Jesus the Messiah?
Dannyil
verses:
A. 19: All the tribes will be united
B. 21: They will be returned to the land of Israel,
C. 22: where they will be one nation, with one king, and will be
undivided.
D. 23: There will be no idolatry, and sin, for the L-RD will save
them.
E. 23: They will be G-d's people
F. 24: The king will be a servant of G-d and he will be king over
them.
G. 24: Everyone will follow the laws and be careful to keep all the
decrees.
H. 25: This will be forever.
I. 26: There will be a contract of peace, forever, and they will be
increased.
J. 26 & 27: There will be a new Temple which will stand forever.
K. 28: All the nations will know who G-d is and who will make Israel
holy
Points to consider:
i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
ii.) This is a major prophecy in the bible, and it is not mentioned
once in the NT.
iii.) Not one of these prophecies has come true since the time of
Solomon's death (when the Northern and Southern Kingdoms split)
(although to some extent prophecies B and C is being fulfilled to some
extent in part.
iv.) Jesus is not mentioned here at all.
Now I'm assuming that Christians have an answer to this question.
I would like to hear it.
Danny
vapolluan
news:a8c620a3-822a-4d6a...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"AND THOUGH HE MAY TARRY, I SHALL WAIT EACH DAY, ANTICIPATING
HIS ARRIVAL." Maimonides, Principles of the Faith, No. 12
"I will make everyone who wins the victory a pillar in the temple of my God.
They will never leave it again. I will write on them the name of my God, the
name of the city of my God (the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from
my God), and my new name"
So he returns with a new name.Whats the problem?.
Dannyil
wrote:
> "Dannyil" <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I - This question is really a side issue
1. Most Christians do not agree with Maimonides' Principles.
2. You quoted another statement that is unsourced - I don't know where
this is from
3. Also, lets be clear here, your statement refers to the people with
a new name of G-d. (As an side point - we see that the Jews today
refer to G-d as "My Master", and not the unpronounced name. Jerusalem
does not have the name of G-d, when it returns it will have a new
name). This has nothing to do with G-d's servant.
4. G-d is the savior of the Jewish people, not the Messiah.
5. The major points are A-K have not been fulfilled by Jesus at all.
6. This I also wanted to mention: G. is certainly not been fulfilled
by Jesus or any Christian. This is a precondition. For fulfillment G
is essential.
vapolluan
Its from revelation.
> 3. Also, lets be clear here, your statement refers to the people with
> a new name of G-d. (As an side point - we see that the Jews today
> refer to G-d as "My Master", and not the unpronounced name. Jerusalem
> does not have the name of G-d, when it returns it will have a new
> name). This has nothing to do with G-d's servant.
It is that servant *doing* the talking here in that quote that you dont even
recognize.
> 4. G-d is the savior of the Jewish people, not the Messiah.
Great, and me too.
> 5. The major points are A-K have not been fulfilled by Jesus at all.
> 6. This I also wanted to mention: G. is certainly not been fulfilled
> by Jesus or any Christian. This is a precondition. For fulfillment G
> is essential.
>
Yep.Jesus got crucified and hasnt returned yet, so none of that has
happened.BTW, you could have cross-posted this if you wanted an answer.
I suspect you just want to argue, so have at it.Enjoy yourself, and when
*you* warn people of major world events, I'll be sure not to appreciate it.
You''ll love that.
vapolluan
Let me just add, for the record.Since I am alive right now in this physical
body, we can date this present time to just after the first woe of
Revelation 9.I have no idea how long it will be until the 6th angel
arrives.It could be years.Elements of what I wrote about will in fact pop up
again later (STS-107 and 911, to be specific about 2) in Revelation.I also
have to return to the Kingdom in order to throw down Satan.That is my other
title.Michael.You can easily do a search and find a connection with Michael
being a destroying angel.None of this is stretches any scripture, and the
stuff about me and my warnings in advance are history, pretty plain.
Sounds crazy?I can back this up better than anyone ever written about in any
holy scripture.Come to St. Louis and bring an army of interlocutors.
Dannyil
posting is not so easy.
>>It is that servant *doing* the talking here in that quote that you dont even
recognize.
2. I don't understand this point.
> 4. G-d is the savior of the Jewish people, not the Messiah.
>>Great, and me too.
3. I don't understand this point.
>>Yep.Jesus got crucified and hasnt returned yet, so none of that has
>>happened.BTW, you could have cross-posted this if you wanted an answer.
>>I suspect you just want to argue, so have at it.Enjoy yourself, and when
>>*you* warn people of major world events, I'll be sure not to appreciate it.
>>You''ll love that.
4. Good so you admit it hasn't happened. Therefore I don't have any
reason then to accept Jesus as the Messiah. QED
5. Not interested in arguing, I'm interested in what main-stream
Christianity has to answer for itself, when it is confronted with a
clear prophecy from the OT. If I wanted an argument I could have
easily reworded it to ruffle feathers.
6. World peace is a common knowledge fact. I don't need to warn
people of it. It is clear to anyone who listens to the news. There
is no world-peace.
>>Let me just add, for the record.Since I am alive right now in this physical
>>body, we can date this present time to just after the first woe of
>>Revelation 9.I have no idea how long it will be until the 6th angel
>>arrives.It could be years.Elements of what I wrote about will in fact pop up
>>again later (STS-107 and 911, to be specific about 2) in Revelation.I also
>>have to return to the Kingdom in order to throw down Satan.That is my other
>>title.Michael.You can easily do a search and find a connection with Michael
>>being a destroying angel.None of this is stretches any scripture, and the
>>stuff about me and my warnings in advance are history, pretty plain.
>>Sounds crazy?I can back this up better than anyone ever written about in any
>>holy scripture.Come to St. Louis and bring an army of interlocutors.
7. I'm sorry, I really don't understand this.
Danny.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>Ezekiel 37 Reads:
All of Ezekiel was fulfilled. But maybe not
the way you read it.
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation
of the world: but NOW once in THE END OF THE AGE hath
He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
- Hebrews 9:26
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>Ezekiel 37 Reads:
>
>Points to consider:
>i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
There is more to the Bible than just one chapter.
--
In the beginning, God created...
And He did it in six days and said He did it
in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
and in other places. The original Hebrew
word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
the one exception?
Fred A Stover
news:rl6gp3pts52glnen8...@4ax.com...><Satan snipped>
The Day of The Lord
A key to understanding many of the prophecies referring to the day of the
Lord or "that day" is a clear understanding of the day of the Lord. It
begins with the Lord's return for His millennial reign (2 Pet 3:10) followed
by the second resurrection among the rest of the dead: "And I saw thrones,
and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them: and I saw the souls of
them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years (but the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were finished). This is the first
resurrection" (Rev 20:4-5). The day of the Lord is the thousand year
millennium, which is followed by eternity with a new heaven and earth: "And
I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev 21:1).
The day of the Lord is the day of His wrath: "Behold, the day of the Lord
comes, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and
he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and
the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be
darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to
shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their
iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay
low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than
fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake
the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of
the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger" (Is 13:9-13): "And I
saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat on him was
called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he
had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed
with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And
the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in
fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that
with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of
iron: and he treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty
God" (Rev. 19:11-15).
The day of the Lord is also the day of His rest: "For he spoke in a certain
place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from
all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remains that some must enter therein, and they to whom
it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief (Heb 4:4-8).
The day of the Lord is the seventh millennial day (Heb 4:4,7), and what is
prophesied along with the seventh millennial day is the first 6 millennial
days, which make the seventh day the seventh: The first 1000-year day is the
day in which Adam died at the age of 930 years (Gen 5:5): "But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day
that you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17) The last or latter
days, the three 1000-year days at the end of the week, are the time of the
Messiah (Acts 2:17, Heb 1:2): "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations [goyim:
uncircumcised] shall flow unto it" (Is 2:2), and the uncircumcised have
been flowing into the Lord's house "free from the law of sin and death" (Rom
8:2) since His first coming. To the Jews, Hosea also prophesied of these
last three days: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live in his sight" (Hos 6:2). The day of the Lord
is the last millennial day of the last days: "But, beloved, be not ignorant
of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of
the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Pet
3:8-10).
Prophecies become clearer when we read them within the framework of seven
millennial days between the fall of Adam and the final, white throne
judgment with "the last days" or "latter days" being the three between the
Lord's first coming and the judgment and with the day of the Lord, being
also the day of His wrath and the day of His rest, being the last thousand
year day: "For yet seven days, ... and every living substance that I have
made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" (Gen 7:4).
Dannyil
i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
a.) if you do a search through all of the OT, you will come up with
not a single prophecy about the Second Coming
This is kind of critical (compare with Deut. 13.2-6 and Deut. 18)
Take for example your great grandfather - could he be the Messiah?
Maybe, I mean there is a second coming idea, I will say there is a
chance, that he will come back again and fulfill Ezekiel 37. Your
great grandfather is not the Messiah, because if he doesn't fulfill
Ezekiel 37, that launches him into the category of Deuteronomy
13.2-6. How do I know what a false prophet or dreamer of dreams is?
Someone who claims X, and X does not happen! QED.
b.) You want to say there is a second coming. James 5:8 suggests
that it is near. James wrote possibly some time in the 1st-2nd
Century, its now 1900 years later. I don't think this is near.
c.) The prophecy that was mentioned is Ezekiel 37. This in no way
indicates a second coming idea. This means a critical prophecy was
somehow left out, in a central prophecy. Not only that, but in the
entire Old Testament there is not one mention of a second coming.
Kind of important to leave out no?
Also, I think the prophecies in Ezekiel 37 are pretty straightforward
and clear. Have you read them?
Danny
Dannyil
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
a.) I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand this.
b.) What does creation of six-days have to do with a proof for a
second coming of a Messiah that failed in his objectives the first
time.
c.) As a side point, the fact that you're searching for sources shows
you're avoiding the question.
d.) This is off topic, stick to the prophecy in Ezekiel 37.
Danny
1.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>See point i.)
>
>i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
Repeating your claim does not make the fact that
Ezekiel was fulfilled and that it is not the only book
in the Bible.
Now if you can't read, that's your problem, but as
for me, I can point to more than one prophecy about
the Second Coming.
But what you won't find, is a prophecy that states
what the Futurists state. And you, in your ignorance,
think that's what Christianity is, as do they.
Educate yourself, get humble and ASK ME, instead
of trying to tell me what I believe!
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
Revelation 1:1,3
1) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things
WHICH MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto
his servant John:
2) Who bare record of the word of God, and of
the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things
that he saw.
3) Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things
which are written therein: for THE TIME IS AT HAND.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>On Jan 24, 6:58 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>>
>> >Ezekiel 37 Reads:
>>
>> >Points to consider:
>> >i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
>>
>> There is more to the Bible than just one chapter.
>
>a.) I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand this.
Then study and then get back to me.
--
If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio
out of a coconut, why can't he fix a hole in a boat?
Dannyil
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>
> >Ezekiel 37 Reads:
>
> All of Ezekiel was fulfilled. But maybe not
> the way you read it.
>
I'm sorry you're going to have to do better than that
I have prophecies A-K, for reference, and points i-iv to take care of
Now you're going to have to do some work and show me
step by step A-K how each one is fulfilled in Jesus.
Let me help you out with the beginning
A.) The tribes of Israel are united.
This means that there are 12 tribes in Israel (currently there are
three tribes - Yehudah and Simeon, are subsumed into Yehudah, and the
Tribe of Levi which is represented by those of Moses and Aharan the
High Priest. That means that when you meet a Jew in the street, he is
either one of these 4, Now, we subtract Levi from the list, since they
do not have a portion in the land, you're left with a remainder of
10. These are the 10 Tribes that were exiled in the First Temple
Period. They have not returned, and are not united.
Now you have to show that Jesus fulfilled this.
Danny
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>c.) As a side point, the fact that you're searching for sources shows
>you're avoiding the question.
Listen stupid, play your games with someone else!
I am not "searching for sources", nor did I ever say
that I was! You're just a dip shit, who thinks that
by accusing me, it means that he's impressed people!
Now dimwit, your problem is that you can't back up
your claims and you think that harassing others,
means that you're some fucking genius! To me,
all you are is an asshole, who I'd like to slap silly!
>d.) This is off topic, stick to the prophecy in Ezekiel 37.
No, you dumb fuck! You're the one who claims that
I said that it wasn't fulfilled! You lied! Then you tried
to claim that there is no prophecy in the Bible about
the Second Coming! When I pointed out that
Ezekiel 37 is not the only chapter in the Bible,
you tried to lie about me again and now you're
claiming that whatever I say is off topic, trying to
again narrow it down to Ezekiel 37! So I say again,
moron, Ezekiel 37 is not the only chapter in the Bible
and trying to claim that you don't see something there,
does not mean that it isn't found anywhere in the Bible!
Now quite being a dumb ass! Prove your claims about
the Second Coming, or shut the Hell up! And don't
think that repeating the Futurist view means that's
what I believe! You're too stupid to know there is
even more than one view, because your supposed
"research" consisted of you finding whatever suited
your needs to slam people with!
--
Money isn't everything. But it keeps the kids in touch.
Dannyil
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:29:12 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>
> >See point i.)
>
> >i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
>
> Repeating your claim does not make the fact that
> Ezekiel was fulfilled and that it is not the only book
> in the Bible.
You misread my post. I am claiming the opposite. Ezekiel
37 is not fulfilled.
In 1.) you mention that it supposed to happen shortly - which means
to a first century Christian, it was soon to happen. This did not,
and has not for 1900 years
this is not a good sign.
in 3.) again the time is at hand, its a long time. John was writing
for whom? for people 1900 years ago, or his generation, for those who
were living, and expecting Jesus to return?
> Now if you can't read, that's your problem, but as
> for me, I can point to more than one prophecy about
> the Second Coming.
I find it interesting that of all the books in the NT, you had to
resort to Revelations, which was written much later than Paul, John
and the Gospels. That means for the early Christians there was no
"Second Coming". I also find it remarkable that for such an important
revelation - the resurrection, etc. that only 30-40 years after his
death, there is any written material on the subject. In fact,
historically, Josephus and other historians fail to give him any
status (Josephus fails to mention him), but the cult of Essenes who
were around at that time, are mentioned in great detail.
I find this striking. As far as Jesus is concerned, it seems that the
major thrust of his religion died out soon after he died. It is only
with John, Paul and later early church fathers that really revived the
cult, and created Christianity in the backdrop of a failing Roman
empire and acceptance of gentile conversions.
>
> But what you won't find, is a prophecy that states
> what the Futurists state. And you, in your ignorance,
> think that's what Christianity is, as do they.
Excuse my ignorance. I don't know what you're talking about.
Nevertheless, I'm really after what mainstream Christianity has to say
on the subject.
> Educate yourself, get humble and ASK ME, instead
> of trying to tell me what I believe!
Christians today, as far as I'm aware, present the case for Jesus by
saying that there is a Second Coming, in which all the prophecies of
the OT, and NT that are not fulfilled will be fulfilled. The problem
is that the OT does not mention one word about this, and the NT
presents a view that it was supposed to happen in the life-times of
the writers of the NT. This is a creation of the early church because
it is not presented at all in the gospels, and early writings of
Paul. Only scant references are available. It seems to me, that the
Jesus cult that may or may not have existed around the time of his
life in 33 CE, seems to have died out until decades later.
But again. This is a side point, I'm interested in what Jesus did
about prophecies A-K, if he did fulfill them.
Danny
Dannyil
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:32:00 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>
> >c.) As a side point, the fact that you're searching for sources shows
> >you're avoiding the question.
>
> Listen stupid, play your games with someone else!
> I am not "searching for sources", nor did I ever say
> that I was! You're just a dip shit, who thinks that
> by accusing me, it means that he's impressed people!
This was in reference to:
>>And He did it in six days and said He did it
>>in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
>>that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
>>and in other places. The original Hebrew
>>word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
>>anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
>>a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
>>etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
>>the one exception?
I do not understand then this connection to your answer to point i.)
> Now dimwit, your problem is that you can't back up
> your claims and you think that harassing others,
> means that you're some fucking genius! To me,
> all you are is an asshole, who I'd like to slap silly!
>
> >d.) This is off topic, stick to the prophecy in Ezekiel 37.
Now I am confused. This was made in reference to the quote in Exodus
with regard to "Day"
I don't really see the connection between this reference and how this
answers why there is a second coming
and why Prophecies A-K should be ignored until the second coming,
because, as I mentioned in a post before. Nonetheless, I will quote
again for reference:
i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
a.) if you do a search through all of the OT, you will come up with
not a single prophecy about the Second Coming
This is kind of critical (compare with Deut. 13.2-6 and Deut. 18)
Take for example your great grandfather - could he be the Messiah?
Maybe, I mean there is a second coming idea, I will say there is a
chance, that he will come back again and fulfill Ezekiel 37. Your
great grandfather is not the Messiah, because if he doesn't fulfill
Ezekiel 37, that launches him into the category of Deuteronomy
13.2-6. How do I know what a false prophet or dreamer of dreams is?
Someone who claims X, and X does not happen! QED.
b.) You want to say there is a second coming. James 5:8 suggests
that it is near. James wrote possibly some time in the 1st-2nd
Century, its now 1900 years later. I don't think this is near.
c.) The prophecy that was mentioned is Ezekiel 37. This in no way
indicates a second coming idea. This means a critical prophecy was
somehow left out, in a central prophecy. Not only that, but in the
entire Old Testament there is not one mention of a second coming.
Kind of important to leave out no?
>
> No, you dumb fuck! You're the one who claims that
> I said that it wasn't fulfilled! You lied! Then you tried
> to claim that there is no prophecy in the Bible about
> the Second Coming! When I pointed out that
> Ezekiel 37 is not the only chapter in the Bible,
> you tried to lie about me again and now you're
> claiming that whatever I say is off topic, trying to
> again narrow it down to Ezekiel 37! So I say again,
> moron, Ezekiel 37 is not the only chapter in the Bible
> and trying to claim that you don't see something there,
> does not mean that it isn't found anywhere in the Bible!
Ezekiel 37 is one of the major parts of the prophecy of the end of
days in the OT. If you take all the prophecies together, in a single
picture, you will see that Ezekiel 37, not only is important, but
central. Many other prophecies are really secondary, and are side-
points. If you like, I can show you a schematic.
I wish to focus on Ezekiel 37 for that reason. You maybe right in that
there are other prophecies, but do they help the position you wish to
present, or do not add anything?
The idea of Second Coming seems to be a major prophecy and yet it is
downplayed, in the NT, and is non-existent in the OT. This means
either a.) there is none, or b.) it is not relevant.
Even if you assert b.) that means you still have to answer up
Prophecies A-K.
> Now quite being a dumb ass! Prove your claims about
> the Second Coming, or shut the Hell up! And don't
> think that repeating the Futurist view means that's
> what I believe! You're too stupid to know there is
> even more than one view, because your supposed
> "research" consisted of you finding whatever suited
> your needs to slam people with!
I'm looking for answers, if any, to support the idea that Jesus
fulfilled Ezekiel 37 and the prophecies listed A-K
You're saying he did not, and he will in the second coming. Lets
assume that he did fulfill them, as some claim. Let us see the claim
and the proofs for this in the NT.
Danny
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
> First lets discuss Christianity
>
> A.) Prophecy about uniting the tribes together under one nation
>
> Where does Jesus fulfill this one!
>
> Danny
You just don't get it. Not every Jew, much less everyone else,
believes the lie that you were brainwashed into, namely that the Torah
is to be idolized. We consider THAT a very serious form of idolotry
that falsifies entirely the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion to
us is about the experience of Moses and other sages with the angels of
HaShem, and we don't even believe that HaShem is necessarily JHVH.
HaShem is the true name of the LORD of creation. There is very good
reason within the Torah itself to believe that JHVH is not HaShem.
In other words, just as you have been taught to leave your mind at the
door when you enter synagogue, so we have been taught to put on our
thinking caps when we enter synagogue.
So, we don't believe that Moshiach will be a slave to Torah. We think
you have everything backwards. Moshiach will be able to rewrite Torah
as He sees fit. Moshiach is to be regarded as G-D Himself in person,
and so He has full authority to change the Covenant or negotiate a new
one. Was Jesus, whose Hebrew name is Jehoshua Moshaich, the Jewish
Messiah? I don't know, but I do know this: if He is not the Jewish
Messiah, it is because He stayed too close to the already established
tradition and NOT because He departed too much from it.
What Jews want to forget is Genesis 1. False Jews are fond of saying,
there is no original sin in Judaism, but of course there is - it is
right there in Genesis 1. The rabbis can't lie their way out of it.
Everything subsequent to Genesis 1 is conditioned by it. The Torah is
the story of fallen men and women, who have been exiled from the
Kingdom of God. It is not a pleasant story. It is about delusion and
the struggle to merely survive. There is nothing to be so proud of in
the record of fallen men and women. Humility here is the key.
When Moshiach comes, He cannot not be a fallen man, like Adam. He
must be a member in good standing of the Kingdom of God. He is not
bound by the Torah, because the Torah is a Covenant between HaShem and
fallen men and women. In fact, Jesus seemed to be a little bit too
concerned with fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps, however, that was just
for the sake of the fallen men and women He was ministering to.
The real requirements for Moshiach were known only to Moshiach, not to
fallen men and women. They are not in the Torah. They have to do
with the functional unity of the Godhead. There are many functioning
parts of G-D, and HaShem is only the central personality of the
extended being of G-D. In order to bring about the functional unity
of all the aspects of Godhead, Moshiach must essentially be HaShem.
The proof that He is HaShem is that He can personally assume the
function of any of the various functional parts of G-D. In other
words, He depends on no one other than Himself to conduct the business
of the Creation. No fallen angel can sour the plan, because Moshiach
can assume the proper function of that angel before He fell. This
gives a much deeper meaning to the Shema, and that was proclaimed by
Jesus as the essence of His mission. See Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Hand in
hand with that purpose was to rid Judaism once and for all of its
racism. Leviticus 19:18 was reinterpreted to include everyone, not
just fellow Jewry.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>On Jan 24, 2:48 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:29:12 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>>
>> >See point i.)
>>
>> >i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
>>
>> Repeating your claim does not make the fact that
>> Ezekiel was fulfilled and that it is not the only book
>> in the Bible.
>
>You misread my post. I am claiming the opposite.
>Ezekiel 37 is not fulfilled.
You are free to believe that.
>In 1.) you mention that it supposed to happen shortly - which means
>to a first century Christian, it was soon to happen. This did not,
>and has not for 1900 years this is not a good sign.
It's a great sign to me, since it did happen.
And the NT was a 1st century text.
And isn't it amazing how you Futurists believe
that these things are supposed to happen soon,
but think that means in your time!
So "soon = soon", but not when it was written,
even though they didn't say, "But wait until
the 21st century before applying this word".
But since you don't understand the Bible,
to you, you are faced with either claiming
that it didn't happen and inventing doctrines,
or leaving Christianity.
>in 3.) again the time is at hand, its a long time. John was writing
>for whom? for people 1900 years ago, or his generation, for those who
>were living, and expecting Jesus to return?
They are all the same people. Jesus and John said
what they said. You can deny that if you wish, but
they still said it.
--
It's hard to stumble when you're down on your knees.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>On Jan 24, 6:57 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:57 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>>
>> >Ezekiel 37 Reads:
>>
>> All of Ezekiel was fulfilled. But maybe not
>> the way you read it.
>>
>
>I'm sorry you're going to have to do better than that
I don't have to do anything. I responded to your claims,
not vice versa.
--
What part of 'THOU SHALT NOT' don't you understand?
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>On Jan 24, 2:57 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:32:00 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>>
>> >c.) As a side point, the fact that you're searching for sources shows
>> >you're avoiding the question.
>>
>> Listen stupid, play your games with someone else!
>> I am not "searching for sources", nor did I ever say
>> that I was! You're just a dip shit, who thinks that
>> by accusing me, it means that he's impressed people!
>
>This was in reference to:
>
>>>And He did it in six days and said He did it
>>>in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesus believed
>>>that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
>>>and in other places. The original Hebrew
>>>word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
>>>anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
>>>a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
>>>etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
>>>the one exception?
>
>I do not understand then this connection to your answer to point i.)
Your comment doesn't even link to the subject.
You are all over the place!
>i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
That is your opinion, based on ignorance.
--
The wages of sin is death. Repent before payday.
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
I meant to say Genesis 2 in the above, not Genesis 1.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>I'm looking for answers
No you're not. You're making claims and then
instead of backing them up, you're trying to
claim that you get to demand that others
back up what they say, when they're simply
responding to your claim. That's disingenuous.
--
Christians, keep the faith -- but not from others!
sai...@nettally.com
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not
a lover of money. (NIV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient,
not a brawler, not covetous; (KJV)
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a
husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but
gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money, (YLT)
Titus 1:6-8
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must
be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to
drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must
be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled,
upright, holy and disciplined. (NIV)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children
not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the
steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no
striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a
lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; (KJV)
if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children
stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate -
for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not
self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not
given to filthy lucre; but a lover of strangers, a lover of good men,
sober-minded, righteous, kind, self-controlled, (YLT)
BISHOP
An overseer, elder, or pastor charged with the responsibility of
spiritual leadership in a local church in New Testament times. Before
the church was founded, the Greek word for bishop was used in a
general sense to refer to local gods as those who watched over people
or countries. The word was later applied to men, including those who
held positions as magistrates or other government offices. And
eventually the term was extended to refer to officials in religious
communities with various functions, including those who supervised the
revenues of pagan temples. The SEPTUAGINT (Greek translation of the
Old Testament) uses bishop to refer to those who exercise power;
sometimes it indicates those who hold positions of authority. It
represents a Hebrew term that refers to those who are overseers or
officers (Num 4:16; Neh 9:9).
In the New Testament, Jesus is called the "Overseer of your souls" (1
Peter 2:25). In this passage the word is associated with the term
shepherd. It is also used to identify the leader of a Christian
community or the one who filled the office of overseer. In Acts 20:28
the elders of the church at Ephesus summoned to meet Paul are
identified as overseers. Their responsibility, given by the Holy
Spirit, was "to shepherd the church of God." In Phil 1 bishops are
associated with deacons, and the qualifications are outlined in 1 Tim
3:2-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Included are standards for his personal and
home life, as well as the bishop's relationships with non-believers.
In Acts 20:17,28 and Titus 1:5,7, the terms bishop and elder are used
synonymously. Also the word bishop, or its related words, appears to
be synonymous with the word shepherd, or its equivalents (Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 2:25; 5:2). In his work, the bishop was to oversee the flock
of God, to shepherd his people, to protect them from enemies, and to
teach, exhort, and encourage. He was to accomplish this primarily by
being an example to his people. He was to do this willingly and with
an eager spirit, not by coercion or for financial gain. To desire a
position as bishop, the apostle Paul declared, was to desire a good
work (1 Tim 3:1). Also see ELDER.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
ELDER
A term used throughout the Bible but designating different ideas at
various times in biblical history. The word may refer to age,
experience, and authority, as well as specific leadership roles. In
ancient times authority was given to older people with wider
experience. These were often considered the most qualified to hold
places of leadership. The basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words
for elder is "old age." In the Old Testament those leaders associated
with Moses in governing the nation of Israel were called "the elders
of Israel" (Ex 3:16; 24:1), "the elders of the people" (Ex 19:7), or
the "seventy elders" (Ex 24:1). Moses called these elders together to
give them instructions for the observance of the Passover before the
Exodus from Egypt. Later, after the years of wandering in the
wilderness, bodies of elders ruled in each city. These elders were
viewed as the representatives of the nation and its people. The term
elder eventually came to be applied to those who governed in the local
communities, the rulers of the various tribes, and those who ruled all
of Israel. These leaders were responsible for legal, political and
military guidance and supervision. During the years of Israel's
captivity in Babylon and the following centuries, elders again
appeared as leaders who were responsible for governing in the Jewish
communities. These elders became the upper class, forming a type of
ruling aristocracy. Later in this period, a council of elders of 71
members, called the SANHEDRIN, emerged. This council had both
religious and political authority among all the Jewish people in
Palestine, particularly in New Testament times. The HIGH PRIEST was
the chairman of the Sanhedrin. Local Jewish synagogues, which emerged
in the period between the Old and New Testaments, were also governed
by a council of elders.
A governing structure similar to the ruling elders among the Jews was
followed in the early church. The title elder was continued, but the
significance of the office changed. Thus, the term elder is used in
the New Testament to refer to the Jewish elders of the synagogue, to
the members of the Sanhedrin, and to certain persons who held office
in the church. It also implied seniority by reason of age (1 Tim 5:2;
1 Peter 5:5). The presence of elders in the church in the New
Testament indicates that this office was taken over from the
synagogue. Elders were associated with James in Jerusalem in the local
church's government (Acts 11:30; 21:18) and, with the apostles, in the
decision of the early church council (Acts 15). Elders were also
appointed in the churches established during the apostle Paul's first
missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus
(Acts 20:17-35). Elders played an important role in church life
through their ministry to the sick (James 5:14,15). They were
apparently the teachers also in a local congregation. In addition to
ministering to the sick, their duties consisted of explaining the
Scriptures and teaching doctrine (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Peter 5:5).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
Let us consider the qualifications of a Christian Bishop, and then we
shall soon discover who is fit for the office.
1. This Christian Bishop must be blameless; anepileepton, a person
against whom no evil can be proved; one who is everywhere
invulnerable; for the word is a metaphor, taken from the case of an
expert and skillful pugilist, who so defends every part of his body
that it is impossible for his antagonist to give one hit. So this
Christian Bishop is one that has so conducted himself, as to put it
out of the reach of any person to prove that he is either unsound in a
single article of the Christian faith, or deficient in the fulfilment
of any duty incumbent on a Christian. He must be irreprehensible; for
how can he reprove that in others which they can reprove in him?
2. He must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but
he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a
time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die,
he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized
this, and say, that by one wife the church is intended! This silly
quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle's meaning appears to be
this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and
married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not
appear to have been any part of the apostle's design to prohibit
second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But
it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while
they neglect the weightier matters of the law.
3. He must be vigilant; neephaleon, from nee, not and pino, to drink.
Watchful; for as one who drinks is apt to sleep, so he who abstains
from it is more likely to keep awake, and attend to his work and
charge. A Bishop has to watch over the church, and watch for it; and
this will require all his care and circumspection. Instead of
neephaleon, many MSS. read neephalion, this may be the better
orthography, but makes no alteration in the sense.
4. He must be sober; soophrona, prudent, or, according to the
etymology of the word, from soos, sound (healthy), and phreen, mind, a
man of a sound mind; having a good understanding, and the complete
government of all his passions. A Bishop should be a man of learning,
of an extensive and well cultivated mind, dispassionate,
prudent, and sedate.
5. He must be of good behaviour; kosmion, orderly, decent, grave, and
correct in the whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The
preceding term, soophrona, refers to the mind; this latter, kosmion,
to the external manners. A clownish, rude, or boorish man should never
have the rule of the church of God; the sour, the sullen, and the
boisterous should never be invested with a dignity which they would
most infallibly disgrace.
6. He must be given to hospitality; philoxenon, literally, a lover of
strangers; one who is ready to receive into his house and relieve
every necessitous stranger. Hospitality, in those primitive times, was
a great and necessary virtue; then there were few inns, or places of
public entertainment; to those who were noted for benevolence the
necessitous stranger had recourse. A Christian Bishop, professing love
to God and all mankind, preaching a religion, one half of the morality
of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress and
destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the church
over which they presided must have furnished them with the means.
Such a Bishop as Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands
for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a
considerable difference between an Apostolical Bishop and an
Ecclesiastical Bishop: the one was generally itinerant, the other
comparatively local; the former had neither house nor home, the latter
had both; the Apostolical Bishop had charge of the church of Christ
universally, the Ecclesiastical Bishop of the churches in a particular
district. Such should be addicted to hospitality, or works of charity;
especially in these modern times, in which, besides the
spiritualities, they possess the temporalities, of the church.
7. He should be apt to teach; didaktikon, one capable of teaching; not
only wise himself, but ready to communicate his wisdom to others. One
whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of
the way. He must be a preacher; an able, zealous, fervent, and
assiduous preacher. He is no Bishop who has health and strength, and
yet seldom or never preaches; i.e. if he can preach-if he have the
necessary gifts for the office.
8. An eighth article in his character is, he must not be given to
wine; mee paroinon. This word not only signifies one who is
inordinately attached to wine, a winebibber or tippler, but also one
who is imperious, abusive, insolent, whether through wine or
otherwise. Kypke contends for this latter acceptation here. See his
proofs and examples.
9. He must be no striker; mee pleekteen, not quarrelsome; not ready to
strike a person who may displease him; no persecutor of those who may
differ from him; not prone, as one wittily said: To prove his doctrine
orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks? It is said of Bishop Bonner,
of infamous memory, that, when examining the poor Protestants whom he
termed "heretics", when worsted by them in argument he was used to
smite them with his fists, and sometimes scourge and whip them: But
though he was a most ignorant and consummate savage, yet from such a
scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of surrendering his
mitre.
10. He must not be greedy of filthy lucre; mee aischrokerdee, not
desirous of base gain; not using base and unjustifiable methods to
raise and increase his revenues; not trading or trafficking; for what
would be honourable in a secular character, would be base and
dishonourable in a bishop. Though such a trait should never appear in
the character of a Christian prelate, yet there is much reason to
suspect that the words above are not authentic; they are omitted by
ADFG, many others, the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic (and Sahidic),
AEthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac (but it appears in the margin), the
Vulgate and Itala, and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has
left it out of the text, in which it does not appear that it ever had
a legitimate place. The word covetous, which we have below, expresses
all the meaning of this; and it is not likely that the apostle would
insert in the same sentence two words of the same meaning, because
they were different in sound. It appears to have been borrowed from 1
Tim 3:8.
11. He must be patient; epieikee, meek, gentle; the opposite to
pleekteen, a quarrelsome person, which it immediately follows when the
spurious word aischrokerdee is removed. Where meekness and patience do
not reign, gravity cannot exist, and the love of God cannot dwell.
12. He must not be a brawler; amachon, not contentious or litigious,
but quiet and peaceable.
13. He must not be covetous; aphilarguron, not a lover of money; not
desiring the office for the sake of its emoluments. He who loves money
will stick at nothing in order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to
him alike, provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of
reputation he may wish to get all honourably; but if that cannot be,
he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother pagan gives him
this counsel: "Get money if thou canst by fair means; if not, get it
by hook and by crook."
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Titus 1:6-8
[If any be blameless] See the notes at 1 Tim 3:2, etc.
[Having faithful children] Whose family is converted to God. It would
have been absurd to employ a man to govern the church whose children
were not in subjection to himself; for it is an apostolic maxim, that
he who cannot rule his own house, cannot rule the church of God; 1 Tim
3:5.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy
lucre;
[Not self-willed] Mee authadee. Not one who is determined to have his
own way in everything; setting up his own judgment to that of all
others; expecting all to pay homage to his understanding. Such a
governor in the church of God can do little good, and may do much
mischief.
[Not soon angry] Mee orgilon. Not a choleric man; one who is
irritable; who is apt to be inflamed on every opposition; one who has
not proper command over his own temper.
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy,
temperate;
[A lover of hospitality] Philoxenon. A lover of strangers. See the
note at 1 Tim 3:2. Instead of philoxenon, one manuscript has
philoptoochon, a lover of the poor. That minister who neglects the
poor, but is frequent in his visits to the rich, knows little of his
Master's work, and has little of his Master's spirit.
[A lover of good men] Philagathon. A lover of goodness or of good
things in general.
[Sober] Prudent in all his conduct. Just in all his dealings. Holy in
his heart. Temperate-self-denying and abstemious, in his food and
raiment; not too nice on points of honour, nor magisterially rigid in
the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions. Qualifications rarely
found in spiritual governors.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Folks, take at look at the qualifications set out by God Himself and
take note of how many of them Dave Raymond violates. It is numerous
enough that he disqualifies himself from any leadership position in
any Christian church. According to God's standards as set out the
verses I cited above, Dave Raymond is not a legitimate "Pastor" nor
qualified to be a leader in any Christian church. Keep those passages
in mind each and every time Dave Raymond tries to claim to be a
"Pastor" while behaving in a ungodly and unholy manner.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
[Say, Dave, why don't you email Pastor Jim West
(Pas...@CovenantReformedChurch.org) and Dr. Kenneth Gentry
(Kennet...@CompuServe.COM) and discuss Preterism with them so they
may explain in greater detail where you err? Or are you too cowardly
to do so?]
Dannyil
> On Jan 24, 8:55 am, Dannyil <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First lets discuss Christianity
>
> > A.) Prophecy about uniting the tribes together under one nation
>
>
> > Danny
>
> You just don't get it. Not every Jew, much less everyone else,
> believes the lie that you were brainwashed into, namely that the Torah
> is to be idolized.
1. I first wish to discuss Christianity.
2. The Torah is G-d's word to the Jewish people. I don't idolize the
Torah,
I do what it says, because G-d says to follow it.
> We consider THAT a very serious form of idolotry
"We" who is "We" I did not know you speak for all of mankind on this
issue.
> that falsifies entirely the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion to
> us is about the experience of Moses and other sages with the angels of
> HaShem, and we don't even believe that HaShem is necessarily JHVH.
> HaShem is the true name of the LORD of creation. There is very good
> reason within the Torah itself to believe that JHVH is not HaShem.
I'm very confused. The Torah is what G-d said to the entire Jewish
people
that is approximately 600 000 adult Jewish men, and 2.4 million
women,
children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category.
G-d says explicitly what He wants and does not want. You come along
and make up stuff. Now, who must I believe? You, or what the Torah
says?
> In other words, just as you have been taught to leave your mind at the
> door when you enter synagogue, so we have been taught to put on our
> thinking caps when we enter synagogue.
Insults never get debate anywhere.
> So, we don't believe that Moshiach will be a slave to Torah. We think
> you have everything backwards.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
> Moshiach will be able to rewrite Torah
Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract
from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
Or if you like NT examples, Matthew 5:17-18.
> as He sees fit. Moshiach is to be regarded as G-D Himself in person,
> and so He has full authority to change the Covenant or negotiate a new
> one.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man,
that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does
he promise and not fulfill?
Deuteronomy 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord
is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40
Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it
may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live
long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.
>WasJesus, whose Hebrew name is Jehoshua Moshaich, the JewishMessiah?
This is not the question, see the first post.
>I don't know,
If you don't know, then let someone, who does know explain.
>but I do know this: if He is not the JewishMessiah, it is because He stayed too close to the already established
> tradition and NOT because He departed too much from it.
Very confusing, I am afraid, I don't understand this.
> What Jews want to forget is Genesis 1. False Jews are fond of saying,
> there is no original sin in Judaism, but of course there is - it is
> right there in Genesis 1.
It seems that Judaism has not erased Genesis 1 from the Bible.
There is no concept of what Christianity defines as the original sin.
Meaning, Judaism, based on what the text in the Hebrew says, and Oral
Tradition
understand that G-d expects everyone to return to Him. If they return,
the G-d
will forgive them. Does this include any sin? Yes!
In terms of Adam's first mistake, this has been corrected through the
punishments of birth-pangs and death.
>The rabbis can't lie their way out of it.
Rabbis don't lie. This is ad hominem.
> Everything subsequent to Genesis 1 is conditioned by it. The Torah is
> the story of fallen men and women, who have been exiled from the
> Kingdom of God.
Actually, Most of the Torah is dedicated to the lives and history of
the Israelites. At best 10 Chapters are dedicated to the rest of
humanity. I think the focus is on the Israelites or Jews if you will.
>It is not a pleasant story. It is about delusion and
> the struggle to merely survive. There is nothing to be so proud of in
> the record of fallen men and women. Humility here is the key.
This seems to be a quotation in "Lost Paradise" by Milton. I'm
sorry,
but Judaism rejects Milton, and his thesis.
> When Moshiach comes, He cannot not be a fallen man, like Adam. He
> must be a member in good standing of the Kingdom of God.
Where is the source for this. This seems to be your own opinion.
> He is not
> bound by the Torah, because the Torah is a Covenant between HaShem and
> fallen men and women. In fact,Jesusseemed to be a little bit too
> concerned with fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps, however, that was just
> for the sake of the fallen men and women He was ministering to.
Very confused.
See Deuteronomy 4:33-41. It doesn't say anything about a Messiah that
is not bound by the rules.
Try again.
> The real requirements for Moshiach were known only to Moshiach, not to
> fallen men and women. They are not in the Torah.
Actually they are. Read Deuteronomy 13:2-6 and 18.
>They have to do
> with the functional unity of the Godhead. There are many functioning
> parts of G-D, and HaShem is only the central personality of the
> extended being of G-D. In order to bring about the functional unity
> of all the aspects of Godhead, Moshiach must essentially be HaShem.
> The proof that He is HaShem is that He can personally assume the
> function of any of the various functional parts of G-D.
Again I don't really understand this. Where is this sourced? Some
other text
I'm not aware of?
>In other
> words, He depends on no one other than Himself to conduct the business
> of the Creation. No fallen angel can sour the plan, because Moshiach
> can assume the proper function of that angel before He fell. This
> gives a much deeper meaning to the Shema, and that was proclaimed byJesusas the essence of His mission. See Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Hand in
> hand with that purpose was to rid Judaism once and for all of its
> racism. Leviticus 19:18 was reinterpreted to include everyone, not
> just fellow Jewry.
Again, the relevance here to the topic is?
Try to stick to the topic. We are discussing Christianity, and
Ezekiel 37.
Danny
Dannyil
> 1 Tim 3:2-3
>
> read more »
Thanks, I prefer to debate, and not read endless quotations.
If you have a point, prove it. and quote a reference, by chapter and
verse.
If its not relevant, don't quote it.
Danny
Dannyil
Ezekiel 37
Prophecy A. - Unite all tribes
Where is this fulfilled in Jesus?
Danny
Dannyil
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:29:34 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
>
>
>
> >On Jan 24, 2:57 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:32:00 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
> >> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>
> >> >c.) As a side point, the fact that you're searching for sources shows
> >> >you're avoiding the question.
>
> >> Listen stupid, play your games with someone else!
> >> I am not "searching for sources", nor did I ever say
> >> that I was! You're just a dip shit, who thinks that
> >> by accusing me, it means that he's impressed people!
>
> >This was in reference to:
>
> >>>And He did it in six days and said He did it
> >>>in six days (Exodus 20:11). Jesusbelieved
> >>>that and referenced it, in Matthew 19:3-8
> >>>and in other places. The original Hebrew
> >>>word for "day" ("yom"), is never used to mean
> >>>anything but a literal day in the Bible, when
> >>>a numerical adjective is present ("second, third,
> >>>etc.). Are we to believe that this is somehow
> >>>the one exception?
>
> >I do not understand then this connection to your answer to point i.)
>
> Your comment doesn't even link to the subject.
> You are all over the place!
I'm using google.groups
maybe thats why.
sorry
> >i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
>
> That is your opinion, based on ignorance.
Show me a quote in the OT preferably in Ezekiel 37 about a second
coming
In the NT, there is an indication that early christians did not have
the concept of a second coming
and in later sources, it was considered to be happening soon. James
5:8 for example.
This is not a clear second coming prophecy at all.
The OT does not even talk about it.
Danny
Dannyil
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:29:34 -0800 (PST),Dannyil
>
> >I'm looking for answers
>
> No you're not. You're making claims and then
> instead of backing them up, you're trying to
> claim that you get to demand that others
> back up what they say, when they're simply
> responding to your claim. That's disingenuous.
Lets see Ezekiel 37
verse 19 says: All the tribes will be united.
Did Jesus fulfill this?
If yes, where, and how?
If no, why don't we say Deut 13:2-6, Deut 18?
QED
Danny
Dannyil
D- are my own (Dannyil)
D> >In 1.) you mention that it supposed to happen shortly - which
means
> >to a first century Christian, it was soon to happen. This did not,
> >and has not for 1900 years this is not a good sign.
>
PD-> It's a great sign to me, since it did happen.
> And the NT was a 1st century text.
D-
1. Where does it say that it happened?
2. Jesus dies, and is resurrected, and now first century Christians
understood that
Jesus was coming back soon - in their lifetimes. That is what soon
means.
soon does not mean 1900+ years and counting.
PD-> And isn't it amazing how you Futurists believe
PD-> that these things are supposed to happen soon,
PD-> but think that means in your time!
D-
3. What I believe is irrelevant. The text says soon. What does that
mean. That means, that the Christians who wrote it expected that it
should happen within their life-spans. It did not happen. QED.
4. soon does not mean 1900 years later.
PD-> So "soon = soon", but not when it was written,
PD> even though they didn't say, "But wait until
PD> the 21st century before applying this word".
D-
This sentence is incongruent. I don't understand it.
PD-> But since you don't understand the Bible,
> to you, you are faced with either claiming
> that it didn't happen and inventing doctrines,
> or leaving Christianity.
D-
5.I'm not doing anything. all I'm asking is where do you
see that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in Ezekiel 37.
6. If he did, I'm looking for sources to back this up.
7. If not, why should we regard him as a false-prophet as defined in
Deut. 13:2-6 and Deut 18.
8. My position is immaterial to the subject. I'm interested in the
sources.
D-> >in 3.) again the time is at hand, its a long time. John was
writing
> >for whom? for people 1900 years ago, or his generation, for those who
> >were living, and expecting Jesus to return?
>
PD-> They are all the same people. Jesus and John said
PD> what they said. You can deny that if you wish, but
PD> they still said it.
D-
9. The implication of 3.) is that if you accept that they wrote for
their own time, that means
they expected Jesus to return - a second coming - in their lifetimes.
10. A second coming that is 1900+ years too late, is not a prophecy
come true, but a false expectation. QED
Danny.
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
Nonsense. A few hundred at most saw smoke on the mountain. Even
Moses could not see the face of HaShem, but could only see a part of
Him, namely his backside. According to Jewish tradition, Moses alone
received the Torah from the angel of the LORD, who is Michael.
> and 2.4 million
> women,
> children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category.
> G-d says explicitly what He wants and does not want. You come along
> and make up stuff. Now, who must I believe? You, or what the Torah
> says?
Ye have never seen His face, nor known His true Will. It is NOT in
the Torah, because even Moses could not see His face or know His true
Will.
> > In other words, just as you have been taught to leave your mind at the
> > door when you enter synagogue, so we have been taught to put on our
> > thinking caps when we enter synagogue.
>
> Insults never get debate anywhere.
It was no insult. It is an accurate charcterization of our respective
positions. You accept the Torah unquestioningly, and I do not.
> > So, we don't believe that Moshiach will be a slave to Torah. We think
> > you have everything backwards.
>
> Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
>
> > Moshiach will be able to rewrite Torah
>
> Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract
> from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
> Or if you like NT examples, Matthew 5:17-18.
I do not accept the Torah as anything but a pack of lies, with a
slight admixture of essential truth. I am interested in ferreting out
the truth and preserving it as part of a new teaching that is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me G-D.
As for Matthew 5:17-18, you have taken it out of context to deceive
yourself and others. The law that Jesus is referring to is not in the
Torah. It is stated in Matthew 7:12 - Therefore all things whatsoever
ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is
the law and the prophets. This is the law of karma, unknown to this
day to most Jews. If it were known to them, they could not continue
in their racist views, because they would know that racism causes
terrible karma.
> > as He sees fit. Moshiach is to be regarded as G-D Himself in person,
> > and so He has full authority to change the Covenant or negotiate a new
> > one.
>
> Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man,
> that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does
> he promise and not fulfill?
I do not accept the Torah unquestioningly, so a quote from the Torah
proves nothing by itself, without a strong argument to back it up of
why that should be so. What argument you give is nonsense. The "God"
of the old testament is a murderous genocidal maniac, far beneath any
half civilized man.
> Deuteronomy 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord
> is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40
> Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it
> may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live
> long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.
Self serving nonsense, which is not borne out by what "God" actually
commands the Jews to do, namely despicable and cowardly acts of racist
genocide.
> >WasJesus, whose Hebrew name is Jehoshua Moshaich, the JewishMessiah?
>
> This is not the question, see the first post.
>
> >I don't know,
>
> If you don't know, then let someone, who does know explain.
>
> >but I do know this: if He is not the JewishMessiah, it is because He stayed too close to the already established
> > tradition and NOT because He departed too much from it.
>
> Very confusing, I am afraid, I don't understand this.
>
> > What Jews want to forget is Genesis 1. False Jews are fond of saying,
> > there is no original sin in Judaism, but of course there is - it is
> > right there in Genesis 1.
>
> It seems that Judaism has not erased Genesis 1 from the Bible.
> There is no concept of what Christianity defines as the original sin.
> Meaning, Judaism, based on what the text in the Hebrew says, and Oral
> Tradition
> understand that G-d expects everyone to return to Him. If they return,
> the G-d
> will forgive them. Does this include any sin? Yes!
> In terms of Adam's first mistake, this has been corrected through the
> punishments of birth-pangs and death.
Of course, I meant Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. I am interested in
this. Why do you believe your last statement? Can you quote even a
passage from the Torah that substantiates that statement? I very much
doubt it.
> >The rabbis can't lie their way out of it.
>
> Rabbis don't lie. This is ad hominem.
It is not. It is a fact in evidence, from our previous exchanges.
> > Everything subsequent to Genesis 1 is conditioned by it. The Torah is
> > the story of fallen men and women, who have been exiled from the
> > Kingdom of God.
>
> Actually, Most of the Torah is dedicated to the lives and history of
> the Israelites. At best 10 Chapters are dedicated to the rest of
> humanity. I think the focus is on the Israelites or Jews if you will.
>
> >It is not a pleasant story. It is about delusion and
> > the struggle to merely survive. There is nothing to be so proud of in
> > the record of fallen men and women. Humility here is the key.
>
> This seems to be a quotation in "Lost Paradise" by Milton. I'm
> sorry,
> but Judaism rejects Milton, and his thesis.
I was not referring to Milton.
> > When Moshiach comes, He cannot not be a fallen man, like Adam. He
> > must be a member in good standing of the Kingdom of God.
>
> Where is the source for this. This seems to be your own opinion.
It is the voice of reason. One who is part of the problem cannot be
the solution. It is contingent, however, upon my contention that
there was no redemption from the fall of Adam already in effect. This
is a crucial point of contention. I have asked you for quotes even
from the Torah that support your position.
> > He is not
> > bound by the Torah, because the Torah is a Covenant between HaShem and
> > fallen men and women. In fact,Jesusseemed to be a little bit too
> > concerned with fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps, however, that was just
> > for the sake of the fallen men and women He was ministering to.
>
> Very confused.
> See Deuteronomy 4:33-41. It doesn't say anything about a Messiah that
> is not bound by the rules.
> Try again.
I don't have to. I don't accept the Torah unquestioningly, remember?
> > The real requirements for Moshiach were known only to Moshiach, not to
> > fallen men and women. They are not in the Torah.
>
> Actually they are. Read Deuteronomy 13:2-6 and 18.
Again, I don't accept the self-serving statements in the Torah
unquestioningly. I am not a one-dimensional man, ala Herbert
Marcuse. You apparently are a one-dimensional man, which means that
you find a "law" to live by that rules out by its very nature ever
discovering anything new or contrary to itself, and so you go round
and round in self-serving self-deception.
> >They have to do
> > with the functional unity of the Godhead. There are many functioning
> > parts of G-D, and HaShem is only the central personality of the
> > extended being of G-D. In order to bring about the functional unity
> > of all the aspects of Godhead, Moshiach must essentially be HaShem.
> > The proof that He is HaShem is that He can personally assume the
> > function of any of the various functional parts of G-D.
>
> Again I don't really understand this. Where is this sourced? Some
> other text
> I'm not aware of?
The Heavenly Torah.
> >In other
> > words, He depends on no one other than Himself to conduct the business
> > of the Creation. No fallen angel can sour the plan, because Moshiach
> > can assume the proper function of that angel before He fell. This
> > gives a much deeper meaning to the Shema, and that was proclaimed byJesusas the essence of His mission. See Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Hand in
> > hand with that purpose was to rid Judaism once and for all of its
> > racism. Leviticus 19:18 was reinterpreted to include everyone, not
> > just fellow Jewry.
>
> Again, the relevance here to the topic is?
>
> Try to stick to the topic. We are discussing Christianity, and
> Ezekiel 37.
No, you picked out some verses arbitrarily from Ezekiel 37 to try to
arrive at a forced conclusion. Ezekiel 37:24 falsifies all of Judaism
as you define it. Thank G-D I believe in a different sort of Judaism.
> Danny
Mistylein
"Dannyil" <Freed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c5a7ab9-ea22-4c7c...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life.
We are all one body in Jesus Christ, Are we not?
M,
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:gGfmj.189$9p...@newsfe07.lga...
You're not. You're of those cultists who pervert the Word, especially the
Gospel, to your own corrupt ends.
Ike
Fred A Stover
> See point i.)
>
> i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
>
> a.) if you do a search through all of the OT, you will come up with
> not a single prophecy about the Second Coming
You've got it backwards. His second coming is in the Old Testament. It is
the first coming that was missed in the Old Testament. The blindness of
Israel was to His first coming, which they did not find in the OT. They were
prepared for His second coming, which they thought was His only coming.
Don't you wish you had heeded His advice: "Seek ye the Lord while he may be
found" (Is 55:6).
Jesus the Christ, the one the law and all the prophets said was to come.
When Jesus claimed to be God, His ministry came to and abrupt end, and many
who flocked to hear Him were among those who were yelling "Crucify Him!"
There was a problem with Jesus' claim and scripture. In scripture God had
promised to reveal all He would do to the prophets, and, when they looked in
scripture, they found only one coming of the Lord Himself, and that was for
the day of the Lord (Zech 14), and that did not describe Jesus. They could
find no coming of the Lord, Himself, in scripture, so they didn't believe
Him. Would you have believed Him?
What they didn't realize was that the Lord had also told of the foolish
people "without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have
ears, and hear not" (Jer 5:21). The Lord had revealed that He would come
twice, once before the day of the Lord and again for the day of the Lord,
but seeing it, they didn't see it, and hearing it, they didn't hear it.
At the transfiguration the disciples discovered that contrary to what they
had been taught, the Prophet Elijah wouldn't be returning to resume his
ministry before the Lord returns. So, they ask Jesus "Why then say the
scribes that Elijah must first come?" (Matt 17:10). Note the Author's choice
of words. They didn't ask why Malachi, a prophet, or prophets said Elijah
must first come. The Author attributed the teaching to the scribes. How a
difference could arise between what Malachi prophesied and what the scribes
expected can be understood by looking at the Malachi verse the scribes
mis-read. The Old Testament, as well as, the New Testament was written in
the style of the times, the way we speak, one word after another without
spaces between the words, justlikethiswithoutspacesbetweenthewords. When the
scribes saw the verse, Malachi 4:5 in the OT [Tanakh: Mal 3,23] this is how
it looked: HNHENKYSLXLKMETELYHHNBYELPNYBVEYVMYHVHHGDVLVHNVRE.
To read what was prophesied the scribes needed to divide the text in words.
When they came to the 16th through 19th letters (ELYH), they could be read
as one word or as two words (EL YH), they could read it as the one word
Elijah or as the two words LORD God. The scribes read it as one word and it
is read that way in our Bibles today, but what the New Testament reveals is
that Malachi prophesied is the coming of LORD God, the first coming of the
Lord, the coming before the day of the Lord. The Lord was prophesied to come
for the day of the Lord (Zech 14), but there was no scripture of the Lord
Himself coming before the day of the Lord. So, it was the scribes who
blinded Israel, to the first coming of the Lord, for the Lord had promised
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he reveals his secret to his
servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). He had revealed it to Malachi, but when
the scribes came to the coming of the Lord EL YH they read and taught the
return of Elijah ELYH.
This blindness of Israel is something, which would continue until the
fullness of the time for the gentiles to enter the kingdom has passed: "that
blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles
be come in" (Rom. 11:25); so, how will Jesus reply to his disciples without
removing the blindness and closing the door of the kingdom to the gentiles?
"Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" Jesus' answered one
thing and his disciples heard another. Jesus said "Elijah (EL YH) truly
shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah EL
YH is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever
they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them" (Matt.
17:11-12). Jesus is the redeemer who restores all things, and who was
suffering the rejection (Matt 12:14) and abuse of the violent taking the
kingdom by force and it will continue until His death.
What his disciples heard was Elijah ELYH truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah ELYH is come already,
and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. They knew Elijah wasn't
coming and they missed that Jesus was speaking of the one who would restore
all things so the disciples "assumed [suniemi: put together] that he spoke
to them of John the Baptist" (Matt. 17:13)
John the Baptist knew that he wasn't the one of which Jesus spoke: "And
this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but
confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou
Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them
that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one
crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the
prophet Isaiah" (John 1:19-23).
John told the priests and Levites who he was.
John wasn't the Christ.
John wasn't Elijah.
John wasn't that prophet, the Elijah-like alternative.
Over the years of the blindness we've interpreted scriptures as though John
were Elijah, but we can see that he isn't as we review our interpretations.
For example, "the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer
is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call
his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice
at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy
Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel
shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the
spirit and power of EL YH, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the
children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a
people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:13-17). In this case we've given the
verse the reading of John the spirit of Elijah, not the spirit of LORD God
with which he was filled from his mother's womb.
Here we've ignored the transtion from Jesus speaking of John who was to go
before Him to Jesus who was to come: 'Jesus began to say unto the multitudes
concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken
with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft
raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what
went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a
prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto
you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than
John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven
is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the
kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. For
all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you will receive
it, this is EL YH , which was for to come. The one that has ears to hear,
let him hear" (Matt. 11:7-15). What the law and all the prophets until John
had prophesied would come was the Christ. What the law prophesied is one of
the subjects of the book of Hebrews, and the law prophesied the coming of
the Christ, saying nothing of John. And this one is Jesus the Christ which
was for to come.
In the Jewish Passover celebration of today a place is set for the one
prophesied to come by Malachi, and the last course of the feast is the
broken bread, which has replaced the lamb of the Passover of Moses. It is
called the afikomen. It is a Greek word, the aorist form of ikneomai, and it
means he came.
Fred A Stover
news:6ce9738b-1f2b-4f7f...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> See point i.)
>
>
> that it is near. James wrote possibly some time in the 1st-2nd
> Century, its now 1900 years later. I don't think this is near.
>
It has been at hand far longer than 1900 years:
It was at hand for Zephaniah (Zeph 1:7). It was at hand for Joel (Joel
1:15). It was at hand for Isaiah (Is 13:6), and it was at hand for Moses
(Deut 32:35).
> c.) The prophecy that was mentioned is Ezekiel 37. This in no way
> indicates a second coming idea. This means a critical prophecy was
> somehow left out, in a central prophecy. Not only that, but in the
> entire Old Testament there is not one mention of a second coming.
> Kind of important to leave out no?
>
> Also, I think the prophecies in Ezekiel 37 are pretty straightforward
> and clear. Have you read them?
> Danny
Yes, I have, in fact, I cite this regularly, which is a part of His
gathering His elect at His second coming: "Behold, O my people, I will open
your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into
the land of Israel" (Ezek 37:12)..
His,
Fred A Stover
news:p42hp3l3pu61s6610...@4ax.com...
snip, snip, snip...
>
> The Last Days were in the first century:
>
The Day of The Lord
A key to understanding many of the prophecies referring to the day of the
Lord or "that day" is a clear understanding of the day of the Lord. It
begins with the Lord's return for His millennial reign (2 Pet 3:10) followed
by the second resurrection among the rest of the dead: "And I saw thrones,
and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them: and I saw the souls of
them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years (but the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were finished). This is the first
resurrection" (Rev 20:4-5). The day of the Lord is the thousand year
millennium, which is followed by eternity with a new heaven and earth: "And
I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev 21:1).
The day of the Lord is the day of His wrath: "Behold, the day of the Lord
comes, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and
he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and
the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be
darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to
shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their
iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay
low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than
fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake
the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of
the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger" (Is 13:9-13): "And I
saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat on him was
called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he
had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed
with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And
the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in
fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that
with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of
iron: and he treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty
God" (Rev. 19:11-15).
The day of the Lord is also the day of His rest: "For he spoke in a certain
place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from
all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remains that some must enter therein, and they to whom
it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief (Heb 4:4-8).
The day of the Lord is the seventh millennial day (Heb 4:4,7), and what is
prophesied along with the seventh millennial day is the first 6 millennial
days, which make the seventh day the seventh: The first 1000-year day is the
day in which Adam died at the age of 930 years (Gen 5:5): "But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day
that you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17) The last or latter
days, the three 1000-year days at the end of the week, are the time of the
Messiah (Acts 2:17, Heb 1:2): "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations [goyim:
uncircumcised] shall flow unto it" (Is 2:2), and the uncircumcised have
been flowing into the Lord's house "free from the law of sin and death" (Rom
8:2) since His first coming. To the Jews, Hosea also prophesied of these
last three days: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live in his sight" (Hos 6:2). The day of the Lord
is the last millennial day of the last days: "But, beloved, be not ignorant
of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of
the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Pet
3:8-10).
Prophecies become clearer when we read them within the framework of seven
millennial days between the fall of Adam and the final, white throne
judgment with "the last days" or "latter days" being the three between the
Lord's first coming and the judgment and with the day of the Lord, being
also the day of His wrath and the day of His rest, being the last thousand
year day: "For yet seven days, ... and every living substance that I have
made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" (Gen 7:4).
Dannyil
D indicates Dannyil
D-
> > > > First lets discuss Christianity
>
> > > > A.) Prophecy about uniting the tribes together under one nation
>
> > > > Where doesJesusfulfill this one!
>
> > > > Danny
Clearly, you're not interested in answering the question, but rather
in arguing your position.
I have no time or patience. Lets stick with Ezekiel 37, if not,
please choose a new discussion post
where you can rant and rave all you like about what you want.
P-
> > > You just don't get it. Not every Jew, much less everyone else,
> > > believes the lie that you were brainwashed into, namely that the Torah
> > > is to be idolized.
Call it brainwashing (which is an ad hominem) I challenge you to
practice what you preach, and
face a real orthodox Rabbi and tell him that he is brainwashed.
D-
> > 1. I first wish to discuss Christianity.
> > 2. The Torah is G-d's word to the Jewish people. I don't idolize the
> > Torah,
> > I do what it says, because G-d says to follow it.
>
P-
> > > We consider THAT a very serious form of idolotry
>
Its idolatrous to do what G-d says? strange?
D-
> > "We" who is "We" I did not know you speak for all of mankind on this
> > issue.
This question is not answered. Nonetheless it is off-topic.
P-
> > > that falsifies entirely the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion to
> > > us is about the experience of Moses and other sages with the angels of
> > > HaShem, and we don't even believe that HaShem is necessarily JHVH.
> > > HaShem is the true name of the LORD of creation. There is very good
> > > reason within the Torah itself to believe that JHVH is not HaShem.
Ezekiel is already an established prophet, what he says will happen,
will happen.
He is a true prophet, and therefore, if what he says has not happened
yet, will happen.
This is not false-prophecy, but a prophecy that has yet to be
fulfilled.
D-
> > I'm very confused. The Torah is what G-d said to the entire Jewish
> > people
> > that is approximately 600 000 adult Jewish men,
P-
> Nonsense. A few hundred at most saw smoke on the mountain. Even
> Moses could not see the face of HaShem, but could only see a part of
> Him, namely his backside. According to Jewish tradition, Moses alone
> received the Torah from the angel of the LORD, who is Michael.
1. This is factually, statistically and historically inaccurate. I
have a question.
Every major World Religion accepts that the Jews were given the Torah
at Sinai.
I find it remarkable that over thousands of years, the Jews have
remained, with the Torah.
There is no other group in History, that has a claim that over 3
million people witnessed G-d
at top Sinai. If it is a lie, how is that for thousands of years,
people have remained convinced about.
And not just that, Christians and Moslems agree that it happened.
2. Its probable that it did happen. I mean the facts are that every
other religion in the world is based on one person receiving a
revelation. Judaism basis itself on a revelation of 3 million
people. This kind of claim is easily destroyed
if its untrue - no-one would ever believe it. Can you imagine telling
your kids 3500 years ago, "remember G-d spoke to you at Sinai, and he
said do all these laws" they'll say: "nope, sorry, in fact I don't
really want to do this anymore".
3. The fact that we have Jews today that follow the Torah, and that
everyone agrees that G-d gave the Torah to the Jews, shows
conclusively that it must of happened. There is no counter evidence
to the contrary.
4. You don't have to agree with this logic, but remember, in order to
falsify the claim, bring an example of where a particular myth was
created, and convince 3 million people that it happened, and as a
result, they all have to circumcise themselves, leave the land fallow
for a year every 7th year etc. No-one in their right mind would do
it, unless G-d said to them do it.
D-
> > and 2.4 million
> > women,
> > children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category.
> > G-d says explicitly what He wants and does not want. You come along
> > and make up stuff. Now, who must I believe? You, or what the Torah
> > says?
P-
> Ye have never seen His face, nor known His true Will. It is NOT in
> the Torah, because even Moses could not see His face or know His true
> Will.
5. Exodus 33:20 "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one
may see me and live." is the correct quote. Nothing to do with
will. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. G-
d's will is what the Torah says. The Torah says G-d says to do x. For
reference see Deuteronomy Chapter 4. What G-d wants is what He says
He wants. Also, you misquote the text, and then argue against me with
it. This is cheap.
6. Also, I don't have time to have to search through the text to find
your misquotes, quote the reference correctly.
7. You want to do something else, fine. Do not justify it. Admit
that you're ignoring what the Torah says, and move on.
P-
> > > In other words, just as you have been taught to leave your mind at the
> > > door when you enter synagogue, so we have been taught to put on our
> > > thinking caps when we enter synagogue.
>
D-
> > Insults never get debate anywhere.
>
P-
> It was no insult. It is an accurate charcterization of our respective
> positions. You accept the Torah unquestioningly, and I do not.
8. Who said anywhere that I accept the Torah unquestioningly. I
question the Torah
everyday. You have to ask the right questions though.
9. If you don't want to accept the Torah, then don't, but then your
comments are meaningless. Why?
The assumption is that Ezekiel 37 is true. It is also assumed that if
Jesus fufilled what it says there in Ezekiel 37 there are sources for
it. If not, refer to Deut 13:2-6, he is a unestablished false prophet
>
P-
> > > So, we don't believe that Moshiach will be a slave to Torah. We think
> > > you have everything backwards.
10. Believe what you will. I want facts proved from legitimate
sources, not your interpretation of parts of the text you feel are
relevant and parts that you choose to ignore, because they don't fit
in your ideological position. That is called intellectual dishonesty.
The text is as it is, if you wish to use it, then you have to accept
all of it.
D-
> > Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
>
P-
> > > Moshiach will be able to rewrite Torah
>
D-
> > Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract
> > from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
> > Or if you like NT examples, Matthew 5:17-18.
>
P-
> I do not accept the Torah as anything but a pack of lies, with a
> slight admixture of essential truth. I am interested in ferreting out
> the truth and preserving it as part of a new teaching that is the
> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me G-D.
See above. point 10.
>
P-
> As for Matthew 5:17-18, you have taken it out of context to deceive
> yourself and others.
10. I did not take it out of context, I simply referred to it.
11. My own agenda is irrelevant to the discussion. Ad Hominem.
P- The law thatJesusis referring to is not in the
> Torah.
12. You have a position, prove it.
Matthew 5:17 reads: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law
or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
13. The Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible seems to
understand it as the Torah and Prophets. He understands it to mean the
Old Testament.
14. The text also reads the same. It refers to the Torah of the Old
Testament.
>It is stated in Matthew 7:12 - Therefore all things whatsoever
> ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is
> the law and the prophets. This is the law of karma, unknown to this
> day to most Jews. If it were known to them, they could not continue
> in their racist views, because they would know that racism causes
> terrible karma.
15. Matthew 7:12 reads: So in everything, do to others what you would
have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
16. This is the NIV translation. Frankly, I don't understand the
KJV. It makes little sense. The text reads here that what Jesus was
doing is a summation of the Torah, not that it is the Torah.
17. There is no mention of Karma, don't know what you mean by that.
P-
>
> > > as He sees fit. Moshiach is to be regarded as G-D Himself in person,
> > > and so He has full authority to change the Covenant or negotiate a new
> > > one.
18. Where you get this one from is beyond me. Jesus never said he was
god, he said he is the *son of* G-d
>
D-
> > Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man,
> > that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does
> > he promise and not fulfill?
>
P-
I do not accept the Torah unquestioningly, so a quote from the Torah
> proves nothing by itself, without a strong argument to back it up of
> why that should be so. What argument you give is nonsense. The "God"
> of the old testament is a murderous genocidal maniac, far beneath any
> half civilized man.
19. You don't like the quote, and therefore avoid the question.
Forget your personal views for a second. Lets assume that the text is
as it is, how does Numbers 23:19 apply to you.
D-
>
> > Deuteronomy 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord
> > is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40
> > Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it
> > may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live
> > long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.
>
P-
> Self serving nonsense, which is not borne out by what "God" actually
> commands the Jews to do, namely despicable and cowardly acts of racist
> genocide.
>
20. Antisemitism. Ad Hominem.
You hate Jews.
>
> D-
> > >WasJesus, whose Hebrew name is Jehoshua Moshaich, the JewishMessiah?
>
D-
> > This is not the question, see the first post.
>
P-
> > >I don't know,
>
D-
> > If you don't know, then let someone, who does know explain.
>
P-
> > >but I do know this: if He is not the JewishMessiah, it is because He stayed too close to the already established
> > > tradition and NOT because He departed too much from it.
>
D-
> > Very confusing, I am afraid, I don't understand this.
>
P-
> > > What Jews want to forget is Genesis 1. False Jews are fond of saying,
> > > there is no original sin in Judaism, but of course there is - it is
> > > right there in Genesis 1.
>
D-
> > It seems that Judaism has not erased Genesis 1 from the Bible.
> > There is no concept of what Christianity defines as the original sin.
> > Meaning, Judaism, based on what the text in the Hebrew says, and Oral
> > Tradition
> > understand that G-d expects everyone to return to Him. If they return,
> > the G-d
> > will forgive them. Does this include any sin? Yes!
> > In terms of Adam's first mistake, this has been corrected through the
> > punishments of birth-pangs and death.
>
P-
> Of course, I meant Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. I am interested in
> this. Why do you believe your last statement? Can you quote even a
> passage from the Torah that substantiates that statement? I very much
> doubt it.
21. But you have a position that rejects the Torah as true. If so,
who cares about Genesis 1, Genesis 2, its all a load of rubbish
according to you. Lets get real, you're making everything up as you
go along, to justify beliefs you formulated, to answer up difficulties
you had emotionally - such as where was G-d in my life etc.
22. I see that the text does not mention one word about an original
sin. It moves on - people die and give birth. Its over. In fact I
see holy individuals don't even die. That means G-d forgives, and
uses the punishment as a way of fixing up what went wrong.
23. I see that, since the issue is not brought up again.
P-
> > >The rabbis can't lie their way out of it.
>
D-
> > Rabbis don't lie. This is ad hominem.
>
P-
> It is not. It is a fact in evidence, from our previous exchanges.
24. Who said I'm a Rabbi. So far, you've made the same statement over
and over. Just because you say it over and over does not make it
true. In fact, its derogatory, insulting and antisemitic. See 21.
>
P-
> > > Everything subsequent to Genesis 1 is conditioned by it. The Torah is
> > > the story of fallen men and women, who have been exiled from the
> > > Kingdom of God.
>
> > Actually, Most of the Torah is dedicated to the lives and history of
> > the Israelites. At best 10 Chapters are dedicated to the rest of
> > humanity. I think the focus is on the Israelites or Jews if you will.
>
22. You then agree with this.
P-
> > >It is not a pleasant story. It is about delusion and
> > > the struggle to merely survive. There is nothing to be so proud of in
> > > the record of fallen men and women. Humility here is the key.
>
D-
> > This seems to be a quotation in "Lost Paradise" by Milton. I'm
> > sorry,
> > but Judaism rejects Milton, and his thesis.
>
P-
> I was not referring to Milton.
24. It seems like it. Have you read "Paradise Lost" I think you'll
find it enjoyable.
>
P-
> > > When Moshiach comes, He cannot not be a fallen man, like Adam. He
> > > must be a member in good standing of the Kingdom of God.
>
D-
> > Where is the source for this. This seems to be your own opinion.
>
P-
> It is the voice of reason. One who is part of the problem cannot be
> the solution. It is contingent, however, upon my contention that
> there was no redemption from the fall of Adam already in effect. This
> is a crucial point of contention. I have asked you for quotes even
> from the Torah that support your position.
25. Reason is not a source, it is a basis for logic. What you
presented is not reasonable. Visit an atheist and he will tell you it
is not logical that there is even a concept of Messiah. In fact, most
Pagan societies do not have this concept. Therefore, for you to prove
anything about the Messiah has to be textual.
P-
>
> > > He is not
> > > bound by the Torah, because the Torah is a Covenant between HaShem and
> > > fallen men and women. In fact,Jesusseemed to be a little bit too
> > > concerned with fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps, however, that was just
> > > for the sake of the fallen men and women He was ministering to.
You're putting in emotions, feelings, and thoughts into people that is
not in the text.
Try again.
>
D-
> > Very confused.
> > See Deuteronomy 4:33-41. It doesn't say anything about aMessiahthat
> > is not bound by the rules.
> > Try again.
>
P-
> I don't have to. I don't accept the Torah unquestioningly, remember?
Right, so stop trying to bash me, assume my position and attack me
from within.
>
> > > The real requirements for Moshiach were known only to Moshiach, not to
> > > fallen men and women. They are not in the Torah.
>
D-
> > Actually they are. Read Deuteronomy 13:2-6 and 18.
>
P-
> Again, I don't accept the self-serving statements in the Torah
> unquestioningly. I am not a one-dimensional man, ala Herbert
> Marcuse. You apparently are a one-dimensional man, which means that
> you find a "law" to live by that rules out by its very nature ever
> discovering anything new or contrary to itself, and so you go round
> and round in self-serving self-deception.
I live by logic. If you tell me I need a bank account, and I go to
the bank, and they say you need a social security no. I don't say to
them: "you're serving the government that created you, you're
brainwashed one-dimensional people that live by rules, and you're
deceived" Why? Because I assume that the bank needs this
information, and follows the rules to make sure that everyone is
protected, and looked after. Same here, we follow rules all over the
world, to maintain stability, social order etc. It is a necessary
component of the world.
In fact, there are rules even in biology.
Your heart pumps blood gallons all over the body. Imagine your heart
says: "I am a servant to the brain, I am one-dimensional, and now I am
going to rebel, and do my own thing, because that proves I'm not a
servant." You'll die. Why? Rules maintain structure and order. The
Torah is a spiritual rule book. I follow the rules to maintain
spiritual order. That is logical.
> > >They have to do
> > > with the functional unity of the Godhead. There are many functioning
> > > parts of G-D, and HaShem is only the central personality of the
> > > extended being of G-D. In order to bring about the functional unity
> > > of all the aspects of Godhead, Moshiach must essentially be HaShem.
> > > The proof that He is HaShem is that He can personally assume the
> > > function of any of the various functional parts of G-D.
>
D-
> > Again I don't really understand this. Where is this sourced? Some
> > other text
> > I'm not aware of?
>
> The Heavenly Torah.
I'm sorry, this is incomprehensible.
>
P-
> > >In other
> > > words, He depends on no one other than Himself to conduct the business
> > > of the Creation. No fallen angel can sour the plan, because Moshiach
> > > can assume the proper function of that angel before He fell. This
> > > gives a much deeper meaning to the Shema, and that was proclaimed byJesusas the essence of His mission. See Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Hand in
> > > hand with that purpose was to rid Judaism once and for all of its
> > > racism. Leviticus 19:18 was reinterpreted to include everyone, not
> > > just fellow Jewry.
>
I'm sorry, this is incomprehensible.
Again this post was so off topic it is unreal.
If you're not prepared to stay on topic, I'm not responding.
Try again. Ezekiel 37 prophecies. have a look at verses 19 to the
end. They're clear, precise and express what the end of days will
look like.
Judaism is not racist. There are black Jews, white Jews Jews from all
over the world.
Judaism does not tolerate idolatry, as do most other major world
religions - take for example
Christianity, and Islam. If you want to be part of Judaism you have
to accept the rules. If you want to have a bank account, or apply for
visa you have to follow the rules. You can't say to the bank - you're
racist against people with no social security no. Because it is a
necessary condition. to be part of the group.
D-
> > Again, the relevance here to the topic is?
>
> > Try to stick to the topic. We are discussing Christianity, and
> > Ezekiel 37.
>
P-
> No, you picked out some verses arbitrarily from Ezekiel 37 to try to
> arrive at a forced conclusion. Ezekiel 37:24 falsifies all of Judaism
> as you define it. Thank G-D I believe in a different sort of Judaism.
>
Its not arbitrary at all. In fact you should read all of it.
I never defined Judaism
The topic, if you recall is on CHRISTIANITY.
Try again, for the last time.
Danny
>
Dannyil
<snip>
I'm sorry I don't read endless quotations. Say your point and include
three to four references.
If I feel the need to read the text, I will online.
You mention stuff about a first coming, a second coming, and possibly
a third coming.
You agree that most of this is not in the text.
How am I supposed to believe what you say if I don't see any of it in
the text itself?
Danny
Dannyil
> "Dannyil" <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c5a7ab9-ea22-4c7c...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Lets try this all over again.
>
> > Ezekiel 37
>
> > Prophecy A. - Unite all tribes
>
> > Where is this fulfilled inJesus?
>
> > Danny
>
>
> We are all one body inJesusChrist, Are we not?
>
> M,
Tell me how this answers the question?
Where does Jesus fulfill the prophecy of uniting tribes.
Danny
bob young
Mistylein wrote:
We have no idea at all what a man called Jesus ever said.
Assuming the tales are based on someone living around the claimed time he
would have spoken in aramaic.
This in turn would have been translated into Latin and then around year 1400
into English by another team of translators who modified the originals to
their heart's [or cult's] content.
>
>
> M,
bob young
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." wrote:
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander
each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any
sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the
head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of
those it wins over to its side."
[R.J.Hoffmann]
Bob
>
>
> Ike
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
Your response to Matthew 7:12 convinces me that we cannot have a
serious discussion, because we cannot even agree on a text. I know
nothing about NIV. I do know something about KJV and have reasons for
believing that it was inspired by G-D. You believe in the Torah as an
absolute authorority, and want to use it as such in our discussion,
whereas I absolutely reject it as that. Jesus said to the hypocrites
like you:
Matthew (KJV):
5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of
me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent,
him ye believe not.
5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.
5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
5:41 I receive not honour from men.
5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
In 5:37, Jesus is telling you that you are worshipping a false G-D.
The true G-D you have never seen nor heard. You have not the word of
the true G-D abiding in you. You believe in the Torah as an absolute
authority, but the Torah contradicts itself, and you lie endlessly
about your own Torah to try to avoid the contradictions, such as
Genesis 18 or Ezekiel 37:24 (which will never happen and you know
it). In fact, the Torah examined closely reveals the LORDship of
JHVSA, Jehoshua Moshaich, whom you are determined to reject. You
depend on honor from men, but you love not the true G-D, because you
are as ignorant of Him as any other atheist or idoloter. Indeed you
idolize the Torah, which is just a wall of words intended to brainwash
those who are susceptible to it. Many are, but there will always be
some who are not. Read George Orwell. You call us antisemitic for
seeing through your lies, but that is just a bad joke. In fact, we
are the true Jews and you are antisemitic in the real sense of the
word. In short, you are a case of arrested development. You stopped
growing spiritually the day you decided to accept the Torah as the
absolute authority in life. Why look further? You never found G-D,
but just a bad reflection of Him in a dark and broken mirror. You
would sell your false G-D to the whole world. Perhaps it will buy
into your lies, perhaps it will not, but those of us who know the
truth will never buy into your lies and we will live forever, so you
will have a growing eternal witness to your lies and iniquity.
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
Your response to Matthew 7:12 convinces me that we cannot have a
serious discussion, because we cannot even agree on a text. I know
nothing about NIV. I do know something about KJV and have reasons for
believing that it was inspired by G-D. You believe in the Torah as an
absolute authority, and want to use it as such in our discussion,
whereas I absolutely reject it as that. Jesus said to the hypocrites
like you:
John (KJV):
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>D-
>1. Where does it say that it happened?
Why would it? That's a ridiculous request,
don't you think, considering that the NT
was written before it happened?
>2. Jesus dies, and is resurrected, and
>now first century Christians understood
>that Jesus was coming back soon -
>in their lifetimes. That is what soon
>means. Soon does not mean 1900+
>years and counting.
I agree.
>What I believe is irrelevant.
No, it isn't, if you're saying that Jesus has yet
to come. But now you seem to be saying that
the NT is in error, since if they said that it
would be within that same generation (and Jesus
certainly did) and it didn't happen, then they were
wrong and if they were wrong about the second
most talked about thing in the NT, then the NT
is teaching a huge error!
>PD-> And isn't it amazing how you Futurists
>PD-> believe that these things are supposed
>PD-> to happen soon, but think that means
>PD-> in your time!
>
>D-
>3. What I believe is irrelevant. The text says
>soon. What does that mean. That means,
>that the Christians who wrote it expected
>that it should happen within their life-spans.
>It did not happen. QED.
According to you. Your claim is based on
the Futurist view, not my view. You take
the Futurist view, as in how they claim it
is supposed to happen and then say it
didn't happen, because it didn't happen
the way that they say it is supposed to happen
and then you think you're going to corner me
with it. But I already said this to you and so,
this is the second time that I am telling you
that approach won't work with me.
I think we are both confused as to what
the other is saying, so let me give you
an example of what I'm saying and that
will allow you to get an idea of what
I believe and you can proceed from there.
The Futurists say that Jesus will come riding
on a cloud and be seen by the whole world.
I do not believe that and I believe that His
return already happened.
Now what I need from you, is to tell me
what your goal is, since you come in here,
making claims and then demanding others
prove you wrong and that isn't how it works.
If you make a claim and I respond to it,
it's up to you to prove your claim and not
the other way around.
What I also need from you, is to know what
it is you actually believe, so I know where
you are coming from. Are you even claiming
to be a Christian? Are you a Futurist?
>D-
>5.I'm not doing anything. all I'm asking
>is where do you see that Jesus fulfilled
>the prophecies in Ezekiel 37.
>
>6. If he did, I'm looking for sources
>to back this up.
>7. If not, why should we regard him as
>a false-prophet as defined in Deut. 13:2-6
>and Deut 18.
>
>8. My position is immaterial to the subject.
>I'm interested in the sources.
No, it isn't immaterial, as I don't waste my time
with folks who wouldn't want to hear it anyway
and are just looking for a way to be able to
ridicule my beliefs.
Furthermore, I'm not going to sit here and go over
an entire chapter with you. That's too much typing!
And I don't even know what it is in Ezekiel 37 you
are claiming Jesus was supposed to fulfill.
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
James 5:8-9
8) Be YE also patient; establish YOUR hearts:
for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH.
9) Grudge not one against another, brethren,
lest YE be condemned: behold, the judge
STANDETH BEFORE THE DOOR.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>> >I'm looking for answers
>>
>> No you're not. You're making claims and then
>> instead of backing them up, you're trying to
>> claim that you get to demand that others
>> back up what they say, when they're simply
>> responding to your claim. That's disingenuous.
>
>Lets see Ezekiel 37
>verse 19 says: All the tribes will be united.
>
>Did Jesus fulfill this?
>If yes, where, and how?
>If no, why don't we say Deut 13:2-6, Deut 18?
You're assuming that Jesus was supposed
to fulfill this. Where does it say, "And the
Messiah will do this." ???
--
"Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party
it injures, so that society has to take the place
of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement
or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which
society has a direct interest." - W. H. Auden
Pastor Dave
sai...@nettally.com said the following:
Notice what's missing here:
1) Lord
2) King
--
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that
genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
sai...@nettally.com
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:42:44 -0800 (PST),
> sai...@nettally.com said the following:
>
> Notice what's missing here:
>
> 1) Lord
> 2) King
>
Notice how Dave fails to quote anything from my post. Notice how Dave
intentionally misrepresents my position. Notice how Dave attempts
character assassination. Notice Dave's dishonesty.
Pastor Dave
sai...@nettally.com said the following:
>On Jan 25, 10:56 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:42:44 -0800 (PST),
>> sai...@nettally.com said the following:
>>
>> Notice what's missing here:
>>
>> 1) Lord
>> 2) King
>>
>
>Notice how Dave fails to quote anything from my post.
You do not believe that He is King, nor that He is Lord.
--
The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
out what the Bible says.
One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
Rainbowmatrix
You have relivent and interesting points And then you say you will
live for ever fuck nothing lives forever thats how so many different
accounts of the tora bible Korahn dead sea scrolles they all say the
same thing but from different points of view and all words written And
claimed top be the word of GOD are words written by MEN
God is dog spelt backward
Fred A Stover
> -Fred Stover wrote
> <snip>
>
> I'm sorry I don't read endless quotations. Say your point and include
> three to four references.
> If I feel the need to read the text, I will online.
>
> You mention stuff about a first coming, a second coming, and possibly
> a third coming.
> You agree that most of this is not in the text.
You lie!
I spoke of two comings, and they're both in scripture.
>
> How am I supposed to believe what you say if I don't see any of it in
> the text itself?
If you had read the scriptures quoted, you would have seen the scriptures
where you would see it in the text.
His,
>
> Danny
Karl Johanson
> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>
> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
> out what the Bible says.
>
> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
Evolution says that life changes over time and that inheritable
variation leads to differential reproductive success. It's as obvious as
gravity.
Lots of scientifically validated ideas from many fields show that the
universe in general, and life on Earth in specific, are considerably
older than the time the Adam and Eve stories are from. For a single
example, we can see supernova which took place billions of years ago.
Karl Johanson
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:1qbkp3pajort9bj3v...@4ax.com...
Wrong.
They're both right.
"Man" was the result of the natural process documented in the first Genesis
account.
"Adam" was the result of a distinct act of God before any other living thing
was created, then placed in the "Garden of Eden" later. Ezekiel defined the
civilization (i.e. the great "tree") as the Assyro-Babyonian predecessor
(Sumer) that arose in the "garden" (i.e. the fertile crescent).
And thus the conflict between the two "seeds," the sons of God and the sons
of men, began.
Also note that the symbols used in the second Genesis for the varieties of
man are the exact same symbols God used to tell Peter to preach the Gospel
to the Gentiles.
Ge 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every
beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Later, the fourth element is added, as God curses the "serpent," i.e. and
told him he would spend all of eternity "creeping on his belly."
And what are the four symbols for the Gentiles in Acts 10?
Acts 10:9-16
On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the
city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he
became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell
into a trance,
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it
had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth,
wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts [properly, "cattle"] of the
earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is
common or unclean.
And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath
cleansed, that call not thou common.
This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Same symbols. Same story. They're both about the other "seed," i.e. the
Gentiles, which opposed Adam's rule...
Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee [the "serpent"] and the woman,
and between thy seed [the serpent's seed] and her seed; it shall bruise thy
head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Who bruised Jesus' heel?
The Gentiles: THEY were the ones swinging the hammers.
Ike
Pastor Dave
<karljo...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>
>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>>
>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
>> out what the Bible says.
>>
>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>
>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
--
"Fortune favors the bold." - Virgil - The Aeneid
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
No it doesn't. It just denies that you can read with any comprehension.
Ike
Randy ®
in article <nrImj.767$u_5.466@trndny09>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
In this rare instance, I'll have to agree with Dave. The
Bible clearly refutes the fairy-tale myth of evolution. It's
disturbing that you labor to integrate it into your theology.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
--
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
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).
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:35:47 GMT,
> in article <nrImj.767$u_5.466@trndny09>,
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ilgmp395jklgenr9c...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:54:32 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
>
> >>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
> >>>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>
> >>>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
> >>>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
> >>>> out what the Bible says.
>
> >>>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>
> >>>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
>
> >> Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
>
> >No it doesn't. It just denies that you can read with any comprehension.
>
> >Ike
>
> In this rare instance, I'll have to agree with Dave. The
> Bible clearly refutes the fairy-tale myth of evolution. It's
> disturbing that you labor to integrate it into your theology.
You are a primitive man. I doubt that you are born again. Your
intelligence is that of a cave man. You are devolving on the
evolutionary ladder, whereas Christ should help you move quickly
toward the end-point of evolution, the so-called Omega Point. You are
moving in reverse at a fantastic rate of speed, only you don't realize
you are in reverse.
Dannyil
> serious discussion, because we cannot even agree on a text. I know
> nothing about NIV. I do know something about KJV and have reasons for
> believing that it was inspired by G-D.
Both texts whether the KJV, NIV or any other english text are
seriously flawed
It is a misnomer to consider an English text or any other translation
of the original to be 'inspired'. G-d spoke in Hebrew.
That was His language of choice. For all questions of semantics, you
have to refer to the original Hebrew.
In the NT, that would be Greek.
I don't believe you understand the KJV. If you wish to use it, you
have to explain it.
>You believe in the Torah as an
> absolute authorority, and want to use it as such in our discussion,
> whereas I absolutely reject it as that. Jesus said to the hypocrites
> like you:
I am welcome to believe any position I want. You have yet to prove me
wrong.
You resort to ad hominem, which the text happens to repeat.
> Matthew (KJV):
>
> 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of
> me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Funny, because at no time did there issue forth a heavenly voice
saying to all of Israel
Like it did at Mount Sinai, where 3 million people stood and
acknowledged Moses as the
messenger sent by G-d.
Even the NT admits that.
Shabbatai Tzvi a False Messiah in the 17th Century had more followers,
than Jesus.
>
> 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent,
> him ye believe not.
I don't believe in false prophets who did not perform any of the
foretold prophecies in Ezekiel 37.
See Deut 13.2-6, Deut 18.
> 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
> and they are they which testify of me.
I have, and guess what I found - Ezekiel 37, Deut. 13.2-6 and 18.
And they do apply to you, Ezekiel 37 did happen, therefore Jesus must
be applied to Deut 13.2-6.
I find something interesting. After the terrible destruction of the
Temple in approximately 68-70 CE.
Not one group survives except for the Rabbis. Christianity as a
religion for the gentile masses, begins
over 40 years after Jesus is allegedly killed, created by a person by
the name of Paul.
Every other Jewish sect is wiped out, except for the Rabbis.
At a period of time, when the Jews are at their lowest, and Rome is at
its highest.
> 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
I personally like to deal with G-d Himself, not through
intermediaries.
this is a foreign idea, not a Jewish one.
> 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
What does honor have to do with anything?
>
> 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
Great way of rebuking someone you don't even know.
>
> In 5:37, Jesus is telling you that you are worshipping a false G-D.
You don't even know me, and have the audacity and gall to tell me who
I worship!
> The true G-D you have never seen nor heard. You have not the word of
> the true G-D abiding in you. You believe in the Torah as an absolute
> authority,
That maybe true. Does it make a difference? No. You still have not
answered the questions.
>but the Torah contradicts itself,
No it does not. Every contradiction maybe answered logically.
In fact there is a book out, it is available in many university book
shops, and Jewish bookstores
its called Chumash with Rashi. Rashi the famous biblical
commentator,
goes through every verse, and points out every grammatical, and
logical problem and answers them all up.
>and you lie endlessly
I don't lie. What I have said is not contradictory to my position.
> about your own Torah to try to avoid the contradictions, such as
> Genesis 18
You have not brought up Genesis 18 until now, Genesis 18 is
not contradictory.
Nonetheless you have not proved anything.
I asked you to assume my position, and attack me from within .
You have not done so, which means you actually can't prove me wrong.
It is therefore intellectually dishonest and an ad hominem to call me
a liar,
when you have not even proved it, but simply assumed it, based on your
preconceived
perception of Rabbis, the Torah, and me.
>or Ezekiel 37:24 (which will never happen and you know
> it).
How do you know Eze. 37:24 will never happen, you're a prophet right?
I'm sorry, but I have more faith in Ezekiel than you. Ezekiel is an
established Prophet
Who G-d Himself spoke to. In fact, even Christians and Muslims agree
to that.
Now I must listen to you, where I don't think many people agree that
you're a prophet?
>In fact, the Torah examined closely reveals the LORDship of
> JHVSA, Jehoshua Moshaich, whom you are determined to reject.
The Torah does not mention The anointed chosen servant of G-d once.
In fact, King David, King Solomon, Ruth etc. are not mentioned at all
explicitly. By Torah I mean the Five-books of Moses.
>You depend on honor from men, but you love not the true G-D, because you
> are as ignorant of Him as any other atheist or idoloter.
Ad hominem what you say I believe is again, irrelevant, you have yet
to prove your position.
>Indeed you
> idolize the Torah, which is just a wall of words intended to brainwash
> those who are susceptible to it. Many are, but there will always be
> some who are not.
I'm not brainwashing anyone. I simply had a question that need
answering
so far, no one has even come close to answering it.
>Read George Orwell.
Which one, Animal Farm?
>You call us antisemitic for
> seeing through your lies, but that is just a bad joke. In fact, we
> are the true Jews and you are antisemitic in the real sense of the
> word.
I called you antisemitic, since you repeatedly bash Rabbis you have
not even met,
never mind read. Do me a favor and go up to one, and tell him he is
antisemitic.
words are cheap, opinions are free. In Judaism, actions count and
deeds are what determine a person.
> In short, you are a case of arrested development. You stopped
> growing spiritually the day you decided to accept the Torah as the
> absolute authority in life.
Funny, you seem to know so much about me and you're not even a
prophet.
Ad hominem. BTW, how is my spiritual growth relevant to the topic?
>Why look further? You never found G-D,
So what, why do you care what I have or have not found.
> but just a bad reflection of Him in a dark and broken mirror. You
> would sell your false G-D to the whole world. Perhaps it will buy
> into your lies, perhaps it will not, but those of us who know the
> truth will never buy into your lies and we will live forever, so you
> will have a growing eternal witness to your lies and iniquity.
Nice speech. But again, ad hominem. I believe that G-d loves
everyone
no matter what. But He has a spiritual rule book to follow, which
is a logical
progression on how the world runs. Everything else runs on a set of
rules - biology,
banking, living, etc. there are rules. If you want to be part of a
group you have to follow the rules
G-d gave His Torah to the Jews, which everyone accepts as true.
The question is are you following the rules or not, for that
determines who you are.
Just like a social security no. determines that you're part of the
American social-security system.
to be part of the system, you follow the rules that the government
lays down. You don't follow the rules,
you're not part of the system and you have no number, or you lose it.
Danny.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>> Your response to Matthew 7:12 convinces me
>> that we cannot have a serious discussion,
>> because we cannot even agree on a text.
>> I know nothing about NIV. I do know something
>> about KJV and have reasons for believing that it
>> was inspired by G-D.
>
>Both texts whether the KJV, NIV or any other english
>text are seriously flawed
That's not true and what you are obviously unaware of,
is that the two are not even based on the same texts.
But hey, as long as YOU THINK you are an expert,
that's all that matters, right? (:
--
The church is not there to expose the sin of its members,
but to cover them (1 Peter 4:8). If the church rejects
and shoots its injured, where will they go?
Dannyil
> >text are seriously flawed
>
> That's not true and what you are obviously unaware of,
> is that the two are not even based on the same texts.
That is not what is implied. You simply assumed that.
I am well aware that the KJV is a composite of Tyndale's and
Wycliffe's early work
the KJV as we have it is a revised corpus of what was then the Textus
Receptus - the Stephanus 1550 Greek NT.
It is not clear what the OT source was. They certainly used the Latin
Vulgate and Septuagint, but no-doubt referred to the Hebrew text as
well.
The NIV is the work of Zondervan Publishers. They rely almost
exclusively on the UBS 3rd Edition text which is the Nestle-Aland
26-27th Ed. This is become practicably the standard NT Greek text in
usage today. Most scholars consult it as a basis. The Byzantine
Majority Text, has been routinely put forward as the new Textus
Receptus for today, and while it is used widely, it has as yet not
received the same support as the Nestle-Aland.
The Hebrew text they use, is probably the Stuttgart Text, which has
been edited by Kahle, Kittel etc. This has become the major scholarly
text. the BHS as it is called, relies heavily on the Leningrad Codex
and Aleppo Codex. However, it is not accepted widely in Jewish
Circles. Most Jews accept Breur's text, which is considered
authoritative. The NIV also values the Septuagint over the Masoretic
text where they disagree. The New NIV translations footnote these
disagreements, but this is not uniform.
The TNIV - which has been recently published, seems to be a simple
language revision, to make it understandable.
I assume, they have updated their text to coincide with the 4th
Edition of the UBS - the Nestle-Aland 27th-28th Edition. Sometimes
they suggest alternative readings in from the Majority text-Byzantine
text.
Eastern Orthodoxy frowns upon the Nestle-Aland Text.
Scholars today all agree though, that the Stephanus Text is not
superior to either the Minority or Majority NT texts.
Also, Scholars accept that the Masoretic Text is the most accurate
representation of the original Hebrew. The question is disputed which
represents the Masoretic text. there is some disagreement between
Breur, Ginsburg, and Kittel/Kahle over this issue.
When it comes to translation, this is always a problem. Translations
can never achieve the full meaning of any text. This is true for any
translation, not just the Bible. Different languages express concepts
differently. Take for example the Eskimos - they have multiple
definitions for the one English word: snow. You cannot capture
Eskimo's understanding of snow in English - this is true of Koine
Greek and Hebrew as well. Hebrew has 7 different words for joy.
Each, has slightly different nuances. English cannot capture this.
It is well known in many different journals and books on the subject
of translation, all agree that the best translations only capture a
small percentage of the original. To suggest anything more is to do
injustice to the original text.
> But hey, as long as YOU THINK you are an expert,
> that's all that matters, right? (:
I don't think I'm an expert, ad hominem gets debate nowhere fast.
If you want me to quote books, scholarly articles and the like
to prove my position, I will.
Dannyil
Please be more specific.
Danny
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
You continue to prove yourself unable to respond substance to
substance. Try responding to my post, entitled "The Attainment of
Moses." That contains some very specific Jewish sources that should
clarify your confusion and provide a basis for further discussion, if
you are capable of such.
Dannyil
> We have no idea at all what a man calledJesusever said.
> Assuming the tales are based on someone living around the claimed time he
> would have spoken in aramaic.
> This in turn would have been translated into Latin and then around year 1400
> into English by another team of translators who modified the originals to
> their heart's [or cult's] content.
The historicity of Jesus is very questionable. All scholars today
agree that Josephus's history,
was interpolated later by Monks with a reference to Jesus. This casts
a large shadow of doubt
on the historical Jesus. Josephus is the major historical writer of
the period, and not one mention
of Jesus is made. Other Historians in the period near to this
(Tacitus who writes later) mentions
Christianity briefly.
The Talmud itself places a person by the name of Yeshu in 130 BCE, a
short time after the Hasmonean Dynasty begins to lose its hold.
This makes placing Jesus and his followers very difficult.
Scholars agree that there was an Essene sect - a Messianic cult at the
time of Jesus' alleged death etc.
But these Essenes were in Qumran - the northern part of the Dead Sea,
of which the Dead Scrolls are made famous by. Not one word is
mentioned about Jesus. They die out after the Romans literally purge
the entire country. Only the Rabbis and their followers are left
after the destruction of the Temple and its aftermath.
Scholars place the NT Apostles - who are not Jesus Disciples. (a clear
problem of transmission)
that is the synoptics around 62-82 CE. In view of the information
above, Its more probable that the apostles wrote after the Jewish
revolt in 66 CE, and that much of what this was "Q" is lost, and that
it was mostly edited much later. This is evident in Paul's writings
and John. The critical date in Christian History is really Nicea in
325 CE. The Canon is decided upon, litergy, Rome converts to
Christianity in this Period (after Justin the Apostate), Christianity
becomes an organised state religion in this time. Before then, it is
a cult group, an offshoot of Judaism that was revitalized by Paul.
This is clear from the fact that Paul writings predate the synoptics,
and still are 30-40 years after Jesus' alleged death.
Historical sources suggest that Jesus was not the only one claiming to
be the Messiah. In fact there were hundreds of people claiming "the
end is nigh, repent ye sinners" during this period. Yet, no-one knows
exactly what happened to these people. The fact that Koine Greek is
used, is very suggestive of the period, and who the audience is -
pagan, non-Jews living in Roman-conquered areas. Christianity
triumphs in Rome's decline. Remember, 27 BCE is the beginning of
Rome's golden period, and it starts to decline around 225 CE.
Constantine had foresight - although a despicable murderer, he
understood that the empire was falling, and that in order to maintain
some degree of continuation, he had the whole place convert to the
religion that was making the rounds. It would be the equivalent of the
EU becoming a Arab state - there are so many Arabs and Muslim in
European countries, it would not be surprising.
Hellenism was rejected by the Jews, and although it continued for
centuries after, it was finally destroyed in the fire of the
destruction of the Temple in around 70 CE. Anything Greek, Greco-
Roman is anti-thetical to Judaism. The fact that the NT original is
in Greek suggests that Judaism rejected it.
Danny
Karl Johanson
The idea of Adam and Eve falls on it's own, as undemonstrated mythology.
Karl Johanson
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
> > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:54:32 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> > <karljohan...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>
> >>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
> >>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>
> >>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
> >>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
> >>> out what the Bible says.
>
> >>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>
> >>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
>
> > Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
>
> The idea of Adam and Eve falls on it's own, as undemonstrated mythology.
>
> Karl Johanson
No, it stands on its own as undemonstrated mythology. Myth is a means
to an end. The proof is in the pudding. Let me give you a clue. The
entire Genesis is about the creation of the spiritual man, Adam
Kadmon, not about the creation of the mundane world.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:1bnmp3d1m01evspd8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:35:47 GMT,
> in article <nrImj.767$u_5.466@trndny09>,
> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ilgmp395jklgenr9c...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:54:32 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
>>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
>>>>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
>>>>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
>>>>> out what the Bible says.
>>>>>
>>>>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>>>>
>>>>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
>>>
>>> Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
>>
>>No it doesn't. It just denies that you can read with any comprehension.
>>
>>Ike
>>
>
>
> In this rare instance, I'll have to agree with Dave. The
> Bible clearly refutes the fairy-tale myth of evolution. It's
> disturbing that you labor to integrate it into your theology.
Ah, no, like all the "flat-earther" problems between the Church and science
in the past, it was the READERS who got it wrong, not the Bible OR the
science.
And one should take note that you never addressed the biblical facts:
Ezekiel defined what the whole "Garden of Eden" thing was about, as
evidenced in the two Genesis accounts, and as reaffirmed in the "two-tree"
analogy found in rest of the Bible, and concluded in Revelation.
But, as with the rest of the Dispensationalist lies, you continue unabated.
Ike
guardian Snow
> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:54:32 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
>
> >>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
> >>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>
> >>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
> >>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
> >>> out what the Bible says.
>
> >>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>
> >>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
>
> > Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
>
> The idea of Adam and Eve falls on it's own, as undemonstrated mythology.
>
> Karl Johanson
The same could be said about evolution because you have no actual
scientific proof of macro-evolution. That idea that one species can
change into another is just as preposterous as my faith driven bible.
Evolution is in fact another religion. It is a theory only and
instead of having Abraham, you have Darwin... In stead of
Elohim/"God", you have men coming from the rocks.
Teach a person they come from animals and don't be surprised when they
act like animals!
Gen 1:3 And Elohim said, "Let light come to be," and light came to
be.
Shalom,
Snow
Remember, a real decision is measured by the fact that you've taken
new action. If there's no action, you haven't truly decided.
Tony Robbins
Dannyil
RaaN: Without all your jargon and name dropping just state your
position succinctly and clearly and just
exactly why you believe as you do and why anyone else should. If you
are incapable of doing so then a general moratorium should be levied
against your off topic diatribes and a boycott in place to killfile
your ranting. So now speak up while I am listening.
pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net : Fuck you.
RaaN: And that about sums up your religious sentiments I'm sure.
QED.
Dannyil
> to fulfill this. Where does it say, "And theMessiahwill do this." ???
>
end of days. If I want to judge which period I'm looking at this is
it. It seems that Christianity has three distinct periods -
1. before Jesus
2. after Jesus
3. Jesus returns
Ezekiel has a different framework:
1. what is now
2. end of days.
you have to show me how this fits in with Christianity?
Danny
Dannyil
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:57 -0800 (PST),Dannyil
> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>
> >Ezekiel 37 Reads:
Pastor Dave wrote:
> All of Ezekiel was fulfilled. But maybe not
> the way you read it.
Dannyil responds:
Lets see you provide sources for each A-K.
Pastor Dave wrote:
> The Last Days were in the first century:
>
> "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation
> of the world: but NOW once in THE END OF THE AGE hath
> He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
> - Hebrews 9:26
Dannyil responds:
Last Days imply that they're last - meaning a new era is in place
I don't think there have been last days.
There is no world-peace for example see point I.
Danny
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
Most illogical. What do you think has been proven? BTW, what is your
IQ? Mine is 180.
Mordecai
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
My IQ? Dunno - and don't care. It is a gift from the most high and suitable
(and sufficient) to the tasks I need to perform.
Why is you IQ important? After all - how does it compare with the IQ of the
most high?
Tell me, did you EARN your IQ or the colour of your eyes, or the size of
your genitals?
No?
The things you earn are things like compassion, kindness, charity, help of
all types ... are ignored.
The things we inherit which we do not earn seems to be discussed and
gloated over.
Why do you think people boast over things they have not earned ... and
ignore the important things we do earn?
After all, what we *do* has merit, whilst what we are *given* is just a
present from the most high which enables us to achieve things.
I have puzzled over this psychological peccadillo which we all have. And
the boasting we do. We always boast over that which is irrelevant.
--
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.
clon...@hotmail.com
Antiquities 20.9.1 - the death of James
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into
Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high
priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of
Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that
this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons
who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had
himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never
happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus,
who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold
man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the
Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest
of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was
of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to
exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon
the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before
them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was
James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered
them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of
the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the
laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king
[Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no
more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay,
some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey
from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to
assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied
with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that
he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king
Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three
months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Antiquities (18.3.2-3)
But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did
it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from
the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not
pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten
thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him,
and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also
used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually
do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who
carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where
they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they
boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal
which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater
blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that
were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in
the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men
prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them
slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an
end was put to this sedition. Now there was about this time Jesus, a
wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of
wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with
pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the
Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of
the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those
that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to
them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold
these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the
tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Please don't cite any of the usual anti-missionary refs about the
second quote from Josephus being questionable. No scholar of any
repute disputes that Jesus was mentioned by Josephus. There is some
dispute as to whether Josephus would or would not have used the term
"the Christ" or wonder worker.
You might try getting a copy of the Comprehensive New Testament which
cross references the New Testament with Josephus, the Talmud, the Dead
Sea Scrolls, etc. If you are going to be an anti-missionary at least
do everyone the courtesy of knowing the references in question between
the two groups and not wasting everyone's time by making factual
blunders such as the one you just made about Josephus. Christians and
Jews would both appreciate accuracy in the debate.
Jerry
On Jan 24, 8:15 am, Dannyil <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2:48 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:29:12 -0800 (PST), Dannyil
> > <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>
> > >See point i.)
>
> > >i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
>
> > Repeating your claim does not make the fact that
> > Ezekiel was fulfilled and that it is not the only book
> > in the Bible.
>
> You misread my post. I am claiming the opposite. Ezekiel
> 37 is not fulfilled.
>
> In 1.) you mention that it supposed to happen shortly - which means
> to a first century Christian, it was soon to happen. This did not,
> and has not for 1900 years
> this is not a good sign.
> in 3.) again the time is at hand, its a long time. John was writing
> for whom? for people 1900 years ago, or his generation, for those who
> were living, and expecting Jesus to return?
>
> > Now if you can't read, that's your problem, but as
> > for me, I can point to more than one prophecy about
> > the Second Coming.
>
> I find it interesting that of all the books in the NT, you had to
> resort to Revelations, which was written much later than Paul, John
> and the Gospels. That means for the early Christians there was no
> "Second Coming". I also find it remarkable that for such an important
> revelation - the resurrection, etc. that only 30-40 years after his
> death, there is any written material on the subject. In fact,
> historically, Josephus and other historians fail to give him any
> status (Josephus fails to mention him), but the cult of Essenes who
> were around at that time, are mentioned in great detail.
> I find this striking. As far as Jesus is concerned, it seems that the
> major thrust of his religion died out soon after he died. It is only
> with John, Paul and later early church fathers that really revived the
> cult, and created Christianity in the backdrop of a failing Roman
> empire and acceptance of gentile conversions.
>
>
>
> > But what you won't find, is a prophecy that states
> > what the Futurists state. And you, in your ignorance,
> > think that's what Christianity is, as do they.
>
> Excuse my ignorance. I don't know what you're talking about.
> Nevertheless, I'm really after what mainstream Christianity has to say
> on the subject.
>
> > Educate yourself, get humble and ASK ME, instead
> > of trying to tell me what I believe!
>
> Christians today, as far as I'm aware, present the case for Jesus by
> saying that there is a Second Coming, in which all the prophecies of
> the OT, and NT that are not fulfilled will be fulfilled. The problem
> is that the OT does not mention one word about this, and the NT
> presents a view that it was supposed to happen in the life-times of
> the writers of the NT. This is a creation of the early church because
> it is not presented at all in the gospels, and early writings of
> Paul. Only scant references are available. It seems to me, that the
> Jesus cult that may or may not have existed around the time of his
> life in 33 CE, seems to have died out until decades later.
>
> But again. This is a side point, I'm interested in what Jesus did
> about prophecies A-K, if he did fulfill them.
>
> Danny
clon...@hotmail.com
Moses) "The Torah is what G-d said to the entire Jewish people that is
approximately 600 000 adult Jewish men, and 2.4 million women,
children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category."
The Tanak does not indicate that God verbalized the entire torah
(books of Moses) to the entire Jewish people. Please clarify what you
mean.
Jerry
On Jan 24, 2:59 pm, Dannyil <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 8:00 pm, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> > On Jan 24, 8:55 am, Dannyil <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > First lets discuss Christianity
>
> > > A.) Prophecy about uniting the tribes together under one nation
>
> > > Where doesJesusfulfill this one!
>
> > > Danny
>
> > You just don't get it. Not every Jew, much less everyone else,
> > believes the lie that you were brainwashed into, namely that the Torah
> > is to be idolized.
>
> 1. I first wish to discuss Christianity.
> 2. The Torah is G-d's word to the Jewish people. I don't idolize the
> Torah,
> I do what it says, because G-d says to follow it.
>
> > We consider THAT a very serious form of idolotry
>
> "We" who is "We" I did not know you speak for all of mankind on this
> issue.
>
> > that falsifies entirely the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion to
> > us is about the experience of Moses and other sages with the angels of
> > HaShem, and we don't even believe that HaShem is necessarily JHVH.
> > HaShem is the true name of the LORD of creation. There is very good
> > reason within the Torah itself to believe that JHVH is not HaShem.
>
> I'm very confused. The Torah is what G-d said to the entire Jewish
> people
> that is approximately 600 000 adult Jewish men, and 2.4 million
> women,
> children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category.
> G-d says explicitly what He wants and does not want. You come along
> and make up stuff. Now, who must I believe? You, or what the Torah
> says?
>
> > In other words, just as you have been taught to leave your mind at the
> > door when you enter synagogue, so we have been taught to put on our
> > thinking caps when we enter synagogue.
>
> Insults never get debate anywhere.
>
> > So, we don't believe that Moshiach will be a slave to Torah. We think
> > you have everything backwards.
>
> Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
>
> > Moshiach will be able to rewrite Torah
>
> Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract
> from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
> Or if you like NT examples, Matthew 5:17-18.
>
> > as He sees fit. Moshiach is to be regarded as G-D Himself in person,
> > and so He has full authority to change the Covenant or negotiate a new
> > one.
>
> Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man,
> that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does
> he promise and not fulfill?
>
> Deuteronomy 4:39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord
> is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40
> Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it
> may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live
> long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.
>
> >WasJesus, whose Hebrew name is Jehoshua Moshaich, the JewishMessiah?
>
> This is not the question, see the first post.
>
> >I don't know,
>
> If you don't know, then let someone, who does know explain.
>
> >but I do know this: if He is not the JewishMessiah, it is because He stayed too close to the already established
> > tradition and NOT because He departed too much from it.
>
> Very confusing, I am afraid, I don't understand this.
>
> > What Jews want to forget is Genesis 1. False Jews are fond of saying,
> > there is no original sin in Judaism, but of course there is - it is
> > right there in Genesis 1.
>
> It seems that Judaism has not erased Genesis 1 from the Bible.
> There is no concept of what Christianity defines as the original sin.
> Meaning, Judaism, based on what the text in the Hebrew says, and Oral
> Tradition
> understand that G-d expects everyone to return to Him. If they return,
> the G-d
> will forgive them. Does this include any sin? Yes!
> In terms of Adam's first mistake, this has been corrected through the
> punishments of birth-pangs and death.
>
> >The rabbis can't lie their way out of it.
>
> Rabbis don't lie. This is ad hominem.
>
> > Everything subsequent to Genesis 1 is conditioned by it. The Torah is
> > the story of fallen men and women, who have been exiled from the
> > Kingdom of God.
>
> Actually, Most of the Torah is dedicated to the lives and history of
> the Israelites. At best 10 Chapters are dedicated to the rest of
> humanity. I think the focus is on the Israelites or Jews if you will.
>
> >It is not a pleasant story. It is about delusion and
> > the struggle to merely survive. There is nothing to be so proud of in
> > the record of fallen men and women. Humility here is the key.
>
> This seems to be a quotation in "Lost Paradise" by Milton. I'm
> sorry,
> but Judaism rejects Milton, and his thesis.
>
> > When Moshiach comes, He cannot not be a fallen man, like Adam. He
> > must be a member in good standing of the Kingdom of God.
>
> Where is the source for this. This seems to be your own opinion.
>
> > He is not
> > bound by the Torah, because the Torah is a Covenant between HaShem and
> > fallen men and women. In fact,Jesusseemed to be a little bit too
> > concerned with fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps, however, that was just
> > for the sake of the fallen men and women He was ministering to.
>
> Very confused.
> See Deuteronomy 4:33-41. It doesn't say anything about a Messiah that
> is not bound by the rules.
> Try again.
>
> > The real requirements for Moshiach were known only to Moshiach, not to
> > fallen men and women. They are not in the Torah.
>
> Actually they are. Read Deuteronomy 13:2-6 and 18.
>
> >They have to do
> > with the functional unity of the Godhead. There are many functioning
> > parts of G-D, and HaShem is only the central personality of the
> > extended being of G-D. In order to bring about the functional unity
> > of all the aspects of Godhead, Moshiach must essentially be HaShem.
> > The proof that He is HaShem is that He can personally assume the
> > function of any of the various functional parts of G-D.
>
> Again I don't really understand this. Where is this sourced? Some
> other text
> I'm not aware of?
>
> >In other
> > words, He depends on no one other than Himself to conduct the business
> > of the Creation. No fallen angel can sour the plan, because Moshiach
> > can assume the proper function of that angel before He fell. This
> > gives a much deeper meaning to the Shema, and that was proclaimed byJesusas the essence of His mission. See Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Hand in
> > hand with that purpose was to rid Judaism once and for all of its
> > racism. Leviticus 19:18 was reinterpreted to include everyone, not
> > just fellow Jewry.
>
> Again, the relevance here to the topic is?
>
> Try to stick to the topic. We are discussing Christianity, and
> Ezekiel 37.
>
> Danny
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
> What is your reference for your statement that the torah (books of
> Moses) "The Torah is what G-d said to the entire Jewish people that is
> approximately 600 000 adult Jewish men, and 2.4 million women,
> children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category."
> The Tanak does not indicate that God verbalized the entire torah
> (books of Moses) to the entire Jewish people. Please clarify what you
> mean.
>
> Jerry
He is obviously referring to the children of Israel who crossed the
Red Sea and witnessed the great miracle. Legend has it that they all
felt the presence G-D. Even this great liberating act of G-D, as
distinct from later genocides, seems to have an ulterior motive,
namely that the Israelites will be forever in the debt of their G-D,
to bow down and worship Him forever, and He does seem to have an
insatiable appetite for adulation. How Jews have been able to
persuade the world that their G-D is so superior to Pagan Gods is what
is hard to understand. I believe it has to do with the fact that the
G-D of Israel broke through into the physical world, whereas the Greek
Gods, for instance, were confined to the psychological domain of myth
and legend. In terms of character, the Jewish G-D does not seem to be
superior.
Pastor Dave
<karljo...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:54:32 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>>
>>
>>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
>>>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>>>>
>>>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
>>>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
>>>> out what the Bible says.
>>>>
>>>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>>>
>>>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
>>
>> Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
>
>The idea of Adam and Eve falls on it's own,
>as undemonstrated mythology.
If you say so. And just because you said so,
I'm sure it's settled with you. But thanks for
showing us how unbiased atheists are, as they
always claim they are! Bye now!
--
We were born wet, naked an hungry. Then things get worse.
Pastor Dave
<Freed....@gmail.com> said the following:
>On Jan 24, 6:57 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:15:57 -0800 (PST),Dannyil
>> <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> said the following:
>>
>> >Ezekiel 37 Reads:
>
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> All of Ezekiel was fulfilled. But maybe not
>> the way you read it.
>
>Dannyil responds:
>Lets see you provide sources for each A-K.
Let's see you prove your claims. I don't have
to prove what you tell me is my claim. Or are
you too stupid to understand that when you
tell someone what they believe, ot may not be
what they believe? Na! You're too busy trying
to prove yourself a hero!
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> The Last Days were in the first century:
>>
>> "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation
>> of the world: but NOW once in THE END OF THE AGE hath
>> He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
>> - Hebrews 9:26
>
>Dannyil responds:
>
>Last Days imply that they're last - meaning a new era is in place
>I don't think there have been last days.
No stupid, they imply that they're the last of whatever
they're the last of. Or do you consider the last days
of football season to be the last days of the planet,
when a player say, "These are our last days!" ???
You are a stupid little boy!
--
"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself,
but talent instantly recognizes genius."
- Sir Arthur Doyle
Pastor Dave
clon...@hotmail.com said the following:
>Josephus didn't mention Jesus?
He is not worth it, dude.
sai...@nettally.com
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not
a lover of money. (NIV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient,
not a brawler, not covetous; (KJV)
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a
husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but
gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money, (YLT)
Titus 1:6-8
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must
be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to
drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must
be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled,
upright, holy and disciplined. (NIV)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children
not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the
steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no
striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a
lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; (KJV)
if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children
stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate -
for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not
self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not
given to filthy lucre; but a lover of strangers, a lover of good men,
sober-minded, righteous, kind, self-controlled, (YLT)
BISHOP
An overseer, elder, or pastor charged with the responsibility of
spiritual leadership in a local church in New Testament times. Before
the church was founded, the Greek word for bishop was used in a
general sense to refer to local gods as those who watched over people
or countries. The word was later applied to men, including those who
held positions as magistrates or other government offices. And
eventually the term was extended to refer to officials in religious
communities with various functions, including those who supervised the
revenues of pagan temples. The SEPTUAGINT (Greek translation of the
Old Testament) uses bishop to refer to those who exercise power;
sometimes it indicates those who hold positions of authority. It
represents a Hebrew term that refers to those who are overseers or
officers (Num 4:16; Neh 9:9).
In the New Testament, Jesus is called the "Overseer of your souls" (1
Peter 2:25). In this passage the word is associated with the term
shepherd. It is also used to identify the leader of a Christian
community or the one who filled the office of overseer. In Acts 20:28
the elders of the church at Ephesus summoned to meet Paul are
identified as overseers. Their responsibility, given by the Holy
Spirit, was "to shepherd the church of God." In Phil 1 bishops are
associated with deacons, and the qualifications are outlined in 1 Tim
3:2-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Included are standards for his personal and
home life, as well as the bishop's relationships with non-believers.
In Acts 20:17,28 and Titus 1:5,7, the terms bishop and elder are used
synonymously. Also the word bishop, or its related words, appears to
be synonymous with the word shepherd, or its equivalents (Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 2:25; 5:2). In his work, the bishop was to oversee the flock
of God, to shepherd his people, to protect them from enemies, and to
teach, exhort, and encourage. He was to accomplish this primarily by
being an example to his people. He was to do this willingly and with
an eager spirit, not by coercion or for financial gain. To desire a
position as bishop, the apostle Paul declared, was to desire a good
work (1 Tim 3:1). Also see ELDER.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
ELDER
A term used throughout the Bible but designating different ideas at
various times in biblical history. The word may refer to age,
experience, and authority, as well as specific leadership roles. In
ancient times authority was given to older people with wider
experience. These were often considered the most qualified to hold
places of leadership. The basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words
for elder is "old age." In the Old Testament those leaders associated
with Moses in governing the nation of Israel were called "the elders
of Israel" (Ex 3:16; 24:1), "the elders of the people" (Ex 19:7), or
the "seventy elders" (Ex 24:1). Moses called these elders together to
give them instructions for the observance of the Passover before the
Exodus from Egypt. Later, after the years of wandering in the
wilderness, bodies of elders ruled in each city. These elders were
viewed as the representatives of the nation and its people. The term
elder eventually came to be applied to those who governed in the local
communities, the rulers of the various tribes, and those who ruled all
of Israel. These leaders were responsible for legal, political and
military guidance and supervision. During the years of Israel's
captivity in Babylon and the following centuries, elders again
appeared as leaders who were responsible for governing in the Jewish
communities. These elders became the upper class, forming a type of
ruling aristocracy. Later in this period, a council of elders of 71
members, called the SANHEDRIN, emerged. This council had both
religious and political authority among all the Jewish people in
Palestine, particularly in New Testament times. The HIGH PRIEST was
the chairman of the Sanhedrin. Local Jewish synagogues, which emerged
in the period between the Old and New Testaments, were also governed
by a council of elders.
A governing structure similar to the ruling elders among the Jews was
followed in the early church. The title elder was continued, but the
significance of the office changed. Thus, the term elder is used in
the New Testament to refer to the Jewish elders of the synagogue, to
the members of the Sanhedrin, and to certain persons who held office
in the church. It also implied seniority by reason of age (1 Tim 5:2;
1 Peter 5:5). The presence of elders in the church in the New
Testament indicates that this office was taken over from the
synagogue. Elders were associated with James in Jerusalem in the local
church's government (Acts 11:30; 21:18) and, with the apostles, in the
decision of the early church council (Acts 15). Elders were also
appointed in the churches established during the apostle Paul's first
missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus
(Acts 20:17-35). Elders played an important role in church life
through their ministry to the sick (James 5:14,15). They were
apparently the teachers also in a local congregation. In addition to
ministering to the sick, their duties consisted of explaining the
Scriptures and teaching doctrine (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Peter 5:5).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
Let us consider the qualifications of a Christian Bishop, and then we
shall soon discover who is fit for the office.
1. This Christian Bishop must be blameless; anepileepton, a person
against whom no evil can be proved; one who is everywhere
invulnerable; for the word is a metaphor, taken from the case of an
expert and skillful pugilist, who so defends every part of his body
that it is impossible for his antagonist to give one hit. So this
Christian Bishop is one that has so conducted himself, as to put it
out of the reach of any person to prove that he is either unsound in a
single article of the Christian faith, or deficient in the fulfilment
of any duty incumbent on a Christian. He must be irreprehensible; for
how can he reprove that in others which they can reprove in him?
2. He must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but
he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a
time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die,
he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized
this, and say, that by one wife the church is intended! This silly
quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle's meaning appears to be
this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and
married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not
appear to have been any part of the apostle's design to prohibit
second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But
it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while
they neglect the weightier matters of the law.
3. He must be vigilant; neephaleon, from nee, not and pino, to drink.
Watchful; for as one who drinks is apt to sleep, so he who abstains
from it is more likely to keep awake, and attend to his work and
charge. A Bishop has to watch over the church, and watch for it; and
this will require all his care and circumspection. Instead of
neephaleon, many MSS. read neephalion, this may be the better
orthography, but makes no alteration in the sense.
4. He must be sober; soophrona, prudent, or, according to the
etymology of the word, from soos, sound (healthy), and phreen, mind, a
man of a sound mind; having a good understanding, and the complete
government of all his passions. A Bishop should be a man of learning,
of an extensive and well cultivated mind, dispassionate,
prudent, and sedate.
5. He must be of good behaviour; kosmion, orderly, decent, grave, and
correct in the whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The
preceding term, soophrona, refers to the mind; this latter, kosmion,
to the external manners. A clownish, rude, or boorish man should never
have the rule of the church of God; the sour, the sullen, and the
boisterous should never be invested with a dignity which they would
most infallibly disgrace.
6. He must be given to hospitality; philoxenon, literally, a lover of
strangers; one who is ready to receive into his house and relieve
every necessitous stranger. Hospitality, in those primitive times, was
a great and necessary virtue; then there were few inns, or places of
public entertainment; to those who were noted for benevolence the
necessitous stranger had recourse. A Christian Bishop, professing love
to God and all mankind, preaching a religion, one half of the morality
of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress and
destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the church
over which they presided must have furnished them with the means.
Such a Bishop as Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands
for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a
considerable difference between an Apostolical Bishop and an
Ecclesiastical Bishop: the one was generally itinerant, the other
comparatively local; the former had neither house nor home, the latter
had both; the Apostolical Bishop had charge of the church of Christ
universally, the Ecclesiastical Bishop of the churches in a particular
district. Such should be addicted to hospitality, or works of charity;
especially in these modern times, in which, besides the
spiritualities, they possess the temporalities, of the church.
7. He should be apt to teach; didaktikon, one capable of teaching; not
only wise himself, but ready to communicate his wisdom to others. One
whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of
the way. He must be a preacher; an able, zealous, fervent, and
assiduous preacher. He is no Bishop who has health and strength, and
yet seldom or never preaches; i.e. if he can preach-if he have the
necessary gifts for the office.
8. An eighth article in his character is, he must not be given to
wine; mee paroinon. This word not only signifies one who is
inordinately attached to wine, a winebibber or tippler, but also one
who is imperious, abusive, insolent, whether through wine or
otherwise. Kypke contends for this latter acceptation here. See his
proofs and examples.
9. He must be no striker; mee pleekteen, not quarrelsome; not ready to
strike a person who may displease him; no persecutor of those who may
differ from him; not prone, as one wittily said: To prove his doctrine
orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks? It is said of Bishop Bonner,
of infamous memory, that, when examining the poor Protestants whom he
termed "heretics", when worsted by them in argument he was used to
smite them with his fists, and sometimes scourge and whip them: But
though he was a most ignorant and consummate savage, yet from such a
scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of surrendering his
mitre.
10. He must not be greedy of filthy lucre; mee aischrokerdee, not
desirous of base gain; not using base and unjustifiable methods to
raise and increase his revenues; not trading or trafficking; for what
would be honourable in a secular character, would be base and
dishonourable in a bishop. Though such a trait should never appear in
the character of a Christian prelate, yet there is much reason to
suspect that the words above are not authentic; they are omitted by
ADFG, many others, the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic (and Sahidic),
AEthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac (but it appears in the margin), the
Vulgate and Itala, and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has
left it out of the text, in which it does not appear that it ever had
a legitimate place. The word covetous, which we have below, expresses
all the meaning of this; and it is not likely that the apostle would
insert in the same sentence two words of the same meaning, because
they were different in sound. It appears to have been borrowed from 1
Tim 3:8.
11. He must be patient; epieikee, meek, gentle; the opposite to
pleekteen, a quarrelsome person, which it immediately follows when the
spurious word aischrokerdee is removed. Where meekness and patience do
not reign, gravity cannot exist, and the love of God cannot dwell.
12. He must not be a brawler; amachon, not contentious or litigious,
but quiet and peaceable.
13. He must not be covetous; aphilarguron, not a lover of money; not
desiring the office for the sake of its emoluments. He who loves money
will stick at nothing in order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to
him alike, provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of
reputation he may wish to get all honourably; but if that cannot be,
he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother pagan gives him
this counsel: "Get money if thou canst by fair means; if not, get it
by hook and by crook."
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Titus 1:6-8
[If any be blameless] See the notes at 1 Tim 3:2, etc.
[Having faithful children] Whose family is converted to God. It would
have been absurd to employ a man to govern the church whose children
were not in subjection to himself; for it is an apostolic maxim, that
he who cannot rule his own house, cannot rule the church of God; 1 Tim
3:5.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy
lucre;
[Not self-willed] Mee authadee. Not one who is determined to have his
own way in everything; setting up his own judgment to that of all
others; expecting all to pay homage to his understanding. Such a
governor in the church of God can do little good, and may do much
mischief.
[Not soon angry] Mee orgilon. Not a choleric man; one who is
irritable; who is apt to be inflamed on every opposition; one who has
not proper command over his own temper.
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy,
temperate;
[A lover of hospitality] Philoxenon. A lover of strangers. See the
note at 1 Tim 3:2. Instead of philoxenon, one manuscript has
philoptoochon, a lover of the poor. That minister who neglects the
poor, but is frequent in his visits to the rich, knows little of his
Master's work, and has little of his Master's spirit.
[A lover of good men] Philagathon. A lover of goodness or of good
things in general.
[Sober] Prudent in all his conduct. Just in all his dealings. Holy in
his heart. Temperate-self-denying and abstemious, in his food and
raiment; not too nice on points of honour, nor magisterially rigid in
the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions. Qualifications rarely
found in spiritual governors.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Folks, take at look at the qualifications set out by God Himself and
take note of how many of them Dave Raymond violates. It is numerous
enough that he disqualifies himself from any leadership position in
any Christian church. According to God's standards as set out the
verses I cited above, Dave Raymond is not a legitimate "Pastor" nor
qualified to be a leader in any Christian church. Keep those passages
in mind each and every time Dave Raymond tries to claim to be a
"Pastor" while behaving in a ungodly and unholy manner.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
[Say, Dave, why don't you email Pastor Jim West
(Pas...@CovenantReformedChurch.org) and Dr. Kenneth Gentry
(Kennet...@CompuServe.COM) and discuss Preterism with them so they
may explain in greater detail where you err? Or are you too cowardly
to do so?]
clon...@hotmail.com
and the Nestle-Aland 26-27th Ed. The only english text that does not
differ from the UBS 4th and the Nestle-Aland 27th is the Comprehensive
New Testament. The mapping apparatus in the Comprehensive New
Testament identifies 15,000 textual variants in the NT and where the
20 major english versions either follow or diverge from the UBS 4th
and the Nestle-Aland 27th. Each of the following English texts diverge
from the UBS 4th and the Nestle-Aland 27th in at least 700 places and
most diverge in over 1000 places - ASV, DRA, ESV, HCS, JNT, KJV, MRD,
NAB, NAS, NAU, NET, NIV, NJB, NKJ, NLT, NRS, REB, RSV, TEV, TLB.
Jerry
Fred A Stover
news:a96b8706-5f68-41c5...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I'm sorry, but I don't see it.
> Please be more specific.
>
> Danny
??????
When Jesus claimed to be God, His ministry came to and abrupt end, and many
who flocked to hear Him were among those who were yelling "Crucify Him!"
There was a problem with Jesus' claim and scripture. In scripture God had
promised to reveal all He would do to the prophets, and, when they looked in
scripture, they found only one coming of the Lord Himself, and that was for
the day of the Lord (Zech 14), and that did not describe Jesus. They could
find no coming of the Lord, Himself, in scripture, so they didn't believe
Him. Would you have believed Him?
What they didn't realize was that the Lord had also told of the foolish
people "without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have
ears, and hear not" (Jer 5:21). The Lord had revealed that He would come
twice, once before the day of the Lord and again for the day of the Lord,
but seeing it, they didn't see it, and hearing it, they didn't hear it.
At the transfiguration the disciples discovered that contrary to what they
had been taught, the Prophet Elijah wouldn't be returning to resume his
ministry before the Lord returns. So, they ask Jesus "Why then say the
scribes that Elijah must first come?" (Matt 17:10). Note the Author's choice
of words. They didn't ask why Malachi, a prophet, or prophets said Elijah
must first come. The Author attributed the teaching to the scribes. How a
difference could arise between what Malachi prophesied and what the scribes
expected can be understood by looking at the Malachi verse the scribes
mis-read. The Old Testament, as well as, the New Testament was written in
the style of the times, the way we speak, one word after another without
spaces between the words, justlikethiswithoutspacesbetweenthewords. When the
scribes saw the verse, Malachi 4:5 in the OT [Tanakh: Mal 3,23] this is how
it looked: HNHENKYSLXLKMETELYHHNBYELPNYBVEYVMYHVHHGDVLVHNVRE.
To read what was prophesied the scribes needed to divide the text in words.
When they came to the 16th through 19th letters (ELYH), they could be read
as one word or as two words (EL YH), they could read it as the one word
Elijah or as the two words LORD God. The scribes read it as one word and it
is read that way in our Bibles today, but what the New Testament reveals is
that Malachi prophesied is the coming of LORD God, the first coming of the
Lord, the coming before the day of the Lord. The Lord was prophesied to come
for the day of the Lord (Zech 14), but there was no scripture of the Lord
Himself coming before the day of the Lord. So, it was the scribes who
blinded Israel, to the first coming of the Lord, for the Lord had promised
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he reveals his secret to his
servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). He had revealed it to Malachi, but when
the scribes came to the coming of the Lord EL YH they read and taught the
return of Elijah ELYH.
This blindness of Israel is something, which would continue until the
fullness of the time for the gentiles to enter the kingdom has passed: "that
blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles
be come in" (Rom. 11:25); so, how will Jesus reply to his disciples without
removing the blindness and closing the door of the kingdom to the gentiles?
"Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" Jesus' answered one
thing and his disciples heard another. Jesus said "Elijah (EL YH) truly
shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah EL
YH is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever
they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them" (Matt.
17:11-12). Jesus is the redeemer who restores all things, and who was
suffering the rejection (Matt 12:14) and abuse of the violent taking the
kingdom by force and it will continue until His death.
What his disciples heard was Elijah ELYH truly shall first come, and
restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah ELYH is come already,
and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. They knew Elijah wasn't
coming and they missed that Jesus was speaking of the one who would restore
all things so the disciples "assumed [suniemi: put together] that he spoke
to them of John the Baptist" (Matt. 17:13)
John the Baptist knew that he wasn't the one of which Jesus spoke: "And
this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but
confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou
Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them
that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one
crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the
prophet Isaiah" (John 1:19-23).
John told the priests and Levites who he was.
John wasn't the Christ.
John wasn't Elijah.
John wasn't that prophet, the Elijah-like alternative.
Over the years of the blindness we've interpreted scriptures as though John
were Elijah, but we can see that he isn't as we review our interpretations.
For example, "the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer
is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call
his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice
at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy
Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel
shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the
spirit and power of EL YH, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the
children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a
people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:13-17). In this case we've given the
verse the reading of John the spirit of Elijah, not the spirit of LORD God
with which he was filled from his mother's womb.
Here we've ignored the transtion from Jesus speaking of John who was to go
before Him to Jesus who was to come: 'Jesus began to say unto the multitudes
concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken
with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft
raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what
went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a
prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto
you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than
John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven
is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the
kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. For
all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you will receive
it, this is EL YH , which was for to come. The one that has ears to hear,
let him hear" (Matt. 11:7-15). What the law and all the prophets until John
had prophesied would come was the Christ. What the law prophesied is one of
the subjects of the book of Hebrews, and the law prophesied the coming of
the Christ, saying nothing of John. And this one is Jesus the Christ which
was for to come.
In the Jewish Passover celebration of today a place is set for the one
prophesied to come by Malachi, and the last course of the feast is the
broken bread, which has replaced the lamb of the Passover of Moses. It is
called the afikomen. It is a Greek word, the aorist form of ikneomai, and it
means he came.
Fred A Stover
The last days are the time of the Messiah: "And it shall come to pass in the
last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the
top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations
[goyim: uncircumcised] shall flow unto it" (Is 2:2).
The uncircumcised have been coming into the kingdom since Cornelius, and the
last day is the millennial day of the Lord.
A key to understanding many of the prophecies referring to the day of the
Lord or "that day" is a clear understanding of the day of the Lord. It
begins with the Lord's return for His millennial reign (2 Pet 3:10) followed
by the second resurrection among the rest of the dead: "And I saw thrones,
and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them: and I saw the souls of
them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had
received his mark on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years (but the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were finished). This is the first
resurrection" (Rev 20:4-5). The day of the Lord is the thousand year
millennium, which is followed by eternity with a new heaven and earth: "And
I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
were passed away; and there was no more sea" (Rev 21:1).
The day of the Lord is the day of His wrath: "Behold, the day of the Lord
comes, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and
he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and
the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be
darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to
shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their
iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay
low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than
fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake
the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of
the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger" (Is 13:9-13): "And I
saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat on him was
called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he
had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed
with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And
the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in
fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that
with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of
iron: and he treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty
God" (Rev. 19:11-15).
The day of the Lord is also the day of His rest: "For he spoke in a certain
place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from
all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remains that some must enter therein, and they to whom
it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief (Heb 4:4-8).
The day of the Lord is the seventh millennial day (Heb 4:4,7), and what is
prophesied along with the seventh millennial day is the first 6 millennial
days, which make the seventh day the seventh: The first 1000-year day is the
day in which Adam died at the age of 930 years (Gen 5:5): "But of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day
that you eat thereof you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17) The last or latter
days, the three 1000-year days at the end of the week, are the time of the
Messiah (Acts 2:17, Heb 1:2): "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the
mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations [goyim:
uncircumcised] shall flow unto it" (Is 2:2), and the uncircumcised have
been flowing into the Lord's house "free from the law of sin and death" (Rom
8:2) since His first coming. To the Jews, Hosea also prophesied of these
last three days: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will
raise us up, and we shall live in his sight" (Hos 6:2). The day of the Lord
is the last millennial day of the last days: "But, beloved, be not ignorant
of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of
the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall
pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,
the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Pet
3:8-10).
Prophecies become clearer when we read them within the framework of seven
millennial days between the fall of Adam and the final, white throne
judgment with "the last days" or "latter days" being the three between the
Lord's first coming and the judgment and with the day of the Lord, being
also the day of His wrath and the day of His rest, being the last thousand
year day: "For yet seven days, ... and every living substance that I have
made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" (Gen 7:4).
His,
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
clon...@hotmail.com
Jesus.
Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 with reference to the
death of James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus would have had access
to eye-witnesses to the death of James since Josephus was known to
have been in Jerusalem shortly after the murder and Josephus may have
been in Jerusalem when the murder happened. No reputable scholar
disputes the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1.
anti-missionary mistatement #2 - Essenes at Qumran
The Essenes were throughout Judea and Syria:
They [Essenes] have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in
every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they
have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in
to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long
acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with
them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their
weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in
every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of
strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But
the habit and management of their bodies is such as children who are
in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow the change of shoes until
[the shoes] be first torn to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they
either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them
gives what he has to him that wants it, and receives from him again in
lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be
no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of
whomsoever they please. (Josephus War 2.8.4 119-127)
Philo indicates approximately 5000 essenes lived in Syria during his
lifetime (Every Good Man Is Free).
Josephus mentions an essene gate in the city of Jerusalem and
excavations have identified a section of Jerusalem that was inhabited
by essenes at the vicinity of the gate mentioned by Josephus. The
essenes had a unique type of latrine and several of these have been
found just outside of the essene gate mentioned by Josephus.
The essenes did not die out after 70AD. They are mentioned by
Hippolytus (3rd century) and by Epiphanius (4th century).
It would be helpful if you at least knew the historical references for
what you are discussing (Hint: the comprehensive New Testament lists
the references and then you could look them up).
anti-missionary mistatement #3 - The Talmud itself places a person by
the name of Yeshu in 130 BCE
The Talmud to avoid christian censors refers to Jesus as Balaam, Paul
as Gehazi, Peter as Ahitophel, and Judas Iscariot as Doeg. See Daube's
book on the Talmud. Or did you really think that the Talmud was that
concerned with Balaam?
anti-missionary mistatement #4 - Only the Rabbis and their followers
are left after the destruction of the Temple and its aftermath.
The Bishops of Jersualem were Judeo-Christians up to about 147AD. They
resided at the Cenacle (house of the last supper mentioned in the
gospels and acts). There were many Judea-Christians living in Judea
when the Bar Kochba revolt began circa 130AD. The Judeo-Christians
refused to follow Bar Kochba since Bar Kochba had been proclaimed
messiah by Rabbi Akiba which they knew was wrong since Jesus is the
Messiah. By the way did you mention to your audience the Rabbi Akiba
is considered one of the main collators and authors of the Talmud and
that he was in error about the messiah since he thought Bar Kochba was
the messiah. So if one of the authors of the Talmud was in error about
the messiah being Bar Kochba is the Talmud a questionable document? Or
since Rabbi Akiba declared Bar Kochba as the messiah do you also claim
that Bar Kochba is the messiah - or do you disagree with the
rabbinical talmudic scholar concerning the messiah being Bar Kochba?
Jerry
Pastor Dave
sai...@nettally.com said the following:
>1 Tim 3:2-3
What does the title, "Jesus is the Messiah"
have to do with your attack on me?
When have I ever denied that Jesus is the Messiah?
It seems that you will use any title to attack me!
You claim that I am the one attacking you and yet,
as everyone has seen, all you do is spend your time
starting thread after thread with false titles, attacking
me and chasing me from thread to thread, responding
to almost every post I write, with this same attack and
then you have the gall to go into the thread that GS
started, when he claimed that I am the one spamming,
claiming that I am the one spamming!
You are nothing more than a foolish little boy,
full of keyboard courage, telling falsehoods,
while knowing that if we were standing face
to face, that you would never say such things
to me!
Why don't you give me the name of the church you attend
and the name of your pastor and let me send all of this
correspondence to him and let's see what he thinks?
Oh wait, that's right, you have no interest in that!
Your only interest is to keep slamming me hourly!
--
"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected
the Sermon on the Mount... The world has achieved
brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of
nuclear giants and ethical infants."
- General Omar Bradley
Pastor Dave
clon...@hotmail.com said the following:
>Let's start with anti-missionary mistatement
>#1 - Josephus mention of Jesus.
>
>Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 with reference to the
>death of James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus would have had access
>to eye-witnesses to the death of James since Josephus was known to
>have been in Jerusalem shortly after the murder and Josephus may have
>been in Jerusalem when the murder happened. No reputable scholar
>disputes the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1.
You act like the atheist will care.
I like what you're saying, but do yourself
a favor and stop thinking that you're the
one person that will get through to him.
He doesn't give a damn and won't anyway!
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
Speaking to His disciples that were standing
in front of Him, Jesus said...
Luke 21:20-22
20) And when YE shall see JERUSALEM compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation
THEREOF IS NIGH.
21) Then let them which are IN JUDEA flee to
the mountains; and let them which are in the
midst of it depart out; and let not them that
are in the countries enter thereinto.
22) For THESE be the days of vengeance, that
ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN, MAY BE FULFILLED.
clon...@hotmail.com
I've read many of your posts. The perspective for many Christians is
there is no "after Jesus" as you have put it. Your citation in Ezekiel
37 is often viewed as congruent to:
Da 7:13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the
clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the
ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Da 7:14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom,
that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and
his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
and
Mt 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see
the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory.
Mt 26:64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto
you, Henceforth you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand
of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.
You have stated that there is no "second coming" in the Old Testament,
but from a Christian perspective you have selected a passage (Ezekiel
37) that refers to what Christians consider to be the second coming.
In Christian jargon you seem to be wanting to say that as far as you
can tell from Ezekiel 37 there is no first coming as Christians
understand it. Many Christians would agree that Ezekiel 37 does not
discuss the first coming.
In any case, there are many differences between pharisees and
christians concerning the messiah and the chosen servant. Pharisees
tend to interpret the chosen servant passages in the Tanak as refering
to the nation of Israel whereas Christians and also Philo interpret
the chosen servant passages as referring to an individual and the
individual is the messiah and the Son of God. Christians believe that
the pharisees have incorrectly allegorized the chosen servant passages
to apply to the nation when the chosen servant passages should have
been interpreted literally. If the chosen servant passages are
interpreted literally then according to Christians and Philo the
conclusion is that the Tanak identifies an individual who is the
chosen servant. Furthemore that individual is the Son of God. Now
don't get excited by trying to show that in some cases the chosen
servant has to be a group since Christians believe that Christians are
a group that is part of the body (singular) of the Son of God since
when they become Christians they spiritually become part of the one
body of the Son of God. Whereas the pharisees see Jacob, the
patriarch. as originally Israel and then his descendants as also
Israel Christians see Jesus as the chosen servant and then his
followers as becoming part of the body of the chosen servant.
Jerry
On Jan 23, 12:15 pm, Dannyil <Freed.Des...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ezekiel 37 Reads:
> verses:
> A. 19: All the tribes will be united
> B. 21: They will be returned to the land of Israel,
> C. 22: where they will be one nation, with one king, and will be
> undivided.
> D. 23: There will be no idolatry, and sin, for the L-RD will save
> them.
> E. 23: They will be G-d's people
> F. 24: The king will be a servant of G-d and he will be king over
> them.
> G. 24: Everyone will follow the laws and be careful to keep all the
> decrees.
> H. 25: This will be forever.
> I. 26: There will be a contract of peace, forever, and they will be
> increased.
> J. 26 & 27: There will be a new Temple which will stand forever.
> K. 28: All the nations will know who G-d is and who will make Israel
> holy
>
> Points to consider:
> i.) There is not one prophecy about a second coming.
> ii.) This is a major prophecy in the bible, and it is not mentioned
> once in the NT.
> iii.) Not one of these prophecies has come true since the time of
> Solomon's death (when the Northern and Southern Kingdoms split)
> (although to some extent prophecies B and C is being fulfilled to some
> extent in part.
> iv.) Jesus is not mentioned here at all.
>
> Now I'm assuming that Christians have an answer to this question.
> I would like to hear it.
>
> Danny
clon...@hotmail.com
I have no illusions about Danny being anything other than a Jewish
anti-missionary or that he will ever be anything but an anti-
missionary. My only hope is that he would at least get his references
correct. It's one thing to disagree. It's quite another thing to
disagree and still be ignorant of the basic concepts in the
discussion.
Jerry
On Jan 26, 10:51 pm, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:33:50 -0800 (PST),
> clont...@hotmail.com said the following:
Pastor Dave
clon...@hotmail.com said the following:
>Hello Pastor Dave,
>
>I have no illusions about Danny being anything other than a Jewish
>anti-missionary or that he will ever be anything but an anti-
>missionary.
Then give it up.
>My only hope is that he would at least get his references
>correct.
He doesn't care about that.
>It's one thing to disagree. It's quite another thing to
>disagree and still be ignorant of the basic concepts in the
>discussion.
He is intentionally so. Please get that through your head!
--
When Christianity becomes religion it leaves the heart hungry.
sai...@nettally.com
another deception from Dave? Sure was. Once again we see why Dave
Raymond is not qualified to be in any leadership position in any
Christian church. To whit:
1 Tim 3:2-3
Titus 1:6-8
(KennethGen...@CompuServe.COM) and discuss Preterism with them so
Karl Johanson
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:21:41 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljo...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:54:32 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
>>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> said the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
>>>>> by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
>>>>> Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
>>>>> out what the Bible says.
>>>>>
>>>>> One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
>>>>
>>>>Evolution says nothing about Adam and Eve...
>>>
>>> Yes it does, since it denies they existed.
>>
>>The idea of Adam and Eve falls on it's own,
>>as undemonstrated mythology.
>
> If you say so. And just because you said so,
> I'm sure it's settled with you.
I said it's undemonstrated, I didn't say it's proven false. Not settled.
If there's evidence, I'll revisit it. For now, it's just an old story.
Karl Johanson
Dannyil
is a later interpolation by Christian monks
Danny
Dannyil
> The NIV contains over 700 differences with the UBS 3rd Edition text
> and the Nestle-Aland 26-27th Ed.
Does this show that I'm wrong? I think it is fair to say that when
Zondervan
make a claim that the NIV is close to the UBS 3rd Edition, means that
90% of the time
they follow the text. Nobody is saying that they have to use all of
it 100% of the time.
The NIV is accepted by most Protestant Christians today as a standard
- especially in America,
with the exception of the NASB.
The only english text that does not
> differ from the UBS 4th and the Nestle-Aland 27th is the Comprehensive
> New Testament. The mapping apparatus in the Comprehensive New
> Testament identifies 15,000 textual variants in the NT and where the
> 20 major english versions either follow or diverge from the UBS 4th
> and the Nestle-Aland 27th. Each of the following English texts diverge
> from the UBS 4th and the Nestle-Aland 27th in at least 700 places and
> most diverge in over 1000 places - ASV, DRA, ESV, HCS, JNT, KJV, MRD,
> NAB, NAS, NAU, NET, NIV, NJB, NKJ, NLT, NRS, REB, RSV, TEV, TLB.
>
> Jerry
This maybe true, so let it be, this really supports my position,
rather than argues against it.
Thanks for the info. Do you have a source for this, I'd like to do
more research in this area.
Danny
Dannyil
> Let's start with anti-missionary mistatement #1 - Josephus mention of
> Jesus.
> Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 with reference to the
> death of James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus would have had access
> to eye-witnesses to the death of James since Josephus was known to
> have been in Jerusalem shortly after the murder and Josephus may have
> been in Jerusalem when the murder happened. No reputable scholar
> disputes the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1.
Funny, because I've seen the debates. All argue that the references
to Jesus
and James are interpolations. A simple look at the Hebrew version of
Antiquities
shows its not there. Also, Arabic translations do not have the
passages. Only the
Greek versions have it.
Nonetheless, let it be that James was around. That does not prove
anything about
Jesus being a Messiah.
> anti-missionary mistatement #2 - Essenes at Qumran
> The Essenes were throughout Judea and Syria:
> They [Essenes] have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in
> every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they
> have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in
> to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long
> acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with
> them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their
> weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in
> every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of
> strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But
> the habit and management of their bodies is such as children who are
> in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow the change of shoes until
> [the shoes] be first torn to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they
> either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them
> gives what he has to him that wants it, and receives from him again in
> lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be
> no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of
> whomsoever they please. (Josephus War 2.8.4 119-127)
Whatever, so let it be, that the Essenes are "all over" they are maybe
2% of the population
at best.
> Philo indicates approximately 5000 essenes lived in Syria during his
> lifetime (Every Good Man Is Free).
>
> Josephus mentions an essene gate in the city of Jerusalem and
> excavations have identified a section of Jerusalem that was inhabited
> by essenes at the vicinity of the gate mentioned by Josephus. The
> essenes had a unique type of latrine and several of these have been
> found just outside of the essene gate mentioned by Josephus.
>
> The essenes did not die out after 70AD. They are mentioned by
> Hippolytus (3rd century) and by Epiphanius (4th century).
So I'm mentioning them now, does that mean they exist today?
No, a brief mention in a history book does not mean they exist then.
Lets see what Hippolytus and Epiphanius has to say about them
and when they were around.
> It would be helpful if you at least knew the historical references for
> what you are discussing (Hint: the comprehensive New Testament lists
> the references and then you could look them up).
If you want I can get the lists. Its not so difficult.
>
> anti-missionary mistatement #3 - The Talmud itself places a person by
> the name of Yeshu in 130 BCE
> The Talmud to avoid christian censors refers to Jesus as Balaam, Paul
> as Gehazi, Peter as Ahitophel, and Judas Iscariot as Doeg. See Daube's
> book on the Talmud. Or did you really think that the Talmud was that
> concerned with Balaam?
So you're telling me, what my own book says, I've seen the reference
with
my own eyes. and you're quoting a book about the Talmud.
Try again.
> anti-missionary mistatement #4 - Only the Rabbis and their followers
> are left after the destruction of the Temple and its aftermath.
>
> The Bishops of Jersualem were Judeo-Christians up to about 147AD.
Wrong, there are no Judeo-Christians. There are Christians and Jews.
Remember after Paul, Christianity is divorced from Judaism, and the
church loses its
Jewish connections.
this happens early on, possibly around 68-76 CE. by the time John
hits the scene at around
83-96 CE, what ever is left of Judaism in christianity is gone.
>They
> resided at the Cenacle (house of the last supper mentioned in the
> gospels and acts). There were many Judea-Christians living in Judea
> when the Bar Kochba revolt began circa 130AD. The Judeo-Christians
> refused to follow Bar Kochba since Bar Kochba had been proclaimed
> messiah by Rabbi Akiba which they knew was wrong since Jesus is the
> Messiah. By the way did you mention to your audience the Rabbi Akiba
> is considered one of the main collators and authors of the Talmud
Rabbi Akiva has nothing to do with the Talmud visa vie the compilation
of it. He is a Tanna, and is a Rabbi
in the times of the Mishnah (which was compiled in 250 CE). The
Talmud which is composition of Tannaim and Amoraim was finally
completed in 500 CE.
Nobody is saying that there is no concept of the Messiah in Judaism.
Nobody is saying that other people can't be considered the Messiah.
Everyone agrees, including Rabbi Akiva, that once you're dead, you're
no longer eligible to be the Messiah.
>and
> that he was in error about the messiah since he thought Bar Kochba was
> the messiah. So if one of the authors of the Talmud was in error about
> the messiah being Bar Kochba is the Talmud a questionable document?
Suddenly the Talmud quotes a statement of an early Tanna, and suddenly
the whole Talmud
all 2600 odd folio pages are questionable? Give me a break. You're
telling me that
since I see a quotation in a History book on Hitler and the Third
Reich, in which Hitler himself
claims that he will rule the world, the History book is now
"questionable".
The Talmud was quoting Rabbi Akiva at the time he said it, and it was
a good possibility that
Bar Kochba was the Messiah. Why? He united the whole country against
the Romans, he was
learned, and he had many military successes. He died, and therefore
once we see that he died,
even Rabbi Akiva agrees that he aint the Messiah any more.
>Or
> since Rabbi Akiba declared Bar Kochba as the messiah do you also claim
> that Bar Kochba is the messiah - or do you disagree with the
> rabbinical talmudic scholar concerning the messiah being Bar Kochba?
I prefer the 4th Option
that is if you do some of what you're supposed to do, that is point A.
on the prophecy list
in Ezekiel (start uniting the Jews together), we can say you're a
likely candidate.
If you die halfway through, then we reject your candidacy.
Danny.
Dannyil
> What is your reference for your statement that the torah (books of
> Moses) "The Torah is what G-d said to the entire Jewish people that is
> approximately 600 000 adult Jewish men, and 2.4 million women,
> children and people not included in the adult Jewish men category."
> The Tanak does not indicate that God verbalized the entire torah
> (books of Moses) to the entire Jewish people. Please clarify what you
> mean.
>
> Jerry
וַיְדַבֵּר ﭏֱֹהִים, אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר. ב אָנֹכִי
ה' ﭏֱֹהֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים:
לֹא־יִהְיֶה לְךָ ﭏֱֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, עַל־פָּנָי.
Danny
Dannyil
Finally someone decided to answer the question.
And not give me the run around.
Danny
Dannyil
You say I have two options of reading any Biblical prophecy right?
It applies either to a first coming or a second coming right?
Now I read Ezekiel 37
How do you know it refers to a second coming?
Because it has not happened yet? right?
Maybe not, Maybe because there is no "second coming or first coming"
How do you eliminate that option?
Danny
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
on a restricted meaning of "Torah" to just the 10 commandments.
Secondly, the passage goes on to explain how the people were sore
afraid of G-D and did not want to see or hear Him. They wanted
everything to come through Moses. This was no treat. They regarded G-
D as a monster out of the depths of the collective unconscious. This
was not an opportunity for a spiritual experience, but on the contrary
more like a confrontation with Godzilla. Now either the people were
too primitive to appreciate an advanced G-D, or the G-D Himself was
not so advanced. Take your pick.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
> On Jan 27, 5:33 am, clont...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Let's start with anti-missionary mistatement #1 - Josephus mention of
>> Jesus.
>> Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 with reference to the
>> death of James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus would have had access
>> to eye-witnesses to the death of James since Josephus was known to
>> have been in Jerusalem shortly after the murder and Josephus may have
>> been in Jerusalem when the murder happened. No reputable scholar
>> disputes the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1.
>
> Funny, because I've seen the debates. All argue that the references
> to Jesus
> and James are interpolations. A simple look at the Hebrew version of
> Antiquities
> shows its not there. Also, Arabic translations do not have the
> passages. Only the
> Greek versions have it.
And of course it isn't possible that the Jews and Arabs had a reason to take
those passages OUT of the texts rather than the Greeks adding them, right?
[snip]
Ike
guardian Snow
You would be wise to have that same fear of יהוה your Elohim. I
disagree with you that Danny has placed any limits by quoting the
Command of our Father and your mockery of their healthy fear of the
Almighty Creator is proof of your disregard.
Jas 4:16 But now you boast in your proud speeches. All such boasting
is wicked.
Jas 4:17 To him, then, who knows to do good and does not do it, to him
it is sin.
Shalom,
Snow
It's not the events of our lives that shape us, but our beliefs as to
what those events mean.
Tony Robbins
pjmu...@sbcglobal.net
> You would be wise to have that same fear of יהוה your Elohim.
Not my Elohim, punk. You keep your false abusive God to yourself. We
worship Jehoshua Moshiach, the true LORD G-D of Israel. And we
worship ABBA = BABAJI. And if this conception of G-D turns out not to
be true, we continue our spiritual quest. We know what we want, and
it ain't what you got, that's for sure.
clontzjm
http://www.cornerstonepublications.org/prod01.htm
It maps over 15,000 textual variants against 20 major English
Versions. It also categorizes the 15,000 textual variants into the
textual families i.e. Alexandrian, Byzantine, etc.