TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, the Gnostic, anti-Christian tradition is also ~2000 years old.

Let's ask Pennylynn if the Jews ever viewed, let alone prophesied, “Messiah” to mean an incarnation of God.

It means precisely the opposite of that. It means a man anointed by God. Never would a Jew think God needed to be anointed.

I am positive that Pennylynn would agree with the definition of Messiah I have given. If not, I will stand corrected.

That means that the Trinitarian savior is not the Biblical Messiah, but a pagan impostor, of which Jesus warned of.

The biblical and Jewish definition of Christ being an anointed man is precisely what antichrist-ians have stood against for 2000 years. The coequalist Trinitarians (being the “new kids on the block” at only 1,700 years old) have also stood, in agreement with their forerunner Gnostics, against/anti the biblical definition of the Messiah being “a man anointed by” God. It is thus the antichrist-ian tradition that is the mutual tradition you and Gnostics contend for, which agreeably is 2,000 years old, but it is not at all the apostolic Christian faith which is just decades older, and which is the genuine original article.

The apostolic faith is that which was proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost (no other foundation can any man lay than this):

“22"Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know, 23him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; 24whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it...
32This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear.
34For David didn't ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, 'The Lord {Yahweh} said to my Lord, "Sit by my right hand,
35until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."' 36"Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:22-36

This is the faith once delivered mentioned by Jude.


3Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this condemnation: ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into indecency, and denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Jude 3-4

“yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6

“...know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2: 36

Of which “one God the Father”, Jesus had this to say:

“Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is our God.” John 8:54

"1Jesus...said, "Father... 3This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus The Anointed One." John 17:1,3

“Jesus said to her, "Don't hold me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" John 20:17

“He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.” Revelation 3:12

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I think you misunderstood the post. I HAVE NO DESIRE to affect or change the belief system of anyone. Religion and faith are very personal and highly subjective. My faith does not recruit! I am not suggesting any Christian should live as a Jew. There would be no point unless that individual "converts' and not many Rabbis will take the responsibility of teaching a Christian all they need to know. Indeed, even in Biblical times, we did not recruit. If a person made the decision to live with the Hebrews, they were not required to convert. Indeed, they had the same rights as the Hebrews. There were many who did and for that reason, Israel today have a wide range of colors or races. And there are some rules that are still in place....for example, I would not invite a gentile to Passover. But, I will invite them to other functions.

This thread was intended as an academic discussion, not a condemnation of beliefs.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Because you asked..... we do not believe in a trinity. G*d has and I believe still walks with the righteous and has no need to "incarnate" into a human. G*d is the one who anoints His chosen... it would not make sense for G*d to need to anoint Himself. What "higher" authority could anoint Him? None!!!

But, many Christians do believe in a "trinity" and who am I to say they are wrong. Just because I can not wrap my mind around an all powerful spirit with splintered personalities, does not make it impossible.

BTW, the book of Jude opens a can of worms. Should we explore it in a new thread?

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Did I condemn you? Did I say it was my purpose to convert you?

It is my intention to discuss and share with you.

But the Christian scriptures do teach us to note those who claim to be Christian and are not. In that I must obey God rather than man.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Thank you for that.



please clarify. Do you believe God becomes whatever anyone subjectively believes?

Are you implying the Jews may be mistaken in their understanding of God’s personal unity?

These could be implied by your words.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Perhaps I should have been more selective in my words...my response was a result of your comment "I will definitely listen intently to what you have to say, and will honestly consider it, but don’t be too disappointed when I don’t change my loyalty to my Lord Jesus Christ."

My point, believe as you are inclined, it is personal. Not one human, in my opinion, has all the answers...we will all learn if we followed the right path when we are judged by G*d. Pauline Christians may be right and then again any one of the 256 (or so) Christian faiths may be right....And just perhaps the Jew may be on the right path....and then, to be inclusive, muslin, Hindu, Buddhist, Janes......I do not know. We follow our hearts and pray that we chose wisely. To be sure, in the end, mankind will not be our judge....only our Father who gave us the Law will have the last word.

Now, can we go back to discussing the thread? Or should I abandon it?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

No, the true G*d does not change. Human's understanding and expectations change. It is written: "Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting G*d, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable." Isiah 40 and “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

I definitely want to keep discussing the topics at hand.

I don’t claim to know a minuscule fraction of all that can be known, nor do I even believe I know or have “all truth.”

“But this one thing I do I press toward the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” -Paul

I am very much interested in hearing your response to my comments about the apostles not commanding Jews to abandon the practice of their law.

One more point about “communication” if I may. I used to work in the oil field; they had an interesting application for the word “communication”. While drilling, they have a pipe inside a pipe inside a pipe. The innermost pipe sends drilling mud down under pressure in order to keep the bit from clogging up, and the fluid carried the cuttings up out of the hole. When there is a leak between any of these pipes, there is “communication” of fluid and or pressure between them. In other words, “communication” only happens when “something opens up” and allows something that wasn’t previously in one space to be filled by an over abundance in the other space. If there were no difference in pressure or substance, communication would be superfluous, there would be no energy to cause any movement.

I believe all human communication can be defined like that in a way. We don’t communicate because we all have the exact same amount or level of understanding or knowledge, we communicate because it is implied we don’t. The assumption is we have something we either want to tell or hear from someone. You created the post to communicate thoughts you believe are noteworthy to share, presumably not because you thought everyone knew these things.

In order to be able to communicate there has to be a conduit- a method of transmission. That’s where language comes in, but it’s also where differences of outlooks may become more like “problem leaks” rather than “controlled communication”. In oilfield terms, that would be like opening a valve. The flow is controlled. This forum, though, has reply buttons. There is no “check valve” that insures one-way flow.

When you say only “such and such” types of speech will be tolerated, you are putting a “regulator” on the process flow. It is a type of “control.”

I’m just asking you to take that into consideration. I’ll do my best to conform to your request on “how to talk”, but because we are in a process of two-way communication, I can’t guarantee there won’t be any unplanned leaks... if you catch my drift.

If that is going to constantly be an issue for you, even when I’ve stated that isn’t my intent, then perhaps we should just discontinue the discussion. Your call. I’m okay with going forward though.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I have a question, where in all my replies have I instructed you or anyone on "how to talk?" Are you offended because I asked Rose not to "shoot the messenger?" Perhaps you are offended because I asked for "civil' intercourse.....or maybe you do not like my reference to keeping the discussion academic? What gains would we make if we attack one another? What gain do we make in introducing "feeling" that are not supported by facts? I am amazed that anyone could object to civil and fact based discussions. But... have it your way, be as uncivil as you want, base your inputs on personal written in stone emotions, and by all means....let the blood flow! Just don't expect me to respond or be drawn into the fray.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Now see, here is how we need to understand and accept we come to the discussion from different viewpoints. In my view, you’ve overreacted to my post. That was not my intention and I apologize for my part in giving you that impression. I have no problem with you correcting me or renouncing what I say, I’d rather you did so than me not having an opportunity to correct or explain my words, beliefs, or behavior.

I was referring to what you said to me: “ This thread was intended as an academic discussion, not a condemnation of beliefs.”

I can be civil, and I intend to be; what I can’t promise you is that I won’t openly renounce someone’s position. This is what I’m interpreting you as saying, that if I was to speak matter-of-factly against what I see as an aberrant and dangerous doctrine, you would consider it an out-of-line speech, being a “condemnation of beliefs”.

If you don’t think posting on a public site all your “criticisms” of Paul isn’t a type of “condemnation of beliefs”, or won’t be taken as such by Christians, then I think you’re being a little bit naive. Just because you may not have intended it as such, doesn’t mean you can control someone else won’t take it as such.

I can tell you I’m not going to renounce or condemn your Judaism, but I will defend my belief that Jesus is the Messiah.

Now can we get back to the discussion?

Rose42

And continiuing to promote your false doctrines with your misrepresentations of scripture and poor sources will never make it true. Never. People need to know you’re a false teacher and don’t represent the truth of Christianity. You’ve been exposed numerous times and its no coincidence that those who think your posts are true also don’t trust God’s word and adhere to false doctrines just as you do.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Tommy.... (it's not quoting your post...don't know why...)

This was excellent, as usual, and I look forward to PennyLynn's response... No pressire, but you have a audience, a few friends have joined to watch as well... We are all very impressed by PennyLynn, Zemirah, and yourself....

Also, it is very refreshing, even invigorating, to read a thread like this, that sticks to the argument and deals in mutual respect...

Although I must admit that my brain is getting a bit overloaded proofing all of the quotes and verses... Just a sign that I need to be more familiar with the Word

Carry on Brother

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

And it has been most wonderful so far...

I have always admired that the Jewish faith doesn't require proselytizing...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Yes... Please.... I am quite enthusiastic about that idea

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Beautiful.....

And please don't...

This has been superb...

Sorry for all the posts... But I'm truly enjoying this thread...