Comments for divinity I

Código VO01-E0010-I

VIEW:272 DATA:2020-03-20

Photos by Wander Souza N
191 comments
Elias souza 05/25/2014
We agree in the same way, but there are three people. Different however they have always been and always will be for you to better understand read1 John 5.7 says why three are those who testify in heaven: the father, the word and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. but do the following Wnader le in another bible why in you guys are changed or if it doesn’t get there from Adventists like you already did but give a search in other bibles because in you’s missing in verse 7 and 8 of the text that I gave you
Wander Souza N25 / 05/2014 + 1
2
1
+ Elias souza I already told you that 1 John 5: 7 is an expulsive text inserted by the Catholic Church ??? Everyone knows it.
"And these three are one" is an insertion, everyone knows it and nobody denies it. This text has even been removed from Catholic Bibles, but remains in Almeidas.
See the proof in the online bible here: http://www.bibliaonline.com.br/acf+vc/1jo/5 You
can compare the versions on this site, there are several versions. You will see that the passage I mentioned is missing in some translations. This passage is either an insertion that even has a name, is called "Cohma yohaovem", or coma joanino.
You need to better study the question of friend translations.
Rubens Caputo 25/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, before saying it is a mess, first answer what it is to be God? Use the following verse in your explanation.
Joh 10:34 Jesus said to them, It is not written in your law: I said:
Joh 10:34 answered unto them Ao TSBo Jesus qua theirs is written in the law YOU Aoti I said gods Este
Joh 10:35 Se al lei chamou Deuses aqueles al quem al palavra de Deus foi dirigida (ea Escritura não Pode ser anulada),
Joh 10 : 35 ει εκεινους ειπεν θεους προς ους ο λογος του θεου εγενετο και ου δυναται λυθηναι η γραφη
Traduzir
Wander Souza N25 /
05/2014 Tjs s bo bons, néo é?
Wander Souza N25 /
05/2014 + Rubens Caputo OLá Rubens Caputo!
Being God is a quality (God is a title), Jesus' own argument is explanatory in this regard. He showed that not only is God the creator, he can be called God. But people who receive great power and authority can also be so. That is why Jesus is the only begotten God, with all support.
This text is very good, because it shows that Jesus shied away from being equal to God, reasoning even with the scriptures for that.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Therefore, God as creator and sovereign of the universe exists only one, the father.
Elias souza 25/05/2014
Wander you never spoke about this guy and the first time you touch this subject. another Wander if I bend my knee and ask God in the name of Jesus he doesn’t talk to me doesn’t show me, understand anything I test you will not do. for example Jesus will order us to teach afterwards baptized in the name of father of the Holy Spirit's son amen if the Holy Spirit is a force or a part of God and not a person, why then why baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit if he is not a person, in the old testament they sinned against Jehovah but if you sin against the Holy Spirit in the new there is no forgiveness, he cries he says he has. Jealous he saddens he understands how he is not a person, another Galatians 4.6 in this testo the Spirit that you say belongs to the father, the father will say that it is the son of a child Wander I will put what is written. Now, since you are a son of God, I send your Son's Spirit into our hearts, and he cries out, "Abba, Father."

Rubens Caputo 25/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N.
Is God a title? And YHWH? Use the following verse.
Exodus 23:21 Walk before him, and hear his voice; do not be rebellious against him, for he will not forgive your rebellion; for my name is on it.
שׁמי H8034 בקרבו׃ H7130
(character, personality) - (name). {Personifies the name).
Wander Souza N25 / 05/2014
The questions from you my friends are very good, I'll be right back to answer. I have to have lunch, see you later.
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Deus is a title, and YHWH is a name, because the creator presents himself with that name in the bible >> Isaiah 42: 8.
Ex 23:21 speaks of an angel sent from Jehovah, bearing his name, for he came under his authority.
Jehovah's name is used in exodus to describe YHWH's personality. When he introduced himself to Moses, did they not know his name before? Of course they knew, what was happening is that he was about to reveal his name in a different way. YHWH uses his name to describe his personality and purpose in the bible!
In Exodus 34: 5-6 what does the declaration of the divine name entail? A description of your qualities!
Again, shortly before his death Moses says to the Israelites: "Why will I proclaim the name of Yahweh ..." What followed? The mention of some of his qualities and then a retrospective of what God had done with Israel for the sake of his name. Deut. 32: 3-43
Wander SouzaN26 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza Elias souza, is that with respect 1 John 5: 7 I often have to inform evangelicals about this text, because they use it thinking that they are proving the trinity, but they are unaware of the fact that it doesn't even exist in several bibles. I even forget to whom I spoke, as there are many. Interestingly, they are unaware of the translations they use, but they are great critics of other translations.
Well, what about your baptism? I must see the trinity only because baptism must be done in the name of the father who is sovereign God, his son who is through whom we receive eternal life and from whom we draw close to God, and his spirit which is what moves and does everything?
This text does not say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are coequal, coeternal or that everyone is God, even if we accept that the holy spirit is a person.
1 Timothy 5: 21of a resounding slap in the doctrine of the trinity on this issue of quoting people together. Just as Christ did when he said that no one knew the day of his return, and he quoted his father, and even the angels, but said nothing of any third person. Matthew 24:36
Blasphemy against the holy spirit occurs because it is blasphemy against the father himself, since the spirit proceeds from him >> John 15:26
So many actions that the bible attributes to the holy spirit, is the same as to attribute to God, for that is the spirit of God, an extension of God Himself, not a person separate from Him.
He is saddened, because the Bible uses literary personification, which is recurrent in texts of all kinds.
See examples of the spirits of people who are personified by the bible:
a) Spirit of Pharaoh - Was Disturbed (Genesis 41: 8)
b) Spirit of Cyrus - Was Awakened (Ezra 1: 1)
c) Spirit of Job - Sip (Suga) the Poison (Job 6: 4)
d) Spirit of Zophar - Answers for Zophar (Job 20: 3)
e) Spirit of Asaph - Fades (Psalm 77: 3)
f) Spirit of David - Fades (Psalm 143: 7)
g ) Spirit of Isaiah - Searched for God (Isaiah 26: 9)
h) Spirit of Ezekiel - Excited (Ezekiel 3:14)
i) Spirit of Nebuchadnezzar - Disturbed (Daniel 2: 1-3)
j) Spirit of Paul - revolted (Acts 17:16)
k) Paul's Spirit - Pray and Sing (1 Corinthians 14:14, 15)
l) Paul's Spirit - Recreated (I Corinthians 16:18)
m) Titus' Spirit - Recreated (II Corinthians 7:13)
Would you say that these spirits are separate people ???? Of course not!
Rubens Caputo 26/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, is written like this.
Exo 3: 2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush. Moses looked, and, behold, the bush was burning in the fire, and the bush was not consumed;
Exo 3: 4 And when the Lord (YHWH) saw that he had turned to see, he called him from the middle of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses! He replied: Here I am.
In Exo 3: 4 it is written like this
Exo 3: 4 וירא יהוה כי סר לראות ויקרא אליו אלהים מתוך הסנה ויאמר משׁה משׁה ויאמר הנני׃
(and seeing YHWH). See the angel. The angel called YHWH. The same angel that is written.
Exodus 23:21 Walk before him, and hear his voice; do not be rebellious against him, for he will not forgive your rebellion; for my name is on it.
In other words, to call YHWH, he would call this angel.
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo As I told you, whoever comes in the authority of YHWH, comes in his name, as you yourself showed YHWH is the one who says: "In him is my name".
From the moment a message is brought in his name, under his authority in the biblical text. The title "God" is even more recurrent, even outside the Bible, God is applied in the system to human beings, because that word is not exclusively of the creator, as Jesus himself reasoned in John 10:34. Jesus was the one who had the most support to talk about this subject, and gave us a beautiful example.
The name YHWH is his own (From the creator), he says that, unless he thinks he is lying when he says "my name", but if he sends someone with a name in his name, he gives all the authority to the messenger is treated by his name in the biblical text.
Rubens Caputo 26/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N
See what the messenger said:
Exo 3: 6 He said, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
Exo 3: 7 Then the Lord said, I have seen the affliction of my people in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of their leaders, because I know their sufferings;
Exo 3: 8 and I went down to deliver him from the hand of the Egyptians, and to make him go up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey; to the place of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perize, the Hove and the Jebusite.
Exo 3: 9 And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come to me; and I have also seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them.
Can the messenger say that?
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, an angel could very well speak in first person as if it were YHWH, as he is a spokesman designated by YHWH. This gives the message greater reliability. Yhwh gives this authority to his creatures.
The book of acts clearly says that God (YHWH) sent an angel to Moses in the bush. That would end the question.
Have you never read the prophets giving messages in the bible as if they were YHWH himself speaking?
Now if that angel is God Himself, there are serious contradictions in the Bible, because it says that no one has ever seen God, nor can they see God and remain alive. (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18) Moses was allowed to see only the glory of God, and yet his face was shining which caused the death of anyone who looked at him.
Elias souza 26/05/2014
Just a small comment Wander who was it that Isaias saw in Isaiah 6 who said in the year that the king usias died I saw you sitting on a high and sublime throne. How do you understand that wander
Rubens Caputo 26/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, can't the shining face of Moses be the glory that came from this angel? And more to call an angel by YHWH, and designate him God. It makes the idea of ​​the name YHWH to be the same as God. So both YHWH and God fall on the same principle. For to call an angel of God, and to call him YHWH, and to differentiate one from the other is irrational.
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo To say that "Yhwh" and "God" fall in the same principle is to disregard the rules, I explained, YHWH himself transmits the authority of spokesmen to such angels. In the text you gave me he says "my name is in it", to explain better than that just by drawing. Yhwh himself said that it is not him in saying that the name was on the messenger.
It is not irrational, you are the one who is neglecting the clear principle of the spokesperson. It is not me, it is the text that differentiates YHWH from such messenger angels. If YHWH is these angels the text is lying, for the apostles' actions say that God sent an angel to Moses in the bush. Acts 7:35
I have also told you that prophets when they delivered messages from God spoke in the first person, as if they were YHWH. Were these prophets YHWH for you too?
The bible is very clear, God presents himself with a name, "This is my name" Isaiah 42: 8. If he sends someone with a message from you, a spokesman, there is nothing strange about that person reliably transmitting the message in the first person, and being treated in the biblical text as "YHWH". "God" can be given to someone who has a lot of power and authority, or even prominence in something, even without being designated by YHWH, as it happens in the world.
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza
Elias souza, do you believe that the bible contradicts itself?
No one can see the face of God and survive. Exodus 33:20
John 1:18 says that no man has ever seen God.
Biblical accounts show us that a divine vision is not always something that is really happening, but it has a prophetic and didactic function many times. Therefore, it is plausible to believe that the text of Isaiah 6 has a deeper understanding of the scene in which Isaiah "sees" God on the throne. It should not be taken literally, in other words.
Now you are going to say that I do not accept what is in the scriptures, but before I say to you then, how are the texts that I showed above? John 1:18 mind? And exodus 33:20 also lie? Does the bible contradict itself? Explain to me please.
Elias souza 26/05/2014
I believe what is written more, see what I understand, read many comments and assumptions about the text, and conclude the following, when João is speaking nobody saw him, he is referring to which people? He does not specify no it’s even since the world is world or since man was created nobody saw God he didn’t say that, I believe he was speaking only and exclusively to the people of the grace of the new testament, because if we are going to include all world see well, this is a personal question do you think Adam saw God? I believe that if there is someone who saw God and someone is Adam, is not it, and Adam was a sinless saint in an eternal body he certainly saw God. And then we can’t put Adam in this medium so it’s no longer for everyone, there’s a question in HB 9.
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza Yesterday you said something about "not going beyond the scriptures", but that's what you just did. There is no indication in the scriptures that Adam saw God.
When John says "Nobody" it means no person. Its interpretation does not make sense, see:
"Nobody has EVER seen God." ALMEIDA
The word "Never" includes people from all ages. "Nobody" means no person. So there is no basis for saying that anyone saw God before the apostles. It continues to contradict the scriptures.
In addition there is the text that says that no one can see God and survive to tell the story,
As for Hebrews 9:27, the rule is only broken by miracles, which transcend the ordinary and the rational (from the human point of view). A miracle is something that cannot be explained with science. It is a fact that we all die only once, that is when this natural rule is not broken by the divine intervention of the miracle, as recorded in the Bible.
Elias souza 26/05/2014
And if he didn't see why he hid behind a tree of someone he didn't see and Isaías saw and it is written he saw you are the one who wants to give another meaning
Wander Souza N26 / 05 / 2014
+ Elias souza Didn't I say you were going to say that? But come on, if Isaiah really saw God, you have to explain the texts that I showed you.
I explained what I understand and showed why and the contradictions, but what about you? Won't you explain and leave the Bible as contradictory?
If you explain I will have no way to deny it. Come on, I will repeat again:
No one can see the face of God and survive. Exodus 33:20
John 1:18 says that no man has ever seen God.
Biblical accounts show us that a divine vision is not always something that is really happening, but it has a prophetic and didactic function many times. Therefore, it is plausible to believe that the text of Isaiah 6 has a deeper understanding of the scene in which Isaiah "sees" God on the throne. It should not be taken literally, in other words.
Now you are going to say that I do not accept what is in the scriptures, but before I say to you then, how are the texts that I showed above? John 1:18 mind? And exodus 33:20 also lie? Does the bible contradict itself? Explain to me please.
Rubens Caputo 26/05/2014
The word see has a much broader meaning.
G3708
ὁράω
horaō
hor-ah'-o
Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern clearly (physically or mentally); by extension to attend to; by Hebraism to experience; passively to appear: - behold, perceive, see, take heed.
means (clearly discerns), (physically or mentally).
So the term is not seeing, looking, it is knowing how to discern, understand, observe. So looking is one thing, understanding is another. No one can clearly understand God and survive. So it is possible to see a representative image of God. But in rationality, God doesn't need a nose to breathe, or anything. In other words, no person can understand God and live.
Elias souza 05/26/2014 I'm
satisfied there and I didn't have to answer in
Elias souza 05/26/2014
I'm kidding I don't know about you anymore, I like it in
Wander Souza N26 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, I agree with you.
For example, the term "saw" in Matthew 4:16: "the people who were seated in darkness saw [εἶδεν] a great light; and to those who were seated in the region and the shadow of death the light dawned." This does not mean that the people literally saw a "great light", but that they perceived, or spiritually discerned that light.
Isaiah did not "see" [εδεν - LXX] literally Yhwh because as shown by the contextual understanding this is something impossible, also from the point of view of seeing literally, because it covers not only "understanding" and "understanding", but also he "saw" in the sense of "discerning", of having understood spiritually. The Hebrew term for "vi" in Isaiah 6.1 is "ראה" (râ'âh), defined by Strong's as: "see,
And as you well put it, a representative image would not mean seeing God Himself. No one can fully understand and no one can see it either, because that was what happened in the case of Moses and his shining face, it was not just "understanding", in this case it is clear, because even afterwards those who saw Moses felt the effect of something that he had seen, not understood, that is, it was something visible even after what happened.
Rubens Caputo 26/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, what can be understood is that saying what is, and what is not in divine considerations, is speculation, so in practice there is no difference between calling God, YHWH, Lord, if as if you see it is very likely that you will always be the angel of the Lord. To say that the angel is God, or is not God would be something else that cannot be said, because the Bible defines God, and YHWH for the angel of the Lord. So one thing I discovered after studying it a lot. Whichever side you look for you will never have a fully satisfactory answer.
Elias souza 5/27/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I agree
Translate
Elias souza 5/27/2014
+ Rubens Caputo do you think Adam saw God
Rubens Caputo 5/27/2014
Let's say that there is a being that lives in the inaccessible light.
1Ti_6: 16 he who has immortality alone, and dwells in inaccessible light; whom none of the men has seen or can see; which is honor and everlasting power. Amen.
That one mentioned above Adam didn't see. But he saw God. Which is not the one quoted in 1 Timothy. But we cannot say that men have not seen God. Adam may have seen God, but not the one quoted in the verse. Now measure who the God is, and whether the God of the verse is the original God or not is complicated. Since God is love. So to analyze God for power is to analyze God in an inferior way. It is not the power that makes God, it is love. For a God without love in the end destroys himself. Therefore, the real power of God is love, not demonstration of power.
Wander Souza N27 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Rubens caupto, I like the way you think, at least it shows that you think for yourself. Congratulations. But let's admit, that way you get into philosophy a lot.
Rubens Caputo 27/05/2014
I don't get into philosophy. It is biblical logic.
1Co_13: 2 And even though he had the gift of prophecy, and knew all the mysteries and all the science, and even though he had all the faith, in such a way that he carried the mountains, and had no love, nothing would be.
And that is because we are only dealing with God, if we leave to analyze the Spirit, then things get extremely complicated. That's why I say that no one I know, or any church, has a right content on these topics.
Wander Souza N27 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, but when you think too much and start to go beyond the scriptures creating rules that do not exist to not impose limits on what we know, you are philosophizing.
The basic logic in Christianity is that everything there is to know about the biblical God has to be in the bible. If it is not there it is because it is not up to us. His name is there. The title is there. The qualities are there, love being the greatest of them, as you well pointed out. The name is even used to describe his qualities and explain his purpose and his actions, as I have shown above.
Rubens Caputo 27/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, see that YHWH means to exist, a generic term of existence. So Moses calls the Angel of the Lord YHWH, whatever it is, or God is worship. In the Hebrew case, name and state have a very similar system. As Abrãao the Father of many nations, or to describe God as Abba (father) be name, be description falls in the same.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo And if we are going to apply this rule that you are using in the name YHWH, about meaning, should each character in the Bible have their participation understood based on the meaning of his name?
For we know that every name has a meaning. It is not by chance that the name of YHWH is in the meaning of several of the biblical names.
So I repeat, for me what there is to understand about God is in the bible. God presents himself with a name. Everyone has a name, why wouldn't the creator alone have it? Now if his name is something that exists only because of or to explain his purpose, it is no longer possible to know. It is not by chance that there is a commandment that forbids the futile use of the name is there ?? If it is forbidden to use in a futile way, then it is because we must use it respectfully.
Rubens Caputo 05/28/2014
It is not so, because the term that is written name, refers to a landmark about the entity.
H8034
שׁם
shêm
shame
A primitive word (perhaps rather from H7760 through the idea of ​​definite and conspicuous position; compare H8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: - + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.
That is, where the name translation is read, any reference is marked. Anything that relates to being.
Which is totally rational. Jesus referred to Father, so if Jesus used this mark (memorial or individuality), he would be lightly breaking the commandment. So the reference (shêm) refers to anything that defines who you are calling.
Names with a magical relationship, this in the Gnostic lineage. Using YHWH along with a joke, or using God, Eternal, Most High God, are the same thing. Since the name is not a magic word.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo You are using a kind of argument where anything that is said, you will take a word and put it under a magnifying glass, analyze it and then with the wide range of meanings you will create an escape valve to not accept what is being said.
That way there will really be dozens of different understandings in everything we discuss. With this technique of yours I can create a brand new biblical doctrine with a few months of study and research.
Friend with all due respect, this is not how it works. We have to really research, we cannot accept everything we are told. I admire the fact that you are someone who seeks to know, and investigates, but we have to have common sense, not to exceed the limit.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, common sense is to use words as they are, not translations as they pass us. The bible is a compendium of terms and connections. Isolating a context and elevating it is a true philosophy. So if you stick to doctrines based on churches and isolate them as something beyond biblical normal, it is giving values ​​where they do not exist. When we talk about God, or YHWH, or whatever term it refers to or even a thought. When we read the scriptures it is notably important to understand that God is not a magical Harry Potter system, in which depending on what is said or done, something is achieved. God is a personal and rational entity. Defending something beyond what it is just by indoctrination is useless. Since YHWH defines (existing), "so you will say when asked", but that is not reserved for God,
Isa 9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and it will be his name. Emanuel.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo What I am saying is that you cannot always change the primary meaning of words. This is what you do. There is no biblical support for this, in the places where you use it. Maybe that's why even after watching your answers for some time, I was never able to understand what kind of belief you have, what God believes in, how many (?), Or if you are even an unbeliever, because you can't give a cohesive message make that clear.
And as I said before, the more you talk, the more you expose the type of argument I spoke about. That way anyone can analyze the bible, and change the meaning of key words to create their own doctrine. If that's how things work, then really understanding the Bible is not for everyone, or for everyone to understand the way they want. This way of understanding is also far from the simple message of love in the scriptures.
With this type of thinking, many divergent doctrines are introduced based on the Bible.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, then do the following show me where there is ambiguity of doctrine in my ideas.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I didn't say that, but I just said that until now I haven't been able to understand what you really believe. maybe because you don't want to make it clear, I don't know. It doesn't matter much.
I can't really show you anything, because as I said, I don't even know. I just know that you have a tactic to change the meaning of words, to discredit the belief of others, not to confront biblical texts to prove what you believe, so I don't know what you believe.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, what I believe is that there is a timeless creative entity. I studied several religions, and in the question of the trinity, or divinity, people are unable to get the correct answer. In the Bible it does not define, so when neither side has the correct answer, you are not in any team because there is no correct condition because the texts do not connect, there are several paths, and you cannot take one and leave the other. So most of the time my thinking on this subject is extremely complex. To get an idea, watch the video below, it talks about divinity but in a way that may seem favorable to yours, but know that the divisions of this analysis also favor + Elias souza, what you can't agree on is the between the two ideas, because neither is totally wrong but also not totally right,
10.155.3.1.9. Original truth
10.155.3.1.5. The logic
10.155.3.1.1. Truth in the physical-philosophical concept
3.15.1.1. Ways of thinking
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
Okay, I've seen it. So now I know that we will get nowhere even in this discussion. Even if it were otherwise, we would arrive.
So, I strengthen my assertion, everything there is to know about God for me is in the bible, and everything I believe I have been learning continuously there. I also believe that believing in what she really preaches is not a question of intelligence, nor of searching for philosophical, scientific or any kind of knowledge, because if it were God it would not be fair. He makes knowledge available to everyone, as long as you have the humility to receive it. The truth of the bible is simple. The problem is that councils, biased translations, superstitions, traditions and the human tendency to love the lie obscure this simple truth.
When Jesus was here he did not speak of trinities, nor of more in-depth knowledge, he made complex illustrations, but with simple elements.
In short, what I believe is that the truth is beyond the pages of the Bible in a simple way for anyone who wants to. Of course, we will always have to prove (research).
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, there is the basics of love, but there are things that need knowledge. I leave this text.
2Pe 3:15 and have the patience of our Lord for salvation; just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom that was given him;
2Pe 3:16 as he also does in all his epistles, talking about these things in them, but what are some points difficult to understand, which the unlearned and inconstant twist, as they do with the other Scriptures, to their own perdition.
So don't think that things don't connect to others. Hebrew writing is based on Phoenician. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is based on the Hamurabi code. And God chose such things for the people. So there is no point in turning a blind eye to things, they exist, and they are as they are, and God created them, for understanding.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, things connect to each other. What I believe, the doctrine that I have in mind is linked throughout the Bible, without leaving holes, and still comes out of it.
For example, the doctrine of the trinity came to be installed so easily because of the removal of God's name from the Bible. With an anonymous god it became easy to distort the personality of God and make him a multiple being.
As I said, the doctrine of the Bible is simple, otherwise it would not have been delivered into the hands of fishermen and many other simple people. The truth is not subjective, it is one. There is no point in twisting everything to try to create another truth, wider and more complex. The basic doctrine is traced from genesis to apocalypse, without leaving holes in this immense script. Going out of the way on purpose is your own personal decision and interpretation.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, there are doctrines that are easy but the doctrine of divinity is not. So there is divergence. The trinity appeared at the time of the disciples, as a line of thought. As the other side has always arisen, the Aryans sought to remove any concept that could present itself as Trinitarian and the Trinitarians the same. At the end of this, the distance between the concepts isolated the original idea. Even the original idea was misunderstood by the priests, but it was explained by Paul. Paul determines a non-Trinitarian system, but returns to divinalisation on an equal basis. So his statements have a connection with some Trinitarian ideas. The characteristic that God is a body, with one part of the body not prevailing over the other, focuses on an Trinitarian ideology. In none of the ideologies does it put someone above God, but it puts people in the same position as God. From this, one cannot reduce the positions, as it would annul the order of God, so to put someone in the idea of ​​inferior or superior to God, when they find themselves in God's position, is to go against God. Right when someone is God, he is God equally, with difference in action, since as the body is necessary equally, all points of the body have the same importance.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Friend, will you say that what you just did is not philosophizing? This cannot be logical, since you cannot study God directly, in the true sense of the word, to affirm everything you have just affirmed.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
Philosophy naturally known represents idealizing several ideas claiming that each of them is a truth.
Logic is the principle by which the rational being can rationalize.
The bible does not use standard philosophy, but it does use logic in all things.
Logic is based on documents and facts, standard philosophy uses thoughts and concepts.
general philosophy means phylum (line) knowledge (sofia). In other words, the love of knowledge is philosophy as an analysis of the word. But philosophy of the Greek line of thought focuses on the units and variations of thought.
In this case, I don't use philosophy as an explanation function, I use logic.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
I will use simple logic.
Be God A. Be Jesus B.
If the text says that B is:
Heb 1: 3 being the radiance of his glory and the express image of his Being, and sustaining all things by the word of his power, having done it himself the purification of sins, was seated at the right of the Majesty on high,
and being the correct translation of "expressed image" - "His subsistence", then
A = B
For if there is no B, then A ceases to exist, because B is "His subsistence".
If in a closed circuit a person is A and B is his heart, then A = B, so that A without B stops being A. Because if there is A + B the person is an A '= A + B.
Elias souza 05/28/2014
+ Wander Souza N good let me also participate in the debate, right, responding to your publications, come on, I don't think the texts by Marcos are added by John 8 that talks about the woman caught in adultery, or the text by 1joao5.7 but for you it is. well the first text of marcos is clearly proven in the book of acts, because what is not lacking there and miracles and demons being expelled is not so, so I do not need to have only the text of marcos to speak of signs and wonders o act text speaks for itself and if we take a look at the text of 1corintios1.7 it will say that the fluency of the gifts are there and there is no lack of gifts, all the spiritual gifts are there, read 1corintios 12, which will tell you what they are these gifts and in acts 2.39 you say so because the promise concerns you the voice, your children and all who are far away:
Now from the trinity we don't need to use only 1joao5.7 to prove the trinity
What the Bible says about the Trinity (2CO13.13) The Bible teaches that God consists of three divine persons: the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, each one entirely God, each showing fully the divine nature (LC3.21-22).
The father is the source of the trinity, the creator, the first. He is the first thought. The concept of everything that was and will be created. Jesus said "my father works so far, and I work too" Jo5.17. The son is the logos, or the expression of God - the father's only son and he himself is God. later on as GOD incarnate, he reveals his father to us Jo14.9. the son of God is both the agent of creation and the only redeemer of the human race. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity, proceeds from the father, and is worshiped and glorified together with the father and the son. He inspired the Scriptures, empowers the children of God and convinces the world of sin, justice and the judge. (John 16.8)
All three persons of the trinity are eternal. The father exists and has always existed. His expression always existed with him, the son The father always loved his son, and the son always served his father. From that love relationship, there is the Spirit of God, which is eternal and has always existed. The father did not exist first, then the son, nor even the spirit afterwards. The three existed even before anything could be created - three different people working as one. At the time of Jesus' baptism, all three persons of the trinity were present and active. The father spoke of the heavens, the Son was coloring all righteousness, and the Spirit of God came down like a dove and came upon him (Mt3.16-17).
The existence of the trinity is a mystery that one day we will understand clearly for now, we know that the Bible teaches, that it revealed this, and that the Christian church confessed and kept this precious truth from the beginning (1CO12.4-6., 2Co13.13., Ef4.4-6., 2Ts2.13-14).
As for what you said about slapping the face of the trinity because Jesus said that neither the son nor the angels only the Father knows, I want to tell you that the Bible says that no one knows the secrets of God but the Spirit of God and is a secret from God your Spirit surely knows
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo The text says that Jesus is the "expressed image", so if it is the image, it is not really, is it not? An image of a person reflected in the mirror does not become a person.
This is why Jesus said to Philip: "Whoever sees me sees the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'
John 14: 9
The apostle Paul wrote that all things are from God, including Jesus , so he did not advocate an equality between the two.
This is borne out by the words of John 5:26.
John 6:57
Colossians 1.15-17 speaks once more on the issue of image, and still makes a clear distinction between the creator and Jesus.
But it's no use, because you must have your own way of understanding the texts. Here it is not a matter of using the Bible, it is applying logic in a field where it is impossible for us to apply at the moment. the text is not enough for that, however much you think it is really being logical. You should watch that video you gave me, the last one about thinking.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza "the bible teaches that God consists of three divine persons" This is untrue. Where does the bible say that God consists of 3 people ??? I really would like to see that text.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza The fact that the gifts really existed does not serve as proof of the end of Mark's gospel. 1 John 5: 7 is known to be an insertion and is missing from many Bibles, but you will never give your arm to cheer because you defend your doctrine, right?
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, the Bible used is the translation João Ferreira de Almeida, which is linked to a foundation of the Vulgate. The point is that I do not accept to understand a word by the idea of ​​another person. So I analyze the word in its original form, in this case Greek.
G5481
χαρακτήρ
charaktēr
khar-ak-tar '
From the same as G5482; a graver (the tool or the person),
So Paul says that Christ is God Himself. So Jesus and God are one, if in John it shows that when Jesus walked the earth, God was on earth, it demonstrates what I calculated. A '= A + B. Note that it is unacceptable for Philip to speak to Christ, "no, you are not the Father". So A '= A + B, you cannot say that A is not A', nor can you say that B is not A '.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, to add an image is:
G1504
εἰκών
eikōn
i-kone '
and not
G5481
χαρακτήρ
charaktēr
khar-ak-tar'
That is why I do not read the translated Bible, because it writes an image for two words that has different meanings.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo As I said before, nothing to show will do any good, you created your own world, with your own understanding. If Paul said that Christ is God himself, then he had a problem, as he often separates God and Christ in the same sentence and said that Jesus comes from God.
Wow, note that Jesus did not say he was the father, but said "whoever sees me, sees the father". Remember the principle of the "expressed image", and the mirror reflecting, which I spoke about earlier. So it is unacceptable for Felipe to say, "No, you are not the Father", because it would be unnecessary since Christ did not claim to be the father. Apply this logic better friend.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I will show you how wrong your translation is. "Whoever sees me sees the Father", "expresses an image". Let us now analyze Jesus' image?
Isa_53: 2 For it grew as a growth before him, and as a root that comes out of a dry land; it had neither beauty nor beauty; and when we looked at him, we saw no beauty, that we might desire him.
Note that the term "express an image" cannot fall on Jesus.
G3708
ὁράω
horaō
hor-ah'-o
Properly to stare at (compare G3700), that is, (by implication) to discern clearly
The actual format is
"Who discerns me clearly (discerns clearly) the father".
What makes the conversation difficult is that you + Wander Souza N, are not knowing the Bible in its most original and less flawless content. And you are considering that your translation is better than the untranslated one.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo I don't need to go so deep to understand truths like this, the available translations may not be 100% faithful and reliable, but when analyzed and studied taking into account the general context, it is possible not to be misled.
Isaiah 53: 2 cannot be used in the same context in which Jesus is seen as an image of God in the New Testament. The texts clearly have different meanings. The bible says that we are made in the image of God and that is not why there is any "beauty and beauty in us".
Jesus was the father's image in that sense:
"The son cannot do anything at all" John 5:19
The idea is repeated: John: 517,30,36; 8: 28.29; 9: 4; 10: 25,32,37;
14: 10,11,31; 17: 4
Jesus said that not even the words he spoke were his own, but that of the father:
John 7: 16-18; 8: 28,29,38; 12: 49.50; 14: 24.31; 16:15
Whoever believes in the words of Jesus believes in the father:
John 13:16; John 5:37; john 14:26
That is why Jesus can be seen as the image of his father.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
Paulo differentiated the person of God from the person of Jesus Christ!
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God." - Romans 1: 1. “Paul, called by the will of God, to be an apostle of Jesus Christ ...” - 1 Corinthians 1: 1, 3. “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Philemon 1 and 3. “For there is only one God, and one Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, man.” I Timothy 2: 5
The Apostolic Church differentiated the Person of God from the Person of Jesus Christ!
“When they heard this, they unanimously raised their voices to God and said, Lord, you who made heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them; (...) they gathered in this city against your holy Servant Jesus, ... Acts 4: 24-30
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
Who was God for Jesus Christ?
“Jesus cried out: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46 “Jesus said to him: (...) but go to my brothers and tell them that I go up to my Father and your Father, my God and your God” John 20:17 “To whomever overcomes, I I will make it a pillar in the temple of my God, from which it will never come out; and I will write on it the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven, from my God, and also my new name. ” Revelation 3:12
Rubens Caputo 05/28/2014
+ Wander Souza N, Paulo also wrote that the Father said.
Heb 1: 8 But of the Son it says: Your throne, O God, remains for ever and ever, and a scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom.
Rom 9: 5 whose patriarchs are; and from him who descends Christ according to the flesh, who is above all things, God blessed forever. Amen.
Tit 2:13 awaiting the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus,
That is to say if we stay in this conversation + Wander Souza N, you will generate several texts against, I several in favor, and it would be just that. That's because your line is categorized by the fundamentals of the Aryan line. It is necessary to understand the Pauline-Hebrew vision to understand the union of the positions. Regarding translation changes I declare the problems.
Gal_3: 16 Now Abraham and his descendant were promised; he does not say: And to his descendants, as speaking of many, but as of one: And to your descendant, who is Christ.
In other words, the difference of an 's' can change the whole meaning of a prophecy.
Elias souza 05/28/2014
+ Wander Souza N truth and I cast out demons and speak in strange languages ​​and I am praying to God that he will give me the ability to interpret languages
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Yes, I agree, but no there is this Aryan line.
Arianism simply understands the bible more closely to the reality of the doctrines contained therein, and to the clear example they set, that God is one, that the servants of God treated Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, and not as God, that Jesus himself did his best to keep his distance from God and even from equality with God. Trinitarianism cannot be found in the bible. Fact.
That is why my post talks about confusion, and I reaffirm, trinity is really a confusion that cannot be explained by the Bible, much less by logic, but only by philosophical theories and a game of biblical texts.
So as we are going to stay in this for the rest of our lives, getting nowhere, I will dedicate myself to other posts and pending answers.
See you, and have a nice day.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
If Trinitarianism cannot be found in the Bible, neither can Unitarianism. Since if in a conversation there are texts to one side and the other, to say that there are three or to quote one when the bible defines several, describes that there is no knowledge about the idea of ​​divinization. What we have for sure is the existence of God but do not number his quantity, one or three.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo But where is the text for the Trinitarian side? Is there such a text by chance?
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I showed at least binitarianism, the possibility of there being 2 or more breaks unitarianism.
Wander Souza N28 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Ah yes, so my initial post is still valid. Hugs.
Rubens Caputo 28/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, your initial post determines a concept that is not difficult to understand. Person = head + trunk + limbs. When head is connected to trunk and limbs, head is a person. Any separate part is no longer a person. When a person speaks the other person says, you spoke to me, you do not say that your mouth spoke to me. So the mouth, the tongue and all the functions of speech are the person, even if he does not move his arms for this. So I go back to the logic I had previously written A '= A + B, But with more information it is possible that A' = A + B + C, or even that A '= A + B + C + ...... So used mathematical logic over biblical texts if you have a logical view of the situation.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo There is much more involved than what you mentioned. "While it is not, it is!" That's what the post says. This is never going to be understandable to us, with the material we have. And lastly, I also refer to biblical references, and the divergence of dozens of different views of the same doctrine on the part of churches that say they are all directed by the same spirit. It gives the word "confusion". Unless you want to change the sense of "confusion" as well.
Elias souza 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N Wander it is true the verses you put, but the ones we put is a lie like for example 1joao5.20 how to explain this text, AP who says he is the first and the last how to explain, another you say the Spirit holy is the strength of the father of a read in Galatians 4.6 says that it is the son, the father is the son or who?
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
+ Elias souza I will answer all of this, wait, it's in the other post, there is already a lot pending your friend.
I'm still responding to other people on other social networks as well. But tonight I start here.
Elias souza 05/29/2014
Blz
Translate
Rubens Caputo 05/29/2014
+ Wander Souza N, as it is, and it is not. Hand is hand, hand is not body, but when hand is connected to a living body, hand is body. That simple. Jesus is not a Father, and Father is not Jesus, but Father and God (el) and Jesus is God (el), Jesus and the Father united is God (elohim).
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Stayed the same. You will never be able to explain the trinity, nor the "binity" you are creating there, as there is no logic to that within the scriptures, and you claim to be a logical subject.
But I say again, that you need to watch those videos you gave me.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
How can it not be that the bible says that Jesus is God, and says that the Father is God? Why say that either is not God? I do not understand this?
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Ué, but aren't you the one who searches for the most varied meanings of words, who searches for fading, and only accepts the extreme meaning of the word "God" ?? lol Didn't I already demonstrate that "God" is not only applied to the creator ?? Jesus Himself explains this to you in John 10:34.
I repeat, review the videos you gave me, you need it.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
The video shows that truths come together at one point, all truths are part of the same truth, so the universal truth is the sum of all truths so that each truth is the universal truth. Lying alone is not part of the truth, and it is not true.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
So if "Jesus is the way to truth and life" he is also God, which makes the Bible linked text by text.
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Good, this remains your personal view of the biblical text. It is no different than following a church that misrepresents the Bible.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
The vision of the scripture is that the Father is God, and that Jesus is God. This is the view of the bible.
You asked me to look at the film I made, and I did, and I used it because you spoke + Wander Souza N, but I have already said that the Bible quotes the Father and the Son God. So much so that the Father says that the son is God.
And in Timothy it says "our great God and Savior Christ Jesus". So only those who do not know how to read do not understand.
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo What is interesting is that when it suits you you analyze texts in depth, but when you don't deliver them as they appear in any translation, the text is doubtful, as it has several different translations, based on distinct arguments. You should watch the video itself.
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo The text you quote is Titus 2:13. Some argue that Titus 2:13 indicates that Christ is both God and Savior. It is interesting to note that many translations pour out Titus 2:13 in such a way that it can be interpreted as giving rise to this concept, but they do not follow the same rule in the translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:12. Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament, says: “I would suggest that [a translation that clearly differentiates God and Christ in Titus 2:13] meets all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that this is both structurally and contextually more likely and is more according to the Apostle's way of writing. ” - (Boston, USA, 1877), Vol. III, p. 421.
This is very clear, the apostle Paul always makes a separation between God and Christ. Now if I accept what has been decided in councils (like the deity of Christ), of course I will turn a blind eye to it.
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo And as I already got tired of saying, the text would prove nothing, because the word "god" is a title that is not exclusive to YHWH and Jesus in the scriptures.
But the sovereign God of the universe, to whom everyone owes obedience, including Jesus, there is only one, YHWH. It is the bible that says.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, what are the different translations?
Heb 1: 8 προςG4314 PREP δεG1161 CONJ τονG3588 T-ASM υιονG5207 N-ASM οG3588 T-NSM θρονοςG2362 N-NSM σουG4771 P-2GS οG3588 T-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονM3588 T-AS | [of G3588 T-GSM Century] G165 N-GSM | of G3588 T-GSM Century G165 N-GSM | and G2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF rod G4464 N-NSF of G3588 T-GSF straightness G2118 N-GSF rod G4464 N-NSF of G3588 T-GSF kingdom G932 N-GSF | of G846 P-GSM σουG4771 P-2GS |
It is the same as your version, but in some cases there is a change from what Jesus says to Deus. Somente as variacorres ocorrem, em (eterno, perpetualmente, sem fim), não there is variation on "Teu trono ó Deus",
Heb 1: 8 and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign;
In Tito temos
Titus salvageG4990 N-GSM imGG7373 P-1GP | of Christ G5547 N-GSM Jesus G2424 N-GSM | ιησουG2424 N-GSM χριστουG5547 N-GSM |
A variation found in [iesous crist] or [iesous]
Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
Agora eu não vou criar um probleme wand eu não acho documents confizive para dizer that I have a problem. A document containing vocabulary outside the inventory vocabulary.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, I already showed that YHWH works with a title too. In the analysis of the angel of the Lord.
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo No, because I showed that the year is a messenger, a spokesman. But you ignore this principle on purpose, and it is for these and other reasons that I have recommended you to watch the video itself.
You are a very intelligent person, I refuse to believe that you do not know the difference between a personal name and a title.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
+ Wander Souza N, what you call by name, is the modern nominal construction. Which is not old. In the old one we have. Joshua - Yehoshua - God saves - represents that Joshua is in the title of savior in the name of God. Abrãao - Father of many nations - the person has the title of father of many nations.
Israel - title rules like God.
Title and name make no difference in the old languages.
Isa_9: 6 Because a boy was born to us, a son gave himself to us; and the government will be on your shoulders; and his name will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
The title is the name.
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo According to the Hebrew Bible, based on the original texts, this Bible verse is recorded as follows:
“For a child was born among us, a child was given to us. And on your shoulders will be the authority; therefore, the wonderful Counselor, Almighty God and Eternal Father, called him Prince of Peace. ” Isaiah 9: 6.
As the text is quite explanatory, there is no need to comment on it.
Rubens Caputo 29/05/2014
I don't see any of this in reading.
Isa 9: 6 (9: 5) כי H3588 ילד H3206 ילד H3205 לנו בן H1121 נתן H5414 לנו ותהי H1961 המשׂרה H4951 על H5921 שׁכמו H7926 ויקרא H7121 שׁמו H8034 פלא H6382 יועץ H3289 אל H410 גבור H1368 אביעד H5703 שׂר H8269 שׁלום: H7965
I see no nicknamed it, where is this word
Translate
Rubens Caputo 05.29.2014
This idea that you put forward is merely an invention. It does not exist in the original text. One thing I don't really accept, people who invent a text from the Bible that doesn't exist. Why deceive a lot of people who do not know how to read the original.
Literal translation:
Isa 9: 6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace .
Wander Souza N / 05/2014
+ Rubens Caputo Ah, ok, because you decided that. The Hebrew Bible is wrong and you are correct.
Let's take a closer look ...
That Isaiah 9: 6 was misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is not called “Eternal Father” anywhere else in the Bible. Since Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should not “confuse People or divide Substance” (Atanasian Creed), how do Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? The ton of titles dropped at one time about Jesus in the text of Isaiah, by itself, is already suspect.
It is interesting to note that the Christian Translation gives the boy the title of: Wonderful, Counselor, Strong God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace and even puts the verbs in the future.
In Hebrew, this does not exist, since Marvelous, Counselor, strong God and eternal Father is the very God who gives the boy the title of Prince of Peace.
This corroborates the biblical truth that Jesus is the son of God, who will exercise a reign given to him by the Father, in which there will be peace forever and ever.
Now as I said before, you are very cautious in selecting what you will accept or not, even if the facts are against you. 3.15.1.1. Ways of thinking
Wander Souza N29 / 05/2014
Ah, and "nicknamed him" is a translator's idiom.
See that in other translations it is poured like this:
"Because a child was born to us, a son was given to us, and the authority is on his shoulders, and the Wonderful Counselor, the almighty God, the eternal Father called his name: The prince of Peace. "
The meaning remains the same, God the eternal father calls his son, as "prince of peace", which makes perfect sense. Wouldn't it make sense ????






Norway

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!


Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

Tags

divinity, debate, study, analysis