For Snow - Discussion

[iqn...@noemail.com]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:10:05 +0000
Message-ID: <bef8290e-e24f-4892...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:

> When you realize that he had no desire for the blood of lambs,
> Christian theology kind of falls away and makes no sense. To
> understand the mission of the Messiah, one must have a better
> understanding of the linage of his priest hood:
>
> Gen 14:18 And Malkitsedeq sovereign of Shalm brought out
>**bread and wine**. Now he was the priest of the Most High.
>
> He did not have to die to teach you this but it is lost on most
> Christian:
>
> Mat 26:28 For this is My blood, that of the renewed covenant, which
> is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins."
>
> It is referred to in scriptures as the "blood of wine".



It's hard to understand some Scriptures unless you
understand symbolism too.

In this instance, the bread is the body and the wine is the blood,
of Jesus Christ.

Symbolism is used here in place of the actual.

We wouldn't literally eat the "Body of Christ" or
drink the "Blood of Christ". This would go against
several Laws or Ordinances, which is forbidden to do.

---
[Matthew 26:26-28]
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it,
and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat;
this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins.
---

The same goes for a lamb, which is symbolism for the sacrifice
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for the remission of sins. Not
only sins, but also the curse of the second death.

This particular symbolism goes all the way back to Abel, when
he offered a lamb and it pleased God, over Cains' offering.

All through the Levitical Priesthood, the lamb was the symbol
for Jesus Christ for sin offering. First for the priest and then
for the people.

That symbolism led up to this Actual Event, which was literal...

---
[Matt 16:20-23]
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and
be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it
far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:
thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things
that be of God, but those that be of men.
---

Was Peter, Satan? No. It's very likely that Satan used his influence
to cause Peter to say it. So, Jesus Christ was speaking to Satan,
not Peter.

Jesus Christ knew the work which His Father sent Him to do,
which is in verse 21 above.

All the ordinances of the the Old Covenant, concerning
the Levitical Priesthood, was symbolism for Jesus Christ,
which became fulfilled in Him -- the Lamb of God.

There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood;
as was the symbolism of the Levitical Priesthood, when they
offered a lamb to be sacrificed.

Jesus Christ took the burden from the Levitical Priesthood,
when He shed His blood, on the cross, for the remission of sins,
once and for all.

To "believe" that He did this for you, so that you would not die
the second death in your sins and from the curse, is by faith.

No man can change a Covenant that was made by God,
except God, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

If one is well studied in the Old and New Covenants,
he will come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is
the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

It started with Abel in symbolism, and ended with Jesus Christ,
in the literal event -- which is the Redemption of mankind.

[Snow]

On May 23, 6:36 pm, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:

> All the ordinances of the the Old Covenant, concerning
> the Levitical Priesthood, was symbolism for Jesus Christ,
> which became fulfilled in Him -- the Lamb of God.

Again, you lead back to human sacrifice. I'm fine with you believing
that but please don't expect me to agree with that.

> There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood;
> as was the symbolism of the Levitical Priesthood, when they
> offered a lamb to be sacrificed.

Not true. Many times YHWH forgave sins without shedding blood. You
say this because you have indoctrinated yourself into Christianity and
not the old Testament where it speaks many times about YHWH pardoning
sins.

Psa 25:11 For Your Name’s sake, O יהוה, You shall pardon my
crookedness, though it is great.

Your belief leads you to a blood thirsty deity, one without mercy or
compassion and you continue to ignore the fact that compassion is the
law and sin is what destroys you.

> Jesus Christ took the burden from the Levitical Priesthood,
> when He shed His blood, on the cross, for the remission of sins,
> once and for all.

"Jesus" never said such a thing..

Mat 12:7 “And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion
and NOT offering,’ you would not have condemned the blameless.

He was very clear that the cup of wine was for forgiveness of sins but
again, you do not follow his teachings. You subscribe to a death cult
where we can abort the Messiah, ignore his teachings. You might as
well go worship Apostle Paul as your Savior, not Yeshua. After all,
by your doctrine if it had not been for Paul, you wouldn't know the
truth.

> To "believe" that He did this for you, so that you would not die
> the second death in your sins and from the curse, is by faith.

The curse is if you do not establish the word. What a shame that you
do not understand that Paul added to the torah.

> No man can change a Covenant that was made by God,
> except God, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

So why do you allow Paul to do it?

> If one is well studied in the Old and New Covenants,
> he will come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is
> the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

There is no "old covenant" except an everlasting one that Christians
wrongly believe to be a curse as you have just demonstrated by what
you've said. You do not understand the teachings of Yeshua or else
you would know that the Torah is compassion and eternal.

> It started with Abel in symbolism, and ended with Jesus Christ,
> in the literal event -- which is the Redemption of mankind.

Yet, You forget that even Cane was forgiven his sin of murdering his
brother. The idea that YHWH forgives because he is compassionate is
something lost in all your dogma.

I appreciate your opinion and disagree with it.

[iqn...@noemail.com]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:13:04 +0000
Message-ID: <d9c1d213-0b71-4fa4...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:

IQN wrote:
> No man can change a Covenant that was made by God,
> except God, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Snow wrote:
> So why do you allow Paul to do it?

What does Paul have to do with this verse?

---
[Matthew 16:21]

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and
be raised again the third day.

---

[Snow]

On May 23, 8:38 pm, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> IQN wrote:
> > No man can change a Covenant that was made by God,
> > except God, through His Son, Jesus Christ.
> Snow wrote:
> > So why do you allow Paul to do it?
>
> What does Paul have to do with this verse?
>
> ---
> [Matthew 16:21]
> 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
> how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
> of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and
> be raised again the third day.
> ---

I have no doubt Yeshua was murdered, I simply said Christians don't
understand that Romans murdering him had nothing to do with
forgiveness of sins which YHWH has ALWAYS done out of COMPASSION.
This verse says ZERO about changing any covenant,

To change the blood of the cup of wine to actual 'blood of the cross'
as the Christian death cults teach, you must start quoting Paul... Not
Yeshua that taught:

Mat 26:28 “For *this is My blood*, that of the renewed covenant, which

is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins."

It's your choice to ignore his teachings.. not mine. This renews the
covenant which is the LAW OF COMPASSION.

Luk 22:20 Likewise the cup also, after supper, saying, “*This cup* is
the renewed covenant in My blood which is shed for you."

I wonder why you have such a hard time understanding the concept of
the 'blood of grapes'.

Deu 32:14... “And you drank wine, the blood of the grapes."

I tell you this so that you let go of the idea of a merciless deity
that demands blood sacrifices. Human sacrifice is a violation of the
Torah. It is a violation of the Torah to shed innocent blood.

Deu 21:8 ‘O Yahweh, FORGIVE Your people Isra’ĕl, whom You have
redeemed, and DO NOT allow innocent blood in the midst of Your people
Isra’ĕl.’

Shedding innocent blood is a violation of the Torah.

Deu 18:10 “Let no one be found among you who makes his son or his
daughter pass through the fire,"

On May 23, 8:38 pm, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> IQN wrote:
> > No man can change a Covenant that was made by God,
> > except God, through His Son, Jesus Christ.
> Snow wrote:
> > So why do you allow Paul to do it?
>
> What does Paul have to do with this verse?
>
> ---
> [Matthew 16:21]
> 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
> how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things
> of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and
> be raised again the third day.
> ---

I have no doubt Yeshua was murdered, I simply said Christians don't
understand that Romans murdering him had nothing to do with
forgiveness of sins which YHWH has ALWAYS done out of COMPASSION.
This verse says ZERO about changing any covenant,

To change the blood of the cup of wine to actual 'blood of the cross'
as the Christian death cults teach, you must start quoting Paul... Not
Yeshua that taught:

Mat 26:28 “For *this is My blood*, that of the renewed covenant, which

is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins."

It's your choice to ignore his teachings.. not mine. This renews the
covenant which is the LAW OF COMPASSION.

Luk 22:20 Likewise the cup also, after supper, saying, “*This cup* is
the renewed covenant in My blood which is shed for you."

I wonder why you have such a hard time understanding the concept of
the 'blood of grapes'.

Deu 32:14... “And you drank wine, the blood of the grapes."

I tell you this so that you let go of the idea of a merciless deity
that demands blood sacrifices. Human sacrifice is a violation of the
Torah. It is a violation of the Torah to shed innocent blood.

Deu 21:8 ‘O Yahweh, FORGIVE Your people Isra’ĕl, whom You have
redeemed, and DO NOT allow innocent blood in the midst of Your people
Isra’ĕl.’

Shedding innocent blood is a violation of the Torah.

Deu 18:10 “Let no one be found among you who makes his son or his
daughter pass through the fire,"

[duke]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 03:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:

>On May 23, 6:36 pm, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
>
>> All the ordinances of the the Old Covenant, concerning
>> the Levitical Priesthood, was symbolism for Jesus Christ,
>> which became fulfilled in Him -- the Lamb of God.

>Again, you lead back to human sacrifice. I'm fine with you believing
>that but please don't expect me to agree with that.

Human sacrifice was the sacred meal of Abraham in Isaac to his "God". Certainly
Abraham come out of a society of human sacrifice. Abraham must have believed in
almighty God at that time as the substitution of a ram began the new sacred meal
to God. That sacred meal is found in the passover.

At the Last Supper, Jesus and the Apostles gathered for a passover meal and left
with the Holy Eucharist in the **CONSECRATED** Body and Blood of Jesus from the
substance of bread and wine.

>> There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood;
>> as was the symbolism of the Levitical Priesthood, when they
>> offered a lamb to be sacrificed.

>Not true. Many times YHWH forgave sins without shedding blood. You
>say this because you have indoctrinated yourself into Christianity and
>not the old Testament where it speaks many times about YHWH pardoning
>sins.

The better way to put it is that the lamb was shed over and over for sin, but
the new lamb was shed once and for all in the cross. The blood of the lamb on
the passover doorsill warded off the angel of physical death. The blood of the
new lamb on the cross warded off the angel of spiritual death.

I sure even Isaac carrying his own wood for the holocaust on his shoulders was
also a foreshadowing of the cross.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[iqn...@noemail.com]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:22:04 +0000
Message-ID: <561e20d4-032b-4eff...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:

Snow wrote:
> I have no doubt Yeshua was murdered, I simply said Christians don't
> understand that Romans murdering him had nothing to do with
> forgiveness of sins which YHWH has ALWAYS done out of COMPASSION.

I can certainly understand why you are so opposed to
the Apostle Paul, seeing how he would destroy any
argument you could throw up.

So, with the wave of your hand, you dismiss him
as a hostile witness.

And That, is your choice, not mine.

[Matt 16:23]
..for thou savourest not the things that be of God,

but those that be of men. <---

I'm finished with this thread.

Have a good day.

[Snow]

On May 24, 9:45 am, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:22:04 +0000
> Message-ID: <561e20d4-032b-4eff...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
>

> Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
> Snow wrote:
> > I have no doubt Yeshua was murdered, I simply said Christians don't
> > understand that Romans murdering him had nothing to do with
> > forgiveness of sins which YHWH has ALWAYS done out of COMPASSION.
>
> I can certainly understand why you are so opposed to
> the Apostle Paul, seeing how he would destroy any
> argument you could throw up.
>
> So, with the wave of your hand, you dismiss him
> as a hostile witness.
>
> And That, is your choice, not mine.
>
> [Matt 16:23]
> ..for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
> but those that be of men. <---
>
> I'm finished with this thread.
>
> Have a good day.

Sweet. You are absolutely correct in your understanding but... I have
dismissed the teachings of Paul because he is a self admitted Pharisee
and the Messiah was very specific to his followers that we should,
"LEAVE THEM ALONE."

Mat 9:10 And it came to be, as Yeshua sat at the table in the house,
that see, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him
and His taught ones.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His taught ones,
“Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone
called ‘a brother,’ if he is one who whores, or greedy of gain, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat
with such a one.

Mat 9:12 And Yeshua hearing this, said to them, “Those who are strong
have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire compassion and
not offering.’ For I did not come to call the righteous to repentance,
but sinners.”

Act 23:6 Paul …cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a
Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.”
Mat 15:12 Then His taught ones came and said to Him, “Do You know that
the Pharisees stumbled when they heard this word?”

Mat 15:13 But He answering, said, “Every plant which My heavenly
Father has not planted shall be uprooted.
Mat 15:14 “LEAVE THEM ALONE. They are blind leaders of the blind. And
if the blind leads the blind, both shall fall into a ditch.”
Mar 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

Just because Christians IGNORE his teachings to follow after Paul,
doesn't mean I need to jump in the same boat with them. I on the
other hand can form a rational discussion for my position and...

I'm the one following the teachings of Yeshua... You on the other hand
have to say that follow Paul is the foundation of your doctrine...
because clearly as I have briefly demonstrate... Your dogma comes from
him.

Yeshu never came for the righteous... I wonder why Christians have
such a hard time understanding that one can be righteous and good?

[Up from the Abyss]

iqnews wrote:
>
> 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying,
> Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
>
> 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me,
> Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not
> the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
> ---
>
> Was Peter, Satan? No. It's very likely that Satan used his
> influence to cause Peter to say it. So, Jesus Christ was
> speaking to Satan, not Peter.

IMO: Jesus was speaking directly to Peter as one whose
thoughts / ideas were opposed to that of "God".

[Snow]

On May 31, 8:34 am, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:

> > Was Peter, Satan? No. It's very likely that Satan used his
> > influence to cause Peter to say it. So, Jesus Christ was
> > speaking to Satan, not Peter.
>
> IMO:  Jesus was speaking directly to Peter as one whose
> thoughts / ideas were opposed to that of "God".

Agreed. It's always good to see when you share. (HUGS)

[iqn...@noemail.com]

On Fri, 31 May 2013 04:38:30 +0000
Message-ID: <1e445171-ea7c-49dd...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
Snow <snowp...@eck.net.au> wrote:

I stand by my statement, as closer than yours.

At the time, Peter himself was ignorant of the Salvation
of God, at the cross. Therefore, he didn't "oppose" that
which he was unaware of.

It was another temptation of Satan.
That is the logical conclusion.

He was faithful to God the Father, to the very end.

---
[Matt 26:39-42]
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will,
but as thou wilt. <---

40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them
asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch
with me one hour?

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation:
the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

42 He went away again the second time, and prayed,
saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away
from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. <---
---

[Snow]

On May 31, 3:45 pm, iqn...@noemail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 04:38:30 +0000
> Message-ID: <1e445171-ea7c-49dd...@vy4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
>

> Snow <snowpheo...@eck.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 8:34=A0am, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Was Peter, Satan? No. It's very likely that Satan used his
> > > > influence to cause Peter to say it. So, Jesus Christ was
> > > > speaking to Satan, not Peter.
>
> > > IMO: Jesus was speaking directly to Peter as one whose
> > > thoughts / ideas were opposed to that of "God".
>
> > Agreed.  It's always good to see when you share.  (HUGS)
>
> I stand by my statement, as closer than yours.
>
> At the time, Peter himself was ignorant of the Salvation
> of God, at the cross. Therefore, he didn't "oppose" that
> which he was unaware of.
>
> It was another temptation of Satan.
> That is the logical conclusion.
>
> He was faithful to God the Father, to the very end.

I'm certain you must be correct. My friend, you must understand that
ideas don't compete, egos do. I have no desire to right if it gets in
the way of being compassionate and loving. Thank you for sharing with
me.

Now it is your turn to be faithful. I'm certain you will set a great
example.

[Up from the Abyss]

iqnews wrote:
> Snow wrote:

> > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >>
> >> IMO: Jesus was speaking directly to Peter as one whose
> >> thoughts / ideas were opposed to that of "God".
> >
> > Agreed. It's always good to see when you share. (HUGS)
>
> I stand by my statement, as closer than yours.
>
> At the time, Peter himself was ignorant of the Salvation
> of God, at the cross. Therefore, he didn't "oppose" that
> which he was unaware of.

Peter spoke the desire of his heart. When he spoke, he
was emphatic

Jesus had just revealed that he would suffer and be killed.
Peter spoke emphatically against such a thing.

> It was another temptation of Satan.
> That is the logical conclusion.

So if you where walking with Jesus in Peter's shoes,
you wouldn't have initially spoken out like Peter did
in the Matthew 16 or Mark 8 account?

> He was faithful to God the Father, to the very end.

Peter? The one who denied him three times by the
time the cock crowed? Either that, or you are suddenly
shifting the focus from Peter to Jesus as that which you
further quoted affirmed.

There was no temptation of Jesus in that. It was a logical
emotional response from a disciple who loved his lord.