Why Christ was NOT Yahweh of the Old testament

What i say is something new, which allready was,
but lost in israël,
and it puts god first.

you blame me of idolatry, but in my view there is only god,
no devil, no prophet, no glorification without god as one.
I do not trust symbols, the stories in the bible confirm a logic,
that can be found by allowance of god, a logic that is simple,
and doesn't need the security, which you can't have as a human,
that jesus really lived. Honesty is god's command, and where
honesty avoids truth it is in hypocrisy. You can feel jesus was alive,
but as human you can yet not proove it, so you can't judge with this,
you can only repent in life. Reflect. the real salvation is reflection,
because honesty allows you a cross. A cross that will bring you
towards one. Honesty means killing idolatry, which every human
does until growing into his salvation.
Putting written words before god is idolatry. The words can lead you,
but god in you decides.

Jesus was not jesus when he became glorified, he was on the place god put him,
as one with him, it means the place of salvation.

when does the church start to plead with god for all ?
do they want to see god's forgiveness for all ?

Was Edom, Ammon, moab not destined to exsist ?
or was israel in function without pharaos obeyence to god his will,
was Nebuchadnesar not declared righteouss ?
even after invading Israël.
Is babylon that what you think it is ?
Is the symbol of the northern kingdom just a random event,
Bethel just a place in history ?
Or is that where the church is going,
thinking they can put the temple of god everywhere except a place for the world,
where it was promised to be, his name written on the walls, on his stones.
Is bethel worth it again ? crucifying what is one again ?
declaring false based on wrong interpretations that were prepared
for those of israel that do not go fast enough in repetence
when god told us thousands of years, i am one.

Delusion was promised to lead our world,
who will lead people into delusion, the world or the churches, dogmatic religions ?
What was promised to the priest they would do ?
Who will make the offers that jesus didn't fullfill,
or is the bible made complicated that god unfuctional made it so simple
to let jesus fullfill every bit of law and offer that god
put so complicated in his law.
Yeah ' we understand the torah, jesus fullfilled just everything, done,
we don't have to think further' , jesus did not fullfill everything, god's prophets
will fullfill together everyhting.

Is the theological and dogmatic part of the church playing out the curse side
do they understand the prophesies of Dan and Levi ?
Is the state israël the real coming together of Israël ?
Does God control Apollon ?

You have majority backing of your church,
what is one will be condemned by parts of all churches, not only yours,
islam and judaism and christianity all have 2 sides.
The seven churches, they are only christianity ?
The seven angels of God, only for christians ?
what i say sounds foolish for all. for christian and atheist, new age and muslim.
that's why i am a bit annoyed , i feel alone.
god is love, pure love.

God is maybe free, but his freedom includes a cross he does take,
it's a lie freedom means no cross for god, god pays a bill
for himself, and he does it through everybody...
what is one, has to include what isn't one, or it isn't one.
God has a cross, and he is free to take it or leave it,
and there is your choice.
Faith saves by works. Works are what will be counted.
Works are intentions, both alowed or not, works is honesty,
seeing gods people, all the world, suffer and caring about them,
not by condemnation but by setting them free.
Just as honesty allows god to be set free.
Just as i try, but still fail, to set your false condemnation free.

God's angels are human, not holy. Not better then anyone else.
But they see all as their body.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]

Imagine 10 people who hire a lawyer, and each owes the lawyer $1000.

Those 10 then find themselves out of work, and can't pay the lawyer.

A third party comes in, he is rich, and decides to pay the bill, and pays the lawyer $1000 each, for all 10, for a total of $10,000.

The lawyers bill gets paid.

A carnal mind, without the Holy Spirit, would understand how this bill was satisfied.

Yet, we are expected to believe, that Jesus an ostensibly normal human being, his single life, would pay the "bill" for all humanity?

Jesus Christ, if he was as Ronald Weinland says, not pre-existent, could only pay the "bill" FOR ONE OTHER HUMAN BEING. That is because his "monetary value" as a sacrifice would only cover the "bill" for one other human being.

Thus, Jesus Christ not only must have pre-existed, his value must sum over all of humanity that ever was or ever could be.

Ronald Weinland not only preaches a perverted version of the Trinity doctrine, his doctrine denies Christ at its very being, and qualifies his doctrine as an Anti-Christ doctrine.

there are two parts jesus...jesus in destiny as human, and jesus as destiny as glorified, glorified is not jesus but one of god's faces... god is one, it means if god allows you to not take a cross, he is not one, not equal.

in this world we start all unequal, just as god himself did not decide to exsist.
still he can decide in this world...but what a person here becomes goes back before your own birth...salvation is all.

this world is for his glory as one.

he pays all the workers the same value, it means they all get paid the same price...if salvation means becoming one, then one pays one same value to the one in salvation.
that is the meaning of the parable.

after glorification your will and gods will are the same, so taking an extra cross, is possible, but it is an act of love, of confirming the promise or covenant..
offerings are dexribed in the torah, and jesus took not all the offers as prophesied...the suffering servant which is the son of man was symbolised by jesus at that time, to happen again in this time/

Weinland does not understand the prophesies, does not understand the witnesses, which are the father and the son, son of man'jerusalem'/'israël" vs 'israel'/'angels' vs the gentiles, the son of man, and the (different) woman it marries in different levels. But a quality of the son of man (the sun, through fire) is that it can come back before all its parts (the moon, sons) are allready one. just as it did with jesus. the Elijah function will be seen as false

but it is not antichrist yet, most beliefs are lies, the real antichrist is ignorance, not suffering to find progressive devloping truth, weinland exsisted to early in history to get gods allowance to understand.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]

reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib_2


You believe that Ron teaches that Christ was a "normal" person, and that is why you don't understand. Everything I posted was from scripture (and you don't address the contradictions in your belief), I never quoted Ron once, yet you are, just as Ron prophesied, being eaten up by your hatred for him. Let it go. Free yourself from it.

[edit on 23/10/09 by doctorex]

reply to post by pasttheclouds

Does God control Apollon ?

Everything is under God.
Not everything lasts.
Food is good while it goes in.
When it comes out, it is thrown away.

reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib_2

Jesus Christ, if he was as Ronald Weinland says, not pre-existent, could only pay the "bill" FOR ONE OTHER HUMAN BEING. That is because his "monetary value" as a sacrifice would only cover the "bill" for one other human being.

Now large crowds were accompanying Jesus, and turning to them he said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, wanting to build a tower, doesn’t sit down first and compute the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish the tower, all who see it will begin to make fun of him. They will say, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish!’ Or what king, going out to confront another king in battle, will not sit down first and determine whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot succeed, he will send a representative while the other is still a long way off and ask for terms of peace. In the same way therefore not one of you can be my disciple if he does not renounce all his own possessions.

A person sees before him a daunting apparition, which is his own demise, resulting from his own doing. Halfway measures will not suffice. Anything less than a full commitment to it will end in failure and humiliation. A person has to give everything he has to the cause of his own salvation. To fall short of that will mean condemnation and eternal death.

Originally posted by doctorex
reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib_2

 

You believe that Ron teaches that Christ was a "normal" person, and that is why you don't understand. Everything I posted was from scripture (and you don't address the contradictions in your belief), I never quoted Ron once, yet you are, just as Ron prophesied, being eaten up by your hatred for him. Let it go. Free yourself from it.

[edit on 23/10/09 by doctorex]

Ron prophecied that people would have hatred for him? Who didn't see that one coming? Someone who says something will happen on April 18, 2008 and then nothing happened at all, of course people will start to call BS on him. It doesn't take a prophet to know that America's demise is on it's way. It doesn't take a prophet to know that the world is being set for world rule through the EU or UN. It doesn't take a prophet to know that a false prophet will be ridiculed when a prophecy he says will pass, never does.

You didn't quote Ron but you are using the doctrine he presents and using the interpretation he revealed to you. Your "logical" evidence through scripture is nothing more than one's interpretation on what that scripture means.

reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib_2


Back to basics

Adam willingly threw away and lost a perfect human life.
This effected all humanity.

Jesus Christ willing sacrificed himself to regain what Adam had lost as a perfect human. In the first century Jesus=Adam, this was only for the human part of his existence.

The ransom sacrifice is important to understand, a god did not die for humanity, otherwise it's an over compensation for God's perfect justice.

One perfect HUMAN life for another, and the ransom pays the debt for all humanity for all eternity.

That's why Jesus is called the last Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:45

45Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being (an individual personality); the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving Spirit [restoring the dead to life].

Let's review our op's favorite verse, and see what Greek experts have to say on the usage of "pros" rather than "meta' in John 1:1

πρός,p [pros]
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to

Here's what Dr. Daniel Wallace says about the use of πρός in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 380 (I have an older edition):

1. Purpose (for the purpose of)
2. Spatial (toward)
3. Temporal (toward, for [duration])
4. Result (so that; with the result that)
5. Opposition (against)
6. Association (with, in company with [with stative verbs]) -- our use here.

On p. 358ff he discusses the basic nature of prepositions, and specifically that of John 1:1. There are 2 types of prepositions: stative (suggesting a state) or transitive (implying some motion). So is πρός used in John 1:1 regarding a state that the Word had with God in the beginning or regarding some sort of motion toward God? Well, πρός is in general transitive.

However, it's not that simple as a stative preposition can be used with verbs of motion, and vice-versa. In John 1:1 πρός is transitive while the verb is stative. Dr. Wallace gave a general principle that stative verbs override the transitive force of prepositions (their force). He then gave the following instances in which πρός (as transitive) is over-run by a stative verb:

Matt. 13:56; 26:18, 55; Mark 6:3; 9:19; 14:49; Luke 9:41; Acts 10:48; 12:20; 18:3; 1 Cor. 16:6-7; 2 Cor. 5:8; 11:9; Gal. 1:18; 2:5; 4:18, 20; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:10; Philemon 13; Heb. 4:13; and John 1:2.


We should also remember that this is Koine Greek, and was intended and written in a colloquial type of language In order to communicate more clearly with the masses.

continued

Ronald Weinland is simply NOT an expert in Koine Greek. If you're going to base a critical doctrine based on the usage of a greek word, you should at the least consult an expert on the Greek language.

This is what I have done.

Here are many of the places where the greek word "pros" is used, and they are clearly and correctly translated into English as "with".

and this includes John 1:1



Matt. 13:56; 26:55;

Mat 13:56 and his sisters, are they not all with(PROS) us? Then from where does this man have all these things?

Mat 26:55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowds, Have you come out in order to take Me with swords and clubs, as against a thief? I sat daily with(PROS) you, teaching in the temple, and you did not lay hands on Me.






Mark 6:3; 9:19; 14:49;

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with(PROS) us? And they were offended at Him.

Mar 9:19 He answered him and said, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with(PROS) you? Bring him to Me!

Mar 14:49 I was with(PROS) you daily in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.






Luke 9:41;

Luk 9:41 And answering, Jesus said, O unbelieving generation, one having been perverted, how long shall I be with(PROS) you and endure you? Bring your son here.




1 Cor. 16:6-7;


1Co 16:6 And it may be that I will stay with you, and even spend the winter with(PROS) you, so that you may set me forward wherever I go.






2 Cor. 5:8; 11:9;

2Co 5:8 we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with(PROS) the Lord.

2Co 11:9 And being present with(PROS) you, and in need, I was not a burden to anyone. For the brothers from Macedonia made up completely my need. And in every way I have kept myself from being burdensome to you, and I will keep myself.





Gal. 1:18; 2:5; 4:18, 20;
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with(PROS) Him fifteen days.

Gal 2:5 to whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with(PROS) You.

Gal 4:18 But it is good to be zealous always in a good thing, and not only in my being present with(PROS) you.

Gal 4:20 even now I desired to be present with(PROS) you, and to change my voice; for I am in doubt as to you.

1 Thess. 3:4;
1Th 3:4 For truly, when we were with(PROS) you, we told you before that we were going to suffer affliction, as it also happened, even you know.




2 Thess. 2:5; 3:10;
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with(PROS) you?

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with(PROS) you, we commanded you this, that if anyone would not work, neither should he eat.





Heb. 4:13;

Heb 4:13 And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with(PROS) whom we have to do.


1Jn 1:2 (for the Life was revealed, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show to you the everlasting Life, who was with(PROS) the Father and was revealed to us),


(continued in next post)

[edit on 25-10-2009 by SirPaulMuaddib]

Commenting on the usage of "pros' in John 1:1 here is what another expert in Greek says.

1 John1:2 καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα (pros ton patera) καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν.

Once again we see this unique usage. (usage of pros)

This is a preposition of motion with the verb of repose which involves eternity of relationship with activity of life. Since John uses this idea in 1 John 1:2 in this manner I am sure that he also did so in John 1:1.


In John 1:1 and 1 John 1:2 we see the preposition of motion. (pros)This isn't simply an action that is understood as moving towards and it is absurd to attempt to understand it in that manner. The idea of pros ton patera is understood as an eternity of active relation.

from another expert, more proof of the same...

And like I said in an earlier post, when prepositions don't agree with their verbs (stative vs. transitive), the verb drives things, so a preposition such as πρός though transitive (indicating motion) can be used with a stative verb to indicate state, such as in this case. (John 1:1)

The question of "pros" vs "meta", can be and is resolved, not only by consulting with experts in the Greek language, but by the abundant amount of scriptures that also use "pros" and are correctly translated into English as "with".

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God.

Thus showing that John 1:1 is speaking of a SEPARATE ENTITY.






[edit on 25-10-2009 by SirPaulMuaddib]

And like I said in an earlier post, when prepositions don't agree with their verbs (stative vs. transitive), the verb drives things, so a preposition such as πρός though transitive (indicating motion) can be used with a stative verb to indicate state, such as in this case. (John 1:1)

In other words...just to paraphrase it:

pros - is normally transitive, and indicates a motion in space or time. but when it is used with a stative verb (state indicating verb) such as "was", which is the case here in John 1:1, THEN pros is indicated of a STATE...that of being with God, NOT "towards" God.

So the greek translation into English
"the Word was WITH God" is 100% accurate and fully correct in its meaning as we understand it in English.

If you're going to base a doctrine on anything, at the very least don't base it on a lie.



[edit on 27-10-2009 by SirPaulMuaddib_2]

go to the basics, then understand the wordgames of the bible..
there is no time left to send all to the schools of old greek and hebrew,
not to forget aramaic..; it's logic and heart that will break the old temples.

what is god, what is his law.
simple.

what means salvation ?
can salvation be brought into this place ?
is salvation being free ? and free meaning transfer of will from god unto the person in salvation ?

what is gods law ? will god as one ever reject himself ? or is it god that doesn't want to be one, that reject himself out of god ? did god decide to exsist ? do you decide to carry cross by knowing it or by honesty (which makes you a coward in a sense and let live take over and do it for you , life is god)

wisdom is not hidden in arrogance, arogance is the u-turn before it comes back down.
we live in another time then before, the gospel is brought different,
love is above religions.

Amos : God will shout FROM jerusalem (the spiritual city, the walls will be build, the stones god's name written)

As the shepherd takes out of the mouth of the lion 2 legs, and an ear,
so shall the children of israel be taken OUT, that dwell in SAMARIA
in the corner of a bed, and in DAMASCUS in a couch..
(the legs of the son of man, taken out by LISTENING =reflecting)
(where are they ? right SAMARIA/DAMASCUS, out of the lion)

Woe to them at ease in Zion, (in ignorance = false peace, zion = salvation)
trust in mountains of Samaria, (samaria = northern kingdom, far from god, mountains = wisdom)
to whom the house of Israel came






[edit on 27-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]

Let's re-address this verse, it was quoted, but let's read beyond verse 4

In 1 Corinthians 10:1–4, we read that ancient Israel was baptized into Moses and they all “ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”

Obviously (before reading onward), one who "follows" Ronald Weinland, will read into this verse a meaning rather than reading out from the verse.
An RW follower would take the verse to mean temporally follow (in time) rather than spatially follow (in space). Did you look at the greek for this?

G190
ἀκολουθέω
akoloutheō
Thayer Definition:
1) to follow one who precedes, join him as his attendant, accompany him
2) to join one as a disciple, become or be his disciple
2a) side with his party

We see that #1 or even #2a are both valid, for this verse, in other words, The Rock (identified as Christ) accompanied/kept company with Israel. No indication of following in the sense of time.

But let's read on....


1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt the Christ(Greek:Christos), as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents.

Oh...wait a minute......THEY TEMPTED CHRIST THE ROCK....

If you were truly interested in the truth (op) you would have read beyond 1 Cor 10:4 and noticed something very important.

The Israelites TEMPTED CHRIST. Some translations have "tempted Him" or some variation, but the "Him" IS NOT IN THE GREEK. It's not there for some RW follower to say....well...the "Him" is not referring to Christ, but someone else.

The subject of the sentence and of the temptation IS CHRIST. And the temptation took place in the PAST. Before Christ (the physical man) was born.





[edit on 27-10-2009 by SirPaulMuaddib]

[edit on 27-10-2009 by SirPaulMuaddib]

reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib

Oh...wait a minute......THEY TEMPTED CHRIST THE ROCK....

This sounds interesting, but could you explain the significance of this statement for someone not familiar with this controversy.

The John Gill Commentary says of this verse:

The Arabic version adds "him", meaning Christ, which is a right interpretation of the text; otherwise there would be no force in the apostle's reasoning; for Christ was the angel that went before the Israelites in the wilderness, the angel of God's presence, that bore, and carried, and saved them; he is the Jehovah they tempted at Massah and Meribah, and elsewhere, and God they spake against at this place referred to; hence it is clear that our Lord existed before his incarnation, and that he is truly and properly God;

This person was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson, so it is not some new fangled idea. It does have to be taken in a couple of ways, meaning, the Rock, has to refer to a concept. The concept of the future salvation worked out by Christ being the surety of, and reason for, all the good things God did for Israel. Christ is the bases for forgiveness and thus, is the Rock.
The part of Jesus being somehow present is a little irrelevant to the analogy. But it could be that what existed as the part of God that made itself evident on a physical level, is the same that is called elsewhere, the Word, and it did at some point become Christ in the flesh.


[edit on 27-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


The question is whether "The Rock" in the OT, was Christ.

Their are some who believe Christ did not pre-exist, before His human incarnation. The problem with this, is attempting to explain (and I say that loosely) the abundant amount of NT scriptures that clearly state otherwise.

Were there some interesting "problems" that arose as a consequence?

Yes...the use of "pros" was an interesting one. Not that I doubted (other scriptures are painfully plain), but it did bring up an interesting question on the usage of "pros" VS "meta" in John 1:1.

I eventually consulting with an expert in the Greek language, and they explained a special rule. (which I address in an earlier post, a few posts before this one).

It does have to be taken in a couple of ways, meaning, the Rock, has to refer to a concept.

You can not tempt a "concept" this is stretching it, and forcing an alternate meaning on a verse that plainly states otherwise.

reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib

The question is whether "The Rock" in the OT, was Christ.

I imagine there is a larger ongoing debate about Paul's meaning here, but what I was wondering was who is taking a particular stand on this, and why? I think it is a little silly if this was all someone had as their "proof" for whatever theory they are trying to support.

reply to post by SirPaulMuaddib

Their are some who believe Christ did not pre-exist, before His human incarnation.

So can I take it from this that you do not agree with these people?
That you believe Christ did exist before the incarnation?
The Word, who, or what, you want to make that out to be, did exist, that is clear. Was this "Word" the same as YHWH? I think so. If YHWH was Christ, then who was his father?
Well, Jehovah is the Most High God, so he could not be the son of anyone.
Then what was this YHWH who was going around claiming to be God?
John in Revelation talks about being in the spirit and going to the throne of God. Around the throne were seven spirits who were the seven Spirits of God. I would think that any one of those Spirits could make the claim, especially to mortal humans who do not know the first thing about the spiritual, that they are God, and not be lying.

Originally posted by SirPaulMuaddib

It does have to be taken in a couple of ways, meaning, the Rock, has to refer to a concept.

You can not tempt a "concept" this is stretching it, and forcing an alternate meaning on a verse that plainly states otherwise.

And why not? What is clear is that Paul was talking about people in his own day who were acting like the people in the day of Moses.
They were doing things with a feeling of safety in doing so, because of the great power that was giving them salvation.
In the one case, they were tempting Christ who was their surety, and in the other case, they were tempting their Rock, who was their protection, to take away that protection. That is the concept that Paul was trying to get across and the identity of who the Rock was, is not relevant to the analogy. The point is made, either way.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by jmdewey60]