|
Post by mouse on May 21, 2017 8:10:58 GMT -5
yes I have a concordance but I do not need to look it up..to know what it means I asked you to give me the context in which Jesus said it
I HAVE never denied that SCHOLARS COULD BE WRONG.. not ever how you came to that conclusion I really really don't know .. .. the question of the 72virgins or white raisons is a prime example of not as yet resolved linguistic puzzle ..of one set of scholars reaching different interpretaions if my memory serves me right and I hope it does the word houri is the word in question as this word can apply to both and it all centres around where the empathis should be put in this word to alter its meaning..
SLwrote""Moses? asked, " who shall I say sent me?" God replied, " tell them the Iam sent you." So when Jsus said to whoever, Iam THAT Iam. Which means to me that Jesus and the Iam are one and the same, which seems more in keeping with the Trinity
no sorry I cannot agree with you.. during the interveining years between 1600BC and year 1 AD including mans relationship and attitudes with and toward God....
moses saying tell them the "I am" sent you...is when there was no concept of the Trinity.. and the GOD of the Hebrews was an almighty and terrible god.. where the God was awesome..vengeful ..wrathfull..punishing .. where that God needed to say nothing more than IAM for it to be immediately understand by all the people Moses represented
the Christian concept of God is more enlightened a God of mercy love understanding and forgiving and of course the Trinity and the son of God who offered redemption and forgiveness so when Jesus said Iam THAT Iam. it is a totally different concept and of course its different wording too with Moses it was a simple Iam......... with Jesus its Iam what I am.. the difference is subtle but non the less its there the added two words and one letter makes all the difference all the difference.. makes a different emphasis iam that I am... it means exactly what it says ..he is saying what you see and what you know is exactly what I am.. what you see and what you know is exactly what you get so no I don't think the scholars have been wrong in this particular case I think your looking for things which are not there
yes I have a concordance but I do not need to look it up..to know what it means I asked you to give me the context in which Jesus said it
I HAVE never denied that SCHOLARS COULD BE WRONG.. not ever how you came to that conclusion I really really don't know .. .. the question of the 72virgins or white raisons is a prime example of not as yet resolved linguistic puzzle ..of one set of scholars reaching different interpretaions if my memory serves me right and I hope it does the word houri is the word in question as this word can apply to both and it all centres around where the empathis should be put in this word to alter its meaning..
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 8:36:53 GMT -5
yes I have a concordance but I do not need to look it up..to know what it means I asked you to give me the context in which Jesus said it I HAVE never denied that SCHOLARS COULD BE WRONG.. not ever how you came to that conclusion I really really don't know .. .. the question of the 72virgins or white raisons is a prime example of not as yet resolved linguistic puzzle ..of one set of scholars reaching different interpretaions if my memory serves me right and I hope it does the word houri is the word in question as this word can apply to both and it all centres around where the empathis should be put in this word to alter its meaning.. SLwrote""Moses? asked, " who shall I say sent me?" God replied, " tell them the Iam sent you." So when Jsus said to whoever, Iam THAT Iam. Which means to me that Jesus and the Iam are one and the same, which seems more in keeping with the Trinity no sorry I cannot agree with you.. during the interveining years between 1600BC and year 1 AD including mans relationship and attitudes with and toward God.... moses saying tell them the "I am" sent you...is when there was no concept of the Trinity.. and the GOD of the Hebrews was an almighty and terrible god.. where the God was awesome..vengeful ..wrathfull..punishing .. where that God needed to say nothing more than IAM for it to be immediately understand by all the people Moses represented the Christian concept of God is more enlightened a God of mercy love understanding and forgiving and of course the Trinity and the son of God who offered redemption and forgiveness so when Jesus said Iam THAT Iam. it is a totally different concept and of course its different wording too with Moses it was a simple Iam......... with Jesus its Iam what I am.. the difference is subtle but non the less its there the added two words and one letter makes all the difference all the difference.. makes a different emphasis iam that I am... it means exactly what it says ..he is saying what you see and what you know is exactly what I am.. what you see and what you know is exactly what you get so no I don't think the scholars have been wrong in this particular case I think your looking for things which are not there yes I have a concordance but I do not need to look it up..to know what it means I asked you to give me the context in which Jesus said it I HAVE never denied that SCHOLARS COULD BE WRONG.. not ever how you came to that conclusion I really really don't know .. .. the question of the 72virgins or white raisons is a prime example of not as yet resolved linguistic puzzle ..of one set of scholars reaching different interpretaions if my memory serves me right and I hope it does the word houri is the word in question as this word can apply to both and it all centres around where the empathis should be put in this word to alter its meaning.. Hi Mouse, Truth cannot change. What is thought to be the truth now, was the truth then when Jesus said it. The scholars have interpreted it wrongly. It has always meant that Jesus WAS the Iam.This mistake is still in every Bible today, it has not been removed even though they believe that the Trinity is the truth. Jesus would not lie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 18:40:45 GMT -5
Scottish Lassie, your concept of truth as unchanging is an interesting one.
Perhaps you would care to expand upon it?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 21, 2017 18:43:03 GMT -5
you arrogance is breath taking it really is..[considering you alter English words at a whim and don't accept dictionary meanings your personal interpretations are very suspect] you of course are an expert linguist and can translate wording from various sources into English? yes? and of course your in contact with not only theologions but with translators of ancient languages and if you haven't been in contact with them .if you wish I shall find a contact number or email adress so you can tell them how wrong they are
"""the fact that its the Moses one.. has only 1 letter and 1 word... and the Jesus one has two single letters and three words.... you simply pass aside as being of no interest and no value""
in two thousand years no one has manage to spot what you term the mistake and rectify it
""that Jesus WAS the Iam.....This mistake is still in every Bible today, it has not been removed even though they believe that the Trinity is the truth. Jesus would not lie"""
you say Jesus would not lie ... actually no one IS lying or attempting to lie.. and exactly what has the trinity to do with this...jesus said .. I am that I am ...you still haven't given me the context in which he was speaking.. and context is very important and Moses said in a very different era and situation and context said tell them.. iam sent you...
as I said no one is lying...but if you pass this around as being true then you will be complicit in the spreading of misinformation which theologions would you like to take it up with rabbinical or Christian
going back to context.. moses obviously was ... so no problems there
then we come to Jesus..he could have been answering the charge that he called him self king of the Jew saying to whoever, Iam THAT Iam which would be a very rational reply
CONCEPT is very important so lets have the concept before this goes any further
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 19:19:34 GMT -5
you arrogance is breath taking it really is..[considering you alter English words at a whim and don't accept dictionary meanings your personal interpretations are very suspect] you of course are an expert linguist and can translate wording from various sources into English? yes? and of course your in contact with not only theologions but with translators of ancient languages and if you haven't been in contact with them .if you wish I shall find a contact number or email adress so you can tell them how wrong they are """the fact that its the Moses one.. has only 1 letter and 1 word... and the Jesus one has two single letters and three words.... you simply pass aside as being of no interest and no value"" in two thousand years no one has manage to spot what you term the mistake and rectify it ""that Jesus WAS the Iam.....This mistake is still in every Bible today, it has not been removed even though they believe that the Trinity is the truth. Jesus would not lie""" you say Jesus would not lie ... actually no one IS lying or attempting to lie.. and exactly what has the trinity to do with this...jesus said .. I am that I am ...you still haven't given me the context in which he was speaking.. and context is very important and Moses said in a very different era and situation and context said tell them.. iam sent you... as I said no one is lying...but if you pass this around as being true then you will be complicit in the spreading of misinformation which theologions would you like to take it up with rabbinical or Christian going back to context.. moses obviously was ... so no problems there then we come to Jesus..he could have been answering the charge that he called him self king of the Jew saying to whoever, Iam THAT Iam which would be a very rational reply CONCEPT is very important so lets have the concept before this goes any further Hi Mouse, look up the reference the 'Iam' it should be under that heading in the concordance. I don't need to talk with theologions, I commune with the Holy Spirit. People are fallable, so can make mistakes. Jesus never!!!
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 19:54:27 GMT -5
Scottish Lassie, your concept of truth as unchanging is an interesting one. Perhaps you would care to expand upon it? Hi Mike Marshall, The truth will always be the truth, it is our understanding of it that changes. If we were given the complete truth of life all at once we could quite easily go into shock. This no doubt is why we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. That way is easier for us to assimilate the truth, step by step, with no harmful results.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 20:14:33 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, I think you have said that the scholars have correctly interpreted the meaning of words when translating wordsfrom one language to another. It doesn't change the fact of what I know to be true. The minute I read the words ' I am THAT Iam, I knew exactly what Jesus meant. I spoke to a church elder about what I thought and I was told it is as it is. So as far as I am concerned, they were going along with what I consider to be an error in translation. I will continue to think this.!!!
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 21, 2017 21:40:02 GMT -5
Scottish Lassie, your concept of truth as unchanging is an interesting one. Perhaps you would care to expand upon it? Hi Mike Marshall, The truth will always be the truth, it is our understanding of it that changes. If we were given the complete truth of life all at once we could quite easily go into shock. This no doubt is why we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. That way is easier for us to assimilate the truth, step by step, with no harmful results. Here Scottish Lassie seems to be saying that God created (by intention) failed beings, that is, beings that are not able to handle the reality of truth. Moreover, she seems to imply that today we can get that truth if we ask an Elder of a church to tell us the truth meaning we (as those failed beings) have evolved, or matured, to the point that we can now accept the truth. There still seems to be a problem in that today’s scholars do not all respond with the same ‘truth’. So how do we find the correct scholar who tells the correct truth. It appears that she is a supporter of the Islamic Qur’an as there two opposing truths will often exist just because that we failed beings cannot accept the initial stated truth.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on May 21, 2017 21:40:57 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, I think you have said that the scholars have correctly interpreted the meaning of words when translating wordsfrom one language to another. It doesn't change the fact of what I know to be true. The minute I read the words ' I am THAT Iam, I knew exactly what Jesus meant. I spoke to a church elder about what I thought and I was told it is as it is. So as far as I am concerned, they were going along with what I consider to be an error in translation. I will continue to think this.!!! It is most likely that I have misunderstood the intent here of Scottish Lassie. That is, for we who are the neophytes, truth can only be defined by a scholar, but scholars of times past did not have access to the actual truth and so we must only access scholars of today. That is an interesting concept. However, we still have a problem, which modern day scholar do we approached because, on a single question they do not all have the same answer. Except for Scottish Lassie who has the direct connect to obtain the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 22:09:40 GMT -5
Hi Mike Marshall, The truth will always be the truth, it is our understanding of it that changes. If we were given the complete truth of life all at once we could quite easily go into shock. This no doubt is why we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. That way is easier for us to assimilate the truth, step by step, with no harmful results. Here Scottish Lassie seems to be saying that God created (by intention) failed beings, that is, beings that are not able to handle the reality of truth. Moreover, she seems to imply that today we can get that truth if we ask an Elder of a church to tell us the truth meaning we (as those failed beings) have evolved, or matured, to the point that we can now accept the truth. There still seems to be a problem in that today’s scholars do not all respond with the same ‘truth’. So how do we find the correct scholar who tells the correct truth. It appears that she is a supporter of the Islamic Qur’an as there two opposing truths will often exist just because that we failed beings cannot accept the initial stated truth. Hi Men an tol, I believe that God created everything that has been created as the scientists have said. And every thing is governed by natural selection and by whatever is put into action in the arena of life. In other words, we run the show, and at the very end of that time, we will all be judged. What you believe to be true is of your own doing. I have said before, we are all in the same boat, each of us is responsible for everything that we do. We cannot blame anyone else for our troubles.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 22:20:47 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, I think you have said that the scholars have correctly interpreted the meaning of words when translating wordsfrom one language to another. It doesn't change the fact of what I know to be true. The minute I read the words ' I am THAT Iam, I knew exactly what Jesus meant. I spoke to a church elder about what I thought and I was told it is as it is. So as far as I am concerned, they were going along with what I consider to be an error in translation. I will continue to think this.!!! It is most likely that I have misunderstood the intent here of Scottish Lassie. That is, for we who are the neophytes, truth can only be defined by a scholar, but scholars of times past did not have access to the actual truth and so we must only access scholars of today. That is an interesting concept. However, we still have a problem, which modern day scholar do we approached because, on a single question they do not all have the same answer. Except for Scottish Lassie who has the direct connect to obtain the truth. Hi Men an tol, I really don't know how to take this post, whether you are being serious or facetious, and therefore making fun of me? I will take it in a good humoured way regardless. The truth will never change, it is our understanding of it that changes, and we sure have a lot to learn.!!!
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on May 21, 2017 22:47:53 GMT -5
Hi Mike Marshall, The truth will always be the truth, it is our understanding of it that changes. If we were given the complete truth of life all at once we could quite easily go into shock. This no doubt is why we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. That way is easier for us to assimilate the truth, step by step, with no harmful results. Here Scottish Lassie seems to be saying that God created (by intention) failed beings, that is, beings that are not able to handle the reality of truth. Moreover, she seems to imply that today we can get that truth if we ask an Elder of a church to tell us the truth meaning we (as those failed beings) have evolved, or matured, to the point that we can now accept the truth. There still seems to be a problem in that today’s scholars do not all respond with the same ‘truth’. So how do we find the correct scholar who tells the correct truth. It appears that she is a supporter of the Islamic Qur’an as there two opposing truths will often exist just because that we failed beings cannot accept the initial stated truth. Hi Men an tol, If we weren't sensitive beings, we would be like blocks of wood, incapable of understanding anything. That is also why we feel pain. Pain is there so that we can look after and care for the body so that it will last as long as possible and that we come to learn as much as we can within our allotted life span for this life time. We gain knowledge and hopefully spiritual understanding as we go through life.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on May 22, 2017 0:09:35 GMT -5
Ultimately the universe is not predictable is it does not run by clock work. You said there's a god for that. So science cannot predict, maybe the present really is controlled by past lives?A correct theory does predict. An incorrect one does not. Any fool knows that. What's this mumbo-jumbo about the present being controlled by past lives? Nore ectoplasm? The point is we have free will. You are a fine one to talk of mumbo jumbo! Science knows far less than it pretends to know, of course it will never admit that or indeed admit it does not know anything. Beyond the simple level "science is as religious" as any religion.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 22, 2017 3:41:03 GMT -5
you arrogance is breath taking it really is..[considering you alter English words at a whim and don't accept dictionary meanings your personal interpretations are very suspect] you of course are an expert linguist and can translate wording from various sources into English? yes? and of course your in contact with not only theologions but with translators of ancient languages and if you haven't been in contact with them .if you wish I shall find a contact number or email adress so you can tell them how wrong they are """the fact that its the Moses one.. has only 1 letter and 1 word... and the Jesus one has two single letters and three words.... you simply pass aside as being of no interest and no value"" in two thousand years no one has manage to spot what you term the mistake and rectify it ""that Jesus WAS the Iam.....This mistake is still in every Bible today, it has not been removed even though they believe that the Trinity is the truth. Jesus would not lie""" you say Jesus would not lie ... actually no one IS lying or attempting to lie.. and exactly what has the trinity to do with this...jesus said .. I am that I am ...you still haven't given me the context in which he was speaking.. and context is very important and Moses said in a very different era and situation and context said tell them.. iam sent you... as I said no one is lying...but if you pass this around as being true then you will be complicit in the spreading of misinformation which theologions would you like to take it up with rabbinical or Christian going back to context.. moses obviously was ... so no problems there then we come to Jesus..he could have been answering the charge that he called him self king of the Jew saying to whoever, Iam THAT Iam which would be a very rational reply CONCEPT is very important so lets have the concept before this goes any further Hi Mouse, look up the reference the 'Iam' it should be under that heading in the concordance. I don't need to talk with theologions, I commune with the Holy Spirit. People are fallable, so can make mistakes. Jesus never!!! no I have no intentions of looking it up... the onus is on you as its your assertion.. that is the way it works on message boards you make the assertion you provide the link/backup etc so I am thinking you cannot bring or don't wish to bring up the context but It would be a total waste of time any way..the difference is all ready there for all to see. .and while Jesus may indeed be infallible you are not .. .... and you have absolutely no intention of considering anything which doesn't fit into what you have already decided upon ...you wont even consider evidence in this case the evidence points to your assertion being wrong... it doesnt really matter to me either way but the fact is if you go around spreading what could be false information...then that is a decided Wrong.. and this is priceless... I don't need to talk with theologions, I commune with the Holy Spirit
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 22, 2017 4:31:00 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, I think you have said that the scholars have correctly interpreted the meaning of words when translating wordsfrom one language to another. It doesn't change the fact of what I know to be true. The minute I read the words ' I am THAT Iam, I knew exactly what Jesus meant. I spoke to a church elder about what I thought and I was told it is as it is. So as far as I am concerned, they were going along with what I consider to be an error in translation. I will continue to think this.!!! translating from one language in to another language is what linguist scholars do...they are quite different than Biblical and Rabinical scholars .. some times but very rarely the two over lap and in this particular instance both words and content of the book have been checked and checked andchecked again in the interests of truth of translated words and content of the book you mentioned the dead sea scrolls....actually they proved that past/earlier translators and Bbiblical scholars had done remarkable and accurate translations.... and here we go again pride and ego to the fore """"It doesn't change the fact of what I know to be true"" and an other ego trip """So as far as I am concerned, they were going along with what I consider to be an error in translation""" you see this is where it makes absolutely no sense what so ever.. you will discuss with a elders but not with theologions ...its a bit like taking you car for a check up to an oil rig rather than a garage mechanic
|
|