So is he the "I Am" or was he sent by the "I Am"?
Glad you're thinking it over! The answer is yes. He is both.
I do not however, feel that this is one in the same with Yahweh Elohim.
The entity in the burning bush, which was Jesus, gave three names, Yahweh, Ehyeh, and Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh. These are all ways of saying "I am I" so as to make the same point. Jesus is one with the Creator who has these and many names. Let's call the Creator Ehyeh to distinguish him from the malevolent one.
The very fact that they use Elohim to describe Yahweh is suspect to me, if you understand what Elohim means.
It means, just as Jesus could be human and still "one in/and the same" with Ehyeh, Jesus could also come as an angel (an El or Eloah) and still be one and the same with Ehyeh. When the Uncreated comes, he always follows the rules he set up for created beings, he doesn't set up laws of physics to change them arbitrarily. The fact that some humans and some elohim screwed up doesn't deny his right to come as el or man.
I still, cannot find one provable instance where Jesus used the name Yahweh to describe his father in heaven.
You'll need to define standards of proof. It's impossible to find a Hebrew word in a fully Greek manuscript. Either you recognize preincarnate Jesus described in Hebrew manuscripts, or you recognize how linguistic criticism determines spoken Hebrew words from Greek transcriptions, or you recognize that the data points you're limiting yourself to have no power to answer your question.
He was depicted as being Dragon like in many passages. Many biblical passages imply that Yahweh physically consumed his meat offerings unlike the "fake" gods of other cultures. The Bible is very specific that Yahweh wanted salt on his meat as well, suggesting these offereing were physically consumed and not merely burned to ashes.
And?
Or the fact he demanded virgins as a spoil of war in numbers 31? What would the great I Am even want with 32 virgins? Are you aware that women of the time were married off as soon as they menstruated? so this makes it what? 32 girls before the age of 13.
They became temple servants. It sounds like you're claiming Christianity while reading interpretations from anti-Christians. Questing the nature of Jesus and the Creator doesn't involve using enemy talking points.
You then list several Scriptures, which are perfectly harmonizable with Jesus's Father when dealing with sin. Did you read Revelation recently, particularly 1-3 and 17-20? Jesus is fully participatory in wrath against the wicked, but he waits the right time just as Ehyeh did in the past.
The highest heavenly creatures are called Seraphim, a word which the highly esteemed and scholarly Jewish Enclyclopedia states means "fiery flying serpent", though medieval Christians have transformed these "dragons" into the more familiar, swan-winged, "cartoon" angels of popular culture. When the ancient Jews translated the word Seraphim into Greek, the word they used was drakon, which is the word our modern "dragon" is derived from.
And?
Jesus seemed to allude to this in his address to Caiaphas and the Jewish priests when being sentenced, as I said in my OP, pointing out that his father in heaven was not the one the Jews and others worshiped known as Yahweh.
No, I didn't see this in OP or would've commented. You cited John 8:19, Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also (KJV). Everyone knew that upon Jesus's baptism a bat-kol (idiom for heavenly voice, literally daughter of a voice) had been heard, claiming paternity over Jesus; everyone knew that Jesus's earthly father was Joseph, who was prepared to be considered a cuck all his life. When these Pharisees ask the question, they are denying Jesus's claims that his Father is the LORD (Yahweh, as he said when he quoted Hebrew Scripture repeatedly), and giving in to rumors that he was a bastard. Further, they are breaking with their Amoraic (Talmudic) tradition, in which every time a bat-kol is heard it is to be taken as authoritative from the Creator (only one exception occurred, sketchily, in the 2nd century). Jesus's answer to all this was that their denial of miracle proved that they had no interest in the Yahweh they paid lip-service to; a few of them might indeed have been serving the counterfeit, Yaldabaoth.
Note, this was not when he was sentenced. That testimony is a different statement of "I Am" claiming identity with Yahweh, Mark 14:61-62: Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Replying to the euphemism "the Blessed" with the revealed name of the Father Yahweh, translated as "Ego eimi", showed that Jesus was unafraid to speak the name and spoke it to show up people who wouldn't speak it (for fear that they had the wrong Yahweh).
Let's not forget that Moses people broke the covenant he made with the I Am on the mountain, before he even got to the foot of the mountain. He broke the tablets and returned back to the mountain and then had to chisel the stones himself? Why did the I Am not make him new ones? Did he perhaps meet Yahweh the second time, and not Jesus?
I've never heard that theory. You think Jesus is so impotent as to let someone else masquerade as him right after he delivered the Ten Words and get away with it for 3,500 years? The impostor has no power, he can only corrupt the truth already given. The reason Moses wrote the second tablets is that man must learn to work with God rather than God doing all the work alone. The text says he met with Yahweh both times, and describes (in Exodus 24 and 32) this Yahweh coming in angelic form, and all comings of Yahweh were his Word (Messenger) Yeshua.
I understand your passion in these matters, as I have a passion for it as well, but I also value the ability to reason and test out every theory to its end, before accepting a truth. To insinuate i am not a Christian, really just places you in the seat of ignorance. As per Christianity, I am saved by Jesus work, not my own. Works based salvation is a lie, so, how can my fault in understanding, or search for the truth condemn me? We were told to test everything, so I'm not sure how you could take a stance of denying my salvation based on my previous posts. That itself is pretty anti Christian, imho.
I'm not going to deny your salvation, but I'll test it. Your confession is "I am a believer in Christ, and only looking for truth", which means that you and others who pursue truth, such as myself, will always come to agreement sooner or later in the pursuit. The questions I ask you are about whether you believe in the same Jesus that the historical church believes in, who is one with the Creator revealed in the Old Testament, or whether you separate some works of Yahweh from being works of Jesus as well. If a person doesn't know Jesus the way others do and attributes Jesus's work and being to another entity than others do, that one must question whether the others have the same Jesus; you must certainly question me too. If you are saved by Jesus's work as you say, he will guide you into all truth, and salvation includes a changed spirit so that spirit will be his means of guidance. Since we are led by the Spirit and the Word, we will come to the same conclusion, and the deeper the wilder.
TLDR: I've answered your questions so as to explain where I believe the truth stands. You've indicated what you believe, though I don't see all the implications and conclusions you are seeing. But truth is always one, and Jesus is Truth. Are you one who is committed to follow Jesus wherever he goes, including surrendering mistaken notions to him when convicted? Because I am.
The books were written in Greek, fren, and most of the larger audience would have trouble with either Hebrew characters mixed in Greek or an invented transliteration into Greek. The NT passages I listed are sufficient evidence to those who understand the culture that when Jesus was speaking Hebrew and Aramaic he used the name repeatedly. Further, as I said, Jesus also came in preincarnate form and used the name Yahweh repeatedly as attested in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Since you don't like the sacred name, the question turns to whether Jesus is who he says he is or whether you change his words about himself too. Is he one with the Father who created all things? Is he Lord and God, uniquely over everything and not just a random divine being? Is he the "I Am" before Abraham was? If you don't accept what he said about himself, you're not following him as Lord and shouldn't take the name "Christian".
"Ego eimi" is a translation of Yahweh, the most likely word spoken on that occasion, which would be well translated in English as "I am I".
Indeed, the cabalists (which include the kabbalists) want to corrupt every symbol. The demons stay the same, the humans are of necessity used up and cycled out, and come from every nation because they know we will rule every nation. We wrestle not with flesh and blood.
Besides those already listed, since you recognize the watchers you should also recognize that Jesus was always watching too. Thus he is the Angel of Yahweh who constantly calls on the name of Yahweh, such as Gen. 18:14 as the first coming to mind.
You're making good points, just keep in mind that there were no hexagrams in Judea in the first century, the star of Remphan is a symbol for Saturn, which was not represented by an asterism. TMI on the subject.
The liar and murderer from the beginning (John 8:44) is real, but why would you believe his cronies who say his name is Yahweh? What you're thinking of is an entity who hardly has any name, only titles, but was first known as Helel (praiser or shiner). He was created by Yahweh, he desired to be like Yahweh, but couldn't seize that exact name reserved to the Creator by royal prerogative, and could only corrupt variations of it; in the first century he was known as Yaldabaoth (a corrupt version of Yahweh Sabaoth). The Bible says Yahweh is the real Creator, overseeing creation like a master of public works (a demiurge, from demos public), so Helel called himself the demiurge and creator instead. This spirit, which most everyone means by the titles satan (adversary) and devil, never ruled over anyone but the spirit minions he deceived, and should not be confused with the perfect reign of Yahweh throughout all history through his perfect Word, Jesus. It is satan who teaches that the Bible, God's written Word, conflicts with itself.
Thus those Pharisees (not all of them) were indeed serving the devil, and probably some of them thought of him as Yahweh or Yaldabaoth, but others historically attested did not, and sought the true Creator, as we all should.
God's Word was put out there for perfect reasons, and none could interfere with what he wanted delivered. Trump may clean house before Christ indeed, but Trump stands or falls on his confession of Jesus as the Christ. Deception will be thick for awhile, so test everything, including what I say, by its truth and alignment with the reality created by Yahweh the Creator. If you cannot call on the Creator, you cannot be saved by Jesus; you deny Father and Son.
Fair enough, as far as it goes. Quibbles with this are not the most fitting here.
No, Elohim means judges. The concept "they who came from heaven to earth" is present in the word yarad, to descend, as in the patriarch Jared in whose time this happened; this is explained in the book of Enoch. (Also nafal, to descend or fall, as in Nefilim, refers to some of the humans afterward.) Therefore you're mixing two sources in your statement. Let me just pull Enoch out of the pile next to me and see who headed the fallen angels: oh yeah, Semyaz (chapter 6); Azazel is also prominent. There is no ancient text about Yahweh leading the watchers who descended, though an esoteric reading of Gen. 10 teaches that Yahweh descends separately bearing grace, which is consistent with Paul's teaching on the descent of Christ and the Talmudic name for Christ, Bar-Nifle (son of the descended). Your last sentence is true: The deeper you dig, the wilder it gets man.
Uh, Jesus's name means "Yahweh saves". God so loved the world that he gave his Only Son. For more resources see the Inquiry Forum from the c/Christianity sidebar.
Great questions! I don't mean to defend "current understanding of Revelation", and I don't personally believe the "secret rapture" pretrib understanding u/Slechta5614 speaks of (which I used to years ago), which u/Kunkussion describes as "an event where a select few just happen to get lucky and don't have to fight". I defend all the classic understandings, even those that appear contradictory, because as he says they will reconcile in time, the appearance will be removed. Whenever I ask the Spirit of Jesus about it, I get some kind of answer, but usually an answer to some other thing than I thought I asked! I'm working on a post comparing the current classic versions, if you're interested.
In all the classic versions (amill, postmill, covenant, dispensation), the rapture is not secret but an event where everyone can see that a higher power has intervened, where vast numbers of people will be separated out. Those that remain on earth may have a short or long destiny ahead, that is disputed; but it's clear to me that many among them will recognize God after the fact, and many will deny that the higher power involved is indeed the Creator God.
So although the "secret rapture" is taught by some today, it shouldn't be regarded as "the current understanding" but as a warped version of the dispensational view. Also, the "imminent general rapture" might almost be admitted as one of the classic views, but to defend it requires dealing forthrightly with Scriptures like Ezekiel 38-39 about wars before the rapture, and more important every believer should be prepared to be raptured individually (rather than with a group), just like Elijah was. So any focus on imminence should not be a threat but an encouragement to pursue holiness.
At c/Christianity we have one person in his second study of amill Revelation, we have one complete study of Revelation by myself (covenant) and another (dispensation), and we have postmills check in now and then anytime you see calls for restoring a Christian state. The mod board is similarly eclectic. I intend to defend all these equally because the claimed contradictions will be removed as we mature in understanding and drop our nonessentials.
And remember that Revelation is excellent war comms and delivers what you need to know without tipping off the enemy. Blessed is he who reads it, and always ask the Spirit for understanding.
I was asked to review this by u/Andy_Man45.
The actually important part, Jesus most definitely did regard Yahweh as his Father and the name as his Father's name, thus his own. The Greek text recording Aramaic conversations generally won't note use of a Hebrew name in the midst; but John 8:58 was certainly a reference to Yahweh. More generically, whenever the word "kurios" (lord, now preserved in the words church and kyrie) is used of the Father, it is understood as a euphemism for Yahweh's name, which was too sacred for casual usage. Yet when Jesus quotes a Hebrew source containing the translation "kurios", he is recognized by all to be referring to Yahweh (Matt. 4:7, 10, 5:33, etc.).
To OP, it is true Latin ante comes from Greek anti, but this means both senses are intended, opposition and facing-off ("beforeness"). There are many antichrists (1 John 2:18), so feel free to class today's politicos among them; but they must meet the criteria: "that denieth that Jesus is the Christ", "that denieth the Father and the Son" (2:22), and "that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (4:3). John the Baptist did not meet these, so prophetic forerunner that is not the sense intended. It appears a final antichrist is coming in connection with a 7-year tribulation begun by a treaty signed by united nations. Personally, I think the eclipses of 2017 and 2024 indicate a dress-rehearsal period, and we should prepare for things to get much worse, which is what warriors do.
I'll skim the comments here, please feel free to ping me with any questions.
http://constitution.org/1-Constitution/constit_.htm
1.8 Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. [regulation]
1.2 Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. [regulation]
1.9 No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. [regulation]
(Also 1.9, taxes on exports are forbidden, and taxes on moving slaves are limited to $10.)
http://constitution.org/1-Constitution/afterte_.htm
A16 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. [no regulation]
Under prevailing theory, ratification of A16 was deemed valid and taxes on incomes are in the manner of an excise. Much more could be said, thanks for asking.
I actually said something like 10-year sunset would be much better than FairTax.
More important, what I propose versus what may happen is quite different. I propose that everyone immediately submit to Christ and this would allow the IRS to be abolished overnight and replaced with nothing. God can do this, but it's not in my power and he's not showing it as likely.
So what I propose given the likelihoods of reality is: that all I meet answer the immediate point on which they are to be submitting to Christ (which can indeed happen with good likelihood in each case); that these points of submission include building his congregation, where freedom to share is normal and taxation is forbidden; that in the American world we press for every policy that removes tax burden, not wasting time on complex policies that retain all tax burden without benefiting the sovereign citizens; that individuals work to starve the IRS by taking responsibility for living in order to lessen their tax burden; that, to the degree this world is receptive, we join politically to support movements that truly lead to abolition of the IRS tax burden and educate those who think they are doing so when they're not; and that if any such movement, whether 10-year sunset or NESARA or gold standard or Constitutional excises, takes sufficient root, we encourage its growth and assist its crossing the necessary thresholds.
None of this means that we get so wrapped up in it to lose focus of the essential that we are preparing the kingdom for Christ (who will have no taxes because he will only have loving children as members of his kingdom). Since he is the one and only, any work we do in this American world is for him and preparatory for his reign.
I was in the midst of the Ron Paul Revolution of '07 too, but at that time Ron was reaching out to every group who had the same small-guv mindset. We stood shoulder to shoulder with the FairTax crowd because we both agreed on abolishing the IRS, by different routes, and because our unity demonstrated to the Republican establishment that they were wrong.
Now the answer being supplied to the Ron Paul Revolution is the Great Awakening, which has been very different. The same energy is not present. The unity over small government is not present. The tenuous unity over justice against criminals including child abusers is barely holding. If Scored had meetups in every state where I could say hi to you and we could go protest the local swamp creatures, we'd be in unity again despite our disagreement.
But this narrative is "enjoy the show" and input into the narrative is lacking. There is a real risk that this is not just a feint but this is a major plank of a uniparty platform to hide the crimes of the IRS and leave the destruction of hundreds of millions of people an unaddressed issue that can only be left to Jesus Christ to fix. Maybe it'll blow over but this one is too important for me not to take the chance.
Every tax system is the opposite of perfection. A perfect government works without needing taxation at all. Jesus is getting ready to show us just such a government.
FairTax is no baby step, it's the step over the cliff.
Baby step would be reducing federal income tax to zero over ten years leaving SS/Med for later. Everyone could agree on that as a step forward but the leeches who will be looking for work. Nobody puts a bill for that up every two years like this evil. Nobody shills for it either. It's just common sense that I can think of in ten seconds. I would just call up Ron Paul for the details of how to tell the feds to figure out how to say they're paying for things in the meantime (they don't actually pay for them, but they have a commitment to say they do). Not like the first thirty trillion debt destabilized us any.
Why would anyone sign onto a tax that "could begin to reduce" when they could just abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing?!
As a libertarian, why should I disrupt the lives of others with the power of the federal guns for taxes that don't benefit me when the power of the federal guns has been immobile to stop them from the crimes you charge them with?
As a libertarian, why should I look with disdain on the Shadow Economy that is so good at evading control by the feds? I have no reason to intervene in a war between those two spheres to the degree they are darkness, and the light does not fight itself.
Frankly, my dear, you write like a bot.
I can only conclude that Q caused the FairTax to be promoted here so we could shake out another round of big-guv shills. That's total sarcasm BTW. The truth is that God puts evils in our path so we know which of us are approved by him, and the principle there is the same as the sarcasm.
The point here is that by insisting on "revenue-neutrality" the abolition of the IRS and the creation of an "STB" instead is just shuffling around the initials and leeching just the same amount, except that the leeches are much better prepared to take more than they are in the current known situation. A Great Reset, if you will. I have been watching for this moment for many years and this is the signal that it's around the corner. Very bad news if it goes any further. We must all govern ourselves accordingly.
Your statement is accurate as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. Remedy.
Can't agree. What many people on these threads are not noticing is the language "and replace it with a consumption tax". The UNFairTax has certain evil auspices as being a potential replacement of the current evil scheme for the very reason that evil can't continue forever and needs to be replaced with a greater beast every now and then, until they run out of beasts.
What Ron Paul always said was to favor a flat tax, "I mean real flat, like zero".
They're there, but the Constition has many more regulations against taxes than it has taxes.
Frens, that is the Washington DC phone number of the Ukrainian Embassy, as dialed from Europe! Shall we spam it and give them our opinion? Put our tax dollars to good work? Just take off the 001. They're not picking up right now.
Their letterhead: http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/B-54_accession_ukraine_10-29-2021.pdf