Reject The Rebellion
Frank
It makes no difference
what church you belong to,
what religious experiences you have,
or what spiritual efforts you are making,
unless you place all of your trust
in the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation,
you will not be saved.
The rebellion against the gospel
is now rampant and widespread,
and deceiving and insidious,
and in high places.
The Lord clearly showed
the Scriptural way of salvation
thru the Protestant Reformers,
and many who profess to be Christian
are ignoring or altering or opposing it.
The Scriptures foretold the rebellion
that would occur just before
the return of Christ,
not just a loss of understanding
such as was during the dark ages,
but a refusal to believe the truth declared.
--
http://roines.home.mindspring.com
GOD aka Jaguar and sometime's referred to as THE HOLY SPIRIT
Randy
in article
<ykmmh.6404$yx6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Frank" <roi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Amen. And faith is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man
should boast.
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Mark T
> "Frank" <gr...@mindsprung.com> wrote:
>
>>The rebellion
>>is now rampant and widespread,
>>such as was during the dark ages,
>
> Amen.
Amen!
The rebellion against using one's God given mind is now rampant and
widespread such as was during the dark ages.
The Fundamentalist Dark Age reigns!
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe." - Mark 17:1
"Really! Try to believe even if it's bloody stupid and irrational." - Mark
17:2
"Why? Because I said so, that's why! Don't ask questions. Just
believe." - Mark 17:3
Mordecai!
Mark T wrote:
Oh come on Mark - surely you believe the revised and perfect interpretation of
salvation, which moved away for the official church definition of the time, but
the protestants got it right and this can be proved because when they rewrote
the bible ... sorry, the reinterpreted the bible to get it to say different
things ... this was proved to be correct by signs and wonders?
Walking on the water, portents in the heaven? water to wine? raising the dead?
All of the above?
I wonder - perhaps this rewriting ... sorry reinterpreting the bible has to do
with the fact that christianity is supposed to "have a form of G_dliness but
lack the power thereof."
With perfect faith - you are to listen to the words of G_d as interpreted by
men, and do as men say. Park your brain by the door - listen with your ears and
put your mouth onto autorepeat ... and say praise the L_rd!
Come on now PRAAAISSSE THEE LOOOORRRRDDD!
Excellent.
You heard or the Jew who went into a restaurant with his gentile friends and
they served him pork?
He took the glass of water, sprinkled a little on the pork and pronounce "I
baptize you kosher beef" and proceeded to eat with relish!
With one praise the L_rd ... I baptize you a true christian.
Easy fixed.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
James Hajicek
Christ is our righteousness. It makes no difference what
church you belong to, what religious experiences you have,
or what spiritual efforts you are making, unless you place
all of your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for your
salvation, you will not be saved.
The Bible is quite plain that we will be judged by our "deeds" or
"works":
Matthew 16:27
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man
according to his works.
Matthew 25:31-33,41-43,46
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth
his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the
goats on the left.
...
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand,
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared
for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye
clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
...
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but
the righteous into life eternal.
2 Corinthians 5:10
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of
Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his
body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or
bad.
Revelation 2:23
23 ... and I will give unto every one of you according to
your works.
Revelation 20:12-13
12 ... and the dead were judged out of those things which
were written in the books, according to their works.
13 ... and they were judged every man according to their
works.
Satan's gospel of "salvation by faith alone" is a continuation of his
efforts in the garden of Eden to trick people into disobeying God:
Serpent in Eden: If you eat of the forbidden fruit, you
will not surely die. You can eat of the
tree of life and live forever.
False Preachers: If you break the Ten Commandments, you
will not surely die. The law is ended.
You can be saved by faith alone.
Do not believe those lies.
The casting of Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden is an allegory
for the casting of willful sinners out of the kingdom of God.
- James
singin4free
I hope the outward action performed by the baptizer was symbolic of a
true inner change wrought in the pork by it's faith. I also hope the
relish was kosher. ;).
Mordecai!
singin4free wrote:
> I hope the outward action performed by the baptizer was symbolic of a
> true inner change wrought in the pork by it's faith. I also hope the
> relish was kosher. ;).
Hmm? the kosher beef was quite amenable to the arrangement to the delight of all
concerned.
Eric Fisher
(GOD aka Jaguar and sometime's referred to as THE HOLY SPIRIT)
<><><>
lol... so you don't believe folks are straying from the truth?
Eric Fisher
The Bible is quite plain that we will be judged by our "deeds" or
"works":
<><><>><
are you assuming someone disagrees with that. faith and works are not
mutually exclusive, but complimentay. in fact, most folks that say what
you think you are combatting, would often be the fist to say what you
said above also.
Mark T
... which reminds me .....
Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
[YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me on
that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
`I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
> You heard or the Jew who went into a restaurant with his gentile friends
> and
> they served him pork?
> He took the glass of water, sprinkled a little on the pork and pronounce
> "I
> baptize you kosher beef" and proceeded to eat with relish!
I luv it! :-)
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Frank
Peace, Frank
"Randy" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ev2kp25i7tcuckq8g...@pulpitfire.org...
Mordecai!
Mark T wrote:
Do you know that we talk about the giving of the law - and the story goes that
the master of the universe went to one people and when they got to "they shalt
not steal - one group said no. When they talked about adultery, another nation
said no and so on down the list. Each nation rejected the law because they
wished to continue to do one or more of their (evil) actions. Until it came to
us Jews and we said we will do it all.
And JC - commenting on this - declared that there were two sons ...one who said
" we will do all that he has said ..." but they did not do it. Another son said
"no ..." but later reconsidered and did as commanded. And JC asked "which does
the will of the father?
Now this presupposes the will of the father is to do as he has said ... i.e. to
obey his commands.
Or to do the entire law ...
If this was spoken against Israel - then the son who is accepted is the one who
actually does all the laws.
You have one of many verses which show that the current ideas about salvation
are incorrect. You have other ideas which shows their G_d is not the one of the
bible. And now you have ideas which says the goals and paths of christianity are
not what the most high desires.
Did I not tell you - having a form of G_dliness but lacking the power thereof?
>
> > You heard or the Jew who went into a restaurant with his gentile friends
> > and
> > they served him pork?
> > He took the glass of water, sprinkled a little on the pork and pronounce
> > "I
> > baptize you kosher beef" and proceeded to eat with relish!
>
> I luv it! :-)
>
> --
> My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
> http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
>
> My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
> http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
--
Mark T
>> Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
>> enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
>> [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many >> will say to
>> me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and >> in
>> your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell
>> them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
>
> Do you know that we talk about the giving of the law - and the story goes
> that
> the master of the universe went to one people and when they got to "they
> shalt
> not steal - one group said no. When they talked about adultery, another
> nation
> said no and so on down the list. Each nation rejected the law because they
> wished to continue to do one or more of their (evil) actions. Until it
> came to
> us Jews and we said we will do it all.
>
> And JC - commenting on this - declared that there were two sons ...one who
> said
> " we will do all that he has said ..." but they did not do it. Another son
> said
> "no ..." but later reconsidered and did as commanded. And JC asked "which
> does the will of the father?
This I see as central to one's relationship with God. It is to do the
Father's will. If one loves the Father then it is supposed that one will do
his will (and hopefully that is true). What is the will of the Father for a
Gentile like me???? This is what I grapple with on a daily basis. The
answer does not appear that easy for me to find out. Acts 10:34ff.: "truly I
perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears
him and does what is right is acceptable to him." This is true. I think the
"fear" is more the awe of God than being afraid of God. I have learnt more
about God through Jews who have spoken to me than any Christian. (A visit
to the Sydney Jewish Museum also challenged me ... particularly the
volunteer guides, some of whom had survived the Holocaust yet displayed a
wisdom and faith greater than I have seen in any Christian.) I have also
found that the Noachide laws are helpful and have enjoyed reading the Jewish
Bible (Tanach) which gives a better insight than many Christian translations
of the OT. And yet I find Jesus' notion of God's grace and love more
acceptable than either that of contemporary Christian evangelicalsism or of
Judaism.
> Now this presupposes the will of the father is to do as he has said ...
> i.e. to
> obey his commands.
> Or to do the entire law ...
> If this was spoken against Israel - then the son who is accepted is the
> one who
> actually does all the laws.
I do not think that I am ever capable of following the whole law ... maybe
not even all (any of?) the Noachide laws completely. There must be some
grace for those who fail.
> You have one of many verses which show that the current ideas about
> salvation
> are incorrect.
What I believe is .... "I (YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S MESSIAH), even I ( NOT
YAHWEH'S MESSIAH), am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own
sake, and remembers your sins no more. " - Isaiah 43:25
> You have other ideas which shows their G_d is not the one of the
> bible. And now you have ideas which says the goals and paths of
> christianity are
> not what the most high desires.
And yet I find that maybe Jesus' summary of the law in love of God and one's
neighbour is perhaps a good principle for a Gentile .. and I think that
maybe Jesus is anointed of the Father and therefore is the Messiah (though
not what was expected by Jews for the Messiah). At the same time I cannot
ever again believe that Jesus of Nazareth could be in any way God. God is
greater than his Messiah or any human.
> Did I not tell you - having a form of G_dliness but lacking the power
> thereof?
Yep. I value your thoughts. You always make me think in wider places.
"I still haven't found what I'm looking for." - U2
Mordecai!
Mark T wrote:
Try reading the passage on love from the POV of the law. If you keep the law of
... say charity ... to this point of total dedication and have not love ... then
...
My own reading of paul was not that he was against the law ... for example he
wrote "I repeatedly preach I that I am not against the law" which implied that
even within his own congregation that some people could not grasp the concept
...
My reading is the "correct" way to do the law was to love others and the laws
were the teaching on how to love ... and if you confused the practical (the "how
to") with the desire "to love" then you failed. Love is the goal, the law is the
practical work. If you love, you will not be a thief. But if you are not a
thief, this does not imply that you love. If you fail to do the law - then the
law shows you that you lack love. however keeping the law does not give you
love.
If you think that keeping the law is the goal - you have lost the whole idea ...
blah blah blah blah blah.
Once you have this down pat ... you can read paul with equanimity. And can say
he was NOT against the law ... btu he would have been pissed off with the
gentiles who thought converting so that they would do all the law was something
good. The issue was not converting ... but rather the blankity blank ignorant
blankity blank idiots who think that by converting they got something 'extra"
the blankity blank fools!
Sigh ... sorry - always preaching.
The issue was not keeping or rejecting the law but acting in love. The law
teaches (schoolmaster) on how to behave. But what is wanted is not training on
how to behave (still important but not essential) but living in love which can
be the outcome of the law.
As a theory, this is ...
a) self consistent to the NT ...
b) resolving the inherent seeming conflict in the life of paul if he was against
the law as the christians proclaim.
c) resolving the issues of JC and his preaching on the law which is also in
violent contrast to "the law is dead" stand of christianity.
d) resolving most of the attacks on Paul by other posters who see paul in a
negative way. They also presume he was against the law and as such, a hypocrite
and inconsistent.
e) explain how the evil ones would come and pervert his teachings ... and why
others say he was hard to understand.
If you want a summation of paul and the law - keeping the laws does not give
love, failure to do the law proves you do not love, love is the outcome you are
to achieve.
ergo he was not against the law but the law was incomplete ... the missing
part was love. And love is what he preached.
--
Linda Lee
Mordacai,
You have obviously not read ALL of Paul. Yes, he preached love and then
preached threats and warnings for people to obey him who had the rule
over them. Someone who delivers people to Satan for the destruction of
the flesh to save the spirit has a very unusual idea of salvation and
does not have love. Paul said that with his mind he followed the law,
but with the body he performed the "law of sin" and could not do the
good that he knew he should do. The Messiah said those who followed him
did not walk in the darkness, in sin, but walked in the light and could
not sin. This is not Paul. Paul claimed he was not against the law -
sometimes - and other times he said "all things are lawful unto me".
He is a false unstable contradictory threatening 'prophet'. It's odd
that you reject the Messiah but accept the self-appointed head of the
Christian church - Paul
Mordecai!
Linda Lee wrote:
I repeat the statement I made - IF this is the attitude of paul ... which is an IF
statement, then ALL these objections and many more are resolved.
I could continue as to my ideas of what paul preached - and also what the NT teaches
but that is not my intention at all.
I do not believe in the current christian ideas on salvation - nor do I believe the
current christian churches ideas as to its G_d, and nor do I believe the current
christian churches ideas on the law, nor on the goals and purposes of Christianity ...
let us consider the man who willingly embraces the salvation of JC and then the cares
of the world come and because it has no roots, the fruit dies because it is on stony
ground. Who's idea was this? Paul? no JC. Is this "love?" no it is not. It disagrees
with some of the statements of JC about "none being removed from his hand."
How about the idea that G_d could cause his son to be killed on the cross? is that
love by his father? or the idea that JC was perfected in his sufferings ...
Sigh ... I am not giving all the answers - I am only giving my own ideas and others
can read and think.
My ideas clash with your assumptions as to a loving G_d. or in specific - what
"loving" means.
My ideas of the love of G_d? well actually it was summed up in a single sentence from
one old science fiction book ... which I will recommend to give you the context.
The book was called "the dosadi experiment" by frank herbert .... the line "Focus:
Loving parents can thrust their child into deadly peril when they know everything
possible has been done to prepare that child for survival."
Loving parents do not feather bed their children but empower them to grow up! There is
responsibility and accountability in a life where there is neither fairness nor
morality - we are to impose those on our world. That is our duty as humans. The idea
that christianity is a cop out of living in the real world is not my ideas on the NT
at all ... again despite the christian teachings on this score.
Ah - have I again challenged our existing assumptions? I see I have. Sorry - but
another line from the same book comes to mind ... "This was a gift with barbs in it,
something loving parents might give their child in the knowledge that it was time for
this lesson."
Life demands and forces change on people. I rejected far more than Paul, I rejected
the christian church as utterly irreconcilable to the NT. Far more deeply and
thoroughly and completely than you - and it STILL has so damaged my viewpoint that I
STILL cannot see clearly. Neither judaism nor the NT ...
Let me speak once more - there is no contradiction between Paul and the NT that I can
find if he has this assumption of mine. But then I have so many other assumptions as
to what is in the NT that this is moot. You will find many contradictions between what
paul says and the NT ...according to your current reading of it. My answer was to
change the reading of the NT ... not "just" the reading of Paul.
Mark T
> If you want a summation of paul and the law - keeping the laws does not
> give
> love, failure to do the law proves you do not love, love is the outcome
> you are
> to achieve.
It makes sense. Thanks.
Mark T
> How about the idea that G_d could cause his son to be killed on the cross?
> is that
> love by his father?
IF Jesus is God
THEN
God 1 sends God 2 to die so that God 1 is pleased by God 2's death.
Why would God advocate human sacrifice?
Has no-one learnt from Abraham?
Or Isaiah and Micah?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isaiah 1
11 "The multitude of your sacrifices-
what are they to me?" says the LORD.
"I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations-
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.
14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;
16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
18 "Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
". And what has the Lord required of you? To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly before your God." (Micah 6:8, NIV)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Story of Isaac" - Leonard Cohen
...
You who build these altars now
To sacrifice these children,
You must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
And you never have been tempted
By a demon or a god.
You who stand above them now,
Your hatchets blunt and bloody,
You were not there before,
When I lay upon a mountain
And my fathers hand was trembling
With the beauty of the word.
...
gatekeeper
Mordecai, I have found reading your post very interesting.
I would like to suggest to you something for your consideration.
Mark T has suggested that Love is the highest expression of the Law,
and I would have to agree with him regarding this. As you both have
pointed out, that is the problem, we can't keep the Law to a
satisfactory degree. So I believe that is why Paul also pointed out the
weakness of the Law. It is not that the Law is bad, or somehow weak,
but it is our ability to obey the Law where we all fail. One Purpose
of the Law was to point out our weakness! So the solution is not in
keeping the Law! Neither does this mean that we throw the Law out, but
that we recognize the deficiencies of the Law! This is what leads to
the ambiquity of Pauls position on the Law! He did not despise the
Law, and throw it out, but neither did he embrace it, that we should
expect to keep the Law! How many times have I prayed, "Oh wretched man
that I am, " as it appears both of you have prayed as well.
For the Solution, I look at the High Priestly prayer of Jesus, where He
prayed that we would know the Father as He Knew the Father, that we
would be one with the Father as He is one with the Father! Now it is
not that Love is not important, for God is Love! We cannot know Him
without Loving Him, however the highest calling is to know God! To be
able to refer to God as our Friend, that sticks closer than a Brother!
To be able to say Abba! And Know that He is with us, even close at
hand! That He never will leave us! That we will never be alone! That
is true Love.
To know God, is to Love God, and to know we are loved by God. We love
because He first loved us! All that He has done, is so that we could
know Him! Now I am not saying that we know "about" God, for there are
many that claim to know about God! That is what religion is all about.
But we are called to actually know God, and this would affect
everything we say and do! If we say we Love God, but then do not act
like we really know God, then our Love is superficial at best! It was
said of Abraham, that he was a friend of God, that he knew God! That is
why he believed God, and did the works of Faith. His obediance is
based on his knowing God! It was the natural outgrowth of his
friendship with God! He did not walk around saying to himself, I have
to be faithful, that I have to obey God. But he nevertheless was
faithful unto obediance because he knew God!
This is what we find so often in many churches that say they Love God,
but then when you speak to them about God, it seems that He is a
distant relative and not a close friend! When we consider Adam and Eve,
we need to see that sin separated them from the fellowship they had
with God in the Garden. That fellowship of knowing as we are known, is
when that which is perfect has come again, and we will walk with God
again in sweet fellowship of knowing Him. We may say, that we Love God,
but then we keep Him at a distance. Even saying we Love Him, can be
used to hold Him at arms length of making the statement that we Love
Him, but yet we do not trully embrace Him!
And Yet like Abraham, we are always to be getting to know Him more and
more, not that we have acheived that for which we have only begun to
see the seeds fall in good soil! Abraham was already an old man who had
learned to walk with God as a friend over the course of a long life,
when he was called a friend of God! We live in the instant oatmeal
generation, that thinks we kneel at an alter, have our sins forgiven,
accept Jesus, and are born again! And from then on it is smooth
sailing, failing to realize that is just the starting point, of a
process of getting to know Him. A process that will take the rest of
eternity! Yet each day we can get to know Him more and more as a
Friend! Having our sins forgiven, and put aside, is like clearing the
rubble on a building project! Now we are ready to start building the
friendship with God!
Let me know what you hear me saying.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in Residence! Whosoever will, may
come in!
Gatekeeper
Mordecai!
Mark T wrote:
> "Mordecai!" wrote:
>
> > How about the idea that G_d could cause his son to be killed on the cross?
> > is that
> > love by his father?
>
> IF Jesus is God
> THEN
> God 1 sends God 2 to die so that God 1 is pleased by God 2's death.
>
> Why would God advocate human sacrifice?
>
> Has no-one learnt from Abraham?
>
> Or Isaiah and Micah?
You know I do not believe in trinity. It is ... incompatible to the NT.
I know, I tested it.
--
Mordecai!
gatekeeper wrote:
I never accepted that - nor did JC.
For example, he stated that the answer to what a man is required to do to get salvation was
"here is the law, go and do it."
Or his argument that he was not come to do away with the law, but rather fulfil it. and he
further stated that the time of doing away with the law was at the end of all time ...
And he reinforced it with a most curious three way comparison ... the man who discarded the
least of the laws and taught likewise ... with the outcome he was called least in the
kingdom of heaven ..
The man who did all the laws and taught the same was called great in the kingdom of heaven.
And the pharisees (who in another place said they did the law perfectly but with an attitude
that they already had their reward) would not even get into heaven.
It is well worth a study - this curious passage. It reinforces the strange answer - not
doing the law is unacceptable, but doing the law does not make one in right standing with
the most high! There is a third way ... something more than just 'doing the laws"
So JC declared you could keep all the law - and should keep all the laws. But he wanted this
something more ...
As everything else you wrote was predicated on this assumption - and I reject the
assumption, then I cannot give credence to the rest of your argument.
Sorry. Try rebuilding your argument without this false assumption ...
--
gatekeeper
Are you referring to where the young man ask what must he do to be
saved, and Jesus spoke to him about keeping the Law, in order to have
eternal life? I do not see this as being a comprehensive statement by
Jesus, as to how in reality we gain eternal life, since in other
passages, we can understand there are additional salvations clauses
required to be met. Also the concept of being able to keep the law is
definitely modified and clarified that we in fact cannot keep the Law
in order to be saved. So we are left to understand that the answer
Jesus made to the young man, was to put in the man's mind, that he
could not actually keep all the law as he boasted he had, because at
the end the young man went out upset that Jesus had told him to sell
all his possessions and give the money away. The young man obviously
chose not to go and do it! Even so I expect that most today who
advocate keeping the Law inorder to gain eternal life, would not be
able to comply with this request by Jesus either! The thought that
this is what keeping the Law is about, is just as unacceptable today as
ever, by those who are prepared to boast in their keeping the Law!
> Or his argument that he was not come to do away with the law, but rather fulfil it. and he
> further stated that the time of doing away with the law was at the end of all time ...
It is said of Jesus, that He did fulfill the Law, and that Heaven and
Earth passed away with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, is
indicated, when the daily sacrifices definitely ceased. This would
have spelled the fulfillment of the other laws as well, unless of
course you advocate reinstating the animal sacrifices, in order to be
consistent.
> And he reinforced it with a most curious three way comparison ... the man who discarded the
> least of the laws and taught likewise ... with the outcome he was called least in the
> kingdom of heaven ..
> The man who did all the laws and taught the same was called great in the kingdom of heaven.
> And the pharisees (who in another place said they did the law perfectly but with an attitude
> that they already had their reward) would not even get into heaven.
And yet the point of the previous discussion about Love is that he who
Loves does infact keep the Law! Even if a person does not know the
Law, but keeps it anyway by acting in Love, first by believing in
Jesus, which is the first work of the Law, to Love Him who the Father
sent! However it is not the keeping of the Law that saves a person, but
the Faith that believes unto Salvation!
>
> It is well worth a study - this curious passage. It reinforces the strange answer - not
> doing the law is unacceptable, but doing the law does not make one in right standing with
> the most high! There is a third way ... something more than just 'doing the laws"
>
> So JC declared you could keep all the law - and should keep all the laws. But he wanted this
> something more ...
Yes, He wanted us to Know Him, and to Know the Father, that was His
Prayer! Not that we would keep the Law, because He Knew that if we
Knew Him, we would Love Him, and by so doing, we would be keeping the
Law! But His emphasis is on Knowing Him. He also knows, that if it was
a matter of keeping the Law, we would be as that young man that boasted
that He kept the Law, but then when pushed to the limits, you find that
there was no love of God in him. For as he was in the presence of God
the Messiah, he did not recognize Him, but went out from Him, with no
Joy of His presence! Would we be any better, I doubt it!
>
> As everything else you wrote was predicated on this assumption - and I reject the
> assumption, then I cannot give credence to the rest of your argument.
> Sorry. Try rebuilding your argument without this false assumption ...
I do not agree that this is a false assumption, and so I stand by what
I have previously written to you.
"Believe actions", and that is why true religion, is to give to the
poor and widows, who can never repay you! You say you believe actions,
so do your actions amount to true religion, or just writing here? Our
actions, come from knowing Him, our inaction from only knowing about
Him!
Mordecai!
gatekeeper wrote:
> >
> > I never accepted that - nor did JC.
> > For example, he stated that the answer to what a man is required to do to get salvation was
> > "here is the law, go and do it."
>
> Are you referring to where the young man ask what must he do to be
> saved, and Jesus spoke to him about keeping the Law, in order to have
> eternal life? I do not see this as being a comprehensive statement by
> Jesus, as to how in reality we gain eternal life, since in other
> passages, we can understand there are additional salvations clauses
> required to be met. Also the concept of being able to keep the law is
> definitely modified and clarified that we in fact cannot keep the Law
> in order to be saved. So we are left to understand that the answer
> Jesus made to the young man, was to put in the man's mind, that he
> could not actually keep all the law as he boasted he had, because at
> the end the young man went out upset that Jesus had told him to sell
> all his possessions and give the money away. The young man obviously
> chose not to go and do it! Even so I expect that most today who
> advocate keeping the Law inorder to gain eternal life, would not be
> able to comply with this request by Jesus either! The thought that
> this is what keeping the Law is about, is just as unacceptable today as
> ever, by those who are prepared to boast in their keeping the Law!
Summation - you know that when JC said "here is the law, go and do it" he did not mean it because
you cannot do the law.
When he said yet there is one thing more you lack - he did not imply that he had fulfilled the
first criteria but there was more, no it means that because he had not filled the second criteria,
he had not filled the first criteria.
You proved this because he had not fulfilled the law because he had not given away all he had and
followed - which IS NOT PART OF THE LAW.
IOW - you have an assumption - and his words are in contradiction to your assumption - so then the
answer is he did not mean the words he spoke!
Sigh ...
Now - as for salvation - I have a question for you - was JtB saved?
psalmsmith
I'm not GK, but I'll answer this;
of course JtB was saved. Salvation is a condition of heart that is
evidenced by a genuine desire to obey God. I do not mean "Obey self and
say that you are obeying God" I mean obey GOD. And that is an important
distinction.
And keeping the law is part and parcel with that desire to obey God.
Now, because the Messiah came, and we have this witness of truth abiding
within us, it becomes possible to Gentiles to obey the law, when they do
not even know what law is! Paul spoke to this when he said, "Even the
Gentiles, who have not the law, when they do the works of the law, they
are a law unto themselves, showing the works of the law within them."
The difference is that under our new High Priest (unlike Aaron and Levi)
our relationship to the law is different, although our need to obey it is
not diminished. Today, under Messiah, the law is internalized (ie -
written on the heart, as per Jeremiah) and so it was explained: "If you
look at a woman to lust after her, then you have already committed
adultery in your heart" and "If you hold hatred in your heart for your
fellow man, then you have already committed murder in your heart."
This is the same condition of heart that registered salvation before
Messiah came to show the fulness of the way. David expressed a genuine
and sincere desire to obey God, and even though he has transgressed the
law, it was the condition of his heart that brought him to an eternity
with God. As it says in Hebrews, "Abraham believed, and his faith was
counted for righteousness."
Today, the law is revealed in the heart that is given to God, whether the
person actually knows the law or not. Do not muzzle the ox which treads
the grain - pay your employees a fair wage, and if someone does something
for you, do not fail to return to him his due. Do not harvest the
corners of your field, it is for the poor - leave such a portion of your
wealth and increase from out of your personal coffers so that you can
take mercy and kindness upon the destitute and help them.
By KNOWING the law, by IMMERSING yourself in the law, such obedience is
perfected. I do not mean we will ever be truly perfect this side of the
glorification, but rather that working from such a foundation of
knowledge and understanding we will be better equipprd to perform the
will of God in every situation.
Mordecai!
psalmsmith wrote:
There is no of course about it ... for JC declared that the least in the
kingdom of heaven was greater than him.
Not only is this a comparison - those in the kingdom of heaven and those
outside .. (for it declares that JtB was the greatest of men so it is a
comparison of the greatest of men to the least in the kingdom of heaven) but
it is further reinforced by the fact that in the kingdom of heaven, there is
a "least who is not JtB" ... and "this least is greater than JtB" ... so JtB
cannot be in the kingdom of heaven.
Lots of people are really quick to tell me all about salvation ...
But I doubt their concepts have much to do with reality ... and they
certainly are inadequate to describe the NT.
So instead of telling me what salvation is and why he fits - please explain
why JC declared he was not part of the kingdom of heaven.
Clipped the rest - I was speaking on one point and one point only ...
clipping is that the rest is merely things I will not discuss as we have not
established the ground rules.
Mark T
> Mark T has suggested that Love is the highest expression of the Law,
> and I would have to agree with him regarding this. As you both have
> pointed out, that is the problem, we can't keep the Law to a
> satisfactory degree. So I believe that is why Paul also pointed out the
> weakness of the Law. It is not that the Law is bad, or somehow weak,
> but it is our ability to obey the Law where we all fail.
One of your better replies.
> For the Solution, I look at the High Priestly prayer of Jesus, where He
> prayed that we would know the Father as He Knew the Father, that we
> would be one with the Father as He is one with the Father!
One cannot "not know" God for as Paul correctly quotes a pagan poet
"In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and
have our being" - Acts 17:28
In Abraham's case faith was demonstrated through works. Love is also
demonstrated by works as in Jesus' example of a son asking for a fish but
the father gives him a stone.
Tie that then in with .....
Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
[YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me on
that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
`I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
The will of God would seem to be tied in with:
- Love
- Faith
- Works
This iks summarised in .....
He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God ?
Micah 6:8 RSV
Mark T
> Now - as for salvation - I have a question for you - was JtB saved?
An interesting question.
Some scholars believe that Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist before
he began his ministry.
Jesus was baptised by John.
Why was John the Baptist baptising????
"for repentance" (Matthew 3:11)
What did Jesus repent of?
--
Mark T
>> Now - as for salvation - I have a question for you - was JtB
>> saved?
...
> of course JtB was saved. Salvation is a condition of heart that is
> evidenced by a genuine desire to obey God. I do not mean "Obey self and
> say that you are obeying God" I mean obey GOD. And that is an important
> distinction.
Yep!
"I (YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S MESSIAH), even I ( NOT YAHWEH'S MESSIAH), am he who
blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no
more. " - Isaiah 43:25
Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
[YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me on
that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
`I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
> it was explained: "If you
> look at a woman to lust after her, then you have already committed
> adultery in your heart" and "If you hold hatred in your heart for your
> fellow man, then you have already committed murder in your heart."
In that interpretation of following the law no one can follow it. But in
Mordecai's interpretation of following the law by actions, it is possible.
So which is correct?
Mark T
> Are you referring to where the young man ask what must he do to be
> saved, and Jesus spoke to him about keeping the Law, in order to have
> eternal life?
... in the context of the two greatest commandments ... which sum up the law
and the prophets .... and don't mention anything about Jesus of Nazareth
.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God (YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH)
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is
the FIRST and GREATEST COMMANDMENT. And the SECOND is like it: 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO
COMMANDMENTS." - Matthew 22:37-40
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing
that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the
COMMANDMENTS, which is the MOST IMPORTANT?" "The MOST IMPORTANT ONE,"
answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God (YAHWEH NOT
YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH) the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God (YAHWEH NOT
YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH) with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind and with all your strength.' (Mark12:28-30)
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, WHAT
SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE?" He said to him, "What is written in the
law? How do you read?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God
(YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH) with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor
as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered right; DO THIS AND YOU
WILL LIVE." (Luke 10:25-28)
These are repeated THREE TIMES. They are in each of the synoptic gospels.
The commandments do not mention anything about the finite human Jesus of
Nazareth, The Messiah OR ABOUT CONFESSING JESUS AS LORD GOD / YAHWEH!!!!
#####################################################
Mordecai!
Mark T wrote:
JtB was asking return (not repent, tshuva or return) and he was calling people
back to the laws of moses.
His standard was the law - and JC was a disciple or follower of JtB and did not
allow JtB to become his follower.
Do you wonder the also preached return?
This whole idea of repentance and sin is NOT the way to view the NT. You might
notice the main verse which condemns people to sin is in the Tanach and not the
NT - so salvation is supposedly based on ideas which are ONLY recorded in tanach
and are not even mentioned in the NT.
Therefore to think about the NT in terms of sin and condemnation is to revert to
the standard of the law ...
And to envisage a vindictive G_d who has rules which he made which force him to
condemn ...
Sigh ... the question of salvation is in no way closed - it is instead open
whereas before, both gate keeper and Psalmsmith had it closed.
Both knew the answer. Oops.
Now JC asked a question can you ... blah blah blah ... and if anyone today
talked like that, the outcome is the implication of "of course not" but the
people JC spoke to answered. it was a question with answers, and the "real
answer" of "can you" was actually ... "yes" despite the implicaiton in english.
This is an open question ... was jtB saved?
The question is "does your model of salvation allow you to deal with the issues
raised/ what are the issues? what can be learned? was JtB saved?"
it is a very unsettling question when you have answers already.
The answer was ... yes ... snicker.
However the objection remains real and it is no light objection ... the existing
models will need to be modified ... substantially to cope with it.
let me phrase another question - if JtB is not in the kingdom of heaven - then
when he sits at the wedding feast of the bride - he calls himself the friend of
the groom - so can you say he was not in heaven?
Ah ... strange paths lead to places others have not gone. Are your ideas of
heaven under threat? good. A tad too limited perhaps?
I will even throw in one more verse - the reward of a faithful servant is
greater than that of a foolish son ... is JtB a wise and faithful servant? Does
he get a better reward than the foolish son? Yet the foolish son ... or the
least in heaven ... is greater than he!
gatekeeper
Mark T wrote:
> "gatekeeper" <gatekeepe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Mark T has suggested that Love is the highest expression of the Law,
> > and I would have to agree with him regarding this. As you both have
> > pointed out, that is the problem, we can't keep the Law to a
> > satisfactory degree. So I believe that is why Paul also pointed out the
> > weakness of the Law. It is not that the Law is bad, or somehow weak,
> > but it is our ability to obey the Law where we all fail.
>
> One of your better replies.
>
>
> > For the Solution, I look at the High Priestly prayer of Jesus, where He
> > prayed that we would know the Father as He Knew the Father, that we
> > would be one with the Father as He is one with the Father!
>
> One cannot "not know" God for as Paul correctly quotes a pagan poet
> "In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we live and move and
> have our being" - Acts 17:28
I agree that from creation, we can know about God, which is what is
being spoken about by the poet. To say that this man is a friend of
God because of his intimate knowledge of God, would be stretching the
point!
>
> In Abraham's case faith was demonstrated through works. Love is also
> demonstrated by works as in Jesus' example of a son asking for a fish but
> the father gives him a stone.
And Jesus was teaching us that we should ask Him for the Holy Spirit,
and He would then give us the Holy Spirit. We so easily miss the point
of this scripture, and think He is talking about general prayers and
how God answers prayer.
>
> Tie that then in with .....
>
> Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
> enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
> [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me on
> that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
> drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
> `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
>
> The will of God would seem to be tied in with:
> - Love
> - Faith
> - Works
>
> This iks summarised in .....
>
>
> He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you
> but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God ?
> Micah 6:8 RSV
Matthew almost exclusively used the term, Kingdom of Heaven, to
describe the ministry of the Holy Spirit here on Earth through the Body
of Christ, which JtB was not a member of since he predated the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit which identified the Body of Christ post
resurrection. Hence the Least in the Kingdom of Heaven, the Body, is
greater than JtB.
That you tie the Kingdom of Heaven, the Holy Spirit, and the works of
Faith together is appropriate in a discussion about whether JtB was/is
saved. Mordecai uses the word "Saved" in a broad application, when
the term Kingdom of Heaven has a narrow application. The KoH is in
reference to the ministry of the Holy Spirit here on Earth through the
Body of Christ who has been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is
something that was alien to the preaching, ministry, and personal walk
of JtB. This would have also been alien to anyone else prior to the
out pouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. However this is not to
say that there were none who had a functional basis of Faith in God,
such as Abraham, who we can also was/is saved in the sense that we can
expect to see him in the ultimate eternal Kingdom of God. And so we can
also say that JtB is saved in the broader sense, though not a part of
the Body of Christ here on Earth, the Kingdom of Heaven.
Linda Lee
If it is seen as a self-sacrifice, there is not that moral quandary.
That is self-sacrificing love, and the real sacrifice for God would
have been to enter into sinful flesh and this evil world in order to
retrieve his 'lost sheep', not to suffer death of any physical body his
Spirit inhabited. Son of God is a term applied to angels, spirits, and
God is a Spirit, the Holy Spirit, and "the Angel" (Gen. 48:16). Son of
man means mortal flesh, as I'm sure you already know. He called himself
both the only unique Son of God and the Son of Man.
> or the idea that JC was perfected in his sufferings ...
> Sigh ... I am not giving all the answers - I am only giving my own ideas and others
> can read and think.
>
> My ideas clash with your assumptions as to a loving G_d. or in specific - what
> "loving" means.
If loving means causing us to suffer physical life and death in order
to avoid extinction via spiritual death, that is LOVE. We were told not
to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or suffer real
death - death of the spirit. Do we even deserve a second chance of
avoiding death of the spirit? No, probably not, but we've been given
it anyway.
> My ideas of the love of G_d? well actually it was summed up in a single sentence from
> one old science fiction book ... which I will recommend to give you the context.
>
> The book was called "the dosadi experiment" by frank herbert .... the line "Focus:
> Loving parents can thrust their child into deadly peril when they know everything
> possible has been done to prepare that child for survival."
That is exemplifying God's creation of Adamic mankind, God's lost
sheep. All humankind has sinned in the past by abandoning God and
Heaven. The prophet Isaiah said in Isa. 53:6, "All we like sheep have
gone astray ...the iniquity of us all".
> Loving parents do not feather bed their children but empower them to grow up! There is
> responsibility and accountability in a life where there is neither fairness nor
> morality - we are to impose those on our world. That is our duty as humans. The idea
> that christianity is a cop out of living in the real world is not my ideas on the NT
> at all ... again despite the christian teachings on this score.
> Ah - have I again challenged our existing assumptions? I see I have.
You don't appear to understand what my assumptions are, so no, you
haven't challenged my 'assumptions'. It is Paul's doctrine that says
the blood of Christ is all that is needed and it's okay to follow his
"law of sin" (Rom. 7:25).
I John 3:8-10 says, "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the
devil sinneth from the beginning ...Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin ...he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the
children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever
doeth not righteousness is not of God".
In Rom. 7:9, Paul says, "For the good that I would I do not: but the
evil which I would not, that I do." Paul is double-minded and
unstable in all his ways. In Rom. 7:25, Paul says, "So then with the
mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of
sin."
Paul claimed not to be able to control himself - this is the way of
Cain. Gen. 4:7 says if sin lies at the door (if one is sinful) the
flesh's desires rule over the spirit. Paul followed "the way of
Cain" (Jude 11), sin lay at his door, because he was "sensual,
having not the spirit" (Jude 19), unable to do the good that he knew
he should do. Other prophets did not have that problem and neither did
the apostles complain of being unable to refrain from sinning.
In John 5:14 the Messiah told a man whose sins he had just forgiven,
"sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee". In John 8:11 the
Messiah forgives a woman her sins, and says, "go and sin no more ...I
am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness".
I John 1:6-10 says, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and
walk in darkness [SIN], we LIE, and do not the truth: But IF we walk in
the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we
say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we
have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Rather than having fellowship with the apostles of the Messiah, in Gal.
2:11, Paul asserts that he had "withstood" the apostle Peter to his
face when Peter came to the church in Antioch.
> Sorry - but
> another line from the same book comes to mind ... "This was a gift with barbs in it,
> something loving parents might give their child in the knowledge that it was time for
> this lesson."
That is equivalent to God forming Adamic mankind as a vehicle through
which they could learn the lesson of repentance towards God.
> Life demands and forces change on people. I rejected far more than Paul, I rejected
> the christian church as utterly irreconcilable to the NT. Far more deeply and
> thoroughly and completely than you - and it STILL has so damaged my viewpoint that I
> STILL cannot see clearly. Neither judaism nor the NT ...
If you remove Paul, the enemy of "the church of God", from the NT,
there are no inconsistencies.
> Let me speak once more - there is no contradiction between Paul and the NT that I can
> find if he has this assumption of mine.
Paul's assumption is that "all things are lawful" for him solely
because Christ died. Four different times (twice in I Cor. 6:12 &
twice in I Cor. 10:23) Paul exclaims that "all things are lawful for
me" or "all things are lawful unto me". This is a lie, and is
NOT a teaching of Yeshua` or the true apostles.
> But then I have so many other assumptions as
> to what is in the NT that this is moot. You will find many contradictions between what
> paul says and the NT ...according to your current reading of it. My answer was to
> change the reading of the NT ... not "just" the reading of Paul.
>
> --
> Mordecai!
>
> When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
> When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong, and
> reality is Never wrong.
You seem to assume I believe Paul's line that we don't have to obey the
law of the Commandments or that I believe as Paul says he does, and
obey in our minds while our flesh enjoys Paul's "law of sin". Paul
contradicts himself on EVERY subject, including whether or not God was
manifest in the flesh (I Tim. 3:16, Paul says, "God was manifest in the
flesh").
The death of the Messiah did not do it all for us, but his death and
resurrection made it possible for us to obtain salvation and escape
from spiritual death. Prior to the resurrection, heaven was not
possible for anyone -- righteous or unrighteous. The most they could
hope for was an afterlife of "rest" (Job 17:13-16 and I Sam. 28:15). In
Ps. 16:10, King David says to God, "thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell", and he was not saying that he would not remain separated for a
time in Sheol, but it would not last forever.
Matthew says of the Messiah in Matt. 19:16-17, "one came and said
unto him, Good Master, what ***good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life***? And he said unto him ...**if thou wilt enter into
life, keep the commandments**. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said,
Thou shalt do no murder".
This scripture in Matt. 19:16-17 further demonstrates that Paul, who
hated and persecuted the members of the church of God "unto the
death", could not inherit eternal life. The Messiah went on to cite
six more of the Ten Commandments given to Moses in Ex. 20:6-17 (these
seven commandments were sins against mankind), advised to give all to
the poor, and to "come and follow me", thus equating following him
with loving God and not having any other gods before the Lord in
heaven.
Elsewhere, in Matt. 22:37-40, Yeshua` had said, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is
like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets." This statement
covers the rest of the Ten Commandments as those who love God and their
neighbor will not commit these sins against God or their fellow man.
Ex. 20:6-17 lists the Ten Commandments thus, [1] "Thou shalt have no
other gods before me. [2] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image ...Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them [3]...Thou
shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain [4]...Remember the
sabbath day, to keep it holy [5]...honor thy father and thy mother
[6]...Thou shalt not kill. [7] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [8] Thou
shalt not steal. [9] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor. [10] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house" [i.e. do
not covet any relationship or thing thy neighbor possesses, "thy
neighbor" being those you encounter].
Linda Lee
I don't know which passage you refer to , but in Matt. 23:2-3, Yeshua`
the Messiah said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and
do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."
The Pharisees and their scribes taught the Law of Moses and the
prophecies of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures, but did not follow
the law or adhere to the teachings of the prophets.
> It reinforces the strange answer - not
> doing the law is unacceptable, but doing the law does not make one in right standing with
> the most high! There is a third way ... something more than just 'doing the laws"
But keeping the Commandments of Moses includes loving thy neighbor (by
not murdering, stealing, coveting, lying against him) and loving God
above all other 'gods'. Your third way is this, obeying ALL the
commandments of Exodus 20, and thus exhibiting love towards God and
men.
> So JC declared you could keep all the law - and should keep all the laws. But he wanted this
> something more ...
The "something more" was to follow him, and he thus equated following
him with loving God above all other gods. You'll notice he lists only
the seven commandments which concern sins against mankind; the other
commandments are fulfilled if we do as he says and "follow me".
Matthew says of the Messiah in Matt. 19:16-17, "one came and said
unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have
eternal life? And he said unto him ...if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt
do no murder". The Messiah went on to cite six more of the Ten
Commandments given to Moses in Ex. 20:6-17 (these seven commandments
were sins against mankind), advised to give all to the poor (again --
'loving thy neighbor'), and to "come and follow me", thus equating
Linda Lee
Mordecai! wrote:
> > >
> > > IOW - you have an assumption - and his words are in contradiction
> > > to your assumption - so then the answer is he did not mean the
> > > words he spoke! Sigh ...
> > >
> > > Now - as for salvation - I have a question for you - was JtB
> > > saved?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not GK, but I'll answer this;
> >
> > of course JtB was saved. Salvation is a condition of heart that is
> > evidenced by a genuine desire to obey God.
>
> There is no of course about it ... for JC declared that the least in the
> kingdom of heaven was greater than him.
The confusion is because you are comparing John the Baptist when he was
in the flesh with those who are in Heaven, angels. It doesn't mean
that John would be the least in the kingdom of heaven, as the Messiah
also said of him, that there was no prophet greater than John the
Baptist. This comparison of flesh to spirit is also why in John
14:28, Yeshua` said prior to his impending death, "If ye loved me, ye
would rejoice, because I said, I go unto my Father: for my Father is
greater than I." Spirit is greater than any flesh.
God says in Mal. 4:5, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
before the coming of great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall
turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers".
Luke 1:16-17 says of John the Baptist as Elias (Greek for Elijah),
"And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their
God. And he shall go before him [the Messiah] in the spirit and power
of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children ...to make
ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17). In Matt. 3:1-2, Matthew says, "In those days
came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And
saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he
that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, The voice of
one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his
paths straight."
In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
Elijah, which was for to come."
John was Elijah come again as prophesied to announce the coming of
Yeshua` as the Lord. They could accept or reject that knowledge, just
like any other knowledge they were given.
The Messiah said they did not realize that He was God incarnate. They
had not recognized Yeshua` the Messiah as God, just as the people had
not recognized John the Baptist as Elias (Greek for Elijah), who was to
incarnate prior to the Messiah to prepare the WAY of the LORD.
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "psalmsmith" wrote:
>
> >> Now - as for salvation - I have a question for you - was JtB
> >> saved?
> ...
> > of course JtB was saved. Salvation is a condition of heart that is
> > evidenced by a genuine desire to obey God. I do not mean "Obey self and
> > say that you are obeying God" I mean obey GOD. And that is an important
> > distinction.
>
> Yep!
>
> "I (YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S MESSIAH), even I ( NOT YAHWEH'S MESSIAH), am he who
> blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no
> more. " - Isaiah 43:25
>
> Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
> enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
> [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me on
> that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
> drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly,
> `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
Evildoers - NOT evilthinkers.
> > it was explained: "If you
> > look at a woman to lust after her, then you have already committed
> > adultery in your heart" and "If you hold hatred in your heart for your
> > fellow man, then you have already committed murder in your heart."
>
> In that interpretation of following the law no one can follow it. But in
> Mordecai's interpretation of following the law by actions, it is possible.
>
> So which is correct?
Following law by actions is correct. Matt. 7:21-23 "he who DOES the
will of my Father" will be accepted, and evilDOers - NOT evilthinkers,
will be rejected.
Those verses concerning lust and hatred seem to be advice given on how
not to fall to the temptation brought about by the emotions, i.e. don't
dwell on what you lust for or hate. If you set your heart on something
which you know is wrong, and pine after it, you will eventually allow
yourself to do it.
Linda Lee
Linda Lee
Mordecai! wrote:
> Linda Lee wrote:
> >
Sorry, if you're getting duplicates. These aren't showing up on Google
Groups, all it says is Read more...
You seem to assume I believe Paul's line that we don't have to obey the
Mark T
> JtB was asking return (not repent, tshuva or return) and he was calling
> people
> back to the laws of moses.
That is an interesting point. Christians often translate these words as
"turn around" as in change one's ways but not as a return to God's way via
the Torah. The difference is slight but significant.
> This is an open question ... was jtB saved?
>
> The question is "does your model of salvation allow you to deal with the
> issues
> raised/ what are the issues? what can be learned? was JtB saved?"
> it is a very unsettling question when you have answers already.
...
> let me phrase another question - if JtB is not in the kingdom of heaven -
> then
> when he sits at the wedding feast of the bride - he calls himself the
> friend of
> the groom - so can you say he was not in heaven?
I'm tying to fit this into the Jewish context of the first century CE for
otherwise it does not make sense.
If John the Baptist is saved it follows that salvation cannot therefore be
merely a belief in certain doctrines nor a matter of "inviting Jesus into
your heart" for there is no change in John the Baptist's belief system nor
an invitation as above.
John the Baptist followed the two greatest commandments as given by Jesus
which are a return to the laws of Moses through the principle of love. I
think it is faith / love plus action based upon the law / love principle.
> Are your ideas of heaven under threat? good. A tad too limited perhaps?
What IS heaven?
Jesus prays "Our Father in heaven" yet the One God is infinite and as Paul
quotes the pagan poet "In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH]
we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28
Is heaven the same as the kingdom of God (Mark's gospel) / kingdom of heaven
(Matthew's gospel)? Then it is the realm of God's rule.
Is heaven any place where God rules? (Where DOESN'T God rule? I cannot think
of any place as God's rule would seem to be absolute.)
Is it a state of communion with God? If we already live and move and have
our being in God then it is a matter of acknowledging such a state and
acting upon it. (Which would seem to bring us back to faith, law and the
love principle)
Is it present or future? Is it after the resurrection of the dead or do we
begin dwelling in it now? Is it an ongoing journey?
More questions than answers.
Mark T
>> One cannot "not know" God for as Paul correctly quotes a pagan poet
>> "In [YAHWEH ... not YAHWEH"S ANOINTED HUMAN MESSIAH] we >>live and move
>> and have our being" - Acts 17:28
>
> I agree that from creation, we can know about God, which is what is
> being spoken about by the poet.
No, it isn't what is spoken about by the poet.
Knowing "God from creation" is Paul's false Causal / Cosmological argument
in Romans 1. It is philosophically unsound .... and is not a proof for
God's existence ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Romans 1 Paul uses the Causal or Cosmological Argument for God's
existence. It is an argument from origins. Look at the universe ... it
must have come from somewhere ... it came from God.
It doesn't work for the following reasons:
1. Although it may establish a deity it says nothing about the type or
nature of the deity. It would work equally as well for Zeus or a little
green alien as YHWH.
2. It leads to an infinite regress. If the universe is made by God then
who made God? The God above God. Who made the God above God? The God
above the God above God. etc ad infinitum. (This is one reason why God is
NOT "A being" but rather the Ground of all being.)
3. How do we know everything has a cause? From experience. Experience
tells us nothing about causality in the non-empirical world. Even in the
empirical realm experience is based on induction and deduction and both are
logically faulty for any absolute claim in all areas of past, present and
future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"live and move and have our being" implies existence IN God (whether you
know or acknowledge God - so atheists also live and move and have their
being in God) and not merely knowing about God (one does not need to know
about God in order to live and move and have one's being IN God)
Mark T
>> Matthew 7:21-23 states "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will
>> enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father
>> [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN MESSIAH] who is in heaven. Many will say to me
>> on
>> that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name
>> drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them
>> plainly,
>> `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
>
> Evildoers - NOT evilthinkers.
Exactly! Actions matter.
Linda Lee
John did not have to change any beliefs; he only had to recognize
Yeshua` for what he was, which he did.
God says in Mal. 4:5, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
before the coming of great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall
turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers".
Luke 1:16-17 says of John the Baptist as Elias (Greek for Elijah),
"And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their
God. And he shall go before him [the Messiah] in the spirit and power
of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children ...to make
ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17). In Matt. 3:1-2, Matthew says, "In those days
came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And
saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he
that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, The voice of
one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his
paths straight."
In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
Elijah, which was for to come."
John was Elijah come again as prophesied to announce the coming of
Yeshua` as the Lord.
>
> John the Baptist followed the two greatest commandments as given by Jesus
> which are a return to the laws of Moses through the principle of love. I
> think it is faith / love plus action based upon the law / love principle.
>
>
> > Are your ideas of heaven under threat? good. A tad too limited perhaps?
>
>
> What IS heaven?
>
> Jesus prays "Our Father in heaven" yet the One God is infinite and as Paul
> quotes the pagan poet "In him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28
Paul's quote of these poets was not in relation to the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, but was in relation to Zeus. Now why would Paul
compare worshippers relationship to Zeus to our relationship to God the
Father?
In Acts 17:28, Saul/Paul says of 'the Lord', "For in him we live,
and move, and have our being: as certain also of your own poets have
said, For we are also his offspring".
These "poets" Paul references are the Greek poets/dramatists
Epimenides and Aratus who were writing of the Greek 'god' Zeus as
the Lord.
Epimenides is the author of the first part of Paul's statement in
Acts 17:28, from his "Cretica" in words addressed to Zeus, "For
in thee we live and move and have our being", and Aratus is the
source of the second part whose "Phaenomena" states of Zeus, "For
we are indeed his offspring".
> Is heaven the same as the kingdom of God (Mark's gospel) / kingdom of heaven
> (Matthew's gospel)? Then it is the realm of God's rule.
That is why the scriptures say the kingdom of God has come unto you
when the Messiah incarnated.
> Is heaven any place where God rules? (Where DOESN'T God rule? I cannot think
> of any place as God's rule would seem to be absolute.)
The kingdom of God is anywhere God resides.
Mark T
>> If John the Baptist is saved it follows that salvation cannot therefore
>> be
>> merely a belief in certain doctrines nor a matter of "inviting Jesus into
>> your heart" for there is no change in John the Baptist's belief system
>> nor
>> an invitation as above.
>
> John did not have to change any beliefs; he only had to recognize
> Yeshua` for what he was, which he did.
... God's human Messiah not God.
> John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
> to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
> Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17).
Why did Jesus need to be baptised for his sins?????
> In Matt. 3:1-2, Matthew says, "In those days
> came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And
> saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he
> that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, The voice of
> one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord {Yahweh],
> make his
> paths straight."
...
> John was Elijah come again as prophesied to announce the coming of
> Yeshua` as the Lord.
Prepare the way of Yahweh not Yahweh's human Messiah, Jesus of Nzareth.
There is a BIG difference!!!!
> In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
> the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
> Elijah, which was for to come."
The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
>> What IS heaven?
>>
>> Jesus prays "Our Father in heaven" yet the One God is infinite and as
>> Paul
>> quotes the pagan poet "In him we live and move and have our being" - Acts
>> 17:28
>
> Paul's quote of these poets was not in relation to the God of Abraham,
> Isaac, and Jacob, but was in relation to Zeus. Now why would Paul
> compare worshippers relationship to Zeus to our relationship to God the
> Father?
Wrong. Paul borrowed and adpated. He was talking to pagans about the God
whom they did not know - Yahweh.
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> >> If John the Baptist is saved it follows that salvation cannot therefore
> >> be
> >> merely a belief in certain doctrines nor a matter of "inviting Jesus into
> >> your heart" for there is no change in John the Baptist's belief system
> >> nor
> >> an invitation as above.
> >
> > John did not have to change any beliefs; he only had to recognize
> > Yeshua` for what he was, which he did.
>
> ... God's human Messiah not God.
No, God's 'lamb' which takes away the sins of the world - God himself
as our Saviour - God's salvation which he planned from the beginning of
creation.
> > John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
> > to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
> > Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17).
>
> Why did Jesus need to be baptised for his sins?????
He needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
him. John proclaimed him the lamb of God at his baptism.
> > In Matt. 3:1-2, Matthew says, "In those days
> > came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And
> > saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he
> > that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias [Isaiah], saying, The voice of
> > one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord {Yahweh],
> > make his
> > paths straight."
> ...
> > John was Elijah come again as prophesied to announce the coming of
> > Yeshua` as the Lord.
>
> Prepare the way of Yahweh
Yes, prepare the way of God to act as our Saviour in the form of the
lamb of God.
> not Yahweh's human Messiah, Jesus of Nzareth.
> There is a BIG difference!!!!
>
>
> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
> > Elijah, which was for to come."
>
> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
>
No it isn't as far as I know. What gospel are you referring to?
> >> What IS heaven?
> >>
> >> Jesus prays "Our Father in heaven" yet the One God is infinite and as
> >> Paul
> >> quotes the pagan poet "In him we live and move and have our being" - Acts
> >> 17:28
> >
> > Paul's quote of these poets was not in relation to the God of Abraham,
> > Isaac, and Jacob, but was in relation to Zeus. Now why would Paul
> > compare worshippers relationship to Zeus to our relationship to God the
> > Father?
>
> Wrong.
That is exactly what he did.
> Paul borrowed and adpated. He was talking to pagans about the God
> whom they did not know - Yahweh.
Yes, he certainly borrowed and adapted it to suit the pagan mind, and
that is why he quotes "The Bacchae" concerning sacrifice towards
Dionysus and Zeus when allegedly relating the words 'Iesous' used when
appointing him as his apostle and describes our relationship to God in
quotes from pagan plays attributed to Zeus. This pagan mindset is also
why he renamed him "Iesous", rather than the name Yeshua`. The gospel
of truth preached by the real apostles is "another gospel", "another
spirit", and "another Jesus" to which Paul refers in II Cor. 11:4.
Linda Lee
I think you're here speaking of John's denial, but how would John know
who he had been in a previous existence? He wouldn't but Yeshua`
foreknew him and knew who he had been - Eliyiah/Elijah who was to come
to announce the coming of the LORD. No gospel shows Yeshua` denying
this was the case.
Mark T
>> >> If John the Baptist is saved it follows that salvation cannot
>> >> therefore
>> >> be
>> >> merely a belief in certain doctrines nor a matter of "inviting Jesus
>> >> into
>> >> your heart" for there is no change in John the Baptist's belief system
>> >> nor
>> >> an invitation as above.
>> >
>> > John did not have to change any beliefs; he only had to recognize
>> > Yeshua` for what he was, which he did.
>>
>> ... God's human Messiah not God.
>
> No, God's 'lamb' which takes away the sins of the world
A lamb belonging to a shepherd is not the shepherd.
Likewise ...
A lamb belonging to God is not God.
> God himself as our Saviour
God IS the Saviour who raised Jesus from death to sit at his right hand
side.
Does that mean that God raised God to sit at God's right hand side? No.
>> > John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
>> > to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
>> > Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17).
>>
>> Why did Jesus need to be baptised for his sins?????
>
> He needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
> him.
So therefore Jesus sinned and needed to repent and follow himself.
Does God sin and repent and follow himself?
>> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
>> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
>> > Elijah, which was for to come."
>>
>> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
>>
> No it isn't as far as I know. What gospel are you referring to?
John 1:25, John the Baptist is asked, 'Why do you baptize if you are not the
Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?' In verses 25-27 John points to the
Messiah who is coming after him. He states that it is he who is the
forerunner of Malachi 3:1
On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah
and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as
Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist.
Mark T
>> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
>> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
>> > Elijah, which was for to come."
>>
>> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
>>
>
> I think you're here speaking of John's denial, but how would John know
> who he had been in a previous existence?
Does that mean that there is no afterlife but reincarnation is true?????
Where in the Bible is reincarnation condoned or advocated?
> No gospel shows Yeshua` denying this was the case.
John 1:25, John the Baptist is asked, 'Why do you baptize if you are not the
Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?' In verses 25-27 John points to the
Messiah who is coming after him. He states that it is he who is the
forerunner of Malachi 3:1
On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah
and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as
Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist.
Mordecai!
Mark T wrote:
Definitely ...
This was actually a repost to another poster who insisted that there was only
one way to G_d.
Here we have Judaism showing one path for Jews which we are obliged to take -
and other paths, not one, for the rest of mankind.
The "naohdic covenant" was an attempt to find rules which the most high applied
to others ... on the grounds that whilst we have such rules, they also need
rules. Arrogance on our part I suppose.
Do you think this major change to an entire religious philosophy requires a tad
more than one verse? perhaps a discussion or two?
No discussion? Hmm ... and when did this new understanding take place? That is
right - in the eighth century. The Moors were a threat to the empire ... so a
new doctrine arose - they might take the land, convert the people, have military
power - but only WE are going to heaven! Great propaganda!
So I found another covenant for salvation in the NT - such a simple one. JtB.
Three times the covenant of JC was compared - by JtB - not only in his famous
speech about JC but his statement "my way must decrease, his way must increase."
JC also compared ... which I brought out.
The worst one was Paul who taught some of the followers of JtB "the better way"
and I asked what the better way was - and WHY it was better.
What people fail to realize is that the NT is constantly comparing 'ways" for
example "neglecting so great a salvation" which others interpret as "going to
hell" even though it specifies the punishment - and it does not say this at all!
Seriously - once you find that there is more than one way to G_d in the NT ...
which there is ... then you have to throw out so much.
And Yes, i am well aware of the statement "the only way to father is by me" ...
but as I point out, I have no desire to go to Father and I am quite content to
go to the G_d who brought me out of the land of Egypt.
Repeating - when you remove the assumption of only one way ... all predicated on
a specific and unsupported interpretation on one verse (well three if you want
to look lopsided at things like "he who is not for me is against me ... and
leave out things like he who is not against me is for me") then you have to
rebuild the most basic of doctrines on salvation.
One of the things that is discarded is "salvation" and until someone can point
out why there is a better way, I do not heed their "salvation plan" as it is the
blind leading the blind.
The other main point which this eludes is the law ... and some who replied are
for the law, some against.
Consider the following - the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath'
implies "doing the law" is not us following a legal rule, but rather this was
given to men from the most high ...
Why would he give it? perhaps ... it is good for us to do?
Perhaps the rest of the law is good for us to do?
Anyone who predicates an argument on the idea we cannot do the law has assumed
the law as one thing when JC says it is something else - for our good.
I also have pointed out to another ... that JC was reputed to have said that the
verses for eternal life apply to him.
What are these verses? Oh yes - do the law and live.
Do you wonder that I contend that the NT made the idea that JC was himself the
law - that JC was not against the law - and so on.
Not much left of the christian religion when you throw out trinity, the law and
salvation ...
I found it so anyway. But this has nothing to do with the NT or if JC was the
messiah!
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> >> >> If John the Baptist is saved it follows that salvation cannot
> >> >> therefore
> >> >> be
> >> >> merely a belief in certain doctrines nor a matter of "inviting Jesus
> >> >> into
> >> >> your heart" for there is no change in John the Baptist's belief system
> >> >> nor
> >> >> an invitation as above.
> >> >
> >> > John did not have to change any beliefs; he only had to recognize
> >> > Yeshua` for what he was, which he did.
> >>
> >> ... God's human Messiah not God.
> >
> > No, God's 'lamb' which takes away the sins of the world
>
> A lamb belonging to a shepherd is not the shepherd.
>
> Likewise ...
>
> A lamb belonging to God is not God.
ONE throne, ONE name, and ONE face of God and the Lamb - Rev. 23:3.
>
>
> > God himself as our Saviour
>
> God IS the Saviour who raised Jesus from death to sit at his right hand
> side.
ONE throne, ONE name, and ONE face of God and the Lamb - Rev. 23:3.
'Right hand' in the Greek is a metaphor for amazing power.
>
> Does that mean that God raised God to sit at God's right hand side? No.
>
>
> >> > John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
> >> > to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
> >> > Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17).
> >>
> >> Why did Jesus need to be baptised for his sins?????
> >
> > He needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
> > him.
>
> So therefore Jesus sinned and needed to repent and follow himself.
Your thought does not follow logically. He was teaching men to repent;
teaching by demonstration to publicly declare they had decided to
return to God.
>
> Does God sin and repent and follow himself?
>
>
> >> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
> >> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
> >> > Elijah, which was for to come."
> >>
> >> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
> >>
> > No it isn't as far as I know. What gospel are you referring to?
>
>
> John 1:25, John the Baptist is asked, 'Why do you baptize if you are not the
> Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?'
John had no way of knowing that he had been Elijah. The Messiah had
this knowledge of who John the Baptist had been.
> In verses 25-27 John points to the
> Messiah who is coming after him. He states that it is he who is the
> forerunner of Malachi 3:1
That is not what he said. John said, "He it is, who coming after me is
preferred before me". There is nothing there about him being the
subject of Malachi 4:5-6 who would make straight the paths of the Lord,
"prepare the way" for the Lord, which John did prior to the ministry of
Yeshua`, by persuading men to repent. John fulfilled Mal. 3:1 and
4:5-6.
> On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah
> and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as
> Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist.
What is the point of that observation? If they had recognized him as
John the Baptist, you would say they recognized him as John the
Baptist, not Elijah. Neither prove anything in relation to whether
John the Baptist had been Elijah. Just because they had had the same
spirit does not mean their flesh appeared the same as they'd have been
born of separate parents and different DNA. The apostles had seen
neither Moses or Elijah, so how did they recognize them as Moses and
Elijah at all anyway?
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> >> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
> >> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
> >> > Elijah, which was for to come."
> >>
> >> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
> >>
> >
> > I think you're here speaking of John's denial, but how would John know
> > who he had been in a previous existence?
>
> Does that mean that there is no afterlife but reincarnation is true?????
>
> Where in the Bible is reincarnation condoned or advocated?
>
Here is one case in Matt. 11:13-14, the case of Yeshua` saying that
John the Baptist was Elijah.
Linda Lee
I saw you say someplace that Yeshua`, being a Rabbi, was married to
Mary Magdalene. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or the Gnostic texts, does
it say in any way, shape, or form that this is so. The Gnostic texts
say only that he kissed her and she was the Apostle to the Apostles.
And Yeshua` may have once been called Rabbi or Rabboni, but he wasn't a
Rabbi appointed by the Pharisees.
Mark T
>> More questions than answers.
...
> Definitely ...
;-)
> Seriously - once you find that there is more than one way to G_d in the NT
> ...
> which there is ... then you have to throw out so much.
Yep! One needs to use one's God-given mind.
> And Yes, i am well aware of the statement "the only way to father is by
> me" ...
Only found in John's gospel ... written when John was dead. A slight
problem.
> but as I point out, I have no desire to go to Father and I am quite
> content to
> go to the G_d who brought me out of the land of Egypt.
I think the two are the same.
> Anyone who predicates an argument on the idea we cannot do the law has
> assumed the law as one thing when JC says it is something else - for our
> good.
It may be for my good but if I attempt and fail then I still fail. Failure
should be followed by returning to God but if one repeatedly fails in an
area is it really one's fault or the law's fault. One must question and put
it in one's own social / spiritual context ... for me that means being a
21st century Gentile.
> Not much left of the christian religion when you throw out trinity, the
> law and
> salvation ...
God's grace, love, mercy and Jesus' two greatest commandments come to mind.
Mark T
>> A lamb belonging to a shepherd is not the shepherd.
>> Likewise ...
>> A lamb belonging to God is not God.
>
> ONE throne, ONE name, and ONE face of God and the Lamb - Rev. 23:3.
Revelation is NOT a history book but a vision.
Again:
- One God only, Yahweh
- One Messiah, God's anointed, Jesus of Nazareth, the "Lamb"
God's Messiah (anointed BY God) is not God. [It is not the "God anointed BY
God"]
The Lamb OF God is not God. [It is not the "God OF God"]
Simple logic that no bible verse can shake.
Words have meaning.
>> >> > John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged
>> >> > people
>> >> > to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
>> >> > Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17).
>> >> Why did Jesus need to be baptised for his sins?????
>> > He needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
>> > him.
>> So therefore Jesus sinned and needed to repent and follow himself.
>
> Your thought does not follow logically.
It is completely logical. Logic was part of my training as a philosopher
(Macquarie Uni, Sydney)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
- John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptizedYeshua`
(Matt. 3:2-17).
... therefore ...
- John the baptist urged Jesus to repent and be baptised. Jesus was
baptised by John.
... therefore ....
Jesus repented in order for John to baptise him (as repentance is a
pre-requisite for John's baptism)
... therefore ...
- Jesus must have sinned in order to repent of sin
What sin(s) did Jesus do?
THEN
- Jesus needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
Jesus
... but ...
Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
... therefore ... (from preceding argument)
Questions:
1. Does God sin and repent and get baptised by John and follow God?
2. Does Jesus sin and repent and get baptised by John and follow Jesus?
3. Does God sin and repent and get baptised by John and follow Jesus?
4. Does Jesus sin and repent and get baptised by John and follow God?
... as a result of ....
- Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
&
- John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptizedYeshua`
(Matt. 3:2-17).
&
- Jesus needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
Jesus
At least ONE of the above 4 conclusions must be true. Which is it????
I vote for: 4. The human finite Jesus sins (as all people do) and repents
and gets baptised by John and follows the infinite One God, Yahweh, (who is
not himself).
Show where my logic is wrong.
>> >> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
>> >> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
>> >> > Elijah, which was for to come."
>> >> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
>> > No it isn't as far as I know. What gospel are you referring to?
>> John 1:25, John the Baptist is asked, 'Why do you baptize if you are not
>> the
>> Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?'
>
> John had no way of knowing that he had been Elijah.
Really? Then how could John DENY it??????
(John 1:19-21) - "And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him
priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20And he
confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21And
they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are
you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."
If John had no way of knowing he would have answered:"Maybe. I don't know."
>> On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5).
>> Elijah
>> and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him
>> as
>> Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist.
>
> What is the point of that observation? If they had recognized him as
> John the Baptist, you would say they recognized him as John the
> Baptist, not Elijah. Neither prove anything in relation to whether
> John the Baptist had been Elijah. Just because they had had the same
> spirit does not mean their flesh appeared the same as they'd have been
> born of separate parents and different DNA. The apostles had seen
> neither Moses or Elijah, so how did they recognize them as Moses and
> Elijah at all anyway?
You tell me. ;-)
Mark T
>> Where in the Bible is reincarnation condoned or advocated?
>
> Here is one case in Matt. 11:13-14, the case of Yeshua` saying that
> John the Baptist was Elijah.
A correct doctrine is not built on one isolated verse.
John the Baptiser was METAPHORICALLY (not time / space historically) Elijah
according to Jesus (though John the Baptiser didn't think so).
(John 1:19-21) - "And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him
priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20And he
confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21And
they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are
you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."
Linda Lee
I also thought that these two statements contradicted each other until
I noticed they were regarding different and opposite events.
In Luke 9:48-49 John told the Messiah that they had forbidden someone
to cast out devils in the name of Yeshua` because they were not
following with the apostles and disciples. And here Yeshua` replied,
"Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us".
This person was using the name of Yeshua` to cast out devils.
In Mark 9:38-40, the same instance occurs and here Yeshua` says,
"Forbid him not: for **there is no man which shall do a miracle in my
name, that can lightly speak evil of me**. For he that is not against
us is on our part".
In Matt. 12:30, the subject was that the Pharisees were accusing the
Messiah of casting out devils by the use of the name of Beelzebub, the
prince of the devils. And here Yeshua` said, "he that is not for me is
against me".
In Luke 11:15-23, the same instance of this occurs; the Pharisees are
accusing him of casting out devils by the name of Beelzebub and testing
and doubting him by asking for a sign from heaven, and Yeshua` says,
"if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of
God is come unto you ...he that is not with me is against me".
These Pharisees were speaking evil of him and saying that his name had
no power over devils, so it must be the work of Beelzebub, whereas the
man using the name of Yeshua` to cast out devils was of the opposite
opinion on the power of the name of Yeshua` and used Yeshua`'s name
himself to cast out devils.
Those who are *not with him*, but who **are not** against him will
*not* speak evil of his name.
Those who are *not with him* who **are** against him will speak evil of
his name.
Mark T
> I saw you say someplace that Yeshua`, being a Rabbi, was married to
> Mary Magdalene.
Yep!
> Nowhere in the Scriptures, or the Gnostic texts, does it say in any way,
> shape, or > form that this is so.
So?
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... Mary who is portrayed in the tomb scene of the Fourth Gospel as calling
him [Jesus] "my lord" and "rabboni," titles appropriate in Jewish society
only for a wife to use in addressing her rabbi husband. ... the same Mary
who demanded access to his deceased body from the one she thought was the
gardener, an act appropriate only for the deceased's nearest of kin. pp.
106-107
No-one has ever been able to locate an ancient village Magdala or any Jewish
or Roman record that mentions such a village. ... There is a Hebrew word,
migdal, which has the same consonants as Magdala ... originally referred to
a tower (a migdal edor) ... a play on that word would suggest that the early
church, by calling Mary "Magdalene", was asserting that she was a tall,
large or great figure - that she was "Mary the great" or "the great Mary".
If Jesus' mother was another Mary, not "the great Mary", could the great
Mary have been anything except his wife? Jesus, I believe, had a female
partner, a wife, to whom he gave a dignity and honor that broike the
barriers of the sexist definitions of the past. She was Mary - the
Magdalene. p. 107
From John Shelby Spong's "The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts
of Hate to Reveal the God of Love" (HarperCollins: 2005)
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> >> Where in the Bible is reincarnation condoned or advocated?
> >
> > Here is one case in Matt. 11:13-14, the case of Yeshua` saying that
> > John the Baptist was Elijah.
>
>
> A correct doctrine is not built on one isolated verse.
A correct doctrine can be accepted on one isolated quote from the
Messiah.
>
> John the Baptiser was METAPHORICALLY (not time / space historically) Elijah
> according to Jesus (though John the Baptiser didn't think so).
That is not what Yeshua` said. He said he was Eliyiah.
>
> (John 1:19-21) - "And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him
> priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20And he
> confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21And
> they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are
> you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."
I believe Yeshua` knew better than John on this subject.
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> >> A lamb belonging to a shepherd is not the shepherd.
> >> Likewise ...
> >> A lamb belonging to God is not God.
> >
> > ONE throne, ONE name, and ONE face of God and the Lamb - Rev. 23:3.
>
> Revelation is NOT a history book but a vision.
>
> Again:
> - One God only, Yahweh
> - One Messiah, God's anointed, Jesus of Nazareth, the "Lamb"
>
> God's Messiah (anointed BY God) is not God. [It is not the "God anointed BY
> God"]
>
> The Lamb OF God is not God. [It is not the "God OF God"]
The Lamb is a metaphor of the sacrifice of God himself in order to
provide us with salvation.
Earlier you asked for some examples in the Hebrew Scriptures where God
said he would incarnate as the Saviour. Here are two:
In Isa. 49:1-22, the prophet Isaiah reveals God formed the Israelites
to be a channel through which "God would go forth as a mighty man"
(in the person of Yeshua` the Messiah) to "Restore" Israel and to
become a "light to the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out
the prisoners from the prison". In Matt. 12:17-21 Matthew references
Isaiah's prophecy indicating it says of Yeshua`, "in his name shall
the Gentiles trust".
The following from the book of Zechariah relates to the "one like the
son of man" in Dan. 7:13 who was God incarnate whom RASHI called
"the King Messiah". Zech. 2:10 says of God incarnate as the
Messiah, "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and
I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord. And many nations
shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I
will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of
hosts hath sent me unto thee."
Zech. 9:9 also calls the Messiah and Saviour "thy King", saying,
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem:
behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation;
lowly, and riding upon ...a colt the foal of an ass".
RASHI's Commentary on Zech. 9:9 says, "It is impossible to
interpret this except as referring to the King Messiah, as it is
stated: 'and his rule shall be from sea to sea'" (Zech. 9:10).
The scripture in Matt. 21:2-9 says Yeshua` the Messiah fulfilled
Zechariah's prophecy when he entered into Jerusalem riding upon "a
colt the foal of an ass".
>
> Simple logic that no bible verse can shake.
Too simple of a 'logic' -- making it incomplete.
> Words have meaning.
Yes, they do, especially in the metaphorically speaking Bible.
> >> >> > John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized
> >> >> > Yeshua` (Matt. 3:2-17).
> >> >> Why did Jesus need to be baptised for his sins?????
> >> > He needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
> >> > him.
> >> So therefore Jesus sinned and needed to repent and follow himself.
> >
> > Your thought does not follow logically.
>
> It is completely logical. Logic was part of my training as a philosopher
> (Macquarie Uni, Sydney)
Did your training teach you that he may have had another reason than a
need to repent to submit to a baptism. You focus on one aspect or one
word and make a doctrine out of it. You don't consider other
possibilities. Tunnel vision.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
Only because of your tunnel vision disability and because of your
presuppositions.
>
> - John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
> to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptized Yeshua`
> (Matt. 3:2-17).
>
> ... therefore ...
>
> - John the baptist urged Jesus to repent and be baptised.
That is NOT TRUE. Matt. 3:13-14 says that John objected and said
Yeshua` should be the one to baptize him. John had to be persuaded to
baptize him. In fact, John 1:27-31 says that John the Baptist said his
purpose for baptizing others with water was to make the Messiah
manifest to Israel (John 1:31). John recognized him for who he really
was when he walked up to him to be baptized.
> Jesus was
> baptised by John.
>
> ... therefore ....
therefore... it was for God's purposes, as Yeshua` said to John when
persuading him to baptize him, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." (Matt. 3:15). You need to
strain your brain less with convoluted 'logic', and study the
scriptures more and many of your questions and objections would be
answered. You seek for answers here when the Messiah advised us to
search the [Hebrew] scriptures for it is they which speak of him.
>
> Jesus repented in order for John to baptise him (as repentance is a
> pre-requisite for John's baptism)
Not true. It was to demonstrate righteousness. They followed John,
and if Yeshua` had not been baptized by John many would have said he
hadn't been baptized so couldn't be holy, now wouldn't they? They
objected to every other possible reason why he couldn't be the Messiah,
so it isn't a far stretch to think this would also have occurred.
>
> ... therefore ...
>
> - Jesus must have sinned in order to repent of sin
Your therefores are leading you down a long dark road of tunnel vision
and there's a black hole at the end of it.
>
> What sin(s) did Jesus do?
None. He was baptized for other reasons.
>
> THEN
>
> - Jesus needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
> Jesus
>
> ... but ...
>
> Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
You said "follow Jesus" - that doesn't equate to your above statement.
>
> ... therefore ... (from preceding argument)
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Does God sin, and repent, and get baptised by John, and follow God?
No, no, yes, and no - neither in the form of Spirit or Messiah Yeshua`.
>
> 2. Does Jesus sin and repent
NO.
> and get baptised by John
YES
> and follow Jesus?
The baptism was for the purpose of others following Yeshua`, not the
other way around.
>
> 3. Does God sin and repent and get baptised by John and follow Jesus?
>
> 4. Does Jesus sin and repent and get baptised by John and follow God?
>
>
> ... as a result of ....
>
> - Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
> &
> - John the Baptist had prepared the way of the Lord when he urged people
> to "repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and baptizedYeshua`
> (Matt. 3:2-17).
> &
> - Jesus needed to teach the concept that men needed to repent and follow
> Jesus
>
> At least ONE of the above 4 conclusions must be true.
None of them are true.
> Which is it????
>
> I vote for: 4. The human finite Jesus sins (as all people do) and repents
> and gets baptised by John and follows the infinite One God, Yahweh, (who is
> not himself).
>
> Show where my logic is wrong.
None of them are true.
What is true is that Yeshua` insisted John baptize him for the purpose
of revealing himself as the Messiah.
>
>
> >> >> > In Matt. 11:13-14, the Messiah also said, "For all the Prophets and
> >> >> > the Law prophesied until John, And if ye will receive it, this is
> >> >> > Elijah, which was for to come."
> >> >> The OPPOSITE is also said ... depending on the gospel you read.
> >> > No it isn't as far as I know. What gospel are you referring to?
> >> John 1:25, John the Baptist is asked, 'Why do you baptize if you are not
> >> the
> >> Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?'
> >
> > John had no way of knowing that he had been Elijah.
>
> Really? Then how could John DENY it??????
>
See below
> (John 1:19-21) - "And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent to him
> priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20And he
> confessed, and did not deny, and he confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21And
> they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he *said, "I am not." "Are
> you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No."
>
> If John had no way of knowing he would have answered:"Maybe. I don't know."
>
There's your one-sided argument again. Why would he say 'maybe' if he
didn't believe it was possible and/or had no recollection of it? He
would not have.
>
> >> On the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5).
> >> Elijah
> >> and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him
> >> as
> >> Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist.
> >
> > What is the point of that observation? If they had recognized him as
> > John the Baptist, you would say they recognized him as John the
> > Baptist, not Elijah. Neither prove anything in relation to whether
> > John the Baptist had been Elijah. Just because they had had the same
> > spirit does not mean their flesh appeared the same as they'd have been
> > born of separate parents and different DNA. The apostles had seen
> > neither Moses or Elijah, so how did they recognize them as Moses and
> > Elijah at all anyway?
>
> You tell me. ;-)
You're missing the point.
Mark T
> Earlier you asked for some examples in the Hebrew Scriptures where God
> said he would incarnate as the Saviour.
None of your examples demonstrate that. They speak of Messiah but don't say
that Messiah is God. Rather they say that Messiah is sent BY God.
>> Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
>
> Only because of your tunnel vision disability and because of your
> presuppositions.
No, it is NOT proven.
>> Jesus repented in order for John to baptise him (as repentance is a
>> pre-requisite for John's baptism)
>
> Not true. It was to demonstrate righteousness
... through repentance which was the purpose of John's baptism.
> They followed John, and if Yeshua` had not been baptized by John many
> would > have said he hadn't been baptized so couldn't be holy
Baptism wasn't for holiness but for repentance. Read the scriptures.
>> I vote for: 4. The human finite Jesus sins (as all people do) and repents
>> and gets baptised by John and follows the infinite One God, Yahweh, (who
>> is
>> not himself).
>>
>> Show where my logic is wrong.
>
> None of them are true.
Show where my LOGIC is wrong.
It is you who called by logic "illogical". Demonstrate where the faulty
logic is.
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> > Earlier you asked for some examples in the Hebrew Scriptures where God
> > said he would incarnate as the Saviour.
>
> None of your examples demonstrate that. They speak of Messiah but don't say
> that Messiah is God. Rather they say that Messiah is sent BY God.
>
>
These two examples given both indicate that God would be the Saviour.
In Isa. 49:1-22, the prophet Isaiah reveals God formed the Israelites
to be a channel through which ***"God would go forth as a mighty
man"***
(in the person of Yeshua` the Messiah) to "Restore" Israel and to
become a "light to the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out
the prisoners from the prison". In Matt. 12:17-21 Matthew references
Isaiah's prophecy indicating it says of Yeshua`, "in his name shall
the Gentiles trust".
The following from the book of Zechariah relates to the "one like the
son of man" in Dan. 7:13 who was God incarnate whom RASHI called
"the King Messiah". Zech. 2:10 says of God incarnate as the
Messiah, [God speaking] "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo,
**I come, and
I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord.** And many nations
shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: ***and
I
will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of
hosts hath sent me unto thee."*** [God is here speaking of Himself as
the one God sent and that people would know it - and many do.]
> >> Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
> >
> > Only because of your tunnel vision disability and because of your
> > presuppositions.
>
> No, it is NOT proven.
Rather it is not proven to your satisfaction as you reject the
scriptures indicating it. Many other people have had it proven to their
satisfaction.
>
> > > John the baptist urged Jesus to repent and be baptised.
> >> Jesus repented in order for John to baptise him (as repentance is a
> >> pre-requisite for John's baptism)
> >
> > Not true. It was to demonstrate righteousness
>
> ... through repentance which was the purpose of John's baptism.
>
>
> > They followed John, and if Yeshua` had not been baptized by John many
> > would > have said he hadn't been baptized so couldn't be holy
>
> Baptism wasn't for holiness but for repentance. Read the scriptures.
You said that "John urged Jesus to repent". He did not; he objected to
baptizing Yeshua` and Yeshua` said he must suffer it and do it.
Pastor Frank
news:45a1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>>
>> Earlier you asked for some examples in the Hebrew Scriptures where God
>> said he would incarnate as the Saviour.
>
> None of your examples demonstrate that. They speak of Messiah but don't
> say that Messiah is God. Rather they say that Messiah is sent BY God.
>
>>> Unproven supposition: Jesus is God
>>
>> Only because of your tunnel vision disability and because of your
>> presuppositions.
>
> No, it is NOT proven.
>
satisfaction. Only an atheist would expect us to wait for his approval
before we consider the matter closed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark T
... whatever ...
Dear Trew Kristyun Pasta Fwank
Kissy kissy! Now you pucker up and greet me with a kiss. (Romans 6:16;
1Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14.)
I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You make silence
a wonderful thing to look forward to. However I took exception to your
recent scribble
It was:
[X] backmasked with Satanic messages
[X] Pagan
[X] New Age
[X] unChristian
[X] Secular Humanist
[X] written in King James English
[X] written in tongues and did not include the interpretation
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
[X] You flamed the Archbishop of Canterbury
[X] You flamed the Pope
[X] You flamed God
[X] You contradicted Jesus
[X] You contradicted yourself several times
[X] You mindlessly chanted the Pente Mantra several times
[X] You repeatedly assumed unwarranted spiritual, moral or intellectual
superiority
My informed, considered, rational and logical answer to your scribble is in
the acronyms:
[X] AWGTHTGTTSA
[X] DBEYR
[X] DILLIGAD
[X] DQYDJ
[X] FUBAR
[X] GIGO
[X] HUYA
[X] LSHHTCMS
[X] NRN
[X] PMF
[X] SITD
[X] SOI
[X] TAFL
[X] VI
[X] YGBK
I'd explain them to you, but your brain would explode.
It is recommended that you:
[X] Buy an indulgence from me.
[X] Send me a triple tithe.
[X] Do penance.
[X] Devote your life to missionary work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[X] Start up a Christian Clown Ministry
[X] Start up a Kristyun Skool
QUESTIONS TO UNDERSTAND YOU BETTER:
[X] Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
[X] Can I have your car after the Rapture?
[X] Have you ever sinned by eating rabbit, pork, shellfish (Leviticus 11:4,
7, 10)?
[X] Have you ever sinned by wearing clothes made of two types of material
(Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11)?
[X] Have you ever sinned by cutting your hair (Leviticus 19:27)?
[X] Were you in the special class at school?
[X] Are you from the shallow end of the gene pool?
[X] Do you want fries with that?
Please save this message and review it occasionally to determine your
progress toward being;
[X] a tolerable Trew Kristyun
[X] a fully-functional human being
[X] integrated into humanity
[X] re-integrated into the wild
If what you don't know can't hurt you, you're practically invulnerable.
Thank you for taking the time to read this flame form.
Remember: Always carry your Trew Kristyun Poop Stick ....Deuteronomy
23:12 -13 "You are to have a place outside the camp where you can go when
you need to relieve yourselves. Carry a stick as a part of your equipment,
so when you have a bowel movement you can dig a hole and cover it up."
Mordecai!
Pastor Frank wrote:
Jesus was to go to "his father and your father, his G_d and your G_d."
So there you are - with JC at your side ... wandering off to visit your father
and his father, your G_d and his G_d ... so you go to to your G_d with your
G_d who is not the G_d you are going to (or is the G_d you are going to
depending on whom you ask) ... congratulations.
Don't worry, any child will be ale to explain this because you can only go to
him as a child.
With perfect faith that this is real and makes sense!
Burkeladies
Which rebellion? Does it have a name? against which gospel?
I'm trying to make sense of Frank's post.
Mark T
> >The rebellion against the gospel is now rampant and widespread,
....
> I'm trying to make sense of Frank's post.
No-one has ever made sense of any of Frank's posts.
Example of Franky Poo's "logic" which I answered ....
########################################
FRANKY POO
> Jesus is God, Son of the Father.
MOI:
The Son is God. The Father is God. Therefore the Son is the Father.
Franky Poo is Roines, son of Mrs Roines. Mrs Roines is Roines, Mother of
Franky Poo. Therefore Franky Poo is Mrs Roines.
Silly little person!
############################################
"I [Jesus] am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" -
John 20:17
Does God have a God?????
Linda Lee
Think, Mark, think. You see yourself as logical, but your thinking is
very superficial and so you are confused. The text of John 20:17 ("I
[Yeshua`] am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY GOD AND YOUR
GOD" - ) means only that God is the Father of ALL flesh, including the
flesh He himself as Spirit inhabited, and God is the ONLY GOD. Your
superficial thinking is why you can't convince anyone who understands
the scriptures of the Messiah.
He ascended to 'sit on the right hand' of God.
Luke 22:67-70 reports that the Messiah says, "Hereafter shall the Son
of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all,
Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I
am." Yeshua`, who was then in the form of a man, would again become
Spirit (the Holy Spirit, the Holy Angel - God).
The Messiah said this to signify to them that, although he stood before
them as "the Son of man" (i.e. in the flesh), he would soon
thereafter become God dwelling in the form of the Holy Spirit again
("right hand of the power of God" symbolizing receiving the amazing
miraculous spiritual power of God). Hereafter, they would see the
Messiah dwelling in the spiritual power of God as the Holy Spirit.
The word here translated 'sitting' and 'sit' - Gk. 2521 -
in part is defined "figuratively to remain, reside:--dwell, sit".
The words translated 'right hand' - both from Gk. 1188 in part
defined as "that which usually takes". It is from Gk. 1209 in part
defined "to receive". Comparable to Gk. 2983 in part defined
"accept, + be amazed".
The word here translated 'power' - Gk. 1411 - in part is
defined "force (lit. or fig.): spec. miraculous power", ability,
"(worker of) miracle (s)", "mighty (wonderful), work", and
power.
Linda Lee
Mark T wrote:
> "Linda Lee" wrote:
>
> > I saw you say someplace that Yeshua`, being a Rabbi, was married to
> > Mary Magdalene.
>
> Yep!
>
>
> > Nowhere in the Scriptures, or the Gnostic texts, does it say in any way,
> > shape, or > form that this is so.
>
> So?
>
> --
> De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
> - Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ... Mary who is portrayed in the tomb scene of the Fourth Gospel as calling
> him [Jesus] "my lord" and "rabboni," titles appropriate in Jewish society
> only for a wife to use in addressing her rabbi husband.
That is odd because other people called him Lord as in John 13:13 - "Ye
call me master and Lord", and Jude 4 - "our Lord Jesus Christ" (and II
Peter 1:2, James 1:1, Matt. 14:28, Mark 9:24, etc.) - is that because
all were the 'bride of Christ'? You've said elsewhere that Lord also
means master, and I believe Rabboni means teacher, which is what Mary
calls him ("Teacher") in the gnostic text of The Gospel of Mary
Magdalene.
> ... the same Mary
> who demanded access to his deceased body from the one she thought was the
> gardener, an act appropriate only for the deceased's nearest of kin. pp.
> 106-107
This is inaccurate on several counts. First, she didn't demand access
to his body from the 'gardener'.
Second, If no one else showed up to do so, I don't see why Roman
soldiers would care who prepared the body. They wouldn't have objected
due to Jewish custom, that is certain. Third, Mattthew relates there
was a great earthquake, an angel appeared, and the "keepers did shake,
and became as dead men" (Matt. 28:1-4).
Also, Last, but not least, the only place the 'gardener' was mentioned
was in John 20:15, and John relates that Mary did not see the
'gardener' until **after** she had gained access to the tomb, found the
tomb empty, left, reported it to the disciples, and was weeping because
she thought someone had stolen the body.
That author does not have his story straight. You have to double-check
all writers to make sure they have the story from the scriptures
straight. Many seem to rely on memory and don't check their sources.
You rely too much on authors and their distorted and often erroneous
views on the scriptures instead of the scriptures themselves.
> No-one has ever been able to locate an ancient village Magdala or any Jewish
> or Roman record that mentions such a village. ... There is a Hebrew word,
> migdal, which has the same consonants as Magdala ... originally referred to
> a tower (a migdal edor) ... a play on that word would suggest that the early
> church, by calling Mary "Magdalene", was asserting that she was a tall,
> large or great figure - that she was "Mary the great" or "the great Mary".
Or the 'Apostle to the Apostles' as the Gnostic text of Phillip refers
to her, which also says Yeshua` loved Mary, but the scriptures in John
11:5 say he loved, Martha, Lazarus, and their sister, Mary of Bethany
who is thought to be Mary Magdalene (the tower). And Migdol is a place
in Egypt that is considered to be the place referred to as Magdala.
John 11:43-45 bears witness that Mary was the Apostle to the Apostles
by saying after Yeshua` raised Lazarus from the dead, "Then many of the
Jews ***which came to Mary***, and had seen the things which Jesus did
believed on him".
Also there was allegedly no Nazareth, and they should have translated
Yeshua` of Nazareth as Yeshua` the Nazarite, meaning a holy man.
Yeshua` also kept company with John the Baptist, an Essene, it is
suspected that Yeshua` was also an Essene. And the Essenes were
celibate as were the Nazarites during the period of their vow of
holiness and some were Nazarites from birth if their parents made the
vow for them.
> If Jesus' mother was another Mary, not "the great Mary", could the great
> Mary have been anything except his wife? Jesus, I believe, had a female
> partner, a wife, to whom he gave a dignity and honor that broike the
> barriers of the sexist definitions of the past. She was Mary - the
> Magdalene. p. 107
You would certainly think they would have somewhere documented a
marriage of the Messiah. I find the marriage thing very doubtful.
Romantic, but doubtful because there is no record whatsoever of it.
'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was the first book to promote the idea tied in
with the 'Grail' being the bloodline of the Messiah, i.e. Mary carrying
his baby was the Grail. I've read that and other books on the subject,
and they weren't convincing.
Mark T
>> > I saw you say someplace that Yeshua`, being a Rabbi, was married to
>> > Mary Magdalene.
>> Yep!
>> > Nowhere in the Scriptures, or the Gnostic texts, does it say in any
>> > way,
>> > shape, or > form that this is so.
>> So?
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ... Mary who is portrayed in the tomb scene of the Fourth Gospel as
>> calling
>> him [Jesus] "my lord" and "rabboni," titles appropriate in Jewish
>> society
>> only for a wife to use in addressing her rabbi husband.
>
> That is odd because other people called him Lord
Check the Hebrew and Greek.
>> ... the same Mary
>> who demanded access to his deceased body from the one she thought was the
>> gardener, an act appropriate only for the deceased's nearest of kin.
>> pp.
>> 106-107
>
> This is inaccurate on several counts. First, she didn't demand access
> to his body from the 'gardener'.
Yes she did. "Where have you taken him? ...."
> Second, If no one else showed up to do so, I don't see why Roman
> soldiers would care who prepared the body. They wouldn't have objected
> due to Jewish custom, that is certain.
Yes they would have. It was unsusual for Romans to allow burial of a
crucified victim at that time (though it was done with some). They were
usually thrown in a large pit after death. Romans didn't care about Jewish
custom. Some Roman crucifixions had the bodies rot on the cross to be eaten
by vultures.
> Third, Mattthew relates there
> was a great earthquake, an angel appeared, and the "keepers did shake,
> and became as dead men" (Matt. 28:1-4).
It NEVER happened in time / space history. No record anywhere in ancient
texts and not mentioned in any other gospel. It is a type of Midrashic
retelling of the story of Jesus used by Matthew (and the rest of the gospel
writers) who were NOT writing history / biography as we know it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew's gospel written 80 -100 CE
- Addressed to Diaspora
- Written in Antioch
- Conservative
- 90% of the references to Hell
- Based on Moses' life / Exodus
- Portrays division between Jews and Christians
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
De t'ings dat yo li'ble to read in de Bible - It ain't necessarily so.
- Porgy and Bess (George Gershwin)
> You would certainly think they would have somewhere documented a
> marriage of the Messiah.
Perhaps the marriage at Canan where Mary (the host?) tells Jesus (the
groom?) that the wine has run out. If both were only guests at the wedding
why would either worry about the problem?