problem with using those names as long as you realize they are translations and transliterations from another language, and that it is not mandatory on all believing Christians to use those terms in their original language context because no matter how you translate lthem, it will never MEAN that outside of the language that you THINK IN. If you can not THINK in Hebrew, then simply using a Hebrew will not aid your understanding because you will THINK of that term in ENGLISH.

However there is a problem with your usage of YAH as the Father. Yah is a shortened version of Yahweh (YHWH) and is used to described the Godhead, not just the Father. By claiming that ONLY the Father is YHWH you are denying that Jesus is YHWH. Yah, nor Yahweh is the Hebrew word for Father.

I would not fault you if you choose to use those terms and they are edifying to YOU. It is when you demand and impose those terms on others and assume that if they DON'T use those terms they are somehow less of a Christian and being rebellious toward some standard of Scripture that does not exist. In Revelation 7:9, there appears in heaven all who came from various nations, people and TONGUGES, not all of them used the same name for God as the Hebrews or English speaking people.

Very GOOD POST:thumbs:

(signed, Your friendly neighborhood Psuedo-Calvinist):applause:


EDITED TO SAY: I really know what HisWitness's beliefs line up best with, but if he really believes Jesus is Michael the archangel (not just asking because it's a curious verse), then he has some serious theological problems.

 

[DrJamesAch]

So how do you explain me not being a Calvinist, and the fact after reading many posts, you to be the central problem in all of the angry posts that go back and forth.

I would explain that it is merely your opinion.

I would also explain that out of your whopping 23 total posts, half of them directed at ME is quite suspicious.

I would explain that it takes 2 to dance and if you are non Calvinist, then you shouldn't believe that I FORCED someone else to act out of character

 

[saturneptune]

I really don't take him that seriously ever since he sent me a picture of a pig with the caption "what's for dinner" knowing that I am Jewish.

Yes everyone on the board knows I sent you the pig. I got an infraction and everyone knows that. Why don't you shut up and let it go.

By the way, on a subject related to the pig, you claim to be a Christian. If you are a Christian, and recognize the NT as sacred, why would the picture of the pig offend you, as if you have ever bothered to read Acts, it makes it quite clear that all meat is good and of the Lord. So what is your problem?

 

[DrJamesAch]

Yes everyone on the board knows I sent you the pig. I got an infraction and everyone knows that. Why don't you shut up and let it go.

By the way, on a subject related to the pig, you claim to be a Christian. If you are a Christian, and recognize the NT as sacred, why would the picture of the pig offend you, as if you have ever bothered to read Acts, it makes it quite clear that all meat is good and of the Lord. So what is your problem?

You mean "let it go" in the same that you follow every thread I post on and bring up the plagiarism accusation out of the blue? I'll let it go when that pig you sent me flies

 

[saturneptune]

You mean "let it go" in the same that you follow every thread I post on and bring up the plagiarism accusation out of the blue? I'll let it go when that pig you sent me flies

Why don't you answer my question, why did the image bother you if you are a Christian? Simple question. Not rocket science.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Why don't you answer my question, why did the image bother you if you are a Christian? Simple question. Not rocket science.

Because you know good and well the issue is not whether I eat pork or not as a Christian, it was sent to me to make fun of me for being Jewish and the insult was implied in the caricature of the context in which you sent it. It was the racist implications that were offensive.

 

[saturneptune]

Because you know good and well the issue is not whether I eat pork or not as a Christian, it was sent to me to make fun of me for being Jewish and the insult was implied in the caricature of the context in which you sent it. It was the racist implications that were offensive.

But it is not racist or offensive to make fun of people on this board that live in the South, which by the way, you know nothing about. Since we are not privy to another poster getting an infraction, I have no way of knowing whether you got one or not, but you deserve several at this point.

However, that is not the point, those in Christ no longer are guided by their former lives. In Christ, Jew and Gentile are the same, subject to the same Spirit. You have no justification for that image bothering you, if you are who you say you are. None whatsoever.

 

[DrJamesAch]

But it is not racist or offensive to make fun of people on this board that live in the South, which by the way, you know nothing about. Since we are not privy to another poster getting an infraction, I have no way of knowing whether you got one or not, but you deserve several at this point.

However, that is not the point, those in Christ no longer are guided by their former lives. In Christ, Jew and Gentile are the same, subject to the same Spirit. You have no justification for that image bothering you, if you are who you say you are. None whatsoever.

I never made fun of anyone because they were from the south. I used links as an example of what KY was doing to me to prove that he was in fact using the same kind of logic and methods that could be taken out of context against him and you.

Furthermore, you have equally no justification in bringing up an issue of plagiarism that you can not prove every time that you want to attempt disparaging my credibility among other believers, and then in the same breath complain that I keep raising the issue about your pig post, or the fact that you don't answer how you can be a Third Class Petty Officer with an E-3 ranking. You expect me to do what you do not practice.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Fred, name calling is name calling, and that is exactly what that post was. And yes, a plagiarism charge was proven against the other. It seems both of you are authors of confusion and dissention.

I did no name calling. I quoted a line from a movie and named the movie. I even put the trademark at the end of the name of the movie.

 

[HisWitness]

You are definitely NOT a Baptist. You have been asked several times what distinguishes you as a Baptist and every time you have ignored, even when moderators asked you. You have more beliefs consistent with JWs, 7DA then you do with any Baptist of any denomination. One can not be 90% 7DA, and 10% Baptist and claim they are actually a Baptist.

And you claim that "there's nothing wrong with saying the name of the Father and Son in the Hebrew in which they were given..YAH and YESHUA" is not the position you have taken against everyone on this forum. You have not espoused that it is OK to use the name, you have INSISTED that it is MANDATORY and that's a huge difference between that, and what you just said above.

There is no problem with using those names as long as you realize they are translations and transliterations from another language, and that it is not mandatory on all believing Christians to use those terms in their original language context because no matter how you translate lthem, it will never MEAN that outside of the language that you THINK IN. If you can not THINK in Hebrew, then simply using a Hebrew will not aid your understanding because you will THINK of that term in ENGLISH.

However there is a problem with your usage of YAH as the Father. Yah is a shortened version of Yahweh (YHWH) and is used to described the Godhead, not just the Father. By claiming that ONLY the Father is YHWH you are denying that Jesus is YHWH. Yah, nor Yahweh is the Hebrew word for Father.

I would not fault you if you choose to use those terms and they are edifying to YOU. It is when you demand and impose those terms on others and assume that if they DON'T use those terms they are somehow less of a Christian and being rebellious toward some standard of Scripture that does not exist. In Revelation 7:9, there appears in heaven all who came from various nations, people and TONGUES , not all of them used the same name for God as the Hebrews or English speaking people.

keep going on with your ramblings---bla bla bla

 

[HisWitness]

Yes everyone on the board knows I sent you the pig. I got an infraction and everyone knows that. Why don't you shut up and let it go.

By the way, on a subject related to the pig, you claim to be a Christian. If you are a Christian, and recognize the NT as sacred, why would the picture of the pig offend you, as if you have ever bothered to read Acts, it makes it quite clear that all meat is good and of the Lord. So what is your problem?

you are hacking the scriptures up when you say that ALL creation is good to eat---YAH never said that----Paul was never saying what you think he is here--He was quoting what YAH said at creation when he created his creation---that they were ALL GOOD--NOT to CONSUME-- you know that ALL of creation cant be consumed--neither was Paul going against YAH's own commandments--

 

[saturneptune]

I never made fun of anyone because they were from the south. I used links as an example of what KY was doing to me to prove that he was in fact using the same kind of logic and methods that could be taken out of context against him and you.

Furthermore, you have equally no justification in bringing up an issue of plagiarism that you can not prove every time that you want to attempt disparaging my credibility among other believers, and then in the same breath complain that I keep raising the issue about your pig post, or the fact that you don't answer how you can be a Third Class Petty Officer with an E-3 ranking. You expect me to do what you do not practice.

I have no idea what you are referring to, my rank in military service. It was neither of those, quite a bit higher as a matter of fact. The point is, it was service to this country, which you are not a part of, and is really none of your concern or business.

 

[saturneptune]

you are hacking the scriptures up when you say that ALL creation is good to eat---YAH never said that----Paul was never saying what you think he is here--He was quoting what YAH said at creation when he created his creation---that they were ALL GOOD--NOT to CONSUME-- you know that ALL of creation cant be consumed--neither was Paul going against YAH's own commandments--

Is that how you explain Acts10: 11-13?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Is that how you explain Acts10: 11-13?

Isn't it strange that God said "rise peter, kill and eat" and HW says God did not mean consume?

Yea, has God said?

 

[HisWitness]

Is that how you explain Acts10: 11-13?

---------------Let me explain it to you friend............................................ .............../
First of all do you see YAH rebuking Peter for refusing to eat unclean things ?

That vision had nothing to do with Peter eating meats at all-----you misunderstand the whole text friend !!!!!

im gonna shorten this up the best way I can to you-------------------------

How many times was the vision shown to peter--------------------3
How many men was sent to fetch peter---------------------------3
It was unclean and against law for a Jew to be together with a Gentile--these 3 men were Gentiles coming to peter--Peter would have NEVER went with these Gentiles if it had not been for the vision--YAH was getting through to Peter that he was extending his GRACE to the gentiles also
SO therefore Peter figured out what it meant when the 3 men arrived--and he went with them to the other Gentile man.

See friend the vision had NOTHING to do with saying you can transgress YAH's laws and eat as you please to fulfill your lustful desires as men say.
Peter knew YAH wasn't going against his own HOLY LAWS---and Peter never ate ANY of the unclean beasts that YAH said NOT to eat.

YAH was telling Peter that he was about to cleanse that which was unclean---the Gentiles !!!

 

[saturneptune]

you completely have destroyed that text with your false answer----------------Let me explain it to you friend............................................ .............../
First of all do you see YAH rebuking Peter for refusing to eat unclean things ?

That vision had nothing to do with Peter eating meats at all-----you misunderstand the whole text friend !!!!!

im gonna shorten this up the best way I can to you-------------------------

How many times was the vision shown to peter--------------------3
How many men was sent to fetch peter---------------------------3
It was unclean and against law for a Jew to be together with a Gentile--these 3 men were Gentiles coming to peter--Peter would have NEVER went with these Gentiles if it had not been for the vision--YAH was getting through to Peter that he was extending his GRACE to the gentiles also
SO therefore Peter figured out what it meant when the 3 men arrived--and he went with them to the other Gentile man.

See friend the vision had NOTHING to do with saying you can transgress YAH's laws and eat as you please to fulfill your lustful desires as men say.
Peter knew YAH wasn't going against his own HOLY LAWS---and Peter never ate ANY of the unclean beasts that YAH said NOT to eat.

YAH was telling Peter that he was about to cleanse that which was unclean---the Gentiles !!!

There are several problems with your answer. First of all, I did not give a false answer, I asked a question. Secondly, does not God tell Peter to get up Peter, kill and eat? So, does your Bible add the prepositional phrase after eat "with Gentiles." Mine does not. Thirdly, how well do you observe the dietary constraints of the OT?

 

[HisWitness]

There are several problems with your answer. First of all, I did not give a false answer, I asked a question. Secondly, does not God tell Peter to get up Peter, kill and eat? So, does your Bible add the prepositional phrase after eat "with Gentiles." Mine does not. Thirdly, how well do you observe the dietary constraints of the OT?

sorry friend I pasted that from another post and you read it before I could erase certain parts of it--my sincere apologies :love2::love2: