In article <B4Mxj.9317$Dz4.2041@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 1Wit says...
>KJV Micah 5:2 .... yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that
>is to be ruler in Israel; whose "goings forth" have been from of
>"old", from "everlasting." The word used here for "going forth"
>actually means, family descent. H4163 "Going forth" is the root word
>of the word "family descent." "Old" is the front part or fore part.
>H6924. Everlasting is "owlem" H5769. The vani****ng point. There are
>two vani****ng points, or time out of mind. One before Adam, at the
>first or fore part, the other is at the end. You have no knowledge
>previous to Adam, and you have no knowledge after the end. The last
>part of this verse said his family descent was from the first part in
>the day of the vani****ng point. Basically saying, Jesus was a
>descendant of Adam. This verse was "twisted" to make it look like
>Jesus pre-existed.
No, it was not. Nobody has ever used Micah 5:2 to refer to His eternal
existence.
>This was not a glitch or a simple mistake. This was a deliberate
>falsification of the text.
The only 'falsification' I see here is the falsification of your
"straw-man" arguments.
>The doctrine of the logos was first applied to Zeus the head God of
>the Pantheon.
No, it was not. Where did you get this tidbit of misinformation?
>This was about two hundred years before Jesus. It was
>said that Origen ( about 250 CE.) was the one that applied this
>doctrine to Jesus.
He was not the first. The author of John 1:1 was.
>Sometime between 250 and 325 CE the logos doctrine was added as a
>prologue to John.
Again, where did you get this tidbit of misinformation?
>The Catholics accused the heretics of editing the books of the
>bible. So when it came time for them to edit, it was their choice as
>to what would be written and what was scraped. Once the bible was
>edited and given to Constantine. He declared it the word of God.
And yet again: where did you get this tidbit of misinformation? By
Constantine's time, the text had already stabilized into the major
text-types we know today, the Syro-Byzantine, 'Western' and
Alexandrian.
>To call anything in the bible a lie, would be calling Constantine a
>liar.
More totally unhistorical nonsense. Constantine never certified the
contents of the Bible. That he did is a MYTH.
The biblical text brought forth in 325 CE. is affirmed by a
>murderer.
Just yet more nonsense.
[snip]
>John 8:58. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was (born),
>THE YaH.
What nonsense is this? This NG is infamous for 'straw-man arguments",
but this has got to be one of the most peculiar of them. Nobody with a
clue ever claimed Jn 8:58 read "Verily... THE YaH". By no means!
Rather, the claim has always been that it reads:
AMHN AMHN LEGW UMIN PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI
OR:
Amen, amen, I say to you [pl]: before Abraham was I am.
This is an _allusion_ to the divine name, not the divine name itself
(which would be O WN as in Ex 3:14lxx). But it _was_ taken as an
allusion, and even an offensive one, which is why they _immediately_
picked up stones to stone Him (Jn 8:59).
>This verse IS NOT Jesus saying he was "THE YaH". God was
>known as YaHWeH. The short version of YHWH was a title "THE YaH". Psa
>102:18 This shall be written for the generation to come: ( NOW) and
>the people which shall be created shall praise the "YaH". The "W"
>according to some is also translated as "V" if found in the middle of
>a word.. Which would be "YHVH". The name YHWH is the name of the
>supreme God. The God above all other Gods. The vowels added here are
>for reference only. This does not make them exact. In Israel today
>some have a necklace or bracelet with an H and a Y on
>it. Representing THE and Y or YaH. The unmentionable name.
But this is all _completely_ irrelevant, as explained above.
[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
